Christianity And Buddhism Are The Same Sickness

[sleepyjohn]

If what Buddha taught is factual then Buddhism would be a science.

That would be the bit which requires investigation.

Letting go of, or extinguishing the "self" or "ego" does require an element of faith.

....if you're talkng about the Buddhist Path in general....rather different definition of faith surely? Not any sort of faith involving an imaginary skybeing or going against the whole natural order (which lest it be said I am closed minded is I'd say an option......just to me an insufficiently justified one)?

As for letting go of the "self" that merely requires seeing through a conceptual construction.....

Edited February 22, 2009 by sleepyjohn

[sleepyjohn]

Can anyone prove to me that the writings of the Dharma are accurate and are indeed what the Buddha taught?

The Dhamma is hugely embellished in many areas as happens with these things when they're made "holy". Often not usefully. There are also IMO areas where the teachings as they are passed down could have their emphases (eg vis-a-vis Dukkha) rebalanced for the better.

There are core teachings however which require no test of accuracy further than their self-standing intelligence and usefulness.

John

Edited February 22, 2009 by sleepyjohn

[jamesc2000]

I think there's even more faith involved.

For example...can anyone prove to me that Buddha existed? Can anyone prove to me that the writings of the Dharma are accurate and are indeed what the Buddha taught?

Nobody can prove anything to you.

And thats the beauty of Buddhism, no true Buddhist wants to.

Unlike some Christians that want to save your soul!

You believe want you want to, no one here will try to make you believe anything.

You are free to believe what you like. Great isn't it!

[jamesc2000]

Can anyone prove to me that the writings of the Dharma are accurate and are indeed what the Buddha taught?

The Dhamma is hugely embellished in many areas as happens with these things when they're made "holy". Often not usefully. There are also IMO areas where the teachings as they are passed down could have their emphases (eg vis-a-vis Dukkha) rebalanced for the better.

There are core teachings however which require no test of accuracy further than their self-standing intelligence and usefulness.

John

I don't know anything about Buddhism and I wouldn't know the Dhamma if it came up and bit me on the arse.

But if you think its "hugely embellished" and not useful then just throw it away.

Isn't that the beauty of Buddhism, you are free to believe anything you like and nothing is "holy" or "Sacred".

Feel free to flush down the toilet any Buddhist book you don't like and no true Buddhist will ever get offended by this.

Plumbers might be happy though, they wouldn't mind the extra business!

[rockyysdt]

....if you're talkng about the Buddhist Path in general....rather different definition of faith surely? Not any sort of faith involving an imaginary skybeing or going against the whole natural order (which lest it be said I am closed minded is I'd say an option......just to me an insufficiently justified one)?

Non the less, until proven, you can't choose this path without an element of faith, don't you think?

As for letting go of the "self" that merely requires seeing through a conceptual construction.....

I travel with an open mind. The Buddha did teach not to follow blindly but to seek the answer through personal experience.

I guess, until we experience for ourselves, enlightenment or nibbana (unconditioned and infinite state) ,can also be viewed as a conceptual construction.

[jamesc2000]

Upon asking a born again Christian, "Which religion do you follow", he replied, "I don't follow a religion, I follow the truth".

That's a very healthy attitude!

So if he found out that Christianity and the truth is not compatible he could throw away Christianity and follow the truth!

If that happened he would call himself unborn again?

(NB I am not saying Christianity is not true!)

[rockyysdt]

That's a very healthy attitude!

What I learned from his reply was that, whatever one believes in, to them, that is the truth.

Also belief can be strong and quite often get in the way of the truth.

Some faiths appear more easily disprovable than others, but none have been empirically proven.

Edited February 22, 2009 by rockyysdt

[phetaroi]

And thats the beauty of Buddhism, no true Buddhist wants to...

You believe want you want to, no one here will try to make you believe anything.

You are free to believe what you like. Great isn't it!

Yes it is great. In fact, although I no longer have the book or remember the title, the first book about Buddhism that I picked up to read had a preface that said (paraphrased), "as you read this book you are not required to accept or reject its content. Test all that it says with your logic. Incorporate into your daily life what you find to be logical. Set the rest aside." That was a liberating way to begin any reading!

But I think you have contradicted yourself. First you say, "no true Buddhist wants to," and then you say, "You are free to believe what you like." I think it gets into very dangerous territory when you begin to judge what a "true Buddhist" is.

[jamesc2000]

What I learned from his reply was that, whatever one believes in, to them, that is the truth.

Also belief can be strong and quite often get in the way of the truth.

Some faiths appear more easily disprovable than others, but none have been empirically proven.

Thats no good then!

Its sad that people use "faith" and "beliefs" to lead other people away from the truth.

For what? Power, wealth, prestige. Nothing like ego and vanity to take people away from freedom.

[rockyysdt]

Its sad that people use "faith" and "beliefs" to lead other people away from the truth.

For what? Power, wealth, prestige. Nothing like ego and vanity to take people away from freedom.

All these desires play a part in many.

For others it's because they have a compelling urge to share something they think is profound truth.

That's partly why I don't totally understand the Buddhist trait of passively sharing the dhamma.

Naturally if the truth being shared is not real then sharing is negative, but if it's infinitely profound, why wouldn't you want to share it?

[phetaroi]

For others it's because they have a compelling urge to share something they think is profound truth.

That's partly why I don't totally understand the Buddhist trait of passively sharing the dhamma.

Naturally if the truth being shared is not real then sharing is negative, but if it's infinitely profound, why wouldn't you want to share it?

My impression is that the key is the other person has to be seeking "the truth".

For example, because so many friends see my travels to Thailand as being exotic, they want to know more. As I show them photos I treat it all sort of matter-of-factly and historically. Some begin to ask follow-up questions about temples, and so I will answer the questions. A few will want to discuss Buddhism, so for them, I do. A couple have asked me to take them to a Thai temple here in the States, so I have.

In other words, the passivity is in me discussing Buddhism only to the level that someone asks me to discuss it.

That is very different, I think, than those who knock on my door to proselytize Mormonism or some other Western religion.

[IMA_FARANG]

Perhaps I'm a little off topic here but let me comment on a couple of points made in some of the posts here.

1. I was born and raised, and baptised, as a Christian Protestant. For my personal reasons maybe, I found Christianity to be to smug, self-centered, and even intolerant. Not that all Christians are like that, however.

2. I drifted around studying other religions, and even beliefs that denied religion as a reality. After 60 years I have basically settled on a Buddhist perspective.

3. For those of you who think that Buddhisim is a self-centered philosophy, you might want to do more study of Buddhisim. I would say realization of the unimportance of self and the ego is one of the main tenets of Buddhisim.

4. For those who thought that the "unquestioning acceptance of Dogma" is a part of Buddhisim, all I can say is you have it backwards. Just go on to the Buddhist sangha

internet site www.e-sangha.com and you will see the diversity of views of what is "really Buddhisim". You will find a lot of opinions and differences of opinions there. And while I do not wish to slight my Thai Buddhist friends, the "flavor" of Buddhisim in Thailand is not the only taste you find in Buddhisim around the world.

5. I prefer to stay out of any arguements about whether "religion" is right or wrong. I just live my life as I feel it should be, and let the universe take care of itself. I think it will, with or without my help.

Now....Back to Topic.

Edited February 23, 2009 by IMA_FARANG

[Beacher]

I wake up everyday and say, "Thank God I'm an atheist."

Edited February 23, 2009 by Beacher