GENIUS FORUMS

If I weren't so repressively serious, I would also find quite a lot of humor in Buddhism and life itself. There is a reason he is smiling.

Before I read this, I was about to begin a thread - "Kierkegaard and Buddha Eat Cake."

:-)

Maybe I can post some thoughts here instead.

Both Kierkegaard and The Buddha are revered for their knowledge of Truth. But while one sought to escape suffering, the other openly embraced it. Kierkegaard's background was a Christian one. The Buddha had no real base to draw from. What does this say about their approach to Truth? Does knowledge of God lead to suffering? To answer these questions, another is needed. What was Kierkegaard's purpose, what was his true intention?

Like all modern times, Kierkegaard lived during a time of increasing religious decline. His was an occupation to re-establish Christ's Truth through philosophy - through intimate experience. But, as all truth, according to Kierkegaard's view, is wholly subjective, so too is it up for scrutiny, because of its subjectivity. Unlike The Buddha, Kierkegaard's suffering was both a redemption of his own self-interest, his own subjective truth, as well as an imitation of Christ's suffering. With such an adherence to himself, through Christ, there was really little room for his self, it would seem. But the brilliance of Kierkegaard's life, was that, in his devotion to God, there was a truer testament to his own personality - a true purity in suffering, that few can be said to have attained.

In their last words, Buddha and Kierkegaard express their hearts:

"Sweep me up" - Kierkegaard

"All things of this world are impermanent. Work out your own salvation with diligence" - Buddha

Buddha was an original thinker, more like Jesus than like Kierkegaard. Although Kierkegaard thought, he was not primarily an original thinker. Although Jesus had a background in Judaism and drew from that, he thought originally enough to break away from the testaments of his birth religion. Kierkegaard, as you said, was more of an imitator (herdly, as the QRS would put it - even though he was following a small herd). Although Jesus was made to suffer for being a maverik, he did not suffer throughout his life like Kierkegaard did.

I believe that it is more the act of being an imitator rather than an original thinker, following the True voice as heard directly, that causes suffering.

Kierkegaard was certainly an originally thinker. You are interpreting the superifical image of him only, and thus taking him too literally.

Many great psychologists praise kierkegaard for his originality - psychology and existentialism owe much to kierkegaard's pioneering insights.

"Sweep me up" - Kierkegaard

I wonder what Kierkegaard means here?

Cory Duchesne wrote:Kierkegaard was certainly an originally thinker. You are interpreting the superifical image of him only, and thus taking him too literally.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Although Kierkegaard thought, he was not primarily an original thinker. (emphasis added)

Kierkegaard thought, but too much of his basic belief system was based on somene else's thinking (Jesus'). His original thoughts were fleshing out of Jesus' thoughts.

If Kierkegaard did not do any original thinking, I would not have said he thought. If a thought is not an original thought, it is just regurgitation.

"Sweep me up" - Kierkegaard

I wonder what Kierkegaard means here?

I'll admit to not knowing the context (and if someone has a link, I'd appreciate it) but in context of how Steven quoted it, I'd gather it was a wish to be swept up into the eternal reward described by Jesus, in contrast with Buddha's admonition that others should think for themselves rather than just follow his direct thoughts.

Is it just me or is it really naive of David and Kevin to interpret Jesus' and Kierkgaard's notions of immortality in the way that they do?

I have a hard time believing that a man would throw himself up on a cross to be tortured without being intoxicated by some powerful mystical experiences, combined with, or resulting in, an extremely passionate convinction in the literal immortality of his soul.

I mean, they call that Aaron Mathis guy an idiot (and for the most part he seems to be one) for using all the metaphors that he does - --but did Jesus ever not speak metahporically? I see no reason to believe Jesus to be anything other than a mystic who had some great philosphical insight. His mystical experiences lead him to believe, as most people now-a-days tend to resultantly believe after having mystical experiences-that what he was, was a conscious energy beyond the flesh and that his consciousness would live eternally.

Likewise, Kierkgaard may have had the gull to do what he did because of a similar faith.

I've read Kierkgaards early journals, and judging by his descriptions of his mystical experiences, and judging by some statements, I see reason to believe that Kierkgaard believed in the literal immortality of his consciousness (at least earlier on in his life).

I'm not saying that I do, nor am I saying that have a strong desire to --- I honestly have become rather indifferent.

I am interested in the reason for why people choose to project their own qualities onto others.

And yes, perhaps I am projecting my unconscious belief systems onto Jesus and Kierkgaard.

However, I'm doing my best to be objective here.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Buddha was an original thinker, more like Jesus than like Kierkegaard. Although Kierkegaard thought, he was not primarily an original thinker.

What made Kierkegaard interesting was his originality in the face of his orthodox background. A sincere struggle with himself, in light of a corrupt religious faith. Ironically it was precisely this corruption which enabled Kierkegaard to merit such devotion - to merit such faith.

I believe that it is more the act of being an imitator rather than an original thinker, following the True voice as heard directly, that causes suffering.

If the True voice was heard directly, was it still imitation?

Cory Duchesne wrote: I am interested in the reason for why people choose to project their own qualities onto others.

Or what makes some people, or the myths surrounding or even replacing them, such a good screen to project upon?

Maybe a human need, psychologically, religiously or philosophically to project at least an ideal image above or besides them. Until that image has to go as well.

I am interested in the reason for why people choose to project their own qualities onto others.

Projection also enables us to infer. When we project, a sincere form of gratitude is unknowingly shared. Because while projection may offer us our own ego, it does so in a way, that is kindest to it.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: If a thought is not an original thought, it is just regurgitation.

Can you give us an "original thought"?

Steven Coyle wrote: Because while projection may offer us our own ego, it does so in a way, that is kindest to it.

It does seem to be an innate part of human psychology.

Perhaps it's just that we understand others by assuming they are like us.

DHodges wrote:It does seem to be an innate part of human psychology.

Perhaps it's just that we understand others by assuming they are like us.

True.

But, why?

D: Perhaps it's just that we understand others by assuming they are like us.

S: True.

But, why?

Because if you bobbed your hand up and down at another person to see what happened, they'd more than likely ask you what you what in the hell you were doing. I don't know, maybe like the lizards, some might in fact get quite aggitated by it... :)

.

The other form of gratitude :)

(As social creatures, humans instinctively counter-balance one another through all forms of ego. Making an egoless state one in which gratitude is recognized within these very expressions.)

Cory wrote:

Is it just me or is it really naive of David and Kevin to interpret Jesus' and Kierkgaard's notions of immortality in the way that they do?

I have a hard time believing that a man would throw himself up on a cross to be tortured without being intoxicated by some powerful mystical experiences, combined with, or resulting in, an extremely passionate convinction in the literal immortality of his soul.

You mean, why would Jesus throw himself on the cross to be tortured if he didn't think he would get something out of it?

It sounds like a reasonable question. And yet, this desire to get something out of life is the very thing which prevents people from realizing their immortal nature.

-

Elizabeth wrote:

Buddha was an original thinker, more like Jesus than like Kierkegaard. Although Kierkegaard thought, he was not primarily an original thinker. Although Jesus had a background in Judaism and drew from that, he thought originally enough to break away from the testaments of his birth religion. Kierkegaard, as you said, was more of an imitator (herdly, as the QRS would put it - even though he was following a small herd). Although Jesus was made to suffer for being a maverik, he did not suffer throughout his life like Kierkegaard did.

I believe that it is more the act of being an imitator rather than an original thinker, following the True voice as heard directly, that causes suffering.

Like Cory, I think Kierkegaard was very original. His idiosyncratic style of writing, the unusual things he thought about, the profundity of his insight, his interpretation of Christianity, the sheer intelligence with which he approached everything, etc, were all very unique. He was very much a one-off.

He was far more original than, say, the Buddha, whose teachings, let's face it, were very similar to the standard Hindu teachings of the time. And he was every bit as original and profound as Jesus was.

Kierkegaard thought, but too much of his basic belief system was based on somene else's thinking (Jesus'). His original thoughts were fleshing out of Jesus' thoughts.

If Kierkegaard did not do any original thinking, I would not have said he thought. If a thought is not an original thought, it is just regurgitation.

It could just as easily be said that Jesus didn't do any original thinking because he carried on from where Abraham left off and basically remained within the umbrella of Judaism. He didn't really challenge the concept of Almighty God, for example, or question any of the teachings of the Old Testament, or examine the psychological urge to be virtuous and pure, and so on - all of which Kierkegaard did.

-