TSR Buddhist Society

Watch
imomo16
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#61
Report 9 years ago
#61
(Original post by Amwazicles)
I guess it can be relevant, again, depending on the interpretation. However, there is no way to know that in the further future, it will become even less relevant.
You've said that about both the 1st and 3rd precepts, and I'm curious what you mean by it? Why does future society have any relevance on how we live in ours right now? If you disregard the moral codes of Buddhism on the grounds that someday they might not matter what is your practice founded on?
0
reply
savetheplanet
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#62
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#62
What? Time travel? Where did that come from?
You're starting to sound like some kind of Christian Evangelist - he predicted the end of the world?
If he knew how much the world would change in the future, I doubt he would have made such specific teachings as 'refrain from sexual misconduct'
1) It came from the "Sermon of the Seven Suns" where he stated that the world will end "in the rising of seven suns". Seven suns here meaning different phases in the nature of the earth.
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism...endofworld.asp

He specifically predicted that the Earth will come to an end through droughts, rough/dry weather etc. which imo is true. So for a man to be this specific about it 2500 years ago, he must have the ability to predict?
I don't know about other schools of buddhism but in therevada, once you reach enlightenment, your mind acquires the ability to see the universe and reality for what it truly is and to escape the boundaries of space and time.
This might also be the reason why the Buddha predicted quite scientifically, the nature of the beginning and end of the universe. This tallies perfectly with modern physics and the Big Bang theory. Again for a man 2600 years ago, to be able to say that the universe expands and contracts, he must've been able to cross the boundaries of space and time?

How is refraining from sexual misconduct different now than it was before? o.O
0
reply
Watch Key Phone
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#63
Report 9 years ago
#63
(Original post by imomo16)
You've said that about both the 1st and 3rd precepts, and I'm curious what you mean by it? Why does future society have any relevance on how we live in ours right now? If you disregard the moral codes of Buddhism on the grounds that someday they might not matter what is your practice founded on?
What I mean is that, responding to savetheplanet's post, the specificity of the precepts seems to show that the Buddha probably couldn't see into the future. I'm not saying they're entirely irrelevant, simply, they may not always be relevant, so were probably based on what was seen as right and wrong at the time they were taught, not on what the Buddha saw (through his supposed time travelling) was right and wrong forevermore.
0
reply
savetheplanet
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#64
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#64
(Original post by imomo16)
You've said that about both the 1st and 3rd precepts, and I'm curious what you mean by it? Why does future society have any relevance on how we live in ours right now? If you disregard the moral codes of Buddhism on the grounds that someday they might not matter what is your practice founded on?
I tried telling this to her and that not following basic buddhist codes of practice is not exactly buddhist but then she went off on me about me "ostracizing her" and whatnot.
Even I'm curious to know actually. As far as I know, the five precepts are practiced by all schools of buddhism. If you don't think it's relevant or reject them then you're no more than a free-thinker/athiest.
0
reply
savetheplanet
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#65
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#65
(Original post by Amwazicles)
What I mean is that, responding to savetheplanet's post, the specificity of the precepts seems to show that the Buddha probably couldn't see into the future. I'm not saying they're entirely irrelevant, simply, they may not always be relevant, so were probably based on what was seen as right and wrong at the time they were taught, not on what the Buddha saw (through his supposed time travelling) was right and wrong forevermore.
So many disagreements here but imo the precepts aren't that specific The fact that his teachings/guidelines are relevant to modern life itself shows that he could see into the future and designed his teachings accordingly.
My question is how are the first and third precepts irrelevant now?
0
reply
imomo16
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#66
Report 9 years ago
#66
(Original post by Amwazicles)
What I mean is that, responding to savetheplanet's post, the specificity of the precepts seems to show that the Buddha probably couldn't see into the future. I'm not saying they're entirely irrelevant, simply, they may not always be relevant, so were probably based on what was seen as right and wrong at the time they were taught, not on what the Buddha saw (through his supposed time travelling) was right and wrong forevermore.
The Buddha taught the Dharma. The Dharma is supposed to be the eternal truth. He did not see into the future, he saw the truth of all existence and beyond. The Dharma applies as much now as it did 2500 years ago, and will 2500 years in the future. It is unchanging and precise. An important part of the Dharma is following at very least the three pure precepts. If you don't believe in them as a capital-T truth, it seems to me that you're going to be in a lot of conflict with Buddhism :confused: How can you subscribe to something you don't seem to really believe in?

(Original post by savetheplanet)
I tried telling this to her and that not following basic buddhist codes of practice is not exactly buddhist but then she went off on me about me "ostracizing her" and whatnot.
Even I'm curious to know actually. As far as I know, the five precepts are practiced by all schools of buddhism. If you don't think it's relevant or reject them then you're no more than a free-thinker/athiest.
Yeah. I mean I'm an atheist in the sense that I don't believe in an omniscient creator deity, but I still believe in the Dharma and that following it will lead to enlightenment. I can't see much point in calling yourself a Buddhist if you think a large portion of its teachings are either irrelevant or open to free-for-all interpretation.
0
reply
Watch Key Phone
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#67
Report 9 years ago
#67
(Original post by savetheplanet)
1) It came from the "Sermon of the Seven Suns" where he stated that the world will end "in the rising of seven suns". Seven suns here meaning different phases in the nature of the earth.
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism...endofworld.asp

He specifically predicted that the Earth will come to an end through droughts, rough/dry weather etc. which imo is true. So for a man to be this specific about it 2500 years ago, he must have the ability to predict?
I don't know about other schools of buddhism but in therevada, once you reach enlightenment, your mind acquires the ability to see the universe and reality for what it truly is and to escape the boundaries of space and time.
This might also be the reason why the Buddha predicted quite scientifically, the nature of the beginning and end of the universe. This tallies perfectly with modern physics and the Big Bang theory. Again for a man 2600 years ago, to be able to say that the universe expands and contracts, he must've been able to cross the boundaries of space and time?

How is refraining from sexual misconduct different now than it was before? o.O
Making intelligent predictions is not the same as magically developing the ability to time-travel. Personally, I absolutely don't believe that enlightenment allows one to see into the future and past in the way you describe.

What is defined as 'sexual misconduct' changes with every century. In a thousand year's time, it might be abnormal to not have sex with someone the first time you meet them. We can't possibly know, so what I am saying is that if the Buddha could see into the future, I doubt he would have made such a specific precept based on what was acceptable at the time he taught it.
0
reply
savetheplanet
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#68
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#68
(Original post by Amwazicles)
I agree that that argument itself is weak. However, I think the Buddha was 'liberal' enough to not be angered by certain people interpreting his teachings differently or not all following his teachings in exactly the same way.
I don't think he'd be angered by anything but I doubt any religious founder including the buddha would want their teachings to be deviated too much simply because it would mislead future generations.
0
reply
Blazara
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#69
Report 9 years ago
#69
savetheplanet has successfully made Buddhism sound as preachy as Christianity - you're the Buddhist Bakmouth, congratz.
0
reply
Watch Key Phone
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#70
Report 9 years ago
#70
(Original post by imomo16)
The Buddha taught the Dharma. The Dharma is supposed to be the eternal truth. He did not see into the future, he saw the truth of all existence and beyond. The Dharma applies as much now as it did 2500 years ago, and will 2500 years in the future. It is unchanging and precise. An important part of the Dharma is following at very least the three pure precepts. If you don't believe in them as a capital-T truth, it seems to me that you're going to be in a lot of conflict with Buddhism :confused: How can you subscribe to something you don't seem to really believe in?
Then maybe I'm not a Buddhist. To be honest, any religion which - yes - 'ostracises' me for not having exactly the same beliefs as every other member is not something I want to be a part of anyway.

(Original post by savetheplanet)
I tried telling this to her and that not following basic buddhist codes of practice is not exactly buddhist but then she went off on me about me "ostracizing her" and whatnot.
Even I'm curious to know actually. As far as I know, the five precepts are practiced by all schools of buddhism. If you don't think it's relevant or reject them then you're no more than a free-thinker/athiest.
I don't like the way you seem to be ganging up on me. I'm not claiming that my views are completely cemented - anyone who says theirs are is not telling the truth. I'm happy to admit that I might not agree with everything I 'should' to be classed as a Buddhist - as I said above. However, I wouldn't say I reject them, which is why I think it is unfair to somehow 'cast me out' of Buddhism entirely, as I agree with many - if not most of the principles behind it.

And I don't appreciate the tone behind 'no more than a free thinker/atheist', by the way.

[quote]
(Original post by savetheplanet)
So many disagreements here but imo the precepts aren't that specific The fact that his teachings/guidelines are relevant to modern life itself shows that he could see into the future and designed his teachings accordingly.
My question is how are the first and third precepts irrelevant now?
I never said they were irrelevant now - that's exactly what I didn't say. What I said was there is no way of knowing that they will always be relevant, and most likely they won't be, because times change more than we can possibly imagine.
0
reply
Watch Key Phone
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#71
Report 9 years ago
#71
(Original post by savetheplanet)
I don't think he'd be angered by anything but I doubt any religious founder including the buddha would want their teachings to be deviated too much simply because it would mislead future generations.
I disagree with the fact you call the Buddha a religious founder. I believe he is a philosophical trailblazer, and that he would appreciate people considering his teachings carefully and making their own interpretations and opinions about them.

I can't help but agree with the poster above - it's starting to sound like a creationist debate, which I don't want it to be at all.
0
reply
imomo16
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#72
Report 9 years ago
#72
(Original post by Amwazicles)
Then maybe I'm not a Buddhist. To be honest, any religion which - yes - 'ostracises' me for not having exactly the same beliefs as every other member is not something I want to be a part of anyway.



I don't like the way you seem to be ganging up on me. I'm not claiming that my views are completely cemented - anyone who says theirs are is not telling the truth. I'm happy to admit that I might not agree with everything I 'should' to be classed as a Buddhist - as I said above. However, I wouldn't say I reject them, which is why I think it is unfair to somehow 'cast me out' of Buddhism entirely, as I agree with many - if not most of the principles behind it.

And I don't appreciate the tone behind 'no more than a free thinker/atheist', by the way.


I never said they were irrelevant now - that's exactly what I didn't say. What I said was there is no way of knowing that they will always be relevant, and most likely they won't be, because times change more than we can possibly imagine.
Sorry if it feels harsh or confrontational. For the record I am not trying to ostracise you! It's good to explore our thoughts about these things is all. Ultimately it's up to you if you feel you're a Buddhist, of course I respect that. But if you do have problems with any form of social code or moral guidelines, it does seem that you will be uncomfortable with large sections of your religion. Because it is a religion, or at least a belief or faith, however weird that might seem coming from the atheistic/secular society that you and I have come from.

I share your doubt in organised religion. It's one of the reasons why I'm drawn to Zen, because it stresses individual experience over rote obedience to scriptures and ritual. But we have to have morals, and the morals of the Buddha are very pure and are precisely not specific to time and place. The third precept isn't tied to any particular era's sexual norms, but it just says: think about how you have sex. Approach it mindfully, and non-harmfully, in whatever way that means to you. They really are guidelines, not commandments, which is why I find it a bit strange you balk at them. Have you looked at the Bodhisattva Precepts? They're a little different to the Pali/Theravadan precepts and I find them more acceptable to follow.

Honestly honestly I'm not trying to attack you. Of course ideas change, and engaging in debate is part of that process

(Original post by Blazara)
savetheplanet has successfully made Buddhism sound as preachy as Christianity - you're the Buddhist Bakmouth, congratz.
You have to understand that there are different branches of Buddhism and some of them are really very strict indeed, and that as Western people we're used to wishy washy pop culture ideas of Buddhism as more of a New Age philosophy than as a faith. Which is fine, but there are different types and approaches and it's wrong to criticise someone just because they follow Buddhism in a way you're not accustomed to.
0
reply
savetheplanet
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#73
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#73
(Original post by Amwazicles)
Making intelligent predictions is not the same as magically developing the ability to time-travel. Personally, I absolutely don't believe that enlightenment allows one to see into the future and past in the way you describe. What is defined as 'sexual misconduct' changes with every century. In a thousand year's time, it might be abnormal to not have sex with someone the first time you meet them. We can't possibly know, so what I am saying is that if the Buddha could see into the future, I doubt he would have made such a specific precept based on what was acceptable at the time he taught it.
You could believe whatever you want but if the Buddha's was not capable of space/time travel, his teachings would pretty much be reduced to nothing then and he probably would've not reached enlightenment in the first place.
E.g. He would not have said anything about other planes of existence, their time frames etc. He would not have said anything about samsara, karma, past lives, reincarnation among a plethora of other basics of buddhism.
For him to say that there were devas, hungry ghosts (pretas) and give specific details of their lives, he must have been able to cross the dimension in which he was in phyiscally?
I doubt it was just an intelligent prediction. Wouldn't that be speculation? Why would he say that if he was unsure if it will happen?

I think you contradicted yourself in the last bit. If the term sexual misconduct changes with time then surely that means that the precept wasn't specific?
If it was specific, the buddha would've defined what it was.
Sexual misconduct is the abuse of sex/ your body to cause harm (physically,mentally) , encourage another person to do harm or defile another person's mind. Anything that comes under this category is sexual misconduct.
I think it's important to note that the precepts were derived from his teachings. Precepts are like a summary.
Again you would have to resort to scriptures of his teachings to know exactly what he meant and why he stated the precepts.
Imho, I still suggest you do some more research into these scriptures , since after all they're the closest we can get to the Buddha's actual word.
I mean until you do that, you're going to assume that I'm some kind of wacko/ christian evangelist as you say simply because you're unaware of what the scriptures actually say.
If you want to reject the scriptures, then we might as well reject all buddhist teachings since they're derived from the scriptures themselves.
0
reply
Blazara
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#74
Report 9 years ago
#74
(Original post by imomo16)
You have to understand that different branches of Buddhism are really very strict indeed, and that as WEstern people we're used to wishy washy pop culture ideas of Buddhism as more of a New Age philosophy than as a faith. Which is fine, but there are different types and approaches and it's wrong to criticise someone just because they follow Buddhism in a way you're not accustomed to.
Regardless, savetheplanet is approaching it in the wrong way - saying "you should believe this because look what this dude was supposed to have said way back when" is stupid and makes a religion look well, like something people aren't going to want to be interested in.

He's also approaching things in a "my way is right you are wrong I won't listen to what you say nananana", which is just what Bakmouth does.
0
reply
why_
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#75
Report 9 years ago
#75
Are Buddhists vegetarian?
Some are, some aren't. From the Theravada perspective, the choice of whether or not to eat meat is purely a matter of personal preference. Many Buddhists (and, of course, non-Buddhists) do eventually lose their appetite for meat out of compassion for the welfare of other living creatures. But vegetarianism is not required in order to follow the Buddha's path.

Although the first of the five precepts, the basic code of ethical conduct for all practicing Buddhists, calls upon followers to refrain from intentional acts of killing, it does not address the consumption of flesh from animals that are already dead. Theravada monks, however, are clearly forbidden to eat meat from a few specific kinds of animals, but for reasons not directly related to the ethics of killing.[1] Monks are free to pursue vegetarianism by leaving uneaten any meat that may have been placed in the alms bowl, but because they depend on the open-handed generosity of lay supporters[2] (who may or may not themselves be vegetarian) it is considered unseemly for them to make special food requests. In those parts of the world (including wide areas of south Asia) where vegetarianism is uncommon and many dishes are prepared in a meat or fish broth, vegetarian monks would soon face a simple choice: eat meat or starve.[3]

Taking part in killing for food is definitely incompatible with the first precept, and should be avoided. This includes hunting, fishing, trapping, butchering, steaming live clams, eating live raw oysters, etc.

And what about asking someone else to catch and kill the animal for me? On this point the teachings are also unambiguous: we should never intentionally ask someone to kill on our behalf. We should not, for example, order a fresh steamed lobster from the restaurant menu. The Dhammapada expresses this sentiment succinctly:
from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...aq.html#veggie
0
reply
savetheplanet
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#76
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#76
(Original post by Blazara)
savetheplanet has successfully made Buddhism sound as preachy as Christianity - you're the Buddhist Bakmouth, congratz.
Yeah ok say what you want but I disagree. I don't take the scriptures literally but I still think you need to have a knowledge of them to fully understand what the basic tenets of buddhism are about ( the five precepts etc.).
If it weren't for scriptures and sutras, no form of buddhism would be alive today. If you think this is "preachy" then I'm afraid you'll find all religions "preachy".
And umm no I'm not the buddhist bakmouth. Bakmouth voices his christian opinions when they're not asked. I don't randomly preach buddhism when I'm not asked to.
0
reply
savetheplanet
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#77
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#77
(Original post by Blazara)
Regardless, savetheplanet is approaching it in the wrong way - saying "you should believe this because look what this dude was supposed to have said way back when" is stupid and makes a religion look well, like something people aren't going to want to be interested in.

He's also approaching things in a "my way is right you are wrong I won't listen to what you say nananana", which is just what Bakmouth does.
I'm sorry but that's what buddhism is about I mean if you're going to look at the buddha's teachings for guidance, then sometimes you do look at what he had to say way back when.
If you want to reach nirvana from scratch and become a buddha, you're free to do so.
I never said my way is right. There are different schools of buddhism and each may differ slightly in their ways of thinking about certain issues.
I did listen to what they say, hence why I'm responding to them
0
reply
savetheplanet
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#78
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#78
(Original post by Amwazicles)
I disagree with the fact you call the Buddha a religious founder. I believe he is a philosophical trailblazer, and that he would appreciate people considering his teachings carefully and making their own interpretations and opinions about them. I can't help but agree with the poster above - it's starting to sound like a creationist debate, which I don't want it to be at all.
It depends on whether you think buddhism is a religion. Imo, it is a religion because it is a collection of beliefs and practices common to a group of people. He's a religious founder not according to me but also according to various other historians/scholars and also Wikipedia (but you may not think this is very reliable).
0
reply
savetheplanet
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#79
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#79
I don't like the way you seem to be ganging up on me. I'm not claiming that my views are completely cemented - anyone who says theirs are is not telling the truth. I'm happy to admit that I might not agree with everything I 'should' to be classed as a Buddhist - as I said above. However, I wouldn't say I reject them, which is why I think it is unfair to somehow 'cast me out' of Buddhism entirely, as I agree with many - if not most of the principles behind it.

And I don't appreciate the tone behind 'no more than a free thinker/atheist', by the way
No one is ganging up on you. You think we're ganging up/ostracising you but that's probably because we both disagree with you on many things in this thread. Sorry if it seemed that way :P
I was feeling equally left out when you, Three Mile Sprint and Blazara were ganging up on me. But I still stood by what I believe because I knew that you probably misunderstood me as some kind of arrogant, buddhist equivalent of "christian evangelist" when I truely knw that was not my intention.

Again, I wasn't trying to sound superior when I said no more than a free thinker, but from what I sense, you seem to be a beginner at this buddhism thing. You seem to be an atheist who's very interested in Buddhism and want to learn it ; which is good but then I'm not sure whether you accept the basics of buddhism
I think you might change your opinion on many things you've said as you learn more about buddhism (which yes includes the scriptures :P) and are more willing to accept its concepts.
0
reply
imomo16
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#80
Report 9 years ago
#80
(Original post by Blazara)
Regardless, savetheplanet is approaching it in the wrong way - saying "you should believe this because look what this dude was supposed to have said way back when" is stupid and makes a religion look well, like something people aren't going to want to be interested in.

He's also approaching things in a "my way is right you are wrong I won't listen to what you say nananana", which is just what Bakmouth does.
This isn't a thread to try and convert people, it's for us as Buddhists to debate a scriptural point. Sorry if it doesn't appeal to you, but pretending that a religion is something that it isn't to try and lure people in on false pretences would I think you'd agree not be very good. No-one here is judging or preaching to those who don't believe the same thing, unlike Bakmouth.

Buddhists follow the teachings of the Buddha, that is the whole point. If you don't believe what the Buddha said was true then there is no point in being a Buddhist. That's like being a Christian and not believing Jesus was the son of God- nonsensical. Of course there are a lot of different interpretations and ways of practicing that belief, which is why there are a multiplicity of Buddhist schools. At root they all believe in the Dharma, the Buddha's teachings, and that is non-negotiable.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have the space and resources you need to succeed in home learning?

Yes I have everything I need (21)
72.41%
I don't have everything I need (8)
27.59%

Watched Threads

View All