Buddhists Really Are Happier

bjornte writes "For anyone that wonders what Richard Gere is up to, the BBC explains: 'Scientists say they have evidence to show that Buddhists really are happier and calmer than other people. Tests carried out in the United States reveal that areas of their brain associated with good mood and positive feelings are more active.' So, if you're suffering from the ongoing IT slump..."

Comments

Might be better than chemical happyness

[Golthar]

Sounds like the next best thing compared to chemical happynes :P

Think of the computers that get saved if IT personel have more peace of mind

mentality not the religion

[Joe the Lesser]

These findings would be better stated as 'calm and stressless lifestyle is happier'. It has nothing to do with religion, just that fact that Buddhists are smart enough not to get worked up over stupid things like getting cut off in traffic or being late to a meeting.

Or even simpler, as was taught when I was younger: Don't worry, be happy.

Re:mentality not the religion

[dharmawan]

mentality is certainly important but i think the research shows that there are additional, long lasting benefits from regular practice of meditation

Re:mentality not the religion

[torpor]

You're perverting the sense and definition of religion here.

Religion is *supposed* to give you the tools to lead a calmer, less stresseful, happier life. If it doesn't, its not working as a religion.

Those who would stand to benefit from an un-calm, stressy society (WMH, Eli Lilli and Co.) seek to actively denigrate religions' potential for delivering calm, stressless people, and those who have bought the humanist party line from the last 20 years that "All Religion Is Bad, The pseudo-science of Psychology is the Only Way" support them in their effort to discount the positive effects which religion can have on a persons well-being.

All religion is not bad. Buddhists *do* lead happier lives than the anti-religion types... most of whom are pretty stressy people. I'm yet to meet a Buddhist (true buddhist, not dilletantes) who wasn't a happy, fun person to be around, generally.

Make your own determination of the value of religion in modern society if you will, but discount its worth and positive value at your own peril ...

Re:mentality not the religion

[ichimunki]

The salient point of the article is not that Buddhism per se is a "happier religion" (which you kind of pointed out) but that there seems to be scientific evidence for the idea that a regular program of a certain kind of meditative practice can have a positive effect on the brain.

The activity, which meditation most certainly is, is not unlike parts of standard hypnotherapy or yoga. Concentrating on nothing or simply on breathing, putting the body into a state of complete relaxation, etc, are not unique ideas to Buddhism. In fact, the same positive effects may well flow from other more overtly religious activities like saying the Rosary.

But scientists haven't studied that as much I'm guessing-- perhaps because prominent Catholics aren't as interested in working with science as prominent Buddhists are. The Dalai Lama meets regularly with western scientists and pseudo-scientists to discuss similarities and differences between Buddhist thought and scientific theory. Further, Buddhism generally says that there is no infallible word of God, which may or may not be contradicted by scientific evidence, so Buddhists do not cling to their beliefs out of "faith", but generally welcome any opportunity for greater understanding.

And when it comes to Buddhist doctrine, reincarnation and/or non-rebirth are certainly more comforting "afterlife" theories than the prospect of eternal torment. Once you stop worrying that the slightest mistake on your part could result in infinite pain after death, you can relax a bit. ;)

Re:mentality not the religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because there is a correlation between Buddhists and happiness does not mean that religion has any soothing abilities. It may very well be that those who are calmer, happier people would be the most likely to take up/continue to practice Buddhism. Especially in the United States, where Buddhism is not at all a majority religion.

Re:mentality not the religion

[Frans Faase]

And when it comes to Buddhist doctrine, reincarnation and/or non-rebirth are certainly more comforting "afterlife" theories than the prospect of eternal torment. Once you stop worrying that the slightest mistake on your part could result in infinite pain after death, you can relax a bit. ;) Christianity has the concept of grace. The Karma rule says you always have to pay back for you evil deeds. According to Christianity everyone deserves infinite pain after death. Once you accept Christ as your saviour, all your sins (past, present, and futhurs) are covered with His blood and no longer are a reason for infinite pain. There still will be judgement though.

Re:mentality not the religion

[speaker4thedead]

In Buddhism, Karma is not seen as a physical or metaphysical force that forces you to pay back your evil deeds, but rather as a psychological principle.

I could go on for a while about this, but I'll try to keep it short.

Ideally, once an action has happened, it is gone. Our mind, however, likes to hold on to what was and will not let go. Since the past is already gone, it is not a good place for the mind to dwell. Your karma is the part of you that holds onto the past and measure the present in terms of the past. If you measure the present in terms of the past, then you see more of what was than what is. A buddhist strives to see things as they are in the present (this is what meditation teaches) No buddhist claims that they will ever be free of karma, of their attachment to the past, but if they could be, they would be "enlightened."

A quick example: Let's say that you spent the past two years building your own house by hand. On the night that you move into the house, it burns down. If you hold on to the past and your memories of what was, then you will suffer at the thought of loss and the "wasted" time you spent building the house. If you see things as they are, then you will be happy that you are alive and start planning for a new place to live and perhaps rebuilding the house.

Re:mentality not the religion

[Synic]

"All religion is not bad."

I would beg to differ. The majority of spiritualist traditions have been perverted by organized religion. The Bible warns of the dangers of institutions, and we see the prophecy come true with the Vatican selling redemption for money before the schism of the Reformation. Buddha taught that there are no gods, but only a single universal truth that we are all connected to each other (AFAIK). Somehow, traditional culture has perverted this ideology with the deification of the Buddha, and the creation of a pantheon of future and past Buddha incarnations. I have a hard time believing that this was Gautama's intention.

Re:mentality not the religion

[ichimunki]

Your statement about karma is not quite correct and your statement about Christianity is a narrow truth stated as a general rule.

Karma is not the idea that you "pay back" for your "evil" deeds. It is the idea that any action you take has an effect on your life and subsequent reincarnation(s). Here is a good explanation of karma.

As for Christianity, there are numerous sects, and one of the more prominent is the Roman Catholic Church. Their program for salvation is significantly more complicated than simply "accepting Christ as your savior". While at their core, the various types of Christianity may have what appears to be a similar notion of what salvation is, what they expect the faithful to do as a result of their faith varies. Look at the variation in baptismal practices as a good indicator of attitudes around salvation.

Re:mentality not the religion

[limekiller4]

Joe the Lesser writes:
"It has nothing to do with religion, just that fact that Buddhists..."

Not a flame, but Buddhism isn't a religion. No god(s), which is probably a bare minimum to meet a western standard of religion-ness.

Re:mentality not the religion

[CarlDenny]

Dude, if I wasn't so fucking humanistically calm and stressfree, I might take offense at your uptight slander of my people's unique cultural heritage, man. ;)

Translation: You sure seem pretty mad at atheists/humanists for a Buddhist.

I don't know if you've noticed, in general, but most religion's add a lot of stress to people's lives, and to the world. They add guilt, and hatred and conflict and confusion at leat as often as the add love and serenity. I'd say a lot of the stress in the world is caused by religious conflict between Judeo-Christians and Muslims. Even if it's not exclusively religious, those situations could be defused much more readily wihout religion fanning the flames.

To the extent that it tells people to stay calm, meditate an hour a day, and treat other people as though they were yourself, I don't consider it a religion. That is how most westerners practice it, and the point of the comment you were replying to was that those attitudes have a calming effect on people.

To the extent that it tells people to believe in gods or supernatural effects, to accept dogma unquestioningly even when it disagrees with observation (ie science,) and that it's acceptable to kill people who hold opposing beliefs, I consider something a religion. Buddhism in Burma qualifie, IMNSHO.

Re:mentality not the religion

[Mr. Slippery]

I don't know if you've noticed, in general, but most religion's add a lot of stress to people's lives, and to the world...To the extent that it tells people to stay calm, meditate an hour a day, and treat other people as though they were yourself, I don't consider it a religion.

The problem, as usual, is one of definition.

According to ESR's neopagan FAQ, "religion" comes from roots "re ligare", meaning "to rebind" to roots, to strengths, to the basics of things. In that sense, of rebinding, reconnecting, us to our true natures, I'm all for religion.

But in Western society, our experience of religion is very much formed by authoritarian dogma, so that we assume religion implies belief in supernatural entities and unquestioning faith. In that sense, I hold no truck with it.

It's worth noting that there are dogmatic Eastern practices and non-dogmatic Western ones (the Society of Friends, a.k.a. Quakers, leaps to mind), so it's not a strict East/West split by any means.

(BTW, for any neopagan geeks out there, I'll be presenting a workshop on "Zen Paganism" at the Starwood Festival again this year.)

Re:mentality not the religion

[Hythlodaeus]

And when it comes to Buddhist doctrine, reincarnation and/or non-rebirth are certainly more comforting "afterlife" theories than the prospect of eternal torment. Once you stop worrying that the slightest mistake on your part could result in infinite pain after death, you can relax a bit. ;)

What even most Christians fail to realize about their own faith is that the whole point of Jesus' ministry is that the "slightest mistake" will NOT result in endless torment. I blame the Santa Claus meme for perpetuating that attitude. The moral and ethical expectations Buddhism places on its followers are equivalent to those required by Christianity, except that Christianity does not demand perfection in order to achieve a desirable afterlife.

Re:mentality not the religion

[torpor]

Correlation or not, to just bluntly state that 'religion doesnt make people happy' is just as stupid a stance to take given the evidence at hand.

Re:mentality not the religion

[kavau]

Somehow, traditional culture has perverted this ideology with the deification of the Buddha

Very true. People tend to transform religious ideas into worshipping cults, or into institutions that claim to have sole authority on moral issues. But you can nevertheless search for the true value of a religion on your own, or with like-minded people. This of course applies to all religions, not just to Buddhism.

I remember hearing about a Zen koan, which basically said: "If you meet Buddha on the way, kill him." I guess it means that you cannot succeed if you just follow in somebody's footsteps, but only if you find the way yourself.

Re:mentality not the religion

[SewersOfRivendell]

I would believe just the opposite, actually. If you're happy, and you believe in Christ/Satan/the Pope/Shrub/nobody, why change religions/lifestyles? No, it's the unhappy, the seekers, who convert to Buddhism. To paraphrase Shaw, "All progress depends on the unhappy man."

Re:mentality not the religion

[superyooser]

just that fact that Buddhists are smart enough not to get worked up over stupid things

Or maybe it's just: Ignorance is bliss. :-)

(Just kidding. I agree with you.)

In all seriousness, ignore-ance is bliss. For a while. Maybe. Until the terrorists kill you in your sleep. Until you wake up in hell.

Re:mentality not the religion

[Associate]

Buddhism doesn't place any expectations on anyone. It simply states for every cause, there is an effect. The expectation comes from the want of yourself and others. 'I want a new car. I'll have to earn money.' 'If I kick this dog, he may bight me.' Christianity on the other hand expects you to want to go to heaven. And gives you a condition under which you can get there. The point of Buddhist enlightenment is to free yourself from want. Whether you WANT this or not is your problem.

Re:mentality not the religion

[rithvik]

There is a subtle science involved in it. What the Buddha taught was a practical method for looking 'inside' oneself. A technique of meditation which will lead to Nirvana (enlightenment) for anyone who follows it. No one person has a monopoly for truth. There is no 'One Jesus' or 'One Mohammed' or 'One Gautama', but there were, are and will be in the future man Buddhas (enlightened ones - The Ancient Indian seers of the Vedas, Mahavira, Jesus, Gautama, Mohammed all counted - Those who followed these methods and broke the barriers of untruth - the limitations of the perceptions of the human mind). The technique was rediscovered by Gautama Buddha and later taught in universities like Taxila (North Pakistan or Kashmir today) and Nalanda. People from far out visited these (Huen Tsang and Fa Hien from China are well known visitors to Nalanda. Jesus Christ is also said to be a disciple at Taxila during his 19 'unknown' years).

The result of the meditation for a person is quick (depending on person), but the method is a bit tedious.

Today the method has been mingled with all sorts of philosophies etc. to become a religion. Unfortunately the insightful knowledge obtained by the person who has attained this state cannot be accurately put in words as it is at an experiential level, and all the Great Ones who have tried to do so have been grossly misinterpreted, combined with philosophies, and each religion is farce in its own way (including Buddhism)

Gautama never meant it to be a religion. He had rediscovered the basis of Dharma (Universal Laws) and the technique to absolve oneself of ones sins : cravings and aversions , according to ones acts in life (Karma:)(actually - not farcically, as is claimed in all religions today) and the very basis of all the myths in the Hindu religion (which is forgotten today) and nearly all other religions.

This technique was rediscovered recently and is taught worldwide. It is called Vipassana (insight). Without practicing Vipassana at least once, I'm afraid no one has really understood religion. Its website is at www.dhamma.org

Prisoners and priests alike have greatly benefitted from it. Prisoners show the greatest changes since they are really sinners.www.prison.dhamma.org

I recommend it to all because it has a large worldwide following and I myself have attended a 10 day course and felt its benefits.It will be an eye-opener to all alike. It is a practical method, not a religious thing. People from all religions only get to know their religions better (Athiests love it too)

Re:mentality not the religion

[Rosonowski]

For some reason, when I had heard that it was "when you meet the buddha on the road of life, kill him."

Thing is, when I heard it like that, it reminded me of the fact that the true buddha would not be "Hey, I'm buddha. Isn't it cool?" in the sort of deification (Sic) others have discussed here.

Re:mentality not the religion

[Pall Agamemnides]

The Vatican never sold redemption for money. An indulgence takes away the temporal punishment for sin, but in order for an indulgence to be useful to you, you already have to be in saved (in a state of grace). So you can't be redeemed by an indulgence.

The abuses around the time of the Reformation were not sanctioned by the Vatican; they were perpetrated by certain individuals in Germany. One does not "sell" an indulgence, as if one could sell someone a contrite heart (this was what the abuse consisted of). But one can make a sacrifice as part of one's penance, such as giving alms for a good cause. But the giving of alms was never necessary for the reception of an indulgence.

In any case, the giving of alms in order to gain an indulgence was eliminated at the Council of Trent in order to avoid any further confusion on the matter of indulgences.

Here's a page on indulgences, and another, in case anyone's interested

Re:mentality not the religion

[alienmole]

Hey Ender,

In Buddhism, Karma is not seen as a physical or metaphysical force that forces you to pay back your evil deeds, but rather as a psychological principle.

If that's the case, what's the deal with the Buddhist belief in reincarnation? I was under the impression that one's next incarnation supposed to be based on the karma of the current one. Are you saying that this is something that the individual does to him or herself, i.e. if you come back as a cockroach, you've essentially chosen subconsciously to do so because you know you've been bad (oversimplifying, I realize, but I trust you get my drift)? Does that also mean that you could be the most evil person imaginable, and at the last minute before death, if you let go of your past, you can be reborn into a wonderful incarnation?

One reason I ask is that I've previously wondered, if Buddhists don't believe in a sentient deity, how they believe the karma accounts are kept, in effect.

Re:mentality not the religion

[Valluvan]

Your definition of religion is debatable. Happiness is a state of the mind and anyone whos smart enough to put himself/herself into that state and maintain it would be happy. But, then is that what everyone is craving for? I dunno. I wish for a better living condition for millions of poor people although that makes me unhappy.
Happiness is not an end in itself. Buddhist or no buddhist.

Re:mentality not the religion

[rithvik]

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me .

Note the different emphasis? Now repeat the above biblical statement, and when I comes, slap your chest with emphasis. You will get it.

I am my own master. No other man is the master. No other man is my master. No other man can lead me on the right path. It is I (not you or he or them) who is my own master. I is Unique, He isn't. If you have to seek God, do it within yourself, don't depend on others (Even Jesus Christ) to do it for you. A person like Jesus or Gautama who have walked the path to Nirvana can only show the way, they won't carry you with them again.

A person who has attained Nirvana cannot put his experiences in words, because words are limited in use. When they mean I, they mean 'I' without changing its meaning from person to person. But languages are inadequate. The other person interprets it as 'He' which is not what They meant.

Without practicing some sort of Vipassana meditation (insight), these people never get it right. They stick some philosophy to it and write, and rewrite their books. How many Testaments of the Bible are there, and how many interpretations? The Buddhists also stuck the Sankhya Philosophy (given by a sage called Kapila) and made sects out of their own interpretations (Mahayana and Theravada) and stuck daggers at each others. Every religion is the same

If Jesus or Gautama were alive today they would have slapped their foreheads in frustration, or perhaps died of shame

It is you 'Christians' who have been trying to prove Christ a liar all along

I know you will find this statement harsh, but it is the bitter truth. Why don't you take 12 days off and join your nearest Vipassana center? They are worldwide. Vipassana is a technique which emphasizes on self observation. Each has his own observaions and experiences. So be it. Don't listen to what 'Others' tell you. Acceptance of a fact or fiction by a fraternity of fools does not make it a truth, even if the fools make the majority. If you are a devout Christian, you will only become more devout, but differently. For a change you will begin to appreciate the Bible by interpreting it properly

Re:mentality not the religion

[rithvik]

>You claim that through Vipassana and self->absorption you can achieve nirvana. Yet the core >of it is self-acceptance and absence of self->judgment, which ultimately means accepting past >sin and saying it doesn't matter. That is >tragically incorrect, God will not allow sin in >His presence; we must be washed clean, and only >a sinless being can do that. Only God's own Son >can wash us clean, we cannot do it ourselves, we >are all filthy.

This attitude will ensure that your brain and self will remain filthy forever. Wait for Jesus to come and relieve you. Wait all your life and die even. Even your dead spirit will not find hapiness.
Brainwash yourself to believe that whatever you want. Your thinking will not turn the world upside down. Pray to whatever God, Jesus or any blah! you want, but the seas aren't going to shrink, that luxurious bank of riverside across which seems so nice to you, so inviting, will not come to you. No Jesus is going to carry you on his back. At the most He will provide a boat. It is You who should use it.
I was sceptic about Vipassana before I went. I detest rituals of any religion and don't follow them unless they have meaning which I understand, which is scientific and logical. Vipassana is entirely logical. Try it and then decide, or remain blinded by your books..

Re:mentality not the religion

[Lenolium]

I'm replying to this just for the one guy that posted here, and if someone else reads it, more power to them (it is a very late post)
From what I understand, reincarnation isn't so much an actual thing, rather than a chain-of-events type thing. For example, if you are going though life as a total asshole, when you die, you don't come back to life as a squid, or a guy with really bad luck. Your actions in life as an asshole will have scarred people you have interacted with, giving them bad behaviors to follow, or instilling distrust in others. So you aren't reborn into someone anew, but your behaviors are "born" in others.
I could be totally wrong about this, but that is how I understand it.

Re:mentality not the religion

[Synic]

I guess the dramatic play on Martin Luther drew a different portrait of the situation. The implication was also that various members of the clergy were also debaucherous fornicators.

yes

[bobba22]

karma please!

Re:Off to the chinese buffet I go, then...

[qengho]

I got a fortune cookie that says, "A smile is your personal welcome mat."

My favorite fortune cookie ever said "Alas! The onion you are eating is someone else's water lily."

Correlation/Causation strikes again?

[Jerf]

There's not enough detail in the article to know whether this is a problem, but it looks like there's at least potential for a serious "correlation implies causation" error. Does Buddhism make people happy, or do people who are already happy become Buddhists?

I'm also not sure how "calm" got transformed into "happy" in the article. My personal definition of "happy" doesn't really have much to do with "hard to scare".

The study is interesting to some degree but drawing conclusion from it is unwarrented, until more data is collected from more sources.

Re:Correlation/Causation strikes again?

[Goronguer]

Does Buddhism make people happy, or do people who are already happy become Buddhists?

Here's an anecdotal, unscientific answer for you. In the nine years since I became a practicing Buddhist, I have become happier and happier, and I am definitely happier than I was before I became a Buddhist. I know many other Buddhists who could tell you the same thing about their own experience.

I'm also not sure how "calm" got transformed into "happy" in the article. My personal definition of "happy" doesn't really have much to do with "hard to scare".

Though I might quibble with the particular wording, here is an example of what is meant.

When you encounter an obstacle in your life, do you freak out and ask "WHY ME?", or do you face it calmly and rationally, with the confidence that you are up to the challenge. Since I have become a Buddhist, I increasingly find myself taking the latter approach.

Less time spent freaking out = more time spent being happy.

Take a look at the website of the SGI-USA if you are interested in learning more.

Re:Correlation/Causation strikes again?

[Jerf]

I go more for

"Don't collect for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal. But collect for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves don't break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. "The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eye is generous, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is stingy, your whole body will be full of darkness. So if the light within you is darkness--how deep is that darkness! "No one can be a slave of two masters, since either he will hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot be slaves of God and of money.

"This is why I tell you: Don't worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Isn't life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the sky: they don't sow or reap or gather into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren't you worth more than they? Can any of you add a single cubit to his height by worrying? And why do you worry about clothes? Learn how the wildflowers of the field grow: they don't labor or spin thread.Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was adorned like one of these! If that's how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and thrown into the furnace tomorrow, won't He do much more for you--you of little faith? So don't worry, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear?' For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be provided for you. Therefore don't worry about tomorrow, because tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Re:Correlation/Causation strikes again?

[michaelggreer]

Does the study factor in other issues? I would assume that the profile of Buddhists in America is strikingly different from the average. They would be mostly immigrants (who are a more educated class, by and large), and citizen converts would likely be more educated as well. How does this factor in? I am always peeved by these kinds of studies, which end up telling us nothing, and the media's love for them.

Re:Correlation/Causation strikes again?

[FroMan]

Here on slashdot, Buddha will ruin your karma if you *gasp* write Biblical passages. Here is where intolerance reigns and the sheep are all lost.

Re:Correlation/Causation strikes again?

[Zeriel]

I think the reason that more people are willing to point directly to buddhism as opposed to religion in general in this sort of thing, despite the bible passages you quote, is due to two factors:

1. Buddhism actively encourages the practice of meditation and contemplation, which (it seems to me) would have a larger effect on the calmness of an individual than the tenets of a religion in general. I rarely see a similar emphasis on daily meditation and contemplation in Christian churches.
   
2. Anecdotally, but relevant is the fact that most people who are known to be Buddhist tend to rather closely follow Buddhist ideals--when the average American thinks of Buddhism, he thinks of monks and maybe a few actors. Wheras the tendency is to assume that the average greedy overstressed Westerner is "Christian" of some flavor, when in reality they're not really practicing much of anything except for the fact they go to church every so often.
   

Re:Correlation/Causation strikes again?

[hey!]

Perhaps part of the reason is that Buddhism in particular focuses on living your life better in the here and now by ridding yourself of negative emotions and practices.

Some people might practice this kind of discipline as a path to follow to the aims of their religion, in Buddhism (if I understand correctly) this is THE path.

Re:Correlation/Causation strikes again?

[sdjunky]

Those are some very insightful observations.

1. Christ prayed often and for long periods of time. Many who are "Christians" don't take time out of their busy lives to follow in this example.

2. "except for the fact they go to church every so often" These people you describe here are a dime a dozen. I wouldn't necessarily call them Christians as the word itself denotes a follower of Christ. How can one be a follower of Christ when he/she is not able to dedicate 3+ hours a week to worship?

Christianity has been blamed for alot of things. Violence, hatred and various other things but it isn't Christianity that is doing these things but people who call themselves Christians but don't even follow what the Bible itself teaches

Re:Correlation/Causation strikes again?

[Frans Faase]

I think that the poster only wanted to illustrate that Jesus too taught us not to dwell on the past or to worry about the future, but to live here and now, and not to cling to eartly things that pass away anyway. In that sense his teachings are inaccordance with Buddism.

Re:Correlation/Causation strikes again?

[mrthoughtful]

A difficulty that some Buddhists find with an article like the one authored by the BBC here is that it makes assumptions about what it is to be a Buddhist.

Goronguer fails to mention that the SGI is an exclusivist sect of Buddhism, in that it repudiates all other Buddhist movements. This sort of sectarianism is non-buddhist by nature, and is damaging to mental development.
Secondly, groups like SGI engage in another, non-Buddhist behaviour- that of socio-political evangelism, (which of course follows as a necessary activity for any organisation that believes it has a monopoly on truth).

Regardless, It is a good idea to follow Buddha's own advice- Don't trust authority for authorities sake, but work things out for yourself. Buddhism promotes discriminating awareness, so it encourages the individual to break the mould and 'think different'. Personal experience (as a practicing Buddhist of 30 years) suggests that meditation based upon removing what are known as 'self-grasping' and 'self-cherishing' (which actually includes any form of self-based attention, including self-hatred) does decrease unhappiness, and increase happiness.

Moreover, the promotion of acceptance of full responsibility for the world plays an important part in the construction of one's identity as a Buddhist, in that our ambitions become purposed for the benefit of all, rather than merely for the benefit of self, the family, the state, or humankind.

Re:Correlation/Causation strikes again?

[weston]

Buddhism actively encourages the practice of meditation and contemplation, which (it seems to me) would have a larger effect on the calmness of an individual than the tenets of a religion in general. I rarely see a similar emphasis on daily meditation and contemplation in Christian churches.

This is absolutely true in terms of general cultural presentation, but you can find more than a few churches and individuals who advocate meditation, prayer, and contemplation. Usually they couple it with the study of sacred texts, as well... see Parker Palmer's To Know As We Are Known, for example. I'm a Mormon, and local and general leadership are constantly encouraging members to spend time daily reading canon, praying, and meditating. I can think of half a dozen people from other Christian denominations I've met who experience the same thing.

I think that the practice, however, is strongly discouraged by Western Culture, especially American. Two weeks of vacation? 6-10 is not uncommon in Europe. When touring Australia on said two weeks one year, a guy from France commented "You're practically Japanese." (interesting how they're famous for their hell-bent work focus, but have the buddhist/eastern attachement as well...). So the work-focused culture plays a part, no matter the religion. And I also think that the meditative practice may have been hijacked and given a cloistered stigma by the monastic traditions in the west....

Re:Correlation/Causation strikes again?

[hawkfish]

or do people who are already happy become Buddhists?

While this is a legitimate question (and should be answered), consider that the vast majority of Buddhists were probably reared that way, I think we can presume causation for the time being.

Re:Correlation/Causation strikes again?

[MQBS]

>Christianity has been blamed for alot of things. Violence, hatred and various other things but it isn't Christianity that is doing these things but people who call themselves Christians but don't even follow what the Bible itself teaches

The ticket is, it's more complex than that. Religion plays a very pervasive role in cutural values, in how you're raised, in what is considered to be good and what is considered to be bad. People who grow up in a home where they're taught repression and submission probably most likely don't have a good sense of themselves. When you don't have a good sense of yourself, how can you have a good sense of others? Here's where the hatred and violence come in. Don't even get me started about how unhealthy it is to be told that you're inherently evil and that you have to look to an outside force just to be happy/whole/complete/not burn for eternity instead of trying to find yourself.

Even if you only go to church once a week or once a month, pretending that all of what they say has no effect on your mind is like saying that advertising has no effect on you. Many people think that but that's part of the point; a well made message makes you think that you thought of it. Christianity has had 2000 years to perfect theirs.

Re:Correlation/Causation strikes again?

[Gdansk19]

I rarely see a similar emphasis on daily meditation and contemplation in Christian churches.

The emphasis may not be there in all churches but that doesn't mean Christianity does not espouse it. God says that those who meditate on his word day and night will be considered blessed. (Psalm 1:1-2) Also continuing through the Psalms there are 15 references to meditating on God's precepts, words,wonders, unfailing love doing so day and night. If you want to verify you will find them in Psalms 119:15-148, 143:5, 48:9, 77:12, 39:3, 19:14, 104:34 etc.

While your 2nd point is quite true I think that the same misunderstandings seen in regards to Buddhism and its followers may be applied to Christians. Yes the average Westerner is caught up in consumerism so are many Europeans, South Americans, Australians etc. The reason North Americans may get labelled as Christian is because the founding fathers professed that faith in their documents concerning the formation of the US. While some say they are Christian but only go to church every holiday they are not following Christianity. Those who live in Christ's image, or at least try, and attend church out of a desire to do so and not an obligation/token, are those who are more fully living out the tenets of Christianity. It too is a way of life and not a rigid religion.

Dalai Geek

[dmorin]

I just learned that in September, the Dalai Lama is coming to MIT to participate in a Life Sciences seminar that appears to be on exactly this topic. He's then speaking at the Fleet Center. I've already got my tickets.

Re:Dalai Geek

[torpor]

I saw the Dalai Lama a few years ago in LA, and it was a great event - truly an interesting crowd of people attended this event, and it was a very nice day.

He spoke on the need to recognize the infinite void in our lives which can only be described as "Eternity", and that as humans its our task to attempt to live outside the box which a single lifetime offers. I found it quite enriching, even though I am not a devout Buddhist (I am interested in all religious philosophy, frankly, not just one), and it certainly gave me a sense of calm for weeks to come knowing that the Buddhist movement was as alive as ever in Los Angeles. A city which needs more religion, frankly.

Re:Dalai Geek

[limekiller4]

dmorin writes:
"I just learned that in September, the Dalai Lama is coming to MIT to participate in a Life Sciences seminar that appears to be on exactly this topic. He's then speaking at the Fleet Center. I've already got my tickets."

Thank you thank you thank you thank you.

Re:Why always those budda statues?

[qengho]

No worship of gods and deities indeed, but worship of budda.

Not worship, but reverence. The Buddha is not considered a deity like Christ, or someone with a direct line to God like Mohammed, but rather a regular guy who thought real hard about What It's All About and came up with an interesting insight, for which his followers are grateful.

Re:yea?

[Henry V .009]

Sounds like a soul mate. Well, except for the virus and attachment part. But you gotta expect that from a chick. Get her phone number for me.

Re:Why always those budda statues?

[torpor]

A statue does not 'worship' make. By this reckoning, you could say that America 'worships' the Bald Eagle.

Statues of Buddha are designed to simply identify Buddhist principles. If you see a Buddha in someones garden, you should be sure that there is a buddhist-style mentality involved in the tender of that garden - this is not worship, it is simply communication.

Religion certainly has its faults with worship, but to assume that all worship is bad, or at least, not based on some sort of common principle of understanding, is to assume the worst about religion.

And that would be a mistake not worth making.

Buddhism != Apathy

[torpor]

That's more like Taoism, which is best described, probably incorrectly, as a form of apathy wrapped in ancient dogma.

Of course, that is just my opinion having met 4 very, very apathetic, pathetic so-called "Tao'ists" over a period of 10 years. They really were hopeless to work with, and put me off studying the Tao until I'd matured a little more.

Re:yea?

[Associate]

Perhapse she's just trying to be a vehicle for your karma. In her view, assuming she's Buddhist, you deserve what you're getting.
I know you're probably just trying to be funny, but I've heard their 'apathy' described better as 'a healthy detachment.'

Re:Off to the chinese buffet I go, then...

[mog]

I was with a friend when he got "You will buy some new clothes."

Re:Off to the chinese buffet I go, then...

[nelsonal]

I've gotten that one twice in the last few months. I've heard there are only a few big makers of fortune cookies, perhaps they rotate about 20 fortunes.

hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I became a buddhist about 2 years ago after being raised a catholic. The article is most definitely true. People I work with comment how laid back I am, and how happy I seem. Its just a different story at home when you have a bitchy wife. How the heck is a person supposed to become enlightened when their wife is constantly picking fights and yelling. hehe

Re:Why always those budda statues?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Dude, Buddha is spiritually enlightened, and fat and happy. What more can you ask for?

Re:Off to the chinese buffet I go, then...

[FroMan]

... between the sheets.

Hmm, that one has got to be the first fortune cookie fortune that I have not been able to add "... between the sheets" to and even crack a smile. Damn, you have ruined my entire chinese food experience.

Now I want to slip in one of your fortune cookies, "I hope you die." Between sheets or not.

Re:Why always those budda statues?

[Pall Agamemnides]

Piano players are often depicted as having a bust of Beethoven on their piano. But they don't worship Beethoven.

Adolescents often have posters of various famous people on their bedroom walls, but they don't worship them.

You probably have photos of your loved ones on the walls of your house, and perhaps in your wallet, but you don't worship them. Nor do you consider having those pictures there a temptation to worship them.

Catholic don't worship saints, but consider them "heroes" of the faith, examples of ordinary people who lived extraordinary, holy lives. They offer examples that we can emulate in our own lives, just as you may try to emulate someone you know who is saintly. To say that Catholics worship saints just shows that you've been influenced by anti-Catholic propaganda.

Re:Off to the chinese buffet I go, then...

[SolemnDragon]

Try adding, "with a monkey."

the best one i ever got was, "your song reminds the moon to shine and your eyes remind the nightingale to sing," which was very bizarre but nice, by itself- but when we added, "with a monkey," the whole group broke down and there was no conversation, only laughter, for ten minutes. Thought about renaming the band 'Nightingale and Monkey," but we didn't, so it's still up for grabs.

you will find a new friend... with a monkey.

you will encounter unusual treasures ...with a monkey.

i hope you die ...with a monkey...

Reincarnation.

[I am Jack's username]

"The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality." - George Bernard Shaw, 1912, Androcles and the lion

"Not only is there nothing to be gained by believing an untruth, but there is everything to lose when we sacrifice the indispensable tool of reason on the altar of superstition." - Freedom from religion foundation

"Thus that which is the most awful of evils, death, is nothing to us, since when we exist there is no death, and when there is death we do not exist." - Epicurus, 341/270 BCE

I do however agree with: "Doubt everything. Find your own light." - Siddhartha Gautama (circa 563/483 BCE).

Re:Reincarnation.

[Mr. Slippery]

"Not only is there nothing to be gained by believing an untruth, but there is everything to lose when we sacrifice the indispensable tool of reason on the altar of superstition." - Freedom from religion foundation

True. However, don't confuse dogma with religion. The former is belief without reason; the latter is practice, to be tested by experience.

The core of Buddhism - and of neopaganism, and of several other paths - is experience, not dogma.

That's why I claim the label "Zen Pagan Taoist Atheist Discordian" for my "faith".

Re:Reincarnation.

[limekiller4]

First, let me start this off by saying that I have been involved in skeptic groups online prior to the internet being available to the public (read; local boards and nets).

Also, I am the guy who runs and owns nofaith.org.

Now...

I am Jack's username quotes George Bernard Shaw as:
"The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."

True, but that makes the not-so-subtle implication that Buddhism endorses an ostrich approach. Ie, the happiness is merely a benefit of ignoring certain problems. I don't agree that this is so. Buddhism, in my experience, involves recognizing that problems will exist regardless of your efforts. So just deal with it instead of trying to quash every bug in your life. It isn't going to happen.

Jack quotes the FFRF:
"Not only is there nothing to be gained by believing an untruth, but there is everything to lose when we sacrifice the indispensable tool of reason on the altar of superstition."

I agree, but Buddhism encourages facing a problem squarely and firmly embraces rationality and reason, not to mention science. The Dalai Lama, IIRC, has said that if it comes to pass that a finding of science were to contradict a Buddhism teaching, Buddhism would have to change.

I think you're doing skeptics in general a disservice by automatically assuming that a thing which tends to be looked at as a religion by westerners is automagically invalid. Skepticism involves looking at the facts but I don't think you know a lot about Buddhism.

Re:Reincarnation.

[Mr. Slippery]

However, divine revelation is infinitely more reliable and beneficial

It's only reliable if you can reliably determine what is "divine revelation" and what is imagination, delusion, hallucination, etcetera, and if you can explain why your divine revelation conflicts with the next guy's.

Re:Reincarnation.

[Tackhead]

> The Dalai Lama, IIRC, has said that if it comes to pass that a finding of science were to contradict a Buddhism teaching, Buddhism would have to change.

I've long suspected that the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs! You've clinched it. :)

Re:Reincarnation.

[limekiller4]

Tackhead writes:
"I've long suspected that the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs! You've clinched it. :)"

Who is J.R. Dobbs?

No joke, I stopped watching TV around 1994, stopped listening to commercial radio around 1997 and I work from home (no billboards and no co-workers to idly chat with).

I can get as far as knowing which one of Mulder and Scully is the girl but not much further...

Re:Reincarnation.

[Tackhead]

> Who is J.R. Dobbs?

High Epopt of Sales and Living Slack Master, Church of the SubGenius.

If you meet the Buddha on the road to enlightenment, sell something to him, and then kill him!

Re:Reincarnation.

[limekiller4]

I wrote, in full:
"Who is J.R. Dobbs? No joke, I stopped watching TV around 1994, stopped listening to commercial radio around 1997 and I work from home (no billboards and no co-workers to idly chat with). I can get as far as knowing which one of Mulder and Scully is the girl but not much further..."

An AC (aren't they all?) writes:
"HINT: It has nothing to do with TV, so get down off yer soapbox. It has everything to do with slacker counterculture and good bookstores, though."

What part of my reply was preachy?

Makes sense.

[notque]

My job gets moved to India because the worker is happier.

Just my luck to be stuck with The depressing religion of Christianity.

Re:Makes sense.

[Tardigrade]

"I don't have a girlfriend, but I do know a girl who would be upset if she heard me say that."

Your mother?

Theravada & Mahayana

[yet another coward]

As I recall from a college course several years ago, the attitudes toward the Buddha are very different between the broad, general schools of Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism. Theravada Buddhists believe as you describe. Siddharta Gautama, the first Buddha, was a man who had a great insight into living. Mahayana Buddhism, in contrast, contains a diversity of mystical, magical beliefs that vary across its many divisions including ones that Siddhartha lived as a demonstration or revelation of what he knew before his human birth rather than as a regular human life that included a great insight. Pure Land Buddhism, in my understanding, does involve worship.

These generalizations are general, vague and not true for every Buddhist, but the original post, to me, glossed over the diversity of beliefs regarding the Buddha and the mystical nature, including worship, contained in many of them.

Re:Theravada & Mahayana

[qengho]

(Much of the following comes from The Shambala Dictionary of Buddhism and Zen).

Mahayana Buddhism...contains a diversity of mystical, magical beliefs

Mystical, perhaps, but I wouldn't call them magical beliefs. Theravada (the only surviving school of the Hinayana, or "Lesser Vehicle" branch of Buddhism), emphasizes the liberation of the individual. The ideal figure of Theravada is the arhat, a person who has achieved true enlightenment through his own efforts and whose existence will be extinguished following this life, i.e., no more reincarnations.

Mahayana buddhists, in contrast, seek to attain enlightenment for the sake of the welfare of all beings. Their ideal figure is the bodhisattva, a person who has achieved perfect wisdom but renounces complete entry into nirvana until all beings are enlightened. Some of these bodhisattvas are considered to be "transcendent beings" who appear in various forms to lead others to wisdom. That's pretty mystical, but no supernatural powers (loaves and fishes, anyone?) are attributed to bodhisattvas.

Now Tibetan buddhists, they have magic and deities out the wazoo. A truly interesting and baroque variant.

the original post...glossed over the diversity of beliefs regarding the Buddha and the mystical nature, including worship, contained in many of them.

Guilty as charged. I was trying to address the original generalization, but fell short. I'm most familiar with Zen buddhism, which definitely does not worship the Buddha. It's not even a religion, really.

The clearest explanation of the core concepts of Buddhism I've run across is What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula.

Re:Theravada & Mahayana

[yet another coward]

I cannot remember the specific school, but there are accounts of the Buddha Siddhartha Gautama appearing in multiple places at the same time. To me, that's magic. Tantra, in line with your statements about the Tibetans, is all about magic.

To make a point rather than rambling more, Buddhism is a particularly diverse system without an enduring central authority to judge heresy. Instead, it adopted elements of the culture everywhere it spread. Generalities are hard to handle, Buddhist generalities especially so.

Re:Theravada & Mahayana

[qengho]

there are accounts of the Buddha Siddhartha Gautama appearing in multiple places at the same time. To me, that's magic.

To paraphrase, "Any sufficiently advanced manipulation of the illusion that passes for Reality is indistinguishable from magic." ;-) I suppose this could be a local application of the Many Worlds theory of quantum physics.

Ah ha, I KNEW it!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if you're suffering from the ongoing IT slump...

... I should kill Buddhists and eat the "happiness" part of their brain??

Trust me, it sounds like a good idea at first but it definitely doesn't work.

Re:Ah ha, I KNEW it!

[Tablizer]

... I should kill Buddhists and eat the "happiness" part of their brain??

Well, cannibals get the equiv of mad cow desease from doing that. So I suppose you might get Happy Cow desease. Insane but smiling.

Nevermind the religion, consider the philosophy

[hlee]

The philosophy behind buddhism is nicely captured by Zen, which I think is a practical philosophy of life. Zen tries to capture the essence of what buddha tried to teach.

"Zen flesh, zen bones" by Paul Reps is an excellent book to start, and some would argue the only one you'd ever need. I just like its collection of weird and wonderful stories.

Happyness is overrated

[zenyu]

Happyness shouldn't be a goal. If you spend your life trying to figure out how to make the world a better place and doing whatever you think will help transform the place then you'll probably be happy. When you discover that something you did with the best of intentions actually made things worse you will feel bad, but you won't make the same mistake and you'll try figure out how to tell others you see making the same mistake about it. Before long you'll feel good again. Is it some kind of revelation that being a good person makes you feel good?

Seriously, you know you only exist in the blink of an eye in the cosmic scheme of things so you try to build things that will last. Whether you speak the insight or idea, or do something that will reduce the rate of entropy per insight really doesn't matter.

Happyness may be a side effect of doing good or believing things are getting better, but it's got other causes, or you may be simply deluding yourself.

Buddhism, or Meditation?

[Fished]

From the article, it appeared to me that the association was less with being a Buddhist from a doctrinal point of view (i.e. holding a belief in the four-fold truths, reincarnation, etc.) than with Buddhist practices. I wonder if you would not find a similar correlation with people who pray regularly or meditatie within the context of another meditative tradition? Having known more than a few Franciscans, my impression is on a whole that they are happier than the non-meditative orders (e.g. the Jesuits) -- yet they are not Buddhists. They are just people who practice spiritual disciplines.

Re:What common priciple?

[torpor]

Religions are entirely composed of a common understanding among indidivuals. If there is *no* common understanding among individuals in the religious group, there is no group, and thus no religion.

Worship is, and has always been, a way to promote common understanding. Whether you could read or not, singing in the choir was something everyone could do to get a little more learnin' ...

But...

[young-earth]

Since the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to achieve nirvana, which is also known as nothingness, it would seem to be the most amazingly depressing religion around. Christianity offers eternal fellowship with our perfect Creator, a remarkable difference from buddhism's goal of achieving relief from a cycle of reincarnations.

Some examples of buddhist teachings:

If desire or craving, which is the complex system or process of constantly becoming, is the cause of suffering, then the elimination of desire would also cause the disappearance of suffering. The cessation of suffering is called Nirvana or the extinction of the flame of greed, hate and delusion. Nirvana is release from the Wheel of Samsara or the unending cycle of becoming, of reincarnation.

And another:

Samadhi (mental discipline) composed of right effort (purification through elimination of suffering), right mindfulness (getting rid of the ego) and right contentation (quieting the mind so to reach altered states of consciousness and thus dissolution into Nothingness or Nirvana).

That's awfully depressing; whereas a born-again Christian has a guarantee:

John 6:47 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

and

John 14:2-3 "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also."

So which makes more rational sense: to achieve nothingness by relief from an otherwise unending cycle of pain through reincarnations, or eternal joy with our Creator God?

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

So which makes more rational sense: to achieve nothingness by relief from an otherwise unending cycle of pain through reincarnations, or eternal joy with our Creator God?

None of the above?

Re:But...

[rithvik]

You are right sir. *Every* religion is based around the same ideas. Every religion is started by a seer (or a long string of seers as in Hinduism) who practised Vipassana (meditation for insight) which aimed at removing all sins accumalated in the inner conscious level of the mind, the root cause of misery. A stage is reached in this technique when the sins come out in the form of terrible pain on the body. If the pain is observed without reaction (objectively) the sin is destroyed. Destruction of all sins in the inner conscious leads to a state of bliss (nirvana) and the path leading to it frees one from the natural limitations (in perception) of the mind.

Unfortunately the exact implications of this procedure are only understood on an experiential level, and even if I try to explain my experience with the technique, it will never be effective

The human mind has two parts, the upper conscious and the inner sub-conscious. The former is voluntary and limited in ability, while the latter is very powerful but involuntary. A large barrier exists between the two. The overly powerful subconscious controls our instincts - what apparrently come automatically to us. It controls every moment of our system and is in control of the senses(it itself is called the 'sixth sense'). Vipassana attempts to completely break the barrier and make the sub-conscious entirely voluntary. These barriars are mainly caused by cravings and aversions ( Vikaras - it is called) caused due to our Karma (actions). These are broken only by practise

The process of learning to write the alphabet A in kindergarten is entirely voluntary. The process of writing Anything now for you is involuntary (you think about 'Anything' and your hand 'automatically' writes it for you.) Now the process is done by subconscious. Practice has taught the subconscious a task which becomes a habit. Experience at sensory level also teaches the subconscious. Just learning Philosophy means it will stay in your conscious for ever, never influence your life, just be a topic for discussion.

Do not kill. Do not tell lies. Do not do this do not do that.

do this, do that.

Every religion tells you this. But does it sink in? No!

Experience through Vipassana, meditation and penance has taught these Great People - Seers or Buddhas - the effect a bad act causes on the barrier - the misery it causes. It becomes a habit for them to avoid all sins because of this.Bearing pain is nothing for them since they have conquered the subconscious. But sins are a no-no. Why do you think Christ said 'God please forgive them for they know not what they do?'. Pain and dying was nothing to him. The effect of the sin the men were committing on the men themselves troubled him more. And they knew not what they did.

I know whatever I say here makes no sense to you. Check this link to my previous post here and see here about Vipassana. Until you practise Vipassana at least once, you will not know the meaning of your own religion, let alone Buddhism

Before I did Vipassana, I used to revel at people who discussed religious philosophy. After, I found out all these were fools, idiots who know not what they speak. Let your experience be your own knowledge. A philosophy wholly accepted by a fraternity of fools doesn't become the truth

Philosphy may not be wrong at all, but it is meaningless until realised. Once realised (even fractionally), what Gautama Buddha or Jesus said will get clearer and clearer.

There is no difference between Buddhism and Christianity. There is only difference in perception and interpretation.

Re:But...

[young-earth]

You asserted:

There is no difference between Buddhism and Christianity

That is so amazingly inaccurate that it boggles the mind. Implicit in your post is that you would consider Hinduism and Christianity close as well, I gather.

You are however quite correct if you change one significant point: there are really only two forms of religion in the world. There is biblical Christianity, and there are works-based religions. In all non-biblical belief systems, humans must do something (works as in Mormonism or Catholicism or Buddhism) to earn something (godhood in Mormonism, heaven in Catholicism, nirvana in Buddhism). In contrast, in the biblical system, no works we can do will earn our way into heaven. Attending church, giving money, sacrificing, singing hymns, none of these are going to get us to heaven. As the bible says, all of our works are as filthy rags. The point is that God is perfect, and He cannot allow sin in His presence. And every human sins. Who taught you to lie the first time? It just came naturally, it is our sin nature. We cannot do anything to pay for our sins (past, present, future), since the wages of sin (note: singular) is death. Only if some one perfect were to give His life for our penalty can we be absolved of our sins. That one sinless person is the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ. Only if we accept His free gift can we be absolved of sin.

If you want to see where you are heading, check out the sin-meter here.

Re:But...

[sjames]

Dissolution into nothingness is really not an adequate description. Since no language has an appropriate word or phrase since language must at least draw analogies from common experiance.

You woulkd have to achieve a state of Zen awareness in meditation to gain some understanding of that phrase. A friend once aptly described the state as a sort of mental white out, but that probably doesn't make it any clearer if you haven't experienced it.

Re:But...

[rithvik]

-You asserted:
--There is no difference between Buddhism and
--Christianity
-That is so amazingly inaccurate that it boggles -the mind. Implicit in your post is that you -
-would consider Hinduism and Christianity close -as well, I gather.

This is so amazingly accurate it boggled even my mind. That was after doing a course in Vipassana. There is no only One sinless person. Open your mind. There were many and will be many in future. Perhaps for the people in a section of the Middle East there was only Jesus (What happened to Moses and Mohammed). Each had his own way to explain the Laws of Dharma, and each had their own faithful following. This never meant there weren't others. Frog in Pond Mentality. Frog in pond refues to believe there is anything beyond his pond. Whether he believes it or not, it will not affect the truth, just his own narrow views.

I emphasize my previous statement:
I know whatever I say here makes no sense to you. Check this link to my previous post here [slashdot.org] and see here [dhamma.org] about Vipassana. Until you practise Vipassana at least once, you will not know the meaning of your own religion, let alone Buddhism

All religions preach the same. Various seers explain it differently. Various peoples interpret it differently. But it is never understood without prectice. I have only done a 10 day course in Vipassana, but even that was enough. There are two types of people (according to the Vedas), Aryans (not the filthy German interpretation) or noble people, people who are self-realized and Dasyus, people who blindly follow what others tell them or write in books, slaves of their minds' whims and, what you call 'nature'.

I used to take your view exactly about a month ago, but now, no. It has been proved, and the method is scientific. Murderers have become overnight saints. Emperor Ashoka, the person who spread Buddhism to the East, was a blood-thrsty tyrant. He came across this method, followed it and completely renounced and detested his old ways. There are many many examples, but since you do not know these common stories (common in India) there is no point citing them. Today prison jailbirds have also graduated by destroying their sins. And you actually get to percieve it being done.

When one experiences what these sins do to our body, one's nature is tuned to avoid them. Very few people have been like that, but it isn't impossible.

What you say - Only His free gift can get us absolved. OK. So what is that free gift. A kiss on your cheek. Tell me, dear man, how is that going to absolve you of your sins?

The free gift is this very way of absolving ones sins. And it requires a person to give himself totally to the Buddha (the person who will show you the path - In this case Jesus, Dharma - Universal Laws of nature from which no one can escape, and the fraternity of the learned people who will help you.

Whatever you have quoted Christ as saying is just His way of saying the Buddhist prayer:

Buddham Sharanam Gattchaami

-We totally give ourself (take shelter in) to the Buddha - tathaagata - one who has walked the path to the sinless state - Nirvana.
Dhammam Sharanam Gattchaami

-We totally give ourself to the laws of nature, which is applicable to all, whether the person calls himself a Hindu Muslim Christian Mormon whatever. As far as nature is concerned, you are flash and bone.
Sangham Sharanam Gattchaami

-We totally give ourself to the Sangha, the group of like-minded people who will help us (better known to you as apostles or holy order).
In other words:
Give yourself entirely in full faith to Jesus,

Give yourself entirely in full faith to God,

Give yourself entirely in full faith to the Apostles or Holy Order.

And you will get through to absolving your sins.

No One person can be called the God-man. Any person who follows the path

Re:But...

[BCGlorfindel]

Why do you think Christ said 'God please forgive them for they know not what they do?'. Pain and dying was nothing to him.

I just want to point out how Christ does not fit your description of a Seer/Buddha here. You state that Pain and dying was nothing to him. But unless you doubt the Bible's description of Christ, he most certainly wasn't looking forward to the pain and death part of crucifixation. In the garden of Gethsemane Christ spends several hours praying for some other way for God's will to be done, but is willing to accept the pain and death if that is the only way. This hardly seems an example of someone to whom pain meant nothing.

Re:But...

[Gdansk19]

What you say - Only His free gift can get us absolved. OK. So what is that free gift. A kiss on your cheek. Tell me, dear man, how is that going to absolve you of your sins?

No Christ's free gift is his death on the cross: John 3:16- For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Also: John 14:6- Jesus answered, I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. That means Christ, not Buddha, not Mahvira, not Gautama. Christ is no avatar come to teach the principles of Hinduism, he is God in flesh. Read John 1:1-5. Christ also said that no other way can bring one to Christianity except him. Matthew 7:13,14 - Enter through the Narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

I may be quoting many verses here but I want to illustrate fully that Hinduism and Christianity are not the same. To claim so is wrong for either religion.

No One person can be called the God-man

Christ already has stated he is God made flesh. Read the beginning of both John and Matthew for the account of his birth and the fact he is God's son made flesh. Christianity is based on the fact there is only one God and only one sinless person in the world, Christ. There is no list of other sinless people. Righteous yes, blameless yes, but not sinless. You obviously believe quite strongly in Vipassana and Hinduism. However, please do not include a religion which has no place in it there.

If you want to assert your opinions further, join a course of Vipassana for ten days, then speak, else remain as you were.

I do not have any desire nor do I need to take such a course to. Just because an individual may not agree with your opinions or viewpoints concerning Hinduism does not mean they need to take a course in Vipassana in order to be considered worthy of conversing with you on the topic. Such an idea is veering towards becoming your stated "frog in the pond mentality".

Re:Why always those budda statues?

[Psiolent]

I think it comes down to human nature and the corruption of ideas due to the same. No idea, however perfect, remains perfect in the minds of all those to whom it is passed. Buddha left strict instructions to his followers that no statues or engravings were to be made of him, as he knew that would take away from his message. Of course, his instructions were not perfectly executed, thus, statues of Buddha exist.

an old saying

[u19925]

there is an old saying, "it is hard to understand other's pain". don't read BBC to find out the pain of buddishts. ask buddhists.

A little clarification...

[zakureth]

I think there may be some misunderstanding here as to the nature of buddhism.

First of all, it wouldn't be truely accurate to call it a religion, at least not in a conventional sense. More of a philosophy or way of living, coincidentally named for the budha for having providing it's foundation and core teachings.

The nature of buddhism centers around learning through practice, meditation, and consistant right thinking to overcome the desires and compulsions that lead us to suffering.

To say that budhists are generally happies isn't the same as saying that, by having faith in something, one can be happy and relaxed even as all falls apart around you.

Buddhism doesn't take one out of the world nor does it abdicate responsability for it to a greater power. It actually sharpens ones focus on the things that need to be done by helping to control the emotional cruft that distracts us and drives us towards suffering.

To that end, being about the elimination of desire and it's resultant suffering, a successful buddhist would tend to be happier and calmer. That being an obvious hypothesis, the article meerly relates an attempt to apply the scientific method by testing the hypothesis.

Re:yea?

[anubi]

"but I've heard their 'apathy' described better as 'a healthy detachment.' "

I really like that. I have been accused of this several times, but there are some things ( like office politics ) that I consider myself far too powerless to control. Once subjected to it, I lose damn near all interest. Once I come to the realization that the powers that be value the skills of those who tell me how to do my work (micromanaging) more than me, I lose my feelings of responsibility for whether the work gets done or not. I have been looking for a neat explanation of what happened.

Re:Buddhists can be pretty bad too...

[rgbe]

With most religions and philosophies, the core nature is to not harm others. Buddhism is very much like that too, if you read any of the Dali Lama's books you will find a totally differeny story than which you quote.
It is followers who take the teachings of religions and philosophies out of context and create such atrocities, not the original teachings themselves.

Psi

Re:yea?

[Associate]

If you're really feeling ballsy, tell them that you work for you, not them. You are there for YOUR benefit. I personally try to do work of good quality because I like things to be neat and orderly, not because some middle management dork said it's what HIS boss wants. This is also because I'm inherantly lazy and would prefer to get things done right in the quickest way possible, so I can get back to reading Slashdot. I'm sure nearly everyone here knows what I mean when I say 'Office Space.' There's a reason we all love that movie.

zen and the art of practising religion

[venkats]

it is not BEING a buddhist that makes one happy, but PRACTISING buddhism that does it......
why! this is true of ALL religions.

btw, Happiness, as we know, is not permanent. Bliss is.

Re:Why always those budda statues?

[Frans Faase]

I was born as a Roman Catholics, but now I am going to a protestant church. Most RC do not worship saints, but it happens that people "bow" or "kneel" before statues, and that images, statues or even objects are considered special and treated in a special way. According to the Ten Commandments, that is worship of idols, even if those bowing before image/statues deny that they are worshiping. I do have pictures on the wall, but I do not bow before them or treat them in any special manner (as being "holy" objects). Most piano players do not bow for their bust of Beethoven. Some adolescents in a sense do worship their idols, but usually not in the way of bowing before them. Many protestants believe that any form of treating object in a special way, is linked to demon worship. And that is why the second commandment is given. Some protestants believe that RC in it's current state has more simalarities with Babylonian idolarity then with original christianity.

Re:yea?

[anubi]

Thanks for the suggestions.. its amazing how much one learns from other's insights.

I thought it was *me* for the longest time... but when I ran my situation past my statistics professor, he suggested I read a tiny book "Obedience to Authority" by Stanley Milgram.

That one answered a lot of questions I had on leadership and subordination, finding out it was perfectly natural for one to "lose drive" when micromanaged, as the one doing the micromanaging establishes himself as leader and his subordinates now merely follow orders. I guess its about the quickest way of converting your artistic types into the typical run of the mill office drone.

Like you, I am inherently lazy and want it done right the first time so I don't have to do it over. I'll have to see that movie "Office Space". I'm not much of a movie watcher, but hope its good enough to pry me away from my workbench.

I'm a Buddhist of more than 25 years, but...

[AShocka]

this is not unique to Buddhists. It's entirely up to the spirituality or approach of each individual.

There are also plenty of suffering Buddhists amongst us. Yet at the same time I do feel that there are teachings within Buddhism that are treasures of humanity.

I have found that studying and practicing Buddhism has given me a greater appreciation of other teachings, cultures, methods, ways of life, and the human spirit (in general).

At the same time, I feel it often cheapens and can be misleading and deceptive when any spiritual teaching presents itself to sell it as a means to happiness.

This may be the goal, but it can be misleading to say that the journey is full of happiness. Even if some experience this to be true, still, it is uncompassionate to present it in a general way like that.

Often what is involved in the path is a lot of reflecting, and discovery of the tyranny of self deception (on many levels). That may lead to happiness (through liberation from self deception), but that process may not necessarily be a happy one (but it can be).

An individuals path or journey through life is not always so smooth. It's how they learn from, deal with, and adapt to what happens to them that counts in the long run, and how they share their life with their community (and fellow beings) as a whole.

As HH Dalai Lama says, it is a good thing that there are so many paths to suit the diversity of human beings.

Reincarnation vs. science

[mrthoughtful]

The BBC recently also authored an article about a scientific study, that 'proves' the non-existence of ghosts.
The issue over rebirth/reincarnation will remain open for a while, regardless of our individual or societal 'scientific' views because, simply put, the realms of life after death fall outside empirical science.
1) It cannot be proved or disproved, and
2) It isn't redundant, so Ockham's razor cannot be applied.
3) Lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence.
It is easy to see from a hard science view that the disbelief of rebirth/reincarnation is as superstitious as the belief in it.
Of course, the final remark "Doubt everything. Find your own light." is a demonstration of the supreme levels of profundity that Buddha taught. This is also an appropriate quote for those Buddhists who believe that their own school/sect/club' has some sort of monopoly on Buddhist truth.

Readings from sutra point to a basic assertion that in essence, truth belongs to logic, logic belongs to language, language is limited (e.g. explaining the taste of salt cannot convey the experience), and that's all there is to it. Buddhism is 'post-structuralist' - and it's ideas are 'post-wittgenstein'

Re:Why always those budda statues?

[Pall Agamemnides]

God knows what our intentions are when we do something. Appearances can be deceiving. For instance, if I were to slap my mother in the face with the intention of hurting her, that would be a sin. But if I did it to kill a mosquito that was about to bite her, or to bring her back to consciousness if she was in danger of falling into a coma (or something like that), then what I did would be a good act. Judging by appearances is what people do, not God: "You Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness." (Luke 11:39)

Here are a few Biblical passages in which people bow down before other people out of respect (not worship):

1 Kings 1:16
Bathsheba bowed and did obeisance to the king, and the king said, "What do you desire?"

1 Kings 1:23
And they told the king, "Here is Nathan the prophet." And when he came in before the king, he bowed before the king, with his face to the ground.

1 Kings 1:31
Then Bathsheba bowed with her face to the ground, and did obeisance to the king, and said, "May my lord King David live for ever!"

1 Kings 2:19
So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king's mother; and she sat on his right.

We see here, in the first few chapters of 1 Kings, the following: Bathsheba and the prophet Nathan bows down before King David, and King Solomon bows down before his mother Bathsheba. In none of these cases were they worshipping the people before whom they bowed down.

I am very calm, you just challenge my calmness..

[jotaeleemeese]

B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.

Religion is not meant to lead you to a calmer life.

Crussaders, suicide martyrs, inquisitors should be enough prove for that.

If you are a religious calm person is a different.

As for the "anti-religion" types (whatever that is) I know plenty of atheists that are calm and peaceful people.

3 hours for worship?

[anomaly]

The Bible says that we were created for the purpose of worship.

It's not just Sunday morning for a couple of hours. Recognizing that God is God and I was made for the purpose of bringing Him glory means that "whether you eat or drink or whatever you do - do it for the glory of God."

I don't worship only on Sunday. I worship God as I live my life to please Him - optimally it's 168 hours per week.

Sadly the vast majority of so-called Christians merely attend church. They are missing the point.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:3 hours for worship?

[shokk]

The majority of then attend neither church and do not live to please anyone. They say they believe in God, but in truth he is no more real to them than the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus that they pay more attention to during those respective popular holidays. It would be better for them to be truthful and realise what it is they are living rather than making their limited time a big sham.

There are those that live their lives well and advance humanity, but do now know God. In essence, they have not learned about God and so have no actually rejected Him.

Those that go to church and then turn around and screw their neighbor's wife, well I think we have that one pegged.

If you want an example of an early religion that rejects the hoarding of worldly goods, look no farther than the "Thou shalt no covet..." parts of the Ten Commandments. I believe it all follows the same Buddhist philosophy that we let worldly goods rule us and they can be the cause of a lot of pain (money is the root of all evil?), so living a simpler life leaves more room for God, family, and friends. Honestly, I see Buddhism as being very compatible with my Catholicism because Buddha not worshipped but instead held as a role model.

Re:3 hours for worship?

[sdjunky]

"money is the root of all evil?"

No. Read the verse and the context. the LOVE of money is the root of all evil not the money itself.

Re:Why always those budda statues?

[Rysc]

Adolescents often have posters of various famous people on their bedroom walls, but they don't worship them.

You sure about that?

Catholic don't worship saints, but consider them "heroes" of the faith, examples of ordinary people who lived extraordinary, holy lives. They offer examples that we can emulate in our own lives, just as you may try to emulate someone you know who is saintly. To say that Catholics worship saints just shows that you've been influenced by anti-Catholic propaganda.

Suuure. And catholics don't worship a cross-shaped idol, either. Look, it may not officially be worship, but at some point you have to objectively define what does and does not constitute worship. People's obsession with the cross often borders on or actually is (depending on the person) worship.

Re:Why always those budda statues?

[Pall Agamemnides]

You sure about that? [concerning adolescents and their posters]

They don't consider the posters to be gods; nor, presumably, do they consider the famous people on the posters gods either (supernatural in nature, etc.). They know that famous people are just human beings, like them, only a lot richer, cooler, better looking, more talented, or whatever.

And catholics don't worship a cross-shaped idol, either. Look, it may not officially be worship, but at some point you have to objectively define what does and does not constitute worship. People's obsession with the cross often borders on or actually is (depending on the person) worship.

Reverence for the cross is actually reverence for Christ. No one believes the cross is a god. But without Christ's sacrifice on the cross, none of us could be saved.

If a soldier on a distant battlefield says, "I love you" to a picture of his wife, it doesn't mean he loves the photograph. It is his wife whom he loves, and the photo represents his wife.

Re:Off to the chinese buffet I go, then...

[Tackhead]

> I got a fortune cookie that says, "A smile is your personal welcome mat."

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face forever."

Cool!

Re:Why always those budda statues?

[Tackhead]

> Dude, Buddha is spiritually enlightened, and fat and happy. What more can you ask for?

You're saying Tux is the reincarnation of the Buddha?

Idolators

[Muhammar]

They think they are happy now - but they all will burn in hell. God loves you - or else!

Re:Idolators

[Muhammar]

And you will sizzle too - unless you find your way to the Lord.

Please, read Chicktracts: http://www.elsewhere.org/chicktracts.html

It is not too late. Even if you have only five minutes, read "This was your life" http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.a sp

and, especialy nice: "Where's rabbi Waxman?" http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0014/0014_01.a sp

Clean up your acts - before it is not too late!

Re:Why always those budda statues?

[Thangodin]

They're more an exemplar than an idol. Here's a fat, dumpy, goofy guy grinning like an idiot. Not all wise, all knowing, all powerful, just content. That's the whole point. You don't have to be perfect. Anybody who tells you you do is trying to sell you something. The advertising industry sells us billions of dollars of crap by convincing us that we are nothing without it. They manufacture consent by manufacturing inadequacy--and they learned this from our religious leaders.

I recently heard a lecture by a muslim theologian who stated that Islam and Christianity are both Triumphalist religions. Hearing that scared the crap out of me. It means that adherents to these religions will always consider their faiths to have the final word, and the lazier amongst them will take this as an excuse to look no further. Curiosity, debate, pluralism, adaptive change, and tolerance can all be dispensed with if you already know everything. This is a critical flaw, one we cannot afford in a world where a single weapon can kill more people than Ghengis Khan did in his whole life. True, Westerners raised in Christianity will look at the statue of the Bhudda and try to see the Messiah, but that's our own neurosis, not Bhuddism's.

Dalai Lama + scientists

[PurplePhase]

One thing the Dalai Lama does with western scientists is travel right here to Madison, WI USA to get his brain scanned. They've found significant differences in his brain use and activity than in the rest of us, supposedly (?) because he does not worry or fear.

8-PP

Re:Why always those budda statues?

[Rysc]

They don't consider the posters to be gods; nor, presumably, do they consider the famous people on the posters gods either (supernatural in nature, etc.). They know that famous people are just human beings, like them, only a lot richer, cooler, better looking, more talented, or whatever.

My dictionary defines worship several ways, but I refer you to "show religious devotion to, as of a deity" and "To perform acts of homage or adoration;"

Teenagers certainly show a certain fanatical, mindless (in a word, religious) devotion to their pop starts of the moment. Not always, but it happens.

But it hardly matters, since that bit was intended as some light humor.

Reverence for the cross is actually reverence for Christ. No one believes the cross is a god. But without Christ's sacrifice on the cross, none of us could be saved.

So they are not worshiping the cross-idol but the christ-idol? Since when is Jesus god? And don't give me that trinity crap, it's totally baseless.

People perhaps are SUPPOSED to revere but not worship the cross, their bible, jesus, saints, etc.. But this is not generally what happens. People wind up worshiping the things themselves as if they had inherent value.

This is the problem with having idols to begin with, which is why jews/christians are not supposed to have them. Stupid people, or people not paying attention all the time, can slip into the habit of worshiping the pointer and not the thing it points to.

If a soldier on a distant battlefield says, "I love you" to a picture of his wife, it doesn't mean he loves the photograph. It is his wife whom he loves, and the photo represents his wife.

In theory, yes. But his wife is immediate and tangible... it's hard to confure a photo of her with her. Religious concepts are not so easy.

You've got to make a distinction between the ideal and the reality. The ideal, the specification, may say one thing, but people quite often don't follow the spec. In reality people worship jesus and cross' in place of their god.

It's not only sad, it's also funny.

Re:Why always those budda statues?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Tux is the reincarnation of the Buddha

Neo Voice: "Whoa."

if i were a buddist...

[airdrummer]

> Tests carried out in the United States ...i'd be a _lot_ happier in the us than in tibet;-);-);-)

Not only happier...

[Doctor Hu]

...but knowing that happiness is as much an illusion as the rest of the world, now that is the true happiness.

For further enlightenment, check the a.b.s.f.g FAQ and manifesto. Just say that Pedro sent you.

george schophoner

[halfman]

German philosopher says It is difficult to find happiness in oneself but it is impossible to find it anywhere else

Re:Why always those budda statues?

[Pall Agamemnides]

So they are not worshiping the cross-idol but the christ-idol?

I had assumed you were a Christian... Anyway, yes, they are worshipping Jesus.

Since when is Jesus god?

Since He and the Bible say so:

John 1:1,14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

John 10:30
"I and my Father are one."

And don't give me that trinity crap, it's totally baseless.

Here's a page that has a pretty good look at some of the Biblical evidence for the Trinity:

The Doctrine of the Trinity

People perhaps are SUPPOSED to revere but not worship the cross, their bible, jesus, saints, etc.

Well, we are supposed to worship Jesus. Of the other things and people you mention, people don't consider them gods, so they don't worship them as idols, no matter how much they reverence them.

This is the problem with having idols to begin with, which is why jews/christians are not supposed to have them.

What we are not supposed to have is false gods. As long as we don't consider a statue or something like that to be a god, then it's not a false god. It's not the images themselves that are bad (God Himself commanded images to be made, such as the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, the bronze serpent, etc.) but what we do with them.

By the way, according to what you said, we shouldn't keep Bibles around, since you think they are a temptation to idolatry. That is, it would seem that you think "jews/christians are not supposed to have" the Bible, since "stupid people, or people not paying attention all the time, can slip into the habit of worshiping the pointer and not the thing it points to."

But his wife is immediate and tangible... it's hard to confure a photo of her with her. Religious concepts are not so easy.

The point is that his wife is not immediate and tangible. Just like Jesus, she exists, but not in a visible way to the soldier or Christian, as the case may be.

In reality people worship jesus and cross' in place of their god.

People do worship Jesus, but no one worships the cross.

Why is it

[young-earth]

That to justify your religion you have to drag mine into it? I sure don't justify my Christianity by citing Brahma or Buddha or anything outside of the bible. Yet you have been using the Lord Jesus Christ in an attempt to mainstream eastern religions. Your tactic merely shows that the legitimacy rests on the Lord Jesus, and that you're trying to leverage that.

Your desperate manuverings with statements like "Christianity can be considered a small part of Hinduism (philosophically)" show that either you are tragically misinformed or intentionally making wrong statements. Christianity makes sense logically, but Hinduism is so logically internally inconsistent on the other hand.

For example, Hinduism teaches that one works out, via karma, the sins of past lives by experiencing the victim instead of the perpetrator side of each sin in the past life. However this only causes a perpetual presence of things like wife beating, since if person A beats his wife in one lifetime, then in the next he is a beaten wife. This means there is another beater, and the cycle goes on forever, with no net reduction in sin possible ever. The logic of this is so {supply your own term} that it does take vast amounts of faith to believe in that religion.

I realize that you've stated your mind is closed to alternative thoughts, but for lurkers out there who want to study the topic of eastern religions vs. Christianity, I highly recommend a book by a former Hindu, ISBN 0849943272 at wherever you like to get books (I just looked at amazon and it's there).

Re:Why is it

[rithvik]

Tragically misinformed? ROTFL. You don't know what you say:-D. 'Attempt to mainstream eastern religions'. Did you even read my text properly?
Western religions have been doing it all along and their attempts are forgiven? Some priest puts a piece of bread in the well and proclaims that all who drink the water become christians. Gullible people 'converted'. Some stupid miracle, a magic trick and some others got 'converted'. Some even went to the extent of 'converting' Orangutans in Indonesia. Eastern religions don't believe in 'convertions'. They believe in Dharma, One Dharma, One Law. Western religions never did either, but political motives hijacked these religions, adulterated them and spread them around BY Force. And people whose ancestors got converted don't want to admit this. They suffer from an acute Inferiority complex, it seems.

Believe what you think is right. Hinduism gives you this freedom. If I don't believe in rebirth, I am still a Hindu. If I don't believe in Krishna, I am still Hindu. If I don't believe in Shiva, I am still a hindu. If I am an Athiest, I still can call myself hindu, as long as I live harmoniously in society. If I don't believe in I am still a Hindu. I pray to Christ everyday and visit the Church, I am still a Hindu. If you don't believe in Christ, You are not a Christian. Period.

Do you have *any* idea of the amount of literature behind Hinduism? Definately not. Even I don't exactly because it is too vast. Even a sampling of it is very large and very deep in comparison to the entire Judiac and Christian works, I'm willing to bet. The philosophies have so many angles, deductions etc. that they are too deep to fathom. Christianity, on the other hand is too shallow for this. As a sampling please try to read these books : the Vedas : Riga, Yajur, Arharva, Saama. The half-dozen or so Upanishadas, Philosphies (6 in number, main being Sankhya and Vedanta). Read up a book on Vedanta, and I will bet you anything you won't understand a word. You need to have that mind-set and a guru to explain. For the Genesis, compare the Puranas - 18 in number - each the size of the Genesis itself, and definitely more detailed and scientific (if you sieve it through the symbolisms, that is. On first sight it appears totally haywire). And that is the tip of the iceberg. Which language has the highest amount of literature? English, German, Latin, Hebrew?. No sir, it is Sanskrit (maybe English has broken its record now). And most of it pertains to what is refered as hinduism. Pali, another language of Ancient India also has appreciable literature connected with Buddhism.

The Bible is merely a well-written Text-book for the masses. The references lie elsewhere. No one can prove a Text-book wrong, but one can find it inadequate for further research. Nothing wrong with a textbook. Hinduism needs it too, since most hindus don't know their religion very well.

How about a visit to this site (www.atlan.org)? The author is clearly not a Hindu and he has made an attempt to understand tantric symbolisms. But he clearly has studied both the Hindu scriptures and the Biblical ones and draws his conclusions objectively. Perhaps you will get a better idea of the Flood, as explained in the Genesis, the Matsya Purana and the Vedas.

As for recommending a book from a former Hindu, I can recommend many from former Christians (Dr David Frawley (www.vedanet.com) and plenty others), but I don't want to pick fights. There are plenty of websites ( www.atributetohinduism.com ) but I doubt their full objectivity on the matter. I highly recommend this book : ISBN: 8120810058 Gods Sages and Kings ... , written by a former Christian.

I am not making a case for Hinduism and against Christianity. I am stating a fact. Study both philosophies and draw your own conclusions. Mostly people who haven't talk out of their ars (me included, if you like: I just quote the studies of those who did).

People have various levels of understanding, and to each his own. One must not push

Re:Why is it

[young-earth]

You make a number of sweeping generalizations, mostly accusing Christianity for what you take as Christians to task for. Many of the atrocities you cite were performed by Catholics, not by Christians. I have carefully, in the above posts, pointed out that there is a major distinction there. To review, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) at its founding under Constantine as the first pope took Babylonian mysticism, ritual, and heresies and put some words from the bible on the rituals etc. and proclaimed it the "one true church". Actually very little of RCC has to do with Christianity: they worship Mary, calling her the "Queen of Heaven"; they have idols; they still have in their laws a statement of anathema against anyone but priests reading the bible; they teach purgatory, an entirely extra-biblical concept; they force priests to be celibate; they believe in absolution of sin by men; they believe in baptismal regeneration; they don't believe in eternal security; etc. etc. And since all humans sin, of course there will be errors by Christians; as a bumper sticker I personally don't care for states it "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven".

You claim that western religions were spread by force. That is certainly true of Islam, and to a small extent it's true of RCC and the LDS groups. However, as documented above, they are most definitely not Christian. I'd be fascinated to see you defend your assertion that genuine, bible-based Christianity ever spread by force. If it was done, it was not following the bible in doing so, and therefore most likely was some apostate derivation.

Your statements about Hinduism show quite well what the problem with it is: the need for man to explain it to you

Read up a book on Vedanta, and I will bet you anything you won't understand a word. You need to have that mind-set and a guru to explain.

Christianity does not involve mountains of literature in order to get the key point; the bible has the simple, understandable, meant for everyone message available throughout. It does not require, as you state some Hindu books do, an intermediary to interpret and explain it to you. If you wish to start to plumb its depths, there are shelves of commentaries to assist in that, but you can do it alone and get what is key in very short order.

From what you have said, Hinduism requires that one be accepted as an acolyte by a guru in order to be able to understand Hinduism.

I find it quite interesting that you're seriously accepting the Atlantis myth. That's self-refuting, no help needed from me on that one. Then you suggest investigating David Frawley, who you claim went from Christianity to Hindu. If you read anything about him, you would realize he left the RCC to become a Hindu, he did not leave Christianity. Again, see documentation above or I can provide you with vast amounts more about why the Roman Catholic Church is anything but Christian. Short form: it does not come close to following the bible.

Did you ever realize that with a notable exception, world religions are based on the individuals who spent a significant amount of time attempting to understand the world/gods/truth/death/life etc. The exception of course is our Lord Jesus Christ, who at the age of twelve was not seeking, but instead already providing answers. Yes, He is different. Only the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead; Siddhartha and Mohammed and others are still rotting in their graves.

Re:Why is it

[rithvik]

You claim that western religions were spread by force. That is certainly true of Islam, and to a small extent it's true of RCC and the LDS groups. However, as documented above, they are most definitely not Christian. I'd be fascinated to see you defend your assertion that genuine, bible-based Christianity ever spread by force. If it was done, it was not following the bible in doing so, and therefore most likely was some apostate derivation.
--
Ever heard of the Holy Emperor Charlemagne? He engineered the world's largest homicide by branding people 'pagans' and either converting them or killing them. Of course you haven't heard, since these facts are politically censored.

--
Christianity does not involve mountains of literature in order to get the key point; the bible has the simple, understandable, meant for everyone message available throughout. It does not require, as you state some Hindu books do, an intermediary to interpret and explain it to you. If you wish to start to plumb its depths, there are shelves of commentaries to assist in that, but you can do it alone and get what is key in very short order.
--
This is true of Hinduism also. There are textbooks out there which precisely explain meanings to the point (Bhagavat Gita for ex.). The point is, there is scope for research into deeper realms here.
--
From what you have said, Hinduism requires that one be accepted as an acolyte by a guru in order to be able to understand Hinduism.
--
Not necessarily. People can read and follow methods for self-enlightenment. It is only easier done under a Guru, but not necessarily. Gautama Buddha had no Guru. A whole string of saints had no Gurus. They were their own masters.
--
I find it quite interesting that you're seriously accepting the Atlantis myth. That's self-refuting, no help needed from me on that one. Then you suggest investigating David Frawley, who you claim went from Christianity to Hindu. If you read anything about him, you would realize he left the RCC to become a Hindu, he did not leave Christianity. Again, see documentation above or I can provide you with vast amounts more about why the Roman Catholic Church is anything but Christian. Short form: it does not come close to following the bible.
--
Coming round about only to proove me right. Thanks man! I believe in Christ, I was educated in a Christian School and attended Mass. So I am a christian too. But I am a Hindu too. No one has excommunicated me from my religion. Dr Frawley is another example.
--
I find it quite interesting that you're seriously accepting the Atlantis myth.
--
Don't go by atlan.org. It is badly written. Better use your brain, Geological maps(NGS dec-1982 oceanocartographic) and a proper timeline. Remember that the Earth is geologically VERY active and to travel back in time and interpret history, we must follow changes in geology. Most historians don't take this aspect and fail miserably to get a continous link in history, one which links ALL myths of ALL cultures in simple
logic. I don't expect you to know what I do about Atlantis, because it is really VAST (I thought of writing about it, but it's better to incubate for a while. I'm just 20+ BTW so I do have time). Now more and more satellite images are going against the generally accepted theories, but there are lot of big Egos out there which will never accept it. Just assume that this is the tip of the Iceberg. Too many things tumble out of this angle in history and fall into place, creating a Pandora's box. It gives justice to myths of all religions. A very touchy subject. So forget it.

--
Did you ever realize that with a notable exception, world religions are based on the individuals who spent a significant amount of time attempting to understand the world/gods/truth/death/life etc. The exception of course is our Lord Jesus Christ, who at the age of twelve was not seeking, but instead already providing answers. Yes, He is different. Only the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead; Siddhartha and Mohammed and othe

Re:Why is it

[young-earth]

Oh, there you go again. How many times must you be told that the Roman Catholic Church does NOT follow the bible, that Catholicism is not the same thing as biblical Christianity. The RCC is much closer to the Babylonian mysticism (and therefore to Hinduism) than it is to Christianity. Charlemagne was following directions of the Pope to commit his atrocities; there is zero biblical justification for his actions.

You state

I believe in Christ, I was educated in a Christian School and attended Mass. So I am a christian too. But I am a Hindu too. No one has excommunicated me from my religion. Dr Frawley is another example.

Yet again you make the error of equating the RCC with Christianity. Question for you: what will it take for you to realize that is an error? Then you say

Don't go by atlan.org. It is badly written. Better use your brain

You are the one who suggested atlan.org as a source, it's a bit late to disclaim it. Next you say

Where is Christ Now? Do you know? I would love to meet Him!

Here is an example of the deficiency in biblical education for one who is a Catholic. It quite clearly states many times in the NT that the Lord Jesus Christ is at the right hand of the Father now. The next event on His calendar, from our perspective, is His coming in the clouds to gather the born-again believers, dead and alive (1 Thessalonians 4:15-4:17), in the Harpazo (known in the popular press as the rapture). After that will be (with zero to some time of delay) a seven year period of judgment known as the Tribulation. The only way to avoid that is to confess that He is Lord, accept His gift of salvation by repenting of your sins to Him, and make Him the Lord of your life. Then you will meet Him in love, either at your death or at the Harpazo.

However if you reject Him as your writing indicates you are doing (by not admitting that He is Lord), you will meet him at the great White Throne judgment (Revelation 20:10-20:15). Without your name in the Book of Life, you will meet Him as your Judge, not as your Saviour. That is a terrible fate, and I pray you will realize your need for His salvation.

Re:Why always those budda statues?

[Rysc]

I had assumed you were a Christian...

Don't be obscene. I actually use my mind.

Here's a page that has a pretty good look at some of the Biblical evidence for the Trinity:

I'll read it, but I'm pretty sure I've heard it all before. This is a definition-of-god problem.

What we are not supposed to have is false gods. As long as we don't consider a statue or something like that to be a god, then it's not a false god. ...like I was saying. Define "God." I'm sure what you say wont be what I say. Also, you don't have to deify an idol to have it lead you away from your god, your true path.

By the way, according to what you said, we shouldn't keep Bibles around, since you think they are a temptation to idolatry.

Nobody ever said temptation was wrong; it's just having it succeed that's a problem. The bible holds valuable moral princplies and mysteries in story-form and, while it could be done away with, it would be inconvenient to replace. A necessary risk, therefore.

People do worship Jesus, but no one worships the cross.

You and I are defining worship and god differently. By my definition what people do with cross' is worship them. Deifying an object is not by my definition a prerequisite to worship.

So many of the worlds problems arise form people talking at cross-definitions.

Re:Why always those budda statues?

[Pall Agamemnides]

> I had assumed you were a Christian...

Don't be obscene. I actually use my mind.

It's too bad that using your mind apparently doesn't help you to address people in a more charitable manner.

Define "God."

The Catholic Encyclopedia describes God as "the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship."

Here is an article on God's attributes.

[Y]ou don't have to deify an idol to have it lead you away from your god, your true path.

This seems to be the main point you're making. The fact, though, is that no one is led away from God by the cross. The cross is where Jesus sacrificed His life for us; veneration of the cross is directed to Christ, not to the cross itself.

Re:Why always those budda statues?

[Rysc]

It's too bad that using your mind apparently doesn't help you to address people in a more charitable manner.

I was attempting some light humor. Sorry.

The Catholic Encyclopedia describes God as "the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship."

That does not begin to define god. Is god a physical manifestation? Is god a thinking entity? Is god a metaphor for something? Is god a force of collective human conscience? Is god an ideal people strive to match? Is god an understanding of something? I know people who will all variously answer yes and no to these questions. I know one minister who defines god in a way that is good and consistent but is totally adjacent to what I had taken to be the generally-accepted notion of the definition of god. (And get this: he asserts that his definition is not only correct, but held by most people. People are weird when it comes to god.) I don't have the skill or energy to reproduce his definition here, interesting though it might be to do so.

(Incidently, the biggest initial problem I've seen when discussing god is that of anthropomorphicization. Is god a person? This question is deceptive, but correctly precieved the answer to it is vital to communication on this topic. Personally, I'd say no. If you say yes, then I likely don't accept the existence of what you call god and further discussion is hampered. I don't expect you to answer this question... as I said, its meaning is deceptive. I also don't really want to go through the extreme trouble of communicting to you the subtleties of the question; I find that hard enough to do (not to mention time-consuming enough) IRL. and I cannot be certain you are answering the question I am asking unless I have explained it in that kind of detail.)

This seems to be the main point you're making.

It was the thrust of my initial post, yes.

The fact, though, is that no one is led away from God by the cross. The cross is where Jesus sacrificed His life for us; veneration of the cross is directed to Christ, not to the cross itself.

So you say. I have seen evidence otherwise. As I said before, maybe it's not supposed to be directed at the cross itself, but generally it is.

I can see already taht we are miscommunicating. I am not hearing what you are meaning, only what you are saying. I get the feeling we're meaning much the same things, but using incompatible definitions. I used to think most everybody was stupid, but now I think that I just don't know what people think. Language can be extrememly frustrating.