Thoughts on Buddhism

[Abracadabra]

Abracadabra wrote

The idea of Zen Buddhism is more along the lines of Taoism where the main focus is to come into harmony with life as much as possible (i.e. learn to flow with the Tao). After all, Zen Buddhism evolved after Buddhism from India had migrated through China and became intimately entangled with Taoism. So Zen Buddhism is really a mixture of Buddhism and Taoism.

Hmm...I never really thought of it that way. That is a very good insight. I am mostly attracted to Zen buddhism as I learn more about it. Taoism is also a great philosophy which I kind of automatically incorporated with my beliefs in Buddhism. Your last post is very informative and gives me some pause for reflection. You bring up alot of good points, especially when you mention how early Buddhism was geared toward escaping rebirth into the next life. It always seemed kind of backwards to me....I thought one would WANT to reincarnate into another human life after death, NOT stop that cycle! Yet perhaps if that cycle was stopped, something better would occur?? Who knows, but I see the point you are making that puts the focus on THIS life and THIS moment which ZEN does, as far more worthy of belief and acceptance than how Hindu/Buddhist Indians might percieve the teachings.

Yes, Buddhism is so diverse that when someone tells me that they are a Buddhist my first question to them is "Which Buddhism?"

By they way if you'd like to watch a college-level course on the history of Buddhism that is quite interesting you might want to check out this course at The Teaching Company:

Buddhism

It's a quite interesting course. This isn't a documentary, this is an actual college type course with a professor just standing behind a podium giving a lecture.

Also DON'T pay $250 for it! These courses go on sale periodically for a only $69 at least once or twice a year.

Or better yet go to your local library and see if they have it, or if you can get it via inter-library loan. That inter-library loan thing usually works. Then you don't need to pay anything to watch it.

It is funny how you say that you are more of an 'unconventional' or 'maverick' or individualistic Wiccan in Wiccan circles. I think I am kind of like that in alot of Buddhist circles, in a sense, in that I am more freethinking and non attached to certain ideas. Or perhaps it is just that I am not as smart and educated on the subject as I like to think I am! lol But I think you got alot of good stuff to say Abracadabra and I enjoy your input and perspective. Take care and good luck in all you do!

Well it's in the original Buddha teachings to question everything and to follow only that which calls to you. So in that sense, a "homemade" or "maverick" version of Buddhism is quite valid.

The same is true of Wicca actually. But again, that can depend on who you ask.

[genkaus]

dont get this guy going on Quantum Mechanics...he will start to sound like Deepak Chopra.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4

This dude is crazy. "Patients may feel healed even if they die from the disease"?

Reminds me of the following exchange from Coupling.

"[My girlfriend] got sick. Then she got better. Then she died."

"How?"

"She made an unsuccessful recovery."

[Abracadabra]

dont get this guy going on Quantum Mechanics...he will start to sound like Deepak Chopra.

Unfortunately, I can't watch that video right now.

However, I would like to say that I DO NOT agree with everything that Deepak Chopra has to say about Quantum Mechanics. On the contrary I disagree with some of his ideas and conclusion on that particular topic.

Deepak would do himself a huge favor to just stick with his spiritual teachings and leave the topic of Quantum Mechanics out of it altogether.

Not to imply that he's completely ignorant of it, but I agree that he does often jump to unwarranted conclusions in an effort to support his spiritual ideas, and that doesn't help to serve his purpose.

I'll try to watch this video as soon as I can.

[Bgood]

Rhythym wrote

Demonstrate that the universe has a "why" in the first place, then you'll waste fewer words in platitudes and storytelling.

That is actually a good point. The universe, in itself, does not have an answer to "why", but human beings search for a why to the meaning of life. It is a subjective question with a subjective answer. Why ask why in the first place is a valid stance for atheists to stand on. To say "God" is the creator and answer to all our 'WHY' questions is obviously an oversimplified, outdated and trite response. But these 'why' questions are the foundation for philosophical conversation. Yet for one to become too wrapped up in philosophical reasoning and speculation can be a hindrance and obstacle to everyday life. Most times it is better to just 'let go' of constant questioning of why,why,why and focus more on how or what to do instead, which science does to an extent.

But there is a power in myth and storytelling for the subconscious mind, for instilling cultural values and humane ideas into children as they grow, and a source of imagination, creativity and art. For example, the mythology associated with the stars and the zodiac has been handed down for centuries to give us a wide panaramic view of ancient beliefs and history and even science in the study of astonomy and the art of astrology. The liberal arts and the humanities are also something which science may find as "irrational", but they definitely hold an important place in academics and human relations. Call life magical, call it explainable, call it whatever you want, but it still is what it is no matter how human beings percieve it's splendor.

[reverendjeremiah]

... he does often jump to unwarranted conclusions in an effort to support his spiritual ideas, and that doesn't help to serve his purpose.

Gee...I wonder who would EVER do something like that...

hmmm???

[Bgood]

lol here's a question for a buddhist.. someone just claimed Jesus was buddhist, was he?

I don't believe that Jesus Christ actually existed in history. I think he is completely made up. But if some more down-to-earth version of Jesus DID exist at some point in time, then yeah, I would say that his actions and attitude most closely resemble that of a buddhist or hindu. He obviously wasn't like any of the other Middle Eastern Jewish bigots, mysoginists or terrorists in the region. So he must of became what he became elsewhere, probably India. But most likely, Jesus is completely mythological and should be regarded as such. He is just the latest of false idols in a long line of mythological heroes from the Mediterranean region.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Probably India"? Yeah, because India doesn't export bigots, mysoginists, or terrorists?

Buddha is completely mythological and should be regarded as such.

[Abracadabra]

... he does often jump to unwarranted conclusions in an effort to support his spiritual ideas, and that doesn't help to serve his purpose.

Gee...I wonder who would EVER do something like that...

hmmm???

Well, don't look at me, I'm not even trying to sell spiritual ideas. I simply have personal reasons to believe that they are indeed plausible and have not yet been ruled out by any current secular knowledge.

This is one place where atheists often make huge mistakes about me. Just because I recognize that a spiritual essence of reality cannot be ruled out they automatically think that I'm trying to prove (or even suggest) that it must then be ruled in.

Nope, that's totally a fictitious creation of their very own imagination.

If people would actually read and react to what's actually being stated instead of jumping to preconceived conclusions conversations could be far more fruitful.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your "personal reasons" can be summed up with two words. Magical thinking. Whatever magical ideas you have, I can garauntee you sight unseen they have been handled, (and not even recently, but some time ago) by science, and empirical inquiry. That you cannot find this information has more to do with your desire to find it, than it's existence.

[Abracadabra]

lol here's a question for a buddhist.. someone just claimed Jesus was buddhist, was he?

I don't believe that Jesus Christ actually existed in history. I think he is completely made up. But if some more down-to-earth version of Jesus DID exist at some point in time, then yeah, I would say that his actions and attitude most closely resemble that of a buddhist or hindu. He obviously wasn't like any of the other Middle Eastern Jewish bigots, mysoginists or terrorists in the region. So he must of became what he became elsewhere, probably India. But most likely, Jesus is completely mythological and should be regarded as such. He is just the latest of false idols in a long line of mythological heroes from the Mediterranean region.

Well, I certainly wouldn't argue with that. It is quite possible that the character of Jesus was entirely fabricated. I personally don't believe that simply because of the nature of the stories. I think if they were going to make something up from scratch it wouldn't contain the contradictions and conflicts that the New Testament gospels contain. Thus for me, it makes far more sense to believe that these stories are indeed rumors about some real person.

I believe that some guy actually did speak out against the Pharisees, and the immoral teachings of the Torah, and was indeed crucified by the angry Pharisees. And that event sparked what later became the rumors of "Jesus" that we read about in the New Testament.

However, it's important to understand that in a very real sense this person was not the Jesus described in detail in the New Testament. In other words, the "real Jesus" (if he actually existed) merely sparked these stories. But that in no way implies that the stories should be accepted as being a factual account of the life of this person, or his teachings.

So in that sense, I too believe that the "Jesus" of the Bible is "fabricated" (if only by exaggeration and biased motives) even though that fabrication may have been inspired by someone who held many of the beliefs that the New Testament attributes to "Jesus".

So I guess, in a way, I actually don't believe that the "Jesus" depicted in the Bible ever truly existed. I just believe that someone sparked those rumors. And that person was most likely trying to teach the wisdom of Mahayana Buddhism.

There is absolutely no way that Jesus could have been the "sacrificial lamb" of some jealous angry God who used his son to appease himself so he could forgive the "sins" of men.

I mean that would be an utterly pathetic "God" anyway. So it's worthless even if true. If our creator is like that then life is worse than meaningless. That would be like having a God straight out of Freddy's Nightmares.