Buddah?

Buddah? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

knees2you -> Buddah? (8/27/2009 1:41:51 AM)
So much talk about God, and whether or not he exists. What about Buddah? What is Buddahs claim to fame? People want to deny God, as if he is the only one who matters? If he is the only one, then he must matter right? Always, Ant~ quote: I guess Supertramp said it best. "Said a boat without an anchor, and a ship without a sea. Said the devil is my Saviour and I don't pay no heed."

FullCircle -> RE: Buddah? (8/27/2009 3:24:28 AM)
Buddah is an ancient spiritual teacher of Buddism. Furthermore the concept Samsara hasn't been proven so why he is still considered a teacher of anything is beyond me. I'm a teacher of Alcoholismet i.e. the more alcohol you drink the more alcoholic energy is inherited by the brain, where is my PhD damnit?

Rule -> RE: Buddah? (8/27/2009 4:08:52 AM)
Buddha made an important spiritual discovery, offering solace to humanity. In one small sentence: 'Do not desire anything, as desire is the cause of all suffering'. He also achieved enlightenment, and apparently simultaneously radiance. The Divine took note of this remarkable event, as did the incarnate gods. He was brought to heaven and was hosted there for one or two months.

FullCircle -> RE: Buddah? (8/27/2009 4:12:53 AM)
'Do not desire' is the route to a boring life. Notice how many Buddhists don't actually go all the way to becoming Buddhist monks, why would they? They can't even enjoy fresh air or complain about pollution because complaining means you desire better air. Do not desire peace and harmony; how does that work?

rightwinghippie -> RE: Buddah? (8/27/2009 8:57:35 AM)
Full circle, Rule paraphrased (not wrong, but very simplfied) Budahh in his passage, so you can't attack it like that. The actuall teaching is more complicated, and your critique is covered in it. Peace and Harmony are not material things, or covered in what Rule paraphrased.

FullCircle -> RE: Buddah? (8/27/2009 9:15:33 AM)
The problem with karma is an age old problem i.e. defining what is and isn't good karma. Is a highways engineer helping mankind out of an act of kindness or is he responsible for the destruction of part of a forest, who decides what his karma should be? If I kill someone before they kill a thousand people does that help balance the equation? Karma is based on personal interpretation of an act in terms of good or evil thus which individual can preach he has a better understanding of ways to improve your karma, he does so only from his limited perspective.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Buddah? (8/27/2009 9:38:16 AM)
If you think thats a valid critique of Bhuddism, you ought to learn a bit more about it. Bhuddah/Bhuddism is more of a spiritual philosophy than a religion. It has manifested itself in a variety of cultures in different ways. Karma is a force, not an entity though. It doesn't decide. Bhuddism concerns itself with proper intentions, from which proper actions follow, which brings an end to suffering. Note to all. I am not qualified to teach this. The above is a simplification based on my limited understanding.

FullCircle -> RE: Buddah? (8/27/2009 9:48:48 AM)
Proper intentions? The highways man intends to improve society. The environmentalist sabotages the highway project because he intends to improve society. Who has the proper intentions? Do Buddhist monks never protest, because I've seen them take part in some protests where they obviously have an opinion what they are doing is the right thing. Does this mean the people they oppose in such protests are wrong? Always? It is a spiritual movement that imposes a world view it might be more subtle but it is the same as any other religious belief system: open to self contradiction. Thanks for the spiritual enlightenment, perhaps if it was so pure of intent it wouldn't take an expert to explain it to me?

Arpig -> RE: Buddah? (8/27/2009 9:58:50 AM)
Buddhism, by its own definition is false. The Buddah taught that all reality is an illusion, thus his teachings were themselves also illusory. Nirvana/enlightenment is not something that can easily be attained not because it is particularly difficult, but because it is only part of the illusion. It is the ability to grasp this concept and understand it that is what enlightenment is...to understand that there is nothing real, not even nirvana. It is then when one is freed from the cycle of birth-death-rebirth, not because one has achieved some higher plane, but because once one truly understands the nonexistence of "reality" then one realises their own non-existence as well. and thus since nothing (including the self) actually exists, one is freed. That is how I interpret the core of the Buddah's teachings. All the rest is just ways to get along in the world while trying to come to terms with and truly understand one's own non-existance.

FullCircle -> RE: Buddah? (8/27/2009 10:02:01 AM)
quote: If you think thats a valid critique of Bhuddism, you ought to learn a bit more about it You know I hate it when people say "no you are wrong you ought to learn more about it" like I am suddenly going to become enlightened and say "oh how could I have ever doubted such archaic unproven wisdom." Then upon realising that fact I'm going to grow this special super power enabling me to transport myself into the next life and validate such things as karma. It’s not that I haven’t read it, it just makes utterly no sense in the real world.

