Beiträge von Schmu im Thema „Unterschiedliche Lehrmeinungen“

ZUFLUCHT UND DIE ANDEREN

“What makes our spiritual practice Buddhist? It is not merely doing practices taught in Buddhist scriptures, for some of those practices — such as refraining from harming others, cultivating love and compassion, and developing concentration — are also found in other religions. Doing these and other practices with a mind that has taken refuge in the Three Jewels is the key that makes these practices Buddhist.” {Dalai Lama 2019 #2700D: 25}

“People accepting the four seals are considered Buddhists by view, and those accepting the Three Jewels as their ultimate source of refuge are considered Buddhists by conduct. The four seals are: (1) all con-ditioned phenomena are transient, (2) all polluted phenomena are duḥkha (unsatisfactory) in nature, (3) all phenomena are empty and selfless, and (4) nirvāṇa is true peace.” {Dalai Lama 2018a #2698D: 28}

Nach dem Dalai Lama wird man durch die dreifache Zuflucht und das Annehmen der vier Siegel zum Buddhisten. Werden die Zufluchtsobjekte in allen bud-dhistischen Konfessionen gleich verstanden?

“Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum (Ratnagotravibhāga or Uttaratantra Śāstra) discusses the excellent qualities of the Three Jewels according to the unique Mahāyāna perspective that is not shared by the Fundamental Vehicle.” {Dalai Lama 2019 #2700D: 49}

Nein. Leider bleibt die Frage, ob das Zufluchtsverständnis des „Fundamentalfahrzeugs“ ausreichend ist, um Buddhist zu sein, ungestellt. Was sind beispielhaft die Unterschiede?

“Although Śākyamuni Buddha was already fully awakened before performing the twelve deeds, he appeared in ordinary form so that his life would be an inspiring example for us to contemplate and follow.” {Dalai Lama 2021 #3463D: 572}

“There are two thoughts about when Śākyamuni attained buddhahood. According to the Pāli tradition and the Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika tenet systems, he was born as a prince in the Śākya clan and, having renounced worldly life, lived as a renunciant and attained awakening under the bodhi tree at Bodh Gaya. According to the Cittamātra and Madhyamaka tenet systems, he had attained awakening many eons prior and in the life as Śākyamuni displayed the behavior of practicing the path and attaining awakening.” {Dalai Lama 2019 #2700D: 152}

FALSCHER BUDDHISMUS UND DIE ANDEREN

“It is better to remain a nonbeliever than to distort the Buddha’s teachings… Some so-called Buddhists are hypocrites. They present them-selves as followers of Buddha Śākyamuni, but live and think differently than he did.” {Dalai Lama 2021 #3463D: 203}

“Making up your own brand of teachings and claiming that it is Buddhism is extremely dangerous for both the individual and those he teaches.” {Dalai Lama 2021 #3463D: 212}

“changing the teachings of the Buddha that describe duḥkha, its origin, its cessation, and the path to nirvāṇa would alter the fundamental perspective and principles of the Buddhadharma, making it no longer the teachings of the Buddha.” {Dalai Lama 2017 #2699D: 251}

Der Dalai Lama macht hier für mich unmissverständlich klar, dass es besser ist, kein Buddhist zu sein, als einem falschen Buddhismus anzuhängen. Was ist ein falscher Buddhismus? Anders leben und denken als der Buddha. Wer das Verständ-nis von Leiden und seiner Auflösung (nirvāṇa) verändert dessen Verständnis ist nicht länger Buddhalehre. Später gehe ich ausführlicher auf das Verständnis von nirvāṇa ein.

“Intelligent and discerning disciples also examine the source of a teaching and are not satisfied unless they know it originated with the Buddha.” {Dalai Lama 2018a #2698D: 163}

Welcher Buddha ist hier gemeint? Der Buddha, der unter dem Bodhibaum die Erleuchtung erlangte oder der Buddha, der unter dem Bodhibaum ein Schauspiel aufführte? Und wie kann man die Frage, ob die Lehren ihren Ursprung beim Buddha haben am besten beantworten? Durch buddhologische Forschung.