Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:you are not catching the gist of what im trying to say... and at the same time what many have been trying to say.
Oh i rmb you once said im a non thinker ;) i believe you arent that great a thinker anyway :)
I never claimed to be a great thinker anyway.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:1. Yes, I get it that you don't care about the existence of God. But you are not getting it that your apathy towards this question reflects a flaw in your approach to life.
2. Any so-called attempt at liberation from suffering that does not take into account the issue of God would IMO be very flawed.
3. Yes, your good deeds can amount to nothing ultimately. I am sure you have found yourself in similar circumstances, where you tried to do good but it amounted to nothing because you lacked the information.
4. Be it precepts of 8 fold paths, it is still impossible, and that's not for lack of trying. You have had countless attempts in the past and you are still here.
5. And since the issue is about whether truth claims are true, then apathy cannot be the answer!
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
2. Any so-called attempt at liberation from suffering that does not take into account the issue of God would IMO be very flawed.
guess never learned about the 4 noble truth:-
The Truth of the Cause of Suffering
The Buddha had observed that life is suffering. Before He could find a solution to the problem of suffering in life, he had to first look for the cause of suffering. The Buddha was just like a good doctor who first observes a patient’s symptoms and identifies the cause of the illness before prescribing a cure. The Buddha discovered that the direct causes of suffering are desire or craving, and ignorance. This is the truth of the cause of suffering, which is the Second Noble Truth.
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/Noble.htm
/\
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Pray tell what other answers to the question of God's existence do you have besides these three?
Yes
No
Don't Know
Actually the answer is just either Yes or No, the third answer is actually an admission of ignorance, which is IMO a better and more humble answer than the arrogant stance of apathy displayed by some here.
take a pick. it doesn't matter to us at all.
The Truth of the Cause of Suffering
The Buddha had observed that life is suffering. Before He could find a solution to the problem of suffering in life, he had to first look for the cause of suffering. The Buddha was just like a good doctor who first observes a patient’s symptoms and identifies the cause of the illness before prescribing a cure. The Buddha discovered that the direct causes of suffering are desire or craving, and ignorance. This is the truth of the cause of suffering, which is the Second Noble Truth.
Re...direct causes of suffering are desire or craving, and ignorance. commonly are this :-
5) The Suffering of Being Apart from Those You Love. Love is the feeling you have toward someone or something you like. When you love someone or something, you want to be together with that person or object all the time. You never want to part from them. However, sometimes circumstances arise in which people must be parted from those that they love and this brings on an acute kind of suffering.
6) The Suffering of Being Together with Those You Hate. For example, there is a person whom you absolutely can't stand; you find it so hard to be around such a person that you want to leave him. However, when you deliberately go to another place to be away from him, you run into another person who is exactly like the person whom you couldn't stand. And so that's the suffering of being together with those you hate.
7) The Suffering of Not Obtaining What You Seek. Suppose there is something you really want, but circumstances prevent you from getting it for your own. You want it, but you don't get it. No matter what you do, there is no way to fulfill you own wishes. That is the suffering of not obtaining what you seek.
http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/Buddhism/BuddhistDict/BDS.html
the acknowledgement of sunyata, Dependent origination, and not self will helped remedy suffering.
/\
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Pray tell what other answers to the question of God's existence do you have besides these three?
Yes
No
Don't Know
Actually the answer is just either Yes or No, the third answer is actually an admission of ignorance, which is IMO a better and more humble answer than the arrogant stance of apathy displayed by some here.
to me this is a simple question. but funny if u keep don't get it, our stance is.
Re context depend on the "god" u are refering and one's understanding. if deva god(s)(including the fake Brahma/"creator" god, then the answer is YES. if refering to a real creator god with a unique autonomous entity as Xtian understood, then NO. the True Mind we are talking about have to be understood instead. Posted before but never get into the brain, Dalai Lama's answer:-
A: I understand the Primordial Buddha, also known as Buddha Samantabhadra, to be the ultimate reality, the realm of the Dharmakaya-- the space of emptiness--where all phenomena, pure and impure, are dissolved. This is the explanation taught by the Sutras and Tantras. However, in the context of your question, the tantric tradition is the only one which explains the Dharmakaya in terms of Inherent clear light, the essential nature of the mind; this would seem imply that all phenomena, samsara and nirvana, arise from this clear and luminous source. Even the New School of Translation came to the conclusion that the "state of rest" of a practitioner of the Great Yoga--Great Yoga implies here the state of the practitioner who has reached a stage in meditation where the most subtle experience of clear light has been realized--that for as long as the practitioner remains in this ultimate sphere he or she remains totally free of any sort of veil obscuring the mind, and is immersed in a state of great bliss.
We can say, therefore, that this ultimate source, clear light, is close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein. But we must be careful in speaking of this source, we must not be led into error. I do not mean chat there exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual level.
Likewise, when we speak of karma as the cause of the universe we eliminate the notion of a unique entity called karma existing totally independently. Rather, collective karmic impressions, accumulated individually, are at the origin of the creation of a world. When, in the tantric context, we say that all worlds appear out of clear light, we do not visualize this source as a unique entity, but as the ultimate clear light of each being. We can also, on the basis of its pure essence, understand this clear light to be the Primordial Buddha. All the stages which make up the life of each living being--death, the intermediate state, and rebirth--represent nothing more than the various manifestations of the potential of clear light. It is both the most subtle consciousness and energy. The more clear light loses its subtlety, the more your experiences take shape.
In this way, death and the intermediate state are moments where the gross manifestations emanating from clear light are reabsorbed. At death we return to that original source, and from there a slightly more gross state emerges to form the intermediate state preceding rebirth. At the stage of rebirth, clear light is apparent in a physical incarnation. At death we return to this source. And so on. The ability to recognize subtle clear light, also called the Primordial Buddha, is equivalent to realizing nirvana, whereas ignorance of the nature of clear light leaves us to wander in the different realms of samsaric existence.
This is how I understand the concept of the Primordial Buddha. It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time. If we had to accept the idea of an independent creator, the explanations given in the Pramanavartika, the "Compendium of Valid Knowledge" written by Dharmakirti, and in the ninth chapter of the text by Shantideva, which completely refutes the existence per se of all phenomena, would be negated. This, in turn, would refute the notion of the Primordial Buddha. The Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical examination. If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be able to interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an "interpretable" sutra.
http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html
/\
Originally posted by sinweiy:
guess never learned about the 4 noble truth:-
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/Noble.htm
/\
Not all desires or craving or ignorance leads to suffering.
A Buddhist desires to attain nirvana yet it leads to suffering? Sometimes ignorance is bliss.
So the question is, did the Buddha correctly identify the cause? In a sense I believe he did. Let me explain. In the Bible we read that the devil tempted Eve. Eve saw the fruit and desired to be made wise by it, to be like God. Her desire for the forbidden fruit led her to sin, and suffering, and death. She was led to believe that she was ignorant without the knowledge of good and evil granted by the fruit. She wasn't contented to know the God who knew everything. She wanted to be like God when in her perfect unfallen state she was already like God. And since the fall man has tried all kinds of ways to return back to that state of things.
At present the problem with man is not ignorance, but sin. It is sin that causes and brings about suffering and death. Every man knows that he is not morally perfect. I don't think any person would dare to honestly say that if he would die that instant he would be confident and assured to qualify for heaven. He knows deep within that while there is some good in him there is also a lot of bad in him, enough to keep him from going to heaven. But while man can be aware of how sinful he is, he can also be ignorant of the way to heaven. And I believe that's where the Gospel, the Good News, comes in.
Originally posted by zeus29:take a pick. it doesn't matter to us at all.
I supposed for you it is just apathetic ignorance i.e. you don't care if you don't know.
Originally posted by sinweiy:Re...direct causes of suffering are desire or craving, and ignorance. commonly are this :-
5) The Suffering of Being Apart from Those You Love. Love is the feeling you have toward someone or something you like. When you love someone or something, you want to be together with that person or object all the time. You never want to part from them. However, sometimes circumstances arise in which people must be parted from those that they love and this brings on an acute kind of suffering.
6) The Suffering of Being Together with Those You Hate. For example, there is a person whom you absolutely can't stand; you find it so hard to be around such a person that you want to leave him. However, when you deliberately go to another place to be away from him, you run into another person who is exactly like the person whom you couldn't stand. And so that's the suffering of being together with those you hate.
7) The Suffering of Not Obtaining What You Seek. Suppose there is something you really want, but circumstances prevent you from getting it for your own. You want it, but you don't get it. No matter what you do, there is no way to fulfill you own wishes. That is the suffering of not obtaining what you seek.
http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/Buddhism/BuddhistDict/BDS.html
the acknowledgement of sunyata, Dependent origination, and not self will helped remedy suffering.
/\
Losing the one you love, or being in the company of the one you hate, or not getting what you want. Yes, I agree with you that all such circumstances will be suffering in some sense. But I think you would also agree that these feelings are real because they are experienced and felt by you and I.
Originally posted by sinweiy:to me this is a simple question. but funny if u keep don't get it, our stance is.
Re context depend on the "god" u are refering and one's understanding. if deva god(s)(including the fake Brahma/"creator" god, then the answer is YES. if refering to a real creator god with a unique autonomous entity as Xtian understood, then NO. the True Mind we are talking about have to be understood instead. Posted before but never get into the brain, Dalai Lama's answer:-
Q: You have said that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no Creator, no God of creation, and this may initially put off many people who believe in a divine principle. Can you explain the difference between the Vajrayana Primordial Buddha and a Creator God?
A: I understand the Primordial Buddha, also known as Buddha Samantabhadra, to be the ultimate reality, the realm of the Dharmakaya-- the space of emptiness--where all phenomena, pure and impure, are dissolved. This is the explanation taught by the Sutras and Tantras. However, in the context of your question, the tantric tradition is the only one which explains the Dharmakaya in terms of Inherent clear light, the essential nature of the mind; this would seem imply that all phenomena, samsara and nirvana, arise from this clear and luminous source. Even the New School of Translation came to the conclusion that the "state of rest" of a practitioner of the Great Yoga--Great Yoga implies here the state of the practitioner who has reached a stage in meditation where the most subtle experience of clear light has been realized--that for as long as the practitioner remains in this ultimate sphere he or she remains totally free of any sort of veil obscuring the mind, and is immersed in a state of great bliss.
We can say, therefore, that this ultimate source, clear light, is close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein. But we must be careful in speaking of this source, we must not be led into error. I do not mean chat there exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual level.
Likewise, when we speak of karma as the cause of the universe we eliminate the notion of a unique entity called karma existing totally independently. Rather, collective karmic impressions, accumulated individually, are at the origin of the creation of a world. When, in the tantric context, we say that all worlds appear out of clear light, we do not visualize this source as a unique entity, but as the ultimate clear light of each being. We can also, on the basis of its pure essence, understand this clear light to be the Primordial Buddha. All the stages which make up the life of each living being--death, the intermediate state, and rebirth--represent nothing more than the various manifestations of the potential of clear light. It is both the most subtle consciousness and energy. The more clear light loses its subtlety, the more your experiences take shape.
In this way, death and the intermediate state are moments where the gross manifestations emanating from clear light are reabsorbed. At death we return to that original source, and from there a slightly more gross state emerges to form the intermediate state preceding rebirth. At the stage of rebirth, clear light is apparent in a physical incarnation. At death we return to this source. And so on. The ability to recognize subtle clear light, also called the Primordial Buddha, is equivalent to realizing nirvana, whereas ignorance of the nature of clear light leaves us to wander in the different realms of samsaric existence.
This is how I understand the concept of the Primordial Buddha. It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time. If we had to accept the idea of an independent creator, the explanations given in the Pramanavartika, the "Compendium of Valid Knowledge" written by Dharmakirti, and in the ninth chapter of the text by Shantideva, which completely refutes the existence per se of all phenomena, would be negated. This, in turn, would refute the notion of the Primordial Buddha. The Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical examination. If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be able to interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an "interpretable" sutra.
http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html
/\
"The Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical examination."
I fully concur! But then how come the Buddhist can accept the idea of traversing an actual infinite which does not stand up to logical examination?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:"The Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical examination."
I fully concur! But then how come the Buddhist can accept the idea of traversing an actual infinite which does not stand up to logical examination?
simply because one had got through logical examination. to me Buddhism had great wisdom, fit the universal puzzle and not magical. although in the beginning one needed faith at first, then when one had studied further and practice(meditations, as a form of witnessing and opening of its true wisdom), it'll become more logical and more convincing. i guess, u only study a few months, and never practice meditation, moreover u are also scare of god's punishment to disobey him or believe other thing, hence no examination of Buddhism to say it's not logical. in ur term, u are not "touch" by Buddhadharma. but i was touched. :)
/\
your understanding of devil tempted eve in bible is already not quite right - no details howsoever this devil started, how this eve suddenly come into picture, where did the tree & also the fruit came from! Bible ought to have altered until too shortcut beyond recognition, this is a very polite and kind value in the shoe of christians' belief in Bible. For this, buddhism scripture has great and enlightening structured details on it. As for buddhist desires to attain nirvana leads to suffering - indeed it is, inarguably, unless fully enlightened, even partial enlightenment like the bodhisavatta does suffer but that manner of suffering has no real feeling involved. And the good thing is that the quest for and pursuit of enlightenment encapsulated with blessing and merit along with the pursuit, which will develop or achieve spontaneous enlightenment or to the least, leading into much more fulfillling in this life and subsequent lifespan.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Not all desires or craving or ignorance leads to suffering.
A Buddhist desires to attain nirvana yet it leads to suffering? Sometimes ignorance is bliss.
So the question is, did the Buddha correctly identify the cause? In a sense I believe he did. Let me explain. In the Bible we read that the devil tempted Eve. Eve saw the fruit and desired to be made wise by it, to be like God. Her desire for the forbidden fruit led her to sin, and suffering, and death. She was led to believe that she was ignorant without the knowledge of good and evil granted by the fruit. She wasn't contented to know the God who knew everything. She wanted to be like God when in her perfect unfallen state she was already like God. And since the fall man has tried all kinds of ways to return back to that state of things.
At present the problem with man is not ignorance, but sin. It is sin that causes and brings about suffering and death. Every man knows that he is not morally perfect. I don't think any person would dare to honestly say that if he would die that instant he would be confident and assured to qualify for heaven. He knows deep within that while there is some good in him there is also a lot of bad in him, enough to keep him from going to heaven. But while man can be aware of how sinful he is, he can also be ignorant of the way to heaven. And I believe that's where the Gospel, the Good News, comes in.
change the sin word to karma, and it'll kind of fit the Buddhist stance. i think what i find not my taste is the some what magical non-logical story-like story of eve, ..also don't know how to describe this. but if treat it as a metaphor, then its ok.
the word desires or craving or ignorance can be a general term. mostly, there's "I Very like this" or "I Very dislike this", where the "I" is the source issue, hence Buddha taught selflessness. there are further more indepth, analytical meditational investigational term if u read/listen to more of buddhist Masters' commentries. the three posions of buddhism which are craving = attachment. hatred = dualism/discrimination. folly = wandering thoughts. indeed there are right and wrong of one thing. hence the Eight Noble path all start with the word RIGHT.
/\
Originally posted by Nyorai:your understanding of devil tempted eve in bible is already not quite right - no details howsoever this devil started, how this eve suddenly come into picture, where did the tree & also the fruit came from! Bible ought to have altered until too shortcut beyond recognition, this is a very polite and kind value in the shoe of christians' belief in Bible. For this, buddhism scripture has great and enlightening structured details on it. As for buddhist desires to attain nirvana leads to suffering - indeed it is, inarguably, unless fully enlightened, even partial enlightenment like the bodhisavatta does suffer but that manner of suffering has no real feeling involved. And the good thing is that the quest for and pursuit of enlightenment encapsulated with blessing and merit along with the pursuit, which will develop or achieve spontaneous enlightenment or to the least, leading into much more fulfillling in this life and subsequent lifespan.
A lack of details does not render the information invalid or false. At most one can only say the information is insufficient. On the other hand, providing details also does not mean it is true. The issue isn't whether there is enough information to satisfy you, the issue is whether the information given is true.
In any case, the Bible already stated that Eve was created from Adam's side. We are talking about the first chapter of the first book of the Bible, why would that be considered unexplained? God put the tree there, in fact you ought to have read Genesis 1 and know what is written there. Things came into existence because God called them into existence.
As to where the devil comes from, the information is supplied elsewhere in the Bible. Basically the devil is a fallen angel, another creation of God. I believe Satan's fall from heaven took place sometime after creation week in the spiritual realms.
Lastly, the issue is not about whether Buddhists hold up the hope of being enlightened in the next few rebirths. The issue is that the Buddhist has had COUNTLESS rebirths and still remains in samsara. There will be countless rebirths in the future as well. In other words, you have no hope in this life and in the countless lives to come to escape samsara. Otherwise you would have already been out of it by now.
Originally posted by sinweiy:
change the sin word to karma, and it'll kind of fit the Buddhist stance. i think what i find not my taste is the some what magical non-logical story-like story of eve, ..also don't how to describe this. but if treat it as a metaphor, then its ok.
the word desires or craving or ignorance can be a general term. mostly, there's "I Very like this" or "I Very dislike this", where the "I" is the source issue, hence Buddha taught selflessness. there are further more indepth, analytical meditational investigational term if u read/listen to more of buddhist Masters' commentries. the three posions of buddhism which are craving = attachment. hatred = dualism/discrimination. folly = wandering thoughts. indeed there are right and wrong of one thing. hence the Eight Noble path all start with the word RIGHT.
/\
The Buddhist notion of karma is in a sense similar to the Christian concept of sin.
Question to you is, why do you think the account of Adam and Eve is not logical? I mean, considering the fact that Buddhism does not even have an account of human origins, on what basis do you conclude so? Moreover, it is not magic, but miracle. The entire creation account is a miracle. Now concerning metaphor, metaphor for what? There must still be a correlation between a metaphor and the real thing.
The fact that there is a desire and attachment to speak of presupposes the existence of a self. Even if you want to deny such a thing there must be a self to deny a self! That the self is contingent i.e. has no independent existence (apart from God) is not disputed. But just because a being is contingent does not mean there is no self.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:The Buddhist notion of karma is in a sense similar to the Christian concept of sin.
Question to you is, why do you think the account of Adam and Eve is not logical? I mean, considering the fact that Buddhism does not even have an account of human origins, on what basis do you conclude so? Moreover, it is not magic, but miracle. The entire creation account is a miracle. Now concerning metaphor, metaphor for what? There must still be a correlation between a metaphor and the real thing.
The fact that there is a desire and attachment to speak of presupposes the existence of a self. Even if you want to deny such a thing there must be a self to deny a self! That the self is contingent i.e. has no independent existence (apart from God) is not disputed. But just because a being is contingent does not mean there is no self.
erm, you have forgotten Buddhism genesis about devas evolving into human.
magical or miracle is almost the same. metaphor like u can name one of the "fallen" deva, adam and another eve. and their greed for the "food" on earth had degraded them and accumulated karma(sin be it original or what).
again and again, for u, it's Not self, not no self.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html
a mind set with absolutely no self is nullism, aka the teaching of mara or devil/satan in ur language. i'll say the teaching of anatt�, Affirm the "existence" of self, BUT negated the self/soul-nature of Self. if not, there's no past stories of Buddha's past lifes. a keep on changing self is neither Eternalism non annihilism. it fit the Buddha's teaching of Impermanence. It's just Middle, Moderational, Non attached and Non dual way, that u let go of what ever concept and be free.
/\
Originally posted by sinweiy:erm, you have forgotten Buddhism genesis about devas evolving into human.
magical or miracle is almost the same. metaphor like u can name one of the "fallen" deva, adam and another eve. and their greed for the "food" on earth had degraded them and accumulated karma(sin be it original or what).
again and again, for u, it's Not self, not no self.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html
a mind set with absolutely no self is nullism, aka the teaching of mara or devil/satan in ur language. i'll say the teaching of anatt�, Affirm the "existence" of self, BUT negated the self/soul-nature of Self. if not, there's no past stories of Buddha's past lifes. a keep on changing self is neither Eternalism non annihilism. it fit the Buddha's teaching of Impermanence. It's just Middle, Moderational, Non attached and Non dual way, that u let go of what ever concept and be free.
/\
OK, so you do not deny the existence of self, just that you think it is contingent, i.e. dependent on other factors?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:OK, so you do not deny the existence of self, just that you think it is contingent, i.e. dependent on other factors?
u didn't know ? dependent arising is a core teaching of Buddhism, equal to emptiness/sunyata.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da
The general or universal definition of pratityasamutpada (or "dependent origination" or "dependent arising" or "interdependent co-arising") is that everything arises in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions; nothing exists as a singular, independent entity.[b][c] A traditional example used in Buddhist texts is of three sticks standing upright and leaning against each other and supporting each other. If one stick is taken away, the other two will fall to the ground. Thich Nhat Hanh explains:[9]
A key expression of the principle of pratityasamutpada is found in many sutras:[e]
This is, because that is.
This is not, because that is not.
This ceases to be, because that ceases to be./\
Originally posted by sinweiy:u didn't know ? dependent arising is a core teaching of Buddhism, equal to emptiness/sunyata.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da
Overview
The general or universal definition of pratityasamutpada (or "dependent origination" or "dependent arising" or "interdependent co-arising") is that everything arises in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions; nothing exists as a singular, independent entity.[b][c] A traditional example used in Buddhist texts is of three sticks standing upright and leaning against each other and supporting each other. If one stick is taken away, the other two will fall to the ground. Thich Nhat Hanh explains:[9]
- Pratitya samutpada is sometimes called the teaching of cause and effect, but that can be misleading, because we usually think of cause and effect as separate entities, with cause always preceding effect, and one cause leading to one effect. According to the teaching of Interdependent Co-Arising, cause and effect co-arise (samutpada) and everything is a result of multiple causes and conditions... In the sutras, this image is given: "Three cut reeds can stand only by leaning on one another. If you take one away, the other two will fall." For a table to exist, we need wood, a carpenter, time, skillfulness, and many other causes. And each of these causes needs other causes to be. The wood needs the forest, the sunshine, the rain, and so on. The carpenter needs his parents, breakfast, fresh air, and so on. And each of those things, in turn, has to be brought about by other causes and conditions. If we continue to look in this way, we'll see that nothing has been left out. Everything in the cosmos has come together to bring us this table. Looking deeply at the sunshine, the leaves of the tree, and the clouds, we can see the table. The one can be seen in the all, and the all can be seen in the one. One cause is never enough to bring about an effect. A cause must, at the same time, be an effect, and every effect must also be the cause of something else. Cause and effect inter-are. The idea of first and only cause, something that does not itself need a cause, cannot be applied.[d]
[edit] This is, because that is
A key expression of the principle of pratityasamutpada is found in many sutras:[e]
Then you should also note that the notion of contingent and necessary beings is taught in philosophy but it is not called emptiness which (as mentioned before) is a rather misleading term.
That three sticks support each other does not negate that there are three separate sticks. If it was placed there by design and purpose, then it implies that an intelligent cause was behind the arrangement. It was caused by intelligence. You see, the point about causes and effects are not lost on me. But what is inscrutable is the idea that it is turtles all the way down. In the desire to avoid a theistic conclusion or beginning the buddhist ends up biting the bullet of an illogical conclusion. Causes can be multiple or singular, it really depends on what is the case being examined. Causes can also be personal or impersonal.
That the universe works together as a system or network of interdependency points to intelligence at work. The human body is a work of marvel and intricate interdependency of systems. It didn't and couldn't just happen like that. It reflects intelligent design since all these function to work together. I credit this to God whereas you credit some nebulous and undiscernible causes and effects that stretches back to infinity past.
God never would create a design of human and then tell christians to enforce it in all human, that you believe in me otherwise, you suffer hellish instead of heavenly joys. Instead of God loving Christians, Christians commanding in the name of God that this is....that is....
Originally posted by Nyorai:God never would create a design of human and then tell christians to enforce it in all human, that you believe in me otherwise, you suffer hellish instead of heavenly joys. Instead of God loving Christians, Christians commanding in the name of God that this is....that is....
From where did you get the idea that God is telling Christians to enforce anything?
Christians are called to preach repentance and salvation from sin and eternal separation from God. We use words and proclamation to tell people to turn away from sin and towards God. It's no different from calling on people to run away from impending tsunami disaster. The Bible does not teach coercion, neither did Jesus or the early church forced anyone to believe in God. The choice is always yours to make.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:I supposed for you it is just apathetic ignorance i.e. you don't care if you don't know.
nope. not exactly. i care about a lot of things. and not caring to know the existance of god is not ignorance at all. only to you.
Originally posted by zeus29:nope. not exactly. i care about a lot of things. and not caring to know the existance of god is not ignorance at all. only to you.
You are right, it is not ignorance at all. It is more than that, it is apathetic ignorance as I have earlier pointed out.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:You are right, it is not ignorance at all. It is more than that, it is apathetic ignorance as I have earlier pointed out.
just because god is your centre, it should be mine?
i love audi, should you?
i love rugby, should you?
i love real estate, should you?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Then you should also note that the notion of contingent and necessary beings is taught in philosophy but it is not called emptiness which (as mentioned before) is a rather misleading term.
That three sticks support each other does not negate that there are three separate sticks. If it was placed there by design and purpose, then it implies that an intelligent cause was behind the arrangement. It was caused by intelligence. You see, the point about causes and effects are not lost on me. But what is inscrutable is the idea that it is turtles all the way down. In the desire to avoid a theistic conclusion or beginning the buddhist ends up biting the bullet of an illogical conclusion. Causes can be multiple or singular, it really depends on what is the case being examined. Causes can also be personal or impersonal.
That the universe works together as a system or network of interdependency points to intelligence at work. The human body is a work of marvel and intricate interdependency of systems. It didn't and couldn't just happen like that. It reflects intelligent design since all these function to work together. I credit this to God whereas you credit some nebulous and undiscernible causes and effects that stretches back to infinity past.
"Then you should also note that the notion of contingent and necessary beings is taught in philosophy but it is not called emptiness which (as mentioned before) is a rather misleading term."
i have no idea what u are talking about.
"In the desire to avoid a theistic conclusion or beginning the buddhist ends up biting the bullet of an illogical conclusion."
no, a theistic conclusion also lead to other illogical problems of unfairness and indifference in lifes, etc. the three sticks concepts applies to anyone who put them there. and If there were a beginning to the universe, there would also have to be a beginning to consciousness. If we accepted a beginning to consciousness, we would also have to accept that its cause has a beginning, a sudden cause which would have instantly produced consciousness; this would lead to a great many other questions. If consciousness had arisen without cause, or from a permanent cause, that cause would have to exist on. a permanent basis, always, or not exist at all, ever. As causes have no beginning and stretch back to infinity, the same thing must apply for living beings. Creation is therefore not possible.
our credit is to the ultimate source is already mentioned BTW:-
We can say, therefore, that this ultimate source, clear light, is close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein. But we must be careful in speaking of this source, we must not be led into error. I do not mean chat there exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual level.
http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html
/\