Thanks Yulaw I will check them out x
Can someone who is a Buddhist say in their own words what they believe about life after death (of the body)?
I will get back to you on this…got to see to dogs xx
Are you referring to what happens to the physical body? Or when nirvana is reached?
I’m going to have to leave, so I’ll go ahead and assume you mean both.
Nirvana can be attained during a lifetime, in a physical body or at the time of death. It is pure bliss, peace. No more sorrow/the end of suffering. But the Buddha has cautioned us that Nirvana is “beyond our imagination” and one would be foolish to speculate. So who knows?
[QUOTE=lotusgirl;42384]Are you referring to what happens to the physical body? Or when nirvana is reached?
I’m going to have to leave, so I’ll go ahead and assume you mean both.
Nirvana can be attained during a lifetime, in a physical body or at the time of death. It is pure bliss, peace. No more sorrow/the end of suffering. But the Buddha has cautioned us that Nirvana is “beyond our imagination” and one would be foolish to speculate. So who knows?[/QUOTE]
But after death, you will still be you, correct? There will be some kind of continuity. You will remember your earthy existence. Right?
Buddhism does at times come across as depressing & nihilistic.the concept of nothingness/emptiness is the state the meditators talk about. whhaaat? And Christianity is full of folk feeling guilty about everything.And if you look at many of it’s exponents those that attend churches i’ve been to few of them seem to really practice what they preach.There is little to no actuall science involved . It is bhakti yoga but it had it’s limitations, I’m sure Jesus was a nice guy but As Surya says he is a dime a dozen. We can all be Jesuses if we put in the effort.
Now Hinduism, there’s a religion to talk about. :lol: :lol:
Seeing God in the One & the Many.Now that actually makes sense.It [I]is[/I] inclusive and says you can pick any avatar you like. Any coulur you like. If you are religious period, it is cool in their eyes.Anything goes.
Hinduism Needs You.
Those who have a distorted view of Jesus can be just like him and call him a “dime a dozen.”
But those of us who understand and believe in Jesus realize He is God in the flesh, our Lord and Savior, and through Him all things were created.
We are to be “Christ-like” but nobody could come close to being what he is, which is God.
Who else do you know of who cured lepers, caused the blind to see, the lame to walk, raised people from the dead, etc.?
Of course you might think that is all hooey, and that’s your right, but when you tell a Christian that people like Jesus are a dime a dozen, or that he was just a “nice guy,” you are telling the Chrisitian that his religion is false, and are supremely insulting the Christian faith, though I suspect you do so in ignorace and not by intent. But please understand, to a Christian, Jesus is God Incarnate, and to Him the Christian owes his life and his gratitude for making the ultimate sacrifice on his behalf, and only through Him can sins be forgiven and Heaven be attained.
The explanation given by the Buddhist religious web site to defend its religious doctrine can only convince the converted religious members of Buddhism, not the critical thinker and members outside of the religion.
Let us examine it:
The second false view is nihilism or the view held by the nihilists who claim that there is no life after death. This view belongs to a materialistic philosophy which refuses to accept knowledge of mental conditionality. To subscribe to a philosophy of materialism is to understand life only partially. Nihilism ignores the side of life which is concerned with mental conditionality. If one claims that after the passing away or ceasing of a life, it does not come to be again, the continuity of mental conditions is denied. To understand life, we must consider all conditions, both mental and material. When we understand mental and material conditions, we cannot say that there is no life after death and that there is no further becoming after passing away.
So Buddhism says there is a continuation after death, but the critical thinker asks “What continues?” Buddhism says that the skandas(elements, memories, sensations) continue, but categorically says no self continues. This is no different to the materialist view which says that after death what continues is the elements that constitute our body, the memories as stored in the brain and in other parts of the body(it is now believed memories can be stored in other parts of the body other than the brain) which are then recycled and other things created from it, but no self continues.
Both insist that the parts that constitute a self continue, but the self itself does not continue. So the answer to Thomas’s question which the Buddhists on this thread have evaded, no self continues. You are dead not only at the time of the death of the body, but you died innumerable times every moment of life. There is no you.
Now to anybody who is not a Buddhist this clearly sounds like nihilism, depressing and a death-religion. It is very easy to use this no-self doctrine to justify the gravest of acts. If I cease to exist the next moment, then I can commit murder and rape this moment, and the one who is going to face the punishment for what I did is not me, but the other momentary self that comes next. In fact, I can simply sit and do nothing, but after all I don’t exist.
Sure enough Buddhism has been used to justify things like murder, genocides and inaction and this is why Buddhist countries did not progress. Very famously Dr Suzuki, a major authority on Buddhism and Japan, famously said and we studied this in our class when discussing Buddhist philosophy.
Events like Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nothing of importance to the Japanese people, they were but just like the blowing wind of dust particles(something to that effect)
Many critical thinkers have found this attitude depressing and nihilistic. How can it not be important to the Japaense people that tens of millions of their people were annihilated? What kind of religion teaches you that you should treat such serious problems as genocide, annhilation and war lightly? Buddhism.
Regarding Jesus being a dime a dozen. This is not said in a disrespectful way. In fact Hindus respect masters and saints. It should be said Hinduism is the religion of masters and saints. What we really mean by saying that Jesus is a dime a dozen, is that he is not special and an exception, he one amongst countless masters and saints.
India has had so many that I can fill pages of all the masters and saints that India has had. Many of which have performed similar miracles to Jesus, and some even greater miracles.
Hindu people are not impressed by Jesus, because for us Jesus is a dime a dozen. We had many such masters in our religion, that we’ve lost count. There is a school of thought, but I reserve judgement on that at the moment, that Jesus travelled to India and was under the tutelage of our masters.
India has been the breeding ground for producing masters historically. We can mass-produce them 
But it has also been defined as a religious teaching and it is possible to follow Buddhist concepts and not be a religious Buddhist.
Now Hinduism, there’s a religion to talk about.
Seeing God in the One & the Many.Now that actually makes sense.It is inclusive and says you can pick any avatar you like. Any coulur you like. If you are religious period, it is cool in their eyes.Anything goes.
Hinduism Needs You.
Buddhism is basically a very extreme interpretation of Hinduism which followed after the death of the Buddha. The Buddha himself did not teach “Buddhism” he taught what was taught by masters in India for more than 5000 years. But Buddha grew up in a society where there was a lot of scholaticism in India, where rather than the emphasis being on practice, the emphasis was on debating metaphysical issues, such as "Are there many gods, one god or no god, if there one or many, is reality an illusion or real, is there one soul or many souls, does the universe have a beginning or is it eternal. So Buddha took a stance on the matter why debate over the metaphysical issues, when all of this knowledge will become clear anyway when you start practicing.
So like a physician, a common analogy used to describe Buddha, Buddha was more interested in the REAL problem at hand: human suffering. Not metaphysics. So he created methods to alleviate human suffering. Thus he denied all talk on metaphysics, told everybody to stick to their experience and remain silent on what they do not experience. He denied the reality of everything that we experienced because it was all transient.
Later, after his death, sprang the Buddhists who interpreted everything Buddha taught as literal and extreme. They took his attitude of not discussing metaphysics to mean nothing metaphysical exists, such as god, soul. They took his teaching that all that is experienced is transient as an absolute that EVERYTHING is transient. It got even worse when Buddhism travelled to the Far East and merged with the Wu-Wei teachings of Taoism, where Buddhism literally was interpreted as “Doing nothing” The teachings of void struck a chord with the Far Eastern people in a big way. Meanwhile, at home in India, Buddhism was being widely rejected. It was called Nastika(Hindu concept of heresy) because it denied the Self. It was challenged to hundreds of formal debates in India, and the Buddhists lost - because lets face it, it is illogical. As a result Buddhism was driven out of India, but whatever remained of it merged with Hinduism and Hindu inspired sects of Buddhism arose.
Jesus will always remain in my heart as a great teacher to mankind. I dont for one second think his teachings can be disputed, by anyone. My spiritual foundations were from the teachings of Jesus. Much of what I understand now about kindness, wisdom, charity, is from him and no one else.
It was through him that I found Ishvara…
Additionally Buddha came from a wealthy background, he left his wife and family knowing they would be cared for in material terms. He would not have done this if he knew his family would have starved, say, by his absence… and considering, he was man of compassionate understanding. So he was in a position, a fortunate position to leave and go off on his spiritual search.
He did follow Hindu teachings but realised that many of their extreme methods practiced were unnecessary and hence, left them and formed the middle way. He also stated to question everything he has written before deciding he is right. I feel this was because he noted himself that blindly following spiritual leaders can lead you to unnecessary practices that will not lead you to your goal, as he discovered with elements of Hinduism…elements.
E.G. If I had been told that following Christianity would not allow me to meet Ishvara one day…whoever said it would be wrong, wouldn’t they.
Hnduism does have a formidable track record for mass-producing Masters & Saints.The only two other ones i can think of outsside of Hinduism is Buddha , and then he was a Hindu, or maybe Jesus if you forget about the money exchanging incident in the temple when he gives folk a telling off.
Also Hinduism is’nt rammed down your throat whether you like it or not.It is more something you become although i don’t think you need to embrace it & necessarily calll yourelf a Hindu. The problem with alot of Christains is they are forever trying to convert people, as if they need saved.The insititution of chirstanity can make it as one of their missions.They are forrever trying to convert the “native”, look at the crusaders, the corruption in the church historically etc.It is a very culturally arrogant. Such people have possibly missed the point that they need to work on themselves if to have any hell in chance of changing others. Although i don’t people you can change others in a good way through force and co-ercion or even manipulation. You can lead by example. I don’t see that. I think many of them are actually quite insecure so they turn to the dogma of orgainised religion to feel better about themselves, to feel a sense of belonging, identiity & spirituality. Yoga aspires to be anti-dogmatic in that you can start doing something hee &now by actively working on yourself. You don’t need churches, ideolgies or even belief-systems.It is freq. a lot fo nonsense but i guess it could be better than nothing. It’s a way of trying to fit in.
Is Yoga HINDUISM?. well i think that would merit another thread. Ha
Hi Karen
What is ashvara?
Jesus, depending on what gospel you read was either a master or a saint. I still reserve judgement on whether this man existed at all, but if he did and considering what he did, he is not very high up in my list of fav masters. I have respect for the Jesus of the bible, but not admiration.
For me personally the greatest masters were the Vedic Risis(hundreds to name individually), Patanjali, Kapila, Janaka, Adisankara, Krishna and Buddha. Amongst the bhakti saints Guru Nanak, Kabir and countless others that I know of, but have not read about extensively(Jnanaeshwara, Meera bhai, Swaminarayan, Tulsi das) In modern times my favourites are Swami Yogananda Paramhansa, Swami Chimayananda, Swami Dayananda, Swami Krishnananda, Sri Aurobindo.
Hi Core…lovely day in GB…Ishvara is inside you, your inner guru a human based visual representation of purusha, the spirit. Ishvara will present in three ways, I think.
One, you look for Ishvara via the Ajna Chakra and find Ishvara in lotus position, seated in meditation. Ishvara then joins you in the Ajna chakra, still seated but awake and visual to you always.
Or through meditation and right thinking etc
Or through right thinking and right mind Ishvara will appear before you…like if you are in a permanent meditative restful state…
When Ishvara is there, your direction is straight from Ishvara and no need for a Masters direction, hence the name, Inner Guru.
This is from another thread, a more detailed of where Ishvara is
Ishvara can be found seated by using the Ajna Chakra.How this happens is when you start looking for the little light, you are suddenly aware of a different format to what you normally might expect. The format is red streaks intermingling with the darkness, a slow smooth even paced journey takes you there. There is an element of involuntary action in it…You will see at the end of the journey a seated figure, human in every way. Cross legged in meditation.
You will see and wonder who is that…you will then move right close to Ishvara who remains in meditation. You will, quite naturally be looking in detail at this 'person, analysing their looks etc… Then involuntarily, your sight is drawn back as you watch Ishvara levitate, turn its back, travel down to the end of its space and turn around and levitate towards your eye. It will then enter the Ajna space and remain seated there. …Even when you are awake walking round, you will be aware and see a little Ishvara, cross legged, popping in and out as you go about your business. The Ajna is permanently open while Ishvara is there.
When your mind it clear, happy, clean and bright Ishvara leans forward, looking out to what you see, when you are even brighter in mind, Ishvara grows bigger and leaves the Ajna and is ahead of you. Ishvara can be man sized or the size of your real eye. The bigger the better as it means your mind is right. Or to put it another way, your mind is simple, uncomplicated and happy.
The little light is the method for opening the Ajna Chakra, a point of focus you search for the little light until it fills the dark canvas, this is the Ajna Chakra opening.
To me that does not sound like Ishvara but a mental projection. A bit like how new-agers have guides and such. I am not surprised you would have an imaginary spiritual guide
You have a strong desire to believe that you have spiritual attainments kareng. Unfortunately, your actions, speak to the contrary.
Oh dear Surya and you are now, right now showing how spiritually un informed you really are…do you have access to any Masters Surya, if so, take my description and present it to them and they will enlighten you to this…ps you cant find these details in books or on the net…go see a Master ok
ps you cant find these details in books or on the net
Exactly, you read them off books and formed a fantasy around it. And now you see visions of a little Buddha you call “ishvara” I almost fell into the same trap myself when I was dabbling in the new-age like yourself, I had visions of “Brahma” and I started channeling Brahma and transcribing everything he said to me. I was astute enough to realise though it was just my own mental projection and I stopped doing that. One day you will realise that what you call “ishvara” is nothing more than a mental projection, a fantasy you have weaved for yourself.
If you really did not have darshan from ishvara you would be a saint like Kabir, Guru Nanak etc. However, you do not carry any marks of a saint.
I am still not holding my breathe you have any real psychic ability. The full moon will come and go and you will still be making excuses.