|
Perhaps all sentients go through this process, which could explain why we haven't been overrrun by starfaring colonizing species . see >Fermi's Paradox<
That's, as far as I understand it, the 'end game' of at least some strains of Hinduism, to escape the cycle of reincarnation and become one with the Brahman, one with the self-creating universe.
But as for the Fermi Paradox, someone said that the surest sign that there is intelligent life is that none of it has tried to contact us. While that's a joke, it's also true that we're pretty much on the cusp of having the ability to supply every single need by synthesizing food, water, clothing, etc. from raw components, assuming we had the financial or moral will to spend money on something that would end hunger and want. We've synthesized things far more complex than food and drink and clothing, after all.
Any form of life capable of meaningful intrasystem space travel is going to be able to have anything it wants, shoving dirt and waste into one end of a big machine and getting filet mignon and designer clothing out of the other end (hopefully from different drawers, unless they like their designer clothing to smell like meat...). The only reason they would ever have to come to Earth is to explore our culture and whatnot, which they can do, sitting on their butts (or the alien equivalent), in their home system, using various forms of high-end detection equipment.
It would be *far* more likely that 'explorers' from another world would visit us in the form of holograms beamed across interstellar space, 30th century crystal-ball-gazing at world's whose stars are points of light in their sky, occasionally flickering into view due to interstellar dust, EM interference, etc. despite being 'tuned so that the natives can't see us.'
They'd probably also spook dogs. We'd call them ghosts.
Given the sheer number of inhabited worlds that pretty much have to exist out there, it's likely that the aliens who *are* interested in exploring other worlds are so freaking busy that we're number 712,529 on their list of 'places to check out, someday.'
Given the sheer number of inhabited worlds that pretty much have to exist out there, it's likely that the aliens who *are* interested in exploring other worlds are so freaking busy that we're number 712,529 on their list of 'places to check out, someday.'
So, given the size of the universe, does that mean we're high or low on their priority lists? :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"On second thought, let us not go there. 'Tis a silly place."
Happy Buddha's joyful day!
Diggin' up this thread again.
I am assuming the Middle Way is to be no more extreme than other paths. By that, I mean, you do not have to walk exactly down the middle of the Middle Way. Simply, that in all things you should practice moderation. Is that correct?
So how does one know when they are exceeding moderation? Most things are fairly self evident. I know if I am eating too much or if I am eating too many sweets. But what about loving my daughter? How much is too much? As a father, of course I want to give her the world. But I also know granting her every whim and desire makes her spoiled and weakens her true character. So where is the Middle Way?
I had not noticed it before, but I am seeing some parallels between Buddhism and the book 7 Habits of Highly Successful People.
But what about loving my daughter? How much is too much?
If you think of her primarily in the possessive: "MY daughter," and only secondarily as a person, I'd say that's way too much. There is no limit to how much you can cherish a person, or enjoy their company. But when you start feeling like you're somehow ENTITLED to it, then you've wandered pretty far off the Middle Path. One monk put it this way: "If your loved one is at home, and you value each moment with them as a priceless gem, so much the better. But if they fail to come home, do you feel the universe has somehow cheated you of what is rightfully yours? That's not love; it's grasping. The universe owes 'you' nothing."
I had not noticed it before, but I am seeing some parallels between Buddhism and the book 7 Habits of Highly Successful People.
Haven't read it. Maybe along the same lines, though, from talking to my brother (a psychologist) I'm learning that a number of therapy techniques are cheap Buddhist ripoffs with the serial numbers filed off.
The universe owes 'you' nothing."
I do not do that with my daughter. I think I do it with my free time, though. I do get angry (suffering?) when I have free time and it is interrupted.
Consciously, I realize the universe does not owe me anything…even my life. I think there is a part of me that still feels entitled. "Look at all the bad things that have happened to me. I deserve some good things."
I guess I need to recognize this when I see it within myself. It seems absurd when thinking on it now, but in the heat of the moment is another matter.
...I'm learning that a number of therapy techniques are cheap Buddhist ripoffs with the serial numbers filed off.
Can truths be cheaply ripped off? Can the serial numbers be filed off of them? Or perhaps the techniques are quick fixes which only apply the concepts superficially.
"Good men melt with compassion even for one who has wrought them harm." --Kshemendra's Avadana Kalpalata.
I do not even know how to start to have compassion for Osama bin Laden. This is not a comment on the quote, but on me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Good men melt with compassion even for one who has wrought them harm." --Kshemendra's Avadana Kalpalata.
I do not even know how to start to have compassion for Osama bin Laden. This is not a comment on the quote, but on me.
The same way one has compassion for a rabid dog. That doesn't mean that you deal with it any differently, just that in doing so you pity it as opposed to hate it.
"Practice the art of 'giving up.'"--Fo-sho-hing-tsan-king
I find this amusing. In America, there is certainly an association with pacifism to cowardice or weakness. Which is more often quoted from the Bible, turn the other cheek or an eye for an eye?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for bringing this thread back from the dead.
Eye for an eye is a very miss understood quote. It means let the punishment fit the crime. Not a call for vengence. in fact vengence is mine sayeth the lord is also a biblical quote.
Moderation in all things... including moderation. Somethings must be given our all. Or we are just paying lip service to our beliefs.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Turn the other cheek" is also an often misunderstood Bible quote. It has to do with passive resistance and not backing down, it doesn't advocate disregarding offenses in any way.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV
It's quite literal. Someone could legally slap someone of a lower class with the back of their hand. By offering the other cheak, that gives them two options: Slap with the other hand (the other hand being the left, which was used for unclean purposes and thus unsuitable), or strike with a fist or open hand which would be an acknowledgement of legal equality.
The "suing for your tunic" bit was something that actually happened in the courts at the time. By offering all of your clothes, you would wind up naked, and at the time, nudity was viewed as bringing shame upon the viewer, not the naked person.
"Forcing you to go one mile" refers to an actual Roman practice where soldiers could force local people into service carrying their supplies, but for no more than a mile at a time. Insisting upon going two miles could result in disciplinary action being brought upon the soldier.
CH, that's really good stuff, that I've never heard before. Even if you made it all up off the top of your head it would be cool -- but what you're saying gibes nicely with the rest of what the J-Man was saying, so it definitely bears some thinking about. Thanks!
It has to do with passive resistance and not backing down, it doesn't advocate disregarding offenses in any way.
That does portray Jesus in a somewhat different light for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That does portray Jesus in a somewhat different light for me.It has to do with passive resistance and not backing down, it doesn't advocate disregarding offenses in any way.
It's funny, but people forget Jesus was kind of a badass in his own way. How many of us would show up at bank and start beating the teller with our belts?
The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed.
If the person is below your station, why not? It would be the equivalent of throwing a shoe, wouldn't it?
It's funny, but people forget Jesus was kind of a badass in his own way. How many of us would show up at bank and start beating the teller with our belts?
I have never questioned Jesus' badass-ness. Whether he was advocating non-agression, passive resistence, or was simply a rebel, I respect him and many of the things he had to say.
I think attacking a bank teller is a poor analogy at best.
Persist not in calling attention to a matter calculated to cause
division.--Patimokkha.
I am so busted. :)
Never should he speak a disparaging word of
anybody.--Saddharma-pundarika
Gah, that is difficult.
|
|
The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed.
If the person is below your station, why not? It would be the equivalent of throwing a shoe, wouldn't it?
I think it wouldn't even be viewed as a possibility. There may also have been a stigma attached with using it as such, as opposed to the right-hand backhand which was considered perfectly acceptable and legal. I'm sure someone who is more knowledgeable of Roman-era Hebrew culture could answer your question better than I.
Ultimately, the message of Buddhism is beautiful in its simplicity: Figure it out for yourself, no one else can give you adequate answers...
At least that's what I get out of it...
Then the answer is cheese! I win!
|
|
I have noticed that some people in Japan will use multiple religious rites. Say a Catholic wedding and a Buddist funeral. Because the basic teachings of Bthe Buhda is about suffering and how to alieviate it, are these beliefs capable intergration with other beliefs?
One example is Saint Francis of Assisi who is a a saint both in Christianity and Buhdism.
What nothing? AM I boring you people!!!
Nope. Just doing some reading.
I have noticed that some people in Japan will use multiple religious rites. Say a Catholic wedding and a Buddist funeral. Because the basic teachings of Bthe Buhda is about suffering and how to alieviate it, are these beliefs capable intergration with other beliefs?
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't find other religious traditions to be incompatible with Buddhism. In fact, I turn quite often to the Bible, and other relgious texts, for religious inspiration and insight.
In Living Buddha, Living Christ, the Vietnamese Zen monk Thich Nhat Hahn described an interreligious meeting in Sri Lanka where the participants were assured: "We are going to hear about the beauties of several traditions, but that does not mean that we are going to make a fruit salad." When it was Thich Nhat Hahn's turn to speak, he commented: "Fruit salad can be delicious! I have shared the Eucharist with Father Daniel Berrigan, and our worship became possible because of the sufferings we Vietnamese and Americans shared over many years."
Because the basic teachings of the Buddha [are] about suffering and how to alieviate it, are these beliefs capable intergration with other beliefs?
Yes! And with atheism as well, if one chooses to go that route. One potential catch is that the Buddha taught that there is no individual, eternal soul -- that "self" is in fact an illusion -- so that part of Christian dogma is incompatible with the basic message of Buddhism. Essentially all the other stuff in the Sermon on the Mount is stuff that the Buddha was teaching 500 years earlier, though, so there's no conflict there. Thich Nhat Hanh's interpretation of Scripture admittedly focuses on the Sermon ("From a Buddhist standpoint, Jesus was a very enlightened fellow!"), and not on any of the stuff so near and dear to most Christians' hearts -- a lot of which doesn't mesh well unless one interprets the supernatural portions of the Bible very allegorically.
|
|
Because the basic teachings of the Buddha [are] about suffering and how to alieviate it, are these beliefs capable intergration with other beliefs?Yes! And with atheism as well, if one chooses to go that route. One potential catch is that the Buddha taught that there is no individual, eternal soul -- that "self" is in fact an illusion -- so that part of Christian dogma is incompatible with the basic message of Buddhism. Essentially all the other stuff in the Sermon on the Mount is stuff that the Buddha was teaching 500 years earlier, though, so there's no conflict there. Thich Nhat Hanh's interpretation of Scripture admittedly focuses on the Sermon ("From a Buddhist standpoint, Jesus was a very enlightened fellow!"), and not on any of the stuff so near and dear to most Christians' hearts -- a lot of which doesn't mesh well unless one interprets the supernatural portions of the Bible very allegorically.
Much of it is.
Yes! And with atheism as well, if one chooses to go that route. One potential catch is that the Buddha taught that there is no individual, eternal soul -- that "self" is in fact an illusion -- so that part of Christian dogma is incompatible with the basic message of Buddhism.
I do not think that the concept of a soul is incompatible with Buddhist teachings. In fact, I think the two are highly complementary. Read the Bible again. Psalm 62 says, "My soul finds rest in God alone; my salvation comes from him. He alone is my rock and my salvation... Lowborn men are but a breath, the highborn are but a lie; if weighed on a balance, they are nothing; together they are only a breath. Do not trust in extortion or take pride in stolen goods; though your riches increase, do not set your heart on them... One thing God has spoken, two things have I heard: that you, O God, are strong, and that you, O Lord, are loving."
God... is loving. Our souls do not find rest or salvation in men or riches, but only in God. Is this not unlike the Buddha's teachings that suffering comes from attachment, and that when we give it up, and practice loving-kindness, we achieve enlightenment? Granted, David may use words like 'soul' and 'God' in place of words like 'ego' and 'loving-kindness,' but the concepts are not so dissimilar, are they?
I understand your initial objection to the Christian concept of a soul, but do not think that it is entirely incompatible with Buddhist teachings. Buddhism and Christianity deliver very similar messages, and the concepts of one are highly compatible with the other. If we cannot see it, then it is because our ego prevents us.
I have noticed that some people in Japan will use multiple religious rites. Say a Catholic wedding and a Buddist funeral. Because the basic teachings of Bthe Buhda is about suffering and how to alieviate it, are these beliefs capable intergration with other beliefs?
Others have commented on the theological aspects, but I have some limited information about the cultural practices in question.
The Japanese are, on average, not especially religious by western definitions. Buddhism and Shintoism have long coexisted and people pick and choose the practices they find interesting, fun, meaningful, aesthetically appealing, and so forth. Reconciling the theology isn't a big deal. (For a while a form of Shinto was compulsory, but that came to a sudden end in the late 1940s. Even longer ago Christianity got some early success and then pretty much exterminated.)
So far as weddings go, legally you're married as soon as you fill out the forms. The ceremony is mostly an excuse to have a party. (A lot like many American weddings.) Traditional Buddhist or Shinto weddings tend towards the long, uncomfortable, and expensive. Combine that with a culture that's pretty indifferent to doctrines and that Western things are often seen as trendy, cool, and romantic (kind of like how we see Eastern things), and a Christian wedding seems like a decent pick. It wins on style, convenience, and price.
Which is not to say that there are no sincere, believing Buddhists, Shintoists, and so forth who have reconciled or integrated their various traditions with Christianity. Just that there are more secular reasons too. :)
I just stumbled upon Francois de La Rochefoucauld. I see some similarities between his maxims and Buddhism.
"The happiness or unhappiness of men depends no less upon their disposition than their fortunes."
I have nothing to add. Just wanted to share.
EDIT: Or is it that my ego wanted to point out I found something? Hmmmm.
I was thinking about Buddhism last night. Is life really suffering? Some things in life are not suffering. Again, I point to my daughter. I concede that 'loosing' her would cause suffering. But should I not enjoy the time I do have with her?
I may have asked this before. If so, I apologize. I have a lot of concepts/theologies spinning around in my noggin lately.
Is life really suffering?
Properly speaking, the maxim isn't that "life is suffering," but more that "there is suffering in life." And as the Buddha noted even before his enlightenment, even if you're not currently getting a full dose, there's plenty of it all around you, if you look.
Ah, o.k. So you are free to enjoy life's pleasures as long as you do not become attached to them?
Something that bothers me, not so much about Buddhism, but about Buddha himself is that he abandoned his wife and child. I can see that he was showing the ultimate unattachment, but it still feels wrong to me.
|
|
Something that bothers me, not so much about Buddhism, but about Buddha himself is that he abandoned his wife and child. I can see that he was showing the ultimate unattachment, but it still feels wrong to me.
As it does to me as well. In his defense however this happened before his "enlightenment" and it was something he thought over and it worried him much before he decided on this course of action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, o.k. So you are free to enjoy life's pleasures as long as you do not become attached to them?
Right on -- that's why he called it the "middle path" -- it's not aceticism, and it's not hedonism.
Both of which he tried.
Hmmm. Maybe that is my problem. I need to try both of them. I'll start with hedonism. :)
Both of which he tried.
Yup. Read Hesse's Siddartha; somewhat fictionalized, but a very readable account.