Does a dog have a Buddha-nature?


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 410 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

CourtFool wrote:
A thread should be like a leaf in the wind.

I agree! Non-attachment would suggest that we not worry too much about "threadjacking," but instead embrace the diversity it brings.


Most of the time, I push it out of my mind. I have enough to think about without, “OMG, I haven’t gotten any in six months!” Other than that single issue, we get alone pretty well. Maybe too well. We rarely fight as I see them as very unproductive.

It only hurts when a perfectly good opportunity presents itself and she shows no interest.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Non-attachment would suggest that we not worry too much about "threadjacking," but instead embrace the diversity it brings.

Hey look! A duck. Chases after the duck. Yap! Yap! Yap!


Runs through the thread in the other direction.

Yap! Yap! Yap!

Scarab Sages

*lifts his foot to not get bowled over by the poodle on an errand*

Just remember, if you don't catch that duck ,there is always another...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:
Just remember, if you don't catch that duck ,there is always another...

"It's wabbit season!"

"Duck season!"


DoveArrow wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
I thought the saying, ‘While on the path, if you should meet the Buddha, kill him.” meant some long time down the path. But maybe we should ‘kill’ him almost immediately. Or at least beat him up and take his money.

I admit that I don't fully understand this parable. However, the way it was explained to me is that you shouldn't mistake the man for the divine. The Buddha himself was a great philosopher yes, and his philosophy changed history. However, in the end, he was just a man delivering a message, and it's the message you should pay attention to. Therefore, if you meet someone claiming to be the Buddha, you should recognize that it is just a man, and not a divine being with all the answers. I don't know if that helps.

CourtFool wrote:
This goes back to trying it until it does not work. Maybe the Buddha was saying, “Hey, you know what? This works for me. And it seems to be working o.k. for a bunch of others. Give it a try. If it does not work, try something else.”
That's exactly it.

When people asked a Buddhist master "What is Buddha?" he lift his left hand, pointed at his thumb saying "It is there". Once he was away and people asked his disciple "What is Buddha?", and the disciple lift his left hand, pointed at his thumb saying "It is there". When the master returned and heard about disciple's words, he took a knife and cut off his disciple's thumb. The disciple was hurt, but then the master asked "What is Buddha?" and as the disciple lifted his left hand and pointed at the stub, he was enlightened.


I have no idea what that means. Does it mean the Buddha is in you no matter what?


CourtFool wrote:
I have no idea what that means. Does it mean the Buddha is in you no matter what?

It's an extention of the oft-quoted koan "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" You can see it as a refutation of the present/absent "dichotomy," and as symbol of non-attachment ("who needs a thumb?"). In either case, it seems slightly bizarre unless you understand that, in some Japanese monasteries, there are guys who prowl around with bamboo kyokasu sticks and suddenly whack the hell out of people while they're meditating -- it's supposed to shock them into enlightenment. (Americans who visit are offered little signs to wear ("kick me!") that instead say "do not hit.")


CourtFool wrote:
I have no idea what that means. Does it mean the Buddha is in you no matter what?

A friend of mine, who was struggling with her sexuality, asked a Buddhist monk, "Is it wrong for a woman to be attracted to another woman?"

The Buddhist monk smiled, and asked, "What does your heart tell you?"


Hmmm. I am not prepared to loose a thumb to become enlightened. Is there a middle, middle path? You know, where I can shrug off some of my mental anguish but get to keep my appendages?


CourtFool wrote:
Hmmm. I am not prepared to loose a thumb to become enlightened. Is there a middle, middle path? You know, where I can shrug off some of my mental anguish but get to keep my appendages?

You could always try to kill the Buddha. :-)


CourtFool wrote:
Hmmm. I am not prepared to lose a thumb to become enlightened. Is there a middle, middle path? You know, where I can shrug off some of my mental anguish but get to keep my appendages?

It's often best not to take these parables too literally.


CourtFool wrote:
I have no idea what that means. Does it mean the Buddha is in you no matter what?

I guess many koans can have multiple interpretations, I have viewed that to suggest that it does no good to just parrot your masters, Buddha can be in both a thumb and lack of thumb and one person's way might not be directly applicable to another. Bit like that "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him".

