Let's learn Buddhism together

[Bohdiyana]

Originally Posted by sky123

That's an interesting list, it does show some of the differences, how can we all see things exactly the same, it's impossible. I have found difference in the major schools so when you start to look how many other smaller sections that are all over the world it's obvious to find differences. I find it adds flavour to Buddhism instead of every single school tasting the same

Yea it's actually deeper as well when you start getting into what is real in any given moment. There is only the now moment and in each now moment there is a stream of ever changing thoughts being presented to our consciousness. So say you and me are both Buddhism experts. We have studied it 50 years and have memorized every sutra and every word in every tradition. In each moment, what is in our minds is unique. What we are giving our attention to is unique. Our experience is unique. Our perspective is unique. Our bodily sensations and feelings is unique. There is absolutely nothing the same about our moments or the actual. Even if we are sitting in the same spot and reading the exact same Buddhist passage, our experiences, both internal and externally, and what we are will be different.

So when one says, "the meanings of the sutras will not be different" this is wholly a conceptual idea that has no basis in truth of what each moment is for each individual. "Meaning" is an idea or thought and our thoughts are constantly changing. Even if the same "meaning" is memorized by all 7.3 billion humans alive today, in this moment we will all still be different.

Now we are the same in that we are conditioned, in that we identify with our thoughts, and in that we can be free of our conditioning or our thoughts but this is not an on and off switch. It is multi-layered and multi-faceted. It is a matter of degree and ebbs and flows. We can be free of this conditioning and not that one. We can be aware of this about ourselves and unaware of that. So it's a journey and process.

This moment is more important than this year, the actual is more important than the conceptual. So in each moment, there is more going on than one is normally focused on or aware of. Like take the concept that one is presenting Buddhist ideas from some authority in this thread. How are they being presented? What additional commentary or opinion is being added to the words of the quoted author? What feelings are being added? So there is a lot more going on. Then add in reactions in the mind of the readers and posters. The attachments to what is being said or not said. What is desired to be that is not. The things we are typically ignoring are so much more important than the things we think we need to pay attention to.

Like say I disagree with what somebody posted. The thing I am agreeing with or not agreeing with is not important at all as far as spiritual growth. Spiritual growth is about more awareness and detachment. What one needs to be aware of is the fact I am reacting and that reaction is wholly due to my own attachments and thoughts. It shows a creation of conflict in myself where none exists in itself. I can say the sky is green and you can say the sky is red and there can be no conflict or reaction. If I don't care what you say, there is nothing there. Just two people sharing ideas in their minds. No attachments and no expectations, only preferences without concepts of control or force.

[Bohdiyana]

Originally Posted by Kar3n

In stead of bickering that there are differences why not break it down into traditions and go to the sutras' different translations for clarification?

Yea I think it tends to be superficial and not about anything in particular. But then that is forum conflict right? Self imagined and self created. It's not like somebody wants to take my tv. Now that may create a conflict! All people are doing is stating their views so where is the conflict? Why care what somebody else believes or says? I think it's probably normal to care, but then we don't have to. The higher road is to not care or to be detached.

I think stating all sutras have the same meaning is not really saying anything because the terms are not defined. What does "meaning" mean? I would guess if the word "meaning" was defined better, there would be no more disagreement. And like you say, discuss actual content, list a sentence or paragraph of an actual sutra, explain what you think the universally accepted meaning is, then a quick google search would show if all Buddhists authorities think the same thing. But then who decides who the Buddhist authorities are? lol. There are thousands and all are unique.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by sky123

He is a Zen Master, a spiritual leader and a peace activist revered all over the world.

Doesn't mean he speaks for all of Zen does it.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Bohdiyana

Yea I think it tends to be superficial and not about anything in particular. But then that is forum conflict right? Self imagined and self created. It's not like somebody wants to take my tv. Now that may create a conflict! All people are doing is stating their views so where is the conflict? Why care what somebody else believes or says? I think it's probably normal to care, but then we don't have to. The higher road is to not care or to be detached.

I think stating all sutras have the same meaning is not really saying anything because the terms are not defined. What does "meaning" mean? I would guess if the word "meaning" was defined better, there would be no more disagreement. And like you say, discuss actual content, list a sentence or paragraph of an actual sutra, explain what you think the universally accepted meaning is, then a quick google search would show if all Buddhists authorities think the same thing. But then who decides who the Buddhist authorities are? lol. There are thousands and all are unique.

All of the terms, the words have meaning and are defined.

It is why you read and study to understand the accepted meaning and definition of the words and terms used.

The reason just about every Buddhist tradition recommends a teacher is to help one understand the teachings and to help them with what they are experiencing.

[sky]

Rely on the Dharma, not on an Individual Teacher

To rely on the Dharma is to always rely on the truth. We cannot rely on people because everyone has different perceptions and interpretations. Any single teacher is subject to birth, aging, sickness, and death, but the Dharma has not changed since beginningless time. So in seeking the Way, we must always rely on the Dharma itself and not on the people who teach it.

Platform Sutra.

So here we see the different interpretations in Buddhist teachings from different schools....

[Bohdiyana]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

All of the terms, the words have meaning and are defined.

It is why you read and study to understand the accepted meaning and definition of the words and terms used.

The reason just about every Buddhist tradition recommends a teacher is to help one understand the teachings and to help them with what they are experiencing.

Be more specific. What actual word or term or sutra are you talking about? List the word or term or sutra and tell us what you believe the universal accepted meaning is. I've looked and none of the terms or meanings are universally expressed. Every writer describes these things in their own way using their own terms and meanings. Look at a word like Nirvana. You think the meaning and definition of that is some universally accepted thing?

Here's just a few of the "meanings" from Buddhist web sites...

Nirvana:

1. The literal meaning is "blowing out" or "quenching.
2. the ultimate spiritual goal in Buddhism.
3. In the Mahayana tradition, the highest goal is Buddhahood, not Nirvana
4. deemed in Buddhism to be identical with anatta (non-self) and sunyata (emptiness)
5. absence of the weaving (vana) of activity of the mind,
6. the elimination of desire,
7. The most common of several names that the Buddha gave to the goal of his religion, some of the others being the Excellent (Pantam), Security (Khemam), Purity (Suddhi), the Island (Dipam) Freedom (Mutti) and the Culmination (Paryanam).
8. a complex conceptual state of being in which a person escapes the suffering of the world and realizes his or her oneness with the universe.
9. three “fires” that the Buddhist seeks to extinguish in order to find Nirvana. These are passion, aversion (hatred), and ignorance (delusion).
10. flames of desire have been cooled. In short, it is a state of the ultimate freedom - freedom from sorrow, but also freedom from happiness.
11. To be free from entangled roots," or "To escape from the woven web."
12. It is a state of profound peace and great wisdom
13. Nirvana should NOT be thought of as a place. Instead, it is a state of consciousness which is above all others.
14 Earnestness is the path of immortality (Nirvana), thoughtlessness the path of death. Those who are in earnest do not die, those who are thoughtless are as if dead already. BUDDHA
15. In verse 75 if the Dhammapada, the Buddha is quoted as saying;
"One is the road that leads to wealth, another the road that leads to Nirvana. If the Bhikshu, the disciple of Buddha, has learned this, he will not yearn for honor, he will strive for separation from the world."
16. Buddha did not spend a lot of time describing what it actually was. The Buddha felt that the limits of language and human understanding prevented a clear definition of the concept, and perhaps most notably, the Buddha defined Nirvana by what it WASN'T;
17. "There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension, nor motion, nor the plane of infinite ether.... nor that of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, neither this world nor another, neither the moon nor the sun. here, monks, I say that there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising, for this is itself without support, without continuance in samsara , without mental object - this is itself the end of suffering." BUDDHA
18. It might also be telling to note that sometimes when the Buddha was asked do describe Nirvana to his followers, he chose to remain silent.



See one meaning there? One definition?

The other thing of course is unless you have realized Nirvana, you don't know what it is in actuality. All you have is an idea, a concept. It is not that. A definition or concept or thought about it is not it.

[Bohdiyana]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

The reason just about every Buddhist tradition recommends a teacher is to help one understand the teachings and to help them with what they are experiencing.

Why do you feel you can ignore this recommendation from every Buddhist tradition? Or do you have a Buddhist teacher helping you understand the teachings?

My answer would be one does not need a physical relationship with a person who has recorded their teachings in some way. Reading what they wrote and explained is the same thing.
So if you have read Buddhism, you have a Buddhist teacher. So neither of us is ignoring the recommendation in my view.
I would also say Buddhism is not confined to Buddhism. It is about universal truths anyone can find and which are taught everywhere in everything.
So someone who has not read one word of Buddhism can find that which Buddhism points to.

[Ground]

Now folks, listen!

As long as you are not understanding that there is nothing to learn you have not learned enough.

Some will understand right away, some will understand soon after only a tiny bit of learning and some will never understand and keep on learning until they die. Especially those who get trapped in traditions will die without having come to understand.

But to think that those who understand right away that there is nothing to learn are better off than those who keep on learning interminably and who die without having come to understand that there is nothing to learn is evidence for not having understood yet that there is nothing to learn.

But do not commit the error of thinking that you may learn that there is nothing to learn!

There is no difference between learning although there is nothing to learn and not learning because of understanding that there is nothing to learn. In both cases you do not learn anything!

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

SN 35.23

[sky]

Originally Posted by Ground

Now folks, listen!

As long as you are not understanding that there is nothing to learn you have not learned enough.

Some will understand right away, some will understand soon after only a tiny bit of learning and some will never understand and keep on learning until they die. Especially those who get trapped in traditions will die without having come to understand.

But to think that those who understand right away that there is nothing to learn are better off than those who keep on learning interminably and who die without having come to understand that there is nothing to learn is evidence for not having understood yet that there is nothing to learn.

But do not commit the error of thinking that you may learn that there is nothing to learn!

There is no difference between learning although there is nothing to learn and not learning because of understanding that there is nothing to learn. In both cases you do not learn anything! :



:

I've listened

[sky]

This is another major difference between Buddhist schools. Mahayana teaches it, Thereavada doesn't, then if you look into various branches in Tibetan Buddhism you find some teach it while others reject it. It can be confusing so it's best to do as Buddha said in the Kalama Sutra...