全 108 件のコメント

[–]StopSuperstition 28ポイント29ポイント  (7子コメント)

I've gone to a few Buddhist events and read my share of their writings.

It is saner than the superstitions of the spawn of Abraham, but definitely not scientific or rational at its core.

It is still trendy, but around the world the followers seem pretty caught up in their rituals and superstitions.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

Actually yeah, Mahayana makes up over 80% of the Buddhist population. The non-theistic Buddhists are a small majority, especially in western countries where there have only been a handful of people coming to spread Theravada. It is funny you mention this, I was talking with a local boy of southern India who is from Sri Lanka(Theravada country) and he was telling me how the local Buddhists are crazy, how they believe superstitious things and ghosts. He was confused, I told him to, "let them be. Their ignorance doesn't have to be your suffering."

[–]CanadianBadass 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

"Small majority" is an oxymoron.

[–]Anti-TheistSeiov 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Small in the sense of Buddhism alone absolutely. Small relative to the human population then not so much.

[–]dogandcatfan 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

small as majorities go. 51%?

[–]CanadianBadass 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I, er, what? Small majority referred to this sentence:

Mahayana makes up over 80% of the Buddhist population. The non-theistic Buddhists are a small majority

[–]Secular HumanistSpace0d1n 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

He probably meant "slight" majority.

[–]bunker_man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It is saner than the superstitions of the spawn of Abraham

Not entirely. For instance, Jesus called for radical wealth redistribution and a widespread effort to make this a global trend. Buddhism deterministically thinks the world is getting worse, and in many cases has little concept of improving it long term. Interpreted literally, it does have some elements that might inspire defeatism.

[–]red-moon 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

― Dalai Lama XIV

[–]bunker_man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's a much less impressive quote if you realize why he said it. He said it because someone asked him whether science could disprove buddhism. The actual larger context was him making fun of the person asking him, pointing out that most of buddhism's claims aren't something science can directly verify, and so buddhists don't need to drop them for scientific reasons.

[–]Crooooow 23ポイント24ポイント  (13子コメント)

Just because there is no god involved doesn't make it any less mumbo jumbo. Scientology doesn't worship a deity either.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (11子コメント)

I respect that, I definitely can't argue with Scientology being crazy haha... well I still hope you understand Buddhism a little bit better :)

EDIT: Took out could, I meant do say that I do :)

[–]Crooooow 2ポイント3ポイント  (10子コメント)

What makes it better?

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 7ポイント8ポイント  (9子コメント)

I'm not sure I can convince you of that... I don't mean to disrespect your current beliefs, but I hope you don't mind me sharing my opinion. Basically, Theravada Buddhism(Secular type) has a foundation rooted in common sense and logical thinking, the theravada law of analysis is remarkably similar to the scientific method. " something which for me has made my life a lot better, and made me a happier person in general. What I appreciate about Buddhism is how it did so, I changed my personality, my thinking, my life, myself, I became a new person. The foundation of this happier life was not based on some ignorance or fabricated "punishments" or "God", it was based on simply understanding that what I do has a result, then asking myself, "Where is this action taking me? Should I continue doing this action"... this very simple philosophy made my life a whole lot better" I did not simply turn Buddhist overnight, it took many months of close study to come to the decision. The Buddha says "More than those who hate you, more than all your enemies, an undisciplined mind does greater harm." ~The Buddha~ My mind had brought me so much suffering and made me a terrible person. I just realized that in the Pali canon, there is a lot of truth. I wouldn't say Buddhism is better, I would say it is my opinion that in comparing logical thought between Thervada Buddhism and other religions, Theravada is the most scientifically accurate and modern belief system. To be honest, I am just happier, I let go of my ignorance. Everything is temporary, we are all gonna die, I don't cling on to anyone or my self, I'm okay with this, I've let go... I became free.

[–]Atheistcudachal 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yeah but here's the thing - if Buddhism was solely based on fact, logic, and reason, it would just be skepticism, which is what I "believe" in.

The problem with beliefs is that they supplement reality with unnecessary crap, and no matter how warm and fuzzy it makes you feel inside, eventually, if you keep wandering closer to unabashed reason, you will realize that the universe is a dark, cold, hostile place, and that feelings,beliefs, and dogmatic beliefs are all just crap designed to cut down on yearly suicide rates. Except Scientology, pretty sure they increase suicide rates.

Saying that Buddhism is the most logical religion is like saying that white lies are the most truthful - you're just circumventing actually telling the truth, or in this case, circumventing cutting religion out of your life.

[–]wren42 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

to play buddha's advocate: (note, I'm not a buddhist)

skepticism is a pursuit of truth, but nothing more. It doesn't tell you anything about how to live your life, provide for cultural or social experiences, community, etc.

So there could be a system that is honestly skeptical, AND has other things layered on top that are not themselves unreasonable or untrue.

Your assessment that universe is "dark, cold, hostile" and the "feelings are crap" is not pure rationality. It's an emotionally charged opinion, a frame of reference.

One could be rational and take another frame of reference that is helpful to their daily lives, relationships, and society.

[–]Atheistcudachal 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

"feelings are crap" to clarify this, I mean crap as on the colloquial use - which refers to something of little value or importance, I'm not saying it in an angry way, I mean that feelings are literally meaningless, as in they serve no function in rationality, not to be confused with morality. For example, I could be a rational person and if crime rates were low enough, simply execute everyone who committed a crime because that way there is a 0 percent chance of someone getting off easy, but that's morally bankrupt.

skepticism is the pursuit of truth, but nothing more. It doesn't tell you how to live your life, provide for cultural or social experiences, community, etc.

Why should it? Do humans require belief systems in order to function? Why should I embrace superfluous information if skepticism is "the pursuit of truth, but nothing more" - that's exactly what I want, the truth, and nothing more.

also, if you don't believe that the universe is dark, cold, and hostile... It's objectively dark, and cold, and hostile refers to something being antagonistic to humans, I would call an environment where we literally cannot survive in almost all of it "hostile", as such, the universe is hostile. This is not an emotional opinion, because it is objectively true, not that something can't be both emotionally charged and true.

