SkyPanther

In a way, yes, sort of how Christianity came out of Judaism. Though Suffering is more accurately "unsatisfactoriness", or "Bummer". And only if you cling to impermanent things. Once you get past clinging, you get to bliss, or equanimity as well. I guess some would call that "contentment".

I have been respectful towards you. But here is a quaint idea, treat others as you want to be treated. I have not called you any name, made any judgment toward you, or had anything bad to say. There are things we disagree on, great, it's what makes life interesting, if we all thought the same things, life would be boring. You seem to have aversion to some things about me, maybe try to figure out what that is, without name calling, ad hominem or straw man attacks. If you think it is angering, upsetting, or frustrating me, you would be mistaken, but as someone on here noted, it is pretty entertaining, in an enlightening sort of way.

I see, so "difficult" is too harsh but, "religious nut", "dumb", and the other labels you have thrown at me are just fine by your estimation. This is getting silly, but is also... Enlightening. Anyway, hope you have a good day.

Feel free to feel this way about me. But know that I harbor no anger or ill will towards you, and hope to be able to communicate with you, someday, without the name calling.

I did say a few times, the person is not the action. As you lable emotions, thoughts, etc as those things when you meditate, you can lable bad action, as bad actions. The action is not the person. As for the rest, I won't participate in ad hominem attacks.

The thing is, I was pretty much agreeing with him. The "difficult" people are in the minds of people that label them that. The actual people are not that, though thier actions may be seen that way by others. That is why I said change yourself. Not the other person, but your own ego that is having difficulty with other people. As for moral and cultural relativism, there has to be some discernment, otherwise everything is "good" and the word loses its meaning, even with outright atrocities, all for the sake of being perceived as "enlightened". No where has any exemplars of enlightenment said that everything is permissible. For instance no one would call Hitler, Trump, Stalin, etc anywhere close to enlightened. That does not mean that you Judged the person, or actively make their lives hard (the law will do that if their actions are unlawful ), but it does mean you recognize their actions as unskillful, unwholesome, "evil", selfish, sinful, or whatever other word that convays "don't do that", to someone trying to stay on the path of enlightenment. Even as an Agnostic/Atheist, there is secular humanism as an ethics code/code of conduct.

Just a tip; when meditating do not hold a goal in your mind. The goal of getting something, or hoping to get to a certain state of concentration, etc, is desire/craving which is not a good state of mind to meditate with. (Because it is bound with ego) The best "mind state" to meditate with is "beginner's mind" that is, do not expect anything, nor hold anything as a known "goal". What you are actually doing though is fine (the mindfulness of breathing).

This is pretty much my view on "morality":

This is true; To add to this, if we go with the idea of Karma, "good" (unselfish) Karma can also lead you to a heavenly rebirth, (and of course it depends on the path here, I am mainly talking about Buddhism). There are 31 spheres of existence in Buddhism, the "human" level is the "middle" between the pure suffering and pure pleasure spheres. As soon as the good karma is used up you drop a level, or, if you are in the "suffering" (hell) planes, as soon as the bad Karma is used up, you go up a level. The point of enlightenment, (in Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism) is to stop craving/desiring rebirth, and escape Samsara. Of course this is the non-secular view; From a secular point of view self-actualization is just realizing that the ego/self entity is an illusion.

He seems to be, yes. I think ultimately it may not matter though, he has helped a lot of people which, I think, is more important than if he is "enlightened" or not.

I see, well, there is no need to speak with you further as we have come to an impasse. Have a great rest of the day.

I did. My definition is in the reply of the other post, but I will copy paste it again: [...] That is what I mean by "I do not subscribe to relativism". Harming a living being is ultimately destructive; Lying is ultimately destructive. If one society restricts the rights of women, homosexuals, religious minorities, and another does not, there is no "relativism" one is ultimately "more aware" or tolerant. That to me is "truth".

Define absolute truth? Ethics/Virtue (or Sila) was actually not something they said should be thrown out. It is part of enlightenment. That is what I mean by "I do not subscribe to relativism". Harming a living being is ultimately destructive; Lying is ultimately destructive. If one society restricts the rights of women, homosexuals, religious minorities, and another does not, there is no "relativism" one is ultimately "more aware" or tolerant. That to me is "truth". And scientifically speaking, I think that is the correct "path": Altruism May Be More Innate Than Thought http://psychcentral.com/news/2016/03/21/scientists-believe-altruistic-traits-are-innate/100740.html

There was someone to begin with, an organism with memory, genetic tendencies, and habitual tendencies, emotions, etc. The amalgamation of these is the "ego". But the "Ego" as a construction is not "self". Just like the "car" is not a whole, it is made of the body, wheel, engine, etc... there is no essential "car" in it. So when the body dies, the thing that dies can either be the organism, or a frightened ego and the body/mind that supports it.

Thank you for sharing this, I watched it today. I think it is really interesting, and they make a lot of good points. I too share their point on looking only at the early texts. (The Pali Canon). A few points that I found interesting, in that I thought it was a bit odd. They made a really good point that the Buddha did not like extremes. Pure Atheism is an extreme. (And I say that as an Agnostic Atheist). The Buddha did talk, in the early texts, about Kamma, Rebirth, and different extra sensory powers you get via meditation. Those were not put in by Tibetans, Zen, etc... He also spoke about "gods"(or devas) that were also stuck in Samsara. (They were from his point of view, begins with a higher sense of consciousness who were once living beings.) The other thing is that in (Nepal)/India Kamma, rebirth, etc, were not the "traditional" point of view. They had a huge mix of different philosophies. For Instance the teachers that were known by the Buddha and society of the time: Pūraṇa Kassapa: Amoralism: denies any reward or punishment for either good or bad deeds. Makkhali Gosāla (Ajivika): Fatalism: we are powerless; suffering is pre-destined. Ajita Kesakambalī: Materialism: with death, all is annihilated. Pakudha Kaccāyana: Sassatavada (Eternalism): Matter, pleasure, pain and the soul are eternal and do not interact. Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta (Jainism): Restraint: be endowed with, cleansed by and suffused with the avoidance of all evil. Sañjaya Belaṭṭhiputta: Agnosticism: "I don't think so. I don't think in that way or otherwise. I don't think not or not not." Suspension of judgement. Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html The Buddha did not teach Eternalism, or Materialism, but something in between. (As both are extremes). Rebirth is different from reincarnation, for instance; Rebirth is akin to a candle lighting another candle; passing the "grasping fire" to another "life". Reincarnation is akin to moving water from one glass to another. Where the glass is the body, and the water is the "soul". The Buddha himself seemed to me, was pretty much an Non-theistic Agnostic when it comes to "god". Now, I do not think what the people in the video are saying is "invalid", I just think it is painted with their own pre-existing worldview(Atheism/Materialism). There is nothing wrong with that, it makes living interesting, and the nice thing with Buddhism is that it can adapt that way. My own "version" of Buddhism is likewise painted with "agnosticism", which is tempered with faith, and wisdom(the Buddhist versions of these words). Who is "right"? I think that is irrelevant. If their ideas works for them, makes them enlightened, happy, free from suffering, etc, it should not matter. Everyone is on their own path; so ultimately, as long as people are striving to better themselves I think "how" is not as important as if it's working for them personally.

I don't know what happens after you die, but there are some interesting ideas, and some interested studies done in relation to NDE's, OBE's, rebirth, etc... Probably the most "sound" study is this one: Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged http://www.amazon.com/Twenty-Cases-Suggestive-Reincarnation-Enlarged/dp/0813908728 Ultimately it is a matter of faith. Personally I am "agnostic" on these topics... they could be "true" but there is no clear cut evidence that would pass the purely "materialistic" sceptic test.

This is correct; you have to disidentify yourself with the ego, memories, etc, once this is done (essentially the ego is either greatly attenuated, or killed) the fear of death is gone.

I agree, I think having hypotheticals like this is not really helpful. It is all based on conjecture, and a lot of "what if's" can be brought up, etc...

It could also be an alien. Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from "magic". If you brought a smartphone to the 700's people would think you had a magic slate. There was a Star Trek episode called "The Devi's Due" that touched on this. A being claiming to be the devil was scaring people that were technologically inferior. Turned out to be a con-artist using technology to mimic magic/miracles.

Yeah, that makes sense when talking about mind states, having to guard your sense stores, etc, was supposed to be a 24/7 thing; i.e. Being mindful at all times, not just when sitting. Though I will say that once you get to the 4th Jhana, equanimity is really easy to bring up from whatever other mind state you were in before. Though I may be projecting.

Ahh, interesting. Nibbana, at least from my point of view is a mind that is in a concept free state. There was a booklet I read a few weeks ago called "concept and reality" that has said the same thing. Ultimately what happens after death is irrelevant to me. Ditto with god or no. It is fun to conjecture about it, but the Buddha did not really think it was worth the effort because it's all just that, conjecture.

Thank you, I will take a look. I actually do not follow Zen or the Tibetan version, but Theravada; and than not the religious/ritualized version, just the Pali cannon (the middle, long discourses, etc) as translated by Bhikku Bodi.

I am giving advice, you asked me questions I gave answers. If people do not upset you, great; I am than not talking to you than. But some people find the people, or situations I gave as upsetting. For those people, try to figure out why, or send them Metta because they are suffering, or because you personally do not want to get caught up in the game.

I said if people upset you, work on trying to figure out why. I think you are trying to antagonize a bit now, that is not needed.

No, I send them Metta because I feel no need to get involved in thier games/plays, etc. There was a time that I got worked up; that time has mostly passed. I am by no means perfect in mindfulness, but catching myself getting upset at people, figuring out why, and resolving it, has been very helpful. This is recommended by multiple people not just me. The Buddha, Tolle, the Dalai Lama, etc.