lugotorix

Actually, that's not quite right. The First Noble Truth says that mundane existence is chararcterized by dukkha, which has a lot of shades of meaning. Usually it's translated as "suffering", but it also means "unsatisfactory". It's less dramatic, but more to the point. Even if you think of it as "sorrow", it would only amount to nihilism if there were only one Noble Truth; but there are three more -- that this sorrow has a cause, that it can have an end, and that there is a way to end it.

No, if by fundy Buddhism you mean Theravada, that's incorrect. Here's a direct quote from the Theravadin scriptures (the Yamaka Sutta):

It's a common misunderstanding of the Buddha's teaching, one that, judging from the quote, goes way back. According to the scriptures, he refused to go into detail about what happens after an enlightened being dies. He did refer to nirvana as "dwelling with unrestricted awareness" and describe it with words like "the Deathless", "luminous all around", etc.

BTW, referring to Theravada Buddhism as Hinayana is like calling Catholics Papists.


lugotorix

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: lugotorix ]

(damn closing tags, gets me every time...)

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: lugotorix ]</p>

lugotorix

I don't get it either. Why do so many people who have had bad experiences with the Abrahamic religions insist on tarring all spiritual teachings with the same brush?

Lots of verbiage that proves nothing except that you have a really dim view of ancient people. Your generalizations about religion are so broad as to be completely useless.

Not all religious thought is as anti-science and anti-reason as some Western fundamentalists are. Indian Buddhists, for example, established several large universities that lasted for hundreds of years and were responsible for disseminating writing, medicine, and other cultural improvements to less advanced countries.

Rejecting an entire system of thought because it has a label of "Religion" attached to it is every bit as ignorant as you claim the ancients were.


lugotorix

Psycho Economist

You win. My familiary with Buddhism doesn't cover any scriptures, I was most exposed to it in the context of a Chinese history course.

The Mahayana / Hinayana dichotomy was how the evolution of Buddhism was characterized in the Chinese history class I took; there were lots of specific schools of thought in each, but the two were introduced like "Catholics" and "Protestants". Sorry if it's not an appropriate distinction in Buddhism as it's practiced today; learn something new every day.

Waning Moon Conrad

This topic's cracking along nicely!

Primal

Well pal, parapsychologists have never defined their study as a psuedoscience either....what's your point?


The fact is that just about every professor of world religions describes Buddhism as a religion, and Buddhism has with it many aspects of religion. The definition of religion "a belief system that promotes the sacred in a way that gives life meaning". Three elements of religions are myth ritual and dogma.

Buddhism has a "sacred" i.e. Nirvana,dukha etc. Especially pure land Buddhism.

Buddhism also has a myth a couple in fact about the tales of the historical Buddha.

Buddhism has ritual-i.e. the eightfold path,meditation.

Buddhism has dogma- Dharma, Vinaya,Sutra.

This makes Buddhism a religion.

Ronin

Utter failure ~ Kill the Buddha!

gsx1138

Well while you all banter back and forth I went again. Other than having my foot fall asleep I learned even more this time around. There was an actual instructor there and he was able to explain more. I may be going with some regularity now.

Answerer

My point is clearly stated in the above, pal.


Are you sure that every professor in the world define Buddhism as a religion? According to what I had seen, this is apparently not the case. By the way, there is no dogma in Buddhism as I had said before that no followers are forced to believe or obey what the sutras has to say. Furthermore, myths and rituals are only found in some of the ancient Buddhism schools(and again the followers are not asked to treat those texts literally), not all. So, please don't generalize.

Nirvana is not a realm. If you still choose to think in this way, I will not stop you.

Well, Buddhists are never asked to treat those myth literally.

Eightfold path is no ritual. Rather it is a way of mental cultivation and so is meditation.


In Buddhism, there are more than ten types of Dharma and each leads to the same ultimate goal. So, to classify every different type of Dharma under dogma is misleading. If this is case, then science will be dogma as well.


All your definitions and understanding of Buddhism is deeply flawed. Well, you can go ahead and think that Buddhism is a religion(with dogma, rituals, etc) but I think you will have much problems in convincing others.

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Answerer ]</p>

Ronin

I'm convinced ~ no problem.

Just let it go ~~

lunachick

The originator of this thread has inspired me to begin meditation again. I've started (rather sporadically, I must say) because I believe it to be a healthy thing to do. It calms my mind, clears all the junk, and re-energises my body in a positive, drug-free way. I get a sense of clarity with regards to my problems and the possible solutions. Meditation has me feeling much more balanced mentally, physically, and emotionally. (At least, it used to! Practice will see me acheiving that balance again).

I mentioned the Dalai Llama as being the only spiritual leader I have any respect for because he is the only one (to my knowledge) that walks the walk he talks. Aside from that, I think of him as a very wise man with a keen understanding of human nature as well as natural law, per se.
I've not read much from him, but what I have read I like very much.

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: lunachick ]</p>