Is Buddhism a religion?

Spirituality Religion
#161

Texts without contexts are pretexts.

Please…you are an expert at eastern faiths but not Christiainty.

Jesus is “The Word,” who came and dwelt among us. Jesus rasied people from the dead and raised himself from the dead. He performed miracles that no other man has performed.

He claimed equality with God and did not take it back when the Jews wanted to kill him over it.

This is Christian teaching since day one, but I’m not going to get into another fruitless debate involving your misconceptions about my religion.

#162

This is Christian teaching since day one

No it hasn’t :smiley:

Jesus never claimed he was special. Only catholics believe this. He claimed equality with god, but also told everybody else had equality with god and could be like him. This by defiinition is no claim to being special.

We Hindus can accept Jesus as another master/sage/teacher in a long line of masters/sages/teachers, that is the most you are getting from us :smiley:

You are obviously capable of being rational but only up to a certain point and that is when your rationality conflicts with your catholic faith :wink:

What we Hindus are teaching you is that you too can be like Jesus. Continue with your Christian and secular meditation practice, you will unlock in yourself the same glory that Jesus had. Then you too will, like every other master/sage/teacher go around preaching the same to everybody else.

#163

You are really splitting hairs Sd. See post 158

First, I asked questions and you only gave me some answers. It was an honest attempt to understand.

Second, Do you view the self as separate from the rest of the world?

Third,

Quote:
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.

I believe that’s what I said. Read it again.

#164

Hey guys, isn’t this thread about Buddhism? Just pointing it out.

#165

That is exactly what I do. I am a critical and clear thinker. I need to know my toes, from my foot, from the soles of my feet. Then I do not get confused as to what is what, as you seem to be. In Hinduism we have a precise vocabulary for everything.

First, I asked questions and you only gave me some answers. It was an honest attempt to understand.

Second, Do you view the self as separate from the rest of the world?

We splits hairs here too :smiley:

There are three different major schools of Vedanta. They are non-dualism(advaita), qualified non dualism(vishishdvaita) and dualism(dvaita) The first was founded by Adisankarcharya, the second by Ramunjacharya and the third by Madvacharya.

Non-dualism is the school that asserts that only Brahman exists and the individual soul and the world are all maya. The individual soul eventually realises this maya and merges into Brahman like a droplet into an ocean. This is the closest to the Mahayana school of Buddhism view you described. Hence why some critics argue that Advaita is Buddhism in disguise. This is not true, because Advaita is monistic in that it asserts that the ultimate substance is pure conscousness, existence and being, whereas Buddhism says ultimately there is nothingness and void.

Qualified non-dualism is the school that asserts that Brahman as god, the soul and the world exist, however they are aspects of one another. The individual soul participates in Brahman(god) in a heavenly state(Vaikunta) when it is liberated through union, and participates in the world when it is not liberated. This school is quasi theistic and presupposes a religious/devotional yoga. It emerged during the Bhakti phase of Hinduism, much after Advaita. It is the closest to Thomas Aquinases view on Christian religion.

Dualism is the school that asserts that Brahman, the soul and the world exist seperately altogether. Brahman is supreme godhead personality with a supreme form, the individual soul is separate from godhead, but it has the potential to share god’s qualities but never become god itself. The world is there for it to evolve in order to win the grace of god through pure devotion and enter into heaven(Vaikunta) This school is completely theistic and is the closest to orthodox Christianity. It is a late development in the Bhakti phase of Hinduism and is purely devotional yoga.

Nobody knows for sure which version is correct. There has been heated debate for centuries on this. This question can only be resolved by one who has reached Brahman-realization.

#166

For the Buddhists: What is the difference between Atheism and Buddhism?

#167

I am not Buddhist but it is clear that Atheism and Buddhism share similarities:

Hard Atheism is the view that ultimately everything is material/natural and everything came out of nothing in the big bang. There is no god, soul or anything supernatural.
Soft atheism is the view that there maybe(or is) a supernatural and a soul, but there is no god.

Buddhism depending on which school you look at is either hard atheism or soft atheism or somewhere in between. Othodox Buddhism or Thervada Buddhism says ultimately everything is void and comes out of nothingness(hard) it denies the existence of anything outside of what we can see(hard) it denies god, soul and the supernatural(hard) But it differs from hard atheism in the sense that it is relatively idealistic. According to it all of world exists in the mind only(Yogachara philosophy) and it is desire that keeps the world going. As soon as one has extinguished desire, the world is also extinguished, and nothingness alone remains.

Non orthodox Buddhism denies god, but does not deny soul and the metaphysical. It has a place for various different beings that populate the planes of the world, such as hungry ghosts(pretas), demi-gods(devatas) and masters(bodhisattvas) It is more ritualistic in that there are various rituals done to worship gods and involves various tantric rites, including sexual rites. Non orthodox Buddhism such as Tibetian Buddhism emerged from the merging of Buddhism, Hindusim and the indigenous Bon religion in Tibet.

There are other forms of popular Buddhism: Zen Buddhism(Chan) is the merging of Theravada Buddhism with Taoism. This is the most nihilistic of all Buddhisms(all Buddhism is nihilistic to an extent) It places a huge emphasis on void and nothingness and doing nothing. It has especially taken off in Japan, where traditionally the emperor was a symbol of nothingness and did nothing. A lot of Zen poetry and Zen art emphasises doing nothing. This can either be literal as in literally doing nothing at all, or non-literal, as in doing everything with mindfulness. But even here what it means is doing normal chores like walking, washing the dishes, gardening, decorating the room. It takes everything lightly including disasters, killing and other evil. It is an anti-intellectual tradition. It also has a history of violence.

All forms of Buddhism are unappealing to me and some kind of atheism. The least most appealing is Zen because it purely nihilistic, then followed by Thervada because it is nihilistic, then followed by Mahayana Buddhism.

Buddhism is a virus that has not helped any country it has been in, whatever form it has taken. It was the cause of the decline of India, it is the cause of the non-progress of all Eastern countries its been in and the cause of people readily accepting suffering and oppression in the East and taking it lightly. Although we Indians were able to drive it out of India, the damage was done to India, and India soon fell prey to invasions due to the weakening of its forces. Hindusim had a place for warriors, Buddhism did not. This is because Hinduism accepted the self and the needs of the self(individual and social progress) and aspired to better the conditions of the self and society. Better sciences; better medicine; better art; better philosophy; better architecture; better technology; better military and weapons. Hence why massive progress was made in pre-Buddhist India in all areas.

#168

Buddhism is a virus that has not helped any country it has been in, whatever form it has taken. It was the cause of the decline of India, it is the cause of the non-progress of all Eastern countries its been in and the cause of people readily accepting suffering and oppression in the East and taking it lightly.

To end the suffering of all sentient beings. They accept suffering as a fact and seek to end it. Where do you get this stuff? (the above)

#169

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;42884]Buddhism is a virus that has not helped any country it has been in, whatever form it has taken. It was the cause of the decline of India, it is the cause of the non-progress of all Eastern countries its been in and the cause of people readily accepting suffering and oppression in the East and taking it lightly. Although we Indians were able to drive it out of India, the damage was done to India, and India soon fell prey to invasions due to the weakening of its forces. Hindusim had a place for warriors, Buddhism did not. This is because Hinduism accepted the self and the needs of the self(individual and social progress) and aspired to better the conditions of the self and society. Better sciences; better medicine; better art; better philosophy; better architecture; better technology; better military and weapons. Hence why massive progress was made in pre-Buddhist India in all areas.[/QUOTE]

You really need to look at reputable sources for historic purposes because it ain’t that simple and you are mosrtly wrong here, particularly about things East as it applies to China and Japan and Buddhism… and no I don’t care enough to actually educate you on it since you most certainly will never admit you could be wrong.

#170

Surya

Although we Indians were able to drive it out of India, the damage was done to India, and India soon fell prey to invasions due to the weakening of its forces. Hindusim had a place for warriors,

So Pratyahara is something you just talk about but is unnecessary to actually practice in India now?

No different to Buddhist principles hey?

#171

[B]Core says— only kidding[/B]

Not taking sides here, but very informative SD. Thanks for sharing your mine of knowledge with us all… What a privilege.

#172

I put this in 2 separate places…thought it should really go in here so here it is,

Su Dongpo was an avid student of Buddhist teachings. He was quick-witted and humorous; as a Zen Buddhism follower he was very serious and self-disciplined. He often discussed buddhism with his good friend, Zen Master Foyin. The two lived across the river from one another.

Following is an interesting and famous story about him and Zen Master Foyin.

One day, Su Dongpo felt inspired and wrote the following poem:

稽首天中天，
毫光照大千；
八风吹不动，
端坐紫金莲。

I bow my head to the heaven within heaven,
Hairline rays illuminating the universe,
The eight winds cannot move me,
Sitting still upon the purple golden lotus.

The “eight winds (八风)” in the poem referred to praise (称), ridicule (讥), honor (誉), disgrace (毁), gain (得), loss (失), pleasure (乐) and misery (苦) – interpersonal forces of the material world that drive and influence the hearts of men. Su Dongpo was saying that he has attained a higher level of spirituality, where these forces no longer affect him.

Impressed by himself, Su Dongpo sent a servant to hand-carry this poem to Fo Yin. He was sure that his friend would be equally impressed. When Fo Yin read the poem, he immediately saw that it was both a tribute to the Buddha and a declaration of spiritual refinement. Smiling, the Zen Master wrote “fart” on the manuscript and had it returned to Su Dongpo.

Su Dongpo was expecting compliments and a seal of approval. When he saw “fart” written on the manuscript, he was shocked . He burst into anger: “How dare he insult me like this? Why that lousy old monk! He’s got a lot of explaining to do!”

Full of indignation, he rushed out of his house and ordered a boat to ferry him to the other shore as quickly as possible. He wanted to find Fo Yin and demand an apology. However, Fo Yin’s door closed. On the door was a piece of paper, for Su Dongpo. The paper had following two lines:

八风吹不动，
一屁弹过江。
The eight winds cannot move me,
One fart blows me across the river.

This stopped Su Dongpo cold. Fo Yin had anticipated this hot-headed visit. Su Dongpo’s anger suddenly drained away as he understood his friend’s meaning. If he really was a man of spiritual refinement,
completely unaffected by the eight winds, then how could he be so easily provoked?

With a few strokes of the pen and minimal effort, Fo Yin showed that Su Dongpo was in fact not as spiritually advanced as he claimed to be. Ashamed but wiser, Su Dongpo departed quietly.

This event proved to be a turning point in Su Dongpo’s spiritual development. From that point on, he became a man of humility, and not merely someone who boasted of possessing the virtue.

#173

Namaste,

I have not yet started my spiritual journey(proper) but I have succesfully evaluated yet another tradition, this time a Buddhist spiritual tradition. I figured, rather than debating over something I have not tried and have no experience of, I should experience it and form my own judgements. So now I will summarize my judgement on Buddhism now that I have actually experienced it myself(intensely). Like any objective person, one should begin by first addressing the positives in something, before criticizing in order to give a fair assessment.

The good is that there is no doubt in my mind at all that Buddhism is a valid path which will lead to enlightenment. This is because Buddhism is practical, real and addresses the immediate reality with clear sight. None of the doctrines you are learning in Buddhism are disagreeable to ones immediate or apparent view of reality. Such as:

Impermenance: A realist should have no qualms with this doctrine that all things have the characeristic of arising and passing. There is nothing in the empirical universe(the world of experience) that does not rise and pass. Everything comes into being, remains for a while, and then passes away. Whether they be long-lasting things like stars, planets and galaxies, or short lasting things like subatomic particles, they all have a transcient nature. Ultimately, a rational person will find that there is no such thing as solidity or substantiality in the empirical universe, it is just a constant flux of very subtle vibrations of energy. Solidity is only apparent, but not real.

No self: A realist can have no qualms with the doctrine that there is no real enduring personality, for the personality is an aggregate made up of changing things like memories, sensations, cells, experiences. Thus an aggregate which is made out of things which are constantly changing can never endure, but rather with every succession of a moment there will be a new aggregate.

Desire is the cause of mental suffering: Again, a realist person should have no qualms that one can only suffer if they have an attachment to an object. The object itself cannot make you suffer. If somebody insults me(which happens regularly on this forum :wink: ) that insult can only cause suffering to me if I identify with the insult. If I do not, then the insult will do nothing to me and no attachment will form. Similarly, I can only feel the loss of an object if I form an attachment with it. If I lose my phone, I will only feel the loss of the phone, if I am attached to the phone.

If one begins to accept these doctrines, and I will emphasise again realist would have no problem accepting these doctrines, then one can practice detachment, humiliy and equanimity and one will surely become a loving, compassionate and peaceful person, much like a saint. I have seen this myself with others who were on the retreat, everybody had a serene smile, conducted themself with equipose and seemed very much at peace.

So what can possibly be wrong with a path whose doctrines are based on the empirical, are real and if practiced and incalcated in life will make you happier, peaceful and more loving and compassionate? The answer is, it is just as wrong as the empirical scientist who is coming up with absolute truths about how the universe works based on looking at apparent reality. You can only come up with temporal and relative truths if you look at apparent reality, but not absolute truths - and this is what Buddhism is missing. Rather than the rejection of the transcendent(not empirical, apparent or immanent) being a blessing, it is a curse in Buddhism. It means that the Buddhist who knows Buddhism only at the doctrine level(impermenance, no-self, desire as the cause of suffering) ends up always living life at the apparent level(like the materialist only looking at the universe at the physical level) They embrace the laws of the apparent universe as a means to live life, and because of this their their lifes goals are limited only to the apparent.

There is no progress in Buddhism, because Buddhism has no desire to look beyond the apparent. The highest goal is to reach saintlihood, becoming loving and compassionate and then go out there and help others to reach the same. The Buddhist utopia is therefore a society where everybody is loving and compassionate. Again, how can anybody quarrel with that? But if you are rational you will find huge quarrels with that. You will ask, “Yes, but what about progress in science, medicine, technology, arts, sports, justice etc” The Buddhist will respond, “Those are trivial goals, ultimately all that matters is being happy” The rationalist will retort, “Yes, but the human being has more than just am emotional aspect, he is also has a physical aspect, an intellectual aspect, a creative aspect, sexual aspect. Further more the world is riddled with diseases, natural disasters, scarce resources, and unanswered questions, surely then we need more than just everybody being happy”

A Buddhist would never have invested any time, energy or money into making trips to the moon, performing experiments to split the atom — or even invent the wheel. After all, what is the need to invent the wheel, if all the cavemen are happy, loving and compassionate?

Continued in next post.

#174

There is no reason why a Buddhist would feel the need to make trips to the moon, perfom experiments to investigate laws of nature and innovate technology, because for them being happy and loving by ending all desire is the ultimate goal. It is easy to see then why Buddhist countries have made no progress. Why no single Buddhist country has any history of great contributions in science, technology etc., and why countries that did make huge progress in these fields, waned when Buddhism became predominant(Read: India)

The rationalist knows that what is apparent is only the surface level of reality and beyond the surface lie higher truths, which once realised will enable us to live a life beyond the apparent level. If we reexamine the Buddhist doctrines from a rational point of view, and not a realist point of view we find so much that is wrong with them.

Impermenance: If we accept that all things are rising and passing, does it mean that things come out of nothingness and go back to nothingness? If there is originally only nothingness, then only nothingness should come out of it. So how can we accept that nothingness is producing everything in the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, animals, humans? To say that something has come into being and ceased being based on what observes is like saying that if something passes outside of ones observation it no longer exists. Like the baby who sees the ball passing behind the screen, then thinks the ball no longer exists because it cannot see it anymore. Is the buddhist then the same mentality of the baby? Just because they cannot see it, it does not mean it has ceased to exist. It simply means it has passed outside of their vision.

To a rational being something being produced out of nothingness without any cause is illogical. Therefore surely there must be an ultimate cause of all of reality which we must strive to know.

No self: It has been stated before if there is no self, then who is the one that remembers the memories, sensations, experiences and who is the one who is aware of each of the aggregates. If you so doubt this, then who is the one that doubts this? Therefore surely there must be a self. Therefore we must inquire into this self to reach the ultimate nature of who and what we are and what our relationship with the world is.

Desire is the cause of mental suffering: Are all desires the cause of mental suffering? What about desires for beauty, widsom, justice, love, kindness, liberation? Does the Buddhist not desire these qualities. Surely they do, otherwise why would they spend hours in meditation everyday and go on gruelling spiritual retreats. Every action has a motivation behind it. Surely then the Buddhist also has motivations for their actions?
The Buddhist says you should be equal minded to both the pleasent and the unpleasent, but if that is the case, why is the Buddhist not even minded to ugly, ignorance, corruption, hatred and suffering? Surely, because the Buddhist prefers what is pleasent.

Therefore this means that as long as you desire what is more pleasent than what you already have it is OK. It is more pleasent for me to eat cheesecake than eat worms, and I am sure every buddhist would prefer eating cheesecake over worms.

Therefore a rationalist will find every Buddhist doctrine to be irrational. Conversely, the rationalist will find the alternative doctrines born out the criticism to be entirely rational and if one accepts these alterantive doctrines one is certainly going to progress.

  1. There is an cause for all things beyond what what is apparent. From this is born the fields of science and technology. We start to investigate the apparent world and penetrate deeper and deeper to discover new levels of this reality, make scientific discoveries and then develop technology to make our life more eaiser, efficient and safe.

  2. There is an ultimate self beyond the apparent aggregate self. From this is born the fields of philosophy and the science of meditation in order to realise this ultimate self that we are.

  3. All motivation is underlied by one ultimate motivation to make life more pleasent for oneself From this is born personal and social development programs to address all our needs(physical, emotional, intellectual, social, spiritual etc)

In countries where any of the above doctrines have flourished, huge progress in science, technology, philosophy and every other field has been made, and ultimately they have become a civilizing force for the entire world. In the past it was India; in modern times it is Europe.

Continued in next post.

#175

No self: A realist can have no qualms with the doctrine that there is no real enduring personality, for the personality is an aggregate made up of changing things like memories, sensations, cells, experiences. Thus an aggregate which is made out of things which are constantly changing can never endure, but rather with every succession of a moment there will be a new aggregate.

I feel as though I’m the same self I was when I was 5. Experiences come and go, and I have learned some things and have forgotten some things, but there is still a “me” that has endured over 50 years that seems very much constant.

Desire is the cause of mental suffering: Again, a realist person should have no qualms that one can only suffer if they have an attachment to an object. The object itself cannot make you suffer

I think there could be a suffering of a different quality. The suffering of knowing there is injustice in the world. The suffering of separation from God. The suffering of knowing knowing that you did something wrong.

Jesus suffered, and not just physically, but mentally, and I think it’s fair to say that rational people are Christians, and to a Christian, he is the only perfect man to have ever lived, and yet he suffered, so how can we rise above suffering?

We see suffering as our lot in life and a way to purification, though it most certainly is a good thing to let go of improper attachments.

#176

The final post in this series.

It is clear then that whoever accepts Buddhism’s doctrines and practices them will definitely become a happier, calmer, loving and compassionate person, BUT, they will always remain at the apparent or empirical level. And herein lies the problem, even the happiness, calm, love and compassion will be at the apparent level. The Buddhist really is learning to accept misery and suffering in life, and when one learns to endure suffering and misery in life by treating everything that happens to you as yet just another moment in a succession of incessant moments, one naturally is not affected by the pain and suffering. But this is really nothing more than resignation to pain. One begins to find pain acceptable. And I have now firsthand experience of this fact about Buddhism from a Buddhist teacher. The Buddhists are very strong disciplinarians and very ascetic. They expect you to sit in meditation for hours completely motionless and they do not care how much pain your body is in. I experienced some of the most excruciating pain I have experienced in my life in this week retreat I went on, that it was almost impossible to practice the meditation they had prescribed me. I repeatedly went to the teacher and sought their advice on what I should do to lessen the pain. Instead of getting advice I got constant preaching, “It is impermenant, remain indifferent to it” I was giving Buddhism a fair trial, so I took on board that advice and tried to develop indifference to my pain. Did it work? Absolutely not. I was still in pain and I could not meditate. I was starting to not want to meditate anymore. In the end I had to take actions of of my own to help the pain: I did some yoga asanas, I shifted my posture, so I could meditate.

There is such a huge contrast if you go to a Yoga tradition. They will never say to you, “The pain is impermenant, remain indifferent to it” instead they will say, “Listen to your body, if you are feeling pain, then adjust or stop what you are doing” This is because Hinduism accepts the self and it accepts the self has individual needs, varying levels of development(in this case physical flexibility to be able to sit for hours crossed legged motionless) - but Buddhism because it accepts no self, cannot careless how much you are suffering. They just tell you to deal with it.

This is also why Buddhists do not have asanas in their practice(it is prescribed nowhere in the Buddhist path) Asanas are designed with your pain in mind by Hindus, they know that in order to do meditation for a long duration your body will need to become flexible, so they have developed these physical exercises to make it easier for you to sit for meditation(asana means easy) Nowhere in Hinduism it says you should endure pain.

What kind of religion teaches you to endure pain and suffering, accept reality as it is and you should make no attempts to change it, and that you do not exist and do not matter. The answer is Buddhism.

It is very clear when I go on my spiritual journey, I will not be going to a Buddhist tradition. I have tried Buddhism for the first and last time.

#177

Oops, sorry not the final post :smiley:

The good is that there is no doubt in my mind at all that Buddhism is a valid path which will lead to enlightenment.

I have so far talked about Buddhism at the doctrine level and I have pointed out the merits and demerits at the doctrine level. But at the practical level, Buddhist meditation techniques are without a doubt very powerful and this is because Buddhists have done a lot of research into studying awareness and have given, in my opinion, an even more thorough account than the Hindus(The Hindus are more metaphysicians and logicians, than meditators) and based on this research they have devised some very good meditation techniques. Any Buddhist that practices these techniques will irrespective of their doctrinal beliefs, reach enlightenment.

Overall, my Buddhist experience was a good experience, not a bad experience. I was able to get firsthand experience of another tradition outside of my own and gained insights into Buddhism that I would not have had I not done it, my faith in my own tradition was reinforced and I learned some amazing techniques which I will add to my toolbox of meditation techniques to give me yet more powerful tools to develop myself. As far as techniques goes I do not regret the experience one bit, but, It is clear to me now that I am going to stick to the Hindu tradition.

#178

Just as an informational note

The Major Sects of Buddhism

• Theravada (Hinayana) Buddhism
• Mahayana Buddhism
• Vajrayana Buddhism

#179

Thomas,

I feel as though I’m the same self I was when I was 5. Experiences come and go, and I have learned some things and have forgotten some things, but there is still a “me” that has endured over 50 years that seems very much constant.

From a Buddhist perspective you are not the same self. We are ever changing. When you say self it comes with attachments. No attachments, no self, no problem. You are not the same mentally, physically or emotionally as you were a moment ago or 30 years ago. The self is an illusion that is ladened with attachments. The idea is to see the true self that is not a self at all. It is pure essence of everything.

Jesus suffered, and not just physically, but mentally, and I think it’s fair to say that rational people are Christians, and to a Christian, he is the only perfect man to have ever lived, and yet he suffered, so how can we rise above suffering?

We see suffering as our lot in life and a way to purification, though it most certainly is a good thing to let go of improper attachments.

Are all rational people Christians or all Christians rational people? I’m not understanding the context here Thomas.

Desire is the cause of suffering (Buddhist perspective again) One does not need to suffer to know that suffering exists. The elimination of suffering is the aim of Buddhism.

#180

I desire not to suffer.

This desire will cause suffering?

I desire to live happily forever in the presence of God.

This is a desire that will cause suffering and which should be eliminated?

I desire to stop sinning and live a saintly life.

Would this also be a bad desire that would lead to suffering?