Namaste Nahienga,
thank you for the post.
Nahienga said:
Peace
For as long as I can remember, I've been a nontheistic eclectic Pagan, and I've always been happy with my faith in the nature. Of course, my faith has grown with me, and changing a little bit every year.
this is true for most beings, though not all. it is commendable that you are open to a continual learning experience.
I've recently discovered that what I believe has become very similar to the Buddhism belief. So I decided to find out more.
And maybe there are some friendly Buddhists here willing to answer (or try to answer) my questions.
there are a few of us here... however, before i go into your questions specifically, i note a bit of a misunderstanding. Buddhism is not a monolithic view in that we all have the same understandings or doctrines that are followed. Buddhism, like the Christian tradition, has three main flavors, or Vehicles as we call them, Hinyana, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Within the Vehicles, are numerious schools like Zen, Theraveda, Ch'an and so forth.
so, my answers to you will be rather general and not specific to a particular Vehicle, as much as i am able.
most often this question is asking about the being which is called the 'historical' Buddha. This being, as has been explained, was born a prince in a northern Indian kingdom. Siddartha Guatama (or varient spellings thereof) was this beings name prior to becoming Buddha Shakyamuni.
Buddha Shakyamuni is the historical Buddha of whom we speak with the name "Buddha". Buddha is a title, however, and not a proper name. It comes from the Sanskrit root "budh" which means "to awaken". so "Buddha" means "The Awakened One".
there have been previous Buddhas to Buddha Shakyamuni in what Buddhists term "this forunate eon" which will see the arising of 1,000 Buddhas. Buddha Shakyamuni is typicaly seen as the Fourth Buddha in our Fortunate Eon.
quite a lot, actually. his teaching career lasted for 45 years.
in any event... when asked this very question, Buddha Shakyamuni spoke quite plain and simply:
i teach the existence of stress, the origin of stress, the ending of stress and the path to end stress.
in truth, the term "stress" is transliterated from the Pali term "dukkha" which carries a great deal of meaning. like many Pali/Sanskrit terms, the context in which the term is used denotes it's actual meaning. most often, you will hear this term transliterated as "suffering". whilst this is a correct cognition of the term, it is rather limited to a specific discourse and usage.
What is the view of life, how should we treat humans and nature?
Buddhism takes the view that human life is the best possible rebirth for a sentient being due to our opportunity to practice the Dharma and the motivation to do so. other sentient life does not have the same endowments... either there is no opportunity, for an animal, for instance, or there is no motivation, in the case of the Devas.
Buddhists, in general, are striving to generate Bodhichitta, the Heart of Compassion, for all sentient beings, thus, humans are all viewed in the same manner as other sentient beings.. i.e. we all desire to be happy and to avoid suffering.
yes and no. from an exoteric point of view, yes all sentient life is equal in its desire to be free of suffering, to live happily and to be peaceful.
from an esoteric point of view, however, the question displays a fundamental misconception or ingnorance. in the Buddhist view, there is no "one" to be equal to another. which we can get into more depth later, if you are so inclined.
What are the "laws" of life, how should a Buddhist live?
Buddhism, as a whole, has two different sorts of beings which practice it... laiety and monastics. the rules for their behavior are somewhat different, as you may imagine.
the lay Buddhist has what we call the 5 Precepts which dictate their behavior, as it were. they are:
1. refrain from killing.
2. refrain from stealing.
3. refrain from sexual misconduct.
4. refrain from abusive and harsh speech.
5. refrain from indulgence in intoxicants.*
(* note, this is not due to an inherent "problem" with intoxicants. this is more due to the propensity that beings have to violate the other precepts should they become intoxicated, that this is on the list)
And the one-million question; What happens after this life?
this is a bit of a tricky one as there are a few different views that one can find. generally speaking, Buddhism teaches a concept called "rebirth". essentially, this is a continual process which is ongoing at this moment. it is, for all intents and purposes, the next arising moment of consciousness conditioned by the preceeding moment.
thus, in the death state, what my tradition calls the "Bardo" or "Between State" there are several different things that happen depending on your level of attainment.
if you are like most beings, the arising moment of consciousness after the ceasing of your physical form will be in a new physical form. this will seem to be automatic without any method of control and is fairly typical of the Fundamental Vehicle point of view. the Mahayana, however, says that in every arising moment of consciousness, there is a pause, a gap, if you will, when the preceeding moment has ceased and the arising moment has yet to arise. if you have attainment, you can rest in this "gap" which is sometimes known as Nirvana.
ostensibly, the Buddhist is practicing to become a Buddha and put an end to rebirth, sickness, old age and death, altogether.
ultimately, however, much of this metaphysical speculation isn't all that condusive to our day to day spiritual practice. if we believe that our actions have consequences, then we need not look any further than our own daily life to see the positive benefits that engaging in Buddhist praxis can bring.
This is just some of the questions I got, those I find most important.
Of course, you are free to tell me whatever you want about Buddhism. The more, the better. =)
Thank you very much for reading this post. Peace be with you!
if you have not been to the
www.buddhanet.net site yet, i would strongly encourage you to go read what they have to say as they cover both the Hinyana and Mahayana views in a pretty systemic manner.
metta,
~v
