Buddhism under seige from within

last SG · 2009-08-07T10:27:50+00:00

Stay on topic else thread will be closed.

An Eternal Now SG

HZ: Meditation is not seeing reality as it really is, but rather binding reality to a thought-notion your mind can understand.

No, we do not think during meditation. We observe, we feel, sense, be aware, bring bare attention to this moment of our sensate reality. We observe its true nature, not by concepts but by naked awareness of what is. Practicing this way, insight manifests.

HZ: So, how do mantras and chanting help? Despite the long time Buddhist thought has been in existence, how many people have been enlightened and compared to how many people have not been enlightened in the same time period is so infinitestically minute. Ritualistic practice is thus shown scientifically to be ineffective in bringing about enlightenment. In fact, if I so like it, chanting "Gan ni nah bu chao chee bye" may bring about my own enlightenment if chanting mantra and sutra will do so.

So what if not everyone is enlightened? The point is people do get enlightened in Buddhism. Just because not everyone who starts playing piano will get to Grade 8, doesn't mean there isn't that possibility. Even if people only get to Grade 2, 3, 4, etc, that's still an accomplishment.

Chanting vulgarities simply enforces a bad habit and is usually linked to bad emotions and is not considered Right Speech in the 8 fold path. The purpose of chanting is to clear the mind, attain stillness and build a positive momentum. Also, there are merits in chanting Buddha's names, so it is better and preferable. However any word will do, and there are indeed Buddhist teachers that teach even if you chant Coca Cola wholeheartedly you can enter samadhi.

Anyway, chanting alone can result in samadhi, but if one is not aware, one does not practice being naked in awareness then insights still cannot arise.

cycle SG

Wow. This HZ , like me, is still alive? And double wow, like me, still so ignorant...

I think we can be great friends.

Jamber SG

Interesting... "Since I open my mind, I am not bound to your line of thought.". Ironically, not bounding to "your" line of thought simply implies bounding to "my" line of thought.

As can be plainly seen from the persistency of HZ's line of debate, this isn't going to go anywhere, though it does provide for intellectually interesting debates to see how diverse people's views can be :-) All i can say is perhaps the cirumstances isn't right at the moment. I guess correct/incorrect views do still require the right circumstances for them to arise in different individuals' experience.

Herzog_Zwei SG

Interesting... "Since I open my mind, I am not bound to your line of thought.". Ironically, not bounding to "your" line of thought simply implies bounding to "my" line of thought.

All you can say is that circumstances will never right for me, even if going through millions or billions of kalpa (eons of time). This can be said as forever or infinity. Why? Because I will not and cannot be so stupid enough to convert my thoughts to a twisted logic. Thus so, it can be seen that a human does not naturally has a buddha nature.

Herzog_Zwei SG

HZ: Meditation is not seeing reality as it really is, but rather binding reality to a thought-notion your mind can understand.

Anyway, chanting alone can result in samadhi, but if one is not aware, one does not practice being naked in awareness then insights still cannot arise.

The point is that Buddhist thought is an enforced artificial nature and not a natural nature that evolves naturally.

geis SG

agree with jamber

my earlier posts have been intended for fellow practitioners

we can see that many come on to read the posts in this forum, and in a way this forum is one of many 'sources' practitioners use for guidance ( for me as well for past few years even tho i wasnt registered). depending on experience different people will discern the content of posts differently.

of cos there will be alternative views, more in fact, and in the interactions it is important to be mindful.

to HZ, u have ur views and thats fine. bear in mind end of the day whichever faith one has, even if one doesnt, the most important thing is to be happy and maintain a good conscience in whatever we do. the posts mostly encourages people to be kind and good and are discussed with positive intentions. and with this alone, even disregarding differences in faiths, logically some discretion must be made when we comment.

Jamber SG

geis - i'm kinda like you here. more of a reader here looking for guidance. posts once awhile if i do have something useful to contribute.

HZ - i'm not speaking for the rest but i sure do get your point by now. you may want to stop your ranting and desecration already coz its starting to amusingly sound like a broken tape recorder with every additional post :-) but of course you're welcomed to continue your lecture if your aim is to convert and deliver salvation to this bunch of poor souls and lunatics here following a false religion. perhaps, if you could find it in your kind heart to spend the next few billions of kalpas doing just this, then maybe samsara could indeed be emptied :-]

on a more serious note, i guess whatever our thoughts and beliefs may be, we're all temporary guests of this common world, looking for some little happiness and sanctuary of peace during our time here. things can be as simple as this.

Herzog_Zwei SG

geis - i'm kinda like you here. more of a reader here looking for guidance. posts once awhile if i do have something useful to contribute.

If you were to refer to my other topic on independent origination, then you would realise that the Buddhist doctrine of karma and dependent origination is false. I got really tired of explaining my experience and understanding again and again in so many threads, so I sometimes tend to slipshort my postings and may be rude.

Undertaker.Chris SG

___

JitKiat SG

Quote from Master Yin Shun's The way to buddhahood

到底應住心於什麼所緣，才能修習成定呢？「聖」者「說：是所緣」是沒有一定的。沒有一定，這不是說什麼都可以，而是說，在可為念境的種種緣中，沒有一定而已。瑜伽師說有四種所緣：周遍所緣，淨行所緣，善巧所緣，淨惑所緣。總之，聖教中所說的種種所緣，一定是合於二大原則的：一、是「能淨」治「惑障」的；二、是契「順於正理」的。凡緣此而修習住心，就能使煩惱漸伏，或者斷而不起，這才能引生正定；定是離（煩惱）欲而修得的。這或是共世間的，或是出世的，「能向於出離」道的斷惑證真，這才是值得緣以為境的。如緣荒謬悖理的，反增煩惱的，如緣淫欲，緣怨敵，或是緣土塊木石無意義物，那不發狂成病，就算萬幸，不要說得定了

Yogacarins summarized potential objects of focus into four but in short, the objects of focus must:

- be able to purify illusions

- correpond with the truth

So vulgar word suggested by HZ will not work, it will make things worse.

Herzog_Zwei SG

Quote from Master Yin Shun's The way to buddhahood

Yogacarins summarized potential objects of focus into four but in short, the objects of focus must:

- be able to purify illusions

- correpond with the truth

So vulgar word suggested by HZ will not work, it will make things worse.

What nonsense, what is a vulgar word in one language may be a praiseworthy word in another.

Jamber SG

What nonsense, what is a vulgar word in one language may be a praiseworthy word in another.

valid from a purely argumentative perspective but not valid from a daily experience's standpoint. it's meaningless to debate about this without pinning the concept of the word to a person's belief system.

a word is just a string of meaningless characters. vulgarity is just a meaningful concept imputed onto a word. so is praiseworthy, nothing more than a concept. it really depends on the respective person's belief system and culture. the point of debate is really the person's accepted concept, not the actual word.

the vulgarity is true to a person who believes and imputes the vulgar concept onto the word. praiseworthy is also equally true to another person who believes and imputes the praiseworthy concept onto the same word. so the different concepts are equally true and acceptable to the respective person for the same word but not the other way round.

it is delusional and self-deceiving for a person who instinctively accepts and imputes vulgarity onto a word to simultaneously skillfully contrive the same word to also means the opposite. with virtue of the fact that a person already accepted and believed that a word is vulgar, automatically implies that the same person also accepts and believes that the same word cannot possibly be praiseworthy.

so a person growing up believing and instinctively accepting that a word is vulgar cannot truthfully use the same word in a praiseworthy manner. however, another person who grows up believing and instinctively accepting the same word to be praiseworthy can indeed truthfully use the same word in a praiseworthy manner.

like they say, its all in the mind.

Herzog_Zwei SG

like they say, its all in the mind.

So no reason for a lay person whose native language is not Pali or Sanskrit to chant in Pali or Sanskrit,right?

An Eternal Now SG

So no reason for a lay person whose native language is not Pali or Sanskrit to chant in Pali or Sanskrit,right?

Chinese people chant sutras in Chinese, English people chant in English.

Theravadins prefer to keep the original meaning intact in the most original forms as there are many words that have no 100% English equivalent, though Mahayanists are more liberal and prefer to translate them.

Herzog_Zwei SG

Chinese people chant sutras in Chinese, English people chant in English.

So no difference from chanting gan na nee chee bye, right?

mlmersrlosers SG

Nope, Islam is growing due to bloody coercion. If anybody tries to leave, they get ostrascized.

sounds like christians

Jamber SG

So no reason for a lay person whose native language is not Pali or Sanskrit to chant in Pali or Sanskrit,right?

my own answer to your question will be - there is no reason that a person must only chant in Pali/Sanskrit. there is no reason a person must only chant in mandarin/english/tibetan.. etc. however, there is also no reason a person must not chant in these languages. the amazing thing about this world is there's no one statement that applies to all individuals becoz all individuals are unique in their own disposition. chant in whatever appropriate languages what will derive the most beneficial outcome. in fact, there will be people who don't have the disposition to chanting at all and therefore, don't. do some other more personally beneficial practises instead. there is no dogma about how an individual should practise, only guidelines towards more beneficial outcome.

there will be some people who prefers to chant in Pali/Sanskrit becoz it is able to arouse the right motivation and faith in them even though it may not be their native language. others will prefer to chant in their own native language (be it english, tibatan, mandarain.. etc) becoz chanting in Pali/Sanskrit does nothing for them.

Jamber SG

So no difference from chanting gan na nee chee bye, right?

same answer to your previous question. there is no single statement that applies to everyone. every individual is unique and who knows what applies to you?

whatever millions of different answers others give are immaterial to you becoz they will only provide answers which are most beneficial and relevant from their own perspective, but which may not be beneficial or relevant to you, again due to individual disposition. the most important answer should come from yourself.

if you honestly feel in the core of your heart that this language/statement is truly beneficial and respectful, and you will without hesitation use the same kind of language/statement on yourself, your parents, your children, your friends, your loved ones, your superiors, your collegues, your religious establishments and so on, then who are the rest to stop you from practising what you preach?

so most importantly, you should ask the same question to yourself. what's your answer?

Herzog_Zwei SG

Removing Herzog's vulgar posts. - AEN

Weychin SG

When thoughts are vulgar, chanting will be vulgar,

When thoughtys are, action will also be vulgar,

When looking into a mirror, if character is vulgar, image will also be vulgar!

« Previous Page Next Page »