What Sect Of Buddhism Am I Looking For?

[Sir Winston Churchill]

I'm trying to find a certain sect of Buddhism that meets the following criteria that I have been unable to find while sifting through the hundreds of possible sects.

-Does not revere the Buddha as a god-like being, merely an enlightened man (at most a prophet) that passed on his knowledge for others.
-Does no have any connection to Hinduist gods and has no Buddhist "saints".

Anything come to mind?

[B5C]

I'm trying to find a certain sect of Buddhism that meets the following criteria that I have been unable to find while sifting through the hundreds of possible sects.

-Does not revere the Buddha as a god-like being, merely an enlightened man (at most a prophet) that passed on his knowledge for others.
-Does no have any connection to Hinduist gods and has no Buddhist "saints".

Anything come to mind?

All Buddhists & sects don't believe Buddha is a god-like being. The reason why some depictions of the Buddha has Hindu origins was the combination developed by the local people themselves to make it easier too accept.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

All Buddhists & sects don't believe Buddha is a god-like being..

I disagree. If Buddah wasn't like a superman or a God there wouldn't be that story about him being tempted by demons and sex goddesses while sitting under the tree. SO obviously there is at least one Buddhist tradition with sex demons.

And as for patron saints, I'm pretty sure the smiling fat Buddah is something like a patron saint, or rather a buddah to come, but that may be just for the Chinese budhists.

I'd suggesting looking more toward the Indian Buddhism than the Chinese Buddhism, but if you're like, an athiest looking for a "seculard" buddhism you're gonna be pissed.

[B5C]

I disagree. If Buddah wasn't like a superman or a God there wouldn't be that story about him being tempted by demons and sex goddesses while sitting under the tree. SO obviously there is at least one Buddhist tradition with sex demons.

Many Buddhists believe that Mara is an actual being while others contend that it is really an allegory or a personification of negative states of mind. There would seem to be more evidence for this second opinion than for the first. This is apparent from the fact that the Pali word màra means ‘death’ or ‘bringing death’ and that Mara’s three offspring are named Lobha, Dosa and Moha, meaning Greed, Hatred and Delusion. This interpretation is further supported by the fact that Buddhism sees evil as thoughts, speech and action motivated by ignorance rather than the machinations of a force external to the human mind. Mara is sometimes also called Kaõha, the Dark One (Majjhima Nikaya 1. 377), or Namuci (Digha Nikaya 2. 259).
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Mara

And as for patron saints, I'm pretty sure the smiling fat Buddah is something like a patron saint, or rather a buddah to come, but that may be just for the Chinese budhists.

He was an Zen Monk who was adapted too Chinese Buddhism, but not all Buddhists think Budai as an Buddha or a future Buddha.

I'd suggesting looking more toward the Indian Buddhism than the Chinese Buddhism, but if you're like, an athiest looking for a "seculard" buddhism you're gonna be pissed.

You can find Secular Buddhism and/or atheists that in Buddhism. Buddhism can mix with almost any other religion.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

"Many Buddhists believe that Mara is an actual being"

Thanks for driving that point home for me, you are very helpful B5C

I really don't see how atheism can mix with Buddhism. I think any athiest worth their salt would be pissed at how buddhism doesn't aim to answer the big questions (where we came from why are we here), disgusted by the mysticness of a big chunk of buddhism, bothered by the lack of historicity (No one knows exactly which sayings are really from Buddah and which are just attributed to him), and gnawed by the lack of a solid set doctrine.

[B5C]

"Many Buddhists believe that Mara is an actual being"

Thanks for driving that point home for me, you are very helpful B5C

Many in Tibet and China, but if you look in the West and Japan. Many don't believe in it.

Deities in Buddhism are open for interpretation. Some adherents worship them as actual cosmic entities. Another interpretation is that they're manifestations of supreme enlightenment, putting a human face on formless qualities, to feel greater kinship with them-conceptual entities representing qualities they wish to instill within themselves, or as being already within themselves which they wish to open up to. It's up to each sangha, each teacher, and, ultimately, each practitioner.
The Complete Idot's Guide to Buddhism Second Edition- Gary Gach

Local gods

In many cultures Buddhism co-exists with local gods.

Sometimes the local gods are seen as having adopted Buddhism, while in other places the local gods are regarded as manifestations of various buddhas. Often a particular local deity will be given responsibility for a particular temple or place of devotion.

These "gods" are very different from the eternal God(s) of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They are not eternal and unchanging, but are go through the process of death and rebirth, just as human beings do.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi...tatheism.shtml

I really don't see how atheism can mix with Buddhism. I think any athiest worth their salt would be pissed at how buddhism doesn't aim to answer the big questions (where we came from why are we here), disgusted by the mysticness of a big chunk of buddhism, bothered by the lack of historicity (No one knows exactly which sayings are really from Buddah and which are just attributed to him), and gnawed by the lack of a solid set doctrine.

Reason why Buddhism doesn't answer the big questions because it up to me to find the truths. Also note that Buddhism fully aligns with science. Also Buddhism does not believe in a Creator god. Also Buddha wants us to question nature, himself, and his sutras.

Thus, the early missionaries of Buddhism to America purposely stripped Buddhism of any elements that might appear superstitious, mythological, even mystical. Dharmapala, Suzuki, and Vivekananda clearly ascertained that Americans measured truth in science, and science posed little theological threat to a Buddhist and Hindu worldview. After all, Buddhism had unique advantages for someone who rejected their faith (Christian) due to its authoritarianism and unscientific outlook:

1) Buddhism did not assert or depend upon the existence of a God

2) Buddhism was a superstition-free moral ideal; it conformed to the scientific view of an ordered universe ruled by law (Dharma)—a system both moral and physical where everything seemed to work itself out inexorably over vast periods of time without divine intervention (karma)

3) Buddhism posited no belief in gods who could alter the workings of this natural law

4) Buddhism was a religion of self-help with all depending on the individual working out his/her own salvation

5) "Original" Buddhism was seen as the "Protestantism of Asia," and Buddha as another Luther who swept away the superstitions and rituals of an older, corrupted form and took religion back to its pure and simple origins

6) Buddhism presented an attractive personal founder who led life of great self-sacrifice; parallels were drawn between Jesus and Buddha as the inspiration of a personal figure exerted strong appeal to seekers who had given up on theology and metaphysics.

Thus, Buddhism was packaged and presented in its most favorable light viz a viz the current spiritual crisis in the West; and, not surprisingly, Buddhism seemed immensely reasonable and appealing to Americans. Darwinism might be undermining Biblical Christianity, but it only enhanced Buddhism's standing.
http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhis...ismScience.htm

[The Million Dollar Prons]

Many in Tibet and China, but if you look in the West and Japan. Many don't believe in it.

Zen draws many of its basic driving concepts from that tradition, such as the bodhisattva ideal. Buddhas and bodhisattvas such as Amitābha, Avalokiteśvara, Mañjuśrī, Samantabhadra, and Kṣitigarbha are also venerated alongside Gautama Buddha. Wikipedia.


Sounds a lot like Saints to me. So really the only buddhism without any mystical mumbo jumbo is the watered down commercial buddhism we get in the west

Reason why Buddhism doesn't answer the big questions because it up to me to find the truths.

Actually it's because Buddha said the answer didn't matter.[parable of the poisoned arrow] Or did he know no one knows what the original Buddah said.

It'd be funny if like, the Theory of Gravity was taught like that modern do-whatever-you-like buddhism. "Some one, once said, that we are held to the earth by a force unseen. If you want to believe in that, but if not that's cool. It doesn't matter."

Man if I said that in the science forum they'd probably kick my ass.

[Admiral Piett]

Some off-topic posts deleted. Let's keep this an earnest discussion.

[Denny Crane!]

I posted that in a thread not two days ago and you certainly would find value in watching it.

If you start looking for a sect in buddhism you are digging yourself a hole. One month from now, or one year from now, or ten years from now you will have to fill that hole back in.

A big part of understanding Buddhism is getting the idea that as human beings that wish we were rocks. We seek permanence in belonging, in clinging to groups and beliefs in the hope that will root us. Root us as we are now, how we want to stay and find some vestige of permanence. If you go out looking for a sect, belief structure or particular set of ideas it suggests dogmatism. Something you will probably be pushed towards I might add.

Watch a lot of videos, read a lot of books and explore the ideas. PM me if you want some links. Oh and meditate, primarily before anything else. It is the one area I've lacked for a while but I am pursuing vigorously now and all the reading in the world doesn't replace the practice. Above all else learn to meditate.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

Don't bother trying to decide on a sect of Buddhism, BUT YOU BETTER READ A BUNCH OF BOOKS ABOUT BUDDHISM.

[Denny Crane!]

Don't bother trying to decide on a sect of Buddhism, BUT YOU BETTER READ A BUNCH OF BOOKS ABOUT BUDDHISM.

You are either trying to mock me, in which case you are doing a terrible job. Undermine my point perhaps, about seeking out information instead of dogmatic instruction or you are repeating what I said in ultra simplistic terms.

Either way this isn't going to end up well for you. Now you can pick one, I don't mind which one.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

You are either trying to mock me, in which case you are doing a terrible job. Undermine my point perhaps, about seeking out information instead of dogmatic instruction or you are repeating what I said in ultra simplistic terms.

Either way this isn't going to end up well for you. Now you can pick one, I don't mind which one.

Denny the Million Dollar part of my name isn't for show, if you wanna tell me what I said that was inaccurate do so but I think you'll find it pretty awkward because everything I say is 100% accurate because I'm so rich I bought Mariam AND webster and now "right" is pronounced "Prons." WOO.

But nah seriously I don't understand your aversion to dogmatism. Logically, you either have to work for enlightenment, or earn it spotaneously. If the former, you better meditate, if the latter, you'd better not meditate because that's not how it works. It can't be both. So you gotta decide which doctirne you're going to go with, are you going to be Mahayana or Zen? You can't be a Zenist Mahayanaist. And if Zen is right with its spontaneous enlightenment, then no ammount of book video or meditating will help you. This is a big pitfall in buddhist logic.

[Denny Crane!]

Denny the Million Dollar part of my name isn't for show, if you wanna tell me what I said that was inaccurate do so but I think you'll find it pretty awkward because everything I say is 100% accurate because I'm so rich I bought Mariam AND webster and now "right" is pronounced "Prons." WOO.

But nah seriously I don't understand your aversion to dogmatism. Logically, you either have to work for enlightenment, or earn it spotaneously. If the former, you better meditate, if the latter, you'd better not meditate because that's not how it works. It can't be both. So you gotta decide which doctirne you're going to go with, are you going to be Mahayana or Zen? You can't be a Zenist Mahayanaist.

Dogmatism and meditation aren't linked in anyway whatsoever. So the first half of your post makes no sense whatsoever and if you watched that video I posted you'd understand that sects in buddhism don't mean a lot, and where they do mean things it generally isn't important at least not if you are doing what counts.

Meditation can't be dogmatic, it isn't exclusive to anything and certainly not to Buddhism. You can incorporate Zen into any buddhist life or any non buddhist life.

In fact just to try and shut this line of argument down and hopefully add a little bit of closure to the thread I'll paraphrase another teacher of buddhism:

"Don't try to use what you learn from Buddhism to be a Buddhist; use it to be a better whatever-you-already-are."

It is unfortunate that in these threads we have discussions on buddhism and it is rarely the buddhists who converse, or the people who know about buddhism and the people who want to know about buddhism. I find so often that if ever the subject comes up I spend my time trying to address the major misconceptions as it is now about dogmatism or supposed necessary beliefs. Of course I shouldn't be irritated in the slightest as these are in themselves instructive, it just seems like I spend a few years repeating myself non stop.

[B5C]

Danny is correct. You don't have too be Buddhist to practice Buddhism. I have meet some Christian Buddhists who believe in the Holy Trinity, but practice mediation and other aspects of Buddhism.

Know what? Maybe Million, you may want to read this: (It's next on my reading list)

Thich Nhat Hanh is a great and wise man.

Also you don't have too join a sect to enjoy Buddhism. You join if you like their ways.
I asked the same question:
http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7537

[The Million Dollar Prons]

Dogmatism and meditation aren't linked in anyway whatsoever.

Yes. Yes it is. Because if you have a dogma or doctrine that says you need to meditate in order to achieve enlightenment, which is something you seem to agree with because you suggested meditating first and foremost.

The point I'm trying to make is, in the long run you HAVE to subscribe to some sort of dogma or doctrine. Because you can't have it both ways. You either reach enligthenment through meditation only, or meditation mixed with other things, or without meditation at all. It can't be both at the same time.

What I'm getting at with that, is choosing a sect of buddhism makes sense because obviously, if you can only reach enlightenment through meditation, a sect that doesn't meditate is one that should probably be avoided.

Now you say meditation isn't a dogma or a doctrine but that's just silly of you to even think that because it obviously is. If it wasn't a doctrine than no one would do it. You meditate to achieve enlightenment. The goal of Buddhism is to achieve enlightenment, therefore, meditation can and is in a lot of cases a doctrine and a dogma.

So the first half of your post makes no sense whatsoever and if you watched that video I posted you'd understand that sects in buddhism don't mean a lot, and where they do mean things it generally isn't important at least not if you are doing what counts.

Kind of funny I quoted your post expecting to hear what you had to think, not what the video has to say.

Meditation can't be dogmatic, it isn't exclusive to anything and certainly not to Buddhism. You can incorporate Zen into any buddhist life or any non buddhist life.

Meditation is to achieve enlightenment. Buddhism is the only religion that has enlightenment as its goal. Sounds pretty exclusive to buddhism to me.

And don't even tell me you can't incorporate zen into any other buddhist life. This was a big divide, in the North of China enlightenment was something slowly acheived, in the South, where Zen came from, Zen would be something that could be acheived spontaneously. Obviously they can't be both, you can't be working toward sponteanity.

In fact just to try and shut this line of argument down and hopefully add a little bit of closure to the thread I'll paraphrase another teacher of buddhism:

You haven't really shut me down as much as you have ignored what I said and threw quotes at me.

It is unfortunate that in these threads we have discussions on buddhism and it is rarely the buddhists who converse,

Because there are very few real buddhists. Most people professing to be buddhists are just people trying to be different, or people looking for excuses to be apathetic. That isn't really a criticism against Buddhism itself as much as it is with all the people claiming to be buddhists.

I find so often that if ever the subject comes up I spend my time trying to address the major misconceptions as it is now about dogmatism or supposed necessary beliefs. Of course I shouldn't be irritated in the slightest as these are in themselves instructive, it just seems like I spend a few years repeating myself non stop.

But you haven't addresesd any misconceptions and there haven't been any misconceptions posed in this thread at all, so I really don't think you've wasted any time.

Besides, are buddhists really capable of wasting time? Kinda seems like that goes against the grain of buddhist philosphy.

I mean don't get me wrong I like you as a person, but it seems whenever I question any sort of Buddhism, the proffesing buddhists get very angry (thought Buddhists weren't really supposed to do that), throw quotes at me, dodge my questions, and on occasion make ad hominem attacks against me.

I guess I'll never reach enlightenment.

[Copperknickers II]

I'm trying to find a certain sect of Buddhism that meets the following criteria that I have been unable to find while sifting through the hundreds of possible sects.

-Does not revere the Buddha as a god-like being, merely an enlightened man (at most a prophet) that passed on his knowledge for others.
-Does no have any connection to Hinduist gods and has no Buddhist "saints".

Anything come to mind?

Jainism would be one choice, obviously it was founded before Buddhism but I understand it reveres him as an enlightened person, and yet is more or less completely Atheist.

[Sir Winston Churchill]

Denny Crane I must say I had never taken you for a Buddhist, but I'm glad that (even if you aren't) you have some good knowledge on the subject. You're honestly right, and while I originally did not want to find a sect to belong to (merely to find out if such a one existed), I had a feeling in the back of my head I was searching for something to root myself to. You're completely right, it's human nature to try and establish something to make us feel... "permanent", when it's something we don't need.

I actually would like some links and names on future reading material. Thanks Crane.

[Denny Crane!]

Denny Crane I must say I had never taken you for a Buddhist, but I'm glad that (even if you aren't) you have some good knowledge on the subject. You're honestly right, and while I originally did not want to find a sect to belong to (merely to find out if such a one existed), I had a feeling in the back of my head I was searching for something to root myself to. You're completely right, it's human nature to try and establish something to make us feel... "permanent", when it's something we don't need.

I actually would like some links and names on future reading material. Thanks Crane.

I'm not a buddhist. But I'll use it to be a better Denny Crane if I can That is actually particularly relevant to be honest. Like anything that is either a self help philosophy, or a mystical sounding mysticism bollocks it is assumed that by following it you are either a saint or a failure. The truth always lies somewhere imbetween and is dependant on the individual. I've been an intellectual Buddhist for years and my interest in buddhism and other forms of mental manipulation grew as a practice over the last few years and it helped me get through various high stress situations that recently occurred (business folded much drama ensued) but more than that it helps to change your values and perspectives. It isn't a magic sticking plaster but like most things you will get out what you put in. As I have meditated and considered Buddhism over the years the changes have crept up gradually but there is no denying that I am more self aware and conscious of my own actions and emotions. Even if that hasn't yet stopped me cussing out posters that I disagree with. Being a 'communist nazi republican' we could cuss each other on which ever polar position you decide each day lol.

Either way buddy, I am pleased to help.

I'll PM you tomorrow (pissed today, dinner with the folks you understand heh) and I'll include a bunch of stuff, anything you disagree with, tibetan tradition is to argue passionately to find understanding, so feel free to open a thread or shoot a PM back! I'll include some of the non buddhist links I like to draw on as well.

[B5C]

Denny Crane I must say I had never taken you for a Buddhist, but I'm glad that (even if you aren't) you have some good knowledge on the subject. You're honestly right, and while I originally did not want to find a sect to belong to (merely to find out if such a one existed), I had a feeling in the back of my head I was searching for something to root myself to. You're completely right, it's human nature to try and establish something to make us feel... "permanent", when it's something we don't need.

I actually would like some links and names on future reading material. Thanks Crane.

Would you like some book suggestions as well on Buddhism? I know Danny is helping with you. I have a growing library as well. Remember you don't have to join a sect. It's up to you if you want to join one or not.

One Buddhist friend told me once.

"Why even choose a sect? The teacher is more important. Find one that connects with you, rather than finding a sect. The more you explore and experience, the more you then realize which feels right for you. "

[Sir Winston Churchill]

Would you like some book suggestions as well on Buddhism? I know Danny is helping with you. I have a growing library as well. Remember you don't have to join a sect. It's up to you if you want to join one or not.

One Buddhist friend told me once.

"Why even choose a sect? The teacher is more important. Find one that connects with you, rather than finding a sect. The more you explore and experience, the more you then realize which feels right for you. "

Absolutely, on all accounts.