Aloha "Thinkers"
I see almost every major religion of the world represented in this forum, except Buddhism (which I think of as being more of a philosophy than a religion). Anyway, for coversations and the fond exchange of ideas, let me introduce the basic tenets of Buddhism for discussion and shared experience.
The Four Noble Truths
The Buddha taught that life was dissatisfactory because of craving, but that this condition was curable by following the Noble Eightfold Path. They are:
1. Dukkha: All worldly life is unsatisfactory, disjointed, containing suffering.
2. Samudaya: There is a cause of suffering, which is attachment or desire (tanha) rooted in ignorance.
3. Nirodha: There is an end of suffering, which is Nirvana.
4. Magga: There is a path that leads out of suffering, known as the Noble Eightfold Path.
Wisdom (pañña)
1. Right Understanding (or Right View, or Right Perspective) - samma ditthi
2. Right Thought (or Right Intention, or Right Resolve) - samma sankappa
Virtue (Ethical Conduct) (sila)
3. Right Speech - samma vaca
4. Right Action - samma kammanta
5. Right Livelihood - samma ajiva
Concentration (Mental Development) (samadhi)
6. Right Effort (or Right Endeavour) - samma vayama
7. Right Mindfulness - samma sati
8. Right Concentration - samma samadhi
I have been studying the mahayana tradition for quite some time now and I enjoy meditating on a regular (sometimes semi-regular) basis. Do you have any good ideas on how to cultivate the four noble truths and the eightfold path into your everyday life? I am interested in learning how people integrate knowledge with practice.
Light and love,
Adam
| nexusads wrote: |
I enjoy meditating on a regular (sometimes semi-regular) basis. Do you have any good ideas on how to cultivate the four noble truths and the eightfold path into your everyday life? I am interested in learning how people integrate knowledge with practice.
Light and love,
Adam |
Aloha Adam,
You have asked a very profound question, how does one take a religion and make it “live” through personal experience.
As you may know, Mahāyāna Buddhist schools, practiced originally in India as Dhyana , which then came to be known in Vietnamese as Thiền and China as Ch'an, and subsequently traveled to Korea called Seon which was later passed on to Japan. In total, there are approximately 708 million adherents – some adhere strictly and some are Buddhist in name only.
Having lived in Thailand, I have had more exposure to the Theravada sect than to the Mahayana traditions. Theravada is the predominant religion of Sri Lanka and continental Southeast Asia (parts of southwest China, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand). It is also gaining popularity in Singapore and Australia.
At the risk of over simplifying, may I share my personal experience which seems to have worked well for me, thus far. The key, as you suggested, is to meditate. Meditation will bring an inner mind to your presence that will not only guide you to “live” the Eightfold Path but will also validate the things you read about Buddhism. Some things that we read and thinking about just don’t make sense spiritually or emotionally. Meditation will help brings mind (knowledge) and spirit to one accord.
A more complicated answer lies in the reality that the Eightfold Path are intricately connected and is difficult to separate one (e.g., Right Understanding) from another (e.g., Right Action). For example, from my personal experience, it flows like the following: I meditate (Right Concentration), find deep silence and peace which gives rise to Right Thought (or Right Intention, or Right Resolve), then naturally thoughts evolve to become Right Understanding (or Right View, or Right Perspective). Havin achieved an understanding, we frequently have the impulse to act (Right Action) which can take the manifest form of Right Speech or Right Effort. The action we take may even lead us to find a new job (Right Livelihood). All of these principles can be picked apart through Right Mindfulness, and we can choose to focus on one or more each day. But I find it difficult to separate them because they all work so well as a “whole.” [Sorry for being so long and verbose in my reply]
Short answer: Keep meditating, you're on the right Path.
Peace and love,
MarkI have wondered about buddhism when I was at uni, just out of interest.
What seems odd is the huge lack of information about the religion, the library had racks of books on Islam, Sihks, Christianity (obviously)... etc but prety much nothing on Buddhism.
How would you go about learning about buddhism when there is such a lack of resource. Of course there are no buddhist schools either.
| AftershockVibe wrote: |
I have wondered about buddhism when I was at uni, just out of interest.
What seems odd is the huge lack of information about the religion, the library had racks of books on Islam, Sihks, Christianity (obviously)... etc but prety much nothing on Buddhism.
How would you go about learning about buddhism when there is such a lack of resource. Of course there are no buddhist schools either. |
Aloha AftershockVibe,
May I suggest the following link as a rich resource to Buddhist literature?
http://www.questia.com/library/religion/asian-religions/buddhism/buddhism.jsp?CRID=buddhism&OFFID=se1&KEY=buddhism_books
By in large, most Buddhist traditions do not aggressively “proselytize” in the manner commonly found in other major world religions. Generally speaking there are no “heavenly rewards after life” for each “convert” you attract to Buddhism, nor is Buddhism “exclusive” in that it will banish “outsiders” who don’t adhere to the religion into outer darkness or hell. Consequently, there is little need to write volumes of literature to convert or persuade non-believers, as what might be found in other religions.
If there is a motivation to expound the philosophy of Buddhism through publications, it is generally for the purpose of explaining the teachings of Buddha and not to convince aspirants to join.
This reference might be helpful to you and to Adam:
How To Practice: The Way to a Meaningful Life
by The Dalai Lama
This is a helpful book that demonstrates how day-to-day living can be a spiritual practice. The following is a quote from the book:
“There are two ways to create happiness:
• The first is external. By obtaining better clothes, better shelter, and better friends we can find a certain measure of happiness and satisfaction.
• The second is through mental development, which yields inner happiness. However, these two approaches are not equally viable. External happiness cannot last long without its counterpart.... However, if you have peace of mind you can find happiness even under the most difficult circumstances.”[/i][/u]the CORE of all Buddha teaching is '0' (zero)
understanding this '0' then you get understaing most of the teaching inside Buddhism
act like 'zero' that you already doing Buddhism. ^^
| doomz wrote: |
the CORE of all Buddha teaching is '0' (zero)
understanding this '0' then you get understaing most of the teaching inside Buddhism
act like 'zero' that you already doing Buddhism. ^^ |
| Quote: |
| In the Buddhist approach to life the value of work is deeply embedded. The Buddha taught that actions bring results, whether for good or ill. He also taught that nothing just happens by itself - all things are conditioned and each thing as a cause. To work hard and conscientiously has beneficial consequences, whether this is working on spiritual practices or cleaning the streets. Idleness, lethargy, dissolute behavior are decried by the Buddha as unwholesome. |
| Buddha wrote: |
| All that we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him. |
| Buddha wrote: |
| All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else. |
For more quote's of Buddha visit the site: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/buddha.html
Where can you find zero? Please tell me. @doomzPlease post any copied text within the "[ quote ][ /quote]" tags.
| Quote: |
The ten recollections refer to ten reflective exercises that can be practiced to strengthen one's commitment to the Buddhist path. The sixth of these is a recollection on deities.
The ten recollections refer to ten reflective exercises that can be practiced to strengthen one's commitment ot the Buddhist path. The fifth of these is a recollection on generosity.
The ten recollections refer to ten reflective exercises that can be practiced to strengthen one's commitment ot the Buddhist path. The fourth of these is a recollection on virtue. Virtue plays a very important part in Buddhist life. There are clear moral guidelines laid down for both the lay and monastic communities.
The third of the ten recollections focuses on the Sangha, the community of Buddhist monks and nuns. The purpose of this meditation is to reflect on the qualities of the Sangha and the path its members follow.
The second of the ten recollections is a recollection of the dhamma or dharma, the Buddha's teachings. The special qualities of the Buddha's teachings form the focus for this meditation. These include the purity of dhamma , that it leads to nibbana and that the practice of it bears immediate results.
The ten recollections refer to ten reflective exercises that can be practiced to strengthen one's commitment ot the Buddhist path. The first of these is a recollection on the Buddha himself. |
i have respect to Budha(actually all of religions)but i don't belive it and it's rules...
| Quote: |
Where can you find zero? Please tell me. @doomz
|
when you realize the final purpose of Buddhism, you will find it.
ok may ask you a question ^^, what is Buddha?Buddha is a Pali word, which means inteligent man.
lam rim just did it for me, que viva el buddhism!
| Quote: |
Buddha is a Pali word, which means inteligent man.
|
oo so "Buddha" mean Inteligent man in Pali.
i believe it will better to said "Wise Man" in english
hmm... not that, I don't asking: What is "Buddha"'s word come from & meaning ?
I ask "What is Buddha?" | doomz wrote: |
| Quote: |
Buddha is a Pali word, which means inteligent man.
|
oo so "Buddha" mean Inteligent man in Pali.
i believe it will better to said "Wise Man" in english
hmm... not that, I don't asking: What is "Buddha"'s word come from & meaning ?
I ask "What is Buddha?" |
Buddha is a historical person born in 560 BC in India. In that period, two extreme types religions were present in India. One, which was preaching extreme luxury. And the other, which was preaching extreme suffering.
And Buddha preached middle path.
| Quote: |
"Middle Path" may be misunderstood as equivocal. In fact Buddhism is not as such. "Middle" means neutral, upright, and centered. It means to investigate and penetrate the core of life and all things with an upright, unbiased attitude. In order to solve a problem, we should position ourselves on neutral, upright and unbiased ground. We investigate the problem from various angles, analyze the findings, understand the truth thoroughly, and find a reasonable conclusion.
The Middle Path in Buddhism does not mean having a biased view or superficial understanding only. The "Middle Path" represents a distinct theory and way of Buddhist practice that is not common to other religions. Buddhism is a religion with high moral values. It lays great emphasis on human thought and action in dealing with the natural environment, society or individual problems. It is concerned with the relationship between thoughts and behavior, and the relationship between behavior and its consequences. |
I've been very curious about Buddhism, but like AftershockVibe, have never had the resources. Sure, there's net articles and such, but you can't be too sure on how trustworthy they are, or if the information isn't a bit skewed or biased..
You meantioned, silliman, that Buddhism is more of a philosophy to you. With that in mind, would you think it possible to be a Christian and a Buddhist?
I don't know enough about Buddhism to answer that myself; I have no clue how stupidly easy or intelectual that question is. Still, I'm curious, because I'd love to learn more about Buddhism, but I know of some conservative Christians that would be most upset that I would even look into it.
Whatever--at least someone finally started a thread on it. 
Buddhism (Pāli Buddhadhamma or Sanskrit Buddhadharma) is a religion and philosophy based on the teachings of the Buddha, Siddhārtha Gautama, who lived in the 5th century BCE. Buddhism spread throughout the ancient Indian sub-continent in the five centuries following his death, and propagated into Central, Southeast, and East Asia over the next two millennia. Today, Buddhism is divided primarily into three traditions, Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. Buddhism continues to attract followers worldwide, and, with around 376 million followers, it is considered a major world religion. It has attracted many intellectual followers and supporters such as H.G.Wells and Albert Einstein who stated that 'Buddhism is the only religion able to cope with modern scientific needs'. Buddhism has been accepted by many as the religion that does not conflict with science.
Buddhism is a major spiritual movement, with an estimated 376 million followers worldwide. Accurate demographic data are difficult to acquire, however, because many Buddhists live in nations with oppressive governments, and because of the growing number of Buddhists in the West.
There is controversy among scholars of religion concerning whether Buddhism constitutes a religion or a Philosophical movement; these discussions closely follow the problem of "what is religion?" (see religious studies). Especially in the West, many people who are devoutly Buddhist also consider themselves to be Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, or as belonging to some other ideological tradition.
In general, the aim of Buddhist practice is to end all kinds of suffering in life. To achieve this state, adherents seek to purify and train the mind by following the Noble Eightfold Path, and eventually to gain true knowledge of reality and thus attain liberation (Nirvana).
Buddhist morality is underpinned by the principles of harmlessness (ahimsa) and moderation. Mental training focuses on moral discipline (sila), meditative concentration (samadhi), and wisdom (prajñā).
The Buddha is considered to be a person who discovered the true nature of reality through years of study, investigation of the various religious practices of his time, and meditation. This discovery is called enlightenment. According to the Buddha, any person can follow his example and become enlightened through the study of his words, and by leading a virtuous, moral life.
While Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas, of which many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe power for creation, salvation or judgment to them. Like humans, they are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events and so some Buddhist schools associate with them via ritual. All supernatural beings, as living entities, are a part of the six-part reincarnation cycle.
Buddhism is categorized under the Shraman Tradition (Shramaṇa Paramparā) of Indian philosophy, rather than the Vedic Tradition (Vaidika Paramparā) that is followed by Orthodox Hinduism. Buddhism is called an Ārya Dharma (Aryan religion), meaning, a noble religious way of life.
Siddhartha Gautam
According to the tradition, Siddhārtha Gautama (Sanskrit सिद्धार्थ गौतम, pronounced "sιd-dhα:rthə gautəmə"; in Pāli, Siddhattha Gautama) was born in Lumbini. Lumbini is usually placed in what is now southern Nepal. Siddhārtha's father was Suddhodana, a leader of the Shakya people.
Traditions state that the Buddha's mother passed away at his birth or a few days later. The legend says that a seer predicted shortly after his birth that Siddhārtha would become either a great king or a great holy man; because of this, the king tried to make sure that Siddhartha never had any cause for dissatisfaction with his life, as that might drive him toward a spiritual path. Nevertheless, at the age of 29, he came across what has become known as the Four Passing Sights: an old crippled man, a sick man, a decaying corpse, and finally a wandering holy man. These four sights led him to the realization that birth, old age, sickness and death come to everyone. He decided to abandon his worldly life, leaving behind his privilege, rank, caste, and his wife and child, to take up the life of a wandering holy man in search of the answer to the problem of birth, old age, sickness, and death.
Siddhārtha pursued the path of the yogi and meditated with two Brahmin hermits, and, although he quickly achieved high levels of meditative consciousness (dhyana), he was still not satisfied with the results. Gautama then began his training in the ascetic life and practicing vigorous techniques of physical and mental austerity. Gautama proved quite adept at these practices, and was able to surpass his teachers. However, he found no answer to his questions. Leaving behind established teachers, he and a small group of close companions set out to take their austerities even further. After six years of ascetism, and nearly starving himself to death to no profit, Siddhārtha began to reconsider his path. He then remembered a moment in childhood in which he had been watching his father start the season's plowing, and he had fallen into a naturally concentrated and focused state in which time seemed to stand still, and which was blissful and refreshing.
After discarding asceticism and concentrating on meditation, Gautama discovered what Buddhists call the Middle Way—a path of moderation away from the extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification. To strengthen his body, he accepted a little buttermilk from a passing goatherd. Then, sitting under a pipal tree, now known as the Bodhi tree, he vowed never to arise until he had found the Truth. At the age of 35, he attained Enlightenment and became a Buddha.
The Buddha venerated by Indra and Brahma, Kanishka casket, dated to 127 CE, British Museum.
Enlarge
The Buddha venerated by Indra and Brahma, Kanishka casket, dated to 127 CE, British Museum.
For the remaining 45 years of his life, Gautama Buddha traveled in the Gangetic Plain of northeastern India, teaching his doctrine and discipline to all—from nobles to outcaste street sweepers, including adherents of many different schools and teachers. The Buddha founded the sanghas, the community of monks and that of nuns, which continued to declaim his teaching after his death.
Doctrines
Numerous distinct groups have developed since the passing of Gautama Buddha, with diverse teachings that vary widely in practice, philosophical emphasis, and culture. However, there are certain doctrines which are common to all schools of Buddhism.
Dependent Origination
Main article: Pratitya-samutpada
The enlightenment (Bodhi) of the Buddha Gautama was simultaneously his liberation from suffering and his insight into the nature of reality. What the Buddha awakened to was the truth of dependent origination (Sanskrit: pratītya-samutpāda, Pali: paticca samuppada). Any phenomenon ‘exists’ only because of the ‘existence’ of other phenomena in a complex web of cause and effect. For sentient beings, this amounts to a never-ending cycle of rebirth (samsara) according to the law of karma and vipaka. Because all things are thus conditioned and transient (anicca), they have no real, independent identity (anatta) and so do not truly ‘exist’, although to ordinary minds they do appear to exist. All phenomena are thus fundamentally insubstantial and empty (sunya). Wise human beings, who see things as they are (yatha-bhuta-ñana-dassana), renounce attachment and clinging which cause suffering (dukkha), transform the energy of desire into awareness and understanding, and eventually attain nirvana.
The Four Noble Truths
Main article: The Four Noble Truths
The Buddha taught that life was dissatisfactory because of craving, but that this condition was curable by following the Noble Eightfold Path (Pali: Ariya Atthangika Magga, Sanskrit: Arya Ashtanga Marg). This teaching is called the Four Noble Truths (Sanskrit: catvāri-ārya-satyāni; Pali: cattari ariya saccani).
1. Dukkha: All worldly life is unsatisfactory, disjointed, containing suffering.
2. Samudaya: There is a cause of suffering, which is attachment or desire (tanha) rooted in ignorance (avidya).
3. Nirodha: There is an end of suffering, which is Nirvana.
4. Magga: There is a path that leads out of suffering, known as the Noble Eightfold Path.
The Four Noble Truths was the topic of the first sermon given by the Buddha after his enlightenment, which was given to the ascetics with whom he had practiced austerities.
The Noble Eightfold Path
Main article: Noble Eightfold Path
The Noble Eightfold Path is the way to the cessation of suffering, the fourth part of the Four Noble Truths. In order to fully understand the noble truths and investigate whether they were in fact true, Buddha recommended that a certain path be followed which consists of:
1. Right Understanding - (samyag-dRSTi, sammaa-diTTi)
2. Right Thought - 〈samyak-saMkalpa, sammaa-saGkalpa〉
3. Right Speech - (samyag-vaac, sammaa-vaacaa)
4. Right Conduct - (samyak-kalmaanta, sammaa-kammanta)
5. Right Livelihood - (samyag-aajiiva, sammaa-aajiiva)
6. Right Effort - (samyag-vyaayaama, sammaa-vaayaama)
7. Right Mindfulness - (samyak-smrTi, sammaa-sati)
8. Right Concentration - (samyak-samaadhi, sammaa-samaadhi)
The word 'samyak' actually means whole or complete or holistic view of things and not just "Right" (as opposed to wrong) as is commonly translated [1].
There are numbers of way to interpret the Eightfold Path. On one hand, the Noble Eightfold Path is spoken of as being a progressive series of stages through which the practitioner moves, the culmination of one leading to the beginning of another while others see it as the states of the 'Path' as requiring simultaneous development. It is also common to categorise into Prajna/Panna (Wisdom), Sila (Virtuous Behaviour) and Samadhi (Concentration), some systemising it further as shown below:
Right Livelihood Right Speech
Right Understanding Right Conduct
Right Thought
Right Concentration Right Effort
Right Mindfulness | AftershockVibe wrote: |
| How would you go about learning about buddhism when there is such a lack of resource. Of course there are no buddhist schools either. |
I spent a summer at my local Thai Buddhist temple (Wat Buddhamongkolnimit) a couple of years ago, Primarily to learn about the Dhamma (Dharma) but ended up learning some of the Thai language, Meditation techniques, and other stuff. So basically if you have the time (the monk lifestyle is waay slow) go to the source.
Also that summer opened me up to the awesome world of Thai food.Juparis, The Dalai Lama said something like "It is impossible to be both a Christian and a Buddhist, Because Being both means you are being true to neither."
Buddhists are nontheistic, which is why I think many think of it as more of a Philosophy or teaching than a Religion. Buddhists also believe in Reincarnation as opposed to Heaven (This gets a little fuzzy as you must be Enlightened in order to escape the cycle of Reincarnation, 'least in Theravada Buddhism). However both Religions hold the same idea of peace and goodwill toward man and all that jazz.
| AdamantMonk wrote: |
Juparis, The Dalai Lama said something like "It is impossible to be both a Christian and a Buddhist, Because Being both means you are being true to neither."
Buddhists are nontheistic, which is why I think many think of it as more of a Philosophy or teaching than a Religion. Buddhists also believe in Reincarnation as opposed to Heaven (This gets a little fuzzy as you must be Enlightened in order to escape the cycle of Reincarnation, 'least in Theravada Buddhism). However both Religions hold the same idea of peace and goodwill toward man and all that jazz. |
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I think simply because I imitated some of the practices (only what's well-known), I had some vain hope that I could belong to the culture. I'll just have to find peace of mind and discipline myself some other way.
No Buddhists here, but definitely a strage Christian. 
Is there a god in Buddism, because i find that to be the most dissapointing idea in most religions. Buddism everything about it seems ok, but i am picky, i belive in the big band, evolution, and no gods, i dont belive in life after death etc etc, which is the main reason i am not religion.
BUt i dont know, buddism just seems good to me maybe because of the buddist monks who are awesome with martial arts.
Don't get me wrong, There's nothing wrong with being a Christian and practicing Buddhist rituals. Meditation is a great way to clear your mind, relax you, assist in digestion (really), make you a more pleasant person to be around, help with mood swings, and many other things.
Just keep in mind Meditation isnt just sitting down and closing your eyes. It's a way to acheieve Mindfulness and Enlightenment. It requires concentration and focus.
After an hour of straight meditation, you can begin to slouch (not good) but you can't slouch as it affects your focus, but you can't focus on your slouching, as you'll be distracted. It's a hard practice to approach properly, but once you get it down, it can change your life (seriously)
| Yantaal wrote: |
| BUt i dont know, buddism just seems good to me maybe because of the buddist monks who are awesome with martial arts. |
To answer your question, Yantaal, No. Buddhism does not incorporate any God or Godlike figure (nontheistic) and from what I've learned, Monks being good martial artists is not as much of a stereotype as it seems.
At least in Thailand, most Muay Thai champions become Monks afterwards. They never practice it though. I knew a few Monks that were Muay Thai champions at the temple, but they never agreed to teach me.Meditation
Practice of meditation or dhyāna is essential to the cultivation of mindfulness and mental concentration, which is needed to achieve insight. Almost all Buddhist schools agree that the Buddha taught two types of meditation, viz. samatha and vipassana meditation. Samatha (tranquility or concentration) meditation starts from being mindful to an object or idea, which is expanded to one's body, mind and entire surroundings, leading to state of total concentration and tranquility. This state of mind is considered a prerequisite to the attainment of vipassana (insight). This dichotomy is also sometimes discussed as "stopping and seeing." In Buddhist practice, it is said that while samatha meditation can calm the mind, only vipassana meditation can reveal how the mind was disturbed to start with, which is what leads to prajña (pure understanding) and jñana (knowledge) and thus can lead to nirvana.
There are many variations in the style of meditation, from sitting cross-legged or kneeling to chanting or walking. The most common method of meditation is to concentrate on one's breath, because this practice can lead to both samatha and vipassana.
During his life time, Buddha specifically refused to answer a number of questions. These are (1) Whether the world is eternal (2) Whether the world is infinite (3) Whether the body and the soul is one and (4) Whether the Buddha exists after death. The Buddha, using an analogy of poisoned arrow, indicated to Malunkyaputta that such speculative questions are ultimately unprofitable.
In another occasion, the Buddha, without giving specific elaboration, stated that minor vinaya rule can be amended by Sangha. It is also believe that Buddah used Magdhi or Ardha-Magadhi dialect, which is very similar to the literary language of the Jains dialect. However, Buddah "admonished his leading Arhats not to compel his followers to learn Ardha-Magadhi in order to understand his doctrine". He further diverge from ancient Brahmin tradition by allowing monks and nuns not just to preach in local language but recite dharma in local language as well.
Soon after the passing of Gautama Buddha, the first Buddhist council was held. As with any ancient Indian tradition, transmission of teaching were done orally. Primary purpose of assembly were to collectively recite the teaching so to ensure that no errors occurs in oral transmission. In the first council, Ananda, Buddah's personal attendant was called upon to recite the discourses of the Buddha (sutra/sutta), and Upali, another disciple, recited the monastic rules (vinaya).
Looks like you just Copied and Pasted from a website... Mind providing the source for the info?
I guess Wikipedia really does have everything. And here I was thinking he found some sort of obscure fountain of knowledge online.
If you want to know Buddhism, you must read Dhammapada. It is collection of Buddha's teachings.
But Buddhism is not limited to Dhammapada only. Please post any copied text within the "[ quote ][ /quote]" tags.
| Quote: |
The Buddha was born Siddhartha Gautama, a prince of the Sakya tribe of Nepal, in approximately 566 BC. When he was twentynine years old, he left the comforts of his home to seek the meaning of the suffering he saw around him. After six years of arduous yogic training, he abandoned the way of self-mortification and instead sat in mindful meditation beneath a bodhi tree.
On the full moon of May, with the rising of the morning star, Siddhartha Gautama became the Buddha, the enlightened one.
The Buddha wandered the plains of northeastern India for 45 years more, teaching the path or Dharma he had realized in that moment. Around him developed a community or Sangha of monks and, later, nuns, drawn from every tribe and caste, devoted to practicing this path. In approximately 486 BC, at the age of 80, the Buddha died. His last words are said to be...
Impermanent are all created things;
Strive on with awareness.
Samsara is this world, filled as it is with so much pain and sorrow. All beings in this world are subject to the law of karma. Karma means volitional act, that is, something you do, say, or think that is in fact in your control. Any such act has moral consequences, called vipaka, which means fruit. In traditional Buddhism, this consequences can occur in this life, or in a future life.
Most Buddhists believe in rebirth. For many, rebirth is no different from what the Hindus believed, i.e. reincarnation or transmigration -- moving from one's old body at death to a new body at birth or conception. A little more precisely, rebirth is nothing more than the transmission of one's karma. Buddha likened it to the flame that passes from one candle to another. So the idea of an immortal soul, a continuing personality, is definitely not part of the rebirth idea.
Rebirth and similar concepts are not a part of most westerners' cultures, so many western Buddhists, as well as some eastern Buddhists, take rebirth as a metaphor, rather than literally. Buddhism has never been a particularly literalist religion, so this is not at all taboo. In fact, Buddha often avoids discussing the reality of one metaphysical idea or another as irrelevant to the practice of the Dharma.
The image to the right is the Tibetan Wheel of Life, which represents Samsara. In the very center, there is a rooster chasing a pig chasing a snake chasing the rooster -- craving, hatred, and ignorance. Around that are people ascending the white semicircle of life, and others descending the black semicircle of death. The greatest portion of the Wheel is devoted to representations of the six realms -- the realm of the gods, the realm of the titans, the realm of humans, the realm of animals, the realm of the hungry ghosts, and the realm of demons -- each realm looked over by its own boddhisattva. The outermost circle is the 12 steps of dependent origination. The entire Wheel is held by Yama, the Lord of Death. |
Image to the right huh? Maybe you should either quote your sources or simply provide a link, instead of copying and pasting.
| Quote: |
Is there a god in Buddism, because i find that to be the most dissapointing idea in most religions. Buddism everything about it seems ok, but i am picky, i belive in the big band, evolution, and no gods, i dont belive in life after death etc etc, which is the main reason i am not religion.
|
the answer is there is a god in Buddhism. but Buddha is not a god.
god is just a better form compare with human,
but inside god still there is some 'bla..bla..bla' left <--- ("bla3"? my english is bad >.<, I have to go home & check dictionary first that I want to said). I mean some behaviour like angry, happy, depended, etc. for example god still have to stay in paradise. depend on what kind of god he's be. god like to punish other when the other make hime angry.
| Quote: |
BUt i dont know, buddism just seems good to me maybe because of the buddist monks who are awesome with martial arts |
you mean Shaolin ???
in fact there is no relation at all between martial art and Buddhism.
Shaollin just a history. which there was a time, when a wanderer hi-monk (from India) across temple call Shaolin, he see & reallize those monk physical so-weak. then he decide to teach some martial art for their healthy not for attack somebody, keep it in mind!.
no monk from this world learn martial art, excepted in Shaolin temple.
when you watching in TV or Thearter.. it just for story purpose.
monk must not attack other for any reason.AdamantMonk, you have some odd notions of Buddhism: no God, no Heaven? How is Nirvana different from Heaven? You imply that Buddhism is atheistic, but you do back flips to avoid using the term, fabricating a term instead -- "nontheistic", which isn't a word in the English language. Buddhism asserts that the entire universe is a self-aware being, even apparently empty space. When Buddhists talk about the Great Void as a personality that knows your thoughts, who is this but God?
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| AdamantMonk, you have some odd notions of Buddhism: no God, no Heaven? How is Nirvana different from Heaven? You imply that Buddhism is atheistic, but you do back flips to avoid using the term, fabricating a term instead -- "nontheistic", which isn't a word in the English language. Buddhism asserts that the entire universe is a self-aware being, even apparently empty space. When Buddhists talk about the Great Void as a personality that knows your thoughts, who is this but God? |
Buddhism is called nontheistic, rather than atheistic, because Buddhist teachings don't say there are definitely no gods, or that you mustn't worship them, but it doesn't say there necessarily are gods, either. It certainly doesn't say you must worship any gods. It just says the question of gods is not important. Therefore, there are Buddhist sects that worship gods, and there are Buddhist sects that don't, and there are also some Buddhists who, from the way they revered the Buddha, you would say they worshipped him as a deity, but they are all conformant to the basic teachings of Buddhism.
Nirvana is not Heaven. It does not involve the survival of the self, having pleasant experiences in a pleasant place, which is what characterises Heaven. In Buddhist sects that (perhaps influenced by Hinduism or Chinese folk religion) have gods and heavens, Nirvana is nothing to do with any of those.
The two beliefs in Buddhism that require a leap in faith (for a modern, educated person) are karma and reincarnation. | BruceTheDauber wrote: |
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | AdamantMonk, you have some odd notions of Buddhism: no God, no Heaven? How is Nirvana different from Heaven? You imply that Buddhism is atheistic, but you do back flips to avoid using the term, fabricating a term instead -- "nontheistic", which isn't a word in the English language. Buddhism asserts that the entire universe is a self-aware being, even apparently empty space. When Buddhists talk about the Great Void as a personality that knows your thoughts, who is this but God? |
Buddhism is called nontheistic, rather than atheistic, because Buddhist teachings don't say there are definitely no gods, or that you mustn't worship them, but it doesn't say there necessarily are gods, either. It certainly doesn't say you must worship any gods. It just says the question of gods is not important. Therefore, there are Buddhist sects that worship gods, and there are Buddhist sects that don't, and there are also some Buddhists who, from the way they revered the Buddha, you would say they worshipped him as a deity, but they are all conformant to the basic teachings of Buddhism.
|
You are totally confused by bad translations of Buddhist texts. The gods that you refer to are PEOPLE who have attained Nirvana. Only when poorly translated into English could this even vaguely be confused with Brahma / Great Void -- the conscious self-aware universe. Buddhism states unequivocally that the universe is conscious. There is only one universe, no plural is possible (save by false dichotomies) and so Gods are not possible. God either is or is not, there is no in between. Worship or non-worship of enlightened masters has nothing to do with theism or atheism, and fabricating a new definition for a concept that doesn’t exist in Buddhism hardly helps explain Buddhism to anyone. It is just the blind leading the blind.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
Nirvana is not Heaven. It does not involve the survival of the self, having pleasant experiences in a pleasant place, which is what characterises Heaven. In Buddhist sects that (perhaps influenced by Hinduism or Chinese folk religion) have gods and heavens, Nirvana is nothing to do with any of those.
|
Perhaps influenced by Hinduism? Are you aware that the Buddha was a Hindu who lived his entire life in India?
Your definition of Heaven is as flawed as your definition of Nirvana. Even in Christianity, Heaven is a place beyond physical suffering and sensual gratification, beyond all physicality. Guatama the Buddha said that Nirvana is not a physical place but a state of consciousness. If the self does not survive how could it then be a state of consciousness? Any distinction between Heaven and Nirvana is a false dichotomy and in order to fabricate such a distinction you have to twist both what Christians and Buddhists believe.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
The two beliefs in Buddhism that require a leap in faith (for a modern, educated person) are karma and reincarnation.
|
Oh come on, why does it require faith to believe that what goes around comes around? Believing that karma operates via an unconscious automated universe, now *that* requires doing some severe mental contortionism. As to reincarnation, it goes hand-in-hand with the existence of a loving God. It is the most logical thing in the world, if God exists then so must reincarnation. That is the only logical way that a loving conscious being could possibly setup the universe. Any alternative excludes the possibility of a loving God, necessitating either no God at all, or a spiteful God.Buddha never supported the theory of the world created by God. It will be clear from the following verses, from Bhûridatta Jataka.
| Quote: |
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create concord?
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create?
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail! |
sourse: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_attitude_to_god.htm | mike1reynolds wrote: |
You are totally confused by bad translations of Buddhist texts. The gods that you refer to are PEOPLE who have attained Nirvana. |
You are confused about the meaning(s) of the word "god". Many gods, probably most gods, in most religions are people who have been apotheosized. Heroes, kings, ancestors and sages after they die often start to be worshipped as gods. Probably, the majority of gods in the world are of that type.
| Quote: |
| Only when poorly translated into English could this even vaguely be confused with Brahma / Great Void -- the conscious self-aware universe. Buddhism states unequivocally that the universe is conscious. |
Far from it. It is more debatable that Brahman (which is not necessarily part of Buddhism) should be translated as "god" than that an apotheosized person should be called "god" or "a god". A god is normally a personage, but Brahman, though presumed to be in some sense conscious, is impersonal. That's a good reason for saying that the idea of Brahman is quite distinct from the idea of God (such as is presented in the Bible), because the Biblical God is very much a personage.
| Quote: |
| Worship or non-worship of enlightened masters has nothing to do with theism or atheism |
You are completely wrong on that point. A supernatural being (even if it was once a flesh-and-blood human being) that is worshipped is, by definition, a god. Therefore, a religion that recommends worshipping such beings is a theistic religion, and one that denies the existence of any such beings is an atheistic one.
| Quote: |
| Perhaps influenced by Hinduism? Are you aware that the Buddha was a Hindu who lived his entire life in India? |
Yes, I am aware of that, but the Buddha jettisoned many Hindu concepts. In some Buddhist sects, those concepts crept back in. Those sects, I would say, are influenced by Hinduism.
| Quote: |
| Your definition of Heaven is as flawed as your definition of Nirvana. Even in Christianity, Heaven is a place beyond physical suffering and sensual gratification, beyond all physicality. |
Again, you are wrong. What little description of heaven exists in the Bible indicates that it is presumed to be a place where where selfhood survives, and life continues in a recognizable form, so that the denizens of heaven continue to worship God. The extremely abstract idea of heaven that you attribute to Christianity is not built into the religion. It is a concept that SOME Christians adhere to, but not all.
| Quote: |
| Guatama the Buddha said that Nirvana is not a physical place but a state of consciousness. If the self does not survive how could it then be a state of consciousness? Any distinction between Heaven and Nirvana is a false dichotomy and in order to fabricate such a distinction you have to twist both what Christians and Buddhists believe. |
Any description of the Christian Heaven as purely a state of consciousness is modern, and is probably influenced by Eastern Religion. In general Christianity from Bible times until fairly recently, the normal view of heaven has always been that it is a place where people live after death (or after Judgement Day), along with angels and God, and it exists somewhere beyond the sky.
| Quote: |
| Oh come on, why does it require faith to believe that what goes around comes around? |
It doesn't require faith to believe that, in general, if you're bad to people around you, you won't get favours from them, and if you're good to them, you will. It does require faith to believe that your good and bad deeds will always be rewarded or punished accordingly, no matter whether or not you're caught out by other human beings, even if you die. It also takes faith to believe that the lucky or unlucky things that happen to you are punishments or rewards for things you did, and perhaps don't remember, in the past.
| Quote: |
| Believing that karma operates via an unconscious automated universe, now *that* requires doing some severe mental contortionism. |
Exactly. The Buddhist idea of karma requires the existence of a supernatural force (intelligent, but not necessarily personal) that can weigh up the good and bad that people do, and assign fate to them accordingly. It takes faith to believe in such a thing.
| Quote: |
| As to reincarnation, it goes hand-in-hand with the existence of a loving God. It is the most logical thing in the world, if God exists then so must reincarnation. |
God could exist, and not be loving. Or he could exist, and instead of offering reincarnation, send all people to heaven after their death. And he could not exist (by far the most likely scenario). | nam_siddharth wrote: |
Buddha never supported the theory of the world created by God. It will be clear from the following verses, from Bhûridatta Jataka.
| Quote: | If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create concord?
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create?
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail! |
sourse: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_attitude_to_god.htm |
Well, this author also states that Hinduism is “nontheistic”, which is both patently false and a meaningless statement. (How is nontheistic suppose to be different from atheistic? Given wikipedia’s definition it would seem that nontheist is atheistic without caring, which would be an utterly meaningless distinction from the term atheism.)
OK, if Buddhism rejects the notion of a conscious self-aware universe then who is Vairocana, what is the dharmadhatu, what is the Adi-buddha and the Samantabhadra Buddha? | BruceTheDauber wrote: |
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
You are totally confused by bad translations of Buddhist texts. The gods that you refer to are PEOPLE who have attained Nirvana. |
You are confused about the meaning(s) of the word "god". Many gods, probably most gods, in most religions are people who have been apotheosized. Heroes, kings, ancestors and sages after they die often start to be worshipped as gods. Probably, the majority of gods in the world are of that type.
| Quote: | | Only when poorly translated into English could this even vaguely be confused with Brahma / Great Void -- the conscious self-aware universe. Buddhism states unequivocally that the universe is conscious. |
Far from it. It is more debatable that Brahman (which is not necessarily part of Buddhism) should be translated as "god" than that an apotheosized person should be called "god" or "a god".
|
Only if you fabricate your own definitions as you go along. How can a human-being possibly be a self-aware universe? Brahma is quite explicitly a self-aware universe in Hinduism. Christianity isn’t as explicit, but point to a single Christian sect that denies that God is all-pervasive? It is only by splitting hairs, creating false dichotomies, and willfully confusing obviously distinct concepts (people vs. a self-aware universe) that you can introduce any confusion in what is an extremely elementary matter.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
| A god is normally a personage, but Brahman, though presumed to be in some sense conscious, is impersonal. |
The concept, when applied to a self-aware universe, is utterly meaningless. The term personage implies a personal realm distinct from the larger universe. If every particle in the universe forms a vast self-aware neural-network, what could the terms personal and impersonal mean when applied to this consciousness? It is like trying to attribute a color to darkness, it’s just meaningless word shuffling.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
That's a good reason for saying that the idea of Brahman is quite distinct from the idea of God (such as is presented in the Bible), because the Biblical God is very much a personage.
|
In Christianity, God refers to Itself as the beginning and the end, in other words an all pervasive consciousness. It is such a meaningless distinction that you are setting up here that alternately you could say that the Christian/Hindu view of God is both personal and impersonal, and yet at the same time neither personal nor impersonal. In other words it means absolutely nothing.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
| Quote: | | Worship or non-worship of enlightened masters has nothing to do with theism or atheism |
You are completely wrong on that point. A supernatural being (even if it was once a flesh-and-blood human being) that is worshipped is, by definition, a god. Therefore, a religion that recommends worshipping such beings is a theistic religion, and one that denies the existence of any such beings is an atheistic one.
|
So you assert that Christianity is an atheistic religion since it denies the existence of anything that satisfies your definition of gods? These are just word games that have no meaningful bearing on the views of Christians and Hindus, much less on an absolutely reality that exists apart from anyone’s belief or disbelief, worship or non-worship.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
| Quote: | | Your definition of Heaven is as flawed as your definition of Nirvana. Even in Christianity, Heaven is a place beyond physical suffering and sensual gratification, beyond all physicality. |
Again, you are wrong. What little description of heaven exists in the Bible indicates that it is presumed to be a place where where selfhood survives, and life continues in a recognizable form, so that the denizens of heaven continue to worship God.
|
Why are you so obsessed with worship? It is no more relevant to God’s existence than yours or mine. If no one worshiped you would you cease to exist? Would you even care? You project a “God” that is inferior to most human beings if you think It cares about such things.
As to the physicality of Heaven, nothing in either the Bible or the Catholic church supports such a notion. How many Christians do you know who believe in a Heaven of physicality? Not a one, I’m quite certain, you should get out more and talk to people more instead of getting lost in this sort of self-referential circular reasoning of concepts based on abstract terms that are so divorced from reality and human beliefs.
Yes, selfhood survives in Heaven, just as it does in Buddha’s description of Nirvana. You avoided the criticism in my last post, so I’ll repeat it: Buddha described Nirvana as a state of mind. A state of mind requires a surviving selfhood. What is the state of mind of a non-existent self?
You are getting confused by the emptiness doctrine, where an enlightened mind is like a clean mirror that only reflects. This is no more mutually exclusive with a surviving selfhood than particles and waves are mutually exclusive. Particles are distinct individual objects, while waves are not; waves flow from one to the next with no boundaries in between. In physics both are true simultaneously, there is no contradiction.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
| The extremely abstract idea of heaven that you attribute to Christianity is not built into the religion. It is a concept that SOME Christians adhere to, but not all. |
Name a sect that does not? It isn’t abstract at all, it is virtually universal to all religions. I am not aware of a single religion or shamanistic tradition that refers to Heaven or the spirit world as a place of physicality.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
| Quote: | | Guatama the Buddha said that Nirvana is not a physical place but a state of consciousness. If the self does not survive how could it then be a state of consciousness? Any distinction between Heaven and Nirvana is a false dichotomy and in order to fabricate such a distinction you have to twist both what Christians and Buddhists believe. |
Any description of the Christian Heaven as purely a state of consciousness is modern, and is probably influenced by Eastern Religion.
|
I never suggested it did in such explicit terms, I was talking about Buddhism here and how the notion of Nirvana as the destruction of the self is completely incompatible with the notion of Nirvana as a state of mind. Your false notions of Buddhism are explicitly self-contradictory. Your false notions of Christianity are not explicitly contradictory, and so peripheral here, they are merely uniquely your own and not relevant to what virtually all Christians actually think. All Christians understand that Heaven is beyond sense gratification and physical suffering.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
In general Christianity from Bible times until fairly recently, the normal view of heaven has always been that it is a place where people live after death (or after Judgement Day), along with angels and God, and it exists somewhere beyond the sky.
|
It is a place only in the sense that the dream-planes are a “place” in Hinduism and shamanism. Does that makes dreams physical? No. Where is “beyond the sky”? These are not even remotely Christian theological concepts, you are simply taking the arbitrary unthought-out beliefs of the most ignorant Christian layman and trying to attach some significance in Christianity to it, very much like taking a grammar school child’s understanding as the final word on mathematics. Such statements have very little, if anything, to do with Christian theological arguments and understanding.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
| Quote: | | Oh come on, why does it require faith to believe that what goes around comes around? |
It doesn't require faith to believe that, in general, if you're bad to people around you, you won't get favours from them, and if you're good to them, you will. It does require faith to believe that your good and bad deeds will always be rewarded or punished accordingly, no matter whether or not you're caught out by other human beings, even if you die. It also takes faith to believe that the lucky or unlucky things that happen to you are punishments or rewards for things you did, and perhaps don't remember, in the past.
|
Well, this is off the topic, but if it requires such a huge leap of faith, then why is it such a basic tenant of every world religion? When I say, what goes around comes around I’m talking about a fundamental principle of the universe, every bit as fundamental as conservation of mass and energy. At the quantum level, the universe is a vast neural network which rapidly arrived at karma as a required axiomatic principle in the first moments of the big bang. That is the only way that the pieces of the puzzle of the cosmic mind could possibly have self-organized in a stable, continuously progressive way.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
| Quote: | | Believing that karma operates via an unconscious automated universe, now *that* requires doing some severe mental contortionism. |
Exactly. The Buddhist idea of karma requires the existence of a supernatural force (intelligent, but not necessarily personal) that can weigh up the good and bad that people do, and assign fate to them accordingly.
|
What is God, other than an intelligent, universal supernatural force? You deny the existence of God, then come up with a definitional phrase that exactly matches every theistic definition of God. This is just word games, it is fundamentally impossible for you to get around the concept of God in Buddhism without the use of semantic smoke and mirrors.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
| It takes faith to believe in such a thing. |
That is like saying that it requires faith to believe the sun will rise tomorrow. A blind man might think so, but for someone who has experience, faith is a paltry theoretical substitute for solid, grounded, practical understanding.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
| Quote: | | As to reincarnation, it goes hand-in-hand with the existence of a loving God. It is the most logical thing in the world, if God exists then so must reincarnation. |
God could exist, and not be loving. Or he could exist, and instead of offering reincarnation, send all people to heaven after their death. And he could not exist (by far the most likely scenario).
|
Surprise, surprise, you’re an atheist, who would have guessed? You’re trying to ram a square peg into a round hole. Buddhism looks atheistic only to atheists. Its that mirror thing, atheism is the dust on your mirror, so when you look at the Buddha all you see is the reflection of your own obscuring mental constructs that hold you imprisoned. This is precisely why Buddhism, especially Zen, is so focused on trying to destroy intellectual concepts. Such theorization is nothing but a hindrance to practicing the Buddha’s teachings. The Buddha taught how to directly apprehend the true nature of the universe, and anyone who thinks that this can be achieved through manipulating intellectual constructs is completely wasting their time and violating the most fundamental tenants of all Buddhist practices.AdamantMonk quoted the Dalai Lama out of context saying that one could not be both Christian and Buddhist at the same time. Without context, the implication was that the two are fundamentally incompatible. But here is another quote (paraphrased) from the Dalai Lama:
“Christianity is a sort of mini-Buddhism, all of the tenants of Christianity are present in Buddhism, but some of the fundamental tenants of Buddhism are missing from Christianity.”
This completely contradicts the notion expressed by all three of you that Buddhism is “nontheistic” (whatever that is supposed to be as opposed to atheistic).
Another quote from the Dalai Lama is where he states that the Trikaya is identical, one in the same as the Trinity.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
“Christianity is a sort of mini-Buddhism, all of the tenants of Christianity are present in Buddhism, but some of the fundamental tenants of Buddhism are missing from Christianity.”
Another quote from the Dalai Lama is where he states that the Trikaya is identical, one in the same as the Trinity. |
I'd be intrested to know where you got the first quote from. As I recall, and its been a while since I've checked out buddhism, but I don't recall it having anything close to jesus dying on the cross to reconcile us to God. And from discussions with a friend of mine who is currently studying buddhism there topic of who God is is left mostly up to the individual, but that could just be his individaul sect, which he says is highly westernized.You hit the nail on the head, "highly westernized". It gets absorbed and disolved into New Age beliefs. It also gets colored with western rational dichotomies which are largely alien to the mindset of Eastern religions.
As to Jesus' role, Buddhist recognize Jesus as a Buddha. While Jesus said '*I* am the only doorway', the Buddha said that a Buddha is the only doorway. While I don't expect Christians to accept this, I also fail to see a signficant theological difference in the two stances, other than the fact that one is more exclusionary.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| AdamantMonk, you have some odd notions of Buddhism: no God, no Heaven? How is Nirvana different from Heaven? |
Try no pearly gates and old man deeming whether you are fit to enter. Try every single person going to heaven so long as they pray and repent.
Compare that to devoting you entire life to Buddhism in order to possibly achieve Nirvana. (Which is in fact a state of existence, more than a place.)
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| You imply that Buddhism is atheistic, but you do back flips to avoid using the term, fabricating a term instead -- "nontheistic", which isn't a word in the English language. |
It wasn't backflips, it was a brainfart. I apologise for having trouble conjuring the word "atheitsic" and thus, offending you.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Buddhism asserts that the entire universe is a self-aware being, even apparently empty space. When Buddhists talk about the Great Void as a personality that knows your thoughts, who is this but God? |
Philosophically speaking, you may be correct.
I'd like to continue this argument but I'm having another brainfart and wouldn't want to offend you or anyone else. | AdamantMonk wrote: |
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | AdamantMonk, you have some odd notions of Buddhism: no God, no Heaven? How is Nirvana different from Heaven? |
Try no pearly gates and old man deeming whether you are fit to enter. Try every single person going to heaven so long as they pray and repent.
|
Sounds like a rebellion against Christianity rather than an affirmative belief.
| AdamantMonk wrote: |
Compare that to devoting you entire life to Buddhism in order to possibly achieve Nirvana. (Which is in fact a state of existence, more than a place.)
|
I thought you were arguing for a certain interpretation of Buddhism rather than against it.
| AdamantMonk wrote: |
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | You imply that Buddhism is atheistic, but you do back flips to avoid using the term, fabricating a term instead -- "nontheistic", which isn't a word in the English language. |
It wasn't backflips, it was a brainfart. I apologise for having trouble conjuring the word "atheitsic" and thus, offending you.
|
You sound like the one who takes offense. I'm merely pointing out certain glaring logical flaws.
| AdamantMonk wrote: |
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Buddhism asserts that the entire universe is a self-aware being, even apparently empty space. When Buddhists talk about the Great Void as a personality that knows your thoughts, who is this but God? |
Philosophically speaking, you may be correct.
I'd like to continue this argument but I'm having another brainfart and wouldn't want to offend you or anyone else. |
And you may be incorrect, but it doesn't sound like your ego could take it.I was gonna try and edit that to not make myself seem like such a narrow ass, as I'm horrible with wording stuff.
I guess it's that old thing about everyone having to be right, but whatever. Tell me some of the basis of your arguments and I'll listen. I was under the impression that Buddhism is an Atheistic religion (kind of a contradiction I guess) as it's not immediately apparent that any sort of God is worshipped, or higher ranking than the Gotama Buddha. To those raised Christian it is hard to believe god being below any others.
So, sorry for jumping to conclusions it just seemed like you were being more combative than constructive and I personally don't believe that is the condition the only Buddhist thread should be in.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| AdamantMonk wrote: | Compare that to devoting you entire life to Buddhism in order to possibly achieve Nirvana. (Which is in fact a state of existence, more than a place.)
|
I thought you were arguing for a certain interpretation of Buddhism rather than against it. |
I didn't intend to ephasize possibly in such a way as to suggest it may not be possible to acheive nirvana, but instead to suggest that, unlike Chrisitanity's view of heaven, few Buddhists achieve Nirvana, while several devote their life to escaping Samsara. (Sorry for the run on scentence, just wanted to clarify that though.) | mike1reynolds wrote: |
As to Jesus' role, Buddhist recognize Jesus as a Buddha. While Jesus said '*I* am the only doorway', the Buddha said that a Buddha is the only doorway. While I don't expect Christians to accept this, I also fail to see a signficant theological difference in the two stances, other than the fact that one is more exclusionary. |
I think one significant difference, from the christian perspective, is that it wasn't through his life, or his enlightened status (don't really think thats the right word but the only one I can really think of, so I apologize) that we can be in relationship with God, it was through his death.
Quick question about nirvana, and I guess it holds some question of reincarnation as well. Is nirvana viewed as something we can achieve in this life, or is it something/someplace that one can only reach after they have learned all things they were meant to in this life? | AdamantMonk wrote: |
I guess it's that old thing about everyone having to be right, but whatever. Tell me some of the basis of your arguments and I'll listen. I was under the impression that Buddhism is an Atheistic religion (kind of a contradiction I guess) as it's not immediately apparent that any sort of God is worshipped, or higher ranking than the Gotama Buddha. To those raised Christian it is hard to believe god being below any others.
|
In general, Buddhists don't worship anything or anyone, although some sects have a Catholic-like system of saints that they propitiate. Buddhists certainly don't place any Buddha above God. I think that some of the confusion comes in from the great diligence Guatama put on not allowing Buddhism to degenerate into a cult of personality the way Hinduism had and later Christianity did. And the same applies to God: you can’t kiss God’s butt, so why even try? The emphasis instead is on direct experience of God and your own soul nature.
| AdamantMonk wrote: |
| So, sorry for jumping to conclusions it just seemed like you were being more combative than constructive and I personally don't believe that is the condition that the only Buddhist thread should be in. |
Well, I think that it is harmful to portray Buddhism as an atheistic religion. Buddhism is susceptible to this for people who aren’t aware of the cultural and historical context of Hinduism to Buddhism, and how Buddhism was an attempt to reform the decay that had crept into Hinduism. Hinduism is a preeminently theist religion and that is one element of Hinduism that the Buddha did not take issue with. It was completely unnecessary to emphasis it to such a profoundly theistic culture.
Hinduism is an extremely diverse and complex religion, or more aptly set of religions, and the misconceptions that it had fallen into were numerous, complex and convoluted, which can make the Buddha’s many arguments difficult to translate. Some of the widespread misconceptions of 500 BC India have only resurfaced in our own time, and many other misconceptions of their time simply have no counterpart at all, not even in the modern era. So Buddhism is much more susceptible to distortion by ivory tower intellectuals than the much more simplistic theology of Christianity.
You are right in suggesting that I was getting hot under the collar, I think that religious ignorance and ethnocentrism are the worst flaws of American culture. If ignorance of non-Judao-Christian religions weren’t so widespread, I think that many of America’s worst attributes would dissolve. Most Christian reject Eastern religions because of the way they are so woefully misrepresented, when in fact all Eastern religions are superior to all Western religions, especially Islam. Travesties such as Islam and Mormonism were only possible because the bar was already set so low in Judeo-Christianity. So when Eastern religions are put forward as being fundamentally incompatible with Christianity it only makes the problem worse. The truth is that Eastern religions are imminently compatible with Christianity, the main difference being that Eastern religions are fuller, more complete, older and more matured. Western religions are destroying the world, but the Dalai Lama once said, and very rightly so, that if just 10% of the world were Buddhist that the world’s most critical problems would just dissolve away.I like this Thread much better when it is filled with lots of helpful information such as this rather than people copying/pasting generic facts and spouting half-assed insults.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but from what you are saying, I could be led to understand that if someone were Atheistic, Buddhism is concerned so little with god that they could convert to Buddhism and still not have any beliefs in God (that it wouldn't affect their Buddhist life).
Last edited by AdamantMonk on Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:57 am; edited 1 time in total
| a_dubDesign wrote: |
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
As to Jesus' role, Buddhist recognize Jesus as a Buddha. While Jesus said '*I* am the only doorway', the Buddha said that a Buddha is the only doorway. While I don't expect Christians to accept this, I also fail to see a signficant theological difference in the two stances, other than the fact that one is more exclusionary. |
I think one significant difference, from the christian perspective, is that it wasn't through his life, or his enlightened status (don't really think thats the right word but the only one I can really think of, so I apologize) that we can be in relationship with God, it was through his death.
|
Well, instead of trying to draw a parallel between Christianity and Buddhism in this regard I would tend to be more critical of this as a false interpretation of Christianity. When I was a child I use to ask why Jesus had to die to forgive our sins? It made absolutely no sense to me why God would couple these two, it sounded like the blood sacrifice of a primitive demonic religion to me, like the Viking death cult. But from the context of Eastern religions and karma it makes perfect sense without portraying God as blood thirsty: masters can take on the karma of their students and people can die of a disease from taking on the world’s karma (probably not as a conscious decision, but rather as the soul’s choice). An especially powerful master can take on and transmute huge amounts of karma. As such, Jesus didn’t die to forgive our sins, that is a poorly worded translation. But he did die in order to save the world, to take on enough of the world’s negative karma so that it would not destroy itself. When put into this context his saving the world and our personal relationship with God are two completely different things with no direct bearing on each other.
| a_dubDesign wrote: |
| Quick question about nirvana, and I guess it holds some question of reincarnation as well. Is nirvana viewed as something we can achieve in this life, or is it something/someplace that one can only reach after they have learned all things they were meant to in this life? |
Both propositions are true. Nirvana is a state of mind that allows one to escape from the cycle of reincarnation, but it can only be achieved while incarnate. Your question is very insightful and it convolutes my debate with BruceTheDauber because you’ve got me thinking more insightfully about the subject and I made some misstatements in my replies to him. Just as Jesus said, “my father’s home has many mansions” different Buddhist sects have their favorite heavenly abodes. In the Pure-Land sect of Buddhism (the largest religion in the world prior to the 1930’s) devotees aspire to go to Potala, the heavenly abode of the Goddess (feminine counterpart of God). Nirvana is not a spiritual realm but instead a state of mind that allows one to permanently remain in such a heavenly abode.
One question that I have always had is, what is the relationship between the attainment of Nirvana and the balancing of karma, since one must also balance one’s karma in order to escape from the cycle of reincarnation. | AdamantMonk wrote: |
| So correct me if i'm worng, but from what you are saying, I could be led to understand that if someone were Atheistic, Buddhism is concerned so little with god that they could convert to Buddhism and still not have any beliefs in god (that it wouldn't affect their Buddhist life). |
Well, I think that it depends on how you arrived at atheism. When I was an atheist (12-21) it was because I searched for God in a Godless world and got extremely discouraged. But that was a conclusion or state of mind that was easily altered by having tangible mystical experiences. If one arrives at atheism as a result of intellectual smugness and nihilism then it becomes the classic enemy of Buddhism, since adherence to any intellectual concept is anathema to Buddhism. In Christianity they call this the ‘still small voice’; it is very hard to sense the spiritual realm, preoccupation with intellectual concepts or the mundane affairs of life can easily drown out the still small voice.I should add that exactly the same is true of theism, having a rigid intellectual concept of God (or any other aspect of spirituality) is just as anathema to Buddhism as a rigid intellectual concept of no God.
mike1reynolds, I don't know why it bothers or surprises you so much that Buddhism should be called nontheistic. It has been called so by many people over a long time, and nam_siddhartha quoted Buddhist scripture rubbishing the idea that Brahma is the creator, or that a benign, omnipotent creator being even exists or could exist. In fact, one of the arguments attributed to Buddha is very similar to an argument used by the atheist Roman philosopher Epicurus in the first century BC. So, it is plain from Buddhist scripture that the Buddhist attitude to God and gods is utterly different from that of the Western monotheist religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and is also very different from polytheistic religions that place high emphasis on the worship of gods.
As to the definition of "god", I was not making it up as I went along. When the word is used as a noun, without capitalisation, it normally means "A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality." -- I took that definition from an online dictionary. Note that worship is built into the definition, and personhood is implied (you can't be "male" without being person-like).
The God of the Bible was such a being, and was a personage like Zeus or Odin, before theologians much later came along and (under the influence of Greek philosophy) turned God into an almost-completely-abstract entity. It is impossible to read the Bible and not see God as a personage that either lives within the universe, or interacts with it from somewhere outside the universe. It needs to be remembered that Judaism evolved from polytheistic and henotheistic religion. Although modern priests of the monotheistic religions like to talk God as an about an abstract entity, they are not consistent in doing so, but frequently revert to talking about God as a person. Basically, the Abrahamic religions don't make any sense if you don't think of God as a personage. In particular, their scriptures constantly talk about God as a personage, doing person-like things, such as getting angry and being jealous, and loving this person and hating that, etc. Monotheists claim that there is only one God, and that God created the universe, but creating the universe is not part of the definition of "god", whereas being an object of worship, and being a personage, are. This becomes obvious when we look at polytheistic religions: nobody who knows the meaning of the word "god" would deny that Zeus, Odin and Amaterasu are gods, if they know what Ancient Greek religion, Norse religion, and traditional Japanese religion say about those beings, but none of them is responsible for the creation of the world. In fact, in all three religions, the universe emerged from chaos by a natural (not intelligently guided) process, and the first Gods emerged from that chaos in the same way. Yoruba religion (in West Africa) is interesting in this regard, because the supreme deity, Olorun existed before the world, but did not create it. Rather, his son, Oduduwa, created the world in order to impress Daddy, and human beings were created by another god, Obatala.
What all these religions have in common is their stress on worship of the God or gods. If the people fail to worship the deities, Bad Things will happen. This is completely different from Buddhism, which says that worshipping deities is a bit of a distraction from the more important job of pursuing Nirvana. So, while most religions are focused around worshipping gods, Buddhism is not. That seems to me like a good reason for describing Buddhism as "non-theistic".
Now, as to your claim that Heaven is not, according to Christianity, a place, you are just wrong. The Bible explicitly says that Heaven is a place:
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
(Genesis 1:6-8 KJV)
So, it is a place physically located "beyond the sky", or "above the stars", or in other words, beyond the edge of the visible universe. Later in the Bible, Enoch, and subsequently Jesus, rise up to heaven. Why up? Because that's where it is. Most Christians continued to believe in this conception until quite recently, and it was not only the ignorant laity, as you suggest: the Sistine Chapel was designed, on the orders of Pope Sixtus IV, to echo the shape of the universe as he understood it, with the arched ceiling representing Heaven, and the floor representing Earth.
So, heaven and Nirvana are quite different.
Well, I suppose that I need to soften my tone a bit. In attempting to find authoritative Buddhist comments on the subject what I found was extremely mixed an equivocal. I found two references to the Dalai Lama using the term nontheistic and one where he refers to Buddhism as being midway between atheism and theism, but the references are terse and vague. I found a more salient comment from a high ranking Tibetan lama where he adamantly rejects the Pope’s assertion that Buddhism is atheistic, asserts that various Buddhist sects are either theistic or agnostic: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/35/story_3562_1.html.
I found some references to Buddhist authorities who assert that Buddhism is atheistic, but they are exclusively from the Theradavan school. The Bhûridatta Jatakas is a Theradavan story. Note that Jatakas means story or tale rather than scripture (sutra). I have always been repelled by Theradavan Buddhism, it seemed much more primitive to me than the other sects, which accounts for my lack of knowledge of their possibly traditional atheistic stance.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
mike1reynolds, I don't know why it bothers or surprises you so much that Buddhism should be called nontheistic. It has been called so by many people over a long time, and nam_siddhartha quoted Buddhist scripture rubbishing the idea that Brahma is the creator, or that a benign, omnipotent creator being even exists or could exist.
|
And I replied to Siddhartha’s quote with several widely used Buddhist terms for God. Neither you nor he have made any attempt to account for this. What do you think the Adibuddha is if not God?
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
In fact, one of the arguments attributed to Buddha is very similar to an argument used by the atheist Roman philosopher Epicurus in the first century BC.
|
Epicureanism is the very antithesis of Buddhism. “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die” asserts that life is futile and the only meaning that one can get from life is through sense gratification.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
So, it is plain from Buddhist scripture that the Buddhist attitude to God and gods is utterly different from that of the Western monotheist religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and is also very different from polytheistic religions that place high emphasis on the worship of gods.
|
Intellectuals love to split hairs, but the similarities far outweigh the differences. This is a large topic so I will just quote the conclusion from an excellent treatise on the topic at
http://www.alanwallace.org/Is%20Buddhism%20Really%20Nontheistic_.pdf.
While Buddhism is deemed nontheistic, the Vedas are regarded as polytheistic, and the Bible is monotheistic, we have seen that the cosmogonies of Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory. Moreover, the commonality does not end there, for in the Near East, the writings of Plotinus (205-270) also influenced Islamic and Jewish theories of creation. This apparent unity could be attributed to mere coincidence, or to the historical propagation of a single, speculative, metaphysical theory throughout south Asia and the Near East.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
As to the definition of "god", I was not making it up as I went along. When the word is used as a noun, without capitalisation, it normally means "A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality." -- I took that definition from an online dictionary. Note that worship is built into the definition, and personhood is implied (you can't be "male" without being person-like).
|
Since my arguments have been exclusively in regards to God and not gods, I was objecting to your altering the context of my statements. You can give monologues on gods if you want, but if you are going to have a discussion with someone who exclusively refers to the term God, by always changing the subject to something else, that makes it quite difficult to have a dialog.
Since you can’t seem to help yourself with regards to changing the subject I’ll switch terms to something unambiguous. From now on I will no longer use the term God, but instead use the ancient (and modern) Jewish term for God – the Source. The Source cannot possible be confused with gods, so I hope that this will put an end to meaningless tangents on gods.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
The God of the Bible was such a being, and was a personage like Zeus or Odin, before theologians much later came along and (under the influence of Greek philosophy) turned God into an almost-completely-abstract entity. It is impossible to read the Bible and not see God as a personage that either lives within the universe, or interacts with it from somewhere outside the universe.
|
The name Source certainly doesn’t sound like a person. What do you think is meant by, “I am the beginning and the end”? The obvious implication is that the Source encompasses all of the material and temporal universe.
What is an abstract entity? My guess is that only an atheist would refer to the Source as an abstract being, because an abstraction is something that is not manifest, it is just an idea. I have no idea how this relates to the Greeks, whose theology was quite primitive.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
It needs to be remembered that Judaism evolved from polytheistic and henotheistic religion. Although modern priests of the monotheistic religions like to talk God as an about an abstract entity, they are not consistent in doing so, but frequently revert to talking about God as a person. Basically, the Abrahamic religions don't make any sense if you don't think of God as a personage. In particular, their scriptures constantly talk about God as a personage, doing person-like things, such as getting angry and being jealous, and loving this person and hating that, etc.
|
You are obviously trying to highlight petty emotions, but jealousy aside, why do you think that the Source must be an emotionless robot if It exists? That would be subhuman, not superhuman.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
Monotheists claim that there is only one God, and that God created the universe, but creating the universe is not part of the definition of "god", whereas being an object of worship, and being a personage, are.
|
So, because dictionary.com fails to mention creation, all the ancient religious definitions are trumped? When did dictionary.com become the final arbitrator? Webster’s definition of God mentions creation, so does Random House. This kind of contorted reasoning goes beyond ivory tower hubris, it is irrational.
As to personage -- I object to the label ‘personal’ since that implies an inside and an outside, but it is absurd to object to the label personage. The Source is an impersonal personage. Please define what a being that is not a personage is? It is an utterly self-contradictory concept with no possible meaning.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
This becomes obvious when we look at polytheistic religions: nobody who knows the meaning of the word "god" would deny that Zeus, Odin and Amaterasu are gods, if they know what Ancient Greek religion, Norse religion, and traditional Japanese religion say about those beings, but none of them is responsible for the creation of the world. In fact, in all three religions, the universe emerged from chaos by a natural (not intelligently guided) process, and the first Gods emerged from that chaos in the same way. Yoruba religion (in West Africa) is interesting in this regard, because the supreme deity, Olorun existed before the world, but did not create it. Rather, his son, Oduduwa, created the world in order to impress Daddy, and human beings were created by another god, Obatala.
|
It is that utterly irrelevant subject of gods again. The subject that we are debating is whether or not Buddhism acknowledges the Source. I have never once addressed the subject of gods, other than to say that it is of no consequence to the topic at hand.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
What all these religions have in common is their stress on worship of the God or gods. If the people fail to worship the deities, Bad Things will happen.
|
Show me a single reference that says that Brahma is going to get you if you don’t worship It? Show me a single Taoist reference that says that the Supreme Ruler will get you if you don’t worship it? Your atheism is entirely a rebellion against the primitive Judeo-Christian religions and has no bearing on the much more advanced and matured Eastern religions, which you seem to be largely unaware of.
| BruceTheDauber wrote: |
This is completely different from Buddhism, which says that worshipping deities is a bit of a distraction from the more important job of pursuing Nirvana. So, while most religions are focused around worshipping gods, Buddhism is not. That seems to me like a good reason for describing Buddhism as "non-theistic".
|
Being an avidly nonworshiping theist, I couldn’t care less. As I said several times before, the Source doesn’t give a hoot. You can talk about cavemen and their rituals all you want, it has no bearing on the subject, which is that most Buddhist sects do acknowledge the Source.
