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.
I'd say that anyone who has equally studied more than one form of Buddhism and chose one over the other would be a skeptical Buddhist.
Or just an experienced Buddhist?
If they used critical thought to chose one over the other, I'd say they are using skepticism.
It's not like it's a dirty word.
I am skimming backwards.
Briefly:
Skepticism I think implies doubt as well as critical thinking. It is usually the premise of the more strongly sided non believer who is the same as the more strongly sided believer (two sides of the same coin)
And there is nothing inherently wrong with being skeptical -- except I think that that road by itself can never ultimately touch Heaven's door -- by itself.
There is a way between voice and presence where information flows. In disciplined silence it opens. With wandering talk it closes.
- Rumi
Disbelieve, doubt, analyse and analyse - more and more and more. Until you are tired.
Thanks for the explanation, really well thought out. I think the question still remains to me, what was the cause for the first moment of ignorance to arise? Or maybe in your scenario, balance phenomena. Doesn't everything have a cause? Therefore what is the cause for the very first moment of dependent phenomena, why didn't it arise earlier or later than it did?
Now, let us analyse more into ignorance. Ignorance means the condition of being uneducated, unaware, uninformed or lack of knowledge, education, awareness. So, what is being uneducated, unaware, uninformed of? The answer is the Mind. For general understanding, mind is a necessary pre-requisite for ignorance to exist; without it, ignorance would be impossible.
Therefore, both of the ignorance and mind elements are empty because each element is inter-dependent of one another to arise. According to the principle of emptiness, all objects exist conditionally without an eternal essence. They only exist in relation to each other as appearances that in turn vary as per the perceptions of the beholders.
Therefore, the doctrine of Dependent Origination that outlines part of the Buddha’s teaching on the nature of existence cannot be directly translated as linear point of reference. This is because reality does not work in-linear but in inter-dependent, inter-woven and inter-relation since the dawn of time in a very comprehensive and complicated network of existence.
What the Buddha has mentioned is that the mind is the forerunner of all states. And with ignorance blindfolding the mind since the dawn of time, suffering arises and continues to arise in the dependent nature. As such, the first link i.e. ignorance in the doctrine of Dependent Origination as taught by the Buddha cannot be translated as the first cause in the dependent nature. This doctrine did not stress the importance of the first cause in the dependent nature but rather focus on the first cause of suffering. Suffering arises because there is mind arising and ignorance as the key factor that clouded the mind from seeing into the reality of things or happenings.
The discovery of reality cannot be limited by words, be it written or spoken. A single word could spell out a thousand and one interpretations. Nowadays, the essence of the Buddhadhamma still remains intact but not its interpretation and this is one of the biggest challenges faced by Buddhism.
As again, one should see the ultimate reality through direct experience and not blind faith. Be moderate, be balance and be kind to your mind. Once the mind is at ease and in perfectly still condition, the truth would rise concurrently. Have a lot of patience and compassion along the way. More importantly, have a nice day!
Nature is a phenomenon. Phenomenon is thing that appears to or is perceived by senses. Therefore, natural phenomenon is thing that appears to or is perceived by mind senses. When there is no mind arises, no natural phenomenon would arise. When there is mind arises, natural phenomenon would arise. In other words, the mind is closely related to phenomenon, and phenomenon is closely related to mind - just like, shadow follows the body.
Inherent and dependent nature is a classification being performed by the mind. Without mind, natural phenomenon classification is impossible. Therefore, mind and natural phenomenon are inter-dependent of each other. There us no separate case of cause, no separate case of effect. Both mind and natural phenomenon are cause and effect at the same time. Cause or effect is the sane thing, both reflected in different time of events. This is because reality does not exist in linear orientation, therefore, there is no real first cause, no real first effect. Cause or effect is inter-dependent, inter-woven and inter-related with each other. This is how reality works.
It just means something like the Noble Truths has to stand and fall on the power of its message to describe reality as I experience it, not because the Buddha said it or that's what I was taught by my parents or a lot of people believe it.
I think that's the correct way to approach the Noble Truths. But most of the Buddhists I've met do approach them like that, and they don't label themselves "skeptical" - so I'm still not sure I've got it.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@buddhitakso I find your latest explanation here spot on. I think where I disagree is where you say that a moment of ignorance arises from memory. I don't see why a memory can't be free of ignorance and why one moment of ignorance can't be simply said to arise from a previous moment of ignorance. The 12 links of DO do have a circular causality and not a linear one. In your initial presentations you talk about a start and even a dawn of time, maybe you're just using these in a loose way and they're throwing me off.
It just means something like the Noble Truths has to stand and fall on the power of its message to describe reality as I experience it, not because the Buddha said it or that's what I was taught by my parents or a lot of people believe it.
I think that's the correct way to approach the Noble Truths. But most of the Buddhists I've met do approach them like that, and they don't label themselves "skeptical" - so I'm still not sure I've got it.
Getting back to the OT, there are no sacred cows in a skeptical mind. In fact, everyone is a skeptic when it comes to other people's beliefs and religions, but then they turn around and fail to apply the same standards to their own beliefs.
Having said that, skepticism does not mean I doubt everything constantly or automatically. You accept what seems to be true on face value unless some other evidence crops up to examine. It just means something like the Noble Truths has to stand and fall on the power of its message to describe reality as I experience it, not because the Buddha said it or that's what I was taught by my parents or a lot of people believe it.
That there are a lot of Skeptical Buddhists and our number is growing (or more likely more of us are coming out of the closet) shows the power of the Noble Truths, because every skeptical Buddhist I've talked to has said it was reading those words that told them here was a religion that finally "got it".
This is probably the best post in the entire thread.
The Noble Truths have to stand and fall on the power of its message to describe reality as experienced? What does that mean?
Yes it is a message, but messages do not necessarily describe reality. The truth in those words are not really any more a valid description of reality than the sacred words of any other religion. Take the First Noble Truth for instance. It says that life is suffering or dissatisfaction, but that is not entirely true for there is also satisfaction in life. It is merely taking one aspect of reality and making a religion out of it.
The Noble Truths have to stand and fall on the power of its message to describe reality as experienced? What does that mean?
Yes it is a message, but messages do not necessarily describe reality. The truth in those words are not really any more a valid description of reality than the sacred words of any other religion. Take the First Noble Truth for instance. It says that life is suffering or dissatisfaction, but that is not entirely true for there is also satisfaction in life. It is merely taking one aspect of reality and making a religion out of it.
No, messages do not necessarily describe reality. However, you have to take the Four Noble Truths together as they were meant to be considered, and actually study what was said, not just recite the thumbnail "Life is Suffering, dude!" version and think that is the sum total of even the first Noble Truth.
The First Noble Truth says that Dukkha exists, and then goes on to describe how every corner and experience of life contains Dukkha in its various forms. Dukkha is not just unhappiness or pain or grief. Dukkha is having it all and being afraid to lose it, of getting what you want as much as not getting what you want. It is, in short, the element of human experience that drives us to looking for something better and motivates us to greed and hatred and violence. That is a deep statement of reality. It's not meant to to be some grand unified statement of Life, the Universe, and Everything. It's mean to describe the human condition that causes us to be unhappy.
But this statement is not asking you to take anything on faith or enter some secret organization where only the initiates find out the secret to life. You look around the world and examine your own life and it either describes the reality of your life, or it doesn't. That is what I mean.
You make one interesting claim that I'd like to call you on. Can you quote the sacred words at the core of other religions and tell me how they describe practical reality as you experience it? Start with "I am the Lord thy God" and work from there.
The Noble Truths have to stand and fall on the power of its message to describe reality as experienced? What does that mean?
Yes it is a message, but messages do not necessarily describe reality. The truth in those words are not really any more a valid description of reality than the sacred words of any other religion. Take the First Noble Truth for instance. It says that life is suffering or dissatisfaction, but that is not entirely true for there is also satisfaction in life. It is merely taking one aspect of reality and making a religion out of it.
