why are Buddhists so...
 

Intellectual?

Why so much study and memorization?

According to the buddhist scriptures there are two kinds of followers:
1. faith followers
2. wisdom followers

as to 1: these rely on belief
as to 2: these rely on analytical wisdom

I consider myself a follower of buddhism but the path that I follow is a lot less intellectual than most (pureland). Although not particularly popular in the west, world wide it's the most widely followed and practiced type of buddhism.

it depends on the tradition you're looking at. zen, for instance, throws away both belief and intellect. the practice of zen is just living mindfully in the present moment.

The Buddhist schools have a practice element and a scholarly element, so the philosophy compliments spiritual practice. It just so happens that if one undertakes a serious meditation practice in a Buddhist ashram or monestary, they also become fairly well grounded in the philosophy behind their practice. It comes to the memory in a different way, as insight, so you see for yourself, and thus understand what is said in the Dhamma talks.

5
Where's your insight of the unreachable truth. It is of the untold words of their teachings within what isn't their given wisdoms or walkings you should give an insight towards via means of theirteachings, for it is to the teachings of man that you give yourself unto. Lost in time many things are.

They absorbed time given forth to their insight upon the knowledge that was bestowed unto their given Life of the Ancient energy of time influenced. Forth is the knowledge within the Ancient energy of their truth received in meditation for the age they were introduced to was in need of a truth to be given forth to the age of a passing of all in need of their Age of wisdom that would live for all who would give following to the passings of their given truth of insight to the wisdoms they were given. Therefore all whom give experience in the truth of their given wisdoms would be given an inrichment of truthfulness to be forth to an age of enlightenment.

In my experience, Zen Buddhism is a little bit of both. Many Zen students try to understand conceptually until it is no longer needed and then realization blossoms beyond the thinking mind. Although the initial "Buddha Talk" is often times part of the process that leads to the realization that cannot be conceptualized and cannot truly be spoken, but simply understood. :)

I've been searching the Buddhist forums online and besides being very inactive, there also is a great abundance of study and "daily living" type content, with next to nothing about meditative practice, despite Buddha's frequent and deliberate emphasis on it.

Can somebody explain? I've been away from the interwebs for some years now.

Mybe they are inactive because everyone is meditating :smile:
It would obviously depend on what sites you frequent regarding meditative practises and who is posting.

The practices are powerful.

Buddhism is a teacher/guru based system.

Giving such practices without guidance is considered wrong.

Now you can find some basic practices on youtube but to really learn them and the system it is recommended that one go to a temple to learn them.

I think we get all sorts of things being called 'meditation', which are dissimilar and somtimes contradict each other. Then there's popular notions such as 'find what works for you', where 'works' could be defined by any arbitrary indicator. So it is said 'it depends on what you want to achieve', and anything else that avoids speaking about what it is.

The problem I see with that is, knowing 'how to meditatate' relies on knowing 'what meditation is', so rather than telling people 'how', which reduces them to mere obedience, the discourse should lend toward the subject itself: 'What'.

It's easy for anyone to say 'do such and such an exercise' - breath thus, mantra thus, visualise thus etc - but broach the subject of meditation without any 'how' forces the subject itself: 'what'.

That usually puts the cat in the coop, though, as all the peoples special Gods, treasured methods and revered traditions become irrelevant to the subject of meditation as universal principle.

Maybe just go and find out for yourself. It is from those traditions that all the teachings arise from.

Learn from the source. Learn from people who have a phd. in dharma. I'm not kidding on that. Learn from people who dedicate their life to the teachings and practices.

You will notice a quicker change in the quality of life from a clear path and lineage than trying to do things on your own.

I wonder did our prehistoric ancestors have a phd in dharma :smile:
Meditation has evolved into a structured practice which isn't always necessary but works for some, it is a natural state of mind and can be tapped into in daily life anytime, anywhere, without lineage.

Meditation is just one form of practice within Buddhism.

To learn more and not be stuck thinking you learned mindfulness and are done... Go talk to people who know what they are doing.

Such comments really shows a lack of understanding or trying to present a falsehood.

As someone who teaches QiQong one would know that QiQong has practices that one advances too. It is not just one set of forms but forms that build on other practices.

The same with Buddhism.. not a hard concept.

I was refering to Meditation which existed before Buddhism :smile:

Which falsehoods please ?????

It actually depends on the tradition of Qigong you practise, there are thousand of different types so not all forms have anywhere to advance to, you get to where you are.
Hope this help.

Sky, the back and forth is worthless.

Why mention meditation is universal and no need of a tradition or lineage?

Were you saying meditation is all they teach.. done, nothing more to learn?

What was really the intent of your post? Was it to provide a deeper understanding of Buddhism and it's practices? To help provide some guidance to find deeper teachings?

Doesn't look like it but maybe you can tell me.

Which falsehoods please ???????

You can make your points and allow others to make theirs, can't you?

Of course but I would like to know what I posted regarding meditation which he thinks are falsehoods....

I think what he wanted to do is express concern that oversimplified answers/responses can present unintended inaccuracies about the practices in Buddhism.

It going toward the right and wrong game, so falsehood is necessary. But true enough to say meditation is universal. What is meant by that doesn't preclude any tradition, it just means a person's tradition doesn't matter when it comes to meditation.

The member didn't ask about universal methods of meditation.

The member asked about BUDDHIST methods and techniques which seems to be impossible for certain members to provide even in the Buddhist section.

It really seems like the people who hang out in the Buddhist section are more geared towards discouraging Buddhist beliefs and practices than anything else.

This thread is another perfect example as the comments and justifications clearly demonstrate.

I hope that the mod team is starting to catch on to such behavior and would start to address the situation.

