Dragg wrote:

phauna wrote:

However, unlike Christian scriptures, people were writing down what Buddha said as he actually said it.  The Pali cannon is therefore perhaps quite a good record of what Buddha said, in gist if not in exact quotation.

Where are you getting this??  This disagrees with everything I've ever read.

Sorry, you're right, I'm getting confused with Mohammad.

phauna wrote:

The story about Pajapati asking to become a nun and being initially refused is pretty straightforward.  She asked to be a nun, three times Buddha said no.  Then she gathered 500 women and they shaved their heads, put on old robes and followed the Buddha.  Pajapati asked the Buddha's cousin Ananda to ask again.  Eventually Buddha admitted that it was possible for women to achieve enlightenment, but that allowing women to join would cause his teachings to only last 500 years instead of 1000.  Pretty much he was saying women are not as good as men.

Well it's been said that Buddha would eat meat as long as he didn't kill it or have it killed for him, for example, if he went to someone's house and they offered him meat, he would eat it as the deed was already done.  However I don't think the Buddha was aware of the laws of supply and demand at that time.

These were two issues I had with Buddhism when I first encountered and debated with the lama I take advise from now.  I have never had a debate with him where he quoted the Dharma or the Buddha.  He always starts with, "I think...".  Most of the lamas I have met actually say the female form is superior to the male due to the increased potential for spacial awareness.  The primary meditational deity used for wisdom is on a female form called Prajaparamita.  Wisdom itself is said to be of a feminine nature.  The most common example of ultimate compassion given is of a mother and her love for her child.  Women overall tend to have better karmic tendencies.  Men and women tend to have different strengths and weaknesses though.  Men cause most of the problems and suffering in the world due to our inability to control anger.  The weakness attributed to women is that when gathered in groups without a male energy to balance them, women tend to bicker and gossip.  This makes monastic life very unstable.  This is my own view as to why the Buddha didn't want nuns. 

Why did the Buddha eat meat?  I have been told if you buy it from the supermarket when it is already dead, it is OK.  The Buddha is said to have been a pretty smart guy so I assume he was wise enough to know that if you buy from a butcher today, it feeds into the "supply and demand" process and so will increase the number of animals butchered in the future.  I think it was symbolic of something else.  The Buddha died from eating poisoned pork.  The Buddha knew it was poisoned.  He went into a long descriptive explanation as to what was going to happen after he ate this poisoned pork.  It seems as if he committed suicide if he was aware that he was being poisoned and continued to eat.  A pig is symbolic of ignorance.  The rooster of desire and the snake of anger.  He seemed to have taken his death by means of the symbol of ignorance. 

I take everything within the stories of the Buddhas life as symbolic.  I do not know or even care if he ever existed.  I like the teachings on how to reason ones way into understanding attributed to him. 

Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.  Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. After observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
---Buddha

alyks wrote:

Have you ever read "The society of mind" by Marvin Minsky? He claims that our consciousness is rooted in our ability to sense events happening inside of our brain, as opposed to external stimuli.

I haven't read that book but there is a Mind Only theory among some Buddhists sects.  We normally think that our 5 senses collect information from the external world.  In the Mind Only view, the senses project the internal world out into the imagined universe.  Everything we sense is just a mirror into our mind.

I'm pretty sure most of the stories about Buddha are symbolic, regardless whether or not he existed. I could be, for example, he used stories like those to project his wisdom (which is a great way of doing it, the message usually becomes clear in such examples) and then his students simply wrote down those stories but about Buddha.. so maybe he told the story of "the old monk who ate the poisoned meat" to teach his students about ignorance etc, then they wrote the story about Buddha doing so to give him the "honor" of the wisdom so to speak.

Personally I haven't read many such stories, but I would love to do so.

KristinHolly wrote:

bodhisamaya wrote:

Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.  Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. After observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
---Buddha

Do you have a source for that quote?  I found it in a few places online but not anywhere with an actual source text, date or translator.  It sounds almost too perfectly quotable to be completely accurate -- I'm just curious.

I have no idea from where in the Dharma this quote came from.  It is something I have heard many times from many teachers and they all say this is the foundation for Buddhist study.  If anything within Dharma does not pass examination in ones own reasoning process, it is to be rejected.  Blind faith and superstition are to be avoided at all costs.

Thanks Draqq

nest0r wrote:

So how about that baby-eating Obama, huh?

At least he eats what he kills, right?

Jarvik7 wrote:

nest0r wrote:

So how about that baby-eating Obama, huh?

At least he eats what he kills, right?

The best part is he follows an old tradition, where every part of the baby is used and none wasted.  The meat is eaten raw, the organs are stewed and made into traditional medicines, the hide is used to make hats & mittens, the bones are carved into nails & pins, and the blood is used as dye for communist flags.
We could learn a lot from his people.

What the hell, guys?

Seriously?

nest0r wrote:

Jarvik7 wrote:

nest0r wrote:

So how about that baby-eating Obama, huh?

At least he eats what he kills, right?

That's why he's changing abortion standards to reflect the dhabiha slaughter method, rendering all that tasty baby meat halal. I think Jamie Oliver is his chief cook: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ … r-placenta

I'm kind of divided on the abortion issue here. On one hand, I don't think a woman should have any control on anything, least of all her own body. On the other hand, I really hate babies.

Nukemarine wrote:

I'm kind of divided on the abortion issue here. On one hand, I don't think a woman should have any control on anything, least of all her own body. On the other hand, I really hate babies.

Are you really this chauvinistic?  Treat those baby making machines with a little more respect!

Nukemarine wrote:

nest0r wrote:

Jarvik7 wrote:

At least he eats what he kills, right?

That's why he's changing abortion standards to reflect the dhabiha slaughter method, rendering all that tasty baby meat halal. I think Jamie Oliver is his chief cook: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ … r-placenta

I'm kind of divided on the abortion issue here. On one hand, I don't think a woman should have any control on anything, least of all her own body. On the other hand, I really hate babies.

Lol.  I obviously don't agree with you, but that was absolutely hilarious. 

I love how we just automatically jumped to this thread when we felt an off-topic debate coming on, lol!

Personally, I think making a law allowing others to kill babies so much worse than actually killing one yourself because, I mean, let's be honest, mothers are always the best cooks.

I like the Dalai Lama's view:

"Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances. If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance"