Freethought & Rationalism Archive

happyboy · 04-02-2003, 07:40 AM

LOL then buddha shouldn't have preached his religious nonsense, and stuck with philosophy. he would have made more of an impact on humanity that way.

happyboy

Harumi · 04-02-2003, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by happyboy
LOL then buddha shouldn't have preached his religious nonsense, and stuck with philosophy. he would have made more of an impact on humanity that way.

happyboy

Actually it might have been his followers. At least Buddhism doesn't tell people to spread the Good Word, or kill the unbelievers...I've been disgusted by a lot of how the Chinese have corrupted it too. But we had better stop before this thread gets moved. The everpresent moderators are always watching...

happyboy · 04-02-2003, 07:55 AM

buddhism preaches reincarnation, which doesn't happen. it preaches a mythical state of enlightenment, which doesn't exist. it gave the buddha a quasi-deific status as the first "awakened" human. it venerates his body parts in those rediculous stupas, revering them as holy relics. it has all the earmarks of a religion.

and religion, no matter how benign, is a poison.

happyboy

lugotorix · 04-02-2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by happyboy

buddhism preaches reincarnation,
no, it doesn't.

which doesn't happen.
and you know this how?

it preaches a mythical state of enlightenment, which doesn't exist.
Your proof for this statement?

it gave the buddha a quasi-deific status as the first "awakened" human.
No, it doesn't. Gautama is the latest in a long line of awakened beings.

it has all the earmarks of a religion.

Okay, I'll grant you that; but for me "religion" does not automatically equal "bad". I have an open mind and try not to prejudge a way of life because it's labelled "religious".

and religion, no matter how benign, is a poison.

The other poster was right who compared you to a knee-jerk fundie. Your point-of-view is THE RIGHT ONE and everybody else is doomed. It's a pity. I used to be a lot like you, but I realized my anger toward the faith I left (Christianity) was just a mirror-image of it. I eventually got the hell over it.

lugotorix

happyboy · 04-02-2003, 12:44 PM

oh? buddhism doesn't preach reincarnation? so the endless books i've read on the topic lied to me? some of the sacred texts i've read lied to me? woo-hoo! man, i wish the buddhists in asia could figure out that their sacred texts are lying to them!

a very amused happyboy

happyboy · 04-02-2003, 12:46 PM

oh: and prove to me that consciousness survives death, and i'll believe in reincarnation.

happyboy, glad he won't have to believe in a damn thing

happyboy · 04-02-2003, 01:01 PM

oh, and where are the buddhas of today? surely SOMEONE in the modern world has attained enlightenment and is promoting buddhism in today's chaotic and stress-filled environment? why haven't we seen anyone with "supreme enlightenment"? why is it that nirvana is so far away? the culture of today is no less violent than it was in gautama's day; in fact, most societies on earth today at least make some effort to pretend that killing is wrong!

you can't even say that the dalai lama is enlightened, as while he is a generous human being with a kind heart, he still holds some unpleasant beliefs about homosexuality that seem odd coming from an unfettered being.

surely someone would have come along by now that demonstrated all the criterea for buddhist enlightenment. strangely, none have.

does this mean buddhism is like all other religions: based on a well-meaning lie?

happyboy, very curious to know

lugotorix · 04-02-2003, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by happyboy
oh? buddhism doesn't preach reincarnation? so the endless books i've read on the topic lied to me? some of the sacred texts i've read lied to me? woo-hoo! man, i wish the buddhists in asia could figure out that their sacred texts are lying to them!

a very amused happyboy

Buddhism does not "preach reincarnation". It is a hotly debated subject among modern Buddhists whether a) the Buddha taught that rebirth actually physically happened, and b) one has to accept unconditionally the doctrine of rebirth to be a Buddhist.

To illustrate the first point, here's a quote from a "Buddhist in Asia", a Thai Theravadin monk named Buddhadasa Bhikkhu:

Quote:

A single emergence of the feeling of "I" and "mine" is called one birth (jati). This is the real meaning of the word "birth". Don't take it to mean birth from a mother's womb. A person is born from the womb once and gets laid out in the coffin once. That's not the birth the Buddha pointed to; that's much too physical. The Buddha was pointing to a spiritual birth, the birth of clinging to "I" and "mine". ....
Each "birth" generates a reaction that carries over to the next. This is what is called "the old kamma of a previous birth ripening in the present birth", which is then transmitted further. This is how to understand the "fruit of action" (kamma-vipaka) and the reception of kamma's results.
from "Heartwood of the Bodhi Tree" p 86

To illustrate the second, here's a quote from a Westerner, a former monk in the Tibetan and Korean Zen traditions, Stephen Batchelor:

Quote:

It is often claimed that you cannot be a Buddhist if you do not accept the doctrine of rebirth. From a traditional point of view, it is indeed problematic to suspend belief in the idea of rebirth, since many basic notions then have to be rethought. But if we follow the Buddha's injunction not to accept things blindly, then orthodoxy should not stand in the way of forming our own understanding.
...
All this has nothing to do, however, with the compatibility (or otherwise) of Buddhism and modern science. It is odd that a practice concerned with anguish and the ending of anguish should be obliged to adopt ancient Indian metaphysical theories and thus accept as an article of faith that conciousness cannot be explained in terms of brain function. Dharma practice can never be in contradiction with science: not because it provides some mystical validation of scientific findings but because it simply is not concerned with either validating or invalidating them. Its concern lies entirely within the nature of existential experience.

Where does this leave us? It may seem that there are two options: either to believe in rebirth or not. But there is a third alternative: to acknowledge, in all honesty, *I do not know*.
from Buddhism Without Beliefs

"Buddhism" is not some monolithic edifice that has a set creed that you can write out in list form -- it is much more dynamic than most of the Abrahamic faiths. As such, it's extremely difficult to make absolute, unqualified claims about its core tenets. (If you had said most Buddhists believe in reincarnation I probably wouldn't have called you on it.)

lugotorix

lugotorix · 04-02-2003, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by happyboy
oh: and prove to me that consciousness survives death, and i'll believe in reincarnation.

Sorry, dude, you're asking the wrong person. I'm not entirely sure that consciousness survives death. While the research of Drs. Stevenson and Tucker is intriguing, it's not quite enough to make me a believer. I will have to side with Stephen Batchelor and say I don't know.

lugotorix

lugotorix · 04-02-2003, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by happyboy
oh, and where are the buddhas of today? surely SOMEONE in the modern world has attained enlightenment and is promoting buddhism in today's chaotic and stress-filled environment?
Well, to start off, the title Buddha is given to the one human being who rediscovers the Dharma
after it has disappeared from the world. His awakened followers would be called arhats or bodhisattvas.

As far as enlightenment is concerned, I have met several people whom I would consider awakened. Several are Chinese monks and nuns; one was an American woman who was a Zen roshi. They radiated calmness, loving-kindness, and presentness like I've never seen with anyone else. They probably wouldn't claim to be enlightened, though. Since the distinctive thing about the Buddha's teaching was the lack of a separate self or soul, and enlightenment means experiencing this on a deep level, you have a paradox -- anyone claiming enlightenment surely hasn't got it.

you can't even say that the dalai lama is enlightened, as while he is a generous human being with a kind heart, he still holds some unpleasant beliefs about homosexuality that seem odd coming from an unfettered being.
Firstly, he doesn't claim to be enlightened. Secondly, your information is dated --he has changed his views about homosexuality, after being approached by several Western Buddhists who are gay (like Jeffrey Hopkins). He admitted that his former views were unwholesome and based on prejudice. Quite an amazing thing for a spiritual leader to admit.

surely someone would have come along by now that demonstrated all the criterea for buddhist enlightenment. strangely, none have.
Another unsupported assertion. How would you even begin to try to prove this?

lugotorix

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-02-2003, 07:40 AM	#11
happyboy Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: on the border between here and there, WV Posts: 373	LOL then buddha shouldn't have preached his religious nonsense, and stuck with philosophy. he would have made more of an impact on humanity that way. happyboy

04-02-2003, 07:55 AM	#13
happyboy Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: on the border between here and there, WV Posts: 373	buddhism preaches reincarnation, which doesn't happen. it preaches a mythical state of enlightenment, which doesn't exist. it gave the buddha a quasi-deific status as the first "awakened" human. it venerates his body parts in those rediculous stupas, revering them as holy relics. it has all the earmarks of a religion. and religion, no matter how benign, is a poison. happyboy

04-02-2003, 12:10 PM	#14
lugotorix Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Western Massachusetts, USA Posts: 162	Originally posted by happyboy buddhism preaches reincarnation, no, it doesn't. which doesn't happen. and you know this how? it preaches a mythical state of enlightenment, which doesn't exist. Your proof for this statement? it gave the buddha a quasi-deific status as the first "awakened" human. No, it doesn't. Gautama is the latest in a long line of awakened beings. it has all the earmarks of a religion. Okay, I'll grant you that; but for me "religion" does not automatically equal "bad". I have an open mind and try not to prejudge a way of life because it's labelled "religious". and religion, no matter how benign, is a poison. The other poster was right who compared you to a knee-jerk fundie. Your point-of-view is THE RIGHT ONE and everybody else is doomed. It's a pity. I used to be a lot like you, but I realized my anger toward the faith I left (Christianity) was just a mirror-image of it. I eventually got the hell over it. lugotorix

04-02-2003, 12:44 PM	#15
happyboy Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: on the border between here and there, WV Posts: 373	oh? buddhism doesn't preach reincarnation? so the endless books i've read on the topic lied to me? some of the sacred texts i've read lied to me? woo-hoo! man, i wish the buddhists in asia could figure out that their sacred texts are lying to them! a very amused happyboy

04-02-2003, 12:46 PM	#16
happyboy Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: on the border between here and there, WV Posts: 373	oh: and prove to me that consciousness survives death, and i'll believe in reincarnation. happyboy, glad he won't have to believe in a damn thing

04-02-2003, 01:01 PM	#17
happyboy Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: on the border between here and there, WV Posts: 373	oh, and where are the buddhas of today? surely SOMEONE in the modern world has attained enlightenment and is promoting buddhism in today's chaotic and stress-filled environment? why haven't we seen anyone with "supreme enlightenment"? why is it that nirvana is so far away? the culture of today is no less violent than it was in gautama's day; in fact, most societies on earth today at least make some effort to pretend that killing is wrong! you can't even say that the dalai lama is enlightened, as while he is a generous human being with a kind heart, he still holds some unpleasant beliefs about homosexuality that seem odd coming from an unfettered being. surely someone would have come along by now that demonstrated all the criterea for buddhist enlightenment. strangely, none have. does this mean buddhism is like all other religions: based on a well-meaning lie? happyboy, very curious to know

04-02-2003, 09:03 PM	#20
lugotorix Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Western Massachusetts, USA Posts: 162	Originally posted by happyboy *oh, and where are the buddhas of today? surely SOMEONE* in the modern world has attained enlightenment and is promoting buddhism in today's chaotic and stress-filled environment?** Well, to start off, the title Buddha is given to the one human being who rediscovers the Dharma after it has disappeared from the world. His awakened followers would be called arhats or bodhisattvas. As far as enlightenment is concerned, I have met several people whom I would consider awakened. Several are Chinese monks and nuns; one was an American woman who was a Zen roshi. They radiated calmness, loving-kindness, and presentness like I've never seen with anyone else. They probably wouldn't claim to be enlightened, though. Since the distinctive thing about the Buddha's teaching was the lack of a separate self or soul, and enlightenment means experiencing this on a deep level, you have a paradox -- anyone claiming enlightenment surely hasn't got it. you can't even say that the dalai lama is enlightened, as while he is a generous human being with a kind heart, he still holds some unpleasant beliefs about homosexuality that seem odd coming from an unfettered being. Firstly, he doesn't claim to be enlightened. Secondly, your information is dated --he has changed his views about homosexuality, after being approached by several Western Buddhists who are gay (like Jeffrey Hopkins). He admitted that his former views were unwholesome and based on prejudice. Quite an amazing thing for a spiritual leader to admit. *surely someone would have come along by now that demonstrated all* the criterea for buddhist enlightenment. strangely, none have. Another unsupported assertion. How would you even begin** to try to prove this? lugotorix

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.