Consciousness and Matter

2»

Comments

  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2012
    alissowack wrote: »
    Do you consider the sayings of Buddhism to be absolute truth...or is it subjected to be being manipulated by that same consciousness? For it seems like, in your perspective, Buddhism can also not be...Buddhism. So, however you feel about Buddhism is subjected to not being real. The joy, peace, and liberation you claim can come from Buddhism seems defeated by it's own sayings.


    "I" am not a Buddhist nor do I follow Buddhism 100% but I do agree with a lot of it and use it for arguments in the race and religion forum. If I see fit, I will use any form of spirituality to base an argument, if I believe there is truth in it. I also used the Hermetic Philosophy although I do not 100% agree with it. Buddhism is a form of teaching, just like any other teaching. It is simply a concept for this level of being but it helps us to realize truth. Buddhism is, but it is not, as you say. In nirvana, which is the extinction of concepts, Buddhism does not exist. But in relative truth, Buddhism does exist as a guide to nirvana or absolute truth. Buddhism itself is not the absolute truth. I could tell you that I follow Buddhism but there is no I in the equation since there is no soul, or atman, or "I" that exists independently to begin with.

    “Suppose, monks, there is a man journeying on a road and he sees a vast expanse of water of which this shore is perilous and fearful, while the other shore is safe and free from danger. But there is no boat for crossing nor is there a bridge for going over from this side to the other. So the man thinks: ‘This is a vast expanse of water; and this shore is perilous and fearful, but the other shore is safe and free from danger. There is, however, no boat here for crossing, nor a bridge for going over from this side to the other. Suppose I gather reeds, sticks, branches and foliage, and bind them into a raft.’ Now that man collects reeds, sticks, branches and foliage, and binds them into a raft. Carried by that raft, laboring with hands and feet, he safely crosses over to the other shore. Having crossed and arrived at the other shore, he thinks: ‘This raft, indeed, has been very helpful to me. Carried by it, laboring with hands and feet, I got safely across to the other shore. Should I not lift this raft on my head or put it on my shoulders, and go where I like? No. He should wisely set the raft down and be unburdened."



  • alissowack
    alissowack Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
    The thing is this. People don't become Buddhists because they think it is "relative". And I find something very bland about a religion that can't take full responsibility or credit for something that is suppose to lead us to The (Absolute) Truth. How does a person who so-called reaches "nirvana" explain Buddhism's credibility if they can't even acknowledge that it exist or that it is real?

    Because the man can't take the raft with him doesn't mean that he should discredit what that raft has helped him to do. The raft helped him to do what he couldn't do on his own and if the raft is The (Absolute) Way to get from shore to shore, then everyone must take heed to it...otherwise they will not survive the "perilous and fearful" half of the shore.
  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2012
    alissowack wrote: »
    The thing is this. People don't become Buddhists because they think it is "relative". And I find something very bland about a religion that can't take full responsibility or credit for something that is suppose to lead us to The (Absolute) Truth. How does a person who so-called reaches "nirvana" explain Buddhism's credibility if they can't even acknowledge that it exist or that it is real?

    Because the man can't take the raft with him doesn't mean that he should discredit what that raft has helped him to do.

    Buddhism is real in the same way that driving to work is real. This is the relative world that we live in and we have done so all of our lives. The credibility of Buddhism lies within the teaching itself. Buddhism, like I stated before, is a teaching that helps to realize what Buddhists call nirvana, or the absolute truth. Any other teaching that would help to do this under any other name would be just as truthful. The universe, including Buddhism and Buddhists are relative. Buddhism teaches that attachment is the cause of suffering, therefore, even attachment to the teaching would cause suffering, because it lies in the world of relativity. The teaching is like a finger pointing to the moon. Focus on the moon (the truth) that the finger points to, not the finger. This does not mean that you should "discredit" any teaching that teaches realization. It means that you recognize your relationship to it.

    alissowack wrote: »
    if the raft is The (Absolute) Way to get from shore to shore, then everyone must take heed to it...otherwise they will not survive the "perilous and fearful" half of the shore.


    "And if Man, owing to half-wisdom, acts and lives and thinks of the Universe as merely a dream (akin to his own finite dreams) then indeed does it so become for him, and like a sleep-walker he stumbles ever around and around in a circle, making no progress, and being forced into an awakening at last by his falling bruised and bleeding over the Natural Laws which he ignored. Keep your mind ever on the Star, but let your eyes watch over your footsteps, lest you fall into the mire by reason of your upward gaze. Remember the Divine Paradox, that while the Universe IS NOT, still IT IS.


    This ^^^ comes from the Hermetic Philosophy. It, too, acts as the raft. Buddhism is not the only raft available; the raft is made by man's intelligence. Without wisdom and knowledge, the universe is "perilous and fearful". With wisdom and knowledge, it is "safe and free from danger"

  • alissowack
    alissowack Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
    So, it is sounding as if it doesn't matter if anybody adopts Buddhism as long as it gets somebody to The Truth. So, if I wanted to go the route of Charles Hamilton and use a video game icon to arrive at the Truth, then it is OK. It is possible for "fingers" to point to lies...or in this case have many fingers (or perspectives) pointing at the moon (or the Truth) that could be a lie.

    Buddhism just really sounds unable to relate to the world because it is doing everything to get away from it. There are things in life we just can't avoid. Suffering is one of them. We are suppose to feel a certain way about it. If suffering makes you feel bad, then it has done it's job. And if no one knows what it's like to suffer, then what is it "really" like to be free? What is joy if we can't allow ourselves to get "attached" to it; to express it as such so that all, as well as ourselves, know what it is?

  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2012
    alissowack wrote: »
    So, it is sounding as if it doesn't matter if anybody adopts Buddhism as long as it gets somebody to The Truth. So, if I wanted to go the route of Charles Hamilton and use a video game icon to arrive at the Truth, then it is OK. It is possible for "fingers" to point to lies...or in this case have many fingers (or perspectives) pointing at the moon (or the Truth) that could be a lie.

    Buddhism just really sounds unable to relate to the world because it is doing everything to get away from it. There are things in life we just can't avoid. Suffering is one of them. We are suppose to feel a certain way about it. If suffering makes you feel bad, then it has done it's job. And if no one knows what it's like to suffer, then what is it "really" like to be free? What is joy if we can't allow ourselves to get "attached" to it; to express it as such so that all, as well as ourselves, know what it is?

    If you arrived at the truth through a video game, so be it. If the finger was lying, it would not be pointing at the correct destination. We could test the theories or the ideas to conclude whether or not they are truth. Many fingers point to the same destination. That is why we have different spiritualities and philosophies from different cultures that basically say the same thing at the bottom line but are decorated with their own.."personalities" for lack of a better word.

    If you're content in wallowing in your own suffering instead of working to decrease it, that's ok by me. I have nothing to say about that. Do you.

    "Attached" does not equal joy. If I were to give you a rose (n/h) and you became "attached" to that rose, you would suffer when the rose dies because it is no longer as it appeared when I originally presented it to you. Attachment is the attempt of human minds to place permanency on impermanent phenomena. When that happens, we suffer because, well, everything is impermanent. When we realize this, we become non-attached which doesn't mean we give up on love and happiness. It just means that we accept the fact that nothing lasts forever. Overstood? This is what Buddhism teaches and this is the way the world is; impermanent. We must relate to it as such because it is the truth. If you don't believe that, test it yourself. Because of this, I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement that Buddhism is unable to relate to the world.

  • alissowack
    alissowack Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
    edited August 2012
    If every religion "points" in the same direction, then why make your points for what Buddhism can do? Why continue to try to persuade me that it works? Why warn me or criticize me? What tell me what makes Buddhism the absolute truth?

    The issue with me isn't about whether I like suffering. I don't and I'm assuming that everybody else doesn't either. My issue is how Buddhism seems to not want to accept suffering as a part of life; something that you just can't psych your mind out of it. You can cope with it; endure it and possibly learn from it but you can just shut it off.

    I could have sworn I didn't say anything about joy being equal to attachment. What I was saying was that in respect to joy, a person ought to feel a certain way about it...like suffering. If joy makes you feel good, then it has done it's job. What Buddhism seems to be doing is not allowing anyone to feel a certain way about anything. You can't be happy, you can't be sad...you just suppress those feelings no matter what in hopes that you never have to rely on them...which will not happen.
  • Thinking
    Thinking Members Posts: 70
    Buddhism is straight delusion B.
  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2012
    alissowack wrote: »
    If every religion "points" in the same direction, then why make your points for what Buddhism can do? Why continue to try to persuade me that it works? Why warn me or criticize me?

    I only mention Buddhism because it is relevent to the topic. It's the spirituality I choose to use as an example. Every religion does not point in the same direction but a lot of spiritualities say the same thing and are closely related in theories and ideas, therefore they point in somewhat the same direction but have small differences. For instance, Taoism and Hermeticism are closely related. I'm not trying to convert you to Buddhism. I'm just telling you what it is since you keep asking me about it. If you want me to start using another religion as an example, I'll do so. Just ask me.
    alissowack wrote: »
    My issue is how Buddhism seems to not want to accept suffering as a part of life; something that you just can't psych your mind out of it. You can cope with it; endure it and possibly learn from it but you can just shut it off.


    Not at all true. Buddhism recognizes suffering as a part of life. The point is to reduce it when possible, not to let it bring you down, or become "effected" by it. Like you said, "cope with it, endure it and possibly learn from it"
    alissowack wrote: »
    What Buddhism seems to be doing is not allowing anyone to feel a certain way about anything. You can't be happy, you can't be sad...you just suppress those feelings no matter what in hopes that you never have to rely on them...which will not happen.

    No, it just says that one should not be "attached" to a certain emotion because everything is temporary; not that we should shut them off.
  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2012
    HOW CONSCIOUSNESS CREATES REALITY
    http://free-will.de/reality.php

    I'm going to read this book and if anyone wants to discuss it w/ me, feel free
  • alissowack
    alissowack Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
    What is so bad about attachments? It's one way to come to appreciate life; to know that it is possible, if only for a lifetime, to commit ourselves to ideas, beliefs and values. Could it backfire? Sure. Someone can commit themselves to things that will do more to bring them down than to build them up. Buddhism doesn't seem to allow for that to happen.