A simple explanation of why Buddhism is correct.

reply to post by mkmasn


Did Siddhartha ever know suffering?
He may have seen suffering but if he had to go looking for it, he did not know it.

reply to post by mkmasn

Your argument is based on God not being omnipotent. He can do and be whatever he wants.
We can have many Gods, but how is it any different than saying there is one God that encompasses all?

there is a point here. what does omnipotent mean? it means the ultimate power. God is also the ultimate of wisdom, love, fury, mercy,...... and it's nature is ultimate too. it can not be limited. logically and mathematically it is not true that we have many ultimates. it does not make sense. it is not logical that we say that a car is the same as the factory that has made it. why is there so insistence that we call Buda or Jesus as God !? Buda was wise and had knowledge but it's knowledge and power is just a drop of it's creator's knowledge and power. the same is for Jesus.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Unless you were asleep dreaming of being awake speaking of it.

You cannot shed a thought until you thought it. You cannot clear an empty mind.

Isn't that why Siddhartha took his journey? He could not understand suffering until he experienced suffering.

You cannot be until you understand being.

Even in sleep dreaming - you are still being. You are the dreamer dreaming the dream.
Being does not have to be understood. Being cannot be understood, understanding is what the mind tries to do and because it cannot be understood it causes confusion.

Being is just being this. If you are trying to be (becoming) you have missed the mark.

It is not you that is putting thought there (you are not thinking). You are aware of thought arising.

How do you know you are being if you do not understand being? Perhaps I only exist in your dream. Maybe I do not exist at all.

A baby does not understand words and thus cannot speak

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by mkmasn

 

Did Siddhartha ever know suffering?
He may have seen suffering but if he had to go looking for it, he did not know it.

edit on 13-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

The ultimate suffering. No food or water. He shed all material possessions to understand suffering.

reply to post by mkmasn


You might not realize that you are but i know i am.
Being is all there is.
To be or not to be? That is the question.

reply to post by mkmasn


The buddha let go of the known so he could know what is knowing.
The known (material) has to be relinquished.

No food and no water is not what makes the human condition of 'mind made' suffering.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by mkmasn

 

You might not realize that you are but i know i am.
Being is all there is.
To be or not to be? That is the question.

That is a question.

You think you exist, but that does not mean you do exist. You cannot exist without understanding what existence is. In fact, I would argue one truly does not exist until they have reached enlightenment or Nirvana.

Only by gaining the knowledge and understanding of something can you become that something.

A carpenter becomes a carpenter when he understands how to make things from wood.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by mkmasn

 

The buddha let go of the known so he could know what is knowing.
The known (material) has to be relinquished.

No food and no water is not what makes the human condition of 'mind made' suffering.

edit on 13-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Siddhartha saw the sick and poor. He gave up his material possessions and lived without food and water until he was near death to understand the suffering he saw.

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by mkmasn

 

You might not realize that you are but i know i am.
Being is all there is.
To be or not to be? That is the question.

That is a question.

You think you exist, but that does not mean you do exist. You cannot exist without understanding what existence is. In fact, I would argue one truly does not exist until they have reached enlightenment or Nirvana.

Only be gaining the knowledge and understanding of something can you become that something.

A carpenter becomes a carpenter when he understands how to make things from wood.

I do not 'think' i exist. I used to 'think' i existed but now i see that i do not exist. I am the one thing that cannot exist. Existence is the seen aspect.
What i am is the seeing aspect.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


And now we're right back where we started.

reply to post by mkmasn


To be or not to be? That is THE question.

Can you not be? Can you say 'I am not'?

What you are you cannot say but you know you are, it is the only thing you can know for sure.

I am not a 'something'.
I am not that, not that (neti neti).

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by mkmasn

 

To be or not to be? That is THE question.

Can you not be? Can you say 'I am not'?

What you are you cannot say but you know you are, it is the only thing you can know for sure.

edit on 13-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

I do not know, therefore I must not.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


"A carpenter becomes a carpenter when he understands how to make things from wood."

What you are does not have to be learned.
What you are cannot be taught.
All knowledge has to be removed to find out what you are.
You are prior to any thing.

Before Abraham was, I am.
Before any thing, you are.

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by mkmasn

 

To be or not to be? That is THE question.

Can you not be? Can you say 'I am not'?

What you are you cannot say but you know you are, it is the only thing you can know for sure.

edit on 13-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

I do not know, therefore I must not.

Are you saying you are not?

Originally posted by Binder

The physical incarnation of a man is finite. We do not know for certain about the "human spark" or soul, and spirit of man. It is believed by many to be infinite.

Since we're talking math here, I'll just reply like "data" would ... "this does not compute".

To quote a famous scientist, and someone with high math skills as that seems to be what you respect. "All models are wrong, some are simply useful." Albert Einstein.

Einstein is attributed a lot of things, most of which isn't his ... he gets a lot of credit, because he's Jewish. But that all models are wrong, I agree ... all religions are wrong ... and more to the point, they've outrun their usefullness as well.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by mkmasn

 

To be or not to be? That is THE question.

Can you not be? Can you say 'I am not'?

What you are you cannot say but you know you are, it is the only thing you can know for sure.

edit on 13-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

I do not know, therefore I must not.

Are you saying you are not?

That is THE answer.

I do not know I exist. I do not understand existence.

I cannot be. I do not understand being.

What you are MUST be learned, otherwise you will never know what you are.

An empty mind must be filled in order to clear the mind, just as an empty bucket must be filled in order to empty the bucket.

reply to post by mkmasn


How can someone teach you to be?
If you have to learn how to be, you have become.
There is no becoming because there is no time in which to become.
All appears presently.
This is being.

reply to post by mkmasn


You say you do not know. But all seeing and all knowing is what you are.

reply to post by mkmasn


The mind cannot be cleared. The mind is a machine that pumps out noise, it is the silence that hears the noise.
The Quiet that Contains the Mind:
youtu.be...