Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Religions & Faiths > Buddhism

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 23-08-2018, 12:51 PM
sky sky is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 15,530
  sky's Avatar
Common Misunderstandings.

I have noticed that some people have misconceptions about Buddhism especially regarding Vows and ' Docile obedience ' to the ' Powers and Authority '. Here are a few misconceptions, please add to them if you feel the need.




Misunderstandings about Ethics and Vows
Thinking That Buddhist Ethics Are Based on Moral Judgments of Good and Bad
In terms of ethics, and in many other cases as well, misunderstandings can often arise because of misleading translation terms. Because of them we project non-Buddhist concepts onto the teachings. For example, we might use terminology that has connotations from our Biblical traditions, such as the words virtuous, non-virtuous, merit, and sin. These sorts of words project onto the Buddhist teachings on ethics the idea of moral judgment and guilt: that some things are virtuous, meaning good and proper. If we do them, we’re good people, and by acting that way, we build up merit, like some sort of reward. But if we act in a non-virtuous, “unholy” way, then we are bad and we build up sins, for which we must suffer. This is clearly a projection of Biblical morality onto Buddhist ethics.

Buddhist ethics are based purely on developing discriminating awareness. We need to learn to discriminate between what’s constructive and what’s destructive, what will be beneficial and what will be harmful and then, through understanding, refrain from harmful, destructive behavior.




Thinking That Buddhist Ethics Are Based on Obedience to Laws
Next, it’s a misunderstanding to regard Buddhist ethics as being based on obedience to laws, rather than based on discriminating awareness. In some cultures people take laws very seriously, and then they become quite inflexible: they don’t want to break the law. Whereas the Tibetans are quite relaxed in terms of the ethical guidelines. It doesn’t mean that they’re sloppy, but it means that in certain situations one has to use one’s discriminating awareness in terms of how you apply a guideline. What we’re trying to discriminate here is whether we are acting under the influence of a disturbing emotion or whether there is a constructive reason for our way of behaving.


Thinking That Vows Are Like Laws with Possible Loopholes
To the other extreme, we could look at the vows like a lawyer. And so we look for loopholes in the presentation of karma so as to find excuses for acting destructively or for compromising and watering down a vow. Let me give an example. We could take a vow, for instance, to avoid inappropriate sexual behavior, and then we assert that having oral sex is okay because it’s an expression of love. We excuse ourselves because we happen to like this form of sexual behavior. Or, after taking a vow to give up alcohol, we say that it’s okay to have wine at a meal with our parents so as not to offend them, or it’s okay to drink occasionally so long as we don’t get drunk. We make these sorts of excuses to try to get around a vow.

The point is that if you take a vow, you take the whole vow. You don’t take part of the vow. This is the way the vow is specified. If we can’t keep all the details of the vows, or of any particular vow, as specified in the text, then don’t take the vow. There’s no obligation to take the vow.


Misunderstandings about Karma
Thinking That We Are Bad and Deserve the Ripenings of Our Negative Karmic Potentials
Another point concerning karma and rebirth is that even if we accept that suffering in this lifetime is the ripening of negative karmic potentials built up in previous lives, we might think, “If I suffer, if something bad happens to me, I deserve it.” Or you deserve it, if it happened to you. The misunderstanding here is that it implies a solidly existent “me” who broke the law, is guilty and bad, and now is getting the punishment that I deserve. We place the blame, then, on “me” – this solid “me” who is so bad and now is being punished – because of misunderstanding the laws of karma, behavioral cause and effect.


Thinking All Tibetans/Monks specially Monastics, and Especially Those with Titles Are Perfect Buddhists
As an auxiliary to this, it’s a misunderstanding to think that all Tibetans; or, more limited, all monks and nuns; or, even more limited, all Rinpoches, Geshes and Kenpos are perfect examples of Buddhist practice. That’s a very common misunderstanding. We think, “They must be perfect Buddhists: they’re Tibetan,” or “Perfect Buddhists: they’re wearing robes.” “Perfect Buddhists: they have a title of Rinpoche. They must be an enlightened being.” This is very naive. Most of them are just regular people.

There might be a larger proportion of practicing Buddhists among the Tibetans than in most societies and there may be certain Buddhist values that are part of their culture; but that doesn’t mean that they’re all perfect, by any means. And if one becomes a monk or a nun, there can be many reasons. Among the Tibetans, it could be that the family put you in a monastery as a child because they couldn’t feed you, and you would get food and an education. It could be for a more self-motivated reason – that I have problems and I need the discipline of the monastic life in order to overcome these problems.

As one of my Rinpoche friends explained, “Wearing the robes is a sign that I really need this discipline, because I’m a very undisciplined person and have a lot of disturbing emotions and I really am putting full effort into overcoming them.” That doesn’t mean that they have overcome them. So we shouldn’t naively think that they are all enlightened, especially with these Rinpoches. As His Holiness the Dalai Lama always says: To just rely on a big name of a predecessor is really a big mistake. He emphasizes that these Rinpoches in this lifetime have to demonstrate and prove their qualifications, not just rely on the reputation of their name.


Imagining the Guru Is Literally an Infallible Buddha and Giving Up All Responsibility for Our Lives
Also there’s a big misunderstanding about this so-called term “guru devotion.” I think it’s not such a helpful translation, because it seems to imply almost blind guru worship, like in a cult. That’s a big misunderstanding. The term that is used here for the relation with the spiritual teacher means to rely on and trust someone like we would rely on and trust a qualified doctor. So the same term is used for our relation with our doctor as is with our guru. But because of the instruction to see the guru as a Buddha, we misunderstand and think that the teacher is infallible and so we have to have unquestioning obedience to him or her, like in a cult. That’s a mistake. Because of that, we give up all our critical faculties and responsibility for ourselves, and we become dependent on asking for a mo (mo, dice divination) – throw the dice and make all our decisions for us.

We are aiming to become Buddhas ourselves, to develop the discriminating awareness to be able to make intelligent compassionate decisions ourselves. So if a teacher is just aiming to make us dependent on him or her, like in a power trip, there’s something wrong. It’s a misunderstanding to think that this is okay and to go along with it. To play into this type of power and control syndrome with a teacher is not following the guidelines properly.


It is a misconception that all the Buddhists are pacifists. Buddhism preaches to practice non-violence, But do not support the complete idea of pacifism. Even once Dalai Lama was questioned about killing Osama Bin Laden who is an international terrorist. His reaction to that was sympathy and advised to take counter measures in such serious situations. Buddhists are like those martial arts instructors who avoid fighting if not necessary and are completely against violence but may attack in self-defense and whenever needed.

Studybuddhism. com

Last edited by sky : 23-08-2018 at 01:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 23-08-2018, 04:52 PM
sky sky is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 15,530
  sky's Avatar
Buddhist have single set of beliefs.

This is a misconception as there are many different schools of Buddhism with different beliefs, It is less of a fixed set of beliefs coerced on people but a teaching which everyone and anyone can learn and use it in their own way.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 24-08-2018, 05:28 AM
sky sky is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 15,530
  sky's Avatar
The Mind Must be Silent.

This is the most common misconceptions we have come across about meditation. In almost every group we teach, somebody asks a question similar to “I can’t quiet the mind, and have a very overactive mind. How do I stop the thoughts so I can meditate?” We seriously hear a form of this question at least once a week, and it’s an understandable thing to ask.

The great meditation teacher Ajahn Sumedho often says “Everything Belongs.” This is an encouragement to make all of your experience a part of your practice. Nothing should be excluded. In concentration practice, we cultivate the ability of the mind to focus on one object without getting wrapped up in other experience. However, this still doesn’t mean we should push thoughts away or even not have thoughts. Rather, we practice just allowing the thoughts to come and go, not buying into them. In an open awareness or mindfulness practice, we can truly use the thinking mind as an opportunity to practice. Much of our experience happens in the mind; it is fertile ground for practice. We can bring our awareness to the thoughts as they arise, just as we may bring awareness to the breath or the body. If you are new to meditation, I strongly encourage you to allow the mind to think. It is as I often say in guided meditations: the heart beats, the lungs breath, and the mind thinks. Thinking is just what the mind does. Tune into it; don’t resist it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 24-08-2018, 06:01 AM
luke86 luke86 is offline
Newbie ;)
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 24
 
Suffering means only physical/emotional pain.

I think that's most important misunderstanding. Suffering means also "unsatisfactoriness".
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 24-08-2018, 06:50 AM
sky sky is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 15,530
  sky's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by luke86
Suffering means only physical/emotional pain.

I think that's most important misunderstanding. Suffering means also "unsatisfactoriness".



Yes it does also mean Unsatisfaction, thanks Luke.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 24-08-2018, 07:09 AM
sky sky is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 15,530
  sky's Avatar
Five Precepts .

Misconceptions that the Five Precepts are rules rather than guidelines.


To live is to act, and our actions can have either harmful or beneficial consequences for oneself and others. Buddhist ethics is concerned with the principles and practices that help one to act in ways that help rather than harm. The core ethical code of Buddhism is known as the five precepts, and these are the distillation of its ethical principles. The precepts are not rules or commandments, but ‘principles of training’, which are undertaken freely and need to be put into practice with intelligence and sensitivity.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 25-08-2018, 05:10 AM
sky sky is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 15,530
  sky's Avatar
Anatta.

Anatta, or “not-self”, is a frequently misunderstood Buddhist concept. Buddhism doesn’t deny you exist, deny you have a personality, or imply you shouldn’t have an “ego.” What Buddhism does deny is a false conception of the self: a self that is separate-unto-itself and unchanging.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 25-08-2018, 05:30 AM
sky sky is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 15,530
  sky's Avatar
Blind Faith.

“Don’t blindly believe what I say. Don’t believe me because others convince you of my words. Don’t believe anything you see, read, or hear from others, whether of authority, religious teachers or texts. Don’t rely on logic alone, nor speculation. Don’t infer or be deceived by appearances. Do not give up your authority and follow blindly the will of others. This way will lead to only delusion. Find out for yourself what is truth, what is real.”

What Buddha was saying is that his teaching (or any spiritual teaching for that matter) is not a matter of faith or authority. It is not something to just believe or disbelieve but rather is something to be tried, tested and discovered directly for each person.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 25-08-2018, 11:24 AM
Gem Gem is online now
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 22,073
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by sky123
I have noticed that some people have misconceptions about Buddhism especially regarding Vows and ' Docile obedience ' to the ' Powers and Authority '. Here are a few misconceptions, please add to them if you feel the need.




Quote:
Misunderstandings about Ethics and Vows
Thinking That Buddhist Ethics Are Based on Moral Judgments of Good and Bad
In terms of ethics, and in many other cases as well, misunderstandings can often arise because of misleading translation terms. Because of them we project non-Buddhist concepts onto the teachings. For example, we might use terminology that has connotations from our Biblical traditions, such as the words virtuous, non-virtuous, merit, and sin. These sorts of words project onto the Buddhist teachings on ethics the idea of moral judgment and guilt: that some things are virtuous, meaning good and proper. If we do them, we’re good people, and by acting that way, we build up merit, like some sort of reward. But if we act in a non-virtuous, “unholy” way, then we are bad and we build up sins, for which we must suffer. This is clearly a projection of Biblical morality onto Buddhist ethics.

Buddhist ethics are based purely on developing discriminating awareness. We need to learn to discriminate between what’s constructive and what’s destructive, what will be beneficial and what will be harmful and then, through understanding, refrain from harmful, destructive behavior.


Same, I usually talk about how there aren't really a clear set of rules overall, and how discernment is central Buddhism.





Quote:
Thinking That Buddhist Ethics Are Based on Obedience to Laws


IOW docile obedience = mindless obedience on authority without proper discernment.





Quote:
Next, it’s a misunderstanding to regard Buddhist ethics as being based on obedience to laws, rather than based on discriminating awareness.






Quote:
In some cultures people take laws very seriously, and then they become quite inflexible: they don’t want to break the law. Whereas the Tibetans are quite relaxed in terms of the ethical guidelines. It doesn’t mean that they’re sloppy, but it means that in certain situations one has to use one’s discriminating awareness in terms of how you apply a guideline. What we’re trying to discriminate here is whether we are acting under the influence of a disturbing emotion or whether there is a constructive reason for our way of behaving.


Thinking That Vows Are Like Laws with Possible Loopholes
To the other extreme, we could look at the vows like a lawyer. And so we look for loopholes in the presentation of karma so as to find excuses for acting destructively or for compromising and watering down a vow. Let me give an example. We could take a vow, for instance, to avoid inappropriate sexual behavior, and then we assert that having oral sex is okay because it’s an expression of love. We excuse ourselves because we happen to like this form of sexual behavior. Or, after taking a vow to give up alcohol, we say that it’s okay to have wine at a meal with our parents so as not to offend them, or it’s okay to drink occasionally so long as we don’t get drunk. We make these sorts of excuses to try to get around a vow.


People can make such discernments in considering moderation.


Quote:
The point is that if you take a vow, you take the whole vow. You don’t take part of the vow. This is the way the vow is specified. If we can’t keep all the details of the vows, or of any particular vow, as specified in the text, then don’t take the vow. There’s no obligation to take the vow.


There's not much point taking the vows unless undertaking serious meditation practice. Then extremes like no intoxicants, celibacy and silence, for examples, become relevant. However, it can take some time to realise the relevance of that, and truly discern that it is for the best.


