Why do you believe in YOUR religion

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I think that right view is the goal of deconstruction. To remove all constructs, all attachments, all custom, all convention, and see things for what the actually are. This, to me, is really the one and only requirement because everything follows from it. Of course it's practically impossible in a ultimate sense, but I think that the exercise of trying is the beginning of real enlightenment.

The sincerity of your search leaves no doubt that G-d has found you, Chris.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Do you think he'll be pissed? I said before that I don't dog pile with anyone.

Hehe, he'll be mad as hell.

dog pile?

"When many
people post unfriendly responses in short order to a single
posting, they are sometimes said to "dogpile" or "dogpile on"
the person to whom they're responding. For example, when a
religious missionary posts a simplistic appeal to alt.atheism,
he can expect to be dogpiled."

??

Well, first I should say that while Buddhist, or Taoist, or Christian, or Jewish concepts may inform my point of view, what I have to say at any given moment only reflects where I'm at, and isn't intended to be an elucidation of any particular tradition. I have no affiliation, and I'm not trying to synthesize a unified theological field theory.

I think that right view is the goal of deconstruction. To remove all constructs, all attachments, all custom, all convention, and see things for what the actually are. This, to me, is really the one and only requirement because everything follows from it. Of course it's practically impossible in a ultimate sense, but I think that the exercise of trying is the beginning of real enlightenment.

OK.

I just see it as irrevocably connected to other Buddhist stuff too...

s.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

OK.

I just see it as irrevocably connected to other Buddhist stuff too...

s.

Enlighten me...please.

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

The sincerity of your search leaves no doubt that G-d has found you, Chris.

Thank you Netti, that's very generous. I'm sorry I was mean to you.

Chris

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Thank you Netti, that's very generous. I'm sorry I was mean to you.

No problem. (I figured you were being friendly and trying to get me into a cheeseball contest. )

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

No problem. (I figured you were being friendly and trying to get me into a cheeseball contest. )

Mmmm...cheeseballs.

Chris

[Francis king]

... welcome to the forum, Sherry...seen ur new around ere...

I can see lots of ppl have replied to ur initial post, so ur probably bored by now, but here's my response to ur post...

...I dont think ppl choose their religions... I think if you get the chance to do that, ur lucky... most ppl will not fall too far away from what they were raised in, usually, and that's the way of the world...

...for me, I believe in my own religion... I have a curious belief system, where I have many Gods, and none, I take my wisdom where I find it, which could be anywhere- sitting on a park bench feeding the pigeons, or in some gloriously archaic magical text... I am not fussy... I have no real fixed beliefs, and change my mind regularly, often on a daily basis, as to what I really believe...

for me, I have a god... It's a traditional God, in so far as he responds to prayers and rituals, yet he does not belong to a specific faith... he is sometimes a she, or an it, or a them, I command him to perform, he commands me, and he fascinates me, dazzles me, impresses me and bolsters me, every day... in many ways...

As an adult, I can believe what I like... everyone else does... and that's kinda my religion, and why I like it...

[sherry]

Originally Posted by Francis king

... welcome to the forum, Sherry...seen ur new around ere...

I can see lots of ppl have replied to ur initial post, so ur probably bored by now, but here's my response to ur post...

LOL, no where close to bored! Thank you for responding. I am still at the "childlike wonder stage" in all of this. I can't seem to get enough information or read enough debates. I learn something new from each and every post. It's a hard line to walk atm, to absorb as much as I can yet not to let myself get burned out.

I was that person, that had her religion "chosen" for me. But I think "had" is the wrong word, but "LET" is more apt. I think most people are that way, they /shrug and say "so many say its right, it must be right, I'll go with that." Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on what aspect of my situation I'm looking at at any given time, I was put in a position where my trust in someone (my husband) led to one kind of hurt, and it caused me to doubt EVERYTHING that I had ever trusted him in. I could no longer "blindly accept" that what he said was right nor that he truly had my best interests at heart. As a result of that, I found myself saying to myself, ALOT, "I don't think that is right..." or "I don't believe that..." and hence the search for my own answers.

Myself, I am HORRIBLE at debates. My brain freezes, my tongue gets tied up. Alot of my beliefs of right and wrong are based on feelings I have deep down inside, which makes them hard to defend against someone like my husband- who refuses to acknowlege feelings or emmotions as legitimate reasons for anything. I don't necessairily use the words I find in this forum as part of any debate I have with him, but to point out "see, it's not just me, I'm not the only one."

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Enlighten me...please.

Well the other “stuff” I think is perhaps essentially what you said as being the goal of deconstruction (nice term, may have to lift it ). But to be sure, I shall “enlighten” you as requested (!) and express it as “Buddhist stuff” (as I understand it).

Rather than walk it backwards to base camp; I think it easier to start at base camp and go forwards until getting to the eightfold path.

(The problems of the translating of all of this into English from Pali is of course well established; I particularly find the translation of dukkha to mean suffering to be off-putting/unhelpful/inaccurate/incomplete; I think Kierkegaard’s Angest to be more likely a better term, but now I’m derailing my own post…).

OK base camp is codependent arising. Because of codependent arising, there is a constant changing of everything. Because there is a constant changing of everything, there is no independent existence (i.e. no inherent self-hood). Because there is no independent existence, if we believe, expect or want a stable enduring self and world, we will experience angest, (at least in times of introspection into our own existence) because it is not actually how we or the world really are/is. The experience of this angest as part of our “normal” (i.e. typical) psyche is the first ennobling truth. The second ennobling truth is that the cause for this angest (as per what I have stated previously) is our craving/aversion for the world to be and operate other than how it really is/does. The third ennobling truth is that the ending of our angest can therefore be brought about if we are able to end this craving/aversion. The fourth ennobling truth is that the means to ending this craving/aversion is the eightfold path.

This path is not sequential; other than to say that it does not “make sense” to a person unless they accept “right view” because right view is the understanding as to how the world does “operate” as outlined above, termed as paticca-samuppada, the seals of conditioned existence, the four ennobling truths and the eightfold path.

So, as I said, probably your goal of deconstruction?

s.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

(The problems of the translating of all of this into English from Pali is of course well established; I particularly find the translation of dukkha to mean suffering to be off-putting/ unhelpful/ inaccurate/ incomplete; I think Kierkegaard’s Angest to be more likely a better term, but now I’m derailing my own post…).

If the Danish Angest is anywhere close to the German Angst, it means diffuse or free-floating anxiety (as distinct from fear, which has a specific identifiable object -like a snake phobia, for example). In fact, some translations of Kierkegaard’s book use the title "The Concept of Anxiety." Interestingly, atheistic existentialists like Heidegger use the term in reference to the sense of personal responsibility people have with respect to their choices. Originally, as the Wiki points out, Kierkegaard used the term to describe

a profound and deep-seated spiritual condition of insecurity and despair in the free human being. Where the animal is a slave to its instincts but always confident in its own actions, Kierkegaard believed that the freedom given to people leaves the human in a constant fear of failing its responsibilities to G-d. Kierkegaard's concept of angst is considered to be an important stepping stone for 20th-century existentialism. While Kierkegaard's feeling of angst is fear of actual responsibility to God, in modern use, angst was broadened by the later existentialists to include general frustration associated with the conflict between actual responsibilities to self, one's principles, and others (possibly including G-d).

The common use of the term dukkha to designate "suffering" has the advantage of being fairly broad and vague. The term dukka is apparently hard to translate and would seem to mean diffuse unease, disgust, and despair relating to a mismatch between human desire and worldly pleasures. When seen in context, the term dukkha relates to the unsatisfactoriness - as in the unsatisfying experiences we have when we seek satisfaction from the unstable/temporary world of forms.

In the context of discussions of the unsatisfactory nature of the human condition, one will often see the term Dukkha when they mean Dukkha-dukkha (pain of pain), which is associated with birth, decay, death, and loss. The Wiki includes two additional variants on Dukkha. The first is called Viparinama-dukkha (pain of alteration), which relates to suffering caused by change: (a) violated expectations and (b) the failure of happy moments to last.

The second variant is called Sankhara-dukkha (pain of formation) is a subtle form of suffering inherent in the nature of conditioned things, including (a) the skandhas and (b) the factors constituting the human mind.

See the Wiki entry for dukkha for more detail.

On the one hand, it make sense to talk about dukkha being inherent in the nature of conditioned things. But it is also helpful to note that dukkha arises from dysfunctional relationships to the world that stem from misunderstandings. The phrase "looking for love in all the wrong places" comes to mind.

Because there is no independent existence, if we believe, expect or want a stable enduring self and world, we will experience angest, (at least in times of introspection into our own existence) because it is not actually how we or the world really are/is.

I would add that the dissatisfaction is both forward looking and retrospective. It is retrospective in the sense that there is a recall of previous experiences having been disappointing or not totally fulfilling.

When you see it as a problem of "false consciousness" or error, it becomes apparent that the "fix" for dukkha has more to do with changing ourselves than with changing the world. Hence the Noble Eight Fold Path, which pertains to our thoughts and actions.

[Tao_Equus]

Well this thread has moved on a bit from when I last checked in but some interesting stuff said!! Too much to respond to individually so i'll try just a post ha encompasses as much as I can.

I am not a scientist, I do not want to be a scientist, and I will never be a scientist. And it is not my fault religion is in opposition to science in the 'race' to describe reality. Science had its roots in religious scholarship and patronage through its pre-industrial history but with the science that created that revolution came a new understanding of cause and effect. This happens so that happens so many gazzilions of times every nanosecond and so the complexity in the chaotic matrix of space time is unknowable. And there lays vexation and madness!! La Folie!! The problem with Science for religion is not what it does not answer, but what it does. That's what Theists cannot cope with. Spiritualists are another matter. For me it has been science that showed me wonder after wonder. Real miracles made to work. Captain Kirks 'comunicator' sitting charging a few inches from my fingers as I type. Both religion and spirituality offer the hope to the believer that they have some control over their destiny...and that life has more meaning than the immediacy of my brand of existentialism. My take is based not just on science but my experience of life. It is not warm and cuddly at moments when I describe the best or most accurate painting of the picture of base uber-reality I am capable of. But that does not preclude me as a human being of experiencing soft cuddly moments and recalling them with joy. Atheism has no requirement against experiencing everything that makes life good and worthwhile. There are plenty antidisestablishmentarianists here to make me work hard at being rational though

I'm not here to form alliances and pile. I think statistically I am definitely as likely to hear counter arguments to my written thoughts here as anyone. And on the whole I do try to respond fairly and accurately to all, but I am only me, an auld whisky sippin Scot. (oor greatest Myth "sell" has tae be the Loch Ness Monster ). I have a typically Scots manner of directness and dry humour. If it ever seems like I am calling anybody nuts for believing in something well then they got the message....and then I can say "welcome to the club". Unlike some here I can tell the difference between religion, science and art. Some of you here are like belief artists who build beautiful tapestries that I can understand with fullness. And there are others I think confuse a true inward journey from having read a few religious perspectives. Ones that I have looked at long enough to be convinced they are no good to the search for any meaning except as the occasional, almost accidental, parable of common sense or humanity. And which in their fullness, these ancient texts, they have as much philosophical currency as nursery rhymes. I cannot help what I think, and thus type here. I never actually at any point stepped off some train at the station marked "where I am at". I am still on that train...till the day like everybody else's.....it crashes. And I am most definitely not trying to get anybody to jump on my train.

Funny Chris, seems like I was in a minority in reading your posts carefully. You have jumped to my side of a debate a few times but I always understood it to be on a rational rather than a theological level. I have never seen you 'declare' for Atheism. Nor felt you were about to. But I do thank you for the valuable comments you have made in many discussions. And if you ever do want to join me on...
YouTube - AC/DC - Highway To Hell (with Bon Scott)
I hear the company down there is much more interesting...

Night night all,

sweet dreams,

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

The common use of the term dukkha to designate "suffering" has the advantage of being fairly broad and vague.

You see n-n, I would have to say that I don't find it "fairly broad and vague" - to most people I think "suffering" means something fairly narrow and specific; so when talking about Buddhism, you can immediately be talking about two different notions. You can say stuff like "joy is suffering because it is impermanent and so all experiences are suffering" but it just seems to me that a better translation of dukkha might be helpful.

s.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Well the other “stuff” I think is perhaps essentially what you said as being the goal of deconstruction (nice term, may have to lift it ). But to be sure, I shall “enlighten” you as requested (!) and express it as “Buddhist stuff” (as I understand it).

Rather than walk it backwards to base camp; I think it easier to start at base camp and go forwards until getting to the eightfold path.

(The problems of the translating of all of this into English from Pali is of course well established; I particularly find the translation of dukkha to mean suffering to be off-putting/unhelpful/inaccurate/incomplete; I think Kierkegaard’s Angest to be more likely a better term, but now I’m derailing my own post…).

OK base camp is codependent arising. Because of codependent arising, there is a constant changing of everything. Because there is a constant changing of everything, there is no independent existence (i.e. no inherent self-hood). Because there is no independent existence, if we believe, expect or want a stable enduring self and world, we will experience angest, (at least in times of introspection into our own existence) because it is not actually how we or the world really are/is. The experience of this angest as part of our “normal” (i.e. typical) psyche is the first ennobling truth. The second ennobling truth is that the cause for this angest (as per what I have stated previously) is our craving/aversion for the world to be and operate other than how it really is/does. The third ennobling truth is that the ending of our angest can therefore be brought about if we are able to end this craving/aversion. The fourth ennobling truth is that the means to ending this craving/aversion is the eightfold path.

This path is not sequential; other than to say that it does not “make sense” to a person unless they accept “right view” because right view is the understanding as to how the world does “operate” as outlined above, termed as paticca-samuppada, the seals of conditioned existence, the four ennobling truths and the eightfold path.

So, as I said, probably your goal of deconstruction?

s.

Yes. I'm working up an idea on this...

Chris

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Yes. I'm working up an idea on this...

Chris

[hijack] Just notice your avatar, CCS. Isn't that a Little Feat album cover? You got taste, dude!

"And if you give me...weed, whites, and wine and you show me a sign
I'll be willin', to be movin'' [/hijack]

[China Cat Sunflower]

Waiting For Columbus.

I've been a fan since Lowell George was still alive! Love those Neon Park album covers (back when an album was an album).

Lord I been from Tucson to Tucumcari, Tehatchapee to Tonapah,
driven every kind of rig that's ever been made
driven the back roads so I wouldn't get weighed.
And if you give me...weed, whites and wine,
and you show me a sign
I'll be willin', to be movin'

YouTube - Little Feat - Willin'

Sweet!

Chris