Religious Brains vs Atheist Brains

[Buddha Dharma]

Lol. Just goes to show that there's fanatics and fundies in all religions.

I am sorry you feel that way, but I'm just giving a Buddhist response. I also care very deeply for everything's well-being, or I would not practice Buddhism as seriously as I do.

If believing in the Blessed One's teachings about reality, the cosmos, and what is real makes me a fanatic- I suppose guilty as charged.

The Buddha is my teacher and Lord, as I understand the Dharmakaya to pervade the universe. I am proud to answer to the charge of being a fundamentalist Buddhist.

Regards

 

[Darkstorn]

I am sorry you feel that way, but I'm just giving a Buddhist response.

No, you were giving a response as a bigot who puts words into peoples' mouths and refuses to see any counterpoints. Your post is stealth-directed at me. After you ignored me. That does not spell "Buddhist response" to me. That's what i call a prime example of ignorance and weakness of character.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am sorry you feel that way, but I'm just giving a Buddhist response. I also care very deeply for everything's well-being, or I would not practice Buddhism as seriously as I do.

If believing in the Blessed One's teachings about reality, the cosmos, and what is real makes me a fanatic- I suppose guilty as charged.

The Buddha is my teacher and Lord, as I understand the Dharmakaya to pervade the universe. I am proud to answer to the charge of being a fundamentalist Buddhist.

Regards

No, that's an intolerant and disrespectful response. Caring deeply for a person and bludgeoning them with the hammer of heretic hunting are antithetical. Are you the Grand Inquistitor of Buddhism? You have to realize that not everyone is going to agree with you and that they don't have to, including follow Buddhists. That's just life.

Even in religions where theism appears to be a central tenet of faith, there are atheists and agnostics such as Jewish and Christian atheists. I've even heard of Muslim atheists. Theism is far from a central tenet of Buddhism so you can imagine how common diverging beliefs regarding theism are within Buddhism, which is wildly diverse and often syncreticized with local cultures. Sure, many Buddhists view the Buddha as some sort superhuman being or even savior deity, for lack of a better term, and that appears to be a very old interpretation. But others disagree and always have. That's fine. It's not like there's conclusive evidence either way, just writings created centuries after the fact (similar to the problem with the various and conflicting Hadith in Islam). You're going to have to tolerate each other.

I personally don't see what any fundamentalism or fanaticism has to do with a "middle way". Those traits are a sign of insecurity and fear, as well as a sign of immaturity. I was under the impression that Buddhism frowns on those traits. You can strongly believe something and even debate while still being respectful of different opinions.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have always felt my religious brain is most adequate if not superior than any "atheist scum."

. . . . there is a Star Wars joke hidden in there

From what I observe, we unbelievers could very well be God's chosen.
Notice how churches often catch fire or flood?
But the money changers (banks) typically escape disasters.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@Saint Frankenstein I think you are assuming I'm making this about agreement with me. Buddhism is not about agreement with me. The two vehicles have historically agreed on about 90% of doctrine, meaning no Buddhist can reasonably reject that 90% as Buddhist teaching. We have consensus in two different literary lineages, saying the Buddha did and taught such and such a thing. Buddhism makes claims about the cosmos that are objective with the goal of saving sentient beings.

Again, this is not about agreement with me. The Blessed One taught there are gods, and they are not a minor aspect of the doctrine like a secular Buddhist may attempt to paint. The gods have overreaching effects on karma in the Buddhist worldview. They are capable of great good and great evil.

It is actually seen as a benefit when a deity or unseen being embraces Buddhism, and one of the reasons we practice is so they will. They become a great force for the Dharma and stop using their powers for negative actions. Lord Indra is probably the best example I could furnish here of a deity that benefited immensely from Buddhism. In Greek mythology we westerners know him as Zeus. Lord Indra was fundamentally changed and transformed by the Buddha path. He no longer acts in flights of rage, or womanizes, and so on.

This is not about me. This is actual historic Buddhist teaching. I reverence the gods as higher beings than me, likely to care about me, but I also venerate them and invite them into my home that they might see the Blessed One's Dharma practiced and accept it.

Theravada also sees deities as real. This is not a Mahayana only view, as a poster tried to paint. In fact, the Indra Sutta about Lord Indra's conversion is a Theravada text. We are told Indra asked the Buddha such and such a question and replied: very good Blessed One! Your answer is most excellent.

The Buddha has titles, one of them being teacher of the Devas. I simply will not stand by and let Buddhism be misrepresented.

 

[Darkstorn]

Theravada also sees deities as real.

No. In Theravada that is arguable. It understands that there's the text, and there's the interpretation. Blind faith... Is just blind faith.

This is not a Mahayana only view, as a poster tried to paint. In fact, the Indra Sutta about Lord Indra's conversion is a Theravada text. We are told Indra asked the Buddha such and such a question and replied: very good Blessed One! Your answer is most excellent.

The texts are remarkably similar in both vessels. The difference is interpretation. I don't think you've studied Theravada long enough. It is not important whether or not the texts have deities in them. What is important is the context in which they are used: What lesson could be derived from the text.

Your interpretation seems to be reading something and believing in it unquestionably, depending on the supposed author. That is just an appeal to authority. But at what point do you actually think of the lesson? I always thought blind acceptance was antithetical to reason, and i feel you aren't actually learning a bit.

I feel this is all pointless anyway. Your modus operandi was to make empty claims about me, to misrepresent my view, to ignore my pleas for you to reconsider your tactics, and then to ignore me with the forum feature. If only that would be the end of it: You STILL continue to harass me with perceived immunity. Because you can't see my posts.

This all screams insecurity. You are not here to talk to me. You are here to talk about me. You don't care to listen at all. You just want to be heard. You make this reality true by artificially removing aspects of it.

The Buddha has titles, one of them being teacher of the Devas. I simply will not stand by and let Buddhism be misrepresented.

You openly misrepresented my words even after i told you what you were doing. You refused to back down, in fact, you ignored me and continued to misrepresent me and proselytize your 100% literal interpretation as the Truth. I was trying to engage you even though you were being rude and disrespectful in your methods. And you refused.

I feel you failed several of the aspects of the Noble eightfold path.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

@Saint Frankenstein I think you are assuming I'm making this about agreement with me. Buddhism is not about agreement with me. The two vehicles have historically agreed on about 90% of doctrine, meaning no Buddhist can reasonably reject that 90% as Buddhist teaching. We have consensus in two different literary lineages, saying the Buddha did and taught such and such a thing. Buddhism makes claims about the cosmos that are objective with the goal of saving sentient beings.

Again, this is not about agreement with me. The Blessed One taught there are gods, and they are not a minor aspect of the doctrine like a secular Buddhist may attempt to paint. The gods have overreaching effects on karma in the Buddhist worldview. They are capable of great good and great evil.

It is actually seen as a benefit when a deity or unseen being embraces Buddhism, and one of the reasons we practice is so they will. They become a great force for the Dharma and stop using their powers for negative actions. Lord Indra is probably the best example I could furnish here of a deity that benefited immensely from Buddhism. In Greek mythology we westerners know him as Zeus. Lord Indra was fundamentally changed and transformed by the Buddha path. He no longer acts in flights of rage, or womanizes, and so on.

This is not about me. This is actual historic Buddhist teaching. I reverence the gods as higher beings than me, likely to care about me, but I also venerate them and invite them into my home that they might see the Blessed One's Dharma practiced and accept it.

Theravada also sees deities as real. This is not a Mahayana only view, as a poster tried to paint. In fact, the Indra Sutta about Lord Indra's conversion is a Theravada text. We are told Indra asked the Buddha such and such a question and replied: very good Blessed One! Your answer is most excellent.

The Buddha has titles, one of them being teacher of the Devas. I simply will not stand by and let Buddhism be misrepresented.

I really don't give a crap about your attempt hide behind your religion as a justification for your abusive behavior. You're just like anyone else who is an angry bigot with an ego who can't control his passions. Way to miss the point of Buddhism.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I really don't give a crap about your attempt hide behind your religion as a justification for your abusive behavior.

My abusive behavior? Oh dear...

You're just like anyone else who is an angry bigot with an ego who can't control his passions.

I'm an angry bigot?

I never lost control of my passions, but I'm glad you think you can read me from behind a screen.

Way to miss the point of Buddhism.

Missing the point of Buddhism is treating it like a buffet and deciding which of the Blessed One's teachings you can select to follow. That also is ego, of a very unbelievable degree actually. Since the Blessed One had the awakened mind of Anutara Samyak Sambodhi and was not any ordinary mortal. In fact, the Buddha is one that transcended humanity, and no longer answered to being in that state.

I know better than to think I could tell the Blessed Buddha what was what with my limited understanding. Ego is thinking one can.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I see this more as the meditative brain versus the baseline brain (more than atheist versus religious).

I think Meditation is so good for us and I am still too lazy to do it

Meditation is the ultimate laziness. Just keep doing less until everything is done. Some fella with a funny name, Laotzu, tole me that.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I am sorry folks, but accusing me of bigotry and ego is not going to change the Blessed One's teaching. It isn't going to change what the two vehicles have historically taught, or what the Sangha has believed. You don't believe the Blessed One's words that he spoke to Indra and other unseen beings? You might as well say the Buddha was deluded, and that's no way for a Buddhist to think or speak about the Lord.

I don't care what non-Buddhists want to say about the Buddha. They can believe he was a mad man and we'll all answer for our karma. However, when secularists want to corrupt the Sangha and change the Dharma to suit them- that is my business. I will not betray either Buddhism, or what millions of brethren before us believed and put their trust in.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My abusive behavior? Oh dear...



I'm an angry bigot?

I never lost control of my passions, but I'm glad you think you can read me from behind a screen.



Missing the point of Buddhism is treating it like a buffet and deciding which of the Blessed One's teachings you can select to follow. That also is ego, of a very unbelievable degree actually. Since the Blessed One had the awakened mind of Anutara Samyak Sambodhi and was not any ordinary mortal. In fact, the Buddha is one that transcended humanity, and no longer answered to being in that state.

I know better than to think I could tell the Blessed Buddha what was what with my limited understanding. Ego is thinking one can.

Yes, you are acting like an angry bigot. You obviously have something against atheists and that is why you are so offended by the notion of your religion being associated with them. You have accused them of "destroying" the Dharma and made extremist statements like how perservung the Dharma is more important than not killing (even though killing would obviously be wrecking Dharma), which is an implicit threat. Theism or non-theism is really a non-issue in Buddhism so I have to assume it's for personal reasons you are upset over this.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am sorry folks, but accusing me of bigotry and ego is not going to change the Blessed One's teaching. It isn't going to change what the two vehicles have historically taught, or what the Sangha has believed. You don't believe the Blessed One's words that he spoke to Indra and other unseen beings? You might as well say the Buddha was deluded, and that's no way for a Buddhist to think or speak about the Lord.

I know it's not going to change your mind and you'll just report me again (but it's okay to call atheists "losers" and make violent threats), which only reinforces what I am saying. Way to make your religion look bad. You've really missed the point.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I know it's not going to change your mind and you'll just report me again (but it's okay to call atheists "losers" and make violent threats), which only reinforces what I am saying. Way to make your religion look bad. You've really missed the point.

I don't know who reported you, but it wasn't me, unless I accidentally hit the button. If I did, I'm sorry, but I don't recollect reporting you.

You're also misrepresenting me big time and twisting my words. I only said that zeal for the Dharma means protecting it against anihilation to demonstrate what 'zeal' for it means.

In history, Buddhists have had to defend themselves and the Dharma against hostile nations and terrorist organizations. I was not threatening anyone and said nothing intended to be taken outside of that context.

What are you trying to achieve exactly by misrepresenting me to such a degree?

I also never SAID atheists are losers. I said they do not represent Buddhism. I can't tell them not to be Buddhist, it just baffles me why someone would want to claim it and reject what it is. We are talking major doctrines. Not small petty details.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't know who reported you, but it wasn't me, unless I accidentally hit the button. If I did, I'm sorry, but I don't recollect reporting you. You're also misrepresenting me big time and twisting my words. I only said that zeal for the Dharma means protecting it against anihilation to demonstrate what zeal for it means.

In history, Buddhists have had to defend themselves and the Dharma against hostile nations and terrorist organizations. I was not threatening anyone.

What are you trying to achieve exactly by misrepresenting me to such a degree?

My apologies if I'm misrepresenting you but how else should you interpret: "Even if enemies attack Buddhists with the intent to annihilate the Dharma, in history there would have been no disagreement and no hesitation that we must defend the Dharma. It is the truth of salvation for beings. Killing is bad, but wiping the Dharma from the world is worse."?

That can easily be twisted into a threat against those you view as violating your religion. You have to be careful with those things.

It might be a good idea for you to start a debate thread for your fellow Buddhists about the issue of theism in Buddhism. It could be very informative, at least for me. Up to you, though.

 

[Darkstorn]

Buddha Dharma: Your entire point is still based on misunderstanding and misrepresenting my words for your own benefit. It's infuriating that you are too petty to even acknowledge that.

You are strawmanning the entire argument here and you're even refusing to see my defense against your empty baseless accusations. You are arguing against NO ONE'S claims. In this case quite literally: You are arguing, still against a person whose posts you cannot even see.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

That can easily be twisted into a threat against those you view as violating your religion. You have to be careful with those things.

It's alright, and I'm sorry I seemed to lead you on, because I made a mistake and worded something badly. That is my fault. I offer my sincere apologies. I could have worded that better and I feel badly. I worry that I may have caused your emotions to run high. My intent was nothing else except to defend the Blessed One's teaching. I am being sincere.

 

[Darkstorn]

I am being sincere.

No, you are being dishonest. Even after I told you that you are misrepresenting my words, you ignored me. Here it is once more for you to ignore: I was not saying the things you are accusing me of. You keep accusing me even after you ignored me.

You are insincere and insecure. I have proof for that statement.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's alright, and I'm sorry I seemed to lead you on, because I made a mistake and worded something badly. That is my fault. I offer my sincere apologies. I could have worded that better and I feel badly. I worry that I may have caused your emotions to run high. My intent was nothing else except to defend the Blessed One's teaching. I am being sincere.

I accept your apology. Perhaps your emotions were running high, too.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I accept your apology. Perhaps your emotions were running high, too.

I admit it. Yeah they were a little. It happens to all of us.

I wanted to offer something for your consideration about why representing Buddhism accurately is so important for a traditional Buddhist. I already mentioned that Buddhism is a community, so I feel a connection with all my spiritual ancestors that walked this same path. I believe I would be doing their faith and hope a disservice if I misrepresent Buddhism.

I'd be doing the founder of my school a disservice. Because he wanted the teaching of the Mahayana to go out to people. Saicho especially (my school's founder) would want to give people hope. He acknowledged later in his life that he hadn't been the best Buddhist. That he'd violated the monk precepts in ways he regretted.

Essentially, he admitted he was a sinner, to borrow a Christian thought. He believed his faith in the Blessed One still wasn't in vain, or saying the gatha of repentance after he got more serious about being a monk in his advanced years.

I would be doing Saicho a disservice if I said the faith elements of the Buddha's way don't matter- and next to the Blessed One, he is my teacher. Tendai continues in his spirit.

This is my understanding, of course.

Proceeding on though to my other point. It's important to convey Buddhism accurately for people that may wish to convert. Theism is not a minor point in Buddhism, and if a theist wanted to convert- an atheist may give them a wrong impression or drive them away.

Thich Naht Hanh, to use a well known teacher for my point- has been approached by Jews and Christians considering Buddhism. The Dalai Lama has also and they tell these non-Buddhists the truth about what the Buddha taught when asked. That they do not have to give up whatever god they may believe in to be a Buddhist.

This is because the Buddha acknoweledged such beings exist, but also because if that individual takes refuge and becomes Buddhist- the deity or deities in their life will have opportunity to hear the teaching. A deity becoming a Buddhist is a great benefit and they will stop using their awesome powers that so impact the cosmos for destruction, as well as cease accepting the flesh of animals in sacrifice.

There's much I could say on this subject, so I leave it at that for your consideration. This is why Buddhists should care about the teaching and rather they're being faithful to it.

The Blessed One came into this realm to save beings out of utmost compassion for them, in our view. Not just humans, but to save sentient creatures (animals) from our worser angels by showing us the path. To save gods and even demons.

I desist because I could say so much...

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I also never SAID atheists are losers

I just saw this. No, it was james bond who said that in this thread.