There exists Christian Kabbalah, including Christian magic AFAIK. It is basically legitimate magic. Early Jews used to summon demons and control them for good purposes. Besides, Bible is an anti-male document, so it can be dismissed just for that. And because the Bible is anti-male, it could be considered to have been written by demons themselves, so it has no legitimacy in telling others to not do magic.
Infatuation with magic just indicates that you havenāt seen that the Dhamma is much more powerful and wonderful.
The 5 higher knowledges already is good enough for supernormal powers. And they are legit can be cultivated by Buddhists, just to not neglect insight cultivation as well. The 6th one is the only one which is worth cultivating. For magic doesnāt lead to the end of suffering, only the dhamma does.
The principle of dependent origination, that āthis exist, then that is, this arises, that arises. This doesnāt exist, that is not. This ceases, that ceasesā indicates that thereās no such thing as an independent thing. NibbÄna is just the cessation of all these.
But 5 higher knowledges is not helpful in case of conflict or warfare or the like.
I agree that there is no āindependentā thing, but something can be the ground of reality, and also be dependent in some way (e.g. internally dependent on different parts that comprise it).
Superheroes ethics is inferior to Buddhist ethics.
Then you might want to look into the Abhidhamma, as they list the fundamental parts of reality, which are not concepts.
Its not superheroes and its not inferior. Still, Buddhism is Nietzschean master morality, but applied on the internal world of our minds rather than the external world. Some Buddhists even argue that there is no such thing as Buddhist ethics anyway, see this blogpost I found (I might even make a separate post about it). (oh and btw, isnāt magic easier than going through rigorous Buddhist training, especially if one has aptitude for it?)
But Abhidhamma are not EBTs. So am I to think that EBTs donāt really care or discuss what the fundamental ground or building block of reality is?
Simply stated, the links in dependent origination seems to just fulfill your need for the fundamental ground. If youāre not content with that, you can go deeper like in Abhidhamma.
Buddha adviced the monks not to dabble in magic and such things, so I would think that lay people who are wise would heed such advice as well. Another thing is due to the rigorous mind training in being good to get the 5 higher knowledges, one would be more likely to watch the mind and not use the powers to harm others.
As compared to being born with superpowers, where many supervillian can emerge due to their lack of morality.
To apply supernomal powers in war, it generally means being a supercop like what superheroes do. One may have to harm others to prevent them from harming victims. Whereas Buddhist morality is about actions, not persons. We donāt harm period. No matter who got labeled as the bad or good guys. In this way, Buddhist morality is superior to superhero morality. As superheroes still thinks itās ok to harm people labelled as bad.
Of course we can try to prevent people from doing bad. Mainly by telling them that itās bad action.
Whatās up with all the hidden posts?
Is this being picked on by a mod?
I fail to see how writing a post about Brahma Viharas and dangers of magic - which might lead one to hell - is against the rules of this forum. That is unless one would do such action and be reprimanded by those words, which I hope is not the case.
Its probably because youāre quoting Bible passages.
1 Like
In that post about Brahmaviharas and dangers of magic I did not mention any Bible quotes, yet it still got hidden.
I donāt know then. But still deserved because you kept quoting that anti-male desert fairytale as if it had validity.
Both of them I saw Bible quotes. I flagged. I hope we can use the Buddhaās dhamma here, instead of promoting another religion. I dunno why someone else flagged a third one of yours.
1 Like
EBT teaches asankhata, that what is not liable to arise, cease and change. Clearly cannot be part of dependend origination.
But isnāt the true Dhamma one? I respect your faith and preferences but is it reasonable to flag such posts if I use them to strengthen an argument I am making that is valid with EBT? I first posted EBT story that showed that magic can lead to bad destination. Since one argument was not convincing enough, I added a quote that explicitly stated magic as work of flesh. I would have added another EBT reference if I knew one but I did not, but I did know verses apart from EBT that dealt with this topic. So are you suggesting one is not allowed to do so? Doesnāt it strengthen your faith in EBT in particular point if even outside of it the same point is mentioned?
I am not mod or those making policies, so I cannot answer for the forum.
But I just prefer Buddhist sources if possible. It does sounds like youāre assuming and catering to those who have faith in the bible by using it to support points.
This forum already would dismiss some commentaries if it deems that the commentaries are extreme views. I donāt like that it can accommodate Bible verses when some commentaries are banned.
I see, thank you for answering. It too bad, one cannot post commentaries that oneād wish. Maybe some compromise could be reached by allowing them in particular category?
Donāt worry, thereās another forum I go to for that.
If I may add my belated (and perhaps completely mistaken) view, I would disagree with I think the majority if not all of my fellow dhamma-farers and say that there is indeed a ground of being found in the EBTs; however, I should qualify that statement with the caveat that this ground is indeed dependent origination of a sort, which was the very first answer you received from the Venerable @NgXinZhao.
DN 15 says quite clearly:
EttÄvatÄ kho, Änanda, jÄyetha vÄ jÄ«yetha vÄ mÄ«yetha vÄ cavetha vÄ upapajjetha vÄ. EttÄvatÄ adhivacanapatho, ettÄvatÄ niruttipatho, ettÄvatÄ paƱƱattipatho, ettÄvatÄ paƱƱÄvacaraį¹, ettÄvatÄ vaį¹į¹aį¹ vattati itthattaį¹ paƱƱÄpanÄya yadidaį¹ nÄmarÅ«paį¹ saha viƱƱÄį¹ena aƱƱamaƱƱapaccayatÄ pavattati.
āIt is thus, Änanda, that one can be born, age, and die, fall away and re-arise; thus that there is a pathway for designation, thus that there is a pathway for language, thus that there is a pathway for description, thus that there is a sphere for wisdom, thus that the round turns for describing this state of being: that is, when there is the mutual conditioning of nÄmarÅ«pa together with viƱƱÄį¹a.
I would offer, then, that the mutual conditioning of nÄmarÅ«pa and viƱƱÄį¹a is the ground of all ontic and epistemic reality. Now, as far as whether that should be identified as an entity or a process, singular or an aggregateā¦