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.
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
One of my philosophy podcasts covered logical positivism, also known as logical empiricism. I may be off some in my understanding, but this is sort of the philosophical position of some of the New Atheists. It believes that empirical science gives us definitive truths about the world.
Subsequently there were criticisms of this view that helped bring us to our current way of viewing scientific knowledge, Karl Popper probably being the most well known critic. He didn't poo poo science into a post modern arbitrariness but made the argument that science doesn't give us definitive truth claims, but rather works through a process of falsification. Einstein summed it up as "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." To give a real world example, back in the day Europeans thought all swans were white as they had never seen of or heard of a non white swan. Then when they got to Australia they found black swans. So it was wrong to definitively say that all swans are white because they had never seen one.
I think there is a distinction to be made between saying, there is no evidence for a thing to exist, therefore we can say it doesn't exist and saying, there is no evidence for a thing to exist, therefore there is no sound basis for belief in it. Maybe that sounds like a distinction without a difference but I think the first closes one off to new and contrary evidence, while the latter keeps one open to it.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@seeker242 said:
That's why things like hell realms are "unfalsifiable"
There are those who would gently argue that all those things are automatically falsified, because they are all of the imagination and derivative of the content of the human realm. All portraits and descriptions of the hell realms feature things like armour and human torture devices, the stuff a fevered human writer might dream up.
@seeker242 said:
That's why things like hell realms are "unfalsifiable"
There are those who would gently argue that all those things are automatically falsified, because they are all of the imagination and derivative of the content of the human realm. All portraits and descriptions of the hell realms feature things like armour and human torture devices, the stuff a fevered human writer might dream up.
There are those that would argue that, but technically it wouldn’t be a rationally valid argument. It would be illogical. Carl Sagan was once asked in an interview if he would deny that Jesus turned water into wine. He said “Deny it, certainly not. Although, I would not believe it unless there was some evidence for it.” He wouldn’t deny it because he was being strictly rational. He also went on the add that withholding judgments or conclusions is perfectly rational.
My understand of things is that Buddhism leaves the idea of the divine to the individual. Buddhism simply points at the path and it is up to us to follow it and find guidance as we need it (within the realm of our own understanding).
Exactly.
God, Cod (Hallowed be her name) and Her Divine Noddliness the Fly Speghetti Monster, is irrelevant to many practitioners. You don't need Jesus, Odin, Allah or similar creator meglomaniac deities to practice Dharma. Choice gods available in Vajrayana not to be confused with mind projections ...
I like Gods personally - as personifications of abstract qualities, for example:
@seeker242 said:
That's why things like hell realms are "unfalsifiable"
There are those who would gently argue that all those things are automatically falsified, because they are all of the imagination and derivative of the content of the human realm. All portraits and descriptions of the hell realms feature things like armour and human torture devices, the stuff a fevered human writer might dream up.
There are those that would argue that, but technically it wouldn’t be a rationally valid argument. It would be illogical. Carl Sagan was once asked in an interview if he would deny that Jesus turned water into wine. He said “Deny it, certainly not. Although, I would not believe it unless there was some evidence for it.” He wouldn’t deny it because he was being strictly rational. He also went on the add that withholding judgments or conclusions is perfectly rational.
That seems like splitting hairs to me... if you don’t believe in it, then why not deny that it happened? It seems like semantic gobbledygook. The two positions are essentially the same.
@Kerome said:
That seems like splitting hairs to me... if you don’t believe in it, then why not deny that it happened? It seems like semantic gobbledygook. The two positions are essentially the same.
The point is that from the standpoint of pure logical reasoning, they aren't the same. Although, I would agree in saying the difference is subtle and you could say they would have the same effect in your daily living, etc. But philosophically, they aren't the same. The validity of the reasoning is what makes them different.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
Well, if you “deny that something happened” that’s the same as “believing that something did not happen”. If you go by the dictionary I think you’ll find the only difference between the statements is a measure of subjectivity which is implied in the first and explicit in the second. I don’t think the difference would hold up in a court of law, for instance.
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
@Kerome said:
Well, if you “deny that something happened” that’s the same as “believing that something did not happen”. If you go by the dictionary I think you’ll find the only difference between the statements is a measure of subjectivity which is implied in the first and explicit in the second. I don’t think the difference would hold up in a court of law, for instance.
i'm afraid that's incorrect. Denial is not the same as disbelief at all.
I deny that my mother's house is mine, but I don't believe it's collapsed....
They're quite different. And yes, as my husband is a lawyer, the difference would most certainly stand up in a Court of Law....!
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@seeker242 said:
That's why things like hell realms are "unfalsifiable"
There are those who would gently argue that all those things are automatically falsified, because they are all of the imagination and derivative of the content of the human realm. All portraits and descriptions of the hell realms feature things like armour and human torture devices, the stuff a fevered human writer might dream up.
There are those that would argue that, but technically it wouldn’t be a rationally valid argument. It would be illogical. Carl Sagan was once asked in an interview if he would deny that Jesus turned water into wine. He said “Deny it, certainly not. Although, I would not believe it unless there was some evidence for it.” He wouldn’t deny it because he was being strictly rational. He also went on the add that withholding judgments or conclusions is perfectly rational.
That seems like splitting hairs to me... if you don’t believe in it, then why not deny that it happened? It seems like semantic gobbledygook. The two positions are essentially the same.
I tried to make the same distinction @seeker242 is making, but probably didn't do a very good job of it.
Logical positivism is the philosophical stance that we can make definitive truth claims about the world based on empirical observation or maybe reason. Its a progress against truth claims based on revelation, religious dogma, etc. but misunderstands what science is actually doing. To quote Einstein again, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Or the lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack.
It is possible to maintain a "don't know mind", one that simply says I don't know in the face of ignorance rather than drawing a positive conclusion. If something is likely true or untrue we can act in the world as if it is without making the cognitive leap to a concrete position. The practical difference between the two is in keeping an open mind to potentially anomalous evidence, especially since what we know is changing all the time.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@Kerome said:
Well, if you “deny that something happened” that’s the same as “believing that something did not happen”. If you go by the dictionary I think you’ll find the only difference between the statements is a measure of subjectivity which is implied in the first and explicit in the second. I don’t think the difference would hold up in a court of law, for instance.
i'm afraid that's incorrect. Denial is not the same as disbelief at all.
I deny that my mother's house is mine, but I don't believe it's collapsed....
They're quite different. And yes, as my husband is a lawyer, the difference would most certainly stand up in a Court of Law....!
Well, it’s possible that I will come back to this thread in a few days and the penny will drop. But the sentence...
I deny my mothers house is mine, but I also don’t believe it is mine.
... still makes little sense because it appears to be saying the same thing twice.
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
That's not what I said.
Read it again. It supplies the distinction between denial and belief. One is not similar, the same or interchangeable with the other.
The view that one sentient being dreams up, thinks up, or creates, the world, is 有神論的決定論, महेश्वरस्यनिर्माणदृष्टि, maheśvarasyanirmāṇadṛṣṭi, or god's-creation-view.
Ironically, though, the above view is essentially what many Buddhists believe, when they say things like "all is mind".
2
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@seeker242 said:
However, belief in hell realm can be reasonable, if you believe the Buddha was actually fully enlightened, knower of all worlds, etc. It's not unreasonable to simply believe that the Buddha was telling the truth. Especially so when you have personally tested many of the things he has said, and personally found them to be true. When that is the case, it's not unreasonable to assume the rest of what he said is true also. For example, say a person tells you 100 things. With 80 of these things, you can go out and personally verify for yourself their truthfulness. You actually go and do that and determine, for yourself, that all 80 things are in fact true. With these other 20 things, you don't really know how to test them for yourself or you just can't. However, the person that told you these things now has an impeccable track record for telling the truth so far. You have personally found for yourself that this person is very wise, much wiser than yourself, and extraordinarily trustworthy. You are fully confident, due to your past experiences with them, that they actually do know what they are talking about and they are in fact a most supreme expert in such matters. Given all of that, it's quite reasonable to just believe them.
The above point is, I believe, where Buddhism becomes a religion as opposed to a philosophy. Which is OK! But not for me, and not for many other folks who approach Buddhism from a skeptical point of view.
I don't believe anyone just because they're trustworthy. It helps, but it isn't an absolute determining factor. On the other hand, I also don't disbelieve someone because other claims they have made are either implausible or proven to be untrue.
Here's an analogy... I'm coming up with this off the top of my head, so please tell me if it doesn't hold water. Let's say there is a math teacher. This teacher shows problem after problem and provides the method of solution. She encourages the class to utilize the method and see for themselves what happens. When students have trouble grasping, the teacher changes the angle of the lesson to attempt to explain in a way that each student can understand. She patiently directs each students' irrelevant questions toward a line of thinking that will be helpful towards solving the problems, and away from lines of thinking that may confuse or obfuscate. Eventually the class comes to see the teacher as knowledgeable, trustworthy, and sympathetic- and the class, through experience and observation, believes that future experiences with the teacher regarding math will be similar. Why wouldn't they? In all of these students' minds she has never been wrong, never been unkind, never been disingenuous, and has always been able to eventually guide the students toward a solution that they can reach on their own using the method that the teacher provides.
One day the teacher shows the class a problem, shows the solution, encourages practice, just like always. The students, respecting her and expecting the experience to be in line with previous ones, work on the problem. Some follow the method to the solution. Some, however, find that there are gaps in the method that make the solution impossible to reach. They pose their questions, and the teacher answers them by saying that certain parts of the method require assumptions that are unverifiable. These assumptions are part of the method because they have been a part of other mathematical principles in the past which were generally accepted by most mathematicians. She has created this method of solution and is confident that it works, even though it has gaps that cannot be resolved through observation. The students ask why- if other lessons in class only included provable methods of solution, should they make unverifiable assumptions in order to solve this problem? Instead of making assumptions which aren't provable, why not just leave this problem aside and consider it to be without a solution for the time being until more verifiable information comes to light that can solve the problem without assumptions?
The teacher states that her track record should show them that taking her advice and doing math in the way that she teaches has never failed them before. She tells them that she has the greatest mind in mathematics- and that although she cannot prove the assertions that her assumptive method makes, they should have faith in her ability to teach them correctly. In fact, having faith in her ability to make these assumptions will be the only way to get high marks in class, while having doubt will be a hindrance. Other students in the class were able to make this leap of faith and are happily satisfied with the result, not conflicted in any way. Content. The skeptical students are not satisfied with her answer.
Now... some of the skeptics are conflicted, and from that point find it difficult to trust the teacher, even when the solutions to other problems can be reached just as she teaches them. However, their trust in the teacher has now been undermined- causing them to quit the class and question everything that she ever taught them. They've been tricked before and hold bitterness about it. They associate those past experiences with this one, and decide to quit math and become mass-comm majors.
However, a few of the skeptics remain in the class. They are true skeptics, evaluating and investigating not only the claims that teachers make, but also their own emotional reactions to the world around them. They decide that the unverifiable claims are irrelevant obfuscations, and resolve to continue to pursue mathematics. They accept the fact that they won't get A's in this class due to their lack of faith, but have made that choice in order to pursue the subject matter with curiosity, openness, diligence, honesty, and critical thinking.
@person said:
Now I would make a distinction between two types of truth claims made by the Buddha. The first type are claims about internal subjective states of mind, these sorts of claims do seem to be very reliable and, at least so far, have stood up to scientific evaluation. The second type are claims about the external world, to the best of my knowledge pretty much all of these types of claims that can be checked scientifically have been shown to be false.
And the above point is why, as a person who does not have a belief in god, gods, or even that the Buddha was somehow a sort of elevated human being, I can practice the dharma without being turned away by the parts that I would have to accept on faith.
To me a better, but similar analogy would be to say there is a psychology teacher or personal psychiatrist that teaches you all these things that end up being true and very helpful personally, then they also teach you some things about physics, some that are empirically verifiable and some that aren't. The things that are empirically verifiable turn out to be incorrect and the things that aren't empirically verifiable are thought by some people to be an essential component of the psychological teachings.
I should temper that a bit by saying that I think while being empirically unverifiable karma and rebirth are naturalistic explanations and are logically self consistent. Really the only aspect of them that I can see as being unreasonable in the context of forming beliefs based on insufficient evidence is the lack of evidence for an immaterial component of beings that could continue it's existence beyond the death of the body.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2018
@Kerome said:
Well, if you “deny that something happened” that’s the same as “believing that something did not happen”.
Not really. Denying something happened implies intimate knowledge to the contrary whereas believing something did not happen implies a lack of intimate knowledge to the contrary. The only way it's the same thing is if the person doing the denying really knows that they don't know for a fact.
If you go by the dictionary I think you’ll find the only difference between the statements is a measure of subjectivity which is implied in the first and explicit in the second. I don’t think the difference would hold up in a court of law, for instance.
I think you will find one is a statement of fact and one is a statement of faith.
In a court of law "I know it didn't happen" is not the same as "I don't believe it happened".
You either know for a fact or you don't.
3
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Vimalajāti said:
The view that one sentient being dreams up, thinks up, or creates, the world, is 有神論的決定論, महेश्वरस्यनिर्माणदृष्टि, maheśvarasyanirmāṇadṛṣṭi, or god's-creation-view.
Ironically, though, the above view is essentially what many Buddhists believe, when they say things like "all is mind".
@Vimalajāti said:
The view that one sentient being dreams up, thinks up, or creates, the world, is 有神論的決定論, महेश्वरस्यनिर्माणदृष्टि, maheśvarasyanirmāṇadṛṣṭi, or god's-creation-view.
Ironically, though, the above view is essentially what many Buddhists believe, when they say things like "all is mind".
They do?
"All is mind" implies a conscious beginning?
I'm not so sure.
In the view of god's creation, there need not be a beginning ex nihilo, many of the Śaivists and Viṣṇaivists that Buddhists of the past debated with, all of them ardent theists and proponents of god's active upholding and dynamic in-the-present creation of the world, did not believe in a chronological ex nihilo creation.
2
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@Vimalajāti said:
the Śaivists and Viṣṇaivists that Buddhists of the past debated with, all of them ardent theists and proponents of god's active upholding and dynamic in-the-present creation of the world
I find it fascinating that there was such a stream, who considered in-the-present creation. I wonder what made them believe there was such a thing as god, since there is no evidence of his presence in the world.
Many contemporary Hindus today consider in-the-present creation via the trimurti. Brahmā creates, Viṣṇu upholds, Śiva destroys.
The "upholding" is what is relevant here. Viṣṇu's name means "(all) pervasive". This is the kind of god who sustains creation in the present.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Vimalajāti said:
The view that one sentient being dreams up, thinks up, or creates, the world, is 有神論的決定論, महेश्वरस्यनिर्माणदृष्टि, maheśvarasyanirmāṇadṛṣṭi, or god's-creation-view.
Ironically, though, the above view is essentially what many Buddhists believe, when they say things like "all is mind".
They do?
"All is mind" implies a conscious beginning?
I'm not so sure.
In the view of god's creation, there need not be a beginning ex nihilo, many of the Śaivists and Viṣṇaivists that Buddhists of the past debated with, all of them ardent theists and proponents of god's active upholding and dynamic in-the-present creation of the world, did not believe in a chronological ex nihilo creation.
I dig what you're saying but "all is mind" still doesn't imply a creator deity as far as I can tell. It doesn't even imply primordial volition which we would need for a deity to make everything.
Cause and effect would have to already be happening for a deity to do anything or decide to do anything. I can't even begin to fathom what it would take for a conscious deity to exist without the need of having to develope.
The only thing I can see "all is mind" necessarily implying is that there is a kind of primordial awareness behind everything. This where we get concepts like Buddhanature, Shambhala, Two Truths and the Deathless.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@Vimalajāti said:
The view that one sentient being dreams up, thinks up, or creates, the world, is 有神論的決定論, महेश्वरस्यनिर्माणदृष्टि, maheśvarasyanirmāṇadṛṣṭi, or god's-creation-view.
Ironically, though, the above view is essentially what many Buddhists believe, when they say things like "all is mind".
They do?
"All is mind" implies a conscious beginning?
I'm not so sure.
In the view of god's creation, there need not be a beginning ex nihilo, many of the Śaivists and Viṣṇaivists that Buddhists of the past debated with, all of them ardent theists and proponents of god's active upholding and dynamic in-the-present creation of the world, did not believe in a chronological ex nihilo creation.
The only thing I can see "all is mind" necessarily implying is that there is a kind of primordial awareness behind everything. This where we get concepts like Buddhanature, Shambhala, Two Truths and the Deathless.
At the risk of further derailing the thread, saying all is mind means a primordial awareness behind everything is a contradiction. If all is mind what is the everything, that is distinct from mind, that mind is behind?
@Vimalajāti said:
The view that one sentient being dreams up, thinks up, or creates, the world, is 有神論的決定論, महेश्वरस्यनिर्माणदृष्टि, maheśvarasyanirmāṇadṛṣṭi, or god's-creation-view.
Ironically, though, the above view is essentially what many Buddhists believe, when they say things like "all is mind".
They do?
"All is mind" implies a conscious beginning?
I'm not so sure.
In the view of god's creation, there need not be a beginning ex nihilo, many of the Śaivists and Viṣṇaivists that Buddhists of the past debated with, all of them ardent theists and proponents of god's active upholding and dynamic in-the-present creation of the world, did not believe in a chronological ex nihilo creation.
The only thing I can see "all is mind" necessarily implying is that there is a kind of primordial awareness behind everything. This where we get concepts like Buddhanature, Shambhala, Two Truths and the Deathless.
At the risk of further derailing the thread, saying all is mind means a primordial awareness behind everything is a contradiction. If all is mind what is the everything, that is distinct from mind, that mind is behind?
Many who say that all is mind come from the cittamātratā (consciousness-alone) schools of Buddhism. They say that consciousness is twofold: we have 1) discursive consciousness, and 2) consciousness appearing as objects.
For me, the "godlike" part, is that these manners of Buddhists will go on to say that mental objects, or consciousness appearing as objects, are/is completely mind-generated, as there are said to be no external (mental) objects.
At the end of the day the label atheist is a label that people use to define their belief in a god in relation to those who don't fit into that category by referring to the other as atheist.
Kinda like non-smokers and smokers except a bit more than that. Or a non-dancer and a dancer.
Now the dimensions above realms thing, that's another story..
@Vimalajāti said:
many of the Śaivists and Viṣṇaivists that Buddhists of the past debated with
Guys, I really brutally misspelled Vaiṣṇavism, apologies.
3
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Vimalajāti said:
The view that one sentient being dreams up, thinks up, or creates, the world, is 有神論的決定論, महेश्वरस्यनिर्माणदृष्टि, maheśvarasyanirmāṇadṛṣṭi, or god's-creation-view.
Ironically, though, the above view is essentially what many Buddhists believe, when they say things like "all is mind".
They do?
"All is mind" implies a conscious beginning?
I'm not so sure.
In the view of god's creation, there need not be a beginning ex nihilo, many of the Śaivists and Viṣṇaivists that Buddhists of the past debated with, all of them ardent theists and proponents of god's active upholding and dynamic in-the-present creation of the world, did not believe in a chronological ex nihilo creation.
The only thing I can see "all is mind" necessarily implying is that there is a kind of primordial awareness behind everything. This where we get concepts like Buddhanature, Shambhala, Two Truths and the Deathless.
At the risk of further derailing the thread, saying all is mind means a primordial awareness behind everything is a contradiction. If all is mind what is the everything, that is distinct from mind, that mind is behind?
That's a very good point. There's nowhere for me to wiggle out of that logic jam I'm afraid. ?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Vimalajāti said:
The view that one sentient being dreams up, thinks up, or creates, the world, is 有神論的決定論, महेश्वरस्यनिर्माणदृष्टि, maheśvarasyanirmāṇadṛṣṭi, or god's-creation-view.
Ironically, though, the above view is essentially what many Buddhists believe, when they say things like "all is mind".
They do?
"All is mind" implies a conscious beginning?
I'm not so sure.
In the view of god's creation, there need not be a beginning ex nihilo, many of the Śaivists and Viṣṇaivists that Buddhists of the past debated with, all of them ardent theists and proponents of god's active upholding and dynamic in-the-present creation of the world, did not believe in a chronological ex nihilo creation.
The only thing I can see "all is mind" necessarily implying is that there is a kind of primordial awareness behind everything. This where we get concepts like Buddhanature, Shambhala, Two Truths and the Deathless.
At the risk of further derailing the thread, saying all is mind means a primordial awareness behind everything is a contradiction. If all is mind what is the everything, that is distinct from mind, that mind is behind?
Many who say that all is mind come from the cittamātratā (consciousness-alone) schools of Buddhism. They say that consciousness is twofold: we have 1) discursive consciousness, and 2) consciousness appearing as objects.
For me, the "godlike" part, is that these manners of Buddhists will go on to say that mental objects, or consciousness appearing as objects, are/is completely mind-generated, as there are said to be no external (mental) objects.
IMO such a Buddhism deifies the perceiver.
I would have to agree with this actually and that is not what I was envisioning at all.
If I were to conjecture I would put forward that it's all information sharing and the potential for information sharing.
In the Buddhism that I practice, gods are not literally gods as in the Western or Christian concept. Gods, demons and devils are simply functions. The functions which serve to improve, aid, support and/or protect one may be referred to as gods. The functions which hinder, harm, obstruct or discourage one may be referred to as devils ore demons.
of course this is a simplified explanation and I have deliberately avoided buzz words.
A lot of very good discussion here. And a number of very different ideas about what the OP asked at the beginning.
I come from a situation where in 1986 I was introduced to Thai Theravada Buddhism, after having lived as a Methodist and then a Catholic. From then until 2017, I tried to meld the principles of Buddhism and Christianity. In many ways it didn't work, although one can find wisdom in both belief systems...if you cherry pick...which I endorse, because cherry picking requires actual thought; blind acceptance does not. Now I consider myself an atheistic Buddhist. However, I was taught by monks that Buddhism does not verify or deny the existence of god...that since it is not something we can verify as existing or not existing, we shouldn't worry about it. However, clearly many of us do consider it (and to anyone who says it's an imponderable...thinking that anything is an imponderable is the antithesis of seeking answers). In my view there are actually several possibilities. There is no god. There is a god but he is nothing like the god of the bible. There is a deistic god. There are multiple gods (I see an awfully lot of Thai Buddhists worshiping various Hindu gods). And some would say that there is no evidence for a god. Okay. But then again I find no evidence for 8 levels of Buddhist hell (นรก), 6 levels of Buddhist heaven (สวรรค์), or 16 levels of something that is "greater" than heaven (พรหมโลก). I see no evidence of devas. But there is an important difference between saying a being does not exist and I do not see evidence of a being. And I think we should remember that Buddhism does not require us to believe everything presented to us within Buddhism. In fact, one of the most important things we should do is differentiate between true Buddhist teachings and culture (often as represented by animism in Thailand).
But what is most important, at least to me, is our willingness to see wisdom wherever we find it. To me there is an abundance of wisdom in the Tipitaka. There is also wisdom in the New Testament. And before you jump on me for saying that...can we think Thich Nhat Hanh. Heck...one of these days Donald Trump may actually say something wise...will we be open to the possibility, slim as it might be?
But I think one thing that we sometimes lose sight of is that the main difference between chrsitianity and Buddhism is what each tries to impart. Christianity wants people to believe that all answers to all questions come, either directly or indirectly, from the bible. While Buddhism defines the means by which we can alleviate suffering...our own suffering and the suffering of others. Those are two very different purposes.
The question that clarified things for me when I was trying to have it both ways, was as follows: If tomorrow we somehow learned that there was no god and that the story of Jesus was total fakery, would a christian still have a belief system. I think the answer is no. Heck, christianity would crumble if tomorrow the world learned that Jesus was a Black African. On the other hand, if we learned tomorrow that there had never been a Siddhartha, would the Three Universal Truths, The Four Noble Truths, and the Noble Eightfold Path still be operable? I think the answer is yes.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Vimalajāti said:
The view that one sentient being dreams up, thinks up, or creates, the world, is 有神論的決定論, महेश्वरस्यनिर्माणदृष्टि, maheśvarasyanirmāṇadṛṣṭi, or god's-creation-view.
Ironically, though, the above view is essentially what many Buddhists believe, when they say things like "all is mind".
They do?
"All is mind" implies a conscious beginning?
I'm not so sure.
In the view of god's creation, there need not be a beginning ex nihilo, many of the Śaivists and Viṣṇaivists that Buddhists of the past debated with, all of them ardent theists and proponents of god's active upholding and dynamic in-the-present creation of the world, did not believe in a chronological ex nihilo creation.
The only thing I can see "all is mind" necessarily implying is that there is a kind of primordial awareness behind everything. This where we get concepts like Buddhanature, Shambhala, Two Truths and the Deathless.
At the risk of further derailing the thread, saying all is mind means a primordial awareness behind everything is a contradiction. If all is mind what is the everything, that is distinct from mind, that mind is behind?
Ah, now I get it. The question confused me for some reason but I could have said the conditioned instead of everything.
However the everything could be likened to clouds or waves or mud whereas the primordial awareness could be likened to sky, water or a precious gem. Not really a contradiction when it's the same thing just manifested differently.
I doubt primordial awareness could have an identity and so no deities are required with the notion that all is mind despite what some manners of Buddhists may claim @Vimalajata
@Vimalajāti said:
The view that one sentient being dreams up, thinks up, or creates, the world, is 有神論的決定論, महेश्वरस्यनिर्माणदृष्टि, maheśvarasyanirmāṇadṛṣṭi, or god's-creation-view.
Ironically, though, the above view is essentially what many Buddhists believe, when they say things like "all is mind".
They do?
"All is mind" implies a conscious beginning?
I'm not so sure.
In the view of god's creation, there need not be a beginning ex nihilo, many of the Śaivists and Viṣṇaivists that Buddhists of the past debated with, all of them ardent theists and proponents of god's active upholding and dynamic in-the-present creation of the world, did not believe in a chronological ex nihilo creation.
The only thing I can see "all is mind" necessarily implying is that there is a kind of primordial awareness behind everything. This where we get concepts like Buddhanature, Shambhala, Two Truths and the Deathless.
At the risk of further derailing the thread, saying all is mind means a primordial awareness behind everything is a contradiction. If all is mind what is the everything, that is distinct from mind, that mind is behind?
Ah, now I get it. The question confused me for some reason but I could have said the conditioned instead of everything.
However the everything could be likened to clouds or waves or mud whereas the primordial awareness could be likened to sky, water or a precious gem. Not really a contradiction when it's the same thing just manifested differently.
I doubt primordial awareness could have an identity and so no deities are required with the notion that all is mind despite what some manners of Buddhists may claim @Vimalajata
If I accept the notion of a primordial awareness, which I tend to lean towards in my beliefs, I also believe in a material world of some sort and don't really think matter is a creation of mind.
I think what the mind only school is saying when they say that all is mind, is something like the conventional world is wholly a creation of the mind, its a school of idealism. Without getting into this again, Madyamika refutes the idea.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Vimalajāti said:
The view that one sentient being dreams up, thinks up, or creates, the world, is 有神論的決定論, महेश्वरस्यनिर्माणदृष्टि, maheśvarasyanirmāṇadṛṣṭi, or god's-creation-view.
Ironically, though, the above view is essentially what many Buddhists believe, when they say things like "all is mind".
They do?
"All is mind" implies a conscious beginning?
I'm not so sure.
In the view of god's creation, there need not be a beginning ex nihilo, many of the Śaivists and Viṣṇaivists that Buddhists of the past debated with, all of them ardent theists and proponents of god's active upholding and dynamic in-the-present creation of the world, did not believe in a chronological ex nihilo creation.
The only thing I can see "all is mind" necessarily implying is that there is a kind of primordial awareness behind everything. This where we get concepts like Buddhanature, Shambhala, Two Truths and the Deathless.
At the risk of further derailing the thread, saying all is mind means a primordial awareness behind everything is a contradiction. If all is mind what is the everything, that is distinct from mind, that mind is behind?
Ah, now I get it. The question confused me for some reason but I could have said the conditioned instead of everything.
However the everything could be likened to clouds or waves or mud whereas the primordial awareness could be likened to sky, water or a precious gem. Not really a contradiction when it's the same thing just manifested differently.
I doubt primordial awareness could have an identity and so no deities are required with the notion that all is mind despite what some manners of Buddhists may claim @Vimalajata
If I accept the notion of a primordial awareness, which I tend to lean towards in my beliefs, I also believe in a material world of some sort and don't really think matter is a creation of mind.
I don't think they could be separate but I wouldn't say matter is a creation of mind either. In fact I'm not saying anything like that. I'm just saying what "All is mind" seems to imply to me.
I think what the mind only school is saying when they say that all is mind, is something like the conventional world is wholly a creation of the mind, its a school of idealism.
Without getting into this again, Madyamika refutes the idea.
That's great but has little to do with what I'm saying and I know the Madhyamika view well which is that they are the same.
The last time we hashed this out you had conceded that the emptiness of the absolute truth doesn't mean that there is no objective or absolute reality.
Absolute truth is inseparable from relative truth and objectivity must account for subjective experience by definition.
That is the Middle Way. Two truths are really one because they work together. One does not create the other.
That's another thread however.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@Vimalajāti said:
The view that one sentient being dreams up, thinks up, or creates, the world, is 有神論的決定論, महेश्वरस्यनिर्माणदृष्टि, maheśvarasyanirmāṇadṛṣṭi, or god's-creation-view.
Ironically, though, the above view is essentially what many Buddhists believe, when they say things like "all is mind".
They do?
"All is mind" implies a conscious beginning?
I'm not so sure.
In the view of god's creation, there need not be a beginning ex nihilo, many of the Śaivists and Viṣṇaivists that Buddhists of the past debated with, all of them ardent theists and proponents of god's active upholding and dynamic in-the-present creation of the world, did not believe in a chronological ex nihilo creation.
The only thing I can see "all is mind" necessarily implying is that there is a kind of primordial awareness behind everything. This where we get concepts like Buddhanature, Shambhala, Two Truths and the Deathless.
At the risk of further derailing the thread, saying all is mind means a primordial awareness behind everything is a contradiction. If all is mind what is the everything, that is distinct from mind, that mind is behind?
Ah, now I get it. The question confused me for some reason but I could have said the conditioned instead of everything.
However the everything could be likened to clouds or waves or mud whereas the primordial awareness could be likened to sky, water or a precious gem. Not really a contradiction when it's the same thing just manifested differently.
I doubt primordial awareness could have an identity and so no deities are required with the notion that all is mind despite what some manners of Buddhists may claim @Vimalajata
If I accept the notion of a primordial awareness, which I tend to lean towards in my beliefs, I also believe in a material world of some sort and don't really think matter is a creation of mind.
I don't think they could be separate but I wouldn't say matter is a creation of mind either. In fact I'm not saying anything like that. I'm just saying what "All is mind" seems to imply to me.
I guess that's allowed, its pretty confusing though when what it seems to imply to you differs from the accepted school of thought.
I think what the mind only school is saying when they say that all is mind, is something like the conventional world is wholly a creation of the mind, its a school of idealism.
Without getting into this again, Madyamika refutes the idea.
That's great but has little to do with what I'm saying and I know the Madhyamika view well which is that they are the same.
The last time we hashed this out you had conceded that the emptiness of the absolute truth doesn't mean that there is no objective or absolute reality.
Absolute truth is inseparable from relative truth and objectivity must account for subjective experience by definition.
That is the Middle Way. Two truths are really one because they work together. One does not create the other.
That's another thread however.
Well, I still don't think we're in agreement. There apparently remains a difference of opinion. What I think I conceded to and what you think I conceded to don't seem to line up.
It reads to me that you still put some kind of thingness on absolute truth. Maybe a basic way to state the distinction would be to say that I think any sort of primordial awareness isn't the absolute truth, it is a part of the conventional truth.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Vimalajāti said:
The view that one sentient being dreams up, thinks up, or creates, the world, is 有神論的決定論, महेश्वरस्यनिर्माणदृष्टि, maheśvarasyanirmāṇadṛṣṭi, or god's-creation-view.
Ironically, though, the above view is essentially what many Buddhists believe, when they say things like "all is mind".
They do?
"All is mind" implies a conscious beginning?
I'm not so sure.
In the view of god's creation, there need not be a beginning ex nihilo, many of the Śaivists and Viṣṇaivists that Buddhists of the past debated with, all of them ardent theists and proponents of god's active upholding and dynamic in-the-present creation of the world, did not believe in a chronological ex nihilo creation.
The only thing I can see "all is mind" necessarily implying is that there is a kind of primordial awareness behind everything. This where we get concepts like Buddhanature, Shambhala, Two Truths and the Deathless.
At the risk of further derailing the thread, saying all is mind means a primordial awareness behind everything is a contradiction. If all is mind what is the everything, that is distinct from mind, that mind is behind?
Ah, now I get it. The question confused me for some reason but I could have said the conditioned instead of everything.
However the everything could be likened to clouds or waves or mud whereas the primordial awareness could be likened to sky, water or a precious gem. Not really a contradiction when it's the same thing just manifested differently.
I doubt primordial awareness could have an identity and so no deities are required with the notion that all is mind despite what some manners of Buddhists may claim @Vimalajata
If I accept the notion of a primordial awareness, which I tend to lean towards in my beliefs, I also believe in a material world of some sort and don't really think matter is a creation of mind.
I don't think they could be separate but I wouldn't say matter is a creation of mind either. In fact I'm not saying anything like that. I'm just saying what "All is mind" seems to imply to me.
I guess that's allowed, its pretty confusing though when what it seems to imply to you differs from the accepted school of thought.
Nobody has cornered the market on the phrase "all is mind" and when discussing these things sometimes its best to empty our cup of traditional and possibly dogmatic assumptions. There are as many ways to look at this stuff as there are points of reference.
I think what the mind only school is saying when they say that all is mind, is something like the conventional world is wholly a creation of the mind, its a school of idealism.
Without getting into this again, Madyamika refutes the idea.
That's great but has little to do with what I'm saying and I know the Madhyamika view well which is that they are the same.
The last time we hashed this out you had conceded that the emptiness of the absolute truth doesn't mean that there is no objective or absolute reality.
Absolute truth is inseparable from relative truth and objectivity must account for subjective experience by definition.
That is the Middle Way. Two truths are really one because they work together. One does not create the other.
That's another thread however.
Well, I still don't think we're in agreement. There apparently remains a difference of opinion. What I think I conceded to and what you think I conceded to don't seem to line up.
It reads to me that you still put some kind of thingness on absolute truth. Maybe a basic way to state the distinction would be to say that I think any sort of primordial awareness isn't the absolute truth, it is a part of the conventional truth.
I have a good memory and the thread can be called up if need be but either way I already put that assumption of yours to bed and it really makes no sense. Thingness to absolute truth?
Oh wait... Bell rung.
The only difference between the reality absolute truth points to and the reality conventional truth points to is perception according to the Madhyamika. Like objectivity and subjectivity.
It's not like they are separate worlds.
Bliss consists in the cessation of all thought.
In the quiescence of plurality.
No separate reality was preached at all,
Nowhere and none by Buddha!
--Nagarjuna - Analysis of Causality and Nirvana verse 24
Think about it. Part of the absolute truth is a lack of seperation. So how could there be a border between absolute reality and conventional reality?
The far shore? It's right here according to the Madhyamika.
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
Only when we cease to think that there are separate beliefs, faiths, creeds, truths and paths will we truly see that being one with everything and everyone is all there is.
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@David I think our disagreement is a little clearer to me. I think you define absolute truth as primordial awareness and conventional truth as the manifest world. So when you say they are one and there is no separation your logic is solid according to Two Truths way of thinking.
I don't classify it that way, I understand any primordial awareness that exists as being part of the conventional. In this frame absolute truth means primordial awareness is also conditioned and relational.
Nobody has cornered the market on the phrase "all is mind" and when discussing these things sometimes its best to empty our cup of traditional and possibly dogmatic assumptions. There are as many ways to look at this stuff as there are points of reference.
I'm sorry, philosophical terms have agreed upon definitions just like other fields. You wouldn't tell a scientist you have your own definition of what relativity means, just as you wouldn't try to engage in a discussion on moral philosophy and try to use your own definition of categorical imperative. @Vimalajāti specifically mentioned the cittimatra school when the subject first came up.
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
I don't know about anyone else but I have completely lost the gist of the original topic of discussion vis-a-vis the thread subject matter, in trying to understand the actual point of your conversation....
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2018
@person said: @David I think our disagreement is a little clearer to me. I think you define absolute truth as primordial awareness and conventional truth as the manifest world. So when you say they are one and there is no separation your logic is solid according to Two Truths way of thinking.
I don't define absolute truth as anything except absolute objectivity nor do I define conventional truth as anything other than the subjective experience. These both point to the same reality but they work in conjunction.
I'm agnostic so although I may feel a sort of primordial awareness makes sense I wouldn't posit anything of the sort. I feel we tap into it when we are really in the present moment (between thoughts) but to give it any kind of definition seems so limiting.
I don't classify it that way, I understand any primordial awareness that exists as being part of the conventional. In this frame absolute truth means primordial awareness is also conditioned and relational.
I don't think anything can exist conventionally and not be a part of the absolute. That's ok though we don't have to agree. To me it sounds like you're talking about a sect of Pure Land Buddhism or something similar rather than Madhyamika because you seem to posit a border between realities but hey... That's not important.
Nobody has cornered the market on the phrase "all is mind" and when discussing these things sometimes its best to empty our cup of traditional and possibly dogmatic assumptions. There are as many ways to look at this stuff as there are points of reference.
I'm sorry, philosophical terms have agreed upon definitions just like other fields. You wouldn't tell a scientist you have your own definition of what relativity means, just as you wouldn't try to engage in a discussion on moral philosophy and try to use your own definition of categorical imperative. @Vimalajāti specifically mentioned the cittimatra school when the subject first came up.
I said " All is mind implies a conscious beginning? I'm not so sure".
It doesn't matter about what schools agreed on what. If I was trying to represent one of them you would have a point but I'm not so...
All is mind can imply different things to different people. This is not the same as an accepted scientific theory. ?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2018
@federica said:
I don't know about anyone else but I have completely lost the gist of the original topic of discussion vis-a-vis the thread subject matter, in trying to understand the actual point of your conversation....
I'm just going with the flow. I don't really know why it matters if All is Mind doesn't necessarily imply a creator deity.
The thread started as a means for the O/P to take a shot at agnosticism (as outlined in the 21st post in or so) but it didn't turn out as he had hoped.
And now back to the irrelevant (if so desired/impeded)
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
edited August 2018
@David said:
The thread started as a means for the O/P to take a shot at agnosticism (as outlined in the 21st post in or so) but it didn't turn out as he had hoped.
Well “take a shot”, the intention was more to share the courage and sense behind a step to atheism, instead of staying on the agnostic fence.
In a way I envy the very early prehistorical humans. They had little language and certainly no books, and so were free of such concepts as God. They were merely beings with a developed brain in the natural world, and they very likely did little to no speculating about hare-brained spiritual realms or beings.
I still think that considering those origins, atheism is the better default position. To me agnosticism feels like a concession to the Christian majority, brought about by not being able to supply categorical proof. But as Carl Sagan said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”, and the burden of supplying that proof is on the believer. It was the credulousness of our ancestors who when confronted by a strange preacher talking of God did not ask him, “and where is your proof?”
For a long time it has been a great trick of the Christians to switch the burden of proof, to ask people to have faith and to ask non-believers to supply proof that it wasn’t so, when in fact the burden of proof is the other way around, they are asking you to believe in their God.
For a long time it has been a great trick of the Christians to switch the burden of proof, to ask people to have faith and to ask non-believers to supply proof that it wasn’t so, when in fact the burden of proof is the other way around, they are asking you to believe in their God.
I personally believe the burden of proof should lay on whoever makes a claim - atheist or theist. If I walk up to you and tell you "you should believe in xyz" I better be able to back my claims up. BUT the shoe is also firmly on the other foot if someone interrupts my day uninvited and says "you're a dumbass for believing xyz"
Comments
One of my philosophy podcasts covered logical positivism, also known as logical empiricism. I may be off some in my understanding, but this is sort of the philosophical position of some of the New Atheists. It believes that empirical science gives us definitive truths about the world.
Subsequently there were criticisms of this view that helped bring us to our current way of viewing scientific knowledge, Karl Popper probably being the most well known critic. He didn't poo poo science into a post modern arbitrariness but made the argument that science doesn't give us definitive truth claims, but rather works through a process of falsification. Einstein summed it up as "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." To give a real world example, back in the day Europeans thought all swans were white as they had never seen of or heard of a non white swan. Then when they got to Australia they found black swans. So it was wrong to definitively say that all swans are white because they had never seen one.
I think there is a distinction to be made between saying, there is no evidence for a thing to exist, therefore we can say it doesn't exist and saying, there is no evidence for a thing to exist, therefore there is no sound basis for belief in it. Maybe that sounds like a distinction without a difference but I think the first closes one off to new and contrary evidence, while the latter keeps one open to it.
There are those who would gently argue that all those things are automatically falsified, because they are all of the imagination and derivative of the content of the human realm. All portraits and descriptions of the hell realms feature things like armour and human torture devices, the stuff a fevered human writer might dream up.
There are those that would argue that, but technically it wouldn’t be a rationally valid argument. It would be illogical. Carl Sagan was once asked in an interview if he would deny that Jesus turned water into wine. He said “Deny it, certainly not. Although, I would not believe it unless there was some evidence for it.” He wouldn’t deny it because he was being strictly rational. He also went on the add that withholding judgments or conclusions is perfectly rational.
Exactly.
God, Cod (Hallowed be her name) and Her Divine Noddliness the Fly Speghetti Monster, is irrelevant to many practitioners. You don't need Jesus, Odin, Allah or similar creator meglomaniac deities to practice Dharma. Choice gods available in Vajrayana not to be confused with mind projections ...
I like Gods personally - as personifications of abstract qualities, for example:
Compassion = Chenrezig
Wisdom = Manjushri
Fish = Buddhas Eyebrows ?
https://www.seiyaku.com/customs/fish/fish-buddhist.html
That seems like splitting hairs to me... if you don’t believe in it, then why not deny that it happened? It seems like semantic gobbledygook. The two positions are essentially the same.
In this oh so human realm I love that teapot and want one just like it. My idea of heaven, the heart sutra and a nice cup of oolong
I'm a Op shop junkie, this where I tend to find these treasures...
However y @kando you could try "This place"
Thank you @Shoshin what a brilliant site! Now all I have to do is choose........
Mr. Ollivander: The wand chooses the wizard, Mr. Potter.
The teapot chooses the tea.
The yidam the yogi.
Iz plan ... ?
The point is that from the standpoint of pure logical reasoning, they aren't the same. Although, I would agree in saying the difference is subtle and you could say they would have the same effect in your daily living, etc. But philosophically, they aren't the same. The validity of the reasoning is what makes them different.
Well, if you “deny that something happened” that’s the same as “believing that something did not happen”. If you go by the dictionary I think you’ll find the only difference between the statements is a measure of subjectivity which is implied in the first and explicit in the second. I don’t think the difference would hold up in a court of law, for instance.
i'm afraid that's incorrect. Denial is not the same as disbelief at all.
I deny that my mother's house is mine, but I don't believe it's collapsed....
They're quite different. And yes, as my husband is a lawyer, the difference would most certainly stand up in a Court of Law....!
I tried to make the same distinction @seeker242 is making, but probably didn't do a very good job of it.
Logical positivism is the philosophical stance that we can make definitive truth claims about the world based on empirical observation or maybe reason. Its a progress against truth claims based on revelation, religious dogma, etc. but misunderstands what science is actually doing. To quote Einstein again, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Or the lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack.
It is possible to maintain a "don't know mind", one that simply says I don't know in the face of ignorance rather than drawing a positive conclusion. If something is likely true or untrue we can act in the world as if it is without making the cognitive leap to a concrete position. The practical difference between the two is in keeping an open mind to potentially anomalous evidence, especially since what we know is changing all the time.
Well, it’s possible that I will come back to this thread in a few days and the penny will drop. But the sentence...
I deny my mothers house is mine, but I also don’t believe it is mine.
... still makes little sense because it appears to be saying the same thing twice.
That's not what I said.
Read it again. It supplies the distinction between denial and belief. One is not similar, the same or interchangeable with the other.
The view that one sentient being dreams up, thinks up, or creates, the world, is 有神論的決定論, महेश्वरस्यनिर्माणदृष्टि, maheśvarasyanirmāṇadṛṣṭi, or god's-creation-view.
Ironically, though, the above view is essentially what many Buddhists believe, when they say things like "all is mind".
To me a better, but similar analogy would be to say there is a psychology teacher or personal psychiatrist that teaches you all these things that end up being true and very helpful personally, then they also teach you some things about physics, some that are empirically verifiable and some that aren't. The things that are empirically verifiable turn out to be incorrect and the things that aren't empirically verifiable are thought by some people to be an essential component of the psychological teachings.
I should temper that a bit by saying that I think while being empirically unverifiable karma and rebirth are naturalistic explanations and are logically self consistent. Really the only aspect of them that I can see as being unreasonable in the context of forming beliefs based on insufficient evidence is the lack of evidence for an immaterial component of beings that could continue it's existence beyond the death of the body.
Not really. Denying something happened implies intimate knowledge to the contrary whereas believing something did not happen implies a lack of intimate knowledge to the contrary. The only way it's the same thing is if the person doing the denying really knows that they don't know for a fact.
I think you will find one is a statement of fact and one is a statement of faith.
In a court of law "I know it didn't happen" is not the same as "I don't believe it happened".
You either know for a fact or you don't.
They do?
"All is mind" implies a conscious beginning?
I'm not so sure.
In the view of god's creation, there need not be a beginning ex nihilo, many of the Śaivists and Viṣṇaivists that Buddhists of the past debated with, all of them ardent theists and proponents of god's active upholding and dynamic in-the-present creation of the world, did not believe in a chronological ex nihilo creation.
I find it fascinating that there was such a stream, who considered in-the-present creation. I wonder what made them believe there was such a thing as god, since there is no evidence of his presence in the world.
Many contemporary Hindus today consider in-the-present creation via the trimurti. Brahmā creates, Viṣṇu upholds, Śiva destroys.
The "upholding" is what is relevant here. Viṣṇu's name means "(all) pervasive". This is the kind of god who sustains creation in the present.
I dig what you're saying but "all is mind" still doesn't imply a creator deity as far as I can tell. It doesn't even imply primordial volition which we would need for a deity to make everything.
Cause and effect would have to already be happening for a deity to do anything or decide to do anything. I can't even begin to fathom what it would take for a conscious deity to exist without the need of having to develope.
The only thing I can see "all is mind" necessarily implying is that there is a kind of primordial awareness behind everything. This where we get concepts like Buddhanature, Shambhala, Two Truths and the Deathless.
At the risk of further derailing the thread, saying all is mind means a primordial awareness behind everything is a contradiction. If all is mind what is the everything, that is distinct from mind, that mind is behind?
Many who say that all is mind come from the cittamātratā (consciousness-alone) schools of Buddhism. They say that consciousness is twofold: we have 1) discursive consciousness, and 2) consciousness appearing as objects.
For me, the "godlike" part, is that these manners of Buddhists will go on to say that mental objects, or consciousness appearing as objects, are/is completely mind-generated, as there are said to be no external (mental) objects.
IMO such a Buddhism deifies the perceiver.
At the end of the day the label atheist is a label that people use to define their belief in a god in relation to those who don't fit into that category by referring to the other as atheist.
Kinda like non-smokers and smokers except a bit more than that. Or a non-dancer and a dancer.
Now the dimensions above realms thing, that's another story..
Guys, I really brutally misspelled Vaiṣṇavism, apologies.
That's a very good point. There's nowhere for me to wiggle out of that logic jam I'm afraid. ?
I would have to agree with this actually and that is not what I was envisioning at all.
If I were to conjecture I would put forward that it's all information sharing and the potential for information sharing.
However being agnostic, I do not conjecture.
Only God can contemplate Her own 'non existence', through us ...
Nun existence is where we note, thoughts are no substitute for Gnosis. No god or Know God, up to us ...
The Body of Christ. Fresh and Dead!
In the Buddhism that I practice, gods are not literally gods as in the Western or Christian concept. Gods, demons and devils are simply functions. The functions which serve to improve, aid, support and/or protect one may be referred to as gods. The functions which hinder, harm, obstruct or discourage one may be referred to as devils ore demons.
of course this is a simplified explanation and I have deliberately avoided buzz words.
A lot of very good discussion here. And a number of very different ideas about what the OP asked at the beginning.
I come from a situation where in 1986 I was introduced to Thai Theravada Buddhism, after having lived as a Methodist and then a Catholic. From then until 2017, I tried to meld the principles of Buddhism and Christianity. In many ways it didn't work, although one can find wisdom in both belief systems...if you cherry pick...which I endorse, because cherry picking requires actual thought; blind acceptance does not. Now I consider myself an atheistic Buddhist. However, I was taught by monks that Buddhism does not verify or deny the existence of god...that since it is not something we can verify as existing or not existing, we shouldn't worry about it. However, clearly many of us do consider it (and to anyone who says it's an imponderable...thinking that anything is an imponderable is the antithesis of seeking answers). In my view there are actually several possibilities. There is no god. There is a god but he is nothing like the god of the bible. There is a deistic god. There are multiple gods (I see an awfully lot of Thai Buddhists worshiping various Hindu gods). And some would say that there is no evidence for a god. Okay. But then again I find no evidence for 8 levels of Buddhist hell (นรก), 6 levels of Buddhist heaven (สวรรค์), or 16 levels of something that is "greater" than heaven (พรหมโลก). I see no evidence of devas. But there is an important difference between saying a being does not exist and I do not see evidence of a being. And I think we should remember that Buddhism does not require us to believe everything presented to us within Buddhism. In fact, one of the most important things we should do is differentiate between true Buddhist teachings and culture (often as represented by animism in Thailand).
But what is most important, at least to me, is our willingness to see wisdom wherever we find it. To me there is an abundance of wisdom in the Tipitaka. There is also wisdom in the New Testament. And before you jump on me for saying that...can we think Thich Nhat Hanh. Heck...one of these days Donald Trump may actually say something wise...will we be open to the possibility, slim as it might be?
But I think one thing that we sometimes lose sight of is that the main difference between chrsitianity and Buddhism is what each tries to impart. Christianity wants people to believe that all answers to all questions come, either directly or indirectly, from the bible. While Buddhism defines the means by which we can alleviate suffering...our own suffering and the suffering of others. Those are two very different purposes.
The question that clarified things for me when I was trying to have it both ways, was as follows: If tomorrow we somehow learned that there was no god and that the story of Jesus was total fakery, would a christian still have a belief system. I think the answer is no. Heck, christianity would crumble if tomorrow the world learned that Jesus was a Black African. On the other hand, if we learned tomorrow that there had never been a Siddhartha, would the Three Universal Truths, The Four Noble Truths, and the Noble Eightfold Path still be operable? I think the answer is yes.
Insightful & awesome post @vinlyn
( I couldn't click both )
Thank you, Shoshin.
Ah, now I get it. The question confused me for some reason but I could have said the conditioned instead of everything.
However the everything could be likened to clouds or waves or mud whereas the primordial awareness could be likened to sky, water or a precious gem. Not really a contradiction when it's the same thing just manifested differently.
I doubt primordial awareness could have an identity and so no deities are required with the notion that all is mind despite what some manners of Buddhists may claim @Vimalajata
Tee Hee
There are Christian Priests who are openly atheist
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
Here is my type of Church, Buddhist heretics welcome ...
https://www.wikitribune.com/story/2018/08/08/religion/secular-church-sunday-assembly-declining-amid-rise-of-unbelief/79948/
First Hymn from a Hher
If I accept the notion of a primordial awareness, which I tend to lean towards in my beliefs, I also believe in a material world of some sort and don't really think matter is a creation of mind.
I think what the mind only school is saying when they say that all is mind, is something like the conventional world is wholly a creation of the mind, its a school of idealism. Without getting into this again, Madyamika refutes the idea.
I don't think they could be separate but I wouldn't say matter is a creation of mind either. In fact I'm not saying anything like that. I'm just saying what "All is mind" seems to imply to me.
That's great but has little to do with what I'm saying and I know the Madhyamika view well which is that they are the same.
The last time we hashed this out you had conceded that the emptiness of the absolute truth doesn't mean that there is no objective or absolute reality.
Absolute truth is inseparable from relative truth and objectivity must account for subjective experience by definition.
That is the Middle Way. Two truths are really one because they work together. One does not create the other.
That's another thread however.
I guess that's allowed, its pretty confusing though when what it seems to imply to you differs from the accepted school of thought.
Well, I still don't think we're in agreement. There apparently remains a difference of opinion. What I think I conceded to and what you think I conceded to don't seem to line up.
It reads to me that you still put some kind of thingness on absolute truth. Maybe a basic way to state the distinction would be to say that I think any sort of primordial awareness isn't the absolute truth, it is a part of the conventional truth.
Nobody has cornered the market on the phrase "all is mind" and when discussing these things sometimes its best to empty our cup of traditional and possibly dogmatic assumptions. There are as many ways to look at this stuff as there are points of reference.
I have a good memory and the thread can be called up if need be but either way I already put that assumption of yours to bed and it really makes no sense. Thingness to absolute truth?
Oh wait... Bell rung.
The only difference between the reality absolute truth points to and the reality conventional truth points to is perception according to the Madhyamika. Like objectivity and subjectivity.
It's not like they are separate worlds.
Bliss consists in the cessation of all thought.
In the quiescence of plurality.
No separate reality was preached at all,
Nowhere and none by Buddha!
--Nagarjuna - Analysis of Causality and Nirvana verse 24
Think about it. Part of the absolute truth is a lack of seperation. So how could there be a border between absolute reality and conventional reality?
The far shore? It's right here according to the Madhyamika.
Only when we cease to think that there are separate beliefs, faiths, creeds, truths and paths will we truly see that being one with everything and everyone is all there is.
@David I think our disagreement is a little clearer to me. I think you define absolute truth as primordial awareness and conventional truth as the manifest world. So when you say they are one and there is no separation your logic is solid according to Two Truths way of thinking.
I don't classify it that way, I understand any primordial awareness that exists as being part of the conventional. In this frame absolute truth means primordial awareness is also conditioned and relational.
I'm sorry, philosophical terms have agreed upon definitions just like other fields. You wouldn't tell a scientist you have your own definition of what relativity means, just as you wouldn't try to engage in a discussion on moral philosophy and try to use your own definition of categorical imperative. @Vimalajāti specifically mentioned the cittimatra school when the subject first came up.
I don't know about anyone else but I have completely lost the gist of the original topic of discussion vis-a-vis the thread subject matter, in trying to understand the actual point of your conversation....
I don't define absolute truth as anything except absolute objectivity nor do I define conventional truth as anything other than the subjective experience. These both point to the same reality but they work in conjunction.
I'm agnostic so although I may feel a sort of primordial awareness makes sense I wouldn't posit anything of the sort. I feel we tap into it when we are really in the present moment (between thoughts) but to give it any kind of definition seems so limiting.
I don't think anything can exist conventionally and not be a part of the absolute. That's ok though we don't have to agree. To me it sounds like you're talking about a sect of Pure Land Buddhism or something similar rather than Madhyamika because you seem to posit a border between realities but hey... That's not important.
I said " All is mind implies a conscious beginning? I'm not so sure".
It doesn't matter about what schools agreed on what. If I was trying to represent one of them you would have a point but I'm not so...
All is mind can imply different things to different people. This is not the same as an accepted scientific theory. ?
I'm just going with the flow. I don't really know why it matters if All is Mind doesn't necessarily imply a creator deity.
The thread started as a means for the O/P to take a shot at agnosticism (as outlined in the 21st post in or so) but it didn't turn out as he had hoped.
Cod.
Just a fish.
No cod? Plenty more fishyness in the See ...
And now back to the irrelevant (if so desired/impeded)
Well “take a shot”, the intention was more to share the courage and sense behind a step to atheism, instead of staying on the agnostic fence.
In a way I envy the very early prehistorical humans. They had little language and certainly no books, and so were free of such concepts as God. They were merely beings with a developed brain in the natural world, and they very likely did little to no speculating about hare-brained spiritual realms or beings.
I still think that considering those origins, atheism is the better default position. To me agnosticism feels like a concession to the Christian majority, brought about by not being able to supply categorical proof. But as Carl Sagan said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”, and the burden of supplying that proof is on the believer. It was the credulousness of our ancestors who when confronted by a strange preacher talking of God did not ask him, “and where is your proof?”
For a long time it has been a great trick of the Christians to switch the burden of proof, to ask people to have faith and to ask non-believers to supply proof that it wasn’t so, when in fact the burden of proof is the other way around, they are asking you to believe in their God.
"I'm a believer"
So say the Monkeys Monkees
![]
I personally believe the burden of proof should lay on whoever makes a claim - atheist or theist. If I walk up to you and tell you "you should believe in xyz" I better be able to back my claims up. BUT the shoe is also firmly on the other foot if someone interrupts my day uninvited and says "you're a dumbass for believing xyz"
Just my take on it.
???