Yes,you are right it's not easy.But this kind of life does not appeal to me either. To achieve enlightenment (or Nirvana as it is called ) is the supreme goal of the Buddhist.To me it's like going after the wind You'll never reach it in this life, so why wasting your time trying to.After all we only have a life to live. So let's make it worth living
I don't think Nirvana was intended as an endgame for all Buddhists. Not everyone is cut out to be a monk. Not all monks will attain Nirvana. However, that doesn't mean one can't follow the core principles of Buddhism and be enriched by its teachings. It also doesn't mean Buddhists can't use its teachings to understand and better cope with life and death.
That is because Iran maintains a Shi'a Islamic hierarchy, which is against the basic fundamentals of Islam. This same problem happened with the Sharif of Mecca in the 1920's when he declared himself King of the Hejaz and King of all the Arabs. Eventually the ibn Saud family took over and the Hashemite Kingdom was reduced to just Jordan. Now the Saud family rules 'Saudi' Arabia with a very strict conservative view of Islam. Even during Turkish rule during the Ottoman Empire, the Sharif of Mecca was a Hashemite.
That's the beauty of reincarnation is that you don't have to get there in this life but you will have many chances to. Anyway some Buddhist believe that goal can never be achieved and while it is an aspiration the process is more important.
Well put. Buddhism isn't necessarily about a goal but about a process. That is why I said in the "two religions" thread that you could actually be a Christian Buddhist or a Muslim Buddhist. In religions like Christianity there is an end goal to the faith, to be with God, in some sects of Buddhism though there isn't an end goal in terms of a Heaven. The essence of Buddhism is the Four Noble Truths which is about understanding the existence and living in harmony with existence through the Eightfold Path. There is no goal that is achieved but a continual process.
So, as I understand it, this is what you're saying: - Science cannot show causation by correlating suicide and "religiosity" regardless of the sample size, history, etc.. - You do however believe that there is proof for gravity because you are able to conduct this experiment in "isolation". Consequently, you must be aware of every variable in the universe which could affect gravity? If you are not, then isn't your measure of isolation a relatively poor one? To be quite frank, we are resigned to hundreds of millions of statements which are backed by weaker "science" than this. There was a time when science couldn't prove that the world was round. There was no proof of it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't true. Think of the sheer amount of information you would require in order to "prove" that there is a creator of the universe. That number is infinity. By your very own definition... No proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means we don't know. A lack of proof was enough to convince you that there is no God. This is/was your choice (using the scientific method). But put in perspective that correlating "religiosity" and suicide rates strongly across hundreds of millions of people was not good enough to show you causation. Either I forgot everything I learned as a research major, or your methodoligy is fundamentally flawed.
