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.
Buddhists believe we only know truth from direct experience and not from inference?
Do Buddhists believe we can only know truth from direct experience and not from inference? Is this true?
Is it also true that Buddhists believe that all concepts are contradictory?
Is it also true that Buddhists believe that all concepts are contradictory?
0
Comments
No, I don't think so:)
No, again I dont think so:) don't think there are any contradictions in core Dharma:)
Mat
Anything carried to the point of being an absolute truth becomes self-contradictory. A common example is "God is omnipotent. Therefore, God can make himself not omnipotent, at which point God isn't omnipotent. But if he can't make himself not omnipotent, then he isn't omnipotent."
Kept within reasonable limits, concepts don't have to be self-contradictory.
Buddhism teaches what is true. It teaches the facts of life. It teaches about the charactertic or nature of things. It being "true" means it can be approached from inference as well as from direct experience.
For example, the laws of karma. We see people in prison for stealing, murder, rape, etc. Thus we can infer these actions are unskilful.
Even the higher truths of impermanence and not-self can be understood via inference or analyical reasoning. Understanding via analytical reasoning will bring commensurate results.
For example, in Buddhism there is the story of Kitsagotama and the Mustard Seed. Kitsa's baby died and she asked the Buddha to bring it back to life. the Buddha said he would if she could obtain for him one mustard seed from a household that had not experienced death. Upon not being able to obtain one mustard seed, she realised death is universal; all people experience the death of a loved one. it followed Kitagotami was released from her suffering via inference or reason.
No. Many Buddhists are obsessed with non-conceptuality and believe it is enlightenment but the Buddha did not believe in such a way.
The Buddha expounded the characteristics of phenomena.
The Buddha did not exhort non-conceptuality.
Non-conceptuality is something for beginners to develop because it is the foundation for concentration and concentration is required for direct experience of truth.
Non-conceptuality is a means but not the end.
Kind regards
Well can you? Do you know the intrinsic nature of anything that arises? Sure combinations of applied logic such as science and mathematics can label certain things as this and that and gain inferences that lead to temporary external solutions to so-called 'problems' in the world.. But this logic is held on basic ASSUMPTIONS that your chair won't suddenly fly up into the air when you sit on it and that the sun will come up tomorrow. We abide by the laws of nature in which we find ourselves in.. but we know nothing of the intrinsic nature of these laws; where they come from, why they're here.. etc. Hence the never-ending questions and "no absolute verifiable truth" that logic (mind) brings to the table which leads to never-ending existential angst if you believe the mind, the body and the emotions (feelings) that arise to be you. But I feel as if you're just a philosopher looking for some food for thought; if you're really interested in Buddhism.. practice mindfulness daily and you will learn intuitively from direct experience.
Concepts are based on logic: Baseless assumptions that have no absolute verifiable truth. Once again, practice mindfulness and you'll directly experience formlessness, emptiness, nothing; That which has no beginning and no end. Concepts are assumptions based on form; thusly how can anybody draw inferences off something that they have no intrinsic idea about?
Good luck my friend.
A concept that describes the reality of things is right concept.
When reality is seen via direct experience, the concepts that describe that reality are right concepts.
When the Buddha taught the Dhamma he taught with right concept.
So far, all I've found out and am sure of, is that all is imperminent and seperation is dependant on concepts. Which isn't much, but its pretty damn true.
And what do you mean by all concepts are contradictory?
this is not a belief but this is the truth
Please do not get too dizzy watching!
Seperation is a concept no? If so, my experience of it depends on my having this concept.
It doesnt sound anything like that to me. It sounds like if i have no concept of seperation I can't feel seperate or not seperate.
How you connected this simple observation to christianity i have no idea.
Your interpreation implies there is seperation or not seperation. I was talking about seperation as a concept, and as such not a factor. If seperation doesnt exist as a concept there is no seperation, nor is ther anything to be seperate from.
I am not sure what your obsession with seperateness has to do with spiritual practise?
It sounds like you have had an experience of unifed consciousness and become beguiled or deluded by that.
So? I'm not sure what that has to do with whether it is a concept or not.
You dont have to be.
What does your obsession* with asking silly questions have to do with spiritual practise?
*since you called me up on it as an obsession from just a few posts.
I've had a few moments when I've felt I was a part of everything and there wasnt anything i couldnt be a part of.
Do I feel that said that was true? No.
Do I think it said anything special? Yes (to me)
It said that things were seperate (or not seperate) if I thought they were, this has nothing to do with christianity, god, sex or anything you've said.