Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
hyperactive

Buddhism - part 1

Recommended Posts

hyperactive

Part 1:

there are 2 branches of Buddhism: THeravada and Mahayana

Theravada beliefs:

-human beings are emancipated by self-effort, without supernatural aid

-key virtue: wisdom

-attainment requires constant commitmnet, and is primarily for monks and nuns

-ideal: the Arhat who remains in nirvana after death

-Buddha a saint, supreme teacher, and inspirer

-minimizes metaphysics

-minimizes ritual

-practice centred on meditation.

Mahayana beliefs:

-human aspirations are supported by divine powers and the grace they bestow

-key virtue: compassion

-religious practice is relevant to life in the world, and therefore to laypeople

-ideal: the boddhisattva

-buddha is saviour

-elaborates metaphysics

-emphasizes ritual

-includes petitionary prayer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Quicksand

Hyperactive,

I've always found the Kalama Sutta: The Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry quite refreshing in a world of religous certianity and absolutism.

Here's a reductive summary without the story.

• Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.

• Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.

• Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.

• Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.

• Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

• But when, after observation and analysis, you find anything that agrees with reason, and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.

I am curious. Would this apply to both branches, just one, or by perhaps applied by degress?

Edited by Quicksand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperactive
Hyperactive,

I've always found the Kalama Sutta: The Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry quite refreshing in a world of religous certianity and absolutism.

Here's a reductive summary without the story.

• Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.

• Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.

• Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.

• Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.

• Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

• But when, after observation and analysis, you find anything that agrees with reason, and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.

I am curious. Would this apply to both branches, just one, or by perhaps applied by degress?

572263[/snapback]

i think it belongs to both. It is some of the wisest words written. The branches accept all teachings (that i am aware of), they just differ in what is emphasized.

The problem is that (much like christianity), Buddha did not write anything himself, and the first writings showed up 100 years after his death. The two branches are a result of Hindu influence over his teachings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quicksand

That's true about the origins and all.

But you gotta admire a "religion" that asks you to question itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saucy

Buddha's teachings are contradictive. Divine powers and supernatural aid? Buddha didn't believe in God. He was an agnostic. Nor did he ever claim to be a god. Where did all his teachings come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quicksand
Buddha's teachings are contradictive.  Divine powers and supernatural aid?  Buddha didn't believe in God.  He was an agnostic.  Nor did he ever claim to be a god.  Where did all his teachings come from?

572533[/snapback]

I don't know. Where did the teachings of Mein Kampf come from? There is no way now that they could have not come from Hitler.

Since we can doubt that the Buddha can not independently develop his own teachings, we can declare that no man can do either. Just like Hitler.

Therefor, we can safety and resolutely declare that yes God wrote Mein Kampf .

thumbsup.gif

_______________

Re: Agnostic.

One can be an agnostic theist and agnostic atheist. There are different degrees of each. Strong and Weak. So, accordingly, da' Buddha is just fine.

Edited by Quicksand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperactive
Buddha's teachings are contradictive.  Divine powers and supernatural aid?  Buddha didn't believe in God.  He was an agnostic.  Nor did he ever claim to be a god.  Where did all his teachings come from?

572533[/snapback]

the teachings are not contradictive, it is the derivations (outside influences) that produced the contradictions.

i don't subscribe to the buddha as being anything more than a man, a philosopher. Just as I don't consider Jesus to be anything more than a man, a philosopher. (or Muhammed, or any other "prophet")

I stick to the philosophy since once one achieves enough self-awareness, the existance of higher-order beings becomes irrelevent (to one's own existence) in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loge
Buddha's teachings are contradictive.  Divine powers and supernatural aid?  Buddha didn't believe in God.  He was an agnostic.  Nor did he ever claim to be a god.  Where did all his teachings come from?

572533[/snapback]

These questions really lack a lot of understanding about Buddhism.

