1...2....3...GO!

Bitch slap motha fucka!!!!!!!!!!!!

well, buddha became a god, but jesus was a god from the start, so jesus wins.

Buddha can subsist on a grain of rice a day.

Buddha wins.

At no point was Buddha a god. He was later co-opted by the Hindus as a deity, but traditional Buddhism is atheistic in nature.

quote:Originally posted by literary syphilis:

At no point was Buddha a god. He was later co-opted by the Hindus as a deity, but traditional Buddhism is atheistic in nature.

Uh, Buddhism has a theory on the after life, and Buddha is a god in Mahayana.

Siddhartha was a prince in a warrior clan, he was specially trained in the art of warfare.

Jesus was a carpenter.

Religious Icon DEATH-MATCH Deathbowl 2005

In the left corner, The Awakened One, the man once prophecized to either conquer the world or save it, The Buddha!

In the right corner, The Hebrew Hammer, defier of death, The Christ!

Ding!

And they're off! The Buddha draws his blade and swings, a strange look of perfect serenity about his face.

[appropriate onomatapea]

OH! The Lamb of God doesn't even try to dodge! Jesus of Nazarath is down! Jesus of Nazarath is down!

Wait, whats this? Oh my contestants, I don't believe it! Jesus has ressurrected! Clearly, if the Spear of Destiny and a crusifixion weren't enough to keep Christ down, Buddha's not going to win that easy!

Jesus seems to be saying something, Ladies and Gentleman, I think he's forgiving The Buddha! Siddharta Guatama doesn't seem to care! It's as though he has no desires regarding the outcome of tonight's main event! With a shrug he pulls back for another swing...

OH! Christ is down again.

Ladies and Gentleman, I suggest you get some refreshments, (draft Miller Lite for only $12 a bottle, or $97 a bucket), this could take a while!



Edited for improved epicness.

[This message has been edited by SurahAhriman (edited 11-11-2005).]

Buddha can walk and talk the day he was bornt!

Nuff said!

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Uh, Buddhism has a theory on the after life, and Buddha is a god in Mahayana.

Shakyamuni Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) never, at any point, claimed divine inspiration or that he was a god in any form. And to call nirvana an "after-life" is a pretty goddamn tenuous claim at best.

quote:Originally posted by literary syphilis:

Shakyamuni Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) never, at any point, claimed divine inspiration or that he was a god in any form. And to call nirvana an "after-life" is a pretty goddamn tenuous claim at best.

I meant reincarnation as the afterlife. And I know the Buddha rejected Gods, but Mahayana Buddhism is the "lay" form. When Buddhism was first starting alot of peasants and such just stole a ton of ideas from Hinduism, and just made Buddha their god of preference. Therevada is the more scholarly path, and closer to what the Buddha actually taught.

Reincarnation is by no means a core tenet of Buddhism, having far more to do with the caste system of Hinduism. Additionally, Therevada Buddhism is the least syncretised form out of the two (Mahayana and Therevada), and thus is the one I am addressing.

Admittedly, it is rather hard to separate what is actually truly Buddhist from other cultural practises, but to the best of my knowledge it was atheistic and did not have an afterlife as such (other than the concept of nirvana).

I only mentioned Mahayana to point out that some people do consider the Buddha a God. It's a bastardization, but they do make up a signifigant portion, possibly even a majority.

And nirvana is defined as the cessation of the cycle of life, death, and rebirth. I'm positive that reincarnation is a core concept.

it's obvious that literary syphilis has you beat at every turn.

greater vehicle buddhism, or mahayana, ironically came after lesser vehicle buddhism and does worship buddha as a god. most buddhists today are mahayana, and saying greater vehicle buddhism isn't valid because it came after is like denying protestant doctrines validity simply because they aren't as old as catholic doctrines.

on the other hand, the whole point of buddhism is that you don't have to wait to be incarnated as a brahman to be reunited with the godhead, nirvana, or whatever, as in hinduism. so reincarnation is not an integral part of buddhism, and in any case it could not be considered an afterlife.

You just keep talking out of your ass, don't you?

So you agree with me, that Mahayana Buddhism worships the Buddha as a God. And presumably, you would then know that Mahayana is massively more bastardized by the Hindu influences Buddha was specifically out to remove, such as considering him a God. As opposed to Thereavada, which follows original teachings much more closely. It's similar to Christianity. Protestants tend to just take the Bible, as opposed to Catholics, who've spent two millenia cruising on the USS Make-Shit-Up. Catholics and Mahayana have better stories, but within the scope the their own religion, they're further afield from the truth.

And yes, as a Buddhist, you do not have to wait to be a Brahman to attain nirvana. Thats because the Buddha opposed the entire Hindu caste system, not just that one aspect.

Pay attention,this is the part that makes you a dumbfuck.

If I were a Buddhist, then I would believe that after this life, comes a passing through of the Godhead, during which my concious memories would be removed/repressed, and that I would then be reborn back to the mortal coil. Reincarnation, is an afterlife theory, dumbass. If there were no reincarnation, then there would be no Buddhism. The entire point is that this world is suffering. And you're just going to keep coming back, for eternity, unless you break that cycle through nirvana. Without reincarnation, you could just escape the mortal world of suffering with a bullet.

af·ter·life Audio pronunciation of "afterlife" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ftr-lf)

n.

1. A life or existence believed to follow death.

2. The part of one's life that follows a particular event.

Wikipedia lists reincarnation as a form of an afterlife.

Seriously, it's like you don't understand Buddhism at all. Do you even understand what non-Dualism is? Or did you skim over than when you looked up what Mahayana and Theravada meant?

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

Siddhartha was a prince in a warrior clan, he was specially trained in the art of warfare.

Jesus was a carpenter.

Hmm...this is a tough one. Put on a fresh pot of coffee, boys, its going to be a looooooong night...

quote:Originally posted by Shits Hardcore:

1...2....3...GO!

Bitch slap motha fucka!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's not because you put it in MGCBTSOOYG that it belongs here. It's not worthy of an intelligent discussion. It's typical SG stuff.

Mod ? Do you agree ?

Oh Reginald...I disagree!



No, he's right.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

And nirvana is defined as the cessation of the cycle of life, death, and rebirth. I'm positive that reincarnation is a core concept.

quote:From Wikipedia:

This doctrine is a central tenet within Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Surat Shabda Yoga, some African religions, as well as various other religions teachings and esoteric philosophies. Most modern Pagans also believe in reincarnation. Transmigration is similar but considers inter-species embodiments, whereas Reincarnation of a human being is always as a human being.

Reincarnation is traditionally understood to be akin to the Buddhist concept of Rebirth, but in fact the two concepts are very distinct philosophically - Buddhism teaches that there is no self to reincarnate. An alternative view is that the teachings of Buddhism might stress one aspect, the teachings of Hinduism might stress another aspect, but that an advanced Buddhist and an advanced Hindu would directly perceive the phenomenon of reincarnation identically.

That's like sending two hippies to fight each other... it won't happen, they'll just hug. Now, bring in Zoroaster, and let the fighting begin.

quote:Originally posted by Inti:

Buddha can subsist on a grain of rice a day.

Buddha wins.

I think Buddha loses because no 600 pound glutton should be teaching anyone about self-restraint. (Get to the back of the line, fatty!)

i meant that you don't have to be reincarnated up the chain to the point where you could achieve nirvana.

quote: Originally posted by literary syphilis:

...And to call nirvana an "after-life" is a pretty goddamn tenuous claim at best.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

I meant reincarnation as the afterlife...

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

[B]...after this life, comes a passing through of the Godhead...

well, which is it? looks like you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I think Buddha loses because no 600 pound glutton should be teaching anyone about self-restraint. (Get to the back of the line, fatty!)

Buddha wasn't fat. You're thinking about the Hindu deity Hotei (patron god of wealth and happiness), who has been continually mislabelled as "Buddha" by any number of stupid American tourists.

quote:Originally posted by literary syphilis:

Buddha wasn't fat. You're thinking about the Hindu deity Hotei (patron god of wealth and happiness), who has been continually mislabelled as "Buddha" by any number of stupid American tourists.

All the Buddhists temples I've ever been to have the typical effigy of the fat, enlightened one, to whom they call 'Buddha'. That's good enough for me. Stupid American or not, maybe they should get their deities straight so as to not confuse the stupid Americans.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

All the Buddhists temples I've ever been to have the typical effigy of the fat, enlightened one, to whom they call 'Buddha'. That's good enough for me. Stupid American or not, maybe they should get their deities straight so as to not confuse the stupid Americans.

In all my time in South-East Asia, (Indonesia, Thailand, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore) as well as the three and a half years I spent in Japan, I never saw a fat Buddha.

Even your Buddhists are stupid. How depressing.

Even your Buddhists are stupid. How depressing.[/QUOTE]

They aren't my Buddhists. Is this an attack on Americans or Buddhists?

A not-so oblique criticism of Americans in general.

That said, my ladyfriend (whom I love very much) is also American.

Oh, irony.

Yes, I know that the ego is not passed on from lifetime to lifetime. My Buddhist professor with a doctorate in Theology explained it as something deeper than the self, a concept beyond the scope of a 300 level undergraduate course. She always referred to it as reincarnation.

Ken, you show your ignorance. According to Buddhist belief, when you die, your self briefly rejoins the Atman, often reffered to as the God-head. This acts as a kind of seive, that removes the concious memories of the previous life, in preperation for the next one. There is no contradiction, merely the fact that you aren't familiar with the terminology. The idea of reincarnation, or transmigration, or whatever the hell you want to call it, is an explaination for what comes after the life processes of the body cease. It is an afterlife. It is not the Christian concept of the afterlife, or even a western one, yet it is one nonetheless. Get your head out of you ass.

literary, if we're just quibbling over terminology, then whatever. Perhaps the several professors, as well as the multiple textbooks I've had all referred to the concept as reincarnation to dumb it down to idiot Americans. "Reincarnation" isn't even on dictionary.com, so it's kind of hard to get a real definition. Replace whenever I said reincarnation before with rebirth. My intention remains the same. I'm not even sure what we're argueing about beyond ken being a dumbass.

Also, your wikipedia quote seems fucked. It's not from their page on nirvana, and in Hinduism at least, a human can come back as an animal.

Forgive me if I'm incomprehensible. I'm getting to this after a night of heavy drinking.

Every scholarly study on Buddhist religion I have conducted, either for school or for personal recreation, is in complete accordance with Ahriman's words.

Anyone who disagrees from this point on gets a jab in the kidneys.

whatever, man. i knew all that shit before you posted it. my point, which you ignored, is that first you said the buddhist afterlife is in being reunited with the godhead, then you said it was the actual reincarnation in a new body when it was pointed out that if "I" doesn't exist then it could hardly be called an afterlif, then you said is was nirvana (a slightly different concept)

in any case, jesus wins, because white people are better than asian people http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

whatever, man. i knew all that shit before you posted it. my point, which you ignored, is that first you said the buddhist afterlife is in being reunited with the godhead, then you said it was the actual reincarnation in a new body when it was pointed out that if "I" doesn't exist then it could hardly be called an afterlif, then you said is was nirvana (a slightly different concept)

in any case, jesus wins, because white people are better than asian people http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Wow. You managed to misunderstand every single thing I said.

quote:Originally posted by literary syphilis:

Buddha wasn't fat. You're thinking about the Hindu deity Hotei (patron god of wealth and happiness), who has been continually mislabelled as "Buddha" by any number of stupid American tourists.

Hotei is Chinese. In China, being fat is or was a symbol of happiness because it suggests you are wealthy.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Yes, I know that the ego is not passed on from lifetime to lifetime.

Ken, you show your ignorance. According to Buddhist belief, when you die, your self briefly rejoins the Atman, often reffered to as the God-head. This acts as a kind of seive, that removes the concious memories of the previous life, in preperation for the next one. There is no contradiction, merely the fact that you aren't familiar with the terminology. The idea of reincarnation, or transmigration, or whatever the hell you want to call it, is an explaination for what comes after the life processes of the body cease. It is an afterlife. It is not the Christian concept of the afterlife, or even a western one, yet it is one nonetheless. Get your head out of you ass.



i was familiar with it before. the point is once you said the afterlife was when you are reincarnated, and once you said it was before you are reincarnated. i think you need to go back and re-read it when you're not drunk. neither one could be called an afterlife, because for all intents and purposes, you no longer exist.

All the figurines of Buddha show his 'enlightenment'. He is depicted with a shit-eatin' grin on his face when achieved Nirvana. I always thought that the way to achieve Nirvana was to insolate yourself from any and all thought, especailly that would connote emotion. What's up with that?

most of the ones i've seen have the slight smile, like a mona lisa smile or something. you must be thinking of the smiling, fat 'buddha' they are talking about...

http://tinyurl.com/bw4zo

That's the Buddha.

He doesn't look very fat to me.

EDIT: Image tags fucked.



[This message has been edited by Inti (edited 11-13-2005).]

And, for comparison, a rendition and information about Hotei. (http://tinyurl.com/ctb9s)

[This message has been edited by literary syphilis (edited 11-13-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:



i was familiar with it before. the point is once you said the afterlife was when you are reincarnated, and once you said it was before you are reincarnated. i think you need to go back and re-read it when you're not drunk. neither one could be called an afterlife, because for all intents and purposes, you no longer exist.

Yet something is still passed on. It's not the ego, but it is still suffecient for karma to specify. My actions in this life will not effect some arbirary other person 9 months after I die. In a fundamental way, that trancends the self, that person will still be me, and the substance that person is made of will directly be affected by my decisions and experiences.

Seriously, it's like you understand a single point that you extrapolate to a conclusion. Then someone says something contradictory, but they're not wrong. You just don't understand enough. I've been in your position before, but I'm on the other side for this one.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Uh, Buddhism has a theory on the after life, and Buddha is a god in Mahayana.

quote:Originally posted by literary syphilis:

At no point was Buddha a god. He was later co-opted by the Hindus as a deity, but traditional Buddhism is atheistic in nature.

This is the most meaningless debate. The only valid contention made is that the Buddha is used by the Hindus as a god.

You both try to fiat (look that up, syphilis) your facts, when in reality nobody knows what traditional Buddhism really is; the Buddha's teachings were passed on orally for a thousand or two years, and the bastardization is immense any way you look at it. I don't care if you guys want to go on debating subjective interpretations of flawed literature, but don't fiat your sources as the untainted, pure Buddhism because neither are.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

You both try to fiat (look that up, syphilis) your facts, when in reality nobody knows what traditional Buddhism really is; the Buddha's teachings were passed on orally for a thousand or two years, and the bastardization is immense any way you look at it. I don't care if you guys want to go on debating subjective interpretations of flawed literature, but don't fiat your sources as the untainted, pure Buddhism because neither are.

So you know, "fiat" is a noun, and is not used as a denominative.

(I tell you for your own good. After all, I wouldn't want you to look like an idiot in front of all these nice people).

Don't be a smartass. It doesn't suit you.

[This message has been edited by literary syphilis (edited 11-14-2005).]

Additionally, deptstoremook, I'd be interested to see that evidence you can provide that would suggest that Therevada Buddhism has been substantially bastardised. What inherently makes your posit more valid than ours, given that you have no supporting data of your own? Our texts may be flawed, but at least we have some continuity of evidence.

[This message has been edited by literary syphilis (edited 11-14-2005).]

Buddha D.O.B = 567 B.C. (approx)

Jebus D.O.B. = 0 B.C.

Buddha kindof owns jesus's own calendar.

also, buddha's original cult philosophy is quite flawless while, many verses in the bible contradict each other

Thus, Buddha >>> Christ

quote:Originally posted by Inti:

http://tinyurl.com/bw4zo

That's the Buddha.

He doesn't look very fat to me.

Yes, that's the Buddha.

He doesn't look fat, and he shouldn't, as he fasted intensively during his search for enlightenment.

quote:Originally posted by literary syphilis:

So you know, "fiat" is a noun, and is not used as a denominative.



It's understandable that dictionary.com might not have all the forms of the word, but your ignorance doesn't equal my humiliation.

(Random Logical Fallacy--Guess which one!) -- Plus, if the national champion cross-examination team can use it as a verb, so can I (appeal to authority lawl).

quote:Additionally, deptstoremook, I'd be interested to see that evidence you can provide that would suggest that Therevada Buddhism has been substantially bastardised. What inherently makes your posit more valid than ours, given that you have no supporting data of your own? [i]Our texts may be flawed[i], but at least we have some continuity of evidence.

Ok, I italicized the part that will serve as my "supporting data." By admitting your texts are flawed you admit to bastardization >> substantial is a subjective term so I will now clarify it to mean 'any at all' >> All forms of Buddhism are substantially bastardized, by your own admission. Pwnt. Plus I'm contesting your claim so I don't need any preponderance of evidence or anything, because all I need to do is poke one hole in your claim and I win--it's called burden of proof, and you've got it.

PS -- Buddha is a general term so the 'fat buddha' can technically be referred to as a Buddha. Wrong again, fag. Not to mention that your reliance on wikipedia as a source undermines your arguments' warrants.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

It's understandable that dictionary.com might not have all the forms of the word, but your ignorance doesn't equal my humiliation.

(Random Logical Fallacy--Guess which one!) -- Plus, if the national champion cross-examination team can use it as a verb, so can I (appeal to authority lawl).

If you're going to appeal to authority, at least appeal to an authority on the English language (such as the Oxford English Dictionary), instead of the "National Champion Cross-Examination Team." I should also mention that the Oxford only mentions the word "fiat" as a noun, and not a denominative.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

Ok, I italicized the part that will serve as my "supporting data." By admitting your texts are flawed you admit to bastardization >> substantial is a subjective term so I will now clarify it to mean 'any at all' >> All forms of Buddhism are substantially bastardized, by your own admission. Pwnt. Plus I'm contesting your claim so I don't need any preponderance of evidence or anything, because all I need to do is poke one hole in your claim and I win--it's called burden of proof, and you've got it.

Goodness gracious me! You've gone and redefined the word "flawed" on us all without telling anyone. That's rather bad form, particularly given that your criticism relies so heavily on shaky semantics.

quote:PS -- Buddha is a general term so the 'fat buddha' can technically be referred to as a Buddha. Wrong again, fag. Not to mention that your reliance on wikipedia as a source undermines your arguments' warrants.

"Buddha" (the proper noun, with a capital /b/) is only used to refer to Siddhartha Gautama. Hotei is a buddha, but he is not Buddha.

It is also worth noting that I was providing the wikipedia link for information, not as the crux of my argument. You obviously think very highly of your intelligence - the least you could do is try to live up to it.

Also: "Not to mention that your reliance on wikipedia as a source undermines your arguments' warrants."

OW, MY GRAMMAR.

[This message has been edited by literary syphilis (edited 11-15-2005).]

I love watching grammar nazi's go at it. Dept and lit, are you both English Majors?

Edit: Spelled my own language wrong.

[This message has been edited by SurahAhriman (edited 11-15-2005).]

Nope. Linguistics and art history.