Spectrum wrote:
I never said oneself is not important to oneself, but rather overly 'important' relative to others. I stated one should not be obsessive to the negative traits I listed above.
Martian Visitor wrote:
And that's supposed to be a blinding piece of philosophical insight is it? That's the truth that the Buddha says is 'subtle, difficult to comprehend, deep, hard to fathom, perceivable only by the wise'? That you should think about others apart from yourself?
I did not state nor emphasized that it is a blinding piece of philosophical insight. Note I stated, "the other" amongst many other examples.
Another extreme is egoism of the self, where one person think too highly of one oneself and that oneself is most important above the selves of others. There are many other examples why the extreme view of a sense of self is detrimental to the individual and humanity.
My original intention was to highlight a few points, qualify there are many others and hope that you could understand. What is surprising is, you took one minor point and make it a big deal!
It's normal for a human being to understand that you should think about others apart from yourself, it's instinctive, it's not something you need a guru to tell you, it's something almost every mother and father in the world show their children. And at the same time, each of us as in individual is overwhelmingly the most important thing, because if we weren't here experiencing it, there wouldn't be a world at all for us.
If may be normal from a narrow point of view but it is not normal for many who had committed violence, injustice, and intolerance based on selfish acts either individually and collectively as a group.
It's not normal and it's not desirable to lose the natural attachment to what we call the "self", to our own individual happiness and well-being. It is normal and desirable to regret the coming of our own deaths, to be attached to life.
As I had stated, in the ordinary, conventional and common sense perspective, a sense of self and high self-esteem is necessary, but one must be aware of its limits, i.e. not to the extreme of obsession.
Buddhism is a con. It claims to be able to take something negative away, although of course you can never get Buddhists to agree exactly what that is, as we've seen in the present discussion. You're now telling us Buddhism cures the fear of death, other people say Buddhism can take away suffering or the unsatisfactory aspects of life. It can't, and if it could, it wouldn't be a good idea.
Buddhism is not a con, it is a package that comprised, the religious, the spiritual, and the philosophical. The spiritual and philosophical aspects can be verified and justified rationally. I agree some of its religious aspects may be illusional. However, religions (some more illusional than religious-Buddhism) are a critical necessity for the the majority of human in this present phase of humanity. There is no way the majority of humans with their current state of brain/mind at present can survive peacefully without being religious. Can you dispute this?
Yes, Buddhism's main purpose is to modulate the fear of inevitable death (CDM) in some future time. Resolving sufferings are ways of contributing to the main purpose of modulating fear re CDM. Buddhism hinges on the story of the Buddha (imo a myth) which is centered on a 'corpse', 'illness', 'old age'. If you can understand the myth heuristically, the central point is to to modulate the fear of inevitable death (CDM). The 4NT stabilize this primal fear and also provide guidance for one to live life optimally.
The Four Noble Truths (4NT) are not focused on the need for happiness, if any, that is secondary. The Four Noble Truths are geared at resolving the cognitive dissonance (CDM) arising from a human being being programmed with a fear of death while at the same time is aware of one's inevitable death at some future time.
So all the other Buddhists are wrong are they? You know, if you Google Four Noble Truths you find a lot of stuff about Dukha and overcoming it, and Dukha is described as "suffering", "unsatisfactoriness", and it is is the opposite of Sukha, which is described as sweetness, or pleasure.
Many Buddhists understood the central purpose re CDM. The majority may not understand the real purpose, but by following the secondary purposes, they will naturally resolve the main issue as well. The majority are not wrong, rather, they would be more effective if they had understood the main objective.
In the end it doesn't matter to me what the Buddha meant, he was wrong. You can't take the negative aspects out of our world, and it isn't a good idea anyway. The Buddha had a perfectly good existence to start with, he should have stayed at home with his wife and children and done something useful with his life.
Btw, note, this is merely a philosophical discussion, not a proselytizing session on Buddhism. Besides, I am NOT a Buddhist. If you have the capacity to quantify what the Buddha had contributed and will do so in the future, you will understand and appreciate Buddhism's positive contribution to humanity.
The Buddha story was a
myth to represent the inevitable anxieties/problems/sufferings/pains/existential_crisis of a human in its lifetime, and from there the 4NT provide the diagnosis methods and effective solutions to resolve them. It is ridiculous for a Prince who had lived for 20+? years not to have been exposed to death, sickness and illness in his presumably large palace. Then out of the blue he saw those events and then almost immediately gave up the potential to be king and abandon his family. Such things are not likely to happen 2500 years ago. His father enemies would have killed the Prince and hang his head as a prize. The Buddha story is a pure myth and no way can be realistic.
-- Updated Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:11 pm to add the following --
Quotidian wrote:I have to protest this assertion. There is a movement around called 'secular Buddhism' which is trying to eviscerate Buddhism and present the mummified remains as something worth knowing about. While it might indeed be possible to develop a secular philosophy based on Buddhist principles, such a beast would no longer be Dharma, as such. The fact is that the simian brain which modern man takes as the sine qua non of human intelligence is completely unable to comprehend rational let alone noetic or transcendent realities.
..
The Buddha is reported as saying in many places that the truth of which he speaks is 'subtle, difficult to comprehend, deep, hard to fathom, perceivable only by the wise'. I see no indication that the modern mentality has the depth to understand this, let alone 'adapt' it.
I fully understand your point but disagree with it. The Buddha presented principles with understanding that range from 1 to 100.
What is implied was those within the range of 80-100 are subtle and difficult to understand. But reading heuristically, he did not advocate acceptance of the supernatural nor the illusional. Ultimately, the core principles of anatta, anicca and dependent origination just do not jive with the transcendental, otherwise Siddharta would have remained a hindu rather than made a paradigm shift to Buddhism
Note Kant's on the necessity of the transcendental illusions for a more tranquil practical life. Perhaps someday you will understand the critical necessity of those necessary transcendental illusions. These more refined illusions (in the spiritual or religious perspectives) are on the same continuum from cruder but necessary sexual fantasies to enhance one's sex life.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.