Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Buddhism and Secularism

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 12:45:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Do you think that Buddhism has largely slipped away from what it was intended to be?

Was the Buddha non-religious?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 12:55:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 12:45:46 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you think that Buddhism has largely slipped away from what it was intended to be?

Certainly. About half of all Buddhists believe in God and many sects still pray and worship deities, even though the Buddha explicitly stated in scripture that worshiping and praying to God or gods is both heretical and a "lowly art."

Was the Buddha non-religious?

Well, it depends on what is meant by the word.

The Buddha was:
An Atheist
Rejected a soul
Rejected reincarnation
Rejected faith
Rejected worship

But Buddha was religiously devoted to his philosophy.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 1:01:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 12:55:28 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/11/2010 12:45:46 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you think that Buddhism has largely slipped away from what it was intended to be?

Certainly. About half of all Buddhists believe in God and many sects still pray and worship deities, even though the Buddha explicitly stated in scripture that worshiping and praying to God or gods is both heretical and a "lowly art."

Was the Buddha non-religious?

Well, it depends on what is meant by the word.

The Buddha was:
An Atheist
Rejected a soul
Rejected reincarnation
Rejected faith
Rejected worship

But Buddha was religiously devoted to his philosophy.

Do you have quotes where he specifically rejects all these things?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 1:09:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 12:55:28 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/11/2010 12:45:46 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you think that Buddhism has largely slipped away from what it was intended to be?

Certainly. About half of all Buddhists believe in God and many sects still pray and worship deities, even though the Buddha explicitly stated in scripture that worshiping and praying to God or gods is both heretical and a "lowly art."

Was the Buddha non-religious?

Well, it depends on what is meant by the word.

The Buddha was:
An Atheist
Rejected a soul
Rejected reincarnation
Rejected faith
Rejected worship:

If Buddha didn't believe in souls, then how did disembodied spirits end up in at least one of the 7 circles of hell (Naraka)? Sounds like souls to me.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 1:12:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 1:01:59 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 10/11/2010 12:55:28 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Well, it depends on what is meant by the word.

The Buddha was:
An Atheist
Rejected a soul
Rejected reincarnation
Rejected faith
Rejected worship

But Buddha was religiously devoted to his philosophy.

Do you have quotes where he specifically rejects all these things?

Certainly! I was actually going to send you a repository I have collected of my favorite Buddha quotes given your new declaration as Buddhist.

(Im on my iPod right now, so I can't paste the quotes for another couple hours, though I can try to paste a few that I can find with my phone.)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 1:15:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 1:12:23 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/11/2010 1:01:59 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 10/11/2010 12:55:28 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Well, it depends on what is meant by the word.

The Buddha was:
An Atheist
Rejected a soul
Rejected reincarnation
Rejected faith
Rejected worship

But Buddha was religiously devoted to his philosophy.

Do you have quotes where he specifically rejects all these things?

Certainly! I was actually going to send you a repository I have collected of my favorite Buddha quotes given your new declaration as Buddhist.

(Im on my iPod right now, so I can't paste the quotes for another couple hours, though I can try to paste a few that I can find with my phone.)

Thanks. I can wait.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 1:42:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 1:09:13 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
If Buddha didn't believe in souls, then how did disembodied spirits

the Buddha: "In this same class the disciples are the earnest disciples of other faiths, who clinging to the notions of such things as, the soul as an external entity, Supreme Atman, Personal God, seek a [belief] that is in harmony with them. ...But none of these, earnest though they be, have gained an insight into the truth of the twofold egolessness and are, therefore, of limited spiritual insights as regards deliverance and non- deliverance; for them there is no emancipation. They have great self-confidence but they can never gain a true knowledge of Nirvana." [Lankavatara Sutra]

Sati: "As I understand the teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through the existences."

the Buddha: Foolish man, to whom do you know me having preached this Teaching. Haven't I told in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen? Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, you foolish man, because of your wrong grasp, blame me, destroy yourself, and accumulate much demerit."

end up in at least one of the 7 circles of hell (Naraka)? Sounds like souls to me.

Wtf? 7 circles of hell? You trippin.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 2:01:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sati: "As I understand the teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through the existences.":

LOL! How's that not a soul???

From Wiki:

"In "Devaduta Sutta" the 130 th discource of Majjhima Nikaya Buddha teaches about the hell in vivid detail. Buddhism teaches that there are five (sometimes six) realms of rebirth, which can then be further subdivided into degrees of agony or pleasure. Of these realms, the hell realms, or Naraka, is the lowest realm of rebirth. Of the hell realms, the worst is Avīci or "endless suffering". The Buddha's disciple, Devadatta, who tried to kill the Buddha on three occasions, as well as create a schism in the monastic order, is said to have been reborn in the Avici Hell.

However, like all realms of rebirth, rebirth in the Hell realms is not permanent, though suffering can persist for eons before being reborn again. In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha teaches that eventually even Devadatta will become a Pratyekabuddha himself, emphasizing the temporary nature of the Hell realms. Thus, Buddhism teaches to escape the endless migration of rebirths (both positive and negative) through the attainment of Nirvana."

"Buddhism teaches that all things are in a constant state of flux: all is changing, and no permanent state exists by itself. This applies to human beings as much as to anything else in the cosmos. Thus, a human being has no permanent self. According to this doctrine of anatta (Pāli; Sanskrit: anātman) — "no-self" or "no soul" — the words "I" or "me" do not refer to any fixed thing. They are simply convenient terms that allow us to refer to an ever-changing entity.

The anatta doctrine is not a kind of materialism. Buddhism does not deny the existence of "immaterial" entities, and it (at least traditionally) distinguishes bodily states from mental states. Thus, the conventional translation of anatta as "no-soul" can be confusing. If the word "soul" simply refers to an incorporeal component in living things that can continue after death, then Buddhism does not deny the existence of the soul. Instead, Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent entity that remains constant behind the changing corporeal and incorporeal components of a living being."

end up in at least one of the 7 circles of hell (Naraka)? Sounds like souls to me.

Wtf? 7 circles of hell? You trippin.:

Actually there are 8 cold Naraka and 8 hot Naraka, so yeah, I must be trippin. Anyway, the point is that you're constantly telling us that Buddhism is compatible with atheism, but it does not deny the existence of souls and it talks at great length about hell. Does that sound compatible with atheism, honestly?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 2:05:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've always liked Buddhism for it's simplicity & peaceful ways. However, I never was able to reconcile the fact that many of its teachings are artfully stated contradictions! Stuff that sounds impressive and awe inspiring, but are indeed contradictions. Nonetheless, there are a great many valuable teachings: more so than in many other religions.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 2:21:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 2:01:05 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Sati: "As I understand the teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through the existences.":

LOL! How's that not a soul???

It IS a soul and that's why Buddha refuted Sati!

The Buddha quote following Sati's is Buddha responding to Sati. Read the two quotes together and you will understand.

From Wiki:

"In "Devaduta Sutta" the 130 th discource of Majjhima Nikaya Buddha teaches about the hell in vivid detail. Buddhism teaches that there are five (sometimes six) realms of rebirth, which can then be further subdivided into degrees of agony or pleasure. Of these realms, the hell realms, or Naraka, is the lowest realm of rebirth. Of the hell realms, the worst is Avīci or "endless suffering". The Buddha's disciple, Devadatta, who tried to kill the Buddha on three occasions, as well as create a schism in the monastic order, is said to have been reborn in the Avici Hell.

However, like all realms of rebirth, rebirth in the Hell realms is not permanent, though suffering can persist for eons before being reborn again. In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha teaches that eventually even Devadatta will become a Pratyekabuddha himself, emphasizing the temporary nature of the Hell realms. Thus, Buddhism teaches to escape the endless migration of rebirths (both positive and negative) through the attainment of Nirvana."

"Buddhism teaches that all things are in a constant state of flux: all is changing, and no permanent state exists by itself. This applies to human beings as much as to anything else in the cosmos. Thus, a human being has no permanent self. According to this doctrine of anatta — "no-self" or "no soul"

L O L. Even your own post proves my point. Look at what's said in bold. One of the core doctrines of Buddhism is "anatta" which means "no-soul." There really is not debate about that. The soul is absolutely rejected in Buddhism. I can show a bunch more Buddha quoted that prove my point.

— the words "I" or "me" do not refer to any fixed thing. They are simply convenient terms that allow us to refer to an ever-changing entity.

The anatta doctrine is not a kind of materialism. Buddhism does not deny the existence of "immaterial" entities, and it (at least traditionally) distinguishes bodily states from mental states. Thus, the conventional translation of anatta as "no-soul" can be confusing. If the word "soul" simply refers to an incorporeal component in living things that can continue after death, then Buddhism does not deny the existence of the soul. Instead, Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent entity that remains constant behind the changing corporeal and incorporeal components of a living being."

This is a bit misleading as this appears to conflict with the Buddhas words.

end up in at least one of the 7 circles of hell (Naraka)? Sounds like souls to me.

Wtf? 7 circles of hell? You trippin.:

Actually there are 8 cold Naraka and 8 hot Naraka, so yeah, I must be trippin. Anyway, the point is that you're constantly telling us that Buddhism is compatible with atheism, but it does not deny the existence of souls and it talks at great length about hell. Does that sound compatible with atheism, honestly?

The Hell realms are part of the "31 Planes of Existence." These "planes" are depicted in the Dharma Wheel and the Dharma Wheel is a map of the mind. The planes of existence are actually states of the mind which is actually made quite clear.

I could explain it better once I go look in my book on Buddhism.

Regarding the soul, I think I have already proved that Buddha rejects the soul.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 2:22:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 2:05:24 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
I've always liked Buddhism for it's simplicity & peaceful ways. However, I never was able to reconcile the fact that many of its teachings are artfully stated contradictions! Stuff that sounds impressive and awe inspiring, but are indeed contradictions. Nonetheless, there are a great many valuable teachings: more so than in many other religions.:

Min 2:10

Pretty much sums it up
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 2:31:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 2:05:24 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
I've always liked Buddhism for it's simplicity

Simplistic in what way? It's actually a complex philosophical system that takes a long time to properly understand.

& peaceful ways.

I don't think peace is a teaching of Buddhism. Peace is just obvious in Buddhism so it doesn't have much to say about it.

However, I never was able to reconcile the fact that many of its teachings are artfully stated contradictions!

Such as?

Stuff that sounds impressive and awe inspiring, but are indeed contradictions.

Again, you haven't demonstrated this.

Nonetheless, there are a great many valuable teachings: more so than in many other religions.

So you're saying only the minor teachings are contradictory? I don't get what you're saying here.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 3:08:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 2:21:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/11/2010 2:01:05 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Sati: "As I understand the teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through the existences.":

LOL! How's that not a soul???

It IS a soul and that's why Buddha refuted Sati!:

Answer this question:

If Buddhism denies the existence of souls, then how does one get to Hell? I assume Buddhism doesn't believe that your physical body is thrown in to hell, so in what other form is a person in Naraka?

L O L. Even your own post proves my point. Look at what's said in bold. One of the core doctrines of Buddhism is "anatta" which means "no-soul.":

You have very selective reading. Let me embolden what you conveniently omitted:

"The anatta doctrine is not a kind of materialism. Buddhism does not deny the existence of "immaterial" entities, and it (at least traditionally) distinguishes bodily states from mental states. Thus, the conventional translation of anatta as "no-soul" [b]can be confusing. If the word "soul" simply refers to an incorporeal component in living things that can continue after death, then Buddhism does not deny the existence of the soul.[/b] Instead, Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent entity that remains constant behind the changing corporeal and incorporeal components of a living being."

This is a bit misleading as this appears to conflict with the Buddhas words.:

It's not possible the Buddha contradicted himself? I mean, it's not like he's an infallible God, right?

The Hell realms are part of the "31 Planes of Existence." These "planes" are depicted in the Dharma Wheel and the Dharma Wheel is a map of the mind. The planes of existence are actually states of the mind which is actually made quite clear.:

Well, there's a problem. When going to hell, for whatever bad karma, your time in purgatory can be for aeons until your "rebirth" (essentially reincarnation) is complete.

So, we have people that go to Hell (their consciousness - i.e. soul), this can be for an undetermined period of time which can last much longer than human beings could live physically, and it depends on one's rebirth. That's three things you denied about Buddhism that certainly appear false.

Can you reconcile these anomalies while still being compatible with atheism?

Regarding the soul, I think I have already proved that Buddha rejects the soul.:

What is a soul? Describe to me what a soul is, and then we'll see whether Buddha rejects the Western concept of the soul or the Eastern. Again, "if the word "soul" simply refers to an incorporeal component in living things that can continue after death, then Buddhism does not deny the existence of the soul. Instead, Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent entity that remains constant behind the changing corporeal and incorporeal components of a living being."
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 3:15:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 2:31:47 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/11/2010 2:05:24 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
However, I never was able to reconcile the fact that many of its teachings are artfully stated contradictions!
Such as?
The above posted by PARADIGM_L0ST, for starters.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 6:40:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 2:22:37 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Min 2:10

Pretty much sums it up

Buddha wasn't fat. Ever. The fat guy that people associate with Buddhism is Hotei and is equivalent to confusing Santa Claus for Jesus. Hotei was the fat guy with the sack filled with candy and long earings. He lived over a thousands years after Buddha died.

The real Buddha is in my avatar.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 9:25:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 12:45:46 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you think that Buddhism has largely slipped away from what it was intended to be?

Was the Buddha non-religious?

Then why not worship Chuck Norris?
In my honest opinion Buddhism hasn't it is still the peaceful and open religion intended.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 10:14:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 12:55:28 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/11/2010 12:45:46 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you think that Buddhism has largely slipped away from what it was intended to be?

Certainly. About half of all Buddhists believe in God and many sects still pray and worship deities, even though the Buddha explicitly stated in scripture that worshiping and praying to God or gods is both heretical and a "lowly art."

Was the Buddha non-religious?

Well, it depends on what is meant by the word.

The Buddha was:
An Atheist
Rejected a soul
Rejected reincarnation
Rejected faith
Rejected worship

But Buddha was religiously devoted to his philosophy.

You make him sound like the worlds biggest egomaniac
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 11:44:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 3:08:19 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 10/11/2010 2:21:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It IS a soul and that's why Buddha refuted Sati!:

Answer this question:

If Buddhism denies the existence of souls, then how does one get to Hell? I assume Buddhism doesn't believe that your physical body is thrown in to hell, so in what other form is a person in Naraka?

Again, you don't understand these realms.

"Bhavacakra or Wheel of Becoming, is a complex symbolic representation of samsara in the form of a circle.

...In the Buddhist depiction, different karmic actions contribute to one's metaphorical existence in different realms, or rather, different actions reinforce personal characteristics described by the realms. Leading from the human realm to the outside of the wheel depicts the Buddhist path. (Epstein 1995, p.15-16)"

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

"The Six Realms depicted in the Wheel of Becoming

1. The World of Devas
2. The World of Asuras
3. The World of Humans
4. The World of Animals
5. The World of Pretas
6. The World of Hell (Naraka)"

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

As you can see, these Hell realms are symbolic.

L O L. Even your own post proves my point. Look at what's said in bold. One of the core doctrines of Buddhism is "anatta" which means "no-soul.":

You have very selective reading. Let me embolden what you conveniently omitted:

I don't have selective reading because I already knew that anatta "no-soul" was a core Buddhist doctrine despite what the passage said.

"The anatta doctrine is not a kind of materialism. Buddhism does not deny the existence of "immaterial" entities, and it (at least traditionally) distinguishes bodily states from mental states. Thus, the conventional translation of anatta as "no-soul" [b]can be confusing. If the word "soul" simply refers to an incorporeal component in living things that can continue after death, then Buddhism does not deny the existence of the soul.[/b] Instead, Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent entity that remains constant behind the changing corporeal and incorporeal components of a living being."

As I already said, this is false.

"Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existent entities." -- the Buddha

This is a bit misleading as this appears to conflict with the Buddhas words.:

It's not possible the Buddha contradicted himself?

Or is it possible the Wiki article misunderstood his teachings? People in his day had asked the same questions you did because they too thought his teachings were contradictory. See here:

Kutadanta: "Tell me, O Lord, if there be no atman [soul], how can there be immortality? The activity of the mind passeth, and our thoughts are gone when we have done thinking."

Buddha replied: "Our thinking is gone, but our thoughts continue. Reasoning ceases, but knowledge remains."

the Buddha: "I say to thee: The Blessed One has not come to teach death, but to teach life, and thou discernest not the nature of living and dying. This body will be dissolved and no amount of sacrifice will save it. Therefore, seek thou the life that is of the mind. Where self is, truth cannot be; yet when truth comes, self will disappear. Therefore, let thy mind rest in the truth; propagate the truth, put thy whole will in it, and let it spread. In the truth thou shalt live forever. Self is death and truth is life. The cleaving to self is a perpetual dying, while moving in the truth is partaking of Nirvana which is life everlasting."

The only reason you think he contradicted himself because, as Buddha said, "you don't understand the nature of living and dying."

You think you're clever, but the Buddha already has an answer to that.

I mean, it's not like he's an infallible God, right?

He's not a God certainly, though he's supremely Enlightened.

The Hell realms are part of the "31 Planes of Existence." These "planes" are depicted in the Dharma Wheel and the Dharma Wheel is a map of the mind. The planes of existence are actually states of the mind which is actually made quite clear.:

Well, there's a problem. When going to hell, for whatever bad karma, your time in purgatory can be for aeons until your "rebirth" (essentially reincarnation) is complete.

So, we have people that go to Hell (their consciousness - i.e. soul), this can be for an undetermined period of time which can last much longer than human beings could live physically, and it depends on one's rebirth. That's three things you denied about Buddhism that certainly appear false.

I have already disproved this notion. See above info concerning the Wheel of Becoming.

Can you reconcile these anomalies while still being compatible with atheism?

Atheism is disbelief in GOD, not disbelief in souls, reincarnation, or anything else (which by the way, are not part of Buddhism, so there is no conflict anyways). Also, Sam Harris, the prolific Atheist writer, is also a self-declared "student of the Buddha."

Perhaps you should read the book "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist" and see why Buddhism is Atheistic.

Regarding the soul, I think I have already proved that Buddha rejects the soul.:

What is a soul? Describe to me what a soul is, and then we'll see whether Buddha rejects the Western concept of the soul or the Eastern. Again, "if the word "soul" simply refers to an incorporeal component in living things that can continue after death, then Buddhism does not deny the existence of the soul. Instead, Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent entity that remains constant behind the changing corporeal and incorporeal components of a living being."

the Buddha: "...and some, who are especially silly, declare that there are two primary things, a primary substance and a primary soul, that react differently upon each other and thus produce all things from the transformations of qualities" [Lankavatara Sutra]

the Buddha: "All such notions [of a] ...personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind." [Lankavatara Sutra]

the Buddha: "The doctrine of the Tathagata-womb is disclosed in order to awaken philosophers from their clinging to the notion of a Divine Atman as a transcendental personality, so that their minds that have become attached to the imaginary notion of a "soul" as being something self-existing, may be quickly awakened to a state of perfect enlightenment." [Lankavatara Sutra]

And for some reason, you keep ignoring this one:

Sati: "Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences."

The Buddha replied: "Foolish man, to whom do you know me having preached this Teaching. Haven't I told, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, you foolish man, because of your wrong grasp, blame me, destroy yourself, and accumulate much demerit."
-- [Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta]

As you can see, Buddha clearly states that consciousness is an emergent phenomena, the same understanding as the neuroscientific understanding of consciousness.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
wush
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 3:07:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Buddha rejected reincarnation?
BE HAPPY!! =D
you are beautiful, don't let anyone tell you you're not
you're 100X more beautiful when you smile, not that you need it
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 8:19:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 3:07:33 AM, wush wrote:
Buddha rejected reincarnation?

Of course. He denied it repeatedly on several occasions. Which Buddhist texts have you read?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 7:09:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 11:44:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
As you can see, these Hell realms are symbolic.
Symbolic of what? What is it that's in these realms...other than his version of souls?

...People in his day had asked the same questions you did because they too thought his teachings were contradictory...
Buddha replied: "Our thinking is gone, but our thoughts continue. Reasoning ceases, but knowledge remains."
How so? Without leaving anything TANGIBLE, your thoughts are gone, your knowledge is gone "like tears in the rain."

the Buddha: "I say to thee: The Blessed One has not come to teach death, but to teach life, and thou discernest not the nature of living and dying. This body will be dissolved and no amount of sacrifice will save it. Therefore, seek thou the life that is of the mind. Where self is, truth cannot be; yet when truth comes, self will disappear. Therefore, let thy mind rest in the truth; propagate the truth, put thy whole will in it, and let it spread. In the truth thou shalt live forever. Self is death and truth is life. The cleaving to self is a perpetual dying, while moving in the truth is partaking of Nirvana which is life everlasting."
Could the "mind" being refereed here, be Buddha's version of the soul? Obviously.

The only reason you think he contradicted himself because, as Buddha said, "you don't understand the nature of living and dying."
Or maybe because he did contradict himself and THAT'S why I don't understand the nature of living & dying.

He's not a God certainly, though he's supremely Enlightened.
And very modest too: "The Blessed One..."

I have already disproved this notion. See above info concerning the Wheel of Becoming.
Not really; you've just ignored it.

The Buddha replied: "Foolish man, to whom do you know me having preached this Teaching. Haven't I told, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, you foolish man, because of your wrong grasp, blame me, destroy yourself, and accumulate much demerit."
-- [Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta]

As you can see, Buddha clearly states that consciousness is an emergent phenomena, the same understanding as the neuroscientific understanding of consciousness.
Wow. So consciousness just happens, man.

Again, seems to me, that the "mind" is taking the place of the soul.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.