Is Buddhism a religion?

[only1]

VincentRJ,

I refer to the commandment you mentioned that has God, if you take that away, there will be no more 10. As for love neighbour, I find compassion in Buddhism much more meaningful. Love alone means you may hate those you don't love and could lead to wars(crusades). Compassion means you have sympAthy for those you even don't love too. Think of those ugly women we don't give an eye.

Om85,

You clearly mentioned if Buddha come out from his grave and in the same day you denied ?

How many times must I prove you for being dishonest and trolling ?

Edited October 12, 2015 by only1

[VincentRJ]

VincentRJ,

I refer to the commandment you mentioned that has God, if you take that away, there will be no more 10. As for love neighbour, I find compassion in Buddhism much more meaningful. Love alone means you may hate those you don't love and could lead to wars(crusades). Compassion means you have sympAthy for those you even don't love too. Think of those ugly women we don't give an eye.

You do seem confused. Christianity not only recommends 'Love thy neighbour' but also 'Love thine enemy'. There's no excuse for fighting wars, especially wars like the Crusades.

As Mahatma Gandhi is reported to have said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” I tend to agree with Gandhi on that point.

[Om85]

VincentRJ,

I refer to the commandment you mentioned that has God, if you take that away, there will be no more 10. As for love neighbour, I find compassion in Buddhism much more meaningful. Love alone means you may hate those you don't love and could lead to wars(crusades). Compassion means you have sympAthy for those you even don't love too. Think of those ugly women we don't give an eye.

Om85,

You clearly mentioned if Buddha come out from his grave and in the same day you denied ?

How many times must I prove you for being dishonest and trolling ?

Trolling again? That was just an expression, hahah, stupidity knows limits not.

[rockyysdt]

Everyone loves healthy debate and a chance to learn and impart knowledge, but seriously, how much time and effort went into this thread with all its posts?

How much cushion time has been lost?

The Buddha said that without practice knowledge is of no use.

Edited October 12, 2015 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

Everyone loves healthy debate and a chance to learn and impart knowledge, but seriously, how much time and effort went into this thread with all its posts?

How much cushion time has been lost?

The Buddha said that without practice knowledge is of no use.

I can only speak for myself, Rocky. I'm retired and have plenty of time to sit on cushions, although I prefer to do some physical work on my own property, without pay. Religion and philosophy have always been an intellectual interest and a great puzzle.

[only1]

Me too, I am not retired but religion and philosophy are my favorite subjects for discussion. Especially when I can help others with them.

[camerata]

Om85 and Only1, enough of the personal attacks. Any more name-calling or insults and I'll delete the entire post. We should be able to have a discussion without ad hominem. Attack the person's arguments, if you want, but not the person.

[camerata]

Everyone, take a few minutes to review the rules of the Buddhism forum at http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/61517-a-welcome-message-posting-guidelines/

Specifically:

"Do keep in mind that Buddhism, along with the Thai monarchy, is one of the most respected social institutions in Thailand. Posts whose primary purpose is to slag off Buddhism in general or Thai Buddhism in particular are not welcome. Such posts will be edited or deleted immediately, and the member will be warned and/or suspended."

and

"Posts about other religions, eg, Christianity, Islam, etc, or about the existence of God, intelligent design, New Age philosophy and practices, Western philosophy, science, creation, etc are allowable only when expressly discussed in the context of Buddhism."

Also, see the general forum rules at http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

"7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

8) You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages, vulgarities, obscenities or profanities.

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."

Thank you.

[camerata]

you came to a buddhist forum to argue that it is an empty belief and a sham. why go to a discussion group that discusses a subject that you think is meaningless ? to denigrate the beliefs of the participants.

This is not a Buddhist forum, this is a forum about Buddhism which is not the same And as I told here already I don't intent to denigrate anyone I just saying the truth, take a look around you and see how must of Buddhist temples here in Thailand work, what do they teach to the people? I honestly think that if Siddhartha were to come back from death and see what his "followers" do, he would be so upset that he might have a heart stroke and die again.

yes a forum about a belief system that you dont agree with. you dont think buddhism exists without rebirth, and you dont believe in rebirth. so why come here but to argue with people that have these beliefs and tell them they are wrong to have them?

not all the people in this forum are Buddhist, and I argue cuz I want to understand, I have ask the same question again and again and no one have been able to give a rational answer, you are the Buddhists here, you are the ones who are suppose to know so to you I ask my questions, I don't intend to hurt anyone, I was very polite until people here start to call me a troll etc when I am not, but this is not about me is about Buddhism so I ask again:

What do we have left if we strip Buddhism of the concepts of rebirth and samsara?

If you believe in rebirth, then what is to be reborn? Where are the proofs?

If you are firm in your believes you should be able to give your arguments and to debate, not just accuse other people of trolling and denigrating other people belief just because they are challenging them.

The problem is people are giving you answers but you then ignore what you don't like or ridicule them. Members are happy to answer questions, but they aren't here to justify themselves to you or "defend their beliefs." I have already explained about 'rebirth' but you just ignored it. There is no scientific proof, of course. If you don't accept it, that's up to you. There is no scientific proof of karma operating from like to life, as described by the Buddha. Many Buddhists believe in it to some extent, but if you don't, that's fine. We can only tell you what the Buddha said according to the scriptures, or what we've experienced ourselves, but we can't prove metaphysical ideas for you. Nobody can.

The Buddha provided us with a model of the mind and techniques for reducing suffering. These techniques work for many of us when we try them. It doesn't matter whether the Buddha's model of the mind in in accord with science or not - it is a tool to reduce suffering. The only thing that comes near it in modern terms in cognitive behavioral therapy, a branch of psychotherapy. But note that modern psychiatry and psychotherapy in not a science. It works for some, but not for others. Results can't be reliably reproduced.

Now, if you have any questions that aren't challenges to provide proof for metaphysical systems, let's hear them.

[AYJAYDEE]

Is Buddhism a religion? One answer is, both 'yes' and 'no'.

Is 40 degrees Centigrade hot? It depends on the circumstances. If one is referring to the weather outside, 40 degrees C is certainly hot. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

However, if one is referring to the temperature of the cup of coffee that has just been served in a restaurant, one might think that 40 degrees C is too cold, and one might complain to the waitress that the coffee is not hot.

Likewise, when one refers to the activity of worshiping supernatural spirits, the divine, or some representation of a so-called ultimate, transcendental truth, then that is a religion by definition. To the extent that the Buddhist system encourages such devotion and the acceptance of the supernatural, Buddhism can be described as a religion.

To the extent that Buddhism contains within its teaching and scriptures, instructions and practices of a practical nature that do not rely upon an acceptance of the supernatural, karma, rebirth, miraculous events and so on, then Buddhism is not a religion.

However, such a dichotomy could raise another question, as follows. Can a person who doesn't believe in the supernatural aspects of Buddhism, such as karma and the miraculous processes of physical rebirth, legitimately call himself a Buddhist?

Would that not be similar to an atheist calling himself a Christian because he believed in certain Christian principles such as 'Love your neighbour as yourself', which is described as the second most important commandment, the first being, "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength"?

reject physical rebirth? yes. as for karma, modern science suggest that what we do in the present can influence what we experience in the future so i wouldnt agree that karma is supernatural. so I say yes he can call himself a buddhist.

Can you point to any Buddhist scripture in either the Mahayana or Theravada tradition which states, or even implies that Karma is not a force transmitted from previous, physical lives to future lives, but is confined to, and applies only to the current life?

I think you are confusing modern, Western interpretations of supernatural phenomena, which tend to make the religion of Buddhism more acceptable to the atheistic mindset, and the traditional belief systems of Buddhism as described in the Pali Canon and the Tibetan and Chinese Canons.

We can all understand cause and effect. If I stick my hand in a fire, my hand gets burned. If I eat too much fatty and sugary food and take no exercise, I will become obese. We don't need the Buddhist concept of Karma to explain that.

The sorts of questions that the concept of Karma tries to answer are as follows:

1.What is the cause of the inequality that exists among mankind?

2.Why should one person be brought up in the lap of luxury, endowed with fine mental, moral and physical qualities, and another in absolute poverty, steeped in misery?

3.Why should one person be a mental prodigy, and another an idiot?

4.Why should one person be born with saintly characteristics and another with criminal tendencies?

5.Why should some be linguistic, artistic, mathematically inclined, or musical from the very cradle?

6.Why should others be congenitally blind, deaf, or deformed?|

7.Why should some be blessed, and others cursed from their births?

Modern science attempts to answer such questions using a combination of genetic disposition, inherited from the parents, which a person has no control over, and early conditioning which begins even in the womb, which the parents and the education system do have a degree of control over.

The concept of Karma goes beyond this scientific explanation which consists of a mixture of genetics and early conditioning, but also that concept does not deny the effects of Karma (or actions) in the current life, obviously. One reaps what one sows in this life, but the principle of Karma also claims that one reaps what one has sown in previous lives.

In other words, each person is born with an accumulation of the effects of moral and immoral behaviour during many previous lives. It's a concept that tends to give people hope, just like the concept of a reward in everlasting Heaven for good, moral behaviour in this lifetime, gives Christians hope and allows them to struggle through the vicissitudes of life.

Imagine a person, through no fault of his/her own, who is born with a serious disability in circumstances of poverty, that causes life to be miserable. Don't you think that a Karmic explanation for his condition, (that he acted immorally in previous lives, and if he behaves well in this life, his next life will be better), might free him from anger and the blaming of others for his condition, and give him a sense of purpose in this life?

This is what the Buddha is purported to have said on the matter (from the Anguttara Nikaya).

"If anyone says that a man or woman must reap in this life according to his present deeds, in that case there is no religious life, nor is an opportunity afforded for the entire extinction of sorrow. But if anyone says that what a man or woman reaps in this and future lives accords with his or her deeds present and past, in that case there is a religious life, and an opportunity is afforded for the entire extinction of a sorrow."

buddhist scripture is written by people that lived many years after buddha's passing. but various respected monks have theorized that physical rebirth may or may not be in fact true, but that it is not all that important to the practice in this life. The karma of actions in this life is important however and that is the brand of karma I choose to concentrate on. the kind that is not supernatural

[AYJAYDEE]

Is Buddhism a religion? One answer is, both 'yes' and 'no'.

Is 40 degrees Centigrade hot? It depends on the circumstances. If one is referring to the weather outside, 40 degrees C is certainly hot. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

However, if one is referring to the temperature of the cup of coffee that has just been served in a restaurant, one might think that 40 degrees C is too cold, and one might complain to the waitress that the coffee is not hot.

Likewise, when one refers to the activity of worshiping supernatural spirits, the divine, or some representation of a so-called ultimate, transcendental truth, then that is a religion by definition. To the extent that the Buddhist system encourages such devotion and the acceptance of the supernatural, Buddhism can be described as a religion.

To the extent that Buddhism contains within its teaching and scriptures, instructions and practices of a practical nature that do not rely upon an acceptance of the supernatural, karma, rebirth, miraculous events and so on, then Buddhism is not a religion.

However, such a dichotomy could raise another question, as follows. Can a person who doesn't believe in the supernatural aspects of Buddhism, such as karma and the miraculous processes of physical rebirth, legitimately call himself a Buddhist?

Would that not be similar to an atheist calling himself a Christian because he believed in certain Christian principles such as 'Love your neighbour as yourself', which is described as the second most important commandment, the first being, "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength"?

reject physical rebirth? yes. as for karma, modern science suggest that what we do in the present can influence what we experience in the future so i wouldnt agree that karma is supernatural. so I say yes he can call himself a buddhist.

Can you point to any Buddhist scripture in either the Mahayana or Theravada tradition which states, or even implies that Karma is not a force transmitted from previous, physical lives to future lives, but is confined to, and applies only to the current life?

I think you are confusing modern, Western interpretations of supernatural phenomena, which tend to make the religion of Buddhism more acceptable to the atheistic mindset, and the traditional belief systems of Buddhism as described in the Pali Canon and the Tibetan and Chinese Canons.

We can all understand cause and effect. If I stick my hand in a fire, my hand gets burned. If I eat too much fatty and sugary food and take no exercise, I will become obese. We don't need the Buddhist concept of Karma to explain that.

The sorts of questions that the concept of Karma tries to answer are as follows:

1.What is the cause of the inequality that exists among mankind?

2.Why should one person be brought up in the lap of luxury, endowed with fine mental, moral and physical qualities, and another in absolute poverty, steeped in misery?

3.Why should one person be a mental prodigy, and another an idiot?

4.Why should one person be born with saintly characteristics and another with criminal tendencies?

5.Why should some be linguistic, artistic, mathematically inclined, or musical from the very cradle?

6.Why should others be congenitally blind, deaf, or deformed?|

7.Why should some be blessed, and others cursed from their births?

Modern science attempts to answer such questions using a combination of genetic disposition, inherited from the parents, which a person has no control over, and early conditioning which begins even in the womb, which the parents and the education system do have a degree of control over.

The concept of Karma goes beyond this scientific explanation which consists of a mixture of genetics and early conditioning, but also that concept does not deny the effects of Karma (or actions) in the current life, obviously. One reaps what one sows in this life, but the principle of Karma also claims that one reaps what one has sown in previous lives.

In other words, each person is born with an accumulation of the effects of moral and immoral behaviour during many previous lives. It's a concept that tends to give people hope, just like the concept of a reward in everlasting Heaven for good, moral behaviour in this lifetime, gives Christians hope and allows them to struggle through the vicissitudes of life.

Imagine a person, through no fault of his/her own, who is born with a serious disability in circumstances of poverty, that causes life to be miserable. Don't you think that a Karmic explanation for his condition, (that he acted immorally in previous lives, and if he behaves well in this life, his next life will be better), might free him from anger and the blaming of others for his condition, and give him a sense of purpose in this life?

This is what the Buddha is purported to have said on the matter (from the Anguttara Nikaya).

"If anyone says that a man or woman must reap in this life according to his present deeds, in that case there is no religious life, nor is an opportunity afforded for the entire extinction of sorrow. But if anyone says that what a man or woman reaps in this and future lives accords with his or her deeds present and past, in that case there is a religious life, and an opportunity is afforded for the entire extinction of a sorrow."

buddhist scripture is written by people that lived many years after buddha's passing. but various respected monks have theorized that physical rebirth may or may not be in fact true, but that it is not all that important to the practice in this life. The karma of actions in this life is important however and that is the brand of karma I choose to concentrate on. the kind that is not supernatural

http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/articles/should-i-believe-in-rebirth/

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/397562-buddha-buddhadhasa-and-rebirth/

[MAJIC]

Technically it is not a Religion,but more a Philosophy,the main point: there is no claim to a God!

But I suspect other Religions probably started out the same way,and in time Buddhism may very well go the same way,the peoples devotion indicate going in that direction!

[Lampang2]

As money collection is part of the game it's bears all signs of a religion.

[MAJIC]

As money collection is part of the game it's bears all signs of a religion.

True! but much higher than the normal accumulation of religious wealth!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buddhist_temples_in_Thailand

everyone is a goldmine!

Edited October 12, 2015 by MAJIC

[VincentRJ]

buddhist scripture is written by people that lived many years after buddha's passing. but various respected monks have theorized that physical rebirth may or may not be in fact true, but that it is not all that important to the practice in this life. The karma of actions in this life is important however and that is the brand of karma I choose to concentrate on. the kind that is not supernatural

Fair enough! No problem! I'm not trying to convince anyone that physical Rebirth and the effects of accumulated Karma carried over from previous lives, is a reality and a necessary belief that is required for anyone and everyone to benefit from Buddhist practices.

I'm simply answering the question, 'Is Buddhism a religion?' To the extant that Buddhism endorses and teaches the existence of supernatural phenomena, it is a religion. The site you quoted provides an excellent description of the situation regarding the role of the concept of rebirth in Buddhism.

http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/articles/should-i-believe-in-rebirth/

Here's an extract:

"The concept of rebirth has a long association with Buddhism; some say it was there from the beginning. Whole schools of Buddhism are predicated on the concept. Mainstream Theravada traditions have at their heart the goal of liberation from the rounds of birth and death, or, if this is not attainable in this lifetime, the aim for a better rebirth. For Theravada Buddhism, these goals would have little meaning if there were no rebirth. Those Mahayana Buddhist traditions rooted in the classical Bodhisattva path depend on the idea of rebirth; without it, this multi-lifetime path disappears."

Now of course, with any religion there are always differences of opinion and differences of emphasis among the priests, scholars and religious authorities, so it's not surprising that certain respected monks will reinterpret rebirth as applying to new thoughts and changing states-of-mind in this lifetime, just as in Christianity there are many respected priests and ministers who do not literally accept as true the story of the virgin birth of Christ, or the story of Adam and Eve, or the story of Noah's Ark.

Just as a matter of interest, to demonstrate my point, the following site provides the results of some polls on the issue.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b7.htm

Here's an extract:

"1998: A poll of 7,441 Protestant clergy in the U.S. showed a wide variation in belief. The following ministers did not believe in the virgin birth:

American Lutherans 19%

American Baptists 34%

Episcopalians 44%

Presbyterians 49%

Methodists 60% "

[AYJAYDEE]

buddhist scripture is written by people that lived many years after buddha's passing. but various respected monks have theorized that physical rebirth may or may not be in fact true, but that it is not all that important to the practice in this life. The karma of actions in this life is important however and that is the brand of karma I choose to concentrate on. the kind that is not supernatural

Fair enough! No problem! I'm not trying to convince anyone that physical Rebirth and the effects of accumulated Karma carried over from previous lives, is a reality and a necessary belief that is required for anyone and everyone to benefit from Buddhist practices.

I'm simply answering the question, 'Is Buddhism a religion?' To the extant that Buddhism endorses and teaches the existence of supernatural phenomena, it is a religion. The site you quoted provides an excellent description of the situation regarding the role of the concept of rebirth in Buddhism.

http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/articles/should-i-believe-in-rebirth/

Here's an extract:

"The concept of rebirth has a long association with Buddhism; some say it was there from the beginning. Whole schools of Buddhism are predicated on the concept. Mainstream Theravada traditions have at their heart the goal of liberation from the rounds of birth and death, or, if this is not attainable in this lifetime, the aim for a better rebirth. For Theravada Buddhism, these goals would have little meaning if there were no rebirth. Those Mahayana Buddhist traditions rooted in the classical Bodhisattva path depend on the idea of rebirth; without it, this multi-lifetime path disappears."

Now of course, with any religion there are always differences of opinion and differences of emphasis among the priests, scholars and religious authorities, so it's not surprising that certain respected monks will reinterpret rebirth as applying to new thoughts and changing states-of-mind in this lifetime, just as in Christianity there are many respected priests and ministers who do not literally accept as true the story of the virgin birth of Christ, or the story of Adam and Eve, or the story of Noah's Ark.

Just as a matter of interest, to demonstrate my point, the following site provides the results of some polls on the issue.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b7.htm

Here's an extract:

"1998: A poll of 7,441 Protestant clergy in the U.S. showed a wide variation in belief. The following ministers did not believe in the virgin birth:

American Lutherans 19%

American Baptists 34%

Episcopalians 44%

Presbyterians 49%

Methodists 60% "

thats not what I got from this post of yours:

"However, such a dichotomy could raise another question, as follows. Can a person who doesn't believe in the supernatural aspects of Buddhism, such as karma and the miraculous processes of physical rebirth, legitimately call himself a Buddhist?

Would that not be similar to an atheist calling himself a Christian because he believed in certain Christian principles such as 'Love your neighbour as yourself', which is described as the second most important commandment, the first being, "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength"?

That suggests to me that you feel you cant be a Buddhist without a belief in physical rebirth

[VincentRJ]

thats not what I got from this post of yours:

"However, such a dichotomy could raise another question, as follows. Can a person who doesn't believe in the supernatural aspects of Buddhism, such as karma and the miraculous processes of physical rebirth, legitimately call himself a Buddhist?

Would that not be similar to an atheist calling himself a Christian because he believed in certain Christian principles such as 'Love your neighbour as yourself', which is described as the second most important commandment, the first being, "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength"?

That suggests to me that you feel you cant be a Buddhist without a belief in physical rebirth

Not really. Re-read my post. "However, such a dichotomy could raise another question, ....."

I was merely expressing a view that I think it understandable that many traditional Buddhists might question whether or not any person who casts doubt on the literal reality of the 'Wheel of Life' concept, could legitimately call himself a Buddhist, because that concept appears to be so central to the traditional Buddhist view.

Another analogy involving the creator God of Christianity, would be the fairly modern concept of the "Intelligent Designer". I believe there are some people who call themselves Christians, but in order to accommodate their views on scientific rationality and avoid too much of a confliction of views, accept a reinterpretation of the Creator God concept as an Intelligent Designer, that is, a creator who does not intervene in individual affairs and does not respond to peoples' prayers, and so on, but who did initiate the creation of all life in accordance with an intelligent plan.

Some people criticize such a view as being neither religious, in the Christian/Jewish sense, nor scientific, but the description of Intelligent Design does seem similar to Albert Einstein's view of God.

From Wikipedia:

"....the majority of principal intelligent design advocates are publicly religious Christians who have stated that, in their view, the designer proposed in intelligent design is the Christian conception of God. "

[AYJAYDEE]

thats not what I got from this post of yours:

"However, such a dichotomy could raise another question, as follows. Can a person who doesn't believe in the supernatural aspects of Buddhism, such as karma and the miraculous processes of physical rebirth, legitimately call himself a Buddhist?

Would that not be similar to an atheist calling himself a Christian because he believed in certain Christian principles such as 'Love your neighbour as yourself', which is described as the second most important commandment, the first being, "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength"?

That suggests to me that you feel you cant be a Buddhist without a belief in physical rebirth

Not really. Re-read my post. "However, such a dichotomy could raise another question, ....."

I was merely expressing a view that I think it understandable that many traditional Buddhists might question whether or not any person who casts doubt on the literal reality of the 'Wheel of Life' concept, could legitimately call himself a Buddhist, because that concept appears to be so central to the traditional Buddhist view.

Another analogy involving the creator God of Christianity, would be the fairly modern concept of the "Intelligent Designer". I believe there are some people who call themselves Christians, but in order to accommodate their views on scientific rationality and avoid too much of a confliction of views, accept a reinterpretation of the Creator God concept as an Intelligent Designer, that is, a creator who does not intervene in individual affairs and does not respond to peoples' prayers, and so on, but who did initiate the creation of all life in accordance with an intelligent plan.

Some people criticize such a view as being neither religious, in the Christian/Jewish sense, nor scientific, but the description of Intelligent Design does seem similar to Albert Einstein's view of God.

From Wikipedia:

"....the majority of principal intelligent design advocates are publicly religious Christians who have stated that, in their view, the designer proposed in intelligent design is the Christian conception of God. "

I'm telling you what your post suggested to me. your line beginning "Would that not be similar ...." makes me think thats what you believe. If thats not your belief, fine. Personally I dont care if someone chooses to decide if someone else can or cannot call themselves a Buddhist as its none of their business what someone calls themself and if they decide to make it so then I'm not all that impressed with THEIR wisdom.

[only1]

I strongly disagree that it's called a religion because money is involved or more money is collected than any other religions. Buddhism collect money with a stationed box but some other religions used other means like passing a tray or bag to collect from everyone in front of everyone. Common sense will tell more Will be collected in such manner that involved physiological tricks. Beside that, such religions usually even suggest a certain percentage of income to be donated. Of course in every religion, there maybe an unusual case of alleged money laundering, just like the jet-flying monk and Mother Teresa's money that "disappeared" out of India, where it was collected.

[only1]

I also don't think that discussion of the concept of a creator God be appropriate although Buddha was of a Hindu origin. Just to clear confusion, the Hindus are the one who first believed a Creator God but they never claim Adam and Eve and almighty on that God.

[AYJAYDEE]

I also don't think that discussion of the concept of a creator God be appropriate although Buddha was of a Hindu origin. Just to clear confusion, the Hindus are the one who first believed a Creator God but they never claim Adam and Eve and almighty on that God.

Edited October 13, 2015 by AYJAYDEE

[VincentRJ]

I'm telling you what your post suggested to me. your line beginning "Would that not be similar ...." makes me think thats what you believe. If thats not your belief, fine. Personally I dont care if someone chooses to decide if someone else can or cannot call themselves a Buddhist as its none of their business what someone calls themself and if they decide to make it so then I'm not all that impressed with THEIR wisdom.

I'm concerned with clarity of thought and expression. The nature of a belief implies a lack of questioning. If I begin a sentence asking,"Would that not be similar....?", I find it difficult to understand why you would presume that is my belief. Rather I would describe it as a reasonable argument for discussion.

Unlike you, apparently, I do care what someone calls himself. If I hire a man who calls himself a plumber, to fix some problem in my house, I want to be sure he really is a plumber, or electrician if the problem is electrical.

[only1]

Lol...You guys are getting away and away from the topic. Why discuss over how individuals interprete conversation and communication style ?

I don't call myself a Buddhist since I consider Buddhism means knowledge and study of LIFE. I will feel silly to go around telling people "Hey, I am a human". Another reason is you need not call yourself a scientist or mathematician just because you believe or good with them.

The branding of whether one is a "Buddhist" or not are only suitable to be use by religious followers of a Creator God, and that must they believed to be a omnipotent one. Only such people find conflicts in Buddhism with their religions. Taoism and HInduism(which also believe a creator God)followers can also agree with Buddhism as they are compatible. They too believe in karma and rebirth.

[rockyysdt]

There are plenty of examples of people who have perpetrated the most heinous of crimes and escaped from any kind of kharmic payback or suffering in this life.

Pol Pot for example, had 2 - 4 million killed in horrendous manner .

Pol Pot died of old age.

[only1]

MAJIC,

Also to those that think Buddhism do not believe in any gods.

I must clarify:

1) How one use the word "believe". If believing that any God can have control over anyone, answer to prayers or decide on the fate of people, Buddhism don't believe in it; but believing that gods exist or not, yes, Buddhism believes there are different worlds and at least one or more belong to gods, but they call them deities or other words.

2) Buddha's teachings covered much than anyone knows today. All those gods and other beings are mentioned in the original scriptures as Buddha said, one only needs to know enough for one's needs, so all Buddhism sects will just discard or ignore what they feel is unnecessary.

Having said the above, bear in mind, the Buddha see or know everything in this world and other worlds(Hinduism call it the Universe, their creator started the Big bang with a single light) and explained them(Hinduism don't) with karma theory but we need not know all. Just know enough to keep us happy and cease sufferings, that is my reason for living.

[only1]

rocky,

This is one of the reason for rebirth and the other worlds. One don't get settled with their karma will do so in their next life. Imagine a bad person being reborn and go through sufferings. He will be a different person but he will feel the sufferings while being that new person.

[AYJAYDEE]

I'm telling you what your post suggested to me. your line beginning "Would that not be similar ...." makes me think thats what you believe. If thats not your belief, fine. Personally I dont care if someone chooses to decide if someone else can or cannot call themselves a Buddhist as its none of their business what someone calls themself and if they decide to make it so then I'm not all that impressed with THEIR wisdom.

I'm concerned with clarity of thought and expression. The nature of a belief implies a lack of questioning. If I begin a sentence asking,"Would that not be similar....?", I find it difficult to understand why you would presume that is my belief. Rather I would describe it as a reasonable argument for discussion.

Unlike you, apparently, I do care what someone calls himself. If I hire a man who calls himself a plumber, to fix some problem in my house, I want to be sure he really is a plumber, or electrician if the problem is electrical.

call it what you like, i'm telling you what i presumed.and i dont hire religious beliefs.

[AYJAYDEE]

There are plenty of examples of people who have perpetrated the most heinous of crimes and escaped from any kind of kharmic payback or suffering in this life.

Pol Pot for example, had 2 - 4 million killed in horrendous manner .

Pol Pot died of old age.

no he didnt

[VincentRJ]

I'm telling you what your post suggested to me. your line beginning "Would that not be similar ...." makes me think thats what you believe. If thats not your belief, fine. Personally I dont care if someone chooses to decide if someone else can or cannot call themselves a Buddhist as its none of their business what someone calls themself and if they decide to make it so then I'm not all that impressed with THEIR wisdom.

I'm concerned with clarity of thought and expression. The nature of a belief implies a lack of questioning. If I begin a sentence asking,"Would that not be similar....?", I find it difficult to understand why you would presume that is my belief. Rather I would describe it as a reasonable argument for discussion.

Unlike you, apparently, I do care what someone calls himself. If I hire a man who calls himself a plumber, to fix some problem in my house, I want to be sure he really is a plumber, or electrician if the problem is electrical.

call it what you like, i'm telling you what i presumed.and i dont hire religious beliefs.

I see! So you don't buy books on Buddhism, or donate money to Buddhist causes, or accept free tuition from people who call themselves Buddhists?

Even if the plumber did the work free of charge, I would still want to be certain that he was a qualified plumber.

[AYJAYDEE]

I see! So you don't buy books on Buddhism, or donate money to Buddhist causes, or accept free tuition from people who call themselves Buddhists?

Even if the plumber did the work free of charge, I would still want to be certain that he was a qualified plumber.

you sure enjoy jumping to conclusions, you must be in great shape. i buy books that I decide have information i want to acquire, I donate to causes i know and approve of no matter what theyre called and i have no idea what free tuition someone might want to give me. what someone considers themselves to be in a philisophical or religious sense is none of my affair and as i wont be hiring them based on those things, it matters not a whit. People that judge such things are busybodies and cause a great deal of discord in this world