[QQQQQ-Trek]

An interesting article by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche published in the Washington Post:

The Buddha wasn't a Buddhist

"What Buddhism is, at this point, is certainly out of the Buddha's hands. His teachings passed into the hands of his followers thousands of years ago. They passed from wandering beggars to monastic institutions, from the illiterate to the learned, from the esoteric East to the outspoken West. In its travels, Buddhism has been many things to many people. But what did the Buddha intend when he taught?"

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/04/the_bud dha_wasnt_a_buddhist.html

[ I wasn't sure where to post this. Mods, please move as needed ].

[BluewayAllere]

I really loved the article and appropreate for todays western world.

.

[Sliliashdes]

My thoughts are that if Lord Buddha was alive and teaching in the West today he would still not be concerned with promoting beliefs and religious labels or encouraging debates about doctrine which can distract from the practice necessary to enable us to experience the innate clarity of the mind.

My thoughts are that he might be pretty astonished at most of what is labeled as "Buddhism" in general !

[Quonuttott]

And was the word Buddhism used in the lifetime of the Buddah?

"DhammaVinaya"

Do we know when the word came into use as as followers of the Buddah's teachings.

The Tibetan word for Buddhism is, unless I mistake my notes, nangpa, which has to do with 'going within'. So for the most part, the name used for the DhammaVinaya in other cultures is developed according to their understanding of what best encapsulates that which sets it apart.

"Buddhism" shows up first in Western academic literature, and so is very modern. The root "-ism" (via the Greek '-ismos') relates to beliefs, and reflects the comparisons with Christianity that were ongoing at that time; Islam was first called 'Mohammadism' and nangpa was called 'Lamaism', so you see how the Western mind first approached these things.

[MilenaMKB]

The Dharma is the antidote for the mental fiction/affliction known as "Buddhism".

[Foucceedo]

from post #1

Great Article Pink dear,

I just want to recall this quote of it, here and tell that I have always understand buddhism as a science of mind never as a religion. A kind of guide for the day to day life.

"If you search "world religions," you'll find "Buddhism" on every list. Does that make Buddhism a religion? Does it mean that because I'm a Buddhist, I'm "religious"? I can argue that Buddhism is a science of mind -- a way of exploring how we think, feel and act that leads us to profound truths about who we are. I can also say that Buddhism is a philosophy of life -- a way to live that maximizes our chances for happiness"

But I am still a little reluctant to tell about philosophy just because in western culture can be confused with the academic field of it. In the east philosophy is deeply rooted in experience and daily life... In the west, it tends to be an academic field for speculation and all those speculations are tinted with personal afflictions and turmoils about human existence. What the buddha taught was far from this aspect of the term "philosophy".

[houkbsdov]

I'm pretty much coming down on the side of saying:

"Buddhism is a religion,"

...purely as a skillful means to earning charity status with local governments.

[lapInsalm]

from post #10

No need to be a whore, the lay people will,(or will not) support the monastery.
A while ago Prince Charles wanted to visit Chithurst,during retreat time. Chithurst wrote back and said your welcome to visit another time.


Please be mindful with your speech, Frank. (Admin)

[Oppofeescom]

from post #8

Terse.

[toreesi]

the lay people will,(or will not) support the monastery.

Its not as simple as that, Frank. In this country a monastery couldn't just open up and then be financed and supported by lay people - it would be illegal. I think religious charity status has to be given first .

[KukkoDrukko]

Yes the money donated has to be treated in an appropriate manner,(including the legal aspect) that is why there is a steward and committee to look after the worldly stuff.

[+++Poguru+++]

My thoughts are that if Lord Buddha was alive and teaching in the West today

I'm guessing if Sid showed up here today he'd decline the title "Lord Buddha" right quick.

[Sydneyfonzi]

An interesting article by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche published in the Washington Post:

The Buddha wasn't a Buddhist

Just some advertising by another guru.

Just a kind of self-administered psychotherapy.

The Buddha taught faith as a spiritual power plus wisdom.

If things like the five precepts, greed, hatred & delusion, impermanence & unsatisfactoriness must be questioned then a little self-administered psychotherapy is useful.

Sit in meditation and watch our mind's own suffering because that is the fruit for those attracted to such teachings as Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche.

But the Buddha said the following:
It is in dependence on me as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth, that beings subject to aging have gained release from aging, that beings subject to death have gained release from death, that beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair have gained release from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. The Buddha was certainly a Dhammist and his disciples where certainly Buddhists. They walked the path directly, straightforwardly. As soon as they heard the teaching, they applied it.

The Buddha taught the Dhamma so we would not have to replicate his search.

Religion, on the other hand, often provides us with answers to life's big questions from the start.

He saw beyond all belief systems to the profound reality of the mind itself -- a state of clear awareness and supreme happiness. Another guru stuck in infatuation with consciousness, who has not sought to verify the big questions the buddha answered.

Just half of the journey really.

This is what happens when one does not rely on an appropriate guide or map.

[Lorionasodi]

Another guru stuck in infatuation with consciousness, who has not sought to verify the big questions the buddha answered.

This is what happens when one does not rely on an appropriate guide or map.

I'm assuming that you must have studied with Ponlop Rinpoche for quite some time, or at least you're very familiar with his extensive and thorough teachings ranging from beginner level to atiyoga level that are based on his training that began when he was 12 years old, and his 16 years of monastic study that resulted in the equivalent of a ph.d. in the study of the sutras - in order to have arrived at these rather dismissive conclusions?

Surely you didn't arrive at your conclusions about him and what he has/hasn't done, based on that brief article in the Washington Post that was aimed at a general non-buddhist reading audience, right?

If so, then your comments sound like they are directed at some straw man in your imagination...

[bestonlinepharmasy2]

It is in dependence on me as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth, that beings subject to aging have gained release from aging, that beings subject to death have gained release from death, that beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair have gained release from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair.

If there ever was a "Sid", let alone a "The Buddha", it is highly unlikely that he ever said "It is in dependence on me...". This is inconsistent with the message that exists underneath the tangled jungle of religious obfuscation and abstractification that "Buddhism" has cultivated on top of the Dharma.

[BitStillrhile]

It is in dependence on me

I don't think l'm taking this out of context,but it sounds to me very like the line attributed to Jesus,along the lines of; None shall enter the kingdom of god except through me.
Pretty stunning thing to lay claim to eh?

[aceriscoolon]

Pretty stunning thing to lay claim to eh?

No.

When a person has admirable people as friends, companions & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.

And through this line of reasoning one may know how admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life: It is in dependence on me as an admirable friend....

Upaddha Sutta: Half (of the Holy Life)

[sarasmid]

from post #20

I was referring to Jesus's claim

[Smittoh]

This is inconsistent with the message that exists underneath the tangled jungle of religious obfuscation and abstractification that "Buddhism" has cultivated on top of the Dharma.

Your reasoning here contradicts your guru worship of the lama.

The efficacy of the suttas have carried the teachings for hundreds of years.

If they were void of efficacy, they would not be here.

Yet you claim a certain lama to be more enlightened than the suttas.

One, contadiction has been shown by falling into religious faith with this guru. The guru is teaching a doctrine of non-belief, which you believe, which makes it a belief. The Buddha taught correctly that all practise has faith as its first power.

Two, ignorance has been shown regarding the law of cause & effect. At a certain time in the world, arises the Teacher. The Teacher finds & teaches the Way, hidden by humanity's ignorance. Yet this is denied. This is ignorance. This is ignorant "detachment" or denial.

[ballingham]

I was referring to Jesus's claim

For his religion, his claim is fine.

His religion teaches he is the Son of God yet as Son of God he loves & forgives unconditionally and promises Eternal Life.

Beats spending your life stressing & worrying about "your" next rebirth because you stepped on an ant.