Purpose of human life

Right, but then who would care? If that's the end goal of this religion then it only emphasizes the BS factor for me.

Which religion?
Buddhism?
All of it is bs, apart from whatever personal value it has to anyone. But the esoteric realizations of buddhism cannot be expressed with words, so any attempt would indeed qualify as bs.

We all suffer you, me, everyone... when we're happy it's tempory, it doesn't last so it is called the suffering of change. We either suffer directly or we will suffer from the loss of what makes us happy. That is the nature of our predicament which we can if we wish liberate ourselves and others from by follow the teachings of the Buddha.

Buddha put an end to suffering and explained how we can all do the same. That is the compassion and loving kindness that is on offer. The wish that all beings have happiness and the causes of happiness and the wish that all be freed from suffering and the causes of suffering. The teachings of the Buddha explain how to accomplish this and everyone is equal because we all have the ability - if we wish - to put an end to suffering. Not each particular type but the root cause of each particular type.

Buddha didn't put an end to suffering. My shoulder aches and America is still a two-party democracy.

He put an end to his suffering not others. He explained how to put and end to suffering, so others can do the same in the future if they follow the teachings correctly.

The pain in your shoulder is not suffering it's a signal that if you can fix the reason your shoulder aches you should do so. As for the other...lol!

Ah.

Seems like a pistol round to the temple would save everyone a ton of wasted time 'contemplating'.

I added to my last post.

As for suicide... you just wake up in the next life with a tendency to want to kill yourself (that's how habits go from one life to the next i.e. one aspect of karma) but you can't remember why. But whatever made you do it will still be unresolved so yet another life of potential misery.

Igm, is, as he says, a traditional buddhist. He follows traditions and believes in things like karma, reincarnation, etc. I do not. Maybe I should but I don't. I practice certain "disciplines" of (Soto) Zen and Vipassana buddhism. I've done so since 1961 (but most consistently since 1978). I've learned nothing, nothing that I can throw up to Questioner, Setanta, and others--everything must be gained from oneself, not from others, certainly not from me. As I see them, they are not disposed to this kind of practice. I don't blame them. There are other ways to live one's life. And I know many people who gave up zen meditation after years of effort. It is difficult and requires strong motivation, primarily the desire to transcend a lonely feeling of alienation, a perception of being a self surrounded by all that is not self. When a person's ego-self finds gratification through love, success, fame, etc. they have no desire to understand its true nature; indeed they embrace its "alienation" or aloneness as they see it. But after a while there sometimes arises a hungering or craving for a kind of liberation from this isolation, not just because one's ego is deprived of gratification but mainly because one suspects his ego is not quite real, that it is nothing but a sensation, a presupposition. I realized very clearly in my practice--but not until around its second decade) that I am much more than a mere subject of experiences; it is clear to me that I AM my experiences--and now that I see that I can't imagine why I did not always see it that way, a unity of subject and object. Some people describe this as awareness of one's unity with all things (I hope my perception will be that strong some day). I have gained over the years a much smaller fear of death. But while that is wonderful it is the person's ability to identify with all "objects" of experience that is most fulfilling.
Such a person has no need for buddhist doctrine (although the Buddha's four noble truths and the Heart Sutra continue to be helpful). It's mainly the practice of meditation that matters. I know catholic and jewish believers who meditate and sense that there is a spiritual aspect to their personal existence beyond that revealed in their belief systems--they may even incorporate their practice into their religious life (as did the protestant Master Eckhart or the Catholic father Thomas Merton). As I said before, meditation is more like nutrition and exercise than it is a belief system adopted in order to gain some kind of reward in an afterlife. In my understanding there is only one life, but since I am ultimately one with the World, when "I" die I will continue because the World continues. And if I am wrong, no matter.
If you want to understand about buddhism let Igm help you. If you want liberation from alientation look to yourself--be a lantern unto yourself (as the Buddha said).

JLN, I think religious belief also needs to be modified according to own needs and satisfaction. Nobody follows any religious belief 100%, even those who preach it and practice it.

That sounds right.

Your words don't do you justice. And I realize now that they never have.

On page one of this thread . . .





Then, on this page . . .



Finally, on this page . . .



So finally, we get some honesty from you. This is an essentially selfish doctrine. Buddhism does not "work" by eliminating the "root cause" of suffering for anyone but the practioner who has the leisure to pursue it and the resources to survive while they pursue it. You completely dodged the burden of my questions, which is what has Buddhism done in two thousand years to end suffering, for the entire human race, not just a pack of selfish parasites in a Tibetan monastery, or a smug and relatively affluent westerner in the industrialized world.

You completely ignore that Buddhism won't remove the cause of suffering for someone with a debilitating and eventually fatal disease. Buddhism won't end suffering for those who are starving. Buddhism won't end suffering for women and children who are the target of beatings by the husband and father. Buddhism won't end suffering for those who are oppressed by their governments or an invader, and can't get justice. Buddhism doesn't end wars, it doesn't end pollution, it doesn't put food on the table.

Yours is a selfish view, and it is in that regard, far more despicable than many of the other major religious superstitions which at least call upon the members of their confessions to be charitable and to do go works. Buddhism is not just a parcel of superstitious mumbo-jumbo as are those other religious confessions, it is an "I've got mine, screw you" version.

Buddhism is a disgusting dodge to justify a selfish withdrawal from the real world--it has absolutely nothing to do with discovering the nature of reality.

I'm not making myself clear to you so I'll try to explain: Does the driving instructor pass the test for you? No. Does the Buddha liberate you from your suffering? No. The person who wants to pass their driving test passes it after listening and putting in to action the instructions given. The Buddhist does the same with the Buddha's teachings. There is no god to do it for us. We have to do it ourselves. When given the correct instructions, we then carry them out correctly; having understood how the generic instructions apply to us personally because of our unique misunderstanding of the true nature or reality.

All people are selfish until they realize it harms them more than it benefits them. They are not going to progress on the Buddhist path if they are not gradually removing selfishness. If they are free from selfishness then they are a Buddha. Most Buddhist's are selfish to some degree, like everyone else, no more no less, but they are trying each day to be less selfish. When they give up trying to be less selfish they are no longer Buddhist. They, as with anyone, would become less humane. Read any words by the Dalia Lama about the Buddhist path... can you find something selfish in his words?

For example: http://www.dalailama.com/messages/compassion

What is the reality?

The Dali Lama is just a Buddhist pope. They are both religious celebrities followed by millions of people. The Dali Lama is no more selfish than the pope is.

Web link changed in my post above.

Did you read the link?

You're not making yourself clear because you're not thinking clearly. I'm not suggesting that the Buddha can end any individual's suffering--in fact, i'm saying that the evidence is that Buddhism and Buddhists cannot be relied upon to end anyone's suffering. Weren't you paying attention?

Don't give me any Dalai Lama links, i despise that authoritarian son of a bitch. The best thing that ever happened to the Tibetans was the Chinese invasion, which ended centuries of brutal exploitation of the Tibetan people by Buddhist monasteries which stole the peoples' substance to feed the useless mouths of tens of thousands of monks. Oh, i know the Tibetans hate the Han and want them gone. But that is not evidence that they'd be better off if the Dalai Lama and his toadies came back to set up the theocratic feudalism once more.

No less selfish, either . . .

Have you read the link in my post to you? Can you quote a selfish part? It would help your case if you could.