If we understood the goal, there would be no need to take the path. In fact, there is no path. There are obvious impediments we can get rid of, that's about it, that's Buddhism.
If you have given up Buddhism - how come?
- Thread starter greenberg
- Start date
If we understood the goal, there would be no need to take the path. In fact, there is no path. There are obvious impediments we can get rid of, that's about it, that's Buddhism.
They are relatively minor; not a show-stopper.
still doesn't explain why you talk of impediments, if they are ultimately a non-issue
:shrug:
on what authority or reasoning would one say that nirvana doesn't exist or there is no ultimate solution to samsara?
if i could cease to exist, i wouldn't exist now either. i was buddha in my past life.
all that work for nothing... and nothing didn't even exist...
i can't just pop into existence and then suddenly (after many lives) stop existing forever (no more than the universe can)... we attain nirvana, then we lose it again, etc. it's a cycle of eternal nirvanas and hells.
matter can't be destroyed, it can only be transformed... i can't cease to exist, i can only be transformed... blblalblalbla
LIGHT----GIganTic!:
Hey guys. I know this is gonna sound weird.
But, buddhism isn't right.
Is the true nature of mind nothing.
Obvious right.
Obvious.
But!
the point here is that...
The true nature of the mind is absolutely .. something else
We have things which push us towards living- of course!
Not only are there imperatives in our character, as if the buddhist is subjected to such harsh circumstances as these, he indeed would dwindle, : this is via psychic influence regarding energy: energy= life, without our energy, we die.
Therefore, the buddhist is an escape from reality which may be entirely correct, ... but, does it regard certain things? Such as this energy idea? Is not the energy idea valid at a certain area?
Buddhist philosophy teaches things such as nirvana and ultimate enlightenment. In order to attain these things, one must- ABSOLUTELY MUST... be fit physically and mentally, as dude said above it is all abstract. But there is no such thing as the non-self.
Somebody please, refute
Hey guys. I know this is gonna sound weird.
But, buddhism isn't right.
Is the true nature of mind nothing.
Obvious right.
Obvious.
But!
the point here is that...
The true nature of the mind is absolutely .. something else
We have things which push us towards living- of course!
Not only are there imperatives in our character, as if the buddhist is subjected to such harsh circumstances as these, he indeed would dwindle, : this is via psychic influence regarding energy: energy= life, without our energy, we die.
Therefore, the buddhist is an escape from reality which may be entirely correct, ... but, does it regard certain things? Such as this energy idea? Is not the energy idea valid at a certain area?
Buddhist philosophy teaches things such as nirvana and ultimate enlightenment. In order to attain these things, one must- ABSOLUTELY MUST... be fit physically and mentally, as dude said above it is all abstract. But there is no such thing as the non-self.
Somebody please, refute
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Enlightenment IS very hard to attain, but this word only represents the ultimate DEGREE of what you are trying to develop...which is greater happiness.
Even if you only make it halfway up the mountain, thats still dramatically better than what you have now...right?
So maybe what you are really complaining about is that youre making no progress at all???
still doesn't explain why there is no solution to samsara
IOW you haven't given an indication why the medium of repeated birth and death is the only medium of existence for the living entity
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
Take your own first-name, suffix it with an 'ism'. Its the only religion worth following.
You cant wear someone elses spirtual clothes all your life, youve got to get your groove on, draw up some guidelines, lay down some principles and live by them, and of course be ready to throw them away the instant they stop meaning anything to you.
At this moment youre all trapped in this game of interpretive whimsy, youre only really using buddhism as a blank canvas on which to project your own sensibilities. So you may as well do away with the middle man altogether and promote your own ideas (which is what youre doing anyway in a very convoluted way).
You cant wear someone elses spirtual clothes all your life, youve got to get your groove on, draw up some guidelines, lay down some principles and live by them, and of course be ready to throw them away the instant they stop meaning anything to you.
At this moment youre all trapped in this game of interpretive whimsy, youre only really using buddhism as a blank canvas on which to project your own sensibilities. So you may as well do away with the middle man altogether and promote your own ideas (which is what youre doing anyway in a very convoluted way).
Last edited:
what should we call this approach?
"heliocentricism" or simply good ol fashioned eclectic secularism?
No. Conservative Theravada only focuses on the texts of the Vinaya Pitaka and the Sutta Pitaka; some add the Commentaries and the Abhidhamma and some do not or only in part.
The Buddhism of the early Pali Canon is a lot different than Mahayana or Vajrayana, I would say.
Not really. To go with your metaphor - being down in the valley has its good points, and being on the top of the mountain has its good points. But being on the way up the mountain is rather demanding, and one has neither the benefits of the valley, nor those of the top.
But I suppose - such it is.
Yes, I said earlier that I was stuck and that it seems I need to make an all-or-nothing-decision.
I think you make a good point about making one's own guidelines and principles.
But in my experience, it is not possible to "do away with the middle man" altogether. The "middle man" is something like a helper and a catalyst.
With the help of Buddhist teachings I have actually come up with some guidelines and principles of my own. But in their final form, they don't directly look "Buddhist".
Because we are not yet in the ultimate; because we do not yet have ultimate understanding.
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
I hope you actually believe that. I thought for a bit there you were trying to show I was really in agreement with Buddhism - meaning essentially that I had misunderstood Buddhism and seen differences that were not there.
In my experience with Buddhists both in the West and East these circumstances make up 99% of the time.
Again, it seems like they forgot the original flexibility and use it in general. Flat affect was also praised.
In the West mind tends to be thought of as verbal thoughts, in Buddhism the term 'mind' -as with some Western philosophers- is more inclusive. I am assuming that you sense of mind includes non-verbal things, images, emotions, etc. Could you explain what 'admitting', 'dealing with' and 'not refraining' mean?
In general with Buddhists I find more differences here. I share the urge toward radical self-awareness and honesty, but from there my experience has been that Buddhists 'observe' and distance themselves. Allowing expression seems like a non-issue for them.
I began to experience this as an unnecessary restraint. I yearned not to keep, for example, emotions cut off from expression. Some teachers said that I did not realize what was hidden in the depths. I have long since come in contact with what is hidden in those depths. I certainly have sympathy for their fears there, but these fears became judgements that these realms must forever remain severed from expression. I have found that to be incorrect at least in my case and in the cases of others I know.
I think there is a tendency to assume that, for example, the Buddhism was a timeless example. He achieved perfection or enlightenment and did not have cultural of personal psychological bias in his choices and ideas. Further that at that stage in history humans were ready to face all that was inside us. A lot has happened since his time. Humans have been exploring themselves in ways that were not permitted at that time. Family secrets have been held in place and seen as wild exceptions - incestual sexual abuse, for example - until only quite recently. Pandora's box was not opening yet. In that milieu it may have seemed inevitable and necessary to keep the lid closed. In a sense I am saying that it was the best or a good choice at the time. But that does not mean we need to see it as the best choice now.
I think I will leave this thread at this point. I feel like I am getting too close to proselytizing - hell, perhaps I crossed that line long ago - and that is something I want to avoid. I realize my attempts to point out differences are not complete and may not be clear, but this was a shot at saying why I left.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Ok, but there is no "all" available...not all at once.
Progress is made *incrementally* through meditation...not through conceptual decisions.
what else could there be? non-existence is the only thing that never changes (never dies and is never born) but non-existence doesn't exist and even if it did, it could stay as nothing forever, it would start dreaming and creating this hell world.
Thanks for this.
It appears I have hereby hit a nerve in me, one from my Christian past - there, it was absolutely expected and the norm to make all-or-nothing decisions.
It is not always easy to notice how our previous religion is influencing us still!