Basic buddhist concepts analysed in a Christian website
-
Originally posted by Nyorai:
When there is void in biblical basis, Bible is a religion that is about EQ and IQ stuff, and it also deals with psychology and philosophy. It is not easy to achieve heaven, benevolence without boundary is the only way. In bible there is no tell tale signs of the realms the corpse or the dead is attaining. So, when buddhists are helping you religion to have faith in God, you are going back to yes/no basis of God, in which, in the name of God, may you be commanded to be faithful and learn from Buddhism :)
Sorry, I have problem following your train of thought. Care to clarify what you were saying here?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Sorry, I have problem following your train of thought. Care to clarify what you were saying here?
Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing: There the stars don't shine, the sun isn't visible. There the moon doesn't appear. There darkness is not found. And when a sage, a brahman through sagacity, has realized [this] for himself, then from form & formless, from bliss & pain, he is freed.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Again you confused a truth issue with a posture issue. Either God exists or He does not, it is a truth issue. Your interest in this issue is a posture issue. Your apathy or "can't be bothered" attitude is a posture issue. It does not answer the question. Instead it throws up smoke by saying that the question is speculative, meaningless, asker not mature etc etc. Again silence can be a reflection of ignorance, or a disguise of ignorance.
The "Does God exist?" question is to be answered with "Yes, No, or I don't know". You only answer with "I don't care" if the question is "What do you personally think or feel about the question of whether God exist or not?" So I am only pressing you to answer the right question. To say I am forcing you is to exaggerate things. I will be happy with an "I don't know" answer from you. But take note that I will also ask, "Then don't you want to know?"
Every worldview has its "problems" so to speak. Even though I believe Christianity is true, my understanding of it is limited, thus it is inevitable that there will be questions posed by critics that I have difficulty answering. But we all are entitled to invoking a rescue device to maintain our worldview. The question is whether this rescue device is arbitrary and ad hoc with no good basis. Use it often enough and the cracks in the worldview will quickly show. Yes, we try to fit explanations to our worldview, EVERYONE does that. It is a paradigm thing. We will see with it until we realise that it cannot cope and we then change paradigm, or change lenses, or change worldview, or change religion.
Having a discussion would be consistent with being broadminded, though it does not necessarily means being broadminded. But then again, a narrow minded person would not want to discuss anything, would he? What's there to discuss anyway? It is disagreement that encourages dialogue and discussion. If everyone agrees, then there is no need to discuss.
the issue here is the agenda of "why must we know if god exists a not" in the discussion of religion, respecting the other religions is of utmost importance. However, in the push for an answer which does not mean that much to other religions, thats not respecting. You have confused your own belief in the question of "god's existence" to be answered with other religions. In actual fact, i believe you've undermined other religions. It is in xtian worldview that the arguement for god's existance existed and so why would it be an essential question to buddhist?
"i dont care" in here, is a legitimate answer, because it doesn't matter. He exist, he doesn't exists doesn't matter to me at all. Once again, it is in YOUR worldview, YOUR religious believes that he either has to or not has to exist. But for us(or me) we are NOT interested on the issue whether he exists or not even. You may feel im avoiding or im a non thinker, but no, it is through thinking that ppl came out with a " i dont care" or there's "no need to care" reply. Step out of the circle and stop burying.
Lastly, spare some respect for others. When others gives you a reply you do not want, spare some respect for if all you want is a reply that suits you, all you need to do is to keep asking yourself... and the same reply will keep occuring.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
the issue here is the agenda of "why must we know if god exists a not" in the discussion of religion, respecting the other religions is of utmost importance. However, in the push for an answer which does not mean that much to other religions, thats not respecting. You have confused your own belief in the question of "god's existence" to be answered with other religions. In actual fact, i believe you've undermined other religions. It is in xtian worldview that the arguement for god's existance existed and so why would it be an essential question to buddhist?
"i dont care" in here, is a legitimate answer, because it doesn't matter. He exist, he doesn't exists doesn't matter to me at all. Once again, it is in YOUR worldview, YOUR religious believes that he either has to or not has to exist. But for us(or me) we are NOT interested on the issue whether he exists or not even. You may feel im avoiding or im a non thinker, but no, it is through thinking that ppl came out with a " i dont care" or there's "no need to care" reply. Step out of the circle and stop burying.
Lastly, spare some respect for others. When others gives you a reply you do not want, spare some respect for if all you want is a reply that suits you, all you need to do is to keep asking yourself... and the same reply will keep occuring.
How is "I don't care" a thoughtful answer???Neither is it a legitimate answer because it does not even attempt to answer the question. The question of God's existence is perhaps the most fundamental and essential questions ever asked by man. It is unfortunate that for a religion that positions itself as deeply philosophical it cavalierly brushes aside a question that is perhaps the most important and most debated ever. The implications of the existence of God reaches deep and wide, so to say that it doesn't matter would reflect how out of touch one is with human needs and desires.
Last but not least, it is considered disrespectful to answer "I don't care" to a reasonable question. Try answering that to the PM or your parents or even the judge in a court room if he ask you a question?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
How is "I don't care" a thoughtful answer???Neither is it a legitimate answer because it does not even attempt to answer the question. The question of God's existence is perhaps the most fundamental and essential questions ever asked by man. It is unfortunate that for a religion that positions itself as deeply philosophical it cavalierly brushes aside a question that is perhaps the most important and most debated ever. The implications of the existence of God reaches deep and wide, so to say that it doesn't matter would reflect how out of touch one is with human needs and desires.
Last but not least, it is considered disrespectful to answer "I don't care" to a reasonable question. Try answering that to the PM or your parents or even the judge in a court room if he ask you a question?
"The question of God's existence is perhaps the most fundamental and essential questions ever asked by man. It is unfortunate that for a religion that positions itself as deeply philosophical it cavalierly brushes aside a question that is perhaps the most important and most debated ever." -> according to you. not us. just because it's important to you, it doesn't mean it's important to us too. also, it's not fundamental to us. so, how? are we not human?
"The implications of the existence of God reaches deep and wide" -> like?
"so to say that it doesn't matter would reflect how out of touch one is with human needs and desires." -> that's your definition. not ours.
"it is considered disrespectful to answer "I don't care" to a reasonable question" -> disrespectful to whom? and reasonable question?
"Try answering that to the PM or your parents or even the judge in a court room if he ask you a question?" -> errr. they would ask real questions, right? not like asking is there ghost or not or is there spirit or not.
broinchrist, you need to understand that your views are true for you and not to others. likewise, our views are true for us and may not be for you.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The "Does God exist?" question is to be answered with "Yes, No, or I don't know". You only answer with "I don't care" if the question is "What do you personally think or feel about the question of whether God exist or not?" So I am only pressing you to answer the right question. To say I am forcing you is to exaggerate things. I will be happy with an "I don't know" answer from you. But take note that I will also ask, "Then don't you want to know?"
"The "Does God exist?" question is to be answered with "Yes, No, or I don't know". -> since just you've already set the answers like it's a multipile choice test, take a pick as you're not willing to accept other answers. whatever the answer you chose is true for you and it doesn't affect anyonelse at all.
"Then don't you want to know?" -> what for?
-
woah still going on . . .
-
the only place yr watever god can be is only wen yr heart can believe , yr brain can conceive and yr poor soul can relief.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. As mentioned elsewhere, countless rebirth would mean infinity and thus practically if not absolutely impossible. Imagine someone telling you that it takes countless number of attempts to get a driving license. Does that make you anymore hopeful that you would get it this time, or the next? Wouldn't it be really just wishful thinking?
2. I used to think that Nirvana was a place, then I was corrected on it. And now I take the view that true Buddhism teaches Nirvana is a psychological state of mind. There is no material observable physical difference between one person who has attained nirvana and another person who has not.
3. Does Buddhism teach annihilism/nihilism? You keep saying that I fell for this extreme view. But I take the view that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. There are many ideas in Buddhism that easily lends to this conclusion. Extinguishing is one of them. No-self is another. Taking the Middle Way is trying to explain something that is neither here nor there. It can also result in Buddhists speaking in self-negating and self-refuting terms but somehow still accepted as logical and true.
Interesting also is the view of noted philosopher Frederick Nietzsche here http://thus-spoke-nietzsche.tumblr.com/post/19194412041/nietzsche-on-buddhism
4. I still think that to avoid the unnecessary confusion, Buddhists should use terms like contingent beings and necessary beings which are better easily understood among philosophy.
acttually, should be countless number of attempts, sure can get it at one time. there's no losing of hope. if u only have one single attempt, then more will lose hope. although the aim of Buddhism is to let go. when there's no more fun in driving anymore, enter nirvana, if u still find that driving is fun, u can go on in samsara.
nirvana is one thing, while in another, the Bliss body that is way bigger than our current body and the True body of Buddha(s) is even far more unimaginagable. what u are refering is only manifestation bodies.
i also given u the read:
Emptiness and Existence
http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/465175
i guess, u didn't read. in layman term, it's the teaching of selflessness. or more simply put, it's teaching people, Don't be SELFish. be kind to others. not just u, i think most buddhists also fell for this extreme view and mistaken that it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. actually it's the view of "devil"/mara.
yes, philosophy is like this, everything can become contradicting, even Buddhism. Buddha also said, he never spoken a word of Buddhism. which mean, the teaching is not from him. it's from previous Buddhas until beginnless time. if he said from him, then, he is selfish/ego.
Friedrich Nietzsche is a Cultural critic. as a critic or person who like to complain, most people can be one. u can also be one. just stress on the negative side of things.
if u want for real, here's from another German philosopher. i scare too chim for u to understand.
A precis by scientist philosopher Thomas Metzinger on how the brain has created a solid belief ,perception ,model of a self ,and it doesnt know it has done this .There isnt a self
http://www.philosophie.uni-mainz.de/Dateien/beingnoone2.pdf
/\
-
seems like zeus has answered for me :) but doubt he's gonna understand at all.
-
Originally posted by zeus29:
"The question of God's existence is perhaps the most fundamental and essential questions ever asked by man. It is unfortunate that for a religion that positions itself as deeply philosophical it cavalierly brushes aside a question that is perhaps the most important and most debated ever." -> according to you. not us. just because it's important to you, it doesn't mean it's important to us too. also, it's not fundamental to us. so, how? are we not human?
"The implications of the existence of God reaches deep and wide" -> like?
"so to say that it doesn't matter would reflect how out of touch one is with human needs and desires." -> that's your definition. not ours.
"it is considered disrespectful to answer "I don't care" to a reasonable question" -> disrespectful to whom? and reasonable question?
"Try answering that to the PM or your parents or even the judge in a court room if he ask you a question?" -> errr. they would ask real questions, right? not like asking is there ghost or not or is there spirit or not.
broinchrist, you need to understand that your views are true for you and not to others. likewise, our views are true for us and may not be for you.
1. The facts speak for themselves concerning the importance of the question of God's importance. In any case, your failure to grasp the importance and implications of this question does not invalidate its importance at all.
2. The existence of God impacts upon the meaning of life, the purpose of life, and also the moral values.
3. I wasn't defining anything when I said that Buddhism evades the question of God. Merely making an observation.
4. Disrespectful to the asker. And yes, the question of God's existence is a very reasonable question. It is asked and pontificated on every philosophy's textbook, debated in public and online, and even appears in Buddhist websites. Apparently people are asking this question. You can't missed it, unless you wilfully choose to ignore it.
5. Why would the question of God's existence not be a real question? What defines a real question? Regardless of the content of the question I am just saying that it is disrespectful to respond with apathy towards a reasonable question.
6. Sorry, I do not buy the false notion that whats true for you is true for you but not for me. Is such a notion just true for you but not for me? Or do you expect that notion to be true for both you and me? If so, then you have just stepped on your own feet and contradicted yourself.
-
Originally posted by zeus29:
"The "Does God exist?" question is to be answered with "Yes, No, or I don't know". -> since just you've already set the answers like it's a multipile choice test, take a pick as you're not willing to accept other answers. whatever the answer you chose is true for you and it doesn't affect anyonelse at all.
"Then don't you want to know?" -> what for?
A question of fact has only 3 possible answers, what other answers can there be? The reply "I don't care" is a reflection of apathy, not an answer to the question.
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
acttually, should be countless number of attempts, sure can get it at one time. there's no losing of hope. if u only have one single attempt, then more will lose hope. although the aim of Buddhism is to let go. when there's no more fun in driving anymore, enter nirvana, if u still find that driving is fun, u can go on in samsara.
nirvana is one thing, while in another, the Bliss body that is way bigger than our current body and the True body of Buddha(s) is even far more unimaginagable. what u are refering is only manifestation bodies.
i also given u the read:
Emptiness and Existence
http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/465175
i guess, u didn't read. in layman term, it's the teaching of selflessness. or more simply put, it's teaching people, Don't be SELFish. be kind to others. not just u, i think most buddhists also fell for this extreme view and mistaken that it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. actually it's the view of "devil"/mara.
yes, philosophy is like this, everything can become contradicting, even Buddhism. Buddha also said, he never spoken a word of Buddhism. which mean, the teaching is not from him. it's from previous Buddhas until beginnless time. if he said from him, then, he is selfish/ego.
Friedrich Nietzsche is a Cultural critic. as a critic or person who like to complain, most people can be one. u can also be one. just stress on the negative side of things.
if u want for real, here's from another German philosopher. i scare too chim for u to understand.
A precis by scientist philosopher Thomas Metzinger on how the brain has created a solid belief ,perception ,model of a self ,and it doesnt know it has done this .There isnt a self
http://www.philosophie.uni-mainz.de/Dateien/beingnoone2.pdf
/\
1. But the issue here is that you have had countless attempts to attain nirvana, yet you are still here. When will one realise that may be mere wishful thinking?
2. What is this Bliss body? Who has it? Who currently has it?
3. I beg to differ. You may be confused. The teaching of no-self is not the same as teaching one not to be selfish. The latter does not negate or deny the idea of self.
4. A contradiction is necessary false. If Buddhism holds to contradictory beliefs as equally true, then it fails the test of logical consistency and violates the law of non-contradiction.
-
:) the obstinate, cant be enlightened
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
:) the obstinate, cant be enlightened
Ad hominem again.
-
to the mind of an obstinate:) obviously everything is an ad hominem.
A refusal for constructive comments and constructive criticism :)
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
to the mind of an obstinate:) obviously everything is an ad hominem.
A refusal for constructive comments and constructive criticism :)
I did not say that everything is an ad hominem. You should not be so hasty to judge wrongly.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. But the issue here is that you have had countless attempts to attain nirvana, yet you are still here. When will one realise that may be mere wishful thinking?
2. What is this Bliss body? Who has it? Who currently has it?
3. I beg to differ. You may be confused. The teaching of no-self is not the same as teaching one not to be selfish. The latter does not negate or deny the idea of self.
4. A contradiction is necessary false. If Buddhism holds to contradictory beliefs as equally true, then it fails the test of logical consistency and violates the law of non-contradiction.
considering the 6 realms of existences. it's extremely rare as stated in Buddhism to be born a human. as the analogy goes, if u place a ring in the ocean and expect a turtle to surface right into the ring is a human rebirth. and even if u are born human, enlightenment is also not easy in the sense, u do not encounter the Buddha or his dharma. its way much much more difficult then winning a toto. the chance is almost zero. one have to build up affinities. sometimes, it's also about whether one is still attached to desire realm. like the monkey trap. how to u expect the monkey to release its hands? u can't, as its too attached.
u need to check for yourself on Bliss/rewarding body. all Buddhas and some bodhisattvas has it.
not-self also does not deny the idea of self. self keep changing, hence the meaning of no self/emptiness. object are also changing of atoms/energy, hence the meaning of emptiness. in lay man term, if one cannot understand the profundity, it's just plain selflessness/not to be selfish.
see link for the benefits of emptiness.
http://www.dhammaweb.net/books/Lamp.pdf
Buddhism aim is to want us to let go of attachment. as in the monkey trap example. Everything is false IS part of the teaching of Buddhism.
/\
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
considering the 6 realms of existences. it's extremely rare as stated in Buddhism to be born a human. as the analogy goes, if u place a ring in the ocean and expect a turtle to surface right into the ring is a human rebirth. and even if u are born human, enlightenment is also not easy in the sense, u do not encounter the Buddha or his dharma. its way much much more difficult then winning a toto. the chance is almost zero. one have to build up affinities. sometimes, it's also about whether one is still attached to desire realm. like the monkey trap. how to u expect the monkey to release its hands? u can't, as its too attached.
u need to check for yourself on Bliss/rewarding body. all Buddhas and some bodhisattvas has it.
not-self also does not deny the idea of self. self keep changing, hence the meaning of no self/emptiness. object are also changing of atoms/energy, hence the meaning of emptiness. in lay man term, if one cannot understand the profundity, it's just plain selflessness/not to be selfish.
see link for the benefits of emptiness.
http://www.dhammaweb.net/books/Lamp.pdf
Buddhism aim is to want us to let go of attachment. as in the monkey trap example. Everything is false IS part of the teaching of Buddhism.
/\
1. I don't know if it is indeed extremely rare to be born a human, considering the population growth explosion in the last century alone. Furthermore, if the chance is almost zero, any hope you may have to attain it in this life is depressingly remote. You can only hope that you don't come back as an ant in the next life which would really set things back.
2. Re the Blissful body, I am interested to know how it is like. Is there anyone alive now who has this?
3. The idea of a changing self is problematic. I think it is a result of confusion between the immaterial "I" versus the physical body that changes throughout one's life. Yes, things do change over time, but I think it is rather erroneous to call it emptiness.
4. Thanks for the book link. Re the point about letting go of attachment. I think the issue is not attachment per se, but what one is attached to. Should one be attached to Buddha's teaching? Should one seek to be free of samsara? Should one desire the attainment of nirvana? Should one desire not to have any desire?
-
1. The facts speak for themselves concerning the importance of the question of God's importance. In any case, your failure to grasp the importance and implications of this question does not invalidate its importance at all.>>>> facts? What facts are you referring to?>>>> 'the importance of the question of God's importance.' -> again to you only. Kindly speak for yourself.>>>> 'In any case, your failure to grasp the importance and implications of this question does not invalidate its importance at all.' -> in any case, your failure to grasp the unimportance of this question does not invalidate its unimportance to us.2. The existence of God impacts upon the meaning of life, the purpose of life, and also the moral values.>>>> true for you. Kindly speak for yourself.3. I wasn't defining anything when I said that Buddhism evades the question of God. Merely making an observation.>>>> sure. It's your observation and it's only true for you.4. Disrespectful to the asker. And yes, the question of God's existence is a very reasonable question. It is asked and pontificated on every philosophy's textbook, debated in public and online, and even appears in Buddhist websites. Apparently people are asking this question. You can't missed it, unless you wilfully choose to ignore it.>>>> 'Disrespectful to the asker.' -> if one is respectful of oneself, one should think thoroughly before asking another. Would you care if I ask which school is playing against each other in the game of football in Okhlahoma?>>>> 'the question of God's existence is a very reasonable question.' -> again, to you.>>>> 'It is asked and pontificated on every philosophy's textbook, debated in public and online, and even appears in Buddhist websites. Apparently people are asking this question' -> it was also asked during Buddha's time. So, what?>>>> 'You can't missed it, unless you wilfully choose to ignore it.' -> gosh you're cracking me up again. LOL!!! Are you me? Are you asking me or answering for me? LOL.5. Why would the question of God's existence not be a real question? What defines a real question? Regardless of the content of the question I am just saying that it is disrespectful to respond with apathy towards a reasonable question.>>>> 'Why would the question of God's existence not be a real question' -> why should it?>>>> 'What defines a real question? ' -> what do you think?>>>> 'Regardless of the content of the question I am just saying that it is disrespectful to respond with apathy towards a reasonable question.' -> again, to you. The answer itself is apathy.6. Sorry, I do not buy the false notion that whats true for you is true for you but not for me. Is such a notion just true for you but not for me? Or do you expect that notion to be true for both you and me? If so, then you have just stepped on your own feet and contradicted yourself.>>>> 'the false notion that whats true for you is true for you but not for me.' -> you determine what's right and wrong? LOL.>>>> 'Or do you expect that notion to be true for both you and me? If so, then you have just stepped on your own feet and contradicted yourself.' -> LOL!! You're really cracking me up. Whether you choose or don't choose, your choice is right for you. LOL! did I step on my feet ? LOL!!!
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. I don't know if it is indeed extremely rare to be born a human, considering the population growth explosion in the last century alone. Furthermore, if the chance is almost zero, any hope you may have to attain it in this life is depressingly remote. You can only hope that you don't come back as an ant in the next life which would really set things back.
2. Re the Blissful body, I am interested to know how it is like. Is there anyone alive now who has this?
3. The idea of a changing self is problematic. I think it is a result of confusion between the immaterial "I" versus the physical body that changes throughout one's life. Yes, things do change over time, but I think it is rather erroneous to call it emptiness.
4. Thanks for the book link. Re the point about letting go of attachment. I think the issue is not attachment per se, but what one is attached to. Should one be attached to Buddha's teaching? Should one seek to be free of samsara? Should one desire the attainment of nirvana? Should one desire not to have any desire?
yea, people tends to use the living beings on this earth only. like say we have 10 billion world systems in one Buddhaland, and not to mention hell and heavenly realms. Buddha also use another analogy to explain the rareness of human encountering dharma by grabing fine sands and releasing them, the number of sands that are left inside his finger nails. Buddha also pointed that ants are the most stubborn beings. 7 Buddhas were Born before they are reborn into higher realms. samsara is indeed a infinity rebirth. to get out, the monkey just don't grab the food, and it will be free! u can say if u miss this train, then to the next life, u might not know the next encountering could be, given how our karmic wind may blow, as Xtian may say forever in hell, but for us is a very very long time in samsara. however an affinity with dharma, is a seed planted in the subconsciousness, and that seed will grow into fruition one day.
hah, its Embodiment of Bliss, Sambhogakaya , not just "blissful".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trikaya
its not problematic, when u don't consider countless rebirth. indeed emptiness is not a good word. better as :-
ŚūnyatÄ�, (Sanskrit, also shunyata; Pali: suññatÄ�), is a Buddhist term that is translated into English as emptiness, openness, thusness, etc. ŚūnyatÄ� refers to the absence of inherent existence in all phenomena, and it is complementary to the Buddhist concepts of not-self (PÄ�li: anatta, Sanskrit: anÄ�tman)[note 1] and dependent origination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emptiness_(Buddhism)
in the sense dharma is only like medicine that u take and cure attachment. when u talk a boat to the other shore, u leave the boat behind. dharma is just a teaching tool. i think u heard that. and yes it's indepthness will also lead to the detachment of dharma and attaining nirvana, and returning back to samsara to help others, selflessly forever. the ultimate happiness/bliss is not just nirvana but helping others 助人为快�之本 its the root cause of bliss. when u reached the end of the road, there's actually no reward. the reward IS the way there. the Right attachment is Right Mindfulness, a practice of Buddhism. yes, sometimes u do need to use posion to cure posion per se. non attachment is only the first stage, there's second stage of non-discrimination and third, non-wandering thoughts or Equanimity. its ok to attached to helping others giving that one had already realised not-self. as there's no suffering or karma without a self.
/\
-
Originally posted by zeus29:1. The facts speak for themselves concerning the importance of the question of God's importance. In any case, your failure to grasp the importance and implications of this question does not invalidate its importance at all.>>>> facts? What facts are you referring to?>>>> 'the importance of the question of God's importance.' -> again to you only. Kindly speak for yourself.>>>> 'In any case, your failure to grasp the importance and implications of this question does not invalidate its importance at all.' -> in any case, your failure to grasp the unimportance of this question does not invalidate its unimportance to us.2. The existence of God impacts upon the meaning of life, the purpose of life, and also the moral values.>>>> true for you. Kindly speak for yourself.3. I wasn't defining anything when I said that Buddhism evades the question of God. Merely making an observation.>>>> sure. It's your observation and it's only true for you.4. Disrespectful to the asker. And yes, the question of God's existence is a very reasonable question. It is asked and pontificated on every philosophy's textbook, debated in public and online, and even appears in Buddhist websites. Apparently people are asking this question. You can't missed it, unless you wilfully choose to ignore it.>>>> 'Disrespectful to the asker.' -> if one is respectful of oneself, one should think thoroughly before asking another. Would you care if I ask which school is playing against each other in the game of football in Okhlahoma?>>>> 'the question of God's existence is a very reasonable question.' -> again, to you.>>>> 'It is asked and pontificated on every philosophy's textbook, debated in public and online, and even appears in Buddhist websites. Apparently people are asking this question' -> it was also asked during Buddha's time. So, what?>>>> 'You can't missed it, unless you wilfully choose to ignore it.' -> gosh you're cracking me up again. LOL!!! Are you me? Are you asking me or answering for me? LOL.5. Why would the question of God's existence not be a real question? What defines a real question? Regardless of the content of the question I am just saying that it is disrespectful to respond with apathy towards a reasonable question.>>>> 'Why would the question of God's existence not be a real question' -> why should it?>>>> 'What defines a real question? ' -> what do you think?>>>> 'Regardless of the content of the question I am just saying that it is disrespectful to respond with apathy towards a reasonable question.' -> again, to you. The answer itself is apathy.6. Sorry, I do not buy the false notion that whats true for you is true for you but not for me. Is such a notion just true for you but not for me? Or do you expect that notion to be true for both you and me? If so, then you have just stepped on your own feet and contradicted yourself.>>>> 'the false notion that whats true for you is true for you but not for me.' -> you determine what's right and wrong? LOL.>>>> 'Or do you expect that notion to be true for both you and me? If so, then you have just stepped on your own feet and contradicted yourself.' -> LOL!! You're really cracking me up. Whether you choose or don't choose, your choice is right for you. LOL! did I step on my feet ? LOL!!!
1. The facts which I have laid out which you failed to see. I spoke about the fact that the question of God's existence is one that has been asked since antiquity, that it is addressed in philosophy, and that there are debates (online and public) that are being conducted on this. If this does not speak to the importance of the issue then I don't know what does.
2. The "true for you not for me" and "speak for yourself" retort is vacuous. It also show that you have not been able to refute or rebutt my arguments. Again apathy is not the relevant answer. You have confused your response with an answer. If you leave an MCQ unanswered because you did not care, the MCQ is still not answered!
3. Yes, you did step on your own feet. Even more tragic is that you failed to discern the self-refuting nature of your own beliefs.
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
yea, people tends to use the living beings on this earth only. like say we have 10 billion world systems in one Buddhaland, and not to mention hell and heavenly realms. Buddha also use another analogy to explain the rareness of human encountering dharma by grabing fine sands and releasing them, the number of sands that are left inside his finger nails. Buddha also pointed that ants are the most stubborn beings. 7 Buddhas were Born before they are reborn into higher realms. samsara is indeed a infinity rebirth. to get out, the monkey just don't grab the food, and it will be free! u can say if u miss this train, then to the next life, u might not know the next encountering could be, given how our karmic wind may blow, as Xtian may say forever in hell, but for us is a very very long time in samsara. however an affinity with dharma, is a seed planted in the subconsciousness, and that seed will grow into fruition on day.
hah, its Embodiment of Bliss, Sambhogakaya , not just "blissful".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trikaya
its not problematic, when u don't consider countless rebirth. indeed emptiness is not a good word. better as :-
ŚūnyatÄ�, (Sanskrit, also shunyata; Pali: suññatÄ�), is a Buddhist term that is translated into English as emptiness, openness, thusness, etc. ŚūnyatÄ� refers to the absence of inherent existence in all phenomena, and it is complementary to the Buddhist concepts of not-self (PÄ�li: anatta, Sanskrit: anÄ�tman)[note 1] and dependent origination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emptiness_(Buddhism)
Sunyata Affirms the Existence of Existence;
Sunyata Negates the Self-nature of Existence.
in the sense dharma is only like medicine that u take and cure attachment. when u talk a boat to the other shore, u leave the boat behind. dharma is just a teaching tool. i think u heard that. and yes it's indepthness will also lead to the detachment of dharma and attaining nirvana, and returning back to samsara to help others, selflessly forever. the ultimate happiness/bliss is not just nirvana but helping others 助人为快�之本 its the root cause of bliss. when u reached the end of the road, there's actually no reward. the reward IS the way there. the Right attachment is Right Mindfulness, a practice of Buddhism. yes, sometimes u do need to use posion to cure posion per se. non attachment is only the first stage, there's second stage of non-discrimination and third, non-wandering thoughts or Equanimity. its ok to attached to helping others giving that one had already realised not-self. as there's no suffering or karma without a self.
The Buddha’s analogy of the snake and the rope is very relevant
here. Suppose you are walking along through the grass when
suddenly you see a circular shape on the pathway. It looks like a
snake, and you become frozen with fear. But when you look
closely you see that it’s not a snake at all, it’s just a coil of rope.
Relief rushes through your body and the fear disappears.
Everything is OK again. After offering this analogy, the Buddha
would pose the question, “What happened to the snake when the
coil of rope was recognized?” The answer is, nothing. Nothing
happened to the snake because there never was one.
So, similarly, when people ask, “What happens to the self
when the body dies?” The answer is basically the same. The
whole conception of the self is based upon a misapprehension, so
the question doesn’t apply. The way we see our “selves” is a fundamental
misapprehension that needs to be corrected. The practice
is about learning to see clearly, to awaken to what really is.”/\
The concept of no-self or non-attachment is not hard to grasp, though I would argue that it is rather irrational. As a buddhist it would seem to me that you have understood this, then why aren't you considered enlightened? I mean, if Buddha sat under the Bo tree to understand something that has eluded man, and assuming he has communicated it correctly, then followers should also be able to be enlightened just like him. Isn't it pretty much a knowledge issue? The solution is "no-self", right?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. The facts which I have laid out which you failed to see. I spoke about the fact that the question of God's existence is one that has been asked since antiquity, that it is addressed in philosophy, and that there are debates (online and public) that are being conducted on this. If this does not speak to the importance of the issue then I don't know what does.
2. The "true for you not for me" and "speak for yourself" retort is vacuous. It also show that you have not been able to refute or rebutt my arguments. Again apathy is not the relevant answer. You have confused your response with an answer. If you leave an MCQ unanswered because you did not care, the MCQ is still not answered!
3. Yes, you did step on your own feet. Even more tragic is that you failed to discern the self-refuting nature of your own beliefs.
1. The facts which I have laid out which you failed to see. I spoke about the fact that the question of God's existence is one that has been asked since antiquity, that it is addressed in philosophy, and that there are debates (online and public) that are being conducted on this. If this does not speak to the importance of the issue then I don't know what does.
>>>> I thought i've answered that already. i said it was also aasked during buddha's time. so, what?
>>>> how about the question of how to take good care of an audi? it matters to me, does it matter to you? why not? you must! must! must! LOL
2. The "true for you not for me" and "speak for yourself" retort is vacuous. It also show that you have not been able to refute or rebutt my arguments. Again apathy is not the relevant answer. You have confused your response with an answer. If you leave an MCQ unanswered because you did not care, the MCQ is still not answered!
>>>> aiyo. going in circle again. am too lazy to repeat. just refer to previous answers la.
3. Yes, you did step on your own feet. Even more tragic is that you failed to discern the self-refuting nature of your own beliefs.
>>>> I don't see how but I guess it's true for you and not to me.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The concept of no-self or non-attachment is not hard to grasp, though I would argue that it is rather irrational. As a buddhist it would seem to me that you have understood this, then why aren't you considered enlightened? I mean, if Buddha sat under the Bo tree to understand something that has eluded man, and assuming he has communicated it correctly, then followers should also be able to be enlightened just like him. Isn't it pretty much a knowledge issue? The solution is "no-self", right?
Lots of people have intellectual understandings but not an experiential realisation of the nature of mind.
I've intellectually understood no-self since maybe 2005 or 2006 but an experiential realisation only arose in recent years (late 2010). Some people took longer.
Realisation of no-self has a profound impact in my life but I cannot say I have achieved the end goal yet. There are four stages of enlightenment in Buddha's teachings.
Buddha had hundreds and thousands of students at each of these stages. He had thousands of students attain the stage of full liberation or Arahantship in his lifetime.
In Buddhism, the issue and solution is about awakening, not concepts or intellectual knowledge.