Ask a Buddhist

[Sniffles]

I would also like to point out, for the record, that Buddhism does not have a history of executing its mystics. Neither of the two later major monotheisms can say that. Buddhism also doesnt have a history of killing people for not "believing the right things", once again unlike some (all?) the major monotheisms.

There is a reason in history books that Buddhism is often held up as a more "peaceful" world religion, either in a general sense or in the sense thats its started less wars relating to religious beliefs or conversion. and there are reasons that history books talk about wars and conflict between religious groups in the West [and probably beyond] and gives all sorts of examples of religiously-motivated wars and list "differences in religion" as a historical cause of many conflicts. If someone wants to ignore every point that I've personally made, then go argue with the history books and the people that write them. And your gonna need a lot of luck "overlooking" things like the crusades, all sorts of protestant/catholic fighting, spreading of Islam by force, and whatever other examples are out there.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have mystical traditions; and they're considered integral parts of those faiths. Within Christianity, several mystics like St. John of the Cross, St. Theresa, and St. Hildegard of Bingen and numerous others are formally canonized as saints. To claim otherwise betrays complete ignorance of these traditions. Concerning history, well I'm very well read on history and am in constant contact with historians around the world. This is also includes scholars of comparative religions as well.

I'll repeat my basic point that I hold no grudge against Buddhism, unlike the grudge you clearly hold against the Abrahamic faiths. In the end we are all united in the One, the Absolute, the Beginning and the End as the Islamic mystic Rumi once famously proclaimed. The Dalai Lama for one has openly admitted a profound admiration for the Christian tradition. Perhaps you should best follow his example.

 

[Riva]

Since this thread is about Buddhism, I guess off the top of my head I could mention the Shaolin monks of China and the Yamabushi of Japan; who both were engaged in warfare at various times. Buddhism has been prominent among the Mongols, who weren't exactly the most peace-loving band of brothers. Nor were the Samurai. Here's some Buddhist monks undergoing military training during WWII.

Oh yeah and don't forget that Buddha himself was a member of the Kshatriya warrior caste.

Kshatriya is the name of the ruling caste and not warrior caste. But maybe initially it was a warrior caste which later became a ruling caste. And though Siddhartha was from that caste he left that caste and all his inheritances and didn't ever use the sword to spread his teachings. So I don't see the relevance of what you said about his caste to his teachings.

If I'm not mistaken that is the second highest ranking caste and does not exist anymore. That's irrelevant to the point I know but wanted to point that out and to point out that the highest caste is the Brahmin caste and [MENTION=13147]senza_tema[/MENTION] (please don't kill me senza) belongs to the Brahmin caste. Senza does the Kshatriya caste exist anymore? They probably do but not are into the ruling of the state anymore.

The point I have to make was though Siddhartha was from the ruling caste Kshatriya (which according to you was a warrior caste) he left everything he rightfully inherited by his shakya family and his caste. And he throughout his life as Buddha discouraged and at times mocked the caste system. And he for even once never acted like who was someone from a warrior caste.

Yes the mongols were sadistic maniacs (sorry @Mongolian members) but what we have to think is were they religiously motivated? Did Genghis khan and his warriors (band of merry men) went on a holy crusade to spread Buddhism or were they going on for glory, gold and pussy? (Lolz) I'm quite sure it was the latter. And the way the mongols acted is if anything anti Buddha teachings and not pro. Also was Buddhism the prevailing religion at that time in Mongolia and were there no other traditional tribal religions present in Mongolia at that time which could have influenced the Mongolians? Was it Buddhism that encouraged the blood-thirsty (lolz what else am I suppose to call them?) Mongolians to act the way that they did? Does Buddhism permit, allows or encourage its believers to go on genocidal campaigns?

Typing from the phone is no easy task.

I do not know about the spread of Buddhism in east Asia. So I don't know how tribal religions influenced Buddhism in those areas. Are the samurais not Shinto? And about the shaolin monks holding arms is laughable due to two things. One being Buddha has forbidden monks to carry/hold/bear arms (there are 31 other rules monks have to adhere to which if broken are asked to leave the monk-hood) and the other is that on most occasions the religious leaders becoming the moral supporters of the countries defense when the security is threatened/taking the side of the ethnicity they were born in to irrespective of what the teachings they are pledged to adhere to. Like I said the latter is forbidden in Buddhism, monks are mt supposed to take sides (Buddha saw his own family line getting massacred - yes ask me to elaborate if you wish to).

 

[sprinkles]

I think one of the biggest things of all is that hardly anyone ever looks at someone's actions and says "You're not a Buddhist!"

And even if they did, the people in question would just say "Yes we are! We are the Rinzai school!" (just random example)

 

[21%]

I see no point in discussing the history of a religion when what really matters is the philosophy behind it. When philosophy comes in contact with reality, some 'practicality' is called for, and this is usually done very imperfectly. A lot of the things in the scriptures, regardless of which religion they belong to, were highly relevant to the society where they originally arose from, but are grossly outdated by today's standards. Humans will be humans, and we are prone to a lot of defects -- egoism, entitlement, self-righteousness, pride, anger, jealousy, and these are not really what religion preaches. I tend to view 'overly religious people' from any religion who appear to have no tolerance as 'people who don't really get it'.

<--- end --->

<--- new topic --->



So I have a few questions. I grew up in a Buddhist culture so in a way it has always been a part of me. I've never really studied it, but I think there are a lot of Buddhist thoughts going around in my daily life. The concept of karma, wisdom, mindfulness, letting go, for example, are something everyone knows something about and will just mention in normal conversation. I was never into rituals, and they usually make me nervous because I have no idea what to do. I would still call myself a Buddhist, because my underlying notions about life stemmed from Buddhist beliefs, and this no doubt has a lot of effect on my way of thinking and how I live life.

Lately I've been exposed to the more New-Agey strands of Buddhism, which I like a lot. I would like to explain some of these helpful thoughts it to my boyfriend who is an atheist from a Christian background, but I don't know where to start. So here goes my questions:

1) What are the basic assumptions of Buddhism that are different from, say, Christianity?
You have a body and an 'ego'? Is 'ego' your 'sense of self' (which implies it is 'made-up' somehow by yourself), unlike a 'soul', which is basically 'you', but has to be 'cleansed of sin' as in Christian belief? And if it is so, how would you go explaining 'ego'?

2) How should I go about explaining 'mindfulness' in a jargon-free layman-friendly manner?
I have a word for it in my language, and I tend to use the word 'awareness', but perhaps there is a better way to explain it?

I guess my main problem is that where I'm from everyone is familiar with all these concepts so I am not totally aware of what is 'new' to Western audiences.

 

[nanook]

you have just opened a can of insanity. christians are anti-buddhist, because the biggest blasphemy is to assume that you are not separate from god and that god is not transcendental to reality, but within everything, much like matter (panentheism). god will speak to you and respond to your prayers, but you will always stay separate. the thomas gospel which frames jesus as a mystic of one-ness is banned! explaining ego is irrelevant. when ego is just an illusion within the brain, doesn't matter, the whole physical body is seen as being separate from god, like it is separat from the stars. what you would have to explain is consciousness as the basic substance of all of reality, thus as uniting factor. this will be rejected.

it's strange for me to assume that you have not experienced this, but i guess it's possible to be unfamiliar with christians (where the hell do you live - haven't christians invaded everything)?

however your friend is not a christian, he is atheist. i don't know what that makes him in relation to christianity or buddhism.

awareness is as fine as it is mediocre. it implies a witnessing ego that is aware of some thing. it puts the emphasis on passive perception. "being" is the word that sort of does away with this dualism. but being can be incomprehensible, inaccessible. awareness is like a stage in understanding, it makes sense, until being becomes available. being can also be comprehended as being passive, but it can open up to interaction. everything is, process is within being. being is oneness, awareness turns oneness into an object, which is "suchness" - again "seeing" suchness is a stage of understanding, prior to being. i'm just playing with words, the way i like it

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=6971]21%[/MENTION]
The basic Christian assumption that splits Christianity from Buddhism is that humans cannot save themselves. There's really quite a pessimistic view about the behavior of humans from the view of Christianity - humans are forever failing, sinful, imperfect beings that cannot redeem themselves and can only be redeemed by the mercy of God.

Thus, Christians do not like self works or enlightenment. If one can help himself by turning inward, or become enlightened, then that person does not need their God. Some see this as blasphemous and impossible.

 

[nanook]

they can pray though and prayer will save them. so their believe. compared to new age buddhism, there is a trace of wisdom in how sprinkles puts it: humans are forever failing, in other words egos don't become enlightened, they vanish, then only buddha-mind is left. in spirituality it's understood that egos can't save themselves. egos are penetrated by awareness. made transparent. they (we) are seen to be a joke, then the laughter will become stillness. what fascinates me to no end, is that some christians know how to achieve a state of love and stillness (genuine nondual/undivided being) through what they describe as prayer or their love to god or jesus, or their thankfulness. there is something relevant to respecting all three faces of god. (I AM NESS, YOU beloved, and IT - the suchness of the Machina). christians own the secret of accessing god through the path of the second person perspective.

 

[sprinkles]

the can pray though and prayer will save them. so their believe. compared to new age buddhism, there is a traces of wisdom in how sprinkles puts it: humans are forever failing, in other words egos don't become enlightened, they vanish, then buddha mind is left. egos can't save themselves. egos are penetrated by awareness. made transparent. they (we) are seen to be a joke, then the laughter will become stillness. what fascinates me to no end, is that some christians know how to achieve a state of love and stillness (genuine nondual/individed being) through what they describe as prayer or their love to god or jesus, or their thankfulness. there is something relevant to respecting all three faces of god. (I AM, YOU beloved, and IT - the suchness of Machina). christians own the secret of accessing god through the path of the second person perspective.

I agree with this assessment.

 

[Thursday]

Define Peace. Define Chaos.

 

[sprinkles]

Define Peace. Define Chaos.

Ultimately they are mu. They only exist by relative comparison.

Or as in the Principia Discordia:

The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper that is the level of distinction making.

With our concept making apparatus called "mind" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about-reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently. It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T True) reality is a level deeper that is the level of concept.

We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids.

 

[21%]

[MENTION=736]nanook[/MENTION] I live in Thailand, where only about 3% of the population are Christians

"Being" as you described is an interesting way to put it, but you're right in that it sounds less 'accessible' than simply "awareness", so in the beginning I guess I'll stick with awareness for now. I think I get what you mean with 'oneness' and 'suchness' (vaguely right now), but these can be very hard to explain so I'll keep thinking until it's clearer in my mind before I try to communicate it to him.

My boyfriend finds zen teachings helpful, so I think he already has some 'leanings'. He hasn't made peace with his disillusionment with Christianity yet, and I think his atheism is more of a reaction than a true belief.


[MENTION=16071]sprinkles[/MENTION] That's very clear and makes perfect sense. Thanks!

what fascinates me to no end, is that some christians know how to achieve a state of love and stillness (genuine nondual/undivided being) through what they describe as prayer or their love to god or jesus, or their thankfulness. there is something relevant to respecting all three faces of god. (I AM NESS, YOU beloved, and IT - the suchness of the Machina). christians own the secret of accessing god through the path of the second person perspective.

I think this is true -- in a way, by surrendering to God completely, there is no room left for their own ego.

I might be crazy, but I want to believe that all religions ultimately want to help people reach that 'space' of peacefulness, but do so in different ways and through different words.

 

[sprinkles]

I think this is true -- in a way, by surrendering to God completely, there is no room left for their own ego.

I might be crazy, but I want to believe that all religions ultimately want to help people reach that 'space' of peacefulness, but do so in different ways and through different words.

Yes that's how I think it works.

Someone gets a rare epiphany and others want a part of it. So they regard this person as a prophet, and write down their words in a book. But the words and the underlying spirit of the words become separated. The words and the book become sacred - people become rigid and uncreative because they have their instruction manual, but they have lost the point because they only follow the sacred book by rote, without true insight to what it means.

They regard the book and words as sacred and lose the actual reality behind the words. They revere the Sacred Book and no harm must come to it.

But they don't realize that what was not written in the book is that there comes a time when one must burn the book.

 

[21%]

Yes that's how I think it works.

Someone gets a rare epiphany and others want a part of it. So they regard this person as a prophet, and write down their words in a book. But the words and the underlying spirit of the words become separated. The words and the book become sacred - people become rigid and uncreative because they have their instruction manual, but they have lost the point because they only follow the sacred book by rote, without true insight to what it means.

They regard the book and words as sacred and lose the actual reality behind the words. They revere the Sacred Book and no harm must come to it.

But they don't realize that what was not written in the book is that there comes a time when one must burn the book.

 

[Mole]

The problem is that almost all religions were created thousands of years before the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries. And as the Enlightenment gave us the modern world, most religions find themselves out of place.

 

[21%]

The problem is that almost all religions were created thousands of years before the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries. And as the Enlightenment gave us the modern world, most religions find themselves out of place.

I agree if you're talking about religions as in 'organized religions'. I think spirituality is a different matter, and humans two thousand years ago are as capable of spiritual enlightenment as we are nowadays.

 

[Lightyear]

The problem is that almost all religions were created thousands of years before the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries. And as the Enlightenment gave us the modern world, most religions find themselves out of place.

That is just not the truth. Read this book: http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2009/05/religion-american-modern-world

 

[Mole]

I agree if you're talking about religions as in 'organized religions'. I think spirituality is a different matter, and humans two thousand years ago are as capable of spiritual enlightenment as we are nowadays.

The Enlightenment of 17th and !8th centuries was not a spiritual enlightenment, rather it was based on evidence and reason.

 

[Mole]

Evidence and Reason and the Suspension of Disbelief

That is just not the truth. Read this book: http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2009/05/religion-american-modern-world

I find it hard to think of even one religion that is based on evidence and reason. In fact every religion I can think of is based on the suspension of disbelief.

And indeed, look around you, even mbti is based on the suspension of disbelief.

 

[Mole]

Meanwhile, Aung San Suu Kyi, a Buddhist, and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, refuses to condemn her fellow Burmese Buddhists as they continue to murder, torture, burn down whole villages and drive Burmese Muslims out of Burma.

 

[Kevs]

If I am to avoid attachment, doesn't that mean that I avoid friendship, camaraderie, love? Isn't attachment what binds people, even if it is temporary?

Isn't karma a way to blame the victim?

I Agree- avoid attachment is avoiding love but karma is not a way to blame the victim. Karma is attracting or binding series of events that leads to either bad or good results.