Good Heart

[Sky Dancer]

Fox--

I don't know if you meant this statement in reference to Buddhism:

"It does not demonstrate a 'good heart' as I think of 'good heart' to pretend that there isn't a downside to doctrine as it is developed in all religions.

When a non-buddhist misinterprets the meaning of Buddhist teachings on karma and suffering to mean they mean to justify the suffering of the poor, it is NOT a flaw of the teachings on karma and suffering that have a downside, it is the misinterpretation that is flawed.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Buddhism justifies the suffering of the poor and the prosecuted by saying they deserve their suffering a result of past sins. Like Abrahamism's 'original sin', Karma oft serves as an excuse for doing nothing when confronted with evil on the world.

That in itself is evil.

That's a misunderstanding of the Buddha's teachings on karma and the teachings on suffering. The Buddha says we should practice generosity which is part of the path of practice leading to enlightenment. It creates merit. The Buddha taught extensively on the topic of suffering.

Karma is not predestination or original sin. You are confusing other religions with Buddhism.

If you want to explore the topic of karma why not start a thread on it? I am happy to discuss further and clear up any misconceptions.

Most of the time people are sick of me talking about Buddhism. So, I won't do so unless you're really interested.

1) There's no one buddha- all work to become buddhas. Siddhartha Gautama is not the only person to ever achieve enlightenment

2) Karma means that your lot in this life is predestined for your sins- including good deeds- in your past life/lives

3) Since one seeks balance, Siddhartha's teachings actually mean that too much goodness prevents one from reaching nirvana

This, of course, assumes we're talking about what he actually taught and not one of the cults that sprang up after his death, some of which went so far as to declare him 'the buddha' and make him into a god.

Karma does not mean 'pre-destination'. Perhaps, it does in Hinduism. Karma means 'cause and effect'. It is NOT about sins. Buddhist have no concept of sin, nor the judgment of 'deserving and undeserving'.

I don't know what cults you are referring to. Buddhist teachings are not a cult, that doesn't mean I know every cult out there and which ones have borrowed something or other from Buddhism.

The Buddha was asked who he was, was he a god, was he a saint, was he a man? The Buddha replied; I am awake.

You are correct that Buddhists work to become buddhas and that Siddhartha, Shayamuni Buddha was not the first buddha nor will he be the last.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The bottom line is you have a good heart or you don't. You are kind or you are not. You are generous or not. You have wisdom or not. You are loving or not. You have compassion or not.

No amount of religion will get you any of that.

I disagree. It's true that one can be born with qualites of love, wisdom, generosity and compassion(though, it's rare, most of us are a mixed bag). One can develop qualities without religion, (again, rare) but many find they are able to cultivate positive qualities by training in a spiritual path.

I was not born into a family with great love, compassion, joy, generosity or wisdom. I had some qualities, but I lack many. I needed to learn how to cultivate these by being around people who have them.

 

[JBeukema]

If there's no good or bad, no positive and negative, when it comes to karma, why dharma? Why be good as you claim buddhism tells people to? And how can Karma ever be balanced if there aren't 'positive' and 'negative' to be balanced?

You have made the entire concept of karma meaningless.

I don't know what cults you are referring to. Buddhist teachings are not a cult

Read your history. There is more than one buddhist sect and more than one set of teachings under the umbrella of buddhism. Do you really think Siddhartha taught them all, even those which came long after he left?

You are correct that Buddhists work to become buddhas and that Siddhartha, Shayamuni Buddha was not the first buddha nor will he be the last.

Then there is no 'the buddha', making your earlier post and your current sig line ludicrous.

 

[Sky Dancer]

If there's no good or bad, no positive and negative, when it comes to karma, why dharma? Why be good as you claim buddhism tells people to? And how can Karma ever be balanced if there aren't 'positive' and 'negative' to be balanced?

You have made the entire concept of karma meaningless.

I don't know what cults you are referring to. Buddhist teachings are not a cult

Read your history. There is more than one buddhist sect and more than one set of teachings under the umbrella of buddhism. Do you really think Siddhartha taught them all, even those which came long after he left?