These things should indeed not be taken literally and many use shocking imagery and practices to shock and force the hearer to review things in a new way. There is another koan I have heard about killing a small kitten which tends to get an outcry when I tell it...


magdalena thiriet wrote:
There is another koan I have heard about killing a small kitten which tends to get an outcry when I tell it...

That's a famous one. You can read it here. It's not enough to accept that there is no real dualism (cutting a cat), one must also act appropriately on the knowledge -- even if only by putting shoes on your head. As magdalena points out, there are multiple interpretations; the text I linked gives a somewhat different one.


magdalena thiriet wrote:
These things should indeed not be taken literally and many use shocking imagery and practices to shock and force the hearer to review things in a new way.

I get that.

magdalena thiriet wrote:
…and one person's way might not be directly applicable to another.

I can buy into that.


Yeah, I am not sure I agree with that interpretation. Obviously I am not Buddhist or Zen master. To me, the point is that pragmatism trumps grasping at enlightenment. Say something. Anything.

This reminds me of a story I heard when I first entered martial arts. I am sure I will horribly mangle it. A fox and a cat are talking. The cat says he knows how to climb a tree to survive. The fox boast that he knows a thousand ways to survive. A tiger appears and the cat scrambles up a tree. The fox considers which of his thousand techniques to use. He is eaten by the tiger.

I believe Patton also grasped this concept, "A good plan implemented today is better than a perfect plan implemented tomorrow."

The Buddha did not starve himself. So I think the message is that immediate needs should be tended to on the path to enlightenment.

Kirth said, “When the toilet floods, I call a plumber, not an exorcist!” He calls a plumber, he does not simply accept that toilets will flood.

Sorry, Kirth. :)


Kirth Gersen wrote:
magdalena thiriet wrote:
There is another koan I have heard about killing a small kitten which tends to get an outcry when I tell it...
That's a famous one. You can read it here. It's not enough to accept that there is no real dualism (cutting a cat), one must also act appropriately on the knowledge -- even if only by putting shoes on your head. As magdalena points out, there are multiple interpretations; the text I linked gives a somewhat different one.

I have seen that as a description of desire: Cat is an object of desire which has brought disruption to the life in the temple (whether monks want to have the cat itself or to win a philosophical discussion about the nature of the cat does not matter, both are disruptive desires).

Father Nansen takes the extreme way out, kind of a disciplining parent who takes away the toy the children are quarrelling about so that neither can have it.
Joshu's gesture shows realization that the cat is, indeed, just a cat and in itself neither good or bad; it is the desire that brings the trouble.

But as said, same koans can have plenty of interpretations, and even same people can see them differently in different times of life. As such they remind me a bit of RPGs; the point of the game is not to win or give "a correct answer", the point is to play.
I'd also say that wording can have an influence, I have before seen the story put slightly differently.
That is however a fun story to tell to people who have these fluffy bunny conceptions about Buddhism, how it's all New Age group hugs :)

I have occasionally wondered about the differences in life situations and different interpretations (I am generally fascinated by perception), like the issues about masters and disciples, and traditions and all that...living in highly individualistic culture puts me in many ways at odds with many cultures Buddhism was originally rooted in, which are considerably more communal...


Was it not Chuang Tzu that suggested all of our perceptions are filtered through our past? As our past changes, so does our perceptions.

I agree, you could see the story in several different ways. My first instinct was that Josho was just saying, “Meh. Whatever. What does it matter in the grand scheme of things?”


CourtFool wrote:
I agree, you could see the story in several different ways. My first instinct was that Josho was just saying, “Meh. Whatever. What does it matter in the grand scheme of things?”

To me, the mark of a good koan is how many different (but equally valid) interpretations it can accommodate. Overall, the point is for the disciple to wrestle with it intellectually until reaching mental exhaustion -- and in the brief moment when the "chittering monkey" takes a quick nap, that's your window of opportunity to forget all the intellectual illusions and see right to the heart of things.


I keep coming back to the cat. I guess my monkey is not done with it.

I keep wondering, what would I do. I think I would say, “Spare the cat.” If asked do I have an attachment to the cat, I would respond, “No. But I have an attachment to the concept that life is sacred. Perhaps that is not enlightened, but I do not want the cat to pay for my enlightenment.”


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CourtFool wrote:
I keep wondering, what would I do. I think I would say, “Spare the cat.” If asked do I have an attachment to the cat, I would respond, “No. But I have an attachment to the concept that life is sacred. Perhaps that is not enlightened, but I do not want the cat to pay for my enlightenment.”

Good... let the monkey keep chewing on that one. Eventually maybe he'll eat the cat, and you'll know what it tastes like... if your poodle doesn't chase it up a tree first.


I am an naturalistic athiest, because I have seen no evidence for the existance of gods or the supernatural. Science offers fairly good explinations of how and why the world is, and where it doesn't it is atleast looking rather than offering non-answers.

All that aside, i don't hold all religions with equal degrees of suspicion. Some have done considerable more to earn my disrespect than others(see the trinary mono-theism.)

One of the things that interests me most is the 'boost' from christianity that it is not 'acts based'. This seems utterly counter intuitive to me. Christianity offers a get out of hell free card, no matter your crimes, if you repent your sins you get into heaven, yet if you lived a good life, but happened to follow your senses and not believe in god, your doomed to hell. This always struck me as most odd, and an odder thing still to use as the basis of a claim of moral superiority.

Other religions, such as buddhism, atleast try to measure relative good and ill.

Your thoughts.


Zombieneighbours wrote:
Other religions, such as buddhism, at least try to measure relative good and ill. Your thoughts.

Christianity sidesteps the issue by positing an omnibenevolent God. In Buddhism, not only is there no such being offering you a "get out of jail free" card, but there isn't even a "jail," because both heaven and hell as cosmic rewards/punishments drop out of the equation. The only yardstick is your own capacity to alleviate suffering.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Eventually maybe he'll eat the cat, and you'll know what it tastes like... if your poodle doesn't chase it up a tree first.

To eat the cat, he would have to stop chittering… Suddenly lost in deep thought.

Incidentally, when I am arrested for animal cruelty, I am telling my wife you suggested I eat the cat. :)


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Other religions, such as buddhism, at least try to measure relative good and ill. Your thoughts.
Christianity sidesteps the issue by positing an omnibenevolent God. In Buddhism, not only is there no such being offering you a "get out of jail free" card, but there isn't even a "jail," because both heaven and hell as cosmic rewards/punishments drop out of the equation. The only yardstick is your own capacity to alleviate suffering.

Omnibenevolent God gods are basically logically incompatable with the idea of hell however, so the side step kinda fails.


Zombieneighbours wrote:
Omnibenevolent God/gods are basically logically incompatable with the idea of hell however, so the side step kinda fails.

I've heard them give two responses to that: one consists of "He works in mysterious ways" (handwaving at its best); the other is a series of convoluted premises laid out by medieval scholars in an excrutiating torture of logic.


Zombieneighbours wrote:
This seems utterly counter intuitive to me.

If you work with the assumption that Christianity is man made, it makes a lot of sense. It gives Christianity a very broad appeal in that it recognizes there is evil within all of us, yet still offers acceptance. As I mentioned in the civil religious thread, this looks suspiciously like hurt and rescue principle and confession to me.

Imagine you are starting your own religion and you want to convert people from this other religion that suffers under sins of the father. Surely, offering them a new start would be very appealing. Especially if you could maintain enough of the old religion for it to be ‘comfortable’ to them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Omnibenevolent God gods are basically logically incompatable with the idea of hell however, so the side step kinda fails.

A co-worker of mine made a good argument (I thought, though I still do not buy into it). God created the law. His law was broken. As a judge, justice must be done. But god is compassionate, so he is willing to sacrifice in order for justice to be done and reconcile us to him.

If someone wrongs me, do I not want them to pay? If I wrong someone, but am repentant, do I not wish to be forgiven. God finds a way to do both.

We still have to accept this forgiveness.


Thank you both of you.

CourtFool wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
This seems utterly counter intuitive to me.
If you work with the assumption that Christianity is man made, it makes a lot of sense. It gives Christianity a very broad appeal in that it recognizes there is evil within all of us, yet still offers acceptance. As I mentioned in the civil religious thread, this looks suspiciously like hurt and rescue principle and confession to me.

Oh i agree that it makes perfect sense from a psychological point of view. I guess the reason raised it is part of my on going wonder ment that religion has stood up so well to logic over the years.

CourtFool wrote:


Imagine you are starting your own religion and you want to convert people from this other religion that suffers under sins of the father. Surely, offering them a new start would be very appealing. Especially if you could maintain enough of the old religion for it to be ‘comfortable’ to them.

God permitting, one day i will. One of the only sensible things L.Ron Hubbard ever said was 'You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion. '


Zombieneighbours wrote:
I guess the reason raised it is part of my on going wonder ment that religion has stood up so well to logic over the years.

I believe it has evolved. It became more and more sophisticated. It also helped that it has had some very charismatic leaders.

I also think a lot of people want to believe.


CourtFool wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
I guess the reason raised it is part of my on going wonder ment that religion has stood up so well to logic over the years.

I believe it has evolved. It became more and more sophisticated. It also helped that it has had some very charismatic leaders.

I also think a lot of people want to believe.

The wanting to believe element is entirely understandable. There are a host of neurological processes which predispose us to be suspetable to 'faith.'


Personally, I don't think it's fair to paint all Christians with the same brush. There are plenty of Christians who don't believe in Hell, and there are plenty of Christians who believe in Hell who don't believe that all non-believers are damned to it. Assuming that all Christians believe in Hell is like assuming that all Mormons practice polygamy.

There are plenty of teachings in the Bible that promote compassion and tolerance, just as there are plenty of teachings in Buddhism that promote intolerance and hate. Just because there are Christians who choose to give more emphasis to the passages that promote hate and intolerance does not mean that Christianity is any better or worse than Buddhism as a whole.

I know how easy it is to paint all Christians with the same brush, and think that they all believe the same thing. I also know how easy it is to think that Buddhists are all much more enlightened, particularly when all you are exposed to are their philosophies. However, keep in mind that Buddhism has its own demons. For example, there are many sects who believe that women are far less capable of achieving enlightenment than men, that women must be held to additional standards than men, or even that women cannot achieve enlightenment at all. In one article I read online, a woman talks about how the patriarchal nature of Thai Buddhism not only provides educational and monetary benefits to men that women can never hope to achieve, but also contributes to prostitution in the region because women have no access to these benefits.

Buddhism has its problems, and those problems should be acknowledged. If nothing else, acknowledging them allows us to have greater sympathy and understanding for the suffering of Christians whose moral philosophies differ from our own. I can't speak for anyone else, but I can tell you that my own faith in Buddhism has helped me understand and accept many of the Bible's teachings that previously seemed enigmatic to me. It has also helped me understand Christians themselves better than I did before. Without that kind of understanding, I think I would run the risk of feeling superior to Christians, which would entirely miss the point of Buddhism and its practices.


DoveArrow wrote:
In one article I read online, a woman talks about how the patriarchal nature of Thai Buddhism not only provides educational and monetary benefits to men that women can never hope to achieve, but also contributes to prostitution in the region because women have no access to these benefits.

Good point -- it's essential to keep the religious philosophy separate from the crazy things that people do in the name of the religion, and from the bizarre forms that organized religions take on when they achieve a measure of temporal power.


Dove arrow. In fairness, i think buddhism makes just as little sense over all, and i know it has its problems. My point was that one common threat in buddhism is slightly less immoral in my personal opinion, that one common threat in christianity.


DoveArrow wrote:
Personally, I don't think it's fair to paint all Christians with the same brush.

True.

Who can I paint? 'Cause I got like three buckets left over here. :)


Zombieneighbours wrote:
The wanting to believe element is entirely understandable. There are a host of neurological processes which predispose us to be suspetable to 'faith.'

Alas, we are not just susceptible, but belief itself is actually a necessity of understanding the world around us.

It is not a flaw or weakness. In fact we would be unable to model the reality we perceive around us without this impressive cognitive process.

Granted, some people take it a little too far.


CourtFool wrote:
DoveArrow wrote:
Personally, I don't think it's fair to paint all Christians with the same brush.

True.

Who can I paint? 'Cause I got like three buckets left over here. :)

<Pulls out his brush.>

Smart ass. You're all alike.


Kirth, I have not blocked out a time yet to sit for 15+ minutes. However, I have done 5 minutes here and there. I have found it relaxing and focusing. The monkey continues to chitter, but not quite so rapidly.


Kruelaid wrote:
Smart ass. You're all alike.

Embrace my sameness!


Zombieneighbours wrote:
Dove arrow. In fairness, i think buddhism makes just as little sense over all, and i know it has its problems. My point was that one common threat in buddhism is slightly less immoral in my personal opinion, that one common threat in christianity.

Well to be fair, I think the same threat can and does exist in Buddhism. After all, there is a hell in Buddhism, and there is the concept that unless one achieves enlightenment, one is destined to forever be reborn into the world of suffering. Also, the Buddha himself said, "Make my teachings your light. Rely upon them: do not depend upon any other teaching."

These two believs may seem pretty innoccuous at first, but consider how easy it is to twist them to mean, "The teachings of the Buddha are the infallible word of the divine, and all who do not believe in them are doomed to an eternal existence of suffering and torment." Sound familiar?


Kruelaid wrote:
Smart ass. You're all alike.

Better a smart ass than a dumb ass, my mother always said. :-)


DoveArrow wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Dove arrow. In fairness, i think buddhism makes just as little sense over all, and i know it has its problems. My point was that one common threat in buddhism is slightly less immoral in my personal opinion, that one common threat in christianity.

Well to be fair, I think the same threat can and does exist in Buddhism. After all, there is a hell in Buddhism, and there is the concept that unless one achieves enlightenment, one is destined to forever be reborn into the world of suffering. Also, the Buddha himself said, "Make my teachings your light. Rely upon them: do not depend upon any other teaching."

These two believs may seem pretty innoccuous at first, but consider how easy it is to twist them to mean, "The teachings of the Buddha are the infallible word of the divine, and all who do not believe in them are doomed to an eternal existence of suffering and torment." Sound familiar?

curse you dislexia....Threat should have been thread....


Zombieneighbours wrote:
curse you dislexia....Threat should have been thread....

That's all right. I spelled 'beliefs' with a 'v.'


DoveArrow wrote:
After all, there is a hell in Buddhism, and there is the concept that unless one achieves enlightenment, one is destined to forever be reborn into the world of suffering.

Wow, neither of these is part of my own Buddhist beliefs. Then again, when a religion has been around for 2500+ years, it's bound to have evolved into wildly different forms.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Wow, neither of these is part of my own Buddhist beliefs. Then again, when a religion has been around for 2500+ years, it's bound to have evolved into wildly different forms.

Mine either. ;)


DoveArrow wrote:
Mine either.

Blasphemers! Now, the Buddha kills you!


CourtFool wrote:
Blasphemers! Now, the Buddha kills you!

Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that the Buddha would turn out to be a poodle with a lust for blood.


DoveArrow wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
Blasphemers! Now, the Buddha kills you!
Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that the Buddha would turn out to be a poodle with a lust for blood.

Smurfy!

:D


Kirth Gersen wrote:
DoveArrow wrote:
After all, there is a hell in Buddhism, and there is the concept that unless one achieves enlightenment, one is destined to forever be reborn into the world of suffering.
Wow, neither of these is part of my own Buddhist beliefs. Then again, when a religion has been around for 2500+ years, it's bound to have evolved into wildly different forms.

Likewise, and I'd say that the form of Buddhism which for me "makes most sense" is Zen Buddhism, which tends to pay quite little attention to rebirth (not denying it but considering that the concept should not affect the life we are living now).

But I have also found corners of Christianity which seem to work for me, and same goes for some concepts of Islam (when I started to look at Sufism, I noticed plenty of things I had already seen in Buddhism), bits and pieces from other traditions...

101 to 150 of 410 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Does a dog have a Buddha-nature? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.