Jesse

Thunder:
How silent everyone has fallen regarding the Buddhist/Buddhist killings and wars.

I don't know much about these...can you fill me in on the details? Have there been any Buddhist "holy wars?" Buddhist Inquisitions, crusades, etc.?

Interesting how no one has discussed Buddhist cosmology (whose claims rival those of a flat earth)

These are not core beliefs of Buddhism, though; Zen Buddhists, for example, tend not to take any of that stuff too seriously.

Buddhist metaphysicalism (which is reincarnation and monisism)

Even reincarnation is not essential to Buddhism, although it is pretty widely-believed. Monism is not held universally either--many Buddhist philosophers believe that reality has no essential nature.

Buddhist salvation (which is produced through the cessation of thought--hence Zen koans)

Again, an oversimplification. "Salvation" has more to do with an end to attachment, although the thinking mind is often seen as closely related to the problem of attachment...endless pursuing trains of thought is a form of attachment, and perhaps attachment is not possible without thought (can animals suffer from attachment if they have no ability to conceptualize anything beyond their present moment?)

Buddhist evangelism (Buddhism is the first historical evangelistic religion)

Haven't they tended to take a more "laid-back" approach to evangelism though? After all, they don't believe you're going to suffer eternal damnation if you don't convert in this lifetime.

Buddhist variety (some like hometown Buddhism in Japan have worship services almost identical to Christian services including the singing of hymns)

Sure, but I don't think the nature of the services are what turn people off to Christianity.

All this put aside though, Buddhism is monistic Christianity. Just a few changes, take God out of Christianity, make salvation totally works dependent

This is a common misconception among Christians. Buddhism is not really "works dependent"--if you have no essential self, how can you be responsible for your own salvation? Also, "salvation" in Buddhism is not equivalent to accumulating good Karma, which can become just another source of attachment.

and put an end to rational thought and you have Buddhism.

No, I don't think there is any end to rational though in Buddhism. More like a recognition that rational thought is not all there is, and that we're often too attached to the thinking mind.

This relates to the Buddhist concept of "Absolute and relative truth," where rational, "dualistic" thought belongs to the realm of relative truth, not to be dualistically labeled "wrong" but not to be seen as the sole reality either....this page offers a nice summary:
http://www.tased.edu.au/tasonline/sukhavat/DBS2.html

Much of the goals are the same in the sense that the ultimate place one reaches is selflessness. The approach and reasoning behind it however is extreme opposites.

I'm not so sure they're as opposite as you make them out to be.

scigirl

Thunder,

Good points. It's easy for us, I think, to romanticize about a religion that really doesn't affect american society all that much. My personal experiences with Buddhism have been positive-through my step mom and through my readings of the current Dalai Lama. I just really like his philosophy--Christian monks will often approach him and ask him for Buddhist training. He will tell them they don't need it--to be good Christian monks is enough. Of course, I'm sure not every buddhist is this tolerant.

We do give christians a bad rap, I suppose. But to me, even though there are good and bad buddhists and christians, the underlying philosophies of Thai buddism (the one I am most familiar with) and mainstream US christianity have some big differences. The former stresses personal meditation (what can I do to improve my life, and the latter stresses outward evangelism (what are these other people doing wrong?).

Just my observations,

Scigirl

kctan

Well if you look back thru the history of India, you will find some wars which are attributed to buddhism.

Its just like the Constantine era when Constantine spreaded xianity by conquering the neighbouring countries/states & making xianity as the only religion sanctioned by the state.

Included here a short history for any whom are interested.

A brief history of buddhism

Thunder

Originally posted by Jesse:
Thunder:
How silent everyone has fallen regarding the Buddhist/Buddhist killings and wars.

I don't know much about these...can you fill me in on the details? Have there been any Buddhist "holy wars?" Buddhist Inquisitions, crusades, etc.?

Thunder:
Inquisitions and crusades? No, not that I can think of. Holy wars? Yes. Details? I'll have to look it up. If it important to you, I'll work at it, however, I'm sure there are those who are more familiar with south east Asian, Indian, and Asian history that could give you a more proper recount. When I study religion, I generally focus on the doctrine and not the abuses from the adherents.

This thread discusses some of the killing commited in the name of Buddhism. However, with Islam being the exception, I believe that most all religious murder and war uses religion as a tool of politic goals. I cannot justify these killings under Buddhist teaching, I cannot reconcile the inquisitions under any of Christ's teachings.

Interesting how no one has discussed Buddhist cosmology (whose claims rival those of a flat earth)

These are not core beliefs of Buddhism, though; Zen Buddhists, for example, tend not to take any of that stuff too seriously.

Thund.
Buddhist metaphysicalism (which is reincarnation and monisism)

Jesse:
Even reincarnation is not essential to Buddhism, although it is pretty widely-believed. Monism is not held universally either--many Buddhist philosophers believe that reality has no essential nature.

THunder:
Buddhism without reincarnation is not Buddhism. Reincarnation is the sole reason for seeking Nirvana. Without it, the Buddhist would simply die and be care free. Without reincarnation there are no Noble Truths, no Eight Fold paths...nothing. The belief in no essential nature does not dismiss reincarnation. Of course it differentiates Buddhist reincarnation from Hindu varieties, however, essential nature still peeks its head through the door in Buddhist practice (for example, young children who are said to be the reincarnations of previous masters). Your statement is equivalent to someone saying that the resurrection is not a necessary confession to be a Christian. Contrarily, it is the central tennet.

Thunder:
Buddhist salvation (which is produced through the cessation of thought--hence Zen koans)

Jesse:
Again, an oversimplification. "Salvation" has more to do with an end to attachment, although the thinking mind is often seen as closely related to the problem of attachment...endless pursuing trains of thought is a form of attachment, and perhaps attachment is not possible without thought (can animals suffer from attachment if they have no ability to conceptualize anything beyond their present moment?)

Thunder:
Jesse, all of Buddhism is about escape and Nirvana. Some may practice it for personal edification, for meditative reflection (I'll state again that it's dependant origination is really great) or other, however, this is not Buddhism. This is someone on the fringe enjoying certain benefits. The Christian church is full of these types as well. Even some of you atheists have discussed this, how you attend a liberal fellowship just for the sake of friendships and atmosphere.

Thunder:
Buddhist evangelism (Buddhism is the first historical evangelistic religion)

Jesse:
Haven't they tended to take a more "laid-back" approach to evangelism though? After all, they don't believe you're going to suffer eternal damnation if you don't convert in this lifetime.

Thunder:
Today yes. Historically no. In other parts of the world today? I don't know. They do believe in damnation, but it is not eternal and therefore feel no imperative. This is part of the noble truths (life is suffering). This life is their hell.

Thunder
All this put aside though, Buddhism is monistic Christianity. Just a few changes, take God out of Christianity, make salvation totally works dependent

Jesse
This is a common misconception among Christians. Buddhism is not really "works dependent"--if you have no essential self, how can you be responsible for your own salvation? Also, "salvation" in Buddhism is not equivalent to accumulating good Karma, which can become just another source of attachment.

Thunder:
By conceptions of Buddhism are not Christian but from a secular degree in comparative religion with an emphasis in eastern religion (s.e. asia, India). While there are forms of Buddhism, pure land is one, where you can seek the Buddha to aid in the process, in the majority of Buddhism you yourself are responsible for producing detachment. Regarding your comments on no essential self... tell me... who am I speaking to? I understand what you mean by that, but it is just sematics at that point.

Thunder:
Much of the goals are the same in the sense that the ultimate place one reaches is selflessness. The approach and reasoning behind it however is extreme opposites.

Jesse:
I'm not so sure they're as opposite as you make them out to be.

Thunder:
As someone who is very familiar with Christianity and educated about Buddhism, I an assure you that they are opposites. However, not in all things, of course. As I studied Buddhism I was very intrigued by its ideas and their overlap with Christian goals. However, at the core, the methods are starkly contrary. I don't want to spend much time on it here. If your ever out in California we'll have a beer and discuss the not so subtle subtlties that make them so different.

Thunder

Edited to add URL above

[ August 17, 2001: Message edited by: Thunder ]

The Black Adder

Thunder,

You are making several common mistakes in your (mis)charicterization of Buddhism.

1. "THunder:
Buddhism without reincarnation is not Buddhism. Reincarnation is the sole reason for seeking Nirvana. Without it, the Buddhist would simply die and be care free. Without reincarnation there are no Noble Truths, no Eight Fold paths...nothing."

Besides the fact this is a fine example of the 'no true scotsman' fallacy, it is trivially falsifiable to anyone with any knowledge whatsoever of the different schools. Both the Nothern and Southern Chan Schools, from which Zen arose, do not teach reincarnation, and both lineages of Zen, Soto and Rinzai, are the same. Even within the Tibetan Mahayana and Vajrayana schools that take reincarnation to the extremes of enthroning reincarnated Lamas, there is a major lineage (the Rime' or non-sectarian practice lineage) in which belief in reincarnation is not required to take precepts or practice.

2. "Jesse, all of Buddhism is about escape and Nirvana. Some may practice it for personal edification, for meditative reflection"



This is probably the most ridiculous mischaricterization made against Buddhism, one which only seems to be made by those who have never actually practiced it seriously. The central form of Buddhist meditation, that which produces "enlightenment" experiences or 'realizations' in some schools (Vipassana) is nothing but the direct observation of reality, not an escape from it.

While I'm at it your comments about this supposed "Buddhist cosmology" are similarly ill informed (such a thing does not exist) and would seem to belie your claim to have studied it extensively.

The nice thing about Buddhism is that the practice, the noble truths and 8 fold path, can be neatly divorced from whatever set of metaphysics people or cultures foist upon it. As a member of a religion which requires assent to a set of dubious metaphysical propostitions as a condtition of membership, you seem intent upon nothing more than projecting the faults of your own religion onto mine.

- The Black Adder

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It could transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.”
-Albert Einstein

Thunder

You are correct that I have never practiced Buddhism. I never claimed to have been a Buddhist. I would be glad to back up anything I have written with documented sources from my study. You are free to accuse me of being wrong. I surely am not a scholar of Buddhism and am open to correction if things are different from what I read. However, I reject the ad-hominems that claim that since I am a Christian that I therefore have a skewed understanding of Buddhism.

I made the claim that rebirth is central to Buddhism and that those who deny such are not practicing historical Buddhism but a form for personal reasons. I defend my words from the writings of D.T. Suzuki as presented by Robinson/Johnson in "The Buddhist Religion, A Historical Introduction."
Quote from page 303:
"The second category of Suzuki's writings was by far the more influential. His separation of Zen from Zen Buddhism gave rise to the impression that Zen might hold the answer to the search for pure, unfettered experience. From this it followed that Zen's connections with aspects of Buddhist doctrine that were more problematic to the modern, relativistic Western mind--such as the teachings on karma and rebirth, the seeming nihilism of nirvana, and the role of thics on the Path--were simply cultural baggage that could be dispensed with at will. This opened the Buddhist fold to a group of thinkers and artists who felt little or no allegiance toward the Buddhist tradition per se. At the same time, Suzuki's portrayal of meditation as the realization of the beauty to be found in the midst of the ordinary has had an overwhelming influence on how meditation has been taught in the west--an influence that has extended not only to Rinzai Zen, but also to Soto, Son, Thien, Dzogchen, and even Theravadin vipassana." emphasis mine.

You demonstrate Suzuki's influence with your Einstein quote in defense of Buddhism at the end of your post. Tell me, what school do you think Einstein believed holds no dogma or theology? Even Einstein's choice of words pointing to experience show the deep influence of Suzuki's separation of Zen from Buddhism.

Again, I am open to learn. Teach me where I am wrong, however, cut the personal attacks claiming ignorant views. If I write it, it is because a scholar of the religion has printed it. I have no Christian source for Buddhist material.

Thunder.

Prince Ashitaka

First off, nirvana is not nihilism. Nirvana is a state of utter peace and freedom. The other name the Buddha gives Nirvana is the Deathless State (Amata) because after one attains it one is no longer subject to birth or death. Of course Nirvana is not the naive 'eternal life' described in the Bible, where the body is resurrected and where angels sing. In fact it is so subtle it is not easy to describe. However it is NOT non-existence, as the Buddha makes very clear (Majjhima Nikaya Sutta No.72; Sutta Nipata, verse 1076). In the Dhammapada, Nirvana is described as the 'highest happiness'.

