Its in line with Buddhism to voice out against false views!!

last SG · 2011-03-02T22:54:15+00:00

Even the most spiritual man on earth can do whatever he likes.What's wrong with Buddhist monks?If we restrict a person too much, it will be no good.

Wiser SG

False views, right views ? very subjective.

It is not in line with the essence of Buddhism to argue on such subjective viewpoints.

It doesn't let you understand what is the purpose of a human life.

Zenist69 SG

False views, right views ? very subjective.

It is not in line with the essence of Buddhism to argue on such subjective viewpoints.

It doesn't let you understand what is the purpose of a human life.

--- 佛教的的确确有所谓的正见。佛法就是要破邪显正。怎么可以轻率地说那是些主观意识？？

--- 佛教的正知正见就道出了人生的意义。没有佛教的正见，怎么知道人生意义？？有什么好辩的？

--- 碰到有人刻意扭曲佛法，宣扬些邪知邪见，身为佛弟子就应挺身而出维护佛法。大乘佛教的精神是自觉觉他。而不是一味的自顾自己的成道与否。

An Eternal Now SG

there is definitely wrong and right view according to buddha. right view is most impt and is the first of the eight fold path to enlightenment.

the buddha teach that not only is view most impt but it directly affects our afterlife. ppl who holds view of annihalation, no rebirth, novkarma, is more in danger of falling into lower realms after death.
those who hold another false view, that there is an eternal soul, or eternal god, are of less danger and may reborn in higher realms or even heaven. most religions aim and stop here.

only in buddhism we yeach no soul, no self, depedent oeigination, emptiness. this leads to liberation

realization SG

there is definitely wrong and right view according to buddha. right view is most impt and is the first of the eight fold path to enlightenment.

only in buddhism we yeach no soul, no self, depedent oeigination, emptiness. this leads to liberation

Eternalism and Nihilism

The Buddha rejected both extremes of eternalism and nihilism.

To develop Right View or Perfect View, we must first be aware of two views which are considered imperfect or wrong.

The first view is eternalism. This doctrine or belief is concerned with eternal life or with eternal things. Before the Buddha's time, it was taught that there is an abiding entity which could exist forever, and that man can live the eternal life by preserving the eternal soul in order to be in union with Supreme Being. In Buddhism, this teaching is called sassata ditthi ----the view of eternalists. Such views still exist even in the modern world owing to man's craving for eternity.

Why did the Buddha deny the teaching of eternalism? Because when we understand the things of this world as they truly are, we cannot find anything which is permanent or which exists forever. Things change and continue to do so according to the changing conditions on which they depend. When we analyse things into their elements or into reality, we cannot find any abiding entity, any everlasting thing. This is why the eternalist view is considered wrong or false.

The second false view is nihilism or the view held by the nihilists who claim that there is no life after death. This view belongs to a materialistic philosophy which refuses to accept knowledge of mental conditionality. To subscribe to a philosophy of materialism is to understand life only partially. Nihilism ignores the side of life which is concerned with mental conditionality. If one claims that after the passing away or ceasing of a life, it does not come to be again, the continuity of mental conditions is denied. To understand life, we must consider all conditions, both mental and material. When we understand mental and material conditions, we cannot say that there is no life after death and that there is no further becoming after passing away. This nihilist view of existence is considered false because it is based on incomplete understanding of reality. That is why nihilism was also rejected by the Buddha. The teaching of kamma is enough to prove that the Buddha did not teach annihilation after death; Buddhism accepts 'survival' not in the sense of an eternal soul, but in the sense of a renewed becoming.

Throughout the Buddha's long period of teaching the Dhamma to His followers, He actively discouraged speculative arguments. During the 5^th century B.C. India was a veritable hive of intellectual activity where scholars, yogis, philosophers, kings and even ordinary householders were constantly engaged in the philosophical arguments pertaining to human existence. Some of these were either ridiculously trivial or totally irrelevant. Some people wasted valuable time arguing at great length about all manner of subjects. They were far more concerned about proving their powers in mental gymnastics than seeking genuine solutions to the problems that beset humanity. (In the 18^th century Jonathan Swift satirized a similar pastime in England when he showed the Lilliputians in 'Gulliver's Travels' waging a war to decide whether an egg should be broken on its sharp end or its broad end).

The Buddha also refused to get involved in speculations regarding the universe. He stated very clearly that the problem facing mankind is not in his past or his future but in the immediate present. Knowledge about Eternalism or Nihilism can in no way help man to break the present fetters which bind him to existence and which are the source of all his feelings of discontent which arise from his inability to completely satisfy his cravings. The Buddha stated that before one can begin to tread the path which leads to Nibbana one must have Right View. Only when one knows clearly what one is seeking will one be able to attain it.

- excerpted from "What Buddhists Believe" by Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera

Dawnfirstlight SG

Hey good morning SoulDivine :)

Certainly, we're not saying that Buddhism is the only way. The word used is "究竟", which in this context may be understood more as "thorough, complete, exhaustive".

That being said, "a Buddhist cannot agree that 'all religions are essentially expressions of the same inner reality'. Sometimes this stance is urged on Buddhists with the coercive pressure of a theological correctness, but Buddhism does not even regard itself as 'an expression of reality'. It sees its own teachings and practices as means of creating conditions which conduce to the perception of reality and Buddhists will judge other teachings by the same criterion. Where there are differences of belief and practice Buddhists need to ask (in the ample spirit of friendly dialogue and tolerance) whether other religions, philosophies and spiritual paths are based, ultimately on one of the two essential 'wrong views': nihilism and eternalism."

web source: http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol1/new_age.html

Yeah yeah, this is precisely what I meant by "究竟" (complete and thorough). Most of the religion preach only 2 realms (heaven and hell) but Buddhism says there are 6 realms. Ghost realm is one of the proven one. I said proven due to my personal experience and many others experiences.

Weychin SG

The six realms are the more well known ones. Actually, there are thirty one planes of existence.

Weychin SG

By Professor K. N. Jayatilleke PhD. (Lond)
Courtesy Vesak Lipi

If we consider possible attitudes of one religion towards another in the light of history, they seem to be classifiable under three main headings. The first is that of dominance based on the belief that one's religion alone contains the full truth and that other religions are either completely false or contain so few elements of truth that the sooner they are ousted by whatever means at one's disposal the better it would be for mankind. The next is the attitude of fulfilment which draws its strength from the belief that while other religions contain important elements of truth they find their fullest is the attitude of co-operation which arises out of a conviction that (a) all religions contain aspects of truth and a study of all is necessary to discover the whole truth or (b) that all the higher religions are equally true and that the ostensible differences are due to differences in language rather than in content, and that all these religions are suited to their traditional contexts and (c) that all the higher religions are equally true but some of these religions have a greater attraction for certain types of individuals as against other, the cerebratonics liking a religion with an intellectual appeal, the somatogenics one that stresses action and the viscerotonics, emotion.

Now what would be the attitude of Buddhism to other religions? Perhaps the Sandaka Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya seems to supply the answer to this question. In it Ananda describes four types of false religions and four types of unsatisfactory religions, and goes on to define the character of the religion of the Buddha.

Weychin SG

Four False Religions
Of the four false religions the first is said to be that of materialism which holds that man is composed entirely of material elements which disintegrate at death and as a result denies survival of any sort. It is worth noting that seven such materialist schools are mentioned in the Buddhist texts. One of these schools held that consciousness was a by-product of certain chemicals being mixed in their due proportions. Though materialism as a philosophy of life is thus condemned it is necessary to add that neither the world of matter on the mental life of individuals as well as of society is denied. It is significant that the Buddha held poverty or "the inequitable distribution of goods in society" as the root cause of social evil and argued that the economic factor was as powerful a determinant of social evolution as the ideological factor.
The second of the false religions is any religion which denies moral values. Thus all religious cults, which recommend a moral ethic or immoral practices would be condemned outright.

