GAD - 18 October 2010 11:46 PM

stuka - 18 October 2010 07:45 PM

Sooooooooooo….if Burns himself traces the therapy he had a hand in developing back to the Buddha, I don’t see any reason to argue with him…

And I see no reason to believe such a claim…...... /shrug

...Burns’ claim? Oh, I can see the connections he was making, yes.  Can show you, too, if you like…

stuka - 19 October 2010 01:57 AM

GAD - 18 October 2010 11:46 PM

stuka - 18 October 2010 07:45 PM

Sooooooooooo….if Burns himself traces the therapy he had a hand in developing back to the Buddha, I don’t see any reason to argue with him…

And I see no reason to believe such a claim…...... /shrug

...Burns’ claim? Oh, I can see the connections he was making, yes.  Can show you, too, if you like…

Thanks, but I’ve seen enough to satisfy my curiosity.

GAD - 19 October 2010 06:54 AM

Thanks, but I’ve seen enough to satisfy my curiosity.

Fair enough.  Another example is the trend toward “Mindfulness therapy” in psychology (also in depression/bipe therapy), which term and methods are taken right out of Buddhism and the Buddha’s teachings.

I think I can summarise my thoughts in several points:

1. Buddhism, as a religion is not very interesting and a little dangerous because it is as backwards and primitive as any other religion.

2. Buddhism, as a branch of psychology is quite interesting and can give fresh new inputs on the study of the mind.

3. Buddhism, as hippie, non-sensical, ill defined garbage is quite literally exactly that.

4. The term ‘Buddhism’ can mean any of the above.

5. The term ‘Buddhism’ is usually used to describe something which is composed of several of the above classifications.

6. Exctracting the interesting from the dangerous and crappy is not easy and therefore, anything which is described as ‘Buddhistic’ should be handled with care.

And thank you again for your input! Reviving this thread has helped me a great deal!

Ita - 21 October 2010 07:47 AM

I think I can summarise my thoughts in several points:

1. Buddhism, as a religion is not very interesting and a little dangerous because it is as backwards and primitive as any other religion.

2. Buddhism, as a branch of psychology is quite interesting and can give fresh new inputs on the study of the mind.

3. Buddhism, as hippie, non-sensical, ill defined garbage is quite literally exactly that.

4. The term ‘Buddhism’ can mean any of the above.

5. The term ‘Buddhism’ is usually used to describe something which is composed of several of the above classifications.

6. Exctracting the interesting from the dangerous and crappy is not easy and therefore, anything which is described as ‘Buddhistic’ should be handled with care.

And thank you again for your input! Reviving this thread has helped me a great deal!

I would concur with all of that.

Fortunately, more folks are coming forward and writing about the Buddha’s teachings rather than the stuff of your #1 and #3.  Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and his American tranlstor Santikaro, Phra Prayuda Payutto, Mettiko Bhikkhu, and Ajahn Sumedho are several examples of such monks from the Thai Forest tradition.  Stephen Batchelor is an example from the Zen and the tibetan religions, though I think that he would be much better able to argue his points if he were more familiar with the Nikayas.

Anyone really going to adhere to a spiritual and/or philosophical doctrine given by a guy who believed he was rebirthed 36 times as Sakka the Negligent (Itivuttaka 22:14-15); ruler of the Tavatimsa devas, surrounded by a group of nymphs in the Nandana Grove and endowed with the five cords of divine sensual pleasure for 1000 celestial years in which one day there equals 400 human years (Anguttara Nikaya 8:41)?

OK, well good luck with that.

My God, the emperor’s suit is so beautiful!

bmac - 26 October 2010 08:22 PM

Anyone really going to adhere to a spiritual and/or philosophical doctrine given by a guy who believed he was rebirthed 36 times as Sakka the Negligent (Itivuttaka 22:14-15); ruler of the Tavatimsa devas, surrounded by a group of nymphs in the Nandana Grove and endowed with the five cords of divine sensual pleasure for 1000 celestial years in which one day there equals 400 human years (Anguttara Nikaya 8:41)?

OK, well good luck with that.

My God, the emperor’s suit is so beautiful!

Ah, yes, the Itivuttaka. You might as well be looking for the Buddha’s teachings in the abhidhamma or the jataka tales, or the Lotus “sutra”.  Just as much horseshit piled on in there.  More, actually…..

stuka - 27 October 2010 12:42 PM

bmac - 26 October 2010 08:22 PM

Anyone really going to adhere to a spiritual and/or philosophical doctrine given by a guy who believed he was rebirthed 36 times as Sakka the Negligent (Itivuttaka 22:14-15); ruler of the Tavatimsa devas, surrounded by a group of nymphs in the Nandana Grove and endowed with the five cords of divine sensual pleasure for 1000 celestial years in which one day there equals 400 human years (Anguttara Nikaya 8:41)?

OK, well good luck with that.

My God, the emperor’s suit is so beautiful!

Ah, yes, the Itivuttaka. You might as well be looking for the Buddha’s teachings in the abhidhamma or the jataka tales, or the Lotus “sutra”.  Just as much horseshit piled on in there.  More, actually…..

So that part of the canon is not accurate, but other parts are?  Is there a list out there which ranks the validity of Buddhist scripture or do we simply pick and choose that which seems to make sense and discard the rest as invalid?

bmac - 27 October 2010 08:20 PM

So that part of the canon is not accurate, but other parts are?  Is there a list out there which ranks the validity of Buddhist scripture or do we simply pick and choose that which seems to make sense and discard the rest as invalid?

If only it were that easy.