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.
Before I begin I would say that I don't interpret the Buddha's words as "doubt everything" but rather question anything that is not logical and sound.
Yes, I put it this way too, and he refuted it.
As a seeker of truth I say, I don't get it, let me try every reasonable method to test the theory before I claim it as false.
Whereas he tries to put his theories to the test by proclaiming them false from the outset (hence doubting everything) and then testing their veracity.....
I find this an extraordinarily negative and closed approach.
Myself.
Whereas he tries to put his theories to the test by proclaiming them false from the outset (hence doubting everything) and then testing their veracity.....
I find this an extraordinarily negative and closed approach.
Myself.
In my country, we call this the scientific method:)
It seems like you spent a little too much time reading Descartes' discourse on Methodology (if not, you are influenced by one who has) but it seems you (or your influence) skipped his conclusion and lessons learned.
Doubting is a common western binary approach to realising the truth whereas questioning is an open ended approach to realising the truth. Although all truths can be determined by the wests binary approach it is not the only method and in my experience it is a much slower and painstaking approach. It builds ego that may distract one from seeing the evidence that your conclusion is false. Be careful to make claims of doubt, be careful to not make the mistake of being decieved by your ego.
It seems like you spent a little too much time reading Descartes' discourse on Methodology (if not, you are influenced by one who has) but it seems you (or your influence) skipped his conclusion and lessons learned.
Doubting is a common western binary approach to realising the truth whereas questioning is an open ended approach to realising the truth. Although all truths can be determined by the wests binary approach it is not the only method and in my experience it is a much slower and painstaking approach. It builds ego that may distract one from seeing the evidence that your conclusion is false. Be careful to make claims of doubt, be careful to not make the mistake of being decieved by your ego.
I have read that yes, ant taught it:) But i guess i am more into the wittgenstinian notion from On certainty, this idea of a framework of knowledge. Its a great book if you like analytic philosophy.
I dont really see the doubt questioning distinction:) Its about attitude, in a sense doubting is a more negative form of questioning.
I dont doubt that my mother loves me but i am entitled to question it. nontheless the external fact is, either my mother loves me or she does not.
How am I being patronizing? It seems self-evident that the reason for studying Buddhism is to attain liberation, not to tear down the validity of the sutras. What good does that do? Plus I have had the benefit and great fortune to have heard the Dharma taught by a pure teacher for many years now, and I understand things much better than I used to. Buddhist practice is a process. It serves no purpose whatsoever to throw out the parts you personally don't like and then invent some kind of "logical" argument to justify it, which is what I see you doing. You deepen through your practice, and things that may have seemed unclear or stupid or illogical or unbelievable to begin with become clear with time. If you cement yourself into a logical corner, how can you ever grow?
Palzang
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
..... in a sense doubting is a more negative form of questioning.
yes, and negativity and outright denial of something before testing it, is not constructive, skilful or useful.
I dont doubt that my mother loves me but i am entitled to question it. nontheless the external fact is, either my mother loves me or she does not.
Oh, so in this case, instead of Doubting first, you question first...
Tell me - what's the difference between your application of this kind with this situation, and the application of your starting point of Doubt for Buddhism and its teachings?
Why do you utilise this method here, but the opposite method elsewhere?
I don't see the point, myself, particularly as you follow this with -
the external fact is, either my mother loves me or she does not.
And to add my 1/2 cents to Palzang's statement, I feel our western approach to understanding is too quick to throw out time tested methods (like the sutras you are claiming to be false).
I will have to check out that book Mat. It sounds interesting.
It seems self-evident that the reason for studying Buddhism is to attain liberation, not to tear down the validity of the sutras.
I see it slightly differntly. Dharma to me means truth. I want the truth for its own sake, in the same way I want to know when my government lies to me or scnience makes a new discovery.
Of couse the end of this is liberation, but that is not all of it, at all, for me.
>>>Plus I have had the benefit and great fortune to have heard the Dharma taught by a pure teacher for many years now, and I understand things much better than I used to.
That's great. I hope you have tested and doubted all they teach you and not taking it just because they taught you.
Remeber, suicide bombers blow themselves up because they are taught about paradice etc...
We must always be skeptical until we can be certain, I belive.
>>>Buddhist practice is a process. It serves no purpose whatsoever to come throw out the parts you personally don't like and then invent some kind of "logical" argument to justify it, which is what I see you doing.
Then you dont understand what I am trying to do. Nor I feel do you want to:)
I want to doubt it all so I can find what I cannot doubt. I have, over nearly ten years, got far with this in my own understanding. i am certain of the core Dharma. I cannot possible doubt it, but trust me, i have tried and tried.
>>>You deepen through your practice, and things that may have seemed unclear or stupid or illogical or unbelievable to begin with become clear with time.
Like rebirth and devas? They remain stupid to my mind:)
>>If you cement yourself into a logical corner, how can you ever grow?
If they are inaccurate, they hold a falsehood and are false (it is inherent in your statment as they are synonyms in this context).
It is not that they must are all false, but that because we know they have been added to, altered and translated we cannot say with any kind of definiteness "The buddha said x" or "This means y". Those kind of concrete statements just don't fit, they are unreasonable.
My personal view is more extreme than this, based on other philosophical and historical considerations, but that's just my view. Still, the demonstrable reality is that all of the remnant texts must be considered innacurate, thus we can at best, speculate about their meanings:)
If you approach a subject, whatever it is, from an academic approach, all you can do is speculate on its meaning. If you openly experience a subject feet first, you do not need to speculate as you will know of its meaning, worth, and validity. From what I have read of your essays and comments, you have at least partially experienced the four noble truths and understand part of there worth, meaning, and validity; that is more than most ever experience and you will be better off for it.
As for other aspects of the Dharma, it seems to me you become more and more deluded by your ego and lack of open experience. I am not speaking of time spent reading the materials (as I see you have spent at least a mere decade learning of them), I speak of letting go of your ego and experiencing them first hand. A person can spend a life time learning the Dharma, but if they are deluded by doubt, ego, and lack of open experience it can actually slow their progress.
I realize I am not refuting the claims you have made and my reasons for doing so are simple, I believe it will not help you or me on our path towards openness, awareness, and complete understanding. I hope you peace and compassion.
If you approach a subject, whatever it is, from an academic approach, all you can do is speculate on its meaning. If you openly experience a subject feet first, you do not need to speculate as you will know of its meaning, worth, and validity. From what I have read of your essays and comments, you have at least partially experienced the four noble truths and understand part of there worth, meaning, and validity; that is more than most ever experience and you will be better off for it.
I have lived and breathed Dharma, for the last eight years pretty much, its changed me more profoundly than marriage or kids. It is my chjosen way and I am sure it will be until I die.
But as well as this acceptance and practice I'm really interested in its deeper philosophical levels, the "buddhist ontology" which many Buddhists think doesn't exist or is meaningless, that's fine.
It stroke me that there is the really amazing system of truth flowing consistently from three really simple and obvious truths but this didnt quite get with the buddhist texts. They speak of these esoteric concepts which just dont fit with the Thee Truths, as I see it.
When I went and saw the chronology of the suttras I realised that the entire corpus was suspect, it was massively removed from the time of the buddha and much bigger than anything that the Buddha could have taught.
The only path for me with Dharma, then, was to only accept that which does flow from the first principles or discard it. I don't think it is a surpirse that this most closely matches the parts of the text that are most agreed on by all buddhists, annica, anataman, dukka, magga...
So there I am:) I don't know if its the right place, but its the place i feel most certain at, if you can show me its the "wrong place for me" as you seem to want to, you will need to be pretty clear and convincing:)
If you spend your entire life just learning and living the four noble truths, the 8 fold path, and the 5 precepts, then you are doing exactly what I would recommend, which is all I can fully subscribe to myself (I have not found a teacher or school of thought that resonates with me fully yet). I do not wish to convince you of anything but from my perspective it seems that your interest in the "ontological buddhism" can be a hindrance to your progression. I only warned and warn you to not let it build and sustain your ego as you may waste much of your precious time and may miss out on some other wonderful understandings.
I do not wish to convince you of anything but from my perspective it seems that your interest in the "ontological buddhism" can be a hindrance to your progression.
And I would say, I respect your view but I ask myself how do you know that and why do you think that?
Have you tried and failed? Have you tried and seen failure is inevitable? Maybe someone told you? maybe you just believe it. I don't know why you know that:) On what authority?
Frankly, it is a key principle in my social understanding of social dharma that one should never tell someone else what they should or should not believe. Even if they are certain of it:)
"Doubt everything, be your own light" As the saying goes:)
Mat, are you reading what I am writting? I am not telling you to believe this or that, I gave a warning concerning your "ontological buddhism" interests and that is all. I said it can be a hinderance, I did not say it is a hinderance or not to pursue your intellectual curiousity. I only warn you to not let that curiosity build and sustain ego. I gave that warning based on your dialogue with me and others and from what I read on your website.
Mat, are you reading what I am writting? I am not telling you to believe this or that, I gave a warning concerning your "ontological buddhism" interests and that is all. I said it can be a hinderance, I did not say it is a hinderance or not to pursue your intellectual curiousity. I only warn you to not let that curiosity build and sustain ego. I gave that warning based on your dialogue with me and others and from what I read on your website.
Sure sure, I was referring to the main thrust agaisnt these ideas (that is all they are). Nonetheless if you tell me that's a Hindrance (Its not one of the five hindrances) then ultimately you are saying "you should not do that if you want to prosper in dharma."
And still I ask, why do you say this?
I do read what you say, I even think about it too!:)
He said it could become a hindrance [when it becomes something that's used to sustain and build up the ego]. Anything can be.
Also, I was waiting for you to come back on MSN but haven't seen you. I was going to say, I finished reading the story you sent me, and in all honesty think you should share that on your website. It paints a vastly different picture of your beliefs and understandings than any of your essays and I think you'll find some mutual ground if you share it with others here.
He said it could become a hindrance [when it becomes something that's used to sustain and build up the ego]. Anything can be.
Also, I was waiting for you to come back on MSN but haven't seen you. I was going to say, I finished reading the story you sent me, and in all honesty think you should share that on your website. It paints a vastly different picture of your beliefs and understandings than any of your essays and I think you'll find some mutual ground if you share it with others here.
OK:) Thank you. I will share it for sure, once it has been proof read!:)
What will hinder your progression is ego that can accompany this curiousity. You suppose I am attempting an intellectual thrust against your curiousity, where I am not. I am advising caution to ego; if you have no attachment to your ideas, then good for you and no harm no foul.
I have spent several hours contemplating what it matters if the Buddha himself taught all that is in the Pali canon or not. His teachings were carried verbally from master to student for 500 years before they were written down. Why did the Buddha not write down his teachings and why did they take so long to write them down? It seems that the greatest minds never write down what they understand as universal truths, their students or the students of their students write them down. Ultimately, I don't think it does matter, if the methods and lessons of the different schools of buddhism work to help one attain enlightenment then use them, if they do not work leave them alone. From my point of view, I have not found a direct school of thought that I can fully follow so I am still searching for one and experiencing the gems of understanding as they enlighten me.
OK:) Thank you. I will share it for sure, once it has been proof read!:)
mat
I would be interested in reading this story of yours. Learning other's stories is where my curiousity lies and if you need help editing, one of my majors in college was english and I would be more than willing to help you edit it.
What will hinder your progression is ego that can accompany this curiousity.
I think I am pretty egoless, actually. Sure not there yet but I constantly try. I also am a fundamentally curious person, especially about such philosophical questions. Why on earth would it be bad for me to think about these things?
How an earth can you possibly tell me this philosophiocal interestof mine will hinder my progtress with dharma?
Do you see how wrong that sounds?
>>I have spent several hours contemplating what it matters if the Buddha himself taught all that is in the Pali canon or not.
He didnt speak Pali:)
>>His teachings were carried verbally from master to student for 500 years before they were written down.
yes, and fifteen hundred miles.
>>Why did the Buddha not write down his teachings and why did they take so long to write them down?
I believe because they could be conveyed simply and easily and in a matter of minutes, it seems. It could also be easily transferred from all Arhants to others, it seems, if we believe the suttras.
Whatver the Buddha found was, by fundemnt of Buddhism, not something that took a lifetime of meditation to master. Enlightenemnt seems abundant in the time of the Buddha. I believe that much of what we have today as Buddhism are later ideas, squeezed into Buddhist culture by centuries of dominant masculine cultural hegemony.
>>>Ultimately, I don't think it does matter, if the methods and lessons of the different schools of buddhism work to help one attain enlightenment then use them, if they do not work leave them alone.
I agree it does not matter to Buddhist Pratcice but it does matter to buddhist philosophy. I am a Buddhist philospher, its what i am. I am not zealous or anything ego based, I just have my ideas on stuff and i put them in essays on my site.
>>>From my point of view, I have not found a direct school of thought that I can fully follow so I am still searching for one and experiencing the gems of understanding as they enlighten me.
Thats great. Note how I wouldn;t tell you you are wrong about that way:)
I reread all of our dialogue and I still don't see where I told you not to pursue something or believe something. I warned you of what I was seeing as a potential attachment to your ideas or ego (which I think we cleared up just fine) and I told you I did not want to refute your argument as I saw no potential progression for either of us in that discourse but I did not attempt to persuade you to stop pursuing that curiosity.
As to your statment that it seems enlightenment was more aboundant in the Buddha's time, how do you know and could it have been because the Buddha himself was teaching them?
As to your statment that it seems enlightenment was more aboundant in the Buddha's time, how do you know and could it have been because the Buddha himself was teaching them?
I have no idea!:) We cannot know any of it:) That is my whole point on this matter:)
I wonder if it wouldn’t be more edifying for all of us here, if you could explain why you cannot doubt what you, in fact, do not doubt, and why in some detail?
I believe in approaching it from this perspective, others may begin to see your truth in a new light.
Respectfully,
S9
Hi S9
The Game Universe experiments on salted.net are the start of my attempt to get that on paper. But I think the what is Dharma essay says it in the biggest nutshell.
I beleive all things are imperimnent, connected, empty, inevitably negative. I belive all actions are karmic actions. It cannot be any other way when you see the many to many nature of causation, what i believe the buddha called dependent origniation:)
I think this is all demonstrable from the first princples i have discussed:)
I have another question. I was the little kid the teacher called a “question box.” ; ^ )
What is the difference between Buddhist philosophy and Buddhist practice? Yes, I’m that dumb. : ^ (
Doesn’t Buddhist philosophy grow out of Buddhist practice like a ripe fruit?
Respectfully,
S9
hi S9
I would say that depends on how philosophical one is. If one is philosophical then why would they not incorporate that more into their practice? If they are more spiritual or cultural in their interests and personality then that will be reflected in their practice.
For me they are intimatly connectec. For others there is a profound differnce, maybe even an incompatibility. If one is just into meditation rather than contemplation, then that wiull effeect their practice.
It is very clear what this practice is. There is little equivocation on that:) How that is applied to each of us is our own journey and nobody should be able to say otherwise:)
I have a friend who is a Shinyo En Nun and others who are therevadan scholars. They are very different in their practices and their philosophies, yet they are united by the four noble truths and the three marks of existence as well as the five precepts etc.
their philosophies differ, as does mine from many here.
Doubt what I say as much as you can, this is what we all shout do to all things people say:)
But also, surly, if we want to be philosophical about our beliefs then we should doubt, test, question them...
I have no idea!:) We cannot know any of it:) That is my whole point on this matter:)
mat
To "know" something is almost never a 100% black-or-white thing. With a historical document, we can never know that it is true to the extent that we know that the sky is blue or that two masses are attracted to each other with a force inversely proportional to the square of their distance. The question is whether we can "know" it to the extent necessary to derive useful information from it.
The mechanisms we use to test the veracity of historical documents are different from the mechanisms used to test statements about the physical universe. Things like internal consistency, external consistency, analysis for bias, etc are the yardsticks to be used. The fact that it wasn't written down for 500 years doesn't immediately disqualify it.
In fact, the Suttas are surprisingly consistent and there's no obvious biases visible. We can be reasonably certain (but never 100% certain) that these documents represent approximately what a man taught around 500 BCE. However, you raise a good point that the fact that there will always be some doubt about what is written down in a historical document means we shouldn't be dogmatic about it solely based on the document itself.
So, are you saying that because things are co-dependent, that they do not have any ‘essential self’ and are simply mind objects, much like a dream? Are you looking for some thing more ‘Eternal’ or permanent?
I personally always use the litmus test, “If it comes and goes it is the mind.”
Since I believe in transcendence of the mind, this cleans house for me to a good extent. (What the Hindus call ‘Neti/Neti or Not this/Not that.’)
I believe that Buddha Nature is not a mind thing, but outside of the dreaming mind, therefore Buddha, “Woke up.”
This is not exactly ‘doubt’ as you can see. It is more like vigilant watching, and disqualifying what cannot live up to these strict standards of being Real.
As you can imagine very few things survive this test.
>>So, are you saying that because things are co-dependent, that they do not have any ‘essential self’ and are simply mind objects, much like a dream? Are you looking for some thing more ‘Eternal’ or permanent?
No, not in my understanding:) Codependency is a causal principle. Things have no objectivity before causation, they are empty in virtue of their connectivity and impermanence. Imperimenence is often seen just as temporal, but its not I feel, its in all directions of possibility space.
>>>I personally always use the litmus test, “If it comes and goes it is the mind.”
What is that a test for? for mind? In that case i agree.
>>Since I believe in transcendence of the mind, this cleans house for me to a good extent. (What the Hindus call ‘Neti/Neti or Not this/Not that.’)
I see the mind as transcendent too. But this is not mystcial to me:) Its an emergent phenomenon, to me.
>>>I believe that Buddha Nature is not a mind thing, but outside of the dreaming mind, therefore Buddha, “Woke up.”
I disagree:)
>>>As you can imagine very few things survive this test.
Do Annica, anataman, dukka, tanha, karma, magga...? they do mine:)
>>>How does that strike you?
Apart from Buddha nature yes, we seem on much the same song sheet:)
S9: Actually I see co-dependence as going beyond causation. (Deeper?) It says that the two sides of any coin in duality come up together (as one piece) and support each other,(like 2 cards leaning against each other), and that nothing is previous to anything else. (Time is a concept of the mind. So there is no actual before or after.)
Or as the Taoists say, “It was when we called something beautiful that we created ugliness. In other words these comparisons or even causes and effects only live within the very act of labeling, or duality.
M: Things have no objectivity before causation; they are empty in virtue of their connectivity and impermanence.
S9: Emptiness is so ubiquitous that there isn’t even a thing. No inside, no outside, and no in-between. It is all ghost-like, or imagination dancing.
M: Impermanence is often seen just as temporal, but its not I feel; it’s in all directions of possibility space.
S9: Could I get you to explain this further, please? I am not sure I follow your meaning.
RE: S9: I personally always use the litmus test, “If it comes and goes it is the mind.”
M: What is that a test for? for mind? In that case I agree.
S9: Yes, it is to understand what things are mind, and if there be any indications, of what is not the mind. This is because we have many good definitions of mind, and can in this way set it to one side in order to investigate what Nirvana must be, (since Nirvana seems to defy definition.)
M: I see the mind as transcendent too. But this is not mystical to me Its an emergent phenomenon, to me.
S9: Why do you say that mind is transcendent, please give details, and mind is transcendent of what?
RE: S9: I believe that Buddha Nature is not a mind thing, but outside of the dreaming mind, therefore Buddha, “Woke up.”
M: I disagree
S9: What are your reasons for disagreeing? Please give some details.
RE: S9: As you can imagine very few things survive this test.
M: Do Annica, anataman, dukka, tanha, karma, magga...? they do mine
S9: Don’t you believe that we must enter Nirvana empty handed, or without any baggage, even if that baggage happens to be correct beliefs?
Also, I wish I could get you to speak in some detail about annica, anataman, dukka, tanha, karma, magga, since this is where you have invested some years of investigation.
S9: Actually I see co-dependence as going beyond causation. (Deeper?) It says that the two sides of any coin in duality come up together (as one piece) and support each other,(like 2 cards leaning against each other), and that nothing is previous to anything else.
M: That works for you:) It doesn't for me. I am always weary of metaphor in philosophy:) What does that mean? Coins? Cards? I think you can express pretty clearly what Dharmic causation is:
"When there is this, that is.
With the arising of this, that arises.
When this is not, neither is that.
With the cessation of this, that ceases."
That is my view. What does your "two sides of the same coin" Metaphore add to that?:)
9S:Time is a concept of the mind. So there is no actual before or after.
M:I disagree with that:) For example, there was clearly universe before there were minds. There may not be a difference between before and after, that's a very mood point, but there are befores and afters, I think:)
S9: Emptiness is so ubiquitous that there isn’t even a thing. No inside, no outside, and no in-between.
M:I agree, as I sate in the essays:)
S9:It is all ghost-like, or imagination dancing.
M:Again, that is a metaphor. I don't see what it is meant to add to your understanding?
M: Impermanence is often seen just as temporal, but its not I feel; it’s in all directions of possibility space.
S9: Could I get you to explain this further, please? I am not sure I follow your meaning.
M:I have written about this in detail in the "Differn is CHange" part of the essays here
S9: Yes, it is to understand what things are mind, and if there be any indications, of what is not the mind. This is because we have many good definitions of mind, and can in this way set it to one side in order to investigate what Nirvana must be, (since Nirvana seems to defy definition.)
M: How do you know what is Dharma and what is not more illusion if you only look at your mind?
S9: Why do you say that mind is transcendent, please give details, and mind is transcendent of what?
M: In the sense that, for example , My Love for the Mother transcends my personality and experience. That doesn't mean it is majic, it means it has emerged/arrisen beyond my capacity to understand it:)
S9: What are your reasons for disagreeing? Please give some details.
M: Thanks, I dont wish to start discussion on Buddhanature, I'm stretched thin mindedly enough as it is:P
S9: Don’t you believe that we must enter Nirvana empty handed, or without any baggage, even if that baggage happens to be correct beliefs?
M: No. Why should I belive that? I think the notion of emptiness is mistakenly understood in classical buddhism. I think it is about going back to the point of no truths or perspectives and start from there. I remain to be proved wrong on this:)
S(Also, I wish I could get you to speak in some detail about annica, anataman, dukka, tanha, karma, magga, since this is where you have invested some years of investigation.
M: Again, salted.net has all my stuff on this that im ready to publish. And allot of that is very first draught:)
M: "When there is this, that is.
With the arising of this, that arises.
When this is not, neither is that.
With the cessation of this, that ceases."
S9: I do hope that you can see that what you have just written actually contradicts the concept of causation. It is saying that they arise simultaneously and not in sequince (AKA in time.)
Incidentally, metaphor is a wonderful tool for clarifying things pictorially. I will admit that some people, even very bright people, find metaphors not useful to them. Perhaps this is because they are so ‘Left brained’ (wordy), and metaphors being pictorial are more ‘Right brained.’ Metaphor is more poetic. Many great mystics and sages have been poets and used metaphor in great excellence.
RE: S9:Time is a concept of the mind. So there is no actual before or after.
M:I disagree with that For example, there was clearly universe before there were minds. There may not be a difference between before and after, that's a very mood point, but there are befores and afters, I think.
S9: Only if you are a materialist and believe that here is an actual world outside of mind, or even that the mind is a product of our brain.
.
M:I agree, as I sate in the essays
S9: I don’t really have the time it requires to study your essays somewhere else. So, all I know of you, is what you say right here. Sorry. : ^ )
M: How do you know what is Dharma and what is not more illusion if you only look at your mind?
S9: Isn’t that what Buddha did, study his own mind? The Dharma is just a convenience, when you think of it as something written down. We, every single one of us, will eventually have to study our own mind. How else would we even know what the Dharma professes is anywhere near being true?
RE: S9: Why do you say that mind is transcendent, please give details, and mind is transcendent of what?
M: In the sense that, for example , My Love for the Mother transcends my personality and experience.
S9: Not by much. If you got Alzheimer’s disease, you might forget who your mother even was, let alone that you loved her. I have seen a woman married for 50 years to a guy not recognize him. But she didn’t say, “I don’t know you, but I do love you.” ; ^ )
M: That doesn't mean it is magic, it means it has emerged/arisen beyond my capacity to understand it.
S9: I’ll give you that there is much we do not understand.
S9: I do hope that you can see that what you have just written actually contradicts the concept of causation. It is saying that they arise simultaneously and not in sequince (AKA in time.)
M:No I don't see that. For example, i see it as the same logical structure as:
If I knock at your door, I am on your doorstep.
If I walk up to your door, I will be on your doorstep.
If I am never on your doorstep, I will never be knocking on your door.
If I stop being on your doorstep, I will stop knocking your door.
That is causation and counterfactual, it seems good philosophy to me:)
>>>Incidentally, metaphor is a wonderful tool for clarifying things pictorially.
I completely agree. However, when there is just metaphor then there no nothing that can be clarified about the theory:)
S9: Only if you are a materialist and believe that here is an actual world outside of mind, or even that the mind is a product of our brain.
M:I am materialist and I believe that there is an actual world outside of mind and that mind is the product of brain, as described by the five aggregates of the Dharmic theory of mind:)
S9: I don’t really have the time it requires to study your essays somewhere else.
M: Sure, no prob:) Equally I must try to reduce repeating myself!:)
S9: Isn’t that what Buddha did, study his own mind?
M: I think no, I think he clearly studied all outside of mind. Why do I think this? Because the four noble truths and the three marks depicts a perfect system of reality that coheres with my experience and understanding of the world:)
I think there are many areas of Buddhism that show this point pretty clearly:)
S9:The Dharma is just a convenience
M: I completely disagree. I think the dharma is the foundation of reality, including but not limited human experience and suffering.
S9:How else would we even know what the Dharma professes is anywhere near being true?
By contemplation and mediating upon ideas and possibilities about reality, just as the Buddha must have to find what he found:)
S9: I’ll give you that there is much we do not understand.
M: I actually don't think that is the case. I think unless reality is a radical (illusion 9which we would have no knowledge of either way) then we really do know and understand a much bigger chunk of the totality of all understanding then your comment seems to suggest:)
Just to let you know that I feel karma is a speculation and we shouldn't waste our time on it so much. All of this concern about the future withdraws us from the focus on living today. Who knows whether our actions will be rewarded in the future? We don't have any experiments to test it with. And doing good doesn't necessairly give you good back...it's a generalization.
Whether there is an afterlife or not, who cares? Focus on being the best person right now and growing as an individual. The process by which you are reborn is unproven.
To that, I couldn't agree with you more.
For people who want to know how being good works but doesn't believe in rebirth I'll explain to my best ability; Apply it to the future aswell as the present. If a homeless person is leant anything imagine how glad you'd be in their position. Treat people how you'd like to be treated. If a minister or a president was generous to a country in times of difficulty the favour will likely be returned. People give a nice person more respect, generally. If you help a person's quality of life improve they might be the sort of person who'd only have kids if the kid's life was good. That kid might parent or become a person who has amazing solutions to improve the quality of live for all. I imagine life as a jigsaw puzzle, a long one that is endless and stretches into the difference. Now, each life is a piece. Some people are big pieces and take a big part in things, some people are little pieces that are little, but important. Now, if a person is killed unnaturally, for example not prayed upon by an animal or died of age, illness, or an accidental driver an endless number of people they could possibly have been a direct disendent of are never born. Eventually that part of the eternally big puzzle is patched over but people are constantly killing other people and animals for the fun and no other reason. The puzzle is full of missing pieces. The better people are, the nicer the overall picture'll look. Simple, sort of, but a belief not shared by everybody LOL! :crazy:
Love & Peace
Joe
I too have questioned Karma at times, until I began to examine it. If I assume Karma is equivalent to eye for an eye, and it has direct cause-and-effect implications, I have trouble with it.
On the other hand, when I learned that Karma is not simply a one for one exchange, it became much clearer for me. The product of Karma doesn't immediately reappear where I assume it's going to, and it doesn't reappear in the form I think it should, and it doesn't appear in representative numbers that I would assume it would. When I came to the understanding that Karma comes back a thousand fold or even more, I began to observe it.
For example, if I am cruel to someone else, I will be cruel to myself over and over and over. I do this in the way I speak to myself, by self defeating behaviors and habits. As a consequence, my self-esteem suffers, I may become addicted to something, or do something stupid in my life that messes me up and it may continue for several years or even lifetimes. So I don't really think that Karma is going to be the type of immediate response that we sometimes expect.
By the same token, when we are kind and we expect Karma to repay us one for one, I don't view it as reasonable to assume it will come in the way we deem it should. More like big picture, our lives are enriched overall when we are kind. It makes sense to me and when I view it in that way, I can observe it in the here and now and understand its ramifications.
This revelation completely changed my attitude towards Karma. You can take it or leave it but I find it useful and I don't have to continually struggle with things beyond me to understand.
On the other hand, when I learned that Karma is not simply a one for one exchange, it became much clearer for me. The product of Karma doesn't immediately reappear where I assume it's going to, and it doesn't reappear in the form I think it should, and it doesn't appear in representative numbers that I would assume it would. When I came to the understanding that Karma comes back a thousand fold or even more, I began to observe it.
I agree. And I also think there are other karmic channels than the key one you mention. For example there massive intercoenctivity of all moral and mental states in addition to butterfly effect phenomeon is going to mean that even small moral causes can have big moral effects.
Another channel you can look at in, that I find useful is the probabalistic. If x is a good action it is probably going to have good effects, and the same if it is negative, etc:) I think:)
>>>More like big picture, our lives are enriched overall when we are kind.
Yes, I think the Dalai lama speaks well on this, the way compassion is good in its own right, for example. Its not just good because it has karmic benifits to the agent.
>>It makes sense to me and when I view it in that way, I can observe it in the
here and now and understand its ramifications.
Yes, I think we may not agree on everything but we can see karma in dharma isnt a majic force or divine merit, as some beliefs are held:)
>>>This revelation completely changed my attitude towards Karma. You can take it or leave it but I find it useful and I don't have to continually struggle with things beyond me to understand.
If I understand you then yes I think its very clear I agree:)
I see Karma as the moral blood of our actions, to use a metaphore:)
Just to let you know that I feel karma is a speculation and we shouldn't waste our time on it so much. All of this concern about the future withdraws us from the focus on living today. Who knows whether our actions will be rewarded in the future? We don't have any experiments to test it with. And doing good doesn't necessairly give you good back...it's a generalization.
Whether there is an afterlife or not, who cares? Focus on being the best person right now and growing as an individual. The process by which you are reborn is unproven.
Its defititley not a waste of time because its a normal thing to be nice.
Your just stating you arn't a nice person normally.
Karma, true or not.
Still practice it.
If you consider being nice all the time a waste of time your not going to go far at all.
I'm really very new to the whole web thing and especially forums like this. As some of you know I had my first experience with some rather disturbing communication recently, on this site.
In contemplating this experience and observing similar apparent occurrences of this kind on this site. I'm imagining the Buddha's teaching of 'Right Speech' (Noble Eightfold Path) and the fourth of the five lay precepts - regarding speech, and the sixth and seventh of the ten precepts - regarding speech and putting others down, etc. (Vinaya). I'm pretty convinced that some of the folks actively posting here have not taken these precepts and either don't understand them or care to practice with them.
My intention is not to criticize but to encourage us all, especially myself, to do our very best to study and really practice to uphold "Right Speech". I'm now coming to realize what a great opportunity this forum provides to take the time to compose responses to each other that exemplify the expression of "The truth as we see it, without guilt or blame." in compassionate speech that inspires and brings hope to whoever reads our posts.
Will you please help this old rough talking, often angry and hostile, person know "Right Speech" by showing me how to do it here?
I'm really very new to the whole web thing and especially forums like this. As some of you know I had my first experience with some rather disturbing communication recently, on this site.....etc
Hi there BB,
I must have missed whatever you're refering to, because I haven't noticed any disturbing communications myself.
I find that observing one's own reactions to others is good practice, rather than expecting them to fit into how one wants them to behave.
Its all too easy to get over heavy and too serious on these forums - I do it all the time until I remember to lighten up a little!
Its all too easy to get over heavy and too serious on these forums - I do it all the time until I remember to lighten up a little!
Yes it is!:) I think ultimately it oil boils down to our egos making trouble for us, in this case, largely by making issues seem more important than they actually are:)
So what's the point of this whole debate?
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
So what's the point of this whole debate?
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
We should ALWAYS be grateful when someone wakes us up from our own complacency. It matters very little whether they are right or wrong.
S9
Thank you for the reply :-) Indeed it should matter very little whether they are right or wrong, but sometimes stirring up things can be very tasty (I must have been a gremlin in a past life :-x) :-x ehehehe
Comments
Whereas he tries to put his theories to the test by proclaiming them false from the outset (hence doubting everything) and then testing their veracity.....
I find this an extraordinarily negative and closed approach.
Myself.
In my country, we call this the scientific method:)
I think the Buddha pioneered it:)
Mat
It seems like you spent a little too much time reading Descartes' discourse on Methodology (if not, you are influenced by one who has) but it seems you (or your influence) skipped his conclusion and lessons learned.
Doubting is a common western binary approach to realising the truth whereas questioning is an open ended approach to realising the truth. Although all truths can be determined by the wests binary approach it is not the only method and in my experience it is a much slower and painstaking approach. It builds ego that may distract one from seeing the evidence that your conclusion is false. Be careful to make claims of doubt, be careful to not make the mistake of being decieved by your ego.
I have read that yes, ant taught it:) But i guess i am more into the wittgenstinian notion from On certainty, this idea of a framework of knowledge. Its a great book if you like analytic philosophy.
I dont really see the doubt questioning distinction:) Its about attitude, in a sense doubting is a more negative form of questioning.
I dont doubt that my mother loves me but i am entitled to question it. nontheless the external fact is, either my mother loves me or she does not.
Palzang
Oh, so in this case, instead of Doubting first, you question first...
Tell me - what's the difference between your application of this kind with this situation, and the application of your starting point of Doubt for Buddhism and its teachings?
Why do you utilise this method here, but the opposite method elsewhere?
I don't see the point, myself, particularly as you follow this with -
And to add my 1/2 cents to Palzang's statement, I feel our western approach to understanding is too quick to throw out time tested methods (like the sutras you are claiming to be false).
I will have to check out that book Mat. It sounds interesting.
I see it slightly differntly. Dharma to me means truth. I want the truth for its own sake, in the same way I want to know when my government lies to me or scnience makes a new discovery.
Of couse the end of this is liberation, but that is not all of it, at all, for me.
>>>Plus I have had the benefit and great fortune to have heard the Dharma taught by a pure teacher for many years now, and I understand things much better than I used to.
That's great. I hope you have tested and doubted all they teach you and not taking it just because they taught you.
Remeber, suicide bombers blow themselves up because they are taught about paradice etc...
We must always be skeptical until we can be certain, I belive.
>>>Buddhist practice is a process. It serves no purpose whatsoever to come throw out the parts you personally don't like and then invent some kind of "logical" argument to justify it, which is what I see you doing.
Then you dont understand what I am trying to do. Nor I feel do you want to:)
I want to doubt it all so I can find what I cannot doubt. I have, over nearly ten years, got far with this in my own understanding. i am certain of the core Dharma. I cannot possible doubt it, but trust me, i have tried and tried.
>>>You deepen through your practice, and things that may have seemed unclear or stupid or illogical or unbelievable to begin with become clear with time.
Like rebirth and devas? They remain stupid to my mind:)
>>If you cement yourself into a logical corner, how can you ever grow?
What you see as a corner I see as a foundation.
I am not at all claiming them to be false!:)
I am claiming them to be innacurate, changed, distorted, augmented. have you read my Was the Buddha a Buddhist essay?
I think my point is very clear there:)
If they are inaccurate, they hold a falsehood and are false (it is inherent in your statment as they are synonyms in this context).
I will read it and if I can then have an opinion of worth I will voice it.
It is not that they must are all false, but that because we know they have been added to, altered and translated we cannot say with any kind of definiteness "The buddha said x" or "This means y". Those kind of concrete statements just don't fit, they are unreasonable.
My personal view is more extreme than this, based on other philosophical and historical considerations, but that's just my view. Still, the demonstrable reality is that all of the remnant texts must be considered innacurate, thus we can at best, speculate about their meanings:)
Thanks
Mat
If you approach a subject, whatever it is, from an academic approach, all you can do is speculate on its meaning. If you openly experience a subject feet first, you do not need to speculate as you will know of its meaning, worth, and validity. From what I have read of your essays and comments, you have at least partially experienced the four noble truths and understand part of there worth, meaning, and validity; that is more than most ever experience and you will be better off for it.
As for other aspects of the Dharma, it seems to me you become more and more deluded by your ego and lack of open experience. I am not speaking of time spent reading the materials (as I see you have spent at least a mere decade learning of them), I speak of letting go of your ego and experiencing them first hand. A person can spend a life time learning the Dharma, but if they are deluded by doubt, ego, and lack of open experience it can actually slow their progress.
I realize I am not refuting the claims you have made and my reasons for doing so are simple, I believe it will not help you or me on our path towards openness, awareness, and complete understanding. I hope you peace and compassion.
Your friend,
QW
I have lived and breathed Dharma, for the last eight years pretty much, its changed me more profoundly than marriage or kids. It is my chjosen way and I am sure it will be until I die.
But as well as this acceptance and practice I'm really interested in its deeper philosophical levels, the "buddhist ontology" which many Buddhists think doesn't exist or is meaningless, that's fine.
It stroke me that there is the really amazing system of truth flowing consistently from three really simple and obvious truths but this didnt quite get with the buddhist texts. They speak of these esoteric concepts which just dont fit with the Thee Truths, as I see it.
When I went and saw the chronology of the suttras I realised that the entire corpus was suspect, it was massively removed from the time of the buddha and much bigger than anything that the Buddha could have taught.
The only path for me with Dharma, then, was to only accept that which does flow from the first principles or discard it. I don't think it is a surpirse that this most closely matches the parts of the text that are most agreed on by all buddhists, annica, anataman, dukka, magga...
So there I am:) I don't know if its the right place, but its the place i feel most certain at, if you can show me its the "wrong place for me" as you seem to want to, you will need to be pretty clear and convincing:)
But I am all up for change!:)
Mat
If you spend your entire life just learning and living the four noble truths, the 8 fold path, and the 5 precepts, then you are doing exactly what I would recommend, which is all I can fully subscribe to myself (I have not found a teacher or school of thought that resonates with me fully yet). I do not wish to convince you of anything but from my perspective it seems that your interest in the "ontological buddhism" can be a hindrance to your progression. I only warned and warn you to not let it build and sustain your ego as you may waste much of your precious time and may miss out on some other wonderful understandings.
QW
And I would say, I respect your view but I ask myself how do you know that and why do you think that?
Have you tried and failed? Have you tried and seen failure is inevitable? Maybe someone told you? maybe you just believe it. I don't know why you know that:) On what authority?
Frankly, it is a key principle in my social understanding of social dharma that one should never tell someone else what they should or should not believe. Even if they are certain of it:)
"Doubt everything, be your own light" As the saying goes:)
Sure sure, I was referring to the main thrust agaisnt these ideas (that is all they are). Nonetheless if you tell me that's a Hindrance (Its not one of the five hindrances) then ultimately you are saying "you should not do that if you want to prosper in dharma."
And still I ask, why do you say this?
I do read what you say, I even think about it too!:)
Mat
He said it could become a hindrance [when it becomes something that's used to sustain and build up the ego]. Anything can be.
Also, I was waiting for you to come back on MSN but haven't seen you. I was going to say, I finished reading the story you sent me, and in all honesty think you should share that on your website. It paints a vastly different picture of your beliefs and understandings than any of your essays and I think you'll find some mutual ground if you share it with others here.
OK:) Thank you. I will share it for sure, once it has been proof read!:)
mat
I have spent several hours contemplating what it matters if the Buddha himself taught all that is in the Pali canon or not. His teachings were carried verbally from master to student for 500 years before they were written down. Why did the Buddha not write down his teachings and why did they take so long to write them down? It seems that the greatest minds never write down what they understand as universal truths, their students or the students of their students write them down. Ultimately, I don't think it does matter, if the methods and lessons of the different schools of buddhism work to help one attain enlightenment then use them, if they do not work leave them alone. From my point of view, I have not found a direct school of thought that I can fully follow so I am still searching for one and experiencing the gems of understanding as they enlighten me.
I would be interested in reading this story of yours. Learning other's stories is where my curiousity lies and if you need help editing, one of my majors in college was english and I would be more than willing to help you edit it.
I think I am pretty egoless, actually. Sure not there yet but I constantly try. I also am a fundamentally curious person, especially about such philosophical questions. Why on earth would it be bad for me to think about these things?
How an earth can you possibly tell me this philosophiocal interestof mine will hinder my progtress with dharma?
Do you see how wrong that sounds?
>>I have spent several hours contemplating what it matters if the Buddha himself taught all that is in the Pali canon or not.
He didnt speak Pali:)
>>His teachings were carried verbally from master to student for 500 years before they were written down.
yes, and fifteen hundred miles.
>>Why did the Buddha not write down his teachings and why did they take so long to write them down?
I believe because they could be conveyed simply and easily and in a matter of minutes, it seems. It could also be easily transferred from all Arhants to others, it seems, if we believe the suttras.
Whatver the Buddha found was, by fundemnt of Buddhism, not something that took a lifetime of meditation to master. Enlightenemnt seems abundant in the time of the Buddha. I believe that much of what we have today as Buddhism are later ideas, squeezed into Buddhist culture by centuries of dominant masculine cultural hegemony.
>>>Ultimately, I don't think it does matter, if the methods and lessons of the different schools of buddhism work to help one attain enlightenment then use them, if they do not work leave them alone.
I agree it does not matter to Buddhist Pratcice but it does matter to buddhist philosophy. I am a Buddhist philospher, its what i am. I am not zealous or anything ego based, I just have my ideas on stuff and i put them in essays on my site.
>>>From my point of view, I have not found a direct school of thought that I can fully follow so I am still searching for one and experiencing the gems of understanding as they enlighten me.
Thats great. Note how I wouldn;t tell you you are wrong about that way:)
Doubt everything
mat
I reread all of our dialogue and I still don't see where I told you not to pursue something or believe something. I warned you of what I was seeing as a potential attachment to your ideas or ego (which I think we cleared up just fine) and I told you I did not want to refute your argument as I saw no potential progression for either of us in that discourse but I did not attempt to persuade you to stop pursuing that curiosity.
As to your statment that it seems enlightenment was more aboundant in the Buddha's time, how do you know and could it have been because the Buddha himself was teaching them?
Here/here!
We should ALWAYS be grateful when someone wakes us up from our own complacency. It matters very little whether they are right or wrong.
If they make us question, or take another look at what we think we know…that is a good thing.
Oops! I mean useful. ; ^ )
Question everything,
S9
I have no idea!:) We cannot know any of it:) That is my whole point on this matter:)
mat
Here here, it shouldn't matter to anyone if I am right or wrong. Or you or her or him:)
I wonder if it wouldn’t be more edifying for all of us here, if you could explain what you cannot doubt, and why in some detail?
I believe in approaching it from this perspective, others may begin to see your truth in a new light.
Respectfully,
S9
Hi S9
The Game Universe experiments on salted.net are the start of my attempt to get that on paper. But I think the what is Dharma essay says it in the biggest nutshell.
I beleive all things are imperimnent, connected, empty, inevitably negative. I belive all actions are karmic actions. It cannot be any other way when you see the many to many nature of causation, what i believe the buddha called dependent origniation:)
I think this is all demonstrable from the first princples i have discussed:)
Does that sound plausible?
Mat
I have another question. I was the little kid the teacher called a “question box.” ; ^ )
What is the difference between Buddhist philosophy and Buddhist practice? Yes, I’m that dumb. : ^ (
Doesn’t Buddhist philosophy grow out of Buddhist practice like a ripe fruit?
Respectfully,
S9
hi S9
I would say that depends on how philosophical one is. If one is philosophical then why would they not incorporate that more into their practice? If they are more spiritual or cultural in their interests and personality then that will be reflected in their practice.
For me they are intimatly connectec. For others there is a profound differnce, maybe even an incompatibility. If one is just into meditation rather than contemplation, then that wiull effeect their practice.
It is very clear what this practice is. There is little equivocation on that:) How that is applied to each of us is our own journey and nobody should be able to say otherwise:)
I have a friend who is a Shinyo En Nun and others who are therevadan scholars. They are very different in their practices and their philosophies, yet they are united by the four noble truths and the three marks of existence as well as the five precepts etc.
their philosophies differ, as does mine from many here.
Doubt what I say as much as you can, this is what we all shout do to all things people say:)
But also, surly, if we want to be philosophical about our beliefs then we should doubt, test, question them...
To "know" something is almost never a 100% black-or-white thing. With a historical document, we can never know that it is true to the extent that we know that the sky is blue or that two masses are attracted to each other with a force inversely proportional to the square of their distance. The question is whether we can "know" it to the extent necessary to derive useful information from it.
The mechanisms we use to test the veracity of historical documents are different from the mechanisms used to test statements about the physical universe. Things like internal consistency, external consistency, analysis for bias, etc are the yardsticks to be used. The fact that it wasn't written down for 500 years doesn't immediately disqualify it.
In fact, the Suttas are surprisingly consistent and there's no obvious biases visible. We can be reasonably certain (but never 100% certain) that these documents represent approximately what a man taught around 500 BCE. However, you raise a good point that the fact that there will always be some doubt about what is written down in a historical document means we shouldn't be dogmatic about it solely based on the document itself.
So, are you saying that because things are co-dependent, that they do not have any ‘essential self’ and are simply mind objects, much like a dream? Are you looking for some thing more ‘Eternal’ or permanent?
I personally always use the litmus test, “If it comes and goes it is the mind.”
Since I believe in transcendence of the mind, this cleans house for me to a good extent. (What the Hindus call ‘Neti/Neti or Not this/Not that.’)
I believe that Buddha Nature is not a mind thing, but outside of the dreaming mind, therefore Buddha, “Woke up.”
This is not exactly ‘doubt’ as you can see. It is more like vigilant watching, and disqualifying what cannot live up to these strict standards of being Real.
As you can imagine very few things survive this test.
: ^ )
How does that strike you?
Respectfully,
S9
Hi:)
>>So, are you saying that because things are co-dependent, that they do not have any ‘essential self’ and are simply mind objects, much like a dream? Are you looking for some thing more ‘Eternal’ or permanent?
No, not in my understanding:) Codependency is a causal principle. Things have no objectivity before causation, they are empty in virtue of their connectivity and impermanence. Imperimenence is often seen just as temporal, but its not I feel, its in all directions of possibility space.
>>>I personally always use the litmus test, “If it comes and goes it is the mind.”
What is that a test for? for mind? In that case i agree.
>>Since I believe in transcendence of the mind, this cleans house for me to a good extent. (What the Hindus call ‘Neti/Neti or Not this/Not that.’)
I see the mind as transcendent too. But this is not mystcial to me:) Its an emergent phenomenon, to me.
>>>I believe that Buddha Nature is not a mind thing, but outside of the dreaming mind, therefore Buddha, “Woke up.”
I disagree:)
>>>As you can imagine very few things survive this test.
Do Annica, anataman, dukka, tanha, karma, magga...? they do mine:)
>>>How does that strike you?
Apart from Buddha nature yes, we seem on much the same song sheet:)
Mat
M: Codependency is a causal principle.
S9: Actually I see co-dependence as going beyond causation. (Deeper?) It says that the two sides of any coin in duality come up together (as one piece) and support each other,(like 2 cards leaning against each other), and that nothing is previous to anything else. (Time is a concept of the mind. So there is no actual before or after.)
Or as the Taoists say, “It was when we called something beautiful that we created ugliness. In other words these comparisons or even causes and effects only live within the very act of labeling, or duality.
M: Things have no objectivity before causation; they are empty in virtue of their connectivity and impermanence.
S9: Emptiness is so ubiquitous that there isn’t even a thing. No inside, no outside, and no in-between. It is all ghost-like, or imagination dancing.
M: Impermanence is often seen just as temporal, but its not I feel; it’s in all directions of possibility space.
S9: Could I get you to explain this further, please? I am not sure I follow your meaning.
RE: S9: I personally always use the litmus test, “If it comes and goes it is the mind.”
M: What is that a test for? for mind? In that case I agree.
S9: Yes, it is to understand what things are mind, and if there be any indications, of what is not the mind. This is because we have many good definitions of mind, and can in this way set it to one side in order to investigate what Nirvana must be, (since Nirvana seems to defy definition.)
M: I see the mind as transcendent too. But this is not mystical to me Its an emergent phenomenon, to me.
S9: Why do you say that mind is transcendent, please give details, and mind is transcendent of what?
RE: S9: I believe that Buddha Nature is not a mind thing, but outside of the dreaming mind, therefore Buddha, “Woke up.”
M: I disagree
S9: What are your reasons for disagreeing? Please give some details.
RE: S9: As you can imagine very few things survive this test.
M: Do Annica, anataman, dukka, tanha, karma, magga...? they do mine
S9: Don’t you believe that we must enter Nirvana empty handed, or without any baggage, even if that baggage happens to be correct beliefs?
Also, I wish I could get you to speak in some detail about annica, anataman, dukka, tanha, karma, magga, since this is where you have invested some years of investigation.
Sorry 4 being such a ‘question box.’
Smiles,
S9
S9: Actually I see co-dependence as going beyond causation. (Deeper?) It says that the two sides of any coin in duality come up together (as one piece) and support each other,(like 2 cards leaning against each other), and that nothing is previous to anything else.
M: That works for you:) It doesn't for me. I am always weary of metaphor in philosophy:) What does that mean? Coins? Cards? I think you can express pretty clearly what Dharmic causation is:
With the arising of this, that arises.
When this is not, neither is that.
With the cessation of this, that ceases."
That is my view. What does your "two sides of the same coin" Metaphore add to that?:)
9S:Time is a concept of the mind. So there is no actual before or after.
M:I disagree with that:) For example, there was clearly universe before there were minds. There may not be a difference between before and after, that's a very mood point, but there are befores and afters, I think:)
S9: Emptiness is so ubiquitous that there isn’t even a thing. No inside, no outside, and no in-between.
M:I agree, as I sate in the essays:)
S9:It is all ghost-like, or imagination dancing.
M:Again, that is a metaphor. I don't see what it is meant to add to your understanding?
M: Impermanence is often seen just as temporal, but its not I feel; it’s in all directions of possibility space.
S9: Could I get you to explain this further, please? I am not sure I follow your meaning.
M:I have written about this in detail in the "Differn is CHange" part of the essays here
S9: Yes, it is to understand what things are mind, and if there be any indications, of what is not the mind. This is because we have many good definitions of mind, and can in this way set it to one side in order to investigate what Nirvana must be, (since Nirvana seems to defy definition.)
M: How do you know what is Dharma and what is not more illusion if you only look at your mind?
S9: Why do you say that mind is transcendent, please give details, and mind is transcendent of what?
M: In the sense that, for example , My Love for the Mother transcends my personality and experience. That doesn't mean it is majic, it means it has emerged/arrisen beyond my capacity to understand it:)
S9: What are your reasons for disagreeing? Please give some details.
M: Thanks, I dont wish to start discussion on Buddhanature, I'm stretched thin mindedly enough as it is:P
S9: Don’t you believe that we must enter Nirvana empty handed, or without any baggage, even if that baggage happens to be correct beliefs?
M: No. Why should I belive that? I think the notion of emptiness is mistakenly understood in classical buddhism. I think it is about going back to the point of no truths or perspectives and start from there. I remain to be proved wrong on this:)
S(Also, I wish I could get you to speak in some detail about annica, anataman, dukka, tanha, karma, magga, since this is where you have invested some years of investigation.
M: Again, salted.net has all my stuff on this that im ready to publish. And allot of that is very first draught:)
Thanks:)
Mat
M: "When there is this, that is.
With the arising of this, that arises.
When this is not, neither is that.
With the cessation of this, that ceases."
S9: I do hope that you can see that what you have just written actually contradicts the concept of causation. It is saying that they arise simultaneously and not in sequince (AKA in time.)
Incidentally, metaphor is a wonderful tool for clarifying things pictorially. I will admit that some people, even very bright people, find metaphors not useful to them. Perhaps this is because they are so ‘Left brained’ (wordy), and metaphors being pictorial are more ‘Right brained.’ Metaphor is more poetic. Many great mystics and sages have been poets and used metaphor in great excellence.
RE: S9:Time is a concept of the mind. So there is no actual before or after.
M:I disagree with that For example, there was clearly universe before there were minds. There may not be a difference between before and after, that's a very mood point, but there are befores and afters, I think.
S9: Only if you are a materialist and believe that here is an actual world outside of mind, or even that the mind is a product of our brain.
.
M:I agree, as I sate in the essays
S9: I don’t really have the time it requires to study your essays somewhere else. So, all I know of you, is what you say right here. Sorry. : ^ )
M: How do you know what is Dharma and what is not more illusion if you only look at your mind?
S9: Isn’t that what Buddha did, study his own mind? The Dharma is just a convenience, when you think of it as something written down. We, every single one of us, will eventually have to study our own mind. How else would we even know what the Dharma professes is anywhere near being true?
RE: S9: Why do you say that mind is transcendent, please give details, and mind is transcendent of what?
M: In the sense that, for example , My Love for the Mother transcends my personality and experience.
S9: Not by much. If you got Alzheimer’s disease, you might forget who your mother even was, let alone that you loved her. I have seen a woman married for 50 years to a guy not recognize him. But she didn’t say, “I don’t know you, but I do love you.” ; ^ )
M: That doesn't mean it is magic, it means it has emerged/arisen beyond my capacity to understand it.
S9: I’ll give you that there is much we do not understand.
Warm Regards,
S9
S9: I do hope that you can see that what you have just written actually contradicts the concept of causation. It is saying that they arise simultaneously and not in sequince (AKA in time.)
M:No I don't see that. For example, i see it as the same logical structure as:
If I knock at your door, I am on your doorstep.
If I walk up to your door, I will be on your doorstep.
If I am never on your doorstep, I will never be knocking on your door.
If I stop being on your doorstep, I will stop knocking your door.
That is causation and counterfactual, it seems good philosophy to me:)
>>>Incidentally, metaphor is a wonderful tool for clarifying things pictorially.
I completely agree. However, when there is just metaphor then there no nothing that can be clarified about the theory:)
S9: Only if you are a materialist and believe that here is an actual world outside of mind, or even that the mind is a product of our brain.
M:I am materialist and I believe that there is an actual world outside of mind and that mind is the product of brain, as described by the five aggregates of the Dharmic theory of mind:)
S9: I don’t really have the time it requires to study your essays somewhere else.
M: Sure, no prob:) Equally I must try to reduce repeating myself!:)
S9: Isn’t that what Buddha did, study his own mind?
M: I think no, I think he clearly studied all outside of mind. Why do I think this? Because the four noble truths and the three marks depicts a perfect system of reality that coheres with my experience and understanding of the world:)
I think there are many areas of Buddhism that show this point pretty clearly:)
S9:The Dharma is just a convenience
M: I completely disagree. I think the dharma is the foundation of reality, including but not limited human experience and suffering.
S9:How else would we even know what the Dharma professes is anywhere near being true?
By contemplation and mediating upon ideas and possibilities about reality, just as the Buddha must have to find what he found:)
S9: I’ll give you that there is much we do not understand.
M: I actually don't think that is the case. I think unless reality is a radical (illusion 9which we would have no knowledge of either way) then we really do know and understand a much bigger chunk of the totality of all understanding then your comment seems to suggest:)
Enjoying the chat, thank you:)
Mat
To that, I couldn't agree with you more.
For people who want to know how being good works but doesn't believe in rebirth I'll explain to my best ability; Apply it to the future aswell as the present. If a homeless person is leant anything imagine how glad you'd be in their position. Treat people how you'd like to be treated. If a minister or a president was generous to a country in times of difficulty the favour will likely be returned. People give a nice person more respect, generally. If you help a person's quality of life improve they might be the sort of person who'd only have kids if the kid's life was good. That kid might parent or become a person who has amazing solutions to improve the quality of live for all. I imagine life as a jigsaw puzzle, a long one that is endless and stretches into the difference. Now, each life is a piece. Some people are big pieces and take a big part in things, some people are little pieces that are little, but important. Now, if a person is killed unnaturally, for example not prayed upon by an animal or died of age, illness, or an accidental driver an endless number of people they could possibly have been a direct disendent of are never born. Eventually that part of the eternally big puzzle is patched over but people are constantly killing other people and animals for the fun and no other reason. The puzzle is full of missing pieces. The better people are, the nicer the overall picture'll look. Simple, sort of, but a belief not shared by everybody LOL! :crazy:
Love & Peace
Joe
I too have questioned Karma at times, until I began to examine it. If I assume Karma is equivalent to eye for an eye, and it has direct cause-and-effect implications, I have trouble with it.
On the other hand, when I learned that Karma is not simply a one for one exchange, it became much clearer for me. The product of Karma doesn't immediately reappear where I assume it's going to, and it doesn't reappear in the form I think it should, and it doesn't appear in representative numbers that I would assume it would. When I came to the understanding that Karma comes back a thousand fold or even more, I began to observe it.
For example, if I am cruel to someone else, I will be cruel to myself over and over and over. I do this in the way I speak to myself, by self defeating behaviors and habits. As a consequence, my self-esteem suffers, I may become addicted to something, or do something stupid in my life that messes me up and it may continue for several years or even lifetimes. So I don't really think that Karma is going to be the type of immediate response that we sometimes expect.
By the same token, when we are kind and we expect Karma to repay us one for one, I don't view it as reasonable to assume it will come in the way we deem it should. More like big picture, our lives are enriched overall when we are kind. It makes sense to me and when I view it in that way, I can observe it in the here and now and understand its ramifications.
This revelation completely changed my attitude towards Karma. You can take it or leave it but I find it useful and I don't have to continually struggle with things beyond me to understand.
Namaste
I agree. And I also think there are other karmic channels than the key one you mention. For example there massive intercoenctivity of all moral and mental states in addition to butterfly effect phenomeon is going to mean that even small moral causes can have big moral effects.
Another channel you can look at in, that I find useful is the probabalistic. If x is a good action it is probably going to have good effects, and the same if it is negative, etc:) I think:)
>>>More like big picture, our lives are enriched overall when we are kind.
Yes, I think the Dalai lama speaks well on this, the way compassion is good in its own right, for example. Its not just good because it has karmic benifits to the agent.
>>It makes sense to me and when I view it in that way, I can observe it in the
here and now and understand its ramifications.
Yes, I think we may not agree on everything but we can see karma in dharma isnt a majic force or divine merit, as some beliefs are held:)
>>>This revelation completely changed my attitude towards Karma. You can take it or leave it but I find it useful and I don't have to continually struggle with things beyond me to understand.
If I understand you then yes I think its very clear I agree:)
I see Karma as the moral blood of our actions, to use a metaphore:)
Mat
Its defititley not a waste of time because its a normal thing to be nice.
Your just stating you arn't a nice person normally.
Karma, true or not.
Still practice it.
If you consider being nice all the time a waste of time your not going to go far at all.
Love & Peace
Joe
I'm really very new to the whole web thing and especially forums like this. As some of you know I had my first experience with some rather disturbing communication recently, on this site.
In contemplating this experience and observing similar apparent occurrences of this kind on this site. I'm imagining the Buddha's teaching of 'Right Speech' (Noble Eightfold Path) and the fourth of the five lay precepts - regarding speech, and the sixth and seventh of the ten precepts - regarding speech and putting others down, etc. (Vinaya). I'm pretty convinced that some of the folks actively posting here have not taken these precepts and either don't understand them or care to practice with them.
My intention is not to criticize but to encourage us all, especially myself, to do our very best to study and really practice to uphold "Right Speech". I'm now coming to realize what a great opportunity this forum provides to take the time to compose responses to each other that exemplify the expression of "The truth as we see it, without guilt or blame." in compassionate speech that inspires and brings hope to whoever reads our posts.
Will you please help this old rough talking, often angry and hostile, person know "Right Speech" by showing me how to do it here?
Shugs
Hi there BB,
I must have missed whatever you're refering to, because I haven't noticed any disturbing communications myself.
I find that observing one's own reactions to others is good practice, rather than expecting them to fit into how one wants them to behave.
Its all too easy to get over heavy and too serious on these forums - I do it all the time until I remember to lighten up a little!
With many good wishes to you,
Dazzle
.
Yes it is!:) I think ultimately it oil boils down to our egos making trouble for us, in this case, largely by making issues seem more important than they actually are:)
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
But yeah, let us lighten up.
That is exists?
Peace!
Mat
PEACE man...
Thank you for the reply :-) Indeed it should matter very little whether they are right or wrong, but sometimes stirring up things can be very tasty (I must have been a gremlin in a past life :-x) :-x ehehehe