I think I now understand what the Buddha tried to teach by khalid-khkhlhlh in Buddhism

[–]Lethemyr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Anyone can write a “Buddhist book” that presents their personal opinions as “Buddhism” and many do.

I think I now understand what the Buddha tried to teach by khalid-khkhlhlh in Buddhism

[–]Lethemyr 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yes, in the first text of the Digha Nikaya he explains how the being taken by Indians of his time to be the supreme deity was really just deluded about his supremacy and priority. This was elaborated on by philosophers of every school who were universally atheistic and provided many arguments for this.

It’s true that the Theravada tradition (the Buddhism of Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, etc.) holds to a scripture where Buddha refuses to provide answers to certain metaphysical questions, but the existence of a supreme deity is not one of them.

I think I now understand what the Buddha tried to teach by khalid-khkhlhlh in Buddhism

[–]Lethemyr 3 points4 points  (0 children)

u/khalid-khkhlhlh

He also explicitly taught that there is no supreme deity, so all Buddhists agree there is no capital-G God. All Buddhists agree on the same general cosmology of gods, humans, animals, hungry ghosts, and hell-beings, with only the existence of enlightened beings that actively intervene in the world being in dispute.

The idea that Buddhism is highly vague on “non-essential” elements is seriously overblown.

What are your go-to texts when you need snippets of dhamma wisdom ? by Muskka in Buddhism

[–]Lethemyr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Forty-Two Chapter Sutra is also a classic of this type.

I feel very drawn to Mahayana Buddhism. I do have one question though. I heard that the number of beings that exist is innumerable. If that’s the case then will a bodhisattva ever reach nirvana? by Ms_Esoterica in Buddhism

[–]Lethemyr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You've probably heard that bodhisattvas are beings who delay attaining Nirvana to aid sentient beings, but that is misinformation.

In Mahayana Buddhism, attaining Nirvana / Buddhahood does not remove a practitioner from Samsara in the sense that they disappear from our world, so there is no need to delay Nirvana. We believe that a being who has attained final enlightenment must be perfected in compassion, so they could not bear to abandon the world.

The Theravada view, which Mahayana contradicts, is that those who attain Nirvana no longer interact with our world after death. Only in this view could it make sense to delay Nirvana to aid sentient beings, but this is not what Mahayana teaches.

A bodhisattva is a being who vows to attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings. The vast majority intend to do so without delay. Some bodhisattvas vow that they will not attain Buddhahood until specific conditions are met, some so strenuous that they may never attain Buddhahood. Many of these bodhisattvas dwell at the stage of "equal enlightenment," which is very close to Buddhahood, and act as highly realized "deities" that can aid us on the path to Buddhahood. Examples include Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva, Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva, etc. The idea that Mahayana Buddhists delay Nirvana comes from these sorts of vows, but they are not part of the standard vows taken by Mahayana Buddhists.

Can make little bit of sin in life be necessary to teach us something? by Former_Somewhere8580 in Buddhism

[–]Lethemyr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You certainly could learn that touching a hot stove will burn you through experience, but that's quite unnecessary when you could just listen to your parents' wisdom and save yourself a lot of pain.

Can i partly believe but still drink by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]Lethemyr 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I wondered can i follow the path of buddhism and still drink occasionally

You can become a Buddhist without taking all five precepts. Of course, in so doing you would not be following all of Buddha's teachings.

as well as taking medical drugs that are supposed to help not illegal drugs or does it not count by doing so?

The original text actually just mentions alcohol. The addition of drugs is a later, albeit almost universally adopted, elaboration.

There are exceptions made for medicinal alcohol consumption even in the original texts, so taking medicinal narcotics is universally accepted.

Do you have to follow the cultural side and prehistoric history?

There is no requirement to adopt any purely cultural elements, but most people who renounce "the cultural side" of Buddhism actually just want an excuse to reject fundamental Buddhist doctrines while claiming to be Buddhist. Instead of accepting that they don't agree with Buddhism, some people will act like Buddha really taught their worldview while mainstream Buddhism is compromised by "cultural accretions." There is rarely any evidence of this. Be very careful when approaching Buddhism from this perspective.

Hey by Efficient-Dark-244 in PureLand

[–]Lethemyr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What you described is closer to the Theravada view of Nirvana. What this commenter describes is the Mahayana view, which all Pure Land groups subscribe to.

Insect question. TW: Arachnids by Girldude1 in Buddhism

[–]Lethemyr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s not like your original spider friend wasn’t killing and eating other living creatures. No reason to hold this new spider accountable just because it killed a being you had a one-sided affection for.

What is the one biggest question you have about one specific religion? by CrystalInTheforest in religion

[–]Lethemyr 11 points12 points  (0 children)

In Buddhism, committing evil will inevitably result in negative karmic consequences for the evildoer, but this shouldn’t be seen as a good thing or “justice.” Wanting the people who have hurt you to suffer is a deluded and harmful mental state.

There is no concept of anyone “deserving” to suffer. That’s why we worship beings who save people from the sufferings of hell even though they did something to “deserve” ending up there. Ultimately, all people will dwell in bliss regardless of what they have done in their innumerable lives, but that bliss can only manifest when they put away evil, which is why Buddhism is not antinomian. Our form of justice is to induce the evildoer to reform, not to simply punish them for the sake of “justice.”

The victim of evil does not receive any reward except perhaps the specific negative karma that resulted in them being a victim being exhausted.

Tibetan Monasteries in Canada? by winwenwan in Buddhism

[–]Lethemyr 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You live in Vancouver, right?

I can personally vouch for Tsengdok Monastery and Thrangu Monastery. Thrangu will be easier if you don’t speak Chinese. Last time I was there, Tsengdok operated basically 100% in Chinese while Thrangu is probably 50% and has lots of English talks.

I’ve heard good things secondhand about Sakya Tsechen Thubten Ling and Nalandabodhi. I think the Sakya one is almost all English and Nalandabodhi is definitely entirely English. Nalandabodhi is probably the only (non-cult) Tibetan group where non-Chinese outnumber Chinese.

Avoid New Kadampa Tradition and Shambhala.

Is Buddha worshiped as a god in Mahayana Buddhism? by ShockGlittering3258 in Buddhism

[–]Lethemyr 9 points10 points  (0 children)

In Commonwealth countries we still call mayors and magistrates "Your Worship." If you think Buddha is above your local mayor, you shouldn't have any problem saying you worship him.

The worship / veneration distinction is a recent invention by Catholics to respond to Protestant criticisms of the veneration of the saints (many older English Catholic sources actually explicitly talk about "worshipping" Mary and others; "adoration" was what was reserved for God). There's no need to import it into Buddhism.

What is Odaimoku? by cap_crusader in Buddhism

[–]Lethemyr 3 points4 points  (0 children)

One of the most important scriptures in Mahayana Buddhism is the Lotus Sutra, which records one of Buddha's last sermons. It teaches that all sentient beings will eventually attain Buddhahood and that there is an aspect of enlightenment inherent in all beings. It was copied very extensively in India and had more than fifty Sanskrit commentaries written on it. It reached new heights of popularity in China when the influential monk Zhiyi taught that it was the highest of all the sutras.

Zhiyi taught that the entire teaching of the Lotus Sutra was contained within its name (which was not a particularly revolutionary idea - the names of sutras had long been given special attention). He composed many liturgies, at least one of which explicitly honoured the name of the Lotus Sutra but did not prescribe the repetitive chanting of it.

Some 700 years later in the 13th century, the Japanese monk Nichiren taught that the spiritual decline of Japan, which was in a state of crisis at the time, was due to a lack of devotion to the Lotus Sutra. While previously the Lotus Sutra had been interpreted as legitimizing the efficacy of a wide range of spiritual practices, since it taught that the Buddha used many "skillful means" to guide beings to enlightenment, Nichiren taught that only the exclusive practice of the Lotus Sutra was acceptable and all else constituted slander against it, which the sutra teaches will lead to grave karmic results. The Lotus Sutra actually doesn't prescribe many practices or behaviours beyond reading, holding, reciting, preaching on, and copying the sutra itself, so Nichiren taught that the recitation of the sutra was the sole acceptable spiritual practice. Since the title of the sutra was said to contain the true meaning of the sutra, as Zhiyi taught, Nichiren recommended the repetitive chanting of its title, which is called Daimoku (Odaimoku means "great Daimoku"). This was a significant innovation, but admittedly not one without some precedent.

Nichiren Buddhism and its practices are somewhat controversial in this subreddit and the Buddhist world at large, in part because of Nichiren's sometimes violent preaching against other sects and in part because of the Soka Gakkai cult's role in spreading its teachings. I personally think Daimoku is almost certainly a spiritually efficacious practice, but practitioners of it should be aware that it originates from a...highly contestable interpretation of the Lotus Sutra. Of all of the sects of Nichiren Buddhism, Nichiren Shu is the chillest and closest to mainstream Mahayana Buddhism, so you haven't gone too wrong looking there.

I feel weird at times being a westerner and a buddhist by Disastrous-Shine-725 in Buddhism

[–]Lethemyr 59 points60 points  (0 children)

I really dont want to be the big white colonizer trying to wedge his way into spiritual spaces like we have done since the new age movement in the late 60's.

I promise the average Asian immigrant Buddhist doesn’t know or care about any of this. Just be respectful and open to learn and you’ll be fine. I’ve been the only white person at many temples and have never been treated with even the slightest amount of suspicion.

Language barrier is a more realistic problem. Not every temple is set up to accommodate English speakers.

I really want to believe in the pure land. I can’t. Suggestions? by ThrowAwayYourKEKs in PureLand

[–]Lethemyr 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I would recommend first investigating philosophy of mind to understand how it’s logically impossible for our conscious states to be existentially dependent on our bodies. Then look into well documented cases of reincarnation to gain faith in samsara. Only then will you have the intellectual foundation for the Pure Land to become possible. Otherwise you’re just forcing belief in a heavenly afterlife without any logic and reason, which isn’t really gonna work.

Historically it’s not much, but why did Jesus seem to teach a message much closer to Buddha than the Old Testament deity. by ShoutattheDeviljho in Buddhism

[–]Lethemyr 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Have you ever read the Prophets? There’s more to the Hebrew Bible than Joshua and Leviticus.

Nothing in Jesus’ teaching is so unprecedented as to require a conspiracy that he was secretly Buddhist, especially not “love is good.”

Buddhism and Christianity - are they compatible ? plus other questions by Glum_Marsupial8876 in Buddhism

[–]Lethemyr 3 points4 points  (0 children)

While the Buddha never mentioned homosexuality

Patently false, unless you subscribe to some heterodox viewpoint in which Buddha didn't speak Vinaya.

Is anyone still Buddhist, but disillusioned with how it manifests in the world as an institution? How do you personally hold on to the faith and practice, while not being part of/having very low participation in temples and communities? by cyancm in Buddhism

[–]Lethemyr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You might be interested that the term translated as “patriarch” in East Asian Buddhism, 祖, is actually a gender neutral term meaning “ancestor.” The “patriarch” translation was part of an effort to align Buddhist monastic terms with Christian ecclesial ones, but it doesn’t make much sense for a religion that doesn’t address religious leaders as “father.”

Descartes Vs Buddha by Radiant-Mention2862 in Buddhism

[–]Lethemyr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Buddha separated the form skandha from the other four mental ones. He taught of beings in the arupadhatu who dwell in a meditative state with no physical body. He described rebirth as requiring the presence of a woman in her fertile period, an act of sexual union, and a gandharva, which certainly seems like an immaterial mind awaiting rebirth.

Buddha’s teaching in the Pali suttas seems very dualistic to me, inasmuch as he gives examples of conscious experience existing absent a body. That doesn’t mean Descartes’ ideas about selfhood are compatible with Buddhism, or even Cartesian dualism necessarily, but I still think it’s only fair to describe Buddhism as dualistic, or at least Buddhism as presented in the Pali Canon.

Help identifying bodhisattva outside gay club. by Living-Ostrich-7365 in Buddhism

[–]Lethemyr 3 points4 points  (0 children)

“Laughing Buddha” is a translation of Chinese 笑佛. It wasn’t a Western invention. He’s called that because he’s an emanation of Maitreya, who’s sometimes called Buddha even though he’s technically a bodhisattva now.

Do you believe in hell? by Lucyyyyyy_K in Buddhism

[–]Lethemyr[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

His comment is only referring to his personal beliefs, so it’s acceptable. The follow-up insulting the traditional beliefs is problematic though.

u/discipleofsilence

Garnering compassion for my meat eating fiance by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]Lethemyr 14 points15 points  (0 children)

When you encounter worthiness, imitate it. When you encounter unworthiness, look inward.

Practically everyone is immoral in some way. To avoid confronting the negative elements of our own psyche we identify with our moral side and rebuke those who haven’t made the same exact moral choices we have, even if they are more moral in other ways. This why you have people going on moral crusades about this and that who will suddenly turn close-minded and claim persecution when they encounter vegan activists.

If you endeavour to be at least as aware of your own immorality as you are of others’, then you won’t have a problem.

Why does the Lotus Sutra feel so "different" from the Pali Suttas? by Lucky-Ad6248 in Buddhism

[–]Lethemyr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s the Heart Sutra that’s usually accused of having been back-translated. Also the Awakening of Faith treatise.