Buddhism saves. Compatible with Christianity. Short read.

"Buddhism did not exist outside of monasteries until the 18th Century. Maybe some of the practices I mentioned are traditionally oriented around helping others for that reason. Ordinary people can probably stick to using them for their own benefit. "

No from the begining it was out side the monasteries.
but it was Only for the Tibeten people.
untill china Took Tibet.

Buddha went out and begged for food.
buddists would eat whatever you gave them, meat.
after the meal the Monk would give teachings
um!.. Buddha died from food poisoning.

I like theravada buddhism.
no gods and easy to follow.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Solvedit

I think if we are going to get into it Jesus and Buddha were a lot like each-other, except for 3 things. Soul, afterlife (beyond Samsara), and loving world.

But basically everything else is similar, moral-wise and you do all the good things BECAUSE the world is cruel and filled with artificial mental contracts that lead to attachment and suffering.

Buddhism saves on from a looping self-destructive mind, albeit on an inverted vector to Christianity.

They even died the most mythological loving deaths.

Common knowledge Jesus socially self-immolated decrying a corrupt Roman system and literally martyred himself to stand up against Rome. And then died for sedition charges he know was going to happen.

Say what now?

What actions or words did Jesus say or do that were against Rome?

The Jewish leadership alleged Jesus had "blasphemed God" but clearly Roman law did not give credence to Jewish law, or the Jewish God. Realizing this, the Jewish leadership accused Jesus of "stirring up the people", but clearly Pilate was not duped by their allegations. In fact Pilate (the representative of Rome) said he found no basis for a charge (Luke 23:4).

It is indicative of the cruelty and disregard for human life (and specifically for non-Roman citizens such as everyone from Palestine) that Rome beat and tortured Jesus to death without even charging him with anything - just to 'appease the crowd'.

Buddha socially self-immolated against an aristocratic class and went and sat under a tree. Self immolation by another name. He then died from food poisoning because he felt it disrespectful to turn down their offering, despite knowing it would kill him.

I'm not sure how much of that narrative on Buddha is true, and could be a christianization of Buddha.

But it always struck me as a 2000 year old "you take the East, I take the west type thing."

ETA: Another really close proxy to Jesus is Lao Tzu, who has amazing wisdom and compassion to share as well.

Self-immolation is the act of setting oneself on fire. Neither Jesus nor the Buddha did that.

... and I'm not really actually sure if the concept of sin fits into Buddhist philosophy anywhere?

Philosophically and theologically they are very different and attempts to tie them together weaken them both.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Solvedit

I should have thought that went without saying. By the way, what Buddhist tradition are you most familiar with? You used a Pali word, metta, and a Tibetan word, tonglen. The latter suggests a Mahayana orientation, but a Mahayana disciple would more probably say maitri instead of metta. What's your flavour?

Why be a disciple of one tradition? I have a few books that give what they consider the basics.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Solvedit
That...my friend...is HOW I learned to observe things. Pieces of the whole...are still..the whole.

Not.

I just don't see the point of being dogmatic for someone else.

Try some modern materials on Buddhism which are intended for lay westerners.

a reply to: Solvedit

Dogma is not the correct phrase. Too deep my friend. Since 1968, then in earnest Miami '74. That's a lot of years, books n study.

You propose the Buddhist "Cliff Notes"? Study, my friend...the same studies the Masters did.

Or catch some newish 20 year old YouTubes on philosophy and newer 'abridged versions" of what we already know.

a reply to: Solvedit

Why be a disciple of one tradition? I have a few books that give what they consider the basics.

Sorry. I thought you were a practising Buddhist. No further questions from me.

Try some modern materials on Buddhism which are intended for lay westerners.

I suggest that you make your recommendation more specific. There’s a ton of garbage out there.

mysteriousstranger to OP: You propose the Buddhist "Cliff Notes"? Study, my friend...the same studies the Masters did.

The only way to study Buddhism is to become a practising Buddhist and find a bikkhu of exemplary character and life to guide you. You can’t learn to be a Buddhist by reading Satori for Dummies — or even the Dhammapada.

As far as I’m concerned you’d be wasting your time — you won’t become a better or even a happier persons, just a more hypocritical one — but each to their own.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Solvedit

Dogma is not the correct phrase. Too deep my friend. Since 1968, then in earnest Miami '74. That's a lot of years, books n study.

You propose the Buddhist "Cliff Notes"? Study, my friend...the same studies the Masters did.

Or catch some newish 20 year old YouTubes on philosophy and newer 'abridged versions" of what we already know.

I find your reply incoherent. What does it mean? Did you study something in depth in 1968 and in Miami in 1974?

Yes, I propose the "Cliff Notes." Why not cut to the chase?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Solvedit
The only way to study Buddhism is to become a practising Buddhist and find a bikkhu of exemplary character and life to guide you. You can’t learn to be a Buddhist by reading Satori for Dummies — or even the Dhammapada.

As far as I’m concerned you’d be wasting your time — you won’t become a better or even a happier persons, just a more hypocritical one — but each to their own.

