Buddhism on Attachments: What to Do in Life?

[baywax]

No? I don't know why you and Buddhists in general get so hardcore about desires being unfulfilled.

I'm not. I'm simply asking what would happen if your desires were unfulfilled. For myself, its a trade off. I desire one thing, so the other must be ignored. And so on.

Made up stuff such as "nirvana."

Nirvana is a term used by Buddhists to describe a lack of suffering. I call it Beer.

There is a difference between a frivolous desire and a genuine one. Just thought you should know that since Buddhism loves to categorize all desires under the same umbrella.

When did you become an expert on what is what in Buddhism?

 

[LightbulbSun]

I'm not. I'm simply asking what would happen if your desires were unfulfilled. For myself, its a trade off. I desire one thing, so the other must be ignored. And so on.

If there was a physical limitation preventing me from fulfilling a desire I just accept the limitation and move on. I don't sit in a hole the rest of my life.

When did you become an expert on what is what in Buddhism?

I never said I was an expert. I do have a general understanding of its teachings though.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Not really; you associated the eightfold path with reincarnation just a minute ago.

What do you think of Taoism?

 

[LightbulbSun]

Not really; you associated the eightfold path with reincarnation just a minute ago.

Actually I didn't. Here's what I said.

The four noble truths and the eightfold path is the core belief system. Buddhism's version of the ten commandments really. Then they believe in reincarnation, nirvana and a whole bunch of nonsense. Yeah, I'd consider dogmatic belief systems such as that to be a religion.

What do you think of Taoism?

Taoism is ******** too. If you want to argue about that then make another thread.

 

[baywax]

Not really; you associated the eightfold path with reincarnation just a minute ago.

What do you think of Taoism?

A leader is best when people barely know he exists,
when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say:
we did it ourselves.
Lao Tzu

A scholar who cherishes the love of comfort
is not fit to be deemed a scholar.
Lao Tzu

Anticipate the difficult by managing the easy.
Lao Tzu

Know the male
But keep to the role of the female
And be a ravine to the empire.
If you are a ravine to the empire,
Then the constant virtue will not desert you
And you will again return to being a babe.
Know the white
But keep to the role of the black*
And be a model of the empire.
If you are a model of the empire,
Then the constant virtue will not be wanting
And you will return to the Infinite.
Know honour
But keep to the role of the disgraced
And be a valley to the empire.
If you are a valley to the empire,
Then the constant virtue will be sufficient
And you will return to being the uncarved block.
When the uncarved block shatters it becomes vessels
The sage makes use of these and becomes the lord over
the officials

Hence the greatest cutting does not sever.
Lao Tzu

I like it.

 

[Seiryuu]

The four noble truths and the eightfold path is the core belief system. Buddhism's version of the ten commandments really. Then they believe in reincarnation, nirvana and a whole bunch of nonsense. Yeah, I'd consider dogmatic belief systems such as that to be a religion.

It matters to me because people ALWAYS give Buddhism a pass because no one views it as a religion. They must think that if a group of teachings doesn't believe in a personal god then it must be purely philosophy. Even Einstein and Sagan went light on Buddhism. Why? Just because they believe in cycles that last for millions of years doesn't give it any more credence than the Abrahamic religions.

And so what? Can you even name the reason why it bothers you so much?

Even atheïsm is based upon the core belief system of the non-existance of a god and the non-existence of any of these concepts. Untill evidence shows clearly one way or another, it is not any more credible than any other religion you may dismiss as nonsense.

Your dogmas are simply hidden under the veil of denial, but you too believe in your own views and truths as much as anyone else. If you didn't, you wouldn't be assuming (because that's what believing is) that it is nonsense in the first place.

No? I don't know why you and Buddhists in general get so hardcore about desires being unfulfilled. You act like if a desire goes unfulfilled that it's the apocalypse and the only way to save ourselves is through a meaningless eight fold path to get to a made up place called "nirvana."

You are the only here getting hardcore about it. Don't ask questions if you cannot handle the answers without feeling threatened in your own belief system. And don't waste our time if you're not even willing to read what's being said, instead of making up your own version.

Made up stuff such as "nirvana."

Have you verified for yourself that it is made up and doesn't exist? If so, show me some proof. A true scientist wouldn't rule out any possibilities, even if they may prove his own theories wrong.

What was frivolous about it is the guy wanting to buy the car just to look cool in it. There is a difference between a frivolous desire and a genuine one. Just thought you should know that since Buddhism loves to categorize all desires under the same umbrella.

Desires are as important as you want them to be. That's why some people get worked so bad for mere futilities in the eyes of others. But glad to see you love to categorize all desires as either frivolous or not.

 

[Seiryuu]

Taoism is ******** too. If you want to argue about that then make another thread.

If you want to argue about how **** Buddhism is, you're in the wrong thread yourself. Keep it for those actually willing to hear about what it has to say.

 

[LightbulbSun]

And so what? Can you even name the reason why it bothers you so much?

I just listed reasons. Maybe you need to read what I say before you type?

Even atheïsm is based upon the core belief system of the non-existance of a god and the non-existence of any of these concepts. Untill evidence shows clearly one way or another, it is not any more credible than any other religion you may dismiss as nonsense.

Actually atheism doesn't have a core belief system. I'd like to see you point to one.

Your dogmas are simply hidden under the veil of denial, but you too believe in your own views and truths as much as anyone else. If you didn't, you wouldn't be assuming (because that's what believing is) that it is nonsense in the first place.

Typically when a person gives an elitist "holier than thou" response such as the one you just gave me this indicates cognitive dissonance. Are you starting to doubt your beliefs after a thorough examination of them?

You are the only here getting hardcore about it. Don't ask questions if you cannot handle the answers without feeling threatened in your own belief system. And don't waste our time if you're not even willing to read what's being said, instead of making up your own version.

I'm not being hardcore about it. I just don't understand why you and other are so hellbent about an unfulfilled desire. It's not healthy.

Have you verified for yourself that it is made up and doesn't exist? If so, show me some proof. A true scientist wouldn't rule out any possibilities, even if they may prove his own theories wrong.

Have you verified for yourself that teapots don't orbit the sun, that Zeus doesn't exist, that Santa Claus doesn't exist, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? Please don't bring up this tired old argument. You're being just as ignorant as the rest of the religious people.

Desires are as important as you want them to be. That's why some people get worked so bad for mere futilities in the eyes of others. But glad to see you love to categorize all desires as either frivolous or not.

Glad to see you love categorizing fulfillment of desires as "suffering."

 

[baywax]

Lao Tzu said...

"The greatest calamity is in not knowing how much is enough."

 

[mal4mac]

Wrong. One doesn't have to at all believe in reincarnation or anything else to be a Buddhist:

That is to broaden the term "Buddhist" to make it meaningless.

"Whether you believe in God or not does not matter so much, whether you believe in Buddha or not does not matter so much; as a Buddhist, whether you believe in reincarnation or not does not matter so much. You must lead a good life."

If "Buddhist" = "Good person" then why botherusing the term Buddhist? Especially with all the baggage it brings with it.

Buddhism is a philosophy, or actually, a way of life, to reach enlightenment.

So you have to believe in "enlightenment" - now you are contradicting yourself. Enlightenment is a meaningless term, like "God" or "heaven" it has no objective existence. Has it shown up in a bubble chamber or space telescope?

... Buddhism it works in much the same way as programs like Alcoholics Anonymous and so on work, that is to admit you have a problem and then to deal with it at a personal level, in order to control our lives and be aware of our surroundings. Buddhism is just more all encompassing.

And where in Buddha's original teachings does it say that Buddhists become Gods?

I was using a Christian metaphor. It's difficult to speak about "enlightened ones" in Western contexts as one good thing about the Christian religion is that it views *everyone* as fallen. Of course that view has its problems, and the humanist secular view that we are all equally human is much better.

How do you know enlightened ones exits? A physicist might say he''s has discovered the Higg's boson, but you have to reach his subjective state to see it would be laughed out of court. Wielding Ockhams' razor does away with enlightenment, and you can laugh at Chogyam Trungpa and just get on wikth living a human life...

Cite ORIGINAL scholarship, not some sects you've found.

"The Unexpected Way" by Paul Williams, the acknowledged [by the Dalai Lama etc.] expert on Mahayana Buddhism would be a place to start for more detailed & considered criticisms of the kind I am making. He used to be a leading Buddhist scholar and meditation teacher and now dismisses Buddhism in all aspects. (Although a major point agianst him is that he converted to Catholicism! A frying pan - fire situation)

 

[baywax]

So you have to believe in "enlightenment" - now you are contradicting yourself. Enlightenment is a meaningless term, like "God" or "heaven" it has no objective existence. Has it shown up in a bubble chamber or space telescope?

Although I don't use the term "enlightenment" or the term "consciousness" very much because of their ambiguous nature... you have to know that terms have their use in science, literature, art, religion, and most cultural activity.

Why use the term "god particle" when it hasn't even been found in a bubble chamber, space telescope or so many metres under ground, in France?

 

[mal4mac]

Even atheïsm is based upon the core belief system of the non-existance of a god and the non-existence of any of these concepts. Until evidence shows clearly one way or another, it is not any more credible than any other religion you may dismiss as nonsense.

Atheism only holds to the nonexistence of God in the same way it holds to the non-existence of fairies at the bottom of the Garden and the non-existence of the Easter Bunny. You are saying that "Until evidence shows clearly one way or another, it is not any more credible," that the Easter Bunny exists than it does not. Surely you can see how stupid such "Bunnyism" is? But in the same way any other religion is idiotic. The "son of God" or "enlightenment of the Buddha" are both as evident as the Easter Bunny gamboling down a rabbit hole with the Mad Hatter, i.e., not evident at all. All religions *are* nonsense.

 

[baywax]

All religions *are* nonsense.

Religion is a kind of faery tale unto itself. But, without the moral compass and the preservation of science it provided in the past, we would probably be a nation of idiots, killing each other and everyone else... or there would be no nation here today.

 

[Seiryuu]

Atheism only holds to the nonexistence of God in the same way it holds to the non-existence of fairies at the bottom of the Garden and the non-existence of the Easter Bunny. You are saying that "Until evidence shows clearly one way or another, it is not any more credible," that the Easter Bunny exists than it does not. Surely you can see how stupid such "Bunnyism" is? But in the same way any other religion is idiotic. The "son of God" or "enlightenment of the Buddha" are both as evident as the Easter Bunny gamboling down a rabbit hole with the Mad Hatter, i.e., not evident at all. All religions *are* nonsense.

You believe as much in the nonsense of religions as others may believe in their god or concepts. Seeing as people are divided in their assumptions, there is no absolute truth, only a personal truth, based upon each individual own experiences that may confirm or deny the assumptions one has made.

If people want to form a religion based on the Easter Bunny based on their personal experiences that has made them believe it really exists, then there is no way to tell for an outsider if they're really nutcases or if they actually have experienced something you have not. The only thing you can conclude is that you do not share their beliefs.

You claim there is no evidence for the existence of the "son of God" or "enlightenment of the Buddha", but it all depends on how you define your concepts of God or enlightenment. For example, if you believe that humanity itself is God, then clearly we are all sons of God and there's evidence all around you. If you believe a state of enlightenment is as a state in which you gain a new insight, then people are reaching enlightenment all over the world. Others may believe that enlightment is about being one with nature. But truth is, only Buddha knows what enlightenment means for him trough his own experiences and everything else is just an interpretation. Even when a Buddhist reaches a state that might feel like enlightenment, because it appears to match it's descriptions, he'll never know for sure if he's actually experiencing that what it is meant.

Even if all these concepts only exist in the imagination of people, can we really say that they are unreal? If they are, reality and existence somehow exclude our imagination, which makes no sense at all as we are all known to have this ability. I suppose it all depends on your definition of existence though.

 

[OrbitalPower]

That is to broaden the term "Buddhist" to make it meaningless.

Not really, because they have a set of guidelines to follow, a way of life to follow. When I said "reincarnation or anything else" I mean that you don't have to believe in anything supernatural to be buddhist.

If "Buddhist" = "Good person" then why botherusing the term Buddhist? Especially with all the baggage it brings with it.

Because Buddhists have a particular method of getting to be a good person - duh! Just like other people have their own definitions of what it means to be a good person, like John Dewey for instance.

So you have to believe in "enlightenment" - now you are contradicting yourself. Enlightenment is a meaningless term, like "God" or "heaven" it has no objective existence. Has it shown up in a bubble chamber or space telescope?

Can you see free-will with a microscope or a telescope? Can you see Democracy with a microscope? Can you see justice with a microscope?

These are abstract notions - buddhist "enlightenment" is another abstract notions.

Buddhism is not a science at all, I agree. But that's completely irrelevant. "free-will" is not a science, either. Although, we could learn from science to help understand free-will, you could also learn from cognitive science how to learn the human mind.

Buddhism is an open book.

I was using a Christian metaphor. It's difficult to speak about "enlightened ones" in Western contexts as one good thing about the Christian religion is that it views *everyone* as fallen.

LOL. Not really. Considering there was a whole movement called the "Enlightenment" that was atheistic in many ways.

But, enlightenment I think, may be attainable. I've never seen it done, nor have I met a Buddhist who's actually done it, and I don't know what Siddhartha actually experienced, but I think a higher awareness than what most people experience is possible.

Hell, I think a higher ANYTHING than what most people exerience is possible - such as higher learning.

Of course that view has its problems, and the humanist secular view that we are all equally human is much better.

Well, I agree a lot with secular humanism. In fact, I don't know that I'm really a Buddhist or not yet (that's why I asked earlier how does one "become Buddhist") - but, I still think some things the ancient sages said was informative, as is many things in the Bible interesting, but I don't agree that Buddhism is truly a religion.

Actually, I think Buddhism could be closer to secular humanism than to religions such as Christianity.

In fact, Richard Dawkins, a well known scientific humanist and secularist, says this in his book God Delusion:

"[they should not be treated] as religions at all but as ethical systems or philosophies of life" (pp. 38).

I believe buddhism is a good philosophy of life, you disagree, that's fine.

How do you know enlightened ones exits? A physicist might say he''s has discovered the Higg's boson, but you have to reach his subjective state to see it would be laughed out of court. Wielding Ockhams' razor does away with enlightenment, and you can laugh at Chogyam Trungpa and just get on wikth living a human life...

Again, the nature of the question is philosophical, note scientific. It's an abstraction.

"The Unexpected Way" by Paul Williams, the acknowledged [by the Dalai Lama etc.] expert on Mahayana Buddhism would be a place to start for more detailed & considered criticisms of the kind I am making. He used to be a leading Buddhist scholar and meditation teacher and now dismisses Buddhism in all aspects. (Although a major point agianst him is that he converted to Catholicism! A frying pan - fire situation)

I am more interested in the original buddhism.

But, the quote I posted above about having no religions etc., was by the Dalai Lama in the first place.

 

[Integral]

Passion and desire is the spice of life. Those who want to quell it because they fear suffering are the same people who are afraid to do anything new because they're afraid of failing at it. Just my two cents.

Our emotions and feelings of life are like the current in a river. A Buddhist observes and feels the passing emotions as he observes a river flow past, but is not carried off by the current. You feel the highs and the lows, put appreciate both as temporary states which will soon change.

 

[OrbitalPower]

That's a very good way to put it and how I see it. I might have to use that sometime. :)

 

[LightbulbSun]

Oh for god sake, moderation is strictly a rule of thumb. If you guys feel the need to attach an ism to it then so be it, but it's just a rule of thumb that any rational human being can follow. You don't need a bunch of crazy sayings to obtain this.

 

[Integral]

This thread has taken a bad turn. Recall that our site guide lines forbid discussion of religion.


Locked