What does Buddhism say about how everything came to be?

Actually, personally, I find Americans to be extremely friendly, even the christians! Well, many of the christians.



It would be appreciated if you folk would take your argument about who has the bigger....I beg your pardon, I mean who has the better country...to one of the many threads designed specifically for that purpose, of which I believe there are a number to be found in Politics.

Or not...


One is not especially attached to the outcome....

It was the fruitcake who raised the idea that buddhist countries don't impress him.

Great post, Asherman, thank you...(With my limited knowledge of Hinduism and Buddhism)...I have never been able to figure out the difference between Sankaracharya's brand of Hinduism and fundamental Buddhism....they seem very similar except for terminology.

We Australians may lack many of the freedoms you have real life. Such as the freedom to pack our homes full of guns. Maybe that's why the 1994 stats for deaths by guns in the USA was 14.24 per 100,000 and Aus was 2.65.

..but hey, to each their own....and this probably isn't the thread for it anyway.

Really?????



Can you expand on this????

http://www.kamakoti.org/souv/2-6.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

I do not know - they seemed similar to me and set me wondering. That's why I asked Asherman - thinking he might have some insght into this. I was curious to know where Hinduism and Buddhism overlap.

All I understand is, that both Sankara and Buddha said that Ultimate Reality is beyond time and space. We, however, live in a world of "Maya" or illusion. The aim of both these religions is to "understand" this ultimate reality and therefore achieve Nirvana or Moksha.

Moksha?

Moksha - Freedom from the cycle of rebirths.

I know, didn't the Thais complain about "The Weakest Link" because it upset people and the contestants?

Some Buddhist doctrines could be interpreted to be for evolution. The only real contradiction with science that Buddhism has is with the neurosciences.

I wonder what the ratio of devout christians to 'phonys' is in America? And in other countries, the same thing...devout [predominant religion] to phony [predominant religion]?

That's rather a difficult question to answer. Firstly of all, who do you define as a devout Christian and who is a phony? Pat Robertson could argue that he was a devout Christian, but many people here would contend he isn't.

Besides, isn't that argument diverting this topic away from its original purpose? To discuss Buddhism and Creationism?

I didn't really expect some poll result.

I thought that "Buddhism and Creationism" was already addressed?

Friendliness was not what we were discussing. Freedom was. (Although with your frequent name calling and Christian bashing , you are certain to spoil any reputation for friendliness that Australia may enjoy. Is your level of venom and hatred typical of all Australians? I would hope not.)

You tried to characterize the US as 'fascist' which is a word that describes the level of political freedom (or lack thereof).

Do people use the word 'friendly' to describe the US? I couldn't tell you.

Maybe, maybe not.

But they do use the word 'free'. At least that's what their actions seem to say since there are a whole lot more people trying to enter the US each year by whatever means possible, than are trying to enter Australia each year.

Hmmmmmmmm......

When people vote with their feet, I'll take their word over yours any day.

Sakhi,

Buddhism, like a number of other religions, was born of Hinduism. Hinduism is the oldest religion that still exists. Its origins are lost in time, though it probably developed from shamanism. Hinduism isn't strictly speaking a single religion, but the core and trunk from which there are many branches. The earliest writings are the Vedas and Upanishad, and they remain the foundation for devotees of various gods/aspects of Brahma. The three principle ones are Krishna (creative force), Shiva (destructive force), and Vishnu (the Preserver). In early times Brahma was a relatively minor deity, but quickly began assuming more importance as philosopher Gurus defined Krishna, Shiva, and Vishnu as only aspects of Brahma. The interaction of these primal forces/deities and their consorts along with countless subordinates make up a very rich tapestry. The great national "literary" work of India is the Mahaburata, a very lengthy complex text that is somewhat similar to the Greek pantheon. I don't believe that the Mahaburata has ever been fully translated into English, nor are there many highly abridged versions. Good stuff by the way, even if access is difficult. BTW, the Hindu's have rather elaborate creation stories … out of chaos, order …

What is important to remember is that over the Ages Hinduism has evolved, become more complex with some ancient beliefs dying out and others becoming fixed. When a thread of belief moves very far from the core, a new religion is born. The Jains broke away hundreds of years before Buddhism, and the two also share many beliefs with one another and with the root religion. This is comparable to the similarities and theological overlap between the three branches of the Abrahamic faiths. Hinduism is almost inseparable from Indian culture, and Buddhism is also a child of Indian culture and folkways. Springing from the same cultural roots it is not surprising that the two religions will share many beliefs and terms.

So what does distinguish Buddhism from some of the more philosophical forms of Hinduism? Probably the most important difference is concerned with the Atman, or soul. Hinduism holds that individuals are the repository of an Atman/soul. Each person is born into a life conditioned upon how they lived in earlier lives (transmigration of souls). Relatively early on this developed into the caste system, and fixed each person into the social order they were born into. If one fulfilled the duties, responsibilities, and obligations of their caste properly, and had a powerful mentor among the gods, they might be reborn into a higher caste. Over many lifetimes a soul might be released from the chain of causality, but not necessarily. To improve one's station, you had to conform to your current social standing and then die … many times.

The Jains and Buddhism both rejected the idea of Atman/souls. I don't want to get into Jain theology, but some might want to look into it on their own. Buddhism differed from Mama Hinduism by holding that there are no gods, nor souls, and that suffering can be understood and conquered without the necessity of dying multiple deaths. This was a tremendous and revolutionary departure from core Hinduism, and was to have consequences later. Once the idea of gods and souls were rejected, what was left? Buddhism's answer is that nothing is left, that all of Perceptual Reality is illusion. Reality being empty and springing from Emptiness is free from the causes of suffering and time/space. Once the individual has Awakened suffering is conquered for that individual. For the first few hundreds of years after the Buddha's death, Theravada was the prevalent form of Buddhism. Buddhism spread slowly because the doctrines required strong self-discipline and total commitment from those who aspired to release from suffering.

During this period, Ashoka consolidated the various principalities of India. Ashoka was successful in forming the first great Indian Kingdom because he was a ruthless warrior willing to spill huge amounts of blood to attain his goal. Once secure on the throne, Ashoka discovered Buddhism and was converted to it. What followed was one of the Golden Ages of Indian History. During Ashoka's reign Buddhism became the State religion and the sub-continent was at peace, people were prosperous, and the arts flourished. There is some disagreement as to how genuine Constantine's conversion to Christianity was, but there unanimity about Ashoka's total dedication to Buddhism. On the other hand, after Constantine Christianity was firmly rooted in Western Culture, but after Ashoka's death Indian culture reverted, rather quickly, back to Hinduism.

Buddhism might have remained a minor Indian religious sect, but for the development of the Mahayana School. Mahayana was much more accessible to the ordinary person. One could remain a businessman with family ties, and still hope to attain Enlightenment. The notion of Bodhisatvas having infinite compassion for the suffering of those still struggling through Perceptual Reality, became a touchstone for some sects. Another theological development within Mahayana held that Enlightenment might happen instantaneously at anytime, even if the individual wasn't a priest, monk or nun. Where in early Buddhism there was virtually no iconography beyond the Eight-Spoked Wheel, statues in the Greek style and lavish pictures designed to appeal and teach Buddhism to common folk became common in Mahayana. Mahayana wasn't afraid of missionary work, and readily adapted local cultural belief systems into their preaching.

Does this answer your question sufficiently?

Oh, that is interesting.

Yes, it does Asherman, thank you that was very interesting...

Reading with interest...

Not religious but Buddhism appeals more than any other religion (though I am very fond of parts of Judaism...)

Yes, I have flirted with Buddhism for years (I considered myself Buddhist from about 15 to 21)...and I am attracted to it now, amongst other reasons because of the sophistication of its meditative practices, the intellectual rigour of its beliefs, and its nontheistic (in the pure form) nature.

yes.

i joined a nichirin shoshu temple 20+ years ago and got something of the flavor of the buddhist practice. but they made it very hard to get anything past "chanting daimoku" for a car etc.

i was pretty disillusioned and bailed out and back into the same old nothing.

the strangest thing happened.

i was walking back into the studio where i was working, and i noticed a gym bag sort of thing laying in the parking lot. i went over to see what was up, and when i looked inside, there were several books on... buddhism???

i held the bag in our office for ages and no one ever came looking...

karma is a truly fascinating thing. there's a whole thing about; who left the bag, why was i the one to find it. what caused them to leave the bag, etc. reconciling nothingness, causality and synchronicity ?? yowza...

most were of the folk-type buddhism that asherman describes ( really, really great work, asherman. thank you!), but the one that i took to heart and still read is a volume, "the teachings of buddha". it's a release from japan (printed in both japanese and english) and i often liken it to the gideon's bible, as they apparently place this book in japanese hotels in the same manner.

although i identify myself as a buddhist, i have purposely tried to stay away from a lot of the peripheral teachings (soka gaki can do that to you..) and have really tried to pursue it in the way that the buddha originally intended, "enlightenment through your own efforts".

i've tried to experiment with zen meditation, and on a few rare occasions, have actually experienced a glimpse of the "egoless" self that a mantra can induce... just like a word that's on the tip of your tongue, but you can't quite get to.

but overall, i find that the greatest benefit i've received, from even my puny efforts, is the one that lord buddha urged us to seek; i no longer worry incessantly about the meaningless day to day "needing, wanting, gotta haves" that took up so much of my time before. that stuff really does tend to put a wrinkle in the way that i view the world.

one of the few areas where i wobble with buddhist generalities is in the question of a creator. as i've mentioned before, i don't subscribe to the god of abraham, but even our "nothingness" must have origin.

we are, perhaps, only a thought. but who's ?