THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION DEBATE
-
Is a true fact that secular group has a problem because of the existence of reincarnation / rebirth even science acknowledged it. Albeit, a compassionate and charitable one rise to heaven enjoying long lifespan and blessing. Having secularism aside. For instance, if all earth beings are Hindu and you are the only Jew or Christian or Buddhist or Muslim etc, would you be able to apply your teachings blissfully, comfortably, peacefully, harmoniously, humanely, gracefully and naturally into the community of Hindu and vice-verse. Conversely, it there is only one community such as Hindu or Muslim, will the entire one community (any) on the above scenario live in grace, peace and harmony, enjoying eternal bliss
-
^One universal religion? Now that's scary...
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
No wonder AEN needs more manpower to moderate this forum. Moderator of 3 main religions. Sounds great to me.
Usually I will remove people's posts if they talk about other religions. But I shall make an exception here since the title is 'THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION DEBATE' -
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
This piece was forwarded to me, no source acknowledged:
Rebirth vs. Reincarnation
Although these terms are often used interchangeably, there is a significant conceptual difference between the two. On the whole, Buddhists believe in rebirth while Hindus, Jains, and some Christians believe in reincarnation. Strictly speaking, reincarnation means the assumption of another body by a permanent, eternal self (the Hindu notion of atman or the Christian notion of soul). Most Buddhists do not believe in a permanent self (anatman or anatta, without enduring self) but believe human consciousness (the "I" or self) dissolves at death and that only a subtle mindstream remains. The mindstream carries with it karmic imprints from prior lives (but not memories and emotions associated with prior lives, unless the person is a highly developed spiritual practitioner, in which case reincarnation is possible) and it is this subtle mindstream that conjoins with a new life-form after death. Thus, rebirth does not mean an identifiable human being assuming a new human body. Moreover, in Buddhism, rebirth is not always accomplished in human form. Depending on karmic circumstances, a human being can be reborn as an animal or as a being in any of the upper or lower realms.
Under your definition, all Buddhist traditions teach rebirth, since no Buddhist schools posit the existence of a soul. There is an ancient Buddhist school called the pudgalavadins (pudgala means 'person') who asserts a soul that reincarnates. But this school died out a long long time ago, never gained acceptance because their theory is so flawed and in disaccord with the Buddha's teachings. -
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
Thank you for your sincerity. It is a breath of fresh air, from Tibet?
I understand that rebirth as taught by the Buddha is not the same as reincarnation nor it is the same as similar rebirth concept before the Buddha's.
You may not subscribe to reincarnation but Tibetan Buddhism certainly do or belief in reincarnation, if not by the ordinary folks then it is the lamas or rinpoche. Where did they take this belief in reincarnation from?
The eighth consciousness:-
Alayavijnana - Store Consciousness
By Venerable Dr.Walpola Rahula
In the Yogacara (Vijnanavada) School of Buddhism, alayavijnana is one of the most important doctrines developed by Asanga (fourth century A.C.). He divides the vijnanaskandha (Aggregate of Conciousness) the fifth of the five skandhas, into three different aspects or layers, namely, citta, manas and vijnana. In the Theravada Tipitaka as well as in the Pali Commentaries, these three terms - citta, manas, vijnana - are considered as synonyms denoting the same thing. The Sarvistivada also takes them as synonyms. Even the Lankavatarasutra, which is purely a Mahayana text, calls them synonyms although their separate functions are mentioned elsewhere in the same sutra. Vasubandhu, too, in his Vimsatikavijnapti-matratasiddhi considers them as synonyms. Since any one of these three terms - citta, manas, vijnanas - represents some aspect, even though not all aspects, of the fifth Aggregate vijnanaskandha, they may roughly be considered as synonyms.
However, for Asanga, citta, manas and vijnana are three different and distinct aspects of the vyjnanaskandha. He defines this Aggregate as follows:
'What is the definition of the Aggregate of Consciousness (vijnanaskandha)? It is mind (citta), mental organ (manas) and also consciousness (vijnana).
"And there what is mind (citta)? It is alayavijnana (Store-Consciousness) containing all seeds (sarvabijaka), impregnated with the traces (impressions) (vasanaparibhavita) of Aggregates (skandha), Elements (dhatu) and Spheres (ayatana) . . .
'What is mental organ (manas)? It is the object of alayavijnana always having the nature of self-notion (self-conceit) (manyanatmaka) associated with four defilements, viz. the false idea of self (atmadrsti), self-love (atmasneha), the conceit of 'I am' (asmimana) and ignorance (avidya) ...
'What is consciousness (vijnana)? It consists of the six groups of consciousness (sad vijnanakayah), viz. visual consciousness (caksurvijnana), auditory (srotra), olfactory (ghrana), gustatory (jihva), tactile (kaya), and mental consciousness (manovijnana)
Thus we can see that vijnana represents the simple reaction or response of the sense-organs when they come in contact with external objects. This is the uppermost or superficial aspect or layer of the vijnanaskandha. Manas represents the aspect of its mental functioning, thinking, reasoning, conceiving ideas, etc. Citta, which is here called alayavijnana, represents the deepest, finest and subtlest aspect or layer of the Aggregate of Consciousness. It contains all the traces or impressions of the past actions and all good and bad future potentialities. The Sandhinirmocana-sutra also says that alayavijnana is called citta (Tibetan sems).
It is generally believed that alayavijnana is purely a Mahayana doctrine and that nothing about it is found in Hinayana. But in the Mahayanasangraha Asanga himself says that in the Sravakayana (= Hinayana) it is mentioned by synonyms (paryaya) and refers to a passage in the Ekottaragama which reads: 'People (praja) like the alaya (alayarata), are fond of the alaya (alayarama), are delighted in the alaya (alayasammudita), are attached to the alaya (alayabhirata). When the Dharma is preached for the destruction of the alaya, they wish to listen (susrusanti) and lend their ears (srotram avadadhanti), they put forth a will for the perfect knowledge (ajnacittam upasthapayanti) and follow the path of Truth (dharmanudharma-pratipanna). When the Tathagata appears in the world (pradurbhava), this marvellous (ascarya) and extraordinary (adbhuta) Dharma appears in the world.'
Lamotte identifies this Ekottaragama passage with the following passage in the Pali Anguttaranikaya (A II, p.131): Alayarama bhikkhave paja alayarata alayasammudita, sa Tathagatena analaye dhamme desiyamane sussuyati sotam odahati annacittam upattapeti. Tathagatassa bhikkhave arahato sammasambuddhassa patubhava ayam pathamo acchariyo abbhuto dhammo patubhavati.
Besides this Anguttara passage, the term alaya in the same sense is found in several other places of the Pali Canon. The Pali Commentaries explain this term as 'attachment to the five sense-pleasures", and do not go deeper than that. But this also is an aspect of the alayavijnana.
In the Lankavatarasutra the term tathagatagarbha is used as a synonym for alayavijnana and is described as 'luminous by nature' (prakrtiprabhasvara) and 'pure by nature' (prakrtiparisuddha) but appearing as impure 'because it is sullied by adventitious defilements' (agantuklesopaklistataya). In the Anguttaranikaya, citta is described as 'luminous' (pabhassara), but it is 'sullied by adventitious minor defilements' (agantukehi upakkilesehi upakkilittham). One may notice here that alaya-vijnana (or tathagatgarbha) and citta are described almost by the same terms. We have seen earlier that the Sandhi-nirmocana-sutra says that alayavijnana is also called citta. Asanga too mentions that it is named citta.
It is this alayavijnana or citta that is considered by men as their "Soul', 'Self', 'Ego' or Atman. It should be remembered as a concrete example, that Sati, one of the Buddha's disciples, took vinnan (vijnana) in this sense and that the Buddha reprimanded him for this wrong view.
The attainment of Nirvana is achieved by 'the revolution of alayavijnana' which is called asrayaparavrtti. The same idea is conveyed by the expression alayasamugghata 'uprooting of alaya' which is used in the Pali Canon as a synonym for Nirvana. Here it should be remembered, too, that analaya 'no-alaya' is another synonym for Nirvana.
The alayavijnanaparavrtti is sometimes called bijaparavrtti 'revolution of the seeds' as well. Bija here signifies the 'seeds' of defilements (samklesikadharmabija) which cause the continuity of samsara. By the 'revolution of these seeds' one attains Nirvana. Again the Pali term khinabija, which is used to denote an arahant whose seeds of defilements are destroyed', expresses the same idea.
Thus one may see that, although not developed as in the Mahayana, the original idea of alayavijnana was already there in the Pali Canon of the Theravada. -
I can udnerstand why buddha said body is illusionary cos body changes every second. But how come the mental aspects are also illusionary ?
-
Isn't consciousness real ? The mind is not real ?
-
Originally posted by Yui Hirasawa:
Isn’t consciousness real ? The mind is not real ?
The perceived view of a single continuous stream of consciousness is illusory.
-
Originally posted by Yui Hirasawa:
I can udnerstand why buddha said body is illusionary cos body changes every second. But how come the mental aspects are also illusionary ?
Mind is also ever changing.
-
Originally posted by Yui Hirasawa:
Isn’t consciousness real ? The mind is not real ?
Don't think that consciousness is not real. If you think it is unreal, then you will not see the pure luminous presence of Mind.
Therefore ask yourself, 'Who am I' until you discover the luminous aware presence that is your mind-essence.
After that, there are more steps before you realize what emptiness is.
But if you merely establish a conceptual knowledge of emptiness, you will not have a direct experiential realization of the nature of mind. You will neither know what luminosity or emptiness is in real time.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Under your definition, all Buddhist traditions teach rebirth, since no Buddhist schools posit the existence of a soul. There is an ancient Buddhist school called the pudgalavadins (pudgala means 'person') who asserts a soul that reincarnates. But this school died out a long long time ago, never gained acceptance because their theory is so flawed and in disaccord with the Buddha's teachings.Correction: that piece is not written by me nor did I make any definition. However, you can take it that my understanding of that piece is the same as your statement "all Buddhist traditions teach rebirth, since no Buddhist schools posit the existence of a soul."
On the "ancient Buddhist school called the pudgalavadins (pudgala means 'person') who asserts a soul that reincarnates", wouldn't this support my statement that Buddhism was influenced by Hinduism (the successor of vedic-brahmanism)?
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
When did I use his post to back me? Your two posts that you held so high a regard is not saying anything to back your claims. No reason, no logic. So again how "Buddhism began as a philosophy and became a religion"? Or why your understanding to Hinduism makes you believe its a reason to believe so?
I have repeatedly asked you to read carefully my 2 posts of 13 July 9:57PM and 15 July 7:13AM. Tell me which part/portion you don't understand and I will be happy to drill into your head with my high regards.
As to 'Hinduism' part, don't muddle it up with the two posts. However, read the subsequent posts as well as my reply to AEN.
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
Correction: that piece is not written by me nor did I make any definition. However, you can take it that my understanding of that piece is the same as your statement "all Buddhist traditions teach rebirth, since no Buddhist schools posit the existence of a soul."
On the "ancient Buddhist school called the pudgalavadins (pudgala means 'person') who asserts a soul that reincarnates", wouldn't this support my statement that Buddhism was influenced by Hinduism (the successor of vedic-brahmanism)?
I don't think Pudgalavadins were influenced by Hinduism, they probably were ignorant of Buddhist doctrines and therefore didn't know how rebirth can happen without a soul.
But anyway, Pudgalavadin is just a very small school (out of the huge number of schools of Buddhism) of Buddhism.
Buddhism, generally, in its core teachings (anatta, dependent origination, etc etc) are unaffected by Hinduism.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I don't think Pudgalavadins were influenced by Hinduism, they probably were ignorant of Buddhist doctrines and therefore didn't know how rebirth can happen without a soul.
But anyway, Pudgalavadin is just a very small school (out of the huge number of schools of Buddhism) of Buddhism.
Buddhism, generally, in its core teachings (anatta, dependent origination, etc etc) are unaffected by Hinduism.
The core teachings of Buddha are certainly not Hinduism else Buddhism will be a school within Hinduism. There can be no doubt that Buddhism then and in the traditions today are influenced by vedic-brahmanism in some subtle if not surreptitious ways.
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
I have repeatedly asked you to read carefully my 2 posts of 13 July 9:57PM and 15 July 7:13AM. Tell me which part/portion you don't understand and I will be happy to drill into your head with my high regards.
As to 'Hinduism' part, don't muddle it up with the two posts. However, read the subsequent posts as well as my reply to AEN.
I'm convinced senpai can't answer my questions... so I'd put in more effort... as per your request.
Your post 13 July 9:57pm: ... For the next 45 years, he taught the ‘Truth’ and developed precepts, moral values, existential insights, spiritual practices through discussions...
According to you, the Buddha taught spiritual practises... Which philosophy embraces spiritual practices? If Buddha did not require spiritual practices to attain enlightenment, would he teach it? Or did he think that only the common man requires it?
Your post 15 July 7:13am: "While I do agree that theory without practice is of little use and emphasis should be on practice rather than just knowledge and no application, I cannot see why this emphasis should disqualify Buddhism as a ‘philosophy to begin with’...
Buddhism is not a theory, its a way of life. No application of knowledge = not applying to the way of life. Cherry picking is not the way of the Buddhism as it was originally intended. The teachings must always apply to self's life to attain the desired effect or suffer a reset in certain cultivation. No action = no work done.
It doesn't matter what definitions philosophy or religion are. Its meaningless to subject Buddhism to any or any meaning to the categories. What prompts me to respond to you is your expressions of bias to your own definition of "religions", effectively discriminating all the others that you think is under that category, when its without a doubt you don't know enough of them to even compare. Perhaps I have not the wisdom to correct, the wisdom to know when to correct or otherwise.
::: Kouhai humbly goes back to lurking :::
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
The core teachings of Buddha are certainly not Hinduism else Buddhism will be a school within Hinduism. There can be no doubt that Buddhism then and in the traditions today are influenced by vedic-brahmanism in some subtle if not surreptitious ways.
-
In the first place Buddhism is not a religion . Sidharta Gautama who later became Buddha has never once said that he is god or associated with god . he only proclaim that he had meditated (think vigorously on many matters and reached conclusions) and reached enlightenment and is a teacher.
It is the same with confusianism and Tao de ching . Confucius never mentioned that he is messenger of god or anything . it was after his death that people start to immortalize him by giving him the deity title . what he had been preaching all the time was about to do good deeds and to respect others .
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
I'm convinced senpai can't answer my questions... so I'd put in more effort... as per your request.
Your post 13 July 9:57pm: ... For the next 45 years, he taught the ‘Truth’ and developed precepts, moral values, existential insights, spiritual practices through discussions...
According to you, the Buddha taught spiritual practises... Which philosophy embraces spiritual practices? If Buddha did not require spiritual practices to attain enlightenment, would he teach it? Or did he think that only the common man requires it?
Your post 15 July 7:13am: "While I do agree that theory without practice is of little use and emphasis should be on practice rather than just knowledge and no application, I cannot see why this emphasis should disqualify Buddhism as a ‘philosophy to begin with’...
Buddhism is not a theory, its a way of life. No application of knowledge = not applying to the way of life. Cherry picking is not the way of the Buddhism as it was originally intended. The teachings must always apply to self's life to attain the desired effect or suffer a reset in certain cultivation. No action = no work done.
It doesn't matter what definitions philosophy or religion are. Its meaningless to subject Buddhism to any or any meaning to the categories. What prompts me to respond to you is your expressions of bias to your own definition of "religions", effectively discriminating all the others that you think is under that category, when its without a doubt you don't know enough of them to even compare. Perhaps I have not the wisdom to correct, the wisdom to know when to correct or otherwise.
::: Kouhai humbly goes back to lurking :::
hahaha, finally the empty head decided to fill it with more MUD-dle and convinced himself I am not able to answer. Wow, he is full of himself, not half-empty.
So I see you have pickle-pick a cherry and make a spirit - cherry brandy. From a long list, you highlighted ‘spiritual practice’ only. Spiritual practice means putting into practise spiritual values such as charity, forgiveness, etc. Didn’t I say for the next 45yrs he taught the ‘Truth’ then he developed the precepts, .... , etc. That development came after he formulated the Noble Truths. The ‘Noble Truths’ was the beginning of Buddhism (Buddha’s teachings) and the rationale leading to his search for the ‘Truth’ was why there is birth, ageing, sickness and death. In other words he was trying to find why life sucks and a way out of life sucks! That is PHILOSOPHY.
I have to correct a serious misconception – spiritual practice alone does not lead to Enlightenment.
Next you said “Buddhism is not a theory”. I didn’t say it is a theory! I said Buddhism began as a philosophy. The problem is ‘almost’ every Buddhist (you are one of them) seems to think that philosophy is all theory. Hence, that is why they do not consider Buddhism a philosophy. If you have read many Buddhist literatures whether written by scholars or monks, Buddha’s thoughts/doctrines have been referred to as Buddhist philosophy many times. In my post I said that theory without practice is of little use, it is like knowledge without application. And I said that even if we place emphasis on practice, it does not disqualify the fact that Buddhism began as a philosophy.
So now it dawn on me that your point is: “It doesn't matter what definitions philosophy or religion are. Its meaningless to subject Buddhism to any or any meaning to the categories.“ In this case, since it is meaningless, will your argument or disagreement with my statement be meaningful? In other words, all your posts were meaningless.
You said: “What prompts me to respond to you is your expressions of bias to your own definition of "religions" ….“, and I submit you were mistaken. I have not defined religion or religions at all or in any way, mine or others! If I had, could you extract and quote?
-
The ‘Noble Truths’ was the beginning of Buddhism (Buddha’s teachings) and the rationale leading to his search for the ‘Truth’ was why there is birth, ageing, sickness and death. In other words he was trying to find why life sucks and a way out of life sucks! That is PHILOSOPHY.
Jesus did that too . so did other gods and deities alike . Cheers! -
Originally posted by Kosen pang:
In the first place Buddhism is not a religion . Sidharta Gautama who later became Buddha has never once said that he is god or associated with god . he only proclaim that he had meditated (think vigorously on many matters and reached conclusions) and reached enlightenment and is a teacher.
It is the same with confusianism and Tao de ching . Confucius never mentioned that he is messenger of god or anything . it was after his death that people start to immortalize him by giving him the deity title . what he had been preaching all the time was about to do good deeds and to respect others .
Indeed, Buddhism didn't begin as a religion. It became a religion. Religion is not about god/God only.
You are saying that Confucianism and Taoism are not religion. Would you say they are philosophy?
-
Among the few religions acknowledged by singapore govment . only Hinduism and Judaism (Islam and Christian) mentioned direct connection with god .
Buddhism and Taoism (Mencius and Confucius) are equivalent to chinese as Socrates and Timothius or other greek thinkers are to greek .
-
Originally posted by Kosen pang:
Among the few religions acknowledged by singapore govment . only Hinduism and Judaism (Islam and Christian) mentioned direct connection with god .
Buddhism and Taoism (Mencius and Confucius) are equivalent to chinese as Socrates and Timothius or other greek thinkers are to greek .
Buddhism actually originated from India by a man called Siddhartha Gautama.
-
ok add in india . shakya clan . country of kapilavastu .
my point is . they are mere thinkers . who luckily got acknowledged by public .
One true religion . the title itself is dubious . how can there be only one that is true .
less we are talking about god then yes there is only one god . whether he is alien or just form of force we dont care but there is only ONE god . while religions are made by human in order to differentiate one another . why then put faith into something like this .
-
Originally posted by Kosen pang:
ok add in india . shakya clan . country of kapilavastu .
my point is . they are mere thinkers . who luckily got acknowledged by public .
One true religion . the title itself is dubious . how can there be only one that is true .
less we are talking about god then yes there is only one god . whether he is alien or just form of force we dont care but there is only ONE god . while religions are made by human in order to differentiate one another . why then put faith into something like this .
Buddha was not a thinker per se, he was someone who discovered the human condition and the solution to the human condition of suffering by experiential realization.
As for One God - Buddhism does not suscribe to the idea of a creator God, we teach interdependent origination, causes and conditions to every arising.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Buddha was not a thinker per se, he was someone who discovered the human condition and the solution to the human condition of suffering by experiential realization.
As for One God - Buddhism does not suscribe to the idea of a creator God, we teach interdependent origination, causes and conditions to every arising.
Im not saying there is God . I believe when we die nothing is left but energy . energy cannot vanish . it can only transform in to other sort of energy but it will never disappear . it could be in the ethereal and enter the womb when someone is pregnant and become a new energy in that womb or it could be other sort of energy but it never disappear . it merely transform . and it does not carry a brain so energy does not recoqnize and is itself not self-conscious . which is to say it is just energy not a living thing .According to you Buddha does not 'subscribe' to the idea of god and he teaches reincarnation and cause&effects(Karma).
From what I know Buddha never deny God . at that time when he start teaching, India was already worshipping Brahmana/Brahma for ages . he merely perfected the way .
Buddha was not a thinker per se, he was someone who discovered the human condition and the solution to the human condition of suffering by experiential realization.
Someone who realized or saw a flaw in the system and proceeded to formulate a solution (in this case meditate) . Definetely sounds like a thinker . now I do not doubt his philosophy . it is good like the rest of the philosophy in this world . but it is wrong for man to make buddhism into a religion .