a small point....

atheists believe in no Gods not even Buddha.

Libersolis,

Indeed there are - Buddhism does not have a diety.

Yodral





godsavethequeen,

Which confirms that Buddhists both can and do eat meat.

Yodrak

Mmmmm Yodrak,

....interesting concept. Buddhists can be Atheists!! ....but Buddhism is a religion surely?? ........& atheists don't follow or believe in any religion, god or afterlife, last I knew.

....now I find out buddhist going round are giving us Atheists a bad name.

Basically right now your responses could be compared to two people having a conversation about sports. One person talks about how much they enjoy the sport of football, while the other person (you in this case) negatively comments on the fact that it's boring to watch grown men hit homeruns and run around the bases.



Buddah is not a "god". I thought I had explained or at least alluded to that in my previous post, but I think at this point you seem to either be not reading or acting like a 16 year old kid who is attempting to seem like a rebel by stating something that he/she hopes shocks/offends the majority of people around him/her. Since I hope you aren't still stuck in that phase I will just assume that you don't read but the first two lines of someone's post, and will instead direct you to a Wikipedia article which might enlighten and educate you on a subject that you know nothing about, yet seem so willing to speak on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha

Buddhism: Principles of Buddhism
By Wikipedia, www.Wikipedia.org






Principles of Buddhism



The Three Jewels

Buddhists seek refuge in what are often referred to as the Three Jewels, Triple Gem or Triple Jewel. These are the Buddha, the Dharma (or Dhamma), and the "noble" (Sanskrit: arya) Sangha or community of monks and nuns who have become enlightened. While it is impossible to escape one's karma or the effects caused by previous thoughts, words and deeds, it is possible to avoid the suffering that comes from it by becoming enlightened. In this way, dharma offers a refuge. Dharma, used in the sense of the Buddha's teachings, provides a raft and is thus a temporary refuge while entering and crossing the river. However, the real refuge is on the other side of the river.



To one who is seeking to become enlightened, taking refuge constitutes a continuing commitment to pursuing enlightenment and following in the footsteps of the people who have followed the path to enlightenment before. It contains an element of confidence that enlightenment is in fact a refuge, a supreme resort. Many Buddhists take the refuges each day, sometimes more than once in order to remind themselves of what they are doing and to direct their resolve inwardly towards liberation.



In most-- if not all-- forms of Buddhism, the Three Jewels are taken before the Sangha for the first time, as a part of the conversion ritual.



Although Buddhists concur that taking refuge should be undertaken with proper motivation (complete liberation) and an understanding of the objects of refuge, the Indian scholar Atisha identified that in practice there are many different motives found for taking refuge. His idea was to use these differing motivations as a key to resolving any apparent conflicts between all the Buddha's teachings without depending upon some form of syncresis that would cause as much confusion as it attempted to alleviate.



It is extremely important to note that in Buddhism, the word "refuge" should not be taken in the English sense of "hiding" or "escape;" instead, many scholars have said, it ought be thought of as a homecoming, or place of healing, much as a parent's home might be a refuge for someone. This simple misunderstanding has led some Western scholars to conclude that Buddhism is "a religion for sticking one's head in the sand," when most Buddhists would assert quite the opposite.



In the 11th century, Lamp for the Path by Atisha, and in the subsequent Lamrim tradition as elaborated by Tsongkhapa, the several motives for refuge are enumerated as follows, typically introduced using the concept of the "scope" (level of motivation) of a practitioner:



ᠼi>Worldly scope is taking refuge to improve the lot of this life

ᠼi>Low scope is taking refuge to gain high rebirth and avoid the low realms

ᠼi>Middle scope is taking refuge to achieve Nirvana

ᠼi>High scope is taking refuge to achieve Buddhahood

ᠼi>Highest scope is also sometimes included, which is taking refuge to achieve Buddhahood in this life.



