Baden, if you think it appropriate, feel free to move this to its own thread. — Agustino

String successfully pulled.

String successfully pulled. — Baden

See, just one session with the master was enough! :wink:

:100:

And these answers make it clear how utterly nihilistic and devaluing Buddhism is of the world and its possibilities. Compare this, on the other hand with Christianity. Christianity, where God Himself comes into the world to live amongst human beings out of Love. Where He, being the King of Kings allows Himself to be mocked and humiliated, and ultimately killed in the name of Love. Behold One who was not afraid of suffering - who did not want to "escape" suffering, but rather plunged straight into the jaws of suffering. Jesus, apart from being God, was a real man. There is something mawkish and unmanly about the retreat from the world in order to avoid suffering. It is true that attachment is suffering (or rather has the potential for suffering in it) - but that's no reason to avoid it.

Only weak natures, who cannot bear the pressure of pain and suffering will give up on themselves. A strong nature, even if reality were different than its desire, would never renounce the said desire. That is the ultimate statement of its strength, will, and determination in front of the world. The fact that it chooses to stick with its nature, rather than surrender to external circumstances. As such, the faith proposed by Christianity is the ultimate rebellion, the ultimate scandal, man's determination that he will stick with himself, rather than with the world. Christianity does not devalue this world by postulating a Heaven when "All tears will be wiped away", but rather lifts up the world, makes it divine. What greater source of strength can be imagined, than this infinite faith, which burns up anything that stands against it, and remains true to one's nature and desires? — Agustino

Peace, brother. Forgive me please for skipping to your conclusions though, for it seems here is where we will most respectfully part on this matter. We may meet up at another time and subject. Until then... nostrovia! Please don’t think me “mawkish or unmanly” for retreating from this debate. I realize now that I initiated this discussion by asking you to clarify your stance on nihilism and Buddhism. Now we have it, and are thankful. Maybe I could have even guessed it. If you feel that Buddhism is somehow deficient compared to Christianity, who I am to argue? I don’t consider Buddhism to be nihilist, but what of it? If all living Buddhists took a vote on the matter, would it in deed matter? It would probably be interesting at least. But I find absolute comparisons and competitions relatively unhelpful. In a way, one person can be looking for a useful knife to cut some food with, while another may be searching for the One, True blade Excaliber. Both are noble. Or has Excaliber been found? Then good! Maybe I am searching for it too in a way. You have your beliefs. May they safely carry you wherever you need them to. (Please overlook my melodramatics and mild playful joking. It is less sour and tart than lemonade. This is definitely a serious subject. Carry onward please. Respond as you see fit! :up: )

It would probably be interesting at least. But I find absolute comparisons and competitions relatively unhelpful. In a way, one person can be looking for a useful knife to cut some food with, while another may be searching for the One, True blade Excaliber. Both are noble. Or has Excaliber been found? Then good! Maybe I am searching for it too in a way. You have your beliefs. May they safely carry you wherever you need them to. (Please overlook my melodramatics and mild playful joking. It is less sour and tart than lemonade. This is definitely a serious subject. Carry onward please. Respond as you see fit! :up: ) — 0 thru 9

Hm, I think that you have already placed me in a little box that says "Christian", and therefore not worth aruging with, because it won't get anywhere. That's what I feel, I may be wrong, but that's what it seems like. I am not dogmatic, I just look at what is there. In fact, whether or not Buddhism is nihilistic has nothing to do with Christianity.

About love and relationships:

All the experience you can derive from it is Dukkha

In ultimate reality, relationships don't exit. It's just craving/clinging arising in the mind for seeing, hearing, smelling, touching etc.

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?

So your child died? No problem! There is no self there, who is there to die? See your child as dead already.

And more:

to go for Nirvana is definitely a selfish matter

Yes you will hurt some feelings, but like I said, you cannot have everything, you have to sacrifice.

So if this isn't an example of nihilism, I don't know what is. Sure, Buddhists claim "Oh yeah, we are not nihilists, because there is no self in the first place to die" - I don't see how that avoids the accusation.

Hi all,



Personally, I am a "seeker" of sorts and have an interest for both Christianity, Platonism and Buddhism and you actually pointed out my own reservations about, especially, Theravada Buddhism. I think that, however, it is worth mentioning that the worldview of Buddhism and Christianity is radically different, and on this particular issue I think that the influence of the concept of "samsara" is relevant (that's why I think secular Buddhism is not "real" Buddhism).

