Notices
Results 1 to 38 of 38

Thread: Buddhism

  1. #1 Buddhism 
    Moderator Moderator AlexP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,838
    I've heard this before (I think in this forum), but do many people feel that Buddhism is not an actual religion, but rather a way of thinking?


    "There is a kind of lazy pleasure in useless and out-of-the-way erudition." -Jorge Luis Borges
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,418
    That depends on what your definition of religion is.


    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    159
    Well, Buddhists themselves believe that Buddhism is not a religion but a way of life, and so i suppose we should listen to them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazz
    Well, Buddhists themselves believe that Buddhism is not a religion but a way of life, and so i suppose we should listen to them.
    that is corect! buddhism is a way of thinking, a way of life...
    but also christianity can be a way of life. so the question is how do you define religion and way of life....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    880
    The dictionary defines religion as "belief in and worshiping of God or gods" seem as though Buddhism has no gods I do not belive it to be a religion.
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    What religion are yours?
    Daytonturner " I am a Christian"
    Basim "I am a Muslim"
    Prasit "I am a Buddhist"

    Whatever the definition of religion is, Buddhism is viewed as a religion by general public.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    159
    But the general public are usually wrong
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    880
    I agree with Hazz, i am a Buddhist but i do not consider myself religous, perhapse you should gather the information from the people that participate rather than the public
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7
    I think it is a religion. Hindu is much less of a religion than Bhuddism is.
    These delays are not going to make me on time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    159
    How? They believe in a God, therefore it is a religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    159
    *Hinduism I'm talking about
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7
    I mean it (Hinduism) extremely undefined, and thusly is difficult to define in such a way.
    These delays are not going to make me on time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    880
    Ok, i am a Buddhist and i am not religous, case closed. Religion as difined earlier is the worshipping of God or God's, in Buddhism we have no God(d).
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    The word relgion itself has several meanings.
    From Wikitionary:

    religion (plural religions)

    A system of beliefs, including belief in the existence of at least one of the following: a human soul or spirit, a deity or higher being, or self after the death of one’s body.
    He couldn’t abide by any religion that didn’t allow for wrongdoers to be punished after death.

    (uncommon): Any system of beliefs.
    Science is a religion, because it relies on certain fundamentally unprovable ideas, such as the existence of logic.

    (uncommon): A system of belief predicated on the existence of one or more deities.
    It’s not really a religion if there’s no god to pray to.

    A way of living that corresponds to such beliefs.
    You can practise any religion you want, so long as it doesn’t require you to violate the law.

    A number of customs and rituals associated with such beliefs.
    When it comes to religion, she doesn’t believe, but she loves to attend the ceremonies.

    Anything that involves the association of people in a manner resembling a religious institution or cult.
    At this point, Star Trek has really become a religion.

    Any system or institution which one engages with in order to foster a sense of meaning or relevence in relation to something greater than oneself.

    Usage notes
    Generally speaking, certain systems of belief that do not involve the existence of one or more deities, such as Buddhism, can be considered a religion, though some people prefer a stricter definition that excludes the possibility of a non-theistic religion. Others are in favor of a very general definition of religion: that any belief, such as atheism, or system of beliefs, such as science, is a kind of religion or part of a religion. In language, such uses are generally considered humorous (highly dependent on context.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    All these definitions beg the question of whether a person is religious only if one professes belief in some system that is considered a religion.

    Some Christians (as some Bhuddists have already claimed) claim not to be religious, but rather, spiritual.

    For the most part this claim is based on the idea that they do not follow a prescibed system of ritualized practices such as, say, Muslims who pray five times a day at specific times.

    Such people would claim that those who faithfully follow the liturgical systems such as Roman Catholocism or Lutheran and the like, are religious as compared to those who worship via the less structured churches.

    I take no position on this thinking other than it may be straining gnats to differentiate between the more and less structured forms of Christianity in relation to the religiosity of those who practice which form.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator AlexP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,838
    the reason i posted the original question was just because i read over the basic ideas of buddhism, and they all are totally workable with the teachings of Christianity, and probably other religions. They don't seem to be spiritual, but rather just plain logical. They just make sense.
    "There is a kind of lazy pleasure in useless and out-of-the-way erudition." -Jorge Luis Borges
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore Nanobrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Texas, US
    Posts
    147
    Buddhists' ideaologies might not be religious. But, thier ways show a striking resemblance of what dictionaries and community majority tend to label as religion. And, a word ultimately holds the definition of the majority. Therefore, it might be accurate to label them as a religious group or grouping. And how can it be taken true from a buddhist's perspective that he is not involved in religion? Even many Christians state that they are not religious. What then is the use of the word, if noone is willing to hold to it's generaly accepted defenition?

    However, what is the benefit of deciding what if Buddhism is a religion or not? Do you agree with their ideologies? Then what discount could a mere word have on the system? As far as I am concerned, the word has no use here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Guest
    one of the definitions of religion is:-

    A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

    With that then Music and life itself can be included, Buddhism as I understand it is a way of life, based on harmony of man, his environment and fellow creatures, not a religion in the strict sense but in the wider term.

    I must admit though that when you see images of the Buddha complete with a halo it does seem the artist portrays him as a deity, and it's easy to see why people think it a classical religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    one of the definitions of religion is:-

    A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

    With that then Music and life itself can be included.
    Yes, that's a very loose definition (where did you find it?).

    I prefer this:

    "Religion, sacred engagement with that which is believed to be a spiritual reality."
    Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006

    That, at least, would suit many Buddhists.

    It's little wonder that there's so much argument and misunderstanding over these topics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Nanobrain
    Buddhists' ideaologies might not be religious. But, thier ways show a striking resemblance of what dictionaries and community majority tend to label as religion. And, a word ultimately holds the definition of the majority. Therefore, it might be accurate to label them as a religious group or grouping. And how can it be taken true from a buddhist's perspective that he is not involved in religion? Even many Christians state that they are not religious. What then is the use of the word, if noone is willing to hold to it's generaly accepted defenition?
    dictionaries? i gave you a definition from the dictionary which said the opposite. Religion is believing and having faith in God, thinking that he's omnipotent etc. Buddhism is leading a moral life, we don't worship anyone. i'm tiered and it's bed time, do i'll have to finish this tommorow
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore Nanobrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Texas, US
    Posts
    147
    Nevyn,

    A variety of definitions from a single dictionary(dictionary.com)
    re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
    –noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
    2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
    3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
    4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
    5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
    6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
    Okay, let's not get fussy and angered over crap like this. But, there truly are a variety of definitions. You can pull one from a source and I can pull one from another, and they can have entirely different meanings.

    However, this shall be my last post on this thread. This is because I now realize how pointless its is to argue over semantics like this. If you're practice must be defined or indefined, I am sorry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,517
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    dictionaries? i gave you a definition from the dictionary which said the opposite. Religion is believing and having faith in God, thinking that he's omnipotent etc. Buddhism is leading a moral life, we don't worship anyone. i'm tiered and it's bed time, do i'll have to finish this tommorow
    When did religion = belief in a god? I always thought a religion = creed?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Nanobrain
    Nevyn,

    A variety of definitions from a single dictionary(dictionary.com)
    re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
    –noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
    2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
    3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
    4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
    5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
    6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
    Okay, let's not get fussy and angered over crap like this. But, there truly are a variety of definitions. You can pull one from a source and I can pull one from another, and they can have entirely different meanings.

    However, this shall be my last post on this thread. This is because I now realize how pointless its is to argue over semantics like this. If you're practice must be defined or indefined, I am sorry.
    The origional question was 'how many off you think that Buddhism is not an actual religion but a way of thinking" you seem to be making out that religion and the way of thinking are the exact same thing. According to what you are saying that because i think Global Warming is a fraud, then that is a religion? Words get redifined as time goes on, but the fundemental think is that we consider Atheists to be completely non-religous, I am an Atheist and yet i am a Buddhist. I believe that if you sk any Buddhist Most of us will tell you we are not a religion, in fact i can pretty much garentee that
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    Nevyn wrote:
    I believe that if you sk any Buddhist Most of us will tell you we are not a religion, in fact i can pretty much garentee that
    How can you guarantee that? My country states that Buddhism is its main religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25 Re: Buddhism 
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Chemboy
    I've heard this before (I think in this forum), but do many people feel that Buddhism is not an actual religion, but rather a way of thinking?
    It is a religion but it does not work to stereotype it in a catagory with the common religions. You can be a Buddhist Christian, or Buddhist Shintoist, etc. There is no "God" in Buddhism. Like Ayurveda and Yoga it is more about mentality.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Scholars I have read have stated that the Buddha started a philosophy or way of life. that means he started a movement---like Est or Synanon were, a sort of secular ideology like Ann Rand's movement or the Libertarians.

    However, it became a whole religion by the time it spread out from India and covered much of Asia.

    I differentiate between such secular movements and "religions" in the following way:

    RELIGION: a total world-view and way of thinking that provides constient answers to the question: what is our origin? our goal(s)? how do we achieve them (moral system)? and what stands in our way? When the answers are consistent with each other, a whole "culture" and way of living can develop capable do binding people into huge societies such as Islam, the Hindu, Christian and Marxist worlds.

    NON-RELIGION: belief systems that do not answer all those questions and, hence, do not replace religious systems that do provide them.


    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    32
    "Is Buddhism a religion?"

    My main comment, is a question:

    Which school, or sect of Buddhism, and in what country/region of the world?

    Originally, it involved a limited (meaning small in number) precepts, parable-like, and socratic method questions/answers (early sutras, or teachings), and "practice", such as sitting meditation.

    Given its core ideas (anatta, (transiency (everything is always changing), and no persistent element or "self" in any existences)), It did not have a "god" or "afterlife" of its own. As it spread from N. India, it accumulated local "coloration", as it entered different cultures. In some cases it picked up a laity, and demons, spirits, god(s). And in those, even if the they are used by priest metaphorically, the laity often believes in these elements.

    On the other hand, you have say, Zen, and the most basic, the "Soto" school of Zen, which probably cannot really be called a religion in the normal since.

    In modern times (my meaning being 20th century and now) you have a small but growing number of people in the cultural west (Western hemisphere, Euroasia, Japan, etc) having a Zen practice, and still being Christains, Jews, Moslems, Shinto, Wicca, etc. That in a way is similar to how it spread from India in the first place.
    entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Yes, that is a good description of Buddhism. Is it a religion, you ask! That sure does raise the question of just what a "religion" is. In my work, I set out exact, functional definitions which make it possible to be consistent with the meaning of terms---giving only one meaning to each specific, key word.

    One is, of course, entitled to reject my definitions, but that leaves you with the same confusion that does abound in the social sciences.

    I define religion as what bonds people into a society. I define faiths that do not form societies as either cults, faiths or ideologies. In regard to Buddhism, it has been the prevailing belief system of, for example, Cambodia during the 11th or 12th century and just before it collapsed by Siam invasions. I know also that it prevailed for periods of time in parts Indonesia but as a sect of Hinduism, in the 11th and 12th centuries---also in Cambodia. Different forms of it have ruled in Japan, China, Tibet, etc. In China, however, it functioned much like Secular Humanism does with us. In other words, it functioned as a sort of ideological attachment or supplement to the real or prevailing relligion---that being their ancestor worship polytheism.

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    charles brough wrote:
    In other words, it functioned as a sort of ideological attachment or supplement to the real or prevailing relligion---that being their ancestor worship polytheism.
    I dispute that. Buddhism is not a supplement or attachment to Hinduism because it does not worship any gods. It says that everything, even gods if they exist, obey the same universal law. By understanding this law and live in harmony with it anyone can reach that state of bliss called enlightenment.
    Hindu try to suppress the influence of Buddhism by claiming that Buddha is just the avartar of one of its gods but it is believed within the Hindu only.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    charles brough wrote:
    In other words, it functioned as a sort of ideological attachment or supplement to the real or prevailing relligion---that being their ancestor worship polytheism.
    I dispute that. ...
    I think he was referring to Buddhism in China, not India. Buddhism is distinct in Indian culture, vis-a vis Hinduism, as would be expected, since it arose out of one of the Hindu cultures.
    But, as it has moved outward, geographically, it did coexist, and in many cases, meld with the religion(s) that were there already. I think in fact, that that melding accounts for the wide variety of schools in Buddhism, and also, the wide variety of practices among the laity.
    entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    moynihan wrote:
    But, as it has moved outward, geographically, it did coexist, and in many cases, meld with the religion(s) that were there already.
    Please tell me about the religion(s) that 'were there'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    moynihan wrote:
    But, as it has moved outward, geographically, it did coexist, and in many cases, meld with the religion(s) that were there already.
    Please tell me about the religion(s) that 'were there'.
    That is a tall order, given the geographical expanse involved,
    There were a variety of religious and spiritual groups, in Asia, as Buddhism fanned out. Many were small, localized, involved local spirits, ancestor stuff, sometimes pantheisms, other times hierachical sturctures of dieties (such as the various ethnicities and cultures in "China" had).

