But, buddhism is based on the writtings of shakamuni Budha. I would say that anything that is not based on some sort of written sutra, is in fact Not budhism!
The problem with some atheists is that they are becoming so much like the people they don't agree with...example religious people can be sooo fanatics and closed minded...and some atheist act and behave like that. So fanatics and closed minded about others views.
@soilofk Some have formed their own anti-religion. People should always question everything. Even fundamental things should be questioned, like gravity or anything being faster than the speed of light. Or why disabled people should be allowed to live?
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real an eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith ~ Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology).
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their vital structures, organs, and reproductive system hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site.
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select," not produce. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as
Buddhism isin't a religion it's a philosophy or way of life. I don't see why this is controversial or it's just "opinion." Religion by definition is the worship and belief and higher power or deity. Buddhism states that the concept of a god is irrelevant to humans and we should focus on mindfulness and awareness.
when people start describing things that they don't know they have to lie. in order to cover one lie they have to invent others. soon the theories are drowned in a sea of lies. buddhism has relatively less of these problems.
Are you saying that the human mind persists in nonrational ways of looking at things, and that, specific theology aside, there may be some psychological or other need that is met in the nonrational?
@moopism no need for nonrational. But sometimes it makes sense to be openminded. It was a misunderstanding between James Cizuz and me. We figured it out per pm. I had a bad day:D. But atheism has nothing to do with buddhism. (actually there are some guys who treat buddha as god, but that makes not much sense in my opinion.) I just don't like unflexible standpointsBut that is a problem to me. Buddha himself said. If it makes no sense for you -> throw it away. There is no believe in buddh. :)
@moopism If you know a little about game theory. Then I would say normal people play a noncooperative game and buddhists are more like agents in a cooperative game. But don't be afraid it has not much to do with communism, it is more a natural thing. Maybe this was a stupid comparison. Iam only interested in Zen. Not much in other buddhism schools. And zen is just meditation and practice. No magic in it. At least no magic like anyone think about magic. Have fun :D
@jomushin7 But that's what I was talking about when I used the term non-rational- it doesn't imply that there is no rational explanation for the well-being that say meditation, or mindfulness, creates in areas like stress reduction. Or that there are no logically antiseptic ways to get there (think biofeedback).
I mean non- rational in the sense that it concerns things like the mind/body connection, or in the sense that placebos work, aside from the imagination, there is no mechanism.
@moopism Maybe i misunderstood you. First of all placebos work great! you are what you think is a common sense in buddhism. As a physiotherapist I can say look at the body posture of a depressive person in example. At least many healing stuff woks through the mind ans this is common knowledge in western and eastern medicine too. The body goes where the mind goes. Zen meditation is only for the actual moment you are not distracted in any way. When you eat you eat, when you sleep, you sleep...
@moopism maybe you want to watch Alan Watts /watch?v=aGWdzFyOOFw. Mindfullness has many benefits in every aspect of life. It is no imagination. It is nearly the opposite, it is about taking the daily imagination away. Sorry man maybe I really misunderstood you total what you wanted to tell me.my english is a little lousy. :D hahaha
@jomushin7 Your english seems fine to me. I don't disagree with you, I suspect that we're using different words to say the same sort of thing. Imagination was a poor word on my part, I meant to say it as an activity of a mindstate, which is what meditation facilitates.
@JamesCizuz ahahaha you talk about shit you have no clou about. I can punch you in the face and you will see how much liar Iam. Of course there is no middle way, there is just your way. Look closer and you see there are no ways at all. That is called the middle way. There is no outside and no inside. What is difficult to understand with this? In fact it is the simplest thing on the world.
I am also an atheist, and I think the probability of an afterlife is exceedingly low. I suspect life came into existence through some kind of abiogenesis without help, and progressed by evolution. I think if there's an afterlife it's probably going to be more like reincarnation than like an infinite punishment or reward, but I doubt there's any such thing.
I suspect I fall into the philosophical classification then...
Buddha never mentioned anything about evolution, big bang or any important fact about the universe. That fact makes it hard to believe that Buddha was the enlightened one he said he was. So now i'm not a buddhist.
@yapanuwan I suspect that Buddha never spoke about those things because they would be divisive and they're not important to leading a good and happy life. It doesn't hurt to go looking for answers about those topics, but knowing the answers isn't that vital for happiness, or living a good life.
@pkemrin You can only 'suspect'. I cannot find any teaching of Buddha that can convince me that he knew it all.
Also I have trouble understanding Dualism (philosophy of mind, wiki it). If all life forms evolved from a common ancestor, how come only 'Kingdom Animalia' have connections with a spirit ? What about very primitive animal forms such as Sponges. No spirit means not reincarnation and also no Karma. That explanation is neater.
@yapanuwan I can only suspect because Buddha died 2500 years ago, so I can't ask him why he didn't talk about those things. I really don't know or care if he "knew it all," because he had the ultimate wisdom for living a good and happy life. Whether or not he was supernatural, or if he knew how the earth formed or not is beside the point.
Animal Kingdom probably didn't develop a connection with a "spirit" either. You've mistaken the brain's data processing for the super natural.
@yapanuwan Spiritual enlightenment has nothing to do with being all knowing. It's just the state of having no ego. No voice in your head that judges others, complains about life or gets attached to physical objects or psychological highs. Buddhism/Daoism has never been something trying to replace science.
Karma, reincarnation and all of that are just sub beliefs and concepts. I'm somewhat of a buddhist and I don't believe in any of that.
The thing I don't get with people claiming a middle way are basically misunderstanding or lying. In belief there is theist and atheist. Then there is agnostic and gnostic. Agnostic and gnostic apply to what you KNOW about god, and theist and atheist are what you believe. Atheist is without belief in a god, meaning even if someone say they don't know, or admit there is not specific god they believe in and just leave it that it's "possible" fit into weak atheism. There is no middle.
I see you removed your comment. Here it is again.
"@JamesCizuz ahahaha you talk about shit you have no clou about. I can punch you in the face and you will see how much liar Iam. Of course there is no middle way, there is just your way. At least there are no ways at all. That is called the middle way. There is no outside and no inside. What is difficult to understand with this? In fact it is the simplest thing on the world."
@JamesCizuz why is it irrational in your opinion? My boxing style uses the middle way as a core concept. :D But I guess you call everything a lie you have no clou about.
You are spelling words wrong and it is not even worth it to argue with someone like you. The point is, regardless if you can beat me up mr internet tough guy has nothing to do with the debate. It's like someone asking you if you think the sun revolves around the earth and then someone corrects you and you threaten them. That is of the kindergarten level of childish maturity, though I expect it and that is why I love to laugh at pathetic people like you.
@JamesCizuz It has nothing to do with beat you up lol. It wasn't meant harsh. It was just a proof for the middleway. And sorry it is about 15 years ago I learned english in school, but you understood me finally. I wish you all the best. ^^
@JamesCizuz But I want to debate with you. Sorry that I maybe have frightened you. We can make it with the personal message function. So we don't spam the comment section. It would be nice to make a little debate. What are your interests?
@JamesCizuz Okay I have to say you are a little bit unfair. You don't want to learn about things you don't know. so i think you are a little bit close minded. Does that thing with the punch insulted you so much? Than I want to apologize for this. But it is somekind of obv that a man can't punch someone through the internet, so I really don't see your problem with that. But I guess you are like all the theists. Who just say god to things they don't understand. But instead of god you say lie...
If you say you don't know god exists that is not an answer about your belief but knowledge. However if you are stubborn and say you actually don't know then you are without a belief in a spefic god or gods. Meaning you are without belief, or atheist.
@JamesCizuz thank you. But I have watched the most atheist debates on the internet. And Iam a fan of Dawkins. Iam fully with you in this thing. The middle way in fact has not much to do with god. A buddhist doesn't care much about a supernatural beeing. The buddha himself said, what does not make sense to you, throw it away. So why you think a buddhist wants to tie a stone to his feet? I read it in another comment. Buddhism is prooved in every single scientific experiment! Iam a prof. poker pl..
See you have the gawl to message me asking what I DON'T understand about a middle position. You don't understand there is no middle position. Beliefs are binary, and so are knowledge statements.
You either know, or you don't.
You either belief, or you don't.
It is ridiculous to claim a 50% claim, because even if that was possible even 50% until it's 51% in the favor of god, you are still an atheist. 50% or less is atheist. That is if beliefs could be assigned percent.
@JamesCizuz For example in politics all the big parties move to the middle over time. That is an example of the midle way. The middle way is just common sense.Why is that, that Nils Bohr and Heisenberg used the Yin Yang symbol as their the early emblemDo you think these guys were irrational?Look up Hans Peter Dürr.I don't need that philosophical blabla too.But just to give you an idea about the middle way. Doyou know the physics of the human body. There you can easily see why the midway is good.
Ahh now I understand. I have no problem with what you are saying, I was talking about belief, not a belief system. See I think the problem we are having is miscomunication. I am talking about one belief, and you are talking about a middle way in how to think in general. Poltics is a huge vast machine or ideals, and so are religions. Atheism and Theism by definition are not religions or belief systems, just one belief. That is what we are speaking about.
See you are having a little misunderstanding what I am saying. A single belief is binary. A set of beliefs or a belief system allows you to find a middle ground. However a single belief can by definition as it is binary not have a middle ground.
@JamesCizuz Everyone things he is right and that is why there is so much hate and war in the world. And the religions have often become to a death cult believe system.. But there is some hidden mystik knowledge in every religion too. Don't underestimate the deep knowledge of the religions.And yes I would say maybe we would do better without them. But how can a god exist outside your own mind? How should that be possible? In the beginning was the word... maybe you can get a little bit of this
@yapanuwan There are plenty of Buddhists (Mostly In Zen Buddhism) who don't believe in reincarnation or karma. Of course, anyone who is a Buddhist can describe themselves as an atheist, because Buddhists don't believe in any god. It is an Atheistic religion (If religion is even the proper word to describe it.)
@dhadfield91 If you're a Buddhist then you should know better than to ask that question, if you're not, then you should read and study instead of expose your ignorance in that way
@dhadfield91 If you thought Buddhism is just another set of dogma then you have never grasped the core of Buddhism in the first place.
It's a common mistake for people to lump Buddhism in as just another dogmatic belief system like Christianity. But at it's core it is a philosophy and a way of life. However there are some ideas (Karma/Reincarnation) attached to it, kind of like how QM has theories like String/M theory attached to it to make it all fit together. But I can't explain it all here.
@DemonHermit If the concepts of karma and reincarnation are just attached to Buddhism, couldn't the argument be made that any given religion is a philosophy without dogma? For example, Christianity could be rendered as a philosophy concerning the nature of sin with just a few ideas like that of an all-powerful deity and an afterlife. We can all be concerned with reducing suffering in ourselves and in other people. However, isn't the concept of the bodhisattva at the heart of Zen Buddhism?
@dhadfield91 Yes and there are many ways of looking at the concept of a Boddhisattva, some see it as a stage in reincarnation, some just see it as a state of consciousness.
If I had the time to explain the richness of wisdom traditions like Buddhism I would. But I can't, however if you are really interested in learning these things, I would recommend Alan Watts's talks on Buddhism/Taoism and philosophy. Or any of his work for that matter. The man was a true sage.
@DemonHermit Another reason Buddhism is so inviting apart from the principles is that it doesn't try to convince. Atheism is the opposite these days. Its getting more aggressive as more people adopt its way of thinking. All this Atheist experience shit is mere child's play, filled with conceptual contradictions. If one has to be convincing at least do it right. Segregating people according to their personal beliefs and superstitions isn't going to change shit, only piss them off.
If I had to choose a religion Buddhism would be the one. No crucifixions, no hating gays, no hating intellectuals, no salvation from hell scams, etc. Its a very chill and has compassion for others as a real core belief
The whole point of Zen Buddhism is achieving enlightenment. If you think being an atheist and evolutionist is the best way for you to achieve go for it.
Their isnt really a dogma to zen buddhism. It is more like meditate and find your own way to enlightenment(nirvana).
Athiests are as annoying as religious people, they are so transfixed on religion they ignore any idea that sounds like religion. Almost like a negative of the photgraph of religion.
I could say the universe is like a god. But maybe god is more like a tree than a man. Not self aware but with awareness as a feature (ie life). We are the flowers, but perhaps more accurately, the nuts. lol. The second the athiest hears something that sounds pro, they switch off and argue.
the same thing happened here in virginia beach. they built a beautiful buddhist temple here and they were such great people. you could come and seek refuge or meditate within their temple grounds, they didn't have to know who you are. but they couldn't afford to pay the taxes and property that applied to everyone else. everywhere around them were these very large and rich churches like the rock church.
@shaworld no it was vietnamese if i believe so correct. i think buddhism is a step above christianity or should i say the bible. i don't believe the bible is an accurate presentation of christianity.
spirituality is the very integral, holistic level of humanity that usually runs deeper then emotional and mental life, and which connects the inividual to the whole on a very deep and integral level, almost or all the way to the point where the individual and the whole are the same identity. There you go I defined it.
@UnderlordZ lots of words can be defined in different ways. Obviously laymen are going to give lots of varying definitions for the same words. Not everything has a black or white meaning. Language is not maths.
Great! A definition! Think anybody else has the same one? And more importantly, what does that even mean? And can you demonstrate even a fraction of that? I don't remember connecting to a "integral, holistic (which by the way are kinda oxymorons) level of humanity" back when I considered myself "spiritual". And what is this "whole" you speak of, and why do I want to "connect" to it? Can you describe this sensation (without words like "integral", "holistic", and "whole")?
Right now all the theists are scratching their heads wondering why this women didn't get laid to waste... well, it's because she doesn't believe in something that is untrue.
@berniebay well in texas they refused a buddhist organization tax exemption calling buddhism a non religion or something. but buddhism is a kind of faith (without a god).
I just don't get it. Does she really say she's a buddhist and a few minutes later she doesn't believe in rebirth?
wtf? This IS an essential part of buddhism. The law of kamma wouldn't make any sense without rebirth. There is no need to become enlightened if there is no rebirth. Maybe she referred to anatta and maybe she wanted to point out that it is not about a soul travelling to another body.
Buddhism is not just about meditation and wellness!
no, not literally, that's right. one ending existence conditions a following existence. not the same. not the different. related.
but condemning the whole idea of rebirth seems not right to me. As long as we are not free of identity view (sakkāya-ditthi), we can't experience rebirth as it is.
We shouldnt urge to experience "rebirth" anyway because this would end up in suffering again. I guess there is even more behind the idea of sakkāya-ditthi than losing identity. Deconstrivist philosophy gives some insight into this field.
i have no idea about deconstrivist philosophy. according to my opinion, everything needed to get rid of identity view is described in the kanon. anyway.
even though it may end up in suffering (by the way, what does not end up in suffering?), i would like to hear your opinion on rebirth.
You should compare the kanon and that philosophy. It will be worth it.
Sure no problem. I guess if you do not have any desire to do anything you wont end up in suffering. My idea of "death and rebirth" is a time in life when the personal world view is (extremely) altered by sudden events. You change your view and then you end up again in other "trouble".
This chain is broken if you reject any "heap of thought" (i.e. stereotype) to be yours.
If the chain has not been broken until your physical death...you die and that is all.
Your "heaps" or your "creations" continue "living" within the persons who remember you and inside the things they connect with you e.g. a song you always liked remembering them on you etc.
And that's where I disagree. Your mind (i mean viññana) does not depend on the body (it's the other way round). It is not eternal, it is indeed changing all the time, but the end of the body is not the end of your mind.
I even agree with you on the mind-thing (at least apart from some levels where your mind is formed physically) .. but then again..what happens with your mind after the physical end of your body?
I'm just reading a book about this. This is very difficult for me, since I usually talk about these things in german. I just know the german expressions and some Pali.
Furthermore I have been a buddhist only since about a year, and I don't want to give you an answer, that could be wrong or mistaken.
The Buddha gave clear answers to these questions. The only thing I can tell now is that there isn't just a material world, and the "other world" can be experienced in this very life.
It is interesting that you are mentioning that Buddha gave clear answers to this, because he told us not to believe his answers but to experience them for ourselves.
Okay I see. If necessary we could also talk in german.
I can not tell you what is going to happen to you after your death.
1. I don't know
2. Your experience of dying and death and the following depends on the quality of your former actions (Handlungsqualität=Wahrnehmungsqualität). I don't know you.
Sit down, watch your breath and you will see or get a book. But don't ask me, I might give you just a wrong answer.
The core teachings of Buddhism are totally and utterly secular. The practice of meditation can be done by any religions without reserve for their beliefs. It is merely a practice to focus the mind and increase awareness: things which we need more than anything else in life.
Buddhism isn't a religion, nor is it religious. The so called buddhist teachings that propagate religious beliefs, are simply not buddhist.
Buddhism is Atheist, period. There is no focus on "God". Anyone who claims Buddhism is somehow Theistic does not know what they are talking about. For historical reasons Polytheistic beliefs were incorporated into Buddhism because Hinduism and other Theistic religions coexisted with Buddhism as it spread across Asia. Its called Syncretism. The beauty of Buddhism is that a basically Atheist belief system can incorporate Polytheistic concepts into it without compromising the core Atheist ideas.
@DJmixmastermicro "Polytheistic beliefs were incorporated into Buddhism because Hinduism and other Theistic religions coexisted with Buddhism as it spread across Asia." so how do you explain polytheistic beliefs all over the oldest, most reliable canon we have, the pali canon? why the conspiracy to add all that in coming from disciples of the buddha preserving it orally, and then writing it down 300 years after his death?
@DJmixmastermicro atheists don't believe we are reborn as somewhere after they die without evidence. or that you can attain a blissful state of ultimate peace forever, outliving the physical body, etc. etc. etc. why do atheists become so faithful when it comes to buddhism? becaues they've been sold a bill of goods they're eager to buy.
@BillKiernan You do not speak for Atheism. You only speak for your own sorry ass. Read what I wrote buddy. I said Buddhists are Atheists, period. That's what most of them consider themselves. Sometimes can be described as Non-Theist, but the idea is essentially the same, that God or Gods are never the focus, or don't exist. You act like some Aryan racist harping on about white purity when it comes to Atheism. In fact most Atheists are not elitist puritanical morons like you.
As a member of East Asian Buddhism, I must say that Buddhism is fundamentally Non-theistic or Atheistic. The #1 goal of Buddhism is NEVER any imagined god or divinity, but to acheive Buddha's Enlightenment. Belief in god(s) does not help in Enlightenment.. But, some local cultural beliefs existed prior to introduction of Buddhism, and some people mixed theistic or polytheistic ideas into Buddhism.. As for gods, devils, heavens or hells mentioned in Sutras, these are metaphors for states of mind.
@pixusbubblejet "As for gods, devils, heavens or hells mentioned in Sutras, these are metaphors for states of mind" the authors of those texts really sucked then. what proof do you have that they are all metaphors?
@BillKiernan.. these are analogous to consciousness states. consciousness is something dealt with extensively in ancient hindu, jain, buddhist thought.. examination of consciousness is not part of the abrahamic religions which are obsessed with master-slave relationship to imaginary god, and also not dealt with with western science which only has material or measureable explanations of reality.
@pixusbubblejet can you point me to the works of buddhist scholoars that delineate all this? i spent quite a few years digging through buddhist texts, and aside from some writings of trungpa, which were his own twist, i've found nada.
@BillKiernan.. Original sutras are available in library but written in Old Chinese, Pali or Sanskrit.. Sometemes these are commented by researchers writing in Modern Chinese, Thai, Sinhalese or Japanese. 智顗 (Zhìyǐ) wrote famous book 摩訶止観 (Móhē Zhǐguān) about great concentration-insight meditation to help understand 10 levels of consciousness. But just reading books is insufficient. Practicing meditations & reading texts, both are necessary to understand. Direct experience is science in Buddhism.
@pixusbubblejet i've read many, many, sutras. i've also read many, many commentaries. i've never read anything to support your claim that all the references to the various devas, yakshas, gandharvas, asuras, pretas, etc. etc. are "metaphorical" descriptions of states of mind. in fact, many sutras talk about such things in ways that are impossible to interpret metaphorically. all one can do is make the claim that they are, because they wish it to be so, without real evidence.
@BillKiernan.. do you know what a sutra is? how sutras were written and under what circumstances they are to be read? unless you realize this you can "read" all the supposed sutras you want but never get anywhere..
@pixusbubblejet yes i know what a sutra is. i was a practitioner of buddhism for most of my adult life, as well as studying the texts from an academic point of view at the university of florida. your claim, that all references to supernatural beings are metaphorical, is not supported not only in the texts themselves, but in the vast commentarial literature of the theravada, the "hinayana" theravada precurors such as sarvastivada, mahayana, and vajrayana. if you can point me to texts, i'll check
@BillKiernan.. i was raised & practice in buddhism all my life, though i went to a christian high school and learned about the westerner's dualisms.. But in buddhism, ultimately, there is no literal materialist "demon", "gods", etc.. No we do not literally believe in existence of alien being with strange appearance living in a magic land.. Complex metaphysical ideas by people 2000 years ago used like song, poetry, parable & meditation.. Not the same language as a science manual to build a car.
@pixusbubblejet " But in buddhism, ultimately, there is no literal materialist "demon", "gods", etc." You cannot speak for all of Buddhism. Maybe whatever sect or subsect you belong to may hold this, but is not true for Buddhism in its entirety. Aside from some exegetes, overall during its 2500 year history, Buddhism has accepted a vast pantheon of supernatural beings existence, and taught that one can be reborn as any of them. This is a fact.
@BillKiernan.. If you notice, i said "ultimately". Please read again what i said with that in mind. Yes I know those beliefs you mentioned, and some nominal buddhists believe that, but it is superstition and folk beliefs that predate buddhism. They were mixed into the text and arts in order to be made understandable. Person with basic understanding may take those literally, but with development of practice, a committed Buddhist will cut through the imagery to understand meaning.. This is a fact.
@pixusbubblejet "a committed Buddhist will cut through the imagery to understand meaning.. This is a fact" then even some of the greatest and most celebrated luminaries and masters from every sect of buddhism throughout history were not "devoloped in their practice" and had only "basic understanding" of buddhism, because the overwhelming majority of them unquestionably accepted that beings are literally. All you need to do is read their commentaries to see this.
@BillKiernan .. The fact you only have a literalist interpretation of everything means you are at a basic understanding.. And so the demon is nothing but a demon, without subtext.. Not just buddhism, but historic and anthropological understanding you do not take consideration.. How can an idea be transmitted to people using the common beliefs that were prevalent at those superstitious times?.. Proof is in Asian historical and cultural backgrounds that buddhism came from these predate the Buddha.
@pixusbubblejet the fact that you are arrogant about your understanding doesn't take away from your obvious ignorance that MASTERS throughout the ages have accepted, taught, and believed in literal rebirth into the 6 realms. i take of what you mentioned into consideration because i studied from the perspective of a practitioner, and from an academic perspective. the buddha taught in the pali canon that he had no hidden teaching, he did not put his teaching in code, he spoke plainly.
@BillKiernan..The one who is arrogant is you. You are the one who boasts meeting great masters and investing so much to study buddhism... Nobody else did that here.. Looking back at your writings and bad attitude is the proof of that.. You dont like buddhism? But you remain connected to it. This is odd.. LOL.. But interesting and shows you have some kind of personal emotional issues that are coming out here.
@pixusbubblejet i didn't boast of anything, you questioned my experience, and i told you what it was. and now you are my psychologist? you have provided nothing but 2 japanese/chinese texts, in chinese/japenese script to support your argument. i can show you verses from shakyamuni, nagarjuna, aryadeva, theravadin exegetes that talk about what happens to people when they actually die, based upon their karma. put up, or shut up, this is not a religous forum and baseless claims don't fly.
@BillKiernan .. No, this is a You Tube video comment section LOL. Why do you think its a forum?? LOL you say shut up? i thought you are really a buddhist, but you never were. In fact you are just those western people who got interested in buddhist, paid much money for expensive books and classes, paid for meditation center because you want the secret of the universe from great master. LOL.. for some emotional reason didnt like it. and know you want to say its all junk LOL. thats about it right?
@pixusbubblejet what i meant to say was "are literally born into 1 of the 6 realms upon death." as hell beings, pretas, animals, humans, or asuras. the buddha, in the suttas/sutras, talked about this in terms that cannot be taken metaphorically, when he spoke about people who are physically dead. you cannot have a mental state when your body is dead, and the buddha talked about the destination of those dead, using specific examples. there's just no way around this.
@BillKiernan.. "what i meant to say was "are literally born into 1 of the 6 realms upon death."" ..these are your own words, you just add the word "literally" into the sentence to make it agree with you.. btw, what were you before you were buddhist? a christian or jewish? i think the dualisms you were indoctrinated in at an early age remains in your interpretation of buddhism.
@pixusbubblejet it doesn't matter what i was before i was buddhist. would you like me to start citing the thousands of pages of texts from masters from all traditions that speak about where people go after they literally, physically die? are you really trying to tell us that buddhism throughout it's history, did not teach that people are reborn into the various regions after their bodies die? you are really being disingenuous right now.
@BillKiernan.. Yes it matters. Its basic buddhist idea. Your past point determines your present and future points.. You dont need to cover up and ignore your own past religion and indoctrination.. It is who you were before Buddhism and continues on.. You understanding of buddhism is a basic level.. Btw why do you say you went to many great masters, and studies many great things at university.. Did you pay for those?
@pixusbubblejet how about you stick to the matter at hand, which you so far are unable to counter besides telling me i don't understand things as subtlely as you, the great practitioner of profound realization. how about you address the fact, that the buddha talks, in many, many places, about the current destination of people who were physically dead. stick to the topic at hand and don't project about my understanding please. why did the buddha talk about where physically dead people were now?
@BillKiernan.. Matter at hand? The matter at hand is you. It is you who are making issue to upset with something that is really a non-issue for most Buddhist people who have been buddhist all their lives.. There is nothing profound with what ive said. Its common knowledge. LOL. Even elementary school kids begin to understand the subtext. Why cant you? Your speaking about buddhism is similar to a christian reading of the bible.
@pixusbubblejet it's not common knowledge, because i can sit here all day and cite teachings about where people who are PHYSICALLY DEAD are reborn. this is an atheist video we are commenting on. you can't walk in here and expect us to take your word for something without evidence. "common knowledge." you are a moron. millions upon millions of buddhists believe in physical, literal rebirth, masters and monks and scholars included. either you don't know this, or are lying to sell buddhism.
@BillKiernan.. are you a christian? or ex christian? LOL your dogmatic behavior reminds me of my american classmates before.. Anyway why are you so conflicted?? over something that is in fact common knowledge for free.. You paid so much money to learn from supergreat masters? paid money to go to meditation center? LOL..why? these are not special knowledge. its free! LOL Btw, rebirth? its not a core beliefe. Englightenment is something you can get in this life. Not future possible ones.
@pixusbubblejet "lol" you have yet to counter my points with anything besides chest pounding about being asian and knowing better. not one actual counterpoint by means of citation, or even explantion detailing how a teaching about the post-mortem fate of someone in a certain realm can be a "metaphor." atheists reading this will see through it, b/c christians do the same thing. when you point out contradictions in their books, they say "oh, you just don't know god like we do." bye.
@BillKiernan. Mr Bill, based on your attitude we all know you are the chest beater here. LOL you are the only one who suddenly gives us your buddhist Resume.. You even told me you went to University of Florida. why? LOL.Well i would like go to surfing in florida someday.. LOL Btw buddhists, ultimately, dont believe in god. Though sometimes we say we do. yes Dainichinyourai is my god. Oh no its literal? So I must believe in god?LOL Um, Btw. body & 9 consciousness dies, but Enlightenment does not.
@BillKiernan.. Well i never been a christian, but i met them, meeting them? LOL. Since you were/are obviously a christian, i think you know more about your bible which is supposed to be gods words.. Well sutras is not bible. sutras is not word of god. its not literal. its not gospel truth. LOL. As i said, we, ultimately, have no god. Sutras are not everything. In rare cases some even burn them LOL. But generally, most buddhists try to go through them to get to everything, and it is totally free!
@pixusbubblejet "Since you were/are obviously a christian, i think you know more about your bible which is supposed to be gods words" how is this obvious, i am an atheist and was never a christian (in any real sense) aside from growing up in a non-practicing catholic family. nice try though.
@BillKiernan.. You are a funny and sad man. You try to hide your Christian past, nice try, but its clear you are reading buddhist texts like a christian bible.. Well, real buddhists do not think like literal Creationist christians, LOL, you make up something thats not there. You are not even buddhist, but then you claim to be, in order to hate it? you sound schizo. LOL. 6 year meditation? Wow you wasted so much time and money! It is you who were sold a bill of goods you were so eager to buy! LOL
I was born in a Theravada Buddhist country too and am a cultural Buddhist. What Bill is saying is true (indeed, you don't need to take his word for it, just read the suttas he's pointed out). Most practitioners of Buddhism do believe in literal rebirth. This is a fact, and you can't erase it just by saying it ain't so.
Buddhism has some great philosophical ideas. Just take what's relevant and dump the rest. (The same way you take Newton's laws and not his alchemy)
@engun1. I was born in a Mahayana Buddhist country and raised in a Buddhist culture. We chant sutra since childrens age and do rituals. But for true followers even within my culture, we recognize that cultural Buddhism itself is distraction and not the true sublime point. Religion is just human social phenomenon with human social problems. Buddhism is never the goal, and Rebirth concept is not essential. Many people become distracted by many provisional doctrines and lose sight of the true goal.
@pixusbubblejet Well, firstly, we'll have to differentiate the "true" followers from the "average" follower, because most followers do believe in these things quite literally. Would I be correct in saying that in your culture, it's only a small minority that can be categorized as "true" followers? Secondly, what, to you, is the true sublime point? the true goal?
@engun1. We can hint between "true" and "average" follower, but I should not rank others unless I am properly recognized by others to be "true". I most not self-claim "true". Only by natural recognition we may be called as such. But even if such a recognition does not occur, it is fine too. The real judge of us is in us. Not by others. But even most "average" people I know don't believe in rebirth and those provisionals.. In any case, sublime becomes known through yourself, not claims of others.
@pixusbubblejet Sure. I don't disagree with you. Labels don't mean anything. However, I hope we can both agree that most people do in fact believe in literal rebirth, which is a questionable belief? How can that be addressed in your view?
Secondly, you mentioned the sublime as the true goal a few times, without defining them. Can you clarify what you meant?
All in all, I would agree that there are many useful ideas worth being exposed to in Buddhism.
@engun1. As i said even most average people i know do not believe in rebirth and entities because they are discarded provisional concepts. Its like old myths that at first helps kids to understand a little, but when grown up it is discarded. We believe in like a scientific recycle of your ecological material, but end of your personal conscience. Sublime point in english is called "enlightenment", but if you know buddha law then it should not be easily named because becomes a political ego word..
@engun1. I do not claim to define "Enlightenment". I think there is no satisfactory definition. Another popular word is "Awaken" but that is not perfect either. That is why we usually dont say definitions, since they lead to a political ego feeling. Some say "Buddhahood" but that sounds too lofty. One less used is "Sublime" but people usually dont understand it. Some may even say "Desire" which may sound unholy and risky to some people, but it is more easily understood since it is common life..
In fact it is not desirable... Siddharta reached it is goal by realizing that even the desire of being enlightened (in the sense of knowing what is going on in general) causes suffering and therefore he simply ceased of trying to be e
The concept of reincarnation is a fundamental belief of Buddhism. just one of many beliefs of that religion.
coccolenz 4 days ago
But, buddhism is based on the writtings of shakamuni Budha. I would say that anything that is not based on some sort of written sutra, is in fact Not budhism!
filthyfun 1 week ago
Buddhism is not about reading "holy book" or indulging in beliefs....Buddhism is about being....
TheUndertakerSaysRIP 2 weeks ago
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it,
no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense." - Attributed to Buddha. I think it is hard to argue with.
jacksawild 4 weeks ago
The problem with some atheists is that they are becoming so much like the people they don't agree with...example religious people can be sooo fanatics and closed minded...and some atheist act and behave like that. So fanatics and closed minded about others views.
soilofk 1 month ago
@soilofk Some have formed their own anti-religion. People should always question everything. Even fundamental things should be questioned, like gravity or anything being faster than the speed of light. Or why disabled people should be allowed to live?
UltraEpicLoser 3 weeks ago
Wait... how did he do that with the sword?? haha
Spyder376 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real an eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith ~ Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their vital structures, organs, and reproductive system hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select," not produce. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as
Mogley52 4 months ago
Watch as Matt performs his own tracheotomy!
Did the caller say she was an orthodontist?
GoblinXXX 4 months ago
Taoism, Jainism, Confucianism and Buddhism are all religions
but i don't understand why some think it's not
americanliberal09 4 months ago
@americanliberal09 There's nothing religious about the Tao; it is a simple philosophy of self control.
amaxamon 3 months ago
@amaxamon And the three crowned Jewels: Compassion, Moderation, and humility
sickness324 2 months ago
all the other buddhism wudnt be buddhism
a real buddhism wud be only about guidelines buddha gave cuz buddhism came from the name buddha(i know thats not his real name but a title)
so he has like copyright to it
HellangelSakura 4 months ago
"Worship no one but yourself"
- Buddha
HellangelSakura 4 months ago
Buddhism isin't a religion it's a philosophy or way of life. I don't see why this is controversial or it's just "opinion." Religion by definition is the worship and belief and higher power or deity. Buddhism states that the concept of a god is irrelevant to humans and we should focus on mindfulness and awareness.
xTrappedUnderIcex 6 months ago
Mat Dilahunty is F'ing sweet
jfeltes 7 months ago
when people start describing things that they don't know they have to lie. in order to cover one lie they have to invent others. soon the theories are drowned in a sea of lies. buddhism has relatively less of these problems.
nayanmalig 7 months ago 8
Only satanists swallow swords. LMMFAO! Keep the faith(?) guys
joctheviper1 7 months ago
Only satanists swallow swords. LMMFAO!
joctheviper1 7 months ago
it is okay you can call me idiot. It was just an idea -> the word. Some people just have no sense for philosophy. I can live with that. Have fun.
jomushin7 8 months ago
@jomushin7 I'll try to explore:
Are you saying that the human mind persists in nonrational ways of looking at things, and that, specific theology aside, there may be some psychological or other need that is met in the nonrational?
Sort of like Joseph Campbell?
moopism 8 months ago
@moopism no need for nonrational. But sometimes it makes sense to be openminded. It was a misunderstanding between James Cizuz and me. We figured it out per pm. I had a bad day:D. But atheism has nothing to do with buddhism. (actually there are some guys who treat buddha as god, but that makes not much sense in my opinion.) I just don't like unflexible standpointsBut that is a problem to me. Buddha himself said. If it makes no sense for you -> throw it away. There is no believe in buddh. :)
jomushin7 8 months ago
@moopism If you know a little about game theory. Then I would say normal people play a noncooperative game and buddhists are more like agents in a cooperative game. But don't be afraid it has not much to do with communism, it is more a natural thing. Maybe this was a stupid comparison. Iam only interested in Zen. Not much in other buddhism schools. And zen is just meditation and practice. No magic in it. At least no magic like anyone think about magic. Have fun :D
jomushin7 8 months ago
@jomushin7 But that's what I was talking about when I used the term non-rational- it doesn't imply that there is no rational explanation for the well-being that say meditation, or mindfulness, creates in areas like stress reduction. Or that there are no logically antiseptic ways to get there (think biofeedback).
I mean non- rational in the sense that it concerns things like the mind/body connection, or in the sense that placebos work, aside from the imagination, there is no mechanism.
moopism 8 months ago
@moopism Maybe i misunderstood you. First of all placebos work great! you are what you think is a common sense in buddhism. As a physiotherapist I can say look at the body posture of a depressive person in example. At least many healing stuff woks through the mind ans this is common knowledge in western and eastern medicine too. The body goes where the mind goes. Zen meditation is only for the actual moment you are not distracted in any way. When you eat you eat, when you sleep, you sleep...
jomushin7 8 months ago
@moopism maybe you want to watch Alan Watts /watch?v=aGWdzFyOOFw. Mindfullness has many benefits in every aspect of life. It is no imagination. It is nearly the opposite, it is about taking the daily imagination away. Sorry man maybe I really misunderstood you total what you wanted to tell me.my english is a little lousy. :D hahaha
jomushin7 8 months ago
@jomushin7 Your english seems fine to me. I don't disagree with you, I suspect that we're using different words to say the same sort of thing. Imagination was a poor word on my part, I meant to say it as an activity of a mindstate, which is what meditation facilitates.
moopism 8 months ago
so I can't allow me to be irrational. :)
jomushin7 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JamesCizuz ahahaha you talk about shit you have no clou about. I can punch you in the face and you will see how much liar Iam. Of course there is no middle way, there is just your way. Look closer and you see there are no ways at all. That is called the middle way. There is no outside and no inside. What is difficult to understand with this? In fact it is the simplest thing on the world.
jomushin7 8 months ago
I'm a Buddhist.
I am also an atheist, and I think the probability of an afterlife is exceedingly low. I suspect life came into existence through some kind of abiogenesis without help, and progressed by evolution. I think if there's an afterlife it's probably going to be more like reincarnation than like an infinite punishment or reward, but I doubt there's any such thing.
I suspect I fall into the philosophical classification then...
pkemrin 9 months ago
@pkemrin I was a buddhist too.
Buddha never mentioned anything about evolution, big bang or any important fact about the universe. That fact makes it hard to believe that Buddha was the enlightened one he said he was. So now i'm not a buddhist.
yapanuwan 9 months ago
@yapanuwan I suspect that Buddha never spoke about those things because they would be divisive and they're not important to leading a good and happy life. It doesn't hurt to go looking for answers about those topics, but knowing the answers isn't that vital for happiness, or living a good life.
So I'm a Buddhist.
pkemrin 9 months ago
@pkemrin You can only 'suspect'. I cannot find any teaching of Buddha that can convince me that he knew it all.
Also I have trouble understanding Dualism (philosophy of mind, wiki it). If all life forms evolved from a common ancestor, how come only 'Kingdom Animalia' have connections with a spirit ? What about very primitive animal forms such as Sponges. No spirit means not reincarnation and also no Karma. That explanation is neater.
yapanuwan 9 months ago
@yapanuwan I can only suspect because Buddha died 2500 years ago, so I can't ask him why he didn't talk about those things. I really don't know or care if he "knew it all," because he had the ultimate wisdom for living a good and happy life. Whether or not he was supernatural, or if he knew how the earth formed or not is beside the point.
Animal Kingdom probably didn't develop a connection with a "spirit" either. You've mistaken the brain's data processing for the super natural.
pkemrin 9 months ago
@yapanuwan Spiritual enlightenment has nothing to do with being all knowing. It's just the state of having no ego. No voice in your head that judges others, complains about life or gets attached to physical objects or psychological highs. Buddhism/Daoism has never been something trying to replace science.
Karma, reincarnation and all of that are just sub beliefs and concepts. I'm somewhat of a buddhist and I don't believe in any of that.
DemonHermit 9 months ago
@DemonHermit I doubt it. Karma and Reincarnation are the main teachings in Buddhism. If you deny them, technically you are not Buddhist.
Even though I advocate some parts of Buddhism (such as Middle Way, Three Marks of Existence), I describe myself as an atheist.
yapanuwan 9 months ago
@yapanuwan
The thing I don't get with people claiming a middle way are basically misunderstanding or lying. In belief there is theist and atheist. Then there is agnostic and gnostic. Agnostic and gnostic apply to what you KNOW about god, and theist and atheist are what you believe. Atheist is without belief in a god, meaning even if someone say they don't know, or admit there is not specific god they believe in and just leave it that it's "possible" fit into weak atheism. There is no middle.
JamesCizuz 9 months ago
Comment removed
jomushin7 8 months ago
@jomushin7
I see you removed your comment. Here it is again.
"@JamesCizuz ahahaha you talk about shit you have no clou about. I can punch you in the face and you will see how much liar Iam. Of course there is no middle way, there is just your way. At least there are no ways at all. That is called the middle way. There is no outside and no inside. What is difficult to understand with this? In fact it is the simplest thing on the world."
Yeah, you certainly are a "rational" person.
JamesCizuz 8 months ago
@JamesCizuz I didn't removed my comment so I have no clou you speak about lol. But thank you for remoing it. :D
jomushin7 8 months ago
@JamesCizuz why is it irrational in your opinion? My boxing style uses the middle way as a core concept. :D But I guess you call everything a lie you have no clou about.
jomushin7 8 months ago
@jomushin7
You are spelling words wrong and it is not even worth it to argue with someone like you. The point is, regardless if you can beat me up mr internet tough guy has nothing to do with the debate. It's like someone asking you if you think the sun revolves around the earth and then someone corrects you and you threaten them. That is of the kindergarten level of childish maturity, though I expect it and that is why I love to laugh at pathetic people like you.
JamesCizuz 8 months ago
@JamesCizuz It has nothing to do with beat you up lol. It wasn't meant harsh. It was just a proof for the middleway. And sorry it is about 15 years ago I learned english in school, but you understood me finally. I wish you all the best. ^^
jomushin7 8 months ago
@JamesCizuz But I want to debate with you. Sorry that I maybe have frightened you. We can make it with the personal message function. So we don't spam the comment section. It would be nice to make a little debate. What are your interests?
jomushin7 8 months ago
@JamesCizuz Okay I have to say you are a little bit unfair. You don't want to learn about things you don't know. so i think you are a little bit close minded. Does that thing with the punch insulted you so much? Than I want to apologize for this. But it is somekind of obv that a man can't punch someone through the internet, so I really don't see your problem with that. But I guess you are like all the theists. Who just say god to things they don't understand. But instead of god you say lie...
jomushin7 8 months ago
@jomushin7
No sir you do not understand that there is no middle ground. It's a psudeu-intelluctal lie so people wouldn't be classified as atheist. That is it.
Theist = Belief in god or gods.
Gnostic = Absolute knowledge of god or gods.
A = Without.
Atheist = Without belief in gods or gods.
Agnostic = Without absolute knowledge of god.
See, by definition they are talking about two different things. Knowledge, and belief.
JamesCizuz 8 months ago
@jomushin7
All atheist is, is without belief in god.
If you say you don't know god exists that is not an answer about your belief but knowledge. However if you are stubborn and say you actually don't know then you are without a belief in a spefic god or gods. Meaning you are without belief, or atheist.
You are either.
Gnostic Theist
Agnostic Atheist
Agnostic Atheist
Gnostic
JamesCizuz 8 months ago
@JamesCizuz thank you. But I have watched the most atheist debates on the internet. And Iam a fan of Dawkins. Iam fully with you in this thing. The middle way in fact has not much to do with god. A buddhist doesn't care much about a supernatural beeing. The buddha himself said, what does not make sense to you, throw it away. So why you think a buddhist wants to tie a stone to his feet? I read it in another comment. Buddhism is prooved in every single scientific experiment! Iam a prof. poker pl..
jomushin7 8 months ago
@jomushin7
See you have the gawl to message me asking what I DON'T understand about a middle position. You don't understand there is no middle position. Beliefs are binary, and so are knowledge statements.
You either know, or you don't.
You either belief, or you don't.
It is ridiculous to claim a 50% claim, because even if that was possible even 50% until it's 51% in the favor of god, you are still an atheist. 50% or less is atheist. That is if beliefs could be assigned percent.
JamesCizuz 8 months ago
Comment removed
jomushin7 8 months ago
@JamesCizuz For example in politics all the big parties move to the middle over time. That is an example of the midle way. The middle way is just common sense.Why is that, that Nils Bohr and Heisenberg used the Yin Yang symbol as their the early emblemDo you think these guys were irrational?Look up Hans Peter Dürr.I don't need that philosophical blabla too.But just to give you an idea about the middle way. Doyou know the physics of the human body. There you can easily see why the midway is good.
jomushin7 8 months ago
@jomushin7
Ahh now I understand. I have no problem with what you are saying, I was talking about belief, not a belief system. See I think the problem we are having is miscomunication. I am talking about one belief, and you are talking about a middle way in how to think in general. Poltics is a huge vast machine or ideals, and so are religions. Atheism and Theism by definition are not religions or belief systems, just one belief. That is what we are speaking about.
JamesCizuz 8 months ago
@jomushin7
See you are having a little misunderstanding what I am saying. A single belief is binary. A set of beliefs or a belief system allows you to find a middle ground. However a single belief can by definition as it is binary not have a middle ground.
JamesCizuz 8 months ago
@JamesCizuz Everyone things he is right and that is why there is so much hate and war in the world. And the religions have often become to a death cult believe system.. But there is some hidden mystik knowledge in every religion too. Don't underestimate the deep knowledge of the religions.And yes I would say maybe we would do better without them. But how can a god exist outside your own mind? How should that be possible? In the beginning was the word... maybe you can get a little bit of this
jomushin7 8 months ago
@jomushin7
Don't put worlds in all 6.8 billion people on the planet. Not everyone thinks he is right, I am one of them.