Basically, all beings in Buddhism are seen as subject to a potentially endless cycle of rebirths. All these realms, however blissful, are impermanent and therefore they are ultimately "dukkha" because they are not free from decay and death. As the story goes, the Buddha sought a solution to this problem, i.e. freedom from old age, illness and death. He abandoned his family to seek a solution to this problem and he found it. An "unawakened" life cannot give a solution to the problem of (repeated) decay and death, and therefore Buddhists would say that he actually gave to his family, after awakening, something that is unvaluable, something that surpasses every joy that can give the "world". As a king he could never give even to his family the freedom of Nirvana.

As the story goes, the Buddha awakened to the "Dhamma" and expounded the four Noble Truths. The first is that there is suffering, given by decay, death, association with the "unbeloved" etc. The second is craving. Note that craving is seen as the cause of the "transmigration". The third Nobel Truth is Nirvana, the end of suffering. The fourth is the Path to achieve Nirvana. According to the "suttas" Nirvana is achieved by being unattached and also without aversion. So, the training leads to see reality with personal preferences, which are said to be rooted in ignorance (avijja), the cause of craving (and ultimately the cause of samsara).

Anyway, it is difficult IMO to render justice to Buddhism in all its various forms. Theravada and Mahayana are very different and in each of them there are a lot of school of thoughts.

I think that there are two main reason why people call Buddhism as "nihilistic". One is that according to them (and also for some Buddhists!) Nirvana is simply the mere absence of conditioned phenomena. The other is its tendency of world-denial.

As I said, some interpret Nirvana as "mere absence". But, I think that it is mostly a modern innovation and not a good one (except for, probably, the ancient Buddhist Sautrantika school). For example, even in the Canonical commentaries (i.e. included in the Pali Canon) there are a few "positive" description of Nirvana as being "permanent" (or even "eternal" albeit "not-self and not pertaining to a self", see e.g. this section of the Kathavatthu, a part of the Theravada canonical Abhidhamma). So even saying that for "Buddhism" everything is impermanent and unsatisfactory, is an over-simplification. Then you have the Mahayana idea that there is the "non-abiding Nirvana", where the liberated being (in this case a Bodhisattva or a Buddha) abides in neither Samsara nor in Nirvana, and therefore s/he "renounces" the bliss of Nirvana for the benefit of all sentient beings.

Anyway, look closer. Anatta means also that phenomena are not under one's control and therefore, egoism leads to suffering. Hence, by removing the concern to oneself, in both Theravada and Mahayana the idea is that one reduces egoism. And in fact, the reduction of lust, attachments, aversions etc are accompained by an increasing of "positive" qualities like loving-kindness and compassion. Detachment also means that one does not see the world with the lens of one's preferences and therefore he might also be more able to love others for what they are (and not under the lens of one's expectations, for example). The Mahayana emphasizes the "compassion" part as well the "wisdom" part, hence "taking care of others" is very important in a Mahayana context. But if there is no "potentially endless samsara" the Theravada's "world-denying tendency" and the Mahayana vows to help all sentient beings lose, in my opinion, their meaning. Anyway, if that belief is not true, Buddhism, howwever, can be very useful to be mindful, patient and so on. Buddhist teachings about ethics are in my opinion very useful to non-Buddhists (for example to do vipassana, samatha and metta meditation I do not think that "belief" is required, except an amount of "trust"...).

Also, Buddhism is not anti-natalist. In fact, the human birth is regarded as "precious" and as an opportunity to aspire to the "Highest" or at least for better future rebirths. Again, it is also important to remember, IMO, that AFAIK most forms of Buddhism regard salvation as due to personal commitment (i.e. Buddhist teachers might teach you the Path, you are free to follow it or not. And also you have to walk the Path if you wish).

Regarding what Buddhists say, well, I think that all religions are subject to very different interpretations. For example, some Christians of them believe that "faith" in the sense of "mere belief" is what lead to Salvation, to "Heaven". And, in fact, according to some Christians all "unbelievers" go to Hell. So, I imagine that even in Buddhism there are a lot of views. For example see theEdicts of Ashoka:, e.g:

Everywhere[2] within Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi's domain, and among the people beyond the borders, the Cholas, the Pandyas, the Satiyaputras, the Keralaputras, as far as Tamraparni and where the Greek king Antiochos rules, and among the kings who are neighbors of Antiochos,[3] everywhere has Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, made provision for two types of medical treatment: medical treatment for humans and medical treatment for animals. Wherever medical herbs suitable for humans or animals are not available, I have had them imported and grown. Wherever medical roots or fruits are not available I have had them imported and grown. Along roads I have had wells dug and trees planted for the benefit of humans and animals.
...

is this "world-denying"?

