Transmigration of souls- an old greek pythagorean idea-- also called "reincarnation". Buddhists do believe that, don't they?
Ho-fucking-ho
- Thread starter Satori
- Start date
Transmigration of souls- an old greek pythagorean idea-- also called "reincarnation". Buddhists do believe that, don't they?
Then how convienent it is for you to not respond eh?
I'm not getting defensive, I'm just giving you a hard time for the fun of it, aren't you enjoy yourself?
I feel it is mindless to bash the explanations of things, particularly when they are ancient and devised for a completely different culture than our modern day reality. When I bash religions I bash the underlying message of subserviance and literally interpreted bullshit, not the way they are explained. I would not, for example, bash christianity because my limited and feeble knowledge of the subject left me with a distaste for the burning bush story, I would not mistake the explanation for the idea and then bash the idea without even attempting to understand it. If you had a clue about what you were bashing then it would be quite different, but since you don't it's just senseless blather.
Satori
I don't think you've painted an accurate picture. Clearly you have bashed Christianity along the lines that I have Bud.. There is no need to prove this.
On the other hand, you have yet to prove where my understanding of Buddhism so far has erred. But then again you characteristically accuse people smarter than you of ignorance and do nothing to back it up.
1) hook me up with a link
2) show me where I have given inaccurate info on B.
You have done neither. But then again what am I to expect from a senseless blatherer given 24/7 to self-contradictions?
There are no (none, nadda) individual selves, only the one self of reality/the universe itself. The political/cultural aspects of buddhism provide a user-friendly explanation to those who aren't bright enough to truly get it and these intentional myths help them follow in the tradition of a philosophy they will most likely never fully understand or appreciate. Such myths are far less comprehensible and harder to decipher to a modern western mindset.
Reincarnation is a dumbed-down explanation for what we all know is a reality: mass is always contained in a given system and the expression of it goes in a cyclic pattern with unceasing variation.
Satori
That's just another way of saying I'm right. You still have done nothing to controvert me. You have merely expanded upon what I have been asserting all along.
btw, I should expand a bit too.
Are you familiar with plato's view of the world? He believed that everything we are and see, derive from a truer, uniform reality, a single good, a magnum bonum. He too believed in trasmigration. And this account doesn't seem to stray far from the one you've given of B just now...
Are you familiar with plato's view of the world? He believed that everything we are and see, derive from a truer, uniform reality, a single good, a magnum bonum. He too believed in trasmigration. And this account doesn't seem to stray far from the one you've given of B just now...
You have not even touched on the underlying messages of buddhism, therefore you have not yet begun to bash it, which is a shame because it would be quite fun, hehe.
I have backed it up, and you a free to disregard it if you must.
Therein lies the problem. You are looking for a nutshell explanation of something absolutely massive and ancient and often indistinguishable from the culture/tradition/politics in which it is based.
It's not so much inaccurate as it is horribly incomplete, over-simplified, and viewed by you in a completely different context than what it was intended.
You have done neither. But then again what am I to expect from a senseless blatherer given 24/7 to self-contradictions?
You should expect not to be rebuttaled when spewing nonsense about that which you have, at best, an extremely rudimentary understanding.
Satori
Now you are beginning to appear foolish. As much as you would love to think so, it was not "just another way of saying" you're right.
I have not merely expanded upon what you have been asserting, I've explained how this whole "soul" and "reincarnation" stuff is bullshit and does not at all apply to the philosophy known as buddhism. It was a nice try on your part to suggest this however.
Satori
...an elementary understanding yes. An incorrect one? No.
How's that saying go again? ah yes! I don't need to explore, taste and feel shit, in order to know it is.
How's that saying go again? ah yes! I don't need to explore, taste and feel shit, in order to know it is.
tsk tsk. Examine the contents of this thread again. you will see that I am right, and that you are wrong (for the slow of mind: Your expansions don't actually preclude and nullify the concepts of soul and reincarnation- they just redress them in different terms.)
gracefully,
RETIREDTrapped
New Metal Member
- Sep 12, 2001
- 8,312
- 4
- 0
RETIREDTrapped
New Metal Member
- Sep 12, 2001
- 8,312
- 4
- 0
wildfyr
unus spiritus est
after reading this thread i'm reminded of the old SNL sketch, Point/Counterpoint--especially when Dan Aykroyd says, "Jane, you ignorant slut"
that is all.
mindflesh
Rainbow Satan Overflow
Well, after reading up on Buddhism, apart from the fact that it is a religion, shares many parrallels with Christianity and Platonism, I'd have to retract the comments I've made about buddhism pertaining to "soul" or "self" (the "atman"). Buddha taught the theory of impermanence, of "anatta", "anatman, or "naratmya", the idea that there is no metaphysically real "i"- ie., there is no soul. So I hereby admit it, I was wrong.
That said, here are strange things I didn't know:
Reincarnation is a part of Buddhist belief, but the ultimate goal of Buddhists is to end the cycle of death and rebirth- in short, if I'm not mistaken, to bring an end to the very process of reincarnation (which doesn't equate to the greek/western/dualistic equivalent of Transmigration). The moment achieved is Nirvana. The metaphysics here gets expansive (eg., in the law of dependent origination, aka, pratitya-samutpada) and interestingly technical, and I can sympathize with its monistic (i.e., non-dualistic, soul/body) tones.
Reincarnation does not actually reference the idea that one is reborn and relives-- the "self" is impermanent, and even illusory- what is real is, if I were to give a familiar term, is "history" (karma, loosely), partaking of past lives, past miseries, and dealing with them, contributing negatively or positively to the world and picking up after this work, in a linear succession of lives.
My understanding is tensional, so I can't be too lucid about this. I find the idea (reincarnation and karma), intriguing, not because it's new to me, or that it opens up new avenues of thought. Something about it gives me the permission and leave to view things in a certain way; it fortifies my bonds with History and everything of the past, and this feels good, enriching. It gives character to human existence, a dimension of uniformity with Being (in the sense of history and purpose), a sense of historical teleology, of which we all are a part, that what I'm doing has an effect and is important- again very tenuous what I'm writing now, so it's rough. There's a lot here to explore.
Incidentally, I've always felt a deep, profound, association with certain people in the past. I now believe- no joke- I am reincarnations of those people, and in my life I am fated to attain nirvana and become a Buddha-- to do what they couldn't do. <pats self on the back in egotistical contentment >
Danke Satori, for giving me the motivation to study up upon this. I feel a renewal.
The only thing as of now I don't like about B is the language of "detachment"- there is something nihilistic about it. I believe it's the fundamental error of Buddhist philosophy. It's a shame that Siddhartha Gautama, ultimately, was preaching a form of weakness to the weak. We'll see.
That said, here are strange things I didn't know:
Reincarnation is a part of Buddhist belief, but the ultimate goal of Buddhists is to end the cycle of death and rebirth- in short, if I'm not mistaken, to bring an end to the very process of reincarnation (which doesn't equate to the greek/western/dualistic equivalent of Transmigration). The moment achieved is Nirvana. The metaphysics here gets expansive (eg., in the law of dependent origination, aka, pratitya-samutpada) and interestingly technical, and I can sympathize with its monistic (i.e., non-dualistic, soul/body) tones.
Reincarnation does not actually reference the idea that one is reborn and relives-- the "self" is impermanent, and even illusory- what is real is, if I were to give a familiar term, is "history" (karma, loosely), partaking of past lives, past miseries, and dealing with them, contributing negatively or positively to the world and picking up after this work, in a linear succession of lives.
My understanding is tensional, so I can't be too lucid about this. I find the idea (reincarnation and karma), intriguing, not because it's new to me, or that it opens up new avenues of thought. Something about it gives me the permission and leave to view things in a certain way; it fortifies my bonds with History and everything of the past, and this feels good, enriching. It gives character to human existence, a dimension of uniformity with Being (in the sense of history and purpose), a sense of historical teleology, of which we all are a part, that what I'm doing has an effect and is important- again very tenuous what I'm writing now, so it's rough. There's a lot here to explore.
Incidentally, I've always felt a deep, profound, association with certain people in the past. I now believe- no joke- I am reincarnations of those people, and in my life I am fated to attain nirvana and become a Buddha-- to do what they couldn't do. <pats self on the back in egotistical contentment
> Danke Satori, for giving me the motivation to study up upon this. I feel a renewal.
The only thing as of now I don't like about B is the language of "detachment"- there is something nihilistic about it. I believe it's the fundamental error of Buddhist philosophy. It's a shame that Siddhartha Gautama, ultimately, was preaching a form of weakness to the weak. We'll see.
Originally posted by mindflesh
Yay! another one of Satori's anti-crusadesGive it up EVIL you have no chance
mindflesh:
only to be but a tad offensive, why don't you get off Satori's cock for a change? The relief of pressure might actually be good for your mind.
mindflesh
Rainbow Satan Overflow
Originally posted by E V I L
mindflesh:
only to be but a tad offensive, why don't you get off Satori's cock for a change? The relief of pressure might actually be good for your mind.
I never said I was on his side... trust me I'm the last person on this board to LIKE Satori
And you get my complete support, but the problem is Satori (or his "character" or whatever he claims to be) is extremely stubborn - and can't be convinced of anything... and usually his "enemy" gives up sooner or later simply because the thread would go on forever otherwise...Originally posted by mindflesh
I never said I was on his side... trust me I'm the last person on this board to LIKE Satori
Then you are ignorant of past threads my friend.
He's stubborn but guess who's more stubborn? When it comes to being stubborn about debates, I am a genius, oh yes, and he's just a poser. cheers
