Quit running around the Bhodi tree

Started by worldslaziestbusker, June 01, 2013, 04:17:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Aupmanyav

Quote from: "mykcob4"I find it funny that Hindi's actually claim Buddha as their own. He was a prince but that is where it ends. His awakening was a manifestation of his own thoughts and isn't part of any religion. Just because people started adopting him and then teaching their own religion and politics doesn't make the Buddha part of them in any way.
I find no difference between hinduism and buddhism. Making one into a God is our way of honoring a person, sort of a Nobel Prize. We have a full Noble Prize and also partial Nobel Prizes which were awarded to people like Kassapa of the buddhists and Rishabha of the Jains. We term them as 'Amsha Avataras', partial emanations). We have even more divisions of the prizes for lesser mortals.

"The various avatars categorized in many different ways. For example: Purusavatara is the first avatara; Gunavataras are represented by the Trimurti (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) who each preside over one of the Gu?as (rajas, sattva, and tamas); Lilavataras are the well-known ones, and include Avesavataras (beings into whom part of God Himself has entered) and saktyamsavesa (into whom only parts of His power enter); Kalpa-, Manvantara-, and Yuga-avataras descend during different cosmic ages." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar#Avatars_of_Vishnu

The buddhists are at liberty to consider Buddha in any way they like, for us he is the ninth avatara of Lord Vishnu.
"Brahma Satyam Jagan-mithya" (Brahman is the truth, the observed is an illusion)
"Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma" (All this here is Brahman)

St Giordano Bruno

Here we go round the bhodi tree,
The bhodi tree,
The bhodi tree.
Here we go round the bhodi tree
So early in the morning.
Voltaire - "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities"

Aupmanyav

"Brahma Satyam Jagan-mithya" (Brahman is the truth, the observed is an illusion)
"Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma" (All this here is Brahman)

leo

Quote from: "St Giordano Bruno"Here we go round the bhodi tree,
The bhodi tree,
The bhodi tree.
Here we go round the bhodi tree
So early in the morning.
I like this song.
Religion is Bullshit  . The winner of the last person to post wins thread .

Hydra009

Quote from: "Aupmanyav"I find no difference between hinduism and buddhism. Making one into a God is our way of honoring a person, sort of a Nobel Prize.
Apotheosis seems to be a common occurrence in the premodern world.  I suppose the intent is good, but it can be a dangerous thing when one forgets the man and remembers only the god.  Christianity comes readily to mind as an example of this process going horribly awry.

Shiranu

I know we aren't suppose to run around it, but can we at least sit under it?



(Note: I'm not that ugly anymore, obviously :P)
Every day is a good day to *remove from server* an autocrat.

Aupmanyav

Quote from: "Hydra009"I suppose the intent is good, but it can be a dangerous thing when one forgets the man and remembers only the god.
Hinduism is receptive. It may have borrowed a lot from Buddhists and Jains.
"Brahma Satyam Jagan-mithya" (Brahman is the truth, the observed is an illusion)
"Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma" (All this here is Brahman)

Buddhist Alternative

Quote from: "Solitary"What Buddha taught originally was nothing like what the various schools taught even in his own time. It has been corrupted by the Judeo-Christian-Islamic-religions.  There were no prayers, rituals, God or gods, absolute dogma in his original teachings, and he never believed what he taught was of divine intervention or that he was a god, even though the Hindu religion claims he is. It was, and is, a good philosophy to live by, nothing more. Bill

"I don't know what caused the Big Bang and I don't know why there is something instead of nothing and that means you don't know either" – Bill Maher. "I prefer Rationalism over Atheism because the question of God is unknowable. As a Rationalist you don't have to waste your time either attacking or defending either position" – Issac Asimov. "You should be skeptical of everything, including yourself" – Bertrand Russell. I had to preface this article with the above quotes because, although I am a Buddhist and believe in a Supreme Being, I am a great admirer of the above people. My two B.A.'s are not in Philosophy or Physics, so feel free to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. You may be right. But I would like to open a discourse with my Atheist friends who have a Philosophy that I also admire. That philosophy is: 'Your Heart should not accept what your Mind rejects'. One of the tenants of Buddhism is that you should not accept anything without thinking. But, I do have a rebuttal for at least two of the statements by some well known, highly intelligent, Atheists:

"If God did not require being created, logic dictates that the Universe did not require being created either" – Michael Shermer. My rebuttal is that the Universe is composed of Matter, Energy, Gravity, Time and Space; all of which require being created. Consciousness however is still a mystery. In fact, if you're a follower of the Niels Bohr Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it is Consciousness that creates Matter. A Supreme Consciousness may very well indeed not have required being created. To those whose explanation of Consciousness is that the Human Brain is so complex that Consciousness 'somehow' evolved; you should know that using the word 'somehow' poses a lot of philosophical problems and questions. For example, Immanuel Kant in 'The Critique Of Pure Reason' surmised that Space and Time are only the relationship of one object to another; but, if we did not have the concept of Space and Time 'A Priori' in our Minds before we were born, we would not have been able to relate one sense impression to another. There would be no Awareness or Consciousness.

"Quantum Mechanics allows for a Universe to come into existence out of Nothing" – Lawrence Krauss. I have several rebuttals for this. First, Quantum Mechanics has become all things to all people. Physicist Fred Alan Wolfe in 'The Spiritual Universe' claims that Quantum Physics proves the existence of the Human Soul. John Wheeler believes that the strange results in QP experiments suggest that someone is observing the Universe. Secondly, when Dr. Krauss (if I understand him correctly) talks of something coming from nothing – He is talking about Gravity affecting Negative Energy is such a way that virtual particles 'pop' into existence which then become real particles. The problem with this, as even physicists who are atheists have pointed out, is that this occurs in Space and in Time within the Universe. The Big Bang occurred in a no-when, no-place, no-gravity. Krauss's reply is that a true Nothing (no space, no time, no gravity) is unstable. And like all unstable systems, it will eventually collapse in on itself and produce something. I'm not sure how to answer that. In a no-time, how does nothing 'eventually' collapse. It should be noted that by the year 2017, there may be satellites in place (according to the Science Channel – 'How The Universe Works') that might be able to detect Gravity Waves from a Universe that existed before the Big Bang. One theory is that a part of 2 separate Universes (each as a wave-like membrane) in a Multi-verse, collided, causing the Big Bang. If these Gravity Waves from a previous Universe are detected, that would obliterate Stephen Hawkings and Lawrence Krauss's assertion that the Big Bang came from nothing. Of course, that still leaves the question: 'What caused the first Big Bang ?'. And if the continuous Big Bangs go back in Infinite Regression – the question is: 'Why is there something instead of nothing ?'

When I talk with some of my Atheist friends, who I highly regard, I always assert that both positions on the existence of God require a Leap of Faith. Whenever I state that I always get what I call 'The Tooth-Fairy' rebuttal. My friends will state that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of the tooth fairy. However, they are still not going to believe in the existence of the tooth fairy until there is substantive scientific evidence. My answer to that is: If you want to stay up all night outside your kid's bedroom after one of them loses a tooth; and the tooth fairy never shows up – you can reasonably assert that there is no tooth fairy. What you can't do is to go back in Time to the Big Bang and from a position outside the Universe observe the Big Bang and then state: 'I was there at the Big Bang and I can tell you that there was no Supreme Consciousness. The whole thing was a product of Spontaneous Creation'. Since you can't do that, comparing the question of God with the question of the tooth fairy or the spaghetti monster, or whatever, is quite disingenuous. This is why Issac Asimov preferred Rationalism over Atheism and why Buddhists, although they believe in God, assert that the Nature of God is unknowable.

The bottom line is that if you are an Atheist and you state that you don't belive in God; that is absolutely and perfectly fine. However, if you state, as a matter of fact, that there is no God, you are taking a Leap of Faith and crossing over into the world of Religious Dogma. If you state that a God-belief is stupid, you are a religious fanatic.

If the Question of God or the Nature of God is unknowable, then why do I believe in God ? Well, for me, God is not something I believe in, God is a Supreme Being that my Consciousness is aware of. Of course, what I think I am aware of is not Scientific Proof. So, as a Rationalist, I am willing to place this 'Awareness' down as a Belief and put it down in the category of Faith.

Moriarty

Seriously you're going to post the same shit copy and pasted? Pretty weak sauce.........I wanna be a mod so I can ban for spam~
<Insert witty remark>

"Say what you will about George W. Bush, but he wouldn\'t have stood for Russian aggression in the Ukraine. He\'d have invaded New Zealand by now."--Donald O\'Keeffe.

stromboli

Hinduism was around long before Buddhism. Hindusim's roots appear during the Harappan period before 1900 BCE.  Siddhartha Gautama's birthday is given as 400 BCE, so Hinduism was well along before Buddhism showed up. Hinduism later adopted some tenets of Buddhism after it became a religion, but it does predate it by some centuries.

And yes, there are many similarities. That is what happens when you have two religions comingling over centuries.

leo

This buddhist alternative dude is WAY OFFFFFFFFF.   [-(
Religion is Bullshit  . The winner of the last person to post wins thread .

stromboli

QuoteIf the Question of God or the Nature of God is unknowable, then why do I believe in God ? Well, for me, God is not something I believe in, God is a Supreme Being that my Consciousness is aware of. Of course, what I think I am aware of is not Scientific Proof. So, as a Rationalist, I am willing to place this 'Awareness' down as a Belief and put it down in the category of Faith.

Newsflash there, BA. You are not born with awareness of a supreme being. It is a concept you encounter and either accept or reject. You believe in god because you accepted the concept, period.

This copy/paste crap on different threads is horseshit. People aren't debating you because this is all SOSDD; same old shit, different day. By all means go over on a science forum and debate this shit. Really, they are waiting for you. Don't hesitate.

Shiranu

I did offer a light rebuttal on the other thread he copypasta-d, but I have the feeling he is already on to the next forum :P.
Every day is a good day to *remove from server* an autocrat.

stromboli

Quote from: "Shiranu"I did offer a light rebuttal on the other thread he copypasta-d, but I have the feeling he is already on to the next forum :P.

Don't get my hopes up, Shiranu.  :-D

Solitary

Buddha started off as a Hindu, but to say is still one in his later beliefs is BS, like saying Jesus was a man and later became a God. Buddha never believed he was a god or his teachings were from divine intervention. Buddhism is no more a religion than atheism is, even if both can be considered a religion by one definition of religion as a common belief. What Buddha taught is a good way to live ones life, unless you want to know the supernatural that nobody knows about because they live in the natural world like all people that start superstitious nonsense called religion. Turning Buddhism into a religion is a corruption of his dogma that was not a demand, but a suggestions to live a better life.  :roll: Unbelievable that Christianity, and its dogma, even effects a rational belief system that Buddha had in his later life.  [-X  Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.