Buddhism

CrabCake · Apr 9, 2015

Andalublue said:
I've never read such claims. You got links?

Aum Shinrikyo ?????? - Japan Reference (JREF)

In the view of Shoko Asahara, the group’s founder, the doctrine encompasses all three major Buddhist schools: Theravada (aimed at personal enlightenment), Mahayana (the “great vehicle,” aimed at helping others), and tantric Vajrayana (the “diamond vehicle,” which involves secret initiations, secret mantras, and advanced esoteric meditations).

Andalublue said:
Anyone can claim to be anything. Stalin claimed to be a Marxist. Kissinger claimed to be a democrat. Tom Cruise claims to be a Thetan. Should we take them all at face value?

They refer to themselves as Buddhist, use Buddhist language and Buddhist scriptures. Sure, you can play the no true scotsman game if you'd like, but anyone can play that to exclude anyone else from their group; that's why it is a logical fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

The original post said buddhism cannot be twisted towards violent ends. I pointed out several instances where it has. To which you have basically replied "no true buddhist...". Classic no true scotsman fallacy.

Andalublue · Apr 9, 2015

Cryptic said:
It does not matter whether or not you practice Thevada Buddhsim, or any form of Buddhism. You falsely claimed that Buddhism has no concept of damnation (or purgatory), yet at least one magor school does. In addition, Tibetan Buddhism also has a concept of hell or purgatory.

I never mentioned purgatory. Not once, and purgatory ≠ damnation. As far as I'm aware, not even in Christianity.

No, I asked you for a source to substantiate your own knowledge about your religion. Once again, you are unable to provide even a general source to back up your claim.

I think you are making things up now. I'm not sure why.

Andalublue · Apr 9, 2015

CrabCake said:
They refer to themselves as Buddhist, use Buddhist language and Buddhist scriptures.

If you say so, I'll bow to your superior knowledge. I'd be very interested to see how they square the three major schools of Buddhism with gassing people on the metro.

The original post said buddhism cannot be twisted towards violent ends. I pointed out several instances where it has. To which you have basically replied "no true buddhist...". Classic no true scotsman fallacy.

You must be thinking of someone else. I never said 'no true Buddhist'. Buddhists have committed many crimes and atrocities, whether or not they were 'true' Buddhists. I thought the OP pretty silly TBH. Now perhaps you can point to my post where I stated anything resembling 'no true Buddhist'.

tosca1 · Apr 9, 2015

Declan said:
Unlike other religions, Buddhism requires that a person actually educate and discipline themselves to obtain enlightenment. It does not rely upon ignorance and the promise of fulfilling wants after one is dead to enrich lives. It is the one true religion of peace that cannot be perverted to justify greed, wars, aggression, and all the ills society rationalizes in the name of other religions. It offers freedom by recognizing the world as it is--objective truth--and helping people find their way within reality, does not encourage harmful behaviors, and makes it incumbent on people to perpetually act toward a better world and a better life now today, every day, instead of relying up ritualistic acts of contrition that make people feel better about their unchanged lives.

Buddhism is the only religion that adds to the human condition instead of exacerbating and perpetuating ills.

It depends on how one would want to see Buddhism, I suppose.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/197352-spotlight-buddhism.html

CrabCake · Apr 9, 2015

Andalublue said:
If you say so, I'll bow to your superior knowledge. I'd be very interested to see how they square the three major schools of Buddhism with gassing people on the metro.

I don't say so. They say so. You wanted some kind of link showing this and I provided one. It's not an "if you say so" situation. It is a statement of fact. They do refer to themselves as Buddhist, this is a fact. They do use Buddhist scriptures, that is also a fact. They describe their religion using terms from Buddhism, this is also a fact. It's not an if I say so kind of thing. It's just facts.

Andalublue said:
You must be thinking of someone else. I never said 'no true Buddhist'. Buddhists have committed many crimes and atrocities, whether or not they were 'true' Buddhists. I thought the OP pretty silly TBH. Now perhaps you can point to my post where I stated anything resembling 'no true Buddhist'.

If that wasn't your intent, then I have no clue what it is you were trying to accomplish. Why jump into a debate about Buddhism to claim one of the Buddhist groups that was mentioned is not REALLY a Buddhist group?

Risky Thicket · Apr 9, 2015

CrabCake said:
I don't say so. They say so. You wanted some kind of link showing this and I provided one. It's not an "if you say so" situation. It is a statement of fact. They do refer to themselves as Buddhist, this is a fact. They do use Buddhist scriptures, that is also a fact. They describe their religion using terms from Buddhism, this is also a fact. It's not an if I say so kind of thing. It's just facts.

If that wasn't your intent, then I have no clue what it is you were trying to accomplish. Why jump into a debate about Buddhism to claim one of the Buddhist groups that was mentioned is not REALLY a Buddhist group?

I say go with it then. Believe what you want.

Andalublue · Apr 10, 2015

CrabCake said:
If that wasn't your intent, then I have no clue what it is you were trying to accomplish. Why jump into a debate about Buddhism to claim one of the Buddhist groups that was mentioned is not REALLY a Buddhist group?

I maintain that I don't think they are a Buddhist cult. I've been doing some reading since we started this debate. The first thing that makes me somewhat confused with the definition is that they view their leader as 'Christ', not a christ, but the actual one, 'the Lamb of God' who will take on the sins of the world. Those two key beliefs seem to suggest a degree of Christian influence. He also believes himself to be the only fully enlightened master in Japan - so that suggests influence from Buddhist teachings. He also preaches the approach of the End Times according to the Book of Revelations. Armageddon isn't a Buddhist concept, you know.

So, stating that I don't believe them to be Buddhist sect isn't really a 'No true Scotsman' argument. At all. If I were to assert that they are a Christian sect, would it be a logical fallacy for you to deny it? I'd argue not, since although you could say, 'No true Christian would believe...' you wouldn't have to do that, the fact of them not being Christian would be self-evident.

What am I doing in a debate about Buddhism discussing the nature of Buddhism? I dunno. My bad.

Jerry · Apr 10, 2015

Buddhism does not oppress women.

Buddhism does not try to control your sex life.

Buddhism doesn't threaten you with the wrath of an angry god or eternal damnation if you don't believe in just the right way.

JP Cusick · Apr 10, 2015

JP Cusick said:
JP Cusick said:

JP Cusick said:

The 3rd Noble Truth would be more accurately worded as like this:
By controlling the passions and desires then one can reach a higher life ~ Nirvana.

Click to expand...

The 2nd Noble Truth is more accurately translated and interpreted as this:
The attachment to human suffering comes from worldly desires and passions.

Click to expand...

The way that I understand from my reading is that the 1st Truth is explained like this:
Because of the way that the world has become then physical life consist of pain and sadness and death (of suffering).

The 4th Noble Truth is often called the way of the eightfold path.

A more accurate translation interpretation would go like this:
To accomplish Nirvana then do the Eightfold Path.

The 8 fold path is properly divided into half, as the first 4 and then the latter 4, as like this:

THE LOWER HEIGHTS:

1) Right Doctrine.
2) Right Purpose.
3) Right Discourse.
4) Right Behavior.

THE UPPER WAY:

5) Right Purity.
6) Right Thoughts.
7) Right Loneliness.
8) Right Rapture.

List taken from "The Light of Asia" by Edwin Arnold (1964) page 150.

Amadeus · Apr 10, 2015

Cryptic said:
King Ashoka*,

In actuality, orthodox Buddhism explicitly prohibits a number of behaviors. For example, the Pali canon prohibits:

Abstain from taking another creature's life, weapons, violence.
Abstain from taking things which were not given.
Abstain from unjust sexual relationships.
Abstain from lying.
Abstain from slander.
Abstain from hurting seeds, plants, roots, branches, cheating, trading, slavery, forgery, bribery, and criminal conduct.
Abstain from hoarding food, drink, clothes (robes), bedding, perfume, spices, and other tools.
Abstain from using cosmetics, make-up, and fancy or luxurious clothes (robes).

The difference between Buddhist prohibitions and Judeo-Christian decrees is (largely) the punishment. With Buddhism, the act itself is punishment; you cheat yourself out of enlightenment. With Judeo-Christianity, you are cast into a lake of fire by an external force, if you do not repent.

In short: Buddhism is internal, Christianity is external.

Risky Thicket · Apr 10, 2015

Andalublue said:
I maintain that I don't think they are a Buddhist cult. I've been doing some reading since we started this debate. The first thing that makes me somewhat confused with the definition is that they view their leader as 'Christ', not a christ, but the actual one, 'the Lamb of God' who will take on the sins of the world. Those two key beliefs seem to suggest a degree of Christian influence. He also believes himself to be the only fully enlightened master in Japan - so that suggests influence from Buddhist teachings. He also preaches the approach of the End Times according to the Book of Revelations. Armageddon isn't a Buddhist concept, you know.

So, stating that I don't believe them to be Buddhist sect isn't really a 'No true Scotsman' argument. At all. If I were to assert that they are a Christian sect, would it be a logical fallacy for you to deny it? I'd argue not, since although you could say, 'No true Christian would believe...' you wouldn't have to do that, the fact of them not being Christian would be self-evident.

What am I doing in a debate about Buddhism discussing the nature of Buddhism? I dunno. My bad.

Shoko Asahara, the founder of Aum Shinrikyo, is not ordained. He has no lineage. That is either something crab cake doesn't understand and/or doesn't want to understand. And that is OK. It's all good.

Jerry · Apr 11, 2015

Risky Thicket said:
Shoko Asahara, the founder of Aum Shinrikyo, is not ordained. He has no lineage.

In fairness, neither did Siddhartha Gautama. We should never accept something as true just because it is credentialed, nor should we reject something just because is not credentialed.

It is up to each person to apply the teaching in their own life and decide for themselves.

Cryptic · Apr 11, 2015

Jerry said:
Buddhism does not oppress women.

Buddhism does not try to control your sex life.

Buddhism doesn't threaten you with the wrath of an angry god or eternal damnation if you don't believe in just the right way.

While Buddhism does not do these things per se, Buddhism does seem to give alot of defference to local cultural norms when determinations are made regarding what is, or is not, acceptable behavior. As a result, Buddhist cultures do all of those things (espescially the first two), and when they do, it does seem to be against Buddhism per se.

Andalublue · Apr 11, 2015

Risky Thicket said:
Shoko Asahara, the founder of Aum Shinrikyo, is not ordained. He has no lineage. That is either something crab cake doesn't understand and/or doesn't want to understand. And that is OK. It's all good.

True. Point well made.

Andalublue · Apr 11, 2015

Cryptic said:
While Buddhism does not do these things per se, Buddhism does seem to give alot of defference to local cultural norms when determinations are made regarding what is, or is not, acceptable behavior. As a result, Buddhist cultures do all of those things (espescially the first two), and when they do, it does seem to be against Buddhism per se.

I can see that the question of authority really does seem to bother you quite a lot: 'acceptable', 'permit', 'prohibit'. Perhaps you could expand a little on where this authority resides and who you think might be disposed to impose it.

Cryptic · Apr 11, 2015

Andalublue said:
Perhaps you could expand a little on where this authority resides and who you think might be disposed to impose it.

Sure,

As I mentioned before, Buddhism seems to give alot defference to local cultural norms. The authorative norms of the Confucian influenced Buddhist nations (and it can be difficult to tell where Buddhism ends and Confucianism begins) of China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam the authority caqn be thought to reside in two places:r

- The people as a whole who then determine their cultural norm (secular)
- The divenely instituted cultural order of of those nations (spiritual).

The person who imposes it- and historically, they were very willing to impose it are the Buddhist rulers of those nations. As a side note, Tibet also had a death penalty for social nonconformists (usually identified as being blasphemers).

Andalublue said:
I can see that the question of authority really does seem to bother you quite a lot: 'acceptable', 'permit', 'prohibit'.

I would say that authority of any kind seems to bother you alot, since you claim that Buddhism has no binding prohibitions- not even against theft, lying etc.

When I asked for a source for you claim that the prohibitions expressed in the Pali Canon were only "suggestions", you were unable to give one.

It has been said that the Bible is a mirror that allows the reader to see oneself. I have no doubt that this is true for Buddhism as welll. Those wishing to see a religous system where everything is relative to the individual follower will find that in Buddhism. The reality, however, is that Buddhist nations did not see things that way, and were willing to enforce a variety of social norms while being Buddhist nations.

Dibbler · Apr 11, 2015

Alan Watts, arguably still the the best western interpreter of Buddhism.

rabbitcaebannog · Apr 11, 2015

Like most things in life, I think any religion including Buddhism can be exploited. With that said, I do like the teachings of the religion.

Andalublue · Apr 11, 2015

Dibbler said:
Alan Watts, arguably still the the best western interpreter of Buddhism.

Those YT clips are a great find. I think that he puts his points beautifully. I wish I could explain anything half as skilfully.

Andalublue · Apr 11, 2015

Cryptic said:
Sure,

As I mentioned before, Buddhism seems to give alot defference to local cultural norms. The authorative norms of the Confucian influenced Buddhist nations (and it can be difficult to tell where Buddhism ends and Confucianism begins) of China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam the authority caqn be thought to reside in two places:r

- The people as a whole who then determine their cultural norm (secular)

So, nothing to do with the teachings of the Lord Buddha.

- The divenely instituted cultural order of of those nations (spiritual).

With no divinity, that's a bit problematic, isn't it?

The person who imposes it- and historically, they were very willing to impose it are the Buddhist rulers of those nations.

So, secular power applying their own interpretations of Buddhist teachings

As a side note, Tibet also had a death penalty for social nonconformists (usually identified as being blasphemers).

I wouldn't be so crass as to suggest that the brutality of Christian rulers, who also applied the death penalty to non-conformists, 'heretics' and 'apostates' represents the true message of the Christian religion.

I would say that authority of any kind seems to bother you alot, since you claim that Buddhism has no binding prohibitions- not even against theft, lying etc.

No, it doesn't. The Lord Buddha taught that such things did nothing to help us in our pursuit of insight and enlightenment. If we are committed to that quest, why would we do those things?

When I asked for a source for you claim that the prohibitions expressed in the Pali Canon were only "suggestions", you were unable to give one.

That's not what I claimed. I never mentioned the Pali canon. You did. You asked me to prove a negative. To do so would require total knowledge of every scripture from every school of Buddhism and every teacher, master, Buddha. Proving that negative is impossible, so I declined.

It has been said that the Bible is a mirror that allows the reader to see oneself. I have no doubt that this is true for Buddhism as welll. Those wishing to see a religous system where everything is relative to the individual follower will find that in Buddhism.

As you could see from the Alan Watts clips, and from any Buddhist you might talk to, Buddhists tend not to refer to their path as a religion. Watts expression, ' a path to liberation' is a good way to describe it. I usually say that it's a philosophy rather than a religion. The word religion is avoided for the reasons Alan Watts states.

The reality, however, is that Buddhist nations did not see things that way, and were willing to enforce a variety of social norms while being Buddhist nations.

What 'Buddhist nations' do is really of no interest. Christian nations have in the past imposed religious laws on their subjects, and still do, that bear little or no relation to the teachings of Christ. Simply because a nation defines itself as a 'Christian' or a 'Buddhist' nation does not mean that their policies become a part of the religious/philosophical canon.

JP Cusick · Apr 13, 2015

JP Cusick said:
THE LOWER HEIGHTS:

1) Right Doctrine.
2) Right Purpose.
3) Right Discourse.
4) Right Behavior.

1) Right doctrine means to understand the Noble Truths correctly.

It is odd indeed that the 4 Noble Truths are so very simple and yet they are so deep that many people can not grasp their profound connection to our human reality.

It appears to be so easy to just leap and jump into the Nirvana but it is far more complicated and demanding then it appears to be, so we must get the doctrine right.

2) Right purpose means that our purpose must be sincere and virtuous which is no small task.

The means do not guarantee the ends, so we can not do it in order to reap the Nirvana.

We must do what is right because it is right, and Nirvana is never won or taken as it just happens without expectation.

3) Right discourse is possibly the hardest step of them all, because we must learn how to speak the truths, and sometimes to withhold the truth at the same times.

Our outgoing words are the reality of who and what we really are whether anyone like that or not.

4) Right behavior must be to behave in accordance with the Noble Truths.

We must understand suffering as it pertains to our self and to other people and to the entire world, so our own pain and sorrows and even our own death must be minimized while also doing the work to heal or to soothe the suffering of the world.

Cryptic · Apr 14, 2015

Andalublue said:
With no divinity, that's a bit problematic, isn't it?

No divinity (or divinities)? Are you sure about that?

In actuality, Buddhist views on the possibility of a divinity, or divinities are complex. Divinities seem to be neither affirmed, nor rejected . Tibetan Buddhism, and Thai Buddhism present a variety of divine beings. Other schools adhere to the belief of a supreme conciousness, or a primordial Buddha. In short, the existance of divinities in Buddhism seem to be entirely dependent on the individual believer and school- with nothing be affirmed nor rejected.
God in Buddhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crass? Pointing out the historical fact that Christian nations have, at times, enacted the death penalty against non conformists is not crass.

Andalublue said:
That's not what I claimed. I never mentioned the Pali canon. You did. You asked me to prove a negative. To do so would require total knowledge of every scripture from every school of Buddhism and every teacher, master, Buddha. Proving that negative is impossible, so I declined.

No, what you demonstrated is that:

A. You are prone to make sweeping statments about a particular subject (in this case Buddhism)
B. You cant support these statements with independent sources, and insist that your word be accepted.
C. Sources that suggest you are wrong, are rejected, yet you offer no counter sources.

The above strongly indcates that you lack detailled knowledge on the subject in question.

Andalublue said:
What 'Buddhist nations' do is really of no interest. Christian nations have in the past imposed religious laws on their subjects, and still do, that bear little or no relation to the teachings of Christ. Simply because a nation defines itself as a 'Christian' or a 'Buddhist' nation does not mean that their policies become a part of the religious/philosophical canon.

A good point- and I can acccept it. Though, there is the possibility of a "No true Scotsman arguemnt": If the actions of Buddhist ruler "X" dont look like the Buddhism that I see in the mirror, then ruler "X" is not a true buddhist.

In the end though, it is a valid point.

Thgough this has overtures of the "no true Scotsman" argument, I can accept your point. This still does not change the fact that Buddhism is far more complex than your

Andalublue · Apr 14, 2015

Cryptic said:
No divinity (or divinities)? Are you sure about that?

I'm absolutely sure that the Lord Buddha denied the existence of a creator god. Of course many Buddhists may believe in gods, but that's a different thing, wouldn't you say? Given that there's no contradiction in a Christian also being a Buddhist, it's highly likely that a large number of Buddhists believe in the existence of gods. Many Buddhist schools discuss the nature of the Buddha, of the dharmakaya and the tathagathagarbha. I wouldn't recognise those as divinities in the theistic sense of the word, but if that's what you want to use in your gotcha moment, so be it.

A good point- and I can acccept it. Though, there is the possibility of a "No true Scotsman arguemnt": If the actions of Buddhist ruler "X" dont look like the Buddhism that I see in the mirror, then ruler "X" is not a true buddhist.

That would only work if I'd ever used the expression 'a true Buddhist'. I didn't even use that form of words to describe Aum Shinrikyo. No true Buddhist would use that terminology.

This still does not change the fact that Buddhism is far more complex than your

More complex than my what?

If your aim is to show my ignorance of my professed philosophical affinity, then you wouldn't be the first. The Lord Buddha taught us that nothing is infinite, but my ignorance of Buddhist scriptures and teaching would test that assertion to the nth. degree.

JP Cusick · Apr 15, 2015

JP Cusick said:
THE UPPER WAY:

5) Right Purity.
6) Right Thoughts.
7) Right Loneliness.
8) Right Rapture.

List taken from "The Light of Asia" by Edwin Arnold (1964) page 150.

5) Right purity means that we must clean up our past including to un-learn the old brainwashing as all people learn in our childhood.

This "purity" has the same application as doing "repentance" in that we must make amends for our past wrongs.

Both purity and repentance does not mean to just feel sorry or to be forgiven as we must do what we can to make right the past wrongs (make amends) and that means all wrongs including wrongs done by other people, as like making amends (repent) for our parents and siblings because purity means pure.

6) Right thoughts means being true to thy self.

Anyone can talk and put on a show to fool others, so our secret private thoughts must not fool our self.

Our truest thoughts are what governs our sincerity or lack of sincerity, and that becomes obvious to other people.

It is not so much that we need to control our thoughts or to force our thinking - no, we just need to be so honest to our self and then whatever one believes or does not believe will become our reality and our thoughts will match our words which will match our actions, all in harmony.

7) Right loneliness is a super high level of enlightenment.

We know from the record of such persons as like Jesus Christ and Mahatma Gandhi, the Buddha, Muhammad, and many others, that while they were all surrounded by very many people and yet they each stood all alone.

So this is a peculiar kind of loneliness, because enlightenment (Nirvana) is very personal to each person alone.

It is often compared to salt, in that the salt is spread out with one speck here-and-there while too much salt in one place makes a bitter flavor.

So too there are few who reach enlightenment so each person must expect to stand alone and must be able to stand completely alone.

8) Right rapture is a very hard one because so many people get fooled by the wrong one.

It is okay to be so fooled by the wrong or by mistake while the ideal is to not get trapped or locked into the error(s).

We have to learn to over-look our self as in self-awareness, and then recognize what is real and then deal correctly with our own reality because that is our own personal rapture.

Andalublue · Apr 15, 2015

JP Cusick said:
5) Right purity means that we must clean up our past including to un-learn the old brainwashing as all people learn in our childhood.

This "purity" has the same application as doing "repentance" in that we must make amends for our past wrongs.

Both purity and repentance does not mean to just feel sorry or to be forgiven as we must do what we can to make right the past wrongs (make amends) and that means all wrongs including wrongs done by other people, as like making amends (repent) for our parents and siblings because purity means pure.

6) Right thoughts means being true to thy self.

Anyone can talk and put on a show to fool others, so our secret private thoughts must not fool our self.

Our truest thoughts are what governs our sincerity or lack of sincerity, and that becomes obvious to other people.

It is not so much that we need to control our thoughts or to force our thinking - no, we just need to be so honest to our self and then whatever one believes or does not believe will become our reality and our thoughts will match our words which will match our actions, all in harmony.

7) Right loneliness is a super high level of enlightenment.

We know from the record of such persons as like Jesus Christ and Mahatma Gandhi, the Buddha, Muhammad, and many others, that while they were all surrounded by very many people and yet they each stood all alone.

So this is a peculiar kind of loneliness, because enlightenment (Nirvana) is very personal to each person alone.

It is often compared to salt, in that the salt is spread out with one speck here-and-there while too much salt in one place makes a bitter flavor.

So too there are few who reach enlightenment so each person must expect to stand alone and must be able to stand completely alone.

8) Right rapture is a very hard one because so many people get fooled by the wrong one.

It is okay to be so fooled by the wrong or by mistake while the ideal is to not get trapped or locked into the error(s).

We have to learn to over-look our self as in self-awareness, and then recognize what is real and then deal correctly with our own reality because that is our own personal rapture.

That's funny. I don't recognise those last four as being analogous with what I've always understood them to be i.e:

Right livelihood - I don't see that as relating to repentence, do you? Getting things right in the present is much more important.
Full effort - okay, we're close. Honesty is the key, and putting in the effort to maintain that honest attitude.
Complete awareness - right loneliness doesn't seem to be at all the same. Is it?
Total concentration - this is a better adjective for what you describe than 'rapture', I reckon.

Buddhism

Hello again!

Hello again!

Sewer Rat

Hello again!

The Expert

Chews the Cud

Sewer Rat

Hello again!

Hello again!

Hello again!

Hello again!

The Expert

Hello again!

The Expert

Hello again!