Also, also many forms of Hinduism and Jainism are as "world-denying" as Buddhism. IMO, the belief in Samsara is the reason behind this "world-denying" tendency in India. But, on the other hand, the same belief can also inspire compassion, non-violence and so on.

Personally, I am interested in Buddhism. But I am highly skeptical of many of its doctrines. And, therefore I have reservations, for example, about the "total letting go of all attachements".

In my view, "anatta" points to the non-objectification of "what is the self" (the "identification" process).
Anyway, I think that "interpentration" is quite widespread in East Asian Buddhist teaching, especially in the Huayan school (see e.g.: this article on Fazang, the third patriarch of the Huayan school. on the IEP), which is based on the Avatamsaka sutra.

I think that anatta can be interpreted in a nihilistic way, sadly. However, in Buddhism there is also the "compassion" side of things that should be emphasized. Maybe also @Wayfarer might share his thoughts. In fact, I am very disturbed by the nihilistic readings of "anatta"!
The same goes for "emptiness".

And the reason it is nihilistic is precisely because it castrates man's need for love, and man's need to suffer for their love. All in order to avoid suffering. Don't REALLY love your child - because you know, he is already dead. Be careful there - not too much attachment, you will suffer. It promotes a disengagement with life, or better said, a superficialy engagement with life. It cannot go into depths, it always remains at the surface.

All these realms, however blissful, are impermanent and therefore they are ultimately "dukkha" because they are not free from decay and death. — boundless

Why are death and decay so bad?

So, the training leads to see reality with personal preferences, which are said to be rooted in ignorance (avijja), the cause of craving (and ultimately the cause of samsara). — boundless

I think you mean without personal preferences, but then I see that as dehumanising. How can you be human, if you don't have any preferences? We are human precisely because we can choose, and we choose based on our will, meaning based on our preferences.

For example, even in the Canonical commentaries (i.e. included in the Pali Canon) there are a few "positive" description of Nirvana as being "permanent" (or even "eternal" albeit "not-self and not pertaining to a self", see e.g. this section of the Kathavatthu, a part of the Theravada canonical Abhidhamma). — boundless

Sure, it's even called "eternal bliss". But those conceptions are never developed, nor is it clear what "eternal bliss" means, when Nirvana literarily translates as a "blowing out". When you combine this with the doctrine of anatta - no abiding self whatsoever - then it seems to me that things go quite far towards nihilism. Buddhism speaks very clearly against eternalism, and actually also condemns nihilism, but the two condemnations are made because both eternalism and nihilism assume that there is an abiding self to begin with.

And in fact, the reduction of lust, attachments, aversions etc are accompained by an increasing of "positive" qualities like loving-kindness and compassion. — boundless

I don't see why the "positive" qualities would follow from the mere removal of lust, and the like. To me, it's more like those positive qualities have to be cultivated for themselves. Love, after all, isn't merely the absence of evil.

Some people who practice meditation end up becoming very closed in themselves, and cold, unmoved, uncaring, inhuman. Breivik for example used meditation to carry out mass murder.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/may/22/anders-behring-breivik-meditation

So I'm not at all sure about the soundness of this Buddhist philosophy. It makes sense in the West, where people are generally no longer interested in anything except comfort, and individualism or egoism reigns supreme.

Detachment also means that one does not see the world with the lens of one's preferences and therefore he might also be more able to love others for what they are (and not under the lens of one's expectations, for example). — boundless

I want to challenge this. The personality is an integral aspect of loving someone. It is because of one's preferences, in other words, one's humanity, one's fraility, that love is at all possible. It is because I prefer this, over that, that I can be said to like the one. How is it possible to "love others for what they are" when I have no preferences whatsoever? To love them means that I must will to like them... I must will to want them, to prefer them, to choose them.

Anyway, if that belief is not true, Buddhism, howwever, can be very useful to be mindful, patient and so on. — boundless

I agree.

