End destiny of man and life in Buddhism.

[Francis king]

"I seem to notice that we have similar drifts and also dissimilar ones", yes we do, great round ere, innit..?

i would answer ur question in the following manner....

although I might be a stranger in a strange land, I would make sure I knew where I was going b4 I got there, and then I could enjoy my journey, yes, but I always end up where I'm meant to be, so I wouldn't be too concerned about reaching my destination... I would not bother to ask the ppl at the bus stop where I was going, as this might attract unwanted attention to my person and I might get mugged, and they might not know either... I would instead rely on my own initiative, and if that failed me, I would hail a taxi and show my driver my map...

u say:"Death is the last episode in life which ends life and all further experiences and which does not allow the deceased to know about his own death, at least not in a manner that they can communicate their knowledge of the dying experience and the death state to us -- we are talking about the death that is already in the decaying condition, not any kind of dying from which the subject is still around today to talk about it; that is not dying unto death we are talking about"

-and yet some buddhists believe that the consciousness can be deliberately trained to reincarnate, some believe that death can be planned and prepared for, some believe the consciousness is "recycled" and beings transmigrate, are born again at some point and may be of a different species, sex, race, some believe that death is death and thats the end, some buddhists believe that their rebirth will be in a pure land, some think shinje counts out the black and white pebbles, but none of us can say that any all or some of these ends is a true end, because all of these states are subjective and referential, not experiential...

"for we know what the conventional way of lips to lips kissing among Americans and Westerners generally is supposed to achieve, namely: show of affection and also for the partners in kissing, pleasurable sensation",

and I again say-but only in certain contexts, and with certain ppl, for instance, men do not kiss men on the lips unless they are gay or related, women most likely wouldn't kiss their bosses on the lips, or strange men at the bus stop, and buddhism is the same, influenced by the different cultures it has been exposed to, and different from person to person, or school to school...



you then say- "And what kind of life and living does he propose to his followers to be the best kind, like say giving up home and family and marriage and career to dwell in isolation from society meditating on emptiness and waiting for death to pass into parinirvana. I just read some days again that at the start Gautama thought that women are not fit for his movement because they are the vessels of rebirths, and rebirth is what he is trying to prevent in human existence or in all sentient beings",

and I would have to say that although u might have a point there, my version of the story runs that Sakyamuni, having performed the austerities and meditated in the woods til he almost died of starvation decided that such extremes were not the answer, and advocated a middle way, and although he ran off to be an aranyaka/sadhu and do all the things aranyakas/sadhu's did he did eventually go home where he reputedly dragged all his family into buddhism also, and although he did abandon his son and wife and head for the woods he didn't see them cast out onto the street and they were all well looked after by the others in his family, and my version of the story also says that he admitted himself that although sitting in the woods meditating and staring at the trees might be a great way to get enlightened, it wasn't practible for everyone to do this, and accepted that u could be a "householder" and still be a bhakti, or a sadhu, much like all hindu's did...

as for the women thing, surely ur taking it out of context..? yes, apparently in the sutras it says to be born a woman is not as good as to be born a man, but maybe what he was really saying was that... it is, in our time and place, worse to live as a woman than a man, because of familial and societal roles, rules, and responsibilities, and it is harder for a woman than a man to sit in the woods if she has to deal with her period and we havent invented tampons... maybe women, married off early and burdened by children, who she can hardly abandon, are less likely to sit in the woods all day, as they have chapatti's to make...? And so, what he was saying, to me at least, was that if ur a man who's sitting in the woods all day, be happy u were born a man, because if u were born a lass u'd be barefoot and in the kitchen by now... as we know, buddha, much like jesus, and mohammed, did not sit down and write their own holy books, and so what is said is most likely influenced by the authors perceptions as well as conventional realities of the day, the zeitgeist...yes, I have heard that buddha reputedly said that women should be viewed as bags of pus, etc, something to be dispised, he was only doing this to prevent lusty thoughts in the minds of monks, rather than view them as things to be destroyed... instead of looking at a ladies boobs, and thinking, mmm, I'd like to do her, u should see them as rotting corpses instead, stinking and filled with pus, and the idea was, if u thought this enough, u would stop getting a boner which distracted u from ur contemplations... it's called adverse conditioning, I believe..

