Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Most people feel that they are an independent separate Self distinct from their experiences, perceptions and action. They feel alienated, self-contracted, distant from the world as a result and they become attached to the sense of I, me, and mine. This is a root cause of delusion and attachment.
It can be realized that in reality, there never was a seer apart from the act of seeing/seen, a doer apart from an action, hearer apart from heard, etc.
The experience is one of at-oneness with everything but there is not even an 'I' left to 'feel' the at oneness. Instead there is just one act of perception, one action, happening as crystal clarity without any self, separation or division.
Athletes do sometimes feel this 'oneness' but only temporarily, even though intentionality is totally factored into their total exertion in action, there is no self consciousness but his entire being is exerted as that intentionality+action. After realization, that feeling can become sort of permanent. And total exertion becomes a natural path of practice.
I can understand that sometimes people feel alienated or distant, but I think that's just how they are feeling. Feelings come and go and IMO are too flippant to reflect truth or reality. That said, regardless of such feelings I don't suppose people, when they do reflect during their sober moments, will separate their experiences from their very beings i.e. self.
Re the point about experiencing at-oneness with everything. I think what needs to be established is really whether we are one with everything, some kind of monism? I think that sometimes some people do claim that they are experience "the moment" in time when everything seems to be "one" but again these would be personal-to-holder experiences. It's hard to quibble with experiences, if you know what I mean.
I guess what I am trying to say is that feelings are not a good basis to judge the truth of a claim or belief.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:True in the conventional sense, false in the ultimate sense.
For example we impute the label 'weather' but there is no really existing thing called 'weather' apart from everchanging clouds, rain, wind, lightning etc.
'Weather' is a mere convention, an imputation, a label - it is not a 'thing' with a 'core' or 'essence' that can be pinned down. It is empty of any substantially existing entity to be pinned down or located anywhere.
The same goes for 'self' or anything at all in the world.
If something is false in the ultimate sense, then it is false, regardless of how one thinks it is true, or even if one calls it a conventional truth.
From what you described, correct me if I am wrong but it seems that Buddhism tends to have a rather reductionistic view of existence.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Yes but not conceptual knowledge. It is non-conceptual knowledge in a kind of meditative, intuitive, pre-conceptual Seeing of what is already the case.
Our moderator Thusness writes his realization here: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
Just clicked on the weblink above and what caught me was the "I AM" claim. I suppose you would know that in the Bible God called Himself "I AM" which is also known as the tetragrammaton, the name by which God revealed Himself to Moses on Mt Sinai. What you would call an experience would be what in Christianity be God Himself. Jesus even called Himself "I AM" which the religious leaders saw clearly as a claim to being God.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:If I am not wrong, the article says that the Buddha set aside the question of whether the self exists or not, i.e. refuses to answer because the answer will lead to suffering and stress. Personally I would take issue with a refusal to answer because the consequences of the answer (whether leading to stress or suffering or not) is distinct from the answer itself. One can always answer a question with a yes or a no, provided one knows the answer.
I love the answer: "You cannot question god." whenever evangelist can't provide an answer to my question.
Originally posted by Singtaxi:I love the answer: "You cannot question god." when evangelist can't provide an answer to my question.
That depends on what is your question. If I cannot answer your question my answer would be, I don't know. It won't be that you cannot question God.
But then again I would say that it is true that you cannot question ultimate authority because that's what it means to be ultimate. If you can question authority or make that ultimate authority obligated to you and subjected to you, then you are the ultimate authority who cannot be questioned, because there is nothing above ultimate.
Having said that, I am of the view you can ask questions to God, but what you can't demand from God is that He must answer you. God is God. God owes no man anything. You do not owe your creation an answer. The decision to answer is entirely your prerogative. Even if man does not have the satisfaction of an answer, God remains God. That should be the humble attitude of man, which Job finally realises as we read in the OT book of Job.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:That depends on what is your question. If I cannot answer your question my answer would be, I don't know. It won't be that you cannot question God.
But then again I would say that it is true that you cannot question ultimate authority because that's what it means to be ultimate. If you can question authority or make that ultimate authority obligated to you and subjected to you, then you are the ultimate authority who cannot be questioned, because there is nothing above ultimate.
Having said that, I am of the view you can ask questions to God, but what you can't demand from God is that He must answer you. God is God. God owes no man anything. You do not owe your creation an answer. The decision to answer is entirely your prerogative. Even if man does not have the satisfaction of an answer, God remains God. That should be the humble attitude of man, which Job finally realises as we read in the OT book of Job.
I am a simple man. My questions are simple questions.
1. Why god created man? (No offence, but I am always curious as to why this actually happened)
2. Why the supposedly almighty god created an imperfect man or rather a sinner?
3. Why god need to sacrifice his only son to atone the sin of man if in the first place god created a perfect man?
4. Why can't god create a man who will obey him and he live happily ever after?
.....
Originally posted by Singtaxi:I am a simple man. My questions are simple questions.
1. Why god created man? (No offence, but I am always curious as to why this actually happened)
2. Why the supposedly almighty god created an imperfect man or rather a sinner?
3. Why god need to sacrifice his only son to atone the sin of man if in the first place god created a perfect man?
4. Why can't god create a man who will obey him and he live happily ever after?.....
Can I request that you direct these questions to my forum at the link below?
http://sgforums.com/forums/4245
This is a Buddhist forum and out of respect to the Mods here I think it will not be appropriate to turn this into a Christian apologetics thread.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Can I request that you direct these questions to my forum at the link below?
http://sgforums.com/forums/4245
This is a Buddhist forum and out of respect to the Mods here I think it will not be appropriate to turn this into a Christian apologetics thread.
I am just giving you an example of the questions I asked when somobody trying to preach to me.
Originally posted by Singtaxi:I am just giving you an example of the questions I asked when somobody trying to preach to me.
Oh I see. For the record I believe answers to these questions can be given. The issue is whether you wish to accept the answer. Speaking for myself, my style is to give answers based on what the Bible says, or what can be inferred from the Bible, and if the Bible does not explicitly teaches it, then my suggested answer must not contradict any part of the Bible. For example, your first question has an answer. In Colossians 1:15 it is written:
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him—all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers—all things were create through him and FOR him."
So this answer really answers the question, "Why is there anything rather than nothing?" Why create, not just man, but anything at all for that matter?
I recommend this website which you can get many answers as well.
Originally posted by Singtaxi:I am a simple man. My questions are simple questions.
1. Why god created man? (No offence, but I am always curious as to why this actually happened)
2. Why the supposedly almighty god created an imperfect man or rather a sinner?
3. Why god need to sacrifice his only son to atone the sin of man if in the first place god created a perfect man?
4. Why can't god create a man who will obey him and he live happily ever after?.....
Just being busy body. Followings are the answers based on Buddha's teachings :
1) There is no creator. No one created you. There's no really "You" as there's no self and each of us is just combinations å› ç¼˜å�ˆå’Œ
2) You can become a perfect person if you practice according to Buddha's teachings. We are "perfect" right from the start as our true nature (Buddha nature) is "perfect", however due to the 3 unwholesome roots or 3 poisons, greed, attachments and aversions etc. that we become sinners. Our true nature is neither good nor bad.
3) No one can atone sins for another person. Your sins can be lighten if you repent sincerely.
4) You can never live happily if you did not cease your greed, aversions, attachments etc.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Wiki says that the conventional truth may be interpreted as "obscurative truth" or "that which obscures the true nature" as a result. It is constituted by the appearances of mistaken awareness. Conventional truth would be the appearance that includes a duality of apprehender and apprehended, and objects perceived within that. Ultimate truths, are phenomena free from the duality of apprehender and apprehended.
Would you like to clarify that further? It would seem that Buddhism holds that conventional truth can be false, but ultimate truth is..well...truth i.e. what is.
In Christianity the distinction is between truth and error.
Re the point about the arrow analogy, what would be the underlying message? It would seem to me that you may have taken an either/or approach, i.e. don't ask or get treatment. I think it can be a both/and approach.
In Christianity, moral perfection means that a person has never sinned against God throughout his entire life. Which is why I mentioned that it is impossible to attain moral perfection. The Bible also says that it is appointed for man to die once and after that to face judgement, so this means that there is no second chance at life, one life is all we have got.
Would you like to clarify that further? It would seem that Buddhism holds that conventional truth can be false, but ultimate truth is..well...truth i.e. what is.
In a nutshell, information that is collected by our senses in our everyday routine are constructed into mental pictures by our mind. There is duality, as our mind has already bifurcate what is seen, heard into a subject and an object. What is concluded and judgment passed on the object are already colored and influenced by our own mental capabilities, prejudices, inclination, biases, likes and dislikes etc. This form of conclusion and judgment are Conventional Truths. The above Wiki description is quite clear as to what is Conventional and Ultimate truth. Ultimate Truth is free from this duality of subject and object.
In Christianity the distinction is between truth and error.
In Buddhist term, the above distinction is just a ‘Conventional Truth’.
Re the point about the arrow analogy, what would be the underlying message? It would seem to me that you may have taken an either/or approach, i.e. don't ask or get treatment. I think it can be a both/and approach.
Being strike by an arrow is equated to the present state of existence we are in. The underlying message is that, we should be concentrating our time in the cultivation to attain to the cessation of suffering instead of spending the time speculating on things that are not in any way going to help us to achieve that attainment.
In Christianity, moral perfection means that a person has never sinned against God throughout his entire life. Which is why I mentioned that it is impossible to attain moral perfection. The Bible also says that it is appointed for man to die once and after that to face judgement, so this means that there is no second chance at life, one life is all we have got.
Buddhists believes in Rebirth.
Originally posted by Aik TC:Would you like to clarify that further? It would seem that Buddhism holds that conventional truth can be false, but ultimate truth is..well...truth i.e. what is.
In a nutshell, information that is collected by our senses in our everyday routine are constructed into mental pictures by our mind. There is duality, as our mind has already bifurcate what is seen, heard into a subject and an object. What is concluded and judgment passed on the object are already colored and influenced by our own mental capabilities, prejudices, inclination, biases, likes and dislikes etc. This form of conclusion and judgment are Conventional Truths. The above Wiki description is quite clear as to what is Conventional and Ultimate truth. Ultimate Truth is free from this duality of subject and object.
In Christianity the distinction is between truth and error.
In Buddhist term, the above distinction is just a ‘Conventional Truth’.
Re the point about the arrow analogy, what would be the underlying message? It would seem to me that you may have taken an either/or approach, i.e. don't ask or get treatment. I think it can be a both/and approach.
Being strike by an arrow is equated to the present state of existence we are in. The underlying message is that, we should be concentrating our time in the cultivation to attain to the cessation of suffering instead of spending the time speculating on things that are not in any way going to help us to achieve that attainment.
In Christianity, moral perfection means that a person has never sinned against God throughout his entire life. Which is why I mentioned that it is impossible to attain moral perfection. The Bible also says that it is appointed for man to die once and after that to face judgement, so this means that there is no second chance at life, one life is all we have got.
Buddhists believes in Rebirth.
1. I suppose it won't be wrong to say that Buddhism's worldview is monism since there is apparently a rejection of dualism?
2. In what way is the distinction between truth and error a conventional truth i.e. a delusion?
3. Got your point re the analogy's message. The existence of suffering (and death) will lead one to question the cause of suffering. It shouldn't be considered speculation.
4. I understand that Buddhism believes in rebirth. I am sharing why in Christianity moral perfection is impossible.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:1. I suppose it won't be wrong to say that Buddhism's worldview is monism since there is apparently a rejection of dualism?
2. In what way is the distinction between truth and error a conventional truth i.e. a delusion?
3. Got your point re the analogy's message. The existence of suffering (and death) will lead one to question the cause of suffering. It shouldn't be considered speculation.
4. I understand that Buddhism believes in rebirth. I am sharing why in Christianity moral perfection is impossible.
I suppose it won't be wrong to say that Buddhism's worldview is monism since there is apparently a rejection of dualism?
Some Schools, not all. (See AEN posting of 14 Dec '12 12:10 AM for correct answer)
In what way is the distinction between truth and error a conventional truth i.e. a delusion?
It is still based on dualistic thoughts.
Got your point re the analogy's message. The existence of suffering (and death) will lead one to question the cause of suffering. It shouldn't be considered speculation.
It is an experience.
I understand that Buddhism believes in rebirth. I am sharing why in Christianity moral perfection is impossible.
Noted
Originally posted by Aik TC:
I suppose it won't be wrong to say that Buddhism's worldview is monism since there is apparently a rejection of dualism?
Some Schools, not all.
In what way is the distinction between truth and error a conventional truth i.e. a delusion?
It is still based on dualistic thoughts.
Got your point re the analogy's message. The existence of suffering (and death) will lead one to question the cause of suffering. It shouldn't be considered speculation.
It is an experience.
I understand that Buddhism believes in rebirth. I am sharing why in Christianity moral perfection is impossible.
Noted
1. Some schools of thought reject dualism. But what is the ultimate truth on this, dualism or monism?
2. Are you saying that there is no distinction between truth and error? Basically monism would imply that, since all is one reality.
3. Experience being an experience, I am sure there is a place of rational thought in all religions.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:1. Some schools of thought reject dualism. But what is the ultimate truth on this, dualism or monism?
2. Are you saying that there is no distinction between truth and error? Basically monism would imply that, since all is one reality.
3. Experience being an experience, I am sure there is a place of rational thought in all religions.
Some schools of thought reject dualism. But what is the ultimate truth on this, dualism or monism?
There will always be debates and arguments between different schools of thoughts in the same religion. Some feels that their interpretation of the teachings of the founder is more correct and representative of the founder. It is up to individual to decide for themselves which school they are more comfortable and at home with. Buddhism grows from a pluralistic form of teaching, then on to Absolutism, than Idealism and at the end stage in its history in India to Logic in its defense of the religion. In all these development, the core teachings of the Blessed One the Buddha is still there, except interpreted differently. It is a natural progression in the growth of the religion itself. If it has stay static in its original form, it would have attract only certain type of believers and the population of Buddhists in the world would certainly be smaller than it is now. As far as I am concern, there is no ultimate truth as to who is more correct. Pick the chose that one is comfortable with.
Are you saying that there is no distinction between truth and error? Basically monism would imply that, since all is one reality.
As pointed out in an earlier posting above, there is, in the conventional sense. Our thinking process is riddle with contradictions which is the way it works, it is dualistic in nature. Buddhist Absolutism implies that to know what reality is, one have to go beyond concepts and thoughts to intuitive experience and realization. That is where the Buddhist teaching of Emptiness comes in.
Experience being an experience, I am sure there is a place of rational thought in all religions.
Certainly, that is where all of us first started out from.
My apology, change made from wording 'Monism' to 'Absolutism' in red above.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:1. I suppose it won't be wrong to say that Buddhism's worldview is monism since there is apparently a rejection of dualism?
2. In what way is the distinction between truth and error a conventional truth i.e. a delusion?
3. Got your point re the analogy's message. The existence of suffering (and death) will lead one to question the cause of suffering. It shouldn't be considered speculation.
4. I understand that Buddhism believes in rebirth. I am sharing why in Christianity moral perfection is impossible.
My understanding is in Christianity, it is believed that every human is born sinful because of the sin committed by Adam and Eve. They disobeyed the command of God, passes on to all human making them sinner by birth. So; “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners". It is not so much of the sins committed due to being immoral but the original sin or ancestral sin from Adam and Eve, the inheritance of sin. Jesus was crucified to save us from our original sin.
Quote from broinchrist"1. You have understood correctly! Yes, on his own man can NEVER earn enough merit to be made right with God. That's the reason why sacrifices are required throughout the OT. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Another being must take your sins and atone for them so you can live. But the blood of bulls and sheep are only temporary and a shadow. Only a perfect sinless man can make that perfect sacrifice that forever satisfy the holiness and justice of God. Which is why the Bible teaches that salvation is by grace and not by works, so that no one can boast."
i am against the use of animal sacrifices or human sacrifices because it is too cruel.
Can the christians call themselves righteous by pushing the blame on an innocent being and then profiteering from the death of others?
i would rather follow buddhism and avoid sinning rather than to follow christianity and use other people as sacrifice.
Get it?
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:By the way nice to see you back here.
Thanks. It's nice to see familar names are still active here.
That Youtube video shows the brainwave results of advanced mediation practitioners, right? How does that point to scientific proof of Nirvana?
Originally posted by 2009novice:Hi Spnw07,
just writing to add up on Point 3... about this afterlife thingy..
i think there is afterlife... only if the mind still have attachment to the previous life... the very last thought propells to the craving for another rebirth... and then followed by suffering... in a cycle.
but I'm sure Buddha doesn't want to talk whether he existed after death, where is he etc... I searched Accesstoinsight and there are plenty of suttas that stated clearly... e.g. Anuradha Sutta ?
since all beings are formed by 5 aggregates... dependent originated... there shouldn't have any speculation about whether there is any existence or non-existence after death... is like eternalistic or nihilistic views...?
I'm not sure if the Christian's terminology of 'afterlife' corresponds to the Buddhist term of 'rebirth', maybe someone else knows more about this.
I have read such answers from various suttas too. However, I do think it's alright to say our existence after death is not permanent as we have to go through cycles of rebirth till we are finally spiritually liberated. Just for the benefit of allowing beginner Buddhists or people from other faiths to have some form of simple understanding.
Originally posted by Spnw07:Thanks. It's nice to see familar names are still active here.
That Youtube video shows the brainwave results of advanced mediation practitioners, right? How does that point to scientific proof of Nirvana?
It shows the brainwaves of meditative states including witnessing, non-dual, etc.
It would be interesting to get someone who has attained Nirvana to do a brainwave test. I believe the results will tell and correspond to the Buddhist descriptions of what Nirvana actually entails.
A perpetual state of no suffering, no mental afflictions, bliss and clarity.