Originally posted by onycho
Buddhism is atheistic the way Chemistry is atheistic. Non-theistic is a better description. As far as I know, Buddha didn't make statements about the creation of the universe. That's not what Buddhism is about. It's about commoning to know, at the absolute most basic level, who you are.
Questions:
1) If the Budda didn't make statements or concerns about creation, then how can one (the individual) know who they are without having knowledge of being created?
Since when does who you are have anything to do with the origin of the universe? Even if Buddha had said it, why would that dictate me believing it. He was a teacher. A great teacher, but still just a teacher. Do you believe everything your teachers tell you?
2) If Buddhism is non-theistic by definition, why did the Buddhist Mahayanists as apposed to Theravada Buddists believe in Buddha as a trinity of gods?
I am a Mahayana Buddhist [Zen/Rinzai sect]. The reference you have isn't from a Mahayana Buddhist school. Do you get most of your information about Christianity from Jewish Scholars?
My teacher has said, on more than one occasion, that if you are doing this (our Buddhist practice) to escape [the world, your troubles, etc.] then your better off doing drugs. Buddhism isn't an escape. Nothing that engenders the pain that Buddhist retreats do, could ever be confused with escape, anymore than considering Marine boot camp 'escaping from reality'. The only thing Buddism could be said to teach you to escape is suffering.
Questions:
1) Is
suffering innate in the Buddhist belief of reality that must necessarily be a part of each earthly existence?
Didn't you read anything I said? Pain is part of life, suffering is optional.
2) Is Buddhist 'escaping from suffering' comparable to those who escape their own world of suffering by joining the French Foreign Legion?
No, again, you didn't even read what I wrote. If these questions are to learn something, or to understand what I'm saying, then perhaps you should actually read them.
Enlightenment and Nirvana, have been misinterpreted by Westerners, early on, as some form of heaven or mindless escape. Humans are constantly conflicted by disparate goals of different parts of the mind. You know you shouldn't smoke, but want another cigarette; you know a juicy cheeseburger will raise your cholesterol, but your mouth waters; you want to be faithful to your spouse, but are attracted to your neighbor's spouse...
Do the Tantric Buddhists believe in using drugs, eating dung, etc to escape suffering as opposed to Theravada Buddhism?
I've never studied tantra. I am not the best authority to answer questions on Tantric Buddhism, so I'll leave that to someone who is.
Enlightenment, or self-realization, among other things is having the disparate parts of your mind come to an understanding. There is a Buddhist book out by the title 'Nothing Special'. It refers to enlightenment. And old Zen saying is: "Before enlightment, you chop wood and fetch water, after enlightenment, you chop wood and fetch water". Westerners, and most anyone that's not familiar with it, have a very skewed view of it.
Is 'Enlightenment' or self-realization attained by intuition or by intellectualization?
Meditation, [hopefully] leading to an experience of self-realization. Intuition could be considered a very strong part of it, in my school. Intellectualization would be an extremely hazardous path to enlightenment.
How does Zen Buddhism compare with Tantric or Theravada Buddhism in obtaining an escape from 'suffering?'
All seek an escape of suffering. Not of the pain that is thought to cause the suffering. The methods are different, the goal is the same.
It is a very profound experience, don't get me wrong, just not in the way you think. I've had a kensho experience (sort of a glimpse of enlightenment), while everything is quite ordinary at the same time it's like finding out you've been extremely tense all your life and all of a sudden you're completely, utterly relaxed.
Is the ultimate enlightnment of Buddhism the equivalent of being under general anesthesia of surgery where a level of consciousness is acheieved with a total loss of 'suffering' and while reaching a true level of understanding or Kensho?
Not in my understanding of what your asking.
Some terminally ill people have been introduced to LSD. Some, after the experience, find the pain of their illness, no longer matters. It's still there, it just doesn't control their lives any longer. This is analogous, though the cause is different.
You aren't escaping pain, hunger, etc. What you come to realize is that pain doesn't equal suffering. Pain is inescapable in life, suffering is optional. Attachment to desire is what generates suffering, attachment to desire for freedom from pain, attachment to the desire to have new Red Rider BB gun on Christmas morning and only getting a bicycle. Sitting in a doctors office a long time, a minor headache could cause a lot of suffering, yet the same person may barely notice the pain of getting burned while trying to save their child from a burning building.
Do you not experience pain or suffering immediately after being shot or as I am told when one is blown to smithereens by a bomb blast? A level of true enlightenment is achieved so to speak without meditation.
You haven't even read the paragraph - pain yes, suffering no. The two aren't equivalent.
Enlightenment can be reach via paths that don't include meditation. But as I understand, they have an extremely low percentage of folks that can attain it, via that path. I know of one that attained it by being poisoned and almost killed. Not a path I'd opt for first.
You learn you do not have to suffer. You learn that you are not part of the whole, but are the whole. You don't harm others anymore than you harm yourself. You have compassion for others, just as you care for your own body parts. This isn't learned from something someone tells you, but from what you discover during your practice of meditation.
A thought just came to me in a moment of meditation. As an example, the millions of innocent men, women and children in the Nazi concentration camps suffered mightly but according to Buddhism could simply have escaped this suffering by simply meditating with an understanding that they were a part of the whole. I guess that they didn't discover this fact in time as their suffering was based on their beliefs in a G-d. I guess they weren't enlightened.
Ah, is this a little abuse? Does your creed say it's ok to try to verbally antagonize someone, simply because they believe differently? I guess it's an easier path than logical discussion.
There are so many argument flaws in your paragraph, I'm not sure where I'd start to list them. Straw-man, to be sure, Ad-hominem, obviously, non-sequituir and Red-herring, yep, they are their too. Appeal to the masses, yes. Appeal to the weak, yep. I didn't think anyone could fit that many flaws in that small a paragraph, you should be proud.
"Part of the Mahayana vow is to save (lead to enlightenment) all sentient beings."
If you are a Mahayana Buddhist, do you vow to save all sentient beings? Is meditation enough to do this or must you actually do something active in this world to act on your vow?
Action and meditation.
By the way, meditation is an active process. It's active and fairly difficult to do well. If you think it's easy, try sitting without any thoughts coming into your head for five minutes. If one does, start the five minute timer over. Repeat until you go the entire five minutes without a thought.
If you are a Mahanyana Buddhist, are you a trinitarian (Trikaya)?
Yes and no, respectively. In fact I know of no one that would answer yes to the latter. It sounds like a Theravaden misinterpretation of something in a Mayahana sutra.
Unlike other religions, there is no concept of sin or hard, fast rules. The behaviour falls out of the practice. There are rules set up to follow until you get to the place where practice shows you how to behave. Usually these are called precepts and are considered a type of vow - an intention to adhere to them.
You say there are no hard or fast rules but there are precepts or vow to attempt to adhere to. Since there is no G-d, why should you obtain enlightenment since it ultimately serves no purpose?
Well, if you start with the assumption that any action serves no purpose, without serving god, then I can see how you would believe that. However, your premise
since it ultimately serves no purpose is flawed.
These precepts (commandments) seem to maintain the appearance of a true religion even if denied.
I never said it wasn't a religion. Just that some in the west may not consider it so.
Breaking commandments is punishable by a deity. Who, but oneself, punishes you if a precept is broken? Certainly not god. Not your priest. Who?
The four noble truths aren't commandments or vows. Just what is believed to be so.
The eightfold path are ways toward enlightenment. To not follow them means, only, that you have a harder, if not impossible journey to enlightenment. I don't see these as sins. Do you?
