There is no real point in life.

[ForEverAfter]

I'm comparing Buddhism to Christianity largely because you're presenting Buddhism as the ultimate path to God / enlightenment.
Ideally neither Christianity or Buddhism should be a religion, but they both are.

A religious adherence to Buddhism sometimes leads people to set themselves on fire, just as a religious adherence to Christianity sometimes leads to mortification of the flesh... There are undeniable similarities between Buddhism, when practiced religiously, and all other religions.

I'm not sure why I shouldn't compare them...?

buddhism is not about faith. even the buddha mention dont believe me, practice what I teach and try for yourself.
''The Buddha never encouraged 'blind faith'. He encouraged saddha or confidence in his teachings, after considering, 'tasting', and testing them in one's life.''

With all due respect, I don't think that's what you're doing.

“Kill the Buddha,” says the old koan. “Kill Buddhism,” says Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, who argues that Buddhism’s philosophy, insight, and practices would benefit more people if they were not presented as a religion.

If you agree with this, then why become ordained?

and thats why we need to train our mind to stop most of the suffering

Aha! So I was right.
You said stop most of the suffering.
So some suffering is required/unavoidable, yes?

 

[Trying2Iso]

IMO everyone makes their own decision as to what the "point" is in life, with some deciding that there is none.
I would include myself within that class.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Saying there is no point is like being an atheist, isn't it?
Just because you're not aware of something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
There may be a point.

...

I enjoyed chatting with you, Murphy.
I'm going to finish watching Citizenfour now.

 

[Trying2Iso]

Saying there is no point is like being an atheist, isn't it?
Just because you're not aware of something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
There may be a point.

...

I enjoyed chatting with you, Murphy.
I'm going to finish watching Citizenfour now.

I'm agnostic...
but i believe if a diety wanted there to be a point to life, he/she would have made some type of sign so we would know what that was.
how could he/she expect us to just guess? and what? go to hell because we guessed wrong?

i live a moral life, i follow my conscience. but it's because i am a good person. Not because i'm afraid of going to hell.

 

[murphythecat]

I think you didnt understood the explanation of why to kill the buddha. reread the quote.
it is quite clear that the problem with people, is that they see buddhism like a religion, when its absolutely not a religion, its a practice. and in order to become a buddha, you have to, eventually, kill the idea of the buddha and practice and forget about the goal completely only then will you be able to become a arahant.

that person who sets himself on fire wouldnt have been approved by the buddha.

Becoming ordained is to be able to devote all my life to the practice. you cannot practice the jhanas then worry about your job, paying bills ect.

yes suffering is. you cannot escape physical pain, but can escape mental suffering. but eventually, the physical pain will not bring mental pain and therefore you will still be filled with joy, and all the 7 factor of enlightenment even if you suffer physically

yes, there are similarities between all religions. but you shouldn't compare them or condemn them. you should, before judging their value, try it and practice it. only then will you know if it works.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I didn't misunderstand it.

it is quite clear that the problem with people, is that they see buddhism like a religion

That is what you're doing...
Let me ask you this, will you renounce your ordainment at some point?
If not, aren't you refusing to "kill Buddha"?

ts absolutely not a religion, its a practice

Christ didn't want to start a religion, either.
That doesn't prevent Christianity from being a religion.
You can practice the teachings of Christ, without being religious about it, just like Buddhism.
I don't see any difference.

that person who sets himself on fire wouldnt have been approved by the buddha.

That's what you said last time about self-immolation.
I don't disagree with you. Of course Buddha wouldn't have approved.
And Christ wouldn't have approved of mortification of the flesh.
You're missing the point.

Buddhism, when treated as a religion, has negative consequences.
A huge number of monks, in many different countries, have set themselves on fire.
There is a correlation between religious Buddhism and self-immolation.

Becoming ordained is to be able to devote all my life to the practice. you cannot practice the jhanas then worry about your job, paying bills

It is more difficult to practice in the real world, sure. That's why monks life simple lives.
I'm not convinced that it is impossible...

Becoming a Buddhist monk and living in a monastery isn't far removed from becoming a Roman Catholic monk and living in a monastery.
There are uncanny similarities between what you describe as a practice (Buddhist monks) and what you describe as religion (Catholic monks).
If you don't want to treat Buddhism as a religion, then don't. That's all I'm saying... Don't become ordained.

yes, there are similarities between all religions. but you shouldn't compare them

Why?

or condemn them.

I never did.

you should, before judging their value, try it and practice it. only then will you know if it works.

I'm not saying it "doesn't work". I'm saying it's not the only path.
And I'm not judging Buddhism, either. I'm questioning your interpretation.

 

[Trying2Iso]

IMO Buddhism is the most intellectual of all the religions i've learned about. Far moreso than any of the Abrahamic religions...
I read a bunch of good stuff on Buddhism, some online,
but for some reason i cannot post attachments right now (BL wont let me)

 

[ForEverAfter]

Buddhism is the most intellectual of all the religions i've learned about

Buddhism is my favorite mainstream religion, but I don't think intellectual is the right word for it.
The simplicity of Buddha's teachings appeals to me. There is less room for misinterpretation.
It is not "complete", though. There is something to be gained from all religions.

i believe if a diety wanted there to be a point to life, he/she would have made some type of sign so we would know what that was.

I don't understand your logic.
The point might involve us not knowing the point.

how could he/she expect us to just guess?

Who said we're expected to guess?

and what? go to hell because we guessed wrong?

I'm seriously losing you, here.

i live a moral life, i follow my conscience. but it's because i am a good person. Not because i'm afraid of going to hell.

When did we start talking about hell?

 

[murphythecat]

re read the quote seriously

about killing the buddha.
1. Killing the Buddha By Sam Harris
“Kill the Buddha,” says the old koan. “Kill Buddhism,” says Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, who argues that Buddhism’s philosophy, insight, and practices would benefit more people if they were not presented as a religion.
The ninth-century Buddhist master Lin Chi is supposed to have said, “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.”
''for very many people the religious aspect of Buddhism makes it a deal breaker that stops them from developing sila, samadhi and panna. Keep in mind also, that when the Buddha was teaching, he didn't set out to create a new religion. What he found was that suffering was universal and the remedy to suffering was likewise universal. Secular approaches to Dhamma have been very successful in making it accessible to a whole lot of people for whom Buddhism is "just another organised religion"
again about killing the buddha:
It's important to see the real meaning of the quote. Since it was spoken by a Zen master, it'd best be explained by another master from the same tradition:

”According to Buddhism, knowledge is the greatest obstacle to awakening. If we are trapped by our knowledge we will not have the possibility of going beyond it and realizing awakening. When we believe something to be the absolute truth and cling to it, we cannot be open to new ideas. Even if truth itself is knocking at our door, we will not let it in. The Zen student must strive to be free of attachments to knowledge and be open so that truth may enter. The teacher must also help in these efforts. Zen master Lin Chi once said: “If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha. If you meet the Patriarch, kill the Patriarch”. For one who only has devotion, this declaration is terribly confusing. But its effect depends on the mentality and capacity of the one who hears. If the student is strong, she will have the capacity to liberate herself from all authority and realize ulitmate reality in herself. Truth is not a concept. If we cling to our concepts, we lose reality. That is why it is necessary to “kill” our concepts so that reality can reveal itself. To kill the Buddha is the only way to see the Buddha. Any concept we have of the Buddha can impede us from seeing the Buddha in person”

you have to kill the idea of a buddha exterior of yourself. the buddha is just a men, but its his teaching you need to follow and practice what he teaches to realize what he realized which is nibbana.

why do you say I see buddhism as a religion? I keep on repeating its a practice. yes, when seen as a religion, its detrimental. thats exactly why you have to ''kill the buddha''.

because theres no point in comparing anything. duality is a view point and the practice is to stop thinking and meditate to realize your inner being hidden under all those judgments, thoughts, and desire to compare, analyse, which blocks you from the truth within.

How could you know its not the only path? how can you claim such a thing when you know you havent practiced hard enough and long enough to be able to make a true and real opinion based on empiric experience.

 

[Trying2Iso]

Buddhism is my favorite mainstream religion, but I don't think intellectual is the right word for it.
The simplicity of Buddha's teachings appeals to me. There is less room for misinterpretation.
It is not "complete", though. There is something to be gained from all religions.



I don't understand your logic.
The point might involve us not knowing the point.



Who said we're expected to guess?



I'm seriously losing you, here.



When did we start talking about hell?

Why would a diety make a point to life, not reveal it, and not expect us to guess?
That essentially proves my point that there is no point to life... lol
Effectively, even if said diety made the point, that point doesn't matter, making the point pointless.

I have a conscience, i follow it, and i believe there is no point to life.

 

[ForEverAfter]

re read the quote seriously

I have re-read it, twice.
You are misunderstanding some of what you quoted, IMO.
Some of it I simply disagree with.

Sam Harris, in your quote, extended "Kill Buddha" to "Kill Buddhism".
This means, to me, that you shouldn't identify as Buddhist and you certainly shouldn't become a monk.

...

If you need to follow Buddha, who did Buddha follow?
If he is just a man, as you agreed, then how did he achieve enlightenment without a Buddha?
Before Buddha, was nobody capable of enlightenment?

...

If it is a practice, for you, not a religion, then why become ordained?
Why call yourself a Buddhist?

I try to practice the basic tenants of Christianity, but I don't call myself Christian.
I refer to myself as a Buddhist Christian sometimes, but I'm not stuck to either ideology.
Buddha and Christ (if he indeed was a man) were just men. I am a man. I don't need either of them.

When we believe something to be the absolute truth and cling to it, we cannot be open to new ideas. Even if truth itself is knocking at our door, we will not let it in.

I don't think you're living up to this.

theres no point in comparing anything

Of course there is.
You've made lots of comparative statements, directly and by implication, throughout this thread.
For example, describing Buddhism as a practice means that you are differentiating it (comparatively) from religion.

...

You ask how I think you're treating Buddhism as a religion.
I'm going to answer in point form, for simplicity's sake.
(Bear with me. There are only two points.)

1. You say that Buddha is needed, like Christians say that Jesus is needed.
The implication being that before Buddhism / Christianity, there was no path towards enlightenment / God.

2. Your intention is to be ordained as a monk.
If I said my intention was to be ordained as a Roman Catholic monk, wouldn't you see that as a religious inclination?

How could you know its not the only path? how can you claim such a thing when you know you havent practiced hard enough and long enough to be able to make a true and real opinion based on empiric experience.

I know it's not the only path, because I've traveled other paths.
How could you know it is the only path?

 

[ForEverAfter]

I have a conscience, i follow it, and i believe there is no point to life.

You said you were agnostic, yet you have "atheistic" tendencies as far as the meaning of life goes.
I'm not sure how you can selectively agnostic. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
A lot of atheists misguidedly think they can logically disprove God.
Your logic (disproving the point of life) is as flawed as theirs.

Why would a diety make a point to life, not reveal it, and not expect us to guess?
That essentially proves my point that there is no point to life... lol
Effectively, even if said diety made the point, that point doesn't matter, making the point pointless.

Here's a hypothetical.

If God is everything and exists in a timeless void, perhaps He feels the "need" to split / fragment His consciousness in order to stave off (His version of) boredom/insanity... In other words: perhaps we are fractions of God, with retrograde amnesia. If so, we cannot know we are God for this theory to function and - therefore - the point of our lives involves not knowing the point of our lives... Similarly, when we dream, we do not know that we are dreaming. Becoming conscious of the dream / achieving lucidity while unconscious is analogous to enlightenment. It is a function of dreams, that we are unaware that they are dreams. This does not render them pointless.

 

[murphythecat]

the buddha is the one who found the path without any teacher. You cannot become a buddha anymore as the buddha is the one who found the path. Everybody who follows the buddha teaching can become enlightened, just like gautamma buddha, but we call all other enlightened being arahant, not buddha. A buddha is one who find enlightenment without any teacher which is not the case anymore as all arahant have followed the teaching of the buddha. I hope that is clear.

the buddha only showed the way to our inner truth and showed the dharma. the buddha isnt a god, he simply showed the way to nibbana and he is the one to have found it. we all can acheive what the buddha acheived and thats what his teaching is all about.

you misunderstand what I quote. but you dont believe me and think I assume and worst,t hat I dont understand what I quote. I dont assume. its evident from your post that you misunderstood the meaning behind:``killing the buddha''

religion is such a broad concept, it doesnt mean anything. words doesnt mean anything, they are just trying to explain a reality. its like trying to describe the mango with words, it will never gives you the experience. you have to put a mango in your month to know its taste. so, you have to practice in order to understand the dharma. otherwise, its all a intellectual concept, and to practice the dharma, you have to open your heart and feel it and give yourself to the meditation and stop doubting the teaching.


I understand where you come from foreverafter, and just like christianity, or hindouism they all promote love. its the prerequisite. so, men. just love and you will be on track. love everything and never allow judgments, negativity, ill will in your heart and thoughts. this is the beginning of the path. but theres much more that you can do. always speak to people with respect, and treat them as your equal at all time. everytime you speak, speak to them by recognising that they are just as smart and good as you. Never allow hate, never react with hate even if someone do something you dont agree with because everytime you do hate, you hurt yourself and you ruin the moment. Dont think I say that because I think you dont do this, just that this is worth repeating over and over as I think we all are guilty of not acting this way at all time

This is the beginning of the path. and then, maye close your eye and concentrate on the breath and dont allow any thought to enter. everytime you think, go back to the breath. eventually, you will understand how beautiful just the fact to breath is and how peaceful concentration can bring you.

 

[ForEverAfter]

We're starting to go in circles.
(I like the mango analogy.)

the buddha is the one who found the path without any teacher. You cannot become a buddha anymore as the buddha is the one who found the path.

Buddha is a man's name.
You sound like you're talking about a divine consciousness or something.
He was just a philosopher. A brilliant philosopher. But a philosopher, nonetheless.

Everybody who follows the buddha teaching can become enlightened, just like gautamma buddha, but we call all other enlightened being arahant, not buddha.

That makes sense, because - like I said - Buddha is a man's name... although there have been numerous Buddhas.
There are huge golden statues of different forms of Buddha, that people worship.

A buddha is one who find enlightenment without any teacher which is not the case anymore as all arahant have followed the teaching of the buddha

How do you know there are no enlightened people outside Buddhism?
Why can only one man find the path? I don't get it.
Isn't that a bit arrogant?

You're saying that the Buddhists kind of own "true" spirituality / enlightenment / God.
Christians argue the same thing... So does every religion... Can't you see that?

the buddha is no longer needed as the buddha only showed the way to our inner truth.

If Buddha is no longer needed, then why do you identify as a Buddhist?
Why quote Buddha? Why get ordained?

you misunderstand what I quote. but you dont believe me and think I assume and worst,t hat I dont understand what I quote. I dont assume. its evident from your post that you misunderstood the meaning behind:``killing the buddha''

We're going to have to agree to disagree there.
I've had similar experiences to Buddha and various Old Testament prophets.
I understand what the statement means.

religion is such a broad concept, it doesnt mean anything.

It doesn't mean anything, relative to what?
It (religion) really isn't that broad.
I'm not criticizing Buddhism as a practice.
I'm telling you that you're treating it as a religion. (IMO)

you have to open your heart and feel it and give yourself to the meditation and stop doubting the teaching.

My heart is open. I have attained deep meditative trances.
I'm not doubting the teachings. I believe they are imperfect, if that's what you mean.
I doubt the infallibility of a man named Buddha... and I doubt your interpretation of his words.

(Since words are meaningless, aren't Buddha's teachings meaningless too?
Or is the meaningless of words conveniently selective?)

 

[murphythecat]

because the buddha showed us the dharma, which is the path to follow in order to attain nibbana. we dont need him, we needed his teaching. we quote him because his teaching are helpful to help our mind to learn and grow.

no, gautamma is refered to the buddha. a buddha is the one who have discovered the way to enlightenement without any teacher. there have been other buddha before gautamma buddha. so its not just the name of gautamma buddha but refer to something else which is someone who have attained, without another teacher, nibbana

you just dont believe what I say and think im wrong. fine, have fun. my interpretation is in synched with ayya khema, ajahn brahm. I cannot convince you. maybe if I were to speak to you in person, but right now, I feel you have intentions which are not necessarly helpful for you to fully understand the meaning behind the buddha teaching and the truth behind what I said. not to say you dont udnerstand nothing about the dharma, but theres some key elements you seem to not know.

I believe in the dharma and have faith in the path. therefore, everyone who have faith in the path will identify as a buddhist.
but you cannot be a buddhist, you become a buddhist once you practice. the goal is to become the dharma, to be the dharma. which of course, im clearly not there yet.

 

[Erikmen]

Why would a diety make a point to life, not reveal it, and not expect us to guess?
That essentially proves my point that there is no point to life... lol
Effectively, even if said diety made the point, that point doesn't matter, making the point pointless.

I have a conscience, i follow it, and i believe there is no point to life.

Or, maybe there is a point, but we can't see it. Theoretically..

 

[ForEverAfter]

you just dont believe what I say and think im wrong. fine, have fun.

Yes, I think you're wrong about a couple of things.
And you think I'm wrong. I didn't mean to upset you.

my interpretation is in synched with ayya khema, ajahn brahm.

Then, I disagree with their interpretations too.
They are not infallible. They, too, are just men.

I cannot convince you and you clearly dont want to learn honestly right now.

The assumption you're making is that you're the teacher in this scenario.

stop pretending you care

I'm not pretending. I was enjoying the conversation.
I didn't realize I was upsetting you, at all.
Apologies.

you really appreciate to dismiss, find faults and judge and just talk about you, what you think, what you think is worthy, what you think is not worthy.

You're "dismissing", "finding faults" and "judging" me just as much. Aren't you?
I said very early on that I meant no harm and you said you knew that already.
What's changed?

its all fine men, but Im not gonna play this game and answer you constantly.

This isn't a game.
You don't have to answer me. You never did.
I'm sorry for attempting to challenge some of your beliefs.
I had no ill intention, I assure you.

 

[murphythecat]

the thing is, is that you have no empirical experience, when monk spend their lives applying the dharma and becoming the dharma. how can you disagree with ayya khema and jahn brahm when you have never heard or read one of their book...

how can you be so sure that their wrong when you never even tried?
Buddhism is a practice. its only by practicing it that you will understand. just like its only when you eat the mango that you understand its delicacy and taste.
nibbanna is a feeling, a experience: a unconditioned reality mind you, but none the less a experience. just like everything else. so, how can you know for sure that its not true when you have never experienced it? the only way to experiencing it is to practice. and it takes time. but I assure you that mindfulness of thought is very beneficial to anyone who does it.

Your thoughts and your logic is not infaillible, nor mine, but so far, ive applied a lot of buddhist teaching in my life and I can assure you that my life has changed, totally. within a few years. actually, it took em a fwe year to understand it intellectually, but once I applied it in my heart and felt it in my heart, it really become clear that its a damn good way to find peace and love.
maybe you are already filled with love and peace, I dont know about that at all. but still, its not the end of the road.

I know you have no ill intention, and Im sorry to be a bit crude, but your intention sometime is not to learn here. You dont seem to want to learn or really understand, sometime yes, sometime no and this is where I see a problem. not in you, but in your intentions. you jump into conclusion, are able to judge monks who spend their lives and helped countless of people and think they are wrong. how can you know when you clearly have little understanding of the dharma and experience?
the buddha showed us the way to permanenet happiness. as long as you dont follow his path, which is the third noble truth, you will never be able to make a right conclusion and know the veracity of his teaching.


Im not mad one bit, im concern honestly about some of your behaviour you exhibit sometime.
I really am sorry to maybe have sounded harsh, and I dont think I judge here, its quite obvious that sometime you seem to want to critic and judge very fast. and this is only detrimental for you, no one else.
anyways! I have to go but if you want to continue the conversation, ill answer one I come back!
have a nice one foreverafter !

 

[ForEverAfter]

the thing is, is that you have no empirical experience, when monk spend their lives applying the dharma and becoming the dharma.

I do have experience of divine / enlightened states, as I've already said.
Call it "dharma" if you like. Words are meaningless, remember?

how can you be so sure that their wrong when you never even tried

I never said Buddhist monks were "wrong".
I said that a monk lifestyle doesn't appeal to me, and it does not...
There's an undeniable similarity between abstinent Roman Catholic monks and Buddhist monks IMO.
What I'm saying is Buddhism is not the only "right" path. That doesn't make it "wrong".

nibbanna is a feeling, a experience. just like everything else. so, how can you know for sure that its not true when you have never experienced it?

I never said it wasn't true. On the contrary, I actually said I've experienced it.

ive applied a lot of buddhist teaching in my life and I can assure you that my life has changed, totally. within a few years.

I'm sure you have, and that's great.
I'm not trying to take that away from you.
Like I said, Buddhism is my favorite mainstream religion.

your intention is not to learn here. You dont seem to want to learn or really understand. and this is where I see a problem. not in you, but in your intentions.

Again, you're assuming that you're the teacher in this scenario
Perhaps it is frustrating for you that I don't accept the role of the student?
Perhaps you don't want to learn? It's really a matter of perspective.

you clearly have little understanding of the dharma

How is that clear?

the buddha showed us the way to permanenet happiness. as long as you dont follow his path, which is the third noble truth, you will never be able to make a right conclusion and know the veracity of his teaching.

There you go again, telling me that your path - the Buddhist path - is the only path.
I'm not telling you that I am on the right path and you have to either join me or be unhappy.

Im not mad one bit, im concern honestly about some of your behaviour. I really am sorry to maybe have sounded harsh, and I dont think I judge here, its quite obvious that you seem to want to critic and judge. and this is only detrimental for you, no one else.

There's no need to be sorry. You're not offending me in the slightest.
You continue to make assumptions about me, though.

Despite how obvious it may seem to you, I'm actually not trying to criticize you or judge you.
I thought we were having an interesting discussion.

...

Let's stop this, okay?

 

[murphythecat]

no, its not assumptions. its obvious you lack some key understanding of the teaching and understanding to how far can meditation can bring you. otherwise you wouldnt dismiss it like you do.

you think you know what it is to live a monkhood and so are able to say that you dont want that. but you dont even know what it is to reach a jhana or what a jhana is.
Ive also had profound feeling in psychadelic, profoudn feeling of love, of light ect, trust me. and what they describe is much deeper then this.

just read about the jhanas and the experience they describe will resonate deeply with your psy experience. but again, I doubt you will go and read about the jhanas and hence me thinking you dont seem to want to learn and just want to state your opinion.
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Ajahn_Brahm_The_Jhanas.pdf