I have a dream today ~ 2 type of freedom

[sentinel]

Greetings ,




In Buddhism we strive for psychological freedom, a freedom from the bondage of the inner suffering . But , in reality of our society , fighting and aspiring for true equality rights and freedom from all type of discriminations is essential to achieve present life happiness .
However , Buddhism in its essence is striving against the mainstream of worldly establishment . If a person aim is wanting to abandon all worldly enjoyment , the need to accomplish anything is but worthless effort at the end of the day.
Does this mean that the Buddha's teaching will always remain as a secondary movement or even cease to be of any role to human being in the platform of the world eventually ?

[JamesTheGiant]

...the need to accomplish anything is but worthless effort at the end of the day.
Does this mean that the Buddha's teaching will always remain as a secondary movement or even cease to be of any role to human being in the platform of the world eventually ?

Remember the Buddha taught laypeople a lot. He taught them how to be wealthy and healthy and happy. There are lots of suttas about this. It's very important to read suttas.

[sentinel]

...the need to accomplish anything is but worthless effort at the end of the day.
Does this mean that the Buddha's teaching will always remain as a secondary movement or even cease to be of any role to human being in the platform of the world eventually ?

Remember the Buddha taught laypeople a lot. He taught them how to be wealthy and healthy and happy. There are lots of suttas about this. It's very important to read suttas.

Of course , but not many people are giving teaching to lead and show the path .
In Buddhism , the situation is always lack of teachers and interest in propagating the dhamma . Buddhist are not as eager as Christian and Muslim in preaching .
Learning dhamma , for me is a very difficult path .
I only had a chance in recent year to learn dhamma from a monk online , the place where I stay no one is really giving classes or dhamma talks. If there is any talk at all , the teaching is on surface level or being a good person . Previously , I didn't have access to Internet and even later when Internet access is accessible but not so convenient yet. Furthermore , after learning how to access and using the net I don't know there is such forum and many accessible Website to browse for the suttas . Now , not only one has to learn the dhamma by myself without guidance , no teacher is available locally .
The lack of teachers and the interest to disseminate the Buddha's teaching is a disadvantaged to Buddhism as a whole .

[Saengnapha]

...the need to accomplish anything is but worthless effort at the end of the day.
Does this mean that the Buddha's teaching will always remain as a secondary movement or even cease to be of any role to human being in the platform of the world eventually ?

Remember the Buddha taught laypeople a lot. He taught them how to be wealthy and healthy and happy. There are lots of suttas about this. It's very important to read suttas.

Of course , but not many people are giving teaching to lead and show the path .
In Buddhism , the situation is always lack of teachers and interest in propagating the dhamma . Buddhist are not as eager as Christian and Muslim in preaching .
Learning dhamma , for me is a very difficult path .
I only had a chance in recent year to learn dhamma from a monk online , the place where I stay no one is really giving classes or dhamma talks. If there is any talk at all , the teaching is on surface level or being a good person . Previously , I didn't have access to Internet and even later when Internet access is accessible but not so convenient yet. Furthermore , after learning how to access and using the net I don't know there is such forum and many accessible Website to browse for the suttas . Now , not only one has to learn the dhamma by myself without guidance , no teacher is available locally .
The lack of teachers and the interest to disseminate the Buddha's teaching is a disadvantaged to Buddhism as a whole .

The 'Path' is always a private affair. In the Buddha's time, there was no Buddha to instruct him. He had to rely on what was available to him. There is always a body of teachings for anyone to involve themselves with anywhere in the world. The Buddha had to wade through all the current jetsam and flotsam of his time and came to the point where he abandoned all of it as a prelude to his own awakening. It wasn't through a written or verbal teaching that he came to his own Insight.

A real teacher will show you the illusion of yourself whether you are reading his words or speaking to him/her face to face. It is then a private affair for you to work all of this out. Few actually do. To stand alone with yourself and face your actual moment to moment experience seeing the way you have of interpreting everything through your conditioned mind and creating this illusory self is necessary, not learning all this crap that religious thinkers have piled up through the centuries and trying to be like them. That is suffering and not freedom. If you want freedom, then free yourself of this influence and this illusion of yourself. The Buddha stood alone. The Church that grew around him was not who he was, very similar to the Christian Church, not being The Christ. They have no authority and have misled so many.

[mikenz66]

Oh well, we may as well disband the Forum since it's just perpetuating wrong view.

[Sam Vara]

The 'Path' is always a private affair. In the Buddha's time, there was no Buddha to instruct him. He had to rely on what was available to him. There is always a body of teachings for anyone to involve themselves with anywhere in the world. The Buddha had to wade through all the current jetsam and flotsam of his time and came to the point where he abandoned all of it as a prelude to his own awakening. It wasn't through a written or verbal teaching that he came to his own Insight.

A real teacher will show you the illusion of yourself whether you are reading his words or speaking to him/her face to face. It is then a private affair for you to work all of this out.

I wouldn't disagree with any of this at all, but would ask whether the identification of a "real teacher" is also a private affair? Could it be that all that jetsam and flotsam is the "real teacher" for other people which we have improperly understood? Or are you claiming that there are some "real teachers" whose existence is a matter of public, objective and indisputable fact, and that the "private affair" of working it out only begins once we have met one of them?

[binocular]

...the need to accomplish anything is but worthless effort at the end of the day.
Does this mean that the Buddha's teaching will always remain as a secondary movement or even cease to be of any role to human being in the platform of the world eventually ?

Remember the Buddha taught laypeople a lot. He taught them how to be wealthy and healthy and happy. There are lots of suttas about this. It's very important to read suttas.

Sure. But I don't think that someone who keeps to the Buddha's teachings for lays can keep up with the rest of modern society. I think a lay Buddhist is bound to get squished, left behind by the modern people. Unless, of course, this lay Buddhist takes up some modernized, Buddhism-lite type of outlook.

[binocular]

The lack of teachers and the interest to disseminate the Buddha's teaching is a disadvantaged to Buddhism as a whole .

I don't think there's a lack of interest to disseminate the Buddha's teaching. I think it's that the Buddha's teaching is so specific, requires such personal qualifications that simply only very few people can qualify and keep up.

[Saengnapha]

The 'Path' is always a private affair. In the Buddha's time, there was no Buddha to instruct him. He had to rely on what was available to him. There is always a body of teachings for anyone to involve themselves with anywhere in the world. The Buddha had to wade through all the current jetsam and flotsam of his time and came to the point where he abandoned all of it as a prelude to his own awakening. It wasn't through a written or verbal teaching that he came to his own Insight.

A real teacher will show you the illusion of yourself whether you are reading his words or speaking to him/her face to face. It is then a private affair for you to work all of this out.

I wouldn't disagree with any of this at all, but would ask whether the identification of a "real teacher" is also a private affair? Could it be that all that jetsam and flotsam is the "real teacher" for other people which we have improperly understood? Or are you claiming that there are some "real teachers" whose existence is a matter of public, objective and indisputable fact, and that the "private affair" of working it out only begins once we have met one of them?

It's very possible that the private affair of working it out only begins once we have met someone who has resolved suffering. It could be through reading about such a person, hearing about them from another, or meeting them face to face. But there has to be something going on in oneself that recognizes their own suffering in order to recognize someone who is free of it. Then, when you do meet someone who is not suffering, it becomes a matter of discussion and reflection on this subject of what is the cause of suffering. It is not a matter of conforming or converting to any belief system in existence. It is not even a matter of having something to practice over and over again. It is definitely inclusive of all jetsam and flotsam because that is what is seemingly there, but it is not any kind of manipulation of this jetsam and flotsam but its abandonment through seeing the illusion of it. This is the private affair. It has nothing to do with the public. Even the Buddha was rejected in his time and in ours.
I cannot answer with certainty that you must meet someone who is free first before you can get on with it. But it seems logical that you have to have contact with someone or something (books, video, etc.) that shows you the illusion of yourself conclusively. Once you have seen this for yourself, that certainty becomes active. It is not dependent on that person or book. The teacher is not teaching anything. That is the paradoxical beauty of this. The Buddha called it 'suchness', my own teacher called it 'the natural state'. Neither description have meaning until you see the illusion of yourself, and the dream of existence.

[Saengnapha]

Oh well, we may as well disband the Forum since it's just perpetuating wrong view.

Sure. Why not? Will that really make a difference in your life?

[Saengnapha]

The lack of teachers and the interest to disseminate the Buddha's teaching is a disadvantaged to Buddhism as a whole .

I don't think there's a lack of interest to disseminate the Buddha's teaching. I think it's that the Buddha's teaching is so specific, requires such personal qualifications that simply only very few people can qualify and keep up.

This is the spin the Buddhist Church has put on it.

[mikenz66]

Oh well, we may as well disband the Forum since it's just perpetuating wrong view.

Sure. Why not? Will that really make a difference in your life?

Probably not, since my practice isn't dependent on this Forum...

But I'm still confused about the point you are trying to make. Your main point seems to be that your gurus are better than anyone else's gurus, as you don't seem willing to engage with any discussion of differences or similarities between the approach of you and your gurus, and the approach of the Buddha and his students. This makes it difficult for me to take take your views seriously, which is a pity, since I'm sure there is something interesting that you could contribute.


Mike

[Saengnapha]

Oh well, we may as well disband the Forum since it's just perpetuating wrong view.

Sure. Why not? Will that really make a difference in your life?

Probably not, since my practice isn't dependent on this Forum...

But I'm still confused about the point you are trying to make. Your main point seems to be that your gurus are better than anyone else's gurus, as you don't seem willing to engage with any discussion of differences or similarities between the approach of you and your gurus, and the approach of the Buddha and his students. This makes it difficult for me to take take your views seriously, which is a pity, since I'm sure there is something interesting that you could contribute.


Mike

Where did I say this, Mike?

[sentinel]

The lack of teachers and the interest to disseminate the Buddha's teaching is a disadvantaged to Buddhism as a whole .

I don't think there's a lack of interest to disseminate the Buddha's teaching. I think it's that the Buddha's teaching is so specific, requires such personal qualifications that simply only very few people can qualify and keep up.

I don't know about your experiences but I have been twice told , once by one Mahayana monk whom told me not to pose question and another Theravada monk addresses to audience don't ask about four noble truth, this is too deep and profound for you all. Just observe your five precepts .
Of course one more thing for sure is many people could not grasp or catch up and also not interested with the Buddha's teaching .

[binocular]

The lack of teachers and the interest to disseminate the Buddha's teaching is a disadvantaged to Buddhism as a whole .

I don't think there's a lack of interest to disseminate the Buddha's teaching. I think it's that the Buddha's teaching is so specific, requires such personal qualifications that simply only very few people can qualify and keep up.

I don't know about your experiences but I have been twice told , once by one Mahayana monk whom told me not to pose question and another Theravada monk addresses to audience don't ask about four noble truth, this is too deep and profound for you all. Just observe your five precepts .
Of course one more thing for sure is many people could not grasp or catch up and also not interested with the Buddha's teaching .

What you say illustrates that the monks didn't lack the interest to disseminate the Buddha's teaching, but thought that the people weren't qualified.