|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 7:41 pm
From what I've gathered from other threads, there is nothing beyond human comprehension in Buddhism. (There's nothing because we can't prove there's something and the like) Yet Buddhism coexists with other religions, Shintoism in particular. This seems to me to be a contradiction.
If there is nothing beyond human comprehension, there are no dieties. If there are no dieties, the kami can't exist.
Why, then, are there so many people that consider themself both Shinto and Buddhist?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 8:55 pm
Buddhism in and of itself isn't much of a religion, persay.
Day to day buddhist activities have nothing to do with religion and worship, so there is time for other religious activites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Akanishi Makoto Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:45 am
Beyond our realm of comprehension doesn't mean there's nothing else there - the Buddha and his followers deal with the 'supernatural' (and I use the term loosely, as if it exists, it's not supernatural at all, but natural) all the time in sutras. There are realms besides ours that can be seen by people with the eyes to see them - one of the manifold psychic powers discussed in scripture is the ability to see all the realms laid bare. Seeing what's just beyond the range of normal perception.
Plus, according to traditional Buddhist teachings, there are gods. A whole realm of 'em. They just don't really do much of anything for us. There's also the deva, spirits who protect and help things in our realm. Ever hear the old statement "for every blade of grass there is an angel standing over it, whispering 'grow, grow!' " - those are the deva.
The kami of Shinto could technically fit in Buddhist teaching as either the detatched gods who occasionally listen, or the nature-spirit deva, though they're more often considered Bodhisattva, I think, which is why they're so compassionate.
Or, we could just go with Akanishi's explination. Which I like too. biggrin
That idea let Buddhism pick up any number of local religions, and meld with them to become something new and wonderful. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 2:48 pm
It's important to know what is meant by terms like "realms" and "gods".
In a not-very-stringent use of the word, there are other realms. That's a given. Right now we're interacting in another "realm" through this message-board and through, appropriately enough, an "Avatar", originally a sanskrit word that essentially means "He who crosses down", ostencibly from one realm to another. If you'll pardon the pop-culture reference, it's not unlike The Matrix. But these aren't outside human comprehention.
Nor are Gods. We are Gods in respect to this message-board, and the Gods of Buddhist cosmology probably have a similar relationship with humans...we're not that big a deal.
But there's a one-big-realm that includes everything that is, and it's got a one-big-rule: Everything has a beginning, a middle, and an end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 5:59 pm
Harry Parachute It's important to know what is meant by terms like "realms" and "gods". In a not-very-stringent use of the word, there are other realms. That's a given. Right now we're interacting in another "realm" through this message-board and through, appropriately enough, an "Avatar", originally a sanskrit word that essentially means "He who crosses down", ostencibly from one realm to another. If you'll pardon the pop-culture reference, it's not unlike The Matrix. But these aren't outside human comprehention. Nor are Gods. We are Gods in respect to this message-board, and the Gods of Buddhist cosmology probably have a similar relationship with humans...we're not that big a deal. But there's a one-big-realm that includes everything that is, and it's got a one-big-rule: Everything has a beginning, a middle, and an end. True. And thanks again for sorting out things that I take for granted when I make posts about things like this, Harry. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 9:47 pm
Harry Parachute It's important to know what is meant by terms like "realms" and "gods". In a not-very-stringent use of the word, there are other realms. That's a given. Right now we're interacting in another "realm" through this message-board and through, appropriately enough, an "Avatar", originally a sanskrit word that essentially means "He who crosses down", ostencibly from one realm to another. If you'll pardon the pop-culture reference, it's not unlike The Matrix. But these aren't outside human comprehention. Nor are Gods. We are Gods in respect to this message-board, and the Gods of Buddhist cosmology probably have a similar relationship with humans...we're not that big a deal. But there's a one-big-realm that includes everything that is, and it's got a one-big-rule: Everything has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Yes, but what about time being cyclical? Also, if you were to watch something... like, oh, say a flower plant. You start watching it from a planted seed, and see it grow into a whole plant. If you never take your eyes off of it, you will not see any distinction between it being a seed and it being a plant, although your mind will have drawn arbitrary lines between such things, there is no distinction. The seed is the plant, and the plant is the seed. Now, if this flower were to bud, and you watched the bud with the same diligence as the plant itself, you would find no real distinction between the flower and the bud. A real simple example of this: look at yourself in a mirror. Is that the same face that looked back 10 years ago? Yes, it is, and... no it's not. Both at the same time. I don't know where I'm going with this point... but I'll just end here and wait for a reply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Akanishi Makoto Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:48 pm
To me, Buddhism can be mixed with other religions and philosophies, but only certain ones. For example, in my mind, there can be no such thing as a Christian buddhist, since, while some of the teachings complement each other, the teachings about God don't mesh. Christianity teaches there is an Omniscient God that created the world, everything in it, and is controlling what goes on, even now, while Buddhism teaches that such a being doesn't exist. However religions and philosophies like Shinto, Taoism, Yoga, and a few others complement Buddhism quite well. Myself, I'm a Buddhist, Shinto, Yogi. I follow Buddhism as my primary beleif system, but I incorporate a lot of teachings and beliefs from Shinto and Yoga. However, if I ever spend any time as a monastic (which I plan to at some point), I'll probably have to end up at least hiding my Shinto and Yogi influences, but I think I'll wait to deal with that until the time comes (if ever).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:43 pm
Akanishi Makoto Buddhism in and of itself isn't much of a religion, persay. Day to day buddhist activities have nothing to do with religion and worship, so there is time for other religious activites. Buddhism isn't a religion really... more like a way to live your life. So, it could be put into a philosohpy catagory also. Atleast thats what I belief.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:46 pm
From what I've gathered Buddhism and Shintoism are more lifestyles than religions. Its more about being a good person than worshipping a deity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:30 pm
Akanishi Makoto Harry Parachute It's important to know what is meant by terms like "realms" and "gods". In a not-very-stringent use of the word, there are other realms. That's a given. Right now we're interacting in another "realm" through this message-board and through, appropriately enough, an "Avatar", originally a sanskrit word that essentially means "He who crosses down", ostencibly from one realm to another. If you'll pardon the pop-culture reference, it's not unlike The Matrix. But these aren't outside human comprehention. Nor are Gods. We are Gods in respect to this message-board, and the Gods of Buddhist cosmology probably have a similar relationship with humans...we're not that big a deal. But there's a one-big-realm that includes everything that is, and it's got a one-big-rule: Everything has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Yes, but what about time being cyclical? Also, if you were to watch something... like, oh, say a flower plant. You start watching it from a planted seed, and see it grow into a whole plant. If you never take your eyes off of it, you will not see any distinction between it being a seed and it being a plant, although your mind will have drawn arbitrary lines between such things, there is no distinction. The seed is the plant, and the plant is the seed. Now, if this flower were to bud, and you watched the bud with the same diligence as the plant itself, you would find no real distinction between the flower and the bud. A real simple example of this: look at yourself in a mirror. Is that the same face that looked back 10 years ago? Yes, it is, and... no it's not. Both at the same time. I don't know where I'm going with this point... but I'll just end here and wait for a reply. Delayed reply, but still a reply. To put your observation in perspective to the "everything has a beginning, middle, and end", said statement is only conditionally true, provided we accept two propositions: 1. Time exists. 2. Things exist. In the absolute reality, if you think about your mentioned observations concerning the plant and your face in the mirror, both of those propositions are false. Time is dependent on perception, our perception is based our being, our being makes us a thing, and things depend on their place in time. So nevermind just the material world being an illusion...the entire phenomenological world self-destructs when it reflects on itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Akanishi Makoto Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:39 pm
Harry Parachute Delayed reply, but still a reply. To put your observation in perspective to the "everything has a beginning, middle, and end", said statement is only conditionally true, provided we accept two propositions: 1. Time exists. 2. Things exist. In the absolute reality, if you think about your mentioned observations concerning the plant and your face in the mirror, both of those propositions are false. Time is dependent on perception, our perception is based our being, our being makes us a thing, and things depend on their place in time. So nevermind just the material world being an illusion...the entire phenomenological world self-destructs when it reflects on itself. I understand what you mean perfectly! It makes more sense the way you explained it; we're on the same page it seems. I was saying that the "beginning, middle, end" of existence are only delineated by the monkey mind. There really is no "beginning" to existence and no "end" to existence. The middle is really all there is, or for that matter, ever was. Is that the same concept?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:15 am
Akanishi Makoto Harry Parachute Delayed reply, but still a reply. To put your observation in perspective to the "everything has a beginning, middle, and end", said statement is only conditionally true, provided we accept two propositions: 1. Time exists. 2. Things exist. In the absolute reality, if you think about your mentioned observations concerning the plant and your face in the mirror, both of those propositions are false. Time is dependent on perception, our perception is based our being, our being makes us a thing, and things depend on their place in time. So nevermind just the material world being an illusion...the entire phenomenological world self-destructs when it reflects on itself. I understand what you mean perfectly! It makes more sense the way you explained it; we're on the same page it seems. I was saying that the "beginning, middle, end" of existence are only delineated by the monkey mind. There really is no "beginning" to existence and no "end" to existence. The middle is really all there is, or for that matter, ever was. Is that the same concept? Kinda sorta. I think this is all a fancy way of fully realizing the regulating weight of a statement that's very easy to say and very hard to appreciate, or even accept. "There is what there is." Although that's a bit monistic and Hindu. The Buddhists, the "0" to the Hindu's "1" in the digital argument between the two Greater Religions of the East, take what they understand as the most sincere stance of this claim. "There is what there is...therefore, there isn't."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:19 am
Harry Parachute The Buddhists, the "0" to the Hindu's "1" in the digital argument between the two Greater Religions of the East, take what they understand as the most sincere stance of this claim. "There is what there is...therefore, there isn't." And yet, if you tell a teacher in Zen that you don't exist, you may get something along the lines of "Oh yeah? Hang on a second. *gets shinai* Okay, smart guy, if you don't exist, do you feel pain? *THWACK!*" xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
