Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhism/Mysticism paradox?
I was thinking the other night, and came across an apparent and slightly frightening conclusion. I was using logic to follow a line of thought based on two premises. Those being, 1. "Do no harm". This is a central tenet of my belief system and something i try and live my life by. 2. Humans are inevitably fallible.
Now, if you consider the two as true, then the second will inevitably violate the first, time and time again. Following, the only logical conclusion is to remove the ability to violate premise number one. In my studies recently i've come across alot of apparent little "fallacies" in major belief systems that i would really like to talk about with someone who knows a little more than i do. All opinions and any help welcome.
Now, if you consider the two as true, then the second will inevitably violate the first, time and time again. Following, the only logical conclusion is to remove the ability to violate premise number one. In my studies recently i've come across alot of apparent little "fallacies" in major belief systems that i would really like to talk about with someone who knows a little more than i do. All opinions and any help welcome.
0
Comments
That's what your number one hinges on.
Thank you for carefully choosing where to post your thread. :thumbsup:
I had no need to edit/re-direct.:clap:
Please take note, everyone - !!!
if you take "do no harm" as a single isolated premise, then obviously you will be like the man who deliberates fully before taking a step.
You will spend your entire life on one leg.
The recommendation to "do no harm" cannot be taken as read, on its own. There is much that follows - and also, precedes - this caveat.
Wise intention is to do no harm. Reality is understanding all beings, including ourselves (but excluding fully enlightened beings), are affected by ignorance.
There is no fallacy or contradiction. There is just more than one practise to learn.
If we did no harm, how could we learn forgiveness and letting go?
If we only learned forgiveness and letting go, how could we learn to do good?
In Buddhism, this is called 'multi-tasking'.
:mullet:
Perhaps i was being too absolutist. Or forgetting a central tenet of philosophy, that there are no real answers, just more questions.
if your question is nonsensical, (ie, makes no sense) then there will either be no logical answers - or no answers at all.
Also, then questions without answers, which would be one of the ways the ineffable divine might communicated to the human mind, are thrown out?
"You're right, of course. This is a gross oversimplification of any situation that could possibly arise in real life....Perhaps i was being too absolutist...."
No, but you take the word out of context.
'real' in this specific case, is defined by something that is not abstract or excessively vague or imprecise. Questions deemed unfathomable (or as the Buddha put it, 'unconjecturable) are as you put it, thrown out, and for good reason.
Questions which one can ponder, give opinion, view or perspective on, can be considered. but discussion often brings other aspects previously not alluded to or considered.
As above, for example.
People are fallible. OK, that seems about right.
Do no harm. OK, that seems like a pretty good encouragement even if the particulars may require some close attention.
When (not if) you screw up, acknowledge and correct it as best you may. Isn't that a Buddhist practice?
Consider, when working with our intent, it might be better to express:
"Do no harm" as "Intend no injury" or "Intend loving-kindness"
You'll screw up and crush a bug with your slippers, but trust that as you become more alert, you'll get a feel for the right things to say and when, the proper place to put your feet, etc.
It sounds like you're letting the premise "do no harm" harm your own confidence.
With the intent of loving-kindness,
Matt
If the only logical conclusion were to "remove the ability to violate premise number one", then the Buddha would not have had to teach, would he?
Besides, who or what would do the removing? God?
And what are the "mystical" and "paradoxical" elements here?
We live in real life, in an imperfect existence in which harm is sometimes done. No Cosmic Power is going to come along and remove the ability of people to do harm. People have to work at that themselves, with the appropriate guidance.
This is real life. IMO, the question is not a real-life question.
Is that correct sufferer? And are you still with us?
The answer is, yes. When we exist we will do harm. Sorry about that. Life’s not perfect (first noble truth, if you like).
Fortunately suicide isn’t the cure; it is an extremely harmful thing to do.
So what is the mystical and paradoxical solution to this dilemma?
See the emptiness of all phenomena. All harm done and all merit gained are not the essence.
Our true nature is unborn, without flaw, without merit.
There’s no need to kill myself because I’m “dead” to begin with.
Also, i wasn't intending to mean "mystical" as in obscure in meaning or mysterious i meant "mysticism" as in a doctrine of an immediate spiritual intuition of truths believed to transcend ordinary understanding, or of a direct, intimate union of the soul with "god" through contemplation or ecstasy. I'll try and be more clear in the future.
As for the paradox, i was simply concerned that my rationalism and logic was leading me down a path that would seem to coincide more with the philosophy surrounding Santhara in the Jaina tradition.