DISQUS

AtheistToothFairy justelise:It has nothing to do with not being good enough, and everything to do with ending your suffering and attachment to material items in a life full of impermanence

From wikipedia---

Impermanence:
"According to the impermanence doctrine, human life embodies this flux in the aging process, the cycle of birth and rebirth (samsara), and in any experience of loss. The doctrine further asserts that because things are impermanent, attachment to them is futile, and leads to suffering"

So if I'm understanding this correctly, we suffer because we attach ourselves to material things?
Well then, in contrast to what? ....non-material things?

Other than something like emotions, what else is non-material that one can attach themselves to?
Why is attaching oneself to a material thing considered bad?

This sure seems to imply that something non-material is to be found that continues on after we die, yet there is no proof of this to be found.

Also, my understanding of Buddhism is that one aspires to reach a higher level of life, either physically after a re-birth, or spiritually in some mystical "nirvana".

Does this idea not imply that one needs to improve oneself in some manner and if so, then the idea of not being "good enough" for the next higher level sure seems to fit the bill here.

ATF (Who thinks one woo-woo belief is a nuts as the next)

Dave8 Hello Justelise,

Yes, skepticism is a good place to begin one's studies, from a position of doubt/caution. The "core"... of Buddha's ideas were:

-All compounded things are impermanent
-All emotions are pain
-All things have no inherent existence
-Nirvana is beyond concepts

One doesn't need to amplify or diminish each statement, nor religionize them - to appreciate their potential value. I think "oxygen" is great, I think it a useful member of the water molecule, and understanding "oxygen" better has given me insight into further understanding our atmosphere. I do not worship, nor religionize "oxygen", it is what it is.

The translations from Sanskrit or Tibetan Dharma into English leaves some room for interpretation, some words can be amplified or subdued, but the "content" itself only in scope of application. I'll throw out the first thought, if you find that I am off-base, please let me know.

1-All Compounded Things Are Impermanent: According to Khyentse's interpretation, "all" form or matter; our thoughts, emotions, perceptions, flesh and bone, human experience, physical matter, the entire world, and the Universe are "assembled"... and interdependent... When two components come together, a new (natural) phenomenon emerges, nails and wood become a table, water and leaves become tea... "fear, devotion, and a savior become God."

This is his understanding of "life" and "Reality", and based on this single principle he is able to "understand" why people are in the "religious" position they are in, why tables are the way they are, why our ideas change over time, why we do not remain alive on this planet more than our numbered years allow... This is a "duh" moment for most people... however, there are actually entire "philosophies" built around "independence" of matter as if "one" aspect of this Universe isn't somehow a "component" of the next higher level of "assembly". In philosophy, it’s called "reductionism"...

The "philosophy" of reductionism has inspired advances in research and development and the establishment of extended "knowledge"... What "science" in the most "western" of senses has "failed" to do... is disprove interdependence in terms of "assembly", from the smallest emotion, thought, idea, atom, molecule, etc... to the most macro of concepts... Nature.

While "categorizing" things (scientific taxonomy) requires us to "compartmentalize" them so that we can "talk" about them in our everyday life... it is a "mental" aid, with the unspoken "assumption" that the thing we speak of, is for matter of necessity... "discrete" and "separate" from "all" else. Reference librarians... have to deal with this headache on a daily basis, likely have to take courses within their MLIS degree in order to get a grip on how to "serve" their "customers'" mental "assembly" need... while the customer is in mental "flux" most times.

That which assembles, takes on a new compounded character... even the most "fuzzy" of "fuzzies" can't escape this "reality"... two people falling in love are compounded, the compounding changes their characters... and so it is true in material science, physics, etc. All matters of life, nature, etc., go through compounding/assembly and disassembly, because "change" is permanent.

Khyentse expounds on Buddha's first idea:

"He realized that this [assembly/disassembly] applies not only to the human experience but to all matter, the entire world, the universe--because everything is interdependent, everything is subject to change. Not one component in all creation exists in an autonomous, permanent, pure state. Not the book you are holding, not atoms, not even the gods."

Buddha was impervious to the statements of others, in regards to understanding reality... as a matter of fact, a person could have as many gods as they wanted, or saints, or heavens, or hells... he thought such "mental" notions were just passing mental assemblies between the ears of a persons head.

He looked deeper than the superficial statement... "I believe in the One True God", and saw the statement for what it was... a passing assembly of one's ideas based on one's impermanent cognitive and environmental assembly - nothing more.

Now... based on this "single" philosophic principle alone... Buddha would be tagged as an atheist by "every" person who actually believed their "god" was "permanent"... This... principle of abstraction is a few layers below the abstract layer of "ideologies"; an ideologue screaming/ranting isn't going to change the principle of change/impermanence... Buddha's values are "best" understood at a deeper level than; attempting to understand them on a single layer of ideology, but... some are incapable, while others don't care... and of course, that too is impermanent.

I took a look at some of Wiki's articles on this topic, while the articles are informative, they are like pages in a book... one really can't understand the deeper meaning of a story, until they have found the whole book and read it... Starting on chapter five, page three, paragraph two... can in fact give us a starting point to build around, but not logically enough to make conclusive statements about how the story ends, or what the story means.

Justelise, if I have missed something on this particular point, feel free to engage me... Have a great one.

webmdave Approve.

Dave

AtheistToothFairy justelise: There's no concept of "soul recycling" in Buddhism. Rebirth is *NOT* reincarnation,.....

Let's see, "REBIRTH", what could this word possible mean, hmmm.

Well, "RE" would loosely mean, to do it again or use it again, such as in REPEAT or RECYCLE.

So if one's physical body isn't going through the birth process again, then what part of "us" would be, other than this "soul" that so many believe in?

If it's not our soul but some other means to carry our existing 'minds' forward into a new body, then why are only some rare folks able to see pieces of their past lives?
If the majority can't know of their past lives, then what purpose does re-birthing a piece of us, living out a whole new life, then do for us in the long run?

ATF (Who thinks one fairy tale is a bogus as another)

Dave8 Justelise,

Just to clear the air; as I will not be returning any time soon to this article... I consider the words of Buddha to be anti-thetical to religion and religious ties...

There is a difference between appreciating the philosophical value of Buddha's words, and appreciating Buddha's religious words... I am anti-religion, but that is really not the issue here... The promotion of Buddha's words in a religious fashion is "anti-thetical" and contradictory to his words/teachings.

Using the term "non-theistic religion", likely has a very different meaning for many people, but the placement of "religion" in that phrase, suggests something cognitively to me, and I do not agree with "any" religion, or religious endeavor. If the phrase, "non-theistic philosophy" were used, that would connote to me, an entirely different understanding and "approach" to Buddha's words.

I did a research paper (experimental psychology) in my undergraduate years, using Gordon Alport's religiosity scale, psychology of religion, where religion could be seen as a means, end and quest. From what I read, and infer from your writing... you seem to suggest that Buddhism is a cultural phenomenon in your area... and the systematic interaction within your culture, you consider it to be of a "religious" nature.

I do not consider someone "religious" by their behavior... which is how "many" western religions "promote" a True Follower of their Religion. I consider someone religious by the "particular" cognitive approach/method by which they acquire/seek understanding in life.

So, while we may both agree that Buddha's words hold value; the manner in which we promote these words, via ritual or behavior, is entirely different.

I should say, I find value in Buddha's words, not in the value of an "-ism", or "ideology" that promotes a particular view of Buddha's words. Peace

daytripper1964 I don't know much about Buddhism, but I'm skeptical because there is still a component of a person not being good enough the way they are. At least to me it seems as if trying to reach enlightenment means that there is something greater or better and we need to somehow achieve it. That in my opinion is a dangerous concept. It is a little too close to the concept in christianity that says we are sinners and need to follow Jesus example in order to be sanctified.

Maybe I'm wrong, like I said my knowledge of buddhism is very very limited. I'm just skeptical of any "system" or "program." For me the best option is to avoid all of them. All religion leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

daytripper