As for taking a frame a reference, I have one, it's just not a religion, this conversation is about Buddhism, which is NOT rational, or even practical.

[–]Crooooow 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

I'm certainly glad that you are happy, but you should know that you are doing a really good job of making Buddhism sound like a cult.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

one way Buddhists identify false monastic orders is if they want or seek money, or power. For example, the tiger temple incident... it had once been a true monastic order, then money become involved and people started getting rich. The local Buddhists knew that they were fake and a money scam, it was just the tourists who did not. Buddhists aren't the type to go out and harm somebody over religion though, The other Buddhists called the government instead to inspect the Tiger temple. Horrible situation, but the rules clearly show us who is legit and who is not.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Thank you so much for the heads up. I guess it sounds to good o be true, you don't have to follow anyone, in fact you're not supposed to... "Be your own teacher" - The Buddha.
Buddhism I'm pretty sure has caused some cults, but in the Buddhist precepts concerning leadership(respected elders). They cannot accept money or handle money, they cannot live luxurious lives, they have to give up everything. IF they do any of the things which show that they are of worldly desire, then we just don't follow them and move along. Of course, Mahayana goes ahead and doesn't do any of this and has actually produced some cults unfortunately. "I am not a God" - The Buddha

[–]Crooooow 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

They cannot accept money or handle money, they cannot live luxurious lives, they have to give up everything.

No True Buddhist

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Those are the Buddhist precepts for people who choose to be monks, only for a time being, under that time they do practice the precepts. They cannot handle money and have to walk the villages begging for food. This allows people the chance to be kind, the monks often share with the poorer people too. Outside of that their is the lay community which is most Theravada Buddhists, and they on the other hand do not have to follow that precept, only the first 5... They are still just as equal Buddhists (according to Thanissaro Bhikkhu and the Buddha)... they are said to be in a symbiotic relationship. The monks give sustenance to the minds and hearts of the community, growing kindness, giving charity, doing free labor, teaching the mind... the Lay people support the monastics by protecting them, making children, feeding them and that's about it. Do to the nature of the monasteries it helps people become better in their mind and being. So people usually just become monks for about 2 years.

[–]Boredin77 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Haha yeah. I remember in the late 90's a Buddhist group(?) in Asia spent tens of thousands on VR gear for PC's. Each unit was about $4k, without the high end PC needed. and they filled a whole school/temple thing with them. It was Crazy! Then I knew, Buddhist monks were as broke as the Vatican Priests :\

[–]bunker_man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Also there are gods involved. The first jewel is worshiping buddha. Who coincidentally placed himself higher than hindu gods and said he can do miracles. Trying to define that as "not a god" is more a case of awkward terminology than it is a difference.

[–]wblastyn 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

I've found parts of it useful, like the idea of impermanence. As someone who suffers from depression it's a helpful reminder that it's not necessarily a permanent state, which is what it can feel like at the time.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is great to hear that it's helping somebody with depression. I too suffered for 2 years... To me it felt like an overwhelming sense of hopelessness, like I can't do anything, I just sat inside doing nothing, hopeless and self loathing. Buddhism practices to its entirety absolutely reversed it for me, Search up on the Ego-consciousness. The entire dhamma concerning the ego changed my life.

[–]wblastyn 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I get suicidal thoughts and I was finding myself slipping into nihilism, which was making it harder to find reasons to go on. I've been reading up on buddhism and a guy I work with is Buddhist, and I've been asking him lots of questions. I feel even as an atheist I need something in life to give me hope so that I can keep living.

Even the idea that "life is suffering" is helpful because it makes you realise you're not alone, every living thing will suffer at some point in their lives, and it's just the nature of reality. It doesnt mean that you have failed in some way. Christians, on the other hand, start blaming themselves and feeling guilty, thinking they're being punished for upsetting God.

Meditation is useful too, it calms me and stops my mind flying around.

It's definitely preferable to Christianity

[–]Steelcap 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm sorry, your definition of Karma is at best far too charitable to the broad spectrum of Buddhist adherents and the worst entirely intellectually dishonest.

The concept of Karma is pernicious, it follows the exact same attitude of divine favor and divine retribution that christian dogma does which essentially states that all windfalls to your benefit and all happenstance to your detriment are deserved, you EARNED that bad circumstance.

Poor homeless beggar on the street? He really must have had that coming to him. Rich powerful successful person? He must have done some great works to deserve such success.

It's the same wish fulfillment mumbo jumbo seeking to find order and reason in disordered random events. A belief in ultimate cosmic justice makes you a more callous person because it robs you of the presumption of innocence, if karma is true then all hardships and misfortunes are deserved and it serves them right. What an ugly belief.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I point out that I speak from a Theravada perspective. What you point here is something different, it's called merit. Though many people in Buddhist nations do have the perspective which you state, they are not actually informed in Buddhism. I would suggest for you to listen to the talks of the great Theravada scholar monks who have spent 50+ years studying Buddhism. Read the book "What the Buddha taught"... Karma is translated as "Causes and condition". When a Buddhist(educated) states that a homeless man is suffering from Karma, it is not to insinuate he had it coming to him in a negative fashion. It is saying that everything has led up to that point, most of which is out of his control. On the matter of being deserved? That is not true, I'd like to ask you for sources on that. Please give me sources supporting what you just stated, so that I can educate myself on the matter. I certainly hope it is not true, but I have an open mind to it.

[–]Steelcap 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Please differentiate the terms "Karma" and "Causality"

If your definition of Karma is simply that effects have causes then I suppose I have no refutation to that but that it is an unhelpful term given that it can be confused for the less secular understanding of the term. I'm not sure that "effects have causes" qualifies as a meta-physic or a belief in the context of religious doctrine but I suppose if the obverse could be then I'll grant that it is at least a philosophy.

It seems rather obvious that circumstances arise from the cumulative history of events preceding them and that no mysticism is required to infer such but if for example that teaching arose in contrast to another school which stated that events occurred entirely outside of any sequence and that no precedent need be established and indeed no universe existed outside of the instantaneous observable scope then sure. I still feel like this is multiple definitions trying to have it both ways.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Everything that arises is subject to causes and conditions, nothing exists entirely alone." - The Buddha.

In the Pali canon. Abidhamma. The Buddha goes into in depth analysis concerning causation. He admits that the reason he is what he is at that moment is essentially the millions of small moments and actions that resulted in that moment. The reason he had his opinions, was to do with everything which he had thought, everything which had influences his thoughts, his environment(highly educated), his childhood, the people he had met and trained under. He pointed out how all the little rocks and grains of sand and dirt accumulated into a mountain, then he states "Monks, you are results of smaller parts as well." (paraphrased)

[–]bunker_man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yeah. Modern people love being disingenuous. "Karma is just defined as cause and effect in buddhism." Yes, that's true. However, cause and effect in buddhism include tons of things that not only have explicit declarations of people getting what's coming to them, but include a whole system of metaphysics. Its not meant to be interpreted as modern cause and effect.

[–]Desalus 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

SinisterFx7, how common are your beliefs among Buddhists in the world? My impression from reading about Buddhism is that most Buddhists of the Eastern world do believe in many of the supernatural or paranormal claims commonly associated with Buddhism. While I do appreciate that you are trying to clear up any misconceptions about Buddhism, I think most people who call themselves Buddhists would disagree with some of your assertions. For example the main tenets of one of the most widely practiced Buddhist traditions in East Asia, Pure Land Buddhism, are about belief in a literal celestial Buddha named Amitābha and a literal belief in the Pure Land which people can go to after they die (interestingly both Amitābha and the Pure Land have strong similarities to Jesus and heaven). Obviously you do not believe these things, but Pure Land Buddhists do and they make up a large portion of Buddhists in the world.

I consider myself to be a secular Buddhist, but I acknowledge that my beliefs about the religion are pretty much exclusive to the Western world.

[–]joe_blogg 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

You might want to lookup Ajahn Buddhadasa - he's an influential monk from Thailand who (respectfully) omit references to devas and celestial beings from chantings in his monastery. Because... he disagreed with them.

[–]bunker_man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You can look up spong in the west. Every religion has people not taking it literally. Buddhism doesn't uniquely allow this in some way that's more true to its historical origins. Its just the one that its happened the most to due to various historical reasons.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Excellent question, Yes. In this writing, I speak solely from a Theravada perspective, I do state that Buddhism is split into theistic Mahayana, and non-theistic Theravada. Much of modern day secular Buddhism is built on the foundations of Theravada scholars and masters. Though some non-practicing Buddhist(meaning they lack true knowledge on the Pali) interpret everything in accordance to their environment. Ex, Theravada Buddhists in India probably will believe in Krishna rituals, Ex, Theravada Buddhists in Vietnam will practice vegetarianism. Everything is relative to the individual, but when actually observing the Theravada texts and so on, we see little to no conflict with a secular perspective and Buddhism. Read, "what the Buddha taught"

[–]bunker_man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No, you're more or less right. Buddhism like every other religion has gone through post secularization and now has its own share of "christmas and easter" Buddhists. And even a bit more refined ones who still take it as an ideology and think it has valid philosophical applications even if not literal. But these ones pretend they're clearing up misconceptions when in reality they're the ones spreading them by pretending that this modern creation is actually the historical content of the core of buddhism, rather than just a modern version created by the move through secularization. And which was in a heavy way created by whitewashing.

[–]ElectricBlumpkin 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

Buddhism is blatantly, self-evidently better than any of the Abrahamic religions. I don't know how you can possibly say otherwise without being willfully blind.

[–]bigfinnrider 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

What your comment tells me is that you don't actually know anything about Buddhism is currently practiced in most of the world or the history of Buddhism.

[–]ElectricBlumpkin 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Almost certainly. My experience is limited to Singhalese Theravada practice. You'll probably find something different in different places.

[–]Humanistrasungod0 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

in Myanmar, Buddhism is used to turn the populace against Muslims. And you have violent Buddhist mobs trying to drive Muslims out wrecking their property and hurting people. Sure this goes against the teachings, and has more to do with nationalism than Buddhism, but you can make the same argument for any religious mob.

Sometimes you have to judge a religion on its practice over its teachings.

[–]ElectricBlumpkin 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes, and this kind of fascism can arise in unique cultural styles anywhere, but even you have to concede that Buddhism has done the world far more good than harm. Even if you think the religion is bullshit, it's by far one of the least harmful kinds of bullshit, and its adherents have been remarkably peaceful throughout history.

[–]bunker_man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You're not basing this on anything. You're basing it on a western stereotype that was created by people mistaking buddhist monks for how all Buddhists act, when in reality average people weren't even expected to. Christianity would look pretty peaceful too if you pretended the history of its monasteries was the history of the entire religion. And buddhist monasteries were generally just as strict and rigid. They're not exactly infinitely laid back.

[–]joe_blogg 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

At least in Theravada scriptures: there's not one sentence that condones, permits or justifies violence. Thus they have no 'official' backing.

[–]unbelievablepeople 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm not being willfully blind, I just don't see how Buddhism is self-evidently better than Judaism.

I'm not really interested in judging one religion as "better" than another but since you brought it up, could you provide some evidence that Buddhism is "better" than Judaism?

[–]ElectricBlumpkin 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

It has most certainly contributed to less death over the millennia. If you take the Khetuvim's word for how much death Hashem commanded Joshua to inflict on his neighbors, Buddhism walks away pretty confidently with the cleaner hands. If you only want to consider everything since the Rabbinical age of Judaism started, I'd say that both Buddhists and Jews were overwhelmingly victims of violence rather than perpetrators.

[–]bunker_man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You realize that most old testament genocides were clearly made up to sound impressive, right? Buddhism has a long history and certainly is tied to violence. People in the west just don't know about most of it for the same reason they don't know anything else about eastern history.

[–]Anti-Theisttsingi 4ポイント5ポイント  (8子コメント)

Buddhism isn't currently causing me any problems, so I don't know much about it.

An ideology is an ideology and IMHO bad by definition, it is defined as a set of beliefs that you are expected to agree with if you identify with the demographic that holds it as truth.

That's bullshit whatever the context.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

"Do not believe out of faith, do not believe because it is written in your ancient books, do not believe out of respect for an individual, do not believe because you want it to be true, do not believe to agree with others, do not even believe me, believe only if you truly know it to be true, if it agrees with your own honest reason." - The Buddha

[–]Anti-Theisttsingi 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

Sounds like he's shooting himself in the foot doesn't it. In reality it's very clever psyops.

[–]I_AM_NOT_I 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes, forcing someone to think for themselves can be kinda tricky.

[–]redditzendave 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, trying to force spontaneous behavior is a fools errand.

[–]bunker_man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well, not for his own purposes. Because at the time he lived people wouldn't have somehow jumped to modern atheism. What modern people forget is that people in the past weren't all mentally deficient. There were reasons certain trends of thought existed. For one, polytheistic gods are not really that different from aliens. And people back then didn't know how big the universe was, or what it looked like in certain places. So imagine if someone now thought that every planet in the solar system probably had life, and was close enough to visit. They'd assume some of it was older and probably stronger than humans, and thus did in fact visit and had power over earth. And if you call ancient thinking "magical," they didn't really know that at the time. Since to them, it wasn't defined as "things that don't make sense." It was more like things beyond human's own power to follow. Even in the middle ages Christians specified that things like angels are not supernatural. Just differently natural.

So before modern science, people being skeptical wouldn't really have dropped belief in gods, since in some ways gods and aliens are really variants on the same concept. Modern people just now consider the idea of a being with a little bit of power over nature not really as impressive anymore as they used to. For a more obvious example of this, look at the writings of epicurus. His "gods" were more or less just aliens. He was stressing not to view them superstitiously and think they influence your life. Not that they don't exist. And modern atheists still think they exist. Just, like epicurus, far away, and not something we really need to worship.

[–]Atheistsbicknel 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've read about this. It sounds rational until you realize that what they are asking is no different than what Christians do when they say you have to have a personal experience with Jesus. It amounts to a personal experience that cannot be independently verified and is therefore unscientific and incredibly susceptible to confirmation bias.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

"It amounts to a personal experience that cannot be independently verified" Buddhist laws: "Everything is in a state of change and nothing is permanent. " "By clinging on to the world, we are bound to suffer" "Through observation, we can determined that desire cannot be truly satisfied, we are biologically in a constant state of desire." "By ending desire and attachment you can become happier."

I have tested it for myself, I know all these thing to be true. I'm sorry if you cannot verify these things, but it is the basis for modern psychology.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_psychology

[–]bunker_man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's a little questionable. Ideologies aren't all bad. Saying they are implies presuming that the average person is apparently all knowing, and easily mentally solves problems with no influence. Ideologies exist to streamline thought. By explaining some general precepts that flow to a wide variety of particulars. If someone doesn't have a concept for what the goal of the generalities are, how will they make sense of what particulars make sense?

[–]MineDogger 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

My layman understanding of Buddhist principles is that they focus on self, rather than putting everything into the hands of mystic forces. This alone puts it aeons ahead of theists.

[–]raohthekenoh 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Buddhism is different because we live in the west and aren't exposed as much to the crazy shit and thus regard it as better.

[–]Skepticlodro 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

To be reborn means to change into a new person, this happens throughout the functioning time of this body.

If you maintain this definition, with its scope limited to one body, you're a heretic in every surviving non-reform school of Buddhism (among We. Without rebirth having some carryover between bodies, Buddhism has no justification; it'd be better to kill yourself or do a little bit of practice and then live as a hedonist, as samsara will end for you when you die and is otherwise inevitable (as there's no way to remedy it beyond a single body at a time).

Buddhism only looks like a good strategy if you believe in nirvana. Hey that sounds familiar...

In my view you've done roughly the same thing that's been lampooned and refuted in the article linked, though in a slightly more sophisticated way. You've made your own version of Buddhism that's rational and fits your (atheistic) worldview by focusing on teachings/interpretations that fit and rejecting those that don't. In this case, you've done it by emphasizing the teachings on rebirth happening continuously all the time, and rejecting the teachings on karma carrying over between apparent life spans.

Unfortunately, that's a critical teaching, and Buddhism's primary justification for practice and against suicide and hedonism.

The Buddhism you end up with is heretical to almost all Buddhists who aren't also trying their damnedest to make Buddhism compatible with a modern atheistic worldview.

It also doesn't make much sense when you get down to it. Why would I care about being totally awakened if it only lasts until I die, requires my complete dedication for the rest of my life, and still probably won't happen? What I should really be comparing is whether a life spent practicing Buddhism is better than a life spent doing something else, like rational hedonism followed by euthanasia when it's no fun anymore. As in any case I'm really just choosing between different pastimes given that my odds of attaining nirvana are essentially zero even if I believe it exists.

Buddhists dedicate their lives to practice because they're afraid of endless samsara. They don't believe it ends when they die, and they do believe that their karma will carry over, so they embrace Buddhism. For most Buddhists across history it's pretty much the same as "be good and go to heaven, or be bad and go to hell" from the Catholic church. For the clever rational Buddhists, it's a clever rationalist version of that same frame.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

Much of this is true, many Buddhists especially Mahayana hold on to the belief of afterlife. I cannot refute that, but within the doctrine taught by the Buddha himself, and the lectures given by the master monks, I have supported myself and Buddhism to be secular in nature. The definition of Nirvana interestingly enough, is also changing XD. Some see Nirvana as something impossible, but do you know what it means? A Given moment in which desires and attachment is blown out. You can reach it any second, of any day, of any month. Though many forms of Buddhism have indeed grown the ideology of Nirvana into of a supernatural nature and therefore perceive it as unattainable. Buddhism has been surrounded by theists for +2500 years. You can make an opinion based on the superstitious beliefs of a specific group of peasant peoples, and say it is Buddhism. I can make an opinion out of studying the Pali canon, and Buddhist scholars and say it is Buddhism. It is relative to our opinion and at the end of day a fabrication of the mind. Buddhism does not tell me to believe in afterlife, god, or even soul... it tells me that everything is impermanent and out of my control(like your opinion)... following the four noble truths, and the 8 fold path, I now have a successful Job, a Girlfriend, education, funding and published, and I am just happier in my day to day life. Many Buddhists see a religious take on everything, but they choose too, it is not in the text themselves. You are virtually correct in everything you state friend, just remember that I don't believe in God, or an afterlife, neither do a growing number of Buddhists, and everything still fits in the Pali canon. Some Buddhists do choose to believe certain things, I attain Nirvana everyday. You can too, it is all in the mind. "With our mind we make the world" - The Buddha

[–]Skepticlodro 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

Some Buddhists do choose to believe certain things, I attain Nirvana everyday.

Heretic!

In all seriousness: I'm not even talking about afterlife, but about very basic teachings on karma which hold in all schools of Buddhism outside of Western, intentionally atheistic modern reinterpretations. The idea that our actions will be the seeds of future results for us in a way that has no dependence on our currently existing bodies is central to Buddhism and can't be extracted from it without whatever's left being fundamentally different.

Your interpretation is heretical in any intact lineage of Buddhism, regardless its classification. Therevadans have a more grounded, concrete take on the religion, and exclude all kinds of totally supernatural developments present in Tibetan Buddhism etc, but are just as bound to belief in karma. It isn't a difference in kind, but in degree; Therevadan Buddhists have karma, Tibetan Buddhists have karma plus a vast host of supernatural bodhisattvas. That doesn't make Therevadans more atheistic than Tibetans.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

The Four noble truths (Buddhism)

  1. Life is filled with dissatisfaction, pain, loss, grieving, and fear. This is all suffering.

  2. The cause of this suffering is desire and attachment. This world is temporary and out of our control. Ignorance is trying to satisfy oneself by means of the world.

  3. To end the causes and conditions which produce the outcome, would end the outcome from perpetuating. End desire and attachment, you end suffering.

  4. The true way is in the noble 8 fold path, which to summarize is a process by which attain full great control of our mind. Having followed it myself, I know it is true. https://edoshonin.com/2014/06/21/the-scientific-study-of-buddhism-and-the-noble-eightfold-path-dividing-the-whole-into-many/

" I teach one thing and one thing only, suffering and the end of suffering." The Buddha

[–]Skepticlodro 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

""With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the passing away and re-appearance of beings."

"He sees — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, and mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, and mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.'

"Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — he sees beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma."

...

Also said by the Buddha, in the Samaññaphala Sutta - a central teaching of the Pali cannon. Apparently to the Buddha, the end of suffering necessitated a certain understanding of karma, rebirth, and so on. Good luck turning that into atheism...

You are cherry picking in order to try to have religion and be an atheist too. That's fine if you know what you're doing, but you seem to think that Buddhism is innately atheistic; it isn't. The Buddhist idea of karma is not compatible with most (perhaps all) modern, rational, atheistic worldviews.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hmm, I see your concern, and I am very aware of these statements in the canon.

The heavens and hell that we go into death, through Samsara are not afterlife destinations. Mahayana definitely sees it this way, but they only do so because they merged with Hindu and shamanistic cultures historically. The Pali canon of Theravada Buddhism was preserved on Islands off the coast of India and in Sri Lanka for about 2300 years, it is the original doctrine, and it does contain this imagery. Trust me, that if you understood that you die every moment, that this consciousness was but an illusion, that your self-death occurs day to day, you would understand Buddhism. The only illusion is memory, they are fabricated illusions. Their is no soul. Their is no self. We are so impermanent that this you won't make it another year. Helplessly wandering the realms(States of mind). From state to state you suffer, in ego you bring yourself up, but it will never satisfy, there will always be suffering. Death is the end, we are but dust, everything we do turns to dust. This is Buddhism, to let go and see the truth, to simply be happy.

I doubt I can convince you Atheism and TRUE-Traditional Buddhism are compatible.

http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/theravada-buddhism-atheism-and-clearing-up-some-misconceptions

Read this article if you want some proof.

[–]bunker_man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You're deliberately trying to obfuscate now. Taking individual lines out of context doesn't make the rest of the context not exist. You can find a single line that boils christianity down to "salvation." And try to interpret it in a secular sense. The ending of suffering Buddha taught meant that of his specific metaphysical system.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

"The idea that our actions will be the seeds of future results for us in a way that has no dependence on our currently existing bodies is central to Buddhism and can't be extracted from it without whatever's left being fundamentally different."

Most karma is out of our control. Just think about it, Karma is just causation. You didn't choose your parents, who've you met, what you were exposed to during childhood, etc.

There is merit, which a persons actions can lead to very very good Karma. But mostly, it is out of our control. It isn't because Buddhism is mean, it is because it is true. You had no say over, your gender, race, language, country, origins, etc. Those are all things which led to the present.

Heretical? I learned and spent my time studying with Buddhist masters in Cambodia, and Thailand. They taught me these things. These teachings and interpretations were also written down by great Buddhist scholars such as Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Walpola Rahula, Ajan Cha, Etc... So to say that my interpretation is far from the original culture is incorrect in my opinion. Karma is simply connected causation. It is directly translated to Pali as "Action". When you eat, you cause Karma... that food you eat will determine many things. When you work hard, that is karma... that work will determine many things. The world is uncertain, out of our control. I can't control what you believe friend... That is Karma.

[–]Skepticlodro 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I hope you're pray for me and my dank karma

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

hahaha XD, sure... "The greatest prayer is patience." - The Buddha

[–]ElectricBlumpkin 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

In order to qualify as "Buddhist" there is only one requirement: to believe that the Four Noble Truths are ... well, true, and helpful to making you personally happier.

  1. Unsatisfactory thoughts and feelings are pervasive in life.
  2. We cause our own unsatisfactory thoughts and feelings by being attached to ideas that don't reflect how the world really works
  3. It is possible for those unsatisfactory thoughts and feelings to be eliminated
  4. The way to eliminate these unsatisfactory thoughts and feelings is to learn to discipline one's outlook, intentions, speech, actions, career, habits, and meditative practices.

Nothing else is required. Various different Buddhists believe in deities, or afterlives, or whatever, but none of that is the Buddha's teaching.

There also seems to be some confusion about karma here, so I will do my best to address it.

There are no secret, mystical forces in Buddhist doctrines. Karma is best thought of as a simple law of moral inertia - the word "karma" literally just means "action" in Sanskrit. Basically, you manage your own destiny through the things you do; there's no God or whatever determining your future.

Now, Buddhism arose out of the same religious environment that Hinduism did, so rebirth or reincarnation was just part of most people's beliefs. And this idea of karma, to these people, didn't stop at death. But again, you don't need to believe in rebirth or reincarnation to be a Buddhist.

[–]bunker_man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

but none of that is the Buddha's teaching.

Actually yes, according to historians all of it is.

There are no secret, mystical forces in Buddhist doctrines. Karma is best thought of as a simple law of moral inertia - the word "karma" literally just means "action" in Sanskrit. Basically, you manage your own destiny through the things you do; there's no God or whatever determining your future.

You're just trying to be misleading here. Trying to crowbar very mystical teachings into modern secular ones by saying that some of the definitions taken out of context align with them doesn't change that that's not what any of this meant at the time, nor would they have considered it a coherent version of buddhism.

Now, Buddhism arose out of the same religious environment that Hinduism did, so rebirth or reincarnation was just part of most people's beliefs. And this idea of karma, to these people, didn't stop at death. But again, you don't need to believe in rebirth or reincarnation to be a Buddhist.

This is blatant whitewashing. You're basically saying that all the content of buddhism was only there due to the culture. This is true. But there's no core secular buddhism that exists without this. The core content about freeing you from your literal rebirth. The third and fourth noble truth aren't just statements that suffering can end. They're summaries of metaphysical doctrines about how to end it forever.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is so beautifully true. I smile to read this. Thank you sir

[–]baneofthebanshee 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

As long as they're not telling me what to think or harassing me for believing what I believe, then I don't see what problem I have with them.

[–]bigfinnrider 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

though the vast majority still cling to ignorance due to lack of interpreting the Theravada text my way and also following the teaching of Theravadan religious leaders who make their money preforming exorcisms and other rituals."

It takes a lot of delusion to pretend the Theravadan texts don't say supernatural beings exist and interfere in human lives. Yes, academics can call it all a metaphor or teachings intended to guide the ignorant plebes or whatever. Some Christians do the same thing.

Buddhism isn't different.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I gave sources from the Pali text society, which has been studying the Pali language for decades now. They came to the conclusion that their is a separate definition for the Devas(supernatural beings) as people who simply have high moral behavior and therefore live better lives. I respect your thought though, but I have read the Pali text, very little concerns any type of magical being. Though personally, I think their is not much of a conflicting matter here, I'd like to directly point to something more crucial, within the Pali canon, there are mentions of the Buddha possessing some types of super powers. This would be something which I think supports your perspective friend. The superpowers include, walking on water, levitation, teleportation etc... but this is very odd. Some things which I personally don't believe due to lack of evidence. So I am duty bound by logical observation to partially agree with you.

[–]bunker_man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It takes a lot of delusion to pretend the Theravadan texts don't say supernatural beings exist and interfere in human lives.

And yet hordes of western atheists will bend over backwards to insist it is true.

[–]EKG_master 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I like some of the Buddhist principles - probably more of the trendy western style Buddhism though. I enjoy listening to talks given by Ajahn Brahm.

[–]Gnostic Theistnewjehovawitness 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

it's also bullshit, but at least they don't play with explosives or guns.

[–]Strong Atheistasesnic 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'll give Buddhism a little bit of credit in that it's the best example of religion I've come across. That said, like other people have said, it's still invalid from a factual perspective.

[–]Congruesome 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Still a religion. Still bullshit. Still a mass delusion.

[–]CanadianBadass 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

For the longest time, I thought I was Buddhist. I didn't believe in a deity, I meditated, believe in spreading good in the world and not hurting the smallest thing. However, I came to the realization later in life that I simply won't align myself with any 'religion' that people would kill others over.

This is why I consider myself an Atheist, since you'll never have someone decapitate another human in the name of nothing.

[–]Satanistprayforplagues9 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

since you'll never have someone decapitate another human in the name of nothing.

I call fallacy.

[–]CanadianBadass 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Which one? I seriously doubt you'd see someone passionate enough about nothing to decapitate a person :P

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

This is kinda funny, I was atheist for a long time for much the same reason you are now. Everybody has their own approach, everybody has their own idea, their own opinions... they are all out of our control. We become too bothered with the world, instead of simply being at peace. I understand that you can't be Buddhist because another person in Burma killed a Muslim and calls themselves Buddhist, and you don't want to associate with that. Very respectable stance. I have tested Buddhism for myself, I am happy, the fist rule of Buddhism is "Do not kill anything or harm anything for any reason". Yes they call themselves Buddhists, but were they actually following it?