If, as buddhists, we take everything that is reputedly the words of the buddha at face value then we completely miss the point of buddhism, and if that is the case, then perhaps we should view this "ending this chain of rebirth" as a metaphor. Instead of aspiring for an end, we instead aspire to the end of suffering, first within our own continuum, and then, hopefully, we stop running round in circles, or digging mudholes, and maybe also, as well as this, then suffering slowly ends for all.

its a huge leap from the end of suffering to the "genocide of women", and suggest u take no notice of buddhism when it doesn't make sense.

"That is why I am always wondering...why any rationally intelligent person would sign up with Buddhism".

buddhism is very rational, if u take away the gaudy lights and the tinsel. It says- what is existence? what is suffering? here is existence, here is suffering. then it says- if ur miserable, and u dont like suffering, this is what u can do to help urself. If u fancy ur chances as a saint, then here are some skills which will be very useful for u, and here are some ideas u should contemplate first.

"That Buddhist idea about impermanence, it is not any massive discovery about existence and life; but Gautama and Buddhists look at it as per their indoctrinated psychology in a negative way. Tell them that if things stay pemanent without change, then Gautam would always be a baby without intelligible speech and would never have developed into what his disciples and followers proclaim him to be, a Buddha -- some enlightened being indeed who sees only the dark sides of things",

and to this I would say- as a starting point, realising that nothing stays the same might frighten some, but I consider it liberating. If it is the nature of things to change, then the things we are told matter might not, the things we think we cannot escape or change we can, and that includes all things which manifest within our own psyches, and within our societies. It says- don't stick to the rules for the sake of the rules. Stick to the rules that don't harm u or anyone else. It says, don't pledge allegience to ur kin for the sake of sharing the same DNA, ally urself to the truth. It says, dont wait for a big hand to come out of the sky and make thing better, rely upon ur own wisdom, and u'll be suprised how far it will take u. It says- sort ur head out, if ur miserable, and things will start to look brighter. Or at least, that is what it says to me, and to me that's as far from being "dark" as it gets.

no other religion said to me- really, ur as unsullied as a fresh lotus blossom, and yeah, ur roots are in the mud, but u are stainless on the top of the water, no other religion said to me- hey, miseryguts, change ur attitude, which isnt urs anyway, and u'll be happier, no other religion said to me- steal, u get nicked, then ur in jail, and if u dont like jail dont steal, no other religion said to me- u could be great, if u gave urself a chance, try this on for size...

as u've probably gathered, I dont do the guru and the lineage thing, I dont really care about observing traditions becuase this is the way its done. If u apply ur rational approach to buddhism, and simply ignore the rubbish bits, u'd like it a lot more, methinks...

cheerio for now

[Susma Rio Sep]

in any event, our rejection of your OP is not a religious objection, rather it is a philosophical objection as the foundations upon which the question relies is based on a radically different ontology than what Buddha Dharma presents. -- Vaj

Well, that is interesting.

Do we have any common ontology on which we can arrive at concurring positions on the end destiny of man and life?


Susma

[Susma Rio Sep]

Thanks, Francis, for your informative post.

We do have a number of similar drifts and a number of differing ones.

Tell me though, what would you want to be the end destiny of man and life were you not a Buddhist by any measure and yardstick of Buddhism?


Susma

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

in any event, our rejection of your OP is not a religious objection, rather it is a philosophical objection as the foundations upon which the question relies is based on a radically different ontology than what Buddha Dharma presents. -- Vaj

Well, that is interesting.

Do we have any common ontology on which we can arrive at concurring positions on the end destiny of man and life?


Susma

Namaste Susma,

I do not know.. what is your philosophical position regarding reality? i can offer that the basic Buddhist ontological position is one of Empircism.

nevertheless, the issue is in the definition of the terms.. what does the term "man" mean and all of that sort of thing. it can certainly be a pendantic discussion, at times, but one which is necessary to see if we mean the same things by the same term.

further, there are four seperate and distinct philosophical schools, with two sub-schools, which are valid depending on the particular Vehicle that one practices, which can make the discussion even more complicated

overall, however, speculating about the end of the universe is somewhat irrelevant to what i'm going to prepare for dinner tonight

metta,

~v

[Francis king]

"Tell me though, what would you want to be the end destiny of man and life were you not a Buddhist by any measure and yardstick of Buddhism?"

that's a hard one, susma...

as a non-buddhist human, I think I would like the end destiny of man to involve riches, dancing girls, lots of beer, a fast sports car and maybe eternal youth and beauty, seeing as it escaped me the first time round, in some place where there is no war or want, and where ppl can be artistic and creative and dazzle me with their brilliance. And I don't think I'd want to see an end to life, as such, and so I would hope the end gave me immortality, but I wouldn't want everyone to be immortal, as earth would get too crowded.

personally, I have decided that when I die, I am not going on into bliss, but am going to hang around as a ghost for a while, to annoy and terrify ppl, and then I will look for a new body, and be reborn as the child of someone rich and powerful, preferably someone who is a buddhist. I need to learn how to close the womb door, though, and nobody will tell me, so I'm hoping a padlock and hasp and a few nails will do the trick...

cheerio

[Susma Rio Sep]

Thanks, Vaj, for your input.

About definitions of terms like man and life and also the choice of a philosophy, the problem is who are to be taken as most to be depended upon for definitions and for the choice of a philosophy? What about the sentient beings who at present are not into dialog with man, like say dolphins and apes?

Dear Francis King, I would agree with your kind of end destiny for man and life, for which except that women don't get it like menfolk, the Muslims' paradise seems to be the most inviting.

So, if we just also include women in paradise with the same privileges as us guys, that will be just fine for everyone -- of course we have to change our psycho-moral values so that we can do away with feeling oh so carnal. Isn't that what modern science and medical technology has changed morality, so that people don't have to get babies if they don't want to; and no one is now complaining at least not as as bad as in the pre control of birth days about guys and gals living in without a license from the government.


Susma

[Eudaimonist]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Maybe you would like to start with what is not meaningful to you? instead of what is meaningful to you -- for I seem to see that for Buddhists they tend to see what is not meaningful than what is meaningful, what about non-Buddhists?

The end destiny of the human race is not particularly meaningful to me. I simply hope that -- whatever it is -- it doesn't happen for many millions of years, since "end destiny" to me implies extinction. Instead of speculating as to what it might be, I'm content to let it be an unknown for now.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Eudaimonist

The end destiny of the human race is not particularly meaningful to me. I simply hope that -- whatever it is -- it doesn't happen for many millions of years, since "end destiny" to me implies extinction. Instead of speculating as to what it might be, I'm content to let it be an unknown for now.


eudaimonia,

Mark

But wouldn't you like to be around, at least to witness out of curiosity?

For my part I want to put it on record that I am most unabashedly and most interested in being around when the end destiny of man and life has arrived -- there's nothing like satisfying curiosity.

In another forum someone tells me that curiosity killed the cat, and I tell him that this cat is not killed yet.

I certainly would like to contribute to my presence in the end destiny of man and life when that time arrives.


--------------------------

See my new thread on "the greatness of Gautama, why?"


Susma

[Susma Rio Sep]

I have come across a website on Buddhism to all appearances from a Sri Lanka source, not from Westerners engaged in Buddhism.

You see, when you read about Buddhism from Westerners, they tend to overlook what they find unacceptable in the churches of the West which also appears in Buddhism.

Sri Lanka, formerly Ceylon, is the quintessential traditional Buddhist homeland, Unless I am mistaken, it is the source or place where the much vaunted Pali Canon of Buddhism was confected, maybe in the 6th century Common Era -- correct me if I am in fact mistaken.

The author(s) of this website seem to me to explain Buddhism without trying to deodorize Buddhism to make it smell fragrantly to Westerners who can't tolerate any supernaturalism or superstitions in religions.

It has a page on Buddhist cosmology and Nirvana which I think is quite simply but also to my impression fairly explained, with all the self-doubts of the authors thrown in.

A Modern Introduction to the Buddha's Teaching
Buddhist Cosmology and Nibbâna
Buddhism in Sri Lanka - Buddhist Cosmology and Nibbâna

From the title of the page itself, I think I have been right all along to say that Nirvana or Nibbana is the end destiny of man and life in Buddhism; and that is why I am wondering why Buddhists here don't want to come out openly and say so?

I said that the authors of this website throw in their self-doubts about Buddhism in their writings in explanation and advocacy of Buddhism, consider this line from the first paragraph of the page on Buddhist cosmology and Nirvana.

[Lines in bold provided by the undersigned.]

The Buddhist scriptures contain a cosmology of the Universe which provide an interesting contrast to the cosmologies of other religions (e.g. that of the Bible) and even the modern scientific cosmology (on which there is no complete agreement). The cosmological claims in the Buddhist scriptures should not be seen as an accurate description of the physical universe, but as establishing the stage on which the great sasâric drama is enacted. While considering this cosmology we may also consider the important concept of Nibbâna which is the state of final release. The latter term is better known in its Sanskrit version as "Nirvana". We shall use the Pali term because the concept of Nirvana is also used in other Indian religions notably Jainism.

I will bring up the main points of Buddhist cosmology and Nirvana from this Sri Lankan website, in order to discern the major skylines of the end destiny for man and life in Buddhism.


Susma

[moseslmpg]

Well, of course if you look only at one source, they will have a more concrete answer than a survey of all the sources. And Nirvana is not the end destiny of man in Buddhism for two reasons:

1. Not everyone will reach Nirvana in the context of a definite time cycle. I.e. you don't just go to Nirvana at the "end of the world."

2. From what I understand, Buddhism does not view the world and existence as having a beginning or end. Nor does it see things as eternal per se.

So there is not really any end destiny like in Christianity or Judaism or other Western religions. The end goal of Buddhism is for everyone to become enlightened, which I presume would cause all phenomenal existence to cease, so if anything is close to the "end destiny" it is enlightenment.

[samabudhi]

Sri Lanka, formerly Ceylon, is the quintessential traditional Buddhist homeland, Unless I am mistaken, it is the source or place where the much vaunted Pali Canon of Buddhism was confected, maybe in the 6th century Common Era -- correct me if I am in fact mistaken.

You won't find a pure land on this earth. There isn't an inch of samsara that is free from war, perversion, crime, change - much less an island state injected with scriptures and separated from the evolving Buddhist traditions in Northern India. Basing the efficacy of the teachings on the environment (which Buddha renounced) is like declaring the beauty of a lotus by looking at the pool of mud it grows from.

Nirvana is a term used by Buddha's contempories. He uses the word only to place it in context.
If you want to understand early Buddhism, you really need to read the Digha Nikaya.
Unfortunately there are no complete translations on the web, but this is a good start:
Digha Nikaya

[Eudaimonist]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

But wouldn't you like to be around, at least to witness out of curiosity?

I am equally curious about beginnings and middles. Since I don't have a time machine, I am content to satisfy my curiosity by witnessing the current part of the middle.

If I had a time machine, I would make lots of journeys.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Francis king]

buddha was an indian- from india... well, okay, from some region on the border with nepal, but its still blooming india... in theory, the teachings should have been written down in sanskrit or some kind of nepalese or indian prakrit, but no-the oldest teachings of buddha, were written on palm leaf paper in the language of pali, which is, in my humble opinion, just a crap version of sanskrit, and they were supposedly written down about 200 years or so after the buddhas death by some theravadins in ceylon, which was also India- before it became Sri Lanka...

I hate pali with a vengeance, its a crap language, and it can't make its mind up what it wants to say... does anyone here do pali or sanskrit? just curious, like...

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Eudaimonist

If I had a time machine, I would make lots of journeys.

If I had a time machine, I would make lots of money....

[jiii]

Originally Posted by Francis king

in theory, the teachings should have been written down in sanskrit or some kind of nepalese or indian prakrit, but no...

Originally Posted by Francis king

I hate pali with a vengeance, its a crap language, and it can't make its mind up what it wants to say... does anyone here do pali or sanskrit? just curious, like...

LOL...what's so bad about Pali? From my understanding, Pali is, in fact, a type of Indian Prakrit, with which you seem to be much more at ease.