Of all the times I've been to this website. I always see people debating over the credibility of Christianity. My question is, has anyone found a flaw on the philosophy in Buddhism?

Lots of Christians

Well I don't know enough to critique Buddhism, but I will say this: the ideas of nirvana, reincarnation, and learning subtlety and balance from a fat rich guy may be open to argument over validity.

Buddhism is a very flexible religion, it does not adhere to rigid dogma like other world religions.

As a Buddhist, I (and Sean) would be happy to address any questions people might have on Buddhism.

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

Well I don't know enough to critique Buddhism, but I will say this: the ideas of nirvana, reincarnation, and learning subtlety and balance from a fat rich guy may be open to argument over validity.

Haha, you're right, you definitely don't know enough to critique it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Well, i suggest you research before disagreeing with concepts you don't fully fathom.

By the way, I am newly Buddhist, so this question comes from me as well (but I know enough to hold a steady argument).

One thing that gets me, is that Buddhism seems kind of like a tool to keep the lower Indian castes in line. I mean, a rich aristocrat rejects all material wealth, lives in poverty, and preaches that material wealth will not bring you happiness or enlightenment? Couldn't this have been invented to keep the peasants content?

There is that possibility...but I find it so unlikely. We know Sid's life pretty well from his own teachings and from those who wrote of him shortly afterwards. I doubt tremendously that a rich man would cast his wealth aside and live a humble life (becoming povert) so that the rich can continue their lives without the class warfare from the poor. If anything, I believe one of his goals was to eliminate classes and class warfare all together.

quote:Originally posted by HARDMAN:

One thing that gets me, is that Buddhism seems kind of like a tool to keep the lower Indian castes in line. I mean, a rich aristocrat rejects all material wealth, lives in poverty, and preaches that material wealth will not bring you happiness or enlightenment? Couldn't this have been invented to keep the peasants content?

No, the Buddha teached against material wealth, since wealth leads to desire, and desire leads to suffering. I believe the story of Buddha's life is mostly allegorical. What better way to show that wealth does not equal happiness, Siddhartha had everything and he was miserable, only through the Way did he find happiness.



A wealthy man worries about his estate if he has one; he worries about his mansion and all other possessions. He worries lest some disaster befall him, his mansion burns down, robbers break in, kidnappers carry him off. Then he worries about death and the deposition of his wealth. Indeed, his way to death is lonely, and nobody follows him to death.



Desire also torments the poor:



The poor man always suffers from insufficiency and this serves to awaken endless desires- for land and a house. Being aflamed with covetousness he wears out both his body and mind and comes to death in the middle of his life.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

There is that possibility...but I find it so unlikely. We know Sid's life pretty well from his own teachings and from those who wrote of him shortly afterwards.

Actually, what is the true teaching of the Buddha is a point of constant debate in the Buddhist world. Nothing was written down during the Buddha's lifetime, or for several hundred years afterward. We can only assume it was carried by word of mouth during this time until it was written down.

Sorry, I should have explained that when I'm talking religous history, 'shortly' can mean hundreds of years when I take into consideration superstitions of the spiritual nature have been around for a good 25000 years.

he he... was there a historical buddha? j/k

What if Buddha wasn't real, though. What if there was no Siddartha Gautama(sp?)? These things could just be invented by someone else.

I highly doubt that the Buddha wasn't real. There is historical evidence to prove his existence.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Sorry, I should have explained that when I'm talking religous history, 'shortly' can mean hundreds of years when I take into consideration superstitions of the spiritual nature have been around for a good 25000 years.

No problem. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by HARDMAN:



What if Buddha wasn't real, though. What if there was no Siddartha Gautama(sp?)? These things could just be invented by someone else.



Gautama was just one buddha out of countless buddhas that have existed in the past and will exist in the future.

It is important not to get too fixed on the historical Buddha, because he discovered nothing new (he himself said this), he only rediscovered what has always been there.

[This message has been edited by Social Junker (edited 10-05-2004).]

I know sweet FA about buddhism, but as far as I do understand, I don't think it requires for sid to be "real" to retain it's legitimacy.

Which raises the question- what does buddhism base it claim to truth on? (as in a "im not trying to be an arsehole but I am interested" question)

I would think that Buddhism bases its truth on direct experience and observation of "self".

I was forced into buddhism, never understood it, never believed in it, and finally burned my gohonzon the other night when I turned catholic. Buddhism, it seems to me, is sinful=greed/selfish and has no structure/discipline. BUT I could have just been taught wrong. Please explain this religion's beliefs to me because I am baffled.

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

Well I don't know enough to critique Buddhism, but I will say this: the ideas of nirvana, reincarnation, and learning subtlety and balance from a fat rich guy may be open to argument over validity.

Fat guy who left his wealth for seeking the enlightment and found it.

That is because you were forced, if you choose Buddhism, it is to be your choice. No one will explain it to you. Everything depends on you.

[This message has been edited by Sniper (edited 10-05-2004).]

quote:Everything depends on you



Can nirvana reject you?

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Can nirvana reject you?

You either get the enlightment or you don't, it doesn't depends so much on your deeds (well, it plays great role, it is hard when you screw your karma, but there is no case when there are no chances to get the enlightment), it is rather the state you reach, not a place.

Can it reject you? No. Though you might be unable to reach it. You can spend the whole life seeking it and not find it.

[This message has been edited by Sniper (edited 10-05-2004).]

On my way out to night class right now, I'll respond to these posts later, guys. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by BloodySyringe:

I was forced into buddhism, never understood it, never believed in it, and finally burned my gohonzon the other night when I turned catholic. Buddhism, it seems to me, is sinful=greed/selfish and has no structure/discipline. BUT I could have just been taught wrong. Please explain this religion's beliefs to me because I am baffled.

i think the main tenent of buddism is you have to make the choice to seek enlightenment.

quote:Originally posted by HARDMAN:

One thing that gets me, is that Buddhism seems kind of like a tool to keep the lower Indian castes in line. I mean, a rich aristocrat rejects all material wealth, lives in poverty, and preaches that material wealth will not bring you happiness or enlightenment? Couldn't this have been invented to keep the peasants content?

You're thinking oh Hinduism. Buddhism was founded in India, but found little support there. Also, on the subject of the read Siddharta, the fact that there is also historical evidence for the existance of Mahavira the Jain, who founded something extremely similar to Buddhism supports that.

quote:Originally posted by Sniper:

You either get the enlightment or you don't, it doesn't depends so much on your deeds (well, it plays great role, it is hard when you screw your karma, but there is no case when there are no chances to get the enlightment), it is rather the state you reach, not a place.

