« Our age has more in common with Dante’s Inferno | Main | During intense meditation »

October 30, 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The presence of wisdom and stupidity on the very same page.

A posting sage and a commenting icchantika, both sharing the space and time they are interdependently linked to, where the infinite dynamics of the wondrous jewel is proven by both, rendering both their views on equal basis, leaving theirs, and our consciousness to differentiate at will and level of our gnosis, or agnosis, of its profound nature.

Fascinating, to say the least.

when I say Jain texts should be included in the study of Buddhism, I mean only the metaphysics, not the stupid extreme ahimsa nonsense

> Buddhism is the teaching of Siddhārtha Gautama who

Hard stop. This is the beginning of all the problems in Buddhism. Trying it to the teachings of one man, which gives rise to counterfeiting of suttas attributed to him rather than people honestly writing their wrong opinions under their own name; which gives rise to the idea that truth is merely a historical inquiry as to what some specific person really did or did not say.

By this definition of Buddhism, a Jain text like the Ishtopadesha cannot be considered part of Buddhism, because it does not lie and claim to have been written by Sidhartha Gotama. But had its author lied and attributed it to Sidhartha Gotama (as say the author of the Lotus Sutra did) then it could be considered part of Buddhism by this definition. This is a huge problem.

Maybe Buddhism should be defined more like this:

> The religion of trying to become a Buddha. To properly understand it one should study all the various subsects that use the term "Buddha," including not just those commonly called "Buddhist" but also the Jain sects and their texts.

This would greatly solve the no-soul debate since the Jains unquestionably believe in a soul.

Secondly, in your definition that says Gotama

> awakened to the essence or substance of the universe which includes all of its galaxies, all the way to thought and its essence.

Rather than pretend any of these characters, Buddha or Mahavira or anyone else was omniscient and awakened to knowing everything, why not just consider them to have awakened to the idea that we are in a cycle of reincarnation, that that is bad and we want out, and that there is a particular path to get out.

So we might define it as:

> The religion of trying to become a Buddha, meaning to escape from a cycle of reincarnation which is presumed to exist and to be bad. To properly understand it one should study all the various subsects that use the term "Buddha," including not just those commonly called "Buddhist" but also the Jain sects and their texts, and look at all of their different explanations of what the path to the exit of the cycle of reincarnation is and what the metaphysics governing the cycle are.

This would broaden the study of Buddhism, allow for looking at Jain and even Hindu texts on the subject instead of only texts forged in the name of Sidhartha Gotama, and perhaps for more actual discussion of which parts of the path truly are necessary and which are not. Furthermore, if we include the acceptance of reincarnation as the thing Buddhism seeks to have the individual saved form in the very definition then we can put an end to all the asshats who want to waste all their time questioning if there is any reincarnation calling themselves Buddhists.

Would be great if you could start a series of post reviewing books. You can then highlight for us the good parts, and critic the bad parts, especially those you think are advancing missunderstandings.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo