By the way, while this is not the religion of Buddhism, my significant other is a non-practicing Wiccan. (By non-practicing, I mean that she has not been involved with any active covens since she left her hometown of San Francisco, although she still has her prayers, rituals and such) and while I do find a bit more of a tolerant attitude from the pagan community as a whole, I still do not believe her religion is real.

Strangely enough, there are some Wiccans/Pagans that look upon their religion as more symbolic and conceptual, while others, like my significant other, see actual deities in nature and such ( there is more than one god and goddess in her religion).

I say this for the New Agey/ Wiccan/ Pagan/ religion. They do not go out seeking converts (score one for them) they have no actual holy book of archaic commandments that one must have to abide by (score another one for them) and they are not calling for any legislature or laws to force other people to swallow their practices. They tend to just want to have the right to exist and be left alone.

So, while I may find some of these Wiccan/Pagan religions to be utter nonsense, I don't perceive them as a threat to the public in general.

Plus, a lot of Wiccans have openly admitted to me that their religion is largely just made up (something that I have yet to see a single other religion do).

I just thought that I would cover that subject as well, since you brought up Buddhism and brought up some of the Atheistic viewpoints of it.

I will say that living with someone who is a pagan has proved tolerable, something that I do not think could have ever happened with any religious fundamentalists.

I think you've aptly summed up what I was trying to convey about Buddhism. It's the fact that a lot of the people have jumped on the bandwagon of commercialism to supposedly push for feel good wisdom.

I did meet some very sincere, honest and dedicated people in that religion that really walked the walk and such.

I did find some value in some of the ideas expressed in "be of the world and not in the world" and it took me some time to understand that this was not about indifference or feeling above other people. I also found some value in forgetting about egotistical self importance.

But on the whole, I think that Buddhism is one of those paths that a person would have to sift through a lot of crap to find some truths. Perhaps I just didn't have the patience and tolerance that would be necessary to do so. I can't say for sure, because I did not really pursue it.

For instance, one particular person gave me the question : " What was my original face before my mother and father were born ?" to follow. Follow is not the right word, because he said that if one follows the words, one would never get it. I tried it for only a while and then just gave up. Perhaps I had too many mental attachments to get past it all. I don't know.

i am not an expert on buddhism either, but i'll wager i'm currently the closest thing this forum has to one.

before i begin, allow me just to emphasize that the dalai lama and his retinue do not represent buddhism, nor even tibetan buddhism, as a whole.  they are members of the gelugs-pa tradition (probably not transliterating that right; my grasp of sanskrit and pali terminology is pretty good, my tibetan pretty much zilch), which took political control of tibet about 4 or 5 centuries ago in sort of a donation of constantine type situation.  the authority of any tibetan lama outside of tibet was widely unknown, aside from an expat community in india, until the early 20th century, thanks first to the theosophical society, then to hollywood.

now to it.  i agree with buddhist scholar paul williams when he says (in the introduction to mahayana buddhism: the doctrinal foundations) that to look for some authentic "core" in buddhism is simply unrealistic.  buddhism being distilled into "essential doctrines" is largely a response to curious westerners.  sure, these models can be helpful scholastically, but in and of themselves they should not be used to make value judgments of what "is" or "is not" buddhism.

that being said, can an atheist be a buddhist?  certainly, with no trouble at all.  same goes for a theist of any stripe, including a christian.  does buddhist doctrine accept theistic teachings like christianity as being on a par with its own?  emphatically no.  these are lesser, tentative truths (most buddhist "philosophy," particularly in mahayana traditions, recognizes various levels of truth).  the ultimate truth, however, is realization of nibbana for the theravadin, sunyata ("emptiness" ) for those (like tibetans) who hold to the madhyamika schools of thought, or the buddhadatu ("buddha nature," either individual or universal) for most east asian buddhists.  personal, devotional theism may be expedient for the seeker in some stages of his or her journey, but ultimately will have to be abandoned (though not necessarily in a discursive sense).

is buddhism atheistic?  of course, this depends on how one defines every word of that sentence, but if we want to take "buddhism" as any tradition that consciously identifies itself as "buddhist" and "atheistic" as meaning nothing more nor less than "absence of a god" (the definition recognized by most of the posters on this site, including its founders), then i have to say largely yes.  theravada as it is practised by most sinhalese, burmese, and thais is most definitely atheistic.  nothing to the theravadin has any intrinsic existence, except perhaps at the highest levels of abhidhamma discourse, where some schools (sauntrantika, for example) have developed something akin to lucretian atomic theory.  but even these "atoms" (dhammas) do not possess an unconditioned existence.  i recall reading in swami agehananda bharati's autobiography how amused he was when he went to teach hinduism to classes of theravada monks in thailand.  the idea of the brahman (which cannot be called "god" either, but at least has a positive, unconditioned existence) just did not compute with them.

as for mahayana, well, still, for the most part yes.  it is true that mahayana has held over a lot of the old brahmanic pantheon, thus perhaps we can say that as such it can broadly be called "theistic," but such theism has little meaning for us.  it also depends on whether or not we should unqualifiably equate the sanskrit deva with the english "god."  i am not convinced of that, but regardless, the brahmanic "gods," in buddhist estimation, are just as subject to death and rebirth as all of us, and in some traditions even a lowly monk is ranked above a god, since a monk, unlike a god, has turned his back on samsara.  the vast majority of tibetan schools (including gelugs-pa) can firmly be called atheistic, as they recognize the infinite negation of prasanghika madhyamika as the supreme wisdom.  if theravada abhidhamma can be considered atheistic (and it can), then that goes double for prasanghika madhyamika.  both indian and tibetan mahayana, however, refuse to assign any sort of unqualified existence to these "gods."

things start to get muddy when we look at china and japan, where the idea of buddhadatu gave birth to the esoteric cults of universal buddhas like vairocana, which started to take on the qualities of a positive, absolute, unchanging substratum of reality.  however, a buddha simply is not a god.  otherwise, we would render it as such.  as i said in another thread, buddha has no semantic equivalent in english, therefore we don't translate it.  it is true that all buddhist traditions offer devotion to the buddha--theravada as nothing more than a memory to be emulated, and much of mahayana as a universal, active principle that manifested itself in gautama for our benefit--but it seems asinine to me to argue that devotion to someone or something a god makes.  that muddies up the terminology beyond all usefulness, which is never good for dialogue on any level.

a statement with a strong buddhist affinity.

the koan is very much a zen strategy.  i never found it helpful myself, especially in the form of simple, unadorned questions like those.

the chinese masters wrote most of the koans and usually they take the form of stories of encounters between monks, or between a learned monk and someone like a lord.  they can be found in collections like the blue cliff record.  usually questions like you mentioned are lifted out of their narrative context, and i find that unfortunate.  not that the narratives make a great deal of discursive sense, either, but they do make for more interesting reading.

i always enjoyed the zen autobiographies much more than the koans, like hui neng's platform sutra of the sixth patriarch.

the fact of the matter is that a serious meditative path in any branch of buddhism, except perhaps the jodo shinshu or nichiren sects (which i have little respect for), cannot be laicized or popularized.  it goes hand in hand with monastic discipline.  a koan will not work without daily zazen, which is why i don't mess with them, because i haven't the means nor interest to enter a monastery.  perhaps i might give it a shot when i'm old; there is such a thing as taking temporary vows in almost all buddhist traditions, and most japanese traditions, zen included, do not require celibacy of their monks (many roshis are married).

I start by saying I have achieved what they call enlightenment. By that I mean I understand what they constantly say can't be talked about and it cannot be talked about. However there is one saying that matters. Before enlightenment one carries water and hews wood. After enlightenment one carries water and hews wood. There is one change but it cannot be talked about either.

Can't talk about means simply it is something that ls realized at a non-verbal level. As with water and wood there is no change other than the obvious one in that one stops searching. Which leads to a couple observations. Anyone who claims to have been changed by enlightenment is lying. Anyone who claims special knowledge from it also a liar and likely a con artist.

With all that I can say enlightenment requires no special meditation or practices. I saw enlightenment during a Star Trek movie and for weeks afterwards would break out in hysterical laughter at myself for thinking there was something to it. There is no religious component, neither ritual nor belief nor taboo. There are no statues, incense, chants. saffron robes nor is there anyone who can teach or explain how to gain enlighenment.

Also using the words achieve and gain are misleading. It is sort of the opposite of that but it is mostly neutral.

to talk about enlightenment is not to talk about buddhism.  buddhism is not necessary to an awakened person.  once one crosses the river, one doesn't bother to carry the raft any further.

What is it to take refuge?

While we're on the subject, does anyone on here know if the dog has buddha nature or not ? To say yes or no means that you lose your Buddha nature. I guess I can not answer the question, because if I could, I would be enlightened.

I DID have an experience, right before I quit toying with it, that is somewhat similiar to what Nony was talking about.

I was asking myself : " What was my original face ?" and suddenly just laughed out loud. I realized that all of this bullshit that I thought I was and was supposed to be, was just a lie that I was telling myself. Well, that it's not quite the context of what I realized, but that is the closest thing that I can describe to it. There was no "hysterical laughing fits" for "weeks after." But, like iwbiek stated, I didn't incorporate the suggested Zazen daily and did not pursue it with the dead seriousness that the person who gave me that question said I should.

Perhaps if I had endured, something would have taken place. But then again, I am pretty content right now. Enlightened ? No. But content. I'll settle with that.

In the meantime, if I See the Buddha, I will kill the Buddha ( another one that I never figured out).

Nor, obviously, is Buddhism necessary for enlightenment. And if one is not "seeking" enlightenment why in the fuck are they bothering with Buddhism? And since nothing can teach enlightenment what is the point in any method as none can work.

Keeping in mind enlightenment is a big nothing, are there any studies showing it is more commonly achieved with Buddhism than without?

It is my impression that the western version of it is "coming to terms with ones self or stopped obsessing or don't sweat the hard stuff.

I'm not going to go around and around with you again, but I want to say this one item.

Buddhism is what it is. It doesn't claim to be an answer for every one. It doesn't claim to be the oldest. The wisest. The most efficient. What it does claim is that some one, a long time ago, was wondering why there was so much suffering in the world. They realized that our minds and are ego are battling each other. The suffering comes from that battle. (excluding physical suffering for the lesser advanced understanding).

Everything else within buddhism is an experience. It's a realization. It's seeing through the illusion.

You and your "labels" are fine, but they weren't around 500,000 years ago either so you are merely putting labels on labels. You think you have the right answers but they are only right for you. You see truth and logic in your way of thinking but it is only because you have labeled things in a specific way that it becomes logical, for you.

So stop with your pretty words. You are just like the people you criticize.

lol

As buddha nature is BS it is highly unlikely. Now did Siddharta have dog nature? He worked a great scam if the stories are true.

Perhaps my face is funnier. I had spent a long time trying to figure out what they were talking about. You indicate you were just starting. Longer effort, greater reaction? There must certainly have been many more odd ideas on my side for the time involved.

You laughed. You realized there was nothing serious about it.

You are not searching for enlighenment. You have arrived.

Indeed, that could be what it was. That's about the sum of what it was to me at the time.

Right again. Arrived ? Hmm. Don't know.

not all buddhists believe in a buddha nature, but as far as those who do, most, particularly japanese buddhists, would say yes.

really?  that's one of the easiest ones.  it has to do with nonattachment: getting attached to the idea of the buddha is just as much a hindrance as getting attached to anything else.

Ah, I see. Pretty simple now that you pointed that out. Probably one of those things a person could see quite easily if they were not walking all over it.

It's almost like striving for non-attachment can be an actual attachment.

Remember I said it cannot be spoken simply because the recognition is on a non-verbal level? Any words are good enough because none can describe it.

I can describe exactly what it is and it is something I knew about before the event. It is simply realizing that the words in one's head to express an idea appear after the formation of the idea. You would not be playing word games with yourself if the formation did not come first. So you are "doing it to yourself." Enlightenment is when that ceases to be an intellectualization and is observed fact.

All those "one hand clapping" and "turn off the inner voice" things are there just to realize they are impossible but one tries simply because the preverbal thing can and does get the word thoughts running in circles. When you stop the preverbal part it all goes away and realizing all the dumb attempts to change the effect instead of the cause are just downright funny. It is like trying to turn of the light by covering the bulb in duct tape instead of throwing the switch.

obviously the claims of buddhism cannot be verified empirically, which is precisely why it is a religion.  nothing irritates me more than when someone says buddhism (or any religion for that matter) is a philosophy or "way of life."  philosophy (or good philosophy, anyhow) is here to explain to us how language works and what we can do with it and what we can't, nothing more.  as for "way of life," any fucking thing is a way of life.  playing tennis is a way of life.

methods work and they don't work, depending on what you want.  the buddha's mission was to bring the way to moksa to everyday people from the ivory towers of the brahmins and the forest hermits.  he was imminently practical and believed that the path to nirvana need not be complicated, nor does one need to be born into the right class, nor does one need to go through the four asramas, nor does even need the vedas (which is why buddhism can never in any way be equated with "hinduism" ).  there was also probably a huge influence from the fact that gautama came from a ksatriya family (as did mahavira and nanak, incidentally).

you're right in saying he didn't say anything we can't arrive at through our own western cultural aesthetic.  if anything i might venture that sanskrit, pali, and prakrit are languages more conducive to discussing concepts like enlightenment and the most expedient path to it (depending always on the individual) than english or any other european language, just as german is much more suited to discussing materialism than sanskrit.

I've definitely noticed this, you are a walking encyclopedia. There is more information in one of your posts than I have in my entire memory bank.

I've always wondered what it would be like to remember more than a few pages of any book I read.

thank you for the compliment.  my memory is not a fraction of what i wish it was.

still, this can be a curse in one respect: the more information one retains over the years, the more one realizes the staggering volume of conflicting information.  thus, one ceases to trust anything or any one, especially one's own memory.

my talent for and love of retaining information is one of the main factors that has made me a bitter, cynical drunk.  my love for beautiful, intelligent women is the other.

speaking of which, i have an inordinate amount of champagne, beer, and bailey's in me right now, how 'bout you?  i drink to you.

As I have already stated, I do not believe in Enlightenment or any of the rest of it.

I was merely stating what had happened.

I used to drink, among other things, in my youth. I came to a realization, an enlightening if you will, that reality is a better place for my mind to be. I'd rather face my illusions head-on and deal with them rather than run away from them.

I am not saying that is what you do, so if it seems implied know I don't think that. Some people drink just because it feels good and are not masking reality.

I toast you for your insight and knowledge.

Seems to me the only useful view of cosmology is the one that can be tested and verified. I therefore would recommend Stephen Hawking over any long dead guy with to many syllables in his name.

Here is where I stand...

I rationalize the following:

1 - I am a product of an environment.

2 - There is no free will.

3 - "I think therefore I am" is a falsehood.

If there was a "big bang", then there must have been non-space before the expansion. If this is so, there must be an edge to space, an interior and exterior. What exists outside this Universe? If there is an outside, then where are the edges of that environment? How many interiors and exteriors are there? Is there an end or a beginning to the environment?

Every thing I observe in this environment is matter or energy. The remaining forms I see are illusions. They are filled with opinions, desires and emotional attachments. If a person dies, no matter how terrible the loss, they are dead and there is nothing you can do about. The desire to have them alive is the illusion and the source of suffering. It is a falsehood.

If this Universe is an expansion of an event, then Universes must be created elsewhere. If this is so, then there is a source to the creation of the Universes. Therefore there is an timeless number of Universes. Which leaves me to observe that this Universe, down to the atoms, was created previously, and will be created again and endless number of times.