Buddhism & Taoism.

Littledragon

Littledragon

Above The Law
What are your views on Buddhism and Taoism.

Do you believe in the budhist religion when a young Indian Prince named Sidartha sat under a tree one day and meditated and found enlightment, then he became God (Buddha) What are your thoughts on this?

Do you think there are some relationships between Buddhism and Taoism?
 
pantera

pantera

New Member
Something i'd like to say. I don't really see buddhism as a religion. Buddha is not a god. It's a visualisation of wisdom. Buddha is a way to transform an abstraction into something concrete. Buddha is not a God making the destiny of human kind but he's someone who reach out the enlightement.
The fact that buddhism is more a ohilosophy of live than a religion is important for me!
What do you think
 
Littledragon

Littledragon

Above The Law
pantera said:
Something i'd like to say. I don't really see buddhism as a religion. Buddha is not a god. It's a visualisation of wisdom. Buddha is a way to transform an abstraction into something concrete. Buddha is not a God making the destiny of human kind but he's someone who reach out the enlightement.
The fact that buddhism is more a ohilosophy of live than a religion is important for me!
What do you think
Click to expand...


I totally agree with you. I cant call Buddha God if he was some little Indian kid who sat under a tree and meditated and then found enlightment and then became God..
 
ORANGATUANG

ORANGATUANG

Wildfire
I have to say i dont know much about all these different religions but iam always willing to listen and learn..i have heard of Taoism isnt that something to do with japanese or chinese beleifs...I think people have the right to beleive in which religion they want its not hurting anyone..I have an girlfreind who's got this 3 foot bronze Buddha in her lounge room...
 
pantera

pantera

New Member
I can accept that the others have their religion if they don't try to make me change my philosophy to adopt their religion. I think it's what we call tolerance. Let everybody thinks what he he wants and don't force them to adopt your point of view.
If you keep that principle in your mind you can have discussion with the others about their beliefs without any fight. And then you can learn a lot from the others
 
Littledragon

Littledragon

Above The Law
ORANGATUANG said:
I have to say i dont know much about all these different religions but iam always willing to listen and learn..i have heard of Taoism isnt that something to do with japanese or chinese beleifs...I think people have the right to beleive in which religion they want its not hurting anyone..I have an girlfreind who's got this 3 foot bronze Buddha in her lounge room...
Click to expand...


So do I but I ain't Buddhist :D, it just looks cool.
 
J

Jampa

New Member
Buddhism is, indeed, a religion.
And definitely, Buddhas are NOT Gods.

You can be a Buddhist and believe in God... or not.

Siddharta (name chosen by his Father, which means "Every wish fulfilled") Gautama reached the Enlightenment and thus became "Buddha" - the first Buddha, since other men followed his path, also reached Enlightenment, and thus also became, in turn (translation...?), Buddhas...

You can find a brief summary of Siddharta's life there:
http://dharma.ncf.ca/introduction/life-of-the-Buddha.html
but it does not say much about his teachings / the way to Enlightenment.

Wellness to All...

Jampa
 
J

Jampa

New Member
*IF* I remember correctly :
Tao has to do with Chi - the vital energy of the Universe, that "allowed" the creation of the World - which exists in all living creatures and things.
In Taoism, people "link" to the source of Chi through images of the Gods and Spirits through "procedures" and ceremonial ("ceremonials"?); by "connecting" to the source of Chi, people become closer to the "Great Ultimate", which allows them to "clarify" their path and make it more "straight". This "connection" helps people clarify and straighten their path, it makes them stronger and they can "correct the wrongs" of their past; they see and "tackle" life with more realism... The "goal", I think, is to be in "absolute reality", thus having a perfectly clear "vision" of the World as well as of one's own place within it.

I think it is a Chinese religion, that "originates" from a book, the "Tao Te Ching", which was written by a sage, keeper of the imperial library in ancient China, Lao Tzu.

Since I don't really "get" it - I mean that it is not something that "speaks" to my heart and soul - I can't explain it better... If someone else knows the subject more "personally", he/she can certainly explain it more clearly.....

Wellness to All...

Jampa
 
Jalu

Jalu

Steve's Destiny
Jampa,

I have read your link carefully (because sometimes there are mistakes), and I want to ask you a question. Where is it that you get from that Shakyamuni Buddha/Siddharta Gautama was the first buddha?

Shakyamuni Buddha is the fourth buddha of this Fortunate Aeon.
The first buddha was Krakuchand Buddha, the second was Kanakamuni Buddha, and the third was Kasyapa Buddha.

The reason why they are not very well known is because their teachings have died out, but they attained Enlightenment before Shakyamuni.

The following is a teaching given by Kasyapa Buddha.

"Not to commit any evil actions
To accumulate a wealth of excellent virtue
And to subdue one's own mind-
This is the teaching of the Buddha."

Whether it is a religion or not, that's debatable. To some it is, to others it isn't. To me, a lable is not important.

As for being a Buddhist, and also believing in god (s) I find that to be a little misleading. For people to understand that, one must mention that Buddhism teaches according to the different levels of understanding among individuals.
There are outter/common, inner, and secret teachings. If believing in god(s)makes one a better person (until one can grasp Buddha's teachings) then believe, but it contradicts the law of karma which is the basis for Buddhism. Gods do not liberate from the cycle of rebirth, therefore it is a waste of time.

The reason why some people claim to be Buddhists, and also believe in god is because they still have attachment to their original belief. That was the explanation given to me by one of my teachers who happens to be Buddhist scholar as well as a fully ordained monk.


"The gift of truth excels all other gifts."

____Buddha

.
Jampa said:
Buddhism is, indeed, a religion.
And definitely, Buddhas are NOT Gods.

You can be a Buddhist and believe in God... or not.

Siddharta (name chosen by his Father, which means "Every wish fulfilled") Gautama reached the Enlightenment and thus became "Buddha" - the first Buddha, since other men followed his path, also reached Enlightenment, and thus also became, in turn (translation...?), Buddhas...

You can find a brief summary of Siddharta's life there:
http://dharma.ncf.ca/introduction/life-of-the-Buddha.html
but it does not say much about his teachings / the way to Enlightenment.

Wellness to All...

Jampa
Click to expand...
 
J

Jampa

New Member
(This is veeery long... Sorry......)

Dear Jalu,

One thing that is of importance - and might explain "differences" in views/opinions/beliefs/whatever... - is that there are various Buddhisms...
Thai Buddhism is not the same as Tibetan Buddhism, Nepalese, Indian...

From the moment you ask a person what their religion is and they tell you they are Buddhist, I assume it is only respect to admit that it is so, indeed. Amongst those who follow (or try to <G>) the path of the Buddha, I think, actually, that a majority consider it their religion rather than a philosophy. So do I. Millions of people - it is said to be one fifth of the world population - consider Buddhism as a religion.

To go into the details of the "history" of Buddhism one would have to consider distinctively (translation?) the various "schools". The Hindu "school" seems to me the most complex... Should I tell you that Krakucchanda is NOT considered as the first Buddha...? "only" the first Manushi Buddha of the present Kalpa... Before Krakucchanda were Vipasyn, Sikhi(n), Vis(h)vabhu(j)... Shakyamuni/Gautama/Siddharta is, as far as I know, the one recognised as being the founder of Buddhism, and the first man who, born a simple <G> man, attained Enlightenment and thus became a Buddha. To my knowledge, the 6 Manushi Buddhas before Gautama are believed to be "beings" of Light (already "enlightened", to put it simply <G>) come down on earth in a human body in order to attain Enlightenment while incarnated and thus help mankind also attain Enlightenment.

As to being a Buddhist and believing in God, **or NOT**, like I wrote, I don't see how it could be seen <G> as "misleading", since it is a fact that many Buddhists, a majority of which did *not* have a different religion to start with, indeed believe in God... I agree with you, though, absolutely, that "Gods do not liberate from the cycle of rebirth..." since no one - and no One <G> - can do that for you: only you can achieve your own "liberation". But one can achieve it in/through many different ways, and believing in the existence of one God, or several Gods is not to me - nor to the Buddhists I met, obviously, including several Geshe's - an "obstacle" to said achievement (and not a "necessity" either, of course!).

As to your statements (IF you allow me to call these "statements" <G>) that "...believing in god(s) [.....] contradicts the law of karma which is the basis for Buddhism" and that "The reason why some people claim to be Buddhists, and also believe in god is because they still have attachment to their original belief", I strongly disagree to them. But I'll put it all in the hands (figure of speech <G>) of my favorite <G> Geshe next time I have the chance to go to the Tibetan Center, and I trust he'll be able to explain to me how it can be understood/"comprehended". In the meantime, I'll assume that it simply depends on the person's "definition" of God... and on whichever "dogmas" they "attach" to their faith in God, maybe...?

The point is I am not much "into" <G> dogmas, history, whatever, and definitely not a cerebral person... I also doubt this place is really the one to give complex/complicate "takes" on the "debatable" points... I don't think a debate on the various "schools" of Buddhism is what the person who started this thread was "asking for", otherwise I wouldn't even have started to type a "reply"... but should it be the case I would recommend that he/she goes directly to a Geshe and "debates" <G> with him... rather than with you and I <G>.

Respectfully,

Jampa
 
Purplelotus1

Purplelotus1

Active Member
It is when you make reference to the one living God . If you do not intend to mean the living God then you should make note of it .
 
Jules

Jules

Potters Clay
Changing your philosopy would be your choice and no one elses

pantera said:
I can accept that the others have their religion if they don't try to make me change my philosophy to adopt their religion. I think it's what we call tolerance. Let everybody thinks what he he wants and don't force them to adopt your point of view.
If you keep that principle in your mind you can have discussion with the others about their beliefs without any fight. And then you can learn a lot from the others
Click to expand...
It would be nice if what everyone "contributed" to a thread was considered "sharing" so all can get into the discussion even when that is their intent as everyone else does here too.
Just because someone is NOT a Buddhist here shouldn't mean they do not have the right to contribute to this section too.(ALL religion sections)
I do not think it is right for people (in general) to go around accusing and intimidating people of other faiths just to shut them up.
All I have to say about Buddhism and Taoism is: Next Thread :(
 
pantera

pantera

New Member
Well i totally agree with you. i hope i didn't say something which chocked you. If it's the case i didn't mean it. In fact i didn't mean to hurt anybody. Well the purpose of that kind of thread is to share knowledges or thought or feelings. It's the best way to know each other and also to learn stuff.
 
J

Jampa

New Member
veeeeery LONG again, but LAST too...

Purplelotus1 said:
It is when you make reference to the one living God . If you do not intend to mean the living God then you should make note of it .
Click to expand...
I mentioned that some Buddhists believe in God, you said that according to Christian writings it is *wrong* for someone who believes in God to have another "religion". What does it mean? That being a Buddhist, I am wrong, or doing wrong, in believing in God? That if I believe in God I must be a Christian? That if I am a Buddhist, Muslim, whatever other religion, I don't have the *right* to believe in God? If it is not what post #15 means, then please be kind enough to explain to me so that I don't remain in misunderstanding... If it is, indeed, what it means, then please be kind enough to explain to me why I should *not* feel that this is actually some kind of a "Stick to that or live in sin" or "I am right and you are wrong" statement.

I wrote that God does not belong to Christians - meaning that He does not belong to anyone nor to any religion/philosophy/whatever - and then you tell me about "the one living God", and that I **should** "make note of it" if I do "not intend to mean the living God". Again, what does this mean? I believe in God and I believe there is only *one* God, Who is "living", not dead... How should I call Him? Maybe – or maybe not – you know better than me Who God is… but still I doubt it would give you the right to tell me that I don't have the right to say/write (and either *think*, maybe...?) "God" if I don't mean "God as according to the Christian religion/faith".

And yes, Julie, indeed, "It would be nice if what everyone 'contributed' to a thread was considered 'sharing'....." but that far it seems to me that not everybody is able or willing to accept every/any-body else's views/opinions/beliefs. It seems to me that while you proclaim your willingness to accept the "sharing" you also are (for all I've read on this forum that far) the one who's the quickest at jumping at conclusions and accusing others of doing what *you* do: take divergences as offences and attacks...

You, PurpleLotus, (apparently) basing your judgement on your own religion, tell me/others what I/they have the right to believe/express and not believe/express...

You, Julie, imply that I/anyone accused and intimidated you and denies non-Buddhists the right to post in this thread...

… I find it very amazing, and I can only wonder...
Have I sounded judgemental with regards to the Christian faith, in this thread, the one before...? Where? Have I told anyone what/Who they should believe in and/or *how* they should believe and/or express it...? Show me where, quote me... Earlier Julie mentioned that archaeologists/scientists have finally admitted - or proven? - that (and these are MY own words, not those of Julie precisely) the Bible was "historically correct", to which I replied that it is not true - the subject was not faith but facts, but I also stated that it does not make the Christian faith any "wrong" in my eyes for all that... I made this clear to Julie, both publicly - AND privately in response to a private mail *she* sent me. Have I been incourteous, intimidating, or anything of that sort, be it publicly or privately...? And when I say "I'm a Buddhist and I believe in God", can it be taken as irreverent or insulting to people of a different religion? Only if they mean to take it that way... Moreover, making it clear that I do not consider myself a Christian although I believe in God does also quite clearly imply that my "vision" of God may not be exactly the same as that of a Christian, and I don't see why I *should* make "further note of it"... or find Him a different name because it bothers a few…

In fact, it doesn't matter to me what anyone believes, what matters to me is how people behave with their fellow creatures and creatures in general... and it does indeed bother me to see someone - in this case Pantera - suddenly scared of having hurt others just because someone(s) decides to shout "Murder!"... Although I did not accuse nor “intimidate” anyone, I regret that my taking part in this “conversation” could give anyone the opportunity to accuse of accusing and intimidating and tell others they “should” this or that…

I haven't been here for long, but it is already the second time I see beliefs become the subject of (heated...?) controversy and accusations and I sure don't need a third time to understand what the problem really is… I am not willing to spend more time and energy in that kind of sterile and pointless "discussion" and shall therefore save you (Julie and PurpleLotus and whoever else feels the same way you do) from "having" to do what you visibly are unable to, i.e. indulge and bear with my "disturbing" confessions...: I shall from now on bear mute testimony <VBG>.


You All have fun (and be good <G>) without me!

Wellness to You and Yours...

Jampa
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top