I like eating meat way too much to be a Buddhist.
[quote]doogie wrote:
I like eating meat way too much to be a Buddhist.[/quote]
Some Tibetan Buddhists eat meat.
[quote]Plisskin wrote:
I’m not a practicing Buddhist (or really, anything else for that matter), but I do have alot of respect for much of Buddhism’s philosphy over most of the other systems.[/quote]
Agreed. The four nobel truths make a lot of sense.
I tried to follow and adhere to this philosophy for a while a bunch of years ago, but it really doesn’t work that well within modern society. It’s nice to have that to look at occasionally if things get too outta hand, but trying to live to the letter of it just didn’t work for me.
[quote]marza wrote:
doogie wrote:
I like eating meat way too much to be a Buddhist.
Some Tibetan Buddhists eat meat. [/quote]
There is disagreement among Buddhists whether or not a vegetarian diet is required. Since Buddhism preaches non-violence even down to the smallest insect, many people take that to mean you should be vegetarian. Others argue that the Buddha himself ate meat and said it was OK, provided you did not kill it yourself and the animal was not killed specifically for you. Then there is a counterargument that says the Buddha only said it was OK to eat meat since monks back then went door to door and ate only what was donated to them and he literally felt that ‘beggars can’t be choosers.’ But since we don’t beg for our food these days, some believe this allowance is void and we should all be vegetarians.
Long story short, Mahayanna Buddhists tend to be vegetarian but it’s not required. Theravadan and Tibetan Buddhists tend not to be. But it is universally accepted that you should never kill something in order to eat it.
Mahayana and Tibetan buddhism are the same 
Maybe you meant Zen buddhism?
[quote]mauser wrote:
Mahayana and Tibetan buddhism are the same Maybe you meant Zen buddhism? [/quote]
I usually hear it described as separate: Theravada, Mahayanna, and
Vajrayana (Tibetan). Although I suppose Zen and Tibetan would both be considered offshoots of Mahayanna, I think they’ve both become so unique and popular that they’ve kind of earned their own classification at this point.
[quote]Kailash wrote:
I’ve studied every major world religious tradition and found them basically identical. All are “the human religion”.
[/quote]
Basically identical? As in approximately the same? So… human sacrifice by the Aztecs in their polytheistic culture is basically the same as Buddhism found in Tibet? And how about current Satanism? How about the current voodoo cultures of the Caribbean and Eastern Africa? Certainly religious.
Your sweeping generalization is… wrong. You are a font of particular misinformation. The Old Testament is anywhere near the same in message as the non-theistic view of Buddhism? Let’s see… a vengeful, spiteful, jealous God that showers His wrath on His People vs. … no God.
I pity you Kailash. Go back to school.
[quote]Leafblighter wrote:
I was just wondering if there are any other Buddhists that hang around here. Every once in a while I see a comment that makes me think there may be quite a few of us. [/quote]
If anyone likes Ian King’s stuff and the eastern philosophies I recommend they check out one of his latest books, “the way of the physical preparation coach”. It has a chapter entitled “spiritual philosophies of the physical prep coach”, I found it very enlightening. Has anyone else read it?
Religion is just another word for “contextual manifestation of the human condition”. You may choose to follow someone else’s religion, but will still have your own. There are as many religions as there are people.
Buddha said something to this effect, “There are as many paths to nirvana as there are people.”
[quote]kroby wrote:
Basically identical? As in approximately the same? So… human sacrifice by the Aztecs in their polytheistic culture is basically the same as Buddhism found in Tibet? And how about current Satanism? How about the current voodoo cultures of the Caribbean and Eastern Africa? Certainly religious.[/quote]
Successful religion grants its adherant access to holiness (wholeness). Sacrifice/letting go is basic practice in all successful religions.
This practice or condition is known variously as yoga (surrendering), hollow bones (empting), avoda (serving), zazen (sitting), kenosis (pouring-out), wu-wei (flowing), islam (submitting) or quasars/black holes (passing)…
These are simply names given in some specific traditions of Hinduism, the Oglala Sioux, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Taoism, Islam and Modern Physics, respectively.
I’ve never met a true polytheist (except perhaps one confused Wiccan teenager).
I have, though, met very many pantheists and am in fact one myself; among the ability to harbor other relationships with God.
A polytheist would be completely nijnana (unknowledgable about God), like those Sunday school types who are told God is seperate from the Creation.
Though, the nijnani could still reach God by some other means, and often does. The truly important thing, afterall (per Ramakrishna), is the desire to see God… nothing else will grant revelation.
[quote]kroby wrote:
The Old Testament is anywhere near the same in message as the non-theistic view of Buddhism? Let’s see… a vengeful, spiteful, jealous God that showers His wrath on His People vs. … no God.[/quote]
God is always kicking our asses, whether you are choosing to personalize the Being or not. In fact, you probably got the smackdown earlier today, judging from the mood you seem to be in…
[quote]kroby wrote:
I pity you Kailash. Go back to school.[/quote]
Sometimes, I pity everyone.
[quote]Kailash wrote:
Religion is just another word for “contextual manifestation of the human condition”. You may choose to follow someone else’s religion, but will still have your own. There are as many religions as there are people.
[/quote]
Well said.
[quote]Kailash wrote:
God is always kicking our asses, whether you are choosing to personalize the Being or not. [/quote]
Why? Are we pets to be kept alive merely to entertain God? Why would any creator torment their creations?
I had a patient today who dislocated her shoulder. While loading her up to transport her she was moaning “Why God, why do you hate me so much, I prayed this morning!”
What the fuck.
[quote]sic wrote:
Kailash wrote:
God is always kicking our asses, whether you are choosing to personalize the Being or not.
Why? Are we pets to be kept alive merely to entertain God? Why would any creator torment their creations?
I had a patient today who dislocated her shoulder. While loading her up to transport her she was moaning “Why God, why do you hate me so much, I prayed this morning!”
What the fuck.[/quote]
This is actually one of the first things that drew me to Buddhism (which is non-theistic). I was raised Protestant and practically lived at the church during my teen years, but I could never really reconcile why there is so much wrong with the world if there is a loving God.
Christianity’s answers (“It’s part of God’s plan” or “We suffer because we are sinners”) never really satisfied me. It’s amazing how religion really sinks its hooks in you, though. It took me a long time to finally shake free and truly be open to other ideas instead of trying to mold Christianity into something that I could accept.
Anyway, this is not really intended as any sort of attack on Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. My mother and sister are both deeply Christian. They do a lot of great charity work with the church and it helped my mother through some really tough times.
My fiance recently decided to get baptised and become Christian. Since she had literally no background in Christianity, I taught her all the basics and still answer theological questions for her from time to time. I think any peaceful religion done correctly can help you become a better person, so I continue to support her religious choice.
She’s not so supportive of me (it bugs the hell out of her that I don’t believe in ‘God’) but ah well, whatcha gonna do? 
As long as she lets me teach our future kids meditation and the Buddhist concept of nonviolence (it applies to all living things, not just humans and human-like creatures), then I won’t mind if she wants to cart them off to church every Sunday.
Kailash, there is no God you dupe.
[quote]sic wrote:
Kailash wrote:
God is always kicking our asses, whether you are choosing to personalize the Being or not.
Why? Are we pets to be kept alive merely to entertain God? Why would any creator torment their creations?
I had a patient today who dislocated her shoulder. While loading her up to transport her she was moaning “Why God, why do you hate me so much, I prayed this morning!”
What the fuck.[/quote]
For truth, we couldn’t get stronger or more fit without challenges.
Though, as you’d mentioned, “Are we playthings for God?” Well, there couldn’t be a Creation without polarities. And one of these is pain-pleasure. It’s not for our displeasure, but a necessary fact of a Creation.
Paraphrased from “The Dude” (Big Lebowski):
“Yeah, well, suffering is just like, your opinion, man.”
A better one (read this on a road sign somewhere):
“Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.”
You see, though we must feel pain, we wouldn’t have an opinion on good if we didn’t have an opinion on bad. Suffering is optional.
All over the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu mentions a time in man’s history before good and bad, and that they came about at the same time. He says that when people are behaving good, they are actually giving rise to the existence of bad!
If you look at the Abrahamic traditions, there is the Garden of Eden. Man was expelled when he ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Before that time, we lived in nature. In nature, there is no good and evil, just “that which is or is not”.
Therefore, the knowledge of good and evil is, “Just like, our opinion, man” and what seperated us from nature and expelled man from the Garden, from Paradise on earth.
At the same time, a degree of ignorance and delusion into this world is inevitable. We’re supposed to fall for the drama, just as much as we’re supposed to be liberated from it (some more than others).
I’ve heard Creation described as a dancing lady, removing articles of clothing. When all the clothing is removed (all ignorance) the music is over and the dance then stops. Unless it’s time for this Dance to stop, some clothing must cover the truth.
And so our stupidities are always understandable and thus forgivable.
So whether God is angry or merciful, that’s “Just like, our opinion, man.”
[quote]Kailash wrote:
A better one (read this on a road sign somewhere):
“Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.”
You see, though we must feel pain, we wouldn’t have an opinion on good if we didn’t have an opinion on bad. Suffering is optional.
[/quote]
You know, my life and my on and off research of religion and philosophy up to this point makes me think that the quote should actually be stated as “Suffering is inevitable, pain is optional.” Personal opinion of course, but it seems to make more sense that to live life and deal with the ever shifting balance of things, means that you will always be suffering to some degree or another, but you have a choice as to how much pain you must endure while suffering life’s trials. I see examples of this on a daily basis.
Those who make the best of it may still suffer, but they rarely experience serious pain. Those who find flaw with everything in their life suffer more, through unnecessary self-inflicted pain. The same could apply to how much someone attaches themselves to someone else’s suffering.
Of course, from what I understand (and correct me if I’m wrong), this is part of the Buddhist philosophy. To release attachments to end life’s suffering and find enlightenment and happiness. Which makes total sense, except for the fact that its hard to live in normal society without attachments. In fact, desiring enlightenment and happiness is something you are attached to…so, the path gets even more confusing.
[quote]timmwwaa wrote:
Leafblighter wrote:
I was just wondering if there are any other Buddhists that hang around here. Every once in a while I see a comment that makes me think there may be quite a few of us.
If anyone likes Ian King’s stuff and the eastern philosophies I recommend they check out one of his latest books, “the way of the physical preparation coach”. It has a chapter entitled “spiritual philosophies of the physical prep coach”, I found it very enlightening. Has anyone else read it?[/quote]
Where can I get this book?
If i HAD to choose a religion it would be buddishm defenetly.
Although i don`t know much about it the things i know just make a lot more sense to me than any of those middle-east religions.
This is a good place to ask if someone knows any good books or sites about Buddhism?
I?m not planning to turn in to Buddhist,just want to know more about it.
[quote]Plisskin wrote:
Kailash wrote:
A better one (read this on a road sign somewhere):
“Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.”
You know, my life and my on and off research of religion and philosophy up to this point makes me think that the quote should actually be stated as “Suffering is inevitable, pain is optional.” Personal opinion of course, but it seems to make more sense that to live life and deal with the ever shifting balance of things, means that you will always be suffering to some degree or another, but you have a choice as to how much pain you must endure while suffering life’s trials. I see examples of this on a daily basis.[/quote]
Everything you said makes perfect sense to me. I think we have reversed definitions of pain and suffering, because what I read as your definition of pain is mine of suffering - and vice versa.
I see pain as the condition of encounter to a physical sensation/loss/guilt or anything else which is deemed negative and/or reacted to as negative.
So I see pain as more of an external sensation, and suffering as the internal attention we pay to such.
[quote]Plisskin wrote:
Of course, from what I understand (and correct me if I’m wrong), this is part of the Buddhist philosophy. To release attachments to end life’s suffering and find enlightenment and happiness. Which makes total sense, except for the fact that its hard to live in normal society without attachments.[/quote]
It’s actually part of every religious tradition’s philosophy, not just Buddhism.
For instance, the word Islam means “submission”. Basically, submission to everything good and bad as having come from God; and therefore copacetic or “ok”. Another example is found in Hinduism, with that known as karma yoga; a practice expounded by Krishna to Arjuana, in the Bhagavad Gita (“Song of God”). Etc. etc etc
The several practices are basically identical throughout all other successful religions. This is because successful religion is the individual’s own psychotherapy, and our shared, human condition needs identical tools (regardless of personal or cultural context).
