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.
The question of God's existence or nonexistence can't be debated rationally. While we're stuck in these bodies, we'll not be able to have an answer on it. Debating about it wont amount to anything but, at best, trivial discussions about the unknowable, and at worst, contention and animosity. Best to leave people to their opinion on the matter and accept that none of us have a definitive answer.
If that truly was the case, then why are there people who have made a profession of debating God's existence? I suggest you look into debates by William Lane Craig (Christian apologist), Christopher Hitchens (Atheist), Alvin Plantinga (Christian apologist), Richard Dawkins, etc. and you'll find plenty of rational arguments on the matter.
If he does exist, he's outside the scope of a human's ability to sense.
What people are debating is the God that most in the world, believe exists, which has specific attributes. Namely: Creator, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, exists outside of space/time, eternal, and greatest conceivable being. These are the properties of the God that people believe in. Given this information, we can easily have a logical debate about this.
To say that it's not debatable is a cop-out really.
Personally, I'm a deist. But I have no proof that I'm right. It's just a belief, so there's no real point in trying to argue about it.
It's an unjustified belief though. We can argue about the validity of such a position.
What you have raised brings a whole host of problems both scientifically and theologically but I will leave it. We already have problem getting through this universe.
Theologic concerns aren't really problems that I try to face, a lot of their information is based on mythology.
As far as scientific problems, well, I am not a physicist, but I read thusly: When the universe eventually collapses back in on itself, which is what modern science says will happen, once the total volume is small enough to enter into Plancks era, or a period when all forces become one and there is an almost infinitely small volume, infinitely large mass (like when the this universe began) the laws of physics collapse. It isn't until the next Bang happens, where the volume passes across Planck's threshold that the laws of the universe re-stabilize. This means that there wouldn't be refraction of light, nor the vibration of photons (or the space to travel distance), or an eye to capture it or name it "Red".
This might not be completely accurate, as physics has never really been an interest of mine, but it stands to say that the collapsing of conventional dynamics in this universe will happen eventually.
As far as why the universe would expand again in the same manner, well... that's in the book Quantum and the Lotus. Something about gravity and awareness and two halves of a walnut fitting exactly or something.
A Monk in the Thai Forest tradition taught the following dangerous time wasting nonsense:
Where and when was 'God' ever 'nameless truth'?
Where and when did Buddha ever teach 'nameless truth'?
How can something universal, namely, 'truth' be 'nameless'?
:eek2: :screwy:
Interesting that the analogies are so distracting that you cannot see the moon beyond the finger. Buddha would never have taught 'nameless truth'... duh, he didn't speak English!
How is that a strawman argument? It's pointing out the degree of validity God has, and it's as much valid as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Actually, I take that back. Santa Claus is more likely to exist than God because there is no inherent contradictions with his existence. You say Santa Claus is easily refuted, I'd love to hear this refutation.
Proving or disproving God’s existence is not possible – at least not empirically. The only way is to claim or be all knowing i.e. omniscient. If you are a fence sitter then you take an agnostic position. A straw man is introduced when Santa Clause and God is grouped in the same category and then to proceed to prove the non existence of Santa, and by default applying to God as well. The fundamental question is “when is absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence?” There are basically 2 criterion : Evidence Expectation Criterion. If Santa exists, then we would expect there to be evidence for it. Knowledge Expectation Criterion. If there were evidence of Santa, then we would expect to have knowledge of the evidence.
If Santa exist we should expect to see, but don’t, lots of evidence of that fact, including sightings, warehouses at the North Pole, large sleigh, unexplained distributed gifts and so forth. In short, in the absence of evidence, we can deny the existence of Santa only if we should expect to possess evidence sufficient to know that Santa exists but in fact lack it. These criterion do not apply to God because God is a non physical being. I will stop here unless you want to apply the same standard of measure and the 100 % certainty rule to Karma, Samsara, Nirvana, et al.
Also, I don't see how Bertrand Russel failed with the tea pot analogy. Bertrand was pointing that both claims are unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiability makes something less valid.
Russell argued that why we deny Santa Claus is because we do have evidence for their absence. He insisted that the situation is significantly different for other objects which are causally isolated from us. He then went on to use the teapot which circles about the sun, an object which is (for the most part) causally isolated from us.
Can we say it doesn’t exist? I think we know it doesn’t exist because it wasn’t put there by the Russian or American astronauts; and we know that matter in the universe does not self-organize into teapot shapes. We therefore have evidence that Russell’s teacup doesn’t exist .
If that truly was the case, then why are there people who have made a profession of debating God's existence? I suggest you look into debates by William Lane Craig (Christian apologist), Christopher Hitchens (Atheist), Alvin Plantinga (Christian apologist), Richard Dawkins, etc. and you'll find plenty of rational arguments on the matter.
They do it because there's money to be made and because they believe that the world would be a better place if everyone did or did not believe in God. They make millions on providing answers to an unanswerable question and people eat it up.
And I have. I used to enjoy watching Dawkins and Hitchens eviscerate people with faith because they generally had poor arguments. But then I realized two things:
One, that they were never going to disprove God. They were just going to point out the logical flaws in the arguments for God, which generally arose because those with faith went on the offensive instead of staying on the defensive, trying to provide proof that cannot be provided. And since there's no way to prove or disprove God, Dawkins and Hitchens would always be on the winning side because they were on the side of the negative. You can never prove a hypothesis, you can only disprove it, or fail to disprove it enough times that reasonable doubt is expunged. So they always had the high ground. They never had to prove themselves right, just provide doubt that the other side was.
And two, that I was rooting for these people because I thought if they won something would be fixed. That if irrationality were illuminated then people would stop doing petty and stupid things like hating homosexuals because the bible tells them it's wrong. Then I realized that it's not at all about religions, it's about ideologies. Humans are tribal creatures. We like having a view of "Us" vs "Them." There will always be those who think their race is inherently better, that their method of economics is worth killing for, that their system of government is the supreme. That's never going to change. It's the nature of the world.
What people are debating is the God that most in the world, believe exists, which has specific attributes. Namely: Creator, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, exists outside of space/time, eternal, and greatest conceivable being. These are the properties of the God that people believe in. Given this information, we can easily have a logical debate about this.
To say that it's not debatable is a cop-out really.
You can't debate it because the concept of God isn't based on observable facts. You can say the old logical sting:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
But then I just could tell you that God gave us free will, which allows for evil. Or that God allows for suffering, because it's through suffering that we are lead to enlightenment. Or you could say that God is both omnipotent and benevolent, which is why he gave us Jesus and saved us from this world. Or you could say that it is only human perspective that suffering is an evil thing. Or you could say any number of responses.
It's mental masturbation, which is probably why the buddha neglected to discuss it.
It's an unjustified belief though. We can argue about the validity of such a position.
It's a belief that comes from personal metaphysical experiences and personal preference. I don't really have any interest in debating it, because it's a belief. A glorified opinion. You believe in enlightenment, yet you only do so because you've heard that someone has achieved it. You've never experienced it before, so how do you know if they're telling the truth and not just acting? You can claim it's because you've practiced buddhism and seen progress towards that goal, but Christians have practiced their religion in good faith and seen wonderful improvements in their spiritual lives, happiness, and morality from it. They're both matters of faith, of personal truths.
As far as scientific problems, well, I am not a physicist, but I read thusly: When the universe eventually collapses back in on itself, which is what modern science says will happen, once the total volume is small enough to enter into Plancks era, or a period when all forces become one and there is an almost infinitely small volume, infinitely large mass (like when the this universe began) the laws of physics collapse. It isn't until the next Bang happens, where the volume passes across Planck's threshold that the laws of the universe re-stabilize. This means that there wouldn't be refraction of light, nor the vibration of photons (or the space to travel distance), or an eye to capture it or name it "Red".
This might not be completely accurate, as physics has never really been an interest of mine, but it stands to say that the collapsing of conventional dynamics in this universe will happen eventually.
I am in the same camp as you as I am not a physicist and have done some reading on the scientific theories on the origin of the universe. I share the view that at Planck time, GTR does not apply and Quantum comes in. The problem is that it is a convenient way out because no one knows how to apply it at that level - it is pure fantasy land. The cyclic model that you alluded to (collapse and expansion) has been abandoned by the 60's because there were too many problems with it. Do you realise that the current universe is fine tuned for life but does not necessarily mean it will repeat in another expansion (if it does)? The current favorite though is Vilenkin's inflationary universe and Quantum tunnelling.
The question I was trying to address in my research was what happened at singularity i.e. at null topology. We know time and space was created from the expansion but can we assume it includes matter and energy. Is there a past beyond singularity or is it nothingless and timelessness.
you forgot 12) the layman and the monk, were caught in an inter-dimensional cross-rip, that destablized their cellular structure, and their cellular phones, leading to a breakdown in communication.
Actually... the story isnt rocket science. I have nothing more to add to this thread.:)
The cyclic model that you alluded to (collapse and expansion) has been abandoned by the 60's because there were too many problems with it. Do you realise that the current universe is fine tuned for life but does not necessarily mean it will repeat in another expansion (if it does)? The current favorite though is Vilenkin's inflationary universe and Quantum tunnelling.
The oscillating universe topology has not been disproven, nor are the Vilenkin's eternal inflation theories by any means absolute. I only enjoy physics in small doses. Like maniacs However, for the sake of this simple exercise in relative observation, whether there is a big crunch or heat death makes little difference.
The question I was trying to address in my research was what happened at singularity i.e. at null topology. We know time and space was created from the expansion but can we assume it includes matter and energy. Is there a past beyond singularity or is it nothingless and timelessness.
Ah, now here it boils down. When it comes to 'first cause', the answer is simple. We don't know. No-one is around who has seen it, and if anyone has had the sight to see that far back they have never said a word. When I asked my teacher that very same question, he told me that the causes and conditions that would address the 'first cause' ideology is unknown, unknowable. When I noticed my mind was not satiated by it, I realized it was from my own attachment to wanting eternity to exist, to find the causes of the causes... another expression of a fear of death.
Blah, I did not find it particularly helpful in unlocking the secrets to present moment attachments, so I let it go. I find that to be the more skillful of the paths.
Interesting that the analogies are so distracting that you cannot see the moon beyond the finger. Buddha would never have taught 'nameless truth'... duh, he didn't speak English!
If I said the Buddha pointed to the toilet, would you believe me?
The Buddha did not speak nameless truth nor did he point to the moon.
The Buddha did not teach in analogies.
You appear to distracted by both the finger & the moon.
What truth is found by seeing the moon or the finger?
Have you ever considered what you have written is mere blind faith?
'Truth' is something absolute. It is universal.
A blank vacant mind is not "truth".
"Namelessness" is not truth.
Can't your mind see this fact or truth?
If something is "truth" or "true", should it not pertain to each & every human being?
People who take that view hold it to be so, but it doesnt stand up.
A Monk in the Thai Forest tradition use to tell the story of talking to God:
Sometimes I have a chat with “God,”
Who looks after this trembling world
With so much tolerance, kindness, and care,
Yet the world’s beings still tremble and quake.
The world is stinking drunk on materialism,
Heartbroken with pains worse than violent death.
“Living dead” hour to hour as if life is a joke
Is worse than dying just once into the coffin.
Whatever they attempt, they still miss seeing the path,
Too terrified of giving up and abandoning everything.
It will happen only when Dhamma returns just in time
And the world turns towards the joy of Sri Araya’s Age.
If I said the Buddha pointed to the toilet, would you believe me?
The Buddha did not speak nameless truth nor did he point to the moon.
The Buddha did not teach in analogies.
You appear to distracted by both the finger & the moon.
What truth is found by seeing the moon or the finger?
Have you ever considered what you have written is mere blind faith?
'Truth' is something absolute. It is universal.
A blank vacant mind is not "truth".
"Namelessness" is not truth.
Can't your mind see this fact or truth?
Yes, he speaks in parables when it is skillful to do so.
I can see into the moment that the teacher was describing. It sounds to me he was using skillful means to describe vacant mind as nameless, or non-conceptual, and the perceptions that arise in the absence of conceptions to be 'truth'.
It seems reasonable enough, both in analogy and spirit, to point toward the space in such a manner.
"What truth is found by seeing the moon or the finger?"
By looking upon that specific analogy, one can gain insight as to why it is important not to get so caught up in words that you miss the non-conceptual experiences that lay beyond where the words are pointing. Otherwise you may spend a long time throwing out present words and quoting dead words.
What happens to samsara if the universe ends before it?
What happens to liberation when the universe ends?
Samsara is the cycle of rebirth. If rebirth occurs, there has to be some sort of universe of it to occur in. So the universe doesn't end before samsara ends.
In Buddhism, liberation is liberation from samsara.
Yes, he speaks in parables when it is skillful to do so.
Where?
In your imagination?
The Buddha said his dhamma was well-spoken, unconvoluted, without patchwork.
it is best to not confuse Jesus for Buddha.
I can see into the moment that the teacher was describing. It sounds to me he was using skillful means to describe vacant mind as nameless, or non-conceptual, and the perceptions that arise in the absence of conceptions to be 'truth'.
But the absence of conceptions is not truth.
How could it be truth?
You must explain your case.
It seems reasonable enough, both in analogy and spirit, to point toward the space in such a manner.
How is space truth?
If you chose "space = truth" to be a subject of a PHD, you would be laughed at.
You could chose a PHD subject called "the truth of space" but space = truth is bizzaro.
By looking upon that specific analogy, one can gain insight as to why it is important not to get so caught up in words that you miss the non-conceptual experiences....
What do non-conceptual experiences have to do with truth?
Fish probably cannot conceptualise. Are you saying fish are enlightened beings?
that lay beyond where the words are pointing.
Fish cannot speak words. Are you saying fish are enlightened beings?
Otherwise you may spend a long time throwing out present words and quoting dead words.
The Buddha held those who do not honor his words live a wasted life.
I will support my case later with a reasoned case about what is truth.
But for you Matt, if you cannot support your case by answering the questions I asked of you, the dead can bury the dead.
They do it because there's money to be made and because they believe that the world would be a better place if everyone did or did not believe in God. They make millions on providing answers to an unanswerable question and people eat it up.
It's not really about proving one side over the other. If anything, I'm sure they, and myself included, want people to THINK. That's what these debates are good for. Raise public awareness. Get people to start thinking about some of the most intriguing questions about existence. Otherwise people will live life blindly without critically thinking about anything.
For me, I favor William Lane Craig, a Christian, over a braindead Atheist.
And I have. I used to enjoy watching Dawkins and Hitchens eviscerate people with faith because they generally had poor arguments. But then I realized two things:
One, that they were never going to disprove God. They were just going to point out the logical flaws in the arguments for God, which generally arose because those with faith went on the offensive instead of staying on the defensive, trying to provide proof that cannot be provided. And since there's no way to prove or disprove God, Dawkins and Hitchens would always be on the winning side because they were on the side of the negative. You can never prove a hypothesis, you can only disprove it, or fail to disprove it enough times that reasonable doubt is expunged. So they always had the high ground. They never had to prove themselves right, just provide doubt that the other side was.
I know. And I don't see that as a problem, but for some reason you do.
And two, that I was rooting for these people because I thought if they won something would be fixed.
You're missing the point entirely then. If someone won, the debate would be over which would be disappointing. I want people to continue thinking, keep challenging, and always inquire. Wouldn't it be a boring world if everyone agreed 100% on philosophical issues? That mere fact would be a sign that humanity is braindead. I LIVE for intellectual conflict. That is one of the things I prize most in life. (Not violent conflict, I am against that.)
That if irrationality were illuminated then people would stop doing petty and stupid things like hating homosexuals because the bible tells them it's wrong. Then I realized that it's not at all about religions, it's about ideologies. Humans are tribal creatures. We like having a view of "Us" vs "Them." There will always be those who think their race is inherently better, that their method of economics is worth killing for, that their system of government is the supreme. That's never going to change. It's the nature of the world.
Humans are tribal creatures? Humans ought to be a civilized, in fact, the majority are. I'm pretty sure 80% of the world is shocked and appalled at violence. I think it's ok for their to be conflict, so long as it's not violent. People can peacefully disagree. Even the ancient Greeks knew that. That's why they held symposiums of debate to debate over politics and philosophy.
You can't debate it because the concept of God isn't based on observable facts.
"God" has a specific definition. If it's not omnipotent, it's not a creator, it's not omnibenevolent, it's not outside space/time, then it's NOT God by definition. Period. We can say there is an "ultimate reality", or some "force" or something out there. But don't call it "God" because we're clearly discussing something different. People like to equivocate the term though. I myself am a Pantheist who believes the Universe is "God" but Pantheists use the term metaphorically (to mean that there is nothing greater than the Universe and that it in itself is divine without a God), and thus, not equivocation. A Pantheist denies God just as an Atheist does.
You can say the old logical sting:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
But then I just could tell you that God gave us free will, which allows for evil.
No. Free will is incompatible with God. As per definition, God is omniscient, and thus knows the future. He can only know the future if it's fixed, and thus everything is predetermined. If things weren't fixed and predetermined, God couldn't know the future.
Or that God allows for suffering, because it's through suffering that we are lead to enlightenment. Or you could say that God is both omnipotent and benevolent, which is why he gave us Jesus and saved us from this world. Or you could say that it is only human perspective that suffering is an evil thing. Or you could say any number of responses.
It's mental masturbation, which is probably why the buddha neglected to discuss it.
He sometimes refused to discuss it. Buddha certainly had LOTS to say about the nature of existence, the nature of reality, etc. And it is worth discussing. In order to live properly, you must know what life is about. If you get on a golf course and think the purpose is to get the ball in the lake, you'll go about it all wrong. Or perhaps, you think the purpose is to get the ball in the hole to earn a reward, but it turns out the golf course was virtual and didn't exist to begin with. Metaphysical questions are certainly important.
It's a belief that comes from personal metaphysical experiences and personal preference. I don't really have any interest in debating it, because it's a belief. A glorified opinion.
A personal experience can lead to a wrong conclusion though. I could say I felt a spirit touch my shoulder, but it turned out to be the fan. If it's a belief that you prefer, then it's believing what you want to believe rather than accepting what actually is.
You believe in enlightenment, yet you only do so because you've heard that someone has achieved it. You've never experienced it before,
Strawman. I knew about Enlightenment before I even learned about Buddhism. Your definition of Enlightenment appears to be different than mine. You are presenting it as something supernatural that one must take faith to believe in it, but I say nay.
"for Zen, the experience of Enlightenment, a pure experience of reality, is not a goal to be achieved but a continuous process of experiencing the world and coming to understand and live in it." - http://www.purifymind.com/ZenBuddhismAtt.htm
so how do you know if they're telling the truth and not just acting?
I don't believe anyone on faith.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” - Buddha
You can claim it's because you've practiced buddhism and seen progress towards that goal,
I never claimed anything like that. In fact, I'm not a good Buddhist practicioner. I come to Buddhism for philosophy, though I am trying to become a better practicioner.
but Christians have practiced their religion in good faith and seen wonderful improvements in their spiritual lives, happiness, and morality from it. They're both matters of faith, of personal truths.
Well, most words happen to appear in my imagination, but semantics aside:
"Monks, if you attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw, do you see any aspects of speech, slight or gross, that you could not endure?"
"No, lord."
"Then attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw. That will be for your long-term welfare & happiness."
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words.
"Suppose there were a catskin bag — beaten, well-beaten, beaten through & through, soft, silky, free of rustling & crackling — and a man were to come along carrying a stick or shard and saying, 'With this stick or shard I will take this catskin bag — beaten, well-beaten, beaten through & through, soft, silky, free of rustling & crackling — and I will make it rustle & crackle.' Now, what do you think — would he, with that stick or shard, take that catskin bag — beaten, well-beaten, beaten through & through, soft, silky, free of rustling & crackling — and make it rustle & crackle?"
You obviously misread my words or are being purposefully argumentative, attributing false notions that I did not say. I wonder if english is difficult for you? If you'd let me know I can try to speak more simply. I specifically said:
"... using skillful means to describe vacant mind as nameless, or non-conceptual, and the perceptions that arise in the absence of conceptions to be 'truth'."
You then saying "the absence of conceptions is not truth" is misreading. Try reading again.
What do non-conceptual experiences have to do with truth?
In the absence of solid, conceptual experiences, ie 'getting the mind out of the way' 'purifying the barrel' one is able to move into a different view of reality. Truth is a notion, certainly, but when using pointers toward differing states of awareness, we collapse non-concepts into concepts, such as truth. Nameless truth (which is not my convention) seems to be a reasonable depiction for non-conceptual observation, non-projected observation and so forth.
The Buddha held those who do not honor his words live a wasted life.
He also said that his words are to be pondered, not used as weapons to wage war. Those who do not deeply look into the words he offers and relate to them are simply being dogmatic.
I wonder, have you had a teacher other than reading suttas?
Can love be practised when emptiness is not realised?
If emptiness is not realised, can a snake be mistaken for fish and visa versa?
And it is best not to confuse Dhamma Dahtu for Buddha
It is best not to confuse Buddha for Dhamma Dahtu.
Dhamma Dahtu can support what they have said by quote.
Remember, Dhamma Dahtu is the cut & paste expert of dead words.
Again, it is best not to confuse Buddha for Dhamma Dahtu.
Buddha said:
Therefore, Ananda, engage with me friends and not as opponents. That will be for your long-term well-being & happiness.
It is interesting how quoting from suttas seems to infuriate some. Not sure why?
"... using skillful means to describe vacant mind as nameless, or non-conceptual, and the perceptions that arise in the absence of conceptions to be 'truth'."
where?
what truth?
In the absence of solid, conceptual experiences, ie 'getting the mind out of the way'
Is there a state free from mind?
If so, how is it experienced if there is no mind?
Truth is a notion, certainly, but when using pointers toward differing states of awareness, we collapse non-concepts into concepts, such as truth.
Is awareness truth?
In a court of law, do people promise to speak the "awareness"?
:sadc:
Nameless truth (which is not my convention) seems to be a reasonable depiction for non-conceptual observation, non-projected observation and so forth.
The truth of namelessness, ie, the characteristics and realities associated with namelessness?
This is ridiculous, on both points, based again off of your misreadings of the words.
Why do keep saying DD is illiterate?
He also said that his words are to be pondered, not used as weapons to wage war.
Where was the word "war" mentioned?
Those who do not deeply look into the words he offers and relate to them are simply being dogmatic.
Often words are not understood and in defense others are called 'dogmatic'.
For some, certain languages are comfortable to communicate with. For others, otherwise occurs
Is there recognition of diversity?
Can regarding things as "dead words" also be a dogma?
Can the "nameless" also be dogma, let alone ideas about love?
Can what are regarded as "sacred" "pure" and "holy" things become a prison?
I wonder, have you had a teacher other than reading suttas?
Macabre comment.
Can distraction & discursiveness occur, becoming infatuated and obsessed with what the mind regards as the "personality traits" of others?
I wonder, have you had a teacher other than reading suttas?
Just as a matter of interest, aMatt, since you brought this unrelated subject up, what relevance does it have to the discussion whether DD has had a teacher or not? I am puzzled.
It is experienced in the absence of projected meaning, ie, mental projections, ie anatta. When the mind does not solidify self or objects into concrete meaning. The mind is still part of the experience, it simply does not attempt to dictate it as it has been tamed. It does not create an I observer, rather is part of an awareness.
The truth of namelessness, ie, the characteristics and realities associated with namelessness?
This seems a reasonable relating of what the teacher seemed to be pointing at in his words, though I would refine it to say "The truth of namelessness, ie, the characteristics and realities observed without naming?"
I said no such thing. I wonder where the dissonance in our conversation is happening, as you continue to attribute notions that I do not say. ie "namelessness equals truth" and "Why do keep saying DD is illiterate?" which are neither said or thought of on my side of things.
Often words are not understood and in defense others are called 'dogmatic'.
For some, certain languages are comfortable to communicate with. For others, otherwise occurs
Is there recognition of diversity?
Can regarding things as "dead words" also be a dogma?
Can the "nameless" also be dogma, let alone ideas about love?
I asked about language because there appears to be a linguistic disconnect. I appreciate diversity wholeheartedly, and wish our communications to connect more directly. There seem to be many false attributions of what I am saying that arise in your words.
I feel that any words that are clung to can create dogma. What do you think?
Can distraction & discursiveness occur, becoming infatuated and obsessed with what the mind regards as the "personality traits" of others?
Can straying from the topics of discussion occur?
Certainly. I did not ask to be discursive, only asking in an attempt to understand how to communicate with you, to minimize the false attributions which seem to puncture the topics at hand.
Only one of these questions seems relevant. The rest appear to be thrown up as a distraction from what is actually before us. Macabre questions.
so:
"is namelessness the absolute?"
Namelessness is direct. Again, nameless is not a convention I personally ascribe, but for the sake of relating to the story of the teacher and the barrel...
Just as a matter of interest, aMatt, since you brought this unrelated subject up, what relevance does it have to the discussion whether DD has had a teacher or not? I am puzzled.
.
Dazzle,
I can understand the confusion... DD seemed to mirror it. As I say things, there appears to be something different being heard. When the concepts are mirrored back toward me, they do not appear to resemble the concepts I presented. I am simply attempting to understand why.
The reason I inquired about the teacher, is because the exchange reminds me of several people I have known who were masters of their various texts, but until they had a teacher who helped penetrate their projected thinking, they only had a rote connection to the words.
I am not assuming anything, but working to communicate more effectively. In my posts I have offered several examples where my words were interpreted in a way that was far from my intent or language... and it feels as though until the reason for that is penetrated, there will be dissonance between us.
A: I notice there seems to be a needless projection or striving for something of eternity, which can create clinging... or perhaps the other way around.
S9: Clinging can come in many forms. One can cling to the concept of no eternity for reasons of their own, don't you think?
BTW, I am enjoying a good deal of what you are saying here. You have a keen mind that can cut to the chase.
Unfortunately, very often people see only what they expect to see, and don't actually read our words.
S9: Clinging can come in many forms. One can cling to the concept of no eternity for reasons of their own, don't you think?
Yes, I think I see what you're saying here, but I wonder what you mean by "reasons of their own." Do you mean that the polar view of eternity/no-eternity are both constructs of ego? So attempting to repel one is the same as clinging to the other?
I suppose eternity would require time and an object as a reference point.
Thanks for the kind words about my words. I admit that this kind of encounter can be perplexing.
A: I wonder what you mean by "reasons of their own."
S9: I guess what I mean by that is, before we are 100% Enlightened and see into the Wholeness of “All at once,” what we choose to believe is a kind/of taking sides, or a ½ truth of some kind. We may choose to believe something because it makes us comfortable, or perhaps makes us feel special, in other words for any number of egoic reasons. Being anti-eternal is obviously just a bias on our part, until that time when we completely Wake Up to Reality, or being pro-eternity as well.
A: Do you mean that the polar view of eternity/no-eternity are both constructs of ego?
S9: Yes, of the egoic mind. Until we are able to step out of the mind’s constructs, 100%, we will be imprisoned in imaginations of one kind or another. Mind is not capable of seeing beyond duality.
A: So attempting to repel one is the same as clinging to the other?
S9: Exactly, or even clinging to the idea of not clinging. All of our thoughts seem to travel in an endless circle. Isn’t that what co-dependence speaks to? In other words, both clinging and non-clinging are simply two sides of the one coin, that we called mind.
A: I suppose eternity would require time and an object as a reference point.
S9: Yes, conceptual eternity is just one more concept. Concepts do not live in a vacuum, and always require support of some kind, usually its opposite notion in order to make sense to the mind.
I am under the impression however that ‘Actual Eternity’ is outside of time and space.
A: Thanks for the kind words about my words. I admit that this kind of encounter can be perplexing.
S9: Yes, indeed. It is great practice to learn patience and good will. ; ^ )
Just as a matter of interest, aMatt, since you brought this unrelated subject up, what relevance does it have to the discussion whether DD has had a teacher or not? I am puzzled.
Matt give the impression of caught up in the sphere of ego projection.
Matt gives the impression his duty is to love & embrace.
With clingy warmth
Matthew 23:37
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
the polar view of eternity/no-eternity are both constructs of ego? So attempting to repel one is the same as clinging to the other?
Matt
The negation of an assumption ceases with the assumption. It common for people to hang onto the negation as an absolute truth after the assumption has been negated. . Hence the story of the Monk and the dogmatic Lay person.
Matt give the impression of caught up in the sphere of ego projection.
Matt gives the impression his duty is to love & embrace.
With clingy warmth
Matthew 23:37
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
Yes, send me all your insults. I will embrace them and you with my clingy warmth.
I can understand the confusion... DD seemed to mirror it.
Yes...but do you understand your mind's own confusion???
As I say things, there appears to be something different being heard.
What you are saying is being heard. The issue is, is what you are saying of any tangile substance that makes it worth being listened to?
For example, a small child may babble & stutter and get all excited about something. But, apart from over seeing the welfare of the child, are words from their babbling & stuttering something of profound importance?
When the concepts are mirrored back toward me, they do not appear to resemble the concepts I presented.
But they are?
The reason I inquired about the teacher, is because the exchange reminds me of several people I have known who were masters of their various texts, but until they had a teacher who helped penetrate their projected thinking, they only had a rote connection to the words.
You speak as though your evaluations are truthful, valid & infallible.
To me, your evaluations are mere imaginations.
... and it feels as though until the reason for that is penetrated, there will be dissonance between us.
Matt
You have not answered the questions put to you.
You have not substantiated your rhetorical claims about nameless truth.
Similarly, all of your judgments about the personalities your mind is concocting similarly have no substance.
The reason I inquired about the teacher, is because the exchange reminds me of several people I have known who were masters of their various texts, but until they had a teacher who helped penetrate their projected thinking, they only had a rote connection to the words.
Matt
My response is the above point is confused. This is a discussion forum. Communication is done via thinking & words. Also, where did the Buddha saying enlightenment or truth was the absence of thinking? You are still avoiding the issues. Each post you make avoids the issues.
The questions presented to you are as follows:
1. Is truth namelessness?
2. Is truth the absense of thinking?
3. Is truth the absense of concepts?
4. Do all religions teach this nameless truth?
5. Is this nameless truth the 'absolute'?
6. Is God this nameless truth?
7. Is God the absolute?
These are closed questions. You can simply answer 'yes' or 'no' to them.
Unless you are 100% Realized right now, there is a very good chance that most anything you can think or say is just DRIPPING with ego.
Everyone’s mind is an ego projector of both stories, and worlds. Thinking you are the RIGHT GUY won’t save you. All egos think they are right. It comes with the territory. Proving someone else is the WRONG GUY won’t save you either. All egos think that wrong, is the other guy. Its okay we all fall into this at times. : ^ )
Come over here, come on, and give me a big warm hug. ; ^ )
sigh. This is now a quiz? I'll play your game, why not! These answers are of course from my subjective framework.
1. Is truth namelessness?
no
2. Is truth the absence of thinking?
no
3. Is truth the absence of concepts?
no
4. Do all religions teach this nameless truth?
no
5. Is this nameless truth the 'absolute'?
no
6. Is God this nameless truth?
no
7. Is God the absolute?
no
Although I have to say your terms do not really align. I spoke of the teacher and the barrel analogy. If you are convinced that I am being heard correctly, would you repeat what you heard me say back to me?
You have not substantiated your rhetorical claims about nameless truth.
A: Do you mean that the polar view of eternity/no-eternity are both constructs of ego?
S9: Yes, of the egoic mind. Until we are able to step out of the mind’s constructs, 100%, we will be imprisoned in imaginations of one kind or another. Mind is not capable of seeing beyond duality.
When ego ends, when duality ends, other realities still remain.
In other words, there is still ultimate truth that pertains to those realities.
Unless you are 100% Realized right now, there is a very good chance that most anything you can think or say is just DRIPPING with ego.
Your point is mute and complete non-sense.
Everyone’s mind is an ego projector of both stories, and worlds.
Another non-sensical statement, avoiding the topic of discussion and degenerating into 'self-view'.
Thinking you are the RIGHT GUY won’t save you.
Wow...have I gone to another planet. The speech is getting more macabre.
:eek2:
All egos think they are right. It comes with the territory. Proving someone else is the WRONG GUY won’t save you either. All egos think that wrong, is the other guy. Its okay we all fall into this at times.
:crazy:
You are now projecting ego on words & doctrines.
How confused?
Come over here, come on, and give me a big warm hug.
Try to develop some appropriate moral boundaries, OK.
Try to give up needing to express closeness in a physical & sexual manner.
Try to give up needing to end conflict or disharmony in a physical & sexual manner.
Try to free your mind of an incapacity to tolerate disagreement.
Try to be accepting of others.
As I said in my original post, a monk in the Thai Forest tradition taught the following dangerous time wasting nonsense:
Similarly, all of your judgments about the personalities your mind is concocting similarly have no substance.
See, this is why I wonder if you're projecting. I asked only questions about what you're seeing and experiencing, because it is vastly different than what is happening on my side. You keep asking me to justify my position on God, which I have said nothing of. I spoke only of the absolute, saying perhaps absolute=direct=ultimate in the context of the stories and exchanges along this topic.
I am not making judgments, I was asking questions. You appear to be the one saying "matt is this" and "matt is that"... I wonder how caught up your mind is in ego, but I don't assume or judge that it is.
I would rather ask you, as I have... though they have all been ignored, as have the words I have presented in support of the water analogy.
You said, “Try to be accepting of others,” and “Your point is mute and complete non-sense,” both in the same post. : ^ (
I can only hope to one day develop such a wondeful and compassionate way with words, in order to follow your fine example about how to treat others, and learn such great social skills. ; ^ )
I asked only questions about what you're seeing and experiencing, because it is vastly different than what is happening on my side.
I asked only questions about the topic of discussion.
I was not asking you the question those after a one-night stand ask in the movies: "How was it for you?"
I am not making judgments, I was asking questions. You appear to be the one saying "matt is this" and "matt is that"... I wonder how caught up your mind is in ego, but I don't assume or judge that it is.
No need to throw your projections back on others.
I would rather ask you, as I have... though they have all been ignored, as have the words I have presented in support of the water analogy.
You have presented nothing of any substance.
God is that which cares for people.
The absolute in Buddhism is what is universal to all, namely, conditionality, impermanence, possessing unsatisfactoriness and cannot be clung to.
That's it.
The teaching of the Thai Forest monk was an inaccurate representation of Buddhism and other religions.
The teaching of the Thai Forest monk was what he would call: "Feeding the chooks".
R: There is a Brahman-like quality to some Thai Forest talk of "THE Unconditioned". Whatever ones thinks of that, do you really think it is Dangerous?
S9: I don’t understand how investigating into anything can be dangerous. Investigation is the beginning point of all wisdom, is it not?
I know some people think that Brahman means God. But there are a good number of people on earth who believe Buddha means God, too. That doesn’t make it so, now does it?
Brahman is just the personification of all that is Ultimate. This understanding can start rather basic and fundamental and progress deeper and deeper until one is completely Realized. There are many paths all basically leading to the same place, Ultimate Wholeness (or that which is completely beyond all conditions of mind).
You are the one making the assertion which means the onus is on you to defend your position. Expressing disagreement is not offerring a defence - it is an opinion. I have already offerred an undercutter that it is not unreasonable to expect that God and evil can co-exist to demonstrate that your assertion is false. At a minimum you need to argue why God and evil cannot co-exist to rebutt my argument.
I leave the definition of evil to you as you are the one defending it.
Comments
If that truly was the case, then why are there people who have made a profession of debating God's existence? I suggest you look into debates by William Lane Craig (Christian apologist), Christopher Hitchens (Atheist), Alvin Plantinga (Christian apologist), Richard Dawkins, etc. and you'll find plenty of rational arguments on the matter.
What people are debating is the God that most in the world, believe exists, which has specific attributes. Namely: Creator, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, exists outside of space/time, eternal, and greatest conceivable being. These are the properties of the God that people believe in. Given this information, we can easily have a logical debate about this.
To say that it's not debatable is a cop-out really.
It's an unjustified belief though. We can argue about the validity of such a position.
.
It is from an understanding of both Buddha's teachings and Quantum/Astro physics.
Theologic concerns aren't really problems that I try to face, a lot of their information is based on mythology.
As far as scientific problems, well, I am not a physicist, but I read thusly: When the universe eventually collapses back in on itself, which is what modern science says will happen, once the total volume is small enough to enter into Plancks era, or a period when all forces become one and there is an almost infinitely small volume, infinitely large mass (like when the this universe began) the laws of physics collapse. It isn't until the next Bang happens, where the volume passes across Planck's threshold that the laws of the universe re-stabilize. This means that there wouldn't be refraction of light, nor the vibration of photons (or the space to travel distance), or an eye to capture it or name it "Red".
This might not be completely accurate, as physics has never really been an interest of mine, but it stands to say that the collapsing of conventional dynamics in this universe will happen eventually.
As far as why the universe would expand again in the same manner, well... that's in the book Quantum and the Lotus. Something about gravity and awareness and two halves of a walnut fitting exactly or something.
With warmth,
Matt
Interesting that the analogies are so distracting that you cannot see the moon beyond the finger. Buddha would never have taught 'nameless truth'... duh, he didn't speak English!
With warmth,
Matt
A straw man is introduced when Santa Clause and God is grouped in the same category and then to proceed to prove the non existence of Santa, and by default applying to God as well.
