The 6000 Year Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter heiscominginthe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
Since no Christian accepts that Mohammed (pbuh) was the Prophet of God then no Christian is qualified to comment on the Qur’an. Since you do not accept that the Buddha was the Enlightened One then you are not qualified to comment on Bddhism. You are trying to close down a great deal of discussion about religion here.

That “twaddle” was not written by Nagarjuna, it was written about Nagarjuna by Professors Jay Garfield and Graham Priest. As they say “Nagarjuna is surely one of the most difficult philosophers to interpret in any tradition. His texts are terse and cryptic. He does not shy away from paradox or apparent contradiction.” That is why I quoted a text about Nagarjuna rather than a text by Nagarjuna. If you want to read the real thing, there here is Stephen Batchelor’s translation of the first chapter of Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika:Chapter One - Investigation of Conditions
  1. No thing anywhere is ever born from itself, from something else, from both or without a cause.
  2. There are four conditions: Causes, objects, immediate and dominant. There is no fifth.
  3. The essence of things does not exist in conditions and so on. If an own thing does not exist, an other thing does not exist.
  4. There is no activity which has conditions. There is no activity which does not have conditions. There are no conditions which do not have activity, and none which do have activity.
  5. Since something is born in dependence upon them, then they are known as “conditions”. As long as it is not born, why are they not non-conditions?
  6. It is impossible for something that either exists or not to have conditions. If it were non-existent, of what would they be the conditions? If it were existent, why would it need conditions?
  7. When things cannot be established as either existent, non-existent or both, how can one speak of an “establishing cause.” Such would be impossible.
  8. An existent phenomenon is clearly said to have no object at all. If the phenomenon has no object, where can the object exist?
  9. If phenomena are not born, it is invalid for there to be cessation. Therefore, an immediate [condition] is unreasonable. What, having ceased, can also be a condition?
  10. Because the existence of essence-less things does not exist, it is incorrect to say:“When this exists, that arises.”
  11. There is no effect at all in the conditions individually or together. How can that which is not in the conditions itself be born from conditions?
  12. If, although the effect is not there, it is born from those conditions, why is an effect not born from what are not its conditions?
  13. Effects [are of] the nature of conditions. Conditions do not have own nature. How can those effects of what does not have own nature [be of] the nature of conditions?
  14. Therefore, [it does] not have the nature of conditions, nor is there an effect with the nature of non-conditions. Since there is no effect, what could [be its] non-conditions or conditions?However, since you are not a believing Buddhist, by your own argument you are unable to comment on that.
rossum
Click to expand...
Religion is “binding oneself to God”, no God no religion.
 
buffalo said:
Religion is “binding oneself to God”, no God no religion.
Click to expand...
1 Hinduism is a Religion
2 Religion is “binding oneself to God”
3 Therefore Krishna, Shiva, Durga, Vishnu, Kali etc. are God.

Q.E.D.

rossum
 
look3467 said:
A noble belief at that, but have you experienced the presences of God’s spirit?
Click to expand...
The presence, or not, of the spirit of one of the many gods does not assist me in travelling the Path.
I have and I can attest to His spiritual nature and the flesh is but like a blade of grass, it is green for a season, yet, my spirit lives on for eternity.
Click to expand...
Excellent. If that helps you then it is a good thing.
That is the hope, the promise I have been given, and I can tell you, I would have it no other way.
Click to expand...
There are many different ways to reach the top of the mountain. As long as your way is working for you then follow it diligently.

rossum
 
Religions are mankind’s tower of babels.

Each builds towards the heavens in an attempt to reach God, when it is all together the other way around.

It is God’s attempt to reach out to us as a whole and individually.

If we but open up to His love, we shall see wonders.

Blessings, AJ
 
buffalo said:
Religion is “binding oneself to God”, no God no religion.
Click to expand...
That’s one definition. It can also mean binding oneself and the community of believers to a reality greater that what we observe. Hence the argument for Buddhism being a nontheistic religion, which, of course, not all Buddhists accept.
 
rossum said:
There are many different ways to reach the top of the mountain. As long as your way is working for you then follow it diligently.rossum
Click to expand...
Rossum, can non-human animals reach nirvana, or do they have to proceed through a human incarnation first?
 
The presence, or not, of the spirit of one of the many gods does not assist me in traveling the Path.>>>rossum
Click to expand...
Precisely, without the Spirit of God" the God of you and I, but with a different name, we are left to travel this life path alone.
Excellent. If that helps you then it is a good thing.>>>rossum
Click to expand...
It is a good thing, to where life is within me!
There are many different ways to reach the top of the mountain. As long as your way is working for you then follow it diligently.>>>rossum
Click to expand...
You are absolutely right about the physical climb up the mountain, but to heaven, that is a different matter.

For what is spirit is spirit and what is flesh is flesh.

To understand the creation story in it’s true picture, is to understand why we were lost in the first place.

If one can not see it that way, it is reasonable to understand your views.

My view allows for your understanding of Christ, but would hope that you could see, and feel the presence of God in you.

I would say that you are faithful and truthful in your belief, and that is allowable by God.
It is my burden to love all who are of different beliefs, for I understand that God loves them to.

By our discussion in a civil and loving manner, we are able to communicate our differences and a way in which is favored by God, since He is a God of love, and our differences are a challenge to generating His type of love.

Out of divisions, good is born.

Blessings, AJ
 
StAnastasia said:
Rossum, can non-human animals reach nirvana, or do they have to proceed through a human incarnation first?
Click to expand...
I have not read all of Buddhist scriptures. I cannot remember any examples of animals attaining nirvana directly, nor do I recall anything saying that such is impossible. Of course, what we see as an animal may actually be a very advanced Bodhisattva taking rebirth as an animal in order to help others towards enlightenment.

It is possible to attain nirvana from a non-human state. In Theravada Buddhism an anāgāmin (non-returner) is someone who has attained a high spiritual state in this life, but not high enough to become enlightened. They will be reborn once more in one of the heavenly realms and attain nirvana directly from that heavenly rebirth without returning in another human rebirth.

In the Mahayana, Pure Land Buddhists work towards rebirth in the Pure Land of the Buddha Amida. From that Pure Land attaining nirvana is much easier than from this world.

Any intelligent being on another planet would also have the possibility of attaining enlightenment.

rossum
 
rossum said:
I have not read all of Buddhist scriptures. I cannot remember any examples of animals attaining nirvana directly, nor do I recall anything saying that such is impossible. Of course, what we see as an animal may actually be a very advanced Bodhisattva taking rebirth as an animal in order to help others towards enlightenment.

It is possible to attain nirvana from a non-human state. In Theravada Buddhism an anāgāmin (non-returner) is someone who has attained a high spiritual state in this life, but not high enough to become enlightened. They will be reborn once more in one of the heavenly realms and attain nirvana directly from that heavenly rebirth without returning in another human rebirth.

In the Mahayana, Pure Land Buddhists work towards rebirth in the Pure Land of the Buddha Amida. From that Pure Land attaining nirvana is much easier than from this world.

Any intelligent being on another planet would also have the possibility of attaining enlightenment.

rossum
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly in reading the Buddhist scriptures, an animal born an animal cannot attain nirvana, A human, in re-birth as an animal, can attain nirvana.
Correct me if I am wrong, it has been many years since I studied Buddhism.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem
 
rossum said:
They will be reborn once more in one of the heavenly realms and attain nirvana directly from that heavenly rebirth without returning in another human rebirth…Any intelligent being on another planet would also have the possibility of attaining enlightenment.rossum
Click to expand...
rossum, the concept of reincarnation has always mystified me, so perhaps that is why I have trouble imagining it. I find it an incoherent idea that a dead worm has a soul that goes on to become reborn as a grasshopper, then a lizard, then a squirrel, then a human being. In fact, I find the concept of disembodied souls – human or otherwise – so incoherent that I cannot express what might happen after death. I’ve never known an animal or a human who didn’t have a body.

StAnastasia
 
DonLeon said:
If I remember correctly in reading the Buddhist scriptures, an animal born an animal cannot attain nirvana, A human, in re-birth as an animal, can attain nirvana.Correct me if I am wrong, it has been many years since I studied Buddhism.PAX DOMIN Shalom Aleichem
Click to expand...
Humans are animals, but the idea of interchanging bodies in either direction strikes me as incoherent.
 
StAnastasia said:
rossum, the concept of reincarnation has always mystified me, so perhaps that is why I have trouble imagining it. I find it an incoherent idea that a dead worm has a soul that goes on to become reborn as a grasshopper, then a lizard, then a squirrel, then a human being. In fact, I find the concept of disembodied souls – human or otherwise – so incoherent that I cannot express what might happen after death. I’ve never known an animal or a human who didn’t have a body.
Click to expand...
That sounds more like Hindu reincarnation that the Buddhist version. In Buddhism there is no soul - it is one of the Three Marks: all is suffering, all is impermanent and all is soulless. What passes from one lifetime to the next is not a permanent unchanging soul. What passed into me from my previous life is different from what will pass from me into my next life. The first moment of a new life is conditioned by the last moment of the previous life. The usual analogy is of lighting a new candle from an old candle. The new flame is ot the same as the old flame, nor is it different. There is a causal link between the two. In the same way there is a causal link between the different moments of our lives, and a similar link between the last moment of our old life and the first moment of the next one. Just as we change from moment to moment within a single life, so we change as we pass from one life to the next.

A film appears to be a smoothly moving image but in reality it is a series of still pictures. A single life can be thought of as a single scene within the film. Rebirth can be thought of as a jump-cut to the next scene; underneath it is exactly the same process - a series of still images shown one after another.

rossum
 
humble_in_doubt said:
I doubt this person speaks for most protestants. I’ll try to be kind in my rebuke of the absurd assertions of the OP … suffice it to say many of our fellow Americans need our help in the intellectual department.
Click to expand...
I’m glad that you found words to post…I’m still speechless!
:hmmm:
 
StAnastasia said:
Humans are animals, but the idea of interchanging bodies in either direction strikes me as incoherent.
Click to expand...
Yes, humans are animals (in more ways than one…), but according to Buddhism there is a difference between the two legged variety (man alone) and the four legged variety. To understand Buddhist theology you should read up on it (although , truly, I find it very confusing).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem
 
DonLeon said:
Yes, humans are animals (in more ways than one…), but according to Buddhism there is a difference between the two legged variety (man alone) and the four legged variety. PAX DOMINIShalom Aleichem
Click to expand...
Of course there is a biological difference. And perhaps on this account of metempsychosis I m thinking more Hindu than Buddhist theology. It seems incoherent that a failed human existence could lead to reincarnation in crocodilian form, or grasshopper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top