- Nov 11, 2010
- 4,782
- 458
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Buddhist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
The diversity in Buddhism is explained by the doctrine of expedient means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's even more diverse than I'd encountered, though I was aware of at least some of the items mentioned. The comments following the article are even more revealing. The term "Buddhism" is an umbrella term not adequately coping with incredibly varied sets of beliefs and practices (see also Hinduism, where also "all paths lead" and "only this way" proponents can be found)
The diversity in Buddhism is explained by the doctrine of expedient means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya
Greetings,What if I told you that the universe has always existed in some form, so there's no need for a Creator, and that there's a natural law of cause and effect, so there's no need for a Judge who rewards and punishes?
What if I then told you that, instead of a God as we understand the term, there is a compassionate essence to the universe that is within each and every human being, and It is our true nature waiting to be born?
Buddhists pray to and take refuge in various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, but they are understood to be awakened human beings, and that, by taking refuge in them, we will also be led to our own awakening.
It's a common misconception that all Buddhists are atheists, which seems to be perpetuated by Western secularists who insist on projecting their understanding of Buddhism onto all Buddhists and by Theravada Buddhists who insist that their way is the only legitimate way to live the Dharma.
If you called a Mahayana Buddhist who's taken a Bodhisattva Vow, believes the Dalai Lama to be the 14th incarnation of Avalokiteśvara, and who prays to Amitabha, the Buddha of Infinite Light and Life, an atheist, would that really make sense in the way someone like Richard Dawkins would use the term?
This is one reason I chose early Buddhism as my primary path ... Buddha stated "be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge" (DN 16)Also, I've got the impression that the religions (or traditions within the same) that hold the most "mass-appeal" also tend to be the most regressive, substituting a quest for true (self-)knowledge with parental authority figures.
My own point of view corresponds to Buddhism on many levels, including the observation that the "self" is a temporary construct and a series of actions rather than a numinous essence.
However, I cannot relate to Buddhism's bleak view on existence and temporary pleasure. To me, the problem is NOT that things are fleeting - it's that we are expecting them NOT to be.
Temporary pleasure and joys which leads to long-term suffering in this world is meant to drive us to seek and find the extra-world state of permanent bliss and peace.However, I cannot relate to Buddhism's bleak view on existence and temporary pleasure. To me, the problem is NOT that things are fleeting - it's that we are expecting them NOT to be.
Temporary pleasure and joys which leads to long-term suffering in this world is meant to drive us to seek and find the extra-world state of permanent bliss and peace.
The fact that temporary joys ends causes suffering, whether on a significant or latent level, eventually and inevitably driving someone find another "fix" of joy. What temporary pleasures or joys do not lead to suffering?What are these temporary joys that lead to long-term suffering? I can think of a few, but i can also think of many temporary pleasures and joys which do not lead to suffering.
I don't disagree that there are things worth suffering for. I am merely stating that after one experiences suffering, one seeks out joys and pleasures in compensation. Two different things.And at the other end of the scale I can think of a few things that are worth risking or enduring suffering for.
I agree, many different sects of Buddhism possess plenty of cultural superstitions and baggage that are unnecessary and actually incompatible with the original teachings of the Buddha.Eh, I've always found Deism to far more appealing than Buddhism. With Deism you have plenty of wiggle room and it's rooted in natural law, logic, and reason, yet none of the cultural superstitions/baggage of Buddhism. If I stopped being a Christian, I would definitely return to Deism.
However, I cannot relate to Buddhism's bleak view on existence and temporary pleasure. To me, the problem is NOT that things are fleeting - it's that we are expecting them NOT to be.
I think that's technically the general Buddhist position: things being transient in themselves isn't wrong or good, it's just how things are. The major problem is our response to that, deluding ourselves into thinking otherwise.I am not assigning human qualities to the universe at large, but I do acknowledge that homo sapiens (and other biological life) is part of the same, and as such the universe IS expressing empathy (in the form of us, and other lifeforms capable of such sentiments).
My own point of view corresponds to Buddhism on many levels, including the observation that the "self" is a temporary construct and a series of actions rather than a numinous essence.
However, I cannot relate to Buddhism's bleak view on existence and temporary pleasure. To me, the problem is NOT that things are fleeting - it's that we are expecting them NOT to be.
I leaned to Deism when I was skeptical of my native Christian faith I was raised in. But I found that I was still dependent on this God to explain things when I wasn't necessary or even practical, since you're answering one mystery with another.Eh, I've always found Deism to far more appealing than Buddhism. With Deism you have plenty of wiggle room and it's rooted in natural law, logic, and reason, yet none of the cultural superstitions/baggage of Buddhism. If I stopped being a Christian, I would definitely return to Deism.
Is this the same as the love of money being the root of all evil?
If Mahayana is somehow a corrupt form of Buddhism, how can one be sure that Theravada didn't corrupt the Buddha's teachings either?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?