Buddhism in America is often derided as being nothing more than humanism with meditation... That's incorrect for the most part. The theology is present, like it or not, and often it seems, immigrants to the United States become frusterated with the fact that Americans often think they only have to be Buddhists while sitting on a cushion for 20 minutes on a given day..
Someone mentioned reincarnation being "one of those cute Tibetan things", I still don't understand that. Rebirth(more correctly called) , is intergal to Buddhism. Granted, it shouldn't be approached with the enthusiasm that many New Agers attribute to it, but nonetheless, it's there. Rebirth and Karma and intertwined in terms of belief, as has already been stated in this thread.
On the topic of reincarnation, It is important to understand exactly what is meant. There is no soul, or entity, or personality that is transmitted(as is the case in most other religions), instead, what is reborn, is the effect of the previous cause. The simplest way to view this is in terms of a fruit tree. You can plant a tree, and it will grow fruit, but then someone may steal the fruit. You may not have planted the fruit themselves, but their existance was dependant upon the planting of the tree, thus the fruit were stolen from you....Hope that makes sense...
Someone mentioned reincarnation being "one of those cute Tibetan things", I still don't understand that. Rebirth(more correctly called) , is intergal to Buddhism. Granted, it shouldn't be approached with the enthusiasm that many New Agers attribute to it, but nonetheless, it's there. Rebirth and Karma and intertwined in terms of belief, as has already been stated in this thread.
On the topic of reincarnation, It is important to understand exactly what is meant. There is no soul, or entity, or personality that is transmitted(as is the case in most other religions), instead, what is reborn, is the effect of the previous cause. The simplest way to view this is in terms of a fruit tree. You can plant a tree, and it will grow fruit, but then someone may steal the fruit. You may not have planted the fruit themselves, but their existance was dependant upon the planting of the tree, thus the fruit were stolen from you....Hope that makes sense...
your post makes perfect sense. reincarnation is when a person chooses to be reborn in a specific place at a certain time in order to help other beings achieve enlightenment. Rebirth on the other hand is what we are all subject to. we don't necessarily choose how and where we are going to be born and how we will live our present lives because we are affected by karma.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
"Lies" is putting it a little strong, especially since I feel basically sympathetic to the cause here. Someone a few posts back (in a quote, it wasn't one of our fellow members) came up with a rather fanciful definition of "science" that allowed Buddha to just barely qualify. OK, I didn't go back and read his entire line of reasoning. "Science" covers a lot of ground, maybe he managed to make his point. But then he came up with a really fanciful version of history in which the Greeks weren't inventing science at the same time a few weeks' ride to the west. I didn't investigate his reasoning on that one either, but I don't have to because he's just flat wrong.
I'm so terribly sorry if you didactic Buddhists don't appreciate the way we Americans forge our own culture by picking a bit of this and a bit of that, but that's what the "melting pot" is all about. Buddhism is, after all, even older than Christianity and it's just as full of Stone Age fairy tales. Reincarnation, gee that's just about as believable as the virgin birth or the resurrection. Pardon me while I take a more skeptical look at this philosophy and sort out the crap.
Fortunately science was invented, regardless of who gets the credit, and some of us are capable of using "Jesus Christ" as an epithet.
I repeat, I have no doubt that Buddha was a truly fine and noble person, just like Jesus, and I believe that there is a lot that we can learn from him. Frankly I respect him and his followers more than any of the world's other leading faiths, even if I don't go along with it all. You are nice people to share the planet with and you don't have a problem with mutual tolerance. I particularly like the thing about moderation.
But so much of what passes for Buddhist lore is just as preposterous as most of what passes for Christian lore. Can you say "accretion?"
I'm so terribly sorry if you didactic Buddhists don't appreciate the way we Americans forge our own culture by picking a bit of this and a bit of that, but that's what the "melting pot" is all about.
and not only that, nary a comment about my sinhalese buddhist shit. the last bastion of pure theravada buddhism! while these original buddhist lands sink into superstition and hindu crap. it is the foreign devils that will rescue buddhism. strangely enough, in a trip to a sri lankan monastary, the monk who taught me how to meditate happened to be an american! cool guy tho i think he wanted to tap my ass. frikkin pedo fucks!
and not only that, nary a comment about my sinhalese buddhist shit. the last bastion of pure theravada buddhism! while these original buddhist lands sink into superstition and hindu crap. it is the foreign devils that will rescue buddhism. strangely enough, in a trip to a sri lankan monastary, the monk who taught me how to meditate happened to be an american! cool guy tho i think he wanted to tap my ass. frikkin pedo fucks!
kajolishot
Registered Senior Member
Just to add onto TheEnd's post about rebirth.
Another analogy is to consider a candle flame.
If you take that flame and light another candle you have
created a new flame with the cause/effect (Karma) of the original flame.
The new flame is not the old.
Therefore there is no need to believe in an everlasting soul.
Another analogy is to consider a candle flame.
If you take that flame and light another candle you have
created a new flame with the cause/effect (Karma) of the original flame.
The new flame is not the old.
Therefore there is no need to believe in an everlasting soul.
reincarnation, etc.
Hey, it's my very first post!
I have skimmed over the thread so far, and several things are interesting to me. I like the initial characterization (by spacegoat?) of Buddhism as more of a way of life than an organized religion in the normal sense. I think most Buddhists, myself included, would agree that it is much more about seeing your life as a project. For me, it's about working mindfulness, compassion, the vast complexity and connectedness of the universe (the 10,000 things), and other principles you might focus on while meditating or reading into your everyday life; into every moment.
This characterization leads me to disagree slightly (or at least nitpick) with an assumption one topic discussed earlier on was based on. Namely the idea that for Christians, "God is the only path to salvation" (paraphrased). My nitpick is simply that this wasn't always the case. I agree that for the most part, modern christianity has followed this path. But as Elaine Pagels explains in her book "Beyond Belief," this was mainly due to the fact that the people who decided what would be in the new testament decided to include the gospel of John as their model as opposed to one of the many other views that were floating around at the time that didn't emphasize to such (or any) an extent the importance of Jesus as the only light in the world, the only path to salvation. The gospel of Thomas, for instance mirrors many Buddhist concepts of introspection and meditation as the best way to find spiritual guidance and grace. Pagels does a much better job than I could possibly do in relating the details of this gospel and of the political implications of the time period in question, but at any rate, if you just focus on what Jesus himself is actually saying in the bible, I think you get a much different picture than organized religions paint of him. He's basically a man who's interested (much like Buddha) in bringing spiritual understanding and morality to the common people. Look at his parables; the characters are common people doing common, agricultural / pastoral things. They were designed from the very get go to appeal to everyday people, and not only that, but to make them think about things and come to their own conclusions. He rarely has a parable-end sum up or "the moral of the story is..." section. The point was as much or more about your thinking of the connundrum than to provide a specific answer. So anyway, I guess I just think that christianity and buddhism (both taken in their "unmolested" form) are quite similar in terms of their ethics, if not (explicitly) their metaphysics.
Also, I in regards to reincarnation, I appreciate the analogies. I think they're fairly instructive. Thanks for the cool discussion guys!
Hey, it's my very first post!
I have skimmed over the thread so far, and several things are interesting to me. I like the initial characterization (by spacegoat?) of Buddhism as more of a way of life than an organized religion in the normal sense. I think most Buddhists, myself included, would agree that it is much more about seeing your life as a project. For me, it's about working mindfulness, compassion, the vast complexity and connectedness of the universe (the 10,000 things), and other principles you might focus on while meditating or reading into your everyday life; into every moment.
This characterization leads me to disagree slightly (or at least nitpick) with an assumption one topic discussed earlier on was based on. Namely the idea that for Christians, "God is the only path to salvation" (paraphrased). My nitpick is simply that this wasn't always the case. I agree that for the most part, modern christianity has followed this path. But as Elaine Pagels explains in her book "Beyond Belief," this was mainly due to the fact that the people who decided what would be in the new testament decided to include the gospel of John as their model as opposed to one of the many other views that were floating around at the time that didn't emphasize to such (or any) an extent the importance of Jesus as the only light in the world, the only path to salvation. The gospel of Thomas, for instance mirrors many Buddhist concepts of introspection and meditation as the best way to find spiritual guidance and grace. Pagels does a much better job than I could possibly do in relating the details of this gospel and of the political implications of the time period in question, but at any rate, if you just focus on what Jesus himself is actually saying in the bible, I think you get a much different picture than organized religions paint of him. He's basically a man who's interested (much like Buddha) in bringing spiritual understanding and morality to the common people. Look at his parables; the characters are common people doing common, agricultural / pastoral things. They were designed from the very get go to appeal to everyday people, and not only that, but to make them think about things and come to their own conclusions. He rarely has a parable-end sum up or "the moral of the story is..." section. The point was as much or more about your thinking of the connundrum than to provide a specific answer. So anyway, I guess I just think that christianity and buddhism (both taken in their "unmolested" form) are quite similar in terms of their ethics, if not (explicitly) their metaphysics.
Also, I in regards to reincarnation, I appreciate the analogies. I think they're fairly instructive. Thanks for the cool discussion guys!
B
buddhafish
Guest
Just a quick note.. for anyone interested, the internet sacred texts archive is a fantastic place for reading up on religion.
Find the site at http://www.sacred-texts.com/
For example, The Gospel of Thomas, for those who are interested, can be found at http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm and The Dhammapada? No problem: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe10/index.htm
Currently they're in a bit of financial trouble. I find it sickening that a website of this magnitude has to shell out roughly $650 every month just to keep the site alive. Maybe there's someone out there who can help 'em out.
Mike
Find the site at http://www.sacred-texts.com/
For example, The Gospel of Thomas, for those who are interested, can be found at http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm and The Dhammapada? No problem: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe10/index.htm
Currently they're in a bit of financial trouble. I find it sickening that a website of this magnitude has to shell out roughly $650 every month just to keep the site alive. Maybe there's someone out there who can help 'em out.
Mike
Last edited by a moderator:
The universe started out as mostly hydrogen. But the hydrogen was pulled together by gravity, and formed Suns .
In the suns it transformed slowly in higer elements. This was done becouse Suns don't burn, the perform nuclear fusion, That is the oposite of what is done in nuclear power plants.
fusion:
Blending 2 hydrogen atoms together to form helium. 2 helium also fuse together as the next element in the periodic table. And so on
So at the time right after the big bang there was only hydrogen.
So in fact we are al made up of "star stuf" becouse we are made of atoms, and almost all elements come from the stars.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
woo-hoo! I've been searching for a copy of this for years! thanks!
I am an American as well and i take what i think is "right " from every religion. It just so happens that i agree with a lot of stuff from Buddhism. I never intended to make the Buddha look like a scientist but i showed how he used the scientific method. i dunno what is the problem with fusing science with spirituality. If you think about it you will see everything fits together. for example, UnaMi was right about the universe being formed out of hydrogen atoms. It is exactly what the kabbalah says about how the universe was formed. The thing is you have to analyze genesis deeply to unearth their truth. Im Belgian, and I do the same. I have cut and pasted from many religions, to form my own private religion, and im still adjusting and perfecting it. Any religion should be aprouched with a scientific mind. It should be analysed and thought trough in a scientific manner.
To me religion is a form of science.
Originally posted by UnaMi
Any religion should be aprouched with a scientific mind. It should be analysed and thought trough in a scientific manner.
To me religion is a form of science.
somewhere in this forum i read a quote from aristotle that said that an educated mind first play s with the idea before accepting an idea. that i swhat the Buddha said as well. He told his disciples to meditate upon his words and not accept them just because he is enlightenment.
