From my research and reading, he got extremely angry when one of his followers attempted to consider him a deity. He found there was no God needed, and the last thing he wanted was to be thought of as one.

@Holysocks Correct but the religious stupidity once it sets in makes you do stupid things. It is true about all religions.

Just because some people practice Buddhism unskillfully, that doesn't make it wrong.

@Gareth Buddhism is practiced as a cult. A different flavor of Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism is sold in Western countries. Buddhism has all the ills of a traditional religion and yes, it is a very organized religion.

I was born Hindu and can practice only good things in Hinduism in America but it does not change the fact that it is one of the shittiest religions in the world.

These are package deals. Not a la carte.

@St-Sinner I don't agree. Everyone is free to, and indeed must, find their own understanding of any teaching. If you simply accept what is being told to you then you are not following the teachings of Buddha.

@Gareth I am saying how Buddhism has developed as a practice of a faith system is similar to other religions. It has rigid rules, dictates, primitive beliefs, outdated rules and so on.

If everyone is free to and must find own understanding of teaching, then life is very easy. You can do that with every religion in the world including African voodooism. We can also take Burmese mediation, Hindu Yoga, charity of Christianity and fervor of Islam and practice a good set of faith ourselves. Then should be no debate, right. It is all good.

However, when you give your practice a name of an existing established faith, you own all the bad baggage with it.

@St-Sinner Once again, I do not agree. For instance, if you want to understand Communism you need to understand the theory and philosophy - just pointing to a state that calls itself "Communist" and saying "that's what it is" is not enough. I can be a Buddhist without excusing all the behaviours the people who call themselves "Buddhists" exhibit. Do you think all Muslims are implicated in the 9/11 bombings?

@Gareth No but when you subscribe to Islam you own the history and practice with it. You can defend your puritan practice of certain principles but when you call it by the name of an established religion, you own the history and the baggage with it.

Why not say, I do not practice Buddhism but I like and practice certain principles in it. But you are defending Buddhism.

@St-Sinner We must agree to disagree. Statements are not arguments.

@St-Sinner: Guidance implied restriction & faith is concomitant with connaissance.

Also as for karma is cause and effect, no it is not.
Bad people with power will get away unless huge social pressure is made. Saying that they will pay in next life or by nature actions is telling that the universe gives a shit about the "monkeys with anxiety" that lives for some years in some planet in the corner of some galaxy.
Random stuff happens, people get sick, it is not karma, it is just confirmation bias.

It is not philosophy because it is dogmatic, it did not question its basis, it do not make observations. It has a starting point that is very complex, needs many definitions, is dependent of many ideas that could be questioned one by one, but they do not do i.
The 4 truths is just about negating nature, the same as the sins with Christians. The religions tends to negate basic instincts so it became impossible to follow, so if good things do not happen, is YOUR fault, and the religion continue perfectly clean.
Of course the rich and noble will pretend they are perfect religious and show that it work (as the monks pretend).

@Pedrohbds I honestly don't think you have understood the four Noble Truths. Please prove me wrong.

@David1955 The Buddha did not equate life with suffering - that is just one translation that could equally be rendered as "unsatisfactory". I don't even think that's controversial.

@David1955 "religions are founded by followers not by founders" - doesn't that offend logic, grammar and common sense? To critique a philosophy by examining the behaviours of people who self-ascribe themselves as followers is ad hominem-ism on a grand scale.

@Gareth Of course I don't, because you only understand if you agree.
You are only blessed if you are a true Christian.

@Pedrohbds It's fine not to understand something, but posting on it becomes a little futile.

@David1955 It's a little puffed-up to say someone is wrong rather than that you disagree with them. It both assumes that you understand their point (which I don't think you do in this case) and that you can prove that it's invalid. The original posting recognises that there are many different approaches to, and interpretations of what may be called "Buddhism" (especially as a way of thinking that disavows canonical doctrine) but this subtlety seems lost on you.

Excellent answer. Well done

That is a very important point. We have this westernized Buddhist version of peace, love and the environment... then across the pond we have Buddhists engaged in genocide.. It's insane. They may as well be extreme right wing Christians who want to kill all who don't subscribe to extreme christian beliefs.

I think Karma is an extremely frustrating notion. I know many people, including myself, who gather shit and bad stuff more than anyone, despite the fact they are genuinely good individuals.

Karma as you explain it is a modern interpretation to appeal to the west. Traditionally, karma is the underlying factor for what's happening to you and also to which realm you will go after you die. Plenty of metaphysical and religious crap if you ask me...

@creative51 yes

This is true and most people are unaware of this fact. I once had a monk explain it to me as Buddhism being a science.

@ehawkins615 true ,and when Richard Dawkins asked the Dalai Lama if science proved something about Buddhism is wrong, what would the Buddhists do? The Dalai Lama replied well then Buddhism must change.

Since there is no immortal soul in Buddhism I fail to see how your post can be correct.

Karma was not explained like that by the Buddha though. It is moralistic and deterministic. For example, if you good a bad action but your intentions are good, then good will happen. Who decides what is good or bad though?

@tsallinia I’m not sure you’ve got a great grasp on how the Buddha explained it, based on that statement; that doesn’t seem familiar to me. Intentions do matter more than results in most cases, but I wouldn’t expect to escape consequence for wrong doing because of them universally so none of that follows. And that’s my point no one is deciding what’s good or bad; that’s the simplistic projection of those looking into Buddhism that expect them to help you determine that. If you expect that from Buddhism you have a misunderstanding of its purpose. Buddhism has nothing to do with deciding right from wrong.

Karma is just saying that like follows like, or that the equal and opposite reaction to what you put out will return, whatever it is to you. The people who are into the secret and law of attraction have turned the concept into a magical dollars for donuts transaction and have entirely misunderstood the concept’s relevance.

For example, Philosophically speaking: if you’re type of person throughout life that’s always taking care of those around you, it is very unlikely that you’ll ever lack for someone willing to take care of you when you’re eventually in need. If you’re a bastard to everyone it just makes sense that with a lot of enemies, a lot of ill will is going to keep revisiting you. It’s all common sense that what goes around comes around and everything effects everything else, both biologically and socially. Reciprocity is pretty much a law of nature that way.

If you need help with morality, Buddhists generally decide their morality the same way most other groups of atheists and most religions do: the golden rule. If you hurt someone else that’s wrong, if you don’t then who cares? I see Buddhism as a guide for how to treat oneself; after you get that in line, how you treat others is usually not a huge issue either.

Also strictly speaking, the prevailing scientific views of our era suggest that most everything is indeed deterministic at a molecular level. We didn’t choose what atoms went into our biological growth, we don’t choose what chemical embalances or proclivities our brain has, and most everything we think or decide is caused by a chain reaction of shit we had very little to do with consciously curating. Practically the only thing we might really choose is what thoughts to dwell on/feed into and which ones to let go of. That’s what Buddhism is concerned with; training yourself to make that one decision over and over in a more prudent objective fashion. To be a passive observer of the highs and lows sort of like stoicism and not let the good or bad sway you as much. And even those habits might be out of our control when you get down to it. I don’t know myself, I usually think we’re all actors playing the part laid out for us by our biology moreso than the playwright. Couldn’t hurt to try to better ourselves and assume we’re capable of making some improv edits though.

Don't mind philosophy. It's philosophers I detest

@Count_Viceroy Well, yeah. Why is what any of them think any more important than what you or I think?

Several years ago we made a trip to Viet Nam with my brother and his Vietnamese wife. We were on our own for a month and started in Saigon and ended up in Hanoi. We saw lots of Buddhist temples and a couple had tables of food as offering in front of the temples. The offerings were always vegetarian but The people were big time meat eaters. Just like people in other religions these people picked and choose what rules they chose to follow.

How do you empirically falsify nibana? The different realms of existence? Karma? Rebirth? Those require belief in the teachings of the Buddha, thus making it yet another religion

@tsallinia Many questions, so short answers.
Nirvana is a state of non-attachment, no less or more verifiable than any mental state (see "other minds" problem in philosophy).
Realms of existence? - I don't think that's part of the Buddha's teaching - just a silly add-on unless taken metaphorically.
Karma? - ever do something bad and feel suffering after? That's all karma really is.
Rebirth? - Hindu notion that the Buddha seemed not to dispute, but nonsense all the same.
I hope these brief responses help answer your questions.

@Gareth I am very sorry to say this but you haven't spent enough time studying buddhism, and it's ok.
But please listen, be skeptical and then verify what I say by reading. Realms of existence are the very basic core of the buddha's teaching mentioned in middle and long discourses. Even in the numerical. Buddha persistently taught about them. Also, the karma is not just that. It is the factor that will take you to the other realms after you die. And the karma works based on ethics! Rebirth is not part of the Hindu religion, reincarnation is. Rebirth was taught and believed by the Buddha and his followers.

@Gareth the problem with the karma is: first people who are absolutely nice take lots of crap in their lives, because empirically we know that life and the universe are not fair. They don't give a shit. Also, if karma is the factor deciding if you will go to the human realms, according to the teachings of the Buddha, then how, after the industrial revolution we rose up to 7.8 billion population from nearly 1.5?? Did we hack karma? Is the karma affected by the progress of our medicine? Or karma is bulshit? You choose

@tsallinia Neither, I reject all notions of rebirth until accompanied by demonstrable proof. That in no way interferes with my interpretation of the dharma. The Buddha was a man who left no written record of his teachings. These were subject to later recording and interpretations. Whether he believed in literal reincarnation or rebirth or not is supremely irrelevant to me - I take the good sense and leave the rest. If you want to say "this man believed in rebirth and so I reject the totality of his teachings" that is up to you and I have no quarrel with that. As for good people being subject to bad things - that is an undeniable fact, but it has nothing to do with karma as I understand it - it is a popular trivialisation and misunderstanding. But perhaps, as you imply, you are more knowledgeable than I about Buddhism. Let's see.

@Gareth According to the Buddhist teachings, why do bad things happen to good people or vise versa?

@tsallinia Because the universe is indifferent to us, but that has nothing to do with karma.
Here's one explanation of the commonly misrepresented word:

[ideapod.com]

It may not be complete or satisfying to you - it's just something I grabbed from Google that seems to be broadly in line with my own understanding. As in all things, you have to make up your own mind eventually but it is better to do so from the deepest consideration that you think merits your time.

@tsallinia Thank you for your response. There is no simplification to explain and it's highly unlikely to be explained in these short responses. I hear often, "karma is a bitch". this shows how misunderstood the concept of karma is. That misunderstanding extends to the many, varied aspects and sects of Buddhism.

How do you know that consciousness is energy?

In my perspective consciousness is expanded and strengthened though the Buddhist practice of meditation and scientifically we know meditation can result in positive outcomes in terms of physical and emotional health.

@tsallinia Hmmmmm.