Buddhism is a religion but not in every sense of the word. It has 300 million followers worldwide and that puts it up there with the other big four or five major belief systems of christianity, islam, athiesm, chinese traditional religion and hinduism. Try and hold back your outrage at me grouping athiests in with religion it is merely expediency.

A lot of people have a problem calling Buddhism a religion as it has no deity and for them this is the defining concept of a religion. Look a bit more closely at the nature of religion and you will see the idea of a singular and authoritarian omnipotent figure is something peculiar to Abrahamic religion and not or rarely encountered elsewhere. So while it does not have the same concepts as other religions rather than saying it is not a religion I would say it trancends religion. In essence it has much in common with philosophy as it is the pursuit of wisdom but it also includes a deep understanding of the human mind, the principles of which can be found in modern psycology. To follow buddhism you must abide by three principles before anything else:

(1) to lead a moral life,
(2) to be mindful and aware of thoughts and actions, and
(3) to develop wisdom and understanding.

So now you cry, "What is this crazy man talking about? This is no religion!" Consider the word:

re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The reason the first two points are so important to people when defining the word is the widespread nature of the abrahamic religions to the point where this religous system comes to define and characterise the word religion when in fact there are many other types it just shows the level of ignorance we have due to the prevalence and enforced dominance of said western religion. The emergence of religion in african cultures was and still is comprised of ancestor worship and shaminism, to what extent you label this religous worship and where you draw the line between spiritualism and actual religion is debatable. There is and still exists today the anthromorporphic religions where the forces of nature take on a human aspect, and are not neccessarily worshiped but feared and placated. Especially true in the ancient world like Rome and Greece. The higher religous form would be hinduism, it is pantheistic with many gods but each one resembling a certain natural function.

A really interesting religion is Shintoism, it is pantheistic and doesn't even remotely resemble monotheistic or even the dualistic or polytheistic religions. I would describe it but I don't really understand a great deal about it myself. Just that there is no developed theology and hundreds of kami (gods) it is truly strange.

You can also have specist deities, or momentary deities. A malignant force usually that momentarily or permenantly inhabits objects. Water sprites, tree gods etc. and naturism as an idea that predates the emergence of religion itself.

As you can see Buddhism does fit in with the idea of a religion though in the west and to an indoctrinated mindset a religion without a single focal point or God may seem hard to accept but religion is not neccessarily dogmatic. The basic tenets are easy to understand and practical and nothing is fixed or permanent. As times change buddhism changes with it and changes respective to race or nationality. It teaches practical methods (such as meditation) which enable people to realise and utilise its teachings in order to transform their experience, to be fully responsible for their lives and to develop the qualities of Wisdom and Compassion




The word comes from 'budhi', 'to awaken' and 'buddhism' which is 'law of the awakened'. It has its origins about 2,500 years ago when Siddhartha Gotama, known as the Buddha, was himself awakened (enlightened) at the age of 35.

From wikipedia:

According to all Buddhist traditions, the buddha of the present age, called Siddhārtha of the Gautama clan, was born in the grove of lumbini near the town of kapilavastu (Pāli: Kapilavatthu), the capital of the kingdom of the sakyas. Lumbinī and the Śākya realm were known to have been in the north, adjacent to the kingdom of kosala and the republic of the Koliyas along the ganges, separated from Koliya by the river Rohiī. The exact location of Lumbinī is fixed in what is now south central Nepal by a pillar inscription of the Mauryan emperor Asoka the great from the 3rd century BCE commemorating the Buddha's birth.

Siddhārtha's father was Suddhodana, then the chieftain (rājā) of the Śākyas. He was the ruler of the city of Patliputra or the modern city of Patna, the capital of Bihar. Traditions state that the Buddha's mother died at his birth or a few days later. The Legend says that the seer Asita predicted shortly after his birth that Siddhārtha would become either a great king or a great holy man; because of this, his father tried to make sure that Siddhārtha never had any cause for dissatisfaction with his life, as such dissatisfaction might lead him to follow a spiritual path. As a result, under strict instruction of his father, Siddhārtha was never exposed to suffering or pain and was carefully kept away from sad, sick or dying people. He was raised in a very opulent environment. 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 privileges, rank, Caste, and his wife and child, to take up the life of a wandering holy man in search of the answer to the problems of birth, old age, pain, sickness, and death.

Siddhārtha pursued the path of theSrama and meditation with two Brhamin hermits, and, although he quickly achieved high levels of meditative consciousness, he was still not satisfied with the results. Siddhārtha then began his training in the ascetic life and practicing vigorous techniques of physical and mental austerity. Siddhārtha 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 without any 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; he had fallen into a naturally concentrated and focused state in which he felt a blissful and refreshing feeling and time seemed to stand still.

After discarding asceticism and concentrating on meditation, Siddhārtha 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.

For the remaining 45 years of his life, Buddha Gautama 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.

Where?​

This is obviously an Eastern Religion but it has many followers in the west as well. For example there is actually a buddhist retreat not far from me in the country. You may wonder why you don't hear or see much of them, buddhism is not something that people try and actively convert you to or advertise. That is a condition related in my mind to Abrahamic religion, something which is not encouraged. This article by the way is put forth not to try to convert you but merely as an information source and to bring together a number of different sources for my own reference.




"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity"

- Albert Einstein

Why would anyone not be a buddhist I don't understand. You can hate religion but love buddhism, you can think what you like about god and still be a buddhist. The world would be a better place I think if everyone studied it.
That being said I do not neccessarily believe buddhism is the only path to (for want of a better word) spiritual perfection or enlightenment. Aristotle on occasion presented enlightened principles and ideas and this quote in particular gave me pause for thought:

I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.

Aristotle

I merely view Buddhism as a conduit on a path of self education and seeking peace within myself, and wisdom.




From buddha net:
How do I Become a Buddhist?

Buddhist teachings can be understood and tested by anyone. Buddhism teaches that the solutions to our problems are within ourselves not outside. The Buddha asked all his followers not to take his word as true, but rather to test the teachings for themselves. ln this way, each person decides for themselves and takes responsibility for their own actions and understanding. This makes Buddhism less of a fixed package of beliefs which is to be accepted in its entirety, and more of a teaching which each person learns and uses in their own way.





Can you consider another religion that is not mered in hate or controversy? Consider the founding of these other religions and their actions since, and you will find the reasons why, even if I was able to put aside my doubts about God and the logical and scientific evidence against the idea, I could not accept them even if I had faith. I could not associate myself with something associated with these religions pasts and presents, where members of that religion can find justification in killing in there texts or feel they are doing Gods work in anyway.

Consider also holy wars and ask yourself where the last buddhist holy war, burning (of others not themselves ) at the stake or other religious inspired massacre was. I will be interested if anyone can find any as I have been unable. Though I did find reports of a few extremists smashing a statue and organising a particularly dramatic sitdown.

From Buddhanet:

Buddhism is also a belief system which is tolerant of all other beliefs or religions. Buddhism agrees with the moral teachings of other religions but Buddhism goes further by providing a long term purpose within our existence, through wisdom and true understanding. Real Buddhism is very tolerant and not concerned with labels like 'Christian', 'Moslem', 'Hindu' or 'Buddhist'; that is why there have never been any wars fought in the name of Buddhism. That is why Buddhists do not preach and try to convert, only explain if an explanation is sought.



Open for questions and I will cut and paste them in here socratic style.

Is Buddhism Scientific? Creationism?

Science is knowledge which can be made into a system, which depends upon seeing and testing facts and stating general natural laws. The core of Buddhism fit into this definition, because the Four Noble truths (see below) can be tested and proven by anyone in fact the Buddha himself asked his followers to test the teaching rather than accept his word as true. Buddhism depends more on understanding than faith.


Apparently a buddhist, according to everyone I talk to, must believe in reincarnation. The simple truth of this is; that buddhism was created around Hinduism and people being people cherry picked what they wanted to believe from the things around them, or it may be true for all I know. The one thing I am certain about is, that buddhism is not certain about anything but is the pursuit of knowledge, ethical and moral perfection and that is all I need to know. Reincarnation to me is very similar to believeing in God, considering this subject is not something the buddha encouraged simply because it is a waste of time, if you can't know one way or the other then why think about it, in his words:

"A man thinking about God is like a man with an arrow in his eye
Wondering what type of wood it is made of and who fired it"

This is becuase Buddha believed physical issues were more important than metaphysical ones where the value of such pursuits is limited to conjecture.

An Imperfect word or translation to my mind as it makes reference to the soul being lit by a higher power. Well there isn't neccessarily a soul or a higher power but we are aiming for perfect sanity and an end to suffering, suffering comes in many forms and I do not believe many people actually die the perfect death having resolved all issues in there life but it is a worthwhile goal. Of course in abstract terms there is also the idea that you will achieve something greater and it is a nice idea though not neccessary, buddha never knew of any greater idea when he followed his path so there is no reason we should if indeed there is one.



So hang on I am confused give me some buddhist beliefs and texts

I am assuming if you have made it this far you can put up with this so here comes the most basic tenures of the buddhist faith comprising of:

The four noble truths:

Suffering exists The first truth is that life is suffering i.e., life includes pain, getting old, disease, and ultimately death. We also endure psychological suffering like loneliness frustration, fear, embarrassment, disappointment and anger. This is an irrefutable fact that cannot be denied. It is realistic rather than pessimistic because pessimism is expecting things to be bad. lnstead, Buddhism explains how suffering can be avoided and how we can be truly happy

Suffering arises from attachment to desires The second truth is that suffering is caused by craving and aversion. We will suffer if we expect other people to conform to our expectation, if we want others to like us, if we do not get something we want,etc. In other words, getting what you want does not guarantee happiness. Rather than constantly struggling to get what you want, try to modify your wanting. Wanting deprives us of contentment and happiness. A lifetime of wanting and craving and especially the craving to continue to exist, creates a powerful energy which causes the individual to be born. So craving leads to physical suffering because it causes us to be reborn.

Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases The third truth is that suffering can be overcome and happiness can be attained; that true happiness and contentment are possible. lf we give up useless craving and learn to live each day at a time (not dwelling in the past or the imagined future) then we can become happy and free. We then have more time and energy to help others. This is Nirvana.

Freedom from suffering is possible by practicing the Eightfold Path Thats it!



The Eightfold path:

Right Views means to keep ourselves free from prejudice, superstition and delusion... and to see aright the true nature of life.

Right Thoughts means to turn away from the hypocrisies of this world and to direct our minds toward Truth and Positive Attitudes and Action.

Right Speech means to refrain from pointless and harmful talk... to speak kindly and courteously to all.

Right Conduct means to see that our deeds are peaceable, benevolent, compassionate and pure... and to live the Teachings daily.

Right Livelihood means to earn our living in such a way as to entail no evil consequences. To seek that employment to which can give our complete enthusiasm and devotion.

Right Effort means to direct our efforts continually to the overcoming of ignorance and craving desires.

Right Mindfulness means to cherish good and pure thoughts, for all that we say and do arises from our thoughts.

Right Meditation means to concentrate on the Oneness of all life and the Buddhahood that exists within all beings.





The Five Precepts which are as follows:

1. Not killing or causing harm to other living beings. This is the fundamental ethical principle for Buddhism, and all the other precepts are elaborations of this. The precept implies acting non-violently wherever possible, and many Buddhists are vegetarian for this reason. The positive counterpart of this precept is love.

2. Not taking the not-given. Stealing is an obvious way in which one can harm others. One can also take advantage of people, exploit them, or manipulate them — all these can be seen as ways of taking the not given. The positive counterpart of this precept is generosity.

3. Avoiding sexual misconduct. This precept has been interpreted in many ways over time, but essentially it means not causing harm to oneself or others in the area of sexual activity. The positive counterpart of this precept is contentment.

4. Avoiding false speech. Speech is the crucial element in our relations with others, and yet language is a slippery medium, and we often deceive ourselves or others without even realising that this is what we are doing. Truthfulness, the positive counterpart of this precept, is therefore essential in an ethical life. But truthfulness is not enough, and in another list of precepts (the ten precepts or the ten kusala dharmas) no fewer than four speech precepts are mentioned, the others enjoining that our speech should be kindly, helpful, and harmonious.

5. Abstaining from drink and drugs that cloud the mind. The positive counterpart of this precept is mindfulness, or awareness. Mindfulness is a fundamental quality to be developed the Buddha's path, and experience shows that taking intoxicating drink or drugs tends to run directly counter to this.

Three Characteristics of Existence
1. Transiency (anicca)
2. Sorrow (dukkha)
3. Selflessness (anatta)

Hindrances

1. Sensuous lust
2. Aversion and ill will
3. Sloth and torpor
4. Restlessness and worry
5. Sceptical doubt

Factors of Enlightenment

1. Mindfulness
2. Investigation
3. Energy
4. Rapture
5. Tranquillity
6. Concentration
7. Equanimity

Be prepared though, if you delve into buddhist teachings it is hard going though worthwhile. I have been interested for years and started seriously reading about 6 months ago and feel only marginally closer to understanding, its good stuff though.

Peter

I'd like to interject something about your earlier statistic: Buddhists are atheists, because they don't have a god. They are simply "religous atheists".

Also, great read. I look forward to more.

I've always respected Buddhism, but certain things just bug me about it for me to call myself a Buddhist(besides that I don't know enough about it to be a real Buddhist)

DaftVapor said:

I'd like to interject something about your earlier statistic: Buddhists are atheists, because they don't have a god. They are simply "religous atheists".

Also, great read. I look forward to more.

Click to expand...

Buddhists aren't athiests they are agnostics and yet not quite for it is a religion as my explanation proved I believe.

Cheers!

I've always respected Buddhism, but certain things just bug me about it for me to call myself a Buddhist(besides that I don't know enough about it to be a real Buddhist)

Click to expand...

What bugs you fella ask and I shall tell (or maybe ignore if I don't know the answer j/k riginal: )

Peter

To be honest right now I don't even remember what bugged me. I'll go read some of it and I might remember.

I possess immense admiration for Buddhism in the sense that it has very rarely been corrupted and misused, I would speculate that this has much to do with the absence of any deities in most schools of Buddhist thought. However, I am aware that many westeners who follow the religion really do misinterpret it. Too often does it become compounded with New Age nonesense. Still, this seems like a well informed guide from what little I know.

However, I personally do not believe that by engaging in internal reflection you can actually learn anything new. Certainly you can synthesise and reaffirm what is already in your knowledge or develop new perspectives, and it is no doubt a relaxing experience, but ultimately I cannot believe it leads to any form of enlightenment.

Then there are the assumptions. The notion of reincarnation is quite prevalent, but I see no evidence for it. The same goes for the presence of a spirit. Wishful thinking seeps in.

As an ethical philosophy, well, I find it is far too reliant on the enigmatic influence of abstract terms. That, and that the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to no longer wish to live.. unless I'm mistaken? On the basis that 'all is suffering'? Personally, I view that as a challenge to combat suffering, not to combat the wish to live in this realm in order to progress into another. There is no evidence of posthumous existence.

Then there is the fact that the texts relating to Buddha are all derived from oral tradition that was canonized at least 500 years after his death, I believe? I may be wrong, its been a while since I looked into Buddhism. One might say this is irrelevant if the teachings are sound but if I were a practitioner of a religion known as Buddhism I would want the texts to be the true word of Siddhārtha - the Buddha.

As for this hinderance:

5. Sceptical doubt.

Click to expand...

Scepticism is healthy. It allows the mind to sift through absurdities in search of truth. In so far as it is a hinderance, it serves only to inhibit us from pursuing fantasies.

Just my thoughts, I'll be back on tomorrow. Look after yourselves.

I Have a Clever Name said:

I possess immense admiration for Buddhism in the sense that it has very rarely been corrupted and misused, I would speculate that this has much to do with the absence of any deities in most schools of Buddhist thought.

Click to expand...

You may be right, I always considered it stems from something the founder said and that was to question and test his beliefs.

However, I personally do not believe that by engaging in internal reflection you can actually learn anything new. Certainly you can synthesise and reaffirm what is already in your knowledge or develop new perspectives, and it is no doubt a relaxing experience, but ultimately I cannot believe it leads to any form of enlightenment.

Click to expand...

If it was purely internal you wouldn't need buddhism, if you look at the history of the buddha he did not walk the path alone. Everyone suffers from and develops from some form of external source and buddhism is no difference, it is a method of education amongst other things.

Then there are the assumptions. The notion of reincarnation is quite prevalent, but I see no evidence for it. The same goes for the presence of a spirit. Wishful thinking seeps in.

Click to expand...

Again answered in my post that the religion was founded in hindu areas with that belief a key part in peoples religions must like the similarities in the western religions, fortunatly buddhism is not dogmatic and you are free to leave the logical inconsistencies behind. In fact if you look at the first post I reason how that idea is actually inconsistent with the original concepts of ignoring the metaphysical.

As an ethical philosophy, well, I find it is far too reliant on the enigmatic influence of abstract terms. That, and that the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to no longer wish to live.. unless I'm mistaken? On the basis that 'all is suffering'? Personally, I view that as a challenge to combat suffering, not to combat the wish to live in this realm in order to progress into another. There is no evidence of posthumous existence.

Click to expand...

Well this is a totally flawed understanding of it, but if you don't mind I am winding down and will address it tomorrow. For now I will say the thought that suffering is inherent in our lives is a realistic concept that we will face physical and mental anguish through out our lives and to deny that is wishful thinking. If you can learn to accept it however...

Then there is the fact that the texts relating to Buddha are all derived from oral tradition that was canonized at least 500 years after his death? I may be wrong. One might say this is irrelevant if the teachings are sound but if I were a practitioner of a religion known as Buddhism I would want the texts to be the true word of Siddhārtha - the Buddha.

Click to expand...

I'll come back to this.


As for this hinderance:

Scepticism is healthy. It allows the mind to sift through absurdities in search of truth. In so far as it is a hinderance, it serves only to inhibit us from pursuing fantasies.

Just my thoughts, I'll be back on tomorrow. Look after yourselves.

Click to expand...

Thanks for spotting that I am not quite sure how that equates to the teachings actually stating you should be skeptical about them and question/test them. I guess it just goes to show not every site is reliable but like I said work in progress.

Peter

The only dispute I have with Buddhism is whether it is really possible to achieve a state of total detachment and lack of desire. Desire is hardwired into our instincts at the most basic level. Everyone has a desire to live, to eat, and to a lesser extent, have sex.

wolveraptor said:

The only dispute I have with Buddhism is whether it is really possible to achieve a state of total detachment and lack of desire. Desire is hardwired into our instincts at the most basic level. Everyone has a desire to live, to eat, and to a lesser extent, have sex.

Click to expand...

Western Philosopher's have long espoused similar ideas. From Platonism to Stoicism to Utilitarianism, Western philosopher's have arrived at essentially the same central tenets with minor exceptions. Later Christian theologians merged Christianity with classical philosophy to form the guiding moral code of the western world.

For instance the hinderances of spiritual enlightenment in Buddhism are strikingly similar to the classical Vices and 7 Deadly sins.

El Guapo said:

Hindrances
1. Sensuous lust
2. Aversion and ill will
3. Sloth and torpor
4. Restlessness and worry
5. Sceptical doubt

Click to expand...

I would argue that the study of philosophy in general, not merely eastern Buddhist philosophy will inevitably lead to a more moral life.

El Guapo said:

Aristotle on occasion presented enlightened principles and ideas and this quote in particular gave me pause for thought:

I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. -Aristotle

Click to expand...

Buddhism has had holy wars. Chinese monarchs used it as a reasoning to justify their killing of thousands. Kinda like Christian holy wars...

Also you didnt mention there are different types of Buddhism. The two main being the greater vehicle and the lesser vehicle. The greater vehicle which is by far the most practiced does view Buddha as a diety.

IamthePope said:

I would argue that the study of philosophy in general, not merely eastern Buddhist philosophy will inevitably lead to a more moral life.

Click to expand...

Maybe not inevitably, but the odds are good.

wolveraptor said:

The only dispute I have with Buddhism is whether it is really possible to achieve a state of total detachment and lack of desire. Desire is hardwired into our instincts at the most basic level. Everyone has a desire to live, to eat, and to a lesser extent, have sex.

Click to expand...

This is not actually true neccessarily depending on which buddhism you follow.

