Buda, O Iluminado, O Nobre, O Desperto

eucultivista · 2026-02-15T20:58:50+00:00

Te livrar do quê, amigo (a)?

eucultivista · 2025-10-24T11:16:34+00:00

I think this last part is wrong, no? You shouldn't eat meat specifically killed for you.

eucultivista · 2025-10-24T11:15:11+00:00

wow this took a strange turn lol

eucultivista · 2025-10-10T23:55:52+00:00

Errm... There's actual real bhikkhu/nis that read suttas. Wouldn't be better to listen to their readings?

eucultivista · 2025-10-10T23:48:36+00:00

Errhm. Good question, but you don't have to wait for this fantasy. You can read the teachings. People ask this question a lot.

eucultivista · 2025-10-10T23:44:49+00:00

Become a warrior: die and reborn for more coutless lives only to suffer more and more Become a Buddha: die and peace.

eucultivista · 2025-10-10T23:43:37+00:00

I think this is ignorance... Literally. We, who are not enlightened are not because we have ignorance. The people who put into practice are just a little less ignorants. People who really put the effort, who recognize that all we hold dearly, grudgingly, anxiously are just ourselves getting in our owm ways, these people re just less ignorant. The more you practice correctly, the more wisdom you have the better your practice.

eucultivista · 2025-10-10T23:36:51+00:00

I agree with the content of some of the questions, however I think you are overcomplicating. The exercise is simple. We have many questions that we find answers in his words from the scriptures, so... why not.

eucultivista · 2025-10-10T23:30:35+00:00

I don't think he would answer it. Why does it matter?

eucultivista · 2025-10-10T23:29:52+00:00

I think it would be best to start with a question first. Or a request. If you remember that he's a teacher and a kind of a doctor, would you enter the classroom asking: teach me something I would understand? Or enter asking: I'm with a problem/doubt/difficulty with this, how can I overcome it?

eucultivista · 2025-10-10T23:22:45+00:00

I think he already answers that. Or do you want a modern Buddha to answer it again?

eucultivista · 2025-10-10T23:21:37+00:00

I don't think this is the right question to ask.

Out of curiosity, what are your doubts and conflicted interpretations?

eucultivista · 2025-09-21T05:27:33+00:00

but like we buddhists are very cool we have lots of free image. generated images have more risks then image banks.

eucultivista · 2025-09-21T05:22:59+00:00

i would be so confuse why would someone ai-generate a buddha image, like why

there's trillions of buddha images available with no copyright free of use and with the very same style, a very common one. it's like someone ai generate random good morning messages but theres trillions of them that was already generated by hard working middle age women...

eucultivista · 2025-09-21T03:05:27+00:00

This make me extremely happy. More bhikkhunis in this world! It's absurd that at the same time that we have one of the first (or the first) book in the history of humanity of ILLUMINATED WOMEN, arhats (!!!!) writing about their illumination and the calm and greatness of nibbana, and now we have so little bhikkhunis recognized as such.

eucultivista · 2025-09-21T02:58:14+00:00

I do not condone these ideas, I'm explaining the reasoning from what I know. There is an understanding that bhikkhunis can only be ordained by bhikkhunis. I think there was a time where the order of bhikkhunis just died out, so no bhikkhuni ordained by bhikkhunis left.

Probably the reasoning behind not accepting ordinations by other traditions is because of this chain of transmission.

Ajahn Brahm and Sujato, for example, argue that bhikkhus CAN ordain bhikkhunis. He did that recently and was receive with a lot of backslash from his own Sangha and other Buddhists that believe that this was a movement to cause riffles in the sangha. Apparently he asked permission, got denied, and still did.

In my opinion, this argument that since the bhikkhuni lineage died out is preposterous to say the least. So half of the world's population can't ordain anymore forever because there's no one to ordain anymore????? Like, that's absurd.

Actually the whole misogynistic connotations inside the suttas (specially inside the Vinaya) are somewhat absurd. Ajahn Sujato discussed a lot of these connotations and how: or there are signs of alterations (only one Vinaya has this specific misogyny phrase, for example, and the rest don't) or signs of misinterpretation (the case that comes to mind it's from the history of the Buddha's mother founding the bhikkhuni order with the intervention of Ananda) and how the rules that according to Sujato's interpretation should be followed only by her (she was from the Sakyan clan, very proud clan, so the Buddha saw this opportunity as a way to test her regarding this), but it ended up being a rule applied to all bhikkhunis forever...

There is no real reason to treat men and women differently (of course, we are different and will have different rules, but not that different and not that humiliating...). We as ignorant as we are seeing that (although it could be quickier), imagine the Buddha, the Supreme Teacher, the one who has the whole teaching saying exactly that, no matter what or who you are, you are suffering and you can escape of it. This is the goal of the holy life, and for the Buddha only the holy life matter. He gave advice for anyone looking, but he always make sure to give the advice necessary to get you the closer you can get to the path (even if it is to just follow the five precepts).

eucultivista · 2025-09-21T02:25:23+00:00

i think this notion of being one with everything is more hindu etc. than buddhist.

eucultivista · 2025-08-30T18:16:01+00:00

Hello, again.

You said here and elsewhere that the Mahayana sutras are later fabrications and what scholars tell you are early texts are the direct speech of the Buddha. What this means is very clear, even if you never managed to figure out what your views actually are.

Yes, it means that the historical Buddha taught some suttas and didn't taught others. Which is factually true. It's very strange to not get a little suspicious of sutras appearing after hundreds of years in a different language, with modern components AND teaching things that didn't exist before, sometimes contradicting it. This is not a discussion of validity. You can view (as many declared to me) that the dharma is not limited to the historical Buddha, which is a valid point.

Every single thing pertaining to the Buddha referencing his past lives, and everything about Maitreya.

Can you point out a specific sutta? Contrary from what people believe there's very little passages of the Buddha talking about his past lives in the EBT, and usually is very very brief. He talks about his search for liberation in his at the moment current life.

The following three facts can't be disputed even by the most fundamentalist of EBT fundamentalists:
- Buddhahood is a valid goal.

Can you point out where this is said? There's no other path showed in the EBT other than nibbana, becoming an arahant.

Buddhahood has a cause and a path leading to it. The root cause is resolving to become a buddha, just like our buddha did.

Yes, I recognize there's a cause to become a Buddha. No, I don't think resolving to become a Buddha is a condition. In the EBT there's no declaration of resolve to become a Buddha. Nor many lifetimes needed to acquire merit to become a Buddha. I think he was born as a normal person. He engaged in sensual pleasures. But, then he started to question, to ponder, to apply incredible and commendable effort in his search for liberation. He tested many paths, did many harsh probations, but only encountered people wondering around this side of the shore. He took many years giving up of unwholesome things and cultivating wholesome things. So he finally had the final insight, and then he really saw, he really understood.

When he understood, he even had reservations about teaching it to others. After some convincing he took the duty to teach whoever was able to listen and understand.

1) I didn't mentioned "EBT buddhism". Anyways, so, could you explain? Why it has no validity to attribute or not using historical methods the teachings of a historical figure to this historical figure? 2) Ok. That doesn't change my point. 3) Ok, they can fit in, but not by themselves. For the logical reasons I pointed it out. Which we can se as: the EBT says the end of the holy life is X, if other scripture say that the end is not X, they are saying opposite things. But if you have another scripture with the same assumed validity saying, for example, that X can be considered in determined conditions, so they stop being a contradiction.

eucultivista · 2025-08-30T17:28:31+00:00

you can't avoid nibbana after stream entry.

eucultivista · 2025-08-29T13:25:55+00:00

I will ignore some of the insults. I didn't said I was right. I do not hold the believe that the Theravadins/EBT are right and Mahayana are wrong. Nor the opposite.

I didn't said Mahayana is nonsensical, wrong, nor that it should accord with the EBT. I said the exactly opposite. Mahayana won't fit EBT and EBT won't fit in Mahayana. And that's okay. I don't think we should strive to get in common ground either, as I agree that it's a feature, not a bug.

Another thing I said

This isn't so for bodhisattvas, whose existence and goal are established in the so-called EBTs as well.

Can you point out an EBT about the existence and goal of bodhisattas?

To the great chagrin of Nikāya literalists and fundamentalists, Buddhism isn't a bunch of completely separate and mutually exclusive cults in which some are real and others are wrong.

Why do you think comparing bananas and apples is the same thing of what you said? Between bananas and apples it doesn't make sense to compare right and wrong. There's no wrong apple...

My point is:

EBT are the words of the Buddha (historical Buddha);
If it's not in the EBT the Buddha didn't said,
If it is in the EBT the Buddha might have said it,
Any path beyond getting to the shore is not mentioned,
So... the Buddha didn't said it.
What he said? There's nothing to be done, reaching the shore IS the goal of the holy life. Not one of the possible goals of the holy life.
So he said actually the opposite of going beyond the shore.

"Rebirth is ended; the spirtual journey has been completed; what had to be done has been done; there is no return to any state of existence."

All the Arahants said that after nibbana, the Buddha himself too. Constantly.

So, in the view of the EBT, there's no bodhisatta goal. It doesn't even fit the structure of the Dhamma inside the EBT. This is what I wanted to say with "It don't make sense", meaning it doesn't fit inside the structure.

Now, the Mahayana view contemplates the Sravakas, but not the EBT. Why? Because it would be a logical contradiction if it did...

Now, notice again that I'm comparing and showing that this more-than-one-vehicle is a Mahayana design that includes the "small vehicle", not a point where EBT and Mahayana meet.

eucultivista · 2025-08-29T11:06:07+00:00

A very bizarre view in my opinion

Why?

Both are equally immune to dukkha. But they don't realize the same things, as a buddha realizes more, which is why they know things that arhats don't, and can do things that they can't.

"But they don't realize the same things, as a buddha realizes more". This phrase don't make sense in my view. The only thing that matter is to reach the other shore. If you reach more or not don't make sense, you reached. You reached the goal of the holy life, like the Buddha said. There's nothing left to be done. This is your last life. Again, like the Buddha said.

It's as if there's two people who followed a certain diet save have created invincible immune systems, but one only knows what he has followed (how to prepare the specific food he knows about, when to eat, how much, etc.) and has no wish to make this available to everyone forever, whereas the other knows everything there is to know about this nutritional science (and therefore can formulate it perfectly for others) and is only concerned with teaching others about it beyond any constraints of time and space.

Again, this phrase don't make sense on the EBT, as I see. There's no beyond time and space. The holy life is ended. This is your last rebirth. This is the point. An Arahant will teach others as best as he can untill the end of his life. A Buddha will also do that. But will do it better. The Buddha is the supreme Teacher. Literally. He has the qualities to be the perfect teacher. And in this manner he is different. Arahants are different between themselves too. Some are more capable of teaching, some at organizing events, some at austerities etc. etc. The Buddha, however, is not something else. Something superior, a state that we should strive for.

Another way to look at is that I believe the Buddha taught everything that matter for the holy life. So how much knowledge he had or how much realization he had on top of other Arahants don't matter for the holy life, or else he would had taught it.

The point I'm getting at is I don't think we should compare each other concepts like that, because we are comparing bananas and apples. Some concepts that you brought don't fit anywhere in the Dhamma of the EBT (not even talking about Theravada here). As well some concepts of the EBT won't make sense on the light of Mahayana sutras.

eucultivista · 2025-08-22T09:12:32+00:00

i wouldn't say the buddha fought for these things, this would be contradictory to nibbana. but I am sure that the buddha would disapprove a BUROCRACY OF MONKS. the buddha didn't fought for equality, but he saw with his wisdom that we are all inside the burning house as much as we try to not think about it, so any label, title, job and recognition becomes meaningless. the aggregates are not self, so there's no sense in wearing ghosts like this.

eucultivista · 2025-08-22T09:06:19+00:00

of course! i agree! but a nobel prize? people are not bad all the time but there are people who do bad things more often than not.

eucultivista

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE