Buddhism

[latingirl]

I have been briefly exposed to Buddhism and the principles SOUND good. But I really don't know enough to comment. I have to admit that I haven't spent much time researching it, since during my own "religious" (I actually don't consider myself religious, I consider myself having a relationship with God and therefore I follow his precepts) search, I found what I (and note that that is a capital "I", I'm not speaking for others) found what I believe to be the "Truth".

But I am open to knowledge. Care to enlighten me...

p.s. this is in response to BBBunny asking me what my thoughts are in a previous thread...thought it would serve better to start a new one (new topic).

[coleslaw]

Originally posted by latingirl
I actually don't consider myself religious, I consider myself having a relationship with God and therefore I follow his precepts.

I fail to see the difference here. I'm not asking you to extrapolate on it further, either, because it won't do any good. A person that adheres to any kind of religion should be considered religious. If you are saying that you are not religious, then you are saying that you do not follow an established religion. Consequently, if you frequent a church, then you are religious by default. However, if you frequent a churce and do not consider yourself religious, you have exposed yourself as a hypocrite.

[latingirl]

Originally posted by coleslaw
I fail to see the difference here. I'm not asking you to extrapolate on it further, either, because it won't do any good. A person that adheres to any kind of religion should be considered religious. If you are saying that you are not religious, then you are saying that you do not follow an established religion. Consequently, if you frequent a church, then you are religious by default. However, if you frequent a churce and do not consider yourself religious, you have exposed yourself as a hypocrite.

You ARE asking me to "extrapolate" further since you are calling me a hypocrite. And frankly, that's your opinion, it doesn't hurt me or change my view of things. I can respect that you are expressing your opinion.

But just to explain my side of things, and this is just my own thinking it may not be "literally" correct. A "religious" person follows strict guidelines of a belief system usually blindly without really an understanding of what they are doing and/or, many times, to somehow justify themselves as a "good" person. In MY OWN practice of Christianity, it is much like a Father(god)-daughter relationship. When a child follows the rules of the house that the parents establish to create order within the home and to teach and protect the child, we don't call that religious...we call that a parent-child relationship.

And, my church gives me an opportunity to fellowship with those who live the same "lifestyle" or like-faith that I live...one of a loving parent-child relationship with God. Not that I don't communicate or have relationships with those who don't, but there are plenty of secular "clubs" or "organizations" (although not exactly the same as a house of worship) that are developed for people of the same interests.

Since this is my belief, and I am true to that belief, I would hardly call myself a hypocrite, per say. I can admit that since I am not perfect, I may have inadvertently done or said something that could be construed as hypocritical (as we all do), but it is not my intention to be that way.

That's how I see things.

But its very interesting that instead of explaining to me what Buddhism is all about, you chose to criticise me...but its all good.

[mojo]

Originally posted by latingirl
You ARE asking me to "extrapolate" further since you are calling me a hypocrite. And frankly, that's your opinion, it doesn't hurt me or change my view of things. I can respect that you are expressing your opinion.

i actually didn't see what slaw said as him saying you were a hypocrite or anything.

as far as being religious...i will say that you're not "not religious." you post stuff with your views and such. which is fine...we all seem to have one here.

personally, my problem with a lot of churches and such is that people seem to get caught up in the act of going to church and all. being close to a omniscient and omnipresent deity would actually happen no matter where you are...not so much in a man-made place and stuff. i mean, i'm sure the intention is good and all. but if one goes to church and doesn't act how their god wants, and then another doesn't but yet does adhere to their religious convictions, then perhaps the 2nd is "more religious," despite the outward appearances. and it's all about how we are as people, not where we are on sundays.

anyhow, i'm hoping bbb answers this soon. i've noted chosen's points above, too. and i believe i ordered some books on the subject as well. i did read some stuff in philosophy, which i really dug a lot. so this should be good

[latingirl]

Originally posted by coleslaw
However, if you frequent a churce and do not consider yourself religious, you have exposed yourself as a hypocrite.

Just to answer your question...that's where. If I read it wrong, let me know. But I do frequent a church usually several times a week, so....

[Cheesypuff]

Originally posted by latingirl


Just to answer your question...that's where. If I read it wrong, let me know. But I do frequent a church usually several times a week, so....

Really the thing is, going to church several times a week doesn't make you more holy in the aspect of bragging I go to church a lot rather than once a week. I can personally say there a some of my friends that are more in touch with God than I am, and they attend church less than I do.

in regard to buddism, I don't think they teach the right principals as Christians do. And some different denominations in the Christian chuch don't teach the same as others do...which I see a litle ironic. But the Church that I see that teach closer to the bible, is the Seventh day Adentist church. And with that, I'm sticking with with that chruch, because they truly preach about the Love of God

[latingirl]

Originally posted by Cheesypuff



Really the thing is, going to church several times a week doesn't make you more holy in the aspect of bragging I go to church a lot rather than once a week. I can personally say there a some of my friends that are more in touch with God than I am, and they attend church less than I do.

in regard to buddism, I don't think they teach the right principals as Christians do. And some different denominations in the Christian chuch don't teach the same as others do...which I see a litle ironic. But the Church that I see that teach closer to the bible, is the Seventh day Adentist church. And with that, I'm sticking with with that chruch, because they truly preach about the Love of God

Please, please don't misunderstand me. I'm referring to coleslaw's statement of "exposing myself as a hypocrite" if I go to church and not consider myself religious.

I know people who go I see at church everytime I go. And I can say that there heart is not in the right place just by listening to them speak on thier own priorities and how they judge and criticize others (okay that was a hypocritical statement, but I'm trying to make a point). So I for one, don't believe it makes someone holier because they go to church a lot, but for someone who's heart is in the right place, I think church can be a good thing.

[latingirl]

OKAY...this was supposed to be a thread about BUDDHISM, not Christianity!!!!

[coleslaw]

So.... if you are going to a church (yes, church this time - not churce - typos suck!) to practice a religion or to fellowship with others of the same religion, that inherently makes you "religious".

Whether or not you choose to accept this fact or not is beside the point. If you adhere to any religion, you are religious. I can make up my own definitions, too. Let's say for example that I claim that being a Democrat means that someone participates in a democratic goverment. By this definition, everyone that has ever voted in the United States would be considered a Democrat. I could have voted for a ticket that was entirely Republican-based, yet I still claim to be a Democrat based upon my own definition. I could go around telling people that I don't consider myself to be a Republican, yet when they find out that I voted exclusively for Republican officials, they would claim that I was a hypocrite.

latingirl, all I am saying is that it is not reasonable to assign definitions to words that have pre-defined meanings in society and make claims based on those definitions. I find it amusing that you, someone who has started numerous threads with religious themes, state that you do not consider yourself to be religious. This is akin to a scientist publishing countless scientific papers yet at the same time claiming that he/she is not a "scientist".

I meant no harm in my previous statements and I did not specifically mean to call you a hypocrite (it was more of a general rhetorical statement). I did, however, intend to give you something to think about and to force you to question your claims of not being religous.

That is all. Carry on.

[latingirl]

Originally posted by coleslaw
I meant no harm in my previous statements and I did not specifically mean to call you a hypocrite (it was more of a general rhetorical statement). I did, however, intend to give you something to think about and to force you to question your claims of not being religous.

That is all. Carry on.

Okay, I can get with that...at least as something to consider...

BTW, no harm done...

[Napoleon54]

courtesy of dictionary.com:

re·li·gion n.

1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

[mojo]

Originally posted by Cheesypuff
in regard to buddism, I don't think they teach the right principals as Christians do. And some different denominations in the Christian chuch don't teach the same as others do...which I see a litle ironic.

so...let me get this straight: the Christians teach the right thing, and the rest of the world is just off?

ok, you're a Christian, so i can see why you'd believe that. either that or i got stuck on the semantics ("i dont think they teach the right principals....christian church <doesn't> teach as others do" [not a matter of "right" there]).

so how long did you study the other religions before you decided they were wrong, just out of curiosity? i mean, did you read a few chapters, a few books, study intensely for some time, or what? hopefully the churches today will teach you that you can explore stuff to find out what you think is right, instead of just cramming one view down your throat and claiming it's "the truth."

[latingirl]

My problem here is, I don't hear any of you talking about what Buddhists believe, why you are a Buddhist, etc. Yet you keep stating that those who believe in Christianity what or why they never studied Buddhism. I mean here's an opportunity to teach someone something about who you are (which I have stated I'm open to) and honestly, all you are doing is criticizing.

I told you that I have found this is right for me several times AFTER studying and exploring different religions. Since I was sure, I didn't feel the need to continue my search. Nor was I "raised" into Christianity. I also don't think that you have to necessarily know about EVERY single religion in the world to know what is right for you.

How many religions have you studied before you became a Buddhist (If you are a Buddhist)?

[mojo]

Originally posted by latingirl
My problem here is, I don't hear any of you talking about what Buddhists believe, why you are a Buddhist, etc. Yet you keep stating that those who believe in Christianity what or why they never studied Buddhism. I mean here's an opportunity to teach someone something about who you are (which I have stated I'm open to) and honestly, all you are doing is criticizing.

I told you that I have found this is right for me several times AFTER studying and exploring different religions. Since I was sure, I didn't feel the need to continue my search. Nor was I "raised" into Christianity. I also don't think that you have to necessarily know about EVERY single religion in the world to know what is right for you.

How many religions have you studied before you became a Buddhist (If you are a Buddhist)?

last i checked, i quoted cheesypuff. and correct me if i'm wrong, but you just said "keep saying that" when i said it once...and i don't recall anyone else saying it.

maybe you should relax a bit there, girly girl

this is the "off topic" forum. a lot of replies within a thread won't be exactly what the original poster was looking for.

now as far as knowing stuff about every single religion in the world...that would be very difficult to do. but if it could be done, count me as one that would like to do that to figure out what's going on around here rather than blindly lash out on people because of a few "i thinks" here and there (and no, i didn't say you did that). if you know what is right for you, then more power to you. however, if you "know" what is right for you, hopefully you won't snub what is truly right for you just because you don't recognize it as a result know what you already "know."

[latingirl]

Originally posted by chosenfool
in this situation, LG, best way to learn about buddhism is to read up. Its useless here on the boards, only because people will tell you what they believe in, or may tell you something unrelated, but not always what you are looking for. In most cases it will colored commentary.

check out the books i mentioned. or go to barnes and noble or borders, and go to their buddhism/eastern religion section. there is SO MUCH written about buddhism, and you can learn a LOT MORE there than asking here.

Thanks, Chosen...YOU are usually the voice of reason...

[CornMonkey]

i'm a christian. my mom's a buddhist. that's why i took a couple courses at ucla about buddhism. basically, in a nutshell, what chosenfool said in the 2nd post of this thread sums up buddhism.

to me, buddhist goals didn't give me that sense of hope that christianity does. buddhism seemed to be very "self" motivated.

[Cheesypuff]

Originally posted by mojo
so...let me get this straight: the Christians teach the right thing, and the rest of the world is just off?

ok, you're a Christian, so i can see why you'd believe that. either that or i got stuck on the semantics ("i dont think they teach the right principals....christian church <doesn't> teach as others do" [not a matter of "right" there]).

so how long did you study the other religions before you decided they were wrong, just out of curiosity? i mean, did you read a few chapters, a few books, study intensely for some time, or what? hopefully the churches today will teach you that you can explore stuff to find out what you think is right, instead of just cramming one view down your throat and claiming it's "the truth."

The thing is, the reason why I think the Christian church is "more right" than others is because I've read the Bible and have taken to account what the Bible has said. the fact that Christian teach closer to the bible is why I stay a Christian, which teach me moral values...not saying that others do not...but others do not follow the Bible and what it teaches as closely as the Christian Church. The thing is, Which is kinda sad to me, is that. By my own interpritation I don't think the church all out wants us to seperate from that church, so they usually don't encurage us to "explore".

Sorry for the bad grammar...I hope you got what I'm trying to say.

[DaFunkyUnit]

Originally posted by Cheesypuff


in regard to buddism, I don't think they teach the right principals as Christians do.

well now, painting with a broad brush, arent we?

looking through some of the recent posts, i figure its about time someone who is actually a buddhist speak up.

yes, i'm a buddhist, but i rarely go to temple and do the whole dealy. i find that buddhism and its principles focus more on the self (as Chosen mentioned). it emphasizes on how one should live, on achieving balance, etc... it leaves a person with a lot of room for interpretation, but the standard moral/ethical rules apply eg. dont kill/murder, etc... Rather than treating it as a "religion," its more like "A bunch of principles." (imho)

a lot of people think of religion as faith, as going to church, as saying prayer, as spreading the knowledge of their religion (ie. "recruiting" in some cases), etc... I dont do any of that, and Buddhists usually dont. Its something that is not emphasized in its teachings. Its more like "live the way you want so that you will be happy as well as others around you"

now, dont take me as the definitve authority on Buddhism, but thats my personal take on it, and how it "compares" to other religions (as that is what many of you are asking for)

oh, and apologies if i dont make any sense..

[Ladogaboy]

Well, I do and I don't agree with chosen, but I definitely DON'T agree with this:

Originally posted by CornMonkey
buddhism seemed to be very "self" motivated.

In fact, in my opinion, nothing could be further from the truth. Buddhism can't be "'self' motivate" simply because the goal of Buddhism is the elimination of self. To be one with the Universe and everything, you must give up the idea that you are an individual. You must give up the you, if that makes any sense at all.

Buddhism, as a whole, strives to eliminate pain, and suffering. According to Buddhism, all suffering is caused by unfulfilled desires. If you can eliminate the desire, you can eliminate all suffering. Basically, if you can come to terms with the fact that nothing really matters, you will no longer feel pain.

Of course, these are just some of the basic precepts, and there are many forms of Buddhism. Like chosen said, if you want to know more, you should really read up on it, but go in with as open of a mind as possible. Also, since you are Christian, if you go in with an unbaised perspective, you might start to notice A LOT of similarities between Jesus and his beliefs and Buddha and Buddhist beliefs.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by chosenfool
anyways, thanks for the correction there, Ladogaboy!

NP... you were pretty much right on anyway...

Of course, you reminded me: I have to go read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance... That is, after I finish deciding whether Ayn Rand is crack-pot, Tailgunner Joe's sister, some sort of sage, or just a combination of those things...

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by chosenfool
heh, Ayn Rand... i read fountainhead - its uhm, cute. i found it kinda overly dramatic, but hey, i guess in her time she was hailed as a messiah of sorts (and actually had a cult following then).

i like her laissez faire attitude that she teaches. one thing i found out on my own, and im glad im not the only one who shares this POV (heh, its been there for over 50 yrs)

Yeah, my high school English teacher used to harp on Ayn Rand all the time... "Oh, she's the greatest." "If you ever get a chance, read one of her books." I think that the only reason my teacher liked her so much was because she was the one of the only prominent female writers of the time.

Anyway, I just finished Anthem, and I am now working my way through Fountainhead. I think that some of her views have merit, but she goes too far. It is almost as though she feels that it is necessary for one to completely give up one's goals, wants, and needs in order to fit in and serve society. I can't say I agree, but I have to give her the benefit of the doubt--she might just tend towards the melodramatic.

[faither]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by latingirl
I actually don't consider myself religious, I consider myself having a relationship with God and therefore I follow his precepts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Dictionary.com...

re·li·gious Pronunciation Key (r-ljs)
adj.
1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

I guess you don't have to comply with the conventional definition of words but it's pretty straight-forward. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, it's probably a duck. You can call it a moose but you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that would understand with your assessment. While I don't totally agree with Slaw's analogy, he was on the right track.

[Freelance Superhero]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
Buddhism, as a whole, strives to eliminate pain, and suffering. According to Buddhism, all suffering is caused by unfulfilled desires. If you can eliminate the desire, you can eliminate all suffering. Basically, if you can come to terms with the fact that nothing really matters, you will no longer feel pain.

now, i understand that these are real general comments, and i'm just playin devil's advocate here, but how does one go about eliminating said desires? if "suffering is caused by unfulfilled desires," the logical solution would be to fulfill those desires in order to curb suffering, right? by many standards, that would be defined as being self-indulgent, and therefore the opposite of denying the existence of self.

of course, this all hinges, again, on HOW exactly one "comes to terms with the fact that nothing really matters" so that one "will no longer feel pain."

i'm just throwin out some random thoughts here.

[mojo]

Originally posted by faither
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by latingirl
I actually don't consider myself religious, I consider myself having a relationship with God and therefore I follow his precepts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Dictionary.com...

re·li·gious Pronunciation Key (r-ljs)
adj.
1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

I guess you don't have to comply with the conventional definition of words but it's pretty straight-forward. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, it's probably a duck. You can call it a moose but you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that would understand with your assessment. While I don't totally agree with Slaw's analogy, he was on the right track.

well, she already got a bunch of that from everywhere. then of course she replied with

originally posted by latingirl
Thanks, Chosen...YOU are usually the voice of reason...

which pretty much means that he is the voice of reason because she thought everyone else was bashing her. of course, nobody bashed her, but maybe it was her disposition for some reason

at any rate, i agreed with chosen pretty much. of course i'd do more reading than just those recommended books, otherwise you'd end up with just chosen's recommendations (while they may be good, it would still be from his point of view and others may vary).

and yes, latingirl is religious. sorry to break it to you, latingirl...but you bring up God and religion in threads. and i don't mean you bring up God and religion in ways that reflect that you're not religious. you bring up God and religion in religious ways...like "dig this message of God" and "God is cool like this" kind of thing. that's not bad, but it's also not "not religious."

maybe you're not a "bible thumper"...if that helps.

[WhiskeyPapa]

I think you are having this disagreement about the term "religious" from two totally different points of view, and that's why it has turned somewhat argumentative. Maybe I can clear it up (or muddy it up, we'll see...)

Among some denominations in Christianity, (typically the Charismatic or Pentecostal flavor) the term "religious" is thrown around almost as an insult. It suggests a devotion to a system of belief, a denomination, or a specific religion. Whereas I would rather consider my relationship with God through Christ above that. Meaning I don't have to find God in a specific church or through a specific denomination. Why do I go to church then? Because that's where all the Christians are! (Fellowship is a big part of Christianity.)

When someone from outside Christianity (or outside the Charismatic/Pentecostal denominations) asks if I'm "religious", I'll say "yes", because I know they're just asking if I attend church, or if I take my faith seriously. If someone within my fellowship asks if I'm religious, usually they're trying to point out that I'm putting tradition and man-made rules above God.

If latingirl asked if I was religious, I'd probably answer no. If cloeslaw asked if I was religious, I'd probably answer yes. And I wouldn't be lying to either one, because they are actually asking two different questions.

So, both coleslaw and latingirl are correct, from their point of view.

Chosenfool (or anyone else who would care to answer), if Buddhism has no deity, are there Buddhist "gods"?

[CornMonkey]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
Well, I do and I don't agree with chosen, but I definitely DON'T agree with this:



In fact, in my opinion, nothing could be further from the truth. Buddhism can't be "'self' motivate" simply because the goal of Buddhism is the elimination of self. To be one with the Universe and everything, you must give up the idea that you are an individual. You must give up the you, if that makes any sense at all.

Buddhism, as a whole, strives to eliminate pain, and suffering. According to Buddhism, all suffering is caused by unfulfilled desires. If you can eliminate the desire, you can eliminate all suffering. Basically, if you can come to terms with the fact that nothing really matters, you will no longer feel pain.

Of course, these are just some of the basic precepts, and there are many forms of Buddhism. Like chosen said, if you want to know more, you should really read up on it, but go in with as open of a mind as possible. Also, since you are Christian, if you go in with an unbaised perspective, you might start to notice A LOT of similarities between Jesus and his beliefs and Buddha and Buddhist beliefs.

tell me this.. how does one achieve enlightenment and what happens after that?

[Jihforce]

Wow, looks like I joined the party a tad late huh?

I'm still trying to take in all of the comments being said here in regards to Buddhism.

I would like to point out that much like Christianity, Buddhism covers many different areas. (ie, Zen, Shinto, etc...)
Each is similar (yet different) in many ways. I cannot really tell you about "Shinto" Buddhism because I do not know the fundamentals of that belief. Also, keep in mind that Buddhism's roots come from India and as the philosophy/religion spread, it merged with other philosophies (such as Taoism in China). If you would like to read up more on its Historical Origin in a not so philosophical way, pick up Siddhartha by Herman Hesse. This is a novel, but is well written. Like all books, take it with a grain of salt.
Anyway, as far as philosophies, yes you need to pick up a few books on that. Maybe visit your local Buddhist Temple and spend soem time with a monk. If you are in the LA area, there's one in Hacienda Heights. Its the largest temple in the Western Hemisphere (I think). So its worth visiting. Its beautiful. If you walk thru the self guided tours, you'll begin to understand how closely it resembles Christianity. (they do a lot of comparing and contrasting between the two).
What Ladogaboy & chosen have said basically covers the general essense and core of Buddhism. I'd repeat it but it will sound redundant.
Check out this link to get a general idea of what Buddhism is about. By no means it is something to strictly go by, but is does a decent job giving you some historical background for quick reference.

http://www.easternreligions.com/bframe.html

to check out the temple in LA:

http://www.hsilai.org/

Lets see, about Cornmonkey's comment. I can see where you're comming about the "self" motivation. Buddhism is centered on the "self" as in better yourself thru meditation. Lets say for example you sinned, what you would do is meditate on that and reflect on the whys, whats & hows that made you do what you did. Then once you know, you won't do it again (hopefully). A lot of it is common sense. Its relying in oneself to eliminate those things that cause pain and suffering in your life. Unlike Christianity, were a 3rd "person" is used to attain the same goal.

To answer kb0wwp about Buddhist "gods". Technically, Buddhist figures such as Siddhartha, Amitabha & Kwan-Yin are considered Saints or Boddhisatvas as we call them. However, many Buddhists do worship them as gods.

Hope this sheds some light for some of you guys.

A little background on me. In case anyone wants to critize me.

Brought up as Buddhist but wasn't into worshipping the deities like my folks did while I was younger. I mean, how can you worship someone you don't know about right? My mom didnt really shed any light on their history. Besides, she mainly followed Kwan-Yin & Amidabha so I felt kinda clueless. So as I grew up, I was heavily influence by Christianity. I went to a Franciscan private school in South American for 7 years. Then 4 years of college at my alma matter Univesity of San Diego, which is a Catholic school. Used to be an all-girl school until the 60s i believe. That's were all the rich folks send their daughters. Go figure. Studied religion for about 2 years. (requirement) But I chose a wide variety of religions. I didn't want to focus only on Christianity only so I read up on many religions. Learned about Latino Catholicism, Santeria, Voodoo, Buddhism, Hindu, etc... Have yet to learn about Islam so hopefully Hapoo will start a thread and enlighten me Judaism would be intersting to learn too. So please share. Oh, my family is very diverse too. My mom is Buddhist, so's my dad but non-practicing. My older sister is Buddhist as well, my 2nd sister is Mormon, 3rd one is "technically" Catholic. I say techincally because she's not baptized. And me of course, I'm Buddhist.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by Freelance Superhero

now, i understand that these are real general comments, and i'm just playin devil's advocate here, but how does one go about eliminating said desires? if "suffering is caused by unfulfilled desires," the logical solution would be to fulfill those desires in order to curb suffering, right? by many standards, that would be defined as being self-indulgent, and therefore the opposite of denying the existence of self.

of course, this all hinges, again, on HOW exactly one "comes to terms with the fact that nothing really matters" so that one "will no longer feel pain."

i'm just throwin out some random thoughts here.

There are a few analogies I am trying to think of, but basically, when you eliminate the desire, you eliminate it completely. What you are talking about is indulging your desires. The problem with indulging your desires is that you are attacking the symptoms, not the cause--much like our modern medicine does. To give you the best analogy I can think of... Say you are hungry. You can do one of two things to fix that: eat; or eliminate your desire to eat. If you do the former, you will only cure the symptom, not the cause, so your relief is only temporary. If you do the latter, and eliminate all your desires to eat, you have eliminated your suffering permanently by attacking the root cause. Does that make sense?

So, ultimately, in order to relieve all suffering, you must eventually eliminate your "self". Your "self" is the root of all desires, so if you can remove your "self", you can remove the cause of all desires as well as all pain/suffering.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by CornMonkey
tell me this.. how does one achieve enlightenment

How the hell should I know?

Originally posted by CornMonkey
and what happens after that?

Read my sig.

*Note. My sig comes from a Zen Buddhist's perspective, so not all schools of Buddhist thought would agree with it.

[Freelance Superhero]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
...Say you are hungry. You can do one of two things to fix that: eat; or eliminate your desire to eat. If you do the former, you will only cure the symptom, not the cause, so your relief is only temporary. If you do the latter, and eliminate all your desires to eat, you have eliminated your suffering permanently by attacking the root cause. Does that make sense?

logically, it makes sense, but it leads me to ask, how do you "eliminate" a desire (the desire for food, for example)? what does this "elimination" process entail?