You are correct that Buddhists work to become buddhas and that Siddhartha, Shayamuni Buddha was not the first buddha nor will he be the last.

Then there is no 'the buddha', making your earlier post and your current sig line ludicrous.

Buddha means awake. It also refers to the historical buddha who said many things. Padmasambhava came after Shakyamuni and established Buddhism in Tibet. He is considered by the Tibetans to be the second buddha. There are teachers in the world today that I consider buddhas.

If you want to bash Buddhism, go right ahead. If you want to understand the Buddha's teachings on karma and suffering that's another discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox--

I don't know if you meant this statement in reference to Buddhism:

"It does not demonstrate a 'good heart' as I think of 'good heart' to pretend that there isn't a downside to doctrine as it is developed in all religions.

When a non-buddhist misinterprets the meaning of Buddhist teachings on karma and suffering to mean they mean to justify the suffering of the poor, it is NOT a flaw of the teachings on karma and suffering that have a downside, it is the misinterpretation that is flawed.

I was referring to all religions; however, in my opinion, some aspects of Buddhism fit in there as is the case with all religious doctrine.

Boiling Christianity down to the basics, I think truth requires acknowledgment of sin as I have defined sin. And unless we acknowledge that we are capable of 'sin' that has consequences, we will continue in our arrogance and stiff neckness will most likely make things worse instead of better. While I don't think all error is necessarily 'sin', I do think we have to acknowledge our brokenness as sinners before we can accept healing by grace and realize our true path, true happiness, true courage, true strength, and true selves.

That doctine I have found to be without flaw.

Some other doctrines and rites are probably harmless, and some no doubt are false teachings that do more harm than good. But nevertheless, I think decade by decade, we are led to keep sorting it all out.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Fox--

I don't know if you meant this statement in reference to Buddhism:

"It does not demonstrate a 'good heart' as I think of 'good heart' to pretend that there isn't a downside to doctrine as it is developed in all religions.

When a non-buddhist misinterprets the meaning of Buddhist teachings on karma and suffering to mean they mean to justify the suffering of the poor, it is NOT a flaw of the teachings on karma and suffering that have a downside, it is the misinterpretation that is flawed.

I was referring to all religions; however, in my opinion, some aspects of Buddhism fit in there as is the case with all religious doctrine.

Boiling Christianity down to the basics, I think truth requires acknowledgment of sin as I have defined sin. And unless we acknowledge that we are capable of 'sin' that has consequences, we will continue in our arrogance and stiff neckness will most likely make things worse instead of better. While I don't think all error is necessarily 'sin', I do think we have to acknowledge our brokenness as sinners before we can accept healing by grace and realize our true path, true happiness, true courage, true strength, and true selves.

That doctine I have found to be without flaw.

Some other doctrines and rites are probably harmless, and some no doubt are false teachings that do more harm than good. But nevertheless, I think decade by decade, we are led to keep sorting it all out.

Where is the flaw in Buddhist teachings? Do you mean that you don't find them valid because God isn't included and you are a Christian?

I don't understand your point about aspects of Buddhism that have a downside to them. Downside for Buddhists? Or downside for Christians looking at Buddhism and comparing it to Christianity?

There are some things about Buddhism that are challenging and I didn't accept in the beginning.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox--

I don't know if you meant this statement in reference to Buddhism:

"It does not demonstrate a 'good heart' as I think of 'good heart' to pretend that there isn't a downside to doctrine as it is developed in all religions.

When a non-buddhist misinterprets the meaning of Buddhist teachings on karma and suffering to mean they mean to justify the suffering of the poor, it is NOT a flaw of the teachings on karma and suffering that have a downside, it is the misinterpretation that is flawed.

I was referring to all religions; however, in my opinion, some aspects of Buddhism fit in there as is the case with all religious doctrine.

Boiling Christianity down to the basics, I think truth requires acknowledgment of sin as I have defined sin. And unless we acknowledge that we are capable of 'sin' that has consequences, we will continue in our arrogance and stiff neckness will most likely make things worse instead of better. While I don't think all error is necessarily 'sin', I do think we have to acknowledge our brokenness as sinners before we can accept healing by grace and realize our true path, true happiness, true courage, true strength, and true selves.

That doctine I have found to be without flaw.

Some other doctrines and rites are probably harmless, and some no doubt are false teachings that do more harm than good. But nevertheless, I think decade by decade, we are led to keep sorting it all out.

Where is the flaw in Buddhist teachings? Do you mean that you don't find them valid because God isn't included and you are a Christian?

I don't understand your point about aspects of Buddhism that have a downside to them. Downside for Buddhists? Or downside for Christians looking at Buddhism and comparing it to Christianity?

The downside to Buddhism, for a Christian, is that the Buddhist teaches that if you just think right, get it all together correctly, all will be right. Everything that is necessary to achieve the ultimate glory or paradise or the pinnacle or whatever is contained within the person who spends a lifetime devoted to perfecting it. Salvation by works.

The Christian believe we are created beings and will achieve the best we can be via his plan for us. Spiritual gifts and abilities come from God who uses even we imperfect beings for his glory and via grace forgives our imperfections.

Buddhism: salvation by works.
Christianity: salvation by grace.

 

[JBeukema]

If you want to bash Buddhism, go right ahead.

Nobody did any such thing. Playing that card only makes it impossible to respect you.

If you want to understand the Buddha's teachings

There's no the buddha. If you want to discuss one of the buddhas, you have to specify whom you're referring to.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I was referring to all religions; however, in my opinion, some aspects of Buddhism fit in there as is the case with all religious doctrine.

Boiling Christianity down to the basics, I think truth requires acknowledgment of sin as I have defined sin. And unless we acknowledge that we are capable of 'sin' that has consequences, we will continue in our arrogance and stiff neckness will most likely make things worse instead of better. While I don't think all error is necessarily 'sin', I do think we have to acknowledge our brokenness as sinners before we can accept healing by grace and realize our true path, true happiness, true courage, true strength, and true selves.

That doctine I have found to be without flaw.

Some other doctrines and rites are probably harmless, and some no doubt are false teachings that do more harm than good. But nevertheless, I think decade by decade, we are led to keep sorting it all out.

Where is the flaw in Buddhist teachings? Do you mean that you don't find them valid because God isn't included and you are a Christian?

I don't understand your point about aspects of Buddhism that have a downside to them. Downside for Buddhists? Or downside for Christians looking at Buddhism and comparing it to Christianity?

The downside to Buddhism, for a Christian, is that the Buddhist teaches that if you just think right, get it all together correctly, all will be right. Everything that is necessary to achieve the ultimate glory or paradise or the pinnacle or whatever is contained within the person who spends a lifetime devoted to perfecting it. Salvation by works.

The Christian believe we are created beings and will achieve the best we can be via his plan for us. Spiritual gifts and abilities come from God who uses even we imperfect beings for his glory.

Buddhism: salvation by works.
Christianity: salvation by grace.

No. I think you misunderstand Buddhism. We don't even have the word 'salvation' in Buddhism, that's a Christian concept.

I know Buddhism is inferior to you because you're a Christian and you're taught that the only way to salvation is through Jesus.

You're right. Buddhists are NOT into creationism, a personal savior/creator god who rescues us from our sins.

We don't have a concept of 'sin' either.

Christians feel they are fundamentally flawed until they accept Christ as their savior and are 'forgiven their sins'.

Buddhist feel that we are fundamentally pure from the beginning, and that we have flaws that are adventitious. Just as a diamond is encased in the rock and the rock cannot harm the diamond, flaws cannot harm but only obscure buddha nature. We believe we can refine away our flaws through spiritual practice and allow merit and wisdom to arise. What are the flaws in all beings that obscure buddha nature? Ignorance, pride, jealousy, anger and neurotic grasping.

We aren't interested in heaven. Nor are we eternalists. Heaven and hell are samsaric realms that are temporary.

Buddhism and Christianity are very different. How they similar is each develops 'good heart'. How they different is one's aim is heaven the other enlightenment.

 

[syrenn]

The bottom line is you have a good heart or you don't. You are kind or you are not. You are generous or not. You have wisdom or not. You are loving or not. You have compassion or not.

No amount of religion will get you any of that.

I disagree. It's true that one can be born with qualites of love, wisdom, generosity and compassion(though, it's rare, most of us are a mixed bag). One can develop qualities without religion, (again, rare) but many find they are able to cultivate positive qualities by training in a spiritual path.

I was not born into a family with great love, compassion, joy, generosity or wisdom. I had some qualities, but I lack many. I needed to learn how to cultivate these by being around people who have them.

People are not religion. Learning from other people is not getting a good heart through religion. It is getting a good heart from being around other people.

 

[Sky Dancer]

If you want to bash Buddhism, go right ahead.

Nobody did any such thing. Playing that card only makes it impossible to respect you.

If you want to understand the Buddha's teachings

There's no the buddha. If you want to discuss one of the buddhas, you have to specify whom you're referring to.

There is a historical Buddha, the Buddha of our time, Shakyamuni. The Buddha yet to come is Maitreya. There were buddhas before Shakyamuni and eventually all beings will find buddha nature and become buddhas.

It's ok if you don't respect me. I'm getting lots of practice being disrespected, lol.

You referred to cults in reference to buddhism but did not specify which buddhist school or sect you think is a cult.

Who is commonly thought of as THE BUDDHA is the buddha of our time, Shakyamuni. Padmasambhava is considered the second buddha by Tibetans. There are living Buddhist masters who I consider buddhas and bodhisattvas.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The bottom line is you have a good heart or you don't. You are kind or you are not. You are generous or not. You have wisdom or not. You are loving or not. You have compassion or not.

No amount of religion will get you any of that.

I disagree. It's true that one can be born with qualites of love, wisdom, generosity and compassion(though, it's rare, most of us are a mixed bag). One can develop qualities without religion, (again, rare) but many find they are able to cultivate positive qualities by training in a spiritual path.

I was not born into a family with great love, compassion, joy, generosity or wisdom. I had some qualities, but I lack many. I needed to learn how to cultivate these by being around people who have them.

People are not religion. Learning from other people is not getting a good heart through religion. It is getting a good heart from being around other people.

It's not my goal to make you feel friendly toward religion. I feel friendly but you don't have to be.

Some people are born with extraordinary qualities of love and compassion. Others have to cultivate them.

The point is to do so in whatever way works for you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Where is the flaw in Buddhist teachings? Do you mean that you don't find them valid because God isn't included and you are a Christian?

I don't understand your point about aspects of Buddhism that have a downside to them. Downside for Buddhists? Or downside for Christians looking at Buddhism and comparing it to Christianity?

The downside to Buddhism, for a Christian, is that the Buddhist teaches that if you just think right, get it all together correctly, all will be right. Everything that is necessary to achieve the ultimate glory or paradise or the pinnacle or whatever is contained within the person who spends a lifetime devoted to perfecting it. Salvation by works.

The Christian believe we are created beings and will achieve the best we can be via his plan for us. Spiritual gifts and abilities come from God who uses even we imperfect beings for his glory.

Buddhism: salvation by works.
Christianity: salvation by grace.

No. I think you misunderstand Buddhism. We don't even have the word 'salvation' in Buddhism, that's a Christian concept.

I know Buddhism is inferior to you because you're a Christian and you're taught that the only way to salvation is through Jesus.

You're right. Buddhists are NOT into creationism, a personal savior/creator god who rescues you from your sins.

We don't have a concept of 'sin' either.

Christians feel they are fundamentally flawed until they accept Christ as their savior and are 'forgiven their sins'.

Buddhist feel that we are fundamentally pure from the beginning, and they we have flaws that are adventitious. Just as a diamond is encased in the rock and the rock cannot harm the diamond, flaws cannot harm but only obscure buddha nature. We believe we can refine away our flaws through spiritual practice to allow merit and wisdom to arise.

We aren't interested in heaven. Nor are we eternalists.

I know quite a bit of what Buddhism teaches, even some of the differences between the various sects of Buddhism. I write curriculum for and have taught comparative religions, remember?

You asked me what the downside of Buddhism was and I explained it from the Christian's perspective. Christianity, pared down to the barest principles, does not believe one can earn or merit one's best destiny.

Don't confuse the concepts by applying strict pre-conceived definitions here please.

The Christian does not believe there is ANYTHING we can do to merit God's grace. To the Buddhist, one's highest destiny is achieved through his/her own efforts. The Buddhist believes it is possible to achieve perfection through his own journey.

To the Christian, one's highest destiny cannot be achieved through one's own efforts but is a free gift from God who will use us for his purposes in spite of our imperfections. And the best journey is that in which God leads.

 

[syrenn]

If you want to bash Buddhism, go right ahead.

Nobody did any such thing. Playing that card only makes it impossible to respect you.

If you want to understand the Buddha's teachings

There's no the buddha. If you want to discuss one of the buddhas, you have to specify whom you're referring to.

There is a historical Buddha, the Buddha of our time, Shakyamuni. The Buddha yet to come is Maitreya. There were buddhas before Shakyamuni and eventually all beings will find buddha nature and become buddhas.

It's ok if you don't respect me. I'm getting lots of practice being disrespected, lol.

You referred to cults in reference to buddhism but did not specify which buddhist school or sect you think is a cult.

Who is commonly thought of as THE BUDDHA is the buddha of our time, Shakyamuni. Padmasambhava is considered the second buddha by Tibetans. There are living Buddhist masters who I consider buddhas and bodhisattvas.

All religions are cults. All of them.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The downside to Buddhism, for a Christian, is that the Buddhist teaches that if you just think right, get it all together correctly, all will be right. Everything that is necessary to achieve the ultimate glory or paradise or the pinnacle or whatever is contained within the person who spends a lifetime devoted to perfecting it. Salvation by works.

The Christian believe we are created beings and will achieve the best we can be via his plan for us. Spiritual gifts and abilities come from God who uses even we imperfect beings for his glory.

Buddhism: salvation by works.
Christianity: salvation by grace.

No. I think you misunderstand Buddhism. We don't even have the word 'salvation' in Buddhism, that's a Christian concept.

I know Buddhism is inferior to you because you're a Christian and you're taught that the only way to salvation is through Jesus.

You're right. Buddhists are NOT into creationism, a personal savior/creator god who rescues you from your sins.

We don't have a concept of 'sin' either.

Christians feel they are fundamentally flawed until they accept Christ as their savior and are 'forgiven their sins'.

Buddhist feel that we are fundamentally pure from the beginning, and they we have flaws that are adventitious. Just as a diamond is encased in the rock and the rock cannot harm the diamond, flaws cannot harm but only obscure buddha nature. We believe we can refine away our flaws through spiritual practice to allow merit and wisdom to arise.

We aren't interested in heaven. Nor are we eternalists.

I know quite a bit of what Buddhism teaches, even some of the differences between the various sects of Buddhism. I write curriculum for and have taught comparative religions, remember?

You asked me what the downside of Buddhism was and I explained it from the Christian's perspective. Christianity, pared down to the barest principles, does not believe one can earn or merit one's best destiny.

Don't confuse the concepts by applying strict pre-conceived definitions here please.

The Christian does not believe there is ANYTHING we can do to merit God's grace. To the Buddhist, one's highest destiny is achieved through his/her own efforts. The Buddhist believes it is possible to achieve perfection through his own journey.

To the Christian, one's highest destiny cannot be achieved through one's own efforts but is a free gift from God who will use us for his purposes in spite of our imperfections. And the best journey is that in which God leads.

You may have an intellectual's understanding of Buddhism from teaching comparative religion but that is not the same as practicing Buddhism. The definitions I use come from the oral and mind to mind transmisson lineage, not books. They come from sitting at the feet of teachers who can take a whole day translating the title of a text because it has so much meaning. I know there is no concept of sin or salvation in Buddhism because I've heard learned masters of meditation interpret the texts. I have studied with Lamas, Rinpoches, Yogis and Khenpos.

You have every right to think and feel whatever way you choose to about Christianity and
Buddhism. You've probably read about it and talked to many Buddhists more than many non-buddhists have. I respect that. I think you're quite the intellectual, far smarter than I am.

If I had only studied Buddhism as an academic exercise, and not devoted my whole life to it, I might have found it lacking too. You intellectually studied and compare religions but what you took up was Christianity which you practice and love. What I took up is Buddhism.

Take care.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Nobody did any such thing. Playing that card only makes it impossible to respect you.


There's no the buddha. If you want to discuss one of the buddhas, you have to specify whom you're referring to.

There is a historical Buddha, the Buddha of our time, Shakyamuni. The Buddha yet to come is Maitreya. There were buddhas before Shakyamuni and eventually all beings will find buddha nature and become buddhas.

It's ok if you don't respect me. I'm getting lots of practice being disrespected, lol.

You referred to cults in reference to buddhism but did not specify which buddhist school or sect you think is a cult.

Who is commonly thought of as THE BUDDHA is the buddha of our time, Shakyamuni. Padmasambhava is considered the second buddha by Tibetans. There are living Buddhist masters who I consider buddhas and bodhisattvas.

All religions are cults. All of them.

They are to you. You're not friendly toward religion. I am. I have no problem that you view religion darkly.

 

[syrenn]

There is a historical Buddha, the Buddha of our time, Shakyamuni. The Buddha yet to come is Maitreya. There were buddhas before Shakyamuni and eventually all beings will find buddha nature and become buddhas.

It's ok if you don't respect me. I'm getting lots of practice being disrespected, lol.

You referred to cults in reference to buddhism but did not specify which buddhist school or sect you think is a cult.

Who is commonly thought of as THE BUDDHA is the buddha of our time, Shakyamuni. Padmasambhava is considered the second buddha by Tibetans. There are living Buddhist masters who I consider buddhas and bodhisattvas.

All religions are cults. All of them.

They are to you. You're not friendly toward religion. I am. I have no problem that you view religion darkly.

It has nothing to do with being friendly towards a religion. It is what it is, All religions are cults. No one in a cult wants to think they are in a cult. They of course are a religion.


cult
   /kʌlt/ Show Spelled[kuhlt] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.
the object of such devotion.
4.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.
Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6.
a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7.
the members of such a religion or sect.

Cult | Define Cult at Dictionary.com

 

[Zander]

You don't need religion to have a good heart. For reasonably intelligent people who aren’t suffering from major self esteem issues or severe mental deficiencies -religion is actually a 'consciousness' lowering experience. While some religious beliefs are empowering (fasting, meditation, etc) , on the whole, the decision to formally participate in a religion will burden your mind with a hefty load of false notions and ideas.

Religions substitute vague 'group-think' for focused, independent thought. Instead of learning to discern truth on your own, you’re told what to believe and why to believe it. Religons all use strict rituals and procedures in order to cement these ideas into your mind. This doesn’t accelerate your spiritual growth; it puts the brakes on it! In my opinion, religion is the 'off-switch' of the human mind.

My advice is to leave the mythology behind, and learn to think for yourself. Your intellect is a far better instrument of spiritual growth than any religious teachings.

 

[Sky Dancer]

All religions are cults. All of them.

They are to you. You're not friendly toward religion. I am. I have no problem that you view religion darkly.

It has nothing to do with being friendly towards a religion. It is what it is, All religions are cults. No one in a cult wants to think they are in a cult. They of course are a religion.


cult
   /kʌlt/ Show Spelled[kuhlt] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.
the object of such devotion.
4.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.
Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6.
a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7.
the members of such a religion or sect.

Cult | Define Cult at Dictionary.com

Sure. I accept that definition. You will note there are multiple meanings of the term 'cult'. There are also many articles that outline the difference between religion and a cult.

By all means, avoid religion. It is very bad for YOU.