Oh? Then you'd have to have lobotomies over and over again, in each rebirth!
So you think that pleasure is impossible without suffering?
Is Buddhism a Failure?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Oh? Then you'd have to have lobotomies over and over again, in each rebirth!
So you think that pleasure is impossible without suffering?
Quite possibly.
Pain is a signal that something is wrong. If you are oblivious to pain, you've cut off a major portion of what makes you human.
Well, then lobotomy isn't a solution to suffering, is it?
But Buddhist practitioners are not oblivious to pain. 'Suffering is to be understood' is a motto. There are different ways of understanding suffering, different ways of understanding how come suffering happens.
The way I see it Buddhism would appeal to those who are tired of suffering. Its self selecting that way.
Who isn't tired of suffering? Oh well, I suppose there are some.
Your worldview on events are imaginary, Sam. But, I'm sure even another 50,000 posts later, and you still won't get that.
Sam continually bleats such nonsense, even though she doesn't believe her own lies.
'All that we suffer is all that we are'?
A succesful religion is one that keeps its adherents in the cycle of suffering?
There is no soul, no heaven, nothing to attain, no God, there are just these material bodies and the suffering that comes with them, period?
Human endeavor does not peak under ennui, but under challenges. A successful religion is one that allows people to struggle and allows them to set goals that make their suffering meaningful. Its like the sportsman who trains for a championship. His pain is a milestone, not a hurdle. It tells him how far he has advanced, not how he should get over it.
Sometimes, like this time, it's usually better to nod agreeably and slowly walk away from Sam.
I agree. But not that I think that this is how it should be.
How come you posted this here? Do you think this monk suffered when he immolated himself?
Would you say that a successful religion should have no notions of the end of suffering at all (ie. no notions of heaven or states of bliss)?
No idea. But do you think it would be a big deal if he died in his sleep?
That would not work, in my opinion. Every human being wants a goal and moksha is such a pleasant thing to look forward to.
Does it matter if you call it heaven, death or release? The end of suffering is the surest fate of all.
Yes, to call it 'heaven' postulates not an end to suffering, but only the beginning of eternal suffering.
As far as I know, he immolated himself as a protest against the war, and this wasn't the only case of such a self-immolation.
As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, #100, Buddhism's philosophy is intricate, not always easy to understand or relate to. So I would say that monk's self-immolation was 'too intellectualized' a kind of protest for the majority of people to understand. His fellow monks and some of the practitioners certainly understand it and can relate to it. Perhaps his message was actually aimed at them, not the Western governments or the so-called masses.
Oh. But only after the end of this life and not in this life - that is the caveat?
Perhaps. For how many rebirths would you be willing to endure your fate of suffering?
Again, would it be a big deal if he had died in his sleep, maybe with poison?
A goal must needs be at the end of an endeavor. People like to have a goalpost.
I don't believe in rebirth.
But if they were possible, why not? Nothing wrong with second chances. Or a third. Or a fourth. Who doesn't like do overs?