Re: Disbelief in Your Ultimate Goal Re: Caricature (was Re: Reincarnation?)

Hollywood Lee wrote:
Dave K wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:00 pm, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Amigo of Ego wrote:
"Hollywood Lee" <hollywood...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eqcm5p$rrv$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Amigo of Ego wrote:
So what do you say, Tang, do you believe this - that, as it says,
parinirvana is the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice, the one state
that's even higher than that of a living Buddha, a release from the cycle
of deaths and rebirths? It is saying that that state of not having a
human body (and with no rebirth) is superior to the state of having a
human body, even if one is a (living) Buddha. Face up to this Tang,
that's what Buddhism teaches! When the first noble truth says that life
is suffering and unsatisfactory (to one degree or another), it really
means it, literally! There are no exceptions, not even for a living
Buddha who will still have at least some physical suffering.
So can you accept this, Tang - that parinirvana is the end of the cycle
of deaths and rebirths, as well as the "dissolution of all worldly
physical and mental aggregates or skandhas (form, feeling, perception,
mental fabrications and consciousness)"? Please do face up to this, and
what it implies. Or are you going to deny that parinirvana is the
(ultimate) goal of Buddhist practice, as is stated in the reference
above? Do you actually think that human life itself, even as a Buddha,
is a higher state than parinirvana?
Anyway, we of course cannot readily get to the parinirvana goal because
of, as Buddhism also teaches, our karma and rebirth. But we can get
there eventually with continued practice, as the Buddha did. But let's
say someone (granted, someone who is interpreting things literally, as I
am here) does not accept what Buddhism teaches about 'hard' rebirth, does
not accept that rebirth is true (for those of us in samsara), but does
truly accept what the first noble truth teaches - that life is suffering
(even for a Buddha, physically), and that parinirvana is the ultimate
Buddhist goal, even higher than a living Buddha, the end of all life's
suffering permanently. So please tell me, *from that person's point of
view* why wouldn't suicide be considered a "quick elevator" to
parinirvana, the ultimate Buddhist goal, since *that person* would
believe that they wouldn't be reborn, just like a Buddha isn't after
death? Not necessarily that the person would actually commit suicide,
but to that person it would still seem like a "quick elevator" from
samsara to the ultimate Buddhist goal of parinirvana, would it not? If
not, why not?
What an odd, confused person - one who doesn't believe in the idea of hard
rebirth yet whose ultimate goal is to end hard rebirth.
=============================
Actually, I do believe in hard rebirth. For example, in another part of the
message I said:
"Of course from my (rebirth believing) point of view, any person committing
suicide would be reborn with more "bad karma" from their self-slaughter.."
I was simply talking about a hypothetical person who does not believe in
hard karma when I stated above:
"But let's say someone (granted, someone who is interpreting things
literally, as I am here) does not accept what Buddhism teaches about 'hard'
rebirth..."
But you're right about the "odd" part though, I am that! :-)
-The Amigo of Ego
-------
I think
you need a better argument - perhaps just that your belief in hard
rebirth has been useful to you.
No, I wasn't suggesting that you were odd, only that your hypothetical
person is odd for not believing in the idea of hard rebirth but having
the ultimate goal of ending rebirth. Like not believing in the flying
spaghetti monster but having the ultimate goal of riding the flying
spaghetti monster.

That is not what he said at all. He said that the hypothetical person
believed in the first noble truth, but not in rebirth. This person's
goal is to end suffering, not to end rebirth. So technically he is
correct in saying that ending one's life would end suffering.

To repeat:

I suggest you reread his post. He describes his hypothetical person as follows:

"someone (granted, someone who is interpreting things literally, as I am here) does not accept what Buddhism teaches about 'hard' rebirth, does not accept that rebirth is true (for those of us in samsara), but does truly accept what the first noble truth teaches - that life is suffering (even for a Buddha, physically), and that parinirvana is the ultimate Buddhist goal."

Had he stopped, as you do, at the first noble truth,then the question becomes interesting if only because many revered Buddhists, such as Bhikkhu Buddhadassa, provide a ready, experiential-based answer. But he went on to having his hypothetical person believing in parinirvana (as the ultimate goal), which he defines in his post as the ending of hard rebirth.

So yes, it is silly, silly. And even silly.
------------

Even sillee. But won't make a good argument out of a bad one.


No, I am not going to read it again.
You already made your point.
I thought it was a plausible point.
But, not worth making it again.
Don't act as if you are not used to
being misunderstood, please.

--
~Stumper
.