Budhism Is Not A Religion [Archive]

10001

20th January 2006, 06:24 AM

yes, it is not.

DO PEOPLE REALLY KNOW WHAT THE WORD "BUDHIST' MEAN?

A BUDHIST SCRIPTURE is probably a more detailed discription of 'existance and life' that 'bible' would have become, if jesus managed to live to the age of the so called 'budha' (sok ha mo ni) did.

except for some espects and ultimate being part, the philosophy of life is pretty much the same. the nagain they all sound the same... if you really compare them.

Anyway,

budhism, IS NOT A RELIGION!!!!

OVER THE YEARS IT TOOK THE CHARACTERISTIC OF A RELIGION.
HOWEVER, IF YOU BECAME A MONK YOU WILL KNOW THAT.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH

* GOING TO A BETTER PLACE.
* LIVING A 'BETTER' LIFE.
* SOME SUPER BEINGS OR GODS.

BUDHISM IS ABOUT.. TO PUT IT SHORTLY

* SEEING/KNOWING/REALISING THE REALITY AS THEY ARE
* HAVING/ACHIEVING/LEARNING THE RIGHT UNDERSTANDING
* BEING MINDFUL OF THE EXISTANCE. PRESENCE/PRESENT(NOW)/PERPETUITY

TO ACHIEVE THE ABOVE BUDHISTS PRACTICE

*LETTING GO. (OF THE THINGS INSIDE YOU, BE IT SADNESS, CETAIN THOUGHTS OR WHAT EVER)

* MEDITATION. (LEAVE THIS TO INDIVIDUALS READING THIS TO DECIDE WHAT MEDITATION IS)

* HPPINESS OF GIVING. (BE IT GIVEN TO THEM, OR GIVEN BY THEM)
PLEASE REMEMBER MATERIAL GIFT/GAIN IS REALLY NOT WORTH ANYTHING IF NOT ACCOMPANIED WITH EMOTIONS INVOLVED.

DO PEOPLE REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WORD 'BUDHIST' MEANS?

***** IF BUDHISM IS A RELIGION *****
SINCE RELIGIONS ARE FOR HUMAN BEINGS
THEN THE WORD 'BUDHIST' CAN BE TRANSLATED AS 'HUMANITY'
A RELIGION OF 'PEOPLE', 'PERSON'
NOTHING ELSE ATTACHED.
NO ULTIMATE GOD
NO HEAVEN
NO HELL

BECAUSE...
EVEN THOUGH, THE WORD 'BUDHA' MEANS 'THE ENLIGHTENED ONE'
BUDHA SPECIFICALLY TELLS..
THAT WE ARE ALL 'BUDHA'
INFACT ALL EXUSTANCE EMBODIES THE BUDHA NATURE

IN BUDHISM.. THERE IS NO 'BELIEF'
YOU JUST... DO

OVER 100,000 TEXTS AND SCRIPTURES WERE WRITTEN.
TO ASSIST PEOPLE IN ALL KINDS OF SITUATIONS
AND LEVELS/DIFFERENCES OF UNDERSTANDING.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THEM ALL.
'YOU' ARE NOT STUPID
YOU DONT EVEN HAVE TO HAVE A 'BELIEF' IN ANYTHING/ONE/IDEAOLOGY
EVEN BUDHA...

GOING THE WAY, ON THE WAY, DURING THE WAY - YOU WILL KNOW.
WHEN 'ONE' DOES, AS 'ONE' DOES, WHILE 'ONE' DOES, - YOU WILL REALISE.

A SAYING THAT I LIKE...

IT IS MORE LIKE 'AS YOU GO YOU WILL GET TO KNOW' AND ' WHILE YOU DO YOU WILL REALISE'

THANKS FOR READING MY NONSENSE.

LIKE I SAID... I HAVEN SAVED MY SELF..... YET!

20th January 2006, 06:31 AM

OK, dude, the caps lock key is on the left side of the keyboard. Make sure that it's not depressed when you type, 'kay?

That being said, there is a fine line between religion and life-philosophy. Modern Buddhism is a religion, as it has adopted many gods from Hinduism, etc.

a_unique_person

20th January 2006, 06:33 AM

In theory, perhaps. In practice, people pray to the Buddha.

Tricky

20th January 2006, 06:35 AM

brodski

20th January 2006, 06:43 AM

That being said, there is a fine line between religion and life-philosophy. Modern Buddhism is a religion, as it has adopted many gods from Hinduism, etc.
Um no, I am a Buddhist, and I am also an aitheist, the terms are not mutaly exclusive. (and no, I am not talking abbout "cultural Buddhism" in the same way that you can be a "cultural Jew" or a "cultural Catholic")I am prepared to believe that buddhism is an agnostic religion, or phillosophy, but to say that the worship of any gods (borrowed from wherever) is centeral to "modern buddhism" is just wrong.Oh and BTW excatly which mdoern Buddhist sect is "modern buddhism" ?

brodski

20th January 2006, 06:49 AM

If your version of Buddhism involves the concept of karma, then it is indeed a religion, because it involves some supernatural "thing" (even if it is unnamed) making decisions about what to do with your soul.
That all depends on your view of karma, and whether you believe in reincarnation or not (not all Buddhists do). Also many philosophies deal with the supernatural, but they are not all considered religious.I like the UK government definition, that Buddhism is not a religion per se, but is a "similar philosophical belief".

brodski

20th January 2006, 06:50 AM

In theory, perhaps. In practice, people pray to the Buddha.
In the UK "the Sun" encouraged people to prey to David Beckham, to help England win some match or other, that doesn't make "footbalism" a religion.

Dancing David

20th January 2006, 06:57 AM

brodski

20th January 2006, 07:06 AM

Tricky

20th January 2006, 07:14 AM

That all depends on your view of karma, and whether you believe in reincarnation or not (not all Buddhists do). Also many philosophies deal with the supernatural, but they are not all considered religious.I like the UK government definition, that Buddhism is not a religion per se, but is a "similar philosophical belief".
That's why I put the "if" in there. But karma is not just "dealing with the supernatural", it is a supernatural entity that decides what to do with your soul. That satisfies the definition of "god" in my opinion. But I do understand that not all Buddhists embrace the concept of karma.

brodski

20th January 2006, 07:21 AM

That's why I put the "if" in there. But karma is not just "dealing with the supernatural", it is a supernatural entity that decides what to do with your soul. That satisfies the definition of "god" in my opinion. But I do understand that not all Buddhists embrace the concept of karma.
It is also possible to embrace A concept of karma, without embracing THAT concept of karma. Karma can be understood to be a kind of "do unto others" philosophy, with an added bit of, "if you are a rotten bastard, your guilt, and the way people around you react to you, will make you unhappy. " I will concede that some Buddhists cross the (artificial) line between faith based philosophy and religion. That does not mean that Buddhism itself is a religion. Although I do fail to see the importance of this discussion its just matter of semantics really.

Tricky

20th January 2006, 07:38 AM

It is also possible to embrace A concept of karma, without embracing THAT concept of karma. Karma can be understood to be a kind of "do unto others" philosophy, with an added bit of, "if you are a rotten bastard, your guilt, and the way people around you react to you, will make you unhappy. "
Perhaps, but that definition of karma is demonstrably wrong. Rotten bastards are quite often some of the happiest people around. Having no conscience will do that.

I will concede that some Buddhists cross the (artificial) line between faith based philosophy and religion. That does not mean that Buddhism itself is a religion. Although I do fail to see the importance of this discussion its just matter of semantics really.
Well, the whole thread is a discussion of semantics, is it not? It is trying to define what is a religion. Here's my take on it.

Religion = worship of or belief in a god.
God = supernatural entity which has power over your life or soul.

I've heard Buddhists argue that karma is not supernatural, similar to what you said above, and in that case, it is arguably not a religion. The vast majority of "karma" believers that I've met (and admittedly, many of them are pagans, not Buddhists) believe that karma is something that pays you back for being a rotten bastard and rewards you for being a nice guy, usually, but not always, in the next life.

20th January 2006, 09:03 AM

Um no, I am a Buddhist, and I am also an aitheist, the terms are not mutaly exclusive. (and no, I am not talking abbout "cultural Buddhism" in the same way that you can be a "cultural Jew" or a "cultural Catholic")I am prepared to believe that buddhism is an agnostic religion, or phillosophy, but to say that the worship of any gods (borrowed from wherever) is centeral to "modern buddhism" is just wrong.Oh and BTW excatly which mdoern Buddhist sect is "modern buddhism" ?

*shrugs*

All I know is, with the exception of certain Buddhists on this forum, every Buddhist I've personally known has adopted either Shinto or Hindi gods as part of their Buddhism. Given that I'm largely exposed to Korean Buddhists, and the occasional Indian Buddhist, that may be a cultural artifact. If so, I stand corrected, of course.

20th January 2006, 09:06 AM

Here's the real question: is Taoism a religion?

Moochie

20th January 2006, 09:42 AM

Marquis de Carabas

20th January 2006, 09:43 AM

Capslockianism Is A Religion.

Moochie

20th January 2006, 09:54 AM

Capslockianism Is A Religion.

Nah, I think it's a form of Tourette's syndrome.

M.

Ryokan

20th January 2006, 09:54 AM

Marquis de Carabas

20th January 2006, 09:55 AM

Rock n roll is my religion and my law.

Ryokan

20th January 2006, 10:03 AM

I've heard Buddhists argue that karma is not supernatural, similar to what you said above, and in that case, it is arguably not a religion. The vast majority of "karma" believers that I've met (and admittedly, many of them are pagans, not Buddhists) believe that karma is something that pays you back for being a rotten bastard and rewards you for being a nice guy, usually, but not always, in the next life.

I'm afraid karma rewards or punishes no one.

First off, most Buddhist denominations (except Tibetan Buddhism, and probably a few other minor sects as well) reject the concepts of soul and reincarnation. Gautama Buddha himself rejected both. When you have no soul and no reincarnation, your understanding of karma must be rejected.

To understand karma, you must see beyond the individual. Karma works on a greater scale. If a people do bad things, those actions will reflect on the future of that people. One generation doesn't reinforce the levees, future generations suffer for it. One generations turns their government over to terrorists and fundamentalists, and future generations suffer from it. One generations spends too much money on things that does not advance society, and future generations suffer for it.

Karma, along with nirvana, is one of the most misunderstood concepts of Buddhism. One of the reasons for the misunderstandings is that the Buddha stole words from his contemporaries, but changed their meanings. No doubt, had the Buddha been born now and raised in a Christian country, karma would've been sin and nirvana would've been heaven.

Ryokan

20th January 2006, 10:09 AM

*shrugs*

All I know is, with the exception of certain Buddhists on this forum, every Buddhist I've personally known has adopted either Shinto or Hindi gods as part of their Buddhism. Given that I'm largely exposed to Korean Buddhists, and the occasional Indian Buddhist, that may be a cultural artifact. If so, I stand corrected, of course.

Many Buddhist directions include gods, yes. When Buddhism was spread to other countries, it adapted to local cultures and their beliefs and religions was assimilated into Buddhism. You can be a Buddhist and believe in all sort of gods, there's nothing that 'forbids' it. In theory, you can even be a Christian and a Buddhist. I know in New York there are several Christian Zen centers.

In Japan, most people are both Buddhists and Shinto, so their belief in Shinto gods comes directly from Shinto, not from Buddhism. Japanese Zen Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

But Gautama Buddha himself was an agnostic. He once said that if there are gods, they are obviously as flawed and prone to desire/craving/attachments as mortal humans.

Moochie

20th January 2006, 10:19 AM

Perhaps, but that definition of karma is demonstrably wrong. Rotten bastards are quite often some of the happiest people around. Having no conscience will do that.

Well, the whole thread is a discussion of semantics, is it not? It is trying to define what is a religion. Here's my take on it.

Religion = worship of or belief in a god.
God = supernatural entity which has power over your life or soul.

I've heard Buddhists argue that karma is not supernatural, similar to what you said above, and in that case, it is arguably not a religion. The vast majority of "karma" believers that I've met (and admittedly, many of them are pagans, not Buddhists) believe that karma is something that pays you back for being a rotten bastard and rewards you for being a nice guy, usually, but not always, in the next life.

My understanding of karma is that if you don't reach "enlightenment" in this life, you are destined to be reborn (possibly as a gnat!) so that you will have another chance. The object is to reach enlightenment and not be reborn. That is the antithesis of a desirable "afterlife."

Comments, anyone?

M.

brodski

20th January 2006, 10:37 AM

brodski

20th January 2006, 10:45 AM

Perhaps, but that definition of karma is demonstrably wrong. Rotten bastards are quite often some of the happiest people around. Having no conscience will do that.
</p>True, but for those members of soceity who are not psycopaths, the general principel will hold true. Guilt can ruin your happyness, treat people badly and they are unlikley to treat you well in return. There may be exceptions to these points, but I contend that they will hold true for the vast majority of the population.

Moochie

20th January 2006, 11:01 AM

the majority of Buddhist sects do not belive in reincarntion. So whilst your understanding may be true for some sects, it is by no means universaly accurate.Karma is basicly a way of saying "your actions will have consequences".

I think even a gnat knows that "actions will have consequences."

My point is that in Buddhism, reincarnation is not something to be sought after.

The aim of enlightenment is to step off this "wheel of becoming."

Recognizing that "actions have consequences" ought to go a long way toward ensuring that one becomes less stupid/moronic/idiotic. Not so?

Personally, the perfect chili dog has yet to be created.

M.

Ryokan

20th January 2006, 11:10 AM

My point is that in Buddhism, reincarnation is not something to be sought after.

There is no reincarnation in Buddhism, except for some small fringe denominations.

Moochie

20th January 2006, 11:32 AM

I'm afraid karma rewards or punishes no one.

First off, most Buddhist denominations (except Tibetan Buddhism, and probably a few other minor sects as well) reject the concepts of soul and reincarnation. Gautama Buddha himself rejected both. When you have no soul and no reincarnation, your understanding of karma must be rejected.

To understand karma, you must see beyond the individual. Karma works on a greater scale. If a people do bad things, those actions will reflect on the future of that people. One generation doesn't reinforce the levees, future generations suffer for it. One generations turns their government over to terrorists and fundamentalists, and future generations suffer from it. One generations spends too much money on things that does not advance society, and future generations suffer for it.

Karma, along with nirvana, is one of the most misunderstood concepts of Buddhism. One of the reasons for the misunderstandings is that the Buddha stole words from his contemporaries, but changed their meanings. No doubt, had the Buddha been born now and raised in a Christian country, karma would've been sin and nirvana would've been heaven.

What an abundance of tripe you bring to this place. Karma is what becomes of your silly ideas about karma, and Buddhism, and a "metaphor for life," etc. etc.

There is no misunderstanding, only a misapprehension.

M.

epepke

20th January 2006, 12:41 PM

I am not saying that Buddhism is not faith based, but I have never seen a workable definition of "religion" which did not contain a theistic element.

I have, or at least I came up with one.

The sine qua non of a religion is that it places a great deal of emphasis on something that is ineffable and usually poorly defined and is also said to exist in a real sense.

Under this, Buddhism would be a religion. So would, in some instances, Communism (dialectical materialism) and Capitalism (the invisible hand), and Taoism (the Tao).

Since people do commonly use the term "religion" to describe Communism and/or Capitalism, it seems to fit well with common usage.

It's just that the ineffable thing is often a god, and the emphasis is often faith or something like that.

Note that all three elements have to be present. I'm sure we all remember from 5th grade that in Euclidean geometry, points, lines, and planes are undefined. Euclidean geometry isn't a religion, because there's no pretense that these things really exist, and not a great deal of importance is placed on "point nature." (One could construct a religion out of Euclidean geometry; the "perfect solid" notion of the solar system that Kepler wasted so much of his time on would qualify, I think.)

Feel free to rip it apart, but this is the best definition I've been able to come up with.

Moochie

20th January 2006, 12:59 PM

I have, or at least I came up with one.

The sine qua non of a religion is that it places a great deal of emphasis on something that is ineffable and usually poorly defined and is also said to exist in a real sense.

Under this, Buddhism would be a religion. So would, in some instances, Communism (dialectical materialism) and Capitalism (the invisible hand), and Taoism (the Tao).

Since people do commonly use the term "religion" to describe Communism and/or Capitalism, it seems to fit well with common usage.

It's just that the ineffable thing is often a god, and the emphasis is often faith or something like that.

Note that all three elements have to be present. I'm sure we all remember from 5th grade that in Euclidean geometry, points, lines, and planes are undefined. Euclidean geometry isn't a religion, because there's no pretense that these things really exist, and not a great deal of importance is placed on "point nature." (One could construct a religion out of Euclidean geometry; the "perfect solid" notion of the solar system that Kepler wasted so much of his time on would qualify, I think.)

Feel free to rip it apart, but this is the best definition I've been able to come up with.

Humans seem to be "hard-wired" to turn anything into a religion. Hence the the Fellowship of the Big Mac.

Unlike some here, I'm not on a first-name basis with "the enlightened one" (Buddha) or anyone else. I knew a bricklayer named Jesus once, but that is besides the point. He died of a high-fat diet, and didn't save anyone. Poor beggar couldn't even afford decent healthcare.

Two words: Tom Cruise.

Need I say more?

M.

yrreg

20th January 2006, 08:56 PM

I have, or at least I came up with one.

The sine qua non of a religion is that it places a great deal of emphasis on something that is ineffable and usually poorly defined and is also said to exist in a real sense.

Under this, Buddhism would be a religion. So would, in some instances, Communism (dialectical materialism) and Capitalism (the invisible hand), and Taoism (the Tao).

Since people do commonly use the term "religion" to describe Communism and/or Capitalism, it seems to fit well with common usage.

It's just that the ineffable thing is often a god, and the emphasis is often faith or something like that.

Note that all three elements have to be present. I'm sure we all remember from 5th grade that in Euclidean geometry, points, lines, and planes are undefined. Euclidean geometry isn't a religion, because there's no pretense that these things really exist, and not a great deal of importance is placed on "point nature." (One could construct a religion out of Euclidean geometry; the "perfect solid" notion of the solar system that Kepler wasted so much of his time on would qualify, I think.)

Feel free to rip it apart, but this is the best definition I've been able to come up with.

"I'm sure we all remember from 5th grade that in Euclidean geometry, points, lines, and planes are undefined."
but they can be drawn on a drawing board like a sand box with any writing implement like your finger; then based on the drawings you can construct the Great Wall of China, the Colosseum of Rome and the pyramids of Egypt.

Which you can't do with God and Nirvana, unless you reduce them to points, lines, and planes, but then you wouldn't do them justice -- not that I am proclaiming myself a theist from rational considerations, much less a believer in Nirvana from trying Buddhism and reaching enlightenment.

Yrreg

yrreg

20th January 2006, 11:27 PM

My favorite opinion-maker, Res Oir Amsus, defines religion thus:

Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

He reaches this definition of religion by studying peoples of different languages, having a definite name in their respective languages for a similar behavior, which we call by the name of religion.

And what is that similar behavior in peoples with different languages, which Res Oir Amsus and we call by the name of religion? That behavior described above, here repeated as follows:

Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

By 'influence' we mean moral causality as opposed to physical causality. If the causality is physical, then it's not religion, it's science and technology.

What about philosophy? Here is Res Oir Amsus' definition of philosophy for our times:

Philosophy is the ceaseless search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything by speculative thinking.

In philosophy there is no attempt at any causality whether moral or physical on any unknown or known powers; there is just the endeavor by speculative thinking to arrive at the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything.

When a philosophical thinker comes to the idea of a programming which he thinks should exist to order man's body, heart and mind, then he might take efforts to realize the programming or ordering of man, for example: communism, capitalism.

That's why communism and capitalism are politico-economic philosophies but not religions, because there is no attempt at influencing any unknown power(s), i.e., by moral causality.

What then is moral causality? Essentially it consists in affections and actions to move the unknown power to act or not act, for example saying please to the power on on your knees, or meditating on your haunches.

And what is physical causality? All the chain of processes you set going, when you turn on the electrical switch or strike a match or, say, pull the trigger.

-----------

I have, or at least I came up with one.

The sine qua non of a religion is that it places a great deal of emphasis on something that is ineffable and usually poorly defined and is also said to exist in a real sense.

Under this, Buddhism would be a religion. So would, in some instances, Communism (dialectical materialism) and Capitalism (the invisible hand), and Taoism (the Tao).

Since people do commonly use the term "religion" to describe Communism and/or Capitalism, it seems to fit well with common usage.

It's just that the ineffable thing is often a god, and the emphasis is often faith or something like that.

Note that all three elements have to be present. I'm sure we all remember from 5th grade that in Euclidean geometry, points, lines, and planes are undefined. Euclidean geometry isn't a religion, because there's no pretense that these things really exist, and not a great deal of importance is placed on "point nature." (One could construct a religion out of Euclidean geometry; the "perfect solid" notion of the solar system that Kepler wasted so much of his time on would qualify, I think.)

Feel free to rip it apart, but this is the best definition I've been able to come up with.

Note that all three elements have to be present. -- Epepke

Perhaps, dear Epepke, you might want to tell us specifically and exactly, what these three elements are which have to be present in the best definition of religion, you have been able to come up with.

Yrreg

yrreg

20th January 2006, 11:52 PM

You and I may feel that what the buddha taught was not a religion, but after 2,500 years it has become a faith based religion in many areas. I do not consider this to be what the buddha taught. But a google search on the word 'merit' and buddhism will point out that about seventy percent religion and faith in current development.
I do not consider this to be what the buddha taught. -- Dancing David
-------------

Tell me, Dancing David, at what time the earliest written records of Buddha's teaching appeared in the history of manuscripts? And how the writers of these records came to know what teachings to be genuinely authentic teachings of the Buddha?*

You seem to harbor the complacency of possessing the true teachings of Buddha as opposed to a lot of spurious accretions from outside his lifetime and his clime.

I would not be so sure if I were you -- and you claim to be a skeptical critic of Buddhism.

That is why you should rather find out what is the most conventionally agreed upon broad lineaments of beliefs and observances the greatest number of people calling themselves Buddhists concur on to profess and propound; then tell us what you can and cannot accept as a Buddhist -- if indeed you also call yourself a Buddhist; and no longer claim to adhere to the true teachings of Buddha, unlike so many others who mix truths taught by the Buddha with a lot of superstitious impurities.

Yrreg

*That's why the Buddhists in this forum have no valid reasons to take me to task for not being disposed to spend time and labor to search the sutras for the teachings of Buddha, for insisting that I would rather look up the standard established reference works like encyclopedias of religions and manuals of comparative religion -- when they themselves are at dissonance on what the true teachings or Buddha are indeed.

yrreg

21st January 2006, 12:02 AM

As I've said often enough in here, I'm a Buddhist, an atheist and a sceptic. My religion is Buddhism, and Buddhism is my religion.

But good luck finding a definition of 'religion' where both theistic religions and Buddhism fits equally well.

Ryokan is a man who can explain to his own satisfaction and the satisfaction of fellow Buddhists, what is the non-self in Buddhism, and gets impatient so as to lose his Buddhist equanimity with people who still can't accept that he makes any sense with his conceptual scaffolding of non-self.

Now that he tells us:

My religion is Buddhism, and Buddhism is my religion. -- Ryokan

That is absolutely and most certainly a very definitively categorical statement.

Now, the whole world is waiting for him to define religion for us to know what he means by proclaiming most unreservedly:

My religion is Buddhism, and Buddhism is my religion. -- Ryokan

Let's see how long we have to wait.

Yrreg

epepke

21st January 2006, 12:25 PM

"I'm sure we all remember from 5th grade that in Euclidean geometry, points, lines, and planes are undefined."
but they can be drawn on a drawing board like a sand box with any writing implement like your finger; then based on the drawings you can construct the Great Wall of China, the Colosseum of Rome and the pyramids of Egypt.

Yes, that's true. You can approximate them well enough for someone to get an intuitive understanding. But, still, they're left undefined in a mathematical sense.

This is good enough for Euclidean geometry, though it isn't good enough for topology, which is why knot theory uses small hoses instead of lines.

epepke

21st January 2006, 12:44 PM

Perhaps, dear Epepke, you might want to tell us specifically and exactly, what these three elements are which have to be present in the best definition of religion, you have been able to come up with.

I did. But everything looks better in LaTeX, so I'll try again:

\forall~religions~R~\exists ~X:
\begin{enumerate}
\item R involves a high emphasis on X
\item R holds X to be ineffable
\item R holds X to exist in a real sense
\end{enumerate}

Ryokan

21st January 2006, 12:50 PM

Now that he tells us:

My religion is Buddhism, and Buddhism is my religion. -- Ryokan

That is absolutely and most certainly a very definitively categorical statement.

Now, the whole world is waiting for him to define religion for us to know what he means by proclaiming most unreservedly:

My religion is Buddhism, and Buddhism is my religion. -- Ryokan

Let's see how long we have to wait.

I don't reply much to your posts, yrreg, because I feel like I'm just participating in a monologue, and because you have a habit of making bold statements without backing them up with evidence or sources.

The reason for my categorical statement is that the world seems to have come to an agreement that Buddhism is a religion. I'm not ashamed of being a Buddhist, and although I feel Buddhism is more a philosophy than a religion, I have no problem answering the question 'What is your religion?' with 'I'm a Buddhist'.

brodski

21st January 2006, 12:53 PM

Under this, Buddhism would be a religion. So would, in some instances, Communism (dialectical materialism) and Capitalism (the invisible hand), and Taoism (the Tao).

Since people do commonly use the term "religion" to describe Communism and/or Capitalism, it seems to fit well with common usage.

.

Sorry, any definition of "religion" which includes communism and capitalism just because "people do commonly use the term religion to describe [them]" would render the whole concept of religion as meaningless.

people commonly use the word "science" to describe ID, that doesn't make it so.

Ho weave thinking about it if you add a 4th point, which is that a religion must have a ritualised practise for "worship", you would be getting towards possibly the best definition of religion i could find, which covers Buddhism, as well as theistic religions, whilst excluding political beliefs or hobbies.

Ryokan

21st January 2006, 12:59 PM

What an abundance of tripe you bring to this place. Karma is what becomes of your silly ideas about karma, and Buddhism, and a "metaphor for life," etc. etc.

There is no misunderstanding, only a misapprehension.

M.

Excuse me..? :boxedin:

I may have some 'silly ideas' on karma and Buddhism, but metaphor for life?! You must be confusing me with someone else...

This is the first time since I joined this board someone has made me feel not welcome.

Complexity

21st January 2006, 02:57 PM

Ryokan - don't let Moochie get to you. He has a few personal issues he needs to work on.

10001

21st January 2006, 04:09 PM

In theory, perhaps. In practice, people pray to the Buddha.

you may see people who look like they are doing it.

If they are, they are not meant to.

budha is not a source of worship.

most real budhists know this.

yrreg

21st January 2006, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg :
Perhaps, dear Epepke, you might want to tell us specifically and exactly, what these three elements are which have to be present in the best definition of religion, you have been able to come up with.

I did. But everything looks better in LaTeX, so I'll try again:

\forall~religions~R~\exists ~X:
\begin{enumerate}
\item R involves a high emphasis on X
\item R holds X to be ineffable
\item R holds X to exist in a real sense
\end{enumerate}

Please, good and most profound, learned, and subtle Epepke, not flattering either, say those three elements of religion in your view, in normal language as Bodhi Dharma Zen tells us he prefers, in place of rational or metaphysical and I presume mathematical languages.

I want to learn more precisely your definition of religion, and see how it compares with the one given by my favorite opinion maker.

My favorite opinion-maker, Res Oir Amsus, defines religion thus:

Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

Can you do me the favor, please; as I said some several posts back, I count you as an adviser, teacher, in skeptical criticism.

Yrreg

10001

21st January 2006, 04:12 PM

10001

21st January 2006, 04:26 PM

Excuse me..? :boxedin:

I may have some 'silly ideas' on karma and Buddhism, but metaphor for life?! You must be confusing me with someone else...

This is the first time since I joined this board someone has made me feel not welcome.

they are ideas, even if it seems silly to others, it may make many others to think.

as long as we do not bound our selves, we will grow together.

finding the balace with which to do so, is often the process we do not agree with.

10001

21st January 2006, 04:44 PM

Please, good and most profound, learned, and subtle Epepke, not flattering either, say those three elements of religion in your view, in normal language as Bodhi Dharma Zen tells us he prefers, in place of rational or metaphysical and I presume mathematical languages.

I want to learn more precisely your definition of religion, and see how it compares with the one given by my favorite opinion maker.

Can you do me the favor, please; as I said some several posts back, I count you as an adviser, teacher, in skeptical criticism.

Yrreg

Religion:
* a 'belief' where one's life, while alive and/or after death, is assumed to be determind by a 'superior being'.
* the beliefs are mostly based on unknown or unseen, yet tobe proved, ideas/objects/events/beings.
* has their own laws regarding how a person should live life(which are translated in many ways by many people)

does this help?
personaly, without negativity on your part, i find hard to understand what you are saying in your posts. they dont seem to indicate anything about you. your thoughts. your understanding. i am making this view by only reading yourposts in this thread.

so maybe i should wait...

yrreg

21st January 2006, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg :
Now that he (Ryokan) tells us:

My religion is Buddhism, and Buddhism is my religion. -- Ryokan

That is absolutely and most certainly a very definitively categorical statement.

Now, the whole world is waiting for him to define religion for us to know what he means by proclaiming most unreservedly:

My religion is Buddhism, and Buddhism is my religion. -- Ryokan

Let's see how long we have to wait.

I don't reply much to your posts, yrreg, because I feel like I'm just participating in a monologue, and because you have a habit of making bold statements without backing them up with evidence or sources.

The reason for my categorical statement is that the world seems to have come to an agreement that Buddhism is a religion. I'm not ashamed of being a Buddhist, and although I feel Buddhism is more a philosophy than a religion, I have no problem answering the question 'What is your religion?' with 'I'm a Buddhist'.

Dear Ryokan, imagine that before joining this JREF forum there is a requirement that we should write a very succinct definition of religion, what is your definition of religion?

Now that you tell us for you Buddhism is actually a philosophy, suppose you give us your definition of philosophy, also?

I will appreciate your definitions most seriously.

Yrreg

Ryokan

21st January 2006, 06:14 PM

Dear Ryokan, imagine that before joining this JREF forum there is a requirement that we should write a very succinct definition of religion, what is your definition of religion?

Now that you tell us for you Buddhism is actually a philosophy, suppose you give us your definition of philosophy, also?

I will appreciate your definitions most seriously.

Yrreg

If that was the requirement, I would probably not have been here. I have problems making a definition of religion, because however I word it, some religions always fall outside my definition.

As for my definiton of philosophy... What's wrong with the original meaning, the love of wisdom? ;) If that's unacceptable, how about a collection of investigations of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values?

10001

21st January 2006, 06:59 PM

If that was the requirement, I would probably not have been here. I have problems making a definition of religion, because however I word it, some religions always fall outside my definition.

As for my definiton of philosophy... What's wrong with the original meaning, the love of wisdom? ;) If that's unacceptable, how about a collection of investigations of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values?

it could be said that budhism stemed into the science of that time.

SirPhilip

22nd January 2006, 06:33 AM

it could be said that budhism stemed into the science of that time. I think Taoism is closer to that distinction than Buddhism was. Buddhism, by principle, considers everything objective (phenomenal) absurd and unessential. Taoism was a more dualistic view of the world that embraced both in practice.

nosho

22nd January 2006, 10:41 AM

Buddhism, by principle, considers everything objective (phenomenal) absurd and unessential.

The practice of Buddhism, as I understand it, also involves noumenon.

davefoc

22nd January 2006, 11:18 AM

I have wondered about the issue of what Buddhism is for awhile. Unfortunately, the effort required to form an informed understanding of this has always exceeded my level of interest in the question.

This thread has probably been the most informative source on the topic that I have read, although as usual it seems the answer is a bit ambiguous.

My understanding based on what has been said in this thread:

Assuming a definition of religion something like this, "A belief that some form of supernatural being or beings exist", Buddhism is not necessarily a religion, however many of the most common sects of Buddhism include a belief in supernatural entities and thus are reasonably classed as religions.

Questions:
Do Buddhist sects exist that could be clearly identified as non-religious? If so what are thoses sects?

Are there Buddhist sects that are clearly religious? If so what are those sects? Assuming that they exist do the clearly religous buddhist sects tend to exclude people with other religious beliefs (such as Christianity) or atheists?

Dancing David

22nd January 2006, 12:20 PM

My understanding of karma is that if you don't reach "enlightenment" in this life, you are destined to be reborn (possibly as a gnat!) so that you will have another chance. The object is to reach enlightenment and not be reborn. That is the antithesis of a desirable "afterlife."

Comments, anyone?

M.

As I have stated in other threads: "That is not a teaching of the buddha", the teachings alleged to be derived from Sidhartha, Gautama Shakyamuni, the historical figure reffered to as the buddha, emphaticaly deny spirit, soul and re-incarnation. Now this has not prevented many of his followers from preching such stuff. Karma/kamma as explained by Thich Naht Hahn is that suufering begets more suffering, our acts and thoughts have consequences in the world.

epepke

22nd January 2006, 12:20 PM

say those three elements of religion in your view, in normal language as Bodhi Dharma Zen tells us he prefers, in place of rational or metaphysical and I presume mathematical languages.

Now I've had my absurdist little joke, and you've had yours.

Lexicography doesn't have much to do with skepticism but mostly to try to get a, usually approximate, understanding in a few words that describes how people use the language. Of course, skepticism can be used to test a proposed definition, which is what I hope will happen here. However, definitions in common language are usually heuristic, so we have to weigh degrees of evidence.

The definition is an attempt to model how people use the term religion, including things that people call religions and excluding things that people don't call religions.

We have to deal with the fact that people use the word "religion" to describe a number of things. Of course, they use it to describe Christianity, Islam, and Judaism (at least to the extent that Judaism is a religion and not a cultural group). They use it to describe Animism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Shintoinsm. They also use it to describe, sometimes, Communism, Capitalism, the behavior of Star Trek, Macintosh, Windows, and Linux fans. Often this is half-joking, but the word "religion" does in all these cases describe something that is readily comprehended by most other people.

However, most people are very good at being able to figure out what something means, but they're relatively poor in describing what it means. The goal of a definition, here, is to describe what people mean by "religion."

