Why Are You (Or Conversely, Why Are You Not) A Buddhist?

[nidieunimaitre]

QUOTE:

"I was brought up as a Catholic, but found it difficult to believe what i was told to.

I like Buddhism because it follows natural laws and is above all logical."

First of all, congratulations for not falling for the holy virgin etc stuff.

But can you explain how to combine "logical" with reincarnation?

You accept the theories of Darwin, don't you? Did reincarnation evolve slowly then?

[qdinthailand]

Actually,I never understood why some people feel the need to put a lable on them self (and others)! We are what we are,with or without a stamp on the forehead.To me,religions are rubbish.As I do not regard Buddhism as a religion but more like a philosophy, I can symphatise with most of it`s "teachings".But that is as far as it goes...By the way,I have no problem with "religious"people of any sort,as long as they not see as their mission to kill others or act as if they are the creem of the earth.

And recently within the United States, Islam was referred to as a philosophy, not a religion (Bill O'Reilly I believe, on the Fox Nutwork).

Also someone else referred to Christianity not as a religion, but as a philosophy.

It seems that if you don't agree with another religion, you label it a philosophy - or deny it is a religion, or some such nonsense.

So why do so many people 'religiously' adhere to certain beliefs? and not embrace the basic common principals of all religions/philosophies?

[Fookhaht]

Actually,I never understood why some people feel the need to put a lable on them self (and others)! We are what we are,with or without a stamp on the forehead.To me,religions are rubbish.As I do not regard Buddhism as a religion but more like a philosophy, I can symphatise with most of it`s "teachings".But that is as far as it goes...By the way,I have no problem with "religious"people of any sort,as long as they not see as their mission to kill others or act as if they are the creem of the earth.

And recently within the United States, Islam was referred to as a philosophy, not a religion (Bill O'Reilly I believe, on the Fox Nutwork).

Also someone else referred to Christianity not as a religion, but as a philosophy.

It seems that if you don't agree with another religion, you label it a philosophy - or deny it is a religion, or some such nonsense.

So why do so many people 'religiously' adhere to certain beliefs? and not embrace the basic common principals of all religions/philosophies?

Did you just get off the boat? Even the Thais admit that Thai Buddhism is a philosophy rather than a religion Religion implies worship of deity/deities. Thai Buddhism is atheistic and anti-supernatural--but then there's all that reincarnation stuff.

[Bosse137]

First,I have to admit,that I am not a person,who has studied Buddhism in detail,so I might be wrong.But my take on reincarnation is,that we are never born and thus will never die,that everything is constantly changeing.It is difficult to understand this logically,but intuativt,it is possible.At least for me. I see it like,for instance,the cirkel of water;from a raindrop,falling into the see,becoming a part of the see.It is still a drop,but not.Then it evapourates into the air,becomes a drop,but not exactly the same drop.Finally,it falls again as a drop. My point is,that we should not think of reincarnation as something "personal",just as a phenomen of how everything goes round.As I said,just my view,others can see it differently.

[Jawnie]

I said:

"A religion / philosophy that does not address the gap between rich and poor, perpetuates the gap."

"First comes a full stomach, then comes ethics"

QUOTE:

This is not how Buddhism is oriented. Perhaps this is what the poster thinks Buddhism should be, but it isn't.

Terribul misunderstanding!

I do not think that buddhism should be that way.

I am not telling buddhist what their religion / philosophy should be.

I was only answering the OP, who asked why are you a buddhist (or not).

This is why I am not a buddhist: the absence of a social dimension.

And by the way:

Most buddhists outside this forum do not practice buddhist principles. That does not mean buddhist principles are therefore wrong.

I never said that.

Same goes for believers in real communism, real free market, etc.

I reject buddhism NOT because of the behaviour of most of its followers, I reject buddhism because of NO social relevance.

The 'goal' of Buddhism is the final and complete end to suffering of beings. The goal of Buddhism is not the elimination of poverty. However, they are not mutually exclusive which seems to be the position you've taken.

You don't see the social relevance of ending suffering of beings?

Edited March 9, 2013 by Jawnie

[Jawnie]

I was brought up as a Catholic, but found it difficult to believe what i was told to. Once away from home I bumped into Buddhism and felt immediately that it was right for me. I like Buddhism because it follows natural laws and is above all logical. We are not expected to believe anything at all. If we fail to recognise the truth when shown it, that is our own fault, not the fault of the truth. If we fail to practice what is of benefit to ourself and others then we just stay in the cycle of life and death, until we get it right and escape. We have got it wrong so far, which is why we are still here.

After many years now since meeting Buddhism I have unshakeable conviction that it is the truth.

In Buddhism, who or what is the arbitrer of truth?

For the individual practitioner, the teacher is the final arbiter.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Jawnie

[rockyysdt]

This thread and its posts is a perfect example of how Human Beings think and behave.

We all come to the table with beliefs/habits/conditioning which will shape the way we conduct ourselves and communicate in our lives.

You will notice that all participants have already made up their minds and seek argument/evidence/logic to facilitate their case/position.

You will also notice that not many (none) have been swayed by anything put forward.

Why is each of us so sure of our beliefs?

Where did we get these beliefs in the first place?

Is it possible that some of our beliefs/habits are not so valid?

Could our beliefs have differed had we been raised in a different environment with different carers?

If our beliefs/conditioning can vary so much due to our early environment, what makes us so sure ours are better than anothers?

When it comes to religion, I can see great aversion.

The mind closes once the word is mentioned.

When you analyze religion, the one thing in common is that there is a metaphysical component which cannot be proved.

There is also an element of belief, as much of the metaphysical (if real) cannot be experienced until there is death.

To me Buddhism as the Buddha taught is not a religion but a practice.

A practice which can yield benefits on many levels whilst one is alive.

One can practice Buddhism without belief in re birth (reincarnation), many lives, relms (deva, animal & hell), and Kharma (ledger of action).

The Buddha wouldn't reveal what Awakening was other than what it wasn't.

He indicated it was living in the absence of greed, aversion & delusion.

If you practice the eightfold path, with an open mind, free of attachment to cosmic interpretations, only that which is real will be revealed.

The eight fold path is really just three aspects of action:

Wisdom: Right View

Right intention.

Ethical Conduct: Right speech.

Right Action.

Right livelihood.

Concentration: Right Effort

Right Concentration.

Right Mindfulness.

There is nothing in this practice which has anything to do with the metaphysical or religion.

It is purely and simply a practice, just like going to the gym.

Those who have an attachment to religious belief, may beileve in all sorts of things, but the reality is that there is only one way to find out what actually is.

That is by practicing the eightfold path.

If you examine each aspect of the eightfold path, you will see that it is logical and multi layered.

On a superficial level mindfulness and concentration, allows you to have the poise and speed to be able to see your bad habits and beliefs as they unfold.

To give you the poise to catch these before you act on them, giving you a degree of control over your life and an ability to alter your behavior.

If you practice awareness/concentration to deeper levels many real experiences might await you.

More importantly, practicing the eightfold path allows you to begin to really live in the present moment.

We can only live in the present.

Many fear the future and lament the past.

Their controlling minds force them to dwell everywhere but in the present moment.

One can only experience life when in the present.

Of course one must plan for the future and learn from the past, but to be forced in these relms constantly is to miss out on your life.

Taking care of the future is simple.

Simply make a diary note: "I will set a time for this issue. It will include reviewing, planning, networking, action. Until then I will remove it from my mind and return to the present".

A colleague had to identify her husbands body after he had died in an accident.

She is locked in a state where she constantly relives these thoughts.

Over and over again in her mind.

She relives this event dozens of times a day, with the only relief, valium and mogadon, which unleash their own cruel symptoms.

Mindfulness/concentration is the only practice I am aware of which allows one to face what happened, grieve, and then move on.

To capture the thought when it begins before it has a chance to set off its corresponding feelings.

Feelings which are as powerful as the original event.

"I have faced this reality. I love my husband dearly. I have felt the hurt and the pain many times. It is time for me to continue with my life. To live my life without reliving the past events with feelings as painful as the actual event. This does not mean I love my husband any less. He remains in my heart."

There is only one technique which main stream psychologists now teach.

The technique is:

Concentration: Right Effort

Right Concentration.

Right Mindfulness.

We have before us a set exercices which, if practiced, allow us to live in the present.

To live in the present, without prejudice, bias, fear, hatred, indifference.

A way of engaging in life with compassion, in the present moment free of our conditioning.

To walk on this earth free from greed, aversion and delusion.

Sure some will believe in re birth, many lives, kharma, & relms both demonic and devine, but until experienced these are beliefs.

The eightfold path, is a real practice.

Just like exercising ones body, it requires effort.

It is easy to fall for the religious trap and relegate Buddhism to the scrap heap.

On the other hand, with effort, mindfulness/concentration can only allow you to be really aware.

Without awareness there is no life.

Without awareness one simply goes through the motions until one runs out of time.

The motions of habit/belief.

The motions which form our unique prisons.

There are many who walk on this earth.

They place labels on themselves.

"I am a Buddhist"

In a free world anyone can call themselves what they wish.

Of course this has nothing to do with what the Buddha taught.

Edited March 9, 2013 by rockyysdt

[transam]

This thread and its posts is a perfect example of how Human Beings think and behave.

We all come to the table with beliefs/habits/conditioning which will shape the way we conduct ourselves and communicate in our lives.

You will notice that all participants have already made up their minds and seek argument/evidence/logic to facilitate their case/position.

You will also notice that not many (none) have been swayed by anything put forward.

Why is each of us so sure of our beliefs?

Where did we get these beliefs in the first place?

Is it possible that some of our beliefs/habits are not so valid?

Could our beliefs have differed had we been raised in a different environment with different carers?

If our beliefs/conditioning can vary so much due to our early environment, what makes us so sure ours are better than anothers?

When it comes to religion, I can see great aversion.

The mind closes once the word is mentioned.

When you analyze religion, the one thing in common is that there is a metaphysical component which cannot be proved.

There is also an element of belief, as much of the metaphysical (if real) cannot be experienced until there is death.

To me Buddhism as the Buddha taught is not a religion but a practice.

A practice which can yield benefits on many levels whilst one is alive.

One can practice Buddhism without belief in re birth (reincarnation), many lives, relms (deva, animal & hell), and Kharma (ledger of action).

The Buddha wouldn't reveal what Awakening was other than what it wasn't.

He indicated it was living in the absence of greed, aversion & delusion.

If you practice the eightfold path, with an open mind, free of attachment to cosmic interpretations, only that which is real will be revealed.

The eight fold path is really just three aspects of action:

Wisdom: Right View

Right intention.

Ethical Conduct: Right speech.

Right Action.

Right livelihood.

Concentration: Right Effort

Right Concentration.

Right Mindfulness.

There is nothing in this practice which has anything to do with the metaphysical or religion.

It is purely and simply a practice, just like going to the gym.

Those who have an attachment to religious belief, may beileve in all sorts of things, but the reality is that there is only one way to find out what actually is.

That is by practicing the eightfold path.

If you examine each aspect of the eightfold path, you will see that it is logical and multi layered.

On a superficial level mindfulness and concentration, allows you to have the poise and speed to be able to see your bad habits and beliefs as they unfold.

To give you the poise to catch these before you act on them, giving you a degree of control over your life and an ability to alter your behavior.

If you practice awareness/concentration to deeper levels many real experiences might await you.

More importantly, practicing the eightfold path allows you to begin to really live in the present moment.

We can only live in the present.

Many fear the future and lament the past.

Their controlling minds force them to dwell everywhere but in the present moment.

One can only experience life when in the present.

Of course one must plan for the future and learn from the past, but to be forced in these relms constantly is to miss out on your life.

Taking care of the future is simple.

Simply make a diary note: "I will set a time for this issue. It will include reviewing, planning, networking, action. Until then I will remove it from my mind and return to the present".

A colleague had to identify her husbands body after he had died in an accident.

She is locked in a state where she constantly relives these thoughts.

Over and over again in her mind.

She relives this event dozens of times a day, with the only relief, valium and mogadon, which unleash their own cruel symptoms.

Mindfulness/concentration is the only practice I am aware of which allows one to face what happened, grieve, and then move on.

To capture the thought when it begins before it has a chance to set off its corresponding feelings.

Feelings which are as powerful as the original event.

"I have faced this reality. I love my husband dearly. I have felt the hurt and the pain many times. It is time for me to continue with my life. To live my life without reliving the past events with feelings as painful as the actual event. This does not mean I love my husband any less. He remains in my heart."

There is only one technique which main stream psychologists now teach.

The technique is:

Concentration: Right Effort

Right Concentration.

Right Mindfulness.

We have before us a set exercices which, if practiced, allow us to live in the present.

To live in the present, without prejudice, bias, fear, hatred, indifference.

A way of engaging in life with compassion, in the present moment free of our conditioning.

To walk on this earth free from greed, aversion and delusion.

Sure some will believe in re birth, many lives, kharma, & relms both demonic and devine, but until experienced these are beliefs.

The eightfold path, is a real practice.

Just like exercising ones body, it requires effort.

It is easy to fall for the religious trap and relegate Buddhism to the scrap heap.

On the other hand, with effort, mindfulness/concentration can only allow you to be really aware.

Without awareness there is no life.

Without awareness one simply goes through the motions until one runs out of time.

The motions of habit/belief.

The motions which form our unique prisons.

There are many who walk on this earth.

They place labels on themselves.

"I am a Buddhist"

In a free world anyone can call themselves what they wish.

Of course this has nothing to do with what the Buddha taught.

One either wants to be ''controlled'' during your lifetime by something a bloke thought up or you don't, l don't. To many brain washing aspects attached.

[rockyysdt]

One either wants to be ''controlled'' during your lifetime by something a bloke thought up or you don't, l don't. To many brain washing aspects attached.

Precisely T.

One has already been brain washed.

This allows one to see brainwashing and to do something about it.

But then, that's why this path is so difficult.

Brainwashing stops one from thinking.

Edited March 9, 2013 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

I was brought up as a Catholic, but found it difficult to believe what i was told to. Once away from home I bumped into Buddhism and felt immediately that it was right for me. I like Buddhism because it follows natural laws and is above all logical. We are not expected to believe anything at all. If we fail to recognise the truth when shown it, that is our own fault, not the fault of the truth. If we fail to practice what is of benefit to ourself and others then we just stay in the cycle of life and death, until we get it right and escape. We have got it wrong so far, which is why we are still here.

After many years now since meeting Buddhism I have unshakeable conviction that it is the truth.

In Buddhism, who or what is the arbitrer of truth?

practice is what will show you what is the truth and what is not......practice being meditation....walking the walk not talking the talk. But the knowledge it will give you, the wisdom you attain, is only for you, the practicioner....wisdom is personal and has to be earned....you cannot pass it around. Those who cannot be bothered to practice will always refuse to believe that anyone else could have knowledge they don't....it is the hard way and therefore unpopular.

QUOTE:

"I was brought up as a Catholic, but found it difficult to believe what i was told to.

I like Buddhism because it follows natural laws and is above all logical."

First of all, congratulations for not falling for the holy virgin etc stuff.

But can you explain how to combine "logical" with reincarnation?

You accept the theories of Darwin, don't you? Did reincarnation evolve slowly then?

Buddhism teaches rebirth not reincarnation......not just a play on words....a real difference. Rebirth, renewal, a continual cycle of change is all around us in nature....and we are a part of it. A single accidental life and everything in the universe being random and accidental also is pointless and illogical.

Darwins theory (theory...that should tell you something...not fact) are partly correct and partly not.... man did not evolve from monkeys. Karma is the biggest and most important cause in the universe and it applies to all beings.

[transam]

I was brought up as a Catholic, but found it difficult to believe what i was told to. Once away from home I bumped into Buddhism and felt immediately that it was right for me. I like Buddhism because it follows natural laws and is above all logical. We are not expected to believe anything at all. If we fail to recognise the truth when shown it, that is our own fault, not the fault of the truth. If we fail to practice what is of benefit to ourself and others then we just stay in the cycle of life and death, until we get it right and escape. We have got it wrong so far, which is why we are still here.

After many years now since meeting Buddhism I have unshakeable conviction that it is the truth.

In Buddhism, who or what is the arbitrer of truth?

practice is what will show you what is the truth and what is not......practice being meditation....walking the walk not talking the talk. But the knowledge it will give you, the wisdom you attain, is only for you, the practicioner....wisdom is personal and has to be earned....you cannot pass it around. Those who cannot be bothered to practice will always refuse to believe that anyone else could have knowledge they don't....it is the hard way and therefore unpopular.

>QUOTE:

"I was brought up as a Catholic, but found it difficult to believe what i was told to.

I like Buddhism because it follows natural laws and is above all logical."

First of all, congratulations for not falling for the holy virgin etc stuff.

But can you explain how to combine "logical" with reincarnation?

You accept the theories of Darwin, don't you? Did reincarnation evolve slowly then?

Buddhism teaches rebirth not reincarnation......not just a play on words....a real difference. Rebirth, renewal, a continual cycle of change is all around us in nature....and we are a part of it. A single accidental life and everything in the universe being random and accidental also is pointless and illogical.

Darwins theory (theory...that should tell you something...not fact) are partly correct and partly not.... man did not evolve from monkeys. Karma is the biggest and most important cause in the universe and it applies to all beings.

Rebirth, gawd, where are we going to put all the zillions of men women children chickens cows fish, you name it that we have killed and are coming back as something. Don't tell me, ANTS.

[fabianfred]

''Rebirth, gawd, where are we going to put all the zillions of men women children chickens cows fish, you name it that we have killed and are coming back as something. Don't tell me, ANTS.''

Coming back to either the human or animal realms are only two of the thirty-one possible realms. Above the Human realm are many heaven realms and below are the four realms of misery and suffering.....Animal, Peta (hungry ghost), Asura (demons), Hells. The Buddha said that human rebirth is very rare and precious and difficult to attain to... http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/621916-our-incredibly-fortunate-rebirth/

Edited March 9, 2013 by fabianfred

[Fookhaht]

''Rebirth, gawd, where are we going to put all the zillions of men women children chickens cows fish, you name it that we have killed and are coming back as something. Don't tell me, ANTS.''

Coming back to either the human or animal realms are only two of the thirty-one possible realms. Above the Human realm are many heaven realms and below are the four realms of misery and suffering.....Animal, Peta (hungry ghost), Asura (demons), Hells. The Buddha said that human rebirth is very rare and precious and difficult to attain to... http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/621916-our-incredibly-fortunate-rebirth/

I must admit that "philosophy" and "demons, ghosts, heaven" in one sentence are strange bedfellows indeed. Doesn't really fit the classic definition of a philosophy which finds its foundation in logic and traditionally the non-supernatural.

On the other hand an 'ism" that denies the existence of a god or God because it's "too supernatural" is strange logic for adherents who purport to believe in the demons, ghosts, and heaven as well. My Buddhist friends counteract arguments about a god/God with their logic about evolution--stressing the logical rationale of it all. Yet the other supernatural teachings seem to counteract against this vein of thought. Seems a bit schizophrenic to an outsider.

Please educate us.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Fookhaht

[qdinthailand]

Actually,I never understood why some people feel the need to put a lable on them self (and others)! We are what we are,with or without a stamp on the forehead.To me,religions are rubbish.As I do not regard Buddhism as a religion but more like a philosophy, I can symphatise with most of it`s "teachings".But that is as far as it goes...By the way,I have no problem with "religious"people of any sort,as long as they not see as their mission to kill others or act as if they are the creem of the earth.

And recently within the United States, Islam was referred to as a philosophy, not a religion (Bill O'Reilly I believe, on the Fox Nutwork).

Also someone else referred to Christianity not as a religion, but as a philosophy.

It seems that if you don't agree with another religion, you label it a philosophy - or deny it is a religion, or some such nonsense.

So why do so many people 'religiously' adhere to certain beliefs? and not embrace the basic common principals of all religions/philosophies?

Did you just get off the boat? Even the Thais admit that Thai Buddhism is a philosophy rather than a religion Religion implies worship of deity/deities. Thai Buddhism is atheistic and anti-supernatural--but then there's all that reincarnation stuff.

Most religious studies, most classification systems, consider Buddhism a religion, regardless of what Thais think about it.

Gosh - lets have a never-ending philosophical debate about what constitutes a religion. I'm sure we can come to a conclusion, even though notable philosophers have been debating this forever and haven't been able to reach full agreement on this.

[CWMcMurray]

Accident of birth...

That answer covers about 95% of the world's population

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

[rockyysdt]

'I must admit that "philosophy" and "demons, ghosts, heaven" in one sentence are strange bedfellows indeed. Doesn't really fit the classic definition of a philosophy which finds its foundation in logic and traditionally the non-supernatural.

On the other hand an 'ism" that denies the existence of a god or God because it's "too supernatural" is strange logic for adherents who purport to believe in the demons, ghosts, and heaven as well. My Buddhist friends counteract arguments about a god/God with their logic about evolution--stressing the logical rationale of it all. Yet the other supernatural teachings seem to counteract against this vein of thought. Seems a bit schizophrenic to an outsider.

Please educate us.

The problem with the Buddhas teachings is that he is not he to speak for himself.

Much of what he taught was from word of mouth, and the written texts occurred many years later.

These as with other works might have been subject to embellishment and misinterpretation.

If you drop the metaphysical (demons gods etc) you are left with the Buddhas core teaching.

The Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold path which leads to Awakening.

The Buddha never revealed what Awakening is, other than to invite us to experience for ourselves.

In terms of "demons, ghosts, heaven", the Buddha taught, that if such things exist, if there are Gods (Devas were the term) they are also in Samsara.

Basically he was teaching people who were Brahmanists.

The highest place a erson could attain was to become pure enough to be reincarnated in the house of Brahman.

These people were born into such teaching, and it controlled everyones life.

Once born into a caste, all anyone could do was to live the lives to the best of their ability and pray for a positive re birth into a higher caste.

Anyone opposing such teaching could meet death.

The Buddha, living in such an environment had to tread wearliy.

If you openly taught againsst Brahmanism he could meet his own death.

He basically lampooned Brahmanism.

He taught that Awakening was the ultimate state of existence.

He also taught that the Devas (Gods), like us, also lived in Samsara.

That by practicing the Eightfold Path one could escape Samsara and become Enlightened.

By cleverly indicating that even Devas (Gods) were also in Samsara, he lampooned the Gods, whilst selling his teaching, that of Awakening.

This was a clever ploy.

It sheltered him from those who would kill anyone teaching against Brahman, whilst simultaneously teaching the path to Awakening.

Those who studied his teachings 500 years later interpreted his teachings literally.

They could not realise he had a sence of humour whilst at the same time taking the mickey, whilst adavancing his teaching of "Hey wake up".

[camerata]

Another post has been deleted. If you are just going to bad-mouth Thais, Thailand or Thai Buddhism, don't bother posting. From the forum guidelines:

"Posts whose primary purpose is to slag off Buddhism in general or Thai Buddhism in particular are not welcome."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/61517-a-welcome-message-posting-guidelines/

[Kananga]

I personally think all the major religions are like package tours for spiritualism.

Pick one off the shelf, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam. Each comes with its set of rules to easily follow, what to worship, what you can and cannot eat, wear, say or do. Very easy for the spiritually weak. Just buy the package that suita your lifestyle/acceptance from others and blindly follow till death.

The only enlightenment I believe in is the enlightenment that comes from realising all religions are false.

[weary]

I don't think any religion is easy to follow, if you endeavour to practice them right.

Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day?

Have you earnestly tried to carefully measure your speech and actions in each situation in order to cause a maximum of benefit and a minimum of harm?

Those who practice right are not weak people. They are stronger than most.

What you describe is hypocrisy. Actually, these days, I'd venture to say that in Western society, it is far more easy to just pay lip service to the current scientific theories and claim atheism than it is to stand up for a spiritual system or path.

In some places in the West, you are right, it would be easier to buy the Christianity package and just do that. But they are getting fewer as we speak - the mainstream Western society is not Christian.

That's not to say that there aren't problems with religion... just a reflection on what is easy, and what is not.

Edited March 11, 2013 by weary

[Bosse137]

Although I can agree to some of what you say,especially the five first sentences,I must object to your description of "The western society".I think,that most atheist people "stand up" for their view,as do the ones,that have a conviction! In contrast,where I live in Isaan,it seems that people don`t have a clue about what Buddha said ,but just do what others do...Hypocrasi could be the word,since from what I see,nobody actually cares about what is right or wrong,not even the police....

[nidieunimaitre]

QUOTE:

Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day?

Ah, but that is the new testament - the people who sometimes quote this , are the same people who have a much older holy book, the old testament, that speeks about "an eye for an eye".

Ah! Religions! If they had not killed millions of people, I would call them funny, in a Monty Pythonesque way.

Religions, greed, jealousy, violence, materialism,... are all childhood diseases of humanity.

Wait another 10.000 years, eventually we will grow up (or disappear).

[rockyysdt]

I personally think all the major religions are like package tours for spiritualism.

Pick one off the shelf, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam. Each comes with its set of rules to easily follow, what to worship, what you can and cannot eat, wear, say or do. Very easy for the spiritually weak. Just buy the package that suita your lifestyle/acceptance from others and blindly follow till death.

The only enlightenment I believe in is the enlightenment that comes from realising all religions are false.

What you say may or may not be correct.

What one can so though is that what you say is a very good example of 'Belief".

[Kananga]

I don't think any religion is easy to follow, if you endeavour to practice them right.

Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day?

Have you earnestly tried to carefully measure your speech and actions in each situation in order to cause a maximum of benefit and a minimum of harm?

Those who practice right are not weak people. They are stronger than most.

What you describe is hypocrisy. Actually, these days, I'd venture to say that in Western society, it is far more easy to just pay lip service to the current scientific theories and claim atheism than it is to stand up for a spiritual system or path.

In some places in the West, you are right, it would be easier to buy the Christianity package and just do that. But they are getting fewer as we speak - the mainstream Western society is not Christian.

That's not to say that there aren't problems with religion... just a reflection on what is easy, and what is not.

Quote = Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day?

Thats not religion. That's living by certain morals. You dont need to believe in a religion to do what you are suggesting.

Quote = Have you earnestly tried to carefully measure your speech and actions in each situation in order to cause a maximum of benefit and a minimum of harm?

Again, thats just self control and tactfulness. Nothing to do with religion.

Quote = Those who practice right are not weak people. They are stronger than most.

They're stupider than most. Believing in things that are not real just because other people told them its right. That's not strength, that's ignorance. Don't forget, we are all born athiests until people start lying to us. Those who believe the lies become religious. Those who don't, dont.

Quote = it is far more easy to just pay lip service to the current scientific theories and claim atheism than it is to stand up for a spiritual system or path.

Many atheists have a spiritual path. Dont confuse spiritualism with blind faith in religious doctrines.

[nidieunimaitre]

I personally think all the major religions are like package tours for spiritualism.

Pick one off the shelf, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam. Each comes with its set of rules to easily follow, what to worship, what you can and cannot eat, wear, say or do. Very easy for the spiritually weak. Just buy the package that suita your lifestyle/acceptance from others and blindly follow till death.

The only enlightenment I believe in is the enlightenment that comes from realising all religions are false.

What you say may or may not be correct.

What one can so though is that what you say is a very good example of 'Belief".

Not believing in ghosts is a belief itself???

No point in discussing any further.

[meadish_sweetball]

QUOTE:

Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day?

Ah, but that is the new testament - the people who sometimes quote this , are the same people who have a much older holy book, the old testament, that speeks about "an eye for an eye".

Ah! Religions! If they had not killed millions of people, I would call them funny, in a Monty Pythonesque way.

Religions, greed, jealousy, violence, materialism,... are all childhood diseases of humanity.

Wait another 10.000 years, eventually we will grow up (or disappear).

The way I see it, negative mental traits in human nature kills people - ego, greed, fear, anger, judgement. Religions are not a prerequisite for this to happen, and nothing, as far as I can see, tells us that absent religion, there would be no wars or no mass killings.

The worst mass slaughters so far in history were committed by people who were not religiously motivated - nazism, communism etc.

In terms of making good excuse for killing and hurting others, ideologies seem to be right up there with religions, if not worse. And the way I see it, just like religions, ideologies are not the root cause, rather, they are symptoms of the less appealing side of human nature when amplified by numbers.

[nidieunimaitre]

QUOTE:

Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day?

Ah, but that is the new testament - the people who sometimes quote this , are the same people who have a much older holy book, the old testament, that speeks about "an eye for an eye".

Ah! Religions! If they had not killed millions of people, I would call them funny, in a Monty Pythonesque way.

Religions, greed, jealousy, violence, materialism,... are all childhood diseases of humanity.

Wait another 10.000 years, eventually we will grow up (or disappear).

The way I see it, negative mental traits in human nature kills people - ego, greed, fear, anger, judgement. Religions are not a prerequisite for this to happen, and nothing, as far as I can see, tells us that absent religion, there would be no wars or no mass killings.

The worst mass slaughters so far in history were committed by people who were not religiously motivated - nazism, communism etc.

In terms of making good excuse for killing and hurting others, ideologies seem to be right up there with religions, if not worse. And the way I see it, just like religions, ideologies are not the root cause, rather, they are symptoms of the less appealing side of human nature when amplified by numbers.

I agree with you, ideologies are no better then religions.

One could even say that there is no difference between the two.

Religion and ideology have something in common: giving up your own free thinking, and replacing it by rules made up by some authority. Next step: us against them, true believers against heretics.

QUOTE

"The worst mass slaughters so far in history were committed by people who were not religiously motivated - nazism, communism etc.",

I would however mention the crusades, the progroms, the civil war in Sri Lanka, the shiite-sunnite conflict, the hindu-muslim conflict in former British India, the catholic-protestant wars in western europe,...

Edited March 11, 2013 by nidieunimaitre

[Jawnie]

I don't think any religion is easy to follow, if you endeavour to practice them right.

Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day?

Have you earnestly tried to carefully measure your speech and actions in each situation in order to cause a maximum of benefit and a minimum of harm?

Those who practice right are not weak people. They are stronger than most.

What you describe is hypocrisy. Actually, these days, I'd venture to say that in Western society, it is far more easy to just pay lip service to the current scientific theories and claim atheism than it is to stand up for a spiritual system or path.

In some places in the West, you are right, it would be easier to buy the Christianity package and just do that. But they are getting fewer as we speak - the mainstream Western society is not Christian.

That's not to say that there aren't problems with religion... just a reflection on what is easy, and what is not.

Quote = Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day?

Thats not religion. That's living by certain morals. You dont need to believe in a religion to do what you are suggesting.

Quote = Have you earnestly tried to carefully measure your speech and actions in each situation in order to cause a maximum of benefit and a minimum of harm?

Again, thats just self control and tactfulness. Nothing to do with religion.

Quote = Those who practice right are not weak people. They are stronger than most.

They're stupider than most. Believing in things that are not real just because other people told them its right. That's not strength, that's ignorance. Don't forget, we are all born athiests until people start lying to us. Those who believe the lies become religious. Those who don't, dont.

Quote = it is far more easy to just pay lip service to the current scientific theories and claim atheism than it is to stand up for a spiritual system or path.

Many atheists have a spiritual path. Dont confuse spiritualism with blind faith in religious doctrines.

Hmmm...it's all the standard stereotypes and put downs of people who follow a religion or a spiritual path. Okay, so you aren't religious or spiritual or whatever, but just because someone else is and thinks differently than you, doesn't make them stupid. That's just a put down because you don't like it, but please, don't crap on others because you've got a problem with it or it doesn't work for you.

It indeed take a measure of faith, of not knowing, to proceed on a spiritual path because it means you are trying to change yourself in some very basic ways. Now, you can say that is not religion, which may or may not be true. What makes it true is that it will also include a broader view of life, the universe, diety, and the highest possibilities for a person. Typically, a religion or spiritual path includes ideas that existence did not begin when you were born on this earth and does not end when you die. Maybe you don't believe that but others do; and, when they believe that it requires them to follow through on what it takes to gain that knowledge for themselves. Again, it takes a certain amount to faith- maybe you don't buy that, but that's not really your call, is it?

You say you don't need to be religious to turn the other cheek or to consider the affects of actions on others, but those ideas are found in religions also. So, saying they can be practiced without religion is simply an indication of their universal application. However, when practiced within the context of spiritual practice, you get the maximum benefit, more bang for the buck.

Btw, religion doesn't kill people, people kill people. Edited March 11, 2013 by Jawnie

[Xangsamhua]

Some people (mainly Westerners, I suspect) define religious people in terms of what they profess to believe and judge them by their behaviour as consistent with or contrary to those beliefs. So a priest who says mass every day and then interferes with the altar boy is seen to be hypocritical and worthy of severe censure as a result. People would say he is not a Christian in his heart, but just professes Christ's teaching with his lips. It's what is truly heartfelt - sincerely believed and acted upon - that counts in this view of what it is to be religious.

Others define religion in terms of its rituals and formal practices. A Buddhist monk, in this view, is no less a monk if he uses money offerings to build up a large bank balance to fund his return to secular life. The important thing is that he performs the essental rites and practices of the monastic life. What he believes in his heart is a private and possibly unfixed matter.

We all know about the people who pray at church on Sunday and prey on others on Monday. Likewise, there have been some references to Thai Buddhists who ignore some of the five fundamental precepts of the Buddhist life, but who donate to the wat, release birds and tortoises on special days, and invite the monks to their house on important occasions. These people would be surprised and offended if you suggested they were not really Buddhists at all. They feel like Buddhists; they do the ritualistic things Buddhists are supposed to do in Thailand; they respect the Sangha; they recite the Namo Tassa; they have Buddha images in the house, and perhaps in their office and car.

The older I get the less I believe one should be attached to a set of beliefs and then label them - Buddhist, Catholic, whatever. I'm now more inclined to give someone a religious label - an ist or an ism - if they willingly and consistently perform and/or participate in the formal rites and practices. At least these things are (1) reasonably fixed and standard over time, (2) observable, and (3) reasonably simple (though their symbolism may take some extended explanation). So if a Sikh man leaves his hair and beard uncut, wears a turban and attends the gurdwara (place of worship) at the appropriate times and participates in the ceremonies, then, as far as I'm concerned, he's a Sikh regardless of how many of the other tenets he professes or observes.

I no longer call myself anything, and if someone tells me I'm a Roman Catholic (as I've been baptized and confirmed and worked for the Church for many years), or a Buddhist (as I respect the Buddha's teachings and observe the precepts), or a Vedantist (as I'm inspired, perhaps convinced, by the teaching of the Upanishads), or an Atheist (I don't see much, if any, difference between philosophical atheism and theism), why should I argue?

I'm with Jawnie in this thread (I'm usually with Jawnie ) when he said that a Buddhist is one who has formally and ceremonially taken refuge in the Triple Gem. If one has taken this step, has made some attempt to connect with a teacher and sangha, and has not resiled from these actions, then, as far as I'm concerned, he's a Buddhist, regardless of what he professes or believes, or how consistent his behaviour is with these beliefs. Regarding his heartfelt beliefs, however, he's just another more or less confused human being trying to make sense of the cosmos and his own place in it.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Xangsamhua

[Kananga]

I don't think any religion is easy to follow, if you endeavour to practice them right.

Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day?

Have you earnestly tried to carefully measure your speech and actions in each situation in order to cause a maximum of benefit and a minimum of harm?

Those who practice right are not weak people. They are stronger than most.

What you describe is hypocrisy. Actually, these days, I'd venture to say that in Western society, it is far more easy to just pay lip service to the current scientific theories and claim atheism than it is to stand up for a spiritual system or path.

In some places in the West, you are right, it would be easier to buy the Christianity package and just do that. But they are getting fewer as we speak - the mainstream Western society is not Christian.

That's not to say that there aren't problems with religion... just a reflection on what is easy, and what is not.

Quote = Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day?

Thats not religion. That's living by certain morals. You dont need to believe in a religion to do what you are suggesting.

Quote = Have you earnestly tried to carefully measure your speech and actions in each situation in order to cause a maximum of benefit and a minimum of harm?

Again, thats just self control and tactfulness. Nothing to do with religion.

Quote = Those who practice right are not weak people. They are stronger than most.

They're stupider than most. Believing in things that are not real just because other people told them its right. That's not strength, that's ignorance. Don't forget, we are all born athiests until people start lying to us. Those who believe the lies become religious. Those who don't, dont.

Quote = it is far more easy to just pay lip service to the current scientific theories and claim atheism than it is to stand up for a spiritual system or path.

Many atheists have a spiritual path. Dont confuse spiritualism with blind faith in religious doctrines.

Hmmm...it's all the standard stereotypes and put downs of people who follow a religion or a spiritual path. Okay, so you aren't religious or spiritual or whatever, but just because someone else is and thinks differently than you, doesn't make them stupid. That's just a put down because you don't like it, but please, don't crap on others because you've got a problem with it or it doesn't work for you.

It indeed take a measure of faith, of not knowing, to proceed on a spiritual path because it means you are trying to change yourself in some very basic ways. Now, you can say that is not religion, which may or may not be true. What makes it true is that it will also include a broader view of life, the universe, diety, and the highest possibilities for a person. Typically, a religion or spiritual path includes ideas that existence did not begin when you were born on this earth and does not end when you die. Maybe you don't believe that but others do; and, when they believe that it requires them to follow through on what it takes to gain that knowledge for themselves. Again, it takes a certain amount to faith- maybe you don't buy that, but that's not really your call, is it?

You say you don't need to be religious to turn the other cheek or to consider the affects of actions on others, but those ideas are found in religions also. So, saying they can be practiced without religion is simply an indication of their universal application. However, when practiced within the context of spiritual practice, you get the maximum benefit, more bang for the buck.

Btw, religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Quote - Okay, so you aren't religious or spiritual or whatever

Who ever said I dont follow a spiritual path? I certainly didnt. I just dont believe in the invisible sky daddy or Santa Claus just because other people have told me I have to or I wont go to Heaven or get any toys for Christmas if I dont.

Quote - It indeed take a measure of faith, of not knowing, to proceed on a spiritual path because it means you are trying to change yourself in some very basic ways.

It doesnt take a measure of faith at all. And certainly not one that has such conformities attached to it like all the major religions. In fact, I can't think of anything less spiritual than having to live by ridiculous rules with fear of repercussions (Not going to heaven, not being reincarnated as a better animal or not getting the plentiful virgins etc) if not obeyed.

Quote - Again, it takes a certain amount to faith- maybe you don't buy that, but that's not really your call, is it?

Its my call to voice my own opinion to those who have been conned into thinking there is a afterlife and a big invisible man is watching over them. I mean thats literally just as ridiculous as someone telling you they believe in invisible unicorns made of strawberry icecream. If people who believe this waffle cant accept another point of view then this faith you talk about cant be very strong.

Quote - You say you don't need to be religious to turn the other cheek or to consider the affects of actions on others, but those ideas are found in religions also. So, saying they can be practiced without religion is simply an indication of their universal application. However, when practiced within the context of spiritual practice, you get the maximum benefit, more bang for the buck.

Actually you get less bang for your buck. People who do good deeds without believing in noah's ark, burning bushes, moses parting the seas, adam and eve and talking snakes etc do it because they feel inside it is the right thing to do. Not because they want to go to heaven or please the lord jesus.

If you really want to talk about things found in religions I'll happily share some horrendous passages from the Bible. But of course, people dont follow those ideas, just the ones that suit them just nicely.

Quote - Btw, religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

And many of those people kill people in the name of religion.

[Jawnie]

I don't think any religion is easy to follow, if you endeavour to practice them right.

Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day?

Have you earnestly tried to carefully measure your speech and actions in each situation in order to cause a maximum of benefit and a minimum of harm?

Those who practice right are not weak people. They are stronger than most.

What you describe is hypocrisy. Actually, these days, I'd venture to say that in Western society, it is far more easy to just pay lip service to the current scientific theories and claim atheism than it is to stand up for a spiritual system or path.

In some places in the West, you are right, it would be easier to buy the Christianity package and just do that. But they are getting fewer as we speak - the mainstream Western society is not Christian.

That's not to say that there aren't problems with religion... just a reflection on what is easy, and what is not.

Quote = Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day?

Thats not religion. That's living by certain morals. You dont need to believe in a religion to do what you are suggesting.

Quote = Have you earnestly tried to carefully measure your speech and actions in each situation in order to cause a maximum of benefit and a minimum of harm?

Again, thats just self control and tactfulness. Nothing to do with religion.

Quote = Those who practice right are not weak people. They are stronger than most.

They're stupider than most. Believing in things that are not real just because other people told them its right. That's not strength, that's ignorance. Don't forget, we are all born athiests until people start lying to us. Those who believe the lies become religious. Those who don't, dont.

Quote = it is far more easy to just pay lip service to the current scientific theories and claim atheism than it is to stand up for a spiritual system or path.

Many atheists have a spiritual path. Dont confuse spiritualism with blind faith in religious doctrines.

Hmmm...it's all the standard stereotypes and put downs of people who follow a religion or a spiritual path. Okay, so you aren't religious or spiritual or whatever, but just because someone else is and thinks differently than you, doesn't make them stupid. That's just a put down because you don't like it, but please, don't crap on others because you've got a problem with it or it doesn't work for you.

It indeed take a measure of faith, of not knowing, to proceed on a spiritual path because it means you are trying to change yourself in some very basic ways. Now, you can say that is not religion, which may or may not be true. What makes it true is that it will also include a broader view of life, the universe, diety, and the highest possibilities for a person. Typically, a religion or spiritual path includes ideas that existence did not begin when you were born on this earth and does not end when you die. Maybe you don't believe that but others do; and, when they believe that it requires them to follow through on what it takes to gain that knowledge for themselves. Again, it takes a certain amount to faith- maybe you don't buy that, but that's not really your call, is it?

You say you don't need to be religious to turn the other cheek or to consider the affects of actions on others, but those ideas are found in religions also. So, saying they can be practiced without religion is simply an indication of their universal application. However, when practiced within the context of spiritual practice, you get the maximum benefit, more bang for the buck.

Btw, religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Quote - Okay, so you aren't religious or spiritual or whatever

Who ever said I dont follow a spiritual path? I certainly didnt. I just dont believe in the invisible sky daddy or Santa Claus just because other people have told me I have to or I wont go to Heaven or get any toys for Christmas if I dont.

Quote - It indeed take a measure of faith, of not knowing, to proceed on a spiritual path because it means you are trying to change yourself in some very basic ways.

It doesnt take a measure of faith at all. And certainly not one that has such conformities attached to it like all the major religions. In fact, I can't think of anything less spiritual than having to live by ridiculous rules with fear of repercussions (Not going to heaven, not being reincarnated as a better animal or not getting the plentiful virgins etc) if not obeyed.

Quote - Again, it takes a certain amount to faith- maybe you don't buy that, but that's not really your call, is it?

Its my call to voice my own opinion to those who have been conned into thinking there is a afterlife and a big invisible man is watching over them. I mean thats literally just as ridiculous as someone telling you they believe in invisible unicorns made of strawberry icecream. If people who believe this waffle cant accept another point of view then this faith you talk about cant be very strong.

Quote - You say you don't need to be religious to turn the other cheek or to consider the affects of actions on others, but those ideas are found in religions also. So, saying they can be practiced without religion is simply an indication of their universal application. However, when practiced within the context of spiritual practice, you get the maximum benefit, more bang for the buck.

Actually you get less bang for your buck. People who do good deeds without believing in noah's ark, burning bushes, moses parting the seas, adam and eve and talking snakes etc do it because they feel inside it is the right thing to do. Not because they want to go to heaven or please the lord jesus.

If you really want to talk about things found in religions I'll happily share some horrendous passages from the Bible. But of course, people dont follow those ideas, just the ones that suit them just nicely.

Quote - Btw, religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

And many of those people kill people in the name of religion.

Maybe you could clarify whether you follow a spiritual path since this thread started with a question about Buddhism. It seems not since you say all religions are false.