• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Buddha favors religion and shuns having no-religion

paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
tumbleweed41 said:
Ah, so Buddha was a man.
And he did not receive revelation from God.

Therefore, Buddhism is man made.
Click to expand...

One may like to put it like thus:

Buddha was a man.

He did receive enlightenment/revelation from the Creator God.

Therefore Buddha's teachings were truthful and not authored by Buddha.

Religion is ,therefore, not man-made but made by the Creator God.

Please take it like this.

But you could differ with me out of your own free will; no compulsion.
 
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
paarsurrey said:
One may like to put it like thus:

Buddha was a man.

He did receive enlightenment/revelation from the Creator God.

Therefore Buddha's teachings were truthful and not authored by Buddha.

Religion is ,therefore, not man-made but made by the Creator God.

Please take it like this.

But you could differ with me out of your own free will; no compulsion.
Click to expand...

How long have you been a Christian?
 
A

A Troubled Man

Active Member
paarsurrey said:

Paarsurrey comments: Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism do not subscribe to any religion; they rather abhor religion. Hence, they don’t belong to Buddha and Buddha does not belong to them.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

How about, atheists could care less if they belong to Buddha, Santa or the Easter Bunny. Does that help?
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
apophenia said:
If you follow the link to this translation, it is headed -

The Gospel of Buddha

Compiled from ancient records
by Paul Carus, 1894


So we are looking at a translation issue, as someone has already pointed out. Paul Carus has translated dharma as religion.

Here's another verse, also from chapter 48 -

Earnestness is the path of immortality,
thoughtlessness the path of death.
Those who are in earnest do not die;
those who are thoughtless are as if dead already.

Earnestness is the path of immortality ? Those who are in earnest do not die ?

Plenty of room for criticism of the translation I think.
Click to expand...

Translations have always problems; one must therefore have the original script in the original language it was revealed; side by side with the translation so that one could verify it.

Buddhists don't have that unfortunately.
 
Gjallarhorn

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
paarsurrey said:
Translations have always problems; one must therefore have the original script in the original language it was revealed; side by side with the translation so that one could verify it.

Buddhists don't have that unfortunately.
Click to expand...
You stated the original scriptures were diluted. Why would adding yet another translation make them any less so?
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Gjallarhorn said:
You stated the original scriptures were diluted. Why would adding yet another translation make them any less so?
Click to expand...

Those are not the original ones; the original ones written by Buddha in the language he spoke or he wrote do not exist. He did not dictate anything or certify anything that was written later as belonging to him.

It is a deficiency that cannot be made up.
 
Gjallarhorn

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
paarsurrey said:
Those are not the original ones; the original ones written by Buddha in the language he spoke or he wrote do not exist. He did not dictate anything or certify anything that was written later as belonging to him.

It is a deficiency that cannot be made up.
Click to expand...
As I said, how can diluted scripture be made any less diluted by adding a new translation, specifically one which translates "dharma" as "religion"?
 
Road Warrior

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
idav said:
Buddha founded a religion by creating using and teaching the eightfold path. He didn't mind religion he just didn't like them to be wrong.
Click to expand...

I doubt either Buddha or Christ intended to found a religion. They were simply teaching a path to enlightenment or God. The "religion" was founded by their followers....which reminds me of this bumper sticker:
JesusFanClub.jpg
 
idav

idav

Being
Premium Member
Road Warrior said:
I doubt either Buddha or Christ intended to found a religion. They were simply teaching a path to enlightenment or God. The "religion" was founded by their followers....which reminds me of this bumper sticker:
JesusFanClub.jpg
Click to expand...
Despite the philosophy of christ being pretty anti-religious, he ended up creating rituals. "This is my body.... Do this to remember me...etc.

Buddha doesn't tie us into any rituals really but the way he found the path was a test against other religions that he used to find the answers. Then he said this is the path and proceeds to teach it to others. If people could easily find the path on their own, like buddha did, then there would be no need for the religion of Buddhism. It certainly wasn't easy for Buddha himself to find it either.
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Road Warrior said:
I doubt either Buddha or Christ intended to found a religion. They were simply teaching a path to enlightenment or God. The "religion" was founded by their followers....which reminds me of this bumper sticker:
JesusFanClub.jpg
Click to expand...
More or less appropriate in respect to each religion. Path suffices personally. :0)
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
arthra said:
I think the Buddha was teaching more in the agnostic mode than say.. .
Click to expand...
My initial position was agnostic and felt it was Buddha's "position" as well, and was completely shocked to discover this was invalid as much as theism and atheism as it pertains to Zen Buddhism.
 
Road Warrior

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
Nowhere Man said:
My initial position was agnostic and felt it was Buddha's "position" as well, and was completely shocked to discover this was invalid as much as theism and atheism as it pertains to Zen Buddhism.
Click to expand...

I went the full route; became an agnostic then an atheist in high school....then I had a NDE. Sure, it may have just been the head injury, lack of oxygen, whatever, but it was certainly as real to me as life. No dream or other unconscious experience ever matched it. That experience didn't convert me to becoming a Bible-thumper, but it did send me on a spiritual quest which eventually led to Zen.
 
The Sum of Awe

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Wannabe Yogi said:
I know there has been much debate on RF over this. I still think of Buddhism as more agnostic. Just my thought,
Click to expand...

Eh, I would say that most Buddhists, if not all, are agnostic on their atheism, being that agnostic isn't a viewpoint on God, it's a standpoint on how right you are.
 
Tathagata

Tathagata

Freethinker
Last edited:
Road Warrior

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
Hmmmm....please post the specific quote since the link below makes no mention of "agnostics". It does mention four examples.

Eel Wrigglers and Buddhist Practice
The Buddha labeled such people “Eel wrigglers” in the Brahmajala Sutta (DN 1). There he identifies four types of Eel wrigglers. The first does not know whether something is good or bad. But when asked he doesn’t want to seem ignorant, and he doesn’t want to lie – for fear of the distress it would cause (so at least he has a conscience), so “he resorts to evasive statements and wriggles like an eel: I don’t say this. I don’t say that. I don’t say it is otherwise. I don’t say it is not. I don’t not say it is not.”
It sounds a bit cartoonish – but I’ve encountered such people. I’m sure you have too.

The next is likewise ignorant and wriggles like an eel in just the same way. But this time his motivation is fear of the underlying feelings that might arise should he admit as much or lie: namely lust or aversion. He perhaps has experienced the joys of equanimity and doesn’t want to upset them, but he still hasn’t gotten anywhere in terms of knowledge and thus wriggles around when asked about good and bad.

Sounds a bit like certain “blissed out” practitioners I’ve heard about and met. You?

The third is likewise ignorant but in this case he fears the distress of perhaps encountering a better debater and losing. So he wriggles too.

And the fourth is the Buddha being about as blunt as I can recall: “Here an ascetic or Brahmin is dull and stupid. Because of his dullness and stupidity” he wriggles as well.

All of this because they were a) ignorant of right and wrong and b) unwilling to simply say so.

Now, as a practitioner and scholar, I certainly don’t know much. But I can say I know some of the simpler points of what is beneficial or good: generosity, patience, moral restraint and so on and that their opposites are bad. On particular questions all I can do is appeal to these basic traits – perhaps thinking of the Buddha’s discourse to the Kalamas: does the action give rise to greed, hatred, and aversion? If so, it is bad. If an act dissipates these qualities, it is good. It’s perhaps painfully simple, but when applied it means a lot. It means that a lot of what we justify in our lives: excessive consumption, rudeness to strangers, lack of care for those far away, cannot go on. And it means that we must actively cultivate attitudes that simplify our lives, maintain mindfulness in daily life, and open up to the whole world of suffering out there.

Christopher Titmus, one contemporary and well-respected Dharma teacher, writes in an article subtitled “keeping your eye on the goal”:
The eel wrigglers have little faith in complete enlightenment, in total realisation of the Non-Dual and a pervasive seeing of the emptiness of all ego-making activities. Eel wrigglers usually experience inner doubts, if not angst, and assume it is the same for everybody else. ‘It could be like this or it could be like that’ is one of their common views. They replace Right View, the first link in the Noble Eightfold Path, with Right Unconducive View. (link)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top