PDA

View Full Version : What Is the Philosophy Behind Buddhism?



Grimr
Friday, June 13th, 2003, 09:55 PM
What do you know about Buddhism? What is the philosophy behind it?

Conquistador
Saturday, June 14th, 2003, 07:22 AM
Trying to find Nirvana??? A Universal Balance??? As one can see, I'm fairly ignorant about this religion that many Hollywood celebrities seemly have adopted.

Jack
Saturday, June 14th, 2003, 08:47 AM
Nihilism. I am one with the universe, pain is an illusion resulting from attachment, true happiness is sought from the denial of the will. Apparently.

Which is why I am not a Buddhist.

Sigrun Christianson
Saturday, June 14th, 2003, 05:46 PM
We went over this already, and although everyone claims that Buddhism is incompatible with racialism, their answers on an internet test showed that they agreed with many Buddhist philosophies. ;)

See this thread:
http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2846

OnionPeeler
Sunday, June 15th, 2003, 02:57 AM
They came to an abyss. The atheist promptly closed his eyes and chanted, "There is no abyss, there is no abyss." The agnostic considered that the abyss might be an illusion. The superstitious plopped down and prayed, "God is great. God is good." The existentialist said, "Egads!, uh, I make my own purpose." Siddhartha Gautama led his follows straight over the edge into anihilation. Nietzsche stared into the abyss and dared propose a bridge.

Originally, the anihilation of self - considered by some to be a deception - was Siddhartha's goal. It has since been colored with historiography and hopeful alternatives. To the nature-oriented heathen (certainly not including the invented "Wicca") or to the Nietzschean, anilhilation by death is sufficient and soon-enough.

hardcorps
Monday, June 16th, 2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by OnionPeeler
Originally, the anihilation of self - considered by some to be a deception - was Siddhartha's goal. It has since been colored with historiography and hopeful alternatives.
Certainly not a Buddhist here, but from what I've read there is something haunting about the stark simplicity of the original Buddhism. The latter being a revolt against the dizzyingly cluttered nature of Hindusim. The simple purity of Buddhism was turned on its head by the mythologising needed by the masses, as OnionPeeler says. The people made an idol of the Buddha, exactly as he had told them not to do. (Who can blame them, I feel comfortable in assuming him to have been of original, undiluted Aryan stock.)

I highly recommend the novella 'Siddhartha,' by Herman Hesse.

Turificator
Saturday, February 7th, 2004, 12:24 AM
I think any National Revolutionary interested in Buddhism should consider J. Evola's 'The doctrine of awakening' (Italian title: 'La dottrina del risveglio').

There he argues that original Buddhism, as it emerges from the Pali texts, was essentially an Aryan and virile attempt to fight against certain decadent trends within Hinduism. The book makes an interesting read. I would love to learn more about original Buddhism, but time, as always, is a problem... *sigh*

Jack
Tuesday, February 17th, 2004, 06:42 AM
I think any National Revolutionary interested in Buddhism should consider J. Evola's 'The doctrine of awakening' (Italian title: 'La dottrina del risveglio').

There he argues that original Buddhism, as it emerges from the Pali texts, was essentially an Aryan and virile attempt to fight against certain decadent trends within Hinduism. The book makes an interesting read. I would love to learn more about original Buddhism, but time, as always, is a problem... *sigh*
That's an excellent book. I read it when I was 15, Evola's an excellent writer. It's well researched and I recommend anyone who has a deep interest in Buddhism to get a hold of it.

Xabir
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 07:55 AM
Nihilism is AGAINST Buddhism. Buddhism is about the Middle Way, non-duality of all things. Shunyata or emptiness is not about nihilism, it is about the inherent existence as being false (reality not found in our own concepts and ideas), or an illusion. Non-ego does not mean our conciousness does not exist, it just means our ego is a mind-created illusion. Our ability to be aware is called the "Buddha Nature".

There are 2 "levels" of Nirvana, one is the Nirvana of the Arhat (Saint), while Buddha's Nirvana is much more complete, and yes, Nirvana is the ultimate goal of Buddhists.

------------------------------------------------
http://www.vipassana.com/resources/dharmapala/an8.php

THE Lord Buddha taught the Middle Doctrine to avoid the extremes of asceticism and sensuous indulgence. The Noble Eightfold Path shows the way to comprehend the Middle Doctrine. Buddhism is the English term to express the religion of the Lord Buddha. The Pali term for Buddhism is DHAMMA. The specific names to denote the DHAMMA are Sambodhiyana, Dhammayana, Jhanayoga, Ditthijala, Attajala, Brahmajala, Brahmayana, Vibhajjavada Samukkansadhamma, Vimutti nanadassana, Ariyamagga, Ariyadhamma, and Bodhi pakkhiya dhamma. It is not Nihilism (ucchedavada) ; it is not fatalism (pubbekatahetu vada) it is not Creatorism (issaranimmana vada). Then what is Buddhism ? It is a kiriyavada, kammavada, hetuvada, a paticcasarnuppanna dhamma, and an anupubbadhamma. Kriyavada connotes cause and effect, as for instance from milk is produced curd. The variations of absolute predestination, creatorism and nihilism are rejected by the Lord Buddha. He found the Universe is not the product of Chance, or is caused by the will of a foolish ignorant despotic phantom Creator, or due to absolute predestination, but the result of unerring natural Immutable Law of Cause and Effect. It is the Doctrine of gradual evolutionary development as we find in the biological evolution of the human germ cell. The supreme Teacher of gods and men taught that man is not the slave of muddle-headed metaphysicians who created from their imagination certain types of god. Theologians found in the god-idea a weapon to enslave the people. In the Tevijjasutta our Lord showed the foolishness of those who wished to assimilate themselves with their own imaginary gods. Repenting gods are still under illusion.

Xabir
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 08:01 AM
3 Great quotes from Albert Einstein:

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity", Albert Einstein

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.", Albert Einstein

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 09:00 AM
What do you know about Buddhism? What is the philosophy behind it?

The reason I am responding is that you used the word "philosophy" instead of religion. I read a book on Buddhism, on meditation. It also described the eight-fold path to enlightnment. Each one sounded simple, but each one is very hard to put into practice. I found people in Thailand to be the happiest and "best people" I have ever seen. I was very impressed with their religion and related works of art. This must be a result of Buddhism.

Xabir
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 04:19 PM
Buddhism is beyond philosophies. Philosophy is a system of thoughts based upon logical reasoning. However, Buddhism is about realizing truths while detaching from thoughts.

Buddhism is beyond religion. Religions are usually (IMHO) of a system of deities/supernatural beliefs/dogmas. Buddhism are not attached to any of these.

Buddhism best fits into the catergory of "spiritual education", or human values (e.g Wisdom, Compassion. Not attached to Lust, Hatred, Ignorance) needed to be implemented into life. That is why Buddhists are the happiest people in the world, indeed.

Dome
Saturday, June 12th, 2004, 10:32 PM
Well, for me buddhism is about individual responsibility. No one is above you or below you and you can do whatever you want as long as it's making you happy. If you're unhappy, you're responsible for that.

Boerncian
Thursday, June 24th, 2004, 05:33 PM
Nihilism. I am one with the universe, pain is an illusion resulting from attachment, true happiness is sought from the denial of the will. Apparently.

Which is why I am not a Buddhist.
nihilism is the classic interpretation of the catholic apologists who studied Buddhism and did not get it.
You cant understand Buddhism unless you understand the doctrine of co interdependent origination. That the perceived separateness of things is really epistemologicaly based not ontological based. Buddhist language is primarily Soteriological not ontological that's where its critics make their fundamental mistake. For instance the image of Nirvana or the blowing out of a candle, does not refer to consciousness, or even individuality but to the inherent unsatisfactory, clinging to temporal events known as Dukkha, which is usually translated as suffering, a word which is totally inadequate to describe it.

Since All Things are interrelated their thingness is a matter of perspective not of reality. However, there thingness abides as an expression of the totality, they're not unreal but rather more real than they seem. It is our inability to grasp the underlying unity of things, that makes us grasp for individual things in order to achieve happiness. When that grasping is extinguished in the light of transcendent wisdom, release from the suffering(Dukkha) occurs. so there is the Zen saying first there is a mountain then there isn't a mountain then there is.

An old Zen koan says the 10,000 things returned to the one, where does the one return to? it returns to the 10,000 things. Things are not annihilated but rather our ignorance is annihilated

Moody
Thursday, June 24th, 2004, 05:45 PM
nihilism is the classic interpretation of the catholic apologists who studied Buddhism and did not get it.
You cant understand Buddhism unless you understand the doctrine of co interdependent origination. That the perceived separateness of things is really epistemologicaly based not ontological based. Buddhist language is primarily Soteriological not ontological that's where its critics make their fundamental mistake. For instance the image of Nirvana or the blowing out of a candle, does not refer to consciousness, or even individuality but to the inherent unsatisfactory, clinging to temporal events known as Dukkha, which is usually translated as suffering, a word which is totally inadequate to describe it.

