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.
A great discussion if one is interested in understand the essence of Buddhism instead of shaping it to fit western atheistic needs. Its roots are in Indian Vedanta. You may need to read the book if you want to get anything meaningful to from a discussion. Indian Buddhists reject the vedic rites, they are not all atheists. https://www.city-data.com/forum/budd...hist-book.html
Just to be clear, no compulsion to read the book or to engage is discussing the book and its content.
Buddhism is interesting from the perspective of how very different it is in various parts of the world.
I was good friends with a Thai Theravadan abbot, and one day I asked him if he had been to Tibet, and if so what was his impression of Buddhism there as compared to in Thailand. He said he had been, and had actually spent, as I recall, 3 months at a Tibetan temple. And what did he think about his experience? "Very interesting. I didn't know what they were doing".
I have not looked into Zen Buddhism more than just superficially, but at least on surface it doesn't look anything like Theravadin Buddhism. Even the comparison of Thai Buddhism with Buddhism is Vietnam (Theravadin compared to Mahayanan) is quite stark.
And then there's western Buddhism.
A good question why the stark differences in Buddhist cultures in those different countries. For one thing, I think that is 'invited' (so to speak) since Buddhism is probably better described as a philosophy that is sometimes practiced like a religion.
I have always said that not all Buddhist sects are godless.
Even those without deities have a cosmology with non corporeal entities like ascended masters and hungry ghosts, and take those with varying levels of literal acceptance or seriousness.
That is not the point. The point is that while it is very popular and common for religions to have deities, deities are not a necessary ingredient. There has to be some mechanism of transcendence. Even when a deity is present, benefitting from that process or mechanism requires some personal effort or at least choice. If we are going to define religion in a way that doesn't assume the presence of particular dogmas / doctrines, including those claiming any sort of deity, then I think we have to describe it as a system of ritual and tradition and practice that claims to help adherents transcend one or more aspects of the human condition. Then gods and afterlives and other particulars become just optional ingredients.
If some want to force fit gods into this picture as essential, that is fine, but then you are going to misunderstand a significant subset of religion in my view.
A great discussion if one is interested in understand the essence of Buddhism instead of shaping it to fit western atheistic needs. Its roots are in Indian Vedanta. You may need to read the book if you want to get anything meaningful to from a discussion. Indian Buddhists reject the vedic rites, they are not all atheists. https://www.city-data.com/forum/budd...hist-book.html
Just to be clear, no compulsion to read the book or to engage is discussing the book and its content.
The topic of this thread is an interesting one, but then you describe this effort to understand Buddhism instead of shaping it to fit western atheistic needs...
If this is how you view the simple explanation that Buddhism is unique among religions because it does not involve a god, then I suspect what you describe as "understanding" here is just going to be more of stubborn insistence to do the opposite. Otherwise, I'd be inclined to read and discuss the book, but I'll leave it to you and those similarly inclined to approach these subjects and discussions the way you prefer.
I have always said that not all Buddhist sects are godless.
Even those without deities have a cosmology with non corporeal entities like ascended masters and hungry ghosts, and take those with varying levels of literal acceptance or seriousness.
That is not the point. The point is that while it is very popular and common for religions to have deities, deities are not a necessary ingredient. There has to be some mechanism of transcendence. Even when a deity is present, benefitting from that process or mechanism requires some personal effort or at least choice. If we are going to define religion in a way that doesn't assume the presence of particular dogmas / doctrines, including those claiming any sort of deity, then I think we have to describe it as a system of ritual and tradition and practice that claims to help adherents transcend one or more aspects of the human condition. Then gods and afterlives and other particulars become just optional ingredients.
If some want to force fit gods into this picture as essential, that is fine, but then you are going to misunderstand a significant subset of religion in my view.
One of the reasons I am a fan of Buddhism among many is because it does not involve or require a belief in a god. In fact it encourages questions about such things instead of simply accepting what others tell you to believe. Much in the way of alternative Buddhist lessons and/or teachings resonate much better with me and others than the lessons and/or teachings (preachings) of the other religions as well. Something I have long felt...
"People who are eager to convert others to their religion usually believe their religion is the "right" one—the One True Religion. They want to believe that their doctrines are the true doctrines, that their God the real God, and all others are wrong. There are at least two problematic assumptions with this view, and people who intuitively sense these contradictions are often the types of people that become Buddhists."
One of the reasons I am a fan of Buddhism among many is because it does not involve or require a belief in a god. In fact it encourages questions about such things instead of simply accepting what others tell you to believe. Much in the way of alternative Buddhist lessons and/or teachings resonate much better with me and others than the lessons and/or teachings (preachings) of the other religions as well. Something I have long felt..."People who are eager to convert others to their religion usually believe their religion is the "right" one—the One True Religion. They want to believe that their doctrines are the true doctrines, that their God the real God, and all others are wrong. There are at least two problematic assumptions with this view, and people who intuitively sense these contradictions are often the types of people that become Buddhists."url
there are many paths (not just Buddhism) which do not proselytize, and which recognize that the sacred, the holy, and the Divine are accessible to everyone; and that there is not only one way that is "right" and "true."
there are many paths (not just Buddhism) which do not proselytize, and which recognize that the sacred, the holy, and the Divine are accessible to everyone; and that there is not only one way that is "right" and "true."
Right - in fact, only in Christianity and Islam is there proselytizing - so not for Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism...and many less popular sects.
worship of buddha
Buddha being worshipped.
There are beautiful idols of Buddha some people collect and place them in their garden as an ornament. That they do that does not mean Buddhism has no worship. Buddha is venerated, viharaa are built for him and Buddhist worship the idol which [b]they[b] know and recognize as the wisdom of Buddha.
That is Buddhism. A religion.
If the link does not open simply search Buddha being worshipped for images.
Right - in fact, only in Christianity and Islam is there proselytizing - so not for Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism...and many less popular sects.
The directive had nothing to do with Jesus wanting the gospel spread to other people. It had everything to do with the church inventing doctrine of spreading the faith by proselytizing for the sole purpose of the churchmen keeping their faith from going extinct by forcing members to preach in order to convert greater and greater numbers to the faith and thus increasing the church leaders' wealth, influence and power. Everybody knows by now that the ending of Mark was tacked on by later churchmen for this sole purpose.
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.
