Its not particularly theism but a state of being that Buddhism represents. The ontology between metaphysics and epistomology
Heidegger may fit this prescription perhaps
Tathagatha. ascribes to a state where no further realization is required .
I think this is what could follow?
That’s not what tathagata means. But you bring up an interesting point. Buddha’s and non-Buddha’s alike either have empowerments or they don’t. Omniscience is an empowerment (nothing else to learn)… not every Buddha is omniscient.
A good example of a Buddha with empowerments is Milarepa… the most sacred saint in Tibet.
His family was murdered… and the equivalent of our devil came to him and told Milarepa that he could give him the power to seek revenge upon the murderers of his family. Milarepa accepted and he gained to power to control weather, and struck them down with lightning. Later he felt guilty about his revenge and looked to atone for his sin and found a sage named Marpa the Translator…
Anyways, long story short, Milarepa achieved enlightenment (an awakened one), but when he became enlightened, he still had his old empowerments of controlling the weather among other empowerments.
Not all Buddha’s have magical powers.
Reincarnation: What do modern research and traditional Buddhist teachings say?
BY SAM LITTLEFAIR
MAY 11, 2018
at Lion’s Roar website
Lion’s Roar describes itself as “BUDDHIST WISDOM for OUR TIME”
Google “scientific research into death” and you get this: google.com/search?ei=321eX7 … nIQ4dUDCA0
So, see what you come up with that might be described as perhaps the most optimistic conclusions. I’ll try to include an account of this on my death thread.
The maybe-unanswerable part certainly works for me. But if there are attempts to answer how “the universe” functions in a No God religion to reconfigure mere mortals on this side of the grave into re-incarnations on the other side, anything that comes close to an intelligible explanation would be much appreciated by me.
Now, I suspect that any “fierce debate” about a subject such as this is going to revolve first and foremost around the simple fact that there is no substantive evidence able to be evinced from any particular Buddhist school of thought so as to finally settle it once and for all.
And if some argue that going back to what the Buddha himself spoke of at length about rebirth, what then constitutes the “right view”?
And how is this substantiated beyond leaps of faith to one or another “school of thought”?
This part seems particularly unrealistic to me. Here someone is living his/her life from day to day. And for many that life is filled with all manner rewarding, fulfilling, satisfying experiences. They have accumulated many loving relationships with family and friends. But there it is…death. And for what would certainly appear to be for all the rest of eternity. So how reasonable is it not to dwell on a possible future life when oblivion itself is the alternative?
And, to the extent that there are Buddhists who acknowledge that mere mortals “almost certainly can’t know anything about rebirth”, they are just admitting that there is no substantial evidence available from which one can be certain of it.
So, they are basically taking their own leap of faith as would any religious person in the West in regard to God and Heaven.
Then I am back to the fact that there are hundreds and hundreds of spiritual paths out there to choose from. And Buddhists owning up to fact that the odds that they are on the one true path, is really rather remote. And that’s just on this planet.
The point is not to be attached to “loving relationships”, family, friends, death, life, rebirth, oblivion, “the one true path”, …
Reincarnation has to do with the myriad Buddhas and god’s who give comfort to those who are fearful of the absence of such an idea.
The simpler and more profound idea is that concerned with the identity of consciousness and what " I " represents.
Those who can overcome this threshold may develop a more realistic view of the afterlife.
The late J. Khrishnamurti is noteable for this view.
I’m hesitant to talk about the afterlife because I don’t want to scare people. But people want truth. So I’ll just say it.
All day long, as you’re walking the earth, not sleeping in bed, but fully awake, you’re still having multiple dreams that you aren’t consciously aware of. Those are your people and the reality you are drawn to the most.
When you die, the place that is being dreamed in your subconscious at that moment is where you’ll go.
It’s that simple.
That was your home at that moment in time. That’s where you’ll be.
No, the point [mine] is to discuss and debate the extent to which, using the tools of philosophy, we can determine if that ought to be the point.
Or if, instead, points of this nature are rooted more in the subjective “I” encompassed in an existential contraption embodied in dasein.
I’m just going to bury iambiguous’ message because he’s a troll who doesn’t give a shit.
I’m giving you the factual answer about the afterlife.
One thing I didn’t say, is that Buddhists firmly believe that if you die in suffering, you will be taken to a horrible place after this.
Now, you have a fellow like iambiguous who doesn’t know shit about existence or the spirit world trolling his same sentences over and over again.
How could he know?
He’s never been exposed to the spirit world.
Let’s draw a line here.
I know what I’m talking about.
Iambiguous has no fucking clue what he’s talking about… him and his ilk would remove the words “bad” and “wrong” and “incorrect” from all dictionaries forever.
No??
The point in Buddhism is not to be attached.
What don’t you understand about that idea?
Or you’re just completely uninterested in Buddhism and you only want to talk about yourself and your interests and your points?
What the fuck are we talking about here??
It’s not the “idea” of detachment that most intrigues me.
I don’t understand how one think of oneself as not being attached when in fact in so many ways Buddhists, like most of us, are in fact attached to any number of things in their interactions with others from day to day. And, like most of us, they come to embody moral and political value judgments that in any particular context precipitates behaviors with actual consequences that one way or another is connected to how they think the universe functions insofar as they understand the meaning of reincarnation and Nirvana.
Unless of course they choose to live entirely separated from others. Or cloistered only with other Buddhists in an entirely insular community.
But look at the 14th Dalai Lama. He is always popping up somewhere. **
Here’s how he spends a typical day not attached to others: lionsroar.com/a-day-in-the- … gK__vD_BwE
Following the news for example on the BBC.
I’m focusing as I always do on that which is of most interest to me – me, not you – about religion:
1] how believers come to differentiate right from wrong, good from bad behaviors on this side of the grave
2] how their approach to value judgments here and now become embodied in the behaviors that they choose given what they would want the fate of “I” to be there and then
Now it’s your turn to remind us all of what we should be talking about instead.
** In fact he pops up on next Sunday’s episode of The Vow on HBO. Stay tuned.
me, Me, ME
you, You YOU?
On the other hand, now that you have acknowledged your own life is meaningless en route to oblivion, how attached to it can you be?
About the interrelation between Heidegger and Buddhism:
"a brief account of existential psychoanalysis, which understands our primary repression to be death-fear. [1] This modification of Freudianism will itself be modified by anatma, to show that death-denial, too, symbolically re-presents something else even more basic and terrifying: the quite valid suspicion that ‘I’ don’t really exist. "
This differentiates Freudian and Jungian analysis, and ultimately based on Heidegger’s zen-Buddhist understanding. It did play a part in Being and Time.
Particularly the understanding of Suzuki’s concern with emptiness.
Guys, I m so terribly keen to believe and overjoyed to have found important connections.
Generally this reminded me of…
ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/91932.htm
and
thrownintotheworld.wordpress.co … -buddhism/
I don’t think Heidegger went as far as Buddhism does into anatta.
Right. All Iambiguous wants is to have a meaningful conversation about how life is meaningless. Is that too much to ask?
He wants to talk about himself - his interests, his reactions, his opinions, his evaluations, his judgements.
Buddhism … just another fucking religion …
But let’s get his opinions on Buddhism, let’s talk about his reactions to Buddhism. That’s important.
I’ve never argued that life is meaningless. On the contrary, existentially, it is bursting at the seams with meaning. But in a No God or No Religion world there does not appear to be a way in which to ascribe – teleologically – any essential meaning to it. Thus no font for differentiating right from wrong behavior on this side of the grave and no font to attach “I” to on the other side of it.
Unless of course you count your own “spiritual contraptions” that, up in the clouds, manage to comfort and console you.
And, in fact, Larry did acknowledge that he now sees his own life as meaningless…and on the road to oblivion.
Whereas I deem my own life “here and now” as essentially meaningless and apparently on the road to oblivion. I can no longer think myself into embodying your own psychologisms – “a tendency to interpret events or arguments in subjective terms” – when it comes to grappling with the existential relationship between morality and immortality. Only, in my view, your own subjective/subjunctive “I” here is still viewed by you as objective.
And, again, based on my past experiences with objectivists, it doesn’t surprise me when some reconfigure into Stooges and aim the discussions at me more than at the actual points I am making in regard to God and religion. In fact, Larry might have already come to suspect that perhaps I do know what I am talking about here. And that bit by bit he is beginning to suspect those points are applicable to him too. But that’s all just sheer speculation extrapolated from past experiences with objectivists.
Thus it is Curly’s reaction to me that is most fascinating. He already more or less agrees with some of what I’m saying. He said so himself recently. He has no objective morality and/or spiritual path to lose. With him it’s something else about me. I’m thinking it might revolve around the fact that somehow he still does not see his own “I” as nearly “fractured and fragmented” as I see mine. That his own rendition of “pragmatism” keeps his “self” together in a more coherent manner than I am now able to. In regard to his own moral and political value judgments.
Again, though, sheer conjecture.
When have I ever denied that? I have reached a grim point in my life. In regard to my own moral and political values, “I” am fractured and fragmented. I can no longer feel comforted that there is a “real me” able to confidently differentiate the good guys from the bad guys. And there it is: oblivion. Getting closer and closer each day.
So, yes, I spend a few hours each day probing the thoughts of others in regard to this truly fundamental relationship. Only some [I suspect] begin to succumb more to my frame of mind than me to theirs. My arguments come to threaten their own more or less solidified sense of self. Their own “spiritual” comfort and consolation.
Some then reconfigure the exchange into an attack on me. They become Stooges.
Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that there is this huge gap between what the religious profess to believe and what they are able to demonstrate is/as in fact true. Even to themselves.
No, in the sense that Buddhism is a No God religion. And that is particularly problematic to me. How on earth does the universe itself effectuate all the things they believe? At least with astrology you can point to the actual movement of celestial bodies.
But Buddhism…? How can adherents think themselves into believing that somehow it all just happens? Other then because psychologically they want to believe it.
It’s like that documentary series on HBO…The Vow: courthousenews.com/former-s … ng-ritual/
Aren’t the women who became sex slaves to Keith Raniere [even allowing themselves to be branded with his initials in their pubic area] an example of just how far some will go in order to believe that they are part of something that is bigger than all of us? Just another rendition of the religious mentality to me.
On the theme to unification as a possibility, as a way to contrive some sense in which oblivion may have another sense in which either interpretation is possible, excite Your senses?
Particularly in the mode of realizing that we may, unwittingly share in something greater than in our own understanding beneath that sense?
Is particularization reductively the static morality. , without and within. , that our mortality is grounded, at all another possibility yet to play out? Let us remember that man has been around here as a species for 10,000 years of recorded history, while our mother earth has been revolving and orbiting for billions of years.
That argument seems to me , stretches the realm of possibility, and the nihilism of today may in the future be reversed by Being , which presently is eaten up by existential , particular nihilism.
Maybe this is a necessary process on way to higher human development.
Unless an all consuming entropic finality is pre-determined.
The only viable critique that can be envisioned, is that man destroys himself during this next transition
But then the question settles it with the probable answers that multiple startups are still possible for the remainder of this planet’s duration.