    Perhaps a kind of micro-example of what I am getting at.
    In a region of Nepal, the pre-existing belief was that any incarnation of a god, in human form, was always via a virgin birth from a white elephant. That element was important, in that spot, for anything the teacher (a god) to have authority.

    Early Buddhist monks there, would when teaching about Buddha's life begin the story with:

    When Buddha was born of ____________ (cannot recall the name for the virgin white elephant) he opened his eyes and exclaimed, "There is no one to save, but I will save them anyway".

    In a clever manner, they used a local idiom, and made a one liner, that goes a long way to summing up core concepts, (in this case, anatta, and compassion).

    Another example is of course, the incorporation in Northern Chinese areas, of the identity and statuary imagine of a compassionate goddess for the expression of the Bohdisattva female figure (the one holding the vase, normally).

    Stuff like that. It shows up all over the place. I am not being critical, in fact, i think it is cool. Buddhism at its core has no "god". So they built the teaching and practices using local tools. I think it was a cool way to do it. It spread fast and far, without forcing conversion at sword point.
    entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    moynihan wrote:
    Another example is of course, the incorporation in Northern Chinese areas, of the identity and statuary imagine of a compassionate goddess for the expression of the Bohdisattva female figure (the one holding the vase, normally).
    The female figure does not represent Buddha, and his/her gender is actually male.
    Buddhism at its core has no "god". So they built the teaching and practices using local tools. I think it was a cool way to do it. It spread fast and far, without forcing conversion at sword point.
    If you believe that Buddhism at its core has no "god", then you should not presume that it has risen from Hinduism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    ...The female figure does not represent Buddha, and his/her gender is actually male.
    Yes, the historical Buddha was male.

    I did not say it was buddha. I said it was a figure of a Bodhisattva. It is common to have Bodhissattva (Mahayana Buddhism) represented as a female, such as the one ided as "Tara". You find this art from Korea to Northern Vietnam. In some sub-schools it is female, in some it is an female avatar of a male Bodhisattva. Normally it is associated with compassion. Sometimes it is associated with help in having children, depending on the culture.

    Of course, I can say it is not Budhha. If I were Buddhist, I could not say that so quick, since then, everything would have Buddha Nature

    ...If you believe that Buddhism at its core has no "god", then you should not presume that it has risen from Hinduism.
    I would think not a god in the usual sense. Given the principle of transiency, a god would be subject to that also, therefore its characteristics would be very different from most other systems. A number of Buddhist scriptures have gods sitting around with mortals to listen to the teaching. So i mean "no god" in a sense that it is usually meant, and no worship of a god, outside the laity at least. Buddha himself was notoriously silent on the topic of god(s).

    I take it you do not think it arose out of the context of Hinduism? I would be interested in what you think it did arise out of? Scholars are agreed on tht point, and it and the other sharing the moniker Dharmic Religions.
    entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    moynihan wrote:
    Buddha himself was notoriously silent on the topic of god(s).
    He said that all beings are subjected the same universal law.

    I take it you do not think it arose out of the context of Hinduism?
    I think it is a new discovery of the law of nature, no linkage to Hinduism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    ...I think it is a new discovery of the law of nature, no linkage to Hinduism.
    An interesting, and novel perspective.

    jay
    entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman StarMountainKid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    61
    Junpei Genshin, an Zen priest defines Buddhism:

    There are today four forms of what the West terms "Buddhism."

    1. religious "Buddhism" - not what the Buddha taught at all.
    2. academic "Buddhism" - again not what the Buddha intended.
    3. "Buddhism" as a cult - as in the damaging Aum Shinrikyõ
    4. the Dharma - the unadulterated teachings, the bare bones message of the Buddha.

    Buddhism has unfortunately evolved into a religion in many parts of the world, but the original teachings of Buddha have nothing to do with religion. However, from my understanding of Buddhism, when asked about the existence of God, the Buddha either remained silent, or said his teachings were to enlighten or to remove the burden of ignorance from mankind, and by inference religion is one of those burdens.
    "Where are you going?" "I go where it is changeless." "How can you go where it is changeless?" "My going is no change."
    http://www.youtube.com/user/starmoun...d?feature=mhee
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    32
    Well put.
    If i remember correctly, the english words for many of his reponses to questions re "religion" kind of are, that the question does not lead it edification. One of the euphemisms in Zen for religion, is "pasting legs on a snake".

    jay
    entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •