Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Buddhists Against Reincarnation!!!

1235»

Comments

  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited January 2012
    I think the way we understand and use the word faith in common language is different from formal language. .....It seems that when we try to take apart this word in regards to religious context that the meaning seems to fall apart. I like the common meaning more.

    ..... We need only look at the reliability of those involved. ......a person can be steeped in religious practice and hold true all sorts of religious tenants, yet their actual behavior may not reflect the values of their religion, and in this way that person can be accurately described as having little or no faith, as they are not faithful to their vows, not faithful to their promises and responsibilities. They only have belief in words and dogmas.
    Here's something nice I found....
    "Faith is like a lamp, and Wisdom makes the flame burn bright."
    from the Dhammavadaka Sutra.

    In order for our Faith to be sound, well-rooted and rock-solid, we require Wisdom, which gives us discernment and the ability to come to reasonable conclusions through scrutiny and exploration, research and examination.

    I guess it also depends on how wise - or foolish - the person is, with regard to how they follow their Faith.

    Sincerely,

    Fede.

    *Bows out*.
  • jlljll Veteran
    "Reincarnation is not one of the 4 noble truths
    and does not feature in the 8 fold path or Meditation."
    This argument is flawed because there are many things
    that do not feature in 4NT & N8FP, eg Buddha & Sangha.
    It does not mean they are not important.
  • auraaura Veteran
    And this is what the Buddha had to say about hope, according to Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

    "Insight into change teaches us hope. Because change is built into the nature of things, nothing is inherently fixed, not even our own identity. No matter how bad the situation, anything is possible. We can do whatever we want to do, create whatever world we want to live in, and become whatever we want to be."

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/change.html

  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited January 2012
    I'm sorry, i'm having to bow back in again..... :rolleyes:

    Not so.
    First of all it clearly states these comments are 'commonly attributed' to the Buddha.
    Secondly, I believe he goes on to explain that these sentiments are mis-attributed.

    "When we understand this context for the Three Characteristics, we can clearly see the half-truths contained in the insights on the production and consumption of change that are commonly misattributed to the Buddha. With regard to production: Although it may be true that, with enough patience and persistence, we can produce just about anything, including an amazing array of self-identities, from the raw material of the present moment, the question is: what's worth producing? We've imprisoned ourselves with our obsession for producing and consuming changeable pleasures and changeable selves, and yet there's the possibility of using change to escape from this prison to the freedom of a happiness transcending time and space. Do we want to take advantage of that possibility, or would we rather spend our spare time blowing bubbles in the sunlight coming through our prison windows and trying to derive happiness from their swirling patterns before they burst?"

    EDIT NOTE:
    To be more specific, the passages he gives, in italics, are summarised interpretations of what the Buddha taught, which are commonly taken to be correct, but are in fact misinterpretations.
    He them goes on to explain at length why these misconceptions arose, and corrects the errors in understanding.

    i will merely repeat what my shiatsu teacher told me once:
    Fede, a desire to be correct, doesn't necessarily mean you are."

    I'm sorry @aura, I'm really not trying to show you up or belittle your argument, (someone else would have pointed this out, had I not, I think) but it's important to know the context of what you post, and to not be so hasty in your desire to prove a point, that you actually potentially shoot yourself in the foot....

    With Metta.
    .
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    @iktomi, no the political cartoon example was to show the example of illustrating that something is so but it might not be so. In the case of a political cartoon maybe 50% of the population thinks something is true.. Whereas with pandora's box nobody does. Still it can be an illustration. Suppose I say 'don't do drugs'. And I illustrate it by frying an egg and saying "this is your brain on drugs'..

    The egg frying isn't REALLY your brain on drugs, but it is an illustration.



  • IktomiIktomi
    edited January 2012
    I think the way we understand and use the word faith in common language is different from formal language. .....It seems that when we try to take apart this word in regards to religious context that the meaning seems to fall apart. I like the common meaning more.

    ..... We need only look at the reliability of those involved. ......a person can be steeped in religious practice and hold true all sorts of religious tenants, yet their actual behavior may not reflect the values of their religion, and in this way that person can be accurately described as having little or no faith, as they are not faithful to their vows, not faithful to their promises and responsibilities. They only have belief in words and dogmas.
    Here's something nice I found....
    "Faith is like a lamp, and Wisdom makes the flame burn bright."
    from the Dhammavadaka Sutra.

    In order for our Faith to be sound, well-rooted and rock-solid, we require Wisdom, which gives us discernment and the ability to come to reasonable conclusions through scrutiny and exploration, research and examination.

    I guess it also depends on how wise - or foolish - the person is, with regard to how they follow their Faith.
    No, you're not following the dialog with Driedleaf. The subject is faith in different contexts, specifically spiritual and secular. The meaning of faith does not fall apart across these categories because faith is essentially based in responsibility. How that responsibility is expressed depends on the values, the true values, of an individual.

    Faith is not solidified by discernment and the ability to come to reasonable conclusions through scrutiny and exploration, research and examination. That is merely building confidence in words and ideas. Faith is simply being responsible, no glorious religious truths need apply.
  • IktomiIktomi
    @iktomi, no the political cartoon example was to show the example of illustrating that something is so but it might not be so. In the case of a political cartoon maybe 50% of the population thinks something is true.. Whereas with pandora's box nobody does. Still it can be an illustration. Suppose I say 'don't do drugs'. And I illustrate it by frying an egg and saying "this is your brain on drugs'..

    The egg frying isn't REALLY your brain on drugs, but it is an illustration.



    The frying egg clearly illustrates something, thus it is illustrative.

    The use of the Pandora's box myth does not clearly illustrate anything. Even in the extended explanation (which indicates a failure to illustrate, by the way) a poorly reasoned interpretation is given. It can be interpreted that false hope remains in the box, because we continue to go on. If all our hopes proved false we would not go on. But all our hopes are not proved false, thus we are spared that fate.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    The above post actually says nothing.
    you are now arguing for the sake of it.
    Now that IS trolling, and as such, pointlessly argumentative.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    @iktomi, a brain is not really an egg. But it still illustrates.
  • IktomiIktomi
    @iktomi, a brain is not really an egg. But it still illustrates.
    An egg frying in a pan successfully illustrates a specific meaning, thus it is illustrative. What if the image of a banana resting on a book were used to illustrate 'the mind on drugs'? That image would not illustrate the idea, or rather it would be too difficult to interpret the image that way. It would be a hindrance to communication rather than an aid.

    PLEASE NOTE: I'm only responding to Jeffrey's line of discussion and I did not introduce myth, hope, or Western religion into the topic.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited January 2012
    I feel like I am explaining a joke!



    a myth of hope as a thing in a jar of all evil things illustrates that hope is evil..

    It may or may not be true. just like it may or may not be true that marijuana damages the brain.
  • IktomiIktomi
    I feel like I am explaining a joke!



    a myth of hope as a thing in a jar of all evil things illustrates that hope is evil..

    It may or may not be true. just like it may or may not be true that marijuana damages the brain.
    The myth of Pandora's box is notoriously open to interpretation. Indeed, it's illustrative of something that is open to a wide range of interpretations. As I tried to point out it could mean that hope is not evil because we have hopes that are fulfilled, and we are spared the fate of only having false hope. False hope is still in the box.

    In any case, look how the 'illustration' played out. Did it assist communication or hinder it? Remember I'm not the only one who's had trouble with it.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    "The myth of Pandora's box is notoriously open to interpretation. Indeed, it's illustrative of something that is open to a wide range of interpretations. As I tried to point out it could mean that hope is not evil because we have hopes that are fulfilled, and we are spared the fate of only having false hope. False hope is still in the box."

    I agree it is open to interpretation. Nonetheless it is an illustration. That is all I'm sayin' I'm not against you :p and I regret getting involved I should mind my own business. Anyhow I say an egg frying is open to interpretation. I like fried eggs so I could say drugs make my brain into something good. See?

    "In any case, look how the 'illustration' played out. Did it assist communication or hinder it? Remember I'm not the only one who's had trouble with it."

    Well I don't think Federica had a negative intention I think she was just sharing an interesting story as an illustration. In my opinion the discussion was a typical discussion where people disagree. Its a long road to become the most skillful in such discussions. One thing that has helped me is to not feel pressure that someone see things my way and rather focus on understanding myself and others views rather than winning. A great debator, a dharma teacher I read, said that in his debates his goal is to make the other people think about their own views at least we can try for that.

    At the same time I understand the frustration of people not seeing things as I wish they would. There is so much suffering caused by misunderstandings. Mind training in how to view things such as hope is important but it's an art to show someone a better way. It's like taking a butterfly out of it's chrysillus with force can be counterproductive.

    On one hand views are important and on the other it's not a big deal to have a disagreement. See what I'm saying, I'm really not against anyone and I know I shoulda minded my own business now!



  • IktomiIktomi
    "The myth of Pandora's box is notoriously open to interpretation. Indeed, it's illustrative of something that is open to a wide range of interpretations. As I tried to point out it could mean that hope is not evil because we have hopes that are fulfilled, and we are spared the fate of only having false hope. False hope is still in the box."

    I agree it is open to interpretation.
    Pretty much everything can be said to be open to interpretation. The essential point is that it doesn't aid in communication, so it fails to be illustrative.
    Nonetheless it is an illustration. That is all I'm sayin' I'm not against you :p and I regret getting involved I should mind my own business. Anyhow I say an egg frying is open to interpretation. I like fried eggs so I could say drugs make my brain into something good. See?
    Yes, that's a good point, and if that were the case then the image would have failed to communicate the idea. It would not illustrate that drugs are bad.
    "In any case, look how the 'illustration' played out. Did it assist communication or hinder it? Remember I'm not the only one who's had trouble with it."

    Well I don't think Federica had a negative intention I think she was just sharing an interesting story as an illustration.
    She concluded the 'illustrative' post with "Hope is not a healthy sentiment to cling to," which is perfectly congruent with Buddhist thought. But it is the clinging or grasping that leads to suffering, not hope. It's not healthy to cling to any sentiment, right? What does that have to do with presenting hope in a box of evil? Was the box supposed to represent grasping? It doesn't work.
    I shoulda minded my own business now!
    I don't see what the problem is in discussing this. At least we're getting to know each other. :)




  • auraaura Veteran

    To be more specific, the passages he gives, in italics, are summarised interpretations of what the Buddha taught, which are commonly taken to be correct, but are in fact misinterpretations.
    He them goes on to explain at length why these misconceptions arose, and corrects the errors in understanding.
    i will merely repeat what my shiatsu teacher told me once:
    Fede, a desire to be correct, doesn't necessarily mean you are."
    I'm sorry @aura, I'm really not trying to show you up or belittle your argument, (someone else would have pointed this out, had I not, I think) but it's important to know the context of what you post, and to not be so hasty in your desire to prove a point, that you actually potentially shoot yourself in the foot....
    I merely stated my opinion and observation that Buddhism does not equate "hope" with "evil" and that I'm not impressed with illustrations of Buddhism that do.
    But if you were having an argument, I'm sorry not to be upholding my end of it, my bad.

    He says we can clearly see the "half-truths," after all, and so I was very curious as to what you might come up with...(which half would you uphold as truth?)
    certainly it couldn't be "insight into change gives us hope"
    but certainly it also couldn't be "insight into change does not give us hope"
    so you'd have to come up with something else altogether on the subject of hope...
    or change the subject altogether,
    and that would make things very interesting indeed!
    And so it was the most perfect bait that you could never resist, and you would return and show me who you really are.
    I've always wondered who you really are.
    Thank you!
  • IktomiIktomi
    Lol, half-truths can be so enlightening.
  • possibilitiespossibilities PNW, WA State Veteran
    And so it was the most perfect bait that you could never resist, and you would return and show me who you really are.


    A "Buddhist" baiting another "Buddhist" so that the one "Buddhist" can find out who the other "Buddhist" REALLY is.


    WOW.


    Quite revealing.


    I would hope that this is not typical for Buddhist behavior, but I am losing faith in people's ability to walk the walk instead of just talking the talk.


  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited January 2012
    @possibilities I can see that you are baiting :thumbsup: (now you know who I really am wink wink)
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran


    A "Buddhist" baiting another "Buddhist" so that the one "Buddhist" can find out who the other "Buddhist" REALLY is.


    WOW.


    Quite revealing.


    I would hope that this is not typical for Buddhist behavior, but I am losing faith in people's ability to walk the walk instead of just talking the talk.


    I agree, Possibilities. I know how easy it is to get caught up in these debates. Been there, guilty of it. But this is supposed to be a group of Buddhists chatting, and this aggression seems uncalled for.

    I would really like to suggest to Aura that she/he stop and be mindful -- is it more important to be right, or more important to be Buddhist? Even when I lived in a Buddhist country, I never saw this level of aggression in any Buddhist setting. We're just chatting.
  • IktomiIktomi
    How is simply presenting what someone else wrote aggressive? It is completely benign. It could have been responded to in any number of ways.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited January 2012
    It's ok.We all suffer in our own ways. As @vinlyn says, were really just chatting.
    But if people wish to construe other objectives into this, or turn it into something it's not, or should not be - that really is their problem.

    I will however, just say this:
    I wear 2 hats, and as such have to try to be more mindful than most.
    I can pride myself that however much others may disagree with my sentiments here, which is of course their right - I have neither been rude, nor baited them, and neither have I made any pointed remarks or criticisms thinly-disguised as subtle humour.

    People would be well-advised to remember I wear two hats, and as such,am able to deal with such behaviour as appropriate - no matter at whom it is directed.

    Kindly mind your manners.

  • auraaura Veteran
    edited January 2012
    In Buddhism the rice may be left on the altar as an offering,
    but for whom is it an offering?
    It attracts only mice,

    Warning:
    "The above post actually says nothing.
    you are now arguing for the sake of it.
    Now that IS trolling, and as such, pointlessly argumentative.    "

    and I will agree
    and find a better way to spend my time.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator

    good idea.
    Maybe we should all do that.
This discussion has been closed.