Can it reject you? No. Though you might be unable to reach it. You can spend the whole life seeking it and not find it.

[This message has been edited by Sniper (edited 10-05-2004).]

The state of enlightenment is a state where you longer produce karma, therefore you will not be reborn, you have escaped the cycle of samsara. (This is a generalization, some Buddhists believe that you can reach nirvana and still be subject to the cycle of samsara).

Also, some Buddhists believe that nirvana is just the beginning, that there are many states beyond it.

Also, something that should be pointed out, you cannot desire to reach nirvana, since desire must be destroyed before you reach enlightenment.

If you say to yourself, "I want to be enlightened", you have already lost.



You did not desire to exist, so you cannot desire to cease.



The only way is to prepare your mind to be a suitable home for enlightenment, and maybe it will come to live there someday.

Also, it is important to note that many Buddhists believe nirvana is obtained over many lifetimes, not just one.

quote:Also, something that should be pointed out, you cannot desire to reach nirvana, since desire must be destroyed before you reach enlightenment.

If you say to yourself, "I want to be enlightened", you have already lost.

So you have a desire to not desire?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

So you have a desire to not desire?

No, because that would be seen as an attachment as well (just of opposite polarity), thus still being trapped in cyclic existence. The goal is to reach a state-of-mind where you neither desire nor "not" desire enlightenment.

I smoke buddah.

But seriously, buddhist tradition and scripture are so flexible, it will be hard to punch holes in it.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

So you have a desire to not desire?

You need to have no desires and passions, because they burden your spirit and make you suffer in the circle of births and deaths.

quote:Originally posted by NurotiK_SykotiK:

No, because that would be seen as an attachment as well (just of opposite polarity), thus still being trapped in cyclic existence. The goal is to reach a state-of-mind where you neither desire nor "not" desire enlightenment.

You must desire to reach that goal, if you want to end desire. If not, why stop desiring in the first place? There would be absolutely no point in ending desire if you don't have a desire to do so.

quote:Originally posted by Sniper:

You need to have no desires and passions, because they burden your spirit and make you suffer in the circle of births and deaths.

I don't want to be a Buddhist, so I'm more of a Buddhist than you? That would preclude ever choosing to be a Buddhist in the first place.

Enlightenment is like a long term relationship...when you're looking for it, you'll never find it. Only when you have become neutral to the idea, can it be attained.

Eliminating most desire is surprisingly easy; there are three that are surprisingly difficult: to live, to die, and to attain perfection.

I've eliminated the desire to live and to die, but I am not even slightly close to eliminating the desire to attain a closer state of perfection. Nor have I eliminated some of the more simple desires (for example, I over eat and am also a heavy smoker with a masturbation problem).

Hey, y0 Sean! This isn't a flaw, but more a question...

I've previously posted these question somewhere, but I didn't got any good feedback(except go read the technical part of buddhist-canon)

I have some trouble understanding the law of karma, and I'd be extremely euphoric if someone could answer these questions.

If I have understood the law correctly karma affects also in the next life. eg. Saint becomes extremely rich etc. So when I die as a saint what makes my "soul"(I believe you use word 'buddha-nature' pick up the rich kid's brain? And as I was a saint And my childhood will be great, how does whoever makes my "soul" pick up the rich kid knows this kid will have a great childhood? That means law of karma demands determinism?

But if I surfed to totse once and in my next life I get stabbed with a knife in this life. What makes the knife man hit me? If I was supposed to be stabbed then it was necessary that the man stabbed me and my bad karma made him have more bad karma? Would he have stabbed me without me having bad karma? So does my bad karma affect somebody else's mind? Was the guy I reborned to predestined to be stabbed already when he born because I (or should I say some other guy) surfed to totse in other life?

But what if everybody are saints in the world and nobody's gointo stab me. Then I get hurt in a storm caused by karma. Again I was predestined to get hurt.

One thing I don't understand in law of karma is how come it affect after I die?

The atom-movement I caused in my life at Cuba aren't even near in my current life at eg Spain. So I move block 1 in my current life. It hits block 2. Suddently I die! I reborn near block 3 that isn't even near block 2, but still block 3 is moving because block 2 was moved.

I don't get it. (No quantum theories here http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif))

I'd really like to understand the law of karma, and I'm sure there's someone to answer these.

quote:Originally posted by jurainus:

Hey, y0 Sean! This isn't a flaw, but more a question...

I've previously posted these question somewhere, but I didn't got any good feedback(except go read the technical part of buddhist-canon)

I have some trouble understanding the law of karma, and I'd be extremely euphoric if someone could answer these questions.

If I have understood the law correctly karma affects also in the next life. eg. Saint becomes extremely rich etc. So when I die as a saint what makes my "soul"(I believe you use word 'buddha-nature' pick up the rich kid's brain? And as I was a saint And my childhood will be great, how does whoever makes my "soul" pick up the rich kid knows this kid will have a great childhood? That means law of karma demands determinism?

But if I surfed to totse once and in my next life I get stabbed with a knife in this life. What makes the knife man hit me? If I was supposed to be stabbed then it was necessary that the man stabbed me and my bad karma made him have more bad karma? Would he have stabbed me without me having bad karma? So does my bad karma affect somebody else's mind? Was the guy I reborned to predestined to be stabbed already when he born because I (or should I say some other guy) surfed to totse in other life?

But what if everybody are saints in the world and nobody's gointo stab me. Then I get hurt in a storm caused by karma. Again I was predestined to get hurt.

One thing I don't understand in law of karma is how come it affect after I die?

The atom-movement I caused in my life at Cuba aren't even near in my current life at eg Spain. So I move block 1 in my current life. It hits block 2. Suddently I die! I reborn near block 3 that isn't even near block 2, but still block 3 is moving because block 2 was moved.

I don't get it. (No quantum theories here http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif))

I'd really like to understand the law of karma, and I'm sure there's someone to answer these.

Whenever someone asks "what is karma", it makes me stop and think, because I have been studying and practicing Buddhism for only a year, and I still don't quite exactly "know" what karma is.

I could quote a whole bunch of Buddhist literature, but I'd rather give you my definition, based on my interpretaion of that literature.

Karma is the law that good deeds will result in happiness in the future, bad deeds will result in suffering.

There is a saying:

"If you want to know what your previous life was like, look at your body. If you want to know what your future life will be like, look at your mind."

This is saying that the karma you created in your previous lives is affecting your life now, and the karma you are creating right now will affect your future life.

Is this saying that karma is like "destiny", that all the events taking place in your current life were "predicted" by karma? No.

In my opinion, good karma makes good events more likely to occur in your future life, and bad karma makes good events less likely to occur in your future life.

Some Buddhist texts seem to define "karma" as "destiny", but I don't think that's what they're trying to say, because "destiny" is one of the Buddha's "three wrong viewpoints", which are defined as follows:



This whole world of delusion is nothing but a shadow of the mind. And yet, it is from this same mind that the world of Enlightenment appears.

In this world, there are three wrong viewpoints. If one clings to these viewpoints, then all things in this world are but to be denied.

First, some say that all human experience is based on destiny; second, some hold that everything is created by God and controlled by His will; third, some say that everything happens by chance without having any cause or condition.

If all has been decided by destiny, both good deeds and evil deeds are predetermined, weal and woe are predestined; nothing would exist that has not been foreordained. Then all human plans and efforts for improvement and progress would be in vain and humanity would be without hope.

The same is true of the other viewpoints, for, if everything in the last resort is in the hands of an unknowable God, or of blind chance, what hope has humanity except in submission? It is no wonder that people holding these conceptions lose hope and neglect efforts to act wisely and to avoid evil.



-The Teaching of Buddha, Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai.

You will notice often that ideas in Buddhism encourage you to take the Middle Way between two extremes. In this case, I believe karma is somewhere in between "everything is predestined" and "everything happens by chance".

Hope this helps you out with your questions.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You must desire to reach that goal, if you want to end desire. If not, why stop desiring in the first place? There would be absolutely no point in ending desire if you don't have a desire to do so.

You can't desire to end desire, because then that would a desire.

You cannot stop the mind from thinking, but you can learn to ignore it.

A teacher once described the mind as a tearoom where many people would walk through constantly. These people represent thoughts and desires.

This teacher described ignoring the mind as this: Acknowledge the people walking through, nod your head to them, but do not invite them to sit down to tea.

Do not let ideas dwell in your mind, acknowledge them and move on.

If you become neutral to your own thoughts, neither not wanting or wanting, you are on the road to enlightenment.

So, you see, the person moving towards enlightenment is neutral.

My only qualm with Buddhism (and most religions and belief systems) is that there's a duality: yin and yang.

I don't believe in a duality. Therefore, I don't believe there is any middle road.

Cheers,

Lost

From my understanding of Buddhism though, the yin and yang are just human perceptions of what just 'is'. Samsara and Nirvana are one in the same, but the aspects of the whole is foolishly divided by the mind. The mind is dualistic, so we force the whole, the united whole of the universe, into the categories of Good and Evil. Samsara, the resulting state of karma upon an unenlightened mind, is merely half of Enlightenment. Nirvana, the succession over karma for an enlightened mind, is the other half of Enlightenment. The mind must be within Nirvana and Samsara...or in other words be whole with the universe in order to reach Enlightenment.

If one attempts to reach Nirvana, they very well may, but they will only be enlightened to Nirvana...they will not be Enlightened to the Whole.

^

this is my understanding of it atleast. I studied Taoism more than Buddhism, so any Buddhists or more studious persons feel free to correct me if I made some mistakes (I'm sure I have, so I ask for a better equipped person to help me out).

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

You can't desire to end desire, because then that would a desire.

Exactly. It would therefore disprove the notion that you must be without desire.

quote:

You cannot stop the mind from thinking, but you can learn to ignore it.

A teacher once described the mind as a tearoom where many people would walk through constantly. These people represent thoughts and desires.

This teacher described ignoring the mind as this: Acknowledge the people walking through, nod your head to them, but do not invite them to sit down to tea.

Do not let ideas dwell in your mind, acknowledge them and move on.

Then the person desires to be left alone, in other words, desires not to invite anyone else for a cup of tea.

quote:

If you become neutral to your own thoughts, neither not wanting or wanting, you are on the road to enlightenment.

So, you see, the person moving towards enlightenment is neutral.



Why would I want to reach enlightenment, when I can't?

The moment I want to, I cannot, and the moment I don't want to, there would be no point in reaching enlightenment in the first place!

"Enlightenment" would be therefore, either unattainable, or unimportant.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-06-2004).]

Hex- If the division of the material into good and bad is purely the result of human perception, then how does that cause a person to get stuck in the cycle of karma?

Ok, jauiranis or whatever, heres your karma answer. (by the way, social did a good job too).

Basically he's right, it only affects your next life. For example, in the gita's it says to not eat meat. If you spent your lifetime conciously eating meat in defiance of the gitas, then in your next life you would reincarnate as a wolf or dog or something that eats meat.

Karma in your own lifetime is different, There is no karmic law effecting your present life. But if you are always doing good things and being loving to everyone as much as possible, don't you think that it is likely that you will be happy and have positive things happen to you?

That's about it.

As for the desire issue. Yes if you desire enlightenment to an excess, it is an obstacle to the aforementioned enlightenment.

Killing desires isn't exactly an absolute. Buddha was trying to say that desires are obstacles to happiness and salvation when they take over your life. You cannot kill physiological desires, (there are exceptions through extreme practice), such as hunger or thirst or the need for air, but these do not get in the way of enlightenment because they are rarely the prime diversion in your life. However, if you constantly sought food, then this inherent desire would become an obstacle.

So yes, you can desire enlightenment, and at the same time, yes it can stop you from reaching enlightenment. But that is not an absolute law.

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

So yes, you can desire enlightenment, and at the same time, yes it can stop you from reaching enlightenment. But that is not an absolute law.

Yep, Tribe makes a good point, there are very few (if any) absolute laws in Buddhism, in my opinion, Buddhism does not adhere to dogma like other religions.

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

Yep, Tribe makes a good point, there are very few (if any) absolute laws in Buddhism, in my opinion, Buddhism does not adhere to dogma like other religions.

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

Yep, Tribe makes a good point, there are very few (if any) absolute laws in Buddhism, in my opinion, Buddhism does not adhere to dogma like other religions.

This was one of the reasons why I gravitated to Buddhism, its passive and active at the same time.

Ok, thanks Sean. It cleared some things.

One question, this is more of a flaw question...

Buddhists have rationally thought that no good or evil exists. But how come good and evil things exist to the law of karma? How exactly the law of karma decides what's good and what's evil(that requires good and evil of somekind)?

Could you please answer that one too... I love to clear my knowledge on religions.

i didnt read through posts so if someone already posted this then yeah :P

ok only real problem with buddhism is if everyone was a buddhist then progress would most likely slow some because of an overall goal of society would then be to not have any desires, and desires are a big catalyst to progress

things would still get done, but i think it would go a little slower

quote:Originally posted by zekk:

i didnt read through posts so if someone already posted this then yeah :P

ok only real problem with buddhism is if everyone was a buddhist then progress would most likely slow some because of an overall goal of society would then be to not have any desires, and desires are a big catalyst to progress

things would still get done, but i think it would go a little slower

Do you really think that we need to go much farther? We need to step back and try to reverse some of the problems we've created before doing anything to take another step forward. How about we work on curing cancer, or creating an AIDS vaccine, or just trying to ease the suffering of our fellow man, such as those in third wold countries. I think those things, which could be done for the good of humanity, should come before we try to land on mars or learn to change babies' appearances through genetics.

Rust: It's not desiring to not have desire, it's trying to eliminate it. Once you have eliminated your desires, your desire to be free of them is gone. It's like wishing you were well when you are sick, as soon as you are healthy again, you no longer wish to not be sick.

quote:Originally posted by SublimeZen124:

Rust: It's not desiring to not have desire, it's trying to eliminate it. Once you have eliminated your desires, your desire to be free of them is gone. It's like wishing you were well when you are sick, as soon as you are healthy again, you no longer wish to not be sick.



Your analogy doesn't work.

If you desire to eliminate desires, then you cannot possibly eliminate them since you would be actually desiring! That's the point. It would be like trying to get healthy by trying to get sick.

Now, you can claim that you do not desire to end desires. But then another problem arises. If you cannot desire to reach enlightenment because you couldn't reach it if you did, then enlightenment is either unattainable, or unimportant. That would make Buddhism, or the quest for enlightenment in general, useless.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Your analogy doesn't work.

If you desire to eliminate desires, then you cannot possibly eliminate them since you would be actually desiring! That's the point. It would be like trying to get healthy by trying to get sick.

Now, you can claim that you do not desire to end desires. But then another problem arises. If you cannot desire to reach enlightenment because you couldn't reach it if you did, then enlightenment is either unattainable, or unimportant. That would make Buddhism, or the quest for enlightenment in general, useless.

You're not quite getting it, when you eliminate the desires you are trying to get rid of their is nothing to desire anymore.

Meditation and enlightenment are just like eating. You don't meditate to become enlightened, you meditate because it helps or is good for you, just as you eat because you're hungry, not because you want to take a shit later on.



Edit: You don't desire to eliminate your desires in the way you desire to have a large house or to fuck a supermodel, you are trying to better yourself through loss of desires and loss of the self as an independant entity, not because you are being petty and want a physical thing. You can't desire to not want to have a big house, however you can want to learn to not desire that house.

[This message has been edited by SublimeZen124 (edited 10-07-2004).]

The reason its hard to find flaws with Buddhism is due mainly to Buddhism being the only major religion which acknowledges a large area of ignorance about external matters.

It doesn't try to profess the answers to questions like What is the purpose to life, the universe and everything?.

Buddhism regards such questions as at best unanswerable and probably intrinsically meaningless. The only purpose of life being what we personally give to our own lives. Buddha suggested that the most meaningful use of life was to seek liberation from ignorance and suffering both for one's self and others.

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

You can't desire to end desire, because then that would a desire.

You cannot stop the mind from thinking, but you can learn to ignore it.

A teacher once described the mind as a tearoom where many people would walk through constantly. These people represent thoughts and desires.

This teacher described ignoring the mind as this: Acknowledge the people walking through, nod your head to them, but do not invite them to sit down to tea.

Do not let ideas dwell in your mind, acknowledge them and move on.

If you become neutral to your own thoughts, neither not wanting or wanting, you are on the road to enlightenment.

So, you see, the person moving towards enlightenment is neutral.



"One is not versed in the Dharma because he speaks much (of the Dharma or otherwise). He who, after hearing a little Dharma, realizes its truth and is not heedless of it, is truly versed in the Dharma.

-Dhammapada

Think on this... Also do not question karmic effects on reincarnation until you truly understand karma. I best summerize karma with a farmer planting seeds... If he plants potato seeds he will grow potatoes, if he plants cabbage seeds he will grow cabbage. That which you reap, you sew. Mindfulness of actions and things you say, and their effect on people directly influences things that happen to you. I hope this helps... I am also a buddhist and would be grateful to answer any questions also.

[This message has been edited by Ezratal (edited 10-08-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by SublimeZen124:

You're not quite getting it, when you eliminate the desires you are trying to get rid of their is nothing to desire anymore.

Meditation and enlightenment are just like eating. You don't meditate to become enlightened, you meditate because it helps or is good for you, just as you eat because you're hungry, not because you want to take a shit later on.



Edit: You don't desire to eliminate your desires in the way you desire to have a large house or to fuck a supermodel, you are trying to better yourself through loss of desires and loss of the self as an independant entity, not because you are being petty and want a physical thing. You can't desire to not want to have a big house, however you can want to learn to not desire that house.

[This message has been edited by SublimeZen124 (edited 10-07-2004).]

Exactly, you hit the nail on the head with that post.

To Rust: Maybe you should read some basic Buddhist texts, they will help you understand what we're trying to get at here. There are so many great teachers in Buddhism who can express what we're trying to say more simply and it a way that makes it easy to understand.

[This message has been edited by Social Junker (edited 10-08-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by SublimeZen124:



You're not quite getting it, when you eliminate the desires you are trying to get rid of their is nothing to desire anymore.

I do get it. I'm just telling you that you cannot desire to eliminate desire. Nothing else.

quote: You don't desire to eliminate your desires in the way you desire to have a large house or to fuck a supermodel, you are trying to better yourself through loss of desires and loss of the self as an independant entity, not because you are being petty and want a physical thing.

So? It being petty or not petty is irrelevant since I'm not arguing the pettiness or importance of desire, enlightenment or anything else. The point is, you cannot desire to end desire, since that would be a desire itself.

I also said, that I acknowledged that you could end desire without ever desiring to do so. Hence, that part of the argument is pretty much pointless.

quote:

You can't desire to not want to have a big house, however you can want to learn to not desire that house.

Of course you can. I can desire to not do something. For example, I desire to never have to kill someone. That is a desire. Someone could desire to not have a big house.

Let me help you to understand the reason for wanting to eliminate desire and perhaps you will begin to understand. The cause for decided to elminate desire in your life stems from the 4 noble truths which are:

1- The realization that life is suffering.

2- This suffering is caused be desire.

3- There is a way to elminate the suffering.

4- That the way to end suffering is through the 8-fold path.

Now if say you desire to end the suffering.... I would say to you, this desire does not cause suffering and therefore it is an okay feeling.... I'm not really sure how other to put this to you.... Hopefully it is helpful.

quote:Originally posted by Ezratal:



Now if say you desire to end the suffering.... I would say to you, this desire does not cause suffering and therefore it is an okay feeling...



The thread is called "Buddhism Flaws"... therefore, when I see something that does not make logical sense, like desiring to end desire, then I'm obviously going to reply to it.

Until now, what they were saying could not be reconciled with Buddhism (aside from Sean's point). It would either make it pointless, or impossible. Now, you're getting somewhere.

This, along with Sean's point which go hand in hand, would be a good answer.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-08-2004).]

I won't respond to all the posts here, as there's not enough time.

Above all, though, remember that a religion is not a static, monolithic institution. There is not "Christianity", there are "Christianities." Similarly, there is not "Buddhism", but "Buddhisms." That is, Buddhist religion and philosophy are considerably different depending on social and cultural context. On the most fundamental level, Theravadan Buddhism is different than Mahayana Buddhism, and within those categorizations there are even more variations. [In the Theravadan tradition, Thai Buddhism is practiced differently than Sri Lankan Buddhism. In the Mahayana tradition, Zen is different than Nichiren which is different than Pure Land which is different than Tibetan, and so on and so on.] Generalizations are difficult.

I've seen Buddha referred to as a "fat man" a few times in this thread. What are you basing that assumption on - those little statues you see in stores? Actually, those aren't Buddhas; they're Chinese kitchen gods that have been conflated with the Buddha. Siddhattha was known for being emaciated rather than being fat (although later on he rejected extreme asceticism).

Finally, if anyone is seriously interested in Buddhism, read some books! Although there are a few people knowledgeable about Buddhism here, it's difficult to trust information gleaned from an online forum. Besides, whatever anybody tells you here, there's going to be a different interpretation somewhere else.

Oh, and for the people trying to find the logical fallacies in Buddhism, I'd just like to share this favorite passage from the Zen tradition:



"Empty-handed I go, and behold the spade is

in my hands;

I walk on foot, and yet on the back of an ox

I am riding;

When I pass over the bridge,

Lo, the water floweth not, but the bridge doth flow."

Jenye (497-469 C.E.)

The passage is from AN INTRODUCTION TO ZEN BUDDHISM by D.T. Suzuzki, by the way, a book I highly recommend. However, bear in mind that this is *not* a text that will introduce you to the fundamentals of Buddhism. For that, I recommend WHAT THE BUDDHA TAUGHT by Walpola Rahula.

quote:Originally posted by Lolita:

I've seen Buddha referred to as a "fat man" a few times in this thread.

... who cares if he was fat or not?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



The thread is called "Buddhism Flaws"... therefore, when I see something that does not make logical sense, like desiring to end desire, then I'm obviously going to reply to it.



That is the mistake you're making, Rust, Buddhism is not about being logical, I don't think anyone here has said that it is.

In fact, in Buddhism (an example of this would be a Zen koan) conflicting ideas are presented together deliberately, to challenge your mind, to make you think outside the box, to make you see that the right way is the Middle Way, somewhere in between those two conflicting ideas. So at times Buddhism appears to be contradicting itself, but in reality, it is not.

This is just my opinion, and no doubt someone will disagree with me.

Also, I don't disagree with you that to desire to end desires is a desire, but I do believe there is a way to eliminate desire without desiring to do so. That is Buddhism.

Also, I agree with Lolita, there are many different schools of Buddhism, and there are many views out there on this subject.

quote:Originally posted by Sniper:

... who cares if he was fat or not?

I *don't* care if he was fat. However, someone questioned the possibility of learning wisdom from a fat, rich man. That image of Siddhattha is a common misperception because of the fat, jolly statues you see in stores. I was just pointing out where that misperception comes from (Chinese kitchen gods).

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

Actually, what is the true teaching of the Buddha is a point of constant debate in the Buddhist world. Nothing was written down during the Buddha's lifetime, or for several hundred years afterward. We can only assume it was carried by word of mouth during this time until it was written down.

Then how can you be confident in it's authenticity, let alone it's validity ?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Then how can you be confident in its authenticity, let alone its validity ?



While this question was not directed at me, I'll go ahead and post my thoughts anyway.

The Buddha would say it doesn't matter. He never dogmatically stated that he had the Truth and we must follow and believe. Essentially, he said he had a practical plan to eliminate suffering. If you wanted to see if it worked, try it out for yourself. If you don't find any truth in it, don't listen to him. The Buddha in the suttas encourages individual questioning and experimentation.

For the record, I'm not Buddhist.

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

That is the mistake you're making, Rust, Buddhism is not about being logical, I don't think anyone here has said that it is.

I never said it was. But what other recourse do I have to find flaws in it?

quote:

In fact, in Buddhism (an example of this would be a Zen koan) conflicting ideas are presented together deliberately, to challenge your mind, to make you think outside the box, to make you see that the right way is the Middle Way, somewhere in between those two conflicting ideas. So at times Buddhism appears to be contradicting itself, but in reality, it is not.

Sorry, but if Buddhism is truly up to interpretation, meaning, there are no universal "laws" other than the 4 truths, then how can you claim it isn't contradicting itself? That would be up to interpretation.

THE SHURANGAMA-SUTRA (T. 945): A REAPPRAISAL OF ITS AUTHENTICITY by Ronald Epstein http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/authenticity.htm

- http://acl.arts.usyd.edu.au/~hudson/buddhism_2.htm

I think the division that still exists today in regards to the athenticity of the translation of Guatama Buddha's teachings gives evidence to the fact that it is full of holes.

The following questions can be answered by whomever feels he/she has the answers:

Without a personal God, on what basis can there ever exist any human moral standard or ethic--and therefore, in what sense do you mean for us to understand the terms noble and truth, i.e. The Four Noble Truths, or the term right in the eight-fold path of right views, resolve, speech, conduct, occupation, efforts, awareness, and meditation?

If your teaching, which came on the scene in the sixth century B.C., alone represents truth and liberation--what provision was there for the millions who lived previous to the advent of your enlightenment and teaching? Why do you suppose that you, of all humankind, were the one to come on this insight when you did?

How do we reconcile the Dalai Lama's observation that "Every human being has the potential to create happiness", with your own teaching that suffering is caused by desire? If one sets out to resist desire, why would one ever then entertain the desire for happiness, and thus work to create it?

These are not my own. Admittedly, they come from a MUCH despised website, http://www.christiananswers.net

However, they are valid, and I would be interested in seeing the answers to them.

In conclusion, I leave you with these quotes:

"There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. Frank Zappa

"Enlightenment comes when your third eye is at one with your turd eye and you can see your own shit..." Christopher Wynter

"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all other philosophers are jackasses." Henry Louis (H. L.) Mencken

and for all my attempts at spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ:

"Telling the truth to people who misunderstand you is generally promoting a falsehood, isn't it?" Anonymous

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 10-08-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Lolita:

Finally, if anyone is seriously interested in Buddhism, read some books! Although there are a few people knowledgeable about Buddhism here, it's difficult to trust information gleaned from an online forum. Besides, whatever anybody tells you here, there's going to be a different interpretation somewhere else.

First of all, I would like to say that your post was very well said, and should be considered noteworthy.

However, based on the paragraph above, I would have to say that even in books, interpretations will vary. The perceptions of Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike on an internet forum can presumably be no more accurate, or informative than the perceptions of Buddhist's or non-Buddhist's in printed literature.

I am not saying he SHOULDN'T read some books...by all means. GLEAN whatever sources are available to you, but I would not be so quick to discredit one over the other.

There is an air of superiority to your post, and I think it presents an unecessary dynamic to this conversation.

The original poster was asking for FLAWS in the religion of Buddhism, not WHAT Buddhism is about.

So, essentially you did not answer the poster's question, and basically insulted the rest of the poster's, all in one fell swoop.

*steps off her soapbox*

But thank you for the references. I will be looking them up. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

THE SHURANGAMA-SUTRA (T. 945): A REAPPRAISAL OF ITS AUTHENTICITY by Ronald Epstein http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/authenticity.htm

- http://acl.arts.usyd.edu.au/~hudson/buddhism_2.htm

I think the division that still exists today in regards to the athenticity of the translation of Guatama Buddha's teachings gives evidence to the fact that it is full of holes.





Because of your Christian beliefs, I can see how the authenticity of Buddhist texts would be a problem for you. But, it is not a problem for me, since it really does not matter who wrote it, but what they say.

I don't believe that the texts attributed to Gautama Buddha were actually written by him, since nothing was written down during the Buddha's lifetime, his teachings were first written down a couple of hundreds years after his death. But, as I said, what is being taught is all that matters.

quote:



If your teaching, which came on the scene in the sixth century B.C., alone represents truth and liberation--what provision was there for the millions who lived previous to the advent of your enlightenment and teaching? Why do you suppose that you, of all humankind, were the one to come on this insight when you did?





Isn't it ironic that a Christian website is asking this question of another religion.

It should be made clear that the historical Buddha Gautama has not been the only Buddha, Buddhists believe there have been countless Buddhas in the past and that there will be countless Buddhas in the future. The Buddha did not claim to discover anything new, he claimed only to have rediscovered what has always been here.

That is why I say it does not matter who wrote it, but what it says is important.

quote:



How do we reconcile the Dalai Lama's observation that "Every human being has the potential to create happiness", with your own teaching that suffering is caused by desire? If one sets out to resist desire, why would one ever then entertain the desire for happiness, and thus work to create it?



When I read what the Dalai Lama said, I interpret it to mean that everyone has the ability to create good karma, in other words, happiness.

Being a Buddhist does not mean being an emotionless zombie! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I'll get back to you, Social.



HEY, ANYONE HERE KNOW HOW TO PUT PICTURES AND SUCH IN MY PROFILE ?

I see you guys commenting about each other, and I have scoured the site to figure out how to do this, but have turned up no answers.

Sorry to get off topic...

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I'll get back to you, Social.



HEY, ANYONE HERE KNOW HOW TO PUT PICTURES AND SUCH IN MY PROFILE ?

I see you guys commenting about each other, and I have scoured the site to figure out how to do this, but have turned up no answers.

Sorry to get off topic...

I don't believe it can be done, I've never seen a picture displayed directly in the profile. I guess you could post a link to a picture in the space where your website would go.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

These are not my own. Admittedly, they come from a MUCH despised website, http://www.christiananswers.net

It might be my destiny to come to threads about Buddhism where Digital_Savior posts this link and tell everyone who knows nothing about Buddhism not to click it because what is written there is complete bullshit.

Yes, I fail to learn how to keep silent, I talk too much trash for a Buddhist, though christiananswers.net is bullshit online.

What they do their is what LaVey often does in his books - bitching and moaning about other religions.

Christiananswers suck.

From what I know about Christianity, I can't even call all the morons responsible for creating those site Christians. I don't believe all Christians are morons. At least I want to.

If your teaching, which came on the scene in the sixth century B.C., alone represents truth and liberation--what provision was there for the millions who lived previous to the advent of your enlightenment and teaching? Why do you suppose that you, of all humankind, were the one to come on this insight when you did?

Couldn't you ask the same question about Christianity and nearly every other religion?

quote:Originally posted by NurotiK_SykotiK:



If your teaching, which came on the scene in the sixth century B.C., alone represents truth and liberation--what provision was there for the millions who lived previous to the advent of your enlightenment and teaching?

... I don't know.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

First of all, I would like to say that your post was very well said, and should be considered noteworthy.

However, based on the paragraph above, I would have to say that even in books, interpretations will vary. The perceptions of Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike on an internet forum can presumably be no more accurate, or informative than the perceptions of Buddhist's or non-Buddhist's in printed literature.

I am not saying he SHOULDN'T read some books...by all means. GLEAN whatever sources are available to you, but I would not be so quick to discredit one over the other.

There is an air of superiority to your post, and I think it presents an unecessary dynamic to this conversation.

The original poster was asking for FLAWS in the religion of Buddhism, not WHAT Buddhism is about.

So, essentially you did not answer the poster's question, and basically insulted the rest of the poster's, all in one fell swoop.

*steps off her soapbox*

But thank you for the references. I will be looking them up. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



I would tend to disagree that the opinions of scholars in books carry no more weight than the opinions of a group of people on an Internet message board. For example, if you were writing a paper for a course, you would presumably use academic books and articles and not posts from totse as your sources. If you said, "But SexxxyGuy69 online said it was true!", your professor probably wouldn't go for it.

As Siddhattha would have said, though, question everything! Don't believe what anyone tells you just because they say so, even me.

I did not mean to insult anyone or to sound superior. Honestly, when I come here to post is usually directly after responding to e-mails from my students. (I'm a professor for a world religions class.) As a teacher, you tend to take a certain tone with your students, and sometimes it comes out when talking to others, even when you don't intend it to. Additionally, we're studying Buddhism in my class right now, so perhaps that's why my post came out the way it did.

Asking for "flaws" in a religion, in my view, is to misunderstand what religion is all about. [However, I realize that most posters here don't take that view.] If you are going to apply the principles of Englightenment-derived rationality to religion, then all religions fail. Of course, this would inevitably bring up a debate about what "rationality" consists of and we'd have another conversation going. I love such discussions - it is my field, after all - but unfortunately don't have time for them.

The reason I posted the Zen passage was to show that Buddhism (perhaps Zen in particular) tries to break the individual out of the rational mindset and into a new way of viewing the world. The passage didn't make any rational sense, and that was the point.

I also thought that it would make more sense to try to understand Buddhism before you try to criticize it or find fault with it. That's why I posted the titles of introductory texts.

Thanks for looking up my references, too. The Rahula text WHAT THE BUDDHA TAUGHT is particularly good, as it introduces you to the fundamentals. AN INTRODUCTION TO ZEN BUDDHISM should not be considered representative of Buddhism as a whole, naturally. The book is amazing, though, and changed my life. It made me want to specialize in Zen Buddhism, although I changed my mind somewhere along the way. I have too many interests and passions, you might say. All religions fascinate me.



EDIT: Sorry to recommend so many books, but I just thought I'd also mention THE BUDDHIST RELIGION: A HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION by Richard Robinson and Willard Johnson. The Rahula text is the most useful if you want to learn....well, what the Buddha taught [ http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)] at the most basic level. If you want to look at Buddhism as a whole, though, its history and development, then this is a really good text. It shows you how diverse the religion actually is (and thus difficult to make generalizations about).



[This message has been edited by Lolita (edited 10-08-2004).]

I, too, sense an air of arrogance about Lolita.... If you really thing that books are more informing than our posts then perhaps everyone should ignore what you said?... Does it not matter that you are a teacher?? You think this should hold no weight? Social and myself are buddhists and I think if people want to take what we say as truth than so be it. I would appreciate it if you didn't undermine the intelligence of the forum as you did in your opening post either...... Good Day.

I'm an asian buddhist.

That makes me better than you^.

quote:Originally posted by Ezratal:

I, too, sense an air of arrogance about Lolita.... If you really thing that books are more informing than our posts then perhaps everyone should ignore what you said?... Does it not matter that you are a teacher?? You think this should hold no weight? Social and myself are buddhists and I think if people want to take what we say as truth than so be it. I would appreciate it if you didn't undermine the intelligence of the forum as you did in your opening post either...... Good Day.



Oh, for chrissakes, I'm not undermining the intelligence of the forum. I simply said that if you're looking for accurate information about Buddhism, you're more likely to find it in books than you are on an Internet message board. I was including myself in that designation. I, too, am on an Internet message board. How do you know I'm a professor? You don't. I could be a 13 year old kid living with my parents. One should question everything one reads, and one should especially question it if it comes from the Internet. That was my point. That was all.

All entities posess the potential to have understanding of Dharma. Whether you are a 13 yr old or a college professor doesn't change your message. What you said remains.... As it IS only an online forum words are soley important. One who speaks wisely is wise... Age,sex, and creed play no importance in this.

quote:Originally posted by Ezratal:

All entities posess the potential to have understanding of Dharma. Whether you are a 13 yr old or a college professor doesn't change your message. What you said remains.... As it IS only an online forum words are soley important. One who speaks wisely is wise... Age,sex, and creed play no importance in this.

Fair enough.

However, I've been viewing threads in these forums for a few months and have seen quite a few inaccuracies about Buddhism. A newcomer to Buddhism could read these and get the wrong idea.

Anyone can post and claim knowledge of Buddhism. That doesn't mean one should automatically believe them simply because they have claimed it. It is healthy to have such skepticism about stated claims. Siddhattha would say the same, don't you agree?

I offer no rebuttal.

quote:Originally posted by jurainus:

Ok, thanks Sean. It cleared some things.

One question, this is more of a flaw question...

Buddhists have rationally thought that no good or evil exists. But how come good and evil things exist to the law of karma? How exactly the law of karma decides what's good and what's evil(that requires good and evil of somekind)?

Could you please answer that one too... I love to clear my knowledge on religions.

It's possible I browsed through the answers too quickly and didn't see the reply, but I believe nobody answered this. Could someone with the propher knowledge of Buddhism. Because I don't have enough knowledge on the subject and it's been bugging me.

Buddhism entails a set of morals and ethics just as every other religion does. They do not "rationally believe there is no good or evil" and I have no idea where you came up with this... The 5-precepts are as follows: not to take the life of anything living, not to take anything not freely given, to abstain from sexual misconduct (and any sensual overindulgance), to refrain from untrue speech, and to avoid losing mindfulness (through drugs or otherwise). - Note these are only the main 5 precepts. This should be enough of an answer to your question though.

quote:Originally posted by Ezratal:

They do not "rationally believe there is no good or evil" and I have no idea where you came up with this...

I would have to disagree with you there. I would argue that Buddhists (I do, anyway) believe that the ideas of absolute "good" and "evil" are just distinctions created by the human mind, and do not actually exist, they are one of the many illusions in this world of samsara. I would say Buddhist morals are defined as acts that maximize good karma and minimize bad karma as much as possible. But, yet again, you notice I had to use the words "good" and "bad" in that definition, as well. Why is that? Because my mind knows no better way to express those ideas at the moment is the only answer I can give, because my mind is the product of a series of causes and conditions in this world we live in.

I will admit that it is tricky to define the Buddhist ideas of good and bad, that they don't exist yet they appear in Buddhist literature, that it might seem like another paradox, but it's not, it's just another example of Buddhism training your mind to think outside the box.

Mindfulness of the effects of what one says/does is a key principle in the path to nibbana... Do you not follow the precepts? Are they meaningless to you? I also feel that emotions and good and evil are illusions of samsara but you must recognize others' rights to feel they way the want to/think the way they want to. If you hurt someone's feelings purposely you know this has caused them to feel bad and therefore the action was bad.

His ethical system is ultimately practical:

An action is good if it brings you closer to the elimination of suffering, and an action is bad if it brings you further from the elimination of suffering.

That was stated perfectly. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Why, thank you. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Naturally, it gets more specific (like you noted with the precepts), but I think that's really the heart of it.

It's very different from Western traditions in that respect, in that there is no God *commanding* you to do good, and not bad. An action is not intrinsically good or bad, but good or bad depending on what it leads to. This theory of causality (paticcasamuppada, or "dependent origination") is really at the center of Buddhism. As Siddhattha observed, "One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the dhamma sees dependent origination."

I believe we could define buddhist good and evil with a scientifical experiment. First we need a unit of "individuals distance to enlightement". Let's call it [B]. Then we need some newborns and raise them differently to do certain things. Then we'd kill them. We'd track their buddha-natures and count their new form's [B]. If the [B] is bigger then it used to be, the thing (s)he did was good and we'll mark it in our books. If the [B] is not so high as it used to be, the things done were bad. Then it could be reliased as a book 'Law of Karma Reverse-engineered' http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

So I guess G & E exists if the law of karma is real? Or why not?

quote:Originally posted by jurainus:

I believe we could define buddhist good and evil with a scientifical experiment. First we need a unit of "individuals distance to enlightement". Let's call it [B]. Then we need some newborns and raise them differently to do certain things. Then we'd kill them. We'd track their buddha-natures and count their new form's [B]. If the [B] is bigger then it used to be, the thing (s)he did was good and we'll mark it in our books. If the [B] is not so high as it used to be, the things done were bad. Then it could be reliased as a book 'Law of Karma Reverse-engineered' http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

So I guess G & E exists if the law of karma is real? Or why not?

While I realize your proposed experiment was facetious, was your final question serious?

If so, where did you see me mention "karma" in my post?

Before I answer your question, though, I'd have to ask what you think is meant by the term Buddhist term "karma" since it is considerably different from prevailing Indian conceptions at the Buddha's time and from misconceptions in our culture today.

Some Buddhist sayings I came across today, maybe they'll clarify some of the stuff that's been talked about.

"When you no longer make any distinction between the water of this pool and the water of the Ganges, then you will know that you have Perfect Knowledge."

-Ramakrishna

"Please do not get caught in that place where you think you know."

-Zen saying

Buddhists don't disbelieve there is Good and Evil. They believe that Good can not exist without Evil. Likewise, Evil can not exist without Good. Its the Ying and the Yang. If in your self you see Good, then in your self there is Evil. You cannot be one or the other.

An example:

"As a young man, I would try and help anyone I could. It made me happy. Then I would help more and feel even happier. Then I realised that I would help people to feel happy. This selfishness made me unhappy."

-Dalai Lama

Westerners Struggle with this. How can you be Good and Evil?. Christianity has taught us; Those that Believe God is your Saviour are Good, Those who don't are Evil... They believe in PEOPLE; Some people are Good, some people are Evil... Buddhist believe in SELF; or better yet, mind... Good people are neglecting to see their evilness... To see only Goodness in self, is evil. To see your evilness is Good... The balance is to know you are neither... Find the middle path...

"The Brightest light casts the Darkest shadow of a tree. The objective is not to dull the light in order to dull the shadow. The objective is to be the tree."

[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 10-12-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

Buddhism is a very flexible religion, it does not adhere to rigid dogma like other world religions.

As a Buddhist, I (and Sean) would be happy to address any questions people might have on Buddhism.

You are NOT a buddhist

quote:Originally posted by prince charles:

You are NOT a buddhist



?

quote:Originally posted by Axiom:

Buddhists don't disbelieve there is Good and Evil. They believe that Good can not exist without Evil. Likewise, Evil can not exist without Good. Its the Ying and the Yang. If in your self you see Good, then in your self there is Evil. You cannot be one or the other.

[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 10-12-2004).]

I could be wrong, though I doubt it. I believe, though, that the idea of yin and yang is belonging to Taoism, not Buddhism. I do know, however, that I do not accept the idea that evil is necessary for good to exist. I find it perplexing to imagine that the rest of the Buddhist community feels this way either since we practice mindfulness of others' feelings and eliminating all of what could be considered evil in our own lives.



[This message has been edited by Ezratal (edited 10-13-2004).]

Yin Yan ideas are Taoist.

Leave it out of the buddhist discussions.

Thanks for clearing that up.... I wouldn't have.

quote:Originally posted by prince charles:

You are NOT a buddhist



Oh damn, you found me out. Blast.

As other people have mentioned, I'm not sure why "ying and yang" keep getting mentioned here, while they are a part of Eastern philosophy, I have not heard them mentioned in Buddhist literature.

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

Yin Yan ideas are Taoist.

Leave it out of the buddhist discussions.



Thats all you can add... And you're the buddhist?

Buddism arrived in China around the 6th century... Merged with Chinese traditional philosophy, including Taoism (Meaning The Way)... Taoism is much older than buddhism, and is used as the base philosophy of some Zen Buddhists...

To say Taoism has nothing to do with Buddhism is false... They have two different labels for convience... I agree they're not the same (differing slightly), but however they have much to do with one and other...

Due to the nature of Buddhists, both have been followed con-currently, though they wouldn't feel the need to label them as different... Limiting knowledge is not what Buddhists are about...

quote:Originally posted by Axiom:



To say Taoism has nothing to do with Buddhism is false... They have two different labels for convience... I agree they're not the same (differing slightly), but however they have much to do with one and other...



Yes, I'm not disagreeing with you there, it's just that it seemed that some people were under the impression that "Ying and Yang" were Buddhist ideas, not Taoist.

Also, Taoism is about the same age as Buddhism, depending on who you ask. Taoism and Lao-tzu have been dated at or around the 6th century BC, and the Buddha's birthdate has been said to be around 563-483 BC. But, of course, the early origins of both philosophies go back farther than that.



[This message has been edited by Social Junker (edited 10-13-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by NurotiK_SykotiK:



If your teaching, which came on the scene in the sixth century B.C., alone represents truth and liberation--what provision was there for the millions who lived previous to the advent of your enlightenment and teaching? Why do you suppose that you, of all humankind, were the one to come on this insight when you did?

Couldn't you ask the same question about Christianity and nearly every other religion?



For Christianity, the provision for salvation was blood sacrifice.

Animals were slaughtered on altars to God, their blood atoning for their sins.

This was not NECESSAARY, in terms of salvation, but NECESSERY in terms of repentence.

It is also a picture of the life and death of Jesus Christ, the ultimate sacrifice.

One he came and died, there was no further need for blood sacrifices.

Anyway, the "Christians" prior to Christ received salvation differently, but they still received it.