35
   

I am a Buddhist and if anyone wants to question my beliefs then they are welcome to do so...

 
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  0  
Wed 11 Sep, 2013 05:49 pm
Max said- "Interesting Romeo. You are playing the same game that Igm is.
If you get to decide what true Christianity is, and Igm gets to decide what true Buddhism is, then neither can be held accountable for the crazy things that some of the practitioners of either religion do"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game? Not sure I know what you're getting at mate. As i've said before, Buddhism and Christianity are totally different (apart from a few overlaps) because Buddha was just an ordinary human giving his best guesses and hunches, whereas Jesus was not, spot the difference?-
Jesus said - "For I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.....I can can do nothing by myself "(John 12:49/John 5:19)

Anyway if Buddha was all the human race needed for salvation, why did God later send Jesus to say "I am the way"?

Jesus's credentials were pretty good..Wink-
"All things about me in the law of Moses,the Prophets and the Psalms,must be fulfilled....Moses wrote about me" (Luke 24:44/John 5:46)

And even the Koran written some 600 years later dare not deny Jesus was something special:-
"Allah.. exalted some messengers above others and gave miracles to Isa (Jesus) the son of Marium (Mary) and strengthened him with the holy spirit" (Koran 2:253)




0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  2  
Wed 11 Sep, 2013 06:31 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

You claim that I am being hypocritical...but you have not provided one shred of hypocrisy on my part to substantiate that accusation.

PICK A SINGLE QUOTE OF MINE...and tell me how you see it to be hypocritical.

Allow me to defend against that.
vikorr wrote:
Frank, every single time I've said you're being hypocritical, I have directly quoted what you've said. Go back and read them, because posting them again is pointless.

I also posted in a single post - a bulk lot of examples of you claiming you don't know the true nature of reality, criticising others for guessing, stating you don'g guess etc.

I've also explained how that quote breaks your own value (being the same value you demand of others)

Not once did you actually argue against the logic of my post, with any structured reply
You are reading less & less - I already answered you in the post you replied to (and you event quoted it).

Having already directly provided all of this - I see no reason for me to go back and repost it all.

As I said last post - a circular thread, and so pointless.

Quote:
Vikorr...you are one of the most self-serving posters I've ever experienced.

Well, other than taking another guess at the reality of other people...

You do realise this started with me trying to moderate your extremism with IGM and JLN, right? And that it was once you started being hypocritical that I started pointing out your hypocrisies (what you were demanding of IMG/Frank/JLN), right?

I'm curious to see you explain how you can view my responses as self serving.
vikorr
 
  2  
Wed 11 Sep, 2013 06:47 pm
@vikorr,
Quote:
(what you were demanding of IMG/Frank/JLN)
that should read, (what you were demanding of IMG/Frank/JLN but not yourself doing)
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Thu 12 Sep, 2013 02:53 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

You claim that I am being hypocritical...but you have not provided one shred of hypocrisy on my part to substantiate that accusation.

PICK A SINGLE QUOTE OF MINE...and tell me how you see it to be hypocritical.

Allow me to defend against that.
vikorr wrote:
Frank, every single time I've said you're being hypocritical, I have directly quoted what you've said. Go back and read them, because posting them again is pointless.

I also posted in a single post - a bulk lot of examples of you claiming you don't know the true nature of reality, criticising others for guessing, stating you don'g guess etc.

I've also explained how that quote breaks your own value (being the same value you demand of others)

Not once did you actually argue against the logic of my post, with any structured reply
You are reading less & less - I already answered you in the post you replied to (and you event quoted it).

Having already directly provided all of this - I see no reason for me to go back and repost it all.

As I said last post - a circular thread, and so pointless.

Quote:
Vikorr...you are one of the most self-serving posters I've ever experienced.

Well, other than taking another guess at the reality of other people...

You do realise this started with me trying to moderate your extremism with IGM and JLN, right? And that it was once you started being hypocritical that I started pointing out your hypocrisies (what you were demanding of IMG/Frank/JLN), right?

I'm curious to see you explain how you can view my responses as self serving.


I am curious to see you actually show a quote of mine that is hypocritical. I am curious why you have not selected the single quote that most exemplifies your charge that I am a hypocrite.

Work on that.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Thu 12 Sep, 2013 02:54 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Quote:
(what you were demanding of IMG/Frank/JLN)
that should read, (what you were demanding of IMG/Frank/JLN but not yourself doing)


I am demanding nothing of anyone here that I do not demand of myself.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Thu 12 Sep, 2013 02:58 am
There seems to be a desire to ascribe the positive benefits of meditation to Buddhism. I accept that meditation is part of Buddhism, and meditation has been proven to have something going for it.

Meditation is a technique, and it's effects are not down to Buddhist philosophy any more than the positive effects of singing prove that the Methodists got it right.
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  2  
Thu 12 Sep, 2013 07:09 am
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddha/

Core Teachings

The Buddha's basic teachings are usually summarized using the device of the Four Noble Truths:

There is suffering.
There is the origination of suffering.
There is the cessation of suffering.
There is a path to the cessation of suffering.

The first of these claims might seem obvious, even when ‘suffering’ is understood to mean not mere pain but existential suffering, the sort of frustration, alienation and despair that arise out of our experience of transitoriness. But there are said to be different levels of appreciation of this truth, some quite subtle and difficult to attain; the highest of these is said to involve the realization that everything is of the nature of suffering. Perhaps it is sufficient for present purposes to point out that while this is not the implausible claim that all of life's states and events are necessarily experienced as unsatisfactory, still the realization that all (oneself included) is impermanent can undermine a precondition for real enjoyment of the events in a life: that such events are meaningful by virtue of their having a place in an open-ended narrative.

It is with the development and elaboration of (2) that substantive philosophical controversy begins. (2) is the simple claim that there are causes and conditions for the arising of suffering. (3) then makes the obvious point that if the origination of suffering depends on causes, future suffering can be prevented by bringing about the cessation of those causes. (4) specifies a set of techniques that are said to be effective in such cessation. Much then hangs on the correct identification of the causes of suffering. The answer is traditionally spelled out in a list consisting of twelve links in a causal chain that begins with ignorance and ends with suffering (represented by the states of old age, disease and death). Modern scholarship has established that this list is a later compilation. For the texts that claim to convey the Buddha's own teachings give two slightly different formulations of this list, and shorter formulations containing only some of the twelve items are also found in the texts. But it seems safe to say that the Buddha taught an analysis of the origins of suffering roughly along the following lines: given the existence of a fully functioning assemblage of psychophysical elements (the parts that make up a sentient being), ignorance concerning the three characteristics of sentient existence—suffering, impermanence and non-self—will lead, in the course of normal interactions with the environment, to appropriation (the identification of certain elements as ‘I’ and ‘mine’). This leads in turn to the formation of attachments, in the form of desire and aversion, and the strengthening of ignorance concerning the true nature of sentient existence. These ensure future rebirth, and thus future instances of old age, disease and death, in a potentially unending cycle.

The key to escape from this cycle is said to lie in realization of the truth about sentient existence—that it is characterized by suffering, impermanence and non-self. But this realization is not easily achieved, since acts of appropriation have already made desire, aversion and ignorance deeply entrenched habits of mind. Thus the measures specified in (4) include various forms of training designed to replace such habits with others that are more conducive to seeing things as they are. Training in meditation is also prescribed, as a way of enhancing one's observational abilities, especially with respect to one's own psychological states. Insight is cultivated through the use of these newly developed observational powers, as informed by knowledge acquired through the exercise of philosophical rationality. There is a debate in the later tradition as to whether final release can be attained through theoretical insight alone, through meditation alone, or only by using both techniques. Ch'an, for instance, is based on the premise that enlightenment can be attained through meditation alone, whereas Theravāda advocates using both but also holds that analysis alone may be sufficient for some. (This disagreement begins with a dispute over how to interpret D I.77–84.) The third option seems the most plausible, but the first is certainly of some interest given its suggestion that one can attain the ideal state for humans just by doing philosophy.

The Buddha seems to have held (2) to constitute the core of his discovery. He calls his teachings a ‘middle path’ between two extreme views, and it is this claim concerning the causal origins of suffering that he identifies as the key to avoiding those extremes. The extremes are eternalism, the view that persons are eternal, and annihilationism, the view that persons go utterly out of existence (usually understood to mean at death, though a term still shorter than one lifetime is not ruled out). It will be apparent that eternalism requires the existence of the sort of self that the Buddha denies. What is not immediately evident is why the denial of such a self is not tantamount to the claim that the person is annihilated at death (or even sooner, depending on just how impermanent one takes the psychophysical elements to be). The solution to this puzzle lies in the fact that eternalism and annihilationism both share the presupposition that there is an ‘I’ whose existence might either extend beyond death or terminate at death. The idea of the ‘middle path’ is that all of life's continuities can be explained in terms of facts about a causal series of psychophysical elements. There being nothing more than a succession of these impermanent, impersonal events and states, the question of the ultimate fate of this ‘I’, the supposed owner of these elements, simply does not arise.

This reductionist view of sentient beings was later articulated in terms of the distinction between two kinds of truth, conventional and ultimate. Each kind of truth has its own domain of objects, the things that are only conventionally real and the things that are ultimately real respectively. Conventionally real entities are those things that are accepted as real by common sense, but that turn out on further analysis to be wholes compounded out of simpler entities and thus not strictly speaking real at all. The stock example of a conventionally real entity is the chariot, which we take to be real only because it is more convenient, given our interests and cognitive limitations, to have a single name for the parts when assembled in the right way. Since our belief that there are chariots is thus due to our having a certain useful concept, the chariot is said to be a mere conceptual fiction. (This does not, however, mean that all conceptualization is falsification; only concepts that allow of reductive analysis lead to this artificial inflation of our ontology, and thus to a kind of error.) Ultimately real entities are those ultimate parts into which conceptual fictions are analyzable. An ultimately true statement is one that correctly describes how certain ultimately real entities are arranged. A conventionally true statement is one that, given how the ultimately real entities are arranged, would correctly describe certain conceptual fictions if they also existed. The ultimate truth concerning the relevant ultimately real entities helps explain why it should turn out to be useful to accept conventionally true statements (such as ‘King Milinda rode in a chariot’) when the objects described in those statements are mere fictions.

Using this distinction between the two truths, the key insight of the ‘middle path’ may be expressed as follows. The ultimate truth about sentient beings is just that there is a causal series of impermanent, impersonal psychophysical elements. Since these are all impermanent, and lack other properties that would be required of an essence of the person, none of them is a self. But given the right arrangement of such entities in a causal series, it is useful to think of them as making up one thing, a person. It is thus conventionally true that there are persons, things that endure for a lifetime and possibly (if there is rebirth) longer. This is conventionally true because generally speaking there is more overall happiness and less overall pain and suffering when one part of such a series identifies with other parts of the same series. For instance, when the present set of psychophysical elements identifies with future elements, it is less likely to engage in behavior (such as smoking) that results in present pleasure but far greater future pain. The utility of this convention is, however, limited. Past a certain point—namely the point at which we take it too seriously, as more than just a useful fiction—it results in existential suffering. The cessation of suffering is attained by extirpating all sense of an ‘I’ that serves as agent and owner.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 12 Sep, 2013 08:31 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddha/

Core Teachings

The Buddha's basic teachings are usually summarized using the device of the Four Noble Truths:

There is suffering.
There is the origination of suffering.
There is the cessation of suffering.
There is a path to the cessation of suffering.

The first of these claims might seem obvious, even when ‘suffering’ is understood to mean not mere pain but existential suffering, the sort of frustration, alienation and despair that arise out of our experience of transitoriness. But there are said to be different levels of appreciation of this truth, some quite subtle and difficult to attain; the highest of these is said to involve the realization that everything is of the nature of suffering. Perhaps it is sufficient for present purposes to point out that while this is not the implausible claim that all of life's states and events are necessarily experienced as unsatisfactory, still the realization that all (oneself included) is impermanent can undermine a precondition for real enjoyment of the events in a life: that such events are meaningful by virtue of their having a place in an open-ended narrative.

It is with the development and elaboration of (2) that substantive philosophical controversy begins. (2) is the simple claim that there are causes and conditions for the arising of suffering. (3) then makes the obvious point that if the origination of suffering depends on causes, future suffering can be prevented by bringing about the cessation of those causes. (4) specifies a set of techniques that are said to be effective in such cessation. Much then hangs on the correct identification of the causes of suffering. The answer is traditionally spelled out in a list consisting of twelve links in a causal chain that begins with ignorance and ends with suffering (represented by the states of old age, disease and death). Modern scholarship has established that this list is a later compilation. For the texts that claim to convey the Buddha's own teachings give two slightly different formulations of this list, and shorter formulations containing only some of the twelve items are also found in the texts. But it seems safe to say that the Buddha taught an analysis of the origins of suffering roughly along the following lines: given the existence of a fully functioning assemblage of psychophysical elements (the parts that make up a sentient being), ignorance concerning the three characteristics of sentient existence—suffering, impermanence and non-self—will lead, in the course of normal interactions with the environment, to appropriation (the identification of certain elements as ‘I’ and ‘mine’). This leads in turn to the formation of attachments, in the form of desire and aversion, and the strengthening of ignorance concerning the true nature of sentient existence. These ensure future rebirth, and thus future instances of old age, disease and death, in a potentially unending cycle.

The key to escape from this cycle is said to lie in realization of the truth about sentient existence—that it is characterized by suffering, impermanence and non-self. But this realization is not easily achieved, since acts of appropriation have already made desire, aversion and ignorance deeply entrenched habits of mind. Thus the measures specified in (4) include various forms of training designed to replace such habits with others that are more conducive to seeing things as they are. Training in meditation is also prescribed, as a way of enhancing one's observational abilities, especially with respect to one's own psychological states. Insight is cultivated through the use of these newly developed observational powers, as informed by knowledge acquired through the exercise of philosophical rationality. There is a debate in the later tradition as to whether final release can be attained through theoretical insight alone, through meditation alone, or only by using both techniques. Ch'an, for instance, is based on the premise that enlightenment can be attained through meditation alone, whereas Theravāda advocates using both but also holds that analysis alone may be sufficient for some. (This disagreement begins with a dispute over how to interpret D I.77–84.) The third option seems the most plausible, but the first is certainly of some interest given its suggestion that one can attain the ideal state for humans just by doing philosophy.

The Buddha seems to have held (2) to constitute the core of his discovery. He calls his teachings a ‘middle path’ between two extreme views, and it is this claim concerning the causal origins of suffering that he identifies as the key to avoiding those extremes. The extremes are eternalism, the view that persons are eternal, and annihilationism, the view that persons go utterly out of existence (usually understood to mean at death, though a term still shorter than one lifetime is not ruled out). It will be apparent that eternalism requires the existence of the sort of self that the Buddha denies. What is not immediately evident is why the denial of such a self is not tantamount to the claim that the person is annihilated at death (or even sooner, depending on just how impermanent one takes the psychophysical elements to be). The solution to this puzzle lies in the fact that eternalism and annihilationism both share the presupposition that there is an ‘I’ whose existence might either extend beyond death or terminate at death. The idea of the ‘middle path’ is that all of life's continuities can be explained in terms of facts about a causal series of psychophysical elements. There being nothing more than a succession of these impermanent, impersonal events and states, the question of the ultimate fate of this ‘I’, the supposed owner of these elements, simply does not arise.

This reductionist view of sentient beings was later articulated in terms of the distinction between two kinds of truth, conventional and ultimate. Each kind of truth has its own domain of objects, the things that are only conventionally real and the things that are ultimately real respectively. Conventionally real entities are those things that are accepted as real by common sense, but that turn out on further analysis to be wholes compounded out of simpler entities and thus not strictly speaking real at all. The stock example of a conventionally real entity is the chariot, which we take to be real only because it is more convenient, given our interests and cognitive limitations, to have a single name for the parts when assembled in the right way. Since our belief that there are chariots is thus due to our having a certain useful concept, the chariot is said to be a mere conceptual fiction. (This does not, however, mean that all conceptualization is falsification; only concepts that allow of reductive analysis lead to this artificial inflation of our ontology, and thus to a kind of error.) Ultimately real entities are those ultimate parts into which conceptual fictions are analyzable. An ultimately true statement is one that correctly describes how certain ultimately real entities are arranged. A conventionally true statement is one that, given how the ultimately real entities are arranged, would correctly describe certain conceptual fictions if they also existed. The ultimate truth concerning the relevant ultimately real entities helps explain why it should turn out to be useful to accept conventionally true statements (such as ‘King Milinda rode in a chariot’) when the objects described in those statements are mere fictions.

Using this distinction between the two truths, the key insight of the ‘middle path’ may be expressed as follows. The ultimate truth about sentient beings is just that there is a causal series of impermanent, impersonal psychophysical elements. Since these are all impermanent, and lack other properties that would be required of an essence of the person, none of them is a self. But given the right arrangement of such entities in a causal series, it is useful to think of them as making up one thing, a person. It is thus conventionally true that there are persons, things that endure for a lifetime and possibly (if there is rebirth) longer. This is conventionally true because generally speaking there is more overall happiness and less overall pain and suffering when one part of such a series identifies with other parts of the same series. For instance, when the present set of psychophysical elements identifies with future elements, it is less likely to engage in behavior (such as smoking) that results in present pleasure but far greater future pain. The utility of this convention is, however, limited. Past a certain point—namely the point at which we take it too seriously, as more than just a useful fiction—it results in existential suffering. The cessation of suffering is attained by extirpating all sense of an ‘I’ that serves as agent and owner.


There are at least a half dozen things in this summary about which I would simply ask:

Do you know that to be a truth...or are you accepting it the way theists accept "there is a GOD...and the god loves you?"

I am not actually asking the question, but why don't you, igm, actually address that concern.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Thu 12 Sep, 2013 09:24 am
@igm,
Quote:
There is suffering.
There is the origination of suffering.
There is the cessation of suffering.
There is a path to the cessation of suffering.


This is the basic core of the Christian religion too. The details are different, but the core idea... that following a path will end human suffering, is all the same.

neologist
 
  1  
Thu 12 Sep, 2013 09:45 am
@maxdancona,
Right on, max
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  2  
Thu 12 Sep, 2013 03:16 pm
@Frank Apisa,
At last count Frank, I think I've provided5, with explanations. Is your memory that bad? How on earth do you think this conversation started?

Go back to the first, and second, and third, and fourth times I said you were being hypocritical. There's direct quotes of you, and an explanation in each of them.

Again, just because you either can't remember or are too lazy to go back and look, does not mean I should repost them...sort it out for yourself.

And again...a pointless conversation. If you don't go back and find them, and provide a strucured argument against what I said, then I won't be further replying to your nonsense (asking over & over for what's already been provided or answered).

A structured argument will look something like 'this is not hypocricital because x & y....or alt...because where I say X does not break Z as Y is the case, etc. That actually gives an argument and a point of reference, rather than 'nonsense'...which is meaningless.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 12 Sep, 2013 04:27 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

At last count Frank, I think I've provided5, with explanations. Is your memory that bad? How on earth do you think this conversation started?

Go back to the first, and second, and third, and fourth times I said you were being hypocritical. There's direct quotes of you, and an explanation in each of them.

Again, just because you either can't remember or are too lazy to go back and look, does not mean I should repost them...sort it out for yourself.

And again...a pointless conversation. If you don't go back and find them, and provide a strucured argument against what I said, then I won't be further replying to your nonsense (asking over & over for what's already been provided or answered).

A structured argument will look something like 'this is not hypocricital because x & y....or alt...because where I say X does not break Z as Y is the case, etc. That actually gives an argument and a point of reference, rather than 'nonsense'...which is meaningless.



Thank you for coming back again to tell me that you are not coming back, Vikorr, like you told me before that you were not coming back because this conversation, in your opinion, is nonsense.

I will be here for you if you return to once again announce that you will not be coming back...because I do not see the discussion as nonsense...and I intend to pursue it for as long as you are here to tell me that you are no longer here.

If you want to cite ONE example...the most egregious example of what you perceive to be my hypocrisy…with some indication of why you consider it an indication of hypocrisy…

…I will deal with it.

I KNOW that I am not a hypocrite…so I seriously doubt you will be able to furnish anything of substance…and you certain have not done so to date.

In fairness to you, I am willing to suppose you have misunderstood my position in some way…but no matter how you have come to your position regarding me, it is completely off-base.

Either furnish the citation and the explanation FOR ONE EXAMPLE…or don’t. That choice is yours.

Either way, I will continue to post and attempt to contribute…and will attempt to endure your many departures.

k?
vikorr
 
  3  
Thu 12 Sep, 2013 05:27 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Thank you for coming back again to tell me that you are not coming back, Vikorr,
I did not say this...Your grasp on the english language is currently terrible Frank. I think you are doing this on purpose, because you don't normally do this. If you need a clue, it's in the if.

Quote:
like you told me before that you were not coming back because this conversation, in your opinion, is nonsense.
Again...incredibly poor grasp...I was very specific it what was nonsense (asking over and over for what I've already provided)

You appear to have started descending into a great many misreadings. They weren't there before, so it can only be deliberate, and that makes such conversation absurd.

Quote:
If you want to cite ONE example...the most egregious example of what you perceive to be my hypocrisy…with some indication of why you consider it an indication of hypocrisy…

…I will deal with it.
Rolling Eyes see my previous reply.

I've already provided 5.

As you've shown no intention of doing what you say you are going to do (answer the allegation / defend yourself), I have to ask. Are you now going to be a liar, and not do what you say you will do? I've provided the examples...now you have the chance to show your honest intention to do what you are still claiming you will do....or not do it.

Oooh...broken statement on my part. Doh ! I replied without the 'if' being triggered, I guess I can say I lied Laughing Drunk
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 12 Sep, 2013 06:37 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Thank you for coming back again to tell me that you are not coming back, Vikorr,
I did not say this...Your grasp on the english language is currently terrible Frank. I think you are doing this on purpose, because you don't normally do this. If you need a clue, it's in the if.

Quote:
like you told me before that you were not coming back because this conversation, in your opinion, is nonsense.
Again...incredibly poor grasp...I was very specific it what was nonsense (asking over and over for what I've already provided)

You appear to have started descending into a great many misreadings. They weren't there before, so it can only be deliberate, and that makes such conversation absurd.

Quote:
If you want to cite ONE example...the most egregious example of what you perceive to be my hypocrisy…with some indication of why you consider it an indication of hypocrisy…

…I will deal with it.
Rolling Eyes see my previous reply.

I've already provided 5.

As you've shown no intention of doing what you say you are going to do (answer the allegation / defend yourself), I have to ask. Are you now going to be a liar, and not do what you say you will do? I've provided the examples...now you have the chance to show your honest intention to do what you are still claiming you will do....or not do it.

Oooh...broken statement on my part. Doh ! I replied without the 'if' being triggered, I guess I can say I lied Laughing Drunk


Glad to see you back again. Not sure what you are telling me this time.

In any case...chose the one example you think most exemplifies what you deem to be my hypocrisy....tell me why you think it does...and I will reply.

If you want to play games about what you were saying earlier...play it with yourself.

Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Thu 12 Sep, 2013 06:40 pm
@Frank Apisa,
This is what you said earlier:


Quote:
If you don't go back and find them, and provide a strucured argument against what I said, then I won't be further replying to your nonsense (asking over & over for what's already been provided or answered).


Well...apparently I didn't...and yet here you are "further replying."

So...choose one...explain it...and we are off and running. By now...you and I both know you are really not interested in stopping. Wink
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Thu 12 Sep, 2013 06:40 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Can't wait to see what you try to do with the word "know" in that comment!
vikorr
 
  1  
Thu 12 Sep, 2013 08:01 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Drunk Drunk Drunk
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 13 Sep, 2013 03:00 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Drunk Drunk Drunk


Glad to see you are still here and still responding.

This last post of yours makes about as much sense as your previous ones.
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Sat 14 Sep, 2013 08:49 am

Why is it better to understand that the true nature of reality is beyond elaboration, rather than saying, 'I don't know what it is and anyone who says they do I suspect is guessing.'? The reason is that I have (to some extent) realized the true nature of reality is beyond elaboration and therefore experience unconditioned happiness; which is happiness that remains whether in pain or unwell or in the midst of any kind of negative circumstance or misfortune. One still has empathy and loving kindness and compassion so it is not like a drug that prevents one living a normal life. It is a life that helps and interacts with others; the unconditioned happiness is a hidden experience that enhances life and health for those Buddhists who can settle the mind in this unelaborated state and then enter everyday life.

This unconditioned happiness does not depend on circumstances and remains undisturbed at all times but does not distract one from everyday life. Whereas normal mundane happiness depends on a collection of causes and conditions e.g. the pleasure of playing golf... it depends on being healthy enough to play, the weather, having enough money to pay etc… if any of these causes and conditions aren't available then the happiness derived from golf will not appear; even when it does, it doesn’t last and is over and then if one wishes to repeat it, one has to try once more to collect all the causes and conditions necessary, until one day, eventually it will definitely no longer be possible, which can lead to the experience of the suffering arising because of the loss of that pleasure or pleasures. The same is true of any other pleasure or mundane happiness, from the most mundane to the highest worldly bliss. It is not true for unconditioned happiness because it does not depend on causes and conditions it is ever present.

The alternative is to say that the true nature of reality cannot be known or at least up to now no one knows it (probably) and anyone who says otherwise is probably guessing... this offers nothing at all... there is no benefit whatsoever. The same is true for theistic religions, they depend on faith and if doubt arises then any happiness derived from faith is lost... and of course it could all be false because one cannot find, with the senses... God, Jesus, soul, devil, hell, heaven, miracles etc. this is why doubt can arise and replace any happiness found with that doubt. Doubt in Buddhism is removed by texts employing philosophical reasoning and logic but is only used to transcend both; not to create a view of reality but to realize its transcendent unelaborated nature. Eventually this is replaced by unconditioned happiness something that the senses ‘can’ detect, after all we all experience happiness but at the moment most only experience conditioned happiness which is temporary, if it arises at all, but nevertheless we ‘do’ from time to time experience it… unlike the unfound sensory experience of God, the soul etc…

So, given that one can eventually experience unconditioned happiness if one is a Buddhist, as I, to some extent do, and so can testify it works, if one takes my word for it… I realize of course, that there is no reason to do this, except maybe to act as an incentive for one to take a first look at Buddhism. One should choose to be a Buddhist if having such an experience is what one wants... It of course takes time and patience and effort and a confidence to follow the Buddha's teachings at their deepest level... moving eventually from the ordinary level to the level of a Buddhist mystic.


Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Sat 14 Sep, 2013 09:04 am
@igm,
igm wrote:


Why is it better to understand that the true nature of reality is beyond elaboration, rather than saying, 'I don't know what it is and anyone who says they do I suspect is guessing.'?


Because you would be making a guess that "the true nature of reality is beyond elabortion."

You are pretending that you KNOW the true nature of REALITY...but that the problem is that you cannot articulate it.

It seems to me more likely that YOU DO NOT KNOW the true nature of REALITY...and are using the difficulty of elaboration as an excuse for not articulating it.

Quote:
The reason is that I have (to some extent) realized the true nature of reality is beyond elaboration and therefore experience unconditioned happiness...
Quote:


Sure you have. And pigs can fly if you give them enough training.


Quote:
This unconditioned happiness does not depend on circumstances and remains undisturbed at all times but does not distract one from everyday life. Whereas normal mundane happiness depends on a collection of causes and conditions e.g. the pleasure of playing golf... it depends on being healthy enough to play, the weather, having enough money to pay etc… if any of these causes and conditions aren't available then the happiness derived from golf will not appear; even when it does, it doesn’t last and is over and then if one wishes to repeat it, one has to try once more to collect all the causes and conditions necessary, until one day, eventually it will definitely no longer be possible, which can lead to the experience of the suffering arising because of the loss of that pleasure or pleasures. The same is true of any other pleasure or mundane happiness, from the most mundane to the highest worldly bliss. It is not true for unconditioned happiness because it does not depend on causes and conditions it is ever present.


Are you sure you are not a Jehovah's Witness? You sure sound like one.

Quote:
The alternative is to say that the true nature of reality cannot be known or at least up to now no one knows it (probably) and anyone who says otherwise is probably guessing... this offers nothing at all... there is no benefit whatsoever.


You mean...other than offering the truth, of course.

But don't you think there is SOME value in speaking the truth?

And if the "truth" is that one does not know the true nature of REALITY...and is only making guesses...why not simply tell the truth.

What do you Buddhists have against the truth?


'The same is true for theistic religions, they depend on faith and if doubt arises then any happiness derived from faith is lost... and of course it could all be false because one cannot find, with the senses... God, Jesus, soul, devil, hell, heaven, miracles etc. this is why doubt can arise and replace any happiness found with that doubt. Doubt in Buddhism is removed by texts employing philosophical reasoning and logic but is only used to transcend both; not to create a view of reality but to realize its transcendent unelaborated nature. Eventually this is replaced by unconditioned happiness something that the senses ‘can’ detect, after all we all experience happiness but at the moment most only experience conditioned happiness which is temporary, if it arises at all, but nevertheless we ‘do’ from time to time experience it… unlike the unfound sensory experience of God, the soul etc…

So, given that one can eventually experience unconditioned happiness if one is a Buddhist, as I, to some extent do, and so can testify it works, if one takes my word for it… I realize of course, that there is no reason to do this, except maybe to act as an incentive for one to take a first look at Buddhism. One should choose to be a Buddhist if having such an experience is what one wants... It of course takes time and patience and effort and a confidence to follow the Buddha's teachings at their deepest level... moving eventually from the ordinary level to the level of a Buddhist mystic.


Sorry to have to bust your balls, igm. You seem like a decent person. But every indication is that you are doing what the Jehovah's Witnesses do...preaching that your guesses are the truth.

Have a good life. Stop preaching.

Really be happy...rather than saying you are.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/16/2022 at 04:58:09