|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Where do the buddhists go? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
As for Buddhism, yes, there is a heaven and, yes, there is a hell. Can you steer us to a link or some source regarding this? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Thanks for looking these up, Arach. Our dispute seems to be more about what hell is or isn't. Perhaps that would require a new thread. I don't have time to get up an opener on one now, but maybe after I get my some bookwork caught up and taxes done. I do all that for my business myself rather than hire it out.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Existing energy. Energy doesn't go to nirvana; souls go to nirvana. For that matter, energy doesn't go to your eternal heaven, either. I still don't see what "energy" has to do with either place and your response doesn't really make it any clearer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Buddist believe in reincarnation. They believe that your karma dictates whether you return into the wheel of life to correct or undo the bad karma you made in this life. You can not choose what form you will be reborn as. The ultimate goal is to not be reborn, to escape the wheel of life. So the question: Where do buddist go? does not apply. In order to go somewhere on must have a place in which to go. To achieve enlightenment, to cease all suffering and to not exist is the ultimate goal as far as I understand it. I am not of that religion but have read some books about it. Buddism is more of a way of life than a religion, it does not offer any answers but rather poses questions. It is one of the most honest religions I have ever come across in that it makes no attempt in stating it is the one and only truth. All it states is that everything is in flux, everything changes, and everything is just as it should be. The natural condition of being is suffering, In order to stop suffering one must cease disire. To cease to exist is Nirvana. **or I could be wrong.
"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
A little girl is washing dishes with her grandmother. The girls is washing a bowl that has been in the family for centuries. It slips from her hands and breaks on the floor....The grand mother without batting a eye gets the broom and dust pan and sweeps the broken shards into the trash, and smiles to her mortified grandchild and says..."It was already broken." If you understand this you understand the buddist way of thinking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Anything that exists except space and time have energy. I'm going on my personal viewpoint that particles are not a property of space but something existing in space.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You've got some weird ideas, Buz. Anybody ever tell you that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DeclinetoState Member (Idle past 6437 days) Posts: 158 Joined: |
A little girl is washing dishes with her grandmother. The girls is washing a bowl that has been in the family for centuries. It slips from her hands and breaks on the floor....The grand mother without batting a eye gets the broom and dust pan and sweeps the broken shards into the trash, and smiles to her mortified grandchild and says..."It was already broken." If you understand this you understand the buddist way of thinking. Isn't that kind of like the blonde who gets a phone call early in the morning and, when asked by the caller if he woke her up, says, "It's ok, I had to answer the phone anyway"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubious Drewski Member (Idle past 2530 days) Posts: 73 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: I really find that type of thinking logical and appealing. That is, if you are saying what I think you are: "Heaven" and "Hell" are what you make of your life. I have to admit, Buddhism has some very respectable and logical views on life. If it weren't for the dualist aspects, such as spirits and reincarnation, I would be a Buddhist in a heartbeat. [edit]Here's an insight into my motivation: As some of you who have been reading my posts might know, I am an Ex-Fundie who is looking for a secular "religion" to call my own. I want nothing more than to belong to a group of similarily-minded folks who would rather follow Aristotle's Golden Means or Rule-Utilitarianism than some limited, arbitrary and out-of-date commandments written in an ancient text. Really, my goal here at EvC is to sort things out and hopefully come to something of a logical "spritual" conclusion, if there is such a thing. Has anybody here taken a similar journey? This message has been edited by Drewsky, 04-17-2006 04:51 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
If it weren't for the dualist aspects, such as spirits and reincarnation, I would be a Buddhist in a heartbeat. I'm unclear about your reference to "dualist" aspects. There are popular versions of Buddhism especially Tibetan that include these things. I think of Buddhism as a top down religion which provides a popular religion for those who need it but is always open to going beyond those forms. The Buddha experienced a fundamental change in his consciousness. This change is something that is available and has been experienced not only by Buddhists, but also Hindu's, Muslims, and Christians among others. This change can be characterized as nondual. It is the disappearance of the sense of subject relating to objects. Bernadette Roberts' book The Experience of No Self is a very good introduction to this as she writes as a contemporary American. Her background was years spent as a contemplative nun before leaving to be a mother and householder. She remains Christian but did state that when she read some accounts of things the Buddha said she recognized at last some one else who had experienced what she had. Wayne Liquorman's book The Acceptance of What Is is also a good contemporary American account of the Hindu advaita (non dual) teachings. Googling on those two names would get you a little on them to start. Both of their books are in my local library so you should be able to find them or get them through an intra library loan. Bear in mind that no one is enlightened. An individual can be said to awaken but that awakening is to the realization that there are no separate individual beings. This is one teaching of the Buddha:
In reality there is no such thing as an I who liberates, and no other who is liberated. If a Bodhisattva holds on to the idea that a self, person, living being, or life span exists, that person is not a true Bodhisattva!" http://www.spiritual-happiness.com/nlpupdate3.html lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I am an Ex-Fundie who is looking for a secular "religion" to call my own. I want nothing more than to belong to a group of similarily-minded folks who would rather follow Aristotle's Golden Means or Rule-Utilitarianism than some limited, arbitrary and out-of-date commandments written in an ancient text.
Why not start your own religion? That way you can have all the elements you find attractive, noble and worthwhile whilst excluding any element you find unattractive. If its about what you want then this is the optimal route. If on the other hand you would prefer to seek the truth then it becomes less a matter of what you would like and more a matter of it is the way it is. In that case I heartily recommend investigating Christianity. It doesn't 'require' following any commandments new or old and in that sense is very refreshing (although what one might consider old fashioned about not stealing and murdering is beyond me ) You say your an ex-Fundi. I presume this was Fundimental Christianity (whatever that is). If so, you might be of the opinion that you have already tried Christianity. However this Christians understanding is that God is the one who makes a person a Christian and that that action, once carried out - is irreversible. It follows that one cannot, per that definition, be an ex-Christian
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubious Drewski Member (Idle past 2530 days) Posts: 73 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote:but... quote: Yes, exactly. Keep in mind though, I am using the term "religion" very loosely. I am searching for a group of inherently practical, logical and humane people. I have actually tried joining the INTP mailing list. It turned out to be the closest thing I have found to what I am looking for. Odd, huh? I was raised Christian, yes. In terms of what a Christian is, I don't believe I have any of those qualities anymore. I do, in fact believe the commandments (while still respectable) are not nearly as practical or comprehensive as the works of moral philosophers. (What does the bible have to say about human cloning? Philosophy covers it.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I am searching for a group of inherently practical, logical and humane people. Aren't we all? For myself it was a search for a system which wouldn't just answer some questions I had but all the questions I had in a fully coherent way. I never found completeness in the philosophies. For instance, there is much talk of objective morals on this site and it seems to me that without something external to ourselves to provide them then subjective they must ultimately remain. Which clashed with my just knowing there were objective morals. That there was objective morality was as inescapable as the fact of my own existance. Doubt one, doubt the other - which would have been bugger all use to me.
I was raised Christian, yes. In terms of what a Christian is, I don't believe I have any of those qualities anymore. I do, in fact believe the commandments (while still respectable) are not nearly as practical or comprehensive as the works of moral philosophers. (What does the bible have to say about human cloning? Philosophy covers it.) Elsewhere there is a thread running called "Can children have faith?" It must certainly encompass the idea that children are taught/indoctrinated into Christianity as they are many other things. Suffice to say that Christianity is not an learned set of beliefs. Christianity is at its most...er...fundemental level, a positional state in which God takes a person out of one position and puts them in another. Whilst one can don the mantle of the characteristics of what a Christian is exhorted to become, post-positional-change-of-state, this has no bearing on their actual position. If God has done this then one is a Christian, if not then one isn't nor ever has been. Been there/done that/got the T-shirt cannot apply. If not then one cannot know whether it is practical or comprehensive. Outside looking in problems abound. The purpose of the commandments/law is not primarily that we follow/adhere to them. They were given in the first instance to simply show us that we cannot follow them. In that role they excel were we to take even a short hard look at ourselves. They shouldn't be supposed to function as what they aren't (on the outside side of Christianity) If followed to the letter the we would have heaven on earth. In that sense, whilst comprehensive, they are totally impractical. So we have to fudge and provide phlexible-philosophies that take account of our ever shifting perception of reality. Philosophy: the ever-moveable feast.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubious Drewski Member (Idle past 2530 days) Posts: 73 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote:I apologize, but what that simply tells me is that you haven't yet read some philosopher's works. Even with my layman knowledge of the area, I can assure you that philosophy covers nearly every aspect of our world from nearly every perspective (Even theologist's perspectives). That's been it's purpose for thousands of years. quote: This is similar to the the reasoning sometimes used to discredit science. That is: "It's always changing, therefore it's never right". Let me explain my view of science and philosphy. Imagine the progression of human knowledge as a minivan heading to ... DisneyLand. Now imagine a passenger in this minivan making comments such as "We're constantly moving. I don't see how we'll achieve anything like this. At home, we were sure of things. Why didn't we stay there?". I would be a different passenger, saying things like: "Yes, we're on an unkown road, taking corners and going through new territory, but through this all, I can see that we're headed somewhere that's better than where we started. Sure, we're on new ground every second, but every inch we cover is a refinement over our last location, bringing us closer to our goal" (This goal is ultimate truth, naturally) Yes, philosophy and science are changing. But you would be more accurate to say they are refining.
quote:But you must understand, in order for points such as these to affect me, I must first believe there is indeed a deity guiding my life. While the thought is beautiful and comforting, I have no reason to believe this other than the fact that it's a beautiful and comforting thought. I become more sure of this as I grow older.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shh Inactive Member |
Hi Drewsky, just was reading thru' and saw this
If it weren't for the dualist aspects, such as spirits and reincarnation, I would be a Buddhist in a heartbeat.
Buddhism, in my opinion is a kind of blending of Taoism and another religion (Hinduism I think). Some of Budhism doesn't make sense to me, and not in the traditional one-hand-clapping kind of way.For example, the cause of all suffering is the Ego, which is basicly the enemy. Enlightenment is the destruction of the Ego. This precludes hell because at any point a person can destroy their Ego, and become immune to it. Spirits, Ghosts and Gods are all acceptable, and yet individual existence is deemed impossible which, when you think about it destroys any compatability with Christianity, yet you will surely hear Christians claim to have Buddhist beliefs. The destruction of the Ego, requires the rejection of material wealth, yet you will no doubt hear of millionaires who claim Buddhist beliefs. Buddhism, has been reinterpreted (often fashionably) so many times that it's very difficult for a westerner to follow. Taoism is similar to Buddhism in many ways, but harsher. It isn't really a religion it's a discipline. To a Taoist reincarnation is an obvious every day occurence, but dead is dead. This seems like a paradox, but when asked for evidence of reincarnation they will point out that all life feeds on other life. Dead matter "reincarnated", but dead is still dead, and there's no way to argue with the logic. This kind of logic, which at first looks like nonsense, is the basis for Taoism. There's no comfort attached to enlightenment here, other than the ability to cope with reality, in a meaningful way.If you're interested pm me and I can probably get you some decent sources, but since I'm not too confident of my own understanding here, you could try googling LaoTze, who's kind of the Taoist Buddha
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024