Its not about dwelling on mortality, its about escaping suffering by rising above it, not by alleviating it. Alleviation of suffering is a sign of weakness, it signifies emotional attachment rather than detachment.
Is Buddhism the least hated tradition?
- Thread starter Carcano
- Start date
Its not about dwelling on mortality, its about escaping suffering by rising above it, not by alleviating it. Alleviation of suffering is a sign of weakness, it signifies emotional attachment rather than detachment.
No, I mean theistic, as in the belief in the existence of gods/goddesses, or devas, brahmas, ghosts, demons, spirits, etc...which Gautama Buddha acknowledged existed in every Buddhist scripture of every Buddhist sect, even in the very oldest traditional scriptures (pali canons)...
Materialistic "mind science"? I don't know what you're talking about, seems like you're talking about Gautama Buddha's ideas about how to end suffering and distress, which go hand in hand with other seemingly supernatural/theistic beliefs he had...
What I call the 'hippie Buddhism' is the dumb-downed, half-ass, cherry-picked, hand-selected version of Buddhism, in which Alan Watts selectively takes teachings he finds suitable for him and his own personal gains and exploits them as being what Buddhism is all about....and thus fools the entire Western world with his own personal bias
Also Alan Watts made it seem like Gautama Buddha claimed to be just another human, nothing special nor supernatural about him, when instead Gautama Buddha is constantly called the "teacher of gods and men", the "Supreme One in the World", "superior to the devas", "higher than Brahma (the creator)", etc...
Gautama Buddha on top of saying that those who say he's just another man possessing no superhuman abilities will go to hell, also says that those who don't believe in karma and heaven/hell are ignorant people with no integrity (atheists)
Actually Gautama Buddha taught that all diseases and illnesses (physical and mental) are caused by the mind, and can be ended by using the mind, from personal experience I agree with Gautama Buddha...
All things are made of name-and-form what I personally call "thought-energy", something I personally discovered before knowing that Gautama Buddha had known it too...man Gautama Buddha was so great
Last edited:
Worldwide Percentages
2.35 of worlds population are Atheist. This was pointed out to you before M*W.
You just keep distorting the FACTS.
Last edited:
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
He spoke of various forms of spirit as you describe, but no one creator deity to be worshiped, which is usually how 'theism' is defined.
And if Buddha himself was some sort of special case from the get go...more than just a man, then his whole teaching would be all for naught.
You seem to have been influenced by religious aspects of buddhism which developed much later than the original intent.
*************Worldwide Percentages
2.35 of worlds population are Atheist. This was pointed out to you before M*W.
You just keep distorting the FACTS.
M*W: This has also been explained to you and several others many times. What has 2.35% of the world's population have to do with anything? What I said was that 75% of the world's population is not christian. That leaves 25% who could possibly be christian, not the 33% who claim they are. How many christians do you know who never go to the church of their choice or live a christ-like life? For me, it's just about everybody I know... and, sadly, they are not atheists.
It is you, my friend, who is distorting the FACTS.
No, you seem to be confusing definitions, theism doesn't mean "worship in god/gods" it just means that "belief in the existence of god(s) or supernatural beings" which indeed Gautama Buddha did believe in...thereby being 100% theistic to the very highest possible limit simply because it matches the exact precise definition of theism
The Buddha constantly said he was special from the get go, in fact he said he had full knowledge of everything, had supernormal powers like walking on water, was the savior of all beings, etc...
I'm not influenced by the religious aspects of Buddhism (which is a contradictory statement being influenced by the religious aspects of a religion?), I simply read the actual authentic pali canonical scripture instead of believing the secondary sources like Alan Watts and the other hippies, why don't you read the scripture but instead rely on Alan Watts? Why? Why would you do that? Why not use the actual primary source? Why? What possible reason could there be to ignore ALL imaginable Buddhist scriptures in place of Alan Watts?
Its like someone believing only in a preacher and rejecting the Biblical scripture...
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Ive never read a single sentence by Alan Watts, and dont even know what he looks like.
Evidently hes the only western Buddhist youve ever heard of...no?
Remember that Buddhism was never intended to be a religion. It is a spiritual discipline with a clearly defined objective. Not theism, and not a tradition which allocates divine status to anyone, including its founder.
Put down your storybooks VitalOne, and dispense with idolatry.
Oh come on, I kind of agree that it was never intended to be an "organized religion" but definitely some type of teaching or following, a dharma, again this doesn't come from my personal opinions it comes from the actual primary sources the pali canons, Which by the way Gautama Buddha says his dharma is better than others (in the pali canons). Why do you insist upon ignoring them in place for your own personal opinions on what you desire Buddhism to be? I use to also believe in the western image of Buddhism UNTIL I read the pali canons and realized that it was all Western propagand....
Just the same as Alan Watts, and the other Westerners, see you can't rationally understand the scripture, so this causes doubt, insecurity, mental agony, in order to dispel the doubt, the insecurity, the mental agony, you and others have to say "oh well it must be symbolic", "it just can't be true", "it wasn't meant to be this", etc..or try to make it seem rational to ease your doubt, your mental agony, your insecurity, etc....don't you understand? Thats all your seeking, to end your doubt, your insecurity, your mental agony, your own suffering...
You dont know haw to read a chart do you? CHRISTIANS ARE 33.06%, now you are telling us what people claim to be, i feel like i am talking to a fortune teller. How am i distorting FACTS??? Do you know how to use this - http://www.google.com and weed out the fantasy sites? -
- OMG, your kidding?If you looked at the chart non-religious are included in the percentage, why is this so hard to understand? ask someone else if you dont believe me. You'll repeat the same BS, you are a:sleep:
Last edited:
How do you know which part of the pali canon are Gautama's words? I thought no one could tell which parts were written by which Buddha? Aren't they oral traditions later recorded by disciples?
According to wiki, Gautama died in 400 BCE (approx), while the Pali canon was written in the first century BC, during a time of starvation in Sri Lanka.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Buddhist_Council
Last edited:
RE: Is Buddhism the least hated tradition
Basically Christians and Muslims decimated a LOT more people and destroyed a hell of a lot more cultures in the name of their respective Gods. And their adherents continue to celebrate the destruction of the various peoples who were destroyed - one way or another. Thank Goddess Christian societies progressed through the enlightenment and founded societies based on secular institutions again, I'd hate to imagine what would be happening if they hadn't.
The potential to motivate people to kill in the name of a Sky Daddy seems to have no bounds whereas the general populous within a free secular State can regain rationality - if it is lost to primitive instinct.
And as I said, when I ask monotheists if the possibility can exist that their beleif may be incorrect they flat out said no. Basically in their mind they must be correct and everyone else's beliefs must be wrong. I have asked many Buddhists this same question and they have always said yes they may be wrong. IMO that sort of open mindedness puts the Buddhist up a many more notches on the tolerance totem pole. That is if we agree that open mindedness and tolerance are good qualities to promote in a religous beleif.
I don't know if it's ever happened, but I have never heard of someone running into a coffee shop packed with wives, children and chess-playing grandparents screeching "Buddha is Greeeeaaattt!!" *BOOM*
It just seems silly to think that such could be the case...
Michael
Basically Christians and Muslims decimated a LOT more people and destroyed a hell of a lot more cultures in the name of their respective Gods. And their adherents continue to celebrate the destruction of the various peoples who were destroyed - one way or another. Thank Goddess Christian societies progressed through the enlightenment and founded societies based on secular institutions again, I'd hate to imagine what would be happening if they hadn't.
The potential to motivate people to kill in the name of a Sky Daddy seems to have no bounds whereas the general populous within a free secular State can regain rationality - if it is lost to primitive instinct.
And as I said, when I ask monotheists if the possibility can exist that their beleif may be incorrect they flat out said no. Basically in their mind they must be correct and everyone else's beliefs must be wrong. I have asked many Buddhists this same question and they have always said yes they may be wrong. IMO that sort of open mindedness puts the Buddhist up a many more notches on the tolerance totem pole. That is if we agree that open mindedness and tolerance are good qualities to promote in a religous beleif.
I don't know if it's ever happened, but I have never heard of someone running into a coffee shop packed with wives, children and chess-playing grandparents screeching "Buddha is Greeeeaaattt!!" *BOOM*
It just seems silly to think that such could be the case...
Michael
It is called war. It is a fact of life regardless of belief.
Where's the difference? They both made up excuses for land and resources...
There is also a sort of class system in traditional Buddhism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada
Basically monks and nuns have no occupation, and lay people (or Upasakas, Upasikas) must needs provide for them
Also traditionally, the order of nuns ( Bhikkhuni Sangha) is lower or under the order of monks (Bhikku Sangha), apparently arranged as such by the Buddha; this coupled with a statement in the Mahaparinibana sutta in the Sutta Pitaka, where Ananda asks the Buddha how to conduct ourselves (towards women) and the Buddha advises him to shun them, plus the celibacy enforced on the monks and nuns, has traditionally kept women in a lower order in Buddhism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada
Basically monks and nuns have no occupation, and lay people (or Upasakas, Upasikas) must needs provide for them
Also traditionally, the order of nuns ( Bhikkhuni Sangha) is lower or under the order of monks (Bhikku Sangha), apparently arranged as such by the Buddha; this coupled with a statement in the Mahaparinibana sutta in the Sutta Pitaka, where Ananda asks the Buddha how to conduct ourselves (towards women) and the Buddha advises him to shun them, plus the celibacy enforced on the monks and nuns, has traditionally kept women in a lower order in Buddhism.
Last edited:
The difference is when you use religious beleif to motivate people to kill other people then this reflects poorly on the religion.
Its as simple as that, what's not to get?
Oh thats the difference, one motive is religious the other is not, right? But the result is the same, war...War has existed throughout civilization with or WITHOUT religion in the need for land and resources...
For instance Stalin an atheist killed more people than all religious wars combined times 5, that doesn't mean atheism is evil does it? Does that mean that people who believe there is no consequence for killing besides the law (atheists) are murderers?
1) I didn't say religous beleif is evil.
2) Did Stalin kill people in the name of lack of beleif?
3) I said because Christians and Muslims have conducted so many violent acts in the name of their God that their religions are more hated than the other religions.
If you are Christian of course you can not see this about Christianity. But it's probably pretty clear in regards to Islam. You'd probably say to yourself. Yeah, that's true, Muslims are violent and kill people in the name of their God. But if you are Muslim then of course you can not see this about Islam. But it's probably pretty clear in regards to Christianity. You'd probably say to yourself. Yeah, that's true, Christians are violent and killed people in the name of their Religion.
2) Did Stalin kill people in the name of lack of beleif?
3) I said because Christians and Muslims have conducted so many violent acts in the name of their God that their religions are more hated than the other religions.
If you are Christian of course you can not see this about Christianity. But it's probably pretty clear in regards to Islam. You'd probably say to yourself. Yeah, that's true, Muslims are violent and kill people in the name of their God. But if you are Muslim then of course you can not see this about Islam. But it's probably pretty clear in regards to Christianity. You'd probably say to yourself. Yeah, that's true, Christians are violent and killed people in the name of their Religion.
it designates japan's take on buddhism