The Buddhism Thread

[Geishawhelk]

I think God is trustworthy and faithful, much much much trustworthy than a man

 

You only "think" God is trustworthy and faithful?

 

me too.

 

But what I KNOW, is that I would prefer to put my trust in that which I can see, hear and feel, than in something which ultimately is unknowable, unpredictable and inconsistent.

 

But I wish you well, and I thank you for responding.

[lonelybird]

You only "think" God is trustworthy and faithful?

 

me too.

 

But what I KNOW, is that I would prefer to put my trust in that which I can see, hear and feel, than in something which ultimately is unknowable, unpredictable and inconsistent.

 

But I wish you well, and I thank you for responding.

But what I can see, hear and feel are inconsistent, changing, upredictable.

 

God is opposite. God is consistent, HE keep his words, HE doesn't have two faces, HE is faithful which is so rare quality for today's people:o

 

I wish you well too, thanks for your posts:)

[Geishawhelk]

We're a placid bunch.

we don't preach, proselytise or as a few extremists do, ram it down the throat,

We're quiet, and we're happy.

 

But this brought a quiet smile to my face....

 

In spite of our self-disciplined reticence, it seems more and more people are listening to our silence....

 

Just thought it might add interest.

[dropdeadlegs]

Thank you for sharing that quiet smile with me.

[Geishawhelk]

links to two specific Websites:

 

http://www.newbuddhist.com

 

This is the place I call 'home'... cosy chair cup of cocoa... everyone is very laid back. The folk there are frindly, accommodating and varied. it's a wonderful yet modest little wbsite... unlike this one...

 

http://www.e-sangha.com/

 

which has many different sub-fora and so much information, it would take you three lifetimes to get through it!!

[nittygritty]

I may be completely wrong about this but I thought I read somewhere before that Buddhism was considered more a philosophy of living rather than a religion and that some Buddhist actually believe in God and practice other religions as well as following the Buddhism philosophy of living.

 

I was just curious if what I read was correct about Buddhism or just misinformation?

[blind_otter]

I may be completely wrong about this but I thought I read somewhere before that Buddhism was considered more a philosophy of living rather than a religion and that some Buddhist actually believe in God and practice other religions as well as following the Buddhism philosophy of living.

 

I was just curious if what I read was correct about Buddhism or just misinformation?

 

My mother's family is a prime example of this. They are buddhist, from Vietnam, born and raised that way. Curiously, though, they are totally accepting of the idea of christianity and Jesus Christ in general. My mom is buddhist and catholic, go figure.

 

But I clearly recall this statement from a buddhist monk who taught my "Buddhist Philosophy" class in university.

[nittygritty]

My mother's family is a prime example of this. They are buddhist, from Vietnam, born and raised that way. Curiously, though, they are totally accepting of the idea of christianity and Jesus Christ in general. My mom is buddhist and catholic, go figure.

 

But I clearly recall this statement from a buddhist monk who taught my "Buddhist Philosophy" class in university.

 

Thanks, I thought I had heard that as well. I'm short of time but I will try to read more about it later. What little I do know is interesting and certainly seems to be a positive, peaceful approach to living.

[Geishawhelk]

I may be completely wrong about this but I thought I read somewhere before that Buddhism was considered more a philosophy of living rather than a religion and that some Buddhist actually believe in God and practice other religions as well as following the Buddhism philosophy of living.

 

I was just curious if what I read was correct about Buddhism or just misinformation?

 

Well, that's a really perceptive question actually, and people are divided, have been divided, and will probably continue to be divided for a very long time.

But if you'd like to see one person's perspective, have a look at this link:

 

I personally believe it may be referred to as a religion. I mean, try telling the thousands of Monks and nuns, Lamas and Gurus, they're followers of a philosophy....!

But anyhow, see the article linked, and see what you think for yourselves....

[Enema]

There are two forms of 'Returning':

One is Re-Birth (for 'un-enlightened' beings) and one is better known as Reincarnation.

 

We might be re-born as an animal.

 

Death takes one to PARInirvana, where existential rebirth is no longer necessary.

 

Strip every (part of the body) away, and you are left with a consciousness...

 

an essence of an energy which is untouchable, ephemeral but extremely powerful.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

You've told us what you "believe", now tell us what evidence convinced you.

 

Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. That's a scientific fact, it's a physics equasion.

When you die, it goes....well, somewhere.... it enters another form of life.....

 

You had the first part right:

 

Energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only change form.

 

When you die the energy of your body is not destroyed, it changes form. It is lost through heat or transferred to the microbes and fungi that decompose your body.

 

Buddhism as such, doesn't have 'beliefs'...That's why I find it so refreshing....

 

Reincarnation is not a belief?

[Geishawhelk]

Thank you for your interest.

You are absolutely right, of course to pose questions of this ilk.

However, two things:

First of all, (and I'm glad you brought it up) it seems I personally was mistaken with regard to the distinction between Re-birth and Reincarnation. Reincarnation is a term often bandied about by Buddhists who perhaps are somewhat confused about the whole coming back thing.... like me... so strictly speaking, the term is a misnomer. Re-birth is the more accurate and specific term.

 

So I thank you for highlighting that, and I apologise to all who have read here and taken my comments on board.

However, I did post, right at the beginning, that the views, information and opinions given on this thread were to be taken as mine and mine alone.

 

When you die the energy of your body is not destroyed, it changes form. It is lost through heat or transferred to the microbes and fungi that decompose your body.

Your physical body, yes, of course. but not your Mind-stream. Whatever is generating your consciousness, is transmigrated at death. There is a subtle essential Mind energy that is -reborn.

 

However, given the inaccuracy and insufficient depth of the statements I have made, and my own admitted inability to really convey with any true depth the essential, complex and convoluted teachings of re-birth, I am posting a link here to explanations from a far more capable person than I to explain the Buddha's teachings on the subject.

Furthermore, he has written a reltively long, but extremely interesting article on Buddhism and it premise, and I would respectfully request that you persuse this at you leisure. Whilst he labels them 'personal thoughts' this man is extremely respected in Buddhist circles, and is highly studious and educated.

I aim to learn a great deal from him.

 

Again, I offer my apologies for my errors, and my ineptitude.

But I hope, even though it might be through the teachings of an expert, that I may offer some kind of explanation that will at least go towards answeing your queries.

The gentleman in question is not unobtainable. On the contrary, he is to be regularly found on both fora. He will willingly engage in discussion with you on anything you might wish to discuss.

[Space Marine]

A few things I notice and would like to point out:

 

1.) Like Catholicism and their "invention" of purgatory (which they grabbed from earlier religions that believed similarly), Buddhism is not the first religion whose tenets support quantum physics. I'm not saying that Buddhism did in fact, "borrow" this concept, but it is possible.

 

2.) I have a problem with the claim that Buddhism has no beliefs. It is not only categorized as a religion, but it is a belief system. Name any "religion" that isn't. Even atheism believes that God does not exist. It is not the absence of belief, it is the belief that other religions are wrong. As for Buddhism, they believe in the spirit, rebirth, and many other things.

 

3.) I also have a problem with pretty much worshipping a man who claims to have seen things, had visions, etc. (much like several persons in the Bible), including something my Buddhist ex-gf briefly told me about how Buddha met all the major religions' gods on the spiritual plane, suggesting all of these gods exist, which is contradictory in many ways, means that Buddha believes in God, and hardly believable regardless. He also said some very good quotes, but a common Buddha teaching is as follows:

 

It is nature's law that rivers wind, trees grow wood, and, given the opportunity, women work iniquity.

 

perhaps he was trying to be funny, but when I showed my ex-gf this, she felt disappointed that such a wise man would put women down in such a way. Wise he may be, but I don't agree with him.

 

4.) The page won't load now, and this post might not even go through, so I can't find your exact quote, Geisha, but it was something along the lines of trying to alter the definition of belief into "opinion" and more oddly, "Proven experiences" (?); those are the things that Buddhism touts. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but no one has ever proven reincarnation is real, nor rebirth, nor nirvana.

 

If what you are trying to say is that your beliefs are based on your own reasoning, then that sounds like Deism.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Space Marine

[Geishawhelk]

1.) Like Catholicism and their "invention" of purgatory (which they grabbed from earlier religions that believed similarly), Buddhism is not the first religion whose tenets support quantum physics. I'm not saying that Buddhism did in fact, "borrow" this concept, but it is possible.

If anything, when you consider that Buddhism is over 2500 years old, I would say quantum physics bears out a great deal Buddhism already explored.

 

2.) I have a problem with the claim that Buddhism has no beliefs . It is not only categorized as a religion, but it is a belief system. Name any "religion" that isn't. Even atheism believes that God does not exist. It is not the absence of belief; it is the belief that other religions are wrong. As for Buddhism, they believe in the spirit, rebirth, and many other things.

No, Buddhism does not believe in the spirit. I take on board what you say about beliefs, however:

Buddhism requires, stipulates and lays down the condition that you accept nothing without thorough examination and study. This includes everything the Buddha taught, and is one of his most fundamental instructions. to test everything for yourself.

It's not a question of belief, based on a Faith in something, as Christians have a Faith, which is a hope-defined faith. Buddhism has Faith, but one steeped in confidence: Faith that, after much examination, cogitation, perusal and exploratory thinking, you do one of three things, with the teachings of the Buddha:

You finally accept them, and take them as your own and live by them.

You reject what you learn, and state that these are simply not factors that sit well with you, but you are open to further dialogue, examination and discussion, (always accepting and respecting that what you cannot take on board may be welcomed and accepted by others....)

Or finally,

you lay them aside and remain 'open' to going over them again at another time, when maybe your thought processes have reached a point of being able to examine certain factors more deeply.

 

 

3.) I also have a problem with pretty much worshipping a man who claims to have seen things, had visions, etc. (much like several persons in the Bible), including something my Buddhist ex-gf briefly told me about how Buddha met all the major religions' gods on the spiritual plane, suggesting all of these gods exist, which is contradictory in many ways, means that Buddha believes in God, and hardly believable regardless.

 

First of all, there is no worshipping of a man. We do NOT worship the Buddha. He expressedly discouraged this, stating that as an ordinary man, he should not be put on a level of worship.

We have a deep and abiding respect for him, his teaching and the community his teachings have engendered, but I assure you, we do not worship him in the sense that Christians worship God. In actual fact, we have the same kind of respect for him as one would have for perhaps, Gandhi or Th Dalai lama. It’s just extremely profound. But if you go to the ‘newbuddhist’ website, the slogan actually is: We don’t worship the fat guy - !!

The meeting of the Buddha with the Gods is to be taken in an allegorical sense: The Gods the Buddha met are all as impermanent and ephemeral as anything else that is transitory: His 'meeting' with them denotes his ability to 'rise to a higher plane' and understand aspects of the workings of the Mind,(his Mind) in a more in-depth way than an unenlightened person can. 'Gods' are metaphysical representations and manifestations of different qualities of consciousness, reason and Logic. They are not 'real Gods'.

 

He also said some very good quotes, but a common Buddha teaching is as follows:

 

It is nature's law that rivers wind, trees grow wood, and, the opportunity, women work iniquity.

 

perhaps he was trying to be funny, but when I showed my ex-gf this, she felt disappointed that such a wise man would put women down in such a way. Wise he may be, but I don't agree with him.

Bear in mind two things:

First of all the suttas and recommendations were written for the monastic community, to begin with. His instructions were for Monks. The majority of teachings may be taken by lay people, but initially, the Buddha's followers all chose ordination. Therefore, The Buddha knew that as men, they might be tempted to 'stray' and be seduced by the power of a beautiful woman. The iniquity he is talking about is the quality of the desire the men would be succumbing to. Not the women themselves.

