5 ms·

"The buddhists are right, the only constant in life is change" Not totally true. I want to point out that there's a huge gap between what Buddha saw and taught

"The buddhists are right, the only constant in life is change" Not totally true. I want to point out that there's a huge gap between what Buddha saw and taught and what is said by the teachings in modern Buddhism. Gautama Buddha went to people basically every single day for 45 years and tried to awaken them. He absolutely did not teach people that it's possible to eliminate suffering while alive, and he never taught that meditation is a way to enlightenment. Instead, if we make a gist of the content of his life work teaching we can see that he taught two things: the theory of transmigration (reincarnation), and the law of cause and effect. He taught these things to make people realize how the world works, and what he taught is still totally accurate even by the view of today's world. There were ways in his teaching from the problems people have to the solutions they want to get. But those ways are absent from modern Buddhism. So we can conclude that while things in the world exist through change (reincarnation), there is another constant meaning in the world, and that is "truth", or law, of how the world works – the law of cause and effect. When we see and understand the world of the truth then what we find is permanent and never changes. All the answers are fixed. Only questions change.

specialist 14y ago
Maro is commiserating and you give him a theology/philosophy lesson. Further, I studied buddhism for a while. I have no idea what you're talking about. In other words, YMMV.
- blueprint 14y ago
  "Maro is commiserating and you give him a theology/philosophy lesson." You didn't point out a problem clearly, so I'm not sure what you think I should have done instead of branching a philosophy discussion. You'll note that the only thing to which I replied from Maro's answer is his comment about Buddhists being right. My reply has nothing to do with his commiseration, and I believe I stay on topic 100%. Besides, if you want me to reply to Maro's commiseration, my answer is that we should verify everything in OP's post first before deciding with what to commiserate. Why commiserate in places where OP is actually repeatedly at fault and chose the wrong way? How can you properly commiserate at times when OP was right if you can't see where they are? That's not justice to the investors, nor OP, nor is it the way to help OP to find the right way. Fact is neither you nor I know OP. Anyway, see my own reply to OP in my comments. "Further, I studied buddhism for a while. I have no idea what you're talking about. In other words, YMMV." I've often experienced this kind of reaction from today's Buddhists. I don't understand why. What I do know is that it's impossible to understand the truth with untruthfulness inside oneself. I also studied Buddhism for long years, traveled a lot, and met a lot of people, but I've never found in any country a Buddhism which is for the living people. It's critical that this result is informed accurately to human society so that people can protect themselves from being cheated by falsehood.
  - specialist 14y ago
    Maro was giving the OP a virtual bro-hug. Not trying to preach. The buddhism reference was a platitude. Sometimes the intent (compassion) trump content. I've never found in any country a Buddhism which is for the living people. Very interesting. You and I would probably get along just fine.
Supermighty 14y ago
> He absolutely did not teach people that it's possible to eliminate suffering while alive Did the Buddha teach the Four Noble Truths? The third noble truth about the "cessation of suffering and the causes of suffering". How can what you say be true then?
- blueprint 14y ago
  The contents of those scriptures have been retranslated countless times. Besides this fact, they were only written down about 500 years after Gautama Buddha died. Third, the words that were written down were those as transmitted by ordinary people, who had a huge gap in level of consciousness between them and Buddha, so they didn't understand exactly and didn't write down Buddha's exact words. And fourth, the scriptures have been changed by a number of monks who just wrote what they wanted in there. It's in these processes that the truth which Buddha taught was changed and has deteriorated through thousands of years. You asked a very good question. Buddha, when he was Enlightened, also attained nirvana. What this means is that he saw the world of origin, where everything dies and is reborn again. This is why he could see that all the results are made by the causes. So, it's because nothing exists in the world of origin that Gautama said that there's nothing there. But Buddhist monks often misunderstand this as that when you attain nirvana you can finish all your suffering. However, Buddha never claimed that. He explained that when he attained nirvana he could be free from agony and illusions. But no creature while it is alive can be free from suffering. If we don't eat, we suffer from starvation. If we go to a cold place, we feel cold. So to cease suffering forever means that one would have to stop being reborn and die forever. The only way to free from suffering while you are alive is to disengage your consciousness from your body. This is what modern buddhism guides you to do through meditation. But it's the exact opposite way of Buddha's teaching. Buddha taught people to save themselves and to live forever, not to die forever.
  - Supermighty 14y ago
    Thanks for the reply. I'm still not convinced. Yes it's possible that the scriptures are inaccurate. What source do you pull your reasoning from and what makes your source more accurate.
mountaingoating 14y ago
I'm not sure exactly what the correction that you're supposed to be issuing is. He cited the buddhists, not Buddha, and you say right away that "there's a huge gap between what Buddha saw and taught and what is said by the teachings in modern Buddhism." What is your objection, exactly?
- blueprint 14y ago
  That modern Buddhists don't have the correct teaching - so they are not right as stated. We shouldn't say that truth can change (as implied by the statement everything changes except change) as when truth changes it's not truth anymore.

specialist 14y ago

Maro is commiserating and you give him a theology/philosophy lesson. Further, I studied buddhism for a while. I have no idea what you're talking about. In other words, YMMV.

blueprint 14y ago
"Maro is commiserating and you give him a theology/philosophy lesson." You didn't point out a problem clearly, so I'm not sure what you think I should have done instead of branching a philosophy discussion. You'll note that the only thing to which I replied from Maro's answer is his comment about Buddhists being right. My reply has nothing to do with his commiseration, and I believe I stay on topic 100%. Besides, if you want me to reply to Maro's commiseration, my answer is that we should verify everything in OP's post first before deciding with what to commiserate. Why commiserate in places where OP is actually repeatedly at fault and chose the wrong way? How can you properly commiserate at times when OP was right if you can't see where they are? That's not justice to the investors, nor OP, nor is it the way to help OP to find the right way. Fact is neither you nor I know OP. Anyway, see my own reply to OP in my comments. "Further, I studied buddhism for a while. I have no idea what you're talking about. In other words, YMMV." I've often experienced this kind of reaction from today's Buddhists. I don't understand why. What I do know is that it's impossible to understand the truth with untruthfulness inside oneself. I also studied Buddhism for long years, traveled a lot, and met a lot of people, but I've never found in any country a Buddhism which is for the living people. It's critical that this result is informed accurately to human society so that people can protect themselves from being cheated by falsehood.
- specialist 14y ago
  Maro was giving the OP a virtual bro-hug. Not trying to preach. The buddhism reference was a platitude. Sometimes the intent (compassion) trump content. I've never found in any country a Buddhism which is for the living people. Very interesting. You and I would probably get along just fine.

Supermighty 14y ago

> He absolutely did not teach people that it's possible to eliminate suffering while alive Did the Buddha teach the Four Noble Truths? The third noble truth about the "cessation of suffering and the causes of suffering". How can what you say be true then?

blueprint 14y ago
The contents of those scriptures have been retranslated countless times. Besides this fact, they were only written down about 500 years after Gautama Buddha died. Third, the words that were written down were those as transmitted by ordinary people, who had a huge gap in level of consciousness between them and Buddha, so they didn't understand exactly and didn't write down Buddha's exact words. And fourth, the scriptures have been changed by a number of monks who just wrote what they wanted in there. It's in these processes that the truth which Buddha taught was changed and has deteriorated through thousands of years. You asked a very good question. Buddha, when he was Enlightened, also attained nirvana. What this means is that he saw the world of origin, where everything dies and is reborn again. This is why he could see that all the results are made by the causes. So, it's because nothing exists in the world of origin that Gautama said that there's nothing there. But Buddhist monks often misunderstand this as that when you attain nirvana you can finish all your suffering. However, Buddha never claimed that. He explained that when he attained nirvana he could be free from agony and illusions. But no creature while it is alive can be free from suffering. If we don't eat, we suffer from starvation. If we go to a cold place, we feel cold. So to cease suffering forever means that one would have to stop being reborn and die forever. The only way to free from suffering while you are alive is to disengage your consciousness from your body. This is what modern buddhism guides you to do through meditation. But it's the exact opposite way of Buddha's teaching. Buddha taught people to save themselves and to live forever, not to die forever.
- Supermighty 14y ago
  Thanks for the reply. I'm still not convinced. Yes it's possible that the scriptures are inaccurate. What source do you pull your reasoning from and what makes your source more accurate.

mountaingoating 14y ago

I'm not sure exactly what the correction that you're supposed to be issuing is. He cited the buddhists, not Buddha, and you say right away that "there's a huge gap between what Buddha saw and taught and what is said by the teachings in modern Buddhism." What is your objection, exactly?

blueprint 14y ago
That modern Buddhists don't have the correct teaching - so they are not right as stated. We shouldn't say that truth can change (as implied by the statement everything changes except change) as when truth changes it's not truth anymore.