Eastern mysticism

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

In fact, you already have all the evidence you need to know that the Eastern Mystical God exists. If you fail to believe in this God it can only be because you don't understand the religion. Because if you did understand the religion you could not deny its God. At least not as the religion defines it.

The tables are turned in Eastern Mysticism. In other words, if you wish to argue for a purely secular materialistic existence, then the burden for that claim is on your shoulders. You'd have to explain how that can be true.

Over to Divine Insight or anyone that can explain it please.

Q1) what is the god of eastern mysticism?

Q2) why is the burden of proof on the materialist?

[Vango]

[Replying to chevron1]

if there is no "I" (anatta) then there is no you and no world (sunyata). then there is no suffering, no real crime and no need for compassion. there is no need to make money and there is no need to eat.

Now you're getting it...

if there is no "I" then what happens if someone hurts your family?

Someone hurts my family is what happens.

then am i correct to say: if your family suffers, you feel compassion but no obligation to help them because they are an illusion?

When the Buddha died, some of the monks cried and screamed wondering who would lead them now. Others remained silent. The silent ones saw things as they really are. There is only the arising and the cessation of dependent phenomena. We call it impermanence. It is suffering. It is not-self.

[Vango]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

In fact, you already have all the evidence you need to know that the Eastern Mystical God exists. If you fail to believe in this God it can only be because you don't understand the religion. Because if you did understand the religion you could not deny its God. At least not as the religion defines it.

The tables are turned in Eastern Mysticism. In other words, if you wish to argue for a purely secular materialistic existence, then the burden for that claim is on your shoulders. You'd have to explain how that can be true.

Over to Divine Insight or anyone that can explain it please.

Q1) what is the god of eastern mysticism?

Q2) why is the burden of proof on the materialist?

There is no eastern mystical god. That would be an eastern theological god - eg the Hindu Brahma. The burden of proof is on the asserter of such a mythical being.

[Divine Insight]

When the Buddha died, some of the monks cried and screamed wondering who would lead them now. Others remained silent. The silent ones saw things as they really are. There is only the arising and the cessation of dependent phenomena. We call it impermanence. It is suffering. It is not-self.

Suffering? But no self?

What exactly is it that is suffering then?

[chevron1]

[Replying to chevron1]

if there is no "I" (anatta) then there is no you and no world (sunyata). then there is no suffering, no real crime and no need for compassion. there is no need to make money and there is no need to eat.

When the Buddha died, some of the monks cried and screamed wondering who would lead them now. Others remained silent. The silent ones saw things as they really are. There is only the arising and the cessation of dependent phenomena. We call it impermanence. It is suffering. It is not-self.

then it is ok with you if china destroys buddhism because nothing is real and neither is the buddha and china needs the temples for other purposes. am i correct that buddhism can be eliminated from the people's minds too because their minds are also an illusion?

[chevron1]

Suffering? But no self?

What exactly is it that is suffering then?

in buddhist thinking, suffering is the inability to die.

[Divine Insight]

Suffering? But no self?

What exactly is it that is suffering then?

in buddhist thinking, suffering is the inability to die.

And so what is it that can't die?

Seems like a reasonable question don't you think?

[Vango]

[Replying to chevron1]

if there is no "I" (anatta) then there is no you and no world (sunyata). then there is no suffering, no real crime and no need for compassion. there is no need to make money and there is no need to eat.

When the Buddha died, some of the monks cried and screamed wondering who would lead them now. Others remained silent. The silent ones saw things as they really are. There is only the arising and the cessation of dependent phenomena. We call it impermanence. It is suffering. It is not-self.

then it is ok with you if china destroys buddhism because nothing is real and neither is the buddha and china needs the temples for other purposes. am i correct that buddhism can be eliminated from the people's minds too because their minds are also an illusion?

All conditioned things are impermanent. Is it ok is a value judgement. The fact remains that Buddhism and Buddhist artifacts will someday cease to exist by one means or another.

[Vango]

Suffering? But no self?

What exactly is it that is suffering then?

in buddhist thinking, suffering is the inability to die.

Death occurs from moment to moment. All is arising and cessation.

[Vango]

Suffering? But no self?

What exactly is it that is suffering then?

in buddhist thinking, suffering is the inability to die.

And so what is it that can't die?

Seems like a reasonable question don't you think?

All conditioned things are subject to cessation, ie death.

Very reasonable question.

[chevron1]

And so what is it that can't die?

Seems like a reasonable question don't you think?

All conditioned things are subject to cessation, ie death.

Very reasonable question.

all conditioned things are not subject to cessation because not all things are subject to death. if they are subject to death, they must be subject life. that's why things die not often except when we are in a conditioned mind.