I imagine to know what you might mean, but if you wish to elaborate it would be appreciated. Joking, not joking, half-serious, other? Thanks. — 0 thru 9

Read it.

And here's an Orthodox Saint.

Ok, thank you. Will check those out. (Y)

Read below:

Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care for people will hear them and be influenced by them for good or ill. — 0 thru 9

This is relevant to my question. Reminds me of...

Speech is silver. Silence is golden.

Why? Why? Why?

Like usual, you're taking the Buddha out of his context and bringing him in a modern context — Agustino

To some extent, at least, isn't that both necessary and desirable? We don't live in the temporal/spatial context of Buddha, Abraham, Jesus, Mo... and most other religious founders. And what we know about Buddha, Abraham, Jesus, Mo, et al was not written down by secretaries while they were talking. By the time it was written down, new contexts had arisen. And since they were written down, several different contexts have come and gone.

When scholars engage in the search for "the historical Jesus", they discard bits and pieces that can be ascribed to later accretion. What they end up with after a few rounds of deletion is a shredded record with nothing but some bits and pieces left. My guess is that the same thing happens when scholars attempt the search for the historical Buddha, the historical Mohammed, etc.

One can't be entirely certain that one possesses an entirely true account of one's own life. What you yourself and others remember isn't a multimedia record. For the most part, we have only changeable memories of events which at that moment were colored by various influences.

God is beyond order and beyond chaos. — Agustino

Then how do you know God exists? According to you God's beyond comprehension. That puts God in the same bracket as chaos. How do you draw a heirarchy here?

Then how do you know God exists? — TheMadFool

Direct experience + faith. I do take belief in God as properly basic (as Plantinga would say) to be honest. Atheism isn't the default position for me, but quite the contrary, it's something one arrives at after effort.

This reminds me of a saying (not from Buddha): Make your words soft, warm, and sweet... for you might have to eat them! :-x (Y)

To some extent, at least, isn't that both necessary and desirable? — Bitter Crank

Sure, but the question we were talking about had to do with what the Buddha actually said, so in that case it's problematic to put stuff in his mouth that there's no evidence he said. At least what's in the sutras, even if not accurate is better and more likely to be true than what was added 50 years ago ;)

Direct experience + faith. — Agustino

But you just said God's incomprehensible. Shouldn't that preclude any knowledge, including and beyond God's existence?

Anyway, that's a side point. The main issue is Buddha's silence on the matter. You haven't given me a good reason why.

Shouldn't that preclude any knowledge, including and beyond God's existence? — TheMadFool

Sure, except maybe the knowledge that He's incomprehensible ;)

Make your words soft, warm, and sweet... for you might have to eat them! :-x — 0 thru 9

(Y)

You haven't given me a good reason why. — TheMadFool

Actually I think I have, it's you who is frustratingly ignoring it.

1. He found God but didn't want to reveal it

2. He didn't find God but didn't want to reveal it

3. He could neither prove nor disprove God

Allow me the assumption that the Buddha was a good man and thus devoted to the welfare of his followers and all mankind.

It then follows that knowledge of God's existence/nonexistence must be harmful in some way. Did the Buddha anticipate crusades/jihad and the nihilism of atheism?

Which of the 3 options given above do you think best explains Buddha's cryptic silence on the matter? Why? — TheMadFool

4. Impermanence (and what you describe as an "undeniable truth")

The point of Buddhism is to transcend being or realize our true nature (emptiness). That being the case, God is just another sentient being, although an ultimately powerful one. That or God has transcended being, and if that's the case, good for him/her. Either way God isn't really relevant to salvation in Buddhism.

Actually I think I have, it's you who is frustratingly ignoring it. — Agustino

Your reason is:

Buddha kept silent to encourage people to seek the truth themselves.

This I said was unacceptable since you've just said it and it's easy to say it, why should the Buddha be silent?

Then you said that that would kill people's curiosity.

I replied that that isn't true.

Then you said I was wrong.

Then a kind poster said:

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao

You agreed, giving examples of Christian mysticism.

So, my question to you is why couldn't the Buddha say something like ''The Tao that....is not the eternal Tao''

It's not difficult. As you can see above.

Either way God isn't really relevant to salvation in Buddhism. — praxis

But the Buddha didn't say anything about God. Why?

