This is now a home for one issue that came up in my Zen koan thread.

So...

Is Buddhism a religion?
Must a religion be theistic? (note: some of Buddhism is clearly theistic, some is ambiguous, some is non-theistic)
Please include a definition of religion that you work with and connect this to your position.

Yes and no. It's the religion of no religion. Religions don't have to be theistic.

I've always viewed it as more of a philosophy than a religion. Buddhism seems more concerned with how to conduct oneself in life than with gods and sin and afterlife etc.

From the mainstream sociological and culturological perspective, it is a religion.
From that perspective, a religion needn't be theistic to be considered a religion.

Is Buddhism a religion?

As a short answer, I'd say yes.

For a longer answer...

One problem that we face is that our concept of 'religion', like our concept of 'philosophy', evolved in a Western context. They might not apply with precision to ideas from different cultures. In India, philosophy, psychology and religion were never distinguished as clearly as they are in modern Europe. (Chinese Confucianism is another problem case.)

So right out of the gate, Buddhism can look like a philosophy, a psychology, or like a religion, depending on what variety or aspect of Buddhism we happen to be looking at. (It's like that ancient parable of the blind men and the elephant.)

Early Buddhism, with its emphasis on dukkha, its arising and subsiding, and on the practice leading to the end of dukkha, perhaps most resembles Western psychology. To the extent that it teaches a metaphysics (anicca, anatta etc.) it's more like a philosophy. And to the extent that it offers a path to salvation, it was clearly religious from the very first.

Buddhism later broadened out from being primarily an ethical discipline and a meditation practice for a small core of forest renunciates, and evolved into something more closely resembling what we think of as popular religion -- with relics, pilgrimmage sites, temples, images, offerings, and eventually a whole pantheon of cosmic Buddhas and Boddhisattvas aiding Buddhists with supernatural grace and to whom many Buddhists devoutly pray.

Major Religions of the World

http://www.adherents.com/images/rel_pie.gif

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=main%20religions%20of%20the%20world&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adherents.com%2FReligions_By_ Adherents.html&ei=V6fCTvS0COessQLttui4BA&usg=AFQjCNGogbXwpSZhXdAa6dhfcAWudzcrBw

So by most definitions it is.

I've take a couple of exchanges from the Zen Koan thread, focusing on asserting by Fraggle Rocker


My wife is a lifelong atheist and more recently a Buddhist. She would be as angry as a Buddhist can be (and I don't know what their limit is) if she heard you calling Buddhism a "religion." It has no requirement to believe in gods or any supernatural phenomena.

Signal - In what tradition of Buddhism is your wife?


Tibetan. She also practices Vipassana meditation, which is a Tibetan school.


Originally Posted by Pineal
I was pointing out that many people in the West shift religion to Buddhism to support the idea that it is a religion, that they see it as being in the same category as the religion they are leaving behind.
”

FR - The number of atheists is growing in the West--much more quickly in many countries than in the USA. Many Christians in these countries come close to the atheist-Jew model I described above. To them, their religion is more of a comfortable community than a supernaturalist philosophy

Tibetan Buddhism is, compared to other Buddhisms, a supernaturalist religion. We have clear reincarnation, not in an anatma form. When the lamas die, they are specifically sought out in children - who are tested to make sure they are the same reincarnated souls. The lamas are also much closer to gurus than Buddhist masters from other traditions.

It is considered dangerous for non-initiated to engage in the various practices including meditation.

Some of this softened when it came into the West, but still most of the masters were tibetan and part of that lineage.

There are also deities, rituals, consecrations, etc.

If Fraggle's wife is not a supernaturalist, I wonder if she can really be a Buddhist.

Is someone who does Yoga, Hindu?

Now I assume she has taken on more of the Tibetan philosophy to consider herself part of that tradition, but how much can one pick and choose out of a, yes I would call it a religion, religion before one is considered a member.

The leaders in the religion are considered to be and consider themselves reincarnated souls. If this belief, which really is rather core to TB is not accepted, this means that one has decided that the authority of the leaders is good in one area - meditation - but not in other areas. This is, of course, easily philosophically defensible. People can be experts at one thing and deluded about something else.

However I do question the idea that she is a Tibetan Buddhist.

(this is not meant to be a personal issue about a specific person, but I think this 'case' highlights some key issues)

Can we not say that she has a practice taken from Tibetan Buddhism?

Of all the Buddhisms, Tibetan is most clearly a religion, and is certainly a supernaturalist tradition.

I've always viewed it as more of a philosophy than a religion. Buddhism seems more concerned with how to conduct oneself in life than with gods and sin and afterlife etc.



There are many temples in China and the temples are filled with worshipers who burn candles en front of Buddha Statue , As far I can see is no different worshiping then Catholics.

If that is all you know about Buddhism and Catholicism, then you may be trainable after all.

Aren't you at all interested in what other people believe and why?

This is now a home for one issue that came up in my Zen koan thread.

So...

Is Buddhism a religion?
Must a religion be theistic? (note: some of Buddhism is clearly theistic, some is ambiguous, some is non-theistic)
Please include a definition of religion that you work with and connect this to your position.

Since Buddhism is conventionally considered a world religion, I would immediately say yes. It's a convention to use this word. Christianity is considered a religion, but today more and more I encounter Christians who deny having "a religion" as if that is just a label that under-represents what they actually believe.

If I were God (another thread) I would make every person who believed in Me to have to study all the world religions. I would not tolerate intolerance.

Along the way, when they got to the course in Buddhism, they would expand their sense of self, eternity, and the nature of the subliminal (or supramundane).

One of the very important religious principles that Buddhism teaches is that we are all born into the tendency to err, and only through self-discipline can we escape this. For an atheist who practices meditation, the odds of achieving success are greatly increased if the mind is rid of all contamination that the cardinal sins introduce as disturbances.

In many ways, I consider Buddhism to be superior to many of the Western religions, because of the focus on self-improvment, not out of guilt or shame, or violation of some archaic rule handed down from legend, but because correcting yourself is right.

There are many temples in China and the temples are filled with worshipers who burn candles en front of Buddha Statue , As far I can see is no different worshiping then Catholics.

I think that the underlying philosophy is very different.

But yeah, it's true. East Asian Mahayana did evolve forms of popular religiosity and temple ceremonial that really are reminiscent of Catholicism. In the 16'th century early European visitors were struck by that.

There probably isn't a whole lot of difference between a Buddhist praying to Amida or one of the other cosmic Buddhas and Boddhisattvas, and a Catholic praying to Jesus, Mary or the Saints. The outward church/temple ceremonial is similar, and more importantly, the inner attitude and feeling are probably pretty similar too.

You guys in the West will think Buddhism is more of a way of life, philosophy and such. I bet a lot of this is because of the popularity of Zen.

Over in the East, Buddhism is treated much more like a religion. In China it is all about idol worship, and in Thailand and around it is similarly seen as more of a religion.

There are so many branches that it is what you make of it. For me Buddhism is mostly about living the right way, meditating & being compassionate. Meditation is the most important aspect, as once you do enough of it, you can't stop it anymore - that's when Buddhism has its most powerful influences on the psyche.

You guys in the West will think Buddhism is more of a way of life, philosophy and such. I bet a lot of this is because of the popularity of Zen.

Over in the East, Buddhism is treated much more like a religion. In China it is all about idol worship, and in Thailand and around it is similarly seen as more of a religion.

There are so many branches that it is what you make of it. For me Buddhism is mostly about living the right way, meditating & being compassionate. Meditation is the most important aspect, as once you do enough of it, you can't stop it anymore - that's when Buddhism has its most powerful influences on the psyche.

If someone does Yoga, are they Hindu? What is the minimum they would have to add, if your answer is no, so that you would think they were Hindu?

If I were God (another thread) I would make every person who believed in Me to have to study all the world religions. I would not tolerate intolerance.Satanism too? Are their no religious practices we can be intolerant about, God?


Along the way, when they got to the course in Buddhism, they would expand their sense of self, eternity, and the nature of the subliminal (or supramundane).Or feel bored and antsy. Or feel like the goal sounded creepy, this selfless nirvana.


One of the very important religious principles that Buddhism teaches is that we are all born into the tendency to err, and only through self-discipline can we escape this. For an atheist who practices meditation, the odds of achieving success are greatly increased if the mind is rid of all contamination that the cardinal sins introduce as disturbances. Sins?


In many ways, I consider Buddhism to be superior to many of the Western religions, because of the focus on self-improvment, not out of guilt or shame, or violation of some archaic rule handed down from legend, but because correcting yourself is right.So you are less tolerant of Western religions who you are now judging? :p

There are many temples in China and the temples are filled with worshipers who burn candles en front of Buddha Statue , As far I can see is no different worshiping then Catholics.

True. Bunch of degenerates.

I've take a couple of exchanges from the Zen Koan thread, focusing on asserting by Fraggle Rocker. Tibetan Buddhism is, compared to other Buddhisms, a supernaturalist religion. If Fraggle's wife is not a supernaturalist, I wonder if she can really be a Buddhist.I don't think she cares what anyone calls her. She's not doing this to belong to a group or to identify with one. She never says "I'm a Buddhist." She just says that she's studying the teachings of the Buddha.
We have clear reincarnation, not in an anatma form.She has studied Jungian psychology so she can clearly identify metaphors and archetypes when she sees them. She sees the cultural value in these things, and it does not require them to be literally true.
It is considered dangerous for non-initiated to engage in the various practices including meditation.Hogwash.
There are also deities, rituals, consecrations, etc.More metaphors, more archetypes.
Now I assume she has taken on more of the Tibetan philosophy to consider herself part of that tradition. . .She doesn't care whether she is "part of that tradition." She has just found some useful ideas that have helped her achieve a greater level of peace. My wife is not a group-oriented person, I can assure you of that.
. . . . but how much can one pick and choose out of a, yes I would call it a religion, religion before one is considered a member.As I said, that question is of utterly no importance to her. Well wait, I suppose it is. She would strongly object to anyone regarding her as a member of any religion.
However I do question the idea that she is a Tibetan Buddhist.I never said she was. Somebody asked which tradition she followed and I said "Tibetan." Not the same thing at all.
Can we not say that she has a practice taken from Tibetan Buddhism?That's just about the same thing I said. So why are you arguing?
There are many temples in China and the temples are filled with worshipers who burn candles en front of Buddha Statue , As far I can see is no different worshiping then Catholics.We appear to worship statues of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, but it's only their memories and their accomplishments that we truly worship.

We appear to worship statues of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, but it's only their memories and their accomplishments that we truly worship.

But they- Lincoln, Washington, etc, were real people. I would never consider placing flowers on my grandmother's grave the same as placing gifts at the feet of a statue of Mary or Buddha or any other such.

Honoring, discussing, studying a real individuals life and accomplishments is not the same as honoring, discussing, and studying some "enlightened" being?
For me, anyway.
BB

Buddha was a real person.

Buddha was a real person.

I thought there have been many real "Buddha". How is that? What makes one a Buddha? And not according to Wiki or the West's deformation and corruption of Buddhism

And why are they offered gifts by their practitioners? again, not according to Wiki or the West's deformation and corruption of Buddhism.

I can take out the woohoo from any practice but then am I still a practitioner?

And how can I be blamed if my corrupt definition of Buddhism doesn't match someone elses corrupted definition?

I can follow Jesus' ethical teachings but if I told someone that would they allow me to call myself an atheist? Without an argument?

There was a real person who came to be referred to by that name. Others are called that as an honorarium, meaning that they experienced the same transformation in consciousness as he did. In some sense, there are no real boundaries between self and other, so Buddha is all buddhas.

I think the gifts are both a form of respect, as well as a throwback to previous religious forms.

You can indeed take the woo woo out of Buddhism and distill it to it's essence. I think Zen is a form of that. You can also be an atheist or a Buddhist and appreciate Jesus (Rajneesh wrote a good book about that).

There was a real person who came to be referred to by that name. Others are called that as an honorarium, meaning that they experienced the same transformation in consciousness as he did. In some sense, there are no real boundaries between self and other, so Buddha is all buddhas.

I think the gifts are both a form of respect, as well as a throwback to previous religious forms.

You can indeed take the woo woo out of Buddhism and distill it to it's essence. I think Zen is a form of that. You can also be an atheist or a Buddhist and appreciate Jesus (Rajneesh wrote a good book about that).
"
Previous religious forms"? Can you explain this comment?

Buddhism is no longer a religion? Thus your use of the word "previous" Why?

Are there no "religious" practitioners only celebrity and "nondenominational" profitable Buddhism?
BB



I see all religions as watered down from a diety at their helm (originally?) to humans now at the helm. But then what are they? Are they still religions?

BB






BB

"
Previous religious forms"? Can you explain this comment?

Buddhism is no longer a religion? Thus your use of the word "previous" Why?

Are there no "religious" practitioners only celebrity and "nondenominational" profitable Buddhism?
BB



I see all religions as watered down from a diety at their helm (originally?) to humans now at the helm. But then what are they? Are they still religions?

BB






BB
When Buddhism spread throughout Asia, it, like Christianity, did not completely displace the previous religions, it formed a fusion. Previous religions tended to be animist, they prayed to various gods. Buddhism for laypeople, with some exceptions, became not unlike praying to a god. But the priests know better. They don't mind people treating Buddha like a god because it provides an entrance into more subtle teachings. Buddhism is a religion, but at it's essence it's not a supernatural one. Humans have always been at the helm. The most primitive religion is probably shamanism, in which natural drugs are used to change consciousness. Perhaps Buddhism is just a practice that stimulates a native chemical or set of chemicals in the brain. I think it re-organizes the brain into a new way of thinking.

I don't understand your last question.

When Buddhism spread throughout Asia, it, like Christianity, did not completely displace the previous religions, it formed a fusion. Previous religions tended to be animist, they prayed to various gods. Buddhism for laypeople, with some exceptions, became not unlike praying to a god. But the priests know better. They don't mind people treating Buddha like a god because it provides an entrance into more subtle teachings. Buddhism is a religion, but at it's essence it's not a supernatural one. Humans have always been at the helm. The most primitive religion is probably shamanism, in which natural drugs are used to change consciousness. Perhaps Buddhism is just a practice that stimulates a native chemical or set of chemicals in the brain. I think it re-organizes the brain into a new way of thinking.

I don't understand your last question.

Could you explain enlightenment? Is it a part of Buddhism? Can it be scientifically proven?
BB

My last comment was simply that (I left this out of my previous post) IMHO all religions today are not about the supernatural, they are controled by the very real and natural human. So then are they even religions in the strictest sense: Theistic. I say they are the ultimate in Humanism.

I understand the argument "Duh! Ofcourse they are controled by man, there are no supernatural gods!!" But my point isn't as simple as that.
I can't explain my argument thoroughly in limited space here, nor do I want to get into it, really.

I think it re-organizes the brain into a new way of thinking.

Yes.

Could you explain enlightenment?

It is a deep, profound understanding that bursts upon the recipient in a flash of insight so strong that it forever changes the person, the way they see the world and interact with others.

It is a deep, profound understanding that bursts upon the recipient in a flash of insight so strong that it forever changes the person, the way they see the world and interact with others.

In just Googling I get a variety of definitions. Some pretty wooeee to me. But that is the nature of the Net.

Do I have to reach a state of enlightenment to teach Buddhism?

If I reach enlightenment can I personally profit from it: Books, DVD's, paid interviews, and still call myself enlightened?

What sets my apart after this enlightenment?
BB

I can't explain enlightenment, it can only be experienced. It is central to Buddhism. In fact I would say it's the essence of it, the only part that matters. I could describe some experiences I had, but it wouldn't be the same. For instance I would read first hand accounts in books, but it did nothing for me. It can't be understood intellectually. But when I had such an experience, I would go back and read the accounts, and recognize what they were describing. The weirdest part is feeling like you are floating about 3 inches above the floor. I thought they were kidding about that! I'm an atheist and a skeptic, not one to believe just any new age crap. My instruction came from books, mostly Alan Watts. In fact it was a paperback edition of Watts that was the trigger for me. Not really the words, but the book itself and the act of reading it. I turned the page expecting some understanding and the next page happened to be blank. That's when it hit me what a fool I had been seeking for something that was as close as my own skin! This was accompanied by a very strange feeling of inner peace. My inner dialogue practically disappeared. I could indulge it when necessary, but mostly it was silent. It was like I saw myself from another place doing things and thinking things, but not being a part of it, a disinterested observer. Speech came spontaneously and I found myself saying unpredictable things. I drove to the mall and walked around not touching the ground (that floating feeling). I would read my Zen books and it was all perfectly clear. After that I never read another thing about it, not interested.

Can it be scientifically proven? I would suggest that Buddhism is a form of science experiment. You don't have to accept anything on faith, just try it out and see what happens. It could be an illusion, but subjectively it can have value to the person experiencing it. Or it can feel like death. We do know that perception is controlled by the brain and that the brain can change.

Religions don't have to be theistic to be religious, perhaps we are just conditioned to think so in western culture, the same way religious people say a scientific point of view is dry and uninspiring.

Do I have to reach a state of enlightenment to teach Buddhism?
Yes.


If I reach enlightenment can I personally profit from it: Books, DVD's, paid interviews, and still call myself enlightened?
There are no rules, do whatever you want. I think it would be somewhat distasteful to profit from it, but hey people need money.

It is a deep, profound understanding that bursts upon the recipient in a flash of insight so strong that it forever changes the person, the way they see the world and interact with others.

Your definitio in post #25 sounds rather benign. Not so uncommon an experience, though a flash of insight does not necessarily result in a change for the "positive". It would be my insight, after all?

Or does it rely on grasping another's insight which has certain perameters? Certain rules or characteristics, to be considered an enlightenment?

BB

I can't explain enlightenment, it can only be experienced. It is central to Buddhism. In fact I would say it's the essence of it, the only part that matters. I could describe some experiences I had, but it wouldn't be the same. For instance I would read first hand accounts in books, but it did nothing for me. It can't be understood intellectually. But when I had such an experience, I would go back and read the accounts, and recognize what they were describing. The weirdest part is feeling like you are floating about 3 inches above the floor. I thought they were kidding about that! I'm an atheist and a skeptic, not one to believe just any new age crap. My instruction came from books, mostly Alan Watts. In fact it was a paperback edition of Watts that was the trigger for me. Not really the words, but the book itself and the act of reading it. I turned the page expecting some understanding and the next page happened to be blank. That's when it hit me what a fool I had been seeking for something that was as close as my own skin! This was accompanied by a very strange feeling of inner peace. My inner dialogue practically disappeared. I could indulge it when necessary, but mostly it was silent. It was like I saw myself from another place doing things and thinking things, but not being a part of it, a disinterested observer. Speech came spontaneously and I found myself saying unpredictable things. I drove to the mall and walked around not touching the ground (that floating feeling). I would read my Zen books and it was all perfectly clear. After that I never read another thing about it, not interested.

Can it be scientifically proven? I would suggest that Buddhism is a form of science experiment. You don't have to accept anything on faith, just try it out and see what happens. It could be an illusion, but subjectively it can have value to the person experiencing it. Or it can feel like death. We do know that perception is controlled by the brain and that the brain can change.

Religions don't have to be theistic to be religious, perhaps we are just conditioned to think so in western culture, the same way religious people say a scientific point of view is dry and uninspiring.

Sorry, your description sounds wooee to me. Not to mention hard to prove scientifically. If there are no rules to enlightenment why do people seek such a random experience?


Thank you for your informative replies, by the way. I can't get answers without asking questions, even if they seem argumentative. That is not my main intention.

So, you are a Buddhist. One (mis)conception of Buddhism I had was that that meant that you have "outgrown" or are trying to outgrow anger, greed, hatred, etc. thru enlightenment? There were "standards" so to speak.
BB

Yes, religions don't have to be theistic (as I said before, I argue none are), but when we mention it in the US I gather a god and worship comes to mind most of the time.

I'm not a Buddhist.

Of course personal experiences are subjective and hard to prove that they happened. I don't want to prove it, just perhaps suggest that if people are interested in meditation, encourage them that it is not fruitless.

I think the "standards" are an afterthought. It's a good idea when creating a religion, as Buddha deliberately did, to include some moral teachings. Of course it's hard to take anger and hatred as seriously as I once did, since there is no longer the identification of "self" with the feelings. But anger and hatred can be valuable and I don't reject them.

Satanism too? Are their no religious practices we can be intolerant about, God?

Or feel bored and antsy. Or feel like the goal sounded creepy, this selfless nirvana.

Sins?

So you are less tolerant of Western religions who you are now judging? :p

Hi, Pi.

I have a problem calling Satanism a religion. It gets down to the definition, what we mean by Satanism, and what we mean by religion.

I was responding to the very ill-informed claim that Buddhists and Catholics worship objects, a narrow and pointed reference to the fundamentalist distortion of Bible text (idolatry).

Anyone who seriously believes this has been left in the dust by both Buddhists and Catholics, who would laugh at the small mind that draws conclusions like this without bothering to investigate what these people are doing in their rituals, or in their prayer or meditation.

The notion that Buddhism is frivolous or absurd just because it explores nothingness also is a demonstration of a narrow mind.

Fraggle mentioned a connection between Buddhism and Jungian philosophy. In fact, Buddhist are deeply philosophical. I would say the same of Catholics. In fact, it is that desire to achieve perfection by thinking deeply that gives these folks an edge over the fundamentalists, who still live in a flat-earth model of their God.

As for sin, I'm sure most folks here recognize that Catholics have a well developed sense of sin. The Buddhists do too. The difference, as I see it, is that the Buddhist doesn't dwell on the shame and punishment aspect of it as much, but more as a matter of ignorance - to do something wrong knowing havoc will be the result. Rid yourself of sin, and with a less troubled mind you will discover a deeper connection between yourself and the cosmos. It's all about self-improvement. But God is in there too, as a matter of choice.

Catholics do not worship candles or statues or graven images. They read the same texts in the Bible that cover idolatry, as the fundamentalists do. They understand that those scriptures prohibit idol worship, such as cutting down a tree, carving it into a fertility symbol, and then believing it is a living spirit. Catholics do not believe the statue, just because it was formed to resemble a holy object, actually takes on a spirit and becomes the saint or whoever is represented in it. Catholics surround themselves in art to help add a visual dimension to the invisible world of their faith. This has been going on since before the time of Christ. It's an ancient custom, and to denounce it as idol worship is to deny the very roots of one's own fundamentalist view of Christianity.

Fundamentalists who decry this today are just echoing an ancient rage, folks called iconoclasts. They destroyed untold treasures of history, believing they knew an idol when they saw one. Yesterday's reactionaries, I would say.

I'm not down on religion, just on superstition, ignorance, prejudice and the unending rant about myths and legends and all the denunciation of evidence that accompanies American-style Anabaptist-derived fundamentalism.

When Buddhism spread throughout Asia, it, like Christianity, did not completely displace the previous religions, it formed a fusion.For example, the "faith" of 21st-Century China is a fusion of motifs from Confucianism, the Dao, Buddhism and Communism. Confucianism and Communism, in particular, have made a very successful pairing because Confucius teaches us to respect our elders and not make waves (that's how China became the world's oldest continuous civilization), so when the party leaders tell them what to do, they do it. They don't mind that the "elders" get the profits, so long as their own standard of living continues to improve. That never worked in Russia and Hungary!
Could you explain enlightenment? Is it a part of Buddhism? Can it be scientifically proven?The word has a basic meaning of "the acquisition of knowledge and/or understanding," which can be applied spiritually, scientifically, or in many contexts. Don't forget the important event in the history of us Westerners, "The Enlightenment" of the 18th century. It was a huge step forward in European and American culture. It taught us to believe in the power of human reason, and armed with that power we made very impressive innovations in politics, religion and education. Science thrived in this new culture. It's arguable whether the Industrial Revolution would have even happened without it. The same goes for the spread of democracy!
I think it would be somewhat distasteful to profit from it, but hey people need money.Everyone has to make a living. People who provide a service should be paid for it. Duh? The better the service, the more generous the pay. This is the way we encourage the most skillful people to pursue their line of work, and encourage the others to try doing something else for a living.

Sure, it's not a perfect system. But nothing human is perfect.

RE: Post #32 The idea of Catholic idolatry stems from the belief in some that a Christian prays only to the godhead, not to Mary or to saints. So when they see a statue of Mary to whom catholics pray--they are praying to a rock--a nonfunctioning help of some kind. They believe there is no supernatural help, guidence, power in Mary or any Saint, so that is why it is idolatry.

What do Catholics do in their prayer and meditation time?

Our local secular latin american community paper comes with a prayer to some saint each week and my catholic friends like to include saints' prayer cards in their letters, etc telling me to pray to this saint for this and that saint for that. How is that so far beyond any fundamentalist?

Satan is a fallen angel of the Judeo-Chr God. What is your definition of Satanism?

BB

It is a deep, profound understanding that bursts upon the recipient in a flash of insight so strong that it forever changes the person, the way they see the world and interact with others.



That is not exclusive to Buddhist. And if some will tell me Buddhism is not religion , What about the queen of heaven, she was introduced into China during Buddhism evangelization.

It is spiritual, and it is a faith, and has a following. So, yes.

If someone does Yoga, are they Hindu? What is the minimum they would have to add, if your answer is no, so that you would think they were Hindu?

No. Many people do yoga for relaxation or exercise rather than for the religious experience.

For someone to be Hindu, their core beliefs (regarding God, Purpose in life, Karma etc.) would have to be influenced by some Hindu holy book (Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita etc.), more than another religion's ideas.

Do I have to reach a state of enlightenment to teach Buddhism?


Short answer: Yes. It's dangerous to teach meditation if you do not fully understand it yourself. The basics can be learned by anyone, and taught by many, but once you get advanced it is best to have a mentor. Foremost, this is to save time. Think about koans for example - if you don't understand them you can't create them.



If I reach enlightenment can I personally profit from it: Books, DVD's, paid interviews, and still call myself enlightened?


Yes you would still be enlightened. You wouldn't be greedy though, and your efforts would not be for material gain.



What sets my apart after this enlightenment?
BB

You won't have any free-willed thoughts running around in the back of your mind. You can still feel sad and things like that, but only if you choose. Say goodbye to anger. I went a few years without getting angry, and completely forgot what it was like. I really had to relearn the emotion because I decided it was useful.

Emotional control is the best way I can describe it. You also start to feel compassion for everything.

Animals are thought of as enlightened. Because they don't carry the weight of their ego around with them.

It is a deep, profound understanding that bursts upon the recipient in a flash of insight so strong that it forever changes the person, the way they see the world and interact with others.

This is the stereotypical enlightenment, but usually it's different.

Enlightenment is a real gradual shift that can take a whole lifetime. There are lots of stories of Buddhas 'clicking' into place in an instant and it happens. But usually there are a thousand 'clicks' before enlightenment actualizes. It's common for someone to become enlightened, and become unenlightened again back and forth many times.

While it is true that to completely understand "enlightenment" one must experience it, it is on occasion necessary to describe it to the curious. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained". I am not selling anything, merely expressing (in simple terms) my knowledge and personal experience.

I also got my introduction to Buddhism through Alan Watts - the Three Pillars of Zen - which I first read in 1968 when I became a practicing Buddhist. I developed and modified my regimen over the decades to its present form which I practice daily.

On enlightenment, 2 examples of satori from my personal experience:

1)The first experience was sitting doing Zazen (classic Zen meditation, counting breaths). After about 1/2 hour of Zazen, I suddenly had an internal vision. I saw myself from above meditating, then my view rapidly receded through the ceiling and roof into the air above the house. As I continued to rise I saw the land below, then the whole planet spinning in space. The earth receded in the distance and I saw the sun and the other planets. The further out I got, the more rapid the movement. I saw the planets orbiting the sun, then the sun itself faded into the distance becoming just another bright speck in the firmament. Then I saw the galactic arm our solar system is in, then the galaxy itself in the company of other galaxies. As I receded further, the galaxies formed a curtain in the black of space, like a shimmering aurora borealis, a fabric waving in a nonexistent wind.

Then suddenly it all went into reverse and I was flying back to my origin. I was then sitting in my room again right where I started. The memory of that journey is still as clear as if it happened yesterday, I can still see the curtain of galaxies fluttering in the nebulous breeze with no difficulty whatsoever. I perceived how very very small and utterly insignificant I was in comparison to the rest of the universe and it gave me a profound sense of peace and calm that I cannot explain further except to say that it is still with me some 40+ years later.

2) In the early 1980's I had been practicing Taekwon Do for more than 10 years and was informed that it was time to test for my first degree black belt. This involved my performing some very difficult tasks before an audience of several hundred persons, many of very advanced TKD rank. One of these tasks was to run 20 feet, jump 4 feet into the air, and side kick through 7 inches of pine boards held by other martial artists. We each got 3 tries. If we failed the third try, a board was removed and we tried a 4th time. If we succeeded then, we would get the black belt but it could be taken away at any time for the next 6 months by a higher ranking person. If we failed the 4th try, we failed the test and had to wait another 2 years before we could retry. :(

The first try, I merely bounced off the boards. Same with the second try. I set myself up for the third attempt, closed my eyes and went to an internal place of meditation.

I was standing on a rock on the coast of a vast lake. The forest was behind me and a cool breeze in my face. I took a breath and released it slowly, considering the task before me. I took a second breath and went into the halls of my mind, searching. I released that breath and took the third breath, down in the basement of my consciousness. Before me was a big red switch, like one of those on Frankenstein's laboratory walls. I knew in an instant that it was my rage and I knew that I needed to use that to make the break, so reached up and threw that big red switch.

I opened my eyes as I released the breath, and all I saw was a red tunnel from my face to the boards, nothing else. There was no sound from the crowd, no-one else in the auditorium, I could not even see the board holders, 4 - 200 pound men. Only the boards.

Then I blacked out - no memory of the next few seconds at all, then or now. I just woke up standing in the middle of a pile of kindling scattered in a circle around me. All 4 holders were on their butts on the floor in a semi - circle before me.

My training partner later told me that when I opened my eyes I went emotionally flat. All expression left my face, I assumed a textbook ready stance, took several rapid steps, leaped into the air, rolled over onto my side while flying towards the boards and performed a perfect side kick into the center of the stack. He said when my foot hit the boards they exploded. He said that they did not appear to just break, they appeared to literally explode, with debris flying everywhere, along with the 4 big guys who had been holding the boards.

I realized that I now knew where that big red switch was. I could find it again if needed and I could turn it on....or off. Since that switch is my anger, my rage, this represents a level of self - control that I had never had before then. I can become the Hulk if I need to....or not lose my temper if I choose. This was a level of self control that was new to me then. I count on it now and use it regularly.

Each of these experiences had a profound emotional component and has changed my life. They made me different than I was before I had them and persist within me to this day. I am clear that this explanation is not the same as having the experience yourself, but you now know a little bit more about satori/enlightenment than you did before. I hope it helps. :)

speaking as someone who lives in a Buddhist country, I can only reply with an overwhealming yes.

The tiny numbers of westerners learning Buddhism as a philosophy at home often argue it isn't, because eastern Buddhism strays from the exact words of Buddha.

But the argument there is only one christian and he died on the cross comes into play. All the christian religions don't follow the word to the letter (they couldn't even, it's self contradicting) yet we have no troubling calling them christian. So the same must apply with Buddhism and the religious Buddhism that dominates in all Buddhist countries is just as ligitimately Buddhism. Buddhism is a religion because virtually all Buddhist on earth practices it as a religion, percieves it as a religion and the ruling authority and governments treat it as a religion, the fact they edited what buddha said with a green byro is neither here nor there.

You won't have any free-willed thoughts running around in the back of your mind.That sentence doesn't seem to be very well composed and is somewhat confusing. I suspect that what you really mean is that you only have thoughts that you have consciously composed with your free will, and that you have banished subconscious thoughts (to use a familiar Freudian term even though I'm a Jungian) which pop up autonomically and unbidden from the deeper parts of your brain which you inherited from your more primitive ancestral species.

We are the only animal with these huge forebrains. All other vertebrates are largely driven by the instincts in their midbrain and by their autonomous nervous system, with only a little supervision by conscious decision-making and (depending on the individual species) a more-or-less modest learning ability that doesn't come close to ours.

As I have noted in other discussions, only humans have such large and powerful forebrains that we can completely override instinctive behavior on a large scale, and instead perform behaviors that we have acquired through reasoning and learning. Sure, dogs and other fairly intelligent animals are capable of learning a few "tricks" of this type, such as letting a tasty hot dog sit on their nose until they're told it's okay to eat it. But a human can do that even when he's starving, even when no one is looking, because he knows that his neighbor is hungrier than he is; as well as learning an entire lifetime of other similar (if less drastic) "tricks" that we call "civilized behavior."
You can still feel sad and things like that, but only if you choose. Say goodbye to anger. I went a few years without getting angry, and completely forgot what it was like. I really had to relearn the emotion because I decided it was useful.You're saying that you've cracked a barrier that has held our species back for twelve thousand years: the inability to suppress anger and all the other emotions that it underlies, such as revenge. This is surely the final obstacle to becoming truly civilized, because (in my observation and it didn't require a degree in psychology or any fancy instruments) anger is clearly the emotion that stimulates all of our atavistic behavior, including war--the behavior that always knocks civilization two steps back for every three steps we take forward.
Emotional control is the best way I can describe it. You also start to feel compassion for everything.You're overriding instinctive behavior with reasoned and learned behavior. In other words, you are being quintessentially human, doing the one thing that we can do so much better than all other animals. Dogs and horses can master intricate processes full of decision-making, parrots and gorillas can learn language, crows and chimpanzees can make tools, but only humans can wrestle our instincts to the mat and behave like something better than what we were when we were born.

It sounds like the teachings of the Buddha may be the key to the next advance in civilization. Perhaps this will be part of the current Paradigm Shift. We call it the Information Age, the Electronic Revolution, and various other names referring to its driving technology. But it's really about communication--kicked off by the first commercial telegraph in 1833--a quantum increase in the speed and bandwidth of human communication. When we discuss it we focus on communication among people, but perhaps it's also about communication inside of us, with our various internal parts communicating with each other more powerfully and efficiently.

You attest to a much more effective communication ability between your forebrain and your midbrain than most of us have ever been able to manage.

Anger is the last stronghold of our animal brain. We can suppress our other emotions with varying degress of success, but all we wind up doing is driving them deeper, where they steep in the darkness until one day their festering negativity explodes into an orgy of uncivilized behavior: at best yelling at someone for a minor slight, at worst gathering our pack-mates and marching off to war over an issue whose importance is so ephemeral that future historians will have trouble explaining it to their readers. (What was "kom-yoo-nizum," Daddy?)
Animals are thought of as enlightened. Because they don't carry the weight of their ego around with them.You seem to be using the word "ego" in a very colloquial sense, as a synonym for self-esteem or self-image, rather than the Jungian or Freudian sense of a specific layer of consciousness. But even granting that, I'd argue with you. Who hasn't seen a cat quickly recover from a caper gone bad by recomposing his regal bearing as if to say, "I meant to do that." Dogs, like all pack-social mammals, have an alpha instinct that varies from one individual to the next (and after 12,000 years of adapting to life among humans is considerably weaker than in wolves, the other subspecies of Canis lupus, who can't gather in groups of more than eight or ten before their social order breaks down into constant fighting over who's in charge), and routinely brandish their "egos" to each other in ritual if not actual combat: "What falls on the floor is mine; you guys wait until later when Poppa serves you dinner in a bowl."

And if you really want to see egos in action, do a Dian Fossey and try to integrate yourself into a tribe of gorillas. She accidentally slapped a female on the butt while seating herself comfortably on a rock, and started preparing for her death. But she had been a member of the tribe for so long, using her unique human abilities to help them prosper, that she had been awarded status. The gorilla, twice her size, yielded the seat to her.

RE: Post #32 The idea of Catholic idolatry stems from the belief in some that a Christian prays only to the godhead, not to Mary or to saints. So when they see a statue of Mary to whom Catholics pray--they are praying to a rock--a nonfunctioning help of some kind. They believe there is no supernatural help, guidence, power in Mary or any Saint, so that is why it is idolatry.

What do Catholics do in their prayer and meditation time?

Our local secular latin american community paper comes with a prayer to some saint each week and my catholic friends like to include saints' prayer cards in their letters, etc telling me to pray to this saint for this and that saint for that. How is that so far beyond any fundamentalist?

Satan is a fallen angel of the Judeo-Chr God. What is your definition of Satanism?

BB
The fact that a person is bowing and praying in front of a statue, or lighting candles and kneeling, or ringing bells, etc., whether Catholic of Buddhist, comes from ancient customs that are used to form a continuous thread between the modern world and the ancient world when all these miracles supposedly happened.

The prayer to Mary says "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for our sins, now and at the hour of our death." It's not an act of worshiping Mary, but an intercession. The idea is that the messenger (evangelios, angel) is an advocate for the suffering penitent, who is appealing for mercy from God. The angel, whether Mary or any other saint, has supposedly achieved perfection, since the Bible states that they either ascended into heaven, or resurrected from the dead, or worked miracles, or, in the case of Mary, she apparently is in heaven in Revelation, although that version of the story is more like a drug experience than the earlier texts. So the perfected soul, the angel, the saint, is "sitting at the right hand of the Father" from which one infers that there is a closeness, and that closeness is for a reason, to save souls. So it is only logical (to me) that they would ask the angels to intercede for them.

That's why it's so laughable that this is regarded as idolatry. Because the person who sees it that way seems to have no sense of reverence for the same principles they supposedly believe in (here I'm referring mostly to Fundamentalists, the worst of the lot).

Catholics have a set of standard prayers they memorize, but not as lip service. They are a way to get started, like a warmup exercise. They recite from the Bible. The Hail Mary repeats the words of the Annunciation, and the Our Father of course is the prayer Christ supposedly recited himself. There is also the Apostle's Creed, which is a recital of the agreement that was struck at the Nicene Council, when there was confusion in the world about what the most basic beliefs of a Christian are. So this summarizes those most basic beliefs. By reciting it, the meditant is going over each of these beliefs and expressing them as an act of faith.

I suppose in every religion that involves prayer or meditation, each individual is left with the challenge of reaching deeply into the cosmos, getting outside of his or her own mudane and selfish existence, and trying to achieve perfection. As in ancient times, it was believed that only the worthy can be in the chambers of the king, so there is some washing away of the self and its imperfections in order to feel that you are welcome in the presence of God. Christians (Catholics are Christians by the way) would tend to verbalize their prayer, whereas a Buddist tends to transcend speech.

For a Buddhist, the thing being regarded as pagan idolatry can get quite profound. The mandala, the object seen hanging on the wall behind the Dalai Lama is remarkable example of what I'm saying, because while it appears on the surface to have a connection to pagan representations, it is actually a diagram of their model of human consciousness (or soul or mind) with some avatars that represent the forces of evil (sin) perturbing the healthy person from the outside, and then various defense mechanisms within reach that can shut the evil out. There are two versions of this: one illustrating the avatars of Self copulating (the ecstacy of perfection and completeness) with every imaginable weapon to defeat evil in dozens of hands, and the other illustration which seems to be a diagram of a palace - the palace of the mind. It's quite interesting - to me, it's far more interesting than any of the modern day Fundamentalist BS that is lacking in anything with the depth and clarity of the "great" religions.

In short. I would say that anyone who denounces another culture or religion, without any knowledge of what's going on in the believers' heads, is a fool, not a child of God, as the saying goes. I of course am qualified to denounce Fundamentalism since I have been steeped in it. I would say that I know it well enough to despise it.

As to the name Satan and the idea of a devil, this is imported from Zoroastrianism, long before Christianity emerged as its own splinter group. SO a modern day Satan worshipper, who finds no connection to this, would be hard pressed toexplain how it is a religion. Of course, the Zoroastrians invented Satan as the personification of evil, so they didn't worship Satan. They did however have in their legends the story of a son of God who was incarnated to defeat Satans, and who had twelve followers (a reference to the Zodiac) which later were personifed as the Apostles in the Christian myth.

There really are some people who belong to Satanic cults, that apparently do blood sacrifices, and heinous things to children, etc. It's a crime ring, not a religion. The rest of the self-proclaimed Satan worshippers seem to me to be gullible adventurists who probably aren't too serious about their claims. I don't associate either style of Satanism with religion because it doesn't meet the classical definition of the word "religion".

Here is an example of the "palace" design of a mandala:
http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/paulprescott72/paulprescott720903/paulprescott72090300079/4513760-tibetan-mandala-in-monastery-in-kathmandu-nepal.jpg


here is the one seen behind the Dalai lama:

http://www.exoticindia.com/books/tibetan_mandala_art_and_practice_the_wheel_of_time _ide962.jpg

I would challenge anyone who knocks Buddhism to begin to try to explain the story inside these illustrations. What - too complex? Aha! Gotcha!

You guys in the West will think Buddhism is more of a way of life, philosophy and such. I bet a lot of this is because of the popularity of Zen.

That's an interesting point and I'd like to elaborate on it.

Yeah, it's partly that. Especially in the United States, where Zen became influential after the 1950's. But the history of Buddhism in the West is complicated.

In Britain (and Australia/NZ), Theravada received the majority of early scholarly attention, and that contributed to shaping Western attitudes towards Buddhism too. I'm thinking of the Pali Text Society and such things. Buddhism was interpreted more as a monastic discipline (the Vinaya) or as a philosophy/psychology (the Suttas and Abhidhamma), without much attention being paid to the popular lay devotional faith as it's so often seen in China and elsewhere. The elaborate pantheons of Buddhas and Boddhisattvas were largely ignored and the historical Buddha was perceived as a human teacher not unlike a Greek philosopher.

I think that's probably the most accurate way to look at it historically, but it does kind of shrug off a great deal of Buddhism's subsequent history. More importantly, looking at Buddhism that way kind of ignores what Buddhism actually is to millions of Buddhist adherents (particularly Mahayanists) in Asia.

Another factor is that the Westerners who investigated Buddhism were Christians (and Jews, atheists and agnostics influenced by the Christian context). Among English-speakers, the cultural influence was generally Protestant. That in turn influenced how Buddhism was perceived and understood. Scholars typically approached Buddhism in a historical and textual fashion, tending to privilege the earliest known manifestations (analogous to the early Christians) as the purest examples of the historical Buddha's teachings and of Buddhism's doctrinal essence, with later elaborations often kind of dismissed as degenerations or syncretisms. The whole scholarly apparatus and outlook that had grown up around Biblical textual, historical and higher criticism was directed towards the Pali Canon, the many early Buddhist Sanskrit texts, and their Chinese and Tibetan translations.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that. Academically speaking, it's probably the best way to approach Buddhism in my opinion. Many Asians have adopted that kind of approach themselves. (It strongly influences Buddhist studies at the Japanese universities.) Asians can easily relate to it in part because it's not unlike the strongly textual approach that was already traditional in many Burmese Theravadan monasteries and obviously among the already highly scholastic Tibetans (especially the Gelug). The Western approach clearly complements their own. We see the Tibetans (often living in exile from Chinese-occupied Tibet) adopting Western scholarly methods wholesale these days, and adapting them to their own uses.

And there's still another factor at work, namely modern scientific naturalism. Buddhism kind of collided with the scientific worldview all at once when the Europeans arrived and it's still coming to terms with it today.

The West, and the emerging Western Buddhism that's evolving here in the United States and elsewhere, is kind of ground zero for that historical accomodation. There are Buddhist modernists all over Asia, obviously. But in Asia modernism exists in a traditional Buddhist context, while here in California, Buddhist modernism is Buddhism, among the convert-community at any rate.

So some observers think that they see a whole new kind of modernist Buddhism evolving in the West, one that might end up being as different from traditional Buddhisms as Theravada and Mahayana are from each other. We see the cosmic Buddhas and Boddhisattvas being treated as mythical figures, we see hitherto sacrosanct ideas like reincarnation being downplayed or even denied, and miracles and the supernatural are often scrubbed out of the new version of the tradition entirely. The tradition is being psychologized, with meditation being re-emphasized in dramatic fashion, to an extent that many Asians (non-monastics at least) wouldn't recognize.

There are cultural/social changes as well. Very significantly, monasticism is being dramatically deemphasized. Few Westerners ordain, yet they nevertheless aspire to learning teachings and engaging in practices that only monks attempt in Asia. That's still an experiment in progress and it isn't clear where it will end up. Japan might be kind of a model, with its strong lay Buddhisms and married Buddhist priesthoods distinct from monastics. We also are seeing women taking a much more prominent role in American Buddhism than has been traditional in much of Asia.

speaking as someone who lives in a Buddhist country, I can only reply with an overwhealming yes.

The tiny numbers of westerners learning Buddhism as a philosophy at home often argue it isn't, because eastern Buddhism strays from the exact words of Buddha.

But the argument there is only one christian and he died on the cross comes into play. All the christian religions don't follow the word to the letter (they couldn't even, it's self contradicting) yet we have no troubling calling them christian. So the same must apply with Buddhism and the religious Buddhism that dominates in all Buddhist countries is just as ligitimately Buddhism. Buddhism is a religion because virtually all Buddhist on earth practices it as a religion, percieves it as a religion and the ruling authority and governments treat it as a religion, the fact they edited what buddha said with a green byro is neither here nor there.

I agree with this

I also...to a point. In my life, Buddhism fills the place that a religion would, however.....

I believe in no gods and accept no masters. :eek: No ghost within the machine, no spirits, no angels, no devils, no supernatural, no afterlife, no reincarnation (yet).

I also agree that ritual prayer is quite similar to meditation, the difference being that meditation stimulates the right temporal region of one's brain and prayer stimulates the left temporal region. Also, that myalenation of the cerebral cortex has not been shown to occur with prayer while it has with meditation.

That was a pretty strange experience you had there, Stoniphi.

Very empowering as well, Spidey.

I am glad that I went there (both of those) as they led to other interesting experiences. :)

Much of the emotional set that I evidence is based on those 2 experiences though - they were indeed life - altering.

I don't think she cares what anyone calls her. She's not doing this to belong to a group or to identify with one. She never says "I'm a Buddhist." She just says that she's studying the teachings of the Buddha.Then I am not sure why she would get riled up if Buddhism is considered a religion. It has nothing to do with her. I have studied the teachings of Jesus, but I am not Christian and it would not rile me up however Christianity or Jesus is categorized


She has studied Jungian psychology so she can clearly identify metaphors and archetypes when she sees them. You mean when a head Lama dies and the others later go out in teams and do deep interviews with children to determine if they are the reincarnation of the dead Lama, they are just doing a metaphorical ritual? I don't think she is correct here.


She sees the cultural value in these things, and it does not require them to be literally true.That's fine, but she is differing on this issue with the leaders of the religion she has taken practices from. Which is also fine, but again, I can't see why she would get riled up about how Tibetan Buddhism would be categorized.

It is considered dangerous for non-initiated to engage in the various practices including meditation.

Hogwash.Well, it is not hogwash that many leaders in Buddhism and in Tibetan Buddhism think this is the case. But perhaps you mean they are wrong.


More metaphors, more archetypes.She doesn't care whether she is "part of that tradition." Again, then, I am confused about why she would get riled up.


She has just found some useful ideas that have helped her achieve a greater level of peace.Great.


My wife is not a group-oriented person, I can assure you of that.As I said, that question is of utterly no importance to her. Well wait, I suppose it is. She would strongly object to anyone regarding her as a member of any religion.I never said she was. Somebody asked which tradition she followed and I said "Tibetan." Not the same thing at all.That's just about the same thing I said. So why are you arguing?I explained exactly why I was using her 'case' as an example in an earlier post. For some reason your wife, as presented by you, got riled up when Buddhism was referred to as a religion and as justification her own beliefs and interpretations were presented. To me this situation is common enough in the west to make it part of the discussion on whether Buddhism is a religion.

To me she has taken a portion of Tibetan Buddhism that works for her, but still identifies somehow with what I would call the religion, and hence gets angry when it is referred to as a religion.

Now you are saying that 'really' these are all mere symbols and Jungian archetypes to support the position that Tibetan Buddhism is does not really have supernaturalist elements. I think that fits very poorly with their behavior, which seems to strongly indicate they take reincarnation very seriously.

You say 'I referred to her as Tibetan' in reponse to which tradition. You had already referred to her as a Buddhist. I think it is fair to question in general, what it means when westerners identify themselves as Buddhists and then define Tibetan Buddhism as NOT a religion and that 'really' the reincarnation beliefs are symbolic and not literal.

As I said, I am not trying to put your wife in a box or keep her out of one she might want to be in, but the issues raised here, I think, affect the way Westerners view a religion they take only pieces of and in their own ways.

I see nothing wrong with that practice, though some Asian masters do. I think the defining, however is problematic.



We appear to worship statues of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, but it's only their memories and their accomplishments that we truly worship.To me this is an extremely weak anthropological argument. We also appear to worship Jesus, some of us, and lo...we do, some of us.

***There is no copyright or warning not to reprint in this book***

This book was bought in a monastery in Chieng Mai,Thailand: Buddha-Nigama, by a relative of mine about 2000.

Handbook for Mankind by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. Originally presented as a series of lectures delivered to the would be judges, May 1956. And published in condensed form under the title BAHNENO. [this title is written upside down and backward]

Publisher: Dhammasap 35-270 Jarunsanitwong 62 Bangplad Bangkok 10700

The author Buddhadasa Bhikkhu a slave of the Buddha went forth as a Bhikkhu in 1926 at the age of 20.

[Taken from the Forward:]
The number of books on Buddhist topics produced by monks in Thailand is quite considerable, but for anyone lacking the knowledge of the Thai language this great volume of literature is unfortunately inaccessible. In order to remedy this situation some of the most important works in Thai are now being translated into English.

The VenerableBuddhadasa is well known for the readiness with which he gives nonliteral interpretation to the Buddhist text. Giving more weight to meditative experience and every day observation than to philology. He finds meaning in many otherwise obscure points of doctrine. He does not hesitate to reject as naïve a word for word interpretation that has no bearing on real life.

Particularly valuable in this present work are the authors thoughts on samsara, kharma and rebirth, subjects completely misunderstood by most western students of Buddhism. Buddha-Nigama

[Taken from Chapter One: “Looking at Buddhism”]
Later as man’s knowledge and understanding developed, this fear of the forces of nature changed into a fear of phenomena more difficult to apprehend. Religions bases on deference to objects of fear such as natural phenomena, spirits, and celestial beings can be looked down upon as unreasonable and ridiculous. And then man’s fear became still more refined into a fear of suffering, suffering of the sort that cannot be alleviated by any material means. He came to fear the suffering inherent in birth, aging, pain, and death, the disappointment and hopelessness which arise out of desire, anger, and stupidity which no amount of power or wealth can relieve. Long ago in India, a country well provided with thinkers and investigators, intelligent people dispensed all paying of amage to supernatural beings. They started seeking instead the means of conquering birth, aging, pain, and death. The means of eliminating greed, hatred, and delusion. Out of this search arose Buddhism, a higher religion based on insight, a means of conquering birth, aging, pain, and death, a method for destroying the mental defilement. Buddhism has its origin in fear of this last kind, Just as do all religions based on intelligence. The Buddah discovered how to conquer absolutely what man fears. He discovered a practical method now called Buddhism for eliminating suffering.

“Buddhism” means “the teaching of the enlightened one”. A Buddha is an enlightened individual, one who knows the truth about all things. One who knows just what is what. Knows things just as they are and so is capable of behaving appropriately with respect to all things. Buddhism is a religion based on intelligence, science, and knowledge whose purpose is the destruction of suffering and the source of suffering.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still see alot of supernatural in this commentary, but I am looking forward to receiving the book from my relative to dig deeper.

I explained exactly why I was using her 'case' as an example in an earlier post. For some reason your wife, as presented by you, got riled up when Buddhism was referred to as a religion and as justification her own beliefs and interpretations were presented. To me this situation is common enough in the west to make it part of the discussion on whether Buddhism is a religion.

The other relevant question here is
Can a person who has not been born into a religion, become religious in said religion?

Are modern Western Buddhists religious?

Buddhism is a religion, allright, but are the people who claim to practice Buddhism, religious?

BTW, In the book I quoted from in Post #51 and written by a Thai Buddhist monk, Buddhism is frequently referred to as a religion in just the first 13 pages of over 200.
BB

You say 'I referred to her as Tibetan' in reponse to which tradition. You had already referred to her as a Buddhist. I think it is fair to question in general, what it means when westerners identify themselves as Buddhists and then define Tibetan Buddhism as NOT a religion and that 'really' the reincarnation beliefs are symbolic and not literal.

As I said, I am not trying to put your wife in a box or keep her out of one she might want to be in, but the issues raised here, I think, affect the way Westerners view a religion they take only pieces of and in their own ways.


Western individualism probably plays quite a role in religious self-identification, to the point that it overrides facts about the religion in question.

I've known Western Buddhists who claimed to be Buddhists or to follow a Buddhist path - and the deciding factor in this seemed to be that they claimed to be Buddhists or to follow a Buddhist path.
That they picked and chose some things and rejected others was of little or no concern to them as far as calling themselves Buddhists or considering themselves as following a Buddhist path went.

Western individualism probably plays quite a role in religious self-identification, to the point that it overrides facts about the religion in question.

I've known Western Buddhists who claimed to be Buddhists or to follow a Buddhist path - and the deciding factor in this seemed to be that they claimed to be Buddhists or to follow a Buddhist path.
That they picked and chose some things and rejected others was of little or no concern to them as far as calling themselves Buddhists or considering themselves as following a Buddhist path went.Which I think is fine, actually, as I said above. But to draw conclusions about the religion from what one has picked and chosen and how one interprets texts - in ways the leaders and adherents do - is, I think, really problematic.

And again, I think the example of Yoga is a good one. Are western people who take Yoga classes, Hindus? Most are not. And most would not care how Hinduism was categorized. They would not identify with the religion.

The other relevant question here is
Can a person who has not been born into a religion, become religious in said religion?

Are modern Western Buddhists religious?

Buddhism is a religion, allright, but are the people who claim to practice Buddhism, religious?Well, to use the example above of a Westerner being a part of Tibetan Buddhism. Yes, I would think so. And Tibetan Buddhist Lamas seem to think so, with some provisos. But such people would probably tend to accept ideas around reincarnation, etc., given that the people they are studying under, whose tradition they are being a part of, are saying this is the case. There are a number of other religious aspects to Tibetan Buddhism, but this is certainly a core one.

In any case not being a Tibetan Buddhist I can't say for sure, but I do feel I can resist claims by people who only choose certain facets of the religion to contest its category.

The fact that a person is bowing and praying in front of a statue, or lighting candles and kneeling, or ringing bells, etc., whether Catholic of Buddhist, comes from ancient customs that are used to form a continuous thread between the modern world and the ancient world when all these miracles supposedly happened.

The prayer to Mary says "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for our sins, now and at the hour of our death." It's not an act of worshiping Mary, but an intercession. The idea is that the messenger (evangelios, angel) is an advocate for the suffering penitent, who is appealing for mercy from God. The angel, whether Mary or any other saint, has supposedly achieved perfection, since the Bible states that they either ascended into heaven, or resurrected from the dead, or worked miracles, or, in the case of Mary, she apparently is in heaven in Revelation, although that version of the story is more like a drug experience than the earlier texts. So the perfected soul, the angel, the saint, is "sitting at the right hand of the Father" from which one infers that there is a closeness, and that closeness is for a reason, to save souls. So it is only logical (to me) that they would ask the angels to intercede for them.

That's why it's so laughable that this is regarded as idolatry. Because the person who sees it that way seems to have no sense of reverence for the same principles they supposedly believe in (here I'm referring mostly to Fundamentalists, the worst of the lot).

Catholics have a set of standard prayers they memorize, but not as lip service. They are a way to get started, like a warmup exercise. They recite from the Bible. The Hail Mary repeats the words of the Annunciation, and the Our Father of course is the prayer Christ supposedly recited himself. There is also the Apostle's Creed, which is a recital of the agreement that was struck at the Nicene Council, when there was confusion in the world about what the most basic beliefs of a Christian are. So this summarizes those most basic beliefs. By reciting it, the meditant is going over each of these beliefs and expressing them as an act of faith.

I suppose in every religion that involves prayer or meditation, each individual is left with the challenge of reaching deeply into the cosmos, getting outside of his or her own mudane and selfish existence, and trying to achieve perfection. As in ancient times, it was believed that only the worthy can be in the chambers of the king, so there is some washing away of the self and its imperfections in order to feel that you are welcome in the presence of God. Christians (Catholics are Christians by the way) would tend to verbalize their prayer, whereas a Buddist tends to transcend speech.

For a Buddhist, the thing being regarded as pagan idolatry can get quite profound. The mandala, the object seen hanging on the wall behind the Dalai Lama is remarkable example of what I'm saying, because while it appears on the surface to have a connection to pagan representations, it is actually a diagram of their model of human consciousness (or soul or mind) with some avatars that represent the forces of evil (sin) perturbing the healthy person from the outside, and then various defense mechanisms within reach that can shut the evil out. There are two versions of this: one illustrating the avatars of Self copulating (the ecstacy of perfection and completeness) with every imaginable weapon to defeat evil in dozens of hands, and the other illustration which seems to be a diagram of a palace - the palace of the mind. It's quite interesting - to me, it's far more interesting than any of the modern day Fundamentalist BS that is lacking in anything with the depth and clarity of the "great" religions.

In short. I would say that anyone who denounces another culture or religion, without any knowledge of what's going on in the believers' heads, is a fool, not a child of God, as the saying goes. I of course am qualified to denounce Fundamentalism since I have been steeped in it. I would say that I know it well enough to despise it.

As to the name Satan and the idea of a devil, this is imported from Zoroastrianism, long before Christianity emerged as its own splinter group. SO a modern day Satan worshipper, who finds no connection to this, would be hard pressed toexplain how it is a religion. Of course, the Zoroastrians invented Satan as the personification of evil, so they didn't worship Satan. They did however have in their legends the story of a son of God who was incarnated to defeat Satans, and who had twelve followers (a reference to the Zodiac) which later were personifed as the Apostles in the Christian myth.

There really are some people who belong to Satanic cults, that apparently do blood sacrifices, and heinous things to children, etc. It's a crime ring, not a religion. The rest of the self-proclaimed Satan worshippers seem to me to be gullible adventurists who probably aren't too serious about their claims. I don't associate either style of Satanism with religion because it doesn't meet the classical definition of the word "religion".

I bolded the statements above, BlueBaby

I kindly disagree, child sacrifice and mutilation was (and is?) definitely a part of religions over the history of man.

The Church of Satan considers satan a deity and their church a religion. "Anton Szandor LaVey never expected to be the founder of a new religion, but he saw a need for something publicly opposing the stagnation of Christianity, and knew that if he didn’t do it, someone else, probably less qualified, would."

BB

I also...to a point. In my life, Buddhism fills the place that a religion would, however.....

I believe in no gods and accept no masters. :eek: No ghost within the machine, no spirits, no angels, no devils, no supernatural, no afterlife, no reincarnation (yet).

I also agree that ritual prayer is quite similar to meditation, the difference being that meditation stimulates the right temporal region of one's brain and prayer stimulates the left temporal region. Also, that myalenation of the cerebral cortex has not been shown to occur with prayer while it has with meditation.



When you meditate to who you talk to? do you go through some routine ?

This is now a home for one issue that came up in my Zen koan thread.

So...

Is Buddhism a religion?
Must a religion be theistic? (note: some of Buddhism is clearly theistic, some is ambiguous, some is non-theistic)
Please include a definition of religion that you work with and connect this to your position.



Question : can a Christian or Muslim be a follower of Buddha and continue practicing its faith ?

Question : can a Christian or Muslim be a follower of Buddha and continue practicing its faith ?

I've heard celebrity say you can, but having been a religious practioner of a certain faith, I know I couldn't unless I customized Buddhism to suit me and my faith.
BB

Question : can a Christian or Muslim be a follower of Buddha and continue practicing its faith ?If you are asking me, a non-Buddhist, I would say yes. From the Buddhist side, I have known masters who said this was alright. The trouble comes in on the other side: will the Muslim and Christian leaders consider them still these things. I think as long as they do not contradict any rules, I think it will be accepted by some congregations and leaders. Local theist religions in the East have been integrated, often, into Buddhism (or is it a merger). There Asian Buddhists worship gods, local deities often, as part of their Buddhism. I think it can work.

I think at a certain level there may be theological problems. For example, Jesus could be said to have shown the Buddha nature, but in Christianity he is the only one, period. So who was the Buddha? And what are you trying to accomplish with meditation?

The fact that a person is bowing and praying in front of a statue, or lighting candles and kneeling, or ringing bells, etc., whether Catholic of Buddhist, comes from ancient customs that are used to form a continuous thread between the modern world and the ancient world when all these miracles supposedly happened.

The prayer to Mary says "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for our sins, now and at the hour of our death." It's not an act of worshiping Mary, but an intercession. I don't think this fits at all in general. I am sure you are correct about some people, but I think others are worshipping Mary, do believe in her spirit and its power and hope to have her modify what the male aspects of God, for example, might otherwise do. This is especially true in places where Mary has become almost the central figure in Christianity and the appeals are directly to her.

If you are asking me, a non-Buddhist, I would say yes. From the Buddhist side, I have known masters who said this was alright. The trouble comes in on the other side: will the Muslim and Christian leaders consider them still these things. I think as long as they do not contradict any rules, I think it will be accepted by some congregations and leaders. Local theist religions in the East have been integrated, often, into Buddhism (or is it a merger). There Asian Buddhists worship gods, local deities often, as part of their Buddhism. I think it can work.

I think at a certain level there may be theological problems. For example, Jesus could be said to have shown the Buddha nature, but in Christianity he is the only one, period. So who was the Buddha? And what are you trying to accomplish with meditation?

I know plenty of (fundamentalist) Christians who meditate- on their god's word and character traits. The word meditate occurs in several verses in some versions of their scriptures

BB

I know plenty of (fundamentalist) Christians who meditate- on their god's word and character traits. The word meditate occurs in several verses in some versions of their scriptures

BBFine, but they are meditating on God's word. They are not meditating on their breath, their own awareness, phenomena as they arise, images of their deaths and so on.

Fine, but they are meditating on God's word. They are not meditating on their breath, their own awareness, phenomena as they arise, images of their deaths and so on.

Yes, I didn't disagree. I just pointed out the fact that some christians do meditate. And some focus on one aspect of their god's character such as "Love", "Peace", etc. Which as I understand is not so divergent from some forms of eastern meditation.
BB

I think that Buddhism (like atheism and agnosticism) does not meet the philosophical definition of religion, but is and should be considered a religion for 1st Amendment/legal purposes.

I think at a certain level there may be theological problems. For example, Jesus could be said to have shown the Buddha nature, but in Christianity he is the only one, period. So who was the Buddha? And what are you trying to accomplish with meditation?

In essence, picking and choosing and mixing religions is a statement of the conviction that one doesn't believe that a single religion could provide one with what one is looking for or needs.

While I think it is perfectly legitimate to have the concern whether a single religion could provide one with what one is looking for or needs, I think that at some point, one must address this directly.

Where is the guarantee that picking and choosing and mixing religions will indeed provide one with what one wants and needs?

Especially given that those different religions may have very different goals, and thus the means they provide to reach those goals, may not actually be compatible, so mixing them up could create a toxic way of life.

Which I think is fine, actually, as I said above. But to draw conclusions about the religion from what one has picked and chosen and how one interprets texts - in ways the leaders and adherents do - is, I think, really problematic.

And again, I think the example of Yoga is a good one. Are western people who take Yoga classes, Hindus? Most are not. And most would not care how Hinduism was categorized. They would not identify with the religion.

It is also rather fashionable to be a Buddhist nowadays.
Zen sells, and the Tibetans have a charm to them.

When you meditate to who you talk to? do you go through some routine ?

I talk to no-one when I meditate, nor do I think words.

When I "sit" (do Zazen) I breathe. I attend to breathing and nothing else, I strive to be "empty". I do not attach to passing thoughts, allowing them to rise like bubbles in water, but not following them at all. I sit on a zafutan and zafu (traditional Zen meditation cushion and barley hull 'pillow') maintain an erect posture and keep my eyes nearly closed and unfocused. I do this for about 20 minutes a session, most often in the afternoon.

When I do "Kata meditation", I do the pattern. (A Taekwon Do Kata is similar to a dance, but it is composed of martial arts techniques) I attempt to put 100% of my concentration into performing the pattern and not to let my attention wander from that at all. I do 19 Kata every morning after breakfast and before I run. My Kata take about 20 minutes to perform.

When I do "running meditation" after I do my Kata, I focus my eyes on the horizon and empty my mind. I concentrate on maintaining a proper stance/style, keeping my toes pointed forward, my motion conservative, my breathing deep and regular and my arms freely swinging at my sides, hands open and loose. I run 7 - 10 miles a day every day, it takes between 1 & 1/2 and 3 hours to do this, but not all of the time is in meditation. I am accompanied by my Labrador Retriever (I call her my Fu Dog) and I often play with her as we go along the back country trails along the river side. Dogs are very "in the moment", she serves to remind me to lighten up and be happy just being there doing what we are doing at the time.

I do "task meditation" when I am doing household chores of a routine nature which requires no thought, like cleaning floors, washing dishes or preparing a meal. I remain open and aware, but carry no thoughts as I do the task.

I meditate when I do yoga as well, concentrating on doing the stretch properly and my breathing - nothing else. I do several yoga sessions every week to stay limber and fluid in my motion. Each session takes about 45 minutes or so.

I have been a practicing Buddhist for 43 years. I have found the practice to be very calming and seriously contributes to my maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

I don't think this fits at all in general. I am sure you are correct about some people, but I think others are worshipping Mary, do believe in her spirit and its power and hope to have her modify what the male aspects of God, for example, might otherwise do. This is especially true in places where Mary has become almost the central figure in Christianity and the appeals are directly to her.

The true Catholic, who believes in apostolic succession, the "one true holy, apostolic and catholic church" rejects the notion of worshiping Mary as a recent innovation among a small segment of the huge worldwide congregation. The extensive presence of art, rendering Mary as the sacred heart, etc., are mostly of Renaissance origin, when chivalry put motherhood on a pedestal. It carried forward with a lot of other tradition.

Mary is not the central figure in any Catholic denomination I know of. Mary has no other power than to intercede, she doesn't forgive sins or save souls, and she is not God. So I'm not sure how you perceive that, but the portrayals of Mary that may seem off kilter to you are probably not nearly what you think they are. The other phenomena, particularly in France, Spain, and Mexico, that Mary makes miraculous appearances, and that there are shrines to her, may seem like worship. If so, then it depends on what you mean by worship. Catholics have a distinct meaning, and worship is directed toward God only. Mary and the Saints may have shrines and renditions, and even prayers directed to them, but never worship. This is call reverence. They are considered saints (a corrupted idea confusing martyrdom with a heavenly spirit). So saints are given reverence as a way to show respect for earning their place at the right hand of the father. The idea is not to worship a saint - for example, Catholics would never offer a sacrifice to a saint - but by always holding the saints up in banners and art, they represent the role models for the faithful, and this is the extent of the respect paid to them. I think Catholics regard Protestantism as cynical about this. That's why I say they would laugh at the idea that an outsider thinks they've figured out Catholicism when they really are too cynical to look at it objectively, and particularly amusing are those sects of Protestants who are always slinging mud at Catholics as idolaters, papists, conspirators, etc. What's so hilarious about this is that those folks owe the existence of their entire belief system to the Catholics who created their Bible and all the fiction evolved from that. I guess it's like the son who carries the genes of his parents finding some fundamental flaw in the DNA and yet ridiculing the parents for having a flaw.

It is also rather fashionable to be a Buddhist nowadays.
Zen sells, and the Tibetans have a charm to them.

Yes. I think the Dalai Lama in particular is sort of wise teddy bear that offers common sense and the American congregations, mostly middle to upper class white folks, respond very positively to his charming nature.

But don't you think it's also taken root here as a serious movement, not to mention the diversity of the population - as compared to say 100 years ago?

There are cultural/social changes as well. Very significantly, monasticism is being dramatically deemphasized. Few Westerners ordain, yet they nevertheless aspire to learning teachings and engaging in practices that only monks attempt in Asia.

I think a crucial difference is that in traditionally Buddhist countries, Buddhism is a natural part of the socio-economic fabric. The lays provide the monastics for their material needs, while the monastics in turn preserve the Dharma and teach it to the lays.
This also provides a natural entry point for people, with an emphasis on generosity and appreciation of the Dharma.

But this is generally not the case in the West, or only takes place within relatively small communities. The Westerner interested in Buddhism will have to put in sometimes considerable effort just to get in some kind of contact with other Buddhists, what to speak of actually becoming a functional member of a community of practitioners. Then there is the awkwardness of giving donations or giving alms to monks. For a Westerner, Buddhism can become quite an abstract and individualistic matter, thereby bypassing much of what in the original teachings is considered central - namely, admirable friendship.

Do I have to reach a state of enlightenment to teach Buddhism?

I don't think so. A Buddha kind of sets the wheel of the dhamma rolling, you might say, and get's everything going. But subsequently, within Theravada at least, it's more about what the suttas call "spiritual friends", fellow travelers on the path helping each other. In the suttas, Ananda and others among the earliest monks are portrayed as teaching, and they hadn't achieved enlightenment yet. Today, many Theravadans don't think that anyone is becoming an Arahant in this day and age, so perhaps nobody on earth is enlightened at the moment.

In Theravadan monasteries, young monks are typically placed under the guidance of preceptor monks, who are usually chosen by seniority and are termed 'theras' or elders. A senior elder is called a 'mahathera' (great elder) and these usually supply the monastic abbots and such. But the 'thera' and 'mahathera' titles aren't really a measure of enlightenment so much as they are a measure of time that's already been spent as a monk.

The thing is, Buddhism is about realization, about actually experiencing something for yourself. Nobody can teach that into you, they can only give you some helpful tips from their own experience.

The Vajrayana traditions like Tibetan Buddhism have a much stronger emphasis on a guru-disciple relationship, in keeping with developments in Indian tantra. There's more emphasis on initiations and such. But even there, I don't think that there's really any expectation that the teacher be fully enlightened.


If I reach enlightenment can I personally profit from it: Books, DVD's, paid interviews

Would you want to?

In the Buddhist world, monks traditionally aren't supposed to handle money at all. (Monasteries often hire a lay manager to take care of the institution's business affairs.) Writings produced by monks are typically given away for free on a 'dana' basis, as gifts. These are usually pamphlets, but can be nicely bound books. They are paid for by lay donors who believe that giving gifts to the monks is a meritorious act. That's common in parts of Asia.

It's true that here in the United States, we often see self-styled 'Buddhist teachers' charging for their services. Some of them are very sincere and are just trying to make a living in an environment where monasteries and monasticism don't provide support for Buddhist teachers. And sadly, some of these "teachers" don't have the faintest clue and are treating the whole thing as a business opportunity.


and still call myself enlightened?

Just as a rule of thumb, I'm skeptical of Buddhists who call themselves enlightened. If they say that about themselves, it suggests to me that they probably aren't.

It's like that proverb -- "Those who speak don't know, those who know don't speak". At least about themselves in that kind of way. Many people who rise to the top as teachers in Western Buddhism seem to me to be rather self-absorbed, with massive self-regard and huge egos. That's kind of the antithesis of what advanced Buddhists perhaps should be.

Sadly, the Western Buddhist magazines sometimes seem to function as advertising vehicles for this kind of person. I tend to avoid that stuff and favor teachers who never advertise and never boast of being enlightened, but who have earned the respect of individuals whose judgement I trust.

For a Westerner, Buddhism can become quite an abstract and individualistic matter, thereby bypassing much of what in the original teachings is considered central - namely, admirable friendship.

This is a very broad - brushed statement Sig, at this point in our relationship I do not think it is called for. There are some things that one must experience to understand, there is simply no other way, sorry. :o Remember that you are the one on the outside looking in, I am the on the inside looking out.....

Speaking only for myself, I have many friends whose love I deeply cherish, despite that it is not affiliated with anything other than basic daily commerce and lifestyle. The ladies behind the deli counter at the local fruit market have known me since I put my (now) 19 year old son down in his baby - bouncer on the counter when he was mere months old. In my heart of hearts and my mind of minds I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is exactly what the Buddha taught.


Nobody can teach that into you, they can only give you some helpful tips from their own experience.

Exactly. :) I cannot teach it to you, you must learn it if you want to know it. The emphasis is on you.

This was taught me by my TKD instructors through the years. They were correct, I progress, even in a vacuum, by myself.

That sentence doesn't seem to be very well composed and is somewhat confusing.
Ha it seems you are right



I suspect that what you really mean is that you only have thoughts that you have consciously composed with your free will, and that you have banished subconscious thoughts (to use a familiar Freudian term even though I'm a Jungian) which pop up autonomically and unbidden from the deeper parts of your brain which you inherited from your more primitive ancestral species.


I rather like this interpretation, but it is not what I meant. I mean the little thoughts have a brain of their own - the thoughts seem to possess their own free will. They seemingly run amuck, doing what they please, and are normally invisible. I banished "subconscious" from my spoken words and replaced it with "unconscious" to describe the thoughts some time ago, as it is more accurate to do so. They don't lurk in the basement - but right in front if you... once you focus right you can observe them.

It might be that the act of focusing creates them, or at least focusing puts a linguistic spin on them so that they can be observed. Like focus will translate thoughts into English. However it works, the result is that once you can observe the thoughts, you can interact with them and control them, thus their free-will becomes yours. Or in other words they do not possess free will anymore, as you have supreme control over them.

Emotions will always have a concurrent thought beckoning to be reconciled with. Question the emotion with words, and words will come back.
Q: "Why am I anxious?"
A:"Because you don't have enough time."
Q:"If I miss the bus, I'll just wait for another one, I have nothing to do today"
... and viola the anxiousness disappears.

The last one "I'll just wait for another bus" is an important one. That is where Buddhist belief enters the meditation stage. If you think money is more important than happiness for example. Then you might have not be able to answer to your anxiousness successfully to make it disappear. If you answer to your thought "time is money!" then the emotion will grow.





And if you really want to see egos in action, do a Dian Fossey and try to integrate yourself into a tribe of gorillas. She accidentally slapped a female on the butt while seating herself comfortably on a rock, and started preparing for her death. But she had been a member of the tribe for so long, using her unique human abilities to help them prosper, that she had been awarded status. The gorilla, twice her size, yielded the seat to her.

Haha, I would love to see that on video.

Yeah you're right. Especially higher up, bigger brained mammals with their level of consciousness certainly exhibit an ego.

Down towards lizards and frogs seem to be where the quote holds the most truth, as with their level of consciousness act without a burden of ego prohibiting them from certain actions. It would also seem as they live without thinking too much of the past or future...like one hop at a time.

Anyway, animals having enlightenment is just an idea to aid learning. Animals are good story tellers because they can be seen as very compassionate, or courageous, etc. and invoke a good response. Take frogs who don't have to worry about their in-laws moving in, or the health of their loved ones, who leap between Lilly-pads without fear of the hungry fish - humans can compare themselves to frogs and get ideas about enlightenment. This way we can see enlightened actions like the frog-hop with our own eyes, rather than having to purely imagine.

I believe the precise idea about animals and enlightenment in reincarnation-believing societies is that not all animals are enlightened, but have the possibility to become so, just like humans. Once they go through enough rebirth cycles and become enlightened, they no longer become animals or humans but become something else. I'm not sure about this though I might be wrong.

Just as a rule of thumb, I'm skeptical of Buddhists who call themselves enlightened. If they say that about themselves, it suggests to me that they probably aren't.

It does make me look twice. I've always wanted to meet an enlightened person to feel them out. It'd be interesting to see how they act, speak, and so forth. The thing about Buddhism is after some time you don't even want to be enlightened anymore. The desire for enlightenment seems like such a silly thing now, but it's what grabs most folk's initial attention.

The true Catholic, who believes in apostolic succession, the "one true holy, apostolic and catholic church" rejects the notion of worshiping Mary as a recent innovation among a small segment of the huge worldwide congregation. The extensive presence of art, rendering Mary as the sacred heart, etc., are mostly of Renaissance origin, when chivalry put motherhood on a pedestal. It carried forward with a lot of other tradition.

Mary is not the central figure in any Catholic denomination I know of. Mary has no other power than to intercede, she doesn't forgive sins or save souls, and she is not God. So I'm not sure how you perceive that, but the portrayals of Mary that may seem off kilter to you are probably not nearly what you think they are. The other phenomena, particularly in France, Spain, and Mexico, that Mary makes miraculous appearances, and that there are shrines to her, may seem like worship. If so, then it depends on what you mean by worship. Catholics have a distinct meaning, and worship is directed toward God only. Mary and the Saints may have shrines and renditions, and even prayers directed to them, but never worship. This is call reverence. They are considered saints (a corrupted idea confusing martyrdom with a heavenly spirit). So saints are given reverence as a way to show respect for earning their place at the right hand of the father. The idea is not to worship a saint - for example, Catholics would never offer a sacrifice to a saint - but by always holding the saints up in banners and art, they represent the role models for the faithful, and this is the extent of the respect paid to them. I think Catholics regard Protestantism as cynical about this. That's why I say they would laugh at the idea that an outsider thinks they've figured out Catholicism when they really are too cynical to look at it objectively, and particularly amusing are those sects of Protestants who are always slinging mud at Catholics as idolaters, papists, conspirators, etc. What's so hilarious about this is that those folks owe the existence of their entire belief system to the Catholics who created their Bible and all the fiction evolved from that. I guess it's like the son who carries the genes of his parents finding some fundamental flaw in the DNA and yet ridiculing the parents for having a flaw.

Your points are well taken and understood, but it doesn't change the fact that in some Christian circles whether you are worshipping a saint or praying to them to intercede on your behalf it is still seen as going against scripture and as idolatry. They believe their scripture states there is one mediator: Christ. Men/women have no power to intercede for anyone, and praying to them is pointless. Sorry to beat an off topic dead horse. But as I see it we are both right and the only thing separating our definitions is religious belief and therefore inarguable from a secular viewpoint. After all, it is the same with the Pope, and part of what separates protestantism and catholicism.

Yes. I think the Dalai Lama in particular is sort of wise teddy bear that offers common sense and the American congregations, mostly middle to upper class white folks, respond very positively to his charming nature.

But don't you think it's also taken root here as a serious movement, not to mention the diversity of the population - as compared to say 100 years ago?

Right, Buddhism is growing. It's hard to say how fast at what impact but I did find this Wikipedia excerpt:


Buddhism World Growth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest-growing_religion#Buddhism

Lewis M. Hopfe in his "Religions of the World" suggested that "Buddhism is perhaps on the verge of another great missionary outreach".(1987:170)
Buddhism is being recognized as the fastest growing religion in Western societies both in terms of new converts and more so in terms of friends of Buddhism, who seek to study and practice various aspects of Buddhism.[6][7]

As in the United States, Buddhism is ranked among the fastest growing religions in many Western European countries.[8]

The Australian Bureau of Statistics through statistical analysis held Buddhism to be the fastest growing spiritual tradition/religion in Australia in terms of percentage gain with a growth of 79.1% for the period 1996 to 2001 (200,000→358,000).[9] However, because Australia is statistically small, no inferences can be drawn from that for the whole world.

Buddhism is the fastest-growing religion in England's jails, with the number of followers rising eightfold over the past decade.[10]

According to a recent report in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, the Japanese Buddhist sect Nichiren Shoshu of America (NSA) is the fastest growing religion in the United States. Since coming to America in 1960 NSA has launched an aggressive proselytizing program. In 1967 it built a national headquarters and World Culture Center in Santa Monica, California, and has since established offices in most major U.S. cities. According to NSA’s figures the sect, which is part of the Japan based umbrella organization Soka Gakkai (Value Creation Society), now claims a half million members in the U.S. - up 100,000 from a year ago.[11]

A pictorial comment (credit: Black Belt magazine) on Korean Taekwon Do Buddhist practice:

http://www.sciforums.com/picture.php?albumid=99&pictureid=1007

...and a statement (from Tricycle, an American Buddhist magazine) about what "success" means to a contemporary Western Buddhist:


To laugh often and much; to win the respect of humankind and the affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded.

This is a very broad - brushed statement Sig, at this point in our relationship I do not think it is called for. There are some things that one must experience to understand, there is simply no other way, sorry. Remember that you are the one on the outside looking in, I am the on the inside looking out.....

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/fire-intro-pic.jpg

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/fire-intro-pic.jpg

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/fire-intro-pic.jpg

:yawn: That all you got?

It's enough.

Where is the guarantee that picking and choosing and mixing religions will indeed provide one with what one wants and needs?Where is the guarantee, period? and that's not just a rhetorical question.


Especially given that those different religions may have very different goals, and thus the means they provide to reach those goals, may not actually be compatible, so mixing them up could create a toxic way of life.Sure. On the other hand they may have tools and insights that are incomplete and have been created by people whose insights were incomplete.

If we know a method to choose the best single religion (for oneself or for everyone) that is guaranteed to be correct, we can then see if this method can also be used to pick and choose. If it cannot, but one has this method to choose to best single religion, then the choice is fairly clear. If one has the methnod to choose the best religion and this seems to apply also to picking and choose and this method indicates this is best for one, then it would seem like one should go with the method towards picking and choosing or not use the method. If one does not have a method that guarantees picking the right religion.....

then what?

Where is the guarantee, period?

If there are people who have followed a particular regimen as proposed by a religion, and have attained what said religion promises, it would be reasonable to assume that there is some guarantee that the regimen delivers what is promised.



If one does not have a method that guarantees picking the right religion.....

then what?

If one does not have a method that guarantees picking the right religion and one is concerned over picking the right religion, then one has already chosen one's religion: its basic tenets are that mistakes are fatal and that God is evil or doesn't exist.

If there are people who have followed a particular regimen as proposed by a religion, and have attained what said religion promises, it would be reasonable to assume that there is some guarantee that the regimen delivers what is promised.Though one is already trusting the religion's self-evaluation (marketing? hindsight bias? ego?), its claim that their methods work for all or most (universalization) and that the goal they describe is one you want (projection, assumtion, indescribability).

Western medicine can claim to heal some or even most people with certain kinds of diseases. Chinese Medicine can also make this claim and is also successful with some or most, depending on the disease.

Some practitioners combine elements of both - I found a series of studies where CM was conbined with chemotherapy. Patients did better with the combination both on survival rates and comfort. I can't remember the specific cancer they were treating.


If one does not have a method that guarantees picking the right religion and one is concerned over picking the right religion, then one has already chosen one's religion: its basic tenets are that mistakes are fatal and that God is evil or doesn't exist.That could be the case. Or one could think that one must explore one's way forward and one is not sure if this will work or not. One does not have to finalize a belief. Of course we already have beliefs and we also have beliefs that rise to the surface under duress, loss or 'failure'. But these can be challenged.

Though one is already trusting the religion's self-evaluation (marketing? hindsight bias? ego?), its claim that their methods work for all or most (universalization) and that the goal they describe is one you want (projection, assumtion, indescribability).

They say it takes a person of integrity to know another person of integrity - and that a person of no integrity cannot recognize a person of integrity.


If there are people who have followed a particular regimen as proposed by a religion, and have attained what said religion promises, it would be reasonable to assume that there is some guarantee that the regimen delivers what is promised.

If you desire x and don't seem to be able to get it yourself and you conclude that you need someone to help you, you go out looking for those who have x.

They say it takes a person of integrity to know another person of integrity - and that a person of no integrity cannot recognize a person of integrity.I'm not so sure about that. They also say that it takes a con man to know another con man, and we've probably all seen that happen. The reason con men are so successful is that they can spot one of us honest, trusting souls--persons of integrity--in a second.

They say it takes a person of integrity to know another person of integrity - and that a person of no integrity cannot recognize a person of integrity.Well then the neophyte is at least accepting their ability to recognize a person of integrity! They are not coming empty to the choice of religion. They have a method, if not a guarantee.


If there are people who have followed a particular regimen as proposed by a religion, and have attained what said religion promises, it would be reasonable to assume that there is some guarantee that the regimen delivers what is promised. Though how does the outsider judge what they have attained and their integrity. Also a person with integrity can still make mistakes, certainly of scope and applicability. And I think there is a general assumption that what one person wants all want, deep down, 'really.' I am not sure that is the case.


If you desire x and don't seem to be able to get it yourself and you conclude that you need someone to help you, you go out looking for those who have x.Yes, though over time X may no longer be the goal and/or what looks like X may actually be something else.

This has been my experience. Though I do know there are others who see a master/priest/pastor and think they see X, have pursued the path this leader indicates and so far have been pleased. The leader still seems to have X, X still seems good, they seem to find more X qualities in themselves.

So I am definitely NOT say this cannot work. I just think it is not universal, but is a method, and is not a guarantee.

I also think that people tend to follow abstract ideas much more than people. Even though they are looking at people, sometimes, they filter their experience of that person through the beauty of words that are supposed to apply to that person.

But this can be improved. We learn. Or we can anyway.

The reason con men are so successful is that they can spot one of us honest, trusting souls--persons of integrity--in a second.

No. One reason that con men are so successful is because people think that being a person of integrity means being naive.

No. One reason that con men are so successful is because people think that being a person of integrity means being naive.OOOh. I like that. Also, being nice. I would also say that there is an assumption that one cannot trust intuitive reactions also. Which relates to the above. That we have to treat every person who approaches us the same, despite the warning bells which we can find, at that moment, not objective proof (rationalists) to justify them with.

They also say that it takes a con man to know another con man, and we've probably all seen that happen.

And it is better to be conned than to know how to recognize a conman, eh?



http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/d/31067-4/sheeple.jpg

But this can be improved. We learn. Or we can anyway.

The moment we put aside the eternal damnation issue, all the major parameters of interaction change.

The moment we put aside the eternal damnation issue, all the major parameters of interaction change.There are beliefs whose intention, I believe, were to freeze us and make us docile. I think this is one of them.

From personal experience I see some religions as loosing their religion, so to speak. They are loosing their differences and becoming more about social changes and personal changes rather than a doctrine of some god. One world "religion" is not such a far off concept. It is evident in Christianity and in Islam (social reform, etc). So why not in Buddhism? A melding, a blending, as we become less and less isolated from others who "believe" differently.
BB

A melding, a blending,

- and a gelding.

that too

The true Catholic, who believes in apostolic succession, the "one true holy, apostolic and catholic church" rejects the notion of worshiping Mary as a recent innovation among a small segment of the huge worldwide congregation.
From history....
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/virg/hd_virg.htm
From Wiki

Mary's role in salvation and redemption

One of the components of the Catholic veneration of Mary is the focus on her participation in the processes of salvation and redemption.[128] Entire books have been devoted to the exploration of the Catholic perspectives on Mary's role in salvation and redemption.[129][130][131]

The underlying theological issues have been discussed as far back as St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century and were intertwined with the discussions of the Immaculate Conception. One of the first scholars to offer theological foundations in this area was the Franciscan Duns Scotus who developed the notion that Mary was preserved from sin by the redemptive virtue of Jesus.[132][133][134] Devotions to and the veneration of the Virgin Mary continued to spread, as she came to be seen as the helpful mother of Christians, and by the 15th century these practices had oriented all the Catholic devotions.[135]

As of the 17th century, a common thread in the writings of saints and theologians alike is the role of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary as joint symbols of redemption and coredemption. Saint Veronica Giuliani expressed how Mary's suffering in Calvary united her heart with that of Jesus as she suffered each torment along with him.[136] The joint devotion to the hearts was formalised by Saint Jean Eudes who organised the scriptural and theological foundations and developed its liturgical themes.[137][138] John Eudes wrote that: "The Virgin Mary began to cooperate in the plan of salvation, from the moment she gave her consent to the Incarnation of the Son of God".[107] The venerative aspects of the united nature of the two hearts continued through the centuries and in 1985 Pope John Paul II coined the term Alliance of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary, and in 1986 addressed the international conference on that topic held at Fátima, Portugal.[139][140][141][142]

By the 18th century, the continued growth of Marian veneration had emphasised the role of the Virgin Mary in salvation. In his classic book The Glories of Mary, Saint Alphonsus Liguori explained how God gave Mary to mankind as the "Gate of Heaven", and he quoted Saint Bonaventure, namely "No one can enter Heaven unless by Mary, as though through a door."[143] And he wrote:[144]

Thou art the gate through which all find Jesus; through thee I also hope to find Him."

Saint Louis de Montfort, whose writings later influenced popes, was an ardent supporter of the Virgin Mary's role in salvation.[145][146] The Catholic focus on the role of Mary in salvation and redemption continued into the 20th century, e.g. Pope John Paul II's 1987 encyclical Redemptoris Mater began with the sentence: "The Mother of the Redeemer has a precise place in the plan of salvation."[20]

Some forms this takes up to the present...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_of_Mary

note the last section on devotion to Mary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Army_of_Our_Lady_of_Fatima

This is a nice overview of how Mary can be and is the focus of worship for many
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/medny/halsall4.html

- note this has degrees of consciousness and degrees of official approval but I think for many Catholics and other Christians she is the central figure.

My personal experience in Mexico was that Mary was the central figure to many if not most women, and also some men...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe

There is also the Black Madonna phenomenon, which I think has allowed a kind covert goddess worship - partially conscious - within Catholicism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Madonna

And for a rather interesting, complicated take by an ex-nun see...

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/mary_worship_a_study.htm

I like what she says about who the Pope prayed to when he was shot to see who he really thought had power.

Pineal:
Well then the neophyte is at least accepting their ability to recognize a person of integrity!

I can't totally trust anyone...well, I expect them to betray me even when I do trust them. That's why I can't really do organized religion. I don't trust, I can't think that anyone in authority actually has my interest at heart, I don't ever feel a part of any group I'm in.

Maybe I should pursue enlightenment though...if I was able to really figure out I'm an illusion and get that realization to stay stuck, I wouldn't care what people did to me anymore, would I?

The true Catholic, who believes in apostolic succession, the "one true holy, apostolic and catholic church" rejects the notion of worshiping Mary as a recent innovation among a small segment of the huge worldwide congregation. The extensive presence of art, rendering Mary as the sacred heart, etc., are mostly of Renaissance origin, when chivalry put motherhood on a pedestal. It carried forward with a lot of other tradition.

Mary is not the central figure in any Catholic denomination I know of. Mary has no other power than to intercede, she doesn't forgive sins or save souls, and she is not God. So I'm not sure how you perceive that, but the portrayals of Mary that may seem off kilter to you are probably not nearly what you think they are. The other phenomena, particularly in France, Spain, and Mexico, that Mary makes miraculous appearances, and that there are shrines to her, may seem like worship. If so, then it depends on what you mean by worship. Catholics have a distinct meaning, and worship is directed toward God only. Mary and the Saints may have shrines and renditions, and even prayers directed to them, but never worship. This is call reverence. They are considered saints (a corrupted idea confusing martyrdom with a heavenly spirit). So saints are given reverence as a way to show respect for earning their place at the right hand of the father. The idea is not to worship a saint - for example, Catholics would never offer a sacrifice to a saint - but by always holding the saints up in banners and art, they represent the role models for the faithful, and this is the extent of the respect paid to them. I think Catholics regard Protestantism as cynical about this. That's why I say they would laugh at the idea that an outsider thinks they've figured out Catholicism when they really are too cynical to look at it objectively, and particularly amusing are those sects of Protestants who are always slinging mud at Catholics as idolaters, papists, conspirators, etc. What's so hilarious about this is that those folks owe the existence of their entire belief system to the Catholics who created their Bible and all the fiction evolved from that. I guess it's like the son who carries the genes of his parents finding some fundamental flaw in the DNA and yet ridiculing the parents for having a flaw.

I bolded the phrase above adn below, BlueBaby

If I understand you right: "rejects the notion of worshiping Mary as a recent innovation among a small segment of the huge worldwide congregation" That is exactly what I mean. Catholicism is evolving as well, and if they are loosing their worship of Mary one small segment at a time they are loosing a central part of Catholicism (as pointed out by Pineal in post #97) by becoming less disguishable from protestantism.

Yes, I know current catholics whose churches don't resemble the catholic church I attended decades ago.

That is why I believe it is so hard when debating a "religion" like Buddhism or any "ism" because they evolve so much. Are we talking about 500 CE or the 1500's or 1790's or 1950's or 2010? And which country? Which sect or followers? Which Blog?

IMO, we are loosing our distinct religions and even their gods and writings, original tenets, whatever.
BB

I can't totally trust anyone...well, I expect them to betray me even when I do trust them. That's why I can't really do organized religion. I don't trust, I can't think that anyone in authority actually has my interest at heart, I don't ever feel a part of any group I'm in.

Maybe I should pursue enlightenment though...if I was able to really figure out I'm an illusion and get that realization to stay stuck, I wouldn't care what people did to me anymore, would I?I suppose, if that is appealing.

I can't totally trust anyone...well, I expect them to betray me even when I do trust them. That's why I can't really do organized religion. I don't trust, I can't think that anyone in authority actually has my interest at heart, I don't ever feel a part of any group I'm in.

Maybe I should pursue enlightenment though...if I was able to really figure out I'm an illusion and get that realization to stay stuck, I wouldn't care what people did to me anymore, would I?

What was that phrase we always said as kids "I am rubber and you are glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!" I can't remember if it ever really worked. I'm sure not, otherwise therapy session 2:00 pm wouldn't be noted on my smartphone so much.
BB

I suppose, if that is appealing.
It feels like dying, actually. Terrifying, the idea of giving up myself.
On the other hand, I find living terrifying and mostly painful a lot of the time.
So, if I'm going to be terrified and miserable anyway, why not be terrified and miserable in a brand new way?

Bluebaby:
What was that phrase we always said as kids "I am rubber and you are glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!" I can't remember if it ever really worked. I'm sure not, otherwise therapy session 2:00 pm wouldn't be noted on my smartphone so much.
As small children we look to parents to define us, and are very susceptible to whatever they say because we are literally biologically set up to have that information learned hard and fast. A child can learn two languages easily, an adult loses that neuroplasticity, for instance.
So if your parents programmed you well enough to hate yourself as a small child, then you get to deal with self-hatred like one would deal with kudzu in the deep south. It'll always come back, no matter what, so you just have to keep whacking it down and pulling it up.

It feels like dying, actually. Terrifying, the idea of giving up myself.
On the other hand, I find living terrifying and mostly painful a lot of the time.
So, if I'm going to be terrified and miserable anyway, why not be terrified and miserable in a brand new way?If it seems worth the effort - iow to engage in a long term disciplined process to acheive different bad feelings - and it seems like the best goal you can shoot for.


As small children we look to parents to define us, and are very susceptible to whatever they say because we are literally biologically set up to have that information learned hard and fast. A child can learn two languages easily, an adult loses that neuroplasticity, for instance.
So if your parents programmed you well enough to hate yourself as a small child, then you get to deal with self-hatred like one would deal with kudzu in the deep south. It'll always come back, no matter what, so you just have to keep whacking it down and pulling it up.Actually they have found that neuroplasticity carries all the way through adult life. I recommend the book, The Brain That Changes Itself. It is not so much a psychological book, but in fact tracks people who managed to change the way their brains worked to degrees unthought of within Western science just a few decades ago. We now know that adult brains can change dramatically. In one case the father of one of the pioneering scientists covered in the book had a major stroke. They told the family he would be institutionalized permanently, never walk, talk, etc. Well, the scientist in question was skeptical about this general idea in neuroscience and he trained his father to walk, talk, etc., the undamaged portions of the brain taking over the jobs. And his father was past retirement age when this happened.

And it is better to be conned than to know how to recognize a conman, eh?I didn't say that. It's possible to learn the skills necessary to spot a con artist, at least well enough to catch most of them. The problem is that you end up learning things about humans and human nature that you didn't really want to know. For some people this can shatter their faith in humanity and make them hopeless cynics.


From personal experience I see some religions as loosing their religion, so to speak. They are loosing their differences and becoming more about social changes and personal changes rather than a doctrine of some god. One world "religion" is not such a far off concept. It is evident in Christianity and in Islam (social reform, etc). So why not in Buddhism? A melding, a blending, as we become less and less isolated from others who "believe" differently.This is no surprise. All the world's communities are being brought together by the Electronic Revolution--after this trend was started by the rapid transportation of the Industrial Revolution. The more people interact with people more distant from themselves (both geographically and culturally), the more they share the things that make them who they are.

I look at how much the USA has changed in the 51 years since I left high school and went off to a distant city to attend a university. Distant, ha! Only 500 miles. Today that seems like nothing. But that's my point. America was a bunch of little regional cultures back then. Because of Industrial Era transportation, I had already moved from Chicago to Arizona to Los Angeles, but I still found the people and the culture of Alabama or Oklahoma a little strange, and some of the accents were difficult to understand. Today there are only a few regions that are very different from each other.

And the same is happening on a global scale. China calls itself communist, but the people who run their businesses are all capitalists. India's Bollywood movies are popular all over Asia. Europeans, who were shooting at each other 100 years ago, are now all (almost) brothers.

So it's no surprise that our religions are moving toward a common center. Rastafarianism was founded in the 20th century, perhaps its the new model of a modern religion. Or maybe it's the Sufi people, they're also gaining a lot of ground outside their homeland.

Yeah, Buddhism too. Whether or not you call it a "religion," it's part of this giant Melting Pot.
I can't totally trust anyone...well, I expect them to betray me even when I do trust them.That's sad. For two reasons. Number One, obviously, because not trusting people makes it very difficult to get close to them. Our species is simply not programmed to be loners. So on top of all the other things I've identified in various threads on this forum as the dues we pay for giving up our Paleolithic lifestyle and building cities, you're also having to adapt to an unnatural social arrangement that goes against your instincts.

And Number Two: If you don't trust anybody else, that means you're putting all your trust in yourself. The problem with this is that every single one of us is (I promise) going to let himself down once in a while. When that happens, if you've got other people you can count on, you'll just do some hoomphing and promise to do better next time, and you'll get over. But if you are your own ONLY resource? The ONLY person you trust, and that person let you down? And you've got nobody else to go to for help and solace?

How do you recover from something like that???
If I was able to really figure out I'm an illusion and get that realization to stay stuck, I wouldn't care what people did to me anymore, would I?Maybe it will be easier to convince yourself that you're an illusion if you don't trust anybody else. When they keep telling you, "No dude, you're not an illusion. I can see you too," you simply won't believe them!

If you don't trust anybody else, that means you're putting all your trust in yourself.
No. I don't trust myself either. I keep isolated in part because I fear harming others, I have no faith in my ability to manage things, I don't try for success either because it involves possibly failing, and I hate myself when I fail, which is one of the few things I do very well.
I was told: not to do anything unless I was going to do it right, that I was a stupid, clumsy brat, that I was never going to amount to much anyway.

No. I don't trust myself either. I keep isolated in part because I fear harming others, I have no faith in my ability to manage things, I don't try for success either because it involves possibly failing, and I hate myself when I fail, which is one of the few things I do very well..You need to lighten up!

It does make me look twice. I've always wanted to meet an enlightened person to feel them out. It'd be interesting to see how they act, speak, and so forth. The thing about Buddhism is after some time you don't even want to be enlightened anymore. The desire for enlightenment seems like such a silly thing now, but it's what grabs most folk's initial attention.

I had a similar feeling. I felt that once I became even slightly enlightened, and knew what it was to be so, I began to understand how far one could take it and how much work I have to do. I think it is a long and continuing process, with out end. Even the Dali Lama said he is still learning and growing every day. It seems like I could take a million life times to do it right. So much work. lol :o

No. I don't trust myself either. I keep isolated in part because I fear harming others, I have no faith in my ability to manage things, I don't try for success either because it involves possibly failing, and I hate myself when I fail, which is one of the few things I do very well.
I was told: not to do anything unless I was going to do it right, that I was a stupid, clumsy brat, that I was never going to amount to much anyway.
. . . and worst of all, god forbid you should succeed at something! :D

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iux3N0qmvA8/TUbXP-jnmPI/AAAAAAAAA88/MGxlGi5fuG8/s640/buddha_quotes.png
http://www.knottymouse.com/wp-content/uploads/buddha-quotes.jpg

It feels like dying, actually. Terrifying, the idea of giving up myself.
On the other hand, I find living terrifying and mostly painful a lot of the time.
So, if I'm going to be terrified and miserable anyway, why not be terrified and miserable in a brand new way?

As small children we look to parents to define us, and are very susceptible to whatever they say because we are literally biologically set up to have that information learned hard and fast. A child can learn two languages easily, an adult loses that neuroplasticity, for instance.
So if your parents programmed you well enough to hate yourself as a small child, then you get to deal with self-hatred like one would deal with kudzu in the deep south. It'll always come back, no matter what, so you just have to keep whacking it down and pulling it up.

Yes, I wasn't making light. I know the deep pain and scars caused by frilled- up parenting. It's like a Scorpius chip, their programming is in your head and won't go away, for a time, maybe, but not forever.
Having worked with foster kids, the damage a parent(s) or caregiver(s) or whomever, can do in a short life can be extensive. But you realize the problem so you are ahead of many. Quit looking at yourself thru their eyes and believing everyone else looks at you that way too. Not easy, I know.

I didn't say that. It's possible to learn the skills necessary to spot a con artist, at least well enough to catch most of them. The problem is that you end up learning things about humans and human nature that you didn't really want to know. For some people this can shatter their faith in humanity and make them hopeless cynics.

Well, isn't truth, no matter how ugly, always infinitely better than illusion, no matter how rosy?

It's enough.

No, it is not.


Well, isn't truth, no matter how ugly, always infinitely better than illusion, no matter how rosy?


Yes, it is.....

.....excluding your use of universal qualifiers and value judgements.

No, it is not.

Well, Yazata, Pineal and myself and perhaps some others can appreciate the sad irony of your being ignorant of some fundamental Buddhist teachings ...

Let me get this straight:

You are not a Buddhist, I (by my own admission) am.

You - a non - Buddhist find my Buddhist practice illegitimate. You hold me up to a standard that you do not acknowledge. Is this logical?

You claim to speak for other members of this forum....with their consent? I am a Buddhist - remember? Do you really think I give a rats ass what any group of anonymous handles on an Internet site thinks of me? Seriously?

Your control issue is most impressive indeed, as is your belief in your own importance.

Son, you have a serious problem with knowing where "you" end and "I" begin. Your lack of personal congruence is going to give you some very serious real - world problems if you cannot reign it in. Your lack of understanding of interpersonal boundaries threatens your personal well - being. Your anger will destroy you if you allow it to as well, and that anger is very obvious here. :shrug: Why?

Why does my Buddhist practice threaten you so very much? If you can answer that question - if only silently to yourself - you will experience satori for yourself rather than reading about it in the library.

No charge...this time. ;)

As far as "is Buddhism compatible with (other) religions?"

Stoniphi's description of a Buddhist in Post #79 (it wouldn't copy) are excellent goals for anyone, theist or atheist. The problem for theists is "Who do I depend on to reach these goals?" Myself or a god? If I may depend on my god for help then this part of Buddhism may indeed be doable for a thiest, but other aspects of Buddhism as a whole may still not be compatible for some. I depends on my personal thiesm
BB

Let me get this straight:

You are not a Buddhist, I (by my own admission) am.

You - a non - Buddhist find my Buddhist practice illegitimate. You hold me up to a standard that you do not acknowledge. Is this logical?

You claim to speak for other members of this forum....with their consent? I don't know if Signal used the word legitimate or not. I can't say I want to label your Buddhist practice. But when you described what you would consider a formal Zen version of koan practice I did question this - so my reactions was out for all to see - since it did not resemble the formal koan practices I have engaged in or have ever heard about, except in non-Buddhist academic or informal settings.

I was also struck by you describing the experience of enlightenment in response to a question. This would also not really fit with any formal Buddhist environment I have ever been in. I am not saying your description is incorrect, but the implicit authority in deciding to answer and in such a context struck me as fully outside Buddhist norms and often part of communication explicitly warned against.

To me the issue is not 'Is Stoniphi really a Buddhist or following the tenets of Buddhism in his practice?', but rather is what you are presenting as Buddhism, Buddhism? The later issue is on topic, since we are trying to decide if Buddhism is a religion. From your posts here and in the koan thread, I am not sure if what you are putting forward is Buddhism.

This issue and the ad hom run very close together, but I would prefer to stay focused on Buddhism.

I am also not sure how you know Signal is not a Buddhist.


Why does my Buddhist practice threaten you so very much? If you can answer that question - if only silently to yourself - you will experience satori for yourself rather than reading about it in the library.I also find this use of satori to be odd. Satori is generally more than some kind of personal insight - which is all that Signal might find if you are correct that she is threatened by your practices and then realizes what is really going on.
I don't think for example that most insights in psychotherapy are what would be classed as satori in Zen Buddhism.

I am also not sure how you know Signal is not a Buddhist.

He/she flat out stated that directly in an earlier post.


is what you are presenting as Buddhism, Buddhism?

It is as far as I am concerned, and to me that is all that matters. It works as advertized and has proven effective in my life for what I need it to do for me. You may also choose to judge me if you wish, but that would not be very Buddhist - OR Christian, would it? "Judge not lest ye be judged."


...but the implicit authority in deciding to answer and in such a context struck me as fully outside Buddhist norms and often part of communication explicitly warned against...

I am an elder, I am educated, I have been a practitioner for 43 years, I have been a teacher in many fields and I have a lot of real world experience. When someone asks me a question I decide whether or not to answer them. If I answer, it is open and honest. If I don't know I say so. That is sufficient authority for me and quite in line with what I have been taught as well. It would be an insult to the memory of my instructors to do otherwise.

Tradition dictates that a Buddhist instructor occasionally strike his student while yelling "that!". I live in the USA. If I did that I could be arrested, thrown in jail and sued. What was appropriate a thousand years ago in Japan is now illegal, and I would be a fool to try and act that way here and now. Remember - "Be here, now."

One of the great strengths of Buddhism is its flexibility and its ability to accommodate changing times and conditions.


...I don't know if Signal used the word legitimate or not...

I do, and he/she did, thus my response.


...Satori is generally more than some kind of personal insight - which is all that Signal might find if you are correct..

Within the context of my knowledge and experience, you error in limiting Sig's capacity for experiencing satori by careful consideration of my words here. While satori is indeed 'some kind of personal insight' it is vastly more than that. It is a breakthrough, a deep and meaningful change from within the person that improves them permanently. If Sig can find what is it about me that so frightens/threatens him/her, then the possibility exists that he/she can experience a major insight into their motivations and their interactions with other people. This has the potential to permanently change his/her dealing with others to the benefit of all parties. :)

Your view of satori seems naive and academic to me. Satori is not some pie-in-the-sky out-of-reach divine insight, it is well within the reach of any and all practitioners. Heck - you don't even have to be Buddhist to become enlightened, you just have to try hard enough and long enough.

Been there, done that. ;)

He/she flat out stated that directly in an earlier post. Oh, OK. I gotten the impression elsewhere this was someone with quite a bit of experience of Buddhism, but a clear disidentification is just that.


It is as far as I am concerned, and to me that is all that matters. It works as advertized and has proven effective in my life for what I need it to do for me. You may also choose to judge me if you wish, but that would not be very Buddhist - OR Christian, would it? "Judge not lest ye be judged."So, your responses to Signal have or have not been Buddhist or Christian?


Within the context of my knowledge and experience, you error in limiting Sig's capacity for experiencing satori by careful consideration of my words here. While satori is indeed 'some kind of personal insight' it is vastly more than that. Yes, this was my point, precisely.
I am not limiting Signal's potential, I am reacting to you telling her that she 'will experience Sartori' if she does what you say.


Your view of satori seems naive and academic to me.Well, that's strange, I would have described it very much like you did in that context and your description of what it is does not fit for me with what Signal will experience if....etc. Might sure, will, however, seems to include to many much less trivial events in Sartori. It also puts you in the role of the master....

Signal, go contemplate why you are threatened by my practices and if you get the answer you will experience Sartori.


Why does my Buddhist practice threaten you so very much? If you can answer that question - if only silently to yourself - you will experience satori for yourself rather than reading about it in the library.

He/she flat out stated that directly in an earlier post.



It is as far as I am concerned, and to me that is all that matters. It works as advertized and has proven effective in my life for what I need it to do for me. You may also choose to judge me if you wish, but that would not be very Buddhist - OR Christian, would it? "Judge not lest ye be judged."



I am an elder, I am educated, I have been a practitioner for 43 years, I have been a teacher in many fields and I have a lot of real world experience. When someone asks me a question I decide whether or not to answer them. If I answer, it is open and honest. If I don't know I say so. That is sufficient authority for me and quite in line with what I have been taught as well. It would be an insult to the memory of my instructors to do otherwise.

Tradition dictates that a Buddhist instructor occasionally strike his student while yelling "that!". I live in the USA. If I did that I could be arrested, thrown in jail and sued. What was appropriate a thousand years ago in Japan is now illegal, and I would be a fool to try and act that way here and now. Remember - "Be here, now."

One of the great strengths of Buddhism is its flexibility and its ability to accommodate changing times and conditions.



I do, and he/she did, thus my response.



Within the context of my knowledge and experience, you error in limiting Sig's capacity for experiencing satori by careful consideration of my words here. While satori is indeed 'some kind of personal insight' it is vastly more than that. It is a breakthrough, a deep and meaningful change from within the person that improves them permanently. If Sig can find what is it about me that so frightens/threatens him/her, then the possibility exists that he/she can experience a major insight into their motivations and their interactions with other people. This has the potential to permanently change his/her dealing with others to the benefit of all parties. :)

Your view of satori seems naive and academic to me. Satori is not some pie-in-the-sky out-of-reach divine insight, it is well within the reach of any and all practitioners. Heck - you don't even have to be Buddhist to become enlightened, you just have to try hard enough and long enough.

Been there, done that. ;)

I bolded the words above, BlueBaby

Judging another is definitely part of Christianity and their scriptures. It is often only non-Christians who tend to throw that out of context verse around. Another interpretation: If I judge others I know the measure by which to judge and so I must be prepared to judge myself by the same measure because my god will.

I am interested in your comment that judging others is not very Buddhist? Could you explain. I’ve always wondered how not to judge others.

Do Buddhists refuse jury duty?
Do they never have to hire a babysitter for their kids?
Choose a partner?
Walk by a homeless person asking for money with booze on his breath?
Confide in anyone?
Hire or fire an employee?
Was judgment of another Buddhist the reason you became one? Their person or writings or values or lifestyle?

There are so many daily examples I could never list them all.

I have tried not to judge but I can’t get through my day without judging people. How do Buddhists do it? What is their take on judging others?
BB

Question : can a Christian or Muslim be a follower of Buddha and continue practicing its faith ?

It would be difficult. The problems would mostly come from the Christian and Muslim ends, though. Islam particularly, would probably take a pretty dim view of that.

Buddhism hasn't traditionally denied the existence of gods. Gods are portrayed as participants in some of the canonical Buddhist writings. They are said to have gathered to honor the Buddha's birth and death, for example. (Historians of Indian religion take great interest in which gods are mentioned in the early Buddhist writings, what their attributes are and so on.)

But Buddhism doesn't have a mono-theistic-style creator god. The universe is imagined as effectively being of endless duration, without any beginning or end. There isn't any lawcourt-style postmortem judgement. Rewards and punishments are attributed to karma, to causality essentially. Morality is an integral part of the law of nature for traditional Buddhism.

In other words, while gods may exist, they are basically something like space-aliens, creatures as we are, just more powerful and exalted. Buddhists don't assume that human beings are the pinnacle of creaturely reality. But the Buddhists' gods are mortal, if extremely long-lived, and they are still subject to the law of karma. They can eventually die and even effectively fall out of heaven into an earthly or even a hellish rebirth.

(Given that each of us is the result of an endless series of rebirths already, everyone probably has gods somewhere in that history.)

In Buddhism, gods don't really have very much religious significance. They are still in need of enlightenment themselves. That's why they are portrayed as recognizing the importance of the Buddha's birth.

So Buddhism has never had any big problem in incorporating other religions' deities into its scheme. (More gods with new names, so what?) Probably none of the gods found in Buddhist writings originated historically as Buddhist deities. They are just the deities that were already popular among the general population at the places and times when the writings were written.

But religions that imagine their god as being the one true god, ultimate being, creator of the entire universe, postmortem judge, the final goal of man's religious quest and of all of history, probably will have quite a bit of difficulty accepting the Buddhists' devaluation of their deity. They certainly will have problems accepting the idea that true salvation has nothing to do with their god and that their god stands in need of Buddhist enlightenment just like we do.

Having said that, we do see things like "Christian Zen" here in California. (Perhaps more so in the 60's and 70's than today.) This tendency adopts the outward aesthetic style of Zen (perhaps hybridized with Western contemplative traditions), but interprets Buddhism as a psychology, a this-worldly meditation practice conducive to peace and equanimity, while still retaining the idea that true religious salvation comes through Christ alone. Buddhist enlightenment is no longer imagined to be the religious summum bonum. In this case it's Buddhism that appears to be the faith that's been devalued. But Buddhism never seemed to have any problem with the Christian Zen people.

We also see some Jews who adopt some Buddhism without giving up their self-identity as Jews. Many of these are non-religious Jews for whom Judaism is no longer their religion, just an ethnic identity. Others seem to treat matters like Christian Zen does, meditating while still believing in the Jewish god.

But I've never heard of any Islamic-Buddhist hybrids. They may exist, but I'd guess that it would be awfully close to idolatry in Muslim eyes. The community's reaction against it might conceivably be violent. I'd speculate that Muslims who might be attracted to Buddhism are more likely to opt for Sufism instead.

***There is no copyright or warning not to reprint in this book***

This book was bought in a monastery in Chieng Mai,Thailand: Buddha-Nigama, by a relative of mine about 2000.

Handbook for Mankind by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. Originally presented as a series of lectures...

The VenerableBuddhadasa is well known for the readiness with which he gives nonliteral interpretation to the Buddhist text...

These kind of dharma texts usually don't have conventional copyrights. They can be reproduced, though it is typically requested that the text not be altered, that the author and original publisher be acknowledged, and that copies not be sold for commercial purposes. They are often distributed for free, though I guess that sometimes a donation might be requested in exchange, which amounts to paying for it, I guess.

The late Buddhadasa was a very influential Buddhist modernist in Thailand and was/is hugely respected there. He was somewhat controversial as well, since he gave unconventional interpretations to doctrines like rebirth and endeavored to make traditional Buddhist doctrine more consistent with modern scientific ideas. He was also kind of critical of the traditional mosastic establishments and tried to get Buddhists more involved in social improvement projects and stuff.

That's similar to Western Buddhist modernism in many ways, but it's significant that in Thailand it still emerged from a monastic context.

Signal, go contemplate why you are threatened by my practices and if you get the answer you will experience Sartori.

Some people are presenting what is very common among beginners:
the inability to distinguish between a discussion, and a request for personal instruction.

...How do Buddhists do it? What is their take on judging others?


I am interested in your comment that judging others is not very Buddhist? Could you explain. I’ve always wondered how not to judge others.

I cannot speak for all Buddhists everywhere, only for myself.


-Do Buddhists refuse jury duty?

No, as a citizen of the USA I get benefits. Participating in the jury system is part of the payment I must give in return. If I want my Buddhist perspective to count in decisions when I am present than I must put it out there. It is not reasonable in my opinion to shirk a responsibility or foist it off onto others.


-Do they never have to hire a babysitter for their kids?

I did not. A child is with his/her parents for a very short time before they go off into the wide world. It is logical to maximize your time with them when they are small so as to do the job of parenting most effectively. When we went "out" we took our son with us.


-Choose a partner?

I did.


-Walk by a homeless person asking for money with booze on his breath?

This does not happen to me so I cannot answer that. I urge everyone to live a healthy, sober lifestyle. I advise those who wish to get drunk or stoned to do so in the relative safety of their own home so as to minimize hazard to themselves and others. I give to charity.


-Confide in anyone?

Yes, my wife and my best friend.


-Hire or fire an employee?

I have hired and laid off employees, never had to fire anyone, but then I have never hired someone who did me harm.


-Was judgment of another Buddhist the reason you became one? Their person or writings or values or lifestyle?

No. I became a Buddhist after reading much on the subject, meeting and speaking with Buddhists. It seemed rational and promised a degree of self - improvement that other disciplines did not. It has delivered on that promise very well for me. My practice has grown with me through the decades and still benefits me daily.

The Middle Path is that of moderation. It avoids extremes. This is a major lesson to be obtained from Buddhist practice. It cautions us against the "all or nothing", "my way or the high way", "always or never" type of decisions. This is the lesson of the Prince turned Pauper sitting under the fig tree contemplating his growling stomach.

Stoniphi:
-Walk by a homeless person asking for money with booze on his breath?

This does not happen to me so I cannot answer that. I urge everyone to live a healthy, sober lifestyle. I advise those who wish to get drunk or stoned to do so in the relative safety of their own home so as to minimize hazard to themselves and others. I give to charity.

I do a lot of borrowing from buddhism...and I give homeless people food and water. Either a bit of what I happen to be carrying if I'm coming from the store, or I go buy them food.

Especially in the summer around here, I worry for their hydration...I've thought about stashing army MRE's and gatorade in my car, along with sunblock, bug repellent, and deodorant, so I'd just have something good to hand out...but it's one of those-get-around-to-it things...:o

Feeding people makes me feel good. Not caring for them in some way tends to leave me with a guilty feeling, but feeding the addiction they often have doesn't make me feel very good.

Judging another is definitely part of Christianity and their scriptures. It is often only non-Christians who tend to throw that out of context verse around. Another interpretation: If I judge others I know the measure by which to judge and so I must be prepared to judge myself by the same measure because my god will.

I am interested in your comment that judging others is not very Buddhist? Could you explain. I’ve always wondered how not to judge others.

I think that it's true that Buddhists are often less judgemental than Christians and Muslims. If pushed to extremes, that kind of degenerates into 'anything goes', which is attractive to a certain kind of alienated Westerner and perhaps is overemphasized by some Buddhists here in the States.

Buddhism might not be as well-defined as highly scriptural Christianity or Islam. For some Buddhists (the Theravada) the canon of inspired writings was finally closed some 400 years after the Buddha's decease and the canon's contents rather piously (if unhistorically) attributed to the historical Buddha himself. But other Buddhists (the Mahayana) never closed their canon and continued to produce what purportedly were inspired sutras for many more centuries. (Of course, inspiration doesn't mean the same thing in Buddhism as it does in Christianity or Islam.)

The result of this is that while there are fundamental Buddhist themes that all Buddhists honor to a greater or lesser degree, there's also tremendous variation and improvisation around those themes. Different Buddhists might interpret things in very different ways.

A way to imagine it is like a tree, with time the vertical dimension. There are lots of branches up on top, but they all can claim to be continuous with the original trunk down below. They are just different ways of expressing and interpreting it. (Christianity is really not much different when seen as a historial phenomenon.)

In other words, the various ways of being Buddhist all have histories. They are traditions. And since Buddhism has never had a church or a doctrinal authority on top defining their official catechisms for them, Buddhists place great emphasis on lineage and tradition in judging whether individual teachings are authentically Buddhist or not.

The Buddhist monastic sangha, the order of monks, is remarkable in that regard. The Buddha ordained the first monks, they formed quorums and ordained more monks, and on and on down to today in a continuous unbroken chain. When you see a Buddhist monk, you see a representative of a continuity that extends back, person to person to person, all the way to the historical Buddha himself. It's not unlike Christianity's apostolic succession of bishops, I guess.

What we see in Buddhism is typically a big-tent attitude towards Buddhism as a whole, towards what is and isn't Buddhist, at least in some abstract sense. But most Buddhists nevertheless do have ideas about what the best form of Buddhism is, at least for them personally. Some Buddhists might perceive a lot of what other Buddhists believe in as historical accretion that's unrelated to the Buddha's actual teachings, as pointless speculation or whatnot. Most Buddhists probably see a few ostensibly Buddhist practices (tantric sexual practices for example) as positively harmful. Some Buddhists dismiss other Buddhists' beliefs and practices as lower forms of Buddhism fit only for less spiritually evolved people. (Tibetans have sometimes looked at Theravada that way.)


I have tried not to judge but I can’t get through my day without judging people. How do Buddhists do it? What is their take on judging others?
BB

Buddhism doesn't have morality in quite the same way that Christians or Muslims imagine it. There isn't any supernatural law code. I guess that in a way there is, in the shape of karma, but Buddhists have never seen their task as preaching karma. Karma is a law of nature and takes care of itself.

In Buddhism, morality is psychologized. What's of primary concern to Buddhists are one's motivations. Buddhists are less concerned with what's 'right' or 'wrong' than with what's 'skillful' or 'unskillful'. That depends on whether motivational states (and the acts they motivate) tend towards suffering, or towards the elimination of suffering.

Buddhists (ideally) refrain from killing, stealing and lying, but not because those things are outlawed in some number of divine commandments, but rather because they cause suffering and reinforce future disfunctional behaviors.

So it's not that Buddhists don't judge. They do. They just judge a little differently. They think of wrong-doers perhaps a little less as being 'bad' or 'evil' than as 'damaged' or 'disfunctional'. There's tremendous emphasis in Buddhism on gradually eliminating what are called 'klesas' or 'defilements', which are disfunctional psychological states conducive to suffering and dukkha in one's self and in others.

You could perhaps say that's what Buddhism is all about.

Oh, OK. I gotten the impression elsewhere this was someone with quite a bit of experience of Buddhism, but a clear disidentification is just that.

One needn't (currently) identify oneself as a Buddhist to discuss Buddhism.

I do a lot of borrowing from buddhism...and I give homeless people food and water. Either a bit of what I happen to be carrying if I'm coming from the store, or I go buy them food.

Especially in the summer around here, I worry for their hydration...I've thought about stashing army MRE's and gatorade in my car, along with sunblock, bug repellent, and deodorant, so I'd just have something good to hand out...but it's one of those-get-around-to-it things...:o

Feeding people makes me feel good. Not caring for them in some way tends to leave me with a guilty feeling, but feeding the addiction they often have doesn't make me feel very good.

Yes, but the homeless guy wants money. Does a judgement call as to what he would do with cash come into your decision to offer food and water?
(I've seen homeless leave food sit untouched)

I cannot speak for all Buddhists everywhere, only for myself.


-Do Buddhists refuse jury duty?

No, as a citizen of the USA I get benefits. Participating in the jury system is part of the payment I must give in return. If I want my Buddhist perspective to count in decisions when I am present than I must put it out there. It is not reasonable in my opinion to shirk a responsibility or foist it off onto others.


-Do they never have to hire a babysitter for their kids?

I did not. A child is with his/her parents for a very short time before they go off into the wide world. It is logical to maximize your time with them when they are small so as to do the job of parenting most effectively. When we went "out" we took our son with us.


-Choose a partner?

I did.


-Walk by a homeless person asking for money with booze on his breath?

This does not happen to me so I cannot answer that. I urge everyone to live a healthy, sober lifestyle. I advise those who wish to get drunk or stoned to do so in the relative safety of their own home so as to minimize hazard to themselves and others. I give to charity.


-Confide in anyone?

Yes, my wife and my best friend.


-Hire or fire an employee?

I have hired and laid off employees, never had to fire anyone, but then I have never hired someone who did me harm.


-Was judgment of another Buddhist the reason you became one? Their person or writings or values or lifestyle?

No. I became a Buddhist after reading much on the subject, meeting and speaking with Buddhists. It seemed rational and promised a degree of self - improvement that other disciplines did not. It has delivered on that promise very well for me. My practice has grown with me through the decades and still benefits me daily.

The Middle Path is that of moderation. It avoids extremes. This is a major lesson to be obtained from Buddhist practice. It cautions us against the "all or nothing", "my way or the high way", "always or never" type of decisions. This is the lesson of the Prince turned Pauper sitting under the fig tree contemplating his growling stomach.

Thank you for taking the time for that response, but i am still not sure if your "judgement" of another came into play when you Chose your partner, or chose Buddhism. Since you have a child- If you had to hire a babysitter would you not judge that person before handing over your child?

I have to judge every day. Does your "radar" never go up telling you to not trust this person, even that you may be in danger?

Again, there are too many situations we all experience daily to list. I guess maybe each has their own definition of "judging others"? BB

Thank you Yazata for post #124, I will read over that during my holiday (YIPPEEEE!) break.
To anyone else getting a holiday break Chill and Enjoy!!!
BB

I also thank you, Yazata, for post 124. It appears clear, informative and insightful to these old eyes. :itold:


...but i am still not sure if your "judgement" of another came into play when you Chose your partner, or chose Buddhism. Since you have a child- If you had to hire a babysitter would you not judge that person before handing over your child?

I know myself fairly well, and I knew before I chose my wife what kind of personal attributes would work well with my personality. She fit those criteria, agreed with my analysis and we found each other attractive besides that.

I avoided the babysitter situation by doing that myself as my wife and I had planned, thus avoiding the need to consider it further. If I had been in that situation, I would indeed have found out as much as I could about a hypothetical babysitter before using them, and I would treat them in a manner similar to my business dealings. I would look them in the eye when speaking with them, shake their hand when meeting them, check out their references and surreptitiously check up on them if I hired them.


...Does your "radar" never go up telling you to not trust this person, even that you may be in danger?...

I live in Detroit. :eek: There are some very dangerous people around here. I have been a Taekwon Do practitioner for 39 years and hold advanced rank. My "radar" is exquisitely well - tuned to detect potential threats and I am very well trained to avoid such things completely if at all possible. I do that pretty well. Yes, some persons make my neck hair stand on end. I back away from them and leave immediately. I avoid being in places that I consider hazardous. When I must be in dangerous places, I dress way down to fit in well enough not to get attention. I do not look or act like a victim so I am not one.

While I possess sufficient skill to kill with one blow, I do not ever need to resort to violence. In the very worst case I have experienced thus far I found myself backing up deflecting punch after punch while asking the gentleman to stop before he hurt himself.

He did, finally, and went away. I filed a police report on him but did not press charges. He had an emotional problem of some kind or perhaps was high on a stimulant like cocaine. Either way he was so out of control that I really felt sorry for him as he came at me. He had no idea how very dangerous a situation he had placed himself in.

Yes, but the homeless guy wants money. Does a judgement call as to what he would do with cash come into your decision to offer food and water?
(I've seen homeless leave food sit untouched)
So far...had food turned down once. Been giving food for years.
And yes, I don't really want to feed a person's addictions, if they have them. I used to not give them anything at all, but that bothered me.
I remember one buddhist author talking about "helping skillfully," and I do not want to not help at all...but I don't want to feed addictions that may be a part of what's keeping them homeless (far from always though, I know).
So it's a bit patronizing, I'll give it that...but homelessness itself is hardly a problem I am equipped to solve; it's systemic.
And...I guess it's also nice to have people give a crap about you...:shrug:

To me it comes back to...

does it make sense for someone to leave a religion and decide to be Buddhist because Buddhism does what they would have wanted the previous religion to do? I think the answer in many cases of conversion is yes.

I also think it works the other way. That moving from Buddhism to another religion is a process of seeking what one was seeking in the former and feeling one has found it in the latter.

That Buddhism fits functionally in a category with other religions.

Good lord, are people still beanplating this question?

Of course Buddhism is a religion. If that isn't immediately obvious to anyone, that person needs to double-check their definition of "religion" and knowledge of Buddhism.

Good lord, are people still beanplating this question?

Of course Buddhism is a religion. If that isn't immediately obvious to anyone, that person needs to double-check their definition of "religion" and knowledge of Buddhism.I like that verb, 'beanplating', though I can only guess via context, vaguely, at its meaning. I agree with your conclusion, but of course people are still beanplating, we are beanplaters. And language, given the vagaries of semantics and it's use by humans and their vagaries and distinct intentions and experiences, sets up a tremendous proclivity towards beanplating.

To deny this is only to invite more beanplating.

(now that was fun.)

To me it comes back to...

does it make sense for someone to leave a religion and decide to be Buddhist because Buddhism does what they would have wanted the previous religion to do? I think the answer in many cases of conversion is yes.

I also think it works the other way. That moving from Buddhism to another religion is a process of seeking what one was seeking in the former and feeling one has found it in the latter.

That Buddhism fits functionally in a category with other religions.

By this reasoning, pornography could be classified as a "religion" ...

:p

...That Buddhism fits functionally in a category with other religions.

I would tend to agree with this statement, as Buddhism indeed fulfills the purpose of a religion for many/most practitioners, at least in my experience.

There are likely more practical reasons for conversion as well. I have a friend who converted to Christianity from Buddhism because he was an orphan and raised in a Buddhist orphanage in the Philippines. The monks beat him and the other orphans frequently, he felt they were cruel and callous, so he changed religions when he was old enough to live on his own.

I am sure that the converse often occurs as well, as we students were beaten regularly by the nuns in a Christian school I attended when I was a child.

I would tend to agree with this statement, as Buddhism indeed fulfills the purpose of a religion for many/most practitioners, at least in my experience.

There are likely more practical reasons for conversion as well. I have a friend who converted to Christianity from Buddhism because he was an orphan and raised in a Buddhist orphanage in the Philippines. The monks beat him and the other orphans frequently, he felt they were cruel and callous, so he changed religions when he was old enough to live on his own.

I am sure that the converse often occurs as well, as we students were beaten regularly by the nuns in a Christian school I attended when I was a child.



Tell me according to what I read Buddhism in order to penetrate into China they had to introduce a saint or whatever is called " Mother from heaven "
so how Buddhist adapted them selves to this idea ?

Apparently monks correct their children like every religion monks with belts,

Good lord, are people still beanplating this question?


Beanplating...yeah, that one goes on my list of verbs too...:D


To me it comes back to...

does it make sense for someone to leave a religion and decide to be Buddhist because Buddhism does what they would have wanted the previous religion to do? I think the answer in many cases of conversion is yes.

I also think it works the other way. That moving from Buddhism to another religion is a process of seeking what one was seeking in the former and feeling one has found it in the latter.

That Buddhism fits functionally in a category with other religions.

I did consider myself a Buddhist at one point...a Pagan with lots of Buddhism tacked on now...whatever I find and can use, really.
I find Buddhist philosophy and meditation really useful.:)

As I recall, the Chinese emperor asked the Buddhists in India to send him a teacher. It took many years (like hundreds) for them to do so, they sent Bodhidharma to Shaolin first. He then melded his Indian Buddhism and traditional yoga with a group of practices (the animal forms) and teachings (Confucianism and the Tao) that were being taught in the temple there already.

Thank you all for your replies to my posts on "judging others". I guess we all have to judge (in one way or another) people and situations to live in this world.

I have been reading that book by the Thai Buddhist monk and he claims Buddhism is multifaceted: He describes Buddhism as: Religion. Psychology. Culture. Art (art of living). Philosophy. Truth.

"Of all these various aspects the one a real Buddhist ought to take most interest in is Buddhism as religion. We ought to look at Buddhism as a direct practical method for gaining knowledge of the true nature of things, knowledge which makes it possible to give up every form of grasping and clinging, of stupidity and infatuation, and become completely independent of things.To do this is to penetrate to the essence of Buddhism."

Here is part of his definition of Buddhism as Religion:
"Buddhism as religion is Buddhism as a system of practice based on morality, concentration and insight, and culminating in liberating insight; a system that when practiced to completion enables one to break free from suffering."