[–]CanadianBadass 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

The same argument could be made for any religion. Most religion has a 'do not kill' clause as their rules, yet people still do it. I'm not going to agree with a religion because of ideological rules, I'll agree with it based on practicality. If your religion can create/nurture fundamentalist that then go on to kill people in the name of that religion, it shouldn't exist. I'm fully aware that my last statement essentially includes all religions.

I am not associating a person who say they are Buddhist and yet do a bad thing, hence Buddhism is wrong, since that would be an associative fallacy. I'm saying that if that person does it in the name of Buddhism or to try to 'protect' Buddhism.

If you're happy, that's great. I'm happy as well. However, it's hard to 'simply be at peace' when others are not, unless I simply ignore everyone else, which I could, but I have this connection to every animal on this planet and my morals that asks me to protect their happiness/life too.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I really like this reply. You will never protect the life and happiness of every animal on this planet. Nobody is happy, in the last 100 years, radical atheist movements purged 100 million people(much much more than any religion). Yet, I don't change my stance on atheism, another persons actions do not determine or change anything unless I allow it too.

[–]CanadianBadass 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Wait, what? radical atheist movements? What are they radicalized on? Logic?

Also, please state sources if you're just going to pull numbers out of your ass.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I am an atheist, always will be. But I'm shocked at your lack of historical knowledge right now.

You've never heard of the Maoist and Stalin purges? I'm sorry the education system didn't cover that with you. Here are a few sources.

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

"The collapse of the religious impulse among the educated classes in Europe at the beginning of the twentieth century, he argues, left a vacuum that was filled by politicians wielding power under the banner of totalitarian ideologies – whether 'blood and soil' Fascism or atheistic Communism. Thus the attempt to live without God made idols of politics and produced the century's 'gangster statesmen' – Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot – whose 'unappeasable appetite for controlling mankind' unleashed unimaginable horrors. Or as T.S. Eliot puts it, 'If you will not have God (and he is a jealous God) you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin.'[49]"

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2013/03/atheist-governments-of-the-20th-century-the-death-toll-of-godless-goodness/

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,00 people murdered

Jozef Stalin (USSR 1932-39 only) 15,000,000 people murdered

Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 people murdered

Kim II Sung (North Korea 1948-94) 1.6 million people murdered

Tito (Yugoslavia 1945-1987) 570,000 people murdered

Suharto (Communists 1967-66) 500,000 people murdered

Ante Pavelic (Croatia 1941-45) 359,000 people murdered

Ho Chi Min (Vietnam 1953-56) 200,000 people murdered

Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 people murdered

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

So you are saying that this was logical? I am an atheist, these men were atheist. You say you can't be Buddhist because some Buddhist have killed people. Well atheist have killed more people in the last 100 years systematically than has ever been done in human history. Most of the SS and higher Nazis were also non-religious and atheist. Does there actions define my identification as atheist? No because it's not a rule to go out an kill people. Same with Buddhism, you're not supposed to kill people, never does it talk about killing people not even under any circumstance. It says to be pacifist, to not react.

here is more info on atheist Buddhism. http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/theravada-buddhism-atheism-and-clearing-up-some-misconceptions

[–]bunker_man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Trying to scale buddhism down to "meditation" is pretty bad. Considering that until like the late 1800s pretty much no Buddhists but monks meditated.

[–]wren42 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is a shame people can do such awful things. Never can it be justified. I hope this trend in the small sects of far northern Burma Buddhism change.

[–]DeistRegual_Llegna 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Compared with christianity: Something to do with christianity, tenets that supposely improve human personals relations and social relations with other poeple like you and god (i think this is the unachievable goal) and buddhism, tenets that supposely improve human self relation and with the self spirit-soul to reach a true peace (nirvana can be a form of true death in more than one way) (with more unobservable results, since the goals are totaly personal) .

[–]bunker_man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Buddhism is split into the theistic Mahayana and non-theistic Theravada

No its not. This is a weird arbitrary form of classification. Theravada isn't non theistic unless you want to count that buddha himself entering nirvana no longer exists as an individual in it. But you are still meant to venerate his divine nature. And there's other gods. Its easier to just use the word transpolytheistic to avoid the confusion.

I'd like to ask you very intelligent people for a moment of your time to explain these Buddhist teachings, and how they are still atheistic.

Oh lord. Noe it went from nontheistic to atheistic. We're descending.

Thesis statement: Buddhism is secular and non-theistic.

Answer: No.

ANATTA: The Teaching of No-Soul:

So? Jews didn't believe in explicit souls either until they came in contact with the greek concept. Which was developed in philosophy rather than religion.

This is where many have trouble understanding Buddhism, SAMSARA is definitely not reincarnation.

You blatantly misleading them certainly doesn't help.

ar from it, the teachings of Anatta go so far in depth to suggest, that we don't even continue being the same person for an entire year. To be reborn does not mean afterlife, something which the Buddha specifically countered and debated about with Brahma(Hindus). To be reborn means to change into a new person, this happens throughout the functioning time of this body. Anatta is both a verb and a noun, noun-wise it means "No soul", but Verb wise it means "We are a mind".

Yes. Your identity shifts over time. But also, there's clearly still continuity, not just over time, but into new lives. Which is why the teachings talk about past lives.

The heaven and Hell realms: The Buddha said "With our thoughts we create the world"... "Happiness is not in heaven or in hell, it is not in the sky, it is in the mind" the Dhammapada, Pali canon. Theravada Monastics who know the Pali language state "There is a humanistic definition of 'deva' [male] and 'devi' [female] ascribed to Gotama Buddha: a god is a moral person.[3] This is comparable to another definition, i.e. that 'hell' is a name for painful emotions.[4] Source: 3. the Pali Text Society's Samyutta Nikaya Book iv Page 206 4. the Pali Text Society's Samyutta Nikaya Book i Page 61" "Being reborn into a hell being or a heaven being is literally not that, the language says that your actions(Karma/causation) lead to positive results which make your life better, or bad results which make your life worse. Heaven or hell respectively. You change along with your decisions." This is the Pali Text society(A Group of Pali scholars and researchers who are the few who truly understand it)

Yeah. This is all misleading. None of this was meant to be metaphor in early buddhism.

Concerning God: "In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world

Yeah. But most polytheism isn't monotheistic. That's nothing new.

It is not magic

Neither are most early beliefs. But what it claims happens is magic by modern standards.

DEATH AND BIRTH: When the Buddha says the word death, or says the word birth, to correctly understand what he is talking about, it must be understood that under the teaching of Anatta, Samsara, and Karma, that he is speaking of an illusion. What we identify as the self is never actually permanent. Always changing, we in other words die everyday, with the fluctuations of our opinions, thoughts, moods, feelings, sensations. Truly think about it, if you met the you of 10 years ago, that was somebody else who no longer exists, the mind has changed, you are not that, it is only an illusion based on memories(which are mostly false memories, inaccurate and so unspecific).

While this is true and interesting, it doesn't really change that in the end something that we have reason to call reincarnation exists in buddhism.

[–]papaz1 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

They don't ring my door bell asking me to join their church or else my soul is in danger.

[–]bigfinnrider 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

You don't live in a majority Buddhist country.

[–]moon-worshiper 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

The most simple difference is Buddhism is not a religion. A religion is defined as belief in a superior being. Buddhism does not have a superior being and Buddha said he was just a man. Buddhism is more like physics than religion. It is the Eurocentric mind that has lumped Buddhism in with the Mosha-cult religions.

[–]ronin1066 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

I disagree with that definition. I prefer something like:

1) a set of rules/rituals concerning...

2) a supernatural being or principles

While the philosophy of Buddhism can be separated out, I would say that the Buddhism followed by the majority of people would qualify as a religion.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

disagree with that definition. I prefer something like: 1) a set of rules/rituals concerning... 2) a supernatural being or principles While the philosophy of Buddhism can be separated out, I would say that the Buddhism followed by the majority of people would qualify as a religion.

Yes, you are so right, having educated myself on the exact definition of religion prior to writing this, I saw that the definition of religion is actually quite broad. "A set of practices or beliefs"... Under that definition Buddhism even if non-theistic would fall under the category of religion, so I didn't mention it not being a religion. I think it is just a non-theistic and secular religion, something which for me has made my life a lot better, and made me a happier person in general. What I appreciate about Buddhism is how it did so, I changed my personality, my thinking, my life, myself, I became a new person. The foundation of this happier life was not based on some ignorance or fabricated "punishments" or "God", it was based on simply understanding that what I do has a result, then asking myself, "Where is this action taking me? Should I continue doing this action"... this very simple philosophy made my life a whole lot better, this is a simplification, there is a lot more practice to it. Again, this is Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism resembles Christianity too much hahaha. "Your destined to hell and or heaven:

[–]bigfinnrider 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's funny you're talking about a Eurocentric mindset while using Eurocentric definitions and only considering an academic style of Buddhism practiced mainly in the West.

[–]moon-worshiper 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What Eurocentric definition? The definition of religion is in the Dictionary.

re·li·gion rəˈlijən/ noun the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

There is no personal God or gods in Buddhism, therefore it is not a religion, by definition. It is Eurocentric people that try to transfer Eurocentric concepts on to Buddhism that leads to the mass confusion.

Buddhism is not defined by practice, so even there, you have used Eurocentric emotions to determine your preconceived notion. This is another flaw of Eurocentrism. Eurocentrism is characterized by the Abrahamic Mosha cults, needing things like centers, edges, distances, beginnings, endings. It is Eurocentrism that needs labels and labels Buddhism as some belief or following or style. It is none of those. Look at /r/space questions about the Universe. It is filled with Europeans and those of European descent, constantly needing answers to where is the limit, where is the center, where did it begin, where it is going, on and on. Buddhism answers all those questions easily. Where is the limit? There is none. Where is the center? There is none. Where did it begin? It didn't. Where is it going? Nowhere. What is beyond everything? Nothing.

[–]bunker_man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What do you mean academic? The majority of western stoner buddhists are not doing it in anything like an academic way. Though you are right that yes, its ironic that they are spreading western misconceptions as the original, while insisting that the reverse is true.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I very much agree with you friend. I'll admit that through my study I have met and identified the Mahayana sect as religion by definition. I spoke with a practitioner of Mahayana who was speaking to me about Krisha being the creator and the Buddha secretly being Krishna, not based on the Pali canon, but on the Lotus Sutra. (Written in the wrong language, far away from the Buddha's monastic order, and never became mainstream in India for the time Buddhism was the major belief there)

Look at the Pali canon, actually reading it is amazing. It is an ancient document detailing relativity, causation, the butterfly effect, the Theravada law of analysis(a parallel of the scientific method), and pretty much everything having to do with being happy and at peace in a messed up world.

[–]bunker_man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Buddha said he was just a man

Actually, he explicitly said he wasn't human. Worshiping him is the first jewel, and is the primary religious practice for most Buddhists.

It is the Eurocentric mind that has lumped Buddhism in with the Mosha-cult religions.

This has to be satire. The idea that buddhism isn't a religion is the European invention.

[–]devisav 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

You just have to face the fact that there's a lot of black and white thinking among Atheists. Anything that has any hint of 'religion' or 'spirituality' often times is automatically rejected as ridiculous. It's similar to how many of the religious fundamentalists automatically reject things like education, science or psychology. Sometimes Atheists come from dysfunctional religious backgrounds and retain the same kind of thinking patterns, just with a different worldview.

[–]SinisterFx7[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I actually don't mind it at all. Thank you though, this is perhaps very true friend :)

[–]I_AM_NOT_I 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, I'm a practicing Tibetan Buddhist, wanna fight???!!!! LOL