End destiny of man and life in Buddhism.

[Francis king]

well, pali is crap imho, because it doesn't have the same rules as sanskrit, it aint as structured, and translating pali into sanskrit isn't as easy as it should be, which then makes what buddha says open to a greater degree of interpretation than average...

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eudaimonist
If I had a time machine, I would make lots of journeys.

If I had a time machine, I would make lots of money....

I also like to make a lot of money, that makes two of us; and I am always looking for ways and means to make lots of money with the least work, the quickest way, and of course the safest.

People tell us from routine wisdom that money does not bring happiness, or at the end everyone dies.

About the first, I will decide when I have made a lot of money or when a lot of money by luck or chance comes my way, and I have made good use (in my judgment of good) of a a lot of money.

About the second, has anyone noticed the fallacy in that line, that at the end everyone dies?


No, Buddhism is not for me, because it's all about being liberated from desires, cravings, wants, or even needs? Liberated, did I say? More like self-deprivation than liberation.


So, they tell always us that rich people are not happy and are met with a lot of miseries. I will not be deterred; you see I will work to be an exception. Hahaha.


This is addressed to Buddhists, with a pound of wit and humor: if the rest of mankind follow Buddhists and give up their desires and even needs, and leave us money-hankering guys to ourselves to enjoy all the wealth of the earth, that should be most welcome to me; even if that will leave only 5 percent of present mankind -- 5% of five billions, that translates to 5,000,000,000 x .05 = 50,000,000 humans, still too much humans to parcel among themselves the extant wealth of the earth?

Wait, is my math correct? Let me know.


Susma

[Susma Rio Sep]

Before anything else, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Originally Posted by Francis king

well, pali is crap imho, because it doesn't have the same rules as sanskrit, it aint as structured, and translating pali into sanskrit isn't as easy as it should be, which then makes what buddha says open to a greater degree of interpretation than average...

I am thinking of doing a new thread on scripture and tradition in Buddhism.

I have noticed from hits with Google that there is practically nothing about scripture vs tradition in Buddhism, which is of terrific and terrible import in Christianity; but I would imagine that there is certain to be also terrific and terrible controversies over scripture and tradition in Buddhism, because it is the same kind -- only one kind -- of humans in Christianity as in Buddhism.

Guys who can read Pali and Sanskrit, look out for that thread from yours truly


Susma

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

. . . .

This is addressed to Buddhists, with a pound of wit and humor: if the rest of mankind follow Buddhists and give up their desires and even needs, and leave us money-hankering guys to ourselves to enjoy all the wealth of the earth, that should be most welcome to me; even if that will leave only 5 percent of present mankind -- 5% of five billions, that translates to 5,000,000,000 x .05 = 50,000,000 humans, still too much humans to parcel among themselves the extant wealth of the earth?

Wait, is my math correct? Let me know.


Susma

...5,000,000,000 x .05 = 50,000,000 humans...

Wrong! on two counts, wrong population figure and wrong math.

World POPClock Projection

According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Bureau of the Census, the total population of the World, projected to 12/25/06 at 04:53 GMT (EST+5) is


6,565,451,606

World POPClock Projection

Correct: 6,565,451,606 x .05 = 328,272,580 -- still too many humans.


Susma

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by moseslmpg

Well, of course if you look only at one source, they will have a more concrete answer than a survey of all the sources. And Nirvana is not the end destiny of man in Buddhism for two reasons:

1. Not everyone will reach Nirvana in the context of a definite time cycle. I.e. you don't just go to Nirvana at the "end of the world."

2. From what I understand, Buddhism does not view the world and existence as having a beginning or end. Nor does it see things as eternal per se.

So there is not really any end destiny like in Christianity or Judaism or other Western religions. The end goal of Buddhism is for everyone to become enlightened, which I presume would cause all phenomenal existence to cease, so if anything is close to the "end destiny" it is enlightenment.

1. Not everyone will reach Nirvana in the context of a definite time cycle. I.e. you don't just go to Nirvana at the "end of the world."

2. From what I understand, Buddhism does not view the world and existence as having a beginning or end. Nor does it see things as eternal per se.

About #1, there have been Buddhists who have reached Nirvana, for example, Gautama himself. So when you look at his history in time, he did fill up a definitely fixed time duration which had its beginning when he came into existence as a sentient being, and its ending when he arrived at or achieved final Nirvana for having died in the state of Nirvana (from eating spoiled meat, incidentally -- according to the report...).

And since Buddhists also admit that the number of sentient beings is finite; moreover, all sentient beings will shorter or longer and longer (but not never) attain Nirvana; so there is an end term to man and life. Please correct me if I am wrong.

About #2, I have done enough reading about time in Buddhism and also in Hinduism, to learn that there is indeed admitted a beginning in time but it is pushed back farther and farther and farther and farther... that Buddhist and Hinduist thinkers give the impression that they don't want to face the beginning of time; and it is admitted also that there is an end in time but also pushed indefinitely forward and forward and forward...

This strategy of evading seems to be a gimmick that is accepted in Buddhist and Hinduist thinking to be valid and legitimate; but in my stock knowledge not acceptable in Western thinking: either say that time is infinite or it's not, but don't say that the beginning is farther and farther back and the ending is farther and farther forward -- unless that is their way of saying farther and farther ad infinitum (in which case, then say so; but that again is what I find typical with Buddhist and Hinduist thinking, evasion).

Consider the Buddhist and Hinduist doctrine of karma: a man's present lot in his current rebirth is dependent upon his actions in previous rebirths.

Now, ask Buddhists and Hinduists: when did the man ever get started to begin the karma of rebirths into succeeding lives which are determined by previous actions in past rebirths, i.e., ever get started prior to any birth where he had committed already actions determining his karma.

Tell me what answer you will get.


Susma

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

. . . .

Nirvana is a term used by Buddha's contempories. He uses the word only to place it in context.

. . . . .

More and more I am coming to a certainty that Eastern Buddhism and Western Buddhism are like twins that will never meet.

You mean Buddha, Gautama, never taught about Nirvana as aspired after and worked for by Buddhist monks in the sanghas of Burma, Thailand, and Sri Lanka?


Susma

[samabudhi]

You mean Buddha, Gautama, never taught about Nirvana as aspired after and worked for by Buddhist monks in the sanghas of Burma, Thailand, and Sri Lanka?

Nirvana is the opposite of samsara, and is an extreme. Buddha Shakyamuni taught the middle way beyond extremes.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Quote:
You mean Buddha, Gautama, never taught about Nirvana as aspired after and worked for by Buddhist monks in the sanghas of Burma, Thailand, and Sri Lanka?

Nirvana is the opposite of samsara, and is an extreme. Buddha Shakyamuni taught the middle way beyond extremes. -- samabudhi

--------------------------------

You mean that Nirvana is a dispensable doctrine in the Buddhism as taught by the founder, Gautama; so also rebirth? What about karma?

Wouldn't that be overly watering down Buddhism as to be beyond recognition except for the name?

Tell me if I amy ask you, good man Samabudhi, you really don't accept karma, rebirth, and Nirvana? In which case I am right to say that Western Buddhists have stripped Buddhism of everything original with the traditional Buddhism of the Far East, except what, psychotherapy?

This is what also I notice in the webpage of some kind of missionary from the West in Mongolia, from a Richard Gere Foundation, for the spread or revival of Buddhism in Mongolia.

Meeting the Challenge of Modernization in Mongolia

The Berzin Archives - Meeting the Challenge of Modernization in Mongolia

Alexander Berzin

prepared at the request of the Mongolian Press
Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, August 1997

I have come to Mongolia to continue work in two areas that I had begun during my last visit in November 1996. I have been asked by the Richard Gere Foundation to establish and organize a large project in Mongolia to help with the revival of Buddhism. The main focus of this project is to translate basic books on Buddhism from English into modern colloquial Mongolian, and then to publish and distribute them throughout the country. This visit has been specifically to establish the administrative infrastructure for the project and to make the printing arrangements. The second purpose of my visit has been to continue lecturing on Buddhism at the request of the National University of Mongolia and Gandan Monastery.

Read the rest of the article.

What do you say, don't you find it paradoxical and ironic that the author is in charge of translating Buddhist texts from English to contemporary Mongolian; and I was saying that I like to examine the issue if any of scripture and tradition in Buddhism. Now this translating of Buddhist texts already redacted into English, into current colloquial Mongolian speech, that is going to further muddle up the challenge of establishing what is scripture in Buddhism and what tradition.

When you read the rest of the article you will realize that it is bereft of doctrines on karma, rebirth, and Nirvana, and more on modernizing Mongolia: one focus is teaching Mongolians to be clean and not smelly -- no offense intended from the undersigned though; read on that heading of Buddhism and hygiene.

But tell me, samabudhi, you do believe that Gautama got his ideas through enlightenment and therefore arrived at certainty of the facts and truths of his teachings; but you exclude karma, rebirth, and Nirvana which also had been certified in him by his attainment of enlightenment, also spelled Nirvana.

Just being humorous, maybe good man samabudhi, you just may not have arrived at enlightenment yet -- spell that Nirvana.

Anyway, I find it most interesting that Buddhism is undergoing an upheaval of a change in the West which will be a Nirvana-less Buddhism.


No more end destiny for man and life in the universe... So, what is the end of man and life if any? except death and the grave, period?


Susma

[samabudhi]

An eternity of delusion.
By the power of all the Tathagatha's, may this be dispelled and the gates of deathlessness be open to you.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Susma,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

And since Buddhists also admit that the number of sentient beings is finite;

i would be curious to see your source for this. such a conception is certainly founded upon the idea that there are such thing as sentient beings... we certainly speak of such, but that is more a matter of linguistic convention than anything else.

moreover, all sentient beings will shorter or longer and longer (but not never) attain Nirvana; so there is an end term to man and life. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Nibbana/Nirvana is *not* the final fruit of the path, Susma, regardless of how much such information does not conform to your view. Nibbana/Nirvana is a temporary expedient, as are all of the Buddhas teachings. This is declared plainly in several Suttas.

About #2, I have done enough reading about time in Buddhism and also in Hinduism, to learn that there is indeed admitted a beginning in time but it is pushed back farther and farther and farther and farther... that Buddhist and Hinduist thinkers give the impression that they don't want to face the beginning of time; and it is admitted also that there is an end in time but also pushed indefinitely forward and forward and forward...

can you explain the concept of "beginning" in a cyclical universe?

the Buddhist cosmological point of view varies a bit depending on the particular philosophical school that a being may uphold. that said, in the same manner that speaking of a beginning of a cyclical universe, Buddhism speaks of the end of the universe... again, however, the idea of "end" is simply the ending of one universe and the arising of another.. not true "beginning" and "end" as is commonly thought by beings which adhere to a linear concept of time.

Consider the Buddhist and Hinduist doctrine of karma: a man's present lot in his current rebirth is dependent upon his actions in previous rebirths.

would you believe that you have not understood this properly?

in point of fact, the Buddha specifically addresses this very misconception, to wit:

Refuting the erroneous view that "whatsoever fortune or misfortune experienced is all due to some previous action", the Buddha said:


"So, then, according to this view, owing to previous action men will become murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanderers, covetous, malicious and perverts. Thus, for those who fall back on the former deeds as the essential reason, there is neither the desire to do, nor effort to do, nor necessity to do this deed, or abstain from this deed."


It was this important text, which states the belief that all physical circumstances and mental attitudes spring solely from past Karma that Buddha contradicted. If the present life is totally conditioned or wholly controlled by our past actions, then certainly Karma is tantamount to fatalism or determinism or predestination. If this were true, free will would be an absurdity. Life would be purely mechanistic, not much different from a machine. Being created by an Almighty God who controls our destinies and predetermines our future, or being produced by an irresistible Karma that completely determines our fate and controls our life’s course, independent of any free action on our part, is essentially the same. The only difference lies in the two words God and Karma. One could easily be substituted for the other, because the ultimate operation of both forces would be identical.

Such a fatalistic doctrine is not the Buddhist law of Karma.

Basic Buddhism: The Theory of Karma


"If anyone says that a man or woman must reap in this life according to his present deeds, in that case there is no religious life, nor is an opportunity afforded for the entire extinction of sorrow. But if anyone says that what a man or woman reaps in this and future lives accords with his or her deeds present and past, in that case there is a religious life, and an opportunity is afforded for the entire extinction of a sorrow." (Anguttara Nikaya)


the Buddha Dharma and Santana Dharma have different views on Kamma/Karma... if you have questions for the Sanatana Dharma adherents, please pose your question in the correct area or i suspect it will not garner the sort of response you are hoping for.

metta,

~v

[Susma Rio Sep]

Thanks, Vaj, for your patient response. Allow me to commend you for not answering my questions with in effect more questions by using cryptic language, as someone here.

No, I do not ascribe to cryptic language where the listener is left with the trial of finding out what exactly the speaker means.

If a speaker cannot use words to say what he knows, then let him use his experiences which experiences are also common to all people; but the trouble here is that some people claim to have experienced things others don't or haven't or cannot (according to the speaker -- but Susma says, how convenient).

About a cyclical universe or time or space or whatever, I don't think that is any ground for a beginningless and an endless time/universe; because that concept is arrived at by denying mentally a point of beginning and a point of ending; the reality is not necessary as mentally imagined. What we do know from experience is that everything has a beginning and an end, at least in one form.

But does getting anywhere any religion is supposed to get us to, does it have to be conflated with so much complex and complicated notions and systems?

Now, I am sure a genius like Einstein will conclude that no one knows what exactly is Buddhism, and the man have quotations endorsing Buddhism ascribed to him -- perjuriously; and he like who is that German philosopher, Nietzsche or Schopenhauer? would not know the Buddhism Western Buddhists now tell us what Gautama truly taught to be his kind of Buddhism.


Susma

[Susma Rio Sep]

Thanks, Vaj, for your patient response. Allow me to commend you for not answering my questions with in effect more questions by using cryptic language, as someone here.

No, I do not ascribe to cryptic language where the listener is left with the trial of finding out what exactly the speaker means.

If a speaker cannot use words to say what he knows, then let him use his experiences which experiences are also common to all people; but the trouble here is that some people claim to have experienced things others don't or haven't or cannot (according to the speaker -- but Susma says, how convenient).

About a cyclical universe or time or space or whatever, I don't think that is any ground for a beginningless and an endless time/universe; because that concept is arrived at by denying mentally a point of beginning and a point of ending; the reality is not necessary as mentally imagined. What we do know from experience is that everything has a beginning and an end, at least in one form.

But does getting anywhere any religion is supposed to get us to, does it have to be conflated with so much complex and complicated notions and systems?

Now, I am sure a genius like Einstein will conclude that no one knows what exactly is Buddhism, and the man have quotations endorsing Buddhism ascribed to him -- perjuriously; and he like who is that German philosopher, Nietzsche or Schopenhauer? would not know the Buddhism Western Buddhists now tell us what Gautama truly taught to be his kind of Buddhism.


Susma

[chakraman]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

For Gautama is notorious, yes, notorious for skirting questions which for the rest of mankind even during his time and clime had been and are still today the most pressing, like is there a God? is there a self? he consigns all such most crucial queries of man to the dustbin, calling them in effect idle questions. And in that attitude he is totally and woefully mistaken, because unless he answers those questions his whole system of religion and philosophy of man and life and world view is without foundation, for people who are intelligent and critical and will not be put away by the facile assurance that important thing is to attend to the wounded man -- and stop there?

gathering up a few simsapa leaves in his hands the buddha said to the monks :"which are more numerous, the leaves in my hand or those in the trees overhead?"
"there are far more in the treess," replied the monks.
"such is the comparison betwween the truths i have realised and revealed to you and those that i have not revealed," said the buddha." those things that i have not revealed are not useful to the pure life and do not assist your spiritual progress. what i have revealed to you is the nature of unhappiness and how to overcome it, for these are truths that lead to nirvana."

"you have failed to give me answers to such questions, and it upsets me ...........
the buddha first admonished malunkyaputta for attempting to blackmail him. "did i ever say to you : ' come, malunkyaputta, lead the holy life under me and i will make plain such matters?'"
hello people thankyou for your welcomes, jase....

hi susma, i'm not sure being liberated from desire would be self deprivation. i think if its pleasure you seek you will find it, but that is a double edge sword. however to have completely understood desire may leave you in a state of constant joy, which dont sound to bad either. as for money, i dont think you can possess it, i think it posseses you and surely you dont want to be a slave to this or your senses.... i'm not a buddhist, jase....

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Susma,

thank you for the post

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

If a speaker cannot use words to say what he knows, then let him use his experiences which experiences are also common to all people; but the trouble here is that some people claim to have experienced things others don't or haven't or cannot (according to the speaker -- but Susma says, how convenient).

how would you describe what an orange tastes like to one that has never tasted it?

i've eaten many oranges but i cannot express this experience to anyone else via any verbal means that i am aware of.

About a cyclical universe or time or space or whatever, I don't think that is any ground for a beginningless and an endless time/universe;

i would encourage you to read Drs. Hawking and Turoks No Boundary Proposal for an understanding of how a universe can have no beginning and, of course, no end.

naturally, since time is a feature of the universe, speaking of such outside of the framework is rather nonsensical.

What we do know from experience is that everything has a beginning and an end, at least in one form.

common experience, however, is subjective through our interpetative lens. on the quantum scale, we see that phenomena can arise without a cause, quite strange feature of the universe, to be sure, but there it is.

But does getting anywhere any religion is supposed to get us to, does it have to be conflated with so much complex and complicated notions and systems?

i suppose that is more dependent upon the being that is trying to follow the path more than anything else. some beings enjoy ritual and formalized practice where others do not.

Now, I am sure a genius like Einstein will conclude that no one knows what exactly is Buddhism, and the man have quotations endorsing Buddhism ascribed to him -- perjuriously; and he like who is that German philosopher, Nietzsche or Schopenhauer? would not know the Buddhism Western Buddhists now tell us what Gautama truly taught to be his kind of Buddhism.


Susma

though we've dialoged for more than a year on this, it seems seems as if you do not understand that there are various Buddhist Vehicles and philosophical schools. why this is, i cannot say; other than, perhaps, you are wanting the Buddha Dharma to be a monolithic entity that has the same teachings for all beings, in all situations. unfortunately, this simply isn't the case and without really understanding this, i suspect that our conversations will continue along the same vein that they have thus far.

to be frank with you, it would be interesting to know if any of the Buddhists' responses to any of your queries on this forum have actually be accepted by you. i have the feeling that you tend to discount our replies for reasons that you have yet to share.

metta,

~v

[Susma Rio Sep]

to be frank with you, it would be interesting to know if any of the Buddhists' responses to any of your queries on this forum have actually be accepted by you. i have the feeling that you tend to discount our replies for reasons that you have yet to share. -- Vaj

Dear good friend, Vaj., and forgive me for calling you good friend, for there be such kinds of people in the net who cannot say anything except in hostility, like many I have met in skeptics forums that when I address them conventionally as good friend they shoot back telling me that they do not know me -- even though I have been writing in the forum for weeks and months and perhaps a year's time... and they have standards for friends, etc.

Some nasty critters, such ones, and I have come across them several specially in skeptics forums, these guys can be worse than the most benighted fanatics of the most unreasonable belief systems. I consider myself also a skeptic but if I may, do I write or talk in that kind of a raucous snotty mood?

Even samabudhi does not talk like that, though he borders dangerously on the cliff. Joking only, samabudhi; you are okay.

What I want to say with that excerpt cite from you is that I am more for just talking here with guys who do care to talk with me, not into accepting from you guys or expecting from you guys, convictions from you or from me.

You once said that you could not or would not want to join or stay in some forums because there does not seem to be any hope of dialogue there; that is one line that has meant a lot to me: the dialogue is the thing: we talk and we listen, no need to try to convince each other, but the influence either way is possible and actual in the process.

What's Brian, owner and operator of this website cum forums, after with his time, labor, and funds invested in this endeavor? I think he is into gathering all kinds of materials for his what? doctoral dissertation in some subject on religion? I still have that question but now I am not excited to get at the answer.

Wait... here, he has an about preamble:

about - comparative-religion.com

This is a strictly non-commercial website, simply intended to serve as general internet resource for human thought in all its diverse expressions, and in a comparatively neutral manner. Do note that this will always be a work in progress, intended to be continually expanded upon with new and updated material.

comparative-religion.com promotes the principle of "knowledge shared is knowledge saved."

etc. etc. etc.

Well said, and kudos, Brian; but tell me, are you not into collecting all kinds of materials and views from all kinds of folks for some work on religion?

Now, back to what you and I are after in this forum: I am just after exchange for the sake of exchange; well, honestly, not only exchange but also and again honestly to express my cynical doubts over everything except the nose on my face as I look down on my face downward. Hahaha.

Hahaha, that also gets the goats of some guys in skeptics forums.

What is that described about Athens citizens who would get together in the Areopagos to exchange views and news, to hear anything new or at least differently conveyed? Flattering myself, that is what I am into as to the present stage of my 'intellectual' development. You have seen the light..? and also other guys here?

I envy you, be there so many kinds of lights and so many shades of them, that they seem and actually to be competing in diametrically opposite directions, as to cancel each other out, so that what? if you put them all together you get black which is no color but the absence of light? That true in the laboratory -- what I learned only in grade school and as I now if correctly remember.


How's your project of founding a monastery or sangha in your city, for guys like yourself to live in and meditate and rest your bones when you pass from this present rebirth, and not return almost certainly to your foundation again; when you as I read in Buddhist sites return right away in another rebirth by accessing a newly born baby -- and unless you have reached Nirvana like Gautama, you wouldn't know you were Vaj in the immediately preceding rebirth.

No? as a Western Buddhist you don't believe in that teaching; it's not Gautama's original or not intended for posterities teaching?


Susma