21 May, 01:08PM in sunny Singapore!

Recent Posts by BroInChrist

Subscribe to Recent Posts by BroInChrist

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Weychin:

      Unfortunately, you are unable to grasp “No self”, therefore, more time is actually spent on the creation myth and whether God is omniscient or imperfect owing to man being in the image of God. Violence is violence and the anger is very personal, without love and compassion, and certainly without wisdom or all this flawed creation and following destruction would not have happened in the first place. I would such an entity; powerful?yes, low eq? also yes, wisdom? No! Love and compassion? Very conditional! Why we should accept and worship such an entity!

      On the contrary, I do understand the meaning of "no self" but I have shown how such an idea is really incoherent. It probably suffers as a bad or inappropriate label to use. Better to call it as philosophers call it, contingent vs necessary being.

      To call it a creation myth is simply another question-begging fallacy you committed. You first need to establish that it is a myth, but you failed to do so. Let me ask you, do you honor and respect any of the Chief Justices who served Singapore in the past many years? Why? On one hand, many who know the CJs can speak of them as loving husbands or compassionate people, yet they also know of the CJs as men of integrity and justice and who will mete down the harshest of punishment on criminals. If you think about this, then I think you can answer the question of why God deserve our worship. If you think of God as just a love-machine then again I am sorry to say that you have only rejected a false God or a straw-God.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Weychin:

      Yes you are imperfect because you believe you descended from the imperfect Adam made by God who said very good! Sin nature is inherent in God's design! God was never forgiving in the Old Testament, there even the Covenant of the Ark, a fearsome machine, the New Testament is where Jesus Christ professes love and forgiveness, unless you are talking about two different Gods.

       

      Again I need to reiterate the point that Adam was NOT created imperfect. He was created perfect, without sin. But because he chose to disobey, he fell into sin. Thus the Bible explains that we are all dead in Adam but we can be made alive in Christ who is the Last Adam.

      To say that God was "never forgiving" in the OT betrays an utter lack of knowledge of the OT. It is a claim that is easily refuted, just one example would suffice! But there's more than enough to completely bury this claim deep down. See the links below

      http://bible.org/seriespage/forgiving-god

      http://carm.org/god-of-old-testament-a-monster

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Weychin:

      Thank you for helping put forward my point," very good" simply indicates satisfaction, we may even stretch it further to mean "perfecto" , much like a Italian kissing his fingers. But whether Man is flawed by default or design is not established, thus let us look at man and his actions ask yourselves, what is your position?

      Your question needs to be broken up this way to avoid the fallacy of begging the question.

      1. Is man created flawed?

      2. If yes, was it by default or by design? (Note that you have not distinguished what is meant by the term "default").

      I have already answered question 1, that man was NOT created flawed in any way. This is the meaning of "very good". If you disagree then please explain in what way was man flawed in Genesis 1?

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Weychin:

      Man is created flawed in the first place, that is why degeneration takes place.

       

      But this view is not supported by the Scriptures at all. Man was created perfect, he had no sin in him and there was no death and suffering. Degeneration took place after the Fall.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Weychin:

      Keying error, what I 've meant to say is that I would not any less of you if it were your views. I apologise for any distress caused unto you. I value the strength of the argument you bring.

       

      Thanks for the clarification.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:


      comparing the both, plausible wise, it's pretty obvious.

      Steveyboy posted:

      What do you mean by "pretty obvious"? What and how did you go about comparing both?

      BTW, Dr Stavrakopoulou, a senior lecturer in the department of theology and religion at Exeter University, does not believe in God. She said: ‘I’m an atheist with a huge respect for religion’. It is thus no wonder that her views would undermine Christianity since that would be consistent with her atheism. But there are other Biblical scholars who disagree with her. You just need to read both sides.

      Edited by BroInChrist 01 Feb `13, 1:13PM
  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

      Buddha may have felt physical pain, but not mental suffering*.

      Three months before his passing, he already predicted and announced his passing. Means: he had chosen by his own will to pass away. Why? Because he has completed his job. It's up to us now.

      In the Mahaparinibbana sutta it is clearly recorded:

      http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

      Mara's Appeal

      7. And when the Venerable Ananda had gone away, Mara, the Evil One, approached the Blessed One. And standing at one side he spoke to the Blessed One, saying: "Now, O Lord, let the Blessed One come to his final passing away; let the Happy One utterly pass away! The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord.

      "For the Blessed One, O Lord, spoke these words to me: 'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding by the appropriate conduct, and having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma.' [23]

      8. "And now, O Lord, bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have become the Blessed One's disciples in just this way. So, O Lord, let the Blessed One come to his final passing away! The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord.

      "For the Blessed One, O Lord, spoke these words to me: 'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until this holy life taught by me has become successful, prosperous, far-renowned, popular, and widespread, until it is well proclaimed among gods and men.' And this too has come to pass in just this way. So, O Lord, let the Blessed One come to his final passing away, let the Happy One utterly pass away! The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord."

      The Blessed One Relinquishes His Will to Live

      9. When this was said, the Blessed One spoke to Mara, the Evil One, saying: "Do not trouble yourself, Evil One. Before long the Parinibbana of the Tathagata will come about. Three months hence the Tathagata will utterly pass away."



      The Buddha had enormous powers and that is why he could choose things like that. But powers does not equate to liberation or awakening, nor does awakening necessarily equate to having powers. Non-Buddhists also have powers. Those who mastered jhanas and samadhi can have powers.

      Among the Buddha's powers are:

      1. The knowledge or ability of attaining insight (With this knowledge, He knows, “my body is material, made from four great elements, born of mother and father, fed on rice and gruel, impermanent, liable to be injured and abraded, broken and destroyed, and this is my consciousness which is bound to it and dependent on it.”),
      2. the knowledge of the production of a mind-made body, or the supernormal power of the mind-made body (With this knowledge, out of this body He produces another body, having a form, mind-made, complete in all its limbs and faculities.),
      3. the various supernormal powers (With the super-normal powers, being one, He becomes many, and being many, He becomes one; He appears and disappears; He passes through fences, walls, and mountains unhindered as if through air; He sinks into the ground and emerges from it as if it were water; He walks on the water
      without breaking the surface as if on land; He flies cross-legged through the air like a bird with wings; He even touches and strokes with His hand the sun and moon, mighty and powerful as they are, and He travels in the body as far as the Brahma world.),
      4. the divine ear (With the divine ear, He hears sounds both divine and human, whether far or near.),
      5. the knowledge of others’ minds [understanding the ways of others’ thought] (With this knowledge, He knows and distinguishes with His mind the minds of other beings.),
      6. the knowledge of previous existences [the remembrance of one’s former states of existence] (With this knowledge, He remembers many previous existences: one birth, two births,. . . . a hundred thusand births etc.),
      7. the divine eye or the knowledge of the passing-away and arising of beings (With this divine eye, He sees beings passing-away and arising, inferior and superior, well-favored and ill-favored, to happy and unhappy destinations as kamma directs them.), and
      8. the knowledge of eradicating defilements (With mind concentrated, purified and cleansed, unblemished, free from impurities, malleable, workable, established and having gained imperturability, He applies and directs his mind to the knowledge of eradicating defilements or destruction of corruptions. With this knowledge, He
      knows as it really is: “This is suffering, the origing of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the path leading to the cessation of suffering.)
      (Dighanikaya, Vol.1,Samathaphala Sutta)




      * The Buddha taught that this is how liberated beings experience pain:

      http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nypo.html

      ..."Having been touched by that painful feeling, he does not resist (and resent) it. Hence, in him no underlying tendency of resistance against that painful feeling comes to underlie (his mind). Under the impact of that painful feeling he does not proceed to enjoy sensual happiness. And why not? As a well-taught noble disciple he knows of an escape from painful feelings other than by enjoying sensual happiness. Then in him who does not proceed to enjoy sensual happiness, no underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feelings comes to underlie (his mind). He knows, according to facts, the arising and ending of those feelings, and the gratification, the danger and the escape connected with these feelings. In him who knows thus, no underlying tendency to ignorance as to neutral feelings comes to underlie (his mind). When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral feeling, he feels it as one who is not fettered by it. Such a one, O monks, is called a well-taught noble disciple who is not fettered by birth, by old age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is not fettered to suffering, this I declare.

      "This, O monks, is the distinction, the diversity, the difference that exists between a well-taught noble disciple and an untaught worldling."

       


      Nevertheless the fact remains that suffering and death still overtook him.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by 2009novice:

      yes very true... in the e-book, it mentions it's the ego that creates the problems and divides humans. And yes... putting other religions down is not spiritual at all... kind of spiritual materialism icon_lol.gif

      有善根的人真的有点不一样 icon_lol.gif

      please forward to your friends if u think they need it

      阿弥陀佛


      Yes, one's ego can create problems. But not all problems are a result of one's ego.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:


      that's what i said, cannot. imagination is another thing.

      indeed logic is in Buddhism too. we said when we plant an apple seed, you only can get an apple tree, no other type of fruit tree. reap what u planted. another example is no matter how you cook sand, u cannot get cooked rice. i think possibility has it's limit. squared circle is one kind of geometry logic. married bachelor is word logic(?). things like shrinking the entire universe into a mustard seed as an example was written in our text, even when we think it's not possible.

      /\


      I do not think you would succeed in imagining a squared circle either. Anyway, as the Bible says, God created living things to reproduce after their kinds. This is why you do not get an orange fron an apple tree. This is also why evolution is false. All this is by God's divine design. Nothing is left to undirected natural causes.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Steveyboy:

      Well, I think we both have misconceptions about each other's faith. In Buddhism, 'good works' do not atone for any sins but generate the altruistic mind that only thinks of me, myself and I. It is the selfish mind that creates suffering. On the other hand, I think there's widespread belief that in Christianity, when one accept God, everything is alright. I hear that all the time when I was still a Christian.

      In fact, there's always this argument of which church is the true church of God. Perhaps, I was wrong but you cannot fault Tsem Rinpoche for thinking that really. It is really public perception based on a track record of conversion. When Christians convert others, they always say that they have to accept God. Am I right? Anyway, that's really not the point of the talk, it is actually about practicing the real essence of whatever religion you are in. 


      I have been a Christian for a long while and NEVER once have I heard that being a Christian and accepting God means everything would be alright. Such an idea is totally at odds with the Bible's teachings. The absurdity of this idea is quickly dispelled by looking around and noting that good and bad comes to the Christian and non-Christian alike.

      Edited by BroInChrist 31 Jan `13, 2:06PM
  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

      The difference is that he is completely free from any mental suffering, and any further samsaric births thereafter. He is free from all mental afflictions/defilements.

      Also, he actually can 'choose' to extend his lifespan but his Ananda didn't get his hint due to Mara's influence.

       

      Suffering is more than just mental, I am sure you know that. Buddha suffered and died for a fact i.e. his suffering did not end. As to whether he could indeed have the ability to freely extend his life, this point is now moot since he died. I would have think his ability to overcome the effects of eating contaminated food or lived for a few decades or so would go a long way in perpetuating the truth of his teachings or at least demonstrate that suffering cannot hurt him.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

      Buddha is not a mere man, he categorically rejected himself as mere 'human' (see: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.036.than.html). But neither is he a mere god. He is higher than any of them - he is an "awakened one", and the teacher of men and devas. All aryas - awakened beings, are respected by men and gods (i.e. beings in heaven), they pay homage to aryas.

      As for no-self, there is a debate between Buddha and someone else: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.035.than.html

      From what I gather, Buddha was born a man, lived a man, suffered and eventually died a man, just like any other man. I mean, he can of course claim to be not a human, but I think the facts suggest otherwise.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Weychin:

      I would welcome you presentation of Antony Flew arguments, in fact I would think any less if it were the argument of your own. The rationality of your arguments can bolster your conviction, but you conviction does'nt automatically mean your position correct. As explained we can fall in either extremes nihilism or eternalism which Buddhism is not! Buddhism is the Middle Way!

       

      The ad hominem nature of your remarks is really unwarranted.

      Anyway, you can read up Anthony Flew's argument here http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew

      and read an interview with him here http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/

      The issue is not whether it is the left, right or middle way. The issue is whether the way pointed to is the truth.

      Edited by BroInChrist 31 Jan `13, 12:05PM
  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Weychin:

      Actually God does not need defending, God can anything you want to be. If God is good then just let yourself be good. If you as a human being is flawed that accept that you are created flawed.
      The god we have conversed about is ver.1.0 god in the Old Testament. There also the improved ver.1.1 and other updated versions in New Testament which talk of love and forgiveness; but still with strings attached.
      What you have not realised is that you are just defending “Self” , your beliefs, your world view, your conviction, your existence.

      1. The reason why I am not a perfect being is because I am a descendent of Adam and inherited his sin nature. So did you, and every other human being for that matter.

      2. To speak of a Ver 1.0 or Ver 1.1 God is to distort the Scriptures and to misunderstand them.

      3. Yes, I am defending my beliefs, just as you are defending yours. You are either promoting your views, or defending them when being challenged.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Weychin:

      Then also allow to express my artistic a bit also:- Is it a very good"sia" with an afterglow smile of satisfaction or a diabolical manical smile of glee and added effect of wringing of both hands! So "very good" can be interpreted either way and not very helpful. The end product "man" is flawed either way.

       

      Just because there are two interpretation, surely it does not mean both are equally true. Only one interpretation can be correct or both wrong. Again there is nothing in Genesis 1 to suggest that man is a flawed product. And neither have you provided the evidence for that.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Weychin:

      Then ignore the emotive comments and apply the highest of morals and ethics that we aspire and try to apply ourselves to such acts of cruelty and violence, or do you wish to justify and persuade us that violence is ok. Or is it we are made in the image of god and thus cruelty and violence is being godlike

       

      Again you failed to note that I have repeatedly mentioned that we are now living in a fallen world. It is not that violence is good per se, it is that it is now part of a fallen world.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:


      don't know, but sound frictional/mythical again, like the 女娲 Nüwa. like Marvel comic book. i mean the 7 days part. no offense.

      Again, other than you calling it fictional or mythical you have give no reasons why. Perhaps you wish to back up such claims and assertions? One could also dismiss all narrated exploits or teachings of Buddhism as mere fiction too, right?

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

      It is illogical because of your false supposition that there must be a self. I've answered you in the other thread.

      Which begs the question, you have yet to show that the idea of a "self" is false. So far it is merely asserted or claimed. Why would it be true that there must be no-self? Since Buddha is a mere man and has claimed that, it would be entirely possible that his teaching about no-self is false. 

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

      1) Yes, sentient beings cannot have birth without a previous instance of consciousness.

      Therefore there are three conditions for birth: father, mother, consciousness in Buddhism. Consciousness is not an entity, but a stream or arising and re-arising, a mindstream... each of us have or rather is a distinct mindstream, but that is just speaking conventionally.

      But we do not see 'design' involved.

      2) You don't get it... because you still think there must be an experiencer apart from experience. My point is, experience is always occurring without experiencer. Thinking happens without thinker. Hearing is occurring without hearer. Even right now, there is only reading without a reader. Seeing without a seer. There is only ever experience without an experiencer. Later on I can recall seeing a flower and I can even say "I saw a flower" but knowing fully well that is merely conventional parlance for communication, there is actually no seer apart from the sight 'flower', no actual self persisting from one moment to another.

      The notion of a self being distinct from experience can be seen through with some investigation just like the notion of a car-ness distinct from its parts, e.g. engine, window, wheels etc can be seen through.

      The direct experience of this is gapless, direct, and self-releasing - i.e. no distance between a seer and a seen, no vantage point, boundless freedom, intense aliveness and intimacy and clarity in every single experience because there is no 'I' at a center to be separate from any experience, nor any sense of a boundary or circumference, mere experience appearing that is self-knowing, self-felt and releasing moment to moment.

      1. Again whose consciousness are we talking about? Whose mindstreams? And you mean you do not see design in living things? That the eyes are designed for sight? The heart designed to pump blood etc etc? How much intelligent design is needed to even give a person an artificial limb that can barely do what a normal arm can do? To deny design in the face of the evidence is IMO a irrational thing.

      2. It's not that I don't get it, I just find it illogical. You have yet to demonstrate how one can experience something without an experiencer. It is logically absurd to say that there is no writer writing what is being written for the purpose of letting a non-existent reader do some reading. I think it is contingent things taken to absurdity, a reductio ad absurdum situation. Of course you can take all these as mere mental exercises to be performed, like a thought experiment to see the car-ness apart from the parts, or where is the "I" when you take a human apart. But that's all there is to it, thought experiments. In a sense, almost anything can "happen" when it is mere thought experiments. But then it comes to reality. If I walk into a door, it hurts. Not just conventionally saying it hurts as a parlance of communication but literally! And if anyone think it does not then perhaps he should try walking into a door. Of course one can do more thought experiment and say the door does not have inherent existence. But then when the thought is banished the door is really there, and the blood is flowing.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

      1. Natural has the connotation of being inherent, not causal, etc. But yes, ignorance is conditioned, is dependent on conditions, and those causes and be removed. That is the purpose of the whole Buddhist path.

      Here the sutta teaches:

      http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.than.html

      Ignorance

      Saying "Good, friend," having delighted in and approved of Ven. Sariputta's words, the monks asked him a further question: "Would there be another line of reasoning by which a disciple of the noble ones is a person of right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma?"

      "There would. When a disciple of the noble ones discerns ignorance, the origination of ignorance, the cessation of ignorance, and the way of practice leading to the cessation of ignorance, then he is a person of right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma.

      "And what is ignorance? What is the origination of ignorance? What is the cessation of ignorance? What is the way of practice leading to the cessation of ignorance?

      "Any lack of knowledge with reference to stress, any lack of knowledge with reference to the origination of stress, any lack of knowledge with reference to the cessation of stress, any lack of knowledge with reference to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress. This is called ignorance.

      "From the origination of fermentation comes the origination of ignorance. From the cessation of fermentation comes the cessation of ignorance. And the way of practice leading to the cessation of ignorance is just this very noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

      "Now, when a disciple of the noble ones discerns ignorance, the origination of ignorance, the cessation of ignorance, and the way of practice leading to the cessation of ignorance in this way, when — having entirely abandoned passion-obsession, having abolished aversion-obsession, having uprooted the view-&-conceit obsession 'I am'; having abandoned ignorance & given rise to clear knowing — he has put an end to suffering & stress right in the here-&-now, it is to this extent, too, that a disciple of the noble ones is a person of right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma."




      2. I would rather say that murder is causing harm and pain and suffering, and because nobody wishes to be killed, and because anyone with a kind heart would not wish anyone else to be killed, laws are enacted out of a compassionate, well wishing heart, or sometimes out of fear, etc. Laws are enacted on the basis of whether an action is unwholesome or wholesome...

      3. Ignorance and suffering is not eternal - they are without beginning as a stream that arises and ceases and re-arises out of latent conditions again and again, but those causes and conditions can be treated and ended.

      4. Yes. Just like you cannot escape the natural effects of cancer Only if you chain smoke (you cannot escape the effects of smoking), and the solution is just to stop or not start smoking, likewise you can avoid karma by no longer planting the seeds of karma. But karma can only truly be 'escaped' in liberation. The noble eightfold path is the way.

      5. Yes. Buddha is very precise and teaches us the twelve links of dependent origination, both forward and reverse.

      1. Natural has the element of being inherent? As in having inherent existence? I draw your attention again to the incoherence of contingent entities without end. In any case I would note that defining the lack of knowledge as the origin of ignorance is really not saying much, it is saying the samething.

      2. Murder certainly causes harm and suffering. The question is, why is it wrong to cause harm and suffering? Why should anyone be held punishable for murder if this is the natural law at work? We do not put a lion on trial for eating a deer.

      3. Again, without beginning is the same meaning as eternal.

      4. Is it humanly possible to adhere to the 8 fold path perfectly? I don't think so.

      5. 12 links of dependent origination as in http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot05.htm  The Bible offers a different view. It was not lack of wisdom that resulted in suffering. It was lack of obedience. Perhaps an analogy might be children. Yes, they lack knowledge, but all they need to do is to listen and obey their parents and they will be safe. But the moment they disobey there will be adverse consequences.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by sinweiy:


      sound made up frictional to me.

      anyway, that in Buddhism, is only microscopical, we also have smaller or middle or greater "end days" on earth. greater "end days" is when hell, and the all lower realms are ended. like in a person that's birth, old age, illness and death. the earth also undergo birth, old age, illness and death, but we call it 成住坏空. 20 years a person live in the birth stage, and another 20 for old age stage and another 20 for illness and finally another 20 for death stage. each 20 years belong to the middle end days. and the end of 1 year is the smaller end days. then we magnify that on earth, earth or the universe also have the 20+20+20+20 kalpas/age, but in a longer period.

      but even this greater "end days" on earth is microscopical, as there are countless universes/earth out there. all this are existence in play.  new universes are form and old ones die everyday. this is in line with science. Buddha already talk about it 2500-3000 years ago.

      macroscopical part is the talk on illusion of all this samsaric existence. Enlightenment is the "end days" of the entire samsaric existence. maybe we can say the return to .....

      /\

       

      On what basis do you dismiss the Bible's account as fictional but not Buddhist account?

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by 2009novice:

      http://conversion.buddhists.sg/

      E-book guide when facing proselytism

      I fully agree with what the text says below concerning what it means to agree to disagree:

      1. We are open to listening to others’ views because we are clear of our own beliefs.

      2. We respect others’ opinions while standing firm with our own values and principles.

      3. We can engage others in dialogue and exchange perspectives without insisting that others accept our point of view.

      4. If others try to influence us to adopt their religion, it is perfectly fine to stand our ground and turn them down.

       

       

       

      Edited by BroInChrist 30 Jan `13, 11:18AM
  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • I think philosophy has already addressed this. I have also made mention of it. It is the distinction between contingent and necessary beings.

      If we think we are necessary beings then I submit we are indeed deluded! For we are all contingent beings i.e. we need not exist at all. But I think few people will think they are necessary beings.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

      4. No, 'what is suffering' is simply saying 'who is suffering' in another way. My point is that there is no 'what' or 'who' behind suffering. When suffering arises, there is only suffering without sufferer. Since Buddha never said "You suffer" or "He suffer" or "I suffer" (other than as conventional speech) but "suffering arises", the correct question should be asked then: what is the causes and conditions in which suffering arises?

      Everything arises through causes and conditions, without agency/controller/perceiver/experiencer.

      Sorry but the idea of suffering without sufferer is illogical. It's like being married but there's no husband and wife!