Buddha, Jesus, Mohamed. Does it really matter who we believe

[Tinian]

Nirvana is the extinction of the Self, would you agree?

So if there is no Self, what exactly goes to 'Heaven'?

-

Nirvana is not the extinction of the self. This is a common misperception. Nirvana is the 'blowing out' of the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion. If you have no greed, hatred, or delusion, you are an arhat (enlightened).

Buddhism does not believe there is a permanent soul-like 'Self', so it doesn't make much sense to say that nirvana is the extinction of the self. According to Buddhism, the 'Self' is simply a linguistic convention that we impose on what is actually a series of changing processes.

I agree with BJay about proselytism and Buddhism. Buddhism has from the start actually had a strong missionary aspect: the Buddha is said to have told his monks to spread the teaching and for no two monks to go the same direction so that the doctrine could be spread as widely as possible.

Although there is a 'rational' side to Buddhism that promotes the idea of questioning and not simply taking things on faith, this has been hugely emphasised in modern Western forms of Buddhism and in a growing form of 'Protestant Buddhism' that has risen in the middle and upper classes of Asian Buddhist countries. It overlooks the important role of devotion in Buddhism, such as taking refuge in the three jewels, and the role that ritual has always played in traditional forms of Buddhism.

[Tinian]

So how useful is the talk of a 'Heaven' if there aint no self to go there?

There are several things that are wrapped up in this question.

Firstly, Nirvana is not heaven. If we take Theravada Buddhism, there are 31 different realms of rebirth - 26 of these are heavens where one can be reborn as a certain type of deity. None of these 31 realms is nirvana. Nirvana transcends the world of samsara (the world of the 31 realms) - it is beyond rebirth.

Secondly, there are two types of nirvana. There is nirvana while you are alive (when you finally get rid of all forms of greed, hatred, and delusion and live without suffering) and nirvana when you die. The texts tend to avoid talking much about the state of nirvana after death - this is because it is beyond all forms of ordinary categories and also because analysing it often leads people to get caught up in a wrongly-framed debate as to whether that 'person' exists or does not exist - which is the fallacy of the extremes of existence and non-existence. What one can say, however, is that rebirth has stopped for that 'person'.

Usually, when the texts describe nirvana, the texts describe it as an event rather than the attainment of some sort of place - most commonly a verb is used, and the text say that 'X nirvanized' rather than 'X reached nirvana'. Usually, nirvana is expressed in negative terms - for example as the absence of suffering, or the absence of greed, hatred and delusion (it is NEVER, however, described as non-existence or extinction, as this would be a Buddhist fallacy). However, it is of course only natural for people to also describe transcendent experiences in more positivistic language, and sometimes nirvana is described in very abstract terms as some kind of deathless realm or as some kind of glorious city.

When people talk about 'Jack' as being reborn in a heaven or 'Jill' attaining nirvana, these words 'Jack' and 'Jill' are simply convenient labels that we use to describe the bundle of changing processes that make up a 'person' and their experiences. When someone is reborn somewhere, there is no permanent, independent soul which somehow connects their different lives. In Buddhism, there is no underlying true 'Me' that somehow connects 'my' lives together. Instead, one life is connected to another life simply by a causal process (based on the force of an individual's karma). If 'I' am reborn in hell in my next life, this is because the causal relationship between this life and my next life determines that I am reborn in hell.

So, although there is no 'self', there is a causal process of karma which determines our rebirth. There is no such thing as a permanent self or 'I' - instead we are bundles of changing processes, which are causally connected to each other from moment to moment (and on the larger scale from lifetime to lifetime).

It is true that Buddhism places a particular emphasis on the role that consciousness plays in connecting various lives. However, the texts are very keen to state that consciousness is not in any way some kind of underlying self. Consciousness, like all of our mental and physical processes, is causally dependent on other things - it is not independent but it is a changing, dependent phenomenon.

[ling_dtua_khaao]

George Bush my friend got rich from the Jews,and if you have a look at his administration you would know who exactly are and aren't.

George Bush like his dear old dad didn't do enough for the Rockafella's so had to repeat,some one needs to use Amunitions and bombs(don't they?) some one makes money other than the Arabs,of course the oil giants,Shell,BP etc all owned by who,KMart,Wal Mart,Aust Coles Myer,Target,aaahhh and now set up business with chinese.Rulers of the world by money and slave labour.

If u talk of nutrition and humanity a dog that has a litter that can't feed them all,will kill off the weakest.

Which Jews, exactly, did George Bush get rich from? Seems from what I've read, he got rich from the Saudis and his Dad's good old boy network, which did not include many, if any, Jews.

If you want to start slinging racist, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, you should have some facts to back up what you're saying.

Otherwise it's just garbage.

Rob, you're being too gentle.

It is incomprehensible garbage. Not only should he produce some facts, he should probably work first on stringing together coherent sentences.

--Ling

[Tinian]

Thanks for that Tinian.

I read Bjay to be conflating Nirvana and Heaven - - which I didnt think to be very sound.

Maybe I misunderstood his position...

I don't really have a position on it as I am neither a practicing Buddhist or Christian.

However, it depends on what school of Buddhism you read from. The largest Buddhist sect dominant in China, Korea, Japan and Vietnam teaches that the Buddhas dwell in heavens or pure lands. Buddha Amitabha dwells in Sukhavati heaven, Buddha Maitreya dwells in Tushita heaven, and Akshobhya dwells in Abhirati etc. So it is hardly a stretch to imagine the Buddhas living in some sort of heaven.

Millions of Pure Land Buddhists believe that entering these heavens is the same as attaining nirvana. In other words, the majority of Buddhists in the world conflate heaven and nirvana. Although, it may not sit well with Thai Theravadists, it is sound to say that popular conceptions most Buddhists have of Nirvana are similar to a Judeo-Christian Heaven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land

Yep, I largely agree - although doctrinally in Theravada Buddhism, nirvana is of course completely separate from the heavens, in more popular literature and thought nirvana is often viewed as a kind of superior heaven or ultimate heaven.

Agree also with the pure land comments. However, it should be said that the Buddha's manifestation in a pure land is only one of his three bodies (the sambhoga-kaya). There is also of course his 'truth-body' (dharma-kaya) - which I presume would be much harder to link to any idea of a heaven...? And his creation body (nirmana-kaya).

[Tinian]

Thanks for that Tinian.

I read Bjay to be conflating Nirvana and Heaven - - which I didnt think to be very sound.

Maybe I misunderstood his position...

I don't really have a position on it as I am neither a practicing Buddhist or Christian.

However, it depends on what school of Buddhism you read from. The largest Buddhist sect dominant in China, Korea, Japan and Vietnam teaches that the Buddhas dwell in heavens or pure lands. Buddha Amitabha dwells in Sukhavati heaven, Buddha Maitreya dwells in Tushita heaven, and Akshobhya dwells in Abhirati etc. So it is hardly a stretch to imagine the Buddhas living in some sort of heaven.

Millions of Pure Land Buddhists believe that entering these heavens is the same as attaining nirvana. In other words, the majority of Buddhists in the world conflate heaven and nirvana. Although, it may not sit well with Thai Theravadists, it is sound to say that popular conceptions most Buddhists have of Nirvana are similar to a Judeo-Christian Heaven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land

Just one thing to add - but even if nirvana is sometimes seen as some kind of heaven in popular Theravada, I think most Buddhists would in that case also think there were different grades of heaven (as is, of course, the cosmological system in Buddhism) and nirvana would be a kind of ultimate heaven at the 'top' of the other heavens.

[Tinian]

Agree also with the pure land comments. However, it should be said that the Buddha's manifestation in a pure land is only one of his three bodies (the sambhoga-kaya). There is also of course his 'truth-body' (dharma-kaya) - which I presume would be much harder to link to any idea of a heaven...? And his creation body (nirmana-kaya).

Of course these are the problems one encounters when discussing Buddhism...there are multiple and diverse interpretations of the Buddha's teachings. What I do see though is a lot of 'Western Buddhists' trying their best to strike anything that smacks of Judeo-Christianity from Buddhism. Some even go as far as to say that one can still be a Buddhist without believing in an afterlife, or to say that faith is not required of Buddhists. Possible perhaps, but not what the Buddha was getting at. Its not so easy, for example, to brush the Buddha's teachings on karma and rebirth (both teachings that cannot be empirically demonstrated) under the rug. Even Buddhists have to have faith that the just will get their reward and that the evil will pay the price.

And yes, the three-bodied (tri-kaya) nature of the Buddhas makes it practically impossible for us to say exactly what Nirvana is/isn't. But as the three bodies of a Buddha can be present in any sphere at the same time -- including heaven, earth, and the formless realms -- we can be sure that nirvana is anything but extinction.

sure. i agree. and i spend a lot of time reacting against people (usually Westerners) who tend to strip Buddhism down to some dry, 'rationalist' doctrine and claim that is not religious or not devotional or that somehow practices such as worshipping a statue is somehow not Buddhist. but at the same time (and I can't believe I'm saying this given the normal situations I find myself in) it's important not to over-correct and view buddhism as somehow the same as judeo-christian religion or any other religion for that matter - which in fact goes back to the origins of this thread (wierdly). anyway, really this post is to appreciate your comments in that it's refreshing to read a post from someone who appreciates that Buddhism is always going to be embedded in cultures of flesh-and-blood people and not simply dry 'scientific' philosophers who somehow all hold verifiable facts that are based on pure reason and are without beliefs (such as karma or devotion to the Buddha) or rituals.

