The Ex-c Epic Buddhism Thread

[JadedAtheist]

All I have is my own practice- that is my own observations of existence and my mind- to convince me of its validity. Put simply, in my life it works pretty well. But it appears that the question is what can I offer you as an empirical demonstration of its validity. To that I can only offer myself. Pretty shitty demonstration huh?

 

I guess before I really get into my thoughts on this part, I'll ask this question: Do you believe in absolute truth? I.E. truth that all of us are constrained to? Why or Why not?

 

Can't speak for anybody but me, but it seems that a pragmatic approach is about the only one we can take with any honesty. Wouldn't you say that your own skepticism is pragmatic in nature?

 

 

My skepticism is a result of my using the scientific method I guess you could say. Now, you may say that the use of the scientific method to ascertain truth claims is pragmatic but I would really disagree that it is pragmatic in the same way as a religious belief is pragmatic. The scientific method produces the same results for everybody, a religious belief produces individualistic results.

[Antlerman]

My skepticism is a result of my using the scientific method I guess you could say. Now, you may say that the use of the scientific method to ascertain truth claims is pragmatic but I would really disagree that it is pragmatic in the same way as a religious belief is pragmatic. The scientific method produces the same results for everybody, a religious belief produces individualistic results.

Do you use the scientific method to ascertain the truth claim of love between you and your significant other? Not all of life is capable of being subject to the scientific method, nor appropriate to expect it to be. If however religion is claiming facts about the natural world, that the sun orbits the earth for instance, then by all means that is a truth claim appropriate to be looked at by science and for science to dismiss that claim of religion. It is inappropriate for eye of mind or the eye of spirit to lay claim to the tools sets to penetrate that domain. It is also inappropriate for the eye of flesh to lay claim to the eye of mind, or the eye of spirit. And so on. Different domains, different forms of knowing. It is a category error to attempt to reduce all of life to the tool set used to ascertain truth in the sensory-motor world, or the eye of mind, or the eye of spirit.

[Deva]

A few useful websites for Tibetan Buddhism:

 

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/index.html

 

http://www.khandro.net/

 

The Bob Thurman Podcast - Tibetan Buddhist Dharma teachings from Robert A. F. Thurman

[badpuppy]

A few useful websites for Tibetan Buddhism:

 

http://www.berzinarc...b/en/index.html

 

http://www.khandro.net/

 

The Bob Thurman Podcast - Tibetan Buddhist Dharma teachings from Robert A. F. Thurman

 

 

Thanks for these links, Deva!

[VacuumFlux]

Do you use the scientific method to ascertain the truth claim of love between you and your significant other? Not all of life is capable of being subject to the scientific method, nor appropriate to expect it to be.

 

I'm not sure it's the scientific method, but I do try to step back as much as I can and dispassionately observe my feelings about my SO to see whether I am being honest with myself. I don't want to fool myself that I'm interseted in a long term romatic relationship when I'm really only feeling lust, particularly because in that case, my lying to myself will turn into lying to another person. Nor do I want to hide from commitment by telling myself it's only lust when it's actually something else.

 

The first time I felt something more-than-friends towards the woman who is now my girlfriend, I was very giddy about it and excited, particlarly since she seemed to reciprocate my interest. But I wasn't sure what, if anything, to do about it. So I waited, and observed that the next few times I was around her I felt the same way. I only asked her out because the feelings weren't going away; there were reproducable, so it wasn't just the time of the month or something I'd eaten. I also asked other people to tell me what my actions were saying about my feelings as an extra check.

 

One thing I really like about Buddhism is the self-reflection and honesty involved. As a Christian, I kept having to ignore my own feelings or lie to myself about what they meant. The feelings I have that bubble up to the surface of my mind are a type of data (to use a science term) that tells me about myself. I guess... what I see as the core of the scientific method isn't materialism, but rather honesty and a lack of preconceptions. A good scientist is supposed to let the data speak for itself, even if the answer you get isn't the one you wanted to hear. So for me, Buddhist and similar philosophies/practices are a way for me to apply that same honesty to my own mind; to step back, observe, and see the truth about myself.

[JadedAtheist]

My skepticism is a result of my using the scientific method I guess you could say. Now, you may say that the use of the scientific method to ascertain truth claims is pragmatic but I would really disagree that it is pragmatic in the same way as a religious belief is pragmatic. The scientific method produces the same results for everybody, a religious belief produces individualistic results.

Do you use the scientific method to ascertain the truth claim of love between you and your significant other? Not all of life is capable of being subject to the scientific method, nor appropriate to expect it to be. If however religion is claiming facts about the natural world, that the sun orbits the earth for instance, then by all means that is a truth claim appropriate to be looked at by science and for science to dismiss that claim of religion. It is inappropriate for eye of mind or the eye of spirit to lay claim to the tools sets to penetrate that domain. It is also inappropriate for the eye of flesh to lay claim to the eye of mind, or the eye of spirit. And so on. Different domains, different forms of knowing. It is a category error to attempt to reduce all of life to the tool set used to ascertain truth in the sensory-motor world, or the eye of mind, or the eye of spirit.

 

There are certain ways of "testing" love so to speak, actions do speak louder than words as the say but I realize the point you are trying to make. I actually heard this argument being made by a Christian. His argument was that we humans can only see things "inside the box" and any tools of measurement or critique were useful for finding out about information inside the box. Problem was, God exists outside of the box.

 

Whilst that is true, all religions essentially say that God (or whatever supernatural phenomena) came inside the box to reveal itself in some shape or form. So, they are able to be examined in this light like anything else. So, for example: Christians claim that God came in form of a man named Jesus who lived up until the mid thirties CE. There are documents that surround his life and events and as such, we can critique this aspect of their claims. If proven to be false it shows this Jesus fella can't be too much of a God now, can he?

 

And, with Buddhism for example, one way I would look at it is if there was never really a Buddha, then the whole religion is founded on a lie and how am I meant to take the rest seriously? Or, if I see a teaching attributed to him, but I see an earlier reference elsewhere or if I find contradictory evidence to claims about his wondrous works, these are all ways that I can assess a religion using the old fashioned scientific method.

[Antlerman]

There are certain ways of "testing" love so to speak, actions do speak louder than words as the say but I realize the point you are trying to make. I actually heard this argument being made by a Christian. His argument was that we humans can only see things "inside the box" and any tools of measurement or critique were useful for finding out about information inside the box. Problem was, God exists outside of the box.

 

Whilst that is true, all religions essentially say that God (or whatever supernatural phenomena) came inside the box to reveal itself in some shape or form.

What if the view is that all forms reveal God? Apply the scientific method to that if possible. All science does is examine the elements, causes and effects. What if those causes and effects are believed to be a manifestation of God? What does science have to say about that? "No, that belief is wrong"? On what basis, what tool-set is it making that judgment? The scientific method of sensory-motor observation, or is it crossing over into a philosophical dialog? Once there, in philosophy it is no longer the scientific-method that applies. That applies only to the physical world of observation and testing of hypothesis. It was developed specifically for that space, not for philosophy or spirituality.

 

My point is that there are domains of knowledge. Where I believe we agree is that I believe that empiricism in the broad sense of the word does apply across all domains:, the material, the mental, and the spiritual. Using the broad sense of empericism as injunction, apprehension, and conformation, does in fact allow a relative grounding of truth to be had, as opposed to anything goes sort of subjective chaos. I just disagree that the mental and spiritual domains can be penetrated using the tools of naturalistic sciences. That notion died in science with Positivism, yet it remains a popular view in culture as some new orthodoxy.

 

So, they are able to be examined in this light like anything else. So, for example: Christians claim that God came in form of a man named Jesus who lived up until the mid thirties CE. There are documents that surround his life and events and as such, we can critique this aspect of their claims. If proven to be false it shows this Jesus fella can't be too much of a God now, can he?

I will certainly agree that we can take claims of historical facts and check them against all accumulated data. You and I both know that what we observe doesn't confirm the claims of believers of certain facts such as the age of the earth, a world-wide flood, etc. That's the easy part. The hard part comes when you start moving up into philosophy, questions of values and ethics, etc., then even harder still when you get up into questions of spiritual truth and enlightenment. Just because science (in the narrow sense of material science) can prove the earth is not 6000 years old, to conclude that therefore anything else in the Bible in the domains of philosophy and spirituality are therefore wrong, is not a valid use of science. To be wrong about science, is simply to be wrong about science.

 

Was Jesus God? I'll put this argument out for thought. Yes. He was. So am I. So are you. If you say that those who are able to expose that in themselves and realize it at the highest planes of conscious awareness, a direct apprehension, a direct experience, can claim to be recognize they are in fact God, then that is not a violation of reason or observation of the natural world. What confirmation of that claim could possibly be offered then? That is a valid question. Only by those who themselves have experienced that. Only someone who functions like that can validate another functioning at that level, through a dialog, through discernment.

 

The problem with the way the Bible is presented is that they believe feats of magic and miracles are that confirmation. That is child's play. That is a candy-stick held out in front of the masses to get them to 'believe', since they have no qualification to discern at that level. It's rather cheap, actually. Hardly proof of anything considering how easily tricks can be manufactured. All that said however, it is reasonable to say that the stories of miracles such as walking on water (set aside healing for the moment), actually may serve a psychological function - moving up into that mental domain. Mythology plays an important role in how we perceive the world symbolically, and in fact can open one up to deeper subconscious layers of the mind. As such, they speak "truths" to people. So the miracles are 'true' in what they say to the inner person. However to the literalist, that point is lost.

 

And, with Buddhism for example, one way I would look at it is if there was never really a Buddha, then the whole religion is founded on a lie and how am I meant to take the rest seriously?

Not at all. It is founded on its truths, not the existence of one individual mythologized by history and culture. It matters not one iota if the Buddha had lotus blossoms literally flower in his footsteps as he walked across the ground as an infant. I would say the same thing for Christianity, actually. It shouldn't matter if the Jesus of history bore much or any resemblance to the Bible myths, if the teachings are valid on a spiritual level. 99.9% of Christians however would disagree! They need their Jesus to be that miracle performing magic man in order to "believe" in him. None of this should be about following a person, the Buddha or Jesus, or whoever. It is about spiritual transformation. It is supposed to be about finding inner Light and Truth, and through that, an actual transformation of the person. Most people approach it literally, and therefore are focused on "evidence" that they can observe. It externalizes the whole affair, avoiding the inner transformation - the really hard work.

 

Or, if I see a teaching attributed to him, but I see an earlier reference elsewhere or if I find contradictory evidence to claims about his wondrous works, these are all ways that I can assess a religion using the old fashioned scientific method.

I think it is valid to do what you are saying, but again to simply conclude it is therefore all just 'bunk', is in fact not being very scientific at all! What about the science of mind? What about the science of spirit? You see?

[badpuppy]

@JadedAtheist I really don't think it matters if the Buddha existed or not. Many ideas taught in Buddhism I came to independently before exposure to Buddhism. That's just how I saw things. Just because someone a long time ago said something doesn't mean they are the first or only person to ever have such an idea. I really don't think anyone is claiming Buddha had any "one true truth". He merely discovered something that worked for him and made some observations about the world he found himself in. Every living person can do the exact same thing. Everyone may not come to the same conclusions about life, but many will. Buddhism is a philosophy that has stood the test of time because it's actually a somewhat coherent and logical philosophy. Christianity has stood the test of time with torture, mayhem, and fear. Christianity is a religion that rises or falls on the literal truth and historical reality of a certain person existing and also having done certain things. Christianity makes absolute truth claims you must "believe" or "be damned". Buddhism doesn't correlate with any of this, so Buddha cannot be compared to Jesus as being required for the faith to exist.

 

If the particular person we refer to as "the Buddha" had not existed, then another person would have at some point who had and shared similar ideas. The person is just a messenger/teacher sharing a way, not a god we must all worship, obey, and agree with every single thing he ever said.

[badpuppy]

@antlerman what you're saying makes me think of the "inner and outer mysteries" in the mystery religions. It seems, especially in Christianity, that religious followers are stuck in the "outer mysteries". In fact there was a book called: The Jesus Mysteries that had this theory that Christianity was originally intended as a Jewish mystery cult and somehow people start spreading the outer mysteries without the inner mysteries and lost the point of the whole thing.

[Rev R]

Two implications seem to follow: higher states of consciousness--states in which people have capacities above and beyond the "usual"--may be available to us all. And our usual state of consciousness, which we usually assume to be the best, is actually, for the lack of a better word, sub-optimal.

 

Thus, what is learned or understood in one state of consciousness may be less easily comprehended in another (state specific limitations). Even profound understandings gained in an alternate state (brief but extremely intense, beneficial experiences of expanded identity and union with self, other and the universe) may be incomprehensible to someone who has never accessed the state.

 

What say you?

 

Oh, how's the gig going with The Examiner?

 

 

Sorry for the delay. I had a full weekend off so I took advantage of a much needed break.

 

First off, the gig with the Examiner never really got off the ground. It was difficult to establish credibility equivalent to folks already writing for them with no credentials worth a damn. So I have been busying myself with other projects. All of them nowhere near where I would like them to be.

 

Now, while your conclusions are perfectly reasonable, great care must be taken. It is potentially harmful to present the "mundane" mind as something which is sub-optimal. In fact, it perpetuates the very problem that the path is said to overcome. The path does not cause enlightenment, instead it is more akin to tending farmland. Cultivating the Buddha-mind is akin to farming. A farmer does not cause crops to grow, he nurtures and cultivates an environment for the crops to thrive. This is what the path is about. "Enlightenment" is the seed, existence is the soil, and the path is all the tools and techniques used to keep the soil fertile.

[Rev R]

Rev, I'm curious for your thoughts to this since you identify as Buddhist. You said something sometime back that provoked me into a way of thinking that I see as valuable. You had spoke of theism as having a role in that path of enlightenment. I've come to see the power of that in that in valid dualistic approach to Self realization. I'm wondering could you expound on your views of the various 'deities' used in certain forms of Buddhism, how those differ from the common Western conceptualization and practices surrounding deity, and finally the sticky subject of the meaning of the word "God" in the Eastern mind versus the Western Mind.

 

I don't recall exactly what I said to that effect, but I will attempt to illuminate the question from where I am now. Deva may be able to provide some insight coming from the vajrayana tradition.

 

Neither theism nor atheism is inherent in the Buddha's path. Best I can tell from my study of history, sutras, and other writings, the existence of gods was pretty much taken as a given. They occupied their realm, performed their duties, and were as much able to benefit from the Buddha's teaching as humans are. Perhaps that is an indication of the universality of the path. Many local deities were converted into Bodhisattvas- beings who have forsaken final enlightenment in order to aid all sentient beings become enlightened. For example, we have Manjusri, the bodhisattva that represents wisdom and Kannon (Avalokitesvara) the bodhisattva of mercy and compassion. Whether we consider these to be literal beings or Jungian archetypes, reverence of the various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is meant to awaken these qualities within ourselves. In other words, to honor a being of compassion places compassion in our thoughts and to honor a being of judgement and punishment places these ideas in our thoughts. In a way it relates to what I was saying to Saner above. It is a practice that fertilizes the soil so that awakening can grow on its own.

[Rev R]

I guess before I really get into my thoughts on this part, I'll ask this question: Do you believe in absolute truth? I.E. truth that all of us are constrained to? Why or Why not?

 

Absolute truth really doesn't have any dependence on what I believe about it or how I choose to model it. Does the scientific fact of the Earth's rotation diminish the experience of a sunrise? What can one truly say on the subject of absolute truth without sounding like a complete nutter <and perhaps I should not be attempting to answer this question while having a couple of beers>?

 

I suppose you could say I do believe in an absolute truth. Why? Because of what I have been able to observe.

[Antlerman]

Whether we consider these to be literal beings or Jungian archetypes, reverence of the various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is meant to awaken these qualities within ourselves. In other words, to honor a being of compassion places compassion in our thoughts and to honor a being of judgement and punishment places these ideas in our thoughts. In a way it relates to what I was saying to Saner above. It is a practice that fertilizes the soil so that awakening can grow on its own.

This has become precisely my own experience. These are archetypes which arise from the subconscious as means to bring that to the conscious mind. Many surprising forms arise. In speaking of Bodhisattva's, the White Tara is particularly meaningful lately. These are means to realization of that hidden self beneath the layers, and which ultimately is beyond those symbols. I've learned to trust what they can reveal, and through that is higher self-realization. In my own way, I owe you gratitude for your subtle insights which have helped me on to this path of my own.

[VacuumFlux]

What are the basic, core beliefs that someone would have to hold in order to call themselves Buddhist without being insulting to other Buddhists? I get that there are many more paths in Buddhism than in Christianity that all accept each other as valid. I'm trying to figure out if any of the schools match what I believe enough for me to use the label (not that I'm going to be able to figure that out until I understand what they believe in the first place; there's all sorts of philisophical differences that I don't get). I get that have a label isn't that important of a goal; I want the sense of belonging that comes from realizing other people think the same way I do, and that in fact I'm so not alone that a word for us already exists. That, and it would be nice to have a easily googlable term that describes what I believe so that I don't have to keep explaining myself over and over. And I'd like to find some spiritual writings that I can read straight through without feeling mildly uncomfortable that I disagree with some of the starting assumptions.

[badpuppy]

@Rev R... my question may have gotten lost in all my blah blah, but if anyone knows I really am interested in knowing the spiritual significance (if any exists) of the number 49. I find it interesting that the Buddha is said to have sat under the Bodhi tree for 49 days... and also people are said to be in the bardo after death for up to 49 days before moving on. These things seem to parallel each other so I'm interested in knowing if there is any special significance to the number 49 here.

 

Also, do any practicing Buddhists here do the readings for the traditional 49 days when a loved one passes? (If they follow the Tibetan tradition. I'm not sure if this is just Tibetan Buddhism or if other schools practice this or something similar as well.)

 

I don't know if I would do the readings, but I would light a candle for those days. Not that I think my loved one would be in the bardo literally for 49 days. I have no idea, really. But I think it's a nice thing to do. To keep someone you love in your thoughts. It makes me think of Jewish people sitting shiva (is that how you spell it?) after a family member dies.

[Deva]

Tibetan Deities are nothing like the Western conception of God. They are highly symbolic representations of aspects of the enlightened mind. Every piece of clothing, article of jewelry, and other item (including colors) has a meaning. Since everyone has the Buddha nature, these deities ARE you - enlightened qualities in a visual representation. You learn to steady the mind through meditation in order to hold the visualization.

 

It is the use of the imagination to see the whole mandala of the world as filled with deities.

 

There are gods in Tibetan Buddhism as well, but they are not omnipotent, not always what we would call good, and they have limited life spans. They live well for eons, and then inevitably their good karma ends and they die and reincarnate into the lower realms.

 

Also, there are Dharma protectors - they were the local Tibetan deities (gods) before Buddhism arrived in Tibet. The story is that when Padmasambhava brought Buddhism to Tibet from India, he subdued these deities (which were causing trouble) and bound all of them under oath to protect the Dharma and its practitioners.

[Deva]

Also, do any practicing Buddhists here do the readings for the traditional 49 days when a loved one passes? (If they follow the Tibetan tradition. I'm not sure if this is just Tibetan Buddhism or if other schools practice this or something similar as well.)

 

I don't know if I would do the readings, but I would light a candle for those days. Not that I think my loved one would be in the bardo literally for 49 days. I have no idea, really. But I think it's a nice thing to do. To keep someone you love in your thoughts. It makes me think of Jewish people sitting shiva (is that how you spell it?) after a family member dies.

 

There are special practices for 49 days.. at the Dharma center before any practice we would have a dedication. People's names would be spoken who were in the bardo during this period and the practices are dedicated to them and also "all sentient beings."

 

Now there have been some changes and the names are written on pieces of paper which are thrown into a fire on the night of the full moon. One is not necessarily thought of as actually remaining in the bardo for this period of time. This is thought of as the maximum period of time. The person could be reborn far earlier than the 49 days, or be in the bardo for a very short period of time, or not at all--in some cases.

[Rev R]

@Rev R... my question may have gotten lost in all my blah blah, but if anyone knows I really am interested in knowing the spiritual significance (if any exists) of the number 49. I find it interesting that the Buddha is said to have sat under the Bodhi tree for 49 days... and also people are said to be in the bardo after death for up to 49 days before moving on. These things seem to parallel each other so I'm interested in knowing if there is any special significance to the number 49 here.

 

Also, do any practicing Buddhists here do the readings for the traditional 49 days when a loved one passes? (If they follow the Tibetan tradition. I'm not sure if this is just Tibetan Buddhism or if other schools practice this or something similar as well.)

 

I don't know if I would do the readings, but I would light a candle for those days. Not that I think my loved one would be in the bardo literally for 49 days. I have no idea, really. But I think it's a nice thing to do. To keep someone you love in your thoughts. It makes me think of Jewish people sitting shiva (is that how you spell it?) after a family member dies.

My apologies, Puppy.

 

Other than the reference to the 49 days between death and rebirth, I'm not aware of any particular significance to the number 49. It may be one of those things that has become lost here in the West, or just lost to time. I tend to be ritual light personally. I'll see if I can pick some brains for you.

[badpuppy]

@Rev R... my question may have gotten lost in all my blah blah, but if anyone knows I really am interested in knowing the spiritual significance (if any exists) of the number 49. I find it interesting that the Buddha is said to have sat under the Bodhi tree for 49 days... and also people are said to be in the bardo after death for up to 49 days before moving on. These things seem to parallel each other so I'm interested in knowing if there is any special significance to the number 49 here.

 

Also, do any practicing Buddhists here do the readings for the traditional 49 days when a loved one passes? (If they follow the Tibetan tradition. I'm not sure if this is just Tibetan Buddhism or if other schools practice this or something similar as well.)

 

I don't know if I would do the readings, but I would light a candle for those days. Not that I think my loved one would be in the bardo literally for 49 days. I have no idea, really. But I think it's a nice thing to do. To keep someone you love in your thoughts. It makes me think of Jewish people sitting shiva (is that how you spell it?) after a family member dies.

My apologies, Puppy.

 

Other than the reference to the 49 days between death and rebirth, I'm not aware of any particular significance to the number 49. It may be one of those things that has become lost here in the West, or just lost to time. I tend to be ritual light personally. I'll see if I can pick some brains for you.

 

 

I'm fairly ritual light as well (though not ritual-absent), but I like to know stuff! I'm always intrigued by symbolic numbers and patterns that keep repeating.

 

@Deva and cool, interesting stuff.

[Rev R]

Ok did some digging. The only other reference to 49 I've found is the 49 fires of creation mentioned in the Puranas. My guess would be any actual significance to the number itself would be a throwback to Vedic and Brahmin traditions. Focus your search there.

[badpuppy]

Ok did some digging. The only other reference to 49 I've found is the 49 fires of creation mentioned in the Puranas. My guess would be any actual significance to the number itself would be a throwback to Vedic and Brahmin traditions. Focus your search there.

 

Interesting. Thanks, I will!

[Rev R]

What are the basic, core beliefs that someone would have to hold in order to call themselves Buddhist without being insulting to other Buddhists? I get that there are many more paths in Buddhism than in Christianity that all accept each other as valid. I'm trying to figure out if any of the schools match what I believe enough for me to use the label (not that I'm going to be able to figure that out until I understand what they believe in the first place; there's all sorts of philisophical differences that I don't get). I get that have a label isn't that important of a goal; I want the sense of belonging that comes from realizing other people think the same way I do, and that in fact I'm so not alone that a word for us already exists. That, and it would be nice to have a easily googlable term that describes what I believe so that I don't have to keep explaining myself over and over. And I'd like to find some spiritual writings that I can read straight through without feeling mildly uncomfortable that I disagree with some of the starting assumptions.

Just a quick note to let you know that I haven't forgotten you.

[Rev R]

What are the basic, core beliefs that someone would have to hold in order to call themselves Buddhist without being insulting to other Buddhists?

 

In 1967, Walpola Rahula authored a set of nine points with the purpose of unifying the tenets of Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism. This would be the closest thing to a universal orthodoxy.

1. The Buddha is our only Master (teacher and guide)
   
2. We take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Saṅgha (the Three Jewels)
   
3. We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God.
   
4. We consider that the purpose of life is to develop compassion for all living beings without discrimination and to work for their good, happiness, and peace; and to develop wisdom (prajñā) leading to the realization of Ultimate Truth
   
5. We accept the Four Noble Truths, namely duḥkha, the arising of duḥkha, the cessation of duḥkha, and the path leading to the cessation of duḥkha; and the law of cause and effect (pratītyasamutpāda)
   
6. All conditioned things (saṃskāra) are impermanent (anitya) and duḥkha, and that all conditioned and unconditioned things (dharma) are without self (anātma) (see trilaksana).
   
7. We accept the thirty-seven qualities conducive to enlightenment (bodhipakṣadharma) as different aspects of the Path taught by the Buddha leading to Enlightenment.
   
8. There are three ways of attaining bodhi or Enlightenment: namely as a disciple (śrāvaka), as a pratyekabuddha and as a samyaksambuddha (perfectly and fully enlightened Buddha). We accept it as the highest, noblest, and most heroic to follow the career of a Bodhisattva and to become a samyaksambuddha in order to save others.
   
9. We admit that in different countries there are differences regarding Buddhist beliefs and practices. These external forms and expressions should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha.
   

The Zen tradition of Japan and China is a little more complex since it has no real philosophy of its own. What I mean by that is Zen's literary tradition draws from many sources: Nagarjuna's "emptiness", the Perfection of Wisdom Texts, Taoism, Confucianism, and even nature itself. The primary focus is not the pursuit of peak experiences and higher states, but rather learning not to pursue thoughts and cravings. We learn to, as Bruce Lee taught, be like water- fluid and adaptable.

 

Zen has accreted much by way of tradition and ritual, but at its heart it remains the same:

A special transmission outside the scriptures.

A direct pointing to the mind.

Not relying on words and letters.

Awaken and become a Buddha.

 

That should be a decent start for you.

[stryper]

So in the spirit of the season....does Buddhism have anything like christimas?

[badpuppy]

This is why I labeled myself a Buddhist: http://www.shambhala...d=3025&Itemid=0

 

I neither need nor want a faith statement more complicated than that. Largely because, beyond that, there are several areas where my conception of reality and purpose differ somewhat from traditional Buddhist views. And yet... the vast majority of what I believe about the nature of reality is so Buddhist that to accept another label seems pointless.

 

Though I think labels are rather problematic anyway, and maybe illusory. Spirituality is a continuum of different beliefs and practices and they all seem to start overlapping with other things at some point. As human beings we like to create definite cut off points so we can keep our group "pure", but the result is that a lot of people either are left without a label/easy way to help others try to understand them, or else they slowly start to try to squeeze themselves into someone else's boxes and accept beliefs/ideas that aren't natural to them all the while someone else claims a "greater wisdom than them".