I want to talk to a Buddhist

[drain.you]

Hey guys,
Wondering if we have any buddhists among us that could talk to me on msn messenger or something. I'm interested in buddhism and want to learn more.
I am not looking for someone to give me links to websites. Repeat. I don't want links. I want to talk to a buddhist about their lifestyle and such.
Just add me on '[email protected]'
Thanks for your time guys.

[redstar2000]

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

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

[LA GUERRA OLVIDADA]

You gotta get on first, but ok.

[Xvall]

I like how redstar gave him a link even though he specifically dindn't ask for one.

[drain.you]

I like how redstar gave him a link even though he specifically dindn't ask for one.
Yeah, also he is not a buddhist so he can't really talk to me about it in the way I want.

[redstar2000]

Just a "friendly warning" about what you are contemplating getting into. :)

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

[drain.you]

You can bad talk anything, nothing is perfect. I like its teachings and use of meditation and intend on practising them. I mean who is it going to hurt? And if I don't stick to it then I'll be the exactly same person as I am now. I don't see how a spirtual lifestyle like buddhism can be negative to anyone or stop the revolution or whatever you claim it does.

[Bannockburn]

Actually from what I've read from Redstar, his webiste misses a lot of what Buddhism as a philosophy represents. A lot of misconceptions, and generalizations. A small example that Buddhism does nothing for the poor or people at the bottom. In fact, historically this is wrong. In the beginning all text, chants, etc where not written in the elite Sanskrit, but rather the common language or the “bottom people” of pali. Another example would be the whole 'suffering rhetoric. Well Buddda never said suffering, that “life is suffering” or there is “suffering”. This is bad translation, and misses the whole point of the first noble truth of dukkha.

[ComradeOm]

All religion is harmful. Period.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Bannockburn
Actually from what I've read from Redstar, his website misses a lot of what Buddhism as a philosophy represents.

Well, I was arguing with people who claimed to be knowledgeable Buddhists.

Were they all just wankers?

Or is it just another case of "oh, they're not real Buddhists".


A small example that Buddhism does nothing for the poor or people at the bottom. In fact, historically this is wrong. In the beginning all text, chants, etc where not written in the elite Sanskrit, but rather the common language of the “bottom people” of pali.

So what? If you're lying to people, how does it ethically improve matters to do so in their own language?


Another example would be the whole 'suffering rhetoric. Well Buddha never said suffering, that “life is suffering” or there is “suffering”. This is bad translation, and misses the whole point of the first noble truth of dukkha.

Shall I call it "redstar's law"? "Bad translation" is the last refuge of a theological scoundrel.

This is (at least!) the third occasion in which this "excuse" has been put forward that I can remember.

I'm not buying it.

When you look at a hellhole like Tibet was under Buddhism, the conclusion is inescapable.

It's just as bad as all the rest!

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

[Publius]

But Redstar! The Dalai Lama isn't a reaaaaaaal Bhuddist!

Real Bhuddists would never run a repressive dictatorship!

[Leif]

Red, I don't think anyone is trying to argue for Buddhism here, not completely. I have yet to hear anyone really try to rationalize the actions of Thailand.

Evil Shit has happened under atheist governments too, we should be softer on religion and harder on despots. If a tyrant also happens to be a religious leader, all the better.

[Bannockburn]

Well, I was arguing with people who claimed to be knowledgeable Buddhists.

Were they all just wankers?

Or is it just another case of "oh, they're not real Buddhists".

Well knowledge claims is hard to determine. I don't know if they are “real” Buddhist, but I'm going to assume if somebody claims that, then it probably means they aren't. Historically speaking, there are no titles, philosophy, religion, real, not real does not signify it accurately. Its one of those of, “it is what it is, independent of all things which makes what it is”. Contradicting? If you say yes, then you don't know “buddhism”.


So what? If you're lying to people, how does it ethically improve matters to do so in their own language?

Where is he lying to begin with? Second, because to understand one must speak in a language to be understood.


This is (at least!) the third occasion in which this "excuse" has been put forward that I can remember.

I'm not buying it.

Well you can try to claim that I'm retreating to “translation” problems, but I'm not. Any good book on buddhism will leave it untranslated, and will have the pali word of dukkha. Nevertheless, translation is important and always has been and will be a problem. This is why some texts are better than others, ie, the penguin edition of the Republic, or the Oxford University press. Its hardly an excuse, and it presents a real problem. First rule of philosophy – if its not in its original language, treat it with a grain of salt. This is first year.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Bannockburn
Where is he lying to begin with?

Everything the Buddha told people he made up.

There's no such thing as a "soul". There's no such thing as "reincarnation". There's no such thing as "karma" -- though acts often do have unanticipated negative consequences.

When you make up a bunch of stuff and tell people that "it's really true", then you are guilty of lying.

If one wishes to be charitable, one can always say that the lie was unintentional. A well-respected 19th century survey of physics would contain many statements that we now know are false.

But the people who wrote that text did their best to get it right.

They didn't just "make something up" and "stick it in there".

It's pointless to speculate, in my opinion, whether or not the founders of religions and authors of "holy books" really believed that what they were telling people was "really the truth" or not.

What we do know is that it was all fictional...not a single damn word of it was or is or ever will be true.

Thus, they were all liars.

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

[Bannockburn]

There's no such thing as a "soul". There's no such thing as "reincarnation". There's no such thing as "karma" -- though acts often do have unanticipated negative consequences.

Well there is no soul for Buddhism. You guys can agree on that. I never brought into reincarnation either to tell you the truth. Really both reincarnation and karma were brought over from Hinduism, so I often attribute it culture/historical prejudices.


When you make up a bunch of stuff and tell people that "it's really true", then you are guilty of lying.

Well Buddhism isn't really about being true. Outside of the four noble truths, I've never heard or read anything about being true. Its more like how to rid oneself of the second noble truth which follows deductively from one. Moreover, your not guilty of lying if you make up a bunch of stuff, and call it true. If there is a truth it may not be known, therefore he could not have been trying to deceive anybody, and be found guilty of lying. Lairs are individuals who know the truth, but hides it intentionally. Where is the Buddha doing that?


What we do know is that it was all fictional...not a single damn word of it was or is or ever will be true.

Well you have not really provided any statements which shows the contrary. Your argument reminds me of Tom Cruises bit of the history of psychiatry. You call it false, and all lies without any evidence to the contrary. You call it all lies, but which as I see it, is a omission of trying to falsify it, without giving any evidence in order to falsify it. By you calling it lying, obviously there must be a truth, but you never provide a hint of it.

[Ownthink]

Well you have not really provided any statements which shows the contrary. Your argument reminds me of Tom Cruises bit of the history of psychiatry. You call it false, and all lies without any evidence to the contrary. You call it all lies, but which as I see it, is a omission of trying to falsify it, without giving any evidence in order to falsify it. By you calling it lying, obviously there must be a truth, but you never provide a hint of it.
Where have you shown any evidence of Buddhism or any other Religious Texts to be true?

[Ol' Dirty]

Hey Man! I happen to be a Buddhist, but first you need to know something...

Buddhism isn't wholly a religion!

I know it may sound strange, but please, hear me out first. I'll put in quote from something I put in for a poll-type thing...

"Actually, many consider Budhism a philosophy rather than religion. A religion is a group of people that agree upon a god/s. The Buddha was born a Hindu, yes, but he makes no mention of one or more gods, especially not himself.

Believe me, I am a Buddhist (an un-orthadox Buddhist, but a Buddhist all the same) and an atheist.

If you don't believe me, answer these questions:

What is the name of the Buddhist god/s?
What is Buddhisms "holiest" site?
What is Buddhisms "holy" book?"

So, dude, don't give up being atheist! If you consider it a philosophy, you can still keep your identity!

Here's a woman who really helped me!

http://www.shambhala.org/teachers/pema/

Check her books and tapes out, man!

Peace

(Sorry about the link, but It will help you allot!)

[drain.you]

Yeah I don't see buddhism as a religion either. Its a lifestyle and an outlook on life.

Comrade Redstar, explain why you do not believe in karma please.

Buddhism isn't like any religion, for a start Buddha told his followers not to blindly follow what he is saying but test what he is saying, experience life and make their own conclusions. Nothing much beside the Noble Truths are taken for truth. Like has been said, buddhists are not blindly following a god or worshipping something that is not real. Buddhism is extremely rational in my opinion.

And will people quit saying, 'look what happened under these buddhist countries' and such, its stupid.
Look what happened under Hitler in Nazi Germany
Look what happened under Stalin in Communist Russia
Look what happened under Bush in Capitalist America
Look at this atheist country, look at this muslim country, blah blah blah.

Good and bad things are bound to happen under every religion/political theory

[Ownthink]

Comrade Redstar, explain why you do not believe in karma please.
You're shitting me right?

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 11:58 PM

Comrade Redstar, explain why you do not believe in karma please.
You're shitting me right?
Dude, stop talking about things you don't know about. And please, quit the profanity. It's only making your argument weaker and more offensive. :lol:

The reason I laugh is because allot of athiests (although I agree with the idea) think they're so righteous, when they're just pissing people off... like you. :angry:

If he want's to believe in something, he can.

Peace

[Ol' Dirty]

And pardon me, Redstar, the Buddha himself didn't want a religion made out of his teachings, people simply made Buddhism into a whore.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but you're simply being rude and offensive, and I would like it if people would have civilized conversations instead of crushing peoples dreams like some capitalist pig.

Please, consider others... and don't be rude.

Peace

[Bannockburn]

Where have you shown any evidence of Buddhism or any other Religious Texts to be true?

I don't recall saying it was true. Personally there are some premises I accept, and others I don't. Mind you, I do agree with Redstar, insofar that I get the impression from him that a lot of it (later developed Buddhism of the mahayana school)of religious symbolism, relics, statues, etc which are not necessary in the practice of Buddhism. Early Buddhism actually claims that such practices are unnecessary, but helpful to end dukkha.

I agree with FluxOne. He/She is on the mark. I don't consider Buddhism a religion, but a philosophy. In fact, I studied it as a philosophy, insofar my course program. As OneFlux has also pointed out, which I very much agree with, The text, the temples, the myths later developed, I consider somewhat unauthentic to core Buddhist principles, nevertheless later developed and shifted to somewhat religious like phenomenon. Nevertheless, Core Buddhist principles don't ascribe to traditional religious (Abrahamic) doctrine. There is no supernatural God, no self, no soul.

[LA GUERRA OLVIDADA]

Redstar was arguing with middle class suburban kids who read some website on the Dharma hosted in Los Angeles and took it as fact, he wasn't debating any Buddhists.

Siddhartha Gautama suggested revolutionary atheist theories(ex: big bang theory) at a time when people thought God controlled every movement that happened on the planet.

Siddhartha suggested scientific and logical explanations to problems in your life instead of God shit.

[Ol' Dirty]

Bannockburn is on the same page as me. Personaly, I don't believe in the more religious aspects of Buddhism, such as the... um... temples... and... well, I can't think of many more really religious aspects of Buddhism. It's the philosophical aspects that attract me.

"Any Religion (in this case, phlilosophy) that teaches people to be good, is one damn good religion/philosophy!"

[Shredder]

Why would one want to be a buddhist? Is it really so amazing that buddhists can sometimes whip out a phrase with some sort of touching profoundity or even some slant version of the truth? Any religion can do these things. As can Sesame Street. And if you wanted a religion so bad, you'd do much less harm to worship big bird.

[LA GUERRA OLVIDADA]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 04:03 AM
Why would one want to be a buddhist? Is it really so amazing that buddhists can sometimes whip out a phrase with some sort of touching profoundity or even some slant version of the truth? Any religion can do these things. As can Sesame Street. And if you wanted a religion so bad, you'd do much less harm to worship big bird.
You don't worship anything in Buddhism.

[CCCPneubauten]

Karma?!?!

When the Dali lama says that the Katrina victims got what they were askin' for due to Karma I tend to hate the idea and the religion...that's right I called it a religion.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 04:03 AM
Why would one want to be a buddhist? Is it really so amazing that buddhists can sometimes whip out a phrase with some sort of touching profoundity or even some slant version of the truth? Any religion can do these things. As can Sesame Street. And if you wanted a religion so bad, you'd do much less harm to worship big bird.
Maybye you should do some reading... on, you know... the page you're talking about?!? You would'nt be saying half of the things you are saying, if you had listened more.
For one thing, demonizing someones beliefs is offensive, but not even capitaliizing the name of their belief system is just ignorance. I really don't feel like talking to you people and your rudeness until you have something productive and useful to say. Why don't you create Bigbirdism, or whatever the hell it is you're talking about.

Peace be unto you.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 04:50 AM
Karma?!?!

When the Dali lama says that the Katrina victims got what they were askin' for due to Karma I tend to hate the idea and the religion...that's right I called it a religion.
For one thing, I can barely understand your post, due to grammar, spelling and punctuation errors. When I finally got around to deciphering your cryptic message, I have one question...

First of all, when did the Dalai (You spelled his name wrong!) Lama say this, my ignorant little freind? When?

You make blanket statements about all Buddhists, as though you knew us! I personnaly do not practice the religious aspects, only those of the philosophy!

Sir, you are what's ruining America, and the world! What you are saying is that you hate
the idea of love and respect. You want all people to be just like you! And that killed 6 million Jews, my freind!

Peace.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by FluxOne13
I don't mean to offend anyone, but you're simply being rude and offensive, and I would like it if people would have civilized conversations instead of crushing people's dreams like some capitalist pig.

I am a "dream crusher"...as are all revolutionaries.

"Dreams" about unreality are no useful substitute for knowledge about reality.

Of course this upsets people. "How dare" I just come right out and tell people that their "dearest beliefs" are bullshit? :o

It's "shock therapy". :)

I'm telling you flat out that Buddhism is just another racket and you are being played for a sucker!

And that shocks you! :o

Good...it's supposed to. :)

So you have two choices. You can just say, as many have, "redstar2000 is just a fucking bigot...to hell with him!".

OR you can begin considering the historical materialist criticism of religion.

And if you did that, it would trash all your metaphysical conceits.

Tough choice, eh? :lol:

Snuggle up in the "cosmic oneness of it all" or actually learn how the world really works.

There are others on this board who are more patient with superstition than I am...though their numbers are declining.

They think that religion is like "drug addiction" (you know, "opiate of the people" and all that) and people "must" be "gently weaned" from their superstitious addictions.

They'll be "nice and easy" with you and always take a very respectful tone when discussing your delusions.

But, as you can see, I am not like that at all.

I bluntly challenge you to abandon all forms of superstition!

And if you reject that challenge, then get the hell over to BuddhaLovesYou.com or some similar reactionary pesthole.

The name of this board is RevolutionaryLeft...and slowly but surely we are going to "live up" to that name.

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

[Ol' Dirty]

One of the chief elements of Buddhism is compassion. And if you think that compassion is a load of "cosmic bulshit" then that's a damned shame. I don't believe in god. I don't believe in reincarnation. And I don't believe in the "cosmic oneness of it all". I think you've become so hardened to hating people for being different, even though we are so similar, you have to keep with it, all your hate, man.

And I don't think you're a bad guy, man! But I think you've been brainwashed. We talk about how the cappies are doing all the time. redstar, your just as bad.
Man, I believe that we should not support the revolution, but be the revolution! We need to transcend the belief that our differences are what's important, because it's not. It is the similarities!

And to drain,you , don't let these people keep you from your beliefs. If they want to be like this, let them.

I'll tell you...

It's a damn shame...

Peace...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by FluxOne13
I think you've become so hardened to hating people for being different, even though we are so similar, you have to keep with it, all your hate, man.

Yeah, the superstitious are well-known for their verbal condemnation of "hate".

Give them the opportunity to "do a number" on their competition and we see a very different picture.

Sure, atheists have, on occasion, killed people. But only the superstitious have the sheer gall to claim they do it "out of love".

Nor am I guilty of a simple-minded hatred of people "for being different" -- whatever you think that means.

There are all kinds of differences between people.

Most are trivial.

Some are worthy of hatred.

We have 60 or 70 centuries of religion to look at...including Buddhism.

The track record of superstition (all forms) is horrible beyond belief!

Want to tell me that's "not worthy" of my hatred?

Think that we should all just "kiss and make up"?

Ain't gonna happen! :angry:


Man, I believe that we should not support the revolution, but be the revolution!

Metaphysical crap! The semantic content of your sentence is zero...it has no real world referent at all.

You might just as well say that we should "be" the Gulf Stream. :lol:

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

[RedCeltic]

"Actually, many consider Budhism a philosophy rather than religion. A religion is a group of people that agree upon a god/s.

Wrong. Budhism is a religion, one does not have to believe in a god to follow a religion.

Religion

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Theism

Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

One can be in a religion and not be a Theist. Such religions are Budhism, Uniterian Universalism, Secular Humanism, Atheism (Atheist Aliance), Positive Atheism, Freethought (Church of Freethought), Ethical Culture

[Xvall]

Siddhartha suggested scientific and logical explanations to problems in your life instead of God shit.

Sometimes; but he also suggested things like karma, reincarnation, the existance of starving ghosts, and six realms of existence - all of which are, scientifically, bullshit.

I don't really have a problem with Buddhism, though - so go ahead. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you talk about how you were an acorn in your past life.

[drain.you]

What exactly is Buddhism meant to have done which is so terrible?
Theres never been any wars in the name of Buddhism like there has been for Christianity and such. Buddhists don't even believing in harming animals. What is so offensive of their 'religion'?

I mean isn't it evidence enough that Buddhism does not act against the revolution when you have Communist Buddhists on this very forum?

And so what if an individual believes in karma, thats not damaging to anyone at all, just helps the individual live his or her life in a way which they feel is more morally right.

Also alot of the criticism of this 'religion' coming from RevLeft members has little or no evidence to back it up.

I don't mean any offence but you guys seem blinded by the idea that all 'religions' are evil and cannot be worked with to accomplish a revolution. Wake up. You have religious people on this forum willing to help you and all you do is mock their beliefs or restrict them. I think that is disgusting behaviour.

[ComradeOm]

What is a religion?

It is a con designed to dupe people into thinking that change is unnecessary. Its that simple. Whether its God/Allah or some fat guy, the message given out is the same – keep slaving away in this shitty live and you’ll get salvation/enlightenment/a one way ticket to Blisstopia. All religions deny reality in order to pander to fantasies that have no material basis in the hope that people will ignore their predicament and not "rock the boat".

That we have a number of religious users here is simply proof to me that the revolution will not be any time soon. It is impossible to be both religious and Marxist.


Also alot of the criticism of this 'religion' coming from RevLeft members has little or no evidence to back it up.
I particularly like this line. There is not a shred of evidence supporting religion. That what religion is – the suspension of reality in favour of faith and belief.

[Xvall]

What exactly is Buddhism meant to have done which is so terrible?
Theres never been any wars in the name of Buddhism like there has been for Christianity and such. Buddhists don't even believing in harming animals. What is so offensive of their 'religion'?

The Sinhalese prince Abhaya once waged a "holy buddhist war" to etablish Buddhism.

I never said I hated it, though. But you should be surprised when you come to a website like this declaring your intent to join a religion, and get a lot of negative respopnses.

[Ownthink]

It's not what it has "done" or "hasn't done" (although that is a large part of it). It is simply that it is a religion which requires you to abandon logic and adhere to superstitious bullshit. That is not what the Revolutionary Left is about.

Like Redstar said, you can't have both, so either go to a Buddhist or Religious website and spread your shit there or learn the ignorance of Religion.

[Ol' Dirty]

Again, answer some questions (and I am serious!):

How many god/s to Budhists worship?
What is Buddhisms god/ess (and if you say Buddha, or any of the founders or practicioners, you are dead wrong!)?
How many times does a Budhist pray per day (I don't pray)?
This is more of a comment than a question, but please, answer:
Name three times that the Buddha spoke of a god, gods, a goddess, or goddeses.

Finally, do some reading! Before you speak, listen!

Peace.

[Ol' Dirty]

"Buddhism, a religion and philosophy from India, is based on the teachings of the Buddha, Siddhārtha Gautama, of the Shakyas."

I acknoledge that Buddhism is mainly considered a religion, but it is not, I believe, and I do not practice the religious aspects of Buddhism?

"The word Philosophy has a variety of meanings. Its etymology is from the ancient Greek word "Φιλοσοφία" (philo-sophia), which means "love of wisdom." It can mean a system of belief, values or tenets as in Buddhist philosophy, or the Tao; a body of philosophical literature that created over the centuries by a culture or civilization, as in 'Hindu philosophy'; a personal outlook or viewpoint, as in 'my philosophy of life'; truth found in mystical experience, or even alchemy and astrology, such as the philosopher's stone." (I don't believe in this mindless superstition.)

What I do is partake in some of the ethical and metaphysical aspects of Buddhist Philosophy, such as the inconsistency of the universe, and practicing compassion.

I also believe in Communist governmental philosophy. What you are saying is that two ideas, two cultures, are incompatible. If you really think that, then I can't stop you; if you want to remain ignorant, then you may.

Peace.

[Ol' Dirty]

Give them the opportunity to "do a number" on their competition and we see a very different picture.

For one thing, I never said anything about "competition", but, for the record (because you have to make up some invisible "competition" :huh:), here's something that would be great for you to answer, along with my other questions:

Name three wars, with Buddhists as the offender, in the past that any Buddhist sect has participated in?


Sure, atheists have, on occasion, killed people. But only the superstitious have the sheer gall to claim they do it "out of love".

Okaaaaaay... now you're making artificial arguments in your head? Well, I never said anything about Buddhists killing people, but I think you meant that the religious kill very often. That is true, and I agree. But, Buddhists (especially those who practice secullarly) seldom kill, and when they do, it is in self defense.

Want to tell me that's "not worthy" of my hatred?


Yes.


Think that we should all just "kiss and make up"?

Well, not literaly. But I think that instead of getting all pissy about disagreing with each other (hint, hint,), we should just have a civilized conversation.
Man, get a life; stop drawing attention to yourself.

Oh yeah, and while you're all at it, stop spacing out your useless arguments out so much, you're taking up too much bandwith. :lol:

Peace.

[drain.you]

Like Redstar said, you can't have both, so either go to a Buddhist or Religious website and spread your shit there or learn the ignorance of Religion.
Was that meant to imply your wish for me to leave if I want to be a buddhist?

[Ol' Dirty]

That's what I'm reading. But he's just just acting like a bigoted asshole, pay him no mind.

Do what you think is best, man!

Peace.

[Xvall]

How many god/s to Budhists worship?

Depends on the particular sect you are talking about. Most sects, regardless, acknowledge that there are gods (called devas) in the celestial realms, and it is not uncommon for some of these sects to engage in some worship or "revrence" for said god. It's not about whether a god is worshiped or not, though.


What is Buddhisms god/ess (and if you say Buddha, or any of the founders or practicioners, you are dead wrong!)?

Avalokiteshvara.


How many times does a Budhist pray per day (I don't pray)?

Again. You are assuming that "prayer" and "god" are prerequisites for religion.


Name three times that the Buddha spoke of a god, gods, a goddess, or goddeses.

Numerous Buddhist scriputres refrence various gods, including Mara, who was said to attack the Buddha at the moment he attained enlightenment, Vajrapani, Kuan Yin (Goddess of Mercy), Shou Hsin (God of Longevity), and Manjusri (God of Wisdom). I can't name anything the Buddha spoke of specifically because never actually wrote anything down - all Buddhist scriptures were composed centuries after his death, and anything he "said" is speculatory, at best.


Finally, do some reading! Before you speak, listen!

I've read numerous books, visited a number of temples, and taken classes on the subject.


I acknoledge that Buddhism is mainly considered a religion, but it is not, I believe, and I do not practice the religious aspects of Buddhism?

It is a religion. The vast majority of Buddhists consider their beliefs to be "religious". If you ask a Buddhist if Buddhism is a religion, they will probably say "yes". There does not need to be a focal god in order for it to be considered a religion.


"The word Philosophy has a variety of meanings. Its etymology is from the ancient Greek word "Φιλοσοφία" (philo-sophia), which means "love of wisdom." It can mean a system of belief, values or tenets as in Buddhist philosophy, or the Tao; a body of philosophical literature that created over the centuries by a culture or civilization, as in 'Hindu philosophy'; a personal outlook or viewpoint, as in 'my philosophy of life'; truth found in mystical experience, or even alchemy and astrology, such as the philosopher's stone." (I don't believe in this mindless superstition.)

"Astrology" is mindless superstition, whether you want to believe it or not, and so is anything about "magical stones".


What I do is partake in some of the ethical and metaphysical aspects of Buddhist Philosophy, such as the inconsistency of the universe, and practicing compassion.

That's totally fine. I'm sure I agree with some aspects of Buddhist philosophy as well, but it doesn't mean that Buddhism is anything but a religion with it's own supersticions and scientific fallacies.


I also believe in Communist governmental philosophy. What you are saying is that two ideas, two cultures, are incompatible. If you really think that, then I can't stop you; if you want to remain ignorant, then you may.

Again, I don't think there's anything wrong if you keep this to yourself - but if you start publicly talking about it here, people are probably going to take it as a threatening attempt at prostyelization.

---


Also alot of the criticism of this 'religion' coming from RevLeft members has little or no evidence to back it up.

See my arguments.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by drain.you+--> (drain.you)Was that meant to imply your wish for me to leave if I want to be a buddhist?[/b]

Yes.

You will be happier at a message board where your superstition is acceptable, right?

And we here are always happier not to have to listen to preposterous suggestions "as if" they were "real".

We are not necessarily going to immediately ban you or restrict you...this board has not yet developed enough politically to make that possible.

But that's the direction we're going in.

At the very least, you can anticipate constant ridicule of that "fat guy with the big teats" as a source of anything other than complete and utter nonsense.

Your feelings may be hurt. People who disagree with your posts in other forums may say things like "what do you know -- you Buddhist booby".

Even on those occasions when you're actually right about some controversial point, the people who might otherwise "back you up" will look away because they simply don't want to be even indirectly associated with any superstition.

Like it or not, for serious revolutionaries to admit to superstitious beliefs is like confessing to coprophilia.

An inherently disgusting behavior! :o


FluxOne13
we should just have a civilized conversation.

That requires the presence of two civilized people.

Your admitted superstitious views disqualify you from the realm of the "civilized" in my opinion.

Superstition is a barbarous idea...and those who defend it await only the opportunity to put their barbarism into practice.

As the Buddhists did in Tibet!

When it comes to guys like you, I am proud to be a "bigoted asshole"...and would actually be ashamed not to be!

So piss off! :angry:

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

[LA GUERRA OLVIDADA]

Xvall, there is no god in Buddhism. It teaches against the idea of creationism. A god is a creator.

[violencia.Proletariat]

For those of you who think that buddhism is "compatable" with communism because there is "no god" in buddhism, this excuse wont get you anyware. As a communist you accept the fact that marxism heavily focuses on the studying of material conditions. No where in advanced capitalist countries does your unrealistic holy material influence anything. It does not shape or help potential revolutions, it instead focuses on a person who lived in a time that is of litte relevance to us now. His message of "treat others with respect" is the same shit most religions preach. However, this is not possible or acceptable. A communist cannot respect everyone, or we wouldnt be communists. Therfore as a communist you cannot be a buddhist too. That would be like an anarchist saying I voted to keep bush out of office. You are trading in a core value of marxism in order to have your little unrealistic idealogy.

[Loknar]

All religion was established to some degree by violence. It was how people did things back then.

One thing I will say about Buddhism...With regard to the human mind, they are light years ahead of everybody else. They have ancient secrets only thought from one Buddhist to another. Some are even known to mummify them selves before death.

In fact, there should be thousands of such mummies in Tibet if it wasn’t for that bastards cultural revolution (I haw Mao, fat shit pig ate while his people starved).

[Leif]

Within this thread we've seen people's opinions on religion and buddhism, however what we are seeming to forget is the fact that it's our job to speak up for these same illusionists when they are oppressed and fighting them when they are oppressing. We must accept that people will have their silly beliefs and move on. Our biggest threat is when religion and state are directly connected. When the revolution comes, we shouldn't purge the priests. Restrict them, yes, but not purge.

As long as the people in power don't believe in a big invisible force or gigantic man in a toga controlling everything, I don't mind what people believe, as long as they also believe in the revolution.

[Ol' Dirty]

How many god/s to Buddhists worship?


Depends on the particular sect you are talking about. Most sects, regardless, acknowledge that there are gods (called devas) in the celestial realms, and it is not uncommon for some of these sects to engage in some worship or "reverence" for said god. It's not about whether a god is worshiped or not, though.

I apologize for not making myself clear enough... my sect of Buddhism is purely secular, and in no way believes in a god/s, spirits, spiritual awakening, reincarnation, or any divine being.


What is Buddhism’s god/ess (and if you say Buddha, or any of the founders or practitioners, you are dead wrong!)?


Avalokiteshvara.

"In Mahayana Buddhism, Avalokitesvara or Avalokiteshvara (Sanskrit: Avalokiteśvara) is a bodhisattva who embodies the compassion of all Buddhas."

Seeing that a bodhisattva is merely one who has committed themselves to the dharma path (the precepts, the eight folded path, etc.), I would not call him a god, you see; possibly he is considered a spirit (which I doubt many people believe), but not a god.


How many times does a Buddhist pray per day (I don't pray)?


Again. You are assuming that "prayer" and "god" are prerequisites for religion.

To have a religion, you don't need to pray, but you still need a god/spirit to worship. I disagree with your definition. Also, the Buddha wasn't a spiritual teacher, he was a teacher... but don't get the two confused.


Name three times that the Buddha spoke of a god, gods, a goddess, or goddess.


Numerous Buddhist scriptures reference various gods, including Mara, who was said to attack the Buddha at the moment he attained enlightenment, Vajrapani, Kuan Yin (Goddess of Mercy), Shou Hsin (God of Longevity), and Manjusri (God of Wisdom). I can't name anything the Buddha spoke of specifically because never actually wrote anything down - all Buddhist scriptures were composed centuries after his death, and anything he "said" is speculatory, at best.

Although this is all true, this is considered orthodox Buddhism. Not all
Buddhists subscribe to it.


Finally, do some reading! Before you speak, listen!

I've read numerous books, visited a number of temples, and taken classes on the subject.

Although it is good that you have acquired knowledge on the subject, what I meant was that you need to read more on the page; listening to the other people around you, but you have done this too.


I acknowledge that Buddhism is mainly considered a religion, but it is not, I believe, and I do not practice the religious aspects of Buddhism?



It is a religion. The vast majority of Buddhists consider their beliefs to be "religious". If you ask a Buddhist if Buddhism is a religion, they will probably say "yes". There does not need to be a focal god in order for it to be considered a religion.

Now you are speaking about the tyranny of the majority. Simply because most people in a group believe in something, that does not mean that everyone agrees. Again, you are making blanket statements about all Buddhists.


"The word Philosophy has a variety of meanings. Its etymology is from the ancient Greek word "Φιλοσοφία" (philo-sophia), which means "love of wisdom." It can mean a system of belief, values or tenets as in Buddhist philosophy, or the Tao; a body of philosophical literature that created over the centuries by a culture or civilization, as in 'Hindu philosophy'; a personal outlook or viewpoint, as in 'my philosophy of life'; truth found in mystical experience, or even alchemy and astrology, such as the philosopher's stone." (I don't believe in this mindless superstition.)


"Astrology" is mindless superstition, whether you want to believe it or not, and so is anything about "magical stones".

I agree.


What I do is partake in some of the ethical and metaphysical aspects of Buddhist Philosophy, such as the inconsistency of the universe, and practicing compassion.

That's totally fine. I'm sure I agree with some aspects of Buddhist philosophy as well, but it doesn't mean that Buddhism is anything but a religion with it's own supersticions and scientific fallacies.

True. But... I'm sure all beliefs have their own falsities, even Communism (although I hate too say it)! There is no magic bullet philosophy.


I also believe in Communist governmental philosophy. What you are saying is that two ideas, two cultures, are incompatible. If you really think that, then I can't stop you; if you want to remain ignorant, then you may.


Again, I don't think there's anything wrong if you keep this to yourself - but if you start publicly talking about it here, people are probably going to take it as a threatening attempt at prostyelization.

So you are saying that I don't speak my mind :huh:? I'm fine with critiscism, but I reserve the right to defend myself and others against open insults against my and others beliefs.


Also allot of the criticism of this 'religion' coming from RevLeft members has little or no evidence to back it up.


See my arguments.

I don't think he was talking to you. He was talking to redstar :lol: !

Again, drain.you, ignore those suburban little cherries (not to those on this board who know what they're talking about).

Peace.

[red team]

Religion in general and religious belief more specifically has really more to do with how people respond to insecurities. Generally, when people have their sense of security violated they turn to something that would give them some "absolutes" to give them some comfort. Religion is a means of providing that no matter how demonstratably false and atrocious it actually is. As unfortunate as this may sound most people can't deal with a constant sense of insecurity. They either go mad or kill themselves. Its really no coincidence that the more Capitalist and cut-throat competitive a society is the more steeped its populace is in religion since the biggest insecurity there is, the threat to their physical existence itself is a fundamental property of the society. If you don't have somebody hire your for a job you go homeless or starve or both.


Red Team

[Ol' Dirty]

Exactly, my freind. Religion is what keeps otherwise good people at each others throats.

I believe that religion is just a way for religionists to feel good about themselves because they feel so underwhelmed by life. Personaly, I believe that Buddhism allows people to really believe whatever they want! I don't believe the shit that religionists spew out of their mouths.

Peace, my freinds.

[Leif]

The scary thing is that somtimes the buddhists condone the killing of non buddhists, as all religious folk may do to other religious folk.

[red team]

Exactly, my freind. Religion is what keeps otherwise good people at each others throats.

True, but why is that? Why is it that religious people are so easily convinced to kill people they know nothing about other than the fact that they don't believe in the same faith as they do? Could it possibly be because religion is based on arbitratily established truths. The fact is once something is arbitrarily established without accompanying empirical evidence especially if it is a set of rules for governing personal behavior and society in general (and what religion doesn't do this) it easily becomes a vehicle for those seeking to arbitrarily control people themselves. And how can you effectively counter something like this if you are religious? You've just set yourself up to be controlled and manipulated because you've accepted something that by its very nature can be twisted to fit any purpose the leadership of such a faith requires because the original starting assumption of all religion is established by uncontestable, unchallengable, unquestionable authority. Lets say somebody in a leadership position in a Budhist group states that followers of a particular religion are reincarnated demons so they must be attacked. Maybe some people who are more intelligent, liberal etc... can see past the attempt at manipulating people toward violence, but thats not the point. The point is how can you come up with an effective counter argument to all this given what you have to start with, that is arbitrarily established dogmas because by that point if you are really religious you would've forgotten how to think in a rational manner even if you could at least do that now. The truth is religion deforms people minds so much that they can't use reason to escape from whatever manipulative scheme the leadership comes up with and it doesn't have to holy wars either. It could just as well be coming up with a justification for why some people in society suffer in oppression and poverty. For Budhism at least this is "explained" by stating that the oppressed and impoverished masses committed some injustices in their past lives to deserve their fate in the present, but how can this be even observed much less proven? And don't think this is all just theoretical academic hot air. People who are religious as I have said fall for this sort of stuff because they are not conditioned to react with rational thought and question the justifications thats been given to them so they accept their horrible situation instead of demanding change and an improvement in their lives or well meaning people ignore glaring injustices in the present because its all been justified by the religious "authorities" as some grand scheme of god, the universe, karma, etc....


Personaly, I believe that Buddhism allows people to really believe whatever they want! I don't believe the shit that religionists spew out of their mouths.

Great, believe in whatever you want to make you more comfortable. As I've said before, religious belief is something to turn to make you more comfortable. Don't forget though that truth and reality can sometimes not be comfortable while lies can be reassuring and comfy. Comfy lies also tends to be manipulated by the powerful for their own (often destructive) purposes. I don't know about the religious, but for me personally I rather face the painful truth than be a comfy pawn of kings and queens (drawing an analogy from chess).

Furthermore, if you believe in whatever you want aren't you simply deluding yourself if your beliefs turn out not to be true? The key word here is belief or faith being the practice of making assumptions without proving them to be actually true in reality. Personally, I don't believe in anything not even Marxism. I support some Marxist ideas because they have an element of truth in them from what I can observe and from my own personal experiences in contemporary Capitalist society, but I don't take anything even Marxism on assumptions. Thats the thing with the scientific method though. It doesn't respect any assumptions and it doesn't matter how high on the social ladder anybody is who make assumptions. If Marxism is truly a science as it claims to be then what it assumes to be true will actually be observed to be true. So far, I'm hopeful that I'm on the right track.


Red Team

[red team]

Incidentally, thats how despotic "Communist" or as I would like to call them revisionist states turn Marxism into a state religion. They "educate" people into assuming the preliminary premises of Marxism without going further into details and proving these premises, so you have some people in the leadership positions babbling out some Marxist platitudes and tracts totally out of context to justify practally anything they want.


Red Team

[Xvall]

Xvall, there is no god in Buddhism. It teaches against the idea of creationism. A god is a creator.

Wow. Good job totally ignoring every single thing I said. A god is not necessarily a creator. In most ancient pathenons, none of the worshiped gods were "creators".

[Xvall]

I apologize for not making myself clear enough... my sect of Buddhism is purely secular, and in no way believes in a god/s, spirits, spiritual awakening, reincarnation, or any divine being.

Good.


To have a religion, you don't need to pray, but you still need a god/spirit to worship. I disagree with your definition. Also, the Buddha wasn't a spiritual teacher, he was a teacher... but don't get the two confused.

Most people wouldn't say that. Juddaism is a religion, but the only thing you have to adhere to in Juddaism is something to the affect of "Never do to others that which you would not have them do to you". Nothing to do with God whatsoever. Some Jews do not even beleive in god. But Juddaism is still a religion. Scientology doesn't worship a god - it's setill a religion. Religion mainly revolves around faith; faith in Jesus, Nirvana - whatever. Though maybe your particular sect doesn't subscribe to all sorts of supernatural beliefs, Buddhism, at large, is still a religion. The vast majority of self-proclaimed Buddhists adhere to either the Mahayana or the Theravada tradition; both of which involve numerous forms of supersticion.


Although this is all true, this is considered orthodox Buddhism. Not all
Buddhists subscribe to it.

Oh, I know that. The basis of this entire conversation wasn't about how many buddhists subscribe to what, though - it was always about whether or not Buddhism is a religion.


Now you are speaking about the tyranny of the majority. Simply because most people in a group believe in something, that does not mean that everyone agrees. Again, you are making blanket statements about all Buddhists.

Unfortunately, tyrannies of the majority are what rule this world. It doesn't matter what you think Buddhism means. If everyone else seems to think that Buddhism means something, that is how everyone else in the world is going to react to you.

Also, I wasn't making blanket statements about all Buddhists. I never made a single generalization. The vast majority of buddhists would consider their beliefs to be "religious". (Hence, if you ever take a college class on Buddhism you will find it under "Religious Studies" and nothing else) And if you ask a Buddhist if Buddhism is a religion the probably will say "yes". (At least in my experience.) I never made any definitive claims about anything.


True. But... I'm sure all beliefs have their own falsities, even Communism (although I hate too say it)! There is no magic bullet philosophy

Indeed, everything does have it's on fallacies. I don't think communism would fall into "religion" though as faith and the supernatural are not issues. (Whether or not communism is a problematic theory, though, is up to debate.)


So you are saying that I don't speak my mind ? I'm fine with critiscism, but I reserve the right to defend myself and others against open insults against my and others beliefs.

I'm not telling you what to do. I'm just telling you that if you do speak your mind you're probably going to recieve a lot of negative responses from some people. (See: this thread.)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Nym+--> (Nym)When the revolution comes, we shouldn't purge the priests. Restrict them, yes, but not purge.[/b]

I rather think that they should be purged.

After all, they are professional con-men who make their livings by lying to people.

What useful purpose is served by allowing them to go on preying on people's gullibility?

I would deport them all to some backward country where religion is still "respectable"...and not ever let any of them return.


red_team
Religion in general and religious belief more specifically has really more to do with how people respond to insecurities.

This argument has been brought up before...but I don't find it particularly compelling.

In pre-capitalist agrarian societies, it makes a kind of sense...because agriculture itself is an extremely uncertain mode of production.

But in modern capitalist societies, we do not have to "sacrifice to the gods" to "make sure" that there's food in the supermarket next fall.

The only thing that really "keeps religion going" in capitalist society is childhood indoctrination...and the profits that can be secured by playing on that.

And while those profits might be fairly substantial, the "secular option" is even more profitable.

That's why religion has lost influence with the rise of modern capitalism...and is still losing influence even as we speak.

The U.S. might seem to be an "exception" to this trend; we are the only advanced capitalist country with an organized Christian Fascist minority that is vocal, well-financed, and widely publicized in the mainstream media...often favorably.

But previous "religious revivals" in American history have been far more pervasive than the one we're going through now...an evangelist from 1850 or 1900 would be truly horrified by contemporary American religious culture.

Just as a racist from 1850 or 1900 would be truly horrified by the "flabbiness" of modern racism.

What reactionaries can actually accomplish diminishes over time. Not as quickly as we would wish, true.

But it does seem to work that way. :)


Personally, I don't believe in anything not even Marxism. I support some Marxist ideas because they have an element of truth in them from what I can observe and from my own personal experiences in contemporary Capitalist society, but I don't take anything even Marxism on assumptions. That's the thing with the scientific method though. It doesn't respect any assumptions and it doesn't matter how high on the social ladder anybody is who make assumptions. If Marxism is truly a science as it claims to be then what it assumes to be true will actually be observed to be true. So far, I'm hopeful that I'm on the right track.

I agree completely...and I wish I could do more to encourage this outlook on this board and among all who are or wish to become revolutionaries.

In fact, I'm tempted to frame it as an aphorism: to be skeptical is to be revolutionary!

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

[Loknar]

If I somehow manage to get on the far on the left I'll never become a communist because of the large hatred toward religion.

The idea that it is religion which causes people who are ordinarily good to turn bad is bull shit. A philosopher from the renaissance believed that it is society that does it.

Secularism can get rid of religion but it cant get rid of hated based on race or nationality. In fact, secularism is a form of religion in it self, which only advocates faith in man and perhaps it will lead to conflicts between the two camps.

If you have faith in man you are foolish, I firmly believe that.

[Ol' Dirty]

Red Team[/QUOTE]

Exactly, my freind. Religion is what keeps otherwise good people at each others throats.


True, but why is that? Why is it that religious people are so easily convinced to kill people they know nothing about other than the fact that they don't believe in the same faith as they do?

