Suffering

[ananda]

just in case you are not aware, the doctrine of "samsara" is false, and there is a difference between the biblical doctrine of eternal judgment and the vedic and buddhistic doctrine of samsara, the biblical doctrine says there is a possibility for the soul to be born at the eternity, which is possible only once within one eternity(one eternal cycle/repetition), while the vedic doctrine talks about a myriad of inevitable births/lives for each soul along one enormous eternity(eternal circle), which is absurd and impossible, because there is no way that God let each soul be successively passed through a myriad of vain/painful forms of existence (i even do not venture to call them "lives", because according to the vedas such lives are accompanied by/full of all kinds of evils/afflictions), otherwise, if He let it be so, He would be unrighteous for causing great/too much evil to the souls, for He is the system Administrator of the life for the entire universe and cannot afford to let the souls suffer more than one life within one eternity, otherwise He would be responsible for their severe exploitation, so all the vedic doctrine is false throughout, because, according to the vedas, samsara is not alone, but it is just a part of the integral system and mechanism of the so-called "maya/prakrti" including "gunas", "karma", "yugas", "kalpas", "brahma", "vishnu", "shiva", "kundalini", "chakras", "aum" as a whole, etc., for if there were no gunas, nor would there be karma, nor samsara, but this means there can be no such things at all but only in the human minds in which the satanic delusion/deception dwells..., moreover, according to the biblical scriptures this eternity began about 5-6 millennia ago when God started to create for the first time having made all the universal creation in six days(144 hours), which means there have been no yugas, kalpas, etc.

Blessings

I believe that the Bible actually speaks of "life for an aeon" (aeon being found in the Greek, and olam in the Hebrew), not "eternal life" (as modern translators have unfortunately redefined those words). Take, for example, John 17:2: καθὼς ἔδωκας αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ δώσῃ αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον (aionion = aeon).

So, in terms of the Christian Bible's perspective (which is not necessarily the orthodox Christian interpretation), I believe that it teaches that the Biblical god reigns for an olam or aeon, which IMO easily corresponds to the Buddhist perspective on Brahma (a Buddhist god of love who reigns for a mahakalpa, similar to an olam/aeon, and a god who erroneously believes that he is the father of all and the creator). Both olam and aeon can be interpreted to mean an "age" (of an immense length of time, but still limited).

Giving one chance at salvation over a period of 70 or 80 years is more unfair, IMO, than having multiple chances over multiple lifetimes to learn and make things right. Kamma is just as well, because one is determined to receive effects equal to its causes.

Whatever that case may be, we seek out saviors because of our inherent suffering, no?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why do you wish to "flourish"?

It is my good. It is what actualizes my potentialities and allows me to fulfill my natural function. It is what makes my existence worth my time and effort.

It isn't to avoid suffering.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ananda]

It is my good. It is what actualizes my potentialities and allows me to fulfill my natural function. It is what makes my existence worth my time and effort.

It isn't to avoid suffering.

eudaimonia,

Mark

And, if you are prevented from flourishing?

 

[Eudaimonist]

And, if you are prevented from flourishing?

Then I am prevented from fully actualizing my potentials.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ananda]

Then I am prevented from fully actualizing my potentials.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Would that cause you any pain or distress in the least?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Would that cause you any pain or distress in the least?

It might, but then personal flourishing does not guarantee a complete lack of pain or distress, and even more importantly... I am not philosophically a hedonist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ananda]

It might, but then personal flourishing does not guarantee a complete lack of pain or distress, and even more importantly... I am not philosophically a hedonist.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Personal development and growth fulfills a need within me, which I would describe as a form of suffering, even if it is considered relatively mild.

 

[Ahermit]

I agree, all action in samsara stem from greed/craving, fear/hatred, or delusion - as the Buddha taught.

You state that you "know" of your better way. How do you "know" (for yourself, directly), or is it simply "faith"?

Both.

 

[toLiJC]

I believe that the Bible actually speaks of "life for an aeon" (aeon being found in the Greek, and olam in the Hebrew), not "eternal life" (as modern translators have unfortunately redefined those words). Take, for example, John 17:2: καθὼς ἔδωκας αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ δώσῃ αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον (aionion = aeon).

So, in terms of the Christian Bible's perspective (which is not necessarily the orthodox Christian interpretation), I believe that it teaches that the Biblical god reigns for an olam or aeon, which IMO easily corresponds to the Buddhist perspective on Brahma (a Buddhist god of love who reigns for a mahakalpa, similar to an olam/aeon, and a god who erroneously believes that he is the father of all and the creator). Both olam and aeon can be interpreted to mean an "age" (of an immense length of time, but still limited).

Giving one chance at salvation over a period of 70 or 80 years is more unfair, IMO, than having multiple chances over multiple lifetimes to learn and make things right. Kamma is just as well, because one is determined to receive effects equal to its causes.

Whatever that case may be, we seek out saviors because of our inherent suffering, no?

the biblical God reigns for ever and ever, because He is the only true God of all the universe boundless to us the humans, however boundless it is (there), only God knows, even if it is absolutely boundless, but there is only one true God thereof, and His reign is for all eternities of eternities whose number is infinite (the number of all souls = the number of all different eternities in terms of the alternant souls positions/personalities/roles), however, the eternity is also a period, because it is a circle, which means there is a beginning as well as an end (for there is a circle of life as well as a life cycle/lifespan), but there is always a (new) beginning after each end, so the eternity is both periodic and endless like a constantly revolving wheel making full revolutions incessantly, and though there is a transition, even for God, He never changes and His reign never ends like the water which is always water even if its state of matter changes from one (form) to another and vice versa, or like a set of files that are always the same even if they are compressed into an archive and then decompressed countless times, or like the geometric progression 1x2=2 x2=4 x2=8 x2=16 x2=32 etc. whose sequence of numbers and results of calculation is/are always the same regardless of how many times it/they will be found/verified, but there are no gods such as brahma, vishnu and shiva (though there may be such devilish spirits), because the true God is (completely) rational and therefore He does not let/make there be a hierarchical structure of (many) gods, nor is there a need of such, for that reason there is only one (true) Lord God, one universe, one universal creation, and quite direct parallelism between God and humans, while the infinitely lasting life in Paradise/Heaven has also been a misbelief of spiritual/religious people who enjoy the passing pleasures of sin...

Blessings

 

[ananda]

Both.

Alright, so you have both knowledge and faith. What do you "know" for yourself, directly?

 

[Ahermit]

Originally I said: Thank God we know of a better way of life and truth in Christ Jesus.

Alright, so you have both knowledge and faith. What do you "know" for yourself, directly?

Self, as in ego-self, knows fear of its truth - that it is invalid. That is why it always seeks validation.
Fear cause deception. Fear and deception I "know" for myself, directly.

But it is through "faith", truth and love becomes known, for it comes from God. This "knowing", by faith, contradicts fear and deception. In comparison, truth and love is a better way of life as Jesus Christ has taught us, and given us through the Spirit of Truth.

 

[ananda]

Originally I said: Thank God we know of a better way of life and truth in Christ Jesus.

Self, as in ego-self, knows fear of its truth - that it is invalid. That is why it always seeks validation.
Fear cause deception. Fear and deception I "know" for myself, directly.

But it is through "faith", truth and love becomes known, for it comes from God. This "knowing", by faith, contradicts fear and deception. In comparison, truth and love is a better way of life as Jesus Christ has taught us, and given us through the Spirit of Truth.

Yes, I have known truth and love through my former practice of Christianity. I also know of truth and love, in addition to loving-kindness, compassion, empathy, equanimity, the nature of suffering, and the path of the cessation of suffering, through my current practice of Buddhism.

 

[sparow]

"To be Christian is to believe in Christ and to suffer for the sake of this faith….Severity is the only thing that can help a man." Søren Kierkegaard

I don't believe the quote is Biblical. Israel suffered only because they broke the covenant and refused to repent. Suffering is or can be a consequence of keeping the faith but it is not desirable; even Christ prayed to be spared from it.

 

[Mediaeval]

I don't believe the quote is Biblical. Israel suffered only because they broke the covenant and refused to repent. Suffering is or can be a consequence of keeping the faith but it is not desirable; even Christ prayed to be spared from it.

I think SK had in mind the suffering that denying ourselves and following Christ cause the flesh.

 

[sparow]

I think SK had in mind the suffering that denying ourselves and following Christ cause the flesh.

You and SK are obviously on the same page and I am not. While things are never black and white, if following Christ caused the flesh to suffer something would be wrong; suffering should be the exception not the rule. All the apostles did eventually suffer the same fate as Christ but in what way did they deny themselves; possibly they denied themselves a safe life. I am vaguely aware of practices involving self harm by people who believe suffering pleases God. I am aware of the scriptures Mat 16:24 Mk 8:34 and Luke 9:23 and I believe I understand what Jesus means.

There may be religious jargon in SKs statement that confuses me, like what is denied that would cause the flesh to suffer; is SK saying that denying sin causes the flesh to suffer. Following Christ has in many cases resulted in death and this continues today but following Christ by denying another vocation does not cause suffering it causes joy but if everyone did it the world would cease to function.

 

[Mediaeval]

I would say the apostles denied themselves in the same way that we all are called to, that is, by living for God's will rather than for our own. This is the suffering implied in the verses you mentioned, the kind that comes from bearing one's cross. This, of course, has nothing to do with intentional, physical self-harm or making ourselves suffer for the sake of suffering. Luther wrote (quoting from memory here) that when God's will is about to be done, our own will dies in agony.

 

[sparow]

I would say the apostles denied themselves in the same way that we all are called to, that is, by living for God's will rather than for our own. This is the suffering implied in the verses you mentioned, the kind that comes from bearing one's cross. This, of course, has nothing to do with intentional, physical self-harm or making ourselves suffer for the sake of suffering. Luther wrote (quoting from memory here) that when God's will is about to be done, our own will dies in agony.

Apart from the last couple of days Christ's life was not unpleasant, He was a man with a mission; when as a Rabbi He said to the apostles, "Follow Me" this was the beginning of their greatest adventure. I would be very surprised if the will of the 12 was ever at odds with the will of God in any serious way and that anything had to die but only grow.

First I disagreed with a quote you gave and now I disagree with Luther. Luther may have been speaking for himself but not for me; ignorance aside my will is not at odds with God, adjustments are easy no agony involved.

It was God's will that Jesus suffer many things including pain Mat 16:21, but God's will has a purpose, Christ's suffering many things including pain was a means to an end; as the English language goes suffering does not have to be bad, one can suffer pain but one can also suffer a rainbow or an ice cream.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I have been reading that suffering is known as "dukkha" - and connotes the idea of a wheel out of kilter. Its not a bad analogy, but your average wobbly wheel wobbles more than the average wobbly day in samsara.

 

[FireDragon76]

We experience suffering when we lose what we love, and there are things that ought to be loved, such as children, parents, spouse, etc. The Buddhist workaround is to love nothing (and therefore hate nothing). But humans were meant to love, and therefore they were meant to be susceptible to suffering. In order to avoid suffering the Buddhist must avoid love. This is a truncated human existence.

It depends on what Buddhist tradition we are talking about. Studying some Mahayana or Tibetan Buddhism some time.

God is perhaps furthest from Buddhism. He came, accepted suffering, death, and the sins of the world, all out of love. Love caused him to willingly undergo suffering that he could have avoided. It was precisely that deep love--love that does not shy away from suffering--that saved the world. The Christian fears suffering but does not avoid it.

If the world is saved, as you say... I do not see it. People are still suffering and dying. Saying Jesus saved the world seems more like propaganda or jingoism without proof. And then we add on top of that, the fact that the Christian conceptualization of God is often nothing more than a cosmic bully and thug.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I was reading a zen based book and the author says we have to face reality, thats part of waking up, part of knowing where one is.

Theres a tradition, where an suffering man asks buddha for advice. "Theres 83 tpyes of problems for the human" , he says.

"83?" is the unhappy reply.


"And another," the buddha says... "the 84th: which is wanting no more problems..."