Looking at the example of the buddha he tried ascetism for many years and realised that it was not the way at which point he decided to start taking nourishment again. Its called the middle path a path between the blatenet materialism and over consumption and asceticism where you go to the other extreme.

kscott said:

Buddhism has had holy wars. Chinese monarchs used it as a reasoning to justify their killing of thousands. Kinda like Christian holy wars...

Also you didnt mention there are different types of Buddhism. The two main being the greater vehicle and the lesser vehicle. The greater vehicle which is by far the most practiced does view Buddha as a diety.

Click to expand...

Examples?

I actually did mention the different sort of buddhisms when I said that as a doctrine it is not dogmatic and can be specific to race culture nationality o

el guapo said:

This makes Buddhism less of a fixed package of beliefs which is to be accepted in its entirety, and more of a teaching which each person learns and uses in their own way.

The basic tenets are easy to understand and practical and nothing is fixed or permanent. As times change buddhism changes with it and changes respective to race or nationality

Click to expand...

And looking at buddha as a god goes against buddhist teachings but that is why there is so many different sects of buddhism and a wide range of beliefs.

Peter

Don't Buddhists believe in a kaleidosopic order of lower-realms populated by ****-eating hungry-ghosts (Pretas), warlike ferocious fighting-angels (Asuras), detached and quasi-divine thinking-angels (Devas), demonic hell-tormented Narakas, humans and animals, all colliding, suffering, joying and passing between dimensional planes of existence over and over again for colossal periods, all for no actual reason than for its own sake? It's pretty ****ed up, actually, mentally, and very very complicated stuff. Take their version of hell, or hells as I should say, because there are about 16 of them, hot and cold according to Wiki...

Cold Hells:
Arbuda – the "blister" Naraka
Nirarbuda – the "burst blister" Naraka
Aṭaṭa – the Naraka of shivering
Hahava – the Naraka of lamentation
Huhuva – the Naraka of chattering teeth
Utpala – the "blue lotus" Naraka
Padma – the "lotus" Naraka
Mahāpadma – the "great lotus" Naraka
Each lifetime in these Narakas is twenty times the length of the one before it.

Hot Hells:
Sañjīva – the "reviving" Naraka.
Kālasūtra – the "black thread" Naraka.
Saṃghāta – the "crushing" Naraka.
Raurava – the "screaming" Naraka.
Mahāraurava – the "great screaming" Naraka.
Tapana – the "heating" Naraka.
Pratāpana – the "great heating" Naraka.
Avīci – the "uninterrupted" Naraka.

Frankly, if being a Buddhist means I have to go to all those different hells for hundreds of thousands of years before I can get reincarnated as a fighting-angel who wants to get drunk and shout abuse at Devas, I'll do without. They're ****ing crazier than Christians, and that's saying something.

Cluny the Scourge said:

Don't Buddhists believe in a kaleidosopic order of lower-realms populated by ****-eating hungry-ghosts (Pretas), warlike ferocious fighting-angels (Asuras), detached and quasi-divine thinking-angels (Devas), demonic hell-tormented Narakas, humans and animals, all colliding, suffering, joying and passing between dimensional planes of existence over and over again for colossal periods, all for no actual reason than for its own sake? It's pretty ****ed up, actually, mentally, and very very complicated stuff. Take their version of hell, or hells as I should say, because there are about 16 of them, hot and cold according to Wiki...


Frankly, if being a Buddhist means I have to go to all those different hells for hundreds of thousands of years before I can get reincarnated as a fighting-angel who wants to get drunk and shout abuse at Devas, I'll do without. They're ****ing crazier than Christians, and that's saying something.

Click to expand...

That is quasi buddhism as far as I am concerned, judgement of people and there actions is completely and utterly against what the buddha taught. There are a lot of bastardised versions of buddhism where they have drawn upon various other influences from the regions hence the reason reincarnation becomes an issue as the main influence on some crazy peoples interpretion was hinduism.

The whole point of me making this FAQ was because of some of the myths I constantly have to dispel around buddhism ie. If you believe in buddhism then you also believe in.....random pile of crzy crap.

On the God issue:

No saviour concept in Buddhism. A Buddha is not a saviour who saves others by his personal salvation. Although a Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha as his incomparable guide who indicates the path of purity, he makes no servile surrender. A Buddhist does not think that he can gain purity merely by seeking refuge in the Buddha or by mere faith in Him. It is not within the power of a Buddha to wash away the impurities of others

4. A Buddha is not an incarnation of a god/God (as claimed by some Hindu followers). The relationship between a Buddha and his disciples and followers is that of a teacher and student.

(buddhanet)

Buddhism is sometimes said to be an agnostic religion. Certainly there is no concept of God as the vindictive, judgemental, time-subservient warlord of the Old Testament, or the infantile bogeyman of the Koran.

Buddhism has ethical objections to the idea of a God who throws infidels and sinners into everlasting torment. The Buddhist ideal is that of the Enlightened Being, who has vowed to save all sentient beings from their suffering.

What also causes problems is that Buddhism is as much a philosophy as it is a religion, and does not adopt logically inconsistent doctrines. The concept of an 'inherently-existent' God is fraught with difficulties:

Buddhist philosophy regards all phenomena as being 'dependently-related' , that is existing contingently upon three relationships.
(1) In relation to their causes
(2) In relation to their parts.
(3) In relation to the mind of the observer.
(see Sunyata for further discussion)

The opposite of being 'dependently-related' is to be 'inherently-existent', ie existing from its own side. An inherently existent thing contains the reason for its existence within itself.

The standard Christian idea of God is that He is self-defined and not dependently-related to anything else. God is an uncaused monad with no constituent parts who exists even in the absence of any other observer. But the fact that he is not dependently-related to anything else means that no external event can change his state, so he cannot, for example, become angry if someone blasphemes against him. Neither can he forgive someone against whom he has a grudge.

An inherently-existent God can never change nor be other than what He has always been, and can in no way make any reference to Time. Nor can he in any other way interact with, or receive information from dependently-related entities. He resides in splendid isolation for all eternity.

Neither can he be bipolar, having an inherently-existent 'end' embedded in the Platonic Realm and a dependently-related 'end' reaching into the contingent universe It is logically impossible to have an interface between the two ends.

For in Him we live, and move, and have our being.
Having described the Buddhist objections to the overspecified inherently-existent God, it should be pointed out that Buddhism is not purposely atheistic, and certainly does not deny the existence of a God in the sense of that in which 'we live and move and have our being' [ACTS 17, 28].

Perhaps we can shed some light on this concept of God by considering Buddhist views on the 'Participatory Anthropic Principle' of cosmology, whereby God provides the possibilities, but sentient beings choose the actualities. To quote from the article on the Participatory Anthropic Principle:

'In the absence of an observer, the evolving universe remained as a 'multiverse' - a coherant quantum superposition of all logically possible states. Throughout its early history the universe continued to develop as an immense superposition of probabilities. Not only was the structure of the universe superposed, but all logically possible states of matter, physical constants, properties and laws were simultaneously present and evolving into ever increasing diversity.

Quantum theory states that any physical system remains in a superposed state of all possibilities until it interacts with the mind of an observer. Both quantum theory and Buddhist teachings on sunyata suggest that as soon as an observer's mind makes contact with a superposed system, all the numerous possibilities collapse into one actuality. At some instant one of these possible alternative universes produced an observing lifeform - an animal with a nervous system which was sufficiently evolved to form a symbiotic association with a primordial mind. The first act of observation by this mind caused the entire superposed multiverse to collapse immediately into one of its numerous alternatives.

That one alternative version of the multiverse was not just the first configuration to be inhabitable by mind. The fact that it was the first configuration also guaranteed that it was the only configuration. All uninhabited alternative universes, ranging from the nearly-but-not-quite habitable few, to the anarchic and unstructured vast majority, were instantly excluded from potential existence. According to the participatory anthopic principle, the evolving multiverse was thus always destined to resolve itself into a sufficiently ordered state to allow itself to be observed.'

Now the sentient being who collapsed the superposition determined the actualisation of the laws of physics. But a myriad other strands of potential existence remained unactualised, and still remain unactualised and will forever remain unactualised. The difference between potential and actuality has, does, and will result from the choices (including ethical choices) of sentient beings.

The strand was never actualised in which the young Adolf Hitler, motivated by his love of military uniform, chose to join the Salvation Army and devote his organisational genius to making it the greatest force for the relief of poverty and the eradication of disease that the world has ever seen.

The strand was never actualised in which Joseph Stalin realised that absolute power caused absolute corruption, and decided to continue his studies at Tiflis theological seminary and lead the Orthodox Church through the turbulent times ahead.

God provides the options in vast profusion. We make the choices.

This view of God accords with the grandeur of the Mahayana conception of humanity's place in the cosmos. God is indefinable (in the sense that limits cannot be set on Her potential). She is pregnant with all possibilities (see Sanskrit root of sunyata), and She is the source of freedom whereby the choices of sentient beings dictate the actualisation of their myriad potentials.


The Buddha never actually mentions a God in his teachings that I can find, other than to say that thinking about God is a useless idea, a waste of time. Logically if a God was never defined by Buddha, and has been proven to be indefinable then how then was the concept of hell brought about? In fact the Buddha spefically stated that you should be able to test and refine his teaching to what is provable and what works so again quite how the concept of hell was tested I am unsure of.




In further reference to Kscott as I was typing in a hurry; in Buddhism unlike other religions there has never been anything in buddhism that gave any pretext or mitigation for killing. It is unequivically against buddhism with no allowances or virgins for killers of other religions. There has never to my knowledge ever been a war that was even remotely linked to buddhism even as a label, that is not to say a buddhist is incapable of violence but that the moment he does he is no longer a buddhist.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/war/buddhism.shtml said:

Non-violence is at the heart of Buddhist thinking and behaviour. The first of the five precepts that all Buddhists should follow is "Avoid killing, or harming any living thing."

Buddhism is essentially a peaceful tradition. Nothing in Buddhist scripture gives any support to the use of violence as a way to resolve conflict.

In times of war
Give rise in yourself to the mind of compassion,
Helping living beings
Abandon the will to fight.

One of Buddha's sermons puts this very clearly with a powerful example that stresses the need to love your enemy no matter how cruelly he treats you:

Even if thieves carve you limb from limb with a double-handed saw, if you make your mind hostile you are not following my teaching.
Kamcupamasutta, Majjhima-Nikkaya I ~ 28-29
Figures like the Dalai Lama (who won the Nobel Peace Prize) demonstrate in word and deed Buddhism's commitment to peace.

"Hatred will not cease by hatred, but by love alone.
This is the ancient law."
Many Buddhists have refused to take up arms under any circumstances, even knowing that they would be killed as a result. The Buddhist code that governs the life of monks permits them to defend themselves, but it forbids them to kill, even in self-defence.

For Buddhist countries this poses the difficult dilemma of how to protect the rights and lives of their citizens without breaking the principle of nonviolence.

The pure Buddhist attitude is shown in this story:

"A Vietnam veteran was overheard rebuking the Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, about his unswerving dedication to non-violence.

'You're a fool' said the veteran 'what if someone had wiped out all the Buddhists in the world and you were the last one left. Would you not try to kill the person who was trying to kill you, and in doing so save Buddhism?!'

Thich Nhat Hanh answered patiently 'It would be better to let him kill me. If there is any truth to Buddhism and the Dharma it will not disappear from the face of the earth, but will reappear when seekers of truth are ready to rediscover it.

'In killing I would be betraying and abandoning the very teachings I would be seeking to preserve. So it would be better to let him kill me and remain true to the spirit of the Dharma.'"

Click to expand...

I must, although im not Buddhist myself i do believe in certain aspects of the religion, one being the attainment of nirvana.

Buddhism has had holy wars. Chinese monarchs used it as a reasoning to justify their killing of thousands. Kinda like Christian holy wars...

Click to expand...

I always thought buddism very simular to christianity due to much of its ideas and that fact you just mentioned. Its basically the christianity but from eastern philosophy instead of western philosophy. At least from my point of view.

Kanaric said:

I always thought buddism very simular to christianity due to much of its ideas and that fact you just mentioned. Its basically the christianity but from eastern philosophy instead of western philosophy. At least from my point of view.

Click to expand...

Well apart from the god thing, the heavan and hell thing, the lack of judgement and eternal sadistic torture, complete lack of dogma, no fixed belief system and no pagan influences (well I guess it is pagan).

To be honest it is as different from christianity as haddock is from liquorice. I could write a book on how it is different, its one commonality is that it shares the abhorrence of violence and yet even there a christian finds ways and means to be violent and still see themselves as christian so I guess that is not even there depending on how you interpret the scriptures.

Edit: What the frell? I can't edit my FAQ for some reason.

Peter

Please talk about all the ways Buddhism is different from nihilism, because it seems like cowardice to me. I hate it very much, but I am eager to listen with an open mind. I don't know nearly enough.

I have a much greater respect for Daoism, and even more for its identical twin in the west, which I can only describe as dialecticism. As Heraclitus would say, joy and sorrow are like day and night. Neither can exist without the other -- such is the all-pervading beauty of the universe.

Does Buddhism seek stasis? Or perhaps, to put it a different way, why would a Buddhist who didn't believe at all in reincarnation or any sort of thereafter simply commit suicide? What do Buddhists want? Well, "nothing", right? -- that's the whole idea as far as I understand it.

Or is there some delineation between "serenity" and nonexistance?

Eird-Way said:

Please talk about all the ways Buddhism is different from nihilism, because it seems like cowardice to me. I hate it very much, but I am eager to listen with an open mind. I don't know nearly enough.

Click to expand...

Nihilism simply put dictionary style:

Philosophy.
An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.

Can you honestly say you see a similarity? Buddhism is the search for the ultimate awakening, losing all the things that cloud your mind and understanding (extreme its not asceticism emotions/desires/materialism), quite a lot of psycology, education and a deep and intelligent moral and ethical system.

I have a much greater respect for Daoism, and even more for its identical twin in the west, which I can only describe as dialecticism. As Heraclitus would say, joy and sorrow are like day and night. Neither can exist without the other -- such is the all-pervading beauty of the universe.

Click to expand...

Daoism is in some ways very similar to buddhism, the end goal is essentially the same but it has a little bit to much mysticism whereas buddhism can be more focused, scientific and logical. Although in both cases you have extremes and moderates, and both are capable of evolution.

Dialecticism is not actually all that useful to me I find. In this model of thought you are trying to build a bridge between to opposing concepts, a synthesis between the two. It is utiliterian in form and doesn't actually offer any answers or meaning to life. It cannot help you form a moral and ethical system free from the deistic models as everything in this system devolves into relativism and nihilism to my mind.

Does Buddhism seek stasis? Or perhaps, to put it a different way, why would a Buddhist who didn't believe at all in reincarnation or any sort of thereafter simply commit suicide? What do Buddhists want? Well, "nothing", right? -- that's the whole idea as far as I understand it.

Or is there some delineation between "serenity" and nonexistance?

Click to expand...

Buddhists want freedom from suffering. To be happy, moral and to gain wisdom. Its that simple. Its not nothing, I am curious as to what gives you that impression?

Could you expand on that last question I am not quite sure what you mean.


Edit:
It is worth noting btw that the views I expound are not neccessarily the views of all buddhists. I do not subscribe to the tibetan stuff with all the hells and the like, they are a little crazy for my liking. This could be relevant considering we are talking about life and death.



Peter

I thought the integral purpose of Buddhism was to reach an enlightened state wherein it is no longer desirable to be reincarnated, and as such the individual would enter nirvana? Thats the spiritual aspect, unless I'm mistaken - unfortunately, there is no reason to believe in reincarnation or spirits. Sure, Buddhism is a pretty exemplary ethical philosophy, but its rather complicated comparatively speaking.

Can you honestly say you see a similarity?

Click to expand...

In some schools of Buddhist thought, yeah, theres a huge similarity. The philosophy of inter-dependence, that everything is reliant on another entity ad infinitum which denotes that nothing in fact exists on its own accord.

Edit: poor wording

I Have a Clever Name said:

I thought the integral purpose of Buddhism was to reach an enlightened state wherein it is no longer desirable to be reincarnated, and as such the individual would enter nirvana? Thats the spiritual aspect, unless I'm mistaken - unfortunately, there is no reason to believe in reincarnation or spirits. Sure, Buddhism is a pretty exemplary ethical philosophy, but its rather complicated comparatively speaking.

Click to expand...

Depends on what school you follow and whether or not you consider reincarnation a valid belief which and I cannp state this enough times in this thread apparently so I'm going to do it in large bold letters.

The Buddha didn't believe in God or a Soul

I'm not getting at you with this but if I have to repeat it again then I can point at this and wax lyrically about that persons inattentiveness.

It is a very complex subject as to what the Buddha said about death and what happens when we die. It is difficult to explain as I do not actually understand it, I think the essence of what he said almost made him an annihialationist but at the same time he argued against that label.

It is his contemporaries which shaped many beliefs.

In some schools of Buddhist thought, yeah, theres a huge similarity. The philosophy of inter-dependence, that everything is reliant on another entity ad infinitum which denotes that nothing in fact exists on its own accord.

Edit: poor wording

Click to expand...

How is that relative to nihilism?

Peter

Depends on what school you follow and whether or not you consider reincarnation a valid belief which and I cannp state this enough times in this thread apparently so I'm going to do it in large bold letters.

The Buddha didn't believe in God or a Soul

I'm not getting at you with this but if I have to repeat it again then I can point at this and wax lyrically about that persons inattentiveness.

It is a very complex subject as to what the Buddha said about death and what happens when we die. It is difficult to explain as I do not actually understand it, I think the essence of what he said almost made him an annihialationist but at the same time he argued against that label.

Click to expand...

Well, I've always understood that Buddhism is about striving to detatch oneself from this world. If there is no spiritual component, why not just commit suicide? From my perspective it all seems very ambiguous and elusive. Or is this not the case? The fact that you admit that you don't know.. its like I'm being confronted with a hall of mirrors!

How is that relative to nihilism?

Click to expand...

No idea, I was confusing nihilism with denial of existence which I was discussing in another thread. Nothing can be known.. nothing exists - its all very easy to get mixed up. Genuine mistake here, sorry.

From an Islamic point of view, Buddha fits the description of a prophet, though a minor one (Nabi) instead of a major one (Rasul). The difference is a Nabi was not obliged to spread the teachings and only seeks englightment of his own understanding of life and God, while a Rasul (like Muhammad, Jesus, Moses and Noah) were obliged to to do so.

Even though they (Nabi) are not obliged to teach, that doesn't mean that they can't teach if anyone do come to seek their guidance.

You'll find many teachings a basically the same as any major religion. The difference is that Buddha's teaching are more towards personal conduct while the major religion like Judaism, Christianity & Islam are both personal and communal nature.

That's what's Buddha's characteristic is a Nabi in nature and not a Rasul, from an Islamic point of perspective.

I Have a Clever Name said:

Well, I've always understood that Buddhism is about striving to detatch oneself from this world. If there is no spiritual component, why not just commit suicide? From my perspective it all seems very ambiguous and elusive. Or is this not the case? The fact that you admit that you don't know.. its like I'm being confronted with a hall of mirrors!



No idea, I was confusing nihilism with denial of existence which I was discussing in another thread. Nothing can be known.. nothing exists - its all very easy to get mixed up. Genuine mistake here, sorry.

Click to expand...

Spiritual:

Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See synonyms at immaterial.
Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural

All things that the buddha was opposed to, metaphysical unknowable answers in another words pointless topics. Another thing he is opposed to and surprisingly enough most non depressed people are is suicide. You really are placing nihilism in with buddhism, just because there is no spiritual aspect to life then you should commit suicide? Thats an erroneous assumption if I have ever heard one. Do you say that to athiests as well? Would the statement because I like living be to simple for you.

When I stated I did not know it was in relation to knowledge of an afterlife and the buddha's understanding of the afterlife. In terms of knowledge of death it is an unknowable answer, one that I do not dwell on because much like God there is no answer and to spend time debating it is futile. Why would I waste my time dwelling on a question that cannot be answered, I posted a quote earlier on from the buddha, "A man thinking about God is like a man with an arrow in his eye wondering what type of wood it is made of or who fired it" Similar to the afterlife you cannot find any answers so stop looking.

The buddhas position is one that has been discussed and debated for over 2 millenia, if you are disappointed that I can't give you answers after studying it for a year then I really don't know what to tell you.


One of the most fundamental aspects of buddhism is a respect for life and to refrain from doing harm to other things and one of those things include yourself. You are taught to love others but also to learn to love yourself .

Quick answer before I go to work I will be back on tonight or tomorrow in which I will go into the motivation to look at buddhism and the achievable goals.

PEter

the religon truely works
it was born in india

and iam an indian
no offence
but converting into the buddhism devasted india on much larger scale

there are many examples
here s one
asoka the mauryan king after uniting india in 3rd century bc
made buddhism as a state religon
and practised nonviolence

50 yrs after death of asoka the kingdom collapsed the khyabor pass was left unguarded and the series of barbarian invasion started which made the region turbulant


and i feel it was due to the over adaptation of nonviolance

correct me if i m wrong
but self defence is something which cant be neglected

You really are placing nihilism in with buddhism, just because there is no spiritual aspect to life then you should commit suicide? Thats an erroneous assumption if I have ever heard one. Do you say that to athiests as well? Would the statement because I like living be to simple for you.

Click to expand...

You're completely misunderstanding the point. I thought the purpose in Buddhism was to detatch oneself from this world. Is this true or not? Assuming it is the case, and one believes in reincarnation, then its a case of reaching enlightenment and freeing yourself from the desire to return - from the wheel of life. If one does not believe in reincarnation then surely you can simply escape existence by comitting suicide - so why don't some Buddhists do that? This is not applicable to atheists because there is no 'annihilationist' slant there - you can still pursue happiness. Or is this not the point of Buddhism? What is the point of Buddhism, then? Are you saying its merely a philosophy?

As a side note, I am certainly not confusing Buddhism with Nihilism - I'm a nihilist myself, but the artificial purposes I have constructed in life do not revolve around attempting to escape existence. Like you, I enjoy living. But I thought Buddha taught that one has to escape the suffering that is life?

When I stated I did not know it was in relation to knowledge of an afterlife and the buddha's understanding of the afterlife. In terms of knowledge of death it is an unknowable answer, one that I do not dwell on because much like God there is no answer and to spend time debating it is futile. Why would I waste my time dwelling on a question that cannot be answered, I posted a quote earlier on from the buddha, "A man thinking about God is like a man with an arrow in his eye wondering what type of wood it is made of or who fired it" Similar to the afterlife you cannot find any answers so stop looking.

Click to expand...

Well, my guess based on material evidence is that there is no afterlife. I'm happy with that, but there seems to be a contradiction here - check my above point.

The buddhas position is one that has been discussed and debated for over 2 millenia, if you are disappointed that I can't give you answers after studying it for a year then I really don't know what to tell you.

Click to expand...

Seems to me like Buddhism is a comforting form of 'mystical' atheism, or even theism if you so desire - one that can be shaped or appropriated as one desires. Just another crutch. I'm not trying to be offensive, but from my perspective this non-commital approach leads me to believe that Buddha was purposefully ambiguous and that in actuality his teachings are based on nothing but ethical standards that were prevalent long before his time.

One of the most fundamental aspects of buddhism is a respect for life and to refrain from doing harm to other things and one of those things include yourself. You are taught to love others but also to learn to love yourself .

Click to expand...

So its just a method of ethical conduct and a way of pursuing life? What was so special about Buddha then? His conclusions are hardly unique or revolutionary - live life, don't harm anything and meditate now and then.

I Have a Clever Name said:

You're completely misunderstanding the point. I thought the purpose in Buddhism was to detatch oneself from this world. Is this true or not?

Click to expand...

No and I will try and explain it as best I can. Sorry for the late replies I'm quite busy at the moment and this sort of thing takes more than a few minutes.

Firstly detachment is your inference to the cycle of rebirth which is a derivative of the Hindu belief of reincarnation. Not something the Buddha taught and not something neccessarily believable. The Buddha's views were quite complex but in some ways similar to daoism I suspect which I was under the impression teaches that when you die your body becomes other things (as it does in reality, the carbon and nitrogen cycle and decomposition) and he talks about energy though in no way does he infer a soul or conciousness or anything inherently permanent. In a lot of ways what he talks about are like a precursor to science, one thing he never did was pose unprovable tenets for buddhism. In his view it was unknowable therefore undebatable. The beliefs you talk about were written by contemporaries of the Buddha.

One goal is enlightenment (a word which is misleading if you look at the eytmology of it and its reference to the soul but it serves my purpose rather than using nibbana) though most just seek acceptance of life and happiness. There isn't neccessarily a purpose to buddhism other than the joy of doing it. Have you ever studied Yoga? It shares some principles, in Yoga there is no ultimate goal. You do not do it to stretch and reach a certain flexibility, you do it with a very important principle in mind; that of willful determination but non concern for results yet you enjoy the physical benefits.

It has been compared to modern western psychology. So what is enlightenment? I guess you could say that it shares the same goals and that is perfect mental health and happiness.

Assuming it is the case, and one believes in reincarnation, then its a case of reaching enlightenment and freeing yourself from the desire to return - from the wheel of life.

Click to expand...

No not at all. I won't argue this point this would be moving the goalposts and arguing in favour of something the Buddha never taught and I don't believe. Ultimately he said everything he taught should be testable and this hindu influenced belief is not testable or provable.

If one does not believe in reincarnation then surely you can simply escape existence by comitting suicide - so why don't some Buddhists do that? This is not applicable to atheists because there is no 'annihilationist' slant there - you can still pursue happiness. Or is this not the point of Buddhism? What is the point of Buddhism, then? Are you saying its merely a philosophy?

Click to expand...

Not merely a philosophy, it transends philosophy because most western philosophy will not lead to a development of character and mental health the way Buddhism can, though that is not to say it is impossible, I have never denied that Buddhism is not neccessarily the only thing to study but that it is the best thing to study. It still classifies as a religion as well, in fact I have already put all these sorts of thoughts through the mill with Rez if you would like to read it.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?p=995972&highlight=buddhism#post995972

posts 611 through to post 617 are arguements about Buddhism, different paths to happiness and why it is actually still considered a religion.

As a side note, I am certainly not confusing Buddhism with Nihilism - I'm a nihilist myself, but the artificial purposes I have constructed in life do not revolve around attempting to escape existence. Like you, I enjoy living. But I thought Buddha taught that one has to escape the suffering that is life?

Click to expand...

No sorry he taught to escape ignorance and to prevent your life being ruled by emotions and desires. This is not to say he was a miserable sod, he was by all accounts quite witty even after achieving nibbana.

Buddha believed in living life happy not worrying about escaping it.

Well, my guess based on material evidence is that there is no afterlife. I'm happy with that, but there seems to be a contradiction here - check my above point.

Click to expand...

No no contradiction based on the buddhas teaching, maybe on some of the tibetan beliefs.

Seems to me like Buddhism is a comforting form of 'mystical' atheism, or even theism if you so desire - one that can be shaped or appropriated as one desires. Just another crutch. I'm not trying to be offensive, but from my perspective this non-commital approach leads me to believe that Buddha was purposefully ambiguous and that in actuality his teachings are based on nothing but ethical standards that were prevalent long before his time.

Click to expand...

Well if you think that I am not going to try and change your mind. My personal belief is that it is vastly more complicated than that; furthermore there are benefits that are tangible and real to studying it, following its practice and adopting things like meditation.

Of course, we are all free to our opinions.

So its just a method of ethical conduct and a way of pursuing life? What was so special about Buddha then? His conclusions are hardly unique or revolutionary - live life, don't harm anything and meditate now and then.

Click to expand...

Once again if you believe this more power to you, I believe differently and don't believe I can convince you (or have no desire to) otherwise. The only thing I would say is, if you study philosophy and are genuinly interested in it then it is of interest. Many western psychologists have said that buddhism shows a remarkable insight into the human mind and can be useful.

To my mind, saying buddhism is useless and a crutch is like saying psychotherapy is a waste of time and a crutch. There goals are the same in many ways and arguably which one is more successful is a matter of debate. You might not think you need psychotherapy, but I believe I could attain a more relaxed state of mind being quite a volatile, ambitious and materialistic person. I actually believe it takes a certain amount of physical external things to make me happy which is not right.

A quote from the author of "A new buddhism - the western transformation of an ancient tradition"

You ask my what I would like to tell skeptical atheists about Buddhism. I guess the first thing I would say is that skepticism or doubt is an essential asset to anyone who would follow the Buddhist path. Although there have been many times and places where Buddhism failed to live up to its own teachings, the best Buddhist teachers I studied here in the West push their students not only to question their own lives and beliefs (including Buddhist beliefs), but to question their very sense of self and their most basic perceptions of the world. Unlike the religions most of us are familiar with, Buddhism (especially in its Western version) is not centered around the need to accept some set of doctrines or beliefs, but around the need to pay attention to our own experience--being full present with what is actually going here and now without being distracted by the endless stories we weave about ourselves and our lives. Metaphysical beliefs--is there a God or not, are we reborn when we die, etc. etc.--are really beside the point. In fact, they are often just another distraction. The Buddhist path is about letting go of our fixed ideas and dogmas not building them up. But that is a tremendously difficult thing to do for we are not just talking about political or religious beliefs but things that are far more fundamental to our construction of the world--for example, the belief that we have some kind of separate self that is independent from the rest of the world.

(The Bolded: can't emphasise this point enough, these kinds of abstract questions are so unimportant to us as individuals, if anything worrying or believing in such things is actually detrimental to us)

Edit: VIKRAN1986: Now I don't know a lot about Indian History so I've gone wikipedia on you:


Emperor Ashoka built thousands of Stupas and Viharas for Buddhist followers. The Stupas of Sanchi are world famous and the stupa named Sanchi Stupa 1 was built by Emperor Ashoka. During the remaining portion of Ashoka's reign, he pursued an official policy of nonviolence or ahimsa. Even the unnecessary slaughter or mutilation of animals was immediately abolished. Wildlife became protected by the king's law against sport hunting and branding. Limited hunting was permitted for consumption reasons but Ashoka also promoted the concept of vegetarianism. Enormous resthouses were built through the empire to house travellers and pilgrims free of charge. Ashoka also showed mercy to those imprisoned, allowing them outside one day each year. He attempted to raise the professional ambition of the common man by building universities for study and water transit and irrigation systems for trade and agriculture. He treated his subjects as equals regardless of their religion, politics and caste. The weaker kingdoms surrounding his, which could so easily be overthrown, were instead made to be well-respected allies. In all these respects, Ashoka far exceeded even modern-day world leaders.

He is acclaimed for constructing hospitals for animals and people alike, and renovating major roads throughout India. Dharmashoka defined the main principles of dharma (dhamma in Pāli) as nonviolence, tolerance of all sects and opinions, obedience to parents, respect for the Brahmans and other religious teachers and priests, liberal towards friends, humane treatment of servants, and generosity towards all. These principles suggest a general ethic of behavior to which no religious or social group could object.



Now examine your history afterwards (skip past the muslim invasion to any point after that) and can you say that people followed this kind of social structure. You can but only with the rise of a democracy 50 years ago, it seems to me that was a golden age of your history. Though I may be wrong who knows, Indian history is only a strong point of mine from the 18th century onwards.

Regards
Peter

I myself am somewhat agnostic/athiest if that makes any sense at all. I want to believe that there is some divine being, but at the same time I realize that there is no proof what so ever. So, I find myself asking those who do believe "do you believe because you truly do, or do you believe because you want to." And most of the time people will simply say something along the lines of "that's absurd, of coarse I believe it" All I am asking is for those people to take a second look and not rule anything out, which is exactly what you are doing if you have the mentality that your religion is the one true religion.

That is a big reason why I support Buddhism above any other religion, although I myself do not belong to any recognized religion I use to attend a buddhist temple and enjoy studying all different kinds of religious teachings/beliefs. Out of all the worlds religions I have studied the one that makes the most logical sense to me is buddhism, however I do find it hard to believe in reincarnation as like I said before there is no proof and needing proof of something is not being ignorant, infact it is the exact opposite. Sure you may say that is where faith comes in, but is it really faith or just a false hope that is instilled in your mind, you telling yourself that is the truth because you long for answers, guidance and a meaning.

In the near future I may openly consider myself buddhist, however much like el guapo I will most likely never will believe in reincarnation although I do not rule it out, because by doing so I have already become someone I wish not to be (close minded). It comes down to the fact that there is nothing prooving that it is true or that it is false, however some things do make more sense than others and I tend to go with what makes more sense rather than tell myself something I want to hear.

An informative thread.

I'm a bit confused by assertions that Buddha didn't mention or wasn't interested in reincarnation; but I'm not a Buddhist scholar, so perhaps I'm misinformed. Doesn't Siddhartha repeatedly refer to his previous lives in both the Jatakas and the Sutras? Also, in the Twelve Nidanas, doesn't Buddha lay out a pretty explicit set of rules regarding the interplay between karma and punarbhava (reincarnation)? To my knowledge, the difference between Hindu and Buddhist ideas of reincarnation lies in the fact that the Hindu concept visualizes a constant, eternal self (jivatma), which goes through lives taking up new bodies and discarding old ones, while Buddhist concepts visualize the transferrence of karma from one life (and self) to a different life (and a different self). Frankly, I was under the impression that karma made up a rather large portion of Buddhist philosophy, and I don't really see the point of karma if reincarnation doesn't exist.

Definitly an informative thread. I'd actually go as far as to request that it is made a sticky, and that people of other religious persuasions write up their own FAQ's on their respective religions.