I am happy people are building their own religion, this practice opens the mind. one becomes more tolerant towards other religions too.
quote: "Buddha himself actually said that there was no god."
what the buddha actually said was that he had searched the universe and had found no evidence of god, but not there was or was not one. the nature of buddha was not to hand out answers, but to give you a path in which to find them for yourself. the exact question of whether there is or is not a god is one of five direct questions he would not answer because he said that it didn't have any effect on what a person must do in life.
splitting hairs, i know, but a distinction worth making.
what the buddha actually said was that he had searched the universe and had found no evidence of god, but not there was or was not one. the nature of buddha was not to hand out answers, but to give you a path in which to find them for yourself. the exact question of whether there is or is not a god is one of five direct questions he would not answer because he said that it didn't have any effect on what a person must do in life.
splitting hairs, i know, but a distinction worth making.
the name for a person who places this burden on himself (it should be noted that they do not consider it a burden) is a boddhisatvah (spelled many different ways), which, simplfiying, means someone who chooses to come back and back again until all mankind is freed (or enlightened).
it is also of due note that the dalai lama is not necessarily THE buddha, he is just A buddha. reincarnated to be sure of one fo the great buddhas, but often people mistake the term buddha (which refers to any master who has reached enlightenement) with THE buddha (which refers to the guatam buddha or siddharta guatam the buddha) but there have been amny more who have had profund effects on the world.
Reincarnation is not something onlyt the tibetans believe as buddhists, it is fairly overarching belief, but to be more clear about all this, the pope's postition is that of guide but moreso now, a lawmaker for the church, he exists as the head of the church, whereas the daila lama is the head of the church by default, because he is the best, not because they need one. He is that of guide and nothing more, but supreme guide. It should also be taken into consideration that you can't be voted dali lama, you either are or aren't.
it is also important to know that to say there was nothing in original buddhist core tenets, is almost oxymoronic in itself. nothing the buddha said was ever written down in his lifetime. most of it was passed orally (my monk memorization) for centuries before it was ever actually scrawled out. which of course brings in an interesting point about why christianity is bad that is so common today, whihc is that it is given to mistranslation and general human err. it is important to note that so is buddhist text. the important thing in either case is to remember the spirit of the issue.
one could say that what separates the buddhas teachings from other religions (the largest factor)is the importance he places on a person atking action for themselves to figure and understand and contemplate for themselves, whihc is something very unique in most religions (though many don't discourage it, it is seldom encouraged).
one could also find a simlar overarching point behind any of the other great leaders of world belief and faith structures, however flawed.
you have to understand tha paradox of the cooment in itself. Time itself cannot be infinate, because time, by nature requires definition of beggining and end. the concept in itself is truly mystifying to concieve that in all of the histories of the universe there is no time, no past, not future, only things that happen.
just things that happen. how we feel about them has no relevance.
interestingly, the four noble truths can be turns to laymen's terms as such (as people have a tendency to make things complicated and unfollowable for the average person).
1. suffereing exists.
2. suffereing comes from expectation (or desire)
3. you can stop your suffering.
4. the way to stop it is the eightfold path.
(random bit of intersting information: the thought process here, which is detailed with mathmatical precision., closely resembles in that it outlays every step of the thought itself, much like a geometrical proof) reads as scientific. the only distinction is that now, from the other side, he knowns that one does not need science in itself, but they do need what could be called the scientific curiousity.
1. suffereing exists.
2. suffereing comes from expectation (or desire)
3. you can stop your suffering.
4. the way to stop it is the eightfold path.
(random bit of intersting information: the thought process here, which is detailed with mathmatical precision., closely resembles in that it outlays every step of the thought itself, much like a geometrical proof) reads as scientific. the only distinction is that now, from the other side, he knowns that one does not need science in itself, but they do need what could be called the scientific curiousity.
religion is not science, exactly, it is more a set of beilefs in "otherness" in whatever form you have decided it takes, science is intended more to be a path to get where you're going, rather than where your going (in terms of beliefs). science, ideally (i stress the ideally), says "what is the answer to this question?" and then observes and tests to find said answer. but, in terms of belief in otherness, religion is the answer, and not the process that gets you there.
This is also something that separates buddhism from other religions, in that buddhism is really a path moreso than a destination of beliefs. what apears to be a moral code in buddhism (and can be lived as one) is more a path to find out what the turth is, it just happpens that you end up with the code you already live. i hope that's clear to everyone.