Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So much lost in translation.
There is a story about Buddha meditating under the Tree. While meditating he was opposed by 5 women.
Something like the 5 brides without oil. and 5 with oil Matthew 25 King James Version (KJV)
25 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.
3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:
4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.
6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.
7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.
8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.
9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.
Jubilee?
2 groups of 5 -10 precepts.
1. Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.
2. Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.
3. Abrahmacariya veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual activity.
4. Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.
Buddha was a man. Period. Please, let us not make a religion of this, it's much more than that! The Buddha we refer to was a teaching Buddha. There have been many Buddhas before Sidharta, and many after. The word means simply one who has awakened. When people try to make a prophet or deity out of a practice that has neither, they have no knowledge of Buddhism. Perhaps they read something in a book, or worse, made a philosophy of it. Buddhism means if you are tired, sleep. If someone is hungry, give them food. Very simple. Nothing special. Nothing holy. Meditation is the path to waking up, not following a doctrine or dogma. You could have all the memory of all the Buddhist scriptures, and be far, far away from what Buddha taught. If you see the Buddha, kill him. Buddha is the typing of this sentence, the birds singing in the morning, the sh*t in the toilet.
You could get there w/o meditation, really. Compassion is something that is developed, not taught, and one must have compassion for oneself before one can have compassion for anything else. A Buddhist takes a vow to save all sentient beings. Much bigger than any religion. If one saves themselves, there are no other beings to save. The sky, the wind, me, you, the cat, are all the same thing. It isn't even important to become enlightened (one who is awake), what is important is to act as if one were. Then all acts will be compassionate. That also would lead one to enlightenment, but that in itself is not important. Nothing magical happens. You still need to wash the clothes, go to your job, cook your food, be angry, be sad, be happy, get ill, die.
Within all humans there is the unavoidable inherent existential dilemma or its manifested crisis.
There are three main approaches that humans resort to deal with this subliminal terror, i.e.
1. Religion
2. Non-religious approaches
3. Indifferent to it.
Within the religious approaches, there are two main approaches, i.e.
1. Theistic
2. Non-theistic
The theistic religions can be categorized as
1a. Theistic-prophet based -Abrahamic religions
1b. Theistic-non-prophet based - Other religions
The Non-theistic religion
2a. Self-development philosophies -Buddhism
2b. Others
From the above chart, only category 1a is God-prophet based.
Thus Buddhism categorized in 2a cannot be a God-prophet based religion.
Therefore The Buddha [Siddhartha] was NEVER a prophet of God.
The difference between God-prophet based religions and Buddhism are as follows;
1. The theistic-prophet based Abrahamic religions merely require believers to believe, surrender and submit to God's Will as stipulated in God immutable holy text and viola! one is 'saved' and the existential angst relieved. This really work with real psychological impacts and feeling of security.
2. Buddhism as with other Eastern religion and at its core*, works by self-development in rewiring the believer's brain to deal with the existential dilemma. It is like building the 3 gorges dam to modulate the wild forces of the Yangtze, i.e. developing the appropriate neural inhibitors in one's brain to deal with the primal impulses of the existential dilemma emanating from the basement of the brain.
Buddhism-proper is not effective for those above 55 years old when brain plasticity is weakened.
* as a 'side dish' Buddhism do compromise its core principles and practices by accommodating the 'faith' basis for its less capable believers.
Point: The Buddha [Siddhartha] was NEVER a prophet of God.
There are many philosophy that mentioned that Lord Buddha is the re-incarnation of Hindu Deity Lord Vishnu.
they even mentioned that Lord Buddha is the 10th incarnation of Lord Vishnu.
But Lord Buddha is not the incarnation of Lord Vishnu as well as not the prophet of God too.
This is from a organization called Tzu Chi. Master Cheng Yen wrote this
Question: Dharma Master, I am very curious. Is the Buddha a god or not?
Dharma Master Cheng Yen replied: No. The Buddha was just like us. He had to eat when hungry, put on clothes when cold, rest when tired, and leave this world when his life ended. That’s why I often say that we should not deify the Buddha. Don’t take the Buddha as a god. Not only was the Buddha a very real person, but he was a sage. The differences between the Buddha and us ordinary folks are: firstly, the Buddha has wisdom; secondly, he has loving kindness; and thirdly, he was perfect in his wisdom and compassion. He was a totally perfect human being.
There’s so much that I disagree with in this thread.
One poster here – at least in many posts – is attempting to preach Christianity. Those posts are inappropriate in a sub-forum about Buddhism. There is no shortage of forums and subforums specifically about Christianity, and those should be used for such posts.
On the other hand, posts that compare and contrast Buddhism and Christianity ought to be accepted here…just not preaching.
There is an implication that you can’t be both Christian and Buddhist. Well, to those who think that – sorry folks, but each of us can accept and practice what we wish. Not to mention that I have had several conversations with Theravada monks in Thailand who have said that yes, you can be both. It may not be a totally compatible alliance, but then again neither is Zen and Theravada (as just one example), and in "Living Buddha, Living Christ", Nhat Hanh Thich seemed to be able to bridge many gaps. Yes, it’s cherry picking, and thank goodness for the cherry pickers, because they are the ones that get beyond the confines of an organized religion and really think things through. That doesn’t mean they/I am right, but neither are most of those in small-box organized religions. No one has all the answers. Most don’t have any of the answers.
It isn’t settled whether Buddhism is a religion or philosophy. In reality, it’s probably both, since some people see it one way, others see it another way.
IMHO, Christianity seeks to be somewhat of an all-encompassing religion. Buddhism restricts itself to one primary goal – the reduction and elimination of suffering. It doesn’t attempt to answer all man’s questions; instead it focuses on one of man’s dilemmas.
Western Buddhists are interesting creatures. Most of them are dismissive of the scriptures they grew up with because they say there is no proof, etc. Then bury themselves in Buddhist scriptures that were written several hundred years after Buddha had died, passed on for centuries by word of mouth only, and they purport them to be the exact words of Buddha.
Western Buddhists are interesting creatures. Most of them are dismissive of the scriptures they grew up with because they say there is no proof, etc. Then bury themselves in Buddhist scriptures that were written several hundred years after Buddha had died, passed on for centuries by word of mouth only, and they purport them to be the exact words of Buddha.
I have a different opinion.
I am from the East. Try [as the average Joe] understanding Buddhism via Chinese, Sanskrit or Pali? One will be very lost. I find Western Buddhists has done a very good favor for Buddhism by representing it in a very systematic intellectual explanation that is easier to be understood for anyone who is willing to put in a reasonable effort. That apply to the highest level of knowledge [e.g. Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka and others] and the practices in Buddhism.
Western Buddhists [the good ones] do not accept the Sutras as exact words of Buddha. Rather they [learning from Eastern Buddhist gurus] extract and present* the generic principles that are relevant to deal with the existential dilemma.
* present in an easier mode to understand.
For example, note Jay Garfield's point of using reason to understand the highest levels of Buddhism then use reason to kill reason.
There are three main approaches that humans resort to deal with this subliminal terror, i.e.
1. Religion
2. Non-religious approaches
3. Indifferent to it.
Within the religious approaches, there are two main approaches, i.e.
1. Theistic
2. Non-theistic
The theistic religions can be categorized as
1a. Theistic-prophet based -Abrahamic religions
1b. Theistic-non-prophet based - Other religions
The Non-theistic religion
2a. Self-development philosophies -Buddhism
2b. Others
From the above chart, only category 1a is God-prophet based.
Thus Buddhism categorized in 2a cannot be a God-prophet based religion.
Therefore The Buddha [Siddhartha] was NEVER a prophet of God.
The difference between God-prophet based religions and Buddhism are as follows;
1. The theistic-prophet based Abrahamic religions merely require believers to believe, surrender and submit to God's Will as stipulated in God immutable holy text and viola! one is 'saved' and the existential angst relieved. This really work with real psychological impacts and feeling of security.
2. Buddhism as with other Eastern religion and at its core*, works by self-development in rewiring the believer's brain to deal with the existential dilemma. It is like building the 3 gorges dam to modulate the wild forces of the Yangtze, i.e. developing the appropriate neural inhibitors in one's brain to deal with the primal impulses of the existential dilemma emanating from the basement of the brain.
Buddhism-proper is not effective for those above 55 years old when brain plasticity is weakened.
* as a 'side dish' Buddhism do compromise its core principles and practices by accommodating the 'faith' basis for its less capable believers.
Point: The Buddha [Siddhartha] was NEVER a prophet of God.
Very well articulated. I really enjoy the clarity.
Logical, well trained, and exercised single hemisphere thought. "Within all humans there is the unavoidable inherent existential dilemma or its manifested crisis." -Within? Interesting. Maybe based on statistical analysis.
Maybe you are standing on introspection. I can only guess as to within a fallible range of variables your intentions and or meaning.
1a. Theistic-prophet based -Abrahamic religions?
1b. Theistic-non-prophet based - Other religions?
-This is where an Ideal has been established. Or closed argument.
I opened with an inquisition for a debate based on comparative evidence of principles and recognizable similarities. Which are uncanny.
Did you read the entire body of the Thread?
By all means dissect the evidence and refute with a definitive answer.
Firstly the word prophet has deeper meaning than what you have provided as a refute. And is not singularly attached to Abrahamic religions.
Would you like to have a discussion on what a prophet is?
And maybe establish a common area to continue?
Very well articulated. I really enjoy the clarity.
Logical, well trained, and exercised single hemisphere thought. "Within all humans there is the unavoidable inherent existential dilemma or its manifested crisis."
-Within? Interesting. Maybe based on statistical analysis.
Maybe you are standing on introspection. I can only guess as to within a fallible range of variables your intentions and or meaning.
1a. Theistic-prophet based -Abrahamic religions? 1b. Theistic-non-prophet based - Other religions?
-This is where an Ideal has been established. Or closed argument.
I opened with an inquisition for a debate based on comparative evidence of principles and recognizable similarities. Which are uncanny.
Did you read the entire body of the Thread?
By all means dissect the evidence and refute with a definitive answer.
Firstly the word prophet has deeper meaning than what you have provided as a refute. And is not singularly attached to Abrahamic religions.
Would you like to have a discussion on what a prophet is?
And maybe establish a common area to continue?
Btw, the OP is a non-starter.
There is no God-per-se within Buddhism.
Thus the Buddha cannot be a prophet of God-per-se.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
