Had I not copntinued to be discussed I asure you all that I would not have returned to this thread. I have repeatedly promised not to in PMs and feel as if I am now going back on that promise, however I cannot stand by while others continually discuss me in this way. So I wish to explain myself again. If I am no longer discussed here I will not return. However if I feel I am, or my views are, continually being slandered, I will again be unable to remain out of sight.
The comments that made me decide not to take any further part in this this thread were these:
"THE POWER OF NAM-MYOHO-RENGE-KYO IS INDEED PROFOUND. The wisdom of your insight and restraint is percieved and appreciated. In fact anyone looking for a religious debate or a platform for expressing differing views may look elsewhere, as this thread has surely evolved into something specific for a few people that have embraced a practice of Nichiren Buddhism as a result of their exposure to it.....The important thing is to acknowledge your invitation, while pure in intention, was not completely well thought out in relation to potential outcome."
"He was here to have us examine his views? No offense, but I'm too busy to be interested."..."From my perspective, what would I gain from it?"
"And frankly dear friend, the person that would have had to constantly explain the slander issues as they occurred, and look like an asshole for having to do that, would have been me. No thank you."
"So why continue the conversation? Thank you for helping to avoid a waste of energy on both our parts."
The comments bringing me back are these:
"GMT this is the very place you should discuss your views "
"For the record, GMT is welcome here, as is anyone else anytime, to discuss Nichiren Buddhism or have questions about it answered to the best of our collective ability. "
"GMT is always welcome and so is everyone else, from my understanding he did not want to continue on the subject because it might not go in the "proper direction". "
Comments I wish to respond to:
"GMT had no idea what we've been talking about here. He rejects faith as a concept he wishes to incorporate into his belief system. Without faith, Buddhism becomes another game of mental masturbation. As is reflected in GMT's affection for Zen, which happens to be considered one of the most slanderous sects of Buddhism, according to the Daishonin's teachings." I thought saving face was not an issue. And if logical compassion and understanding towards others is slanderous in your view, I find it hard to accept that view as being truly a Buddhist one.
"This is due to the fact that Zen is not based on any Shakyamuni sutra. It is a made up concept" As are all religions which is why I value the wisdom contained within them over the blind faith aspect.
Zen is "esoteric in nature and prejudicial towards the equality of all beings", yes I make no appology for not joining the I'm better than you possey.
Posted by Babba "My take on some of what Thomas just posted. Some of us have studied longer then others ^^. So therefore will recognize a slander more easily then others. If the slander is not pointed out and refuted then the person who is aware of the slander suffers the karma for it ... therefore if T dosent point out the slander it becomes karma that HE must endure." As must I if allowing a slander to continue unchallenged.
Some of the comments within the posts that you have directed me to that I wish to respond to:
"The exchange is with scegy, who actually chanted in conjuction with his questions and experienced the answer, rather than just trusting the instincts of his secular mind." You do seem rather quick to condem any who do not accept what you wish them to without question.
"Did anyone ever imply we were discussing magic here? "no effort made beyond the chanting of the words..." Ha! Dude! At first I thought you were just kidding! Were you? Wamen's post really confused me. Am I missing something?" No I wasn't joking, I was trying to grasp the mechanics of your beliefs, but your quotes around your summation of a part of a question, makes it appear to be a statement made by me, which is not the case at all. I merely asked for an explanation to something that I read which was written by you.
"Who said anything about just chanting and sitting on your ass? Get with it scegy! No one has ever remotely implied that. The point is that the power to make your environment change is within your life alone. That is a process of more than just doing something. You have already done many things that didn't work out. Stop the cynicism and find some faith."
If more than one person is given the same impression, is not fair to say that the message is one that can easily be misundertood? And I am still not sure what the faith that you wish others to get, is in when there is no god figure or magic involved.
"You would like to separate the two time-lines of prayer and activity, but Buddhism is a LIFE philosophy. It is "on" 24/7, 365. In practice, in faith, one cannot view them as separate or unassociated, with the assumption that with or without the prayer, the activity would have come to fruition on it's own." This is rather misleading. Not all Buddhists chant. It is not Buddhism as a whole that I find confusing but rather the need you have to chant. Also to say that one cannot commit a good act without chanting is wholly wrong. The doctor that saves the life of a child, the charity worker, the examples of good acts are all around us, and only a fraction of the doer of them chant.
"Chant and see if it does anything for you. If it doesn't, just don't do it anymore." I am suprised by this, if you are willing to accept that chanting does not affect everyone, how can you claim it to have any effect other than a subjective placebo effect?
"Without having done it, one could never really understand what any of this really means anyway." I'm afraid that that just seems condesending. Understanding of a philosophy does not ocuur by chanting, but rather by discourse, which is what I am was trying to engage in with you.
"But scegy! This post in particular somewhat discounts your previous claim to have read the first twenty pages of the thread before you started posting. Did you read speed-read them? Perhaps you felt you were already adept enough based on your own thinking, your personal philosophy of life, to easily grasp what is going on here. Please take no offense in what I've just said, as it is merely an objective observation based on everything you have to say." This may sound picky now, but any observation made by anyone, is by definition, subjective, not objective. In addition to that, I again find the tone you are using to be condesending.
You said to scegy, "I'm not sure on what basis you make the first comment of, "i think i've been chanting all my life nam myoho renge kyo." You seem to think that these are not important or specific words that convey an important and specific result, or effect, on the person making the cause of saying them over and over again (chanting). You would be mistaken. " And yet here you have accepted that they may have no effect upon me. Is this not contradictory?
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinons, based on their experience. However, I think if what you say were true there would be no need in this world for teachers. We could all just “self-educate” ourselves." But isn't this the very thing that you claim that chanting gets a chanter, enlightenment from chanting?
"I would highly recommend you keeping an open mind" This is the advice you gave to scegy, and yet cannot accept that you could be wrong in your own views.
When discussing the survey of whether or not Americans believe in a god, and their view that believers of other Gods will be damned for all eternity you say this, "Where the hell is there any real salvation in that thinking? “Us versus them” has never worked, and will never work, in my opinion and experience." Doesn't your claim that no one other than a chanter will recieve enlightenment following the same arguement that you advocate will never work?
"People always respond to wisdom. When they don’t respond is when there is no real wisdom to be perceived." Wouldn't the words of the fool sound foolish to the wise and the foolish, whereas the words of the wise sound wise to those who recognise the wisdom within them and foolish to those who do not? When hearing that which sounds foolish, it is not imperrative to judge not the speaker's wisdom, but rather your own. It is this that has caused me to ask questions about what sounds foolish to me. As I wanted to see whether or not I had missunderstood something. I did not set out on this thread to put anyone down for their beliefs, even if they were not my own. However due to your responses, I have found myself in a position analysing what has been said.
The understanding that I have gained over the last few days:
What I have learned about your branch of Buddhism.
Chanting is a part of the Nichiren Buddhist practice, however the japanese nichiren buddhists chant nam myoho renge kyo, after discovering the meaning these words through Google, I was confused as to why english speaking nichiren buddhists weren't chanting, "I submit myself to the contemplation of the effects of my actions and the teachings of the sutra", as, I believe, it is the meaning of the words rather than the words themselves which will help one to gain insight.
So long as what is contemplated is the meaning of the mantra, rather than the japanese phonology, I see no difference between the schools other than the methodologies. The trouble with methodologies being passed down from one to the next is the principle of the term "chinese whispers". So much gets lost and interpreted from the original teachings. It was the statement that chanting the "nam myoho renge kyo" mantra itself will bring about enlightenment, not to mention the healing of the planet etc. which is why I started to ask about the significance of this aspect of the practice in the first place. Although I still believe the understanding of the translation to be more important the the strict adherance of the chanting itself, I now understand (thanks to Babba through PMs) that the practice is to honour those who have gone before.
And now I will attempt to leave again.
The comments that made me decide not to take any further part in this this thread were these:
"THE POWER OF NAM-MYOHO-RENGE-KYO IS INDEED PROFOUND. The wisdom of your insight and restraint is percieved and appreciated. In fact anyone looking for a religious debate or a platform for expressing differing views may look elsewhere, as this thread has surely evolved into something specific for a few people that have embraced a practice of Nichiren Buddhism as a result of their exposure to it.....The important thing is to acknowledge your invitation, while pure in intention, was not completely well thought out in relation to potential outcome."
"He was here to have us examine his views? No offense, but I'm too busy to be interested."..."From my perspective, what would I gain from it?"
"And frankly dear friend, the person that would have had to constantly explain the slander issues as they occurred, and look like an asshole for having to do that, would have been me. No thank you."
"So why continue the conversation? Thank you for helping to avoid a waste of energy on both our parts."
The comments bringing me back are these:
"GMT this is the very place you should discuss your views "
"For the record, GMT is welcome here, as is anyone else anytime, to discuss Nichiren Buddhism or have questions about it answered to the best of our collective ability. "
"GMT is always welcome and so is everyone else, from my understanding he did not want to continue on the subject because it might not go in the "proper direction". "
Comments I wish to respond to:
"GMT had no idea what we've been talking about here. He rejects faith as a concept he wishes to incorporate into his belief system. Without faith, Buddhism becomes another game of mental masturbation. As is reflected in GMT's affection for Zen, which happens to be considered one of the most slanderous sects of Buddhism, according to the Daishonin's teachings." I thought saving face was not an issue. And if logical compassion and understanding towards others is slanderous in your view, I find it hard to accept that view as being truly a Buddhist one.
"This is due to the fact that Zen is not based on any Shakyamuni sutra. It is a made up concept" As are all religions which is why I value the wisdom contained within them over the blind faith aspect.
Zen is "esoteric in nature and prejudicial towards the equality of all beings", yes I make no appology for not joining the I'm better than you possey.
Posted by Babba "My take on some of what Thomas just posted. Some of us have studied longer then others ^^. So therefore will recognize a slander more easily then others. If the slander is not pointed out and refuted then the person who is aware of the slander suffers the karma for it ... therefore if T dosent point out the slander it becomes karma that HE must endure." As must I if allowing a slander to continue unchallenged.
Some of the comments within the posts that you have directed me to that I wish to respond to:
"The exchange is with scegy, who actually chanted in conjuction with his questions and experienced the answer, rather than just trusting the instincts of his secular mind." You do seem rather quick to condem any who do not accept what you wish them to without question.
"Did anyone ever imply we were discussing magic here? "no effort made beyond the chanting of the words..." Ha! Dude! At first I thought you were just kidding! Were you? Wamen's post really confused me. Am I missing something?" No I wasn't joking, I was trying to grasp the mechanics of your beliefs, but your quotes around your summation of a part of a question, makes it appear to be a statement made by me, which is not the case at all. I merely asked for an explanation to something that I read which was written by you.
"Who said anything about just chanting and sitting on your ass? Get with it scegy! No one has ever remotely implied that. The point is that the power to make your environment change is within your life alone. That is a process of more than just doing something. You have already done many things that didn't work out. Stop the cynicism and find some faith."
If more than one person is given the same impression, is not fair to say that the message is one that can easily be misundertood? And I am still not sure what the faith that you wish others to get, is in when there is no god figure or magic involved.
"You would like to separate the two time-lines of prayer and activity, but Buddhism is a LIFE philosophy. It is "on" 24/7, 365. In practice, in faith, one cannot view them as separate or unassociated, with the assumption that with or without the prayer, the activity would have come to fruition on it's own." This is rather misleading. Not all Buddhists chant. It is not Buddhism as a whole that I find confusing but rather the need you have to chant. Also to say that one cannot commit a good act without chanting is wholly wrong. The doctor that saves the life of a child, the charity worker, the examples of good acts are all around us, and only a fraction of the doer of them chant.
"Chant and see if it does anything for you. If it doesn't, just don't do it anymore." I am suprised by this, if you are willing to accept that chanting does not affect everyone, how can you claim it to have any effect other than a subjective placebo effect?
"Without having done it, one could never really understand what any of this really means anyway." I'm afraid that that just seems condesending. Understanding of a philosophy does not ocuur by chanting, but rather by discourse, which is what I am was trying to engage in with you.
"But scegy! This post in particular somewhat discounts your previous claim to have read the first twenty pages of the thread before you started posting. Did you read speed-read them? Perhaps you felt you were already adept enough based on your own thinking, your personal philosophy of life, to easily grasp what is going on here. Please take no offense in what I've just said, as it is merely an objective observation based on everything you have to say." This may sound picky now, but any observation made by anyone, is by definition, subjective, not objective. In addition to that, I again find the tone you are using to be condesending.
You said to scegy, "I'm not sure on what basis you make the first comment of, "i think i've been chanting all my life nam myoho renge kyo." You seem to think that these are not important or specific words that convey an important and specific result, or effect, on the person making the cause of saying them over and over again (chanting). You would be mistaken. " And yet here you have accepted that they may have no effect upon me. Is this not contradictory?
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinons, based on their experience. However, I think if what you say were true there would be no need in this world for teachers. We could all just “self-educate” ourselves." But isn't this the very thing that you claim that chanting gets a chanter, enlightenment from chanting?
"I would highly recommend you keeping an open mind" This is the advice you gave to scegy, and yet cannot accept that you could be wrong in your own views.
When discussing the survey of whether or not Americans believe in a god, and their view that believers of other Gods will be damned for all eternity you say this, "Where the hell is there any real salvation in that thinking? “Us versus them” has never worked, and will never work, in my opinion and experience." Doesn't your claim that no one other than a chanter will recieve enlightenment following the same arguement that you advocate will never work?
"People always respond to wisdom. When they don’t respond is when there is no real wisdom to be perceived." Wouldn't the words of the fool sound foolish to the wise and the foolish, whereas the words of the wise sound wise to those who recognise the wisdom within them and foolish to those who do not? When hearing that which sounds foolish, it is not imperrative to judge not the speaker's wisdom, but rather your own. It is this that has caused me to ask questions about what sounds foolish to me. As I wanted to see whether or not I had missunderstood something. I did not set out on this thread to put anyone down for their beliefs, even if they were not my own. However due to your responses, I have found myself in a position analysing what has been said.
The understanding that I have gained over the last few days:
What I have learned about your branch of Buddhism.
Chanting is a part of the Nichiren Buddhist practice, however the japanese nichiren buddhists chant nam myoho renge kyo, after discovering the meaning these words through Google, I was confused as to why english speaking nichiren buddhists weren't chanting, "I submit myself to the contemplation of the effects of my actions and the teachings of the sutra", as, I believe, it is the meaning of the words rather than the words themselves which will help one to gain insight.
So long as what is contemplated is the meaning of the mantra, rather than the japanese phonology, I see no difference between the schools other than the methodologies. The trouble with methodologies being passed down from one to the next is the principle of the term "chinese whispers". So much gets lost and interpreted from the original teachings. It was the statement that chanting the "nam myoho renge kyo" mantra itself will bring about enlightenment, not to mention the healing of the planet etc. which is why I started to ask about the significance of this aspect of the practice in the first place. Although I still believe the understanding of the translation to be more important the the strict adherance of the chanting itself, I now understand (thanks to Babba through PMs) that the practice is to honour those who have gone before.
And now I will attempt to leave again.
what a long damned minute that was.
Looks awesome, truly awesome!!
(if you grew too many like I did (heh, never plant when your stone) I have an awesome carrot cake recipe (yes, yes, I have a sweet tooth).