Buddhist teachings about ethics are in my opinion very useful to non-Buddhists (for example to do vipassana, samatha and metta meditation I do not think that "belief" is required, except an amount of "trust"...). — boundless

Not so much here. I don't think ethics requires meditation and the like. Meditation just helps to clarify perception, but does nothing apart from that. It does not change one's will, it does not bring about a change in one's being or one's character.

IMO, the belief in Samsara is the reason behind this "world-denying" tendency in India. — boundless

I agree.

And the reason it is nihilistic is precisely because it castrates man's need for love, and man's need to suffer for their love. - — Agustino

Christians definitely attend to the fine art of suffering, embracing hair shirts and self flagellation in imitation of the Great Tortured One.

Christian symbolism is utterly ghastly. We have horror movies now. We no longer need the church for that. In countless ways we've just outgrown it, and that's why Christianity is dead.

What's ghastly about a powerful King going to die after his beloved? That's almost the essence of heroism. It makes sense that it is misunderstood in an age such as ours, which, as Kierkegaard said:

Let others complain that the age is wicked; my complaint is that it is paltry; for it lacks passion. Men's thoughts are thin and flimsy like lace, they are themselves pitiable like the lacemakers. The thoughts of their hearts are too paltry to be sinful. For a worm it might be regarded as a sin to harbor such thoughts, but not for a being made in the image of God. Their lusts are dull and sluggish, their passions sleepy...This is the reason my soul always turns back to the Old Testament and to Shakespeare. I feel that those who speak there are at least human beings: they hate, they love, they murder their enemies, and curse their descendants throughout all generations, they sin

Christianity is not a dead religion lol

What's ghastly about a powerful King going to die after his beloved? That's almost the essence of heroism. — Agustino

Per the gospel account he didn't really die. People saw him 3 days later. :roll:

Christianity was a significant tool for me in building character and understanding myself / developing passion, commitment, other virtue etc. I might not experience an understanding of divinity had I not got involved with the church band.

Per the gospel account he didn't really die. People saw him 3 days later. :roll: — frank

So because people saw Him 3 days later, it means He didn't really die? :s

Christianity was a significant tool for me in building character and understanding myself / developing passion, commitment, other virtue etc. I might not experience an understanding of divinity had I not got involved with the church band. — matt

I appreciate and honor that.

So because people saw Him 3 days later, it means He didn't really die? :s — Agustino

Does Christianity demand that I put aside common sense?

Does Christianity demand that I put aside common sense? — frank

No.

Ha! Fair enough and well played. Thanks for not dismissing my post despite the perhaps mild exasperation. I’ll try to do likewise. You are Christian? As mentioned, I am a Christian... who was later influenced by Buddhism, the Tao, the Hindu and yogic traditions, etc. Maybe they are oil and water and don’t mix. Maybe together they mix up one’s mind. Maybe oil and water is just salad dressing for a mixed salad. (By the way, I am not a big fan of this thread’s current title. But if Christianity went down in flames, you know the story of the Phoenix. And the book of Revelation, if you’d like.)

Excuse me if I politely decline a point by point discussion for now. It is not meant to be dismissive. However, you presented a mixed bag of quotes ranging from a helpful parable from acknowledged master Ajahn Chah (about the temporality and fragility of everything which makes it more precious, not less) to questions from Joe Schmo asking Jane Doe on Stack exchange who possibly answers “seeking Nirvana is selfish nihilism... blah blah... but you gotta crack some eggs to make an omelet... yada yada, etc... Then you toss in some comparisons with Christianity. If you are convinced, then good. If you’re happy, I’m happy! If you come across the Buddha on the road, give him a good kick in his unflatteringly tight yoga pants! The Zen masters would approve. :snicker:

There is nihilism and despair everywhere one turns in this world. It’s in the air! It’s in our bones. We probably bring it to our religions. Maybe that’s why were there in the first place. Let’s find a cure or cures for ourselves as soon as possible. That’s not selfish. It’s taking the splinter out of my eye first, to be able to see what’s going on...

Did you know that Christianity/Buddhism combos were once common in Central Asia?

Yes. (But I won’t mention the heretical New Age story of Jesus traveling to the East. :zip: )

(about the temporality and fragility of everything which makes it more precious, not less) — 0 thru 9

Let's look at the story:

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.

Can you please show me where the story highlights that temporality and fragility makes everything more precious rather than less? I may be wrong, but I think this really is your own addition. There's nothing wrong if you believe this, but I see no indication for it in the story.

I can see indications in the story that you should be at peace when things and people break down because that is their nature - to ultimately break down. But there's nothing in there as far as I can see about the fact that things are temporal and fragile, that they are therefore more valuable rather than less.

Yes. (But I won’t mention the heretical New Age story of Jesus traveling to the East. :zip: ) — 0 thru 9

I just meant there were churches that appear to be both. No need for Jesus to go anywhere. :)

Why are death and decay so bad? — Agustino

They cause suffering, pain, distress and so on. And I think that compassion also means to limit our suffering. If someone is suffering, we should try to help him/her. They are bad in the same way an illness is bad (and therefore we seek to cure it).

I think you mean without personal preferences, but then I see that as dehumanising. How can you be human, if you don't have any preferences? We are human precisely because we can choose, and we choose based on our will, meaning based on our preferences. — Agustino

I agree to that to an extent. I think that "preferences" in a sense are still there, even in "liberated individuals". For example, the last thing Sariputta (the "wisest disciple" in the suttas) did was to "liberate" his mother. If he had no preference, why did he went to free his mother and not an unkwnown person? On the other hand, however, I think he is depicted as "unattached" to his preferences. And non-attachment does not mean "indifference".

But note that in Theravada, the total freedom from craving is gained at Arhant level (full liberation). Stream-enterers (who are partially liberated) can also enjoy "wordly" pleasures, live an "ordinary" life etc. They, however, have abandoned all "self-views". Again, I think that in this radical "transcendence" of the human condition is due again to the belief in Samsara. For Indians it is "normal" that humans can become even more "worthy" than the devas. So, in such a cultural landscape I am not too surprised to see somewhat disturbing ideas.

Sure, it's even called "eternal bliss". But those conceptions are never developed, nor is it clear what "eternal bliss" means, when Nirvana literarily translates as a "blowing out". When you combine this with the doctrine of anatta - no abiding self whatsoever - then it seems to me that things go quite far towards nihilism. Buddhism speaks very clearly against eternalism, and actually also condemns nihilism, but the two condemnations are made because both eternalism and nihilism assume that there is an abiding self to begin with. — Agustino

Yes, anatta seems to point towards that. But, as far as I know, only an ancient school of Buddhism apparently interpreted Nirvana in that way! So, I think that it is not simply "oblivion". Also in the discourses themselves the Tathagatha is said to be "deep, boundless..." (see e.g. the sutta MN 72). Of course we have the "extinction of the fire" analogy, but we have also a "hint" to some "ineffability". Also, there are some hints in discourses like: Udana 8.1 and Iti 43. But, indeed you are correct in saying that both eternalism and annihilationism were criticized for poisiting an "abiding self". So, sadly, the nihilist view has its textual support (and, in fact, you find a lot of people who say that). I do not deny that!

Regarding what is that "eternal bliss", if not "mere absence", I agree that it is not developed. This is meaningful in the "Buddhist soteriological context", because if one "conceives things" about Nirvana, one begins to grasp his concept of Nirvana and therefore can miss Nirvana itself. Personally, I think that "mere absence" can be considered as a "worthwile goal" only if one thinks that anatta means that we do not exist at all.

Anyway, I think that even in Christianity we do not know what the promised "eternal bliss" is! After all, I have no clear idea of "what is like" to be in Communion with God? Or, take for example religions that aspire at "union with God". What does that mean, experientially? So, IMO, the fact that Buddhism does not want to describe Nirvana is due to a strict "apophatic" approach (and yes, I think it is sometimes misunderstood as "oblivion").

I don't see why the "positive" qualities would follow from the mere removal of lust, and the like. To me, it's more like those positive qualities have to be cultivated for themselves. Love, after all, isn't merely the absence of evil. — Agustino

Agreed! Sorry, for the lack of clarity, I did not want to imply that! What I meant is that we can develop positive qualities easier if we remove "negative ones". In fact, Buddhism without the cultivation of positive qualities can become an ego trip IMO.

I want to challenge this. The personality is an integral aspect of loving someone. It is because of one's preferences, in other words, one's humanity, one's fraility, that love is at all possible. It is because I prefer this, over that, that I can be said to like the one. How is it possible to "love others for what they are" when I have no preferences whatsoever? To love them means that I must will to like them... I must will to want them, to prefer them, to choose them. — Agustino

Again, I agree with this. And I think that Buddhism does agree with it. In fact, there is also e.g. "mudita", i.e. "symphatetic joy". As I said before, maybe the problem is not preference or personality but our tendency to "grasp" and not be able to "let go". But, you are right. Even compassion itself is a preference: you want others to feel good and so on. I think that the problem is egoism here, i.e. wanting to control others for selfish reasons.

Anyway, I still like Christianity for the reason you mention here. We are not told to behave in a "god-like" way, so to speak. We can still be "human", with our weaknesses. We do not need to "renounce" the world to achieve Salvation. Hence, we can try to do our best as humans to make the world a better place, to love others and so on. In Christianity one does not have to think in terms of multiple life and, therefore, should try to value this life. So Christianity, as you say, is more life-affirming. Also, Christianity is, in a way, more flexible than Buddhism: a person that has a greater tendency to enjoy worldy pleasures is not "disadvantaged" in the pursuit of Salvation.

On the other hand, if there is no God and we are in a Samsara the situation is different...

Not so much here. I don't think ethics requires meditation and the like. Meditation just helps to clarify perception, but does nothing apart from that. It does not change one's will, it does not bring about a change in one's being or one's character. — Agustino

Again, I agree that meditation per se does not lead to love others. But, maybe it can help to become more effective in our actions. Also, by "ethical teachings" I also meant something like:

"Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do.

(MN 61, Instructions to Rahula)

Sorry for the edit!

Or, take for example religions that aspire at "union with God" — boundless

Like Christianity? :P

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)

They cause suffering, pain, distress and so on. — boundless

Well, I don't think death necessarily causes suffering, pain and distress, at least for the one dying. But old age, illness, etc. obviously do.

At the same time, I think it is possible to, psychologically so to speak, not mind your own suffering. In other words, the suffering is still there, the pain, for example, is still there, but you don't mind it. It's hard to describe this state, I've sometimes experienced it. So I think it is possible to accept life, and see the pains as inseparable from the joys, and say yes to the whole ride, without "extinguishing" yourself as per Buddhism.

I agree to that to an extent. I think that "preferences" in a sense are still there, even in "liberated individuals". For example, the last thing Sariputta (the "wisest disciple" in the suttas) did was to "liberate" his mother. If he had no preference, why did he went to free his mother and not an unkwnown person? On the other hand, however, I think he is depicted as "unattached" to his preferences. And non-attachment does not mean "indifference".

But note that in Theravada, the total freedom from craving is gained at Arhant level (full liberation). Stream-enterers (who are partially liberated) can also enjoy "wordly" pleasures, live an "ordinary" life etc. They, however, have abandoned all "self-views". Again, I think that in this radical "transcendence" of the human condition is due again to the belief in Samsara. For Indians it is "normal" that humans can become even more "worthy" than the devas. So, in such a cultural landscape I am not too surprised to see somewhat disturbing ideas. — boundless

Yes, anatta seems to point towards that. But, as far as I know, only an ancient school of Buddhism apparently interpreted Nirvana in that way! So, I think that it is not simply "oblivion". Also in the discourses themselves the Tathagatha is said to be "deep, boundless..." (see e.g. the sutta MN 72). Of course we have the "extinction of the fire" analogy, but we have also a "hint" to some "ineffability". Also, there are some hints in discourses like: Udana 8.1 and Iti 43. But, indeed you are correct in saying that both eternalism and annihilationism were criticized for poisiting an "abiding self". So, sadly, the nihilist view has its textual support (and, in fact, you find a lot of people who say that). I do not deny that!

Regarding what is that "eternal bliss", if not "mere absence", I agree that it is not developed. This is meaningful in the "Buddhist soteriological context", because if one "conceives things" about Nirvana, one begins to grasp his concept of Nirvana and therefore can miss Nirvana itself. Personally, I think that "mere absence" can be considered as a "worthwile goal" only if one thinks that anatta means that we do not exist at all.

Anyway, I think that even in Christianity we do not know what the promised "eternal bliss" is! After all, I have no clear idea of "what is like" to be in Communion with God? Or, take for example religions that aspire at "union with God". What does that mean, experientially? So, IMO, the fact that Buddhism does not want to describe Nirvana is due to a strict "apophatic" approach (and yes, I think it is sometimes misunderstood as "oblivion"). — boundless

I mostly agree on all these points.

I think that the problem is egoism here, i.e. wanting to control others for selfish reasons. — boundless

Yeah, I sort of agree, but this point is disputable. Suppose you have a son who is addicted to hard drugs - stuff like cocaine. In one sense, you do want to control him (so that he no longer takes the drugs). I think this desire to control him is, in this case, natural and justified. But the desire to control him will not be JUST for your own good, but also for his (your good is also related to his good, the two are, to some extent, mutually dependent). So in what sense do you say you should be unattached to saving your son?

What I meant is that we can develop positive qualities easier if we remove "negative ones". — boundless

Okay, I agree! How do we go about developing positive qualities?

On the other hand, if there is no God and we are in a Samsara the situation is different... — boundless

The interesting thing on this point, is that I don't think there has to be a God. It is sufficient to have faith in Him. Faith transcends the rational, but is not thereby irrational. Having faith will still transform THIS LIFE.

Also, by "ethical teachings" I also meant something like: — boundless

I see, I agree.

I think that, however, we should try to find a balance here, i.e. trying to love and also trying to avoid too much attachment. — boundless

Can you clarify what attachment means, and also why we should avoid attachment in love? For example, I love my son and I am attached to him, if he dies, I will be devastated. But I am not afraid of being devastated in that case... I would not want NOT to be devastated. The devastation is the expression of my love, I want to let it happen, why would I want to stop it?

Christianity is a dead religion. It's a vestige of a world now gone. It's absurd stories and ridiculous requirements have been superseded by secular authority and science. Good riddance. — frank

For some people in the Western world, but it seems pretty vibrant in South American and Africa. I'm an atheist, but to call a religion with 2+ billion followers as dead seems kind of silly. A dead religion would be one without any followers, right? Or one that was dying off. Something like Zoroastrianism (325,000 followers according to Wiki which I guess is in perpetual decline).

Even in the west, there are still plenty of passionate followers. Maybe it's not so prominent in Europe, but in the US, you have a significant evangelical movement. It's not dead to them.

fantasy is a good escape...especially if you`ve gone through some shitty stuff...I understand that very well...but reality IS and you cant change that no matter who much you want it to.

@frank

Yeah, according to the most recent pew research poll, Christianity is the largest religion in the world.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/

A dead religion would be one without any followers, right? — Marchesk

Romans clung to the old Roman religion for many years after it had become hollow and useless beyond a nod to tradition and a satisfaction to the superstitious. That's all Christianity is now.

You'll notice the forum members here who claim life for it are offering some imaginary Christianity, which is another sign that the real one is dead.

Christianity is a dead religion. — frank

It definitely is as far as the vast majority of people are concerned; which is its own vindication.

There are good reasons why Christianity isn't a dead religion that do not hinge on acceptance of the Creed (like "was crucified, died, and was buried; on the third day he arose from the dead..."). I can not intellectually consent to the Nicene Creed, and not all Christians heartily endorse the Creed. But that doesn't mean that Christianity is, in any sense "dead".

If you label the UK, Germany, or France as the deciding sample of Christianity's health, then sure, it will seem like it is on life support. However, there are about 2 billion plus Christians in the world. There are around 70 million Christians in China and 240 million in the United States. The rumors of Christianity's death have been greatly exaggerated.

What are the signs of Christianity being quite alive?

Numbers alone indicate that the life of the Church is ongoing.
Most Christians adhere to a reasonably common understanding of the Creed, and to the import of the scriptures.
Christians form communities and much (or all) of their lives are lived within that community.
Most Christians identify as Christians (meaning "being Christian" is more significant than a mere demographic category).
Many Christians (maybe half) participate regularly (on a monthly basis) in worship, scripture reading, thinking about what they should do vs. what they want to do in the context of the scripture) and so on.
There are many "hot spots" of Christian religious activity, as well as some "cold spots" (for better and for worse).

The fact that mainline Christians recite the Creed during the liturgy isn't what holds the church together anywhere. What holds the church together is what holds any and every group together: regular contact, identification of similarities, psychological and material benefits derived from, and a need to belong to a community.

Even you--finding the various points of the creed absurd as you do (by the way, Jesus is thought to have died in fact, not just sort of a faked death) could (and may) belong to a Christian community. You probably couldn't get away with belonging to a strict fundamentalist community, but there is room on the edges of Christian communities for the apostate, heretic, and nonbeliever. This is true of other religions too, not because the creeds allow it, but because communities can encompass some number of heretics without harm.