Jun Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 I promised an explanation of what rebirth is all about, and why reincarnation is NOT a part of Buddhist practice. In thinking through a way to explain this simply I soon realized that there are still a great many things that are being mistakenly passed off as “Buddhist†practice. I’ve done enough finger pointing here on this forum, so now I will simply attempt to present an outline of what Buddhism is, and is not. It is up to you to then decide if what is being presented by any one group is in accordance with the Buddha’s teachings. Please forgive my little rant if it runs off in different tangents. I will try to outline the original doctrine of the Buddha in brief, stripped of all the cultural trappings and metaphysical speculations that has gathered around it during its long journey through a dozen Asian countries. The central message of the Buddha has become obscured by metaphysical and spiritual mumbo-jumbo. Some of that metaphysical mumbo-jumbo is now believed by many - yes even Buddhists - to be “Buddhism†despite being against the very teachings of the Buddha. Well here goes - In a nut shell, the core practice of the Buddha’s teaching is discipline, meditation and wisdom. Wisdom is the goal and meditation is the process towards achieving wisdom. Discipline through observing precepts is the method that helps one to achieve meditation. This is it - the core of the practice of Buddhism. Nothing else is required. An understanding of the Four Noble Truths and a general following of the Eight Fold Path - and you have it. I have spoken here quite a bit on the four types of Buddhism. 1. Religious 2. Academic 3. A cult 4. The basic practice - basic Buddhism Prevalent today is what is called “religious†Buddhism. Buddhism practiced as a religion. This is basically what everyone here comes to discuss. This includes all manner of superstitions, the chanting of “prayers,†belief in gods and deities, belief in heavens and hells, reincarnation (transmigration of a “soulâ€), magic spells, talismans, auspicious days and observances,…. Etc Many people today, including many “Buddhists†practicing in temples, do not understand the meaning and teachings of Buddhism. Yes, even monks in temples can be wrong. Often unknowingly, sometimes deliberately (Yes, in many Asian countries Buddhism is a legitimate tax-free occupation). Even in Asia, one can visit a temple and see people offering incense, prostrating to the statues, offering fruit and rice and praying to the Buddha as if he were a god able to grant wishes. This is NOT Buddhism at all. Statues are teaching tools, they simply serve to remind us of the teachings. They do not represent a belief in gods and deities. Likewise the Buddha is not a god. He’s dead! He offered this teaching as a means of helping us to realise our true selves, to overcome our self-imposed suffering and delusions. The Buddha stated that we alone have the ability to become happy, realise escape from delusion and suffering, and become compassionate. Any reliance upon religion or superstition goes against the very teachings of the Buddha. In introducing his teachings, the Buddha borrowed the religious terms of the time (2,600 years ago in India, there were 62 religious cults). The main religious thinking of India 2,600 years ago centered on the idea that a “God†had created everything; “God†rewarded those who prayed to him; “God†was responsible for the lives of men; and “God†sent men either to heaven or hell. The Buddha did not support any of these beliefs. He had been brought up within these teachings and rejected them. He rejected the commonly held belief in “God.†He rejected the commonly held belief in heaven and hell. He rejected the commonly held belief in a “soul.†But in order to be on common ground with his audience he often used the same religious terminology. Those listening would hopefully grasp what he was alluding to and then he could proceed to develop his ideas from this common ground. Dharma, karma, nirvana, moksha, niraya, samsara, atman are all words that the Buddha borrowed from the religions of his time. But in his teaching the Buddha gave very rational and unique meanings and interpretations to those existing religious terms - meanings that were VERY different from the then accepted ideas. The Buddha’s technique of teaching was different from that of the religious teachers of the time. Each religious teacher supposedly “knew†the answers to all questions posed to them. The Buddha however was honest to those who questioned him and based his teachings on everyday experience and observances. On one occasion the Buddha was walking along the edge of a river with some followers when he noticed a piece of wood drifting downstream. “What do you think of that piece of wood? What will happen to it?†One follower responded, “It may land on an island in the middle of the river.†“It may get saturated and eventually sink to the bottom,†another said. “It may be picked up, dried out and used as firewood.†said another. Now who is correct? Who can accurately predict the fate of the piece of wood? The Buddha then explained that our lives are just like the drifting wood on the river. Full of uncertainty. His method was to take lessons from everyday life so that his teachings were relevant to life, rooted in the here and now. He emphasized that as humans we must think freely, by using common sense. By simply following superstitions and ceremonies and prayers one can never be free to use our own minds. The Buddha stated, “I never had any teacher or divinity to teach me or tell me how to gain enlightenment. What I achieved I did by my own effort.†There is no obligation or compulsion to believe anything or accept any doctrine within Buddhism. Buddhism is simply seeing and understanding - a scientific attitude of mind. The Buddha invited all his followers (and his opponents of other religions) to challenge his teachings from every possible angle. To test everything he said. When people claimed there was a “God†(Brahma) he said, “Prove it.†One of the traditional epithets of the Dharma is “ehipasyika†(meaning literally “come and seeâ€). Legitimate Buddhist practitioners are encouraged to challenge the teachings, to tease them and test them, and pull them apart to see if there are any things that the Buddha was wrong about. It seems that many so-called "Buddhists" these days are happy to simply accept the teachings as they are, without questioning. How does one know if what they are told by their teacher is right? How does one know if the Buddha as right? Maybe he was wrong! He could have been! He was just a man after all. The Buddha did not appropriate on himself the role of a “God†or of a prophet of “God,†in order to validate his teachings. His teachings were derived from his own unaided efforts and he invited EVERYONE to test them out. Buddhism recognizes no creeds whose uncritical acceptance is expected of its followers. I think I’ve repeated this enough to get the message across, so on to the main topic - rebirth. The Dharma is concerned solely with the here and now, with helping us to resolve our personal hang ups through increased self-awareness and inner honesty. All the rest of Buddhism we can let go as the religious trappings of an ancient culture utterly inappropriate for the practice of the Dharma. Reincarnation involves the retention of an individualized "soul" from one life to the next. This was the basic belief of India at the time of the Buddha. The Buddha however rejected this belief. The Buddha rejected the belief of an everlasting "self." The Buddha instead referred to rebirth. Now there are two understandings of rebirth - that of the Theravada tradition, and that of the Mahayana tradition. In Theravada it can be explained using the analogy of playing pool. When you play pool and you hit one ball with another to send it in a given direction, the ball which is hit does not retain anything of the ball which hit it. It is a transference of energy - the bumping of the ball by another. It can also be likened to the transference of a flame from one candle to another. Some within Theravada say that it is consciousness that is transferred, some say simply an energy - the energy that binds us together with the universe. To this I would say - phooey! Why? Because now we have a speculative theory in play, and the Buddha didn’t deal with speculation. When people talked to the Buddha about things that were clearly speculative he simply said, “Sorry, Homey don’t play dat!†Within Mahayana, rebirth is the awakening of our Self to ourselves in this life. As our old "self" - our ego self - dies, a new self is born. This is rebirth. We are in fact being reborn each and every second. is it important to know all about rebirth? No. Is it important to the practice of Buddhism? No. Is it a belief that must be adhered to in one form or another depending on the tradition one follows? No. Buddhism is not concerned with such things at all. Oh, and once again, any tradition of Buddhism that claims that Buddhists believe in reincarnation is NOT a school of Buddhism at all! It matters not how many centuries they've been teaching reincarnation or how many sutras thay have in referrence to it - It's NOT Buddhism.
Dave Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 Don't automatically assume I'm being an ass, but these are legitimate, honest, questions: How is your argument any different than a Baptist saying that a Catholic is not practicing the real christian religion? Isn't that just another form of the No True Scotsman Fallacy? Because they do not practice your version of Buddhism means they are wrong? How is that? How are the millions of Buddhists in Nepal that are just following their natal religion wrong and you are right?
SWIM Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 I know very little about buddism. My question is, if REAL buddism does not believe in reincarnation, how then is the dali lama choosen? I thought they looked for a child that showed "memories" or some other sign that is was yet another reincarnation of budda? Isn't that why the dali-lama is given that position at a pre-pubescent age? Like I said, I am clueless about buddism, how is the dali-lama choosen if not reincarnation?
R. S. Martin Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 Jun, thank you for putting together this post. QUESTION: What you describe is just plain common sense living, personal growth, and development. Why call it Buddhism? Some Western teachers whose followers helped me get there are Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, Carl Rogers, and Abraham H. Maslow. It is possible that they were familiar with Buddhist teachings but I don't know. The thought of these psychologists is part and parcel of Western thought today. You may know its relationship to Buddhist teachings. I also await answers to the questions raised by Michael and Dave.
Jun Posted November 4, 2007 Author Posted November 4, 2007 Don't automatically assume I'm being an ass, but these are legitimate, honest, questions: How is your argument any different than a Baptist saying that a Catholic is not practicing the real christian religion? Isn't that just another form of the No True Scotsman Fallacy? Because they do not practice your version of Buddhism means they are wrong? How is that? How are the millions of Buddhists in Nepal that are just following their natal religion wrong and you are right? Hi Dave, Firstly, It is not my version of Buddhism that I am discussing. But Buddhism freed of the cultural and metaphysical trappings that have coated it. I offered my little rant free of the opinions of my tradition. No one is right or wrong by the way. But there are practices within some traditions that go against the very teachings of the Buddha. The Buddha taught that one is not to accept supernatural beliefs, or to depend upon supernatural beliefs and such. But there are clearly those traditions that do. So that, by definition, is NOT Buddhism. Buddhism = the teachings of the Buddha. As I've said, the predominant version of Buddhism that one is going to encounter today is RELIGIOUS Buddhism. Buddhism practiced as a RELIGION with all the supernatural trappings, talk of superhuman beings and such. This is NOT Buddhism. A person is clearly NOT practicing what the Buddha taught if they chant his name and expect something in return. The Buddha wa s trying to remove all the religious metaphysical stuff from peoples minds. Trying to make them realise that that stuff is all created by man and uneccessary. He rejected all those beliefs. There are those traditions today however that practice the very things that the Buddha said were a hindrance to practice, things that he rejected. If the Buddha rejected such things and said they are NOT accepted in Buddhism - then those who practice them aren't following his teachings. Michael, Read through some of my past posts. The current Dalai Lama recognised in China was chosen by poll. The whole theistic bent of Tibetan "Buddhism" is based upon one of power and authority - that is far removed from the teachings of the Buddha. Is Tibetan "Buddhism" really Buddhism? Many here know my stance on this issue. Ruby, QUESTION: What you describe is just plain common sense living, personal growth, and development. Why call it Buddhism? In Asia, there is no term "Buddhism." Buddhism is a Western term. In Asia one says "I'm a follower" or "I practice the Way" or "I'm a Dharma follower." Carl Jung was a follower of Buddhism. The scietnific attitude and content of Buddhist teachings led Albert Einstein to say, "If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."
R. S. Martin Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 I guess using your line of logic that Buddhism and the teachings of the Buddha are two different things (or that what is called Buddhism is not Buddhism because the Buddha did not teach it), then Christianity and the teachings of Christ are two different things, too. Or, what is called Christianity is not Christianity because Christ did not teach it. I guess what you are saying is that you reject as Buddhism anything that the Buddha did not personally teach. And all he taught was natural common sense human growth and development. Something is not sitting right. Nobody becomes great by doing that. For a person to be reknowned two and a half millennia later, his immediate followers must have perceived him to be doing something more than that, and they must have taught their followers that "something more," too. That "something more" would automatically have become part of the tradition but the original leader himself would possibly not have taught it. So what is that "something more" in Buddhism? To clarify my meaning, I think Jesus' teachings (if Jesus ever existed) are mostly about living well according to a love for truth. And, as I say, that is not enough to make a person great or to be reknowned two millennia later. The "something more" his immediate followers perceived was that through his death Jesus became the reconciliation between God and humanity. Given the human preoccupation with the metaphysical, that could make Jesus important enough to be reknowned two millennia later. To reiterate, what was this "something more" in Buddhism? (You said you like to be challenged. I hope you meant it because this looks to me like a serious problem in logic or human nature or something. The world just doesn't work this way.)
Rev R Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 In essence the philosophy espoused by Gautama was co-opted into pre-existing metaphysical concepts. For example Tibetan Buddhism is the most widely known form of Buddhism thanks to the highly publicized Dalai Lama, but a great deal of what is presented as Buddhism is not Gautama's philosophy but the traditions of Bon wrapped in a saffron robe.
Monk Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 Jun, Thank you for this thread. It seems to me that several Eastern philosophies have fallen victim to the US's morbid fascination with New Age/Postmodern/Anything Goes idiocies that attempt to fill the holes in our lives left by the endless pursuit of material wealth and consumerism. (I just love all the fads out there, bereft of any real substance). I don't know whether the things you say are correct or not (though they DO ring true). You certainly are better informed than I am. I've held an interest in Buddhism for several years, but I've never pursued it too far. What little I have learned is what I used to replace my Christian life philosophy, but I've only used the common sense/non-superstitious parts you've referred to. I don't suppose you have a reading list that fits your particular views?
Monk Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 I guess using your line of logic that Buddhism and the teachings of the Buddha are two different things (or that what is called Buddhism is not Buddhism because the Buddha did not teach it), then Christianity and the teachings of Christ are two different things, too. Or, what is called Christianity is not Christianity because Christ did not teach it. I guess what you are saying is that you reject as Buddhism anything that the Buddha did not personally teach. And all he taught was natural common sense human growth and development. Something is not sitting right. Nobody becomes great by doing that. For a person to be reknowned two and a half millennia later, his immediate followers must have perceived him to be doing something more than that, and they must have taught their followers that "something more," too. That "something more" would automatically have become part of the tradition but the original leader himself would possibly not have taught it. So what is that "something more" in Buddhism? To clarify my meaning, I think Jesus' teachings (if Jesus ever existed) are mostly about living well according to a love for truth. And, as I say, that is not enough to make a person great or to be reknowned two millennia later. The "something more" his immediate followers perceived was that through his death Jesus became the reconciliation between God and humanity. Given the human preoccupation with the metaphysical, that could make Jesus important enough to be reknowned two millennia later. To reiterate, what was this "something more" in Buddhism? (You said you like to be challenged. I hope you meant it because this looks to me like a serious problem in logic or human nature or something. The world just doesn't work this way.) I fail to see the problem, RubySera. To me it is no stretch of the imagination to assume that, if such a person as the Buddha (or Christ) existed, that people who admired their teachings would twist them to their particular needs, and that, over the centuries, the current state of affairs might be very far removed from what the original person intended. Here's a personal example. I was in the Marine Corps for 6 years. In 2004, we went to Iraq, and one of the ways I amused myself (and showed off in front of others, I admit) was to do pull ups with all my body armor on and my weapon (probably an extra 30-50 pounds total). I got to the point where I could do about 20-25...no great feat of strength but more than most can do. Fast forward to late 2006. I overheard some of my peers telling the younger generation in my unit how I used to do 40 pullups with my battle gear, pack, and a machine gun on (well over 100 pounds total now). They were NOT kidding, nor did they know I was listening. I revealed myself to correct the matter, but they said I didn't remember right and that they were sure I had done all that. I insisted they were wrong, and then they chalked it up to my personal modesty. When I left my unit, the story was still circulating. In two years, my personal legend grew substantially. I was alive and present to try and correct it but was unable to do so. ME, the one who had done the act, could not convince people of the truth! I am just one lowly individual who did nothing really grand. Now imagine several millenia and a dead founder of a major religion/philosophy. See the point?
Dave Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 Don't automatically assume I'm being an ass, but these are legitimate, honest, questions: How is your argument any different than a Baptist saying that a Catholic is not practicing the real christian religion? Isn't that just another form of the No True Scotsman Fallacy? Because they do not practice your version of Buddhism means they are wrong? How is that? How are the millions of Buddhists in Nepal that are just following their natal religion wrong and you are right? Hi Dave, Firstly, It is not my version of Buddhism that I am discussing. But Buddhism freed of the cultural and metaphysical trappings that have coated it. I offered my little rant free of the opinions of my tradition. They how is it that your version is different than others? Why should I believe that you are right and they are wrong? No one is right or wrong by the way. But there are practices within some traditions that go against the very teachings of the Buddha. Christians give me the exact same argument about other "traditions" of the christian religion. The Buddha taught that one is not to accept supernatural beliefs, or to depend upon supernatural beliefs and such. But there are clearly those traditions that do. So that, by definition, is NOT Buddhism. Putting it in bold doesn't change anything. It's still a No True Scotsman fallacy. Right? Buddhism = the teachings of the Buddha. Would that be the dogma that many Buddhists deny? As I've said, the predominant version of Buddhism that one is going to encounter today is RELIGIOUS Buddhism. Buddhism practiced as a RELIGION with all the supernatural trappings, talk of superhuman beings and such. This is NOT Buddhism. A person is clearly NOT practicing what the Buddha taught if they chant his name and expect something in return. The Buddha wa s trying to remove all the religious metaphysical stuff from peoples minds. Trying to make them realise that that stuff is all created by man and uneccessary. He rejected all those beliefs. There are those traditions today however that practice the very things that the Buddha said were a hindrance to practice, things that he rejected. If the Buddha rejected such things and said they are NOT accepted in Buddhism - then those who practice them aren't following his teachings. I'm sorry. Nothing you've said has convinced me that your version is any more correct than the other versions. Didn't young Sid have a conversation with 3 gods in his father's garden? Wasn't Buddha a Hindu, and a high class Hindu at that? Why are they so convinced that their version, and a very ancient version at that, is right? And why are they not observing your newer version? I hear the exact same arguments, word for word, coming from christians claiming that another version is the christian religion is not a "true" version. Why should I believe that argument from a Buddhist when I won't believe it coming from a christian? Should I just take your word for it?
R. S. Martin Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 I guess using your line of logic that Buddhism and the teachings of the Buddha are two different things (or that what is called Buddhism is not Buddhism because the Buddha did not teach it), then Christianity and the teachings of Christ are two different things, too. Or, what is called Christianity is not Christianity because Christ did not teach it. I guess what you are saying is that you reject as Buddhism anything that the Buddha did not personally teach. And all he taught was natural common sense human growth and development. Something is not sitting right. Nobody becomes great by doing that. For a person to be reknowned two and a half millennia later, his immediate followers must have perceived him to be doing something more than that, and they must have taught their followers that "something more," too. That "something more" would automatically have become part of the tradition but the original leader himself would possibly not have taught it. So what is that "something more" in Buddhism? To clarify my meaning, I think Jesus' teachings (if Jesus ever existed) are mostly about living well according to a love for truth. And, as I say, that is not enough to make a person great or to be reknowned two millennia later. The "something more" his immediate followers perceived was that through his death Jesus became the reconciliation between God and humanity. Given the human preoccupation with the metaphysical, that could make Jesus important enough to be reknowned two millennia later. To reiterate, what was this "something more" in Buddhism? (You said you like to be challenged. I hope you meant it because this looks to me like a serious problem in logic or human nature or something. The world just doesn't work this way.) I fail to see the problem, RubySera. To me it is no stretch of the imagination to assume that, if such a person as the Buddha (or Christ) existed, that people who admired their teachings would twist them to their particular needs, and that, over the centuries, the current state of affairs might be very far removed from what the original person intended. Here's a personal example. I was in the Marine Corps for 6 years. In 2004, we went to Iraq, and one of the ways I amused myself (and showed off in front of others, I admit) was to do pull ups with all my body armor on and my weapon (probably an extra 30-50 pounds total). I got to the point where I could do about 20-25...no great feat of strength but more than most can do. Fast forward to late 2006. I overheard some of my peers telling the younger generation in my unit how I used to do 40 pullups with my battle gear, pack, and a machine gun on (well over 100 pounds total now). They were NOT kidding, nor did they know I was listening. I revealed myself to correct the matter, but they said I didn't remember right and that they were sure I had done all that. I insisted they were wrong, and then they chalked it up to my personal modesty. When I left my unit, the story was still circulating. In two years, my personal legend grew substantially. I was alive and present to try and correct it but was unable to do so. ME, the one who had done the act, could not convince people of the truth! I am just one lowly individual who did nothing really grand. Now imagine several millenia and a dead founder of a major religion/philosophy. See the point? The "something more" in that case is that they exagerated the weight of gear you were wearing, and thus your physical strength. Your admirers perceived that you were stronger than you really were. That is exactly what Jun is claiming to strip away--the exagerations. And then we're left with a very ordinary man. And "very ordinary men" do not become so reknowned as to be remembered two thousand years later. You, monk, prove with your own story how helpless you were to remove the "something more" from the legend that had grown up around your slightly more than average strength. It is the perception of the admirers/followers/disciples and that is what keeps the legend alive. So what is it about the Buddha that was perceived extra-ordinary that kept his legend alive? The "something more"? As stated above and verified by Jun (by implication I think), the Buddha's teachings are nothing more than ordinary personal growth and development teachings that anyone can achieve with or without Buddhist teachings.
1oddmanout Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 Great thread, and this site provided another reason to go to Wikipedia: No True Scotsman. The depth here is inspiring.
Monk Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 The "something more" in that case is that they exagerated the weight of gear you were wearing, and thus your physical strength. Your admirers perceived that you were stronger than you really were. That is exactly what Jun is claiming to strip away--the exagerations. And then we're left with a very ordinary man. And "very ordinary men" do not become so reknowned as to be remembered two thousand years later. You, monk, prove with your own story how helpless you were to remove the "something more" from the legend that had grown up around your slightly more than average strength. It is the perception of the admirers/followers/disciples and that is what keeps the legend alive. So what is it about the Buddha that was perceived extra-ordinary that kept his legend alive? The "something more"? As stated above and verified by Jun (by implication I think), the Buddha's teachings are nothing more than ordinary personal growth and development teachings that anyone can achieve with or without Buddhist teachings. Ok, I think I better understand what you're saying now. I guess my question now would be the following: Considering the historical time frame for the Buddha's life, wouldn't it be possible that his teachings, which we would consider "ordinary personal growth and development teachings," were, in fact, quite revolutionary and profound to the people who would have formed the core or foundation of the Buddha's subsequent myth/legend? Perhaps they seem ordinary and easily attainable to us WITHOUT following Buddhism, but couldn't it be possible that the Buddha's contemporaries would have viewed his ideas differently, thus providing the catalyst for the "something more" that grew up around him?
Monk Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 Basically, I'm saying we should consider the historical context and the impact the Buddha's ideas would have had on his peers before we apply our modern mindset to the philosophy as a whole. Also, the point of my personal example was to show how, in a short amount of time, the ordinary can become the extraordinary by being passed on through word of mouth, which, I believe, would have been the primary means much of the Buddha's actions and words would have initially spread. To me, it is not hard to imagine that, even if he was quite normal, if he had the right type and amount of devoted followers, they could have made him into anything they wanted, possibly against his own wishes. I also think that this is what Paul did to Jesus (assuming either of those individuals actually existed as we would know them).
Evolution_beyond Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 The Theravada interpretation of rebirth does have some value though. It doesn't have to be anything supernatural. Aren't all things connected? Don't things cause other things? The Universe is like a complex web of causes and effects. I'm not saying you can actually trace a path of lives and say they are reincarnations of each other - because that is obvious, supernatural nonsense. But maybe rebirth is a metaphor for the interconnectedness of all things I'm also suspicious of any kind of True Buddhism argument - seems uncannily similar to arguments from True Christians. Although I agree that praying to statues, believing in other-worldly boddhissatvas and Pure Land etc are superstitious nonsense and NOT Buddhism - because they don't tie in with what the Buddha actually said. But some ideas seem very prevalent in Buddhism and seem as much part-and-parcel of how Buddhism is taught as the four noble truths and the eightfold path. When rebirth has been taught - and taught as actual reincarnation of some sort - by many, many Buddhists in every form of Buddhism and in every country that Buddhist influence has touched - how is your argument that reincarnation is NOT Buddhist any different from Christians who claim that the divinity of Jesus or belief in Hell is NOT Christianity (and get regularly lampooned for it on here)? Just asking...
Evolution_beyond Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 Also - Buddhism, Taoism, humanism - what's the difference?
Dave Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 .....I also think that this is what Paul did to Jesus (assuming either of those individuals actually existed as we would know them). Which brings up another question..... Have non Buddhist historians come to the conclusion that Buddha was a real person that actually existed? Are there any writings that could be called original? Finally, in my looking about I have read that Buddha did believe in gods (in no way were they anything like a Western style god!) but that they were not important and worshiping them "tends not to edification." The "gods" or semi-divine beings were there, but not relelvant to humans.
