Conquer Club

Anyone here know much about Buddhism? Specifically the teachings about giving up attachments, but any general understanding would be interesting.

I know I try not to open any if at all possible.

DaGip wrote:I know I try not to open any if at all possible.

wikipedia or cc forum

wikipedia or cc forum

hmm

khazalid wrote:wikipedia or cc forum

wikipedia or cc forum

hmm

better pick youtube then

khazalid wrote:wikipedia or cc forum

wikipedia or cc forum

hmm

I can Google it and drudge through page after page of info, or just talk to someone who actually knows about it MR SMARTYPANTS

mrswdk wrote:Anyone here know much about Buddhism? Specifically the teachings about giving up attachments, but any general understanding would be interesting.

You represent everything that Buddhism is not...

I dont think that you are proper person for explanation of the teachings of Buddhism.

Maybe you should ask the Dalai Lama.

I don't know much about it but in Raynham, MA they just built a HUGE temple that IIRC they said was the second largest in the world? maybe? The place is amazingly awesome. I go by there all the time and check it out. I've yet to go inside though

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wat_Nawamintararachutis

GoranZ wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Anyone here know much about Buddhism? Specifically the teachings about giving up attachments, but any general understanding would be interesting.

You represent everything that Buddhism is not...

I dont think that you are proper person for explanation of the teachings of Buddhism.

What's that supposed to mean?

I can only assume you're talking about comments I have made relating to morality, in which case from what I understand of Buddhism it (along with Taoism) is actually a far closer fit for me than any of the theistic religions.

mrswdk wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Anyone here know much about Buddhism? Specifically the teachings about giving up attachments, but any general understanding would be interesting.

You represent everything that Buddhism is not...

I dont think that you are proper person for explanation of the teachings of Buddhism.

What's that supposed to mean?

waauw already mentioned it...

Occupied Tibet, Dalai Lama, ring a bell?

I represent everything that Buddhism is not, because there are some issues between Tibet and the central government?

Round of applause for you and your brilliant mind.

mrswdk wrote:I represent everything that Buddhism is not, because there are some issues between Tibet and the central government?

Round of applause for you and your brilliant mind.

Even in your post you treat Tibet as part of China, and you try to undermine Tibet's rights for freedom...

Have you ever wondered why China manage to take Tibet's independence so easily in 1950's? Because Buddhists are not famous for choosing military measures.

GoranZ wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I represent everything that Buddhism is not, because there are some issues between Tibet and the central government?

Round of applause for you and your brilliant mind.

Even in your post you treat Tibet as part of China, and you try to undermine Tibet's rights for freedom...

Have you ever wondered why China manage to take Tibet's independence so easily in 1950's? Because Buddhists are not famous for choosing military measures.

Re the military: Tibet has a long and active military tradition, stretching back centuries. For example, back when it was an independent power it invaded and conquered several Chinese provinces on more than one occasion.

Re independence: Tibet has been a part of China since the Yuan Dynasty. There was no independence during the early 20th century - go away and read up on what actually happened there after the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911.

If you don't know anything about a particular topic (e.g. Tibet) then it is perfectly acceptable to refrain from talking about it.

Something that is not going to happen ITT is me typing about my experiences with Buddhism followed by..

If you don't know anything about a particular topic (e.g. Buddhism) then it is perfectly acceptable to refrain from talking about it.

I started this thread to see if anyone on here has any substantial knowledge of Buddhism, its philosophies and so on.

Based on how this thread has gone so far, I'm going to assume not.

I took a class on Buddhism at the university years. I still have some elements rolling around in my head, like the tathagata-garba. But not much.


--Andy

mrswdk wrote:I started this thread to see if anyone on here has any substantial knowledge of Buddhism, its philosophies and so on.

Based on how this thread has gone so far, I'm going to assume not.

I've studied it, but I'm not an expert by any means.

mrswdk wrote:I started this thread to see if anyone on here has any substantial knowledge of Buddhism, its philosophies and so on.

Based on how this thread has gone so far, I'm going to assume not.

Fairly typical for CC for people to respond to the effect of "No, I don't really know anything about that, but here's my thoughts on it anyway."

One of the things I was reading recently was about the relationship between Buddhism and morality. Buddhism avoids making any kind of moral rules or codes, and when it talks about 'good' and 'evil' it seems to simply be talking about actions and behaviors which are or aren't conducive to enlightenment.

