is there a certain word describing my belief

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 02:00 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;153471 wrote:
A long time ago, far, far away, there a young prince who had been brought up sorrounded by luxury and with his every need fulfilled. As his father was a King, he lived in a palace and had servants and the best of everything. However as he grew to maturity and left the palace walls, he was confronted by sights that disturbed his sheltered life. He once saw a funeral procession making its way to the funeral ground; on another occasion, he poor old fellow who was so infirm he could barely walk; another time a man stricken by some dreadful illness. But then, on one of these tours, he saw a travelling monk, clad only in a simple robe, and who seemed to him at peace with the world.

These sights caused the prince to wonder about this very question. Certainly, he did not have to worry about his circumstance; but it was clear to him that no matter how rich he was, he still would fall victim to old age and death, and perhaps to illness. So he decided to pursue the life of the wandering monk, to see if there was some truth he could find that was less impermanent than his worldly life. Because, he thought, no matter what your situation, you will always have things happen that you don't want, and loose things that you do want, and in the worldly life there seems no lasting peace.

That prince's name was Gautama Siddhartha, who left his sleeping family and all of his possessions, and who meditated on it for 6 years in the forest before finally realising that higher truth. At which time, he became known as the Buddha.


But did he really leave his family ? Did he not go back ? I support Buddhism, there is a center I cook for once in a while. I also think it's a privilege to be able to be buddhist but it's a peaceful concept for a peaceful society. I do not see the world as peaceful around me. I do not feel the security needed to be at peace. Maybe I should try the other way around... Find peace and then security ?:a-thought:
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 05:36 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;153474 wrote:
But did he really leave his family ? Did he not go back ? I support Buddhism, there is a center I cook for once in a while. I also think it's a privilege to be able to be buddhist but it's a peaceful concept for a peaceful society. I do not see the world as peaceful around me. I do not feel the security needed to be at peace. Maybe I should try the other way around... Find peace and then security ?:a-thought:


He really did leave his family and all his possessions. Everything. Years later, when the Buddhist order had been properly established, his wife and his son Rahula became members.

That is an interesting comment about not feeling the security needed to be at peace. All beings require physical security, freedom from physical threat and fear. But beyond that, Buddhism teaches peace through 'not clinging' and finding inner peace through meditation. So yes - find peace, then security will come from within.:bigsmile:
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 07:41 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;153471 wrote:
A long time ago, far, far away, there a young prince who had been brought up sorrounded by luxury and with his every need fulfilled. As his father was a King, he lived in a palace and had servants and the best of everything. However as he grew to maturity and left the palace walls, he was confronted by sights that disturbed his sheltered life. He once saw a funeral procession making its way to the funeral ground; on another occasion, he poor old fellow who was so infirm he could barely walk; another time a man stricken by some dreadful illness. But then, on one of these tours, he saw a travelling monk, clad only in a simple robe, and who seemed to him at peace with the world.

These sights caused the prince to wonder about this very question. Certainly, he did not have to worry about his circumstance; but it was clear to him that no matter how rich he was, he still would fall victim to old age and death, and perhaps to illness. So he decided to pursue the life of the wandering monk, to see if there was some truth he could find that was less impermanent than his worldly life. Because, he thought, no matter what your situation, you will always have things happen that you don't want, and loose things that you do want, and in the worldly life there seems no lasting peace.

That prince's name was Gautama Siddhartha, who left his sleeping family and all of his possessions, and who meditated on it for 6 years in the forest before finally realising that higher truth. At which time, he became known as the Buddha.


A different strategy would be to try to minimize disappointments by taking action in advance, and try not to take those that occur too much to heart. It is a mixed strategy, but many, if not most, wise people adopt it too. It seems to me that the Buddha's strategy for living has ended in impoverishment and disease where it has been tried (mostly in the East) since it leads to the neglect of any attempt at improvement, and so, no new inventions or methods to improve life and get rid of disease. Would the Buddha's strategy for living invented the polio vaccine, or anesthesia, or antibiotics? Doubtful. These enormous improvements in life which free men from much suffering do not come of themselves. They have be invented. And monks will not be able to invent them. Notice too, that without these marvels of science, people who have not been able to choose the passive life the Buddha recommends, especially children, will be the one's who suffer from the lack of scientific progress. It is all very well for those in a position to choose (like the Buddha) to choose as he did. But, unfortunately, he is choosing for those who are not in a position to choose for themselves. And they suffer from his choice.
 
Philosophinatic
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 07:44 am
@kennethamy,
But what becomes of all those things that people have accumulated? If everything must die then why do we try and enjoy life? Are we being selfish?

I do not know the answer to these questions but what I am saying is that until we find answers to questions like these everything else does not matter.


sorry I meant for this to be a reply to kennethamy's #12 post
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 07:59 am
@Philosophinatic,
Philosophinatic;153563 wrote:
But what becomes of all those things that people have accumulated? If everything must die then why do try and enjoy life? Are we being selfish?

I do not know the answer to these questions but what I am saying is that until we find answers to questions like these everything else does not matter.


sorry I meant for this to be a reply to kennethamy's #12 post


I don't understand the significance of your questions. Why does it matter what happens to what we accumulate? I suppose they are given to others, or destroyed. But why do you ask? I would think that when we know we must die, we will try to enjoy life even more, in order to get the most out of it. And how are we being selfish? What are we taking that we are not entitled to take, and belongs to other people by enjoying life?

Since I think I have answered these questions, above, what you say in your last words doesn't matter. But, in any case, even if there were no answers to your questions, which is false, because there are, other things would still matter a great deal.
 
salima
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 09:18 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;153561 wrote:
A different strategy would be to try to minimize disappointments by taking action in advance, and try not to take those that occur too much to heart. It is a mixed strategy, but many, if not most, wise people adopt it too. It seems to me that the Buddha's strategy for living has ended in impoverishment and disease where it has been tried (mostly in the East) since it leads to the neglect of any attempt at improvement, and so, no new inventions or methods to improve life and get rid of disease. Would the Buddha's strategy for living invented the polio vaccine, or anesthesia, or antibiotics? Doubtful. These enormous improvements in life which free men from much suffering do not come of themselves. They have be invented. And monks will not be able to invent them. Notice too, that without these marvels of science, people who have not been able to choose the passive life the Buddha recommends, especially children, will be the one's who suffer from the lack of scientific progress. It is all very well for those in a position to choose (like the Buddha) to choose as he did. But, unfortunately, he is choosing for those who are not in a position to choose for themselves. And they suffer from his choice.


i cant speak for buddha of course, but i think it was people who saw him at peace doing nothing who thought it was a good thing to do.

one can attain that kind of peace and yet continue to live in the world of maya developing cures for fatal diseases etc but not feeling desperately hopeless because there are fatal diseases in the first place. the key is to work towards solutions without having the expectation that they must be reached, to have desires but not be attached to their being fulfilled, and other ways i could enumerate that would put everyone to sleep, i think.

but you are certainly accurate in describing the way people often misunderstand a mystic. there are that type-who forget to wear clothes, who have no social interests whatsoever, who would not even eat if they werent followed by groupies who put food in their mouths. they have given us an example of what else can be seen of the unseen. but it is up to us to figure out how to remain grounded in reality (such as it is) while still having awareness of all that is beyond the beyond. we can have the best of both worlds.

one can strive to make a fortune in an ethical business venture and spend all the profits for community service. if a man spends his whole life trying to make a fortune for himself for his own greed, he has to worry at night how to hold onto it, how to protect it, wonder who is trying to steal from him, who he can trust, and in the end, in addition to spending his life in misery, he will have gained nothing at all, and someone else will spend his money anyway. i think buddha knew that...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 10:03 am
@salima,
salima;153577 wrote:
i cant speak for buddha of course, but i think it was people who saw him at peace doing nothing who thought it was a good thing to do.

one can attain that kind of peace and yet continue to live in the world of maya developing cures for fatal diseases etc but not feeling desperately hopeless because there are fatal diseases in the first place. the key is to work towards solutions without having the expectation that they must be reached, to have desires but not be attached to their being fulfilled, and other ways i could enumerate that would put everyone to sleep, i think.

but you are certainly accurate in describing the way people often misunderstand a mystic. there are that type-who forget to wear clothes, who have no social interests whatsoever, who would not even eat if they werent followed by groupies who put food in their mouths. they have given us an example of what else can be seen of the unseen. but it is up to us to figure out how to remain grounded in reality (such as it is) while still having awareness of all that is beyond the beyond. we can have the best of both worlds.

one can strive to make a fortune in an ethical business venture and spend all the profits for community service. if a man spends his whole life trying to make a fortune for himself for his own greed, he has to worry at night how to hold onto it, how to protect it, wonder who is trying to steal from him, who he can trust, and in the end, in addition to spending his life in misery, he will have gained nothing at all, and someone else will spend his money anyway. i think buddha knew that...


