Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
That's nice. However, you are not a Buddhist.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can a Buddhist believe in God?
- Thread starter Sand Dancer
- Start date
Sorry sir, I've never thought that.
I never thought it was true.
I just said it is not COMMONPLACE which is obvious. I guess I need to define 'commonplace' next time. I guess my confusion is that I'm not getting your huffy attitude about this.
I'm a Universalist. So, your point escapes me.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by apophenia
What makes you think that everyone who experiences nirvana ( that is very loose language ) talks publicly about it, or writes books about it, or gives public lectures ?
Strangely, very few do.
Then what is the basis of the 'obvious deduction' ?
Actually, you said
In saying this, you are making an unsupportable assertion about whether or not the eightfold path actually leads to fruition in the lifetime of the practitioner. Your view is not supported by Gautama or buddhist teachers. It is a proposition synthesised from various sources - it is your manufactured conceptual framework. We are discussing buddhism, not George-ananda-ism.
Huffy ? Because I am homing in on a relevant perspective ?
No, not huffy. Just thorough. As you yourself said ...
Yet it is only ( at least, almost entirely) those scriptures which lead to views about nirvana, god etc.
If you aren't getting your ideas about brahman, nirvana etc from ancient scriptures, may I ask from whence they came ?
And further, from whence come your ideas about how easily you could recognise who, of the tens of thousands of people you encounter, may be stable in nirvana ? I'm guessing that your ideas come at least primarily from ancient scriptures. And further, you are forcing the definition of nirvana to fit your assumptions derived from hindu beliefs.
Last edited:
apophenia
Well-Known Member
Meanwhile, back on topic - there is no reason not to practice meditation, regardless of what you currently believe.
The main benefit of the eightfold path is insight, which affects the way you live, how you feel, how you treat others. The object is not to arrive at a correct theological or cosmological proposition. ( That is just a typical obsession of posters on religious forums
)Krill The Unwashed
Member
Just to clarify something for those who care to know:
There are several schools/yanas of Buddhism. The two mains ones are (1) Theravada aka Southern Buddhism, & (2) Mahayana aka Northern Buddhism.
Theravada Buddhism's "territory" is in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia.
Mahayana Buddhism's "territory" is up north in China and Japan.
Theravada Buddhism is based on a 40 volume tome called the Tipitaka (in Pali) aka the Pali Canon. The "suttas" in the Tipitaka are the oldest writings associated with the Buddha and what he taught.
Mahayana with their sacred texts does things like how Christianity would. Christianity takes the sacred texts of Judaism, and adds to that their own books which became the New Testament.
Mahayana did the same thing. They use the Pali Canon, called in Sanskrit the Tripitaka, and to that they add their own "sutras" which were written at later dates.
The Lankavatara Sutra which is quoted here is a Mahayana text. Two points should be kept in mind:
1) The Lankavatara Sutra was written 800 years AFTER the Buddha died. It would be a leap of faith to believe that the statements and teachings - as insightful as they are - were indeed words the original Buddha spoke 800 years prior.
This would be similar to if say, a monk in 800 AD Europe had written a sacred text and the teachings of this text he wrote were said to be the very words of Jesus Christ who died 800 years before the text was written.
2) The Lankavatara Sutra, being a Mahayana text, has nothing to do with the Tipitaka or with Theravada Buddhism proper. The Lankavatara Sutra - along with other Mahayana sutras - are not in anyway authoritative in/to Theravada Buddhism or to Theravadins and their school/apprehension of Buddhism.
It would be more intellectually sound to say that regarding God as the "Supreme Creator" Mahayana teaches that no such creator exists according to the Lankavatara Sutra.
In Theravada Buddhism, in a part of the Tipitaka called the Digha Nikaya there is a story/teaching regarding Brahma the Creator. In the story Brahma claims himself to be the creator of the universe.
When asked why he believed himself to the the creator of the universe, Brahma eventually says that he believes so because when he awoke in the universe, he was the only living being around, and so he believed he was the universe's creator.
The Buddha then begins to say that Mahabrahma (as he is called in the Digha Nikaya) that he is a delusional god and that he is not the creator.
In the Tipitaka, Brahma is acknowledged as an existing deva (god) but that he is not the Creator of the universe. Like all beings in the wheel of Samsara, gods (devas) and all goddesses (devis) such as Brahma are subject to causality (kamma) and rebirth around the wheel of samsara.
For a Theravada perspective on this god subject, start with this LINK.
In Theravada Buddhism, the belief or disbelief in God the Creator is irrelevant and not a central subject of Theravada Buddhism. What is relevant and central is that each Theravadin understands the 4 Noble Truths, and that they try to live the 8 Fold Path, that they practice Metta. Trying to alleviate suffering (one's own and those of family and friends), working towards Liberation (nibbana/moksha), are the goals and aims of Theravada Buddhism... not taking a position on if god/creator exists or not.
Last edited:
ratikala
Istha gosthi
namaste krill :namaste
this I agree with in full , I think that there is a great danger here to assume what lay beyond , and this we do with a conditioned mind , when we have reached the stage of havung a fully enlightened mind free from attatchment , hatred and ignorance , then and then only are we in a position to see what lay beyond , and untill that time we should not take too strong a position either way so to say that there is no god just because buddha did not teach on it is prehaps some what foolish an attatchment .
this I agree with in full , I think that there is a great danger here to assume what lay beyond , and this we do with a conditioned mind , when we have reached the stage of havung a fully enlightened mind free from attatchment , hatred and ignorance , then and then only are we in a position to see what lay beyond , and untill that time we should not take too strong a position either way so to say that there is no god just because buddha did not teach on it is prehaps some what foolish an attatchment .
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Yes, that was my point...supreme creators are a no-no in Buddhism.
Hell, it's even one of the "Basic Points Unifying the Theravada and Mahayana". If it wasn't important I really doubt it would make the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Theravāda_and_the_MahāyānaThe Buddha is our only Master (teacher and guide)
We take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Saṅgha (the Three Jewels)
We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God.
We consider that the purpose of life is to develop compassion for all living beings without discrimination and to work for their good, happiness, and peace; and to develop wisdom (prajñā
We accept the Four Noble Truths, namely duḥkha, the arising of duḥkha, the cessation of duḥkha, and the path leading to the cessation of duḥkha; and the law of cause and effect (pratītyasamutpāda)
All conditioned things (saṃskāra) are impermanent (anitya) and duḥkha, and that all conditioned and unconditioned things (dharma) are without self (anātma) (see trilaksana).
We accept the thirty-seven qualities conducive to enlightenment (bodhipakṣadharma) as different aspects of the Path taught by the Buddha leading to Enlightenment.
There are three ways of attaining bodhi or Enlightenment: namely as a disciple (śrāvaka), as a pratyekabuddha and as a samyaksambuddha (perfectly and fully enlightened Buddha). We accept it as the highest, noblest, and most heroic to follow the career of a Bodhisattva and to become a samyaksambuddha in order to save others.
We admit that in different countries there are differences regarding Buddhist beliefs and practices. These external forms and expressions should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Syncretist, at best.
As long as it can be reconciled with the Four Seals, sure.
Three marks of existence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For various reasons, there are those who claim to be Buddhist without much of an understanding of even the letter of the Seals. But there is little point to it, and quite frankly it shouldn't have happened at all.
As long as you investigate for yourself. Clinging to beliefs can certainly throw bias into your investigation/contemplation.The way I see it, a buddhist may believe in almost anything.
The main importance would be the attempt or goal to free oneself from all attachments, including attachments to beliefs held.
And to labels like "buddhist"
apophenia
Well-Known Member
I would say that beliefs qualify as craving/aversion.
Why would one choose to believe anything except that one craves certainty and has an aversion to the unexplained ?
Having said that, all buddhists have to deal with cravings and aversions, that is the point of it, so attachment to beliefs is little different to wanting approval and avoiding cold showers, or whatever.
I can see what you mean. I was thinking that believing that your alarm clock will go off at the appointed time when you set it would be a healthy belief to hold, as it would allow you to sleep soundly. However, I can see your point that it would be the craving of certainty about your alarm clock going off that would keep you from sleeping soundly. :yes:
{Or would that be clinging to uncertainty?
}Krill The Unwashed
Member
It would be intellectually dishonest to remove this document (Basic Points of Unity) out of its native context, and to present it as a list of things a person must adopt to be a Buddhist.
The context of these unifying points is that Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism spent several centuries in sectarian feuds with each other over which school is the "True" Buddhism.
There was a time when Mahayana referred to Theravada Buddhism derogatorily as Hinayana (the minor/lesser vehicle).
On the Theravada side, "we" don't recognize any of their sutras as being genuine teachings of Buddha. "We" also don't recognize their monks as being genuine. And "we" certainly don't recognize their nuns as being genuine, since in the Theravada tradition, the nun lineage went extinct a very long time ago.
The fact that this list even exists is pitiful and shows that even Buddhism is not free from the stupidity of sectarian politics.
A group of monks from both sides in the 60s got tired of the stupidity and tried to find common grounds to end the centuries long feud.
The list you provided is nothing more. It is a list of views both sides can at least agree on; a truce, if you will. It is not a list or things a person must obey or agree with to be a Buddhist proper. This list in noway supersede what the Buddha taught regarding how a person becomes a "Buddhist" (an Upasaka/Upasika).
Pursuant of the Tipitaka, as per the Buddha himself, a human being only needs three requirements to be a "Buddhist" aka an Upasaka (male) or Upasika (female).
The three requirements are as follows:
1) Seek refuge in Buddha: Buddham saranam gecchami (I go to the Buddha as my refuge.)
2) Seek refuge in Dhamma: Dhammam saranam gecchami (I go to the Dhamma as my refuge.)
3) Seek refuge in Sangha: Sangham saranam gecchami (I go to the Sansha as my refuge.)
Notice that the belief or rejection of a god/creator is not one of the Three Jewels.
The many responses in this thread only serves to obfuscate the simplicity of (Theravada) Buddhism:
So long as a person takes refuge in the 3 Jewels they are to the Buddha, "Buddhists" in good standing.
Besides the Three Jewels a fellow wayfarer of the Way of Buddha can follow the Pancha Sila (5 Precepts) if they want to take their Buddhism up a devout notch.
The belief in or rejection of God also is not a part of the Pancha Sila. Neither is it a part of the some 200 precepts a monk must follow.
To seek refuge in Buddha does not mean that one believes him to be some infallible religious prophet or savior. He is simply a teacher. One person who has found a way to Sambuddhi: Self-Enlightenment. And he created a Way whereby any other person can in their own time and season manifest that same Self-Enlightenment. Sambuddhi has nothing soever to do with the rejection or acceptance of gods.
To seek refuge in Dhamma doesn't mean one blindly accepts everything and every word ascribed to the Buddha. Dhamma must be observable and testable.
To seek refuge in the Sangha means two things. That (1) if you can't find an answer to something on your own, you can go to the Bhikkhusangha (the order of monks) and ask for their opinions; and (2) that you can go to the Ariyasangha (the collective noun for all fellow Buddhists) and ask them for their opinions. The point here is that you go to a LIVING source, as opposed to going to dead letters and some list of points.
Thirza Fallen in her OP said she liked Buddhism but believes in God, and wanted to know if she can merge the two. The simple answer is: Yes you can, per the Buddha's words himself, and also per practice.
The fact is Thirza, there is no such thing as "pure" Buddhism on a living cultural level. I will try and explain.
In the Southern Buddhism found in Thailand (I'm ethnically Thai), Laos, and Cambodia, the Buddhism there is merges with the more ancient Brahmanism.
Up north in China, Bodhidharma merged Buddhism with Taoism along time ago to come up with Chan Buddhism. In Japan Bodhidharma merged Buddhism with the local "Shintoism" and Zen came into being, which is a form of Chan. In Tibet the native people's Bon was merged with Buddhism and Vajrayana Buddhism was born.
In Buddhism jargon, this "merging" of Buddhism with other ways, is called an Upaya. It is a word most Westerners who study Buddhism don't pay much mind to. In the Tipitaka the Buddha says that one can use any Upaya so long as it manifests the end result of a person becoming a Buddhist. If you want to know more about upaya and what it is, you can research it.
Only in written text (in theory) is Buddhism "pure." This is a great divide between the Western mind and the Eastern mind. The Western mind puts the written text up on a golden platter. After centuries of being told that the written text of the Bible is the law, and the written text of colleges are where wisdom and knowledge is found, this is not surprising.
In the Eastern mind, Culture and Cultural Praxis is what is important and is what teaches. You/we get our Buddhism not from books or written texts, but from living sources. From parents, grandparents, neighbors, friends, monks, cultural icons, and so on. Unlike dead letters and written text, a living culture evolves and changes. And so in Southeast Asia, and up north, a living Buddhist culture evolves and grows over time. Asian cultures have had at least 1000 years of exposure to Buddhism to evolve. And so, over time, there will be a natural/gradual merger of Buddhism with native traditions.
As long as the upaya produces the end result of the person seeking refuge in the Three Jewels, the upaya is acceptable.
Just to breifly explain in practical terms what an upaya is:
The Catholic Church is good at "upaya-ing." They go into a new civilization of native Americans in South America. These natives have their own culture and set of gods. And so the Church will make those local gods into "Saints." This helps bring in the locals into the faith proper.
Mahayana Buddhism in practice is also good at this. "Saints" in Mahayana Buddhism are called "Bodhisattvas."
There are two "bodhisattva" in Chinese Buddhism worth mentioning. If you are a Chinese Buddhist, these two are present in your Buddhism and in your temples. My grandparents are Chinese.
The first Bodhisattva is Kwan Yin, and the second is one we call "Preah Gachai" aka the "Fat Buddha."
The reality is that before Buddhism was brought to China, Kwan Yin and the "Fat Buddha" were local gods of the natives. Kwan Yin was a Taoist "goddess" before she was a Mahayana "saint." The "fat Buddha" was the local animist god of the fecund earth spirit/father, corpulent and abundant, before he was made into a "Buddhist" "Bodhisattva."
Tibetan Buddhism is even better at this upaya stuff. Their Buddhism is filled with local Bon Po gods and spirit beings.
So if these other forms of Buddhism can "merge" Buddhism with things, and if people here regard Mahayana and Vajrayana as genuine schools of Buddhism regardless of the upaya and mixing, why can't you utilize Buddhism and its practices on your own terms and in your own way?
We are now even witnessing the creation (gradual birth) of a new yana of Buddhism, which the West is creating. This Buddhism is being merged with Western science, Western 'rationalism,' and with Western atheism/materialism. If merging Buddhism with science works to bring Westerners to take refuge in the Three Jewels, than it is acceptable.
The Way in and of itself is not important, in Buddhism it is the end destination that is important. What kind of car (vehicle/yana) you drive to get to that end destination is irrelevant, as long as it gets you there
Last edited:
Krill the Unwashed; Fantastically good post above.
What are your thoughts on the rebirth/reincarnation/western-materialism controversy one finds in the west in regards to Buddhism. Methinks your answer will be similar to the Theist/Atheist controversy; none of those beliefs go against the three jewels and are acceptable for a Buddhist.
What are your personal opinions on the rebirth/western-materialism controversy.
What are your thoughts on the rebirth/reincarnation/western-materialism controversy one finds in the west in regards to Buddhism. Methinks your answer will be similar to the Theist/Atheist controversy; none of those beliefs go against the three jewels and are acceptable for a Buddhist.
What are your personal opinions on the rebirth/western-materialism controversy.
Krill The Unwashed
Member
(part 1)
Thank you G-A
I'll try to answer both your questions as honestly as I can:In Buddhism, there is something called the "10/4 Unfathomable Questions," which the Buddha during his lifetime was silent about, refused to answer, refused to debate, and never expounded upon.
The 10-14 Unfathomable Questions are as follows:
These 10/4 unfathomable questions would cover the subject of rebirth/reincarnation (punabhava). I personally like the original word "punabhava" better than the English words.
Puna meaning "Again" and Bhava meaning "Become," "Come To Be," and "Being." Maybe "Rebecoming" is good
In questions 4 & 5 the word "Jivam" is used, which doesn't necessarily mean a soul or spirit. Jiva means "Life," "Alive" in Sanskrit and Pali. In Thai & Khmer the word "Jivit" means Life. When I say in Khmer: "Manuss [person] mien [has] jivit" it doesn't mean that such person has a soul. It means that he is Alive, or has Life. Jivam, perhaps is better translated as "Life-force" or "That Which Lives."
When we ask in English question like: "Is reincarnation real?" What we are actually trying to figure out are a few things as follows:
1) Is the Life I have an emergentile phenomenon of my body, or is it something separate and independent of my body?
2) Does this Life die with my body or does it stay alive after my body dies?
3) If it does stay alive after my body dies, does it become new people?
And in the same line of questioning we can ask further:
1) If the Buddha is alive [jiva] is his jivam independent of his body?
2) If his jivam is not his body, when Buddha dies, what becomes of his jivam?
3) Does Buddha's 'jivam' become new people? Or did his jivam just extinguish into nothing?
So, in "Buddhism Proper" - meaning as far as the Buddha and the tipitaka goes, such questions are left un-expounded and unanswered. Why though?
Because of how Buddhism defines what is "Real." Real according to the Buddha is "That which can be verified."
This isn't to say that rebirth is "fake." It just means that the belief or concept of reincarnation and also the disbelief or ideological rejection of reincarnation are both unverifiable. Both pro and con positions cannot be verified.
In other words, how do we prove and verify that (A) a spirit exists, and (B) a spirit does not exist? How do we prove and verify that (C) the soul becomes new people, and (D) the soul does not become new people? Either position we may take, ends up with us just holding onto our beliefs upon mere faith. Faith here meaning believing in something which is beyond verification.
Wiikipedia explains pretty well the reason why Buddha never touched these questions:
The reason why Buddha never bothered dealing with these sorts of unverifiable questions is because both sides, without any proof and facts, can speculate and conjecture, and extrapolate, and make assumptions upon assumptions forever and ever. And all that assuming and speculating will ever amount to is just a bunch of people arguing and blowing hot air about something which is beyond their physical reach of apprehending.
It would be the same as if we were to debate on whether or not the universe is infinite of finite. How does either side actually and factually know if the universe is infinite or finite? We don't, and we'll never know, until we one day see the end of the universe with our own eyes or with our scientific instruments... which is not likely.
But, look close at the universe example. Just because we can't verify the quiddity and state of the universe, does not mean that it is fake or that it is not a phenomenon. It just means that, it is beyond verification. And that talking about something we don't even know about is pointless and Akosala: Unconstructive, Unproductive, bears No Fruit.
We all know we have Jiva, since we are all alive. And so, we all know that this Jiva is an observable phenomenon. What we don't know is the Nature of this Jiva. All we have are beliefs, hypotheses, and so on.
So the technical Buddhist position regarding the topic of punabhava is that Buddhism takes neither pro or con. It takes neither side. Neither left or right. Neither the belief in rebirth or the rejection of rebirth has anything to do with the Three Jewels and of a person being a Buddhist, just as you said.
Buddhism does not take sides. It takes the "Samma." In the tipitaka Buddha often refers to his Way as the Samma. This word in English is mistranslated to mean "right" or "correct." The more accurate translation for "Samma" is "Complete," "Whole," "Full."
But Buddha uses the word Samma to also mean "Middle," as when he describes his Way as the Middle Path. At face value Complete and Middle don't seem to fit together. Until you learn to step back and see things from a more "wholistic" or Complete perspective. I'll try to explain, since this will clear up some controversies brought up in this thread.
Samma is like when for example a person claims: "Red is Color." And a second person says: "No, Violet is Color." The Buddha will come along and say: "Neither extreme side is everything. You're missing an entire Middle part which will give you the Whole/Complete picture."
And in the color example, the Samma are all the colors in between red and violet. So when we step back and not take sides, we realize (Buddhi) that red and violet are actually aspects of a Spectrum... a reality greater then just red and violet.
So it is the same with this notion of God versus No-God, or Atheism versus Theism. Those are only two sides of something far more bigger and we are not looking for the Samma which will put those two things together into a bigger picture.
One camp says that no creator exist while another says that one does? Who is right or wrong? Neither has the whole answer. In the last book of the Tipitaka, the Buddha explains that the World as we know it does indeed have a creator, and that creator is Mind.
In Western science, the basic idea is to try to come to a understanding of our physical natural world, one part at a time. In science we have many different disciplines or fields. There is biology, chemistry, cosmology, mathematics, physics, quantum physics, and so on. Neither of these fields has the Whole and complete answer. And the eventual desire is to somehow merge what each of these fields has come to understand so that we develop Complete and Whole understanding of the entirety of our World as one thing.
So, technically Buddhism does not take sides on whether or not a person reincarnates or not. This has nothing to do with the Three Jewels.
Continued in part 2...
Last edited:
Krill The Unwashed
Member
Part 2
But many Westerners and Easterners can say: "Well, that's great but what about Buddha's concept of Anatta/Anatma?" Didn't he reject the idea of an immortal spirit? No, not exactly.
The concept of Anatta/Anatma has to be put into its proper contextual time and place, if we desire to understand what the Buddha has contentions about. The proper time is 500 BC. The proper place is India.
In India in 500 BC the dominant sasana/religion was Brahmanism. During that early time there was the belief that inside each human being was a little small dwarf person called the "Atman." This atman was said to be eternal and unchanging. When a person dies, it was taught that this little atman flies out of the dead body and becomes new person.
The Buddha didn't like this idea because of his idea of Anicca: Impermanence. To the Buddha, all things which are real and which exists is subject to change. Nothing is permanent and eternally the same. So the Buddha had contentions about the idea that an "atman" was this eternal and unchanging "thing." If the atman exist, it is subject to change and cannot be eternally the same. So he comes up with the idea of "Anatta" meaning No-Atma.
People take this out of time and context and interpret An-Atta (Anatma) to mean that the Buddha rejected the idea of a souls and so therefore reincarnation is fake. This just isn't accurate.
Not many people in Buddhism ever pay any mind to what the Buddha taught about something called "Chitta-Santana" (citta-samtana in Sanskrit). Chitta can be translated to mean "Mind/Awareness," and Santana means Continuation, Spectrum, Continuum, Coherency. In English this concept is translated as "Mindstream." Basically mindstream is what flows continuously. Chitta retains its coherency continuously across time, but it is ever changing, and never the same. Just as a river's stream is never the same river twice at any time.
On a private or personal level, I have my own personal feelings about rebirth. I grew up in an Asian culture. And so I'm a unit of a culture of thousands and millions of other people. And in our culture, as it is with many Asian culture, we are exposed to the odd phenomena of people remembering what they believe to be their past lives. In some cases, children in my culture will remember past life details, and such details were verified.
I have the personal story of a cousin by marriage of mine named Sokuntia or Tia for short. When Tia learned how to talk, she called her father by his first name and talked to him with a familiar register of our language, which a child doesn't do to elders.
Tia later when she is fluent, explains to her father that before she was born Tia, she was his best friend. In her former life, "she" was a man and "she" and her father fell in love with the same girl. The two did not fight over the girl, since they valued their friendship. So they let the girl pick one of them to marry. The girl picked Tia's father.
And so, in her past life as her father's best friend she explains that she went to talk with the girl in private and told her that she was the only girl "he" ever loved and that since she will not be with "him" he will never love another woman and instead will join the army and be a soldier. He joined the army, and during the 60's was killed in battle. Tia's mother she was reborn thru was the girl he loved.
Tia as a child remembered the details of her past life where she was able to name the names of her past parents and siblings and draw out the layout of the house she once lived in, curious, her parents in this life ended up contacting the people Tia claimed to be her past life parents who live in Boston.
These people in Boston flew down to speak with Tia, and after hearing everything Tia remembered was convinced that Tia was their son in her past life, even though she and these Boston people had never actually met before.
But I hear and encounter many stories like this. So on a personal level, as a Buddhist I have to admit that there is a phenomena there which i am looking at. That's all I can say in an intellectually honest way. To go beyond saying that there is a phenomenon there, is to just speculate and blow hot air. Realistically I will never know the answer until I myself die, and I am happy with not fully knowing.
I personally don't believe in rebirth but at the same time I personally do not reject the possibility of rebirth. I can't take sides. There is a middle part I can't see or am not aware of which may one day give me a more complete picture.
But a belief or disbelief in rebirth has nothing to do with the Three Jewels. All anybody needs to be a Buddhist according to the Buddha are the Three Jewels. Everything else is "gravy" as they say
Last edited:
Thank you Krill the Unwashed. Two superior posts in my opinion. You're one of the best contributors I've seen on Religious Forums. Please stick around.
A couple more questions though. Where have you lived in your life and what is your ethnicity. I think you've said Thai ethnicity but something else you said made me not so clear. How did you attain such an excellent command of English?
What would you say would be the appeal of Buddhism for people with no belief in any form of life after death? i.e. versus not bothering with any discipline
A couple more questions though. Where have you lived in your life and what is your ethnicity. I think you've said Thai ethnicity but something else you said made me not so clear. How did you attain such an excellent command of English?
What would you say would be the appeal of Buddhism for people with no belief in any form of life after death? i.e. versus not bothering with any discipline