Buddhist endings?

[Lightknight]

The path to heaven in the Baha'i faith is for the sincere ones through many worlds, which is not determined from any fallible human perspective.

Yes, the Baha'i does encourage the study of all religions, and the use of their scriptures in Baha'i observances.

Very interesting, I've wanted to speak with someone of the Baha`i faith. I look forward to discussions with you.

The problem with this is not only do the various Buddhist and Christian divisions vastly disagree, but so do scholars.

The following are two contrasting examples of what Buddhists believe concerning the Bodisattva and Nirvana.

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma6/enlightnirvana.html

In the Theravada tradition, the Buddha was a Bodhisattva numerous times in his past lives and seemed to achieve Enlightenment many times before his Nirvana. The story of the Buddha's life as a Bodhisattva is found in an Early Buddhist text called the ‘Jataka Tales.'

In the Mahayana Tradition, the focus is on ‘Enlightenment,’ not Nirvana. The goal is to become a Bodhisattva, and then a Buddha. The Bodhisattva ends his/her suffering only in Buddhahood, and not before. In the Mahayana, it’s not so much... Do what the Buddha says... But, do what the Buddha did.

© source where applicable

I do not necessarily believe in either of the above, in fact I do not, but they represent examples of the diverse view within Buddhism.

I know that is the problem. I said that early on. So did you. What surprised me was when you started disagreeing with my statements on behalf of the Buddhist faith.

[shunyadragon]

Very interesting, I've wanted to speak with someone of the Baha`i faith. I look forward to discussions with you.

I know that is the problem. I said that early on. So did you. What surprised me was when you started disagreeing with my statements on behalf of the Buddhist faith.

I still disagree with your statements as representing Buddhism, and the problematic view of it being selfish to enter Nirvana and not return as a Bodisattva. Actually, most Buddhists believe that entering Nirvana and/or becoming enlightened is the eventual natural consequence of the human journey, whether in this life or the next. The Bodhisatva, in some beliefs, does not enter Nirvana, but instead, knowing 'enlightment' remains in the cycle of birth and death to show others the way to the river (Nirvana). In one school the 'Most Great Buddha is eternal and unborn Bodisattva, and remains in the heavens to send the chosen Bodisattva to earth from age to age to guide others to 'enlightenment.'

[Lightknight]

But if you think of it from a reasonable standpoint, is it not "better" to remain in the cycle for the benefit of others? It seems that to give up the cycle of life to release oneself from suffering despite being able to help people is a bit against the concept of caring about those around us. I understand you disagree and I understand that people think that Nirvana is to be sought after, but that doesn't answer the question of whether or not it is selfish as it is ultimately putting oneself before all others.

I came up with this question of selfishness when reading the Dalai Lama's "Ethics for a New Millenium". In describing dependent origination he taught that we are all part of the whole and not just individual pieces. So we should not do bad things to the whole because that, in turn, negatively affects us. I immediately wondered if this motivation (to do good to others so that we will benefit or not to do bad so that we will not suffer from it) isn't really all about us. Selfish reasons to do good and not evil. Because of how it affects us. Since then, I've been applying this question to multiple religious standards and it has surprised me how much is there. Keep in mind, however, that selfishness is considered a bad thing, which is what makes this topic... more pointed. It could be inferred that if it is inherrently selfish (and this has come to the attention of Buddhist scholars), then something needs to be done.

[shunyadragon]

But if you think of it from a reasonable standpoint, is it not "better" to remain in the cycle for the benefit of others? It seems that to give up the cycle of life to release oneself from suffering despite being able to help people is a bit against the concept of caring about those around us. I understand you disagree and I understand that people think that Nirvana is to be sought after, but that doesn't answer the question of whether or not it is selfish as it is ultimately putting oneself before all others.

I came up with this question of selfishness when reading the Dalai Lama's "Ethics for a New Millenium". In describing dependent origination he taught that we are all part of the whole and not just individual pieces. So we should not do bad things to the whole because that, in turn, negatively affects us. I immediately wondered if this motivation (to do good to others so that we will benefit or not to do bad so that we will not suffer from it) isn't really all about us. Selfish reasons to do good and not evil. Because of how it affects us. Since then, I've been applying this question to multiple religious standards and it has surprised me how much is there. Keep in mind, however, that selfishness is considered a bad thing, which is what makes this topic... more pointed. It could be inferred that if it is inherrently selfish (and this has come to the attention of Buddhist scholars), then something needs to be done.

First, religious belief is not 'what you think from a reasonable stand point.' Second, yes we are part of the whole, but being part of the whole determines that our natural destiny is to become one with Nirvana, like go to heaven, and not everyone return to enlighten others as a Boddisattva. Third, I do not understand your reference to good and evil here. It does not fit the situation. Returning to Nirvana is not a bad thing, because it would remove one from being a part of the cause of suffering in our world.

[Lightknight]

Again, how is it not selfish?

Options

1. Return to aid others in their attempt to break the cycle.

2. Get yourself out of it.

One of those sounds selfish and like aversion to suffering.

[shunyadragon]

Again, how is it not selfish?

Options

1. Return to aid others in their attempt to break the cycle.

2. Get yourself out of it.

One of those sounds selfish and like aversion to suffering.

Actually, you are apparently stuck on a line of logic to justify Buddhism as wrong because it apparently, from your perspective encourages selfishness. Your logic is over simplistic and does not reflect the diversity of Buddhist views.

No, the attainment of Nirvana is process of enlightenment that removes one from the cause of suffering in the human condition. The choice pf the path to enlightenment is the unselfish path to end suffering. If one refuses to seek the Middle Way and the path to enlightenment, and remains indulgent in the materialist world of cause and effect, or karma, than one could be considered selfish and part of the cause of suffering.

[Lightknight]

How is it over simplifying things? Please interact with my actual points. Don't spout what they believe, I get what they believe, my question is the ramifications thereof when looking at it objectively. "Do good because it benefits you, don't do evil because it would hurt you". Leaving this existence when you could have helped others. It's kinda like escaping a torture chamber when you have the key to the locks for others.

What is the problem with seeing this as fundamentally selfish? I can see selfish designs in numerous other religions, why can't this one be breached?

[shunyadragon]

How is it over simplifying things? Please interact with my actual points. Don't spout what they believe, I get what they believe, my question is the ramifications thereof when looking at it objectively. "Do good because it benefits you, don't do evil because it would hurt you". Leaving this existence when you could have helped others. It's kinda like escaping a torture chamber when you have the key to the locks for others.

What is the problem with seeing this as fundamentally selfish? I can see selfish designs in numerous other religions, why can't this one be breached?

I have interacted with the actual points, and seeking enlightenment for ending suffering and violence is not selfishly motivated, materialism and indulgence in the material world is selfish. whatever Nirvana actually is it would not be achieved through selfish motivations. One view I expressed is that attainment of enlightenment and the state of Nirvana is achieved in this world, and those that achieve enlightenment devote their lives to end suffering and violence in the world through teaching compassion and urging others to enter the river and achieve enlightenment. In an indulgent materialist world around us, this path could hardly be called selfish.

[Vivian]

How is it over simplifying things? Please interact with my actual points. Don't spout what they believe, I get what they believe, my question is the ramifications thereof when looking at it objectively. "Do good because it benefits you, don't do evil because it would hurt you". Leaving this existence when you could have helped others. It's kinda like escaping a torture chamber when you have the key to the locks for others.

What is the problem with seeing this as fundamentally selfish? I can see selfish designs in numerous other religions, why can't this one be breached?

Please excuse the interruption, Lightknight.

I was reading your discussion with Shuny and there seems to be a couple of points that are being missed here. I am not a Buddhist, but am studied in various religions and familiar with their followers, especially the mystical sides, and find there are some similarities within them all.

It is understood in many traditions that selfishness is not the problem. The problem is the definition of self. A fully Enlightened person will see self as all of creation and so will 'selfishly work' for the benefit of all.

Enlightenment being the expansion of self.

And Jesus taught the same: love others as though they are your self.

A fully Enlightened being will know how he or she can best serve itself or fallen creation, whether by staying here in this world, or moving into spiritual realms, where much work is being done to redeem all of humanity.

The work of assisting in humanity's liberation expands well beyond the physical realm.

It is also understood in many traditions that souls move in groups and an Enlightened person will often return again and again until all souls from his group have been Enlightened.

Again, it is also understood in various traditions that the work being done in this world is to free the One Human Soul, or Adam - of which we are all a part, or spark, and no one leaves these fallen realms permanently, even if they no longer incarnate.

The One Human Soul will be Liberated as a Unity.

[I always thought Hebrews 11:30 spoke of this.]

Some teachers speak of the many worlds of the heavens which are associated with earth - the work of the lower heavenly worlds focusing on physical earth and the work of the higher focusing on the souls of humanity who have no further need to physically incarnate - the Father's work being done in all these realms, until Adam is ready to be redeemed.

Also, as Shuny mentioned, most traditions teach that it is not possible to reach Nirvana or find Enlightenment if one is selfish (or their sense of self remains with their individual self).

Yogananda tells the story of 2 devotees who had themselves buried while they were in deep Samadhi. After a hundred years, their bodies were found, still alive, obviously not Liberated. And upon arousal they cried out why did you not leave us there! We were almost Liberated! After which they died.

Yogananda laughed, saying they were being silly, because they would never find Liberation on their own. They will be required to come back and live another life, this time taking others with them into Liberation.

LightKnight, actually I am surprised that you would call the Buddhist tradition selfish. Is your understanding of Buddhism from actual followers or from books?




Viv

[Aupmanyav]

Lightknight: 'Do good because it benefits you, don't do evil because it would hurt you'. Do good, because it helps the society (and you are a part of it), don't do evil because it harms the society (and you are a part of it). One should do that even if doing good harms you, or doing evil benefits you. That is 'Dharma' (duty and righteous action). It is such a basic thing. Everybody understands this. Why complicate? Leaving the existence or not leaving it is beyond anyone's control, I can live for full hundred year or fall dead in the next second. What is the guarantee that there is a soul looking for emancipation or karma hunting to attach itself?

[Lightknight]

Lightknight: 'Do good because it benefits you, don't do evil because it would hurt you'. Do good, because it helps the society (and you are a part of it), don't do evil because it harms the society (and you are a part of it). One should do that even if doing good harms you, or doing evil benefits you. That is 'Dharma' (duty and righteous action). It is such a basic thing. Everybody understands this. Why complicate? Leaving the existence or not leaving it is beyond anyone's control, I can live for full hundred year or fall dead in the next second. What is the guarantee that there is a soul looking for emancipation or karma hunting to attach itself?

I wasn't just saying what I thought things implied, It was a quote from his book, Ethics for a new millenium. So it wasn't complication, it was quotation. Now you're disagreeing with the Dalai Lama, which seems more complicated to me.

Coincidentally, the Dalai Lama is also against homosexuality, I wonder where he gets that from? He thinks it is harmful to society or contra-social.

[Aupmanyav]

Homosexuals have all the rights that others have, IMHO, barring solicitation.

[PolarBeer]

I wasn't just saying what I thought things implied, It was a quote from his book, Ethics for a new millenium. So it wasn't complication, it was quotation. Now you're disagreeing with the Dalai Lama, which seems more complicated to me.

I suppose we'd need to see how he phrased the whole section you're speaking of - I haven't read his book, I have to admit. It could be that he likes the idea that people wouldn't do wrong out of a respect for the whole, but points out that we're all part of the whole to appeal to the potentially selfish nature of some of his readers?

Disagreeing with the Dalai Lama - I have the greatest respect for the man, he certainly seems like one of the good guys, but not all Buddhists follow Tibetan traditions.

[Aupmanyav]

It is perfectly all right to differ with Dalai or anybody else. That is what Buddha said (BTW, I am a hindu).

[NeilUnreal]

I think the concept of Boddisattva is a koan about the nature of enlightenment. As long as one is still dividing the world into enlightened vs. unenlightened, there are still two, not one.

-Neil