This is what I wrote before:

The sine qua non of a religion is that it places a great deal of emphasis on something that is ineffable and usually poorly defined and is also said to exist in a real sense.

The only difficult bit here is the sine qua non, which just means "without which, not," meaning that it is a necessary condition.

In a classical religion, this thing is a God or some supernatural. It satisfies the requirements:

1) God is said to exist in a real sense.
2) In the system, there is a great deal of emphasis on the concept of God.
3) God is ineffable and poorly defined.

Now, we can examine something else, so let's take an example. In 1927, the Soviet Union, in an official encyclopedia, declared that Einstein's theory of relativity could not be right because it was said to conflict with "dialectical materialism." Even much later, there was resistance to the theory[s] of Evolution by Natural Selection for the same reason, leading to all that stuff with Lysenko. These strike most people essentially as religious edicts. So let's test them:

1) Dialectical materialism is said to exist in a real sense.
2) In the system, there is a great deal of emphasis on the concept of God.
3) Dialectical materialism is ineffable and poorly defined.

So now we can test them.

1: Dialectical materialism is presumed to be a direct result of the thought of Marx/Engels and is held to be true by many Marxists, and certainly by the folks who were in power in the Soviet Union at the time. Furthermore, the idea that dialectical materialism can be said to trump the experiments that support Einsteinian relativity must mean that it is held to be at least as real as the results of those experiments. So the idea that it's said to exist in a real sense is strongly supported.

2: There was indeed a strong emphasis on dialectical materialism by Soviet Communists of the time. Just the fact that it could affect the writing of an encyclopedia or dominate biology for a time shows that there was a strong emphasis. So this is strongly supported.

3: Dialectical materialism has been reasonbly well defined. There is a good wikipedia article on it. However, if you look at it, you will notice that the definition resembes definitions such as of the Tao or many Newage concepts. The terms in which it is defined are really quite fuzzy. Furthermore, by examining the claim that dialectical materialism versus, say, Einsteinian Relativity, it isn't at all clear that any of the terms support the conclusion. So, does this fit my definition? I think it fits somewhat, more weakly than strong, but stronger than weak. I'll call it "moderate."

So of the three terms, those particular instances of Soviet Communism have two strong agreements and one moderate agreement. This reasonably seems to model the behavior of people when deciding that Soviet Communism in this instance was a religion. Most would see it as religious, though perhaps not as strongly religious as Christianity, and a few would disagree.

WRT Buddhism, substitute whatever you like for "God" or "dialectical materialism." If you substitute "karma," I think you get a strong confirmation. If you substitue "Nirvana" or "enlightenment," I think you get at least a moderate confirmation.

Dancing David

22nd January 2006, 12:24 PM

What an abundance of tripe you bring to this place. Karma is what becomes of your silly ideas about karma, and Buddhism, and a "metaphor for life," etc. etc.

There is no misunderstanding, only a misapprehension.

M.

These are harsh words and Ryokan deserves no derison for his post, please to explain the errors in his logic and where you feel that he is incorrect. Then we may all understand why you feel that his statements are tripe.

Unless of course you use psychic powers rather than scepticism to reach your judgement!

Dancing David

22nd January 2006, 12:43 PM

I do not consider this to be what the buddha taught. -- Dancing David
-------------

Tell me, Dancing David, at what time the earliest written records of Buddha's teaching appeared in the history of manuscripts? And how the writers of these records came to know what teachings to be genuinely authentic teachings of the Buddha?*

There is no way to verify them as the teachings of the historical figure refered to as the buddha, unlike Mohamed, the teachings became oral for a long time before writing them down.

You seem to harbor the complacency of possessing the true teachings of Buddha as opposed to a lot of spurious accretions from outside his lifetime and his clime.

Evidences? I suupose you have no need to prove your statements because of your psychic authority?
;)

They are the source as explained to you by Ryokan, that are credited by almost all buddhists to be the 'teachings of the buddha' as the historical figure as opposed to the Mhayana schools and the 'teachings of the buddha' as anyone who has found budh or may lead to budh.

I would not be so sure if I were you -- and you claim to be a skeptical critic of Buddhism.

I would claim the million dollars prize if I was you as you seem to be divining who I am from just reading two or three posts. I have always been willing to explain my use of language, unlike some posters.

That is why you should rather find out what is the most conventionally agreed upon broad lineaments of beliefs and observances the greatest number of people calling themselves Buddhists concur on to profess and propound; then tell us what you can and cannot accept as a Buddhist -- if indeed you also call yourself a Buddhist; and no longer claim to adhere to the true teachings of Buddha, unlike so many others who mix truths taught by the Buddha with a lot of superstitious impurities.

this has been explained to you before, the Pali canon and especialy the part that is allegedly ascribed to the historical buddha is generaly accepted as the teachings of the historical buddha by most buddhists.

To derive the actual teachings of the buddha would be as likely as me telling your gender from reading your posts.

Yrreg

*That's why the Buddhists in this forum have no valid reasons to take me to task for not being disposed to spend time and labor to search the sutras for the teachings of Buddha,

Sigh, if even you would quote them, the derivation of the pali canon and it's origins and authenticity (unlikely to be) have been discussed with you before.
Are you having a senior moment?

for insisting that I would rather look up the standard established reference works like encyclopedias of religions and manuals of comparative religion -- when they themselves are at dissonance on what the true teachings or Buddha are indeed.

Hiya yrreg!
Once again you demonstrate that you have not read my previous posts in response to the threads in which you have participated. I have discussed this on at least two occasions, including one of the more recent threads in which you pretended to be participating. ;)

As I have stated before this is how the story goes, and I suppose that you will just ignore this post and call it politeness again:

The buddha taught an oral tradition in a society that had writing but also relied upon oral tradition very heavily. Upon the death of the buddha a conclave was called of 500 arhats(the word somewhat means one who has found nirvana originaly but had acdcumulated some silly baggaage as well). At this conclave Annada and Sariputa and those alleged to have been the closest to the buddha recited the teachings of the buddha in the precense of the five hundred light bulbs.
What was agreed to be the teachings of the buddha was passed on in a further oral history written down for the first time on the island of Sri Lanka, in Pali five hundred years later.

Ryokan also explained this to you as well.

Carry on your merry way!

Dancing David

22nd January 2006, 12:47 PM

Ryokan is a man who can explain to his own satisfaction and the satisfaction of fellow Buddhists, what is the non-self in Buddhism, and gets impatient so as to lose his Buddhist equanimity with people who still can't accept that he makes any sense with his conceptual scaffolding of non-self.

Now that he tells us:

My religion is Buddhism, and Buddhism is my religion. -- Ryokan

That is absolutely and most certainly a very definitively categorical statement.

Now, the whole world is waiting for him to define religion for us to know what he means by proclaiming most unreservedly:

My religion is Buddhism, and Buddhism is my religion. -- Ryokan

Let's see how long we have to wait.

Yrreg

Just further proof that you don't read other people's posts and have no memory!

Remeber the 'moral' self as defined by you yrreg?

That is the self that does not exist, there are bodies, the bodies contain thoughts, feelings, perceptions and habits. There is no self.

Dancing David

22nd January 2006, 12:51 PM

you may see people who look like they are doing it.

If they are, they are not meant to.

budha is not a source of worship.

most real budhists know this.

Rxcept for the fact that many people do pray to the buddha for protection and favors, that can be easily established, It would be much harder to prove that there are not a substantial numer of buddhists who do not do so.

Remeber that you and I and all individual buddhists do not comprise buddhism, it is an agrregate of people and beliefs, trhere are many , especialy in Tibet who pray to the buddha and the Taras.

Dancing David

22nd January 2006, 12:58 PM

I am not saying that Buddhism is not faith based, but I have never seen a workable definition of "religion" which did not contain a theistic element. Buddhism had no theistic element in its teaching and is therefore not a religion. It is however a "similar philosophical belief".If you can redefine religion for me in such a way that theism is not a requirement, but which does not water down the concept of "religion" to include "Jedi knight", then I am prepared to change my position.
I usualy like the American Heritage Dictionary:

re·li·gion (r-ljn) KEY

NOUN:

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

If we call George Lucas a spiritual leader the 4 fits the foot.

Ryokan

22nd January 2006, 02:25 PM

Questions:
Do Buddhist sects exist that could be clearly identified as non-religious? If so what are thoses sects?

Are there Buddhist sects that are clearly religious? If so what are those sects? Assuming that they exist do the clearly religous buddhist sects tend to exclude people with other religious beliefs (such as Christianity) or atheists?

The Buddhist world is roughly divided in two, Theravada and Mahayana.

Theravada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada), the Teachings of the Elders, is an orthodox Buddhist denominations that stays close to the original teachings of the Buddha.

Mahayana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana), the Great Vehicle, has assimilated local religions and beliefs, and sects within this denomination are very varied, from the very theistic, almost monotheistic, Pure Land (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land) to the atheistic Zen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen).

Tibetan Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Buddhism) is sometimes mentioned as being the third of the major Buddhist denominations, but is just as often disregarded because it's so small compared to the first two. It has, like Mahayana, assimilated the local religion and beliefs of Tibet, but to a much greater degree than most Mahayana sects.

yrreg

22nd January 2006, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg :
"I'm sure we all remember from 5th grade that in Euclidean geometry, points, lines, and planes are undefined."
but they can be drawn on a drawing board like a sand box with any writing implement like your finger; then based on the drawings you can construct the Great Wall of China, the Colosseum of Rome and the pyramids of Egypt. -- Yrreg

----------

Yes, that's true. You can approximate them well enough for someone to get an intuitive understanding. But, still, they're left undefined in a mathematical sense.

This is good enough for Euclidean geometry, though it isn't good enough for topology, which is why knot theory uses small hoses instead of lines.

Definitions of point, line, plane, and solid...

What I remember from my geometry class are the following:

point -- intersection between two lines

line -- extension of a point

plane -- extension of a line

solid -- extension of a plane

That much I remember and I was so excited about those definitions which can be illustrated on the blackboard by the teacher, and you can design all kinds of things with them, and build them.

Now, you being a physicist, Epepke, you talk about small hoses and in another thread about entangled or tangled amplitudes, and I presume you master Quantum Mechanics and all its siblings plus the illegitimate ones begotten by mystical writers.

That's all very instructive to me.

Now, tell me, in your highest and deepest state of the science physics, for which I am sure you can produce some visible waves at least in some display equipment in the lab, like for example the old oscilloscope tube, where does the self or the non-self come in, the non-self specially as the Buddhists here are explaining it and appearing to be so secure about their explanations, and commiserative with shallow guys like yours truly.

Yrreg

yrreg

22nd January 2006, 05:53 PM

Remeber the 'moral' self as defined by you yrreg?

That is the self that does not exist, there are bodies, the bodies contain thoughts, feelings, perceptions and habits. There is no self.

We had some protracted discussion on the self and non-self.

Didn't I tell you and the Buddhists there? specially Ryokan, in my first thread, Skeptical Criticism on Buddhist Beliefs and Observances, that I can't accept your argument that there is no self, that it is only a collection of tissues, organs, and processes, for man, like the car is a collection of parts and assemblies and functions, and there is no car as we call it similar to a self in man.

Didn't I bring up the reminder to you guys? that in charge of the tissues, organs, and processes there is a subject that is conscious running the whole caboodle and monitoring them.

Didn't I say to you guys? that it is not your bowel going to the CR but you, the self; and it is not your belly that is eating but you, the self -- in so many words about that anecdote of the famine, and the ruler, and the Buddhist monks with their headman applying to the ruler for their food ration.

What happened is that we had a deadlock, not that I did not attend to your answers; I attended to them, but I can't accept them as rationally convincing -- maybe I don't have the Buddhist enlightenment.

Anyway, let's see what our physicist here, Epepke, has to say about the self and the non-self as explained and propounded by Buddhists, from the standpoint of the ultimate findings or theories in physics.

Yrreg

Ryokan

22nd January 2006, 07:35 PM

We had some protracted discussion on the self and non-self.

Didn't I tell you and the Buddhists there? specially Ryokan, in my first thread, Skeptical Criticism on Buddhist Beliefs and Observances, that I can't accept your argument that there is no self, that it is only a collection of tissues, organs, and processes, for man, like the car is a collection of parts and assemblies and functions, and there is no car as we call it similar to a self in man.

Didn't I bring up the reminder to you guys? that in charge of the tissues, organs, and processes there is a subject that is conscious running the whole caboodle and monitoring them.

I know there has been several similar discussions in this forum, that had nothing to do with Buddhism but about the self, the soul and wether humans were just the sum of their parts, or more. I didn't participate in those threads, but it seemed like most atheist forum members shared my view on that there is no self. I'll see if I can find some of those threads later, right now I'm going to bed, as it's quite late.

Didn't I say to you guys? that it is not your bowel going to the CR but you, the self; and it is not your belly that is eating but you, the self -- in so many words about that anecdote of the famine, and the ruler, and the Buddhist monks with their headman applying to the ruler for their food ration.

Ah, yes. I remember well your argument by made up stories.

You never told us, yrreg, where you got those stories, although I did ask you. Why is that, yrreg? Why don't you dare show us the source of your stories on Buddhism?

What happened is that we had a deadlock, not that I did not attend to your answers; I attended to them, but I can't accept them as rationally convincing -- maybe I don't have the Buddhist enlightenment.

Strawman, none of the Buddhists in here has claimed to be enlightened.

Anyway, let's see what our physicist here, Epepke, has to say about the self and the non-self as explained and propounded by Buddhists, from the standpoint of the ultimate findings or theories in physics.

Yrreg

Seeing it from just a physics perspective, we would have to conclude that humans are just the sum of their parts, and that those parts are ever changing. In other words, there is no self.

Ryokan

22nd January 2006, 08:05 PM

I know there has been several similar discussions in this forum, that had nothing to do with Buddhism but about the self, the soul and wether humans were just the sum of their parts, or more.

Couldn't sleep, so I dug up the thread I remember most.

Here you go, are we more than just a machine? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=39650&highlight=machine)

Since you're still relatively new to this forum, yrreg, I'll let you know that Iacchus, who started the thread, is the resident religious/spiritual/woo nut.

Achán hiNidráne

22nd January 2006, 08:45 PM

Rock n roll is my religion and my law.

I SOLD MY SOUL TO ROCK N' ROLL!

--Bill The Cat
Bloom County

merentha

22nd January 2006, 08:48 PM

the majority of Buddhist sects do not belive in reincarntion. So whilst your understanding may be true for some sects, it is by no means universaly accurate.Karma is basicly a way of saying "your actions will have consequences".

This is the first time I've heard of this. I was raised a Buddhist in Singapore. While I do not always agree with the way Buddhism is practised around here, mainstream Buddhism in Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan definitely believe in the "fact" of reincarnation. They believe that karma dictates your next life, rebirth is part of suffering, and that Nirvana is the ultimate state where one is free of karma and will therefore no longer be reborn. Having attended several dharma talks in my younger believer days, I have never once come across a single practioner, local or foreign, from the Mahayana or Theravada traditions, who ever rejected reincarnation.

During my high school days, it was compulsory for all students in Singapore to take a religious studies class of our own choice. I opted for Buddhist Studies. The syllabus adopted officially by the Ministry of Education also taught reincarnation as one of the central beliefs of Buddhism. No Buddhist organisation that I'm aware of challenged it.

epepke

22nd January 2006, 11:47 PM

Now, you being a physicist, Epepke, you talk about small hoses and in another thread about entangled or tangled amplitudes, and I presume you master Quantum Mechanics and all its siblings plus the illegitimate ones begotten by mystical writers.

Correction: I'm primarily a mathematician, but I spent 13 years collaborating with mostly physicists, so a fair amount of physics rubbed off on me.

Now, tell me, in your highest and deepest state of the science physics, for which I am sure you can produce some visible waves at least in some display equipment in the lab, like for example the old oscilloscope tube, where does the self or the non-self come in, the non-self specially as the Buddhists here are explaining it and appearing to be so secure about their explanations, and commiserative with shallow guys like yours truly.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure what they're talking about.

I think it's important to make a distinction between when we're talking about physics and when we're talking about something else, like philosophy or religion or metaphysics. But if and inasmuch it relates to physics, it seems to me a bit like how physics was understood more than a hundred years ago, and so I think a lot of the terms aren't relevant any more.

I'm not sure what the "self" is supposed to mean. Where is the self considering what has been discovered in neurology and psychiatry?

yrreg

23rd January 2006, 12:38 AM

Ah, yes. I remember well your argument by made up stories.

You never told us, yrreg, where you got those stories, although I did ask you. Why is that, yrreg? Why don't you dare show us the source of your stories on Buddhism?

This thought had alway been at the tip of my tongue but I always failed to bring it out into words, for having been attracted to many other also equally or more thrilling issues, namely, that -- and this is my impression, so it might not be exactly correct -- the Buddhists I meet here, specially the ones most enthusiastic in explaining and in defending Buddhist beliefs and practices, are obsessed with tracing a teaching to the Buddha in order to give it credence; aren't there insights in Buddhism already in their intrinsic character credible even if Buddha didn't formulate a statement for them?

I remember I suggested to Ryokan once that he might consider doing a project whereby he would rewrite the important core teachings of Buddhism, but leaving out altogether any mention of Buddha's name, and see whether people reading them without the mention whatsoever of Buddha's name, can be impressed by them as to adopt them for life's lessons reaching beyond the grave. I can't recall now what was his reaction; but I am inclined to feel that he dismissed the idea as not worth his attention or speculative curiosity.

I brought forth maybe three or is it two stories illustrating how non-self does not work in real life situations, and Ryokan now as before when those stories were told wanted to know the source. Here is where I think Ryokan and the Buddhists here, who have been conditioned to believe on the authority of the Buddha, also carry over this habit to illustrative narratives from non-Buddhist wit-crackers, intended to set forth perceptions of common everyday good sense.

What do you say? good Buddhist friends here, that you have been conditioned to believe on the authority of the Buddha, so that without knowing it you also tend to seek the authors of stories before seeing their worth in the plot and style alone without reference to the authors.

Allow me to address to you this suspicion: Did you first fall in love with the Buddha, and then accept Buddhistic teachings and exercises advocated by your instructors in the name of the Buddha?

Yrreg

yrreg

23rd January 2006, 03:08 AM

Karma, along with nirvana, is one of the most misunderstood concepts of Buddhism. One of the reasons for the misunderstandings is that the Buddha stole words from his contemporaries, but changed their meanings. No doubt, had the Buddha been born now and raised in a Christian country, karma would've been sin and nirvana would've been heaven.

Dear Ryokan:

On the one hand, you and Dancing David and I am sure a lot of Western Buddhists insist on the genuine, authentic, real, true, unadulterated teachings of the Buddha; on the other hand you tell us in the paragraph quoted above that "the Buddha stole words from his contemporaries, but changed their meanings."

I would propose seriously and sincerely that you undertake the solemn resolve to rewrite that paragraph, to effect a 180 degree turn of its main thrust? Otherwise, all Buddhists who claim to know the genuine, authentic, real, true, unadulterated teachings of the Buddha would not rest easy, for wondering what exactly Buddha means with the words he uses, which are from his contemporaries -- should they take you seriously, as a Buddhist master from the West, telling them that "Buddha stole words from his contemporaries, but changed their meanings."

Here is another example of changed meanings to words of contemporaries; look at this text below from an assembly of various sects of Buddhists in the US:

----------------

5) We hold, as central to the spirit and goals of Buddhism:
a. The Four Noble Truths: Suffering (dukkha), cause of suffering (samudaya), cessation of suffering (nirodha) and the Path to the cessation of suffering (dukkhanirodhagaminipatipada) Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor "escapist", nor does it deny the existence of God or soul, though it places its own meaning on these.

---------------

As I said in the thread next door, "And I had a good laugh when I read that excerpt from some kind of statement of common articles of beliefs and practices agreed upon by various sects of US Buddhists. Now I am afraid it is no laughing matter; it's true, Buddhists do have the policy of double-talk."

Yrreg

yrreg

23rd January 2006, 04:51 AM

The reason for my categorical statement is that the world seems to have come to an agreement that Buddhism is a religion. I'm not ashamed of being a Buddhist, and although I feel Buddhism is more a philosophy than a religion, I have no problem answering the question 'What is your religion?' with 'I'm a Buddhist'.

Nonetheless, I think you are into religion with your Buddhism, not only as a philosophy, even on your protestation to the contrary; unless you tell me that you are not after attaining Nirvana.

So, assuming that you are professing and practicing your Buddhism in order to attain Nirvana, your Buddhism is a religion, and not because the world agrees to see Buddhism as a religion, but considering that Nirvana is a post grave and beyond grave objective of Buddhism, and possessed of a transcendental dimension.

What turns a philosophy into a religion? or when does philosophy in a person ends as a philosophy and begins as a religion?

When the philosophy is being employed as a means, a way, a medium, to attain an end objective that is post and beyond the grave and exhibits a transcendental orientation, namely in your case, Nirvana.

Consider that there are people who profess theism as a philosophy but not as a religion; we can even find scientific skeptics who accept philosophical theism, but they don't cultivate it as a religion, as for example, Christians, Muslims, and Jews do.

These philosophical theists are not into utilizing their theistic philosophy to acquire a post grave and beyond the grave objective of a transcendental dimension; and they are not after favors from the God in life prior to the grave and of this world.

In your case, your Buddhism is for you a means, a way, a medium to acquire the post and beyond grave goal of Nirvana, an objective possessed of a transcendental character, and also you are after the beneficial effects of practicing Buddhism while still in your life existence prior to the grave, most principally almost quintessentially, relief or emancipation from suffering.

You will tell me that I don't know what Nirvana is all about? You are right of course; but I do know that Nirvana, the final and definitive phase, is post and beyond the grave, and also that Nirvana is of a transcendental perspective -- from the way Buddhists talk about it.

Perhaps your religion of Buddhism is of a less worldly kind, unlike the Buddhism of the masses of Buddhists in traditional Buddhist lands, like Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Nepal, China, Japan, Vietnam, Tibet, who are conspicuously after seeking earthly favors from Buddha and Buddhist saints; yet you are still after something from your embrace and practice of Buddhism, namely, to arrive at ultimate Nirvana, and while in this life liberation from suffering.

And who or what is your equivalent of a God? What else but the Dharma, even though it is not a personalistic God; yet you do negotiate with it to liberate yourself from suffering and to attain Nirvana. How? by meditation and good works, those right acts of the eightfold path -- that's how.

No, your Buddhism is not just philosophy, it is religion.

Yrreg

Ryokan

23rd January 2006, 09:41 AM

This thought had alway been at the tip of my tongue but I always failed to bring it out into words, for having been attracted to many other also equally or more thrilling issues, namely, that -- and this is my impression, so it might not be exactly correct -- the Buddhists I meet here, specially the ones most enthusiastic in explaining and in defending Buddhist beliefs and practices, are obsessed with tracing a teaching to the Buddha in order to give it credence; aren't there insights in Buddhism already in their intrinsic character credible even if Buddha didn't formulate a statement for them?

Yrreg, you must be new to scepticism, so I'm going to spell it out for you again.

When you make a claim on this board, you're supposed to back up your claim with external sources. If you don't, they're just empty words. When you tell us three stories of what Buddhists 'really' believe about the self, I would like to see the sources for those stories. Why won't you tell me the source?

I'm not asking because I want to 'trace the teachings to the Buddha', but because I'm fairly certain that the source is bogus. The fact that you refuse to admit the source of the stories just makes me more certain that they're just that, bogus. So what say you, Yrreg, will you show us the source of your Buddhist stories?

Epepke, I know you have some influence over Yrreg, could you please tell him the importance of backing up his sources and claims with external evidence?

I remember I suggested to Ryokan once that he might consider doing a project whereby he would rewrite the important core teachings of Buddhism, but leaving out altogether any mention of Buddha's name, and see whether people reading them without the mention whatsoever of Buddha's name, can be impressed by them as to adopt them for life's lessons reaching beyond the grave. I can't recall now what was his reaction; but I am inclined to feel that he dismissed the idea as not worth his attention or speculative curiosity.

Actually, the idea isn't bad at all. The Buddha really isn't needed at all, his teachings do not stand and fall on him.

I brought forth maybe three or is it two stories illustrating how non-self does not work in real life situations, and Ryokan now as before when those stories were told wanted to know the source. Here is where I think Ryokan and the Buddhists here, who have been conditioned to believe on the authority of the Buddha, also carry over this habit to illustrative narratives from non-Buddhist wit-crackers, intended to set forth perceptions of common everyday good sense.

Your three stories misrepresented the Buddhis view on non-self, and were probably made to make fun of Buddhists. You have made a claim that the stories show what Buddhists really believe. But how do we know you didn't just make those stories up? Are you going to show us the source of those stories, or are you afraid that once we know the source we'll dismiss it as unreliable?

Unless you show evidence that those stories contain what Buddhists really believe, they can be dismissed. If the source is unreliable, they can be dismissed. Farewell, stories.

What do you say? good Buddhist friends here, that you have been conditioned to believe on the authority of the Buddha, so that without knowing it you also tend to seek the authors of stories before seeing their worth in the plot and style alone without reference to the authors.

The Buddha has no authority whatsoever. He's dead. I want to know the author of your stories to see how credible they are.

Allow me to address to you this suspicion: Did you first fall in love with the Buddha, and then accept Buddhistic teachings and exercises advocated by your instructors in the name of the Buddha?

Yrreg

You can lay your suspicions at rest. My first meeting with Buddhism was through Zen, and they don't hold the Buddha as a central figure. It took many years, and a very sceptical approach, before I finally read the original teachings of the Buddha.

Ryokan

23rd January 2006, 09:51 AM

Dear Ryokan:

On the one hand, you and Dancing David and I am sure a lot of Western Buddhists insist on the genuine, authentic, real, true, unadulterated teachings of the Buddha; on the other hand you tell us in the paragraph quoted above that "the Buddha stole words from his contemporaries, but changed their meanings."

If you knew your Buddhism, you would know that the Buddha changed the meanings of Hindu words, just like the Christians changed the meaning of many Jewish words. For example, Dharma to a Hindu and to a Buddhist is two completely different things, as this Wikipeda article clearly shows. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma)

I would propose seriously and sincerely that you undertake the solemn resolve to rewrite that paragraph, to effect a 180 degree turn of its main thrust? Otherwise, all Buddhists who claim to know the genuine, authentic, real, true, unadulterated teachings of the Buddha would not rest easy, for wondering what exactly Buddha means with the words he uses, which are from his contemporaries -- should they take you seriously, as a Buddhist master from the West, telling them that "Buddha stole words from his contemporaries, but changed their meanings."

Why do you place such a great emphasis on me being a Western Buddhist, Yrreg? Are you trying to say I'm not a real Buddhist?

We know what the Buddha meant with his words, just like a Christian knows what Christ meant when he used the words Heaven and Gehenna, although his Jewish contemporaries placed very different meanings on those words.

Here is another example of changed meanings to words of contemporaries; look at this text below from an assembly of various sects of Buddhists in the US:

----------------

5) We hold, as central to the spirit and goals of Buddhism:
a. The Four Noble Truths: Suffering (dukkha), cause of suffering (samudaya), cessation of suffering (nirodha) and the Path to the cessation of suffering (dukkhanirodhagaminipatipada) Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor "escapist", nor does it deny the existence of God or soul, though it places its own meaning on these.

---------------

As I said in the thread next door, "And I had a good laugh when I read that excerpt from some kind of statement of common articles of beliefs and practices agreed upon by various sects of US Buddhists. Now I am afraid it is no laughing matter; it's true, Buddhists do have the policy of double-talk."

Yrreg

What is the double-talk here, Yrreg?

What is the source of the quote? How do I know you didn't just make it up?

Ryokan

23rd January 2006, 10:12 AM

Nonetheless, I think you are into religion with your Buddhism, not only as a philosophy, even on your protestation to the contrary; unless you tell me that you are not after attaining Nirvana.

It can be argued that I'm into religious Buddhism, especially since I'm a member of several religious Buddhist organizations. I've never hidden this fact, and if people ask me what my religion is, I will reply Buddhism.

However, the core of Buddhism is not religious.

So, assuming that you are professing and practicing your Buddhism in order to attain Nirvana, your Buddhism is a religion, and not because the world agrees to see Buddhism as a religion, but considering that Nirvana is a post grave and beyond grave objective of Buddhism, and possessed of a transcendental dimension.

You're supposed to attain Nirvana (enlightenment) in this life, not some mythical afterlife. The Buddha attained Nirvana under the Bodhi tree, and I have read no Buddhist texts that claim Siddharta Gautama went around as a zombie after his enlightenment. That alone suggests that Nirvana has nothing to do with a mythical afterlife.

I don't believe in an afterlife. When I'm dead, I'm dead, and that's the end of it. How can I practice to attain something I don't believe in?

If you want to counter this, all you need is to show us a credible source that says otherwise, not just make up strawmen and try to tell me what I believe in.

What turns a philosophy into a religion? or when does philosophy in a person ends as a philosophy and begins as a religion?

Those are good questions.

I would say that when philosophy turns into worship and/or the belief in the supernatural, it turns into a religion. That's a pretty weak definition, though, and does exclude a few religions, so it must be discarded.

Do you, or anyone else, have a better definition?

When the philosophy is being employed as a means, a way, a medium, to attain an end objective that is post and beyond the grave and exhibits a transcendental orientation, namely in your case, Nirvana.

I still don't believe in an afterlife, so how can I possibly be working towards it? Nirvana is enlightenment, and the goal is to reach it before you die. After you're dead, what use is it?

Remember, yrreg, one of your arguments against Buddhism is the belief in non-self. If we Buddhist don't believe there is a permanent self, how can there be an afterlife? You can't have it both ways.

Consider that there are people who profess theism as a philosophy but not as a religion; we can even find scientific skeptics who accept philosophical theism, but they don't cultivate it as a religion, as for example, Christians, Muslims, and Jews do.

These philosophical theists are not into utilizing their theistic philosophy to acquire a post grave and beyond the grave objective of a transcendental dimension; and they are not after favors from the God in life prior to the grave and of this world.

How can you profess theism as a philosophy? Can you show examples of this?

In your case, your Buddhism is for you a means, a way, a medium to acquire the post and beyond grave goal of Nirvana, an objective possessed of a transcendental character, and also you are after the beneficial effects of practicing Buddhism while still in your life existence prior to the grave, most principally almost quintessentially, relief or emancipation from suffering.

Thank you for telling me what I believe. You really should try to win Randi's million!

There is not afterlife, Yrreg, there is only this life. Make the best of it.

You will tell me that I don't know what Nirvana is all about? You are right of course; but I do know that Nirvana, the final and definitive phase, is post and beyond the grave, and also that Nirvana is of a transcendental perspective -- from the way Buddhists talk about it.

You don't know what Nirvana is. Did the Buddha die when he attained Nirvana? Or was he alive?

Perhaps your religion of Buddhism is of a less worldly kind, unlike the Buddhism of the masses of Buddhists in traditional Buddhist lands, like Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Nepal, China, Japan, Vietnam, Tibet, who are conspicuously after seeking earthly favors from Buddha and Buddhist saints; yet you are still after something from your embrace and practice of Buddhism, namely, to arrive at ultimate Nirvana, and while in this life liberation from suffering.

My Buddhism matches that of Theravada Buddhism. In your list of Buddhist countries, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia and Sri Lanka are Theravada countries.

Please show evidence that the Buddhists of these countries seek earthly favors of the Buddha and Buddhist saints (Bodhisatvas?).

And who or what is your equivalent of a God? What else but the Dharma, even though it is not a personalistic God; yet you do negotiate with it to liberate yourself from suffering and to attain Nirvana. How? by meditation and good works, those right acts of the eightfold path -- that's how.

The Dharma is my god? Thank you, Yrreg, you gave me a laugh today :)

No, your Buddhism is not just philosophy, it is religion.

Yrreg

The core of Buddhism is still a philosophy, no matter how many strawmen you erect.

nosho

23rd January 2006, 10:49 AM

This is the first time I've heard of this. I was raised a Buddhist in Singapore. While I do not always agree with the way Buddhism is practised around here, mainstream Buddhism in Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan definitely believe in the "fact" of reincarnation. They believe that karma dictates your next life, rebirth is part of suffering, and that Nirvana is the ultimate state where one is free of karma and will therefore no longer be reborn. Having attended several dharma talks in my younger believer days, I have never once come across a single practioner, local or foreign, from the Mahayana or Theravada traditions, who ever rejected reincarnation.

During my high school days, it was compulsory for all students in Singapore to take a religious studies class of our own choice. I opted for Buddhist Studies. The syllabus adopted officially by the Ministry of Education also taught reincarnation as one of the central beliefs of Buddhism. No Buddhist organisation that I'm aware of challenged it.

Thanks for this insight.

I have two reactions. One is that there is a subtle difference between the concept of rebirth and concept of reincarnation. Reincarnation generally means that the self continues from one life to the next. I think it's more of a Hindu belief, based on the notion of an eternal soul. Whereas rebirth in Buddhism generally refers to the rippling effects of ones "karma," I guess, so that habit patterns are passed from one lifetime to the next, but nothing else about a person lasts beyond death. Rebirth also refers with equal validity to the moment-to-moment process of change during this lifetime, and within Buddhism, I think it's just as "correct" to view every new day as a kind of "rebirth," and every meditation session as a kind of "rebirth," etc.

My second reaction is that the notion of rebirth when it is understood as "reincarnation" probably is viewed by many Buddhist teachers as not particularly relevant to the practice of Buddhism. People will have lots of different notions about God, the afterlife, the nature of reality, etc., and none of those notions is ever going to be anything we can have intellectual certainty about. So probably, there's no reason for a Buddhist organization to challenge some particular notion of rebirth, because there's no real point in refining such notions too precisely. Buddhist practice doesn't need them.

epepke

23rd January 2006, 01:47 PM

Epepke, I know you have some influence over Yrreg, could you please tell him the importance of backing up his sources and claims with external evidence?

I'm not big on authority figures myself, especially if they're me. I can't set myself up as an authority figure or try to mediate discussions between other people without violating what I think skepticism is about.

Of course, I do occasionally try to mediate, but I like to keep as light a hand as possible. Right now, people are actually talking.

homer

23rd January 2006, 01:53 PM

In the UK "the Sun" encouraged people to prey to David Beckham, to help England win some match or other, that doesn't make "footbalism" a religion.

I think you'll find that it is a religion in Liverpool !

yrreg

23rd January 2006, 02:28 PM

Thanks, Yrreg for your reactions. I will just bring out your post, the present one I am replying to, outside its quotation box, to respond to your reactions in each of their places.

Before anything else, I want you to know that I am not doing this skeptical criticism of Buddhism out of some kind of advocacy. As I said several times in this JREF forum, I am just doing it for fun. I can accept non-self and everything you accept and not accept of Buddhism, except practice the inconvenient observances like sitting on my haunches to do meditation -- I can even do that for a living if it is the better way for me to make a living, earn a livelihood, than what I am doing for a living at present.

Is that being wicked to Buddhists, to you? I do feel a bit of qualms, to be honest; but you guys are of tougher stuff than kids who still believe in Santa Claus.

And besides, if you should lose your Buddhist faith or philosophy owing to my skeptical criticism here -- just to indulge in self-adulation here -- there are others who are greatly relieved to have passed out of Buddhism, people even deeper and higher into Buddhism than the Buddhists here. And I am almost certain that one day you might decide with courage to step out altogether from Buddhism and just live like everyone else non-Buddhist, without what I might say carrying all that knapsack of Buddhist beliefs and observances all the time on your shoulders -- like student travelers on a string budget.

A flash of enlightenment: string budget... if your budget of thinking and feeling and living were much more luxurious, I am sure that you would not have to bear that knapsack everywhere and every time, and keep on explaining the knapsack and defending it to people curious with your condition.

Yrreg, etc., etc., etc.

Proceed to next post.

Yrreg

Ryokan

23rd January 2006, 03:11 PM

I'm not big on authority figures myself, especially if they're me. I can't set myself up as an authority figure or try to mediate discussions between other people without violating what I think skepticism is about.

Of course, I do occasionally try to mediate, but I like to keep as light a hand as possible. Right now, people are actually talking.

It's just that I would like to see Yrreg back up his claims a bit, instead of having to defend every notion he pulls out of his ass.

Ah well.

TragicMonkey

23rd January 2006, 03:16 PM

I cannot find it on Google, but isn't there an old saying something like "before one can knock down a Buddha, one must grow a gold fist"?

Ryokan

23rd January 2006, 03:19 PM

I cannot find it on Google, but isn't there an old saying something like "before one can knock down a Buddha, one must grow a gold fist"?

Never heard that one :)

Ryokan

23rd January 2006, 03:31 PM

This is the first time I've heard of this. I was raised a Buddhist in Singapore. While I do not always agree with the way Buddhism is practised around here, mainstream Buddhism in Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan definitely believe in the "fact" of reincarnation. They believe that karma dictates your next life, rebirth is part of suffering, and that Nirvana is the ultimate state where one is free of karma and will therefore no longer be reborn. Having attended several dharma talks in my younger believer days, I have never once come across a single practioner, local or foreign, from the Mahayana or Theravada traditions, who ever rejected reincarnation.

During my high school days, it was compulsory for all students in Singapore to take a religious studies class of our own choice. I opted for Buddhist Studies. The syllabus adopted officially by the Ministry of Education also taught reincarnation as one of the central beliefs of Buddhism. No Buddhist organisation that I'm aware of challenged it.

Thanks for the information about the state of Buddhism in your country. I didn't know much about the Buddhism of Singapore, so I looked around on Wikipeda and found these articles :

Religion in Singapore. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Singapore)

Buddhism in Singapore. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Singapore)

It seems the Buddhist population in Singapore is very varied, with both Mahayana and Theravada populations, so I'm guessing it's very hard to find a common ground and a singular teaching to teach.

As for the Buddhist view on Reincarnation, we can once again turn to Wikipeda. This is what Wikipeda has to say about reincarnation in Buddhism : (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation#Buddhism)

Since according to Buddhism there is no permanent and unchanging soul there is no metempsychosis in the strict sense. However, Buddhism never rejected samsara, the process of rebirth or reincarnation; there is debate, however, over what is transmitted between lives.

See also: Rebirth (Buddhist)

Reincarnation and rebirth are often confused with each other. Are Singapore school books in English, or in a more native language? Perhaps there are some translation problems?

The Buddha has this to say on reincarnation.

Kutadanta continued: "Thou believest, O Master, that beings are reborn; that they migrate in the evolution of life; and that subject to the law of karma we must reap what we sow. Yet thou teachest the non-existence of the soul! Thy disciples praise utter self-extinction as the highest bliss of Nirvana. If I am merely a combination of the sankharas, my existence will cease when I die. If I am merely a compound of sensations and ideas and desires, wither can I go at the dissolution of the body?" [7] Said the Blessed One: "O Brahman, thou art religious and earnest. Thou art seriously concerned about thy soul. Yet is thy work in vain because thou art lacking in the one thing that is needful. [8] "There is rebirth of character, but no transmigration of a self. Thy thought-forms reappear, but there is no egoentity transferred. The stanza uttered by a teacher is reborn in the scholar who repeats the word. [9]

yrreg

23rd January 2006, 04:54 PM

I consider Epepke as an adviser, even a teacher, in skeptical criticism, but I don't know the man from Jupiter and Juno. He is a real skeptic because he doesn't harbor any sacred cows, which I can't say about the Buddhists here. But sometimes rarely I am disappointed, when I asked him for information or his educated opinion, he appeared to be wanting or to be non-committal. Nevertheless, he gives me the impression of a skeptic with a lot of learning and thinking and years of experience in skeptical criticism.

------------

Dear Ryokan, you use the word 'strawman' rather freely in your messages to me, just like D David with his favorite epithet on me of a troll, as though these words for you and for D David are ejaculations (pun not intended) uttered by Christians, for example, Holy God, Mother Mary. If you would be genuinely skeptical, you would look into what you think to be strawmen or troll instances, as so many occasions to think along the lines introduced in the strawman or the trollish statement.

------------

Yrreg, you must etc., etc., etc.
My responses in bold

========================

Originally Posted by yrreg :
This thought had alway been at the tip of my tongue but I always failed to bring it out into words, for having been attracted to many other also equally or more thrilling issues, namely, that -- and this is my impression, so it might not be exactly correct -- the Buddhists I meet here, specially the ones most enthusiastic in explaining and in defending Buddhist beliefs and practices, are obsessed with tracing a teaching to the Buddha in order to give it credence; aren't there insights in Buddhism already in their intrinsic character credible even if Buddha didn't formulate a statement for them?

Yrreg, you must be new to scepticism, so I'm going to spell it out for you again.

When you make a claim on this board, you're supposed to back up your claim with external sources. If you don't, they're just empty words. When you tell us three stories of what Buddhists 'really' believe about the self, I would like to see the sources for those stories. Why won't you tell me the source?

I'm not asking because I want to 'trace the teachings to the Buddha', but because I'm fairly certain that the source is bogus. The fact that you refuse to admit the source of the stories just makes me more certain that they're just that, bogus. So what say you, Yrreg, will you show us the source of your Buddhist stories?

What or who gives you the idea that I am quoting from Buddhist sources? Did I give any indications at all that I am quoting from Buddhist sources? Please read carefully those posts from me where I mentioned those stories, and see whether I gave any indications at all that I am citing from Buddhist sources

Epepke, I know you have some influence over Yrreg, could you please tell him the importance of backing up his sources and claims with external evidence?

Originally Posted by yrreg :
I remember I suggested to Ryokan once that he might consider doing a project whereby he would rewrite the important core teachings of Buddhism, but leaving out altogether any mention of Buddha's name, and see whether people reading them without the mention whatsoever of Buddha's name, can be impressed by them as to adopt them for life's lessons reaching beyond the grave. I can't recall now what was his reaction; but I am inclined to feel that he dismissed the idea as not worth his attention or speculative curiosity.

Actually, the idea isn't bad at all. The Buddha really isn't needed at all, his teachings do not stand and fall on him.

In which case you don't have to call yourself a Buddhist, just call yourself a, for example, 4Truist-8Pathist; and admit that you got your beliefs and practices from Buddha's allegedly original teachings, but they are good enough even without Buddha's saying so; just as the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution are good enough if people don't know absolutely nothing about Einstein and Darwin. You make so much of being called a Buddhist, that I do have the impression that you are a cultist -- no offense intended with the name, though.

Originally Posted by yrreg :
I brought forth maybe three or is it two stories illustrating how non-self does not work in real life situations, and Ryokan now as before when those stories were told wanted to know the source. Here is where I think Ryokan and the Buddhists here, who have been conditioned to believe on the authority of the Buddha, also carry over this habit to illustrative narratives from non-Buddhist wit-crackers, intended to set forth perceptions of common everyday good sense.

Your three stories misrepresented the Buddhist view on non-self, and were probably made to make fun of Buddhists. You have made a claim that the stories show what Buddhists really believe. But how do we know you didn't just make those stories up? Are you going to show us the source of those stories, or are you afraid that once we know the source we'll dismiss it as unreliable?

I am not claiming to faithfully represent any Buddhist doctrines, nor quoting any Buddhist sources. My point is that if you use language other people also use before you started with your system of thinking and acting, then people will draw conclusions leading to absurd situations, based on their traditional and common and ordinary understanding of the words you use, which they have always used but understand in their accustomed from long ago meanings and senses. Tell you what, you have to invent new terms in English, just as Buddha should have invented new terms to introduce into his mother tongue be it Pali or Sanskrit or whatever. Take the lead from that guy who goes around telling people that religion is a meme, that word, 'meme,' is his contribution (correct me if I am wrong) to English even though it is from the Greek.

Unless you show evidence that those stories contain what Buddhists really believe, they can be dismissed. If the source is unreliable, they can be dismissed. Farewell, stories.

Originally Posted by yrreg :
What do you say? good Buddhist friends here, that you have been conditioned to believe on the authority of the Buddha, so that without knowing it you also tend to seek the authors of stories before seeing their worth in the plot and style alone without reference to the authors.

The Buddha has no authority whatsoever. He's dead. I want to know the author of your stories to see how credible they are.

Originally Posted by yrreg :
Allow me to address to you this suspicion: Did you first fall in love with the Buddha, and then accept Buddhistic teachings and exercises advocated by your instructors in the name of the Buddha?

You can lay your suspicions at rest. My first meeting with Buddhism was through Zen, and they don't hold the Buddha as a central figure. It took many years, and a very sceptical approach, before I finally read the original teachings of the Buddha.

That's what I find most amazing and most disappointing with Buddhists here who claim to have Skeptic's mind and nature or Skeptic-hood, that you keep on hammering about the original teachings of the Buddha, when in your critical intelligence you should know that no one can in fact point out any final definitive documentary record or manuscript written by the Buddha; and writing in his time and place was already practiced widely among people like himself who liked to talk religion and philosophy for a worldview. I for one appreciate tremendously any ancient writers who took the trouble and care to write their corrections, retractions, revisions, additions on their earlier writings before they died, in order that posterity would know their definitive mind. But not the Buddha, and you folks, skeptical Buddhists keep on insisting on the original teachings of the Buddha; this is what I call swashbuckling in the air. Are you guys, seriously now, Buddhists first and skeptics second, or the other way around?

[Hahaha softly]

Yrreg

Bodhi Dharma Zen

23rd January 2006, 05:08 PM

yrreg

23rd January 2006, 05:34 PM

Im this and Im that, whats the point of labels? furthermore, whats the point behind this talk? All I see is angry people, not a productive discussion.

Why must a discussion be productive at all?

oh, ok, I will remain in silence ;-)

I am not angry with anyone, but having a hell of a lot of fun.

Good, Bodhi Dharma Zen, you are one guy for bringing in perspectives.

About productive discussion, just being funny as in fun, What has Zen produced in the way of relieving say backache? -- just on the common level of everyday mundane annoyances and inconveniences.

[Hahaha softly]

Yrreg

Dancing David

23rd January 2006, 05:59 PM

Didn't I bring up the reminder to you guys? that in charge of the tissues, organs, and processes there is a subject that is conscious running the whole caboodle and monitoring them.

Now that is truely interesting, so I will ask, what is consiousness except a bunch of processes confabulated together and called consiousness?

Didn't I say to you guys? that it is not your bowel going to the CR but you, the self; and it is not your belly that is eating but you, the self -- in so many words about that anecdote of the famine, and the ruler, and the Buddhist monks with their headman applying to the ruler for their food ration.

You lost me there, what are you trying to say?
The body excretes, are you saying that consiousness is responsible for the autonomic functions?
I am not comrehending you train of thought.

What happened is that we had a deadlock, not that I did not attend to your answers; I attended to them, but I can't accept them as rationally convincing -- maybe I don't have the Buddhist enlightenment.

I did not say that you had not attended I tried to recap the statement about the non-self in term we had used already. There is no self, there is a body and the other heaps. Are you saying that consciousness is like a little yrreg that sits behind the exterior yrreg? Or what is you definition of consciousness?
Is it perception, memory, cognition?

Anyway, let's see what our physicist here, Epepke, has to say about the self and the non-self as explained and propounded by Buddhists, from the standpoint of the ultimate findings or theories in physics.

Yrreg

I think you might benefit more from the teachings of Mercutio, the resident psychologist.

Dancing David

23rd January 2006, 06:07 PM

Dear Ryokan:

On the one hand, you and Dancing David and I am sure a lot of Western Buddhists insist on the genuine, authentic, real, true, unadulterated teachings of the Buddha;
Yrreg

I hope I had been more careful than that, there is an oral history that was written down five hundred years after the buddhas death. These teachings are most likely greatly altered and heavily edited, although they are accepted widely as the teachings of the buddha.

The Mahayan tradition, which comprises the majority of practises currently in evidence, has a much broader standard of what comprises the teachings of the buddha, in that they accepts the teachins of all enlightened beings or in some schools any teaching that might lead to the budh/bodh (light).

Given that they are all mythical in nature , the actual teachings of the historical buddha can not be known. Any more than we can know the actual poem written by Omeru and now called the Illyiad.

Dancing David

23rd January 2006, 06:10 PM

I'm not sure what the "self" is supposed to mean. Where is the self considering what has been discovered in neurology and psychiatry?

That depends on your theorhetical bias, a behavioral materialist would say the self in no more than chemical interactions in a reverberating nueral network. A more spiritual immaterialist would say that there are transcendant qualities to consciousness such as 'qualia' that can not be 'reduced'.

Dancing David

23rd January 2006, 06:16 PM

Im this and Im that, whats the point of labels? furthermore, whats the point behind this talk? All I see is angry people, not a productive discussion.

Why must a discussion be productive at all?

oh, ok, I will remain in silence ;-)

Production is in the pocket of the capitalist?

Sorry Mr. Zen I hope we didn't trash the lawn too bad, the party will break up once we all pass out drunk.

I hope you continue to intersperse our conversations with your wit , wisdom and whimsey.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

23rd January 2006, 06:48 PM

About productive discussion, just being funny as in fun, What has Zen produced in the way of relieving say backache? -- just on the common level of everyday mundane annoyances and inconveniences.

I dont know! But I guess it was invented by someone with lots of available time.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

23rd January 2006, 07:05 PM

I hope you continue to intersperse our conversations with your wit , wisdom and whimsey.

My pleasure ;-) and thanks for the adjectives, I hardly deserve any of them. In any case, I believe we all (at least the ones in these Buddhism discussions) have dedicated lots of time to research and to learn.

Now, the problem as I see it, is that this learning require words and concepts, but those are the things that are avoided when one enters what is "behind" the religious concepts.

Yes, Im sad, Im speaking gibberish. I can see that there is a point there made by yrreg and the other guy.

mmm lets see if I can explain better what I have in mind:

Scientific views are interpretations of experimental data viewed from certain conceptual models.

It is assumed (often pressumed) that our individual conceptual model is "truer" or more "real" or "based on facts", but, how do we KNOW that our model is correct and everyone else's is wrong?

Yes yes, I know. We are more intelligent or wiser or intuitive or have a deeper understanding of what is going on.

But, is that true? how do we know? a Christian is certain, an UFO fan is certain, a Buddhist is certain, an skeptic is certain. Whats the difference?

Ahh the question. Which are the grounds for our individual certainity?

Logic?

For a Christian, the works of a genetician are, logically, the works of evil. Its EVIDENT.

Reasonements? we all feel we are "reasonable enough" (whatever that means)

That the data "fits" our other interpretations of what we call reality? bah, not interested. A model is A MODEL, no rocketscience needed to understand that.

We all try to explain things with our respective models, but what is an explanation except for some words that sound good together (and are more or less coherent with our models?

Words and concepts have an end. This is what Buddhism (at least Zen) tries to reach, a world without concepts, a world without interpretations.

You can breathe "there" and all there is is breathing, no questions, no answers.

Illogical? absurd? idiotic? yep, for some people (why not?, everyone can think whatever they want)

But its also something that certain individuals are seeking or have learned to enjoy. Im among them. There is a certain sense of "new" about everything, when you reach "there", and I like it. Enough saying.

10001

23rd January 2006, 07:32 PM

nirvana

is not a place.
is not a dimention.
is not anything, anywhere, what so ever.

because there is a name to it, we asumme that it is something.

budha aslo had a delema when explaining this.

he decided to call it? nirvana.

but really nothing should be said about it..

like i said. budhism is about doing it
no philosophy
theory
or belief

if you dont do it...
you will never never know... ^^

it is just all words and somethings that we think have a meaning.

action and reaction.
cycle of life.
cycle of existance.

matter and/or energy is neither created or destroyed. just changes...
budha realised this
long long time ago.
in a mountain far far away~^^

for the people who are worshipping budha. i am sorry to say...
there is nothing to "worship"
dudha you are thinking of is not there...

just as a curiosity...what do you guys think about the next phrase?

" the only correct discription, explannation, or meaning that can be given in a word or sentance is verb "

merentha

23rd January 2006, 07:44 PM

Thanks for this insight.

I have two reactions. One is that there is a subtle difference between the concept of rebirth and concept of reincarnation. Reincarnation generally means that the self continues from one life to the next. I think it's more of a Hindu belief, based on the notion of an eternal soul. Whereas rebirth in Buddhism generally refers to the rippling effects of ones "karma," I guess, so that habit patterns are passed from one lifetime to the next, but nothing else about a person lasts beyond death. Rebirth also refers with equal validity to the moment-to-moment process of change during this lifetime, and within Buddhism, I think it's just as "correct" to view every new day as a kind of "rebirth," and every meditation session as a kind of "rebirth," etc.

Which might be a valid idea except that "rebirth" or "reincarnation" is specifically viewed as a bad thing which Nirvana is supposed to eradicate. Within Buddhism practised by the Chinese, there is a phrase "liu4 dao4 zong4 sheng1", roughly translating as "beings from the six realms". Humans being one of the 3 upper realms of existence. It is believed that people who accumulate bad karma in this life will be reborn into one of the three lower states of animals/insects, hungry ghosts or hell. The Buddhist festival of Ullambana, cross celebrated by the Chinese as part of the Hungry Ghost Festival, originated from the story of one of the Buddha's disciple, Maha Mogallana, whose mother had been reborn into the realm of the hungry ghosts. You can read about the origins at: 4ui.com/eart/160eart2.htm (I can't post direct urls yet). Unless the Ullambana sutra is not considered canon, it would appear false to disregard reincarnation of the soul as part of the tenets of Buddhism.

Furthermore, if mainstream Buddhism does not believe in the concept of souls, then the common practice of transference of merits to ease the suffering of the dead and departed makes no sense.

nosho

23rd January 2006, 10:56 PM

Which might be a valid idea except that "rebirth" or "reincarnation" is specifically viewed as a bad thing which Nirvana is supposed to eradicate. Within Buddhism practised by the Chinese, there is a phrase "liu4 dao4 zong4 sheng1", roughly translating as "beings from the six realms". Humans being one of the 3 upper realms of existence. It is believed that people who accumulate bad karma in this life will be reborn into one of the three lower states of animals/insects, hungry ghosts or hell. The Buddhist festival of Ullambana, cross celebrated by the Chinese as part of the Hungry Ghost Festival, originated from the story of one of the Buddha's disciple, Maha Mogallana, whose mother had been reborn into the realm of the hungry ghosts. You can read about the origins at: 4ui.com/eart/160eart2.htm (I can't post direct urls yet). Unless the Ullambana sutra is not considered canon, it would appear false to disregard reincarnation of the soul as part of the tenets of Buddhism.

Furthermore, if mainstream Buddhism does not believe in the concept of souls, then the common practice of transference of merits to ease the suffering of the dead and departed makes no sense.

This is very interesting, thanks. I appreciate hearing the perspective of someone who grew up in a Buddhist culture.

I have several reactions to this. First, my understanding is that rebirth in itself is not viewed within Buddhism as a bad thing, but rather as a natural consequence of the way we live. The idea, as I understand it, is that suffering leads to rebirth, and the cessation of suffering can lead to the cessation of rebirth. I believe it is suffering that is viewed as the thing that needs to be addressed, not rebirth.

The hierarchy of different realms and the cosmology of some Buddhist traditions is pretty weird from a Western perspective. Here's a typical roadmap: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/bhumis.htm
But so far I have not come across a Buddhist tradition that teaches that followers must accept this. Rather, the message seems to be, if you don't think it's true, then set it aside, and don't let it be a hinderance to your practice. None of these notions is fundamentally important to the practice. That said, there may well be more "fundamentalist" Buddhist sects out there with which I am not familiar. But Buddhism does not seem to lend itself to religious fundamentalism.

With regard to the Buddhist canon, my understanding is that it's not regarded in quite the same way as a canon in Christianity or Islam or other religions. The tripitaka is vast and complex, and I don't believe any of it is taken as literal truth in the same way that, for example, some Christians take the Bible to be the literal truth. An acceptance of the Buddhist canon as literal truth is not considered necessary to be a "good Buddhist."

Accordingly, stories of rebirth in the different realms as found in some sutras might reasonably be viewed as teaching tales rather than as statements of historic fact that must be accepted literally.

With regard to the soul, an overarching teaching in most of the Buddhist traditions that I have encountered is that there is no eternal soul. That's pretty fundamental. The sutras probably are best understood in the context of the basic principles. Those that seem to regard the reincarnation of a soul as part of a tenet of Buddhism probably are pointing to a different, more subtle truth. But who knows? The point of Buddhist practice is to draw such conclusions for oneself rather than to rely on some authority or canon.

If there is no eternal soul, the common practice of transference of merits to ease the suffering of the dead and departed makes perfect sense in the context of lovingkindness meditation.

In such a meditation, one directs lovingkindness to all beings (including, presumably, those who have taken rebirth in the lower realms, if one accepts such things). This type of meditation often incorporates a focus on things relative (specific loved ones living and dead) as well as the ultimate (all beings). Those who adopt the notion of reincarnation of an eternal soul may find that this belief makes lovingkindness meditation easier to grasp. While the notion of an eternal soul may not stem from core Buddhist principles, the practice of lovingkindness certainly does. In many cultures, Buddhist practice has become intermingled with local beliefs.

Ryokan

23rd January 2006, 11:42 PM

What or who gives you the idea that I am quoting from Buddhist sources? Did I give any indications at all that I am quoting from Buddhist sources? Please read carefully those posts from me where I mentioned those stories, and see whether I gave any indications at all that I am citing from Buddhist sources

I haven't got that idea at all. I have no idea what the source is, that's why I'm asking. Why won't you reveal your source to us, Yrreg? Why?

In which case you don't have to call yourself a Buddhist, just call yourself a, for example, Truist-Pathist; and admit that you got your beliefs and practices from Buddha's allegedly original teachings, but they are good enough even without Buddha's saying so; just as the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution are good enough if people don't know absolutely nothing about Einstein and Darwin. You make so much of being called a Buddhist, that I do have the impression that you are a cultist -- no offense intended with the name, though.

How many times must I explain to you that Buddhism is not named after Gautama Buddha, Yrreg? Buddhism is named after the experience all Buddhists seek, that of enlightenment.

I have explained this to you so many times now, I'm getting tired doing it over and over again. I don't see the point in further discussion with you.

Farewell, Yrreg.

merentha

24th January 2006, 01:34 AM

With regard to the Buddhist canon, my understanding is that it's not regarded in quite the same way as a canon in Christianity or Islam or other religions. The tripitaka is vast and complex, and I don't believe any of it is taken as literal truth in the same way that, for example, some Christians take the Bible to be the literal truth. An acceptance of the Buddhist canon as literal truth is not considered necessary to be a "good Buddhist."

I didn't mean it in that sense. By canonical, I meant that the Ullambana Sutra is part of the official body of teachings; not some made up later day fables. While Buddhism does not demand its followers to accept all its teachings as the Truth(tm), one cannot deny that reincarnation is part of its teachings. It is also incorrect to label Buddhists who believe in reincarnation as members of "small fringe denominations". Perhaps Western Buddhists prefer to strip the teachings of most of its supernatural elements, nonetheless these elements are very much in the core beliefs of the practitioners in the east.

It is commendable that Buddhists attempt to delve deeper into the core teachings and strip Buddhism of the embellishments introduced by later cultural influences. However, one must always remember that the direct teachings of the Buddha were first passed down via an oral tradition and only set in writing much later. Words and even entire passages could have been altered. The original teachings might have less (or more) supernatural woo, but we'll never be sure. It is perhaps this understanding that nobody has the one true interpretation that most Buddhist denominations are able to coexist peacefully through the centuries.

Much of my exposure to Buddhism is in Chinese. As I can recall, there were no direct mentions of a "soul", but many references to the concept of "self". The "self" both exists and does not exist. Beings continue to enter into the cycle of deaths and rebirths because they try desperately to cling on to their "self". However, if they were to understand the transient nature of the "self", they would be able to break free from the cycle and attain Nirvana. In that sense, there is no eternal soul. It is apparently our craving for existence that causes our souls to be reborn indefinitely. The Buddha's mission was to enlighten the people on the transitory nature of all things. Try reading the Heart Sutra, it can give anyone a brain aneurysm, but it is one of the most popular sutras in the Mahayana tradition.

Roboramma

24th January 2006, 02:13 AM

Merentha, just want to say thanks for the contributions. :)

CENOBITE

24th January 2006, 03:31 AM

Nasty buisness... "isims". I don't think Bhuddisim is a religion either, but alot of people shure like to pretend it is. ;)

merentha

24th January 2006, 06:17 AM

Nasty buisness... "isims". I don't think Bhuddisim is a religion either, but alot of people shure like to pretend it is. ;)

Perhaps the issue is with the definition of religion. Buddhism as practised in Asia for centuries is a religion, with all the attendant rituals and festive days. Unlike most religions which are god-centered, Buddhism is non-theistic. However, the long history of cultural immersion has produced a pantheon of supernatural beings that are actively worshipped.

The Mahayana tradition has a pantheon of Boddhisattvas, beings who are one step from attaining Buddhahood but through their compassion have chosen to postpone their final Nirvana in order help the less enlightened sufferers. The most popular is Avalokiteshvara, commonly but wrongly translated as the "Goddess of Mercy". The Buddhas are also worshipped, most notably Amitabha Buddha. Followers believe that by chanting his name, especially just before death, would ensure that they avoid rebirth by having a direct train to the Western Paradise overseen by this venerable buddha. The Western Paradise is apparently conducive for attaining Nirvana in the shortest possible time.

The Theravada tradition as practised in Thailand has its fair share of monks who are believed to have become Arhants, the first step of enlightenment towards the road to Nirvana. Some of these "Arhants" are still alive. Thais wear pendants with representations of the Arhants either for protection or to grant them good luck.

Nonetheless, if one chooses to strip away most of the supernatural elements, the core message of Buddhism as defined by the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Paths is a valid philosophy. It is still not completely free from the supernatural. For example, how does one define Nirvana satisfactorily?

Finally, I tend to avoid describing Buddhism as an atheistic religion. Though Buddhism is not characterised by the worship of a god (or many gods), Buddhists do believe in the existence of gods. However, the realm of gods, like that of humans, are but one of the six realms of existence. Hence, one who has acquired enough positive karma may be reborn in the godly realm in the next existence.

Dancing David

24th January 2006, 06:24 AM

Thanks maranatha and nosho for your explanations, very enlightening.

10001

24th January 2006, 02:47 PM

Perhaps the issue is with the definition of religion. Buddhism as practised in Asia for centuries is a religion, with all the attendant rituals and festive days. Unlike most religions which are god-centered, Buddhism is non-theistic. However, the long history of cultural immersion has produced a pantheon of supernatural beings that are actively worshipped.

The Mahayana tradition has a pantheon of Boddhisattvas, beings who are one step from attaining Buddhahood but through their compassion have chosen to postpone their final Nirvana in order help the less enlightened sufferers. The most popular is Avalokiteshvara, commonly but wrongly translated as the "Goddess of Mercy". The Buddhas are also worshipped, most notably Amitabha Buddha. Followers believe that by chanting his name, especially just before death, would ensure that they avoid rebirth by having a direct train to the Western Paradise overseen by this venerable buddha. The Western Paradise is apparently conducive for attaining Nirvana in the shortest possible time.

The Theravada tradition as practised in Thailand has its fair share of monks who are believed to have become Arhants, the first step of enlightenment towards the road to Nirvana. Some of these "Arhants" are still alive. Thais wear pendants with representations of the Arhants either for protection or to grant them good luck.

Nonetheless, if one chooses to strip away most of the supernatural elements, the core message of Buddhism as defined by the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Paths is a valid philosophy. It is still not completely free from the supernatural. For example, how does one define Nirvana satisfactorily?

Finally, I tend to avoid describing Buddhism as an atheistic religion. Though Buddhism is not characterised by the worship of a god (or many gods), Buddhists do believe in the existence of gods. However, the realm of gods, like that of humans, are but one of the six realms of existence. Hence, one who has acquired enough positive karma may be reborn in the godly realm in the next existence.

that is not what budhism is about.

those are the stories that are told.

the essence of budhism is not what you or i or people 'believe in'

it is more about 'knowing'. not as in knowledge.

and doing.

i spose in the sence as you discribe. you could put budhist in to two catagories.

practicing and belief based...

but you have to take into account the human aspects that comes into essences of everything.

merentha

24th January 2006, 06:49 PM

that is not what budhism is about.

those are the stories that are told.

the essence of budhism is not what you or i or people 'believe in'

it is more about 'knowing'. not as in knowledge.

and doing.

i spose in the sence as you discribe. you could put budhist in to two catagories.

practicing and belief based...

but you have to take into account the human aspects that comes into essences of everything.

What, then, is True Buddhism? As mentioned before, no one can safely claim to have an accurate knowledge of the Buddha's original teachings. That Buddhism encourages its followers to examine its teachings and acept/reject as they see fit is a very appealing concept for sceptics. However, this does not necessarily equate to Buddhism adopting the scientific method of inquiry. Certain ideas like Nirvana and Karmic rebirth requires acceptance on faith.

BTW, the practice and the belief of Buddhism are not necessarily distinct.

Certainly, we can dispense with all the supernatural stuff about achieving an end to Suffering via Nirvana, and simply adopt the Noble Eightfold Path without the encumbrance of its metaphysical aim. In that case, it is no different from a personal moral code. Just as a person who chooses not to steal, kill , covet his neighbour and generally live a moral life does not necessarily have to be a Christian, so why the need to define ourselves as Buddhists? This was the reason I stopped calling myself a Buddhist.

Anyhow, a Buddhist of any flavour should understand that labels are meaningless. :)

Bodhi Dharma Zen

24th January 2006, 09:46 PM

Anyhow, a Buddhist of any flavour should understand that labels are meaningless. :)

Ahh, the signature of a true Buddhist, that its not a Buddhist anymore. I like it.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

24th January 2006, 09:51 PM

I agree, Buddhism is to complex to discuss it here (along with lots of other subjects, but what can we do about it, this place is to discuss and learn). Still, its the only "religious system" that allows you to have "spirituality" without gods or souls, and this alone makes it more compatible with skepticism that other religions.

Furthermore, in a way, I have to tell that some branches of it (like Zen) encourage you to be more skeptic than a "normal" skeptic. How much? Well, you have to doubt what you see, what you think is the world, and what you consider to be "you".

How many skeptics doubt that much? ;-)

epepke

25th January 2006, 03:00 PM

That depends on your theorhetical bias, a behavioral materialist would say the self in no more than chemical interactions in a reverberating nueral network. A more spiritual immaterialist would say that there are transcendant qualities to consciousness such as 'qualia' that can not be 'reduced'.

I don't think that it even requires any theoretical bias, just the limitations on what we know.

We know from neurology that there are parts of the brain that can do speech, writing, and logic, and that they are connected fairly tightly together. We know that this subsystem sometimes produces such utterances as "I think, therefore I am." But all that is is those parts of the brain describing the model they use.

Nietzsche suggested that we don't know enough to be sure that "I think thoughts" is an accurate description, and "thoughts think themselves" might be just as good. Of course, he lived a long time ago, but I don't think that anything we've learned since then weakens that argument.

Consider split-brain patients. They often report reaching for clothes that they did not want to wear. It seems that the halves of the brain are operating more-or-less independently, and the half of the brain doing the reaching disagrees with the half of the brain that can talk. So where is the "I" in this?

Ryokan

25th January 2006, 03:39 PM

Good post, epepke. I totally agree with you :)

(at least if you meant that last question as halfway rhethorical)

ETA : Spelling

Bodhi Dharma Zen

25th January 2006, 04:32 PM

Again, one thing is to think about it. Think its easy (the interesting part is that we think this from the very I that is doubted).

But another very different (inconceivable different) is to actually let the world to see "itself", in other words, let the ego disolve and let "you" become part of the noumena, forgetting phenomena.

Ahh!

(Now some guys are just happy to think about that intriguing possibility, from the comfort of their own ego. This is perfectly ok, but I dont see the point on discussing Buddhism if you are not going to submerge yourself in it. All you will be doing is discussing words, like we have seen in these threads regarding Buddhism).

epepke

25th January 2006, 06:01 PM

Bodhi Dharma Zen

25th January 2006, 08:33 PM

Oops a missunderstanding!

Im stating that you need and ego to see the world, nothing else implied. Should I use an "I" instead of an "ego" in the future?

The only difference about talking about this and becoming it is "the level of awareness" (horrible terminology, sorry about that). The "ineffable" I talk about is not mystical, just a different perspective from where one can see what is called world. A perspective that results as real as the one we have while living "a normal life".

epepke

25th January 2006, 10:50 PM

Im stating that you need and ego to see the world, nothing else implied. Should I use an "I" instead of an "ego" in the future?

I think that would be better, if that's what you mean.

The only difference about talking about this and becoming it is "the level of awareness" (horrible terminology, sorry about that). The "ineffable" I talk about is not mystical, just a different perspective from where one can see what is called world. A perspective that results as real as the one we have while living "a normal life".

The "ineffable" I refer to is your seeming assuredness that you can suss out other people's minds and therefore claim a difference.

People are talking about things because this is a forum for talking about things. You've asserted that you're pretty sure what other people have access to, by virtue of the fact that they talk about things, but what do you really know about other people's minds?

epepke

25th January 2006, 10:54 PM

Good post, epepke. I totally agree with you :)

(at least if you meant that last question as halfway rhethorical)

I think it's pretty rhetorical. Maybe I've just learned that rhetorical questions work on Buddhists. Maybe not. I'm not sure.

In any event, all this talk of "self," to me, has a kind of mid-18th-century flavor to it.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

26th January 2006, 07:32 AM

You've asserted that you're pretty sure what other people have access to, by virtue of the fact that they talk about things

I said, that its fairly easy to know who has been in that perspective, and that in order to discuss it, we need a common frame of reference.

HypnoPsi

26th January 2006, 07:58 AM

If your version of Buddhism involves the concept of karma, then it is indeed a religion, because it involves some supernatural "thing" (even if it is unnamed) making decisions about what to do with your soul.I'm not a Buddhist but I'd like to point out that if you should stick your hand in a fire nothing in the universe make any specific decision to teach you a lesson.

Buddhism has many sects, but I don't think the idea of any outside judging agent deciding (and enforcing) what's to happen to you in your next life figures into things very much. If anything, I'd say in Buddhist metaphysics it's probably the individual themselves who chooses to work off negative karma in their next life during some transient between-life state.
_
HypnoPsi

Bodhi Dharma Zen

26th January 2006, 08:21 AM

~"Materialism is the philosophy of the subject who forgets to take account of himself" (Arthur Schopenhauer)~

:-)

(note, nope, I sympathize with Zen and Advaita traditions, but also with skepticism and science in general. I do not consider that I can "label" myself, so Im not saying that "materialists" are wrong or that "subjectivists" are right by smiling at part of the signature of HypnoPsi. I just like the phrase).

(the things one has to do in order to not be missunderstood in this forum!!!)

epepke

26th January 2006, 09:56 AM

Merentha, just want to say thanks for the contributions. :)

Seconded.

epepke

26th January 2006, 09:57 AM

I said, that its fairly easy to know who has been in that perspective, and that in order to discuss it, we need a common frame of reference.

Yeah.

Dancing David

26th January 2006, 08:04 PM

Again, one thing is to think about it. Think its easy (the interesting part is that we think this from the very I that is doubted).

But another very different (inconceivable different) is to actually let the world to see "itself", in other words, let the ego disolve and let "you" become part of the noumena, forgetting phenomena.

I am not sure what that means, I can't quite parse it. Which may be the intention. There is perception, and then reactions to perceptions, so which is this noumena?

It seems that you are speaking of unfettered perception without cognition or memory, or are you discussing perception without perceptual organs?

Aumgn ha.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

26th January 2006, 09:43 PM

Non dualist perception. When there is no more I and objects around. Some call it "inmersion on the substance", in Zen is "the man and the bull are forgotten", its also called "pure awareness", Shunyata, the void, Kensho, Satori and lots of other things.

But the point is that all these concepts and names are wrong.

yrreg

27th January 2006, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg :
What or who gives you the idea that I am quoting from Buddhist sources? Did I give any indications at all that I am quoting from Buddhist sources? Please read carefully those posts from me where I mentioned those stories, and see whether I gave any indications at all that I am citing from Buddhist sources

I haven't got that idea at all. I have no idea what the source is, that's why I'm asking. Why won't you reveal your source to us, Yrreg? Why?

Originally Posted by yrreg :
In which case you don't have to call yourself a Buddhist, just call yourself a, for example, Truist-Pathist; and admit that you got your beliefs and practices from Buddha's allegedly original teachings, but they are good enough even without Buddha's saying so; just as the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution are good enough if people don't know absolutely nothing about Einstein and Darwin. You make so much of being called a Buddhist, that I do have the impression that you are a cultist -- no offense intended with the name, though.

How many times must I explain to you that Buddhism is not named after Gautama Buddha, Yrreg? Buddhism is named after the experience all Buddhists seek, that of enlightenment.

I have explained this to you so many times now, I'm getting tired doing it over and over again. I don't see the point in further discussion with you.

Farewell, Yrreg.

I haven't got that idea at all. I have no idea what the source is, that's why I'm asking. Why won't you reveal your source to us, Yrreg? Why? -- Ryokan

Maybe the source is too modest and does not want to be revealed for his own personal reasons, starting with modesty.

But he tells me that you should study the thoughts in his words and decide whether they are worth anything of your intelligent attention -- and not to say that those words came from the a* of Yrreg because Yrreg retells them -- hahaha softly.

Maybe this bashful source is a present day Buddha but with the serious injunction on people who happen to read his words to not tell anyone that it is from him, unlike with the historical Buddha whose name is invoked by people who claim that his teachings are good enough in themselves, without any attribution to him, and yet continue to say that if anyone calls himself a Buddhist then it is most probable that he is one.

Maybe I read in his writings that whoever makes any mention of his ideas should not in any way and by any means reveal his identity, but just to tell people to think about his ideas and see whether they make any sense to themselves; because he says that if the words do not make any sense, even should they come from the historical Buddha they will just make people think even though they mean nothing sensible in modern times -- but since they come purportedly from the historical Buddha, people like Buddhist enthusaists of the West will just keep on imagining all kinds of most subtle meanings in them.

Maybe the source tells me that Ryokan should develop the habit of not seeking for hidden or absymally profound meanings in words which their authors, for example the historical Buddha, never ever even so much as dreamed about.

And lastly, maybe the source tells me that Ryokan and all Buddhists should stop finding out what Buddha said, and the habit also of finding out who said what, but concentrate instead on the words themselves, and see whether they make sense or not, and period -- in other words, strip all ipse dixit complex from your intellelctual baggage.

---------------

How many times must I explain to you that Buddhism is not named after Gautama Buddha, Yrreg? Buddhism is named after the experience all Buddhists seek, that of enlightenment. -- Ryokan

Well, then remove that description of yourself as Resident Buddhist and stop saying that you are proud to call yourself a Buddhist, Buddhism is your religion or philosophy; just call yourself as I proposed earlier, 4Truist-8Pathist, or now better, an Enlightenist, or best a [/]Nirvanist[/i] (if you are after Nirvana in this life, that is).

Why? Because if a name is used in a label, like for example Randian, then it is logical to presume that the person using that label is dependent upon the authority of the person owning that name; he may deny it, but his speech will show his true psychology even if he himself does not know nor admit it.

----------

I will be back. In the meantime, have a good laugh, that is the key to enlightenment; too much solemnity beclouds everything otherwise so lucid

Yrreg

ruach1

27th January 2006, 08:05 PM

you may see people who look like they are doing it.

If they are, they are not meant to.

budha is not a source of worship.

most real budhists know this.
There are numerous forms of Buddhism, and some do pray directly to Lord Buddha as they are taught. Other forms have ceremonies which have all the aspects of relgious ritual.

I surmise you lean toward the Ch'an or Zen form of Buddhism which certainly is non-religious in practice and does not deify Sakyamuni, the historical Buddha. But please do not make the mistake of thinking your version is the only correct version. That simply is not the case. http://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/Buddhism

ruach1

27th January 2006, 08:14 PM

yrreg

27th January 2006, 10:43 PM

From Yrreg
In which case you don't have to call yourself a Buddhist, just call yourself a, for example, Truist-Pathist; and admit that you got your beliefs and practices from Buddha's allegedly original teachings, but they are good enough even without Buddha's saying so; just as the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution are good enough if people don't know absolutely nothing about Einstein and Darwin. You make so much of being called a Buddhist, that I do have the impression that you are a cultist -- no offense intended with the name, though. -- Yrreg

From Ryokan
How many times must I explain to you that Buddhism is not named after Gautama Buddha, Yrreg? Buddhism is named after the experience all Buddhists seek, that of enlightenment.

I have explained this to you so many times now, I'm getting tired doing it over and over again. I don't see the point in further discussion with you. -- Ryokan

From Yrreg
Well, then remove that description of yourself as Resident Buddhist and stop saying that you are proud to call yourself a Buddhist, Buddhism is your religion or philosophy; just call yourself as I proposed earlier, 4Truist-8Pathist, or now better, an Enlightenist, or best a Nirvanist (if you are after Nirvana in this life, that is).

Why? Because if a name is used in a label, like for example Randian, then it is logical to presume that the person using that label is dependent upon the authority of the person owning that name; he may deny it, but his speech will show his true psychology even if he himself does not know nor admit it. -- Yrreg

Honestly, I find it hard to understand Buddhists here, specially their apparently most revered spokesman, Ryokan (Resident Buddhist); because they use common words and expressions but give them their own meanings; and then also in regard to Ryokan I have a hard time trying to get definite answers from him.

That is why I accuse them of using double-talk, and got a confirmation of this attitude at least if not policy of theirs, when I read in a common consensus and declaration by a convention of various sects of Buddhists in the USA (yes, I know that Ryokan is not an American from his messages here), that they are not against the existence of God and the soul, but they give their own meanings to these words.*

For example at present I tried to check on what exactly Ryokan believes about Nirvana: Does he or doesn't he believe in Nirvana and in what sense. The most I can get from the nearest message from him (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1398324&postcount=71) as I work on this post is that Nirvana does not occur after death, but is supposed to occur during a Buddhist's lifetime, because there is no existence after death.

But I and you will not read something with finality in so many words from him saying the following essential statement: I believe in Nirvana.

If he is around, maybe he can say with definite finality: "I believe in Nirvana in a person's lifetime;" then he can go on to tell us what kind of Nirvana he believes in.

I think he does not see this kind of talk from himself, but that is my impression; and I invite posters here to share with me their impressions in this regard, generally from Buddhists, and in particular from Ryokan.

If and when he does reply to this request from yours truly, about Nirvana, let's see whether he will be wishy-washy or say something definite. You know what, he might as from his habit, react with a question asking me for evidence that he is wishy-washy in his language. Okay, let's not preempt his reaction.

---------------------

Ryokan also has the habit of complaining that he has already answered my questions and explained his answers, but I am not attending to them, instead I keep on repeating my questions and bringing up again the same objections to Buddhist beliefs and observances.

Indicating that whereas the whole world already knows about the answers and explanations from Buddhists about their beliefs and observances, it is only Yrreg who keeps on bringing them up again and again to his (Ryan's) exasperation.

So, he marches off with a "Farewell, Yrreg."

What do I say about that? I think that is his privilege; and I will miss him, because over and above Buddhism is the spirit of camaraderie, even some kind of negative camaraderie that should prevail among us here in this JREF forum, just like passengers in the same bus every morning and evening we have grown also familiar with each other's presence whether in delight or in gloom.

Tell you what, Ryokan, if you really feel justified in being querulous about my repetitious objections against Buddhism, I still recommend that you continue here to answer me and to explain your answers, patiently and with Buddhist joy if that be possible, not for my sake, but in view of any new members and guests here who might profit from your answers and explanations, and thereby find meaning in life from Buddhism or encouragement to continue in Buddhism.

Buddhism would not be around today, unlike some religions which are now studied by people interested in antiquities, if you Buddhist guys march away every time you meet recalcitrant opponents from guys like Yrreg.

Yrreg

*Yes, some Buddhists will challenge me about cites on that assertion. If you are good Buddhists then you should look that up yourselves; that's one way I use to find out whether you people are really generous with your time and labor on behalf of your profession of Buddhism. Incidentally, don't conclude from my mention of God and soul that I am a theist and an "animist" from religious or even just rational considerations.

Pauliesonne

27th January 2006, 10:49 PM

Wasn't Jim Morrison a buddhist or something?

yrreg

28th January 2006, 02:34 AM

Certainly, we can dispense with all the supernatural stuff about achieving an end to Suffering via Nirvana, and simply adopt the Noble Eightfold Path without the encumbrance of its metaphysical aim. In that case, it is no different from a personal moral code. Just as a person who chooses not to steal, kill , covet his neighbour and generally live a moral life does not necessarily have to be a Christian, so why the need to define ourselves as Buddhists? This was the reason I stopped calling myself a Buddhist.

Anyhow, a Buddhist of any flavour should understand that labels are meaningless. :)

Exactly what I am telling the Buddhists here: if they remove everything woo-ish from Buddhism, then it is just a naturalistic code of conduct to be a good peaceable man within oneself and with one's fellow humans; which code is common to civilized societies even prescinding from any philosophy and religion, and common in any philosophy and religion that civilized society will allow, tolerate in its entrails to keep the community well-ordered and keep members in harmony and useful to each other.

Now, as regards Nirvana, however the Buddhists define it and whether attainable in this life or beyond the grave, it is still woo-ish; because I ask who or what is in charge of measuring the worth of Eightfold Path acts sufficient enough to gain Nirvana for the faithful observant Buddhist? a physical agent like gravity or magnetism? or some agent not of the physical world, then of what world if not woo-ish, i.e., supernatural?

Yrreg

Bodhi Dharma Zen

28th January 2006, 06:47 AM

Maybe yrreg have me on ignore. Yes! That explains it!

ruach1

28th January 2006, 09:42 AM

Wasn't Jim Morrison a buddhist or something?
Buddhist?

Hedonist more like

"Break on through to the other side" is most certainly LSD related.

ruach1

28th January 2006, 09:56 AM

yrreg
Exactly what I am telling the Buddhists here: if they remove everything woo-ish from Buddhism, then it is just a naturalistic code of conduct to be a good peaceable man within oneself and with one's fellow humans; which code is common to civilized societies even prescinding from any philosophy and religion, and common in any philosophy and religion that civilized society will allow, tolerate in its entrails to keep the community well-ordered and keep members in harmony and useful to each other.Buddhism isn't just anything...

anything that can be reduced into what one would like it to be reduced.

Now, as regards Nirvana, however the Buddhists define it and whether attainable in this life or beyond the grave, it is still woo-ish; because I ask who or what is in charge of measuring the worth of Eightfold Path acts sufficient enough to gain Nirvana for the faithful observant Buddhist? a physical agent like gravity or magnetism? or some agent not of the physical world, then of what world if not woo-ish, i.e., supernatural?

Yrreg
Measuring? 206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?p=1372811#post1372811

Dancing David

28th January 2006, 02:14 PM

Exactly what I am telling the Buddhists here: if they remove everything woo-ish from Buddhism, then it is just a naturalistic code of conduct to be a good peaceable man within oneself and with one's fellow humans; which code is common to civilized societies even prescinding from any philosophy and religion, and common in any philosophy and religion that civilized society will allow, tolerate in its entrails to keep the community well-ordered and keep members in harmony and useful to each other.

There are truths to what you say, however the buddha's teaching have some very unique elements that are not found in other places, I feel that parts of the eightfold path and the other virtues are unque in the record of human thought. They may have existed and been taught prior to the historic buddha, but the teachings are the first know example of the comprehensive compilation of those thoughts and beliefs.

In fact they were directly oppossed by the followewrs of Confucious, another product of asia that teaches self control and societal harmony. So not all naturalistic teachings will agree with each other.

Have you found any records for the eigtfold path or the four truths that predate the buddha?

Now, as regards Nirvana, however the Buddhists define it and whether attainable in this life or beyond the grave, it is still woo-ish; because I ask who or what is in charge of measuring the worth of Eightfold Path acts sufficient enough to gain Nirvana for the faithful observant Buddhist?

An individual themselves if the only one that can make that choice. And by some teachings nibbanna is not a place, it is a state of mind that can be described very acurately without any reference to any woo elements.

The state of nibbanna is this: to have practice in techniques which eliminate or reduce thought patterns to achieve an ability to act freely in thought and deed. The reduction of attachment to ideas, the view of approaching all things with a balanced view which takes into account the uniqueness of each situation and it's unique history without any thought or act habits which might impede the freedom of choice and lastly an acceptance of things as they are without need to glamorise or detract.

I would be willing to see what is woo about that?

a physical agent like gravity or magnetism? or some agent not of the physical world, then of what world if not woo-ish, i.e., supernatural?

the statements of human are events in the matarial world, one can judge the acts of the mind and self through verbal description and observation.. Where do physical laws come from?

They too are verbal acts.

yrreg

28th January 2006, 04:54 PM

The state of nibbanna is this: to have practice in techniques which eliminate or reduce thought patterns to achieve an ability to act freely in thought and deed. The reduction of attachment to ideas, the view of approaching all things with a balanced view which takes into account the uniqueness of each situation and it's unique history without any thought or act habits which might impede the freedom of choice and lastly an acceptance of things as they are without need to glamorise or detract.

First, you are filtering Nirvana so that it is the kind you happen to accept. There are you are certain yourself myriads even the greatest majority of Buddhists in the whole world who have a different and even opposite idea of Nirvana.

If you ask me to produce evidence for my statement here above, then I take back that statement.

As regards your own customized definition of Nirvana, allow me to break it up into shorter phrases:

The state of nibbanna is this:
to have practice in techniques
which eliminate or reduce thought patterns
to achieve an ability to act freely in thought and deed.
The reduction of attachment to ideas,
the view of approaching all things with a balanced view
which takes into account
the uniqueness of each situation
and it's unique history
without any thought or act habits
which might impede the freedom of choice
and lastly an acceptance of things
as they are without need to glamorise or detract.

Do I understand you correctly that Nirvana for you then is a state of mind which enables you to view things in your mind in certain ways, and to execute acts from that state of mind?

In which case, please, for the love of humanity and on the assumption that Nirvana is a possible state to acquire, spell that state out in simple language like you would do in writing a manual of operation for your CD player, plus simple trouble shooting tips.

Otherwise, I wonder how anyone even and specially a genius can comprehend your definition of Nirvana.

There, D David, you have your work mapped out for you, how to say Buddhist beliefs and practices in simple intelligible and executable language.

Yrreg

ruach1

28th January 2006, 06:29 PM

username

28th January 2006, 11:18 PM

Dancing David,

I think this definition is outstanding, and it shows an excellent depth of research. Thanks for spelling it out for me. Yet it is incomplete, though, isn't it? Most Buddhists believe that achieving Nirvana has "after-life" consequences and benefits--one being that as an enlightened being, one can choose to refuse the bliss of a transcendent after-life in favor of returning to earth (reincarnate) in order to bring more people to buddha-hood as a bodhisattva.

This is pretty standard Buddhist fare, isn't it?

Nope.

It is pretty standard Hindu fare, but not Buddhist fare. Hinduism and Budddhism cross evolved in the same place/time/culture and due to Hindu-Buddhists some Hindu elements are seen as Buddhist elements.

Go to the source and see the difference.

There are somewhere around 1.32 zillion buddhists who do not subscribe to reincarnation, past lives or any form of afterlife. The remainder are largely Hindu or Christian majors with a minor in Buddhism.

Dancing David

29th January 2006, 06:05 AM

First, you are filtering Nirvana so that it is the kind you happen to accept. There are you are certain yourself myriads even the greatest majority of Buddhists in the whole world who have a different and even opposite idea of Nirvana.

I have no idea of the prevalence of which view of nibbanna breaks into the various categories. I aknowledge and have spoken to the overt nature of buddhism as a faith based religion in current practise. I am sceptical of many of the religous and mystics practices of buddhists.

They are in contradiction of the 'teachings of the buddha'.
;)

If you ask me to produce evidence for my statement here above, then I take back that statement.

As regards your own customized definition of Nirvana, allow me to break it up into shorter phrases:

The state of nibbanna is this:
to have practice in techniques
which eliminate or reduce thought patterns
to achieve an ability to act freely in thought and deed.
The reduction of attachment to ideas,
the view of approaching all things with a balanced view
which takes into account
the uniqueness of each situation
and it's unique history
without any thought or act habits
which might impede the freedom of choice
and lastly an acceptance of things
as they are without need to glamorise or detract.

Do I understand you correctly that Nirvana for you then is a state of mind which enables you to view things in your mind in certain ways, and to execute acts from that state of mind?

The viewing might create fetters and therefore it would be beyond that. I doubt I will be able to speak directly on the subject myself.

In which case, please, for the love of humanity and on the assumption that Nirvana is a possible state to acquire, spell that state out in simple language like you would do in writing a manual of operation for your CD player, plus simple trouble shooting tips.

I hope that they aren't the instructions I have enountered. It is not my path.

Otherwise, I wonder how anyone even and specially a genius can comprehend your definition of Nirvana.

I don't know, I supopse you you could do a survey of the comprehensibility of my statement.
It was written in about a minute in common psychological speach with out the use of jargon.

There, D David, you have your work mapped out for you, how to say Buddhist beliefs and practices in simple intelligible and executable language.

Yrreg

No need to do so, you asked for a defintion, I am not going to preach nor shall I try to convert. You asked for a statement and you got it, there are many sources which are simple expositions of nibbanna as you have requested. Thich Naht Hahn and many buddhists define nibbanna in this way.

Dancing David

29th January 2006, 06:14 AM

Dancing David,

I think this definition is outstanding, and it shows an excellent depth of research. Thanks for spelling it out for me. Yet it is incomplete, though, isn't it? Most Buddhists believe that achieving Nirvana has "after-life" consequences and benefits--one being that as an enlightened being, one can choose to refuse the bliss of a transcendent after-life in favor of returning to earth (reincarnate) in order to bring more people to buddha-hood as a bodhisattva.

This is pretty standard Buddhist fare, isn't it? Why then not include it in your excellent definition of Nirvana?

P.S. I hope this isn't tasking you. I don't let people task me over the internet, and I hope I'm not doing it to you now. :)

Those are standard teaching in the Mahayana schools, and especialy the Amitahba, but I prefer the simpler ones myself. I have no belief in the after life, I am not sure what constitutes a bohdisattva in my materialistic defintion.

I have used Quan Yin in a devotional sense and have prayed to Avalohieshavara at times. But then I am a pagan nihilist buddhist.

I do not include it in my interpretation of nibbanna because it does not match my personal habits and preferences. I may pray but I don't beleive in divine intervention.

Moochie

29th January 2006, 10:53 AM

Surely this bush is severely beaten by now?

M.

merentha

30th January 2006, 03:26 AM

There are somewhere around 1.32 zillion buddhists who do not subscribe to reincarnation, past lives or any form of afterlife. The remainder are largely Hindu or Christian majors with a minor in Buddhism.

Source for your figures of 1.32 zillion Buddhists, please.

It is true that Buddhism does not believe in an eternal soul. However, it teaches that the "eternal soul" is an illusion, and it is our attachment to the illusion of the "eternal soul" that condemns us to be forever trapped in the cycle of samsara (death and rebirth).

The Jatakas (part of the Pali canon beloved by some "Buddhism has no woo; it's just misunderstood" Buddhists) describe the 547 rebirth stories of the Buddha. The Buddha clearly believes in the existence of his past lives.

In closing the Dhammacakka Sutta, the Buddha says, "This is the last existence; now there is no more rebirth for me." If rebirth is merely about how one's life and teachings have touched others after death, the Buddha's message should have died with him. This contradicts the Buddha's statement.

This site (xxx.buddhanet.net/wheel_d.htm) [replace "x" with "w" as I can't post URLs yet] has a great discourse on the Dhammacakka Sutta, which includes the Buddha's teachings on the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. Rebirth certainly involves some form of transmigration of the soul into new physical bodies on different planes of existence, and that rebirth is a bad thing that the Buddha sought to remove through his teachings.

I was raised a Buddhist. Though my outlook has veered away from the supernatural, I continue to respect many teachings of Buddhism. I feel that it is intellectually dishonest to whitewash and reinterpret Buddhism into something that it isn't in order to satisfy our sceptical sensibilities.

yrreg

30th January 2006, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg :
Consider that there are people who profess theism as a philosophy but not as a religion; we can even find scientific skeptics who accept philosophical theism, but they don't cultivate it as a religion, as for example, Christians, Muslims, and Jews do.

These philosophical theists are not into utilizing their theistic philosophy to acquire a post grave and beyond the grave objective of a transcendental dimension; and they are not after favors from the God in life prior to the grave and of this world.

-------------

How can you profess theism as a philosophy? Can you show examples of this? -- Ryokan

You can play this new and educational game with the Internet, what I might call a kind of Net Scrabble -- my humble invention.

Put any group of words together that can be apparently meaningful and look it up in the Internet with Google.

For example: philosophical theists, philosophical theism, skeptical theists, skeptical theism.

And see what you will discover.

Don't be surprised if you come across one Martin Gardner who is a professing philosophical and skeptical theist, if you patiently look up enough hits found by Google and read them carefully.

Have fun.

Yrreg

yrreg

30th January 2006, 04:55 AM

I thought that I have coined a new phrase with Net Scrabble, but after the preceding post I got curious and looked up Net Scrabble with Google, and Google found a good number of hits on that phrase in the web.

---------------

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/4338/netscrabble3fk.gif

------------

Very awkward.

Yrreg

Dancing David

30th January 2006, 05:53 AM

You can play this new and educational game with the Internet, what I might call a kind of Net Scrabble -- my humble invention.

Put any group of words together that can be apparently meaningful and look it up in the Internet with Google.

For example: philosophical theists, philosophical theism, skeptical theists, skeptical theism.

And see what you will discover.

Don't be surprised if you come across one Martin Gardner who is a professing philosophical and skeptical theist, if you patiently look up enough hits found by Google and read them carefully.

Have fun.

Yrreg

Mr. Pott please to meet Mr. Kettle!

ruach1

30th January 2006, 10:07 AM

Mr. Pott please to meet Mr. Kettle!
Yeah, well at least he's honest about it.
(I hate Scrabble. To me, its more like what words you can't spell with 7 letters than what you can spell with 7 letters!)

nosho

30th January 2006, 01:11 PM

I feel that it is intellectually dishonest to whitewash and reinterpret Buddhism into something that it isn't in order to satisfy our sceptical sensibilities.
But isn't that exactly what every culture that embraced Buddhism has done? Namely, reinterpret Buddhism into something new. Over the centuries, this is how "Buddhism" came to be such a big tent, with so many different interpretations and traditions.

I don't know if I would call that intellectual dishonesty, although maybe in some cases it is. But I get the sense that the folks who post here are being very intellectually honest, in that they are providing their own interpretations of Buddhism.

I don't see how a person can intellectually reach for Buddhism and explore it without interpreting it (or reinterpreting it) for oneself.

Of course, when one looks at the whole category of "Buddhism" that's out there in the world, it's going to includes lots and lots of seemingly contradictory things. This is a western, skeptical forum, so it's natural that some people will try to offer for discussion an interpretation of Buddhism that seems more relevant within this forum. There clearly are other forms of Buddhism as well.

yrreg

30th January 2006, 02:53 PM

Yeah, well at least he's honest about it.

Honesty is my essence and nature and substance plus skepticism.

But I most seriously doubt the mental honesty and candor of Buddhists here in the JREF forum, the ones I have met like Ryokan, Username, D David, Complexity, and others. They appear to me to be without pure 100% carat gold and diamond honesty, or more particularly intellectual candor.

But they don't know themselves for what they are; it is natural and endemic for dishonest people to not know themselves to be dishonest.

I am writing this post spontaneously but honestly. And I am very disappointed with the Buddhists here, almost all of them; for while they profess to be true to the original, genuine, authentic, unadulterated, pure, clear, certain, etc., teachings of Buddhism, they are more after winning an argument, having the last word, and in calling people harsh unkind unfair unjustified names, than in patiently explaining to people what exactly is Buddhism in scientific terms, as they should be able were they inured to talk and explain in accordance to what highschool kids learn to be the scientific method.

Merentha is one Buddhist who for having come out of Buddhism, done and over with, can look at it with detachment but with true skeptical criticism, not for the sake of just plain faultfinding criticism, but in order to tell us what exactly Buddhism is all about.

And what is it all about? Honestly, my sentiment is that it is all a grand illusion or delusion whereby the Buddhists here are attached to, because they find it the current fad -- a hundred years will find them out to be in fact faddists; but no need to wait that long, just see what they will be in the next 20 years of their lives, if not shorter.

For I am always wondering what these folks are up to, aside from Buddhism. Do they run a home, lead a family, raise kids? make a living just like the ants and the bees and every John and Jane Does.

Or are they into the luxury of talking about Buddhism and how to get to the true genuine unadulterated pure true teachings of Buddha, when they should they have a bit of cerebral matter inside their skulls know that such teachings of the original Buddha are not and have never been available since the man died and never returned, and he cleverly left no writings preserved however rudimentary now still surviving in certifiably faithful copies.

I have written this post honestly and I hope the Buddhists here can be honest and talk honest, instead of using words to beguile and win arguments and feel so enlightened, smug in their double-talking logorrhea. For example, see that definition of Nirvana by D David, and there be people who think they can make heads and tails of it.

But hahaha softly, I am being carried away by emotions.

So all together now:

Om Mani Padme Hum -- Om Mani Padme Hum -- Om Mani Padme Hum

Honestly again, No, I haven't read one honest sentence from the Buddhists interacting with me in this JREF forum, it's all rote talking from their masters and from their readings, but never any genuine penetration into what the Buddha is all about if ever he was into anything serious, aside from groaning about the sufferings of life and existence which even the ants and the bees have to bear with but they continue on and on with their life and work, to keep alive and to raise kids to be alive and surviving and continuing their existence in their turns, and improving their survival rating.

But again hahaha softly, I should really not be carried away by emotions.

So again all together now:

Om Mani Padme Hum -- Om Mani Padme Hum -- Om Mani Padme Hum

Yrreg

yrreg

30th January 2006, 03:33 PM

I have been thinking seriously how to grab the horns of this bull called Buddhism. And I have come to the idea that the best way to do it is to delve into the cibus, potus, coitus, and alimentary refuse of this bull.

So, if soon you come to a thread on Coitus and Buddha, then you will know that I have gathered some enlightening materials on coitus and Buddha from that most convenient research source present to mankind today, the Internet.

------------------

Now, back to Buddhism is not a religion, up to the present I have not come across any formulation from the Buddhists here on a definition of Buddhism that can pass scientific and logic analysis, unlike the one from my favorite opinion maker, Pes Oir Amsus:

Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the unknown power to react favorably toward the believer.

This is one definition that will enable anyone to discern a religion when he sees one, by comparing what he sees with the definition here provided by Pes Oir Amsus.

Let's see now, Is Buddhism a religion?

Yes, it is; because it is a belief in a power unknown but believed to be efficacious to the believer, so that the believer elicits affections and actions in order to influence the unknown power to react toward the believer favorably.

What unknown power is in Buddhism? The whole system, the Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha, most in particular the Buddha.

And what is that favor sought by believers in Buddhism, the Western intellectual socalled types? What else but to be relieved of sufferings of the kinds and degrees they understand sufferings to be, whatever, and to come to the possession of Nirvana, whatever Nirvana is supposed to mean to them if anything at all some kind of a good, a desirable item -- and they are supposed to be after the banishment of desires. Hahahaha softly.

And the actions, what actions do they perform or enact in order that the unknown power will give them things, namely, in their case, help them to rid themselves of their sufferings and get to Nirvana? What else but first meditation and then all those right thinking, right speaking, and right acting.

But if you study them, the Buddhists here, you might just realize that they are not into all the right operations and right non-operations that those monks in Thailand, Burma, and also China, Japan, Tibet are into. They make exceptions.

------------

Now, I challenge the Buddhists here to produce a definition of religion that can pass as scientific and drafted in logic, to compare with the definition of Pes Oir Amsus, my favorite opinion maker.

Paging D Daving: Please redraft your definition of Nirvana to emulate the definition of religion by Pes Oir Amsus, above; so that people can easily discern who is possessed of Nirvana when they see one such person.

Yrreg

yrreg

30th January 2006, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by username :
There are somewhere around 1.32 zillion buddhists who do not subscribe to reincarnation, past lives or any form of afterlife. The remainder are largely Hindu or Christian majors with a minor in Buddhism.

--------------------

Source for your figures of 1.32 zillion Buddhists, please.

It is true that Buddhism does not believe in an eternal soul. However, it teaches that the "eternal soul" is an illusion, and it is our attachment to the illusion of the "eternal soul" that condemns us to be forever trapped in the cycle of samsara (death and rebirth).

The Jatakas (part of the Pali canon beloved by some "Buddhism has no woo; it's just misunderstood" Buddhists) describe the 547 rebirth stories of the Buddha. The Buddha clearly believes in the existence of his past lives.

In closing the Dhammacakka Sutta, the Buddha says, "This is the last existence; now there is no more rebirth for me." If rebirth is merely about how one's life and teachings have touched others after death, the Buddha's message should have died with him. This contradicts the Buddha's statement.

This site (xxx.buddhanet.net/wheel_d.htm) [replace "x" with "w" as I can't post URLs yet] has a great discourse on the Dhammacakka Sutta, which includes the Buddha's teachings on the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. Rebirth certainly involves some form of transmigration of the soul into new physical bodies on different planes of existence, and that rebirth is a bad thing that the Buddha sought to remove through his teachings.

I was raised a Buddhist. Though my outlook has veered away from the supernatural, I continue to respect many teachings of Buddhism. I feel that it is intellectually dishonest to whitewash and reinterpret Buddhism into something that it isn't in order to satisfy our sceptical sensibilities.

First, Merentha, welcome to this forum.

I am new myself. I thought I would do something different by taking up skeptical criticism of Buddhism, since everyone in the Net is praising Buddhism to the sky. Try this experiment, enter Buddhism in Google search box, and you will find nothing but encomium on Buddhism; it's the hottest kid in the internet block on religion today.

And horror of horrors, when you get to the skeptics' sites, they also have such a most loud silence on criticizing Buddhism, which is worth another most skeptical criticism on skeptics holding Buddhism with kids gloves.

Glad that you have my kind of sentiment in re Buddhism.

As regards how to indicate in your writing here internet reference what they call urls, I am a new hand myself and learned the trade by self-instructions with plenty f trials and errors and darings -- no, don't fear, nothing will happen bad to you or your computer for being experimental with how to do things in writing posts here.

Look up at the bottom of this page to the left, there is a list of things on or off, click on that link vB Code, and you will find instructions on how to do things here in making your posts more functional to readers.

------------------

It is true that Buddhism does not believe in an eternal soul. However, it teaches that the "eternal soul" is an illusion, and it is our attachment to the illusion of the "eternal soul" that condemns us to be forever trapped in the cycle of samsara (death and rebirth).

This is to me a word game, because an illusion implies something that the illuded person is illuded about. Not that I am a believer in the soul, but the use of the word illusion is more into a protestation of non-attachment or giving it no importance, than that the person supposedly illuded does not accept any kind of existence that continues after the death of a person.

So also with all these endless explanations by Buddhists of their concept and insistence on the non-self.

---------------

I will be back, have to get the garbage out for the haulers coming already, with their chimes announcing their proximity in the neighborhood.

But I want to ask you for some time now but always forgot, quickly: What is the Chinese term for Buddhism in the Chinese you use at home and also the more academic terms; are they purely phonetic, meaning as with many English words trans-phonetized into Chinese vocalization, or what. I guess you know what I mean; because I tend to think that Buddhism is a misnomer like Mohammedanism was a misnomer; now the term used is Islam, as the Muslims had been insisting since way back.

I will be back.

Yrreg

Bodhi Dharma Zen

30th January 2006, 04:55 PM

Honestly again, No, I haven't read one honest sentence from the Buddhists interacting with me in this JREF forum, it's all rote talking from their masters and from their readings, but never any genuine penetration into what the Buddha is all about if ever he was into anything serious, aside from groaning about the sufferings of life and existence which even the ants and the bees have to bear with but they continue on and on with their life and work, to keep alive and to raise kids to be alive and surviving and continuing their existence in their turns, and improving their survival rating.

LOL! I knew it! yrreg have me on ignore!, its funny, yet sad to see how many emotions he have regarding this subject.

If only he could read... I would say to him "come on, life is simplier than you think. True, sometimes hurt, but hey, maybe you will find yourself smiling again when all your bitterness is gone".

To bad he cant read me! I can sing and I can shout and I will still be invisible! Yahoo!

yrreg

30th January 2006, 05:57 PM

LOL! I knew it! yrreg have me on ignore!, its funny, yet sad to see how many emotions he have regarding this subject.

If only he could read... I would say to him "come on, life is simplier than you think. True, sometimes hurt, but hey, maybe you will find yourself smiling again when all your bitterness is gone".

To bad he cant read me! I can sing and I can shout and I will still be invisible! Yahoo!

I read you loud and clear, good Bodhi Dharma Zen. But if you have any particular questions to raise up with me or any insights you like to share with me from your compassion yet Zen mind, I will welcome them with open arms and exercise my skeptical critical analysis on them.

You know? I am reading up on Zen. But I have come to the realization that as I said many times in these forums here, I am searching for the big picture and the short statement from some genius, who can only portray the big picture in a short statement because he knows the real story.

Right now I will tell you that I find Zen to be up to my mind and heart, but no need to invest so much material and moral resources into its cultivation. That's why I think you folks into Zen are making Zen into a cult, exactly. You people are into Zen as a cult. Think about that.

Pure dyed in the wool skeptics are better and clearer and more solid and quintessential Zen-ic than you folks, and without devoting years and years into meditation, missing home, and wife, and kids in the process which is what life is all about.

Ask that from your Zen masters.

That's the tragedy with Buddhists here, they miss the big picture and the short statement, which only can be seen and clearly made out of in contours, when they finally come to their senses to get out of it, and look at it as from a satellite and see where and what it is from that distant vantage point.

I am getting emotional again, you are right. Thanks for the reminder; but I try to keep to acceptable language in view of civil conduct as in the church or temple or halls of justice or in the floor of congress.

Yrreg

merentha

30th January 2006, 06:48 PM

But isn't that exactly what every culture that embraced Buddhism has done? Namely, reinterpret Buddhism into something new. Over the centuries, this is how "Buddhism" came to be such a big tent, with so many different interpretations and traditions.

I don't know if I would call that intellectual dishonesty, although maybe in some cases it is. But I get the sense that the folks who post here are being very intellectually honest, in that they are providing their own interpretations of Buddhism.

I don't see how a person can intellectually reach for Buddhism and explore it without interpreting it (or reinterpreting it) for oneself.

Of course, when one looks at the whole category of "Buddhism" that's out there in the world, it's going to includes lots and lots of seemingly contradictory things. This is a western, skeptical forum, so it's natural that some people will try to offer for discussion an interpretation of Buddhism that seems more relevant within this forum. There clearly are other forms of Buddhism as well.

Certainly Buddhism has undergone many cultural reinterpretations. The fact that there are so many schools of thought (e.g. Mahayanism and Theravadism) is evidence of this. Nevertheless, the difference between the major schools lie in their chosen interpretation of how to break out of the cycle of samsara and attain Nirvana. Before coming to this board, I have never encountered any disputes about the supernatural nature of rebirth, karma and nirvana. These ideas are accepted as they are.

For some believers here to claim that the majority of Buddhists in the world, like them, deny the supernatural implications of rebirth and nirvana is total rubbish and intellectually dishonest. Especially so when their new interpretation is at odds, not just with Buddhist tradition, but also with the teachings in the Pali texts.

While Buddhism encourages its followers to investigate its teachings before accepting them, some of its tenets like samsara, karma and nirvana are all unfalsifiables. It believes in the existence of other realms of gods, hungry ghosts and hell. These cannot be tested using the scientific method. The Buddha has said that nirvana cannot be described by words as it is a state beyond our mundane experience. He likened the explanation of nirvana to us who are still trapped within the cycle of samsara as trying to describe light to a blind man.

merentha

30th January 2006, 07:36 PM

First, Merentha, welcome to this forum.

I am new myself. I thought I would do something different by taking up skeptical criticism of Buddhism, since everyone in the Net is praising Buddhism to the sky. Try this experiment, enter Buddhism in Google search box, and you will find nothing but encomium on Buddhism; it's the hottest kid in the internet block on religion today.

And horror of horrors, when you get to the skeptics' sites, they also have such a most loud silence on criticizing Buddhism, which is worth another most skeptical criticism on skeptics holding Buddhism with kids gloves.

Please understand that I am not criticising Buddhism here, but merely correcting those who have misinterpreted Buddhism in order to make it more palatable to sceptics.

There are good reasons why Buddhism is usually treated lightly. Unlike some other religions, it does not require its followers to knock on your door every other weekend to proselytize, and it does not curse unbelievers to eternal damnation. You may liken it to the harmless old aunt who believes her cat talks to her, but she doesn't impose on you to talk to her cat. Still, you enjoy visiting her because she tells interesting stories and she makes delicious cookies (in the case of Buddhism in Asia, most temples provide delicious free vegetarian meals on festive days). :p

As regards how to indicate in your writing here internet reference what they call urls, I am a new hand myself and learned the trade by self-instructions with plenty f trials and errors and darings -- no, don't fear, nothing will happen bad to you or your computer for being experimental with how to do things in writing posts here.

Thanks for the help, but I can't post URLs yet because I haven't reached my minimum post quota yet. Its function is disabled for n00bs like me.

------------------

It is true that Buddhism does not believe in an eternal soul. However, it teaches that the "eternal soul" is an illusion, and it is our attachment to the illusion of the "eternal soul" that condemns us to be forever trapped in the cycle of samsara (death and rebirth).

This is to me a word game, because an illusion implies something that the illuded person is illuded about. Not that I am a believer in the soul, but the use of the word illusion is more into a protestation of non-attachment or giving it no importance, than that the person supposedly illuded does not accept any kind of existence that continues after the death of a person.

So also with all these endless explanations by Buddhists of their concept and insistence on the non-self.

Word game or not, there is a misunderstanding about Buddhism's explanation of the nonexistent "eternal soul". Some Buddhists on this board understand it as:
Buddhism believes there is no soul -> Buddhism does not believe in rebirth.
Instead, Buddhism teaches:
Unenlightened beings hold on to the illusion of the soul -> unenlightened beings continue to be reborn.
Enlightened being understands there is no soul -> enlightened being escapes rebirth.

But I want to ask you for some time now but always forgot, quickly: What is the Chinese term for Buddhism in the Chinese you use at home and also the more academic terms; are they purely phonetic, meaning as with many English words trans-phonetized into Chinese vocalization, or what. I guess you know what I mean; because I tend to think that Buddhism is a misnomer like Mohammedanism was a misnomer; now the term used is Islam, as the Muslims had been insisting since way back.

The religion of Buddhism is called "佛教" (fo2 jiao4), which is made up of the characters for "Buddha" and "Religion". The study of Buddhism is called "佛学" (fo2 xue2) with the characters for "Buddha" and "Study". The object of study, aka the Dharma, is called "佛法" (fo2 fa3) where the second character can be translated as either "laws" or "ways". Those who practises Buddhism as said to "修佛" (xiu1 fo2) or "practise Buddha", but the character for "Buddha" here is usually understood to be a contraction for "佛法".

Buddhism isn't a misnomer like Mohammedanism/Islam since the teachings originated from the Buddha himself. Muslims object to Mohammedanism because they believe that Mohammed's revelations came directly from God, not Mohammed.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

30th January 2006, 08:07 PM

I read you loud and clear, good Bodhi Dharma Zen.

Good!

You know? I am reading up on Zen. But I have come to the realization that as I said many times in these forums here, I am searching for the big picture and the short statement from some genius, who can only portray the big picture in a short statement because he knows the real story.

Huh? I have been shouting and shouting.

HEEELOOOOOOO YRREEGGG!!!!!!!! THE ANSWER IS HEEREE! what do you see? pixels in your monitor? look stronger, deeper, see my friend!

Huh, maybe no.

Whats good about what you are looking for if you are unable to see it? Of course, the answer might be so simple that you might look over it looking for "the real thing" ;-) Dont worry, thats perfectly normal!!

Right now I will tell you that I find Zen to be up to my mind and heart, but no need to invest so much material and moral resources into its cultivation. That's why I think you folks into Zen are making Zen into a cult, exactly. You people are into Zen as a cult. Think about that.

Done. What were you saying?

Pure dyed in the wool skeptics are better and clearer and more solid and quintessential Zen-ic than you folks, and without devoting years and years into meditation, missing home, and wife, and kids in the process which is what life is all about.

Ask that from your Zen masters.

Ok I will. Oh wait, Im my own master! Now, the fact that some Zen teachers and students "abandon" (more like discard) what you call the "normal life" does not mean that every person who likes Zen has to do that in order to like Zen.

Sorry to dissapoint you!! But I live a pretty "normal" life, I have a beautiful wife and a precious little girl, I do not have "a job", I made good money doing what I want and mostly when I want. I do not practice Zen (this is, I do not sit at a regular schedule), I used to sit and still love the idea of spending some time at a monastery from time to time.

But really, since I found the Kensho! I dont see a point in going around still looking for it.

Oh, yes, and I have to tell you. There is no "normal" life, there is no "superior" life and you dont have the right to disqualify those who do not share your beliefs or your way of life!

That's the tragedy with Buddhists here, they miss the big picture and the short statement, which only can be seen and clearly made out of in contours, when they finally come to their senses to get out of it, and look at it as from a satellite and see where and what it is from that distant vantage point.

Which picture? yours? what about mine? or Helen's, Robin's, or Robert's? Who has the "real picture"? an athlete? a Zen teacher? a president?

I am getting emotional again, you are right. Thanks for the reminder; but I try to keep to acceptable language in view of civil conduct as in the church or temple or halls of justice or in the floor of congress.

Yes, you are civil, but I believe you are also sad, thats the emotional part I was referring to.

Enjoy my friend, enjoy, because we dont know anything and we have so little time to waste. Get out of your computer and kiss somebody, or have a nice glass of wine and taste it.

Of course, you can use it the way you like, its your time! But this is a humble proposal.

(in fact, its for everyone who cares to read, not just you ;-) )

Dancing David

31st January 2006, 05:50 AM

Yeah, well at least he's honest about it.
(I hate Scrabble. To me, its more like what words you can't spell with 7 letters than what you can spell with 7 letters!)

My favorite word is quazar, which is the british spelling. Due to dysphonia I prefer 'imaginary' scrabble.

Dancing David

31st January 2006, 05:57 AM

nosho

31st January 2006, 12:33 PM

For some believers here to claim that the majority of Buddhists in the world, like them, deny the supernatural implications of rebirth and nirvana is total rubbish and intellectually dishonest. Especially so when their new interpretation is at odds, not just with Buddhist tradition, but also with the teachings in the Pali texts.
If that claim has been made here (I probably missed it), then you are right in questioning the claim.

Another way of looking at this: I think a lot of Western Buddhists who were born and raised in America probably do adhere to a more simplified interpretation of Buddhism, with less of the so-called "supernatural" furnishings. I understand that in some Buddhist temples, there are essentially two sanghas: local Americans who grew up with different faiths, and immigrants who grew up with traditional Buddhism. I've heard (though I don't have direct experience with this) that these two groups coexist but sometimes do not mix very comfortably.

The modern Western/American interpretation of Buddhism in some circles (clearly not all) is quite a different interpretation than that of many traditional schools. Which might explain the perspective of some posters here.

yrreg

31st January 2006, 03:15 PM

When I feel that it will be beneficial:
I shall try this parse :
1. A state of mind achieved through practice
2. In this state the indivdual acts freely
3. Without preconception or predjudice
4. And mindfully aware of thier role in thier world.
5. While riding a pogo stick.

I am sorry to inform you that your definition of Nirvana if a definition it is that you are attempting is not yet good enough to spot a human with Nirvana from others without.

A definition is precisely for the purpose of mapping out limits by which things can be separated from other things.

If your purpose is to be figurative; please, a useful definition tries not to be figurative. So please, no pogo stick for then your definition is too restrictive as to exclude from Nirvana anyone and everyone not riding a pogo stick.

Otherwise your definition is too overly broad for being inclusive of everyone even the as Epepke puts it, sociopaths.

Read this definition again of religion by my favorite opinion maker:

Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the unknown power to react favorably to the believer. -- Pes Oir Amsus

And try to draft a definition of Nirvana following the template that you should be able to see in it.

------------------

I am going over to the threads on Buddhism is not scientific! (from you), and Evidence in Buddhism (from Ryokan), to see whether there are new developments there to satisfy people asking pertinent questions of their authors.

I will be back.

Yrreg

Yrreg

Bodhi Dharma Zen

31st January 2006, 03:58 PM

You can add "boring" to my report. A P-zombie (just to borrow a term from another thread) with no mmmph, no nothing. Letters following other letters, definitions tackling other definitions.

What is a meaning except a collection of words, what is a definition but words that sound good together.

There! can you spot the great universe when words are seen as words?

Maybe some day, maybe.

yrreg

31st January 2006, 04:22 PM

Well, I am back from the thread on Evidence of Buddhism by Ryokan and Buddhism is not scientific by D David.

Ryokan so far to date has not produced any evidence worthy of peer reviews by scientists; and D David has not answered the query of Splossy, why if Buddhism is not scientific why namely folks here are into Buddhism and altering their lives because of Buddhism.

Suggestion to Ryokan: send not just one or two emails to a scientist with credentials asking him for studies on Buddhist meditation that can stand the peer review from fellow scientists in academic scientific journals, but also send emails to their colleagues and assistants who are into helping the scientist with his work and specially his publications, asking them for the scientist's studies in re Buddhist meditation propagated in genuinely reputable academic ephemerides.

We know that scientists are also in the habit of lending their names to popular mass consumption papers, and ending there.

As to D David, maybe you should take back your statement that Buddhism is not scientific, since your revered master here, Ryokan, is in the task of gathering evidence to prop up Buddhism in particular Buddhist meditation -- not that I am of the opinion that Buddhism is scientific but that Buddhism can be studied scientifically.

Yrreg

Annex

Evidence of Buddhism (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1373179&postcount=1) by Ryokan Resident Buddhist
12th January 2006, 12:26 AM

Ryokan to Yrreg (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1395223&postcount=58) 22nd January 2006, 01:34 AM

Paging Ryokan, paging Ryokan: Please report to your thread on Evidence in Buddhism.

I wasn't going to bump the thread until I had a definite answer for what epepke is asking for. I've e-mailed some of the scientist involved in the project, but so far no answer.

Buddhism is not scientific!

Upon consideration I have concluded that budddhism is not scietific. It may promote the methods of scepticism, in that it encourages a person to judge the merits of dharma on one's own.

But I believe that Epepke's arguments in other threads are very valid, this is not the sole threshold for scepticism nor is it 'science', so while buddhism may not contradict science, it is not scientific.

Lets go!

Splossy: Why do buddhists take it seriously and alter the way they lead their lives when it isn't "scientific"? -- Splossy #12

yrreg

31st January 2006, 04:53 PM

Yes, you are civil, but I believe you are also sad, thats the emotional part I was referring to.

Enjoy my friend, enjoy, because we dont know anything and we have so little time to waste. Get out of your computer and kiss somebody, or have a nice glass of wine and taste it.

Of course, you can use it the way you like, its your time! But this is a humble proposal.

(in fact, its for everyone who cares to read, not just you ;-) )

Thanks, Bodhi Dharma Zen.

That label Bodhi, that's the name of a fastfood outlet chain popular in my part of the world, where they serve vegetables and everything also, processed from soya beans, which Buddhists are not supposed to eat, but dressed up and spiced up to look and taste even better than genuine pork, beef, chicken, and fish.

Sad, you say; you have struck a right chord. I am resigned to be what I know from honest self-knowledge to be prone to depression, even my blood pressure is lower than the middle of the average range considered good by medical researchers.

But not to worry, I take pride for being in the company of men who are intelligently insightful and thereby from logic emotionally depresssed. Hahahaha softly, but I can take care of myself very well, thank you. And I still can't accept why people here have got to get their fix from Buddhism and even the Zen kind.

Yrreg

yrreg

31st January 2006, 06:00 PM

Word game or not, there is a misunderstanding about Buddhism's explanation of the nonexistent "eternal soul". Some Buddhists on this board understand it as:
Buddhism believes there is no soul -> Buddhism does not believe in rebirth.
Instead, Buddhism teaches:
Unenlightened beings hold on to the illusion of the soul -> unenlightened beings continue to be reborn.
Enlightened being understands there is no soul -> enlightened being escapes rebirth.

The religion of Buddhism is called "佛教" (fo2 jiao4), which is made up of the characters for "Buddha" and "Religion". The study of Buddhism is called "佛学" (fo2 xue2) with the characters for "Buddha" and "Study". The object of study, aka the Dharma, is called "佛法" (fo2 fa3) where the second character can be translated as either "laws" or "ways". Those who practises Buddhism as said to "修佛" (xiu1 fo2) or "practise Buddha", but the character for "Buddha" here is usually understood to be a contraction for "佛法".

Buddhism isn't a misnomer like Mohammedanism/Islam since the teachings originated from the Buddha himself. Muslims object to Mohammedanism because they believe that Mohammed's revelations came directly from God, not Mohammed.

The religion of Buddhism is called "佛教" (fo2 jiao4), which is made up of the characters for "Buddha" and "Religion".

A Chinese lady in the office told me that the first character from the left stands for idol. I asked her whether when Buddhism came to China the Chinese in their genius owing to the big statues of Buddha already extant by that time outside China, right away gave the religion the name of the word for idol.

So, Buddhism in Chinese is called the idol religion, and Buddha is given the name idol.

That is some joke on the Buddhists here who take pride in calling themselves Buddhists.

Anyway, it is good to have someone well versed in Chinese and in English, and of good learning in religious history i.e., of Buddhism.

Tell me something about the use of the name "佛教" by the Chinese people when Buddhism came to China. Were they really into some naughty nuances in their choice of the term or confection of the term? Or did it just happen that the Pali word for Buddha happens to be equivalent to the sound of idol in Chinese.

Yes, tell me about the rationale behind that terminological choice.

Thanks for your enlightenment; now the Buddhists of the West will guard themselves on feeling so sure about invoking the name of Buddha, identifying themselves as Buddhists.

Yrreg

Bodhi Dharma Zen

31st January 2006, 06:27 PM

And I still can't accept why people here have got to get their fix from Buddhism and even the Zen kind.

Do you like photography? I do, it was one of those things that I wanted to do, but had little time to attempt it. Now I just bought a nice camera, Lumix FZ30, I like it VERY much hanging around with my camera and taking lots of pictures (so far, about 5,000). Of course, only a few of them are really beautiful, but heck, Im having lots of fun.

Some others like to dance, though.

merentha

31st January 2006, 06:35 PM

If that claim has been made here (I probably missed it), then you are right in questioning the claim.

Here's some:

the majority of Buddhist sects do not belive in reincarntion. So whilst your understanding may be true for some sects, it is by no means universaly accurate.Karma is basicly a way of saying "your actions will have consequences".

There is no reincarnation in Buddhism, except for some small fringe denominations.

There are somewhere around 1.32 zillion buddhists who do not subscribe to reincarnation, past lives or any form of afterlife. The remainder are largely Hindu or Christian majors with a minor in Buddhism.

-----

Another way of looking at this: I think a lot of Western Buddhists who were born and raised in America probably do adhere to a more simplified interpretation of Buddhism, with less of the so-called "supernatural" furnishings. I understand that in some Buddhist temples, there are essentially two sanghas: local Americans who grew up with different faiths, and immigrants who grew up with traditional Buddhism. I've heard (though I don't have direct experience with this) that these two groups coexist but sometimes do not mix very comfortably.

This would probably account for the dichotomy. I can understand the decision of these Buddhist temples to make Buddhism more attractive to the west, but I can't say I agree with them. On some levels, it's a little like Scientology - a member doesn't get to hear about Xenu until OTIII and by then it may be too late to get out. :eye-poppi

merentha

31st January 2006, 07:04 PM

The religion of Buddhism is called "佛教" (fo2 jiao4), which is made up of the characters for "Buddha" and "Religion".

A Chinese lady in the office told me that the first character from the left stands for idol. I asked her whether when Buddhism came to China the Chinese in their genius owing to the big statues of Buddha already extant by that time outside China, right away gave the religion the name of the word for idol.

So, Buddhism in Chinese is called the idol religion, and Buddha is given the name idol.

That is some joke on the Buddhists here who take pride in calling themselves Buddhists.

Anyway, it is good to have someone well versed in Chinese and in English, and of good learning in religious history i.e., of Buddhism.

Tell me something about the use of the name "佛教" by the Chinese people when Buddhism came to China. Were they really into some naughty nuances in their choice of the term or confection of the term? Or did it just happen that the Pali word for Buddha happens to be equivalent to the sound of idol in Chinese.

Yes, tell me about the rationale behind that terminological choice.

Thanks for your enlightenment; now the Buddhists of the West will guard themselves on feeling so sure about invoking the name of Buddha, identifying themselves as Buddhists.

Yrreg

I think your colleague is very much mistaken. The character "佛" (fo2) is a contraction of "佛陀" (fo2 tuo2), which is the Chinese phonetic translation for "Buddha". I am not familiar with ancient Chinese dialects, but it is plausible that the prevalent dialect at the time when Buddhism first arrived in China would have a closer pronunciation for "Buddha" from those two characters.

The confusion with idolatory was probably a result of the Cultural Revolution in Maoist China when Buddhism, Chinese traditional faiths (often confused as Taoism, even by the Chinese) and Chinese ancestral worship were persecuted and denigrated for promoting superstition.

In terms of word meaning, an idol or image would be "像" (xiang4). Hence, an idol or image of the Buddha would be "佛像" (fo2 xiang4), just like a generic term for sculpture would be "雕像" (diao1 xiang4) or "carved image".

nosho

31st January 2006, 10:58 PM

Dancing David

1st February 2006, 06:25 AM

I am sorry to inform you that your definition of Nirvana if a definition it is that you are attempting is not yet good enough to spot a human with Nirvana from others without.

A definition is precisely for the purpose of mapping out limits by which things can be separated from other things.

If your purpose is to be figurative; please, a useful definition tries not to be figurative. So please, no pogo stick for then your definition is too restrictive as to exclude from Nirvana anyone and everyone not riding a pogo stick.

Otherwise your definition is too overly broad for being inclusive of everyone even the as Epepke puts it, sociopaths.

Read this definition again of religion by my favorite opinion maker:

Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the unknown power to react favorably to the believer. -- Pes Oir Amsus

And try to draft a definition of Nirvana following the template that you should be able to see in it.

------------------

I am going over to the threads on Buddhism is not scientific! (from you), and Evidence in Buddhism (from Ryokan), to see whether there are new developments there to satisfy people asking pertinent questions of their authors.

I will be back.

Yrreg

Yrreg

I am not sure what the point would be of redefining it, the definition of internal states through direct observation is difficult. The only means to access the interior state of an individual is through interview and survey. So coming up with a directly observable state would be difficult, especialy because of the motion of the pogo stick.

Otherwise your definition is too overly broad for being inclusive of everyone even the as Epepke puts it, sociopaths

That may be , but for clarity, which is what you asked for, I tried to not add any qualifiers. The definition of narmative area is very complicated. But from working with sociopaths, quite frequently, sociopaths do not act freely and they are often subject to the vauge terms of preconception and prejudice. So they would be excluded from the definition. Most sociopaths are very attached to thier acts, as demonstrated by thier repetitive explanations for why it is everybidy elses fault that they do what they do.

And while the defintion of religion that use is the one you like, I would counter that in some forms of buddhism there is no resources to unknown powers, there are the practices of the eightfold path and the virtues. They do not rely upon unknown forces, it is the practice itself that leads to the desired effect.

yrreg

1st February 2006, 08:09 AM

Hi Yrreg,

I think your message is on target when you caution against taking pride in calling oneself a "Buddhist." While I often find your posts to be grating, I have to admit that underneath it all, you make an unflinching demand that I can't dismiss, namely, to examine oneself and avoid delusion.

I think it's appropriate that you identify yourself as "Resident Buddhist Critic" rather than "Resident Buddhism Critic."

I call myself Resident Buddhist Critic as some kind of flippant riposte to Ryokan's calling himself Resident Buddhist; of course neither he nor I are resident in the sense of designated by the JREF management.

About your distinction between being a Buddhist critic and a Buddhism critic, I am critical of both: Buddhism and Buddhists. I use the word Buddhist as an adjective referring to both Buddhism and adherents of Buddhism, i.e. Buddhists.

There is something very peculiarly different between Buddhism which is a worldview and say biology which is a science, namely: you cannot study Buddhism without examining Buddhists, but you can study biology without examining biologists.

I don't think anyone can be critical of Buddhists without being critical of Buddhism, or critical of Buddhism without being critical or exercising criticism on Buddhists.

Yrreg

Moochie

1st February 2006, 08:10 AM

My definition of Nirvana is a few vodkas under my belt and reading the intellectual loop-de-loops of my peers right here, on channel JREF.

M.

epepke

1st February 2006, 09:50 AM

There are good reasons why Buddhism is usually treated lightly. Unlike some other religions, it does not require its followers to knock on your door every other weekend to proselytize, and it does not curse unbelievers to eternal damnation.

Neither does Judaism, but I don't see much evidence that Judaism gets a light touch.

Word game or not, there is a misunderstanding about Buddhism's explanation of the nonexistent "eternal soul". Some Buddhists on this board understand it as:
Buddhism believes there is no soul -> Buddhism does not believe in rebirth.
Instead, Buddhism teaches:
Unenlightened beings hold on to the illusion of the soul -> unenlightened beings continue to be reborn.
Enlightened being understands there is no soul -> enlightened being escapes rebirth.

We need at least an approximate definition of "rebirth" here.

10001

1st February 2006, 01:06 PM

Again, one thing is to think about it. Think its easy (the interesting part is that we think this from the very I that is doubted).

But another very different (inconceivable different) is to actually let the world to see "itself", in other words, let the ego disolve and let "you" become part of the noumena, forgetting phenomena.

but I dont see the point on discussing Buddhism if you are not going to submerge yourself in it. All you will be doing is discussing words, like we have seen in these threads regarding Buddhism).

ui think you would be one of the few people here who would understand why i blab on... ^^

nosho

1st February 2006, 01:38 PM

... you cannot study Buddhism without examining Buddhists ...
Yes you can. In exactly the same way that you can study biology without examining biologists.

yrreg

2nd February 2006, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg :
... you cannot study Buddhism without examining Buddhists ...
Yes you can. In exactly the same way that you can study biology without examining biologists.

First, it is easy right away to know that a Buddhist is not in the same basket as a biologist; the Buddhist is dealing with thoughts or notions and feelings in his own heart and mind, while the biologist is dealing with body organs and physiological processes, in general with life and life systems, the organic kind which is as far as I know the only kind.

There are therefore here two very different kinds of dealerships.

Now as regards Buddhism and biology, actually, when you study Buddhism you are studying certain kinds of thoughts or notions in the mind of a man or some men, which are not present in the mind of everyman, and these thoughts together make up Buddhism.

But when you study biology you are not studying certain kinds of thoughts or notions in the mind of a man or some men which together make up biology, which thoughts or notions are not present in the mind of everyman. In biology you are studying organic life, that of man, and insects and plants and bacteria and any and every life form.

Back to Buddhist and biologist, they are both teachers in a way; but the Buddhist is a teacher only when he teaches others about his thoughts and feelings and actions by which he is known as a Buddhist or a believer in Buddhism, not so the biologist.

The biologist is a teacher not of his thoughts and feelings and actions by which he is known as a biologist, but he dispenses information about organic life and living systems of life forms.

That is why you cannot study Buddhism without studying Buddhists, because Buddhism is in the mind as in a laboratory: the mind in regard to Buddhism is Buddhism's lab, and that mind is that of Buddha and also that of Nosho; but you can study biology without probing the mind of the biologist, however if you prefer, his body, yes; but then any other man's body is just as good for studying biology, that of man that is, yet for that matter not necessarily a man's body, it can be a cockroach's body.

You don't have to go to the mind of the biologist as to the laboratory to study biology, but you definitely and indispensably have to go to the minds of Buddhists, starting with the Buddha and then everyone who professes to follow him, again as to the laboratory, to study Buddhism.

Summing up, while in Buddhism you study the professor himself, the Buddhist professor who professes Buddhism; in biology you don't study the biologist professor himself, but the materials he has information about, which materials are not in his mind as in their natural habitat, but outside and away from his mind.

That is why Buddhists who don't study themselves and study the Buddha himself, the what and the why and how and the wherefore of the thoughts and practices making up Buddhism and very important their kind of, namely, their personal take on Buddhism, do not know Buddhism, not the kind that is in their heart and mind.

Lesson to be learned here:

If we take as an imperative verity that the unexamined life is not worth living, then it is incumbent upon every Buddhist to look into his own personal psychology of his adherence to Buddhism, to examine psychologically the what, and the why, and the how, and the wherefore of his embrace and practice of Buddhism.

Yrreg

epepke

2nd February 2006, 01:36 PM

First, it is easy right away to know that a Buddhist is not in the same basket as a biologist; the Buddhist is dealing with thoughts or notions and feelings in his own heart and mind, while the biologist is dealing with body organs and physiological processes, in general with life and life systems, the organic kind which is as far as I know the only kind.

There are therefore here two very different kinds of dealerships.

Quite.

The claims of Buddhism consist of claims that Buddhism will cause changes in the user, i.e. the Buddhist. So it is appropriate to study Buddhists.

SirPhilip

2nd February 2006, 03:08 PM

Bodhidharma, who brought Buddhism to China, was very clear that people who worship statues and shave their heads were fools and fanatics. In other words, they didn't understand the purpose of Buddhism.

yrreg

2nd February 2006, 07:07 PM

I think your colleague is very much mistaken. The character "佛" (fo2) is a contraction of "佛陀" (fo2 tuo2), which is the Chinese phonetic translation for "Buddha". I am not familiar with ancient Chinese dialects, but it is plausible that the prevalent dialect at the time when Buddhism first arrived in China would have a closer pronunciation for "Buddha" from those two characters.

The confusion with idolatory was probably a result of the Cultural Revolution in Maoist China when Buddhism, Chinese traditional faiths (often confused as Taoism, even by the Chinese) and Chinese ancestral worship were persecuted and denigrated for promoting superstition.

In terms of word meaning, an idol or image would be "像" (xiang4). Hence, an idol or image of the Buddha would be "佛像" (fo2 xiang4), just like a generic term for sculpture would be "雕像" (diao1 xiang4) or "carved image".
I appraoched the nice Chinese lady in office again.

She told me that "佛" (fo2) is indeed the name for Buddha, but also it means commonly or popularly a religious statue Chinese pray before and pray to for favors, even though not representing Buddha but some original Chinese deity, what we call idol in English or graven image in a Biblical or Judeo-Christian context.

I think she is not possessed of academic finesse in matters of Chinese religious concepts and terms.

But tell me, that sound represented by the character, "佛" (fo2), is it just a sound without any meaning, but conventionally referred to the Buddha owing to sound affinity? Or does it have an intrinsic meaning in the Chinese language even before its application to Buddha? And if that original meaning has some connection with worship of religious statues?

Thanks for your informative inputs to my education.

Yrreg

yrreg

2nd February 2006, 08:46 PM

Now that we hear at least from some Buddhists here that Buddhism is not science nor scientific and it is not religion.

That leaves philosophy and art.

There is a lot of artistic outputs in stone, and in canvas and paper, with ink and paint, occasioned by Buddhism; but I don't think we can say that Buddhism is an art form, like say tea ceremony in Japan is an art form -- with influence from Zen(?)

That leaves philosophy. But what kind of a philosophy is this where its fans engage their mind in order to alter its mind-state into a mode of mental condition they call Nirvana; or even for those Buddhists who believe in post mortem existence in any kind of tortured explanation, some not susceptible to word representation, dimension of being, or even paradoxically non-being, they also call Nirvana.

Now, very important in the concept of Nirvana, it is the liberation of man from suffering; what suffering?

All kinds that Buddhists can imagine; but according to their more profound thinkers it is what I would understand a guy in the Bible complains about: all life, human existence, everything being vanity and tiredness of spirit, that kind of a boredom and distaste even for existence and recurring existence (which only Buddhists can believe in), also said to possess the character of abysmal transcendence [hahaha softly].

No, I don't think for that kind of a mind cultivation, I can call Buddhism a philosophy, unless they the Buddhists just talk Nirvana, but don't do nothing with their mind to bring about any kind of mind state altering or channeling if that word be appropriate. For philosophy to my understanding is into thinking and talking, not so much into doing except when the talkers want to rule fellow men to change them to their own thinking.

What about calling Buddhism a system of mental magic, a magic that the Buddhist's mind works on his own mind to experience, yes, Nirvana.

According to my favorite opinion maker, Res Oir Amsus, there is a very thin line between religion and magic, that line consists in the distinction between a personalistic power in religion and a non-personalisitc power, a blind force of nature in magic.

You see, in religion you bargain with the personalistic though unknown power, but in magic you deal with the non-personalistic power as with a machine, pressing a button or pulling a lever, only in the case of the magic of Buddhism you use -- no, not formulaic words and bodily gestures and/or postures, but with your mind -- no, not by thinking, but more properly by non-thinking, what they call Buddhist meditation.

Just that you still need your mind to do that kind of a mental magic, and of course a brain is absolutely indispensable, even the most non-self Buddhists will grant you that, unless they want to meditate brainless -- which might actually works better for Buddhists are tireless in insisting on not using your brain, it's an obstacle toward Nirvana.

Yrreg

merentha

2nd February 2006, 08:47 PM

She told me that "佛" (fo2) is indeed the name for Buddha, but also it means commonly or popularly a religious statue Chinese pray before and pray to for favors, even though not representing Buddha but some original Chinese deity, what we call idol in English or graven image in a Biblical or Judeo-Christian context.

While the generic term for the activity of praying to a deity is called "拜神" (bai4 shen2), it is often used interchangeably with "拜佛" (bai4 fo2) even by non-Buddhists. For a long time, Chinese Buddhism has been mixed with Taoism and traditional Chinese folk beliefs. It was one big mess before modern efforts to reform the religion and return to the source.

But tell me, that sound represented by the character, "佛" (fo2), is it just a sound without any meaning, but conventionally referred to the Buddha owing to sound affinity? Or does it have an intrinsic meaning in the Chinese language even before its application to Buddha? And if that original meaning has some connection with worship of religious statues?

The character has only one meaning, and that is the "Buddha". If there was one before the introduction of Buddhism to China, then I'm not aware of it. However, I'm not a scholar on the history of the Chinese language.

yrreg

3rd February 2006, 12:59 AM

While the generic term for the activity of praying to a deity is called "拜神" (bai4 shen2), it is often used interchangeably with "拜佛" (bai4 fo2) even by non-Buddhists. For a long time, Chinese Buddhism has been mixed with Taoism and traditional Chinese folk beliefs. It was one big mess before modern efforts to reform the religion and return to the source.

The character has only one meaning, and that is the "Buddha". If there was one before the introduction of Buddhism to China, then I'm not aware of it. However, I'm not a scholar on the history of the Chinese language.

Sorry to disturb you again, Merentha.

I asked the lady again. She told me that she is no linguist either in Chinese language. However, from the composite characters in a Chinese word one can often get to the meaning of a word.

In the case of the word and sound "佛" (fo2), from left to right, the first character consisting of two strokes, the upper one slanting downward from top right to bottom left, balancing on the vertical segment. the figure means according to her, man; while the right character, looking like a dollar sign but with the S drawn like an abstract symbol of a seahorse, according to her means the English phrase "as if."

This is getting more and more interesting. If you read the two characters "man" and "as if" from left to right, as in English, "佛" (fo2) stands for "man as if."

The nice Chinese lady however told me -- and this is the most beautiful part for me, that Chinese writing is written and read from right to left unlike English; in which case "佛" (fo2) stands for "as if man."

I was saying that maybe the Chinese in their naughty wisdom assigned that word "佛" (fo2) to Buddha, to play a joke on Buddha, calling him closely by sound but choosing a word which compositely means something looking "as if man," making fun also thereby of his followers as worshipers of something looking "as if man."

This Chinese lady also gave me something more to enjoy as humorous and also quite insightful; she shared with me a parody on the worship of Buddha, using the Sinicized version of the Buddha, one Amitabha. Below are two lines she recites, the first means "Amitabha sincerely worship," but the second almost sounding like the first means "Amitabha crazily worship:"

O mi to hut sieng sim pai put
(Amitabha sincerely worship, or
Worship sincerely Amitabha)

O mi to hut sieng kieng pai put
(Amitabha crazily worship, or
Worship crazily Amitabha)

If you should have access to those learned men in the local campus on Chinese words, please ask them about the history of that Chinese word "佛" (fo2), for a name assigned by the Chinese word craftmen to Buddha.

This is rich. Wait till some enterprising Yankee writes a Da Vinci Code on Buddha and Amitabha and all their reincarnates from Nepal through China to Afghanistan.

That will take away the fad from Buddhism among Western Buddhists who know more and more authentically than the benighted Buddhists of the Far East.

[Hahahaha softly. I prefer the Fat Laughing Buddha.]

Yrreg

merentha

3rd February 2006, 02:43 AM

Sorry to disturb you again, Merentha.

I asked the lady again. She told me that she is no linguist either in Chinese language. However, from the composite characters in a Chinese word one can often get to the meaning of a word.

In the case of the word and sound "佛" (fo2), from left to right, the first character consisting of two strokes, the upper one slanting downward from top right to bottom left, balancing on the vertical segment. the figure means according to her, man; while the right character, looking like a dollar sign but with the S drawn like an abstract symbol of a seahorse, according to her means the English phrase "as if."

This is getting more and more interesting. If you read the two characters "man" and "as if" from left to right, as in English, "佛" (fo2) stands for "man as if."

I disagree with the Chinese lady, and I have serious suspicions about her knowledge of the Chinese language.

First, each Chinese character is read as a whole. Many characters are formed by two or small simpler characters, but the meaning is not necessarily dependent on the component characters. There is also no such thing as reading left-to-right or right-to-left within a character. Wikipedia has a good explanation about Chinese characters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_ideography).

Second, the character "弗" (fu2) does not mean "as if". It is a character rarely found in modern usage but more common in ancient scholarly texts. Its general meaning, depending on context, is "not/negate/prohibit". However, it is used in the character for "Buddha" as a phonetic component (refer to wikipedia link above). The character on the left-hand is a modified representation of man "人" (ren2) and represents the context of the character's usage.

Third, the actual word for "as if" is "仿佛" (fang3 fu2), though it is more commonly written nowadays as "彷彿". Though the character for the "Buddha" is used, its pronunciation is different, which renders its meaning different. Perhaps the word was used differently in ancient times. Anyhow, if we were to split up this word as two characters and pronounce the second character as "fo2", then its meaning could read as "to imitate the Buddha"/"to be like the Buddha".

This Chinese lady also gave me something more to enjoy as humorous and also quite insightful; she shared with me a parody on the worship of Buddha, using the Sinicized version of the Buddha, one Amitabha. Below are two lines she recites, the first means "Amitabha sincerely worship," but the second almost sounding like the first means "Amitabha crazily worship:"

Based on your romanization of the rhyme, the Chinese lady sounds like she might be Taiwanese since the rhyme is in Hokkien. Anyhow, the rhyme sounds like immature word play, such as a children's playground chant to make fun of the odd kid who happens to be Buddhist.

If you should have access to those learned men in the local campus on Chinese words, please ask them about the history of that Chinese word "佛" (fo2), for a name assigned by the Chinese word craftmen to Buddha.

This is rich. Wait till some enterprising Yankee writes a Da Vinci Code on Buddha and Amitabha and all their reincarnates from Nepal through China to Afghanistan.

That will take away the fad from Buddhism among Western Buddhists who know more and more authentically than the benighted Buddhists of the Far East.

[Hahahaha softly. I prefer the Fat Laughing Buddha.]

Yrreg

I'm a working girl, so there isn't any Chinese Prof I could seek advice. For your info, the term "Buddha" usually refers to Sakyamuni Buddha, who is different from Amitabha Buddha. The "Fat Laughing Buddha" is the Chinese representation of the next Buddha (as foretold by Sakyamuni Buddha), also known as Maitreya Buddha. Theravadan Buddhist art tend to represent him slim and serious as opposed to fat and laughing. The existence of previous Buddhas like Amitabha will likely spark off another debate of more Buddhist woo since it might imply that either the Buddhist history of man is longer than evolutionary history suggests, or that there are intelligent alien worlds out there not unlike Earth.

I don't think Buddhists need to "worry" about any Da Vinci code. There isn't any Holy Grail-like tradition, no secret councils, the Buddha didn't claim to be God or God's son, and he didn't resurrect. In fact, his official life story already has a wife and son included!

yrreg

3rd February 2006, 03:29 AM

I disagree with the Chinese lady, and I have serious suspicions about her knowledge of the Chinese language.

First, each Chinese character is read as a whole. Many characters are formed by two or small simpler characters, but the meaning is not necessarily dependent on the component characters. There is also no such thing as reading left-to-right or right-to-left within a character. Wikipedia has a good explanation about Chinese characters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_ideography).

Second, the character "弗" (fu2) does not mean "as if". It is a character rarely found in modern usage but more common in ancient scholarly texts. Its general meaning, depending on context, is "not/negate/prohibit". However, it is used in the character for "Buddha" as a phonetic component (refer to wikipedia link above). The character on the left-hand is a modified representation of man "人" (ren2) and represents the context of the character's usage.

Third, the actual word for "as if" is "仿佛" (fang3 fu2), though it is more commonly written nowadays as "彷彿". Though the character for the "Buddha" is used, its pronunciation is different, which renders its meaning different. Perhaps the word was used differently in ancient times. Anyhow, if we were to split up this word as two characters and pronounce the second character as "fo2", then its meaning could read as "to imitate the Buddha"/"to be like the Buddha".

Based on your romanization of the rhyme, the Chinese lady sounds like she might be Taiwanese since the rhyme is in Hokkien. Anyhow, the rhyme sounds like immature word play, such as a children's playground chant to make fun of the odd kid who happens to be Buddhist.

I'm a working girl, so there isn't any Chinese Prof I could seek advice. For your info, the term "Buddha" usually refers to Sakyamuni Buddha, who is different from Amitabha Buddha. The "Fat Laughing Buddha" is the Chinese representation of the next Buddha (as foretold by Sakyamuni Buddha), also known as Maitreya Buddha. Theravadan Buddhist art tend to represent him slim and serious as opposed to fat and laughing. The existence of previous Buddhas like Amitabha will likely spark off another debate of more Buddhist woo since it might imply that either the Buddhist history of man is longer than evolutionary history suggests, or that there are intelligent alien worlds out there not unlike Earth.

I don't think Buddhists need to "worry" about any Da Vinci code. There isn't any Holy Grail-like tradition, no secret councils, the Buddha didn't claim to be God or God's son, and he didn't resurrect. In fact, his official life story already has a wife and son included!

Thanks, Merentha, for your inputs to my education.

I won't trouble the Chinese lady in the office any further. As I said she is not in the academe.

But that part about knowing the meaning of a Chinese word from its component characters, I have heard that pitch before, for example Chinese tell us that the Chinese word for crisis has two component characters, something like trouble and opportunity, and good is woman and child together.

But here is something more challenging, mother is composed of woman and horse. Hahaha. I guess this is one instance where the Chinese used the sound for horse and affix it to woman, indicating that this sound for horse, ma which is a universal first sound made by babies, calling the attention of their mother, should be understood as referred to woman with child.

I once had a pocket book on how to write concretely and briefly by thinking Chinese as Chinese write their characters; don't know where I can find it in the house now. The author is an American columnist on how to write good, simple, and intelligible English, even on deep issues.

I can't forget what he said in his introduction, that unlike European languages with conjugations and declensions making language learning so difficult, Chinese language did away with all that; but it must not be thought that Chinese is a primitive language, because before the Chinese got to their simplistic shorthand type of writing and speaking, they also used conjugations for verbs and declensions for nouns and adjectives.

------------

Coming to Buddhism as a religion or not, what do you have for a religion now? since you have given up on Buddhism for being not up to your rational skeptical mind now. You are giving up Buddhism whereas the Westerners are lapping it up, thinking that Buddha was way ahead of his times: nothing superstitious, everything with him so ultra rational. And like their newly discovered idealized master from the Far East, they have gone into meditation as a way to attain genuine what? wisdom of course, starting with the meaning of life.

And what is that meaning of life now for them as Buddhists? life has only one eternal meaning, namely, to get to Nirvana -- whatever that Nirvana is supposed to be, if anything at all it is still murky to me -- because I am not enlightened, hahaha. Or I don't have their faith, in Buddha.

Yrreg

merentha

3rd February 2006, 07:24 AM

But that part about knowing the meaning of a Chinese word from its component characters, I have heard that pitch before, for example Chinese tell us that the Chinese word for crisis has two component characters, something like trouble and opportunity, and good is woman and child together.

But here is something more challenging, mother is composed of woman and horse. Hahaha. I guess this is one instance where the Chinese used the sound for horse and affix it to woman, indicating that this sound for horse, ma which is a universal first sound made by babies, calling the attention of their mother, should be understood as referred to woman with child.

Most Chinese characters of two or more component characters are formed the second way. Hence, my Chinese teachers always say that even if we've never seen a character, we can usually make a good guess of its pronunciation from the phonetic component.

I once had a pocket book on how to write concretely and briefly by thinking Chinese as Chinese write their characters; don't know where I can find it in the house now. The author is an American columnist on how to write good, simple, and intelligible English, even on deep issues.

Over here in Singapore where many people are bilingual and where Mandarin is usually the spoken language for the Chinese, this is actually a problem when learning English. The "Singlish" as spoken by many Chinese Singaporeans is an awful mismash of Chinese and English sentence structures.

I can't forget what he said in his introduction, that unlike European languages with conjugations and declensions making language learning so difficult, Chinese language did away with all that; but it must not be thought that Chinese is a primitive language, because before the Chinese got to their simplistic shorthand type of writing and speaking, they also used conjugations for verbs and declensions for nouns and adjectives.

I don't know how accurate is that statement, but my experience with ancient Chinese texts is that they are difficult to understand despite their apparent simplicity. They are simple in the sense that a sentence could comprise of just a few characters. Yet, to transcribe those few characters to modern Chinese could easily use up twice as many characters.

Coming to Buddhism as a religion or not, what do you have for a religion now? since you have given up on Buddhism for being not up to your rational skeptical mind now. You are giving up Buddhism whereas the Westerners are lapping it up, thinking that Buddha was way ahead of his times: nothing superstitious, everything with him so ultra rational. And like their newly discovered idealized master from the Far East, they have gone into meditation as a way to attain genuine what? wisdom of course, starting with the meaning of life.

And what is that meaning of life now for them as Buddhists? life has only one eternal meaning, namely, to get to Nirvana -- whatever that Nirvana is supposed to be, if anything at all it is still murky to me -- because I am not enlightened, hahaha. Or I don't have their faith, in Buddha.

Yrreg

I do not profess any particular faith. I was brought up a Buddhist, have explored Christianity, like to read up on other religions and mythologies, and have even dabbled in woo stuffs like tarot cards. But at every point, something always rankled at the back of my mind. Do any of these stuff make any sense? Do I even believe it?

I made up interpretations for my card readings and my more credulous friends could swear I was psychic. :D

I was bothered that an all-powerful God should care about the petty problems of a few people living in peaceful Singapore, when He has failed to bring peace to his supposed Holy Land for centuries. Why should a God who was so eager to interfere in affairs in the past as described in the bible become so silent now? I decided that he was mythological, just like the Greek and Norse Gods.

As for Buddhism, I did not care for the supernatural stuff. I reasoned that karma was used to instruct the poor and downtrodden to be content with their lot because they're paying for their "sins" committed in a past life. In any case, assuming that Buddhism is 100% true, I figured that if I didn't consider life to be suffering and don't mind being caught in samsara, why should I be bothered about missing out on Nirvana? Life is too short and too interesting to spend on meditating for a goal that may not exist.

However, I do not begrudge the decisions of others to be spiritual. If the West can export Christianity to Asia, I don't see why Asia can't export Buddhism to the West. If people find meaning in a religion, do not impose it on others, do not demand the deaths of unbelievers, do not destroy families to gain converts, and are generally harmless, I am willing to give them some measure of respect.

Bodhi Dharma Zen

3rd February 2006, 09:27 AM

Ahh respect, good word. ;)

ruach1

3rd February 2006, 10:03 AM

Ahh respect, good word. ;)
Seconded :)

10001

3rd February 2006, 10:07 AM

There are numerous forms of Buddhism, and some do pray directly to Lord Buddha as they are taught. Other forms have ceremonies which have all the aspects of relgious ritual.

I surmise you lean toward the Ch'an or Zen form of Buddhism which certainly is non-religious in practice and does not deify Sakyamuni, the historical Buddha. But please do not make the mistake of thinking your version is the only correct version. That simply is not the case. http://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/Buddhism

i appolozise if i seemedto have mis led you and some others here.

i do not have a particular version.
the words i stated are not versions.

I merely attept to guide a 'path'
all the writings you read of budhas teachings are Not definitions...
they are just 'path'

some may seem to be right for you.
some may seem completely wrong.

it doesnt really matter.
you just have you own road.

you dont have to 'be' budhist or anything.

nothing is really defind as we might think they are.
our minds are traped in a cycle of meanings and definition created by our selves. which was mostly done in order to understand the world and communicate to each other(to put it simply ^^)

Remember!

budha did not call him self 'the budha'
other people did.

Belz...

3rd February 2006, 10:56 AM

10001

3rd February 2006, 11:06 AM

I was bothered that an all-powerful God should care about the petty problems of a few people living in peaceful Singapore, when He has failed to bring peace to his supposed Holy Land for centuries. Why should a God who was so eager to interfere in affairs in the past as described in the bible become so silent now? I decided that he was mythological, just like the Greek and Norse Gods.

As for Buddhism, I did not care for the supernatural stuff. I reasoned that karma was used to instruct the poor and downtrodden to be content with their lot because they're paying for their "sins" committed in a past life. In any case, assuming that Buddhism is 100% true, I figured that if I didn't consider life to be suffering and don't mind being caught in samsara, why should I be bothered about missing out on Nirvana? Life is too short and too interesting to spend on meditating for a goal that may not exist.

However, I do not begrudge the decisions of others to be spiritual. If the West can export Christianity to Asia, I don't see why Asia can't export Buddhism to the West. If people find meaning in a religion, do not impose it on others, do not demand the deaths of unbelievers, do not destroy families to gain converts, and are generally harmless, I am willing to give them some measure of respect.

should try though,meditation i mean.
Maybe you will learn to enjoy life much more then you knew. ^^
but if it seems like just sitting down doing nothing.. then it is ok. try yoga, or fishing, taichi is good also.
you have a great perspective on life. the thing about a 'god' seemed a little negative. but i lean towards agreeing with you.
you writings are your own thoughts, i appreciate them.

nosho

3rd February 2006, 11:29 AM

Quite.

The claims of Buddhism consist of claims that Buddhism will cause changes in the user, i.e. the Buddhist. So it is appropriate to study Buddhists.
There might be reasons why it is appropriate to study Buddhists, but that doesn't mean you can't study Buddhism without studying Buddhists. Of course you can.

For example, one could read a book by Thich Nhat Hanh on Buddhism. In order to read and study this book, it is not necessary to study Thich Nhat Hanh. You don't have to know he's from Vietnam, or that Martin Luther King Jr. nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize. You don't have to know if he believes in a god. You don't have to know if he personally has benefited from meditation. It's not necessary to study Thich Nhat Hanh as a person in order to study his teachings on Buddhism (although it might be interesting).

Just as it is possible to read about and study biology without analyzing the lives of biologists, it is possible to read about and study Buddhism without analyzing the lives of Buddhists.

This doesn't mean Buddhism is the same as biology. It also doesn't mean there's no value in studying Buddhists (or biologists, for that matter).

But to say that it is impossible to critically analyze Buddhism without critically analyzing Buddhists is just not true. In order to understand Buddhism, I don't have to pick apart the thoughts and feelings of anyone (except maybe myself).

In fact, picking apart the thoughts and feelings of some other person probably is just going to be a distraction from the real task. It can become just an excuse for not looking closely at the very thing we're trying to study.

epepke

3rd February 2006, 03:57 PM

There might be reasons why it is appropriate to study Buddhists, but that doesn't mean you can't study Buddhism without studying Buddhists. Of course you can.

It seems that International Pedantry Month has rolled around again.

It's completely obvious that when yyreg or I use the phrase "study Buddhism," we mean subjecting the claims of Buddhist that are attributed to Buddhism to skeptical study, and that cannot be done to any significant degree without studying Buddhists.

Just as it is possible to read about and study biology without analyzing the lives of biologists, it is possible to read about and study Buddhism without analyzing the lives of Buddhists.

Bad analogy. The claims of biologists are about living creatures. It is, indeed, impossible to study those claims without studying living creatures. If someone claims, for example, that there is a jewel in the head of a toad, one can examine that claim by finding a dead toad and opening it up. (I don't have the heart to kill a toad.) The claims of Buddhists are about Buddhists. It is not possible to study those claims without studying Buddhists.

Ryokan

3rd February 2006, 04:12 PM

Bad analogy. The claims of biologists are about living creatures. It is, indeed, impossible to study those claims without studying living creatures. If someone claims, for example, that there is a jewel in the head of a toad, one can examine that claim by finding a dead toad and opening it up. (I don't have the heart to kill a toad.) The claims of Buddhists are about Buddhists. It is not possible to study those claims without studying Buddhists.

All good points. I have to agree with you.

ETA : In the sense that if you want to study the truths of Buddhism, you have to study Buddhists. You can, of course, study the subject of Buddhism without examening a single Buddhist.

yrreg

3rd February 2006, 04:40 PM

Yrreg:

First, it is easy right away to know that a Buddhist is not in the same basket as a biologist; the Buddhist is dealing with thoughts or notions and feelings in his own heart and mind, while the biologist is dealing with body organs and physiological processes, in general with life and life systems, the organic kind which is as far as I know the only kind.

There are therefore here two very different kinds of dealerships.

Epepke:

Quite.

The claims of Buddhism consist of claims that Buddhism will cause changes in the user, i.e. the Buddhist. So it is appropriate to study Buddhists.

Nosho:

There might be reasons why it is appropriate to study Buddhists, but that doesn't mean you can't study Buddhism without studying Buddhists. Of course you can.

Etc. etc. etc.

There might be reasons why it is appropriate to study Buddhists, but that doesn't mean you can't study Buddhism without studying Buddhists. Of course you can. -- Nosho

You can try to read Buddhist texts without any efforts at all to know the mind and heart of their author(s) in regard to the meanings expounded by them in their texts, but then you would not be able to derive an understanding of those texts as intended by their authors.

It would be like reading the last will and testament of a deceased person without reference to his mind and heart, his life in all its history and circumstances.

We can study Buddhism as intended by Buddha some 2,500 years ago when he taught his worldview which we now call after his name, Buddhism. And we can study the Buddhism as understood and practiced by Buddhists.

In both instances we have to study the person of Buddha in the first instance, and we have to study the persons of Buddhists in the second instance: how they understand Buddhism and implement Buddhism in their lives. Otherwise we would not come to a complete understanding of Buddhism.

Using the analogy of a last will and testament left by a deceased person, we can say very correctly that Buddhism is the last will and testament left by the Buddha. People today newly introduced to Buddhism, who want to follow faithfully the last will and testament of Buddha definitely have to study the heart and mind of Buddha, the person.

Do they have to study Buddhists who claim to have been observing the last will and testament of Buddha before them and presently already and traditionally practicing Buddhism? Certainly, at least to know how they are doing in case they are doing Buddhism more faithfully and thereby presumably more efficaciously than newcomers to Buddhism.

Now, as regards people outside Buddhism who are not into embracing Buddhism, but just for scholarly interest, they have to study both the last will and testament of Buddha to know Buddhism as intended by Buddha himself, and very important Buddhists also in regard to how they understand and practice Buddhism, the last will and testament of Buddha, on the very sound basis that Buddhists must know Buddhism better than anyone else non-Buddhist.

After studying both Buddhism as intended by Buddha which is presumed to be expounded in the ancient texts on Buddhism, and Buddhists down the centuries of Buddhism's and Buddhists' history, then the non-Buddhist student can know about Buddhism as intended in the ancient texts and Buddhism as practiced by Buddhists past and present, and be able to tell us how faithful Buddhists have been to Buddha down the centuries and in various lands, and also very interesting whether they have departed from Buddha, how and why.

Now as regards biology, one can study biology by examining life forms like oneself, a living specimen, and, as I said, cockroach, and all other animals and plants and bacteria and viruses, without ever reading a text on biology written by a researcher-writer-teacher called a biologist.

---------------

Buddhism is a purely man-made notion, the product of a man's heart and mind, and taken by other men into their hearts and minds and observed in their life conduct; you cannot therefore study that man-made notion of a Buddhism without examining the minds and hearts and life conducts of Buddhism's founder and practitioners of Buddhism, i.e., studying also Buddhists, starting with the original Buddhist, the Buddha himself, and then every John Doe and Jane Doe proclaiming themselves to be followers of Buddha.

That is the big and essential difference between studying Buddhism and studying biology, between Buddhist and biologist: whether the object of study is purely a product of man's mind and heart which man can do without and even better without, or the object of study is independent of man's mind and heart.

Yrreg

Bodhi Dharma Zen

3rd February 2006, 05:15 PM

That is the big and essential difference between studying Buddhism and studying biology, between Buddhist and biologist: whether the object of study is purely a product of man's mind and heart which man can do without and even better without, or the object of study is independent of man's mind and heart.

Big assumption. You see, as long as you are discussing words you will not reach that much. Its your choice, but if you really think you are understanding I have to say that you are not.

Both Buddhism and biology are entirely products of man's mind, and both can only study human's affairs. I could enter a discussion regarding what is and what is not independent of human's minds. But it wont be a productive chat.

So, I choose to let you know that you are wrong, and that if you really wanted to study the subject and not criticizing, then you would be able to understand. You are like someone who don't know anything about photography and yet believes he is a good critic.

But what really happens here is that you simply dont like photography. I do. Do you have an issue regarding it? ;)

yrreg

3rd February 2006, 05:40 PM

Epepke:

Bad analogy. The claims of biologists are about living creatures. It is, indeed, impossible to study those claims without studying living creatures. If someone claims, for example, that there is a jewel in the head of a toad, one can examine that claim by finding a dead toad and opening it up. (I don't have the heart to kill a toad.) The claims of Buddhists are about Buddhists. It is not possible to study those claims without studying Buddhists.Ryokan:

All good points. I have to agree with you.

ETA : In the sense that if you want to study the truths of Buddhism, you have to study Buddhists. You can, of course, study the subject of Buddhism without examening a single Buddhist.

Gentlemen, I invite everyone to consider seriously these three terms: truths, facts, claims.

1. Truths -- There are two kinds of truths, the ones that are facts and everything else that parades as truths but are not facts; examples of the first are this sentence, one plus one equals two, and sunrise in the morning; examples of the second: karma, rebirth, and Nirvana taught as truths in Buddhism.

2. Facts -- Facts are events that can be perceived by our senses and verified in the science laboratories; examples of facts, the existing self, existence itself, frogs, Ryokan, Yrreg, Epepke, US occupation of Iraq.

3. Claims -- These are assertions to facts and truths.

---------------------

In the sense that if you want to study the truths of Buddhism, you have to study Buddhists. You can, of course, study the subject of Buddhism without examening a single Buddhist. -- Ryokan

When you study the subject of Buddhism, you are studying a man-made notion, product of his mind and heart; so you have to study the man and his followers, their minds and hearts, to find out from their minds and hearts what are the facts-truths in that man-made notion called Buddhism, after the author, Buddha.

So, it is obvious that you can't study Buddhism without studying Buddhists, starting with the first and originator of Buddhism himself, the Buddha, and absolutely indispensable, his followers who call themselves Buddhists, claiming to know his mind and heart about his man-made notion of a worldview, now called Buddhism, after his name.

What about studying Buddhists, what are you studying in studying Buddhists? What else but Buddhists qua Buddhists, namely, in terms of their embrace and practice of Buddhism, starting first of course with the examination of whether they are into Buddhism at all, that claim -- for there are all kinds of Buddhists in all kinds of Buddhism. And this is where you are into studying Buddhism, unavoidably for studying Buddhists.

Conclusion: You can't study Buddhism without studying Buddhists.

Scholion: But you can study the frog without studying the ranalogist i.e., the expert in frogs.

Yrreg

Dancing David

3rd February 2006, 05:55 PM

Buddhism is a purely man-made notion, the product of a man's heart and mind, and taken by other men into their hearts and minds and observed in their life conduct; you cannot therefore study that man-made notion of a Buddhism without examining the minds and hearts and life conducts of Buddhism's founder and practitioners of Buddhism, i.e., studying also Buddhists, starting with the original Buddhist, the Buddha himself, and then every John Doe and Jane Doe proclaiming themselves to be followers of Buddha.

Very true, no disagreement here. And in doing so you will find that 90% of buddhism in practice is religous in nature, whatever the intent of the founder may have been. I don't think the buddha would object to the trappings, except where they create barriers to enlightenment. But given that what knowledge we have of the buddha is rather distant that is only a guess.

That is the big and essential difference between studying Buddhism and studying biology, between Buddhist and biologist: whether the object of study is purely a product of man's mind and heart which man can do without and even better without, or the object of study is independent of man's mind and heart.

Yrreg

And that can actualy be studied , although most people don't like to have rigour in thier social science. Wether or not a human needs solace found in religion, spriituality and mysticism, would be another thread. There have been secular discussions on the origins and human need for the religous. But most people get very hung up on the words. Like prayer, I believe that prayer can be beneficial, not because of divine intervention but because of the internal process. But saying there is benefit to prayer usualy draws fire on the JREF forum.

Dancing David

3rd February 2006, 06:03 PM

Gentlemen, I invite everyone to consider seriously these three terms: truths, facts, claims.

1. Truths -- There are two kinds of truths, the ones that are facts and everything else that parades as truths but are not facts; examples of the first are this sentence, one plus one equals two, and sunrise in the morning; examples of the second: karma, rebirth, and Nirvana taught as truths in Buddhism.

There is some latitude of self referencing communication sets in mathematics. 1+1=2 only because we define it that way, so it is not a fact but a definition.
The law of gravity describes the observed behavior of objects, that does not mean that the law of gravity exists, it means there is a human description for the observations.
So there are things that we believe to be true through defintion or description.

2. Facts -- Facts are events that can be perceived by our senses and verified in the science laboratories; examples of facts, the existing self, existence itself, frogs, Ryokan, Yrreg, Epepke, US occupation of Iraq.

You are using some defintions there, there are things that can be observed, and there are conventions in the languaga used to describe the observations. Science is not a process of aquire facts but describing the behavior of observations.

yrreg

3rd February 2006, 06:39 PM

Yrreg:

That is the big and essential difference between studying Buddhism and studying biology, between Buddhist and biologist: whether the object of study is purely a product of man's mind and heart which man can do without and even better without, or the object of study is independent of man's mind and heart. Bodhi Dharma Zen:

Big assumption. You see, as long as you are discussing words you will not reach that much. Its your choice, but if you really think you are understanding I have to say that you are not.

Both Buddhism and biology are entirely products of man's mind, and both can only study human's affairs. I could enter a discussion regarding what is and what is not independent of human's minds. But it wont be a productive chat.

So, I choose to let you know that you are wrong, and that if you really wanted to study the subject and not criticizing, then you would be able to understand. You are like someone who don't know anything about photography and yet believes he is a good critic.

But what really happens here is that you simply dont like photography. I do. Do you have an issue regarding it? ;)

But what really happens here is that you simply dont like photography. I do. Do you have an issue regarding it? ;) -- Bodhi Dharma Zen

I used to like photography but as a kid and also motorcycles also as a kid. Nowadays, I seem to be through with all such contrivances. You know photography? Okay, tell me in fifty (50) words or less the meaning of f22.

I was so absorbed with photography but on a string budget that to save on films I devised a way to first expose one half of a frame for one shot and then the other half for another shot of a different object. If you want to know how I did that, ask me and I will tell you how, but with the old simple celluloid film camera.

I don't have any issue against photography. Sometimes I don't know what you are driving at with your to me cryptic or 'koan-ic' one liners.

Speech is difficult enough as it is, but Zen monks have to make speech even more difficult just to give the impression that they are saying something so dazzling. See if they can make a better mouse trap with their subtle dazzle of a speech habit.

And people can think properly and make sense to each other even on the most complex and complicated questions in simple, clear, common speech, without bringing in all kinds of supposedly contradictory nuances -- what for? except to appear smart to people who are busy enough without wondering whether there is something really momentous in absurd 'koan-ic' utterances.

But they don't know what life and the universe is all about...

Yes, tell that to the patient peasant working on his fields to produce from the earth whatever is needed to feed mankind. Now, I am really curious what monks, specially Zen monks, do for a living, when they are not into meditation on what is the sound of one hand clapping.

I suggest they take up farming, that should bring them down to earth and really get them to impact on reality. If I were a cynic I would say that Buddhism was invented by the Buddha to dispense himself and his followers from making an honest living with real work using their hands and shoulders, and of course their brains on the brain's original and natural assets.

What do Buddhist monks and Zen monks do for a living? Begging, out of humility and for being too busy to work for a living, busy with their absorption over suffering and man's purpose or meaning in the universe, ah yes, ultimate reality.

-------------------
Both Buddhism and biology are entirely products of man's mind, and both can only study human's affairs. I could enter a discussion regarding what is and what is not independent of human's minds. But it wont be a productive chat.

Both Buddhism and biology are entirely products of man's mind... Entirely?

"It seems that International Pedantry Month has rolled around again." -- Ryokan #180 above.

Anyway, hahahaha softly.

Yrreg

Ryokan

3rd February 2006, 06:42 PM

"It seems that International Pedantry Month has rolled around again." -- Ryokan #180 above.

I never said that.

yrreg

3rd February 2006, 06:53 PM

There is some latitude of self referencing communication sets in mathematics. 1+1=2 only because we define it that way, so it is not a fact but a definition.
The law of gravity describes the observed behavior of objects, that does not mean that the law of gravity exists, it means there is a human description for the observations.
So there are things that we believe to be true through defintion or description.

You are using some defintions there, there are things that can be observed, and there are conventions in the languaga used to describe the observations. Science is not a process of aquire facts but describing the behavior of observations.

Definitions are not arbitrary unless you live inside the mind of a Buddhist in Nirvana, or with Alice in Wonderland.

See if you can get anywhere protesting that one plus one equals two is just a definition, in the bank and in the supermarket.

See if you can survive in the turnpikes with your protestation that the formulations of physical laws are only definitions to describe the physical world according to man's perception. They should take away your driver's licence and keep you in a safe house, for your own preservation and to save others from you.

Yrreg

Bodhi Dharma Zen

3rd February 2006, 07:34 PM

I used to like photography but as a kid and also motorcycles also as a kid. Nowadays, I seem to be through with all such contrivances. You know photography? Okay, tell me in fifty (50) words or less the meaning of f22.

With Google around those kind of questions are even boring. Don't you think?

I don't have any issue against photography. Sometimes I don't know what you are driving at with your to me cryptic or 'koan-ic' one liners.

Nothing like that, you are seeing your own predjuices. Im talking about things that you like and things you dont like, and saying that Buddhism is like that. You dont like it, some of us do. And you are the only one who has a problem with that! Maybe its time to get over it? ;)

Speech is difficult enough as it is, but Zen monks have to make speech even more difficult just to give the impression that they are saying something so dazzling. See if they can make a better mouse trap with their subtle dazzle of a speech habit.

"just to give the impression", obviously, from your point of view. From mine, its a way to transcend words and see the meaning behind them. You have not read Wittgenstein, have you? He understood so well that the meaning of words is not as clear as you believe when you demand that Buddhists should be clear. Clear about what? Your personal preferences about what is ok and what is not?

except to appear smart to people who are busy enough without wondering whether there is something really momentous in absurd 'koan-ic' utterances.

I sense anger.

Yes, tell that to the patient peasant working on his fields to produce from the earth whatever is needed to feed mankind. Now, I am really curious what monks, specially Zen monks, do for a living, when they are not into meditation on what is the sound of one hand clapping.

Usually the work in Zen monasteries is hard. Whats your point?

I suggest they take up farming, that should bring them down to earth and really get them to impact on reality.

Oh they do. Besides, and this is much more important... Whos reality? I already covered this several posts ago. You didnt read, or maybe you could not understand. My bad for assuming you could read more than what is written.

... busy with their absorption over suffering and man's purpose or meaning in the universe, ah yes, ultimate reality.

So, the ultimate reality is yours and only yours?

Both Buddhism and biology are entirely products of man's mind... Entirely?

So who is the cryptic here? LOL

epepke

3rd February 2006, 07:41 PM

ETA : In the sense that if you want to study the truths of Buddhism, you have to study Buddhists. You can, of course, study the subject of Buddhism without examening a single Buddhist.

Quite true, but I think it's a different point.

Elind

3rd February 2006, 07:44 PM

budhism, IS NOT A RELIGION!!!!

OVER THE YEARS IT TOOK THE CHARACTERISTIC OF A RELIGION.
HOWEVER, IF YOU BECAME A MONK YOU WILL KNOW THAT.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH

* GOING TO A BETTER PLACE.
* LIVING A 'BETTER' LIFE.
* SOME SUPER BEINGS OR GODS.

BUDHISM IS ABOUT.. TO PUT IT SHORTLY

* SEEING/KNOWING/REALISING THE REALITY AS THEY ARE
* HAVING/ACHIEVING/LEARNING THE RIGHT UNDERSTANDING
* BEING MINDFUL OF THE EXISTANCE. PRESENCE/PRESENT(NOW)/PERPETUITY

snip

So, if I change a few words here and there, how is this fundamentaly different from Scientology?

epepke

3rd February 2006, 07:44 PM

I never said that.

No; that was mine.

yrreg

3rd February 2006, 08:24 PM

The following text came from me and appears in the post from me reproduced in the quote box below, ANNEX, in the second to the last line.

There is an honest mistake in that excerpt, the attribution should be to Epepke, not Ryokan.

Wrong attribution:
"It seems that International Pedantry Month has rolled around again." -- Ryokan #180 above.

Correct attribution:
"It seems that International Pedantry Month has rolled around again." -- Epepke #180 above.

Sincere regrets to Ryokan and to Epepke.

Yrreg

ANNEX:

But what really happens here is that you simply dont like photography. I do. Do you have an issue regarding it? ;) -- Bodhi Dharma Zen

I used to like photography but as a kid and also motorcycles also as a kid. Nowadays, I seem to be through with all such contrivances. You know photography? Okay, tell me in fifty (50) words or less the meaning of f22.

I was so absorbed with photography but on a string budget that to save on films I devised a way to first expose one half of a frame for one shot and then the other half for another shot of a different object. If you want to know how I did that, ask me and I will tell you how, but with the old simple celluloid film camera.

I don't have any issue against photography. Sometimes I don't know what you are driving at with your to me cryptic or 'koan-ic' one liners.

Speech is difficult enough as it is, but Zen monks have to make speech even more difficult just to give the impression that they are saying something so dazzling. See if they can make a better mouse trap with their subtle dazzle of a speech habit.

And people can think properly and make sense to each other even on the most complex and complicated questions in simple, clear, common speech, without bringing in all kinds of supposedly contradictory nuances -- what for? except to appear smart to people who are busy enough without wondering whether there is something really momentous in absurd 'koan-ic' utterances.

But they don't know what life and the universe is all about...

Yes, tell that to the patient peasant working on his fields to produce from the earth whatever is needed to feed mankind. Now, I am really curious what monks, specially Zen monks, do for a living, when they are not into meditation on what is the sound of one hand clapping.

I suggest they take up farming, that should bring them down to earth and really get them to impact on reality. If I were a cynic I would say that Buddhism was invented by the Buddha to dispense himself and his followers from making an honest living with real work using their hands and shoulders, and of course their brains on the brain's original and natural assets.

What do Buddhist monks and Zen monks do for a living? Begging, out of humility and for being too busy to work for a living, busy with their absorption over suffering and man's purpose or meaning in the universe, ah yes, ultimate reality.

-------------------

Both Buddhism and biology are entirely products of man's mind, and both can only study human's affairs. I could enter a discussion regarding what is and what is not independent of human's minds. But it wont be a productive chat.

Both Buddhism and biology are entirely products of man's mind... Entirely?

"It seems that International Pedantry Month has rolled around again." -- Ryokan #180 above.

Anyway, hahahaha softly.

Yrreg

merentha

3rd February 2006, 09:27 PM

should try though,meditation i mean.
Maybe you will learn to enjoy life much more then you knew. ^^
but if it seems like just sitting down doing nothing.. then it is ok. try yoga, or fishing, taichi is good also.
you have a great perspective on life. the thing about a 'god' seemed a little negative. but i lean towards agreeing with you.
you writings are your own thoughts, i appreciate them.

I've tried yoga. If anything can be called suffering, it's yoga. :p I'm not exactly the most flexible person in the world. I've also done taichi. Too much woo about mysterious "qi" enervating my health. As an exercise, I barely sweat. As for fishing, it's likely a remnant of my Buddhist upbringing for the thought of killing a live fish for sport just upsets me terribly.

I wouldn't say that I was seriously meditating. But there was one occasion when I experienced something that a more gullible person would have called OOBE. I reckoned I had a waking dream. Overall, I didn't find any tangible or intangible benefits associated with meditation. In fact, the struggle to keep out stray thoughts and focus only on my breathing stresses me. I like to think, even if I'm just imagining rubbish.

nosho

4th February 2006, 01:03 AM

All good points. I have to agree with you.

ETA : In the sense that if you want to study the truths of Buddhism, you have to study Buddhists. You can, of course, study the subject of Buddhism without examening a single Buddhist.
Sorry, but I still disagree.

(And I'm surprised that someone who considers himself a "Buddhist" would say that the way to study the truths of Buddhism is to study Buddhists.)

My original observation on this subject stemmed from Yrreg's post:
There is something very peculiarly different between Buddhism which is a worldview and say biology which is a science, namely: you cannot study Buddhism without examining Buddhists, but you can study biology without examining biologists.
He made this comment in the context of explaining that he identifies himself as "Resident Buddhist Critic" in response to you calling yourself "Resident Buddhist." Part of his "skeptical criticism" is to examine you personally. How does Ryokan react? Is Ryokan equanimous? How about Bodhi Dharma Zen? How do the Buddhists on this forum conduct themselves, and what does that say about Buddhism? So that's one thing that "examining Buddhists" means. Examining Buddhists = Examining Ryokan.

What else does that mean, "examining Buddhists"? Epepke said it means "subjecting the claims of Buddhist[s] that are attributed to Buddhism to skeptical study." What claims? Which ones? Whose? There are countless claims. You're going to get lost in the claims.

Examining Buddhists is a laborious and woefully inexact way of studying Buddhism. How does the Dalai Lama feel about this? What does Lama Surya Das say about that? What does Ryokan claim? How about Alan Wallace? How about S.N. Goenka? It can become an endless exercise in nitpicking and, yes, pedantry. You will never, never understand Buddhism by following this path of inquiry.

I'm not saying there's no value in studying Buddhists in the sense of delving deep into what they have to say. Especially after one has some authentic understanding of the basics. But focusing in on individual and possibly idiosyncratic points of view or behavior will be a distraction for a person who is seriously trying to grasp the fundamental concepts of Buddhism.

That is what we're trying to do, isn't it? Understand Buddhism, not just beat up on some straw-man version of it? If not, then this whole discussion is just a game of trying to find the most outrageous claims and poke holes in them. That might be fun, but it's not meaningful inquiry. To me it seems like a waste of time.

If that's what we're doing here, I don't think we should pretend that we're seriously trying to study Buddhism.

yrreg

4th February 2006, 01:28 AM

Click on the boxed arrow above to see Bodhi's post, I will just react here to some lines from his message.

Dear Bodhi, first, let's have a good laugh, ala Fat Laughing Buddha, Hotei, I think as Ryokan informed me that's his name; and Merentha tells us the Fat Laughing Buddha is the next Maitreya to come, another Buddha reincarnate, and I read that he is the final one, to inaugurate the era of true Dharma and rule the world in peace and in prosperity -- shade of the rapture.

Hahahaha, hohohoho, hahahaha, hohohoho! And recall that Hotei, the Fat Laughing Buddha, he was a Zen monk himself. Now, if all you Zen guys get to be Fat Laughing Buddhas, mankind would have more mirth and fun.

-------------------

I seem to be in some deja vu here, reminiscent of Username and specially D David, who just got to put in their last word.

Allow me to invite you, good Bodhi, to be my teacher then, for this episode of the present thread. Let me seek instructions from you.

-------------------

Originally Posted by yrreg :
I used to like photography but as a kid and motorcycles also as a kid. Nowadays, I seem to be through with all such contrivances. You know photography? Okay, tell me in fifty (50) words or less the meaning of f22 in photography.

Bodhi:
With Google around those kind of questions are even boring. Don't you think?
I just want to see you explaining f22 in fifty (50) or less words, so that I can use your draft as a model for KISS writing: Keep It Simple and Short. So, dear teacher, don't disappoint me, have a some compassion, or exercise a compassionate heart toward a student, a learner.

Originally Posted by yrreg :
Speech is difficult enough as it is, but Zen monks have to make speech even more difficult just to give the impression that they are saying something so dazzling. See if they can make a better mouse trap with their subtle dazzle of a speech habit.

Bodhi:
"just to give the impression", obviously, from your point of view. From mine, its a way to transcend words and see the meaning behind them. You have not read Wittgenstein, have you? He understood so well that the meaning of words is not as clear as you believe when you demand that Buddhists should be clear. Clear about what? Your personal preferences about what is ok and what is not?
Dear teacher Bodhi, please give me again in fifty (50) words or less, what Wittgenstein said about his having "understood so well that the meaning of words is not as clear as you believe..." Just tell me if Wittgenstein means that people can never be clear with their words as they think they are clear?

I am always very unhappy with people who bring in names of supposedly authorities, like Buddha and Wittgenstein, as though they themselves don't or they can't see at all the sense in anything, unless some authorities say it; and others are like them, who cannot see any sense unless some authorities are cited in support.

If Buddha says anything that makes sense to you and you are of average intelligence like Yrreg, then you can just tell it to me in your own words, and rest assured that I can accept it also because I can see the sense in it; so also with Wittgenstein. At most you can just give the credit to Buddha and to Wittgenstein for seeing the sense in something which you yourself can also see the sense thereof, once you do apply your at least average intelligence to the matter.

Anyway, tell me in your own words fifty (50) or less what Wittgenstein said in the present connection about the clearness or more correctly unclearness of words, from the standpoint of the speaker and from the standpoint of the listener. Is he trying to convince people that speaker and listener can never be clear about the words, their own, passing between them? That so? Why then does he even bother to talk to us? No, I am not being cryptic but really asking you, That so?

Please, for the love of Buddha or more appropriately, Hotei, the Fat Laughing Buddha, and also Wittgenstein, just because one Gautama and one Wittgenstein spoke, so we are supposed to be dumb and dumber and more dumb.

That is why I am prone to depression, aside from my genes, I see people moving around after having read Buddhist sutras and Zen-nic koans, behaving or appearing dumb and dumber and more dumb and expecting everyone to be and do likewise; otherwise they won't get to the ultimate reality of life and the universe in the case of Buddha's expectation, or Wittgenstein's expectation of clarity or its absence in words.

Originally Posted by yrreg :
I suggest they take up farming, that should bring them down to earth and really get them to impact on reality.

Bodhi:
Oh they do.
I will do some searching around on farming among Buddhist and Zen monks, and get back to you.

Yrreg

PS Please see next post.

yrreg

4th February 2006, 01:39 AM

I am back.

No, I can't find one Buddhist sangha (read that, monastery), not even of the Zen strain, doing farming for a living. At most they are landlords, others do the farming for them in their vast tracts.

But I came across good accounts of the wealth of Buddhist monasteries; they got so rich and influential that they could threaten kinds and emperors -- notwithstanding their profession of detachment from material things.

How do Buddhist monks get to be fabulous with material opulence?

Consider the following verities about how humans acquire wealth, which work also for Buddhist monks united in communities, and also any religious collectivity:

Rule 1: A group can gain wealth more and faster than an individual. Buddhist monks work as a community, thus they get rich faster and more, in the normal course of things.

Rule 2: Religious institutions always end up at the top of the money ziggurat; you don't believe that? then look around with eyes open, not shut like in meditation. Buddhist monks together constitute religious institutions.

Rule 3: People will pay for anything they have been convinced to be good for them. Buddhist monks teach people about earning merits for good karma in their next rebirth; merits can be earned by giving money to the sangha; of course so that the monks can teach more people more and better dharma, so that everyone will get to Nirvana after a series of good karmas and good rebirths.

Rule 4: Money will produce more money unless owners gamble it away; Buddhist monks don't gamble, but they invest their money in everything that is not conspicuously unsavory. Mortuaries are good investments, because everyone dies and everyone at the moment of dying wants to be in the hands of religious people having charge of their lot beyond the grave, like Buddhist monks.

Rule 5: Stick close to politicians and government people, you will make money with them and through them and make more money continuing with them. Buddhist monks inevitably find themselves on good terms with kings and emperors, because they have the hearts and minds of the masses, which they can turn toward loyalty to earthly rulers; so earthly rulers are motivated to load them with privileges amounting to material wealth.

Lesson to be learned here: If you want to get rich, and control man's hearts and minds, go into religion.

Yrreg

yrreg

4th February 2006, 03:11 AM

The more I know of the Buddhists here the more I am convinced of the deep and wide chasm between Buddhist skeptics and non-Buddhist skeptics here.

I have read the posts of Buddhists here, and they exhibit a trend.

First they proclaim themselves to be skeptics, but at the same time also call themselves and proudly in one of them to be Buddhists. And I am sure I have read their logically calling themselves Buddhist skeptics.

No, they don't call themselves skeptical Buddhists, but Buddhist skeptics, meaning they are Buddhist first and skeptics second.

Is that possible? I don't think so, because when you are a skeptic you don't subsume your skepticism under any other kind of limiting qualification like Buddhist or Christian or Masonic.

You can call yourself resident skeptic or visiting skeptic or alien skeptic or Polish skeptic or Indian skeptic, these designations don't detract from your skepticism, they just inform people of your extra or intra domicile circumstance or your foreign or national or country of origin.

But when you call yourself a Buddhist skeptic, you already encapsulate your skepticism to within the capsule of Buddhism which is a worldview.

You tell me that your Buddhism does not include karma, rebirth, nirvana beyond the grave, just meditation, the Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path, and nirvana only the kind within one's lifetime.

Still I can't see your kind of Buddhist skepticism to be anything else than compromised Buddhism. I feel that it's not the right kind of skepticism, well at least not the kind that is practiced by the founders and operators of the CSICOP and the JREF which runs this skeptical forum.

Why do I feel this way?

The reason is because the skepticism I see in the CSICOP and in the JREF is what I know to be scientific skepticism; but as you Buddhist folks here admit and even declare yourselves, Buddhism is not science and not scientific, how then can you in a way straitjacket a scientific advocacy into a non-scientific worldview?

Consider that even though you don't believe in karma, in rebirth, in some nirvana post death and beyond the grave; what you do believe and cultivate are not scientific, namely, meditation in order to attain some kind of science knows what knowledge or information or data about life and the universe.

What about the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, they are not scientific but moralistic principles, or components of a code of conduct; however I grant that although they are not science or scientific, yet they can be studied scientifically to discern, why and how and to what effects people choose to embrace them and practice them.

Now, I think I know what is really absent in your Buddhism however you delimit it only to meditation, the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, and nirvana in one's lifetime -- what's absent in them? There is no scientific evidence for them.

You see, skepticism for me is complete liberty of inquiry; but you guys for spousing Buddhism cannot be free completely, because you have imposed on your mental horizons the Buddhist cosmos with its alpha and omega against which and beyond which you are not allowed to tread.

Suppose let's say that you guys, Buddhists here, are bachelors but are now going into marriage; your brides-to-be ask you whether you can be on your own with all kinds of freedom to think and decide and act; you say, yes.

Then after the wedding when one of you guys with your bride board the plane to fly to your honeymoon destinations, there is your mother also coming into the plane. you explain to your bride that your mother just happens to be going on the same trip.

But then she also checks into the same hotel in your first stop; you explain to your bride that she just happens to choose the same hotel. Yet for the rest of your honeymoon you and your bride always have your mother hanging around, still you keep explaining to your bride that your mother just happens to be hanging around you, and that you are definitely and completely freed of your mother, to think and to decide and to act for yourself.

And that's what the Buddhists are doing all the time here, explaining and defending and qualifying and making reservations, in order to keep to their attachment to Buddhism and at the same time claim to be skeptics.

Hahaha softly.

Yrreg

Bodhi Dharma Zen

4th February 2006, 07:32 AM

Less than 50 words:

Think what you like dear Yrreg. ;)

ETA: Life is already complex without torturing yourself with pointless questions. You don't like Buddhism, thats fine. Now move on and have a nice day!

yrreg

4th February 2006, 03:53 PM

Less than 50 words:

Think what you like dear Yrreg.

ETA: Life is already complex without torturing yourself with pointless questions. You don't like Buddhism, thats fine. Now move on and have a nice day!

Thanks, Bodh, for your fraternal concern. Move on and have a nice day! Actually I do feel a little bit guilty for spending time more than I should writing posts here. But the wife and kids are happy to have me doing something that is safe and quiet, and I do enjoy writing posts.

There are a number of minor chores in the house I should be busy with, like replacing that ceiling bulb no longer lighting up since two years now, but the wife heartily agrees with me every time I tell myself in her presence that anyway we can get around safely without light from that bulb. That is the kind of wife she is, very accommodating to me when I shirk from small duties in the house out of preference for more interesting occupations.

Forgive me at this point, but I also have this vanity of explaining to people who do ask me, to explain things to them in KISS way, i.e., keeping the explanation simple and short, of course clearly -- in Less than 50 words.

So, and please forgive me for this hubris: anyone here even guest, wanting to know in photography, what is f22, and how to use your old film camera as to take two shots for every frame of the film, and with Wittgenstein, what he means with absence of clearness in human speech, just let me know and I will explain to you in each case with fifty (50) words or less, and promise you not only to be simple and short, but certainly also clear, enough for any person to grasp with at least an average intelligence.

Life is already complex without torturing yourself with pointless questions.

If asking pointless questions is torturing oneself, then I am a masochist; I refer to the pointless, not to the questions.

The more I know of Buddha's words and actuations the more I admire the man's clever and smart mind.

First, he is very clever and smart to not have written down anything at all, when he was certainly literate, could read and could write. No, he was a no read and no write guy? Then still very and even more clever and more smart. Why? Because only fools put down anything at all in writing.

Second, he tells people listening to him to decide for themselves what is true while he already enjoys and wields what I call psychological advantage over them, with his princely rank on the one hand, and his fancy concepts and words on the other.

Third, he clears the last obstacle in his drive to make captive the hearts and minds of men, again with his psychological advantage over them, by convincing them to not ask questions because and take it from him, they are pointless.

This is one dude of a religious teacher who lived and preached in that long span of years, 563-483 BCE, eighty years, when people could not survive unless exceptionally beyond forty, and he didn't put down anything in writing, not even by dictation to contractual pen pushers.

If gaining and exercising power over fellow humans is an eternal irrestible drive in man as in animals, then this dude, Buddha, had attained his power campaign and enjoyed his hold over men for over half a century in his long lifetime, posthumously still for 2,500 years now, even over guys like the Buddhists here: Ryokan, D David, Username, Nosho, Complexity, Bodh, et alii, all otherwise literate and no reprobate in the world of ideas and reasons, and that without ingesting any drug to experience that kind of a high.

That is also what I call studying Buddhism by studying Buddhists, starting with the first one and its originator.

Yrreg

10001

4th February 2006, 05:21 PM

[QUOTE=yrreg;1424023]

The more I know of Buddha's words and actuations the more I admire the man's clever and smart mind.

First, he is very clever and smart to not have written down anything at all, when he was certainly literate, could read and could write. No, he was a no read and no write guy? Then still very and even more clever and more smart. Why? Because only fools put down anything at all in writing.

Second, he tells people listening to him to decide for themselves what is true while he already enjoys and wields what I call psychological advantage over them, with his princely rank on the one hand, and his fancy concepts and words on the other.

Third, he clears the last obstacle in his drive to make captive the hearts and minds of men, again with his psychological advantage over them, by convincing them to not ask questions because and take it from him, they are pointless.

This is one dude of a religious teacher who lived and preached in that long span of years, 563-483 BCE, eighty years, when people could not survive unless exceptionally beyond forty, and he didn't put down anything in writing, not even by dictation to contractual pen pushers.

If gaining and exercising power over fellow humans is an eternal irrestible drive in man as in animals, then this dude, Buddha, had attained his power campaign and enjoyed his hold over men for over half a century in his long lifetime, posthumously still for 2,500 years now, even over guys like the Buddhists here: Ryokan, D David, Username, Nosho, Complexity, Bodh, et alii, all otherwise literate and no reprobate in the world of ideas and reasons, and that without ingesting any drug to experience that kind of a high.

That is also what I call studying Buddhism by studying Buddhists, starting with the first one and its originator.

Yrreg[/QUO

i putout a thread for people like you.
titled

'do you believe in what you read?'

now i can see that you are not a budhist critic. rather there are more negative feelings in you about budhism rather then to be a critic.
hay! that is totaly OK.

the budhist here does not mean you any ill feelings.

am i a budhist? the answer is NO

All that logic and memory from reading and growing up you display, which shows what is in side you does not do good justice for the 'real person that you are'

epepke

4th February 2006, 10:23 PM

That is what we're trying to do, isn't it? Understand Buddhism, not just beat up on some straw-man version of it? If not, then this whole discussion is just a game of trying to find the most outrageous claims and poke holes in them. That might be fun, but it's not meaningful inquiry. To me it seems like a waste of time.

So, basically, you don't like what yyreg and I are trying to study, and it pisses you off, and you think that we should be doing something else.

Gotcha.

Dancing David

5th February 2006, 07:00 AM

Definitions are not arbitrary unless you live inside the mind of a Buddhist in Nirvana, or with Alice in Wonderland.

See if you can get anywhere protesting that one plus one equals two is just a definition, in the bank and in the supermarket.

See if you can survive in the turnpikes with your protestation that the formulations of physical laws are only definitions to describe the physical world according to man's perception. They should take away your driver's licence and keep you in a safe house, for your own preservation and to save others from you.

Yrreg

Yrreg:
Do you not understand the difference bewteen concepts/thought and reality.

This is very old thread material on this forum. There are thoughts and concepts and then there is reality. The two are related but it is not solely a buddhist distinction to note the difference.

Physical processes exist, I did not say that they are solely the product of the mind. But thier description in languaga is just that, it is a description used by human beings to communicate thier thoughts about observations. It is a well accepted fact in science that theories are models that predict behavior, however there is a clear distinction between the theory and reality. A theory which acurately predeicts the behavior of observations is considered to be useful. Gravity, inertia exists but they are only described by 'laws' like (gravitational acceleration at the earth's suface equals sixteen feet per second squared) or (f=ma). There is not a law that exists in nature, there are observable processes that exist and there are the words and thoughts used to describe the observed process.

Do you think that you thoughts are a direct replication of reality? If so then you need to check out scepticism again.

I know that you aren't reading this because that's who you are: But do you understand that 'numbers' only exist in human thoughts and communications. They do not exist in reality , they are conventions of speach, they do not exist in reality except as humans relating thoughts to each other.

Take the phrase : 1+1+2
is that the truth or is the truth:
01+01=10?

This seems to further my belief that you are here just to say what you want and not communicate with other:

Can you give me a source for Pes Oir Asmus, or should we suspend our scepticism of your beliefs and statements completely?

Dancing David

5th February 2006, 07:14 AM

Just for laughs:
[quote]
The more I know of the Yrregs here the more I am convinced of the deep and wide chasm between Yrreg skeptics and non-Yrreg skeptics here.

I have read the posts of Yrregs here, and they exhibit a trend.

First they proclaim themselves to be skeptics, but at the same time also call themselves and proudly in one of them to be Yrregs. And I am sure I have read their logically calling themselves Yrreg skeptics.

No, they don't call themselves skeptical Yrregs, but Yrreg skeptics, meaning they are Yrreg first and skeptics second.

Is that possible? I don't think so, because when you are a skeptic you don't subsume your skepticism under any other kind of limiting qualification like Yrreg or Christian or Masonic.

You can call yourself resident skeptic or visiting skeptic or alien skeptic or Polish skeptic or Indian skeptic, these designations don't detract from your skepticism, they just inform people of your extra or intra domicile circumstance or your foreign or national or country of origin.

But when you call yourself a Yrreg skeptic, you already encapsulate your skepticism to within the capsule of Yrreg which is a worldview.

You tell me that your Yrreg does not include karma, rebirth, nirvana beyond the grave, just meditation, the Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path, and nirvana only the kind within one's lifetime.

Still I can't see your kind of Yrreg skepticism to be anything else than compromised Yrreg. I feel that it's not the right kind of skepticism, well at least not the kind that is practiced by the founders and operators of the CSICOP and the JREF which runs this skeptical forum.

Why do I feel this way?

The reason is because the skepticism I see in the CSICOP and in the JREF is what I know to be scientific skepticism; but as you Yrreg folks here admit and even declare yourselves, Yrreg is not science and not scientific, how then can you in a way straitjacket a scientific advocacy into a non-scientific worldview?

Consider that even though you don't believe in karma, in rebirth, in some nirvana post death and beyond the grave; what you do believe and cultivate are not scientific, namely, meditation in order to attain some kind of science knows what knowledge or information or data about life and the universe.

What about the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, they are not scientific but moralistic principles, or components of a code of conduct; however I grant that although they are not science or scientific, yet they can be studied scientifically to discern, why and how and to what effects people choose to embrace them and practice them.

Now, I think I know what is really absent in your Yrreg however you delimit it only to meditation, the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, and nirvana in one's lifetime -- what's absent in them? There is no scientific evidence for them.

You see, skepticism for me is complete liberty of inquiry; but you guys for spousing Yrreg cannot be free completely, because you have imposed on your mental horizons the Yrreg cosmos with its alpha and omega against which and beyond which you are not allowed to tread.

Suppose let's say that you guys, Yrregs here, are bachelors but are now going into marriage; your brides-to-be ask you whether you can be on your own with all kinds of freedom to think and decide and act; you say, yes.

Then after the wedding when one of you guys with your bride board the plane to fly to your honeymoon destinations, there is your mother also coming into the plane. you explain to your bride that your mother just happens to be going on the same trip.

But then she also checks into the same hotel in your first stop; you explain to your bride that she just happens to choose the same hotel. Yet for the rest of your honeymoon you and your bride always have your mother hanging around, still you keep explaining to your bride that your mother just happens to be hanging around you, and that you are definitely and completely freed of your mother, to think and to decide and to act for yourself.

And that's what the Yrregs are doing all the time here, explaining and defending and qualifying and making reservations, in order to keep to their attachment to Yrreg and at the same time claim to be skeptics.
[quote]

Ryokan

5th February 2006, 08:07 AM

Take the phrase : 1+1+2
is that the truth or is the truth:
01+01=10?

There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't ^^

Bodhi Dharma Zen

5th February 2006, 08:56 AM

Forgive me at this point, but I also have this vanity of explaining to people who do ask me, to explain things to them in KISS way, i.e., keeping the explanation simple and short, of course clearly -- in Less than 50 words.

And thats ok, if you are baking some eggs. But lets see, after 2500 years, I won't expect to have an accurate description of who was and how was the person called "Buddha". Why bother in trying to find out who he "really" was? This is for the historical part, but there is more.

Do you honestly think that if you talk with 5 (or 100) Buddhists you will understand it better? Every single individual is a universe, everything they think, see, believe, its because all those million of things that compose an individual. Ask 1000 of them about what, exactly, is Buddhism (or Science, or Philosophy or Christianism) and you will get 1000 different answers!

BTW Wittgenstein said that the meaning of a word (any word) its its use in a particular language.

This is with a lot less than 50 words, do you noticed it? ;) still, let me tell you that Im in a group of philosophers who discuss this matters, and we often spend hours talking about a small paragraph of one of his books.

Oh, and f22 is a calibrated aperture size of the diaphragm, it regulates the amount of light that passes to the film or digital sensor.

Now, does this definiton covers what you were thinking about f22? My guess is that no, exactly like the Wittgenstein definition (and Buddhism definition!), because you have your own "mental structure" (forgive me for the rather simple term) composed on the expectations you have generated in regard with your own way to see the world.

Nobody, but you, can construct what you want regarding your own expectations.

Now, if you really wanted to know about whats "the foundation" of Buddhism (according to me) then you need to focus only on one thing: Who is this "you" who likes to sign like Yrreg?

Dancing David

6th February 2006, 09:02 AM

(In consideration of Yrreg’s request that all statements be of fifty words or less. )

Yrreg it would seem that you have made the following argument. There are questions to which the buddha offered no answer, therefore the buddha was not a skeptic. The quality that defines the skeptic is the asking of questions.

This seems to be a fallacy of composition. Through the specific definition of a skeptic as one who asks questions the buddha would be a skeptic , the buddha often use the Socratic method (so called). Therefore the buddha meets the standard of skeptic in that he asks questions.

If we use the alternate definition: the buddha was not a skeptic because he did not answer questions. The buddha chose to answer many questions. The buddha often tried to answer the questions posed and gave an answer that was appropriate to the questioner. In fact in many ways the buddha was quite a wind bag by today’s standards as he often answered in long prose statements.

For example: Yrreg you seem to have stated that you merit the badge of skeptic (and the cool benefits that derive thereof!) , but while you often pose questions, it would seem that you often do not seem to answer them. Through conjugation of Yrreg and the buddha the following devolves rapidly from there:

If Yrreg is a skeptic then the buddha is a skeptic as well. Yrreg does not answer questions ,he is a skeptic, therefore the buddha is a skeptic. Yrreg is a skeptic he chooses not to answer questions, the buddha is also a skeptic because he does the same. If Yrreg is a skeptic and he chooses to answer questions and not others, the buddha is the same: same.

If further we pose that in agreement of Yrreg’s assertion: the best way to study buddhism is through the observation of buddhists, it would seem that the buddhists ask a lot of questions and therefore are skeptics. Further the buddhists have tried to answer questions therefore they are skeptics. The buddhists also answer some questions and not others therefore they are skeptics.

In conclusion the following is suggested: Yrreg is a skeptic and chooses to ask questions, therefore the buddha is a skeptic, Yrreg is a skeptic and chooses to not answer questions , therefore the buddha is a skeptic. Yrreg is a skeptic and he chooses to answers some questions and not others, therefore the buddha is also a skeptic.

In summation If Yrreg is a skeptic then the buddha is a skeptic. If the buddha is not a skeptic then Yrreg is not a skeptic. Yrreg's first assertion that the buddha is not a skeptic because he did not answer questions therefore Yrreg is also not a skeptic because he does not answer questions. Same: same.

yrreg

9th February 2006, 10:31 PM

Dear Bod, allow me to commend you on your Zen-ic equanimity, that is the upside; now the downside is most probably without the invest in Zen (time, labor, expense, trouble) you could have mastered equanimity as well.

Look at me, have I ever uttered a harsh word here in the midst of being called a cockroach, mentally ill, troll, strawman, etc., and having the a* word and the f* hurled at me, from one of your one Buddhist savant here? I just listened to my mother and the better behaved members of my family and close circles of friends, and keep myself in their company, emulating their polite social and personal manners.

Hahaha softly, this is the Fat Happy Laughing Buddha (aka Pu-tai in Chinese and Hotei in Japanese) talking.

(Please proceed outside this quote box for Bod's text and my reactions.)

Bod:
And thats ok, if you are baking some eggs. But lets see, after 2500 years, I won't expect to have an accurate description of who was and how was the person called "Buddha". Why bother in trying to find out who he "really" was? This is for the historical part, but there is more.

Do you honestly think that if you talk with 5 (or 100) Buddhists you will understand it better? Every single individual is a universe, everything they think, see, believe, its because all those million of things that compose an individual. Ask 1000 of them about what, exactly, is Buddhism (or Science, or Philosophy or Christianism) and you will get 1000 different answers!
Yrreg:
You remember I always insist on the big picture and the short statement. When you see so many different trees, plants, it is very hard to see the forest. But if you go up in an airplane and even higher in a satellite, or hook a camera in it to take pictures of the earth, then you can see where the forests are (if any are left or small patches), the oceans, the dry lands and the deserts.

-------------

Bod:
BTW Wittgenstein said that the meaning of a word (any word) its its use in a particular language.

This is with a lot less than 50 words, do you noticed it? ;) still, let me tell you that Im in a group of philosophers who discuss this matters, and we often spend hours talking about a small paragraph of one of his books.
Yrreg:
"BTW Wittgenstein said that the meaning of a word (any word) its its use in a particular language." -- Bod

And he had to retire to a monastery and worked in its gardens, doing fervid thinking on words and writing books to tell us, what a kid knows instinctively; that is why a kid always listens to how adults use a word in order to use it to their adults' understanding. Let's have a Fat Happy Laughing Buddha's laugh to that; and remember he was one of you Zen folks.

---------------

Bod:
Oh, and f22 is a calibrated aperture size of the diaphragm, it regulates the amount of light that passes to the film or digital sensor.
Yrreg:
If your stacks are still intact, just tell me if you are given a camera with the f/1.8, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22 markings and stops defaced and the pointer removed; tell me how you are going to find out at what f/ stop the aperture happens to be opened?

Are you not curious to find out how to take two pictures on the same frame of a film in a very simple way without dismantling the camera, shooting a picture each in the two vertical halves of the film frame, that is with a very simple old celluloid photo camera?

--------------

Bod:
Now, does this definition covers what you were thinking about f22? My guess is that no, exactly like the Wittgenstein definition (and Buddhism definition!), because you have your own "mental structure" (forgive me for the rather simple term) composed on the expectations you have generated in regard with your own way to see the world.

Nobody, but you, can construct what you want regarding your own expectations.
Yrreg:
I think you mean that my construct of the world and my expectations are unique to the extent of being unbreachable obstacle to communicate with ordinary people like men in the street, and much less with Buddhists?

On the contrary, I tend to see clearly that Buddhists who insist on the non-self with their explanations are the ones, who are putting construct on and expectations of the world, which renders communication with them difficult if not impossible.

-----------------

Bod:
Now, if you really wanted to know about whats "the foundation" of Buddhism (according to me) then you need to focus only on one thing: Who is this "you" who likes to sign like Yrreg?
Yrreg:
You know, all these discussions about knowing Buddhism and knowing Buddhists, the fact is that Buddhism is a man-made stuff if it is anything at all in ideas or in objects. Now, man-man stuffs cannot be known faithfully except by asking their makers what they intend with their "manu-factures."

Even digging a hole by a man is senseless to onlookers unless you ask him about it, and he will tell you that it will be a well, or a cistern to catch and store rain water.

So also with Buddhism. We read the suttras to find out what purportedly the original Buddha -- though he was already one re-carnate from a line of incarnates [sic], meant by their teachings and their practices.

Now that there are still Buddhists, followers of Buddha, we have to ask them to tell us what Buddhism is all about for them; and much better than asking them is to study them; why? because people don't or can't tell you as well about themselves as you can know about them by studying them.

So, we can distinguish between the Buddhism that is the museum item good for antiquarian curiosity, and the Buddhism that is actually professed by living humans, and which we can access for examination to find out what these people are into.

Of course we can then if we prefer also compare what we find out about Buddhism from live-body Buddhists, to what antiquarians find out about the Buddhism in the suttras; and maybe or more probably realize that the Buddhism of the Westerners is really off-track from the Buddhism of the suttras.

And also most probably that the Buddhism of the Westerners are as far from Buddhism in the Far East, as American Indians are far far way from the Indians in India.

But don't count on me to study the suttras, my concentration is on live-body Buddhists. For the former we can depend on antiquarians.

Yrreg

yrreg

10th February 2006, 07:11 AM

Physical processes exist, I did not say that they are solely the product of the mind. But thier description in languaga is just that, it is a description used by human beings to communicate thier thoughts about observations. It is a well accepted fact in science that theories are models that predict behavior, however there is a clear distinction between the theory and reality. A theory which acurately predeicts the behavior of observations is considered to be useful. Gravity, inertia exists but they are only described by 'laws' like (gravitational acceleration at the earth's suface equals sixteen feet per second squared) or (f=ma). There is not a law that exists in nature, there are observable processes that exist and there are the words and thoughts used to describe the observed process.

...........

Take the phrase : 1+1+2
is that the truth or is the truth:
01+01=10?

Physical processes exist, I did not say that they are solely the product of the mind. But thier description in languaga is just that, it is a description used by human beings to communicate thier thoughts about observations. -- D David

Only to communicate? And not principally to control and manipulate what we can together with each other, the forces and materials of nature, and fellow humans?

Do this experiment, tell your wife or girlfriend: "Let's push this table to the opposite side of the room:" nothing happens between you and your partner together? Maybe nothing if your wife or girlfriend is dumb and blind. Okay, another example, in the movie house, shout: "Fire, fire, fire," loud and hysterically? Nothing happens?

-----------------------

Take the phrase : 1+1+2
is that the truth or is the truth:
01+01=10? -- D David

What indeed is your point here? that neither the decimal system nor the binary system can be employed in language to communicate with fellow humans about quantities and to construct computers and works of engineering and sciences of all kinds, and do also business and economics, and keep financial statements? and we choose one or the other or even more ways to represent quantities and manipulate them according to how easier and quicker and more accurately we can control and utilize the forces and materials of nature? Think also the formulas in physics, chemistry, and in mathematics.

------------------

You are completely dwelling in your non-world universe owing to your infatuation with Buddhist illusions, delusions, and hallucinations, that you can't think straight anymore as to know that language is not only to communicate thoughts but to enable people to work together to control and utilize the forces of nature and its materials.

No wonder Buddhists have produced nothing useful to mankind except groaning and moaning about suffering and groaning and moaning for eternal and absolute extinction of the self.

Anyway, let's have a good laugh together at how religion makes people think absurdly to their great inutility and even danger to themselves as well and worse to others.

Hahahaha, ala Fat Laughing Buddha. He is the best genius of a Chinese invention in religion.

Pachomius

PS Apologies for the apparently more fire to message ratio than I usually allow in my posts.

Pachomius

Bodhi Dharma Zen

10th February 2006, 08:16 AM

Dear Bod, allow me to commend you on your Zen-ic equanimity, that is the upside; now the downside is most probably without the invest in Zen (time, labor, expense, trouble) you could have mastered equanimity as well.

Huh, granted. Who said Buddhism is needed for that? ;) I would believe that, to a point, is a learned behaviour and also to an extent a genes thing.

You remember I always insist on the big picture and the short statement. When you see so many different trees, plants, it is very hard to see the forest. But if you go up in an airplane and even higher in a satellite, or hook a camera in it to take pictures of the earth, then you can see where the forests are (if any are left or small patches), the oceans, the dry lands and the deserts.

In both cases you are only seeing your expectations. Allow me to explain. When you focus, say, on a plant, what do you see? Maybe the textures, maybe its chemical composition, maybe its size, or could it be its medical properties? All depends on who you are, not in what is the "plant in itself". The same goes of course for the forest, or Buddhism. This is something I have told you in different ways, but you came back with the same arguments again and again ignoring what Im saying! ;)

Zen Buddhism helps you to change your point of view, and thus helps you to see that the knowledge about the world you believe to be "objective and real" is nothing but an opinion. For me, this is a good thing, for you it is not. I believe we can go along and with respect for each other without the need for the old "I am right you are wrong" stuff. Dont you?

And he (Wittgenstein) had to retire to a monastery and worked in its gardens, doing fervid thinking on words and writing books to tell us, what a kid knows instinctively; that is why a kid always listens to how adults use a word in order to use it to their adults' understanding. Let's have a Fat Happy Laughing Buddha's laugh to that; and remember he was one of you Zen folks.

Huh, I dont know anything about Wittgenstein being a Buddhist. I could be wrong, I tend not to focus on the people that much. I also dont understand what are you trying to imply when you say "he was one of you".

I do not suscribe myself to anything, including Buddhism. I do like it, but I also like so many other things. If anything, I would consider myself an Advaitin, as the title behind my avatar suggest ;) In fact, Im only writting here "defending" (LOL!) Buddhism because I do believe you are missinformed and sincerely wanting to learn. :)

Are you not curious to find out how to take two pictures on the same frame of a film in a very simple way without dismantling the camera, shooting a picture each in the two vertical halves of the film frame, that is with a very simple old celluloid photo camera?

I have never used a film camera. With a nice digital I would use Bulb, covering the lenses between the two pictures. Well thats the way I do it, how about you? Oh, and Im still learning btw, do you have any good sources, books or anything?

I think you mean that my construct of the world and my expectations are unique to the extent of being unbreachable obstacle to communicate with ordinary people like men in the street, and much less with Buddhists?

Nope, just to the extent of making you live in your particular world. Not that that is wrong, its normal, and we all do it.

On the contrary, I tend to see clearly that Buddhists who insist on the non-self with their explanations are the ones, who are putting construct on and expectations of the world, which renders communication with them difficult if not impossible.

Oh, on the contrary dear yrreg! some Buddhists are only seeing the world from a different perspective, one that its considered to be more primary because it defocus our particular liking (and attachement) for our ego. You see, it is the ego what is a construct, not what is "behind it".

You know, all these discussions about knowing Buddhism and knowing Buddhists, the fact is that Buddhism is a man-made stuff if it is anything at all in ideas or in objects. Now, man-man stuffs cannot be known faithfully except by asking their makers what they intend with their "manu-factures."

Still, you forgot, or ignore! the fact that EVERYTHING humans do is man-made stuff. Buddhism is no different from art, science, photography or bakery!

Lets say that some people are thirsty about "the truth", the so called "mystical stuff", about the old "god" or about what is this thing called "reality".

Then they find that all is an illusion projected to us "the individual" and then that even this individual is an illusion in itself.

You are welcomed to think what you like, dear yrreg, but in the end this thing has being around people for more than 2,500 years. Love it, hate it, embrace it, ridiculize it. That doesnt change anything!

You are certainly entitled to say that its a waste of time, but in the same manner I can say that all this effort from you is a waste of time, you will not change the buddhist world, or even a single believer. You can try, if that helps you, but I believe you really need something else.

Maybe learning to see the world from a different perspective. ;)

yrreg

10th February 2006, 05:35 PM

Bod:
In both cases you are only seeing your expectations. Allow me to explain. When you focus, say, on a plant, what do you see? Maybe the textures, maybe its chemical composition, maybe its size, or could it be its medical properties? All depends on who you are, not in what is the "plant in itself". The same goes of course for the forest, or Buddhism. This is something I have told you in different ways, but you came back with the same arguments again and again ignoring what Im saying!

Yrreg:
I think, Bod, we should work at what we can agree on first, instead on hammering on what we disagree on.

In the above paragraph from you, we can agree that we both see, say, a tree. I can see many things and aspects of the tree which we can agree about as what also you see. But we can also disagree about a number of things and aspects about the tree, like how old it is, how much water it takes from the soil every so many hours.

However in both instances what we agree on and what we disagree on are not arbitrary; they are founded on factors independent of our sight, namely, these factors continue to be and operate, if man were not around with eyes to see the tree.

Perhaps it boils down to what I might call interpretation, the basis for our difference in our perceptions of certain factors which are present in the tree and independent of our awareness of their existence.

Now, you can get as many people as you care and ask them what they agree on about the tree and what they disagree about, and what factors are responsible for their differing views; since these are factors independent of people which in the minds of people are called reasons, we cannot say that the differing views arbitrary or whimsical.

So, there are many things people agree on; and there are things people disagree on, but in all cases they have reasons founded upon objective reality; then the things people agree on about objective reality are much more and more important for people to get along, and survive together than the things they disagree on.

Now, about Buddhism, we can agree on more things about Buddhism than we can disagree. And those things we agree about and disagree about are founded not on purely arbitrary considerations, but on factors which are independent of ourselves, so that they are present were we not existing to be aware of Buddhism.

We can agree in regard to Buddhism that it is a phenomenon of beliefs and observances in some humans, authored by humans themselves, the same humans we find everywhere like ourselves, who have to eat, drink, go to the bathroom, and heirs to their psychology in all its dimensions postive and negative in regard to smooth interpersonal relationships.
--------------------

Bod:
Zen Buddhism helps you to change your point of view, and thus helps you to see that the knowledge about the world you believe to be "objective and real" is nothing but an opinion. For me, this is a good thing, for you it is not. I believe we can go along and with respect for each other without the need for the old "I am right you are wrong" stuff. Dont you?

Yrreg:
That's very good, Bod. But there are considerations other than abstractly who is right or wrong? For example, who is useful or useless or even harmful or even dangerous or even deadly to others and destructive to the works of nature and man.

That is why I now believe that my interest can be more absorbing and rewarding and more insightful by focusing on contributions of Buddhism to civilization and culture and science.
------------------

Bod:
Huh, I dont know anything about Wittgenstein being a Buddhist. I could be wrong, I tend not to focus on the people that much. I also dont understand what are you trying to imply when you say "he was one of you".

Yrreg:
"Let's have a Fat Happy Laughing Buddha's laugh to that; and remember he was one of you Zen folks." I am referring to Fat Buddha, not to Wittgenstein; and I certainly like to see more Zen monks and lay people develop and adopt the lifestyle, humor, mirth and certainly laughing cynicism of Brother Fat Laughing Buddha. Have to read up more about the man, the best genius of an invention from the Chinese in religion.
------------------

Bod:
I do not suscribe myself to anything, including Buddhism. I do like it, but I also like so many other things. If anything, I would consider myself an Advaitin, as the title behind my avatar suggest In fact, Im only writting here "defending" (LOL!) Buddhism because I do believe you are missinformed and sincerely wanting to learn.

Yrreg:
You use words and concepts like Advaitin and Avatar, taken from the myths, legends, religious, philosophical speculations of ancient Hindus. To me it is an indication of a fad. I don't think the ancient Hindus were into something we don't know about today or even way back before we come to know about words like Advaitin and Avatar, also in myths, legends, religious and philosophical speculations from Greek prehistory to the present.

And the ancient Hindus most probably if not certainly did not know the distinction: between myths and religions and philosophies and sciences plus technologies, with clear discrimination.
---------

Please proceed to next post.

Yrreg

Dancing David

10th February 2006, 08:25 PM

Physical processes exist, I did not say that they are solely the product of the mind. But thier description in languaga is just that, it is a description used by human beings to communicate thier thoughts about observations. -- D David

Only to communicate? And not principally to control and manipulate what we can together with each other, the forces and materials of nature, and fellow humans?

I did not state the purpose of the communication, there are many wills and intents to communicate. But the laws of nature do not exist they are human conventions.

Do this experiment, tell your wife or girlfriend: "Let's push this table to the opposite side of the room:" nothing happens between you and your partner together? Maybe nothing if your wife or girlfriend is dumb and blind. Okay, another example, in the movie house, shout: "Fire, fire, fire," loud and hysterically? Nothing happens?

What are you trying to communicate, I stated that you should not mistake concepts for the processes that they represent. I don't recall saying that there were not effects of communication.

-----------------------

Take the phrase : 1+1+2
is that the truth or is the truth:
01+01=10? -- D David

What indeed is your point here? that neither the decimal system nor the binary system can be employed in language to communicate with fellow humans about quantities and to construct computers and works of engineering and sciences of all kinds, and do also business and economics, and keep financial statements? and we choose one or the other or even more ways to represent quantities and manipulate them according to how easier and quicker and more accurately we can control and utilize the forces and materials of nature? Think also the formulas in physics, chemistry, and in mathematics.

Evidently you are noy aware that the world paradigm has shifted since the Victorian era, numbers do not exist, they are concepts used by humans, The tools used by humans can be very effective, I did not say that math is not a useful tool, just that it is 'truth' through defintion and convention.

Just because a tool exists does not mean that it represents 'truth', which was the statement you appeared to be making.

------------------

You are completely dwelling in your non-world universe owing to your infatuation with Buddhist illusions, delusions, and hallucinations, that you can't think straight anymore as to know that language is not only to communicate thoughts but to enable people to work together to control and utilize the forces of nature and its materials.

Ah, that is so well spoken Yrreg, I stand in awe of your careful reasoning and peacefull nature. ;)

If you think that you don't co-operate with other people by conveying thoughts, than I ask you a simple question:
What are you conveying?

I dwell in the world, I suggest that you learn to distinguish your finger from the moon.

No wonder Buddhists have produced nothing useful to mankind except groaning and moaning about suffering and groaning and moaning for eternal and absolute extinction of the self.

It is a wonder how you just like to slam other people, I am a buddhist , I help many people as best I can.

What do you do for a living Yrreg?
I am a crisis intervention counselor, my clients generaly find the services I provide to be useful, and they generaly agree with my interventions. I am a buddhist and I am productive. The only whining I read here seems to be coming from you whining about buddhists.

Any links to that philosopher Asmus yet?

:)

Anyway, let's have a good laugh together at how religion makes people think absurdly to their great inutility and even danger to themselves as well and worse to others.

By Frued man, what is inutility!

You have yet to think about the teachings of the buddha, so what utility it might have, you can't judge. It is like any other religion, it has ten percent fools, eighty percent sheep and ten percent practioners. Each may find thier own benefit.

Hahahaha, ala Fat Laughing Buddha. He is the best genius of a Chinese invention in religion.

I like green Tara and Kuan Yin, but if Hotei does it for you that is great. Somewhere there are buddhists who practice laughter, I forget which sect.

Pachomius

Is that a sneeze, or is it a word I should know?

PS Apologies for the apparently more fire to message ratio than I usually allow in my posts.

No problem, it would help if you showed more of yourself, I write stories and tell fables as well.

Pachomius

yrreg

10th February 2006, 09:52 PM

Yrreg:
If your stacks are still intact, just tell me if you are given a camera with the f/1.8, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22 markings and stops defaced and the pointer removed; tell me how you are going to find out at what f/ stop the aperture happens to be opened?

Are you not curious to find out how to take two pictures on the same frame of a film in a very simple way without dismantling the camera, shooting a picture each in the two vertical halves of the film frame, that is with a very simple old celluloid photo camera?

Here is how to find the f/ setting of a lens aperture if the pointer is removed so you can't know from it at which f/ setting it should be pointing at were it not removed.

Consider that you are being tested for knowledge of camera designs and technology and engineering, and you are given a very simple old celluloid film camera with the f/ pointer removed, but every component otherwise intact; and you are asked what is the f/ aperture of the iris diaphragm, lens opening, as it is actually set, and how you arrive at it -- in 50 words or less.

Measure diameter of actual aperture, say, 1 centimeter; next, measure distance from inside lens to film frame, say, 4 centimenters; now divide 4 by 1, getting 4, the actual aperture setting of f/4. F/ means ratio of focal length to the lens opening. (43 words)
-----------------------

Here is how to take two exposures on one frame of a film, using an old simple camera without anti double-exposure lock, and without dismantling the camera or working inside,

Cover one vertical half of lens tube opening with opaque stick-on tape, avoid contact with lens; draw vertical line to bisect front viewfinder; shoot on objects in viewfinder aligned to non-covered half of lens-tube; transfer stick-on tape to other side, and proceed accordingly as before. (45 words)
---------------------------

Proof from MS Word word count:
http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/9012/twowordcounts29ve.gif (http://imageshack.us)

I really enjoy this stuff.

Yrreg, aspiring Fat Laughing Buddha

---------------

From Nirvana with lOve, Putai.

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/5260/putai26eo.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Dancing David

11th February 2006, 07:16 PM

Cool Yrreg, that is the santa claus buddha, who predates santa, allegedly he used his alms to purchase toys for children that he carried in his sack!(The toys were is the sack, not the children.)

yrreg

12th February 2006, 04:14 PM

Cool Yrreg, that is the santa claus buddha, who predates santa, allegedly he used his alms to purchase toys for children that he carried in his sack!(The toys were is the sack, not the children.)

I am glad, D David, that you also have an appreciation for FL Bude (Fat Laughing Buddha) as I have.

I am now busy playing the script of defendant for acupuncture and Chinese mediciine generally, contrary to self-appointed prosecutors of these non-conventional healing, shall we say, arts.

Know of any Buddhist literature on the side for acupuncture and Chinese medicine?

I now realize that I am somewhat a super skeptic (self-pedestal-ism), so that where there is a bandwagon, then that is where I like to dwell on, to examine how and for what psychological or material gains people jump into the bandwagon.

You know, I can see many things in Buddhism which is good and I mean good, except for its to my impression gloomy over-emphasis [hahahaha] on suffering, and also its in effect nihilism and negativism mind-set on the non-self and the non-world.

I still think that Buddha and his early followers were not really into non-self and non-world, but more for practical emphasis on not taking the material and temporal world so addictively.

Yrreg, aspiring Fat Laughing Buddha

---------------

From Nirvana with love, Butai.
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/5260/putai26eo.gif

Dancing David

13th February 2006, 06:03 AM

Sorry Yrreg, nothing on acupuncture or TCM, from me. I do know that I had an old cat, she was fiveteen, that benefitted from akebia to treat some kidney problems.

yrreg

14th February 2006, 04:26 PM

Dear good Buddhist friends, what do you think of my post in that thread on "Any Value in Acupuncture?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1445478&postcount=52

This is not directly connected with my present concern, namely:
(http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1438966&postcount=30)
Originally Posted by Yrreg : (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1437823&postcount=18)
1. Acupuncture is an acceptable option for dealing with medical complaints, if you don't have enough money for treatment and medication in conventional scientific medicine, or if conventional scientific medicine has given up on you.
--------------

[3 logic:]
Acupuncture is acceptable to whom and by what standards? The National Council Against Health Fraud does not consider acupuncture an acceptable option.
http://www.ncahf.org/pp/acu.html

I just like to share here as some kind of obiter materials, my wondering maybe some people here who are adverse to acupuncture are sympathetic to Buddhism and even call themselves Buddhists (people who are proud to call themselves Buddhists, like for example, Ryokan and Dancing David), with whom the undersigned has had and still going on many a discussion on Buddhism, from the standpoint of what I call scientific skeptical criticism.

I will ask them, the Buddhists in those threads where I either initiated or participate in, from my part as a critic with what I might consider valid exceptions, whether they being Buddhists are positively or negatively inclined toward acupuncture -- seeing that the folks who bring them Buddhism also bring acupuncture and medical practices from the Far East to the West.

What about the people here in this thread, anyone Buddhist here?

One impression I keep getting from the Buddhists here in this skeptics' forum is that there are things science as we have it now cannot deal with and therefore must be, at least not be suppressive in their regard.

These are the people who also do meditation and report favorable and even medical or broadly health benefits from meditation, specifically the Buddhist kinds of. There are also other kinds of meditation, practically all coming from the Far East, in particular that motherland of all such philosophico-religious speculations about karma and rebirths and ultimate nirvana, etc., India, and to a the way I see it lesser extent, China.

(The Chinese are not as mystical as the Indians, but they are a practical people who will absorb anything and everything that works, understanding 'works' as good for them -- understanding 'good' as anything that at least makes you feel better if nothing else. My opinion again, I could be wrong.)

Is acupuncture a fad as I keep saying to my Buddhist colleagues here that Buddhism is a fad; in which case acupuncture is winning over Buddhism by leaps and bounds.

[Hahahaha softly.]

-----------------

Oh well, back to my concern here at present with 3logic's authority from the NCAHF and now the authority of the HON: authorities to not say to anyone coming to me, that:

Originally Posted by Yrreg : (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1437823&postcount=18)
1. Acupuncture is an acceptable option for dealing with medical complaints, if you don't have enough money for treatment and medication in conventional scientific medicine, or if conventional scientific medicine has given up on you.

No, I am not telling anyone coming to me with a medical problem, as to a man in the street with an opinion, that drowning oneself "is an acceptable option for dealing with medical complaints, if you don't have enough money for treatment and medication in conventional scientific medicine, or if conventional scientific medicine has given up on you."

So, shall we continue in polite and civil language, systematically, one step at a time?

And remember, keep the ratio of fire to message small or zero, but increase the message to fire ratio to massive degrees. And yes or no, no emotionalism, please.

Yrreg

Yrreg, aspiring Fat Laughing Buddha

---------------

From Nirvana with love, Butai.
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/5260/putai26eo.gif

Chunol

24th February 2006, 06:40 AM

Buddhism is not a religion.

Sorry I'm late to the list, just noticed it.
anyway here are my thoughts.

All I ever got from Buddhism was an invitation to investigate suffering.

The way that I see that it works is that if you have a problem, if you suffer, if you feel ill at ease about anything, you bring this to the Buddha and there is the possibility that he can help.

From this viewpoint, Buddha cannot help everyone. If you have no problems then you need no help, and there is no sense going to the Buddha.

chunol

Chunol

24th February 2006, 06:40 AM

cpolk

24th February 2006, 10:10 PM

merentha

25th February 2006, 09:43 AM

Some quick questions: If Buddhism is not a religion, then why give it a name? Why not teach the philosophies as philosophies of life, rather than giving it the attributes of an organization? If I came up with the same ideas and practices without a knowledge of Buddha, would I be a Buddhist? I wouldn't call myself that. So, other than the philosophical aspects that one could arrive at without the knowledge of Buudha, there must be some reason for the organization, even if it is only in the way of fellowship.

Any thoughts?

The Buddhist philosophy of the Noble Eightfold Path (NEP) can be adopted as a secular moral code. However, the reasons for adopting the NEP, as explained in the Four Noble Truths, contain elements from the supernatural. NEP is supposed to lead to the end of suffering, which in Buddhist terms mean an end to the continuous karmic cycle of deaths and rebirths. The end of suffering lies nirvana, an ultimate state that can only be understood by those who are enlightened enough to experience it. Rebirth, karma and nirvana are tenets which Buddhists accept by faith since they're not falsifiable. In that sense, Buddhism becomes a religion based on the teachings of the Buddha.

merentha

25th February 2006, 10:14 AM

Dear yrreg,

What's your point about acupuncture and Buddhism? It's like trying to link Christians with homeopathy just because both ideas were brought over from the West. While some Asians may be Buddhists and also believe in the efficacy of acupuncture, the two beliefs are independent of each other. You can be a Buddhist and not accept acupuncture. You can believe in acupuncture and yet be a Christian here.

Finally, some words of advice. The athiests who engage Christians in debating these forums know well enough to arm themselves with knowledge from biblical and extra-biblical sources in order to form cogent arguments against the theistic challenges. If you truly wish to criticise Buddhism, then I would advise that you actually read up some Buddhist texts. It doesn't have to be the sutras. Even an introductory text to the history and teachings of Buddhism would go a long way to improve your arguments. As I see it, you are attacking Buddhism from a position of ignorance, which can only damage your credibility.

cpolk

25th February 2006, 10:18 AM

The Buddhist philosophy of the Noble Eightfold Path (NEP) can be adopted as a secular moral code. However, the reasons for adopting the NEP, as explained in the Four Noble Truths, contain elements from the supernatural. NEP is supposed to lead to the end of suffering, which in Buddhist terms mean an end to the continuous karmic cycle of deaths and rebirths. The end of suffering lies nirvana, an ultimate state that can only be understood by those who are enlightened enough to experience it. Rebirth, karma and nirvana are tenets which Buddhists accept by faith since they're not falsifiable. In that sense, Buddhism becomes a religion based on the teachings of the Buddha.

Would it be correct in saying that if I were to drop the religious/supernatural aspects, then it would no longer be Buddhism, but simply independent philosophical ideas, since it is not excplicitly what Buddha had taught? Anyone who claims that they are a non-religion-Buddhist are mistaken; they have borrowed some philosophies that they find useful, but they do not follow the teachings of Buddha and are not Buddhists. Is this right?

merentha

25th February 2006, 10:53 AM

Would it be correct in saying that if I were to drop the religious/supernatural aspects, then it would no longer be Buddhism, but simply independent philosophical ideas, since it is not excplicitly what Buddha had taught? Anyone who claims that they are a non-religion-Buddhist are mistaken; they have borrowed some philosophies that they find useful, but they do not follow the teachings of Buddha and are not Buddhists. Is this right?

You are correct.

If you look at the NEP's message to practise Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration, they are commonsense guidelines to leading a moral and fulfilling life of little regret. You don't have to be a Buddhist to follow them. In contrast, the first three of the 10 Commandments commonly accepted by Christians are totally inapplicable if you don't believe in God, and the other 7 form a poor subset of the NEP.

I've always been amused that a mere man (the Buddha) has the ability to compile a more sophisticated moral system using only 8 simple rules than an allegedly all-knowing deity with 10 wordy ones. ;)

Dancing David

25th February 2006, 06:42 PM

Some quick questions: If Buddhism is not a religion, then why give it a name?

The buddha never claimed to have devine inspiration or extranatural powers. It is a religion in the sense that it is a teaching concerning spirituality, as defined by some.

Why not teach the philosophies as philosophies of life, rather than giving it the attributes of an organization? If I came up with the same ideas and practices without a knowledge of Buddha, would I be a Buddhist?

The buddha never taught his thoughts as an organised religion in the sense of modern religion, he was immersed in a very religous culture. And his foolowers added most of the religous elements. IMO.
And no you would not be a direct buddhist, as a buddhist is someone who calls themselves a buddhist.

I wouldn't call myself that. So, other than the philosophical aspects that one could arrive at without the knowledge of Buudha, there must be some reason for the organization, even if it is only in the way of fellowship.

Any thoughts?

The last part is true, the sangha is meant to be a refuge to aid in the path of enlightenment.

epepke

26th February 2006, 08:26 PM

Some quick questions: If Buddhism is not a religion, then why give it a name? Why not teach the philosophies as philosophies of life, rather than giving it the attributes of an organization? If I came up with the same ideas and practices without a knowledge of Buddha, would I be a Buddhist? I wouldn't call myself that. So, other than the philosophical aspects that one could arrive at without the knowledge of Buudha, there must be some reason for the organization, even if it is only in the way of fellowship.

Often, names are given to philosophies (Idealism, Existentialism, Objectivism, etc.)

As far as I can tell, there are a number of reasons to consider Buddhism a religion:

1) It has concepts that are essentially religious (karma, nirvana, rebirth, and sometimes reincarnation).

2) It has the trappings of religion (monks, monasteries, temples, holy sites, idols).

3) Our friend who has experience with Chinese Buddhism says that it's treated as a religion.

4) Buddhist organizations qualify as religious organizations in the US.

5) You can write "Buddhist" on the line that asks for religion, and nobody will bat an eye.

yrreg

24th October 2006, 05:09 PM

When I was in high school I wrote a five page composition on what is religion; and to this day I still see my definition to be the most decisive for mankind since the dawn of religion, to judge something to be a religion as distinct from apples, oranges, dogs, cats, jungle, business, politics, and philosophy, yes sciences and arts.

Here it is:

Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the unknown power to react favorably to the believer.

On the basis of my definition of religion, Buddhism is certainly a religion; it satisfies all the elements of my definition of a religion.

But Buddhists of the West, they are all converts not born to Buddhism, they love to insist that Buddha is an atheist; the dude is actually a polytheist, a believer in gods with no one god above all gods.

Buddhist converts from the West can read anything and everything they want to or not want to in the Buddhist scriptures, because like other scriptures of other religions, peoples following the religion can read anything and everything in the scriptures which they want to or not want to. Why? because there are so many materials in them scriptures that if you have just 10% resourcefulness in the use of your imagination, and you have an obsession to embrace some idea however crazy or reject one however sane, you will find some grounds in the scriptures of your religion.

However, to know the most general and thus most concurring positions about Buddhism, you must go to the peoples who have been identified by outsiders as Buddhists for millennia, in the Far East: they are the peoples to tell Westerners what is Buddhism and what Buddha taught, not any newcomer from the West hoping for therapy to their difficult adjustments to the reality of life, its difficulties and its challenges and its trials, but remember the normal life is replete with pleasures, joys, and good instances and durations of happiness.

But I digress, we are talking about how and why Buddhism is a religion, and according to my definition of religion, it satisfies all the elements in my definition.

Yes, I was going to dwell on what is the unknown power in Buddhism if we grant though not conceding that Buddha was an atheist and Buddhists are atheists -- which again is patently false, just visit the nearest Buddhist sangha even in the US and UK and Continental Europe and Australia, and you will see that even Western converts to Buddhism are not atheists but polytheists, their gods are all superior to humans but none of them a one supreme chief of all gods and men and animals and plants and the rest of the inanimate and impersonal universe.

Okay, no more digression, what is the unknown power of Buddhism and Buddhists, including the converts among Westerners to Buddhism (careful now, I might digress a little bit but relevantly, again)?

It is the whole caboodle of Buddhist ontology, consisting of karma, rebirth, and nirvana. I call it the unknown power in the sense that you cannot really know it like you know your pet dog and cat at home; but it is this unknown power that Buddhists are trying to influence by affections and actions for it to react favorably to themselves, so that they will reach enlightenment and get to nirvana, even though they confess themselves to be beyond comprehension exactly what this nirvana is all about, except and here is the tragedy, it is no longer life as we have it today and want to improve on, and on and on; nirvana for the Buddhists is everything that is opposite to what we count most precious, life and its pleasures, joys, happiness, that is why it is if we would attend to the etymology of the word nirvana, extinction of the self or the universe, everything, all in the name of liberation, from what? from suffering.

Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater, that is Buddhism.

If you would like to exercise your brain cells, tell me something that is known and called by mankind to be religion, then show me that it is not a religion on the basis of my definition of religion.

Next, give me any world-view or system of thought and action that is known by mankind to be not religion, and thus not included in mankind's idea of religion, and try to show me on the basis of my definition of religion that it is in fact a religion.

You, everynoe, can use my definition of religion freely, but for my vanity if you will cater to it, just also mention that is comes from Yrreg, who does criticism and critique of Buddhism for fun as a hobby, for a workout of his brain cells.

There, that's part of my workout for my brain cells this morning.

Yrreg

=========================================

My words may not be soothing, but consider the ideas

The Buddhist non-self, and its implications, living the everyday non-self existence?
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...ost&pid=500486

[From the Kalama Sutra by Gautama]

01. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it long ago.
02. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
03. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
04. Do not confirm anything just because it agrees with your scriptures.
05. Do not foolishly make assumptions.
06. Do not abruptly draw conclusions by what you see and hear.
07. Do not be fooled by outward appearances.
08. Do not hold on tightly to any view or idea just because you are comfortable with it.
09. Do not accept as fact anything that you yourself find to be logical.
10. Do not be convinced of anything out of respect and deference to your spiritual teachers.
11. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reasons and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

See: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/the_kalama_sutra.htm