Buddhist Is Buddhism Really a Religion.

[ananda]

Apparently somebody forgot to inform Buddhist extremists in Myanmar and Sri Lanka of this fact. Oops.

The other side of the story:

"Hla Oo's Blog: 1942 Genocide of Buddhists in Maungdaw District:

The origin of the Muslim-Buddhist conflict: "Panicking British chased by Japanese army were withdrawing rapidly from Burma [in World War 2]. The so-called Arakan Frontier was left under the chaotic control of two Rajput Native Battalions (Bengali-Muslim-majority troops) from British India Army. The Indian-Muslim soldiers from First and Second Rajput Native Battalions together with the Bengali-Muslims (the Chitagonians) were raping the Buddhist Yakhine women and girls and killing Yakhine Men and boys all over the Sittwe town during that lawless vacuum." Also documented in a SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research (Kanda University of International Studies)
​

Muslims outnumber Buddhists worldwide by 3x, with ~50 countries to their name versus 7 for Buddhism, and Muslims dominates almost 9x the land space of the Earth vs Buddhists."

With that said, the first Buddhist precept states "I undertake the training rule to refrain from taking life." Also, "Any monk who purposely deprives a human being of life, even to the extent of causing an abortion, is not a contemplative, not a son of the Sakyan [Buddhist]" (Vinaya)

 

[zoidar]

Isn't the Christian desire for paradise really & ultimately about ending suffering & establishing unending happiness?

In other words, paradise isn't the real end goal ... the end of suffering and the establishment of unending happiness is the real end goal, and "paradise" is seen as the way towards that real end goal.

No, the real Christian hope is to get rid of sin and have a paradise rid of evil and full of joy. End of suffering doesn't equal joy or end of evil. You can end suffering and still have physical pain and terrible sorrow.

 

[ananda]

No, the real Christian hope is to get rid of sin and have a paradise rid of evil and full of joy. End of suffering doesn't equal joy or end of evil. You can end suffering and still have physical pain and terrible sorrow.

I see getting "rid of sin", "rid of evil", ending "physical pain" and "terrible sorrow" as various ways of referring to the end of suffering in different spheres.

 

[Taodeching]

I am very sorry. Maybe it would be best if you search Zen and the Brain PDF.

This one has pdf for each chapter:

Zen and the Brain | MIT CogNet


But now I am reading a follow up, Zen Brain Reflections. There is also a pdf of that. So far it seems less technical.
https://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Zen-Brain-Reflections.pdf

I just find it interesting but also beyond me. I am now reading about the brain structures correlated with our sense of self.

With both books I recommend looking at the table of contents or index for subjects you might want to go deeper into.

Thank you

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Thank you

I little take away:
What science is telling us is that the brain has two basic ways of processing.
One is Egocentric the other is Allocentric or Other centric.
We shift back and forth with our energy to each of these continually.

Egocentric is all that we normally think of as our thoughts, our narrative, our ruminations. It is also referred to as our Default Mode Network. It is our monkey brain. Our rational active processes.

Allocentric is more getting in touch with what we experience, what we feel, what we perceive. And it is more objective, matter of fact, passive.

We sort of teeter totter our mental energy between these two networks of processing all day long. We live in cycles.

When we practice meditation, especially Open Awareness, mindfulness type of meditation we consciously practice Allocentric Processing. We work those neural pathways and reinforce them.

Nothing mystical, diabolical or dangerous. This is the way God created our brains. In the West we are heavily egocentric and out there doing things. In the East they are more Allocentric and passive. What we need is a better balance. If anyone is really interested there are several youtube presentations on the brain and mediation.

It might sound strange, how does focusing within become “Other centered”? Well, we become objective observers of our interior. We no longer identify with what we observe. We let it all come and go. We are present to it but not enmeshed in it. We do not identify with all the thoughts and emotions. We let them go. is that “emptying” ourselves? No, because we are still there keeping vigil. What we are surrendering is activity of the Default Mode Network. But “we” are still there, still alert.

That lowers our stress, lowers our anxiety. It takes us out of our ego dramas and relieves depression.
It relaxes our limbic system, our reptile brain. We become less reactive and we recover more quickly from emotional disturbance.

It is training the brain, training the mind. Is it dangerous? Is learning to play piano dangerous? Is training any skill dangerous?

Is it spiritual? Is it prayer? Well, it depends. Are you seeking God or are you just doing a mental exercise? How do you interpret the results? Did you feel closer to God? Or just closer to your own self? More relaxed and refreshed as a result of your own efforts?

 

[Zoii]

Apparently somebody forgot to inform Buddhist extremists in Myanmar and Sri Lanka of this fact. Oops.

Very true. Just goes to shows how sad it is when people adopt an adversarial position using religion as the weapon.

 

[Zoii]

Monty Python said it well in the life of Brian..... Follow the shoe... No follow the Gourd. These silly arguments, instead of appreciating the values and societal benefits each religion brings.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yes that is a good example of deceit, suggesting that the supernatural is bigger than God. Buddhism prides itself on its right thinking but does not see the world as it is.

Not sure you get to make that declaration as a flawed human being: if all you appeal to is revelation, that's purely relative and superfluous in any sufficient investigation, especially when invoking prophecy and such interpretations that fragment in your own religion's theology over the centuries

God is a word, you're attaching the meaning to it of absolute and elevating it to your idol, it doesn't reflect some mind-independent meaning, because words are at their core, human created and thus are not going to have a static meaning, especially not when they are more abstract in nature and also invoke ontological perfection, so as to not be subject to real criticism.

And presuming something you disagree with must be deceit, especially if directed at the speaker is not only rude, but fundamentally oversimplifies the discussion. If I'm mistaken in terms of this, then demonstrate it, don't merely assert I'm lying, which is suggesting bad faith on my part and also on your part in not having the intellectual humility to consider that you might be wrong yourself in these deeply held beliefs.

 

[muichimotsu]

This is true! The end of "suffering" won't give us paradise. The end of sin will!

Methinks the problem is a misunderstanding that suffering itself will somehow end. It's not that so much as you are not affected by it as others are in the clinging and delusions that demand permanence and instead, are able to accept it as natural instead of forcing your own presumptions about how things ought to be onto the world.

Or is the idea of submitting to God's will not even relatable because Buddhism doesn't ascribe, to my knowledge, an agency behind the world and thus, your obedience to divine commands is "superior" because it's more "human"? That seems short sighted and arrogant to boot

 

[mindlight]

Heck you find it impossible to admit there is no more historical evidence for Christianity then any other religion. You truly believe you have evidence the slaying of Cain by Abel - or that Jesus walked on water, or that God made the world in 7 days or that languages evolve because of a tower that was built, or that God impregnated himself into a virgin.

How disingenuous of you to argue in this way.
Well you may choose to throw disrespect upon other religions, but from my perspective, Buddhism is the only religion I know that does not sanction violence. While the bible and Quran and Torah is littered with events where God commands the slaughter of men women and children, the murder of the entire human race in a flood, and the summary death of women for a range of minor offences - Buddhism honours peace and refutes any form of violence.

But it seems you are bent on being disrespectful to another religion even knowing full well you are being hypocritical - but that's your poor form to deal with. I just shake my head, as this lack of integrity. was the reason I shifted from calling myself Christian, to now being seeker.

You have a distorted and biased worldview that filters out Christians for personal reasons.

The gospel stories about Jesus are set in a context. You can read about Pilate or even Jesus in Josephus for example. There are coins and theatre inscriptions with references to Pilate also. The Talmud describes Jesus as “a magic worker who led Israel astray” rather than expressing incredulity you have at possibility of miracles. We can establish historical context. This is not possible with Buddha.

 

[mindlight]

Different metaphysics. Yes. We know that. But I think it offers practical methods that do not require the metaphysics.

if you do not understand the nature or scale of the problem how can you propose a solution. Suffering is a symptom of sin and a broken world. Salvation required a sacrifice. Only Christ was worthy to make it.

 

[mindlight]

False equivalence ... the stories about the Buddha are ultimately irrelevant for Theravadan Buddhists. We don't need to have faith in those stories (unlike Christians and the stories about Christ, etc.), because it isn't faith in Him which "saves" us, but rather practice of the Teachings (Dhamma).

Even in those stories about the Buddha, He reiterated the fact that the Dhamma was more important than Himself. The Dhamma can be seen in the here-and-now and are described as "timeless, invites verification, pertinent, and to be experienced by the observant for themselves", so we find no need for "historical evidence" like Christians often feel they need to seek out to validate their faith (in my experience).

Convenient, since there is no historical evidence for the life of the Buddha.

As argued before there is nothing to save your assertion from being merely subjective. It is such narcissistic navel gazing that is at the heart of modern moral relativism.

 

[muichimotsu]

You have a distorted and biased worldview that filters out Christians for personal reasons.

The gospel stories about Jesus are set in a context. You can read about Pilate or even Jesus in Josephus for example. There are coins and theatre inscriptions with references to Pilate also. The Talmud describes Jesus as “a magic worker who led Israel astray” rather than expressing incredulity you have at possibility of miracles. We can establish historical context. This is not possible with Buddha.

Ah the persecution complex compounded with an attitude that if something doesn't have the historical basis you think is necessary then it doesn't matter. This isn't a competition, you're making it like this is juvenile posturing of superiority

The Talmud's example is not necessarily speaking about Jesus in the Gospels, the name is not as uncommon as you want to say, it was basically on the level of Josh or such in transliteration back to Aramaic, Yehoshua, iirc.

The earliest historical examples we have are still over 50 years at the earliest past Jesus' death and 80+ years after his supposed birth, they're not as close as you'd like to think, especially because oral tradition was still the norm even back then, literacy was more limited and thus you didn't get the kind of documentation we're used to these days

 

[muichimotsu]

Convenient, since there is no historical evidence for the life of the Buddha.

As argued before there is nothing to save your assertion from being merely subjective. It is such narcissistic navel gazing that is at the heart of modern moral relativism.

Jeez do you have a hate-on for anything not Christian or what? It's just dripping from your words

 

[mindlight]

Not sure you get to make that declaration as a flawed human being: if all you appeal to is revelation, that's purely relative and superfluous in any sufficient investigation, especially when invoking prophecy and such interpretations that fragment in your own religion's theology over the centuries

God is a word, you're attaching the meaning to it of absolute and elevating it to your idol, it doesn't reflect some mind-independent meaning, because words are at their core, human created and thus are not going to have a static meaning, especially not when they are more abstract in nature and also invoke ontological perfection, so as to not be subject to real criticism.

And presuming something you disagree with must be deceit, especially if directed at the speaker is not only rude, but fundamentally oversimplifies the discussion. If I'm mistaken in terms of this, then demonstrate it, don't merely assert I'm lying, which is suggesting bad faith on my part and also on your part in not having the intellectual humility to consider that you might be wrong yourself in these deeply held beliefs.

You state the supernatural realm is bigger than the Creator. You suggest God is just a word rather than the Logos. That scriptures are not inspired by Almighty God.

There are 3 deceits to start with.

 

[muichimotsu]

You state the supernatural realm is bigger than the Creator. You suggest God is just a word rather than the Logos. That scriptures are not inspired by Almighty God.

There are 3 deceits to start with.

I said the supernatural as a concept, I wasn't making a statement of fact about the supernatural as a reality, you're equivocating

God is just a word, as is Logos, the importance of those words and the dogmatic insistence that they are right is on your ilk, it's not my responsibility, because I don't take those words in the esoteric meaning you apply to it, same with "God"

If you can't demonstrate evidence of your god, then I have no reason to consider the inspiration argument, because that necessarily requires evidence that god is a reality and not just an excuse used for postdiction of the texts in the light of supposed revelation

Again, not deceits, I don't think you understand English, which is odd if you live in London, unless you were raised with German as your first language, in which case, I think we need to establish what you mean by deceit versus being mistaken, which is still on you to demonstrate.

 

[zoidar]

I see getting "rid of sin", "rid of evil", ending "physical pain" and "terrible sorrow" as various ways of referring to the end of suffering in different spheres.

You could say that, but Christians and Buddhists mean two entirely different things.

 

[Zoii]

You have a distorted and biased worldview that filters out Christians for personal reasons.

The gospel stories about Jesus are set in a context. You can read about Pilate or even Jesus in Josephus for example. There are coins and theatre inscriptions with references to Pilate also. The Talmud describes Jesus as “a magic worker who led Israel astray” rather than expressing incredulity you have at possibility of miracles. We can establish historical context. This is not possible with Buddha.

Oh my point is that no religion has verified accurate historical accounts. They certainly have a broad historical context, Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism included. But in many areas of each religion, yours included, the history is absent or vague at best. Allow one question.... Who wrote Genesis and when, and why should the author be accepted as credible. Now I'm not trying to be disrespectful, I'm simply illustrating that to mock another religion for its philosophy and beliefs based on historical evidence, is a rather hypocritical argument.

 

[mindlight]

Oh my point is that no religion has verified accurate historical accounts. They certainly have a broad historical context, Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism included. But in many areas of each religion, yours included, the history is absent or vague at best. Allow one question.... Who wrote Genesis and when, and why should the author be accepted as credible. Now I'm not trying to be disrespectful, I'm simply illustrating that to mock another religion for its philosophy and beliefs based on historical evidence, is a rather hypocritical argument.

Actually no, Christianity and Judaism have an audit trail of records supporting historical claims made and their scriptures cohere with: actual historical events; physical locations like the Temple Mount in Israel; and a people that persist to this day, who are already in the historical record. That is not the case with Buddhism, and for most Buddhists nor does it really matter. This is a distinctive of Christianity, that God reveals himself in history. That Jesus Christ was fully God and also fully man, in a definite historical time and context. You love the word hypocrisy, nonetheless historical witness is a distinctive criteria of the Judeao Christian revelation, and there is no lack of integrity, in pointing out that the same historical record and credibility does not exist for Buddhism. Especially since that does not even matter to most Buddhists.

Moses wrote Genesis, based on a oral record handed down from Adam, and inspired by God. His credibility rests on what God did with him. He wrote 5 bible books, formed a nation and led them through a desert to the promised land. The physical evidence of that is the continued existence of the Jewish people to this very day and the unbroken continuity of the stories, about him, that have been handed down. We have pre-exilic quotes of his writings, from archaeological discoveries, debunking many of the liberal theories of the last century. The places mentioned by Moses exist to this day, famously the Israeli army used the bible to find water wells in the Sinai desert during the 1967 war. They are still where the bible says they were. The descriptions of rivers like the Jordan cohere.

Something is either true or false. Buddhism is a false and non-theocentric worldview. You can say that it is offensive for me to say that, but that does not matter if it is true.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

if you do not understand the nature or scale of the problem how can you propose a solution. Suffering is a symptom of sin and a broken world. Salvation required a sacrifice. Only Christ was worthy to make it.

And yet we still have the suffering, sin and broken world. We each also have a role to play, a cross to carry, work to do.