I don't think planning for the future is the same as the kind of disfunctional desire-as-a-way-of-life that Buddhism is concerned with.
The Flaws of Buddhism
- Thread starter Kotoko
- Start date
Yes, emotional pain can be caused by many factors, but if you know the cause, it's not a mystery, it's not a metaphysical problem. The real mystery is why people with no obvious source such as abuse, starvation, ect., still suffer with ordinary existence.
In fact, for someone like the Buddha, even the more obvious forms of suffering become less problematic. As an example, look at the Buddhist priest and nun that set themselves on fire in Vietnam to protest governmental anti-Buddhist policies. They didn't have to deal with an existential crisis like an ordinary suicide victim, it was a self-less decision, followed by an extreme sensation.
In fact, for someone like the Buddha, even the more obvious forms of suffering become less problematic. As an example, look at the Buddhist priest and nun that set themselves on fire in Vietnam to protest governmental anti-Buddhist policies. They didn't have to deal with an existential crisis like an ordinary suicide victim, it was a self-less decision, followed by an extreme sensation.
Zephyr said:And in line with my agreement, have you studied Christianity and Judaism?
As a matter of fact, I grew up in a Catholic private school. So I was heavily indoctrinated from at least age five. I also have been working at the same Jewish nursing home for nearly ten years, and attend both services and holiday meals as well chats by various rabbis willingly and unwillingly for those ten years. I have read both the Bible, and the Torah and am very familiar with both Christian and Jewish tradition. I am not an expert by any means, but blind dogma is blind dogma... you can't really consider it anything else unless you are blind.
I understand what you are trying to say, but I never made a statement about Christianity or Judaism except that it was based on blind dogma. I did not quote teachings and attempt to school anyone else on their personal beliefs. That is what I was objecting to.
I have acheived nothing. Why would you want to know? So you can judge the value of my statements as a potential follower? So you can figure out if I'm a fake and a hypocrite? My own state is of no value to you. Your state is the only one you have to work with. When Buddhists talk about desire, they don't mean that it's wrong, only that it is at the center of a distinctly human disease, take this information or leave it. When you indulge in all your desires and are still left wanting, then what?
spidergoat said:
more desires? indulge in all desures means what exactly? fukin and eatin and litnin to music and getting a massage and etc? what? what you man 'left wanting'?
say i have a good good sex session. there is a beginning a climax and then an end isn't there? now at that moment of end iam satiated aren't i. then maybe later i get horny agin and want sex. this is natrual isn't it? why guilt people about this?
if hungry i wannaeat. so i look for food. what is wrong with this? sorry. non comprendi
Kotoko said:
Let's begin again.
I was rather busy yesterday, and still won't be addressing your criticisms, projections, or assumptions of me; they don't matter.
Let's use that spade to bury the hatchet.
...
(1) Awareness of moral relativism is the basis that one can say the following: "There is no ultimate truth, there is only truth that we believe." My point that this is overlooked in the first Truth (and in all 4NT) seems to be well received, if only understood differently.
(2) Two possibilities, two paradoxes presented: it is not established from (1) what causes suffering, so it is asserted that this cause is attachment. If life is suffering and suffering is (caused by) attchment; life is really attachment- just eliminate suffering, and nurture your desires. Otherwise, it is either incoherent that suffering is desire, or more aptly, that one causes the other-- is a non sequitur.
(3) This is incoherent because the first paradox of (2) is unresolved, and as I pointed out before, there are other ends to suffering (lncluding death), and still provides no logical reason to discard one's desires.
(4) This is just more of the same ideology; there are stark parallels to the Hegelian dialectic, only with an extra step between antithesis and synthesis.
Be well, hun. Thanks for your posts.
Mythbuster said:
Yeah, I was contemplating that from Reggie's site. I see we have alot in common here at SciFor. =)
What do you think of the analogy to the Hegelian Dialectic?
Thesis --> Antithesis --> Synthesis
qwerty mob said:
The positive aspect of buddhism is it tries to give you a formula whereby desires do not control you, rather you control your desires. This encourages you to be centered, the thirdeye. By being centered you can be detached(to some degree) and increase awareness of self and your environment. This can free you from illusions that possibly hinder or are hurtful by enabling clearer sight/insight. The quest and embracing of truth, the truth shall set you free etc. The more you become aware, the more you realize you are not your desires, projections, your job, your lies or other's lies etc. You are a divine being connected to the divine source. You are perfect at your core, release your lies and other's lies thereby realizing the true foundation for your existence. All else can serve as distortions if not in their proper place.
Last edited:
In my view, iam, it's rather illogical to draw one's ethics from (or by) curtailing self fulfillment because these attachments already have actual, logical and natural limits; exploring them usually harms no one, and the imaginary possibilities expand our cognitive repertoire and so define our identities and characters.
iam said:
*************
M*W: I agree with you. All illusions/lies created by man-made religions (and All of them are man-made religions) are detrimental to the believers. Many of those believers have no degree of detachment, and therefore, they cannot see the truth. I believe it's that they don't want to see the truth, so they refuse to 'detach', in fact, they go to extremes to avoid any kind of 'detachment', and all that does is makes their churches get richer.
Those folks who fear even a slight degree of detachment are easily brainwashed, so there's no reasoning with them. I don't understand why these will-less (witless) people come to forums like this. Is it because they are searching for that elusive detachment to save themselves from the illusions and lies they believe, or is it because they wish to draw the rest of us into their lies and illusions? I believe it's the latter.
Fear is perhaps the greatest illusion of all, no?
...
*puts on horns and grabs pitchfork*
Just want to point out that some of these illusions/lies transcend religions, M*W. Many come form ordinary experience, and religions perhaps exploit them; death for example. Your take?
*takes off horns*
Oh... okay...
*puts down pitchfork*
...
*puts on horns and grabs pitchfork*
Just want to point out that some of these illusions/lies transcend religions, M*W. Many come form ordinary experience, and religions perhaps exploit them; death for example. Your take?
*takes off horns*
Oh... okay...
*puts down pitchfork*
There's no guilt involved. Buddhism is only for people interested in what it has to offer. There is nothing inherently wrong with being hungry and eating or having sex. Buddhism is actually similar to that. People get hungry for insight into the nature of consciousness and it paves the way for a shift into what may be a more primeval state or a more advanced one, I don't know. This did happen to me, but I don't understand how.duendy said:
This belief is not central to Buddhism, and is probably more the result of local traditions.
hmmmm, so what is this 'Buddhism' you refer to then? i am sure Tibetan Buddhists would see their Buddhism--the males anyhow--central. so what do you mean? I their a 'central Buddhism' which is THE truth then?....which is it?....why do you assume 'local trditions' are to blame? and why is Buddhism not part of A tradition??spidergoat said: