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.
It makes sense when you think about it. So does modern Cognitive and Neoro Science that is discovering exactly the same thing.
I remember seeing that peer-reviewed science article that talked about how when the universe becomes devoid of life everything actually disappears. Hold on, I'll try to find the link.
Buddhism – the way I see it – is not a dogmatic belief system. It’s an attempt to describe reality. And that makes it not so different from science.
There is a difference though in focus. Buddhism – as you point out – is only interested in understanding reality as far as liberation from suffering is concerned. It is practical. It’s best compared with medical science. Medical science has changed through the ages and improved a lot. Buddhism has to change too, or it will become (or should I say remain) irrelevant.
Buddhism changes all the time. But the base must remain the same. (I think)
I remember seeing that peer-reviewed science article that talked about how when the universe becomes devoid of life everything actually disappears. Hold on, I'll try to find the link.
Thank you that sounds interesting!
I think the basic thought here is that the worldillusion is in the mind of the individual.
They are not the same and should not be compared... Yet, I saw science in a new light once I studied Buddhism, and I'm not sure why.
We can not avoid learning from our experiences. You are not the same person at the end of a book as you were at the beginning.
If you go back and reread the same book you will see something else than the first time.
Every new thing we learn changes us and how we see the world. Some things change us a little other things a lot.
/Victor
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
The fact of the earth being round is more true than the fact of the earth being flat.
Science uses empirical observation to gather information then uses a process of analysis to determine the meaning of that information. That conclusion is then evaluated by others to determine its validity.
Buddhism uses refined introspection to gather information then uses a process of analysis to determine the meaning of that information. That conclusion is then evaluated by others to determine its validity.
Victorious, you're a nice person, and I think a good person. But you are so wrong with what you think real science is, that it's beyond even talking to you about. I say that as a person with two degrees in science. You seem to mixing, inappropriately, science and logic, and who knows what else. To be honest, you are stating science from same perspective as those Republicans who are totally denying the existence of global warming.
Fact (definition): 1. Something that actually exists, reality 2. Something known to exist or to have happened (space travel) 3. A truth known by actual experience or observation: "Scientists gather facts about plant growth".
Fact (definition): 1. Something that actually exists, reality 2. Something known to exist or to have happened (space travel) 3. A truth known by actual experience or observation: "Scientists gather facts about plant growth".
Carry on.
But, but, things actually only exist in your mind, right? RIGHT?!
No, no, you see, Dakini, you're wrong. You're using the ENGLISH dictionary. You see, me and Victorious are using the translation of ancient Pali to undermine your silly arguments on what a fact really is. You see, in Pali, there is a world called Anactata which means, "truth that exists in ones mind" which the Buddha claimed was the only truthiness that existed. That word went over to Sanskrit and was written in the scriptures as "factata," which of course, we mean by "fact" when me and Victorious talk about all this. We don't use your silly common-man language, you silly Western intellectual-type fake Buddhists. If you actually read the scriptures and were enlightened and were a monk over in Asia you would see that we're right. You should meditate more. Open your mind to these ideas. You're wrong.
Well I would have had to have been a cave-dwelling Brit who shoved their fingers in their ears the whole time to not understand what you were talkin bout lol
Oh. Sorry. The conversation is going on on a philosophical level. I missed that.
I've just been reading a book on Tibetan Buddhist philosophy. They love to argue about this kind of thing. Turns out there are schools that say that physical phenomena can be said to exist. There's another school that says, no, they don't exist. There's no agreement. Only people who dedicate their careers to defending their position with clever arguments and writing treatises about them.
Victorious, you're a nice person, and I think a good person. But you are so wrong with what you think real science is, that it's beyond even talking to you about. I say that as a person with two degrees in science. You seem to mixing, inappropriately, science and logic, and who knows what else. To be honest, you are stating science from same perspective as those Republicans who are totally denying the existence of global warming.
But, you are, of course, welcome to your opinion.
And you to yours. But what you are suggesting is that I should, without explanation bow down to you superior knowleadge of What Science Is? Strangeley enough in discussions with Scientist who are used to complex and intricate thoughts even mathematicians I often get this response.
Tell me is one of your Degrees in Science Theory? Just curious.
...or you could take pity on my ignorance and please explain how I am mixing science and logic inappropiately. Were my responses to your responses to my responses not to your liking or false in their logic?
As for Perspective I like to shift perspective when ever I can. It keeps you on the edge and brings many smiles to peoples faces.
Fact (definition): 1. Something that actually exists, reality 2. Something known to exist or to have happened (space travel) 3. A truth known by actual experience or observation: "Scientists gather facts about plant growth".
Carry on.
But, but, things actually only exist in your mind, right? RIGHT?!
No, no, you see, Dakini, you're wrong. You're using the ENGLISH dictionary. You see, me and Victorious are using the translation of ancient Pali to undermine your silly arguments on what a fact really is. You see, in Pali, there is a world called Anactata which means, "truth that exists in ones mind" which the Buddha claimed was the only truthiness that existed. That word went over to Sanskrit and was written in the scriptures as "factata," which of course, we mean by "fact" when me and Victorious talk about all this. We don't use your silly common-man language, you silly Western intellectual-type fake Buddhists. If you actually read the scriptures and were enlightened and were a monk over in Asia you would see that we're right. You should meditate more. Open your mind to these ideas. You're wrong.
Have a Beer and chill dude. Not my fault I am better than you...at virtually everything.
Oh. Sorry. The conversation is going on on a philosophical level. I missed that.
I've just been reading a book on Tibetan Buddhist philosophy. They love to argue about this kind of thing. Turns out there are schools that say that physical phenomena can be said to exist. There's another school that says, no, they don't exist. There's no agreement. Only people who dedicate their careers to defending their position with clever arguments and writing treatises about them.
Carry on. Enjoy.
Oh but I am Daikini. And let me tell you when me and my father-in-law get started these guys are nothing but lame amatures in comparison. :ninja:
Victorious, you're a nice person, and I think a good person. But you are so wrong with what you think real science is, that it's beyond even talking to you about. I say that as a person with two degrees in science. You seem to mixing, inappropriately, science and logic, and who knows what else. To be honest, you are stating science from same perspective as those Republicans who are totally denying the existence of global warming.
But, you are, of course, welcome to your opinion.
And you to yours. But what you are suggesting is that I should, without explanation bow down to you superior knowleadge of What Science Is? Strangeley enough in discussions with Scientist who are used to complex and intricate thoughts even mathematicians I often get this response.
Tell me is one of your Degrees in Science Theory? Just curious.
...or you could take pity on my ignorance and please explain how I am mixing science and logic inappropiately. Were my responses to your responses to my responses not to your liking or false in their logic?
As for Perspective I like to shift perspective when ever I can. It keeps you on the edge and brings many smiles to peoples faces.
Victorious, you're a nice person, and I think a good person. But you are so wrong with what you think real science is, that it's beyond even talking to you about. I say that as a person with two degrees in science. You seem to mixing, inappropriately, science and logic, and who knows what else. To be honest, you are stating science from same perspective as those Republicans who are totally denying the existence of global warming.
But, you are, of course, welcome to your opinion.
And you to yours. But what you are suggesting is that I should, without explanation bow down to you superior knowleadge of What Science Is? Strangeley enough in discussions with Scientist who are used to complex and intricate thoughts even mathematicians I often get this response.
Tell me is one of your Degrees in Science Theory? Just curious.
...or you could take pity on my ignorance and please explain how I am mixing science and logic inappropiately. Were my responses to your responses to my responses not to your liking or false in their logic?
As for Perspective I like to shift perspective when ever I can. It keeps you on the edge and brings many smiles to peoples faces.
You know I made it up to 450 ish or so posts last time before you shut me down... In this thread is not even on 100 yet... So I guess halftime is in another 250 posts or so?
"The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but that they know so much that just ain't so". Mark Twain
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Have a Beer and chill dude. Not my fault I am better than you...at virtually everything.
not from where I'm sitting.....
Oh but I am Daikini. And let me tell you when me and my father-in-law get started these guys are nothing but lame amatures in comparison. :ninja:
first it's 'Dakini' not 'Daikini' Secondly it's 'amateurs' not 'amatures'.....
The last word is yours.
It usually is.
I wouldn't count on it, sweetie.....
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
You know I made it up to 450 ish or so posts last time before you shut me down... In this thread is not even on 100 yet... So I guess halftime is in another 250 posts or so?
/Victor
More..
....or less.
i wouldn't have to 'shut you down ' if you played nice, would I? arrogance doesn't become you. It doesn't become anybody in fact, so either behave, or accept the consequences.
You know I made it up to 450 ish or so posts last time before you shut me down... In this thread is not even on 100 yet... So I guess halftime is in another 250 posts or so?
/Victor
More..
....or less.
i wouldn't have to 'shut you down ' if you played nice, would I? arrogance doesn't become you. It doesn't become anybody in fact, so either behave, or accept the consequences.
Have a Beer and chill dude. Not my fault I am better than you...at virtually everything.
Be polite.
@Victorious you might enjoy reading Gedun Chopel's "Eloquent Distillation of the Profound Points of the Madhyamaka: An Adornment for Nagarjuna's Thought" meaning: A commentary of Nagarjuna's Middle Way. It's in a book called "The Madman's Middle Way", by Donald Lopez.
Chopel (often referred to a madman by monks and abbots, because he was able to win debates on the most preposterous of arguments, and leave his opponents and spectators speechless) was a brilliant intellectual (some say, Tibet's first true intellectual) trained as a monk, and was a brilliant debater who delighted in standing his opponent's arguments on end, and winning on some inflammatory point, like the Buddha didn't exist, or plants have consciousness (which is opposite to Buddhist belief). He was an iconoclast, but a brilliant one. The book has a chapter of Lopez's commentary to Chopel's text, afterwards.
The Middle Way refers to the Middle Way between nihilism and eternalism, discussing the finer points of dependent-arising, and whether anything exists at all. It sounds like you might enjoy it.
You know I made it up to 450 ish or so posts last time before you shut me down... In this thread is not even on 100 yet... So I guess halftime is in another 250 posts or so?
/Victor
More..
....or less.
i wouldn't have to 'shut you down ' if you played nice, would I? arrogance doesn't become you. It doesn't become anybody in fact, so either behave, or accept the consequences.
Play on.
Nor is arrogance a very Buddhist characteristic.
You said I could have the last word! Not nice!
And last time I did play nice it was everybody elses fault I got shut down.
/Victor
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Only an arrogant person would project blame onto everyone else but themselves.
Back to topic, please. And that had better be the last word.
"I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me." Dave Barry
Even if I do step out of the box on occasion and sometimes indulge in banter. (cough cough), this thread and my arguments are serious ones.
I am very interested in hearing your input IF it is serious. Telling me I am stupid and should just accept the splendicity of science and that a Fact is a Truth because you say so and obviously science can not be wrong is of course not going hit the venerable spot in me.
Neither is a book reference. I want to hear YOUR thoughts not somebody elses who wrote a book. I can find that at the library.
The other obvious response that lemons and armadillos do not mix is pretty much what I said in the beginning of this thread. Yes at the top before the point no 1. .
I have invested pretty many hours of thought and discussion to come up with these arguments. That they are not easily refuted is NOT because I am a stubborn Chopel that twists arguments to my liking but because these arguments are built methodically on years of studying both Buddhism and Science and trying to understand the fundamentals of the two.
This reasoning is something I believe in.
So please let me know what you think.
Thanks /Victor
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Seriously? I think you need to get out more.
come to think of it, we all do. I mean, what does it matter, really, which is 'better' and why?
No no no. I do not care what is better or not. It is irrational to compare two so seperate things to choose one before the other. On the contrary knowing one will help knowing the other.
But this is often what is done by those embracing science. They try to validate Buddhism through the eyes of Science. What I did was the reverse. Just to see what would happen.
Al right. Yee who make it through this text. Have in mind I am a theravada buddhist speaking my opinion.
Most people when comparing Sience and Buddhism tend to validate Buddhism through the eyes of Science. This is not the rational thing to do. When comparing two systems it is obivious that one will turn out short of the other if the one is validated using the validation criteria of the other!
cont...
/Victor
I would agree with almost all of that, except for this:
"A truth in Buddhism is what you are yourself convinced is the truth. Nothing else!
Many people are convinced that they won't die tomorrow. However, thousands of them found out today that this was not true, but false! They were wrong regarding what is truth!
Comments
Get real and stay real.
What is today BELIEVED by the individual to be true is the world he/she live in.
/Victor
The world is created in the Six, Exists in the Six and Dies in the Six.
The Six here reffers to the Six sense bases.
It makes sense when you think about it. So does modern Cognitive and Neoro Science that is discovering exactly the same thing.
/Victor
I think the basic thought here is that the worldillusion is in the mind of the individual.
If you go back and reread the same book you will see something else than the first time.
Every new thing we learn changes us and how we see the world. Some things change us a little other things a lot.
/Victor
Science uses empirical observation to gather information then uses a process of analysis to determine the meaning of that information. That conclusion is then evaluated by others to determine its validity.
Buddhism uses refined introspection to gather information then uses a process of analysis to determine the meaning of that information. That conclusion is then evaluated by others to determine its validity.
That two things does not have to be related for the understanding of the one to change the understanding of the other.
But understanding Buddhism changes understanding a lot of other things...a lot.
/Victor
But, you are, of course, welcome to your opinion.
Would you care to have a holy war, that spans several centuries and costs many lives, over who is right?
1. Something that actually exists, reality
2. Something known to exist or to have happened (space travel)
3. A truth known by actual experience or observation: "Scientists gather facts about plant growth".
Carry on.
No, no, you see, Dakini, you're wrong. You're using the ENGLISH dictionary. You see, me and Victorious are using the translation of ancient Pali to undermine your silly arguments on what a fact really is. You see, in Pali, there is a world called Anactata which means, "truth that exists in ones mind" which the Buddha claimed was the only truthiness that existed. That word went over to Sanskrit and was written in the scriptures as "factata," which of course, we mean by "fact" when me and Victorious talk about all this. We don't use your silly common-man language, you silly Western intellectual-type fake Buddhists. If you actually read the scriptures and were enlightened and were a monk over in Asia you would see that we're right. You should meditate more. Open your mind to these ideas. You're wrong.
I've just been reading a book on Tibetan Buddhist philosophy. They love to argue about this kind of thing. Turns out there are schools that say that physical phenomena can be said to exist. There's another school that says, no, they don't exist. There's no agreement. Only people who dedicate their careers to defending their position with clever arguments and writing treatises about them.
Carry on. Enjoy.
Tell me is one of your Degrees in Science Theory? Just curious.
...or you could take pity on my ignorance and please explain how I am mixing science and logic inappropiately. Were my responses to your responses to my responses not to your liking or false in their logic?
As for Perspective I like to shift perspective when ever I can. It keeps you on the edge and brings many smiles to peoples faces.
Have a Beer and chill dude. Not my fault I am better than you...at virtually everything.
In this thread is not even on 100 yet... So I guess halftime is in another 250 posts or so?
/Victor
Mark Twain
....or less.
i wouldn't have to 'shut you down ' if you played nice, would I?
arrogance doesn't become you.
It doesn't become anybody in fact, so either behave, or accept the consequences.
Play on.
@Victorious you might enjoy reading Gedun Chopel's "Eloquent Distillation of the Profound Points of the Madhyamaka: An Adornment for Nagarjuna's Thought" meaning: A commentary of Nagarjuna's Middle Way. It's in a book called "The Madman's Middle Way", by Donald Lopez.
Chopel (often referred to a madman by monks and abbots, because he was able to win debates on the most preposterous of arguments, and leave his opponents and spectators speechless) was a brilliant intellectual (some say, Tibet's first true intellectual) trained as a monk, and was a brilliant debater who delighted in standing his opponent's arguments on end, and winning on some inflammatory point, like the Buddha didn't exist, or plants have consciousness (which is opposite to Buddhist belief). He was an iconoclast, but a brilliant one. The book has a chapter of Lopez's commentary to Chopel's text, afterwards.
The Middle Way refers to the Middle Way between nihilism and eternalism, discussing the finer points of dependent-arising, and whether anything exists at all. It sounds like you might enjoy it.
Thanks for the spelling lesson.
/Victor
And last time I did play nice it was everybody elses fault I got shut down.
/Victor
Back to topic, please.
And that had better be the last word.
Dave Barry
I am very interested in hearing your input IF it is serious. Telling me I am stupid and should just accept the splendicity of science and that a Fact is a Truth because you say so and obviously science can not be wrong is of course not going hit the venerable spot in me.
Neither is a book reference. I want to hear YOUR thoughts not somebody elses who wrote a book. I can find that at the library.
The other obvious response that lemons and armadillos do not mix is pretty much what I said in the beginning of this thread. Yes at the top before the point no 1.
I have invested pretty many hours of thought and discussion to come up with these arguments. That they are not easily refuted is NOT because I am a stubborn Chopel that twists arguments to my liking but because these arguments are built methodically on years of studying both Buddhism and Science and trying to understand the fundamentals of the two.
This reasoning is something I believe in.
So please let me know what you think.
Thanks
/Victor
I think you need to get out more.
come to think of it, we all do.
I mean, what does it matter, really, which is 'better' and why?
But this is often what is done by those embracing science. They try to validate Buddhism through the eyes of Science. What I did was the reverse. Just to see what would happen.
I just wonder if my arguments are valid or not.
/Victor
I would agree with almost all of that, except for this: Many people are convinced that they won't die tomorrow. However, thousands of them found out today that this was not true, but false!