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.
Speaking of kookie Mat, what reality can you prove (confirm) outside of an experience? Every notion you have of reality is due to an experience. What would the world be if it were not an experience? Do you believe that thoughts are epiphenomenon that emanate from a material brain?
Sorry Mat but just because someone is not a materialist does not make them kookie.
But some of us want to know what is at the base of Dharma, why would you have anything against that?
Don't forget, Zen is new too!;)
Oh ok. well in that case how about suffering and the ending of suffering? For a minute it looked like you were looking for the causeless cause, but we know that is an imponderable. Not that it is beyond our pondering, its just imponderable, like a Doberman Pinscher that is an electric can opener.
like a Doberman Pinscher that is an electric can opener.
We used to have one here that was very fond of me...if I wasn't making sudden moves. If I started moving fast the dog would just start chasing me, the faster I went the fiercer it got. But I digress (oh and he wasn't an electric can opener) :P
Yes, it is very tempting to feel that because there are individual conscious beings, there's this abstract thing called consciousness existing independently upon causes and conditions.
But we know from our own experience that consciousness depends upon many factors. Said another way, the necessary causes must exist prior to the development of consciousness.
The universe or reality does not all exist in our heads.
You are confusing "x exists" with "x is experienced." Think hard on that, on what the difference means, and you will be on the way to your answer:)
No, I think you are assuming that you know what the word "exists" means. It may seem obvious to you, but to say that "x exists" without anyone experiencing its existence is nonsensical.
The Buddha says there are no objects. There are no inherent truths. I am not sure what you expect the contrary, " Realisty exists in objects" to mean:)
You seem to be refuting yourself here. If there are no objects then objects don't exist. What does exist is the perception of objects.
Why would you say that? Can you explain that? Are you aware of the distinction between time and the experience of time?
Are you aware of what "time" even is? It is an artificial construct that we created to organize our world. Using "time" we can arrange appointments so that all parties involved can meet each other "on time." The only thing that does exist is the present moment. The past and the future are illusions.
I don't claim to fully comprehend Einstein's theory of relativity, but part of it is that time is relative. There is no All Inclusive Universal Clock that ticks uniformly throughout the universe. If an astronaut was to travel at the speed of light away from the Earth and then return, more "time" would have elapsed on Earth than in the spaceship. I know this is all pretty "kookie" stuff, but Einstein is the one who came up with it, and he's pretty well respected.
What do you think of the idea that the Buddha says that Dharma is eternal truth? How does that gel with your kookie idealism?:)
I have found my way to this buddhist message board because I am interested in the teachings of buddhism. I don't know a whole lot, but in my experience, the eightfold path is (at the very least) a way to achieve a more peaceful existence. I don't have an "idealism" that you speak of, so I am not concerned with gelling it with a buddhist teaching. And furthermore, I don't believe I made any claims that contradict Buddhist teachings.
I sense an aura of arrogance in your posts, both in the content of your words and in the smiley faces that invariably follow everything that you write. It is important for us to be able to admit what we do not know.
Yes, it is very tempting to feel that because there are individual conscious beings, there's this abstract thing called consciousness existing independently upon causes and conditions.
But we know from our own experience that consciousness depends upon many factors. Said another way, the necessary causes must exist prior to the development of consciousness.
The universe or reality does not all exist in our heads.
Consciousness is dependently arising, but we also have to be careful not to posit a prior reality that does not include consciousness.
There is no such thing as an object without a subject, and no such thing as a subject without an object. They are two ends of one stick. Materialists believe in the former, spiritualists believe in the latter. These represent extremes of nihilism and eternalism.
Well Mat, to answer the question the thread poses, animals are "rebornable", not viruses or plants or fungi or algae. The realm through which you get reborn is animal realm, so a more annoying questions would be "do jellyfish get reborn?"
But since rebirth implies Karma going from one life to the other and karma implies deliberate action motivated by volition one has to ask what is the marking point of emergence of volition on animals? So one might come to the conclusion that it isn't just any jellyfish that gets reborn, yes?
pearl nirvana is unconditioned in scripture... the mind as clarity openness and sensitivity is unconditioned...
Only conceptual mind is conditioned.
Hi Jeffrey,
I thought nirvana was simply a freedom from afflictive emotions. In other words, our behavior is no longer "conditioned" by afflictive mental states.
But even for a person who experiences nirvana, his/her ability to see, hear, taste, touch, smell, and think still depends upon a complex interplay of external and internal conditions.
I feel like I'm misunderstanding you. Are you talking about parinirvana ?
No, I think you are assuming that you know what the word "exists" means. It may seem obvious to you, but to say that "x exists" without anyone experiencing its existence is nonsensical.
I disagree:) When we say something exists we are saying that it is instantly in logcial relationships to other things that exist.
For example if A exists inside B then whatever exists means, we can see it is there, in the relationship between A and B.
If B didn't exist and A did, the statement would become meaningless.
Experience simply isn't relevant to existence. On the other side of the universe a Unicorn with a Buddha Tattoo either exists or it does not. Either way we will never experience it, perceive it or know it, but still it either exists or it does not.
So when you say that it is nonsensical, in fact, if you wish to remain logical with me, it is the opposite of nonsense:)
You seem to be refuting yourself here. If there are no objects then objects don't exist. What does exist is the perception of objects.
I don't see how, can you try to explain to me where? Ideally using something structured?:) Lets be constructive!:)
What I am saying is that if something is not perceived then it is nonsensical to even describe it as "existing."
Again, how do you deal with the Unicorn example above?
Are you aware of what "time" even is?
I wrote my M.phil thesis on The Impossibility of Time Travel and my incomplete PHD thesis on the anistropy time and no, I don't know what time is:)
I think it has two components, one which is the structural network of events within systems and the other is the experience and description of this network by sufficiently able sentient beings, such as humans.
I dont know how these two components fit, I am not even sure if it makes sense to say that they do fit:)
I don't claim to fully comprehend Einstein's theory of relativity, but part of it is that time is relative.
Well, by all means find this out for yourself, but I will say that relativity isn't really relevant to the philosophy of time. It throws up some interesting paradoxes for sure but it is more emergent than than this base of change. We can imagine universes without relativity but if they involve change it seems they must have some kind of time.
I don't know a whole lot, but in my experience, the eightfold path is (at the very least) a way to achieve a more peaceful existence.
On that I agree 100% with you:) This is philosophical banter and it may well be a complete waste of time. But so is watching TV and taking crack.
I don't have an "idealism" that you speak of, so I am not concerned with gelling it with a buddhist teaching.
The argument you posit inevitably leads to these kookie idealsims:) Don't forget the Buddha was very into instructing us to be scientific as well as insightful:)
I sense an aura of arrogance in your posts, both in the content of your words and in the smiley faces that invariably follow everything that you write.
I get that loads! The smiley faces are very genuine I assure you:) I smile lots in work emails and to my dad and colleages etc. But yes I come over arrogant, I am not, but well, I speak my mind and don't feel this forum is a sacred space:)
Peace out!
Mat
It is important for us to be able to admit what we do not know.
Well Mat, to answer the question the thread poses, animals are "rebornable", not viruses or plants or fungi or algae. The realm through which you get reborn is animal realm, so a more annoying questions would be "do jellyfish get reborn?"
But since rebirth implies Karma going from one life to the other and karma implies deliberate action motivated by volition one has to ask what is the marking point of emergence of volition on animals? So one might come to the conclusion that it isn't just any jellyfish that gets reborn, yes?
Wait a min... are jellyfish not fish? OMFG! Next you will be telling me pandas aint bears!:P
The more I think about this question though, the more I see it is quite important if one wished to be a Buddhist who believes in evolution?
The more I think about this question though, the more I see it is quite important if one wished to be a Buddhist who believes in evolution?
The basics are always important. When I sit down to review things like four noble truths, nirvana, rebirth and other concepts I end up surprising myself. I never saw rebirth as contradictory to evolution, though.
By the way I would like to suggest a book that is free for download from Buddhanet. It is called The Tree of Enlightenment, by Peter Della Santina. This guy begins by explaining the origins of Indian religion and philosophy and goes over all buddhist schools and basic concepts and even explains something about Abhidhamma in a very concise and easy to understand manner. That way you can take your exploration of Dharma further.
Next you will be telling me pandas aint bears!:P
Would you think I am dumb if I revealed that I actually thought Orcas were whales until not long ago (in here we call them killer whales)? :-X
The basics are always important. When I sit down to review things like four noble truths, nirvana, rebirth and other concepts I end up surprising myself.
I agree. In a sense its a shame that the Buddhism we have today doesn't encourage this kind of critical thinking outside the box? Perhaops in the same ways our schools dont encourage critical thinking either. Boo:(
I never saw rebirth as contradictory to evolution, though. By the way, nice question.
Nor did I just now. I am not sure it is contradictory though. One could just say that the physical body, in whatever form, is just a substrate and its not until the body becomes sophisticated enough to support karmic conduits and effects that rebirth is realised.
Would you think I am dumb if I revealed that I actually thought Orcas were whales until not long ago (in here we call them killer whales)? :-X
Would you think I am dumb if I just had to wiki that. Dolphins! Whowouldathunk!:)
"The universe didn't start with a big bang". So, should we abandon science to avoid answers we don't like?
"It exists because of consciousness". So, is consciousness the basis of all life, including viruses?
The view that there is only conciousness is weirder to me than view that the world is on the back of a giant turtle. At least in the latter case there is something to stand on:)
"The universe didn't start with a big bang". So, should we abandon science to avoid answers we don't like?
Although I'm not sure what Palzang is saying about consciousness, this point is quite easy; something had created the "big bang"... (there are many theories what that was), so this thing was the start of the start of the universe, then I'm pretty sure that scientists will then find that something started that start and so and so on.
I mean simply that if one wishes to believe in literal rebirth and evolution then one might wish to investigate how those two theories interplay, where there are issues, and what the repercussion for either theory may be.
Or one may wish not to look into this. Which is fine by me:)
It would take some kind of dictator to say that one cannot even ask such questions or investigate such inter-relations:)
Although I'm not sure what Palzang is saying about consciousness, this point is quite easy; something had created the "big bang"... (there are many theories what that was), so this thing was the start of the start of the universe, then I'm pretty sure that scientists will then find that something started that start and so and so on.
Nios.
Many scientists believe that the Big Bang was the start of everything including time, but that still means an entire universe of matter and energy appeared out of nothing and that's hard to accept.
Some people say that God created the universe, but where did God come from?
Some people say that the universe arose out of consciousness, but where did consciousness come from?
Maybe some things are beyond our ability to understand. Science suggests that human intelligence evolved to help our ancestors in their struggle for survival on the African Landscape rather than to enable us to understand the deepest mysteries of the universe. So, there's no reason why we should be able to answer everything.
"There was no big band". Nobody can be that certain.
Pearl I believe in scripture (at least in the Mahayana) Nirvana is unconditioned. I think in Therevada too because I have participated in some Therevada chatrooms and I seem to recall agreement on that point.
If Nirvana were conditioned then it would also be impermanent. And more importantly it would be unsatisfactory ie dukkha. Do you believe in the three marks of conditioned phenomena? I know that Therevada also agrees in those 3 marks. And I know that they do not believe that nirvana is dukkha.
Pearl I believe in scripture (at least in the Mahayana) Nirvana is unconditioned. I think in Therevada too because I have participated in some Therevada chatrooms and I seem to recall agreement on that point.
Nibbana isn't a "thing." It simply refers to the fires of greed/aversion/delusion being quenched. The state of peace/contentment/happiness/whatever you want to call it, experienced as a result of not relying on conditioned things for happiness, is thus unconditioned.
If Nirvana were conditioned then it would also be impermanent. And more importantly it would be unsatisfactory ie dukkha.
Impermanence isn't dukkha. Clinging to that which is impermanent is dukkha.
nonetheless if nirvana is conditioned then it is also unsatisfactory. Unless the three marks of conditioned existence do not apply to nirvana which would be strange thinking. Even the notion that nirvana is impermanent is not what the scripture says.
Indeed if buddhahood is a conditioned phenomena then it is also impermanent. Which would mean that it is not a reliable refuge. If that were true we would have to say that at some point buddha became no longer a buddha. Also there would be no difference between a conventional happy life (material perhaps or perhaps god realm) and nirvana.
I believe in scripture (at least in the Mahayana) Nirvana is unconditioned. I think in Therevada too because I have participated in some Therevada chatrooms and I seem to recall agreement on that point.
If Nirvana were conditioned then it would also be impermanent. And more importantly it would be unsatisfactory ie dukkha. Do you believe in the three marks of conditioned phenomena? I know that Therevada also agrees in those 3 marks. And I know that they do not believe that nirvana is dukkha.
You're right Jeffrey. I did see nirvana referred to as "unconditioned" and categorized as "eternal".
However, while a person is still alive, whether experiencing samsara or nirvana they are still interacting with a real physical world.
For example, looking at a flower still requires the presence of light, the flower, and our ability to see.
I mean simply that if one wishes to believe in literal rebirth and evolution then one might wish to investigate how those two theories interplay, where there are issues, and what the repercussion for either theory may be.
What I meant be elaborating is, would you mind giving us a small explanation of why you believe it is important. I believe in both rebirth and evolution and I've never seen a problem between them.
It would take some kind of dictator to say that one cannot even ask such questions or investigate such inter-relations
Woh, who said that one cannot ask these questions? Where'd that come from? :skeptical
Many scientists believe that the Big Bang was the start of everything including time, but that still means an entire universe of matter and energy appeared out of nothing and that's hard to accept.
Some people say that God created the universe, but where did God come from?
Some people say that the universe arose out of consciousness, but where did consciousness come from?
Maybe some things are beyond our ability to understand. Science suggests that human intelligence evolved to help our ancestors in their struggle for survival on the African Landscape rather than to enable us to understand the deepest mysteries of the universe. So, there's no reason why we should be able to answer everything.
"There was no big band". Nobody can be that certain.
I'm confused. Palzang said the big band was not the start of the universe. I elaborated on that showing how the "start" cannot be found (like what you said about god). A buddhist way of looking at it is causes and conditions, dependant origination etc.
No one said that there was no big bang
What I meant be elaborating is, would you mind giving us a small explanation of why you believe it is important. I believe in both rebirth and evolution and I've never seen a problem between them.
Maybe there is no problem with them.
I even offered a solution as to how they may gel.
It interests me, seeing where megesteriums touch. Not just in Buddhism but in culture and politics too.
I dont have all the answers you have Nios, but they are your answers not mine:)
:eek: Who said I have all the answers????? I asked a question. Honestly Mat!
Nios, I said I dont have all the answers you have, not that you have all the answers. You seem to have more answers than me, which is great, and respect to you.
Nios, I said I dont have all the answers you have, not that you have all the answers. You seem to have more answers than me, which is great, and respect to you.
I do not have all the answers, as you can see.
Well wishes
Mat
Hmm, maybe you need to brush up on how you phrase your posts
Many many many people have been offended, belittled and confused by your posts. The above is a prime example.
Hmm, maybe you need to brush up on how you phrase your posts
Many many many people have been offended, belittled and confused by your posts. The above is a prime example.
Nios.
I haven't done anything to offend anyone here, If I have please just paste it down and explain to me who would have been offended and why.
Go on, you accuse me of being offensive, now please be courteous and show me where.
Many many many people have been offended, belittled and confused
That is what happens in a forum. :P
Go on, you accuse me of being offensive, now please be courteous and show me where.
When you disagree with people sometimes their head shrink and they feel like a kid who just wet their pants.
It is not just you. I used to get bashed for voicing my opinions on rebirth and so do you, and we have opposite ideas on that.
That being said I understand what Nios is trying to say. He just means he got offended when you said you didn't have all the answers he did. That actually did sound a bit snappy.
What does this mean? He abused me? He beat me? He robbed me?
I dunno!:)
When someone gets offended nothing seems to happens outside of their head. There could be two identical worlds and in one I am offended at x and in the other I am not offended at x.
Its like we must choose to be offended. To tie up our beliefs and expectations about the beliefs and manners of others so tightly with our ego that we are ready to spring at any moment. To be offended!
When a buddhists finds themselves offended they can look inside and ask themselves "What's going on in me in this moment of offence? Why am I offended?" Etc
Mat, Nameless River just gave an example. Please do not be so agressive towards me. It was constructive critisism. You have often questioned why people are so defencive towards you and you have even admitted yourself that you come across as arogant. Your post towards me was a prime example of how easily your posts are misunderstood due to how you phrase things.
When someone gets offended nothing seems to happens outside of their head.
Being offended doesn't just happen in your mind. It has its causes. I also have my soft spots and I would be very hurt if someone told me certain things. I'm not a Buddha.
When a buddhists finds themselves offended they can look inside and ask themselves "What's going on in me in this moment of offence? Why am I offended?"
Or when a Buddhist finds out he offended someone he can apologize and try not to cause suffering through speech again.
What does this mean? He abused me? He beat me? He robbed me?
I dunno!:)
When someone gets offended nothing seems to happens outside of their head. There could be two identical worlds and in one I am offended at x and in the other I am not offended at x.
Its like we must choose to be offended. To tie up our beliefs and expectations about the beliefs and manners of others so tightly with our ego that we are ready to spring at any moment. To be offended!
When a buddhists finds themselves offended they can look inside and ask themselves "What's going on in me in this moment of offence? Why am I offended?" Etc
Mat
Whilst I'm inclined to agree with this, it is also a two-way play. We must always post with right intention and right speech. Some people get offended due to a misunderstanding. But, I think, when the majority of people are offended by our posts it is our duty to re-address how we post.
Mat, if you don't see this then it wont be long before you are banned. Sorry.
Whilst I'm inclined to agree with this, it is also a two-way play. We must always post with right intention and right speech. Some people get offended due to a misunderstanding. But, I think, when the majority of people are offended by our posts it is our duty to re-address how we post.
Mat, if you don't see this then it wont be long before you are banned. Sorry.
Can you give me an example of how I was offensive?
I think, when the majority of people are offended by our posts it is our duty to re-address how we post.
People get offended by his posts mostly because he disagrees with them and even so they aren't the majority. You might try to stop making a case against him, though, and go back to the original topic of the thread. Divisive speech is not right speech.
This can easily be read as to say that I have all the the answers. Whether it was intended to sound like that or not, the point is we only have this form of communication.
People get offended by his posts mostly because he disagrees with them and even so they aren't the majority. You might try to stop making a case against him, though, and go back to the original topic of the thread. Divisive speech is not right speech.
Many people have found how he says things belittling. I have had many debates with people who don't believe in rebirth and I never had a problem with them.
But I do see how I might be making a case against Mat, so I'll take my leave.
Mat I'm being honest with you. Often your smiley faces appear to be smirks. A smiley face should be when you are sharing affection or a warm intention.
Not something like: But your not listening to the facts
Do you see how that was like a smirk?
I do like how you are very passionate about the dharma. About that I can only admire you.
Do you see that the second time I was saying something nice, so a smiley face is more appropriate.
By the way I don't want to be draconian I am just giving you some feedback. I hope it can be helpful moreso than criticism usually is.
Edit looking back at the past 25 posts of yours 80-90% of your smileys are fine. Particularly when you are sharing some humor (not at someone else expense).
I don't see how (I am refuting myself), can you try to explain to me where? Ideally using something structured?:) Lets be constructive!:)
Something structured? OK
Here is your argument:
Premise 1: Objects exist whether or not they are perceived
Premise 2: The Buddha says that no objects exist
Conclusion: Therefore, The Golden Eternity is "Kookie" to think that perception is required for the existence of objects.
Now, don't you see how that is an unsound argument? If you agree with the Buddha (and I get the sense that you do), how can you also hold the idea that some object (on the other side of the universe that has never and will never be seen) exists?
In regards to your whole unicorn example, I am saying that it can't be a unicorn if it has never been perceived as such. (making it an animal confuses things here, because the animal itself could have perception...so let's say it is a unicorn statue). If the Buddha says that objects do not exists, how could the unicorn statue exist?
I completely agree with Buddha's idea that "there are no objects." But obviously, we have perceptions (whether illusory or not). So what I am saying is that what DOES exist is the perception of the objects, not the objects themselves.
However, as someone else pointed out, it goes both ways. We also exist because of our perception of the "external" world. Or more precisely, we ARE our perception of the outside world. There is no self. All is one. I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
No, I think you are assuming that you know what the word "exists" means. It may seem obvious to you, but to say that "x exists" without anyone experiencing its existence is nonsensical.
You seem to be refuting yourself here. If there are no objects then objects don't exist. What does exist is the perception of objects.
What I am saying is that if something is not perceived then it is nonsensical to even describe it as "existing."
Are you aware of what "time" even is? It is an artificial construct that we created to organize our world. Using "time" we can arrange appointments so that all parties involved can meet each other "on time." The only thing that does exist is the present moment. The past and the future are illusions.
I don't claim to fully comprehend Einstein's theory of relativity, but part of it is that time is relative. There is no All Inclusive Universal Clock that ticks uniformly throughout the universe. If an astronaut was to travel at the speed of light away from the Earth and then return, more "time" would have elapsed on Earth than in the spaceship. I know this is all pretty "kookie" stuff, but Einstein is the one who came up with it, and he's pretty well respected.
I have found my way to this buddhist message board because I am interested in the teachings of buddhism. I don't know a whole lot, but in my experience, the eightfold path is (at the very least) a way to achieve a more peaceful existence. I don't have an "idealism" that you speak of, so I am not concerned with gelling it with a buddhist teaching. And furthermore, I don't believe I made any claims that contradict Buddhist teachings.
I sense an aura of arrogance in your posts, both in the content of your words and in the smiley faces that invariably follow everything that you write. It is important for us to be able to admit what we do not know.
Question everything.
Hi golden. Great post imho.
Off topic:
When I first started reading Mat's posts I thought the same things you do. It took me a while to figure out that he's more of an instigator than a divisive force. It seems to me that he likes to create really lively discussion and often uses a bit of rigid language to perhaps either state his points or get things stirred up. Or both, maybe. I'm not sure. But he does have the ability to poke fun at himself and I've even seen his humility which really changed the way I perceived him.
I'm going on about this even though it's off topic because it's really become apparent lately that my initial judgments of people turned out to be only partly correct and I find this realization very comforting. It reminds me in such a clear way that we aren't static beings, even when we come across as rigid thinkers. I'm seeing people in a more realistic way and it's helping me with my understanding of anatta (which is still minimal....). It's also helping me to see how baseless my likes and dislikes really are.
But that doesn't mean I actually contribute to Mat's threads or anything......
I will take what you said to heart and try not to get irritated with Mat. He has provoked a lively discussion, and for that I thank him. Our disagreements certainly can remain civil and respectful. I will try to remain aware that we are not rigid, Brigid. :^)
Sorry, I just had to write "rigid Brigid." it was too tempting.
There are those who would argue that consciousness is the only reality.
Palzang
Has anyone ever found consciousness Palzang? Isn"t any existent called "consciousness" that we find a subtle object? If consciousness is the sole stand alone reality and the ground of all manifestation, isn't this Brahman by another name? It can make poetic sense as a turn of phrase maybe, but if people really regard consciousness as an ultimate unchanging reality isnt that the extreme of Eternalism?
Consciousness is not unchanging. But in the same vein there is no point of reference with which to judge change. So there is also no change. And also not unchanging.
So you are saying that consciousness, awareness refers to a transactional process and not a static field? But if the consciousness is the only/ultimate reality then it is not dependently arising. Besides where is consciousness in practice?
Comments
Sorry Mat but just because someone is not a materialist does not make them kookie.
We used to have one here that was very fond of me...if I wasn't making sudden moves. If I started moving fast the dog would just start chasing me, the faster I went the fiercer it got. But I digress (oh and he wasn't an electric can opener) :P
Only conceptual mind is conditioned.
I agree 100%:)
That is what is important, I have never dispuuted that:)
Imagine instead of being Buddhists we are painters. All different styles, all different ways.
Some of us, like me, may like to know how paint works, what it is made of, how it is made...
...Some may wish just to immerse themselves in painting, like you.
No, I think you are assuming that you know what the word "exists" means. It may seem obvious to you, but to say that "x exists" without anyone experiencing its existence is nonsensical.
You seem to be refuting yourself here. If there are no objects then objects don't exist. What does exist is the perception of objects.
What I am saying is that if something is not perceived then it is nonsensical to even describe it as "existing."
Are you aware of what "time" even is? It is an artificial construct that we created to organize our world. Using "time" we can arrange appointments so that all parties involved can meet each other "on time." The only thing that does exist is the present moment. The past and the future are illusions.
I don't claim to fully comprehend Einstein's theory of relativity, but part of it is that time is relative. There is no All Inclusive Universal Clock that ticks uniformly throughout the universe. If an astronaut was to travel at the speed of light away from the Earth and then return, more "time" would have elapsed on Earth than in the spaceship. I know this is all pretty "kookie" stuff, but Einstein is the one who came up with it, and he's pretty well respected.
I have found my way to this buddhist message board because I am interested in the teachings of buddhism. I don't know a whole lot, but in my experience, the eightfold path is (at the very least) a way to achieve a more peaceful existence. I don't have an "idealism" that you speak of, so I am not concerned with gelling it with a buddhist teaching. And furthermore, I don't believe I made any claims that contradict Buddhist teachings.
I sense an aura of arrogance in your posts, both in the content of your words and in the smiley faces that invariably follow everything that you write. It is important for us to be able to admit what we do not know.
Question everything.
There is no such thing as an object without a subject, and no such thing as a subject without an object. They are two ends of one stick. Materialists believe in the former, spiritualists believe in the latter. These represent extremes of nihilism and eternalism.
But since rebirth implies Karma going from one life to the other and karma implies deliberate action motivated by volition one has to ask what is the marking point of emergence of volition on animals? So one might come to the conclusion that it isn't just any jellyfish that gets reborn, yes?
Hi Jeffrey,
I thought nirvana was simply a freedom from afflictive emotions. In other words, our behavior is no longer "conditioned" by afflictive mental states.
But even for a person who experiences nirvana, his/her ability to see, hear, taste, touch, smell, and think still depends upon a complex interplay of external and internal conditions.
I feel like I'm misunderstanding you. Are you talking about parinirvana ?
I disagree:) When we say something exists we are saying that it is instantly in logcial relationships to other things that exist.
For example if A exists inside B then whatever exists means, we can see it is there, in the relationship between A and B.
If B didn't exist and A did, the statement would become meaningless.
Experience simply isn't relevant to existence. On the other side of the universe a Unicorn with a Buddha Tattoo either exists or it does not. Either way we will never experience it, perceive it or know it, but still it either exists or it does not.
So when you say that it is nonsensical, in fact, if you wish to remain logical with me, it is the opposite of nonsense:)
I don't see how, can you try to explain to me where? Ideally using something structured?:) Lets be constructive!:)
Again, how do you deal with the Unicorn example above?
I wrote my M.phil thesis on The Impossibility of Time Travel and my incomplete PHD thesis on the anistropy time and no, I don't know what time is:)
I think it has two components, one which is the structural network of events within systems and the other is the experience and description of this network by sufficiently able sentient beings, such as humans.
I dont know how these two components fit, I am not even sure if it makes sense to say that they do fit:)
Well, by all means find this out for yourself, but I will say that relativity isn't really relevant to the philosophy of time. It throws up some interesting paradoxes for sure but it is more emergent than than this base of change. We can imagine universes without relativity but if they involve change it seems they must have some kind of time.
On that I agree 100% with you:) This is philosophical banter and it may well be a complete waste of time. But so is watching TV and taking crack.
The argument you posit inevitably leads to these kookie idealsims:) Don't forget the Buddha was very into instructing us to be scientific as well as insightful:)
I get that loads! The smiley faces are very genuine I assure you:) I smile lots in work emails and to my dad and colleages etc. But yes I come over arrogant, I am not, but well, I speak my mind and don't feel this forum is a sacred space:)
Peace out!
Mat
It is important for us to be able to admit what we do not know.
Question everything.[/QUOTE]
There are two types in Theravada: anupadisesa-nibbana and sa-upadisesa-nibbana.
In Mahayana, if look into Gelug explanation there are like four types of Nirvana. :-P
Wait a min... are jellyfish not fish? OMFG! Next you will be telling me pandas aint bears!:P
The more I think about this question though, the more I see it is quite important if one wished to be a Buddhist who believes in evolution?
By the way I would like to suggest a book that is free for download from Buddhanet. It is called The Tree of Enlightenment, by Peter Della Santina. This guy begins by explaining the origins of Indian religion and philosophy and goes over all buddhist schools and basic concepts and even explains something about Abhidhamma in a very concise and easy to understand manner. That way you can take your exploration of Dharma further.
Would you think I am dumb if I revealed that I actually thought Orcas were whales until not long ago (in here we call them killer whales)? :-X
I agree. In a sense its a shame that the Buddhism we have today doesn't encourage this kind of critical thinking outside the box? Perhaops in the same ways our schools dont encourage critical thinking either. Boo:(
Nor did I just now. I am not sure it is contradictory though. One could just say that the physical body, in whatever form, is just a substrate and its not until the body becomes sophisticated enough to support karmic conduits and effects that rebirth is realised.
Would you think I am dumb if I just had to wiki that. Dolphins! Whowouldathunk!:)
Mat
"The universe didn't start with a big bang". So, should we abandon science to avoid answers we don't like?
"It exists because of consciousness". So, is consciousness the basis of all life, including viruses?
The view that there is only conciousness is weirder to me than view that the world is on the back of a giant turtle. At least in the latter case there is something to stand on:)
Although I'm not sure what Palzang is saying about consciousness, this point is quite easy; something had created the "big bang"... (there are many theories what that was), so this thing was the start of the start of the universe, then I'm pretty sure that scientists will then find that something started that start and so and so on.
Nios.
Would you mind elaborating on that?
I mean simply that if one wishes to believe in literal rebirth and evolution then one might wish to investigate how those two theories interplay, where there are issues, and what the repercussion for either theory may be.
Or one may wish not to look into this. Which is fine by me:)
It would take some kind of dictator to say that one cannot even ask such questions or investigate such inter-relations:)
As I understand it, there need be no starting of "that":) That could be the start of everything in all senses.
Many scientists believe that the Big Bang was the start of everything including time, but that still means an entire universe of matter and energy appeared out of nothing and that's hard to accept.
Some people say that God created the universe, but where did God come from?
Some people say that the universe arose out of consciousness, but where did consciousness come from?
Maybe some things are beyond our ability to understand. Science suggests that human intelligence evolved to help our ancestors in their struggle for survival on the African Landscape rather than to enable us to understand the deepest mysteries of the universe. So, there's no reason why we should be able to answer everything.
"There was no big band". Nobody can be that certain.
If Nirvana were conditioned then it would also be impermanent. And more importantly it would be unsatisfactory ie dukkha. Do you believe in the three marks of conditioned phenomena? I know that Therevada also agrees in those 3 marks. And I know that they do not believe that nirvana is dukkha.
Nibbana isn't a "thing." It simply refers to the fires of greed/aversion/delusion being quenched. The state of peace/contentment/happiness/whatever you want to call it, experienced as a result of not relying on conditioned things for happiness, is thus unconditioned.
Impermanence isn't dukkha. Clinging to that which is impermanent is dukkha.
Indeed if buddhahood is a conditioned phenomena then it is also impermanent. Which would mean that it is not a reliable refuge. If that were true we would have to say that at some point buddha became no longer a buddha. Also there would be no difference between a conventional happy life (material perhaps or perhaps god realm) and nirvana.
You're right Jeffrey. I did see nirvana referred to as "unconditioned" and categorized as "eternal".
However, while a person is still alive, whether experiencing samsara or nirvana they are still interacting with a real physical world.
For example, looking at a flower still requires the presence of light, the flower, and our ability to see.
What I meant be elaborating is, would you mind giving us a small explanation of why you believe it is important. I believe in both rebirth and evolution and I've never seen a problem between them.
Woh, who said that one cannot ask these questions? Where'd that come from? :skeptical
Nios.
No one said that there was no big bang
:eek: Who said I have all the answers?????
Nios, I said I dont have all the answers you have, not that you have all the answers. You seem to have more answers than me, which is great, and respect to you.
I do not have all the answers, as you can see.
Well wishes
Mat
Hmm, maybe you need to brush up on how you phrase your posts
Many many many people have been offended, belittled and confused by your posts. The above is a prime example.
Nios.
I haven't done anything to offend anyone here, If I have please just paste it down and explain to me who would have been offended and why.
Go on, you accuse me of being offensive, now please be courteous and show me where.
When you disagree with people sometimes their head shrink and they feel like a kid who just wet their pants.
It is not just you. I used to get bashed for voicing my opinions on rebirth and so do you, and we have opposite ideas on that.
That being said I understand what Nios is trying to say. He just means he got offended when you said you didn't have all the answers he did. That actually did sound a bit snappy.
What does this mean? He abused me? He beat me? He robbed me?
I dunno!:)
When someone gets offended nothing seems to happens outside of their head. There could be two identical worlds and in one I am offended at x and in the other I am not offended at x.
Its like we must choose to be offended. To tie up our beliefs and expectations about the beliefs and manners of others so tightly with our ego that we are ready to spring at any moment. To be offended!
When a buddhists finds themselves offended they can look inside and ask themselves "What's going on in me in this moment of offence? Why am I offended?" Etc
Mat
Nios.
Or when a Buddhist finds out he offended someone he can apologize and try not to cause suffering through speech again.
Whilst I'm inclined to agree with this, it is also a two-way play. We must always post with right intention and right speech. Some people get offended due to a misunderstanding. But, I think, when the majority of people are offended by our posts it is our duty to re-address how we post.
Mat, if you don't see this then it wont be long before you are banned. Sorry.
Can you give me an example of how I was offensive?
Its a simple question:)
People get offended by his posts mostly because he disagrees with them and even so they aren't the majority. You might try to stop making a case against him, though, and go back to the original topic of the thread. Divisive speech is not right speech.
This can easily be read as to say that I have all the the answers. Whether it was intended to sound like that or not, the point is we only have this form of communication.
Nios.
Many people have found how he says things belittling. I have had many debates with people who don't believe in rebirth and I never had a problem with them.
But I do see how I might be making a case against Mat, so I'll take my leave.
Nios.
There are those who would argue that consciousness is the only reality.
Palzang
Not something like: But your not listening to the facts
Do you see how that was like a smirk?
I do like how you are very passionate about the dharma. About that I can only admire you.
Do you see that the second time I was saying something nice, so a smiley face is more appropriate.
By the way I don't want to be draconian I am just giving you some feedback. I hope it can be helpful moreso than criticism usually is.
Edit looking back at the past 25 posts of yours 80-90% of your smileys are fine. Particularly when you are sharing some humor (not at someone else expense).
Something structured? OK
Here is your argument:
Premise 1: Objects exist whether or not they are perceived
Premise 2: The Buddha says that no objects exist
Conclusion: Therefore, The Golden Eternity is "Kookie" to think that perception is required for the existence of objects.
Now, don't you see how that is an unsound argument? If you agree with the Buddha (and I get the sense that you do), how can you also hold the idea that some object (on the other side of the universe that has never and will never be seen) exists?
In regards to your whole unicorn example, I am saying that it can't be a unicorn if it has never been perceived as such. (making it an animal confuses things here, because the animal itself could have perception...so let's say it is a unicorn statue). If the Buddha says that objects do not exists, how could the unicorn statue exist?
I completely agree with Buddha's idea that "there are no objects." But obviously, we have perceptions (whether illusory or not). So what I am saying is that what DOES exist is the perception of the objects, not the objects themselves.
However, as someone else pointed out, it goes both ways. We also exist because of our perception of the "external" world. Or more precisely, we ARE our perception of the outside world. There is no self. All is one. I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
Off topic:
When I first started reading Mat's posts I thought the same things you do. It took me a while to figure out that he's more of an instigator than a divisive force. It seems to me that he likes to create really lively discussion and often uses a bit of rigid language to perhaps either state his points or get things stirred up. Or both, maybe. I'm not sure. But he does have the ability to poke fun at himself and I've even seen his humility which really changed the way I perceived him.
I'm going on about this even though it's off topic because it's really become apparent lately that my initial judgments of people turned out to be only partly correct and I find this realization very comforting. It reminds me in such a clear way that we aren't static beings, even when we come across as rigid thinkers. I'm seeing people in a more realistic way and it's helping me with my understanding of anatta (which is still minimal....). It's also helping me to see how baseless my likes and dislikes really are.
But that doesn't mean I actually contribute to Mat's threads or anything......
Okay, now back to our regular programming!
I will take what you said to heart and try not to get irritated with Mat. He has provoked a lively discussion, and for that I thank him. Our disagreements certainly can remain civil and respectful. I will try to remain aware that we are not rigid, Brigid. :^)
Sorry, I just had to write "rigid Brigid." it was too tempting.