I was talking about the kind of philosophical attitude that, I think, always accompanies Buddhism, namely passivity and a certain kind of fatalism. A person, of course, is free to choose it for himself, but I think it is wrong to recommend it as a general way of life for the reasons I gave in the earlier post. It may be that someone who requires surgery can reconcile himself to doing without the anesthetic, or even the surgery itself. But why suppose that this would be a good thing for the society at large? The Far East suffered from this attitude until relatively recently.
 
Philosophinatic
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 01:26 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;153568 wrote:
I don't understand the significance of your questions. Why does it matter what happens to what we accumulate? I suppose they are given to others, or destroyed. But why do you ask? I would think that when we know we must die, we will try to enjoy life even more, in order to get the most out of it. And how are we being selfish? What are we taking that we are not entitled to take, and belongs to other people by enjoying life?

Since I think I have answered these questions, above, what you say in your last words doesn't matter. But, in any case, even if there were no answers to your questions, which is false, because there are, other things would still matter a great deal.


Why does it matter what happens to what we accumulate?
-It doesn't as long as we don't spend to much time and effort on accumulating these things where we could be searching for answers.


But why do you ask?
-I ask because I believe it is my right to know my purpose and why me, you, and all of us are here right now.



I would think that when we know we must die, we will try to enjoy life even more, in order to get the most out of it.
-I never said anything about not enjoying life. What I say is this. Enjoy life, follow your dreams, and reach your goals BUT always make your top priority the search for greater meaning. (with the exception of atheists of course)


even if there were no answers to your questions, which is false, because there are, other things would still matter a great deal.
-what is your reasoning for that?

---------- Post added 04-18-2010 at 02:33 PM ----------

wayne;153462 wrote:
Inprocess........


For some yes. (members of philforum!) but if you think of it as a job. It seems like some of us have called in sick so that they could stay home and do things that they enjoy but does not contribute to much at all. Who knows maybe if we work hard enough we might get a promotion!!!:a-thought:
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 03:37 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;153561 wrote:
Would the Buddha's strategy for living invented the polio vaccine, or anesthesia, or antibiotics? Doubtful


You should aspire to overcome your prejudice and ignorance in these matters. It would be a worthy and useful aspiration.

The Buddhist faith gave rise in its very early days to the Kingdom of Asoka, which is still recognise to this day as a model of humane and enlightened government. Edicts covering the welfare of citizens and the upholding of civil law were inscribed on pillars throughout India.

Quote:
Ashoka defined the main principles of dharma (dhamma) as nonviolence, tolerance of all sects and opinions, obedience to parents, respect for the Brahmans and other religious teachers and priests, liberality towards friends, humane treatment of servants, and generosity towards all. These principles suggest a general ethic of behaviour to which no religious or social group could object.
The Buddist path has always been progressive and only reactionary, dogmatic and authoritarian where it has become the organ of the state. Buddhism is dynamic and has constantly changed and updated it means and methods over the millenia, enabling it to adapt to countless different kinds of society and outlook while maintaining its cogency.

The Dalai Lama hosts a bi-annual conference on the topic of Buddhist and current western research on the science of mind, which is attended by monastics, laypeople, and scientists from around the world.

So this idea of Buddhism as passive, fatalistic, reactionary and unworldly is completely uninformed and ignorant. It has never been like that, which is why it remains a dynamic force to this day.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 03:47 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;153688 wrote:
You should aspire to overcome your prejudice and ignorance in these matters. It would be a worthy and useful aspiration.

The Buddhist faith gave rise in its very early days to the Kingdom of Asoka, which is still recognise to this day as a model of humane and enlightened government. Edicts covering the welfare of citizens and the upholding of civil law were inscribed on pillars throughout India.

The Buddist path has always been progressive and only reactionary, dogmatic and authoritarian where it has become the organ of the state. Buddhism is dynamic and has constantly changed and updated it means and methods over the millenia, enabling it to adapt to countless different kinds of society and outlook while maintaining its cogency.

The Dalai Lama hosts a bi-annual conference on the topic of Buddhist and current western research on the science of mind, which is attended by monastics, laypeople, and scientists from around the world.

So this idea of Buddhism as passive, fatalistic, reactionary and unworldly is completely uninformed and ignorant. It has never been like that, which is why it remains a dynamic force to this day.


But do you think that had people held the Buddha's view, that anesthetic, or vaccines would have been invented? Science is motivated by the need to make improvements in by changing the world. But that is not the way of Buddhism. Improvement is made only by changing one's self. That is very different. And, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In fact, science comes out of the West, and not out of the East. Sure, it may be that Buddhism is trying to catch up. But that is not the point, is it?
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 04:35 pm
@Philosophinatic,
Development of science and technics doesn't conduct to improvement life of people. The more absolutely technology, the it is more on the earth is born people. Technologies is tool of increase in population of race or all kind (Homo Sapiens). The individual is always - unfortunate.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 05:30 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;153693 wrote:
But do you think that had people held the Buddha's view, that anesthetic, or vaccines would have been invented?


Of course it would. There is no reason to caricature Buddhism as regressive in that way at all. Its origins of Buddhism were actually a dissident movement against a reactionary priestly culture based on the caste system. The Buddha as a teacher was always pragmatic, progressive, and common-sense. He perfectly well understood the issues of worldly life and how to go about it in a practical and efficient way. There are whole sermons dedicated to how best to deal with means of livelihood, maintain proper relationships, invest wisely, and so on (see The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity: At Home, At Work, In the World by Bikkhu Rahula).

Buddhist culture was responsible for many great innovations in early science, mathematics and medicine, and Buddhism established one of the first Universities in the history of civilization, Narada, around the time of Christ. Buddhist civilization in India was brought to an abrupt end by the Mughal invasions during the European dark ages. Prior to this, Buddhist India was the most advanced civlization in the world at the time (See The Wonder that was India, A J Basham)

There are many historical factors why the Western world developed the scientific revolution, and Eastern cultures did not.

Anyway, Western culture is technologically superior at this point in time, but it has not proven that it is capable of developing a sustainable civilization, and many of its citizens are profoundly alienated and unhappy. The Western world sees chronic social malaises such as suicide, crime, obesity, and depression for which there do not seem to be any quick technological fixes.

I agree that religious dogma, conservatism and fatalism are destructive forces. But the actual teaching of Buddhism is not like that it all. It provides a unique understanding of causes of sorrow and suffering inherent in the human condition, and the means to ameliorate them, through wisdom, morality and concentration. Anyone who looks into it will find it is actually a progressive philosophy of life with a very profound practical application.
 
Philosophinatic
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 06:34 pm
@Marat phil,
Marat;153717 wrote:
Development of science and technics doesn't conduct to improvement life of people. The more absolutely technology, the it is more on the earth is born people. Technologies is tool of increase in population of race or all kind (Homo Sapiens). The individual is always - unfortunate.



But individually people work to better themselves and please themselves. not that I think you are wrong just that I was looking at a different perspective
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 09:07 pm
@Marat phil,
Marat;153717 wrote:
Development of science and technics doesn't conduct to improvement life of people.


Well - consider the impact of medical science on 'the life of people' such as antibiotics, drugs and medicines of all kinds, improved surgical procedures, knowledge of anatomy. This has had a huge impact on life expectancy, infant mortalility, and the general overall level of suffering endured by humanity. I don't see how that can be denied. Sure having faster cars or better televisions might be a luxury but better medicine is a benefit for everyone.
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2010 11:25 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;153819 wrote:
Well - consider the impact of medical science on 'the life of people' such as antibiotics, drugs and medicines of all kinds, improved surgical procedures, knowledge of anatomy. This has had a huge impact on life expectancy, infant mortalility, and the general overall level of suffering endured by humanity. I don't see how that can be denied. Sure having faster cars or better televisions might be a luxury but better medicine is a benefit for everyone.


Medicine is blessing. But only in the presence of high culture (birth rate restriction, social programs, powerfull army).

---------- Post added 04-19-2010 at 12:39 AM ----------

jeeprs;153747 wrote:


. The Western world sees chronic social malaises such as suicide, crime, obesity, and depression for which there do not seem to be any quick technological fixes.



1. I assure you - not only the Western world. In Russia the criminality is more than in the USA or EU.

2. suicide, obesity, and depression - is individual problems (not social). These problems not solve the general methods. Each person has the different reasons of depression and (consequence) suicide. Adiposity is medical or moral problem of each separate person.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 12:20 am
@Marat phil,
Marat;153839 wrote:
Medicine is blessing. But only in the presence of high culture (birth rate restriction, social programs, powerfull army).

---------- Post added 04-19-2010 at 12:39 AM ----------



1. I assure you - not only the Western world. In Russia the criminality is more than in the USA or EU.

2. suicide, obesity, and depression - is individual problems (not social). These problems not solve the general methods. Each person has the different reasons of depression and (consequence) suicide. Adiposity is medical or moral problem of each separate person.


Living in a small country in Western Europe I am under the influence of other cultures around me. Being in England a week reminded me of the difference between Anglo-Saxon culture and the culture in the North-Western part of Europe.

I do not agree obesity, depression and suicide are merely individual problems. Obesity is often a life-style problem. A life-style promoted by companies like Coca Cola and McDonalds. The 'American way' of life as a synonym for modern life is becoming a dictate of commercial enterprises, and we all need to follow.

For the first time in my life I went to a Starbuck's; a lot of choice but no nice atmosphere at all. May be I am not modern, but I prefer smaller scale businesses and friendly waiters. The anonymity in modern times is one of the bigger causes for depression and suicide.

There is a lot to learn from other cultures, but no person should forget it's roots. Facts are often biased by the cultural background though. In these days it's all about economic growth; quality life is not a topic in politics. I watched a political debate here in England and it really reminded me of Germany a 80 years ago. Pretty scary...We have the same problems in Holland, but at least some parties still defend old-fashioned liberties and respect for others.

I would call your believe a post-capitalist technocratic belief. It is a belief base on the assumption we can rule the world instead of merely live on it. I do not think it has much to do with 'western' values anymore. In Europe we are heading the same way. With all the problems around us and on our own continent liberties disappear. Traveling to England I was checked more times than I was 25 years ago to communist Russia.:sarcastic:
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 12:26 am
@Marat phil,
Marat;153839 wrote:
Medicine is blessing. But only in the presence of high culture (birth rate restriction, social programs, powerfull army).
Don't quite see what pro features of medicine has to do with a big civilization?

Marat;153839 wrote:
2. suicide, obesity, and depression - is individual problems (not social). These problems not solve the general methods. Each person has the different reasons of depression and (consequence) suicide. Adiposity is medical or moral problem of each separate person.
I would say all personal problems can be social problems, young girls trying to commit suicide because of boy friend leaving her, or buillied chrildren, molested children.

Obesity is often a result of agressive mass marketing, promovating soft drinks and candy along with too little exersize. Specially when it comes to children it's poor parenting, poor understanding of diet.

Drepression can be caused by too much work, or in a bad relation where love ones despice eachother.
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 02:00 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;153855 wrote:
Don't quite see what pro features of medicine has to do with a big civilization?


The medicine has lowered death rate from many illnesses. Now all children rescue at birth. The basic viruses - are won by vaccines. These people (sick babies) are live. But 300 years ago they would die. It is huge percent of the population. And if to treat the CANCER there will be population explosion.

The civilised society is special environment. Value of personal prestige, the status, education and success. It means that the family not have 5-7 children who will humiliate in the social environment (poor, are badly clothes, losers). The West family wishes to grow up 1 - 2 children, but to give to them
1. Education (expensive and prestigious)
2. Habitation (expensive and reliable)
3. To enter children into the social environment.
It is culture. Value of education and riches.

In economically backward countries - other culture.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2010 11:37 am
@Marat phil,
Marat;153875 wrote:
The medicine has lowered death rate from many illnesses. Now all children rescue at birth. The basic viruses - are won by vaccines. These people (sick babies) are live. But 300 years ago they would die. It is huge percent of the population. And if to treat the CANCER there will be population explosion.
Back in the 80'ies we in Denmark feared an world wide population explotion, most in the 3rd world countries, but also in industrial countries, but AIDS and job careers would regulate that. I belive that there won't be any population explotion any time soon, maybe I'm wrong, but for some reason there seems to come a natural selfregulating feature.
 
Philosophinatic
 
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 08:52 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon;153236 wrote:




Turns out you were correct to mention Greek metaphysics. I just recently bought a book titled "Philosophy made simple" by Richard H. Popkin and Avrum Stroll. It is pretty much a basic overview on philosophy so I figured it would be a good place to start. The first chapter of the book is titled Ethics. Within the first 30 pages I read about the philosophers you mentioned (Heraclitus, Aristotle, Plato, etc.); But one philosopher really struck me. His name was Baruch Spinoza. I started reading his essay entitled "On the Improvement of the Understanding." This I came to find out contains almost all of the same ideas as in a school paper I wrote not to long ago about my belief! Life truly amazes me with its unfathomable unpredictability.:bigsmile:
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/22/2024 at 07:35:02