Mishna -> RE: Buddah? (8/27/2009 10:08:14 AM)
If you don't agree with Buddhism, don't practice it. It's that simple.

Arpig -> RE: Buddah? (8/27/2009 10:08:55 AM)
quote: It’s not that I haven’t read it, it just make utterly no sense in the real world. That's because it works in the Buddhist context...a context where there is no such thing as a "real world". The whole world, all the people in it and everything that happens in it are not real, they are just illusion. You yourself are not real, you are not even imagining the world because you don't actually exist.

Mishna -> RE: Buddah? (8/27/2009 10:13:47 AM)
quote: So much talk about God, and whether or not he exists. What about Buddah? What is Buddahs claim to fame? People want to deny God, as if he is the only one who matters? If he is the only one, then he must matter right? Always, Ant~ The Buddha isn't a god or God. He is a historical figure, much in the same way Jesus was, only 500 years earlier than him. Comparing Buddha's existence to Jesus' would be more accurate.

FullCircle -> RE: Buddah? (8/27/2009 10:14:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: It’s not that I haven’t read it, it just make utterly no sense in the real world. That's because it works in the Buddhist context...a context where there is no such thing as a "real world". The whole world, all the people in it and everything that happens in it are not real, they are just illusion. You yourself are not real, you are not even imagining the world because you don't actually exist. I'm not real because ultimately my actions have no long lasting consequences. The president of the US also his actions will have no long lasting consequences thus he isn't real either. What is a long lasting consequence compared to the age of the universe? There is no point me writing this here because sooner or later every human will die due to the result of implications in the universe beyond their control. Is this what you mean?

Musicmystery -> RE: Buddah? (8/27/2009 10:23:37 AM)
~FR~ 1) Buddha is a generic term. The Buddha was the first to become a Buddha. Incidentally, that's the proper meaning of Christ too (from the Greek)--Jesus the Christ, the first one to reach "enlightenment." 2) The idea that the physical world is illusion is not unique to Buddhism. Plato, for example, discussed this as the world of shadows, not true reality. Incidentally, so does early Christianity, a fundamental modern Christians have all but discarded. 3) The idea of a God is a separate question. Several religions/philosophies, from Hopi to Hinduism, work well with or without a God, and several concepts of universe have the universe creating the gods--Ancient Greece, for example, or Brahmin, which is not a "god," but more properly "essence." And modern science even postulates multiple universes creating each other. Again, all challenging concepts for those indoctrinated since birth in modern Christian views--i.e., it is not at all evident that "there must be a god" or even a Creator. After all, we've known for a century, since Einstein, that time is merely a local phenomenon, meaningless as an absolute in terms of the cosmos. Much of what we assume about the world is false.

FullCircle -> RE: Buddah? (8/27/2009 10:40:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mishna If you don't agree with Buddhism, don't practice it. It's that simple. I don't, am I still allowed to tell other people not to bother with it either?

Mishna -> RE: Buddah? (8/27/2009 10:45:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle quote: ORIGINAL: Mishna If you don't agree with Buddhism, don't practice it. It's that simple. I don't, am I still allowed to tell other people not to bother with it either? If they choose to, that's their choice and their business. Why make it yours?

Arpig -> RE: Buddah? (8/27/2009 10:47:36 AM)
quote: I'm not real because ultimately my actions have no long lasting consequences. The president of the US also his actions will have no long lasting consequences thus he isn't real either. What is a long lasting consequence compared to the age of the universe? There is no point me writing this here because sooner or later every human will die due to the result of implications in the universe beyond their control. Is this what you mean? No, the Buddah taught that all existence is merely an illusion, it is not real, it has no actual existence. Therfore what you percieve as reality is in fact unreal, illusory, nonexistant. Since you are part of the reality you percieve, then you also are un real, illusory, nonexistant. It is when you can reconcile the fact that you are self-aware and capable of percieving things with the fact that you do not exist that you achieve Nirvana and are freed from the nonexistant birth-death cycle. It is that basic contradiction, that you are yet you aren't that makes Nirvana so hard to achieve. How do you reconcile these two utterly incompatible ideas.

Musicmystery -> RE: Buddah? (8/27/2009 10:48:28 AM)
quote: Furthermore the concept Samsara hasn't been proven so why he is still considered a teacher of anything is beyond me. If proof were the bar, all religion would have died long ago.

FullCircle -> RE: Buddah? (8/27/2009 10:50:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mishna If they choose to, that's their choice and their business. Why make it yours? Why not make it my business? Similarly I also have an opinion on buses, snails and the smoking ban.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875