Thread: Anyone else here Buddhist?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Buddhism makes no more sense than any other religion, they just appeal to more because of their apparent lack of deity.

I pretended to be a Buddhist when I was 15 for awhile because I thought it would be cool and hip. Then I read some of the buddhist literature in class and I realized it was kind of crazy like all the other religions. But I mostly stopped pretending to be a buddhist because I soon realized every kid with dreads and a Bob Marley shirt "is buddhist" so I said no fuck that.

You get from it what you get from it; what some people find meaningful, other people find as nonsense! For as long as it helps me put context to experience, I think it's beneficial. Also, there is much about non-violence (ahimsa to Hinduism) which is also typically a beneficial thing to others.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

Mind elaborating? Do you really think that mormonism makes an equal amount of sense to buddhism? Wouldn't the lack of a deity alone make it more sensible than any of the deific religions?

Buddhism is focused on ending delusion and coming back to the present moment. And seeing things from other perspectives, essentially developing empathy. What about it other than the rituals doesn't make sense?

Though admittedly there are sects of buddhism that believe in all sorts of nonsense.

Buddhism is tough to pin down because it differs a lot from region to region (let alone how mangled it got by Westerners in the 20th century). Some elements of Buddhism (such as rebirth) are equally faith-based and superstitious as aspects of other religions. Things start really getting trippy in Buddhist cosmology.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

You're on a roll.

Rebirth, and all the other "trippy shit, for that matter, only emerged after Buddhism merged with Hinduism though.

The actual fundamentals of Buddhism say nothing of anything except how to achieve Nirvana.

Originally Posted by tommo

Rebirth, and all the other "trippy shit, for that matter, only emerged after Buddhism merged with Hinduism though.

The actual fundamentals of Buddhism say nothing of anything except how to achieve Nirvana.

Buddhism emerged from Hinduism, it's a much more recent religion. Stuff like Buddhist cosmology and deities come from early buddhist scriptures.

Originally Posted by tommo

Rebirth, and all the other "trippy shit, for that matter, only emerged after Buddhism merged with Hinduism though.

The actual fundamentals of Buddhism say nothing of anything except how to achieve Nirvana.

Saying "Buddhism merged with Hinduism" is like saying Christianity merged with Judaism.

Personally, I find people who reject a belief system on the basis of their own failure to penetrate its cosmology neither more nor less ridiculous than people who try to rationalize away a cosmology they've failed to penetrate in order to continue identifying with the associated belief system. Both are clinging to a Materialist worldview founded upon the assumption that the forms around them have fixed qualities, which is antithetical to the Buddha's teachings.

I know it basically split off from Hinduism. But it still merged with it later on too.
That's why people started associating Buddhism with reincarnation.

Originally Posted by tommo

I know it basically split off from Hinduism. But it still merged with it later on too.
That's why people started associating Buddhism with reincarnation.

And I believe in reincarnation too. Or at least I hope there is.

My friend once told me a small boy was able to know all the details of an unknown place that he first went to because he's been living in there in his previous life.

Originally Posted by tommo

I know it basically split off from Hinduism. But it still merged with it later on too.
That's why people started associating Buddhism with reincarnation.

Rebirth according to the law of karma is a rather prominent and central feature of the Buddha's teachings, not a late addition. While it is true that he discredited reincarnation, he did so by discrediting our fundamental assumptions about forms and persistence of the self between birth and death. If one continues to see oneself as an independent entity in a world of forms with fixed qualities, then reincarnation might as well be the case. If one is not dedicated to complete liberation from suffering, reincarnation is virtually, for all intents and purposes, the case. To the extent that you exist now, you will be reborn. Your existence is rebirth, without beginning or end.

In this case, the true Buddhist view is that the impersonal stream of consciousness flows on — impelled by ignorance and craving — from life to life. Though the process is impersonal, the illusion of personality continues as it does in this life.

Buddhism and Death

I think it is clear that there is quite a bit more metaphysical content in Buddhism than Tathagata might have liked: Kathavatthu Sutta: Topics of Conversation (1)

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Buddhism is tough to pin down because it differs a lot from region to region (let alone how mangled it got by Westerners in the 20th century). Some elements of Buddhism (such as rebirth) are equally faith-based and superstitious as aspects of other religions. Things start really getting trippy in Buddhist cosmology.

I suppose we agree for the most part then. I don't think Buddhist deities are any more sensible than non-Buddhist deities. But these things are not really in the core of Buddhism, they are part of the culture of that region and have been adopted by those people.

A preoccupation with discounting what appears, without reflection, extraordinary or supernatural suggests an excess of faith in what one takes for ordinary and natural.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

I don't think Buddhist deities are any more sensible than non-Buddhist deities.

Avalokiteśvara is as real as a tree. If you push a tree, you will feel resistance and if you honestly call on Avalokiteśvara for aid, you will feel the compassion of all the Buddhas both historic and celestial coming to your assistance. If you don't honestly call Avalokiteśvara, just as if you don't honestly push the tree, your results may differ. Avalokiteśvara is there to be called upon.

But these things are not really in the core of Buddhism, they are part of the culture of that region and have been adopted by those people.

The core of Buddhism, as tathagata made so clear on so many occasions, is suffering and its end. While it's true that Buddhism may be divided into three vehicles with the two outer vehicles of devotion and tantra acting as conduits to the inner vehicle of directly subduing the discriminating and grasping minds there is little ground to claim that using devotion or tantra is not in the core of Buddhism. The role of the outer vehicles is to help people find within themselves the will to walk the inner vehicle. They help reduce suffering of those not ready for the little vehicle and are in this way a critical component of Buddhism. Suffering is bad. Ending suffering is good.

I think that the mistake is in elevating the two outer vehicles to be more than just that. This does create an obstruction in my opinion.

I dunno, I just don't experience any of this stuff as relating to gods. Can't compassion for oneself come from within? Is it Avalokiteśvara or is it just you? Is that even a meaningful question? Regardless the compassion is what makes the difference, the love. Not some god.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

Is that even a meaningful question?

Is that even a meaningful question?

Yes. I'll elaborate if you want but I'd rather not.

I'm afraid I still don't understand what Buddhism is. No one in this thread has given a straight answer. Some people say it's just a way of living your life to maximize happiness, but I do that already, does that mean I'm a Buddhist? Even though I've never read any Buddhist literature or ever even remotely associated myself with it?

Buddhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I practice Buddhism but I don't consider myself a Buddhist. I doubt that you are a Buddhist cmind.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

Buddhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I practice Buddhism but I don't consider myself a Buddhist. I doubt that you are a Buddhist cmind.

I've already read that, and it's basically gibberish.

What's a Christian? I'm a Christian and Ne-yo's a Christian, but I doubt we have one thought in common on Christ or just what's going on here. A Buddhist is someone who adheres in one form or another to the teachings of the historical Buddha and/or the individuals and institutions left in the wake of his life on earth. While some Buddhists do take a fundamentalist, "My way or the highway" approach, most at least accept that the dharma/dhamma (most simply: the teachings) can take many forms or vehicles, and there is a growing strain of Universalism among Buddhists, particularly those who revere the Dalai Lama.

The core of the Buddha's teaching--the whole of it, He often said--is the Four Noble Truths:

1. The truth about suffering
2. The truth about the origin of suffering
3. The truth about the cessation of suffering
4. The truth about the way to the cessation of suffering

Suffering is understood as a fundamental feature of our impermanent and highly contingent existence (samsara), produced by craving, thirsting or grasping after permanence in a world composed entirely of impermanence or change. That dissonance produced by craving is the force that turns the wheel, the engine that generates the whole of our existence. There is no escape from the dissonance at the heart of all suffering without first stilling the craving that produces it. The way to that stillness (nirvana) mapped by the Buddha is the Noble Eightfold Path, summarized as the Middle Way: balanced thought, view, and actions to cultivate wisdom, ethical conduct, and a concentrated mind.

Nope, still don't get it. I guess I never will.

Well, there's always Pure Land Buddhism, which pretty much follows the evangelical model: hear about a nice man, say a magic spell, and go to happyland forever.

The nice man is Amida Buddha and the magic spell is "Namu Amida Butsu." Say it ten times and you're all set.

Better?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Well, there's always Pure Land Buddhism, which pretty much follows the evangelical model: hear about a nice man, say a magic spell, and go to happyland forever.

The nice man is Amida Buddha and the magic spell is "Namu Amida Butsu." Say it ten times and you're all set.

Better?

Do you think mocking me will make me want to learn about your wacko beliefs?