THE WORD? YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE GUYS? This conversation is over, your kind has been dealt with long ago.
The only word to describe your position is "Idiot" so I have heard the word.
JamesCizuz 8 months ago
Comment removed
jomushin7 8 months ago
@JamesCizuz sorry the last statement was not for you. It was for moopism. :D
jomushin7 8 months ago
@yapanuwan There are plenty of Buddhists (Mostly In Zen Buddhism) who don't believe in reincarnation or karma. Of course, anyone who is a Buddhist can describe themselves as an atheist, because Buddhists don't believe in any god. It is an Atheistic religion (If religion is even the proper word to describe it.)
DemonHermit 9 months ago 21
@DemonHermit You're my kind of Buddhist.
MrRetrofractal 9 months ago
@DemonHermit If you are a Buddhist who does not believe in karma or reincarnation, then in what sense can you be a Buddhist?
dhadfield91 7 months ago
@dhadfield91 If you're a Buddhist then you should know better than to ask that question, if you're not, then you should read and study instead of expose your ignorance in that way
magiorey 7 months ago
@dhadfield91 If you thought Buddhism is just another set of dogma then you have never grasped the core of Buddhism in the first place.
It's a common mistake for people to lump Buddhism in as just another dogmatic belief system like Christianity. But at it's core it is a philosophy and a way of life. However there are some ideas (Karma/Reincarnation) attached to it, kind of like how QM has theories like String/M theory attached to it to make it all fit together. But I can't explain it all here.
DemonHermit 7 months ago
@DemonHermit If the concepts of karma and reincarnation are just attached to Buddhism, couldn't the argument be made that any given religion is a philosophy without dogma? For example, Christianity could be rendered as a philosophy concerning the nature of sin with just a few ideas like that of an all-powerful deity and an afterlife. We can all be concerned with reducing suffering in ourselves and in other people. However, isn't the concept of the bodhisattva at the heart of Zen Buddhism?
dhadfield91 7 months ago
@dhadfield91 Yes and there are many ways of looking at the concept of a Boddhisattva, some see it as a stage in reincarnation, some just see it as a state of consciousness.
If I had the time to explain the richness of wisdom traditions like Buddhism I would. But I can't, however if you are really interested in learning these things, I would recommend Alan Watts's talks on Buddhism/Taoism and philosophy. Or any of his work for that matter. The man was a true sage.
DemonHermit 7 months ago
@dhadfield91
two famous Zen poems:
"transmission outside scripture,
no word published,
point straight to the heart,
see the Nature and be awakened"
"Boddhi was originally no tree,
the bright mirror was no platform,
originally there's no visage,
where did the dust come from ?"
StarSpawn06 6 months ago
@DemonHermit Another reason Buddhism is so inviting apart from the principles is that it doesn't try to convince. Atheism is the opposite these days. Its getting more aggressive as more people adopt its way of thinking. All this Atheist experience shit is mere child's play, filled with conceptual contradictions. If one has to be convincing at least do it right. Segregating people according to their personal beliefs and superstitions isn't going to change shit, only piss them off.
Lamentfordeath 2 months ago
@DemonHermit
If I had to choose a religion Buddhism would be the one. No crucifixions, no hating gays, no hating intellectuals, no salvation from hell scams, etc. Its a very chill and has compassion for others as a real core belief
SocraticFox 1 month ago
@DemonHermit Zen buddhist do 'believe' in karma. Karma is a fact though, not a magical force, as many understand it.
jaykulls 1 month ago
@jaykulls Point is you dont have to!!!
The whole point of Zen Buddhism is achieving enlightenment. If you think being an atheist and evolutionist is the best way for you to achieve go for it.
Their isnt really a dogma to zen buddhism. It is more like meditate and find your own way to enlightenment(nirvana).
It also has a very relaxed view on scripture.
FcK2420 1 month ago
@FcK2420 Yeah, I know.
Athiests are as annoying as religious people, they are so transfixed on religion they ignore any idea that sounds like religion. Almost like a negative of the photgraph of religion.
I could say the universe is like a god. But maybe god is more like a tree than a man. Not self aware but with awareness as a feature (ie life). We are the flowers, but perhaps more accurately, the nuts. lol. The second the athiest hears something that sounds pro, they switch off and argue.
jaykulls 1 month ago
@jaykulls Im an atheist.
FcK2420 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jaykulls I am an atheist.....
FcK2420 1 month ago
@DemonHermit Yeah, but we realize there is much more to the world than the athiest can ever see.
jaykulls 1 month ago
Can#'t believe watching a fat bald guy talk about Buddhism is entertaining to some
ProtestantsRUs 9 months ago
@ProtestantsRUs Riiiight, you can't believe this entertaining to some but you can believe in an invisible sky daddy.
whanethewhip 9 months ago
Dam that's a good deepthroat....
xxGizmo05xx 10 months ago
when it comes to buddhism, it depends all on how you see it.
it's the same when it comes to taoism.
it's all about how you percieve the world.
zeldagamerDX6 10 months ago
Naraku is the term I believe Matt was looking for.
Nicci736 11 months ago
the same thing happened here in virginia beach. they built a beautiful buddhist temple here and they were such great people. you could come and seek refuge or meditate within their temple grounds, they didn't have to know who you are. but they couldn't afford to pay the taxes and property that applied to everyone else. everywhere around them were these very large and rich churches like the rock church.
renzokata 1 year ago
@renzokata
if it's a thai temple, you can have lunch there. Sunday's are great.
shaworld 10 months ago
@shaworld no it was vietnamese if i believe so correct. i think buddhism is a step above christianity or should i say the bible. i don't believe the bible is an accurate presentation of christianity.
renzokata 10 months ago
spirituality is the very integral, holistic level of humanity that usually runs deeper then emotional and mental life, and which connects the inividual to the whole on a very deep and integral level, almost or all the way to the point where the individual and the whole are the same identity. There you go I defined it.
lookatmepleasesir 1 year ago
@lookatmepleasesir Okay, now compare that definition to the definitions of every other person in your town alone. How many match up?
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ lots of words can be defined in different ways. Obviously laymen are going to give lots of varying definitions for the same words. Not everything has a black or white meaning. Language is not maths.
lookatmepleasesir 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ anyone would agree with my definition.
lookatmepleasesir 1 year ago
@lookatmepleasesir
Great! A definition! Think anybody else has the same one? And more importantly, what does that even mean? And can you demonstrate even a fraction of that? I don't remember connecting to a "integral, holistic (which by the way are kinda oxymorons) level of humanity" back when I considered myself "spiritual". And what is this "whole" you speak of, and why do I want to "connect" to it? Can you describe this sensation (without words like "integral", "holistic", and "whole")?
handsockpuppet 11 months ago
Right now all the theists are scratching their heads wondering why this women didn't get laid to waste... well, it's because she doesn't believe in something that is untrue.
Amarkcalledme 1 year ago
I love how Matt shoves a sword down his throat and Don just smiles politely. He must know how he does it :-)
JazzyJonas 1 year ago
dillahunty can swallow a sword. awshum.
111sUpErBaD111 1 year ago
are atheistic organisations exempt from tax?
nayanmalig 1 year ago
@nayanmalig im not sure about tax exemption but i know they're non-"prophet" organizations ;o)
ALITL8 1 year ago
@ALITL8 good pun. ha ha ha!
nayanmalig 1 year ago
@nayanmalig
Atheism isn't a religion, so no.
berniebay 1 year ago
@berniebay well in texas they refused a buddhist organization tax exemption calling buddhism a non religion or something. but buddhism is a kind of faith (without a god).
nayanmalig 1 year ago
@berniebay Actually, Theism in its pure form, like Atheism in its pure form, is NOT a religion too.
nowayout001 1 year ago
@nowayout001
I know. What are you trying to get at?
berniebay 1 year ago
@berniebay Just a reminder.
nowayout001 1 year ago
I just don't get it. Does she really say she's a buddhist and a few minutes later she doesn't believe in rebirth?
wtf? This IS an essential part of buddhism. The law of kamma wouldn't make any sense without rebirth. There is no need to become enlightened if there is no rebirth. Maybe she referred to anatta and maybe she wanted to point out that it is not about a soul travelling to another body.
Buddhism is not just about meditation and wellness!
wefkr 1 year ago
@wefkr
That is not quite correct.
Rebirth should not be taken literally in Buddhism.
VannevarBush 1 year ago
@VannevarBush
no, not literally, that's right. one ending existence conditions a following existence. not the same. not the different. related.
but condemning the whole idea of rebirth seems not right to me. As long as we are not free of identity view (sakkāya-ditthi), we can't experience rebirth as it is.
wefkr 1 year ago
@wefkr
We shouldnt urge to experience "rebirth" anyway because this would end up in suffering again. I guess there is even more behind the idea of sakkāya-ditthi than losing identity. Deconstrivist philosophy gives some insight into this field.
VannevarBush 1 year ago
@VannevarBush
i have no idea about deconstrivist philosophy. according to my opinion, everything needed to get rid of identity view is described in the kanon. anyway.
even though it may end up in suffering (by the way, what does not end up in suffering?), i would like to hear your opinion on rebirth.
_()_
wefkr 1 year ago
@wefkr
You should compare the kanon and that philosophy. It will be worth it.
Sure no problem. I guess if you do not have any desire to do anything you wont end up in suffering. My idea of "death and rebirth" is a time in life when the personal world view is (extremely) altered by sudden events. You change your view and then you end up again in other "trouble".
This chain is broken if you reject any "heap of thought" (i.e. stereotype) to be yours.
VannevarBush 1 year ago
@VannevarBush
Interesting.
And if the chain has not been broken until the time of your physical death?
It just goes on :-)
wefkr 1 year ago
@wefkr
If the chain has not been broken until your physical death...you die and that is all.
Your "heaps" or your "creations" continue "living" within the persons who remember you and inside the things they connect with you e.g. a song you always liked remembering them on you etc.
VannevarBush 1 year ago
@VannevarBush
And that's where I disagree. Your mind (i mean viññana) does not depend on the body (it's the other way round). It is not eternal, it is indeed changing all the time, but the end of the body is not the end of your mind.
Thank you for that conversation!
wefkr 1 year ago
@wefkr
I even agree with you on the mind-thing (at least apart from some levels where your mind is formed physically) .. but then again..what happens with your mind after the physical end of your body?
VannevarBush 1 year ago
@VannevarBush
I'm just reading a book about this. This is very difficult for me, since I usually talk about these things in german. I just know the german expressions and some Pali.
Furthermore I have been a buddhist only since about a year, and I don't want to give you an answer, that could be wrong or mistaken.
The Buddha gave clear answers to these questions. The only thing I can tell now is that there isn't just a material world, and the "other world" can be experienced in this very life.
wefkr 1 year ago
@wefkr
It is interesting that you are mentioning that Buddha gave clear answers to this, because he told us not to believe his answers but to experience them for ourselves.
Okay I see. If necessary we could also talk in german.
VannevarBush 1 year ago
@VannevarBush
I can not tell you what is going to happen to you after your death.
1. I don't know
2. Your experience of dying and death and the following depends on the quality of your former actions (Handlungsqualität=Wahrnehmungsqualität). I don't know you.
Sit down, watch your breath and you will see or get a book. But don't ask me, I might give you just a wrong answer.
And damn this 500 letter limit.
How come you know german?
wefkr 1 year ago
@wefkr
I have been german for a while until I left germany which happened at the end of the last century.
Okay I will see if it works.
VannevarBush 1 year ago
The core teachings of Buddhism are totally and utterly secular. The practice of meditation can be done by any religions without reserve for their beliefs. It is merely a practice to focus the mind and increase awareness: things which we need more than anything else in life.
Buddhism isn't a religion, nor is it religious. The so called buddhist teachings that propagate religious beliefs, are simply not buddhist.
thejugglenaut91 1 year ago
Buddhism is Atheist, period. There is no focus on "God". Anyone who claims Buddhism is somehow Theistic does not know what they are talking about. For historical reasons Polytheistic beliefs were incorporated into Buddhism because Hinduism and other Theistic religions coexisted with Buddhism as it spread across Asia. Its called Syncretism. The beauty of Buddhism is that a basically Atheist belief system can incorporate Polytheistic concepts into it without compromising the core Atheist ideas.
DJmixmastermicro 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DJmixmastermicro "Polytheistic beliefs were incorporated into Buddhism because Hinduism and other Theistic religions coexisted with Buddhism as it spread across Asia." so how do you explain polytheistic beliefs all over the oldest, most reliable canon we have, the pali canon? why the conspiracy to add all that in coming from disciples of the buddha preserving it orally, and then writing it down 300 years after his death?
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@DJmixmastermicro atheists don't believe we are reborn as somewhere after they die without evidence. or that you can attain a blissful state of ultimate peace forever, outliving the physical body, etc. etc. etc. why do atheists become so faithful when it comes to buddhism? becaues they've been sold a bill of goods they're eager to buy.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan You do not speak for Atheism. You only speak for your own sorry ass. Read what I wrote buddy. I said Buddhists are Atheists, period. That's what most of them consider themselves. Sometimes can be described as Non-Theist, but the idea is essentially the same, that God or Gods are never the focus, or don't exist. You act like some Aryan racist harping on about white purity when it comes to Atheism. In fact most Atheists are not elitist puritanical morons like you.
DJmixmastermicro 1 year ago
@DJmixmastermicro
One should call it Agnostic then to avoid misunderstanding.
VannevarBush 1 year ago
As a member of East Asian Buddhism, I must say that Buddhism is fundamentally Non-theistic or Atheistic. The #1 goal of Buddhism is NEVER any imagined god or divinity, but to acheive Buddha's Enlightenment. Belief in god(s) does not help in Enlightenment.. But, some local cultural beliefs existed prior to introduction of Buddhism, and some people mixed theistic or polytheistic ideas into Buddhism.. As for gods, devils, heavens or hells mentioned in Sutras, these are metaphors for states of mind.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@pixusbubblejet "As for gods, devils, heavens or hells mentioned in Sutras, these are metaphors for states of mind" the authors of those texts really sucked then. what proof do you have that they are all metaphors?
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan.. these are analogous to consciousness states. consciousness is something dealt with extensively in ancient hindu, jain, buddhist thought.. examination of consciousness is not part of the abrahamic religions which are obsessed with master-slave relationship to imaginary god, and also not dealt with with western science which only has material or measureable explanations of reality.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@pixusbubblejet can you point me to the works of buddhist scholoars that delineate all this? i spent quite a few years digging through buddhist texts, and aside from some writings of trungpa, which were his own twist, i've found nada.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan.. Original sutras are available in library but written in Old Chinese, Pali or Sanskrit.. Sometemes these are commented by researchers writing in Modern Chinese, Thai, Sinhalese or Japanese. 智顗 (Zhìyǐ) wrote famous book 摩訶止観 (Móhē Zhǐguān) about great concentration-insight meditation to help understand 10 levels of consciousness. But just reading books is insufficient. Practicing meditations & reading texts, both are necessary to understand. Direct experience is science in Buddhism.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@pixusbubblejet i've read many, many, sutras. i've also read many, many commentaries. i've never read anything to support your claim that all the references to the various devas, yakshas, gandharvas, asuras, pretas, etc. etc. are "metaphorical" descriptions of states of mind. in fact, many sutras talk about such things in ways that are impossible to interpret metaphorically. all one can do is make the claim that they are, because they wish it to be so, without real evidence.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan.. do you know what a sutra is? how sutras were written and under what circumstances they are to be read? unless you realize this you can "read" all the supposed sutras you want but never get anywhere..
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@pixusbubblejet yes i know what a sutra is. i was a practitioner of buddhism for most of my adult life, as well as studying the texts from an academic point of view at the university of florida. your claim, that all references to supernatural beings are metaphorical, is not supported not only in the texts themselves, but in the vast commentarial literature of the theravada, the "hinayana" theravada precurors such as sarvastivada, mahayana, and vajrayana. if you can point me to texts, i'll check
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan.. i was raised & practice in buddhism all my life, though i went to a christian high school and learned about the westerner's dualisms.. But in buddhism, ultimately, there is no literal materialist "demon", "gods", etc.. No we do not literally believe in existence of alien being with strange appearance living in a magic land.. Complex metaphysical ideas by people 2000 years ago used like song, poetry, parable & meditation.. Not the same language as a science manual to build a car.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@pixusbubblejet " But in buddhism, ultimately, there is no literal materialist "demon", "gods", etc." You cannot speak for all of Buddhism. Maybe whatever sect or subsect you belong to may hold this, but is not true for Buddhism in its entirety. Aside from some exegetes, overall during its 2500 year history, Buddhism has accepted a vast pantheon of supernatural beings existence, and taught that one can be reborn as any of them. This is a fact.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan.. If you notice, i said "ultimately". Please read again what i said with that in mind. Yes I know those beliefs you mentioned, and some nominal buddhists believe that, but it is superstition and folk beliefs that predate buddhism. They were mixed into the text and arts in order to be made understandable. Person with basic understanding may take those literally, but with development of practice, a committed Buddhist will cut through the imagery to understand meaning.. This is a fact.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@pixusbubblejet "They were mixed into the text and arts in order to be made understandable" sorry but there's no proof of this.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@pixusbubblejet "a committed Buddhist will cut through the imagery to understand meaning.. This is a fact" then even some of the greatest and most celebrated luminaries and masters from every sect of buddhism throughout history were not "devoloped in their practice" and had only "basic understanding" of buddhism, because the overwhelming majority of them unquestionably accepted that beings are literally. All you need to do is read their commentaries to see this.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan .. The fact you only have a literalist interpretation of everything means you are at a basic understanding.. And so the demon is nothing but a demon, without subtext.. Not just buddhism, but historic and anthropological understanding you do not take consideration.. How can an idea be transmitted to people using the common beliefs that were prevalent at those superstitious times?.. Proof is in Asian historical and cultural backgrounds that buddhism came from these predate the Buddha.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@pixusbubblejet the fact that you are arrogant about your understanding doesn't take away from your obvious ignorance that MASTERS throughout the ages have accepted, taught, and believed in literal rebirth into the 6 realms. i take of what you mentioned into consideration because i studied from the perspective of a practitioner, and from an academic perspective. the buddha taught in the pali canon that he had no hidden teaching, he did not put his teaching in code, he spoke plainly.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan..The one who is arrogant is you. You are the one who boasts meeting great masters and investing so much to study buddhism... Nobody else did that here.. Looking back at your writings and bad attitude is the proof of that.. You dont like buddhism? But you remain connected to it. This is odd.. LOL.. But interesting and shows you have some kind of personal emotional issues that are coming out here.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@pixusbubblejet i didn't boast of anything, you questioned my experience, and i told you what it was. and now you are my psychologist? you have provided nothing but 2 japanese/chinese texts, in chinese/japenese script to support your argument. i can show you verses from shakyamuni, nagarjuna, aryadeva, theravadin exegetes that talk about what happens to people when they actually die, based upon their karma. put up, or shut up, this is not a religous forum and baseless claims don't fly.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan .. No, this is a You Tube video comment section LOL. Why do you think its a forum?? LOL you say shut up? i thought you are really a buddhist, but you never were. In fact you are just those western people who got interested in buddhist, paid much money for expensive books and classes, paid for meditation center because you want the secret of the universe from great master. LOL.. for some emotional reason didnt like it. and know you want to say its all junk LOL. thats about it right?
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@pixusbubblejet what i meant to say was "are literally born into 1 of the 6 realms upon death." as hell beings, pretas, animals, humans, or asuras. the buddha, in the suttas/sutras, talked about this in terms that cannot be taken metaphorically, when he spoke about people who are physically dead. you cannot have a mental state when your body is dead, and the buddha talked about the destination of those dead, using specific examples. there's just no way around this.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan.. "what i meant to say was "are literally born into 1 of the 6 realms upon death."" ..these are your own words, you just add the word "literally" into the sentence to make it agree with you.. btw, what were you before you were buddhist? a christian or jewish? i think the dualisms you were indoctrinated in at an early age remains in your interpretation of buddhism.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@pixusbubblejet it doesn't matter what i was before i was buddhist. would you like me to start citing the thousands of pages of texts from masters from all traditions that speak about where people go after they literally, physically die? are you really trying to tell us that buddhism throughout it's history, did not teach that people are reborn into the various regions after their bodies die? you are really being disingenuous right now.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan.. Yes it matters. Its basic buddhist idea. Your past point determines your present and future points.. You dont need to cover up and ignore your own past religion and indoctrination.. It is who you were before Buddhism and continues on.. You understanding of buddhism is a basic level.. Btw why do you say you went to many great masters, and studies many great things at university.. Did you pay for those?
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@pixusbubblejet how about you stick to the matter at hand, which you so far are unable to counter besides telling me i don't understand things as subtlely as you, the great practitioner of profound realization. how about you address the fact, that the buddha talks, in many, many places, about the current destination of people who were physically dead. stick to the topic at hand and don't project about my understanding please. why did the buddha talk about where physically dead people were now?
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan.. Matter at hand? The matter at hand is you. It is you who are making issue to upset with something that is really a non-issue for most Buddhist people who have been buddhist all their lives.. There is nothing profound with what ive said. Its common knowledge. LOL. Even elementary school kids begin to understand the subtext. Why cant you? Your speaking about buddhism is similar to a christian reading of the bible.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@pixusbubblejet it's not common knowledge, because i can sit here all day and cite teachings about where people who are PHYSICALLY DEAD are reborn. this is an atheist video we are commenting on. you can't walk in here and expect us to take your word for something without evidence. "common knowledge." you are a moron. millions upon millions of buddhists believe in physical, literal rebirth, masters and monks and scholars included. either you don't know this, or are lying to sell buddhism.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan.. are you a christian? or ex christian? LOL your dogmatic behavior reminds me of my american classmates before.. Anyway why are you so conflicted?? over something that is in fact common knowledge for free.. You paid so much money to learn from supergreat masters? paid money to go to meditation center? LOL..why? these are not special knowledge. its free! LOL Btw, rebirth? its not a core beliefe. Englightenment is something you can get in this life. Not future possible ones.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@pixusbubblejet "lol" you have yet to counter my points with anything besides chest pounding about being asian and knowing better. not one actual counterpoint by means of citation, or even explantion detailing how a teaching about the post-mortem fate of someone in a certain realm can be a "metaphor." atheists reading this will see through it, b/c christians do the same thing. when you point out contradictions in their books, they say "oh, you just don't know god like we do." bye.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan. Mr Bill, based on your attitude we all know you are the chest beater here. LOL you are the only one who suddenly gives us your buddhist Resume.. You even told me you went to University of Florida. why? LOL.Well i would like go to surfing in florida someday.. LOL Btw buddhists, ultimately, dont believe in god. Though sometimes we say we do. yes Dainichinyourai is my god. Oh no its literal? So I must believe in god?LOL Um, Btw. body & 9 consciousness dies, but Enlightenment does not.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@BillKiernan.. Well i never been a christian, but i met them, meeting them? LOL. Since you were/are obviously a christian, i think you know more about your bible which is supposed to be gods words.. Well sutras is not bible. sutras is not word of god. its not literal. its not gospel truth. LOL. As i said, we, ultimately, have no god. Sutras are not everything. In rare cases some even burn them LOL. But generally, most buddhists try to go through them to get to everything, and it is totally free!
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@pixusbubblejet "Since you were/are obviously a christian, i think you know more about your bible which is supposed to be gods words" how is this obvious, i am an atheist and was never a christian (in any real sense) aside from growing up in a non-practicing catholic family. nice try though.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan.. You are a funny and sad man. You try to hide your Christian past, nice try, but its clear you are reading buddhist texts like a christian bible.. Well, real buddhists do not think like literal Creationist christians, LOL, you make up something thats not there. You are not even buddhist, but then you claim to be, in order to hate it? you sound schizo. LOL. 6 year meditation? Wow you wasted so much time and money! It is you who were sold a bill of goods you were so eager to buy! LOL
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@pixusbubblejet
@BillKiernan
I was born in a Theravada Buddhist country too and am a cultural Buddhist. What Bill is saying is true (indeed, you don't need to take his word for it, just read the suttas he's pointed out). Most practitioners of Buddhism do believe in literal rebirth. This is a fact, and you can't erase it just by saying it ain't so.
Buddhism has some great philosophical ideas. Just take what's relevant and dump the rest. (The same way you take Newton's laws and not his alchemy)
engun1 1 year ago
@engun1. I was born in a Mahayana Buddhist country and raised in a Buddhist culture. We chant sutra since childrens age and do rituals. But for true followers even within my culture, we recognize that cultural Buddhism itself is distraction and not the true sublime point. Religion is just human social phenomenon with human social problems. Buddhism is never the goal, and Rebirth concept is not essential. Many people become distracted by many provisional doctrines and lose sight of the true goal.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@pixusbubblejet Well, firstly, we'll have to differentiate the "true" followers from the "average" follower, because most followers do believe in these things quite literally. Would I be correct in saying that in your culture, it's only a small minority that can be categorized as "true" followers? Secondly, what, to you, is the true sublime point? the true goal?
engun1 1 year ago
@engun1. We can hint between "true" and "average" follower, but I should not rank others unless I am properly recognized by others to be "true". I most not self-claim "true". Only by natural recognition we may be called as such. But even if such a recognition does not occur, it is fine too. The real judge of us is in us. Not by others. But even most "average" people I know don't believe in rebirth and those provisionals.. In any case, sublime becomes known through yourself, not claims of others.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@pixusbubblejet Sure. I don't disagree with you. Labels don't mean anything. However, I hope we can both agree that most people do in fact believe in literal rebirth, which is a questionable belief? How can that be addressed in your view?
Secondly, you mentioned the sublime as the true goal a few times, without defining them. Can you clarify what you meant?
All in all, I would agree that there are many useful ideas worth being exposed to in Buddhism.
engun1 1 year ago
@engun1. As i said even most average people i know do not believe in rebirth and entities because they are discarded provisional concepts. Its like old myths that at first helps kids to understand a little, but when grown up it is discarded. We believe in like a scientific recycle of your ecological material, but end of your personal conscience. Sublime point in english is called "enlightenment", but if you know buddha law then it should not be easily named because becomes a political ego word..
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@pixusbubblejet But what exactly do you refer to as "enlightenment"? And why do you consider it to be a desirable goal?
engun1 1 year ago
@engun1. I do not claim to define "Enlightenment". I think there is no satisfactory definition. Another popular word is "Awaken" but that is not perfect either. That is why we usually dont say definitions, since they lead to a political ego feeling. Some say "Buddhahood" but that sounds too lofty. One less used is "Sublime" but people usually dont understand it. Some may even say "Desire" which may sound unholy and risky to some people, but it is more easily understood since it is common life..
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@engun1
In fact it is not desirable... Siddharta reached it is goal by realizing that even the desire of being enlightened (in the sense of knowing what is going on in general) causes suffering and therefore he simply ceased of trying to be e