• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Questions about Buddhism? Ask away!

Samadhi deals with one-pointed concentration of mind, achieved by the practioner's own ability. I don't think I would equate it with godhood, but I wouldn't consider the concept of divinity an aberration. To me, divinity deals with higher spiritual truths, but not necessarily with an almighty creator god, which Buddhism would consider to be wrong.



The Zen masters would say that enlightenment means both nothing and everything. It's simply the state of being devoid of the three poisons of greed, aversion, and ignorance, as well as the lack of desire or clinging/attachment. I wouldn't say that one should desire to become enlightened, or rather, realize enlightenment, as desiring the goal can actually cause that goal to become a hindrance. As the Zen masters said, in meditation, seek to gain nothing.



The Buddhist problem with the self is that, at least what we think of when we think of 'self', doesn't actually exist. It's not that the Buddhist is repulsed by the idea, we just see it as an illusion. One of the primary Buddhist ideas is that of 'anatta', which means 'not-self'. Western Buddhists have erroneously translated it as 'no-self', meaning that there is not a self at all. Not-self means that there is no such thing as an eternal, independently existing ego-self. What we think of as 'self' is simply the five aggregates: form, feeling, perceptions, mental formations, consciousness, which Buddhism teaches are empty of self-nature, but that it's these which causes clinging, which leads to suffering. Buddhism teaches that suffering is not necessary to existence, but is caused by an improper view of what's real, of what constitutes reality.



Absorption wouldn't be a form of worship, especially self-worship, as it's a movement towards relinquishing the idea of self. One does not become something other than oneself; one realizes that what they considered the self was just an illusion caused by delusions, and, once those obstacles are removed, all that remains is Buddha-nature. We are all Buddha, part of the eternal oneness of the Buddha-nature, called dharmakaya.



There can be no self-glorification, if there is no self, in the common sense of the word. :)



There are three levels to realization: study, where one begins to learn the philosophy of Buddhism; intellectual understanding of the philosophy; and finally full realization. I have an intellectual understanding, but not full realization. So, no, I am not enlightened, or rather, I haven't realized enlightenment. But there are different stages on the path to enlightenment, the number depending on what school you follow. I'm predominantly Soto Zen, which lists five stages on the path to enlightenment, although I would hesitate to answer where I am.
Great post. Cheers.
 
Tell me how the Buddha statue in shrines is used. Many assume the Buddhist is prying to a god, but that's not true, is it? What does the Buddha represent?

To me, the Buddha on my alter at home symbolizes the path I have chosen. It reminds me of what the Buddha taught. Sometimes I really need reminding! I also have two statues of Kuan Yin. When I see her statue and am fully aware of it I find peace and calm.

A Buddhist prayer might be:

May all (or a specific person or people) be loved
May all have peace
May all be free from suffering

That kind of thing.
 
No, Buddhists don't pray to a god, most Buddhists don't really pray at all. The statues used in Buddhist temples and homes are more representative of the inner Buddha-nature, so when one reveres a statue of a Buddha or bodhisattva, what they are really doing is recognizing that aspect in themselves.

With respect I completly disagree with this statement.
Buddhism is much more diverse than you are saying.
 
With respect I completly disagree with this statement.
Buddhism is much more diverse than you are saying.

I never said it wasn't. Buddhism, like Hinduism, is quite diverse. My statement that you quoted is representative of a good bit of Buddhism, though. But there are Buddhist schools that would disagree with that statement, but not many. But the three largest schools: Zen, Theravada, and Tibetan (or even Varjayana as a whole)-would agree with that statement.
 
To me, the Buddha on my alter at home symbolizes the path I have chosen. It reminds me of what the Buddha taught. Sometimes I really need reminding! I also have two statues of Kuan Yin. When I see her statue and am fully aware of it I find peace and calm.

A Buddhist prayer might be:

May all (or a specific person or people) be loved
May all have peace
May all be free from suffering

That kind of thing.

My desktop background for about the last two months has been a picture of Kuan Yin. :)
 
If anyone has any questions about the religion of Buddhism, feel free to ask them here, and I'll answer to the best of my ability. However, only respectful questions asked for those who truly want to learn about the religion will be answered, in other words, I'm not going to waste my time with people making accusations of idol worship or devil worship.

In the most respectful way possible, and with significant thanks for your openness, I have a question. Though it is more about the philosophy of Buddhism than the mechanics of it.

This is the question I asked of a large number of different religious and spiritual leaders after the death of my father in 2001 (from Cancer at the age of 54)....

Why do the most unfortunate events appear to happen to those individuals who would seem to be the most worthy of receiving the gifts of life instead?

Whatever enlightenment you can provide on this issue would be very much appreciated.
 
In the most respectful way possible, and with significant thanks for your openness, I have a question. Though it is more about the philosophy of Buddhism than the mechanics of it.

This is the question I asked of a large number of different religious and spiritual leaders after the death of my father in 2001 (from Cancer at the age of 54)....

Why do the most unfortunate events appear to happen to those individuals who would seem to be the most worthy of receiving the gifts of life instead?

Whatever enlightenment you can provide on this issue would be very much appreciated.

In Buddhism, we have the beliefs of both karma and rebirth. Any unwholesome (read: negative) karma one gains in a previous life can come to fruition in their next life. So, anything negative we experience in our current life is generally due to unwholesome karma gained in a previous life. This is why, alot of times, it seems that "bad things happen to good people." So, to take this to it's next step, according to Buddhism, if your father was a moral person in this life, and since he has extinguished some unwholesome karma in this life, in his next life, he would be reborn into a better human state, or even in one of the heavenly realms.
 
In the most respectful way possible, and with significant thanks for your openness, I have a question. Though it is more about the philosophy of Buddhism than the mechanics of it.

This is the question I asked of a large number of different religious and spiritual leaders after the death of my father in 2001 (from Cancer at the age of 54)....

Why do the most unfortunate events appear to happen to those individuals who would seem to be the most worthy of receiving the gifts of life instead?

Whatever enlightenment you can provide on this issue would be very much appreciated.

Tigger, I am sorry for the loss of your father at the age of 54. We have something in common in that i lost my mother to cancer when she was the same age. It is a most bitter pill to swallow. I was angry about it for years. Life damn sure isn't fair or just in our eyes.

Understanding the Buddhist perspective regarding death having grown up with a Christian point of view is in and of itself a challenging task. As a Christian I wanted God to justify his ending my mother's life so soon. I couldn't find justification. Buddhism doesn't offer that either, IMHO. Buddhism for me offered a different way of handling my loss and my anger. I don't know that it can be explained in a Christian perspective.

I wear a bracelet may of bodhi tree seeds. Each seed is carved into the shape of a skull. The bracelet is a constant reminder to me that all things change, nothing lasts forever. Even Buddhism itself will one day no longer exist. Buddhism is about that, if nothing else. It is also about ending suffering. Suffer is what we do when we lose someone or something we are attached to.
 
In Buddhism, we have the beliefs of both karma and rebirth. Any unwholesome (read: negative) karma one gains in a previous life can come to fruition in their next life. So, anything negative we experience in our current life is generally due to unwholesome karma gained in a previous life. This is why, alot of times, it seems that "bad things happen to good people." So, to take this to it's next step, according to Buddhism, if your father was a moral person in this life, and since he has extinguished some unwholesome karma in this life, in his next life, he would be reborn into a better human state, or even in one of the heavenly realms.

dyana, thank you very much for that perspective. It was very enlightening and not wholely unlike some of what I heard from several other Eastern philosophies when I went searching for answers after his death.

Tigger, I am sorry for the loss of your father at the age of 54. We have something in common in that i lost my mother to cancer when she was the same age. It is a most bitter pill to swallow. I was angry about it for years. Life damn sure isn't fair or just in our eyes.

I'm very sorry for your loss, RT. You are right that it's a very bitter pill to swallow, especially when there seems to be no rhyme or reason for it. It's been more than eleven years now and I am still not fully at peace with what happened. It has definitely caused me to see religion and spirituality in a different light than I did in the past.

Understanding the Buddhist perspective regarding death having grown up with a Christian point of view is in and of itself a challenging task. As a Christian I wanted God to justify his ending my mother's life so soon. I couldn't find justification. Buddhism doesn't offer that either, IMHO. Buddhism for me offered a different way of handling my loss and my anger. I don't know that it can be explained in a Christian perspective.

