I have no real comment, am merely saying, "Oooh, shiny and interesting".
[/is TERRIBLE Catholic with serious issues with her God/Religion, but has habit of getting into religious discussions anyway and finds it vaguely amusing]
Interesting meme and interesting answers. I'm borrowing ^_^
Question though - You say you're neither mono nor polyteist but then you mention the Buddhist idea of gods as karmic beings. Does this mean that you don't subscribe to the idea, or just that you don't worship any of these gods? Or something else entirely
if you don't believe in souls then what aspect comes back in reincarnation? I'm not challenging you on anything, simply really curious. I have no formalized religious/spiritual beliefs, nor the discipline for any kind of practice, but have some interest in Buddhist thought (and a limited understanding of same.)
Gina, yes, I received it. I forgot I needed to respond, but I probably wouldn't have yet since I have two family members with cancer, one of whom's in the hospital and can't keep solid food down, and at this very instant I'm home sick myself with a rip-roaring argument going with WG and if this message seems a little sharp it's because he just fled before my wrath.
None of this is anything you could have known, of course, unless you were a master spy.
Yes. I got the assignment. Am amused by whom I'm writing for, though only a vague idea has popped up and it just isn't interesting yet. Too fluffy.
In Buddhism, your next door neighbour Al could die tomorrow and be reborn as a god or demi-god, if Al had the good karma for it from some lifetime somewhere.
It's all illusory, like moving from one dream to the next. We cling to the continuity of the idea of self, but even our bodies aren't even the same from one moment to the next (cells dying, etc.).
This is fun, isn't it? I hope to read more of these. I like to see the assumptions come off. You read "Christian" on someone's beliefs and then... they believe in reincarnation and space beings... ? Suddenly the labels become meaningless. :D
Actually, I have been reading about WG's mother in your LJ so I did know. I had no idea my simple question was going to be such a trigger for you, or else I would never have bothered you. Sorry.
Actually, the question wasn't a trigger, it was the fact that I was yelling at WG as he headed out the door. The tension in this house could be cut with a knife. I'm the financially stable one, and the college situation has put us both on tenterhooks and his mom being ill at a time he can't afford to fly down is just... really bad.
I should probably have just waited to reply. I'm sorry.
Buddhism is historically an offshoot of Hinduism, so I've always felt that Hindus and Buddhists share the same philospohy and theology, but that Hinduism has a ritualistic and devotional aspect to it that Buddhism doesn't have. But I guess I was wrong. I think the concepts of Dharma and Karma and reincrnation are the same, but other than that... I think Buddhism has evolved far beyond its origins into something very different.
Did you know that some versions of Vaishnavism acknowledge Gautham Buddha as the ninth incarnation of Lord Vishnu?
I don't think any of the people I know have beliefs that really, when you get right down to it, make sense, we're all a bit hodge-podge-y, so yes, labels = teh meaningless.
if i had to absolutely pick a religion, it'd be buddhism... it makes so much more sense than the others to me... but i have so little time to read up on it, these posts of yours that talk about it are refreshing... when i finally have time (bob knows when), i think i may get into it...
... and many Hare Krishnas consider Gautama Buddha to be an incarnation of Krishna. Which makes for an interesting conversation, and I'm one of the few people in our neighbourhoood who can have a relaxing conversation with the local Hare Krishnas that doesn't involve any sort of recruitment, because as far as they're concerned, I might as well be Hare Krishna.
Of course, I also know New Agers who believe that religion is all the same universal idea of worshipping God in one's own way, so, sometimes people are little foggy on the distinctions.
Buddhists don’t consider Buddhism to be an off-shoot of Hinduism any more than Christians consider Christianity an off-shoot of Judaism.
It's not that Buddhism has evolved so much as there are different varieties of Buddhism. There's the word-interpretation of the Theravada, which takes the Buddha exactly at his word which is closest to how Buddhism was practiced in ancient India. You could call it the most conservative form of Buddhism. That's the Buddhism most people think of, and probably the form your husband means when he says Buddhism has no ritual (untrue, but Theravada is minimalist). There are two main schools, the Vaibayshika and the Sautrantika.
Then there's the meaning-interpretation of the Mahayana, which was practiced while the Buddha was alive and popularised in the time of King Ashoka (almost every Buddhist statue or stupa you find in India is from Ashoka’s reign). Very generally Mahayanists believe that the intent of the Buddha’s teachings are as important as following the letter of the law, and what’s most notable is the difference of intention – that in Theravada one achieves enlightenment for one’s own sake to attain perfect peace or Nirvana, while in Mahayana, one seeks to achieve enlightenment in order to return as a Bodhisattva in order to benefit beings. To the Mahayana view, this is the intent of the Buddha as demonstrated in his life. They quote texts and teachings of the Buddha that the Hinayanists insist weren’t taught by the Buddha. The two main schools are Chittamatrin and the Madhyamika.
The third form of Buddhism is an off-shoot of Mahayana Buddhism, called Vajrayana, or Tantric Buddhism, which was practiced by the Mahasiddhas of India. It spread from there to Nepal, Bhutan, and Tibet. It is heavily ritualized and symbolic, especially in the form it takes in Tibet.
The next form of Mahayana is Zen Buddhism which originated in China and is sometimes credited to the Mahasiddha Saraha, who was widely travelled. This takes the Atiyoga or Mahamudra teachings of Tantric Buddhism and focuses on them almost exclusively.
Then there are other forms that take these same teachings and focus on a particular portion, such as Pureland Buddhism, which focuses on Amitabha and the next Buddha of this eon, Maitreya. (The current Buddha is the fourth of 1,002 predicted.) Each country that Buddhism goes to develops its own rituals, because Buddhism is pretty flexible about that sort of thing. Buddhism blends. In each country the lay students often practice a mix of whatever the native beliefs are and Buddhism. This is because traditionally Buddhists leave the philosophy to the monks.
The core teachings and the monastic training remains very much the same, and the monastic vow lineage has continued in an unbroken line, unchanged since the Buddha’s time (though some of the lineages have been lost).
I liken the forms of Buddhism to Russian dolls: all of the of the forms study the original worlds of the Buddha as core, the “Tripitaka” of Vinaya (monastic teachings), Sutras (various collected teachings of the Buddha), and Abhidharma (the Buddha’s teaching on the world and phenomena, such as karma, the six realms, and so forth). Then the Mahayana schools study additional teachings and commentaries, and so on.
Everything I quoted here was straight Abhidharma, the words of the Buddha, and therefore common to all of the types of Buddhism, with the exception of the idea of compassionate Bodhisattvas, which is a definite Mahayana idea. In fact, the “space beings” idea – that there are other realms of existence vastly different from ours – is from Sutra. The Buddha actually took some of his monks to a realm where the Dharma teachings were given very subtly, through smell. Those beings were horrified that our realm was taught through describing the suffering of the six realms. :D
There probably is. Let me think about this. The last time I gave someone a "beginning" book to read, they were completely lost, so I have to see if I can find something.
There's no reason to be selfish, because you're going to be dead someday.
That's pretty much my life theory, or motto, or something. I'm not religious, I just think we should do right by other people. We get a kick out of it, they get a kick out of it, everyone's happy.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
saltroseortopaz.livejournal.com - (no subject)![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
exbentley - (no subject)
no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 02:43 am (UTC)[/is TERRIBLE Catholic with serious issues with her God/Religion, but has habit of getting into religious discussions anyway and finds it vaguely amusing]
no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 05:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 09:24 am (UTC)Question though - You say you're neither mono nor polyteist but then you mention the Buddhist idea of gods as karmic beings. Does this mean that you don't subscribe to the idea, or just that you don't worship any of these gods? Or something else entirely
no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 10:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 02:02 pm (UTC)None of this is anything you could have known, of course, unless you were a master spy.
Yes. I got the assignment. Am amused by whom I'm writing for, though only a vague idea has popped up and it just isn't interesting yet. Too fluffy.
Grouchy and wrathful,
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 02:04 pm (UTC)But you wouldn't worship Al, no.
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 02:07 pm (UTC)In Buddhism, gods have inconceivably long lifetimes, but they eventually use up all that good karma and die.
That's why even if your name's Al, you want to be enlightened rather than be born as a god.
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 02:10 pm (UTC)Icarus
no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 02:14 pm (UTC)Icarus
no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 02:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 02:21 pm (UTC)I should probably have just waited to reply. I'm sorry.
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 02:24 pm (UTC)Buddhism is historically an offshoot of Hinduism, so I've always felt that Hindus and Buddhists share the same philospohy and theology, but that Hinduism has a ritualistic and devotional aspect to it that Buddhism doesn't have. But I guess I was wrong. I think the concepts of Dharma and Karma and reincrnation are the same, but other than that... I think Buddhism has evolved far beyond its origins into something very different.
Did you know that some versions of Vaishnavism acknowledge Gautham Buddha as the ninth incarnation of Lord Vishnu?
no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 08:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 09:01 pm (UTC)Religion is a fascinating topic.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 09:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 03:12 pm (UTC)Of course, I also know New Agers who believe that religion is all the same universal idea of worshipping God in one's own way, so, sometimes people are little foggy on the distinctions.
Buddhists don’t consider Buddhism to be an off-shoot of Hinduism any more than Christians consider Christianity an off-shoot of Judaism.
It's not that Buddhism has evolved so much as there are different varieties of Buddhism. There's the word-interpretation of the Theravada, which takes the Buddha exactly at his word which is closest to how Buddhism was practiced in ancient India. You could call it the most conservative form of Buddhism. That's the Buddhism most people think of, and probably the form your husband means when he says Buddhism has no ritual (untrue, but Theravada is minimalist). There are two main schools, the Vaibayshika and the Sautrantika.
Then there's the meaning-interpretation of the Mahayana, which was practiced while the Buddha was alive and popularised in the time of King Ashoka (almost every Buddhist statue or stupa you find in India is from Ashoka’s reign). Very generally Mahayanists believe that the intent of the Buddha’s teachings are as important as following the letter of the law, and what’s most notable is the difference of intention – that in Theravada one achieves enlightenment for one’s own sake to attain perfect peace or Nirvana, while in Mahayana, one seeks to achieve enlightenment in order to return as a Bodhisattva in order to benefit beings. To the Mahayana view, this is the intent of the Buddha as demonstrated in his life. They quote texts and teachings of the Buddha that the Hinayanists insist weren’t taught by the Buddha. The two main schools are Chittamatrin and the Madhyamika.
The third form of Buddhism is an off-shoot of Mahayana Buddhism, called Vajrayana, or Tantric Buddhism, which was practiced by the Mahasiddhas of India. It spread from there to Nepal, Bhutan, and Tibet. It is heavily ritualized and symbolic, especially in the form it takes in Tibet.
The next form of Mahayana is Zen Buddhism which originated in China and is sometimes credited to the Mahasiddha Saraha, who was widely travelled. This takes the Atiyoga or Mahamudra teachings of Tantric Buddhism and focuses on them almost exclusively.
Then there are other forms that take these same teachings and focus on a particular portion, such as Pureland Buddhism, which focuses on Amitabha and the next Buddha of this eon, Maitreya. (The current Buddha is the fourth of 1,002 predicted.)
Each country that Buddhism goes to develops its own rituals, because Buddhism is pretty flexible about that sort of thing. Buddhism blends. In each country the lay students often practice a mix of whatever the native beliefs are and Buddhism. This is because traditionally Buddhists leave the philosophy to the monks.
The core teachings and the monastic training remains very much the same, and the monastic vow lineage has continued in an unbroken line, unchanged since the Buddha’s time (though some of the lineages have been lost).
(tbc)
no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 03:12 pm (UTC)Everything I quoted here was straight Abhidharma, the words of the Buddha, and therefore common to all of the types of Buddhism, with the exception of the idea of compassionate Bodhisattvas, which is a definite Mahayana idea. In fact, the “space beings” idea – that there are other realms of existence vastly different from ours – is from Sutra. The Buddha actually took some of his monks to a realm where the Dharma teachings were given very subtly, through smell. Those beings were horrified that our realm was taught through describing the suffering of the six realms. :D
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 03:13 pm (UTC)Icarus
no subject
Date: 2004-08-26 08:36 pm (UTC)That's pretty much my life theory, or motto, or something. I'm not religious, I just think we should do right by other people. We get a kick out of it, they get a kick out of it, everyone's happy.