Is Buddhism a religion?

Spirituality Religion
#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.

#153

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 composed of a will and an intellect.

You are not the mind for the same reason you are not the body. They are your possesions. If you get a sinful thought, what do you do? You suppress it right. So where is that thought occuring and who is suppressing the thought? The thought is occuring in the mind and the suppresser of thought is the soul. This is why we say “my mind” You can control your mind. Just as you can control your body.

The body is a proper part of a human being but cannot live without the soul, but the soul can live without a body.

I don’t know how this concept compares to the Hindu concept. I don’t get it yet.

It is the same.

I do get the idea that a soul is a creation–a “thing” distint 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.

This is also the same. The soul has an origin in that it comes from god, it takes on a body and when it becomes embodied it loses connection with god.

The soul is the constant from conception to forever.

But this is definitely not the same and no Hindu will accept this because it is illogical. If the soul is conceived at the time of birth with the body, it should die with the body. There is no reason it should live on. Furthermore, if the soul has a beginning in space and time, it cannot by definition be eternal. What has a beginning also has an end. What is beginningness will always remain beginningless. It is clear to us the soul is not something in space and time because all things in space and time are known to us through our means of knowledge(5 senses and inner sense of mind) and all known things are known to exist then cease to exist. They are all events in time and space. They are impermenant . The Self is the only thing that not known to us through any means of knowledge, it is something which self-existent and self-evident. Nobody needs any evidence for the self. It does not rely on anything. It was there when I was 5. It is still here when I am 30. It was there when I was angry, it is there when I was happy. It does not change. It always remains. It never changes. This is because it is timeless and spaceless. It was there even before my body was born. It was there 5000 years ago; 5 million years ago and before the big bang.

Again this truth becomes abundantly clear to one who meditates. You speak from beliefs, I am speaking from experience. I have left my body many times so I can say very clearly with full conviction I am not the body. I am merely in association with this body.

#154

Buddhism is monism. Only one thing in reality. The universe is all there is.

Vedanta is dualistic correct? What is the ultimate goal of Hinduism? The highest state? Is it to merge with Brahman? If it is the highest state, what happens to the self? Does it dissolve?

#155

You are not the mind for the same reason you are not the body. They are your possesions. If you get a sinful thought, what do you do? You suppress it right. So where is that thought occuring and who is suppressing the thought? The thought is occuring in the mind and the suppresser of thought is the soul. This is why we say “my mind” You can control your mind. Just as you can control your body.

Then maybe I used the wrong word.

There is certainly a part of me that can watch my thoughts and control my thoughts to a degree. I am not my thoughts.

I don’t see why it’s so illogical that a soul cannot have a beginning in the same way we believe that angels had beginnings too. I forget the word theologians use–is it avi-eternity? Something like that, meaning there is an eternity in one dirction. Not like a line going on infinitely both ways, but like a ray with a beginning point, but no end point.

I do meditate, btw.

I do Christian meditations, but also do a “secular” meditation of being aware of the body, breathing, sounds, thoughts, etc.

#156

Suffering is caused by clinging and if you cannot totally surrender yourself, you can never escape suffering.

And how on earth did you get from what I wrote that I don’t believe in the Anatman Doctrine? I have said nothing to indicate this. In my post where I cited Buddhist views on I am ness goes to prove what I have said. Again, you are basing why I am wrong on YOUR belief system.

#157

I don’t see why it’s so illogical that a soul cannot have a beginning in the same way we believe that angels had beginnings too. I forget the word theologians use–is it avi-eternity? Something like that, meaning there is an eternity in one dirction. Not like a line going on infinitely both ways, but like a ray with a beginning point, but no end point.

Things that have beginnings have ends. What is produced happens in time and space and nothing endures in time and space because change is constant in time and space. The plants, animals and humans do not endure. The earth is not going to endure. The sun is not going to endure. The galaxy is not going to endure. The universe is not going to endure. Whatever is produced is material, it can be rock solid material like a building or can be subtle material like energy and it is never going to endure. It will change constantly. Even the mind is a material because it is produced. It is made out of stuff.

One thing you will eventually realise in your meditation practice is how mind stuff precedes physical stuff. Physical stuff literally is condensed thought energy. Your thoughts can manifest and become physical in your body. This is proven by the phenomenon of psychsomasis. Obviously you know that the body responds to thoughts, because you can think of a thought say a favourite food item, and your mouth waters up, or you can think of a traumatic incident, and your heart starts to race, or you get anxious and your breath becomes shallow. They respond to each other because they are the same stuff.

The soul or consciousness/awareness is distinct because it is not of the nature of production and it is not a stuff. It is not something that we can see with any of our senses(5 senses, and internal sense of mind) it is not something we know through anything. It is not something which comes into being. It is something that is always there and self-evident. It is not material. What does not have a beginning is eternal. Therefore the soul has never been created. It has existed eternally. There was a never time when you and I did not exist, and there never will be.

Jesus says this in your bible when he is says he existed in the time of Moses. His disciples ask him how could be have existed then, when Moses was born many generations ago. Jesus responds, “Even before the time of Moses, I AM” I AM is the name of the Self in Hinduism. Krishna says in our Gita when he says that he taught the science of Yoga to the first man, Arjuna asks how is it possible he taught Yoga to the first man, when the first man was born many generations ago. Krishna responds, “There was never a time when you and I did not exist, the only difference is I remember all my past incarnations and you do not”

The pre-existence of the soul was a major doctrine in early Christianity. The soul does not come into being. It is merely takes on new bodies and discards them when they become unusable and takes on another.

#158

Buddhism is monism. Only one thing in reality. The universe is all there is.

Vedanta is dualistic correct? What is the ultimate goal of Hinduism? The highest state? Is it to merge with Brahman? If it is the highest state, what happens to the self? Does it dissolve?

You have it the wrong way around. Monism is the the view that everything is made out of one substance and only that substance exists and nothing else. Vedanta is a monism beause it asserts only Brahman exists and nothing else and everything else is maya, appearance/illusion.

Buddhism is nihilism because it is the holds that view that everything is nothingness/void and nothing else really exists, it is just momentary.

And how on earth did you get from what I wrote that I don’t believe in the Anatman Doctrine? I have said nothing to indicate this. In my post where I cited Buddhist views on I am ness goes to prove what I have said. Again, you are basing why I am wrong on YOUR belief system.

Then suffice it to say you are hopelessly confused about this doctrine. You do not really believe it, because you keep on saying things that contradict it. The source you just cited on it is from Mahayana Buddhism which reject anatman doctrine and are considered heresy by orthodox Buddhism.

I still think you are mixing new age beliefs with Buddhist beliefs. A lot of the words you use are new-age buzz words.

#159

Jesus says this in your bible when he is says he existed in the time of Moses. His disciples ask him how could be have existed then, when Moses was born many generations ago. Jesus responds, “Even before the time of Moses, I AM” I AM is the name of the Self in Hinduism. Krishna says in our Gita when he says that he taught the science of Yoga to the first man, Arjuna asks how is it possible he taught Yoga to the first man, when the first man was born many generations ago. Krishna responds, “There was never a time when you and I did not exist, the only difference is I remember all my past incarnations and you do not”

The pre-existence of the soul was a major doctrine in early Christianity. The soul does not come into being. It is merely takes on new bodies and discards them when they become unusable and takes on another.

Jesus, being God Incarnate, could say that.

There is no Christian doctrine about souls pre-existing. Any such beliefs were either heresy, or speculation that was not doctrine.

#160

Jesus never said he was god incarnate. He called god his father and prayed to god.

There is certainly a Chrisitian doctrine about pre-existing souls by early Church fathers:

History records that the early Christine church believed in Reincarnation and of the souls journey back to oneness with God. This all changed by Emperial decree some 500 plus years after the death of Christ. Emperor Justinian in 545 A.D. was able to apply the full power of Rome and his authority to stop the belief in reincarnation. He forced the ruling cardinals to draft a papal decree stating that anyone who believes that souls come from God and return to God will be punished by death. The actual decree stated:

“If anyone asserts the fabulous preexistence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema. (The Anathemas against Origen), attached to the decrees of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, A.D. 545, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d ser., 14: 318).”

There you go, the belief in reincarnation of early Christians was crushed by the threat of the punishment of death for anybody who believed in it.

A prominent theologian named Origen wrote around 250 AD about the pre-existence of the soul. He taught that the soul’s very source was God and that the soul was traveling back to oneness with God via the lessons learned in multiple lives. He taught that Christ came to show us what we can become. For centuries this was the mainstream view of Christianity but 300 years later it became a huge issue and the belief was made illegal because Emperor Constantine believed it was dangerous to the Empire to believe in reincarnation.

In the sixth century A.D., Emperor Justinian and Pope Vigilius disagreed on whether or not the teachings of Origen should be condemned as heresy. The Pope supported the teaching as being consistent with the teachings of Jesus the Messiah. The Emperor was determined to eradicate the belief even though the Pope and the church believed in reincarnation. The fact that the doctrine of reincarnation had been a part of Christian theology for over 500 years did not sway the Emperor.

Origen’s writings were considered heresy by important cardinals in the sixth century. Origen’s teachings had been considered as profound spiritual wisdom for three centuries. Origen lived around 250 AD and wrote about the pre-existence of the soul and in reincarnation. He taught that the soul’s very source was God and that the soul’s was traveling back to oneness with God via Reincarnation.

Emperor Justinian wanted Origen’s writings and teachings to be condemned and destroyed but Pope Vigilius refused to sign a papal decree condemning Origen’s teachings on reincarnation. As a result of his disobedience, the Emperor had the Pope arrested and put into jail. In 543, Justinian convoked the Fifth General Council of the Church and told the Pope he would sign whatever into doctrine whatever the council decided. On the way there, under guard, the Pope escaped to avoid being forced to condemn Origen’s writings. The Emperor commanded the council to continue despite the Pope’s refusal to attend.

Jesus never claims special status that he is the only one. In fact he says to his disciples that they can be just like him:

John 10:33 “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came–and the Scripture cannot be broken-- 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? NIV

There you go Jesus is ratifying the OT that “Ye are all gods” and claiming to be a son of god in line with that teaching.

Later, just before Christ was crucified, he revealed in a prayer that he wanted his disciple to become one with God just as he was.

John 17:20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

There you go Jesus is saying to his disciples they can become just like him, in fact one with him and with god and he can pass his glory to them. There is nothing here to offend the Hindu mentality of a teacher passing off his wisdom and enlightenemnt to his disciples.

Jesus never claimed to be special. He never said others were not the sons of god and he never said others could not do the works that he could do. Therefore, we Hindus accept him as only as another teacher/sage/master, not as somebody special.