Buddhist Is Buddhism Really a Religion.

[FireDragon76]

The notion there is no evidence the Buddha ever existed is simply untrue.

For instance, this article describes recent archeology in Lumbini:

Clues About Buddha's Life Uncovered In Nepal

The British started archeological research around Lumbini in the late 19th and early 20th century. The number of historians that consider Buddha a myth is about the same as those that consider Jesus a myth, which is to say, very few historians.

While elements of Buddhist scriptures contain later additions, this is true of many religions and is not confined to just Buddhism. Buddhist academic higher criticism is a thing, just as it is in many other religions including Christianity that have encountered modernity. However, as has been pointed out, Buddhist epistemology is not dependent on a strict historicity. Buddhism is a religion that is based on personal experience that people can actually realize for themselves, to a greater or lesser degree. It is not a divinely revealed religion that people merely take on blind faith.

 

[FireDragon76]

The other side of the story:

"Hla Oo's Blog: 1942 Genocide of Buddhists in Maungdaw District:

The origin of the Muslim-Buddhist conflict: "Panicking British chased by Japanese army were withdrawing rapidly from Burma [in World War 2]. The so-called Arakan Frontier was left under the chaotic control of two Rajput Native Battalions (Bengali-Muslim-majority troops) from British India Army. The Indian-Muslim soldiers from First and Second Rajput Native Battalions together with the Bengali-Muslims (the Chitagonians) were raping the Buddhist Yakhine women and girls and killing Yakhine Men and boys all over the Sittwe town during that lawless vacuum." Also documented in a SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research (Kanda University of International Studies)
​

Muslims outnumber Buddhists worldwide by 3x, with ~50 countries to their name versus 7 for Buddhism, and Muslims dominates almost 9x the land space of the Earth vs Buddhists."

With that said, the first Buddhist precept states "I undertake the training rule to refrain from taking life." Also, "Any monk who purposely deprives a human being of life, even to the extent of causing an abortion, is not a contemplative, not a son of the Sakyan [Buddhist]" (Vinaya)

The western media isn't properly portraying the history of Myanmar and reducing the complexity of the topic into a simplistic, pro-Colonialist narrative that denies the right of sovereignty to Asian peoples. Most of the "Rohingya" are in fact Bengalis that the British brought in to help subjugate Burma, because the Bengalis were loyal to the English and the Burmese generally were not. Burma does have significant indigenous Muslim populations (the Kamein people, who generally do not wear hijab or other Persian/Arab affectations), but the "Rohingya" are not one of them.

As you said, none of that justifies violence but it's understandable there are tensions in the region, especially as Rohingya extremists have launched terrorist campaigns against police for the purposes of trying to secure independence for the Rakhine province.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The sort of narcissistic worldview of Evangelical Fundamentalism can't abide by that.

I never thought of Evangelical Fundamentalism as narcissistic, but it certainly can come across that way. Especially the "my way or Hell" part of it.

 

[Aussie Pete]

And this isn't an argument against Buddhism (BTW, Buddha isn't buried in one place, his ashes are believed to have been distributed around the world).


For those that need it, there are forms of Buddhism that do involve faith in a higher power to save us from ourselves. But they don't involve the kind of religious fundamentalism that passes as normative in many Christian circles.

Truth is not fundamentalism. There is only one Saviour, and that is Jesus Christ the Lord.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Truth is not fundamentalism. There is only one Saviour, and that is Jesus Christ the Lord.

That is a statement of faith. And I share it. But that does not make it objective truth.

 

[zippy2006]

The concept of maya is not part of Buddhism.

I would recommend something as simple as Googling, "Buddhism Maya." You will find various encyclopediae attesting to the contrary.

 

[FireDragon76]

I would recommend something as simple as Googling, "Buddhism Maya." You will find various encyclopediae attesting to the contrary.

I did, and the first thing that Google brings up is a reference to Buddha's mother being named "Maya".

Phenomena being depicted metaphorically as illusions are only found in the Mahayana texts, and it's not a common metaphor. There are none of these references in the Theravada texts that I am aware of. Whereas Maya is a very real and frequent concept in Vedanta Hinduism.

 

[Aussie Pete]

That is a statement of faith. And I share it. But that does not make it objective truth.

How can it not be objective truth? God's Word is Truth. Lord Jesus is the Truth. He sure is concrete, real, and did exactly what the Bible says He did. Otherwise faith is baseless.

 

[mindlight]

How can it not be objective truth? God's Word is Truth. Lord Jesus is the Truth. He sure is concrete, real, and did exactly what the Bible says He did. Otherwise faith is baseless.

Yes exactly , the fundamental foolishness of Buddhism is that it does not begin with God. He is the Truth, science requires laws and structure built into the fabric of nature by Him, He is the only true Historical witness, He has given us truthes to guide us in scripture.

Buddhism has no discernible historical footprint at source and no way of assessing truth claims beyond the private and subjective

 

[Zoii]

Truth is not fundamentalism. There is only one Saviour, and that is Jesus Christ the Lord.

Well, of course Jews and moslems who follow the old testament teachings and also worship God, think your view that God inseminated a virgin in order to give birth to a son that was in fact himself... They find such a thing ludicrous and sacreligious

 

[Aussie Pete]

I never thought of Evangelical Fundamentalism as narcissistic, but it certainly can come across that way. Especially the "my way or Hell" part of it.

It's never "my way". It's God's Way. And His name is Jesus.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Well, of course Jews and moslems who follow the old testament teachings and also worship God, think your view that God inseminated a virgin in order to give birth to a son that was in fact himself... They find such a thing ludicrous and sacreligious

Sure. So what?

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes exactly , the fundamental foolishness of Buddhism is that it does not begin with God. He is the Truth, science requires laws and structure built into the fabric of nature by Him, He is the only true Historical witness, He has given us truthes to guide us in scripture.

As Socrates pointed out in the discourse with Euthyphro, God/gods doesn't give us those sort of assurances.

Buddhism has no discernible historical footprint at source and no way of assessing truth claims beyond the private and subjective

Not true. The Buddha gives criterion for evaluating truth claims in his discourse with the Kalamas.

Kesamutti Sutta - Wikipedia

And a more detailed explanation in this video:

In Buddhism, knowing truth is grounded in ethical living.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Well, of course Jews and moslems who follow the old testament teachings and also worship God, think your view that God inseminated a virgin in order to give birth to a son that was in fact himself... They find such a thing ludicrous and sacreligious

You are wrong about Islam. They hold Mary in the highest esteem and believe in the virgin birth. That's about 1.6 billion people. Jews have rejected God since the days of Moses. Nothing has changed since then.

 

[FireDragon76]

You are wrong about Islam. They hold Mary in the highest esteem and believe in the virgin birth. That's about 1.6 billion people. Jews have rejected God since the days of Moses. Nothing has changed since then.

Muslims, however, do not believe that Jesus is anything but a mortal human being. They don't believe he's divine.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's never "my way". It's God's Way. And His name is Jesus.

The ultimate fantasy of the ego, to think ones own voice is absolute truth.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Muslims, however, do not believe that Jesus is anything but a mortal human being. They don't believe he's divine.

That is correct. 1.6 billion people can be wrong. There is no logic in Islam's position. If Lord Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, which both Christians and Muslims accept, He cannot be just mortal man.

 

[FireDragon76]

That is correct. 1.6 billion people can be wrong. There is no logic in Islam's position. If Lord Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, which both Christians and Muslims accept, He cannot be just mortal man.

If he didn't have a biological father, it's difficult from a scientific perspective to understand how he could be human at all, so I think its a moot point.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The ultimate fantasy of the ego, to think ones own voice is absolute truth.

It's not my voice. It's very simple. It's not fantasy either. If I was forming my own religion, sure you would have cause to judge me. I'm not. It's God's word, not mine.

 

[Aussie Pete]

If he didn't have a biological father, it's difficult from a scientific perspective to understand how he could be human at all, so I think its a moot point.

Easy. He derived His human nature from Mary and His divine nature through the Holy Spirit.