[quote]Plisskin wrote:
In fact, desiring enlightenment and happiness is something you are attached to…so, the path gets even more confusing. ;)[/quote]
Successful religion commonly allows for one attachment, that to God, known as the Truth/the Light/and the Way. Or the Tao, Brahman, etc.
Once we get well enough on the path, though, I believe even that One attachment just might fall away.
[quote]Plisskin wrote:
Kailash wrote:
A better one (read this on a road sign somewhere):
“Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.”
You see, though we must feel pain, we wouldn’t have an opinion on good if we didn’t have an opinion on bad. Suffering is optional.
You know, my life and my on and off research of religion and philosophy up to this point makes me think that the quote should actually be stated as “Suffering is inevitable, pain is optional.” Personal opinion of course, but it seems to make more sense that to live life and deal with the ever shifting balance of things, means that you will always be suffering to some degree or another, but you have a choice as to how much pain you must endure while suffering life’s trials. I see examples of this on a daily basis.
Those who make the best of it may still suffer, but they rarely experience serious pain. Those who find flaw with everything in their life suffer more, through unnecessary self-inflicted pain. The same could apply to how much someone attaches themselves to someone else’s suffering.
Of course, from what I understand (and correct me if I’m wrong), this is part of the Buddhist philosophy. To release attachments to end life’s suffering and find enlightenment and happiness. Which makes total sense, except for the fact that its hard to live in normal society without attachments. In fact, desiring enlightenment and happiness is something you are attached to…so, the path gets even more confusing. ;)[/quote]
You basically have the gist of Kailash’s quote, which is Buddhist in origins. The meaning gets slightly distorted in translation. The English word ‘suffering’ is the most common translation of the Pali word ‘dukkha,’ but doesn’t fully capture the meaning of ‘dukkha.’ Dukkha also conveys a deeper sense of wrongness, that things are out of whack, something is jammed in the gears of existence and that it is something that we do to ourselves. The most common analogy is if I’m shot by an arrow (pain). Suffering is my twisting and tugging on the arrow - unnecessary self-inflicted pain. But like I said, you knew exactly what this quote was about; I just wanted to explain the choice of terms.
As far as attachments go… yes, it is basically impossible to live in society without attachments which is why Buddhism places such a heavy emphasis on monasticism. However, it’s not an all or nothing situation. Buddhist practice will benefit your everyday life in ways you can see in the here and now, no need to wait for after death. No need for faith because the results are obvious and measurable.
So I guess my point is this: even if you’re not in a situation where you can take it to the extreme, you will still reap rewards from the practice. It is entirely possible for a householder (the term used to describe Buddhist non-monks) to destroy the first three fetters (false views of the self, skeptical doubt of what the Buddha taught, clinging to rituals and rites) and to weaken sensuous craving and feelings of ill-will towards others. This will ease our suffering even if it does not eradicate it.
Delving into some of the more faith-based aspects of Buddhism here… if you believe in the cycle of rebirth literally, then by eliminating the first three fetters and weakening the other two I mentioned, you will have attained the point of ‘once-returner.’ You will only be reborn one more time and you will achieve final release in that lifetime. So all your efforts will eventually bear fruition even if you’re not able to drop everything tomorrow and run off to become a monk.
Sorry for the long lecture. I don’t really get to talk about this stuff much in ‘real life’ so I get a bit long-winded sometimes.
Kailash,
Do you realize you are basically expounding a Hindu point of view? If you don’t, you’ll definitely want to look into Hinduism, because it is right up your alley.
I agree with you that the major world religions are very much alike. However, I view it like this: even though I may share 99.9% of my neighbor’s DNA, it’s that .1% that makes all the difference. If you’re looking to get along, you focus on the 99.9% (“Hey man, we’re all human, can’t we all just get along?”) but if you want to make any progress, you have to appreciate the differences.
I do feel though that Buddhism would be more like a .2% difference because we do not believe in God or the self, hence making impossible for the self to surrender to God. This difference is much more obvious when discussing the western religions, but a little more subtle if you want to compare Buddhism’s ultimate goal with that of Hinduism’s or Taoism’s.