The belief in rebirth is part of the canon of mainstream buddhism. This is clearly a belief in something supernatural, like believing in heaven, hell, ghosts, astrology or whatever.
Yes. Quoted for emphasis.
Would you consider Dale Carnegie's self-help method similar to Christianity?
No, no supernatural basis. You're comparing apples and unicorns. You can test statements about apples.
Gah, no. No no no. You're *still* imposing your own conceptual framework and iconography on Buddhism. It's not like that; it's a whole different culture, different worldview, different goals, different ways. In fact, you're making exactly the same mistake educated Europeans made when they first became aware of Buddhism in the 18th and 19th centuries -- they interpreted it according to their own frame of reference, and got it completely wrong.
Bollocks. Dude, all religions treat their "truth" as being as real and fundamental as science. The flavor is different, the template the same.
Right, but *how* similar? Once more, would you place these things into the same group, or two different groups?
Communism
Christianity
The scientific method
Karate
Yoga
Islam
Keynesian economics
Judaism
Watchmaking
Dale Carnegie's self-help system
You're still trying to imply that Buddhism is similar to Communism because Buddhists believe their supernatural principles are as real as scientific method. Sorry, so do Christians, Heaven is as natural and fundamental a part of existence as gravity within the Christian framework.
It's irrelevant whether the religion holds their own unprovable tenets as being real or not. Unless they're testable and provable by scientific method it's just mysticism/religious belief/faith. Karma and reincarnation lump Buddhism in the mystical section.
You can divide those into 2 groups, yes. Mysticism/not-mysticism. And don't start arguing that karate had/has mystical overtones in the past, please, it is possible for physical principles to be wrapped in mysticism, I know.
But Buddhism isn't about the supernatural. It's about the subjective and the internal. Buddhism doesn't make any provable claims about the external world; it presents a technique for self-improvement with internal goals, and asks you to try it for yourself to see if it works for you. (For what it's worth, those techniques do work, to the limited extent that they have externally verifiable effects.)
Cut that out please, yes it is about the supernatural. Any religion which talks about life after death or rebirth after death jumps feet first into the realm of the supernatural. And don't tell me it says "see for yourself", there is no way for the dead to bring back proof as to whether they were re-incarnated or not. And tell me how you'd prove the "mixing your Dharma with a prostitute" thing? Is Dharma visible under a microscope? Is it a measurable energy field? How is it spread, touch? What if I wear a contamination suit, can I avoid polluting my Dharma then? A lead lined contamination suit? Exactly which scientific principle is at work when you take on the burden of someone else's deeds through close proximity, please tell me exactly? If the only proof you have about a concept is something subjective and external, you've entered the realm of faith again, like a Christian claiming God is answering their prayers subtly. Also "subjective and internal".
From where I'm at, you're still stretching definitions big-time. You could say that the class struggle is the equivalent of the divine in Communism, or money the equivalent of the divine in economics, but in both cases IMO you're stretching the definitions beyond the breaking point. Plus, enlightenment isn't a supernatural state of being; in fact, it's seen as the most *natural* state of being -- all you have to do to reach it is shed everything that's holding you down.
Erm, that isn't what I'm saying. Money and class struggles are observable, measurable things, testable by scientific method. Perfect enlightenment or the Christian state of grace aren't, since they are measured against things which are completely unprovable-by-science.
Not that I know. But then, neither did the Buddha.
He preached Karma and Dharma and about existence after death, did he not? = Supernatural.
And no, your thought experiment fails to impress me. You imply that Buddhists would believe in achieving perfect enlightenment and the validity of Dharma etc without any example in history of anyone ever achieving that perfect state....I simply don't buy it. In fact, I leave it up to you to provide proof of any significant, widespread religion without such a "head mystic". I'm willing to bet I could find either images of or teachings of some Buddha in any particular Buddhists past. You want to claim that religions don't need such a human figurehead, go ahead and link to an existing example. Find me real world example of a philosophical religion that promotes achieving a "perfect state of being" without any person or being in it's records every achieving it or any divine being telling people how to get there first.
And Buddhism... would go on, much like physics. Gautama Buddha may never have been, but the dhamma still gets the results it promises, as far as it is
possible to verify them. His story is still inspirational and edifying, illustrating the principles of Buddhism, whether it's historically accurate or not. Buddhists would, by and large, shrug and go "Oh well," and continue doing whatever it is they do.
Rubbish. If you took every Buddhist and showed them that each of those Buddhas in that list you linked to was just a con-man it would shake the religion to it's core. You no longer have any example of the state of perfect enlightenment even existing, never mind being attainable. People need an example to follow.
That's the difference, NN: that's how the Buddha is not like the Christ or Mohammed. Gautama Buddha is to Buddhism what Sir Isaac Newton is to physics or Charles Darwin to biology: not a god, not a prophet, but a discoverer.
Functionally equivalent. The kingdom of heaven and grace isn't something Christ invented either. It's simply something he showed the way to achieve. Whether you are born to show the path to people or discover it during your lifetime and show it to people, it's pretty equivalent.
But feel free to demonstrate a religion where people believe in "the discovery" without any actual historical concept of a "discoverer".
I think that this debate is fairly pointless.
Yes, Buddhism isn't a copy/paste religion of the next guys religion but it does have faith based concepts. I think that is all NN really cares about.
The bottom line is that he wants a fantasy religion to be less about knowing there is a god and more about believing there is a god. Debating the finer points of every religion known to man seems silly.
Thank you, sensible person.
How to reach enlightenment, grow as a person, how to behave against others etc are central to buddhism, where as the supernatural stuff isn't neccessary a part of the core.
The concept of enlightenment is supernatural, a form of supernatural wisdom. Cause it isn't just knowledge, or you could write it down in a book, we could all read it and BANG, enlightened. It is knowledge and practice of some supernatural, unverifiable system.
Buddhas don't save Buddhas. If you use your mind to look for a Buddha, you won't see the Buddha. As long as you look for a Buddha somewhere else, you'll never see that your own mind is the Buddha. Don't use a Buddha to worship a Buddha. And don't use the mind to invoke a Buddha. Buddhas don't recite sutras. Buddhas don't keep precepts. And Buddhas don't break precepts. Buddhas don't keep or break anything. Buddhas don't do good or evil.
To find a Buddha, you have to see your nature.
How poetic. And bollocks. So, if you mustn't use your mind to find a Buddha, and looking elsewhere for a Buddha is pointless, why did Gautama spend, what was it, 50 years teaching to others? Why not turn them away with a poetic turn of phrase like the one above? Gently shoo them off to find themselves?
No, sorry, contradictory, even if poetic. Gautama taught how to attain Buddha-hood, which means he
can lead people to enlightenment, which means he is effectively "saving Buddhas" (those who follow his teachings and become enlightened themselves from doing so) from the reincarnation cycle. Which negates the above statement.
Don't quote religious texts at me as proof please. It's as meaningful as saying the Bible is true because the Bible says so.
The buddhist concept was more non-linear and less specific. A karmic deed now doesn't necessarily store up a reward or punishment for you for later, it's a karmic deed now, and might not have any effect beyond the karmic impact on someone else now. You might hope that later when you need a positive karmic deed from someone else there's someone there to do so, but you don't earn it by doing one yourself now, you do it because it's the right thing to do, because you want to put good karma out there rather than bad.
But what is Karma? What atomic structure does it have please. Otherwise, can we do away with the whole "Buddhism is almost science" type argument in any future posts. Thanks.
Beat me to it . . . that's the defining feature of buddhism in my opinion as well. Christianity etc tell you the way to salvation / enlightenment / whatever they're calling it, and if you don't agree with the way then you're wrong.
Buddhism tells you a way that might help and if it doesn't then find your own way.
Indeed, that is nice. But it isn't telling you that Enlightenment is something you can decide on yourself, only that you can make your own path to get there. It still firmly posits the idea of a higher state of being with little scientific proof. To work towards achieving it, you have to at least have faith in the core supernatural concepts actually existing. Like Dharma and reincarnation and enlightenment.