Buddhism

[Rage]

I have been a Practicing Mahayana Buddhist for over one year and during that time I have gained greater health and (IMO) A better life.

As I see it, Buddhism (which is comprised of different branches, including Tibeten, Zen, Shin, etc.) has a great deal to offer people who seek help in both daily living and improving themselves as people (a "big picture" view, as it were). I particularly like that it is not mutually exclusive to practicing a separate religious faith (like Christianity).


I'd like to keep this focused on Buddhism, and would prefer to avoid direct comparisons (in a good/bad, "this isn't as good as ________ because________" to various religions of the world. However, I think it goes almost without saying that elements of Buddhism can be found in many religions, and integrating those aspects into this discussion would be most welcome (assuming it can be done in a constructive way).

Here are basicaly the equilevent of the Christan 10 commandments

The Four Noble Truths:

All life is suffering.

Suffering is caused by desire.

The ceasation of suffering is attainable.

The ceasation of suffering is attained by following the eightfold path.


The Eightfold Path:

Right View.

Right Intention.

Right Speech.

Right Action.

Right Livelihood.

Right Effort.

Right Mindfulness.

Right Concentration.

Or from Rotten.com:

4 nobel truths:

Life's a *****.
The reason life's a ***** is that people are attached to material things.
Life doesn't always have to be a *****. You can achieve nirvana.
The way to achieve nirvana is by following the eightfold path.


8 fold path:

Right views, i.e., smarten up.

Right intentions. Once you're smart, try to do the right thing.

Right speech. Say the right thing.

Right action. Knowing and saying the right thing isn't good enough, you have to actually do the right thing.

Right livelihood. Make your living in an honorable way, i.e., don't work for Halliburton.

Right effort. All of the above doesn't just happen on its own. You have to work at it.

Right mindfulness. Once you've beaten your physical self into submission, you have to start working on your mental state, seeking the ability to think clearly and see things as they really are.

Right concentration. Focus, focus, focus! The path is only complete when you have refined your mind into a state of total focus on reality, which is generally thought to be accomplished by the process of meditation.



One thing about Buddhism is that it can stretch. Thoreticaly an Atheist could be a Buddhist (But would have to belive in rencarnation). Even a Christan could be a buddhist.

Thoughts?


/,,/
Rock on!

[danny android]

I have always found buddhism to be very interesting. but i tend to look at buddhism as more of a philosophie and not so much a religion. am i accurate at all in my preception? i am a christian however but believe strongly that there are a lot of similarities between the christianity and buddhism.

[red_orchestra]

Buddhism is a light among many of the worlds religions. It is one of the few religions that has not resorted to violence in order for success. It is a religion of extremely good taste... I quite admire it. While I maintain a fairly anti-religious attitude, I will say that I find Buddhism to be in a catagory all in its own. I believe it could be compadable with strong Socialism without any problems.

[redstar2000]

Is Buddhism "Better"? (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1101245436&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

(Hint: no.)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[red_orchestra]

Thats your opinion RedStar2000. Have you ever lived in a monestary with Buddhist monks? Ever? I ask you that because I have. It changes your perspective of the world, drastically. I believe that buddhism is a very human religion which teaches some very interesting ideas...some are directly related to Socialism and ideal society.

I'm in no way saying religion is a positive force, or that I am religious...no, of course not. But I do think sometimes religions have pockets of truth to them which are interwoven with myth to enhance their appeal. Socialism is conpadable with religions which teach humanity as it is, not what everyone should be.

[Black Dagger]

All the buddhist monks i know have ipods, and hang around with ruling class malays, rather funny actually.

[STI]

Thats your opinion RedStar2000

Well no shit.

It's your opinion that it's RS's opinion.

And that's my opinion.

See? You can apply it to anything.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_orchestra
Have you ever lived in a monastery with Buddhist monks? Ever? I ask you that because I have. It changes your perspective of the world...

No, I managed to avoid the military draft, marriage, and living in a monastery of any kind.

Lucky, I guess.

Every human experience "changes our perspective of the world" in one fashion or another.

But I note that Buddhist monastery life didn't change yours all that much...otherwise you'd still be there, right?

Or has Buddhism evolved to the point where monks are permitted to hang out on the internet?

With a PayPal begging bowl? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/teu42.gif

[Rage]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jun 8 2005, 03:01 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jun 8 2005, 03:01 AM)
red_orchestra
Have you ever lived in a monastery with Buddhist monks? Ever? I ask you that because I have. It changes your perspective of the world...

No, I managed to avoid the military draft, marriage, and living in a monastery of any kind.

Or has Buddhism evolved to the point where monks are permitted to hang out on the internet?

With a PayPal begging bowl? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/teu42.gif [/b]
How old are you man??? :lol:

I do not think Buddhism has evolved to where the monks own the internet. I own it but I am not a monk and while it is still matrilistic of me to use the CPU I need it for schoolwork that would not get done if I did not have it.

/,,/
Rock on!

[Black Dagger]

I do not think Buddhism has evolved to where the monks own the internet.

You're kidding right?

In melbourne,
-Monks on the tram with snazzy phones (camera and all)

In Malaysia
-Monks chatting away on msn with friends in australia
-Monks with Ipods

The first one was with my own eyes, the second is from pictures and the words of a friend of a friend. Rich malayasian family, her father is a 'knight' or something idiotic, they even had some high-up rimpoche over for dinner! Although her family is 'buddhist', she's one of the most materialistic people i've ever met, spoilt rich girl- a caricature. None of this seemed to bother the monks or the rimpoche, maybe it was the ipods.

picture of monk playing with his phone (http://photobucket.com/albums/v208/thedirtydiamond/malaysia2005/?action=view&current=IMG_1740.jpg)
picture of monk chilling in ruling class abode (http://photobucket.com/albums/v208/thedirtydiamond/malaysia2005/?action=view&current=IMG_1773.jpg)

[red_orchestra]

I'll admit Buddhism has left its old roots for the most part... still the knowledge contained within this belief system is quite useful. Still, I believe that the world would be much better off with strong Socialism and unity for all.

[Hopes_Guevara]

Originally posted by danny [email protected] 7 2005, 05:39 AM
but i tend to look at buddhism as more of a philosophie and not so much a religion.
So do I. I have ever studied Buddhism as a philosophy, not a religion. I am not religious but I like Buddhism very much. It is one of very few religions say that there is no God who create everything in the universe. Buddha is not a God, Buddha is just a man who roused up. Buddhism never inquire humans have to believe in anyone else if the one is not himself. Humans have to save themselves. Buddhist phylosophy is not mostly so mysterous. I refer Theravada. I also practise Zen. It make me healthier and more lucid.

[rahul]

budha is a great philosopher..... and probably a great progressive thinker of his times...i love budha but not the contemporory budhism!

Do you think there will be some progress in the world if the men dont have any desires?Well desires are the cause for misery.......... and i think they are the cause for development!

[red_orchestra]

Originally posted by Hopes_Guevara+Jun 14 2005, 04:20 AM--> (Hopes_Guevara @ Jun 14 2005, 04:20 AM)
danny [email protected] 7 2005, 05:39 AM
but i tend to look at buddhism as more of a philosophie and not so much a religion.
So do I. I have ever studied Buddhism as a philosophy, not a religion. I am not religious but I like Buddhism very much. It is one of very few religions say that there is no God who create everything in the universe. Buddha is not a God, Buddha is just a man who roused up. Buddhism never inquire humans have to believe in anyone else if the one is not himself. Humans have to save themselves. Buddhist phylosophy is not mostly so mysterous. I refer Theravada. I also practise Zen. It make me healthier and more lucid. [/b]
Ah yes, Buddha the true liberator. Agreed, Buddha wanted people to think for themselves not through other people.

[Hopes_Guevara]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 04:37 AM
Do you think there will be some progress in the world if the men dont have any desires?Well desires are the cause for misery.......... and i think they are the cause for development!
Of course desires are inborn characteristics of humans. Desires are never able to be destroyed. If examining the path to liberate Budha pointed out we will say as Marx do "it is just a great dream". But if examining Budhism as a phylosophy we will realize that Buddhism has a methodology and world view greater than other contemporaneous religions, even other phylosophical schools. It has an advance dialectics. However the dialectics is so absolute that it become mystical when explaining theory of samsara.

[elche08]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 8 2005, 12:44 PM

I do not think Buddhism has evolved to where the monks own the internet.

You're kidding right?

In melbourne,
-Monks on the tram with snazzy phones (camera and all)

In Malaysia
-Monks chatting away on msn with friends in australia
-Monks with Ipods

The first one was with my own eyes, the second is from pictures and the words of a friend of a friend. Rich malayasian family, her father is a 'knight' or something idiotic, they even had some high-up rimpoche over for dinner! Although her family is 'buddhist', she's one of the most materialistic people i've ever met, spoilt rich girl- a caricature. None of this seemed to bother the monks or the rimpoche, maybe it was the ipods.

picture of monk playing with his phone (http://photobucket.com/albums/v208/thedirtydiamond/malaysia2005/?action=view¤t=IMG_1740.jpg)
picture of monk chilling in ruling class abode (http://photobucket.com/albums/v208/thedirtydiamond/malaysia2005/?action=view¤t=IMG_1773.jpg)
wow u sure do have alot of faith in fri=einds of freinds........who exactly is that by the way???????? do u kno?

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 04:37 AM
Do you think there will be some progress in the world if the men dont have any desires?Well desires are the cause for misery.......... and i think they are the cause for development!
Exactly!


Have you ever lived in a monastery with Buddhist monks? Ever? I ask you that because I have. It changes your perspective of the world...


Have you ever lived in a Catholic monastery? Those aren't the kind of Catholics that have done all the crusading... in fact the Sisters of Mercy have an extremely socialistic way of life.

But that doesn't make me Catholic.

[Che1990]

I've never been able to 'get into' Buddishm, but I've always been interested. Is it a religion? I thought it was more of a 'way of life'. As for Catholicism...don't get me started :angry:

[Black Dagger]

wow u sure do have alot of faith in fri=einds of freinds........who exactly is that by the way???????? do u kno?

So you think that series of photos are faked? I know both of the women pictured in the photos with the monk, i referred to them as 'friends of friends' because i really dont think its appropiate for me to be giving out their names over the net (do you?), i thought the photos of said monk would be sufficient 'proof' of exactly what i described- since guess what?- the picture speaks directly to what i was saying!

What more do you need? Their addresses? however, i could get the name of the monk pictured if you so desired? yes? no? Although i have a feeling despite whatever 'evidence' i present, your 'faith' in the meaningless babble that is buddhist 'philosophy' will persist unchanged- whatever.

[»Evolu†ion«]

surely it should not matter as i myself have a honest interest in buddhism i believe that they may use material possesions does not mean they are attached to them?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Buddhism is a poser's religion.

"look, I too can believe in superstitious bullshit that's extra incomprehensible!"

[Rage]

How narrow minded you are...


/,,/
Rock on!

[RedStarOverChina]

I have met quite many buddhist "high priests" and they are usually bloodsucking hypocrites---including and especially those ones in Tibet.

The monks are more interested in relieving you of the burden of your coins than to relief you from you desires.

[RedStarOverChina]

oh yea...and Buddhism sucks. I do not understand why you need the "philosophy" (or "education", as most buddhists prefer to call it) of Buddhism when you could read all sorts of things from a variety of intellegent people.


The monks are not free of desires, even the "holiest" of them. If they REALLY dont have any desires, then that would mean they want to escape Reincarnation and they want it really bad.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I saw a buddhist monk in the DVD section of a Wal-Mart once.

[RedStarOverChina]

The high priests I have met are all equiped with the most expensive cellphones on the market. Guess where the money came from? :angry:

[STI]

I saw a pair of Buddhist monks strolling around the mall a few weeks ago.

I love how this thread degenerated into "hey, let's list all the times we saw Buddhists being hypocritical fucks". I'm not being a dick. I actually love it.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Haha. Seriously though, I am skeptical of most budhists because I know a couple who are annoying asses, preaching about it constantly etc., but I also know a one who considers himself an agnostic. But I do like somethings in the philosophy/ideas of it, itself. I did like Rage's "translation" of the noble truths and eightfold path though. Anybody read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? It's sorta budhistish/interesting.

[Xvall]

I agree with many of the tenants of Buddhism and all, but Mahayana Buddhism is total secular, elitist, trash, in my opinion. Of all the schools of Buddhism that is probably one of my least favorite.

[Guest1]

I think you mean sectarian, secular=good.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 10:17 PM
How narrow minded you are...


/,,/
Rock on!
At least my mind isn't so open my brains fall out.

[Xvall]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 11 2005, 04:00 AM
I think you mean sectarian, secular=good.
Yes. My bad.

[idealisticcommie]

I try to practice Buddha-Dharma as much as I can. The four Noble Truths, and the Eight-fold path. The rest of "Buddhism" is accreted crap.

