Written by Guest on 15.02.2008 at 07:11

Written by totaliteraliter on 15.02.2008 at 00:35

Written by Guest on 14.02.2008 at 23:11
In Buddhism, there is no God to offer the rewards and mete out the punishments. There is no God who judges...

Yama?

Yama is from Hindu mythology. Buddha never used deities of any kind in his teachings, although I understand that later Buddhist sects absorbed some of the characters from Hinduism and other religions. The Buddha himself has become something of a God, although that was never his original intention.

i think it dpends on what area of buddhist nature you talking about
there is 3 main ares( i think)
but, some beleive buddha was merely a man
others believe he was a supernatural being

@Harmonic: That's a good way of putting it

@Dane Train: I think it was down syndrome

Wow the following celebrities are Buddhists:


Tina Turner
Jet Li
Orlando Bloom
Courtney Love
Tiger Woods
Angelina Jolie

Written by Guest on 27.02.2008 at 02:21

Wow the following celebrities are Buddhists:


Tina Turner
Jet Li
Orlando Bloom
Courtney Love
Tiger Woods
Angelina Jolie

holy shit
i would have picked jet li, and maybe tiger
but the others, well, they dont exactly seem like buddhists
but then again
you never know

Written by Fuath on 27.02.2008 at 08:04

Written by Guest on 27.02.2008 at 02:21

Wow the following celebrities are Buddhists:


Tina Turner
Jet Li
Orlando Bloom
Courtney Love
Tiger Woods
Angelina Jolie

holy shit
i would have picked jet li, and maybe tiger
but the others, well, they dont exactly seem like buddhists
but then again
you never know

I notice that you picked all the Asian ones of the bunch

In Buddhism, we recognise that all beings have 'Buddha Nature' (meaning that they all have the potential to be enlightened). Also, anybody can be Buddhist. I was actually semi-surprised that Jet Li was Buddhist because in all his roles, he uses much violence.....but those are just characters he portrays though so then I understood haha. Hmmm But......Orlando Bloom was also a surprise because my god-sister and her friends met him while he was filming a few scene for Pirates Of The Caribbean down here in The Bahamas, and apparently he was arrogant. As a Buddhist, there should be no desire to be arrogant or egotistical.

personally I'm against buddhism. It's against human nature to have no desire or greed. All beings are egocentrical, directly or indirectly, everything they do, they do for themselves. And to be honest, meditating by themselves and reaching nirvana alone is quite egocentrical too. celibacy should be an ideal for monks, not a rule. But i have to say i'm against practicly all religions, even if this is a filosofy it's a very religious one.

Written by belisarius on 27.02.2008 at 16:44

personally I'm against buddhism. It's against human nature to have no desire or greed.

Buddhists are well aware of this. Attaining enlightenment is not like graduation where you've proven yourself and that's it. The aspirant must continually work to rise above human nature. It is a lifelong journey.

Written by belisarius on 27.02.2008 at 16:44

All beings are egocentrical, directly or indirectly, everything they do, they do for themselves.

We are at the center of our own realities. We control ourselves, and ourselves only. Buddhism does not try to change this, for it cannot be changed. But there are two fundamental ways of acting: (1) out of self-interest where we are focused on personal gain, and (2) out of an interest for the well-being of all creation. The first is egocentric, the second is not. Fear consumes us when we contemplate giving up our self-interest because the ego perceives this as a threat. But there is no threat, only fear. Facing that fear is one of the challenges on the path to enlightenment.

Written by belisarius on 27.02.2008 at 16:44

And to be honest, meditating by themselves and reaching nirvana alone is quite egocentrical too.

Buddhist monks in the predominant Mahayana tradition are anything but selfish recluses. Meditating is only half the picture. The other half is a commitment to serving society through charitable works. In Mahayana Buddhism, the ultimate goal is the liberation of all creation from suffering.

Reaching nirvana alone? What do you mean by alone? The ego does not reach nirvana. In truth, it is not possible to speak of what reaches nirvana. Or to be more precise, there is no reaching nirvana; it is not a goal to be attained*. It is right here, right now. If you are confused then you are starting to understand.


