Jump to content


- - - - -

Buddhist "annihilation." Your Personal Thoughts?


19 replies to this topic

#1 ChaosTech

    All Religions' Wheel

  • Gold Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,805 posts
  • LocationThe end of Time

Posted 15 August 2012 - 02:16 AM

About 10 years ago, I was introduced to Buddhism. I quickly learned a Buddhist believes and philosophises that all phenomena is attachment, and that meaning all things are limited, and so by holding onto them, attaching one's self, that this is why there is suffering. Because something limited may be sweet to some degree, while it lasts, but becomes sour when it ends.

The Buddhists I learned believed not in some sort of heavenly eterntity, like the western living religions, after death, but continual reincarnation, from gods, to angels, to men, to nature spirits, to plants and stones, to animals, to the lowest of forms demons. There were heaven, earth, and hell, like the western religions, but none could spend and eternity in any of them. Everything was limited, and only something which had no definition and so no limit, and so was unknowable, truly, could we exist as forever.

This plane of pure being, or Nirvanna, was the final destination to all things, and all things continually reincarnated, untill they became Buddhas and became enlightened to Nirvanna, after which all that they were would be absorbed or disintegrated into this pure state.

I wrestled with this belief and philosophy for many years, but personally have come to embrase and accept it. Everything which can be named like Lao Zu said, can therefore be quantified or measured and so is limited. This is even true for our bodies, minds, and souls or psyches, what makes us, us, and so our memories, identity, and personal dreams, hopes, likes, dislikes, goals, sucesses, and failures. Our very history and existence was meaningless, the only noble goal being to survive everyday and find escape out of the limited universe.

What are all your thoughts and takes on this truth of futilism?
Posted Image

#2 ChaosTech

    All Religions' Wheel

  • Gold Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,805 posts
  • LocationThe end of Time

Posted 15 August 2012 - 02:21 AM

Also, you can't just commit suicide. Death leads to rebirth. You must find Nirvanna and enter it while living. True the Buddha was reported to have found Nirvanna but stayed to teach others, and by doing so eventually died, but they say he died with very little suffering, and I take it his soul went to heaven where then he ether stayed to bring others to Nirvanna or left all existence.

Personally I've found that realization of Nirvanna, means little. The energy of the earth plane is so dense, that like in the hells or underworld, one must reincarnate somewhat, till one is reborn as a being of heaven, as heaven is near the source of existence.
Posted Image

#3 Unison

    Member

  • Old Timers
  • Pip
  • 21 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 03:04 AM

Thoughts on annihilation, eh..

It's not necessary (nor is it a meaningful idea), because there is nothing to annihilate.

Think for a moment of a comic book about spiderman. Silly example, but bear with me.

The comic book is real, you can hold it in your hand. But spiderman is not real. Because although the book exists, it is a fiction. It's real, and it's a real fiction. It's just that it's a fiction.

Annihilation is equivalent to burning the comic book. You can do it, but it's not necessary or a meaningful thing to do.

#4 voidgazing

    Moderator

  • Owner
  • 3,815 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 10:02 AM

Nirvana isn't annihilation, exactly. When a drop of rain falls into the ocean, it is not annihilated. It is simply no longer distinct from the ocean. We can say it has added itself to the sea, but we can also say the sea has added itself to the drop.

There is a level of reality outside all of this- the spirit world, the everyday world, everything we can conceive of. This is Nirvana. There may be one outside of that- turtles all the way down- yet even Nirvana is a state/place we cannot grasp, so how inconceivable would such a state be!
This is a postcard sent from the dining room of the HMS Russel's Teapot. Wish you were here- the band is spot on tonight, and we're having "all the way down" turtle soup!

#5 Qaexl

    ...

  • Board of Directors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,356 posts
  • LocationAZ, US

Posted 15 August 2012 - 04:16 PM

View PostChaosTech, on 15 August 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

About 10 years ago, I was introduced to Buddhism. I quickly learned a Buddhist believes and philosophises that all phenomena is attachment, and that meaning all things are limited, and so by holding onto them, attaching one's self, that this is why there is suffering. Because something limited may be sweet to some degree, while it lasts, but becomes sour when it ends.

The Buddhist practice lets you experience how you attach to phenomena. Saying you believe and philosophize that is like saying you believe in and philosophize gravity.

View PostChaosTech, on 15 August 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

What are all your thoughts and takes on this truth of futilism?

This isn't futilism, or nihilism, or any sort of -ism. Those came later when trying to describe the insights gained from practice.

-Qaexl

#6 Chasmodai

    Member

  • Board of Directors
  • 272 posts
  • LocationThe Universe

Posted 15 August 2012 - 05:01 PM

View PostChaosTech, on 15 August 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

Our very history and existence was meaningless, the only noble goal being to survive everyday and find escape out of the limited universe.


If the 4 Noble Truths are connected to easing suffering (or Dukkha) then the Noble Goal, it seems, would be to do just this.

This is what Bodhisattvas aim for. They forgo Nirvana in order to help others.

#7 Curtis Penfold

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 215 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:10 PM

There is no noble goal. There is no good nor bad in Buddhism. Pain is not bad nor good. Leaving the pain is not bad nor good. Wanting to leave the pain is neither bad nor good.

#8 Mr. Gordo

    Old School

  • Board of Directors
  • 868 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 01:02 AM

View PostChaosTech, on 15 August 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:



What are all your thoughts and takes on this truth of futilism?

I don't think the word "futilism" best defines the dynamic religion that is Buddhism.

Even if my body should be burnt to death
In the fires of hell,
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice
- Gandavyuha Sutra


#9 Mr. Gordo

    Old School

  • Board of Directors
  • 868 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 01:03 AM

View PostCurtis Penfold, on 16 August 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

There is no noble goal. There is no good nor bad in Buddhism. Pain is not bad nor good. Leaving the pain is not bad nor good. Wanting to leave the pain is neither bad nor good.

This is a misunderstanding. There is a goal, and there is good and bad in Buddhism.

Even if my body should be burnt to death
In the fires of hell,
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice
- Gandavyuha Sutra


#10 Curtis Penfold

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 215 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 02:17 AM

View PostMr. Gordo, on 23 August 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

This is a misunderstanding. There is a goal, and there is good and bad in Buddhism.

I talked to a Buddhist who told me that good and bad are just an illusion. He was very monist, so maybe he didn't represent Buddhism as a whole. But he told me that at some point after many many lifetimes, you're just going to become aware that it's all an illusion. Becoming aware is neither good nor bad, it's just going to happen.

If I misunderstood, or if such statements do not reflect all facets of Buddhism, I would love to be corrected. (Knowledge is beautiful).

#11 Mr. Gordo

    Old School

  • Board of Directors
  • 868 posts

Posted 24 August 2012 - 12:59 PM

Perhaps I need to clarify my statement as I've heard many people throw out the rather commonly used statement "It's an illusion man, it's all an illusion!" :) They're misunderstanding leads them to be nihilists. So we need to much more precise when using terms like "annihliaton" or "illusory". I prefer the Dzogchen perspective where appearances are not real, but are equivalent with illusions. The accusation of nihilism is not applicable because appearances are not being denied. The accusation of eternalism is not applicable because upon analysis, those unreal appearances are not found. Appearances are not false, because they appear, but they are not true, because they cannot be found, just like the appearance of a face reflected in the water. All phenomena are like that. Illusions too are not false, because the illusions appear, but they are not true, because upon examination they cannot be found.

Edited by Mr. Gordo, 24 August 2012 - 01:22 PM.

Even if my body should be burnt to death
In the fires of hell,
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice
- Gandavyuha Sutra


#12 Curtis Penfold

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 215 posts

Posted 24 August 2012 - 04:58 PM

This is how I understand it:

When you're walking through the woods and you see a rope and it APPEARS to be a snake, you experience fear. Your experience is very real. But that doesn't mean that the rope is a snake. It's not. But the experience of seeing what you thought was a snake, that experience is real.

#13 Mr. Gordo

    Old School

  • Board of Directors
  • 868 posts

Posted 24 August 2012 - 06:42 PM

View PostCurtis Penfold, on 24 August 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

This is how I understand it:

When you're walking through the woods and you see a rope and it APPEARS to be a snake, you experience fear. Your experience is very real. But that doesn't mean that the rope is a snake. It's not. But the experience of seeing what you thought was a snake, that experience is real.

Take it a step further: the rope is illusory, the appearance of the snake is illusory, and even the experience of the illusory snake is illusory.

Even if my body should be burnt to death
In the fires of hell,
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice
- Gandavyuha Sutra


#14 Dagion

    Member

  • Old Timers
  • 81 posts

Posted 24 August 2012 - 07:08 PM

our percenptions are real as long as there is a perceptor. What we percieve is not but perceptions we are given physical receptor for physical things that which is not pysical is how we interperate it. if there was not a reality that rope that apeared to be a snake would be a snake. there is the act of percpective and without the whole there is missinterpretation and illusion.

Edited by Dagion, 24 August 2012 - 07:08 PM.

אחד זו אוד


#15 Mr. Gordo

    Old School

  • Board of Directors
  • 868 posts

Posted 24 August 2012 - 07:26 PM

View PostDagion, on 24 August 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

our percenptions are real as long as there is a perceptor.

If you perceive a snake while under the influence of hallucinogenics, that does not make the snake real.

Even if my body should be burnt to death
In the fires of hell,
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice
- Gandavyuha Sutra


#16 Dagion

    Member

  • Old Timers
  • 81 posts

Posted 24 August 2012 - 10:04 PM

Quote

If you perceive a snake while under the influence of hallucinogenics, that does not make the snake real.

undeniably.

אחד זו אוד


#17 Curtis Penfold

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 215 posts

Posted 24 August 2012 - 10:04 PM

Wait, so what is real?

#18 Mr. Gordo

    Old School

  • Board of Directors
  • 868 posts

Posted 24 August 2012 - 11:02 PM

Phenomena are equivalent with illusions.

The accusation of nihilism is not applicable because appearances are not being denied. The accusation of eternalism is not applicable because upon analysis, those unreal appearances are not found. Appearances are not false, because they appear, but they are not true, because they cannot be found, just like the appearance of a face reflected in the water. All phenomena are like that. Illusions too are not false, because the illusions appear, but they are not true, because upon examination they cannot be found.

Even if my body should be burnt to death
In the fires of hell,
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice
- Gandavyuha Sutra


#19 ChaosTech

    All Religions' Wheel

  • Gold Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,805 posts
  • LocationThe end of Time

Posted 24 August 2012 - 11:24 PM

This is how I understand it. Take the Chinese Yin and Yang. Ultimate Yang or Positive Polarity, is Light, Infinity. Ultimate Yin or Negative Polarity, is Dark, Nothingness. Both are similar as they are transcendental and lie outside measurable reality. The first being so big it's beyond big, and the second so small its beyond small.

You don't have to believe either or, or any, exist, the are only suggested because of what they make by combining or mixing with each other. The reality we exist in is both light and dark yin and yang, and so neither the extremes of each, but a mix. This is the illusion, as an illusion is true because it is something, and yet false becase it is something, but not something that is truly displayed. Ilusions are neither black nor white, but grey.

This is why I get upset at calling this the limited reality. A true limit, is nothingness, just like a true unlimit is infinity. We exist somewhere inbetween, and how unlimited or limited we are depends on how close or far away we are to either polarity.

Also, some consider there is no other polarity other than infinity, as nothingness is non-existant, but on closer inspection, something so extreme, like infinity, can only be realized, because there is a lesser extreme (and so not an extreme), of it in phenomenal reality.

I really have wondered if infinity has no size, because it expands forever, and never began small, but has always been expanding, and nothingness having no size as well, is what it expands into. That way there is an infinite amount of each, and they virtually become the same thing, the Transcendental, or what originally eastern philosophers called the Tao, which is something that exists, or whatever (lol), but is beyond this current reality and it's levels from high to low, or heaven to hell, and is something we evolve into eventually.

For all we know the Tao could be another whole reality, but like seeing in infrared, can only be imagined as we lack such organs, and infrared devices, display not a true infrared sight to us, but a translated one, so our eyes can see the infrared screen and so it's data.

Most philosophers like Buddha, claim the Transcendental isn't another reality though, because it's the one verses many arguement, and our universe is definately a thing of many, no matter how unified it gets.

Still a Taoist paradigm is more exciting than Nirvanna, because you have to admit, whatever we try to understand of it, is ultimately just guessing, as it's beyond literally everything.
Posted Image

#20 Iago

    The DUKE of FLUKE

  • Old Timers
  • 610 posts
  • LocationSnowy Wastes

Posted 05 November 2012 - 12:37 PM

View PostChaosTech, on 15 August 2012 - 02:21 AM, said:

Also, you can't just commit suicide. Death leads to rebirth. You must find Nirvanna and enter it while living. True the Buddha was reported to have found Nirvanna but stayed to teach others, and by doing so eventually died, but they say he died with very little suffering, and I take it his soul went to heaven where then he ether stayed to bring others to Nirvanna or left all existence.

Enter it while living? What of the leftover karma of previous existences? How does being reincarnated as, say, a rock, give the individual opportunities to weaken the grasp of the karmic cycle? Reincarnation is not a crap shoot where just maybe you'll get lucky in the next life to be born into a highly spiritual family so you can work on enlightenment from a young age for example.

Every action, every word, thought and deed you make either digs you deeper into the material existence, into karma and thus into suffering, or lifts you up from the same - choose wisely.

SCIENTIAM SAPIENTIS, SAPIENTIAM PVER

‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡

The gods, they are but masks. Who is wearing them?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users