The third of the false religion is any religion which denies causation and teaches that "people are miraculously saved" (ahetu appaccaya satta vissujjanthi). The Buddhist teaching is that all events in the phenomenal world are subject to causal laws and that no miracles which go against the operation of such causal laws are possible. It is said that there are physical laws. The law that morally good acts results in pleasant consequences and morally evil acts in unpleasant consequences for the individual is an instance of moral law. Though causation is thus upheld, it is important to observe that it is distinguished on the one hand from complete Indeterminism (sdjicca samuppanna) or Accidentalism and on the other from Strict Determinism (niyati-vada) or Fatalism. In an indeterminists universe there would be no correlation between events and as such no causes or effects.

The fourth type of false religion is any religion which denies freewill. Freewill is conceived of as the capacity of the individual (atta-kara) or the factor of human effort (purisa-kara), which can within limits control or direct the operative forces of the past and present in order to make the future different from what it would otherwise have been. As such freewill is considered to be compatible with the Buddhist conception of events. All from of determinism whether of natural determinism (sabhava-vada) which holds that the present and the future is the mere working out of the past or of Theistic determinism (issara-nimmana-vada) which holds that everything that takes place is predetermined by the will or fiat of God, are specifically mentioned and condemned as false.

Weychin SG

It would appear from the above four types of religion condemned as false that Buddhism upholds survival, asserts moral values, teaches causation without implying Strict Determinism and maintains the freedom of the will in the sense defined.
Now the first of the four religions, condemned as unsatisfactory, but not necessarily false is a religion which claims omniscience for its teacher or in other words deifies its teacher. It is argued that what is unsatisfactory about this type of religion is that the lack of omniscience on the part of such a teacher would be evident from a historical account of his life and teaching.

The second such unsatisfactory religion is any religion based on a revolutionary tradition. It is said that such supposed revelations may be true or false. It is evident that in the face of mutually contradictory claims to revelation on the part of different religions that all such claims cannot be true. The validity of a claim to revelation has to be tested in the light of verifiable facts before such a claim can be established. But if so, verification would take the place of revelation as the criterion of the truth of a revelations claim. It is interesting to note that of a predominance the priority of revelationed claims when it says that the validity of such claims can be established only when they are validity of such claims can be established only when they are borne out by observable facts. "When a prophet speaks the in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously; thou shalt not be afraid of him" (Deuteronomy).

The third type of unsatisfactory religion which is not necessarily false is any religion based on mere "logical reasoning and metaphysical speculation (takka-pariya-hatam vimamsanu caritam)" on the grounds that such reasoning may be true or false. Logic, as we now know, can only help metaphysics or mathematics to construct self-consistent systems. It does not by any means guarantee that any such system had applicability to the real world and is therefore true, a fact which can only be established independently of logic by seeing which system can best explain and account for verifiable facts.

Weychin SG

The fourth such unsatisfactory religion is any religion which is inconsistent. This is unsatisfactory for the obvious reason that truth must be self-consistent and not self-contradictory, though this does not mean that any self-consistent system of belief is necessarily true for it may have the defects of the third type.
In contrast to the above types of false and unsatisfactory religions Buddhism is stated in the from of a verifiable scientific theory, whose truth is said to have been verified by the Buddha and hundreds of his disciples and can be personally verified by anyone who adopts it. As such its truth is independent of the founder who like a scientist merely discovers it and proclaims it for the guidance of others; and it is left to others to test its validity and worth.

It should be clear from the above that the Buddhist attitude to other religions cannot be classified as one of dominance, fulfillment or cooperation. The attitude would depend on the nature of the religion dealt with. Buddhism would in the light of the facts of existence condemn some religions as false, uphold others as partially true and would not rule out the possibility of another religion being entirely true, since truth need not be the monopoly of any particular individual or religion. But this condemnation or appraisal would not be done with the intention of abusing or flattering others but in the hope that in the process of mutual inquiry and criticism people would acquire a better vision of the truth. And it is of the nature of truth that it need not be and cannot be forced down the throats of others by exploiting their poverty, ignorance, or weak state of health or by using threats or claiming powers from above over the lives of others. It is also of the nature of truth that it brings people together but it is a unity that has to be achieved by a common quest flowering in a common vision.<<Back

Introducing The Writer
Professor K. N. Jayatilleke PhD. (Lond) Born 1 Nov. 1920 Educated at the Royal College Colombo. University of Ceylon, and at Christ College Cambridge (1946-49) Prof, of Western and Eastern Philosophy. University of Ceylon. Read papers at Oxford, Harvard (USA) Published: Early Buddhist Theory of knowledge. Died 23 July 1970.

http://www.maithri.com/links/articles/buddhist_attitude_1.htm

Dawnfirstlight SG

The six realms are the more well known ones. Actually, there are thirty one planes of existence.

