|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 15, 2011 19:47:11 GMT -5
As for non-dogmatic Buddhism, I'm not sure what there is to know, or even if it's all that practical. "Renounce worldly possessions"? Yeah, I'll get right on that, Siddartha. The way I see it, the point is to become detached from your "worldly" possessions. That doesn't mean to get rid of them, but to not let them be important to you. That's my interpretation of it. It may not be the "right" interpretation, but eh.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 15, 2011 19:50:29 GMT -5
You mentioned that Buddha isn't a God, so I assumed we were going with Siddartha Ghatana's original ideology.
That is a less retarded way to look at it, though.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 15, 2011 20:07:18 GMT -5
You mentioned that Buddha isn't a God, so I assumed we were going with Siddartha Ghatana's original ideology. That is a less retarded way to look at it, though. I'm confused now. How does Buddha not being a god (which is sorta central to the entire aspect of Buddhism) mean that I'm going with one specific ideology?
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 15, 2011 20:23:12 GMT -5
Because historically, Buddha WAS viewed as a God for quite some time, including where the religion/philosophy was founded, in India.
Think of it this way: Westerners are predisposed to think of Buddha as a God because they're familiar with "religion" having a God. Now think about back then, when there wasn't an emphasis on dividing the religion from the philosophy, & the main religion was Hinduism, which had eleventy billion Gods.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 15, 2011 20:45:16 GMT -5
Buddhism is a philosophy, but there are still some sects that view the Buddha as divine, such as pure land.
I consider any supernature force above the universe a "God" so Stuff like the Tao and the Chi would count.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 15, 2011 21:22:36 GMT -5
That's kind of silly, magic=/=deity. Ghosts & faeries can hardly be considered Gods, too. There's a semi-decent case for angels & demons.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 15, 2011 22:17:58 GMT -5
I have heard nymphs and satyrs be called minor gods, so yeah.
This is why I don't really consider any religion monotheistic (except deism, pantheism and maybe Hinduism and Taoism)
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 15, 2011 22:26:06 GMT -5
They are not equivalent to faeries or ghosts, despite some similarities, & they have an important thing that makes people debate about whether or not they count: Will.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 15, 2011 22:28:10 GMT -5
I have heard nymphs and satyrs be called minor gods, so yeah. This is why I don't really consider any religion monotheistic (except deism, pantheism and maybe Hinduism and Taoism) Deism doesn't have to be monotheistic.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 15, 2011 22:31:48 GMT -5
I have heard nymphs and satyrs be called minor gods, so yeah. This is why I don't really consider any religion monotheistic (except deism, pantheism and maybe Hinduism and Taoism) Deism doesn't have to be monotheistic. But it can be unlike the so called "monotheistic" Abrahamic Religions.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Nov 15, 2011 22:39:10 GMT -5
It may not be the "right" interpretation, but eh. There's no such thing as a "right" interpretation. If it works for you, go with it.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 15, 2011 22:49:06 GMT -5
I am a reverse Buddhist. Suffering is not caused by earthly possessions, but rather, earthly possessions are caused by suffering.
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Nov 16, 2011 10:10:09 GMT -5
As for non-dogmatic Buddhism, I'm not sure what there is to know, or even if it's all that practical. "Renounce worldly possessions"? Yeah, I'll get right on that, Siddartha. The way I see it, the point is to become detached from your "worldly" possessions. That doesn't mean to get rid of them, but to not let them be important to you. That's my interpretation of it. It may not be the "right" interpretation, but eh. Yes but not quite either. The reason behind renouncing worldly possessions is the understanding that everything, including life itself, is temporary. Part of the cause of continuous reincarnation is our temptation by worldly pleasures; thus to achieve nirvana, and release from being bound to this world, one must renounce all worldly pleasures and go beyond them. Better to concern oneself with eternal bliss than to chase fleeting highs. As a professor of mine once said, there are 700 million Hindus who practice 700 million forms of Hinduism. The fluidity of Hinduism itself has allowed Buddhism, in effect, to thrive, since Buddhism borrows a lot from Hinduism (and vice versa). For Buddhism to thrive, elements of it were incorporated into Hinduism. Why is why while stories of Buddha essentially state he no longer existed (achieved nirvana) after his death, his figure is still treated as a deity, which you can still pray to as guidance. In a sense the Chinese epic Journey to the West illustrates this mindset of who the Buddha is that bled into India and China; Buddha in this story is an active character, more powerful than even the Jade Emperor (King of Heaven). And by forcing Sun Wukong (the Monkey character/Hanuman avatar) upon this journey of redemption, the Buddha essentially plays the same role as the God in Abrahamic traditions, an active player in the life of humans.
|
|
|
Post by gyeonghwa on Nov 16, 2011 13:42:21 GMT -5
The thing about Buddhism is that it tends to absorb large aspects of the local religion. That is why in Buddhists countries like Cambodia and Laos, you still see shrines to local deities. In Cambodia and Thailand, there is still many aspects of Hinduism that thrives in Buddhism. In China, it gets intwined with Taoism (many of the gods in the Journey to the West are Taoist deities). In Korea, Mudang is practice in Buddhist temples, while Buddhists begin to adopt Protestant Christian style of evangelism.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 16, 2011 14:43:55 GMT -5
These things are in line with what I learned about the relationship between Shinto & Buddhism at the start of the semester.
|
|