We have few topics on Buddhism, and I'd like to see what people know and what people think. Of course, there are infinite topics we could bring up in Buddhism, but I just thought I'd bring up a thread to get some thoughts flowing, and maybe it will spawn further threads down the road.

I personally consider myself an informal student of Buddhism (as opposed to follower/believer), and from what I have read and talked about with people I am fairly attracted to what I perceive to be some of its core beliefs--especially on illusion and attachment.

I know so little of its core ideals that I really couldn't say.

Prehaps as in intro to me (and others who don't know much about it) you could post some of the core ideals?

My dad, being Sinhalese and all, is a Buddhist; along with the rest of his family. Personally, I'm not too interested, but every month or so I'm taken to the temple. I used to go to like, Sunday school (if you can call it that) and my dad would actively ask the monks to teach me about Buddhism; but none of it ever really stuck. I, of course, know a few prayers, but they're in Sanskrit (or is it Pali?), so I don't really understand the message; although I've had it explained to me a few times. I know there are five "precepts", basically what you shouldn't do (sort of like the Ten Commandments). They are:

1.) I will not steal.
2.) I will not lust.
3.) I will not take intoxicating substances.
4.) I will not lie.
5.) I will not kill.

I also know there's something like "Eight Fold Path" and "The Three Jewels", but eh...now that I think about it, I don't know much. I went to a Buddhist meditation retreat in West Virginia a year ago, and it was alright I guess. You know empty your thoughts, don't think, focus on your breathing, etc. etc. Also, as a little kid I'd read "Jataka tales", basically about what the Buddha did in his many reincarnations. I speak once a year or so to a monk, a Bhanthe, in California; but nowadays we don't talk too much about religion, and we mainly just visit him because he's been a longtime friend of the family.

Anyways, getting back on the subject of Buddhism and it's main ideas; basically there's a cycle we are all living through, Samsarra, and the goal is to reach enlightenment. How? By rejecting the material, doing good works and so on. Eventually, after going through many reincarnations as other life forms it is hoped that one will reach enlightenment and break out of the cycle of Samsarra, attaining Nibbana.

There's also Karma; basically your soul is reborn into various life forms, and you keep your good (and bad) deeds with you; so that if you were really a horrible person, or being, in your previous life, you have bad Karma and thus may have to suffer in this life or your next one. The ultimate goal is to rid yourself of bad Karma by meditating, doing good works, and so on.

So far, I believe it's been said that the Buddha, Siddartha Gautama, a prince who lived in India around 500 B.C.E. but gave up his life of material possessions to meditate and preach, was the first being to attain enlightenment. I believe there've been others that have attained enlightenment, but remain(ed) on this earth to help others; Bodhissatvas (sp?).

Anyways, this is just some of what I know. And before I forget, one of the main teachings of the Buddha was, "Existence is pain." Why? Because we are attached to the material, and the only way we will be able to end this suffering is by reaching enlightenment. Blah, I hope this is a decent explanation of the basic idea of Buddhism, I'm sure Psyc knows alot more about it.

I wonder what feelings one would feel in this "enlightenment".

We're off to a good start here I think.

Of course, here's a link to Wikipedia
For a good summary of these comments, I would also point you all to "The Heart of Buddha's Teaching" by Thich Nhat Hanh.

I think the four noble truths would be a good place to focus the discussion. To summarize:

1. Life is suffering.
2. The root of suffering is attachment.
3. There is an end to suffering.
4. The path to end suffering is the 8 fold path.

Thoughts?

From what I've read/experienced, it would seem that "enlightenment" often entails a deep sense of peace and often joy. The psychologist Abraham Maslow describes religious "peak experiences," which would be common among spiritual gurus of all traditions. I imagine enlightenment would involve such experiences.

I've only heard some vague things describing Buddhism.

What is the goal of "enlightenment"?

I've only heard of "might be" 's and "seems" 's

Questions:

Where does the anime versions of religious views of heaven such as Kami (a large red fellow with horns), and ogres with horns in "heaven" (if they even call it that).

Do they use a religious book/or books?

How different is Hinduism and Buddism?

Why would being "awake" be such a huge goal?

From what I understand, Buddah said himself he wasn't god, or an angel (or something else... I forget) so why do people think he is a reincarnation? Or was I mistaken? There seem to be multiple Buddahs/avatars (or did I just get confused?).

I will try to answer your questions as best I can, Zairik. However, I am not Buddhist and have not really studied it.

Enlightenment is spiritual or intellectual understanding. In the Buddhist sense, it just means knowing. Knowing what? Everything. It is being so in tune with the rest of the cosmos that you can see all and know all.

There is no religious text for Buddhism. Well, there are some texts, but they are not like the Bible or the Torah or the Koran in any sense of the word. As in, they tell the purpose of Buddhism and give guidelines for how to reach enlightenment. The only one I can think of off-hand is the Dhammapada.

Mmm, I'm not the one to ask about this. I'm not well versed on the philosophies of either religion. I imagine that they are pretty similar in their core philosophies, though.

It's the same as being enlightened, only using a different word.

I'm not sure if Buddhists believe in reincarnation or not. And there are many different Buddhas. Anyone who becomes awake is a Buddha. (His name is not Buddha, by the way, a Buddha is what you would call anyone who is awake) As well, there are many different Buddhas. The fat (no disrespect intended, but an adjective) one is the Vietnamese Buddha, to my understanding. The original Buddha was actually very skinny. I remember reading that he trained himself to eat only one grain of rice each day. Yah, that thin.

Anyways, hopefully my limited understanding of Buddhism helped.

Well I read some about it and it says they didn't have much choice with their deit so they allowed the eatting of meat, but prefered not to for spirituality (respect for living creatures).

What exactly are "avatars"? What do avatars (not the images in our profiles when we post) do/what is their purpose and how does that fit into any of meditation or being "awake"?

Great questions, but I think they're too much to handle at once. I really would point you to the wikipedia link that I posted earlier. It's quite comprehensive, and can answer just about all your questions.

I'd be happy to speak about Buddhism from a spiritual/philosphical angle more so than a religious angle. My studies have been mostly in Mahayana Buddhism.

I'd like for us to examine this idea of enlightenment. What is it? Why would someone strive for it?

Before those questions can be addressed, one thing should be made clear. One thing characteristic of Buddhism (and of much Eastern thought), is that words will not capture reality completely. As such, we must be careful not to become too attached to words.

An example arises already. The words used in Buddhism are often compared to the "finger pointing to the moon." If you get too caught up in focusing on the finger, then you miss the glory and beauty of the moon.

Enlightenment (a gross oversimplification)

Perhaps we should start with the four noble truths. The first states that, simply put, "life is suffering." Suffering starts with desire, and we can end suffering if we can put an end to the cycle of desire. This can be done by following the 8-fold path.

The "result" of this process would be enlightenment. It is in some ways both a means and an end. It is the END of the 8-fold path (not end as in destination, but as in purpose), and yet it in some ways is also the means to the extinguishing of desire.

So why seek enlightenment? In short, so that you can overcome suffering.

What is enlightenment? We could say that yes, it is a form of awareness. It is a form of transcendence--the transcendence of duality, of right and wrong, of good and bad, of life and death. It is an awakening, a clarity, an unending joyful suffering. It is being at peace, but also being in peace. Actually, we could say that it is being peace.

Okay that is not exactly accurate and incomplete, but I'd like to start there and then respond to thoughts/questions on that...

No insult intended, but it sounds like the use of drugs causes enlightenment. The inability to define good from evil, right from wrong, ect, is an obliviousness to reality. Enlightenment from what it seems to be described as is an unawareness, thus a way to avoid "suffering" (which is... living?).

One of the Five Precepts is...

I will not take intoxicating substances.

However, this is simply what I've been told by the monks at the temples I visit. Perhaps Psyc has another answer.

Great comment! I was hoping for something like this, because it allows us to make some distinctions.

1. Drugs "causing" enlightenment: In fact, there are some who believe that the high felt off of various narcotics is in fact what enlightenment "feels" like. They are mistaken. Enlightenment is only possible when the mind is clear, fresh, pure, and uninhibited by such substances. The consciousness must be truly aware. Which leads to the next point.

2. It is not the case that the enlightened is unable to define good from evil, or right from wrong, but rather transcends such terms. It is not a lack of awareness that closes our eyes to such distinctions, but rather the looking closer and closer to see that the distinction is not reality. Maybe a little girl bangs on a pot when she is playing in the kitchen, and the dad tells her to "be good." The dad goes back to washing dishes, and the girl again bangs on the pot. Some may say the child is "being bad." The buddhist hopes to look at the situation and see that the child is actually suffering. The girl wishes to have the attention of the parent. She loves her dad and is only seeking confirmation of that love. Is she "bad" for wanting this? Somehow, the terms "bad" and "wrong" and "evil" no longer fit so appropriately. The Buddhist seeks to develop her awareness to the point that she can not just see the good and the bad, but also see beyond the good and the bad.

3. To escape suffering is perhaps misleading, but not entirely inaccurate. You say correctly, suffering=living, implying perhaps that we should not escape living. The Buddhist agrees! We must be careful not to hide from living, or hide from suffering. That is not the Buddhist way. Conversely, we must pay attention to our suffering! We must be aware of it. We must examine it closely, reflect on it deeply. Perhaps a fiancee dumps us, and we suffer immensely. Rather than try to hide, we turn and face our suffering. We try to be aware of it. After a few months of being aware of it, we see that the event was not JUST suffering. We see that perhaps we were emotionally overdependent, that we had neglected friendships, that we disregarded our dreams when we were in that relationship. And so we smile and say, "although I felt pain because of the break up, I also see that there is joy to be had in it. I am no longer emotionally dependent. I can see my dreams. I have rebuilt my friendships." And we see that perhaps that joy would not be possible without that suffering. The compost of pain and anger becomes the fertilizer for joy and happiness. To be enlightened is to be fully aware of this interplay between the "dualities"--to see that the dynamic between pain and joy is not a balancing act on a seesaw between two opposites, but rather a dynamic cycle--a mere part of the greater fabric of life.

I have some more questions on what Buddhism teaches, although I'd like to say I'm Christian and I don't believe in Buddhism but I'd like to be informed on some of their beliefs if I ever came in contact with someone who was a Buddhist

Ok then, so if someone was "enlightened", what is that suppose to be as far as physically?

Do they float around in a meditation possision or does no one really know?

Is it like a one time deal, you're enlightened and that's it, or does it like wear down like old shoes?

Would you all the sudden disappear into nothingness and go to some type of afterlife? There is still a lot unexplained here, and I still don't see a point in being enlightened just so you can say you were enlightened.

You suffer in life, yes, but living isn't suffering. Living causes you to experience, which is defined as a lot of different things. If you don't see things as "good" and "evil"/"right" and "wrong", then how do you see "suffering" and "joy"?

That's confusing. :blink:

For most Mahayana Buddhists, there is no physical difference.

They do not float around. Unless they are aided by something, like a raft.

It is an ascension into another level of being. So, more like a "one time deal."

No. You keep on living. There is no for the Enlightened who achieve nirvana. There is no life because the notions of life and death have been transcended.

I don't quite know how to respond to this. The question "what's the point" indicates that there is one particular "end" towards which enlightenment is some "means." But enlightenment itself is an end in and of itself.

Again, enlightenment is not a blindness, but the opposite. You still see "good" and "bad," but you see "past" them, as it were. And in a way, you see past "suffering" and "joy" as well. In the end, you see and feel and recognize a fundamental harmony in all of this. And it is not just a mental recognition, but a total spiritual awareness of this fact.

But wouldn't it be just as possible to come to that conclusion without any meditation, spiritual practices, rituals, ect?

I see there is evil in people, and good. What's the difference? Seeing more details? Making this less clear for something that could actually be applied to reality, but making things "more" clear for things that have nothing to be applied to thus making it pointless (in short gaining understanding of nothing).

Striving to gain "enlightenment" from descriptions hasn't been something that seems worth working towards. All it seems to be doing is futhering the gray areas until anything is nothing at all (if that even makes sense).

Situation:
You did all you were suppose to, mediation, ect. You now have enlightenment. What do you do with it? Do you even care about anyone "living" anymore, while you're still physically living?

I cannot imagine someone being enlightened without some meditative practice. Enlightenment comes about through a highly developed and holistic sense of awareness. One must learn to be completely aware of and present to the present moment. This is extremely difficult! I think that practice is essential here. I can explain more on this if need be.

You must see the evil, and see that the evil does not exist. You must see the good, and see that the good does not exist.

Enlightenment would not be understanding of nothing. And yet it would be! hahahaha

Enlightenment is nothing short of seeing things as they are.

First, you may do all you are supposed to do and still not have enlightenment. But let's say you are enlightened. Yes, you care about the living, because you are the living. You have transcended the illusion of separation. You care about the suffering because you are the suffering. A zen teacher told my girlfriend, "you sit in meditation as a way of relieving the suffering of others."

I know and understand that a lot of this does not "make sense." As a philosophy major, I found myself struggling and criticizing much of the Eastern thought that I encountered when I first was exposed to it. "See good and see that it does not exist?" Is this not a logical impossibility? And how does meditating help the suffering of others? There's no direct relation!

I can only say that there is are fundamental differences between eastern thought and western thought that often prevent meaningful dialogue. Eastern thought is often characterized as not "following logic." From the western perspective, this makes sense. However, we should not be so condescending as to say that Eastern thought is not logical. I find that it is RADICALLY logical. But it takes time and patience to see this. For now, I ask only that you reflect on what I have written here, not that you necessarily BELIEVE what I have written.

I should say further that some Buddhists do not believe that Christianity and Buddhism are in any sort of contradiction. From a Christian perspective, this is hard to see. But many a Buddhist believes this, and as such, many Buddhists are not out to convert. They only want to help end suffering as it is experienced. They only want to help us to see clearly. There are a number of books on Buddhist/Christian dialogue, including "What We can Learn from the East" by Beatrice Bruteau and "Living Buddha, Living Christ," by Thich Nhat Hanh.

Zairek, you say that you are a Christian and do not believe in Buddhism. But there are many Christians who find that Buddhist thought and practices can help their faith!

"What goes around comes around"

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

There are a lot of similarities, but that goes for about any phylosophy.

"What goes around comes around" is a Hindu belief, also known as Karma.
It plays heavily into their religion. If you do good, your karma will bring you good fortune in either a future time in this life, or in a future life altogether. The same works with doing bad.
As well, Karma tells what you will be reincarnated into. If you are good, then perhaps you will be born into a rich or happy family. If bad, you will be born into sadness.

Or something like that. That's just my basic understanding of what Karma is and how it plays into Hinduism.

Yes, but many Buddhists believe that there are fundamental similarities. The Buddhist would find it odd to say that you are Christian and so you do not believe in Buddhism. Maybe you do not belong to a Buddhist community, but you can still "believe" in Buddhism.

Catholicism has a similar concept--the idea of the "anonymous Christian," who in his fundamental spiritual being, aligns himself with the Lord and his works without consciously or culturally affirming Christianity. In other words, he believes in and follows the living Christ.

You may not agree with this, but I am just using it as a comparison. The Buddhist too can say, "Zairek, you are compassionate and have rejected the material world as Jesus has asked. To believe that this is good is to 'believe' in Buddhism also."

Why would Buddhism's accepting some of the Christian beliefs mean that Christians are somehow partially Buddhist? The Bible warns against things like this. Buddhists can't truely be Christians because they do not follow the Word of God, and Christians cannot be Buddhists at the same time because you can't worship the true God and idols along with teaches that contradict the Bible. The thing is, you can't have it both ways. You'll either serve one or the other. You can't serve God and mammon. A religious phylosophy doesn't make you part of a religion. Even people who don't have any religion follow at least some of the phylosophies of other religious whether it be "what goes around comes around", or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Does that make you a Christian or a Buddhist? Nope. The irony is, Buddhists think they can look to Jesus every now-and-then while denying things he taught. Sorry, no.

Works the other way too.


I believe that they can look to him as an example of what a good life can be (as I do) but not really as a deity. Which is more or less what I do (yet, no, I'm not buddist...at least not yet)

I know a lot of people do that in some way, but how do you know what Jesus was about? Did you read the Bible? Did you assume? Did you watch a TV special? It's like people know of Jesus, but you don't really know Jesus.

Yeah, you're probably sick of that scripture but it just fits this subject so well.

I could give some scripture on idols if you want...

Christians (practicing Christians; as in they follow the Word of God) can't possibly be Buddhist. A Buddhist/Other might like a phylosophy, but calling yourself a Christian for it just doesn't make any sense. And no, you can't be partial Christian. Christianity isn't partial thing, you either are or you aren't.

Buddhism is an open religion accepting many different phylosophies.

Christianity is... not.

I've read the bible, yes. I don't serve Jesus though, neither do buddists, so there is no problem at all.

I think that psycholopher was just pointing out what could be drawn from the assumption that a "good life' is only a christain thing.

From a Christian's point of view it's not a "good life" if you don't have Jesus.

We are as filthy rags the scriptures say, it's not of us that we are at all deserving.

God is what gives us a good life, and it's through his mercy we are able to recieve.

And this is about Buddhism. I fail to see the point that you are trying to make, but I still see were psycholopher was making a point.

I'm a Christian, and I don't "believe in Buddhism".

Fundamental similarities do not make me part of Buddhism.

Like I said though-

Buddhism is an open religion accepting many different phylosophies.

Christianity is... not.

It's not suprising that

But it's true. I am a Christian, so I don't believe in Buddhism.

Was there a question or disagreement there?

But there is nothing to believe, really.
Buddhism is fundamentally different from Christianity.
Buddhism is a set of values and ideals utilized to try and better the world and cease suffering.
There is no deity in Buddhism. There is no messiah. All it is is a set of principles to live by.
So you can still technically be a Buddhist Christian.

Confucianism is a set of principles to live by, Buddhism is a religion with deities an all.

"Buddhist Christian" is an oxymoron. Christianity can't be Buddhist, Islamic, or part of any other religion (except Jews who accept Christ, being Messianic Jews which follow Christian beliefs).

What I don't understand is how anyone could follow something like Buddhism. It raises more questions than it answers, and answers that are given are contradicting non-sense.

1) <subject> is <x>
2) <subject> is <oppisite of x>
=false

Let's play the meditation lottery for "enlightenment"... ;)

I think you have a fundemental misunderstanding of Buddhism.

Delta is right.
You do have a fundamental misunderstanding of Buddhism.

Everything I said in my preious post is right.

There are NO deities in Buddhism.

Which is okay, because that what this thread is for--for us to learn and discuss.

In Mahayana Buddhism, this isn't exactly true. It's not true in the same sense that Christianity has deity.

To be fair, there are certainly Buddhists who hold that there is no way that you can believe in "God" and be a Buddhist. Enlightenment is in a type of detachment--we must be detached from all notions that we have created--and "God" might be one of those notions. This type of Buddhist would reject the idea that someone can be Christian and Buddhist, and would agree that Buddhists and Christians cannot follow the same path.

I am merely suggesting how some Christians and some Buddhists MIGHT be able to claim that they walk both paths. So Zairek, I can see your point of view.

And be careful in generalizing Christianity. I too am Christian, and I do in fact believe that one can be a Buddhist-Christian (or perhaps a Christian-Buddhist).

Here's an example. Only from some Christians' points of view. And again, it depends how you define this. I tentatively agree with this statement, but I would qualify that by saying that perhaps the Buddha DID have Jesus. He does not know about the historical Jesus, but he may indeed truly believe in and follow in the eternal Jesus. I have a feeling you will disagree with this, and I think that this will be a fundamental point of disagreement that would be for another thread.

I'll let Zairek respond to this, but I think after that we probably should move on to exploring other aspects of Buddhism. It's pretty clear where we stand on the issue of whether or not one can be Buddhist and Christian.

I really don't have anything to respond to on that. I disagree, but I understand that is the belief of some.

Questions on Buddhism:

Is enlightenment the highest goal of Buddhism? is there something bigger?

Do they believe there were a limited number of souls that go through the cycle over and over until they're all gone?

Is there a belief that new ones are created?

I don't understand what you are asking in those last two questions. If you are referring to reincarnation, it is Hinduism that believes in reincarnation. I'm not sure about Buddhism, but I don't believe it does. I could very well be wrong, though.

And, no, enlightenment is not the highest goal of Buddhism.
The highest goal is the end of suffering. That is acheived by following the eight-fold path (I think Psycholopher posted that).
As well, another goal higher than enlightenment for oneself is to help others acheive their own enlightenment.

Um, and how is it possible to help others obtain enlightenment? Isn't that something they have to do themselves?

I'll quote the Matrix here.
I can show you the way, but you are the one who has to open the door.

Likewise with enlightenment. You can teach someone the ways to enlightenment and show them the path, but it is ultimately up to them to acheive enlightenment.

Oh no, not the Matrix. >_<

Yah, haha, that's exactly what I was thinking when I was typing.
However, the quote is still valid and my point stands.

Yes, enlightenment is the goal.

There is not a belief in "soul" as there is in Christianity. Instead, it is "karma," but that has a bit of a different meaning. The belief in reincarnation here varies from sect to sect. In more fundamentalist sects, yes, your karma may lead you to be reincarnated as a dog in the next life. However, in much of Mahayana Buddhism, the idea of reincarnation is taken more figuratively.

Thich Nhat Hanh puts it this way. You were born of an egg and a sperm. But what were those egg and sperm originally? They were put together in your parents by various molecules, which came from the air they breathed, the food they ingested, the beverages they drank. In that sense, before you were even egg and sperm, you were hamburgers and fries, oxygen, and water. As you grew, you too ingested all kinds of things--ingesting food and drink, and that is made you into what you are today. And not just the food, but all the other things you ingest--ideas, beliefs, fears, hopes, identity--you ingest these too in order to make you who you are. So before you became what you are, you were all of these things--all of the things that made you what you are. I know that this doesn't address the idea of "soul," but this is not something that Buddhists believe in.

The same goes with Christianity, right? You are the one that has to believe in God. No one can force you to believe. But we still have pastors and priests and other people that teach and encourage you in your decision and in your life. Same in Buddhism.

Enlightenment was defined differently though because even if you do everything "right" there is still a good possibility that you won't obtain it.

And things that led up to your birth are not yourself. It might have been a factor in the cause and effect of your birth, but you aren't the same factor as food or water, ect.

These things compose yourself. You are literally what you eat. The difference is that molecules are arranged from one particular form (bananas, water) to another form (red blood cells, hair follicles).

But I see your point. And I would say that the big difference is that we may be composed of physical particles like carbon, oxygen, etc, but our SELF is much more than that and is much more than just the summation of our physical composition. The Buddhist would disagree, mostly because of our emphasis on the idea of "self," which the Buddhist rejects.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Could you clarify?