I went to middle school, high school, and college here in USA. If I recall correctly, what was taught to me also become a doctrine of my thinking. In fact, most of knowledge that has been taught to me is a form of doctrine. The way I see the world is a doctrine. What I have experienced through practicing Buddhism is what I can call my knowledge, other knowledge has been taught to me. So all are doctrine.

Buddhism does not ask people to follow its teachings blindly, but it asks people to actually practice to experience for themselves. This is the reason why Buddhism is different from other forms of doctrine, and closely similar to science in terms of theory and practice/experimentation. Buddha has informed us rationally to abandon any teachings that are not agreed with our experience through logical reasoning and rational observation. For example, someone says by following this and that, we will arrive at peace. Lets say we understand what that someone said accurately and follow to practice, but we are not experiencing peace or what the person said he/she has experienced. So in this respect, like science Buddhism is a rational doctrine, e.g., in science the term "falsifiable" is employed to describe the change in observation and thus theories.

Lastly, logical reasoning and rational observation of all phenomona should be the focus if we are to discuss anything. Of course, this is harder than it looks because emotional reactions and biases always get in the way.

So What is the Buddhist Doctrine?

What is Doctrine in your own terms?

To live and let live

I like the first sentence a lot. Over the past several years I've become more spiritual due to what I've read as well as putting what I've gained through practice and experimentation. Although I'm not very versed with Buddhism, I think a lot of what I've been applying is very similar to Buddha's teaching kind of like Jesus and Buddha messages are very similar and only different in the wordings. I studied a bit of metaphysics as well and spirituality and science together make a lot of sense for me as if one is incomplete with out the other.



That is also one of my mottos.

Compared to this you will be crushed every time:
Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them (Buddhists and Jews and Christians) until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."

Is the doctrine of endless cycle of rebirths until one reaches the ultimate nirvana (Buddhahood) scientific, rational and logical or just blind faith because it was taught by Gautama the Buddha?

How scientific, rational and logical is the manner in which the Tibetans select their Dalai Lama, and their belief that it is the same soul that is being continuously reborn into the same role?

I am not attacking or belittling your faith, I am just wondering why you make such statement and would genuinely like to understand your thoughts.

That is a theory. If you choose to accept it, then follow and practice (to reach Nirvana) as a way to test it. Just like when you accept a certain theory of science, you will test it to see for yourself. It is the attitude here, e.g.s like versus dislike because of this, we are prone to biases.

So practice first before you can say anything about it. Why because you have to experience it first. And what you experience is different from what I experience.



I personally don't adhere to that belief and it is beyond my understanding. Each situation is different, so you have to recognize which is rational or not.

I have two suggestions:

1) Ask your questions at www.Dharmawheel.net. Of course you will have to be prepared for a debate.
2)Present an argument or elaborate if you want to debate against certain tenets of Buddhism. Here.

If you are able to compose an argument, I will debate you.

First of all, the circle of life has never been a very important ideal in Buddhist teachings. Its fundamentals are the four truths that teach us how to perfect human life. Yeah, its true goal is to rid ourselves off the lives that are full of sufferings. It's very hard to prove it scientifically.

The way people approved it at the time was that they took the part in Buddhist teachings that has to do with their minds. They see how Buddha described the sins of the mind like no other religious teacher(at that time in Great India) and took their faith into it. Buddha did not waste time in trying to prove anything. He taught us useful things that can be easily proven(getting rid of sins inside your own mind, can you prove that? or can't you?)

As for the thread starter, the "Ehipassiko" characteristic of Buddhist teachings is there with plenty reasons. It means "Come, question the teachings any time and do not believe until you've experienced it so." Can any other religion say such? Also, the "Akaliko" characteristic also proves that there is no time limit in the teachings. Any person, in any era or age can experience the true value in getting rid of his/her own sins.

Thumbs up for the thread. Your ideal is correct. Buddhists don't follow some old book or anything. We go by our intellect. Try to experience it and then believe.

And like the wind, it gently passes by. But thanks for your effort.

I like to be reminded by what I vibe well with: "Buddhism does not ask people to follow its teachings blindly, but it asks people to actually practice to experience for themselves. This is the reason why Buddhism is different from other forms of doctrine, and closely similar to science in terms of theory and practice/experimentation..."

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. ~Albert Einstein

Notice the word experience is there...Notice Albert Einstein was a great thinker and perhaps a scientist.

I hope that we are not talking cross purposes here.

I am not disputing that a scientific theory can be or should be practised ie, in a school lab, a simple act of mixing hydrogen and chloride, will yield hydrogen chloride or HCL.

A religious doctrine however is quite different. It first requires faith which involves first total 'acceptance' of it as the truth. Than it is followed by practice if you are an adhrerent and a believer, whether you will get the result as promised is inconsequential. For no one has ever come back and remember what they were in their previous lives (the Buddhist doctrine of endless cycle of rebirths) This doctrine can not yet be proven and yet you believe it to be the truth. Thus faith can be said as blind because proof is not required. It is not the same as a scientific theory, where a proven result can be ascertained by anyone by means of testing and trying the theory out. A scientific theory can only be regarded as valid if it has been proven. Thus it requires proof. Religious doctrine on the otherhand requires no proof, just faith.

So Buddhism is not unlike other religions it also requires 'blind' faith.


I just cite that as an example as one of the Buddhist doctrine. I am not interested in debating Buddhism or to imply that my faith is better and superior than others'


I think elleXO is trying to point out that Islam is very different from Judaism, Christianity and Buddhism. Islam is on the opposite side of the spectrum. The formers espouse love, compassion and peace and most of all tolerance of others, which are foreign concepts in Islam.


Einstein was a very great scientist. He was Jewish and his faith was Judaism, but he was not a theologist though he did believe in the God of the Bible.

Then what is the purpose of trying to rid yourself of all manner of sufferings? And what do you achieve once you manage to eliminate all sufferings from your being? You achieve nirvana, the state of Buddhahood so that you do not have to go through the endless cycle of rebirths. So you are wrong to say that this doctrine of faith is not important in Buddhism. In fact it forms the central and intergral part of Buddha's teaching, in fact all his doctrines are derive from this very concept and they are there for you to follow so that you too can achieved what he had achieved, that is becoming a Buddha yourself!


Of course Buddha's teachings do not require proof. You can either accept it as blind faith or reject it. As for removing sins from your mind, I can teach that to, just avoid dirty unsavoury thoughts... What is sin to you?


Then I suggest that you start reading up on other religions to find out if Buddhism is totally unique in that sense.

Then all the important and sacred Buddhist scriptures should be tossed out and burned ? How do you think Buddhism survives all these centuries without the reliance on its 'old book or anything', by the writing on the walls? You are quite arrogant aren't you, is that what you get out of Buddhism?

By making a statement against rebirth, you are taking the stand of materialistic philosophy, e.g., consciousness or mind is a product of matter. If you cannot prove this, then this is just blind faith also.

What statement 'against' rebirth did I make? Care to show me? I find the rest of your response rather cryptic, care to elaborate further?

1)If you are willing to debate, then do so. Don't beat around the bush.
2)What is cryptic about what I said?
3)Re-read your own response, and you will understand what I am saying.

I am not beating around the bush - your 2nd accusation, but you are by refusing to answer. And neither did I make any statement against rebirth - your first unsubstantiated accusation.

All I said is the Buddhist doctrine of endless cycle of rebirth can not and has not been proven, regardless of whether you experiment or practise it. So to believe in such a doctrine as you obviously do requires blind faith.

I am not interested in debating you, but if you can be civil in your explanation then we could have a civilised discourse. Isn't that what you mean by saying the following?

This conversation will end here until you have something solid to say instead of these distractions you have brought up.

And I appreciate intellectual honesty.

Mmmmmmmmm...... distractions ? I see, so unless you agree and feel comfortable with what's being said, your response is one of rebuke (such arrogance) and end it (such cowardice) Fortunately your behaviour says alot more about you than about Buddhism, which I always think is a rather good philosophy. I will leave it to others to judge whether what I brought up are distractions or it is your failure and inability to respond in a civil manner. Intellectual honesty? You wouldn't even know what that means!

This is your opinion. And this is not a civil opinion from someone who speaks about being civil. Cowardice? You are the one who backed down.

Don't get angry because you cannot refuted what I said.

Looking at the the posts that I made. What you said about me is definitely your opinion which is a reflection of your emotional reaction. You are the one who took the first jab at me. I am a Buddhist, but does not mean I should take $hit from you. Don't speak if you don't know what you are saying. And if you don't know, sincerely ask. Don't be crooked with your words.


In short, don't be a b!tch.

Honestly, you wanted to start $hit. You wanted to make some noise.

Yes civility and cowardice seems to be your trait. In your response post #17 you again accused me (third accusation) by referring to my replies as distractions just because you were unable to refute my points. Then you followed it by another reply in post #19, where you just ended our exchanges. You got angry, I didn't. You backed down, I didn't.

I already refuted your idea of doctrine, faith and science. You NEED to refute me or back down. You got upset and promptly backed down.


Honestly? Crooked more likely! I started nothing, but you evidently did. I didn't have to start s**t because you are full of it

You got emotional and became stroppy in your replies. You were the one who took the 1st jab by accusing me of making a statement against rebirth. Then got upset when you were asked to substantiate, and you came back and accused me for beating around the bush just because you didn't agree with what I said. And now you accused me (4th accusation) for wanting to dish s**t at you. And yet I have accused you of nothing prior to post #19. Who is the btch then? Who throw the 1st s**t?

It seems to me that you are one of those hoity toity Buddhist who shamelessly insists that you have far greater insight and knowledge than anyone else. GentleWind? More like a stinking flatulent !

You are a heb!tch. Get over your emotions. Ok $hitzpoop. What do you is b!tch on this forum. And stop copying what I said, fool...you are one of those heb!tches who resort to bull$hit and insults when they cannot refute what people say.

Like I said, you came to this forum to start $hit with people. fu-king rat. You seems to be a Christian, then you talk about religion as blind faith when Christianity is a religion is based on faith. But by saying religion as a blind faith, you are standing on the ground of science. What's your deal man? Then you are making posts about Islam like you are a Muslim who understands the experience of Muslims or how Muslims see the world. You are definitely here to start $hit. That's why you tried to cover up with your insults and all of these distractions. You did not react very lightly when I said you made a statement against rebirth.

Hey, people, what's that flaming?!?

GentleWind, one of the elements of the Aryaastanga-marga (The Noble Eigthfold Path) is samyag-vac (right speech). Do you think, that using words like "$hit", "$hitzpoop", "b!tch", "fu-king rat" is a good example for a right speech?

Chutzy, Christianity teaches us to be tolerant even with those who are not tolerant with us.


And do not try to engage me in a flaming, coz everybody knows that Balkan people (especially Bulgarians and Serbs) are world Champions in excessive use of swearwords! Just kidding!!!

I am a human being with anger. I am not Buddha. And anger is something you can get it off instantly. We can only try our best, but sometimes it still gets the best of us. Until I have some concentration through meditation, I might have to kick someone's butt of I have to.

Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc have anger until they have overcome it.

In Buddhism, Arahant is the one who has got rid of greed, anger, and ignorance completely. Monks are probably at a higher level than laymen Buddhists.

If you have got rid of your anger, then that's good for you. But I can test you by smacking you to see if you get angry.

The pass people have over Buddhists in discussion is "You are Buddhists and you are supposed to be peaceful. I am not a Buddhist, so I am allowed to walk all over you." Oh hell no. Keep it real man. We all have anger. I have not overcome my anger yet. So don't hold me to that standard. That's Chupoop's perception of how I should be in his eye.

Dear Chutzpah, I will now fully respond your statement above. I did not know that you are Christian or a science guy. The statement you made above could mean you stand for science or Christianity. Now I understand what you are saying. You are trying to prove that Buddhism is like Christianity (your religion) and other religions as blind faith because rebirth is accepted as truth without any proof. On the other hand, scientific theory can be tested for a proven result.

1) Dear Chutzpah, there are certain things in science that are accepted as truths or facts without any proof, e.g, mind or consciousness comes from matter (brain). Another example is evolution. Evolution is NOT a truth or fact but a theory that cannot be observed or tested directly. Evolution is inferred by observation/conclusion of archaeology and such. So by your logic above, science is as blind faith as Buddhism or other religions.

Science is a way of looking at realities through mathematical formulas and such. Take gravity for example. It is simplified and quantified through a mathematical formula F=so on and so forth so that we can assign numbers, measurement, etc to this so called force. In reality, we do not understand or know what force is exactly made of because it is not even physical. However, the effects of gravity can be tested but we cannot experience gravity directly.

2) As said above, science is a way to look at reality through physical means through the senses. Buddhism, on the hand, is a way to look at reality through using the mind to experience realities. So if you decide to to accept the teaching of Buddhism, you will take a life time to practice and if you reach the status of Arahant, you will be able to see your many past lives. So experience is what we use to test the teachings and it is a lengthy process. In the process abandon any teachings that are not agreeable with our experience through logical reasoning and rational observation. Logical reasoning and rational observation in Buddhism is when one does not rely on emotional reactions and emotional biases. In other words, not relying on sensual senses. So in this respect, as said before, Buddhism is similar or parallel to science but in its own way. It is an inquiry of knowledge.

3) There are countless cases of children who claim to remember things that had happened before their conception.
This is the link: http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/...types-page#CORT

Dear Chutzpah, I will now fully respond your statement above. I did not know that you are Christian or a science guy. The statement you made above could mean you stand for science or Christianity. Now I understand what you are saying. You are trying to prove that Buddhism is like Christianity (your religion) and other religions as blind faith because rebirth is accepted as truth without any proof. On the other hand, scientific theory can be tested for a proven result.

1) Dear Chutzpah, there are certain things in science that are accepted as truths or facts without any proof, e.g, mind or consciousness comes from matter (brain). Another example is evolution. Evolution is NOT a truth or fact but a theory that cannot be observed or tested directly. Evolution is inferred by observation/conclusion of archaeology and such. So by your logic above, science is as blind faith as Buddhism or other religions.

Science is a way of looking at realities through mathematical formulas and such. Take gravity for example. It is simplified and quantified through a mathematical formula F=so on and so forth so that we can assign numbers, measurement, etc to this so called force. In reality, we do not understand or know what force is exactly made of because it is not even physical. However, the effects of gravity can be tested but we cannot experience gravity directly.

2) As said above, science is a way to look at reality through physical means through the senses. Buddhism, on the hand, is a way to look at reality through using the mind to experience realities. So if you decide to to accept the teaching of Buddhism, you will take a life time to practice and if you reach the status of Arahant, you will be able to see your many past lives. So experience is what we use to test the teachings and it is a lengthy process. In the process abandon any teachings that are not agreeable with our experience through logical reasoning and rational observation. Logical reasoning and rational observation in Buddhism is when one does not rely on emotional reactions and emotional biases. In other words, not relying on sensual senses. So in this respect, as said before, Buddhism is similar or parallel to science but in its own way. It is an inquiry of knowledge.

3) There are countless cases of children who claim to remember things that had happened before their conception.
This is the link: http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/...types-page#CORT

imagine Buddha and his brethren forming a rock band. Buddhism is like the Jeet Kune Do. it even surpasses that of quantum physics if you look into it. it's balance with maintenance. if only women can agree.

^ If they really did, I'd be their biggest fan.........Go Rock Music!!!!!!!

Hmm, what is the doctrine of Buddhism??
I think I remember some of the things the Buddha taught ...
but doctrines?? You mean as those things which others had interpreted into the faith of Buddhism??

Sorry, I'm not so smart as you, people (everyone here in this topic).
I thought Buddha taught his four noble truths and eightfold path.
There is nothing else needed to find that which you seek.
But, of course, there seems to be those who seek more that what is there
As I have always said, "Seek and you shall find ... even if it doesn't exist"

Just may be you should be cleaning house rather going into the muck and mire of this doctrine you speak about???
Okay, that was my two cents ... guess, it wasn't even worth that ...

You are not as smart as we are, but you are trying to say that you are smart through this post. I think it is implied in what you said.

OK! You are talking about the early Buddhism. I tend to agree, that Catvari Aryasatyani (the Four Noble Truths) are not a doctrinal position but description of psychological facts. But what do you thing about the notions of Buddha-nature and Original (Innate) Enlightenment? Are they a doctrine or description of spiritual experience, or maybe both?

You interpret and build your own world.
I only speak what is in my worthless mind.


If you talk about the grass on the other side of the hill then I can only guess cuz I haven't seen it myself.
And while you talk of those things, should we all take note and create a new faith??
Please lead me cuz I'm blind to what you can see. Help me.

What makes your warm inside your pants my friend.

Quite right sometimes restrain is always better. I was defending myself but could have been kinder, still I have avoided using expletives.


I am glad you eventually understand what I was trying to say. I was hoping to avoid any misunderstanding by first saying:


As you know, any exchanges can deteriorate into misunderstanding due to many reasons. FYI I stand for both Christianity and Science, as one does not oppose the other, at least not inaccordance to the teaching of my faith.


I am not disagreeing with what you said. Although I like to think that what you refer to as certain things in science is in my view is really a natural awareness/knowledge born out of our experience as human. For instance breathing, we know that we must breath, if not we die. Later as human progresses through the centuries and developes further and gain more knowldege, we come to understand the reason why we must breath, it is because we need air to survive. Science explains WHY the need of air to survive. So to me science is something tangible, it can be observed, it can be calculated and tested and its result can be gauged and quantified.

The same for gravity, which Isaac Newton discovered by accident through a fallen apple. We can also experience gravity when we fall, or through a simple action by casting a stone, or through the surge of inertia when seated in an airplane during take off and landing. We can see gravity in action as everything when released above the earth will fall down towards it due to the pull of gravity.


I left the Chruch and went into Buddhism in a serious way for more than 10 years before returning home to the Church. So I do understand a little about Buddhism. From your description, Buddhism is not very different from Christianity in its approach to attain Buddha-hood (or Salvation in Christianity)

If one accepts Christ's teaching, one should live by it, thus experience it, adhere only to His teaching, it will take a life time until the day we return to Him. Reading what you have written, I can assure you that Buddhist way of achieving Nirvana is not very different from Christian way to Salvation. As Christian one never stops learning, it is like taking a long train ride that lasts a life time, and the final stop is death itself.

FYI the Catholic monks excelled in science through the centuries, particularly in astrophysics.


I am aware of these, including NDE etc. It is really a $6mil question isn't it. You must forgive my skepticism because it just doesn't gel with my faith and reality, at least for now. Who knows I may yet experience it myself....


I just like to say this about my posts on Islam. I never belittle Islam or Muslims, pls read all my posts on the subject. However I do discuss about Islam. The truth about the teaching of Islam can be unsavoury to many. Because of this, many have attacked me and elleXO. So please do not judge our posts unless you have read and understood what is being said. elleXO is an expert on Islam. I have studied Islam for a number of years and have been following events done in the name of Islam and its God but I am not an expert like elleXO. I have lived in two Muslim majority countries and have visited many Islamic countries, know many Muslims, some are even friends, some are close families and relatives. So yes, I understand Islam and Muslims better than the average person, even better than the average Muslims.

And quoting Matthew 7:7 [Qui quaerit, invenit] and make it his own, so avisitor must be smarter than all of us put together!

Imagine Buddha, Jesus and Mohammad were to meet. Would they have become enemies? Or would they have become friends?

If you got an answer to that, apply it to the followers of all three.


We shouldn't be fighting.........

A silly scenarion, but to answer your question, why not read up on all three religions and then supply us with your verdict?

BTW no one is fighting, there is no need for it.

O, Venerable Zen Master! Please, forgive the deluded white trash, who dares to talk about Dharma!

Chutzpah, it is truly enlightening when we take the trouble to compare the philosophies of the Abrahamic Faiths with Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. We can learn so much from such a comparison provided we keep an open mind when we compare. As you know, I will criticise any faith and their philosophy if it is detrimental to the welfare of other cultures, and without favour. What irks me is that some people who have only a superficial knowledge of these religions attempt to impose their views on others. It is so tiring and boring because then it is not longer a discussion but it becomes meaningless attacks on one another. That is why I have retreated somewhat. I go to more stimulating sites.

Thanks. I had almost forgotten how to laugh these days.
But, please there is no need to use quotes


Wait-a-minute, where's the Zen Master??
Why can I not see him .. while you do???
Am I on drugs or is it you???

I gotta start getting more sleep.

I cannot debate what you said there. However, there are two points I want to bring up:

1)Buddhism falls along the line of cause and effect which is well understood in quantum mechanics. Karma in Buddhism can only be proven through experience. For example, when have ill thoughts, we will suffer. When we have pleasant thoughts, we will rejoice. The way we think and what we do determine our suffering and happiness. The more we think about ourselves (which we do everyday-selfish thinking), the more suffering will experience. Buddhism teaches us to correct faults in our thinking and in what we do.

Rebirth is the expresison of Karma.

2)According to physics, there is a force that holds atom together. But since the force is not physical, it cannot be measured or directly observed. We assume this force to be the mind. It is more plausible since were are more familiar with mind and matter.

Chutzpah, what exactly is your statement about Islam or Muslims? Through your knowledge, I am sure you can put fowards a statement and back it up with evidence.

settings and conditions of the type of alert you set the alarm quickbooks 2011 download, select the right pane , then click you complete ; speed now to remind you that when these conditions are met .
Jingxian Kai 's homepage how to use the 2007 speed Flac Runtime Error 75 An Updated Repair Tip
how to take a picture of a blurred background
try to spread the gel if you are a cheaper method than the use of diffuse light quickbooks pro 2011, umbrellas and you only need to coat light with this gel office 2010 key, so that the light spread , because it gets passes through the light bulb and some photographers claim that low-cost alternative to Vaseline Shi diffusion gel windows 7 ultimate key, and someone said it will produce negative results .


in Internet Explorer 4.0, you can by (. TXT) format archiving, which can only save the page's HTML code or text on the page in Internet Explorer 5, to achieve the preservation of the full page, click Select this option to the current Web page images, frames and style sheets are all saved, and all current pages to download and save the file with a automatically modify the Web page to connect, easy offline browsing. Finally, click the page is not added to the favorites, first add it to favorites, use the browser to open this page, click ; dialog box, select prompted to favorites page contains other links, is to make the link to the page can also be used offline? selected set the number of layers, for up to three layers, click , select one and click folder quickbooks pro 2011, click Click state, execute the following steps to uninstall Internet Explorer 5 and Internet tools to restore pre-installation configuration:
Outlook Express5 brought in Internet Explorer 5 is the e-mail program office 2010 key, it has a new feature quickbooks 2011 download, very notable is the support of Hotmail accounts that can be used to read e-mail and Hotmail Hotmail inbox and folders management, we all know, Hotmail does not support POP3 and STMP, send and receive Hotmail messages prior to login to its Web page windows 7 ultimate key, or use other software, the operation is not convenient, OE5 added this feature greatly facilitates the user with a Hotmail account, but set the account dialog box may be in English

If i wanna learn more about plain normal Buddhism, where should i start?

Very simple del, don't read anymore about the different schools of buddhism, just go to a buddhist meditation teacher near your house and practise meditation daily, then you will personally observe and experience the teachings of the Buddha. Which meditation school you ask? Well....hmmmm.... for me, I tried Zen meditation and it went nowhere, but Vipassana meditation has been the blueprint that works for me to settle the mind and achieve some stillness and inner equanimity.

I would start with where you stand.
Your opinions and preconceived ideas are those which will influence your understanding.
Drop them and read about Buddha's life .. then learn of his enlightenment
Four noble truths and the eightfold path .. the rest is just grist for the mill
Your path starts here and now ... where you go is back to/from where it all began

If you must ... (like most people who have a curious mind) ... read upon the Sutras
But, don't stop the meditation practice which is at the heart of Buddhism.

Good luck to you ... hope you find a teacher along the way

Sutras are great for meditation, but for beginners these readings will be tough with the restless mind.

Maybe delano, u can download Shinzen Young's audio file "The Science of Enlightenment" from bitsnoop. He's a kick-@$$ dhamma teacher. I highly recommend his dhamma talks. Very clear and secular.

You are right about the Sutras. Its a tough read.
Listening to Mr. Young would be better ... still, one must practice, practice, practice
Meditation is the practice