For me, my father's death was the culmination of a quarter century of asking the question "Why?" Between my own personal issues, family illnesses, deaths, and finally the loss of my father. I had lost both grandfathers and my dad in the course of about 14 months. I was not able to find justification in or from any organized religious organization during my search. It was only when I began to explore the spiritual paths instead that I found SOME answers.
 
I'm very sorry for your loss, RT. You are right that it's a very bitter pill to swallow, especially when there seems to be no rhyme or reason for it. It's been more than eleven years now and I am still not fully at peace with what happened. It has definitely caused me to see religion and spirituality in a different light than I did in the past.


For me, my father's death was the culmination of a quarter century of asking the question "Why?" Between my own personal issues, family illnesses, deaths, and finally the loss of my father. I had lost both grandfathers and my dad in the course of about 14 months. I was not able to find justification in or from any organized religious organization during my search. It was only when I began to explore the spiritual paths instead that I found SOME answers.

I don't know that any religion can answer the Why question satisfactorily. What's more is that different people need different answers to similar problems. If you are fortunate you find some measure of peace somewhere. It's never quite enough. Buddhism showed me a way to handle the pain I couldn't and can't understand. For me, at least, I truly found that changes comes from within. It's not for everyone.

We can't have loved ones back. We can't re-live the time we had with them. We can honor their lives and memories. We can live fully in the present. The present is the only time we have. Living fully in the NOW reduces the pain of the past.

Good luck to you and may you find whatever truly reduces and relieves your suffering.
 
I don't know that any religion can answer the Why question satisfactorily. What's more is that different people need different answers to similar problems. If you are fortunate you find some measure of peace somewhere. It's never quite enough. Buddhism showed me a way to handle the pain I couldn't and can't understand. For me, at least, I truly found that changes comes from within. It's not for everyone.

We can't have loved ones back. We can't re-live the time we had with them. We can honor their lives and memories. We can live fully in the present. The present is the only time we have. Living fully in the NOW reduces the pain of the past.

Good luck to you and may you find whatever truly reduces and relieves your suffering.
See that's one point I find....conflict....when religion comes up with people I know....I'm not terribly concerned with the question of 'why' at all. It's just something that doesn't matter to me. There's nothing I can do with that information so I don't see *why I should even bother trying to find out "why". I'm more interested with what I can use right now, and grand philosophical questions don't put food on the table.
 
Which are the top 5 religious wars which buddhism was a root cause of or a determinant factor in the war effort. By top 5 I mean the most brutal ones or just your own perception on them.

That is, like the sohei were in Japan who were involved in religious wars in Japan for centuries including the Ikko Ikko or whatever you call it revolt.

Don't be afraid to come as close as the sri lanka war in the 1980's
 
Which are the top 5 religious wars which buddhism was a root cause of or a determinant factor in the war effort. By top 5 I mean the most brutal ones or just your own perception on them.

That is, like the sohei were in Japan who were involved in religious wars in Japan for centuries including the Ikko Ikko or whatever you call it revolt.

Don't be afraid to come as close as the sri lanka war in the 1980's

To whom are you addressing the question? Secondly, what exactly is the question? And finally what is your point? Could be me but I'm missing something.
 
See that's one point I find....conflict....when religion comes up with people I know....I'm not terribly concerned with the question of 'why' at all. It's just something that doesn't matter to me. There's nothing I can do with that information so I don't see *why I should even bother trying to find out "why". I'm more interested with what I can use right now, and grand philosophical questions don't put food on the table.

Excellent. That is the message, I think. We cannot change the past. We cannot live in the past, or the future for that matter. All we have is now. We should live in it fully.

Living fully in the present can affect our future.
 
To whom are you addressing the question? Secondly, what exactly is the question? And finally what is your point? Could be me but I'm missing something.

I am asking that question to the OP.
 
I am asking that question to the OP.

Buddhism, to the best of my knowledge, has never been the direct cause of any wars. It's unfortunate, however, that Buddhists have had to fight wars, but in many places in Southeast Asia, where Buddhism is the predominant religion, it happens.
 
Buddhism, to the best of my knowledge, has never been the direct cause of any wars. It's unfortunate, however, that Buddhists have had to fight wars, but in many places in Southeast Asia, where Buddhism is the predominant religion, it happens.

I didn't say direct cause. I said "a root cause of or a determinant factor in the war effort.". You can make circles around what "direct cause" means and avoid to give a straight answer.

I already named you 2 wars which buddhism, by virtue of religion, fueled. 2 wars out of very, very many. I would like to know which were, in your opinion, the 5 most brutal wars which buddhism fueled or was "a root cause of or a determinant factor in the war effort." according to your own opinion. And saying that there are none is completely untrue. In which case coming to you for answers regarding this religion is pointless since you will have proven yourself to not be an authority in the religion but another person with cereal box knowledge.
 
I didn't say direct cause. I said "a root cause of or a determinant factor in the war effort.". You can make circles around what "direct cause" means and avoid to give a straight answer.

I already named you 2 wars which buddhism, by virtue of religion, fueled. 2 wars out of very, very many. I would like to know which were, in your opinion, the 5 most brutal wars which buddhism fueled or was "a root cause of or a determinant factor in the war effort." according to your own opinion. And saying that there are none is completely untrue. In which case coming to you for answers regarding this religion is pointless since you will have proven yourself to not be an authority in the religion but another person with cereal box knowledge.

Next time, learn to actually pay attention to what you're reading, if you can. I said "to the best of my knowledge". I never said that Buddhism was never in any way, shape, or form not involved. I'm quite aware, that in Buddhism's recent past, the religion has been tied to certain governments and political parties, so the fuel is there for it to have been part of wars. But I know next to nothing of Asian history or politics, as it doesn't affect my religious views. I'm a Buddhist because of the virtue of Buddhism, and could care less about some people who would use it to their advantage in war. People can be duped, mislead, lied to, and manipulated into doing all sorts of things, for all sorts of reasons. Buddhism itself is pacifistic. So any wars that some Buddhists may have been duped into joining, is not because of the religion, but because some people thought that it was a religious duty.

EDIT: as far as your "cereal box knowledge" comment, I know plenty of the religion of Buddhism. Like I said, I could care less about people who misused and manipulated certain other people into thinking it was something it's not. I'm quite familiar with the religion and philosophy of Buddhism, not what "heretics" (for lack of a better term) think of it or how they used it.
 
Next time, learn to actually pay attention to what you're reading, if you can. I said "to the best of my knowledge". I never said that Buddhism was never in any way, shape, or form not involved. I'm quite aware, that in Buddhism's recent past, the religion has been tied to certain governments and political parties, so the fuel is there for it to have been part of wars. But I know next to nothing of Asian history or politics, as it doesn't affect my religious views. I'm a Buddhist because of the virtue of Buddhism, and could care less about some people who would use it to their advantage in war. People can be duped, mislead, lied to, and manipulated into doing all sorts of things, for all sorts of reasons. Buddhism itself is pacifistic. So any wars that some Buddhists may have been duped into joining, is not because of the religion, but because some people thought that it was a religious duty.

EDIT: as far as your "cereal box knowledge" comment, I know plenty of the religion of Buddhism. Like I said, I could care less about people who misused and manipulated certain other people into thinking it was something it's not. I'm quite familiar with the religion and philosophy of Buddhism, not what "heretics" (for lack of a better term) think of it or how they used it.

Ah yes, the heretics of the religion. Funny kind of heresy that... people would be willing to die for what they believed in and they were sanctioned by the authorities and the high figures of those times in buddhism. funny kind of heresy that... Sounds almost like crusadering and djihading and all that good stuff that religious history is full of.

Lets face it and come to terms. Everywhere there is power, including religion, there will be people who will lawyer their way around the philosophy to make it to their benefit and buddhism is no exception. Hence "Buddhism itself is pacifistic" is an invalid statement. You're just another hippy who turned to an alien religion. I met plenty like you.

The fact that buddhism, like all other religions, has been a tool for great pain in the world doesn't invalidate it. It still is a religion, like all major religions, that has helped a lot of people and is still helping a lot of people find their balance in life.

But this question I asked of you was not in regards to Buddhism. it was not in order to validate or invalidate buddhism. Make it seem good or bad. It was about you. Are you the kind of buddhist who is really a scholar of buddhism and hence, has studied intensely, in depth, about it. Which inevitably leads to the study of history because there is no way around it. Turns out you didn't. You're just a hippy, like so many others. You're in no position to answer any questions about buddhism... or rather, any answer about buddhism you could possibly give is a half-assed one since your knowledge of buddhism lacks the most important aspect: context. And that can only be provided in history.

I'm sorry I had to be to harsh. I'm sure you won't mind. After all, you gotta aim for that state of peace and happiness called nirvana. No anger or negative states allowed.
 
Ah yes, the heretics of the religion. Funny kind of heresy that... people would be willing to die for what they believed in and they were sanctioned by the authorities and the high figures of those times in buddhism. funny kind of heresy that... Sounds almost like crusadering and djihading and all that good stuff that religious history is full of.

Lets face it and come to terms. Everywhere there is power, including religion, there will be people who will lawyer their way around the philosophy to make it to their benefit and buddhism is no exception. Hence "Buddhism itself is pacifistic" is an invalid statement. You're just another hippy who turned to an alien religion. I met plenty like you.

The fact that buddhism, like all other religions, has been a tool for great pain in the world doesn't invalidate it. It still is a religion, like all major religions, that has helped a lot of people and is still helping a lot of people find their balance in life.

But this question I asked of you was not in regards to Buddhism. it was not in order to validate or invalidate buddhism. Make it seem good or bad. It was about you. Are you the kind of buddhist who is really a scholar of buddhism and hence, has studied intensely, in depth, about it. Which inevitably leads to the study of history because there is no way around it. Turns out you didn't. You're just a hippy, like so many others. You're in no position to answer any questions about buddhism... or rather, any answer about buddhism you could possibly give is a half-assed one since your knowledge of buddhism lacks the most important aspect: context. And that can only be provided in history.

I'm sorry I had to be to harsh. I'm sure you won't mind. After all, you gotta aim for that state of peace and happiness called nirvana. No anger or negative states allowed.

Is that so?
 
I didn't say direct cause. I said "a root cause of or a determinant factor in the war effort.". You can make circles around what "direct cause" means and avoid to give a straight answer.

I already named you 2 wars which buddhism, by virtue of religion, fueled. 2 wars out of very, very many. I would like to know which were, in your opinion, the 5 most brutal wars which buddhism fueled or was "a root cause of or a determinant factor in the war effort." according to your own opinion. And saying that there are none is completely untrue. In which case coming to you for answers regarding this religion is pointless since you will have proven yourself to not be an authority in the religion but another person with cereal box knowledge.

Your posts on this thread have been tragically obvious. You have an agenda. We see that. We saw it from your first post. Make your point without the histrionics. In your case it isn't necessary. We see that you have an agenda. Your posts are thus far irrelavent in terms of the OP.
 
Your posts on this thread have been tragically obvious. You have an agenda. We see that. We saw it from your first post. Make your point without the histrionics. In your case it isn't necessary. We see that you have an agenda. Your posts are thus far irrelavent in terms of the OP.

No they aren't. And the only thing on my agenda is to see how knowledgeable the OP is or if he is just another hippy who turned to a new religion out of some bull**** reason. He is the hippy.
It is not my fault the OP lacks knowledge.
 
I know next to nothing of Asian history or politics, as it doesn't affect my religious views. I'm a Buddhist because of the virtue of Buddhism, and could care less about some people who would use it to their advantage in war.

As some on this board know I have a mixed heritage. I have ancestors, & living family who have been both Buddhist & Hindu-Buddhist, so my question, reading this exchange, is are you Eastern-Buddhist, or modern Western new age Buddhist?

Who was your teacher, & where?

& depending on your answer what do you think of the "other side"?
 
As some on this board know I have a mixed heritage. I have ancestors, & living family who have been both Buddhist & Hindu-Buddhist, so my question, reading this exchange, is are you Eastern-Buddhist, or modern Western new age Buddhist?

Who was your teacher, & where?

& depending on your answer what do you think of the "other side"?

I'm a western Buddhist, but I'm not sure what you mean by 'new age'. I don't really like any of the changes that have taken place to Buddhism since it entered the west, although I'm not completely opposed to them, either. I, as of yet, have had no teacher. I've been a solitary practioner for the last three years, since there's not any center close enough for me to go to. And, I'm not sure what you mean by 'other side'.
 
Back
Top Bottom