buddhism is a friggin stupid religion.

[white rice]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
honestly, wtf.

If you stop wanting things, then you'll no longer suffer?

Thats is the most retarded thing i have ever heard in my life.


"Hey Frank, my legs are always itchy. What should i do about them?"

"Cut them off, youll never experience the pain of the itch anymore."




Or all that meditation. Sitting on the grass thinkin about the veins on a leaf does JACK CRAP. You still are fat, miserable, or whatever you were, you just have managed to blow 3 hours trying to "empty your mind".

Frankly, that is the exact oposite of what you should be doing...

USING YOUR FRIGGIN MIND TO SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


Ever need something so bad it stresses you out? And even when you do get it, does it always make you feel as good as compared to all the stress you had before?

Ever been in a sensory deprivation tank? That's a mechanical way of forcing yourself to think.

It's a different approach to life and not something you can read on the TV Guide and be the all knowing master of it. Ironically, it's a religion where you use your mind even more.

[Capitalist Pig]

Buddhism is an insufficent model of government, and comparing it to Communism is rather ironic when we consider our southeast Asian history. Remember that when Buddhism was made the national religion in Cambodia, much of the nation fell into poverty because it nourished a culture where people cared less for wealth or power. While some of you may be asking yourself, "Well, why is that a bad thing?" You're missing the point. Buddhism does not wish to convert the entire world and make everybody live without attachment to material possessions and all those other great realizations. Buddhism also acknowledges that an equal balance of both the greedy and the modest; the good and the evil; and the sad and the happy, are just as conducive to the well-being of the universe, as are acts of compassion. Even the Cambodians expressed their ignorance of Buddhist philosophy by instituting it as a national religion, as Buddhism is meant for the individual person. A country must survive by different standards. It aided in the weakening of Cambodia, paving the way for the Khmer Rouge.

[Man Against Time]

This thread is retarded; Buddhism is not meant to be an influence on everyday affairs. It is by definition "Above Time," as in, not subject to the needs or whims or cries of the common man, or life in this world at all. It is unconcerned with the affairs of regular people. If this bothers some cretins who measure the value of their life by how much satisfaction they derive from their nerve endings and how many cars are in their driveway, that's kind of funny, and I will happily laugh off these impotent attacks on a life of discipline and orientation toward something Absolute.

[tusaki]

First of all: hats of to "Man Against Time" for the nice argument.

I have a good friend who is a buddhist and a philosopher and we talk alot about well.. everything.

Out of all the religions in the world, I have yet to see a buddhist-fanatic crying out for the destruction of all who are not buddhist or believing those who do not follow 'their' faith will burn in hell. (ok, so Shinto and Paganism too.. I was talking about the Major religions ) This makes it, in my mind, a more valid faith than the rest. (And no, I dont as hell know what to believe exactly. I believe some of the things buddism teaches, although Im not really a buddhist.)

Buddhism is about self-improvement and morals and values through knowledge instead of forcing it through fear and worshipping.

and please, "nature of reality", tell me: why all the anger in your posts?

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp,)
again with 'stupid religions' i mean if you find a religion too abstract/different to grasp, then fucking find a new religion and stop bashing. anyone can go on about ANY particular religion and how false it is because there is no solid coexisting base of truth between you and who you are arguing with.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Buddhism like many religions are often misunderstood. An interesting movie to watch that gives some insight into Buddhism is the 'Littlest Buddha'. It deals some with the mythology of Buddhism which is not real, but it also gives some insight into the original message of Buddha.

Buddha's enlightenment taught the middle way. You neither give up everything and become an aesthetic or indulge and cling to material things and life. There is nothing in common between Communism and the original teachings of Buddha. Buddha never taught to give up everything and join a communal community. In fact communalism as an economic system is somewhat different from the more modern doctrin of communism.

The goal of the end of 'suffering' as taught by Buddha needs far more understanding than what was presented here, but it begins with the journey of the 'Middle Way'.

Buddha also taught not to follow him or make statues of him, but to seek enlightenment by entering the river of life and live the 'Middle Way.'

Unfortunately like many religions including Christianity wierd things happen over the years and people change religion, make statues and give it the burden of their own image and labels.

Buddhism like Christianity was a very practical religion when it was revealed, but things happen.

