I have not meet up anyone in person from the Internet before, and I am not intending to do so, because I don't have that sort of time to spend.
Regarding my age.. well, I do sound like 13 don't I? If not you can ask some of my IRC friends.. but i doubt you will even bother.
Nvm, forget it lol. Age doesn't matter in the internet. I don't mind anyone treating me as 100 years old or just 3
If you believed that I am 13, then you are a person who believes in faith, if not, you are one who believe in experience, which buddhists should
I solemnly swear that I am 13 years old
Really. I am 13.
If you say you're 13, you're 13, why should I doubt it. And if you want to think that I'm lying, by all means. I can't influence your thinking can I?
Just kidding
MSN me i would like to know more bout u. my msn link is just below.
Btw try to keep all your messages (if they're short) in one post, it looks nicer.
Btw I just listened to some less dharma emphasized topics like Science and Buddhism by Ajahn Bramavamso. Its quite fascinating, I didn't know that the universe was formed 1300 million years ago according to Buddhism, thats so close to modern science.
hey btw i've found a website listing most or all buddhist cults in the world, to see my defination of "cult"
http://www.geocities.com/athens/ithaca/4886/cults.htm
"What makes one a Buddhist?" To "take refuge in the Triple Gems", alright if that lights your fire. I belive it is more important to accept and live in accordance with the "Four Noble Truths" and follow the "Eight-Fold Path" as preached in the Deer Park sermon. The thing is, there are a lot of doctrinal elements that are common across the many schools and sects of Buddhism, just as there are divergencies that are every bit as great as those that divide Christianity from Islam.
Almost nothing concrete survives from the time of the Siddhartha Guatama. Early Buddhism had no iconography, and the principle symbol was the 8 spoked wheel, representing the Eight-Fold Path. Almost the entire following of the Buddha were what today would be called monks, and the number of "house-holder Buddhists" was relatively small. Those first Buddhists in Northern India truly did wear the yellow rags of the despised criminal and outcast. They traveled the roads with a begging bowl as their only possession, and there were no monastarys as we know them.
Though a large number of relics survive purporting to be from the Tagatha and his leading disciples, there is no scientific evidence that any of them are authentic, its a matter of faith. Sort of the Buddhist version of the "True Cross", etc. The stupa reliquaries that now dot a large part of East Asia didn't appear for almost a thousand years after the Great Decease.
Much of what we believe the Buddha taught was was written into the Sutras many years after his death. The oldest sutras were written in Pali, and they describe a very different sort of Buddhism than that practiced/believed in by most Buddhists today. In the modern world, that school calls themselves the Theravada. The far larger and more popular school, the Mahayan ("Large Vessel"), call the Theravadans Hiniyana ("Lesser Vessel"). There really is a large gulf between the philosophical foundations of these two major Buddhist Schools of thought.
Theravada, which is almost certainly closer to the actual teachings of the historical Buddha, maintains that each person can only find release from Samsara, the "World of Illusion and Suffering", for themselves. Each individual must adopt and practice the precepts of Buddhism earnestly if they are to defeat suffering. One person can't do it for another As a shining example of the benefits of Buddhist practice, we do influence the world and that slowly does reduce the general suffering over generations and Kalpas (a term denoting almost indescribably long Universal Cycles of rising and collapsing illusion). Even today, Theravada has very limited iconography and symbol set. The school remains very "practical" and austere. Most Theravadans live in Southeast Asia, especially on the island once known as Ceylon. I admire the Theravadan's greatly, but their message has not proven popular over the last two and a half thousand years.
Mahayana developed quite a bit later. Early Buddhism put down roots. The number of lay believers increased and small groups of monks settled into monasteries near population centers. Begging was still a major part of the monks daily activity, but much more time was spent in conversation and discussion with other monks. Out of those discussions and ponderings of what the Buddha had taught there grew up the beginnings of what we now call the Mahayana School. The central divergence from the Theravada was the notion that "salvation" might be extended to the world-at-large by the "grace" of another, a Bohisatava. That is release from the World of Illusion and Suffering did not have to result soley by the efforts of individuals striving form themselves alone. Some Buddhas (Enlightened Ones), in their great compassion, postpone their own full enlightenment to share their merit with less fortunate, and those sentient beings not quite ready for Enlightenement itself. This school began to generate many more symbols to promote the religion among the lay public. Those who were unable or unwilling to fully dedicate themselves to finding Enlightenemtn and the release from all suffering in this life, could now anticipate some reduction of suffering now and in the afterlife by the compassion of a Bodisatav. In some future times the person would progress "upward" toward full Enlightenment. Many Previously the term "Sanga" refered only to the unmarried monk/nun whose whole life was dedicated to finding Enlightenement. In modern times many Mahayana sub-schools and sects interpret the Sanga to be the entire community of Buddhists rather than in it's original meaning.
Mahayana was much more a missionary sort of religion than the older Theravada School. At home, in India, Buddhism reached it's peak with Ashoka and then fell into decline. Today there aren't a whole lot of Indian Buddhists, and the Tibetan expateriots make up a significant part of the entire Indian Buddhist community. A while before the Current Era, monks spread out from India spreading the teachings of the Buddha. One branch expanded toward the West and came into contact with Greek Culture, and the Gandaran sculpture that was produced often clearly shows that influence on Buddhist art, if not on Buddhist religious philosophy. Buddhism seems not to have had a terribly strong influence on the West in those early encounters.
Another group of missionary monks moved up into the high mountains of Nepal and Tibet. There, especially in Tibet, they encountered a very strong native shamanistic religion (Bo, or Bon-pa). Buddhism was much more successful there than in the West, and in relatively short order many elements of the two religions merged developing a very vivid and powerful sort of Buddhism today called Tantric. This is the religious school/form followed by His Holiness the Dali Lama. Tantric has been pretty successful in gaining the interest of Westerners.
A third direction taken by the expanding Mahayana movement was into S.E. Asia. Strong Buddhist communities were founded in Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc. The Buddhist communities in these countries strongly reflect the cultural expressions and belief systems that already existed there. The iconography of these countries often contain small details that are unique, or almost unique, to their points of origin.
The first steps outside the Indian cradle of Buddhism were all on the periphery of China, the cultural engine that in many ways drives all of East Asia. It was only when Buddhism arrived and established itself in China that Buddhism became a major force in human affairs. One point of entry was across the arid deserts of north-central Asia, over the Silk Road. When the first Buddhist monks showed up at the fortified outposts of China, they were thought to be some sort of "advanced" Taoists. Lao-Tze, had gone off to the West perhaps 800 years earlier leaving behind him the Tao-Te-Ching, one of the most influential books ever written. Buddhism, as it first appeared in Northern China, bore some rather striking resemblances to the Mystical Schools of Taoism. Those similarities helped ease the transplantation of Buddhism into China.
Though some influence of the Tibetan Tantric forms may have found their way to China, this had apparently little or no influence on the development of Chinese Buddhism. Much more important was the southern route that followed the coastline of Indo-China. Traditionally, the first Buddhist to enter China along that route was Bodidharma. Bodidharma was extremely influential. He founded a School/Sect called Chan based on the so-called flower sutra. (Stripped of the formulistic structure of the sutras it goes something like this: Asked if there was another, secret, way to achieve enlightenment other than by rigorously following the Eight-Fold Path, the Buddha held out a flower and smiled. Instantly the questioner was struck by Enlightenment.) The Chinese Chan is pronounced "Zen" in Japanese. Bohdidharma is the source of those legless Japanese dolls that steadfastly remain upright when tipped over by delighted tourists. BodiDharma is said to have sat within a cave in meditation so long that his legs withered away. Oh, well.
Over the centuries Mahayana philosophical thinking based on the notion of the Bodisatva resulted in some very popular Buddhist schools/sects. One that came to be known as the "Pure Land" appeared in North-eastern China. In this form, the layman has only to repeatedly chant a phrase to avoid a hellish post-mortal period, and rebirth into a life with less suffering. Over many lives, the adherent to the "Pure Land" will finally achieve complete Enlightenment. This form is really very far from what the historical Buddha probably taught, from Theravada and most other Mahayana sects. In fact, those schools/sects that are similar to the "Pure Land" are in many ways closer to Abrahamic foundations than they are to their Buddhist and Hindu roots.
Buddhism never became the dominent religion of China. Confucism and Taoism were far too strong to be displaced. However, similarities between the philosophical approaches of Buddhism and Taoism made transplantation of Buddhism much easier. Traditionally the Chinese tend to be Confucian during their "active" years of participation in the world. When a person becomes older, they tended to lean more heavily on the more mystical and less social foundations of Taoism. Buddhism naturally seemed to bridge the gap, and deal with matters of post-mortality and meaning that were less completely covered by Taoist and Confucist thought. There was a fusion of the three religions in popular culture, with the icons of one religion sharing the alters of another. People might be born into a Confucian social-order, ponder the meaning of existence in a Taoist retreat, or practice Taoist medicine, and be buried in a Buddhist ceremony. A very rich blend.
Korea and Japan obtained their Buddhist notions from China, and Chinese forms strongly influenced the sort of Buddhism that they adopted. In Korea, Buddhism tends to be strongly influenced by the "Pure Land" school, and the nativistic shamanistic forms that preceded it. A study of Korean witchcraft can be very interesting. In Japan, Buddhism came to challenge Shinto, itself a very sophisticated shamanistic religion. Chan, or Zen, was very successful in gaining a foothold in Japan. There are three major Zen schools, Rinzai and Soto sects have relatively large followings in the West.
Which is "True Buddhism"? Is a "Pure Land Buddhist" a "True" Buddhist, even though their philosophical foundations seem to be very much at odds with what the historical Buddha apparently taught? Is the "Lesser Vessel" really the "True" form of Buddhism? Buddhism is not a single monolithic religion anymore than Christianity is. We Buddhists share many doctrines and religious notions, but we disagree about almost as many others. It is quite true that there have never been any "Buddhist Wars", at least not on the scale of the wars fought by and between the Abrahamic religions. However, there were contending Buddhist sects in Japan who fought one another for power. Some of the most fierce of the samurai were devoted Buddhists, though they fought and killed on behalf of a feudal lord. Korean Buddhists have a prettly long history of violence within and between monastic orders. There were some skirmishes in South East Asia a thousand years ago, and Ashoka established Buddhism in India with a sword in his hand. Buddhist monks burned themselves to death as public means of applying political pressure to the Vietnmase government back in the 60's. Be careful about promoting our religion as being totally without a history of violence and killing, because that isn't exactly right. On the other hand, the scale and frequency of Buddhist violence is minisccule compared with the Abrahamic religions.
BTW, It seems to me that modern mathematics and physics tend[ to support Buddhist conceptions of what the universe is like, far more than they detract from it. On the other hand, it seems to me that the Abrahamic religions conceptual framework has been severely erroded by science since at least the mid-17th century. Te Nada. Pay attention.
Wow
Wow. *speechless*
Oh and I think that Ajahn Brahm is the amazingest (?) person on earth. Think of all the good karma he has created.
All I know is that when I go into the Buddhist Cultural Center in Cambridge, MA, I am happy. When I eat the vegitarian lunch special, I am happy. When the wait-staff come and fawn over my 4 year old neice, I am happy. When I pear into the meditation room, I'm happy.
I find all this discourse very enlightening. Thanks for getting into it.
Dalai Lama's buddhism is Vajrayana Buddhism,
and Zen is the Mahayana Buddhism.
Dalai Lama's Buddhism is influenced by Bon, while Zen is influenced by Taoism. However the core teaching is still there - people can be liberated and enlightened if they follow the teachings correctly.
I believe true Buddhism is any Buddhism that leads to Nirvana (e.g Pure Land Sect, Zen, Tibetan, and almost a dozen more.)
There there is ultimately only one type of Buddhism on earth - Buddhism that bases on Buddha's Dharma.
Applogies for intruding into a discussion all of a sudden. But, could not control my curosity... I hope you wont mind.
Being a Sikh --> my faith, my knowledge of Buddhism is negligiable but I know for sure that Buddhist hardly ever indulged in a active Politics. I mean there is no administrative authourtiy/force in this Religion to be able to defend its followers from the onslaught from other Religions. Tibbet, their homeland is also not under their control.
So, What do you think about the fact that Buddism, has been almost completely wiped out of its place of Origin, India. Dont you think that being not able to defend their philosophy means their is something missing somewhere?
My question is: Why has Buddhism been completely wiped out from the place of its origin, India?
There are armies in buddhist nations, like Ashoka's country, but Ashoka didn't use it to attack (After he's converted to Buddhist that is).
About Tibetan case well... yes they're a little extreme about peace, I would say. In India's case, I don't think those invasions probably arent something Buddhists should take care of, its their nation's military that should take care of such things. No, Buddhism isn't wiped out of Tibet. You can wipe off many people in a bloody war, but you can't wipe off Buddhism just like that in Tibet.
Buddhists don't believe in converting, don't believing in using its name to stage war. Its up to one to choose whether he wants to be a Buddhist or not, and this has been very successful in the history so far.
Why do we argue about religion?
Honestly now, why fight and argue about what is the true religion. It is not possible to disprove something we all know so little about, have we died and come back to tell us all the real way? I know I have not.
Indeed we all have that feeling deep down inside but is it a true feeling? Or is it just something that we have been taught over the years, like speaking and morals...
The page before stated something about Christianity being the source for all religions, I find that hard to believe. Considering Christianity derived from a Jewish man by the name of Jesus.
Buddhists believe they know the true way to find happiness, but how can that be? What is a world with true happiness? Society as we know it will perish if we all reach that state of mind, happiness is an unreachable mortal goal, it can only be held after life, if there even is an afterlife.
Society is built by a common hate for the different group, society is a square and can only exist if there are boundaries, boundaries can only exist if there's something beyond it. A person who is truly happy cannot hate, therefor a truly happy society cannot be created because we would seize to exist. get my drift???
If religion was not created then we would live in a peaceful world, this considers all wars are religion based! Islam's still say their in a holy war, any war declared by the us is in the "eyes of god," o and Buddhists are being killed even though they believe in peace.
MAN (including women) are imperfect, we have to live with it. I know something is out there because it would be a waste of all our beauty if there wasnt. but religion has no factor. no GOD would ever discriminate peace of mind will only come after death, happiness cannot be taught!
please reply
the mind of an 18 year old
Not all wars are about religion, it just seems that way sometimes. Wars have many different causes. Territory, and scarcity of resources are two examples of disagreements that have often escalated into war. National pride and fear of attack lie at the heart of other conflicts. Treaty obligations can draw the whole world into war, i.e., The Great War. Ideology, not necessarilly religious ideology, drove the Facists and Communists repeatedly to war in the mid-twentieth century. Clauswitz dictum that "War is politics taken to another level", has become so evident that it is a cliche'.
So long as human beings want what they do not have, fear change, and are driven by an instinct for survival, wars will exist. Aggression is a proven means of resolving frustration and supressed conflict, if only in the short term. Early in the sociation process, children learn about conflict from the school bully, and they learn the value of being part of a larger group that is less vulnerable. We learn the art of war early, and to forget those lessons is risky. Tyrants and meglomaniacs do not respond well to meekness, humility, and surrender.
Hey Asherman
You've been away too long-----I've just learned you are a Buddhist-----I want to ask you a question which was brought up on the philosophy forum. You and billions of other humans have a "need" for a religion. To what do you attribute that need? Would you call it a psychological void that can only be filled with a religion----or how would you explain it?
I don't want to hi-jack this thread and I certainly don't want to get into any discussion about one religion vs anther----Asherman and I go back a ways and I value his opinion so Ash you can answer here or PM me as you wish.
Thanks
I don't think that I have a "need" for religion. Frankly, it is less convenient than having no religion. To be a Buddhist in a world dominated by Abramic beliefs is certainly not something one would choose unless necessary. "Need" v. "Necessary".
Is religion necessary for me, or anyone else for that matter? It seems that our species is naturally inclined to question, and questions demand answers. "Primitive" religions answered some of those seminal questions with magic and myth. Questions about origins and meanings are prominent in Western religion, and questions about the nature of time and reality seem more common in the East. What is the nature of reality? Why do people suffer, and is there anything that can be done about it? These are not exclusively Buddhist questions, but they do lie at the heart of what makes Buddhism, Buddhism.
If I had never heard of Buddhism, never studied it, I think I would still be asking those questions. Would I have tumbled to the answers enshrined in the Four Nobel Truths, the Eight-Fold Path, or in the other Sutras? Perhaps, but maybe not. Buddhism, it seems to me, is more in tune with the sort of scientific ideals that revolutionized Western thinking from the 17th century on. Buddhism describes a reality that seems to agree with what I believe I know from observation and reason. It just is, and has nothing to do with "need". It is "necessary" in the sense that to close our eyes to what appears to describe reality rather well would be an act of conscious foolishness. We believe what we believe because we believe it to be true. Once we can no longer believe in the truth of an idea, theory, or religion, we get throw away the idea.
Does that help you to understand my position? So how ya been boyo? I've been busy painting, and when I'm making pictures I don't write much. I do check in periodically, and Aunt Bea keeps me informed of things I wouldn't want to miss following. As the weather gets chilly, I usually go back to writing until the Spring. However, this year the studio has real heat so I may just work right through the Winter.
I know this sounds funny, but I believe in enhighthenment. It will take you to the same places that any religious practice will take you, but in a fraction of the time. Problem is you wont understand untill the time is right.
I know enlightenment, it is nothing but noticing your true self. However I am not already there because I love the sensation and toil of love, which is also a larger self.
response
i in no way am here to offend religion. i believe religion is a tool used by man to get what they want. facists used religion to gain public aproval, communists used arguments against religion for public aproval. so you see religion does have a factor in every war.
i might have been wrong by stating it causes , but what i meant was a factor...
as humans we do not need religion, we need a common faith. somthing we all can believe in ... religions are made to control society , example: medieval society... we do not live in an era where we can not explain the sun or the stars... HUMAN KIND AS A WHOLE IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT AND POWERFUL THAN ANY RELIGION COULD IMAGINE.
man created religion to worship the unexplainable, man created morals.
therefor if man created all that keeps society in order we do not need a formal religion. it is all in the human mind...
Buddhism is a way of life that was smart by stating all the facts that we allready know. we suffer because without suffering how can we show compassion? we hate because without hate there is no love, we lie because without it there is no truth. happiness can only be found through compassion wich is there because of suffering. we all must open our eyes that with boundaries good or evil we will never be united as a human people. religion created the boundaries of today think about it!
