So apparently the point of this one is to undo essentially everything else you were taught about in the school of Buddhism. It seems rather counter productive to me really. Why go through the trouble of learning all that only to just have to throw it all out. What it actually says is supposedly radical that most say it’s nonsense (like saying that our feelings, thoughts, and emotions, etc are invalid and don’t exist). It just seems like the weirder aspect among many religions I have come to know in the past.
Myself, I’ve always preferred the parathyroid sutra. Really leaves lump in my throat.
Hardy har har. I’m serious here.
Because they way it sounds they make it seem like anything else they taught is a waste of time and that the true reality is nothing that we take it to be.
As for the lung sutra, it is really breathtaking. But the nephron sutra just leaves me pissed. And I don’t have the guts to deal with the duodenum sutra.
I always get a chuckle out of the humerus sutra.
I’m looking forward to driving the new Toyota Sutra in my Swim Sutra!
[shrugs] Sutra self. [/shrugs]
Seriously, I didn’t want to read it because the last thing I need is some severe existential crisis.
And it’s called the heart because it gets directly at the heart of what reality is like.
Because it supposedly gets at the heart of what reality is. Or: it allegedly gets at the heart of things. Or it ostensibly does. Or you could say it claims to do that; or you could, if you’re so inclined, throw in a mayhap.
Just some kind of reminder that, hey, folks say a lot of stuff, but sometimes they don’t actually mean it. Or they mean it, but they’re incorrect; maybe they heard it from a guy who didn’t actually mean it, or who meant it but was incorrect. Or maybe there was some kind of misunderstanding due to a miscommunication.
Or, y’know, a lie.
All I’m saying is, right there you breezily stated that bit as if it were true; and if you do that habitually, for all I know you could find yourself taking stuff seriously by default: by dint of having recited it when you could’ve, uh, not done that.
Kamagain…?
No Problem, Bodhi.
OP -
I don’t understand why you keep posting these esoteric Buddhism questions on the SDMB. Although there are some folks here that are knowledgeable about Buddhism, this is probably not the best venue for answering your questions. My wife, who is a follower of the NKT, suggested you go to their Facebook group and post your questions there:
I’m sure there are other groups on the web that might be more helpful (and less snarky) than the SDMB.
The OP does not want to discuss Buddhist texts with Buddhists, apparently.
If I understand correctly, he wants someone to prove to him in detail that the Buddhist texts are NOT true. However, it seems there are no ex-Buddhists here with sufficient knowledge to do that.
His interpretation of Buddhist doctrine and precepts fully excludes the mundane ‘traditional’ interpretation.
He most assuredly does NOT want to engage with the Buddhists on the board. It’s all talking at cross purposes as his take on concepts and words is unique unto himself.
He also doesn’t want to join a temple or a community to improve his understanding in the slightest.
Is there even such a thing as an ex-Buddhist? It just isn’t something you ex.
On another thread a few actual Buddhists tried to tell him stuff about Buddhism but he wasn’t interested at all.
Try googling ‘ex-Buddhist’.
Wow, you are really busting his balls sutra.
This is giving me flashbacks to “brain-based learning,” which gained force as an educational movement in Thailand for a while during my time there. Really. And I always wondered if that was an alternative to, say, spleen-based learning.
And yet, here we are…again.