Which falsehoods please ???????

What is a Buddhist belief or practice? With all the different possible answers to that question, many times conflicting with each other, who would decide what will be acceptable to be posted in this section of the forum?

Which parts do you think are conflicting with each other?

You're still on this, eh? I explained to you what he most likely meant by that, and he didn't disagree with what I said.

Try to read the thread as a whole, and not just what one person said. I'd be interested to know why you would zero in on just Jonesy.

I don't always agree with you, but this ^ ^ ^ I do for the most part.

In the meantime, we still have to attempt to smooth things over and stay on an even keel. I think Buddhism and Buddhism practices is great for maintaining that even keel.

Yes I am as I still haven't recieved an answer, is that ok ?

Of course.

You still haven't answered my question.

It is nice to know someone else sees the same thing.

Also, your response to my post was dead on.

Thank you.

Buddhism comes from the traditions. That is where all knowledge of Buddhism has arisen from.

Because you are getting such conflicting answers as to what Buddhism is.. Why not go to the source, the various traditions and really find out?

Buddhism isn't like Christianity where it is normal for someone to say I believe in God and Jesus my way.

Buddhism IS about the practices and the teachings and you get those from the traditions.

If you are doing your version of Buddhism which is only a belief system of which you pick and choose what to believe and don't do any of the practices..

That isn't Buddhism.

It's kinda like saying your a catholic without being a member of the church or believing in the catholic sacraments.

You might view yourself as a catholic but the church and it's members sure wouldn't consider you one.

That difference is huge is it not?

this thread has been very intriguing to observe:

thanks to everyone how has shared here!

cheers!

" The**(Pali:*Khaggavisāṇa-sutta;*Sanskrit:Khaḍgaviṣāṇa-gāthā;*Gāndhārī:*Khargaviṣaṇa-sutra*orKhargaviṣaṇa-gas[1]) is a very early*Buddhist text*advocating the merit of solitary*asceticism*for pursuing enlightenment as opposed to practicing as a*householder*or in a community of monastics. The goal of this was to become a*pratyekabuddha, who wandered alone through the forest like a rhinoceros. It fact, it is possible this sutra is one identified in the Chinese translation of the*Mahāsāṃghika*vinayaand thus was also referred to with a Gāndhārī name similar to*Pracegabudha-sutra."



One size doesn't fit all, you can follow Buddha's teachings without following a certain tradition and their practises.
The simplicity of Buddha's teachings has become complicated through some traditions and practises imo, it obviously depends on each individual as to what fullfills their needs but I prefer ' more Dharma less drama '
I frequented a Tibetan Tradition Sangha for a while but realized it was more of a cult than anything else, people where leaving in droves, it was not a place to learn and develop but more of a brainwashing system....

Sure, sky. There are various ways of practicing/worshiping in all religions.
If someone reveres and follows Buddhist teachings, they still come under the same heading: they've chosen to study Buddhism.

I found this (Wikipedia):
"Asceticism (/əˈsɛtɪsɪzəm/; from the Greek: ἄσκησις áskesis, "exercise" or "training") is a lifestyle characterized by abstinence from sensual pleasures, often for the purpose of pursuing spiritual goals. Ascetics may withdraw from the world for their practices or continue to be part of their society, but typically adopt a frugal lifestyle, characterised by the renunciation of material possessions and physical pleasures, and time spent fasting while concentrating on the practice of religion or reflection upon spiritual matters.[3]" (My underscore)

I too find it all very interesting.

But you can follow Siddharta's teachings without traditions, he wasn't a Buddhist...
It does depend on the individual though as I have stated many times, I am not anti tradition but it doesn't work for everyone. I could tell some stories from the tradition I was part of but as they can't defend themselves it's best to keep quiet :smile:

Who wasn't a Buddhist? Buddha? I'm not following your logic.

Traditions can be steeped in dogma, but it's all dependent on the individual, as usual. Tradition doesn't work for everyone? If you were involved in a cultish type group, that's sort of a separate issue that deserves deep concern and attention. Sounds like it was not so good for you.

That's correct. Siddart buddha, the historical buddha wasn't a Buddhist. He was a Hindu. The people that followed his teachings, the dharma, became known as Buddhists.

Gotama taught dhamma as nature's way, so it didn't matter what sect any person came from. The dhamma has to be universally applicable, otherwise it's merely arbitrary. Hence people can practice all sorts of meditation, but not all meditations can be dhamma. When it comes to dhamma, it will be more like 'observe breath' because no one has to make it up, imagine it, or try to produce it through mantras. It doesn't matter who any individual is or what culture they come from. Any one can do it without being taught 'how'. When it comes to the subtleties there is reason for guidance as well as having some support in the overall process.


The problems are there, and I mentioned this often, and as I say, it's all about the knowledge game (but people don;t see it). If the whole expert posture ceased the animosity would dissolve, and frankly, you are the expert and are most often at the centre of the fray.

In my case I don't care if people are right or wrong because I'm at the metta level, and to me, primal good will, compassion and mindful equanimity by far outweigh the things I know about Buddhism.

We have peculiar scenarios where the topic is meditation but the discourse is reactive and argumentative, which is entirely hypocritical. This is because people are under the impression that meditation is not for now but something we can learn here and practice later on, but it isn't. And, if it's not in practice now, then we shouldn't claim to know it.

Buddhism is based on the teachings of Siddhartha but he himself did not teach Buddhism.
What he taught is universal dhamma what we now call 'Buddha Dhamma '
Now before I get accused again of falsehoods there is no mention of Buddhist's in early documented teachings.

Thanks Gem, as always from you, a very informative post..:smile: