It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Buddhism really two different religions?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Exactly! Although I wish more Christians aspired to be more like Jesus... the world would be a better place... but that is massively off topic!
edit on 14-2-2014 by iRoyalty because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Cathcart
 


Sounds like your friend is deluded about Buddhism. He's either misunderstanding the teaching or he's learning from a degenerate source.

If you want to see how his beliefs stack up against real Ch'an (Zen) Buddhism, check out the book The Sutra of Hui-Neng. Written by the sixth and final patriarch of Zen, TSoHN describes in plain language the overall principles of real Zen.

Cheers.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   

iRoyalty
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Exactly! Although I wish more Christians aspired to be more like Jesus... the world would be a better place... but that is massively off topic!
edit on 14-2-2014 by iRoyalty because: (no reason given)


I wish they aspired to be like Buddha. Maybe they'd have more time to focus on the world we already have.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


There isn't particularly a lot of difference between Jesus and the Buddha. Their teaching were quite similar. In fact, I learnt that my order (Triratna) actually see Jesus as an enlightened being and celebrate Christmas!

It's just because Jesus was considered a lot more holy, being the son of god and all so anyone who didn't believe in the son of god must have been evil! Whereas if you can offend a Buddhist monk, I will give you everything I own (which is probably about £15 and an Xbox 360 lol)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Cathcart
 


Just realised I haven't really answered your questions!

No this is not a common thought amongst western Buddhists, my girlfriend gets so annoyed with me literally handing my cash out. She get's angry that I 'should be saving it!' but after my bills and the bit I DO put into saving, I don't care about it.

Put it this way, I would rather buy me and a friend an icecream rather than just myself. I find that good things are better enjoyed when others are enjoying it too, so why be selfish? It will never be as good as sharing. Ever.

Material things are temporary happiness, not true happiness. I would rather I emptied my account to the people around me and they be happy than get the latest Xbox or something.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by iRoyalty
 


He despised his life only because he realized its transience. He recognized that there was happiness there for him, but only the transient kind, that is why he wasn't satisfied by it.

At lease, this is my understanding from the Dhammapada, which I'm working my way through again.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Headshot
 


Yes I guess that's true, I know he loved his wife and son, but he saw the domestic life as 'dusty' which I believe comes from a saying at the time said by some Ascetics about material and family pressure being like a "piece of dust that weighs down the soul".

You're going through a second time? Then you probably have more knowledge on these subjects than I do! I have read a fair amount on it, read a lot on impermanence, kamma, re-birth.. but I really do need to have a solid time for studying and meditating... I've been too lax on both recently!



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Serdgiam
Buddhism, as a practice, tends to focus on the moment to moment experience of "life" (the "now).

Zen buddhism is not necessarily something that one can "convert" to, or "practice" since it is a realization of what is already there. How does one "convert" to what they already are?


The "convert" part is my words, not his. He didn't say it like that. I'm not Buddhist myself, so please excuse my poor choice of words.
edit on 14-2-2014 by Cathcart because: typo



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   

iRoyalty
Just realised I haven't really answered your questions!

No this is not a common thought amongst western Buddhists, my girlfriend gets so annoyed with me literally handing my cash out. She get's angry that I 'should be saving it!' but after my bills and the bit I DO put into saving, I don't care about it.

Put it this way, I would rather buy me and a friend an icecream rather than just myself. I find that good things are better enjoyed when others are enjoying it too, so why be selfish? It will never be as good as sharing. Ever.

Material things are temporary happiness, not true happiness. I would rather I emptied my account to the people around me and they be happy than get the latest Xbox or something.


Thanks for the response! Well, maybe I was mistaken, the Buddhists on this board sure don't seem materialistic at all, guess it was just a misunderstanding on my part.

However, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that guy was avaricious or egotistical or anything like that. He was actually quite generous. When I said he was "materialistic", I just meant that he put value in the material aspect of existence. He said he believed happiness resided in "living life to the fullest". Which I interpreted as "full of stuff". That's just the way I understood it, so maybe I was mistaken on this too...



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Cathcart
 


I'd like to respond to your atheist vs. non-theist statement. The two terms are synonyms. An athesit doesn't believe in a supreme being or beings and a theist does; therefore a non-theist would not believe in those things as well.

Buddhists do not believe in a Supreme Creator Being; they do believe and pray to higher (more advanced/evolved) beings and seek their blessings (mostly on the behalf of other suffering beings and not themselves.)

The basic reason Buddhism is considered Athesistic is because of their doctring of 'Dependant Origination" which states that all things (effects) are aggregates of many causes, ad infinitum.

What a buddist would call a god or goddess would be analogious to a Christian or Hindu Saint.

Being 'Present' "In the Now" "Calmly Abiding" is a whole different kettle of fish then "Seizing the Day". The the language is, as you stated in a later post, avarious (pardon my spelling). It is being still (mentally) and observing what you are doing, whats happening in your environment (including your mind) at any given moment. It can be a prelude to formal mediation or just a pactise of "mindfulness" in it's own right.


The trappings of the various 'sects' are no different really then the trappings of various Christian denominations and have arisen in similar fashion to include earlier religious and cultural beliefs.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   

FyreByrd
I'd like to respond to your atheist vs. non-theist statement. The two terms are synonyms. An athesit doesn't believe in a supreme being or beings and a theist does; therefore a non-theist would not believe in those things as well.


Well, I was under the impression that a theist believes in a personal diety, while a non-theist doesn't believe in a personal diety, and an atheist doesn't believe in any metaphysical notion whatsoever, personal or impersonal.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Cathcart

FyreByrd
I'd like to respond to your atheist vs. non-theist statement. The two terms are synonyms. An athesit doesn't believe in a supreme being or beings and a theist does; therefore a non-theist would not believe in those things as well.


Well, I was under the impression that a theist believes in a personal diety, while a non-theist doesn't believe in a personal diety, and an atheist doesn't believe in any metaphysical notion whatsoever, personal or impersonal.


I'd recommend looking up the terms in the dictionary.

I would ask what makes a personal diety as opposed to a diety. A personal diety implies that we all have a specific deity rather then, as Muslims say "There is only one God and....".



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   

FyreByrd
I'd recommend looking up the terms in the dictionary.


That's kind of tricky, because even the word "theism" has two different meanings in the dictionary. These terms are used in different ways, leading to muddy waters.

Merriam-Webster


Full Definition of THEISM
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically: belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

In my OP, I was referring to the "specific" definition of theism. And if I'm not mistaken, I think this was the original meaning of theism. In that sense, plenty of religions are not theistic, because they don't feature a conscious supreme creator who is responsible for everything in the universe, and thus could be called "non-theist". The term "atheism" most often has a totally different meaning. It is the denial of belief in any divine beings or force, period.


FyreByrd
I would ask what makes a personal diety as opposed to a diety. A personal diety implies that we all have a specific deity rather then, as Muslims say "There is only one God and....".


No, a personal deity is a god who is a person, literally. Someone you can relate to and talk with, as theists do in prayer. Most even use the word "father" or the like.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join