Summary of Buddhism (which also negates every religion in the world)

reply to post by Murgatroid


But studying only part of any one thing provides just as much insight.

Nice try, attempting to deflect that back on me. Ain't gonna work.

Originally posted by luciddream
The mentioned religions are much older.

So religions actually improve with age like wine?

reply to post by miniatus

but again I say .. if you're claiming to be Buddhist then you don't even understand Buddhism.. I added to what I said above.. but you may have missed it ..

"Buddhist doctrines hold nonviolence and compassion for all life in high regard. The First Precept of Buddhism requires individuals to abstain from injuring or killing all living creatures and Buddha's teaching restricts Buddhist monks from any political involvement."

Thank you, miniatus.

NotReally was recently on a thread I posted quoting Thich Nhat Hanh, a Buddhist master and monk.

I suspect this thread may have been inspired by NotReally and I discussing whether Tao and Zen are Buddhist traditions or practices. I maintain that they are at the very base of all Buddhist doctrine, and of absolute importance in understanding what meditation and Buddhahood entail.

NotReally told me that Zen is "trash" to be "dumped", and that I "should" switch to this Indian system he's promoting.

I don't get the impression he's quite aware of Buddhist thought to the depth required to give me that "advice." I suspect he doesn't quite know the whole history; but then, some fundie Christians are equally at a loss to explain the background and basic philosophies of Jesus, so, it's not surprising.

Namaste

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by miniatus

 

but again I say .. if you're claiming to be Buddhist then you don't even understand Buddhism.. I added to what I said above.. but you may have missed it ..

"Buddhist doctrines hold nonviolence and compassion for all life in high regard. The First Precept of Buddhism requires individuals to abstain from injuring or killing all living creatures and Buddha's teaching restricts Buddhist monks from any political involvement."

Thank you, miniatus.

NotReally was recently on a thread I posted quoting Thich Nhat Hanh, a Buddhist master and monk.

I suspect this thread may have been inspired by NotReally and I discussing whether Tao and Zen are Buddhist traditions or practices. I maintain that they are at the very base of all Buddhist doctrine, and of absolute importance in understanding what meditation and Buddhahood entail.

NotReally told me that Zen is "trash" to be "dumped", and that I "should" switch to this Indian system he's promoting.

I don't get the impression he's quite aware of Buddhist thought to the depth required to give me that "advice." I suspect he doesn't quite know the whole history; but then, some fundie Christians are equally at a loss to explain the background and basic philosophies of Jesus, so, it's not surprising.

Namaste

Chinese Taoism is not the base of Buddhism.

Buddha was born in India/Nepal. Where does Taoism come into the picture?

And most Buddhists don't follow Japanese Zen, let alone Zen being the basis of all Buddhism.

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Originally posted by luciddream
The mentioned religions are much older.

So religions actually improve with age like wine?

In my opinion, older it is, the pure it is to the nature and truth of the mankind and how it suppose to live.

reply to post by NotReallyASecret

Buddha was born in India/Nepal. Where does Taoism come into the picture?

You've already seen my sources offered to you, and rejected them and my position.

Your other two options are:
Ask a Buddhist monk or guru,

or,

Do some studying of the practice yourself.

Tao is a concept, and Zen is a way of staying grounded in the moment.

Besides that, I have nothing else to say to you, as you are dismissive, and mistaken in your assertions, or at least "unaware" of the depth of Buddhism in general.

Having your posts removed for violations is not exactly Buddha-like, so I am prone to come to the conclusion that you don't practice what you say you do, AND that you don't really know what you're talking about.

Plus, you're casting Buddhism in a very shadowy and incorrect light.
I urge readers to look into it themselves, if interested in finding out more about Buddhism and its different "ways."

reply to post by mideast


Sorry, i was mainly referring to saying innocent Muslims getting massacred in Myanmar. There has be a reason for the fight.

You can't make someone innocent by referring to them as victims and at the same time you can;t bash a entire philosophy by relating to some civil fight/war by people who just goes by a label.

in general.. can't discredit something because of a misuse by humans and their emotions and views.

reply to post by Murgatroid

So religions actually improve with age like wine?

Yes, absolutely, AS LONG AS their dogma and scripture are kept UP TO DATE. Which Christianity does not do. There is far more to spirituality than Jesus and Satan, and sometimes I wonder how truly sheltered and manipulated you have been.



Ever hear the Pope, or any other fundie/evangelical Christian leader say that?

Originally posted by wildtimes
You've already seen my sources offered to you, and rejected them and my position.

Yeah the Buddha was a Taoist, and Taoism is the basis of Buddhism......along with late Japanese Zen.

Give me a break.

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by wildtimes
You've already seen my sources offered to you, and rejected them and my position.

Yeah the Buddha was a Taoist, and Taoism is the basis of Buddhism......along with late Japanese Zen.

Give me a break.

I agree, it is possibly the reverse.

Taoist and Zen may have gotten their stuff from Buddha,and Buddha was originally Indian, who brought his wisdom and enlightenment to China.

I do find it funny how many associate Buddha as being Chinese. In fact he is a Indian of a Hindu family.

Originally posted by luciddream

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by wildtimes
You've already seen my sources offered to you, and rejected them and my position.

Yeah the Buddha was a Taoist, and Taoism is the basis of Buddhism......along with late Japanese Zen.

Give me a break.

I agree, it is possibly the reverse.

Taoist and Zen may have gotten their stuff from Buddha,and Buddha was originally Indian, who brought his wisdom and enlightenment to China.

I do find it funny how many associate Buddha as being Chinese. In fact he is a Indian of a Hindu family.

Yes Buddhism influenced Taoism. But if I said that, that other guy would have really lost it.

A star for you!

reply to post by luciddream

I do find it funny how many associate Buddha as being Chinese. In fact he is a Indian of a Hindu family.

I am fully aware that Buddhism started in India and spread to China. The Zen Buddhists use the Tao as a concept for the ..... nah, never mind. There aren't really words to describe it.

You all carry on. This thread, however, is a fail.

You might want to have a look at this website, though: Buddha Groove
The tabs across the top give categories of quotes for Buddhist thinking....INCLUDING ZEN and the Dalai Lama and BUDDHA

Zen is very much in line with Buddhism, and when Buddhism grew in China from Indian/Tibetan influence, it merged the Tao Te Ching philosophies with the Indian traditions. It's been like that for 2,500 years.

It's just history, guys, I'm not here to condemn anyone to hell or anything. What is wrong with embracing Zen and the Tao? They are VERY, VERY, VERY much in line with the Buddha's statements himself.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by luciddream

 

I do find it funny how many associate Buddha as being Chinese. In fact he is a Indian of a Hindu family.

I am fully aware that Buddhism started in India and spread to China. The Zen Buddhists use the Tao as a concept for the ..... nah, never mind. There aren't really words to describe it.

You all carry on. This thread, however, is a fail.

I think the simple question is, according to you;

Who influenced who?

reply to post by luciddream

I think the simple question is, according to you;

Who influenced who?

Hi, luciddream....
I think that Buddhist thought from India traveled to China, which then realized their own I Ching and philosophies were fundamentally the same, so they merged the two.

Please see my edit to the post above.

Originally posted by wildtimes
Ever hear the Pope, or any other fundie/evangelical Christian leader say that?

Thats because science doesn't conflict with the core doctrine of Buddhism, Dependent Origination.

Evolution, physics, chemistry....everything....fits with Dependent Origination.

reply to post by NotReallyASecret

But if I said that, that other guy would have really lost it.

Okay, I don't know why you woke up this morning deciding to criticize and dis me, but that's enough. I have not "lost it", I acknowledged all of your points when you "failed" my thread, and tried to keep the discussion and dialogue going. You refused to give me your philosophy, and insisted only on telling me I was wrong and what I "should" do.

I thanked you for your source offerings, and freely admitted I don't know everything about Buddhism.

Furthermore, "bro", I am not a guy; and you seem to be having a very good time ridiculing me with no basis at all. I'm here to learn, but to be honest, you sound very similar to the zealous Bible thumpers in your diatribe against me, and THAT is
DECIDEDLY
NOT
BUDDHIST.

Peace

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
The following is a summary of Madhyamaka:

All philosophical and religious positions revolve around only 2 views: Existence and Nonexistence.

One cannot claim that anything exists, since for something to exist it would logically have to arise from a) itself b) other or c) both these possibilities together

Something cannot arise from itself, because that brings numerous contradictions. For example, arising would have to be part of its intrinsic nature, which would in turn lead to endless arisings.

Something cannot arise from other, because then you could have darkness spring from flames. Anything could arise from anything. Moreover if an entity in itself does not exist, an entity other than it does not exist either.

Something cannot arise from both these possibilities together, because each one has been individually negated already.

All we are left with is illusion. Things only seem real because of imputed identities.


Reference: "Center of the Sunlit Sky" by Karl Brunnholzl

edit on 14-8-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)

Is this post an illusion, or did the illusion arise because someone believed they were intrisically intelligent? If I fail to recognize the intrinsic intelligence, is it an illusion?

Originally posted by wildtimes
Peace

Zen is a late Japanese denomination of Buddhism.

How does Zen form the basis of all Buddhism?

Thats like claiming Mormonism forms the basis of all Christianity.

Originally posted by WarminIndy
arise

Nothing arises. See first post.

So everything is illusory by default.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NotReallyASecret

 

But if I said that, that other guy would have really lost it.

Okay, I don't know why you woke up this morning deciding to criticize and dis me, but that's enough. I have not "lost it", I acknowledged all of your points when you "failed" my thread, and tried to keep the discussion and dialogue going. You refused to give me your philosophy, and insisted only on telling me I was wrong and what I "should" do.

I thanked you for your source offerings, and freely admitted I don't know everything about Buddhism.

Furthermore, "bro", I am not a guy; and you seem to be having a very good time ridiculing me with no basis at all. I'm here to learn, but to be honest, you sound very similar to the zealous Bible thumpers in your diatribe against me, and THAT is
DECIDEDLY
NOT
BUDDHIST.

Peace

Don't worry Wildtimes, their intrisic intelligence is mere illusion.