Uneducated Christians" who are blindly following the NT. won't study any other doctrine in depth, thus, their issues on any other religious matter or morality will be obviously the morality of a false Christianity. Belief cannot substitute direct experience of the truth!

It is really sad seeing false Christians playing religion with their so-called beliefs.

There is a lot of knowledge in Buddhism than to call it Agnostic is really very ludicrous. Gnosis is KNOWLEDGE and the vowel “A” means WITHOUT.

I do not expect them to agree or disagree on every issue of the doctrine of Buddha. Since they only understand their Christianity on the surface and never have dive within its profound waters. Those who have done it can see that every word of Buddha is "Strongly Christian" or "Strongly Religious."

So you think that Buddhism is contradictive because it does not match your beliefs!

Buddha never believed in God because he was not a blind believer, he was a BUDDHA (awakened or illuminated). The one who experience God do not need to believe in God.

Buddha was not God, but God talked through him as IT did it through Jesus! happy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rue
Buddha's teachings are contradictive.  Divine powers and supernatural aid?  Buddha didn't believe in God.  He was an agnostic.  Nor did he ever claim to be a god.  Where did all his teachings come from?

572533[/snapback]

Hey wait a minute----The bible has some contradictive teachings, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
__Kratos__

Are you just going to skip Zen Buddhism, or is that in a future update?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperactive
Are you just going to skip Zen Buddhism, or is that in a future update?

572713[/snapback]

i had to start somewhere... zen came later as a branching off from Mahayana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinM

I'd honestly say that Buddhism is more of a philosophy then a religion. Religion is a contemplation of the supernatural(God, gods, spirits, etc). Buddhism is more of a way of dealing with the here and now. With your life and how you should live it. It does give consideration to the possibilities of what happens beyond death(which were defenately influenced by Hinduism which isn't suprising as Buddha was raised in the Hindu beliefs) but its primary principles are considerably more grounded in the physical. Thats not a bad thing at all its a good part of why Buddhism is considered a very practical belief system. Buddha I believe would have gotten along well with Christ. If Buddha would have recognised Jesus as the true Christ(or Messiah if you prefer, Christ is simply the Greek word for Messiah) I honestly don't know but the two men taught a number of things that were very similar and complimentary. Its a truth some of Buddha's later followers have picked up on in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
hyperactive
I'd honestly say that Buddhism is more of a philosophy then a religion.  Religion is a contemplation of the supernatural(God, gods, spirits, etc). Buddhism is more of a way of dealing with the here and now.  With your life and how you should live it.  It does give consideration to the possibilities of what happens beyond death(which were defenately influenced by Hinduism which isn't suprising as Buddha was raised in the Hindu beliefs) but its primary principles are considerably more grounded in the physical.  Thats not a bad thing at all its a good part of why Buddhism is considered a very practical belief system.  Buddha I believe would have gotten along well with Christ.  If Buddha would have recognised Jesus as the true Christ(or Messiah if you prefer, Christ is simply the Greek word for Messiah) I honestly don't know but the two men taught a number of things that were very similar and complimentary.  Its a truth some of Buddha's later followers have picked up on in fact.

576075[/snapback]

you have it.

the reason for the split into 2 main camps of thought is becuase one side is "spiritual" i.e. Hindu influenced (the history of it is the usual one if Hinduim not wanting to loose out to Buddhism, so it exerted its influence)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saucy

Maybe I'm a little off, but I did a little bit of research on a few more popular religions. Buddhism says there is no God. Hindus believe in over 300 million gods and the only true sin is to believe that there is only one god and the Islamists say the worst sin you can have is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. They also say their Allah is the same as our Jehovah, but if that were true, there wouldn't be a confusion on who Jesus really is. It looks to me that all other religions go against what I consider to be the one true religion. Why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperactive
It looks to me that all other religions go against what I consider to be the one true religion.  Why is that?

576146[/snapback]

"religions" all claim to be in contact or worship the "correct" deities. By that definition all other religions are worshipping the incorrect deities. In the world of absolutes (which religions like to live in - a binary world of absolute right or absolute wrong) if you are of another religion you are absolutely wong, and thus "the enemy".

Religions also seek to preserve themselves so they go out of their way to make doctorine denouncing anything that could be another religion.

If the religions and the religious would stop with the false absolutes, there would be more harmony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinM
Maybe I'm a little off, but I did a little bit of research on a few more popular religions.  Buddhism says there is no God.  Hindus believe in over 300 million gods and the only true sin is to believe that there is only one god and the Islamists say the worst sin you can have is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God.  They also say their Allah is the same as our Jehovah, but if that were true, there wouldn't be a confusion on who Jesus really is.  It looks to me that all other religions go against what I consider to be the one true religion.  Why is that?

576146[/snapback]

Where on earth did youg et this sillyness. MOst of htese statements are in fact quite inaccurate.

Buddhism: Depends on the sect. Buddha himself from what I've seen was probably an agnostic(one who doesn't know if there is a god)

Hinduism: Believes that there are many gods yes. It also holds that all gods are simply a way of comprehending the infinite principle Brahma of which every thing in creation is a part. To a hindu there's no such thing as a non hindu because all religions are endeavoring to understand the Brahma

Islam: Under the laws set down by Muhammed Christianity and Judaism are the religions of the book. They are the predicessors of Islam and as such deserve a measure of respect. In Islamic countries that old to his true teachings on the matter(incidentaly this included Iraq during Saddam's regime) Christians and Jews could live unmolested in an Islamic city as long as they pay a special tax. As to confusion on who Jesus really is why not? Jews also worship Yhwh and don't consider Jesus the messiah(Jehovah is an innaccurate Latin translation and even it properly should be Jhvh. Yaheweh is a guess at the pronounciation of the true name of God not the actual name). In Islam the worst relgiious groups are polytheists(hence the long standing fued with Hinduism) and those people who believe in Allah but deliberately choose to deny him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Peter Venkman
Maybe I'm a little off, but I did a little bit of research on a few more popular religions.  Buddhism says there is no God.  Hindus believe in over 300 million gods and the only true sin is to believe that there is only one god and the Islamists say the worst sin you can have is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God.  They also say their Allah is the same as our Jehovah, but if that were true, there wouldn't be a confusion on who Jesus really is.  It looks to me that all other religions go against what I consider to be the one true religion.  Why is that?

576146[/snapback]

Saucy, allow me to explain. It's not that the Buddha didn't beleive in a higher power. He realized that he never could truly know if there was one. Therefore, he never concerned himself with it. A story to help you-

There were several wise men arguing over the validity of one anothers beliefs. Each swore that they were correct and that the others were wrong. The arguements began to turn violent, so they sought the wisdom of the Buddha. The Buddha told them the story of a king who brought several blind men into his court. Next, he would bring in an elephant and ask each man to touch the elephant. One man touched the elephants leg, and swore that it was a large pillar. Another touched the elephants side and knew, without a shadow of a doubt, that he was touching a wall. The point? As far as a higher power is concerned, we're all just blind people reaching for the unknown. Worrying about it only causes unneccecary suffering within yourself.

Hope this helps. thumbsup.gif

Don't forget the moon!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

I studied Vajrakylana Buddhism for a time, and if I could ever have been said to be a member of religion, that would be it. I do have to say that the explanations given on this thread have been very vague, enough to be almost misdirecting. While it is most definitily true that different sects of Buddhism have differing opinions on the supernatural side of things, spiritually, they all share very common properties. I can't help but think that the main difficulty this thread is encountering so far is that people are having a difficult time seperating the spiritual from the religious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Peter Venkman
I studied Vajrakylana Buddhism for a time, and if I could ever have been said to be a member of religion, that would be it.  I do have to say that the explanations given on this thread have been very vague, enough to be almost misdirecting.  While it is most definitily true that different sects of Buddhism have differing opinions on the supernatural side of things, spiritually, they all share very common properties.  I can't help but think that the main difficulty this thread is encountering so far is that people are having a difficult time seperating the spiritual from the religious.

586360[/snapback]

Good call thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeus

Hyperactive,

I've always found the Kalama Sutta: The Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry quite refreshing in a world of religous certianity and absolutism.

Here's a reductive summary without the story.

• Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.

• Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.

• Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.

• Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.

• Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

• But when, after observation and analysis, you find anything that agrees with reason, and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.

It seems very wise.

Observation and analysis. Can we also obTain wisdom through our intuitive mind?

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/kalama1.htm

Edited by Zeus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GIDEON MAGE

hyper-not even to insult you in an open thread, but-

Siddharta Gautauma neither believed nor disbelieved in gods. in one of the many recorded discourses, he was asked whether Ishvara (sort of resembles YHVH or Yeheshua, hmm, to those of us who have studied linguistics) really created the world. his response was basically, "who cares? just seek enlightenment."

to a great extent, what he did to native hinduism is very similiar to what Yeshu did to Judiasm. and the outcome was the same. in his native india and nepal, hinduism reigns supreme, the buddha being barely an afterthought. among jews, respect for Yeshu is even lower.

the "original" school of buddhism, theravada, referred to by the mahayana (greater vehicle) buddhists disdainfully as "hinayana" (lesser vehicle), is very similiar to protestant Christianity, very austere, avoiding a lot of symbology. often referred to as "short-path, since the emphasis is on instant enlightenment, after which "you must be born again" as Yeshu taught (oh my god, what?), you must live one last life after reaching enlightenment, and be reborn as a monk. then you go.

mahayana, on the other hand, went "backwards" in many ways, resembling catholicism in many many ways.and uses many gods, demons, etc. they are, i hate to tell you, not necessarily viewed as outside the "worshipper's" consciousness, or separate. they are mainly symbols, and it is deliberately vague whether they have an objective reality. all the rituals you refer to are merely techniques of raising consciousness. the supernatural aid you refer to is viewed as symbolic. the boddhisattva philosophy, taught by most theravada variants, is based on "long path" or renunciation of enlightenment until all others are ready. after truly reaching enlightenment, you turn your back on nirvana, and help others.

I might recommend John Blofeld's book "Kuan Yin-buddhist goddess of mercy", if you want to gain better understanding of the whole boddhisattva/god situation, or perhaps the wilhelm/baynes translation of the tibetan book of the dead.

zen has remarkable similiarities to orthodox christianity to one who studies with an open mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperactive

gideon:

indeed the buddha did not believe in gods.

however, Mahayana buddishm was a result of the hindu powers wanting to maintain power and thus applying their influence to the new thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GIDEON MAGE

hyper-influence, yes, but the gods are used as symbols of parts of the consciousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

There is a book its called IF Someone tells you their the Buddah shoot him, this encompasses the essence of the Buddah this is a metaphor Shoot meaning get rid of the idea kill it, for those of you that try to read something into it, I know Buddists they are the most beautiful people and its a lifestyle and it is lived they walk their talk their is no Gods in Buddism the buddah transceneded the need for a God if he ever believed in one, Buddah means the awakened one simoly meaning you have woke up to the truth of yourself and everyone can do this the Buddah also had no interest in starting up a religion, humans do this, not those that have mastered life. I love buddism the concepts are beautiful and worth trying out I practice Yoga( whuch is a very big part of the buddist lifestyle )something which I practice everyday of my life for me its the practice of graditude that is my chosen path but as much as I love the religion i will not be a follower of anyone or anything to follow is to live vicariously through anothers life and no master that has ever walked asked for that they said take our example and make your own path,Hyper I didn't know of the other topics so if I'm repeating myself not intentional and thankyou for posting a topic that a pleasure to reply to, thanks to all that have shared I truly have been enlightened. Namaste Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.