:snicker: Then there’s Theravada Buddhism, for those wanting not to be reincarnated when they die…
:snicker: Then there’s Theravada Buddhism, for those wanting not to be reincarnated when they die…
Argh.
Your Mileage May Vary. Used to denote a topic on which there is, or will be, probable disagreement.
No. When “God” is presented as a tangible, outside influence, then that is a lie. There is absolutely no basis or foundation for the existance of a god of any kind when all logic defies such an existance, and there is no concrete proof of anyone having any contact with such a being. Therefore, to definitely say that there is a god is lying.
Am I lying when I say that? No. I am on record as an agnostic. I have clearly stated numerous times that no one knows for certain if a god exists. I am not saying one way or the other whether one does; my issue is with those who say definitely yes or no, one does or does not exist.
I will grant that Buddhism did not start off with supernaturalism. However, for all practical purposes, Siddhartha Gautama has been elevated to at least demigod stature. But go back to my original list. Buddhism fits the bill by claiming that following the religion will increase self-awareness, and only by following the tenents of the religion can that happen. Ergo, control over the followers.
Buddhism was the one religion that caused me the most problems and I looked at it long and hard before including it in my list. But if you look at the organization of a temple or monastery, then the accumulation of wealth part kicks in. The higher up the ladder of “enlightenment” one goes, the better life one leads. And that’s a material life, not a spiritual life.
Yes.
Now you’re adding God qualifiers that change your arguement. Many people do not believe in God in the terms you describe. Not all religions teach it that way either. Again I point out that the existance of God cannot be proved or disproved So if someone says “I know God exists because of an internal spiritual revelation” you cannot prove them wrong. You can establish that they are unable to prove it to anyone else but thats not the same as your statement “absolutely nobody knows”
An indivuals ability to “know” does not require that they prove it to anyone else. No matter how you rephrase the arguement it fails.
This is not the “lie” I was refering to.
You claim that their statement as fact, that God exists is a lie because they can’t prove it to you. It is only their fervent belief and nothing more.
Your statement that absolutely nobody knows whether a supreme diety exists , as a fact, is also something you can’t prove, but it is obviously your fervent belief.
By your own standards, that statement is a lie.
Clothahump, in one breath you say,
and in the very next breath, you claim,
Do you not see the contradictions in your statements?
I don’t think that the religion is to be blamed for the actions of foolish followers–certainly, I’ve never heard any respected Zen practitioner regard Siddhartha as anything more than a particularly wise teacher–hell, some masters have literally make Buddha quotes up, because it’s understood that the myth of Buddha as a wise man who saw something no one else had yet seen is more important than his historical reality. He’s not seen to be divinely inspired but human.
I will say this is a place where Zen diverges from other Buddhisms, in our rather cavalier treatment of the Buddha.
I suppose you can look at it that way. I saw it as “here’s a set of techniques that have worked for us to achieve enlightenment in the past, and we’ll show 'em to you.” For that matter, one of the tenets is that a ‘master’ should be learning from every student, because nothing, not even our current practice of Zen, is perfect.
Again, I see this as a difference between Zen and other branches of Buddhism (Tibetan-style Buddhism is notorious for this). The only well-to-do Zen masters I know are the ones who do something other than teach–the ones who write philosophical or historical texts, for example, Zen or not.
If you have any Zen-specific examples you can show me, I’m open to seeing them. I think, however, that you’re lumping all of Buddhism into a single monolithic entity, when really there are at least three divisions at least as divergent as Protestant/Orthodox/Catholic are (that is, similar in name and historical basis but not at all in current practice or understanding)
This is my first real discussion with Cloth I got the same non specific generalization when I asked about the Amish. There is certainly much truth about the scams and cons in religion as well as many who continue to embrace beliefs with ample evidence to the contrary. The idea that every religion is a scam or a con is only true as Cloth changes the definition of words in order to supprt his conclusion. IMHO