Welcome home! Please contact
lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site.
New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days.
Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Hi one and all,
My first post on this forum.
I have had a curiousity about buddhism for a number of years - but my background as a secular humanist makes me see it in a different light maybe from many people.
What seems to be the case is a guy called Sidartha [sic] came up with some good ideas about how to approach life, then in the time that followed his teachings were mystified and ritualised.
What kind of records exists for what the Buddha actually said. I've heard of something called the Baghavad-Gita, what is this? Where can I find it?
Do you think there is a need for a more orthodox version of Buddhism, maybe with it's own label in order that it can be distinguished from the other schools. I think the Theravada school is most similar to what I am think of, but not quite.
I remember seeing on the news a couple of years ago a news story about Buddhists travelling across continents to climb a pyramid of steps and ring a 'sacred' bell at the top. To me, with my possibly naive understanding of what the Buddha was about, this seems absolutely crazy.
I have the feeling that these 'religious' Buddhists are not Buddhists at all, because so much of what they do seems to contravene the intent of the original guy who came up with these ideas. They kind of turn him into a God, especially the idea of the Buddha re-incarnated over and over. Did these ideas come from Siddartha himself, or added later by the usual channels of religious evolution?
I don't mean to offend, and I recognise my lack of experience in this subject.
I really feel a curiousity for getting to the core of what Siddartha actually said. He seems quite a visionary, and at the same time quite egoless (i.e. doesn't claim to be the son of God like Jesus Christ or David Ike), given my current understanding, but I need to get at some evidence...
--gav.
0
Comments
Whether or not it could be defined as orthodox would depend on what the Buddha actually said, and whether parts of that could not be described as secular.
--gav.
I think if you were to peruse this site, most of your questions would be answered, particularly by Brian, who is the site creator, and Matt, who is a 'super Moderator' and extremely experienced in these matters. There are also others who have much to say that is interesting....all in all the general input here is constructive and informing. Try looking through the FAQ contributors zone, and the site for Aethists, Christians and the "introduce yourself" thread.
Everyone has a different slant on things, Buddhist or otherwise, but this much is known. Buddhism has often been described as both a Religion and a Philosophy. There is no such thing as orthodox Buddhism, in my view; Siddharta Gauthama wasn't Buddhist. Buddha merely means "awake" in the sense of being conscious and in the present, with no illusions.
When anyone - be they Buddhist monks, pilgrims, Christians or yoginis - subject themselves to certain rituals, they are reminding themselves of several things, perhaps.
One is that the body is a fragile and temporary object, and that the Mind is stronger. Therefore they subject themselves to a physical discipline which requires determination, mental strength, focus and dedication.
Secondly, any form of devotional practise may at one time or another require a certain amount of sacrifice and effort. If one can tolerate and overcome a physical hurdle, it may attest to a person's ability to endure something which would tax and push them to a certain limit.
Rituals which to some may seem futile and pointless, is a way to the practicant, of affirming their personal determination to "see things through" whatever form these "things" may take. Hence the practise as you mention of climbing hundreds of steps to ring a bell, and of giving things up for Lent, maybe.
Siddharta Gauthama himself stated that he remembered many of his previous lifetimes, once he became enlightened. And Voltaire said 'it should be no more astonishing to be born twice than to have been born once.' Christianity concurred with the idea of re-birth (as opposed to re-incarnation - the two ARE different) until about four hundred years ago, when greater control was exercised by the Church over the people, by threatening poor frightened ignorant christians with promises of hell fire and brimstone, if they didn't toe the line. (I come from a long line of Roman Catholics, I know all about guilt trips!!) Man has seriously messed with conventional religion to the point where the original teachings have become obscured and adulterated. the trick is to try and separate the two....
Reincarnation is the actual flesh being made again, and coming back in its' previous form (re = again carne = flesh. latin.) Re-birth is a re-manifestation of the energy you developped and manifested in life, which could re-emerge as a worm, a gnat a whale a donkey or another human being. Even the science of physics will tell you that Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only channeled, transformed and manifested. Your heart beats, but what keeps it beating? your lungs expand and contract without you even thinking about it, but how and why? Re-birth is like (and you'll find that I've written this elsewhere already) taking two candles, one lit, one not lit. Use the flame to light the second candle. Now blow the first one out. is it the same flame, or a different one? It is a creation of the first, and exactly the same, but not the same at all.....
Look, I think I've said quite enough for now! Others I hope will add more (in fact, probably less - I talk a lot!!) But I hope I have given you a bit of insight on what I have learned and absorbed. I speak for me and only me. if others agree, that's OK. others will have different opinions, views and things to tell you. And that's ok, too.
DO look round the site. Enjoy the trip! Hope to see you around again soon....
Federica
Welcome! Like you I am also new to Buddhism. I have been learning alot though. I am a Nichiren Buddhist. I am also learning alot about it myself but basically, Nichiren Buddhism teaches that the Buddha nature is within all of us and that when we chant, we work on ourselves to become happier, more confident people. We also work to become Bottisattvas (teachers of compassion to others). This is just a base of an explanation because I am a student like you. I have much to learn and I look forward to it. Anyway, welcome!
Adiana
Don't know where I got baghavad-gita from, the tipitaka is what I meant...
Better start reading, great link!
--gav.
http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/schools-three-vehicles.shtml
Theraveda (or Hinayana, which from what I understand, is more of a derogatory term) is probably closest to what Buddha taught.
Remember, as any religion or school of thought passes through different cultures, it's bound to pick up the local beliefs/customs into its practice. That's why some flavors of buddhism have 'gods' while others are strictly non-theist.
If you are looking for a text from buddha's time, the dhammapada may be what you are looking for.
I had the idea that orthodox buddhishm would be secular buddhism, but I see now that that is not the case.
The aspects of buddhism I have read about emphasise the experiental aspects of living. This intrigues me as it mirrors agnosticism: 'do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable' (Thomas Huxley).
I am wondering whether there exists a school of buddhism that fits this agnostic viewpoint, that emphasises experience over taught ideas and rituals (no room for re-birth or karma here I'm afraid).
Would zen buddhism fit this description? I have always naturally steered clear of zen because it seemed 'trendy', but I can't explain why I have that reaction.
Thanks for all your great advice.
--gav.
Don't be too put off by 'trendiness'. There's a commercialized idea of what 'zen' is and then there's Zen. Do your own searching. As Buddha said, "be a light unto yourself."
Tibetian buddhism is also 'trendy' thanks to Richard Gere and the Beastie Boys (MCA in particular, i believe).
I have heard it said that Zen Buddhism is seen by some as being nihilistic, and true to say, it is not a path that appeals to me personally, although there are many who adhere strongly to the principle of 'No-Mind, No-Time, No-Thing'.....
--gav.
- S. Suzuki
Seems zen doesnt stress karmic rebirth, but it hangs around in the background.
So what I am left with is vipassana, which is actually where I started. I should just get on and meditate. Thanks again for all your input.
--gav.
"I should just get on and meditate" is going to be my quote of the day, if you don't mind
"Don't just do something, sit there!"
Gav.. we may get sidetracked, but rarely flame. Too much anger in flaming.. very un-buddhist like
Gav,
Yes, you are right. This is about the most flame-free forum that I have ever posted on as well. I am new to Buddhism myself but have found that I can ask any question and someone will answer and not make me feel like an idiot. That is a big plus in my opinion!
I am reading about different sects of Buddhism because I feel that it is important for me to do so. However, Nichiren Buddhism is the path I have decided to choose for me and Zen is right; it would not be very Buddhist-like to flame others for their choice of path. It is so nice to belong here and be able to express yourself and get answers to questions.
Adiana :bigclap: :bigclap: :bigclap:
LOL!
Adiana
Emptiness.