Any Buddhists on boxingscene?

[MDPopescu]

Namaste lads. Philosophy is a very interesting thing. It is mad how these things resonate with us on such a deep level. You can read something on Buddhism etc, and you feel like, "Yea m8, this is how I should be leading my life." In practise though, over long peroids of time, I always found it too hard to put into practise consistently. At the minute I am more intrigued with Stoicism than anything else. I would recommend looking into Stoicism, lads.

... Stoicism is more like a philosophical teaching... and Buddhism is more like a religious teaching -- it involves messianic epiphany, soteriology, etc...

[BodyBagz]

I guess what I said really went over your head.

One's own philosophy aside, If one doesn't believe in God, that person is an atheist. Buddha didn't believe in God.

[billeau2]

One's own philosophy aside, If one doesn't believe in God, that person is an atheist. Buddha didn't believe in God.

It has nothing to do with a personal philosophy, that includes the philosophy of the Buddha... If someone says to you "Do you believe in God?" you may not be able to answer in a binary fashion as in "yes" or "no." However in certain languages you can answer the question without a yes, or a no... The best our language can do is provide the term "Agnostic."

The problem with your argument is that what we would call the Buddha would be an agnostic... But that in itself is not entirely correct either.

Like most posters here, I doubt you are willing to try to entertain what I am trying to explain to you... you would rather "Be right" and stay ignorant of ideas that are theological in nature and cannot be expressed in the dialectic of our language.

Alas I am a bigger idiot than you and will actually take five minutes of my life and try to explain this too you with an example... I should know better.

So first of all, in the Buddha's time there were Gods and they were generally thought to have good Karma, Buddha addressed the gods through the Karma stating that "Good Karma still binds us and attaches us" so the Buddha did believe in Gods... he just saw them as more entrapped. As far as a supreme entity, there was the Atman in India, which was a supreme part of all things... What did Buddha believe of this?

Thats where an example comes into play. You and a lifelong friend see a star in the sky. You say "Ahh that is a supreme entity that controls all, and will one day be my salvation. Your friend nods and smiles... You ask him what he believes about the supreme entity. He says "I do not take a position on whether such a thing will rescue us, I only know the problems I must deal with and that star seems somewhat divorced from these problems. What happens after these problems does not concern me."

Now... In our binary language that could be interpreted as a statement of non belief, I suppose... in Sanskrit arguing against an opponent it would be interpreted as simply not taking a point of view on an issue.

Another example: I am a dietician and you ask me if Chocolate is good. I say "it depends." YOu say, once in a while a nice, super sweet hershey bar lifts my spirits!" I say " well, there is nothing inherently bad about a chocolate now and then, it wont harm you." The next month I see you and you are fat and eating lots of hershey bars...

Buddha thought that the rituals to supreme beings with good karma, though empty if devoid of intent, was ok as long as it did no harm (ahimsa)... But when a Brahman did the rituals all day and only for good karma, there was a problem! See the point here?

[billeau2]

... Stoicism is more like a philosophical teaching... and Buddhism is more like a religious teaching -- it involves messianic epiphany, soteriology, etc...

You have called me out for some of my outlandish ideas... I accepted your rebuke... with much respect I say "read up on Buddhism" I would suggest Conze Edward Conze.

[BodyBagz]

It has nothing to do with a personal philosophy, that includes the philosophy of the Buddha... If someone says to you "Do you believe in God?" you may not be able to answer in a binary fashion as in "yes" or "no." However in certain languages you can answer the question without a yes, or a no... The best our language can do is provide the term "Agnostic."

The problem with your argument is that what we would call the Buddha would be an agnostic... But that in itself is not entirely correct either.

Like most posters here, I doubt you are willing to try to entertain what I am trying to explain to you... you would rather "Be right" and stay ignorant of ideas that are theological in nature and cannot be expressed in the dialectic of our language.

Alas I am a bigger idiot than you and will actually take five minutes of my life and try to explain this too you with an example... I should know better.

So first of all, in the Buddha's time there were Gods and they were generally thought to have good Karma, Buddha addressed the gods through the Karma stating that "Good Karma still binds us and attaches us" so the Buddha did believe in Gods... he just saw them as more entrapped. As far as a supreme entity, there was the Atman in India, which was a supreme part of all things... What did Buddha believe of this?

Thats where an example comes into play. You and a lifelong friend see a star in the sky. You say "Ahh that is a supreme entity that controls all, and will one day be my salvation. Your friend nods and smiles... You ask him what he believes about the supreme entity. He says "I do not take a position on whether such a thing will rescue us, I only know the problems I must deal with and that star seems somewhat divorced from these problems. What happens after these problems does not concern me."

Now... In our binary language that could be interpreted as a statement of non belief, I suppose... in Sanskrit arguing against an opponent it would be interpreted as simply not taking a point of view on an issue.

Another example: I am a dietician and you ask me if Chocolate is good. I say "it depends." YOu say, once in a while a nice, super sweet hershey bar lifts my spirits!" I say " well, there is nothing inherently bad about a chocolate now and then, it wont harm you." The next month I see you and you are fat and eating lots of hershey bars...

Buddha thought that the rituals to supreme beings with good karma, though empty if devoid of intent, was ok as long as it did no harm (ahimsa)... But when a Brahman did the rituals all day and only for good karma, there was a problem! See the point here?

Looks like a lot of filler to me. Strip it down, did he or didn't he believe in God ?

[Mushroom]

It has nothing to do with a personal philosophy, that includes the philosophy of the Buddha... If someone says to you "Do you believe in God?" you may not be able to answer in a binary fashion as in "yes" or "no." However in certain languages you can answer the question without a yes, or a no... The best our language can do is provide the term "Agnostic."

The problem with your argument is that what we would call the Buddha would be an agnostic... But that in itself is not entirely correct either.

Like most posters here, I doubt you are willing to try to entertain what I am trying to explain to you... you would rather "Be right" and stay ignorant of ideas that are theological in nature and cannot be expressed in the dialectic of our language.

Alas I am a bigger idiot than you and will actually take five minutes of my life and try to explain this too you with an example... I should know better.

So first of all, in the Buddha's time there were Gods and they were generally thought to have good Karma, Buddha addressed the gods through the Karma stating that "Good Karma still binds us and attaches us" so the Buddha did believe in Gods... he just saw them as more entrapped. As far as a supreme entity, there was the Atman in India, which was a supreme part of all things... What did Buddha believe of this?

Thats where an example comes into play. You and a lifelong friend see a star in the sky. You say "Ahh that is a supreme entity that controls all, and will one day be my salvation. Your friend nods and smiles... You ask him what he believes about the supreme entity. He says "I do not take a position on whether such a thing will rescue us, I only know the problems I must deal with and that star seems somewhat divorced from these problems. What happens after these problems does not concern me."

Now... In our binary language that could be interpreted as a statement of non belief, I suppose... in Sanskrit arguing against an opponent it would be interpreted as simply not taking a point of view on an issue.

Another example: I am a dietician and you ask me if Chocolate is good. I say "it depends." YOu say, once in a while a nice, super sweet hershey bar lifts my spirits!" I say " well, there is nothing inherently bad about a chocolate now and then, it wont harm you." The next month I see you and you are fat and eating lots of hershey bars...

Buddha thought that the rituals to supreme beings with good karma, though empty if devoid of intent, was ok as long as it did no harm (ahimsa)... But when a Brahman did the rituals all day and only for good karma, there was a problem! See the point here?

Interesting read.....

[MDPopescu]

You have called me out for some of my outlandish ideas... I accepted your rebuke... with much respect I say "read up on Buddhism" I would suggest Conze Edward Conze.

I'm not interested in "religions" per se, because I already have one... But as about the comparative study of religious beliefs, I wish to remind you that Mircea Eliade is Romanian born (and I started reading his books since the early '80s). Also in the early '80s, I stumbled into Fritjof Capra and David Bohm -- therefore I had to read some Buddhism anyway...

[Pretty Boy32]

Looks like a lot of filler to me. Strip it down, did he or didn't he believe in God ?

Buddha didn’t believe in god.

Mainly Islamic extremists believe that Buddha was sent my a Allah.

This was dismantled quickly as Buddha didn’t believe in god and the Qaran states that is only one god of which all must worship.

[BodyBagz]

Buddha didn’t believe in god.

Mainly Islamic extremists believe that Buddha was sent my a Allah.

This was dismantled quickly as Buddha didn’t believe in god and the Qaran states that is only one god of which all must worship.

And that is what people cal an atheist, yes ?

[Pretty Boy32]

And that is what people cal an atheist, yes ?

Yes totally.

I completely agree he was atheist. Whether there are texts stating he said that or not. The fact is he hoped to show people that God wouldn’t be the one to set them free. “No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path,” he has said.