>>8445>Religious beliefs have no access to a factual truth.
That's not necessarily true. One of the most oft cited examples is the Big Bang. Which is pretty approximate to what current science says happened, minus the "God did it" part of religion whereas science says "we dunno what caused it"
>That's why it is so similar to "what you like": you think it's true only because you feel and like it on an emotional level ("resonated with you").
Again this is a falsehood. You merely presume as such, as opposed to others wherein for much of history theology was a scholarly thing. The idea that religious or mystical beliefs and conclusions come solely from the fuzzy wuzzies probably says more about you than it does theology.
>Not because you discovered undenieable evidence which proves that truth.
I've had enough spooky experiences many of which are not even plausible given the known material reality for me to state otherwise. I simply have neither the tools nor the knowledge to conclusively verify it, let alone scientifically reproduce many of these instances.
>As you avoided the question, here it is again: What resonated with you that made you become a buddhist?
I answered your question. I am not a Buddhist. I studied it (albeit in a more cursory manner, officially I think I had two classes on Buddhism notwithstanding reading outside of it). You merely presumed that I was a Buddhist.
>Hinduism however is a huge clusterfuck of gods, endless stories and happenings.
Like I said, depending on which sect and interpretation you get the same thing with certain strands of Buddhism.
>So regarding my questions (purpose of a human life/what did god do) or related to a "simplified Buddhism", i was specifically aiming for the teachings of Siddharta, the root of Buddhism.
The eightfold path is a good start. Right mindedness, right living, right conduct etc. with the goal of being free of desirous attachment which in modern Western parlance would be termed addictions. Addiction to fast food, addiction to sex, addiction to gambling, addiction to drugs, things of that nature, and to escape the perpetual wheel of reincarnation and suffering, and to aid others in escaping suffering. That's the best tl;dr I can give you.
>but i was only interested in the root. Or does he not play a prominent role for a modern buddhist?
Most of the time the personhood of Buddha is irrelevant to you and your path. Buddha was basically just a wayshower. This is very distinct from Christianity for instance, because he was not some god or a prophet, merely just some guy who's said to have pondered and discovered great truths and wisdoms and helped show others the way. There's the saying "if you meet the Buddha, kill him".
>What does a buddhist respond with?
Actually the fact that most Christians--and by most Christians I really just mean retarded American Protestants--mindlessly parrot verses from the Bible irks me, particularly because very few of them seem to have any concern for the wisdom or underlying substance of that verse. Buddhism is less strict in a sense, in that you're not so bound up in reading from a script. Although, in terms of ethical guidelines and conduct, that exists plentifully.
I think that part of the problem is also Westerners got used to Papal Christianity, wherein basically God gets posited as some distant ruler, who sends his princeling emissary, Jesus, to man to issue orders and those orders are absolute and not necessarily open to interpretation. Then you get an added middleman, the Pope, who acts like some kind of feudal lord to the emperor. Much of this is derived from mortal politics and political apparatus bullshit. Then you have Saints in Catholicism, so it becomes less and less about the heavenly and divine and more about following some kind of hierarchy, and I think that that likewise paints the impressions and expectations of a lot of average Westerners who simply expect something to tell them what to do and boss them around. I have in fact encountered this mindset numerous times and it always confounds and startles me, although women seem more prone to it.
Such a thing as Zen Buddhism is specifically meant to snap your mind out of this. It is deliberately designed to break your compulsions and force you to actually reflect on who you are, where you're going, what you're doing, why you're doing what you're doing, and not just spoon feeding you an answer. I can't find a download atm but there's this book which is pretty decent
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/596076.Alone_with_OthersI think I recommended the Dhammapada? I can't remember. And in terms of understanding a lot about Buddhist thought I would highly recommend the Bhagavad Gita, which is essentially a foundational approach in the same sense I would tell a Christian to read and interpret the Torah to understand a basis for Christendom and Islam. I think that the Bhagavad Gita conveys the mindset really well in order to understand Buddhism later.
Here is an example of I think what you're asking and looking for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrinal_background_of_Zen#Sudden_and_gradual_enlightenmentThe similarities between Christianity and Buddhism are there, however Christianity teaches you can only be saved from suffering by following this guy who's a god-form and literal avatar of the one God, as opposed to Buddhism which is more about finding your own salvation rather than having it given to you. The process has more similarities with Gnostic Christianity, and takes a similarly dim view of material reality as a realm of illusion, falsehood, and suffering. This is also closer to various mystical schools where in sense "enlightenment" means basically the same thing as attaining illumination.
These are not the same things as psychology, whatever the surface congruence, and in fact a great deal of modern psychology has been influenced by certain older philosophical systems like this. For example, the whole idea of "self actualization"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization which is in a real sense the non-mystical goal or objective of psychology is pretty much in line and clearly at times borrowed from Eastern philosophy.
Here are some other discussions on that matter
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/is-enlightenment-the-same-thing-as-self-actualization.12809/https://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/showthread.php?3197-How-does-Maslow-s-Hierarchy-of-Needs-relate-to-Buddhism
>>8445>Religious beliefs have no access to a factual truth.
That's not necessarily true. One of the most oft cited examples is the Big Bang. Which is pretty approximate to what current science says happened, minus the "God did it" part of religion whereas science says "we dunno what caused it"
>That's why it is so similar to "what you like": you think it's true only because you feel and like it on an emotional level ("resonated with you").
Again this is a falsehood. You merely presume as such, as opposed to others wherein for much of history theology was a scholarly thing. The idea that religious or mystical beliefs and conclusions come solely from the fuzzy wuzzies probably says more about you than it does theology.
>Not because you discovered undenieable evidence which proves that truth.
I've had enough spooky experiences many of which are not even plausible given the known material reality for me to state otherwise. I simply have neither the tools nor the knowledge to conclusively verify it, let alone scientifically reproduce many of these instances.
[Show 20 more lines]