Which school of thought say....

[savethedreams]

Now i'm getting into Buddhism as I'm trying to find my faith , now I'm skeptical of reincarnation and rebirth to begin with and wonder do I have to believe in rebirth or reincarnation in order to be called a Buddhist?

I was reading and researching, and I was digging deep into the thought of what Buddha said about suffering, I couldn't quite grave the concept. To me suffering can be relieved, even if someone is born with deformity it can be cured, so therefore i can't be suffering anymore if it is gone.

I was also going along and it seems that Buddha wouldn't accept 'the circle of life' animal eat animal human (animal) eat animal. It seems he wouldn't agree on my 'everybody is one' concept, nature is one with me. As long as tiger eat meat I will, and there will be no harm in that, or bad karma.

This concept of philosophy of suffering doesn't sit well with me, it seems obsessive that one wants to leave suffering instead of enjoy the suffering and just BE. For myself, I enjoy the pain that comes from after a fight, its fun wrestling with my friends, some will say that 'suffering' when its not. Is ending suffering when I enjoy it (everything is relative) really the purpose of life?

 

[LuisDantas]

Now i'm getting into Buddhism as I'm trying to find my faith , now I'm skeptical of reincarnation and rebirth to begin with and wonder do I have to believe in rebirth or reincarnation in order to be called a Buddhist?

Not really. In fact, there is some controversy on the matter. My take, which I consider very orthodox, is that reincarnation is by definition completely impossible according to Buddhist doctrine, while rebirth is a very commonplace, non-esoteric occurrence.

I was reading and researching, and I was digging deep into the thought of what Buddha said about suffering, I couldn't quite grave the concept. To me suffering can be relieved, even if someone is born with deformity it can be cured, so therefore i can't be suffering anymore if it is gone.

The concept is not quite "suffering". Dukkha, the original concept, actually means something closer to "impossibility of stable, durable satisfaction".

The idea is that one can't really attain happiness by circunstances alone, no matter how fortunate they are - if for no other reason, because fortunate circunstances may be lost. Therefore, we should learn to make our happiness reliant on our own mental attitude as opposed to external circunstances, to the extent that we can reasonably make it work.

I was also going along and it seems that Buddha wouldn't accept 'the circle of life' animal eat animal human (animal) eat animal. It seems he wouldn't agree on my 'everybody is one' concept, nature is one with me. As long as tiger eat meat I will, and there will be no harm in that, or bad karma.

That is an unusual interpretation of the Buddha Dharma, IMO. Much of it involves accepting that this is, so to say, an imperfect world where our decisions have no warranty of bringing no suffering.

This concept of philosophy of suffering doesn't sit well with me, it seems obsessive that one wants to leave suffering instead of enjoy the suffering and just BE.

Why would one want to enjoy suffering?

For myself, I enjoy the pain that comes from after a fight, its fun wrestling with my friends, some will say that 'suffering' when its not. Is ending suffering when I enjoy it (everything is relative) really the purpose of life?

I guess not, not if you use such an unusual definition for suffering.

 

[savethedreams]

Not really. In fact, there is some controversy on the matter. My take, which I consider very orthodox, is that reincarnation is by definition completely impossible according to Buddhist doctrine, while rebirth is a very commonplace, non-esoteric occurrence.



The concept is not quite "suffering". Dukkha, the original concept, actually means something closer to "impossibility of stable, durable satisfaction".

The idea is that one can't really attain happiness by circunstances alone, no matter how fortunate they are - if for no other reason, because fortunate circunstances may be lost. Therefore, we should learn to make our happiness reliant on our own mental attitude as opposed to external circunstances, to the extent that we can reasonably make it work.



That is an unusual interpretation of the Buddha Dharma, IMO. Much of it involves accepting that this is, so to say, an imperfect world where our decisions have no warranty of bringing no suffering.



Why would one want to enjoy suffering?



I guess not, not if you use such an unusual definition for suffering.

I am reading much now on zen buddhist, this is sitting well with me. I mean as just BE, not suffer, not do anything. Just Be human. besides the chanting and resiting of the scriptures which I deem unnecessary. Living zen in harmony with nature or becoming a flower as I would call it zen is the closet to my beliefs... however I'm very agnostic about the 'afterlife' but as I stated as long as I do good, live like a flower, whatever will be, will be, not a concern. I know there is an afterlife and life will always BE, just like me. Just as long as I BE, and not try to over do stuff I will succesed. Life is never that complicated if its not for a flower why is it for me? Soceity shouldn't be in the way of that, not if I remove it out of my life myself. Do you understand what I mean?

 

[LuisDantas]

The idea that one will "always be" is IMO directly at odds with core Buddhist doctrine, particularly the concepts of impermanence and Anatta/Anatman.

 

[savethedreams]

The idea that one will "always be" is IMO directly at odds with core Buddhist doctrine, particularly the concepts of impermanence and Anatta/Anatman.

So buddhist core belief is that life can't not exist. My belief is life will always be, life itself has always been and always will be, that life in itself is the force of god that made evolution and made creation and made everything, not to be worship, just to exist.

 

[LuisDantas]

So buddhist core belief is that life can't not exist.

Uh? Of course not. That identity is a fleeting, unstable and perishable construct, however, that much is true.

 

[SageTree]

Saves the Dream ,

You are seeking as you said, that is good and very important.

So I then perceive you're 'probing' into the philosophy rather than 'practicing' as a means of developing an impression? And is your intent continued reading on or to stay and see how it goes?

In this Practice there is a vast area and infinite potential to look deeply at the way you know and perceive the world. This is the micro rebirth from moment to moment we can experience. Living in the moment, awake.

This link is a little corny, imo, but still sort fun as it's a bit more accurate than spin the bottle, lol. But might be an interesting catalyst for reading? Belief-O-Matic- Beliefnet.com


Edit**The thing that should be known about the quiz is it's not what you ARE the most or ARE NOT the most... it's just how you over lap... that doesn't mean that you can't look into and connect deeply with something that is low or anywhere on your list. True these are conventional labels as well. So with all that in mind. That is all I wanted to add.**

I hope the questions are ok with you and that maybe the link will prove interesting or helpful even.

I wish you all the inspiration in your seeking.

:namaste
SageTree