Is life a good or bad thing for Christians?

[ananda]

Rather, why assume an eternal uncaused thing can't change.

Nibbana is the absence of cause & unchanging (non temporal-spatial) ... it is not an eternal thing (temporal-spatial) which "possesses" non-causation.

Buddhist psycho-cosmology pictures nibbana as what's "left" after all the layers of reality subject to causation are peeled away, like peeling away the layers of an onion. There is nothing left to change, in and of itself.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Nibbana is the absence of cause & unchanging (non temporal-spatial) ... it is not an eternal thing (temporal-spatial) which "possesses" non-causation.

Buddhist psycho-cosmology pictures nibbana as what's "left" after all the layers of reality subject to causation are peeled away, like peeling away the layers of an onion. There is nothing left to change, in and of itself.

That's fine as far as Buddhist philosophy goes; but that, like statements of other religions, is unevidenced.

 

[ananda]

That's fine as far as Buddhist philosophy goes; but that, like statements of other religions, is unevidenced.

That is true to some extent; it is said to be directly & fully observable after completing the practice. Until then, it is only dimly visible during the beginning of the practice.

 

[Tinker Grey]

That is true to some extent; it is said to be directly & fully observable after completing the practice. Until then, it is only dimly visible during the beginning of the practice.

Like when the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to the born again?

 

[grasping the after wind]

We observe it to be the core law that governs all of observable reality. Have you observed another, more fundamental law?

I haven't observed any laws. That is I haven't seen evidence that there are fundamental laws that are immutable in the universe. My limited experience as a living being does not allow me to make such universal assumptions. I do , however, observe laws in the sense that I do not intentionally break laws relating to human governance.

 

[Tolworth John]

Hello,

Is life a good or bad thing for Christians?
And if it's a good thing, how do you explain that the “Paradise“ of one of the major religion of the world consist in getting out of the cycle of life (Nirvana with Buddhism) ?
If it doesn't happen like that in Buddhism, correct me please, I am ignorant about this religion.

Thank you for your answers!

As you say many far eastern religions regard this life as evil and want to escape it.
However Christianity does not regard this life or physical life as evil/sinnful.

We have been given life inorder that we might glorify our Heavenly Father in this life and enjoy his prescence in the next.

 

[ananda]

Like when the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to the born again?

Perhaps. In the end, it all involves subjective experience.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Like when the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to the born again?

"We see through a glass, darkly....." I Cor. 13:12

 

[grasping the after wind]

Perhaps. In the end, it all involves subjective experience.

All experience is subjective.

 

[ananda]

I haven't observed any laws. That is I haven't seen evidence that there are fundamental laws that are immutable in the universe. My limited experience as a living being does not allow me to make such universal assumptions. I do , however, observe laws in the sense that I do not intentionally break laws relating to human governance.

OK, then.

 

[grasping the after wind]

As you say many far eastern religions regard this life as evil and want to escape it.
However Christianity does not regard this life or physical life as evil/sinnful.

We have been given life inorder that we might glorify our Heavenly Father in this life and enjoy his prescence in the next.

I believe you have summed up the majority opinion. However, there are Christians and Christians denominations that consider life to be a veil of tears and something to be endured in anticipation of the next life but not something to be celebrated as good in itself. I agree with your analysis not theirs.

 

[grasping the after wind]

OK, then.

You asked.

 

[ananda]

You asked.

I did. If you can't perceive that law, then you can't.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I did. If you can't perceive that law, then you can't.

I perceive the phenomenon of cause and effect but, as an extremely limited creature, I cannot observe the totality of existence and so to not only assume but to assert ---- that phenomenon is universal throughout not only time and space but also whatever else might possibly exist that my limited capacity might make me completely unaware of --- would be a bit of a reach IMO.

 

[ananda]

I perceive the phenomenon of cause and effect but, as an extremely limited creature, I cannot observe the totality of existence and so to not only assume but to assert ---- that phenomenon is universal throughout not only time and space but also whatever else might possibly exist that my limited capacity might make me completely unaware of --- would be a bit of a reach IMO.

I agree, that's why I stated it is the core law that governs all of (my) observable reality, and I have not observed a law more fundamental than that.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I agree, that's why I stated it is the core law that governs all of (my) observable reality, and I have not observed a law more fundamental than that.

Why did you put my within ()above?

Nibbana is the absence of cause & unchanging (non temporal-spatial) ... it is not an eternal thing (temporal-spatial) which "possesses" non-causation.

Buddhist psycho-cosmology pictures nibbana as what's "left" after all the layers of reality subject to causation are peeled away, like peeling away the layers of an onion. There is nothing left to change, in and of itself.

If you contend that you observe that the most fundamental law of the universe cause and effect.
Then you peel away everything subject to that law i.e. everything that exists in your observable universe.
What you have left is what does not exist from your observable perspective.
Am I wrong then in expecting you to understand that the Nibbana you mentioned to be a state of non existence?

Would not this Nibbana you speak of be a state in which nothing exists? Actually that would seem to be a contradiction in terms as nothing cannot exist because if it is nothing it has no existence. What exactly would be a state in which there is nothing left to change other than a state in which there is nothing at all if cause and effect is the fundamental law and it has nothing to a be applied to ? Unlike yours, In my observable reality existence is the one fundamental law. Every thing exists , there is no such thing as nothing not even nothing left to change. One can use the word nothing to exclude things that are not what one is speaking of, as in there is nothing here that is green. However, if you a submit that you observe that the most fundamental law is cause and effect and that there somehow a state in which there is nothing subject to that most fundamental law then I can only say I do not see how such a state can exist at the same time that a state exists in which there are things subject to that fundamental law. In my observable reality, either something exists or nothing exists they are mutually exclusive one cannot be the case simultaneously with the other. As long as one thing exists then nothing is impossible.

 

[ananda]

Why did you put my within ()above?

It was a clarification of my original, earlier statement.

If you contend that you observe that the most fundamental law of the universe cause and effect.
Then you peel away everything subject to that law i.e. everything that exists in your observable universe.
What you have left is what does not exist from your observable perspective.
Am I wrong then in expecting you to understand that the Nibbana you mentioned to be a state of non existence?

Would not this Nibbana you speak of be a state in which nothing exists? Actually that would seem to be a contradiction in terms as nothing cannot exist because if it is nothing it has no existence. What exactly would be a state in which there is nothing left to change other than a state in which there is nothing at all if cause and effect is the fundamental law and it has nothing to a be applied to ? Unlike yours, In my observable reality existence is the one fundamental law. Every thing exists , there is no such thing as nothing not even nothing left to change. One can use the word nothing to exclude things that are not what one is speaking of, as in there is nothing here that is green. However, if you a submit that you observe that the most fundamental law is cause and effect and that there somehow a state in which there is nothing subject to that most fundamental law then I can only say I do not see how such a state can exist at the same time that a state exists in which there are things subject to that fundamental law. In my observable reality, either something exists or nothing exists they are mutually exclusive one cannot be the case simultaneously with the other. As long as one thing exists then nothing is impossible.

Nibbana is not samsara, the law of cause & effect is said to exist only within samsara. Eliminating all the layers of samsaric craving results in the attainment of nibbana. We frame it in terms of conscious experience, not physical existence.

 

[grasping the after wind]

It was a clarification of my original, earlier statement.


Nibbana is not samsara, the law of cause & effect is said to exist only within samsara. Eliminating all the layers of samsaric craving results in the attainment of nibbana. We frame it in terms of conscious experience, not physical existence.

In my observable reality conscious experience is dependent upon physical existence. You should understand then why what you suggest makes no logical sense to me as it contradicts my observable reality .

 

[ananda]

In my observable reality conscious experience is dependent upon physical existence. You should understand then why what you suggest makes no logical sense to me as it contradicts my observable reality .

I don't doubt that is your experience. My experience aligns with Buddhist thought, that consciousness arises from physical existence, but physical existence also arises from consciousness.

 

[Gogogo]

Thanks for your answers!

The vast majority of people don't commit suicide.

Yes but the facts that it is forbidden by most religions and that it makes family suffers are deterrent but still I think the vast majority wouldn't commit suicide anyway, that's true.

If life isn't good for you, you're doing it wrong. God promises his children Joy. He doesn't promise them a lot of money or a lot of possessions, or great circumstances all the time. But he gives Joy not as the world gives, and promises to always be with us... What could be better than that?

If your christian theology considers that the sufferings we endure in this current life are for our good, I don't know what could be better but if not, he could give us both joys, the spiritual one and the concrete one (by the mean of miracles for example).

However, there are Christians and Christians denominations that consider life to be a veil of tears and something to be endured in anticipation of the next life but not something to be celebrated as good in itself.

But they still find good in it, there wouldn't be reasons to glorify God otherwise.

In my observable reality conscious experience is dependent upon physical existence. You should understand then why what you suggest makes no logical sense to me as it contradicts my observable reality .

I think when Ananda says "We frame it in terms of conscious experience, not physical existence.", he doesn't mean that Nirvana is a conscious experience but that we can apprehend it while we are conscious.