The fundamental question is “when is absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence?” There are basically 2 criterion :
Evidence Expectation Criterion. If Santa exists, then we would expect there to be evidence for it.
Knowledge Expectation Criterion. If there were evidence of Santa, then we would expect to have knowledge of the evidence.
If Santa exist we should expect to see, but don’t, lots of evidence of that fact, including sightings, warehouses at the North Pole, large sleigh, unexplained distributed gifts and so forth. In short, in the absence of evidence, we can deny the existence of Santa only if we should expect to possess evidence sufficient to know that Santa exists but in fact lack it.
These criterion do not apply to God because God is a non physical being. I will stop here unless you want to apply the same standard of measure and the 100 % certainty rule to Karma, Samsara, Nirvana, et al.
Russell argued that why we deny Santa Claus is because we do have evidence for their absence. He insisted that the situation is significantly different for other objects which are causally isolated from us. He then went on to use the teapot which circles about the sun, an object which is (for the most part) causally isolated from us.
Can we say it doesn’t exist? I think we know it doesn’t exist because it wasn’t put there by the Russian or American astronauts; and we know that matter in the universe does not self-organize into teapot shapes. We therefore have evidence that Russell’s teacup doesn’t exist .
They do it because there's money to be made and because they believe that the world would be a better place if everyone did or did not believe in God. They make millions on providing answers to an unanswerable question and people eat it up.
And I have. I used to enjoy watching Dawkins and Hitchens eviscerate people with faith because they generally had poor arguments. But then I realized two things:
One, that they were never going to disprove God. They were just going to point out the logical flaws in the arguments for God, which generally arose because those with faith went on the offensive instead of staying on the defensive, trying to provide proof that cannot be provided. And since there's no way to prove or disprove God, Dawkins and Hitchens would always be on the winning side because they were on the side of the negative. You can never prove a hypothesis, you can only disprove it, or fail to disprove it enough times that reasonable doubt is expunged. So they always had the high ground. They never had to prove themselves right, just provide doubt that the other side was.
And two, that I was rooting for these people because I thought if they won something would be fixed. That if irrationality were illuminated then people would stop doing petty and stupid things like hating homosexuals because the bible tells them it's wrong. Then I realized that it's not at all about religions, it's about ideologies. Humans are tribal creatures. We like having a view of "Us" vs "Them." There will always be those who think their race is inherently better, that their method of economics is worth killing for, that their system of government is the supreme. That's never going to change. It's the nature of the world.
You can't debate it because the concept of God isn't based on observable facts. You can say the old logical sting:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
But then I just could tell you that God gave us free will, which allows for evil. Or that God allows for suffering, because it's through suffering that we are lead to enlightenment. Or you could say that God is both omnipotent and benevolent, which is why he gave us Jesus and saved us from this world. Or you could say that it is only human perspective that suffering is an evil thing. Or you could say any number of responses.
It's mental masturbation, which is probably why the buddha neglected to discuss it.
It's a belief that comes from personal metaphysical experiences and personal preference. I don't really have any interest in debating it, because it's a belief. A glorified opinion. You believe in enlightenment, yet you only do so because you've heard that someone has achieved it. You've never experienced it before, so how do you know if they're telling the truth and not just acting? You can claim it's because you've practiced buddhism and seen progress towards that goal, but Christians have practiced their religion in good faith and seen wonderful improvements in their spiritual lives, happiness, and morality from it. They're both matters of faith, of personal truths.
The question I was trying to address in my research was what happened at singularity i.e. at null topology. We know time and space was created from the expansion but can we assume it includes matter and energy. Is there a past beyond singularity or is it nothingless and timelessness.
I like it #12. You have a sense of humor.
The oscillating universe topology has not been disproven, nor are the Vilenkin's eternal inflation theories by any means absolute. I only enjoy physics in small doses. Like maniacs
Ah, now here it boils down. When it comes to 'first cause', the answer is simple. We don't know. No-one is around who has seen it, and if anyone has had the sight to see that far back they have never said a word. When I asked my teacher that very same question, he told me that the causes and conditions that would address the 'first cause' ideology is unknown, unknowable. When I noticed my mind was not satiated by it, I realized it was from my own attachment to wanting eternity to exist, to find the causes of the causes... another expression of a fear of death.
Blah, I did not find it particularly helpful in unlocking the secrets to present moment attachments, so I let it go. I find that to be the more skillful of the paths.
With warmth,
Matt
The Buddha did not speak nameless truth nor did he point to the moon.
The Buddha did not teach in analogies.
You appear to distracted by both the finger & the moon.
What truth is found by seeing the moon or the finger?
Have you ever considered what you have written is mere blind faith?
'Truth' is something absolute. It is universal.
A blank vacant mind is not "truth".
"Namelessness" is not truth.
Can't your mind see this fact or truth?
If something is "truth" or "true", should it not pertain to each & every human being?
Why does it stand up?
Please explain your point.
Thank you.
Yes, he speaks in parables when it is skillful to do so.
I can see into the moment that the teacher was describing. It sounds to me he was using skillful means to describe vacant mind as nameless, or non-conceptual, and the perceptions that arise in the absence of conceptions to be 'truth'.
It seems reasonable enough, both in analogy and spirit, to point toward the space in such a manner.
"What truth is found by seeing the moon or the finger?"
By looking upon that specific analogy, one can gain insight as to why it is important not to get so caught up in words that you miss the non-conceptual experiences that lay beyond where the words are pointing. Otherwise you may spend a long time throwing out present words and quoting dead words.
None of this addresses anything I said, or supports anything you said.
Samsara is the cycle of rebirth. If rebirth occurs, there has to be some sort of universe of it to occur in. So the universe doesn't end before samsara ends.
In Buddhism, liberation is liberation from samsara.
In your imagination?
The Buddha said his dhamma was well-spoken, unconvoluted, without patchwork.
it is best to not confuse Jesus for Buddha.
But the absence of conceptions is not truth.
How could it be truth?
You must explain your case.
How is space truth?
If you chose "space = truth" to be a subject of a PHD, you would be laughed at.
You could chose a PHD subject called "the truth of space" but space = truth is bizzaro.
What do non-conceptual experiences have to do with truth?
Fish probably cannot conceptualise. Are you saying fish are enlightened beings?
Fish cannot speak words. Are you saying fish are enlightened beings?
The Buddha held those who do not honor his words live a wasted life.
I will support my case later with a reasoned case about what is truth.
But for you Matt, if you cannot support your case by answering the questions I asked of you, the dead can bury the dead.
:smilec:
It's not really about proving one side over the other. If anything, I'm sure they, and myself included, want people to THINK. That's what these debates are good for. Raise public awareness. Get people to start thinking about some of the most intriguing questions about existence. Otherwise people will live life blindly without critically thinking about anything.
For me, I favor William Lane Craig, a Christian, over a braindead Atheist.
I know. And I don't see that as a problem, but for some reason you do.
You're missing the point entirely then. If someone won, the debate would be over which would be disappointing. I want people to continue thinking, keep challenging, and always inquire. Wouldn't it be a boring world if everyone agreed 100% on philosophical issues? That mere fact would be a sign that humanity is braindead. I LIVE for intellectual conflict. That is one of the things I prize most in life. (Not violent conflict, I am against that.)
Humans are tribal creatures? Humans ought to be a civilized, in fact, the majority are. I'm pretty sure 80% of the world is shocked and appalled at violence. I think it's ok for their to be conflict, so long as it's not violent. People can peacefully disagree. Even the ancient Greeks knew that. That's why they held symposiums of debate to debate over politics and philosophy.
"God" has a specific definition. If it's not omnipotent, it's not a creator, it's not omnibenevolent, it's not outside space/time, then it's NOT God by definition. Period. We can say there is an "ultimate reality", or some "force" or something out there. But don't call it "God" because we're clearly discussing something different. People like to equivocate the term though. I myself am a Pantheist who believes the Universe is "God" but Pantheists use the term metaphorically (to mean that there is nothing greater than the Universe and that it in itself is divine without a God), and thus, not equivocation. A Pantheist denies God just as an Atheist does.
No. Free will is incompatible with God. As per definition, God is omniscient, and thus knows the future. He can only know the future if it's fixed, and thus everything is predetermined. If things weren't fixed and predetermined, God couldn't know the future.
He sometimes refused to discuss it. Buddha certainly had LOTS to say about the nature of existence, the nature of reality, etc. And it is worth discussing. In order to live properly, you must know what life is about. If you get on a golf course and think the purpose is to get the ball in the lake, you'll go about it all wrong. Or perhaps, you think the purpose is to get the ball in the hole to earn a reward, but it turns out the golf course was virtual and didn't exist to begin with. Metaphysical questions are certainly important.
A personal experience can lead to a wrong conclusion though. I could say I felt a spirit touch my shoulder, but it turned out to be the fan. If it's a belief that you prefer, then it's believing what you want to believe rather than accepting what actually is.
Strawman. I knew about Enlightenment before I even learned about Buddhism. Your definition of Enlightenment appears to be different than mine. You are presenting it as something supernatural that one must take faith to believe in it, but I say nay.
"for Zen, the experience of Enlightenment, a pure experience of reality, is not a goal to be achieved but a continuous process of experiencing the world and coming to understand and live in it." - http://www.purifymind.com/ZenBuddhismAtt.htm
I don't believe anyone on faith.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” - Buddha
I never claimed anything like that. In fact, I'm not a good Buddhist practicioner. I come to Buddhism for philosophy, though I am trying to become a better practicioner.
Ok.
We then have :
P then Q
P is true then Q is true
At a minimum, you have to argue that God and evil cannot co-exist for P to be true.
I disagree, but then still: Define evil
Well, most words happen to appear in my imagination, but semantics aside:
Two quick examples from the kakacupama sutta.
And it is best not to confuse Dhamma Dahtu for Buddha.
You obviously misread my words or are being purposefully argumentative, attributing false notions that I did not say. I wonder if english is difficult for you? If you'd let me know I can try to speak more simply. I specifically said:
"... using skillful means to describe vacant mind as nameless, or non-conceptual, and the perceptions that arise in the absence of conceptions to be 'truth'."
You then saying "the absence of conceptions is not truth" is misreading. Try reading again.
In the absence of solid, conceptual experiences, ie 'getting the mind out of the way' 'purifying the barrel' one is able to move into a different view of reality. Truth is a notion, certainly, but when using pointers toward differing states of awareness, we collapse non-concepts into concepts, such as truth. Nameless truth (which is not my convention) seems to be a reasonable depiction for non-conceptual observation, non-projected observation and so forth.
This is ridiculous, on both points, based again off of your misreadings of the words.
He also said that his words are to be pondered, not used as weapons to wage war. Those who do not deeply look into the words he offers and relate to them are simply being dogmatic.
I wonder, have you had a teacher other than reading suttas?
With warmth,
Matt
Can love be practised when emptiness is not realised?
If emptiness is not realised, can a snake be mistaken for fish and visa versa?
It is best not to confuse Buddha for Dhamma Dahtu.
Dhamma Dahtu can support what they have said by quote.
Remember, Dhamma Dahtu is the cut & paste expert of dead words.
Again, it is best not to confuse Buddha for Dhamma Dahtu.
Buddha said:
It is interesting how quoting from suttas seems to infuriate some. Not sure why?
where?
what truth?
Is there a state free from mind?
If so, how is it experienced if there is no mind?
Is awareness truth?
In a court of law, do people promise to speak the "awareness"?
:sadc: The truth of namelessness, ie, the characteristics and realities associated with namelessness?
Why do keep saying DD is illiterate?
Where was the word "war" mentioned?
Often words are not understood and in defense others are called 'dogmatic'.
For some, certain languages are comfortable to communicate with. For others, otherwise occurs
Is there recognition of diversity?
Can regarding things as "dead words" also be a dogma?
Can the "nameless" also be dogma, let alone ideas about love?
Can what are regarded as "sacred" "pure" and "holy" things become a prison?
Macabre comment.
Can distraction & discursiveness occur, becoming infatuated and obsessed with what the mind regards as the "personality traits" of others?
Can straying from the topics of discussion occur?
btw, you did not answer the questions.
how can god be nameless truth?
how can namelessness be truth?
is namelessness the absolute?
is god the nameless absolute?
are fish fully enlightened beings?
Just as a matter of interest, aMatt, since you brought this unrelated subject up, what relevance does it have to the discussion whether DD has had a teacher or not? I am puzzled.
.
Because they are examples of how Buddha taught with examples and metaphor.
Yes
Yes
Is this an implication I am infuriated? I am far from that. I am looking at you and the topic with curiosity... attempting to see both.
That which exists beyond our mental projections into the meaning and solid qualities of form.
It is experienced in the absence of projected meaning, ie, mental projections, ie anatta. When the mind does not solidify self or objects into concrete meaning. The mind is still part of the experience, it simply does not attempt to dictate it as it has been tamed. It does not create an I observer, rather is part of an awareness.
They speak from their awareness of truth, ideally.
This seems a reasonable relating of what the teacher seemed to be pointing at in his words, though I would refine it to say "The truth of namelessness, ie, the characteristics and realities observed without naming?"
I said no such thing. I wonder where the dissonance in our conversation is happening, as you continue to attribute notions that I do not say. ie "namelessness equals truth" and "Why do keep saying DD is illiterate?" which are neither said or thought of on my side of things.
Attacking and defending was being paraphrased as war-like. Debate does seem more moderate.
I asked about language because there appears to be a linguistic disconnect. I appreciate diversity wholeheartedly, and wish our communications to connect more directly. There seem to be many false attributions of what I am saying that arise in your words.
I feel that any words that are clung to can create dogma. What do you think?
If they create clinging, they create clinging.
Certainly. I did not ask to be discursive, only asking in an attempt to understand how to communicate with you, to minimize the false attributions which seem to puncture the topics at hand.
Only one of these questions seems relevant. The rest appear to be thrown up as a distraction from what is actually before us. Macabre questions.
so:
"is namelessness the absolute?"
Namelessness is direct. Again, nameless is not a convention I personally ascribe, but for the sake of relating to the story of the teacher and the barrel...
With warmth,
Matt
Dazzle,
I can understand the confusion... DD seemed to mirror it. As I say things, there appears to be something different being heard. When the concepts are mirrored back toward me, they do not appear to resemble the concepts I presented. I am simply attempting to understand why.
The reason I inquired about the teacher, is because the exchange reminds me of several people I have known who were masters of their various texts, but until they had a teacher who helped penetrate their projected thinking, they only had a rote connection to the words.
I am not assuming anything, but working to communicate more effectively. In my posts I have offered several examples where my words were interpreted in a way that was far from my intent or language... and it feels as though until the reason for that is penetrated, there will be dissonance between us.
With warmth,
Matt
A: I notice there seems to be a needless projection or striving for something of eternity, which can create clinging... or perhaps the other way around.
S9: Clinging can come in many forms. One can cling to the concept of no eternity for reasons of their own, don't you think?
BTW, I am enjoying a good deal of what you are saying here. You have a keen mind that can cut to the chase.
Unfortunately, very often people see only what they expect to see, and don't actually read our words.
Respectfully,
S9
Yes, I think I see what you're saying here, but I wonder what you mean by "reasons of their own." Do you mean that the polar view of eternity/no-eternity are both constructs of ego? So attempting to repel one is the same as clinging to the other?
I suppose eternity would require time and an object as a reference point.
Thanks for the kind words about my words. I admit that this kind of encounter can be perplexing.
With warmth,
Matt
A: I wonder what you mean by "reasons of their own."
S9: I guess what I mean by that is, before we are 100% Enlightened and see into the Wholeness of “All at once,” what we choose to believe is a kind/of taking sides, or a ½ truth of some kind. We may choose to believe something because it makes us comfortable, or perhaps makes us feel special, in other words for any number of egoic reasons. Being anti-eternal is obviously just a bias on our part, until that time when we completely Wake Up to Reality, or being pro-eternity as well.
A: Do you mean that the polar view of eternity/no-eternity are both constructs of ego?
S9: Yes, of the egoic mind. Until we are able to step out of the mind’s constructs, 100%, we will be imprisoned in imaginations of one kind or another. Mind is not capable of seeing beyond duality.
A: So attempting to repel one is the same as clinging to the other?
S9: Exactly, or even clinging to the idea of not clinging. All of our thoughts seem to travel in an endless circle. Isn’t that what co-dependence speaks to? In other words, both clinging and non-clinging are simply two sides of the one coin, that we called mind.
A: I suppose eternity would require time and an object as a reference point.
S9: Yes, conceptual eternity is just one more concept. Concepts do not live in a vacuum, and always require support of some kind, usually its opposite notion in order to make sense to the mind.
I am under the impression however that ‘Actual Eternity’ is outside of time and space.
A: Thanks for the kind words about my words. I admit that this kind of encounter can be perplexing.
S9: Yes, indeed. It is great practice to learn patience and good will. ; ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
Matt gives the impression his duty is to love & embrace.
With clingy warmth
Matthew 23:37
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
The negation of an assumption ceases with the assumption. It common for people to hang onto the negation as an absolute truth after the assumption has been negated. . Hence the story of the Monk and the dogmatic Lay person.
Yes, send me all your insults. I will embrace them and you with my clingy warmth.
With warmth,
Matt
What you are saying is being heard. The issue is, is what you are saying of any tangile substance that makes it worth being listened to?
For example, a small child may babble & stutter and get all excited about something. But, apart from over seeing the welfare of the child, are words from their babbling & stuttering something of profound importance?
But they are?
You speak as though your evaluations are truthful, valid & infallible.
To me, your evaluations are mere imaginations.
Matt
You have not answered the questions put to you.
You have not substantiated your rhetorical claims about nameless truth.
Similarly, all of your judgments about the personalities your mind is concocting similarly have no substance.
:coffee:
My response is the above point is confused. This is a discussion forum. Communication is done via thinking & words. Also, where did the Buddha saying enlightenment or truth was the absence of thinking? You are still avoiding the issues. Each post you make avoids the issues.
The questions presented to you are as follows:
1. Is truth namelessness?
2. Is truth the absense of thinking?
3. Is truth the absense of concepts?
4. Do all religions teach this nameless truth?
5. Is this nameless truth the 'absolute'?
6. Is God this nameless truth?
7. Is God the absolute?
These are closed questions. You can simply answer 'yes' or 'no' to them.
With joy
DD
Unless you are 100% Realized right now, there is a very good chance that most anything you can think or say is just DRIPPING with ego.
Everyone’s mind is an ego projector of both stories, and worlds. Thinking you are the RIGHT GUY won’t save you. All egos think they are right. It comes with the territory. Proving someone else is the WRONG GUY won’t save you either. All egos think that wrong, is the other guy. Its okay we all fall into this at times. : ^ )
Come over here, come on, and give me a big warm hug. ; ^ )
Friendly Regards,
S9
1. Is truth namelessness?
no
2. Is truth the absence of thinking?
no
3. Is truth the absence of concepts?
no
4. Do all religions teach this nameless truth?
no
5. Is this nameless truth the 'absolute'?
no
6. Is God this nameless truth?
no
7. Is God the absolute?
no
Although I have to say your terms do not really align. I spoke of the teacher and the barrel analogy. If you are convinced that I am being heard correctly, would you repeat what you heard me say back to me?
I have, a few different ways.
With warmth,
Matt
In other words, there is still ultimate truth that pertains to those realities.
In some, when gross ego ends or is otherwise imagined to have ended, interpretations arise such as "Actual Eternity" of the experience that remains.
However, what is the actual ultimate reality of things when ego ends.
I trust it is not "Actual Eternity" or some other similar fantasy.
Another non-sensical statement, avoiding the topic of discussion and degenerating into 'self-view'.
Wow...have I gone to another planet. The speech is getting more macabre.
:eek2:
:crazy:
You are now projecting ego on words & doctrines.
How confused?
Try to develop some appropriate moral boundaries, OK.
Try to give up needing to express closeness in a physical & sexual manner.
Try to give up needing to end conflict or disharmony in a physical & sexual manner.
Try to free your mind of an incapacity to tolerate disagreement.
Try to be accepting of others.
As I said in my original post, a monk in the Thai Forest tradition taught the following dangerous time wasting nonsense:
:smilec:
See, this is why I wonder if you're projecting. I asked only questions about what you're seeing and experiencing, because it is vastly different than what is happening on my side. You keep asking me to justify my position on God, which I have said nothing of. I spoke only of the absolute, saying perhaps absolute=direct=ultimate in the context of the stories and exchanges along this topic.
I am not making judgments, I was asking questions. You appear to be the one saying "matt is this" and "matt is that"... I wonder how caught up your mind is in ego, but I don't assume or judge that it is.
I would rather ask you, as I have... though they have all been ignored, as have the words I have presented in support of the water analogy.
With warmth,
Matt
You said, “Try to be accepting of others,” and “Your point is mute and complete non-sense,” both in the same post. : ^ (
I can only hope to one day develop such a wondeful and compassionate way with words, in order to follow your fine example about how to treat others, and learn such great social skills. ; ^ )
Peace is a skill,
S9
I was not asking you the question those after a one-night stand ask in the movies: "How was it for you?"
No need to throw your projections back on others.
You have presented nothing of any substance.
God is that which cares for people.
The absolute in Buddhism is what is universal to all, namely, conditionality, impermanence, possessing unsatisfactoriness and cannot be clung to.
That's it.
The teaching of the Thai Forest monk was an inaccurate representation of Buddhism and other religions.
The teaching of the Thai Forest monk was what he would call: "Feeding the chooks".
Matt
But thinking Christianity, Islam, etc, hold the unconditioned as their core doctrine is dangerous.
:buck:
:wow:
R: There is a Brahman-like quality to some Thai Forest talk of "THE Unconditioned". Whatever ones thinks of that, do you really think it is Dangerous?
S9: I don’t understand how investigating into anything can be dangerous. Investigation is the beginning point of all wisdom, is it not?
I know some people think that Brahman means God. But there are a good number of people on earth who believe Buddha means God, too. That doesn’t make it so, now does it?
Brahman is just the personification of all that is Ultimate. This understanding can start rather basic and fundamental and progress deeper and deeper until one is completely Realized. There are many paths all basically leading to the same place, Ultimate Wholeness (or that which is completely beyond all conditions of mind).
Warm Regards,
S9
Sure. I figured you were helping cultivate more equanimity. There could be no other explanation for such childish behaviors.
Not for me, but you know that.
I leave the definition of evil to you as you are the one defending it.