94 replies to this topic

[mentatpsi]

do you guys know if there's any truth to buddha becoming a nihilist in the later years of his life?

I believe that he did. He destroyed his ego. He didn't even have an ego to witness his enlightenment and that's why he asked for the earth (the ground in which he sat) to be the witness. Essentially, the definitive turning point for buddhists is to not be buddhist. That's the way I see it.

I'm pretty sure enlightenment, at least on some level, is actually a physiological phenomenon not readily brought about by any intellectual or metaphysical stance.

Well then zoolander, i suppose i've reached the definitive moment in my Buddhist career .

ludongbin, i have to agree with you on some level... but i do believe it can be induced through intellectual activities and meditation, given my personal definition of enlightenment.

Yes. Karma is also an unscientific theory - but it is still practical and beneficial in society so I don't think it's as bad as reincarnation.

I agree with you that life shouldn't stop at attaining self-awareness and inner peace - this is another flaw of Buddhism because it ignores the pleasures and knowledge that can only be found through experiencing life. Maybe Buddhist doctrine was designed for the poor and exploited of society, those incapable of enjoying and learning about what the world has to offer, providing a means of survival and pleasure in decrepit conditions?

Precisely how i feel, life is too short (perhaps not if we reach our goals with life extension), and i don't want to invest my life on concepts of an afterlife which no one can prove. I would rather live for the moment, then die for a fleeting dream.

[zoolander]

Ironically this thread is full of the "me's" and "I's" and people reaching their "personal" utopia

[gashinshotan]

Ironically this thread is full of the "me's" and "I's" and people reaching their "personal" utopia

Doesn't Buddhism teach that enlightenment is completely subjective?

[forever freedom]

Inner peace doesn't look so hot now does it? I don't know anything about buddhism, but it seems to me the idea is to lose all sense of reality. This guy probably thought something along the lines of "what is being alive anyways?"

lol nutjob

Edited by sam988, 01 June 2008 - 08:35 PM.

[VictorBjoerk]

How can Buddha figures symbolize self-control when he is portrayed as being extremely overweight?

[mentatpsi]

How can Buddha figures symbolize self-control when he is portrayed as being extremely overweight?

that's actually a misconception about Buddha... he himself was rather skinny being one of those traveling monks who practiced Asceticism, or renouncement of worldly pleasures, before he found his way. According to legends he fasted for very long durations, the accuracy of which i can't say, but he was indeed skinny. I believe even his enlightenment under a bodhi tree contained a period of fasting until he reached this state of being. The Buddha figures you speak of are the Laughing Buddha: http://en.wikipedia....Laughing_Buddha

[mentatpsi]

Ironically this thread is full of the "me's" and "I's" and people reaching their "personal" utopia

Doesn't Buddhism teach that enlightenment is completely subjective?

ya i have to agree here with gash again. All religions have that feature since we all experience things essentially alone. One cannot be expected to follow beliefs that he himself doesn't agree with, especially when skeptical of religions. I'm slightly confused by what you're trying to say though, are you pointing at the presence of ego in a religion where ego should be abstained from? To rephrase... do you see this as a bad thing?

Edit: redefined question

Edited by mysticpsi, 02 June 2008 - 08:02 AM.

[gashinshotan]

Why would the Dalai Lama of all people reject the very thing that makes him the Dalai Lama?

Why a Dalai Lama at all?

I respect your opinion on things and I've taken your advice to read a fair amount about Buddhism on Wikipedia. I'm still not very familiar with Buddhism but I'll mention things that on my first impression strike me as possible flaws, all of which deal with the Noble Eightfold Path (I don't know how central these ideas are in Buddhism). The "Right speech" teaching that people should not lie, and other things like this in the Noble Eightfold Path (Karma, abstaining from "immoral" acts, etc.) may sound nice, but like you say Karma has nothing to do with how things work in reality and in many situations things are quite the opposite. My views on this are from extrapolating the basic attitude Machiavelli had:

"The way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation; for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good."

Simply put nice guys finish last. After all, you can always just lie about being a nice guy if it suits your needs.

The rule of law is beneficial no matter how you put it. The eight fold path is not only a moral code, but a way to achieve peace - being morally upright does ensure you'll have much more friends than enemies and less emotional baggage to disrupt logical thinking. Machiavelli is wrong in much of what he says - just look at his position when he died while many successful men have also been the greatest benefactors of other men (Bill Gates, Bono etc). Mussolini and the mafioso are further examples of attempted machiavellian strategy and both have fell because of it while institutions striving for goodness (at least enough to have a strong image of doing so) have been far more successful and long lasting (the Catholic church, Islam, various Communist parties, American democracy etc).

On the other hand I do think there is something to the ideas on stress/suffering...

"The arising of craving is the root cause of the arising of suffering and the cessation of craving is the root cause of the cessation of the suffering."

If I understand this correctly, I agree the various "cravings" that people's actions are all too often dictated by are evolutionarily built in subconscious drives that are not based on logical thinking, and thus might not be the logical thing to do. And if you were able to rid yourself of these cravings you could make more logical decisions. However, that's assuming people are going to replace there lack of potentially counterproductive drives with logical decision making. As opposed to considering that accomplishment in and of itself the highest possible achievement. Based on what you say about Buddhists in there persistent vegetative states of Nirvana, this emphasis or even distinction of making logical choices to achieve their logical goals isn't happening.

Buddhism teaches achieving Nirvana through monkhood is not for most people. While, Buddas main goal is Nirvana, the teachings openly acknolwedge that most cannot reach such a state and this is not the point. By applying the logical principles of Buddhism to daily actions in pursuit of Nirvana, people can achieve a far better life free of useless desire though they may not ever reach Nirvana or Buddhahood. Why can't something provide a gradient of benefits? I recommend that you read some info on Zen Buddhism which is a far less dogmatic school and is probably the closest thing to a superstition-free Buddhism.

These people waste entire life times meditating on nothing, claiming to be seeking truth when in actuality many are ignorant of even the most basic scienes.

[mentatpsi]

I've said this before, one cannot practice extreme compassion like is found within the ideals of Buddhism. Not everyone is out there for pleasantries. Besides from what i heard, the introduction of compassion was used as a way to introduce some of the ideals of Christianity into Buddhism.

In addition, the removal of the ego seems to me like gash had suggested, an acceptance of the economic deprivation that was prevalent in that time. Gautama also ridiculed the Hindu caste systems, i mean look at the untouchables, slavery being enforced by a notion of being born into it from past life actions: karma. What bothers me is the way religions get twisted from the original teachings into some weird crap that no founder would recognize.

As far as morality, it was chosen by the leaders/society of the time. For instance the war with Krishna depicted in the Bhagavad Gita; they were forced to kill their own relatives and that was viewed as a positive/moral action, especially since Krishna is "infallible". That may seem unrelated, but Buddhism stems from Hinduism... if you take a look at Karma Yoga it resembles a lot of it, with the substitution of love of god for the compassion towards humanity. That's one of the reasons i like Buddhism, he deviated from nonsense and towards a more secular viewpoint with a very small amount of mysticism.

It is for this reason that i find religions, if they are to be practiced, should be personalized and put under a lens by a more secular society, in a sense to reform it.

Edited by mysticpsi, 02 June 2008 - 08:35 AM.

[zoolander]

Gashinshotan, thank you for posting a picture of "yourself" but how do we know that this is actually you and not just some random photo dragged off the internet? or taken from a friend?

[gashinshotan]

Gashinshotan, thank you for posting a picture of "yourself" but how do we know that this is actually you and not just some random photo dragged off the internet? or taken from a friend?

HAh

[gashinshotan]

Gashinshotan, thank you for posting a picture of "yourself" but how do we know that this is actually you and not just some random photo dragged off the internet? or taken from a friend?

HAh

I'm surprised you put up a picture at all. Do you talk to random people you meet in everyday life as openly as you do on here gash?

Yeah - then they freak out and realize they told me way too much personal info .

[mentatpsi]

Gashinshotan, thank you for posting a picture of "yourself" but how do we know that this is actually you and not just some random photo dragged off the internet? or taken from a friend?

kind of ironic we'd talk about personal appearance on a Buddhist topic

as far as being open about self identity what else but masks do we possess... the world is but a stage eh?

Edited by mysticpsi, 03 June 2008 - 07:22 PM.

[gashinshotan]

Gashinshotan, thank you for posting a picture of "yourself" but how do we know that this is actually you and not just some random photo dragged off the internet? or taken from a friend?

kind of ironic we'd talk about personal appearance on a Buddhist topic

as far as being open about self identity what else but masks do we possess... the world is but a stage eh?

Zoolander likes to emphasize egos, especially his. Why don't you post a pic yourself?

[mentatpsi]

Gashinshotan, thank you for posting a picture of "yourself" but how do we know that this is actually you and not just some random photo dragged off the internet? or taken from a friend?

kind of ironic we'd talk about personal appearance on a Buddhist topic

as far as being open about self identity what else but masks do we possess... the world is but a stage eh?

