I like the Buddhist way of life and the walk the talk approach and other things you mention. But I never could make sense of their idea of no God or no Self. Belief in Karma, a moral order that has no empirical evidence, implies some God-like principles of fairness and evolution of consciousness - cosmic "purposefulness", not just blind mechanics. An Occam's razor approach would dispense with such elaborations. Also I can't understand their distinction between reincarnation and rebirth in the light of the no-self doctrine. Paradoxically Buddha or Buddha Nature has become deified itself and Buddhist use devotion as "skillful means". Consequently I'm attracted to Buddhism as a way of life but to the Gita as my guiding philosophy. But perhaps you can disentagle my confusion?
--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The difference lies, in my opinion, in the word "religion." > Very few Buddhists would class that study as a religion; > it is so classed because outsiders have to have a handy > box or category to class such things in. > > One big difference between Buddhism and more devotional > approaches to self discovery is that Buddhism posits no > sentient God. In their philosophy and description of the > world, none is needed; everything works just fine without > one, the mechanics of an eternal Operating System called > karma taking care of everything. And there is not even > the Western hangup about "Who created the OS?" because in > their view the universe was never created -- it has always > been, is now, and will always be; there was never a moment > of "first creation." > > Partly as a result, Buddhism tends to be the polar opposite > of the "Beam me up Scotty" approach to enlightenment that > one finds in God-based systems. The impetus to enlight- > enment comes from within; each seeker is responsible for > his or her own enlightenment. And there is really nothing > even to "accomplish" or "get to." All that enlightenment is > is the subjective realization of something that has always > already been present. > > Also, there is an appreciation in some Buddhist sects that > the description above, "this desire for God [enlightenment] > being stronger than any other," is very much illusion and > self importance, and thus possibly detrimental to the > realization of enlightenment. If the pursuit of enlight- > enment is, for example, more important to you than the > day-to-day work of caring for others and helping them, > out of a sense of compassion and humanity, how much real > humanity is left in the "one-pointed" God freak? I'm > sure we've all met people who were so "one-pointed" in > their approach to their own enlightenment that they blew > off beggars on the street and even blew off their own > responsibilities to family and community and their fellow > human beings. > > One of the things I like about the Buddhist approach is > that it's much more about "walking the walk" than it is > about "talking the talk." One's enlightenment, or prox- > imity to enlightenment, is judged based on How One Treats > Others, not on anything they say about themselves or > their spiritual path or their goals. As someone once > said so well, "You can tell more about how spiritual a > supposedly spiritual person is by how they treat the > waiter who brings them their meal or the attendant who > pumps their gas than by anything they ever say about > themselves and their philosophy." > > Unc To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
