How Buddhism is different from others

[AYJAYDEE]

Now back to 'pure' Buddhism. I would posit that the only pure Buddhism was that which came directly from the Buddhas mouth. It has not existed since the day he drew his last breath. His words were recorded, passed down, interpreted and translated into many languages, but each of those steps added a little more human bias and error into the equation. After 2500 years or so, there is no way to know what is 'pure' and what is not.

According to your logic, no religions could be "pure" because even words claimed to be by any god(if true) went through the same processes.

At least, the Buddha's teachings need not make any changes or additions since the beginning.

Yes, exactly.

At the very least, Buddhas teachings have been translated into the language you read them in. Translation errors are almost inevitable. There there are transcription errors. It HAS been 2500 years or so,

his teachings werent even written down for hundreds of years after his death

[hakuho]

this is crazy...SCIENCE never debunks anything. True science deals with observable facts. It's the THEORY of Evolution, if you remember. So here's a cogent description of a scientific fact to enlighten the uneducated: "a close agreement of a series of observations of the same phenomena".

BTW, this statement can be used to 'debunk' the fiction of MMGW. LOL

[IMA_FARANG]

religion is there to keep people stupid & poor

just look all the rich monks flying in their private jets

or the corrupt coorporations that donate millions / billions of other people's money in fraud, and when they ask the monastary to give it back, they clearly deny it their ever got or say no ....

poor people donating food to some fat dude's sitting around all day, playing their iphones, surfing the internet

no thank you

it's part of the folklore, but so is greed & corruption

----------------------------------

I understand what you are saying, but do not confuse Thai Buddhism with "all Buddhism" as Thai Buddhism as practiced in Thailand does not equate with the only Buddhism practiced.

I consider myself Buddhist, but I do not accept , and will not practice Thai Buddhism as I personally consider it a failed centralized form of Buddhism who glorifies an elite established central authority.

Thai Buddhism, in my opinion, is simply another empty state religion subservient to a favored elite for the benefit of that elite class.

But that is just my opinion.

[only1]

I also see how Buddhist ideas appeal to a western scientific mind, as Buddhism (again, generally) focuses on a cause and effect relationship between thoughts/actions and the results/effects of those thoughts/actions.

This is very different from the more common religious mindset that there are rules which, when broken, will result in punishment from some judgmental higher power.

In simple words, western people are more knowledgeable and they no longer believe in unreasonable or illogical beliefs like "you believe me, you can go heaven, if not, you go hell" type of nonsense.

Western education does put more emphasis on teaching children critical thinking and the scientific method than Thai schools at least. Although there are plenty of westerners who still believe deeply in their religion. Something like half the people in the US really believe Jesus is gonna show up one day and make them fly.

Yes, and it is this same reasons that makes westerners go to buddhism instead of Christianity, without any need of evangelists approaching them.

[only1]

Now back to 'pure' Buddhism. I would posit that the only pure Buddhism was that which came directly from the Buddhas mouth. It has not existed since the day he drew his last breath. His words were recorded, passed down, interpreted and translated into many languages, but each of those steps added a little more human bias and error into the equation. After 2500 years or so, there is no way to know what is 'pure' and what is not.

According to your logic, no religions could be "pure" because even words claimed to be by any god(if true) went through the same processes.

At least, the Buddha's teachings need not make any changes or additions since the beginning.

Yes, exactly.

At the very least, Buddhas teachings have been translated into the language you read them in. Translation errors are almost inevitable. There there are transcription errors. It HAS been 2500 years or so,

his teachings werent even written down for hundreds of years after his death

Who cares ?

Those who follows Buddhism go for the teachings, not a god or an idol. They don't care when it was written or who wrote it. If Jesus gave the same teachings but without those God, Adam and eve, resurrection craps, I may follow his teachings too.

[only1]

religion is there to keep people stupid & poor

just look all the rich monks flying in their private jets

or the corrupt coorporations that donate millions / billions of other people's money in fraud, and when they ask the monastary to give it back, they clearly deny it their ever got or say no ....

poor people donating food to some fat dude's sitting around all day, playing their iphones, surfing the internet

no thank you

it's part of the folklore, but so is greed & corruption

----------------------------------

I understand what you are saying, but do not confuse Thai Buddhism with "all Buddhism" as Thai Buddhism as practiced in Thailand does not equate with the only Buddhism practiced.

I consider myself Buddhist, but I do not accept , and will not practice Thai Buddhism as I personally consider it a failed centralized form of Buddhism who glorifies an elite established central authority.

Thai Buddhism, in my opinion, is simply another empty state religion subservient to a favored elite for the benefit of that elite class.

But that is just my opinion.

But then, what other ways

Buddhism can you learn in Thailand ?

As the Buddha said, understand and analyze, and take only what is useful.

[Furryman]

Yes, exactly.

At the very least, Buddhas teachings have been translated into the language you read them in. Translation errors are almost inevitable. There there are transcription errors. It HAS been 2500 years or so,

his teachings werent even written down for hundreds of years after his death

Who cares ?

Those who follows Buddhism go for the teachings, not a god or an idol. They don't care when it was written or who wrote it. If Jesus gave the same teachings but without those God, Adam and eve, resurrection craps, I may follow his teachings too.

Indeed, it is the message that is important, not the messenger.

Some people do get wrapped up in arguments about which is the 'pure' version of most any religion. Catholic Vs Protestant. Shiite vs Sunni. Even Theravada Vs Mahayana.

To me it is an exercise in futility.

FWIW Jesus is attributed to have said some pretty good stuff, but one should remember that all the old testament stuff came way before he was (allegedly) born.

[Furryman]

this is crazy...SCIENCE never debunks anything. True science deals with observable facts.

I think there are a lot of ideas that can be said to have been debunked by science. Phrenology is a favorite example of mine.

Watch any episode of Mythbusters and you can see ideas debunked by science. Given, not big philosophical ideas, but the principal is the same.

[only1]

Some people do get wrapped up in arguments about which is the 'pure' version of most any religion. Catholic Vs Protestant. Shiite vs Sunni. Even Theravada Vs Mahayana.

Err..They should not be grouped together.

Theravada and Mahayana have no conflicts or disagreements of any kind.

Unlike the other examples.

[only1]

this is crazy...SCIENCE never debunks anything. True science deals with observable facts.

I think there are a lot of ideas that can be said to have been debunked by science. Phrenology is a favorite example of mine.

Watch any episode of Mythbusters and you can see ideas debunked by science. Given, not big philosophical ideas, but the principal is the same.

I hope we don't go off topic.

[AYJAYDEE]

who cares? I do because no one can be sure what is written down is what buddha actually taught

[only1]

this is crazy...SCIENCE never debunks anything.

Yes, I should say because of science, some religions self-debunked.

Buddhism is one of those few religion that don't get self-debunked and in fact, considered most scientific and futuristic, as believed by Enstein.

Edited September 7, 2015 by only1

[AYJAYDEE]

this is crazy...SCIENCE never debunks anything.

Yes, I should say because of science, some religions self-debunked.

Buddhism is one of those few religion that don't get self-debunked and in fact, considered most scientific and futuristic, as believed by Enstein.

self debunked!!!! lol

[Furryman]

Some people do get wrapped up in arguments about which is the 'pure' version of most any religion. Catholic Vs Protestant. Shiite vs Sunni. Even Theravada Vs Mahayana.

Err..They should not be grouped together.

Theravada and Mahayana have no conflicts or disagreements of any kind.

Unlike the other examples.

I was speaking of doctrinal or philosophical conflicts there, not violent conflict. Of course there are doctrinal conflicts between Theravada and Mahayana, they have not erupted into violence though, not much at least.

So yeah Buddhism certainly has a better track record in that respect, but it's silly to say they have no conflict of any kind.

[AYJAYDEE]

Some people do get wrapped up in arguments about which is the 'pure' version of most any religion. Catholic Vs Protestant. Shiite vs Sunni. Even Theravada Vs Mahayana.

Err..They should not be grouped together.

Theravada and Mahayana have no conflicts or disagreements of any kind.

Unlike the other examples.

I was speaking of doctrinal or philosophical conflicts there, not violent conflict. Of course there are doctrinal conflicts between Theravada and Mahayana, they have not erupted into violence though, not much at least.

So yeah Buddhism certainly has a better track record in that respect, but it's silly to say they have no conflict of any kind.

I think he really thinks thats true!!

[only1]

Some people do get wrapped up in arguments about which is the 'pure' version of most any religion. Catholic Vs Protestant. Shiite vs Sunni. Even Theravada Vs Mahayana.

Err..They should not be grouped together.

Theravada and Mahayana have no conflicts or disagreements of any kind.

Unlike the other examples.

I was speaking of doctrinal or philosophical conflicts there, not violent conflict. Of course there are doctrinal conflicts between Theravada and Mahayana, they have not erupted into violence though, not much at least.

So yeah Buddhism certainly has a better track record in that respect, but it's silly to say they have no conflict of any kind.

Conflicts refer to some form of disagreement. There is no disagreement between the different sect of Buddhism. Their difference is emphasis in different areas of Buddhism.

[Furryman]

There is no disagreement between the different sect of Buddhism. Their difference is emphasis in different areas of Buddhism.

Here is a list of 20 defining differences between Theravada and Mahayana. Most of them are doctrinal disagreements.

[only1]

There is no disagreement between the different sect of Buddhism. Their difference is emphasis in different areas of Buddhism.

Here is a list of 20 defining differences between Theravada and Mahayana. Most of them are doctrinal disagreements.

Please refer to them and read again. They did not disagree with each other. As I wrote earlier, they emphasis differently. Thus, not considered as conflicts.

[Furryman]

There is no disagreement between the different sect of Buddhism. Their difference is emphasis in different areas of Buddhism.

Here is a list of 20 defining differences between Theravada and Mahayana. Most of them are doctrinal disagreements.

Please refer to them and read again. They did not disagree with each other. As I wrote earlier, they emphasis differently. Thus, not considered as conflicts.

I guess you can use your own definition of conflict if you want, but on several points in that list, the two schools offer directly opposite interpretations of Buddhist teaching. If that is not a doctrinal conflict, I don't know what is.

[KyawSwa]

Folks, there is no point of arguing what is true and what is false, what is pure and what is impure! When it comes to religion none of us know exactly how it came to exist! Neither do we have reliable and inarguable source to compare and contrast. As for me I uphold the Golden Rule, I treasure my life, I want to enjoy without hurting anyone.

[only1]

There is no disagreement between the different sect of Buddhism. Their difference is emphasis in different areas of Buddhism.

Here is a list of 20 defining differences between Theravada and Mahayana. Most of them are doctrinal disagreements.

Please refer to them and read again. They did not disagree with each other. As I wrote earlier, they emphasis differently. Thus, not considered as conflicts.

I guess you can use your own definition of conflict if you want, but on several points in that list, the two schools offer directly opposite interpretations of Buddhist teaching. If that is not a doctrinal conflict, I don't know what is.

Please highlight which few you consider by directly opposite. So far all I see are only this or only that, nothing conflicts or opposite.

[AYJAYDEE]

Some people do get wrapped up in arguments about which is the 'pure' version of most any religion. Catholic Vs Protestant. Shiite vs Sunni. Even Theravada Vs Mahayana.

Err..They should not be grouped together.

Theravada and Mahayana have no conflicts or disagreements of any kind.

Unlike the other examples.

I was speaking of doctrinal or philosophical conflicts there, not violent conflict. Of course there are doctrinal conflicts between Theravada and Mahayana, they have not erupted into violence though, not much at least.

So yeah Buddhism certainly has a better track record in that respect, but it's silly to say they have no conflict of any kind.

Conflicts refer to some form of disagreement. There is no disagreement between the different sect of Buddhism. Their difference is emphasis in different areas of Buddhism.

of course there is disagreement

[Furryman]

Please highlight which few you consider by directly opposite. So far all I see are only this or only that, nothing conflicts or opposite.

#s 1, 2 & 3 are all pretty big ones.

[AYJAYDEE]

Please highlight which few you consider by directly opposite. So far all I see are only this or only that, nothing conflicts or opposite.

#s 1, 2 & 3 are all pretty big ones.

plenty here too http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/study/comparison_buddhist_traditions/theravada_hinayana_mahayana/intro_comparison_hinayana_mahayana.html

[rockyysdt]

Which is the better path?

Apparently Mahayana has far more followers.

[AYJAYDEE]

Which is the better path?

Apparently Mahayana has far more followers.

so does Mohammed and Christ too but I wouldnt cross the street to sign up with them

[rockyysdt]

I haven't done any study to compare, but have been influenced mainly by Theravada to date due to Thai influence.

I think the best path is what Buddha taught, but unfortunately most of us will never know what that was.

Edited September 9, 2015 by rockyysdt

[only1]

Folks, there is no point of arguing what is true and what is false, what is pure and what is impure! When it comes to religion none of us know exactly how it came to exist! Neither do we have reliable and inarguable source to compare and contrast. As for me I uphold the Golden Rule, I treasure my life, I want to enjoy without hurting anyone.

We are not arguing. We are discussing, in order to know better, a common practice in Buddhism especially between Tibetan monks. My Golden Rule share all the good knowledge we have to help others and we lose nothing when we share knowledge. Even if we cannot know how any religion came about, we can still know if any religion is good or bad, which is more important. If bad, we have to stop it, eg Christianity and Islam. Edited September 9, 2015 by only1

[only1]

Please highlight which few you consider by directly opposite. So far all I see are only this or only that, nothing conflicts or opposite.

#s 1, 2 & 3 are all pretty big ones.

Those are not conflicts.They just believe in Their own but did not say the other is fake or unbelievable. I use TCM as an example. Both herbs and acupuncture are from TCM. The Chinese herbalist believe and know only in herbs and the acupuncture doctor may know accupunture only but we don't consider them as conflicts. Eg of conflicts is science's evolution and adam/eve claims, or Christianity against Islam. Edited September 9, 2015 by only1

[KyawSwa]

This is what has been observed,

1. Christianity under the Roman Catholicism waged wars, occupied territories, converted people and executed those who did not agree with them (i.e. Spanish inquisition)

Today, they cannot do in the same way anymore

2. Today, some Muslims under IS is doing pretty much the same

3. Tomorrow, it may be, certain Buddhist sects copy the pattern and take their turn; not to ignore is the recent developments in Sri Lanka and Myanmar (Burma) other religions and ethnics, both are stanch Theravada followers

4. Not sure what Hindus will do after them!

Only time will tell.

But, each one has to reap what he sows!

Enjoy life, make peace, show love and care to needy if you are able to and live as long as you can where you love to.

IMO.