Atheists... Your life is pointless

Thanks for understanding mate... I have explained it before...But I can see and have learned...That it is not necessary for me to have to directly explain it...When I explain I do not believe in a God because of the history of religions...Like many may...

We have talked a long time ago...In another religious thread...Or so I am sure...Because I can see from your profile page...That you are from the "good Korea" And I remember someone saying that too me...And I am not sure how many make this claim....

But long story short...I have decided to add you as a friend...Because I am interested in what your thoughts of Buddhism are or were?...And why you were not a believer of God...And just embraced the philosophy....? Or why you may not follow this philosophy anymore?

If you would like to explain through a PM that is cool too...And if you are not interested that is also cool...

Well, my memory is so short and unreliable these days. If you explained your conversion experience to me, it's lost in this jumble of grey matter somewhere. Some day I need to go down in the basement and do some organizing.

Anyway, since Buddhism is an atheist religion, it's fine to discuss it here, I think. But I was never into the religious aspects of it, even when I was a monk. I see it and treat it as a mental training program. One of the reasons I left the Order was because of all the religiosity among even the monks. There wasn't really that much pressure to participate in the religious beliefs, though. But in the particular place where I was, hero-worship of the Ajahn (head teacher) was more important that actually knowing what the Buddha taught. They discouraged studying the suttas and I'm convinced that both study and practice are necessary if you're going to find out whether or not it works.

Thanks mate...I have not explained it to you personally I believe...But I have explained it on these boards before...Is what I meant...

While I do think I understand Buddhism...enough to understand my views about it...

Buddhism does not say that you face wrath of a diety if you do not do as they say? Correct?

So do you think that you may be looked at as a man who is doing evil from the perspectives of what the others and teacher had to say? Despite finding your own path? Even though, I am sure you may not care what they think if they are not willing to support your own path...And that Buddhism is about self-corrections...Anyways, and not about supporting a teacher? Though I may be speaking out of my arse? Why would you say that some think it is a religion with a God? And why do you think that some think it is a philosophy? That does not have a God? In the process of self-evaluation if you will...And In the process of ridding your mind of anger?, And in the process of rebirths...to find Nirvana? I have an opinion about this...But I would just like to hear how a Buddhist, or former one would explain this...themselves?

In case I do not understand it enough....Why do you say it is an atheist religion?

Are you just saying that some think it is a religion? And some do not?

I'm not sure I comprehend your writing 100%, SM, so please forgive me if I say something that you already know.

Buddhist teachings don't directly address whether or not there is a creator god, and the "gods" (bad translation, really) that are referred to in the suttas don't create anything, nor are they omniscient or omnipotent or even immortal. I think the only reason the Buddha mentioned them was because the people he was speaking to believed in them. I say this because the teachings are very skeptical in other ways about absolute metaphysical claims and questions. But, of course, I have no idea what S. Gautama really believed.

The concept of sin in Buddhism is mostly related to unskilled (akusala) behavior. Behavior that harms yourself or others. There's no wrath of any deity that you face for doing bad things. You face only mundane consequences in your future experience. "What goes around comes around," so to speak. It's more complicated than that, but that's sort of it in a nutshell.

Rebirth is tricky because in order to understand it, you need to know about the concept of anatta, which states that there is no essential, lasting Self to be found (that we can find, or that anyone has found so far, however you prefer to state it) in the human. No soul or other eternal essence to be literally reborn into a new body after this one breaks down. What's reborn is experience of being, and that happens moment-to-moment as well as over one's lifetime. It's perfectly in line with the suttas to say that one is reborn every time one re-perceives oneself as an entity. It's very metaphorical language because there's no regular language that works well with those concepts. And that's because language is built on the assumption that there are lasting entities.

How would you say you explain an experience of being, reborn? Oppossed to no proof of an eternal soul? If you think you can with words...

Thanks for the perspective as well...

I am sorry about my writing...My grammar is not very good mate...

But I think I have a broad comprehension perceptivness...

If I had to try to explain it...I think I can not fully articulate how I view things...Or how I would explain how I can percieve things that I may just be incapable of fully explaining to others...Or it is very difficult for me to do...But I am not sure...

Would you say that "unskilled (akusala) behavior"

Is subject to the 8 Fold path? And only that? Or is there another way that you could understand what unskilled behavior is, outside of the 8 fold path?

In other words, in case you don't understand me....

How would you explain, as a former Buddhist...What unskilled behavior was? Is it just what the 8 fold paths says that it is? Or is there something in the teachings of Buddha, that also allows you to see other unskilled behavior? And if there is, what is it, and what is it called? And how does it allow you to know it when you see it or experience it? And if you can explain this as well...Can you see this unskilled behavior in others as well? Or are you limited in not being able to see this? As Buddhism is about self-corrections, and not other people? Or beings?

Please tell me if you did not understand what I have just said...And I will try to explain it again...

Please tell me if you are not interested in discussing Buddhism as well...If you do not wish to discuss it anymore....

It's interesting to me if it's interesting to you. A couple of disclaimers, though: First of all, just because I spent a year as a monk doesn't mean that I'm an expert. I'm sure some of my understandings are wrong, and I'm trying to root those misunderstandings out all the time. Second, what I say does NOT represent mainstream views held by Buddhists in general. Some of what I say is my own ideas; some of it is from scholars of Buddhism, like Richerd Gombrich, Mark Siderits, Sue Hamilton, etc.

Unskilled behavior is defined in the suttas as any behavior that doesn't lead you toward the goal of release, liberation, seeing things as they really are, or if you prefer, Nibbana/Nirvana. Some things are held as universally unskilled, such as killing, stealing, lying, improper sexual relations (adultery, rape, etc), and a few others. The rules that the monks/nuns follow are only conventions, not moral laws.

So, yes, we can see some unskilled behaviors in others, but not all of them. Sometimes, what can be unskilled for one person can be skilled for another one. Only the individual can know whether or not some behaviors help or hinder that particular individual. Chanting, for example. It can help clear one's mind, or one can be so attached to it that it becomes an unhealthy obsession, preventing him/her from pursuing more productive practices.

It's almost entirely about trial-and-error and self-correction, therefore some of the most important meditation training is mindfulness meditation. Paying attention to what you're doing, what you're thinking, how you're feeling, what your habitual responses are, etc. If you notice a habit to become angry in such-and-such a situation, it's up to you to recognize it and try to break the habit. You can get advice from others, but you still have to do it yourself.

It's very mundane. We already recognize it, in a way. When we do something automatically, by reflex, without thinking about it, we're not acting out of free will, but only out of conditioning. When I "zone out," for example, while driving, I'm not actively perceiving myself as an individual being. The previous moments' perception of myself as an individual has passed away. Metaphorically "died." After something happens to bring my full attention back, and I start perceiving myself as an individual again, I'm "reborn." This idea has been around for centuries, going back to Nagarjuna or maybe Buddhaghosa, I forget which. I don't make it a habit of memorizing names.

Another key concept is that of kamma/karma. Your future experiences depend on it. The Buddha defined kamma as "volition." Not a cosmic law or the woo-based crap that people widely believe about it, but simple volition. You choose to do something one time, and it's easier to choose to do it again later. So, it's important to choose skilled behaviors in order to make it easier to do skilled behavior again later. Same idea applies to breaking bad, unskilled habits. Refraining from doing it once makes it easier to refrain from doing it again later. So the theory goes.

Thanks a lot mate...I really enjoyed the coversations...And I think I have a great perspective as to how you see things from the Buddhist perspective...

I think I also can understand why you would think that study and practice is important...and why it would be important to leave if you did not feel that you were getting the support or encouragement you needed...Though I can't really say as to how I would think they may have been wrong in the way others chose to focus upon the religious aspects or teacher himself...Because we did not take the time to discuss how that part would limit the practice and study itself...And I can not say that I understand their side of the equation as to why they would chose to do this or not...

But I do think it sounds like you understand what you are looking for, and have done what you needed to do...Which is what Buddhism is all about...

I have some things to do right now...But I will talk to you more tomorrow mate...

Have a great day or night

>X<SPADES>X<

Yup!

Would you say FB that there is a connection between the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost and the dharma-kaya, the sambhoga-kaya and the nirmana-kaya?

The three wise men were from the east.

No, I wouldn't say that. It's nonsense, as far as I can tell. No offense if that's your original idea. It's just that there's no connection whatsoever between Buddhism and Christianity, historically speaking. There's at least half a millenia separating them time-wise, and that's not even touching on the spatial, cultural, ideological and teleological differences. Sorry, but I don't see anything there.

I agree; the only "connection" I see is the simple fact that humans are prone to believe in gods.

FBM the trouble with Christianity is that the predicted apocalypse is achievable through a self-fulfilling prophesy. Those who believe strongly enough would have no trouble bringing about the end of the world. Christians are as egger for the apocalypse as the Heaven’s Gate cult members were to ride the comet. The Heaven’s Gate cult is based on passages in the bible.

We may never know whether the Heaven’s Gate away team made it to the comet on time but it gives us an example of the extremes religious cult members will resort to when they truly “believe.”

The closest America has every come to an atheist president was Thomas Jefferson who was a deist he believed in a god of creation that started the ball rolling but who did not interfere after that point.

Are you suggesting that Obama is empirically not an atheist?

Hope this isn't too off-topic, but S. Korea looks like it's about to get a new prez who is both atheist and female.

SpadeMaster you did not have a religious upbringing? You were not exposed to religious thinking of any kind before you were converted? I suspected you converted very close to where you were to begin with. There are more gods in heaven and earth then most people could read up on in two lifetimes, surely you skipped d a few.

It is convenient that you decided on the most popular religion here in the states.

There is or has been a supernatural explanation for anything man cannot understand rationally. Gods simply cover man’s ignorance. As mankind’s knowledge advances gods fall away into abyss of mythology.

Then what is so positive about creating your own religion? God? Or philosophy? Don't you think if you do this you are adding to the list of make believe Gods? And that 2000 years from now or so...Peoples progress will be slowed down even more than it already has been? Because you are contributing to the delusions? And are a part of these problems? And not apart of the solution?

How could you argue that Gods are wrong...And people are evil...And do not recognize reality because of them...?

But then argue that people should manufacture a God or religion?

It is not the beliefs that are the problems, nor the Gods either...It is the people who embrace these religions or Gods...Cause most are extremists in some sort of way...

In what way will your created God and religion keep people in check from being extreme?

Why do you think that man has said that a stigmata has a supernatural explanation? Do you think it is a phychosomatic manifestation? In laymans terms can you explain what that even means? Or could you tell me what your explanation of a stigmata is? If not supernatural or a manifestation? What do you think the best evidence, or true reality correctly explains it as? Compared to ignorance?