It also seems to say that causing suffering (in either yourself or others) is evil though. One of the five precepts says that everyone fears death and punishment, and therefore one shouldn't inflict these on other living things. What I wondered is:

a) why it matters what you do to another living being, given that that doesn't appear to have any relation to enlightenment; and

b) I thought attachment (including attachment to life) is one of the things that Buddhists are supposed to relinquish, so surely an enlightened person wouldn't care about being punished or killed anyway.

a) wouldn't taking action that led to others suffering push someone further from enlightenment?
b) It has never seemed like enlightenment is a thing that happens in any sort of specific timeline. I would assume most people who are attempting to attain it would understandably fear they hadn't achieved it before being killed?

mrswdk wrote:One of the things I was reading recently was about the relationship between Buddhism and morality. Buddhism avoids making any kind of moral rules or codes, and when it talks about 'good' and 'evil' it seems to simply be talking about actions and behaviors which are or aren't conducive to enlightenment.

It also seems to say that causing suffering (in either yourself or others) is evil though. One of the five precepts says that everyone fears death and punishment, and therefore one shouldn't inflict these on other living things. What I wondered is:

a) why it matters what you do to another living being, given that that doesn't appear to have any relation to enlightenment; and

b) I thought attachment (including attachment to life) is one of the things that Buddhists are supposed to relinquish, so surely an enlightened person wouldn't care about being punished or killed anyway.

Because Buddhism is a non-theistic religion, there is no "God" on which we can blame our suffering. All the suffering is what we (the capital "WE", meaning all conscious beings, and avoiding any arguments about which beings are conscious) have created.

Escaping from the cycle of the world through enlightenment is only the final exit strategy; it does not absolve us of the responsibility to make the world a better place while we are in it. By analogy, when I go to a restaurant for dinner I know I will be leaving before long. That doesn't make it okay to piss on the floor and make other people's experience unpleasant.

got tonkaed wrote:a) wouldn't taking action that led to others suffering push someone further from enlightenment?
b) It has never seemed like enlightenment is a thing that happens in any sort of specific timeline. I would assume most people who are attempting to attain it would understandably fear they hadn't achieved it before being killed?

Yeah, that's one of the things Buddhism is very clear on: You don't know in which lifetime you will achieve enlightenment, but it probably won't be any time soon. The odds are that you will spend many, many lifetimes in this world, and the more suffering you create the harder it will be to break free. Very different from the Christian view, where you can be an asshole all your life and repent on your deathbed and still go to heaven.

Dukasaur wrote:

mrswdk wrote:One of the things I was reading recently was about the relationship between Buddhism and morality. Buddhism avoids making any kind of moral rules or codes, and when it talks about 'good' and 'evil' it seems to simply be talking about actions and behaviors which are or aren't conducive to enlightenment.

It also seems to say that causing suffering (in either yourself or others) is evil though. One of the five precepts says that everyone fears death and punishment, and therefore one shouldn't inflict these on other living things. What I wondered is:

a) why it matters what you do to another living being, given that that doesn't appear to have any relation to enlightenment; and

b) I thought attachment (including attachment to life) is one of the things that Buddhists are supposed to relinquish, so surely an enlightened person wouldn't care about being punished or killed anyway.

Because Buddhism is a non-theistic religion, there is no "God" on which we can blame our suffering. All the suffering is what we (the capital "WE", meaning all conscious beings, and avoiding any arguments about which beings are conscious) have created.

Escaping from the cycle of the world through enlightenment is only the final exit strategy; it does not absolve us of the responsibility to make the world a better place while we are in it. By analogy, when I go to a restaurant for dinner I know I will be leaving before long. That doesn't make it okay to piss on the floor and make other people's experience unpleasant.

What do you mean by 'the cycle of the world'? I was under the impression that Buddhists don't believe in human souls moving from life form to life form.

Why do we have a responsibility to make the world a better place for other people? Is that a Buddhist thing or is that what you're saying?

got tonkaed wrote:a) wouldn't taking action that led to others suffering push someone further from enlightenment?
b) It has never seemed like enlightenment is a thing that happens in any sort of specific timeline. I would assume most people who are attempting to attain it would understandably fear they hadn't achieved it before being killed?

a) not necessarily. And even if it does, why must that matter to me?
b) I thought Enlightenment was something people seek because they want it, not because they have to. Am I wrong about that?