Buddhist Is Buddhism Really a Religion.

[ananda]

In your belief does the Buddha still exist?

In a sense, yes. The Buddha, having achieved the consummate goal, is now understood to be "existing" in the sense that He is identical to highest goal (parinibbana) itself, the Teaching (Dhamma) itself, having been perfected ... just like every other Buddha that came before Him, and every arahant disciple that followed in His footsteps.

 

[zoidar]

That is why am not a Buddhist. And yet I realize that my faith may be fantasy.

Akita, we need to be born again by the Holt Spirit. Then we know.

Cute dog BTW

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Akita, we need to be born again by the Holt Spirit. Then we know.

Cute dog BTW

Thanks, but faith is still required.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

He is identical to highest goal (parinibbana) itself

so then is Parinibbana a personal entity?

 

[ananda]

so then is Parinibbana a personal entity?

Parinibbana is simply parinibbana.

"Person-hood" in Buddhism, as I understand it, is seen as a projection that involves multiple layers of being (like a bullseye target), with consciousness at its core, mental activity one layer further out, and layers of physical-ness one layer further out than that. Beyond that are layers that we add to "ourselves", such as attachment to others, houses, cars, signs of success, etc. Taken all together, they form what the individual sees as the "I".

The Buddhist Path calls us to detach each layer from ourselves, until what is "left" is parinibbana. The degree of attachment or detachment is said to determine where we are supposedly reborn, e.g. someone who detaches from everything except consciousness & mental activity is reborn in the middle-level heavens; someone who detaches from everything except consciousness is reborn in the higher-level heavens, etc.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

parinibbana.

Can you define that? If it is consciousness, a pure consciousness, I think it would also be personal though an order of person hood beyond our comprehension...maybe like God.

 

[ananda]

Can you define that? If it is consciousness, a pure consciousness, I think it would also be personal though an order of person hood beyond our comprehension...maybe like God.

It is defined in our scriptures as the exquisite peace, the foremost ease, the unexcelled safety, the end of craving, the highest happiness, consciousness without surface.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It is defined in our scriptures as the exquisite peace, the foremost ease, the unexcelled safety, the end of craving, the highest happiness, consciousness without surface.

So it would require someone to experience it?

 

[ananda]

So it would require someone to experience it?

I don't know ... I've read that it is said that it experiences itself at that point.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I don't know ... I've read that it is said that it experiences itself at that point.

I think we are beyond what we can speak of. Maybe that is why I do not have a hard time with it. The God I believe in is also beyond words, ideas, imagination and concepts.

 

[ananda]

I think we are beyond what we can speak of. Maybe that is why I do not have a hard time with it. The God I believe in is also beyond words, ideas, imagination and concepts.

In my experience, it seems to me that most people's idea about "God" includes things that are understood with words, ideas, imagination, and concepts ... e.g. ideas about a being that possesses thoughts, emotions, desires, actions, etc.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

In my experience, it seems to me that most people's idea about "God" includes things that are understood with words, ideas, imagination, and concepts ... e.g. ideas about a being that possesses thoughts, emotions, desires, actions, etc.

That is for sure. Many anthropomorphize God and give atheists a strawgod to no believe in.
And of course the Bible supports that.

 

[FireDragon76]

Actually if I recall both Buddhism and Hinduism have variable beliefs etc. depending on your location and what you want the faith to be. You can be a polytheist, atheist, monotheist, pantheist, and every other kind of religious position as a Buddhist or Hindu. This because Hinduism is incredibly old with many different cults that have widely different ideologies, and Buddhism was derived from that religion as well and borrows and adapts from the native philosophies and religions around it.

This is somewhat true, though I wouldn't describe Buddhism as "monotheistic" by any stretch.

Buddhism generally adapts to local religions. In Thailand, it adopted to the local Hinduism and animism, in Tibet, it adapted to Bon shamanism. In Japan, it adapted to Shinto, in fact many Japanese historically practiced both in what was called Shinbutsu Shugo.

It is well known that Buddhists believe all of reality to be illusory (maya). You can interpret that how you like, but one implication is that they do not believe reality to have the same degree of substance that Christians affirm it has.

That's more like Vedanta, not Hinduism. The concept of maya is not part of Buddhism. @Hmmm! is correct to say that if the world were illusory, dropping a hammer on your toe wouldn't hurt. However, our common conceptualization of the world is often distorted by delusions of various sorts.

There's a great book by Steven T. Katz Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis, which analyzes the various reported experiences of religious mystics. The basic conclusion of the analysis of the phenomenology of the various experiences is that it is the same experience with different metaphysical underpinnings. It's a fascinating read.

There are similarities between Theravada Buddhist descriptions of the various jnanas, Mahayana Buddhist mystical descriptions of the Dharmakaya and Christian mystics' descriptions of God. However, Buddhism presents a much more thoroughgoing system for realizing this through ethical and ascetic cultivation.

A research study several years ago looked at Carmelite nuns hooked up to an EEG machine and asked them to reflect on an experience of union with God. All of them had elevated levels of gamma waves in response. Expert meditators, on the other hand, who have practiced for decades, have continuously elevated levels of gamma waves in their brains, and are capable of greatly increasing the volume of gamma brainwaves at will when needed.

Here's a link to an article discussing the research study involving the nuns:

This Is Your Brain on God

Now, as a whole hearted Christian, I hold that any experience of enlightenment is mediated and realized in Christ, wittingly or unwittingly. Of course, I'm a healthy fallibilist, as well.

Christianity, in my experience, errs too much into rationalism, on one hand, or gross superstition, on the other hand. The ethical core is also frequently shallow and weak. It also can foster an erroneous view of the self.

 

[FireDragon76]

It is more credible to believe an Almighty God can save, than subscribe to a path laid out by a man, who may have never existed, sitting under a tree, and meditating his way to nirvana.

Meditation is alot more credible than Christian fundamentalism (and that's a huge understatement)

 

[FireDragon76]

Bummer. If it depends on fallen humanity, it's game over. Everyone "drops a hammer" sometime. That makes us sinners and unfit for heaven. Buddha is dead. I've been to his grave site.

And this isn't an argument against Buddhism (BTW, Buddha isn't buried in one place, his ashes are believed to have been distributed around the world).


For those that need it, there are forms of Buddhism that do involve faith in a higher power to save us from ourselves. But they don't involve the kind of religious fundamentalism that passes as normative in many Christian circles.

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

The actual historical evidence for the Bible is a mixed bag and nowhere near as grandiose as conservative Christians claim for it. The Bible also obscures the development of monotheism as an historical process in the ancient Near East, not giving an accurate, unbiased account of it in the first place.

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.

Those that worship the Infinite in human form in that manner have no legitimate right to label other peoples religions absurdities or nonsense.

Moses wrote Genesis, based on a oral record handed down from Adam, and inspired by God.

The consensus of biblical scholarship doesn't agree with you. You're peddling in myths. Pot, meet kettle.

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

But that doesn't fit with the simplistic religious ideology that Mindlight is peddling in. An ethical religious life must also include a direction towards others based on empathy and compassion. The sort of narcissistic worldview of Evangelical Fundamentalism can't abide by that.

 

[mindlight]

Meditation is alot more credible than Christian fundamentalism (and that's a huge understatement)

A third of the planet believes Jesus saves, that is not a unique Christian fundamentalist doctrine. Most of the planet would pray rather than meditate so again I would say most disagree with you there. The Christian view includes forms of meditation but these are quite different from Buddhist forms which are empty and useless in the main.

 

[mindlight]

The actual historical evidence for the Bible is a mixed bag and nowhere near as grandiose as conservative Christians claim for it. The Bible also obscures the development of monotheism as an historical process in the ancient Near East, not giving an accurate, unbiased account of it in the first place.



Those that worship the Infinite in human form in that manner have no legitimate right to label other peoples religions absurdities or nonsense.



The consensus of biblical scholarship doesn't agree with you. You're peddling in myths. Pot, meet kettle.

These are all unproven assertions on your part. The main point in the context of this thread is that there are enough connections between the bible and other historical evidences to situate this writing in real history whereas that is not possible with Buddhism at all. Of course it is only faith that takes you the full way though.

The incarnation is an absurdity from a worldly perspective. Even so the miracles that Jesus did are affirmed in history in the negative as 'acts of magic' even by his opponents. So the notion of a supernatural quality to Jesus is not as far fetched as it is with the non historical Buddha. Indeed he did not even claim this if the writings that have for him have any genuine value.

I do not care about a consensus based on people who do not believe in God and do not understand the scriptures or the power of God. The consensus among those that do know this supports the authority of scripture and more traditional interpretations.

 

[FireDragon76]

A third of the planet believes Jesus saves,

That's an appeal ad populum. Let's flip this on its head, the vast majority of human beings that have ever lived have not believed that Jesus saves.

that is not a unique Christian fundamentalist doctrine.

Yes it is, especially considering that most Catholics, the largest Christian denomination in the world, wouldn't necessarily agree. Indeed, Vatican II affirms there is truth in non-Christian religions.

Most of the planet would pray rather than meditate so again I would say most disagree with you there.

Another ad populum argument.

And as I pointed out, there are forms of Buddhism for those who prefer prayer (Nichiren Buddhism comes to mind). Buddhism, unlike Christianity, doesn't presume a "one size fits all" approach to religion.

The Christian view includes forms of meditation but these are quite different from Buddhist forms which are empty and useless in the main.

That's simply doesn't fit my experience. If you don't see value in cultivating a peaceful mind, I am afraid we will simply talk past each other as we have no common ground of dialogue.