What's Wrong With Buddhism?

reply to post by IandEye


Really nothing you see is the object it's self. Just electrical impulses interpreted by your brain that were triggered when a photon hit a structure in your wye. :b

Originally posted by IandEye

Originally posted by Nichiren

Originally posted by ladyx
The eye can see all things but not itself

What about you put a mirror in front of it

you would see a REFLECTION of the eye, smarty-pants
that is not the eye

So, you are not talking about photons hitting the eye ? Please define "seeing", so I can understand what you are talking about.

Thank you!

Originally posted by IandEye
reply to post by IandEye

 

BTW- i have a BA in Buddhism so try to argue if you want, but.................

What university?

Originally posted by Nichiren

Originally posted by IandEye
reply to post by IandEye

 

BTW- i have a BA in Buddhism so try to argue if you want, but.................

What university?

from F### U! sorry, couldnt help myself......
actually its from an above-ground, federally-funded university somewhere in arizona.....



what is 'seeing'? if it's just photons hitting the eyeball then you could never 'see' what im saying, do you see? there are those who think this whole thing is literally a reflection of reality (Sufis, i believe).
isn't 'seeing' a metaphor anyway? putting the visible spectrum of light before us, digesting the information through our nervous system, then comparing that info to the symbols and colors we already know........please tell me how that is anything close to 'reality'? it's a way to contain reality to a somewhat less crazy or chaotic state, but it's at best a dilution of reality. at worst a reflection.........

just my opinions, but you can't really argue with a buddhist due to the Two Truths i mentioned in an earlier post. just when you think you've got one of us by the short & curlies, we can double-speak into the 'other' truth.......like verbal leprechauns.....but as appealing as i am trying to make it sound, buddhism is a double-edged sword which is not for the squeamish.......

i don't want to take over this thread- i do accept valid u2u messages.......
i'd like to say that it kinda sucks, however, that there is no notification when someone responds to your post- you have to keep checking back (what a drag!)

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by IandEye

 

Really nothing you see is the object it's self. Just electrical impulses interpreted by your brain that were triggered when a photon hit a structure in your wye. :b

you're right.
in buddhism it is said that we give objects their 'selves'....
an example:
is that mass of electrons really a table or do we just make it so because we're so well-trained to 'know' it is? is the glass half empty of half full? who cares- it's dirty, hahaha.
the reason this is discussed in buddhism is because it relates directly to the self, or as can also be said, the I......if we create our reality- either individually or collectively- then where does that 'creator' come from? it too is dependent on other things to exist and can therefore be said to have no inherent identity.
this is the heart of the heart sutra "emptiness is form and form emptiness".....there really is no distinction except that we make it that way..........do you think it is better to do nothing and hurt no one than to do anything that hurts even one? existence is suffering, caused by lack of knowledge of the true nature of the I, which can be cured through right vision, intention, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, and concentration. if you are christian and being with jesus does all those things for you, well, that's just great. i worked as a carpenter at habitat for humanity in georgia and i can tell you that many, many christians do not exude peacefulness, especially when they aren't getting their way. it's just human nature. buddhists are trying to be either fully human or super-human, depending on your perspective........

did this thread start after dalai lama's visit to the white house? good timing- too bad you're not selling anything......

I just get the feeling it is saying you can be God if you tried hard enough instead of worshing God. Yes we are like God in a sense of knowing good and evil we are different from the animals. We may not be the biggest or fastest animals on the planet but I bet we could kill every species off if we tried.

We are not one with the universe we percieve it, but I bet the eye can look across the sky and see lightyears across but yet we can not reach those distances. We are not going to be God we will always be outside him as the Bible says, the slave is no greater than his master, it is impossible in that sense. I have seen no progress in the Buddha state of the world, if they can reach these powers then use them, otherwise its just a faith saying you will go onto an afterlife which is the same as any other religion.

Originally posted by IandEye
reply to post by IandEye

 

BTW- i have a BA in Buddhism so try to argue if you want, but.................

Does the "but" mean that your personal, educated view of Buddhism is the correct way?
Just curious ...

Originally posted by Nichiren

Originally posted by ladyx
The eye can see all things but not itself

What about you put a mirror in front of it

I'm still curious to hear ladyx's answer to my question.

Thank you.

Originally posted by The time lord
I just get the feeling it is saying you can be God if you tried hard enough instead of worshing God.

You are assuming the existence of a god. Buddhism doesn't address that issue. It "only" equips you with the faculties to master any obstacles in your life to become truly happy.

We are not one with the universe we percieve it, but I bet the eye can look across the sky and see lightyears across but yet we can not reach those distances.

Yet ... Just remember what a person who lived 2000 years ago would think about the speed of a rocket. It was simply "unthinkable". Our space probes have left earth for deep space long time ago.

We are not going to be God we will always be outside him as the Bible says, the slave is no greater than his master, it is impossible in that sense.

Is your assumption of "God" simply based on circular logic? I.e. "because I say so, or write so, it is"? Also known as any religious text.

I have seen no progress in the Buddha state of the world, if they can reach these powers then use them, otherwise its just a faith saying you will go onto an afterlife which is the same as any other religion.

Not sure I understand exactly. So please clarify before I answer in the wrong direction.

reply to post by Nichiren


Thanks for the reply Nich. That tells me a little more about something I
have been wondering for quite a while now.
You know what? Out with all the stops. If this offends anybody well that's
certainly not my agenda. So please don't light me up.
Has their ever been an attempt, to bring Buddhism in as a philosophy, that might help to govern Christianity? I See the stereotype of the average
Christian, as very undisciplined do to culture. No fault of their belief's just
their up bringing. Far to prideful, myself included. I have always felt that
the word humble, was introduced to the west by the east. I think we could do well to recognise our decadence, as a result of our society, despite our
beliefs.

I admire very much a humble person. While I have learened through observation. I know nothing really of why a man should humble himself.
Something that seems to be, more the average the farther east you go.
Just that it seems a very correct way to approach God. I will stop short
to save some time, as I think everyone can see where I"m going with
this.

Nich and anybody else if you like. I see the two as being very good for each other.
What say you Nich? If this is obserd and I'm a bafoon I can hang? They just seem to need each other from what I know and see. Would
Christianity be the spoiler of such a union? I don't know.

It's communist

I thought this was a roll. That is clssically the most closed minded
thing I've ever read.


One more thing Nich.
Get a fracken Avatar will ya!

Oh I mean please.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by randyvs]

reply to post by randyvs


It will likely never happen. While Christianity is rather simple in it's teachings for the average individual, Buddhism as a whole is a bit more complicated, regardless of sect or tradition.

But when it comes to those who study these things intensely, you are not the first to make the realization and connect the similarities between the two faiths. In academia many who study Christianity typically choose Buddhism to study as well. Many Christian scholars have taken up Buddhism as sort of a supplemental teaching and again many Buddhists take up Christianity. They're remarkably similar beliefs, especially given the nature of the beginning of Christianity.

But for the average individual, the average Christian, who likely hasn't read the entirety of the bible let alone have the faintest understanding of Buddhism, to practice Buddhist beliefs as well as Christian? Never going to happen.

reply to post by randyvs


Gave you a star for that one!

On another thread I posted a nice little story about the elephant and the blind men. Do you remember?

The story of the blind men and an elephant originated from India.
In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one touches a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one's perspective, suggesting that what seems an absolute truth may be relative due to the deceptive nature of half-truths.

In my weltanschauung the elephant is GOD and the blind men represent religions and philosophies. GOD is so complex and so magnificent that, as humans, we can only get a glimpse of the entity. The very nature of man's limited senses and brain capacity prohibits us from full knowledge of GOD. (The Kabala, Jewish mysticism, strongly hints at the same concept.)

It makes total sense to me that we then combine the puzzles and half-truths to come up with a better picture/understanding of what GOD really is. The gate keepers of religions are very much aware of that possibility and try to surpress it with a vengeance. Any kind of tactic is used to encourage you to look at your chosen belief system with thick blinders. Unfortunately Buddhism and Atheism are not excluded from that list.

I am convinced, though, that in a few thousand years, if we don't blow up the planet, we will have a synthesis of religions that is universally accepted and practiced. Yes, I'm a dreamer, but I believe it with all my heart.

Once it was thought and taught that segregation is ok. Heck, I shudder to think that just a few decades ago it was practiced here in the US. But we have come a long way and we will come a long way with religion.

From an evolutionary view point all religions are still in their infancy. Contrary to popular believe they are constantly shifting and adjusting to culture and time. I always like to point out to Christian fundamentalists that they're actually Jewish, were they born 2000 years ago.

I would welcome a truly unitarian religion that puts humans welfare at its center. We can learn so much from each other, assuming we'd be open enough to discard all the religous nonsense that is floating around.

Shin Yatomi put it so eloquently:

“The universal truth of life comes before religions and nations. Blind obedience to authority – whether it is religious or political - not only obscures life’s truth but also causes enormous suffering, as history of humanity has repeatedly shown us through persecutions and genocides. People are not a means to an end.”

Anyway, sorry for my rant. I'm just happy that we're talking. Given the fact that we were at each others throat a few days ago in another thread and time, this is wonderful. The Holy Spirit is great!



BTW: There is a reason why my avatar remains formless

Anyway, sorry for my rant. I'm just happy that we're talking. Given the fact that we were at each others throat a few days ago in another thread and time, this is wonderful. The Holy Spirit is great!

For me that was no rant. I appreciate it.
At each others throats?
Why! I never even noticed!
I think you understand my," offense is the best defense attitude " is
required on these boards. Anyway I don't like to cause hard feelings or
hold a grudge. I was suprised to see this your thread. Moving along well too.
Check it out Nich.

I was thinking, trying to imagine, what a thread would look like?,
If I started one that the headline read , Whats wrong with Christianity?


I better not out of simpathy for the Mods. Star n flag.

"Not always so..."

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Buddhism, like Hinduism, Sikhism, Christianity and Islam is fine. A lot of the content seems okay...good advice, parables, allegories and whatever else. They all have peace and understanding at heart. Here's the kicker...the organisation (religion) behind Buddhism has an equally crummy record of keeping people down and fighting with people that didn't share their views.

A slight correction, here, but only some schools of Buddhism have anything that you could call an "organisation" or "religion" behind them. Others have absolutely no organisational structure with which to "keep people down and fight with people that didn't share their views," nor are they even religious or anything to do with "religion."

Buddhism is a theocracy...Tibet isn't all about social mobility, freedom of choice and independence. It's a hierarchy in the same sense as any other nation. The poor at the bottom...as usual.

Tibetan Buddhism may be a theocracy, but you can't say with any degree of accuracy whatsoever that all of Buddhism is a theocracy or a hierarchy. You may consider that a purely semantic argument but I think it important that the distinction be made.

reply to post by Cadbury
Hiya Cadbury, you may well be right...I gave up studying religions a few years ago. Nowadays, I might check out an idea for whatever reason. Buddhism as I understand it, is hierarchical and organised. Monastic Buddhism has the Sangha of monks and nuns and clergy?...which indicates a social strata ergo organisation.

Buddhist groups have physically fought each other and opposing groups throughout the 20th Century...Burma, Korea, Sri Lanka, Japan, India and Thailand. In South Korea two groups fought over control of the Chogye Order...with its array of property and money. Like other religious groups, they are sustained by donations, tributes, compensations and concessions (semantics) from the people. The Dalai Lama is a lovely man, yet he travels the world whilst most adherents can't. From where does he get the finances to do this?

I'll accept that individual Buddhists aren't subservient to a monastery, temple...they are free to follow the precepts free of the hassle. At the same time, other faiths have the same potential for those that choose to. I'm sure you do your meditations without throwing money at the local Buddhist Order...

As I tried to make clear, I've no axe to grind with Buddhism. I was adding salt to the notion that it represents an alternative to organised religion...it has many of the same historical failings as any of the others. Whether I'm right or wrong is likely dependent on your perception of what a religion is

Originally posted by The time lord
I just get the feeling it is saying you can be God if you tried hard enough instead of worshing God. Yes we are like God in a sense of knowing good and evil we are different from the animals. We may not be the biggest or fastest animals on the planet but I bet we could kill every species off if we tried.

We are not one with the universe we percieve it, but I bet the eye can look across the sky and see lightyears across but yet we can not reach those distances. We are not going to be God we will always be outside him as the Bible says, the slave is no greater than his master, it is impossible in that sense. I have seen no progress in the Buddha state of the world, if they can reach these powers then use them, otherwise its just a faith saying you will go onto an afterlife which is the same as any other religion.

no offense, but 'god' isn't a Buddhist concept.
isn't the unspoken truth of Xtianity that a man can be god? absolutely not true in buddhism, judaism, islam......


and the only 'power' of Buddhism is power over the self.
it is said that walking on water isn't worth the dollar it costs to take the boat. why? because the point of Buddhism is power over self, not doing parlor tricks. enlightenment is actually more important than anything. true awareness of emptiness-of-self, not the spiritual materialism of the self-proclaimed enlightened ones (illuminati)

[edit on 21-2-2010 by IandEye]

Originally posted by Nichiren

Originally posted by IandEye
reply to post by IandEye

 

BTW- i have a BA in Buddhism so try to argue if you want, but.................

Does the "but" mean that your personal, educated view of Buddhism is the correct way?
Just curious ...

hahaha- not at all my friend. my way is the way of 'no way' anyhow......."at all costs avoid choosing"- Buddha

what i was meaning, actually, is that we can only see what we are able to see (we need something familiar to compare our experiences to) and in the west we are so well structured with 'precedence'..............i can quote to you all day long in english, sanskrit, and tibetan and because of western upbringing (even the fearsome military is ruled by courts of law........'precedence'- thanks england) most would be naturally inclined to believe me. fortunately i dont live off people's energy, and i would actually help to confuse you into understanding that there is no undertanding......with or without photons and mirrors.....


the answer to your OP is 'mu'

You mention you are of the 'Nichiren Sect"? there are 7 schools of Nichiren and one floating "lay org." that doesn't belong to any of them and has morphed itself into some kind of "world peace" movement, -very- loosely built on "pick and choose" parts of the doctrines of one actual religious "school" . In the actual religious schools there are -major- doctrinal differences. Mine (since 1975) regards Nichiren as the Buddha, others regard him as "Saint Nichiren". In Buddhism? That is -very- significant.

Problems? Well I can only speak for my experience but the willingness to ignore dichotomy is certainly rampant in ours. For example, I've been told by Priests of our temple that (as was mentioned in one of the responses) the wave in the ocean type theory of existence and non-existence (Jap. "Ku, Ke, Chu, no Santai) is the "doctrine" of the sect and that the concept of "Transmigration" is -not- So the "individual" when he leaves the state of existence? by that definition goes back to the cosmic soup and has no individual "karma" anymore and when 'reborn' is parts and pieces of the cosmic soup that were various pieces of animate life in their previous "life".

Yet pronouncing that? We hold services and the collect alms for the dead "Individual" (who wasn't really an Individual) and supposedly sure ain't now that he/she is in the state of non-existence. I've posed the question many times to our Priesthood and to Lay believers, and always get the famous "Blank Stare." No "religion" likes to be confronted with the suggestion that their logic is tautological in nature and ours certainly is no different. But they ALL do it.

That runs into problems for the concept of karma carried into "your" current life from "your" previous existence if the Sum Total of infinitesimal "you" is only working on (or against) the total karma of the "cosmic soup"? Then the effect "you" might have by 'changing 'your' (first person possessive singular) karma' on the astronomical size of the "karmic soup" (mathematically) would virtually nullify it as to impact on said "soup". Yet throughout his (Goshos) letters to believers he constantly states "In YOUR last life", "in MY last life" ad infinitum.

In my own school I notice a significant proportion of the members who accept contradiction cheerfully and go on playing "bumper car" with life. "gosh! Where did that come from?" Some of the least observant people I have -ever- encountered in my 61 years? Are Nichiren "Buddhists". (it may be that we just 'attract' them). They seem to have the unspoken theory that "if I chant? I don't have to pay attention, much less act on the basis that what I do, affects people around me.

If understanding the "nature" of the universe and everything in it and the subsequent changing of "your" karma before you leave the state of existence is the key point, however you are told to accomplish that in the Hinayana (provisional and actual) and Mahayana (provisional and actual) schools. Certainly part of it is the almost complete absence of the "fist person singular possessive" in Nehongo (Japanese) and the fact that in Japan? The in-use dictionary, Jap. to English (Kenkusha) was "written" over a century ago, by a bunch of western Christian missionaries who "transliterated" Japanese words and concepts, to fit their doctrinaire. When I was working in Japan years ago, I ran into the paradox constantly in even the scientific community.

I studied for the Anglican ministry as a young man, and Christianity has it's share of the same, including the time of origin of the Bible and who actually 'wrote' the contents. The number of contradictory statements in the "Bible" are huge. During studies my conclusion was they really ought to call it "Paulism" except the "Apocrypha" which they chose to ignore as addendum and errata. (the Jefferson Bible is an eye opener if you've never seen it).
jccampb

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Cadbury

 

Hiya Cadbury, you may well be right...I gave up studying religions a few years ago. Nowadays, I might check out an idea for whatever reason. Buddhism as I understand it, is hierarchical and organised. Monastic Buddhism has the Sangha of monks and nuns and clergy?...which indicates a social strata ergo organisation.

A Good day to the Kandinsky!

You are absolutely correct that Buddhism does have hierarchical organisation, or other types of organisation, within it. But what I was trying to say is that that's not true for all schools of thought composing Buddhism, and that not all of those schools, flavours, or varieties could be called religious or religion. The crazy worlds of Zen, for example, are for the very most part not religion.

I'm going to quote The Way Of Zen by Alan Watts, here (which may raise an eyebrow or two):

Zen Buddhism, is a way and a view of life, which does not belong to any of the formal categories of modern Western thought. It is not religion, or philosophy. It is not a psychology, or a type of science. It is an example of what is known in India and China as “a way of liberation,” and is similar in this respect to Taoism, Vedanta and Yoga. As will soon be obvious, a way of liberation can have no positive definition. It has to be suggested by saying what it is not. Somewhat as a sculptor reveals an image by the act of removing pieces of stone from a block.

Buddhist groups have physically fought each other and opposing groups throughout the 20th Century...Burma, Korea, Sri Lanka, Japan, India and Thailand. In South Korea two groups fought over control of the Chogye Order...with its array of property and money. Like other religious groups, they are sustained by donations, tributes, compensations and concessions (semantics) from the people.

There has been battle between Buddhist groups or between Buddhist groups and non-Buddhist groups since long before the 20th Century. The Samurai had really, really sharp swords. And the notion that “none of this is real” has been used to justify some pretty savage and violent happenings throughout the ages. This still does not mean that all of Buddhism “has an equally crummy record of keeping people down and fighting with people that didn't share their views,” which is what you said, even though by “equally” you were talking about equality with religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

The Dalai Lama is a lovely man, yet he travels the world whilst most adherents can't. From where does he get the finances to do this?

From where do any of us get the finances to do anything?

I'll accept that individual Buddhists aren't subservient to a monastery, temple...they are free to follow the precepts free of the hassle. At the same time, other faiths have the same potential for those that choose to. I'm sure you do your meditations without throwing money at the local Buddhist Order...

“I,” myself, have no order, temple, monastery or master. I belong to an obscure, absurdist, non-sectarian Rinzai and Sōtō sect of Chán, or Zen Buddhism heavily connected with Discordianism, which is, was, are, am, became or could be a school of Mahāyāna Buddhism. And if you could, can, do or will understand the gibberish I just came out with, even remotely, you might begin to understand the problem that a sentence beginning with “Buddhism is...” could pose.

As I tried to make clear, I've no axe to grind with Buddhism.

You've voiced your beliefs and concerns in an articulate and respectful manner. Even if you had an axe to grind with Buddhism, I've not an axe to grind with you.

I was adding salt to the notion that it represents an alternative to organised religion...it has many of the same historical failings as any of the others. Whether I'm right or wrong is likely dependent on your perception of what a religion is

It can share some of the same historical failings as organised religion without actually being an organised religion, even if it sometimes can be an organised religion.

If you are to take note and remember anything at all in my two posts to you here in this thread, please try and remember this saying:



“Not always so...”

[edit on 21-2-2010 by Cadbury]

reply to post by IandEye


Made me think of this quote.

If I take a lamp and shine toward the wall, a bright spot will appear on the wall. The lamp is our search for truth, for understanding. Too often we assume the light on the wall is God, but the light is not the goal of the search, it is the result of the search. The more intense the search, the brighter the light on the wall. The brighter the light on the wall, the greater the revelation upon seeing it. Similarly, someone who does not search, who does not bring a lantern with him, sees nothing. What we perceive as God is the by-product of our search for God. It may simply be an appreciation of the light, pure and unblemished. Not understanding that it comes from us, sometimes, we stand in front of the light and assume we are the center of the universe. God looks astonishingly like we do. Or we turn to look at our shadow and assume all is darkness. If we allow ourselves to get in the way, we defeat the purpose - which is use the light of our search to illuminate the wall in all its beauty and all it flaws, and in so doing, better understand the world around us.

G'Kar "Babylon 5