Buddhism

Andalublue said:

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?

Click to expand...

You said that Buddhism has no "divinity". I then based my answer on this contention by illustrating that Buddhists may well have a divinity, or divinities.

Andalublue said:

More complex than my what?

Click to expand...

Far more compex than your blanket assertions that Buddism is only "X", or that Buddhism cannot be "y".

Andalublue said:

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.

Click to expand...

No, that is not my goal. My goal is simply to encourage you to tone down your sarcasm and learn more about the religion that you follow.

Cryptic said:

You said that Buddhism has no "divinity". I then based my answer on this contention by illustrating that Buddhists may well have a divinity, or divinities.

Click to expand...

Then we agree. Great!

No, that is not my goal. My goal is simply to encourage you to tone down the sarcasm and learn more about the religion that you follow.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm afraid you've shown no grasp of Buddhist concepts that aren't easily comprehended through the prism of Judaeo-Christian theology so, while I will continue to live and learn more about the teachings of the Lord Buddha, I probably won't be doing so from Christian theologists.

And you might want to turn down the patronising tone, which many find more annoying than sarcasm.

Andalublue said:

Well, I'm afraid you've shown no grasp of Buddhist concepts that aren't easily comprehended through the prism of Judaeo-Christian theology so, while I will continue to live and learn more about the teachings of the Lord Buddha, I probably won't be doing so from Christian theologists.

Click to expand...

I never attempted to teach you about Buddhist theology- I* am not qualified to do so. Rather, I only pointed out some historical / cultural facts regarding Buddhism, encouraged you to refrain from blanket statements unless you have the knowledge to support them, and to learn more on your own. That is a big difference.

* As a side note, a particular Christian can have a lot of academic insight into Buddhism (and vis versa as a Buddhist academic can have good insight into Christianity). More to the specific point, one Christian priests is also a zen master: http://ncronline.org/news/i-wanted-faith-was-deeper-jesuit-priest-and-zen-master-part-2 and sees no contradiction. This is might be because zen buddhism is less theistic than other schools?

Cryptic said:

You said that Buddhism has no "divinity". I then based my answer on this contention by illustrating that Buddhists may well have a divinity, or divinities.

Click to expand...

If you look at the Bhavacakra, you can see that the devas occupy the highest realm within samsara, but are ultimately bound by reincarnation. The Buddha was said to have been a deva in one of his cycles (in Hinduism, it's Vishnu specifically). However, in Buddhism, the gods (if they exist) are largely regarded as a species of enlightened superhuman rather than heavenly creators; one of the many types of beings you can be reincarnated as.

http://api.ning.com/files/BVkAbPz3W...yeDB38a-CU0FM0Oc6hzhilnf5RBtpg/NT003651NL.JPG

Andalublue said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is why I gave the source as this:

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

My own copy of the book is 1964 but the original text came out in 1879, so I really believe that my list to be the more accurate interpretation translation while later versions were all more politically correct to their times.

JP Cusick said:

This is why I gave the source as this:

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

My own copy of the book is 1964 but the original text came out in 1879, so I really believe that my list to be the more accurate interpretation translation while later versions were all more politically correct to their times.

Click to expand...

In Buddhist terms 1879 is a very modern text indeed. I certainly don't believe that your explanations are inaccurate, just give a different interpretation of the translations. It's interesting. Not more or less accurate, and I certainly wouldn't attach negative value-laden terms like 'politically correct' to any differing views. That smacks a little of dualism.

The commonest translations of the Noble Eight-fold Path are usually:

» Right Understanding
» Right Thoughts
» Right Speech
» Right Action
» Right Livelihood
» Right Effort
» Right Mindfulness
» Right Concentration

It's interesting to read some that make you think about the steps differently.

Cryptic said:

I never attempted to teach you about Buddhist theology- I* am not qualified to do so. Rather, I only pointed out some historical / cultural facts regarding Buddhism, encouraged you to refrain from blanket statements unless you have the knowledge to support them, and to learn more on your own. That is a big difference.

* As a side note, a particular Christian can have a lot of academic insight into Buddhism (and vis versa as a Buddhist academic can have good insight into Christianity). More to the specific point, one Christian priests is also a zen master: 'I wanted a faith that was deeper': Jesuit priest and Zen master -- Part 2 | National Catholic Reporter and sees no contradiction. This is might be because zen buddhism is less theistic than other schools?

Click to expand...

I have been on Zen retreat with several very knowledgable and mindful Christian Buddhists, one was indeed a Jesuit, another an Anglican Prebendary Canon. They both had a great deal of insight and I learned quite a bit from them. I was making any point that a Christian cannot teach me anything about Buddhism. Not remotely. The point was that you cannot explain and interpret Buddhist philosophy using Christian theological theories or attitudes. In my flawed opinion, that is.

Andalublue said:

In Buddhist terms 1879 is a very modern text indeed. I certainly don't believe that your explanations are inaccurate, just give a different interpretation of the translations. It's interesting. Not more or less accurate, and I certainly wouldn't attach negative value-laden terms like 'politically correct' to any differing views. That smacks a little of dualism.

The commonest translations of the Noble Eight-fold Path are usually:

» Right Understanding
» Right Thoughts
» Right Speech
» Right Action
» Right Livelihood
» Right Effort
» Right Mindfulness
» Right Concentration

It's interesting to read some that make you think about the steps differently.

Click to expand...

The year 1879 is very old for the English language, and all we have in the 8 fold path are translations / interpretations into English.

The Buddha his-self back some 2,500 years did not speak English and the old Hindu languages are far more sophisticated than is our crude English.

In our English language we have many words for "murder" but very few words for things like "love or truth" and even the word Nirvana is crudely translated as "enlightenment" as if it were just some kind of mental exercise which it is not.

The word "livelihood" in English means a person's job or employment, but in the Noble Truths the "livelihood" is referring to a person's life.