November 4, 2019 at 11:09 pm #312101TimBParticipant
TimB: … They do NOT seem to be suggesting that you separate forever from any narrative at all.
Xain: But they do, that is what they are getting at.
TimB: No they don’t. Read this line again: “When we unravel from our persistent self-narratives that shape our realities and avoid the temptation to relocate too quickly into new stories, all stories become available for enquiry.”
They advise waiting until all stories become available for inquiry. They don’t explicitly say, “Then go for it.” But the way I read it, that is what is implied.
Seems to me that you want to interpret what you read in the way that will make you most miserable, rather than accurately.November 6, 2019 at 2:29 am #312232
I’m not because I read the whole article and know what the web page is getting at. That whole nonduality bit which includes dropping the narrative, all of them. The having all stories available for inquiry is the first step of that aim. That is what you miss.
They mention illusion and unreality a lot of the time, similar to how Buddhism talks about the unreality of pain and suffering.November 8, 2019 at 12:48 pm #312453
Actually right here is where someone mentions that suffering isn’t real: https://anandbhatt.skyrock.com/3289760168-The-Most-Misunderstood-Buddhist-Story-The-Tiger-and-the-Strawberry.html
None of what you mention is real. But that’s OK. When you realize you’re immortal and there is no suffering, you’ll laugh it any of this.November 8, 2019 at 12:52 pm #312454November 8, 2019 at 1:03 pm #312455
As I keep saying, Buddhism is different from the rest of the religions that you have studied so you can’t really say they are all the same.November 8, 2019 at 1:57 pm #312457TimBParticipant
Eating the strawberry only takes a few seconds, and it might give the guy enough energy to climb the vine and fight the tiger. The tiger will probably rip and bite him to death anyway. He might try rapping the vine around the tiger’s neck a few times then holding the end of the vine and jumping off the cliff again, but then Ebony and Ivory the vine eating mice would probably do them both in.
The moral of this story is you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t, but at least you got a sweet strawberry out of the deal.November 8, 2019 at 6:58 pm #312469
As I keep saying, Buddhism is different from the rest of the religions that you have studied so you can’t really say they are all the same.
I never claimed “all religions are the same.” I’m quite aware they aren’t.
I AM saying, though, that the BELIEVERS in every religion are equally convinced theirs is the one true religion, even if the religions themselves are different from one another.
It’s true that some believe science backs up Buddhism. The same is said for Islam and Christianity. Of these, the claims about Buddhism and science make more sense, but they still require interpretation, since today’s science vocabulary didn’t exist thousands of years ago.
But that’s beside the point. For you, the “proof” is in the science. That’s why “Buddhism is true.” For others, the “proof” may be a religion’s superior moral code, the friendliness of its believers, its effect on addiction or crime, its age or size, its strictness or liberalism, or any of 1,000 other reasons why Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam, or Hinduism, or X is “true.”
- This reply was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by Tee Bryan Peneguy.
November 8, 2019 at 11:41 pm #312492
- This reply was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by Tee Bryan Peneguy.
It’s not that I believe it’s true, it’s just that I can’t prove it isn’t true, and the same goes for all the claims made by them.
Like the link where the guy said the story is misinterpreted and that is the true one or how he says that suffering isn’t real and that you are realizing you are immortal. For me the peace that these people seem to have from believing such things must make it true somehow.
That and me failing to sway them makes it seem like they are rightNovember 9, 2019 at 12:19 am #312494
Are you aware that you simply say the same things again and again?
Not being mean. An honest question. It makes me wonder why people have invested time and effort to talk with you, because it doesn’t seem to have made even the smallest impact.November 9, 2019 at 2:42 am #312500
Because I keep falling for the same things over and over. It seems like all it takes from Buddhism to make me doubt myself is mystic sounding talk (like in the link) that seems to get at a deeper and hidden truth. Couple that with how sure they sound and I’m sunk. Plus the claim, or at least implication, that to argue otherwise would mean I am deluded and choosing to live in illusion and choosing to suffer.
Like when the guy I linked said that suffering isn’t real.November 9, 2019 at 8:14 am #312509LaustenKeymaster
Because I keep falling for the same things over and over.
That part, does not cohere with this part:
that to argue otherwise would mean I am deluded
If you are “falling for” something, that implies there isn’t a good argument for itNovember 9, 2019 at 9:20 pm #312554
Well I guess the difference is that Buddhism has a reputation for being “different” or “truer” than other religions. It’s why I don’t buy into ChristianityNovember 9, 2019 at 11:28 pm #312566
And when they mention stuff like suffering isn’t real, me arguing against that makes it sound like I am choosing to suffer or being afflicted by something imaginaryNovember 10, 2019 at 12:43 am #312567
Well I guess the difference is that Buddhism has a reputation for being “different” or “truer” than other religions. It’s why I don’t buy into Christianity
Well, the big difference between Buddhism and most other religions is that it’s technically atheistic, because it lacks a god or gods. Some people don’t even define it as a religion, but a philosophy or a lifestyle.
But as far as its reputation for being “truer” than other religions…that’s according to you, and your defining it according to the scientific “facts” about it that you’ve bought into. Actually, Buddhism generally doesn’t position itself as absolute truth. It’s pretty inclusivist, certainly compared to Christianity and Islam, which are super exclusivist.
Religious exclusivism, or exclusivity, is the doctrine or belief that only one particular religion or belief system is true. This is in contrast to religious pluralism, which believes that all religions provide valid responses to the existence of God. (Wiki)
Theories of Religious Diversity
While there have been Buddhist teachers and movements who have been exclusivists, in general Buddhism has been inclusivist. Buddhism has long been very doctrinally diverse, and many schools of Buddhism argue that theirs is the truest teaching or the best practice, while other versions of the dharma are less true or less conducive to getting the cure, and have now been superseded. It has been typical also for Buddhist thinkers to hold that at best, the same is true of other religious traditions. ….
…However, what about Jews, pagans, unbaptized babies, or people who never have a chance to hear the Christian message? After catholic Christianity became the official religion of the empire (c. 381), it was usually assumed that the message had been preached throughout the world, leaving all adult non-Christians without excuse. Thus, Augustine of Hippo (354-430) and Fulgentius of Ruspe (468-533) interpreted the slogan as implying that all non-Christians are damned, because they bear the guilt of “original sin” stemming from the sin of Adam, which has not been as it were washed away by baptism. …November 10, 2019 at 8:25 am #312572LaustenKeymaster
And when they mention stuff like suffering isn’t real, me arguing against that makes it sound like I am choosing to suffer or being afflicted by something imaginary
When you say that you have to choose between being happy and accepting what’s real, yep, you’re choosing suffering. Buddhism does not exclude emotions from reality. That’s something you made up.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.