Buddhism on Attachments: What to Do in Life?

[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