why are Buddhists so...

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

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?

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?

[DalesRealMeditation]

this thread has been very intriguing to observe:

thanks to everyone how has shared here!

cheers!

[sky]

" 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....

[Silver]

Originally Posted by sky123

" 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 '

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.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Silver

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 abstinencei 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

[Silver]

Originally Posted by sky123

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

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.

[Shaunc]

Originally Posted by Silver

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.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

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.

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.

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.

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.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Silver

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.

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.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Gem

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.

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