|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why must we believe *before* we die? | |||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Well said, Ben.
Ben writes: P.S. I didn't read all previous posts; I'm jumping with no holds barred Very Zen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith writes: It is possible that the idea of annihilation as the end goal of Buddhist practice is simply a misunderstanding, due to the ambiguity of language.
Omnivorous writes: That is one possibility. The Buddha largely refused to address the question of an after-life, preferring to address questions of right-living. Dissolution of the self is union with the ground of Being. Well, let's review this conversation. Robinrohan said in Message 39 something to the effect that the idea of ending up as a drop in the ocean did not appeal to him, as dissolving the self seems to him no better than being dead or something along those lines. I agreed in Message 40 that annihilation of the self in that sense is not appealing and don't understand how anyone can DESIRE such an outcome to one's life. IF annihilation means the death of personal identity, how does one desire it? This MAY be a semantic problem, but I was following RR's meaning. "Dissolution of the self" carries the same apparent meaning and I do not see how it can be desired. Same with "union with the ground of Being." Ben said this really means that one becomes focused on one's activity or on an object, and the self is "dissolved" in THAT sense. That is the sense that fits with the Christian sense I had just outlined. But you seem to be saying that no, this is a cultural difference, which implies that in fact Buddhists DO desire an annihilation of self in the sense that RR and I were originally discussing it. Am I understanding you or not?
Faith writes: Any attempt to answer your question about soul and identity from the position you have set up here would only dig us deeper into such ambiguities, especially considering the degree of hostility you evince. Frankly, that sounds like a cop-out in the face of a difficult question. Will you be the Faith of 33 Orchard St. in Heaven? Will you miss your cat? Your earlier reply sounded as though the experience of Heaven would be like dissolving in a sea of love where such identity is largely irrelevant. If that is what "dissolution of the self" in Buddhist terms means then it is a similar idea, but I do believe that I will retain my memory of my earthly life and identity, yes, and may even remember my cat, although I also expect that much of it will appear uninteresting by contrast with my new experiences. I expect to remain I/me, but a better version of I/me. Elijah and Moses appeared from Heaven with Jesus during His lifetime on the "mount of tranfiguration" and there was no doubt who they were, the very Elijah and Moses of the Old Testament. That will be the case with all of us. As for dissolving in a sea of love, when one is focused on an object, loving an object, one is for that period unconscious of self, but the self doesn't stop existing. You are still who you are. {Edit: Besides, there is reciprocity or mutuality involved here. God responds. God loves back. God interacts with us. He guides us and corrects us and loves us, and all that affirms us as individual selves}
I am attempting to learn how to converse with you, Faith: some of your posts have sparked a level of anger that I have not felt since under hostile fire more than 30 years ago. It is hard, and I am attempting not to turn away from the difficult. I am frankly surprised that you have any desire to learn how to converse with me at all considering the way you usually deal with me. I have no idea what "under hostile fire" could possibly refer to, but what sense does it make to hold me responsible for something that happened to you thirty years ago (if that is what you are saying)?
Your beliefs are anathema to me, and I am swimming against the tide of my own inclinations in order to increase my understanding. Perhaps you are doing the same. But perhaps not: if you prefer not to interact with me on this forum, I will respect your wishes. I can always ignore you and vice versa, but since in this post you are being unexpectedly accommodating I'm intrigued enough to continue the exchange if there is anywhere for it to go. This message has been edited by Faith, 09-30-2005 07:37 PM This message has been edited by Faith, 10-01-2005 02:57 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
quote: What though the field be lost? All is not lost; the unconquerable Will, And study of revenge, immortal hate, And courage never to submit or yield: And what is else not to be overcome? That Glory never shall his wrath or might Extort from me. To bow and sue for grace With suppliant knee, and deifie his power Who from the terrour of this Arm so late Doubted his Empire, that were low indeed, That were an ignominy and shame beneath This downfall; since by Fate the strength of Gods And this Empyreal substance cannot fail, Since through experience of this great event In Arms not worse, in foresight much advanc't, We may with more successful hope resolve To wage by force or guile eternal Warr Irreconcileable, to our grand Foe, Who now triumphs, and in th' excess of joy Sole reigning holds the Tyranny of Heav'n. From John Milton, Paradise Lost This message has been edited by Faith, 10-01-2005 10:23 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I do love Milton.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yup. And he got his material not from the Bible but from books like First Adam & Eve and the Book of Enoch. His interpretations have colored Christianity regardless of the Canon.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
My favorite Milton quote:
"O Hell!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Omnivorous writes: I am attempting to learn how to converse with you, Faith: some of your posts have sparked a level of anger that I have not felt since under hostile fire more than 30 years ago. It is hard, and I am attempting not to turn away from the difficult. I am frankly surprised that you have any desire to learn how to converse with me at all considering the way you usually deal with me. I have no idea what "under hostile fire" could possibly refer to, but what sense does it make to hold me responsible for something that happened to you thirty years ago (if that is what you are saying)? "Hostile fire" is the opposite of "friendly fire"--i.e., other folks shooting at you with deadly intent. That truly ticked me off, those many years ago. I was comparing my reaction to your posts to my reaction to combat, not holding you responsible for the latter. Unless you used to run around the jungle in black pajamas?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Vietnam was very hard on our guys in many ways. Sorry to hear my beliefs provoke similar feelings. Anyway, at least you've stopped shooting at me.
This message has been edited by Faith, 10-01-2005 09:52 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It's the fallen nature that is selfish, but not being selfish is not losing your identity We are, obviously, using two different meanings of "selfish." You are using it in the moral sense, and I am using it in the logical sense. "Selfish" means, as I am using it, "qualities of being a self." If one is an individual, one has certain qualities. One of these "qualiities" is "selfishness." Now what does this mean? I think that would mean that one is concerned with one's self. And you are telling me that one can imagine a situtation in which one is not concerned with one's self? Of course one can imagine it. Of course, I attempt to help others. But deep in my heart--and perhaps deep in your heart--you know that the most important person is yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
A person reacts to Gods call based on a willingness to deal with reality You do not seem to understand my point. My point is that he who has faith in God is better than the person who does not. Only good people go to heaven.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Not sure we have got to the bottom of this yet.
What about the example of being completely engrossed in something, which Ben brought up to describe the Buddhist idea of dissolution of the self, or being in adoring love with someone, such as God (a state of worship) (or even with someTHING I suppose) which for the duration takes your consciousness off the self? Are these states that are to be included IN being selfish, or are they states of being removed from self as we are talking about them? What about such terms asself-involved, self-absorbed self-promoting self-worshiping self-aggrandizing self-sufficient self-motivated self-actualizing Will add others if they occur to me. Anyway, where do they fit into this definitional scheme here? BTW, I don't think "selfish" is often used in the purely logical sense, is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
and I believe that this will ultimately amount to an even greater good that we can't even imagine yet. This means, Faith, that there is no such thing as evil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
How so? Just because there is a happy ending doesn't prevent plenty of evil happening on the way there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
BTW, I don't think "selfish" is often used in the purely logical sense, is it? No, it's not ordinary, but I'm doing it because I think I have a point to make. I'm not real sure about my point--as usual. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-01-2005 11:18 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
legend writes: I, for one, think iano put it quite beautifully there. This is what Christianity (and most religions) are all about: *Desperation*. The vast majority of born again Christians I know, converted during a serious personal crisis: serious illness, bereavement, bankruptcy, etc. When they couldn't rely on themselves or others any longer they turned to the last desperate recourse, God. Everyones desperate. The trouble is they haven't acknowledged that fact. People think they are content with life as it is - without God. They may well be content now, but life will always pop up things which will leave us helpless. I'm reminded of junkies who inside know something is seriously wrong but as long as the fixes keep coming, life is 'good' Facing whats wrong can be put off til another day. Futility of life is a Pandoras box waiting to be opened by everyone. Folk can delay the time when they open it, they may not even accept that life is futile when there can be no doubt that it is. Whatever, the only escape is into the ridiculous, the extreme, the perverse... Or God "Jesus wept" John 11:35. It's the shortest verse in the Bible. What caused him to weep? Anothers death....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024