* The word nirvana means "blown" as in the extinguishing of a candle flame. Nirvana is the absence of ego. Action cannot lead to nirvana, because action itself arises from the ego.

Written by belisarius on 27.02.2008 at 16:44

celibacy should be an ideal for monks, not a rule.

There is no ideal. There is no rule. A monk is celibate. A man who is not celibate is not a monk. Ideals can be tarnished. Rules can be broken. But the path to enlightenment has no opposite.

Written by belisarius on 27.02.2008 at 16:44

But i have to say i'm against practicly all religions, even if this is a filosofy it's a very religious one.

Well, yes. This forum is packed with atheists who have religion all figured out. You may as well join the crowd.

it's true that i don't understand buddhism. i think noweone fully understands a religion, but the creator. (so everyone understands it because everyone who believes creates it in his own way, but this is not important now). but about the ways of acting: i don't disagree with the second part, but i think that even this is out of self-interest: making a better environement of yourself. For the rest of the explanation you'll probably be right and i'm not educated enough yet to disagree with you.

Written by Guest on 27.02.2008 at 15:01

Written by Fuath on 27.02.2008 at 08:04

Written by Guest on 27.02.2008 at 02:21

Wow the following celebrities are Buddhists:


Tina Turner
Jet Li
Orlando Bloom
Courtney Love
Tiger Woods
Angelina Jolie

holy shit
i would have picked jet li, and maybe tiger
but the others, well, they dont exactly seem like buddhists
but then again
you never know

I notice that you picked all the Asian ones of the bunch

In Buddhism, we recognise that all beings have 'Buddha Nature' (meaning that they all have the potential to be enlightened). Also, anybody can be Buddhist. I was actually semi-surprised that Jet Li was Buddhist because in all his roles, he uses much violence.....but those are just characters he portrays though so then I understood haha. Hmmm But......Orlando Bloom was also a surprise because my god-sister and her friends met him while he was filming a few scene for Pirates Of The Caribbean down here in The Bahamas, and apparently he was arrogant. As a Buddhist, there should be no desire to be arrogant or egotistical.

yes, i noticed that too
but tiger is african american is he not?
the others i didnt expect, i sorta felt that they are a bit selfish
look and jolie for example, all that money, and she only adopts kids, maybe i havent heard the full story
but she isnt exactly helping them
and in some cases, buddhism is also about helping others find nirvana before oneself
but i think that is only one branch of buddhism

@Fuath: well that is their Karma then isn't it? . But adopting kids may be viewed as a compassionate deed. Ummm finding Nirvana before yourself? ummm I think you might be meaning Mahayana......They are 'the greater vehicle', meaning that as their main focus, they help others get to enlightenment as well as themselves. I disagree with the Mahayana's dietary views though, Buddhism does not prohibit eating meat, yet they are strict about Vegetarianism. It's been documented that The Buddha's last meal was a mushroom delicacy and pork , yet they deny it. I mean nothing against them of course, but I'm just saying so. Me personally, I just abstain from eating meat on 'every opportunity' as well, red meat isn't that good for you anyway lol and I feel better when I don't eat meat generally. I only eat it sometimes.

I'm a Theravada Buddhist ('The Lesser Vehicle') , the main focus is on oneself and using logic and reason to overcome issues. But hey, there's no tension , Mahayana, Theravada, Zen......it's all the same cake but with different icing on the top! Theravadas are not selfish either, we enjoy helping others too, it's just we put less emphasis on it I guess.


P.S. Tiger Woods is mixed between Asian and Black.......If you look closely, you can pick out some Asian traits.

Written by Guest on 01.03.2008 at 20:40

@Fuath: well that is their Karma then isn't it? . But adopting kids may be viewed as a compassionate deed. Ummm finding Nirvana before yourself? ummm I think you might be meaning Mahayana......They are 'the greater vehicle', meaning that as their main focus, they help others get to enlightenment as well as themselves. I disagree with the Mahayana's dietary views though, Buddhism does not prohibit eating meat, yet they are strict about Vegetarianism. It's been documented that The Buddha's last meal was a mushroom delicacy and pork , yet they deny it. I mean nothing against them of course, but I'm just saying so. Me personally, I just abstain from eating meat on 'every opportunity' as well, red meat isn't that good for you anyway lol and I feel better when I don't eat meat generally. I only eat it sometimes.

I'm a Theravada Buddhist ('The Lesser Vehicle') , the main focus is on oneself and using logic and reason to overcome issues. But hey, there's no tension , Mahayana, Theravada, Zen......it's all the same cake but with different icing on the top! Theravadas are not selfish either, we enjoy helping others too, it's just we put less emphasis on it I guess.


P.S. Tiger Woods is mixed between Asian and Black.......If you look closely, you can pick out some Asian traits.

yes, quite true
i guess my inner buddhist leans more towards the mahayana
i dont like meat either, it sickens me, but, i beleive that it is survival of the fittest, so it is up to others what they want to do
i only meat because of my stupid health
asian you say
well, im gonna have to check this out then

Written by Guest on 27.02.2008 at 15:01

In Buddhism, we recognise that all beings have 'Buddha Nature' (meaning that they all have the potential to be enlightened). Also, anybody can be Buddhist.

So, everybody can be buddhist. Suspicious;D

Written by Guest on 03.03.2008 at 18:27

Written by Guest on 27.02.2008 at 15:01

In Buddhism, we recognise that all beings have 'Buddha Nature' (meaning that they all have the potential to be enlightened). Also, anybody can be Buddhist.

So, everybody can be buddhist. Suspicious;D

Indeed, Buddhism, along with most Eastern world views, aren't exclusive, like that of the Western world views. Eastern faiths are more about living a good life here on Earth, and releasing yourself from the cyclic nature of existence, while Western faiths are more concerned with the concept of Heaven, though Judaism does often cross over the "living a good life" idea.

Written by belisarius on 27.02.2008 at 16:44

personally I'm against buddhism. It's against human nature to have no desire or greed. All beings are egocentrical, directly or indirectly, everything they do, they do for themselves. And to be honest, meditating by themselves and reaching nirvana alone is quite egocentrical too. celibacy should be an ideal for monks, not a rule. But i have to say i'm against practicly all religions, even if this is a filosofy it's a very religious one.

I'll bet that you really don't know that much about Buddhism, which would make your post a prejudice one. Buddhism a 'religious philosophy'? this is news to me We depend on ourselves, not any sort of god, I cannot stand how people act ignorant by calling it a 'religion' : . And all this may be against human nature, I agree, but let's face it, human nature has caused others to get hurt! human nature has caused pain and suffering! To lack desire is for the enlightened ones, most Buddhists try to MINIMISE those feelings! We do it to achieve self-improvement! How can you support such evils that destroy others? THAT'S SICK. I mean Buddhists believe that desire/greed can be okay provided that it doesn't stem from ignorance.......like to dream of attaining enlightenment for instance, that's sort of like 'desire' but it's not one that can harm you. Meditating alone is not egocentric, it's to seek self-improvement for the sake of ourselves AND OTHERS. Buddhism has never done anythign to hurt you or ANYBODY else, it is a peacefula nd respectful belief system, so if you could behave in the same nature, it'd be greatly appreciated .

Buddhists are Atheist as well, it's just that it comes with a purpose (Nirvana/Enlightenment/Freeing from Samsara), whereas Atheism doesn't have much of a purpose (unless you count 'living this life to its fullest') . Buddhism and Atheism is on the same page (not that Buddhism is on any sides, we are neutral), if you wouldn't act so ignorant and disrespectful, you'd see that . But what the hell, I will choose to forgive you as you're another being .

Written by Guest on 04.03.2008 at 02:45
...I cannot stand how people act ignorant by calling it a 'religion' : .

Written by totaliteraliter on 04.03.2008 at 03:08

Written by Guest on 04.03.2008 at 02:45
...I cannot stand how people act ignorant by calling it a 'religion' : .

as stated above, it is more of a way of life
religion is more for worshipping gods
in buddhism, there is no gods, only us

It's a pretty narrow definition of "religion" that doesn't include Buddhism.

Written by totaliteraliter on 04.03.2008 at 03:17

It's a pretty narrow definition of "religion" that doesn't include Buddhism.

maybe so
but as alot of people can tell you
buddhism is very different to most religions
in christianity for example, you have to beleive in god, and you have to beleive in jesus, or your not christian
in buddhism, you dont have to be a vegetarian, or, you dont have to worship buddha, or you dont have to beleive buddha was supernatural/a god

It certainly is different from the dominant western religions. But really, as a belief system with supernatural elements it falls under most reasonable definitions of "religion" or at least "religious." I don't see any reason to get offended if someone refers to it as such.

Written by totaliteraliter on 04.03.2008 at 05:50

It certainly is different from the dominant western religions. But really, as a belief system with supernatural elements it falls under most reasonable definitions of "religion" or at least "religious." I don't see any reason to get offended if someone refers to it as such.

Mainstream Buddhism has been infiltrated by numerous religious elements. Only practices such as Zen Buddhism remain unaffected - but they are gradually dying out. Irrespective of what the Buddha intended thousands of years ago, faith-based belief systems invariably distort and dilute the original meaning of the teachings until only a hollow religion remains. This is the eventual doom of every well-intentioned spiritual practice.

Hence modern Buddhism is popularly described as a major world religion, alongside Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.

Written by Guest on 04.03.2008 at 06:01
Mainstream Buddhism has been infiltrated by numerous religious elements. Only practices such as Zen Buddhism remain unaffected...

It still contains religious elements, doesn't it? What meaning do the concepts of Nirvana, enlightenment, (etc.) have in these other forms of Buddhism? Since you use the term "spiritual practice" I assume the issue is mainly confined to semantics; for myself coming from a sociological perspective I am familiar with religion being defined in a way that certainly includes any Buddhism I am familiar with. I suppose one could question the application of the label "religion" in certain popular contexts, but presumably not in an academic one?

Written by totaliteraliter on 04.03.2008 at 06:36

Written by Guest on 04.03.2008 at 06:01
Mainstream Buddhism has been infiltrated by numerous religious elements. Only practices such as Zen Buddhism remain unaffected...

It still contains religious elements, doesn't it? What meaning do the concepts of Nirvana, enlightenment, (etc.) have in these other forms of Buddhism? Since you use the term "spiritual practice" I assume the issue is mainly confined to semantics; for myself coming from a sociological perspective I am familiar with religion being defined in a way that certainly includes any Buddhism I am familiar with. I suppose one could question the application of the label "religion" in certain popular contexts, but presumably not in an academic one?

I use the word "religion" to describe any social institution that requires its followers to believe its assertions on faith - often without any means of verifying those assertions. For example, in Christianity there is this idea of "heaven" - but you have to die before you can confirm it. So there is never any hope of confirmation!

Zen Buddhism does not ask its practitioners to believe anything at all. There is simply the practice of zazen (meditation) and other modes of behavior and activity that are conducive to attainment. The goal, enlightenment (Nirvana), can be realized in full consciousness while the practitioner is alive. It is nothing more than a wholly-detached state of mind. Therefore the concept of Nirvana in Zen Buddhism is not faith-based at all. It is an identifiable and reproducible experience - albeit one requiring many years of practice. These features of Zen Buddhism, to my thinking, clearly distinguish it from religious belief. I thus find the words "spiritual practice" to be much more suitable.

So, far from being a matter of semantics, there are significant and substantive differences between religious beliefs and spiritual practices. Furthermore, I have neither heard nor seen Zen Buddhism referred to as a religion in any context. If a more broadly inclusive definition of the word "religion" is employed in academia, I am not familiar with it.

Written by Guest on 04.03.2008 at 06:57
I use the word "religion" to describe any social institution that requires its followers to believe its assertions on faith - often without any means of verifying those assertions. For example, in Christianity there is this idea of "heaven" - but you have to die before you can confirm it. So there is never any hope of confirmation!

Zen Buddhism does not ask its practitioners to believe anything at all. There is simply the practice of zazen (meditation) and other modes of behavior and activity that are conducive to attainment. The goal, enlightenment (Nirvana), can be realized in full consciousness while the practitioner is alive. It is nothing more than a wholly-detached state of mind. Therefore the concept of Nirvana in Zen Buddhism is not faith-based at all. It is an identifiable and reproducible experience - albeit one requiring many years of practice. These features of Zen Buddhism, to my thinking, clearly distinguish it from religious belief. I thus find the words "spiritual practice" to be much more suitable.

So, far from being a matter of semantics, there are significant and substantive differences between religious beliefs and spiritual practices. Furthermore, I have neither heard nor seen Zen Buddhism referred to as a religion in any context. If a more broadly inclusive definition of the word "religion" is employed in academia, I am not familiar with it.

If you are only going by your personal definition of religion, I don't see how it can be anything but an issue of semantics. Many sociological definitions would include this instance of "spiritual practices" under religion, Stark & Bainbridge, Berger, probably also Kant, Durkheim and Weber. How is enlightenment defined, exactly? And would you suggest that Zen Buddhism is free of mystical and/or mythical elements (feel free to interpret those terms broadly)? In my experience in sociology, movements with similar or even less recognizable religious elements than Zen Buddhism are regularly studied as religious ones (ie in the study of NRMs) which is why I have no qualms with considering it a religion at this point in my understanding of it. Although I can see why your personal definition and the dichotomy it is based around would perceive it as separate. So this is why it seems to me semantics; as we move from popular to personal to various academic definitions the answer changes.

Written by totaliteraliter on 04.03.2008 at 07:52

Written by Guest on 04.03.2008 at 06:57
I use the word "religion" to describe any social institution that requires its followers to believe its assertions on faith - often without any means of verifying those assertions. For example, in Christianity there is this idea of "heaven" - but you have to die before you can confirm it. So there is never any hope of confirmation!

Zen Buddhism does not ask its practitioners to believe anything at all. There is simply the practice of zazen (meditation) and other modes of behavior and activity that are conducive to attainment. The goal, enlightenment (Nirvana), can be realized in full consciousness while the practitioner is alive. It is nothing more than a wholly-detached state of mind. Therefore the concept of Nirvana in Zen Buddhism is not faith-based at all. It is an identifiable and reproducible experience - albeit one requiring many years of practice. These features of Zen Buddhism, to my thinking, clearly distinguish it from religious belief. I thus find the words "spiritual practice" to be much more suitable.

So, far from being a matter of semantics, there are significant and substantive differences between religious beliefs and spiritual practices. Furthermore, I have neither heard nor seen Zen Buddhism referred to as a religion in any context. If a more broadly inclusive definition of the word "religion" is employed in academia, I am not familiar with it.

If you are only going by your personal definition of religion, I don't see how it can be anything but an issue of semantics. Many sociological definitions would include this instance of "spiritual practices" under religion, Stark & Bainbridge, Berger, probably also Kant, Durkheim and Weber. How is enlightenment defined, exactly? And would you suggest that Zen Buddhism is free of mystical and/or mythical elements (feel free to interpret those terms broadly)? In my experience in sociology, movements with similar or even less recognizable religious elements than Zen Buddhism are regularly studied as religious ones (ie in the study of NRMs) which is why I have no qualms with considering it a religion at this point in my understanding of it. Although I can see why your personal definition and the dichotomy it is based around would perceive it as separate. So this is why it seems to me semantics; as we move from popular to personal to various academic definitions the answer changes.

The matter is one of semantics to your thinking; you are content to use a single, catch-all term. I perceive a significant distinction; it appears to me as if you are attempting to pass off night for day! Academic terminology often parts ways with common understanding. The resulting definitions may be virtually unrecognizable to the layman. A cucumber is a fruit to botanists, but for all intents and purposes it's treated as a vegetable in North American cuisine. Even a trained chef would hesitate before serving cucumber slices on a fruit plate.

If academia subscribes to a definition of religion so broad that even faith-neutral meditative practices are included, then the entire psychological industry may well fall under the "religion" umbrella. If I sit here deep-breathing with the aim of relaxing and calming my mind - does that qualify as religion? Is a self-help TV infomercial actually a form of religious conversion? I'm not meaning to be facetious here, I am genuinely curious as to what can be classified as a religion using sociological definitions.

Admittedly, Zen Buddhism does inherit aspects of the Buddhist religion from which it is derived. However I would caution that mistaking these superficial elements as the core of Zen practice may lead one to erroneously conclude that Zen itself is a religion. Are these sociologists that you quote truly well-versed in the subject matter - i.e. extensive field experience in Zen monasteries? Or are they categorizing based on their cultural prejudices - effectively missing the forest for the trees? Many of the anthropological texts that I read during my studies at university were maddeningly obsessed with details and did little to clarify the big picture. (I thankfully had a talented professor who could see that big picture and convey it to us as well.) When our own ethnocentric biases predominate, it is easy to overlook important subtleties. I wonder if a sociologist from Japan would be willing to categorize Zen as a religion?

many people don't consider it a religion and that's okay! I am one of those people! When The Buddha was still alive, he said that Magic, The Supernatural and Superstition does not exist!

Written by Guest on 04.03.2008 at 11:24
The matter is one of semantics to your thinking; you are content to use a single, catch-all term. I perceive a significant distinction; it appears to me as if you are attempting to pass off night for day! Academic terminology often parts ways with common understanding. The resulting definitions may be virtually unrecognizable to the layman. A cucumber is a fruit to botanists, but for all intents and purposes it's treated as a vegetable in North American cuisine. Even a trained chef would hesitate before serving cucumber slices on a fruit plate.

And does this mean a cucumber is "really" a vegetable? Or does it just mean that there are different definitions of "fruit" that exist and are used - semantics?

Written by Guest on 04.03.2008 at 11:24
If academia subscribes to a definition of religion so broad that even faith-neutral meditative practices are included, then the entire psychological industry may well fall under the "religion" umbrella. If I sit here deep-breathing with the aim of relaxing and calming my mind - does that qualify as religion? Is a self-help TV infomercial actually a form of religious conversion? I'm not meaning to be facetious here, I am genuinely curious as to what can be classified as a religion using sociological definitions.

If Zen Buddhism is nothing more than breathing a certain way with the goal of relaxation, then it certainly isn't a religion by most any definition. But there is a lot more to it than that, right? This is why I asked how enlightenment is defined, about mystical and mythical elements.

Written by Guest on 04.03.2008 at 11:24
Admittedly, Zen Buddhism does inherit aspects of the Buddhist religion from which it is derived. However I would caution that mistaking these superficial elements as the core of Zen practice may lead one to erroneously conclude that Zen itself is a religion. Are these sociologists that you quote truly well-versed in the subject matter - i.e. extensive field experience in Zen monasteries? Or are they categorizing based on their cultural prejudices - effectively missing the forest for the trees? Many of the anthropological texts that I read during my studies at university were maddeningly obsessed with details and did little to clarify the big picture. (I thankfully had a talented professor who could see that big picture and convey it to us as well.) When our own ethnocentric biases predominate, it is easy to overlook important subtleties. I wonder if a sociologist from Japan would be willing to categorize Zen as a religion?

The sociological definitions I am referring to, again, are often applied to movements with similar or even less recognizable religious elements than Zen Buddhism. The issue is likely that you build your distinction around the concept of "faith-based", when those studying religion in my experience do not. The distinction between "religion" and "spiritual practice" is not an academic one I am familiar with, at lest not in the broad study of "religion", rather it appears Zen Buddhism to be suitable for study as religion - here is an example I'm sure you'll find interesting:

Zen Buddhism and Sociology of Religion - An Analysis of Emptiness, No Mind and Koan
Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 4 Fall 1995, pp.699-724
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Check this out:

http://www.pureinsight.org/pi/index.php?news=219

I have nothing against. I went to some meditation class and as someone said before is not a religion, is more like philophy of life. There is nothing selfish in following a philosophy. Its selfish to think your way of life is better than other.

Written by Evil Chip on 08.03.2008 at 01:27

I have nothing against. I went to some meditation class and as someone said before is not a religion, is more like philophy of life. There is nothing selfish in following a philosophy. Its selfish to think your way of life is better than other.

so true
in fact, i couldnt have put it better myself
all religions or ways of life are equal, its just what suits you best

Words of wisdom from Atlantic , good stuff.


I drank some alcohol this weekend and smoked pot with some dudes I know a few hours ago, the fifth precept (to abstain from intoxicants) does come to mind. But the precepts are not commandments, there is no god punishing or rewarding us, we control our destiny. These things I used do have the power to accumulate bad karma, but if you indulge in these things with wisdom, it minimises the bad karma alot.