Cliches

[b0mb3r]

^ Lol the first mistake I have to correct you on (since you enjoy them) is that I am not from Asia. I grew up in an asian family and I am an asian but I am an asian-american. my bad if I didn't clear that up for you. The identity I am mention isn't that I am part of a social cog or worry about being something bigger. I am not even concern or care what race I am, though I do know my family roots. History is a fun hobby with me and my father (his interests is English history since he was raised in an english colony) while mine is the ancient civilization. Beginning fascinates me. The identity I am concerned about is what kind of role I play and what responsibility I have. I have to mention once again how there is many different versions of Buddhism, some more optimistic than the one you mention here. Let me explain.

Buddhism does not pertain the world as good and bad since the term is tangible. What it is simply saying that this world is suffering. Now suffering again is neither good or bad because many people do value suffering. Is just a form of truth here. Buddhism only say that if you want to be released from suffering do not have mental attachment to cause of the suffering. In terms of materials you got money, cars, house. In terms of relationship strangers, friends, family, love ones. Most importantly is the attachment of perception you have in this world. You believe money is important, you become attach to it. The problem that lays behind this logic like with anything in life is only temporary. So your happiness with it is also pertains how long you have money. Ideas are also a form of attachment. Look at me for example. My current suffering is the idea of no moral absolutes. My attachment is causing me suffering because of personal feelings towards it. We do not become attached but we should not ignore it to. You have a saying like that.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.

One form of Buddhism solution to attachment is call non attachment. Is not the same as in creating a dead feeling or an attitude that you simply do not care about anything at all. That is almost the opposite what Buddhism trying to achieve. Buddhism say to accept everything instead of just separating each attachment to each object. We call this Great Love where we embrace everything. This kinds of follow the idea in quantum physics how we are already connect to everyone and everything. We express the universe through us. This same idea also follows how each living thing is a different expression of God. In philosophy of love each individual is a different expression of personhood. Different terms and words but each trying to achieve a similar goal. If there is a unity there is nothing to attach to. If we filled ourselves the whole universe in us then nothing is outside of us. We become attach when perceive we are on the outside. Attachment comes from obsessive dependence on ideas (unrealistic expectation from relationships or events) materials, people, etc, etc, etc in terms of everything being seperated.

So at the moment that is why I can never ground myself an identity since my being is constantly changing. Once again my suffering comes from the “idea” that we lack a absolutes. This may be highly contradiction of since this idea of absolute conflicts the idea the one truth I perceive is:

The only thing that doesn’t change is change.

Many other different type of Buddhist will bash saying how I don’t see Buddha as a god or how nirvana is not the end goal or etc. Again different types I just follow Buddhism more of a philosophical thing. Sorry my mind is being boggled again so I may up contradicting myself.

[ainsoph9]

Thank you for the clarifications.

First off, it is good that you know and study history. That is a start. However, I would like to recommend studying history around the first century C.E. in Rome, Greece, and the Middle East. I think that you will find much more about the problem that you are experiencing right now if you do. A lot of beginnings occur around that time and place.

If I understand this correctly (or more than I did), then your sect of Buddhism focuses more on not being attached to suffering, which can be avoided by accepting whatever may come. I can appreciate some of what you say. I have a problem though, and please do not take this personally, since it is my problem after all. What you are describing is still essentially Dualistic. The ideal exists in the realm of ideas while all other things cause suffering due to some kind of attachment, which exist in a more material. Although, according to what you say, ideas are a form of attachment, the difference between the mental and ideas is not that far off. You still have the problem of creating an otherworldly realm to escape the pain of this world. While love is definitely a good answer to help end the suffering, whose definition of love are we going by? I mean, if Buddhism does indeed embrace everything as form of Great Love, how can one explain any concrete definition of love? For example, one person's Great Love may be killing a family while they sleep (this actually happened in Israel not too long ago). Another person's Great Love may be feeding and clothing the poor and homeless. Yet, if these are both acts out of the Great Love, which is supposed to accept everything, then how is it possible to condemn anything at all? Again, correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that this Great Love is what is leaving you morally adrift because this Great Love has no borders or boundaries to define itself. In other words, the Great Love becomes a placebo to ignore the problem with the illusion of the Great Love actually solving it. A love that does not tell a child not to touch the stove because it is hot is not really love, is it? Sometimes, rules and laws are there for the protection of the individual who does not know better. What greater love could there be except for one that keeps people from killing themselves for stupid reasons? It occurs to me that the Great Love is trying to achieve peace through unity and a lack of suffering. The problem is that such a definition for peace and unity does not allow people to be people. Again, if I pick a fight with someone because they punched me for no reason at all, I have caused suffering for the suffering I received, which effectively destroys any peace whatsoever. However, it appears that it is alright because the Great Love accepts fighting, right? I am not trying to be cynical or sarcastic here, but it occurs to me that the concept of the Great Love is what is leaving you personally morally adrift. If all is alright under the Great Love, then I can say that the Rape of Nanjing or the Holocaust were morally acceptable, correct? While you say that Buddhism ideally does not ignore these things, how can it reconcile itself to them when the doctrine of the Great Love does not allow it to condemn them or do anything about them essentially?

While it is true that you as a person are always changing, you can be grounded in a community that does not change. Community will allow the shared sense of reality that you seem to say that you lack. Become responsible for others as well as have others become responsible for you on all levels of life.

The saying, "The only thing that doesn't change is change" is not true; it is called acceleration.

I am sure that you get a lot of flack from other Buddhists. I hope that my little flack with not be the straw that breaks the camel's back per se, but I only say these things for deliberation of thought, discussion, and discourse with more of an inquisitive attitude and of learning than one of accusation. If I come off the latter way, please forgive me.

[b0mb3r]

You brought up a good point about the "Great Love" I do remember something that helps counter your point but I think I gonna be a poor interpreter and representative of Buddhism. It follows the same idea as your "missing the mark" in terms of achieving enlightenment/nirvana. I think this may sound crude or cruel how I state but the idea of reincarnation allows one to keep missing the mark. Life is all about making mistakes. Is not that great of an extremeness say that you will constantly fail and never achieve perfection without mistakes. Rather nirvana is always there and people are allow to make as many mistakes as they want and can choose to stay in this world if they want. Okay again i gonna have to widen buddhism in a generality by mentioning the six realm. hell, demon, ghosts, animal, human, god. The reason I mention these realms is how the spiritual karma works. follows the same idea that if you do bad you go a realm before it. No this is not a level by level system rather is a wheel of six parts that balance it all. what i am saying is that people can choose to stay those realms if they wish to continue suffering and continue missing those marks. but if i want to go beyond this basic six realms then we are talking about all realties, including the ten dimensions. Even if we don't even step into another parallel universe/multi-verse/whatever we already have realities in within the human world. psychology, biological, economically, etc. They too represent a realities. Each living being represents realities too, creating this world. About those people who you disagree with how they treat people in a "sickening" way of love. Well buddhism has something called the Eightfold Path, with is eight righteous way of doing things. here's a link for description:

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html

Again many buddhist can contradict me and I am not perfect either so I do miss the marks but hey I like learning new things.

[ainsoph9]

The problem with reincarnation as Buddhism states it is that it never goes anywhere. While you may be allowed to make mistakes, you are practically a fish trying to go upstream. Quite frankly, while I like the ability to screw up now and then, I still would like to know that what I am doing here and now will somehow go somewhere. I realize that the six realms allows for this somewhat, but I find it to be quite impersonal. While attaining nirvana may be a goal achieved through enlightenment, I still have work like a horse (maybe I literally am one at this point ) in order to achieve anything. Regardless, the whole system does not allow for any kind of personal relationship with any of the enlightened or Buddha or whatever, at least to my knowledge. I am basically left to my own devices and darned if I do and darned if I do not by some wheel of fate or sick twist of karma. While the system shows a side for justice and punishment, I fail to see the side of lovingkindness, mercy, and compassion. I realize that the Great Love probably plays into this somehow; yet, such a system only seems to prescribe such things but does not actualize them out of a general willingness to do them for the sake of doing them, not to achieve nirvana or from oneself from attachment. These emotional aspects seem divorced from the Eightfold Path as well as from the mental and spiritual aspects of a human being.

[b0mb3r]

^ I understand your concern. Again I blame myself not being the best representative of Buddhism since there are many ideas and interpretation. Also I look towards Buddhism in terms of living a healthy, practical lifestyle in relationship with others and my environment, not going to nirvana. While I am already fulfilling your standard by being the best person I can be my concern is about the environment. I find it odd that if human were to disappear right now the earth will simply take it back within hundred years. Is almost laughable how hard we try to preserve when the solution would be to annihilate us. Some environmentalist joke and actually feel comforting knowing the earth will kick our ares. So they sit back and enjoy the end, at least the end of human civilization.

[ainsoph9]

The interesting thing that you keep mentioning is "practicality." Probably one of the reasons why certain religions persist while others die out is practicality. Why? Practicality is the one thing that keeps people coming back to the "tree" for its fruit. All successful religions are practical in at least one sense. However, not all religions make sense practically. In either case, practicality is one of the things that ties religions together. Nobody in their right mind would follow a religion that did not somehow apply to their own personal life without feeling like it somehow helped ground them to reality (or escape it, depending on the religion).

As for the whole environmentalist thing, many environmentalists have the assumption that humans are a disease upon the face of the earth much like Agent Smith in "The Matrix." The problem with this assumption is that it is irresponsible at best. I do not even want to think what it is at worst because it is equal to the extinction of humanity as whole. Not only is the assumption irresponsible, it is escapism at its finest. However, for them to reach such an assumption in the first place is predicated upon the assumption that humans have no worth whatsoever and do not contribute at all to anything. Rather, their role in life is only to damage the planet, which is somehow more important than the worth of the whole human species. The only way that such a person could reach that kind of assumption is by assuming that humanity is supreme king over all things with no one or nothing to judge it. In other words, with nothing to judge humanity, humanity has nothing to prevent it from destroying the environment and itself. Of course, the problem with this is that it leaves humanity at the whims of a very cold world with no responsibilities or freedom at all. The irony of all of this is that many of these environmentalists are of the supposed "moral" type. They are quick to complain about the environment and the endangerment of species, but they are often silent on such issues as abortion, genocide, infant mortality, and other humanitarian issues. Does this not seem backwards? These people are not dealing with reality. Reality is that regardless of whether Johnny makes a mess of his room, he still has to pick it up to the best of his ability. Johnny may or may not do that all of the time, but that does not take away from Johnny still doing what he can to keep his room clean. These people would rather have Johnny pick up his room and Suzie's room as well, even if her room is perfectly clean. Regardless, such people are adrift in terms of their ethics and ideals.

[b0mb3r]

^ Then who do you think judges humanity? Your God? Not trying to be bashing here since I do believe in an higher power but just don't know or can't understand or can't recognize it. Does humanity itself has the right to judge themselves? We do this everyday to ourselves and others but as a whole? We're worst than a 36 D&D dice. I thought we kind of establish that even humanity or laws can't adequately do that to us due to flaws, the immense power of responsibility, the fragility and corruption of rational thoughts, the skepticism of whom to trust in those in power, etc.

[ainsoph9]

I will get back to you on this one because it will probably take some time to write that I do not have at this very moment.

[ainsoph9]

Normally, I would respond to you from the top down, but for sake of establishing common ground, I am going to jump around a little, starting with your last remark.

One saying that I like goes something like this, "All things are in the hand of Heaven, except for the fear of Heaven." This comes from the Babylonian Talmud, and it basically means, when applied to our situation, that while authority exists and prosecutes, people have the freedom to choose whether or not they want to follow that authority out of fear or respect. Likewise, people have the choice of doing things that will damage themselves and the world around them or improve/heal themselves and repair the world around them. Given that people and the world is imperfect, a lot of things happen in life that no one can understand or explain like when "bad things happen to good people." We cannot understand this because it seems so unfair and so unjust, almost as if the system or whoever or whatever runs the system gets some sick pleasure out of seeing people dying and suffering. We tend to think that if people are this way with no seemingly rhyme or reason to those who do evil succeeding and others who do right suffering, that there is no judge over humanity or at least a righteous one. Notice though that all of this is a matter of human perception. We have limited understanding and reasoning ability because we are finite and often unable to tell our left from our right. While we may be able to discern certain things, we will never be able to reason our way out of many of the problems in life and this world. It is simply too complex for us. Yet, this does not mean that we should despair and give up. Quite the opposite really. We really need to push through all of the things that make it harder to see any goodness in life and find that goodness, even in the smallest things. One of the reasons I liked "Aria" is because it did just that; in a sense, it found the "holy in the mundane."

Now, how does this apply to us and the rest of the discussion here? Our perceptions can be used for good or evil, just like anything else. Many times though, we allow our perceptions to dictate to us reality, rather than reality dictating to us what our perceptions should and need to be. Our perceptions dictate that life is horrible with no reward and only toil; all we can wait and pray for is a speedy death, especially if no one or no thing judges humanity, which ends up being anarchy and complete meaninglessness. However, reality dictates that our perception is flat out lying to us. Rather, if there is someone or something that judges humanity, life has meaning because it assumes the role of a journey not a one-way ticket to Deathville, where it all ends. Having a judge has the underlying assumption of an afterlife of sorts. While some posit that that judge is malevolent, this simply cannot be true because it fashions the judge in human terms, which leads us back to square one. Instead, the judge has to be benevolent, based on the need for righteousness and compassion to exist in this world for the world to exist. In other words, if this world was solely based on acts of lovingkindness, there would be not justice; if this world was based solely on justice, no one would do acts of lovingkindness. Therefore, righteousness and compassion become the bridge and the middle road between these two. I realize that many do not hold this view, but they are in err because they simply would not exist and be breathing if what they posit to be true is true. Anyhow, we have to assume a top-down model for justice to exist as righteousness and compassion. That is, a judge must exist over humanity that also created humanity as image bearers to do the same kinds of acts of righteousness and compassion with justice in mind as well. Many have erred in assuming a bottom-up model, where the judge is made in the image of humanity and has all of the flaws of humanity. This is simply wrong out being just as dysfunctional or more than humanity.

Hence, assuming the proposed top-down model above, we do not have to "worry" as much about Joe Shmoe not getting his justice or just desserts. Yet, have you ever noticed that we always want mercy for ourselves and justice for the other poor guy out there who just has it coming to him? We must assume then that humanity is flawed, but the judge is not flawed. A true judge does not bend the law for anyone by playing favorites or taking bribes or the like. Humans do that, but this judge does not. Now, frankly, most give this sort of being divine attributes. This is necessary for the judge to judge justly and righteously. Omnipotence, omnipresence, and things of the sort are ascribed to such a being. Many have attempted to say that this being is in fact many beings or that "all religions are equal" or that "one can call this being by different names yet be the same thing." This is false. Although Juliet thought names mean nothing, she was wrong, deadly wrong. Names describe and tell many things, if not everything, about the thing being named. Calling you "b0mb3r" versus "bomber" has potential differences in meaning that could change your whole identity as others see you. "b0mb3r" could be the nicest guy in the world while "bomber" is a complete jerk. Confusing the two definitely does not help "b0mb3r," especially if "bomber" robs a bank. Likewise, each of the judges or deities have different attributes that describe them. However, only one of these fits entirely what I have described above, and that is the G-d of the Bible.

It is interesting to note that the Hebrew in the Book of Genesis uses the word "Elokim" (for the sake of being sensitive, I have changed the "h" to a "k" and the "o" to a hyphen), which commentators note only is used in the Bible to show the "justice" attribute of G-d in the Bible. Lovingkindness and compassion are only later shown after the Bible discusses the "Fall of Man" with sin entering the world. Later, we see the Tetragrammaton used, which signifies these latter two aspects. We must not that it is still that same G-d per se, but we are just seeing different sides of that G-d. It is like how you may behave a certain way with Sally but in different with Steve. You are still the same person; you just choose to behave differently with different people. Now, if we have a G-d that is just from Creation to the present as revealed in the Bible, then many of the problems of authority disappear in a sense, especially if they line up with the G-d who is both Creator and Judge. Many do not like this because it seems to not line up with reality. Remember, we perceive things often from the way they really are. Just because Bob kills 5 people does not mean that he will get away with it in this lifetime or the next. We have to recognize that such a G-d is not required or limited to human standards or understanding. Personally, I would not want to have a G-d that I could fully comprehend. There is not fun in that at the very least. Also, we have a hard enough time doing the things we do understand; so, why not add a little something that we do not understand to make it that much more interesting and even sometimes simpler? In any case, for the time being, I would recommend reading Maimonides's "Hilchoth Teshuvah," or "Laws of Repentance" to understand some more of what I am saying. He says it much better than I ever could, even in my dreams. In any case, he makes a solid case for understanding how justice needs to function in the identity of G-d for justice to be what it needs to be and get us all to a point where we can stop acting like jerks all the time.

I do not know if this helps. This is only one perspective, which is mostly a Judeo-Christian perspective, but mostly Jewish. I can give other perspectives, but this one seems to make a lot more sense than many of the pop cultural movements and the like. In any case, I am not trying shove a religion or belief system or anything down your throat or even convert you or anything of the sort. That is not my goal. It would be irresponsible of me to try to do so over the internet because I cannot do anything or take responsibility rightly if I did attempt to do so. Also, I do not say these things to be triumphalistic over anyone or anything. Rather, I am interested in discourse and discussion. If you have any questions or comments, you know the drill.

[b0mb3r]

^ If we are talking about perspectives here than doesn't yours also fall under your own statement? How much of your perspective is aling with "reality" and how much do you "know of it" truly even with our flaw when it comes to understanding. How much trust do you have in believing your predecessors' words on their perspective and how much of your words are yours? Speaking about being the "same" person I wish mention behaviors. I understand we are amalgamation of all those who comes before us. I know gravitational law due to Newton, my electricity due Edison, the phone due to Grams, etc.

All these knowledge that supposedly helps us to keep in line with reality. The point being i wish to speak of is conditioning. How much is truly "us" if we are constantly being condition from the moment we are born to the way we are now thanks to the subjective internet? I felt the behavior you brought up was a good point. I find myself at times great at expressions in a more comfortable situation and others I choose to repressed in uncomfortable situation. While is my own free choice how much of it is free? Or is it because we are such finite beings? No matter how high i lift the ball with my arm to fight against gravity, it will always pull it down when i let go. How much do our thoughts, beliefs, values, feelings, perspective define who we are or if they are truly ours?