11 ms·

It's very weird seeing people online have debates about Buddhism that actually have nothing to do with what the historical Buddha taught. Everything mentioned i

• prisonality 4y ago
  It feels the entire article is one big strawman: I tried to find for words like: "four noble truth" or "eightfold path" and couldn't find them -- I'm not surprised.
• int_19h 4y ago
  It's also a historical fact that most forms of modern Christianity are far removed from the original teachings; but if one tried to rebuke criticism of modern Christians by saying that they are not the real thing, that would still be a "no true Scotsman". There's no contradiction here, because the religion is not defined by what it originally was or should be, but by how it's actually practiced by people who self-identify as its followers and who are conventionally identified as such by everybody else.
  • Viability1936 4y ago
    That might be true if there were millions of people practicing a school of Christianity based on only what Jesus taught. As far as I know, there isn't, and isn't even a school based on that. Aside from that, what's described in the article is purely a western phenomenon that has emerged mostly in the last 20 years. It's arrogant (op) to pretend that that is Buddhism. They were in simultaneously critiquing it and participating in it. Edit: countries to people
    • TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
      I don't see how that's different to the various flavours/sects/variants/traditions that arose around Buddhism in the past. Californian Buddhism is one more to add to the list. But this is how it always goes with religions. There is never a definitive core belief or core morality that everyone agrees with. Religions are meta-moralities that allow participants to feel credible and sincere because they're doing whatever they're doing under the cover story of a tradition. Sometimes the results are humane, sometimes they're horrific. It's exactly that flexibility and the lack of clear unquestionable definitive absolutes that allows these belief systems to persist. Everyone assumes their interpretation - or at least their process - is the only correct one, and all those other people are misguided at best and just plain Doing It Wrong at worst. Personally I have more time for Buddhism than for any of the Abrahamic religions. But even fundamentals like the details of the Noble Eightfold Path are still debated and even contested, so nothing about it is as clear and straightforward as it might seem to be.
      • the-printer 4y ago
        > There is never a definitive core belief or core morality that everyone agrees with. If you mean to use the word “everyone” literally here, then what you are asserting is unfair to human nature (people dissent). If “everyone” is a matter of virtue-based consensus for example, then I beg to differ.
      • skissane 4y ago
        > But this is how it always goes with religions. There is never a definitive core belief or core morality that everyone agrees with. The vast majority of Christians would say that belief in the existence of God is a core belief of Christianity. They'd say an atheist is by definition not a believer in Christianity. And, up until the 20th century, there was universal agreement on this. Then, along came some people who claimed they could be "Christian atheists". However, even today, those people are a tiny minority of (self-described) Christians, the vast majority of Christians don't accept that as a valid form of Christianity. In fact, even most non-Christians, even most atheists, don't accept that as a valid form of Christianity. I expect you'll find Christian atheists to be greatly outnumbered by those atheists who consider "Christian atheism" to be a silly oxymoron. Similarly, in Buddhism, up until the 20th century, pretty much everyone agreed that rebirth was a literal phenomenon – not just some kind of metaphor – and that was seen as a core belief of Buddhism – they would say that a person who does not believe in literal rebirth, by definition does not believe in Buddhism. Nowadays, there are a lot of people – especially in the West – who disagree with that, and think that "there is no afterlife, rebirth is just a metaphor" is a perfectly legitimate variety of Buddhist belief – however, I'd be surprised if people who define "Buddhism" so broadly are any more than a small minority of all Buddhists globally.
  • Gatsky 4y ago
    I would disagree with this statement. The core teachings, and canonical status of the bible, is very consistent across the major denominations. Perhaps if you could provide a more specific example it would be more enlightening as to your point. If you are arguing that the way Christians behave today is very removed from how the original Christians behaved, well that is a different point to make, albeit much more difficult to evaluate. This is in a sense nothing new, just look at the opprobium Jesus lays down at the beginning of the book of Revelation.
    • int_19h 4y ago
      Yes, there is consensus among major Christian denominations today - but is it in consensus with the teachings and the attitudes of proto-Christians? When you start reading up on early Church history, it's hard not to notice just how late many of the crucial doctrines show up, and how controversial they have been at the time they were introduced.
      • goatlover 4y ago
        Yes, and which proto-Christians? The various so-called Gnostics (more of an umbrella term), the Ebionites, Marcionites, the Johannine community, Pualine teachings (excluding the Pastorals, probably not a bodily resurrection, and with a more platonic view of the heavens), or whatever Jesus, James and Peter actually taught, which is probably lost to history, but would have likely been a form of messainic apocalyptic Judaism.
        • AnimalMuppet 4y ago
          I found your second sentence very difficult to parse, so I'll ask you to clarify: Who do you think held the view that there wasn't a bodily resurrection? And, what is your basis for saying that they didn't believe in a resurrection?
