Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: DKlent on June 29, 2012, 04:40:10 PM



Title: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on June 29, 2012, 04:40:10 PM
If anyone has any questions for a Buddhist, let me know. I am not someone who practices all tenants of Buddhism, but I may be able to help others understand the basics of Buddhism explained in an understandable way.

Does anyone have any sort of questions?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on June 29, 2012, 04:50:51 PM
The "Fat Buddha's" you see are not "The Buddha" but are a representation of Maitreya (a different Buddha), different from Buddha Gautama. The Fat Buddhas represent maitreya but are based on images of Budai, who is a Chinese kitchen God.



Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on June 29, 2012, 04:53:19 PM
1. How do you choose to explain the wonderful feeling that sometimes emerges from meditation?

Chemicals produce our feelings. Meditation produces positive feelings, as a side effect of meditation, because clearing the mind and focusing the mind produces pleasure chemicals. However, in meditation, focusing on this as a goal will only distract you from the real goal of meditation which is enlightenment (awakening).

2. How do you define 'Buddhism' and what is most fundamental for being Buddhist (e.g., it is most fundamental for being Christian that one have very particular beliefs about Jesus).

Buddhism is the practice, physical and mental, of "awakening". Simplest definition.

3. If scientific research were to contradict anything within Buddhism's description of reality, which would you accept?  

Reality. If it is proven that reality is a certain way, I must accept reality as that way.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Butterbean on July 01, 2012, 08:21:15 AM
If anyone has any questions for a Buddhist, let me know. I am not someone who practices all tenants of Buddhism, but I may be able to help others understand the basics of Buddhism explained in an understandable way.

Does anyone have any sort of questions?

Interesting!  Thank you.


1.  Who was "The Buddah" and when did he live?

2.  Doesn't Buddhism reject the notion of a God?

3.  Do people end up worshipping or praying to Buddah?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 01, 2012, 09:56:15 AM
Interesting!  Thank you.


1.  Who was "The Buddah" and when did he live?

The 'last' Buddha was a man named Siddhartha Gautama. He lived in India about 2,500 years ago. He was a Prince and belonged to the warrior class. Many Buddhas lived before him since anyone has potential to be a Buddha. The next Buddha, predicted, will be called "Maitreya". (Not a literal name, he/she could have any name)


2.  Doesn't Buddhism reject the notion of a God?

Yes. However in some modern sects of Buddhism there is a pantheon of Gods. Classical Buddhism rejected the idea of a God or Gods, but some types of Buddhism had been integrated with local pantheistic religions and so they merged.

I'm an Atheist.

3.  Do people end up worshipping or praying to Buddah?

Yes. This happens. It is not good though. Worshiping the Buddha misses the point. Like a finger pointing to the moon, focus on the finger and you'll miss the heavenly glory.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 01, 2012, 11:20:02 AM
I am a Buddhist as well..but I do not practice the religious aspect of Buddhism, just the psychological daily living aspect....Buddhism is cool because it keeps you out of trouble....by not being attached to things you don't have emotional outbursts or adverse reactions when things aren't going your way..you are able to remain calm and within yourself


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 01, 2012, 03:13:15 PM
I am a Buddhist as well..but I do not practice the religious aspect of Buddhism, just the psychological daily living aspect....Buddhism is cool because it keeps you out of trouble....by not being attached to things you don't have emotional outbursts or adverse reactions when things aren't going your way..you are able to remain calm and within yourself

Buddhism is also a lot more than avoiding attachment. In Buddhism, daily cheap "pleasures" are discouraged as well. So, for instance for intense practitioners, Sex, Music, Dancing, Entertainment, Junkfood, Intoxicants and even scented cosmetics are discouraged because they foster attachment and Buddhism endorses a "higher" form of pleasure from "awareness" and the "Contemplative life" (so to say), which is said to surpass any other pleasures. Enlightenment, on the pleasure scale according to the Buddha, is about 4,000 times more satisfactory than even the most intense common pleasures above.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 01, 2012, 04:36:16 PM
Buddhism is also a lot more than avoiding attachment. In Buddhism, daily cheap "pleasures" are discouraged as well. So, for instance for intense practitioners, Sex, Music, Dancing, Entertainment, Junkfood, Intoxicants and even scented cosmetics are discouraged because they foster attachment and Buddhism endorses a "higher" form of pleasure from "awareness" and the "Contemplative life" (so to say), which is said to surpass any other pleasures. Enlightenment, on the pleasure scale according to the Buddha, is about 4,000 times more satisfactory than even the most intense common pleasures above.

I don't go to that extreme....I do all those things but in moderation.....I have lots of sex but without attachment....thats a way of taking care of my body and mind...but at the same time I haven't found that one woman for me yet....I don't let things get to me..I just stay relaxed and calm.....I read, contemplate.....I am not perfect but trying to get to perfection where nothing bothers me..(Nirvana)..I am on the WAY....

Have you read  the Dhammapada??


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 01, 2012, 07:58:43 PM
I don't go to that extreme....I do all those things but in moderation.....I have lots of sex but without attachment....thats a way of taking care of my body and mind...but at the same time I haven't found that one woman for me yet....I don't let things get to me..I just stay relaxed and calm.....I read, contemplate.....I am not perfect but trying to get to perfection where nothing bothers me..(Nirvana)..I am on the WAY....

Have you read  the Dhammapada??

It doesn't work though. Saying "I have a lot of sex but without attachment" is sort of like saying "I go to the gym a lot but don't lift weights." Lay-Buddhists have sex, obviously, but Buddha himself discouraged unwholesome sexual activity. This means that the monks had no sex at all, and all other Buddhists were suggested to refrain from using sex as a pleasure.

Buddhism is about achieving a higher state of consciousness devoid of simple pleasures such as sex, junk food, partying, intoxication, etc. These are simple pleasures as they are easily achieved. It requires no challenge to achieve and it is not long lasting, but does provide long-term negative effects for the psyche.

Nirvana is NOT about being in a state where "nothing bothers you". I would suggest reading up on what enlightenment and nirvana is online.

I have read the Dhammapada.



Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 01, 2012, 10:02:37 PM
It doesn't work though. Saying "I have a lot of sex but without attachment" is sort of like saying "I go to the gym a lot but don't lift weights." Lay-Buddhists have sex, obviously, but Buddha himself discouraged unwholesome sexual activity. This means that the monks had no sex at all, and all other Buddhists were suggested to refrain from using sex as a pleasure.

Buddhism is about achieving a higher state of consciousness devoid of simple pleasures such as sex, junk food, partying, intoxication, etc. These are simple pleasures as they are easily achieved. It requires no challenge to achieve and it is not long lasting, but does provide long-term negative effects for the psyche.

Nirvana is NOT about being in a state where "nothing bothers you". I would suggest reading up on what enlightenment and nirvana is online.

I have read the Dhammapada.



I disagree with your analysis although it may be true for you.....and I blame myself somewhat because I was too lazy to explain myself fully so here goes....

When I said sex without attachment I characterized it wrongly.....I love sex..I'm not giving it up nor do I feel I should just to attain "enlightenment"....I can have a healthy sex life and be enlightened as well.....what I mean by not having attachment is that if the relationships don't work out I don't take it too hard or personal..I have had a few women that I wish things could have gotten more serious but women can be fickle and when they didn't work out I did not dwell on the negative feelings associated with a break-up...I stopped going  into relationships with expectations....and lets things run their course...its the "expectation" or attachment in other words, that would fuel the bad feelings later on....some men will actually kill the woman or themselves when a relationship doesn't work

I don't see how having no sex at all can be healthy for a man......both physically, emotionally, and mentally...I do try to be discerning and not jump on everything I see....just because the universe presents certain things to you doesn't mean you have to always partake....in terms of getting to Nirvana where nothing bothers you, what I mean is reaching that point in my life, due to practicing restraint and mindfulness, where I am no longer able to be angry at all, have thoughts of revenge at all, and maintain a nice blissful calm and secure peace of mind.....with no negative feelings, attitudes, etc....do I still have negative feelings toward people sometimes?..sure...do I still eat junk food?..sure..but I try to be mindful and not partake in these things too much....and hopefully, day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year, I will be able to slowly eliminate altogether those things...I am on "the way" so to speak..on the path to eventual total enlightenment..not perfect yet, but trying to get there  


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 02, 2012, 10:44:37 AM
I disagree with your analysis although it may be true for you.....and I blame myself somewhat because I was too lazy to explain myself fully so here goes....

When I said sex without attachment I characterized it wrongly.....I love sex..I'm not giving it up nor do I feel I should just to attain "enlightenment"....I can have a healthy sex life and be enlightened as well.....what I mean by not having attachment is that if the relationships don't work out I don't take it too hard or personal..I have had a few women that I wish things could have gotten more serious but women can be fickle and when they didn't work out I did not dwell on the negative feelings associated with a break-up...I stopped going  into relationships with expectations....and lets things run their course...its the "expectation" or attachment in other words, that would fuel the bad feelings later on....some men will actually kill the woman or themselves when a relationship doesn't work

I don't see how having no sex at all can be healthy for a man......both physically, emotionally, and mentally...I do try to be discerning and not jump on everything I see....just because the universe presents certain things to you doesn't mean you have to always partake....in terms of getting to Nirvana where nothing bothers you, what I mean is reaching that point in my life, due to practicing restraint and mindfulness, where I am no longer able to be angry at all, have thoughts of revenge at all, and maintain a nice blissful calm and secure peace of mind.....with no negative feelings, attitudes, etc....do I still have negative feelings toward people sometimes?..sure...do I still eat junk food?..sure..but I try to be mindful and not partake in these things too much....and hopefully, day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year, I will be able to slowly eliminate altogether those things...I am on "the way" so to speak..on the path to eventual total enlightenment..not perfect yet, but trying to get there  


Ok. Let me ask you then:


1. What is Enlightenment? In your own words.

2. In what way are you a Buddhist?


Thanks.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 02, 2012, 05:06:08 PM

Ok. Let me ask you then:


1. What is Enlightenment? In your own words.

2. In what way are you a Buddhist?


Thanks.

I'm gonna bump your questions for later....need to think about this a little and I will answer tonight..thanks


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 02, 2012, 05:12:32 PM
I'm gonna bump your questions for later....need to think about this a little and I will answer tonight..thanks

Cool. Also, Please refrain from googling information about what enlightenment is or how Buddhism is defined. I would like a straight answer from you personally. In your own words. Without influence from online websites or such.

Thanks.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 02, 2012, 08:43:16 PM
you got it.....I consider myself a Buddhist although many would not... as I have said, I practice Buddhism as a daily psychological way of living...I keep my emotions in check because making decisions while in any type of emotional state is unwise since you are not thinking rationally...even if you are full of elation at that point it is still not wise to make major life decisions....I stay calm, cool, and collected..I don't get angry and I try to look at things from an objective point instead of subjectively which again can get you into trouble....by doing the above I am able to stay focused on whats really important and on the big picture....

for me, enlightenment is being able to see the big picture and and the small picture as well....seeing things that others can't...most people can only relate to life by focusing on whats good for them in the moment...cursing out your supervisor for instance because it feels good and right in the moment...looking at the big picture, you would see that this type of behavior is detrimental..and can cost you respect and a promotion down the line....

Enlightenment means for me seeing that life is much too important to sweat the little things....I try to stay positive, and I am always thinking and analyzing situations and people....my mind is always working in that regard but I try to keep it as empty as possible..meaning I try to not be biased and to see things in a different light....as I said..I am on the path..the "way" so to speak....on my way to enlightenment or being a "sekka" as they say.....I don't bring attention to myself...people at work often comment that they don't even know I am at work...many say they feel really calm around me...I try to maintain self-control..as the Dhammapada says "a great warrior can conquer an army...but he who conquers himself is the greatest warrior of all"..I don't waste energy on negative thoughts which could lead to negative action...

at work I adhere to Buddhist practice....I never ever talk about my supervisor or gossip about co-workers because this can get you into trouble....I greet every co-worker when I get to work....because by not doing so, those who were not greeted will feel slighted and talk negatively about you feeling that you may feel you are better than others....i never steal..not even a paper clip or pen......I keep an orderly and organized desk...and I work at a job which gives service to others (social worker) as Buddhism says you should....due to not passing on gossip, my co-workers feel good about me and talk freely in front of me knowing I will not spread what I have heard....I want to feel good and have a clear mind and I want people to feel good about me as well...just to maintain a positive karma around me

finally, I don't argue with people..I make my point and then move on....if we remain in disagreement , then fine....I don't escalate arguments so that there is no physical confrontation although I will fight if I need to defend myself....I try not to desire things just for the sake of trying to acquire them since this can only bring pain and disappointment when you fail to attain them....I guess this is my definition of Buddhism for me....I don't believe that God is a sentient being sitting on a throne in heaven....just a form of energy that created us..we came from the stars and will one day return there......Enlightenment for me is someday reaching Nirvana..a sort of heaven on earth where nothing bothers you and you have no negative feelings, hatred, etc...you just live and let live..unlike others who grow old, become bitter, hate others, want revenge, etc.....

hope I answered your questions


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 02, 2012, 09:20:05 PM
Buddhism is not simply defined as keeping your emotions in check, staying calm, cool and collected. This is just staying calm, cool and collected. It isn't Buddhism. While staying calm, cool and collected is one aspect of Buddhism, there is much much more to it than that. Simply being calm, cool and collected and using this to define yourself as a Buddhist is sort of like saying "I do not commit adultery and therefore I am a Christian." or "I take my trash out therefore I am a trash-man".

The same applies to enlightenment. Enlightenment is about seeing the big and small picture, staying positive, analyzing things, not wasting energy on negative thoughts, etc. These are aspects of enlightenment but they are also aspects of essentially any world-philosophy or religion.

Nirvana is not described in Buddhism as you describe it. Nirvana, in Buddhism in a strictly traditional sense, is a state of non-being. This, in other words, means a state of escaping the wheel of Karma (The wheel of life, I.E. death and rebirth). Nirvana isn't on earth and it isn't some other place like the Christian sense of heaven. Nirvana is the state of escaping Samsara, escaping the cycle. In Buddhism, traditional classical Buddhism, it is said that people are born and die and are reborn over and over again. This happens over and over until they achieve enlightenment. Once enlightenment is achieved, nirvana is achieved upon death and no more rebirths take place.

Do I believe in reincarnation? Not necessarily, as I subscribe to a more metaphorical interpretation of this doctrine but this is how it is described. Nirvana is separate from enlightenment in Buddhism.


Now, to answer the question of "What is Enlightenment?" This is a very complex issue that I don't have time to type up right now. Here are, however, some good reading sources on what "Enlightenment" means in a Buddhist context:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/piyadassi/wheel001.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part2.html#part2-g
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/arahantsbodhisattvas.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/perfections.html


A good read on Buddhism and Sex:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/walshe/wheel225.html



Another question: How do you define Karma (or Kamma)?


Also, Do you eat meat? I'd presume that you do, so here is another good set of info on killing living beings:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.10.budd.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/pancasila.html#precepts5


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 02, 2012, 09:32:28 PM
Thank you for the links..I will read them tomorrow when I get the chance....my explanations may not be all-fulfilling to you but I explained it the best way I could without boring you or having to write three pages..LOL....Buddhism can be defines in many ways and as I have said, I do not practice the religious aspect....I cannot bring myself to believe in re-incarnation...and you say you don't either..does that mean you are not a true Buddhist??

I have to admit I do bend some of the tenets to make them more palatable to me......just as some catholics take birth control and consider themselves good catholics....since I do not believe in being enlightened in death then I try to reach it in life.......but I will read your links and give you feed back...do you practice Buddhism as it is?..or do you take shortcuts as well...???


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 02, 2012, 09:47:14 PM
Thank you for the links..I will read them tomorrow when I get the chance....my explanations may not be all-fulfilling to you but I explained it the best way I could without boring you or having to write three pages..LOL....Buddhism can be defines in many ways and as I have said, I do not practice the religious aspect....I cannot bring myself to believe in re-incarnation...and you say you don't either..does that mean you are not a true Buddhist??

I have to admit I do bend some of the tenets to make them more palatable to me......just as some catholics take birth control and consider themselves good catholics....since I do not believe in being enlightened in death then I try to reach it in life.......but I will read your links and give you feed back...do you practice Buddhism as it is?..or do you take shortcuts as well...???


I practice Buddhism by interpreting it in a way that makes sense to me. I usually stick to Buddhism as the Buddha himself taught it, Siddhartha Gautama as conveyed in the Pali canon and the Dammapada. I make an effort to abstain from sexual craving, I am a vegetarian, I work towards abolishing craving and desire and attachment, I meditate daily.


More questions:

Do you believe in Anatta? (You'll have to google that)



Here is a good story in the Buddhist canon about a prostitute and a Monk. It conveys the point behind refraining from sexual misconduct and craving in Buddhism.


Quote
Buddha was staying in Vaishali, where Amrapali lived. Amrapali was a prostitute. In Buddha's time, in this country, it was a convention that the most beautiful woman of any city will not be allowed to get married to any one person, because that will create unnecessary jealousy, conflict, fighting. So the most beautiful woman had to become nagarvadhu the wife of the whole town.

It was not disrespectable at all; on the contrary, just as in the contemporary world we declare beautiful women as "the woman of the year", they were very much respected. They were not ordinary prostitutes. Their function was that of a prostitute, but they were only visited by the very rich, or the kings, or the princes, generals -- the highest strata of society.

Amrapali was very beautiful. One day she was standing on her terrace and she saw a young Buddhist monk. She had never fallen in love with anybody, although every day she had to pretend to be a great lover to this king, to that king, to this rich man, to that general. But she fell suddenly in love with the man, a Buddhist monk who had nothing, just a begging bowl --a young man, but of a tremendous presence, awareness, grace. The way he was walking ...

She rushed down, she asked the monk, "Please -- today accept my food."
Other monks were also coming behind him, because whenever Buddha was moving anywhere, ten thousand monks were always moving with him. The other monks could not believe this. They were jealous and angry and feeling all human qualities and frailties as they saw the young man enter the palace of Amrapali.

Amrapali told him, "After three days the rainy season is going to start ..." Buddhist monks don't move for four months when it is the rainy season. Those are the four months they stay in one place; for eight months they continuously move, they can't stay more than three days in one place.

It is a strange psychology, if you have watched yourself ... You can watch it: to be attached to some place it takes you at least four days. For example, for the first day in a new house you may not be able to sleep, the second day it will be little easier, the third day it will be even easier, and the fourth day you will be able to sleep perfectly at home. So before that, if you are a Buddhist monk, you have to leave.

Amrapali said, "After just three days the rainy season is to begin, and I invite you to stay in my house for the four months". The young monk said, "I will ask my master. If he allows me, I will come." As he went out there was a crowd of monks standing, asking him what had happened. He said, "I have taken my meal, and the woman has asked me to stay the four months of the rainy season in her palace. I told her that I will ask my master."

People were really angry -- one day was already too much; but four months continuously ...! They rushed towards Gautam Buddha. Before the young man could reach the assembly, there were hundreds standing up and telling Gautam Buddha, "This man has to be stopped. That woman is a prostitute, and a monk staying four months in a prostitute's house ..."

Buddha said, "You keep quiet! Let him come. He has not agreed to stay; he has agreed only if I allow him. Let him come." The young monk came, touched the feet of Buddha and told the whole story, "The woman is a prostitute, a famous prostitute, Amrapali. She has asked me to stay for four months in her house. Every monk will be staying somewhere, in somebody's house, for the four months. I have told her that I will ask my master, so I am here ... whatever you say."

Buddha looked into his eyes and said, "You can stay." It was a shock. Ten thousand monks ... There was great silence, but great anger, great jealousy. They could not believe that Buddha has allowed a monk to stay in a prostitute's house. After three days the young man left to stay with Amrapali, and the monks every day started bringing gossips, "The whole city is agog. There is only one talk -- that a Buddhist monk is staying with Amrapali for four months continuously."

Buddha said, "You should keep silent. Four months will pass and I trust my monk. I have looked into his eyes -- there was no desire. If I had said no, he would not have felt anything. I said yes ... he simply went. And I trust in my monk, in his awareness, in his meditation. "Why are you getting so agitated and worried? If my monk's meditation is deep then he will change Amrapali, and if his meditation is not deep then Amrapali may change him. It is now a question between meditation and a biological attraction. Just wait for four months. I trust my young man. He has been doing perfectly well and I have every certainty he will come out of this fire test absolutely victorious."

Nobody believed Gautam Buddha. His own disciples thought, "He is trusting too much. The man is too young; he is too fresh and Amrapali is much too beautiful. He is taking an unnecessary risk." But there was nothing else to do.

After four months the young man came, touched Buddha's feet -- and following him was Amrapali, dressed as a Buddhist nun. She touched Buddha's feet and she said, "I tried my best to seduce your monk, but he seduced me. He convinced me by his presence and awareness that the real life is at your feet. I want to give all my possessions to the commune of your monks."

She had a very beautiful garden and a beautiful palace. She said, "You can make it a place where ten thousand monks can stay in any rainy season." And Buddha said to the assembly, "Now, are you satisfied or not?"

If meditation is deep, if awareness is clear, nothing can disturb it. Then everything is ephemeral. Amrapali became one of the enlightened women among Buddha's disciples.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 02, 2012, 10:46:09 PM

I practice Buddhism by interpreting it in a way that makes sense to me. I usually stick to Buddhism as the Buddha himself taught it, Siddhartha Gautama as conveyed in the Pali canon and the Dammapada. I make an effort to abstain from sexual craving, I am a vegetarian, I work towards abolishing craving and desire and attachment, I meditate daily.


More questions:

Do you believe in Anatta? (You'll have to google that)



Here is a good story in the Buddhist canon about a prostitute and a Monk. It conveys the point behind refraining from sexual misconduct and craving in Buddhism.



very nice story.....I understand the meaning of the story but I disagree with it......I personally would see nothing wrong with the Monk having sex with the prostitute.....again..I feel that sex for a man is part of his emotional, physical and mental well being......after having sex with a woman I feel wanted....I feel needed....I feel loved and rejuvenated....I see nothing wrong with it...I myself try to limit my sexuality by not masturbating..saving my sexuality for when it counts and means something....I see constant masturbation as a depletion of energy......and by depleting energy, you don';t have the drive necessary to pursue women or the other things you nee to accomplish in life...I crave sex but try not to be weak about it and give in to temporary pleasures..I try not to be attached to to things or sex..I'm not perfect and have given in to some crass desires but I am mindful afterwards that I have made a mistake and I keep trying to prevent hose mistakes from re-occurring and I move forward..I meditate when I feel negative feeling building inside

I am glad to see you practice Buddhism in a way which makes sense to you....I don't think it necessary or ideal to practice Buddhism in the classic sense since we must adapt to the modern way of living....Nirvana means different things to different people....for instance..Nirvana for me is a heaven on earth so to speak,,,,I would be living a nice fulfilling life with health and vigor...with stable mental health and no animosities toward people or toward life.....just existing in a state of comfort, bliss, and tranquility...waking up every day, with no burdens of life and not being burdened by others....I would read...exercise..make love to my partner...breathe fresh air...learn more about life and further enrich and enlighten myself so I can teach others wisdom and pass on in peace....

I will look up Anatta and report back to you


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 02, 2012, 11:00:40 PM
You seem to be missing the point of what Buddhism is and how it works, and has always worked. The Monk having sex with the prostitute would have been him giving in to his sensual urges, in fact even having sensual urges would have been a form of "giving in" and losing his focus of meditation. The story was a success of the monk because he overpowered the world of "sensual pleasure" and instead utilized his superior pleasure of awakening and mental focus. This is a different kind of pleasure which is much much harder to accomplish but much much more fulfilling.

The problem with using sex as a means of "feeling wanted and needed" is that this is a weakness because it is a craving (against Buddhist practices) and it is a need (against buddhist practices). This is bad because true security and love comes from within, not from outside. If you need a woman to feel wanted and needed then you are lacking something of your own, which isn't good.  Wanting sex to feel wanted and needed and desired is an attachment in itself. You are attached to this need and this desire for a sense of being desired or wanted.

My suggestion for you would be to do a lot of research into what Buddhism is and how it works and Buddhist philosophy. After that perhaps you may want to re-define yourself as something beside Buddhist. For the most part, your practices are not really Buddhist but just 'modern' and progressive and normal.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 03, 2012, 08:22:34 PM
You seem to be missing the point of what Buddhism is and how it works, and has always worked. The Monk having sex with the prostitute would have been him giving in to his sensual urges, in fact even having sensual urges would have been a form of "giving in" and losing his focus of meditation. The story was a success of the monk because he overpowered the world of "sensual pleasure" and instead utilized his superior pleasure of awakening and mental focus. This is a different kind of pleasure which is much much harder to accomplish but much much more fulfilling.

The problem with using sex as a means of "feeling wanted and needed" is that this is a weakness because it is a craving (against Buddhist practices) and it is a need (against buddhist practices). This is bad because true security and love comes from within, not from outside. If you need a woman to feel wanted and needed then you are lacking something of your own, which isn't good.  Wanting sex to feel wanted and needed and desired is an attachment in itself. You are attached to this need and this desire for a sense of being desired or wanted.

My suggestion for you would be to do a lot of research into what Buddhism is and how it works and Buddhist philosophy. After that perhaps you may want to re-define yourself as something beside Buddhist. For the most part, your practices are not really Buddhist but just 'modern' and progressive and normal.

again you are really taking me way too literally.....I don't need sex to feel wanted and needed....I feel good about myself already...but there is nothing wrong with experiencing a woman wanting you and having that feeling of being wanted...its an awesome feeling...and I'm not attached to the feeling...I like it but I am self -secure already...you seem to be saying that we as Bhuddists must give up all that is desirous...I don't believe that....there is nothing wrong with giving in to sensual urges as you put it....you talk as if sexual urges are wrong.....I don't believe Buddhists need to detach themselves totally from the outside world or from outside pleasures.....I guess you NEVER have sex and that works for you......but it doesn't for me...I see nothing wrong with having sex and even desiring sex....I draw the line when sex becomes an obsession...or becomes detrimental in that you want to screw everything that moves and your life is guided by sex and the pursuit of it....Detachment can have its disadvantages I have found...you have to strike a balance....

it was easy to be a true Buddhists hundreds of years ago..they had nothing to do anyway..LOL


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 03, 2012, 09:49:31 PM
again you are really taking me way too literally.....I don't need sex to feel wanted and needed....I feel good about myself already...but there is nothing wrong with experiencing a woman wanting you and having that feeling of being wanted...its an awesome feeling...and I'm not attached to the feeling...I like it but I am self -secure already...you seem to be saying that we as Bhuddists must give up all that is desirous...I don't believe that....there is nothing wrong with giving in to sensual urges as you put it....you talk as if sexual urges are wrong.....I don't believe Buddhists need to detach themselves totally from the outside world or from outside pleasures.....I guess you NEVER have sex and that works for you......but it doesn't for me...I see nothing wrong with having sex and even desiring sex....I draw the line when sex becomes an obsession...or becomes detrimental in that you want to screw everything that moves and your life is guided by sex and the pursuit of it....Detachment can have its disadvantages I have found...you have to strike a balance....

it was easy to be a true Buddhists hundreds of years ago..they had nothing to do anyway..LOL


I see. So, how do you consider yourself a Buddhist if you disagree with the basic tenants of Buddhism? You disagree with most of what the Buddha himself taught, but you consider yourself a "Buddhist"? Why is this?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 03, 2012, 10:38:01 PM

I see. So, how do you consider yourself a Buddhist if you disagree with the basic tenants of Buddhism? You disagree with most of what the Buddha himself taught, but you consider yourself a "Buddhist"? Why is this?

well...again..I consider myself to be a Buddhist due to practicing mindfulness, meditating, and seeking to be better than I am now...I am not perfect nor should Buddhists be perfect when they are starting out..perfection or Nirvana comes later on...after almost a lifetime of study and mindfulness and detachment....I am on the path..on "The Way" as they put it....I am seeking to get better day by day, week by week, year by year....I have some things to work on as do all people....but I am consciously trying to get there, as opposed to those who do not contemplate or practice mindfulness....

I do not totally disagree with the tenets of Buddhism..I just am not ready to follow and practice all aspects of Buddhism yet...but this is why we are on the path right?...to eventually get there right?..I have only been practicing for three years......I have time..I don't believe that nay faith should be followed blindly....I do have some skepticism about certain aspects of Buddhism....a healthy skepticism.....

why do you consider yourself a Buddhist???


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 04, 2012, 12:10:30 PM
well...again..I consider myself to be a Buddhist due to practicing mindfulness, meditating, and seeking to be better than I am now...I am not perfect nor should Buddhists be perfect when they are starting out..perfection or Nirvana comes later on...after almost a lifetime of study and mindfulness and detachment....I am on the path..on "The Way" as they put it....I am seeking to get better day by day, week by week, year by year....I have some things to work on as do all people....but I am consciously trying to get there, as opposed to those who do not contemplate or practice mindfulness....

I do not totally disagree with the tenets of Buddhism..I just am not ready to follow and practice all aspects of Buddhism yet...but this is why we are on the path right?...to eventually get there right?..I have only been practicing for three years......I have time..I don't believe that nay faith should be followed blindly....I do have some skepticism about certain aspects of Buddhism....a healthy skepticism.....

why do you consider yourself a Buddhist???

So, just to be clear, you redefine what "Buddhism" means, redefine what "enlightenment" means, disagree with what the Buddha himself taught, disagree with basic Buddhist practices, and only conform to specific Buddhist practices which are shared by many world religions and/or philosophies but still consider yourself a "Buddhist"? Hmm..

No one expects Buddhist to practice all of the practices of Buddhist to the tee, but working towards them is always the goal. You don't even agree that the practices of Buddhism, such as avoiding bodily pleasures like sex, are legitimate or to be pursued. Few Buddhist are celibate, but what conventional Buddhists have in common is "pursuing" this ideal of refraining from bodily pleasure in order to enhance and emphasize mindfulness and achieve enlightenment.


I consider myself a Buddhist because I work towards Enlightenment by following Buddhist teachings. I do not adhere to every Buddhist doctrine, especially those common among the Sangha or monks, but I do work towards that as a "goal". I agree with them. If I didn't see them as an ideal goal, I wouldn't call myself a Buddhist.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 04, 2012, 10:38:45 PM
So, just to be clear, you redefine what "Buddhism" means, redefine what "enlightenment" means, disagree with what the Buddha himself taught, disagree with basic Buddhist practices, and only conform to specific Buddhist practices which are shared by many world religions and/or philosophies but still consider yourself a "Buddhist"? Hmm..

No one expects Buddhist to practice all of the practices of Buddhist to the tee, but working towards them is always the goal. You don't even agree that the practices of Buddhism, such as avoiding bodily pleasures like sex, are legitimate or to be pursued. Few Buddhist are celibate, but what conventional Buddhists have in common is "pursuing" this ideal of refraining from bodily pleasure in order to enhance and emphasize mindfulness and achieve enlightenment.


I consider myself a Buddhist because I work towards Enlightenment by following Buddhist teachings. I do not adhere to every Buddhist doctrine, especially those common among the Sangha or monks, but I do work towards that as a "goal". I agree with them. If I didn't see them as an ideal goal, I wouldn't call myself a Buddhist.

Dude..I know you mean well...but you are basically saying the same thing that i have been saying throughout this thread.....if you reread the thread you will see that you have basically repeated what I have said.....just as you, I have stated that I am not perfect and working toward Enlightenment..you said the same thing....just as you, I stated that I am active in having a sex life but I try my best to forego sexual pleasure as much as I can (hence I stated I do not masturbate and save sex for special moments)...as you said, I have said that I do not practice all aspects of Buddhism....you too have redefined enlightenment since you said you do not believe in reincarnation (like me)....therefore you cannot possibly believe that enlightenment can be reached in death....as I do....therefore it must be sought in life


you and I are so much alike its laughable....but yet you put me down and say I am not a true Buddhist???


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Roger Bacon on July 04, 2012, 10:45:53 PM
If anyone has any questions for a Buddhist, let me know. I am not someone who practices all tenants of Buddhism, but I may be able to help others understand the basics of Buddhism explained in an understandable way.

Does anyone have any sort of questions?

Maybe you're not such a bad guy after all...  8)


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 05, 2012, 07:02:40 AM
Dude..I know you mean well...but you are basically saying the same thing that i have been saying throughout this thread.....if you reread the thread you will see that you have basically repeated what I have said.....just as you, I have stated that I am not perfect and working toward Enlightenment..you said the same thing....just as you, I stated that I am active in having a sex life but I try my best to forego sexual pleasure as much as I can (hence I stated I do not masturbate and save sex for special moments)...as you said, I have said that I do not practice all aspects of Buddhism....you too have redefined enlightenment since you said you do not believe in reincarnation (like me)....therefore you cannot possibly believe that enlightenment can be reached in death....as I do....therefore it must be sought in life


you and I are so much alike its laughable....but yet you put me down and say I am not a true Buddhist???

So, to be clear, you DO believe that Sex for the purpose of pleasure is non-conducive to enlightenment? It is just that you are working towards that goal? Refraining from sex?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Butterbean on July 05, 2012, 07:19:20 AM
Very interesting thread.

DKlent, do you consider surfing getbig/the internet as entertainment?  I realize that you said no one expects people to follow Buddhism to a tee.

What does Buddhism say about suffering?  I think I heard that it is a large part of it's focus?

Does Buddhism have a Holy Book like Christians have the Bible?

You said something about "the next Buddha" to come.  Does Buddhism have any type of outlook/prophecy/etc. regarding "end time" stuff?

Thanks for this thread.



Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 05, 2012, 07:23:13 AM
So, to be clear, you DO believe that Sex for the purpose of pleasure is non-conducive to enlightenment? It is just that you are working towards that goal? Refraining from sex?

no I don't believe that..but why are you solely focusing on that???


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Man of Steel on July 05, 2012, 10:18:41 AM
If anyone has any questions for a Buddhist, let me know. I am not someone who practices all tenants of Buddhism, but I may be able to help others understand the basics of Buddhism explained in an understandable way.

Does anyone have any sort of questions?

What is the best way for a Buddhist to build his tris?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Man of Steel on July 05, 2012, 10:21:42 AM
How much did Buddha hack squat?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Butterbean on July 05, 2012, 11:23:06 AM
MOS you are cracking me up today!


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 05, 2012, 03:18:54 PM
no I don't believe that..but why are you solely focusing on that???

Because it is a major aspect of Buddhism. Have you read on Annata yet?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 05, 2012, 03:22:52 PM
Very interesting thread.

DKlent, do you consider surfing getbig/the internet as entertainment?  I realize that you said no one expects people to follow Buddhism to a tee.

It isn't entertaining honestly. It is interesting as a learning experience I guess.


What does Buddhism say about suffering?  I think I heard that it is a large part of it's focus?

A lot. The main problem of life is suffering. Dissatisfaction. The main goal in Buddhism is abolishing suffering.

Does Buddhism have a Holy Book like Christians have the Bible?

Buddhism has "texts", namingly the Sutras or the Pali canon. These are discourses of the Buddha or commentary passed down from early Buddhist teachings. It isn't like the Christian bible though. It shouldn't be seen as a "holy book".

You said something about "the next Buddha" to come.  Does Buddhism have any type of outlook/prophecy/etc. regarding "end time" stuff?

Thanks for this thread.

Yes and No. Depending on the schools of Buddhism. Buddhas only come every few thousand years and so the next one will be titled Maitreya. 


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 05, 2012, 03:36:34 PM
1. If earthly attachment is inherently "lower," why does a genuine Buddhist remain on earth at all? Insisting on staying and experiencing life in some form or other certainly seems to be indicative of attachment. Why not "detach" entirely, if you know what I'm sayin'?

Buddhas themselves remain on earth to teach the path to enlightenment.

Buddhists in general remain on earth because this life is most important. Even among Buddhists who believe in enlightenment, the goal is to perfect yourself as much as you can in this life so that you can get closer to achieving enlightenment in the next life.

Suicide itself is seen as a bad karma among those believing in enlightenment. It might take you further away from your goal of enlightenment.

For buddhists who do not believe in enlightenment, all that we do is for this life so taking it away makes no sense anyway.

2. Please attempt to express what "Enlightenment" is, since it is a goal you are pursuing. Surely one must have some understanding of a goal one is in pursuit of.

Enlightenment is a very very complex thing to explain and I don't have a lot of time to explain it here. Enlightenment is, in brief, the ultimate goal of Buddhism as in Buddhism suffering is the problem of life. All of our problems are due to suffering of one form or another. When Buddhism refers to suffering, it means mental sufferings not headaches and burns and such. What causes mental sufferings? Many things but attachment is the main cause of suffering because, if we are not attached to anything and crave nothing then when we don't get things it will not affect us.

Enlightenment is about realizing the truth of reality, ridding ourselves of suffering, improving our knowledge to super-human levels (self knowledge), understanding ourselves and others, separating ourselves from our egos, realizing that all is one in this universe, enhancing our emotional powers with overflowing motivation, energy, inspiration, wisdom, love and caring. Enlightened beings (Buddhas or Arahats) love everything as if it is themself, because they see that everything is part of them as they are part of everything else. Separations between "I" and "them" are imaginary. Enlightenment realizes a level of mental mindfulness which is more pleasurable than any physical pleasure known to man, and that is why Buddhas do not have sex. Having sex for a Buddha would be sort of like playing tetris on a cracked blurry cellphone while hiking in the most pristine and beautiful meadows and mountains in the world, or playing tic-tac-to on a dirty napkin while sitting on the most amazing beach in the world. It would be a distraction and it would take away from enlightenment experience due to the fact that it doesn't stack up at all. This is what Andreas does not understand and realize why this is important for Buddhists.

Beyond that, Enlightenment can be described in 10 thick books and still it would not touch the surface and still...enlightenment can never be comprehended by anyone UNLESS they achieve enlightenment. It would be like describing a rainbow to someone who has been blind their entire life, or a Beethoven symphony to someone who has always been deaf. Just is not possible.

3. Does Buddhism have any sort of punishment in store for the heathens like andreisman?

Depends on the Buddhist school, though in my opinion NO. There are no punishments in Buddhism other than those punishments that we inflict upon ourselves due to our OWN ignorance. If I walk into a hall full of pointy nails then I'll get stabbed with nails. This is a result of my action. Not a "punishment" by any means, just a result.

What is the result of not following the path to enlightenment in Buddhism?

You don't become enlightened.  :-\


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Man of Steel on July 05, 2012, 03:45:47 PM
What does Buddha suggest for calves?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: garebear on July 05, 2012, 05:36:14 PM
How can I get more random blowjobs?



Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 05, 2012, 09:16:00 PM
How can I get more random blowjobs?



Become gay.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 05, 2012, 09:17:31 PM
What does Buddha suggest for calves?

Walking. The Buddha walked all day long. Buddhist Monks do all sorts of walking. Many Indian Buddhist monks traveled to the middle east and China back in the day to preach.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Straw Man on July 05, 2012, 10:16:32 PM
is buddhism a religion?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 05, 2012, 10:26:03 PM
again..I really think that you and I are on the same page....we are both trying to reach enlightenment....we are on "the way",,,,the road to enlightenment...it takes time to get there and it takes a lifetime of practice.....you yourself said you have sex as I do...I don't believe that giving up sex is what was meant in terms of detachment....but constantly thinking about sex, masturbating constantly (which is a dissipation of energy), banging chicks left and right.....thats detrimental.....you have to detach from that.....having sex with your wife or girlfriend is ok in my opinion.....we are not striving to be monks...

as for enlightenment.....I believe that its getting to a point in your life where you are able to live in peace and harmony with no bad thoughts lingering in the mind ...being able to totally sublimate your ego so that you are not bothered by slights both petty and big.....not arguing, fighting, cursing at people, having wisdom and understanding......I try to live within Buddhism the best way that I can in this day and age.....some of the aspects of Buddhism cannot work for me in this era......to truly detach I would have to not surf the net, watch TV, etc....

when enlightened there is no tension in the mind...tension is caused by attachment to things...wanting things you will probably never have...possessing things that you have to take care of.....possessions wind up owning YOU instead of you owning it or them......trying to hold on to these possessions also causes tension.....tension puts stress on the body and mind and causes emotional outbursts


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 05, 2012, 10:26:42 PM
is buddhism a religion?

its a religion but I prefer to see it as a psychology of daily living


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 05, 2012, 10:27:55 PM
Become gay.

he's already gay...what else ya got for him>? :)


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 06, 2012, 03:13:57 AM
is buddhism a religion?

Yes & No. It is a religion when practiced as a religion. It is often practiced as a religion among people. Though, inherently, it is not a religion. Modern Buddhism has absorbed many local religions as it spread and has adopted their gods and mixed.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Straw Man on July 06, 2012, 08:33:50 AM
its a religion but I prefer to see it as a psychology of daily living

I prefer to think of it as a science of mind


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: garebear on July 07, 2012, 05:26:04 AM
I prefer to think of it as a bunch of horseshit.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 07, 2012, 08:13:52 AM
I prefer to think of it as a bunch of horseshit.

even though I consider myself a Buddhist I too have had this thought as well my gay friend :).....which is why I do not practice the religious part of it,..just the daily psychological living


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: garebear on July 07, 2012, 09:28:11 AM
even though I consider myself a Buddhist I too have had this thought as well my gay friend :).....which is why I do not practice the religious part of it,..just the daily psychological living
Gay?

Oh, OK.



Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 07, 2012, 11:47:04 AM
I prefer to think of it as a bunch of horseshit.

Why?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 07, 2012, 12:28:48 PM
Why?

why do you think its not horseshit?......could be...I have an open mind about it...thats why I only practice the parts that make sense to me


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 09, 2012, 09:32:04 PM
why do you think its not horseshit?......could be...I have an open mind about it...thats why I only practice the parts that make sense to me

Your choice.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: haider on July 09, 2012, 10:17:12 PM
As a buddhist what is your view on other world religions?

IMO buddhism has probably the best PR out there of any religion, in popular culture it is portrayed almost as the most ideal non-dogmatic religion. Outside of the meditative practice people know very little of buddhism, so the impression is that it is free of the problems found in other religions. Can you mention things you don't like in buddhism, and compare problems of fundamentalism/dogmatism/extremism to the abrahamic religions? (judaism, christianity, islam)

Also, besided meditation what does buddhist practice consist of? Can you give a brief overview?

Thanks!


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 10, 2012, 10:05:19 AM
As a buddhist what is your view on other world religions?

IMO buddhism has probably the best PR out there of any religion, in popular culture it is portrayed almost as the most ideal non-dogmatic religion. Outside of the meditative practice people know very little of buddhism, so the impression is that it is free of the problems found in other religions. Can you mention things you don't like in buddhism, and compare problems of fundamentalism/dogmatism/extremism to the abrahamic religions? (judaism, christianity, islam)

Also, besided meditation what does buddhist practice consist of? Can you give a brief overview?

Thanks!

Buddhism is like any other belief system. Anyone can call themselves a "Buddhist" and still go out and commit genocide and rape and murder. It has happened. Buddhism is, by no means, free of the problems of other belief systems. Dogma, adherence to old scriptures, pointless ceremonies and chanting are all common among people who purport to be Buddhists.

Though, someone who follows what the Buddha actually taught would not do any of this.

Meditation is one of the major aspects of Buddhism. The point of Buddhism isn't just sitting down Indian style and clearing your mind. Buddhism is about opening yourself up, opening your mind, emptying your cup, becoming mindful and contemplative, free of anger and hate and full of love and sympathy, persistent, thoughtful, energetic, egoless, prideless, seeking mental improvement, humbling oneself, understanding that you are nothing in the grand scheme of things, etc. Meditation should take place 24/7. Not just in moments of the day but every moment. Mindfulness of all we do should be persistent.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: loco on July 10, 2012, 12:50:18 PM
Our pleasures make us miserable.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 10, 2012, 08:50:13 PM
Our pleasures make us miserable.

Basically; Yes. What pleasures us causes us to desire. When we do not get what we desire, we suffer.

What causes us pain causes us displeasure, we desire not to have pain and thus we suffer.

If we abolish desire, we do not suffer.

We can suffer physically, but Buddhism is about "dissatisfaction" or "suffering" in the mental/psychological sense.


Nothing is permanent. Our pain will pass, our pleasure will pass. Good things come and good things go. Bad things come and bad things go. We must become indifferent to the coming and going of the good/bad and see it all as one thing.


As Satan's character in John Milton so eloquently put it:


Above his equals. Farewell, happy fields,
Where joy for ever dwells! Hail, horrors! hail,
Infernal world! and thou, profoundest Hell,
Receive thy new possessor--one who brings
A mind not to be changed by place or time.
The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.
What matter where, if I be still the same,...

Here we may reign secure; and, in my choice,
To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: haider on July 10, 2012, 09:11:53 PM
Buddhism is like any other belief system. Anyone can call themselves a "Buddhist" and still go out and commit genocide and rape and murder. It has happened. Buddhism is, by no means, free of the problems of other belief systems. Dogma, adherence to old scriptures, pointless ceremonies and chanting are all common among people who purport to be Buddhists.

Though, someone who follows what the Buddha actually taught would not do any of this.

Meditation is one of the major aspects of Buddhism. The point of Buddhism isn't just sitting down Indian style and clearing your mind. Buddhism is about opening yourself up, opening your mind, emptying your cup, becoming mindful and contemplative, free of anger and hate and full of love and sympathy, persistent, thoughtful, energetic, egoless, prideless, seeking mental improvement, humbling oneself, understanding that you are nothing in the grand scheme of things, etc. Meditation should take place 24/7. Not just in moments of the day but every moment. Mindfulness of all we do should be persistent.
Thanks for your reply.

Re: the bolded, I see this as the aim of meditation. What good is meditating in a room for an hour, then going about your day as usual? Analogously, after ritual prayer or scriptural study one should strive to live it rather than treat it as a temporary pastime or relief from pressures.

I came across this quote of the Buddha earlier, though I do not know of the veracity of it:
'However many holy words you read, however many you speak, what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?'

 http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/buddha.html#C7I55kGSxMyTVpUL.99


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 10, 2012, 10:35:47 PM
Buddhism is like any other belief system. Anyone can call themselves a "Buddhist" and still go out and commit genocide and rape and murder. It has happened. Buddhism is, by no means, free of the problems of other belief systems. Dogma, adherence to old scriptures, pointless ceremonies and chanting are all common among people who purport to be Buddhists.

Though, someone who follows what the Buddha actually taught would not do any of this.

Meditation is one of the major aspects of Buddhism. The point of Buddhism isn't just sitting down Indian style and clearing your mind. Buddhism is about opening yourself up, opening your mind, emptying your cup, becoming mindful and contemplative, free of anger and hate and full of love and sympathy, persistent, thoughtful, energetic, egoless, prideless, seeking mental improvement, humbling oneself, understanding that you are nothing in the grand scheme of things, etc. Meditation should take place 24/7. Not just in moments of the day but every moment. Mindfulness of all we do should be persistent.

you still haven't answered why you think you are a superior Buddhist to me....


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 11, 2012, 06:12:33 AM
you still haven't answered why you think you are a superior Buddhist to me....

Because you aren't a Buddhist?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 11, 2012, 06:34:28 AM
Because you aren't a Buddhist?

Don't be silly ...you and I said basically the same thing


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: loco on July 11, 2012, 06:49:22 AM

Our pleasures make us miserable.

Basically; Yes.

Am I a Buddhist then?   :o


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: haider on July 11, 2012, 10:29:59 AM
Basically; Yes.


Am I a Buddhist then?   :o
Or is DKlent a christian?  ;)


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: loco on July 11, 2012, 11:09:47 AM
Or is DKlent a christian?  ;)

LOL     ;D


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Straw Man on July 12, 2012, 09:38:54 AM
Basically; Yes. What pleasures us causes us to desire. When we do not get what we desire, we suffer.

What causes us pain causes us displeasure, we desire not to have pain and thus we suffer.

If we abolish desire, we do not suffer.

We can suffer physically, but Buddhism is about "dissatisfaction" or "suffering" in the mental/psychological sense.


Nothing is permanent. Our pain will pass, our pleasure will pass. Good things come and good things go. Bad things come and bad things go. We must become indifferent to the coming and going of the good/bad and see it all as one thing.


As Satan's character in John Milton so eloquently put it:


Above his equals. Farewell, happy fields,
Where joy for ever dwells! Hail, horrors! hail,
Infernal world! and thou, profoundest Hell,
Receive thy new possessor--one who brings
A mind not to be changed by place or time.
The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.
What matter where, if I be still the same,...

Here we may reign secure; and, in my choice,
To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

it's attachment to the object of  desire that causes suffering


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 12, 2012, 10:55:46 AM
it's attachment to the object of  desire that causes suffering

Desire is attachment.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 12, 2012, 07:51:30 PM
Desire is attachment.

you see, I see desire differently....there is nothing wrong with desire.....it is okay and natural to want things....but you have to draw the line in that if you do not achieve those things which you covet, it should not lead you into a depression or to a bad place where you seek revenge or try to hurt someone or yourself in retaliation.....

it is very difficult to practice true Buddhism today....we muddle through as best we can with the best of intentions.....and we hope to someday reach that place where we can be free of attachment

I see attachments as being so intertwined emotionally with a possessing things or people that when you lose them you lose focus and begin to become depressed or melancholy

For instance, if you have a corvette and the corvette gets stolen or damaged it should not bother you....it is s THING...not something to be mourned over.....just replace it....or do without it....to me, being a Bhuddist today means being practical and reasonable...unemotional ly detached and being able to look at things from a third person objective position.....so that decisions can  be made rationally and without emotion, which if done emotionally can turn out really bad due to the lack of perspective..


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Straw Man on July 12, 2012, 08:54:30 PM
Desire is attachment.

desire is transitory just like "feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness"

attachment is the problem and its cause is "ignorance"


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 12, 2012, 09:14:38 PM
desire is transitory just like "feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness"

attachment is the problem and its cause is "ignorance"

I agree with your statement...good job


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 13, 2012, 09:36:31 AM
you see, I see desire differently....there is nothing wrong with desire.....it is okay and natural to want things....but you have to draw the line in that if you do not achieve those things which you covet, it should not lead you into a depression or to a bad place where you seek revenge or try to hurt someone or yourself in retaliation.....

it is very difficult to practice true Buddhism today....we muddle through as best we can with the best of intentions.....and we hope to someday reach that place where we can be free of attachment

I see attachments as being so intertwined emotionally with a possessing things or people that when you lose them you lose focus and begin to become depressed or melancholy

For instance, if you have a corvette and the corvette gets stolen or damaged it should not bother you....it is s THING...not something to be mourned over.....just replace it....or do without it....to me, being a Bhuddist today means being practical and reasonable...unemotional ly detached and being able to look at things from a third person objective position.....so that decisions can  be made rationally and without emotion, which if done emotionally can turn out really bad due to the lack of perspective..

Well, you disagree with significantly with Buddha himself but you are still a "Buddhist"?

I'm guessing you eat meat too, am I right?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Straw Man on July 13, 2012, 12:26:37 PM
Well, you disagree with significantly with Buddha himself but you are still a "Buddhist"?

I'm guessing you eat meat too, am I right?

there is nothing wrong with eating meat

if your personal belief is to refrain from eating meat then that is your business


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 13, 2012, 08:12:44 PM
there is nothing wrong with eating meat

if your personal belief is to refrain from eating meat then that is your business

Killing living beings is forbidden in Buddhism. It is one of its main beliefs.


But is there something "wrong" with eating meat? Absolutely. Meat means killing a living being, with thoughts and feelings and emotions. Making a differentiation between killing animals and humans is non-scientific. The only difference is the 'level' of emotion and thought. Both have it.


My business? Yeah. It is that too.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Straw Man on July 13, 2012, 08:37:57 PM
Killing living beings is forbidden in Buddhism. It is one of its main beliefs.


But is there something "wrong" with eating meat? Absolutely. Meat means killing a living being, with thoughts and feelings and emotions. Making a differentiation between killing animals and humans is non-scientific. The only difference is the 'level' of emotion and thought. Both have it.


My business? Yeah. It is that too.

you definitely seem attached to your beliefs


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 13, 2012, 08:49:47 PM
you definitely seem attached to your beliefs

No. The only thing I am attached to is the truth. My beliefs concern the truth, if the truth changes my beliefs change. I change my beliefs based on the evidence that is presented to me and the facts available.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 13, 2012, 09:45:57 PM
Well, you disagree with significantly with Buddha himself but you are still a "Buddhist"?

I'm guessing you eat meat too, am I right?

of course I do...I'm a man


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 13, 2012, 09:48:02 PM
No. The only thing I am attached to is the truth. My beliefs concern the truth, if the truth changes my beliefs change. I change my beliefs based on the evidence that is presented to me and the facts available.

yet you say that like me, you don't believe in re-incarnation...which is a major principle of Buddhism..plus you have sex like I so...

you are hypocritical


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 13, 2012, 10:20:28 PM
of course I do...I'm a man

That may be so....Still up for debate but that may be so..


But you certainly are no Buddhist.


I'm a vegetarian. I am a man. I am a Buddhist.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Straw Man on July 13, 2012, 10:28:55 PM
No. The only thing I am attached to is the truth. My beliefs concern the truth, if the truth changes my beliefs change. I change my beliefs based on the evidence that is presented to me and the facts available.

what is your evidence about your personal decision to not eat meat and what truth does it reveal?



Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 13, 2012, 10:29:36 PM
yet you say that like me, you don't believe in re-incarnation...which is a major principle of Buddhism..plus you have sex like I so...

you are hypocritical

You are mistaken. You really need to read up on Buddhism. You weren't even aware of many of the major beliefs or the terms in Buddhism prior to me telling you, you disagree with the most significant beliefs in Buddhism, you disagree with Buddha himself, but you still say you are a Buddhist.

I'm confounded.

You have sex without acknowledging that sensual pleasure hinders enlightenment (Buddhist belief)
You eat meat, thus killing living beings which is prohibited (Buddhist belief)
You are unaware of the most important Buddhist beliefs and terms.

Hmm...

Reincarnation is not taken literally by many Buddhists. Buddhism is very metaphorical, and the issue of reincarnation can be viewed in many ways. It can be seen in the very simplistic manner that westerners see it (dying and being brought back as a bug or something) or it can be seen in the way that makes the most sense in regards to the Pali Sutras (Buddha's lectures) which is a metaphorical sense. Depends on the Buddhist.


Go ahead and explain how killing living beings is acceptable  in Buddhism and how buying meat coincides with the Buddha's teachings.

I don't want you to try to explain how eating meat is somehow "moral" or "acceptable" in general, I've been there and done that and it is an argument that you can never hope to win.

What I'm asking for is an explanation of how you are still a BUDDHIST if you eat meat, causing animals(sentient beings) to suffer and die.



Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 13, 2012, 10:31:20 PM
That may be so....Still up for debate but that may be so..


But you certainly are no Buddhist.


I'm a vegetarian. I am a man. I am a Buddhist.

I dispute your manhood as well since i have asked you some pointed questions during this thread and you have refused to answer....at least I am open and have explained myself...you keep saying "I'm a Buddhist"...I say the same thing yet you put me down

basically you're full of shit


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 13, 2012, 10:31:52 PM
what is your evidence about your personal decision to not eat meat and what truth does it reveal?




Animals are sentient beings with feelings, intelligence, thoughts, suffering and pain and emotions. Killing sentient beings is wrong because they are sentient. Even if it is done in a moral painless manner (which it never is), it is still robbing the living being of its live.


Common sense stuff here. People who eat meat are people who don't have the emotional intelligence necessary to comprehend the damage that they do.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 13, 2012, 10:33:46 PM
I dispute your manhood as well since i have asked you some pointed questions during this thread and you have refused to answer....at least I am open and have explained myself...you keep saying "I'm a Buddhist"...I say the same thing yet you put me down

basically you're full of shit

What have I failed to answer? As far as I know I have answered every question asked.

I have sex, but I am in a monogamous relationship. However I acknowledge that the goal is to abandon that desire as well in order to achieve enlightenment. This coincides with Buddhist teachings. You don't agree with these teachings because you aren't a Buddhist.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 13, 2012, 10:41:37 PM
What have I failed to answer? As far as I know I have answered every question asked.

I have sex, but I am in a monogamous relationship. However I acknowledge that the goal is to abandon that desire as well in order to achieve enlightenment. This coincides with Buddhist teachings. You don't agree with these teachings because you aren't a Buddhist.

well then if you acknowledge that you have sex then that means you desire sex right???....you don't believe in reincarnation....yet you think you are a Buddhist.....

I practice a real world type of Buddhism.....I have acknowledged that I do not practice Buddhism as a religion....I do not believe in religion per se, and I do not believe in re-incarnation....I practice a psychological Buddhism.....a way of life....any religion that tells you not to have sex loses me right away....and again there is nothing wrong with desire..you act as if having sex with your girlfriend is wrong..its not.....you can have desire without attachment to that desire..so that it does not become an obssession


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Straw Man on July 13, 2012, 10:42:13 PM

Animals are sentient beings with feelings, intelligence, thoughts, suffering and pain and emotions. Killing sentient beings is wrong because they are sentient. Even if it is done in a moral painless manner (which it never is), it is still robbing the living being of its live.


Common sense stuff here. People who eat meat are people who don't have the emotional intelligence necessary to comprehend the damage that they do.

this thread is a goof right ?

you can't be serious


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 13, 2012, 10:46:36 PM
well then if you acknowledge that you have sex then that means you desire sex right???....you don't believe in reincarnation....yet you think you are a Buddhist.....

I practice a real world type of Buddhism.....I have acknowledged that I do not practice Buddhism as a religion....I do not believe in religion per se, and I do not believe in re-incarnation....I practice a psychological Buddhism.....a way of life....any religion that tells you not to have sex loses me right away....and again there is nothing wrong with desire..you act as if having sex with your girlfriend is wrong..its not.....you can have desire without attachment to that desire..so that it does not become an obssession

You are failing to read what I am typing.

1. I acknowledge the fact that enlightenment is impossible without abandoning the desire for sex.

2. I believe in enlightenment, simply in a metaphorical form of it that is common among Buddhists.


No one is perfect. Not you nor I. However, The first step is admitting that you are wrong, but if YOU can't ever admit that sexual desire prevents you from achieving enlightenment in Buddhism then you aren't a Buddhist. Simple as that.


I'm not saying that sex is "wrong". I'm just saying that, IN BUDDHISM, enlightened beings don't have sex. They don't have the desire for sex and they don't have sex because sex, a bodily pleasure, prevents enlightenment in the first place.

That is why Monks are celibate. It is for a very important reason.

You disagree with this basic Buddhist belief...That's fine by me...But please stop claiming you are a Buddhist.


I don't disagree with the belief, I strive towards it even though I am not perfect...I acknowledge that it is a fact in Buddhist teachings that can't be denied.



Same goes for killing living beings. If you kill living beings, without regret or remorse and intend to do it again and again...You certainly are no Buddhist.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 13, 2012, 10:49:05 PM
this thread is a goof right ?

you can't be serious

Just go ahead and deny that animals are sentient beings capable of emotion, feelings, thoughts, etc....


Just go ahead and deny it and I'll go ahead and refute you with scientific evidence. Then after that you'll dismiss the scientific facts as somehow flawed without ever addressing them because you can't admit you are wrong.

Then I'll call you out to address them and then you'll abandon the thread.



So...Your move?  ;)




P.S...In order to save time I'll go ahead and make the next move anyway:


http://delightmakers.com/news-bleat/wild-elephants-gather-inexplicably-mourn-death-of-elephant-whisperer/

http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?news_item=5859&id=24890

http://www.nonhumanslavery.com/dr-holly-cheever-on-a-mothers-love

http://delightmakers.com/news-bleat/wild-elephants-gather-inexplicably-mourn-death-of-elephant-whisperer/



http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/behavioural/journal/10071

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions

http://animal.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030811/emotions.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26316788/

www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3354028/Dogs-can-read-emotion-in-human-faces.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347204003392

books.google.com/?id=x1bbhp_f9pQC&dq=emotion+animals+date:2006-2008

http://www.livescience.com/512-whales-speak-dialects.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12993-chimps-outperform-humans-at-memory-task.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030439599400095V

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/372/lega/witn/shelly-e.htm

http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/newsletters/v11n1/11n19cfr.htm

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p4g44725t17126x0/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090023307000676

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10angier.html

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2008/03/animal-minds/virginia-morell-text

http://www.perceptionweb.com/abstract.cgi?id=v070385

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7771259.stm

http://news.opb.org/article/research_into_rat_emotions_could_help_develop_human_drugs/

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/27/horrors_we_hide/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deLIcUOjszw&feature=youtube_gdata_player



Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 13, 2012, 10:51:23 PM
The Chinese are a Buddhist culture yet there are over a billion of them....that means they are having lots of sex.....so you tell me that Buddhist husbands and wives are not having sex???.....this is a fallacy that we cannot have sex....I read it that we cannot become obssessed by sex and constantly crave it with others......however, sex with your significant other is okay


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 13, 2012, 10:58:18 PM
The Chinese are a Buddhist culture yet there are over a billion of them....that means they are having lots of sex.....so you tell me that Buddhist husbands and wives are not having sex???.....this is a fallacy that we cannot have sex....I read it that we cannot become obssessed by sex and constantly crave it with others......however, sex with your significant other is okay

I can't explain this any clearer to you than I already have....

First of all, most people who say they are "Buddhist" are about as "Buddhist" as these wealth craving republican Christians we see all over the place are Christian. People identify as "buddhist" just like catholics identify as catholic, even if they aren't really catholics. it is a cultural thing.

Now...For the last time:


Buddhists who have sex, real Buddhists that is, have sex but acknowledge that sex itself is hindering enlightenment. They have it because they realize that they will never achieve enlightenment (at least in this life).


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Straw Man on July 13, 2012, 10:59:41 PM
Just go ahead and deny that animals are sentient beings capable of emotion, feelings, thoughts, etc....


Just go ahead and deny it and I'll go ahead and refute you with scientific evidence. Then after that you'll dismiss the scientific facts as somehow flawed without ever addressing them because you can't admit you are wrong.

Then I'll call you out to address them and then you'll abandon the thread.



So...Your move?  ;)




P.S...In order to save time I'll go ahead and make the next move anyway:


http://delightmakers.com/news-bleat/wild-elephants-gather-inexplicably-mourn-death-of-elephant-whisperer/

http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?news_item=5859&id=24890

http://www.nonhumanslavery.com/dr-holly-cheever-on-a-mothers-love

http://delightmakers.com/news-bleat/wild-elephants-gather-inexplicably-mourn-death-of-elephant-whisperer/



http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/behavioural/journal/10071

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions

http://animal.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030811/emotions.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26316788/

www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3354028/Dogs-can-read-emotion-in-human-faces.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347204003392

books.google.com/?id=x1bbhp_f9pQC&dq=emotion+animals+date:2006-2008

http://www.livescience.com/512-whales-speak-dialects.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12993-chimps-outperform-humans-at-memory-task.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030439599400095V

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/372/lega/witn/shelly-e.htm

http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/newsletters/v11n1/11n19cfr.htm

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p4g44725t17126x0/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090023307000676

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10angier.html

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2008/03/animal-minds/virginia-morell-text

http://www.perceptionweb.com/abstract.cgi?id=v070385

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7771259.stm

http://news.opb.org/article/research_into_rat_emotions_could_help_develop_human_drugs/

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/27/horrors_we_hide/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deLIcUOjszw&feature=youtube_gdata_player



there is nothing to prove

believe whatever you want

call yourself whatever you want

Fred Phelps calls himself a christian and that makes no difference to me


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 13, 2012, 10:59:54 PM
Now, here is a question for you:

Why did the Buddha become celibate?


Why are all monks sworn to a vow of celibacy?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 13, 2012, 11:01:52 PM
there is nothing to prove

believe whatever you want

call yourself whatever you want

Fred Phelps calls himself a christian and that makes no difference to me


 8)
I just proved that animals have emotions, feelings, suffering, pain, thoughts and cognition in one fell swoop.

This proves my point that killing them is wrong, just like it is to kill anything else (including humans).

This means that eating meat is wrong.




Next question?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 13, 2012, 11:02:57 PM
I can't explain this any clearer to you than I already have....

First of all, most people who say they are "Buddhist" are about as "Buddhist" as these wealth craving republican Christians we see all over the place are Christian. People identify as "buddhist" just like catholics identify as catholic, even if they aren't really catholics. it is a cultural thing.

Now...For the last time:


Buddhists who have sex, real Buddhists that is, have sex but acknowledge that sex itself is hindering enlightenment. They have it because they realize that they will never achieve enlightenment (at least in this life).

yes I get that....but you can STILL call yourself a Bhuddist as you are TRYING to reach enlightenment....as long as you have committed yourself on the path toward enlightenment (the way) then you are still a Bhuddist....you are in training so to speak...seeking enlightenment until you finally get there..it is a day by day process....If I don't have sex for 10 years and then I slip up and have sex because I couldn't help myself, then I am STILL a Bhuddist...you don't have to be perfect BEFORE being a Bhuddist.....you have to commit yourself to getting there...being on the path, on the WAY

your interpretation is way too strict


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Straw Man on July 13, 2012, 11:08:19 PM

 8)
I just proved that animals have emotions, feelings, suffering, pain, thoughts and cognition in one fell swoop.

This proves my point that killing them is wrong, just like it is to kill anything else (including humans).

This means that eating meat is wrong.




Next question?

you didn't prove anything and whether animal have emotions, feeling, suffer pain, etc.. is irrelevant

the nature of their being is exactly like yours and it doesn't matter whether you eat them or not

if it make you feel better to not eat meat then that is your business

what's with the make believe Buddhist fundie thing you a doing ?

your persoal dogma is your problem to deal with


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 13, 2012, 11:10:51 PM
you didn't prove anything and whether animal have emotions, feeling, suffer pain, etc.. is irrelevant

the nature of their being is exactly like yours and it doesn't matter whether you eat them or not

if it make you feel better to not eat meat then that is your business

what's with the make believe Buddhist fundie thing you a doing ?

your persoal dogma is your problem to deal with


Would you eat a human being? Their nature is also exactly the same as yours. Does that mean it is irrelevant if you eat them or not?

Your logic is flawed. Try again.  ;D


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 13, 2012, 11:11:58 PM

Would you eat a human being? Their nature is also exactly the same as yours. Does that mean it is irrelevant if you eat them or not?

Your logic is flawed. Try again.  ;D

I hope you were looking in the mirror when you said this


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 13, 2012, 11:13:46 PM
yes I get that....but you can STILL call yourself a Bhuddist as you are TRYING to reach enlightenment....as long as you have committed yourself on the path toward enlightenment (the way) then you are still a Bhuddist....you are in training so to speak...seeking enlightenment until you finally get there..it is a day by day process....If I don't have sex for 10 years and then I slip up and have sex because I couldn't help myself, then I am STILL a Bhuddist...you don't have to be perfect BEFORE being a Bhuddist.....you have to commit yourself to getting there...being on the path, on the WAY

your interpretation is way too strict

If you were doing it right, and were a strict buddhist for 10 years, then you wouldn't "slip up". If you did then you weren't doing it right. You seem to be changing exactly what you are saying back and forth. You, as you've said before, believe that enlightenment is possible even if you freely have sex as long as you 'detach' yourself from the sex. This is 100% contrary to Buddhist teachings.

But now you seem to be saying that refraining from sex IS necessary to reach enlightenment?


BTW, Why did the Buddha become celibate? Why do Buddhist monks become celibate?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 13, 2012, 11:50:53 PM
If you were doing it right, and were a strict buddhist for 10 years, then you wouldn't "slip up". If you did then you weren't doing it right. You seem to be changing exactly what you are saying back and forth. You, as you've said before, believe that enlightenment is possible even if you freely have sex as long as you 'detach' yourself from the sex. This is 100% contrary to Buddhist teachings.

But now you seem to be saying that refraining from sex IS necessary to reach enlightenment?


BTW, Why did the Buddha become celibate? Why do Buddhist monks become celibate?

I understand why Bhuddist monks become celibate..but do you actually believe they were celibate all their lives??????????....it took them some time to reach that point...which is my point....There isn't a litmus test you must pass in order to declare yourself a Buddhist.......it doesn't work that way.....you seek perfection.....you don't become perfect first,....by your standards, YOU YOURSELF are not a Bhuddist because you STILL engage in sex with your girlfriend......from my standard, you art still a Bhuddist...but ironically from your perspective you are NOT


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: garebear on July 14, 2012, 03:27:00 AM
Religion isn't about the truth, it's about feeling superior.

This thread proves it.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 14, 2012, 05:41:57 AM
Religion isn't about the truth, it's about feeling superior.

This thread proves it.

not so with Buddhism


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Butterbean on July 14, 2012, 08:08:06 AM
DKlent, what kind of food sources do you get your protein from?  I realize quinoa, beans, dairy, eggs etc can be decent sources, but maybe not enough. Do you supplement w/whey shakes etc?

Can you please post a typical day of your diet?



Also, you are in a relationship.  Is your girl also a Buddhist?  Do you feel you may be attached to her?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 14, 2012, 09:48:53 AM
I understand why Bhuddist monks become celibate..but do you actually believe they were celibate all their lives??????????....it took them some time to reach that point...which is my point....There isn't a litmus test you must pass in order to declare yourself a Buddhist.......it doesn't work that way.....you seek perfection.....you don't become perfect first,....by your standards, YOU YOURSELF are not a Bhuddist because you STILL engage in sex with your girlfriend......from my standard, you art still a Bhuddist...but ironically from your perspective you are NOT

Ok. Do you intend to become celibate in the future in order to achieve enlightenment?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 14, 2012, 09:54:52 AM
DKlent, what kind of food sources do you get your protein from?  I realize quinoa, beans, dairy, eggs etc can be decent sources, but maybe not enough. Do you supplement w/whey shakes etc?

Can you please post a typical day of your diet?



Also, you are in a relationship.  Is your girl also a Buddhist?  Do you feel you may be attached to her?

I get over 200 grams of protein per day. I drink whey shakes but only from certain sources. Even if I were a vegan I'd still get enough protein.

I eat non-soy protein bars (Vegan) that have 20 grams of protein each and vitamins. I eat about 2 a day.

I eat about 3 Peanut Butter (or almond butter) jelly sandwiches a day. I use enough peanut butter to get over 20 grams of protein per sandwich with the bread and preserves.

I eat a lot of high-protein grains.

Plus I supplement with 2 whey-shakes per day. Each one has about 30 grams of protein per serving (not including the milk).

I always eat a few servings of fruits or vegetables each day Also.

Whole grains and whole wheat are important in my diet, as are high-protein beans and legumes.



I'm in a relationship. My girlfriend is not a Buddhist. I am no more attached to her than I am to myself.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Straw Man on July 14, 2012, 10:22:43 AM

Would you eat a human being? Their nature is also exactly the same as yours. Does that mean it is irrelevant if you eat them or not?

Your logic is flawed. Try again.  ;D

There well may be a situation where I would eat human being.  I certainly can't say it would never happen
I'd like to think I would be able to allow myself to starve to death but I can't say for certain
it's very unlikely of course and I would not kill someone to eat them but this is all really irrelevent

what matters is intention and also your personal beliefs.  The historical figure we refer to as Buddha didn't have a problem eating meat as long as the animal wasn't killed for the intention of providing food for monks and didn't have any such rules for lay people.   More esoteric teachings go even further on the subject

What is your deal anyway

Are an ordained monk or do you belong to and practice a particular sect of buddhism

The purpose of this thread seems to be soley to boost your own ego and leture everyone on what they should believe


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 14, 2012, 11:19:09 AM
There well may be a situation where I would eat human being.  I certainly can't say it would never happen
I'd like to think I would be able to allow myself to starve to death but I can't say for certain
it's very unlikely of course and I would not kill someone to eat them but this is all really irrelevent

what matters is intention and also your personal beliefs.  The historical figure we refer to as Buddha didn't have a problem eating meat as long as the animal wasn't killed for the intention of providing food for monks and didn't have any such rules for lay people.   More esoteric teachings go even further on the subject

What is your deal anyway

Are an ordained monk or do you belong to and practice a particular sect of buddhism

The purpose of this thread seems to be soley to boost your own ego and leture everyone on what they should believe

Oh, it is totally relevant. WHY would you not kill a human and eat them? Would you eat a human hamburger, even if you were not starving?

If no. Why?


Buddha taught never to refuse an offering, however in modern times if you go to the store and buy meat then you are causing animals to die. This is against Buddhism.



Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 14, 2012, 11:47:42 AM




Dhammapada

Quote
Verse 10: PUNISHMENT

Spoken in the Jetavana Grove concerning the band of six monks:

1. All beings fear punishment; all fear death. If you take yourself as the measure, you will never harm, you will never kill.

2. All beings fear punishment; all love life. If you take yourself as the measure, you will never harm, you will never kill.

3. If in seeking happiness you bring harm to others who also seek to be happy, in the future you will never be happy.

4. If in seeking happiness you never harm others who also seek to be happy, in the future happiness will come to you.

(http://www.philosophersguild.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/animals1.jpg)


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Straw Man on July 14, 2012, 06:56:48 PM
Oh, it is totally relevant. WHY would you not kill a human and eat them? Would you eat a human hamburger, even if you were not starving?

If no. Why?


Buddha taught never to refuse an offering, however in modern times if you go to the store and buy meat then you are causing animals to die. This is against Buddhism.

again, the answer to your questions is intent

how about my questions

Are an ordained monk or do you belong to and practice a particular sect of buddhism



Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 14, 2012, 07:14:21 PM
again, the answer to your questions is intent

how about my questions

Are an ordained monk or do you belong to and practice a particular sect of buddhism



The answer is "intent"? What do you mean by that? If you buy meat a grocery store or restaurant then that causes the death of a living being and goes against the most important aspect of Buddhism (non-harm). If you, for instance, eat a piece of meat that will be thrown out otherwise and it is either 1. it gets thrown away and wasted or 2. you eat it then that is ok in Buddhism. However, I myself am a vegetarian because it removes any doubt or guess-work with determining if I caused animals death or not.

I am not an ordained monk nor do I belong to a 'sect' of Buddhism. I am a Theravada Buddhist, meaning I practice what the Buddha taught. I base my practices based on what Siddhartha Gautama, The Buddha, taught in the Pāli Canon. The Tipiṭaka , three baskets, Vinaya Pitaka, Sutta Pitaka and the Abhidhamma Pitaka. I practice genuine Buddhism and seek to improve as well. I'm not perfect, nor is anyone, but I KNOW what must be done and agree with what must be done and acknowledge when I do wrong and realize that I need to change specific actions to reach enlightenment.

The problem with Andre is that he disagrees with inherent Buddhist teachings and can not acknowledge that sexual desire goes against the Buddhist philosophy of enlightenment. Now, I have sex too but I admit that sexual desire is a hindrance to enlightenment and thus I know that IF I want to reach enlightenment then that too must be abandoned. That is the difference between him and I. The first step to improvement is to recognize that a problem exists.  If you can't recognize a problem you can't fix the problem.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 14, 2012, 09:57:22 PM
Ok. Do you intend to become celibate in the future in order to achieve enlightenment?

no..because I do not believe that being celibate for the lay Buddhist is necessary...maybe for Monks because they are supposed to embody the IDEAL of Bhuddism but the average person DOES NOT have to forego sex......just as a priest must forego sex but the average christian does not.....


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 14, 2012, 09:59:19 PM
There well may be a situation where I would eat human being.  I certainly can't say it would never happen
I'd like to think I would be able to allow myself to starve to death but I can't say for certain
it's very unlikely of course and I would not kill someone to eat them but this is all really irrelevent

what matters is intention and also your personal beliefs.  The historical figure we refer to as Buddha didn't have a problem eating meat as long as the animal wasn't killed for the intention of providing food for monks and didn't have any such rules for lay people.   More esoteric teachings go even further on the subject

What is your deal anyway

Are an ordained monk or do you belong to and practice a particular sect of buddhism

The purpose of this thread seems to be soley to boost your own ego and leture everyone on what they should believe



100% agree..and by trying to boost your own ego, then you are not a Buddhist


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 14, 2012, 10:06:41 PM
The answer is "intent"? What do you mean by that? If you buy meat a grocery store or restaurant then that causes the death of a living being and goes against the most important aspect of Buddhism (non-harm). If you, for instance, eat a piece of meat that will be thrown out otherwise and it is either 1. it gets thrown away and wasted or 2. you eat it then that is ok in Buddhism. However, I myself am a vegetarian because it removes any doubt or guess-work with determining if I caused animals death or not.

I am not an ordained monk nor do I belong to a 'sect' of Buddhism. I am a Theravada Buddhist, meaning I practice what the Buddha taught. I base my practices based on what Siddhartha Gautama, The Buddha, taught in the Pāli Canon. The Tipiṭaka , three baskets, Vinaya Pitaka, Sutta Pitaka and the Abhidhamma Pitaka. I practice genuine Buddhism and seek to improve as well. I'm not perfect, nor is anyone, but I KNOW what must be done and agree with what must be done and acknowledge when I do wrong and realize that I need to change specific actions to reach enlightenment.

The problem with Andre is that he disagrees with inherent Buddhist teachings and can not acknowledge that sexual desire goes against the Buddhist philosophy of enlightenment. Now, I have sex too but I admit that sexual desire is a hindrance to enlightenment and thus I know that IF I want to reach enlightenment then that too must be abandoned. That is the difference between him and I. The first step to improvement is to recognize that a problem exists.  If you can't recognize a problem you can't fix the problem.


your point totally misses all the married Buddhists......are they supposed to just stop having sex???....again..I disagree that you can't have sex if you are a Bhuddist...you can..but.....you should not be partaking in sex just for pleasure's sake....you should not be going to prostitutes....or banging every chick you get your hands on....or constantly masturbating....you should try to de-sexualize your life as much as possible..no porn....etc....but I believe Bhuddists can have a healthy sex life...

and you described your girlfriend the same way I did with the persons I have sex with.....I am not attached to them to the point where if they left I would fall apart.....I would move on......you are I are so much alike ..yet you choose to bullshit around


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: garebear on July 15, 2012, 06:34:06 AM



Dhammapada

(http://www.philosophersguild.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/animals1.jpg)
Is that a painting or a photograph?

I can't tell because it's just too realistic.



Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 15, 2012, 07:52:02 AM
no..because I do not believe that being celibate for the lay Buddhist is necessary...maybe for Monks because they are supposed to embody the IDEAL of Bhuddism but the average person DOES NOT have to forego sex......just as a priest must forego sex but the average christian does not.....

lay Buddhists never achieve enlightenment either. Are you aware of that?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Man of Steel on July 15, 2012, 11:20:35 AM
lay Buddhists never achieve enlightenment either. Are you aware of that?

What happens when a Buddhist achieves enlightenment? 


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: syntaxmachine on July 15, 2012, 12:26:16 PM
Beliefs are abstracta we ascribe to a person based on their behavior. We do the same thing to ourselves (we look at our own behavior and ascribe beliefs accordingly). Therefore, if you're having sex and willfully desiring the goods and personal goals associated with the rat race that is the Western way of life, you aren't a genuine Buddhist (you admit that these activities are contrary to Buddhism). Your behavior precludes your really believing Buddhism's precepts because if you did you would act (behave) according to what they say.

Consider a drug addict who keeps insisting that he believes a drug-free life is best and that he wants to live that sort of life. Yet, all the while he continues to constantly consume drugs and does nothing to kick the habit. There is no such thing as him "believing" what he says despite acting in exactly the opposite fashion, no matter how much he insists the belief is genuine. If he really believed the drug-free life were best, then he'd do everything in his power to get clean. That's just what it means for him to genuinely believe the words he's saying.

So, you can't have it both ways, pretending to "genuinely" believe the Buddhist precepts that sex and desire are base and thus to be avoided and yet acting contrary to these precepts your whole life. Sorry, that means you don't genuinely believe them. You're trying to have your (admittedly delicious) metaphysical cake and eat it too. What you're calling 'lay Buddhism' is a class of people who talk about Buddhist precepts but don't take them overly serious, i.e., don't genuinely believe them (or, don't act as if they are true).

Now, fulfill your desire to respond to my post and correct me, because you constantly indulge your desires, i.e., don't really believe they are base and to be avoided. Otherwise, you'd be in the Tibetan mountains numbing yourself with meditation all day and being chaste along with the other genuine Buddhists.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 15, 2012, 02:04:49 PM
lay Buddhists never achieve enlightenment either. Are you aware of that?

yes...but you know what???....very few persons of ANY religion achieve what the goals of the religion are


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 15, 2012, 02:13:04 PM
Beliefs are abstracta we ascribe to a person based on their behavior. We do the same thing to ourselves (we look at our own behavior and ascribe beliefs accordingly). Therefore, if you're having sex and willfully desiring the goods and personal goals associated with the rat race that is the Western way of life, you aren't a genuine Buddhist (you admit that these activities are contrary to Buddhism). Your behavior precludes your really believing Buddhism's precepts because if you did you would act (behave) according to what they say.

Consider a drug addict who keeps insisting that he believes a drug-free life is best and that he wants to live that sort of life. Yet, all the while he continues to constantly consume drugs and does nothing to kick the habit. There is no such thing as him "believing" what he says despite acting in exactly the opposite fashion, no matter how much he insists the belief is genuine. If he really believed the drug-free life were best, then he'd do everything in his power to get clean. That's just what it means for him to genuinely believe the words he's saying.

So, you can't have it both ways, pretending to "genuinely" believe the Buddhist precepts that sex and desire are base and thus to be avoided and yet acting contrary to these precepts your whole life. Sorry, that means you don't genuinely believe them. You're trying to have your (admittedly delicious) metaphysical cake and eat it too. What you're calling 'lay Buddhism' is a class of people who talk about Buddhist precepts but don't take them overly serious, i.e., don't genuinely believe them (or, don't act as if they are true).

Now, fulfill your desire to respond to my post and correct me, because you constantly indulge your desires, i.e., don't really believe they are base and to be avoided. Otherwise, you'd be in the Tibetan mountains numbing yourself with meditation all day and being chaste along with the other genuine Buddhists.

I guess this post was meant as a response to me.....so....

by what you are saying, then that means that Catholics who use contraception are not TRUE catholics.....that Catholics who have sex before marriage again are not TRUE Catholics....

Bhuddists are still Bhuddists even if they haven't achieved the goals of the religion as of yet...you are trying to get there...you are on the path (THE WAY) toward enlightenment....you can still call yourself a Bhuddist until you eventually get there......Bhuddism is a step by step one day at a time process.....where you try to become better day by day......

again by the reasoning I see on this board you are not a Bhuddist UNTIL you reach enlightenment....if that is the case, then again DKent has contradicted himself..he is NOT a true Bhuddist because he STILL has sex with his girlfriend...yet he calls everyone else a non-Buddhist because they do the same thing that HE does!!!!....this is the worst hypocrisy I have ever seen on getbig......


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Butterbean on July 15, 2012, 02:35:58 PM
I get over 200 grams of protein per day. I drink whey shakes but only from certain sources. Even if I were a vegan I'd still get enough protein.

I eat non-soy protein bars (Vegan) that have 20 grams of protein each and vitamins. I eat about 2 a day.

I eat about 3 Peanut Butter (or almond butter) jelly sandwiches a day. I use enough peanut butter to get over 20 grams of protein per sandwich with the bread and preserves.

I eat a lot of high-protein grains.

Plus I supplement with 2 whey-shakes per day. Each one has about 30 grams of protein per serving (not including the milk).

I always eat a few servings of fruits or vegetables each day Also.

Whole grains and whole wheat are important in my diet, as are high-protein beans and legumes.



I'm in a relationship. My girlfriend is not a Buddhist. I am no more attached to her than I am to myself.

Thanks.  What is the name of the Vegan non-soy bar and does it have decent fiber?

Does it bother your girl that you don't seem attached to her (if that is what you meant)? 


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Butterbean on July 15, 2012, 02:38:04 PM
no..because I do not believe that being celibate for the lay Buddhist is necessary...maybe for Monks because they are supposed to embody the IDEAL of Bhuddism but the average person DOES NOT have to forego sex......just as a priest must forego sex but the average christian does not.....

Just to interject kind of off topic, but the Christian Bible does not preach against using contraception...that is a Catholic thing. 



Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: syntaxmachine on July 15, 2012, 06:45:09 PM
I guess this post was meant as a response to me.....so....

by what you are saying, then that means that Catholics who use contraception are not TRUE catholics.....that Catholics who have sex before marriage again are not TRUE Catholics....

Bhuddists are still Bhuddists even if they haven't achieved the goals of the religion as of yet...you are trying to get there...you are on the path (THE WAY) toward enlightenment....you can still call yourself a Bhuddist until you eventually get there......Bhuddism is a step by step one day at a time process.....where you try to become better day by day......

again by the reasoning I see on this board you are not a Bhuddist UNTIL you reach enlightenment....if that is the case, then again DKent has contradicted himself..he is NOT a true Bhuddist because he STILL has sex with his girlfriend...yet he calls everyone else a non-Buddhist because they do the same thing that HE does!!!!....this is the worst hypocrisy I have ever seen on getbig......

Actually, I was addressing DKlent, though it seems my comments apply to you as well. They apply to the both of you because you are both acting contrary to your stated beliefs. You don't need to reach Enlightenment to be a Buddhist; you need to legitimately move toward Enlightenment through the appropriate behaviors. And neither you nor Dicklint (lol, I couldn't resist) are doing this to the extent that you are unable to divorce yourself from base desire fulfillment, something at the heart of Western life. Therefore, you don't really believe the fundamental precept of Buddhism, and as such are not Buddhists.

You're right to point out that on my view, there aren't as many religious people as public opinion polls indicate. As an example, on my view there are a lot of people who say they are Christian but otherwise don't act according to the precepts of the religion, and therefore don't really believe them. There are a lot of confused people who think they are religious and respond accordingly to pollsters, but that is another story. We can be mistaken about our own beliefs.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 15, 2012, 07:21:52 PM
read this.....this pretty much backs up my own interpretation of Buddhism and especially about the sexual aspect of Buddhism.

Sexual activity, like eating, can be motivated by a disturbing emotion or attitude, a constructive one, or a neutral one. Based on the motivation, the act of having sex or eating likewise becomes destructive, constructive, or neutral. For instance, if we eat out of tremendous greed and attachment - just stuff ourselves like a pig - it's self-destructive. If we eat because we need to be strong in order to take care of our families - in order to have the strength and energy to work, and so on - that's a positive motivation; the eating is constructive. If we eat just because it's time to eat and everybody else is eating, it's ethically neutral.

The same thing is true with sex. If we have sex because we have tremendous attachment and desire, or because of anger like when soldiers rape their enemy's wives and daughters, it's destructive. If we're having sex in order to show affection and help somebody - an appropriate person - with the hope that this will make the person feel a little better, it's constructive. If we have sex just because we can't fall asleep and it'll make us tired so that we can fall asleep faster, then it's neutral.

The result of what we experience from the same act is different according to the motivation. "Destructive" means that it's going to produce problems for us in the future. For most people, the negative motivation for sex that would make it destructive and cause problems for them in the future is usually attachment and longing desire. What we need to work on, in the context of renunciation, is not the sexual act itself, but rather this attachment and longing desire.

Let's give an example. Suppose we are looking for the perfect orgasm. Such a quest causes us always to be dissatisfied with the sexual experience that we have. We're always looking for a better one. We're always longing for something more, and can never really enjoy what we have. Such an attitude makes us frustrated and miserable. It leads to never having a satisfying sexual experience.

The same is the case if we're always looking for the perfect sexual partner. We're never going to find the perfect partner. We're always going to be dissatisfied; our attitude is always going to make us unhappy. Sexual activity driven by these types of attitudes is destructive - it's self-destructive. When we talk about destructive, it's always self-destructive.

So that's what we have to renounce - the myth of a perfect partner and a perfect orgasm, and the longing desire that this myth generates. Our longing desire is based on the naive confusion of "somewhere out there is going to be the perfect partner with whom I will have the perfect orgasm." That's a myth. It's a child's fairy tale. It's never going to happen. Sorry.


http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/approaching_buddhism/world_today/introduction_buddhist_sexual_ethics.html


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 15, 2012, 08:41:10 PM
What happens when a Buddhist achieves enlightenment? 

That is a hard question to answer and takes a while. See my previous posts on what enlightenment is. It is the same answer.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 15, 2012, 08:45:06 PM
Beliefs are abstracta we ascribe to a person based on their behavior. We do the same thing to ourselves (we look at our own behavior and ascribe beliefs accordingly). Therefore, if you're having sex and willfully desiring the goods and personal goals associated with the rat race that is the Western way of life, you aren't a genuine Buddhist (you admit that these activities are contrary to Buddhism). Your behavior precludes your really believing Buddhism's precepts because if you did you would act (behave) according to what they say.

Consider a drug addict who keeps insisting that he believes a drug-free life is best and that he wants to live that sort of life. Yet, all the while he continues to constantly consume drugs and does nothing to kick the habit. There is no such thing as him "believing" what he says despite acting in exactly the opposite fashion, no matter how much he insists the belief is genuine. If he really believed the drug-free life were best, then he'd do everything in his power to get clean. That's just what it means for him to genuinely believe the words he's saying.

So, you can't have it both ways, pretending to "genuinely" believe the Buddhist precepts that sex and desire are base and thus to be avoided and yet acting contrary to these precepts your whole life. Sorry, that means you don't genuinely believe them. You're trying to have your (admittedly delicious) metaphysical cake and eat it too. What you're calling 'lay Buddhism' is a class of people who talk about Buddhist precepts but don't take them overly serious, i.e., don't genuinely believe them (or, don't act as if they are true).

Now, fulfill your desire to respond to my post and correct me, because you constantly indulge your desires, i.e., don't really believe they are base and to be avoided. Otherwise, you'd be in the Tibetan mountains numbing yourself with meditation all day and being chaste along with the other genuine Buddhists.

This is not true though. What you are claiming is that if someone believes something, they will act accordingly all of the time. It doesn't work like that. 99% of people believe that exercise is good for you, that going to the gym every day is ideal...but what % do it? Very few.
Same thing with eating healthy. 100% of people agree that eating healthy is good, healthy and ideal. Most people strive to eat healthy.
What % of people actually eat healthy? Very few. Does this mean that they don't believe that eating healthy or exercising is good? No. It just means that they don't have what it takes, yet, to do that. Many people take things slowly and move into exercising and eating healthy, but for a long time may not do so. Doesn't imply they don't believe.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 15, 2012, 08:54:42 PM
yes...but you know what???....very few persons of ANY religion achieve what the goals of the religion are


Is someone who claims to be a Christian, yet opposes the most important of Jesus' teachings, still a Christian?

Is a Muslim who opposes the Koran still a Muslim?

Is a Mormon who opposes the book of Mormon still a Mormon?




Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 15, 2012, 08:58:58 PM

Bhuddists are still Bhuddists even if they haven't achieved the goals of the religion as of yet...you are trying to get there...you are on the path (THE WAY) toward enlightenment....you can still call yourself a Bhuddist until you eventually get there......Bhuddism is a step by step one day at a time process.....where you try to become better day by day......

again by the reasoning I see on this board you are not a Bhuddist UNTIL you reach enlightenment....if that is the case, then again DKent has contradicted himself..he is NOT a true Bhuddist because he STILL has sex with his girlfriend...yet he calls everyone else a non-Buddhist because they do the same thing that HE does!!!!....this is the worst hypocrisy I have ever seen on getbig......

You are backtracking and you are confused. First you told me that you don't believe that abstinence is necessary for enlightenment or even a goal.

Now you're saying that abstinence is a goal but you just haven't achieved it yet.

So which is it?

I never said that you aren't a Buddhist unless you reach enlightenment. I said that the goal in Buddhism is enlightenment, and if you don't follow Buddhist principles then you won't achieve enlightenment.  If you disagree with basic Buddhist teachings, you aren't a Buddhist.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 15, 2012, 09:08:06 PM
Thanks.  What is the name of the Vegan non-soy bar and does it have decent fiber?

Does it bother your girl that you don't seem attached to her (if that is what you meant)? 

I eat Clif Builder bars. They are produced in factories that produce milk, but are vegan and soy based.




Attachment is a term used in Buddhism (Upādāna) which means "clinging" or "grasping" which is the result of clinging to sensual pleasures, wrong-views (like the view that abstienence is pointless or that eating meat is acceptable), rites and rituals (chanting, ceremonies, etc.) and also personal beliefs (attavadupadana, which is the belief that you exist as an independent self which isn't true).  Loving someone else is not Upādāna. An important goal in Buddhism is love and loving-kindness (Meta).

Clinging (Upādāna) and also Thirst/hunger (in a metaphorical sense) ( tṛṣṇā ) cause suffering.
If you have someone in your life that you love, this does not necessitate "clinging" or Upādāna.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 15, 2012, 09:09:34 PM
You are backtracking and you are confused. First you told me that you don't believe that abstinence is necessary for enlightenment or even a goal.

Now you're saying that abstinence is a goal but you just haven't achieved it yet.

So which is it?

I never said that you aren't a Buddhist unless you reach enlightenment. I said that the goal in Buddhism is enlightenment, and if you don't follow Buddhist principles then you won't achieve enlightenment.  If you disagree with basic Buddhist teachings, you aren't a Buddhist.

you keep going in circles out of self-protection....so I will just ask you straight on.....

YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN RE-INCARNATION AND YOU STILL ARE HAVING SEX....WHICH MEANS YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THE TEACHINGS EITHER....ARE YOU A BUDDHIST???????

DO NOT TALK ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE...ANSWER MY DIRECT QUESTION DIRECTLY


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 15, 2012, 09:37:40 PM
you keep going in circles out of self-protection....so I will just ask you straight on.....

YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN RE-INCARNATION AND YOU STILL ARE HAVING SEX....WHICH MEANS YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THE TEACHINGS EITHER....ARE YOU A BUDDHIST???????

DO NOT TALK ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE...ANSWER MY DIRECT QUESTION DIRECTLY

I've explained this several times, and the only reason I'm going in circles is because you aren't reading (or aren't understanding) my posts and keep asking the same questions that I've already answered 5 times.

After this time, I'll just ignore the question because I've answered it already. Please pay attention because this is the last time I'll answer it:


1. I do not believe in reincarnation as you understand reincarnation. I believe in reincarnation in a non-supernatural sense but a casual sense (causality). Reincarnation is not, even in classical texts, a 'continuation of consciousness' as westerners might imagine it being. Imagine a flame that is burning bright. That flame will go out and will be extinguished in time. However, that flame can cause another flame to burn which can cause another flame to burn and so on forever. This is the same concept as reincarnation. In Buddhism it isn't "I will be born as an Ox" because in Buddhism there IS no "I". There is no "self" because that is an illusion.

2. I have sex right now. My goal is to be abstinent in the future. I'm not at the level of mental attainment to be able to abandon many of the habits in my life that are not conducive to enlightenment....YET. I (unlike you) acknowledge that abstinence is the goal if enlightenment is the goal. That is the difference between you and I and that is what I've been saying over and over again.




Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: syntaxmachine on July 15, 2012, 10:38:21 PM
This is not true though. What you are claiming is that if someone believes something, they will act accordingly all of the time. It doesn't work like that. 99% of people believe that exercise is good for you, that going to the gym every day is ideal...but what % do it? Very few.
Same thing with eating healthy. 100% of people agree that eating healthy is good, healthy and ideal. Most people strive to eat healthy.
What % of people actually eat healthy? Very few. Does this mean that they don't believe that eating healthy or exercising is good? No. It just means that they don't have what it takes, yet, to do that. Many people take things slowly and move into exercising and eating healthy, but for a long time may not do so. Doesn't imply they don't believe.

We apparently disagree about the nature of what a belief is. I think beliefs are posited to explain behavior and therefore cannot be divorced from it. Thus, there isn't really any such thing as believing X and yet acting exactly as if X is false. Treating a proposition as true (believing it) just means behaving as if it is true. If you believe the building you're in is on fire then you'll get the heck out of there; if you say "Yes, I believe it!" yet remain then we know you don't really believe it (assuming no suicidal tendencies or any other mental problems on your part).

1. A person doesn't necessarily have to act according to a belief one hundred percent of the time in order to genuinely believe it; there can be slip ups and set backs. We're really talking about general patterns of behavior rather than strict, 24/7 adherence.

2. The beliefs you focus on don't refute my point because the behavior you describe is perfectly consistent with those beliefs. A person can believe working out is healthy and not work out because they are engaging in some sort of trade-off, willfully being lazy because it satisfies some psychological need. As another example, a person can have true beliefs about the dangers of smoking and yet do it anyway, again because they are willfully engaging in a trade-off. The behavior you mention is only inconsistent with certain other beliefs, like "I love working out," "I am striving to be as healthy as I can be," and so forth. If anybody who rarely works out thinks they have these beliefs then they are sorely mistaken, because their behavior is entirely inconsistent with them.

3. So, patterns of behavior that are inconsistent with a stated belief indicate that that belief is not genuinely held by a person, regardless of what the person says (a person can be mistaken about what they believe). This is especially so when the pattern of behavior obtains over a person's entire lifetime. A pattern of attachment and base desire fulfillment seems to me inconsistent with the beliefs of Buddhism; therefore, anybody actively living this way isn't a Buddhist. They may say they believe in them; they may think they believe in them; they may be sympathetic to them; they may even occasionally gesture toward their being true; but, on the whole they don't actually believe them, because that's not how belief works.

What definition of belief are you working with that allows a person (in principle) to genuinely believe X and yet behave entirely as if X is false? What kind of belief is that?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 16, 2012, 05:16:30 AM
We apparently disagree about the nature of what a belief is. I think beliefs are posited to explain behavior and therefore cannot be divorced from it. Thus, there isn't really any such thing as believing X and yet acting exactly as if X is false. Treating a proposition as true (believing it) just means behaving as if it is true. If you believe the building you're in is on fire then you'll get the heck out of there; if you say "Yes, I believe it!" yet remain then we know you don't really believe it (assuming no suicidal tendencies or any other mental problems on your part).

1. A person doesn't necessarily have to act according to a belief one hundred percent of the time in order to genuinely believe it; there can be slip ups and set backs. We're really talking about general patterns of behavior rather than strict, 24/7 adherence.

2. The beliefs you focus on don't refute my point because the behavior you describe is perfectly consistent with those beliefs. A person can believe working out is healthy and not work out because they are engaging in some sort of trade-off, willfully being lazy because it satisfies some psychological need. As another example, a person can have true beliefs about the dangers of smoking and yet do it anyway, again because they are willfully engaging in a trade-off. The behavior you mention is only inconsistent with certain other beliefs, like "I love working out," "I am striving to be as healthy as I can be," and so forth. If anybody who rarely works out thinks they have these beliefs then they are sorely mistaken, because their behavior is entirely inconsistent with them.

3. So, patterns of behavior that are inconsistent with a stated belief indicate that that belief is not genuinely held by a person, regardless of what the person says (a person can be mistaken about what they believe). This is especially so when the pattern of behavior obtains over a person's entire lifetime. A pattern of attachment and base desire fulfillment seems to me inconsistent with the beliefs of Buddhism; therefore, anybody actively living this way isn't a Buddhist. They may say they believe in them; they may think they believe in them; they may be sympathetic to them; they may even occasionally gesture toward their being true; but, on the whole they don't actually believe them, because that's not how belief works.

What definition of belief are you working with that allows a person (in principle) to genuinely believe X and yet behave entirely as if X is false? What kind of belief is that?

very nice post...very well thought-out and thought-provoking....I agree with two thirds of it, and disagree with the other third....I am bumping for later when I will have time to respond


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Butterbean on July 16, 2012, 07:02:55 AM
I eat Clif Builder bars. They are produced in factories that produce milk, but are vegan and soy based.


 

I thought said you also eat non-soy bars and if so, what are they?  



Attachment is a term used in Buddhism (Upādāna) which means "clinging" or "grasping" which is the result of clinging to sensual pleasures, wrong-views (like the view that abstienence is pointless or that eating meat is acceptable), rites and rituals (chanting, ceremonies, etc.) and also personal beliefs (attavadupadana, which is the belief that you exist as an independent self which isn't true).  Loving someone else is not Upādāna. An important goal in Buddhism is love and loving-kindness (Meta).

Clinging (Upādāna) and also Thirst/hunger (in a metaphorical sense) ( tṛṣṇā ) cause suffering.
If you have someone in your life that you love, this does not necessitate "clinging" or Upādāna.

I thought Buddhists did chant?  But I think I got that from that Tina Turner movie.



Can you please explain more about how we don't exist as independent selves?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: garebear on July 16, 2012, 07:22:17 AM
Cage Match: Jesus Vs. Buddha.

Who walks out of that cage?



Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 16, 2012, 09:33:48 AM
We apparently disagree about the nature of what a belief is. I think beliefs are posited to explain behavior and therefore cannot be divorced from it. Thus, there isn't really any such thing as believing X and yet acting exactly as if X is false. Treating a proposition as true (believing it) just means behaving as if it is true. If you believe the building you're in is on fire then you'll get the heck out of there; if you say "Yes, I believe it!" yet remain then we know you don't really believe it (assuming no suicidal tendencies or any other mental problems on your part).

1. A person doesn't necessarily have to act according to a belief one hundred percent of the time in order to genuinely believe it; there can be slip ups and set backs. We're really talking about general patterns of behavior rather than strict, 24/7 adherence.

2. The beliefs you focus on don't refute my point because the behavior you describe is perfectly consistent with those beliefs. A person can believe working out is healthy and not work out because they are engaging in some sort of trade-off, willfully being lazy because it satisfies some psychological need. As another example, a person can have true beliefs about the dangers of smoking and yet do it anyway, again because they are willfully engaging in a trade-off. The behavior you mention is only inconsistent with certain other beliefs, like "I love working out," "I am striving to be as healthy as I can be," and so forth. If anybody who rarely works out thinks they have these beliefs then they are sorely mistaken, because their behavior is entirely inconsistent with them.

3. So, patterns of behavior that are inconsistent with a stated belief indicate that that belief is not genuinely held by a person, regardless of what the person says (a person can be mistaken about what they believe). This is especially so when the pattern of behavior obtains over a person's entire lifetime. A pattern of attachment and base desire fulfillment seems to me inconsistent with the beliefs of Buddhism; therefore, anybody actively living this way isn't a Buddhist. They may say they believe in them; they may think they believe in them; they may be sympathetic to them; they may even occasionally gesture toward their being true; but, on the whole they don't actually believe them, because that's not how belief works.

What definition of belief are you working with that allows a person (in principle) to genuinely believe X and yet behave entirely as if X is false? What kind of belief is that?

Belief- An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
    Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 16, 2012, 10:08:44 AM
I thought said you also eat non-soy bars and if so, what are they?  

I thought Buddhists did chant?  But I think I got that from that Tina Turner movie.



Can you please explain more about how we don't exist as independent selves?

No. The protein bars I eat have soy in them. The whey shake I drink doesn't.


"Self" is an illusion. The term Anatta has a mening more to the issue that there is no such thing as the classical idea of the "I". This implies and means what one thinks "I" to be, what we think of as "I"  is just an illusion in our own minds. Thoughts are computed by your mind before you know of them. A thought, once it enters the brain, is computed in the brain before I am conscious that it is there. A few microseconds before-hand. What does this mean? This means that my own thoughts are not my own doing, but are spontaneous. But they aren't really spontaneous because nothing is spontaneous, all things have a cause and thus my thoughts have a cause. What cause? Causes that preexist me, you, my environment, the world.

 There is not any  real or clear difference between what "I" am and what is seen as "out there" or "beyond the body" out in the world. One is costantly losing matter and gaining matter and energy and also exchanging mass and energy with the environment and the universe. There is no clear and obvioius line dividing what "I" am and what my environment is. If I touch a piece of wood there is no clear dividing line between the wood and your hand. Not only does the wood attach to your hand, but the skin cells attach to the wood making it one object. The forces holding the atoms all together in your hand are now interacting with the all of the atoms of the wood. It is a single object for all intents and purposes.  The idea of inter connectedness is important and relevant in Buddhism because it aids in stopping hate and promotes love because we are connected with everything and we are part of it all, as it is part of us, it becomes impossible to 'hate' anything.

Also, all that we are and all that we do is a DIRECT result of what has happened before we ever existed. We are our environments and our environments are us. You are the universe and the universe is in you. There isn't any separation, and any separations made are pure illusions. My and your thoughts, feelings, actions, etc. are all directly or indirectly influenced by the universe and the universe is influenced by us, resulting in one "thing". The universe is aware because we are aware and we are part of the universe. We, we the intelligent life, could consider ourselves the 'brain' of the universe. Now, The law of dependent origination is a clear example of the vast connectedness of the cosmos according to Buddhism. The laws of cause and effect are important in Buddhism, as our suffering has a cause and the effect is what we feel every day. All things have a cause.

"No self" means no permanent self in the real sense that we are always changing biologically and physically, not just our bodies but also our consciousness. We change moment to moment, and we are not the same people we were years ago. We think differently and see things differently, but the basic molecules are also all different. Our cells today are not the cells we had 10 years ago, nor are the bone cells or the neurons. So the brain we have today is not the same brain, not the same 'matter' that it was 10 years ago. We are different people  and the continuity of  our consciousness is our illusion.

The cosmos can be seen as a "NET" in Buddhism. A net is made up of a series of ties, so everything in this cosmos is connected by a series of ties.

Does free will exist?  It is Free Will still. Certainly our free will is predetermined due to causality, but it is still our own free will. We make our own choices, we choose our own choices...That does not imply that what we want to choose or decide to choose isn't predetermined. It IS "our choice" but "our choice" is  also predetermined. Predetermination doesn't  negate the fact that we still choose our own actions, it simply makes clear that what we do finally decide to choose is already predetermined. For humans to have "free will", it is not necessary that people make decisions in some vacuum uninfluenced by the laws of causality.






Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: syntaxmachine on July 16, 2012, 09:47:46 PM
Belief- An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
    Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

The nature of belief is a major topic of debate in cognitive psychology that will not be resolved by citing the dictionary. That's like precluding debate over the nature of God by pointing to the dictionary and saying, "Hey folks, take a look! It says what God is right here! No need to debate!"

Even if this definition is right, it does not reveal what it is to accept a statement as true. It may still be that accepting a statement as true means none other than behaving as if it is true. And that is what we are trying to figure out in the context of your claim that one can believe in Buddhist precepts and yet not act as if they are true. In other words, your citing the dictionary technically hasn't advanced the discussion any because the definition offered doesn't touch on the role of behavior in believing, which is the topic at hand.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Straw Man on July 16, 2012, 09:55:50 PM
lay Buddhists never achieve enlightenment either. Are you aware of that?

if you were enlighted this thread would not exist


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: syntaxmachine on July 16, 2012, 10:36:33 PM

"Self" is an illusion. The term Anatta has a mening more to the issue that there is no such thing as the classical idea of the "I". This implies and means what one thinks "I" to be, what we think of as "I"  is just an illusion in our own minds. Thoughts are computed by your mind before you know of them. A thought, once it enters the brain, is computed in the brain before I am conscious that it is there. A few microseconds before-hand. What does this mean? This means that my own thoughts are not my own doing, but are spontaneous.


If the self is an illusion, then whose mind is it an illusion of? How can an illusion exist if there is no subject (self, 'I') to perceive it? If there is no self or I, why do you say thoughts are computed by our minds before we are consciously aware of them? Who are these subjects you keep referring to and how can they exist if selves and 'I's' don't? How is thought possible without thinkers?


"No self" means no permanent self in the real sense that we are always changing biologically and physically, not just our bodies but also our consciousness. We change moment to moment, and we are not the same people we were years ago. We think differently and see things differently, but the basic molecules are also all different. Our cells today are not the cells we had 10 years ago, nor are the bone cells or the neurons. So the brain we have today is not the same brain, not the same 'matter' that it was 10 years ago. We are different people  and the continuity of  our consciousness is our illusion.


Permanent selves (in the way you describe them here) can exist even in the face of change. This is an inevitable view because its contrary is absurd: for any change that occurs, a new self is created. If you scratch your nose and lose a few skin cells, a new being has been created and the old ceases to exist. If this is right then the Census is terribly mistaken about the population: there are trillions of people, each resulting from any change whatsoever! Clearly, this is in error and there are permanent entities that survive all sorts of change, e.g., biological organisms that are constituted by different sets of cells over the course of their existence.

Besides, you are using the words "we" and "people" here, terms which very much seem to refer to selves or 'I's' of one sort or another (the exact nature of these selves isn't important for my point). You even say that these things possess consciousness. Yet you say earlier that these entities are illusions (i.e., that there are no genuine selves or 'I's'). Things that don't exist can't have any properties at all, let alone be conscious. How can 'we' (whatever that means) be having this discussion right now if there aren't genuine participants on either side (i.e., genuine selves on either side)? Is the universe conversing with itself?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 16, 2012, 11:48:20 PM
The nature of belief is a major topic of debate in cognitive psychology that will not be resolved by citing the dictionary. That's like precluding debate over the nature of God by pointing to the dictionary and saying, "Hey folks, take a look! It says what God is right here! No need to debate!"

Even if this definition is right, it does not reveal what it is to accept a statement as true. It may still be that accepting a statement as true means none other than behaving as if it is true. And that is what we are trying to figure out in the context of your claim that one can believe in Buddhist precepts and yet not act as if they are true. In other words, your citing the dictionary technically hasn't advanced the discussion any because the definition offered doesn't touch on the role of behavior in believing, which is the topic at hand.

I fail to see how that makes any sense. Many people in the world do things they do not believe for many reasons and many people in the world do not do things, or refrain from doing things, that they do believe in.

I believe that abstinence is necessary for enlightenment. I also believe that reading 1 new book a week is ideal, but I don't do that either. It takes training to achieve the ability to be abstinent as it takes training to do anything. Mental training.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 16, 2012, 11:49:22 PM
if you were enlighted this thread would not exist

Why?


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 16, 2012, 11:57:35 PM
If the self is an illusion, then whose mind is it an illusion of? How can an illusion exist if there is no subject (self, 'I') to perceive it? If there is no self or I, why do you say thoughts are computed by our minds before we are consciously aware of them? Who are these subjects you keep referring to and how can they exist if selves and 'I's' don't? How is thought possible without thinkers?

To clarify, the illusion is in how we view "I" or "self". Not "self" itself. There is indeed a perceive. There is a subject. Cogito Ergo Sum. There is a a "self" but the "self" that we perceive is an illusion. We see the "self" as independent and individual, but in reality it is not. It is one part of a big picture and the decisions we make are not uninfluenced by the outside world, but are totally influenced by the outside world.


Permanent selves (in the way you describe them here) can exist even in the face of change. This is an inevitable view because its contrary is absurd: for any change that occurs, a new self is created. If you scratch your nose and lose a few skin cells, a new being has been created and the old ceases to exist. If this is right then the Census is terribly mistaken about the population: there are trillions of people, each resulting from any change whatsoever! Clearly, this is in error and there are permanent entities that survive all sorts of change, e.g., biological organisms that are constituted by different sets of cells over the course of their existence.

It is a different way to view things, but once all of our cells die and we become a 'new person', the old one is dead forever. We only perceive it as a break-less transition due to the way our brains function. The "you" from 15 years ago is dead. No cell from that person exists anymore. Every cell, including the brain-cells that make up your own thoughts and memories, are new. It is as if you have been vaporized and teleported to a new place, but with all new atoms. It is the paradox behind the "Beam me up Scottie" scenario. Did Spock die every time he was beamed back up? Technically, yes. Scientifically, yes.


Besides, you are using the words "we" and "people" here, terms which very much seem to refer to selves or 'I's' of one sort or another (the exact nature of these selves isn't important for my point). You even say that these things possess consciousness. Yet you say earlier that these entities are illusions (i.e., that there are no genuine selves or 'I's'). Things that don't exist can't have any properties at all, let alone be conscious. How can 'we' (whatever that means) be having this discussion right now if there aren't genuine participants on either side (i.e., genuine selves on either side)? Is the universe conversing with itself?

Limitations of language...But refer to above. There is "self" but the way that we view self, to clarify from earlier posts, is the illusion. I exist, if I didn't I could not ask the question of if I exist. However what is "I"? "I" am not some free-will entity, "I" am not unaffected by the outside world, "I" am totally affected by the outside world and also "I" am part of the outside world, as much as it is part of me. I am not separate. Also, there is no permanent "I".


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: garebear on July 17, 2012, 12:00:01 AM
Garebear, what are the rules of the match? If it is a metaphysical "no holds barred" match then it is obvious Jesus will destroy Buddha with his magical powers, just like he will destroy and cast all of us non-believers into Hell when he flies down from the clouds at the end of times and yields these same magical powers against us.

But, if it is a more conventional match, Buddha has a significant size advantage and a massive pain tolerance. Jesus' frail frame would be devastated by a bodyslam from the fatman. There's also the possibility that they are interconnected and aren't individual selves at all, which means you are asking a trick question.
Ha!



Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 17, 2012, 07:56:22 AM
Garebear, what are the rules of the match? If it is a metaphysical "no holds barred" match then it is obvious Jesus will destroy Buddha with his magical powers, just like he will destroy and cast all of us non-believers into Hell when he flies down from the clouds at the end of times and yields these same magical powers against us.

But, if it is a more conventional match, Buddha has a significant size advantage and a massive pain tolerance. Jesus' frail frame would be devastated by a bodyslam from the fatman. There's also the possibility that they are interconnected and aren't individual selves at all, which means you are asking a trick question.


The historical Buddha wasn't fat. See the first page of this thread for more info.


Historical Jesus vs. Historical Buddha? They were both pacifists.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Straw Man on July 17, 2012, 02:13:53 PM
Why?

this thread appears to be nothing more than an exercise to lecture eveyone and stroke your own ego

There are also statements like this

I'm in a relationship. My girlfriend is not a Buddhist. I am no more attached to her than I am to myself.

what buddhist goes around bragging about their detachment

When I first read this thread I thought it was some kind of joke and that you were just being a goof and trying to be ironic



Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 17, 2012, 05:28:41 PM
this thread appears to be nothing more than an exercise to lecture eveyone and stroke your own ego

How is that?

There are also statements like this

what buddhist goes around bragging about their detachment

When I first read this thread I thought it was some kind of joke and that you were just being a goof and trying to be ironic




You are confused. You misinterpret the word and my meaning.

Re-read my previous posts about what "detachment" is. The word isn't how you are thinking of it as being. "Detachment" in Buddhism is not how you view "detachment".  The Pali word is Viveka (or Viraaga), which is often translated as "detachment" but that isn't what it means. The real meaning is absence of lust or "craving" (hunger) which is the cause of suffering. Detachment in Buddhism isn't detachment from life or from loved ones. Detachment is separation from "craving". Detaching from that which makes us weak, which hinders our enlightenment. Buddhism is a philosophy of pure compassion, this would not be possible if it promoted "detachment" as you define it. 



Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Straw Man on July 17, 2012, 06:34:55 PM
How is that?


You are confused. You misinterpret the word and my meaning.

Re-read my previous posts about what "detachment" is. The word isn't how you are thinking of it as being. "Detachment" in Buddhism is not how you view "detachment".  The Pali word is Viveka (or Viraaga), which is often translated as "detachment" but that isn't what it means. The real meaning is absence of lust or "craving" (hunger) which is the cause of suffering. Detachment in Buddhism isn't detachment from life or from loved ones. Detachment is separation from "craving". Detaching from that which makes us weak, which hinders our enlightenment. Buddhism is a philosophy of pure compassion, this would not be possible if it promoted "detachment" as you define it. 

I've stated my opinion

All I see is someone consumed with ego and attached to his own beliefs who seems to have a strong desire to lecture people




Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on July 17, 2012, 09:23:52 PM
I've stated my opinion

All I see is someone consumed with ego and attached to his own beliefs who seems to have a strong desire to lecture people





An opinion that is ill informed is nothing more than delusion.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: syntaxmachine on July 17, 2012, 09:52:53 PM
I fail to see how that makes any sense. Many people in the world do things they do not believe for many reasons and many people in the world do not do things, or refrain from doing things, that they do believe in.

I believe that abstinence is necessary for enlightenment. I also believe that reading 1 new book a week is ideal, but I don't do that either. It takes training to achieve the ability to be abstinent as it takes training to do anything. Mental training.

You fail to see how it makes sense because you are presupposing some particular conception of belief (though I'm not exactly sure which) which is contrary to my own. I understand that the commonsense notion is compelling and that for the most part we simply presume it is correct, but the very nature of belief is what is under discussion here; we have competing notions each of which has different implications. So you can't just assume that people can genuinely believe some proposition X and yet always behave as if  X is false. In fact, I don't see why we would ever ascribe the belief to a person in that case.

Also, you need to remember that we are dealing with patterns of behavior. Of course individual instances exist where a person acts contrary to their beliefs. But when a pattern of behavior is consistently incompatible with a stated belief then I don't think we can legitimately ascribe the belief to that person. There isn't a scientific formula for ascribing belief based on behavior, but I think it is reasonable to say that even if a person tells us they believe a life of attachment and desire is base and to be avoided, if they live their entire life in terms of attachment and desire and do not take the requisite steps to 'detach' and pursue an alternative course of action, then they do not really believe what they say they believe.

I'm not necessarily saying that this is the case with you; perhaps you are genuinely easing in to a program of detachment and desire avoidance. But I still must wonder since the efforts you describe -- and those that so-called 'lay Buddhists' engage in all the time -- sound like token measures at best. If you really believed this stuff you could punch a ticket to Nepal/Tibet any moment now and join those who actually behave as if it is true. They clearly believe this stuff; in contrast, it seems lay Buddhists don't really believe it, or, at best, have an extremely weak degree of belief.

Again, on my view the above contrast between genuine believers and weak believers/non-believers is established by observing the behavior of the persons we are trying to attribute beliefs to. Behavior and belief ascription go hand in hand. There is no other way to establish belief. There is no such thing as someone always behaving contrary to proposition X, their telling us they believe proposition X all the same, and their being right about that. No matter how genuine they are, they are mistaken.


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: Straw Man on July 17, 2012, 09:58:13 PM

An opinion that is ill informed is nothing more than delusion.

I'm fully informed on your posts in this thread


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 19, 2012, 06:45:10 AM
lay Buddhists never achieve enlightenment either. Are you aware of that?

this is fine....its really not about the enlightenment part because very few people who belong to ANY religion achieve all the the goals of that said religion...its about the journey toward enlightenment and how you lead your life...


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on July 19, 2012, 07:03:04 AM
We apparently disagree about the nature of what a belief is. I think beliefs are posited to explain behavior and therefore cannot be divorced from it. Thus, there isn't really any such thing as believing X and yet acting exactly as if X is false. Treating a proposition as true (believing it) just means behaving as if it is true. If you believe the building you're in is on fire then you'll get the heck out of there; if you say "Yes, I believe it!" yet remain then we know you don't really believe it (assuming no suicidal tendencies or any other mental problems on your part).



2. The beliefs you focus on don't refute my point because the behavior you describe is perfectly consistent with those beliefs. A person can believe working out is healthy and not work out because they are engaging in some sort of trade-off, willfully being lazy because it satisfies some psychological need. As another example, a person can have true beliefs about the dangers of smoking and yet do it anyway, again because they are willfully engaging in a trade-off. The behavior you mention is only inconsistent with certain other beliefs, like "I love working out," "I am striving to be as healthy as I can be," and so forth. If anybody who rarely works out thinks they have these beliefs then they are sorely mistaken, because their behavior is entirely inconsistent with them.

3. So, patterns of behavior that are inconsistent with a stated belief indicate that that belief is not genuinely held by a person, regardless of what the person says (a person can be mistaken about what they believe). This is especially so when the pattern of behavior obtains over a person's entire lifetime. A pattern of attachment and base desire fulfillment seems to me inconsistent with the beliefs of Buddhism; therefore, anybody actively living this way isn't a Buddhist. They may say they believe in them; they may think they believe in them; they may be sympathetic to them; they may even occasionally gesture toward their being true; but, on the whole they don't actually believe them, because that's not how belief works.

What definition of belief are you working with that allows a person (in principle) to genuinely believe X and yet behave entirely as if X is false? What kind of belief is that?

1. A person doesn't necessarily have to act according to a belief one hundred percent of the time in order to genuinely believe it; there can be slip ups and set backs. We're really talking about general patterns of behavior rather than strict, 24/7 adherence.

I AGREE WITH THIS...AND BHUDDISM SAYS THAT THERE WILL BE SLIP-UPS AND SET BACKS...AND YOU ARE RIGHT...IT IS ABOUT GENERAL PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR AND HAVING GOOD INTENTIONS...AGAIN, STRICT ADHERENCE TO BHUDDISM IN A THIS DAY AND AGE AND IN A WESTERN SOCIETY IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE....I CAN CITE ALL OF US BEING ON THE INTERNET.......IF I AM A VEGETARIAN BUT I EAT A HAMBURGER ONE DAY, IT DOES NOT MEAN I HAVE RENOUNCED BEING A VEGETARIAN....HOWEVER IF I EAT A HAMBURGER EVERYDAY, THEN THATS DEFINITELY A PROBLEM


2. The beliefs you focus on don't refute my point because the behavior you describe is perfectly consistent with those beliefs. A person can believe working out is healthy and not work out because they are engaging in some sort of trade-off, willfully being lazy because it satisfies some psychological need. As another example, a person can have true beliefs about the dangers of smoking and yet do it anyway, again because they are willfully engaging in a trade-off. The behavior you mention is only inconsistent with certain other beliefs, like "I love working out," "I am striving to be as healthy as I can be," and so forth. If anybody who rarely works out thinks they have these beliefs then they are sorely mistaken, because their behavior is entirely inconsistent with them.

AGAIN, GOOD ANALOGIES......YOU HAVE TO MAKE TRADE-OFFS EVERYDAY IN ORDER TO FUNCTION IN SOCIETY....also if we do not have sex with our girlfriends, THEY WILL LEAVE US.....HOW DOES THAT HELP ME REACH ENLIGHTENMENT???..SEX HELPS KEEP THE BODY HEALTHY AND HAVING A RELATIONSHIP IS GOOD FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL PURPOSES.NOT TO MENTION IS IT FAIR TO DEPRIVE YOUR GIRLFRIEND OF SEX???

3. So, patterns of behavior that are inconsistent with a stated belief indicate that that belief is not genuinely held by a person, regardless of what the person says (a person can be mistaken about what they believe). This is especially so when the pattern of behavior obtains over a person's entire lifetime. A pattern of attachment and base desire fulfillment seems to me inconsistent with the beliefs of Buddhism; therefore, anybody actively living this way isn't a Buddhist. They may say they believe in them; they may think they believe in them; they may be sympathetic to them; they may even occasionally gesture toward their being true; but, on the whole they don't actually believe them, because that's not how belief works.

I DISAGREED WITH THIS AT FIRST BUT I THINK YOU ARE BASICALLY RIGHT...BUT IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU AND OTHERS CONSIDER TO BE "BASE DESIRE FULFILLMENT".....IF A GUY HAS SEX ONCE A MONTH IS THAT "BASE DESIRE FULFILLMENT"?  HOW ABOUT ONCE EVERY SIX MONTHS?....where do you draw the line between fulfillment and wanton desire???


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: syntaxmachine on August 18, 2012, 09:38:00 PM
1. A person doesn't necessarily have to act according to a belief one hundred percent of the time in order to genuinely believe it; there can be slip ups and set backs. We're really talking about general patterns of behavior rather than strict, 24/7 adherence.

I AGREE WITH THIS...AND BHUDDISM SAYS THAT THERE WILL BE SLIP-UPS AND SET BACKS...AND YOU ARE RIGHT...IT IS ABOUT GENERAL PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR AND HAVING GOOD INTENTIONS...AGAIN, STRICT ADHERENCE TO BHUDDISM IN A THIS DAY AND AGE AND IN A WESTERN SOCIETY IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE....I CAN CITE ALL OF US BEING ON THE INTERNET.......IF I AM A VEGETARIAN BUT I EAT A HAMBURGER ONE DAY, IT DOES NOT MEAN I HAVE RENOUNCED BEING A VEGETARIAN....HOWEVER IF I EAT A HAMBURGER EVERYDAY, THEN THATS DEFINITELY A PROBLEM


2. The beliefs you focus on don't refute my point because the behavior you describe is perfectly consistent with those beliefs. A person can believe working out is healthy and not work out because they are engaging in some sort of trade-off, willfully being lazy because it satisfies some psychological need. As another example, a person can have true beliefs about the dangers of smoking and yet do it anyway, again because they are willfully engaging in a trade-off. The behavior you mention is only inconsistent with certain other beliefs, like "I love working out," "I am striving to be as healthy as I can be," and so forth. If anybody who rarely works out thinks they have these beliefs then they are sorely mistaken, because their behavior is entirely inconsistent with them.

AGAIN, GOOD ANALOGIES......YOU HAVE TO MAKE TRADE-OFFS EVERYDAY IN ORDER TO FUNCTION IN SOCIETY....also if we do not have sex with our girlfriends, THEY WILL LEAVE US.....HOW DOES THAT HELP ME REACH ENLIGHTENMENT???..SEX HELPS KEEP THE BODY HEALTHY AND HAVING A RELATIONSHIP IS GOOD FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL PURPOSES.NOT TO MENTION IS IT FAIR TO DEPRIVE YOUR GIRLFRIEND OF SEX???

3. So, patterns of behavior that are inconsistent with a stated belief indicate that that belief is not genuinely held by a person, regardless of what the person says (a person can be mistaken about what they believe). This is especially so when the pattern of behavior obtains over a person's entire lifetime. A pattern of attachment and base desire fulfillment seems to me inconsistent with the beliefs of Buddhism; therefore, anybody actively living this way isn't a Buddhist. They may say they believe in them; they may think they believe in them; they may be sympathetic to them; they may even occasionally gesture toward their being true; but, on the whole they don't actually believe them, because that's not how belief works.

I DISAGREED WITH THIS AT FIRST BUT I THINK YOU ARE BASICALLY RIGHT...BUT IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU AND OTHERS CONSIDER TO BE "BASE DESIRE FULFILLMENT".....IF A GUY HAS SEX ONCE A MONTH IS THAT "BASE DESIRE FULFILLMENT"?  HOW ABOUT ONCE EVERY SIX MONTHS?....where do you draw the line between fulfillment and wanton desire???

It seems we agree on the essentials then!

Regarding base desire fulfillment, as far as I am able to tell Buddhism defines all desires as base and thus advises its adherents to avoid them. If this is right, then very few people really believe in Buddhism, because very few people consistently behave as if its strictures are true, and it is on the basis of this behavior that we ascribe beliefs.

A corollary of this is my original point: the "casual Buddhists" don't really believe the strictures of Buddhism -- i.e., they don't consistently act as if they are true -- and instead are entertaining them either for popularity, complex psychological reasons, or whatever else (even if they think they really believe them).


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on August 18, 2012, 10:53:04 PM
It seems we agree on the essentials then!

Regarding base desire fulfillment, as far as I am able to tell Buddhism defines all desires as base and thus advises its adherents to avoid them. If this is right, then very few people really believe in Buddhism, because very few people consistently behave as if its strictures are true, and it is on the basis of this behavior that we ascribe beliefs.

A corollary of this is my original point: the "casual Buddhists" don't really believe the strictures of Buddhism -- i.e., they don't consistently act as if they are true -- and instead are entertaining them either for popularity, complex psychological reasons, or whatever else (even if they think they really believe them).

Good point.....I only practice the daily psychological living of Buddhism...I see Buddhism more as a philosophy of life rather than a religion....I simply keep most desires in check....and I try to want very little....money is not important to me really....I don't believe that the everyday Buddhist has to give up sex in its entirety....I believe thats mostly for the Monks......just as priests are supposed to not have any sex at all but those in his congregation can...........I don't believe in reincarnation so I don't believe that you can be born again.....and that you reach Nirvana through death...I believe you must try to reach Nirvana in life....get to the point where nothing bothers you....nothing phases you..there is no anger..no hate..no fighting..... no emotionalism.....you are calm and serene inside and out......to me , thats Nirvana...you've reached the ultimate peace with yourself, with others and with the world.....where you don't think materialistically....


Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: DKlent on September 03, 2012, 10:01:07 AM
Good point.....I only practice the daily psychological living of Buddhism...I see Buddhism more as a philosophy of life rather than a religion....I simply keep most desires in check....and I try to want very little....money is not important to me really....I don't believe that the everyday Buddhist has to give up sex in its entirety....I believe thats mostly for the Monks......just as priests are supposed to not have any sex at all but those in his congregation can...........I don't believe in reincarnation so I don't believe that you can be born again.....and that you reach Nirvana through death...I believe you must try to reach Nirvana in life....get to the point where nothing bothers you....nothing phases you..there is no anger..no hate..no fighting..... no emotionalism.....you are calm and serene inside and out......to me , thats Nirvana...you've reached the ultimate peace with yourself, with others and with the world.....where you don't think materialistically....


Buddhism is not about being insensitive and cold to the world. Buddhism is about love and caring and compassion for ALL living beings, human or not. That is the point of Buddhism. Ultimate compassion. You must give up "yourself" to achieve this. Buddhism abandons the ego. Buddhism is about taking up everyone's misfortune and giving everyone your fortune and this is where Metta meditation comes in. Breathing in the world's bad karma and exhaling the good karma to all sentient beings in the world.



Title: Re: Ask a Buddhist
Post by: andreisdaman on September 03, 2012, 11:13:55 AM
Buddhism is not about being insensitive and cold to the world. Buddhism is about love and caring and compassion for ALL living beings, human or not. That is the point of Buddhism. Ultimate compassion. You must give up "yourself" to achieve this. Buddhism abandons the ego. Buddhism is about taking up everyone's misfortune and giving everyone your fortune and this is where Metta meditation comes in. Breathing in the world's bad karma and exhaling the good karma to all sentient beings in the world.



yes..agrees...I think you and I basically disagree on what exactly is a Buddhist??.......I don't believe you must adhere strictly to all the precepts as long as you grasp the overall concept and have good intentions on living your life mindfully