Buddha Dharma is to Buddhism, as "Being a follower of the teachings of Jesus" is to Churchianity. Or even worse, going off on the pseudo-religios trip of "Marxism", or "Marxist-Leninism" And the worst of all is, "Marxist-Leninist-Mao-Tse Tung thought" ala Bob Avakian.

What kind of "Communist", or "Socialist", or "Anarchist" that I am can be debated all day long. It really doesn't matter. Trying to pidgeon-hole my belief system into a definition isn't going to help me or anyone else.

What I believe is this:

To me, capitalism as a system is Social Darwinism. It is devoid of any consideration for the ethical framework which is the foundation of any true civilization. In my experience, the success of any capitalist has been inversely proportional to his ethical standards.

To quote Che, "Capitalism is Barbarism". Engels said that we have a choice between socialism or barbarism. I believe this to be correct. Either civilization is prepared to shed its fear of scarcity, its "commodity fetishism", its delusion that happiness can be found in the personal acquisition of material goods, or it is destined to sink into the barbarism of corporate feudalism. I believe this would be a new dark age of feudalism only distinguished on the scale of civilizational advancement from its namesake by technological progress.

The time is now for true "Christians" to start acting like christians. Not always making excuses and rationalizations for their grossly materialistic and predatory behavior. I use the example of christians because I live in a predominately christian country. The same can be said of the hypocrisy of all of the other so-called religious people in this world.

It is true that "religion is the opiate of the masses". Modern religion is the means for people to attempt to rid themselves of their guilt of hypocricy; while maintaining their addiction to materiality. It is the methadone of true spirituality.

Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Marxist-what have yous, are no better. Their beliefs are akin to those of most of churchianity. Real Christians understand transcendentally the truth of the teachings of Jesus. But because of hierarchical teaching and indoctrination they are unable to separate what they know inwardly to be the truth from the knock-off teachings of St. Paul, etc. Marxists are the same. They know inwardly that capitalism is wrong. They should just accept this and act accordingly. Instead, in an attempt to addictively rationalize everything as humans are prone to do. They devolve from truth into same types of hierarchical and authoritative bullshit associated with religion.

"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." We all know the truth. We know it in our bones. When we all, (myself included), cut the shit and start acting like we say we believe, we will then BE the "vanguard" of the revolution.

[KC]

Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Marxist-what have yous, are no better.

Are you joking? Yes, they are better.


Their beliefs are akin to those of most of churchianity.

No, they aren't. You might as well compare the beliefs of a religious person to the beliefs of a scientist and say they're "the same thing." If you believe that you're a fucking idiot.


Real Christians understand transcendentally the truth of the teachings of Jesus. But because of hierarchical teaching and indoctrination they are unable to separate what they know inwardly to be the truth from the knock-off teachings of St. Paul, etc.

It isn't truth at all.


Marxists are the same. They know inwardly that capitalism is wrong. They should just accept this and act accordingly. Instead, in an attempt to addictively rationalize everything as humans are prone to do. They devolve from truth into same types of hierarchical and authoritative bullshit associated with religion.

Please, give me some examples of this. I'm dying to hear you back this up. Good luck!

[idealisticcommie]

Are you joking? Yes, they are better.

No, I'm not joking. So you say/believe.


No, they aren't. You might as well compare the beliefs of a religious person to the beliefs of a scientist and say they're "the same thing."

The inability of empirical science to prove or disprove the existence of a transcedent reality beyond materiality is not proof of the impossibility of its existence. Religious people may be deceived or mislead as to the ultimate nature of that potential reality. Materialists are closeminded when they negate even the potentiality of such an existence. One is potentially misled; the other suffering from demonstrable closemindedness from intellectual arrogance.


If you believe that you're a fucking idiot.

So you believe. Regardless, you should be cited by the site for being unable to refrain from devolution from arguement to insult.


It isn't truth at all.

"Justice","Beauty","Love", etc. are not empirically demonstrable. Yet it can be asserted that they do exist. Similarly, why should the potential existence of a transcedent "Truth" be invalidated?


Please, give me some examples of this. I'm dying to hear you back this up. Good luck!

1) Slavish devotion to "the party line". Trotskist, Stalinist, Maoist, what have you.
2) The tent-revivalism of the Cultural Revolution.
3)The similarity of the fragmentation of religious sects in all religions due to doctrinal differences and framentation of socialist movements for the same reason.
4)The cult of personality rampant in the communist, as well as the religious world.
5)A doctrinaire person, perhaps yourself, feeling the need to "shout-down" any intellectual divergence in the name of "doctrinal purity".

Same hierarchical and vainglorious bullshit; different church. Regardless, its my opinion that everyone has a god. Materialists just happen to believe it is themselves.

[KC]

The inability of empirical science to prove or disprove the existence of a transcedent reality beyond materiality is not proof of the impossibility of its existence. Religious people may be deceived or mislead as to the ultimate nature of that potential reality.

Once you believe this regardless of the evidence presented to you, you are being irrational and it becomes impossible to hold debate with you. Since you won't look at facts, nobody can debate with you! So either become rational, or stop posting shit about it.



Materialists are closeminded when they negate even the potentiality of such an existence. One is potentially misled; the other suffering from demonstrable closemindedness from intellectual arrogance.

Materialists will believe its existance once it is proven. This is not closemindedness at all. This is empiricism. It is rational.



So you believe. Regardless, you should be cited by the site for being unable to refrain from devolution from arguement to insult.

I didn't call you anything. If you believe it then you're calling yourself a fucking idiot.




"Justice","Beauty","Love", etc. are not empirically demonstrable. Yet it can be asserted that they do exist. Similarly, why should the potential existence of a transcedent "Truth" be invalidated?


They are empirically demonstrable.



1) Slavish devotion to "the party line". Trotskist, Stalinist, Maoist, what have you.

Leninism.



2) The tent-revivalism of the Cultural Revolution.

Maoism.



3)The similarity of the fragmentation of religious sects in all religions due to doctrinal differences and framentation of socialist movements for the same reason.

This happens in all intellectual systems, philosophy being the most obvious.



4)The cult of personality rampant in the communist, as well as the religious world.

Leninism, mostly prevalent in the RCP.



5)A doctrinaire person, perhaps yourself, feeling the need to "shout-down" any intellectual divergence in the name of "doctrinal purity".

Now, back this up.



Same hierarchical and vainglorious bullshit; different church. Regardless, its my opinion that everyone has a god. Materialists just happen to believe it is themselves.

I think I'd rather believe in myself.

[idealisticcommie]

Once you believe this regardless of the evidence presented to you, you are being irrational and it becomes impossible to hold debate with you. Since you won't look at facts, nobody can debate with you! So either become rational, or stop posting shit about it.

I believe that empirical science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a transcedent reality beyond material existence. This is not an irrational statement. Active and positive debate requires use of the socratic method. If you have evidence to the contrary, one way or the other, I'd like to see it. In the meantime, I'll post what I want, when I want, and we'll let the other readers decide for themselves what they want to think.


Materialists will believe its existance once it is proven. This is not closemindedness at all. This is empiricism. It is rational.

Yes it is. However, by refusing to even posit the question as a potentiality worthy of examination you are negating the possibility of obtaining proof one way or the other. That is being closeminded.

Suspend judgement. "I don't know", is an acceptable anwer. Just because some muckety-muck theist or atheist said it doesn't mean shit.


didn't call you anything. If you believe it then you're calling yourself a fucking idiot.

Again, please refrain from devolution to insult. Insult by inference is no more productive.


QUOTE


"Justice","Beauty","Love", etc. are not empirically demonstrable. Yet it can be asserted that they do exist. Similarly, why should the potential existence of a transcedent "Truth" be invalidated?




They are empirically demonstrable.

You didn't answer my question: Why should the potential existence of a "transcedent "Truth" be invalidated? You need to posit the question and answer it.


QUOTE

3)The similarity of the fragmentation of religious sects in all religions due to doctrinal differences and framentation of socialist movements for the same reason.



This happens in all intellectual systems, philosophy being the most obvious.

Agreed. Both Marxism and Theology are systems of philosophy. One is a potentially flawed system of historical analysis. The others are intellectualizations concerning a presupposed transcedent reality.


QUOTE

5)A doctrinaire person, perhaps yourself, feeling the need to "shout-down" any intellectual divergence in the name of "doctrinal purity".


Now, back this up

Your resorting to insult instead of cogent arguement.


QUOTE

Same hierarchical and vainglorious bullshit; different church. Regardless, its my opinion that everyone has a god. Materialists just happen to believe it is themselves.



I think I'd rather believe in myself.

OK.