Buddhism: The Buddha in you

[BlakSheep]

Buddhism teaches that we are all "sleeping Buddhas", and that when we finally awaken, we find that we are ourselves, a god. It teaches elf awareness and the meaninglessness of materialism. Now I know some might say this belongs in religion, but Buddhism is not religion, its a way of life. A philosophy. What are your thoughts on the philosophy of Buddha? I, an agnostic non-theist, follow a ot of the teachings of Buddha and the Dalai Llama, but I am not a Buddhist, I simply am aware that I am a Buddha. What are your views on Buddhism?

[Raúl Duke]

and the Dalai Llama,

That won't sit well with many of the comrades here, mate.


What are your views on Buddhism?

While all that "inner mind" stuff sounds intersting....

I do not agree with buddhism because most/all/etc have not been proven true/to exist/etc.

Is there karma? is there really some inner knowledge that only needs to be awaken? is there reincarnation? etc etc...

[BlakSheep]

Karma I don't agree with. Punishment to the bad do not happen unless you make them happen. Reincarnation, I don't know, thats why I'm Agnostic. I would like it if it were true, but I'm not so sure that it is. Why would most of the comrades here disagree?

[Raúl Duke]

Because a good amount of comrades are materialists....they don't like to dwell to much into speculative hypothtical things like god, reincarnation,etc. To them, that's
for others to prove.

I also fit in that description....(well I suppose/think/etc I do)

Also..on the point of the llama..because a bigger number considers the dalai llama reactionary based on certain history about theocratic Tibet and because he is speculated to have been a payed by the CIA agent.

[Hit The North]

It teaches elf awareness

Extremely important if your job includes dealing with Elves who are keenly aware of the problems and prejudices besetting their kind. :blink:

[BlakSheep]

Shouldn't this still be in philosophy? It is not a religion, it is a way of life. Buddhists are in essence spiritual atheists. But thats besides the point. Buddhism teaches peace, and liberating those around you from oppression. I can understand the issue with the Dalai Llama but the overall message, no. Forget Karma, forget reincarnation. This is simply put, a philosophy. I am saddened that it was moved here, but can in some way understand.

[jasmine]

Buddhism teaches that we are all "sleeping Buddhas", and that when we finally awaken, we find that we are ourselves, a god. It teaches elf awareness and the meaninglessness of materialism. Now I know some might say this belongs in religion, but Buddhism is not religion, its a way of life. A philosophy. What are your thoughts on the philosophy of Buddha? I, an agnostic non-theist, follow a ot of the teachings of Buddha and the Dalai Llama, but I am not a Buddhist, I simply am aware that I am a Buddha. What are your views on Buddhism?

Buddhism like christianity and islam teaches us that we will be punished for our sins. It's a fake religion based on a priestly hierarchy. The dalai llama is as much a fraud as the pope is.

I, by the way, am a religious person but I look to traditions that are much earlier than this moralistic nonsense. You have to find your own way.

[Faux Real]

I don't see the harm in it unless people are actively preaching it to us.

Just curious, isn't the Dalai Lama a self proclaimed Marxist?

[PigmerikanMao]

In my opinions, Buddhism may be a great ideology, being that it promotes self sacrifice, is not materialist, and emphasizes need for the community, though its religious tendencies like "jasmine" pointed out that we are all judged in the end, is reactionary and untrue. As for the Dali Lama, I've heard somewhere that he is pro Marxist, but not Marxist Leninist.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by jasmine+--> (jasmine)Buddhism like christianity and islam teaches us that we will be punished for our sins.[/b]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Buddhism is a Dharmic religion unlike Isalm and Christianity. And the Dharmic religions were very different in their concept of Sins. And no we are not punished for our sins according to Buddhism.


PigMao

As for the Dali Lama, I've heard somewhere that he is pro Marxist, but not Marxist Leninist.


Pro-Marxist really :lol: .

Anyway I also suggest you to stop posting every thing in Italics :mellow:

And I would also point out apart from Dalai Lama. Buddhism plays a reactionary and oppressive role in SriLanka. Buddha must be rolling in his graves for the criminal actions of the Buddhist ruling class in SriLanka.

But at the same time it is also facing a resurgence in India among Dalits - who are mass converting to it now a days as conversion to Christianity and Islam doesn't stop the caste discrimination that they have experienced in Hinduism.

Buddhism as a religion should be analysed in context. In some places some times it has played a progressive role and some places at some times a very regressive role.

[Demogorgon]

I think I will piss off the usual suspects by praising te Dali Lama, what a guy.

Seriously though, I think he describes himself as "half a marxist". Take from that what you will

[PigmerikanMao]

Please stop posting in all italics.
Make me. :mellow:


Buddhism plays a reactionary and oppressive role in SriLanka. Buddha must be rolling in his graves for the criminal actions of the Buddhist ruling class in SriLanka.
These are the individual actions of a reactionary ruling class, not of the entire philosophy. Buddhism shouldn't be generalized by the actions of the few, doing so can make us blind to the truth.


In some places some times it has played a progressive role and some places at some times a very regressive role.
Agreed

By the way;would you rather me post in all underlined bold?

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:48 pm
I, by the way, am a religious person but I look to traditions that are much earlier than this moralistic nonsense. You have to find your own way.
Hahaha, talk about the pot calling the kettle black! :lol:

[RHIZOMES]

In some places some times it has played a progressive role and some places at some times a very regressive role.

I think that's the same with all religion.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by The Red Ghost+August 21, 2007 02:05 pm--> (The Red Ghost @ August 21, 2007 02:05 pm)
In some places some times it has played a progressive role and some places at some times a very regressive role.

I think that's the same with all religion. [/b]
Of course.


P.Mao
These are the individual actions of a reactionary ruling class, not of the entire philosophy. Buddhism shouldn't be generalized by the actions of the few, doing so can make us blind to the truth.

Well I never said that Buddhism in general is a bad philosophy or the actions of Dalai Lama and Srilankan ruling class represents Buddhism .

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:27 pm
Shouldn't this still be in philosophy? It is not a religion, it is a way of life. Buddhists are in essence spiritual atheists. But thats besides the point. Buddhism teaches peace, and liberating those around you from oppression. I can understand the issue with the Dalai Llama but the overall message, no. Forget Karma, forget reincarnation. This is simply put, a philosophy. I am saddened that it was moved here, but can in some way understand.
Nothing given the title "religion" by society will be respected here.

Buddhism, of course, can be practised without authority, superstition, or unreal assumptions of the world, but that doesn't matter to these people. In general, if someone does not fully conform to their concept of marxism, they will eventually restrict and / or ban you.

I still disagree with calling yourself a buddhist, though I think we can look at buddhism and study it to see some interesting ideas.

[jaycee]

buddhism certainly has a great deal of insight into the state of mankind and the problem of alienation. In its most basic form I would say that Buddhism is the clearest expression of mystical truth and (originally) was free from the problems of dogma and idealism of all other religions.

the idea of the illussion of the ego, is in my opinion supported by both Freud and phsycho-analysis as well as Marx's view of alienation. The recapturing of the 'spirit' of childhood, i.e the feeling of oneness with the 'outside' world and spontanious creativity and 'play' is certainly something which will be attained in communsim.

I think Buddhism needs to be analysed from a scientific perspective and incoperated (chucking away any false ideas) into a materialist understanding of the universe.

[Alf]

jaycee wrote:

"buddhism certainly has a great deal of insight into the state of mankind and the problem of alienation. In its most basic form I would say that Buddhism is the clearest expression of mystical truth and (originally) was free from the problems of dogma and idealism of all other religions.

the idea of the illussion of the ego, is in my opinion supported by both Freud and phsycho-analysis as well as Marx's view of alienation. The recapturing of the 'spirit' of childhood, i.e the feeling of oneness with the 'outside' world and spontanious creativity and 'play' is certainly something which will be attained in communsim.

I think Buddhism needs to be analysed from a scientific perspective and incoperated (chucking away any false ideas) into a materialist understanding of the universe".


I largely agree with jaycee's assessment of the achievements of Buddhism. Of all the religions, it was perhaps the one which came closest to breaking out of the closed circle of religious thought.

And yet, because of the limits of the times, and the mode of production, in which it arose, it could not escape becoming another religion. Buddha 's message was: seek out your own enlightnment with diligence. To be human is to be in the most favourable plane for finding enlightenment, more favourable than the plane of the gods. I am no more than a human who has glimpsed another consciousness of existence; all of us are capable of reaching the same 'further shore' (Buddhism also rejected the Hindu dogma of castes).

And yet for all this, his epigones were bound to turn him into a new god, and turn dhamma into a state law.

Thus the materialist analysis of Buddhism, as with the study of all past beliefs and philosophies, must above all be a historical analysis: of what it was then, and what it has become now.

[jasmine]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Buddhism is a Dharmic religion unlike Isalm and Christianity. And the Dharmic religions were very different in their concept of Sins. And no we are not punished for our sins according to Buddhism.

Actually, I do have an idea what I am talking about. What exactly is the difference between Karma and Sin? If you take the trouble to read the "Tibetan Book Of Living And Dying" by Sogyal Rinpoche you'll find find many parallels between catholicism and buddhism - we pay for what we do in this life in the next. Stories of hunters beings chased by packs of ethereal wild animals and so on.

Buddhism explicitly punishes us for our failure to reach enlightenment. We are sent back here again and again to debate with Jazzrat.

[RedStarOverChina]

What are your views on Buddhism?
Buddhism sucks ass.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:24 pm

Please stop posting in all italics.
Make me. :mellow:

Its funny cos its childish :D

Buddhism can become a spiritual atheism in Imperialist countries where it is exported primarily as a meditation technique - but that is only interesting in the way it is interesting that an old fashioned television can be transformed into a fishbowl.

But take Buddhism at its face value (which, of course, one never should with religions) and the key idea that we need to escape the cycle of life and material concerns that can only disstress and harm us......this idea is entirely false and the opposite of the truth : we must preoccupy ourselves with our material circumstances and be completely taken up by them, never thinking the world we live in is anything but the source of all character and value we have - we are nothing but our material envirnment enlivened. Contrast the view of Buddha with the theses on Feuerbach.

[RedStarOverChina]

Buddhism can become a spiritual atheism in Imperialist countries where it is exported primarily as a meditation technique

That's not atheism---that's how they get you. It's an old trick to hook customers up with the religious nonsense.


Scientologists and Falungong nutballs use this tactic also.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 10:09 pm

That's not atheism---that's how they get you. It's an old trick to hook customers up with the religious nonsense.


I would agree except that there are now western based buddhist sects where many of the members really do not care about the theology and the beliefs, they just like the friendly atmosphere and the chants. Japanese buddhism seems, in particular, to transmogrify effectively into these gelded forms.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why bother? The universe is fascinating enough without adding a load of dried-up eastern crap to it.

[Vargha Poralli]

Actually, I do have an idea what I am talking about. What exactly is the difference between Karma and Sin?

I am not a very religious person so I myslef don't understand the concepts of the religion I was born in to. So try finding a Hindu or Buddhist forums if you want to know deeper about Karma. But rather you have to leave behind your prejudice if you want to learn about it.

But all i can say is Karma != Sin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma) And the concept of Karma is different in Hinduism,Buddhism,Sikhism and Jainism. For starters here is the wiki for Buddhist Concept of Karma. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Buddhism)



If you take the trouble to read the "Tibetan Book Of Living And Dying" by Sogyal Rinpoche you'll find find many parallels between catholicism and buddhism

Tibetan Buddhism does not represent Buddhism as a whole. It deviates heavily from original Buddhism as preached by Buddha and more mainstream Theravada school.


Buddhism explicitly punishes us for our failure to reach enlightenment.

I won't call that as an Punishment.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 09:55 pm
Buddhism explicitly punishes us for our failure to reach enlightenment. We are sent back here again and again to debate with Jazzrat.
haha

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 10:01 pm
But take Buddhism at its face value (which, of course, one never should with religions) and the key idea that we need to escape the cycle of life and material concerns that can only disstress and harm us......this idea is entirely false and the opposite of the truth : we must preoccupy ourselves with our material circumstances and be completely taken up by them, never thinking the world we live in is anything but the source of all character and value we have - we are nothing but our material envirnment enlivened. Contrast the view of Buddha with the theses on Feuerbach.
Actually, buddhist philosophies have more in common with marxist ones than any other religions I've seen. The relationship to the material world is exactly the manner in which they are relative: both marxian and buddhist analyses view the world not in regards to possessions or personal interest, but rather in regard to the individual personalities you can be and know within it. It is a transcendence from the concept of property and chains to the material world; in essence, it is seeing the world from a human perspective rather than an objectified perspective; to know yourself primarily and the world secondarily.

The fact that terms like materialism are used in different ways for the marxists and buddhists is inconsequential; the actual facts of the philosophies are at odds only on theological grounds, and that isn't even always the case.

[Red October]

As I understand it, karma is very different from sin. Sin in the western sense is more like immorality (homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc.), whereas karma is doing evil and harm to your fellow humans.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:42 pm

both marxian and buddhist analyses view the world not in regards to possessions or personal interest, but rather in regard to the individual personalities you can be and know within it. It is a transcendence from the concept of property and chains to the material world; in essence, it is seeing the world from a human perspective rather than an objectified perspective; to know yourself primarily and the world secondarily.

The fact they use different terms does not determine the issue, I agree. But the fact that you preface your post with the term 'actually' doesnt determine the issue either.

Ive heard people say before that Buddhism is close to Marxism. Ive even seen reference a short lived -buddhist-Marxist grouping in that haven of sanity San Fransisco some time around 1970.

BUt I dont recognise 'Marxism' in your description. Marxism beleves that the basis for human progress is material enrichment through the development of the forces of production. Sell that idea to a Buddhist !

[jasmine]

I am not a very religious person so I myslef don't understand the concepts of the religion I was born in to. So try finding a Hindu or Buddhist forums if you want to know deeper about Karma. But rather you have to leave behind your prejudice if you want to learn about it.

But all i can say is Karma != Sin. And the concept of Karma is different in Hinduism,Buddhism,Sikhism and Jainism. For starters here is the wiki for Buddhist Concept of Karma.

Your disclaimer is that you don't understand the concepts. So why should anyone be interested in your opinion? My view on the similarities between karma and sin are not based on prejudice. I've read Buddhist books, been to Buddhist lectures and talked to individual Buddhists. Karma is about consequence, you reap what you sow. Sin is often more black and white but the concept remains the same.


Tibetan Buddhism does not represent Buddhism as a whole. It deviates heavily from original Buddhism as preached by Buddha and more mainstream Theravada school.

You sound like a marxist. Isn't the Dalai Lama Tibetan? Recommend some texts.


I won't call that as an Punishment.

Having to take part in this forum? It's a punishment believe me.

[Vargha Poralli]

Your disclaimer is that you don't understand the concepts. So why should anyone be interested in your opinion? My view on the similarities between karma and sin are not based on prejudice. I've read Buddhist books, been to Buddhist lectures and talked to individual Buddhists. Karma is about consequence, you reap what you sow. Sin is often more black and white but the concept remains the same.


Well I am a Hindu. Buddhism rose from Hinduism and acquired Karma from it. Karma and its explanation varies from sect to sect which is not rigid. So karma as I am thought is not exactly what you mean. It is different. The reason I don't want to discuss this is I am not very much intrested in discussing religious matters sine IMO all religions have same meaning and purpose. Discussing which religion is tells the "Real Truth" is just as pointless as discussing which River really drains in to Real Ocean.


You sound like a marxist.

Yes I am a Marxist. And a true Marxist :P than most of the Marxists =D .


Having to take part in this forum? It's a punishment believe me.

:lol:

You know,no one is forcing you posting in this forum. It is your choice. I don't exactly know the reason you have been restricted but my guess is that you have a very bad Karma :P.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:52 am
Just curious, isn't the Dalai Lama a self proclaimed Marxist?
"I'm a Buddhist and a Marxist" - Dalai Lama.
I went to one of his speeches when he came to Sydney (it got me out of school- booya!)

[jasmine]

Well I am a Hindu. Buddhism rose from Hinduism and acquired Karma from it. Karma and its explanation varies from sect to sect which is not rigid. So karma as I am thought is not exactly what you mean. It is different. The reason I don't want to discuss this is I am not very much intrested in discussing religious matters sine IMO all religions have same meaning and purpose. Discussing which religion is tells the "Real Truth" is just as pointless as discussing which River really drains in to Real Ocean.

So why are you posting here? If you are a marxist go and discuss marxism. You seem to know very little of the religion you were brought up with. I wish you more success with your adopted religion.

[Dean]

Originally posted by gilhyle+August 23, 2007 06:18 pm--> (gilhyle @ August 23, 2007 06:18 pm) BUt I dont recognise 'Marxism' in your description. Marxism beleves that the basis for human progress is material enrichment through the development of the forces of production. [/b]
Marxism is not just the concept of material progression; it focuses on a "new man."

I describe what I think to be a quite succint definition of that concept in my above post. The actuation of marxism requires poeople to first know themselves before they can know others, and then find how that introspection can allow them to productively relate to others.

The transcendence from the material world is recognition of our own humanity, the recognition that even though we are material beings that there is a sentient background which relates to the world. In buddhism, the concept of clearing one's mind is to allow one to face their internalized mind. Once you do this, you can transcend your own narrowness and see, feel, and finally understand, become one with others.


Marx said:

"The cheif defect of all materialism up to now (including Feuerbach's) is that the object, reality, what we apprehend through our senses, is understood only in the form of the object or contemplation (Anschauung); but not as sensuous human activity, as practice; not subjectively. Hence in opposition to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism - which of course does not know real sensuous activity as such. Feuerbach wants sensuous objects really distinguished from the objects of thought; but he does not understand human activity itself as objective activity."

So we see that marx considers the mind, and more importantly human activity and sensuality, as relevant to a materialist contemplation of the world. Unless Marx want's us ignorant of our unconscious mentality (that is, those things we desire at the very core whether we see them or not), which is certainly at odds with the capitalist system, his socialism necessitates a kind of self-realization first and a social realization next.

Though we do see what appears to be a contradiction here between buddhism and marx's ideas, though I wil admit I cannot say I'm a buddhist scholar. If the buddhists think of the human mind as an immaterial thing, then Marx would disagree. But the knowledge of oneself and recognition of one's own inherant drives, self interest and humanity as expressed in buddhism, humanistic psychoanalysis and marxism cannot be ignored.


Sell that idea to a Buddhist !
I am not in the business of doing such just as I cannot see the "marxism" spoken of here as little more than blind and ignorant idol worship; the concepts of Marx spoken of are often astonishingly inaccurate and I hope that in the future the real character of marx is rediscovered. I'm not charging you with this, just describing what I've often seen at RevLeft by many 'Marxists.'

