Atheism

Originally posted by inimalist
...how could buddha return from something that was simply a state of mind? or how can something be both the present and a state of mind if that state of mind isn't awake in the present?

like, cool, interesting form of buddhism... i suppose...

Buddhism is not a history book, and the Lotus Sutra is not to be interpreted literally. This is more examples of expedient means. If I told you that you could have enlightenment by simply allowing yourself to do so. You would object. You would need some great task. So, I could send you to climb a mountain, and when you returned you would more open to the truth, but climbing the mountain is a requirement you needed. Enlightenment is not something to be gained, but instead it must be realized.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Buddhism is not a history book, and the Lotus Sutra is not to be interpreted literally. This is more examples of expedient means. If I told you that you could have enlightenment by simply allowing yourself to do so. You would object. You would need some great task. So, I could send you to climb a mountain, and when you returned you would more open to the truth, but climbing the mountain is a requirement you needed. Enlightenment is not something to be gained, but instead it must be realized.

fair enough...

I'm not sure if you are asking for a critique of why I don't believe this or what... I accept there are forms of buddhism that make no argument for why to escape suffering because there is nothing to escape from.

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough...

I'm not sure if you are asking for a critique of why I don't believe this or what... I accept there are forms of buddhism that make no argument for why to escape suffering because there is nothing to escape from.

I'm not asking anything. I just like talking about it. 😄

Originally posted by inimalist
Going by non-Abrahamic though, there are many systems that had unpleasant versions of the afterlife. Hades was not a fun place, for instance.

Further, don't most faiths that see the end as good also see the now as the evil one is trying to escape? I mean, the concept of Nirvanah as the end of the cycle of suffering seems to me to be at least analogous to the Heaven/Hell distinction, only with a different take on the relationship of the two (avoiding hell as punishment, escaping hell as reward).

do we know they are connected? It wouldn't surprise me at all for concepts of "absolute good" and "absolute evil" to have arisen independently in multiple places.

I believe so.

Although this warrens an extensive research - many ideas of the Old Testament are in fact Zoroastrian ideas introduced to Jews and later to Christians - original sin, baptisim, heaven and hell (paradise is a word of Persian origins meaning 'enclosed garden'😉, angels and demonology, a sacrificial saviour god(messiah), resurrection, final judgment and the apocalyptic battle between good and evil...

Thousands of Jews were subjects of the Persian empire of Cyrus the Great and Persian themselves were benevolent to those who were loyal to their rule. It was during the period of Cyrus the Great (probably around 600BC) that the Jews were directly influenced by Persians...and later Christians.

So I'd say they're very much connected...

Originally posted by inimalist
sure, there are still non-abrahamic faiths that have negative ideas of the afterlife though

Originally posted by inimalist
Heaven in almost all faiths is described as bliss beyond measure

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think hell being a state of mind makes a bit more sense than an endless physical pain (which technically only bodies can experience).

I'm happy that, even though we have different religions, we're in agreement on so many things in terms of afterlife, soul and such.

I wish that all religions could come together like this.

Indeed: many religious groups need to calm down, take a step back, and take a look at what they are getting angry about. They will realize that the majority of their ideas are the same.

I think the stuff that people argue about (needing baptism, giving up possessions for a life of poverty, praying in a certain direction) are quite superfluous. But humans love their rites.

Originally posted by Mindship
"Heaven" and the "Absolute" are not synonymous. Metaphorically speaking, Heaven is a high rung (not even the highest) on the Ladder of Reality, whereas the Absolute/Ultimate/Whatever is the wood of which the whole Ladder is made.

I would think that the highest rung would be Heaven.

Then the physics which is the literal framework for why the ladder can even exist (still in keeping with the metaphor) is "Goldy ascension." The ultimate goal is to transcend the need of the ladder and even the material existence of the ladder.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...The ultimate goal is to transcend the need of the ladder and even the material existence of the ladder.

I don't believe in a ladder. I am an atheiladderist. 😛

Originally posted by dadudemon
I would think that the highest rung would be Heaven.

According to the 'periennial philosophy', after Form comes Formlessness (the highest rung), the Source of all Form (including the illusion of the self); then comes the Ground of all Being/Nonbeing (the wood).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Then the physics which is the literal framework for why the ladder can even exist (still in keeping with the metaphor) is "Goldy ascension." The ultimate goal is to transcend the need of the ladder and even the material existence of the ladder.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't believe in a ladder. I am an atheiladderist. 😛

😆 😆 😆

WTF?!?!?!

😆

Originally posted by Mindship
The reason it isn't is because it is still a realm of form--archetypal form, divine, heavenly stuff--but there is still something for the soul to see.

My idea about the metaphor is the highest material/tangible form of existence would be the highest rung on the metaphorical ladder.

Keep in mind that my Mormon ways have me believe that even heaven has "higher rungs" with an ultimate highest rung combining both the highest physical rung and the entire set of physics that allow it to exist (yes, we believe we can have our cake and eat it, too...I guess you can do that when you are omnipotent?). 😄

Originally posted by Mindship
According to the 'periennial philosophy', after Form comes Formlessness (the highest rung), the Source of all Form (including the illusion of the self); then comes the Ground of all Being/Nonbeing (the wood).

I would say, the ladder is all there is. What we need to free ourselves from is the climber.

I was going with your metaphor and extending it to suite my ways (wicked ways?). 😄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't believe in a ladder. I am an atheiladderist. 😛

As it can clearly be witnessed by your lack of ladder morals. Infidel.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
As it can clearly be witnessed by your lack of ladder morals. Infidel.

😄

This thread has been taken over by hippies.

😐

*stands angrily on porch with a shotgun sitting nearby*

Originally posted by Digi
This thread has been taken over by hippies.

😐

*stands angrily on porch with a shotgun sitting nearby*

Hey! Hippies used to be a good thing. 😠

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm not asking anything. I just like talking about it. 😄

lol, far be it for me to ever complain about someone being verbose

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I believe so.

Although this warrens an extensive research - many ideas of the Old Testament are in fact Zoroastrian ideas introduced to Jews and later to Christians - original sin, baptisim, heaven and hell (paradise is a word of Persian origins meaning 'enclosed garden'😉, angels and demonology, a sacrificial saviour god(messiah), resurrection, final judgment and the apocalyptic battle between good and evil...

Thousands of Jews were subjects of the Persian empire of Cyrus the Great and Persian themselves were benevolent to those who were loyal to their rule. It was during the period of Cyrus the Great (probably around 600BC) that the Jews were directly influenced by Persians...and later Christians.

So I'd say they're very much connected...

interesting, for sure that seems a fairly direct connection

Originally posted by Mindship
Negative along the way? I said from the start there are. But as a bottom line? If so, then probably it's the "conventional" interpretation of the faith, especially if there's a political agenda attached; not the faith's mystical aspect, which I originally focused on (and this would be easier to discuss if you mentioned a specific faith).

idk, that seems a really specific distinction to be making. I wasn't suggesting a direct analog of Christian Hell in such pantheistic faiths, but I certainly wouldn't say that they are simply transient or not "bottom line" versions of eternal suffering. The myth of Sisyphus and the boulder, for instance, has a nearly Dante-esque quality to it.

It might also be worth noting that while the specific religious faith of Eastern (China, Japan) and even Western cultures might not have seen metaphysical bad afterlives, they had extensive chivalric codes whereby someone could tarnish their family name or their own honour due to improper behaviour. Again, not specifically a Christian Hell, but certainly analogous in terms of behavioural codes and, if you want to go there, authoritarian control.

Originally posted by Mindship
"Heaven" and the "Absolute" are not synonymous. Metaphorically speaking, Heaven is a high rung (not even the highest) on the Ladder of Reality, whereas the Absolute/Ultimate/Whatever is the wood of which the whole Ladder is made.

this seems like a semantic distinction that I don't think really matters. I'm not suggesting that all faiths have a specific Christain Heaven, but rather that there is a positive end point for an individual or soul or whatever based on certain conduct codes. Even Shakya's Buddhism would follow here, though the code may be realizing that there is no code (I'm sure thats a bastardization).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Hey! Hippies used to be a good thing. 😠

Not in my lifetime.

uhuh

I had a rant here about hippies and the ways they make me facepalm. But I think I'm just cranky today, so I deleted it.

Originally posted by Digi
Not in my lifetime.

uhuh

I had a rant here about hippies and the ways they make me facepalm. But I think I'm just cranky today, so I deleted it.

😆 You must be young.

Originally posted by Digi
Not in my lifetime.

uhuh

I had a rant here about hippies and the ways they make me facepalm. But I think I'm just cranky today, so I deleted it.

Hipster Jesus - being a hippy before it was hip.

😂

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Hipster Jesus - being a hippy before it was hip.

😂

Jesus can be anything you want him to be. That is his true power.

Originally posted by inimalist
idk, that seems a really specific distinction to be making.

Originally posted by inimalist
It might also be worth noting that while the specific religious faith of Eastern (China, Japan) and even Western cultures might not have seen metaphysical bad afterlives, they had extensive chivalric codes whereby someone could tarnish their family name or their own honour due to improper behaviour. Again, not specifically a Christian Hell, but certainly analogous in terms of behavioural codes and, if you want to go there, authoritarian control.

Originally posted by inimalist
this seems like a semantic distinction that I don't think really matters.

Basically my initial comment was to address statements made that the afterlife can be whatever anyone imagines (and to an extent, this is true). From an atheist POV, I can understand this. I merely wanted to point out that the perennial philosophy -- its sources, the vast body of literature behind the sources -- doesn't support that supposition. There is something consistent regarding this phenomena. Whether it reflects, say, neurological commonalities, or a genuinely transcendent reality, well, that's the $64,000 question. In a nutshell, mystical phenomena is reliable, if not necessarily valid.

Originally posted by Mindship
...In a nutshell, mystical phenomena is reliable, if not necessarily valid.

What if mystical phenomena was really a reflection of the architecture of the brain?