No, messages do not necessarily describe reality. However, you have to take the Four Noble Truths together as they were meant to be considered, and actually study what was said, not just recite the thumbnail "Life is Suffering, dude!" version and think that is the sum total of even the first Noble Truth.
Okay, let look deeper, dude!
The First Noble Truth says that Dukkha exists, and then goes on to describe how every corner and experience of life contains Dukkha in its various forms.
Everything is apparently impermanent, sure.
Dukkha is not just unhappiness or pain or grief.
... okay ...
Dukkha is having it all and being afraid to lose it, of getting what you want as much as not getting what you want.
But the truth is that we can only be afraid to lose something periodically. We are not always afraid to lose something, thus life is not dissatisfaction. Life is satisfaction and dissatisfaction. It's also a lot of other stuff.
It is, in short, the element of human experience that drives us to looking for something better and motivates us to greed and hatred and violence.
This part is incoherent. When we're satisfied we don't look for something better. And we could seek to help others. Helping others is dukkha?
That is a deep statement of reality.
At it's core the message is impermanence and some implications of that interpretation.
It's not meant to to be some grand unified statement of Life, the Universe, and Everything. It's mean to describe the human condition that causes us to be unhappy.
No, actually in Buddhism everything is considered impermanent.
But this statement is not asking you to take anything on faith or enter some secret organization where only the initiates find out the secret to life. You look around the world and examine your own life and it either describes the reality of your life, or it doesn't. That is what I mean.
It's taking one aspect of reality and making a religion out of it. And yeah, that's no secret.
Can you quote the sacred words at the core of other religions and tell me how they describe practical reality as you experience it? Start with "I am the Lord thy God" and work from there.
You keep insisting the First Noble Truth is saying that life is nothing but suffering, and that is entirely incorrect. Almost all lifes have good and bad times. You mistake the unfortunate thumbnail statement that has been popularized by the media for the actual Noble Truth and are ignoring me pointing this out. If Buddhism's message doesn't match your image of reality, then you simply have to look elsewhere. Since you're on a Buddhist board, you might want to take a look at what the Noble Truths really do say, though.
I've tried to get into this further but you don't seem to want to respond to what I've posted, Cinorjer. I have in fact wrote that, "At it's core the message is impermanence and some implications of that interpretation." Is this the thumbnail statement that's been popularized by the media? No, it's not.
@buddhitakso I find your latest explanation here spot on. I think where I disagree is where you say that a moment of ignorance arises from memory. I don't see why a memory can't be free of ignorance and why one moment of ignorance can't be simply said to arise from a previous moment of ignorance. The 12 links of DO do have a circular causality and not a linear one. In your initial presentations you talk about a start and even a dawn of time, maybe you're just using these in a loose way and they're throwing me off.
Ignorance means the condition of being uneducated, unaware, uninformed or lack of knowledge, education, awareness. Whereas, memory refers to the act of retaining and recalling impressions, facts, etc.; remembrance; recollection; recognising previous experiences or past events or knowledge.
So, when one is proclaimed as an ignorant being, it means the person is uneducated, unaware, uninformed of some kind of things or happenings that arise beforehand. And ‘some kind of things or happenings that arise beforehand’ would mean past events that have been retained and recalled as references for the present and future events to take place. Without any references derived from the recorded past events, the present and future events could not begin at all i.e. past event is linked to present event; present event is linked to future event.
Let us illustrate, for Ignorance 1 to link to Ignorance 1-1 and Ignorance 1-1 to link to Ignorance 1-1-1 , memory aggregates involvement is inevitable. Without it, the linkage process of past, present and future could not take place at all. In a layman term, this process is called becoming and re-becoming within beings or things. If memory aggregate is absent, the cycle of rising and falling activities in the dependent nature would be deemed impossible because all things or happenings are inter-dependent, inter-woven and inter-related with each other.
Without memory aggregates, whatever information generated from the past events would be instantly forgotten or erased and the progression of becoming or rebirth process would be impossible across time span (past, present and future). Therefore, ignorance and memory aggregates are closely inter-dependent of each other – just like, shadow follows the body.
The principle in effect: - … Cause 1 conjures up Effect 1, Effect 1 conjures up Cause 1-1, Effect 1-1 conjures up Cause 1-1-1, Effect 1-1-1 conjures up Cause 1-1-1-1, .., etc.
... Memory 1 conjures up Ignorance 1, Ignorance 1 conjures up Memory 1-1, Memory 1-1 conjures up Ignorance 1-1-1, Ignorance 1-1-1 conjures up Memory 1-1-1-1, …, etc.
I've tried to get into this further but you don't seem to want to respond to what I've posted, Cinorjer. I have in fact wrote that, "At it's core the message is impermanence and some implications of that interpretation." Is this the thumbnail statement that's been popularized by the media? No, it's not.
Life is satisfaction.
Life is impermanent? That is a big part of Dukkha. No argument there. But it's just one part of Dukkha. It's covered by the Noble Truths. Life is satisfaction? That is just plain nonsense. I look around, and the lack of satisfaction is a big part of people's problems. No, the world is full of people desperately looking to satisfy their needs and wants.
I'm not talking about some philosophical or intellectual exercise in ultimate reality. I'm talking about opening your eyes and looking at the people around you. If you are happy and satisfied right now, I'm glad for you. If you have a clear enough mind to understand this is impermanent and accept the bad stuff waiting in the wings, I'm also glad for you. None of that means the Noble Truths aren't describing your own condition.
I still don't see what part of the Noble Truths you don't find based on the immediate reality of the world. It says life being impermanent and lack of satisfaction are part of Dukkha. Would you like to try again? I'm intrigued.
The Noble Truths have to stand and fall on the power of its message to describe reality as experienced? What does that mean?
It means looking honestly at your experience and seeing if there is anything which provides lasting happiness.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@buddhitakso Ignorance isn't merely incorrect intellectual knowledge, it also includes misperception. I can easily imagine someone with severe alzheimer's still grasping at an innately existing self. A newborn being has no memory of a previous life but still has the ignorance of an "I". Insects are considered sentient beings but do they have a memory or do they act merely upon instinct, and do they have ignorance or are they enlightened?
Life is satisfaction? That is just plain nonsense. I look around, and the lack of satisfaction is a big part of people's problems. No, the world is full of people desperately looking to satisfy their needs and wants.
Lol, you can see the dissatisfaction but not the satisfaction? Perhaps you need to look more carefully.
I'm not talking about some philosophical or intellectual exercise in ultimate reality. I'm talking about opening your eyes and looking at the people around you. If you are happy and satisfied right now, I'm glad for you. If you have a clear enough mind to understand this is impermanent and accept the bad stuff waiting in the wings, I'm also glad for you. None of that means the Noble Truths aren't describing your own condition.
I didn't say they were not describing my own condition. I've expressed that they focus on one aspect of our condition, and have made a religion out of it.
I still don't see what part of the Noble Truths you don't find based on the immediate reality of the world. It says life being impermanent and lack of satisfaction are part of Dukkha. Would you like to try again? I'm intrigued.
The Noble Truths have to stand and fall on the power of its message to describe reality as experienced? What does that mean?
It means looking honestly at your experience and seeing if there is anything which provides lasting happiness.
Not that I've been able to find.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
This thread has been sunk, a moderator must have felt that the discussion is no longer productive, I tend to agree. @buddhitakso, overall I find your understanding of the Dharma to be quite good. However, I find your additions unneccesary and I remain unconvinced on a couple points. For now I'll stick with Buddhist theory.
No worries, Person. What others think or how others interpret dhamma is not important to you. What is important is for you to analyse and see the truth on par with your level of understanding. Do not swallow on things. I appreciate much your critical thinking and deep interest in searching for the real truth. Keeps on with your good effort and trust you'll be enlightened sooner.
First of all, please stop dumping entire chapters of a book in the forum. This is not the place to copy and paste your magnum opus.
Second, this has nothing whatsoever to do with skeptical buddhism, so you've basically trashed an otherwise interesting thread. If you want people to read and remark on your book, how about starting your own thread?
Don't take it personally, Buddhitakso. Cinorjer gives good advice. Your words would get much better attention elsewhere.
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
@buddhitakso, Even if a thread is begun by you or another member, it does not 'belong' to anybody, and nobody has any more "right" to it than anyone else. However, there are certain niceties regarding forum etiquette: Such posting infringes copyright laws and is distinctly frowned upon. By all means recommend reading material, but please ensure you do not hijack a thread, make sure that contributions are largely from your own mouth, and that you remain on topic.
I honestly can't fathom the fascination we conjure up with trying to understand how karma carries from one not-self to some other not-self in the future. Practice is about what we can see in the present, isn't it? To me that's what Skeptical Buddhism is all about: about paying attention to what is right here in front of us, examining cause and effect, and trying to get an increasingly accurate understanding of just what's going on -- how what I do affects the results I get, and trying to see back a little further from the "what I do" to the "why I do it". If I can manage to see some of what's going on with greater clarity, then I can make better choices based on better information.
Speculations about past lives and next lives are not going to provide that level of observable detail -- so why do we bother speculating?
Comments
Briefly:
Skepticism I think implies doubt as well as critical thinking. It is usually the premise of the more strongly sided non believer who is the same as the more strongly sided believer (two sides of the same coin)
And there is nothing inherently wrong with being skeptical -- except I think that that road by itself can never ultimately touch Heaven's door -- by itself. Disbelieve, doubt, analyse and analyse - more and more and more. Until you are tired.
Abu
Therefore, both of the ignorance and mind elements are empty because each element is inter-dependent of one another to arise. According to the principle of emptiness, all objects exist conditionally without an eternal essence. They only exist in relation to each other as appearances that in turn vary as per the perceptions of the beholders.
Therefore, the doctrine of Dependent Origination that outlines part of the Buddha’s teaching on the nature of existence cannot be directly translated as linear point of reference. This is because reality does not work in-linear but in inter-dependent, inter-woven and inter-relation since the dawn of time in a very comprehensive and complicated network of existence.
What the Buddha has mentioned is that the mind is the forerunner of all states. And with ignorance blindfolding the mind since the dawn of time, suffering arises and continues to arise in the dependent nature. As such, the first link i.e. ignorance in the doctrine of Dependent Origination as taught by the Buddha cannot be translated as the first cause in the dependent nature. This doctrine did not stress the importance of the first cause in the dependent nature but rather focus on the first cause of suffering. Suffering arises because there is mind arising and ignorance as the key factor that clouded the mind from seeing into the reality of things or happenings.
The discovery of reality cannot be limited by words, be it written or spoken. A single word could spell out a thousand and one interpretations. Nowadays, the essence of the Buddhadhamma still remains intact but not its interpretation and this is one of the biggest challenges faced by Buddhism.
As again, one should see the ultimate reality through direct experience and not blind faith. Be moderate, be balance and be kind to your mind. Once the mind is at ease and in perfectly still condition, the truth would rise concurrently. Have a lot of patience and compassion along the way. More importantly, have a nice day!
Inherent and dependent nature is a classification being performed by the mind. Without mind, natural phenomenon classification is impossible. Therefore, mind and natural phenomenon are inter-dependent of each other. There us no separate case of cause, no separate case of effect. Both mind and natural phenomenon are cause and effect at the same time. Cause or effect is the sane thing, both reflected in different time of events. This is because reality does not exist in linear orientation, therefore, there is no real first cause, no real first effect. Cause or effect is inter-dependent, inter-woven and inter-related with each other. This is how reality works.
Yes it is a message, but messages do not necessarily describe reality. The truth in those words are not really any more a valid description of reality than the sacred words of any other religion. Take the First Noble Truth for instance. It says that life is suffering or dissatisfaction, but that is not entirely true for there is also satisfaction in life. It is merely taking one aspect of reality and making a religion out of it.
The First Noble Truth says that Dukkha exists, and then goes on to describe how every corner and experience of life contains Dukkha in its various forms. Dukkha is not just unhappiness or pain or grief. Dukkha is having it all and being afraid to lose it, of getting what you want as much as not getting what you want. It is, in short, the element of human experience that drives us to looking for something better and motivates us to greed and hatred and violence. That is a deep statement of reality. It's not meant to to be some grand unified statement of Life, the Universe, and Everything. It's mean to describe the human condition that causes us to be unhappy.
But this statement is not asking you to take anything on faith or enter some secret organization where only the initiates find out the secret to life. You look around the world and examine your own life and it either describes the reality of your life, or it doesn't. That is what I mean.
You make one interesting claim that I'd like to call you on. Can you quote the sacred words at the core of other religions and tell me how they describe practical reality as you experience it? Start with "I am the Lord thy God" and work from there.
Life is satisfaction.
So, when one is proclaimed as an ignorant being, it means the person is uneducated, unaware, uninformed of some kind of things or happenings that arise beforehand. And ‘some kind of things or happenings that arise beforehand’ would mean past events that have been retained and recalled as references for the present and future events to take place. Without any references derived from the recorded past events, the present and future events could not begin at all i.e. past event is linked to present event; present event is linked to future event.
Let us illustrate, for Ignorance 1 to link to Ignorance 1-1 and Ignorance 1-1 to link to Ignorance 1-1-1 , memory aggregates involvement is inevitable. Without it, the linkage process of past, present and future could not take place at all. In a layman term, this process is called becoming and re-becoming within beings or things. If memory aggregate is absent, the cycle of rising and falling activities in the dependent nature would be deemed impossible because all things or happenings are inter-dependent, inter-woven and inter-related with each other.
Without memory aggregates, whatever information generated from the past events would be instantly forgotten or erased and the progression of becoming or rebirth process would be impossible across time span (past, present and future). Therefore, ignorance and memory aggregates are closely inter-dependent of each other – just like, shadow follows the body.
The principle in effect: -
…
Cause 1 conjures up Effect 1,
Effect 1 conjures up Cause 1-1,
Effect 1-1 conjures up Cause 1-1-1,
Effect 1-1-1 conjures up Cause 1-1-1-1,
.., etc.
...
Memory 1 conjures up Ignorance 1,
Ignorance 1 conjures up Memory 1-1,
Memory 1-1 conjures up Ignorance 1-1-1,
Ignorance 1-1-1 conjures up Memory 1-1-1-1,
…, etc.
I'm not talking about some philosophical or intellectual exercise in ultimate reality. I'm talking about opening your eyes and looking at the people around you. If you are happy and satisfied right now, I'm glad for you. If you have a clear enough mind to understand this is impermanent and accept the bad stuff waiting in the wings, I'm also glad for you. None of that means the Noble Truths aren't describing your own condition.
I still don't see what part of the Noble Truths you don't find based on the immediate reality of the world. It says life being impermanent and lack of satisfaction are part of Dukkha. Would you like to try again? I'm intrigued.
First of all, please stop dumping entire chapters of a book in the forum. This is not the place to copy and paste your magnum opus.
Second, this has nothing whatsoever to do with skeptical buddhism, so you've basically trashed an otherwise interesting thread. If you want people to read and remark on your book, how about starting your own thread?
Till here, I stop with no more contributions. Wishing you with many happy days always!
However, there are certain niceties regarding forum etiquette:
Such posting infringes copyright laws and is distinctly frowned upon.
By all means recommend reading material, but please ensure you do not hijack a thread, make sure that contributions are largely from your own mouth, and that you remain on topic.
Speculations about past lives and next lives are not going to provide that level of observable detail -- so why do we bother speculating?