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.
Familiarity will breed what it breeds. I was just saying I'm familiar with the various ideas about God.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Chanting natural selection doesn't do anything to take away from the fact that there is a driving force behind said selection.
Intelligence is information and to be intelligent is to be able to collect and share information consciously.
I did not say the universe is intelligent but that there is natural intelligence (and even logistics) to the universe.
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
@ourself said: Chanting natural selection doesn't do anything to take away from the fact that there is a driving force behind said selection.
>
Could you be more specific?
Intelligence is information and to be intelligent is to be able to collect and share information consciously.
>
Ok with you so far....
I did not say the universe is intelligent but that there is natural intelligence (and even logistics) to the universe.
>
Prove it.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@SpinyNorman said:
But if one is practising Buddhism rather than theism, then why continue to think like a theist? Why hang on to out-dated and irrelevant beliefs?
Because humans are kinda wired that way - not to cling to ideas of theism per se, but to cling to old, deeply ingrained belief systems.
An example of a more subtle form of such clinging is the propensity in some to treat the Precepts like the Ten Commandments. It's represenative of continuing adherence and a need to have a set of rules chiseled in stone for all to abide by. It's a throw back to Judeo-Christian theistic thinking and belief. It's certainly not Buddhist, save by inference.
It's rather like a grown-up still believing in Father Christmas because of fond memories of receiving presents as a child.
I believe in Father Christmas. I'm maried to his daughter.
@ourself said:
I did not say the universe is intelligent but that there is natural intelligence (and even logistics) to the universe.
The driving force in evolution is survival of the individual and the species. Those individuals and species which adapt best are the one's which survive, hence natural selection. It's a messy process with lots of trial and error, and I wouldn't characterise it as particularly intelligent.
Because humans are kinda wired that way - not to cling to ideas of theism per se, but to cling to old, deeply ingrained belief systems.
But isn't the point of Buddhist practice to challenge that clinging?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited September 2014
@SpinyNorman said:
The driving force in evolution is survival of the individual and the species. Those individuals and species which adapt best are the one's which survive, hence natural selection. It's a messy process with lots of trial and error, and I wouldn't characterise it as particularly intelligent.
Neither would I as being intelligent denotes being able to make sense of intelligence. Seems like that's where we come in eventually.
I do sense a hint of rudimentary awareness to the universe but I wouldn't make a sentient being out of it.
@SpinyNorman said:
But isn't the point of Buddhist practice to challenge that clinging?
No, the point is to achieve enlightenment for the sake and benefit of sentient beings. The clinging will disolve by itself as a matter of course. In the meantime, clinging abides.
While our practice can challenge habitual patterns such as clinging, simply challenging is seldom sufficient for cessation. Ever quit smoking?
@Chaz said:
No, the point is to achieve enlightenment for the sake and benefit of sentient beings. The clinging will disolve by itself as a matter of course. In the meantime, clinging abides.
So how do you achieve enlightenment without dissolving clinging? Or to put it another way, how does wisdom develop while clinging persists?
@SpinyNorman said:
But isn't the point of Buddhist practice to challenge that clinging?
Yes, that's part of Buddhist practice. But you seem to do a pretty job of clinging to a certain Buddhist framework.
In fact, in other threads where we've talked about Buddhist Precepts -- particularly those beyond what I refer to as the primary 5, and someone has suggested changing some or dropping some, or suggested that the clothing worn by monks could be more practical, some of the same individuals who profess to emphasize not clinging to old un-Buddhist beliefs, suddenly get into a very clinging mode.
In fact, it's extremely rare that I've seen anyone on this forum actually change their mind about much of anything. Lots of clinging going on around here.
@vinlyn said:
In fact, it's extremely rare that I've seen anyone on this forum actually change their mind about much of anything. Lots of clinging going on around here.
Astute!
That means everyone here is experiencing Dukkha.
Lots of suffering going on here.
Who would have guessed?
High time that @lobster started eminating a Pure Land ...... Gangan Style!
@vinlyn said:
Perhaps it depends on the degree of clinging.
Do tell ..... does your belief in God help dissolve any clinging in your life? IOW, has your belief in God led you to reduced clinging or it's cessation and thereby closer to enlightenment?
@Chaz said:
Do tell ..... does your belief in God help dissolve any clinging in your life. IOW, has your belief in God led you to reduced clinging or it's cessation and thereby closer to enlightenment.
I think that's a loaded question. There's a belief in God and then there's an experience or a realisation of God. The former doesn't seem to do much, the latter does. And language is such a crude tool to use. People have experiences and then ascribe that experience to the cultural background/religion that they're familiar with.
But it's the same with Nirvana/Nibbana; does a belief in that help dissolve any clinging in your life? Or would an experience of it - even a glimpse - help develop motivation to practise further?
And we know it would be possible to both cling to either the concepts God and Nirvana too.
And also the eschatology (how we believe things end) helps shapes our actions. If we believe when we die, we just die, then we may end up with a 'lets eat, drink, and be merry' kind of attitude. But both the Buddhist rebirth and the Christian Happy La La Land after life scenarios (hopefully) help develop a wiser and more compassionate way of being while we're alive.
Remember, when we're hungry, a wide range of foods can solve that problem. It would be daft to say only 'pasta' works.
@vinlyn said:
In fact, it's extremely rare that I've seen anyone on this forum actually change their mind about much of anything. Lots of clinging going on around here.
I doubt a discussion, internet or face-to-face would change many people's mind about this kind of stuff. The thing that changes my mind is suffering. I had spent my formative years in the army; I would've scoffed at anything religious or spiritual. Even if I saw the army padre heading in my direction, I would've went another to avoid talking to him.
I had abandoned my family, my mother had disowned me for over ten years, I was getting chased by bailiffs for non payment of taxes and child support and I was drinking a litre of whisky a day, supplemented with as many cans of strong lager that I could get my hands on, and I wasn't far off from being homeless.
I've had to change my mind about a lot of things, but suffering seems to be the key. In A.A. we call the result of suffering 'willingness' and we consider it a gift. Makes me smile, but there's a lot of truth in it.
There's a belief in God and then there's an experience or a realisation of God. The former doesn't seem to do much, the latter does. And language is such a crude tool to use. People have experiences and then ascribe that experience to the cultural background/religion that they're familiar with.
Sure, but if we're practising Buddhism, doesn't it make sense to use Buddhist language to describe the experience? Not least because for many western Buddhists "God" is likely to have baggage associated with it.
Using God language in a Buddhist context is basically quite confusing.
@Tosh said:
I doubt a discussion, internet or face-to-face would change many people's mind about this kind of stuff. The thing that changes my mind is suffering.
Experience is usually a more effective teacher than chatting.
Although, my view of karma has evolved a great deal since joining this forum. And -- whatever one wants to call it -- I've gravitated quite far away from Buddhism as a religion and quite far toward seeing it as a philosophy (dare I say it, secular Buddhism) due to discussions on this forum. Although ironically, it's the Dharma-thumping that has driven me further and further away from Buddhism as a religion. Thumping is thumping no matter what the religion.
@SpinyNorman said:
Well we've been having an interesting discussion over on the secular Buddhist forum if you want to join us. No thumping there!
That's not really Buddhism though is it? It's religion cafeteria style. You're doing it wrong. If you want to know what the Buddha taught, have a read of What The Buddha Taught by Rahula. There's rebirth in there.
And Stephen Batchelor is a heretic who will be reborn as a donkey, if he's lucky!
I find offhanded dismissals of my EXPERIENCES which I refer to as relationship with GOD (given the limitations of using words and words ill defined) as close minded and haughty. I make no demands that others share my witness, but please respect that it is existential and not doctrinal. Now it is possible that I am psychotic and hallucinatory regards my experiences, but please give me the benefits of suspending that doubt.
@Skeeterkb said:
I find offhanded dismissals of my EXPERIENCES which I refer to as relationship with GOD (given the limitations of using words and words ill defined) as close minded and haughty.
It's a bit like trying to explain the joy of running to a non-runner. They just look at you blankly, like you're a bit of a tool.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited September 2014
@federica said:
Indicate this as a definite. Prove it.
I'm sorry but you're not making any sense.
Intelligence is just information and logistics is just how things move.
I cannot prove that there is information and that it moves a certain way... I figured that was a given.
My only leap is that there is purpose behind it as instinctual as it may be.
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 made some pretty definitive statements in your post.
I'm just asking you to back them up.
Here's your post again....
Do you think I'm implying "un-natural" selection?
>
What is it that you think "selects"?
>
What is it YOU think 'selects'...?
Chanting natural selection doesn't do anything to take away from the fact that there is a driving force behind said selection.
>
WHat ;driving force' are you referring to precisely?
Intelligence is information and to be intelligent is to be able to collect and share information consciously.
I did not say the universe is intelligent but that there is natural intelligence (and even logistics) to the universe.
>
Explain?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I don't claim to know what selects but it does happen and it seems to follow a certain criteria. Saying natural selection is like saying universal selection unless parts of the universe are un-natural but that sounds pretty unlikely.
What do you think it really means to say nature selects? It's a bit vague too.
My guess is that natural selection runs on a kind of instinct.
The driving force would be at least a kind of inertia but it could possibly be purpose. I am not saying it is, just that I feel it's naive to dismiss it off hand.
The logistics of intelligence is just the way information moves, that's it.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited September 2014
The "natural" part in natural selection was meant, I think, to distinguish it from anything supernatural (because up until that point, "God did it" was the explanation). As in... selection of traits happens over time naturally as those traits best suited to survival, well, "survive" (along with their hosts), and those that don't are lost. Survival is the decider.
Life clings to itself, but death is inevitable and conditions for survival change. Sexual reproduction gives life a better chance of adapting to changing conditions (as opposed to asexual reproduction, which is basically cloning). Death is really the driving force of evolution, or life's clinging vs. death, a constant struggle against extinction.
55 seconds long, a left-footer priest explaining who/what God is:
Sounds a bit like Buddha Nature maybe?
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@ourself, That I think is better. From my PoV, it was inaccurate of you to speak with such definite certainty. You last post is full of 'possibles' which I think is fairer.
Ok, thanks, that's me quite content....
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@federica said:
Ok, thanks, that's me quite content....
@Chaz said: Because humans are kinda wired that way - not to cling to ideas of theism per se, but to cling to old, deeply ingrained belief systems.
>
An example of a more subtle form of such clinging is the propensity in some to treat the Precepts like the Ten Commandments. It's representative of continuing adherence and a need to have a set of rules chiseled in stone for all to abide by. It's a throw back to Judeo-Christian theistic thinking and belief. It's certainly not Buddhist, save by inference.
>
I think that it is interesting that you mentioned the 10 Commandments. That is basically my entire 'religion." for me there is a Creator, the rules to live together in peace as a society (global) and the instructions for how to do that as taught by Buddha. I don't have the ability to reason away God because for lack of a better explanation, He is an inception. It drives me to want to experience the holy world. This is not as easy as it seems, in fact it is difficult. When I found Buddha I found the one who could teach me to want to behave as I believe God wanted. There are a lot of humans who have brought valuable lessons; Buddha brought the teaching of mind control for a happy life. Moses brought a different message. Buddha said "don't believe me...try it." I say it works. If we scan the 10 Commandments we may realize they would work as well. Following anyone or any creed is, in a free society, ultimately a choice. I would say that a person who does not want to submit to anything will have a more difficult time defining his/her worth in this world. I think I might be moving into the area of Einstein now and relativity. Better stop here. Wishing you all love.
Comments
Familiarity will breed what it breeds. I was just saying I'm familiar with the various ideas about God.
Do you think I'm implying "un-natural" selection?
What is it that you think "selects"?
Chanting natural selection doesn't do anything to take away from the fact that there is a driving force behind said selection.
Intelligence is information and to be intelligent is to be able to collect and share information consciously.
I did not say the universe is intelligent but that there is natural intelligence (and even logistics) to the universe.
>
Could you be more specific?
>
Ok with you so far....
>
Prove it.
You're asking me to prove there is a way things go?
Because humans are kinda wired that way - not to cling to ideas of theism per se, but to cling to old, deeply ingrained belief systems.
An example of a more subtle form of such clinging is the propensity in some to treat the Precepts like the Ten Commandments. It's represenative of continuing adherence and a need to have a set of rules chiseled in stone for all to abide by. It's a throw back to Judeo-Christian theistic thinking and belief. It's certainly not Buddhist, save by inference.
I believe in Father Christmas. I'm maried to his daughter.
But it can be.
The driving force in evolution is survival of the individual and the species. Those individuals and species which adapt best are the one's which survive, hence natural selection. It's a messy process with lots of trial and error, and I wouldn't characterise it as particularly intelligent.
Because humans are kinda wired that way - not to cling to ideas of theism per se, but to cling to old, deeply ingrained belief systems.
But isn't the point of Buddhist practice to challenge that clinging?
Neither would I as being intelligent denotes being able to make sense of intelligence. Seems like that's where we come in eventually.
I do sense a hint of rudimentary awareness to the universe but I wouldn't make a sentient being out of it.
It's more like a way of being.
No, the point is to achieve enlightenment for the sake and benefit of sentient beings. The clinging will disolve by itself as a matter of course. In the meantime, clinging abides.
While our practice can challenge habitual patterns such as clinging, simply challenging is seldom sufficient for cessation. Ever quit smoking?
So how do you achieve enlightenment without dissolving clinging? Or to put it another way, how does wisdom develop while clinging persists?
Slowly but surely over many lifetimes.
No.
You said:
"...there is natural intelligence (and even logistics) to the universe."
Indicate this as a definite. Prove it.
Which is your right. As it is mine to think the same of some of your views. That's fine.
But not everything in life is "either" "or".
Yes, that's part of Buddhist practice. But you seem to do a pretty job of clinging to a certain Buddhist framework.
In fact, in other threads where we've talked about Buddhist Precepts -- particularly those beyond what I refer to as the primary 5, and someone has suggested changing some or dropping some, or suggested that the clothing worn by monks could be more practical, some of the same individuals who profess to emphasize not clinging to old un-Buddhist beliefs, suddenly get into a very clinging mode.
In fact, it's extremely rare that I've seen anyone on this forum actually change their mind about much of anything. Lots of clinging going on around here.
Yes, that's part of Buddhist practice. But you seem to do a pretty job of clinging to a certain Buddhist framework.
But at least it is a Buddhist framework.
Clinging is clinging.
And does a belief in God help to dissolve that clinging, or just reinforce it?
Astute!
That means everyone here is experiencing Dukkha.
Lots of suffering going on here.
Who would have guessed?
High time that @lobster started eminating a Pure Land ...... Gangan Style!
Perhaps it depends on the degree of clinging.
Do tell ..... does your belief in God help dissolve any clinging in your life? IOW, has your belief in God led you to reduced clinging or it's cessation and thereby closer to enlightenment?
Too aggressive. No thanks.
I think that's a loaded question. There's a belief in God and then there's an experience or a realisation of God. The former doesn't seem to do much, the latter does. And language is such a crude tool to use. People have experiences and then ascribe that experience to the cultural background/religion that they're familiar with.
But it's the same with Nirvana/Nibbana; does a belief in that help dissolve any clinging in your life? Or would an experience of it - even a glimpse - help develop motivation to practise further?
And we know it would be possible to both cling to either the concepts God and Nirvana too.
And also the eschatology (how we believe things end) helps shapes our actions. If we believe when we die, we just die, then we may end up with a 'lets eat, drink, and be merry' kind of attitude. But both the Buddhist rebirth and the Christian Happy La La Land after life scenarios (hopefully) help develop a wiser and more compassionate way of being while we're alive.
Remember, when we're hungry, a wide range of foods can solve that problem. It would be daft to say only 'pasta' works.
I doubt a discussion, internet or face-to-face would change many people's mind about this kind of stuff. The thing that changes my mind is suffering. I had spent my formative years in the army; I would've scoffed at anything religious or spiritual. Even if I saw the army padre heading in my direction, I would've went another to avoid talking to him.
I had abandoned my family, my mother had disowned me for over ten years, I was getting chased by bailiffs for non payment of taxes and child support and I was drinking a litre of whisky a day, supplemented with as many cans of strong lager that I could get my hands on, and I wasn't far off from being homeless.
I've had to change my mind about a lot of things, but suffering seems to be the key. In A.A. we call the result of suffering 'willingness' and we consider it a gift. Makes me smile, but there's a lot of truth in it.
There's a belief in God and then there's an experience or a realisation of God. The former doesn't seem to do much, the latter does. And language is such a crude tool to use. People have experiences and then ascribe that experience to the cultural background/religion that they're familiar with.
Sure, but if we're practising Buddhism, doesn't it make sense to use Buddhist language to describe the experience? Not least because for many western Buddhists "God" is likely to have baggage associated with it.
Using God language in a Buddhist context is basically quite confusing.
