Karma

[Atla]

I meant that the kind of awakening I was talking about isn't the focus of Buddhism (also, it doesn't have a point).
Stopping all suffering is impossible, so if some Buddhists are after that, then they are merely wasting their time.

Your statement is egregious, in so many ways.

Why should people believe that they can separate themselves from their bodies and also from the world?

Do they blieve that? I'm under no such impression.

Wrong, the statement that all suffering can be stopped, is the egregious one. Just because they told you that it can be done, doesn't mean that that's true. If you can't separate yourself from the body / the world, then there will always be suffering left, even if you dismantle 'yourself' to the point where there's almost nothing of 'you' left.

[baker]

Define "suffering".

[Atla]

Define "suffering".

You already have, it's what people get rid of when they escape the wheel.

[baker]

Define "suffering".

You already have, it's what people get rid of when they escape the wheel.

That's backwards.
In order to embark on a journey of making an end to suffering, one has to have some idea of what suffering is. The Buddhists have a quite clear definition of suffering. I'm wondering about yours.

[Atla]

You already have, it's what people get rid of when they escape the wheel.

That's backwards.
In order to embark on a journey of making an end to suffering, one has to have some idea of what suffering is. The Buddhists have a quite clear definition of suffering. I'm wondering about yours.

The Buddhists suffering usually means one kind of suffering, not all suffering. And since there is no wheel, you can't escape the wheel either to get rid of that one kind of suffering.

[baker]

The Buddhists suffering usually means one kind of suffering, not all suffering.

Which suffering is that?

[Atla]

The Buddhists suffering usually means one kind of suffering, not all suffering.

Which suffering is that?

Well you tell me, you brought it up. It usually seems to be the psychological clinging/grasping of the ego, the dukkha.

[baker]

Well you tell me, you brought it up. It usually seems to be the psychological clinging/grasping of the ego, the dukkha.

Your vocabulary tells me that your source for learning about Buddhism are modern Western authors.

Well you tell me, you brought it up.

You said:

The Buddhists suffering usually means one kind of suffering, not all suffering.

so it's on you.

[Atla]

Well you tell me, you brought it up. It usually seems to be the psychological clinging/grasping of the ego, the dukkha.

Your vocabulary tells me that your source for learning about Buddhism are modern Western authors.

Well you tell me, you brought it up.

You said:

The Buddhists suffering usually means one kind of suffering, not all suffering.

so it's on you.

You brought up Buddhism, not me. Alright, define suffering.

[baker]

You brought up Buddhism, not me.

No, you did, first by using specific references to Dharmic religions, and then, upon my probing, you denied the validity of some Buddhist notions.

[Atla]

You brought up Buddhism, not me.

No, you did, first by using specific references to Dharmic religions, and then, upon my probing, you denied the validity of some Buddhist notions.

That's like saying Christianity = Abrahamic religions.
So as expected you couldn't define what you mean by suffering.

[baker]

No, you did, first by using specific references to Dharmic religions, and then, upon my probing, you denied the validity of some Buddhist notions.

That's like saying Christianity = Abrahamic religions.

*sigh*
You started with a reference to Dharmic religions, and then narrowed things down to Buddhism.

So as expected you couldn't define what you mean by suffering.

You denied the whole point of Buddhism. I wanted to see what someone who does that has to back up such a claim.

[Atla]

That's like saying Christianity = Abrahamic religions.

*sigh*
You started with a reference to Dharmic religions, and then narrowed things down to Buddhism.

So as expected you couldn't define what you mean by suffering.

You denied the whole point of Buddhism. I wanted to see what someone who does that has to back up such a claim.

You narrowed things down to Buddhism. And to tell you the truth I've never met a Buddhist who could define "suffering".

[Atla]

Besides, even apart from the rebirth/karma nonsense, to some people, Buddhism can be refuted in one sentence: "It's better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all." That thing Buddhists call compassion, is not love.

[baker]

You narrowed things down to Buddhism.

You used specifically Buddhist terminology.

And to tell you the truth I've never met a Buddhist who could define "suffering".

Maybe they just didn't want to talk to you about it ... They actually have principles as to who to talk with about the Dharma, and with whom not.

I'm not a Buddhist, but here's a Buddhist definition of suffering with further links: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dha ... ukkha.html

Besides, even apart from the rebirth/karma nonsense, to some people, Buddhism can be refuted in one sentence: "It's better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all."

Your bold wholesale refutation of Buddhism is rather amusing.

That thing Buddhists call compassion, is not love.

AFAIK, it was never meant to be.