Was the Buddah real?

[Narz]

Oh, I see, that "destination". Who knows? That's the big ploy of religion, they play on people's uncertainty about death. Everyone wants to go somewhere nice. After all, enternity is a long time.

 

[frekk]

Of course understanding will affect your destination. Once you realize where you want to go it is much easier to get there.

You're thinking of it as a means to an end, but in Buddhism it is the end, not the means. It's not like in Christianity where understanding is guidance towards right deeds. To put it another way, the most spiritually perfect marathon in Buddhism would have all the participants sitting motionless and meditating on running, whereas in Christianity they would be running, on a holy mission for God or something of the sort. They might meditate beforehand for guidance, but it would be a means to achieve God's will, not an end in itself.

 

[Rambuchan]

@ TLC: Well Mysticism is never going to be anything but curious. You're always going to come up against a brick wall with that one. The whole idea is to drop the logical, deductive processes, let it be and [insert romantic mystical phrase here].

As for knowing when you've 'clicked' or 'switched' between unenlightened and enlightened - I guess you 'just know'. Again, you didn't expect a straight answer and a quick fix did you? You gotta go think about it to crack the nut.

 

[Uiler]

I always saw pure Buddhism as about finding inner peace, about losing yourself from the struggles and desires of the material world. By losing your "self" you push aside the illusions of the material world and find peace. "Enlightenment" is not about becoming a god or a divine being but about completely divorcing your soul from the illusions of the material world (which your desires bind you to) and melting into the universe and achieving harmony and peace. Existence itself is punishment. The existence of God/Gods itself is of no consequence. There is the whole and there is you. You are a part of the one, sort of like how if you have a piece of clay you can mold part of it into the shape of sword but it is still part of the clay. You are the molded bit of clay and you think that you *are* a sword and you suffer because of this illusion. In fact you can mold each piece of the clay into anything you want but it is still part of the clay and if you remold a bit of it into something else it does not change its essential characteristic which is clay. That is the form that the clay takes is an illusion and has no great importance, and what is important is it is part of the clay and everything is part of the clay. To achieve enlightenment is for the bit of clay to realise that he is part of a single existence with the rest of everything and realise that he is just clay, just like the bird in the tree is part of the same clay as is the guy walking past you. That there is no difference between the three of you. That you are all the same piece of clay. At this point your illusionary form (your existence in the material world) disappears and you just become part of the main body of the clay again.

Of course that's not what Buddhism is actually like in practise. Most places it's just become the normal polytheistic worship, oh Buddha please come and save our village from drought kind of thing. I'll make sacrifices to you and you will give me a son etc.

 

[Rambuchan]

Great post there Uiler. Bang on the money.

 

[Gr3yL3gion]

@Uiler

I had this discussion(Christian vs. Buddhism) with my friend most of the time, who is a practising buddhist himself. I believe you just took the word out of my buddhist friend mouth. Couldn't agree more.

 

[Narz]

I don't want to believe existance is punishment.

That's where I disagree with Buddism.

I like the 8-fold path but disagree with the "4 noble truths".

I will rally against that idea (that life is suffering) or die trying.

 

[blackheart]

Ditto Uiler.

 

[blackheart]

On the contrary, you just said that my soul is God's, and that God's soul is also everyone else's soul. Therefore, by damning my soul by not taking the Eightfold path, I am also damning every human being who has ever lived or ever will live - we all have the same soul called God after all.

You aren't damned to an eternity of torment and pain if you don't become enlightened. Your soul is "recycled" and reincarnated. Doesn't the bible say that God is the being the binds the entire universe? Would that not be the same thing?

This is a topic for another thread, but suffice to say that the buddhist scriptures were not written down until about 500 years after Buddah lived. Christian scriptures were beginning to be written down within the First Century AD, possibly as early as AD 50, within 23 years of Christs' death. That less than 1/20 of the time between Buddah's life and the Buddhist scriptures being written down. That's hardly a similer time frame.

There is no Bible in Buddhism. You don't need to read the 50 volumes of what Buddha originally said to become enlightened.

If God = Me then me and God are the same being.
Then because we are the same I know what God knows.
But I do not know that I am God.
Therefore God does not know that he is me
Therefore God does not know that he is God.

You're too stuck on the literal meaning of it.

 

[punkbass2000]

@Ram: By binary nature, I meant that, IIUC, according to Buddhism, you're either enlightened, or not.

How is this different from anything else? Though you may be enlightened or not, there are most certainly degrees of wisdom and sacred knowledge, as well as stations in life. Plus, to discuss Buddhism as a single entity is rather futile.

 

[Elrohir]

I'm not putting any words in your mouth - remember that I said "it seems . . . ." . I am merely stating what I think your attitude may be .

Well it's a little annoying. My attitude is quite apparent, and it's not what you said.

If you asked me , I'd say that now you're putting words in my mouth . I would , however , be willing to acknowledge that , on some points , I may be wrong ( due to ignorance of the subject ) , and I would also not make blanket statements insulting anyone who did not think like me ( as you are wont to - like saying that the Buddha was a spoilt child who a beating or two in his childhood would have straightened out - which is a vilification of the Buddha , and an insult to his followers ) .

If I am putting words into your mouth then I apologize, that was not my intention.

On the contrary, saying Buddah could have benefited from a good smacking in his youth was not vilification. I think pretty much everyone can benefit from a good smacking when they act stupid; it's only vilification if you consider the majority of humans to be villians.

Your acceptance of the Christ is apparently an exclusivist one , and I think that you must be thinking ( even if fallaciously ) something in this manner - "I have accepted the Christ , and the Christ was enlightened , therefore , nobody else was enlightened ( for if anyone other than the Christ was enlightened , he would be equal to the Christ , which I cannot accept ( for if I did accept it , my sense of greatness-by-association with a great man would be diminished) , therefore I will not accept it , irrespective of all evidence and reasoning that supports it ) , and thus you are wrong ." - a manner for which I think I need not point out the flaws .

Actually, I think 'enlightenment', at least the Buddhist definition is completley false and incorrect. So no, I don't think Christ was 'enlightened' in the Buddhist sense; I think he was God. This entire argument is therefore flawed.

I have never declared that I know - I have only said that I think I know , based on my perception and deduction based on said perception , how it seems you see this debate ( and not the world , just a subset of it ) . And I have no idea what "pandering of atheists" is supposed to mean , nor how anything I have said verifies any ideas of yours .

Content now , noble defender ?

Declaring that you know and thinking that you know are practically the same thing; an ant could starve on the difference.

I'll be content when you concede the debate to me, and that I have masturfully demolished every argument put forth by all my opposers. I appreciate being called a Noble Defender though, I usually end up with names like "nazistic bigot".

Amazing how this debate has shifted from talking about the Buddha himself and Buddhism to talking about Elrohir's flaming and trolling. Closest I've ever come to putting someone on ignore, so congrats for that!

What can I say, humanities talent for focusing on and alking about the nonexistant is beyond imagination.

If you put me on your ignore list, you would have to deal with the mystery of what I was saying every time I posted. The sheer suspense of it would kill you.

 

[aneeshm]

Well , then , it seems we were arguing at cross-purposes . Buddhism is fundamentally an agnostic relition , while Christianity is a theistic one , so what we were walking was taken , apparently , out of context by the both of us . I think it best we stop this threadjacking now , and let the real discussion continue ( unless you want an answer , in which case I will provide one ) .

 

[Ramius75]

Buddhism is fundamentally an agnostic religion.

Agreed. this is my view on buddism too, its more philosophical than superstitious.

 

[The Last Conformist]

How is this different from anything else?

For instance, it differs from epistemological nihilism in accepting the possibility of knowledge.

Though you may be enlightened or not, there are most certainly degrees of wisdom and sacred knowledge, as well as stations in life. Plus, to discuss Buddhism as a single entity is rather futile.

Well, I was under the impession that the notion of enlightenment is fairly constant across the various sects. If I'm mistaken, feel free to enlighten () me.

 

[punkbass2000]

For instance, it differs from epistemological nihilism in accepting the possibility of knowledge.

I more mean that with any given quality, you really either have it or do not.

Well, I was under the impession that the notion of enlightenment is fairly constant across the various sects. If I'm mistaken, feel free to enlighten () me.

That's a fairly bold thought, IMO. Enlightenment seems to be generally regarded as indescribable. Beyond that, there have been many different takes on how one achieves enlightenment. Though there are many, probably the largest contrast would be between the Buddha's way of meditating and generally having it take a lifetime (or several) and Hui-neng's insistance that enlightenment comes suddenly and unexpectedly. There are other takes as well, such as requiring koans, performing rituals and a host of others. Every sect has its own concept.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I more mean that with any given quality, you really either have it or do not.

Let's not bogged down into a discussion whether "quality" necessarily implies something qualititative, but I would certainly be inclined to think that most characteristica come as continuous variables - you have have more ore less of them.

 

[Elrohir]

Well , then , it seems we were arguing at cross-purposes . Buddhism is fundamentally an agnostic relition , while Christianity is a theistic one , so what we were walking was taken , apparently , out of context by the both of us . I think it best we stop this threadjacking now , and let the real discussion continue ( unless you want an answer , in which case I will provide one ) .

But how can you 'enlighten' yourself and 'return to God' if you don't think you can know anything about God?

 

[blackheart]

But how can you 'enlighten' yourself and 'return to God' if you don't think you can know anything about God?

If anyone could answer that they would already be enlightened.

On the contrary, saying Buddah could have benefited from a good smacking in his youth was not vilification. I think pretty much everyone can benefit from a good smacking when they act stupid; it's only vilification if you consider the majority of humans to be villians.

How was Siddartha Gautama acting stupid?

 

[Elrohir]

If anyone could answer that they would already be enlightened.

How was Siddartha Gautama acting stupid?

So basically you've reached a logical impasse, and I should just take it on faith that it will make sense when I become God?

Phh, yeah right.

He ran off to sit under a tree and await 'enlightenment'. If deciding to sit there until the Ultimate Truth of the Universe just pops into your head isn't acting stupidly, then I don't know what is.

(I wonder if that was religious bashing..... )

Moderator Action: Yes it is. Elrohir, from now on, you will refrain from posting at all on this thread again, since you cannot argue without bashing Buddhism. Final warning here. And as a preemptive note, I advise everybody else to avoid comparing Buddah to Christ "to prove he too did stupid things". This thread must now get back to topic - if Buddah is real or not - and no more commentary on wheter he - or any other religious leader - is or isn't stupid will be tolerated.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Emperor_Myth]

If Budhha wasn't real that Budhhism wouldn't be a religon.