Can you elaborate on thirty one planes of existence ? Are you referring to 33 levels of heavens ? Are they the same ? Just curious.

Zenist69 SG

By Professor K. N. Jayatilleke PhD. (Lond)
Courtesy Vesak Lipi

Aiya, those who find Buddhism not thorough, incomplete, unsatisfactory, not up to their standard, please go join other religion lah. Or start a new religion.

But please dun come import other religion (Christianity, Islam, etc etc) into Buddhism under the banner of Buddhism hor. 'cause its not Buddhism. Its some form of new age religion or something.

realization SG

Can you elaborate on thirty one planes of existence ? Are you referring to 33 levels of heavens ? Are they the same ? Just curious.

Tabulated to show the various planes of existence.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

Dawnfirstlight SG

Tabulated to show the various planes of existence.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

Thanks.

realization SG

By Professor K. N. Jayatilleke PhD. (Lond)
Courtesy Vesak Lipi

[truncated]

For ordinary folk like us, the amount of time we have in our lives to actually practice what the Buddha taught is limited. For example, it is generally advised that for people who are nearing the end of their lifespan, it might be preferable to do Pureland chanting. However, we don't really know for sure when we may lose our physical lives. So really, practice needs to be done now and on a regular basis.

From a pragmatic perspective, I question the need to study religions that do not ultimately lead to liberation from the cycle of birth and death. Religions that have elements of False View (e.g. promise everlasting happiness in a paradise, presuppose that salvation is available only to a particular race/community, or teach that there is only one lifetime) do not need to be studied in detail. What benefit may we gain from intimately knowing what is in the scriptures of other religions?

Of course, we may go through a period of spiritual searching and evaluation; and those with better affinities may encounter Buddhism earlier in life. However, once that period of evaluation is over - and something of value and truth has been found - we need to buckle down and concentrate long enough to integrate any given path of cultivation into our lives. This isn't a question of religious dominance or arrogance, but one of how serious we are about liberating ourselves, providing that we do accept what the Buddha taught to be true.

Examining various world religions to look for elements that concord with what the Buddha taught, and then classifying them within a spectrum of which more closely agrees with Buddhist teachings, is an endeavour more for academics. Perhaps, it is an endeavour also suitable for people who are already more accomplished in their practice of the Dharma, or for people who need to understand other religions in order to propagate the Dharma.

For most of us though, aiming for a basic attitude of lovingkindness and non-condemnation toward people from various walks of life suffices.

Weychin SG

We do not live in isolation, especially in the information age,we are bombarded

Weychin SG

Thanks.

Wanted to post the exactly same link but I guess realization beat me to it.

Thanks realization !

realization SG

In the past, I'd encountered a lady who told me that she had vowed to be a Bodhisattva in order to save sentient beings. However, this lady with her overly zealous attitude managed to cause havoc within her religious organization and soon got thrown out by those who simply couldn't stand her meddling ways any longer (she told me what happened). Her personal life was also not in order.

For this reason, I've never for a moment entertained the thought of following the Bodhisattva path before first gaining an experiential knowing of the Dharma. I don't think I could ferry anyone to the shore, without first ferrying myself!

Zenist69 SG

去涉略其它宗教，和去深入研读其它宗教，是两回事。

我不认为深入研读其它宗教是一般佛弟子的任务及功课。

就说涉略其它宗教吧。那也要学佛后，有多余的时间才去做的。如果学佛的功课都没做到，就去涉略其它宗教，那是本末倒置的。

« Previous Page Next Page »