Choosing your religion

[Phil Ayesho]

To reject the universality of suffering is clearly to be blind

That's your dogma showing again...

I can just as validly state that joy is more universal than suffering... else why would people cling to life so...

I am not blind... I simply reject the notion that suffering is any different than
its opposite... they are either end of a continuum.... one does not exist without the other... i must suffer to even know joy.

Sorry- by focusing on the suffering, Buddhism is a life/negative perspective.

Karma isn't a reward and punish system by a divine judge .

So what? the lack of a judge is immaterial... its a consequence of action and buddhists claim that different actions have differing consequences that are precisely correlatabled to reward and punishment.

But what is more important is that although there is lots of evidence that life is full of suffering... there is none that you are reborn as a consequence of your previous life's karma.

Its an invention and its sole purpose is to create in the believer the delusion that they continue after death.

I understand WHY its appealing... but anyone claiming that the buddhist genuinely, in their heart of hearts looks forward to non-being is fooling themselves.

Because it was an invention with no evidence in support... you can be sure it was invented to serve a purpose... and the purpose re-incarnation serves is to evade true death.

Many people think that buddhism is against desire . The desire to became enlightment , the desire to help others and the desire to end suffering are examples of good desires . The most correct word to negative or ignorant desires is to act with ATTACHMENT.

Looks like you need to read a little more... catch bull at four

there is no desire without attachment.

Buddhism is the position that ANY desire is bad because its a form of attachment.
You seek enlightenment because that is the condition of letting go of attachment, of ceasing to desire.

No water in the bucket... no moon in the water.

People who think that buddhism is anti-desire are understanding it for what it is.

I think that you should read more about Buddhism before commenting on it because you have like many people in the nonbuddhist countries several misconceptions about it

I have studied buddhism for 30 years... read all the literature... from western interpretations to the original sutras. I have walked the eightfold path most of my life...


As I have said... of the religions, buddhism is the most appealing because my direct experience with it is that it works far better than any other at actually changing people's behavior and perspective.


That I know it well and have practiced zen meditation since I was 14 does not render me unable to correctly analyze the teachings.

Because buddhism offers a dodge around death, and makes unsubstantiated claims to postmortem consequences for actions in life, it qualifies as a religion, even tho it posits no deity.


I think it is far less toxic than any form of judeo/christianity/ islam....

But at its core it is still wishful thinking about what happens when we die.


I do not pretend to know the answer to what happens when we die...but neither can I take seriously anyone who claims that they do know.




I can appreciate the aesthetic of seeking to reduce the suffering you generate in the world... I embrace that idea wholeheartedly.

I have to draw the line at that for which any evidence is lacking.

What is more... I don't NEED to have an answer to these questions to live a fulfilled and meaningful existence.


And for anyone looking for a really Great book on Zen Buddhism from the more practical side... look for "Everyday Suchness" by Gyomay Kubose the guy who was the head of the Chicago Zen Temple when I lived thereabouts.

 

[Gillette]

Isn't the desire to be free of attachments an attachment in itself?

I'm not really up to speed on Buddhism but that struck me as a bit of a catch 22.

 

[Principessa]

I'm a member of the American Baptist Churches-USA, that just happens to be in the South. (not to be confused the Southern Baptist Convention)

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. However, it was my understanding that the American Baptist Church was founded partially because they did not discriminate against people of color. While the Southern Baptist Convention did discriminate against who could became an ordained minister, be a deacon etc.

 

[Gonzo3]

..L.O.V.E.......

 

[JustAsking]

Agnostic.

Once fancied myself an atheist but realized that requires me to hold that my own powers of reason are infallible, which strikes me as pretty cocky (not to mention dogmatic).

Nothing against atheists, but many seem as devout (sometimes even as evangelical) as any fundamentalist.

I am of two minds about the notion that atheism is a belief or it is dogmatic.

On one hand, it is perfectly reasonable to simply refuse to entertain the notion that any particular hypothetical supernatural being exists. If that is one's definition of Atheism, I maintain that this is not dogma. For example, do you believe in Zeus? If not, is your unbelief dogmatic? How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If you don't believe in FSM, are you a dogmatic fundamentalist Atheist?

On the other hand, I do maintain that it is dogmatic and an article of faith to believe that empiricism is the path to universal truth. For example, to say that you don't believe in the God of Abraham because there is no scientific proof. That is not only an article of faith in empiricism, but it is also an abuse of science.

 

[D_CountdeGrandePinja]

born and raised Roman Catholic - now Catholic but not with Rome - not inclusive enough for me - we are all created in the image and likeness of God whoever you think he, she or it to be - The Golden Rule is within each and every spiritual path - learn one which you can admire and go with it!

 

[D_Portelay Porquesword]

I consider my beliefs based in the teachings of Jesus/Christianity.

Religion and Spirituality are two different matters for me.

And NO, I do not consider myself right and everyone else wrong. I take other faith/teachings into consideration, in addition to what I choose to believe in.

Truth is truth.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I can just as validly state that joy is more universal than suffering... else why would people cling to life so...

Because they fear death more than the continuation of suffering.

I am not blind... I simply reject the notion that suffering is any different than
its opposite... they are either end of a continuum.... one does not exist without the other... i must suffer to even know joy.

Suffering comes from the contraction of conditioned consciousness.
The two ends of a continuum may both share the continuum, but they are not the same thing.

Sorry- by focusing on the suffering, Buddhism is a life/negative perspective.

Why? Buddhism claims to offer a way out of suffering. Would that not be life positive?

But what is more important is that although there is lots of evidence that life is full of suffering... there is none that you are reborn as a consequence of your previous life's karma.

Many contemporary Buddhists, and certainly many Zen practitioners, would agree with you on this.

Because it was an invention with no evidence in support... you can be sure it was invented to serve a purpose... and the purpose re-incarnation serves is to evade true death.

Well, partly that, and partly an expression of a very wide-spread world view at the time the Buddha taught.
Now that world view may have been, as you suggest, a way of evading the reality of death, but that doesn't mean that everyone who accepts the view does so for that reason. Most of our views are absorbed osmotically from our environment. (Small point, I know.)

there is no desire without attachment.

Yes, but you can carry this too far. Generally, you can like something ... but the problem comes when you must have it. That is the true expression of craving.

Because buddhism offers a dodge around death, and makes unsubstantiated claims to postmortem consequences for actions in life, it qualifies as a religion, even tho it posits no deity.

Many Buddhists no longer believe in rebirth, and very many Zen practitioners do not.
In fact, many Zen practitioners explicitly disavow the connection with religion.
They describe Zen as primarily a practice.
Some people say a rigorous Buddhism, with the attendant meditative practice, is far more like a natural science than a religion ... and I like that idea, personally.

I think it is far less toxic than any form of judeo/christianity/ islam....
But at its core it is still wishful thinking about what happens when we die.

Probably for most of those Buddhists that believe in rebirth, though not all.
And not at all for those Buddhists who do not.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Because they fear death more than the continuation of suffering.

bingo.

Suffering comes from the contraction of conditioned consciousness.
The two ends of a continuum may both share the continuum, but they are not the same thing.

Yes and no.
Duality means that we experience them as different things... but they are, in fact, nothing but two perspective on the same thing.

If I look at a rolling can of beer from one side I see it is turning counterclockwise... from the other end you see it turning clockwise. Clockwise and counter clockwise are not the same thing... we do not agree on our perceptions... but what we are looking at is just one can of beer rolling in one direction.
Modern physics faces similar revelations in understanding ordinary matter.

If you are born in the west... your worst day, ever, could well fall on the higher side of a fine day for someone in the third world.
Suffering and joy are the same thing, from differing perspectives.

Why? Buddhism claims to offer a way out of suffering. Would that not be life positive?

That's like saying Christianity offers the way out of sin.... you invent the very illness you offer to cure.

I tend to prefer the taoist view... you must suffer... but you need not suffer the suffering of it....
that is...
I do not want to see my son's heart broken... but I rejoice to find that he can have his heart broken. How much more precious is the joy of love for knowing the pain of its loss?

When we listen to a song or watch a movie or experience something in our lives that fills us with joy and with tears, we call it bittersweet.
It is because sorrow can be sweet.

Claiming you can end suffering is like claiming you can take away half your heart.

Like saying I can take all the black dots out of a black and white picture and still have a picture.

Far better to simply learn that suffering is the dark that, mixed with the light, creates the contrast that gives life meaning, texture, substance, and value.

Well, partly that, and partly an expression of a very wide-spread world view at the time the Buddha taught.
Now that world view may have been, as you suggest, a way of evading the reality of death, but that doesn't mean that everyone who accepts the view does so for that reason. Most of our views are absorbed osmotically from our environment. (Small point, I know.)

Oh, well put.
I am discussing buddhism and its functions as a human construct. Certainly there are people who are drawn to it for many reasons... from being born to it thru genuine affintity for the belief system...
...I was drawn to it because of the well argued principles behind the eightfold path... I never took any stock in the re-incarnation thing...

However... if one is analyzing why it contains the concepts it does...
The entire point of Karma is as a behavior modifier...of introducing consequences for you to avoid, or attain.
And the entire point of re-incarnation is to fell sure that you will not really die... this time around.

Yes, but you can carry this too far. Generally, you can like something ... but the problem comes when you must have it. That is the true expression of craving.

desire is the wanting.... the attachment.
If you simply like it without wanting... you do not desire it.

Many Buddhists no longer believe in rebirth, and very many Zen practitioners do not.
In fact, many Zen practitioners explicitly disavow the connection with religion.

Yes... I am far more symathetic with Zen buddhism than with mahayana or the others...


But then, realize that ZEN is what Taoist thought did to buddhism as it passed thru China. In China, its refered to as Ch' an buddhism.

I simply opt for the purely taoist view, because it is not promising me anything but understanding

 

[Axcess]

That's your dogma showing again...

I can just as validly state that joy is more universal than suffering... else why would people cling to life so...

I am not blind... I simply reject the notion that suffering is any different than
its opposite... they are either end of a continuum.... one does not exist without the other... i must suffer to even know joy.

Sorry- by focusing on the suffering, Buddhism is a life/negative perspective.




So what? the lack of a judge is immaterial... its a consequence of action and buddhists claim that different actions have differing consequences that are precisely correlatabled to reward and punishment.

But what is more important is that although there is lots of evidence that life is full of suffering... there is none that you are reborn as a consequence of your previous life's karma.

Its an invention and its sole purpose is to create in the believer the delusion that they continue after death.

I understand WHY its appealing... but anyone claiming that the buddhist genuinely, in their heart of hearts looks forward to non-being is fooling themselves.

Because it was an invention with no evidence in support... you can be sure it was invented to serve a purpose... and the purpose re-incarnation serves is to evade true death.




Looks like you need to read a little more... catch bull at four

there is no desire without attachment.

Buddhism is the position that ANY desire is bad because its a form of attachment.
You seek enlightenment because that is the condition of letting go of attachment, of ceasing to desire.

No water in the bucket... no moon in the water.

People who think that buddhism is anti-desire are understanding it for what it is.



I have studied buddhism for 30 years... read all the literature... from western interpretations to the original sutras. I have walked the eightfold path most of my life...


As I have said... of the religions, buddhism is the most appealing because my direct experience with it is that it works far better than any other at actually changing people's behavior and perspective.


That I know it well and have practiced zen meditation since I was 14 does not render me unable to correctly analyze the teachings.

Because buddhism offers a dodge around death, and makes unsubstantiated claims to postmortem consequences for actions in life, it qualifies as a religion, even tho it posits no deity.


I think it is far less toxic than any form of judeo/christianity/ islam....

But at its core it is still wishful thinking about what happens when we die.


I do not pretend to know the answer to what happens when we die...but neither can I take seriously anyone who claims that they do know.




I can appreciate the aesthetic of seeking to reduce the suffering you generate in the world... I embrace that idea wholeheartedly.

I have to draw the line at that for which any evidence is lacking.

What is more... I don't NEED to have an answer to these questions to live a fulfilled and meaningful existence.


And for anyone looking for a really Great book on Zen Buddhism from the more practical side... look for "Everyday Suchness" by Gyomay Kubose the guy who was the head of the Chicago Zen Temple when I lived thereabouts.

People that say that Buddhism is a negative religion don't understand it at all . The main doctrine of Buddhism is based on the 4 noble truths and the 8fold path and the mark of existence. The Buddha can be compared like a doctor The first noble truth is the reality of suffering . The second noble truth is the cause of suffering like when doctors indentify the cause of an disease. The third noble truth is that SUFFERING CAN BE ENDED . The 4 noble truth is that the method or the medicine to cure the disease is the 8fold path. The main goal in Buddhism is stop the circle of rebirths , is not to continue in the Samsara. So they see rebirths as more suffering. Buddhism isn't antidesire , Buddhism is anti attachment both are similar both not exactly the same thing. Is true that many people that claimed to being Buddhists don't believe in rebirth but that is another discussion. Rebirth and Samsara are one of the main doctrines of most Theravada and Mahayana schools . So Buddhism teach about suffering but ALSO TEACH THAT SUFFERING CAN BE ENDED with the 8fold path.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Yes and no.
Duality means that we experience them as different things... but they are, in fact, nothing but two perspective on the same thing.

You know, this is a quintessentially Buddhist view.
That said, contraction is not the same as openness.

That's like saying Christianity offers the way out of sin.... you invent the very illness you offer to cure.
I tend to prefer the taoist view... you must suffer... but you need not suffer the suffering of it....
that is...
I do not want to see my son's heart broken... but I rejoice to find that he can have his heart broken. How much more precious is the joy of love for knowing the pain of its loss?

You can reduce your suffering greatly through a very deep Buddhist practice that becomes continuous.
That doesn't mean that all suffering ends.
According to good practice, you would be entirely open to it ... but not wish to propagate the feeling-tone or the mental-state.

When we listen to a song or watch a movie or experience something in our lives that fills us with joy and with tears, we call it bittersweet.
It is because sorrow can be sweet.

A poet you are, Phil. And I agree with you. Good Buddhist practice does not suggest that the bittersweet be expunged ... merely that one not cling to it as it arises ... and falls.

Claiming you can end suffering is like claiming you can take away half your heart.
Like saying I can take all the black dots out of a black and white picture and still have a picture.

Surely true. You don't totally end suffering. Life has a range of feeling, but with less contraction.

Far better to simply learn that suffering is the dark that, mixed with the light, creates the contrast that gives life meaning, texture, substance, and value.

This has the ring of truth ... but the contrast doesn't disappear, become impossible to experience. One simply spends less time suffering.

desire is the wanting.... the attachment.
If you simply like it without wanting... you do not desire it.

I can want to listen to classical music this evening, but that's no problem unless my life is irredeemably ruined by the fact that my stereo is broken.
If I can say, "Um, I wanted to hear the Appassionata Sonata, but I guess I can't," and then go on to something else, then there is no problem.
When I thumbsuck for an hour, there is.

Yes... I am far more symathetic with Zen buddhism than with mahayana or the others...

You know, Zen is in the Mahayana tradition. (Not everyone realizes this.)

I simply opt for the purely taoist view, because it is not promising me anything but understanding

Who could take exception, Phil?
Anyway, nice talking to you.:wink:

 

[Axcess]

You know, this is a quintessentially Buddhist view.
That said, contraction is not the same as contraction.



You can reduce your suffering greatly through a very deep Buddhist practice that becomes continuous.
That doesn't mean that all suffering ends.
According to good practice, you would be entirely open to it ... but not wish to propagate the feeling-tone or the mental-state.



A poet you are, Phil. And I agree with you. Good Buddhist practice does not suggest that the bittersweet be expunged ... merely that one not cling to it as it arises ... and falls.



Surely true. You don't totally end suffering. Life has a range of feeling, but with less contraction.



This has the ring of truth ... but the contrast doesn't disappear, become impossible to experience. One simply spends less time suffering.



I can want to listen to classical music this evening, but that's no problem unless my life is irredeemably ruined by the fact that my stereo is broken.
If I can say, "Um, I wanted to hear the Appassionata Sonata, but I guess I can't," and then go on to something else, then there is no problem.
When I thumbsuck for an hour, there is.



You know, Zen is in the Mahayana tradition. (Not everyone realizes this.)



Who could take exception, Phil?
Anyway, nice talking to you.:wink:

Yes Zen is a Mahayana tradition .

 

[Axcess]

That's your dogma showing again...

I can just as validly state that joy is more universal than suffering... else why would people cling to life so...

I am not blind... I simply reject the notion that suffering is any different than
its opposite... they are either end of a continuum.... one does not exist without the other... i must suffer to even know joy.

Sorry- by focusing on the suffering, Buddhism is a life/negative perspective.




So what? the lack of a judge is immaterial... its a consequence of action and buddhists claim that different actions have differing consequences that are precisely correlatabled to reward and punishment.

But what is more important is that although there is lots of evidence that life is full of suffering... there is none that you are reborn as a consequence of your previous life's karma.

Its an invention and its sole purpose is to create in the believer the delusion that they continue after death.

I understand WHY its appealing... but anyone claiming that the buddhist genuinely, in their heart of hearts looks forward to non-being is fooling themselves.

Because it was an invention with no evidence in support... you can be sure it was invented to serve a purpose... and the purpose re-incarnation serves is to evade true death.




Looks like you need to read a little more... catch bull at four

there is no desire without attachment.

Buddhism is the position that ANY desire is bad because its a form of attachment.
You seek enlightenment because that is the condition of letting go of attachment, of ceasing to desire.

No water in the bucket... no moon in the water.

People who think that buddhism is anti-desire are understanding it for what it is.



I have studied buddhism for 30 years... read all the literature... from western interpretations to the original sutras. I have walked the eightfold path most of my life...


As I have said... of the religions, buddhism is the most appealing because my direct experience with it is that it works far better than any other at actually changing people's behavior and perspective.


That I know it well and have practiced zen meditation since I was 14 does not render me unable to correctly analyze the teachings.

Because buddhism offers a dodge around death, and makes unsubstantiated claims to postmortem consequences for actions in life, it qualifies as a religion, even tho it posits no deity.


I think it is far less toxic than any form of judeo/christianity/ islam....

But at its core it is still wishful thinking about what happens when we die.


I do not pretend to know the answer to what happens when we die...but neither can I take seriously anyone who claims that they do know.




I can appreciate the aesthetic of seeking to reduce the suffering you generate in the world... I embrace that idea wholeheartedly.

I have to draw the line at that for which any evidence is lacking.

What is more... I don't NEED to have an answer to these questions to live a fulfilled and meaningful existence.


And for anyone looking for a really Great book on Zen Buddhism from the more practical side... look for "Everyday Suchness" by Gyomay Kubose the guy who was the head of the Chicago Zen Temple when I lived thereabouts.

To end this discussion about Buddhism I originally said that I'm not religious but if have to choose a religion I would choose Buddhism .
In that discussion I only exposed Buddhism main doctrines and is clear that we have a very different perception or view of that teachings.
I don't care if death is the end . I'm not a Buddhist because I'm not sure if the Karma and rebirth thing is for real . Actually I prefer to think that death is the end because that would be a secure and definitive end to any suffering . If the rebirth thing is for real that means that we have to suffer or experience birth ,sickness , death and rebirth many times to ourselves and that our loves ones would have to experience that things too . So in my opinion it is better to think that everything ends with death .
I understand what you are saying that most people subscribe to a set of beliefs because they don't want to face their own mortality.

 

[D_Ivana Dickenside]

All I know is Dogma was a good Jay and Silent Bob movie.:biggrin1:


YouTube - R.E.M. - Losing My Religion

bryan i didn't even see that movie, but i remember it. i do love that REM song though

 

[gjorg]

I tend to be very spiritual, but I hold great contempt for the vast majority of organized religions.

OMG, we agree on something!
I was just wondering how many educated(seemingly) american adults in the 21st century believe in all the boo hoo.Its really scarey. We seem to be as bad off as all the rest of the religious fanatics around the world. All the grand who ha is so rediculous. I am spiritual but some of you folks are real freaks. Blind faith,bizarre!

 

[ActionBuddy]

I am a devout Onanist. Any of you hung guys want to "practice" with me cam2cam? Send me a PM! I promise, no dogma.

Onan

 

[JustAsking]

OMG, we agree on something!
I was just wondering how many educated(seemingly) american adults in the 21st century believe in all the boo hoo.Its really scarey. We seem to be as bad off as all the rest of the religious fanatics around the world. All the grand who ha is so rediculous. I am spiritual but some of you folks are real freaks. Blind faith,bizarre!

gjorg,
I don't see why being "spiritual" is not simply another form of blind faith. I am not criticizing it, I am just saying that I don't see a distinction. One's attitude towards spirituality is either informed by empiricism or by faith.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

You know, Zen is in the Mahayana tradition. (Not everyone realizes this

Its mahayana in the exact same sense that Christianity is jewish.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

People that say that Buddhism is a negative religion don't understand it at all .

you misunderstand me... I do not mean to say it is a 'negative' religion... I mean to say it is LIFE negative...
Its fundamental tenet is that the best you can hope for is to escape life.
It sees life AS suffering. And oblivion as the preferable option...

or, at least, it CLAIMS this...

I firmly believe that if you really could offer a buddhist the real present choice... oblivion now, or another round of suffering thru life? I am sure the vast majority would reply, "um...I guess I could stand a little more sufferin..."


Life as suffering... oblivion preferable?

That is one downer of a message...

 

[B_Nick4444]

Agnostic.

Once fancied myself an atheist but realized that requires me to hold that my own powers of reason are infallible, which strikes me as pretty cocky (not to mention dogmatic).

Nothing against atheists, but many seem as devout (sometimes even as evangelical) as any fundamentalist.

(not sometimes ... more like always)

BULLSEYE!