Is Buddhism a religion?

Spirituality Religion
#246

Thomas,

I have tried to explain no self to you. Several times. I took the time to write out response after response trying my best to explain this to you. I wanted you to be able to understand it. But all I kept seeing was, "no one answered my question. I’ve asked and no one answered. No acknowledgement that I or Karen or yulaw tried.

And please don’t trivialize my reasons for leaving. I don’t think you are intentionally doing this and are trying to help and I thank you for that. I don’t like the atmosphere of negativity and intolerance and besides that it is taking too much of my time. My time can be better spent. I don’t enjoy this amy more. That’s it.

#247

Could someone then please point to the post where my question was answered?

The question being, “What is the difference between Atheism and Buddhism?”

#248

I have tried to explain no self to you. Several times. I took the time to write out response after response trying my best to explain this to you. I wanted you to be able to understand it. But all I kept seeing was, "no one answered my question. I’ve asked and no one answered. No acknowledgement that I or Karen or yulaw tried.

Thomas,

I was referring to your question about no self and who is the self. I did not answer your question about atheism and buddhism.

#249

[QUOTE=thomas;44207]Could someone then please point to the post where my question was answered?

The question being, “What is the difference between Atheism and Buddhism?”[/QUOTE]

Here you go thomas

Atheism

Buddhism

Read, learn and enjoy

#250

[QUOTE=lotusgirl;44209]Thomas,

I was referring to your question about no self and who is the self. I did not answer your question about atheism and buddhism.[/QUOTE]

You have not answered his question about "who is the one that remembers?"
He said he accepted his body changes. He said he accepts his thoughts, personality, beliefs change. But he is the one that remembers those changes. He has watched his body, thoughts, personality and beliefs change.

Then who is the one that was watching?

You have not answered this question. You have just repeatedly preached what the annata doctrine says. But we know what it says and it is not sitting well with us, because it does not explain who is the watcher and who is the rememberer.

Why do I remember myself growing up over 30 years? Why do I remember how my body was and what thoughts I use to think, if I don’t actually exist? Who is the one that remembers?

Answer this question or simply say you don’t know the answer. Rather than pretending to have answered the question, when you have not.

#251

No thanks, yulaw. I’m not looking for links to websites.

I was asking any Buddhist to explain the difference to me, as I would have been happy to explain a Christian concept.

But if a Buddhist doesn’t want to answer, they don’t have to of course.

#252

[QUOTE=lotusgirl;44209]Thomas,

I was referring to your question about no self and who is the self. I did not answer your question about atheism and buddhism.[/QUOTE]

The specific question I was asking was whether the “self” is like an ice cube that melts into a great puddle of water.

Is that Nirvana? Is that a fair analogy?

And the other point was that I totally agreed that my body changes all the time, but that I don’t see that as my “self.” Why do you include the body as part of the self, or do you see the body as all of the self?

#253

You have not been kind on this forum. You have not been tolerant. Just callin a spade a spade. Outside of the examples I gave you, show me. I can copy and paste all of our discussions for everyone to see if you like.

I never claim I have been always tolerant, always kind. I have been like you, sometimes tolerant and sometimes not, sometimes kind and sometimes not.

I am not claiming to be innocent at all. Why are you claiming to be so?

Really, hum. Let’s see I think I’ve talked about how intelligent you are, I thanked you for softening up your stance about Hinduism is Superior, I thanked you for engaging in good discussion, when you shared something personal in one of the threads I commended you for your courage, I called you knowledgeable. And what of me?..Hum. Guess none. All I got was ridiculed.

Note, that I said you have not always been kind and loving. I know you have said good thing about me, but you have also said bad things about me. Likewise I know have said bad things about you, but I’ve also said good things about you.

I have a question for you. Why are you here on the forum? What purpose does if serve for you? What have you learned. Tell me one thing you have learned from someone. You have challenged each and every idea from just about every poster here on the forum.

I am here for the same reason as anybody else. I like Yoga and I like to discuss and debate Yoga.

My problem is I believe in fairness and justice. I see you as a bully. This is why I challenge you when you make statement because you present everything as non-negotiable facts. You think you have no room for learning because of your superior intelligence. You miss out on so much. Yes, your cup is full.

All of those statements are sweeping generalizations. You are not always fair and just. You sometimes behave like a bully yourself and gang up on me. I still remember how you joined in one the game of ignoring me with Yogiadam a few months back. You also presents stuff as facts. You also behave like you have no room for improvement. You also miss out on so much.

You really sound like you projecting now. I think my theory is correct that you want to leave because your interactions with me, show you a darker side of you.

SD, you would even challenge the patience and tolerance of the Dalai Lama. I feel I have acted with much restraint toward you. I know the truth. And again, I am not a perfect person. Wish I was, but I’m still here and still learning.

So you are comparing yourself with the Dalai Lama now :wink: You say you are not perfect, and yet you often are repeating like a mantra how loving, compassionate, fair and just you are. When I said you should develop a thicker skin, you respond, “I am fine as I am”

Who are you trying to convince that you are loving, compassionate, fair and just? It is not convincing me. I can see all the qualities you condemned in others in you. You need to start by analysing yourself and you will find you fall short of what you believe about yourself.

This is my prediction for you. Someday, after you’ve met your guru and spend your time with him you will reflect on karma you’ve generated during this time in your life. In doing this, and seeing how you’ve treated people, maybe then you will try to burn off some of that bad karma by showing kindness. I hope you learn humility and tolerance. I wish for you a heart filled with love and peace. I mean this sincerely.

I will be dealing karma not just from this time period but from several lifetimes.

Thank you for your sincere wishes that my heart be filled with love and peace. I likewise wish that your mind becomes clear, critical and sharp and you develop the qualities of objectivity and a love for truth.

#254

Right, moving onto to talking about Buddhism, rather than each other.

It has been stated that there is no distinct self by Lotusgirl recently. This is not anatta doctrine, because anatta doctrine does not even say there is no distinct self, it says there is no self at all. Period.

However, the doctrine that there is no distinct self is found in Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism. According to this doctrine Atman = Brahman - Self is all that there is and there is nothing else. There is no distinct self, but only a universal self. I am you and you are me.

However, it does not sit well with reason. If there is no distinct self, then why do I not remember the memories of Thomas, have the thoughts of Thomas? When Thomas gets pleasure or pain, why do I get not pleasure or pain? If there is no distinct self then why did I not get enlightenment when Buddha got enlightenment? If there is only one self, then surely if that self is liberated, then everybody else gets liberation. But this is not the case. It therefore follows there has to multiple distinct selves.

The only doctrine that makes sense is that there are multiple distinct selves.

#255

It seems to me that Buddhism and Hinduism are not so closely related then.

It seems to me, and I emphasize “seems” since I am speaking from a place of ignornce (about eastern religions), that Christianity and Hinduism have more in common than Buddhism and Hinduism.

In Buddhism, the end is that one becomes ALL? Is this right? To me, to become all is to become nothing. Unless becoming ALL means to posses all in similar way to the Christian concept of the Trinity. There are three “persons” in the Trinity, but just one God. Each person possesses all of the Godhead.

So in Buddhism, is there the possibility that there is a retention of some form of “personhood” which embraces all? And that there could be multiple persons, each possessing or being all? (But this would seem to contradict the idea of no “self”).

#256

It seems to me, and I emphasize “seems” since I am speaking from a place of ignornce (about eastern religions), that Christianity and Hinduism have more in common than Buddhism and Hinduism.

Your assessment is fair. The closest tradition in Hinduism to Christianity, which is also the most predominant tradition today and has been for the last 1000 years is Dvaita(dualism) The Dvaita tradition believe in god as an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being and as the creator. We souls must win his grace by showing our love to him through devotional practices(prayer, rites, morality) and then we will go to heaven and be with him for eternity.

Like Christianity, we too see god as the trinity. The Hindu trinity is Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Brahma is the creative part and is the father who created the universe. Vishnu is the preserving part and incarnates in human form periodically on earth to show people the way and Shiva is the destuctive part and punishes the ignorant and removes impurities. He will also bring the universe to an end. They are not three separate gods, but one god with three aspects.

#257

I am not a Dvatist by the way. I am closer to Advaita(non dualism) which is the oldest tradition in Hinduism and can be found in the Vedas. I believe in the ultimate reality that is the self that is pure consciousness, knowledge and bliss. The divine self. I identify myself with that great divine one and share its divinity. I the soul must realise my oneness with that divine one by removing the ignorance from the mind and allowing that divine one to illuminate my entire being. This is to be achieived through the practice of meditation. The path of Yoga I follow is Patanjali’s Raja Yoga.
This is also known as the Jnana path - the path of knowledge. The Dvaita path is the Bhakti path - the path of devotion.

Patanjali’s yoga path is not secetarian. It is a pure science of consciousness. It is literally self-development through moral, physical, mental and spiritual training. It does not mention any worship of gods or goddesses, any mantras and the language it uses is nondevotional and universal(subject, object, impressions, mind)

#258

Can you explain how you are one with the Divine, yet still yourself?

#259

I am one with the divine in the same way the rays of light are one with the sun. The rays of light are not the sun and the sun are not the rays of light, yet they are both part and parcel of each other. Likewise, I the soul am part and parcel of god, a child of god. However, I the soul have fallen from grace, and I must now return back to the god the pure source.

This is what I think Jesus meant to say when he quoted, “Ye are all divine” We are all children of god and have god’s qualities of divinity.

“I and my father are one”

#260

[QUOTE=thomas;44214]No thanks, yulaw. I’m not looking for links to websites.

I was asking any Buddhist to explain the difference to me, as I would have been happy to explain a Christian concept.

But if a Buddhist doesn’t want to answer, they don’t have to of course.[/QUOTE]

thomas… No hostility intended but I need to say that you need to look for yourself and read since I doubt any answer that anyone gives you will do. You are looking at absolutely everything through Catholic tinted glasses and until you get beyond that you will not learn or accept anything and I implore you, if you truly want to learn, take a step back and truly take a look at Surya Deva.

You are better off by far to go to the library, by a book, get a DVD on the subject than to take what he says as the truth and nothing but the truth. He has an agenda and it has nothing to do with truth

I will leave you with this

You are not in the moment. You are either in the past or in the future — both are non-existent. Neither can you do anything with the past, nor can you do anything with the future. All that you can do is with the present, and the present is such a small, split second that if you are engaged somewhere else, it simply slips by and you have missed the train. Learn to be in the present. Withdraw your energy from the past. Don’t waste your time in memories; what is gone is gone — say goodbye to it and close the chapter - osho

#261

[quote=thomas;44214]No thanks, yulaw. I’m not looking for links to websites.

I was asking any Buddhist to explain the difference to me, as I would have been happy to explain a Christian concept.

But if a Buddhist doesn’t want to answer, they don’t have to of course.[/quote]

Thomas,

I am not a Buddhist but if you want an explanation. Buddhism is considered as nirishwara which means “non Supreme personal God”. This is a sanskrit term which fits better than atheist. On the other hand, there are beliefs in gods as beings roaming in the cycle of reincarnation, they are enjoying more blissful states than humans but they will fall from their state into lower ones after their karma is exhausted. The human birth is considered better as one can experience enough dissatisfaction with the human condition to search for liberation from the cycle of reincarnation and he has the potential to reach Nirvana contrary to animals for instance. It is more an indifference than a militant opposition. The system does not include Ishwara as it is considered irrelevant or even deluding by Buddhists to get rid of duhkha and reach Nirvana. So most of Buddhists are weak atheist, strong atheist or agnostic about the existence of a Supreme personal God.

Buddha pragmatical as he was did not care too much about metaphysical debates and endless grinding of mental grains. He was more like a therapist : OK you are suffering (undesired state, unhealthy), you are suffering due to some ignorance (etiology), I tell you that you can get rid of suffering (goal). If you are interested follow my teachings, I show you the way. Do not believe me blindly but check yourself if what I say is relevant for you (means, treatment).

Moreover there are major differences between Buddhist traditions more than between Roman Catholicism, Reformed Protestantism and Orthodox Christianity. Nichiren Buddhism has not a lot of common points with Dzogchen, a Tibetan Vajrayana tradition for instance.

Philippe

#262

[quote=thomas;44219]It seems to me that Buddhism and Hinduism are not so closely related then.

It seems to me, and I emphasize “seems” since I am speaking from a place of ignornce (about eastern religions), that Christianity and Hinduism have more in common than Buddhism and Hinduism.
[/quote]

Culturally Hinduism and Buddhism are more related than Hinduism and Christianity. It is more striking for someone familiar with Indian spiritual cultures. A lot of what Buddha said is found in earlier sources. Buddha did not claim to say something new. On the hand, for other aspects, Christianity is quite close to Dvaita Vaishnavism, especially the Krishna bhakti movements. The recent Hare Krishna movement for instance which is not really representative of Hinduism claims to be Vedic according to a conventional “bona fide” tradition but there are quite Abrahamic so to speak in their mindset. Madhva, a famous dualist philosopher, has even formulated a doctrine of eternal damnation which bears some similarities with doctrines from Calvin et al.

Philippe

#263

A common point between Christianity and Hinduism is also the devotion. There is a kind of devotion in some Buddhist traditions but towards Boddhisattvas, enligthened beings, cosmic saviours who have made to vow to deliver all the beings from Samsara before entering Parinirvana (ulimate extinction) but there are more “transitional objects” of focus in the psychological sense. You can find also devotion towards the guru in Vajrayana. Bhakti/devotion towards transcendant or immanent cosmic Beings or Powers is more developed in Hinduism. There are many traditions considering a Supreme with a personal aspect and accepting devotion as a valid means.

One can find thousands of sources but here is the first hymn of Rig Veda:

[ol]
[li]I adore Agni[I],[/I] placed in front, the [I]deva[/I] of the [I] yajňa[/I], the invoker or the summoner in the [I]yajňa[/I] and carrier of felicities.[/li][li]Agni, adorable by the ancient seers, is adorable by the later ones also. He brings here the [I]devās[/I].[/li][li]The treasure obtained from Agni is full of hearing and strength, Increasing day by day; not subject to dwindling like ordinary wealth.[/li][li]Only the [I]yajňa[/I], which is guarded by Agni, all round reaches the [I]devās[/I].[/li][li]Endowed with Vision and Audition, wise and firm of will Agni is the associate of the gods.[/li][li]Agni’s special Truth is his power of conferring happy and good [I] bhadra[/I], which averts falsehood.[/li][li]We approach thee day by day, in the night and in the light, carrying our surrender by our thought.[/li][li]The (vast) Truth is the own Home of Agni[I].[/I] There he increases for the [I]yajamāna;[/I] That he protects.[/li][li]O Agni[I],[/I] [B]cling to us like a father to the son[/B], be easy of access to us.[/li][/ol]

Philippe

#264

Buddha pragmatical as he was did not care too much about metaphysical debates and endless grinding of mental grains. He was more like a therapist : OK you are suffering (undesired state, unhealthy), you are suffering due to some ignorance (etiology), I tell you that you can get rid of suffering (goal). If you are interested follow my teachings, I show you the way. Do not believe me blindly but check yourself if what I say is relevant for you (means, treatment).

Okay, this is what I don’t get. I equally doubt this in Yogic philosophy as well. How can you remain equanimous to both pain and pleasure? I definitely prefer having pleasure over pain. When I have sex, it feels good and when I am not having sex I am not feeling as good. I prefer eating nice and delicious food over disgusting food. I will sooner eat cheesecake over worms. I like it when I am in the company of pleasent and nice people and not when I am in the company of unpleasent and not nice people. Similarly, I like being free and not imprisned. I like being happy and not sad.

So why should I treat pain and pleasure both in equal light?

#265

[quote=Surya Deva;44222]
Patanjali’s yoga path is not secetarian. It is a pure science of consciousness. It is literally self-development through moral, physical, mental and spiritual training. It does not mention any worship of gods or goddesses, any mantras and the language it uses is nondevotional and universal(subject, object, impressions, mind)[/quote]

While it is true that is is not sectarian, it is not devoid of religious mindset neither. I would add that Patanjali mentions Ishwara pranidhana as a major means to reach samadhi. But Ishwara is more a transitional object, concentration on Ishwara is not an end in itself in YS, it is advised to take Ishwara as a focus (ashraya) to reach states of (sabija) samadhis YS I:23-29 ; II:45 and developed positive samskaras which will lead to nirbija samadhi. It can even be considered as the best means if we consider the number of sutras about Ishwara in YS. Moreover it is an integral part of kriya yoga, the yoga of action YS:II:1. It is also written that pranava expressed Ishwara YS I:27. Pranava means the sacred syllable, it is a word designating OM in Vedic literature. So there is mantra recommended. It talks also about mantras to reach siddhis through samyama YSIII:1. And svadhyaya is defined as the means to reach union with the divinity (ishta devata) through the study of the sacred texts YS II:44.

Philippe