Buddhism, as a philosophy-- NOT a religion

buddhism was never intended to be a religion, which is why this is not in the religion forum. siddharta gautama is buddha’s real name if you don’t know, and he is rumored to have found the secret to happiness. these are the principles he found.

The Four Noble Truths:

  1. Ordinary life is full of suffering.
  2. This suffering is caused by our desire to satisfy ourselves.
  3. The way to end suffering is to end desire for selfish goals and to see others as extensions of ourselves.
  4. The way to end desire is to follow the Middle Path (or Eightfold Path).

The Middle Path:

  1. Right View: We must know the Four Noble Truths.
  2. Right Intention: We need to decide what we really want.
  3. Right Speech: We must seek to speak truth and to speak well of others.
  4. Right Action: Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not be unchaste. Do not take drugs or drink alcohol.
  5. Right Livelihood: We must do work that uplifts our being.
  6. Right Effort: Those who follow the Way might well follow the example of an ox that arches through deep mud carrying a heavy load. He is tired, but his steady, forward-looking gazy will not relax until he comes out of the mud.
  7. Right Mindfulness: Everything we are is a result of what we have thought. We must keep our minds in control of our senses.
    :sunglasses: Right Concentration: We must meditate to see the world in a new way.

any thoughts?

dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion&db=*

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1 Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2 A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3 A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4 A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

“buddhism was never intended to be a religion”

yes it was

-Imp

Well for a start lets try Buddhist epistemology.

What is truth in Buddhism, and is this truth accessible to humans, and if so how?

And specifically why are the “noble truths” truths?

Or conversely how do I tell a lie in Buddhism. Suppose I say that “Heaven in blissfulness”, how do you tell that I am telling a lie?

the “truth” is becoming your innerself. the truth is accseible to humans., by following the above guidelines you would become selffless thus loosing your ego,. the key to happieness is loosing your ego. there are lots of ways you can expierience ego dissolution, buddhism is one of them.

^^^^how do you tell a lie…good question thats the hardest part. it would be impposible for anyone else to know if you were lying. but it would be a lie if you say it but deep down truely dont believe it. you have to be behind yourself 100 percent for it to work.

Why? Why is this true?

Why? How do I know you are not lieing here?

How do you make this deduction?

This is heavily questions abegging: What is happiness? Why should I seek happiness? Are there not greater things than mere happiness?

Why do I want to dissolve my ego?

I can lie intentionally or unintentionally.

In the latter I am merely deluded, and deep down I truely believe in what I said I believed, and “behind” it even 100%, even to die for it, if necessary.

But I am deluded, for the thing believed is a lie, ie a lie is a lie regardless whether anyone believed it with absolute conviction and sincerity. A lie is not made any truer whether it is believed or not, and conversely a truth is not any less true should no one believes it.

How do I know I am or am not deluded?

1.your innerself is true because its you without an ego, its the real you according to genetics. because i expierienced ego dissolution and im happy., you cant know if im lying.(but i realy gain nothing whetever you believe, so why would i),how did i make these deductions.???i lost my ego, and became selfless as an affter affect. and as an after affect to that im became perfectly content (happy even) with everything in my life…so as aresult of that i conclude that becoming selfless one has dimminished their ego, and once one has diminished their ego they will be their inner self,thus concluding THE EGO IS BAD…are their no greater things then mere happieness???..no.

being happy is a highly egoistic position…

-Imp

I can hardly understand you any longer … you are almost speaking gibberish.

But let me try again …

You are simply making a definition here: “innerself”=“you without an ego”, with “true” being taken to mean “correspondence” or “equality”; and thus you are simply telling me X=Y, without telling me what is X or what is Y. But if you are trying to say X is Y and Y is X, then it is just circularity and we are not going anywhere.

My “real” me is only “according to genetics”? Why is this true? Maybe it is not. Maybe I am more than what my genes are. And what do you mean by “real”? Some people think there is nothing real but all things are just ideas in our minds. And why do Buddhism accepts scientific notions as true?

If you say so. But I still do no know what you mean by “ego dissolution” or “selfless” and again I take it as tautological or definitional with “happy” or “perfectly content”, ie we have still not make progress.

And what you are doing here is just asserting theory without reasoning or giving reasons why the effect should follow the cause. (You have offerred your experience as evidence, but it is not good enough (see below).)

For sure, and thus I have to apply my own standards of truth to whatever you say. So far I see no truths. And so I conclude/deduce, with giving you the benefit of doubt, that you are completely deluded.

“Gain” has nothing to do with discerning the truth. (In fact it is arguable that there is more to gain if you dont.) But if you are walking towards a cliff, and for cerrtain you will fall over and die, and you do not know that, should not anyone at least attempt to shout at you to make you stop if not turned you back? and if I so care about you even to forcibly turn you around?

Well to me there are: eg Truth and Wisdom, ie I rather know truths and have wisdom than be happy. And thus anything that attempts to entice by mere happiness is of no value. For really happiness is just a red herring. Focus on happiness leads you astray rather than to the truth. For ignorance or delusion can be easier ways to attain bliss that harsh, unforgiven and unflatterring truths.

Truth should be the only, and I say again, only, reason to believe anything.

Now a word on experience. Experience can be valid evidence but there is a question of their reliability, for humans can be deluded, for one reason or another. Experience are valid only when they are corroborated. Or at least these “rules” are what I imposed on myself in my metaphysics, ie the most elementary notions that I need to have before even starting to know anything. Now are there such metaphysical notions in Buddhist philosophy, by the which you can distinguish and discriminate what is reality and what are hullicinations?

Siddharta SPECIFICALLY told his followers not to worship him. no idols, no paintings, no nothing. he told them that he was a man, not a god, and that his teachings were only philosophical.

no it wasn’t.

i think that this calls for a new word. i believe a lie is only a lie if it is intentional. if it’s unintentional, then is it more than a mistake? it does, however, have the ability to become a lie if once it’s realized, no action is taken to correct it.

im not going to respond to your questions because im getting a sense you dont care what i type.

you don’t need god to have a religion

you have a path and directions that you follow religiously…

read the italicized portion again…

buddhism has always been a religion.

-Imp

then couldn’t all philosophies be considered religions? if they were, we would have no need for different words for the two. i don’t quite trust dictionary dot com on this one. but that’s just my opinion.

On contrary I am taking you very seriously, or else why should I spend so much effort to respond to you? I rather think my ‘lack of care’ is not your reason for not responding, but merely an excuse, and the real reason is something else instead. (And not to agree with you is not the same as not showing care either.)

I have to agree with Impenitent on this one. In addition to Buddism fitting the definition of religion, Buddhism requires several religious elements:

you must worship something, be it a god, nature, or even, your ownself.

You follow a set of standards and rules that are supposed to make you moral, spiritual creature.

You are required to believe in at least a few “non-scientific” entities (i.e. certain elements from the “Four Noble Truths”).

While I agree that Buddhism may incorporate philosophy into itself, Buddhism, as a whole, trancends the meaning of philosophy, and sets itself at a spiritual level.

…just my humble opinion… :wink:

my mistake. imp- being happy is not egotistic. doing things only for happyness is. happiness as well as sadness are natural (we were born with them) instincts…chenbengchin- "(are there no greater things then happiness)“well to me there are ie truth wisdom”… maybee i shouldnt have said Happy…lets stick with content. when i say content i dont mean with the world, i mean with myself. im not content with things outside myself (war and stuff) …when i say selfless i mean doing things that are a bennifit to others. so im content withmyself but not the world , so im trying to get smarter (college books this…) not to feel better about myself but in hopes of learning somthing that could be bennificial to someone else. i would be doing it whether it made me feel good or not, feeling good is just a good natural side effect. thats what i consider to be selfless. so i feel content with myself, and i feel content with my efforts to help others. “why should the effect follow the cause” because i believe humans are born selfless and content-then an ego develops(according to society) and humans get greedy and feel incomplete. so getting rid of your ego returns you to tour natural state, before it was interupted by society. p.s. before responding do some research on "egos"and ego dissolution…it all over the net. peace.

We are doing philosophy here not religion, and so you cannot just say I believe and expect people to take your word for it or that its the last word on the matter. You have to justify and say why you believe, and in a way that is ratioanlly and humanly believable itself. If necessary you have explicate the foundational beliefs in Buddhism that makes something more believable than another. Or if that is too difficult just try this: please refute me in a philosophically Buddhist manner, why the following statement is untrue: heaven is blissfulness.

-Imp