Zoolander likes to emphasize egos, especially his. Why don't you post a pic yourself?

I like zoolander though, he's a cool guy. I kind of think he was making a point, but i may be mistaken... i'll give him the benefit of the doubt though lol.

[gashinshotan]

Gashinshotan, thank you for posting a picture of "yourself" but how do we know that this is actually you and not just some random photo dragged off the internet? or taken from a friend?

kind of ironic we'd talk about personal appearance on a Buddhist topic

as far as being open about self identity what else but masks do we possess... the world is but a stage eh?

Zoolander likes to emphasize egos, especially his. Why don't you post a pic yourself?

I like zoolander though, he's a cool guy. I kind of think he was making a point, but i may be mistaken... i'll give him the benefit of the doubt though lol.

Zoolander is the typical online guru - I wish there was a gestapo-like network to deal with such people. JKING not

[meta]

Gashinshotan,

Would you mind posting a photo of yourself in this thread. I would like to make some rash judgements and generalisation about how you look

Hmm... sounds ok maybe I'll look for one.

Found one from a year ago. My cam is dead maybe Ill take a new one when I like.

That image doesn't depict the physical ugliness of a person who would develop your personality.

[gashinshotan]

Gashinshotan,

Would you mind posting a photo of yourself in this thread. I would like to make some rash judgements and generalisation about how you look

Hmm... sounds ok maybe I'll look for one.

Found one from a year ago. My cam is dead maybe Ill take a new one when I like.

That image doesn't depict the physical ugliness of a person who would develop your personality.

What's wrong with my personality?! I don't attack people personally, I don't make cheap attacks, and I don't make personal claims of superiority....

[mentatpsi]

I don't mean to sound pompous but if you guys take on the habit of insulting each other, there will be no point in having this thread. Buddhism is a very interesting religion with various perspectives and a discussion of its nature would be enjoyable for many of us here. Please also remember that people wear masks, and it is very foolish to so quickly judge a person on a public forum.

Anyways, are there any other perspectives on enlightenment that people have?

[meta]

Gashinshotan,

Would you mind posting a photo of yourself in this thread. I would like to make some rash judgements and generalisation about how you look

Hmm... sounds ok maybe I'll look for one.

Found one from a year ago. My cam is dead maybe Ill take a new one when I like.

That image doesn't depict the physical ugliness of a person who would develop your personality.

Do you really have to make a new user account in order to talk back to Gashinshotan?

He just rubbed me the wrong way... and I ejaculated.

[gashinshotan]

I don't mean to sound pompous but if you guys take on the habit of insulting each other, there will be no point in having this thread. Buddhism is a very interesting religion with various perspectives and a discussion of its nature would be enjoyable for many of us here. Please also remember that people wear masks, and it is very foolish to so quickly judge a person on a public forum.

Anyways, are there any other perspectives on enlightenment that people have?

Yeah someone clean up this thread.

Someone gave me this link http://www.attan.com/. Lots of info, not sure if its mainstream Buddhist though

[Legend]

I believe that buddhism is more of a phylosphy than a religion. And regarding reincarnation - well nothing is perfect .

[VictorBjoerk]

The majority of people here are atheists or agnostics,or?

The majority of people here are atheists or agnostics,or?

[lrco]

99% of the posts in here in this topic are all wrong.
buddhism in not niilism or just for poor or is against pleusere, its all wrong.
you should read a book called What Makes You Not a Buddhist: Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse, you will get all the info you need there. its a fantastic book for beginners

Theres no god or soul in buddhism.
Or reincarnation.The concept of reincarnation in Buddhism is very misunderstood by the laypeople from Christian countries. When one talks about'' rebirth'' in Buddhism, means that the energies of the universe does not end, they retain (first law of thermodynamics in physics), does not mean that you have a soul and will reincarnate in another body. It has nothing to do with it. What is said is that some energy, thats not you, just a stream of consciousness, remains. That's it. There's nothing mystical Buddhism and there are no blind beliefs in Buddhism.

Buddhism is mind training. knowing and studyng why we think this or that, why we feel this or that and what we should do to make others and ours life happy and more compassive

Edited by lrco, 02 October 2013 - 09:11 PM.

[shadowhawk]

99% of the posts in here in this topic are all wrong.
buddhism in not niilism or just for poor or is against pleusere, its all wrong.
you should read a book called What Makes You Not a Buddhist: Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse, you will get all the info you need there. its a fantastic book for beginners

Theres no god or soul in buddhism.
Or reincarnation.The concept of reincarnation in Buddhism is very misunderstood by the laypeople from Christian countries. When one talks about'' rebirth'' in Buddhism, means that the energies of the universe does not end, they retain (first law of thermodynamics in physics), does not mean that you have a soul and will reincarnate in another body. It has nothing to do with it. What is said is that some energy, thats not you, just a stream of consciousness, remains. That's it. There's nothing mystical Buddhism and there are no blind beliefs in Buddhism.

Buddhism is mind training. knowing and studyng why we think this or that, why we feel this or that and what we should do to make others and ours life happy and more compassive

Which aspect of buddhist believers are you talking about? There are more sects of Buddhism than one finds in Christianity.

[lrco]

99% of the posts in here in this topic are all wrong.
buddhism in not niilism or just for poor or is against pleusere, its all wrong.
you should read a book called What Makes You Not a Buddhist: Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse, you will get all the info you need there. its a fantastic book for beginners

Theres no god or soul in buddhism.
Or reincarnation.The concept of reincarnation in Buddhism is very misunderstood by the laypeople from Christian countries. When one talks about'' rebirth'' in Buddhism, means that the energies of the universe does not end, they retain (first law of thermodynamics in physics), does not mean that you have a soul and will reincarnate in another body. It has nothing to do with it. What is said is that some energy, thats not you, just a stream of consciousness, remains. That's it. There's nothing mystical Buddhism and there are no blind beliefs in Buddhism.

Buddhism is mind training. knowing and studyng why we think this or that, why we feel this or that and what we should do to make others and ours life happy and more compassive

Which aspect of buddhist believers are you talking about? There are more sects of Buddhism than one finds in Christianity.

There are different schools that differ in their methods of practice (ex, the focus on zen is zazen (meditation), while in other schools the recitation of lessons aloud, is also an important practice). Schools are like different vehicles for different people, but essentially lead to the same place, all schools teach the same four noble truths and the same teachings on emptiness and and non-duality...

That said, you should understand what the Buddha taught to different people, to both believers, non-believers, rich, poor, uneducated or educated. There is no opposition to belief in Buddhism, since that belief benefit someone.

For example, in the early levels of the dharma teaching are taught the four noble truths, meditation and antidotes for emotions etc.. In this scenario the teacher is not worried if the person just do good things to be a good person and it will be reborn as a god or something, or that this person thinks he will be a good person to earn good karma.. This is not important in this first lesson. The first wheel of dharma, the important thing is to discover the causes of suffering and the cure for it (dukkha).

The word dukkha means that the shaft is out of plumb, that is out of alignment. Imagine the plight of a person sitting in that wagon, the force that the buffalo should do and instead follow smoothly from the wagon, it is off-axis alignment.

So Buddha talks about life - the life of all of us - using the example of the wagon which has its axis out of alignment. He says that our lives are out of balance. It is this imbalance that leads to suffering.

In the second and third level of teachings, are taught concepts of emptiness. Concepts are emphasized in all schools, but more emphasized in schools such as Zen and Dzogchen are schools'' worshiped'' by western people that loves to say to everyone that they are skeptics and they support a skeptical ego lol. At this level of teaching, the existence of a creator is not even a possibility,'' rebirth'' is explained exactly how it is: energy conservation, ie, theres no ''i''' or ''me'' that born again.. it is simply some energy which remains, translating: dna. Ie karma in this context, are habits, habits that you inherited either from their parents or some conditioning in childhood.


Emptiness is not complete nothingness; it doesn't mean that nothing exists at all. This would be a nihilistic view contrary to common sense. What it does mean is that things do not exist the way our grasping self supposes they do. As Dalai Lama says, emptiness is "the true nature of things and events," but in the same passage he warns us "to avoid the misapprehension that emptiness is an absolute reality or an independent truth." In other words, emptiness is not some kind of heaven or separate realm apart from this world and its woes.

The Heart Sutra says, "all phenomena in their own-being are empty." It doesn't say "all phenomena are empty." This distinction is vital. "Own-being" means separate independent existence. The passage means that nothing we see or hear (or are) stands alone; everything is a tentative expression of one seamless, ever-changing landscape. So though no individual person or thing has any permanent, fixed identity, everything taken together is what Thich Nhat Hanh calls "interbeing." This term embraces the positive aspect of emptiness as it is lived and acted by a person of wisdom -- with its sense of connection, compassion and love.

The first meaning of emptiness is called "emptiness of essence," which means that phenomena [that we experience] have no inherent nature by themselves." The second is called "emptiness in the context of Buddha Nature," which sees emptiness as endowed with qualities of awakened mind like wisdom, bliss, compassion, clarity, and courage. Ultimate reality is the union of both emptinesses.

Ultimately we suffer because we grasp after things thinking they are fixed, substantial, real and capable of being possessed by ego. It is only when we can see through this illusion and open ourselves, "to the reality of flux and fluidity that is ultimately ungraspable and inconceivable" that we can relax into clarity, compassion and courage. That lofty goal is what makes the effort to understand emptiness so worthwhile.
But now, going back to the 4 nouble truths.. The Second Noble Truth refers to the purpose of life be so, and it is usually translated as desire. But we would have a very odd life if we did not desire. Is not what the Buddha said. The word was that the Buddha used trishna and means "thirst". In the words of the Buddha himself described it: "It's like a man wandering in the desert for many days, thirsty for water." It is also the headquarters of the "I want" and "I do not want," and that's why we all suffer.

What is this "I want" and "I do not want"? What does this indicate? Means that we are not satisfied with this moment "now". Because if we were "here", there wouldnt be no "want" or "do not want". Simply would be this moment, now. The Buddha, using this example, was saying: "Be in this moment." The moment you want or do not want is the moment you leave the now, the present moment, and then, then it leads to suffering.
So we have this imbalance causes're never at the moment and not being at the moment, this leads to suffering. It's very simple. Now you can examine your own life from these words.

But the Buddha did not stop there. He gave us a cure for this "not being in the moment", this suffering. This healing is the Third Noble Truth, the truth is that most misunderstood of all.


He speaks of Nirvana or Nibbana, which is a word that is used in all languages ​​these days, but nobody knows what it means. The word is very simple. Means expire, clear - like blowing a candle. Very simple! The Buddha just wore simple words, yet they were totally misunderstood because it is usually translated as extinction of desire. Correct? Not in any way mean that.

In Buddha's time, the word nirvana, clear, meant simply this: clear. But there was a big difference. According to the science and philosophy of Vedanta, when you delete a flame, like a candle or an oil lamp, you say that the flame became free. When you light a candle, you capture the flame, as if to stand in a cage. Then, in "our" idea extinguish a candle we say "extinguish" or "kill", but at the time of the Buddha, delete a flame meant freeing her.

Then the Buddha never said something like killing your wishes, he spoke of liberation or freedom from this attachment to the "I want" or "I do not want." When you drop it, then your life goes into balance. Here, then, you are completely free. This is a wonderful teaching because it is convenient and you can see it in your own life.

If you're always on time, you can not suffer, you are free to go to the next moment, free to go to the next moment, always totally free, without being stuck in the "I want" or "I do not want." And this is what the Buddha taught. He then gave us the Eightfold Path as a way to achieve this. Just as people say today: "How can I bring this practice to my life?", The Buddha gave us the answer. Is the Eightfold Path: The Right Understanding, Right Thought, Right Speech to the Right Action, the Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Surveillance, Right Concentration. But be careful with the word "right", because "correct" implies that there is a "wrong", and the Buddha did not use the word in this way, the Buddha did not speak from a point of view dualistic.

A better word than "right" is "appropriate." Appropriate Language, Thought Appropriate, Appropriate Understanding, etc.. Let us then examine only one of these factors, using the word "appropriate" rather than "right." Appropriate language means not speak ill of another person, do not use words to show, do not use words to suggest something that is not correct. There are many examples in their lives. Simply talking too much is a bad language. We can talk to read too much is also a bad language, or watch too much television would also be inappropriate language.


What the Buddha wanted to do when teaching about these various inappropriate actions was to give us a tool to examine our own lives. What is "appropriate" in terms of our life? Means Language, Thought and Action to help us get rid of our imbalance of our dukkha.

The Eightfold Path used properly will help us put our lives in balance. This is not some esoteric teaching, or what often happens in teaching misunderstood about what the Buddha taught.

The Four Noble Truths are very practical, based on real life. It is a teaching on how to live your life. And I can assure you that if you read any teaching of the Buddha that seem far removed from your life now, it is a bad translation. Because the Buddha was a practical man and intelligent, he looked deeply into what we do with us. From there, he offered us a way out of this.

Again, you shoud all read the book ''what makes you not a buddhist''. its fantastic.

Edited by lrco, 03 October 2013 - 09:24 PM.