Second, every religion has bad followers. Don't judge a religon by those who fail to practice it. Including Christianity. Then again, from your holy book your god does quite a few bad things. I will document them if you wish. You can do a the same thing on our religion, try to find acts of Buddha that were less than satisfactory in the Sutras. I dare you.

Third, I really would like to see this cosmology stuff. I really don't think Buddha would talk about the wierd things like that, considering he considered things irrelevant unless it had to do with helping others out of suffering. I highly doubt he would go teaching about cosmology to his monks.

Fourth, it is true that Rebirth is a part of the Buddha's teachings. I don't see anything wrong with this. We even have some evidence for the existance of rebirth (See '20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation' by Ian Stevenson).

Fifth, I really think you are getting the wrong picture about how Buddhists view the universe (In your claim about Monosism or something). Please point out what you mean.

Sixth, Buddhism simply teaches that you should be in the moment and not crave things. That is it. Zen teaches the destruction of logic, but that is more from Taoism than Buddhism. Zen is Taoism with enlightenment thrown into the mix (maybe a few other things).

Did I miss anything?

boneyard bill

The first noble truth states that all that exists is dukkha. This word is usually translated as "suffering," but in this context it means something more like "commotion" or "disturbance." Everything that exists is in a state of commotion or disturbance and this is true in Buddhism by definition. "Nirvana" means "extinction." Which means a state that does not exist because it is not characterizied by dukkha. It is not a state of absolute non-existence.

The apparent pessimism of the first noble truth is the results from a poor translation of the word dukkha. This in turn leads to a misunderstanding of the term nirvana, and has led people to characterize Buddhism as nihilistic. It is hard to imagine how a nihilist could found a religion.

I was in Thailand in the army. The people there are very polite, friendly, and laid back. They have a wonderful sense of humor. I didn't study Buddhism while I was there, but I think most Thai's relate to it in terms of accumulating good or bad karma and having a good or bad re-birth. As in most countries, they're not much into theology. From what I hear, even Buddhist monks in Thailand don't meditate very much.

And yes, almost all the male population smoked, even some of the boys, but very few women did. They also loved their rice wine.

sailor74

I too have spent much time in Thailand, and the people are the most polite and wonderful people in the world, and if i had to claim any religion and be named something, i would choose buddhism any day.

But the central core of buddhism is to take no thought, be kind and considrate to others, dont force your beliefs on others and meditate to doscover the cosmic consciousness within you.

A far cry from evangelism and christianity in general.

So if you meet a zen master on the road what do you do? If you can answer this you are said to be enlightened.

excellent post to all. you make me proud.

danny

Thunder

Heave long sigh.....
First off, no one said it was.

So you are affirming that rebirth is central to Buddhist metaphysicalism? Are you defending me or Black Adder? (Or did you even read the context of this thread?)

Thanks for the pointless and irrelevant comments...

Again, no one said it was. It would help you if you quoted the exact part you are refering to when you respond. You are babbling about that which no one has disagreed.

Maybe you missed my post above? I quote, "When I study religion, I generally focus on the doctrine and not the abuses from the adherents.

This thread discusses some of the killing commited in the name of Buddhism. However, with Islam being the exception, I believe that most all religious murder and war uses religion as a tool of politic goals. I cannot justify these killings under Buddhist teaching, I cannot reconcile the inquisitions under any of Christ's teachings.
Correct if I'm wrong here, but didn't we just say the same thing? Sorry for getting frustrated here, but persons who mouth off about what they project other people say and think rather than reading what they write are an irritating waste of time. Who in the world are you responding too with these comments?

He abandoned his family to seek personal enlightenment and never returned. Should I continue? This is inane and banal babel.

Get a good book on the subject and read. What you highly doubt has no bearing on Buddhist cosmology. You lack a historical developmental view of religious thought. If you'll note above, I acquiesced to the comment that Buddhist cosmology is not essential to Buddhism. That does not mean the cosmology does not exist.

Congradulations. Did you want to defend rebirth on another thread?

I apologize for my rapidly written typo which you did not recognize. The word is monism. Look it up. If you disagree, feel free to point out where.

The whole context of my posts. Sorry for the strong response. I get angered when people don't read before they respond.

Thunder

[ August 21, 2001: Message edited by: Thunder ]