The Four Noble Truths

The Buddha taught that life was dissatisfactory because of craving, but that this condition was curable by following the eightfold path. This teaching is called the four noble truths:



1. Dukkha: All worldly life is unsatisfactory, disjointed, containing suffering.

2. Samudaya: There is a cause of suffering, which is attachment or desire (tanha) rooted in ignorance.

3. Nirodha: There is an end of suffering, which is Nirvana.

4. Marga: There is a path that leads out of suffering, known as the Noble Eightfold Path.



The Noble Eightfold Path

In order to fully understand the noble truths and investigate whether they were in fact true, Buddha recommended that a certain lifestyle or path be followed which consists of:



1. Right Understanding

2. Right Thought

3. Right Speech

4. Right Action

5. Right Livelihood

6. Right Effort

7. Right Mindfulness

8. Right Concentration



Sometimes in the Pali Canon the Eightfold Path is spoken of as being a progressive series of stages which the practitioner moves through, the culmination of one leading to the beginning of another, but it is more usual to view the stages of the 'Path' as requiring simultaneous development.



The Eightfold Path essentially consists of meditation, following the precepts, and cultivating the positive converse of the precepts (e.g. benefiting living beings is the converse of the first precept of harmlessness). The Path may also be thought of as a the way of developing ala, meaning mental and moral discipline.



The Five Precepts

Buddhists undertake certain precepts as aids on the path to coming into contact with ultimate reality. Laypeople generally undertake five precepts. The five precepts are:



1. I undertake the precept to refrain from harming living creatures (killing).

2. I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not freely given (stealing).

3. I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.

4. I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech (lying, harsh language, slander, idle chit-chat).

5. I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicants which lead to loss of mindfulness.



In some schools of Buddhism, serious lay people or aspiring monks take an additional three to five ethical precepts, and some of the five precepts are strengthened. For example, the precept pertaining to sexual misconduct becomes a precept of celibacy; the fourth precept, which pertains to incorrect speech, is expanded to four: lying, harsh language, slander, and idle chit-chat. Monks and nuns in most countries also vow to follow the 227 patimokkha rules.



The three marks of conditioned existence

According to the Buddhist tradition all phenomena (dharmas) are marked by three characteristics, sometimes referred to as the Dharma Seals:



Anatta

Anatta (Pali; Sanskrit: anatman): In Indian philosophy, the concept of a self is called atman (that is, "soul" or metaphysical self), which refers to an unchanging, permanent essence conceived by virtue of existence. This concept and the related concept of Brahman, the Vedantic monistic ideal, which was regarded as an ultimate atman for all beings, were indispensable for mainstream Indian metaphysics, logic, and science; for all apparent things there had to be an underlying and persistent reality, akin to a Platonic form. The Buddha rejected all concepts of atman, emphasizing not permanence but changeability. He taught that all concepts of a substantial self were incorrect and formed in the realm of ignorance.



According to some thinkers both in the East and the West, this may imply that Buddhism is a form of nihilism or something similar. However, as thinkers like Nagarjuna have pointed out, Buddhism is not simply a rejection of the concept of existence (or of meaning, etc.) but of the hard and fast distinction between existence and nonexistence, or rather between being and nothingness. Buddhism thus has more in common with Western empiricism, pragmatism, and anti-foundationalism than it does with nihilism per se.



Anicca

Anicca (Pali; Sanskrit: anitya): All things and experiences are inconstant, unsteady, and impermanent. Everything is made up of parts, and is dependent on the right conditions for its existence. Everything is in flux, and so conditions are constantly changing. Things are constantly coming into being, and ceasing to be. Nothing lasts.



Dukkha

Dukkha (Pali; Sanskrit: duhkha): Because we fail to truly grasp the first two conditions, we suffer. We desire a lasting satisfaction, but look for it amongst constantly changing phenomena. We perceive a self, and act to enhance that self by pursuing pleasure, and seek to prolong pleasure when it too is fleeting.



It is by realizing (not merely understanding intellectually, but making real in one's experience) the three marks of conditioned existence that one develops Praj?a, which is the antidote to the ignorance that lies at the root of all suffering.



Other principles and practices

Meditation or dhyana of some form is a common practice in most if not all schools of Buddhism, for the clergy if not the laity.



Central to Buddhist doctrine and practice is the law of karma and vipaka; action and its fruition, which happens within the dynamic of dependent origination (pratatya-samutpada). Actions which result in positive retribution (happiness) are defined as skillful or good, while actions that produce negative results (suffering) are called unskillful or bad actions. These actions are expressed by the way of mind, body or speech. Some actions bring instant retribution while the results of other actions may not appear until a future lifetime. Most teachers are, however, quick to point out that though it may be a result of someone's past-life karma that they suffer, this should not be used as an excuse to treat them poorly; indeed, all should help them and help to alleviate their suffering, leading to them working to alleviate their own suffering.



Rebirth, which is closely related to the law of karma. An action in this life may not give fruit or reaction until the next life time. This being said, action in a past life takes effect in this one, making a chain of existence. The full realization of the absence of an eternal self or soul (the doctrine of anatta (Pali; Sanskrit: anatman)) breaks this cycle of birth and death (samsara).



Vegetarianism

The first lay precept in Buddhism prohibits killing. Many see this as implying that Buddhists should not eat the meat of animals. However, this is not necessarily the case. The Buddha made distinction between killing an animal and consumption of meat, stressing that it is immoral conduct that makes one impure, not the food one eats. Monks in ancient India were expected to receive all of their food by begging and to have little or no control over their diet. During the Buddha's time, there was no general rule requiring monks to refrain from eating meat. In fact, at one point the Buddha specifically refused to institute vegetarianism and the Pali Canon records the Buddha himself eating meat on several occasions. There were, however, rules prohibiting certain types of meat, such as human, leopard or elephant meat. Monks are also prohibited from consuming meat if the monk witnessed the animal's death or knows that it was killed specifically for him. This rule was not applied to commercial purchase of meat in the case of a general who sent a servant to purchase meat specifically to feed the Buddha. Therefore, eating commercially purchased meat is not prohibited.



On the other hand, certain Mahayana sutras make a stronger argument against eating meat. In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the Buddha states that "the eating of meat extinguishes the seed of great compassion", adding that all and every kind of meat and fish consumption (even of animals already found dead) is prohibited by him. The Buddha also predicts in this sutra that later monks will "hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma" and will concoct their own sutras and mendaciously claim that the Buddha allows the eating of meat, whereas in fact (he says) he does not. A long passage in the Lankavatara Sutra shows the Buddha weighing strongly in favor of vegetarianism, since the eating of the flesh of fellow sentient beings is said by him to be incompatible with the compassion which a Bodhisattva should strive to cultivate. Several other Mahayana sutras also emphatically prohibit the consumption of meat.



In the modern world, attitudes toward vegetarianism vary by location. In the Theravada countries of Southeast Asia and Sri Lanka, monks are bound by the vinaya to accept almost any food that is offered to them, often including meat, while in China and Vietnam, monks are expected to eat no meat. In Japan and Korea, some monks practice vegetarianism, and most will do so at least when training at a monastery, but otherwise they typically do eat meat. In Tibet, where vegetable nutrition was historically very scarce, and the adopted vinaya was the Nikaya Sarvastivada, vegetarianism is very rare, although the Dalai Lama has recently made several comments encouraging its adoption. In the West, of course, a wide variety of practices are followed. Lay Buddhists generally follow dietary rules less rigorously than monks.



Courtesy to www.Wikipedia.org

[quote name='godsavethequeen' date='Jun 30 2006, 09:08 AM' post='282648']
Thanksgiving?? The celebration of the genocide of the indigenous population of the Americas!! Very amusing. They gave food and help we gave Small Pox and War. Fair swap ehh?

godsavethequeen, the fascist regime, made you a moron,
[/quote]
Might consider where those Pilgrims came from, if you think their behavior was that bad....

Or do some fact checking.
Thanks for playing, though, and thank for the Sex Pistols reminder!
[/quote]


I said - "we gave Small Pox and War" meaning The Europeans. Yes I am English, my forefathers and mothers immigrating from europe to the UK, and I take my blame but will never celebrate the mistakes of the past. I will not ignore it either.
[/quote]
It's not our blame to take; we weren't there and times were not what they are now. Thanksgiving is not a celebration of our forebearer's genocide--most of that had not yet begun.

Also, a bit of reading on the Native Americans will show that they already had war; they didn't need "us" to bring it to them.

Is Buddhism a religion that is all I ask??

......... with all religions they contradict themselves, as I do too but I am only human with the mind of a 16 year old juvenile delinquent. So what do you expect??


Turn away then and pretend the USA was not built on the bodies of the true "Americans". Of course the indigenoeus peoples had warfare, but did not resort to covering blankets with plagues and pestulence. What has the USA ever done to rectify these small failures to treat them as equals?? Steal their lands and give them some barren land to starve on!!

Congratulations on being able to copy and paste an article and taking things completely out of context and trying to make a political discussion out of it.

To answer your question "What has the USA ever done to rectify these small failures to treat them as equals?" Well nothing that I can see, and it is in fact a true tragedy and a terrible part of our nations history, a history filled with terrible deeds and also wonderful accomplishments. The USA like any other place in the world is simply made up of flawed human beings. Sometimes we do the right thing, sometimes we don't. Should we tell people to stop gathering with their families on Thanksgiving in 2006 because of the misdeeds of those in the past? No I don't think so, if anything remembering those things that HAVE happened should make us more d thankful for what we have NOW. Simply being able to gather in one place and celebrate is a luxury many people around the world are not afforded, so it is paramount to our growth as human beings to celebrate and reflect on what we have.

I am sure if we look behind the origin of many holidays we could find both terrible and great things that have happened on those days, but it is the intent and spirit of the people who gather for that holiday that matters most.

godsavethequeen,

My understanding is that an atheist is one who does not believe in a diety (a god). Modern 'street' usage may have gone beyond that, but the traditional definition going back to the Greek origin of the word is godless.

As for religion, I think the meaning of that word is broad enough that it is not restricted to systems of belief that include a god or gods. I'm sure that this could be argued, however.

You've added here the word "afterlife". Got to be careful with semantics, but Budhists do not believe in an afterlife as we do. They believe in a cycle of birth, death, and rebirth until one becomes enlightened enough ('gets it') to enter the state of nirvana and break the cycle. Maybe we could say that the Budhist nirvanana is comparable to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim 'afterlife' - a discussion on that excedes my intellectual capacity.

In any event, there are no dieties in the Buddhist 'religion', so I think they can arguably be called atheists.

Yodrak

Ahhh afterlife! reincarnation surely is an after life of sorts, life, after life afterlife. which is kind of like an afterlife!!

....and you are surely using a Judeo-Christian-Muslim understanding of atheism. The greeks had many god/esses and no concept of one god, so the Greek definition is somewhat out of date?

We have pagans in the UK as I'm sure there are the world over but as they follow religious principles too they, in my humble opinion, can not be described as atheists either. Atheist are anti religion.
As with religious principles words evolve and change meanings. .... like life evolves, crawling out of the primordial soup from the formation of the planets from the big bang.

godsavethequeen,

Actually I'm using the Merriam-Webster understanding of atheism. And the greek definition 'godless' works as well for today's monotheistic religions, or polytheistic religions (if there are any, there may be) as it did for their polytheism. The ancient Greeks simply had more gods for an atheist to not believe in.

No comment on pagans except to say that whether they're considered religious or not, if they don't believe in a deity then they are - 'by definition' - atheists.

I agree that language does evolve. When you publish a dictionary and it gains wide or critical (I'll accept either) acceptance let me know and I'll start using it.

Yodrak

OK yodrak,

what is the correct word for the non belief in any religion, pagan or not?? Help needed.

polytheistic religions = hinduism, shintuism

I used cut and paste. cuz I am stoopid...

Antireligion is opposition to all religions. People who are antireligious may see religions as dangerous, destructive, divisive, foolish, or absurd. This opposition may be confined to just organized religions such as Christianity, Islam, or Scientology, or may be more general to include all forms of belief and superstition. For this reason people who are antireligious may not always be lacking in spirituality.

Antireligion is often based on rationality, such as arguments against the validity, usefulness, or ethicality of religion. Antireligious activity has ranged from criticizing and arguing against religion, to actively persecuting religious groups or outlawing religious practice.

godsavethequeen,

Past time to start a new thread in Off Topic? I'll look for you there.

Yodrak

let me see. this is a USA immigration thead alot of US on here must be a moron because, we
celebrate USA holidays. next time you call anyone a moron look at your self and you will find
1 finger pointing right back at you!





why have GOd save the queen on your ID
so you can mock god or the queen?
watch out before a bolt of lighting zap your azz.
or maybe the queen might tap you in the azz , with her car on the way to get a new hat!



we know you are, could not have said it better myself!

It is a song, very popular in the UK. We kind of call it our national anthem. do your research before asuming I was insulting anyone please. over to the Sex Pistols..........

God save the queen her fascist regime
It made you a moron a potential h bomb !

God save the queen she aint no human being
There is no future in englands dreaming

Dont be told what you want dont be told what you need
Theres no future no future no future for you

God save the queen we mean it man (God save window leen)
We love our queen God saves (God save... human beings)

God save the queen cos tourists are money
And our figurehead is not what she seems
Oh God save history God save your mad parade
Oh lord God have mercy all crimes are paid

When theres no future how can there be sin
Were the flowers in the dustbin
Were the poison in your human machine
Were the future your future

God save the queen we mean it man
There is no future in englands dreaming

No future for you no future for me
No future no future for you

why immigrate here if your so dayum bitter?

Bitter?? Where did that come from??

I'm quite sweet in actual fact, most the time.....

you said sweet. that is funny..
thats the the joke of the day.

Sallam Wa La Kum

Errrrrrrrmmm

Ever thought about to switch your tiny little competition in the OFF TOPIC forum

Hrmm, I thought Gstq WAS the national anthem


Oh, and what has America done for the Native Americans? hrmmm....ask yourself that the next time you're buying tax free cigs on their land, or playing in their casinos when other gambling is illegal in your state....

Libersolis, I enjoyed re-reading your post, because after all the "dialogue" on the tenents of Buddism, you pointed to a truth about the visa process: the government is not obliged to issue visas simply because we married foreign folks.

This is the root of much frustration for couples here and their families. There's an underlying expectation that marriage automatically gives you a free pass, and tout suite! It doesn't. And why should it, since roughly half of marriages fail?

Beyond providing the facts, this site offers something equally valuable: support from others in the same boat. We all need hand holding at times to remind us to be patient, flexible, and somewhat detatched. It's the best way to survive a process that's uncertain at times but often happy at the end.

We help one another make the choice about how we want to emerge from all this : an intact personality who's good to be around? Or a bitter, argumentative grump, incapable of enjoying their own life?

the G W. ment needs to draw a line some place. the wait is too hellish and too long. I know people waiting alot longer than my 1 1/2 years part in hell. there is a lady waiting 12 years and she has a daughter that is about 12 and dont know her daddy because of this crap.

We all need hand holding at times to remind us to be patient, flexible, and somewhat detatched

Who will hold my hand? hey

12 years, thats absurd

I wish mine would only take 6 months! From the posts I've seen here, a K-3 for a Russian citizen has historically taken longer, I believe. I'd be really, really happy if my wife could be here by the end of September. But with IMBRA, I think it's going to add a couple more months to the wait time.