Since All Things are interrelated their thingness is a matter of perspective not of reality. However, there thingness abides as an expression of the totality, they're not unreal but rather more real than they seem. It is our inability to grasp the underlying unity of things, that makes us grasp for individual things in order to achieve happiness. When that grasping is extinguished in the light of transcendent wisdom, release from the suffering(Dukkha) occurs. so there is the Zen saying first there is a mountain then there isn't a mountain then there is.

An old Zen koan says the 10,000 things returned to the one, where does the one return to? it returns to the 10,000 things. Things are not annihilated but rather our ignorance is annihilated

Yes, I too have laboured under a false impression of Buddhism through my ignorance of it.

But I must ask you one question; there is an aspect of Buddhism [which also occurs in the Upanishad] that you mention;
"The underlying unity of all things".

This is a scarey notion to all racial nationalists whose philosophical outlook is geared to discovering the opposite!

Do you get my drift here?

Scoob
Friday, June 25th, 2004, 03:52 PM
nihilism is the classic interpretation of the catholic apologists who studied Buddhism and did not get it.
You cant understand Buddhism unless you understand the doctrine of co interdependent origination. That the perceived separateness of things is really epistemologicaly based not ontological based. Buddhist language is primarily Soteriological not ontological that's where its critics make their fundamental mistake. For instance the image of Nirvana or the blowing out of a candle, does not refer to consciousness, or even individuality but to the inherent unsatisfactory, clinging to temporal events known as Dukkha, which is usually translated as suffering, a word which is totally inadequate to describe it.

Since All Things are interrelated their thingness is a matter of perspective not of reality. However, there thingness abides as an expression of the totality, they're not unreal but rather more real than they seem. It is our inability to grasp the underlying unity of things, that makes us grasp for individual things in order to achieve happiness. When that grasping is extinguished in the light of transcendent wisdom, release from the suffering(Dukkha) occurs. so there is the Zen saying first there is a mountain then there isn't a mountain then there is.

An old Zen koan says the 10,000 things returned to the one, where does the one return to? it returns to the 10,000 things. Things are not annihilated but rather our ignorance is annihilated Interesting approach here. I agree that it's somewhat arbitrary that we humans categorize the world into "things" (nouns) - yet I'm not so sure that attachment to these is the origin of suffering. I think that when a baby looks around what we call a room, until they are taught "this is a ball, you can play with the ball" while doing it, they look without seeing objects. This must be learned through speaking and interaction with the objects in a specific way. Even the self/nonself distinction must be learned, as anyone who has known young kids as they grow up might notice. Interesting, I think Buddhism denies this distinction is "real" also. I remember a Buddhist saying that all of "reality" is in fact consciousness - which for us as humans is true I think.

Boerncian
Sunday, June 27th, 2004, 02:53 AM
Yes, I too have laboured under a false impression of Buddhism through my ignorance of it.

But I must ask you one question; there is an aspect of Buddhism [which also occurs in the Upanishad] that you mention;
"The underlying unity of all things".

This is a scarey notion to all racial nationalists whose philosophical outlook is geared to discovering the opposite!

Do you get my drift here?
Well there is an old zen aphorism there is not good or bad but bad is bad and good is good.This is to say that even if we have a fundamental turn of consiousness toward the Unity,the manifestations of the unity on the myriad things do not lose their own essential natures.Therefore our actions are not in much hanged buy this wisdom ,except in so far as we are not moved by emotive states.
So as the old Zen saying goes miracle of miracles I chop what I carry water. I myself do not hate other racial groups even if they are destructive to my culture. I would no more do this that I would hate a scorpion I found in my sock drawer. I would simply either kill it or remove it. Likewise since I know that there are always individuals who rise above the group I would have no problem associating with individuals and groups who essentially have assimilated into European culture and have the manners ago with it. nor would I despised someone of another race,who was also has a high culture in bares me no direct ill other than the usual competitive nature of human societies, such as the Japanese.

So I try to keep my Zen Mind the matter what the circumstances

Dalkvist
Saturday, February 26th, 2005, 09:36 AM
Are the Buddhism an White Religion and can White Nationalist be a Buddhist not betraying White Race?

Siegfried
Saturday, February 26th, 2005, 05:33 PM
Are the Buddhism an White Religion

Buddhism was most likely not founded by a person who would racially fit in Europe.



and can White Nationalist be a Buddhist not betraying White Race?

About as much as one can be a Christian without betraying our race.

Krabat
Thursday, June 2nd, 2005, 02:41 PM
Budism seems to think that all suffering our your own fault and that one must not atempt to change the enfiroment but one must change hes own aditude to find inner peace and hapiness. Thell that to somebodie whose testicels are being sqeesed in a vice inside a torcher chamber. Mabie if he changer hes outlook in life hes testcels will stop urting regardles of how tight the vice is. or mabie it won't

Budism sais one must live in the present and that both the past and the future are to be eliminated from our tought paterns.
I mean serious man what value does life have withaot a past or a present. There would be no memory, no knowledge, no hopes and Dreams, no Purpose and no points of reference. Mabie this will eliminate suffering but it will eliminate just about everithing else as well.

Imperator X
Saturday, July 23rd, 2005, 02:27 AM
One must consider that the Buddha was born in present day Nepal. Nepal is the last Hindu kingdom on earth and still pays reverence to the original Aryan vedic gods, i.e. Indra, Varuna, Vayu, Agni, Dyaus (a cognate of the Latin Deus= "God"), Rudra, Mitra etc. The Buddha spoke Pali which I believe belonged to the Indo-European language family. Indo the prefix refers to India.

In Tibet, where Vajrayana Buddhism is practiced, the Tibetans still mention Hindu deities using their Aryan names i.e. Siva = Rudra, Indra is mentioned in Tibetan Buddhist texts. The Tibetans are also known for not mixing outside of their own kind and being so "pure-blooded" that some have developed defects due to their genetic closeness.

-Dylan KBE.

Northern Paladin
Saturday, July 23rd, 2005, 02:33 AM
Buddhism is a distinctly Oriental religion. IE it never caught on in the West.

Ingvaeonic
Saturday, August 18th, 2012, 12:14 PM
What do you know about Buddhism? What is the philosophy behind it?

The philosophy behind Buddhism is the belief that life is suffering, largely self-induced through the delusion of "self", transcendence of the delusion of "self" and all other delusions attendant on "self". strengthening of the will (Buddhism, particularly Zen, has been called in Japan "a religion of the will" and as is often stated axiomatically in Zen Buddhist literature and talks, "we live in the will, not the intellect"), a striving for enlightenment which is to be free of all delusion and delusions and to be fully and perfectly in reality, and once having achieved enlightenment the enlightened person may attain Nirvana (see below) or he/she may undertake to help others achieve enlightenment (such a one is called a bodhisattva in the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism), a moral philosophy that encompasses precepts arranged as an ethical system, a universe that is based or centred on a universal organising principle, called the Dharma, a belief in rebirth until the attainment of Nirvana (see below), a belief in karma that is that all thought, action, and speech have moral consequences in this life or future lives predicated on the principle of cause and effect, a belief in the annihilation of the delusion of the "self" which brings one to a state of complete and perfect stillness and oneness, called Nirvana, in which one is free from all suffering and in which one has achieved the cessation of the cycle of birth-life-death. Buddhism neither demands nor denies a belief in a god or gods. Buddhism neither acknowledges or recognises nor denies or rejects the existence of a god or gods.

Buddhism borders on philosophy and religion.

Primus
Saturday, August 18th, 2012, 02:06 PM
This article is a bit long-winded but it compares Buddhism with another "middle path" sort of philosophy that I consider myself to be an adept of, Stoicism:

Buddhism & Stoicism

http://humanistcontemplative.blogspot.com/2008/05/conversation-among-stoics-following-is.html

Ingvaeonic
Saturday, August 18th, 2012, 02:19 PM
The link below is to a good basic introduction to the tenets of Buddhist doctrine which are common to all sects and schools of Buddhism, be they Hinayana/Theravada or Mahayana. For those thinking of embarking on the strenuous Middle Way of Buddhism, a thorough grounding is necessary in the basics before branching out into the Buddhist sect and school that suits one the best.

If one wishes to know the basic philosophy of Buddhism, this item is reasonably good: it is written in fairly concise and lucid language. And it can be downloaded as a PDF file.

Link: Introduction to Buddhism by Thomas Knierim (http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/)

While I am an atheist, I have learnt a lot from the very practical and wise principles and precepts of Buddhism; that is Buddhism stripped of its more mystical or supernatural elements. If one adopts the purely practical elements of Buddhism and disregards the more mystical and supernatural elements, for instance, rebirth, Buddhism is an excellent practical philosophy and psychology for life, in my opinion.

ohrdruf
Friday, August 24th, 2012, 02:20 PM
In Pure Land Buddhism the practice is essentially reciting the name of the goddess Kuan Shih Yin as a koan with the intention of being admitted into the Pure Land at death.

The koan is accompanied by a daily vow that once in the Pure Land, one will be trained as a Bodhisattva to assist in the task of aiding all suffering humanity to escape the endless round of birth and death.