Can somebody help me answer this?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

I think this is a misleading question. This person asserts that Buddhism is a "salvationist religion".

I say that there is no sin in Buddhism. There is doing wrong, and karma, but certainly no original sin or inherent sin in the sense of being shamed and feeling inferior at your core.

Can someone tell me why he thinks I ignore mahayana buddhism? I used to go to a mahayana temple in Houston. I thought Mahayana was about becoming a bodhissatva, and staying behind on earth to help other beings to enlightenment, like Kwan Yin.

Reply # 13 in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12303832


THANX!!!

[ellisonz]

1. I think as an attempt at comparitive religion it is a poor word choice.

In the sense that the poster is using, all faith is "salvationist," in the sense that it is offering a path to attempt to remove yourself from suffering. The poster doesn't have much of a point other than to be a downer. I question the utility of debating such a term in producing any meaningful understanding of what the basic theosophical question ought to be. Posts like this are why I stay out of the religion group; kvetching over militant atheism just isn't karmic for my path.

[YankeyMCC]

2. I saw that and

My finger's twitched with the impulse to post a defense.

I noticed that and stopped. The poster has some idea of what 'salvationist' means. And if I understand his idea it doesn't fit my idea of Buddhism, at least not Zen and several other schools and branches I'm passingly familiar with.

Perhaps there are some Buddhist schools and traditions that would fit the poster's description I'm not sure.

It occured to me that if I tried to 'fix' this person's conception of salvationist Buddhism I would likely provide more disruption to the original point of the thread and I wouldn't really be getting to the root of the original question or the poster's ideas.

[Newest Reality]

3. It comes down to terminology

I am not always in agreement with terms used by some translators, and that's always a problem with translation.

You could say that Buddhists believe in sin if you to use the root definition that sin is to miss the mark or err rather than to offend a god figure or break a dogmatic rule. So, using the word sin would be misleading to some and a better word would be more useful and correct in a modern context. Delusion and ignorance are far more useful and applicable here.

You could easily say that Buddhism involves salvation, and the term is used as part of the Buddha's, (Sakyamuni) last words to his followers. Yet, there is no actual mediator, and rather than salvation from a moralistically defined, dualistic evil, it is purely a salvation from the bondage of ignorance and suffering itself. We are implicitly, all Buddhas.

In my understanding a Buddha is a teacher who provides methods to realize one's own True Nature. The result is not aimed at a religious reward as a goal, like an eternal life in a Heaven plane.

Buddha does not judge and sentence people to any plane of existence as a reward or punishment. Instead it is our actions and the law of cause and effect that are what bring whatever mind states result during life or death, as you may well know.

It is probably a good idea not to argue with people who are using similar words in a different context when they are not aware of the various meanings and relationships involved and how context influences meaning.

[YankeyMCC]

4. Yeah those pesky words

Never quite hit the mark do they

The way the poster phrased it gave me a distinct sense that it was a very dualistic idea. Buddha or something outside ourselves was the arbiter of sin and nosin. And salvation was something to be achieved not the current state we are in if we are able to notice that.

I know my teachers are quick to remind us that if you reach out for enlightenment or say salvation, you'll miss it.

[Newest Reality]

5. Exactly

Each step is the step. When it comes to the words utilized, what applies more than the cultivating of skillful means?

Yes, "leaning into practice" is another phrase that indicates how easy missing the mark is. The conceptual mind and karma are factors that drive the lean into a desired result and have a deep tendency to motivate a dualistic approach to getting something, anything. Appeasing a desire to "attain" enlightenment is the real hindrance. The concept of non-dual can only call attention to that, especially when you are left with the duality of duality/non-duality. And there it is.

Practice and study can yield many valid results concerning antidotes to suffering. Yet, we can discover that the suffering and its antidotes are in the arena of duality, also. They are useful both practically and psychologically.

For me, the levels, quests, politics and personality that revolve around the word "enlightenment" can be like a person running around frantically screaming, "I want a body!"

We can relax into this, as it has come to be, abiding in formless awareness without more or less.

[silverweb]

6. Perfect images!

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]For me, the levels, quests, politics and personality that revolve around the word "enlightenment" can be like a person running around frantically screaming, "I want a body!"

We can relax into this, as it has come to be, abiding in formless awareness without more or less.

I have a very visual imagination, and the images these words evoke to illustrate the concept are simply perfect.

[randr]

7. Many religions offer salvation

and those seeking it or having been raised in a "salvationist religion" are attracted to Buddhism for that purpose.
A subscription to the idea that rightful actions beget rightful results is a loose translation of Karmic principles.

[Odin2005]

8. "Salvation" implies some outside being that redeems you from your sin.

It is a very Extroverted view that is found in Western religions and among folk "Buddhist" beliefs in parts of the east, but the Buddha's actual teachings are very introverted, you don't need some outside entity to "save" you.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

9. This is what I replied: "Revealed truths and dogmatic practices"????

"Revealed truths" implies that A)a man hears a voice and thinks it's god;B) writes it down and declares himself a prophet; C) said writings are considered to be a holy scripture of a religion.
Example of prophet: Mohammed. Example of writings: The Quran.

Buddha did none of those things. He never said he heard stuff from god. He did not say he was holy or a messenger of god. His writings were based on what he taught. His teachings were derived from his enlightenment. He has never been considered a god or worshiped as one. He did not say he was a god. He said "I am awake."

"dogmatic practices"? You baffled me on that one. I see nothing dogmatic in Buddhism. All I see is instructions on what to do to have a good life, like the Eight Fold Path.

"handy set"?? It's difficult reading for me.

Why do you say I do not like Mahayana Buddhism in particular? I used to go to a Mahayana temple.

[white_wolf]

10. I know this is late, but I'd like to point out that the person you were arguing with

seems to have no understanding of either Buddhism or Christianity. He said most Christians do not view Jesus as a god. That is simply false, the Nicene Creed states he was "of one being with the Father" meaning he is God in human form, and the vast vast majority of Christian denominations accept that belief whether they be Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox.