- Joined
- Oct 20, 2013
- Messages
- 25,075
- Reaction score
- 10,676
- Location
- daily dukkha
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
suggest you read the link I gave you that explains that the end of ALL suffering -can only come by end of cessation of cyclical re-birth.I really see it as super-wrong to claim that the Buddha taught how to end suffering because that would nullify the 1st Noble Truth which the Buddha never did.
The other 3 truths along with the 8 fold path are ways of dealing with suffering but NOT to end the suffering.
A great example of that ideal is Jesus Christ on the cross where Jesus was in a horrific case of massive suffering and yet Jesus kept His mind and soul at peace.
To have peace of mind to think clearly while in the throws of pain and sorrow or suffering is the true message.
One can claim that death ends the suffering or that death then Nirvana would be no more suffering, but those are not taught by the Buddha or the 4 Noble Truths.
Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.
"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.
I really see it as super-wrong to claim that the Buddha taught how to end suffering because that would nullify the 1st Noble Truth which the Buddha never did.
The other 3 truths along with the 8 fold path are ways of dealing with suffering but NOT to end the suffering.
A great example of that ideal is Jesus Christ on the cross where Jesus was in a horrific case of massive suffering and yet Jesus kept His mind and soul at peace.
To have peace of mind to think clearly while in the throws of pain and sorrow or suffering is the true message.
One can claim that death ends the suffering or that death then Nirvana would be no more suffering, but those are not taught by the Buddha or the 4 Noble Truths.
=====================================
I can agree that a God was not included but that was NOT because God is irrelevant but because God was an accepted fact which did not need to be said.
The teachings of the Buddha can still be embraced by those who do not believe in God and that is a mark of greatness, but God is real and included no matter if some person believes it or not.
The real existence of God is NOT a matter of belief or not belief.
No - it was not to end suffering - it was to endure and to tolerate the suffering in our self.
The Buddha was extremely realistic which is why the TRUTHs are absolute.
The 3rd Truth has been confused by claiming it was an end to the suffering when it is really just saying an end to clinging to the suffering, as in stopping the suffering from controlling us, and the 3rd Truth is based on the same message given in the Hindu scripture called the Bhagavad-Gita.
Chapter 7
"Of many thousand mortals, one, perchance, Striveth for Truth; and of those few that strive Nay, and rise high - one only - here and there Knoweth Me, as I am, the very Truth."
I see no reason to connect the popular teachings about God as being required when talking about God.
Regardless of whatever happened before we were born or created and whatever happens after death really have nothing to do with the real existence of God.
Religions teach a bunch of garbage claiming to be about God, so knowing about the real God does not mean that we must carry all of the religious garbage too.
It is absurd to say that anyone including the Buddha could be in India and then to have nothing to do with a Deity or any of the Gods as that would be impossible.
The coolest thing about Buddhism is that it is compatible with all religions and philosophies as the Buddha taught such basic human truths that they fit anywhere.
It is easy to be Christian or Atheist and accept the truths of the Buddha, and truly the Buddha teachings are not contrary to anyone.
Of course there are lots of people who are contrary to the Buddha but not the other way around.
I like this interpretation.
eace
I see that I failed to make that clear enough.Buddhism was absolutely not about tolerating our internal suffering, it was about ending suffering. That was Gutama's primary inquiry and it was what led him on his quest.
That is correct, but the Buddha never ever denounced Theism or God by any name or synonym.The Buddha absolutely did not pander to theism, negatively or positively. Naturally he was immersed in a world ruled by Hinduism which was very god(s) oriented, but his concern was with the nature of suffering and mind ONLY.
I shall never understand such pompous and pretentious egotism as that, and it does trouble me.I'm sorry - and I don't mean this as an insult - but your level of ignorance is too high to really have a proper conversation about this. You are trying to argue about the bare basics of what Buddhism is, which you don't seem to know that clearly.
I have seen that film on TV before and it is okay and it is a well made film, but I want to dig much deeper then that.Here is a really excellent documentary that's fun to watch that can help you understand things a bit more clearly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJWPFYygGPc&index=1&list=FLKmzCQibjrQl_u9DaTGSb4A
Suffering still exists after you escape it just like Earth's gravity still exists after a Mars probe escapes it. Ever go inside to get out of the rain? Did rain sease to exist on the plannet after you got out of the rain? No. Same thing.I really see it as super-wrong to claim that the Buddha taught how to end suffering because that would nullify the 1st Noble Truth which the Buddha never did.
That is very clever what you say here, and yes Buddhism will say that too - but the Buddha did not say any such thing as that.Suffering still exists after you escape it just like Earth's gravity still exists after a Mars probe escapes it. Ever go inside to get out of the rain? Did rain sease to exist on the plannet after you got out of the rain? No. Same thing.
If you say so. My practice is little concerned with Bhudda quotes, and practitioners aren't encouraged to accept anything Buddha or anyone else says simply because they said it anyway.That is very clever what you say here, and yes Buddhism will say that too - but the Buddha did not say any such thing as that.
Please see Bhudda by Karen Armstrong if you're looking for a biography of Sedarta Gautama.Just like Christianity fails in explaining Jesus Christ, so too Buddhism fails in explaining the Buddha.
Good for them. Most Buddhists are not monks, however, but reguler people.A lot of people (not just Buddhist) go out into the mountains or they live in caves or get away from human population in order to find the Nirvana or peace or whatever one might call it, and by separating one self from the suffering is thereby separating from life, as anyone can find peace while alone in a desert.
In many ways, yes.To leave the suffering (as like leaving the earth's gravity) is to leave life and leaving the truth and that is vain and futile.
Nonsense. The only way to be helthy is to keep smashing your hand with a hammer? Pure nonsense.The only true strength of the Noble Truths is by staying in the suffering and being separate from the suffering at the same time.
That's actualy not the same thing at all.The perfect example of that is Jesus on the cross, as Jesus suffers horribly yet He still thought about providing for His mother and forgiving the guards while He was being crucified because His mind and heart and soul were held separate from the outer suffering.
"Otherwise"....what?Otherwise the Noble Truths would be offering nothing to people living here and now.
There is just no way to escape or to separate from the suffering of this life other then AFTER death, and after death is just as meaningless to this lifetime as is going to Heaven after one dies.Suffering per-se continues to exist even if an indivigual escapes it.
I have read very reliable accounts of the Buddha and his life and I see it as great and fantastic and I got that.Please see Bhudda by Karen Armstrong if you're looking for a biography of Sedarta Gautama.
Otherwise the Noble Truths would be offering nothing to people living here and now."Otherwise"....what?
Whatever happens after we die is of little interest to me.There is just no way to escape or to separate from the suffering of this life other then AFTER death, and after death is just as meaningless to this lifetime as is going to Heaven after one dies.
The idea is to detach our inner self from the ongoing suffering.
You keep saying it in very vague terms as if you can escape suffering in this life and that can not be done.
The Buddha does explain how anyone can be happy for a while, but like a little bird it flies away soon enough.
Then you have your 'explanation of Buddha' and there was no point of saying Buddhism doesn't explain Buddha.I have read very reliable accounts of the Buddha and his life and I see it as great and fantastic and I got that.
Thereafter the quest is to dig into the truths more deeply, and not to just dig into the past history.
"Otherwise" means 'in circumstances different from those present or considered', but we haven't been considering any circumstances at all for an "otherwise" to apply. You had mentioned Jesus's crucifixion, is that the initial circumstances your 'otherwise' is contrasting against? Christianity has nothing to do with this thread.Otherwise the Noble Truths would be offering nothing to people living here and now.
I'm happy with a reduction of suffering. Aim high, miss high. Reach for a larger goal and a failure will still be greater than if you had achieved a smaller goal. If I have to reach for pure nirvana in order to improve my life the most possible, then to pure nirvana I will reach even if I know I will never attain it.If the only way of reaching nirvana is by pretending to escape suffering or to wait until after one dies then it would be worthless.
Seems to me from what I've seen among Buddhists, Buddha IS the god.
Seems to me from what I've seen among Buddhists, Buddha IS the god.
Seems to me from what I've seen among Buddhists, Buddha IS the god.
Then I can't identify what you've been seeing of Buddhists.Seems to me from what I've seen among Buddhists, Buddha IS the god.
Yeah I've read some literature, I get the theory. I'm not talking about armchair Buddhists. I've seen documentaries on TV about places like Indonesia, Burma etc. where they have these huge shrines to Buddha. And the people are prostrating themselves before it.Then I can't identify what you've been seeing of Buddhists.
The Buddha statue serves as a mirror because each individual is a Buddha. To prey before the statue is to perform a kind of guided self-talk. The many gods surrounding the culture represent aspects on the self when they don't represent personified natural forces, and so to invoke a god is to invoke a Jungian archetype of the human psyche.Yeah I've read some literature, I get the theory. I'm not talking about armchair Buddhists. I've seen documentaries on TV about places like Indonesia, Burma etc. where they have these huge shrines to Buddha. And the people are prostrating themselves before it.
Looks like a god to me....
That is aiming low - it is not aiming high.I'm happy with a reduction of suffering. Aim high, miss high.
You can never attain Nirvana in that way because you are doing it backward as if you will take it by force.Reach for a larger goal and a failure will still be greater than if you had achieved a smaller goal. If I have to reach for pure nirvana in order to improve my life the most possible, then to pure nirvana I will reach even if I know I will never attain it.
That is correct that many Buddhist view the Buddha as the God.Seems to me from what I've seen among Buddhists, Buddha IS the god.
The quality of your post falls far short of the quality of Buddhism. Believe your delusions as you will, but know that your words aren't changing minds. I've simply experienced to much improvement from practicing Buddhism for any person's online argument to draw me from it. Know that I am not a victory you can achieve.That is aiming low - it is not aiming high.
To reduce suffering is the animal instinct to run away and hide from it.
It is being defensive while the Buddha is saying to take the offensive.
Suffering is the reality (the Truth) and we must embrace suffering and walk into it and confront it, but THEN at the same time we are not to internalize the suffering.
You can never attain Nirvana in that way because you are doing it backward as if you will take it by force.
The Buddha gives us realistic principles which any person can fulfill and it was never meant to be unreachable.
The Buddha was telling just the beginning as once we overcome the suffering then we get to walk through life to find our destiny.
The Nirvana was not intended as the end, as it is to give the person the power to proceed..
I really see it as super-wrong to claim that the Buddha taught how to end suffering because that would nullify the 1st Noble Truth which the Buddha never did.
No - it was not to end suffering - it was to endure and to tolerate the suffering in our self.
That is correct that many Buddhist view the Buddha as the God.
The Buddha did not teach himself as God but the people of Buddhism did that.
The problem came when Buddhism tries to exclude God from the teaching of the Buddha and thereby the Buddhism was starving the people from their spiritual need for the real God.
All human beings have an instinctive knowledge of the real God and Buddhism under Atheist ideals have made a mistake by trying to stifle that human need for God.
As such the simple Buddhist people had no other view of God so they view the Buddha as God because Buddhism has left their people barren and starving and malnourished without their connection to the Father God.
They make a mistake by viewing the Buddha as God but that mistake is natural and logical based on the misguidance from the Atheist ideals.
That is aiming low - it is not aiming high.
To reduce suffering is the animal instinct to run away and hide from it.
It is being defensive while the Buddha is saying to take the offensive.
Suffering is the reality (the Truth) and we must embrace suffering and walk into it and confront it, but THEN at the same time we are not to internalize the suffering.
You can never attain Nirvana in that way because you are doing it backward as if you will take it by force.
The Buddha gives us realistic principles which any person can fulfill and it was never meant to be unreachable.
The Buddha was telling just the beginning as once we overcome the suffering then we get to walk through life to find our destiny.
The Nirvana was not intended as the end, as it is to give the person the power to proceed.
===============================================
That is correct that many Buddhist view the Buddha as the God.
The Buddha did not teach himself as God but the people of Buddhism did that.
The problem came when Buddhism tries to exclude God from the teaching of the Buddha and thereby the Buddhism was starving the people from their spiritual need for the real God.
All human beings have an instinctive knowledge of the real God and Buddhism under Atheist ideals have made a mistake by trying to stifle that human need for God.
As such the simple Buddhist people had no other view of God so they view the Buddha as God because Buddhism has left their people barren and starving and malnourished without their connection to the Father God.
They make a mistake by viewing the Buddha as God but that mistake is natural and logical based on the misguidance from the Atheist ideals.
That is missing the point again, but I am happy to repeat the point.First, don't compare Buddhism to Christianity. Their concepts about suffering are completely different.
That is the problem of trying to minimize pain and suffering because it gives the false impression that you have escaped when you have not.Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional. Suffering is a state of consciousness, not circumstance.
I have learned from other people of course, but I do not follow any teacher or superior as my knowledge is my own and only my own.I don't know who your teacher has been but you may need to switch it up.
That is missing the point again, but I am happy to repeat the point.
Buddhism is different from the Buddha just as Christianity is different from Jesus Christ.
So yes Buddhism and Christianity are both wrong where it comes to suffering, but Jesus Christ and the Buddha are not wrong.
One big problem with Atheist is that they are really anti-God instead of just no-God as they claim.
That is the problem of trying to minimize pain and suffering because it gives the false impression that you have escaped when you have not.
When we feel real pain as in someone striking or stabbing or cutting you then we suffer like hell and suffering is not optional. And such harsh pain hurts even in the conscious mind.
The teaching of the Buddha is that we have to have the pain and sorrow and suffering but at the same time we are not to let it control us.
I have learned from other people of course, but I do not follow any teacher or superior as my knowledge is my own and only my own.
This is an important position for my self and for my faith - that I am my own teacher as I do my own research and I make my own decisions.
The Buddha statue serves as a mirror because each individual is a Buddha. To prey before the statue is to perform a kind of guided self-talk. The many gods surrounding the culture represent aspects on the self when they don't represent personified natural forces, and so to invoke a god is to invoke a Jungian archetype of the human psyche.
It's all about introspection, not god worship.
:attn1: See below:I'm finding bits and pieces of information which lead me to believe that if Buddha wasn't an atheist, he was at the very least agnostic. He did accept that there were enlightened beings, but did not necessarily view them as gods, but rather a class superhumans who had attained a higher state of existence -- all of whom are in the same cycle of death/rebirth as everyone.
From Wikipedia:
God in Buddhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My understanding is that the Buddha lived in India which is so full of Gods that it is not reasonable to expect that the Buddha would not just accept God or Gods as a fact of reality which was so commonplace and he accepted that it was not needed to be said about God.Seems to me from what I've seen among Buddhists, Buddha IS the god.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?