Ah, my freind, you assume that religionists are thinking people with advanced minds like you and I, that they think things thru. When they see a Cross, they think: "Oh, my, the symbol of our lord!" When you or I see it, we think: "Wow, a perverse symbol of war, greed and opression that has been destroying humanity for thousands of years."


And how can you effectively counter something like this if you are religious?

I am not quite clear whom you are addresing... me, or religionists?

If you mean me, let me say this: I thought we went over this before! I am not religious! I am an atheist, one who does not believe in god, karma, reincarnation, rebirth, asrotology, or any of those things, much like you!

If you mean religionists, I agree.


You've just set yourself up to be controlled and manipulated because you've accepted something that by its very nature can be twisted to fit any purpose the leadership of such a faith requires because the original starting assumption of all religion is established by uncontestable, unchallengable, unquestionable authority.

Can I make this any simpler? Yes? Fine. I'm not religious.[/B I agree with your base opinion, but I don't believe in your analysis of me.


Lets say somebody in a leadership position in a Bud(d)hist group states that followers of a particular religion are reincarnated demons so they must be attacked.

"4. Right Action - samma kammanta

'And what, monks, is right action? Abstaining from taking life, abstaining from stealing, abstaining from unchastity: This, monks, is called right action.' "

This would be breaking the fourth principle, right action. Any one Buddhist who voluntarily breaks this path does not deserve the title of Buddhist.


The point is how can you come up with an effective counter argument to all this given what you have to start with, that is arbitrarily established dogmas because by that point if you are really religious you would've forgotten how to think in a rational manner even if you could at least do that now.

I'm tired of repeating myself.


Because they are not conditioned to react with rational thought and question the justifications thats been given to them so they accept their horrible situation instead of demanding change and an improvement in their lives or well meaning people ignore glaring injustices in the present because its all been justified by the religious "authorities" as some grand scheme of god, the universe, karma, etc....

Yes! Exactly my point!



For Budhism at least this is "explained" by stating that the oppressed and impoverished masses committed some injustices in their [b]past lives to deserve their fate in the present, but how can this be even observed much less proven? And don't think this is all just theoretical academic hot air. People who are religious as I have said fall for this sort of stuff(.)

Once again, I agree! You people are simply being far too confrontational, and not in a good way either!

Exactly!

Don't forget though that truth and reality can sometimes not be comfortable while lies can be reassuring and comfy. Comfy lies also tends to be manipulated by the powerful for their own (often destructive) purposes. I don't know about the religious, but for me personally I rather face the painful truth than be a comfy pawn of kings and queens (drawing an analogy from chess).

As right as rain.


Furthermore, if you believe in whatever you want aren't you simply deluding yourself if your beliefs turn out not to be true?

Yes. But I never said my ideas were true, simply that I believe that they work better than other things, like Fascism and Cristianity.


The key word here is belief or faith being the practice of making assumptions without proving them to be actually true in reality.

I have tested my opinions empirically as best I can, and they seem to work for me. What works best for me might not work for everybody else. I'm not trying to convert anybody: I simply told drain.you that it would be a good idea to become a Buddhist, what ever sect he believes in.


Personally, I don't believe in anything not even Marxism. I support some Marxist ideas because they have an element of truth in them from what I can observe and from my own personal experiences in contemporary Capitalist society, but I don't take anything even Marxism on assumptions.

As stated before, so did I.

Thats the thing with the scientific method though. It doesn't respect any assumptions and it doesn't matter how high on the social ladder anybody is who make assumptions. If Marxism is truly a science as it claims to be then what it assumes to be true will actually be observed to be true. So far, I'm hopeful that I'm on the right track.

As do I brother, as do I.

Peace.

[Ol' Dirty]

In fact, I'm tempted to frame it as an aphorism: to be skeptical is to be revolutionary!

10 4 brother :lol: !

[drain.you]

Okay then...I started this thread to find someone to talk to about Buddhism on msn messenger as I knew that this would happen. Arguing and disruption and generally a religion bashing. It doesn't really matter to me if you guys don't approve of my beliefs, I mean, as a leftie I have lived with that all my life anyway.
Somebody close this thread. If a buddhist wants to talk to me, they know where to find me. Cheers :)

[Ol' Dirty]

Good choice, man. I'm glad that you've found someone to talk to. Sorry if I've not been much help, too busy arguing with these assholes. My tips, if they help:

1. Read a lot of books.
2. Meditate often.
3. Practice compassion.

Peace out man, and find yourself, for yourself. :cool:

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 08:45 PM
Okay then...I started this thread to find someone to talk to about Buddhism on msn messenger as I knew that this would happen. Arguing and disruption and generally a religion bashing. It doesn't really matter to me if you guys don't approve of my beliefs, I mean, as a leftie I have lived with that all my life anyway.
Somebody close this thread. If a buddhist wants to talk to me, they know where to find me. Cheers :)
well im glad you defined yourself on religion. this will come in handy in the future. :lol:

[drain.you]

Thanks Comrade FluxOne13, you've been of help. I will pm some more in the future if I have questions or seek guidance. Peace :)

[red team]

Well, as long as you follow Budhism as a philosophy and and a religion. :)
Philosophy can be contested and open to interpretation by anybody, religion never can be.
But the thing is I get kind of leery when people call Budhism a philosophy when it originally started out as a religion. <_<

Perhaps you can call it Budhist Thought instead of Budhism to differentiate philosophical Budhism from religious Budhism. If thats the case followers should be called Budhist Thoughtists instead of Budhists.


Red Team

[Xvall]

I hope you meant "And not a religion". (I assume you did; seems like a typo.)


Perhaps you can call it Budhist Thought instead of Budhism to differentiate philosophical Budhism from religious Budhism. If thats the case followers should be called Budhist Thoughtists instead of Budhists.

I would say that the "true" follow of such a path wouldn&#39;t call it anything - does it really need a name? Do you care what historical figure it&#39;s attached to? I would imagine a practitioner in this manner would call his beliefs "compassion" and nothing else.

[red_orchestra]

Well, well...
Buddhism- I could go on for hours. It is one of the few religions in the world which has an open door. I mean, it is open to all walks of life...and it does not have a "God" and is completely nonthestic. It is also the most practial of all the religions too...and it has great health benifts.

...Buddhism is the one world religion that is very dynamic. Be like water...it cannot be trapped or broken, it only flows.

[Ol' Dirty]

Peace, Brother drain,you :D .