Quote:
Misunderstandings about Karma
Thinking That We Are Bad and Deserve the Ripenings of Our Negative Karmic Potentials
Another point concerning karma and rebirth is that even if we accept that suffering in this lifetime is the ripening of negative karmic potentials built up in previous lives, we might think, “If I suffer, if something bad happens to me, I deserve it.” Or you deserve it, if it happened to you. The misunderstanding here is that it implies a solidly existent “me” who broke the law, is guilty and bad, and now is getting the punishment that I deserve. We place the blame, then, on “me” – this solid “me” who is so bad and now is being punished – because of misunderstanding the laws of karma, behavioral cause and effect.


Thinking All Tibetans/Monks specially Monastics, and Especially Those with Titles Are Perfect Buddhists
As an auxiliary to this, it’s a misunderstanding to think that all Tibetans; or, more limited, all monks and nuns; or, even more limited, all Rinpoches, Geshes and Kenpos are perfect examples of Buddhist practice. That’s a very common misunderstanding. We think, “They must be perfect Buddhists: they’re Tibetan,” or “Perfect Buddhists: they’re wearing robes.” “Perfect Buddhists: they have a title of Rinpoche. They must be an enlightened being.” This is very naive. Most of them are just regular people.


Good point.


Quote:
There might be a larger proportion of practicing Buddhists among the Tibetans than in most societies and there may be certain Buddhist values that are part of their culture; but that doesn’t mean that they’re all perfect, by any means. And if one becomes a monk or a nun, there can be many reasons. Among the Tibetans, it could be that the family put you in a monastery as a child because they couldn’t feed you, and you would get food and an education. It could be for a more self-motivated reason – that I have problems and I need the discipline of the monastic life in order to overcome these problems.

Quote:
As one of my Rinpoche friends explained, “Wearing the robes is a sign that I really need this discipline, because I’m a very undisciplined person and have a lot of disturbing emotions and I really am putting full effort into overcoming them.”


This gets to heart of truthfulness, as opposed to living up to imaginary ideals.



Quote:
That doesn’t mean that they have overcome them. So we shouldn’t naively think that they are all enlightened, especially with these Rinpoches. As His Holiness the Dalai Lama always says: To just rely on a big name of a predecessor is really a big mistake. He emphasizes that these Rinpoches in this lifetime have to demonstrate and prove their qualifications, not just rely on the reputation of their name.


Imagining the Guru Is Literally an Infallible Buddha and Giving Up All Responsibility for Our Lives
Also there’s a big misunderstanding about this so-called term “guru devotion.” I think it’s not such a helpful translation, because it seems to imply almost blind guru worship, like in a cult. That’s a big misunderstanding. The term that is used here for the relation with the spiritual teacher means to rely on and trust someone like we would rely on and trust a qualified doctor. So the same term is used for our relation with our doctor as is with our guru. But because of the instruction to see the guru as a Buddha, we misunderstand and think that the teacher is infallible and so we have to have unquestioning obedience to him or her, like in a cult. That’s a mistake.


Well said. I like to stress the importance of free thinking. It's the centre-piece of discernment and self determination.



Quote:
Because of that, we give up all our critical faculties and responsibility for ourselves, and we become dependent on asking for a mo (mo, dice divination) – throw the dice and make all our decisions for us.


That's silly, in the sense that it requires no wisdom at all.


Quote:
We are aiming to become Buddhas ourselves, to develop the discriminating awareness to be able to make intelligent compassionate decisions ourselves. So if a teacher is just aiming to make us dependent on him or her, like in a power trip, there’s something wrong. It’s a misunderstanding to think that this is okay and to go along with it. To play into this type of power and control syndrome with a teacher is not following the guidelines properly.


That's all to do with power and authority.


Quote:
It is a misconception that all the Buddhists are pacifists. Buddhism preaches to practice non-violence, But do not support the complete idea of pacifism. Even once Dalai Lama was questioned about killing Osama Bin Laden who is an international terrorist. His reaction to that was sympathy and advised to take counter measures in such serious situations. Buddhists are like those martial arts instructors who avoid fighting if not necessary and are completely against violence but may attack in self-defense and whenever needed.

Studybuddhism. com




Sure, self defense and other modes of protections are necessary.
__________________
Radiate boundless love towards the entire world ~ Buddha
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 25-08-2018, 11:27 AM
Gem Gem is online now
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 22,073
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by sky123
Anatta, or “not-self”, is a frequently misunderstood Buddhist concept. Buddhism doesn’t deny you exist, deny you have a personality, or imply you shouldn’t have an “ego.” What Buddhism does deny is a false conception of the self: a self that is separate-unto-itself and unchanging.




The usual definition of 'ego' in spiritual contexts is the 'false self'.
__________________
Radiate boundless love towards the entire world ~ Buddha
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums