[TimothyLeary]

Well,I like buddhism too, Im not a buddhist, but I like their way of thinking( Maybe like Naren says, I just don't know them well, so I'm confused, lol.

Anyway, I like the way that buddhism explain the mind, and how the world works, and people tend to be and act. I don't follow so much the part that's remind me religion, because I don't like religions verey much, so I can say that I divide the buddhism in two parts, the "religion" part and the more "technically/cientific?" part?!

Maybe Naren can help me with this.

(Sorry for the poor english.)

[Mattayus]

Well that's the impression i get from it too, it's not so self absorbed and sanctimonious as other religions on first impressions. All religion has its dark side and indoctrination etc. But Buddhism just seems less harmful in that sense. But, if we're to view Naran's learnings then things like this shouldn't be viewed entirely from its facade!

[Durero]

If you're interested Matt, I've taken this course on meditation which is given according to the teachings of the historical Buddha. Vipassana Meditation Website

It's strictly a course on practical meditation skills, and is not religious in any way. It's very challenging to get through, but also one of the healthiest and most beneficial things I've ever experienced. The goal is to learn the meditation techniques at the course and then continue to practice them at home each day, which I try to do with as much consistency as I can.

[Trespass]

I think your missing the point of religion guys The point is not what is most appeasing, what follows its own rules the most etc. The point is doing something to go somewhere after you die, of which there is only one answer. If you follow Buddhism, do all you can do and end up going to the Christian Hell, then obviously you fucked up

Anyways, I've taken quite a few different religious studies courses, privately, in the church, in the Catholic schooling system (which had the worst and most incorrect study, I spent most of the course correcting the teacher) on Catholicism, Protestantism, Christianity in general, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism, and have further continued my studies by debating with all my close athiest friend and girlfriend. And little is stronger in an argument than knowing what the fuck your talking about

Anyhow, it is interesting to note the Buddha detested organized religion, and therefore I believe thats reason enough that Mahayana Buddhism (which is the most popular similiar sect of Buddhism comparable to mainsteam religions) is incorrect, as they idolize Buddhas and Bodhisattva's as gods and angels.

The Buddha, as I have read from a number of different sources and from speaking with my debout Buddhist friend, saw his teachings as more of philosophies of the world and the universe. His observation of the world and how it interacted around him lead him to discern his philosophies with logic and I suppose as close to scientific reasoning as you can get in fourth or fifth century.

Well. Thats enough for today. Vajrayana Buddhism is awesome. The end.

Originally Posted by Naren

That's what makes that sect of Buddhism so different from everything else. Buddhism as a whole is the complete opposite of nihilism.

Zen is the Japanese version of Chinese Ch'an Buddhism which was popular around 1100 or 1200 AD, but then quickly lost popularity in China but got incredibly popular in Japan and still remains popularity in Japan to this day.

I've never heard of the form of Zen that you're talking about, but there are tons of sects in Japanese Buddhism and then tons and tons of sub-sects of Zen Buddhism.

Technically "mu" is a negation word. It is written with the same symbol that is used to mean "nothing," "not," "no," and so on. In ko-ans, it is generally used to mean "no" or in a broader sense "nothing." It is a word oftentimes used by the people of the nothing principle. However, simply using "mu" does not mean that you are a believer of that said principle.

Here is an interesting interpretation of that dog ko-an, stating that "mu" means neither "yes" nor "no" and that there is no answer:

There is an answer, but it is not yes or no, nor nothingness. Mu has no meaning in itself and therefore brings on a deeper meaning.
Kensho is a religious experience so you can't really understand it with theoretical thinking.
I think the very essence in buddhism lies in this koan, and to truly understand buddhism you need to "solve" it. But that's just my experience.

Sorry it's morning.

[Nerina]

* Nerina begins to read this thread from the begining........

Originally Posted by Trespass

The Buddha, as I have read from a number of different sources and from speaking with my debout Buddhist friend, saw his teachings as more of philosophies of the world and the universe. His observation of the world and how it interacted around him lead him to discern his philosophies with logic and I suppose as close to scientific reasoning as you can get in fourth or fifth century.

Well. Thats enough for today. Vajrayana Buddhism is awesome. The end.

Vajrayana is even worst then mahayana, they have all sorts of tantric and esoteric stuff. In very short ways and without painting the entire picture vajrayana is the mix between buddhism and the original religion of tibet, they still have shamans and stuff like that.

There is a philosophical side to buddhism, but even in the therevada there is a whole bunch of crap with alternative universes, mental planes, reincarnation and all that stuff.

[Mattayus]

well yeah that's what separates them most distinctively though isn't it, the method upon which you reach Enlightenment. Theravada taking many life-times, Mahayana and other secs state you can do it in just one, which is where i think it self-suits the most, as Naran was pointing out.

Trespass, i wasn't saying it's better or worse than other religions, no religion is without flaws, i just use the example of deity appeasement as its my biggest dislike within most religions. I think it detracts from the world and makes people lose focus, and is a dangerous game to play when people start becoming sanctimonious

[Naren]

Originally Posted by Desecrated

There is an answer, but it is not yes or no, nor nothingness. Mu has no meaning in itself and therefore brings on a deeper meaning.
Kensho is a religious experience so you can't really understand it with theoretical thinking.
I think the very essence in buddhism lies in this koan, and to truly understand buddhism you need to "solve" it. But that's just my experience.

Sorry it's morning.

I strongly disagree. "Mu" does have a meaning in itself (several actually). It just does not have an English equivalent.

I find it funny that you think the essence of all Buddhism comes from a small sect of Mahayana Buddhism, Ch'an (the original Chinese version of Zen), that didn't even survive 200 years.

I could pick some random ko-an of my own and claim that no one understands Buddhism unless they can understand that particular ko-an. And most ko-an don't even have a correct answer, anyway. They're just supposed to make you think... and most of the time they make you think about nonsense.

But the truth is every Buddhist sect understands Buddhism differently. I'm sure some of them go around claiming that everyone who doesn't belong to their sect doesn't understand Buddhism, but that's just nonsense.

Originally Posted by Mattayus

well yeah that's what separates them most distinctively though isn't it, the method upon which you reach Enlightenment. Theravada taking many life-times, Mahayana and other secs state you can do it in just one, which is where i think it self-suits the most, as Naran was pointing out.

Mahayana - in general - also takes many many many lifetimes to reach enlightenment. It's just that Mahayana has several sects inside it, such as the Pure Land sect, that believe that it is possible to reach enlightenment within one lifetime. The original Theravada believes that this is impossible. In Pure Land, for example, you can reach enlightenment by chanting "Namu Amida-butsu!" over and over and over and over again. In that way, it's a lot like catholicism.

Originally Posted by Mattayus

Trespass, i wasn't saying it's better or worse than other religions, no religion is without flaws, i just use the example of deity appeasement as its my biggest dislike within most religions. I think it detracts from the world and makes people lose focus, and is a dangerous game to play when people start becoming sanctimonious

If that's how you feel, you shouldn't like Buddhism at all. Mahayana Buddhism particularly is very very into worshipping buddhas and bodhisattvas.

Also, many sects of Buddhism believe that this world is an illusion. Or something along those lines. So they just ignore everything in this world. Ignore people.

Buddhism may not go around killing people who don't believe as they do. But they also don't go around feeding the poor, helping the sick, and so on like religions such as Christianity do. Death is simply the beginning of another cycle.

[Mattayus]

like most religions then really huh.
So, did Buddhists write the Matrix?