How many of you believe in BUDDHA

[MarkLondon]

Buddhist joke (lol, they're rare!): Why can't The Buddha hoover under his sofa? Because he has no attachments! Ho Ho.

 

[mitchymo]

I have no interest in Buddhism...at one time i did until a friend of mine was given a book on buddhist teaching by his burmese father, after reading through just a few chapters the author whom was a distinguished and respected author so it stated on the pre-leaf page was saying how the cycle of life is important and that with the exception of life and death then anything which disturbs the natural cycle being bad citing murder as the prime example of interference of death (good example i thought as murder is obviously bad) but the next line was citing homosexuality as his prime example of interference with the life part of the cycle because it prevents the entrance of new life into the world (naturally being gay i took a disliking to this example)
I have never shown an interest in delving deeper into the buddhist way of life since and never likely will.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Considering over one fifth of the world’s population is Buddhist and increasing, gives me hope that the world is slowly on the way to becoming a better place.

The high-end estimates would suggest that Buddhists constitute less than 10 percent of the world's population.
Some estimates would put it under 5 percent.
Both are far under the 20+ percent you're speaking of, Smartalk.
(I don't mean to be dismissive. It remains true that hundreds of millions of people call themselves 'Buddhists,' that Buddhism has been around for 2,600 years, and that many of those most vociferously opposed to religion make an exception for Buddhism.)

 

[BIGBULL29]

Buddhism, overall, is complicated and simple at the same time.

There are many different Buddhist sects, although most adhere to the same moral and philosophical codes with slight differences between traditions.

Yes, there are some Buddhists who either believe that Buddha was God incarnate or that there is some undefined deity in control of the universe (not Zen Buddhists, which is a less pure form of Buddhism).

For clarification's sake, most Buddhists do not object to one believing in a god. That then begs the question: "Why don't Buddhists in general believe in on?" The answer to that question lies in the buddhist notion that origins are irrevelant to becoming enlightened. "Why focus on something that cannot be known in the present" would be the common response.

I don't believe that most Buddhists are atheists. They accept the mystery of life's origins without any certainty of a higher being or not. All believe, though, in a supreme energy, which is somewhat deitic in nature.

And last but not least, most Buddhists have a very deep love for the Catholic saints throughout history. In fact, most Buddhist religious believe that many of them reached "nirvana" on earth (Mother Theresa, St. Francis of Assisi, etc)

 

[Axcess]

Well, yes, and there are "christians" who don't believe Jesus is the son of God... but, are they really christians?

A religious dogma is NOT an ala carte menu... Americans in particular are famous for picking and choosing which aspects of a faith they will accept, and dismissing the rest.


The fact is that Buddhism DOES believe in a soul.... but in a soul that seek non-being. Re-incarnation and Karmic Debt ARE foundational concepts in buddhism.

People who decide to invent their own flavor of "buddhism" are NOT practicing buddhism...
They are practicing something Buddha-esque.... which is fine... but it should not be conflated with the actual sutras.

According to Buddhist doctrine nobody has eternal souls . ( The doctrine of eternal soul is rejected ) . I agree with you that karma and rebirth are fundamental buddhists concepts . Infact without both of them this religion falls apart . If death is the end , what would be the fucking point of practice buddhism ? and why the hell the Buddha preach the Dharma ? Of course Buddhism really have a problem because those doctines can't be proven . I respect Buddhism but I'm not buddhist because I'm not sure about karma and rebirth being real . I never based my life in speculations .

Christianity have similar problems too . If god doesn't exist , if Jesus isn't the Christ and if the resurrection isn't true then the whole religion falls apart too.

 

[MarkLondon]

Bearing in mind that Buddhism arose in a polytheistic context, the Buddha regarded human beings as potentially superior to gods. "Gods, by their very nature, are fixed and unchanging, and therefore incapable of enlightenment."

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I agree with you that karma and rebirth are fundamental buddhists concepts. In fact without both of them this religion falls apart. If death is the end, what would be the fucking point of practicing Buddhism?

Natural enough to think, but I don't agree with you, Axcess.
If the notion of transcending Karma to move beyond the cycle of birth and death is discarded, there are still good reasons to practice.
Mindfulness practice, if one really dedicates oneself to it (and this wouldn't mean a couple of sessions a week ... far far more than that), takes one beyond one's usual understandings of identity, of self and other, self and the world, to something far more open and expansive.
Many Buddhists around the world have more or less discarded the idea of Karma and rebirth but remain Buddhists.
It's not very different from the many Christians ... the vast majority ... who have discarded much of the Bible in favour of what science offers, yet remain the holders of an (adjusted) Christian belief.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

For me the key difference between Buddhism and other major religions is the lack of compulsion or submission to dogma, or requirement for belief, even. As I understand it Gautama invited us to try a system of exercises and judge their effectiveness ourselves. If we found it effective or valuable, we should continue in them. If not, then don't.

In this sense, Buddhism is more like a natural science.
You're right ... relatively speaking, there is very little dogma.
And no coercion at all.

 

[PussyWellington]

Bearing in mind that Buddhism arose in a polytheistic context, the Buddha regarded human beings as potentially superior to gods. "Gods, by their very nature, are fixed and unchanging, and therefore incapable of enlightenment."

Why then are their statues always so big! Why should the statue of Buddha always be higher than man (or woman).

Buddhism, like all religions is ultimately about power -- temporal, spiritual and financial. I find Buddhism also promotes passivity. Less political change. I also think the "west" romanticizes it. Although it does make them less likely to kill, unlike those Christians.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Buddhism, like all religions is ultimately about power -- temporal, spiritual and financial.

Less than other religions, I'd say. And it differs very much from locale to locale. (Buddhism in old Tibet was in many ways about power, for example.)

I find Buddhism also promotes passivity. Less political change.

Clearly true, because outward circumstances are considered less important.
But there are limits ... as we saw recently in Burma.

I also think the "west" romanticizes it.

Yes.

 

[Northland]

Believe in Buddha? As in a person who once was; but, now isn't, although technically he still is since the sould goes on?

Yeah, I believe he was here on Earth at some point in time. I like and appreciate some of the ideas he had; but, not all of them.

 

[tripod]

Zen is not really traditional buddhism...

Well, Phil was somewhat right about Zen Buddhism not being "traditional" Buddhism. But just what does "traditional" mean when it comes to the Buddha? Many scholars of Buddhism would say that Zen Buddhism and it's reliance on zazen or shikantanza is a more pure form of Buddhism and more closely resembles the actual practices of Shakyamuni and his sangha.

... not Zen Buddhists, which is a less pure form of Buddhism.

Zen Buddhism is NOT a lesser form of Buddhism, I have no idea where you got that impression.

Again... Buddha wrote nothing while he was on earth, after his death, his disciples argued among each other about the way in which to best represent his teachings. A schism took place at or around the time of the second council after the "total extinguishment" of the Buddha Shakyamuni. Who is the one to judge which is the "true" Buddhism? All religions seem to have this similar problem. Christianity is almost a direct parallel to Buddhism because Jesus of Nazareth never wrote a thing and his disciples argued after his death, although not to such a degree as what took place after the death of the Buddha.

I have no interest in Buddhism...at one time i did until a friend of mine was given a book on Buddhist teaching by his Burmese father, after reading through just a few chapters the author whom was ... citing homosexuality as his prime example of interference with the life part of the cycle because it prevents the entrance of new life into the world (naturally being gay i took a disliking to this example)
I have never shown an interest in delving deeper into the Buddhist way of life since and never likely will.

Buddha never discussed homosexuality that I know of. There might be some sutras or traditions that speak about the "ills" of homosexuality, but I have never seen them. The Buddha generally frowned upon anything that involved the five senses, he reportedly hated music and would have disaproved of just about ANY type of sex. Sexual desire is one of the root defilements and can quickly lead to several manifestations of the "Twenty Subsidiary Mental Delusions" according to "traditional" Buddhism.

Buddha never spoke of homosexuality... any discussion of homosexuality in Buddhism was inserted after the fact by others and has little to do with the Dharma.

 

[Axcess]

Natural enough to think, but I don't agree with you, Axcess.
If the notion of transcending Karma to move beyond the cycle of birth and death is discarded, there are still good reasons to practice.
Mindfulness practice, if one really dedicates oneself to it (and this wouldn't mean a couple of sessions a week ... far far more than that), takes one beyond one's usual understandings of identity, of self and other, self and the world, to something far more open and expansive.
Many Buddhists around the world have more or less discarded the idea of Karma and rebirth but remain Buddhists.
It's not very different from the many Christians ... the vast majority ... who have discarded much of the Bible in favour of what science offers, yet remain the holders of an (adjusted) Christian belief.

The point of buddhism is to end suffering but if death is the absolute end , what is the point ? The suffering all beings will certainly end at death .
What you said is true about Christianity but some aspects of that faith are really fundamental . I would not call somebody a Christian if that person don't believe in god , if that person don't believe in the resurrection and if that person don't believe that Jesus is the Christ .
Is like if a person that claimed being a Muslim but don't believe in the Koran and don't believe that Mohammed was allah prophet .

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

The point of buddhism is to end suffering but if death is the absolute end, what is the point?

To end suffering in the here and now.

What you said is true about Christianity but some aspects of that faith are really fundamental . I would not call somebody a Christian if that person don't believe in god, if that person don't believe in the resurrection and if that person don't believe that Jesus is the Christ.
Is like if a person that claimed being a Muslim but don't believe in the Koran and don't believe that Mohammed was allah prophet.

Well, someone who doesn't believe in the Resurrection and doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ is a strange species of Christian, perhaps.
Ditto for the Muslim who didn't believe in the Koran or the prophethood of Allah.
That said, belief in the cycle of rebirth has fallen greatly among many Buddhist nations, especially the most scientifically advanced, and yet that doesn't seem to prejudice their status as Buddhists.
There is a lot to Buddhism apart from that particular belief ... the meditation itself, for one thing, and the value system, and certain beliefs about reality, which I won't go into, partly from lack of time and partly from incapacity.
I understand your point, Axcess. I held it myself at one point. (Maybe I was closer to the truth then. Who knows?)

 

[tripod]

Well, someone who doesn't believe in the Resurrection and doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ is a strange species of Christian, perhaps.

Perhaps not... it's called Gnosticism and it pre-dates Constantine Christianity as some of the first followers of Jesus and his teachings. To some... they are the "real" followers of Jesus.

 

[BIGBULL29]

Zen Buddhism is NOT a lesser form of Buddhism, I have no idea where you got that impression.

Zen Buddhism is the principle sect of Buddhism practiced in Japan. It deviates from the purest forms of Buddhism. It's like saying that Protestantism and all its denominations are less pure branches of Christianity compared to the Early Christian Church, which was Catholic (eve Eastern Orthodoxy is "purer").

By the way, I'm not using the word "less pure" to imply "less true."

 

[tripod]

Zen Buddhism is the principle sect of Buddhism practiced in Japan. It deviates from the purest forms of Buddhism. It's like saying that Protestantism and all its denominations are less pure branches of Christianity compared to the Early Christian Church, which was Catholic (eve Eastern Orthodoxy is "purer").

By the way, I'm not using the word "less pure" to imply "less true."

Sounds good to me. :smile:

One can also argue that Southern Baptist Christianity is much more true and "pure" than Roman Catholicism. It relies heavily on the Old testament and emphasizes Baptism by standing in water with water being poured over the upper body like John the Baptist did. Much of the what the Roman Catholic Church practices dates back to the medieval era... the early Christian religion did not closely resemble the Roman Catholic religion at all.

Although, many people use the term "Catholic" loosely, with the origins of the word dating back as far as the year 107. It's original meaning (of which I presume that you are referring to) is to signify that the Christian Church possesses true traditions, over other "groups" that claimed to be the church. In that time however, the Christian church was much different than Christianity as we know it today.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

 

[BIGBULL29]

Sounds good to me. :smile:

One can also argue that Southern Baptist Christianity is much more true and "pure" than Roman Catholicism. It relies heavily on the Old testament and emphasizes Baptism by standing in water with water being poured over the upper body like John the Baptist did. Much of the what the Roman Catholic Church practices dates back to the medieval era... the early Christian religion did not closely resemble the Roman Catholic religion at all.

Although, many people use the term "Catholic" loosely, with the origins of the word dating back as far as the year 107. It's original meaning (of which I presume that you are referring to) is to signify that the Christian Church possesses true traditions, over other "groups" that claimed to be the church. In that time however, the Christian church was much different than Christianity as we know it today.

Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are based on scripture and tradition, not just scripture (sola scriptura) as are all Protestant denominations.

Protestants, by the way, wouldn't even have a Bible if it weren't the Early Roman Church's monks translating it.

The Early Christian Church does not remind me of any Protestant denomination (except the Anglican Church to some degree).

Protestants have always been reticent to study Early Christian Church history.

I'm not at all defending the Catholic Church's teachings. I'm just saying that it's a more "pure" form of Christianity.

 

[Axcess]

Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are based on scripture and tradition, not just scripture (sola scriptura) as are all Protestant denominations.

Protestants, by the way, wouldn't even have a Bible if it weren't the Early Roman Church's monks translating it.

The Early Christian Church does not remind me of any Protestant denomination (except the Anglican Church to some degree).

Protestants have always been reticent to study Early Christian Church history.

I'm not at all defending the Catholic Church's teachings. I'm just saying that it's a more "pure" form of Christianity.

Well the problem would be what branch of Christianity is the original christian church Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy ? Both claim that but both can't be at once .

 

[tripod]

Original Christianity is actually the "Jesus Movement" that was carried out by the 12 Apostles and set in motion by John the Baptist. The Jesus Movement was based around preaching the "Good News" of the kingdom of God and establishing places of worship for it's followers. Those places of worship were nothing more than a network of private residences owned by followers of Jesus. The movement was largely an apocalyptic one. It hardly resembled the Roman Catholic Church and was a religion for the people of Israel. It was a JEWISH reform movement and had NOTHING to do with gentiles until much after the death and resurrection.

By the way... most Buddhists see Jesus of Nazareth as a great bodhisattva.