Monk Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 .....I also think that this is what Paul did to Jesus (assuming either of those individuals actually existed as we would know them). Which brings up another question..... Have non Buddhist historians come to the conclusion that Buddha was a real person that actually existed? Are there any writings that could be called original? Good questions, and I believe, in light of this and what Ruby and I have been debating, we can make the logical leap to assume that, if he DID exist, he might have been totally different from the person portrayed and taught things that were different from what is accredited to him. That is assuming, of course, some objective sources do not provide evidence to suggest otherwise. Basically, it seems to me we are back to asking the same question(s) many of us do of christianity and other religions: do we really even know enough to make a decision based on anything more than "faith" or "belief" that these things happened? Is there enough objective evidence to support the claims put forth? My brain's a bit muddled at the moment from all this
Dave Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 Good questions, and I believe, in light of this and what Ruby and I have been debating, we can make the logical leap to assume that, if he DID exist, he might have been totally different from the person portrayed and taught things that were different from what is accredited to him. That is assuming, of course, some objective sources do not provide evidence to suggest otherwise. Basically, it seems to me we are back to asking the same question(s) many of us do of christianity and other religions: do we really even know enough to make a decision based on anything more than "faith" or "belief" that these things happened? Is there enough objective evidence to support the claims put forth? My brain's a bit muddled at the moment from all this It also brings up another question? If you don't have any of the original writings, and don't even know for sure the guy existed; how can you say with any certainty what he did or did not say? Since Theravada Buddhism, as practiced in Nepal - the birth place of Sid, is the oldest form, wouldn't that be the truest? Since it was a group of monks that sat down AFTER the death of Sid, once right after and again 100 years later, and wrote down what he said, couldn't things have been changed at that time? And as each version of Buddhism formed, couldn't the writings also have been changed again.
Sparrow Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 ....It's NOT Buddhism. That's peculiar. When my Father eventually gave up christianity shortly before his death - he said exactly the same except the other way around about mahayana and thervada buddhism. Very odd. Spatz
Sparrow Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 .....I also think that this is what Paul did to Jesus (assuming either of those individuals actually existed as we would know them). Which brings up another question..... Have non Buddhist historians come to the conclusion that Buddha was a real person that actually existed? Are there any writings that could be called original? Finally, in my looking about I have read that Buddha did believe in gods (in no way were they anything like a Western style god!) but that they were not important and worshiping them "tends not to edification." The "gods" or semi-divine beings were there, but not relelvant to humans. Actually, whilst there is none of the original Buddhist manuscripts around, the general consensus is that the Buddha rejected the idea of Gods. He apparently framed much of what he said in the context of his listeners. Naturally, that is only scholarly belief as, like I've already said, there are no original manuscripts. As to the actual existance of the Buddha - who knows? The message was good and is still relevant to today -> "Know yourself so you can know others, work towards the ending of suffering, get educated, strive to be wise and knowlegeble, use right thinking and right actions, etc." All pretty useful stuff really. Spatz
Dave Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 Actually, whilst there is none of the original Buddhist manuscripts around, the general consensus is that the Buddha rejected the idea of Gods. He apparently framed much of what he said in the context of his listeners. Naturally, that is only scholarly belief as, like I've already said, there are no original manuscripts. Which just takes it all back to the No True Scotsman fallacy. If one were to say that the version of Buddhism that they adhere to, or follow, or like, is one of many ways, but not the only way, then there would be no problem. As to the actual existance of the Buddha - who knows? I've been lead to believe that there is a bit more evidence that SiddhÄrtha Gautama was a real person and that there was some evidence to support that. I could have been lead wrong. The message was good and is still relevant to today -> "Know yourself so you can know others, work towards the ending of suffering, get educated, strive to be wise and knowlegeble, use right thinking and right actions, etc." All pretty useful stuff really. That part may be of use, but some of it gets pretty esoteric and I don't agree with it. Please, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to battle against Buddhism. I see it as a religion, but one of the most benign forms of religion. It's not perfect but I don't see it starting wars, knocking on my door, or trying to force its way into my life. I'll leave them in peace as they leave me in peace.
Sparrow Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 Which just takes it all back to the No True Scotsman fallacy. If one were to say that the version of Buddhism that they adhere to, or follow, or like, is one of many ways, but not the only way, then there would be no problem. I've been lead to believe that there is a bit more evidence that SiddhÄrtha Gautama was a real person and that there was some evidence to support that. I could have been lead wrong. Does it matter? I don’t think the Buddha existed either, nor do I think Jesus existed, nor Sun Tzu, etc. No big deal. The message was good and is still relevant to today -> "Know yourself so you can know others, work towards the ending of suffering, get educated, strive to be wise and knowlegeble, use right thinking and right actions, etc." All pretty useful stuff really. That part may be of use, but some of it gets pretty esoteric and I don't agree with it. Depending on which Buddhism, it certainly does get pretty esoteric (by esoteric, I assume you mean to be spiritual and spooky stuff. Not all of it is though.) Either way, I would suggest that while it is very subjective, I would rather be dealing with Buddhists than mid-west American christians who’d welcome an apocalyptic ending of the entire planet, no universe, all for the reason of saying “I told you I was right.†Also, be careful that what you read is really what there is. Much of what is written in English about Buddhism has been written for consumption for the American public. It is hardly representative of all there is and hardly representative of what most are thinking and what is actually out there. Just a suggestion. Please, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to battle against Buddhism. I see it as a religion, but one of the most benign forms of religion. It's not perfect but I don't see it starting wars, knocking on my door, or trying to force its way into my life. I'll leave them in peace as they leave me in peace. Wow, why so aggressive? We as atheists have more in common with traditional buddhists than anyone else. Christians are the ones knocking at your door. They’re the ones who want to burn your kid for being gay and stone you for watching the wrong tv show. It’d be a rarity if a couple of Buddhists monks came to your door for anything other than a glass of water and a bowl of rice. Zen Baby! Spatz
R. S. Martin Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 The "something more" in that case is that they exagerated the weight of gear you were wearing, and thus your physical strength. Your admirers perceived that you were stronger than you really were. That is exactly what Jun is claiming to strip away--the exagerations. And then we're left with a very ordinary man. And "very ordinary men" do not become so reknowned as to be remembered two thousand years later. You, monk, prove with your own story how helpless you were to remove the "something more" from the legend that had grown up around your slightly more than average strength. It is the perception of the admirers/followers/disciples and that is what keeps the legend alive. So what is it about the Buddha that was perceived extra-ordinary that kept his legend alive? The "something more"? As stated above and verified by Jun (by implication I think), the Buddha's teachings are nothing more than ordinary personal growth and development teachings that anyone can achieve with or without Buddhist teachings. Ok, I think I better understand what you're saying now. I guess my question now would be the following: Considering the historical time frame for the Buddha's life, wouldn't it be possible that his teachings, which we would consider "ordinary personal growth and development teachings," were, in fact, quite revolutionary and profound to the people who would have formed the core or foundation of the Buddha's subsequent myth/legend? Perhaps they seem ordinary and easily attainable to us WITHOUT following Buddhism, but couldn't it be possible that the Buddha's contemporaries would have viewed his ideas differently, thus providing the catalyst for the "something more" that grew up around him? Perhaps you would be so kind as to fill me in on the history of the people, place, and intellectual/philosophical/religious culture. I know practically nothing and cannot begin to answer the question. I am not even sure what geographical area or historical era we are looking at. I have a vague idea that we are looking at India and Far Eastern Asia 2,600 years ago and more recently. That covers vast amounts of geography and large numbers of different ethnic groups or cultures. I vaguely remember from the course I took five years ago that it changed as it spread over time from one geographical area to another. Someone mentioned that Buddhism does not start wars. I remember from that course that there were wars fought over disagreements about how Buddhism should be practiced. It was real war because people were killed and it seemed just as violent as Christianity. Also, in that course, there was at least one video that showed how little boys about age seven were left at the monastery to be raised as monks. My heart really went out to the little children. It was not at all clear to me that this was better than child abandonment in the Western world.
Recommended Posts