Seishin wrote:I have a genuine question which I'm interested in hearing other peoples ideas and answers;
In the Sutras, Nirvana is described as a birthless/deathless beyond the realm of samsara of birth and death. I understand the 'moment-to-moment' idea of rebirth and that Nirvana, in this instance, is to be free from the changing clinging ego and is born and dies from 'moment-to-moment'. My question is though, with the above idea of rebirth, wouldn't death bring about 'Nirvana' (ie being free from the birth and death of the 'I' in moment-to-moment)?
Probably no surprise, but this is how I've been taught also.
What I'm struggling with is if there is no post-mortem rebirth, and nirvana is being free from moment-to-moment rebirth, isn't death equivalent to nirvana in this instance?
Sariputta wrote:Is being in a coma, where one has no consciousness proving that afterlife is fake? I am arguing with an atheist and he constantly keeps bringing up this point to prove that consciousness ceases after death.
Over at Dhamma Wheel someone wrote:m0rl0ck wrote:tiltbillings wrote:http://atheistforums.org/thread-21098.html
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum ... #pid386773
Very likely, this is a drive by posting. Gandy will probably not again darken our door.
So gandy is an atheist spreading the Bad News man thats hilarious.
Next theyll be going door to door in cheap suits :rofl:
Why is it that some atheists feel the need to proselytize? I know why Christians proselytize; they want to help people by saving them from the lake of fire. I know why Muslims proselytize; there are no infidels in paradise; but why would an atheist feel the need to proselytize? It is just this one life (according to them), who cares if people waster their time in churches, temples, mosques; what concern is it to them?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests