Thoughts on Buddhism

[Bgood]

[quote='Rhythm' pid='245994' dateline='1330412551']

[quote]It's strange then, that the histories of the two religions seem to have so many parallels, don't you think?[/quote]

Actually no, I don't think the histories of these two religions have many parallels, but maybe by chance they have a few.

[quote]Let me ask you this, if buddhism were all these things you feel that it is, then exactly how did these buddhists go so terribly awry?[/quote]

I don't feel that these buddhsts went so terribly awry. It is very relative and circumstantial evidence, not to mention sparse and kind of ambiguous. We don't know the true motives and real reasons why these "buddhist wars" even took place.

[quote]Why didn't their buddhism shield them from these things?[/quote]

Perhaps for some it did, but they go undocumented and forgotten in history. Plus, what things are they supposed to be shielded from?


[quote]If buddhism were somehow superior to christianity..then how is it that these buddhists ended up behaving in exactly the same manner as christians?[/quote]

I don't see Buddhists behaving exactly in the same manner as Christians in hardly any sense. I think you are grossly exaggerrating the "evil darkness" you see in buddhism. This would be callled false perception or distortion of facts. I understand that buddhism is not perfect, but who or what is???? No religion, no company, no business, no government, no university, no science, nothing is perfect.

[quote](I notice you haven't touched my mention of Tibet, The Dalai Lama, and his feudal theocracy. Is it that you don't see any evil in this, or that you just can't believe that this was the case? Was this theocracy somehow not a product of buddhism? Just how holy is His Holiness?)[/quote]

I don't really understand what you mean by His Holiness's "fuedal theocracy". This just sounds like some mumbo-jumbo to be honest. Exactly what crimes or inhumane treatment are you accusing him of? If many Tibetan people believe he is a god, diety or reincarnation of Buddha, then so be it. He is living in exile in Dharamsala anyway so what kind of "evil" can H.H. Dalai Lama really be up to?
To say he is oppressing people or power hungry in any sense truly sounds like some kind of unfounded conspiracy or undeserved mudslinging.

Lastly, Rhythym you mention that Buddhism doesn't offer wisdom, comfort or guidance to millions of people? I think that is false. Personally, I have gained great knowledge from it's philosophy, and moderate comfort and guidance thus far. I would only call myself a Buddhist two years ago. So I am still a novice, esp. at meditation. Christianity and Buddhism are not good comparisons IMHO, although some buddhists would disagree. From my own experience with both, they are much more different than alike. But good questions!

[The Grand Nudger]

Actually no, I don't think the histories of these two religions have many parallels, but maybe by chance they have a few.

Looks like a bunch of people believing in superstition going about the daily business of acting like human beings to me, wars and all.

I don't feel that these buddhsts went so terribly awry. It is very relative and circumstantial evidence, not to mention sparse and kind of ambiguous. We don't know the true motives and real reasons why these "buddhist wars" even took place.

Should wars have taken place at all? I thought your contention a few posts up was that they were wayward buddhists, now maybe they weren't? Motives?

Perhaps for some it did, but they go undocumented and forgotten in history. Plus, what things are they supposed to be shielded from?

Perhaps for some christianity also shielded them from the worst parts of their nature, nonetheless, it didn't shield enough of them, in either christianity's case, or buddhism's. Shield them from taking the life of other human beings in an act of violence with political (or other) motivations known as war. Or any number of other lesser evils that happen day in and day out, everywhere.

I don't see Buddhists behaving exactly in the same manner as Christians in hardly any sense. I think you are grossly exaggerrating the "evil darkness" you see in buddhism. This would be callled false perception or distortion of facts. I understand that buddhism is not perfect, but who or what is???? No religion, no company, no business, no government, no university, no science, nothing is perfect.

I see you behaving exactly like a christian in these very posts, same apologetics. Who said anything about perfect? You seem to think buddhism is somehow better than christianity but can't come up with any metrics to justify this conclusion beyond your own preferences.

I don't really understand what you mean by His Holiness's "fuedal theocracy". This just sounds like some mumbo-jumbo to be honest. Exactly what crimes or inhumane treatment are you accusing him of? If many Tibetan people believe he is a god, diety or reincarnation of Buddha, then so be it. He is living in exile in Dharamsala anyway so what kind of "evil" can H.H. Dalai Lama really be up to?
To say he is oppressing people or power hungry in any sense truly sounds like some kind of unfounded conspiracy or undeserved mudslinging.

What is it that you don't understand, what a feudal theocracy is or entails? I'm not accusing him of anything, I could link you some pictures of his serfs and the enforced mutilation that they suffered if you like, it's not an accusation but a statement of fact. Of course, I don't believe for one minute that he's actually a reincarated anything, just another con man. However, if that's his con then I'm going to go ahead and allow him to shoulder the brunt for what he did in his many lives. Beyond that magical bullshit he's actually engaged in a very material sort of douchebaggery in this life as well. The evil of continuing to peddle garbage to gullible people by way of religious faith, which is nothing short of proof of concept for the next bastard that comes along with his own ideas as to what he might be able to get the sheep to do.

Lastly, Rhythym you mention that Buddhism doesn't offer wisdom, comfort or guidance to millions of people? I think that is false. Personally, I have gained great knowledge from it's philosophy, and moderate comfort and guidance thus far. I would only call myself a Buddhist two years ago. So I am still a novice, esp. at meditation. Christianity and Buddhism are not good comparisons IMHO, although some buddhists would disagree. From my own experience with both, they are much more different than alike. But good questions!

Sounds like misattribution to me. Whatever wisdom you've found you found yourself, and most likely would have found it from within whatever religious framework you chose, just like everyone else. Again, I'm sure that your buddhism is a positive force in your life (until it isn't), that doesn't mean that theres anything inherently good or worthwhile about buddhism. I'd call you good and worthwhile, and give you the credit for the wisdom or peace you've worked hard at.

[Bgood]

Rhytym wrote

Should wars have taken place at all?

War is a racket to this very day. I am anti-war and always for peace. But let's imagine that no religion ever existed in history. Everyone is an atheist. Do you think that wars and crimes of humanity would have never existed? Let's say Buddhism never existed in Asia, would they be better off, worse off or relatively the same? I am inclined to say that they would be relatively the same, just Buddhaless.

[The Grand Nudger]

Relatively the same, you'd have to remove more than just one fairy tale. What does that say about Buddhism? hint-worthless.

(with one notable exception, btw, Tibet wouldn't have had to deal with their little god-king, would they..lol?)

As far as what would be different if everyone were an atheist...no one would have been killed in the name of any god...and that's a tidy sum of someones, not just in Asia, but worldwide, wouldn't you agree?

[Bgood]

Buddhism is more of an individual practice, focusing inward. We don't go out and preach the gospel, try to save others or force conversions. Buddha sits there and people go to him. We aren't like Jehovah Witnesses knocking on your door at 8 a.m. and sending out cheesy flyers warning of the Revelation and end of the sinful world. Specifically it that way, it is much more passive. If one wants to seriously try to attain enlightenment, then go for it. Give it a try. All the tools and knowledge is there in his teachings. If one doesn't believe in any of the dharma or in meditation, then so what, go your own way and good luck, simple as that.

Where many people became Christians through force, fear, or ignorant inculturation, Buddhists, at least mainly in the west, it is done by choice. And a somewhat radical choice at that, since I was born into an Irish Catholic family. I think of buddhism as more "entertaining" and interesting more than something that I HAVE to do or feel like I should do. It is actually very deep and seemingly never-ending in it's vast psychology and beautiful aesthetics.

I understand many atheist's hatred for all the Abrahamic religions, and in a sense, rightfully so, but i don't think it's fair to lump Buddhism in the same cesspool of belligerence and condemnation. There are some superstitious elements in buddhism, esp. Tibetan buddhism, but they are mostly seen as tools for contemplation and imagination rather than dogma which must be obeyed. It is more playful, more flexible. Buddha's legends are seen as legends, not as historical fact as in Jesus's miracles and resurrection. You can debate this as a historical, philosophical generality, but yet in practice, this is the way it is in the post-modern world now. For instance, most Buddhists, esp. Secular Buddhists, don't take such things as any of the multi-armed dieties as biological realities. The many arms represent a diety's overflowing generosity and compassion..always willing and able to lend a hand, to thousands of sentient beings.

---

As far as what would be different if everyone were an atheist...no one would have been killed in the name of any god...and that's a tidy sum of someones, not just in Asia, but worldwide, wouldn't you agree?

no one[/i] would have been killed in the name of any god, but people would have still killed for money, power, control, sex, drugs, revenge, territory, sadism, hatred, rascism, etc...must I go on?

[The Grand Nudger]

How is the modern notion of buddhism any different than the modern notion of a philosophical or metaphorical christianity? The buddha sits nowhere, same as christ. Both prop up empty platitudes as timeless wisdom. Both leverage the same flaws in our thought process, etc etc etc.

Yes, people would still have been killed for any number of things, but not that particular thing, and perhaps not those particular people. That would have made all the difference in the world, at least to them. You might want to imagine that those same people would have been killed for another reason, if not superstition, but that's not how it panned out, and implying that they may have, or probably would have been killed for another reason is just hand-waving, an empty excuse for what is inexcusable. Is this the wisdom buddhism has given you? I was raised in a culturally irish catholic family, heavy on the irish fairy tales and light on the catholicism (by light I mean we laughed our asses off about it), do I seem unenlightened, or without wisdom? Seems to me you could have stayed in the faith you were born into and reached the same place.

I generally treat buddhism with a very mild sort of contempt, until buddhists get smug about their ridiculous faith compared to the ridiculous faith of others.

[Angrboda]

This is just a thought, merely part formed, but it would seem to me that the type of hypocritical head in the sand denial of these human and religious tragedies does more to ensure that they will happen again than embracing them would. If you always walk around with an artificially cleansed coat, descending those few steps into causing suffering and committing evil is that much easier, as you have no past to reconcile, and no burden to carry forward with repentance and just simple fear of becoming that again. When you dissociate Buddhism from what it has been, you are giving it a pass which it, and Buddhists specifically, will likely avail themselves of in future actions. The guilty can repent and amend their being; the innocent are free to descend into evil with a clear conscience.

(I don't normally think about the Thuggee cult, but I certainly get a thrill telling people that I follow She Who Destroys; to pretend that the dark and the light can be separated by any religion known to man is, I think a forlorn hope, yet I understand why Buddhists are vulnerable to that delusion — that's precisely what their dogmatic religious beliefs tell them, that the Buddha can teach them a trick of the mind that will separate the two halves cleanly; and the Christians, if you place your heart in Christ, he will automagically split the baby; and if you're a Jew, finding that good half is done by dutifully following the 316 laws; and it goes on and on and on.)

[Carnavon]

Well then 5:30 is a blatant contradiction to 5:22 then. If Jesus has no will of his own but can only do the will of the Father then clearly it would still be the Father who is executing his will through Jesus and Jesus would be nothing more than a mindless puppet of the Father.

Therefore it would make no sense to say that the Father judgeth no man, if the Father is actually judging people by forcing his will through Jesus.

It is actually quite straight forward. There is a difference between judgement executed and doing so in accordance with the will of (in this case) the Father.

Mover, if Jesus was a misunderstood Mahayana Buddhist these rumors can easily be made to make sense. A Buddhist would say that you are the judge. In other words, if we think of ourselves as children of the universe then all judgement has been bestowed upon us. And will we be judged as we judge because we are the only ones who pass judgement on anything in the first place.

So anybody can think what they want and that is true? And based on that be innocent or not?
Even if that is the case, you still do not meet your own standards. You do what is wrong in any case.
At the same time (I am the judge) and willing to be judged by “my” standard, yet you claim it is a cult etc. Where is your logic son?
You rely on “ifs” without any proof that your specific brand is “the one”. Forgive me for sounding cynical, but you seem to prefer to make up your mind on issues, based on philosophies of men – when you have facts confirming truths within the Bible, and prophecies that have been fulfilled, indicating a supernatural origin and where Jesus himself claimed to be God (and was killed for that)
Would you please set out your basis for judgement and the reasons for such a decision.

However, where you're wrong is when you way, the "whole" scripture has an opposing view that's not true. Jesus had also said that if any man hear his words and not believe him he will not judge them. So he had already stated earlier that to not believe in Jesus, and to not believe in his words is not grounds for judgement.

John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

Please note what Jesus is saying – the purpose of his coming was not to judge, but to save. That there is a day of judgement is evident from the rest of Scripture and Jesus himself confirms that there will be a day of reckoning and judgement – at Jesus second coming
“Mar 13:26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with much power and glory,
Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
Dan 7:13 I was looking in the night visions. And behold! One like the Son of Man came with the clouds of the heavens. And He came to the Ancient of Days. And they brought Him near before Him.
Rev 1:7 "Behold, He comes with the clouds," and "every eye will see Him, and the ones who pierced" Him, and all the tribes of the earth "will wail on account of Him." Yes, Amen.

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
But that's not what Jesus was saying here. He wasn't saying that the Father would judge anyone. He was saying that the WORDS he has spoken shall be the judgement.

And that falls perfectly in harmony with Jesus having been a Mahayana Buddhist. Because the words that Jesus taught were the laws of Karma. Therefore if you fail to maintain, right thought, right action, and right speech, as Jesus taught you will create karma that will indeed be your nemesis.

It is funny, the Muslims claim Jesus was a Muslim.
Yes, Jesus says that each of us will be judged according to His words- all that He said and not our own "pick and choose".
Of course Jesus (as with Muslims for one) speak about good works.
The Bible shows what should be the “hallmarks” of a Christian: Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Gal 5:23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law and thus no seeming variance with your view on right words etc.

If it is in fact true what you claim (Jesus having been a Mahayana Buddhist) , then you will have to agree that this is also true:
Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Joh 14:7 If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you do know Him, and have seen Him.
Joh 14:8 And Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.
Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, Am I so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? The one seeing Me has seen the Father! And how do you say, Show us the Father?

This also means that you will have to accept Jonah and the big fish (Jesus referred to that) and the Old testament.
Or maybe they just quoted Jesus incorrectly according to you expert opinion?

The Christian myths that Jesus was the demigod son of the God of Abraham have no merit at all.

Mat 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
Jesus said: Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one."

No. The verse is crystal clear. There is no "interpretation" required.

"Forgive them for they know not what they do".

It's pretty straight forward. How are you going to interpret that into something else?

Quite easy. If seen in context (and not in isolation as you would prefer), you would notice that these mitigate directly against it:
Grace: If our salvation was based on works (pride), it would not be grace. The whole basis of our forgiveness is grace and not works. Our righteousness is imputed righteousness and not deserved – as we cannot – as you aptly demonstrate by your remarks (“your feeble apologists/ These fables are asinine, and your feeble apologetics are precisely that”)
If you take the text literally, that would mean murderers are forgiven just because they do not know what they are doing (what a thought!). Or maybe you can enlighten me on what was forgiven?

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
This is clearly John offering his own narrative commentary. It's clear as day. He refers to Jesus as him not as me. So this is clearly not being written as a quote. It's written as a commentary by the author.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him
Mat 8:20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head."
Your claim is Jesus said something else? Why would you assert that?

I personally don't even trust the "quotes" to be verbatim and correct. In fact, it would be utterly foolish to do so. These authors are clearly making up these quotes based on their own biased views. Changing just a few words only slightly can imply a totally different meaning that the man Jesus might have actually meant

By this you mean that the passage as you quoted as evidence for ignorance as an excuse is included? What is your basis then for judging what is truth and what not? You do not have any ground for arguing any point, my friend

Even Jesus was said to have told his very own disciples that they do not understand what he is saying. And we're supposed to believe that the authors of these fables understood?

If you do not understand much of magnetism, does it make magnetism untrue?

The problem that I see is that you want to “read” your flavour of Buddhism into the Bible, accepting what you like – but the two faiths are poles apart- Buddhism is based on works and Christianity the opposite – with undeserved grace.

Christians are also called to live holy lives, with care for our enemies – whereas with Buddhism “ Benevolent action in behalf of those who are suffering is not a Buddhist value as such action would undo the consequences of negative karma)."

Again two poles apart. I know which one I would want to live in – where people are kind and care about misfortune– whether others deserve it or not. Jesus should have said to the woman called in adultary" You get what you deserve" ? Please enlighten me what a proper response in your view should have been?

As I see it, a Buddhist will eternally be condemned as we all know that many of our works are evil and thus never reach perfection (to the contrary, it seems to get worse and worse). No escape, no forgiveness. In contrast to this, Jesus offers
Mat 11:28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest

[Epimethean]

Yeah, it's funny, Carn-just as xtians stole their godboy from Zoroaster.

[Nine]

I met a Buddhist priest a while ago. They so awesome! Ive never met somebody so chilled out.