Does anyone want to take a guess?
I think Buddhism is for the most part an ENFp or INFj religion.
Buddhism
Does anyone want to take a guess?
I think Buddhism is for the most part an ENFp or INFj religion.
I disagree, I think it's Beta.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
What do you guys think are the essential main differences between Buddhism and Taoism? I have said it before, and I am still convinced that Taoism is INTp or at least INXp. I am not sure about Buddhism.
I guess, all the fuss around it smells of Fe to me.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I have an INTj friend who has explored pretty much all religions and settled in (atheistic interpretation) of Zen-Buddhism. Now he is a very active Zen-Buddhist even considering becoming a monk at some point (at least temporarily). I'm not sure if this means Zen-Buddhism is Alpha or if it is Ti or Fe or what but his approach to life is extremely methodical and scientific and he is an atheist with strong spiritual needs. I'm not sure how Zen-Buddhism differs from "average" Buddhism though.
Really? You guys think it is Beta with emphasis on Fe and Ni ?
Just last friday I listened to a two hour lecture on the fundamentals of Buddhism by the Lead Abbot of a famous Zen Buddhist monastery not too far from where I live now. I can see Fe and Ni in there, but the whole thing came off as Ne and Fi to me. I've also been reading some books some of the monks gave to me and some others at this thing on buddhism. Seems rather interesting.
Re: Buddhism
The types of people who enjoy having imaginary friends?
Re: Buddhism
Note the title of the thread is "Buddhism" not "let us insult Buddhists" ...The types of people who enjoy having imaginary friends?
I do not think that religion is necessarily tied to type, but to functions, which can lead to a variety of different approaches to the dogma or institution of a religion. For example, if we were to say that Religion A were tied to, then it may be that
may in turn also be attracted to Religion A due to the
in the practice of Religion A. This may mean that it may have some level of appeal from Delta quadra (
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I listened to a lecture by a Tibetan lama once high in the mountains of Spain. The dude was ILE and made the religion come off very
I think Buddhism is very much about the deemphasizing of
Take the Four noble truths for instance:
1. Life is suffering; Goes against the
2. Suffering is due to attachment; Limiting the body, weak S
3. Attachment can be overcome; Previous point
4. There is a path for accomplishing this. I think this emphasizes
Well said. Definitely.I think Buddhism is very much about the deemphasizing of
Take the Four noble truths for instance:
1. Life is suffering; Goes against the
2. Suffering is due to attachment; Limiting the body, weak S
3. Attachment can be overcome; Previous point
4. There is a path for accomplishing this. I think this emphasizes
I think Buddhism is very much about the deemphasizing of , and at the same time glorifying
Take the Four noble truths for instance:
1. Life is suffering; Goes against the view/emphasize of enjoyment and maintaining
2. Suffering is due to attachment; Limiting the body, weak S
3. Attachment can be overcome; Previous point
4. There is a path for accomplishing this. I think this emphasizes more than other function
Alright, apparently there is something I need to emphasize here that might shed a little different light on this, and also to further clarify what is written above.
In relations to Knoble truth number one, the reason there is suffering is because we are attached to the temporary and unpermanent. We are simply gooped out globs of the essence of life and creation, an eternal unlimited natural force. This forms something called an Ego, which creates the illusion of individuality. An Ego binds us to the wheel of life, causing greed, hate, anger, and as a result suffering. This leads to Knoble truth number 2. People suffer because they are attached to the things of this world in result of having an ego. Hence, they want some and do not get what they want or want what they can not have. In Knoble truth 3 attachment can be overcome by removing the dillusion of the Ego, which involves greed, lust, anger, etc. In Knowble truth 4 this is done by removing a persons ignorance, which is the actions people do unawarely that cause things like greed, lust, and anger. There are practical steps a person can take to learn to remove the illusion and ignorance. Buddhists do in general have many steps that they can take that allow them to remove this illusion, but there is no standard. Buddhist believe that there is no particular way that a person can reach enlightenment and acknowledge that by following, for example, Judeo-Christian doctrine a person can reach enlightenment. All religions strive for the same goal much as everyone strives for enlightenment.
Now, I think the fact that Buddhist believe that there is no invididual soul, that we are all one of the same essence, that all religions are valid, that all religions strive for the same goal shows that this is not necessarily a
And this statement by Rick:
While Buddhism in itself has genralized concepts, there are many sects of buddhist who do not teach the same thing and have different ways of reaching enlightenment, or so they claim. When Buddhists meet, it is not uncommon for them to ask each other to clarify what each of them means in relations to what they say, because of these differences. Also many of these Buddhist's sects have assimilated native cultures, for example, in Japan there are Buddhists who are Polytheistic. There are even Christian Buddhists and Muslim Buddhists who are practicing Christians and Practicing Muslims. I would think that anI'm inclined to think dominant
Buddhism does not teach that there is any one certain way to reach enlightenment and that follows of other religions, meaning other religions are valid, can reach enlightenment without necessarily hearing about Buddhism, so long as people are willing to detach themselves from Ego, which causes things like, greed, anger, hate, which causes things like "not getting what you want." However, Buddhism does have practical steps to reach enlightenment. I am not sure if practicality is directly related to a function likeA hypothetical
according to: http://socionics.us/works/semantics.shtmlI would think that an Introverted Intution based religion similar to Buddhism would state that there is only one subjective way to enlightenment followed by a certain plan that is unfolding in the Universe. Instead, Buddhists say that you can assimilate Christian or Muslim or Jewish doctrine with Buddhism and it would be a valid way to enlightenment. I am going to have to stick with Extraverted Intution over Introverted Intution simply on this account.
interconnections between things are considered a
buddhism = most other mainstream east asian religions (perhaps not shintoism but i don't know much about it) = very similar in nature and general style of belief =
Despite the fact that 'interconnection' is a one word description of Ni, it does say that on the page; though I am not so sure that any sort of an interconnection is so much the important thing in Buddhism, but the strivation for improvement and the strivation for enlightenment found in all world religions even though they are all different. They are all valid and adaptable ways to reach englightment, which is dependant on subjective circumstances and personal motivations. adaptability of religion IMHO is a much better way to describe this concept in Buddhism than to say that it interconnects with religions, even though it is quite evidently easy to see it either way depending upon how one chooses to look at it.according to: http://socionics.us/works/semantics.shtmlI would think that an Introverted Intution based religion similar to Buddhism would state that there is only one subjective way to enlightenment followed by a certain plan that is unfolding in the Universe. Instead, Buddhists say that you can assimilate Christian or Muslim or Jewish doctrine with Buddhism and it would be a valid way to enlightenment. I am going to have to stick with Extraverted Intution over Introverted Intution simply on this account.
interconnections between things are considered a
I know there are different forms of Buddhism. So when we say Buddhism is a
You know what ... I think it is possible to take either an
All I am going to say is that Buddhism is a non-dualistic religion that says nothing about God nor anything against God and does not really care what other religions you belong to so long as you share some principles with it. That is pretty much it.
but, ifYou know what ... I think it is possible to take either an
Aren't most religions introverted then?I listened to a lecture by a Tibetan lama once high in the mountains of Spain. The dude was ILE and made the religion come off very
Maybe not Judaism?
Yes, with such a vague and broad qualification for religiosity, I am wondering about that as well because I do not think that this conclusion would necessarily be the case nor do I think that religions are mostly tied to
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Confucianism, for example, is a rational type religion.
I think it might be safer to say that religions are mostly intuitive and/or subjective ...
Religions are basically for people who live in fear.
from what little I know of it, Ni
That has to be one of the most least true statements I have ever heard.
= = I agree.That has to be one of the most least true statements I have ever heard.
INTp
sx/sp
How so? What motivates you to believe in a religion? For anyone to believe? They're all based on the fear of God and a fear of the unknown. If people weren't afraid, they wouldn't believe.= = I agree.That has to be one of the most least true statements I have ever heard.
I see ... what one can consider the fear of God is never interpreted as meaning that Christians are scared, but that they respect God. True motivation to have a relationship with God is always based on love and not on account of being afraid. Christians who teach people that they must repent to God or be destroyed are not doing what they are suppose to be doing.
and what motivates you to not believe in a religion ?
Because God, or anything else that religon tries to make people believe in, is something outside the capacity of any human knowledge, yet all religons are created by humans! Ridiculous.and what motivates you to not believe in a religion ?
I see a strongBecause God, or anything else that religon tries to make people believe in, is something outside the capacity of any human knowledge, yet all religons are created by humans! Ridiculous.and what motivates you to not believe in a religion ?
Intuition
"It is in our lives and not our words that our religion must be read."
Thomas Jefferson
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
Because God, or anything else that religon tries to make people believe in, is something outside the capacity of any human knowledge, yet all religons are created by humans! Ridiculous.and what motivates you to not believe in a religion ?
But if you weren't created by God, who did create you ?
And who created the Big Bang ? Did the Big Bang create itself ?
Where are the law of physics' algorithms stocked ? In the universe itself ?
If there was no God before the universe, is the nothingness' existance possible ? No. Nothingness does not contain the capacity to exist by itself
Did the universe create itself ? Nothing can create itself, because that would mean "it already existed before creating itself"
That basically proves that God exist.
And who created the God, etc?
Basically your argument amounts to another variant on the God of the Gaps theme.
Believe if you must, but try not to find any proofs, because there are none.
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
But if God exists, then who created God? And if God exists, then God by the very nature of existence must be finite. Conversely if God is infinite, then God must not exist. That basically proves that God does not exist. See the logical flaws in your argument yet? :wink:
But theoretical physicists are looking into the possibility and probability of the universe more or less creating itself, and according to some it is certainly possible. And is certainly more believable than a mystical creator creating itself or existing without cause.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
God has always been ; He has no beginning, neither He has an end.But if God exists, then who created God?
You know obstinacy in I-T- types...
The Universe has always been; it has no beginning, neither does it have an end. :wink:
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Planck proved that was impossible.The Universe has always been; it has no beginning, neither does it have an end. :wink:
if time and space are seeds, there is a first time-seed, and a last time-seed
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote