Basic buddhist concepts analysed in a Christian website

last SG · 2012-12-12T09:15:01+00:00

Re the flag and the wind, I believe the answer has got to do with the mind, but this is not the proper answer to give at all. It is again more like playing m...

Weychin SG

Our fundalmental difference is I do not see the hand of god in anything, I see not profit in following the line argument. Simply, if you believe the bible, I respect your faith and beliefs. If God wants me to take faith him, then let him talk to me in all wisdom.

What do you mean by pace evolvement of complexity of different animal societies?

The Bible talks about God creating living things to reproduce after its kind. So we have man kind, the dog kind, the cat kind etc. Each has been created and designed to do what it does do. Only humans have the ability to write and talk. Animals do not. They can communicate within their own kinds of course, but it is rather instinctual. Certainly unlike the language capability of man. Our ability to possess language complete with grammar and syntax is what sets us apart from the animal kingdom. We can talk and conceptualise things is because that's how we were created and designed to function.

If I were to create a God, I would not create a God that is all holy and will punish sin, don't you think so? Why not create a God that will save everyone, completely overlooks sin and put everyone in heaven?

Weychin SG

I am more interested that you investigate “Self”, not as an intellectual subject or debate, but as an personal experience.
As of this moment, you are unable to see past “I” view.
You are unable to your “I”ness past your mind stories.
You see and indulge in your thoughts as a single stream.

BroInChrist SG

So the question is, if there is a God what would you expect to see?

The Bible says that the invisible things of God are made known in the things that are made. It teaches that the universe "shouts" the existence of God, just like a painting "declares" that a painter exists. It's a logical inference.

Weychin SG

You should realise that you habitually label your thoughts emotionally.
Slow the mind a bit, settle down, and you will start to experience or”see” thoughts and sensations arising and passing. Liken this to watching a film on slow motion.
You will notice as long you do not indulge in you mind stories, your minds actually shifts betweens thoughts and thoughts, thought and sensation.
Until you are able to shift out the “I” perspective, you can only remain at your conceptual reality.

BroInChrist SG

But my personal experience is that self exists. I even refer to MYSELF when I am talking or communication. At every moment I am affirming the existence of self. I am communicating to you just as you are to me. At this point there is two selfs talking to each other. It is impossible to see past "I" view. Who is seeing past the "I" view? Surely it would mean you taking a vantage point above what you can see, but this is logically impossible.

BroInChrist SG

There are thoughts and there are sensations which are what I am thinking and experiencing. They are real. I can be thinking of a real person, or thinking of having a nice ice cream and then experiencing the sensation of an ice cream. They are all real and experienced by "I", I cannot go outside the "I" perspective. I don't agree that I am having only the concept of eating an ice cream if at this moment I am slurping on one.

You mentioned about slowing down and realising certain things. But who is doing the slowing down and realising? It has to be "me" or "I". Otherwise who exactly are you communicating to? Or who should be heeding your words if not "me" or "I"?

Weychin SG

I no longer have any relationship with god, I therefore consider it not profitable to make idle speculations. However, at this moment, I have a karmic ability with you. Hopefully, being here will sow the seed of liberation.

So the question is, if there is a God what would you expect to see?

BroInChrist SG

One can say he no longer has a relationship with his ex-girlfriend, but that does not translate to saying that the girl did not exist or does not exist. The same with God. Many people will say they do not know God, but that isn't the question yet, the question is whether God exists or not and this is hardly a matter of idle speculation. In philosophy the existence of God is always, if not usually, the most important topic of discussion. There are good reasons and arguments supporting the case for there being a God.

Weychin SG

Eating and thinking are two processes, you ate ice cream but not anymore, but thinking of eating ice cream is drawing on the memory of eating ice cream. But you should eaten ice cream more than once, which time (of eating ice cream) do you mean? As you are reading this, thoughts of thoughts of eating ice cream cease and arises with new activity(reading/ thinking of rebuttal/ scratching the nose or butt). Experience of eating has past and experience of thinking of eating ice cream has also past. Now is a new experience of thinking of ice cream.

Weychin SG

If you have thought of eating ice cream today, and tomorrow we talk again about eating ice cream, are the thoughts the same or identical, or is just similiar thoughts of eating ice cream?!

Weychin SG

Relationship existed, and ended, left are memories. If on a very sour note, negative emotions arises (that *ucking * itch! eg.) until we've let go. It is as Buddhist we learn how to let go! God may exist or may not exist, if I were to enter hell, it does not matter!

BroInChrist SG

If you have thought of eating ice cream today, and tomorrow we talk again about eating ice cream, are the thoughts the same or identical, or is just similiar thoughts of eating ice cream?!

I thought of ice cream yesterday and I am thinking of ice cream now. Other than the time of the thinking, it is "I" who is doing the thinking at both times. And if I go out now and buy an ice cream to eat, I acted on my thoughts. If I may say so without offence, it would be idle speculation to ask whether those thoughts are same or identical. You cannot capture a thought and compare them via some scientific method. What is not at dispute is that it was me having those thoughts about the same subject matter i.e. eating ice cream. Maybe yesterday I wanted chocolate ice cream but today I had a durian flavour. But still isn't it that I am the one thinking and acting on my own thoughts?

BroInChrist SG

That relationship was between two real persons who existed in time and spac. Relationships begin and end, but not the people unless you are talking about being dead. There are good and sour relationships, and relationships that sucked really sucked in reality. You felt it, didn't you? It was your SELF feeling the negative emotions. It wasn't anyone else feeling it but you. You can't detach yourself from feeling what you are feeling, unless of course you numb yourself through some medical means. But that is merely suppressing your human senses which are really there. Letting go of emotions and moving ahead is actually acknowledging that these emotions are real. Even in pschology or psychiatry I think they encourage their patients to acknowledge the truth and reality of events that have happened and then move on. They do not ask the patients to deny those events.

If there is no God, then I submit that there is no hell to enter. The Bible teaches that hell is created for the devil and his evil angels, and also for those who rebel against God and refuses His offer of salvation.

Weychin SG

Conventionality of Self exist, simply because we have mistaken mind process as a single stream of continuity. The difference lies in point of reference the amount of emotional baggage.

Weychin SG

I/you can think ice cream and yet not buy ice cream. You went and buy ice cream because craving rises, then the thoughts go thinking of buying ice cream.

BroInChrist SG

Conventionality of Self exist, simply because we have mistaken mind process as a single stream of continuity. The difference lies in point of reference the amount of emotional baggage.

But I think this is also where the question is being begged. How do you determine that it is mistaken that the self does exist when it is the common and shared experience that we act like self does exist? It is a universal experience that the self exist. If even you have to say that "I" am mistaken it already presupposes an "I" to have been mistaken that there is an"I" that exist. Why act contrary to that?

BroInChrist SG

I/you can think ice cream and yet not buy ice cream. You went and buy ice cream because craving rises, then the thoughts go thinking of buying ice cream.

Indeed, if I had bought an ice cream it would be because I desired for it, though unlikely that I would be craving for it. But even if I did crave for it, it would be because those desires were real and experienced by MYSELF. If I did not exist then of course no such desires need to be entertained and it is moot to talk about it at all.

Weychin SG

Our experience change all time.
You/I may think of ice cream, but we may want to buy or eat ice cream! You need craving for ice cream and the actual intention to buy and carry out the whole process.
But suppose you have stuffed yourself silly with ice cream the past few days?! Would you crave for ice cream? Is it suppose to be the same thought of ice cream?
Is’nt it the same thought, for now instead of craving, aversion rises and possible puking may ensue!

BroInChrist SG

I hope you can see how impossible it is to avoid using pronouns. It is inevitable and impossile to talk without referring to Yourself, myself, himself, ourselves. Yes, I may stay away from ice cream after gorging on it. But it was MY doing, in all these the "I" was involved. If I really puked can I say that "I" did not really puke just because I tell myself that the self does not exist? Can I deconstruct the puke such that it does not exist in ultimate reality? But I just cleaned up my puke. How does that work?

Weychin SG

Such experiences are transitory, eg. impermanent. Desires are craving, difference is the intensity of it. The more we crave or desire and unable to assuage that desire we become unhappy! This is the main point of Buddhism!

« Previous Page Next Page »