Talk:Buddhism/Archive4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
supernatural vs. mystical
Okay, I'm back! Actually I haven't really been anywhere, but I've been ignoring some of these issues for a while. So, we settled on "mystical" beings? I object, but gently. I think that "mystical beings" is not a phrase is common currency, so it will sound weird to suddenly say, "we do not deny their existence", like if you said "I do not deny the existence of purple zebras," you would come across as kind of wacky. In fact, I'm not really sure that I know what "mystical beings" means. I don't see the downside of "spiritual beings" (spiritual roughly conveying "subtle bodies", or am I wrong?), but failing that, I think "supernatural beings" is acceptable and would be widely understood. On the other hand, I would still like to see us hash out the intro from scratch, which I will move towards doing when I get a chance. - Nat Krause 15:31, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Well, the only thing about supernatural is that one of us thought it sounded quite a ghostly, sort of medium word. My issue with it is to do with etymology; it doesn't make sense to classify devas, dakas, dakinis, bhuta, ghandarvas, pretas, yakshasa, rakshasa, etc. all as being supernatural. E.g. are dwarves, elves, dragons etc. supernatural? According to viking beliefs they are/were real beings, inhabiting the same 'dimensions'. How about bigfoot? Is bigfoot supernatural? No. Mystical? Well, yes in the sense that his existence is mysterious, non-obvious, and hard to see.
- Regardless, I do understand the resistance to mystical. (20040302 13:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC))
- Yes, mystical is atrocious. I like supernatural because, while it isn't 100% apt, for the reasons pointed out, it conveys more or less the right range of meaning in English. I forget, did we already discuss "superhuman"? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽
-
- Mar. 2, the meaning that you are worried about people taking is not so far off, is it? Especially if we also include categories of demons and hungry ghosts. I don't think "mystical" is appropriate unless maybe if we're talking specifically about Buddhas and bodhisattvas. "Supernatural" does have etymological problems, but it has such a standard conventional gloss that it is probably the clearest thing we can say.
-
- Interesting how we each have our own pet phrase we would like to use instead. Hopefully, we can agree on "supernatural" as a second best. Wouldn't "Superhuman" make it sound like we believe in superheroes? "While Buddhism does not deny the existence of Superman and Spider-man, it does not ascribe power for saving the day to them." - Nat Krause 09:13, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Hahaha lol. No, I am very happy with supernatural - yes! We all have our own preferences, and I guess supernatural isn't too bad. Superhuman would be a mistake, but Kukku was merely being provocative about it. (Buddhism would never say that pretas were more significant than humans).
-
-
-
- Mythological may be better, though most people identify the word to mean fictional nowadays, so let us stay with supernatural. (20040302 05:04, 14 May 2004 (UTC))
-
Hinayana/Shravakayana/EBS/Nikaya terminology
I'm moving this discussion here from Talk:Schools of Buddhism, because it affects multiple pages and I want to make sure that all the concerned parties notice it. I also brought this up a few weeks ago on Talk:Hinayana, but, at the time only 20040302 responded, so I'm not sure if anyone else read it.
Nat K.: Hey, Prat, I'm not sure I understand why you switched the "Nikaya" category back to "Early Buddhist schools". It seems to make less sense. We're listing Theravada there, but Theravada is not just early but also current (and not terribly early, either). We also list Japanese schools like Ritsu that were founded in the latter part of the 1st millennium CE, much later than some of the schools in other categories. The reason that I had in mind for having a Nikaya Buddhism article was that it would provide an umbrella term linking Theravada to the other non-Maha-non-Vajrayana schools, regardless of vintage, and this seems like just the sort of situation that calls for it. I suppose we could have a separate category for "Early Indian schools", but the current set-up doesn't make a great deal of sense.
Then, in the text, it refers to these schools as Shravakayana, provides two links to Early Buddhist schools, and one to Nikaya Buddhism. So we have three different terms for roughly the same thing, none of which are the most common term that most people are familiar with, which is Hinayana. We can consider calling the whole thing Shravakayana instead of Nikaya, but I think there are downsides to that that should be discussed. - Nat Krause 16:47, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, must have missed this update, it's been ages since I've been spending much time with wikipedia now (a week!). From memory, I hadn't seen the phrase 'Nikaya schools' before, so did a web search. It turned up much less hits than Shravakayana in its myriad romanizations, so I was going to use that, but must have decided on something reasonable instead. Shravakayana is just a redirect to Early Buddhist Schools or vice versa anyway. I am against using Nikaya schools purely because I'd never read it until I got here and saw someone use it, and google turns up few uses - leading me to believe that it's not, actually, a commonly used phrase. We are all aware of the problems with the term 'Hinayana'. prat 23:35, 2004 Apr 28 (UTC)
-
- I don't think one can really say that any term for this school is a commonly used phrase, other than Hinayana. I had originally wanted to put the equivalent of the Nikaya Buddhism article under Hinayana, which resulted in the great Hinayana debate that wracked the internet and, dare I say it, all of America a few months back. 20040302 argued passionately and fairly convincingly that the word Hinayana should not be used in this sense, not on the grounds that it is derisive (he doesn't think it is), but on the ground that it is inaccurate and unclear. Shravakayana is a euphemism that some people use to be more polite, but it is no more accurate or clear than Hinayana. I don't think simply to say "early Buddhist schools" is sufficient, because it is awkward to apply it to schools that existed after the early period, such as Theravada or the Japanese Ritsu. Furthermore, even if it is empirically true that the early schools were all Hinayanist (to use the term in its conventional Western sense), they are logically separate concepts. "The early Buddhist schools were Hinayana" is a cogent statement, whereas "The early Buddhist schools were early Buddhist schools" is not. Or, what if new empirical data comes to light in the future? How can you say, "New evidence indicates that Vajrayana may predate early Buddhism?" if that is the only way you have to describe it?
-
- Shravakayana appears to have a little more currency than "Nikaya" in this sense, but I don't think it is a major difference. Surprisingly, the wikipedia described Theravada as a Nikaya school before I ever got here -- I think that's the doing of that guy a c muller. I found about 600-650 responses on google for "Shravakayana" and "Sravakayana" together, and about 270 for "Nikaya Buddhism" and "Nikaya schools" together. And, looking at this way, we assume that all of the Śravakayāna references are talking about it as a school (which they aren't -- a cursory glance shows that a lot of them are talking about a style of practice as conceived of by Tibetan Buddhists); and that none of the other 30,000+ responses for "Nikaya" are talking about it as a school (if 2% of them were, that would equal the responses for _ravakayana). As an aside, I would note that Thich Nhat Hanh seems to prefer to call it "Many Schools" Buddhism which means roughly the same thing as "Nikaya."
-
- Basically, none of these expressions is commonly used. I don't think most educated people will know what we mean unless we say Hinayana. If we're going to be stuck using an obscure term, we might as well pick the clearest and most accurate one, to avoid the possibility of having to change it again in the future -- in my estimatation, that’s Nikaya. In a lot of situations, we might also want to have a note pointing out that this is the same as what most Western people call "Hinayana." - Nat Krause 03:10, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Some babies just won't sleep, eh?! Hinayana still needs a lot of editing, but I guess it is not so bad. The first sentence could include a link to Nikaya just as it does to early buddhist schools. Personally I think that the argument against 'Nikaya' because of it's lack of popularity is poor - a word or name does not have to be popular/non-popular to be accurate. IMHO we will always be misleading if we use Yanas (<--- which severely needs a rewrite) for classifying schools.
-
-
-
- The entire classification of Buddhist tradition into Mahayana / non-Mahayana seems pretty unstable, and I suspect that the trouble we are having with 'Sravaka/Nikaya' is to do with finding an apposition to 'Mahayana'. Is there really a good argument for splitting Buddhism into two, and if so, is this actually the right point (acceptance/non-acceptance non-pali-canon sutras) to do it?
-
-
-
- In brief (but maybe for different reasons) I agree with Nat on maintaining Nikaya. We can still add a redirect from Shravakayana and Hinayana early on. (20040302 05:14, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC))
-
-
-
-
- Well now we have three articles:
-
-
- Early Buddhist schools (alias Shravakayana), which is a summary of the early Buddhist schools' development and their legacy;
- Nikaya Buddhism, which looks a lot like a dictionary entry;
- and Schools of Buddhism which links to both of them in an unenlightening fashion: Main article: early Buddhist schools. See also: Nikaya Buddhism.
-
-
-
- Leaving aside for a moment this interesting state of affairs, I agree that the Mahayana, non-Mahayana division is unstable and unnecessary and I think we can merge the Schools of Buddhism article's Mahayana schools in to the tree under the 'Early Buddhist schools' heading, and eliminate the division. Somehow merging the Tibetan traditions might be somewhat more difficult, but is no doubt possible (esp. Tiantai). We could then write a list of schools or a summary of the history and influence of the various commonly cited divisions (Mahayana, Theravada/Hinayana, Vajrayana/Tibetan) in a short paragraph for each division on the Schools of Buddhism page. Does this sound OK? prat 07:28, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Well, I guess that doesn't sound like a bad idea. But, if I understand the proposal right, we would still be splitting Buddhism up into schools, just that they would limited to "Tantric" and "Sutric", no? This classification seems novel enough that it might get perilously close to "original research" rather than "just the facts, ma'am". On the other hand, I think Wikipedia gives too much importance on the "original research" issue -- I mean, you can't write an encyclopedia without doing some research (Hinayana is a good example of that). But I'm still not sure how this will work in practice. As a thought experiment, I went ahead and merged EBS with Mahayana on the Schools of Buddhism page. What about other contexts? For instance, what should we say about Theravada in the intro to that article?
-
-
- I fully concur with Nat regarding original research - indeed any collaborative work which involves substantially different backgrounds of the collaborators will end up being original research. Take for instance the Mahayana/Hinayan divide discussion. We are attempting to root out 'Just the facts, ma'am. Something that is not always straightforward. (20040302 05:12, 14 May 2004 (UTC))
-
-
- FYI, Shravakayana is not a redirect; at the moment it's a disambiguation page pointing to early Buddhist schools and Hinayana. And I wouldn't say that Nikaya Buddhism looks like a dictionary entry. It's an article on the etymology and use (or lack thereof) of the term. To me, it makes sense to have most of the meat of that subject at Theravada, with some at early Buddhist schools and some at Pali Canon. - Nat Krause 09:30, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I changed the title of the sections "three yana" to "three schools of buddhism". The concept is totally Tantric. Theravadan won't recongised three wheel/vehicle concept. I also killed Hinayana and switched to Theravada or Theravadan. This isn't a place to offend other shcools of buddhism. FWBOarticle 13:17, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- That's wise. Hinayana is what Mahayana buddhist call Theravadins. Hence the fruitful discussions about yanas, what's inferior and what's superior. The way you put it is the best.
History of Indian Buddhism
I've been hoping that some kind soul would take me up on writing a Decline of Buddhism in India article, because, while I know several things on the subject, it's such a big topic that I don't where to get started making a complete article. However, the moment seems to have been brought to its crisis by the fact that some guy came along and added some history to the Indian Buddhism page. I didn't want to just delete it, but it's still uncomfortably incomplete sitting there the way it is now. If anybody wants to go over there and flesh it out, it would be a good idea. Even if you add one sentence, the article needs it.
PS: I have plans to write a little bit about vegetarianism and add some something to Western Buddhism real soon. I mean it this time. - Nat Krause 16:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I absolutely cannot help with the delcine of Buddhism in India, as I know nothing about that. I did contribute some history on Indian Buddhism per se (i.e., the 18 schools) on the "Schools of Buddhism" page (I think), which perhaps could be summarized somewhat on the "Indian Buddhism" page as well...or maybe what we need is separate pages on "Early Indian Buddhism", "The Decline of Buddhism in India," and "Neo-Buddhism"...or maybe we need to merge "Early Buddhism" and "Indian Buddhism" or....there's also the "Early Buddist Schools," to be accoutned for. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽
Texts for Wikisource
If anyone knows any Buddhist texts in the public domain or released under the GFDL [this] is the place to list them. There's nothing there ATM. Shantavira 19:17, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- There's a "Buddhism in a Nutshell" explanatory page (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/nutshell.html) with a lot of info, and this copyright notice:
- Copyright © 1982 Buddhist Publication Society
- For free distribution only.
- You may print copies of this work for your personal use. You may re-format and redistribute this work for use on computers and computer networks, provided that you charge no fees for its distribution or use.
- Otherwise, all rights reserved.
- Is this kosher? Also, I assume the entire Pali Cannon is in the Public Domain. Translations, otoh, may not be. Quadell 14:17, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
- Um...the Pali Canon itself would have to be public domain, I guess, but the individual translations and the published editions (especially scholarly ones) needn't be so.कुक्कुरोवाच
- This does need to get done!
I can think of ACIP, but that's all OTTOMH (20040302 21:13, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC))
Re: recent edit by Heartjewel
Heartjewel recently added this:
"There are two main branches of Buddhism: the Mahayana with an emphasis on attaining enlightenment through the development of bodhichitta; and the Hinayana with an emphasis on attaining liberation from samsara through the practice of moral discipline."
to more or less the very beginning of Buddhism. Now, the article already provides a discussion of the three vehicles that has been the subject of considerable out-hashing, and I don't think we need the discussion broached at the beginning of the article, but this can be the subject of further discussion. In any case, this division is fairly suspect, and would have to be heavily reworked, I think. Also, wouldn't it be "bodhicitta"? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 23:05, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
- 'bodhicitta' Well, both spellings are generally used. I prefer the lack of the h, but then those who do not have any experience with the asian languages have difficulty with pronouncing it.
- Regarding the division though - yes. I still agree that the division remains deeply suspect, albeit incredibly popular. Regardless, Heartjewel is mistaken regarding the hinayana - both of these divisions depend upon the three higher trainings (sila/samatha/jnana), though mahayana traditions use the meme of six perfections, whereas the theravada prefer the eightfold path. Regardless, we should pull it until HeartJewel has something to say (20040302 04:42, 14 May 2004 (UTC))
"Books" section
Huh. Obviously if this stays, it should be standardized to whatever the standard is ("Further reading" or somesuch, I think). But should it stay? Certainly one such text, apparently limited in scope, is a bad thing. But do we remove it or just plaster lots of texts there? Or create a separate page for a big list of buddhism-related books? Or list buddhism-related books in a lump on terms and concepts and then link to that lump? Or.... -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 01:04, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I took it off. It seems crazy to think that there is one book that deals with Buddhism! Moreover, a book written by a catholic (Williams is radically ex-buddhist at the time of authoring this book) about Buddhism seems even more crazy. (20040302 07:50, 17 May 2004 (UTC))
Reply: Your reason for deleting my book recommendation is absolutely unfounded! Williams is an internationally renowned expert, whose introductory book "Buddhist Thought" ranks among the best ever written about this topic! Here´s what none other than Richard Gombrich (Boden Professor of Sanskrit, Oxford Univ.) says: "I found this one compelling reading, for the ideas are presented with logical cogency and stylistic clarity. The summary of the Buddha´s own views would be hard to better." [By the way, do you think one has to be a Nazi in order to be able to write competently and objectively about Nazism ...?!]
- Well, he was internationally renowned- and indeed his book "Mahayana Buddhism" is often used as a collegiate textbook. However, people change. Moreover, someone who wishes to equate Buddhism with Nazism is unlikely to win support for their choice of books. Regardless, I think that no-one actually resists William's book being here as an interesting sholastic work, but that it alone represents a culture and set of traditions that span half the globe over 2500 years pushes the boat out somewhat, do you not think? So, why don't we start to compile a set of core literature here on Talk - and then when we have a list that does appear to be useful for the many audiences of Wikipedia, well then we can post it on the main article. But, friend, while there are just one or two books, let us compile the list here?! (20040302 19:31, 17 May 2004 (UTC))
Reply: Don´t twist my words, I certainly do not wish to equate Buddhism with Nazism as regards ideological content! My argument from analogy was merely aimed at the nonsensical claim that a Catholic or any other Non-Buddhist--per se--cannot write competently and impartially about Buddhism! Moreover, I of course do not claim that the two books I recommend are the only ones that deserve to be mentioned. But that these two impeccable scholarly works are actually highly recommendable is beyond doubt.
- I'm also against a book list as it's basically not adding much to the encyclopedia that a simple search for 'Buddhism' at your local bookstore, library or Amazon isn't going to trump. My understanding is that normally we only list sources for the article in question, and not further reading unless the article is quite specific and the sources difficult to track down. prat 04:52, 2004 May 18 (UTC)
Hmm. There are now more books in the list (which is good), but I'm still unconvinced. First off, "list in progress" can't stay, as it's self-referentiality, which Wikipedia frowns on. Second, I think it's doomed to either be too short to be accurate and complete or too long to wieldy on the page. My vote is that we make it a separate page (my suggestion is "List of books on Buddhism") and then link to it from "See also". That way we can have individual sections for books on/from specific schools, western stuff, etc, and it won't be assailing the casual reader. Until this is either accepted or shot down, I'm going removing the section to this talk page, where it can be added to in the meantime. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 10:32, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Reply: Well, Mr Remover, the point is that you´ll hardly find any books in which Buddhism is depicted more accurately than in the ones listed below! But do as you please ...
-
- Wow. "Mr. Remover" is a pretty cool epithet, though it would be better if I were a deletionist rather than an eventualist. That said, my objection isn't so much accuracy as appropriateness; there's no different set of books that, if you'd said them instead, I'd be all for it. I'm gonna go ahead and create the list and start doing some sectioning and maybe add a few things in the more specific categories. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 20:20, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Okay, started List of books related to Buddhism. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽
Reply: All right, looks promising—hatchet buried. :-)
Standards for inclusion of external links?
Are there any wikipedia-wide standards for what external links are deemed includable? I just deleted one singularly crappy-looking one, but maybe I overstepped. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽
- Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing. I don't know that there are rules, which makes it hard to know what should stay and what should go. I see now somebody has changed the "google directory" link on this page to the "dmoz directory", but I have no idea what makes one better or worse. There's also kind of a funny new link on Zen, Sit Down and Shut Up!, which is kind of an interesting site, but I am inclined to say it is not general interest enough for this page. - Nat Krause 04:36, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
-
- I think that in terms of Buddhism, any external link should at least meet the criteria deals with entire concept of Buddhism rather than a specific tradition or aspect. In this way, we will keep links to relevant pages. There are a few to be removed even if we only decide on a simple rule like this one. --prat 01:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Okay, I went through and tried to make it so that all and only the links that are both encyclopedic and pertinent to Buddhism as a whole are included. But others should check and make sure I didn't miss anything and/or unfairly exclude anything. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 04:52, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
-
Categories
So, does anyone have a clear grasp on how this "categories" thing works? Also, any thoughts on how Buddhism-related articles should be categorizes? For example, should the path to "Madhyamaka" be Buddhism>Madhyamaka, Buddhism>Mahayana>Madhyamaka, Buddhism>Schools>Madhyamaka Buddhism>Vehicles of Buddhism>Schools of Buddhism>Madhyamaka, etc.? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 21:41, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
The following I just posted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism, and am including here because noone ever looks at that page. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 11:31, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Category status
We have the following categories currently:
- Category:Buddhism
- Category:Branches of Buddhism
- Category:Buddhist Philosophers (note the possibly spurious capitalization on "Philosophers"--should we do something about that?)
- Category:Buddhist mythology
- Category:Buddhist deities (WTF?)
- Category:Buddhist gods
- Category:Buddhist goddesses
- Category:Buddhist deities (WTF?)
- Category:Buddhist temples
- Category:Buddhist texts
- Category:Pali Canon texts
We clearly need more. Possibly we need subcats for "Branches of Buddhism," but I've avoided making such so far becuase of the ensuing fracas that would doubtless cause. "Perfection of Wisdom Sutras" might be useful, and there may be other subcats of texts. On the other hand, Buddhist mythology is currently empty except for the seemingly spurious subcats and one god, "Agni", who seems mightily misplaced over here in Buddhism...surely there's some material that could be classified as Buddhist mythology, and we should get that done, but the deities, gods, and goddesses should probably be VfD'd and replaced with something like "Supernatural Beings in Buddhism," or "Non-Humans in Buddhism", or whatever the hell we finally went with at the main Buddhism page.
We also need a general "Buddhists" or "People in Buddhism" category for everyday non-philosophers (Philosophers can then be subcatted to this), and a subcat for Buddhist clergymen and women.
- Your suggestions seem pretty reasonable. Personally, I'm not really very interested in categories and I don't plan on having much to do with them for the time being. I do wonder if it is appropriate to have a category called "mythology" for any currently practiced religion. What does that even mean? What aspect of Buddhism is more or less "mythological" than another? I don't see any problem with a "Supernatural beings in Buddhism" category, though.
- PS - Never did resolve the ongoing branches of Buddhism issue, did we? The temporary China blockage through the Buddhism editing community here off its step, I guess. - Nat Krause 12:45, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
-
- I don't mind the idea of mythology for a religion, but I grew up on Joseph Campbell, so I never had the idea that mythology was supposed to be bad or false or that there was such a thing as "de-mythologization", etc.; if it's going to bug people, I wouldn't mind considering getting rid of it or renaming it. But for me "mythology" just speaks to networks of deep-running stories and images, just like "legend"--which can be as easily applied to "real" as to imaginary things.
-
- For what it's worth, I know the categories aren't all that useful yet, but (a) a bad categorization is a pretty annoying thing, and it's much much harder to fix than to do right the first time, (b) they're probably going to be of consdirable use and importance at some pointin the future. They're potentially very powerful. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 13:42, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Deer Park picture
Am I totally goofy or did the Deer Park picture used to be a whole different picture? I could have sworn it was a landscape at one point. - Nat Krause 17:46, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) P.S. - Enjoy your trip, number man!
User:JoaJoa opinions of Buddhism
- Most Buddhist and other people, they don't unsderstand buddhism sharply. In buddhism, Buddha means the God. Any other religion in the world insist that human can't become the God (the god as in Christ, Muslim). but only the Buddha insist that human can be the god. this is greatest religious revolution in the earth. this is most important (core of the core) teaching of the Buddha. this is fundamantal difference to any other religion.
- so, in buddhism, meditation practice(study, not pray) and the zen test is most important. a person pass the zen test, he (or she) is authorized that he become the God.
- now, in south korea only, a few people has passed the exam. -- thirdid 01:01, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
- Uh-huh. Why in South Korea only? You wouldn't happen to be South Korean, would you? I've noticed that all of your edits seem to involve promoting various things as being exclusively Korean. - Nat Krause 08:21, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Why? South korea only?? It's not nationalism, POV...I don't know other officially. Do you hear that I(a certain person) pass the Buddha exam? I realize?? In korea, newspapers notify it first. But I don't know any other. And, in buuddhism, exam system is most strict in the world. If some people who becomes the God, He must be identified by all living buuddha. Korean buddhism opened open exam festival two years annually. In the world, four living buddha is famous. tibet, vietnam, korea, cambodia monks. but I don't know that they all pass the exam.
- The Buddha agreed that only one student become the God, Maha Kassapa. This exam is most difficult in the world becuase he is the God or not.
- And, to any other religion people, he or she becomes the god, he can pass the exam. Buddhism don't treat a peson discriminatingly because of tribe, class(caste), religion, etc. Buddhism only emphasize meditation (not pray) and so, test strictly that he becomes the God or not. This is the core of the core. If you have gratest teacher, he can say that these writings is right or not.
- conuntry? tribe? caste? school? Mahayana or not? Zen buddhism or not? this is not core. Many people who don't know buddhism well learn many various teachings, and confuse buddhism and other religion.
- Buddhism is the religion to become the God.
- It's not my opinion personally. I only write it for easy understanding begginer or other religion people.
- I study and ask...many...Buddhism study amount is very much and difficult. I can brief core of the core...recently...
- Budda realize what??? what is buddha?? It is very difficult and an abstract concept. But many years later, I know that Buddha is the God in christian. I know that different word confuse me.
- I don't insist stronly this. you agree this or not now, you must know this some years studying. and asking to masters.
- I only try to help any buddhist in the world...not confusing the core. -- thirdid 01:01, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
-
- Regardless of the qualities and special features of Buddhism, unfortunately the thesis in this case in mistaken, Thirdid. Various branches of Hinduism also say that it is possible to become God. Moreover, there are certainly parts of the Vedas that allude to this, which would mean that this religious revolution could not be said to have originated in Buddhism. Believe me, I personally have great faith in the paths of Buddha - more so than in any other spiritual paths, but I am merely pointing out an error in your somewhat militant statement. (20040302 09:19, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC))
- Of course, In korea, korean traditional religion also say that. So, Who is a living God, now? they also have most strict test system? Dead God, Dead Buddha is not useful, any. Telling is easy. Anyone can tell. But action for about 3000 years is not easy. If someone who becomes the god in the world, he must passed all famous exams in the world. And...for testing someone, a scorer(teacher) must be exist. -- thirdid 01:01, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)