Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:I heard of the explanation you gave above. I mean God could send baby jesus from heaven and experienced the sufferings of human. Why must be born through virgin birth. To prove he is God's son, don't you think descending from heaven is more convincing than virgin brith. Anyway, it has nothing to do with Buddhism.
Human kind will keep on waiting. We have waited for more than 2000 years. Far too long. The longer we wait, the more people will go to hell. Can god see the logic ? Hope that people will stop waiting and relieve themselves from sufferings through their own effort.
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:Human kind will keep on waiting. We have waited for more than 2000 years. Far too long. The longer we wait, the more people will go to hell. Can god see the logic ?
Originally posted by TrueReppuzan:"Amitayus48", you have only quoted those who said there is only one God.
There are many who said otherwise."I no stupid", well said .. Buddhism does begin as a philosophy in a way
and became religion by the traditional schools of thoughts. Buddhism is
evolved out of Hinduism. Pls read my arguments in other forum post. A lot
of ppl switch from Buddhism to Christianity, and also Christainity to Buddhism.
Why is this so? You ask a Christian or a Buddhist, that their faith is a religion..
they will deny and say their faith is not a religion at all.. for a
buddhist will say it is spiritual endeavour.. for a christian will say
it is a personal relationship with a personal God ..In Buddhism, there are many erroneous things so people turn to christianity.
In Christainity, there are also many erroneous things so people turn to Buddhism.
If they have been seriously practising their faith and thinking rationally
on the facts, they will come out as good atheist. This is a very true saying.
But many do not actually practise, but think they are wholesome. that is why
they hop from religion fallacy to another religion fallacy. When you put
your heart to practise the principles of your religion, you will then be able to
appreciate the fallacies of your faith. And when you are able to objectively
and open-mindedly identify the fallacies you have appreciated yourselves, you
then can be free of bondage to religion.For example, i heard. devout buddhist after years of practitioner burnt down
their quan yin statues to turn to christianity. and hallucinate that evil ghost
make trouble their switch of religion. It is all in your mind...For free thinkers who never consider deeply a religion, will often at moment
of death turn to certain form of religion, because their rejection of religion
is very superfluous.**atheists, humanists, skcetpical minded and scienific minded, come and post in my
forum.
//"When you put your heart to practise the principles of your religion, you will then be able to appreciate the fallacies of your faith. And when you are able to objectively
and open-mindedly identify the fallacies you have appreciated yourselves, you
then can be free of bondage to religion."//
Interesting remark, care to give some examples of these principles as regard to Buddhism?
//"Buddhism is evolved out of Hinduism."//
Care to share where this information come from?
Any one who claim that his religion is the only true religion, will only show that his religion is far from the only true religion.
Simply because there isn't one.
Religion arises out of circumstances, and circumstances keep changing, therefore religion must evolve, and cannot be perfect.
As for God, Allah, Baghwan,Tua Peh Kong, so what. He has given humanity the ability to decide, and guidelines to go with it, then step back and watch humans struggle with their intelligence.
There is no magic, no miracles, just consequences. Good or bad, depends on your actions, the decisions you make, and what is happening around you.
The holy books are just guidelines to help you along.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:"Buddhism began as a philosophy and became a religion. This is not what the Buddha had in mind. Understand the historical Buddha and his teachings during his life-time, not what subsequent disciples and their schools or traditions teach. When Buddhism became a religion, it suffers the same fate as other ‘religions’. Take Confucianism: for a long time it remained a philosophy, so there is no such thing as different schools (sects) or traditions (ethnic or cultural influence). However, it is in danger of becoming a religion too."
Religion is different from philosophy by definition. Unless we are disputing historical inconststencies, Buddhism is a religion.
Buddhism did not start out as a philosophy. It is the revelation of one man through his personal experience of life, that experience was then in later centuries put to words, complied and later become what we called the Suttas. The Abdhidhamma, a later compilation is the philosophical aspect of the Suttas, setting out to explain and analyze the early Buddhist teachings in a logical and systematic way. This is the first stage in the development of Buddhism itself. It is a doctrine of the Saint.
Buddhism became what we called a religion during the second period of its development when the Mahayanist forsake the ideal of a human Buddha and replace it with a divine Buddha in a Nirvana full of life. Instead of just individual salvation, it is replaced by the ideal of Universal salvation of every life. The Buddha here ceased to be human, under the name of his Body of Highest Bliss (Sambhogakaya), he became a God. He however was not the Creator of the world.
Buddhism is a religion of Experience to this day and that is why the practice of Meditation is such an essential part of the religion itself.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Almond cookies... you just exposed that you dunno what you post....
This satanic cookies is all noise and a disgrace to Christianity. Actually AEN should mean what he posted here to delete evangelism posts but he did not delete.
I am not against Christians evangelism but I am against some of the ways they go about doing it.
Almond Cookies is an empty shell with only head knowledge about Christianity. Feed him whatever good and cultic stuff on christianity he will just accept it and he is easily manipulated. He has that IQ of a 3 year old or sometimes worse than this. If you read his posts , you will know he is not very sound.
Paradoxal... The only true religion is what one would believe, but that cannot be true unless the rest are proven... false. /thread?
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:Bible predicts of false prophets and teachers.
There’s many people claiming to be Jesus nowadays.
There’s also cults like Jehovah Witnesses and mormonism.
This proves the bible is divine.
the Bible is right..................Jesus is the biggest fraud of all time................he didn't even exist !
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:Bible predicts of false prophets and teachers.
There’s many people claiming to be Jesus nowadays.
There’s also cults like Jehovah Witnesses and mormonism.
This proves the bible is divine.
No need you to tell, I also know. Shoo!
people in church - i loved god
people outside church - i loved money
Religion arises out of circumstances, and circumstances keep changing, therefore religion must evolve, and cannot be perfect.
conventional speaking, medicine may be different for different sick people, hence the different Buddhism school. yet ultimately speaking, disatisfaction苦 is still a core illness for all people, no matter what religion/no religion, race, gender u are.
and Buddha's 4 noble truth is perfect, even in all school of Buddhism.
no other person/founder pin this root problem. 4 noble truth is not philosophy though.
happiness can become disatisfaction苦, but disatisfaction苦 cannot become happiness. hence disatisfaction苦 is true/real. and happiness is false/unreal.
/\
Originally posted by Disman:people in church - i loved god
people outside church - i loved money
not true leh. Kong Yee is money money in church also leh
Originally posted by Amitayus48:You are referring to false view from enlightened one of other religions per se or the person who expound it? The person who expound incorrectly that resulted in disharmony of others against others has to bear the dire consequences of causal karma of dependent origination. Shurangama sutra is overthrowing your false views that our peaceful loving kindness mind does not carry a single one 25 methods in Shurangama sutra are the main categories of helping one to achieve inherent omni-thusness. And the 25 methods are not specifically referring to Buddhism methods as "Buddhism" is merely an identification on omni-ness, according to Diamond sutra 梦幻泡影。。。 hahaha
1) How do you know the founders of other religions are enlightened? Other than just mere assumptions. Don't assume things without basis. If there is a reason why you think other religions founder are enlightened, quote and point out the scripture source.
2) Why did you mention the twenty five methods? Does other religion teach it?
3) What do you think enlightenment is? Are you also speaking from experience? If so please share. as you know from my own sharing, this forum encourages open sharing of one's genuine experiences and insights (as the buddha and all the great masters have done so themselves).
4) I am saying Shurangama Sutra has put down the false views expounded by the founders of other religions. It would be very naïve to say all religious leaders are enlightened. Do you know the Buddha refuted all other religions of his days and taught that only his teaching leads to liberation?
Here is an example from shurangama sutra: 楞严ç»�云,“是 人,观妙明心,é��å��方界,湛然以为,究竟神我。从是则计,我é��å��方,å‡�明ä¸�动,一切众生,于我心ä¸ï¼Œè‡ªç”Ÿè‡ªæ»ã€‚则我心性,å��之为常,彼生ç�è€…ï¼ŒçœŸæ— å¸¸æ€§ã€‚ 二者ã€�是人,ä¸�观其心,é��观å��方,æ�’沙国土。è§�劫å��处,å��ä¸ºç©¶ç«Ÿï¼Œæ— å¸¸ç§�性;劫ä¸�å��处,å��究竟常。三者ã€�是人,别观我心,精细微密,犹如微尘,æµ�转å��方, æ€§æ— ç§»æ”¹ï¼Œèƒ½ä»¤æ¤èº«ï¼Œå�³ç”Ÿå�³ç�,其ä¸�å��性,å��我性常。一切æ»ç”Ÿï¼Œä»Žæˆ‘æµ�出,å��æ— å¸¸æ€§ã€‚å››è€…ã€�是人,知想阴尽,è§�行阴æµ�,行阴常æµ�,计为常性,色å�—想ç‰ï¼Œä»Š å·²ç�尽,å��æ— å¸¸æ€§ã€‚ç”±æ¤è®¡åº¦ï¼Œä¸€åˆ†æ— å¸¸ï¼Œä¸€åˆ†å¸¸æ•…ï¼Œå •è�½å¤–é�“,惑è�©æ��性,是则å��为第三外é�“,一分常论。”
5) Many Buddhist teachers, even Buddhist masters, having personally realized I AMness (究竟神我) or even substantial nonduality, have fallen for the Hindu teaching 'all paths lead to Rome', all paths lead to realization of Brahman, and as such they are no different from Hindu teachers. Do you understand why the realization of atman-Brahman is not the same as Buddhism's enlightenment? Have you read the Chinese article I asked you to read? (Third article second poem, http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/p/chinese-articles.html )
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:I heard of the explanation you gave above. I mean God could send baby jesus from heaven and experienced the sufferings of human. Why must be born through virgin birth. To prove he is God's son, don't you think descending from heaven is more convincing than virgin brith. Anyway, it has nothing to do with Buddhism.
Hi Dawn
Virgin birth imply Jesus is not tainted by the original sin. The original sin mean the corruption of Adam and Eve in the garden of eden. That's why, it was said, the first time Christ came by virgin birth, the second time he will came as the King to judge the living and the dead.
Anyway that's Christian school of thought. Every religion will has it own spectrum of mystery story which can be own understand by faith. Just like Buddhism, the life story of Shayamuni mentioned that a White Elephant entering the Queen Maya womb. Subsequently, the Queen was pregnant, when she give birth to the Buddha. He walk seven steps and mentioned that
Jesus is taken from.......... Hesus..................
Christ is taken from......Krishna...............
Originally posted by Susanteo2011:
Jesus is taken from.......... Hesus..................
Christ is taken from......Krishna...............
Wait for your friend Almond Cookies to come and tell you. hahahahahah.
it's true...............
that's why there's not a single shred of historical proof that anyone called Jesus (or Gee-bye) ever existed...........
Originally posted by Susanteo2011:it's true...............
that's why there's not a single shred of historical proof that anyone called Jesus (or Gee-bye) ever existed...........
This one more appropriate to talk in Eternal Hope la.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:"Why waste words to tell us that religion is different from philosophy?"
So are you saying Buddhism is not a true religion or it is a philosophy? You seem to be trying to say Buddhism is supposed to be a philosophy in this true religion thread. So are you arguing that Buddhism is not a true religion?
"Go back to the rationale why Siddharta Gotama left the palace and you will know why it began as a philosophy!"
You claimed so... the burden of proving is on you. Quit pretending you know the answers....
You have a problem understanding English and you put words in my mouth. That is despicable! Which part of this sentence: "Buddhism began as a philosophy and became a religion." do you have a problem?
This thread may be about religion - so what? Is there such a thing as true religion? Define true religion please!
If you have no idea why Siddharta Gotama left the palace, then I suggest you do Google search. And if you know the answers why accused me of pretending? You are pretentious!
Originally posted by Aik TC:
Buddhism did not start out as a philosophy. It is the revelation of one man through his personal experience of life, that experience was then in later centuries put to words, complied and later become what we called the Suttas. The Abdhidhamma, a later compilation is the philosophical aspect of the Suttas, setting out to explain and analyze the early Buddhist teachings in a logical and systematic way. This is the first stage in the development of Buddhism itself. It is a doctrine of the Saint.
Buddhism became what we called a religion during the second period of its development when the Mahayanist forsake the ideal of a human Buddha and replace it with a divine Buddha in a Nirvana full of life. Instead of just individual salvation, it is replaced by the ideal of Universal salvation of every life. The Buddha here ceased to be human, under the name of his Body of Highest Bliss (Sambhogakaya), he became a God. He however was not the Creator of the world.
Buddhism is a religion of Experience to this day and that is why the practice of Meditation is such an essential part of the religion itself.
To me, Buddhism is a philosophy because it began with examining a fundamental problem – ‘birth, aging, sickness and death’. And this issue is connected with existence. The 1st Noble Truth states: Existence is Suffering. This is arrived at by theorising in deep contemplation. It did not come about by some practice or experience. Prince Siddhartha was searching for wisdom – to know ‘what is life or existence’, and why there is ‘aging, sickness and death’. Expanding this further (Dependent Origination), it was about ‘old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair’. Prince Siddhartha indeed was searching for insights as to what irks this world.
Appended here is the definition of philosophy plucked from Wikipedia:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".
Originally posted by sinweiy:
conventional speaking, medicine may be different for different sick people, hence the different Buddhism school. yet ultimately speaking, disatisfaction苦 is still a core illness for all people, no matter what religion/no religion, race, gender u are.and Buddha's 4 noble truth is perfect, even in all school of Buddhism.
no other person/founder pin this root problem. 4 noble truth is not philosophy though.
happiness can become disatisfaction苦, but disatisfaction苦 cannot become happiness. hence disatisfaction苦 is true/real. and happiness is false/unreal.
/\
I don't understand 'medicine may be different for different sick people'. A doctor’s role is to prescribe the most effective medication for the sick. Therefore, what works for one patient may not work for another. This example is a poor illustration of what you are trying to say (if I get it correctly) that different Buddhist traditions are meant for different Buddhists but they are the same because the 'Four Noble Truths' is the same for all.
If the 'Four Noble Truths' is not philosophy then what is it?