[Loburt]

All this stuff about the 137 levels of nirvana, the world emanating from the back of a turtle, the tripitaka, the boom-laka-laka, the pure land, the holy land, the truth body, the hard body, the karma, the dharma, the metaphysic, jingoistic, mahayana, hinayana, youknowiwanna, darth vader, theravada rockin' doctrine is all a lot of ...

BULLSHIT!

What the Buddha taught was this:

Your desires and attachments are the root of your suffering. Free yourself from your desires and you will free yourself from suffering.

That's it. That's all you need to know.

Everthing else is just a mountain of toxic waste piled on top of a diamond.

Okay, back to your debate.

[Loburt]

my pleasure, bjay.

[eagle]

Indeed religions, philosophies and ethical systems were/are probably the main force pushing the development of human civilization. It surely wasn't our need to eat, sleep, sh*t and procreate that gave rise to Modernity.

Anyone understand what this is getting at?

I'm not sure what he ment but I do know that Christians were in the front saving the natives around the world and teaching them about Jesus, with the slavers and gold hunters right behind them. In an effort to save their souls they destroyed them alot of times. Irony or ignorance or a bit of both I guess :twisted:

[Tinian]

All this stuff about the 137 levels of nirvana, the world emanating from the back of a turtle, the tripitaka, the boom-laka-laka, the pure land, the holy land, the truth body, the hard body, the karma, the dharma, the metaphysic, jingoistic, mahayana, hinayana, youknowiwanna, darth vader, theravada rockin' doctrine is all a lot of ...

BULLSHIT!

What the Buddha taught was this:

Your desires and attachments are the root of your suffering. Free yourself from your desires and you will free yourself from suffering.

That's it. That's all you need to know.

Everthing else is just a mountain of toxic waste piled on top of a diamond.

Okay, back to your debate.

OK, so where do you draw the line?

What criteria do you use to determine as what the Buddha did or did not preach? Or as what one should or should not think is part of the 'diamond'? You saying the Buddha didn't teach about karma or about nirvana? Or didn't presuppose the existence of gods? Or didn't think that meditation levels corresponded to cosmological levels? Or didn't talk about how the monastic community should be run? And so on and so on... It's good to return to the basics sometimes and be reminded of the essentials, but it's still a religion which developed for millenia.

[Loburt]

Well, I think it's difficult to really know precisely what it was that Buddha, Jesus or others actually taught as they didn't set down their teachings in writing themselves. Others did, and we don't know what agendas they may or may not have had, so we don't know what distortions might have been worked in. I strongly suspect that some stuff attributed to the Buddha isn't what he taught or believed, but I can't prove it, of course.

I think though, that if you stick to the basic Four Fold Noble Truths and Eight Fold Noble Path, you've pretty much got it. It's unlikely that those core tenets are inaccurate.

Anyway, enjoy your debate. This is the forum for it, so go to it.

[zeusbheld]

I have to chuckle when 'rational' Buddhists or Westerners declare themselves free of religion and metaphysics, only to set out correcting the behavior of those around them...as if somehow they instinctively know right from wrong. It is highly ironic when rational people appeal to an ultimate, instinctive, eternal, common sense TRUTH as they formulate their critiques of religion.

I especially object when religious people are labeled as weak, primitive, or uncivilized simply because they do something like wai to a Buddha image. Ironically, the opposite is true. As eagle pointed out, it is the humans unique ability to create ethical symbols and systems that sets us apart from brute nature. It is not our ability to calculate pleasure/pain that most distinguishes us from monkeys, it is our ability to know right from wrong and to create stories, myths, and religions to symbolize our complex sense of ethics.

Indeed religions, philosophies and ethical systems were/are probably the main force pushing the development of human civilization. It surely wasn't our need to eat, sleep, sh*t and procreate that gave rise to Modernity.

i'm not sure what you're getting at here, aside from the idea that religions have historically been the primary conduits of ethical systems, which i agree with.

but if your defense of religion as a conduit of values and morals implies that people without religion have no values or morals, i find that highly offensive, simplistic and flat out wrong.

ps probably the wrong forum, but what sets us apart from monkeys is really simple: GRAMMAR. in all the experiments conducted on chimps and apes with sign language, they developed vocabulary but not grammar.

all the ethical systems, religiions and philosophies not only would not exist without grammar, but could be viewed as an inevitable product thereof.

[Loburt]

You are right loburt. There is no way to sort the Buddha's original teachings from all the additions that came later. We also can't be sure that Jesus taught the Sermon on the Mount or that Muhammad authored the Koran.

The tendency in religion is to: (1) add things that were never taught, or (2) ignore things that were taught. Christians have historically struck teachings from the Bible, while Buddhists have been know to add to the canon. Both have done a great deal to damage the original message.

So although I agree that the core teachings of the Buddha could be summed up in two sentences, I think over-simplifying the message is just as dangerous as piling garbage on top of it.

You're also right, bjay, there is a danger in oversimplifying. If you look at the Talmud that text is nothing but a running debate, dialectic about core teachings in Judaism. Nonetheless it contains a tremendous amount of wisdom that is valuable both to that specific religion and others.

I think my little "outburst" came about because I felt you guys had strayed so far into the minutae of comparative Buddhism that most of the rest of us were lost and left out. There's nothing really wrong with that (as I said before, this is Religion and Philosophy, so if not here then where?), but I guess, in my own crude way, I was trying to push the discussion back to plane where more could participate.

[LudwigVonMises]

Sure they all have Huge books representing them but aren't they all saying basically the same thing.

The basic message they're trying to convey is about the same, yeah.

[Loburt]

yes and no.

christianity and islam rely more on faith than buddhism, which in it's purer forms (in my unexpert opinion) encourage more questioning and discovery.

but they all do agree on tolerance and things like the golden rule - do unto others as you would have done unto you. and more...

[LudwigVonMises]

but they all do agree on tolerance and things like the golden rule - do unto others as you would have done unto you. and more...

Exactly. That's why bin Laden is not a true Muslim and Fred Phelps is not a true Christian. They're just hijackers advancing their goals under the veil of religion.

[eagle]

yes and no.

christianity and islam rely more on faith than buddhism, which in it's purer forms (in my unexpert opinion) encourage more questioning and discovery.

but they all do agree on tolerance and things like the golden rule - do unto others as you would have done unto you. and more...

But the basic message is the same. You can find lots of differences but they are a guide line for right living so people didn't kill each other and treated others with respect. SO WHAT ARE THEY FIGHTING ABOUT AGAIN :twisted: sure is a crazy world :shock:

[eagle]

but they all do agree on tolerance and things like the golden rule - do unto others as you would have done unto you. and more...

Exactly. That's why bin Laden is not a true Muslim and Fred Phelps is not a true Christian. They're just hijackers advancing their goals under the veil of religion.

Thats excellent YEA Ludwig !!!!

[LudwigVonMises]

SO WHAT ARE THEY FIGHTING ABOUT AGAIN :twisted: sure is a crazy world :shock:

Why can't we all just get along?

[zeusbheld]

but if your defense of religion as a conduit of values and morals implies that people without religion have no values or morals, i find that highly offensive, simplistic and flat out wrong.

As I have not found an established religion that I personally feel comfortable with, I would also find such claims offensive. Nobody, whether appealing to reason or religion, can claim moral high ground over somebody else. But can one go too far in being relativistic? I mean can we prove Saddam or Bush evil using only reason?

ok that gets a little muddy. theism vs atheism is a different question than realism vs relativism.

relativism is irrelevant to religion and useful mainly to european cultural theorists who publish academic papers. it has its uses but can go too far.

if by reason you mean logic you cannot prove ANYTHING unless you make some initial assumptions. for instance, if you accept it as true that it is wrong to inflict needless suffering one might be able to make a case against either i'd imagine. but you have to start somewhere.

I think that anyone who claims to have values or morals (which most of us do) is basing those morals on his/her own personal beliefs and opinions. meaning, nobody can prove that their value system is more valid than anothers ...

my point here is rendered broad enough strokes to not be entirely accurate (too reductionist) but you can prove one value system is more valid than another IF they start with exactly the same assumptions and end up with different conclusions AND one of them arrives at his/her conclusion through a logical error of some sort.

reason may seem more reasonable to some, but it should never claim superiority over religion. nor should religion claim superiority over reason. Not only would these claims offend billions, but they would be flat out wrong.

i have no clue what you mean by 'reason' here. if you mean scientific knowledge, i think most scientists would agree wtih david hume you can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'.

if you mean religion without reason is perfectly agreeable and i should respect it somehow, aaaaah... no. that would be dogmatic fundamentalism, a form of rigidity and entrenchment i have no obligation to respect or even acknowledge.

i think one has to make a distinction between organized religion and theism. there are a lot of things i find repulsive about organized religion as it is practiced, but i also find these practices have more to do with the politics within the religious organization and lesss to do with the actual core values taught by the religion. and the values taught by most religions, while usually presented in the framework of a god or gods being angered or pleased by certain things, are not inherently tied to religion--religion just provides the carrot and/or stick to convince people to accept the values.

as for theism, reason and belief in a god are no more incommensurable than ethics and atheism. most practicioners of organised religion though make serious logical errors that render their moral claims inconsistent or fallacious (and please note the difference between "fallacious" and false.

[zeusbheld]

but they all do agree on tolerance and things like the golden rule - do unto others as you would have done unto you. and more...

Exactly. That's why bin Laden is not a true Muslim and Fred Phelps is not a true Christian. They're just hijackers advancing their goals under the veil of religion.

AGREE.

[robbie36]

The inherent values embedded in all organised religions tend to be sensible and good. The problem is they are couched within myths, legends and lies which mean that these inherent values have no credibility.

Working out what is right and wrong in life is important - finding ones own personal religion. But if you are looking for spiritual advice or to align your own value system you dont go looking to someone who preaches bullshit.

Imagine if you were interested in investing a few baht and you went to see your financial adviser.

So what do you recommend?

Well Microsoft looks a good bet. I would have a few of those.

Why's that?

Well if you buy Microsoft you will be blessed with 20.1 virgins in your next life.

Hmmm... anything else?

Well some shares in Walmart wont do you any harm.

Really?

Yeah. And if you dont buy Walmart you will be rodgered for eternity by a radioactive rabbit.

...And that point you walk out and slam the door.

Discussion about ethics and values are important.... curbing your greed and lust, conquering your fears... these are important values. But when they get couched in all the religious crap they just sound like turgid bullshit.

There is no doubt that organised religion is doing society far more harm than good.

[okies]

Christians and musloms seems to be fighting about wich of their invisible man up in the sky has the bigger **** that the other guy.

I am a Buddhist mostly because:

He is a man I know has lived.

He is not a God, more like an old sage that can show you a good path in life.

NOT a God like many other religions that tells you how to live youyr life because if you don't do as he says then he got a really hot place for you where you can spend all eternithy burning and screaming while some little small red guys poke you with a stick...... But he loves you!...... that I really didn't understand.

[Loburt]

Christians and musloms seems to be fighting about wich of their invisible man up in the sky has the bigger **** that the other guy.

I am a Buddhist mostly because:

He is a man I know has lived.

He is not a God, more like an old sage that can show you a good path in life.

NOT a God like many other religions that tells you how to live youyr life because if you don't do as he says then he got a really hot place for you where you can spend all eternithy burning and screaming while some little small red guys poke you with a stick...... But he loves you!...... that I really didn't understand.

Well, Okie, Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same God or Creator.

As far as the Buddha not telling you that you will burn in hell if you don't live your life the right way, actually he did teach something quite similar: that you will be condemned to the cycle of rebirths and all the suffering that goes along with it.

Essentially the same concept with a different presentation.

[okies]

Christians and musloms seems to be fighting about wich of their invisible man up in the sky has the bigger **** that the other guy.

I am a Buddhist mostly because:

He is a man I know has lived.

He is not a God, more like an old sage that can show you a good path in life.

NOT a God like many other religions that tells you how to live youyr life because if you don't do as he says then he got a really hot place for you where you can spend all eternithy burning and screaming while some little small red guys poke you with a stick...... But he loves you!...... that I really didn't understand.

Well, Okie, Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same God or Creator.

As far as the Buddha not telling you that you will burn in hell if you don't live your life the right way, actually he did teach something quite similar: that you will be condemned to the cycle of rebirths and all the suffering that goes along with it.

Essentially the same concept with a different presentation.

However you should all know that there are many "different" types of Buddhists around the world.

While most Buddhist belive in Nirvana, wich is really nothing else but a joil sentance, screw up and you'll be punished... That is fair I belive. live you life better next life and get upgraded.

But Thai do belive in heaven and hell too. But I'm not sure if this was influenced by the Europeans when they went on a colonization spree in Asia (Thailand avoided that :wink: )

And no way am I becoming a jew. Indeed it should be the same invisible man in the sky that they are praying to, but if so, why all the fighting?