Have any of you noticed that religion must mean Christianity on this board? Hows about broadening that definition a bit? Tell me what you all know of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, and Confucianism.
Chistianity is predominant on this board for the simple reason that both religious and non believers in western culture are most familiar with christianity. We can't qualify all our statements with some respect to other more esoteric beliefs that are not all that common in the western world. Eastern tradition is surely all well and nice for discussion, and it would be super if those that believed in such was more vocal on the forums. It would be quite refreshing from all the christianity speak to be honest. Just don't expect any special honours or treatment. Allthough I must admit, I'm much more inclined to like the concept of eastern "religions". Mostly due to them making very few claims on the real world. Go figure
I like how some aspect of Hindu theology reflect recent discoveries in the world of particle physics.
Enjoy the read! [web]http://ds.dial.pipex.com/ritson/scispi/roswell/ancient.htm[/web] I like eastern philosophy. I have not studied it as much as I would have liked, but I believe that is soon to change. The main reason for my avoidance, is no longer an issue.
Last year in the summer there were lots of threads goin on. Then I guess everyone took the winter to contemplate I'll start resurrecting some of them next time I'm at work.
Well Ill get the ball rolling. I've found some problems with Buddhism and Taoism, so I'm no acknowledged practitioner; but I do like many of the different things they teach. So a couple things I like: Siddhartha Guatama's 1st Noble Truth: Suffering such as anger and despair all come from cravings and attachments. ex. Someone cuts in front of you in a line, and generally a person would get angry-- but why? They may have a craving and attachment to whatever is at the end of the line, and also(more importantly) their self. From the Taoist side: Everything that reaches an extreme will thereby likely develop in the opposite direction. ex. The government puts more security measures around the country to protect peoples' freedoms. Eventually, however, in order to totally ensure the peoples' freedoms, the security measures become so enforcing that the peoples' freedoms are taken away.
there seems to be the same stance in the east as there is in the west. people worship buddah, or krishna. people meditate, i assume theres alot of them who have it wrong just as prayer is perverted. people are seperated from one another, religion seperates people. and eastern religions still have dogma. i find that eastern religions can have just as much or more dogma than western religions. either way im not a fan any religion. they all say the same thing, do this and you will get that. work 9-5 and you will have a big house. its superficial. religion is superficial.
LOL your explanation as to why religion is superficial is horribly generalized. And dogmatic? I think you need to read a little more about Hinduism my friend. Hinduism is so non-dogmatic, there are literally hundreds of gods and only one God at the same time. When Christianity came to the East, Hindus(btw Hinduism is a Western word, they don't call it that, but I forget the real name) were like "ok so this Jesus fellow was a great person, lets put him up there with the rest of the gods then". You can go to one town and find people who believe the gods require a statue-- a physical image of their self-- to interact with this world and help the people; in the next town you may find they don't believe that, and all gods are different forms or entities split off from Krishna. Hinduism has got to be, by far, the most diverse religion in the world. Buddhism, a schism of Hinduism, does not technically have any rules. You can become enlightened in any way you see fit.(although there are guidelines which are supposed to help) Of course it depends on which branch of Buddhism you practice, as some do have rules. Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism are all about distancing yourself from this world with time-- something that goes against the very definition of superficial. Also, Islam-- generally thought of as a Western religion-- is more practiced in the East than any other part of the world. The Middle-East makes up but a small portion of Muslims. Indonesia has many more Muslims, and perhaps even China. --- Please, while this may come off as rude, do not state a claim with little actual knowledge of what you are saying. I've come across many people who do that, and I do it from time to time as well.(I usually catch myself though) Try to learn as much as you can, as knowledge defines the choices we make.
Very few Buddhist traditions worship Buddha, he himself frowned on it. He's venerated as a teacher, not worshipped. Also, Buddhism is not a religion, and it's probably the most dogma free of all eastern traditions. You'll also find that Hindu and Buddhist communities are far closer to each other in terms of family and community than most western religions. You mention meditation in the same terms as prayer, but the two are very different. MelT
Sorry chaps, I've written the below a couple of times, you must get tired of hearing it now, but... To some extent you're right. But this is the moralistic side of Buddhism, not really what Buddhism is about. As you put it above, it sounds like Buddhists learn to let go of 'negative' emotions, to push them aside. This is a common idea, that we (I'm a Buddhist) learn to keep our minds in such a calm state that we stop responding to negative thoughts, and the most advanced practitioners are in a permanent state of controlled inscrutability. But whilst there are some schools who're aiming for that, it isn't what Buddhists working towards enlightenment do - and you have to remember that, once you get past a certain stage of practice, your soul aim is enlightenment. Apart from the meditation side of things, as you rise higher through the traditions you work more on understanding the nature of reality, which in itself is a far more powerful way to reach realisation than traditional meditation. Not only do you learn to understand reality, but the aim of this understanding is to trigger an actual experience of yourself AS reality, in total. You become, or more striclty speaking, realise that you already are, the entire universe and everything beyond it, and see and feel yourself as such - sometimes for a period of seconds, sometimes minutes or hours. As you go through this learning process you begin to understand, through the use of logic and direct experience, that our reality is not static, and that nothing has any inherent self-existence. Everything is a part of a larger co-dependent system, which itself has neither existence nor non-existence, nor both. Once you fully acccept this and apply it to the reality you see around yourself every day, you don't need to learn to abandon good or bad, as neither exists to you in its own right. You simply see all as a flow of movement, where nothing really has any true meaning or lasting substance other than what we personally imbue it with. Bad and good are neither accepted nor rejected so are left behind. What bad or good? Where are they in a single flux that never crystalises into being self or other? But this doens't turn practitioners into zombies. If I get angry or sad I can choose to experience it or not, though for preference I would maintain an understanding of reality. If it comes down to 'positive' things like loving my wife, I can choose to do that - or not - too, but choose to love the apparent reality she appears to occupy. But I still know that neither she nor I exist in the way we appear to, but it doesn't stop me experiencing and enjoying the illusion if I want to. MelT
Well, I would say my belief system is a combo of Eastern and Western culture, leaning heavily on western obviously bc I'm from the west. I like discussing Eastern religion bc I don't get to see it as much. The vocal believers on the board are christians. Eastern religion seems to speak for itself, and I like that about it.
Oh I know that; I just was stating my favorite teaching of Buddhism. This is the exact problem I have with Buddhism. The whole "I does not exist" is not something I agree on. I'll always contemplate it to see if, as time goes by, it's right; but right now it doesn't seem feasible.
I understand what you mean, but that isn't our stance. We don't say that the 'I' does not exist', meaning that there's nothing here, there is an illusion of self at least. What it means (the doctrine of Emptiness) is that we don't exist in the way that we commonly accept, and there's a big difference. If we say that the I doesn't exist at all that's nihilism, which we don't support. What we do say is that things lack inherent self-existence, and are never independent from the rest of reality. We're like a wave on the sea. Although you can conceptualise a wave and say it's an object in its own right, it's never anything other than the sea, it's an 'expression' of it. It doesn't mean the wave doesn't exist, but strictly speaking we can't really say that it's anything other than what it arose from. Everything, any object, place, time - it's all the same. Everything that we see is like the fall of dominoes, current events always taking place in response to past events. We're a flow of information, an ever-changing co-dependent field. I can certainly say that there appears to be a me here who is independent of the rest of reality, but in fact everything I do or say, my actual existence, is based on prior causes and conditions, I'm not truly independent and have no inherent existence of my own that I could separate from the whole. I could define my qualities, like the colour of my hair or my face and say, yes, that's me, but that doesn't mean that I'm not also intrinsicly linked to the rest of reality. Self, as an independent being with inherent self-existence is a fallacy. In the same way, people, things, all of our reality is an empty manifestation of a 'base reality', that itself is Empty and reliant on prior causes and conditions. 'I' as thing in my own right, neither exist nor do not exist, nor both. The second point is that, as I and everything else are also in a constant state of change, we can't say that anything stays the same from one moment to the next. We can't even say that you or I as people are the same from one moment to the next. Our memories, thoughts, emotions change constantly, and you can never be who you were yesterday, apart from very superficially. So where is the 'I'? As something that can only be defined at particular moments, that undergoes constant change, that is just an expression of the rest of reality, and a product of prior causes and conditions - the 'I' is in a state of both existence and non-existence, and can only be described from a relative vewipoint. Here, sitting in front of the computer I can see 'my' hands typing and I can say that I influence reality so 'I' must be independent and 'real', but if you were able to step back and see the bigger picture, then I am an ongoing chain of events that is a part of a much larger chain of events. The 'I' neither exists nor does not exist, nor both. MelT
Gah, sorry you had to post all that lol. I know of the Buddhist definition of Emptyness. What I meant by "I does not exist" is the doctrine that we only perceive ourselves to be separate entities, when we aren't. I've been to a Buddhist temple before. I had a talk with the monk who was there at the time who explained it all. I still disagree with it. I'm a little tired at the moment, but I will say that everything is not determined due to chaotic systems in nature that don't have inherent causes; therefore the idea that the existence and movement of everything is determined is false.
Could you just say that last sentence again? It seems like you're saying that things can have inherent action without reliance on other things within reality? There's nothing that exists or has an action that doesn't have prior causes and conditions. MelT
everytime i see buddhism its monks walking, doing these rituals over and over. i like buddhism, but theres alot of things i dont agree on within the religion and method. you can become enlightened, but in the meantime do this for us. if you do this you will get that. plus its still creating a division within humanity so right off the bat i dont like a religion, or a country, or a corporation, anything that creates pride for being a part of. i see the exact opposite. its completely superficial to distance yourself from the world. it doesnt matter what we own or dont own, materialism is in the mind. possessiveness is in the mind, all this shit is in the mind and getting rid of junk is just a way to say "look ive done something, now do i feel better?" do this and you get that, welcome to the bablyon in your mind. distancing oneself from people is superficial, it just creates stress in a relationship. i understand why people do it, but eventually it get to a point where one cant distance themselves from the world because it does more harm that good to oneself and in ones relationships. its a means to achieve something, but its not an end. i find that many people meditate in order to achieve enlightenmnet. people pray to achieve wealth or health. doing something to get something, bablyon. im aware that meditation in different stages doesnt follow the 'do this get that' rule, but many people do it in that fassion. i never studied the dynamics of meditation and prayer so im just assuming they are the same thing in different guises. ahh ok im done for now, i look forward to responses
Well, it's impossible to not create divisions. I agree with the rituals....what some westerners don't understand about buddhism is that it is a neverending ritual. So if you're looking for a philosophy of freedom and such, buddhism is not the way to go.
Well it isn't a requirement that you do all these things-- they just help achieve enlightenment. No, it's not. Possessiveness is not in the mind. Your whole perception of enlightenment is warped. You don't seem to understand the concept; so all of your ideas are flawed, and will be flawed until you have a better understanding. Enlightenment does not have happiness as a direct goal. Distancing yourself from this world also means distancing from emotions, as they are also a part of this world. To think in the way you mention: "look ive done something, now do i feel better?"-- it is selfish, and therefore not the thoughts of someone who is enlightened. Enlightenment is also becoming connected with everything, so as not to create divisions within people. I have to leave now, but I hope that helps.
my point is that enlightenment isnt meant to be achieved. its now, now is enlightenment and if anyone is doing these rituals or whatever else in order to get enlightenment then they should look within. if you have read siddhartha there is examples in that book where he stops doing rituals because they arent doing anything. my view is that, in theory, all these rituals and books and meditations can be skipped and enlightenment can be now. then where is possessiveness? for me its in the mind but im sure there are differences between people to where possessiveness resides. why do you meditate? why give away possessions? why be a hermit? why do rituals? i feel most people do these things in order to achieve enlightenment. enlightenment isnt something to achieve, its a way to be, it is now. are you saying enlightenment is a process of becoming? its something to achieve? so right now you arent enlightened but sometime in the future if one is connected with everything and meditates they will finally after all those years be enlightened?
I'm a Buddhist. I'm not sure what you'd like to know about the religion you can't find online unless you want personal experiences.