THE TRUE MEANING OF BUDDHISM: INTRODUCTION

[MarkCharles]

"Buddhism has a history of twenty-five hundred years since it was founded by Gautama Buddha. It has been divided into many sects and denominations. Many different ideas and thoughts have been developed and it has become an all-inclusive system of human thought. It has also become so complicated that its true meaning has not been properly understood. Generally speaking, each sect has taken a favorable part of it for the sake of its own particular denominational purposes. Many texts were written in Sanskrit, Pali, Chinese and Japanese following the same dogmatic aim. Recently, many European scholars have studied Buddhism in India and China, but they have neglected the development of Buddhism in Japan which is a stronghold of present-day Buddhism. Many books concerning Japanese Buddhism have been written only for the sake of particular sects. As far as I know, English books explain Buddhism only from a certain angle and lack a complete view of it as a whole. It is the purpose of this work to show that Buddhism is a system of all-comprehensive human thought and that human thinking has been logically and consistently developed in Buddhism."

"Thus, all things arise, exist, decay, and disappear in an endless cycle in accordance with the universal law of cause and affect. Nothing permanent exists. Every thing is changing and all is void:"

"The profound meaning of the contradictory nature of life is understood only by Enlightened Ones through long moral and intellectual discipline. However, although Enlightenment may be realized to quite a complete degree, as long as we remain in this world, we must be subject to the changing law of this actual world"

http://www.nembutsu.info/fujii.htm


Kind of a science based religion, don't you think? Shouldn't rational progressives and Democrats and others be discussing THIS religion more than Christianity????????????

[rug]

1. Prove Gautama existed.

And don't give me any of that Josephus shit.

[laconicsax]

2. Does it matter if he didn't?

:shrug:

[MarkCharles]

3. Certainly not! The collected thoughts and moments of inspiration, and

collected "knowledge" of so many years.......

No one cares for "proof" that some individual actually existed!

Except, of course, in the Judeo Christian religions, who keep insisting only ONE person said this or that.

[ZombieHorde]

4. Interestingly, even if Buddha never existed, the religion would not be any more true or false.

Mediation would not be any more or less effective. Reincarnation would not be any more or less likely to be true. The idea that attachments are the cause of human suffering would not be any more or less valid.

Buddha's relationship to Buddhism is different than many other religious founder's relationship with their religion.

Taoism is the same. Some people claim one of the founders of Taoism, Lao Tzu, never existed, but that doesn't really change anything about Taoism.

[htuttle]

6. Makes absolutely no difference

Three pounds of flax.

[Odin2005]

9. Prove Socrates existed.

[rug]

10. Prove Jesus existed.

[Jackpine Radical]

Prove Odin2005 exists.

[Odin2005]

12. LMAO!!!

[rug]

35. I'm still working on proving the original Odin exists.

[Jackpine Radical]

36. I've had one eye on that goal myself.

[Jackpine Radical]

11. Prove Odin2005 exists.

[white_wolf]

14. Well based on some of what I've read there is some historical evidence for his existence.

However, even if he never lived that wouldn't disprove Buddhism like the non-existence of Jesus would disprove Christianity. Buddha was not a god or a prophet of god. The true test of Buddhism truth is not in finding the historical man, but testing his teachings. Indeed he encourages people to test his ideas for themselves and not accept them on faith.

[kwassa]

17. If Buddha wasn't a god, why is he worshipped like a god?

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/78405/78405,1194663285,1/stock-photo-a-giant-buddha-statue-in-thailand-6848275.jpg

[white_wolf]

18. There are a few explanations for this.

First of all, the pictures of "worshipers" are Mahayana Buddhists, not Theravada Buddhists. I'm pointing this out, because while there is much I admire in Mahayanan Buddhism, it is important to remember that it is not nearly as old as Theravada Buddhism and it often merged with local customs and practices. This is especially true of Tibetan Buddhism, where Mahayanan Buddhism absorbed the native Bon religion. Those who practice Theravada Buddhism make it very clear that Buddha is a guide and teacher, not a god. Even those who practice Mahayana Buddhism will tell you that what you view is worship is not worship in the way that Christians or Muslims worship God or even in the way that Pagans worship their gods, but rather it is respect and reverence for the Buddha.

[kwassa]

19. which is why they build monumental statues of Buddha and perform worship ceremonies in front of them

so different from Christians in front of images of Christ.

[white_wolf]

20. The difference is the intent.

In Mahayana Buddhism the intent is not the same as it is in Christianity. The mindset is different. When we are discussing terms like worship the intent is more important than appearances. When Catholics knell before the Eucharist they are performing an act of worship since they view the Eucharist as the body of Christ, however if that same catholic were to knell before the Queen of England, they would not be worshiping her, even though the outward appearance is the same. Buddha is honored and revered, but he is not worshiped. Every single Buddhist I have spoken with has said this as have every book I've read on the topic.

[kwassa]

22. but no one builds massive statues of the Queen of England.

I don't think the intent is as different as you do.

One doesn't build giant statues just to honor.

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/658762/658762,1288494227,1/stock-photo-big-buddha-statue-in-temple-thailand-64060282.jpg

[white_wolf]

23. Let's just agree to disagree here, because we aren't going to convince the other.

[AsahinaKimi]

24. "One doesn't build giant statues just to honor."

What would you call Mt. Rushmore?

[snagglepuss]

28. Please cite one scholarly source that supports your uninformed opinion.

[trotsky]

37. You just can't help but tell people what they believe, can you?

But Koresh forbid anyone tell you what Christians believe.

[EC]

5. At the time that it was introduced their way of living

was much like now, the very rich doing well and the poor suffering. Just like all the other religions it was made to make the poor actually feel blessed about being poor.

[MarkCharles]

7. There's not much else to offer poor people, if one doesn't offer money

People have been poor since humans descended from apes or chimps or whatever.


The way we treat the poor people is the mark of our moment of history. Some of us give money, some of us invent or propagate religions and keep the riches for ourselves.

[white_wolf]

15. Not entirely true.

I just recently read a Sutra where the Buddha told the wealthy that they should pay their workers a living wage, so he did try to address their material needs.

[Odin2005]

8. This Buddhist Atheist sez K&R

[Speck Tater]

13. K&R From this Buddhist Atheist also.

It doesn't really matter if the historical Buddha ever existed or not. It's not a cult of personality, but a system of testable procedures.

And beside, where was Jesus for those many missing years before he started preaching publicly? Buddhism was known in the Middle east in those days, and it has always seemed to me that the teachings of Christ are nothing more than basic Buddhism written in Jewish code to make it palatable to his contemporaries. My guess is that Jesus was off somewhere studying Buddhism before he came back to preach.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

27. I wish DU had a "like" button for all of these atheist buddhists

See my below post as to why

[AsahinaKimi]

16. K&R

From this Shinto Buddhist!

[white_wolf]

21. Another Buddhist atheist K&R

[struggle4progress]

25. Some of the Buddhists seem to me to have devised a quite profound collection of

psychological insights and techniques

the metaphysic is a rather different matter, and whether I find it palatable or not depends on which interpretation is given: I generally find the metaphorical interpretations more interesting and useful than the literal interpretations

the link you provide suggests one rather widespread aspect of Buddhism teaching that I consider incorrect: I do not think all suffering arises from ignorance, nor do I think it possible to eliminate all suffering by means of adopting a proper ignorance-eliminating intellectual attitude towards suffering

[Dragonbreathp9d]

26. I've always thought of Buddhism as more of a philosophy than religion

And therefore compatible with all beliefs

[Festivito]

29. "universal law of cause and affect" versus cause and effect?

Seems too presuppositional.

[Nelson Tondreau]

30. IMHO, Christianity and Islam belong to the PAST

While Buddhism and Hinduism and other such progressive religions belong to the FUTURE. To quote Einstein: "Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity."

As this blog (not mine) shows, Buddhism is fully integrable with the progressive and tolerant worldview that we as liberals should embrace. http://progressivebuddhism.blogspot.com/ Can't really say the same about the Christians.

[MarkCharles]

33. Thanks for that link! Einstein said it well. n/t

[white_wolf]

39. Just curious. Why do you exclude Judaism?

In terms of beliefs it has a lot in common with Christianity and Islam. They are considered "People of the Book" by Muslims, and they aren't called the Abrahamich religions for nothing.

[eridani]

31. Not science based, but consistent with science

That is an extremely useful feature of Buddhism.

[eridani]

32. How many Zen Buddhists does it take to change a light bulb?

Two. One to change the light bulb, and the other to not change the light bulb.

[phiddle]

34. or, "None, the light bulb will change from within".

[GliderGuider]

38. As an atheist (at least from the Xian POV)

I found Buddhism to be an accessible and essential stepping-stone on my journey.

From Hinayana I figured out the attachment/suffering thing - which wasn't obvious to someone raised in a 100% strong-atheist scientistic paradigm - and stepped onto the road to personal liberation. From Mahayana I learned about the liberation of all sentient beings, and the Bodhisattva Vow.

Neither Hinayana nor Mahayana required me to profess a belief in anything non-material (or at least that was how I interpreted them), or even to inquire much into the relevance of the non-material. When I hit Tantrayana though, things began to shift, because there it was staring me in the face: I both do and don’t exist, the entire universe is consciousness unfolding itself through my consciousness, and both the Absolute and the Void are there to be experienced. What’s a good atheist to make of such things – not to mention the Zen invitation to experience reality as paradox?

I knew going in that I have a deep antipathy to dogma, scripture or authority of any sort, a mindset thath kept me from claiming that I “was” a Buddhist at all, even though the more universal basics of Buddhism agree entirely with the way I relate to reality.

In fact, what my dalliance with Buddhism of all sorts did was to lay the foundations for the next encounter, with Taoism and especially Advaita (also called jnana yoga), the way station I’m now at in my journey. At this point I feel it will be useful to let go of all belief and disbelief, all structures and expectations. Even my antipathy to dogma and my strong atheism has to go (and remain at the same time, of course...)

This seems to be necessary in order to experience the numinous as directly as possible.

What I seek is not Buddhist, though elements of Buddhism point to it. It’s not Taoist, Sufi, Advaita, Gnostic, Kabbalist, shamanic, pagan or Wiccan, though elements of all those point to it as well. I know it because I can taste its flavour in all things. I can feel it in the world around me and in my own body, heart and mind (which of course are the same thing). And ultimately I know that the seeking itself is a structure, an expectation, which I must also surrender. Or not...

IMO Buddhism is the perfect step for those who have been raised relentlessly Western and have begun to suspect they may not actually be free.

[MemeSmith]

40. I'm a Zen Pagan

For much of the same reason, I'm a Zen Pagan.

(This is basically an atheist who celebrates the turning of the year and the key popular annual festivals, for the sake of the celebration itself.)

www.zenpagan.org

Cheers,

MemeSmith