Sure, but the question we were talking about had to do with what the Buddha actually said, so in that case it's problematic to put stuff in his mouth that there's no evidence he said. — Agustino

Sure, it's problematic to put stuff in his mouth -- or take stuff out. How much confidence can we have in any evidence that he did or didn't say something?

Of course, believers want to know what the Master said, but to some extent, they/we are out of luck. The Master usually didn't leave us written, unequivocal, verifiable, signed, sealed, and delivered Truth. This guy lived here or there around such and such a time, and he preached, counseled, taught, etc. and some disciples gathered around him, and then one fine day he died. The disciples did not, apparently say, "Well, that's that. Let's go have a cup of tea, brush up our resumes, and pick up where we left off, before we got tangled up in his BS."

No, they kept the community of the Master together. They repeated what they had heard the Master say; what they thought they had heard; reconstructed what they thought they should have heard; made up some new material to illustrate what the Master clearly meant but hadn't expressed very clearly. On another fine day the last of the Master's disciples died too. Now it was the followers of the disciples of the Master who kept the community together. Eventually it was the followers of the followers of the followers of the followers... and we have a religion. FF 2000 years or so and we have all these followers of the followers (many times over) splitting hairs about what the Master did or didn't say, what he did or didn't mean.

Point being?

For believers (actual or would-be) take the texts you have and interpret them in the light of the world you live in. Leave it to the the scholars to sort out what fits, doesn't fit, or isn't even in the ballpark. There's enough truth to go around among the believers and enough unanswered questions to keep the scholars busy, at least until they get tenure.

If the Buddha floats your boat, be glad. If not, try something else. Take up macrame; try fly fishing; learn Swedish, Latin, or Sanskrit; raise fancy chickens; Memorize the Iliad. Become a Zoroastrian. Or just go without The Truth altogether.

(From here. Hopefully these are all accurate quotes.) — 0 thru 9

Something is true no matter who said it, or where it is found. Something is false no matter who says it, or where it is found in my view. This is why I attempted to askew notions of just appealing to authority when I was challenged.

I also referred to them all as "characters". I learn from real people how to play characters, and I learn from characters how to be a real person. .

And what we know about Buddha, Abraham, Jesus, Mo, et al was not written down by secretaries while they were talking. By the time it was written down, new contexts had arisen. And since they were written down, several different contexts have come and gone. — Bitter Crank

Actually the story of the transmission of the Buddha's words is thus. After his death (or pari-nirvana) the monks all gathered for a council. One monk in particular, Ananda, who was one of Siddharta Gautama's blood relatives, and his attendant for a good deal of his ministry, was possessed of an exceptional memory. So he was called upon to recite all of what he could remember. That is why all the Buddhist Suttas begin with the phrase 'evam me sutam', meaning, 'thus have I heard'. However at the time, as was common in ancient India, nothing was written down at all, as the entire Vedic corpus (which is vast) had been memorised and recited from time immemorial. Over the next few centuries (this is around the 4th-1st centuries before Christ), written copies began to appear; the most ancient are birch-bark editions inscribed in scripts which are no longer extant. The oldest edition of 'Pali canon', comprising the 'three baskets' of the teachings (suttas, vinaya [monastic rules] and abhidharma ) is dated to around the third or fourth centuries A.D.

It is true that some new ideas and terms were introduced over this period, and then with the development of later movements in Buddhism, wholly new 'scriptures' appeared. And Buddhism has continued to grow and adapt over the intervening centuries.

the Buddha didn't say anything about God. Why? — TheMadFool

There is a sutta (i.e. teaching) where the Buddha encounters two young Brahmins who ask him about how to pursue union with Brahma, the highest good. Following is an excerpt from Richard P Hayes essay Principled Atheism in Scholastic Buddhism, which explains this passage.

In the Tevijja sutta there is an account of a dispute between two young brahmins, Vasetta and Bharadvaja, over the issue of which religious practices lead most directly to union with Brahma. Brahma is typically treated in the Nikaya (i.e. Buddhist) literature as an object of brahmanical devotion who is believed by his devotees to be the master over whom no other being has mastery (abhibhu anabhibhuto), who sees everything (an˜nad-atthu-daso), the mighty one (vasavatti), who is lord, maker, designer, chief, creator, master and father of all beings that have been and of all beings that shall be. Moreover, companionship with Brahma (Brahmasahavyata) is believed to be the state of salvation, and so whatever set of practices leads most directly to companionship with Brahma may be considered the most direct path to salvation. But the Brahmin students Vasetta and Bharadvaja have heard from their respective teachers differing accounts on which practices lead to the goal that they both desire. And so they decided to approach Gotama the Buddha to see whether he can decided which party is right in this very important dispute.

