3 ms·

> To tell people that buddhas have supernatural powers, and take that literally, is turning people away from the teaching. No it isn't, it's literally the sutr

> To tell people that buddhas have supernatural powers, and take that literally, is turning people away from the teaching. No it isn't, it's literally the sutras say and what a vast majority of Buddhists actually believe. > You are supposed to understand that those are metaphors. Stories, not truth. Then why don't we see this reflected in traditional teachings? This is a modern western reinterpretation, so called "secular Buddhism". Supernatural powers are well documented in Buddhism and even today in Tibetan Buddhism. > Concentration/Samadhi is part of the 8-fold path. A vast majority of Buddhists are relying on Amida's path for salvation through the Pure Land and/or producing merit for a better rebirth though, they don't practise such things in this lifetime. > You know enough Buddhist terms to Troll someone on the internet. But this is damaging. Someone could read what you say and think that is Buddhism and be turned away or mislead. Well, I'm right, and it sounds like I've actually researched, studied, and practised Buddhism more than you. > Also, there is no such thing as slander to Buddhist Yes there is, it's even included in Amida's 18th vow: > Excluded, however, are those who commit the Five Gravest Transgressions and slander the right Dharma. and is mentioned throughout the Lotus sutra. For example the whole basis of Nichiren's theology is that those who slander the Buddhadharma will be reborn in avicci hell. What you are presenting is a very inaccurate view of the Buddhadharma. Let me set some facts in order: * The sutras do teach extensively of supernatural powers * The sutras do teach extensively of both mind-only philosophy and anti-physicalism (in both the sravakayana and the Mahayana!) * There is no evidence that those aspects of the sutras should not be taken literally * Those aspects of the sutras are indeed taken literally by most Buddhists historically * Most Buddhists in the world follow paths that don't involve meditation/samadhi/concentration * Buddhism ultimately even has no concept of metaphor vs. literal, since everything is emptiness anyway, so already it denies the fundamental reality of anything If you are actually willing to learn about Buddhism, not just some western misconception of it, I am willing to point you to resources... however from what you say I have a feeling you will just abuse the teaching, and likely be reborn in Hell, due to your fundamentalist religious belief, therefore I will not pass on any resources to you beyond what I did unless you can somehow prove to me that you won't abuse it It's okay if YOU don't want to believe those things, but going around and telling others that they are wrong for accurately portraying the Dharma is unwise. Please do more research, ideally with an actual teacher

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Well. I certainly agree that arguing on the internet about who is a Buddhist, and who is not, is hurtful and not helping anyone. I just happen to think you are the one leading people down the wrong path. But so do you, of me. Seems like we understand words differently. Have different definitions of same words. You say I'm 'fundamentalist' even to point of going to Hell, then in return say the most scary extreme 'fundamentalist' things. Maybe we just mean different things by that word 'fundamentalist'. You say you are Mahayana, then say things that are not very Mahayana. Then you say for me to get a teacher. And I'm thinking, man your teacher isn't doing you any favors, you should find another. Who is right? No way to know? So. Guess there is nothing else. I think you are wrong, you think I am wrong. We can quote the same sutras endlessly and both have opposite interpretations. Can quote demographics, and 'who meditates', 'who doesn't', what is it, what is it not, as some kind of proof. Using sutras to disprove sutras, then cling to them, is kind of blowing me away. I haven't encountered something like this. I guess I just have to say, to try and help. Try to understand the sutras a bit more and less. You are very wound up in conceptual thought. And it seems to be blinding you. Sutras are to be abandoned when their purpose is done, not clung to. ""Though others may talk of the Way of the Buddhas as something to be reached by various pious practices and by sutra-study, you must have nothing to do with such ideas. "" - Huang Po
- bowsamic 3y ago
  Ultimately, I am actually saying things that are in line with the traditional teachings and is what Buddhism actually is among most people in the world today. You said I was perpetuating falsehoods, and all I care about right now is stating that actually I am not. All this stuff about "conceptualisation is a barrier on the path" is not really relevant. We don't even believe it is in my tradition, in fact. Next time just think a little before you accuse someone of what you did. You are the one that insisted I was wrong about the concepts of Buddhism, that's why I called you a fundamentalist. The previous comments are still there, you know? We can actually just go back and check this. Now, what do we plan to achieve in this discussion? You accused me of perpetuating falsehoods, I showed that I'm not, now you are upset. Why? I guess it's just human to not be able to accept when you are wrong. Quite sad but that's just how it is I guess. I won't reply again, for your sake. I don't want you to hurt yourself even more. I hope you have taken some education from my information at least, and have dispelled some ignorance for you. > I think you are wrong, you think I am wrong. I've proven that you are objectively wrong.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

Well. I certainly agree that arguing on the internet about who is a Buddhist, and who is not, is hurtful and not helping anyone. I just happen to think you are the one leading people down the wrong path. But so do you, of me. Seems like we understand words differently. Have different definitions of same words. You say I'm 'fundamentalist' even to point of going to Hell, then in return say the most scary extreme 'fundamentalist' things. Maybe we just mean different things by that word 'fundamentalist'. You say you are Mahayana, then say things that are not very Mahayana. Then you say for me to get a teacher. And I'm thinking, man your teacher isn't doing you any favors, you should find another. Who is right? No way to know? So. Guess there is nothing else. I think you are wrong, you think I am wrong. We can quote the same sutras endlessly and both have opposite interpretations. Can quote demographics, and 'who meditates', 'who doesn't', what is it, what is it not, as some kind of proof. Using sutras to disprove sutras, then cling to them, is kind of blowing me away. I haven't encountered something like this. I guess I just have to say, to try and help. Try to understand the sutras a bit more and less. You are very wound up in conceptual thought. And it seems to be blinding you. Sutras are to be abandoned when their purpose is done, not clung to. ""Though others may talk of the Way of the Buddhas as something to be reached by various pious practices and by sutra-study, you must have nothing to do with such ideas. "" - Huang Po

bowsamic 3y ago
Ultimately, I am actually saying things that are in line with the traditional teachings and is what Buddhism actually is among most people in the world today. You said I was perpetuating falsehoods, and all I care about right now is stating that actually I am not. All this stuff about "conceptualisation is a barrier on the path" is not really relevant. We don't even believe it is in my tradition, in fact. Next time just think a little before you accuse someone of what you did. You are the one that insisted I was wrong about the concepts of Buddhism, that's why I called you a fundamentalist. The previous comments are still there, you know? We can actually just go back and check this. Now, what do we plan to achieve in this discussion? You accused me of perpetuating falsehoods, I showed that I'm not, now you are upset. Why? I guess it's just human to not be able to accept when you are wrong. Quite sad but that's just how it is I guess. I won't reply again, for your sake. I don't want you to hurt yourself even more. I hope you have taken some education from my information at least, and have dispelled some ignorance for you. > I think you are wrong, you think I am wrong. I've proven that you are objectively wrong.