Core Axioms of Buddhism?

[prometheuspan]

What are the Core Axioms of Buddhism?

How many different Buddhist denominations are there?

How does each regard those core axioms?

How have the core axioms changed or evolved over time?

Especially in transmission to the west?

 

[joea]

What are the Core Axioms of Buddhism?

How many different Buddhist denominations are there?

How does each regard those core axioms?

How have the core axioms changed or evolved over time?

Especially in transmission to the west?

I take it you already know the answer ?

 

[Twilight Hue]

What are the Core Axioms of Buddhism?

How many different Buddhist denominations are there?

How does each regard those core axioms?

How have the core axioms changed or evolved over time?

Especially in transmission to the west?

Try sitting. -NM-

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I can only speak with any real certainty about Pure Land Buddhism. I don't know much about other sects. What would you like to know?

 

[prometheuspan]

Pure Land Buddhism

what are the core axioms of your example tradition?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well in Pure Land Buddhism it's actually a lot like Christianity, yet still like Buddhism too. In Pure Land you can attain liberation from samsara without being fully enlightened, by devotion to the Amida Buddha, or devotion to the devas, or devotion to Bodhisattvas, who by their merrits can sometimes liberate a person from samsara. Pure Land Buddhists are encouraged of course to follow the dharma to the best of their ability, knowing that the gods will not honor those who think Buddhism is an easy grace deal like Christianity. You must work out your own salvation, the gods and Bodhisattvas can only help you, they can't do it for you.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

To break down Pure Land Buddhism

1) Believe in Amida Buddha

2) Belief in the devas

3) Belief that Siddhartha Gautama came forth from Amida Buddha to save the world

4) Follow the teachings of Gautama and you will have the aid of gods and Bodhisattvas in your quest for liberation

 

[prometheuspan]

To break down Pure Land Buddhism

1) Believe in Amida Buddha

2) Belief in the devas

3) Belief that Siddhartha Gautama came forth from Amida Buddha to save the world

4) Follow the teachings of Gautama and you will have the aid of gods and Bodhisattvas in your quest for liberation

--------------

Amitābha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

amidabuddha.org - Pure Land Buddhism and South Florida Buddhist Resources

Who is Amida Buddha?

Deva (Hinduism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deva (देव in Devanagari script) is the Sanskrit word for "god, deity". It can be variously
interpreted as a god, angel, demigod, or any supernatural being of high excellence,
and is thus comparable to the Hebrew Elohim.
The devas in Hindu mythology are often juxtaposed to the usually demonic Asuras.[1]


Gautama Buddha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Good idea! The DIRs may not be the best place though. Have you seen our Comparative Religions forum? That may be best.
hmm. I will look but it seems likely that such a forum would offer little in terms
being specific enough and then I'd end up flooding it with my ten threads.

plus i am not so sure i am comparing anything to anything except denominations
to each other.

but i will look...

Quote:
and not interested in having it torn down before they are able to share their personal knowledge.
i'm only helping to share the knowledge where i am a bridge to a larger group of people who normally don't talk about religions.

tearing things down is their habit and my problem; because that doesn't lead to a positive or tenable promotions department.

Information & Promotion Group

I can't sell Islamic fundies on new arcologies for their dense populations if i have twelve threads dedicated to helping along the genocide
by demonizing fundie Islamics.

Thats the most obvious example.

To frame this i guess for perspective since its become so strangely complicated;

I'm interested in selling them the Arcology, to do that first i have to demonstrate that I'm kewl with their ;

whatevahs.

i mean it does and it doesn't matter; i mean i care in that i need to know about their whatevahs to be clear and present with them andmake them an arcology
that suits their culture and aesthetics...

does this make sense? am i just babbling now?

 

[prometheuspan]

To break down Pure Land Buddhism

1) Believe in Amida Buddha

thats going to be several axioms to tell us what that it is?

also, there is a way to go about that which leaves it free from logical fallacy
noise... which is to say;
"According to the (paradigm, system, religion, sect, group, etc...) an X has property Y, property L and property Q and can be identified by traits C, D, And E" or some like...

2) Belief in the devas

Which devas? belief in them how? as archetypes? as forces of nature?

3) Belief that Siddhartha Gautama came forth from Amida Buddha to save the world

came forth how? got birthed literally? emanated as a force and then manifested in a body?

4) Follow the teachings of Gautama and you will have the aid of gods and Bodhisattvas in your quest for liberation

What are the teachings specifically?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

thats going to be several axioms to tell us what that it is?

Which devas? belief in them how? as archetypes? as forces of nature?

came forth how? got birthed literally? emanated as a force and then manifested in a body?

What are the teachings specifically?

1) That Amida Buddha is the entirity of existence. That all devas, Bodhisattvas, and living beings have their being in Amida Buddha. Basically, Amida Buddha is like Brahman in Hinduism.

2) The devas are numerous in number, but to name a few- Ganesha, Asura (not the Hindu demons), King Yama, etc.

3) That Gautama Buddha is the avatar of Amida Buddha basically. That he spoke on Amida Buddha's behalf, to reconcile the world back to unity with Amida.

4) The noble eightfold path, the four noble truths, the precepts, and the way of living as a Bodhisattva.

 

[LuisDantas]

What are the Core Axioms of Buddhism?

The truth of Interdependent Origination.

The non-existence of a soul (Anatman).

Impermance.

Shunyatta (vacuity).

And the Four Noble Truths.

How many different Buddhist denominations are there?

Beats me. Probably as many as there are Buddhist teachers. Some tens of thousands, I would guess.

How does each regard those core axioms?

It varies a lot. Theravada usually teaches them with much the terminology I used above. Pure Land and other Mahayana branches may well be more indirect, and I would not be surprised to learn that many of them don't think of those axioms as applicable to their schools.

How have the core axioms changed or evolved over time?

Language-wise, quite a lot. The teachings themselves are however quite stable, if not actually immutable.

Especially in transmission to the west?

There has been a fair bit of "noise", although I am as of now convinced that this is not at all a new occurrence. There is evidence of lots of doctrinary noise in the Ancient East as well. Most of the time there are incidents of hurried teaching that confuses Buddhist core concepts with superficially similar yet incompatible doctrines. That is why there is so much talk of Buddhism supposedly being reincarnationist, for instance.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Luis where do you get the idea that one of the core axioms of Buddhism is the non-existence of a soul? Many schools of Buddhism believe in souls and an afterlife.

 

[koan]

Dear Mr squad, I have never heard of a Buddhist school that believes in a,"Soul". Please supply a checkable reference.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Koan did you read none of the first page of this thread, where I give the axioms of Pure Land Buddhism? Pure Land Buddhists believe in the golden land of the Buddhas, extremely similar to the Christian concept of heaven. In fact, I do believe there's a famous Christian scholar who practices Pure Land and Christianity together if I'm not mistaken. I am a former Pure Land Buddhist.

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis where do you get the idea that one of the core axioms of Buddhism is the non-existence of a soul? Many schools of Buddhism believe in souls and an afterlife.

From the Tipitaka. And from most people that I met who claim to be teaching Buddhism.

I've frequented a Jodo Shinshu temple on occasion, as well as Zen and Vajrayana groups. I don't think either truly denied Anatman - and I sure wouldn't consider them Buddhist if they did.

The way I see it, there is no true soul nor true afterlife in Buddhist teachings, although there are karmic consequences that are of course inherited by others (or, equivalently, we do inherit the karmic consequences of others).

There is life after our deaths. But there is no afterlife for any of us. There is an important distinction there.

Does you center claim that there are souls and afterlifes? I'm surprised if so. Such a proposal denies both Anatman, Annica, and Sunnyata, leaving little if anything of core Buddhist teaching.

 

[LuisDantas]

Koan did you read none of the first page of this thread, where I give the axioms of Pure Land Buddhism? Pure Land Buddhists believe in the golden land of the Buddhas, extremely similar to the Christian concept of heaven. In fact, I do believe there's a famous Christian scholar who practices Pure Land and Christianity together if I'm not mistaken. I am a former Pure Land Buddhist.

Far as I can tell, the Pure Lands are mental states, not literal heavens.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Do you know anything about Pure Land Buddhism at all Luis?

 

[SugaCubez352]

Luis where do you get the idea that one of the core axioms of Buddhism is the non-existence of a soul? Many schools of Buddhism believe in souls and an afterlife.

"The word anattan (nominative: anatta) is a noun (Sanskrit: anatma) and means "not-self" in the sense of an entity that is not independent. The word anatman is found in its meaning of "what is not the Soul (or Spirit)," also in brahmanical Sanskrit sources (Bhagavadgita, 6,6; Shankara to Brahma Sutra I, 1, 1, Bibl, Indica, p 16; Vedantasara Section 158). Its frequent use in Buddhism is accounted for by the Buddhist' characteristic preference for negative nouns. Phrases like rupam anatta are therefore to be translated "corporeality is a not-self," or "corporeality is not an independent entity."

"As an adjective, the word anattan (as occasionally attan too; see Dhammapada 379; Geiger, Pali Lit., Section 92) changes from the consonantal to the a-declension; anatta (see Sanskrit anatmaka, anatmya), e.g., Samyutta 22, 55, 7 PTS III p. 56), anattam rupam... anatte sankare... na pajanati ("he does not know that corporeality is without self,... that the mental formations are without self"). The word anatta is therefore, to be translated here by "not having the nature of a self, non-independent, without a (persisting) self, without an (eternal) substance," etc. The passage anattam rupam anatta rupan ti yathabhutam na pajanati has to be rendered: "With regard to corporeality having not the nature of a self, he does not know according to truth, 'Corporeality is a not-self (not an independent entity).'" The noun attan and the adjective anatta can both be rendered by "without a self, without an independent essence, without a persisting core," since the Buddhists themselves do not make any difference in the use of these two grammatical forms. This becomes particularly evident in the case of the word anatta, which may be either a singular or a plural noun. In the well-known phrase sabbe sankhara anicca... sabbe dhamma anatta (Dhp. 279), "all conditioned factors of existence are transitory... all factors existent whatever (Nirvana included) are without a self," it is undoubtedly a plural noun, for the Sanskrit version has sarve dharma anatmanah.

"The fact that the Anatta doctrine only purports to state that a dharma is "void of a self," is evident from the passage in the Samyutta Nikaya (35, 85; PTS IV, p.54) where it is said rupa sunna attena va attaniyenava, "forms are void of a self (an independent essence) and of anything pertaining to a self (or 'self-like')."" - Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study

 

[LuisDantas]

Is that supposed to be a slight?

I've just told you that I do. There is much useful and beautiful religious truth in Amidha's Vow. I value the Buddhist Schools that were created based on that Vow, and I particularly value Shinram Shonin's work on renewing that tradition.

None of that makes Souls or Afterlifes compatible with Buddhism, however. Everyone is free to believe in such concepts, of course, but Buddhism will simply not sustain such beliefs.

Although I will readily grant that one might easily be misled in that direction due to the strong emphasis on the well-being of the deceased in certain schools, particularly in Japan and in Vajrayana schools.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

What do you think makes theistic schools of Buddhism, non-Buddhist? They encourage the following of the dharma and it's precepts.