On being told the nature of the dispute between Vasetta and Bharadvaja, Gotama Buddha begins by asking the disputants a few questions of his own, and the answers to the questions show that the young brahmins believe that there are many alternative paths that lead to Brahma, but the dispute is really over which path is most direct. On learning this much, Gotama Buddha then pursues the supposition that there are paths that lead men to meet Brahma face to face. What, asks the Buddha, entitles us to believe that anyone meets Brahma face to face? Prompted by Gotama’s questions, the young brahmins concede that no living brahmin teacher claims ever to have seen Brahma face to face, nor has any living brahmin teacher’s teacher, nor has any teacher in the lineage of teachers for the past seven generations. Moreover, not even the rishis, the ancient seers who made the Vedas available to man and whose words the brahmin priests learn and chant and transmit down through the generations, claim to have seen Brahma face to face. What we have, then, is the astonishing state of affairs in which the followers of the brahmanical religious tradition are striving towards a goal for the existence of which no one has any evidence. Their religious goal, says the Buddha, is laughable (hassaka), vain (rittaka) and empty (tucchaka).

….

The Buddha’s reaction to those who seek to meet the creator... is not to deny that such things exist. Rather, it is to take the epistemologically cautious stand that even though the loveliest woman in the world may exist, one might very well see the person who uniquely answers to the description of the world’s loveliest woman and yet not realize that she is the person who answers to that description. Furthermore, it is not clear how one could ever be certain that a given woman were the loveliest in the world, unless he could see every woman in the world and know that he had seen every woman. Similarly, it is not clear how a religious seeker could be sure that he had correctly identified the greatest lustre or the master over whom no other being has mastery.

But the Buddha didn't say anything about God. Why? — TheMadFool

Again because God isn't relevant to this system of belief. You might as well point out that Jesus didn't say anything about emptiness and ask why.

Something is true no matter who said it, or where it is found. Something is false no matter who says it, or where it is found in my view. This is why I attempted to askew notions of just appealing to authority when I was challenged. — Wosret

This is one of the biggest dishonest bullshits I've heard on these forums. Yes, you are correct that a statement is true or false regardless of who said it. However, I challenged you about the authenticity of that claim being made by Buddha - not whether it's true or not. I don't care about disputing whether it's true, I care if it's what the Buddhist religion teaches. So you are being intellectually dishonest if you claim that's what the religion teaches. If you only claim that statement is true, that's not a problem to me. But don't tell me that's what Buddhism is, cause that's bullshit.

If you only claim that statement is true, that's not a problem to me. But don't tell me that's what Buddhism is, cause that's bullshit. — Agustino

This is what happens when people claim that 1) There is truth 2) That someone lays claim to it.

Buddhism and Buddha probably initially held the vantage point that there is no immobility called truth (the concept of impermanence which also exists in Daoism at about the same time). However, over time, it appears Buddhism had morphed into thousands of goal oriented religions/philosophies which embrace truths if one sort it another and are often in conflict ft with each other. But at it's essence, I believe the philosophy embraces continuous evolution and impermanence which does not allow for truths.

This is what happens when people claim that 1) There is truth 2) That someone lays claim to it.

Buddhism and Buddha probably initially held the vantage point that there is no immobility called truth (the concept of impermanence which also exists in Daoism at about the same time). However, over time, it appears Buddhism had morphed into thousands of goal oriented religions/philosophies which embrace truths if one sort it another and are often in conflict ft with each other. But at it's essence, I believe the philosophy embraces continuous evolution and impermanence which does not allow for truths. — Rich

If I'm understanding you correctly here, I would tend to disagree, or at least clarify. Off the top of my head, I can't recall any statements attributed to Buddha ever denying the existence of truth or truths, in general. This despite his assertion that all things are impermanent. I would take it that the laws of karma are outside of the category of "things". For example, it may be an issue of translation, but Buddha didn't name his core teaching "The Four Noble Helpful Hints". ;) But please give a reference if available. Now the "Two Truths" teaching posits both relative truths and ultimate truths. But that, I believe, is from a later Mahayana period, as helpful and enlightening as it may be.

The question of what is Buddhism and what are it's teachings is rather fluid with thousands of variations depending upon motivations of teachers and students. In this regard, there doesn't seem to be truths, rather interpretations of what Buddha might have said (everything about Buddhism is subject to various oral and written interpretations of translations).

When attempting to understand the essence of Buddhism, I look for similarities and differences been Buddhism and other cultural spiritualities developing at the same time (e.g. Daoism, Confucianism Hinduism). As sources, I prefer more neutral sources such as Alan Watts who shares with me the general feeling that Buddhism and Daoism have a tendency toward continue evolution as a reaction to the more hierarchical and less mobile traditions such as Hinduism and Confucianism which have more appeal to truths. Over time, certain Buddhist traditions have adopted notions of truth (which are in conflict with the notion of impermanence) for practical, economic reasons.

There is no way to point to a single source, but rather it is an image I developed after much reading on the subject and discussions with practitioners.

Again because God isn't relevant to this system of belief. You might as well point out that Jesus didn't say anything about emptiness and ask why — praxis

Fine. However, God pictures in Hinduism. While Jesus was unaware of emptiness, Buddha was in the know about divinity. He(?) even downgraded the Hindu gods into the realm of Samsara. Surprisingly, he never did the reverse of floating the idea of a supreme God a la Abrahamic religions. Why?

@Wayfarer

Their religious goal, says the Buddha, is laughable (hassaka), vain (rittaka) and empty (tucchaka).

Strange. I would think someone who calls another's sincere efforts hassaka fits the description of rittaka and that, in turn implies the so-called ''achievements'' of the Buddha as tucchaka.

A long time ago, I read Buddha describing himself as a lotus flower, growing in pristine lakes and also in the dirtiest of pools, yet remaining unstained. I was a little boy then and it didn't sit well with me. Now I understand why. I saw the self-assured vanity of the Buddha. That said, the truths he taught stand on their own - they're great.

The question of what is Buddhism and what are it's teachings is rather fluid with thousands of variations depending upon motivations of teachers and students. In this regard, there doesn't seem to be truths, rather interpretations of what Buddha might have said (everything about Buddhism is subject to various oral and written interpretations of translations).

When attempting to understand the essence of Buddhism, I look for similarities and differences been Buddhism and other cultural spiritualities developing at the same time (e.g. Daoism, Confucianism Hinduism). As sources, I prefer more neutral sources such as Alan Watts who shares with me the general feeling that Buddhism and Daoism to have a tendency toward continue evolution as a reaction to the more hierarchical and less mobile traditions such as Hinduism and Confucianism which have more appeal to truths. Over time, certain Buddhist traditions have adopted notions of truth (which are in conflict with the notion of impermanence) for practical, economic reasons.

There is no way to point to a single source, but rather it is an image I developed after much reading on the subject and discussions with practitioners. — Rich

(Y) Thanks very much for your thoughtful reply. This is making me research deeper, which is a good thing. I looked up the word "dogma", and "View (Buddhism)" from Wikipedia:


dog·ma ˈdôɡmə/noun noun: dogma; plural noun: dogmas
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
"the Christian dogma of the Trinity"
synonyms: teaching, belief, tenet, principle, precept, maxim, article of faith, canon; More
creed, credo, set of beliefs, doctrine, ideology
"a dogma of the Sikh religion"
Origin mid 16th century: via late Latin from Greek dogma ‘opinion,’ from dokein ‘seem good, think.’