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 07:14 pm
[]his socialism necessitates a kind of self-realization first and a social realization next.[/i]


I accept your point about the varying quality of the Marxism on this site (up to a point - actually sometimes posters display impresive knowledge)

But the idea that self realization must precede social change .....NO, I dont see that in Marx and I see it as seriously contrary to Marxism, which argues that the transformation of self comes as part of the process of transforming society, i.e. it is NOT required first. What must come first is the political and industrial organisation which provides a context for subjective trnsformation....

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 11:44 am
I accept your point about the varying quality of the Marxism on this site (up to a point - actually sometimes posters display impresive knowledge)
Clearly, there are pearls in a few clams.



But the idea that self realization must precede social change .....NO, I dont see that in Marx and I see it as seriously contrary to Marxism, which argues that the transformation of self comes as part of the process of transforming society, i.e. it is NOT required first. What must come first is the political and industrial organisation which provides a context for subjective trnsformation....
I'm not talking about initial social upheaval, but the actuation of communism itself. He certainly said we needed a "new man" for that, and it is probably in social change that that new man will come about, but that social change will be a collection of inidivuals realizing themselves, what they potentially are. This is not just a certain stage, though it obviously must eventually occur, but the inherant, human ongoing struggle to realize yourself in any society. Communism as a social expression is permissive of this, and in fact rests on it for its own maintenance.

[gilhyle]

The sense in which this is true for everyone who partakes in the struggle is somewhat banal. The revolution consumes its advocates, destroying their lives, limiting their perspective. It is a harsh taskmaster and it rarely brings significant self-realisation.

The sense in which it is true for a communist society is tautologous - its almost the definition of a coummunist society that it is a society in which people are not significantly constrained from becoming what they can be.

(An example of the Buddhist sects with western followers, of which I spoke earlier is the Nicherin Daishonin)

[Janus]

Buddhism in the West and within the East are practiced quite differently. In the West, it is usually taken up as more of a philosophical study while it has become institutionalized in the East and as such is attached to much of the traditional and feudal ideas as a result. Thus, it is the reformed version of Buddhism in the West which tends to fool converts into ignoring its socioeconomic roots/practices and covering it with a seemingly innoncuous facade.

Buddhism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58685&hl=Buddhism)
Buddhism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52885&hl=Buddhism)
Buddhism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50689&hl=Buddhism)

As for the Dalai Lama's claim to be half-Marxist:
Dalai Lama claims to be half Marxist (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54922&hl=+Dalai++Lama)

[Rage]

When I was in japan I went to a couple of Buddhist temples and meditated with some monks there. It was a totally surreal experience that I loved.

I, as many others do, think of Buddhism as a personal philosophy to live by rather then a religion.

/,,/
Rock on!

[BlakSheep]

As I understand it, karma is very different from sin. Sin in the western sense is more like immorality (homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc.), whereas karma is doing evil and harm to your fellow humans.
Exactly! Sin is what is said to be wrong, while karma is what everyone knows to be wrong. With Christianity, you get one chance to do good, if you mess up and not proclaim your love for god, you burn for all of eternity. With Buddhism however, you get chance after chance to do good. At least thats what they believe. Sin= being gay, having sex pre-marital, not being all hung over for Jesus, while bad karma= killing, robbing the already poor, and just doing all around malicious things. Good Job Red October! I hadn't even thought of putting it that way! 1 point for RARE :P

[jasmine]

Exactly! Sin is what is said to be wrong, while karma is what everyone knows to be wrong. With Christianity, you get one chance to do good, if you mess up and not proclaim your love for god, you burn for all of eternity. With Buddhism however, you get chance after chance to do good. At least thats what they believe. Sin= being gay, having sex pre-marital, not being all hung over for Jesus, while bad karma= killing, robbing the already poor, and just doing all around malicious things. Good Job Red October! I hadn't even thought of putting it that way! 1 point for RARE

Except that the distinction is nonsensical. Buddhism, like Christianity, has a code of ethics and bad karma is created when you sin against that code. For example if you exterminate cockroaches from your home it creates bad karma. You may prefer the buddhist code to the christian code but the idea is the same. You are punished for sin and you are punished for your offences against the buddhist code.

Also on sex, this is from the Buddha's Eightfold Path:

"You must renounce the pleasures of the senses; you must harbor no ill will toward anyone, and harm no living creature."

ie - don't have sex, hetro, gay, bi or whatever - it's all wrong. Is this "what everybody knows to be wrong"! But don't worry if you are inclined to touch yourself in forbidden places you have the chance to be recycled and live a chaste life (atone for your sins). Sounds great.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 04:06 pm

Your disclaimer is that you don't understand the concepts. So why should anyone be interested in your opinion? My view on the similarities between karma and sin are not based on prejudice. I've read Buddhist books, been to Buddhist lectures and talked to individual Buddhists. Karma is about consequence, you reap what you sow. Sin is often more black and white but the concept remains the same.


Well I am a Hindu. Buddhism rose from Hinduism and acquired Karma from it. Karma and its explanation varies from sect to sect which is not rigid. So karma as I am thought is not exactly what you mean. It is different. The reason I don't want to discuss this is I am not very much intrested in discussing religious matters sine IMO all religions have same meaning and purpose. Discussing which religion is tells the "Real Truth" is just as pointless as discussing which River really drains in to Real Ocean.

Actually, this is incorrect. Buddhism rose only from the teachings of Siddhartha, the Buddha. His parents sheltered him as he was a spoiled rich kid but as he grew older he became more inquisitive, started exploring, and supposedly saw the "Four Signs" one night (a destitute and homeless person, an old man, a dead person, and a monk). This started his path to Nirvana and when he experienced it ("the greatest event in history" according to Buddhism) he decided to try and inform others how to follow the good life. He actually moved away from monk "fasting" and believed the body was the host of the soul and fasting, while a good way to cleanse or break away from overconsumption, was not the actual "path" to the way.

As I understand it everything is merely interconnected and interrelated in Buddhism, and one thing "flows into another" or something similar.

But that Buddhism comes from Hinduism is a myth.

[BlakSheep]

I hope all this discussion is not going on deaf ears, I hope that some stop seeing Buddhism as just another oppressive religion. Its a philosophy, and while we of course can't do all it teaches because of our own beliefs, we can learn from it.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 11:53 am
I hope all this discussion is not going on deaf ears, I hope that some stop seeing Buddhism as just another oppressive religion. Its a philosophy, and while we of course can't do all it teaches because of our own beliefs, we can learn from it.
All religions can be seen in their basic, philosophical terms.

And for most, I think, they will not stop blanketing religions as a primary enemy. I wouldn't expect it would matter to see buddhism this or that way though; I think it's more important what considerations we make of the people we know.

[Vargha Poralli]

But that Buddhism comes from Hinduism is a myth.

Well you certainly have misunderstood my post.

1) Hinduism is not a monolithic religion. The term Hindu itself derived from a Farsi word which means people who live beyond Sind(Indus in modern day Pakistan) river.

2) Reread my post - my point mainly was the concept of Karma which I was discussing with rose came to Buddhism from Hindusim - means it is mentioned in Vedas - which dates way back before Siddharta Gautama's birth. Both Karma and reincarnation bases of major Buddhist beliefs have their origins in Hinduism.

And many schools of Hinduism e.g Advaitha Vedantha are very close to Buddhist beliefs - that is my opinion anyways as both Buddhists and Adavithis quickly disagree with me on it.

In my view all religion deal with the same thing - Alienation of Man from the world he lives in - which I said as


all religions have same meaning and purpose. Discussing which religion is tells the "Real Truth" is just as pointless as discussing which River really drains in to Real Ocean.



I hope all this discussion is not going on deaf ears, I hope that some stop seeing Buddhism as just another oppressive religion. Its a philosophy, and while we of course can't do all it teaches because of our own beliefs, we can learn from it.

It is hard in this forum.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:23 pm


I hope all this discussion is not going on deaf ears, I hope that some stop seeing Buddhism as just another oppressive religion. Its a philosophy, and while we of course can't do all it teaches because of our own beliefs, we can learn from it.

It is hard in this forum.
Well, it'd be nice if more people who have constructive things to say posted in OI. Besides me not deserving the restriction, I would complain that too many people that come to OI are looking for flame-wars with anyone who doesn't agree with them, or even if they don't disagree but are restricted.

[jaycee]

dean why are you restricted, i was also harshly restricted, although i managed to get allowed back

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:22 am
dean why are you restricted, i was also harshly restricted, although i managed to get allowed back
They said I was mysoginistic becasue I said women had more biological tendancies to be nurturing.

But the real reason is because I don't just follow the anti-religious, orthodox soviet - type marxist ideology promoted here.

[jaycee]

you definately have my sympathy for that. There are many people here and in the workers movement generally who hold a vulgar materialist perspective and reject all aspects of religious thought and pretty much all human endevour before capitalism as primitive rubbish.

This is completely against the heart of marxism, which stresses the dialectical nature of progress. also the rejection of the spiritual meaning behind communism, the fact that communsim is the material fulmillment of everything positive in the religious vision. It is THE tuly human way of life which religion has been attempting to reach and as such will give birth to full humanity, which Buddhism attempted to reach through isolated individual endevour.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:01 pm
you definately have my sympathy for that. There are many people here and in the workers movement generally who hold a vulgar materialist perspective and reject all aspects of religious thought and pretty much all human endevour before capitalism as primitive rubbish.

This is completely against the heart of marxism, which stresses the dialectical nature of progress. also the rejection of the spiritual meaning behind communism, the fact that communsim is the material fulmillment of everything positive in the religious vision. It is THE tuly human way of life which religion has been attempting to reach and as such will give birth to full humanity, which Buddhism attempted to reach through isolated individual endevour.
Eh, no the most positive thing in religion is the idea of escaping from death to an eternal existence of unqualified bliss.... even Communism is unlikely to deliver that.

The next most positive thing about religion is the idea that there is such a thing as what is 'right', pure simple unqualified moral right. Communism wont deliver that either.

[jaycee]

well first of all I don't know how your defining positive. I mean the aspects which are true and helpful for humanity. Wish fulfilment of 'life after death' and other such beleifs are not what I mean.

The ideas I mean are things such as the overcoming of alienation from ourselves and nature. Communism is the return to eden in this sense (metaphorically of course), it is the return to the fulfilment and feeling of oneness with ourselves and the world around us. It is through the establishment of communsim and humanity surpassing the realm of necessity (which Engels described as humanity finally leaving the animal kingdom) and living in a world based on art and play that we can attempt to overcome repression and alienation.(I would recomend reading a book entitled, Life against Death by Norman O. Brown)

coming back to the matter of death, this book argues convincingly that humanity can in a metaphorical sense overcome death. Animals do not fear death but live in the 'eternal now', communism will allow humanity to finally overcome the fear of death and all the neurosis attatched to this and regain the sense of freedom from time which we all feel in early childhood and which capitalsim has reached the furthest in eradicating.

[pusher robot]

this book argues convincingly that humanity can in a metaphorical sense overcome death.

Big deal. It's probable that within our own lifetimes humanity will in a literal sense overcome death.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 07:05 pm
Communism is the return to the fulfilment and feeling of oneness with ourselves and the world around us.... humanity finally leaving the animal kingdom... and living in a world based on art and play
I actually wrote an almost finished (but stopped) book on the Marxist analysis of death....but I'll resist the temptation to get into that discussion

Look at what you wrote 'oneness with the world', finally separated from nature.

the key thing you wrote is the phrase:


metaphorically of course

Metaphor is the medium of the process by which religion dies. By interpreting religions metaphorically people sustain them beyond the social environment in which they made sense and inject meanings into them.

I dont necessarily object to people doing that, it can lead to some vague sense of revelatory truth (aletheia), but more often it facilitates an irrationalist mindlessness (Lethe)

[Dean]

Originally posted by gilhyle+August 30, 2007 11:16 pm--> (gilhyle @ August 30, 2007 11:16 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2007 07:05 pm
Communism is the return to the fulfilment and feeling of oneness with ourselves and the world around us.... humanity finally leaving the animal kingdom... and living in a world based on art and play
I actually wrote an almost finished (but stopped) book on the Marxist analysis of death....but I'll resist the temptation to get into that discussion

Look at what you wrote 'oneness with the world', finally separated from nature. [/b]
He never said separated from nature, only leaving the animal kingdom - aka transcending the material world to see yourself, and finally coming back with your new knowledge of the world and its inhabitants to become one with that world.

[jaycee]

i recently wrote a hip hop tune with the following verse, which has a line about this idea. Here it goes.

We are the collectively unconscious, conscious universe
Yet to be conscious of it’s truest worth
Still falling from the fall that was felt
When we first saw and we thought as a self
Divorced from our world
The simplest pleasure of being
Repressed into sleep
And simply stored in a cell
Which fortune and wealth whored and then and forced us to sell
We are the one, that’s been divided many times
Now we have come, to the time when we must rise
Like those before us attempted, we’ll be the last who have to
Blast in battle
After we march this march then we’ll start the gradual
Process, of finally fully digesting and discarding the gardens apple
In a return, consciously made
Keeping all positive technologies and knowledge we’ve gained
Mixing rational thinking
with the free senses of youth
Overthrow capitalism
so all our needs are guaranteed to be met then its true
we’ll leave the animal kingdom
to finally re-enter it too

[gilhyle]

I aint leaving the animal kingdom, we humans will change the animal kingdom, just as amphibians did.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 05:24 pm
I aint leaving the animal kingdom, we humans will change the animal kingdom, just as amphibians did.
Guess you're not a Marxist.

Marx pointed out that man finds himself in a different state of relation to nature than that of the rest of the animal kingdom (aka leaves the animal kingdom) and his struggle is to return to nature to become one with it, to know it and strip away that alienation.

[gilhyle]

We never leave nature - thats Marxism. We remain always within the evolutionary and physical processes of nature, differentiated within it - and differentiated long before communism, since human society evolves internally on a different principle than natural selection - and subject to a further differentiation when Communism emerges, but never outside nature.

A Buddha may rise out through the top of his head, a marxist rises up with his class.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:56 pm
We never leave nature - thats Marxism. We remain always within the evolutionary and physical processes of nature, differentiated within it - and differentiated long before communism, since human society evolves internally on a different principle than natural selection - and subject to a further differentiation when Communism emerges, but never outside nature.

A Buddha may rise out through the top of his head, a marxist rises up with his class.
Have you read Marx? He describes the state of Man existing both as part of nature and yet with self-recognition; from that, he struggles to become one with the world and particularly his fellow man. This was his version, philosophically, of man being cast out of the "Garden of Eden."

You may think that man rises with his class, but it is his own ideas that allow him to rise. However much he rises with others, he is still rising up of his own accord; primarily from the animal kingdom and it's lack of social recognition, secondarily towards a state of social recognition as a rule.

[MarxSchmarx]

What are your views on Buddhism?

It's like those Gestalt (sp.?) pictures - people see into what they see into it. It has adapted uniquely and superbly to so many different cultures.

And I must say it does one hell of a job adapting to a modern scientific sensibility. You are quite correct that it is athiestic, but has all the bells and whistles of a religion - ritual, tradition, sanctity, symbols, etc...

It has also proven, like Christianity at times, to be quite subversive. I think there is a lot the left can learn from Buddhist history. I posit that it can be utilized by leftists in Buddhist countries far more effectively than liberation Theology ever was in Catholic countries or reform Judaism in Jewish societies. The Asian Leninists committed a terrible strategic blunder in aping the western left's antipathy to Christianity and not rallyiig more Buddhists to their side.



Is there karma? is there really some inner knowledge that only needs to be awaken? is there reincarnation? etc etc...

For what it's worth, JD, every Buddhist clergy person I know of (and I've spoken to read a lot of them) claims this stuff to be allegorical. The historiography bears them out, too, and that has been a mainstream interpretation of Buddhism right from the beginning. This near consensus is in stark contrast to every other major religion, where the supernatural claims are still taken to be the literal truth by most scholars and clergy.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 12:08 am

Have you read Marx?
Just a bit, yeah... no I tell a lie, the better answer would be 'just about everything except the stuff coming out now in MEGA and the mathematical manuscripts'....the Ethnological Notebooks was hard going .....now, where does that get us.....hmmm, nowhere.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 12:08 am


However much he rises with others, he is still rising up of his own accord
Absolutely wrong...you are a child of the Enlightenment, OK maybe not a child of the Buddhist enlightenment, probably Spinoza.

[Dean]

Originally posted by gilhyle+September 01, 2007 11:04 am--> (gilhyle @ September 01, 2007 11:04 am)
[email protected] 01, 2007 12:08 am
However much he rises with others, he is still rising up of his own accord
Absolutely wrong...you are a child of the Enlightenment, OK maybe not a child of the Buddhist enlightenment, probably Spinoza. [/b]
For having read so much of Marx's works, you certainly haven't gotten any kind of relationship with what his beliefs were basically.

I am closest to Marx, Einstein or Erich Fromm, if you want to classify my views. I certainly don't follow the trend of the 'enlightenment' thinkers any more than Marxists do.

You seem to think MArx doesn't believe in individuality. It is true that individualism, as it was regarded in the 19th century, is not compatible with egalitarianism. But our current concept of individuality, self determinism in particular, is at the core of communist ideology.

[jasmine]

Just a bit, yeah... no I tell a lie, the better answer would be 'just about everything except the stuff coming out now in MEGA and the mathematical manuscripts'....the Ethnological Notebooks was hard going .....now, where does that get us.....hmmm, nowhere.

So why don't you make out a case for why Marxism is still viable in 2007 instead of playing these games?

[Jesus H.]

I've been reading and listening to audio books and lectures on Buddhist thought for about a year. Started with the Dalai Lama's 'The Universe In a Single Atom'.

There is something about Buddhism that I like, I don't understand it completely because it is far different than my life long held pre-conceptions.

The Buddhists understand the world in the terminology of 'Emptiness' 'Emptimess' is the vast resivoir of potential in which every thing exists.

From this understanding of 'Emptiness' they are able to develop a tremendous ethical imperitive that is not a pasted on ethic but which is a true ethic in that it is incorporated into the being by having comprehended what 'emptiness' entails.

Within the doctrine of 'Emptiness' it can be deduced that we as people, and the Universe and all things combined are one, part of the same thing and in that way it is possible to love others in the way you love yourself. Jesus suggested that would be appropriate as well. However the Christian church cannot offer the ability to do it because their way of loving is to have love be commanded and then obeyed.

By looking at life in the way of 'Emptiness' way and not fearing death, (in buddhism death is simply something else to do and it is no big worry) the individual is free to love others and serve others. Unless a person sees this unity I doubt that any truly ethical activity can take place and further I do not think genuine love can occur when knowledge of that unity is absent.