A comparison of Scientology and Budhism

Though you have some interesting points, I do think that they are inaccurate. I know little about Scientology so I can't comment too much on it. But I can comment a tad on Buddhism

[QUOTE]First, both of these religions focus on one's self, much like Madonna and corrupt businessmen[/QUOTE]
All religions are technically about one's self. Be it obtaining enlightenment or ensuring you don't go to Hell in the next life.

[QUOTE]Neither Buddhism nor Scientology is about peace; rather, they are about pleasing yourself because you're the best. How this doesn't strike those persuaded to believe in either faith as arrogant or misguided is beyond comprehension. Paradoxically, if involved with either faith, you will seem peaceful, but NOT because you are actually a benevolent being. It's because you're so focused on your own ding dong that you don't have time for anything else.[/QUOTE]
The basic premise of Buddhism is obtaining a peaceful state, as with being good enough to not be judged a sinner, so it's not much different than other religions in that sense. But being arrogant, is against the final goal of Buddhists. The ENTIRE point of Buddhism is coming to realization and actually believing that you are no better than any living being, including a roach. Trying to better one's self isn't necessarily 'arrogant', though it certainly can lead to that.

[QUOTE]Second, both of these religions were invented by science fiction writers. The founder of Buddhism was much like Ron L. Hubbard: he thought about things "outside of the box," and liked telling magnificent stories and seeing people fingerbang each other over them. Therein comes the next mistake of both religions: they want people to wonder in awe. In contrast, Christianity and Islam have stories that people should LEARN FROM. Whereas Buddhism and Scientology just want you to sit there with your jaw dropped. Hardly the things to devote your life to, much less enslave your children with.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion. I'm not sure what Buddhist stories you consider to be so magnificent compared to those of the Bible. Additionally, I'd argue that children are more enslaved into Western faiths than they are to Buddhism.

[QUOTE]Finally, and most importantly, my buddies said, "Well, Scientology requires people to pay, and Buddhism doesn't." You know how statistics lie? This is a similar concept. The reason why Buddhists don't pay is because they don't have anything. You notice that the economies of Asia haven't matched the capitalistic splendor of America. But bet your fucking dollar that if they did have the funding, Buddhists would be paying, and paying gladly.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if this came out more racist and dumb than you intended, but it is pretty amazing...

No matter how poor you are, you always have something other people want be it a grain of rice or a shiny penny. And last I checked, most of Japan is pretty well off. Also, the fundamental point of Buddism revolves around being attached to nothing, so they would probably see past the money bit pretty fast.

All that said, you might want to consider rewording your original post, unless you intended it to come off as flame-bait.

Im sure Buddha is a lot more cuddly then Hubbard.

was that towards me or jack?

ouch

Oh man... why?

If every sci-fi writer had a money-making religion scheme... wait, I guess that's not too far from the truth.

And one day, people will stop assuming they know anything about the religious beliefs of people they meet on the internet.

They will also stop using the term "self righteous" when what they really have experienced is "informed and opinionated".

And one day, if the good lord wills it and the creek don't rise, all will be well.

[QUOTE=xec8;1084210]One day, self-righteous atheists will shut the fuck up and start getting on with life.[/QUOTE]

Dammit, I agreed with Phil again. :mad:

[QUOTE=xec8;1084319]No, one day, self-righteous atheists will shut the fuck up and start getting on with life.[/QUOTE]

Well, how can I argue with such a nice, round, circularly logical statement? Especially one with such a solid and factual accusation of atheism derived from in depth investigation.

I guess I agree with Phil too.

Anyway, not an atheist. I did like that "ButterflyNigger" story you wrote, though. I thought it had a good flow.

Oh wah... I believe this, you believe that and nobody cares.

Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics....

...you know the rest. ;)

You trip and fall and skin your knees a lot?

'Cause if that's what you meant, it's also a lot like sex on a train.

[QUOTE=Jack Parsons;1069855]I recently had a discussion about the similarities of the two with some buddies of mine so I thought I would type out some of my conclusions. They were arguing that Buddhism is such a peaceful and superior faith compared to other religions. Well, I would agree with that if Buddhism weren't the Eastern equivalent of Scientology.
It`s realy silly!
Where did you find such a stupid information????
Everything that you wrote is idiomatic expression.Maybe you think so..but it does not mean that is right!?
Probably you`ve sick imagination?!
And your second thesis is REAL science-fiction.Maybe you should read more?!
About human history, Philosophy, Theology...Just Try...You have no idea about Buddhism!
Study the subject first...than -talk...
P.S.
Oh,yeah! Scientology is not a religion at all !!! It`s a sect!
At the many countries - out of law!
From Buddhist with love

[QUOTE=essga11;1084961]It would be a difficult task to try to make an apples to apples comparison of Buddhism and Scientology. There many, many different sects of Buddhism and each proclaims a different Sutra to be the "correct" teaching of the buddha. It's a difficult enough task to compare Buddhism to Buddhism.
Scientology is self-help gone awry at best. It will eventually collapse itself and in a hundred years or so, no one will even remember it.[/QUOTE]
I just do not understand people who don`t wanna find out something new.
We all should be polite...:240:

As someone who has practiced Tibetan Buddhism for 5 or so years, and I am now at Harvard studying Buddhist Ministry, I feel a need to respond to these posts, if for no other reason than a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of the Buddhadharma and of the Buddhist worldview has been propagated in these scant posts. First off, about me...my academic degree is in the scholarship of Religion, and I began studying religion due to my disdain for it, because of the way I have seen it manipulate throngs of people, historically and in my own life. So I am somewhat "qualified" to engage in comparative religious studies and am very open to critical examinations of religion. I will not say that Buddhism is the perfect religion, because Buddhism, like all other religions, has become commodified by the cultural climate of the areas in which it is prevalent. Politics certainly play a part in the application of Buddhism and Buddhist systems throughout the world. A good example is the Tibetan tulku system. A tulku is a reincarnate lama, and strictly defined, is a buddha. But it has become a political system that keeps certain people and families in powerful positions, and far too many tulkus are being recognized nowadays. Even His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said the system needs to be done away with. This does not mean there is anything wrong with Buddhism or the Buddhadharma, but that life has erupted around the Buddhadharma, it is an inescapable fact of reality that such things will happen.

Concerning the money - the difference between dana (generosity, giving) in Buddhism and in Scientology is that the money does not go to the pockets of the religious leaders. People donate money to temples, or they donate food or clothes. The monastic community, in return, performs sacred ceremonies and helps the lay community cultivate good merit, and hopefully move one lifetime closer to Nirvana. The give teachings and perform rituals. The offerings all go to the temples. Sometimes they buy things of extravagance, such as Golden Buddhas, though these are usually commissioned by royalty and given as gifts to the local temples, but more often the money goes into helping educate the monastic community and to build new buildings and maintain old ones. No individual leader keeps any of the money. Have you met any Buddhist monks or priests? They own close to nothing, even the ones who live in the West, outside of traditional Buddhist communities, where capitalism and owning things is much "more important." Money is not important to Buddhist leaders. If you find a Buddhist leader who is saving money for him or herself, and is leading some sort of extravagant lifestyle, well, I would posit that theyre probably not a very good Buddhist.

Addressing your points:

1. True, Buddhism was invented by a member of the upper class. A prince, actually. In India there is an immensely destructive caste system, constructed and maintained by the elite to keep themselves powerful. You have the Brahmans, who are the priests, the Ksatriyas, who are the warriors and Ruling class, the Vaisvas, who are th artisans, and the Sudras, the workers. These are obviously subdivided into many jatis inclduing the shudras, an untouchable caste. Prince Gautama Sakya was a Brahman. And he became enlightened, became a buddha, and he openly defied the caste system. He pissed off ALL of the priests and royalty, because he allowed anyone to join his order and become ordained, irrelevent of your caste. He abolished the caste system, and is considered a trailblazer for doing it. He also allowed women to join his order, which was also unheard within the Hindu society. (The Jains were another sramana (ascetic/wanderer) movement that sprung up about the same time and they also accepted women). Far from keeping people under control, the Buddha liberated people from the classist paradigm of ancient India.

2. There is no priestly class, first off. And no texts were transcribed until about 0 CE (the Buddha died around 500 BCE). It was, much like other Indian traditions, and oral tradition and an oral lineage. The teachings were made available to everyone, and they were all spoken and recited. When they were codified you are correct in saying that the average lay person would not have read nor understand the same body of texts that the monastic community would. But they would know all of the core teachings, and would not blindly follow random teachers. they were very discerning and subjective, and still are. It is inarguable that the life of a layperson is different than that of a monastic, even though the Buddhism that has taken root in America and the West is in large part a monastic model that is being taught to lay people, but this difference, between cultural lay and monastic communities, does not signify a hierarchy. The monastic community was dependent on the lay community for many, many things. The original sangha, the early monks and nuns, were allowed to own 2 sets of robes and a begging bowl, that is it, and they lived off of the supporting laity, who would offer them food because it was a means of earning good merit in this life, and because they would receive teachings. In return the lay community is dependent on the monastic community for many things, from rituals to blessings to teachings.

3. The idea that you have to give up everything is a huge misunderstanding. Lay people do not give up everything! True, a monastic life involves recognizing that all of these things we own are tethering us to samsara, to the cycle of suffering, of birth and rebirth. But the lay community is a lot larger than the monastic community, my friend. The idea of enlightenment in this life is not what drives people on, it is not the motivation of the avergae laity. But rather, the teachings are such that allow you to see the relationship between what you own and your suffering. What you own and what owns you.

The whole point of Buddhism is that you stop paying attention to magical lands and start paying attention to what is going on next to you. Buddhism offers the idea that we are stuck in this cycle of suffering, but that is only because our minds have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Reality, of existence. mind training techniques can offer us insight into the truth, into understanding existence. And these are techniques and logic that you are encouraged to try, not to believe blindly. They are teachings available to anyone. Go to a Buddhist meditation class, a simple zazen or shamatha or vipassana meditation class, all of which focus on mindfulness training and use the breath as the locus of meditation. Learn one of those and practice it every day for a month. See how your life has changed. See how your outlook has changed, your relationships. Buddhism is giving you the space to see things for yourself, and to understand life as it is. It is not forcing anything on anyone. Many people in the west have what Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche called a spiritual materialism. They cling to spirituality as another object to own. The introduction of eastern ideas and philosophy has made it even more so, and in our super-market mentality, people take bits and pieces of what traditions they like and create their own. Buddhism came into existence to defy Hinduism. You cannot be Buddhist and a Hindu, it is impossible. Just as you cannot be Buddhist and Christian, or Buddhist and Jewish or Muslim. (There are groups that call themsleves JewBus, or Jewish Buddhists, but I would posit they arent *really* Buddhists). An essential part of Buddhism is the lack of a belief in a creator God. Buddhism is an atheistic / non-theistic worldview. The Buddha calls the belief in a creator to be one of the misunderstandings of the Brahmans, it is a stumbling block to reality. As long as you believe in this omnipotent, omniscient creator deity you are grasping still at immortality and eternity, you are not accepting the truth of impermanence (anityam) or emptiness (Shunyata). You are still grasping and attached, still suffering from tanha, desire or thirst. It is an impediment on the path to Enlightenment. But the beautiful things about Buddhism is that it offers NUMEROUS mind-training techniques, as well as heart training techniques, that are meant to help cultivate mindfulness, loving kindness, compassion, wisdom, insight and other fruitful qualities. You do not need to be Buddhist to do these practices or cultivate these properties. Most Buddhist meditation is open for adoption by any faith tradition. So you can be a devote Catholic who practices Buddhism, thats totally cool. I would not consider you a Buddhist, but who cares? Thats just another label, with its own baggage. What matters is how you act in this life, if it is of your own accord and free will, if it is rational and open minded, and if all of your actions are informed by love, generosity and compassion.

Regarding the original post:

Buddhism certainly does not focus on one’s self.  One of the main principles of Buddhism is to recognize that no such thing as the self exists, there is no permanent soul and no permanent “me.”  Everything, all sentient beings, are interdependent.  One analogy is called Indra’s net.  Picture a net that extends infinitely in all directions, throughout all space and time.  At every junction on that net there is a jewel.  In every jewel, every single other jewel is reflected.  Similarly, in every sentient being, every other sentient being is reflected.  There is not a single action I can take, be it physical, vocal or mental action, that does not affect every other sentient being.  Additionally, the Mahayana Buddhist ideal is that of the Bodhisattava.  The Bodhisattva is an enlightened being who has the capacity to attain nirvana but refuses, and stays to help all other sentient beings achieve enlightenment.  I do not know the numbers, population wise, of Mahayana Buddhists as opposed to Thearvadin Buddhists, so I cannot with authority say that a certain percentage of Buddhist believe this, but I would posit that for at least  half of Buddhists hold up the Boddhisattva ideal as their own, to help end the suffering of all sentient beings, to help all beings escape the ocean of samsara. 

Yes, Siddhartha Gautama thought outside of the box.  He disrupted the entire hierarchy and misogyny of Brahmanism and ancient Indian culture.  His teachings are not around so as people can wonder in awe.  They exist so people can put them into action, can live them.  Sure, there are fantastical stories, of great feats he and other great yogis accomplished.  But hagiography is part of any religion.  You have no clue what the Buddha thought or did, because you have a very small minded understanding of Buddhism, and because that understanding, if based on anything other than popular culture, is based on texts written at least 500 years after the Buddhas death by monks who without had their own agendas.  That’s life, and that’s why some scripture are discordant with others and that’s why it is a living tradition.  Keep in mind that the amount of Buddhist scripture available in the Mahayana cannon number the thousands and would fill thousands upon thousands of pages of text.  A very large percentage are not even translated into any Western language.  So your entire basis for understanding Buddhism is misguided and shortsighted, and more unfortunate than anything else.

And as to your last comment about the economic capacities of Buddhist countries, well, I have no need or desire to speak to that.  I think my discussion of money and dana above covers it, for the most part.

You are free to disagree with Buddhism or the Buddhadharma as  much as you want, it doesnt bother me and it most likely doesnt bother any other Buddhist either.  But make sure you know what you are disagreeing with, and you are not making blanket, ignorant statements that are blatant untruths.

And I will be one of the first to say that Scientology is a scam, and it is a frightening cultlike one at that.  If any of you watched the Scientology 2007 OT, you would see the genius that is Scientology and its money making machine.  Basically, they said that every text you have ever read about Scientology, written by L Ron Hubbard, was in fact spoken by him into a tape recorder and transcribed by someone else, and that all of the transcriptions had errors and omissions, and they have painstakingly gone through and fixed everything, and included new glossaries in every book that explain the words as defined in that book since they are defined differently in different books, and it si now imcumbent upon the good Scientologist to literally re-buy every Scientology book over again and re-read them and re-learn them.  Usually people make you pay money for *new* things.  SOmehow the Scientologists can get their believers to pay for things they already own, and to keep buying the same things over and over again.  Amazing.