|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 7:23 am
If Time is circular, then, what's the point of trying to escape Samsara since it would only be temporary?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:41 pm
Zoutout If Time is circular, then, what's the point of trying to escape Samsara since it would only be temporary? You're ascribing transcendental properties to a non-transcendental view of the world. "Escaping Samsara" isn't like going up into a Heaven to party with the other Enlightened. Nirvana exists outside of both space and time. Essetially, it's oblivion. Nirvana translates to "snuffing out". You cease the endless rebirths and just...stop existing (unless you're a Bodhisattva). In sanskrit, "time" and "death" are often the same word: Kala. As in kalachakra, the wheel of time/death. I've heard it said that miserable devils are chained to it by chains of iron while the heavenly gods are chained to it with chains of gold. The Buddha was the one to break the chains altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Akanishi Makoto Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 8:59 pm
Harry, I think that without you, this guild would be lacking a vital asset.
heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 9:56 pm
Akanishi Makoto Harry, I think that without you, this guild would be lacking a vital asset. heart wtf gold plz. hahapwn kthx!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:44 am
So, the mind is trancesndental?
Though, once enlightened, I exist as all the other enlightened do (as one being, since there is no individuality), I do not "exist" within time?
Yet more similarities to other religions. Thank you for giving me this information.
[edit] Though, since our physical bodies exist within time, they would adhere to the laws of circular time... wouldn't they need conciousness to "exist" as such?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:54 pm
Zoutout So, the mind is trancesndental? Though, once enlightened, I exist as all the other enlightened do (as one being, since there is no individuality), I do not "exist" within time? No. Be careful. The mind doesn't transcend time, or cease to exist "within time". It just ceases to exist. Period. A "One Being" conception of the universe is decidedly Hindu, not Buddhist. They believe in the Atman, the God-head playing a game, lila, of hide-and-seek with itself. Buddhist believe that beyond this world of illusion there is...nothing, really. There's nothing permanent or eternal...not even samsara, if the Bodhisattva vow is upheld until the end. Zoutout [edit] Though, since our physical bodies exist within time, they would adhere to the laws of circular time... wouldn't they need conciousness to "exist" as such? The idea of your physical body or consciousness existing within time is, once again, illusory. It's a by-product of the human mind's ability to draw arbitrary lines between "events" in time and "things" in space. It's this sort of codification that leads people to concepts of "inviolables" such as essences, souls, or eternity. These concepts do not have a grounds in the phenominal world, and so don't have a place in non-transcendental Buddhism. Also, by means of the Twelve Link Chain of Causation or Dependent Causation, Buddhism reveals itself as anti-Cartesian in regards to the self. "I think therefore I am" is false, because if you suffered head-trauma and became a vegetable you've effectively removed "I think" from the equation and yet retain "I am".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:11 am
Quote: A "One Being" conception of the universe is decidedly Hindu, not Buddhist. I'm afraid I'll have to contradict you there. Though I have only read one book on the subject, the Tibetan Book of Living and dying mentions the universal conciousness rather than oblivion. [edit] It also seems to be a bit strange that enlightenment is meant to be absolute bliss, yet you don't "exist" to be able to experience that bliss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:26 am
You'll need to post text for me to discuss it further.
All I can say is that statement seems at odds with almost all other forms of, even the base of, Buddhism.
You can't "exist" to experience bliss. That's the big prob.
Life is suffering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 6:13 pm
Harry Parachute You can't "exist" to experience bliss. That's the big prob. Life is suffering. Life is pain, highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something. ~Westley, aka the Dread Pirate Roberts, The Princess Bride.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 8:03 pm
Byaggha Harry Parachute You can't "exist" to experience bliss. That's the big prob. Life is suffering. Life is pain, highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something. ~Westley, aka the Dread Pirate Roberts, The Princess Bride. That's actually a damn good quote for Buddhists. I think we need a new sticky, maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 9:11 pm
Harry Parachute That's actually a damn good quote for Buddhists. I think we need a new sticky, maybe. What, a Buddhist-inspired popculture quote file or something? Might be fun. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 9:18 pm
Byaggha Life is pain, highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something. ~Westley, aka the Dread Pirate Roberts, The Princess Bride. Excellent movie, that. 3nodding Harry Parachute You can't "exist" to experience bliss. That's the big prob. Life is suffering. Here is where I get to throw in a question: Are life and existence necessarily the same thing. It could be that "life" would mean "life on this plane" and that once one transcends to an enlightened state, he/she leaves this plane and merely "exists." Hard to explain, but... Byaggha In the beginning, all beings were in another state. Energy, unisexual. Happy. Something along those lines, and nothing like the state we're in now. That sounds like about what I'm trying to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 2:46 am
Tomodachi Kiko Here is where I get to throw in a question: Are life and existence necessarily the same thing. It could be that "life" would mean "life on this plane" and that once one transcends to an enlightened state, he/she leaves this plane and merely "exists." Hard to explain, but... No. I'll say this again, for the umpteenth time. Buddhism is a non-transcendental religion. It's the religion of Occam's Razor. It's the religion of reductionism. It's the religion of no-religion. There are no planes besides this one, no different dimentions or anything of the kind. As soon as you start thinking transcendentally about souls or essences or a matter/mind duality where the body dies and the spirit lives on, you're selling something. To quote Oscar Wilde, "Only shallow people don't believe in appearances". When you believe in souls or essences or a kind of mind/matter duality where the body dies but the spirit lives on, you're selling yourself on the idea of, "I'm never going to die". However, you know very well that there's absolutely, positively no evidence to support such claims. Buddhism isn't an easy religion to deal with because sometimes it's very, very scary. When you ask the tough questions, as all religion should, you need to face up to the tough answers you'll get at the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 5:23 am
I believe there is something in "The Buddhist Bible" that the Buddha said alluding to "if something as frightening as no soul or no existence after this one, then the most frightening answer should be the one you meditate on."
I'll have to find it, but it fits this discussion well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Akanishi Makoto Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 5:34 am
To stay on the topic, I pretty much do find the idea of not existing in any sense of the word, to be a rather frightening prospect.
Perhaps Buddhism isn't for me, then, since the idea of oblivion being the aim just doesn't really fit what I believe.
Hinduism wouldn't be good, either, since I eat beef (I tend not to - the other meats taste better)
Maybe I should look further into Krishna conciousness...
[edit] I just read the 5 minute introduction to Buddhism again, and could find nothing about oblivion, only not "living"
I remember when first being told about it, I was told about the void, but I still interpreted that as being the universal conciousness, and not existing physically, rather than not existing at all.
[edit 2] My point about that was that the base of Buddhism is the four noble truths, and the 8-fold path, and that what I believe (which, you seem to be trying to tell me is incorrect [Sorry, I couldn't think of a more pleasent way to put this. If you can think of one, that's what I meant]) doesn't disagree with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
