Is Buddhism a religion?

Spirituality Religion
#133

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;42773]It is certainly interesting how little substance the Buddhist responses here carry. They are either thinly veiled personal attacks, mocking/scoffing or evocations of the questions being asked. The religious character is certainly rearing its head here ;).[/QUOTE]

That was not a personal attack nor was it thinly veiled… nor am I a Buddhist… if you were following Sun Tzu Bing Fa… I would say you need to reread it… particularly the bits about knowing your enemy and yourself :wink:

And to go deeper with any post to you is a complete waste of time since time and time again you have refused to answer questions and you continue with your agenda and as long as you have your agenda there is no need to respond to you in any serious way beyond entertainment purposes.

Frankly I find you entertaining because you cannot be wrong.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;42773]
Moving on.

Materialism is the view that all of the world is made out of inert material and that self/consciousness is an epiphenomena of material activity, not a real substance, but more like a ghost in the machine. According to this view, everything in nature is recycled from the previous parts, but no such thing as a consciousness/spirit continues. Taken to its extreme conclusion the human being is seen as nothing more than a machine.

Buddhism is the view that all world is made out of basic elements(skandas) coming from nothingness and the self/consciousness is an ephphenomena of the activity of elements, not a real substance, but a momentary and fleeting thing. According to this view, everything in the world is recycled from previous parts, but no such thing as a consciousness/self continues. Taken to its extreme conclusion the human being is nothing more than a causal process.

There certainly are a lot of similarities there for the objective reader to see.[/QUOTE]

Moving on

materialism

?noun

  1. Preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values.

  2. The philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.

now I need a laugh, now that is not veiled at all now is it, much like many of the insults you throw out veiled and otherwise and try and cover up with an awkward use of a smilie :wink:

But to my question (that you likely will not answer) tell me how is transcending the conceptions of self by attaining self-realization through Dharma practice and meditation materialistic

#134
  1. The philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.

That is what I just said and described :wink:

tell me how is transcending the conceptions of self by attaining self-realization

Hilarious contradiction there. Transcending of self through self-realization. Haha.

#135

Hang on, just getting books out…?50 notes your wrong SD

#136

Ahhh Surya Deva you posted before I got a chance to do something you could never do…admit a mistake. I posted in response to how I feel about you not so much your post since I tend not to take you seriously, but in this case you actually might be right but then a stopped clock is right twice a day.

After reading thomas’ post I went back and thought about it and realized I might be in error so I then did a little reading

I have to change what I am saying because, watch this Surya Deva this is where I am going to do something you can never do, I may be wrong, I was in fact looking at materialism from the wrong perspective or worse yet assume you were.

If you are saying materialistic and meaning a preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values. Then no, it is not materialistic.

But if you are saying it is materialistic in the same way you could say quantum physics is materialistic meaning matter is the only substance then I can see where you would get that impression much the same as you would call it atheism

sorry I am human and do from time to time make mistakes…and I can even admit it when I do too. :wink:

#137

Drat…do you want it in Rupees:D…

#138

[QUOTE=Yulaw;42791]Ahhh Surya Deva you posted before I got a chance to do something you could never do…admit a mistake. I posted in response to how I feel about you not so much your post since I tend not to take you seriously, but in this case you actually might be right but then a stopped clock is right twice a day.

After reading thomas’ post I went back and thought about it and realized I might be in error so I then did a little reading

I have to change what I am saying because, watch this Surya Deva this is where I am going to do something you can never do, I may be wrong, I was in fact looking at materialism from the wrong perspective or worse yet assume you were.

If you are saying materialistic and meaning a preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values. Then no, it is not materialistic.

But if you are saying it is materialistic in the same way you could say quantum physics is materialistic meaning matter is the only substance then I can see where you would get that impression much the same as you would call it atheism

sorry I am human and do from time to time make mistakes…and I can even admit it when I do too. ;)[/QUOTE]

I can only say one thing Yulaw… qiān x?n!

#139

No, if my body changes, then the thing that has changed is not myself, but my body. This is why I say “my” It is my possession, but I am not my possession. I have changed my clothes many times, this does not change me as a person. I have changed my residence many times, but does this does not change me as a person.

If your body changes, the self also changes. YOU are not the same as you were at conception! Come on everyone. With each moment, YOU change. And if YOU changes it is considered impermanent. So how can there be a YOU? Who are you? Don’t your views change? Your likes and dislikes? Of course they do. Haven’t you loved someone with all your heart and later discover through whatever reason, you no longer love them? Well, who changed? POssibly them, but You also.

It is certainly interesting how little substance the Buddhist responses here carry. They are either thinly veiled personal attacks, mocking/scoffing or evocations of the questions being asked. The religious character is certainly rearing its head here

This is a matter of your opinion Surya Deva. And pray tell, what thinly veiled personal attacks? I think we’ve been playing pretty nice here. Who is mocking?

And yes, the religious character is certainly rearing its ugly head here. Glad you are being honest with yourself!

Go check out the new thread I started in this section. International tolerance day. Post your thoughts, but be tolerant of others please.

#140

[QUOTE=kareng;42801]I can only say one thing Yulaw… qiān x?n![/QUOTE]

xie xie

#141

If your body changes, the self also changes. YOU are not the same as you were at conception! Come on everyone. With each moment, YOU change. And if YOU changes it is considered impermanent. So how can there be a YOU? Who are you? Don’t your views change? Your likes and dislikes? Of course they do. Haven’t you loved someone with all your heart and later discover through whatever reason, you no longer love them? Well, who changed? POssibly them, but You also.

I don’t see my body as “me.”

Changes in my body don’t change that I have something that is “me” and something that has been continuously “me” all my life.

If all we are is matter, then of course we are impermanent, and whatever conciousness we have is because of brain waves, and the “me” will cease at death, but that’s what athiests believe, and I’m still not seeing a difference between athiesm and Buddhism.

How can each person who achieves Nirvana be “all”? There is only one “all,” and if there are multilpe people who are “all” that is contradictory.

#142

I’m talking of the whole package here. Body, personality, knowledge, etc.

You are all because you always have been. We are all a part of the universe, of everything. And why would that be contradictory at all?

And I think I’m through with this. No offense to anyone. We just keep going round and round. Sorry. Really.

#143

If your body changes, the self also changes. YOU are not the same as you were at conception! Come on everyone. With each moment, YOU change. And if YOU changes it is considered impermanent. So how can there be a YOU? Who are you? Don’t your views change? Your likes and dislikes? Of course they do. Haven’t you loved someone with all your heart and later discover through whatever reason, you no longer love them? Well, who changed? POssibly them, but You also.

I have already explained why I cannot be the body or the mind. You do not appear to know the difference between mine and me. The body is mine, it is not me. I am the one who is aware my body is changing from conception, to childhood, to teenage, to adulthood. Therefore very clearly I cannot be the body if I am the one who is aware of the body changing. It is my possession, in the same way my clothes are my possession. In the same way my mind is my possession. I control both my mind and my body.

My body does not go anywhere without my will and nor does my mind make it go anywhere without my will. It is “I” who first wills the mind to go town with the command, “I am going town” and then the mind sets the body in motion. My mind does not think for itself. I think for it. The mind throws up possibilities, “go town” “not go town” and “I” the executive select which thought to execute.

If I sit in meditation my mind throws up one thought after the other memories, fantasies, working our problems, but it is me who eventually selects whether I want to go with any of those thoughts. Most of the time I let them rise and fall and continue with my object of meditation(the thought I have selected)

#144

You are all because you always have been. We are all a part of the universe, of everything. And why would that be contradictory at all?

I thought you meant that Nirvana meant someone becomes all, but you really meant just part of the all, if I undestand you this time. That would not be contratictory, of course.

#145

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;42824]I have already explained why I cannot be the body or the mind. You do not appear to know the difference between mine and me. The body is mine, it is not me. I am the one who is aware my body is changing from conception, to childhood, to teenage, to adulthood. Therefore very clearly I cannot be the body if I am the one who is aware of the body changing. It is my possession, in the same way my clothes are my possession. In the same way my mind is my possession. I control both my mind and my body.

My body does not go anywhere without my will and nor does my mind make it go anywhere without my will. It is “I” who first wills the mind to go town with the command, “I am going town” and then the mind sets the body in motion. My mind does not think for itself. I think for it. The mind throws up possibilities, “go town” “not go town” and “I” the executive select which thought to execute.

If I sit in meditation my mind throws up one thought after the other memories, fantasies, working our problems, but it is me who eventually selects whether I want to go with any of those thoughts. Most of the time I let them rise and fall and continue with my object of meditation(the thought I have selected)[/QUOTE]

I agree with this 100%.

Is what lotusgirl is saying about this her own perception, or is that Buddhist teaching?

#146

And I think I’m through with this. No offense to anyone. We just keep going round and round. Sorry. Really.

We are not going round and round. It is you who are refusing to be reasonable by not answering the objections we are raising against the anatman doctrine. So far many arguments have been given against it.

  1. The memory of sameness of person. I remember myself as the same person that I was when I was 5. I remember most of my life and I went through. Then how can you say there is no self when clearly I remember myself?

  2. Mine and me. I have a body and a mind, which I control. I am the owner of them, they are my possessions. I can change my body and my mind many times as I want, just as I can change my clothes as many times as I want. I cannot therefore be my body and mind. I am something distinct from them.

  3. Unchanging self. I know that change of the body and the mind is constant, but to know that change is constant, requires something unchanging and aware between those changes to know that change is taking place. I know for example that my health has changed today because a few days ago I had a cold. Today, I do not have a cold. I know this because “I” am the same person who had a cold a few days ago who now does not have a cold now.

This is really basic logic. If there is a subject, the subject can have many predicates. The basic subject is ‘I’ I am going town. I am not going town. I am a clerk. I am a scientist. I am a student. I am a teacher. The subject can also have no predicates. It can exist without predicates. The predicates do not change the subject at all, the subject always remains the same.

#147

Surya,

Transcendental glimpses are misled by the cognitive faculty of our mind. That mode of cognition is dualistic. All is Mind but this mind is not to be taken as ‘Self’. “I Am”, Eternal Witness, are all products of our cognition and is the root cause that prevents true seeing.

When consciousness experiences the pure sense of “I AM”, overwhelmed by the transcendental thoughtless moment of Beingness, consciousness clings to that experience as its purest identity. By doing so, it subtly creates a ‘watcher’ and fails to see that the ‘Pure Sense of Existence’ is nothing but an aspect of pure consciousness relating to the thought realm. This in turn serves as the karmic condition that prevents the experience of pure consciousness that arises from other sense-objects. Extending it to the other senses, there is hearing without a hearer and seeing without a seer – the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. Sincerely, if we are able to give up ‘I’ and replaces it with “Emptiness Nature”, Consciousness is experienced as non-local. No one state is purer than the other. All is just One Taste, the manifold of Presence.

The ‘who’, ‘where’ and ‘when’, the ‘I’, ‘here’ and ‘now’ must ultimately give way to the experience of total transparency. Do not fall back to a source, just the manifestation is sufficient. This will become so clear that total transparency is experienced. When total transparency is stabilized, transcendental body is experienced and dharmakaya is seen everywhere. This is the samadhi bliss of Bodhisattva. This is the fruition of practice.

You are trying to see this through the eyes of a Hindu. This should explain it thoroughly from a Buddhist perspective. You are arguing against Buddhism in favor of Hinduism. Why? What is stated above proves what has been said. This is how Buddhists view it. You, as a Hindu, view it differently. You are trying to prove that what Buddhists believe is not right compared to YOUR view. But the view I stated is the right view for Buddhists. Don’t tell Buddhists they don’t understand what they believe. You can by all means disagree and share why. But you have tried to tell everyone who posted about Buddhism that their argument is weak and we share little. It has been explained.

#148

I am trying to sees it through the eyes of a reasonable person. What you cite is a non-orthodox interpretation from the Mahayana school of Buddhism from Tibetian Buddhism, which is a Hindu inspired interpretation of Buddhism which reject the anatman doctrine. They also accept deities and bodhisattvas which are considered heretic by mainstream Buddhism.

I think what do you do not realise pure consciousness, existence and being(satchitananda) is how the Self is defined in Hindusism as well. So this particular interpretation of Buddhism is reasonable and inline with Hinduism.

The Self in Hinduism is not an individual self, but a universal self. However, this universal self has infinite points of being known as souls that participate in Self. The self is outside of space and time, and therefore it is non-local and non-temporal. Something which is non-local is by definition infinite, and being non-temporal it is by definition eternal.

You do not believe in the actual anatman doctrine, this is becoming clear.

#149

The self of both you and I is the same. However, we as spiritual points of the self, are not the same.

#150

Thomas, explain Buddhism to me now…what are the points youve picked up on x

#151

[QUOTE=thomas;42828]I agree with this 100%.

Is what lotusgirl is saying about this her own perception, or is that Buddhist teaching?[/QUOTE]

This is the teaching of Buddhism. Anatman literally means “No-Self” However, Lotusgirl does not believe in this doctrine this is becoming very clear. So she technically is not a proper Buddhist according to orthodox thervada Buddhism.

Now to muddy the waters with you good old Thomas :razz:

You accept the self is not the body and not the mind, but do you realise what you really are accepting here? If the self is not the body and the mind which are in time and space and constantly changing, and the self which is enduring between those changes, is therefore outside of time and space. Therefore it is infinite and eternal. You are therefore an infinite and eternal being. There was never a moment when you did not exist. You have always been.

Self-inquiry always takes you to this same conclusion. You really are pure existence, pure being, pure consciousness. Then why is it that you do not appear to have pure consciousness, pure being and existence? Simple, you are embodied because of your ignorance of this fact. You say you are not the body, and yet if I threw something at your body, you would jump out of the way. If you are not the body why would you jump out of the way? It is because you do not really know you are not the body. You have to reach this realization through the practice of meditation and see this truth directly that you are not your body.

Of course you will not do this because you think you already have a superior means to get to god(self in my language) through the practice of your catholicism. Sorry my friend this path will not bring you any actual realizations. It will not bring you to the self. Only meditation will.

#152

I would say I’m not the body and the brain is part of the body, but I don’t think I said I am not the “mind.” I have a “soul” which is pure spirit, immaterial, and comprised of a will and an intellect.

The body is a proper part of a human being but cannot live without the soul, but the soul can live without a body. But how the soul remembers and knows is a mystery to me, since so much can be attributed to the brain.

How does this concept compare to what Hindus believe. It seems there is more in common than there would be with Hinduism and Buddhism or Christianity and Buddhism.

I believe that a soul is a creation–a “thing” distinct from God, but totally dependent upon God. The soul is “me.” The soul is in command of my body, but the soul is also inhibited by my body, since I have a corruptible body due to the fall of man.

The soul is the constant of what is “me” from the time of its creation and forever afterwards, though the soul can learn and grow. But it never stops being itself or never becomes another soul, or never blends into all the rest of the universe.

It is hard for me to grasp the idea that there is no “self” and of becoming “one with all,” since it seems so much like my analogy of pouring a cup of water into the ocean. That cup of water becomes one with the ocean for sure, but nothing of what it was remains, and that’s what Buddhism “seems” to be saying, which is about as depressing an idea as that of the atheist.

Besides that, how can a Buddhist even think there would be no Supreme Consciousness or God behind it all? I cannot fathom that there would be an unintelligent “all” that was in control of this process.