THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION DEBATE

last SG · 2011-07-11T23:56:39+00:00

"Amitayus48", you have only quoted those who said there is only one God. There are many who said otherwise."I no stupid", well said .. Buddhism does begin as...

An Eternal Now SG

Among the few religions acknowledged by singapore govment . only Hinduism and Judaism (Islam and Christian) mentioned direct connection with god .

Buddhism and Taoism (Mencius and Confucius) are equivalent to chinese as Socrates and Timothius or other greek thinkers are to greek .

Buddhism actually originated from India by a man called Siddhartha Gautama.

Kosen pang SG

ok add in india . shakya clan . country of kapilavastu .

my point is . they are mere thinkers . who luckily got acknowledged by public .

One true religion . the title itself is dubious . how can there be only one that is true .

less we are talking about god then yes there is only one god . whether he is alien or just form of force we dont care but there is only ONE god . while religions are made by human in order to differentiate one another . why then put faith into something like this .

An Eternal Now SG

ok add in india . shakya clan . country of kapilavastu .

my point is . they are mere thinkers . who luckily got acknowledged by public .

One true religion . the title itself is dubious . how can there be only one that is true .

Buddha was not a thinker per se, he was someone who discovered the human condition and the solution to the human condition of suffering by experiential realization.

As for One God - Buddhism does not suscribe to the idea of a creator God, we teach interdependent origination, causes and conditions to every arising.

Kosen pang SG

Buddha was not a thinker per se, he was someone who discovered the human condition and the solution to the human condition of suffering by experiential realization.

As for One God - Buddhism does not suscribe to the idea of a creator God, we teach interdependent origination, causes and conditions to every arising.

Im not saying there is God . I believe when we die nothing is left but energy . energy cannot vanish . it can only transform in to other sort of energy but it will never disappear . it could be in the ethereal and enter the womb when someone is pregnant and become a new energy in that womb or it could be other sort of energy but it never disappear . it merely transform . and it does not carry a brain so energy does not recoqnize and is itself not self-conscious . which is to say it is just energy not a living thing .

According to you Buddha does not 'subscribe' to the idea of god and he teaches reincarnation and cause&effects(Karma).

From what I know Buddha never deny God . at that time when he start teaching, India was already worshipping Brahmana/Brahma for ages . he merely perfected the way .

Buddha was not a thinker per se, he was someone who discovered the human condition and the solution to the human condition of suffering by experiential realization.

Someone who realized or saw a flaw in the system and proceeded to formulate a solution (in this case meditate) . Definetely sounds like a thinker . now I do not doubt his philosophy . it is good like the rest of the philosophy in this world . but it is wrong for man to make buddhism into a religion .

I No Stupid SG

Buddha was not a thinker per se, he was someone who discovered the human condition and the solution to the human condition of suffering by experiential realization.

As for One God - Buddhism does not suscribe to the idea of a creator God, we teach interdependent origination, causes and conditions to every arising.

I beg to differ on this: ”Buddha was not a thinker per se, he was someone who discovered the human condition and the solution to the human condition of suffering by experiential realization.”

In order to posit, postulate, contemplate, to seek knowledge or understanding, one has to use one’s mind. What go inside (conjures in) one’s mind are thoughts – therefore one is a thinker per se (apart from dreamer). Just as I write, I have to think. The sentences I construct do not come from experiential realization. If so, every sentence must be from a prior experience I can relate to.

Buddha did not discover human conditions. Those conditions already existed – birth, ageing, sickness and death. He must have experienced this before he became homeless. He was married and had a son (birth), his parents aged, family members must have fallen sick and I can’t tell who died. These are not mysteries, I knew this when I was a child! The only difference between Buddha and me is that Buddha was overtaken by those ‘sights’ and wanted to find the root cause. For me, as a kid I was too busy playing marbles and when I was 29yrs, I was more interested in 5Cs than to solve social problems!

Siddhartha had to leave the palace to seek answer from gurus, ascetics, Brahmin priests, Jain priests, etc. He couldn’t find a satisfaction answer from all these teachers and also from extreme ascetic practice such as self-mortification which he thought was able to help. Fed up, he left the group, in isolation and in deep meditation; he came up with the Noble Truths.

The 'Four Noble Truths' is the classic methodology for solving a problem:

Step 1: identify the problem situation

Step 2: determine the cause(s) of the problem

Step 3: state the desired outcome, end-result - the goal

Step 4: generate (brainstorm) solutions

The 1^st NT may be derived either from experience or observation or both. The 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th NTs cannot be from experience. Experience means some prior encounters, past incidents, have undergone something, undertook some tasks, or conducted some experiments before. The 2^nd NT is analysis (of the problem). The 3^rd NT is stating (the goal) and the 4^th is generating (the solutions).

Experiential realization means realising something from past experience. I cannot say that the 4^th NT (the Eightfold Path) was derived from his experience as a prince or as an ascetic.

The key question to determine whether the 4NTs came from the mind or from experiential realization is: how long did Siddhartha sat under the bodhi tree?

An Eternal Now SG

According to you Buddha does not 'subscribe' to the idea of god and he teaches reincarnation and cause&effects(Karma).

From what I know Buddha never deny God . at that time when he start teaching, India was already worshipping Brahmana/Brahma for ages . he merely perfected the way .

Buddha was not a thinker per se, he was someone who discovered the human condition and the solution to the human condition of suffering by experiential realization.

1) The Buddhist view is that consciousness, due to power of karmic conditions, continue to arise and take birth in samsara. Consciousness is substanceless, and arise due to requisite causes and conditions (such as karma, etc). It is not that an inanimate, non-sentient substance passes from one body to another... that is not the Buddhist view.

2) Buddha did not deny the existence of a celestial being called Maha Brahma, but he denied that he was the creator:

3) The reason why I said Buddhism is not philosophy is this (and note that I do not, therefore assert that Buddhism is a religion):

Lets say... you have an illness. A method is proven to work to heal/remove the illness. You go to that doctor, you take the medicine, consume according to instructions, and your illness is cured.

This is like Buddhism. The four noble truths isn't just some thoughts... it's actually what the Buddha realized and observed through his own experience, the problem that plagues mankind (suffering), its cause, and its remedy.

Philosophy is just one small component of Buddhism... just like philosophy (?) is not the main component of medicine, or science, or chemistry. For example, medicine has its own purpose, and the 'philosophy of medicine' if such things exist is not the main purpose of medicine which is to treat illnesses - people didn't invent medicine to make a philosophy out of it.

Just like you can't say medicine, biology, physics, chemistry, art, maths, began as a philosophy. It's what people observe, tested, experienced, and then applied...

Therefore see Buddhism as having a very specific purpose - to teach sentient beings their own condition and the remedy to their condition.

One main reason why Buddhism is not a philosophy in its essence, is because the truth of Buddhism does not derive from conceptual inference, but direct experience.

Let me ask you: medicine and biology is not a philosophy, do you say it is a religion? If you say medicine is philosophy, you're missing the point of medicine. If you say medicine is religion, you're missing the point of medicine. That is not the purpose.

Of course medicine and biology is neither a philosophy or a religion. They have very specific purposes, they treat specific conditions and help humanity in their ways.

Buddhism is such a thing... it is neither philosophy nor religion, it has a specific purpose which is to teach us the human condition and the way to end the human condition of suffering.

I No Stupid SG

duplicate

An Eternal Now SG

I beg to differ on this: ”Buddha was not a thinker per se, he was someone who discovered the human condition and the solution to the human condition of suffering by experiential realization.”

In order to posit, postulate, contemplate, to seek knowledge or understanding, one has to use one’s mind. What go inside (conjures in) one’s mind are thoughts – therefore one is a thinker per se (part from dreamer). Just as I write, I have to think. The sentences I construct do not come from experiential realization. If so, every sentence must be from a prior experience I can relate to.

The 'Four Noble Truths' is the classic methodology for solving a problem;

Step 1: identify the problem situation

Step 2: determine the cause(s) of the problem

Step 3: state the desired outcome, end-result - the goal

Step 4: generate (brainstorm) solutions

Experiential realization means realising something from past experience. I cannot say that the 4^th NT (the Eightfold Path) was derived from his experience as a prince or as an ascetic.

The key question to determine whether the 4NTs came from the mind or from experiential realization is: how long did Siddhartha sat under the bodhi tree?

In order to posit, postulate, contemplate, to seek knowledge or understanding, one has to use one’s mind. What go inside (conjures in) one’s mind are thoughts – therefore one is a thinker per se (part from dreamer). Just as I write, I have to think. The sentences I construct do not come from experiential realization. If so, every sentence must be from a prior experience I can relate to.

Your sentences do not come from experiential realization, but Buddha's is.

Nope. 1st NT is by experience, 2nd NT (cause of suffering: craving, clinging, ignorance) is also by observation of one's experience, 3rd NT (end of suffering) is also obviously his experience (he is already awakened and liberated!), 4th NT - the path to awakening, obviously is his experience - he already awakened, and he is simply trying to express how he attained his awakening! i.e. what path he followed

So obviously the 4NTs are entirely from his experience.

It has nothing to do with theorizing, brainstorming, or whatever... If it were so, it would be useless because it is simply an unproven theory.

Buddha simply spoke entirely from his experience and awakening.

Experiential realization means realising something from past experience. I cannot say that the 4^th NT (the Eightfold Path) was derived from his experience as a prince or as an ascetic.

He had discovered the path by his own self, otherwise he would not have awakened, as he stated clearly that there is no way one can be awakened without following the 8 fold paths - obviously this applies to himself.

According to the early Buddhist texts,^[36] after realizing that meditative jhana was the right path to awakening, but that extreme asceticism didn't work, Gautama discovered what Buddhists call the Middle Way^[36]—a path of moderation away from the extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification.^[36] In a famous incident, after becoming starved and weakened, he is said to have accepted milk and rice pudding from a village girl named Sujata.^[37] Such was his emaciated appearance that she wrongly believed him to be a spirit that had granted her a wish.^[37]

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

The key question to determine whether the 4NTs came from the mind or from experiential realization is: how long did Siddhartha sat under the bodhi tree?

How long Siddhartha sat under the Bodhi tree (49 days) is not a matter - there are students who attained liberation and experiential realization faster than him. On many accords, his students attained experiential awakening and liberation simply by hearing his discourse! (Such as Bahiya) Such students are of immensely deep capacity. Obviously, Buddha is still the 'highest capacity' since he discovered perfect awakening of his own accord without any other person's pointers and guidance.