You must also remember that the status of a woman in a society 2500 years ago was vastly different to the status she holds now. However we might judge this now, some things must be taken in context with regard to the social mores and values of the time. Remember that the Buddha was the first person to ever accept women for ordination too. There is a great deal of speculation, currently, as to a seeming contradiction in his attitudes towards women. On the one hand, he is insistent that both men and women are capable of attaining Buddhahood… to attain Buddhahood, there is no preference of gender. But in other writings, there is a degree of Misogyny and obvious bias. There are now some authorities who believe that these prejudicial and biased rules and commentaries were added later, after the Buddha’s passing, by Monks who wished to implement a different and superior level for themselves and a subjugative inferior position for nuns.

The reason these specific suttas are being subjected to such scrutiny, and questioned so intently, is because they stand out as being so utterly contradictory to everything else the Buddha taught.

 

They don’t fit.

 

Read this article:

 

And the Dalai Lama sees no reason whatsoever, why any Future Dalai Lama should not be a woman.....Something I have yet to see the Pope be so relaxed about.... There are many respected Buddhist nuns who lead their own convents and Bhikkhuni monasteries, and have as much importance in the eyes of Buddhism, as male monasteries....Pema Chodron, Thubten Chodron and Tenzin Palmo, to name but three....

 

 

4.) The page won't load now, and this post might not even go through, so I can't find your exact quote, Geisha, but it was something along the lines of trying to alter the definition of belief into "opinion" and more oddly, "Proven experiences" (?); those are the things that Buddhism touts. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but no one has ever proven reincarnation is real, nor rebirth, nor nirvana.

This is something which, in my ignorance, ineptitude and inability to discuss things on a higher more educated level, I am not able to convince you of, or even lucidly discuss further. Suffice to say, they form part of the Buddha's teachings and are therefore open to discussion, debate and examination. Everything the Buddha taught is.

There are others far more capable than I, who would be able to discuss this with you, far better. If you have the patience, curiosity and resolve to discuss it further, with those far more experienced in the suttas, I would be really pleased. I would hate to leave the discussion hanging, when i know there is good 'argument' for these factors....

 

If what you are trying to say is that your beliefs are based on your own reasoning, then that sounds like Deism.

If, as I said previously, Deism is 'younger' than Buddhism, I think it would be safe to say that this is the other way around.... wouldn't you?

Except that I do not ascribe to a God, placid, on the sidelines or any other way, for that matter. In my life, God don't figure a jot.

 

I know what you mean about posts and loading pages... I think the site had server problems earlier... it seems to happen fairly regularly.... Or I too, would have answered sooner.

 

Look, I can't persuade you one way or the other. The explanations I have given you above may or may not satisfy you, and that's fine. But don't whatever you do, write the entire teachings of Buddhism off on the basis of talking to one ignorant, and "simple-minded" woman.... will you?

 

I do hope to see you on e-Sangha. I can promise you, if nothing else, you'll have an interesting and 'educational' time!!

[Space Marine]

Relax Geisha, I don't think you're "simple minded" or ignorant. Ignorant of ALL the facts? Most likely, but in any religion and most subjects in general, who really knows everything? I certainly don't claim to be knowledgeable about every aspect of Deism or my previous religion (Christian Protestantism). In fact, you seem to very informed on Buddhism. I guess my last reply seemed very critical and negative, but I guess it was also simply a list of my conceptions/misconceptions that I would have liked confirmed or corrected, which you have done. I thank you for that, and your answers make a lot of sense.

 

I didn't mean to suggest that Buddhists worship a man or anyone at all. I know for a fact that they don't, so I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that. I guess I can't imagine being so respected that my wisdom is regarded as holy or profound; though it has been said by friends that I exude a wise aura, so to speak, in my advice to them, etc., it's hardly the same thing as founding a "religion".

 

I see your point completely about the quote regarding women and what context is it meant to be taken in. My psychiatrist is a very knowledgeable Asian man who apparently knows much about the reasons behind Buddhism, and told me the story just yesterday (an hour or so before I wrote my previous post in fact lol). The monks tried very diligently to avoid all distracting thought, and I can see why he (Buddha) would direct such a quote towards them, since it is the life they had chosen and we all know that the opposite sex can and will distract us. I feel a little wiser from hearing both you and my psychiatrist let me in on this info.

 

Lastly, I didn't mean to suggest that Buddhism was an older religion than Deism, just that one of the aspects where they sound similar is the concept of belief through experience. Deism, though it appears on the outside to be a religion of intellectualism, it is actually a religion of nature as well, and it teaches that we ourselves must make the correlation between the delicate balance of the universe and the possibility that someone/something designed it all. Likewise, I don't expect to convince anyone here of anything, I just enjoy that I was able to start a few interesting discussions and bump this thread itself back into the light. It's all about keeping an open mind, however difficult that is at times.

[Geishawhelk]

Thanks, Space -M, I appreciate your taking the time to reply.

 

I used to feel very self-conscious about the fact that I had neither the intellectual, nor the retentive ability to absorb, memorise, or even refer to the Suttas/sutras, the way some more 'educated and studiously applied' Buddhists can... (incidentally, if ever you see the words, 'Sutta', 'Kamma', 'Nibbana'... They herald fom the Theravadin Tradition... 'Sutra', 'Karma'[ very commonly known ] and Nirvana are used in Mahayana Traditions...)

I am far better at learning through simpler ways, like allegorical stories, or 'parable'-like teachings...

To an extent, I still feel a little 'uncomfortable', because there are some things I DO 'Know'... I just can't seem to put them into the right words very successfully.

For example, there is the teaching about 'Form is emptiness, Emptiness is Form' (Heart Sutra), Dependent Origination and Self and Not-Self.... but could I tell you succinctly what they mean?

I'd give it a damn good try, but probably fail.

However, a member on E-Sangha, who is a fully-ordained monk, wrote me a very comforting PM a while ago, because I was confessing to these 'faults' or defficiencies during a discussion, in a post of mine on the thread.

Now, I did originally think he might just have been humouring me to either bring me a little comfort, reassurance or just to 'cheer me up a bit'. But as a Theravadin Monk, he takes vows, known as Precepts, and one of these is to not use false, deceptive or divisive speech, or misjudged harmful words even if meant in kindness. (They take a whole barrow-load of Precepts, but the first five are normally taken by all people deciding to follow a Buddhist Calling, regardless of who they are... and this is one of them....)

So actually, it would be a bad thing for him to be "economical with the truth".

He told me that even as a Monk, he still finds it hard to get beyond the Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold path. These alone can take much application and study, and if applied, can pretty much take up your whole day - !!

h

He was most generous to take the time and trouble to write, so I not only appreciated it , but it made me realise that whatever it is we do, whoever we are and whatever we practise, however complex or simple, it should be the way we live. It is all very well for those who can, to discuss intelligently, and to great depth. But it is equally important to walk the talk. I'm sure you must know more than one person, who I call "The Sunday God-Botherer".. all pious and holy, fully devout and dedicated - and the moment they walk out of the church, they head for the bar, have a drink, swear at other drivers on the road, and kick the dog when they get home....

I think, for myself, what I try to do is simply to Remain Mindful.

I don't know everything. I don't ever want to... obviously, I never will.

I do what I can.

And even if I just make one person pause and think, "Well, I wonder....?" and if it then makes that person happy, I've done OK.

My results are sometimes abysmal.

My foot-in-mouth too frequent.

But the Right Intention is there.

That's all I can do.

 

Really nice talking to you.

 

This website does go down a lot though, don't you think....?

[Enema]

Your physical body, yes, of course. but not your Mind-stream. Whatever is generating your consciousness, is transmigrated at death. There is a subtle essential Mind energy that is -reborn.

 

Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

You make a lot of claims, but don't back them up with anything.

 

Unfortunately, neither of your links work. You must be signed into the forum to see the posts.

[Geishawhelk]

That was the idea...

if you join the forum, you'll be able to go in and ask all the questions you need to ask, yourself. Everyone there will help you far more than I have been able to.

When you no longer wish to go into the forum, you can just stop posting. When your account has been dormant for a period of time, they'll delete it.

 

Simply because you 'join' to read and learn, it doesn't require that you be Buddhist. Just that you're curious and have some questions.

 

And you will get your questions answered, I promise you.

 

Just for information.

[Enema]

Despite myself, I registered over there (same username) and read through the post.

 

It's very similar to yours in that it preaches a number of things they believe, yet doesn't say why.

 

I'm not going to post there asking for evidence as I'm a LS'er and I'm responding to your post on this board.

 

I want to know why you believe these things. Is the only reason because Buddha passed the knowledge on, or is there more substance to it?

[Geishawhelk]

There's more substance to it. Far more.

But I get a block about such things and am not always able to express myself in very coherent or logical ways. It's just the way my brain works. Call it a glitch.

My Reason and Logic facilities function pefectly well. The output wiring is a little off.

I should add that these matters for discussion are normally undertaken by those who have had a fairly long experience studying the suttas, and The Buddha did two things:

He taught his monks in a sequential manner: That is to say, that one teaching was firmly connected to the one preceeding, and the successive one... so to 'pluck' certain subject matters at random, as we have done here, is somewhat difficult to discuss, and to convey, without touching on other matters such as Form, Emptiness, Self, Not-self Duality and Dependent Origination... which all stem from previous teachings and have teachings that come aftewards...

Secondly, The Buddha did nor deviate from what he taught, but he makes it quite clear that he taught the same things in different ways, to accommodate the understanding and breadth of comprehension of the 'pupil' before him. so if I were sitting before him, he would be speaking vey gently and slowly to me, becuse he would doubtless see it takes a bit more knocking to penetrate this skull....

 

So before I even begin to attempt to try to explain what it is that I know, of such matters, could we wind it back a bit and perhaps you could tell me what you already Know of Buddhism.

How far have you delved into it, and what do you already understand?

Is here anything of the primary information you have gathered that you not only understand, but accept?

[miss1979]

I have been interested in Buddhism for quite some time. I happen to live in a very small city and it is often difficult find places of non-main stream thought. I was raised Catholice, then Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, non-denominational Christian, and finally Muslim. I agree with 75% of what all these religions have to say but can't commit to the remaining 25% for one reason or the other. I started to look at Buddism because it's not exactly the I'm right your wrong type of religion. I read the Dali lama's book of inner peace and the religion seemed so opened. Open to question and new ideas; which most other religions frown upon. I'd love to learn more or if there is an online resource you could recommend?

[Geishawhelk]

Yes, certainly, but please bear in mind there are two main traditions in Buddhism - one is Theravada, and the other Mahayana....

Mahayana shelters different schools of Buddhism: Tibetan, Zen and some Thai.... These vary in their lineages (Zen is Japanese, broadly speaking...) Theravada also has some different schools, but there is little difference in their structures or lineages...

 

I'm not attempting to confuse you or advise and influence you in any way... I'm merely trying in fact, to let you know that you will come across many teachings:

In a nutshell, when you see the words 'Dhamma', 'Kamma', 'Sutta' and 'Nibbana, you'll know you will be approaching whatever it is, from a Theravadan point of view.

Seeing the same words written as Dharma (The teachings of the Buddha), Karma, Sutra (the different chapters or "scriptures"), and Nirvana, will indicate a Mahayanan perspective.

 

Right now, you don't have to worry about these differences, or why they exist.

I only really dug into this about a month ago, and I've been practising for 16 years or so!)

 

Have a look at the following websites:

 

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/schools1.htm

 

Illustrates what I was saying above.

 

http://www.buddhanet.net/index.html

 

This is the home page to the previous website. It's got a vast amount of information.

 

http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/where_beginner_study_practice_meditation.html

 

This is another excellent website dfor information. It also has a very good discussion forum.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index.html

 

This is a website I personally use more than any other to gather information, teachings and clarification. I follow a Theravadan Discipline. but it's not for me to tell you which one you should go for....

 

I hope this all helps.

PLEASE don't be daunted.

I've been doing this for 16 years, and I have barely scratched the surface. But it's not a problem. As a good friend and Monk, said to me, just stick to the Four Noble truths, the Eightfold Path and the Five Precepts. That's more than enough. In fact I wrote a thread on these here, starting with a brief re-telling of the Buddha's own story....but it is not the definitive final word on it - read all about them elsewhere too!

 

Two other websites I go to on a frequent basis are:

 

http://www.newbuddhist.com

 

and

 

http://www.e-sangha.com

 

These are frequented by honest, friendly, instructive and kind people. You will have to sign in/register to come in and explore, but that would be great, if you'd like to do that.

 

Don't be put off by the amount I've given you.

Whatever you do, whatever you look at , it's all your choice, at your own speed, and to be enjoyed.

Relax, and be happy.

 

With Metta,

GW

[Enema]

Well, it certainly wasn't easy to get a straight answer out of you, but looks like we have one:

 

I believe in buddhism because I have read many of the teachings, examined them, tested them and cannot make a hole in them, no matter what I've tried.

 

Hopefully now we can move on.

 

Can you please give me an example of one of these teachings you have tested, and how you tested it?

 

I know you think I'm here to argue, but really I just want to know if any of this holds truth.

[Geishawhelk]

Ok. let's start at the beginning then, if I may.

 

bear with me, this IS going somewhere, ok....?

 

The first lesson the Buddha ever gave as a Buddha (that is, in an enlightened state), was the sermon in deer Park.

 

Incidentally, 'Buddha simply means 'awake'. The Buddha always emphasised that he was a mere man, exactly like any other person. No more, no less. He had just attained a heightened state of realisation, with regard to what we perceive as Life. he had acquired the ability to See Things As They Really Are....

He wasn't Buddhist. We, as people who have decided to live by his doctrine, call ourselves Buddhists.

Buddhism is both a 'philosophy' and a Religion.

It's a philosophy because we want to understand the Mind and how it works, why it works, why we see things as we see them, and whether what we see is logical, illogical, flawed, false, imaginary or steady and reliable.

it's a religion, because over thousands of years, people have steadfastly devoted themselves - both as Monks/nuns and as Lay people - to the understanding of suffering, and the cessation of suffering.

 

So, back to the first sermon.

 

This is the very first thing Buddhists, or people new to Buddhism, are asked to examine, to try to understand completely, and to adopt as a definitive base and foundation for all subsequent practice and learning....

 

Now.

These Truths are mentioned in another thread I posted.

I can either direct you there, or continue here, but I don't want to make it boring, tedious or repetitive for you, if you've already seen it.

I'm fully prepared to be led by you.

Would you like me to carry on here?

[strongnrelaxed]

Another thread made me think this thought for the first time.

 

Imagine this scenario: A human being was born hundreds of years ago. This person studied so much history, philosophy, theology, mythology, and anthropology (to name a few) that he or she became "enlightened" in its truest sense.

 

If that person were to come to an understanding of humanity - a understanding of life that was so complex and far beyond what most people would comprehend. Imagine if that person discovered some basic tendencies of humanity. The things that make us both linked to and separate from other primates.

 

Imagine that person decided that it was a human's life practices, habits, actions and results were the most important thing for humanity.

 

If this person were to codify this list of practices - with its very human flaws and biases, however diminished.

 

Would you consider these practices to be a "belief system"?

 

I have always found Buddhism attractive as a belief system. But now I no longer see it as belief. It is a path to enlightenment (my words, not theirs).

 

What do you think?

[mercy]

I believe it is a way of life.