A riddle

Kwizard · Post by **Kwizard** » 2005-12-22 03:10pm

Heaven and hell are both banquet tables loaded with plenty of delicious foods. In fact they are the same exact table. Several people are seated around the table, however they are seated yards away, have utensils just long enough to reach the food, and cannot get up out of their seats. In hell, the people seated around the table reach out with their utensils and attempt to steadily pull food back to themselves, failing each time. There is but one thing distinguishing heaven from hell.

What is the critical difference?

(if you've heard this before, please don't give it away)

Cykeisme · Post by **Cykeisme** » 2005-12-22 05:11pm

Well, if the utensils are that long, they'd have to feed whoever happened to be at the right distance from them (the same distance as the length of the utensils), and vice versa.

That can't be right, because that won't make sense though, since I don't see what it has to do with heaven/hell. Even bad folks stick together, y'know?

Kwizard · Post by **Kwizard** » 2005-12-22 06:09pm

Cykeisme wrote:Well, if the utensils are that long, they'd have to feed whoever happened to be at the right distance from them (the same distance as the length of the utensils), and vice versa.

That can't be right, because that won't make sense though, since I don't see what it has to do with heaven/hell. Even bad folks stick together, y'know?

I believe that's called over-analyzing.

Guy N. Cognito · Post by **Guy N. Cognito** » 2005-12-22 06:24pm

In heaven people are avoiding the apples like the Plague?

El Moose Monstero · Post by **El Moose Monstero** » 2005-12-22 06:44pm

In heaven, people who use chopsticks to do jedi knight impersonations aren't castrated on the spot.

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2005-12-22 06:47pm

The serving trays are glued to the table in hell?

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2005-12-22 07:16pm

In Heaven, altruism allows people to feed others, so they can feed someone else.

In Hell, selfishness is rampant, so people try to feed themselves, and just starve.

Difference, in Heaven, everyone's full. In Hell, everyone's starving.

Kwizard · Post by **Kwizard** » 2005-12-22 07:18pm

Xenophobe3691 wrote:In Heaven, altruism allows people to feed others, so they can feed someone else.

In Hell, selfishness is rampant, so people try to feed themselves, and just starve.

Difference, in Heaven, everyone's full. In Hell, everyone's starving.

Exactly.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2005-12-22 07:58pm

I'm sorry, but this is a riddle? It seems more like just a religious analogy.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-12-22 08:06pm

Pick wrote:I'm sorry, but this is a riddle? It seems more like just a religious analogy.

Indeed. I've solved harder riddles in my sleep.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2005-12-22 08:27pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Pick wrote:I'm sorry, but this is a riddle? It seems more like just a religious analogy.
Indeed. I've solved harder riddles in my sleep.

How does one do that, exactly?

It was pretty easy though. And it does seems more like a religious analogy than a riddle. Which would make it more suited to this forum, actually (still seems like a testing topic though).

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-12-22 08:27pm

Yeah, seems to be some serious religious BS. I was trying to solve it like a riddle, not like a fucking morality tale.

Dendrobius · Post by **Dendrobius** » 2005-12-22 08:40pm

That's not a riddle, I first heard this analogy in my Religion class back in primary school!

Kwizard's being lazy.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2005-12-22 10:06pm

Edward Nigma wouldn't touch this one with a ten foot Bat-pole.

dworkin · Post by **dworkin** » 2005-12-22 10:38pm

However since we now realise that altruism is just selfishness dressed up everyone is happy and full.

Tasoth · Post by **Tasoth** » 2005-12-22 10:56pm

Why not just sliding your grip up the handle after you've skewered something? I think Hell is just lazy.

Kwizard · Post by **Kwizard** » 2005-12-23 01:24am

weemadando wrote:Yeah, seems to be some serious religious BS. I was trying to solve it like a riddle, not like a fucking morality tale.

The origin of this riddle is actually Chinese, and I'll have you know that nothing short of the incapacitation of my brain will change the fact that I'm a Mahayana Buddhist. There's a reason I posted this in the Science, Logic, and Morality section.

The point is that being selfless "makes all the difference between heaven and hell." Come on, don't get caught up thinking the terms "heaven" and "hell" (yes, while their origins are biblical) are strictly places held in superstition. What was that whole deal with mentioning the two tables are in fact one? We live in one world, where both the harmony of being selfless and the suffering brought on by selfishness exist.

The people seated around the table feed one another, see to it that the needs of others are fulfilled. Promoting that selfless devotion is what religion is all about - and who are creationists and fundamentalist crackpots? Those are the ones who get caught up in the exact wording of scripture, the means which direct us to that end goal of being without self in thought and devotion.

The sidetracked ones see you pointing to something, but they harp and rant on about the finger you use to point with.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2005-12-23 09:56am

Noble Ire wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Pick wrote:I'm sorry, but this is a riddle? It seems more like just a religious analogy.
Indeed. I've solved harder riddles in my sleep.
How does one do that, exactly?

It was pretty easy though. And it does seems more like a religious analogy than a riddle. Which would make it more suited to this forum, actually (still seems like a testing topic though).

Hrzzzfmmel.....fish....snnnxxxxxx....teeth.....eggses...zzzzz...string, or nothing...zzzzzzz....

Mobiboros · Post by **Mobiboros** » 2005-12-23 12:08pm

Kwizard wrote:The origin of this riddle is actually Chinese, and I'll have you know that nothing short of the incapacitation of my brain will change the fact that I'm a Mahayana Buddhist.

Aren't the Mahyana practitioners the ones who deified The Buddha and turned buddhism from a good ideal/philosophy into a codified religion with secret mystery knowledge, light bodies, and other more esoteric hierarchies so it would play better to the masses?

Kwizard wrote: The point is that being selfless "makes all the difference between heaven and hell." Come on, don't get caught up thinking the terms "heaven" and "hell" (yes, while their origins are biblical) are strictly places held in superstition.

Aren't heaven and hell different concepts in Chinese mythology than in Christian mythology?

Kwizard wrote: What was that whole deal with mentioning the two tables are in fact one? We live in one world, where both the harmony of being selfless and the suffering brought on by selfishness exist.

Yeah, which is the core of buddhism being part of the 4 noble truths, but I don't see where the 'riddle' comes in. There was no real 'evidence' provided to even track down an answer.

Kwizard wrote:The people seated around the table feed one another, see to it that the needs of others are fulfilled. Promoting that selfless devotion is what religion is all about -

While some schools of buddhism do promote selfless acts they aren't specific to the 4 noble truths or 8 fold path. In fact The Path is all about how to concentrate on yourself and make you a better person through doing what is 'right'.

Kwizard wrote:and who are creationists and fundamentalist crackpots? Those are the ones who get caught up in the exact wording of scripture, the means which direct us to that end goal of being without self in thought and devotion.

Weren't the Mahayana Buddhists the ones who claimed to have the secret original writings of Siddartha and when questioned to see these writing claimed no one unenlightened could view them?

I'm honestly not ragging on your religious choice, as a Buddhist myself I think people should find their own way, but one should understand the foundings/basis of their path before pointing fingers at the religious choices of others.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2005-12-23 12:33pm

Kwizard wrote: What is the critical difference?

In heaven, the people are smart enough to hold the utensils near to the business end.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-12-23 12:45pm

There is no critical difference. In both cases, some sadistic asshole glued their asses to their seats, and they'll all be sitting in shit soon.

Kwizard · Post by **Kwizard** » 2005-12-23 01:07pm

Mobiboros wrote:Weren't the Mahayana Buddhists the ones who claimed to have the secret original writings of Siddartha and when questioned to see these writing claimed no one unenlightened could view them?

I'm honestly not ragging on your religious choice, as a Buddhist myself I think people should find their own way, but one should understand the foundings/basis of their path before pointing fingers at the religious choices of others.

No, and I'm not sure why you would think any decently mindful Buddhist would deny someone the writings or teachings of Siddartha. And esoteric practices are pointless - again, it's getting caught up in the means to spirituality. I'm a member of a Jodo Shinshu temple, and trust me, both Nishi Hongwanji and Higashi Hongwanji frown on esoteric practices like ancestor-worship.

I also understand the basis of Buddhism, what Siddartha taught. Let's see... you must have heard about Devadatta and the story surrounding him. "The goal is one, the ways are manifold," Siddartha replied... that rign any bells?[/url]

Mobiboros · Post by **Mobiboros** » 2005-12-23 01:45pm

Kwizard wrote: No, and I'm not sure why you would think any decently mindful Buddhist would deny someone the writings or teachings of Siddartha. And esoteric practices are pointless - again, it's getting caught up in the means to spirituality. I'm a member of a Jodo Shinshu temple, and trust me, both Nishi Hongwanji and Higashi Hongwanji frown on esoteric practices like ancestor-worship.

I also understand the basis of Buddhism, what Siddartha taught. Let's see... you must have heard about Devadatta and the story surrounding him. "The goal is one, the ways are manifold," Siddartha replied... that rign any bells?

And? You were markedly pointing at fundamentalists (I assume Christian, but it wasn't specified) for them being set in their ways and seemingly holding up Buddhism as better. I was simply pointing out that Buddhism, if you follow some of the more rigorous schools, has it's 'fundamentalist' practices. Mahayana has fewer, but that will vary from region to region as Mahayana covers a wide variety of paths.

+http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/MAHAYANA.HTM

This site, seems to indicate the early practices of the Mahayana buddhists was exactly that. They professed to have the true teachings of Siddartha and kept them protected from outsiders.

And doing a quick search, isnt Jodo Shinshu "Pure Land" buddhism which is a specific subset of Mahayana buddhism? +http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/amida.html

This site seems to indicate that they have even more specific teachings than the greater Mahayana school as they add in some addtional tenets.

And from what you said I assume you're talking about this temple specifically?
http://www.nishihongwanji-la.org/
I never denied there were different paths to the same goal. In fact I stated that explicitly. I was simply saying that one should look at themselves first before pointing fingers.

Kwizard · Post by **Kwizard** » 2005-12-23 02:16pm

I'm not trying to point fingers, and any religious teaching - when taken the right way - can be just as enlightening as any other. For that reason I don't hold Buddhism to be "better" in any respect. Yes, there are fundamentalists in every major religion and sometimes it's hard to indentify them.

Yes you're correct: Jodo Shinsu is a form of "Pure Land" Buddhism. I identify as a Jodo Shinshu Buddhist because, like a lot of people, I don't have the time or the means to be part of the rigorous sects. I believe one can be enlightened without having to go through all those rituals and practices.

The LA Betsuin? Oh no, I live in northern California and we attend a temple called Enmanji, but my dad was a member of the Betsuin for a while when he lived in LA. I'll have to ask him about that. For clarification though, nobody in my family has a use for esoteric stuff, including me.

I'm curious though, what sect do you consider yourself to be a part of?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A riddle

A riddle

Re: A riddle