Gangan Style!
Is that a style of cooking with chicken or something?
Experience is usually a more effective teacher than chatting.
Although, my view of karma has evolved a great deal since joining this forum. And -- whatever one wants to call it -- I've gravitated quite far away from Buddhism as a religion and quite far toward seeing it as a philosophy (dare I say it, secular Buddhism) due to discussions on this forum. Although ironically, it's the Dharma-thumping that has driven me further and further away from Buddhism as a religion. Thumping is thumping no matter what the religion.
Well we've been having an interesting discussion over on the secular Buddhist forum if you want to join us. No thumping there!
I haven't been back to visit them for a week or so.
I've been finding it quite interesting to understand how they approach things.
That's not really Buddhism though is it? It's religion cafeteria style. You're doing it wrong. If you want to know what the Buddha taught, have a read of What The Buddha Taught by Rahula. There's rebirth in there.
And Stephen Batchelor is a heretic who will be reborn as a donkey, if he's lucky!
Well that's the great thing about Buddhism, there really is something for everyone.
Praise the lord!
Yes. That is interesting, but I don't find their approach very comfortable...seems like a lot of talking down to even when they're in basic agreement.
I'll check in every week or so. But I enjoy the flow here.
I find offhanded dismissals of my EXPERIENCES which I refer to as relationship with GOD (given the limitations of using words and words ill defined) as close minded and haughty. I make no demands that others share my witness, but please respect that it is existential and not doctrinal. Now it is possible that I am psychotic and hallucinatory regards my experiences, but please give me the benefits of suspending that doubt.
It's a bit like trying to explain the joy of running to a non-runner. They just look at you blankly, like you're a bit of a tool.
I'm sorry but you're not making any sense.
Intelligence is just information and logistics is just how things move.
I cannot prove that there is information and that it moves a certain way... I figured that was a given.
My only leap is that there is purpose behind it as instinctual as it may be.
@ourself, That makes two of us... :rolleyes: .
You made some pretty definitive statements in your post.
I'm just asking you to back them up.
Here's your post again....
>
>
What is it YOU think 'selects'...?
>
WHat ;driving force' are you referring to precisely?
>
Explain?
I don't claim to know what selects but it does happen and it seems to follow a certain criteria. Saying natural selection is like saying universal selection unless parts of the universe are un-natural but that sounds pretty unlikely.
What do you think it really means to say nature selects? It's a bit vague too.
My guess is that natural selection runs on a kind of instinct.
The driving force would be at least a kind of inertia but it could possibly be purpose. I am not saying it is, just that I feel it's naive to dismiss it off hand.
The logistics of intelligence is just the way information moves, that's it.
The "natural" part in natural selection was meant, I think, to distinguish it from anything supernatural (because up until that point, "God did it" was the explanation). As in... selection of traits happens over time naturally as those traits best suited to survival, well, "survive" (along with their hosts), and those that don't are lost. Survival is the decider.
Life clings to itself, but death is inevitable and conditions for survival change. Sexual reproduction gives life a better chance of adapting to changing conditions (as opposed to asexual reproduction, which is basically cloning). Death is really the driving force of evolution, or life's clinging vs. death, a constant struggle against extinction.
55 seconds long, a left-footer priest explaining who/what God is:
Sounds a bit like Buddha Nature maybe?
Ok, thanks, that's me quite content....
Oh, sorry. I didn't mean it to sound that way.
Chaz, you said this...
>
>
I think that it is interesting that you mentioned the 10 Commandments. That is basically my entire 'religion." for me there is a Creator, the rules to live together in peace as a society (global) and the instructions for how to do that as taught by Buddha. I don't have the ability to reason away God because for lack of a better explanation, He is an inception. It drives me to want to experience the holy world. This is not as easy as it seems, in fact it is difficult. When I found Buddha I found the one who could teach me to want to behave as I believe God wanted. There are a lot of humans who have brought valuable lessons; Buddha brought the teaching of mind control for a happy life. Moses brought a different message. Buddha said "don't believe me...try it." I say it works. If we scan the 10 Commandments we may realize they would work as well. Following anyone or any creed is, in a free society, ultimately a choice. I would say that a person who does not want to submit to anything will have a more difficult time defining his/her worth in this world. I think I might be moving into the area of Einstein now and relativity. Better stop here. Wishing you all love.