Ask A Buddhist II

  • Thread starter Thread starter notself
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If God has revealed Himself perfectly, then why is there a disagreement between E. Orthodox and R. Catholics as to whether or not the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (EO) or from the Father and from the Son (RC)?
Joe,

That’s a great question, I appreciate your asking it.

It is my belief that such disagreements as the one you mention are not of immense importance or relevance to our everyday lives, and especially not to our human condition, and how G-d solves our problems and offers us love in abundance.

Not that it isn’t an interesting, and thought provoking question, but it isn’t as pertinent to my life as a talmidim of Yeshua, as say, loving G-d and my neighbor are, and realizing that I am forgiven through the atoning death of our Great High Priest.

To know that I am loved by G-d, and that he will restore all things in his good time, including the salvation of all men ( I do not believe eternal heaven/hell can be supported by scripture ), is what gives me hope and fulfillment in life. Receiving life through His Son, Yeshua, is a gift and a blessing, He guides me and offers me a purpose in life that nothing else comes close to.

Shalom!
 
Nibbana (The Pali form of the Sanskrit word Nirvana; I use the Pali terms to stay consistent because most of the Theravadin vocabulary is Pali, and it would be confusing to switch back and forth) can be defined in several different ways. You can describe it as the destruction of the three negative roots of Greed, Hatred, and Delusion, or you could describe it as the destruction of all craving. It is peaceful, perfectly happy, transcendent, and eternal. In the Buddhist scriptures it is usually described by what it is not, because it is more accurate to do so (just like in Christian Apophatic theology) using these terms because the experience of Nibbana is truely beyond words, but it is sometimes described using positive pays by using very poetic terms like the Deathless, the Other Shore, the Unconditioned, or the Taintless.
Shalom again my friend,

Just got back from a refreshing run; chock with a mouth full of gnats! 🤷

Per Nibbana and Buddhism in general; ( forgive me if I am overgeneralizing again )

You would agree, that there is in fact, no self, no person, as most people generally define it? In other words, I, my experiences, my friends, family, suffering, love, etc, are all ultimately constructions?

So what then does that leave me? I do not exist, and therefore, how can I find any meaning, or truth, or love for that matter? All of these things pertain to person hood, and thus, if there is no person who is experiencing these things, what ultimately is their purpose?

Life becomes, rather meaningless yes?

Shalom!
 
Shalom again my friend,

Just got back from a refreshing run; chock with a mouth full of gnats! 🤷

Per Nibbana and Buddhism in general; ( forgive me if I am overgeneralizing again )

You would agree, that there is in fact, no self, no person, as most people generally define it? In other words, I, my experiences, my friends, family, suffering, love, etc, are all ultimately constructions?

So what then does that leave me? I do not exist, and therefore, how can I find any meaning, or truth, or love for that matter? All of these things pertain to person hood, and thus, if there is no person who is experiencing these things, what ultimately is their purpose?

Life becomes, rather meaningless yes?

Shalom!
The Buddha did not teach that there was no self. He taught that all things are conditioned. That each individual part of the condition is not self. Form is not self. Feeling is not self. Sensation is not self, etc. All of these things are conditioned by other things.
 
Shalom again my friend,

Just got back from a refreshing run; chock with a mouth full of gnats! 🤷

Per Nibbana and Buddhism in general; ( forgive me if I am overgeneralizing again )

You would agree, that there is in fact, no self, no person, as most people generally define it? In other words, I, my experiences, my friends, family, suffering, love, etc, are all ultimately constructions?

So what then does that leave me? I do not exist, and therefore, how can I find any meaning, or truth, or love for that matter? All of these things pertain to person hood, and thus, if there is no person who is experiencing these things, what ultimately is their purpose?

Life becomes, rather meaningless yes?

Shalom!
Buddhism doesn’t have a teaching of ‘no self’ but a teaching of ‘not self’. It is called the doctrine of Anatta and I can only think of one or two other teachings that are as difficult to correctly understand. I will try to explain the teaching of Anatta as best I can. It goes something like this:

At the heart of the cognition of an unenlightened person, there is a misconception which occurs. A person will have an experience, and will produce a series of mental interpretations of that experience, and the mind will falsely confuse these interpretations with the actual experience itself. This tendency is called “Papañca” and is usually translated as something like “conceptual proliferation”. One of the perceptions often arises with experiences of things is that of self. Something is experienced and we subconsciously identify ourselves with it, believing that on some fundamental level, it possesses the characteristic of being the self, or a part of us, when in fact, this identification is a conceptual process.

This is classically summarized in the Pali phrase “Sabbe dhamma anatta” which literally means “all phenomena are not self”. In other words, all phenomena lack the property of being the self.

This may sound very strange, but it does make sense in the context of Buddhist ontology, which looks at reality in terms of everything being a sequence of phenomena which arise and pass away. Everything is a sequence of these phenomena, and everything is made up of these phenomena. The human mind uses concepts to generalize about these phenomena to understand the world, but these are concepts in the mind, and not an actual property of reality itself.

For example, a chair is not (as Aristotelian metaphysics postulates) an object which objectively possess the property of chairness, just as it has the properties of temperature, weight, and color, but rather it is a series of phenomena that have characteristics in common with other such things that are similar in shape and function, and so the mind uses the general concept of ‘chair’ to describe it. Similarly, of the mental and physical phenomena that make up a person, nothing that makes up that person has the property of ‘self-ness’ in any objective sense, but is a concept that arises in the mind. As long as it is recongized that this process of identification is a conceptual process rather than identity being a literal and objective property of things, there is no problem, but the unenlightened mind doesn’t properly perceive this, and so it unconsciously assumes certain phenomena to have the property of ‘self-ness’. Anatta is simply a rejection of this.

That sounds like it is really hard to grasp, I know. You can only really understand it through the process of meditation and watching the mind actually engage in this process of identification with phenomena and seeing through it.

That’s my best shot at explaining it. Feel free to ask as many followup questions as you like about it. It will probably help me explain it better to get specific questions rather than trying to sit down and explain the whole thing.
 
Joe,

That’s a great question, I appreciate your asking it.

It is my belief that such disagreements as the one you mention are not of immense importance or relevance to our everyday lives, and especially not to our human condition, and how G-d solves our problems and offers us love in abundance.

Not that it isn’t an interesting, and thought provoking question, but it isn’t as pertinent to my life as a talmidim of Yeshua, as say, loving G-d and my neighbor are, and realizing that I am forgiven through the atoning death of our Great High Priest.

To know that I am loved by G-d, and that he will restore all things in his good time, including the salvation of all men ( I do not believe eternal heaven/hell can be supported by scripture ), is what gives me hope and fulfillment in life. Receiving life through His Son, Yeshua, is a gift and a blessing, He guides me and offers me a purpose in life that nothing else comes close to.

Shalom!
The question concerned whether or not the revelation was perfect, not whether or not the subject was pertinent to your life.
 
The Buddha did not teach that there was no self. He taught that all things are conditioned. That each individual part of the condition is not self. Form is not self. Feeling is not self. Sensation is not self, etc. All of these things are conditioned by other things.
notself,

Are we not essentially talking about the same thing? Without all of those said things, what then is there of a person?

The goal is to have no characteristics, yes?

Shalom my friend
 
Shalom again my friend,

Just got back from a refreshing run; chock with a mouth full of gnats! 🤷

Per Nibbana and Buddhism in general; ( forgive me if I am overgeneralizing again )

Shalom!
Sorry about the gnats. Sorry for the gnats as well.

Where did you develop you opinions on Buddhism? I don’t ask in order to challenge you, I’m just curious because some of your posts indicate that you are mixing Hinduism, Taoism and other Eastern religions with Buddhism.
 
Bakmoon,

Thank you for such a thoughtful explanation of your beliefs. That probably took a while to jot that all down, I appreciate the time you are taking in this discussion.

I am familiar with much of what you have said, specifically concerning the reality as not being until perceived as being, etc; before I became a talmidim of Yeshua, I was heavily in to Eastern thought. ( More a mish-mash, which you can probably see )

It certainly can sound very strange! 😉

I’m not sure I can nail down any specific follow up questions for you, but maybe we can move to another?

As a Buddhist, what fulfills you in life?

Shalom!
 
notself,

Are we not essentially talking about the same thing? Without all of those said things, what then is there of a person?

The goal is to have no characteristics, yes?

Shalom my friend
A person is a composite of five things. Form (which is the body), feeling (the interpretation of a sensory experience as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral), perception (how sensory experiences are interpreted), Formations (the intentions of the will), and consciousness (awareness of sense stimulii). However, none of these things by themselves is the person. They only make a person when they are all together.
 
Sorry about the gnats. Sorry for the gnats as well.

Where did you develop you opinions on Buddhism? I don’t ask in order to challenge you, I’m just curious because some of your posts indicate that you are mixing Hinduism, Taoism and other Eastern religions with Buddhism.
They were in big floating congregations, and I couldn’t avoid them… :rolleyes:

No challenge taken,

I have formed my views of Buddhism and much of Eastern thought through various mediums; world religions books, origins of Hinduism works(as it spurred most all Eastern thought), philosophy books, etc, etc.

I read some of the Buddhist scriptures a few years back, but, given my absent mindedness, I can’t recall the specific works.

Shalom!
 
They were in big floating congregations, and I couldn’t avoid them… :rolleyes:

No challenge taken,

I have formed my views of Buddhism and much of Eastern thought through various mediums; world religions books, origins of Hinduism works(as it spurred most all Eastern thought), philosophy books, etc, etc.

I read some of the Buddhist scriptures a few years back, but, given my absent mindedness, I can’t recall the specific works.

Shalom!
I understand. Thank you for explaining. Your questions are good ones even though I sometimes find them confusing. 🙂
 
Bakmoon,

Thank you for such a thoughtful explanation of your beliefs. That probably took a while to jot that all down, I appreciate the time you are taking in this discussion.

I am familiar with much of what you have said, specifically concerning the reality as not being until perceived as being, etc; before I became a talmidim of Yeshua, I was heavily in to Eastern thought. ( More a mish-mash, which you can probably see )

It certainly can sound very strange! 😉

I’m not sure I can nail down any specific follow up questions for you, but maybe we can move to another?

As a Buddhist, what fulfills you in life?

Shalom!
Any time. Thank you for being interested and patient enough to read through the whole thing! I am also thankful for you asking questions. I enjoy this kind of discussion quite a bit. It’s fine that you don’t have any followup questions. I was just offering because it can be a confusing subject.

As a Buddhist, I find happiness and fulfillment in many things, including friendship, family, helping others, and meditation.

(By the way, what precisely do you mean by “reality as not being until perceived as being?”)
 
The question concerned whether or not the revelation was perfect, not whether or not the subject was pertinent to your life.
Shalom again Joe,

Sorry if my answer wasn’t as to the point as I intended it to be.

What I meant to convey is that issues of G-d’s nature such as the one you mentioned, are not things which are necessary for a believer in Yeshua to know.

The revelation of G-d through Yeshua was perfect, and the most important parts of that revelation, IE; His atoning death, the commandment to Love G-d and your neighbor as yourself, and the hope of resurrection, and life beyond this one, were abundantly clear.

It is important to realize that G-d’s revelation to mankind was and is perfect. That men, fallible as we are, can’t interpret certain aspects of G-d’s nature, has no bearing on the fact that his revelation in Yeshua HaMashiach was and is His perfect image resting in a human being.

Shalom!
 
I understand. Thank you for explaining. Your questions are good ones even though I sometimes find them confusing. 🙂
Ah, yes, I try to be concise and straightforward, but, I am only human after all :o

Thank you for your kind words though,

Shalom!
 
notself,

Are we not essentially talking about the same thing? Without all of those said things, what then is there of a person?

The goal is to have no characteristics, yes?

Shalom my friend
Bakmoon as usual has done a great job of explaining self/person.

The goal of Buddhist practice is to eliminate greed, aversion, and delusion. The goal of Buddhist practice is to have unbounded loving kindness (metta), compassion (karuna), sympathetic joy (mudita) and equanimity (upekkha).

I am not certain I understand what you mean by characteristics.
 
Any time. Thank you for being interested and patient enough to read through the whole thing! I am also thankful for you asking questions. I enjoy this kind of discussion quite a bit. It’s fine that you don’t have any followup questions. I was just offering because it can be a confusing subject.

As a Buddhist, I find happiness and fulfillment in many things, including friendship, family, helping others, and meditation.

(By the way, what precisely do you mean by “reality as not being until perceived as being?”)
Bakmoon,

I am glad that you find happiness and fulfillment in those things. As Yeshua would say, “you are not far from the Kingdom of G-d.”

Those are the things which truly matter in life, and any person who recognizes that, is a friend of mine 👍

Sorry, that sounds confusing as I read it back now.

What I mean is that the chair, is not really a “chair” as we would describe it. We perceive it as a chair, and thus we form the image of a chair in our mind, and the chair takes on its “chair-ness” (not a word, I know). So, reality, and subsequently, everything in reality, is only the construct of our perception of reality.

Sorry if that still doesn’t make sense, I’m trying to be the best non-Buddhist, Buddhist, I can be at the moment :rolleyes:

Shalom!
 
I’m now feeling very sorry for doing my own thing here while some good discussions are going on. 😊 But to continue:

Agni is another important deity in the Vedic pantheon, second only to Indra. He is the god of fire and a personification of the sacrificial fire itself. As such Agni is considered to be the accepter of sacrifices (men offer sacrifice by fire and the gods receive partake of the sacrifice by fire) and thus, the bridge between men and the gods. Hence out of all the gods he has the most connection with human beings.

Varuna is the supreme keeper of the cosmic law and order (rita). Like Indra he is also a king (they are sometimes paired together as Indra-Varuna), but while Indra is a ‘brawns over brains’ type of god: boisterous, reckless and easily manipulated by ritual and soma, Varuna is more ethical, considerate and just. He is a strict moral governor, punishing the wicked who breaks his laws but also rewarding the righteous and showing mercy to the penitent. He seems to have been at an early stage a sky god (with some solar traits; see below) although this aspect of his has been neglected in favor of abstract concepts.

Mitra (related to the Zoroastrian Mithra, who became the inspiration for the Greco-Roman Mithras) is the god of honesty, friendship, contracts and meetings. He is so often paired with Varuna as a guardian of natural, social and moral order (Mitra-Varuna) that he really has little character of his own. Both gods have solar aspects (making them two out of the many Vedic solar gods), although when paired Varuna is often associated with the night, and Mitra with the daylight.

The Ashvins, aka the Nasatyas (the ‘true’) are the Indo-Aryan divine horse twins (cf. the Greco-Roman Dioskouroi/Dioscuri and the Baltic Asveniai). They symbolize the shining of sunrise and sunset, appearing in the sky before the dawn in a golden chariot (most Vedic gods ride on one). Serving as physicians to gods and men, they bring treasures and avert misfortune and sickness.

Soma, the god of the eponymous favorite beverage of the gods and the eponymous plant it was made of (cf. the Avestan haoma). Highly intoxicating, drinking soma was what made the gods immortal (cf. the Greek ambrosia): out of all the lot Agni and Indra are heavy soma drinkers. In fact, the drink was reputed to not just confer immortality, but other miraculous effects. Unfortunately for the Indo-Aryans and later generations, true soma soon became unavailable and knowledge of the exact identity of the plant was lost altogether.

Rudra, god of the storm (especially its destructive aspects), a fierce hunter with braided hair armed often with bow and arrow but sometimes with a thunderbolt. He is so feared because of his tendency to smite man and beast with disease (though he also has the power to heal them) that he is sometimes like Voldemort never referred to by his name but are given euphemistic epithets (Indians sure like multiple names ;)) like ghora (‘terrible’; later shifting to aghora ‘not-terrible’), asau devam (‘that god’), or shiva (‘auspicious’).

Aside from these there also other gods like Dyava-prithvi, in other words Heaven (Dyaus, the Indo-Aryan sky father) and his consort the Earth (Prithvi); Ushas, goddess of the dawn; Parjanya, god of rain and the raincloud; a water deity named Apam Napat (cf. the Avestan god of the same name); Brihaspati, the ‘lord of prayer’; Vata and Vayu, gods of wind; Ratri, goddess of night; Yama, the first mortal and ruler of the dead; Bhaga, god of wealth and marriage; the Maruts, sons of Rudra and the bodyguards of Indra; Aditi, mother of the Adityas (which are seven, eight, eleven or twelve in number); other solar deities like Savitar, Surya (the solar orb), Vishnu (who traversed the entire universe in just three strides and assisted Indra against Vritra), Pushan (god of meeting, a psychopomp and a supportive guide, leading towards rich pastures and wealth), or Aryaman. And so on and so forth.
 
I’m now feeling very sorry for doing my own thing here while some good discussions are going on.
Nonsense. Your description of Vedic Brahmanism is essential in understanding the context of when the Buddha’s teachings first arose. Far too often people assume that full-fledged modern Advaita Vedanta and Kashmiri Saivism were Hindu ideas that were floating around at the time of the Buddha, and that rebirth was a concept taken from Hinduism, not realizing that Buddhism comes from the parallel Shramanic tradition of belief.
 
Bakmoon as usual has done a great job of explaining self/person.

The goal of Buddhist practice is to eliminate greed, aversion, and delusion. The goal of Buddhist practice is to have unbounded loving kindness (metta), compassion (karuna), sympathetic joy (mudita) and equanimity (upekkha).

I am not certain I understand what you mean by characteristics.
notself,

May I first say that I appreciate your appetite for being a kind and loving person; this is the road to life, and I am glad you are on it.

My predicament is still the justification in the Buddhist system for being loving and kind. What is the purpose in these acts of loving kindness in Buddhism?

As a talmidim of Yeshua I find purpose in being kind and loving, helping the lowly, the poor, because these are simply, the right things to do. They are acts of divine life, and as Yeshua showed us, these things lead to happiness and peace in life because this is how life is meant to be, as it will be in the restored creation.

I just can’t wrap my head around a justification for doing these things as a Buddhist.

( Please forgive me, when I said no characteristics, I meant, the attachments to life, the things that cause suffering )

Shalom!
 
Bakmoon,

What I mean is that the chair, is not really a “chair” as we would describe it. We perceive it as a chair, and thus we form the image of a chair in our mind, and the chair takes on its “chair-ness” (not a word, I know). So, reality, and subsequently, everything in reality, is only the construct of our perception of reality.

Shalom!
Close, but not quite. Buddhism teaches that even without the mind, the chair exists, but all it has is its properties such as weight, shape, color, height, etc… and that it doesn’t have the property of “Chair-ness” because "Chair-ness is a concept which exists in the mind. The chair is real, but it doesn’t literally have the property of “chair-ness” in the same sense as it has the properties of weight, size, shape, etc…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top