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

igm wrote:

I don't know how you've come to some of your conclusions but you haven't asked any questions about Buddhism. If you have any please ask... if not then good evening.

Why would I ask you about Buddhism...when you asked me to question your "beliefs?"

You have read your own thread...right?

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

I don't know how you've come to some of your conclusions but you haven't asked any questions about Buddhism. If you have any please ask... if not then good evening.

Why would I ask you about Buddhism...when you asked me to question your "beliefs?"

You have read your own thread...right?

Yes, here it is... the title I gave needed explaining and here it is i.e. my OP:

Anyone can question anything that the Buddha taught and if I am able to answer I will. It will be my interpretation of those teachings and it may not be the only interpretation, therefore other Buddhists may disagree with my interpretation.

I can't comment however, on why some other Buddhists, sometimes contradict the Buddha's teachings, leading to actions that may appear to be wrong.

URL: http://able2know.org/topic/220485-1

Golf can do that; tennis can do that; poker can do that; knitting can do that; movie going can do that; charity work can do that; education can do that; public service can do that; drugs can do that; killing other people can do that...and you get the picture.

There are several of these threads and they all tend to end up in the same place. Frank thinks all acceptance of anything is faith, which is a blind guess. I guess that is hard to refute, but wonder what can be accepted as fact. I 'believe' the teachings of the Buddha are true because they pass my rational tests. They make 'sense' to me. Simple common sense. To me, this is different than other religions. When I apply common sense to other claims by other religions they fail the test. So to me, there is a difference. Now, certainly one can find similar magical stories in Buddhist teachings, but I think those are simple metaphors, that were used extensively for teaching in that time period. Perhaps the stories in the bible are the same. But that is to say, not the word of God. I accept the teachings of the Buddha as the truth, because I cannot refute them. They have helped me understand my own behavior and motivations and I think have helped me to become aware in a much more basic sense. I do have faith in the Buddha's teachings, his teachings have proved useful to me and following them seem to me to be the right path. Just as I accepted the basic rules of mathematics and logic, because they worked. I don't necessarily expect others to understand this and if they want to wander about without understanding that's their choice.

I don't think it is possible to explain how the teachings can make one more aware without someone being willing to learn to meditate and study for some time. If one doesn't have sufficient desire to do that, that is fine. But you can't get to an understanding without some study. Just as you can't become a mathematician without learning the process. If you don't want to become a Buddhist or a mathematician that is fine, but it doesn't mean either is invalid.

Quote:

Golf can do that; tennis can do that; poker can do that; knitting can do that; movie going can do that; charity work can do that; education can do that; public service can do that; drugs can do that; killing other people can do that...and you get the picture.

You are getting old to leave out sex with a hot and eager partner.

I'll assume it was all a joke...

I also am dedicated to making myself more aware of self and perceived surroundings…and have engaged in several consciousness expanding activities.

I’ve often observed that I consider myself more a Christian than most Christians I encounter. I am beginning to consider myself more a Buddhist than most Buddhists I am encountering.

I also think it is reasonable to share perceived insights with others to hear reactions…and to help assess whether I am tricking myself into accepting “perceived insights” as “insights” without the tremendously involved kind of “doubting” that must accompany these personal introspection activities.

I think I do my sharing with more subtlety than do Christians, JW’s, and Buddhists.

Of course, having only just really considered this concept (what 'sharing' of beliefs entails), I don't really know if I've got it right...it seems so. Does anyone differ?

Your post to IRFRANK sounds good Frank... but I haven't seen any of this 'sharing'... but are any of your comments... comments about you? Or are they comments about what you'd like people who read this post to think about you?

Perhaps you could post some of your replies which show this 'sharing' as I've missed them.. I can only recall questions about the title of this thread which because you hadn't understood the OP you misunderstood.

So, nice words Frank... now let's see at least from now on... more than just those nice words... in my opinion... which could just be used to garner support and make you appear as someone nice and thoughtful whom I don't recognize from your previous posts.

I don't think that you are subtle at all Frank.

Herald wrote:

Can you find a plausible interpretation for the concept of afterlife?

This is the way I see it... but who knows... and those who do can't prove it...

How to be a Buddhist only matters moment to moment. If there is no end to being conscious of reality then letting go of the misunderstandings about reality will be like glimpsing something that cannot be forgotten. If there is no end to being conscious of reality then this glimpse will never be forgotten even when everything else is... after the transition from one life to the next.

From the world of science the non-ending of life is explained in, 'The Many-Worlds Theory' for example:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/science-questions/quantum-suicide3.htm

"This is the same case with quantum suicide. When the man pulls the trigger, there are two possible outcomes: the gun either fires or it doesn't. In this case, the man either lives or he dies. Each time the trigger is pulled, the universe splits to accommodate each possible outcome. When the man dies, the universe is no longer able to split based on the pulling of the trigger. The possible outcome for death is reduced to one: continued death. But with life there are still two chances that remain: The man continues living or the man dies.When the man pulls the trigger and the universe is split in two, however, the version of the man who lived will be unaware that in the other version of the split universe, he has died. Instead he will continue to live and will again have the chance to pull the trigger. And each time he does pull the trigger, the universe will again split, with the version of the man who lives continuing on, and being unaware of all of his deaths in parallel universes. In this sense, he will be able to exist indefinitely. This is called quantum immortality.

So why aren't all of the people who have ever attempted to kill themselves immortal? What's interesting about the Many-Worlds interpretation is that according to the theory, in some parallel universe, they are. This doesn't appear to be the case to us, because the splitting of the universe isn't dependent on our own life or death. We are bystanders or observers in the case of another person's suicide, and as observers we're subject to probability. When the gun finally went off in the universe -- or version -- we inhabit, we were stuck with that result. Even if we pick up the gun and continue shooting the man, the universe will remain in a single state. After all, once a person is dead, the number of possible outcomes for shooting a dead person is reduced to one."

I've just posted this on another thread I thought I'd share it here:

igm wrote:

Herald wrote:

Can you find a plausible interpretation for the concept of afterlife?

This is the way I see it... but who knows... and those who do can't prove it...

How to be a Buddhist only matters moment to moment. If there is no end to being conscious of reality then letting go of the misunderstandings about reality will be like glimpsing something that cannot be forgotten. If there is no end to being conscious of reality then this glimpse will never be forgotten even when everything else is... after the transition from one life to the next.

From the world of science the non-ending of life is explained in, 'The Many-Worlds Theory' for example:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/science-questions/quantum-suicide3.htm

"This is the same case with quantum suicide. When the man pulls the trigger, there are two possible outcomes: the gun either fires or it doesn't. In this case, the man either lives or he dies. Each time the trigger is pulled, the universe splits to accommodate each possible outcome. When the man dies, the universe is no longer able to split based on the pulling of the trigger. The possible outcome for death is reduced to one: continued death. But with life there are still two chances that remain: The man continues living or the man dies.When the man pulls the trigger and the universe is split in two, however, the version of the man who lived will be unaware that in the other version of the split universe, he has died. Instead he will continue to live and will again have the chance to pull the trigger. And each time he does pull the trigger, the universe will again split, with the version of the man who lives continuing on, and being unaware of all of his deaths in parallel universes. In this sense, he will be able to exist indefinitely. This is called quantum immortality.

So why aren't all of the people who have ever attempted to kill themselves immortal? What's interesting about the Many-Worlds interpretation is that according to the theory, in some parallel universe, they are. This doesn't appear to be the case to us, because the splitting of the universe isn't dependent on our own life or death. We are bystanders or observers in the case of another person's suicide, and as observers we're subject to probability. When the gun finally went off in the universe -- or version -- we inhabit, we were stuck with that result. Even if we pick up the gun and continue shooting the man, the universe will remain in a single state. After all, once a person is dead, the number of possible outcomes for shooting a dead person is reduced to one."