Buddhism on Attachments: What to Do in Life?

[mal4mac]

Suffering is caused from seeing pain as something negative or bad, or in other words, from seeing it as a not-nice feeling. If you were to look at pain as a nice feeling, it's impossible to suffer from pain...

How can you ever see pain as a nice thing? Evolution has led to us automatically "viewing" pain as something to avoid, because doing so enables us to live and reproduce. "Something to avoid" is, surely, everyone's definition of a not-nice thing. We can't avoid feeling pain as bad, it would be like deciding to see the world in eleven dimensions instead of three. Can't be done (at least not through immediate perception!)

Even Buddhist monks avoid pain (most of the time!), so they view pain as a not-nice thing.

He may definitely want to use medication ... to prevent the sensation of pain to become overwhelming. It's not because he doesn't suffer or in the extreme case that he can enjoy his pain that he wouldn't want to do something about his health. Unless he wants to be ill of course, but then that's a choice he makes.

Why would he ever want to use medication? If something becomes over-whelming then it is a not-nice thing, that is, a form of suffering. But you just said pain could always be viewed as nice! You are contradicting yourself.

Suffering is a perception of the mind, the physical sensation that we call pain is not... :p

It seems to me it is. You can see alterations in brain function if, say, you get hit by a spade. These are correlated with changes in mental function and subjective expressions of pain. You can't just ignore the brain waves that indicate pain. They are part of you and therefore part of your mind. They are the raw essence of suffering, and no amount of meditation will wish them away. The horrendous pictures of Tibetan monks being beaten by their Chinese oppressors showed them at least trying to avoid the blows of police batons. Why did they bother doing that if they can convert pain into "feeling good"?

 

[Seiryuu]

How can you ever see pain as a nice thing? Evolution has led to us automatically "viewing" pain as something to avoid, because doing so enables us to live and reproduce. "Something to avoid" is, surely, everyone's definition of a not-nice thing. We can't avoid feeling pain as bad, it would be like deciding to see the world in eleven dimensions instead of three. Can't be done (at least not through immediate perception!)

Even Buddhist monks avoid pain (most of the time!), so they view pain as a not-nice thing.

You are confusing avoiding (running away from) with the choice to experience something else other than pain. The most obvious reason not to experience pain is, like you said, because you feel it whenever something is wrong. In other words, while a monk doesn't have to avoid pain for the sake of avoiding suffering, he still has to avoid pain to prevent injury or illness if he values his health and life...

Why would he ever want to use medication? If something becomes over-whelming then it is a not-nice thing, that is, a form of suffering. But you just said pain could always be viewed as nice! You are contradicting yourself.

There is no contradiction. You assume that when something becomes overwhelming you suffer. This is not true. Pain is a strong sensation. If it becomes too strong, it overwhelms you, just like you can be overwhelmed with grief or with joy for that matter. I very much doubt that you'll see being overwhelmed with joy as a form of suffering. Overwhelming means nothing more than one sensation becoming so strong that you can't feel anything else anymore other than that sensation. Even if he doesn't resist the pain itself, he may still want to use medication to heal his injuries.

It seems to me it is. You can see alterations in brain function if, say, you get hit by a spade. These are correlated with changes in mental function and subjective expressions of pain. You can't just ignore the brain waves that indicate pain. They are part of you and therefore part of your mind. They are the raw essence of suffering, and no amount of meditation will wish them away. The horrendous pictures of Tibetan monks being beaten by their Chinese oppressors showed them at least trying to avoid the blows of police batons. Why did they bother doing that if they can convert pain into "feeling good"?

I said pain was physical. What are alterations in the brain function? Are they mental? No, they're a physical reaction too. Is there a correlation with the changes in mental function? Of course. That correlation is the translation of the physical sensations into a mental perception. So the question is not, can we ignore the brain waves that are caused by pain, but rather, are the brain waves themselves an indication of pain or an indication of how we perceive pain? And if they are indeed an exact indication of pain, a new question arises: is our ability to perceive, our consciousness, an effect of these brainwaves or can it interpret them seperately?

As for the monks, I never said they can convert pain into something else than pain. You cannot avoid experiencing pain when the body is in pain. It cannot be done. Avoiding that would be mentally running away from the sensation that is pain, which means you resist it and therefore suffer. But they can choose not to run away from it (again, in a mental way) and experience pain for what it is: a physical sensation. By doing this, they avoid suffering.

This is what is meant with "overcoming" suffering. It doesn't mean eliminating the pain, but merely eliminating the perception we have about pain. Whether those monks perceive pain as negative (leading to suffering) or positive (leading to joy) becomes a choice. Just like it is a choice as to defend yourself from becoming injured or not, which would be the whole point of trying to avoid the blows.

The same thing is meant with "overcoming" desires. It doesn't eliminate the desires themselves, but merely the attachment we have to our desires. And by attachment it doesn't mean the value of the desire itself, but rather the distortion of over- or undervalueing. It's all about putting the value of desires in their proper perspective.

 

[OrbitalPower]

This false analogy of associating buddhism with nihilism has been corrected before. It's interesting we should debate what Buddhism means by this or that as Buddha himself said "perhaps someone, somewhere will not misunderstand me."

But, how does one go about being buddhist. Are the things talked about here even possible in a society that values capitalistic "individualism." Would be it be barr to success? Or is it a way of coping with the everyday realities of our society or any society?

 

[LightbulbSun]

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.

 

[mal4mac]

In other words, while a monk doesn't have to avoid pain for the sake of avoiding suffering, he still has to avoid pain to prevent injury or illness if he values his health and life

Pain *is* suffering, so of course he needs to avoid pain if he wants to avoid suffering. If injury was not suffering to hinm then why would he avid it or value health?

There is no contradiction. You assume that when something becomes overwhelming you suffer.

No -- if a monk encountered overwhelming pain he would suffer, whatever mental attitude he took to it. Of course he wouldn't suffer if was overwhelming joy!

Whether those monks perceive pain as negative (leading to suffering) or positive (leading to joy) becomes a choice.

Twaddle. Pain could never be positive. If someone was born feeling pain was positive then they would be an evolutionary dead end. Look at leprosy, people lose fingers because they cannot feel pain in them.

The same thing is meant with "overcoming" desires. It doesn't eliminate the desires themselves, but merely the attachment we have to our desires. And by attachment it doesn't mean the value of the desire itself, but rather the distortion of over- or undervalueing. It's all about putting the value of desires in their proper perspective.

You can always be "philosophical" when your desires are thwarted. But you are bound to feel some pain, otherwise it could not be something you wanted. A minor pain could be converted into a major one, by berating yourself ("I must find a hamburger stall!"), but you will always feel somne pain ("an empty stomach").

 

[Seiryuu]

Look, this can be an argument going on forever, since we're obviously not talking about the same thing. You assume that pain is suffering, so it's quite normal that in your logic one can never be free of suffering. I agree, there's no point arguing with that. If suffering = pain, then you're 100% right.

The whole idea based on what I'm trying to explain however, is the notion that pain and suffering are two different concepts and that pain can be experienced as a sensation without having to suffer from it. It's not like you have to agee with it, we'll just agree to disagree then, but then there's no point continuing the conversation.

However if you want to understand the reasoning, you'll at least have to make an effort to try and see the possibilities that arise from this change in assumption. Without doing so, you cannot see the logic from my perspective and you will continue to try and prove it wrong based on your perspective. Realise that there is no right or wrong here, but that our difference in opinion totally depends on whether pain is the same thing as suffering or not.

As I have pointed out before, to me suffering is not pain. Suffering is the resistance to acknowledging the value of pain, hence why we see pain as something bad, while we should be merely seeing it as a physical sensation that alerts us when something is wrong. In this way, pain is a positive thing. It doesn't mean that pain has a positive effect, that's a different story.

Pain *is* suffering, so of course he needs to avoid pain if he wants to avoid suffering. If injury was not suffering to hinm then why would he avid it or value health?

The misconception you seem to have is that when pain is viewed as positive, that it means that you see it as something that is good for you or that you automatically have no reason to do something about it.

Look, a Buddhist sees the proper value in everything. While he acknowledges the value of pain, this doesn't mean he is oblivious to the value of his own health. Seeing as how he values the pain as a warning, he will not suffer from it. But if he were to lose perspective on the value of his own health or life, then he would indeed do nothing to avoid the pain.

To summarise: although the perception of pain may be positive (pain is a good thing, because it tells me something is wrong), the monk is still aware that the cause or effect pain might have can be negative on his health. Hence, as long as he values that, he'll take action to stop the pain...

No -- if a monk encountered overwhelming pain he would suffer, whatever mental attitude he took to it. Of course he wouldn't suffer if was overwhelming joy!

True if pain is suffering. The whole point however is that suffering is unrelated to pain.

Twaddle. Pain could never be positive. If someone was born feeling pain was positive then they would be an evolutionary dead end. Look at leprosy, people lose fingers because they cannot feel pain in them.

Experiencing pain as a positive sensation, is not the same thing as being ignorant to it's cause or effects and thinking pain is good for you. It merely means that you recognise the value of pain as a way to protect you from harm.

The leprosy example is actually a quite good case where people may definitely suffer upon noticing how they loose their fingers, without feeling any pain at all.

You can always be "philosophical" when your desires are thwarted. But you are bound to feel some pain, otherwise it could not be something you wanted. A minor pain could be converted into a major one, by berating yourself ("I must find a hamburger stall!"), but you will always feel somne pain ("an empty stomach").

As long as you desire, there's a chance that you might indeed feel disappointment, anger, pain or whatever. This doesn't change. What changes is that you no longer see that disappointment, anger or pain as something negative and that it's ok to feel the way you feel at any given time. As such, none of these '"pains" will bother you and you won't suffer from them.

Why? Because suffering is the resistance (as in: not acknowledging the value of) to reality as we experience it. If you have an emotion and resist that emotion, you suffer. If you are in pain and resist the feeling of pain, you suffer. In the same way, if you resist the fact that you can't get what you want for some reason, you suffer.

If you accept the fact that you wanted something and can't get it, you will not suffer. If you can accept the fact that you wanted something, can't get it and feel disappointed about it, you will not suffer. If you can accept the fact that you can't accept a situation, you will not suffer (as contradictory as it may sound ).

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.

A valid statement, but totally unrelated to Buddhism as already pointed out before.

What Buddhism is about (imho) is not that you can't have desires, but simply that you learn not to hold on to them. You desire and let go of that desire, as in you want something but rather than focussing on it's fulfillment, you focus on whatever happens as you go along. By doing this you can make the choices that lead to happiness at any given time, instead of making choices that will eventually lead to happiness when the desire is fulfilled in some distant future. Also, a Buddhist accepts the situations he finds himself based upon his choices in and changes his desires accordingly, instead of trying to resist the situations themselves by holding on to desire.

Oh and you should also realize that I edited this post a gazillion of times, because it's almost impossible to explain it right, without missing or contradicting somewhere. That's why I believe it's equally hard to interpret it right, unless you have experienced it yourself, hence all the misconceptions... At least I hope it makes *some* sense :p

 

[LightbulbSun]

A valid statement, but totally unrelated to Buddhism as already pointed out before.

What Buddhism is about (imho) is not that you can't have desires, but simply that you learn not to hold on to them. You desire and let go of that desire, as in you want something but rather than focussing on it's fulfillment, you focus on whatever happens as you go along.

I hold onto my desires until they're fulfilled. That's just how I operate. No Buddhist teaching can tell me I'm wrong.

 

[Seiryuu]

Good for you. No Buddhist teaching will ever tell you that you're wrong either, so you don't have to worry about that. If you don't agree with the philosophy, just don't agree with it. Also this is just my interpretation of it. I can't speak for everyone or Buddhism in general.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Good for you. No Buddhist teaching will ever tell you that you're wrong either, so you don't have to worry about that. If you don't agree with the philosophy, just don't agree with it. Also this is just my interpretation of it. I can't speak for everyone or Buddhism in general.

It's not a philosophy. It's a religion. The definition of a religion expands much further than just believing in a personal god.

 

[mal4mac]

Buddhism, in most guises, comes with a belief system and as such is certainly a religion. And therefore just as unfounded as the Abrahamic religions. For instance, reincarnation, enlightenment, and karma are usually espoused by Buddhists. Of course, you may say these are not essential to Buddhism. But if so should you really be calling it Buddhism? It's like the "sea of faith" gang in Christianity, they do not hold there is an actual objective God, so are they really Christians?

Another sad part of Buddhism, as with all religions, is the 'cult of the individual' that allows nutters to act like gods on Earth. In Buddhism, recent examples include Sangharkgarbagea and Chogyam Trungpa. The formers alleged abuses are not amusing in any way, so I'll just mention Trungpa. He is famous for getting blind drunk and crashing an expensive car into a joke shop :-) His followers suggest that in an 'enlightened one' such activity is acceptable. Such is all religion, it always ends up in raising some very flawed human beings to the level of gods. Science also, sometimes, has a tendency to do this, as with Einstein. But at least it has mechanisms, and people like Bohr, to pull such heroes back down to Earth.

 

[OrbitalPower]

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

"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."

Buddhism is a philosophy, or actually, a way of life, to reach enlightenment. When asked to express his experience in one word, Buddha said "awareness."

Your post is just nonsense. There is nothing in Buddhist teachings equivalent of the holy bible or anything else in the "Abrahamic religions" that tells people what to do and how to government.

The different sects among Buddhism is also different than the different Christian and Islamic sects that exist around the world. First of all, there is much less in-fighting in Buddhism than in these religions, because it's generally understood that Buddhists of one school tend to accept Buddhists of another, because "the individual disciple is seen directly, personally involved in his own salvation, apoint of view which allows exceptional latitude in matters of instruction and practice."

Second, Buddha himself called for a Middle Way, he can't be blamed for the extremes in Buddhism then, especially the Southeast Asian varities of Buddhism.

Also, if you look at the structure of 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? This is either nonsense, or I have missed something in the teachings of Buddhists.

Enlightened individuals are no better than others and enlightened ones are only supposed to guide others, not to "preach."

I do agree that unfetted individualism, like in the writings of the egoist and leftist author Max Stirner, would be terrible. Basically he said individuals should seek to maximize their own happiness, including at the expense of others (which would allow people to take property). Extreme individualism like that is bad, and false individualism, like what American-Libertarians advocate, is even worse. (See Godwin's writings on why capitalism is a false individualism.)

Buddhism isn't anything like this though.

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

 

[BeezyBeaver]

I think Buddhism comes into one's mind and life in different flavors and forms, dependent upon that person's education also. Buddhism teaches people to follow neutralization, elimination of irritative thoughts, to acquire the peace of the mind, not about Creationism. Buddhists are not Christians.
But what if there were no religion ?

 

[OrbitalPower]

I think Buddhism comes into one's mind and life in different flavors and forms, dependent upon that person's education also. Buddhism teaches people to follow neutralization, elimination of irritative thoughts, to attaining the peace of the mind, not about Creationism. Buddhists are not Christians.

I agree; well put. It's in Buddha's original message that this is how it's supposed to be, I believe.

However, keep in mind that the Buddha, like other ancient Eastern sages, spoke in contradictions, weird styles of poetry, and so on, to get their message across. The most obvious case is Lao-Tzu, where people have completely different interpretations of passages. confucius was more clear, though.

But what if there were no religion ?

That would be good, then, and Buddhism would be all the more relevant.

In his book "Buddhism: Plain and Simple" the author states that people generally fall into either two extremes when accepting the fact that the world is governored according to scientific principles:

"Either we blind ourselves to our predicament and attempt to escape via drugs or alcohol or our careers or any of innumerable belief systems, or we face the woeful prospect that we're intelligent creatures living in a meaningless world."

Buddhism is then a third way to these two ways of dealing with the world as science tells it us, and my experience most people in the west are definitely in either one of those two categories.

Buddhism is more about a way of life, a philosophy of awareness, and really how to deal with personal problems. People are always going to have different definitions of how to live well, and how to live the good life. Buddhism is really just the Eastern version of this, for the Western version, the ancient philosophers had their own classifications of how to live well, and by live well not even they suggested it be by making lots of money or what have you, but by trying to be healthy and happy given your situation.

For example, some sick people can convince themselves they may feel well even though they are not well. Others can believe they're ill when they're actually not, and still others can get used to being sick. The ancient Western philosophers attempted to understand this.

Modern Western philosophy is more like LightBulbSon's belief, which is, "if it feels good do it," and you feel well, you must be well. This is called hedonism, and imo is the second worst personal philosopher, behind "In the Garden of Eden" type philosophy, where you feel that you're right all the time.

 

[Seiryuu]

It's not a philosophy. It's a religion. The definition of a religion expands much further than just believing in a personal god.

Should we really be arguing about this in the first place? Why does it matter to you, or anyone for that matter, whether people generally see it as a religion or a philosophy? What are you trying to achieve by proving me wrong on how I should call it properly? If you want to call it a religion fine. Let's call it a religion then...

Now tell me, what do you gain from being right or wrong and how does it answer your questions?

 

[baywax]

If you can't let desires move your life, what is there to live for? Why work for that job promotion? Is desiring a life to help the poor wrong? Without desire I see a life of sitting in my room rocking back and forth till I die.

Do what turns you on man! Just don't expect anyone to understand you or be turned on by the same thing.

That's part of the detachment from the external. You neither "want" the external nor do you want the external to "want" you. This was Buddha's way to Nirvana.

You're right though Greg, Nirvana is considered a state of "unknowing" and "all knowing". Where all expectation is let go. You just experience what you experience without judgement and like it is the first time, every time.

So, desire would become just another experience. It would be something you can leave or take. It simply becomes one of the infinite states you're mind can experience. And I think a Buddhist will treat it as such... without becoming consumed by it.

Its a little like what my old teacher used to say..."Drink. Don't think." At the time I thought he meant, you know, drink booze, don't think about it or anything too seriously.

Then I though... wait a minute. Drink. Don't think can also represent "drinking" each experience without thinking about it. Sort of like playing an improvisational solo in a musical piece... you have to let the notes come without thinking.

 

[baywax]

I hold onto my desires until they're fulfilled. That's just how I operate. No Buddhist teaching can tell me I'm wrong.

So you have desires you desire to hold onto and you desire to fulfill them. How desirous.

What happens when the chance of fulfilling your desires becomes nil?

Do you fall back on the next desire? Do you "try" your best to revive your chances? Do you find that the more you "try" to fulfill your desires, the less likely it is that that will happen?

Let's say I desire a Lambourghini... or I at least desire to be able to spell it. But, I also desire to leave behind less oil stains and gas emissions for my kids to deal with in the future. Here the desire for the Lambourgini is kind of a fantasy... wouldn't that be cool... my kids would totally dig me if I had one.

So, its a back-burner desire. The meat and potato's desire is to do what's right for the economy, the boys in some dirt-bag place fighting for oil, the kids playing without exhaust, the plants that clean the air and the rivers etc... so... my desire for all this over-rides the desire for the Lambo. And, I buy a Detroit Electric Lotus, hopefully built in the USA.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Should we really be arguing about this in the first place? Why does it matter to you, or anyone for that matter, whether people generally see it as a religion or a philosophy? What are you trying to achieve by proving me wrong on how I should call it properly? If you want to call it a religion fine. Let's call it a religion then...

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.

 

[LightbulbSun]

So you have desires you desire to hold onto and you desire to fulfill them. How desirous.

What happens when the chance of fulfilling your desires becomes nil?

Could you give me a situation where the chances of fulfilling my desires are nil?

Do you fall back on the next desire? Do you "try" your best to revive your chances? Do you find that the more you "try" to fulfill your desires, the less likely it is that that will happen?

Most of my desires just require dedication and hard work to fulfill. I'm not desiring otherworldly stuff.

Let's say I desire a Lambourghini... or I at least desire to be able to spell it. But, I also desire to leave behind less oil stains and gas emissions for my kids to deal with in the future. Here the desire for the Lambourgini is kind of a fantasy... wouldn't that be cool... my kids would totally dig me if I had one.

So, its a back-burner desire. The meat and potato's desire is to do what's right for the economy, the boys in some dirt-bag place fighting for oil, the kids playing without exhaust, the plants that clean the air and the rivers etc... so... my desire for all this over-rides the desire for the Lambo.

Why do you always use a frivolous example?

 

[baywax]

Could you give me a situation where the chances of fulfilling my desires are nil?

I don't mean to burst any bubbles. Too many are bursting in Canada and the States with regard to real estate and monetary matters. But for example... not too trivial...your burning desire was to see the Mona Lisa in Paris at the Louvre and you suddenly lost your sight. Would you also loose all hope because of your desire and related desires going unfulfilled?

Most of my desires just require dedication and hard work to fulfill. I'm not desiring otherworldly stuff.

What is otherworldly stuff?

Why do you always use a frivolous example?

What is frivolous about my friends in a dirt-bag hole in A-stan guarding the construction of an oil pipeline? A purchase of a certified, made in Detroit, electric vehicle... (a great desire of mine) sets the example that spreads throughout the nation to the point where... heh... we don't need that oil crap...edit: get the **** back home boys and girls.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I don't mean to burst any bubbles. Too many are bursting in Canada and the States with regard to real estate and monetary matters. But for example... not too trivial...your burning desire was to see the Mona Lisa in Paris at the Louvre and you suddenly lost your sight. Would you also loose all hope because of your desire and related desires going unfulfilled?

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."

What is otherworldly stuff?

Made up stuff such as "nirvana."

What is frivolous about my friends in a dirt-bag hole in A-stan guarding the construction of an oil pipeline? A purchase of a certified, made in Detroit, electric vehicle... (a great desire of mine) sets the example that spreads throughout the nation to the point where... heh... we don't need that oil crap...edit: get the **** back home boys and girls.

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.

 

[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)