Buddhism

[2dimes]

Figured I'd make a thread to prevent further dilution of the apocolipse preperation thread. Also some civil discussion/bickering on the subject should be interesting.

I'm not thoroughly versed in it but did dabble when I was seeking religion and have read small bits from, "the collective written works of buddhism" I found in the drawer of a low end room of a high end hotel once.

The only perfect Buddhist on record is Buddha himself.

This information contradicts things I have read and heard. Which buddha do you refer to? I don't know them anymore but am aware of three that are credited as buddhas and have heard there were more.

The happy round one the chinese statue depicts is one.

The other most commonly known and typically refered to as buddha was an East Indian who attained enlightenment through extreme self deprivation, hence being a solemn thin guy.

[Frigidus]

Figured I'd make a thread to prevent further dilution of the apocolipse preperation thread. Also some civil discussion/bickering on the subject should be interesting.

I'm not thoroughly versed in it but did dabble when I was seeking religion and have read small bits from, "the collective written works of buddhism" I found in the drawer of a low end room of a high end hotel once.

The only perfect Buddhist on record is Buddha himself.

This information contradicts things I have read and heard. Which buddha do you refer to? I don't know them anymore but am aware of three that are credited as buddhas and have heard there were more.

The happy round one the chinese statue depicts is one.

The other most commonly known and typically refered to as buddha was an East Indian who attained enlightenment through extreme self deprivation, hence being a solemn thin guy.

I might be completely wrong about this, but I think that it refers to all Buddha. Perhaps it has something to do with becoming a singularity?

[2dimes]

It might be that there's only one recorded as being buddha. The other ones while known in certain circles as buddha might not be recorded anywhere.

I'm hoping 'dagip' or someone that knows will comment.

[Snorri1234]

The happy round one the chinese statue depicts is one.

The other most commonly known and typically refered to as buddha was an East Indian who attained enlightenment through extreme self deprivation, hence being a solemn thin guy.

Those are the same budha I believe, just at different times.

[2dimes]

They are actually two distinct individuals with quite a few differences, one is double the other's wieght for example. The chinese one is recorded as being a buddha but possibly not by the official sanctioning body. Is there an official sanctioning body?

[Snorri1234]

They are actually two distinct individuals with quite a few differences, one is double the other's wieght for example.

Well obviously, but if I remember correctly the fat budha is him after he's achieved enlightement.

Whatever, i don't know.

[khazalid]

im pretty sure that they are multiple supposed incarnations of buddha. he is reborn as is everyone else, and i guess into different forms.

[Snorri1234]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laughing_Buddha

Also, there seems to be a list of 28 buddhas on wikipedia and it also claims that technically the number of buddhas is very, very big.

[DaGip]

The term Buddha means The Awakened One. Technically, we are all Buddha, but we are just sleeping. I know this is quite metaphoric, but I believe it lends to the point. Many people are indeed Buddhas but others are unaware of it. The Buddhas that make themselves known and explain their teachings to help others obtain enlightenment are referred to as the perfect Buddha, the Buddha who has perfected his/her knowledge and wisdom so that others may, in like, obtain enlightenment.

The most recently recorded Buddha that we know of is the Buddha I was referring to, but all the others can be included as well.

Buddha-hood is a state of consciousness. We all have a certain level of understanding that is in tune with that particular consciousness. We all experience things in our lives that emanate from this consciousness of being. Let's also keep in mind that Buddhas are people and, therefore, have differing ways of looking at the world from their own human experience; but the underlying foundation is the same: the Universe is in a natural state of love and compassion, not of hate and ruthlessness.

The proof the Buddhists lend to us is that our natural state of being is one of peace, love, and joy. When we are calm, we are at peace, and all the negative emotions we may have had tend to drift away. The state of love is the eternal force as opposed to the state of fear, which is considered superficial in its existence; just as a cut on the finger is but a superficial wound to the body, eventually the body will heal and forget the cut. Our spiritual bodies are the same. They become wounded by negative influences from our environments and we tend to put up these superficial emotional walls around our consciousness which are designed to try to keep those negative experiences from happening again. The equivalent would be if I cut my finger I should immediately go out and buy some brick and mortar and build a wall around myself to protect me from those things that can hurt me.

This solution, as you can see, is quite ridiculous. If we cut our finger, all we need do is calm down and cope with the pain--accept it as part of reality, and clean the wound and use a bandage for a day or two. But people that have emotional problems hold on to these bandages their whole lives, not knowing that they can throw them away.

Those individuals that have obtained wisdom in dealing with these negative life issues and have communicated this knowledge to others are of great importance. But let it be known that a Buddha does not return. When he dies, that is it, he or she will never come back again. That is the purpose of enlightenment, to liberate a being from suffering; and to do this successfully, the being must break the cycle of birth, growth, suffering, death, and rebirth.

Once the enlightened being leaves this world, he/she enters into the state of Nirvana (which I have been calling the Hyper Consciousness or HC). Only those beings that have not obtained full enlightenment ever return in another body. So the question is then, who is more important to the enlightenment of other sentient beings? Buddha or those that are almost Buddha but choose to return in another body to keep teaching the lessons of enlightenment. The Buddha is important, for the teachings stem down from him or her, but the Bodhisavatta (who chooses to remain for the soul purpose to teach enlightenment) is in some aspects more important than the actual Buddha.

So, let's get this clear:

The Buddha does not ever return via the process of reincarnation
The Bodhisavatta can choose to become a Buddha at anytime, but in the act of compassion to other sentient beings, he/she chooses to return and continue the teachings of enlightenment.

The Dali Lama is considered a Bodhisavatta, as he has been reincarnated into many bodies over many years to continue the teachings of enlightenment, but he is not a Buddha. But his work is in many ways greater than that of the Buddha.

I hope that clarifies some of the distinctions.

[muy_thaiguy]

Also, there were 2 distinct types of Buddhism, I don't remember the exact details, but one is more in the Northern areas (China and Japan) and the other is more isolated to the southern areas (Malaysia, Thailand, etc). The kind that is most common in the West is that of China and Japan (to clarify on the statue bit, it just depends on the country or culture is all). Also, the original Buddha was Siddartha Guatama of India, which is where it began, though you wouldn't know it by todays standards there. Hope this also clarifies a bit as well.

[InkL0sed]

Also, there were 2 distinct types of Buddhism, I don't remember the exact details, but one is more in the Northern areas (China and Japan) and the other is more isolated to the southern areas (Malaysia, Thailand, etc). The kind that is most common in the West is that of China and Japan (to clarify on the statue bit, it just depends on the country or culture is all). Also, the original Buddha was Siddartha Guatama of India, which is where it began, though you wouldn't know it by todays standards there. Hope this also clarifies a bit as well.

Uh... I'm pretty sure there are way more forms of Buddhism than just two.

[DaGip]

Also, there were 2 distinct types of Buddhism, I don't remember the exact details, but one is more in the Northern areas (China and Japan) and the other is more isolated to the southern areas (Malaysia, Thailand, etc). The kind that is most common in the West is that of China and Japan (to clarify on the statue bit, it just depends on the country or culture is all). Also, the original Buddha was Siddartha Guatama of India, which is where it began, though you wouldn't know it by todays standards there. Hope this also clarifies a bit as well.

Uh... I'm pretty sure there are way more forms of Buddhism than just two.

You are correct, there are many different forms of Buddhism, but I believe what the Wyoming guy was speaking about was the schism of beliefs that occurred after Siddartha's demise. I am not exactly sure when it happened but the dispute was over basically the principles of enlightenment.

Mahayana Buddhism and Theravada Buddhism.

Let's see if I can explain the differences, but truthfully all the metaphysical stuff doesn't matter. Buddha himself said so. And it makes sense. That which is unexperienced to us is a waste of our intellect and time to delve into as we can never truly know a particular experience until we have attained that level of enlightenment. To have someone tell you about metaphysical principles is like someone telling you what orange juice is and you never ever having experienced orange juice your entire life. Sure, it is orange colored and tastes sweet, but you will never truly know what orange juice is until you can experience it yourself.

Theravada Buddhism believes that the greatest goal of enlightenment is to become an Arahant/Bohdi/Buddha, that is (as I explained in the above post) someone that has attained enlightenment and is no longer bound to the cycles of birth, growth, suffering, death, and rebirth.

Mahayana Buddhism, I believe broke off from the original belief and began to uphold the tenants that the Bohdi or Buddha was not the greatest goal that an individual could attain, but the Bohdisattva was. As I explained in the above post, the Bohdisattva chooses not to enter into Nirvana (though he or she could easily do so), but chooses to remain within the cycle of birth, growth, suffering, death, and rebirth so that he/she can continue teaching other sentient beings the principles of enlightenment. And thereby liberate as many beings as he/she can until he/she should allow him or herself to enter into Nirvana.

I am partial to the Mahayana tradition.

So whatever form of Buddhism you belong to, it will have at its core either the Theravada or the Mahayana tradition. I would have to do more research to grasp which ones are associated with either of these two traditions.

I know that the Shin branch of Buddhism, the one I was introduced to in Hawaii, is Mahayana based. The Shin Buddhists were really cool, as they practiced what is called the layman's way to enlightenment. They are Japanese Buddhists and are not entirely vegetarian, which was a bit of a surprise. I would have to do more research into this form of Buddhism, as these people were really cool to me (the Christians I met were really mean to me, go figure?)

I haven't thought about Buddhism for awhile, and this thread is giving me a chance to research into it more.

[muy_thaiguy]

Yeah, I was thinking about the schism between them, that's what I meant. But it is true, all of the Buddhist types stem from either Mahayana or Theravada.

[LoeNY]

Mahayana Buddhism, I believe broke off from the original belief and began to uphold the tenants that the Bohdi or Buddha was not the greatest goal that an individual could attain, but the Bohdisattva was. As I explained in the above post, the Bohdisattva chooses not to enter into Nirvana (though he or she could easily do so), but chooses to remain within the cycle of birth, growth, suffering, death, and rebirth so that he/she can continue teaching other sentient beings the principles of enlightenment. And thereby liberate as many beings as he/she can until he/she should allow him or herself to enter into Nirvana.

I think you're partially correct. I am also a Buddhist. This is what I found from Wikipedia:
"In addition, most Mahayana schools believe in a pantheon of quasi-divine Bodhisattvas (菩薩) that devote themselves to personal excellence, ultimate knowledge, and the salvation of humanity and all other sentient beings (animals, ghosts, demigods, etc.). Zen Buddhism is a school of Mahayana which often de-emphasizes the pantheon of Bodhisattvas and instead focuses on the meditative aspects of the religion. In Mahayana, the Buddha is seen as the ultimate, highest being, present in all times, in all beings, and in all places, and the Bodhisattvas come to represent the universal ideal of altruistic excellence."

"Many “philosophical” schools and sutras of Mahayana Buddhism have focused on the nature of enlightenment and nirvana itself, from the Madhyamika (中観派) and its rival, Yogacara (瑜伽行), to the Tathagatagarbha (如來藏) teachings and Zen (禪宗)."

"The various divisions of Buddhism understand the word bodhisattva in different ways, but especially in Mahayana Buddhism, it mainly refers to a being that compassionately refrains from entering nirvana in order to save others."

"Some scholars have argued that Mahayana was a movement of lay Buddhists focused around stupa devotion. Pictures within the wall of a stupa representing the story of the Buddha and his previous reincarnation as a bodhisattva were used to preach Buddhism to the masses."

This is what I found from http://www.humboldt.edu
"As seen from the Mahayana point of view, the arhant (a person is not reborn after biological death into any samsaric realm) ideal is worthy enough (as far as it goes), but since it places an emphasis on the spiritual achievement of one's self, it does not embrace directly enough the suffering of others and the importance of Buddhism as a vehicle that was intended by the Buddha to liberate all sentient beings from suffering."