What's the Deal?

[Doktormartini]

My Eastern Philosophy Class brought this up today and I thought it was interesting, but no one had an answer for it. Here is the question:
If Buddhism is all about love and compassion and reducing suffering, why did Siddharta Gautama (The Buddha) just up and leave his wife and kid for the rest of his life?

Any insight would be appreciated! Thanks!

 

[koan]

I believe he was a bi-polar depressive. For six years after he left home, he tried various religious, asthetic medods of finding The Answer. After almost killing himself, he realised he must find the answer from within. He then meditated till he had the answer. He also realised that the answer he realised, could help others including his family.

 

[Engyo]

Doktor -

There are any number of ideas and arguments around this. One thing, though - Siddhartha did not leave his wife and son destitute. His family provided for them.

One could say that his quest to end suffering was motivated just as much by his loved ones as it was by any altruistic impulses we may attribute to him today. We just don't know at this remove.

 

[michaelm]

This was something that i did feel quite shocking and a bit of an obstacle at first when studying Buddhism. I think I now understand.
At soem point in our practice (over many lifetimes) I think we reach a crescendo, a point at which our need to fully immerse ourselves in spirtual practice is overwhelming and cannot be opposed.
In the end, of course, not only did he achieve enlightenment, but his wife and son joined him in the sangha, so, if you are truly spiritual, it would mean it worked out for the best in the end, in the same way that someone requires an operation has to be cut open and injured to help them.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

My Eastern Philosophy Class brought this up today and I thought it was interesting, but no one had an answer for it. Here is the question:
If Buddhism is all about love and compassion and reducing suffering, why did Siddharta Gautama (The Buddha) just up and leave his wife and kid for the rest of his life?

Any insight would be appreciated! Thanks!

Consider that Siddhartha had not yet attained enlightenment when he left his wife Yasodhara and his infant son. He had a few moments of experiencing blissful meditation during his times locked up in royalty and abundunce, but he understood his ultimate mission of enlightenment and to return to share the Dharma with all.


Others have brought this up, but Buddha did in fact return when his son was still a child. He kept his promise that he made to them before he left.


We could question all day about his actions before finally sitting down under the bodhi tree, but that was all still before his full awakening. Why did he allow himself to starve nearly to death? Why did he not understand the nature of impermanence on his first few visits outside the palace?


Upon his enlightenment, his duty was to share his wisdom and compassion to the world, and again, as others have brought up, his wife and son joined him in the sang'ha.



Peace,
Mystic

 

[Doktormartini]

Oh thanks! I didn't know he came back! Thanks for clarifying this!

 

[zenzero]

Friend,
Love & compassion.
The words are to be enlarged to its fullest extent to understand Budhha's act.
As explained by Mystic Sangha that he was Gautama at the time he left in search for truth not with the idea to leave anyone behind but when he realised the truth he was no more Gautama who is a husband or a father but an enlighted person who has pure love and ompassion for all beings in forms or no-forms which includes the family automatically.
Love & rgds

 

[bwbfbh]

Hi, THat was a very good question.
Buddhism is not all about love. It is all about freedom. I am sorry I cannot post a url for an mp3 from tanissaro bikku because I havent made 15 posts here. Search for the following on google
"Downloadable Dhamma Talks, Essays, and Books by Thanissaro Bhikkhu"
Include the inverted commas

Then search for the following text: caring without clinging

and download the mp3. You will understand.

May you be wise, free and happy.

 

[Abracadabra]

Hi,

I just recently took a course on the history of Buddhism, and I would like to share my insights on that. I would like to point out that these are entirely my perceptions. But this is what I came away with from the course.

First off, Siddhartha Guatama did not invent the main spiritual ideas that lie behind Buddhism. The idea that all is suffering existed prior to Sid, as did the belief that life is an endless stream of reincarnation. It was also a common belief at the time that the goal should be to get out of the cycle of death and rebirth.

So in other words, "Buddhism" actually existed prior to Siddhartha Guatama. It just wasn't yet called "Buddhism".

So why then should Siddhartha Guatama be credited with founding "Buddhism", you might ask?

Well, what Sid did was to think about this methodically and go out and meditate on it. He experimented with many different idea that existed prior to him. He tried the extremes of total non-involvement including fasting. And that didn't produce the results he was hoping to achieve. Then he tried the extreme of indulging in the senses and that also did not produce results. So finally he recognized that moderation is the most sensible path (the Middle Path).

He continued to meditate without the distractions of the discomfort of starvation, nor the distraction of over-indulgence and he finally realized the true nature of existence.

So what he had achieved, was the construction of a methodology for achieving enlightenment.

So he didn't really invent the spiritual philosophy. What he invented was a method for attaining the enlighten that had already been believed by generations that preceded him.

It is this method of achieving enlightenment that became "Buddhism".

The idea that we can indeed force enlightenment by our choice of actions.

Prior to Siddhartha Guatama it was believed that only certain people became enlightened, or that there was nothing you could do to purposefully become enlightened, and that it would just happen to you when you are ready. Kind of like a fruit ripening on a vine. There's nothing the fruit can do to speed up it's fruition.

Siddhartha Guatama showed that we can 'ripen' ourselves to enlightenment by using certain methods.

That's the contribution of Siddhartha Guatama.

He didn't invent the underlying philosophy. That had already existed prior to his birth even, and for many generations before that. It's just that no one had created a "school of thought" of how to purposefully attain enlightenment. And this is what Siddhartha Guatama did, he created a "school of thought" for how to attain enlightenment and that is what we call Buddhism.

Of course since that time Buddhism has come a long way and has evolved. The original techniques that were taught by Siddhartha Guatama are today known as Theravada Buddhism. (the old school).

But around the time of the birth of Christ Buddhism had begun to change in fundamental ways. And by that I mean that the methods of enlightenment began to change, as well as some of the underlying philosophical thinking. This gave rise to Mahayana Buddhism which began to focus more on helping others achieve enlightenment. The problem with the original Buddhism of Siddhartha Guatama is that is was beginning to be taught in too much of a self-centered way focusing a little too much on the individual and the idea of abandoning your family, etc.


In fact, I have a theory about Jesus surrounding this issue. And I certainly hope that this doesn't explode into a conversation about this. But according to the Bible Jesus was basically silent (or missing) in his own culture from the time he was 12 until he came back around the age of 30 to preach his philosophy.

There are many reasons why I believe that Jesus actually traveled to India, learned of Buddhism and then returned to his home culture to try to work those ideas into the spiritual beliefs of his brethren. Not meant as an 'argument' but rather just to offer reasons why I believe this allow me to state the following facts. First off, Jesus apparently did not agree with the teachings of the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham had instructed people to judge each other and stone sinners to death. Jesus denounced the judging of others and he also renounced the stoning of sinners to death by using the sly trick of telling only those who are without sin to cast the first stone. So here we have Jesus denouncing the teachings of the God of Abraham (his supposed father) and preaching the love and compassion that would have been present in the early seeds of Mahayana Buddhism.

The other thing that Jesus did was denounce the teaching of the God of Abraham to seek revenge via an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and instead he taught people to forgive and turn the other cheek. Again these teaching are far more in alignment with the compassions of Mahayana Buddhism than they are with the God of Abraham. So from my point of view, Jesus was denouncing the teachings of the God of Abraham and basically teaching the values of Buddhism instead.

Jesus also asked his disciples to leave their families. And he did a lot of other things too that were far more inline with the early teachings of Siddhartha Guatama's Buddhism than there were with the teachings of the Old Testament. So anyway, that's just a side-track there for whatever it's worth. Not meant to start an argument with supporters of Christianity.

Back to the point, Siddhartha Guatama didn't invent the concept of enlightenment. What he did was begin an investigation into the methods of how we can purposefully achieve enlightenment.

I am personally very glad to have seen Mahayana Buddhism arise to replace (or spin off from) Theravada Buddhism because Mahayana Buddhism is less self-centric IMHO, and shows more outwardly compassion to the others. In fact the very idea of a Bodhisattva is an idea that arose with Mahayana Buddhism. The idea of someone who is enlightened, or on the path to enlightenment to take others along with him.

In fact, going back to the idea that Jesus may have been affected by Buddhism, the concept of the Bodhisattva would have been precisely what Jesus was attempting to do. He may very well have learned this idea in India, and then returned to his home land to try to enlighten his brothers to these ideals and thus save them from their homeland religion that had them stoning each other to death and seeking revenge and retribution. Clearly the teachings of the Old Testament (or the Torah) were not teachings of compassion. Unfortunately it appears that his efforts in that areas ultimately ended in disaster, but that's a topic for another forum to be sure.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Abracadabra,

I think you will have to re-check as to what Buddhism teaches. Brother that ain't it.

BuddhaNet's Buddhist Studies: E-Learning Buddhism Here ya go. -NM-

 

[Abracadabra]

I've studied Buddhism quite a bit and just finished taking a course on it actually. So I'm well aware of the many different schools of Buddhism and how it began in India, and evolved in various ways through China and Japan and other lands.

I certainly agree that it may be difficult for others to see the connection between Buddhism, witchcraft and Shamanism, but I see connections between all of these quite vividly. Specifcially in Tantra Buddhism and the casting of a circle to create sacred space, and the recogition of the four compass points that represent the various aspects of the human persona and condition. They even invoke the elemental powers in much the same way.

Of course your not going to find anything close to this in something as modern as say, Zen Buddhism.

So when I'm speaking about similarities between shamanic practices and Buddhism, I never meant to imply that these similarities exist in all possible forms of Buddhism. The Buddhsim that I'm referring to here are mainly the Tantric Buddhism, and some of the early forms of Taoist Buddhism that began in China.

In fact, the core beliefs that I'm speaking of probably originated in Chinese Taosim and were then introducted into Buddhism from that source.

I don't think you'll find any remants of it in Zen Buddhism which took an entirely different path.

Also, it may not be obvious in Tibetian Buddhism. However, it does exist in Tibetian Buddhism via Tantric Buddhism and the Mandala. If you study the Mandala, and the rituals that surround it I don't see how you could not make the connection with the witch's practice of casting circles. The similarities between the Tantric Mandala and the Witch's Circle are stricking.

I personally believe that both of those practices arose originally from the shamanic traditions of the ancient Chinese Taosist that predate both, Witchcraft, and Buddhism.

I certainly never meant to imply that witchcraft and shamanic journeying are commonplace in all of Buddhism. I'm well aware that this is not the case.

Perhaps I should have been more clear that I was basically referring to elements within Tantra Buddhism in particular.

Sorry for the confusion.

And thanks for the link, I'll probably check it out anyway. But I'm already aware that all forms of Buddhism are not the same.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Abracadabra,

O.k. Fair enough. I'm familiar somewhat with some of the hybrids like Chan (Taoism and Buddhism) but not as familiar with practices involving a mix of Shamanism and Buddhism with exception to Burmese and Tibetan nat. Tx for clarifying your statements. -NM-

 

[koan]

These are just tools adopted for the purpose of bringing about certain mind conditions. Later, when one has realised that they are all just conditions, these themselves must be let go of.

 

[Abracadabra]

These are just tools adopted for the purpose of bringing about certain mind conditions. Later, when one has realised that they are all just conditions, these themselves must be let go of.

This is very true David. At least in a way.

I guess the other half of the equation is also a huge assumption on my part. And I should know better.

When I speak of "Witchcraft and Shamanism" I speak of them in terms of my understanding and teachings of these things, which I confess, is probably far from what most other people see in them.

In fact, I've read teachings of Witchcraft and Shamanism that I personally felt were totally absurd. Even though they were qutie popular. But then I feel that Christianity is absurd and look at how popular that mythology is.

In any case, I look at Witchcraft and Shamanism in a very pragmatic way. In fact, if a person were to ask me if I 'believe' in these things my natural response would be, "What's to believe?"

In other words, I view these things quite pragmatically. Dreams are real. Period. What's to believe in? I don't need to have faith that I can dream, all I need to do is dream.

So learning to be 'awake' within my dreams is a very pragmatic concept for me. And it's something that can be achieve though a pragmatic series of steps.

The hardest part is in 'letting go'. Christopher Penczak (an author of witchcraft and shamanic journing lesson books) brings up the question of whether or not the characters in our dreams are 'genuine other spirits', or just a figment of our own imagination. I asks, "Does it really matter?"

This reminds me of the parable of Malunkyaputta which I won't go into. But it's basically the same thing. What's the difference whether these are spirits or your own subconcious mind? They are what they are. And what they are is insightful.

However, you say that after we recognize certain conditions of our minds we need to let go of these.

This is where I hesitate to agree.

From a purely pragmatic point of view. Even Buddhism believes that all is one does it not?

Is your subconscious truly seperate from mine?

Let's think about this from,... yes,... a dreaded pragmatic "scientific" point of view.

What delimits your physical brain from mine?

Clearly on the macro scale, your brain is in your cranium and mind is in my cranium. Our brains appear to be phsyical seperated. But is this really true?

Well, we also know that there are things such a brain waves. We can even physically measure them. So our brains do transmit, and receive EM. This is one way that our consciouness can connect telepathically.

But I offer to you that there is even yet another way. Far more profound.

Even modern science has recognized that inside each atom, in the 'void' between the electron clouds and the nucleous, there are infinitely man 'vitual particles' popping into and out of existence.

We also know that the quanum world behaves in very strange non-local ways.

So inside every atom of your brain there are infinitely many quantum particles jumping in and out of existence, and the same is going on in every atom in my brain. And quantum phenomena has been experimentally (pragmatically) shown to be a non-local phenomenon.

Therefore, even from the most basic pragmatic scientific atheistic view of the world, should I really rule out psychic abilities especially in terms of communicate between humans who are seperated by distances?

I think not.

Therefore, when I take a shamanic journey into my dream and truly 'let go' how can I be sure that what I'm experiencing is not a melding together of some grand cosmic soup of consciouness?

In other words, why should I view the shamanic experience solely in terms of investigating my own consciouness when there is truly no pragmatic reason for me not to believe that I can indeed share communication with other minds, at least in this physical world?

I don't even need to beleive in a seperate 'spiritual' world for this to work. Perhaps I can indeed experience the flight of a bird, or a butterfly. Perhaps these things are the 'spirits' of the 'underworld' in shamanic practices?

And why could I not believe that I might be able to see a vision from someone else's point of view perhaps in another town, or country, or even on the far side of the globe?

With the knowledge of Einstein's Relativity and the effects of time dilation, why should I not believe that I could also peer into the past, or the future when taking such a mind journey?

Yes, I'm sure that most Buddhists have not considered these things. But I feel that the Tantra Buddhists were at least in some ways attempting to. And of course the Shamans believe that they have it down pat.

So while these journey can be insightful, I believe, from a purely pragmatic point of view, that they may very well have the potential to be far more than just insight. I believe they do have the potential to be telepathic both physically and temporarally.

Unfortunately I personally have no profound experienced of things from these things from practice as I'm only just embarking on this myself. None the less, I see no reason why I should not believe that it is a practical thing to imagine.

In fact, I have had *some* meaningful experiences already. I hesitate to call them profound.

But doesn't Buddhism even speak about "meaningful coincidences". I've listened to videos by Deepak Chopra, and much of what he talks about is becoming one with a univieral consciouness, and experiencing 'meaningful coincidences'.

It's my understanding the Deepak Chopra is indeed a Buddhist. But many of his videos are very akin to the very same things that I study in the art of Shamanism.

So I see a lot of similarities as well as possiblities.

Perhaps Deepak Chopra is a bit "out there" for traditional Buddhists? But his lectures certainly support what I've been learing in Shamanism.

Does anyone know that 'brand' of Buddhism Chopra purchased. (ha ha)

Because his lectures certainly go hand-in-hand with much of shamanism that I've studied. At least in terms of the final results. I don't recall Chopra actually teaching anything like shamanic journying.

However, he does teach a meditation technique for self-healing where the consciousness is used to focus on the parts of the body that need healing. As far as I'm concerned that's a shamanic technique right there. That's definitely a shaman technique.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Abracadabara,

I just recently took a course on the history of Buddhism, and I would like to share my insights on that. I would like to point out that these are entirely my perceptions. But this is what I came away with from the course.

First off, Siddhartha Guatama did not invent the main spiritual ideas that lie behind Buddhism. The idea that all is suffering existed prior to Sid, as did the belief that life is an endless stream of reincarnation. It was also a common belief at the time that the goal should be to get out of the cycle of death and rebirth. Agree

So in other words, "Buddhism" actually existed prior to Siddhartha Guatama. It just wasn't yet called "Buddhism". Not exactly as he went past the existing path of the day, in his approach

So why then should Siddhartha Guatama be credited with founding "Buddhism", you might ask? No, one will ask

Well, what Sid did was to think about this methodically and go out and meditate on it. He experimented with many different idea that existed prior to him. He tried the extremes of total non-involvement including fasting. And that didn't produce the results he was hoping to achieve. Then he tried the extreme of indulging in the senses and that also did not produce results. So finally he recognized that moderation is the most sensible path (the Middle Path). Agree

He continued to meditate without the distractions of the discomfort of starvation, nor the distraction of over-indulgence and he finally realized the true nature of existence. Agree

So what he had achieved, was the construction of a methodology for achieving enlightenment. In a way but it was already there, in another way as he never claimed having found anything.

So he didn't really invent the spiritual philosophy. What he invented was a method for attaining the enlighten that had already been believed by generations that preceded him. No claim, again

It is this method of achieving enlightenment that became "Buddhism". Not exactly as no way is also the way.

The idea that we can indeed force enlightenment by our choice of actions. Yes

Prior to Siddhartha Guatama it was believed that only certain people became enlightened, or that there was nothing you could do to purposefully become enlightened, and that it would just happen to you when you are ready. Kind of like a fruit ripening on a vine. There's nothing the fruit can do to speed up it's fruition. Not true

Siddhartha Guatama showed that we can 'ripen' ourselves to enlightenment by using certain methods. Since the above is untrue, this statement too fails besides he never claimed what you state.

That's the contribution of Siddhartha Guatama. Once again, he never claimed it.

He didn't invent the underlying philosophy. That had already existed prior to his birth even, and for many generations before that. It's just that no one had created a "school of thought" of how to purposefully attain enlightenment. And this is what Siddhartha Guatama did, he created a "school of thought" for how to attain enlightenment and that is what we call Buddhism. Other schools of thoughts existed from where he took off.

Of course since that time Buddhism has come a long way and has evolved. The original techniques that were taught by Siddhartha Guatama are today known as Theravada Buddhism. (the old school).

But around the time of the birth of Christ Buddhism had begun to change in fundamental ways. And by that I mean that the methods of enlightenment began to change, as well as some of the underlying philosophical thinking. This gave rise to Mahayana Buddhism which began to focus more on helping others achieve enlightenment. The problem with the original Buddhism of Siddhartha Guatama is that is was beginning to be taught in too much of a self-centered way focusing a little too much on the individual and the idea of abandoning your family, etc.


In fact, I have a theory about Jesus surrounding this issue. And I certainly hope that this doesn't explode into a conversation about this. But according to the Bible Jesus was basically silent (or missing) in his own culture from the time he was 12 until he came back around the age of 30 to preach his philosophy.

There are many reasons why I believe that Jesus actually traveled to India, learned of Buddhism and then returned to his home culture to try to work those ideas into the spiritual beliefs of his brethren. Not meant as an 'argument' but rather just to offer reasons why I believe this allow me to state the following facts. First off, Jesus apparently did not agree with the teachings of the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham had instructed people to judge each other and stone sinners to death. Jesus denounced the judging of others and he also renounced the stoning of sinners to death by using the sly trick of telling only those who are without sin to cast the first stone. So here we have Jesus denouncing the teachings of the God of Abraham (his supposed father) and preaching the love and compassion that would have been present in the early seeds of Mahayana Buddhism.

The other thing that Jesus did was denounce the teaching of the God of Abraham to seek revenge via an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and instead he taught people to forgive and turn the other cheek. Again these teaching are far more in alignment with the compassions of Mahayana Buddhism than they are with the God of Abraham. So from my point of view, Jesus was denouncing the teachings of the God of Abraham and basically teaching the values of Buddhism instead.

Jesus also asked his disciples to leave their families. And he did a lot of other things too that were far more inline with the early teachings of Siddhartha Guatama's Buddhism than there were with the teachings of the Old Testament. So anyway, that's just a side-track there for whatever it's worth. Not meant to start an argument with supporters of Christianity.

Back to the point, Siddhartha Guatama didn't invent the concept of enlightenment. What he did was begin an investigation into the methods of how we can purposefully achieve enlightenment. agree, noone can invent that anyway,

I am personally very glad to have seen Mahayana Buddhism arise to replace (or spin off from) Theravada Buddhism because Mahayana Buddhism is less self-centric IMHO, and shows more outwardly compassion to the others. In fact the very idea of a Bodhisattva is an idea that arose with Mahayana Buddhism. The idea of someone who is enlightened, or on the path to enlightenment to take others along with him. Personal perception, fine with others.

In fact, going back to the idea that Jesus may have been affected by Buddhism, the concept of the Bodhisattva would have been precisely what Jesus was attempting to do. He may very well have learned this idea in India, and then returned to his home land to try to enlighten his brothers to these ideals and thus save them from their homeland religion that had them stoning each other to death and seeking revenge and retribution. Clearly the teachings of the Old Testament (or the Torah) were not teachings of compassion. Unfortunately it appears that his efforts in that areas ultimately ended in disaster, but that's a topic for another forum to be sure.

Since have no background in history or its study, cannot comment on the other parts.

Love & rgds

 

[Abracadabra]

Thank you for your response Zen,

I would like to comment on one thing you've mentioned just to share my perspective on things.

Back to the point, Siddhartha Guatama didn't invent the concept of enlightenment. What he did was begin an investigation into the methods of how we can purposefully achieve enlightenment. agree, noone can invent that anyway,

You say that no one can invent the concept of "enlightement" but I feel othewise within the context of what 'enlightement' supposedly means with respect to the story of Siddhartha.

From this story (or history if you like) Siddhartha believed that life is a continual flow of death and rebirth we call reincarnation. His goal was to stop this cycle and get out of this process. So if we take this as the foundation of the tale, then to become enlightened means that he would have known that he had achieved this goal.

This is what "enlightenment" would mean within this context.

Now you say that no one could invent this concept. But I think otherwise. I realize that in India no one questions the concept of reincarnation, as far as they are concerned that's just a given. So from there point of view it would be silly to think that anyone 'invented' this concept.

But from my point of view, as much as I too would like to believe in reincarnation and even intutitively feel that I am fundmentally immortal, I can't know with certainty whether this is the truth of reality, or whether I'm just 'inventing' this idea in my mind.

So this is what I mean about the concept of "enlightenment" being an invented concept. The story of Siddhartha claims that he achieved the knowledge (the enlightenment) that he had successfully brought his reincarnation process to an end.

When Siddhartha finally died it is believed that he did not return into another incarnation.

But who can know? How could Siddhartha have truly known this? And based on the story of Siddhartha this was indeed the view of Buddhism at that time.

It seems to me that modern Buddhism has evolved into something totally different. The concept "Enlightenment" today doesn't appear to have anything to do with any realization or knowledge that a person has achieved a state of being where he or she will no longer be reborn into another incarnation. Modern Buddhism (especially Zen Buddhism) seems to be more focused on simply achieving a state of calmness of the mind, a state of peace and acceptance of what life brings, and an ability to flow with it with the least amount of suffering.

But that is quite far removed from the original concept of the realization that a person has actually achieved liberation from some eternal process of reincarnation isn't it.

I just don't see how Zen Buddhism has anything at all to do with the original concepts that were associated with what Siddhartha supposedly came to realize or know.

I mean, if I could know that I have actually stopped the cycle of reincarnation and that I would never be reborn again, I think that would be some pretty profound knowledge.

But clearly this is not the knowlege that modern Zen Buddhism claims to offer. I just don't see the connection between Zen and the story of Siddhartha Guatama. They seem to be totally different concepts to me. In truth I see Zen as being far more closely realted to Chinese Taoism. It should be called Zen Taoism instead of Zen Buddhism, IMHO.

Just my thoughts, for whatever they're worth.

Namaste

 

[zenzero]

Friend Abracadabra,

But clearly this is not the knowlege that modern Zen Buddhism claims to offer. I just don't see the connection between Zen and the story of Siddhartha Guatama. They seem to be totally different concepts to me. In truth I see Zen as being far more closely realted to Chinese Taoism. It should be called Zen Taoism instead of Zen Buddhism, IMHO.

Buddhism traveled to China in the form of Bodhidharma and there Taoism and Buddhism found so much commonalities that they merged to form ZEN.
The word Zen comes from DHAYA in Sanskrit which became CHAN in Chinese and as it moved to Japan it became ZEN.

So, it makes no difference to what word you use as name is just a label as Abradabra is or zenzero is there is none as such but only a label for an understanding.
Love & rgds

 

[zenzero]

Friend Abracadabra,

Check this out:
Ch’an (Zen) Buddhism presented in Religion section

Love & rgds

 

[lilithu]

I just recently took a course on the history of Buddhism, and I would like to share my insights on that. I would like to point out that these are entirely my perceptions. But this is what I came away with from the course.

First off, Siddhartha Guatama did not invent the main spiritual ideas that lie behind Buddhism. The idea that all is suffering existed prior to Sid, as did the belief that life is an endless stream of reincarnation. It was also a common belief at the time that the goal should be to get out of the cycle of death and rebirth.

Of course these concepts and questions had been floating around before his time. People - even the Buddha - do not just invent religions out of thin air. They are always in response to the issues of concern in the cultures in which they grow up. No one is claiming that Siddhartha invented the idea that life is suffering. The claim of Buddhism is that he found the solution to the problem of suffering - the correct cure for the diagnosis. Other sages, who were his contemporaries, have made similar claims. For example: Mahavira, the founder of Jainism. If you believe that the Buddha had the right answer, you are a Buddhist. If you believe that Mahavira had the right answer, you are a Jain. Or you might follow any number of paths within the Dharmic traditions.

Abracadabra,

I think you will have to re-check as to what Buddhism teaches. Brother that ain't it.

Meh, I don't see how he is terribly wrong per se; he just has his own interpretation of it. I take more issue with his characterization of Judaism (as lacking compassion) than I do his characterization of Buddhism.