₦airaland Forum

johnydon22:
Or perhaps you do not understand the arguments Buddha made (Not Budaatum)

Even i who just read the reply from budaatum and donwit up there figured out that there wasn't really a contradiction as you have argued.

Your argument do not distinguish between desires which in it self is a flaw (A misrepresentation) of the premise.

Read Budaatum's reply slowly. It's too obvious to miss

Maybe you will understand it better when you get what Buddha means by the desire..the choice of word in that statement is simply desire...and nothing like wrong or bad desire in that statement.... Buddha himself gave what is term as the origin of desire...he said it is classify into three .....the desire for sensual pleasure, desire to become something, and the desire get away from something.. which we all seek to remain happy.


Buddha only used the word "Tanha" in negative context only. However, compare to "Chanda" Buddha used it in both positive and negative contexts. This is just to spark intellectual curiosity in Buddha's lectures. Both words Tanha and Chanda can be roughly translated to "desire" in English...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanda_(Buddhism).

budaatum:
Are you completely disregarding the difference between the two types of desires called Tanhā and Chanda as stated, or do you just not understand the concept of duality?

For the Christians who reads this, Paul, in a letter to the Galatians expressed the same concept of Tanhā when he said: The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

And Chanda when he said: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

And the same sentiment as Tanhā is expressed by the seven deadly sins of pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth; and Chanda as the seven virtues of prudence, justice, temperance and courage (or fortitude), faith, hope and charity.

I am certain I have stated my objection to your "you don't even understand the argument" in previous threads, vaxx, where you and I have engaged. It is after all the standard phrase you constantly utter whenever you are disagreed with.

It is not self contradicting or self-defeating to say that the wrong desires will only be removed by continuously having the right and proper desires.

The desire to even get rid of desire is a mind bend exercise.....budha philosophy is not sound here...but anyway that is cool..

The origin of desire is basically summed up in three types: desire for sensual pleasure, desire to become something, and the desire get away from something...""the heart of Buddha teaching "" by Thich Nhat Hanh .The book explore the concepts like the four noble truths, the eightfold path, the three doors of liberation and demonstrates their power to transform lives. Than what i can do here.

According to the budha philosophy, we all seek these different things in the hopes of attaining happiness. Buddha himself never argued that these desires did not reap a certain kind of pleasure, so it is false on your path when you are trying to seprate the good and bad desire. I intentionally allow that to go. Thinking you will not repeat it .

It only that the chasing of, the eventual relinquishing of, and the struggle to maintain the happiness derived from these types of desires is so fleeting, so short, and the negative consquences so great, as to make the entire pursuit completely unsatisfactory and not worth it, especially compared to the endless joy reaped from enlightenment.

Let me ask you a question

How often do we say we want to become something other than what we are now? How often have we already become something and when has it actually given us lasting satisfaction?

What about when we want to get rid of something, like getting rid of impatience? Or anger? IF ALL these are cause by desire..


IN A well philosophical thought out. It will have make sense if the Idea is to understand your desire, how it arises and what it brings. And not get rid of your desire .That would be just another kind of desire. The more you understand a particular kind of desire, the greater grows your ability to let it go if you eventually deem it no longer worth pursuing....

You seems to always look for excuses.....

mystiquerebirth:
Hmmm, I deeply disagree with you on your post.

why please ....

Yes do you know the oldest continue dynasty in the whole world is oduduwa dynasty located in Ile Ile.. .....it is over 2750 years.. ....and yet it is still very much alive.....

mystiquerebirth:
Too many grammar here. I am almost lost in your theories. You need toto explain your messages better

I mean it is purely ceremonial and carries no element of authority known as Ase in Yoruba dialect.

budaatum:
One of the most debilitating causes of argument in the religious section is the misrepresentation of the position or meaning of the other. Sometimes its done intentionally. We call it strawmanism. But sometimes its in error, perhaps because our understanding of what is being said is wrong.

"Seek ye first Understanding", therefore, say some. It is quite a lot of work you are asked to do there for the promise that follows to be fulfilled. Buda would simply advise that one not mistake the pointing finger for the moon it points to.


The root of all suffering is desire, tanhā. This is the second Noble Truth. Tanhā is a term in Pali, the language of the Buddhist scriptures, that specifically means craving or misplaced desire and it comes in three forms:
* Greed and desire
* Ignorance or delusion
* Hatred and destructive urges.
These are the three ultimate causes of suffering.

The Buddha taught that the way to extinguish desire, which causes suffering, is to liberate oneself from attachment to Tanhā. This is the third Noble Truth - the possibility of liberation from Tanhā.

Buddhists recognise that there can be positive desires, such as desire for enlightenment and good wishes for others and even to enter Nirvana. A neutral term for such desires is chanda, and they differ to Tanhā. A reading for the Eightfold Path would show that they are full of desires of the chanda type.

Effectively, the Four Noble Truths could be written as follows:

1. Suffering (Dukkha), exists.

2. The origin of suffering is Tanhā, the having of wrong desires.

3. To cease suffering is to remove Tanhā.

4. And the way to remove Tanhā is to replace it with chanda, positive desires.

A mantra depicting the above would be
Chanda good, Tanhā bad

And where, pray, is the contradiction in vaxx?

it seems you do not understand the argument raised.. the philosophical position of Buddha is the causes of suffering can be remove by removing desire at the third truth. And he again said to remove the desire we should follow the eight fold path. which means . If you do not follow the Eight Fold Path, desire cannot be removed. It is self contradicting as well as self-defeating to say that desire will only be removed by continuously having a desire........because once we remove desire, how can we follow the eight fold......


It seems you don't even understand the argument raised.

donwhit:
Read 100,000 songs of milarepa or quietly comes the Buddha by Elizabeth clare prophet. Though religion may be different ,there is only one truth. If your path is traditionalism, practice it well. Purify your heart, mind, body, soul, thoughts, feelings and speech. And ask your deity to give you the wisdom of right action. Life is to beautiful to be arguing over religion. Love

safe bro.....bye..

bajes01:
Try and read more on Nichiren Daishonin Buddhism. Are u a Buddha?

ok thanks...i will look to that....i am not a Buddhist...i belong to my race....i am a traditionalist.

donwhit:
Inordinate desire not just desire, the desire for material gains ,sex, power, control and attachment to Maya(the material world) are what causes suffering

well. This is not the purpose of this thread. I am not on this thread to claim that Buddha noble truth is false but verify the contradiction in them.....but If i am allow to go your way .I will say it is even falsifiable, as if you find an instance of suffering (not pain) not caused by desire, this noble truth is false.

This is just a brain exercise between me and budaatum and anybody who is abreast with eastern faith can join.....maybe Budaatum will change my perspective......

This are the four noble truth of Buddism. It represent the main teaching of gurtanma Buddha. .......the main founder of buddism.....i will put them into summary.....

1 There is suffering and misery in life.

2 The cause of suffering and misery is desire.

3 Suffering and misery can be removed by removing desire.

4 Desire can be removed by following the Eight Fold Path.


This information were source out from Wikipedia and Britannica but put in a summary by me.... to read the eight fold......go this way ....

......https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path


Now my argument....

This Philosophy of Buddhism is self-contradictory or self-defeating because the third truth says ‘suffering and misery can be removed by removing desire’ and the fourth truth says that 'desire can be removed by following the Eight Fold Path'.

Now, for any person to follow Buddhism he should first have the desire to follow the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path. The Third great Noble Truth says that desire should be removed. Once you remove desire, how can we follow the Fourth Noble truth i.e. follow the Eight Fold Path unless we have a desire to follow the Eight Fold Path. In short desire can only be removed by having a desire to follow the Eight Fold Path. If you do not follow the Eight Fold Path, desire cannot be removed. It is self contradicting as well as self-defeating to say that desire will only be removed by continuously having a desire........



BUDAATUM.....

budaatum:
Go on then, start a thread.

Game

budaatum:
All philosophies are self-contradictory or self defeating to those who are ignorant about them. The wise are more than capable of squaring circles.

then let put the four noble truth into test and see if those whom you claim are wise are indeed wise....

budaatum:
When did Buddha become a God?

He would groan in nirvana and quote the Four Noble Truths if he heard this!

This Philosophy of Buddhism is self-contradictory or self-defeating.

hopefulLandlord:
Too many misconceptions(?) have been allowed to permeate YTR

I agree with u.

hopefulLandlord:
But these things are said to have power on their own or are they rural myths? we hear a lot of stories about sacrifices. Like some people take the sacrifices to the junction and peace returns to the environs. Kings need to carry out those sacrifices when their time comes to ascend the throne or some disaster would befall his kingdom

I do not want to sound rude or arrogant but it is due to lack of quality knowledge of the true Ifa teaching on their part..... our ceremony initiations are just social ceremonies,

Ifa is the Wisdom of Olodumaré and as a way of life. It must be practiced in every thing you do To be an aborisa (avatar of orisha), you have to LIVE IT.

Despite this ,the entire Facebook incoporation still earns more in revenue that the self acclaimed giant of Africa.

hopefulLandlord:
You seem to be saying all these sacrifices we see on the road are shams and the real sacrifices "Ebo" is actually physical act rather than taking a clay plate, filling it with yam and palm oil then putting it at a junction where three roads meet

they are purely symbolic .......just like killing chicken on Christmas day....

hopefulLandlord:
Elucidate please

on what point sir? ....

The practice of Ebo (sacrifice) is not the same as the sacrificial rite performed by babalawo.

The sacrificial rite is a public performance initially intended to demonstrate a social commitment on the part of the devotee to change his/her life for the betterment of the community. 99.9% of the time, the food sacrificed was eaten by the community (the 0.1% of the time it was left in the forest for small animals to eat). It was never meant to be literally for the spirit of orisa.

The various elements included in the ebo were symbolic of the actions you need to take...the sacrifice you need to make in your real life. This is why Eshu (the deity of decision making) is the central orisha concerned with all ebo; he is concerned with change thru your decisions in LIFE not at the altar.

However, with the murder of the many elders who opposed the "slave trade," a new class of theocratic hierarchy rose and the people lost the knowledge of the symbolic meaning behind the rituals. Now they confuse the ritual act for the real-life act of ebo. They are unfortunately being encouraged by con-artist priests who want to make money off of their ignorance.

True ebo (sacrifice) deals with the sacrifices & taboos you must make in your real life, not on an altar.

""Ifa spirituality ""

Economic of weak west African states. Ecowwas...

princeSammyz:
Yea. Believing in God is different from accepting a religion. E.G. all religions have a creation story and if you subscribe to such a religion you accept whatever it says. So as a Christain, you must choose Adam and Eve over evolution. Accepting the two is obvious contradiction. God is a universal concept, religion however is more or less a camp or party stuff. Many times religious stories and principles which devotion demands us to believe, stand in stack opposite of scientific principles and it will make no sense accepting both at one time.

Religion is a social construct which is based on the belief in God and tries to create a practical theory of exactly what God is and what should humans do in respect to It.

Science and religion can happily coexist for open minded individuals. The open minded scientist will concede a theory other than his own may be possible, even allow that there is truth in many religious beliefs, may even believe in one. The same goes for open minded religious people. Where the science and religion can never coexist is for closed minded people, athiest or irreligious people.

This is a A famous Quote by Noble Laureate Nobel physicist Erwin Schrodinger

‘I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.’

princeSammyz:
One requires empirical evidence, the other faith. Therefore a true scientist cannot be true to religion at the same time. One tells you we are coming from evolution and that there are evidences, the other tells you we were created and you should believe. Even if you argue that the two, as we have them now are not mutually exclusive, you can't deny that at least, science selectively excludes religion. You still have not made a choice though, science or religion?

There is no need for God in science, but there are religious scientists of various religions who believe in God. These scientists are not necessarily creationist. On the contrary - if they believe in God, they also believe that there is something which is beyond logic, beyond time and beyond space. They can live with the apparent contradiction because these two things reside on two different levels. Science observes what IS and belief goes for what is beyond that, what resides in the Transcendental.


I still maintain that religion and science are not exclusive if geared toward the truth.....

budaatum:
And as op said, "provide evidence that will convince you as an individual", which is what Seun provided, the stars saying 'God', and not, provide evidence that would convince everyone, including you, vaxx!!

that request is not tenable...and I gave reasons...will you read up.....even my reasons were objective enough.

budaatum:
As I said, you don't always get what you like. That means you would sometimes be disappointed. Especially when making statements you claim you don't need provide evidence for! With some of the stuff I've been reading from you lately, do change that "sometimes" to "pretty often"!

stop quoting me off point

budaatum:
As I said, you don't always get what you like. That means you would sometimes be disappointed. Especially when making statements you claim you don't need provide evidence for! With some of the stuff I've been reading from you lately, do change that "sometimes" to "pretty often"!

I never claim there is no evidence.....i never put up this claim in any of my written.....i only debunked the evidence the atheist are requesting before they can establish their fact....

boringnigerian:
So....what would count as a thought provoking question to You?

Go thru my comment again.....i gave an example....

budaatum:
So, asking for evidence for the existence of a thing is not "within the parameter", and "below the standard"? Are we talking about the God that theists claim created the parameters called the heavens and the earth, and that operates in their daily lives, and for which they give evidence of it's existence on a rather daily basis? I doubt they'd agree with you on this, but then I guess you don't always get what you like either.


Why is it "ridiculous to ask for empirical and scientifical evidence that he exists"? Do the rules of existence not apply to a thing that people claim exists just because they claim it is "all powerful" too, and invisible, apparently? Is it's "all powerfulness" in fact not the reason why one should ask for evidence of it's existence if one has no evidence it does already, with the next question being, "give me some please", if it is found to be as beneficial as it is claimed it is?


I think it is a good question to ask "where it is", actually, especially when I am told it is invisible and can't be seen. And the fact that I ask that question is sufficient evidence for intelligent people to know that I do not already know the answer to my question, or for them to point to what I already know and show me how foolish I am being.

The imaginary million pounds in my bank account shares an equally invisible nature which is why I still ride a bike and not the spanking brand new red Ferrari that I keep dreaming of purchasing with it. If only the bloody Ferrari salesman too would not ask for evidence of it's existence! I'd be vroom vrooming around in spanking brand new red one by now, I tell you.

this is disappointing budah

johnydon22:
I still think you do not grasp or misrepresenting what he said.

I don't know how I can made myself clearer better than what i put up....he said he wants God to rearrange the stars in such a way that will spell ""I am God and he exist"" and I said if such scenario play out, I will deny such God because that evidence is too low in comparison to say '"wonder of evolution"" for an
Example.....

Who wanner take a ride with me....

darkchild64:
I don't understand u guys,each scenario that someone brings u people keep making excuses and excuses why we would not believe,let it happen first
Seun has told u the evidence he needs to believe in god,what you need to do to convince him if you are interested in doing so is providing the evidence he demanded for and not making up excuses that he or some other atheist would not believe if his evidence is provided which implies that u are aware that such won't happen

Look if god exists as u claim and yet is not ready to reveal himself in a discernable way to everyone then that means that he is not interested in us acknowledging and worshipping him

if atheism is synonymous to critical reasons and logic... then I expect seun to ask a thought provoking question and not low based evidence question such as this. I found it impressive when thought provoking questions are asked and not when question like this are asked .

It made me wonder if the root to atheism is actually intelligent enough....A good question should be the reasoning and explanation on what he is and what he wants. This are research based question....you don't ask question as if you already know the outcome.....that is terrible academically.

And likewise it is ridiculous to ask for empirical and scientifical evidence that he exists, because as an all powerful, that theist claim he is. It is obvious this rules “don't apply” to him. It's not a matter of science.



I like it when question are asked within the parameter of which theist claim God operate and not when it is below the standard.

johnydon22:
I think this is strawman because this argument misrepresents his argument.

There is a difference between God rearranging the stars to spell out 'I am God; i exist' in ths sky

And

A star declaring it is God.

Seun's comment was hinged on the former, i don't know where you got the later from.

you don't even get the oxymoron .....the former statement made by seun that he want to see stars rearranging itself in a statement that will validate the existence of God.....which literally means seun is indicating that if God exist he should let the stars arrranged itself in such a way that will tell everyone he God exist.....and I do reply that if such scenario work ,I will rather worship the stars rather than the God because it is an insufficient evidence.....you need to read up again dude.

Seun:
If, within five minutes after a specific prayer by a theist, the stars in the sky were rearranged to spell I AM GOD: I EXIST, and it could be seen by everybody, and it could be scientifically confirmed by every astronomer that that the stars had indeed been moved around and it wasn't just an optical illusion, then I might be convinced that there exists a great mind out there which capable of moving stars around in response to prayer.

if this are the way law proceedings works in court of law, We will never arrive at any conclusion. Let me put your logic into another perspective.......assuming abacha family decide to sue the presidency that the money claimed to be stolen by the ex head of state was actually not his money because there is no data that credit his name to any account in Switzerland bank. Will that alone be tenable in court of law when there are evidence that links him to several account overthere......

It seems you are asking for too low evidence....seeking for a star to declare that he is God....if such a scenario work.i will deny that God and worship stars....because that is less sufficient and not even up to the wonders of evolution. I can only agree on evidence that links him to every creation...