First buddhist in UFC...opponent misses weight badly. Interesting.

AimedWithV

Double Yellow Card
@Silver
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Messages
12,413
Reaction score
2,611
Why do you find this interesting? I mean I do too but just wondering. I think theres a few fighters who follow buddhism or similar in the UFC. First comes to mind is that whatshisname from Ultimate fighters, Brooks, who went to india to teach yoga. Hardys philosophy is also very eastern with many Buddhist teachings.
IMO though the thing with "being" buddhist is such an incredibly wide spectrum in the west of what someone considers being buddhist or where they are with their dedication that the term is used way too easily.
 
IMO though the thing with "being" buddhist is such an incredibly wide spectrum in the west of what someone considers being buddhist or where they are with their dedication that the term is used way too easily.

/thread
 
I think theres a few fighters who follow buddhism or similar in the UFC. First comes to mind is that whatshisname from Ultimate fighters, Brooks, who went to india to teach yoga. Hardys philosophy is also very eastern with many Buddhist teachings.
IMO though the thing with "being" buddhist is such an incredibly wide spectrum in the west of what someone considers being buddhist or where they are with their dedication that the term is used way too easily.

Probably every Chinese fighter (and there's been a good few) in the UFC has most likely been Buddhist.
 
Why do you find this interesting? I mean I do too but just wondering. I think theres a few fighters who follow buddhism or similar in the UFC. First comes to mind is that whatshisname from Ultimate fighters, Brooks, who went to india to teach yoga. Hardys philosophy is also very eastern with many Buddhist teachings.
IMO though the thing with "being" buddhist is such an incredibly wide spectrum in the west of what someone considers being buddhist or where they are with their dedication that the term is used way too easily.

Didn't know about Brookins.

And Ewell does seem like a guy that did his research...don't think he calls himself a buddhist without fully knowing
 
Don't think he calls himself a buddhist without fully knowing

Yeah, except it says nothing about him or his beliefs. There are so many different kinds of Buddhism or collectives that name themselves buddhistic.
To say "I'm a Buddhist" is like saying "I follow an abrahamic religion."
 
Last edited:
I thought most of them are atheists....

What a Buddhist believes depends a lot on the country he lives in and the sect he follows. Buddhism is very different depending on the country it developed in and even within a single country there can be numerous sects.

Wikipedia:
The Schools of Buddhism are the various institutional and doctrinal divisions of Buddhism that have existed from ancient times up to the present. The classification and nature of various doctrinal, philosophical or cultural facets of the schools of Buddhism is vague and has been interpreted in many different ways, often due to the sheer number (perhaps thousands) of different sects, subsects, movements, etc. that have made up or currently make up the whole of Buddhist traditions. The sectarian and conceptual divisions of Buddhist thought are part of the modern framework of Buddhist studies, as well as comparative religion in Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism
 
A Zen master visiting New York City goes up to a hot dog vendor and says, "Make me one with everything."
The hot dog vendor fixes a hot dog and hands it to the Zen master, who pays with a $20 bill.
The vendor puts the bill in the cash box and closes it. "Excuse me, but where’s my change?" asks the Zen master.
The vendor responds, "Change must come from within."

Alan Watts bless.
l@nd0
 
"asalamalaikumalala"

i wish i knew what the buddist equivalent was
 
as long as they don't say "i'm spiritual, not religious" (taken from a daniel tosh stand up bit)
 
I think he’s a fake Buddhist. He’s not bald and in the Chinese mountains
 
04247b5ee313c8323ae4df3da9e98d64.gif

jet-li-shaolin-monk.jpg

cd4536661412984db101e928189b1a74.jpg
 
Buddhism has a "wide spectrum" because it's not an authoritarian religion. Whereas Christianity is about avoiding sin, Buddhism is about avoiding suffering. Ultimately Buddhism is about being a good person. It doesn't have a concept of good and evil, which are theistic concepts, but enlightenment and ignorance. People do bad because of ignorance. Buddhism, thus, is simply about enlightenment.

Buddhism is generally described as an atheistic religion, just like 5 of the 6 schools of Hinduism. Buddhism doesn't care about your beliefs. You don't have to be a Buddhist in order to become a Buddha.

Buddhism is only vague if you need need to be told what to do. That's what the Buddhist texts are for. A guide. If you don't need them in order to be a good person, all the more power to you.

Actually, the texts may not say. The moral system of Christianity is duty ethics. God commands and it's your duty to comply. The moral system of Buddhism aligns with virtue ethics. Which simply can be described as being good for goodness sake. It aligns with Aristotle's virtues life. I'm not a scholar, but this seem to reflect virtually all pre-Abrahamic or pre-Christian religions/philosophies. Buddhism is a very typical religion. It's Christianity and the Abrahamic religions that are atypical.

With that said, things generally follow. The Catholic Church opposes contraceptives because it follows. Lust is one of the 7 deadly sins. Sex for any reason other than procreation is lust. Contraceptives are a means to sin. Masturbation is denounced for the same reason. I'm not arguing right or wrong here. This only illustrates why the Catholic Church hold this position. By the same token, it's easy to understand how vegetarianism follows from avoiding suffering. We can also understand how contraceptives can reduce suffering.

It goes without saying that the followers of a religion may not necessarily follow the teachings of the religion.
 
Buddhism has a "wide spectrum" because it's not an authoritarian religion. Whereas Christianity is about avoiding sin, Buddhism is about avoiding suffering. Ultimately Buddhism is about being a good person. It doesn't have a concept of good and evil, which are theistic concepts, but enlightenment and ignorance. People do bad because of ignorance. Buddhism, thus, is simply about enlightenment.

Buddhism is generally described as an atheistic religion, just like 5 of the 6 schools of Hinduism. Buddhism doesn't care about your beliefs. You don't have to be a Buddhist in order to become a Buddha.

Buddhism is only vague if you need need to be told what to do. That's what the Buddhist texts are for. A guide. If you don't need them in order to be a good person, all the more power to you.

Actually, the texts may not say. The moral system of Christianity is duty ethics. God commands and it's your duty to comply. The moral system of Buddhism aligns with virtue ethics. Which simply can be described as being good for goodness sake. It aligns with Aristotle's virtues life. I'm not a scholar, but this seem to reflect virtually all pre-Abrahamic or pre-Christian religions/philosophies. Buddhism is a very typical religion. It's Christianity and the Abrahamic religions that are atypical.

With that said, things generally follow. The Catholic Church opposes contraceptives because it follows. Lust is one of the 7 deadly sins. Sex for any reason other than procreation is lust. Contraceptives are a means to sin. Masturbation is denounced for the same reason. I'm not arguing right or wrong here. This only illustrates why the Catholic Church hold this position. By the same token, it's easy to understand how vegetarianism follows from avoiding suffering. We can also understand how contraceptives can reduce suffering.

It goes without saying that the followers of a religion may not necessarily follow the teachings of the religion.
atheistic religion? don't they believe in rebirth?
 
Back
Top