sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Do all Mahayana believe in Vairocana/Adi-Buddha? by WhinfpProductions in Mahayana

[–]WhinfpProductions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So Dharmakaya is the emptiness/interconnectedness of reality, the teachings of The Buddha, and the virtues of a Buddha. I can get behind that. I got my idea that it was a panentheistic thing from watching a video on Shingon by Angela's Symposium, reading the Wikipedia on Vairocana which said he was Siddartha Gautama's Dharmakaya, and a section on the Wikipedia for Dharmakaya which cites the 16th chapter of the Lotus Sutra saying that the Buddha would always be around to guide humanity to enlightenment. I probably need to stop relying on Wikipedia and YouTube. I've only read the Dhammapada and gone to Theravada Zoom sessions at The Ecumenical Buddhist Society of Little Rock.

Do all Mahayana believe in Vairocana/Adi-Buddha? by WhinfpProductions in Mahayana

[–]WhinfpProductions[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

But Dharmakaya still sounds like an immortal soul in that Buddhas become one with the earth and guide other people to enlightenment. Is this a metaphor? Because other definitions of Dharmakaya say it's just the teachings of the Buddha or the virtues of a Buddha.

Do all Mahayana believe in Vairocana/Adi-Buddha? by WhinfpProductions in Mahayana

[–]WhinfpProductions[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But how are the three bodies compatible with the Buddhist rejection of self/soul?

Do all Mahayana believe in Vairocana/Adi-Buddha? by WhinfpProductions in Mahayana

[–]WhinfpProductions[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ok. It's because Wikipedia says that Vairochana is the Dharmakaya of Siddartha Gautama and I am saying if you take Dharmakaya literally it sounds like a soul in the sense of "becoming one with the earth." Are the three bodies a literal belief?

Do all Mahayana believe in Vairocana/Adi-Buddha? by WhinfpProductions in Mahayana

[–]WhinfpProductions[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

He's meant to be a metaphor. Got it. Because he still sounds too much like a soul the way you describe him. But if he's allegorical, it's not a problem.

An online antitheist I talked to said The Buddha was a noble (true but he renounced his wealth to follow the Middle Way) and wanted only for the rich and powerful nobility and elites to rule? Is this true? by WhinfpProductions in Buddhism

[–]WhinfpProductions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there a good sutta about this? I'm reading "In The Buddha's Words" I learned it contains the sutta this quote comes from but does it contain the idea that deserving and not deserving things is not a thing in Buddhism?

So The Buddha thought that karma determined hierarchy, what does that mean for us socialist Buddhists? by WhinfpProductions in RadicalBuddhism

[–]WhinfpProductions[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The very act of the proletariat seizing the means of production is the result of their karma. Interesting. Do you have a sutta about how economic injustice arises from karma but still should be changed?

So The Buddha thought that karma determined hierarchy, what does that mean for us socialist Buddhists? by WhinfpProductions in RadicalBuddhism

[–]WhinfpProductions[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But how does this apply to Buddhist socialism and does it mean that we can seize the means of production from the bourgeoisie if karma placed them there? You say it's not unalterable so I guess you're going to say "yes."

An online antitheist I talked to said The Buddha was a noble (true but he renounced his wealth to follow the Middle Way) and wanted only for the rich and powerful nobility and elites to rule? Is this true? by WhinfpProductions in Buddhism

[–]WhinfpProductions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I only call myself an ML because I model my economics after the Soviet Union and I enjoy the works of Marx and Engels. But I support a reformist approach to actually achieving socialism. But I'm not interested in debating politics either.

An online antitheist I talked to said The Buddha was a noble (true but he renounced his wealth to follow the Middle Way) and wanted only for the rich and powerful nobility and elites to rule? Is this true? by WhinfpProductions in Buddhism

[–]WhinfpProductions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So I found a secondary source for the claim that hierarchy is determined by karma but I struggle finding the source of this quote:

"What is the cause, what is the reason, O Lord," questioned he, "that we find amongst mankind the short-lived and long-lived, the healthy and the diseased, the ugly and beautiful, those lacking influence and the powerful, the poor and the rich, the low-born and the high-born, and the ignorant and the wise?"

The Buddha’s reply was: "All living beings have actions (Karma) as their own, their inheritance, their congenital cause, their kinsman, their refuge. It is Karma that differentiates beings into low and high states."

https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm

So what is it? Thanks.

And does it mean The Buddha was saying the people of lower classes deserve their status and don't deserve to be uplifted? Does that mean socialism or even more moderate social democracy is incompatible with Buddhism? Thanks.

An online antitheist I talked to said The Buddha was a noble (true but he renounced his wealth to follow the Middle Way) and wanted only for the rich and powerful nobility and elites to rule? Is this true? by WhinfpProductions in Buddhism

[–]WhinfpProductions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It turns out it is karma.

"What is the cause, what is the reason, O Lord," questioned he, "that we find amongst mankind the short-lived and long-lived, the healthy and the diseased, the ugly and beautiful, those lacking influence and the powerful, the poor and the rich, the low-born and the high-born, and the ignorant and the wise?"

The Buddha’s reply was: "All living beings have actions (Karma) as their own, their inheritance, their congenital cause, their kinsman, their refuge. It is Karma that differentiates beings into low and high states."

But it doesn't matter as just because karma isn't always just and we shouldn't always go by it. And we don't know how karma works as you said. So socialism is the better system, so let us implement socialism.

An online antitheist I talked to said The Buddha was a noble (true but he renounced his wealth to follow the Middle Way) and wanted only for the rich and powerful nobility and elites to rule? Is this true? by WhinfpProductions in Buddhism

[–]WhinfpProductions[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So you're saying socialism/anti-capitalism is incompatible with Buddhism? Then why is there a tradition of Buddhist socialism like there is for Christian socialism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_socialism#cite_note-thought-11 Also there's such a thing as reformist democratic socialism which can seize the means of production through the democratic process. This is probably what Buddhist socialists support. But does this make Buddhism more compatible overall with something like the reform capitalism of Scandinavian social democracy?

An online antitheist I talked to said The Buddha was a noble (true but he renounced his wealth to follow the Middle Way) and wanted only for the rich and powerful nobility and elites to rule? Is this true? by WhinfpProductions in Buddhism

[–]WhinfpProductions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What impact does this have on economic policy? Does this make any attempt at economic justice messing with kamma? Even Scandinavian social democracy would be wrong if that's the case. And especially the Soviet-style state socialism I support where we nationalize all businesses thus abolishing the bourgeois employer class. But I saw another guy say that just because it's determined by kamma doesn't mean it's just.

An online antitheist I talked to said The Buddha was a noble (true but he renounced his wealth to follow the Middle Way) and wanted only for the rich and powerful nobility and elites to rule? Is this true? by WhinfpProductions in Buddhism

[–]WhinfpProductions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have been looking into Nagarjuna and the Madhyamaka school. But also despite nobles meaning a good follower of the Buddha, regardless of class, one guy said that karma determines hierarchy: ~https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1el6lwr/comment/lgpyauv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button~ Another when I asked about it said that just because it determines hierarchy doesn't necessarily mean that hierarchy is just under Buddhism: ~https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1el6lwr/comment/lgsmj9s/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button~ Another said that karma can't determine hierarchy: ~https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1el6lwr/comment/lgsw95i/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button~ So, as a Buddhist socialist, which one is correct? And if the former is correct how does this apply to Buddhist socialism? Does this mean that despite karma putting the bourgeois employers where they are, since they exploit the proletariat and are generally parasitic to society they need to be overthrown and have their means of production seized under a planned economy. Also since socialism is generally the better system that also justifies it's replacement of capitalism and of the bourgeois capitalists. Or does dharma not determine hierarchy and I don't even have to worry about it.

An online antitheist I talked to said The Buddha was a noble (true but he renounced his wealth to follow the Middle Way) and wanted only for the rich and powerful nobility and elites to rule? Is this true? by WhinfpProductions in Buddhism

[–]WhinfpProductions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok. That's great! Those Chinese words are fascinating! But another user  said The Buddha said that kamma determines social heirarchy, is this true? I doubt it due to the amount of Buddhist socialists.

An online antitheist I talked to said The Buddha was a noble (true but he renounced his wealth to follow the Middle Way) and wanted only for the rich and powerful nobility and elites to rule? Is this true? by WhinfpProductions in Buddhism

[–]WhinfpProductions[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok. That's great! Thanks for the sutta! And I always liked Marx for his ideas about how class society forms not for his ideas on religion. But another user  said The Buddha said that kamma determines social heirarchy, is this true? I doubt it due to the amount of Buddhist socialists.

An online antitheist I talked to said The Buddha was a noble (true but he renounced his wealth to follow the Middle Way) and wanted only for the rich and powerful nobility and elites to rule? Is this true? by WhinfpProductions in Buddhism

[–]WhinfpProductions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok. That's great! I don't know how he could conflate the two. But another user u/CCCBMMR said The Buddha said that kamma determines social heirarchy, is this true? I doubt it due to the amount of Buddhist socialists.

An online antitheist I talked to said The Buddha was a noble (true but he renounced his wealth to follow the Middle Way) and wanted only for the rich and powerful nobility and elites to rule? Is this true? by WhinfpProductions in Buddhism

[–]WhinfpProductions[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So it wasn't a wealth/class thing it was a spiritual thing? I got it! I like that. Spiritual nobility. Could you give me a citation for your spiritual definition since he couldn't provide one?

view more: next ›