No, just get the Cliffs notes.

a reply to: Solvedit

Buddhism did not exist outside of monasteries until the 18th Century.

Not quite sure about that statement.

Buddhism since its inception in the 5th century BCE, has had a significant presence outside of monastic communities.

And in various different forms, like pilgrimages, festivals, and social events for instance.

a reply to: Astyanax

Digressing here....had a wonderful attorney in Coral Gables Fla, 1974...as well a Zen Buddhist.

As a stiff little Catholic uniform ( "Yes! Sister!") marching lemming School kid, disillusionment was quick as a teen hippie in the 60's. Catholics arent the only way, and mom was Methodist.

My Zen Friend taught of endless devotion to ridding one of self as the Buddha did.

Spent a lifetime musician w stage name, an EMT w my real name...riding ones constrains against and together...my..."self" is still under study at 71 yrs...and a lifetime to understand....that I must lose it all...to become "one" w self., to rid myself.

I'm am a student of life, learning still to rid the soul of mindless pursuits of self....so I can leave this place, and go into the Sun.

Will wait for you! God Bless...thnx for understanding✌️

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Your journey has been one of learning and, I hope, adaptation. I am glad that you have found a way that works so well for you.

Please don’t wait for me. I am not a Buddhist, just someone who is fairly learned about Buddhism in both its doctrines and its actual practice among the masses. In fact, I am not at all religious, being one of those very lucky people who is fascinated by faith in all its forms without having any need for it himself. My soul, if you like, is at peace.

Like you, my journey has been one of learning and adaptation, and a great deal of what I have learnt comes ultimately from Buddhism. But I baulk at faith in any guise, and so cannot reconcile myself to belief in karma or in rebirth. I have also seen more than anyone would care to see of the evil side of Buddhism (all religion is evil as well as good), which comes less from the doctrine itself than from its failure to provide the behavioural restraints and personal consolations that are the main practical functions of religion. Buddhist-majority countries, with the possible exception of Thailand, are hellholes.

Of course, as a bikkhu or samanera you would not need to concern yourself with this, or even to notice it.

a reply to: Astyanax

What I ve learned in meditation for 50 yrs? I've come to understand the meaning of life: quite simple.

To Live.Too much time in life spent seeking and not doing. Biggest takeaway....don't spend your life searching. All answers are within already.

originally posted by: AstyanaxBuddhist-majority countries, with the possible exception of Thailand, are hellholes.

The Eiffel Tower and the spire on the Empire State Building look suspiciously like some Buddhist temples.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

Buddhism saves.

No it doesn't.
Buddhism doesn't believe in a God that you can sin against and be separated from (lost).
Buddhism believes in devas, which are 'gods', with a small 'g' .. not a creator God with a capital 'G'. There is no answering to them and not sinning against them that people do.
Therefore, Buddhism doesn't have anything to 'save' you from.

I have only dabbled and it may or may not be able to do everything which correctly applied Christianity can as far as what little I know, but some Buddhist meditations seem to be able to regain a lost soul from the effects of sin or perhaps deliberate harm. They can also reduce temptation to judge or whatever other unhealthy attachment by assisting one in remaining mindful of the present and one's own interests.

I suppose it could also be the curative effects of the fasting I've been doing?

My post wasn't for the diehard adherents of some other religion but for those who think they didn't get much help from one.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Solvedit
Buddhism does not save. Buddhist philosophy denies there is even no "self".
Zen Buddhist monk I know notes it takes a lifetime...to learn to shed....that lifetime.

I have only dabbled but to me they seemed to be saying you are not your experiences and habits. It is an unskillful way to define self.

a reply to: Solvedit

One man searched the world for the meaning of life. Got to the last mountain, last guru, eyes closed. He opened one eye and laughed and laughed at him!

"You spent a lifetime searching for the meaning of iife? My son? The meaning of life...is to LIVE. And apparently you spent all yours searching!"

All things can be learned. Love is All...love is everything.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Buddhism doesn't believe in a creator God to sin against, therefore they do not believe in being 'saved'.

Buddhism acknowledges all kinds of demons associated with human suffering, which it deems "bad" for the human psyche. Buddhism teaches that all earthly constructs (realities) are the result of Maya, illusion, and that we are lost in illusion, cast by Maya. Basically, that's what the Essenes taught.

Bushism teaches that "To not be lost", to find oneself, one must lose oneself". Jesus said basically the same thing. To find eternal life, one must let go of one's attachment to life and its things.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Solvedit
One man searched the world for the meaning of life. Got to the last mountain, last guru, eyes closed. He opened one eye and laughed and laughed at him!

"You spent a lifetime searching for the meaning of iife? My son? The meaning of life...is to LIVE. And apparently you spent all yours searching!"

Throwing a little shade, are we?

Does that represent what you have been taught about Buddhist meditation?

a reply to: Solvedit

Was just a comment. Always the student...that's all. Losing myself thru my long life is a process. As Buddhism teaches. The losing oneself was easy.

Finding...is a challenge, well met.

Peace my friend