Was the Buddah real?

[Rambuchan]

The Buddha was a real person. I don't know how he can be considered selfish when he gave up the easy riches and luxury of being born in to royalty / nobility to pursue enlightenment. Sure it can be seen as selfish to go off and seek one's own enlightenment but there was a two fold altruistic purpose for doing so.

a) In seeking enlightenment you place yourself in a position to really go about your life - with others - in a more meaningful and positive way for everyone. A world filled with people who've spent a little time dwelling on their own meaning and purpose in the universe, and how to relate to others within that context, would most likely be a far better place to live in than with those who had not been so 'selfish'.

b) He gave his life to pursue greater wisedom for all mankind. We don't begrudge research scientists who spend months locked in labs searching for the cure for cancer as being selfish. The Buddha was simply extending this field of human understanding and he gave up a great deal to do so. Moreover it was a downright success, his findings gave to the world some wisdom that has really withstood the test of time, unlike a great deal of other religious teachings.

He would have had a great many things to teach us about greed, selfishness and materialism had he been alive today.

OT - Krishna is a god who appeared/s to man in many forms, visiting the earth in various avatars (earthly bodies). The most famous of his being as 'Krishna wooing Radha' and the Gopi (cow herder) girls. He is seen as a blue skinned, flute playing Casanova, who kept popping up by the river side as they were bathing in that avatar. But not real.

 

[punkbass2000]

Or he died and came back to life. Just a thought.

Yeah, that sounds likely.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I really guess it is a matter of faith, I suppose he is the Jesus of Buddhism.

 

[Elrohir]

Right. Which means, precisely, that we must prefer salvation or enlightenment to our worldly cares and responsibility. If a Christian needed to choose, he would have to leave his family behind just like Buddha did. Jesus demands no less.

That is true, Christians are supposed to choose salvation over earthly ties. A good point Taliesin.

You miss the point. He could have left the world by starving to death and never would have returned to it. He could have experienced parinirvana right then and there. Instead, he put it off by forty years in order to show others the Noble Path (and definitely not to collect their worship).

How do you know? According to legend he also had skin of gold and blue eyes. For all you know Buddah came back from 'enlightenment' because he enjoyed all the attention.

You would learn to care only about your true Self, which is none other than God. This is the same Self that inhabits your fellow men, and to love them or to love God is one and the same.

Out of love Buddha provides a path for you to salvation. If you think you can be happy without accepting his invitation to follow him, then go ahead and reject him. It's your soul to do with as you please.

So I am God, but so is everyone else? Does this not mean I'm also Bill Gates? Sweet, I'm going to file a suit against Bill Gates for $10 billion - he's not sharing with himself.

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.

That's really what you said. Here, I'll show you using simple logical statements:

If my soul = God
And
And other's souls = God
Then
my soul = everyone else's soul
And therefore
My soul being lost = everyone's soul being lost

Hah, as much as I like the idea of having ultimate power over every human being in history and the future, this is the logical path of your statements.

Clearly you haven't heard of a continent called Asia if you think Buddhism is inconsequential. No, his teachings have not brought peace to Earth. Have any teachings done so? Have Jesus'? Perhaps the problem is that people do not follow Buddha with enough faith and resolve.

I didn't say it was inconsequential, merely that it was not "benefit[ing] all mankind".

Yeah, that sounds likely.

Is that any less likely than the entire universe just coming into being randomly? Or my having the power to damn every human beings soul on how I make my decision? No, indeed, when you consider that God created the universe and clearly has such power it doesn't seem unlikely at all.

 

[FredLC]

He abandoned his family to pursue 'enlightenment' for himself[/I. The main word there is 'himself', I even italicized it for you. Questioning the nature of the universe and trying to better yourself are good goals, but not at the expense of those who depend upon you. Bettering yourself is good, but you still have responsabilities.

Buddah spent his whole life focused on himself. He was selfish.

Hmmm... wasn't Siddarta a prince which spent all his time between three luxurious palaces of the royal family before he went to seek for his enlightment? I mean, it's not like he has abandoned a wife and half a dozen kids to starvation...

 

[FredLC]

Moderator Action: Elrohir, please state your opinions and your disagreement from Buddha without bashing Buddism, which is as important to it's followers as Christianity is to you. I won't have any religion of any kind being disrespected under my watch. Warned.

 

[aneeshm]

Judging by the dialogue that I've seen between Elrohir and the rest , it seems that Elrohir is determined not to even acknowledge the existence of the possibility of any person other than the Christ being enlightened . There is no point talking to him - he doesn't want to actually talk , he just wants to defend the Christ . For him , it's a debate of "us vs. them" , "us" being followers of his subsect of the Christain Church , and "them" being everyone else .

