Question For Buddhists?

[WinePusher]

Why do monks set themselves on fire?

[ndf8th]

Seems no Buddhist look here?
I wanted to ask Buddhist something entirely other
and I joined here at Debating Christianity and Religion Forum
a group named Buddhist but I fail to find it anywhere.

Maybe they don't want us to find them?

To your question. They have a long tradition on this.
Way back to the war in Vietnam? Seems they trust
it to be a powerful act that should give some result?

I find it very odd. They say a lot of things to be skilful
and to do Right action and such. So how can that be Right action.

One explanation can be that the Buddhists think that
this life is Dukkha? Different translations for that word
but why not use pain and sorrow and Life Sucks.
So to kill oneself with fire maybe is seen as some sacrifice
that give them good karma? I only guess. It makes me less
interested in Buddhism. Seems not very rational to do.

I want to ask them about Amida Buddha. If I can find them here.
What is your take on Amida Buddha?
http://www.livingdharma.org/Living.Dhar ... aneda.html

What Is Amida Buddha?
by Dr. Nobuo Haneda

I find that construct rather interesting. A kind of Buddhist version of Jesus?

[dyanaprajna2011]

Buddhists believe that all things are impermanent, and that we have no eternal, independent, ego-soul, or self. So, for a Tibetan Buddhist to set themselves on fire, they'd ask themselves, "who is it that is on fire?", to which the Buddhist answer would be "no one." There's a chapter in the Lotus Sutra, the chapter on the Medicine King bodhisattva, which speaks of someone doing this very same thing, which is where I believe the practice comes from, or at least the inspiration for it.

[ndf8th]

Buddhists believe that all things are impermanent, and that we have no eternal, independent, ego-soul, or self. So, for a Tibetan Buddhist to set themselves on fire, they'd ask themselves, "who is it that is on fire?", to which the Buddhist answer would be "no one."

There's a chapter in the Lotus Sutra, the chapter on the Medicine King bodhisattva, which speaks of someone doing this very same thing, which is where I believe the practice comes from, or at least the inspiration for it.

Thanks for your answer. It shows how dangerous such texts can be.
These texts works as role models to follow.

I prefer the Jodo Shinshu Buddhist story about Amida caring so much
about all sentient beings that he works for that everybody get saved.

To burn oneself up seems to be the wrong answer to me.

[Divine Insight]

I want to ask them about Amida Buddha. If I can find them here.
What is your take on Amida Buddha?
http://www.livingdharma.org/Living.Dhar ... aneda.html

What Is Amida Buddha?
by Dr. Nobuo Haneda

I find that construct rather interesting. A kind of Buddhist version of Jesus?

Yes, when I first learned of the Amida Buddha (or Amitabha Buddha) I too immediately recognized that it has much in common with the Jesus stories, at least in terms of a promise of an eternal afterlife in paradise.

It also started in the Middle East so it was geographically close to where Jesus would have been. At first I was convinced that it was just Buddhism being influenced by Christianity, but then it became clear the the Amitabha Buddha was around earlier B.C. So evidently the Jesus story is far more likely to have been influenced by the stories of the Amitabha Buddha.

And that's what I currently accept to date.

~~~~~

On the topic of Buddhist monks burning themselves in protests, I agree with ndf8th, that's just a shame that religions have negative influences like this on people. There are far better ways to try to change the course of human affairs than setting oneself on fire. That's just plain stupid. Even if it actually worked, which it probably never has, it would still be stupid.

That's just a stupid way to try to solve problems, IMHO.

[dyanaprajna2011]

I want to ask them about Amida Buddha. If I can find them here.
What is your take on Amida Buddha?
http://www.livingdharma.org/Living.Dhar ... aneda.html

What Is Amida Buddha?
by Dr. Nobuo Haneda

I find that construct rather interesting. A kind of Buddhist version of Jesus?

Yes, when I first learned of the Amida Buddha (or Amitabha Buddha) I too immediately recognized that it has much in common with the Jesus stories, at least in terms of a promise of an eternal afterlife in paradise.

It also started in the Middle East so it was geographically close to where Jesus would have been. At first I was convinced that it was just Buddhism being influenced by Christianity, but then it became clear the the Amitabha Buddha was around earlier B.C. So evidently the Jesus story is far more likely to have been influenced by the stories of the Amitabha Buddha.

And that's what I currently accept to date.

~~~~~

On the topic of Buddhist monks burning themselves in protests, I agree with ndf8th, that's just a shame that religions have negative influences like this on people. There are far better ways to try to change the course of human affairs than setting oneself on fire. That's just plain stupid. Even if it actually worked, which it probably never has, it would still be stupid.

That's just a stupid way to try to solve problems, IMHO.

I wasn't aware that the stories of Amitabha started near the Middle East, unless India is closer to it than I thought. But it does have elements of Christianity, or rather, Christianity has elements of Pure Land Buddhism. Pure Land was more than likely influenced by bakhti schools of Hinduism.

[Divine Insight]

I wasn't aware that the stories of Amitabha started near the Middle East, unless India is closer to it than I thought. But it does have elements of Christianity, or rather, Christianity has elements of Pure Land Buddhism. Pure Land was more than likely influenced by bakhti schools of Hinduism.

Well, calling it the middle east is a little bit of a stretch. But it's my understanding that the story of the Amitabha Buddha did start out in Pakistan, not India. But it's hard to say for sure about things that ancient. Although I'm sure that the original Buddhism started in India and then traveled to Pakistan.

[dyanaprajna2011]

Pakistan was once part of India, so it may be the case. If I'm not mistaken, some of the oldest version of the Pure Land sutras were found in Pakistan. So you may be right.

[ndf8th]

The interesting thing about Pure Land is that many or most
see the texts as describing something that really have happen
even if it did happen on another realm? whatever a realm is?

But the modern trend is to read those old text more informally
as metaphors for something that still is true but not exactly as
text says.

You being a Buddhist can you confirm that to most Buddhists
the text that Buddha wrote or the texts about him that Buddhists
wrote are seen as literally true and not just as metaphor?

Take the most known text. The Four Noble Truth.

Is that one literally true? As a non-buddhist I doubt that all life is suffering.
My experience of life is that it has many variations of experiences that
makes life worth living and some things that makes like bad indeed.

To set it up like Buddhists do in 4NT seems overly drastic.
Is it really a truth is it not more like a rhetoric trick to get people
to decide on starting to meditate?

I find the story of Amida interesting and especially the thoughts of
Shinran seems the best version that I've read.

I wish there where a naturalistic version of Amida that could cut lose
the ties to Buddhism. The idea of Amida seems a good way to relate to me.

[Divine Insight]

Take the most known text. The Four Noble Truth.

Is that one literally true? As a non-buddhist I doubt that all life is suffering.
My experience of life is that it has many variations of experiences that
makes life worth living and some things that makes like bad indeed.

I personally have trouble with the Four Nobel Truths myself. I mean clearly they are true within a certain context. Especially in terms of emotional suffering. Emotional suffering is a choice brought on by attachments. That is a crystal clear truth that cannot be denied, IMHO.

However, emotional pain isn't the only pain we experience in life. Much of the pain in life is physical pain. That can be brought on by any number of things such as disease, inborn birth defects, violence directed toward us by other people which is beyond our control, natural disasters, and accidents. If the most aware careful person can still have a freak accident where something went wrong that was basically beyond their ability to control or foresee.

So it's false that "all suffering" can be reduced to attachments. In this sense the Four Noble truths are indeed false. In other words, they are "true" within a certain context (i.e. it is true that attachment can cause emotional suffering), but they are "false" if they claim that "All Suffering" can be reduced to attachment.

Physical suffering can be caused by things far removed from attachment or our ability to take on a different perspective.

This has been a fundamental problem that I've had with Buddhism ever since I was first introduced to it. I recognized the difference between physical pain and emotional pain right away. And Buddhism really only address emotional pain, it doesn't address physical pain at all.

So, yes, you can eliminate a lot of emotional pain by understanding the Four Nobel Truths, but you'll still be stuck with physical pain and suffering that you may not be able to do anything about at all.

So Buddhism doesn't address all of reality.

I think all spiritual philosophies and religions must fail in this regard.

The real truth is that reality contains unavoidable suffering and there is nothing that can be done about it. We can certainly do our best to try to avoid it, like taking care of our health so we aren't likely to become sick. Be very careful about doing things so we don't have stupid unnecessary accidents and get hurt. Avoid wars and physical conflicts as much as possible.

But even taking steps to avoid all of those things is no guarantee. The real TRUTH of the matter is that some things truly are simply out of our control. And the fact that we will eventually suffer old-age and die (at best) is proof positive of this.

Suffering is unavoidable in the end. It's a fact of life.

But yes, we can reduce tons of unnecessary emotional suffering. Nothing very spiritual about that. It's just common sense really.