Nope. And I have had the meditative experience where I ceased to be “me”, tooAnd, of course, a Buddhist would ask, “Can you show me this ‘person’ you refer to?”
Of course, none of this changes the fact even “enlightened” people go around talking about “persons” existing in some way. So, we have to live with the concept of personality having some kind of reality, even if it’s a contigent reality and not “the way things really are”.Yes, even the Buddha said “I” and “mine” and so forth.Nope. And I have had the meditative experience where I ceased to be “me”, too
you seem to imply that Buddhism posits that we are ‘persons’ who are not different or distinctive from one another. So, I was curious as to how you are defining ‘person’.
I’m not setting up a trap for you to fall into.
I’m simply asking how you are defining ‘person’?I think you might have to speak specifically from the point of view of a specific lineage from within Tibetan Buddhism to say this. There is no such thing, really, as Tibetan Buddhism, but there are various types of Tibetan Buddhism, ya know. There are those who adhere to the idea that all is idea, that all is mind. And there are those who say, everything cannot be reduced merely to mind.
The search for truth. I’d always known, even as a small child, that there was truth in the universe somewhere and I also always known, even as a small child, that I could and would find it one day. So I kept searching and asking and thinking and pondering. I thought myself right out of the Methodist church when I left high school. And tried various other churches and philosophies and psychologies and idiocies. I tried doing without the notion of God, but found I couldn’t. I found atheism and agnosticism to be thoroughly unconvincing. I found Eastern religions to be very helpful and useful for years, Buddhism in particular.
Hi discipleI think you might have to speak specifically from the point of view of a specific lineage from within Tibetan Buddhism to say this. There is no such thing, really, as Tibetan Buddhism, but there are various types of Tibetan Buddhism, ya know. There are those who adhere to the idea that all is idea, that all is mind. And there are those who say, everything cannot be reduced merely to mind.
This is what I meant when I said that there are many many types of Buddhism, many lineages and many schools. There is no one form of Buddhism, no one tradition of teaching, that has more authority than others, except to those who adhere to one over others. That’s why the notion of Buddhist teaching, tradition, and authority is more prickly than most people realize.
After all, the Buddha’s last words to his disciples were: Be ye lamps unto thyselves. And they’ve been arguing about what he meant ever since!
I did shamatha/ vipassana mediation for several years also. I had teachings from many different r(name removed by moderator)oches but all “Tibetan”. But I’d have to say my favorite all time buddhist book is zen mind beginners mind by suzuki roshi and I also enjoyed the zen teachings on void. Which in Tibetan Buddhism is represented as ‘emptyness’.That’s what I mean. It would be more correct to say “Tibetan Buddhisms”.Hi disciple
No, I was not aware that there was no such thing as Tibetan Buddhism? Tibetan Buddhism would be Buddhism taught by one of the four lineages in Tibet.
Yeah, me too…its faded a lot! It was over ten years ago for me. It kindof gives me a headache too.
I didn’t follow the Tibetan paths for long, though most of my spiritual reading was of the Dalai Lama and others. I guess you would say I spent years practicing “Mere Buddhism”, trying to adhere to the Noble Eightfold Path, trying to practice and realize the Dharma. Trying to generate compassion, trying to watch my anger and frustration and impatience arising and trying to let it float away. Trying to not put ideas and desires and imaginings between others and myself. Trying not to cling to notions of myself as fixed and unchangeable. Trying to learn to listen, that’s a big one for me, even now.I forgot, what Buddhist teachings did you practice?
Strictly speaking, the word “religion” means the linking or re-linking or re-connecting with the Divine, with the Other. So in that sense, Buddhism would not be a religion. But in the sense of being a way of reaching something higher and of offering a path or paths to reach that higher way, and having scriptures and practices and practitioners, it is a religion. It is also a philosophy, but I don’t think it can be thought of as merely a philosophy. In my experience those who most emphatically deny that Buddhism is a religion are those who have a problem with the notion of religion in general. They embrace Buddhism in an intellectual way and somewhat shallow way. (Now this is in my experience, I’m not saying this is always the case.) They want a philosophy that they can play with, not a religion that might make demands on them.There seemed to always be a debate in buddhist circles about whether or not Buddhism is a religion.
If Buddhists can’t agree on whether or not its a religion, then it probably isn’t.
If that’s your definition of “agnostic,” then I am definitely one. However, that is not what Huxley meant by the term, and I think Huxley’s definition is probably a more useful one. In calling himself an agnostic, Huxley meant that he did not have the kind of knowledge that justifies belief. I don’t think Huxley looked favorably on the idea of “betting.” Once one admits, with William James (and Pascal, though James’s version is superior), that “betting” is inevitable (and I can see why you as a pragmatist would be willing to do this), then Huxley’s version of agnosticism seems quaint. However, I still think that the term is best reserved for those like yourself who decline to “bet” that God exists, whether with Huxley you see this as the only possible response of a rational and honest person to the fact of uncertainty, or whether (as you appear to do) you admit that some “betting” is involved in unbelief as in belief.
Whether or not we think that knowledge is possible on the question of God’s existence, we are all living our answer to the question of our individual belief in God.
Yes, there are believing and non-believing Buddhists. Gods are simply not relevant for Siddhartas teachings.
Nope, not at all. Not even close. I think Mr. Lewis understood Christianity pretty well. I haven’t read the remark you’re referring to, but based upon that, I would say he must not understand those other religions at all to say such a thing.
An athiest acknowledges God, by saying God doesn’t exist?
Buddhists deny the existence of the person, and the" soul" that is reborn is more like an effect than like the persisting spirit we think of as soul. Indeed, the presisting is regarded as an evil, and Nirvana is nothing more than an end to “all that.”