Are you content , defender of the faith ?

 

[Birdjaguar]

To your earlier post: Yes I am woefully biased, probably as much as you.

How do you know? According to legend he also had skin of gold and blue eyes. For all you know Buddah came back from 'enlightenment' because he enjoyed all the attention.

All of the old religions rely on texts of indeterminent reliability. We all pick and choose what to accept or reject or reinterpret. You shouldn't belittle buddhists for acting like christians in these matters.

So I am God, but so is everyone else? Does this not mean I'm also Bill Gates? 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.

I will try to do this in a few sentences. In Buddhism there is one unchanging Reality or Truth. For this discussion I will call it god. All of creation has the appearance of distinct entities and separation ruled by desire of every kind. Creation is not real. It is an illusion we preceive as real. Your individual soul endures millions and millions of lifetimes within creation bound by desire and the suffering it causes. Buddhism provides a path that, if followed, will change your individual experience of creation and enable you to see Reality as it really is: a single unchanging unified existence. Creation is understood for what it is: an illusion.

There is no damning of souls. Through enlightenment you experience the unity of existence. It is the only true Reality. The buddha in his compassion opened the door to Truth for all to enter. Your decision to not pursue such a path does not change Reality or Truth, it just binds your "restricted" consciousness tighter to the suffering of creation. If we were wise, we would experience Truth and the bliss of enlightenment would take over. Naturally the path is not easy. To live in the world without regard for the outcome of our actions, to care and not to want, those are not easy tasks.

That's really what you said. Here, I'll show you using simple logical statements:

If my soul = God
And
And other's souls = God
Then
my soul = everyone else's soul
And therefore
My soul being lost = everyone's soul being lost

Hah, as much as I like the idea of having ultimate power over every human being in history and the future, this is the logical path of your statements.

The error of your logic is that in Buddhism, no souls are lost, separation is an illusion; god is waiting for you to discover that you and he are one.

when all things shall be subdued unto him [Christ], then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all

Sounds Buddhist to me.

 

[punkbass2000]

Is that any less likely than the entire universe just coming into being randomly? Or my having the power to damn every human beings soul on how I make my decision? No, indeed, when you consider that God created the universe and clearly has such power it doesn't seem unlikely at all.

It would seem your conclusion is your premise.

 

[Elrohir]

Judging by the dialogue that I've seen between Elrohir and the rest , it seems that Elrohir is determined not to even acknowledge the existence of the possibility of any person other than the Christ being enlightened . There is no point talking to him - he doesn't want to actually talk , he just wants to defend the Christ . For him , it's a debate of "us vs. them" , "us" being followers of his subsect of the Christain Church , and "them" being everyone else .

Are you content , defender of the faith ?

I think you're putting words into my mouth. Could you not do that?

I think Christianity is the correct path, and the only correct path, yes. So what? I imagine if you asked athiests if athiesm was the way to go then 99% of them would give you the same exact answer that I did just with athiesm rather than Christianity. It's human nature to believe that you are correct, and you've just shown it by declaring that you know how I see this debate and the world. For that, I thank you, it's always nice to see my ideas verified, even if it's by the pandering of athiests.

To your earlier post: Yes I am woefully biased, probably as much as you.

I'm glad we're all honest about it then.

All of the old religions rely on texts of indeterminent reliability. We all pick and choose what to accept or reject or reinterpret. You shouldn't belittle buddhists for acting like christians in these matters.

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.

The error of your logic is that in Buddhism, no souls are lost, separation is an illusion; god is waiting for you to discover that you and he are one.

As this is basically what you said in the two larger paragraphs earlier in your post, I'll just quote this and respond to it.

No offense, but you do understand what you just said? That was wrong in oh so many logical ways.

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.

And now we've worked ourselves into a conundrum. How can God not be aware of who he is? If he's so impotent as to not know his own reality, how can he truly be called God at all?

Sounds Buddhist to me.

May be in all, not may be all. There is a significant difference.

 

[aneeshm]

Judging by the dialogue that I've seen between Elrohir and the rest , it seems that Elrohir is determined not to even acknowledge the existence of the possibility of any person other than the Christ being enlightened . There is no point talking to him - he doesn't want to actually talk , he just wants to defend the Christ . For him , it's a debate of "us vs. them" , "us" being followers of his subsect of the Christain Church , and "them" being everyone else .

Are you content , defender of the faith ?

I think you're putting words into my mouth. Could you not do that?

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 .

I think Christianity is the correct path, and the only correct path, yes. So what? I imagine if you asked athiests if athiesm was the way to go then 99% of them would give you the same exact answer that I did just with athiesm rather than Christianity.

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 ) .

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 .

Simply put , you won't feel that warm and fuzzy about the Christ any longer if there wore other Christs , that is why ( I think ) you won't accept the existence ( or enlightenment ) of another Christ-like figure .

It's human nature to believe that you are correct, and you've just shown it by declaring that you know how I see this debate and the world. For that, I thank you, it's always nice to see my ideas verified, even if it's by the pandering of athiests.

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 ?

 

[Uiler]

Because it's not really God, at least not the Christian way of thinking of God which is as a powerful sentient being. The "unity" is just the universe, creation, nature or whatever you want to call it.

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.

And now we've worked ourselves into a conundrum. How can God not be aware of who he is? If he's so impotent as to not know his own reality, how can he truly be called God at all?



May be in all, not may be all. There is a significant difference.

 

[Rambuchan]

:shakehead

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!

 

[Markus6]

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 .

I don't want to get tangled up in anything, or be seen to be taking sides, but I'd just thought I'd address this point. Christians don't see Jesus as an enlightened man. They see him as a divine man. The Buddha had to achieve enlightenment. Jesus was born divine. Christians think Jesus lived a perfect (sinless) life and don't believe in an enlightened state of existence that allows one to be perfect. Therefore they believe Jesus was the Son of God. They don't believe anyone else was equal to him. In fact Jesus declared himself to be the only 'Christ-like figure' when he said "No one comes to the Father except through me." Gnostic Christians, however, see Jesus as an enlightened man, and their beliefs are very similar to Buddhism.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Incidentally, I always found "enlightened" in the buddhist sense a curious concept.

 

[Rambuchan]

How so TLC?

 

[The Last Conformist]

How so TLC?

Partly because of its binary nature, partly from its mystic nature, but most of all because of the underlaying notion that understanding alone can affect your destination.

 

[Rambuchan]

Buddhism is complex, despite its claims to Zen simplicity. A number of reasons, in answer to TLC.

Binary nature: You might mean two things here

a) Buddhism has been split up historically, and for certain parties' political gain. These are most generally described as the Greater and Lesser Cycles (aka Vehicles or Wheels) and have introduced all kinds of Gods, Demi-Gods and God knows what else, into the mix.

FYI: There is The Hinayana, which is what the Buddha himself taught. This is the Pure Buddhism if you like. Then there is the Greater Cycle / Vehicle / Wheel, known as The Mahayana (Maha = great, Yana = Cycle/Teaching; as in Mahathma Gandhi = Gandhi 'the Great Soul')

More: http://www.nalandabodhi.org/three_yanas.html

b) This may not be the binary nature you speak of though. In which case you probably mean good and bad. But then the 'enlightenment' is much the same as a Christian 'finding God'.

Mysticism & Enlightenment: Christian monks such as Simon the Styllite, Sufi monks such as Rumi, Whirling Dervishes, Hindu Saddhus, Buddhist Monks - they all seek a mystical path to a) detach themselves from the material world / illusion of the world around us / desire / things of the flesh etc. Leading to b) Enlightenment! Tada!

Afaik, all these religions' mystic men have existed as an expression of mankind's universal need to 'freak out' for want of a better word . But you see what I mean hopefully.

Understanding alone affecting Destination: The Buddhist enlightenment is very much like a Christian's understanding of 'finding God' or 'living with Jesus'. It's that quiet understanding that you have 'tuned in'.

My 2 gpt per turn worth.

 

[Narz]

Partly because of its binary nature, partly from its mystic nature, but most of all because of the underlaying notion that understanding alone can affect your destination.

Not sure I understand what you're saying.

Of course understanding will affect your destination. Once you realize where you want to go it is much easier to get there. If you are simply wandering, lost and confused, it is unlikely you will get there.

It seems, that is what meditation is all about. The Buddists meditate to connect with their true highest intentions and Christians meditate and wait for "God" to speak to them. Really, I do not see the rift. If God speaks to you inside your head, obviously God is part of you. Even the Christians count the Holy Spirit as one of their three Gods. Buddism simply makes no distinction between "God" and "not God" to the chigrin of many Christians who believe in duality, good and evil, divine and profane, Yahweh and Satan.

I like Buddah's approach because he didn't go around condemning people (money lenders and fig trees and such) and demanding worship and obedience but simply gave people a process (meditation, 8-fold path, etc.) to follow if they wanted to have a greater, more deep, experience of reality.

Just my two cents.

 

[The Last Conformist]

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

Likening Buddhist mysticism to highly curious Christian mysticism does not make it seem any less curious.

In Christianity, your postmortem destination is determined by a judge, which, one you accept the notion of an postmortem destination at all, is mundane as mud. In Buddhism, your understanding does the determination. Is there some kind of filter or what?

@Narz: I was refering to enlightment controling whether you reach nirvana or are reincarnated after death.