Buddha, please! I'm Christian!

[jackfaire]

Thank you for the correction, I'll restate what I meant more accurately.

I believe that Buddha was a great philosopher, but I don't believe in the cycles of reincarnation, Dharma and Karma, etc.

I honestly wasn't correcting you merely agreeing with you. He was not divine regardless of faith.


The second part was pointing out the silliness of people. Buddhism is "Do not kill unnecessarily" Yet seems to inspire more vegetarianism than Christianity which is, "Thou shalt not Kill"


It amuses me.

[Boozy]

I honestly wasn't correcting you merely agreeing with you. He was not divine regardless of faith.

A Buddhist might say that he WAS divine. But so's everyone and everything.

So it ain't no big thing, really.

The second part was pointing out the silliness of people. Buddhism is "Do not kill unnecessarily" Yet seems to inspire more vegetarianism than Christianity which is, "Thou shalt not Kill"

Today, a Buddhist can easily survive on a vegetarian diet, because we're able to get foods from around the world cheaply. In Buddha's day, you really had to eat whatever was available.

"Thou shalt not kill" would seem to inspire more vegetarianism, but Christianity is very anthropocentric. Even if some Christians believe that an animal has a soul, they generally aren't valued as highly as humans.

[jackfaire]

Today, a Buddhist can easily survive on a vegetarian diet, because we're able to get foods from around the world cheaply.

I have yet to find a way to have a cheap vegetarian diet that still manages to cover all bases of what the body needs.

Also that would then call for one to determine for themself what unnecesary death means. I believe the cycle of life is necessary.

I believe killing for food to be necessary. I believe killing a plant is still killing. The fact that it is a plant makes it no less nor important than an animal.

[Boozy]

I have yet to find a way to have a cheap vegetarian diet that still manages to cover all bases of what the body needs.

"Cheap" is a relative term. I was speaking about the differences between what a healthy vegetarian diet would cost today vs. what it would have cost many centuries ago (if it was available at all).

I'm not rich, but I can afford a vegetarian diet if I so chose.

[Hyena Dandy]

Today, a Buddhist can easily survive on a vegetarian diet, because we're able to get foods from around the world cheaply. In Buddha's day, you really had to eat whatever was available.

Yes, but so can anyone else, so the faith and the vegetarianism aren't necessarily one and the same, was the point. Not that Buddhists can't be vegetarians, just that Buddhism doesn't demand it.

[Boozy]

Not that Buddhists can't be vegetarians, just that Buddhism doesn't demand it.

I agree. Buddhism doesn't demand much of anything, because it's not a religion.

[Hyena Dandy]

How is Buddhism not a religion?


Edit: Expanding on my point.





Buddhism is more than just a philosophy, about how to treat people. Its a religion. Buddhism teaches about reincarnation, that all life is suffering, and that the only way to get out of suffering is to stop reincarnating, which you do by ceasing to desire things. If you do this, you are called a Buddha. If you are going to do this in the next few lifetimes, you are called a Bodhisattva.

And also, what about people like the Dalai Lama?

There's an abbot in a monastery, and whenever the abbot dies, the people in the monastery all go through the country looking for a boy born on the exact day and time that the old abbot died, because this means he's the same person, and he can keep leading them. That sounds a lot like religious behavior to me.

Not all Buddhists are in the same sect, but those people are still Buddhists. So if Buddhism isn't a religion, then either they're not religious, or they're right, and therefore its not a religion, its a fact.

Forgive me if I don't understand you, and please elaborate if I didn't.

[Boozy]

Buddhism does not recognize a supernatural supreme being, and it requires no faith.

A Buddhist may not believe that the Dalai Lama is the literal reincarnation of the Lama, and that's completely acceptable.

The Buddha told everyone to think for themselves and never take anything someone said on blind faith.

What you describe (the search for the reincarnation of the Lama) is ritual. It's a part of many religions. But it's a part of many non-religions too; like the Shriners, for example.

[Hyena Dandy]

Buddhism does not recognize a supernatural supreme being, and it requires no faith.

A Buddhist may not believe that the Dalai Lama is the literal reincarnation of the Lama, and that's completely acceptable.

Could you please explain how believing that requires no faith.

[Boozy]

I said that a Buddhist might NOT believe that, and they can still be considered "Buddhist". Buddhism does not demand any leaps of faith.

[AdminAssistant]

I said that a Buddhist might NOT believe that, and they can still be considered "Buddhist". Buddhism does not demand any leaps of faith.

Yup. The BF is Buddhist and he does not believe the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the Lama. There's another monk he looks up to, I guess, but I can't remember the name.

[Hyena Dandy]

Yup. The BF is Buddhist and he does not believe the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the Lama. There's another monk he looks up to, I guess, but I can't remember the name.

I'm not saying that all Buddhists must believe the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation, I was saying that it seems to me like you need a leap of faith to believe in reincarnation.

[Hyena Dandy]

Yup. The BF is Buddhist and he does not believe the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the Lama. There's another monk he looks up to, I guess, but I can't remember the name.

I'm not saying that all Buddhists follow the Dalai Lama. I am simply trying to say that Buddhism does require faith. Reincarnation, the whole circle of suffering thing.

[Boozy]

Right. Sorry, I should have been more clear.

The belief in literal reincarnation is not central to the Buddhist philosophy. It is simply an interpretation of the sutras made by certain Buddhist sects.

For the record, I'm not Buddhist. It's simply a philosophy I studied fairly in-depth while I was in school. I've just never been able to see it in the same light as other major religions.

I'll admit that many forms of Buddhism can be considered religions. But many philosophies can be interpreted and adhered to in that way.

[Fryk]

Jewish people don't believe every tenet of their religion the same way, either. It's still a religion.