5 ms·

Why do you think so ?

• sambapa 3y ago
  If you die and it's over then you are not stuck in samsara
  • cyberpunk 3y ago
    You die every second. Many many times a second. The me that's finishing writing this comment is not the me that started writing it.
    • sambapa 3y ago
      Yeah, but your mindstream is stuck in samsara I think. I'm just a beginner, but there are whole talks about this topic that Buddha gave.
      • cyberpunk 3y ago
        To be honest; I don't even know. The whole rebirth topic has never been a part of my practice. I don't think I've ever even spoken to my teacher about it. Maybe once, and he just waved his hand and said "that's just Indian stuff". My practice is much more about right action and living wholeheartedly, than contemplating eternal souls and rebirth. Everyone is different, though.
  • rhuru 3y ago
    Well, the Samsara and suffering exists when you are alive in that case. The Nirvana applies there as well.
• OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  If life is suffering, but nothing comes after death, then suicide is a means to escape suffering. But Buddhism has always proscribed suicide, usually for the very supernatural reason that suicide victims would be reborn at some lower level of existence where they are even more miserable. Moreover, if attachment brings suffering, but there is no rebirth, then the insistence on continuing to live is the ultimate attachment. I actually think that this is one possible solution to the Fermi Paradox and supports a pseudo-Buddhist view: eventually civilizations might transcend the biological impulses that keep them attached to life, and then deliberately choose extinction.
  • cyberpunk 3y ago
    It's very difficult to have such a discussion when we are trying to group a massive spread of beliefs and practices under one umbrella. I can't speak for any 'Buddhism' besides my own, but mine does not proscribe suicide at all. For some; it is clearly the most compassionate action even assist with suicide. We tend to lean towards compassion.
    • sambapa 3y ago
      That's why it is so important to read the man himself. After all it's BUDDHism, not SOMESECTism
    • OfSanguineFire 3y ago
      From your other comments, you seem to subscribe to one of those movements to restore some pure ur-Buddhism separate from its actual historical tradition. As I said up top, I find this dubious and I personally am not interested in discussing that kind of Buddhism. You say “my practice does this” and “my practice does that” and you are certainly entitled to follow whatever approach you want. However, I think it would be more honest to label the collection of practices you very deliberately chose as something you could be comfortable with from a contemporary skeptical perspective, as something different from Buddhism.
      • cyberpunk 3y ago
        I'm an ordained soto zen practitioner and study under a transmitted teacher; most of my views quite closely follow what our founding teacher (Eihei Dogen) wrote. If that doesn't make me a buddhist, I'm not sure what would :} Zen is certainly a 'back to basics' movement; but you're quite incorrect so think that zen is separate from historical traditions of buddhism. The buddha sat Shikantaza just as we, all the 'fluff' came later. We are perhaps a 'back to basics' movement, but one that has a several thousand year lineage. Unless you feel Bodhidharma was a dubious modernist? :} I say 'my practice' as I do not wish to speak for others even inside my group, let alone buddhists as whole.