Ever since I have been practicing lucid dreaming, meditation, and astral projection I have felt a strong pull towards Buddhism. I am 100% sure that my religion I am committed to is correct but Buddhism just makes a lot more sense and when I am meditating I do feel a really strange connection to everything around as if everything is connected somehow which, and correct me if i'm wrong, is one of the beliefs involved with Buddhism. I was just wondering if anyone else was having these feelings.
If feel as though many people misrepresent Buddhism when really it is much more nihilistic than people realize. The goal is not to be "connected" but instead to disconnect with reality(which they believe to be an illusion ie. maya), from social relations, customs, and habitually thinking, all of which are the causes of suffering.
Keep in mind Im not saying Buddhism is bad, I too benefit from certain Buddhist practices like meditation and skepticism but not others such as asceticism and certain fundamental beliefs. You can practice whatever religion you want and still adapt certain Buddhist practices. I also love Buddhist Koans which are reminiscent of Socratic skepticism, although Buddhism preceded Socrates. Dannon Onierenoit made a great post in the science section about how Buddhism and Socrates share many similar beliefs.
YES this is what i was talking about. Do you think it would go against my religion in any way to continue to practice all of these things?
What religion are you in the first place? Most likely a denomination of Christianity and if so I don't think it will conflict. The first commandment says do not worship any other gods besides (Jesus and his dad but they are the same dude so ya). There are no gods in Buddhism so you are clear on that one. Buddhism also teaches the importance of a vegetarian diet which will benefit you morally as well as keeping you healthy so that is a plus. As far as I know Buddhism and Christianity are pretty compatible.
ok thats good because i am a christian and i live in south Georgia which in case you didnt know is a very very close minded part of the country.
Thanks for clearing that up for me:D
I live in the dirty south as well so its something Ive gotten used to over the years. Do some research for yourself (I'm neither a Buddhist or an expert on the subject) try the book "Zen to Go" which is a book consisting of quotes from Buddhist thinkers as well as philosophers. If you are interested in philosophy try Schopenhauer, Hegel, or Goethe all of whom are heavily influenced by Eastern thought.
Also: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddha/
Yeah, Buddhism is not the most happy-feel-good-love-everyone-and-everything practice, at least not the way other people have presented it to me. I find it empty and cold actually. The basic jist in my opinion is, everything is suffering, therefore escape everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
While I can agree with Buddhism on the illusionary nature of everything, I don't consider the illusionary nature of everything to be suffering. And the need to escape everything? I consider it a fear of existing. While Buddhism does a good job illustrating the God-like nature of the human consciousness, it doesnt do the best job illustrating that such a god has no need to fear anything. (and again based on the people who have illustrated buddhism to me). And therefore no need to fear being human, living human, and therefore no need to escape anything, because there is nothing to escape from.
You feel a connection, go with it.
Are you afraid this will go against Christianity? Here are some biblical things to consider. God is omnipresent. In other words, youll find God in a tree as much as youll find God in Jesus. I dont know if all the bibles say it, because there are so many versions out there. But there is a verse somewhere in one of these bibles that says - lift a stone and you will find God. Because God is within everything, biblically speaking. This is further illustrated again when Jesus says that Kingdom of Heaven is within you. God, in the bible is in heaven. And Jesus just told you where God is. (in you)
Jesus himself prays that you recognize your oneness with God. And if God is omnipresent, wouldnt you agree that this oneness with God is the connection with everything?
Its a shame we have this thing called Church completely distorting Jesus true teachings
So far so good.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
In the same way that you probably find science empty and cold?Quote:
I find it empty and cold actually.
Everything is not suffering. The best statement of the First Noble Truth is (IMO) "Suffering exists in life."Quote:
The basic jist in my opinion is, everything is suffering, therefore escape everything.
Do you disagree?
Neither do most Buddhists that I respect. I'm excluding new-agers that will claim support for anything that they want from any source that they want. :P Reality isn't an illusion because of quantum mechanics. It's merely reality as we percieve it that we are forced to conclude is the illusion. Not even that is necessary for Buddhist thought though.Quote:
While I can agree with Buddhism on the illusionary nature of everything, I don't consider the illusionary nature of everything to be suffering.
The "need to escape everything" is an aversion which is one of the causes of suffering. So again, Buddha said nothing of the sort.Quote:
And the need to escape everything? I consider it a fear of existing.
The Second Noble Truth is best summed up by saying that "Our attractions and aversions are the root cause of us perceiving ourselves to be suffering". i.e. "We are responsible for our own suffering". That doesn't sound very "god like" to me. If you want to believe (are attracted to the notion) that you're a god/dess, that's fine. Don't be surprised when the divergence of your cravings from reality causes suffering though. After all, that's the Second Noble Truth.Quote:
While Buddhism does a good job illustrating the God-like nature of the human consciousness,
Fear is just an aversion and is therefore the origin our perception ouf our own suffering. I'll try to stifle my surprise that the Buddha's teachings have gone entirely over the heads of the people that you run around with.Quote:
it doesnt do the best job illustrating that such a god has no need to fear anything. (and again based on the people who have illustrated buddhism to me).
Except the fact that we're all a bunch of stupid, hairy monkeys that are going to rot in the ground one day. Unless of course you shave and believe that you're a god/dess, divine star child, above even the angels, etc...Quote:
And therefore no need to fear being human, living human, and therefore no need to escape anything, because there is nothing to escape from.
True dat. It's a true shame that the words somebody that was almost definitely heavily influence by the Buddhist missionaries that we know made it as far as Iraq had his words so heavily distorted or Europeans probably would never have become the world's worst savages. Fortunately, the Buddha died of old age and developed a massive following that recorded pretty much his every word. Over in India, the teachings were well preserved.Quote:
Its a shame we have this thing called Church completely distorting Jesus true teachings
You should actually read them instead of listening to stupid new-agers. They almost never get anything right.
You should investigate as much as you can anyway. It doesn't mean to necessarily propose worship outside of your original faith but it's good to see what others out there are saying and what they believe. Get acclimated to everything don't limit yourself to understanding just one area of belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesac5678
and no stormcrow God and Jesus are NOT the same "dude".Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
I would present the question:
Why look to others to determine what makes sense to you?
I encourage you to explore all possibilities, factor in what makes sense to you, and formulate your own ideas as to the nature of existence and the deity.
The holy trinitry? Three personas of one god?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
The holy trinitry states that jesus is not the father, but he is god, as is the father, and the holy spirit.
If you do not believe in this concept, your religion is either polytheistic or Jebus and the holy spirit are not God.
Buddhism is Atheism with icing on the cake.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesac5678
These two possibilities that you have stated are not the only two possibilities that exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by JussiKala
Im not saying abandoning Christianity but just practicing meditation and astral projection, which seem to be a big part of Buddhism. So instead of becoming Buddhist im just asking if it would go against my religion to practice meditation and astral projection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
Well in the catholic faith it is taught that Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are one entity which is called the Holy Trinity as Jussikala said.
Also to contribute to what Philospherstoned said about causing our own suffering I wanted to add this little Koan on the subject.
"Just as rust arising from iron
eats away the base from which it arises,
even so, their own deeds
lead transgressors to states of woe."
Also I just wanted to add this because I think it is beautiful.
"When we contemplate the whole globe as one great dewdrop, striped and dotted with continents and islands, flying through space with other stars all singing and shining together as one, the whole universe appears as an infinite storm of beauty."
It depends on who you ask, and you know it.
Some Christians will tell you that even pie goes against Christianity.
Yes but Catholicism is the true denomination of Christianity...Quote:
Originally Posted by sloth
The true Scotsman, you mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
I really can't tell if you're TRYING to be funny here, or not.
I wasn't necessarily trying to be funny but granted I do have a lame ass sense of humor.Quote:
Originally Posted by sloth
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesac5678
You're welcome.
AFAIK most protestant churches also teach the trinitry. I grew up in an evangelical lutheran community, though nobody I spoke to regularly, including my family, was really religious at all.
Buddhism has no beliefs, we just follow what is. Except I shouldn't say we cause I ain't no Buddhist.
But Buddhism really isn't a religion. People practice it as one because they want a sense of community and morality and the like weird rituals and all that, but it's really not one. It's just a path to awakening, a practice of mindfulness. If you practice mindfulness, you will see that you are connected with everything, that this world is deterministic. You will see that you create you're own suffering, and that you can stop doing this.
You don't have to believe in anything, and I would encourage you to hold no beliefs, just see thing as they are.
In buddhism you don't try to do anything. You are already are connected with everything, even delusion. You just open your eyes and see what is.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
I've actually heard that his words were not recorded(this coming from a Zen Roshi who(m?) I respect) and that he didn't even teach in Sanskrit or Pali. I really don't know so I should probably keep my mouth shut, but the guy said that the teachings were passed by word of mouth until about 400 years after his death. He was saying this in response to thervadens who believed the Dharma was only the words of Buddha, saying we really don't even know what they were exactly. His point is that the Dharma is in everything, it is right in front of your face so open your eyes. It is even there in your mind when you are stuck in the cycle of self clinging and desire. Just see it, see what is. WAKE UP ALREADY GODDAAMMMMMITT.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
PhilosopherStoned is correct to direct everyone to the Four Noble Truths, as the Buddha Sakyamuni frequently said they are the whole of his teachings, and no, nothing in them necessarily conflicts with Christianity. I'll just address some specific misconceptions:
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
False. Traditional Buddhism recognizes 31 planes of existence, often simplified to the six realms of deities, demigods, humans, animals, ghosts and demons. Vajrayana Buddhism also employs an array of meditation deities, and many Buddhists are also Universalists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
My approach is that gods exist every bit as much as you, me, the sun, or my desk chair: somewhat, but not particularly.
False. The Buddha advised his followers not to kill animals or cause them to be killed, but held firmly, in the face of strong criticism, that obtaining meat already butchered simply does not involve one karmically in the animal's death. Causality doesn't flow backwards. Some Buddhists and even whole sanghas may adopt vegetarianism voluntarily, but excessive emphasis upon it is a spiritual red herring.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
I can see where you're getting these ideas, but there are so many things wrong with what you just said. The goal is absolutely to be in touch with reality, just not reality as we normally perceive it. The OP's vague idea that "everything is connected somehow" is considerably more on point than terming Buddhism "nihilist." The idea of dependent origination (a.k.a. interdependent co-arising) of all phenomena was Sakyamuni's chief reformation of the Brahmanic approach to karma and rebirth.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
Yes, he taught renunciation for his monks and nuns, and certainly emphasized monasticism for anyone serious about liberation, but he did also provide teachings for laity which did not include running away from home. If the Buddha's awakening was "nihilist," he would simply have popped out of existence under the bodhi tree, not walked the length and breadth of northern India for fifty years engaging the people.
no, im atheist.
I've heard about that same time frame. I don't really distinguish between "recorded" as being written down and "recorded" as being committed verbatim to memory and being transmitted that way. Thats why there is so much repitition in the Pali Canon. It's a traditional mechanism to aid with memorization.Quote:
Originally Posted by stonedape
It's absolutely true that the Dharma is everywhere and in all things. Still, you presumably respect the Zen Roshi because s/he sees it more clearly than you?
At any rate, you're right. This is one of the reasons that I favor the Thervada focus on one Buddha. The one should suffice and a lot that came after just added more mystical nonsense.
It's fairly easy to dismiss most of that if we recall that Buddha was addressing a hindu society that expected weird shit. None of that stuff is really essential.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Well I'm glad that now im reasured im not going against my religion :D
It's easy to dismiss if one is preoccupied with dismissing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
Whether religious or not, you should always question and re-evaluate your beliefs... otherwise, you're running out outdated software. Refresh the cache, ya know?
I don't even think that one needs to be preoccupied for it to be easy. One should experience it or be confronted with an irrefutable argument for its being a necessary component of reality before one accepts it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
While he probably does(although I wouldn't say more clearly, just more consistently, I still have a bit of a wandering mind), that's not why I respect him. I respect him because I had a few conversations with him and I can tell he has a dedication to the truth and to compassion. What I meant in this context was that I respect him in that he knows his shit when it comes to Buddhism. He has studied it and he knows more about the cannons than I do, I know very little about them.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
Don't most modern Buddhist teachings, and even old ones, talk of there being only one reality? How does that fit in with 31 planes of existence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Traditional Buddhism is a very cultural thing. In that culture they believed in Gods, so many people reasoned from that. Did Shakymuni Buddha ever give a sutra where he says anything about Gods or other planes of existence? I really don't know, I don't really know too many of them, just heart sutra, diamond sutra, identity of relative and absolute sutra, maybe a few others I can't think of now, but none of them have anything to do with Gods. I have heard buddhist chants that have references to Gods, but they didn't come from the Buddha. I guess it doesn't matter that much, Buddhism doesn't really tell you what to believe, it tells you to think for yourself.
From Vipaka Sutta: ResultsQuote:
Originally Posted by stonedape
Spoiler for Vipaka Sutta: Results:
The Buddha teaches that without achieving liberation, we are reborn endlessly in the six lower realms of samsara, according to the karmic formations that accrue from our actions. If you want to reserve judgment as to whether those teachings are literal, metaphorical or allegorical (and indeed, if you want to draw sharp distinctions between these three categories of truth) until you achieve greater understanding, so be it, but dismissing the teachings and assigning cunning, populist motivations to The Buddha is probably not conducive to insight.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
Relevant article: Dhamma Without Rebirth?
That's interesting, I'll have to look more into that sutta. I wonder what point in his teaching career that's from? But as PhilosopherStoned said those beliefs likely came from his background as a hindu(if he believed it literally and wasn't presenting it as a metaphor). There really isn't any solid evidence or reason to believe in literal reincarnation, and(or Gods, or other realms of existence) many ideas such as selflessness, that the self is determined by the whole of the universe, contradict it. What is being reincarnated? And how is that more the self than the sum and total of this moment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
You will find references to rebirth at every "point in his teaching career," because rebirth according to karma through the mechanism of dependent origination is the cornerstone of Right View, the first element of the Eightfold Path. If you accept any aspect of The Buddha's teaching, what makes you think that your idea of what constitutes "literal reincarnation" is any more realistic than your idea of what constitutes yourself, the beings and forms you encounter, and the unfolding of events?Quote:
Originally Posted by stonedape
At some point, you should have a better grasp of teachings like karma and rebirth, but if a considerable portion of the teachings were not beyond your current understanding, why would you be pursuing them in the first place? The goal is not to make The Buddha's view conform to your current understanding, but vice versa.
I disagree. The goal is to open-mindedly mine the world for wisdom. To assume that the Buddha's view is divine truth is an obstruction to this goal. The assumption that there's "something else" to reality more often obscures wisdom than provides it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
I was telling somebody that's interested in "eastern knowledge" the story of the three divine messengers. Briefly, a man dies and is reborn in hell. The god of hell asks him why he's there? Didn't the three divine messengers come to him? Didn't he ever see a sick person and think to do good deeds? Didn't he ever see an old and infirm person and think to do good deeds? Didn't he ever see a dead person and think to do good deeds? Of course he saw all three of these things (illness, old-age and death) but none of them made him think to do good things. The person to whom I was relating the story decided that the people that were ill, old and dead must have been angels. He missed the point. There is no need for angels to come down and pose as unfortunate people because such people already exist!
Heaven, Hell and Karma are all perfectly explicable in a one-life, "materialist"1 world view and I see no reason that additional assumptions does anything but confuse and complicate. The Buddha walked the earth 2500 years ago. We know more now.
--------------
1) I really prefer the term "mechanist" because of the dual meaning of the word "materialist". It's often confused with "materialistic". This is funny because I see so often the attitude that simply believing in supposedly non-physical phenomena and attempting to exploit said phenomena to gain more sex and money somehow makes a person "spiritual". I've had people like this look down on me for my atheistic beliefs on a view occasions. Of course I've always been drawn to a fairly ascetic life and I can't think of anything more materialistic than attempting to get God to give you more sex and money...
All I can tell you is that when one sees rebirth, karma and even heaven and hell more clearly, they are not magical or mystical, and no more immaterial than language or culture, or the relationship between cause and effect. Rationalizing your way around them is wasted effort, tilting at windmills that never were giants. If they don't make any sense to you now, set them aside and work on something else for a while. No-self can be particularly illuminating as to how rebirth does not constitute reincarnation in the "transmigration of the soul" sense.
We know more about what relevant subject areas? What does science have to say that has any bearing on rebirth? Rebirth according to karma through dependent origination is not an assumption, but an observation of how our reality regenerates itself with an appearance of continuity. Seeing oneself as bounded by birth, death, and an unspecified concentration of lipids in excess of air molecules is an assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
Good luck with that. The colloquial use of any term that originally described a philosophical position is going to be much simpler than--and often damned near opposite--the philosophy itself. If you did manage to popularize "mechanist" in place of philosophical Materialism, you would shortly find people taking it to mean that you want to either build The Matrix or fuck toaster ovens.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
In this case, I would say the reason that the colloquial use overshadows the original is that so many Materialists are unaware that they have adopted Materialism, believing their position to be some kind of null hypothesis. Be more assertive in identifying yourselves as Materialists and informing others that advance Materialist positions that their view is not simply "the absence of loony-ness" but a positive philosophical claim, and you could dispel all kinds of misinformation.
I would appreciate it if you stopped speaking as though others lack spiritual understanding because they disagree with your terminology. We live in a different culture than the Buddha, when you use words like reincarnation, people think you mean you(meaning the ghost in the machine that really doesn't even exist itself) come back as a frog in another life. We you use words like God people think you mean a deity who exists in another dimension and has influence over this world(unless they're a deist, then disregard the last part).Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Also if you recall, the spark of conflict between Philosopherstoned, myself and you was about Gods and other planes of existence. Do you really think that these things exist somewhere outside of the mind? And if so, why, I am deeply curious about such things. I used to believe in(planes of existence, not gods) them but have since decided that they were most likely just in my mind.
By literal reincarnation I meant the reincarnation of the soul or consciousness or self in another body. Transmigration of the soul as you put it. This is generally what people who profess any kind of belief in reincarnation are talking about. I can go and find some examples of this if you want, but it's really unnecessary.
The way the Buddha talks of reincarnation in the sutta, is it not metaphorical and allegorical? Is he saying that we literally go to a place called hell or the realm of the hungry shades? Is he not saying that by doing wrong deeds, we lose mindfulness. We enter a negative mental state, disconnected from reality(hell). "It leads to rebirth as a common animal" referring to the way in which it causes us to be overcome by unconscious(unmindful) animal drives. "Leads to the realm of the hungry shades" meaning it leads to inner dissatisfaction, inner hunger, greed.
The goal is not to conform to any viewpoint but to see the world as it is. Wake up. Don't try to be like the Buddha, be the Buddha. In my opinion you might as well get rid of any distinction, just be. It's more honest and simple.Quote:
The goal is not to make The Buddha's view conform to your current understanding, but vice versa.
The goal is to see the truth(what is), and to develop compassion, though when one sees the truth there is no developing that has to happen, it just flows out.