How many of those did the Buddha reconise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
Actually, isn't Shojo a Japanese God, or something?
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by atheotes
Printable View
How many of those did the Buddha reconise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
Actually, isn't Shojo a Japanese God, or something?
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by atheotes
Do you think Buddha preached those gods or that, when Buddhism spread, those who accepted it retained their local gods as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Actually I just googled it Shojo has 5 meanings. Depending on the emphases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Shōjo: Young girl (7-18)
Shōjō: Sea spirit with a fondness for booze and covered in red hair, also Orangutan
Shojo: Female virgin
Shojō: Letter or message
Also there is a Buddhist temple in Japan called Shōjō-ji. So no Japanese god called Shojo. Also I picked up from the Simpson's (when Lisa converted to Buddhism) that it accepts all forms of belief in so far as they line up with Buddhist beliefs. And Buddhism talks of beings who are god like compared to humans but not necessarily wiser. So really there are potentially dozens of Buddhist gods. Whom are local gods that the local sect has pick-up over the centuries.
Yes they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullhead
Really? What do they do?Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Which Buddha? Siddharta Gautama, or Gautama Buddha?Quote:
How many of those did the Buddha reconise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
Actually, isn't Shojo a Japanese God, or something?
These seven Gods I mentioned weren't picked from the sky. They are the Seven Lucky Gods, who have characteristics that are typical of Japanese Buddhism, some with Japanese origins, some with Indian origins and some with Chinese origins.Quote:
Do you think Buddha preached those gods or that, when Buddhism spread, those who accepted it retained their local gods as well?
Run temples, perform ceremonies and exorcisms, mostly; it's pretty cool stuff.Quote:
Really? What do they do?
I don't get it. Why the squabble over a term.
Religion might refer to something more specific in the West. Out here Buddhism is a religion. Who says that a religion requires its own deities or that they need to be immortal Gods?? Buddhists probably don't believe in deities, but they believe in a higher state of being. They believe in Buddha.
But did Buddha preach those gods?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
That may be so, the article writer didn't make such a distinction.Quote:
Originally Posted by rajpoot
Ah, but what Buddha?
Because the term "religion" means something in the Western mind which does not, really, include the beliefs held by the majority of Buddhists.Quote:
Originally Posted by rajpoot
If you look at Western Religions you have Christianity and Judaism (and now Islam) on one side and the various folk-traditions on the other but they all have something in common; sooner or later you get back to the Creator God, be he YHWH, Yule, the Allfather or whatever the Wiccans are calling their chief God these days. Another thing they all have in common is a beginning and an end. A God created the world and a God will destroy it when the time comes.
By contrast Buddhism doesn't do "God" in anything like the same sense - in so far as there are "Gods" they are being on a higher plane of existence, NOT the creators of this plane and time is cyclical, as is life.
It's a completely different way of thinking about the world, and if a European labels it a "religion" what he is trying to do it fit it into his existing schema rather than expand his conceptions.
It's very easy, for example, for HoreTore to label Buddhism a "religion" because to him it's just as much rubbish as Christianity and in the same way labeling it a "religion" serves the agenda of Christian etc. leaders because then they can call the Dali Lama His Holiness and group him with the Pope even though the two offices have more to seperate them than unite them.
But then, if I've understood correctly, the debate should be about how does one define religion.
The page on Wikipedia IMO, gives a satisfactory definition.
I read it - I think it's anachronistic - I'm particularly suspicious of their etymology of "religion" as I happen to know that during the middle ages "religion" meant a "rule men live by", i.e. a Monastic order - as opposed to the "secular" which were ordinary priests.Quote:
Originally Posted by rajpoot
In any case, that page is very Western in outlook - just because it groups every system of belief under "religion" doesn't mean they have much in common at all.
Wrong thread!
The first line -
I found it fitting.Quote:
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.
Now I agree with what you're saying here. The various religions of the world don't have much in common aside from some fundamental similarities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
IMO though, it's those basic morals and values, that every layman can understand himself, that count, and not what other 'learned' men interpret them as, or derive from them.
Anyhow, I do believe I'm derailing the discussion. So I'll stop.
The sense of holiness is enough for me to label something a religion. That means buddhism is a religion. I see absolutely no need whatsoever for the "beginning and end"-stuff.
On that note, it also means that I don't regard scientology as a religion. But whatever, who cares abiut the loonies.
I do find it funny that the one who has previously called things like socialism and football "a religion", doesn't want to call buddhism a religion. In PVC's mind, everyone has a religion. Except buddhists, it seems...
Define "holiness"Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
No, I don't believe I have.Quote:
I do find it funny that the one who has previously called things like socialism and football "a religion", doesn't want to call buddhism a religion. In PVC's mind, everyone has a religion. Except buddhists, it seems...
I may have said that Socialism is "like a Religion" in that it offers a promise of a better future, and then criticised it for trying to change people to create that future on Earth.
Football - I can't recall anything I have ever said about football, except for the one time I mentioned a study which showed that men became tribalistic about football in the absense of any other "manly" outlet.
I think you are conflating me with other posters.
Even if I perhaps did at some point write "socialism is a religion" it would have been a term of scorn and derision, like saying "American Idol is a religion" - so your criticism rings hollow regardless, as I actually have respect for Buddhist beliefs, but not Socialist ones.
I can't define holinessm as it's not something I experience.
But I hear tell you religious folks are doing it. Including buddhists.
Is it the same thing - in a Christian context "holiness" would be a oneness with the will of God, i.e. a willing and diligent obedience. His Holyness the Dali Lama is actually a higher being, which is why he can choose whether or not to reincarnate (he has decided not to). Basically, he has more in common, metaphysically, with Jesus than the Pope.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Thank Mother Church I have religion that believes in incusivism so I don't have to walk around looking at people and thinking in my mind they go to hell.
There's a great series of talks by translator John Peacock called "Buddhism Before Theravada" which get to the root of what Buddha was doing and why, and how it became what it is today.
http://www.audiodharma.org/series/207/talk/2602/
It's 5 hours of lectures, but time very well spent for anyone who is interesed. Without a doubt Peacock is one of the few westeners who is actually qualified to make such interpretations. The long and short of what he says is this:
The word "Buddhism" does not exist in any texts; it's a much later invention, and if it was to be translated it would be best translated as "wake up ism"
Buddhists in the countries which follow the older Pali texts: Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Burma, Sri Lanka, are basically 100% practicing thru the lense of the Visuddhimagga, a massive treatise on Buddhism which was written in the 5th Century by a guy named Buddhaghosa. Peacock maintains that Buddhaghosa was not privy to the social and political climate that Buddhism was originally formed in, and thus there were a great number of finner points of the Buddha Dharma that Buddhaghosa misinterpreted or simply did not understand.
Peacock also maintains that over the course of many centuries Buddhism (especially in the countries not following the Pali cannon) has basically become re-infectied with a type of Brahmanism; this gradual shift has allowed various deities and rituals to creep into the original form of Buddhism which was formed largely as a satire of Brahmanism and contained no trace of worshiping deities, but instead placed deities in the same (but more refined) situation as humans and all other life forms which are trapped on the wheel of samsara.
Peacock also states that the Buddhism which is practiced in China, Korea, and Japan came about as sort of merging of Buddha Dharma and Taoism.
That's about the size of it, atleast according to Peacock. I'll take is word for it; compaired to myself or anyone else here his credentials are hopelessly impeccable...
The only critism I'd make of the lectures is that I don't think Peacock touches enough upon the huge influence that Greece had upon earily Buddhism. As far as I understand it, the entire idea of representing Buddha as statues, in tapestries and in other art forms 100% came from the Greeks. Before the Greeks came into the picture there are no records whatsoever of any physical representations of the Buddha. And the influence went both directions: it has also been said that Buddhist monks sent emissaries to the west during that era and that the Greek word "therapeutic" actually is attributated to the Theraputa (Theravada Monks) who visited Greece during the Ashoka period and apparently made quite an impression.
Was that an "I'm so awsome" post or are you having a dig at someone?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
If the latter, I'm not sure who.
Not everything is an insult Phillips. It is something that when I look at my faith I'm truly happyQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
About. Religions that believe in inclusivity or predestination seems horrible to me
On this board, things generally are an insult, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Still you're contradicting yourself, you said you were glad to believe in an "inclusive religion" - now you find such religions horrible?
In any case, that doesn't add anything to the topic at hand.
That fact that you like your religion is not surprising - I quite like mine as it happens, and one presumes that Hax enjoys his (whether it actually is a religion, or not).
I think he might mean exclusivity.
To be honest, the last couple of months I've drifted away further and further from spirituality as a whole. I don't know.Quote:
That fact that you like your religion is not surprising - I quite like mine as it happens, and one presumes that Hax enjoys his (whether it actually is a religion, or not).
Oh dear - so you are not happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
If you were a Christian I would call this an episode of "Dark night of the soul".
Buddhism is termed a religion in Australia.
A lot of Christians like to say Christianity is not a religion "It's a personal relationship with God."
End of the day:
Faith
Temples
Charity
Tithes
Rituals
Robes
Belief
Beautiful Artwork
Etc
Ah yes thank you Hax I meant exclusivism I don't k ow why I said inclusivism. Yeah I thank the church for that much at least. It just seems the world would be much sadder if you had inclusivism beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Sorry - I think you're confused again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
"Exclusivism" would be where you exclude people outside your religion from getting into heaven.
I think this is an issue of idiocy on my Part. And to think I just wrote a term paper for my
Theology class on this sort of thing. Regardless you understand my point, I'm a catholic everyone gets into heaven through inclusivism etc. and that it legitimately seems it would be hard to have exclusivism principles in day to say life.
Wrap up- meant Exclusivism in the earlier post and then meant that I Ollie a church which supports inclusivism
You shouldn't listen to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Well, that settles it :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
*nods eagerly*Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1