This statement needs some unpacking. Christianity is dead in the sense that its symbols no longer resonate for Western man - that much is true. And Christianity has been "dying" in this sense ever since Nietzsche proclaimed that "God is dead, and we have killed him". Christianity has lost its authenticity in other words. The symbols used by the Christian religion no longer "make sense" to the way of being of the average Joe in the Western world. Christianity has lost its vitality.Christianity is a dead religion. — frank
But it's not because the stories are absurd, or the requirements are ridiculous. They are absolutely not. It's because "secular man" does not have the openness required to understand them. The social environment is inimical to Christianity, and as such, Christianity cannot but be misunderstood by the masses. To talk of a hedonistic AND Christian age at one and the same time is indeed a contradiction in terms. They are two parallel worlds. The evils currently seen in the world are interpreted, by science and secular authority, as necessary. As the nature of existence. Hence the prevailing acceptance of a (misunderstood) nihilistic religion like Buddhism.It's absurd stories and ridiculous requirements have been superseded by secular authority and science. — frank
The evils currently seen in the world are interpreted, by science and secular authority, as necessary. As the nature of existence. Hence the prevailing acceptance of a (misunderstood) nihilistic religion like Buddhism. — Agustino
In my opinion and for whatever it may be worth, the long history of those in power using Christian beliefs as a pure white robe to parade around in is a large factor. — 0 thru 9
God became flesh. He had himself crucified in order to redeem his own creation. It's the ravings of a lunatic. — frank
yeah! I'm more inclined to approach these themes in eastern terms, or at least western mystical ones (I like gnosticism a lot) - I feel like the christ drama is like a satisfying 'pageant' or something dramatizing a less tangible thing.It's a Tibetan Buddhist thing as well. — frank
I am saying that Buddhism is accepted as it is accepted mostly because it is misunderstood through the lens of our hedonistic/consumerist culture. Buddhism is a palliative against pain and suffering. But the issue lies with the way it is used. It's used in order to mask resolvable pains as unresolvable ones, in order to maintain a diseased state of the soul, in order to prevent the pain from waking one up to one's own conditioning. Buddhism is a way of avoiding the need to look at your own face and to actually do something that can bring about a resolution.Are you perhaps saying that Buddhism is accepted only or mostly because it is misunderstood? If so, what does that mean? If not, what did you mean? — 0 thru 9
For example, an alcoholic may resort to Buddhism and the tenet that life is suffering as a palliative for accepting his condition. He suffers because, oh well, suffering is unavoidable. It's the nature of life. There is no urgency to remedy his condition, nor is there anything morally wrong with his actions. — Agustino
I am discussing Western Buddhism for the most part. I did claim it is a misrepresentation of actual Buddhism:You sure this isn't a misrepresentation of Buddhism? — Erik
Hence the prevailing acceptance of a (misunderstood) nihilistic religion like Buddhism. — Agustino
I am saying that Buddhism is accepted as it is accepted mostly because it is misunderstood through the lens of our hedonistic/consumerist culture. — Agustino
Put that way, but very often it is phrased as "life is suffering, desire is the cause of suffering, suffering can be extinguished, the way to extinguish it is the Noble Eightfold Path".acknowledge suffering, identify its cause, recognize that it can be minimized, and follow certain practices (Eight Fold Path) as a means of eliminating as much of it as humanly possible. — Erik
But for Christianity, everything is sustained into being by God. You do have free will (that is of the essence of Christianity), so what you do does matter. But since you only exist because of God, it is, ultimately, not just your doing, but also God's. So whatsoever one does is, at the very least, permitted by God (who sustains everyone into being).with salvation coming strictly through God's grace. This obviously holds true for the salvation of the whole as well: to assume that one could do something to improve the condition of the world without God being the cause would seem to be a case of hubris. — Erik
I've made a point here that you do not address. I am not looking to convince you, or to be convinced by you, but since this is a philosophy forum, I think it's appropriate to engage in dialogue and try our best to resolve problems and misunderstandings. Disengaging from dialogue isn't very productive in achieving this aim.Attachments are seen as the cause of suffering in Buddhism - you are not to be attached. So how is it possible to love and care for your children, for example, without any form of attachment? Your children become, just like Buddha's children became for him, a stumbling block. So he left his palace and his children and his wife to find enlightenment alone in the forest. And that is applauded in the story. His loved ones represented nothing more than obstacles in his way. How can this not be selfish? It seems to me that Buddhism is, in its essence, built around this personal aversion to suffering, that sets one on a mission to end suffering for themselves, for their own sake. — Agustino
Hi 0 thru 9, I appreciate your response. However, I don't see sufficient effort to answer the points I've brought up. — Agustino
Attachments are seen as the cause of suffering in Buddhism - you are not to be attached. — Agustino
So how is it possible to love and care for your children, for example, without any form of attachment? Your children become, just like Buddha's children became for him, a stumbling block. So he left his palace and his children and his wife to find enlightenment alone in the forest. And that is applauded in the story. His loved ones represented nothing more than obstacles in his way. How can this not be selfish? — Agustino
I honestly don’t know how one could come to this conclusion after studying the words and life of the Buddha, as well as what later traditions added. Such as the concept of the Bohdisattva, as @Erik mentioned above. Aversion is one of the “Three Poisons”, along with greed and hatred. And is therefore discouraged. So trying to reduce suffering, and coming up with an accurate psychological description of its causes and possible cures is a good thing, no? But Buddhism seems to not be seeking members or converts or even believers. And it is not entirely different from a skeptical and pragmatic Stoicism, IMHO. If one accepts the basics of Stoicism and Taoism, perhaps that is traveling towards Buddha territory. (Or perhaps not).It seems to me that Buddhism is, in its essence, built around this personal aversion to suffering, that sets one on a mission to end suffering for themselves, for their own sake. — Agustino
As to Buddhism all sorts of love is "Attachment". And the is no such thing called a person.
There 3 things interplay here:
Kama Raga - attachment to sensual objects or objects arousing lust
Chanda Raga - attachments to people (lovers, loved one's, family, friends)
Suba Sanna - perception of beauty in the shape of the body
So when you see a person the following can happen:
Pleasure, displeasure, neutral sensation on how you perceive the person based on
Previous interaction and perception formed as friend or not or a person who matters or not or good person or bad person or likable or not
Perception of looks of the person
Relative to one's looks
As an object of desire
So when you see a person of the opposite sex the 1st time, what you get is Kama Raga and Suba Sanna. This is in seeking of pleasure born of such interactions.
Though Kama Raga heavily influences Chanda Raga, the main thing is that the person is influential in you life / perceived world. As the "puppet master" of the perceived world you get pleasure from the "puppets" in the show when they seem to go according to your expectations.
Chanda Raga is what might keep a relationship going even when Kama Raga subsides with time and into old age when Suba Sanna wanes off.
Though in seeking pleasure we get the above 3, in fact these give diverse sensations: pleasure, displeasure, neutral due to impermanent nature and non self nature of existance. All the experience you can derive from it is Dukkha (pain - Dukkha Dukkha, pleasure - Viparinama Dukkha, neutral - Sankhara Dukkha). So to understand the 4 Noble Truths contemplate on the arising and passing of sensations.
If the self is an illusion - of little importance - where does that leave my relationships?
All the people I know, have a relationship with this 'fake self' of mine -- so the relationships are groundless? an illusion also?
You are asking something like "If superman is fictional, what happens to his relationship with Lois Lane?".
In ultimate reality, relationships don't exit. It's just craving/clinging arising in the mind for seeing, hearing, smelling, touching etc.
Buddhism has made me realise that everything is impermanent and undergoing the process of destruction including intimate relationships however if I know this then why is it still so painful when it happens? And what is the point of trying to build a life together with another person when it's inevitably going to end? Sometimes it all feels like such a cruel joke. I was in a relationship for 15 years and never thought it would end but it did and 6 months later I still feel so sad. I don't want to ever get involved intimately with another person ever again because I don't ever want to go through that pain again. Yes this may be aversion to pain but why put yourself through that if you can avoid it? Sure there will be more pain from other things but the pain of separation from a loved one feels worse than a death. It actually feels like I could die.
Nyom Arturia,
Ajahn Chah once explained well how to have a relation, here in a simile of a glass:
The Broken Glass
You may say, "Don't break my glass!" But you can't prevent something breakable from breaking. If it doesn't break now, it'll break later on. If you don't break it, someone else will. If someone else doesn't break it, one of the chickens will! The Buddha says to accept this. He penetrated all the way to seeing that this glass is already broken. This glass that isn't broken, he has us know as already broken. Whenever you pick up the glass, put water in it, drink from it, and put it down, he tells you to see that it's already broken. Understand? The Buddha's understanding was like this. He saw the broken glass in the unbroken one. Whenever its conditions run out, it'll break. Develop this attitude. Use the glass; look after it. Then one day it slips out of your hand: "Smash!" No problem. Why no problem? Because you saw it as broken before it broke. See?
But usually people say, "I've taken such good care of this glass. Don't ever let it break." Later on the dog breaks it, and you hate the dog. If your child breaks it, you hate him, too. You hate whoever breaks it — because you've dammed yourself up so that the water can't flow. You've made a dam without a spillway. The only thing the dam can do is burst, right? When you make a dam, you have to make a spillway, too. When the water rises up to a certain level, it can flow off safely to the side. When it's full to the brim, it can flow out the spillway. You need to have a spillway like this. Seeing inconstancy is the Buddha's spillway. When you see things this way, you can be at peace. That's the practice of the Dhamma.
That's the case how to possible think if having or losing a relation.
The other case is the sub-question:
And what is the point of trying to build a life together with another person when it's inevitably going to end? Sometimes it all feels like such a cruel joke.
Realization that becoming is actually a "curel joke" is a very high realization and if seen in all compound things the reason for earnest seeking a path out, blessed if having come to the Buddhas good teachings. This is meeting up with the reality of Dukkha.
So in regard of search, what will be for a long time benefit? That search it self is bound to much suffering as well, is clear, but if not having a search is needed and there are three kinds:
Iti 54
This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "There are these three searches. Which three? The search for sensuality, the search for becoming, the search for a holy life. These are the three searches."
Centered,
mindful,
alert,
the Awakened One's
disciple
discerns searches,
how searches come into play,
where they cease,
& the path to their ending.
With the ending of searches, a monk
free of want
is totally unbound.
Search for a partner is nothing but about searching after sensuallity, maybe becoming, isn't it? Of course after a career even more... so just give it a deeper thought and maybe use you luck of independency you currently have for a more holly life to be.
At the End it's maybe worthy to say, that also searching for a relation to be able to live the holly life is actually nessesary, so admirable friend(s) are always worthy to seach for and also to invest much in such a relationship, even of course it will outardly break, but once being part of the other kind, no and never alone and without support till standing firm alone.
Of course, after getting enlightened, One is free from worry: now the person is in higher dimension and is always happy, as he knows how perfect everything is.
But still Buddha's family was there; I mean, wasn't his family his responsibility?
I remember when the Buddha came back to the palace and met his wife: she asked, "just tell me, if it was possible to get enlightenment in the palace."
How necessary is it to leave our families to practice, and if it is not necessary why didn't Buddha just come back? I always feel sad when I think about Siddhārtha Gautama's wife Yashodhara.
If one is enlightened, he can not hurt anyone feelings: but Buddha hurt Yashodhara's feelings?
I know I am incorrect somewhere, because after all He was enlightened, so he can not take wrong decision.
What's your point? There is NO SUCH THING as right decision and wrong decision. It purely depends on the context of the situation. If Gautama wants the answer he is seeking, then he has to leave the family. Period. It is NOT WRONG. He did it because he was yearning for it. It cannot happen to you or me, because we don't have the guts to sacrifice and drop everything that doesn't matter and go towards our goal. If Gautama wanted to rule the world or a kingdom, he would have taken different actions. Actions are according to the goal and the situation. Don't think in terms of marriage/divorce law or morality here.
I also want to add finally that, to go for Nirvana is definitely a selfish matter. If I want to find out what it is, it is because it is MY DESIRE to find out. Without Desire, you cannot live, breathe, feel or do anything. It is a desire to find out about life that Gautama went forth with. And whether you like it or not, it is selfish. And why not be selfish about this? Yes you will hurt some feelings, but like I said, you cannot have everything, you have to sacrifice.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.