Could someone explain the Buddhist belief system to me?

[DreamBliss]

Specifically as I understand it the Buddhist belief system is in the Anatman, and this was done intentionally by Buddha to get people to think outside the Hindu/Yogic system where the Higher Self is called the Atman.

 

I guess what I would like to know is does the Buddhist belief system believe in God, and if so, what form is God for them? It seems in the Hindu/Yogic system God is you, me, each of us living sperately physically but all connected to the Source through our Higher Selves. We are all little peices of God and are at the same time God. I think I get what they say. But I would like to know what the Buddhist belief system says.

 

The reason I am asking this is because I come from the Christain belief system, and I am rapidly coming to the point where I will have to figure out where I stand. Is God some man on a throne somewhere? Is God merely the energy that we all have a part of inside that gives us life and is commonly referred to as The Source? Or is God me, or rather am I God? For whatever reason God decided to shoot a part of Himself off into this physical reality to live in my physical body. Or is God perhaps all of these and more, or none of these?

 

I have to make a choice in order to pursue my spiritual development. If I stick with my Christain beliefs then I can go no further. God may or may not be connected to me, I may or may not be connected to others, God may or may not be the source that connects us all and gives us life. This is as far as I can go in the Christain faith. Because if I start saying I am God I am in direct conflict with the Bible and the belief system of the Christian faith. It is, literally for me at this point in my development, hell or high water. Once I start calling myself God, if I am wrong, if the Christian faith is right, then I consign myself to an eternity of suffering in hell for blasphomy among other things. Do you see my predicament?

 

At some point I have to step off the narrow way and risk the jungle that waits beyond. Well in reality I have stepped off, and now it's a matter of turning my back on it and leaving it behind. I can't think of myself as a Center of Consiousness, and move beyond my body, within my former religion. I mean I moved beyond the religion itself but retained some of its beliefs. It is those I have to leave behind.

 

All this is compounded by the fact that I now see the truth about religion in general. It is a control, a leash, a cage, a collar. You can't find freedom in a belief, it is your beliefs that entrap you. Some of that entrapment is good. Your religion tells you that murdering someone is bad, well then you won't be going around killing folks. Your belief to respect life, to not kill, is stronger than any law. But in most other ways these constraints are bad, because they can be used to keep you blind, deaf and dumb to the truth so others can control you. It is apt that the Bible describes people as sheep...

 

Anyhow I think understanding the Buddhist viewpoint here will aid me in figuring out what mine will be. One of the main three, or perhaps a different one entirely. We'll see. I appreciate your help. Also let me be perfectly clear, I'm not posting this to challenge or belittle anyone's views on God. I didn't start this thread to argue. Just to hear a viewpoint. So feel free to share, I for one will welcome and appreciate it.

 

Thank you -

- DreamBliss

Edited November 3, 2012 by DreamBliss

[idiot_stimpy]

For me the foundational beliefs would have to be the four Noble Truths.

 

• The truth of dukkha (suffering, anxiety, stress)
  
• The truth of the origin of dukkha
  
• The truth of the cessation of dukkha
  
• The truth of the path leading to the cessation of dukkha
  

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

[Fū Yue]

Christ said the kingdom of God is within us. Christ said we are the light. Christ said turn a stone and you will find me.

 

People said we are unclean. People said we go to hell. People said if you don't follow tradition, you're damned.

 

Christ said not to follow tradition, follow God. Christ said hell is nothing more than being without God. Christ said we are the sons of the father, just like him. Christ said we can become exalted, just like him.

 

What Christ was pointing to is the same as what every other sage was pointing to. Go beyond the dogma of the people and you will find the same Center. Don't trade one doctrine for another, go beyond doctrine, recognize the truth in all things without becoming trapped in familiar motions and notions. Don't just believe, know. The Yogic 'system' was not of belief, but a path of knowing, a practice for actualizing God rather than simply 'believing' it to be so. When your god/dess is literally seated in front of you, there is no room for flimsy belief.

 

 

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” - Buddha

 

 

One of the most important things that the Buddha stressed was that the reality of what he says must be recognized as true for it to bear any fruits. In order to recognize it as true one must apply the principles to day-to-day life. Buddha gave us a practice, people made it a religion. Do the practice. True faith comes from recognition of truth in action.

 

Here's a great resource for Buddhist practice. Theyve got lots of sutras and books on there for free.

[xabir2005]

• http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/dharmajim/DharmaView.html
  
• 
  John Reynolds, among western scholars I am familiar with, has written with clarity on this issue:
   
  

  
  

   
  
  
  
  As for the existence of God, of the Creator of heaven and earth, this is the concept central to religion as we know it in the West. Was the Buddha an atheist or an agnostic in relation to the existence of a Supreme Being or God? ...
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
  
  In the Suutras there is found a Buddhist account of Genesis. [This account appears in several sources both in the Mahayana and the Theravada Canons.] In reply to questions from His disciples, the Buddha explained that the humanity found on this planet earth once inhabited another planetary system. Ages ago when the sun of that world went nova and the planet was destroyed in the ensuing solar eruptions, the bulk of its inhabitants, as the result of their arduously practicing the Dharma for ten thousand years, were reborn on one of the higher planes of the Form World or
  Ruupedhaatu
  , a plane of existence known as
  Aabhaasvara
  or “clear light.” Here they enjoyed inconceivable bliss and felicity for countless aeons. Then, when their great store of past karma came onto maturity, our own solar system and planet earth began to evolve and some among their numbers were reborn on the lower planes of the
  Ruupadhaatu
  in the vicinity of the nascent earth. This plane of existence where they found themselves reborn is known as
  Brahmaaloka
  . The first of these beings to reawaken and be reborn, upon seeing the solar system evolving below him, exclaimed in his delight, “I am the Creator!” In this way, he came to believe that he was the actual creator of the universe which he saw about him, for he did not remember from whence he came and was born without any parents. But in actuality the manifestation of this universe was due to the collective karma of all in that company and his own individual manifestation, which was a case of apparitional birth, was due to his own great stock of meritorious karma coming into maturation at that time because the requisite secondary conditions were present.
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
  
  (
  Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
  , translated by John Myrdhin Reynolds, Snow Lion, Ithaca, NY, 2000, pages 97-99.)
  
  
   
  
  

  
   
  
  The principle here, derived from the core insight of Interdependent Transformation, is that all things appear from a causal base. This understanding is extended to the existence of entire universes or world systems. The Dalai Lama makes this same point in his commentary on Shantideva’s Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life, the Ninth Chapter on Wisdom. Verse 124 speaks directly to this discussion:
   
  

  
  

   
  
  
  
  124. ...
  f Creation were dependent upon conditions, the complete collection of those causal circumstances would be the cause, and not
  Ishvara
  [Note:
  Ishvara
  was a common name for God in ancient India, similar to
  Yahweh
  .] If the complete conditions were assembled,
  Ishvara
  would be powerless not to create; and if they were absent, there would be no creation.
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
  
  The Dalai Lama’s Comment:
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
  
  If creation and destruction are dependent upon a collection of causal conditions, the totality of those conditions would be the cause, and not a God who is independent of and uninfluenced by events. If the causal conditions were assembled,
  Ishvara
  would be powerless not to create the resultant phenomena; and if they were not assembled, those phenomena would not be produced.
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
  
  (
  Transcendent Wisdom
  , the Dalai Lama, translated by B. Alan Wallace, Snow Lion, Ithaca, New York, 1998, page 93.)
  
  
   
  
  

  
  

[xabir2005]

http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha068.htm

 

(The Buddha:)

 

If the creator of the world entire

They call God, of every being be the Lord

Why does he order such misfortune

And not create concord?

 

If the creator of the world entire

They call God, of every being be the Lord

Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance

And he such inequity and injustice create?

If the creator of the world entire

They call God, of every being be the Lord

Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)

Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!

Edited November 3, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

There are late texts such as those of Dzogchen that talks about an 'all-creating king' (this is not an external being but your OWN Mind), but as Loppon Namdrol/Malcolm puts it:

 

The mind that is the all-creating king, as Norbu Rinpoche makes clear, is the mind that does not recognize itself, and so enters into samsara, creating its own experience of samsara.

 

All conditioned phenomena are a product of ignorance, according to Dzogchen view, and so therefore, everything is not real. The basis of that ignorance is the basis, which is also not established as real.

 

In Dzogchen, everything is unreal, from top to bottom. The basis, in Dzogchen, is described as being "empty not established in any way at all". If the basis is not real, then whatever arises from that basis is not real.

 

In Dzoghen, dependent origination begins from the non-recognition of the state of the basis, when this happens, one enters into grasping self and other, and then the chain of dependent origination begins.

 

................

 

"I, the supreme source ["All-Creating King"], am the sole maker, and no other agent exists in the world. The nature of phenomena is created through me ... The very manifestation of existence itself depends on me ... I am self-arising wisdom that has existed from the beginning. I am the supreme source of everything, pure and total consciousness ...'Consciousness' means that self-arising wisdom, the true essence, dominates and clearly perceives all the phenomena of the animate and inanimate universe. This self-arising fundamental substance, not produced by causes and condition, governs all things and gives life to all things ... As my nature is unhindered and all-pervading, it is the celestial abode of wisdom and luminous space: therein abides only self-arising wisdom. As I am the substance whence everything arises, the five great elements, the three worlds [i.e. the worlds of Desire, Form, and Formlessness] and the six classes of beings [hell-denizens, ghosts, animals, humans, Titans, and gods] are only my body, my voice, and my mind: I myself create my own nature ... The root of all phenomena is pure and total consciousness, the source. All that appears is my nature. All that manifests is my magical display. All sounds and words express only my meaning ...

 

"I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am 'the core', because I contain all phenomena. I am 'the seed', because I give birth to everything. I am 'the cause', because all comes forth from me. I am 'the trunk', because the ramificationsof every event sprout from me. I am 'the foundation', because all abides in me. I am called 'the root', because I am everything [emphasis added]" (Translation of "The All-Creating King", published as The Supreme Source, tr. by Adriano Clemente and Andrew Lukianowicz, Snow Lion Publications, Ithaca, New York 1999, pp. 137-141, 157).

Edited November 3, 2012 by xabir2005

[Apech]

This is quite a complex question really. For a start Buddhism is not a belief system in the sense that it asks you to believe in something ... like Jesus or God. Christianity works a lot in this way, encouraging 'blind faith' but Buddhism doesn't. It starts from a completely different place. It starts from analysing the experience of being ... and in particular why people 'suffer'. Why existence as a being seems to predicate on experiencing old age, death and disease and so on. In this sense this is the opposite from asking 'what is really real' or what or who created this world. Buddhist thinking is reductive in that it looks at all possible candidates for what is truly real and rejects them all as having a lack of self existence. Different schools of Buddhism take this to different degrees.

 

In terms of the anatman ... Buddhism says that all compounded things are impermanent and lack essential being of themselves, that is self hood. So this can be applied to your own being. You can say you have a body, feeling, perceptions, ideas and consciousness but all these phenomena lack a 'self-hood' ... they all arise dependent on conditions for their existence beyond themselves and thus do not have a permanent self-hood. This is in ultimate terms. In everyday, conventional terms you do have a self. Just as objects such as chairs and trees exists in an ordinary practical sense BUT ultimately they are empty of self. Rather like in science you could analyse any object down to atoms which are chiefly empty space ... this does not stop them being chairs and trees in ordinary terms.

 

Buddhism says that it is clinging to the sense of self which generates unnecessary suffering. It suggests that you can liberate yourself through freeing up your mind, which is naturally pure and luminous. In other words you can find happiness and enlightenment through letting go of mistaken ideas and attachment because you are naturally enlightened in the first place.

[DreamBliss]

Well I have read your posts and will let myself digest them for now. But I have to say, at this moment I am more confused :/ Is it possible to put it very simply for someone like me who is having a hard time understanding? Something along the format, speaking generally, of:

 

Christians = God, Jesus (His son), and the Holy Spirit (the holy trinity.)

Yogic/Advaita = I am God, you are God, we are all together seperately yet collective God and connected to each other.

Buddhist = ???

 

I must admit, the whole alien origin idea throws me, but I remember something from Arthur C. Clark. He said something along the lines that an alien race could have a technology so advanced it would seem like magic to us. Thinking about that, if one of us went back in time and showed someone in the 15th century a cell phone, well they would think all sorts of strange things about us and our device. It would seem like magic to them. So the theory that aliens in essence created us is plausible.

 

I hear what the Buddha is saying in those 3 verses, and have to admit they echo some of my own thoughts and feelings. My whole journey started when I began to ask questions. Things that Christians never talk about. Such as if Heaven is a perfect place, meaning no imperfection, then where did the pride and sins of Lucifer come from that caused him to be cast out? More troubling to me, after reading some of Thich Nhat Hanh's work, was, " Could a holy, loving and perfect God cast such a man into hell simply because he was not a Christian?" Now I have never met Master Hanh, I would like to someday, but from what I can tell in his words the man probably acts more like a Christian than most Christians.

 

But the problem still remains, what if? As unfair, as wrong as it looks from all viewpoints, what if God is exactly as detailed in the Bible, what if the Bible is telling the truth, what if there is only Heaven and Hell? All faiths that hold this Heaven/Hell belief are a trap, because you have no way of proving them right or wrong to the point of safely ensuring the security of your own soul. Nobody gets to know for sure until they die. So whatever your religion, or lack thereof, you are still forced to take that final leap in faith, hoping that whatever you believed or didn't believe was true.

 

Trust me when I say I don't think there is anything harder in this life than moving past and in many cases moving on from long held and ingrained beliefs from your religion. I am scared, and not afraid to admit it. At the very least I know I make my journey in this physical portion of my life harder, because my parents and my grandmother are all Christians. Some of the views I hold now, the realizations I have had, I can't share with anyone in my family for risk of offending them. It hurts and it sucks to not have anyone outside of some forums I access through my computer screen to talk to about this stuff.

 

Anyhow I would appreciate some simplication here. Thank you sharing and your patience -

- DreamBliss

Edited November 3, 2012 by DreamBliss

[DreamBliss]

This is quite a complex question really. For a start Buddhism is not a belief system in the sense that it asks you to believe in something ... like Jesus or God. Christianity works a lot in this way, encouraging 'blind faith' but Buddhism doesn't. It starts from a completely different place. It starts from analysing the experience of being ... and in particular why people 'suffer'. Why existence as a being seems to predicate on experiencing old age, death and disease and so on. In this sense this is the opposite from asking 'what is really real' or what or who created this world. Buddhist thinking is reductive in that it looks at all possible candidates for what is truly real and rejects them all as having a lack of self existence. Different schools of Buddhism take this to different degrees.

 

In terms of the anatman ... Buddhism says that all compounded things are impermanent and lack essential being of themselves, that is self hood. So this can be applied to your own being. You can say you have a body, feeling, perceptions, ideas and consciousness but all these phenomena lack a 'self-hood' ... they all arise dependent on conditions for their existence beyond themselves and thus do not have a permanent self-hood. This is in ultimate terms. In everyday, conventional terms you do have a self. Just as objects such as chairs and trees exists in an ordinary practical sense BUT ultimately they are empty of self. Rather like in science you could analyse any object down to atoms which are chiefly empty space ... this does not stop them being chairs and trees in ordinary terms.

 

Buddhism says that it is clinging to the sense of self which generates unnecessary suffering. It suggests that you can liberate yourself through freeing up your mind, which is naturally pure and luminous. In other words you can find happiness and enlightenment through letting go of mistaken ideas and attachment because you are naturally enlightened in the first place.

 

You posted this as I was framing my reply. So if I grasp this correctly, the Buddhist system does not have a God per say? Instead they encourage the same looking inward of the yogic/advita traditions to find one's truth of one's self for one's self? Something like that? So really as far as a Buddhist is concerned, there is no God, outside or inside themselves, but this is not something a Buddhist directly asks, instead their focus is on freeing themselves of illusions? So basically a Buddhist does not worship any sort of God. They are inner-workers and inner-seekers only? I mean no disrespect here, my words are kind of clumsy here, just trying to see if I have this right.

- DreamBliss

[Apech]

You posted this as I was framing my reply. So if I grasp this correctly, the Buddhist system does not have a God per say? Instead they encourage the same looking inward of the yogic/advita traditions to find one's truth of one's self for one's self? Something like that? So really as far as a Buddhist is concerned, there is no God, outside or inside themselves, but this is not something a Buddhist directly asks, instead their focus is on freeing themselves of illusions? So basically a Buddhist does not worship any sort of God. They are inner-workers and inner-seekers only? I mean no disrespect here, my words are kind of clumsy here, just trying to see if I have this right.

- DreamBliss

 

Some modern Buddhist consider themselves atheists. But the traditional view is that the world may contain beings which are gods (like the Hindu pantheon) but they are not useful objects of refuge. In other words worshipping Indra or Shiva or Vishnu will not lead to liberation because gods as beings are still subject to pride and desire and so on. In other words they represent very exalted states of consciousness but not liberated ones.

 

But in terms of God = Supreme being = the Absolute ... the Buddha would refute this idea I think because it is like creating an idea of something which equates to that which is beyond definition.

 

In Mahayana Buddhism the ultimate would be expressed as the Dharmakaya which means 'truth body of the Buddha'. When the Buddha became enlightened his mind became non-different to the absolute nature of existence and this is his 'truth body'. Also many schools of Mahayana Buddhism (but not all) teach about how each of us has this essential reality within us and call this Buddha-nature. Buddha-nature is sometimes expressed as the union of emptiness and appearance (or luminosity). This means that our minds are essentially empty of self (that is they do not have a locatable shape, colour, form and so on .. they are void) but also are naturally self-luminous ... that is they creatively express light, form and perceptions and so on ... the union of these two is Buddha-nature. (This is in my own words so make allowances for that !!!!)

[lifeforce]

Buddhism is now such a multicultural, multi-national behemoth with a wide array of practices to suit basically anyone willing to pursue the path.

I have found that I come back to Buddhism when I find that other paths come to a dead-end.

My recent return to Christianity was brought to an abrupt end when my questions and doubts had no answer.

Online forums are awash with debates and arguments about what is authentic Buddhism and which are it's correct practices.

It's all a complete waste of time in my opinion.

Buddhism is not a belief system. It requires no blind faith.

Practice and the results of that practice are usually stressed. The faith comes from your own experiences and that is backed up when you read the suttas and sutras.

There is wisdom abound in all 3 vehicles of Buddhism. Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana.

I like to use the metaphor of a tree when I talk about Buddhism.

The four noble truths and the eightfold path are the foundations, the root. There are many branches, leaves and outgrowths and creatures which live on the tree. These are the many teachings, sects, subsects and traditions.

It can be very complicated, confusing and paradoxical at times.

But remember, there is no right or wrong Buddhism.

Find a teacher or teachers or explore for yourself.

Good luck

[DreamBliss]

@lifeforce

 

If you would be willing, I would dearly love to hear why you were considering a return to Christianity, through a PM of course because I am sure this is personal. I know that may be a strange request, but I think it will help me understand the limits of the options I am considering outside of Christianity. At this point, knowing what I know, seeing what I have seen, experiencing what I have experienced, illusion according to most Buddhists or not, I don't see how I could ever return to my former faith.

 

I mean among other things I have the companionship of a spirit animal named Ayhunna, a red-tailed fox. I explore the landscapes of my chakras. I meditate and find it far more nourishing than any sermon or worship session. I'm about to start lucid dreaming again, and I have set an intention to leave my body and astral project, as well as physically cross to another reality. So for me I'm way too far down the rabbit hole to ever return. Took the, what was it, green pill? Haven't watched The Matrix in years. But you get the idea.

 

So I have my answer. The Buddhists in general have no God. They are trying to break free of illusion and really, when you come down to it (and I mean no offense to anyone) the whole concept of God really is the ultimate illusion to become enslaved in, isn't it? I mean you can never know the absolute truth about God while you occupy a physical body. Only on leaving it will you know, and then you probably won't retain any memories of your previous life to compare it to, or have any way to bring the knowledge into your next life. So the only knoweldge any physical man can have about God is the words from other physical men. So subscribing to anyone's belief or holy book is to ensnare yourself in an illusion.

 

Better than to give up any idea of God and work on getting rid of the illusions that trap you. Well this should help me understand some of the writtings that I have been reading. Thank you, everyone, for your help.

 

Now I must make my decision, but, in true Buddhist matter, do so in a present minded state, taking my time, with no attatchment or aversion. A breath, a slow step, the setting of the foot down, and the next part of the journey will begin.

- DreamBliss

Edited November 3, 2012 by DreamBliss

[Apech]

@Dreambliss

 

Although not a Christian myself I have a lot of time for J.C. himself. And I think it is fair to say that just as there are Buddhists and there are Buddhists (i.e. not all the same) this is also true for Christianity. I knew and studied under a Christian Hermetic mystic for a few years and he was one of the most enlightened (and wise) people I have met ... if you dig into the Theology and metaphysics of Christiann Mysticism you find something quite different to ordinary church.

 

I mean among other things I have the companionship of a spirit animal named Ayhunna, a red-tailed fox. I explore the landscapes of my chakras. I meditate and find it far more nourishing than any sermon or worship session. I'm about to start lucid dreaming again, and I have set an intention to leave my body and astral project, as well as physically cross to another reality. So for me I'm way too far down the rabbit hole to ever return. Took the, what was it, green pill? Haven't watched The Matrix in years. But you get the idea.

 

This sounds like shamanism really. In which case you practice the religion of religions which our distant ancestors practiced for maybe 100,000 years before civilisation brought out those schools we call religion today. IMO any worthwhile practice embraces this kind of approach.

[Jetsun]

I have studied a lot of Buddhism but I find myself drawn to Christianity a lot recently, but not in the way the Church teaches it. Meditation on Christ is not much different from Buddhist Tantra meditation on a deity, it may be even better for many Westerners as Christ is more of an architypal figure of unlimited compassion in the Western psyche than any Buddhist deity. You could say even that Christ did or is doing Guru Yoga for a large section of humanity, maybe even for everyone

 

When the Dalai Lama teaches abroad now he always begins his talks saying that you should keep your own religion and you don't need Buddhism, I always thought he was just saying that out of politeness but i'm starting to think now that he is being genuine. If you have genuine faith, genuine prayer, it is very humbling to the ego which is what Buddhists say is the core of most of our problems. In terms of methods such as meditation if you look out of official Church lines you find methods of purification, the Eastern orthodox church is full of methods and processes like the Ignatian spiritual exercises are very powerful methods of development. Maybe you need the highest Buddhist teachings to make that final step to full enlightenment but most other religions can bring you to the point of high level compassionate Bodhisattva and they may bring you there faster than Buddhism could depending on your individuality.

[GrandmasterP]

Horses for courses. Religious path is either encultured or a choice.

I can see the sense in folk from Buddhist cultures being Buddhists, same with those brought up in Islamic, Jewish , Hindu or Xtian ways to name a few.

What beats me is why anyone needs to make a huge jump from the tradition they were brought up to into an alien way.

Every path has its mystical/ cultivation type options and everything we talk about on here using Taoist-talk is replicated exactly elsewhere using different terms for the same thing.

Any path followed with good intent is as good as the next, neither better nor worse.

The mainly rather intense bods of western antecedent who take up Buddhism tend to be like converts to anything, rather over zealous often regarded, with some amusement if not a little contempt by the leathery little old ladies who run the centres and chat to each other in dialects the western convert will never truly understand.

For a religion to really fit and 'work' it needs to be something we are rooted in having taken elements thereof with our mother's milk.

All else is affectation mingled with self loathing all filtered through a sieve of nostalgic longing for a self- state that never was nor ever will be.

Edited November 3, 2012 by GrandmasterP

[Fū Yue]

But the problem still remains, what if? As unfair, as wrong as it looks from all viewpoints, what if God is exactly as detailed in the Bible, what if the Bible is telling the truth, what if there is only Heaven and Hell? All faiths that hold this Heaven/Hell belief are a trap, because you have no way of proving them right or wrong to the point of safely ensuring the security of your own soul. Nobody gets to know for sure until they die. So whatever your religion, or lack thereof, you are still forced to take that final leap in faith, hoping that whatever you believed or didn't believe was true.

 

 

The Buddha provided a remedy for this as well. Practices for emancipating consciousness from objects of inquiry, inducing the death experience while living, and transferring and ejecting consciousness.

 

Personally, I have experienced death a number of times in this life alone. Knowledge is universal, and if you can truly internalize your practice, you will be able to recognize and successfully navigate the transitional state without relying on words or concepts.

[RongzomFan]

Some modern Buddhist consider themselves atheists.

 

All traditional buddhists are atheists. Madhyamaka is the most powerful atheism on the plant. All Nagarjuna etc. did was attack the other Indian religions.

[RongzomFan]

Specifically as I understand it the Buddhist belief system is in the Anatman, and this was done intentionally by Buddha to get people to think outside the Hindu/Yogic system where the Higher Self is called the Atman.

 

atman means identity.

 

If you know that, then all the buddhist and hindu texts become clear.

[Apech]

All traditional buddhists are atheists. Madhyamaka is the most powerful atheism on the plant. All Nagarjuna etc. did was attack the other Indian religions.

 

If by atheist you mean that there is no belief in any god(s) whatsoever then the traditional world view includes god realms ... but as I described above these are not considered worthy of refuge. Madhyamaka does not belief in the self existence of anything, so describe it as atheism is a bit limiting. Nagarjuna did more than attack other religions.

[RongzomFan]

Right but these gods have a lifespan and die. So they are not gods really.

 

Certainly not "Creators".

Edited November 4, 2012 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

Horses for courses. Religious path is either encultured or a choice.

I can see the sense in folk from Buddhist cultures being Buddhists, same with those brought up in Islamic, Jewish , Hindu or Xtian ways to name a few.

What beats me is why anyone needs to make a huge jump from the tradition they were brought up to into an alien way.

Every path has its mystical/ cultivation type options and everything we talk about on here using Taoist-talk is replicated exactly elsewhere using different terms for the same thing.

Any path followed with good intent is as good as the next, neither better nor worse.

The mainly rather intense bods of western antecedent who take up Buddhism tend to be like converts to anything, rather over zealous often regarded, with some amusement if not a little contempt by the leathery little old ladies who run the centres and chat to each other in dialects the western convert will never truly understand.

For a religion to really fit and 'work' it needs to be something we are rooted in having taken elements thereof with our mother's milk.

All else is affectation mingled with self loathing all filtered through a sieve of nostalgic longing for a self- state that never was nor ever will be.

 

 

Every other path besides Buddhism is 'realist'.

Edited November 4, 2012 by alwayson

[XieJia]

Not too sure really; if up to my opinion. Buddhists are agnostic.

Buddhism is a path for practice.

The scriptures mentions deities, gods and goddess and powerful beings.

 

Over here in the east, most respects them as elders or teachers or sometume similar to family relatives while some dont outright.

The Buddhist path is independent of them as a beings,

So i cant be sure to proclaim anything.

[rex]

I heard one teacher say once that while Buddhism denies the concept of God it doesn't deny the nature of God.

Edited November 4, 2012 by rex

[Apech]

I heard one teacher say once that while Buddhism denies the concept of God it doesn't deny the nature of God.

 

Sounds deep ... what does it mean?

[RongzomFan]

Atman does not mean "identity." I'm sure you know the difference, so I'm I'm posting this mainly for the OP.

 

Atman = identity.

 

Thats how Karl Brunnholzl translates it in "Center of the Sunlit Sky" for just one example.

 

P.S. Studying Buddhism or Hinduism on Wikipedia is a joke. No wonder you are confused.

Edited November 4, 2012 by alwayson