Do buddhists entertain the idea they mght be delusional abou
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
I study Christianity and Islam.I have some knowledge in Judaism and Buddhism too. It's just one of my favourite past time.
I have no special interest to frustrate Buddhists.
If you have noticed, Roony9 and Laurie are both in EH and here. I just follow them wherever they go.
Thank you for showing respect by answering! The persons you mentioned are forthright, probably too much to you liking. But you have not taken the advantage of this forum by countering their views, instead creating a negative image for yourself. I would rather respect you!
Please, by all means,study all the holy scriptures of all religions, and ask if you have doubts, if you want to clarify about christianity ask a knowledgeable christian,and buddhism, a knowledgeable buddhist. Get first hand knowledge!Agree to disagree and debate the points, point by point rebuttal.
Anyway, I thank you again, for being willing to listen!
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
Buddha said do not preach more than 3 times to people who has no affinity with Buddha. Buddha knew there will be people like that long ago. May be he will have affinity with Buddha in his next life. ä¸�åº¦æ— ç¼˜è€…ã€‚
If they had no affinity with Buddha, they wouldn't post in this forum
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
Though I didn't really like you, I agree with what you said, if the world was really false, then no one would probably even die if their heads were slashed by a knife xD.
Actually it is AndrewPKYap that says the world is an illusion, and I correct him by saying that that is not the Buddhist stance. But I don't think he understands ;)
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
That is because you have not lived the life of greater REALITY with less delusions and baseless beliefs.
That is why you cannot appreciate the beauty of living life in greater REALITY.
I have tried both ways and I find that the REAL way is better than the delusional way.
The christians and the buddhists (and members of other faiths) make many fantastic claims and preach love and compassion. Love and compassion is well and good.
But it is the REAL way, without the fantastic claims that solves REAL problems in this world.
Simi????
You preaching scientology?
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
Sorry but bloodshed was caused by Islam who believed that men will go to heaven if they ngage in a Jihad.
you know
this blatantly the single most powerful evidence christians engage in religious bashing
yet hordes of them dare come to other forums to troll and accuse others of doing it
you know, at this point of time i am just speechless at the sheer audacity and stupidity of this
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Who wants to unite with a bigger troll?Who wants to lord over who?I have never force anyone to believe anything. You contribute nothing good to Buddhism at all.
I expect AEN to be smarter than that to listen to your call.
with this, its ever the more we have to be vigilant against trolls like you, and i am glad i see increasing number of people speaking out against your ways
cease and desist, troll
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
This is certainly a revelation and solves a major puzzle for me. I always wondered why buddhists I know never seem to get what buddhism teaches although they are good at repeating the doctrines.
If what you say is true, apparently, the buddhist organisation is just like any other religious organisation. They want to control instead of liberating their followers.
I hope you will continue to search for answers within yourself (using suitable Buddhist teachings as your spiritual guide), in addition to what you can physically observe, perceive or apparently understand, from any replies here or elsewhere.
What is my true purpose or life-long goal in learning or questioning about Buddhism? How will it benefit me after I have decided that the above conclusion is true or false for any reason? Will I become a mere religious cynic or someone's who's anti-religion? Or will I become a religious extremist, for example? Just some questions to ask so that we can help keep any of our subtle negative mental and emotional fluctations in check.
Unlike monotheistic religious teachings which emphasise absolute ownership rights of a Creator God, Buddhism is always about understanding the truths within and around us, to use the wisdom gained from the Buddha's teachings to guide us on the path towards lasting happiness.
When one does not understand, one is always under the control of not only others in various ways known or unknown to us, but also under the control of ignorance, frustration and greed for power inside our own minds. This applies to me as well.
When talking about 'control', its definition differs from person to person and is contextual. Is our government controlling us? Are our parents controlling us? Are our spouses and kids controlling us? Are our friends, colleagues and bosses controlling us? And vice versa, are we controlling any one in either groups?
One important question to the suggested relevation about religious organisations trying to control its followers might be this, so as to help viewing the matter from other angles: How can I contribute to a better and gradual mindset change in such organisations, if I think what I see or experience is indeed true? Do I want to take the first step to contribute as much as I can, no matter how little, no matter how tiring and thankless it may be, to help bring about what I have understood to be healthy religious views and attitudes etc? Can I see myself doing this till the day I breathe my last?
Ultimately, one can only change oneself. We can only lead by personal example. But take note that even so, others have the right to choose whether to follow.
Originally posted by Jamber:IMOHO.. i think the issue with religious tension primarily stems from the general attitude people have towards their religion. when a person decides to be a christian/buddhist..etc, we treat it like acquiring another worldly possession in life, like buying a new car, upgrading to bigger house, joining a prestigious country club.
...religious tension will persists so long as spiritual practice is not integrated into one's daily life and people still treat their religion at a superficial level like any of their worldly possessions - something to be acquired, polished and displayed at the shelf for showing off to the neighbours and friends.
just a thought. people may treat it as pure nonsense when you say that the earth is round before the actual scientific discovery is made. but the earth do not need this belief or proof to be round since it has always been so. the only one that needs the belief and the proof is the ego. spiritual practice is something like that.
I can relate to the above since I have also reflected on the issue from this angle. What is published and universally accepted to be 'scientific facts' now, may be challenged and overturned by later, more in-depth scientific discoveries.
Science is continuous human exploration of and experimentation with nature. What we know now will never be perfect or absolutely complete. Our present scientific knowledge can at best be considered parts of a humanly inconceivable jigsaw puzzle of natural or supernatural phenomena.
-
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Actually it is AndrewPKYap that says the world is an illusion, and I correct him by saying that that is not the Buddhist stance. But I don't think he understands ;)
hahaha... and I think that it is because you do not understand. If you really understand what you cut and paste, you would be able to put it in your own words and come up with some examples of your own (not cut and paste some examples). hahaha...
-
Originally posted by viciouskitty74:
Simi????
You preaching scientology?
I am not familiar with Scientology. Here though is the introductory paragraph and link to wiki on the subject. You can read for yourself what Scientology is.
"Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by L. Ron Hubbard (1911–1986), starting in 1952, as a successor to his earlier self-help system, Dianetics.[1] Hubbard characterized Scientology as a religion and in 1953 incorporated the Church of Scientology in New Jersey.[2][3]
Scientology teaches that people are immortal spiritual beings who have forgotten their true nature.[4] Its method of spiritual rehabilitation is a type of counseling known as auditing, in which practitioners aim to consciously re-experience painful or traumatic events in their past in order to free themselves of their limiting effects.[5] Study materials and auditing courses are made available to members in return for specified donations.[6] Scientology is legally recognized as a tax-exempt religion in the United States and some other countries,[7][8][9][10] and the Church of Scientology emphasizes this as proof that it is a bona fide religion.[11] In other countries such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, Scientology does not have comparable religious status."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
Doesn't sound like Scientology is based on reality (with proofs and evidence) does it?
Which brings us to why you jumped to conclusions and asked "Simi???? You preaching scientology?" Which would suggest that you are given to many delusions in your head because you are prone to jump to conclusions (given this instance) without proofs and evidences.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Actually it is AndrewPKYap that says the world is an illusion, and I correct him by saying that that is not the Buddhist stance. But I don't think he understands ;)
You have misunderstood what I said (maybe I said it to carelessly). My position is: What you see, what you think is real (this world) is in fact an illusion. Your perception of this world is an illusion of what the world really is.
Just as in the post above, "viciouskitty74" has an illusion of what I am saying, thinking that I am "preaching scientology" (if she does not think I am "preaching scientology" she won't ask that question, right?)
She has an illusion of what I am saying, and that is not the same as I did not say anything. Similarly, what you see, what you perceive of this world is an illusion but that is not the same as, "the world is only an illusion and reality is somewhere else (the Hindu position)."
It is, when you look at reality, you form an illusion in your head what reality is.
-
Originally posted by Spnw07:
I hope you will continue to search for answers within yourself (using suitable Buddhist teachings as your spiritual guide), in addition to what you can physically observe, perceive or apparently understand, from any replies here or elsewhere.
What is my true purpose or life-long goal in learning or questioning about Buddhism? How will it benefit me after I have decided that the above conclusion is true or false for any reason? Will I become a mere religious cynic or someone's who's anti-religion? Or will I become a religious extremist, for example? Just some questions to ask so that we can help keep any of our subtle negative mental and emotional fluctations in check.
Unlike monotheistic religious teachings which emphasise absolute ownership rights of a Creator God, Buddhism is always about understanding the truths within and around us, to use the wisdom gained from the Buddha's teachings to guide us on the path towards lasting happiness.
When one does not understand, one is always under the control of not only others in various ways known or unknown to us, but also under the control of ignorance, frustration and greed for power inside our own minds. This applies to me as well.
When talking about 'control', its definition differs from person to person and is contextual. Is our government controlling us? Are our parents controlling us? Are our spouses and kids controlling us? Are our friends, colleagues and bosses controlling us? And vice versa, are we controlling any one in either groups?
One important question to the suggested relevation about religious organisations trying to control its followers might be this, so as to help viewing the matter from other angles: How can I contribute to a better and gradual mindset change in such organisations, if I think what I see or experience is indeed true? Do I want to take the first step to contribute as much as I can, no matter how little, no matter how tiring and thankless it may be, to help bring about what I have understood to be healthy religious views and attitudes etc? Can I see myself doing this till the day I breathe my last?
Ultimately, one can only change oneself. We can only lead by personal example. But take note that even so, others have the right to choose whether to follow.
I can relate to the above since I have also reflected on the issue from this angle. What is published and universally accepted to be 'scientific facts' now, may be challenged and overturned by later, more in-depth scientific discoveries.
Science is continuous human exploration of and experimentation with nature. What we know now will never be perfect or absolutely complete. Our present scientific knowledge can at best be considered parts of a humanly inconceivable jigsaw puzzle of natural or supernatural phenomena.
It is very bad when you quote only a small part of what I said and then answer that very small part when the whole post of what I said is relevant. There fore I quote what I said below and your reply to it above.
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:That certainly explains a lot, why people outside of the buddhist organisations can benefit more from buddhist teachings than buddhists themselves.
"Kalama Sutra - Angutarra Nikaya 3.65
Teaching given by the Buddha given to the Kalama people:
Do not go by revelation;
Do not go by tradition;
Do not go by hearsay;
Do not go on the authority of sacred texts;
Do not go on the grounds of pure logic;
Do not go by a view that seems rational;
Do not go by reflecting on mere appearances;
Do not go along with a considered view because you agree with it;
Do not go along on the grounds that the person is competent;
Do not go along because [thinking] 'the recluse is our teacher'.
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are unwholesome, these things are blameworthy; these things are censured by the wise; and when undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill, abandon them...Kalamas, when you know for yourselves: These are wholesome; these things are not blameworthy; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness, having undertaken them, abide in them."
Type A
"Kalamas, when you yourselves know:" that is, you memorize what someone tells you ... that is bad
Type B
"Kalamas, when you know for yourselves:" that is, you find out for yourself, work it out for yourself... that is good.
Then AEN (mr cut and paste, and I suspect is Type A) confirms what you said:
Read what AEN was told: "I do not want you to have knowledge regarding who is right or wrong and all those comments and challenges made to other religions and traditions. I never want you to get into that."
How can AEN work it out for himself, be Type B if he does not consider "who is right or wrong " and consider "all those comments and challenges made to other religions and traditions"?
This is certainly a revelation and solves a major puzzle for me. I always wondered why buddhists I know never seem to get what buddhism teaches although they are good at repeating the doctrines.
If what you say is true, apparently, the buddhist organisation is just like any other religious organisation. They want to control instead of liberating their followers.
see: 01 Jan `10, 7:33PM
-
Originally posted by Spnw07:
I hope you will continue to search for answers within yourself (using suitable Buddhist teachings as your spiritual guide), in addition to what you can physically observe, perceive or apparently understand, from any replies here or elsewhere.
What is my true purpose or life-long goal in learning or questioning about Buddhism? How will it benefit me after I have decided that the above conclusion is true or false for any reason? Will I become a mere religious cynic or someone's who's anti-religion? Or will I become a religious extremist, for example? Just some questions to ask so that we can help keep any of our subtle negative mental and emotional fluctations in check.
Unlike monotheistic religious teachings which emphasise absolute ownership rights of a Creator God, Buddhism is always about understanding the truths within and around us, to use the wisdom gained from the Buddha's teachings to guide us on the path towards lasting happiness.
When one does not understand, one is always under the control of not only others in various ways known or unknown to us, but also under the control of ignorance, frustration and greed for power inside our own minds. This applies to me as well.
When talking about 'control', its definition differs from person to person and is contextual. Is our government controlling us? Are our parents controlling us? Are our spouses and kids controlling us? Are our friends, colleagues and bosses controlling us? And vice versa, are we controlling any one in either groups?
One important question to the suggested relevation about religious organisations trying to control its followers might be this, so as to help viewing the matter from other angles: How can I contribute to a better and gradual mindset change in such organisations, if I think what I see or experience is indeed true? Do I want to take the first step to contribute as much as I can, no matter how little, no matter how tiring and thankless it may be, to help bring about what I have understood to be healthy religious views and attitudes etc? Can I see myself doing this till the day I breathe my last?
Ultimately, one can only change oneself. We can only lead by personal example. But take note that even so, others have the right to choose whether to follow.
I can relate to the above since I have also reflected on the issue from this angle. What is published and universally accepted to be 'scientific facts' now, may be challenged and overturned by later, more in-depth scientific discoveries.
Science is continuous human exploration of and experimentation with nature. What we know now will never be perfect or absolutely complete. Our present scientific knowledge can at best be considered parts of a humanly inconceivable jigsaw puzzle of natural or supernatural phenomena.
Sorry, I don't believe in the supernatural. That is invented by some people to cash in on human failings (propensity to believe in the supernatural without any valid evidence of the supernatural) of some people (actually most people).
So while I might be interested in buddhist philosophy, I have no interest in buddhist superstitions (buddhist beliefs in the supernatural)
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
You have misunderstood what I said (maybe I said it to carelessly). My position is: What you see, what you think is real (this world) is in fact an illusion. Your perception of this world is an illusion of what the world really is.
Just as in the post above, "viciouskitty74" has an illusion of what I am saying, thinking that I am "preaching scientology" (if she does not think I am "preaching scientology" she won't ask that question, right?)
She has an illusion of what I am saying, and that is not the same as I did not say anything. Similarly, what you see, what you perceive of this world is an illusion but that is not the same as, "the world is only an illusion and reality is somewhere else (the Hindu position)."
It is, when you look at reality, you form an illusion in your head what reality is.
Whether the world is an illusion, it will be best to ask someone who is going to pass away or someone who has just escaped from death. They will give you a very good answer on whether the world is it an illusion.
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
Whether the world is an illusion, it will be best to ask someone who is going to pass away or someone who has just escaped from death. They will give you a very good answer on whether the world is it an illusion.
You have no idea what rubbish you have just written and sorry if I sound very rude. The first thing you should do is learn logic and research carefully what you are about to write before you write it
If you can learn buddhist philosophy when you are so stupid, that would be a miracle.
One way out is for you to do as you are told by the monks and not try to understand what and why they tell you to do this and that (just ask them what to do, when to do it, how much to do it) and do not try to understand until you gain some critical knowledge to make yourself more intelligent.
(or you can be like AEN and simply cut and paste what you think is the answer and so escape making stupid statements)
The other way is to ask and not make statements about things you have only a vague knowledge and understanding of.
For example, in your post quoted above, instead of making a statement that is so glaringly stupid (of course you do not know why it is stupid for otherwise you would not have made it and you do not agree that it is stupid) you could have asked, "Why do you think what people know and see of this world, the world is an illusion? What are the proofs and evidences that what they know and see of the world is an illusion?"
Just as I am asking you now, "Why do you say "ask someone who is going to pass away or someone who has just escaped from death. They will give you a very good answer on whether the world is it an illusion"?
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
You have no idea what rubbish you have just written and sorry if I sound very rude. The first thing you should do is learn logic and research carefully what you are about to write before you write it
If you can learn buddhist philosophy when you are so stupid, that would be a miracle.
One way out is for you to do as you are told by the monks and not try to understand what and why they tell you to do this and that (just ask them what to do, when to do it, how much to do it) and do not try to understand until you gain some critical knowledge to make yourself more intelligent.
The other way is to ask and not make statements about things you have only a vague knowledge and understanding of.
For example, in your post quoted above, instead of making a statement that is so glaringly stupid (of course you do not know why it is stupid for otherwise you would not have made it and you do not agree that it is stupid) you could have asked, "Why do you think what people know and see of this world the world is an illusion? What are the proofs and evidences that what they know and see of teh world is an illusion?"
Just as I am asking you now, "Why do you say "ask someone who is going to pass away or someone who has just escaped from death. They will give you a very good answer on whether the world is it an illusion"?
Uncle, you are very difficult to talk to leh. Twist and turn until I got confused. I think I am too young to handle you. What I mean is this world is like an illusion but it is not an illusion. Too profound for you hor? I rest my case.
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
Uncle, you are very difficult to talk to leh. Twist and turn until I got confused. I think I am too young to handle you. What I mean is this world is like an illusion but it is not an illusion. Too profound for you hor? I rest my case.
Please rest your case before you make more of a fool of yourself. If you have any intelligence at all, you will start learning/discussing and stop preaching.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Please rest your case before you make more of a fool of yourself. If you have any intelligence at all, you will start learning/discussing and stop preaching.
In this forum, AndrewPK Yap is the smartest.
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
In this forum, AndrewPK Yap is the smartest.
wow, you are not as stupid as I think, good observation here... and you can qualify your statement with "In this forum", impressive.
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
In this forum, AndrewPK Yap is the smartest.
What more can you expect from a bigot?
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
What more can you expect from a bigot?
Talking about self-righteousness. -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
You have misunderstood what I said (maybe I said it to carelessly). My position is: What you see, what you think is real (this world) is in fact an illusion. Your perception of this world is an illusion of what the world really is.
Just as in the post above, "viciouskitty74" has an illusion of what I am saying, thinking that I am "preaching scientology" (if she does not think I am "preaching scientology" she won't ask that question, right?)
She has an illusion of what I am saying, and that is not the same as I did not say anything. Similarly, what you see, what you perceive of this world is an illusion but that is not the same as, "the world is only an illusion and reality is somewhere else (the Hindu position)."
It is, when you look at reality, you form an illusion in your head what reality is.
Though what you said is not wrong, that is also not what I am talking about.
What I mean is that everything, the world as such, is a vivid presence, the manifestation of our true nature that cannot be denied. Though vividly appearing, it is empty of inherent existence. It does not deny reality, but that reality is also empty.
Realising non-dual luminous Awareness (a.k.a reality) without perceiver/perceived division or realising 'oneness with universe' is only half the story, equally important is realising the empty nature of Presence. The essence is luminous, its nature is empty, its energy is expression/manifestation. These three aspects are inseparable. After Thusness Stage 4 (Brahman is the World) is the realisation that there is no ultimate, independent and permanent Brahman that is 'one with the World', there is just manifestation, transient flow of phenomena and events. That is Thusness Stage 5, and that is the Emptiness of Self (self and Self). Furthermore, there is the realisation that all Dharmas, phenomena, are themselves empty which is Stage 6. Together they are called the twofold emptinesses in Buddhism, the Emptiness of Self and the Emptiness of Dharmas.
Regarding the emptiness of dharmas: For example if we were to observe a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front us, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an inherent attribute of the mind. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere appearances without inherent/objective existence.
Hence everything is vivid yet empty and without substance, like a mirage, like a magick trick, like an illusion but NOT an illusion, like a dream but NOT a dream, for there is no other separate reality apart from these shimmering mirage-like display of pure awareness, which does not disappear in enlightenment but can only be correctly perceived.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Though what you said is not wrong, that is also not what I am talking about.
What I mean is that everything, the world as such, is a vivid presence, the manifestation of our true nature that cannot be denied. Though vividly appearing, it is empty of inherent existence. It does not deny reality, but that reality is also empty.
For example if we were to observe a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front us, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an inherent attribute of the mind. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere appearances without inherent/objective existence.
Hence everything is vivid yet empty and without substance, like a mirage, like a magick trick, like an illusion but NOT an illusion, like a dream but NOT a dream, for there is no other separate reality apart from these shimmering mirage-like display of pure awareness, which does not disappear in enlightenment but can only be correctly perceived.
Realising non-dual luminous Awareness (a.k.a reality) without perceiver/perceived division or realising 'oneness with universe' is only half the story, equally important is realising the empty nature of Presence. The essence is luminous, its nature is empty, its energy is expression/manifestation. These three aspects are inseparable.
AEN trying to fool us again. -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
AEN trying to fool us again.
In the Hindu school of Advaita Vedanta, there are three steps or three kinds of realisations, quoting from its founder Shankara and modern day revivalist Ramana Maharshi: 1) The World is Illusory, 2) Brahman alone is Real, 3) Brahman is the World.
Many people go through step 1 and 2 and stopped. They realised their true self but does not know that Brahman is the World, it is not separate. AndrewPKYap probably goes to Step 3.
But the point is, in Buddhism, even if we realise non-dual presence as in 'Brahman is the World', even that presence is empty in nature.
Non-dual awareness does not have any sort of ultimate, changeless and independent characteristic, like Brahman or God. Awareness is not more ultimate than the transient mind.
As Jamber rightly said, It seems like at the relative level, the egoistic "I" who's learning the Dharma is choosing its one-way suicidal trip to oblivion. Realization along the path will burn away every last traces of the egoistic I and all its notions about the world until at the end, neither realization nor the egoistic I remains. What's left is just the original reality as it is, but in the end, there isn't even any object of "original reality" that can be pinned down. Just a magical display of whatever there is, as it is.
That is why Buddhism is not the same as other religions. However emptiness in Buddhism should NOT be misunderstood as Advaita's step one, 'the world is illusory'. It's different.
-
Realise this realise that. But I din't realise I grew fatter.