Buddha, please! I'm Christian!

[fireheart17]

http://leader-messenger.whereilive.com.au/news/comments/buddha-to-stay-put/

In short, one cranky resident at a retirement home demanded that the Buddha statues be removed from communal areas because they're Christian.

Two points I can see here:

1) Australia is secular. Not theocratic. Therefore, we do have religious freedom with some slight changes-that is, as long as the religious beliefs do not clash with certain laws, it's fine. Examples: one particular religion has requirements once you are baptised into their faith. One of these is carrying this: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan). Given it looks like a weapon, while it IS a religious artifact, for safety reasons, it may not be allowed to be carried around at all times. AFAIK, some people get around this by wearing one in a brooch or belt buckle.

2) If the retirement home/village is Christian funded/founded/run, then they MAY have a point, but I didn't see anything in the article to indicate this. Also, as far as I DO know, one particular group of retirement houses is a branch of Christianity known as the Uniting Church of Australia-in short, they're more tolerant of other people's beliefs and such than most other branches.

Discuss freely.

[Nyoibo]

With the Kirpan, it can be carried by having the blade fixed in the scabbard.

As for the second one, if they recieve government funding they can't practice discrimination or they chance loosing their funding, I think, I'll ask my mother, given that she used to be the person who approved funding for nursing homes.

[HYHYBT]

One point which, to me, changes everything: they're decorative statues. Ornamentation, not objects of worship. So the Christians ought not to object so much anyway. Now I could see *Buddhists* complaining about their religious symbols being misused...

[Boozy]

The Buddhists I know don't give a fig about that kind of thing.

Buddha isn't worshipped by Buddhists, anyway. He's an aspirational figure, not a deity.

[AdminAssistant]

Buddha isn't worshipped by Buddhists, anyway. He's an aspirational figure, not a deity.

Exactly. (And, sadly, I only know this because my boyfriend is Buddhist.)

[fireheart17]

With the Kirpan, it can be carried by having the blade fixed in the scabbard.



Thanks for clearing that up, I wasn't 100% sure. I'm still trying to work out if I'll need to dull my seax if/when I make one for my re-enactment kit.


Buddha isn't worshipped by Buddhists, anyway. He's an aspirational figure, not a deity.

Exactly. IIRC as well, most Buddhists are respectful of other religions. No converting of the sort.

[Nyoibo]

Thanks for clearing that up, I wasn't 100% sure. I'm still trying to work out if I'll need to dull my seax if/when I make one for my re-enactment kit.


That I can help you with, so long as it's a single edged blade, no it can be sharp, unless you're using it for fighting, then I'd suggest blunting it. :p

[Hyena Dandy]

I could think of something relevant, political, and properly fratching to say, but I'm in a far too good mood. Instead, I'll simply state...

I totally read the inflection on this the same way you'd say, "Bitch, please!" if you were some sort of 1970s pimp character.

[fireheart17]

I could think of something relevant, political, and properly fratching to say, but I'm in a far too good mood. Instead, I'll simply state...

I totally read the inflection on this the same way you'd say, "Bitch, please!" if you were some sort of 1970s pimp character.

It was partially based off that scene in Mean Girls where they have all the girls in the gym and the Cool Asians get into an argument.

Also, reading some more of the comments, it seems that there are quite a few Christians-even Catholics-who have those statues in their houses and haven't been smited by God yet. :p
A friend of mine is Catholic-not devout-and she has a Buddha water feature in her family room.

Also Ny, thank you for that response on the knife issue. I'll probably end up making one at another stage.

[Nyoibo]

It was partially based off that scene in Mean Girls where they have all the girls in the gym and the Cool Asians get into an argument.


I blame you for just watching that movie again. :p

[Hyena Dandy]

It was partially based off that scene in Mean Girls where they have all the girls in the gym and the Cool Asians get into an argument.

Also, reading some more of the comments, it seems that there are quite a few Christians-even Catholics-who have those statues in their houses and haven't been smited by God yet. :p
A friend of mine is Catholic-not devout-and she has a Buddha water feature in her family room.

Also Ny, thank you for that response on the knife issue. I'll probably end up making one at another stage.

As a Catholic, my attitude towards it is that Buddha was a great philosopher, and that he still has important messages to give, even if he's not divine.

[jackfaire]

As a Catholic, my attitude towards it is that Buddha was a great philosopher, and that he still has important messages to give, even if he's not divine.

As a Buddhist I agree. He wasn't divine. Being Buddha is being enlightened not being divine.

The people that claim to be Buddhist and that he was divine are the same that claim the meat eating Buddha insisted that we all be vegetarians.

[HYHYBT]

I vaguely remember reading that he died from eating too much pork.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I vaguely remember reading that he died from eating too much pork.

And when he did, he fell enlightened!

I compare myself to Buddha?

No, the ham.

Cookie for the reference... or internets :D

[Hyena Dandy]

As a Buddhist I agree. He wasn't divine. Being Buddha is being enlightened not being divine.

The people that claim to be Buddhist and that he was divine are the same that claim the meat eating Buddha insisted that we all be vegetarians.

Thank you for the correction, I'll restate what I meant more accurately.

I believe that Buddha was a great philosopher, but I don't believe in the cycles of reincarnation, Dharma and Karma, etc.

[jackfaire]

Thank you for the correction, I'll restate what I meant more accurately.

I believe that Buddha was a great philosopher, but I don't believe in the cycles of reincarnation, Dharma and Karma, etc.

I honestly wasn't correcting you merely agreeing with you. He was not divine regardless of faith.


The second part was pointing out the silliness of people. Buddhism is "Do not kill unnecessarily" Yet seems to inspire more vegetarianism than Christianity which is, "Thou shalt not Kill"


It amuses me.

[Boozy]

I honestly wasn't correcting you merely agreeing with you. He was not divine regardless of faith.

A Buddhist might say that he WAS divine. But so's everyone and everything.

So it ain't no big thing, really.

The second part was pointing out the silliness of people. Buddhism is "Do not kill unnecessarily" Yet seems to inspire more vegetarianism than Christianity which is, "Thou shalt not Kill"


Today, a Buddhist can easily survive on a vegetarian diet, because we're able to get foods from around the world cheaply. In Buddha's day, you really had to eat whatever was available.

"Thou shalt not kill" would seem to inspire more vegetarianism, but Christianity is very anthropocentric. Even if some Christians believe that an animal has a soul, they generally aren't valued as highly as humans.

[jackfaire]

Today, a Buddhist can easily survive on a vegetarian diet, because we're able to get foods from around the world cheaply.

I have yet to find a way to have a cheap vegetarian diet that still manages to cover all bases of what the body needs.

Also that would then call for one to determine for themself what unnecesary death means. I believe the cycle of life is necessary.

I believe killing for food to be necessary. I believe killing a plant is still killing. The fact that it is a plant makes it no less nor important than an animal.

[Boozy]

I have yet to find a way to have a cheap vegetarian diet that still manages to cover all bases of what the body needs.

"Cheap" is a relative term. I was speaking about the differences between what a healthy vegetarian diet would cost today vs. what it would have cost many centuries ago (if it was available at all).

I'm not rich, but I can afford a vegetarian diet if I so chose.

[Hyena Dandy]

Today, a Buddhist can easily survive on a vegetarian diet, because we're able to get foods from around the world cheaply. In Buddha's day, you really had to eat whatever was available.


Yes, but so can anyone else, so the faith and the vegetarianism aren't necessarily one and the same, was the point. Not that Buddhists can't be vegetarians, just that Buddhism doesn't demand it.

[Boozy]

Not that Buddhists can't be vegetarians, just that Buddhism doesn't demand it.

I agree. Buddhism doesn't demand much of anything, because it's not a religion.

[Hyena Dandy]

How is Buddhism not a religion?


Edit: Expanding on my point.





Buddhism is more than just a philosophy, about how to treat people. Its a religion. Buddhism teaches about reincarnation, that all life is suffering, and that the only way to get out of suffering is to stop reincarnating, which you do by ceasing to desire things. If you do this, you are called a Buddha. If you are going to do this in the next few lifetimes, you are called a Bodhisattva.

And also, what about people like the Dalai Lama?

There's an abbot in a monastery, and whenever the abbot dies, the people in the monastery all go through the country looking for a boy born on the exact day and time that the old abbot died, because this means he's the same person, and he can keep leading them. That sounds a lot like religious behavior to me.

Not all Buddhists are in the same sect, but those people are still Buddhists. So if Buddhism isn't a religion, then either they're not religious, or they're right, and therefore its not a religion, its a fact.

Forgive me if I don't understand you, and please elaborate if I didn't.

[Boozy]

Buddhism does not recognize a supernatural supreme being, and it requires no faith.

A Buddhist may not believe that the Dalai Lama is the literal reincarnation of the Lama, and that's completely acceptable.

The Buddha told everyone to think for themselves and never take anything someone said on blind faith.

What you describe (the search for the reincarnation of the Lama) is ritual. It's a part of many religions. But it's a part of many non-religions too; like the Shriners, for example.

[Hyena Dandy]

Buddhism does not recognize a supernatural supreme being, and it requires no faith.

A Buddhist may not believe that the Dalai Lama is the literal reincarnation of the Lama, and that's completely acceptable.

Could you please explain how believing that requires no faith.

[Boozy]

I said that a Buddhist might NOT believe that, and they can still be considered "Buddhist". Buddhism does not demand any leaps of faith.

[AdminAssistant]

I said that a Buddhist might NOT believe that, and they can still be considered "Buddhist". Buddhism does not demand any leaps of faith.

Yup. The BF is Buddhist and he does not believe the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the Lama. There's another monk he looks up to, I guess, but I can't remember the name.

[Hyena Dandy]

Yup. The BF is Buddhist and he does not believe the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the Lama. There's another monk he looks up to, I guess, but I can't remember the name.

I'm not saying that all Buddhists must believe the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation, I was saying that it seems to me like you need a leap of faith to believe in reincarnation.

[Hyena Dandy]

Yup. The BF is Buddhist and he does not believe the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the Lama. There's another monk he looks up to, I guess, but I can't remember the name.

I'm not saying that all Buddhists follow the Dalai Lama. I am simply trying to say that Buddhism does require faith. Reincarnation, the whole circle of suffering thing.

[Boozy]

Right. Sorry, I should have been more clear.

The belief in literal reincarnation is not central to the Buddhist philosophy. It is simply an interpretation of the sutras made by certain Buddhist sects.

For the record, I'm not Buddhist. It's simply a philosophy I studied fairly in-depth while I was in school. I've just never been able to see it in the same light as other major religions.

I'll admit that many forms of Buddhism can be considered religions. But many philosophies can be interpreted and adhered to in that way.

[Fryk]

Jewish people don't believe every tenet of their religion the same way, either. It's still a religion.

[jackfaire]

I don't personally look up to any monk.

The reason I don't believe the Dali Lama is the same as the last one. To grow and learn so as to help oneself reach a point of pure enlightenment. Doing the same thing over and over again is great practice but hardly a way to grow and learn.

Second the selection process assumes that time is linear. Though we experience it as such does not make it so all assumptions are that our past lives are in the past but personal chronology does not necessarily apply the same.

One may have had a past life that starts 2 centuries from now.

[infinitemonkies]

There's an interesting logical extension to that thought, Jack. Now, I'm not a Buddhist, nor have I made any serious study thereof, but this is something that occurred to me:

Assumption 1: reincarnation happens. 1 soul may live many lifetimes.
Assumption 2: Non-linear timeline. your past life may have been 5000 years ago, the one before that 200 years from now, etc.

Conclusion: If both are true, then every soul could in fact be the same soul in different reincarnations, and thus we are one and everything is the same


Am I way off base, have I inadvertently stumbled unto a basic tenet of Buddhism, or somewhere in between?

[HYHYBT]

Hey, I've thought of that too! Never taken the idea seriously, nor thought to mention it to anyone else.

[jackfaire]

Am I way off base, have I inadvertently stumbled unto a basic tenet of Buddhism, or somewhere in between?

Gonna start a new thread in religion to explain my views on Time and Soul.