[G. Adams]

Thats a good point. I saw this good documentary highlighting the buddhist monastaries and communities in the USA, contrasting the ones established by immigrants and those by people newer to the religion. The traditionalists had a hell of a lot of bells, whistles and rituals that seemed to have little link to buddhist thought, while the westerners buddhism was clean and simple. I'm sure if it lasts though you'll see a practice that makes sense now being adopted out of ritual rather than reason and it too will lose any relation to buddhist thought.

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
Thats a good point. I saw this good documentary highlighting the buddhist monastaries and communities in the USA, contrasting the ones established by immigrants and those by people newer to the religion. The traditionalists had a hell of a lot of bells, whistles and rituals that seemed to have little link to buddhist thought, while the westerners buddhism was clean and simple. I'm sure if it lasts though you'll see a practice that makes sense now being adopted out of ritual rather than reason and it too will lose any relation to buddhist thought.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

What you likely saw was closer to Zen Buddhism from Japan. It lacks the bells and whistles of Tibetan and other mainland Buddhist schools. I practiced Zen when I studied the Japanese Arts of Aikido, Eido (sp?), Japanese sword and Kendo.

[G. Adams]

Nope, I'm a big student of Buddhism and would remember if it was something as notable of Zen buddhism. This was just a community of western practitioners doing their own thing within the teachings of buddhism, or at least it claimed no heritage.

The point I was making under all that was that we at times add something from our culture of the time that winds up as part of ritual, or even embedded in the religion, without anyone knowing why its there anymore. For example, the notion of God's under buddhism. Buddhism does not, as i'm sure you know, worship any god's, yet a lot of the teaching's talk of the God's. This is because there was a cultural belief in god's in India and its surrounding areas, and it picked up on them. So what could have been dropped, I would argue should have been dropped, still get referred to still.

As a good comparison, look at Christianity. Took up the festivals and practices the cultures it was working its way into for sake of ease, and then became part of it. I mean to none-christians with a good knowledge of germanic mythology, Easter is just one big joke.

[fogus]

I believe that if you can make any religion look absolutly stupid you probably dont understand it. people are intelegent. to say that millions of them are believing something insane can only be because you do not fully understand their religion. i am not saying that they are right (i believe that buddhism to be false), but to say that it is outrightly stupid is ignorent. if you want some proof, just start debating some of their finest scholars on the subject. you might be able to defeat them, but not with a simple arguement, or a very apparent one

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
Nope, I'm a big student of Buddhism and would remember if it was something as notable of Zen buddhism.  This was just a community of western practitioners doing their own thing within the teachings of buddhism, or at least it claimed no heritage. 

The point I was making under all that was that we at times add something from our culture of the time that winds up as part of ritual, or even embedded in the religion, without anyone knowing why its there anymore.  For example, the notion of God's under buddhism.  Buddhism does not, as i'm sure you know, worship any god's, yet a lot of the teaching's talk of the God's.  This is because there was a cultural belief in god's in India and its surrounding areas, and it picked up on them.  So what could have been dropped, I would argue should have been dropped, still get referred to still.

As a good comparison, look at Christianity.  Took up the festivals and practices the cultures it was working its way into for sake of ease, and then became part of it.  I mean to none-christians with a good knowledge of germanic mythology, Easter is just one big joke.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

My statement was 'something like Zen'. Some schools of Zen are very simple and unadorned in their practice and belief.

Yes the pantheon of Gods common today in mainland Asian schools is alien to the original teachings of Buddha. Buddha's teaching were close to the unknowable source of existence like the Tao in Taoism. The word God may be used as a word for the source, but then it is only a word. It is also similar in meaning to the unknowable God as the source in Baha'i.

Even the doctrine of reincarnation is questionable as a belief of Buddhism.

[Man Against Time]

Buddhism does not, as i'm sure you know, worship any god's, yet a lot of the teaching's talk of the God's.

It does not "worship" Gods- Prince Sidharta did indeed believe in the existence and hierarchy of gods, angels, and demons. One needs not worship them to acknowledge their presence. It does not worship them because Buddhism holds that man is superior to them, in that he is both Being (the transcendant, spiritual part) AND Non-being (the part seduced by Mara, the craving). Animals, for example, are only craving. Gods are only Being. Man is a union of the two, and thus can ascend higher and "know Brahma."

This is because there was a cultural belief in god's in India and its surrounding areas, and it picked up on them. So what could have been dropped, I would argue should have been dropped, still get referred to still.

This is a flawed and western, theological interpretation, the result of being christians for so long. Regular lookers are unable to seperate the idea of believing in Gods, and worshipping them. Buddha said that adherence to rituals and attachment to a god would only further link one to Samsara and Becoming. He did not say, "there are no gods," only, "Those who pay the gods heed with rites and prayers further bind themselves to this world of craving and appetitie. How sad!"

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Man Against Time,)
Buddhism does not, as i'm sure you know, worship any god's, yet a lot of the teaching's talk of the God's.

    It does not "worship" Gods- Prince Sidharta did indeed believe in the existence and hierarchy of gods, angels, and demons.  One needs not worship them to acknowledge their presence.  It does not worship them because Buddhism holds that man is superior to them, in that he is both Being (the transcendant, spiritual part) AND Non-being (the part seduced by Mara, the craving).  Animals, for example, are only craving.  Gods are only Being.  Man is a union of the two, and thus can ascend higher and "know Brahma." 

This is because there was a cultural belief in god's in India and its surrounding areas, and it picked up on them. So what could have been dropped, I would argue should have been dropped, still get referred to still.

  This is a flawed and western, theological interpretation, the result of being christians for so long.  Regular lookers are unable to seperate the idea of believing in Gods, and worshipping them.  Buddha said that adherence to rituals and attachment to a god would only further link one to Samsara and Becoming.  He did not say, "there are no gods," only, "Those who pay the gods heed with rites and prayers further bind themselves to this world of craving and appetitie.  How sad!"<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I guess it depends on the interpretation of the meaning of God or god, or Gods or gods. The supernatural beings in Buddhist writings were definitely small 'g', other supernatural beings in the hierarchy of existence. This misunderstanding in the west leads to describe Hinduism and Buddhism as Polytheistic, but in reality the pantheon of supernatural beings also exists in Christianity and the even have a God who rules the under world 'Hell'. As I said before 'God' is only a word, a three leter word.

I first studied Buddhism in Zen and they tend to weed out the Gods or gods from Buddhist theology.

[Man Against Time]

You forgot something...

[Man Against Time]

In response a post on another thread, concerning common misconceptions about Buddhist's as "wanting nothing" (not entirely untrue, but this is usually uttered as an insult, as if to call them cowards who flee from the world), I wrote this, but felt it belonged here more than the thread it began in:

Enlightenment is attainment of nothing, and everything. Heres the thing; a Buddhist ascetic sees the temporal world, with its passions, its cultures, its squabbles over mortal power, its appetites and cravings, as something akin to an illusion, something that man's ego has built to incredible and unrealistic importance to justify his attachment to it. The Buddhist ascetic feels no such attachment to these things, because he recongizes the Nothing behind them, recognizes that they are fleeting constructs that the empty, common man needs to latch onto to satisfy himself, and to differentiate between what is I and what is not I. The Ascetic knows who he is and does not need to see what he is Not as a way of gauging his perspective. He understands the fundamental lack of value in all things. In doing so, he attains everything, bliss, peace, englightenment, whatever you want to call it, it is his and only his, unmoved by the turbulence around him, unwavering, always at calm with itself.

Thus the Ascetic attains a state of "standing," a Traditional state of being, typically symbolized by | that is, that which stands, that which does not move, that which cannot be moved, as opposed to the -- , that which is in motion, that which becomes, that which is driven. An Ascetic is entirely Active, but from HIS OWN perspective. He stands alone. This is the opposite of what the Modern world considers a "man of Action," a man entirely motivated by Becoming, by motion, by being acted on, not acting himself. The men the modern world looks to as men of action, its politicians and athletes and super-star action heroes, are entirely linked to craving and appetite, thus, ARE DRIVEN, their action is Passive, actually, REactions to stirrings that occur below them and express themselves Through them. (It is significant to note that "being driven" is actually a virtue in our society, further evidence that we have grown to hate the man who stands alone, the | capable of rising above the currents of regular life, and instead revere the Titan, consumed by Lust for power and gain and pleasure and popularity)

[one deity]

I think that clearing away that deluded self view is a good thing. If you live everyday seeing everything as it is then everything you do will be as a true result of what is happening instead of a random guess at how to make sense of the interpretation of what goes on around you. Buddhism teaches you to clear your self view, lose your ego. 'If the doors of perception were cleansed...' If everyone saw everything as it is then suffering would end because in realising your love for other living beings you would lose fear for yourself, and instead feel sympathy and empathy for others.

In teaching everyone how to reach their potential, this religion brings good to humanity. It is different to other reigions in that there are no set rules, there are guide lines which enable you to reach 'awakening' and teach you how to lose those things that make you unhappy. It isn't that you forget about what makes you unhappy.
For example;
Yesterday i broke my leg, but instead of crying over the pain i ignored it. This made everything better.
This isn't what buddhism is trying to get across. Another example;
Yesterday i broke my leg, i realised that pain is a natural process, accepted that it was happening and i cleared my mind, and meditated and felt at one with my inner being. The pain was no longer important, but in acknowledging it was there i could get over it.
I think this is a more adequate analogy than;"Hey Frank, my legs are always itchy. What should i do about them?"

"Cut them off, youll never experience the pain of the itch anymore."

[Man Against Time]

Its wrong, however, to think Buddhism cares one second for "humanity," or "the people." Im sure you can find quotes that might look like they contradict this, but these are either misinterpreted, or just modern spinoffs and degraded forms (just like all religions are subject to the laws of Time).

Anyway, as I said, Buddhism does not care about "humanity" in the sense that the modern world does. Not destroying all of mankind is just a byproduct of a life oriented toward the Absolute. Overcoming human bonds is the only goal of Buddhism.

[tusaki]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Man Against Time,)
Its wrong, however, to think Buddhism cares one second for "humanity," or "the people."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Becoming (more) enlightened automatically makes life easier for people around that person. Buddhists care a lot about other people because they have a better understanding of how and why people act in a certain way. Overcoming the petty needs and distractions, which are usually at the forefront of the human consciousness, brings better understanding of those emotions and recognition of those emotions in other people. Most Buddhists I know (all 3 of them) are bussy on some kind of world-improving life path. So I don’t know if this was exactly what you meant or if you meant the opposite, but the above is my understanding.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Man Against Time,)
Anyway, as I said, Buddhism does not care about "humanity" in the sense that the modern world does.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

How does the 'modern world' care about "humanity" ?

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Man Against Time,)
Not destroying all of mankind is just a byproduct of a life oriented toward the Absolute. Overcoming human bonds is the only goal of Buddhism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Destroying? erm, the common believe held by Buddhists is that all life is sacred because it is reincarnated life. Different forms of Buddhism believe different things about the impact of (accidental) murder on Karma. There is a form of Buddhism which holds you responsible (bad karma) if you accidentally step on a bug.

Also: "Overcoming human bonds"? It's more like the recognition that your consciousness and my consciousness are no different and our 'souls' are linked and 'made' of the same substance. So I'm not sure what you mean by that.

[Man Against Time]

As I said, there are modern and "evolved" (degenerated) forms of Buddhism, even to the point where the Modern spirit has infiltrated the original and highest forms. No, Prince Sidharta did not care whatsoever about "the people," or "the world." He did not want to hurt it, nor help it. Detachment from the world, remember? Detachment implies a total and pure indifference.

And how can you deny that the whole point of The Way is to overcome human bonds? You know, love, hate, passion, craving, desire... All of these are conditioned, contingent, imposed on us by our false, fleshy bodies or by the world around us. They are not reflections of our truest Self. A concern for "the people" is one of these conditioned, contingent, impositions that can only strengthen a man's tie to the world.

But as I said, since Buddhism wants detachment from the world, it isnt like in not caring about the people, the Buddha walked on them. Just the opposite- he was indifferent and unattached, and thus incapable of wronging them.

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Man Against Time,)
Its wrong, however, to think Buddhism cares one second for "humanity," or "the people." Im sure you can find quotes that might look like they contradict this, but these are either misinterpreted, or just modern spinoffs and degraded forms (just like all religions are subject to the laws of Time).

Anyway, as I said, Buddhism does not care about "humanity" in the sense that the modern world does. Not destroying all of mankind is just a byproduct of a life oriented toward the Absolute. Overcoming human bonds is the only goal of Buddhism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

It depends on the buddhist path. Therevadan is quite distant and withdrawn from the rest of humanity. But the Mahayana path is much more grounded. It's practioners say that even if they are enlightened, they would want to return in order to help the rest of humanity.

[Man Against Time]

How many times must I point out that modern Buddhism is just like modern everything? All religions and philosophies must according to the laws of Time confront and lose to the creeds of the Modern world. The Buddha would not even concieve of this attachment to humanity.