View (Buddhism)
View or position (Pali diṭṭhi, Sanskrit dṛṣṭi) is a central idea in Buddhism.[1] In Buddhist thought, in contrast with the commonsense understanding, a view is not a simple, abstract collection of propositions, but a charged interpretation of experience which intensely shapes and affects thought, sensation, and action.[2] Having the proper mental attitude toward views is therefore considered an integral part of the Buddhist path.[3]

Views are produced by and in turn produce mental conditioning. They are symptoms of conditioning, rather than neutral alternatives individuals can dispassionately choose.[4] The Buddha, according to the discourses, having attained the state of unconditioned mind, is said to have "passed beyond the bondage, tie, greed, obsession, acceptance, attachment, and lust of view."[5]

The Buddha of the early discourses often refers to the negative effect of attachment to speculative or fixed views, dogmatic opinions, or even correct views if not personally known to be true. In describing the highly diverse intellectual landscape of his day, he is said to have referred to "the wrangling of views, the jungle of views."[6] He assumed an unsympathetic attitude toward speculative and religious thought in general.[7] In a set of poems in the Sutta Nipata, the Buddha states that he himself has no viewpoint. According to Steven Collins, these poems distill the style of teaching that was concerned less with the content of views and theories than with the psychological state of those who hold them.[8]

Those who wish to experience nirvana must free themselves from everything binding them to the world, including philosophical and religious doctrines.[9] Right view as the first part of the Noble Eightfold Path leads ultimately not to the holding of correct views, but to a detached form of cognition.[10][11]

Four wrong views Edit

Gyurme conveys the following 'four false views':[12][13]
seeing impurity as purity,
seeing selflessness as self,
seeing suffering as happiness,
seeing impermanence as permanence.
---FROM WIKIPEDIA

---------
Some interesting stuff here, hopefully helpful to this discussion. I hadn't realized the "dogma" comes from the Greek word for "opinion", derived from another word meaning "seem good, think". Compared to the way dogma is thought of currently, that seems kind of wishy-washy. Anyhow... beliefs, tenets, principles, precepts are all synonymous generally.

Basically, i am of two minds in regards to your post. On one hand, Buddhism has evolved and continues to do so. And in the Wikipedia article it says:
"In a set of poems in the Sutta Nipata, the Buddha states that he himself has no viewpoint. According to Steven Collins, these poems distill the style of teaching that was concerned less with the content of views and theories than with the psychological state of those who hold them."
So that is in the favor of the view expressed in your post. Can't disagree too much there. And i know that you are NOT saying "anything goes" either, of course.

I would just say that there are at least SOME tenets essential to Buddhism that makes it "Buddhism". In other words, someone is free to build on some the teachings of Buddha, and combine it with, say, Existentialism, to create a hybrid system that may happen to be full of insight. But at that point, it is more "Buddha-inspired" than "Buddhism", it seems to me anyway. This may just be splitting string cheese, but hopefully it is relevant. Now when it comes to the matter of "practice" (as opposed to beliefs or tenets), there may possibly be more open area for experimentation. Such as combining Tai Chi with chanting and zazen, or something. In any case, what you seem to be proposing doesn't seem wrong necessarily. It just seems, at best, advanced. Meaning that it might be more suitable for experienced practitioners, in order to avoid pitfalls. Then again, life is a learning experience. Just my two cents. Thanks again! :)

Yes, I would share the general ideas that you present.

For myself, I find that exploring without stakes in the ground (truths) not only permits greater awareness (more mobility of thought) but is healthier in many ways (willfulness requires the expenditure of lots of energy).

One more thought regarding Buddha. It appears his motivation was in response to the unfairness of the Hindu Truth of the caste system which is still alive and well today. Thinking about Buddhism in this manner may lead to new insights into the philosophical principles of Buddhism including but not limited to a circular rather than a hierarchical model for life.

You make a 2 second google search, saw it on fake buddha quotes, didn't even read the page, and called it lies. Despite that the page said that it was in the darmapada, then just insinuated that it was fake because it didn;t sound right to them because Buddha was poisoned, which itself may not even be true.

Don't call me dishonest. We both know how frequently you lie. You think I don't know? Don't address me.

He(?) [Jesus] even downgraded the Hindu gods into the realm of Samsara. Surprisingly, he never did the reverse of floating the idea of a supreme God a la Abrahamic religions. Why? — TheMadFool

Basically because in Buddhism there's two possibilities: nirvana or samsara. Any God, including a supreme God, can be in either. If God is samsaric then we're with God in samsara. If God is nirvanic then we'll be with God in nirvana. Alternatively I suppose you could interpret nirvana as God, in which case God would not be samsaric.

There can be no permanent heaven or hell because of impermanence, which you've described as an "undeniable truth." There are no souls, only emptiness, because of impermanence.