          • goatlover 4y ago
            James Tabor's analysis of Paul's letters is that Paul thought Jesus was transformed into a spiritual being, as the first of a new kind of Adam. As such, there is no point in the body being restored to life. Paul also never mentions the empty tomb or Jesus appearing in a physical manner to anyone as found in the gospels. It's important to read Paul on his own terms, since his writings are dated a decade or two prior to gMark. Separately, there was also Docetism, which said that Jesus didn't suffer on the cross because Jesus only appeared to have a flesh and blood body. The gospel writers may have been trying to argue against such an interpretation by having Jesus eat fish and Thomas touch his wounds, which would have been ridiculous to Paul given Tabor's interpretation (although Paul was about transformation or exchange of the body for the spiritual).
  • panick21_ 4y ago
    With Christianity we don't have much idea of what Christ wanted, Christ existence has an absolutely terrible historical source base. In fact I found it pretty embracing how little there was. Christ probably existed (I would put it 75%/25%) but if he did he was a insignificant preacher The best we have really are a few of the letters of Paul and Paul himself was an apocalyptic preacher who never met Jesus when he was alive (he only 'met' Christ from revaluations). And he was clearly in conflict and had disagreements with other followers. Then the next reasonable documents is Mark and Mark is basically a classically written stories parables that are pretty clearly a bunch of myth making and a lot of stories that are just adapted from Greek or Jewish texts. And then Matthew is just Mark with some additional insertion done. And then Luke just adds even more stuff in. And then John just invents even more even crazier stuff and add on that. There is no evidence what so ever that Mark had any sources, his text has non of the hallmarks of an actually history as was practiced at the time. Its only much later that writers claim to have eye-witness accounts, and at that point those claims are simply not credible. So pretty much all Christians have a massive problem. Even things as basic as if the what we now call the Old Testament is valid is highly questionable.
    • docandrew 4y ago
      Four separate eyewitness accounts (the gospels), all consistent with one another, is pretty good historical evidence as far as the ancient world is concerned.
      • panick21_ 4y ago
        Not isn't. Sorry but this is just a highly inaccurate statement. The gospel are absolutely not eyewitness accounts. Not sure if you learned that in Church or something, this is very much not what any scholar of those text believes. Even the 'scholars' in religious fundamentalist schools mostly don't agree with that. The gospel were not written by the people in the title, the titles were not even in any of the older scrolls, titles like 'Gospel of Mark' were later additions. And they are also not independent documents either. They are very clearly written with knowlage of one another. Mark is the template for all of them. Matthew previously thought to be independent is increasingly seen as Mark with some additional stuff insert into it. Luke clearly had both Mark and Matthew to work with and basically tried to make a fusion. John is clearly much considerably later and clearly had the other three. The only documents that are in reasonable living memory of a potential Jesus are the non-fake letters of Paul (most of them are not by Paul). And Paul himself even says that hadn't met Jesus (outside of visions) and Paul letters also don't give us much that matters in terms the historical accuracy of what went on in the region as he wasn't there. And don't believe the 'Acts of the Apostles' in the bible those are even less historical then the gospels.
  • the-printer 4y ago
    > because the religion is not defined by what it originally was or should be, but by how it's actually practiced by people who self-identify as its followers and who are conventionally identified as such by everybody else. How Terrifying. Edit (let me explain): This comes across as a very democratic way to describe something that is predominantly undemocratic.
• mtalantikite 4y ago
  > To point out that vajrayana is mostly in direct contradiction to what is in the pali Canon and the Chinese agamas is a historical fact, not a no true Scotsman. What sort of contradictions? Genuinely curious.
  • Viability1936 4y ago
    To be frank, they are entirely different religions. Vajrayana is essentially Tibetan bon mixed with Hinduism. Some of the most obvious differences are the rules for the monks. In vajrayana once you reach a certain state of enlightenment or convince your followers, you've reached a certain state. You essentially can do whatever you want and claim it's for the benefit of the students. In the pali canon, an arahat would follow the same rules as a monk who had been ordained for one day. Which would be no inconvenience to them, because there would be no desire to break any of the rules. Which is a direct contradiction. In vajarayana, a monk could have sex with his student as a means of helping them. According to the historical Buddha, that person is immediately no longer a monk. They essentially dismiss the entire pali canon as a lower teaching. They also think that personal enlightenment/arahatship is a bad thing and that you should keep being reborn to help others. There are entire books written about why that doesn't make sense, but it's against the entire purpose of what the Buddha taught. There are also a lot of teachings about the self that are categorically listed as wrong view in the pali canon. I don't want to come of like I'm hating on the school or anyone who practices in it, but it's far from 'Buddhism' in a historical context. There are still many wise and compassionate people who have dedicated their lives to it.
    • nequo 4y ago
      I don’t know Vajrayana, only have some familiarity with the Pali canon. From that perspective, everything that you’re saying sounds true. > There are also a lot of teachings about the self that are categorically listed as wrong view in the pali canon. Do you remember what exact things they teach about the self that is in contradiction with the Pali canon? Asking out of curiosity. One thing that I cannot quite square with the Pali canon is the idea of Buddha mind, and the related concept of the “true self” and the “small” vs. “big ego” that certain Zen lineages talk about. According to the Pali canon, these are all wrong views because of there being no self whatsoever (anattā). Perhaps Zen and Vajrayana folks see these concepts as falsehoods that still help with practice and are thus skillful means (upāya).