Assuming he's even real. I'm not saying Buddha from the story is creating some master plan. What I'm saying is, that story/Him is the birth of a doctrine that tells people how to conduct themselves along a spiritual path. That is a religion. It just is. I know you don't want it to be a religion, but it is a religion. It has a book, it has dogma, it has a story with somewhat familiar characters , and it has institution.
It may have become a religion, but did Buddha make that religion? You can make a religion out of practically anything, take the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an example. The book was written after Buddha died, he never told anybody to write, he gave his message and died. If there was a religion of Dr. Martin Luther King, Socrates, or Mahatma Ghandi, it wouldn't be because they wanted it, nor did Buddha, and therefore I don't think it should be treated as such.
Believe it or not, the Dalai Lama Tibetan variety is my favorite version because I genuinely like who he is. He has done so many great things and continues to do them, is genuinely interested in the truth, interested in science, and has even gone so far as to suggest ending the Dalai Lama tradition. I'm more interested in Buddha-present than Buddha-past.
Well it's nice that the Dalai Lama has done some nice things for humanity, but in my opinion the Dalai Lama goes against everything Buddha taught. The Dalai Lama (from my interpretation) posits himself as some great teacher with a divine right of authority over others, kind of like the Pope but for the Bhuddist religion. I think that is completely contradictory to everything he was trying to teach.
I'm referring to the fact he was a prince. If some story about a rich guy who has everything is telling you it's okay to have nothing and suffer, I am naturally suspicious, and it bothers me that millions of his followers are not equally as suspicious. Suffering is not divine. Nietzsche does a better job going through all of the major players that are encouraging divinity through suffering, but going without and depriving oneself is quite a story coming from somebody that has everything.
I've mentioned this several times, but you don't seem to understand it (or are blatantly ignoring it): Buddha gave up his life of royalty to become a poor, common man. He was no longer speaking from a position of power or authority, in fact most people had no idea who he was. He never used his nobility or royal influence to make people do things or make them feel inferior to him. According to Siddhartha, anybody could become a "Buddha"; it was just a title, given to people who had reached enlightenment. Why do you keep referring to him as a Prince with authority when he renounced that position and become like everybody else? Buddha probably suffered more than the average common man of his day, because he knew what it was like to live a life of luxury. He made a huge sacrifice in order to understand the suffering of others.
Maybe we should reword it. Maybe we should say he wanted people to suffer so that they would not be miserable? Purposeful suffering? Suffering to build character? But at the end of the day... it's still suffering.
The fact is, you're going to suffer whether you want to or not. Tragedies happen, friends die, parents die, terrible things happen to us and others that we love. Many of us (including me) have traumatic childhoods that we have to spend our whole lives trying to deal with and repair. People are poor, sick, starving, diseased. There are murders, cuddly hug , crimes of all sorts, and a world that is obsessed with money. As I said before, suffering is an inevitability, for everybody. Buddha wasn't telling people to suffer on purpose, he meant to use the suffering that they already had to better themselves. I actually think it's a very virtuous thing to turn human tragedy into triumph.
It's an inevitability for the majority. For a prince, there's not a lot of suffering. Do you understand why I might be suspicious because the story is coming from one?
As explained above, he gave up his princehood. He was no longer a prince when he was telling the story, he was simply a common man.
I will not be resigned to suffering.
You will experience suffering just like anybody else. If you try to hide from or avoid your suffering, it will simply eat away at you and slowly destroy your life. Suffering is caused by sadness, unmet needs, and trauma. If you ignore these things, you are only hurting yourself more. Buddha's message was to embrace your suffering, so that you can deal with your problems and live a better life; not to ignore and avoid your suffering like most people tend to do.
The fact that he uses those words damns the concept of an afterlife to an affirmative of its existence. Thusly, he posits one.
He posits one, but he doesn't glorify it. He gives very vague answers to encourage people to not worry about it and focus on this life.
Really? Are you sure? That sucks. That's what I don't like about it. Why can't I find truth on the back of a pleasure cruise?
You can find pleasure on the back of a cruise, but you can also find pleasure living in a tin hut. That's what Buddha is trying to say, that happiness does not come from a life of luxury, it comes from a life free of suffering. He means that regardless of how much money you have, or how many cruises you take, you will only find true happiness by dealing with your suffering.
I do appreciate there is no concept of hell, although reincarnation could be somewhat seen as a punishment if you did not reincarnate into a human being. After all, they do have that animalistic thing going on over there (for reincarnation).
Buddha never said you would return as an animal, that is a very Hinduistic concept. http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/reincarnation.htm That link can probably explain the common misconception better than I can.
At the end of the day, I can appreciate spiritual journeys including Buddhism. I was just pointing out a few things that I am concerned about when I see religions like that. By the way, nobody wants their religion to be called a religion.
What do you mean "Nobody wants to their religion to be a religion?" That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I live in the Bible belt of America and I haven't met a single person that is ashamed to admit Christianity is their religion. Nor do most Muslims I've ever known, met, or heard about have a problem with it. I'm simply saying that Buddha did not create a religion the way that Jesus, Muhammad, and many other historical/mythical figures were attemping to: There were no gods, no miracles, no punishments (other than coming back to live another life, which isn't a punishment by most people's standards, in fact most people would want a second chance), he never claimed to have divine right, and he even told people to question everything he said and come to their own conclusions. These are not the typical characteristics of a religion, especially one that is attempting to indoctrinate people or force them to act a certain way. Just because somebody is a great teacher, does not automatically mean they meant for their ideas to become religious. Just because somebody is a spiritual teacher, does not mean they want their ideas to become a religion.
No, I will not associate myself with the Buddhist religion, just like I wouldn't associate myself with Stalin and the terrible things he did as an atheist. I can't control what other people do with their beliefs, but I won't be judged just because I have a similarity with another person or group of people.
On a final note, everything I've written reflects my beliefs and interpretation of the Buddha story. Some people may have a different belief or interpretation (or have heard a different story), which may be more relevant to what you're saying. My interpretation of Buddha is that of a person who was simply using suffering as a tool to improve our lives and make the world a better place. He came up with a revolutionary idea to use an inevitable emotion/situation for all of us, and make it into something constructive. He taught that true happiness can not be achieved until we are free of suffering, or have reached the state of Nirvana (or happiness). These are simple logical concepts, that could probably stand up to Scientific review even today.
