Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/26/05 06:14 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Considering there is a discussion on Buddishm going on in here, I was curious as to what you thought about this story about a boy in the Nepalese jungle who is supposed to be the reincarnation of The Buddha himself.

Only link I can find :-(

I find it fishy that they put up a screen at night and then claim he hasnt eaten in six months, though, it would be a very cool thing if it were very true. I would convert. haha.

At 11/26/05 06:10 PM, HeartbreakHoldout wrote:

This is anther thing I lerned but can't remember. Is it the theologian's argument that says that some things are so complex that they can't just be there, they'd have to have been created by a higher being.

I believe that would be Pailey. One day he looked at his watch and had a revalation about the existence of God - his watch was so complex that it could never occur in nature without some kind of intervention by a skilled creator.
But then again, according to Darwin we started out as incredibly simple single-celled organisms, that slowly took on more and more complexity to become what we are today

At 11/26/05 06:14 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Considering there is a discussion on Buddishm going on in here, I was curious as to what you thought about this story about a boy in the Nepalese jungle who is supposed to be the reincarnation of The Buddha himself.

The whole thing smells like bullshit to me. Siddhartha achieved enlightenment, and passed into final Nirvana, hence he could not be reincarnated again. It is said that there will be other Buddhas, Siddhartha supposedly had the capacity for eternal life, but none of his followers asked him to live on, and thus he died when his time came.
If this guy was indeed another Buddha he would be teaching, not meditating in isolation. Even Siddhartha came close to death after starving himself for no where near the time this guy supposedly has. And all that "not being allowed to see him at night time" stuff seems entirely too convenient. There's no real reason for them to do that, the whole thing is probably just some kind of elaborate scheme to gain renown and/or money.

At 11/26/05 06:10 PM, HeartbreakHoldout wrote: Can you explain why you felt awe when you saw those constellations?

Nope, it just struck me. I can't explain it, it just felt nice to have seen something so well documented, maybe it made me feel more of a normal person to have seen something. Like a first bike experience kind of thing.

This is anther thing I lerned but can't remember. Is it the theologian's argument that says that some things are so complex that they can't just be there, they'd have to have been created by a higher being.

I've not done about the Theologians argument yet. Although it sounds similar to the Teleological argument, that the world is so complex that it could not have come together by chance, for everything works in harmony together, therefore it is argued that there must be a designer of this world, and that, that designer is God.

I'm settles with Catholicism until i find sometihng more fulfilling, and I figure i have the rest of my life to find something. I'm still not so satisfied though.

For me, I wouldn't want to settle with something just for the sake out it. For if something better came along I'd see myself as a hypocrite for changing by beliefs.
Of course, you were raised catholic, so I don't suppose you really had a choice is waiting for the right choice.

At 11/26/05 06:34 PM, Myst_Williams wrote: That is basically what Agnoticism is. Or I read that wrong...

Agnostics are people who do not think that ther eis anough evidenc eto prove that there isn't or there is a god.

That's basically what I am but latley, for whatever reaosn, my minds been changing and I've been thinking that there might actually be a God, whislt before I just thought that there wasn't enough evidence.

At 11/26/05 06:39 PM, -TheDoctor- wrote: If this guy was indeed another Buddha he would be teaching, not meditating in isolation.

Why would he though? If he is another buddha then do you honestly believe that the rest of the world would take what he has to say seriously unless he has done soemthing to prove that he is enlightented?

If someguy were to come up to you and say " Hey, I'm the new Buddha, want me to teach you the path of enlightment" even though you're buddhist you would probably just brush him off as a looney unless he could proove it.

If he is the new Buddha, which is highly unlikley as they cover him up at night etc, then he would have to prove himself to the rest of the world before anyone would listen to him. Doing something like this could posisbly be the way to make the world pay attention and proove he is truly enlightened and the new Buddha.

My two cents on buddhism.

I personally think buddhism is one of the better religions to date.
But when I think about it, buddhism isnt really a religion. Its more of a belief (but then again, religion can be described as beliefs) and it was actually formed around Hinduism. Since that is what Buddha was before he became enlightened.
The story goes that he sat under a Bodie(sp?) tree and meditated for a period of days. Just pure meditating until he awoke enlightened and gave himself the name Buddha (which means "he who is awake"). He did this at 35, and until the age of 80 he teached others about how to gain enlightenment, some people say that his followers called themselves buddhists while Buddha didnt give any official saying that it was to be considered a religion, and when he was 80 years old he predicted he was going to be sick and die.

At 11/26/05 06:41 PM, -Nev- wrote: Nope, it just struck me. I can't explain it, it just felt nice to have seen something so well documented, maybe it made me feel more of a normal person to have seen something. Like a first bike experience kind of thing.

I can't say i've ever felt that feeling of awe, not in my recent memories.

I've not done about the Theologians argument yet. Although it sounds similar to the Teleological argument, that the world is so complex that it could not have come together by chance, for everything works in harmony together, therefore it is argued that there must be a designer of this world, and that, that designer is God.

Oh man, i really do need to find my list of Key-words from RE last year. Teleological. I knew it began with a T. Damn memory.

For me, I wouldn't want to settle with something just for the sake out it. For if something better came along I'd see myself as a hypocrite for changing by beliefs.
Of course, you were raised catholic, so I don't suppose you really had a choice is waiting for the right choice.

I'm happy being Catholic for the time-being, i mean, who's to say i won't have some kind of experience that brings me closer to my religion, and since i've been baptised, and fully initiated to the Catholic chrch, it seems kind of pointless to turn my back when i'm so young.
I can see how, if you haven't been raised Catholic, you'd perhaps choose to stay away from any particualr religion until you have found fulfilment in one of those religions. Its kind of the same as me, i choose to stay with what i know for the time-being.

Just out of interest, if you weren't raised to be religious, why are you studying Religion in college? Are you just interested in finding out about religion, is it neccesary at the school you are at, or is there another reason. Sorry if i'm being intrusive.

At 11/26/05 07:29 PM, HeartbreakHoldout wrote: Just out of interest, if you weren't raised to be religious, why are you studying Religion in college? Are you just interested in finding out about religion, is it neccesary at the school you are at, or is there another reason.

I just find it interesting, plus its a good choice and Uni's look at a A level in RS well.
I like the idea of philosophy, I have a few little ideas of my own, not that I believe them, but I take than a possibility.

Sorry if i'm being intrusive.

How can you be intrusive? We're like brothers, Foo Power and all that.

At 11/26/05 07:42 PM, -Nev- wrote: I just find it interesting, plus its a good choice and Uni's look at a A level in RS well.
I like the idea of philosophy, I have a few little ideas of my own, not that I believe them, but I take than a possibility.

Cool, I have to do one lesson of it a week at my school, but I feel happy that I still get to continue learning about religion without wasting too much of my time.

How can you be intrusive? We're like brothers, Foo Power and all that.

Just being polite ^_^

Oh, and Foo Powah!

At 11/26/05 07:01 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 11/26/05 06:39 PM, -TheDoctor- wrote: If this guy was indeed another Buddha he would be teaching, not meditating in isolation.

Why would he though? If he is another buddha then do you honestly believe that the rest of the world would take what he has to say seriously unless he has done soemthing to prove that he is enlightented?

Well Buddha didn't prove himself before he taught, he simply told people what he knew, word spread of his wisdom, and the Buddhist movement grew.
In accordance with Buddhism, if he has something worthwhile to say, then people will listen.

At 11/26/05 08:07 PM, -TheDoctor- wrote: Well Buddha didn't prove himself before he taught, he simply told people what he knew, word spread of his wisdom, and the Buddhist movement grew.

Sadly, times have changed and to actually get people to listen to him The Buddha would probably have to pull some kind of stunt such as this meditation thing to get attention so people would listen.

Just curious but Buddha didn't start teaching till after he acheived enlightment, correct? If thats the case then couldn't it be possible that this kid is acheiving enlightenment, if he has actually meditated all this time that is, and as soon as he has he will begin teaching?

If that was the case then surlely it is understandanable for him to be meditating, and not teaching ,if he actually is the reincarnation of Buddha that is.

At 11/26/05 06:41 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Agnostics are people who do not think that ther eis anough evidenc eto prove that there isn't or there is a god.

Well that is a variant of Agnoticism. An Agnostic can also beleive that we has humans do not have the capacity or ability to understand if there is or isnt a God (which is similar, but slightly different). But that doesnt mean we can't beleive that there actually is a higher power.

I beleive there is a god... I just dont feel any religion out there is 100% correct. But I am still Agnostic.

At 11/26/05 09:50 PM, Myst_Williams wrote:

At 11/26/05 06:41 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

I beleive there is a god... I just dont feel any religion out there is 100% correct. But I am still Agnostic.

But what type of God would you believe that would remain hidden and unseen. Do you believe that he watches our planet to see how we do on our own, or do you believe our planet is some sort of Science Project.

At 11/26/05 08:20 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Sadly, times have changed and to actually get people to listen to him The Buddha would probably have to pull some kind of stunt such as this meditation thing to get attention so people would listen.

That would only be the case if he were:
A - Trying to completely change the teachings of Buddhism.
B - Trying to convert the world to his cause, which isn't a very Buddhist thing to do.
Unlike, say, Christianity, the Buddha did not claim that noncompliance with his teachings would bring about some terrible retribution. Meaning that converting the world to his cause was not something to srtive for. If people chose to follow his teachings, then good for them, if they didn't however, that was also acceptable.
What I'm trying to say is that attracting the attention of the world just wouldn't fit in with the Buddhist way of life at all.
Here's an example:

Christianity:
When Lazarus died, Mary and Martha called for Jesus' help, he then resurrected Lazarus to prove his identity as "the resurreciton and the life" - this gained him many followers, as such an extraordinary act was surely the work of the Christ.

Buddhism:
A woman once came to Siddhartha and, knowing of his supposed great power and wisdom, asked him to bring her recently dead son back to life, and ease her pain. Siddhartha agreed, on the condition that the woman bring him a mustard seed from a house that had known no suffering. The woman searched, but of course, there has never been, and never will be such a house. When the woman came to realise this she saw the true wisdom of the Buddha, that her suffering was not unique, but universal. She later became a nun, and achieved enlightnement.

So as you can see, Buddhism is not about being shown the answers, but rather realising them for yourself.

Just curious but Buddha didn't start teaching till after he acheived enlightment, correct? If thats the case then couldn't it be possible that this kid is acheiving enlightenment, if he has actually meditated all this time that is, and as soon as he has he will begin teaching?

If it's taken him six months then I seriously doubt he is another Buddha. Siddhartha did it in a matter of hours, and only after achieving enlightenment was he able to perform seemingly superhuman deeds. Of course, anything's possible, but there is absolutely no substantial evidence that this guy is the Buddha.

Buddhism, One of the greatest Religeons, But Still Unproved like the others, I Believe Not one being can control the earth.

But what i do believe, is that There were, Are, And will be some great Minds who will put ours minds at rest For religeous reasons, I believe no religeon is Correct, But Some are More probable Than the others.

I believe Its Buddhism, But yet i am an athiest, If i Believe in something, Its Buddhism

At 11/27/05 07:41 AM, fenrus1989 wrote: But what type of God would you believe that would remain hidden and unseen.

I think you're missing the point. For those who have faith, God isn't hidden and unseen. He shows himself through beauty, nature, daily life...even misery and pain.

Do you believe that he watches our planet to see how we do on our own, or do you believe our planet is some sort of Science Project.

God's more like father figure, looking after his children. He's not abandoning us, nor do I think he dictates our lives. His presence provides comfort and purpose. The Science Project is a pretty morbid perspective of God, lol.

Haha, you'd almost think I'm religious with those answers. Damn catholic high school...

On another note, why does the presence of God make us feel more secure? I think it's just in human nature. No matter how anti-social or independent a person is, humans need to know that there's someone there for them. Someone to listen to them, someone to catch them when they fall into misery/depression, someone to celebrate their happiness and victories with, someone to guide them on their path towards a feeling of purpose and fulfilment, and, interestingly enough, someone to blame. How did we become so socially dependent?

At 11/27/05 10:08 AM, -TheDoctor- wrote: If it's taken him six months then I seriously doubt he is another Buddha. Siddhartha did it in a matter of hours, and only after achieving enlightenment was he able to perform seemingly superhuman deeds. Of course, anything's possible, but there is absolutely no substantial evidence that this guy is the Buddha.

From what I read it was days, not hours. But still, this is a child. Siddhartha was 35 when he became enlightened.

At 11/27/05 05:10 PM, Velocitom wrote:

From what I read it was days, not hours. But still, this is a child. Siddhartha was 35 when he became enlightened.

It took Siddhartha probably less that 12 hours to achieve enlightenment, he sat in the late evening, and was enlightened shortly before dawn.
But as I said, his apparent powers only came after enlightenment, so if you take a critical view of this lad, there isn't really any evidence to back up the idea of him being another Buddha at all.

At 11/27/05 10:08 AM, -TheDoctor- wrote: Christianity:
When Lazarus died, Mary and Martha called for Jesus' help, he then resurrected Lazarus to prove his identity as "the resurreciton and the life" - this gained him many followers, as such an extraordinary act was surely the work of the Christ.

Thinking about it, that was quite selfish.
What do you mean when you say he bacame enlightened?

At 11/27/05 10:08 AM, -TheDoctor- wrote:

I bow to your suprerior knowledge of Buddhism Doc. I'll take your word for it about the Buddha not trying to convert.

Just curiousbut,if you don't mind me asking how exactly did you end up converting to Buddhism?

At 11/28/05 01:08 PM, HeartbreakHoldout wrote:

Thinking about it, that was quite selfish.

Nah, it was to demonstrate that those who believe will never truly die.

What do you mean when you say he bacame enlightened?

Enlightenment, or Nirvana, is the state of mind all Buddhists hope to ultimately achieve through practice, and meditation. To explain it requires a bit of background info however.

The four noble truths of Buddhism teach that life is suffering, suffering has a cause, and that nothing is permanent. Hence the cause of suffering cannot be permanent, eradicate the cause, and thus eradicate suffering.
Once enlightenment is achieved, the Buddha is free from the cycle of death and rebirth, thus free from "life" as we define it, and suffering. This is known as final Nirvana, described as a state of pure bliss, or nothingness (although not in the negative way you might associate it).
Before final Nirvana can be achieved, a Buddhist must already have attained living Nirvana, this is accomplished by learning to control the mind, and negative emotions via meditation. The negative emotions (greed, desire, hate, anger, lust etc.) are the primary causes of suffering in life, and once freed from these, the Buddhist is in turn free from mortal suffering.

At 11/28/05 01:57 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Just curiousbut,if you don't mind me asking how exactly did you end up converting to Buddhism?

Well one side of my family is mainly Christian, and as such that was the only religion I had really been brought up to know. I had always found the Bible boring (don't get me wrong - it's a great book, but at that age I couldn't exactly comprehend all the underlying meanings), and by the age of around ten I was pretty skeptical about the existence of a God. So for a long time I was happily atheist (as I mentioned earlier, I always had some inclination that there was a kind of force beyond what we can see or touch, I could never associate it with any religion at the time though, I now believe this to be karma). Now from about the age of sixteen I started learning a few things about Buddhism, my uncle (from the non-Christian side of the family) is a Buddhist, and upon attending his wedding I started to become interested in the way Buddhists did things. So for years I was in a kind of limbo on the subject - to be honest I never really had much time to look any further into it than skimming a couple of books on the subject - but several months ago I actually took the time to sit down and read some in-depth stuff on the religion.
This was probably the closest to a "religious experience" I had ever come, nothing incredible, just an overwhelming feeling of the world making sense when I took a Buddhist view of it. So from then on I read more and more into the subject, practicing meditaiton, trying my best to stick to the precepts, and all that jazz.

So that's my religious life story in a nutshell.

At 11/28/05 03:27 PM, Mick_the_champion wrote: -TheDoctor- am I right in saying that one of the five main rules of Buddhism is to not drink alcohol?

I thought you liked the old sauce?

Guilty as charged.
I'm certainly not the best Buddhist, but the primary reasons behind not drinking alcohol are so that you:
A - Don't lose control and violate one of the other precepts.
B - Maintain mental clarity.
And as long as I don't get 100% shitfaced I can usually stay in control of myself to a reasonable degree.
It's kind of funny, I find that a single pint of cider actually puts me in a clearer state of mind for meditation, as it kind of kills off a lot of the random wild thoughts you have, but doesn't actually influence your mental state noticeably.

So I figure as long as I don't get wasted every other night it's not too much of a problem, and I have only been practicing fully for a few months ;)

What exactly does on do whilst meditating.
Its about clearing your mind right? But how do you do that?
Also, whats book(s) should I read to read up on Buddhism, some of things you are mentioning seem to fit with me well.

In RS today we were doing about Science and Creation and it got me thinking a lot... basically from how it seems Science is right, then how Christianity is right and back and forth. And I think I've come to the conclusion that I disbelieve religions argument for creation.

Anyways, what's your guys take on this worlds/universe's creation?

At 11/28/05 04:46 PM, -Nev- wrote: What exactly does on do whilst meditating.
Its about clearing your mind right? But how do you do that?

Meditating is relativley simple. Although there are different techniques you can do.

The most simple one I've found is to just sit in a comfortable position close you eyes and breath in and out whilst focusing totally on your breathing.

That really is the basics of it as I understand, or at leats thats how I do it at any rate and it seems to work for me.

Taking a look here might help as well.

At 11/29/05 01:36 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Meditating is relativley simple. Although there are different techniques you can do.

The most simple one I've found is to just sit in a comfortable position close you eyes and breath in and out whilst focusing totally on your breathing.

Yeah, that's mainly what I do most of the time. I just count my breaths, going from one to ten, then start over. Plus there's also meditating on specific areas to improve yourself as a person, that's often kinda tricky though. For example, concentrating entirely on the feeling of compassion is something I try from time to time, it's pretty to hard maintain that feeling and still sink into a deep state of concentration, but if you get it right then I guarentee you'll be a slightly better person at the end of the experience.

As for my view of the universe, I'm willing to go with the big bang. It might not necessarily be correct, but I think for the moment it's the best idea we have.

At 11/29/05 02:00 PM, -TheDoctor- wrote: Plus there's also meditating on specific areas to improve yourself as a person, that's often kinda tricky though. For example, concentrating entirely on the feeling of compassion is something I try from time to time, it's pretty to hard maintain that feeling and still sink into a deep state of concentration, but if you get it right then I guarentee you'll be a slightly better person at the end of the experience.

How exactly do you focus on the trait you are trying to get more of? Do you jsut imagine the feeling you get after you've helped someone out if you're trying to concentrate on compassion say?

At 11/29/05 02:11 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

How exactly do you focus on the trait you are trying to get more of? Do you jsut imagine the feeling you get after you've helped someone out if you're trying to concentrate on compassion say?

Not the feeling after per se, more the whole package. Ie. why you make such a decision, how you feel at the time, and the personal gratification that comes with it. But in general, concentrating on the act as a whole. As I said, it's kind of tricky, I can only usually do it effectively after a peroid of regular meditaiton.

At 11/29/05 12:55 PM, -Nev- wrote:
Anyways, what's your guys take on this worlds/universe's creation?

I believe that God started the Big Bang, and guided the process of Earth and evolution until today.