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.
How can rebirth exist when it goes against scientific laws?
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
It is odd that in a religion which believes in no inherent existence the TRUTH should be elevated to a permanent status. Odd, but not surprising.
Strange... Which religion is this? I've heard that the individual has no inherent existence but not that there is no inherent existence whatsoever. If there was no inherent existence at all then cause and effect and/or karma is not because there must be an inherence between cause and the effects of said cause. However, we know that causation is at work.
Also, I'm not sure of which permanent truth you mean.
It is odd that in a religion which believes in no inherent existence the TRUTH should be elevated to a permanent status. Odd, but not surprising.
Strange... Which religion is this? I've heard that the individual has no inherent existence but not that there is no inherent existence whatsoever. If there was no inherent existence at all then cause and effect and/or karma is not because there must be an inherence between cause and the effects of said cause. However, we know that causation is at work.
Also, I'm not sure of which permanent truth you mean.
It might help if we clarified what "inherent existence" means. I understand it as meaning impermanence, simply.
If impermanence is the rule of the day, at the end of the day nothing is true, or rather, what is true today may not be true tomorrow. I can live with that. Can you?
Wow! this thread is packed with insightful information. Awesome!!
:om:
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
It is odd that in a religion which believes in no inherent existence the TRUTH should be elevated to a permanent status. Odd, but not surprising.
Strange... Which religion is this? I've heard that the individual has no inherent existence but not that there is no inherent existence whatsoever. If there was no inherent existence at all then cause and effect and/or karma is not because there must be an inherence between cause and the effects of said cause. However, we know that causation is at work.
Also, I'm not sure of which permanent truth you mean.
It might help if we clarified what "inherent existence" means. I understand it as meaning impermanence, simply.
If impermanence is the rule of the day, at the end of the day nothing is true, or rather, what is true today may not be true tomorrow. I can live with that. Can you?
I don't believe in nothing so I wouldn't be one to say that nothing is true but that todays truth may not be true tomorrow is just the way things go.
The only thing that stays the same is the fact that everything changes.
I'm glad we can live with that because the other option will come along soon enough.
@Nevermind. I cannot grasp the logic of your view of truth and religion.
Nonsense, I've stated my views quite plainly. Religion is about meaning, essentially, and something doesn't need to be true to be meaningful.
I didn't mean to suggest you had not stated your views plainly. Nor did I suggest that something has to be true to be meaningful. My suggestion is that something has to be true to be true, and that being meaningful not the same as being true.
Well I believe rebirth and reincarnation like the belief in God were just made up thousands of years ago to explain things before people knew anything at all really about science, part of the reason why people believe in it was because they said it must be impossible that the mind could be produced from or even not be separate from the body how ever recent scientific understanding proves it possible if not likely that consciousness could be produced from the brain scotching that argument.
In religion right has to be right, wrong has to be wrong, and true has to be true. It is this kind of fundamentalist dogma that is responsible for the worst atrocities in human history. In secular life what's true has merely proved to be reliable, but it doesn't always have to be.
In religion right has to be right, wrong has to be wrong, and true has to be true. It is this kind of fundamentalist dogma that is responsible for the worst atrocities in human history. ...
Really? I think the distortion of truth is the cause of some of the worst atrocities in human history.
It is odd that in a religion which believes in no inherent existence the TRUTH should be elevated to a permanent status. Odd, but not surprising.
Strange... Which religion is this? I've heard that the individual has no inherent existence but not that there is no inherent existence whatsoever. If there was no inherent existence at all then cause and effect and/or karma is not because there must be an inherence between cause and the effects of said cause. However, we know that causation is at work.
Also, I'm not sure of which permanent truth you mean.
It might help if we clarified what "inherent existence" means. I understand it as meaning impermanence, simply.
If impermanence is the rule of the day, at the end of the day nothing is true, or rather, what is true today may not be true tomorrow. I can live with that. Can you?
I don't believe in nothing so I wouldn't be one to say that nothing is true but that todays truth may not be true tomorrow is just the way things go.
The only thing that stays the same is the fact that everything changes.
I'm glad we can live with that because the other option will come along soon enough.
Is prajnaparimata true? I think there is a truth, but it does always change. Yet the qualities of mind: openness, clarity, and sensitivity are there and in them there is change. As qualities they are always there like a mirror or movie projector, but since they are ungraspable and outside of time we cannot say for certain they change because there is no reference point. Nonetheless there is a movement which feels like motion and yielding. The same is also for analyzing meaning. The OCS qualities always there is a sense of meaning even in an existential crisis. As Nirvana mentioned it is necessary to have something reliable and that is the triple gem which includes the confidence in the nature of mind (of Buddha, taught by dharma, exhibited by sangha.
In religion right has to be right, wrong has to be wrong, and true has to be true. It is this kind of fundamentalist dogma that is responsible for the worst atrocities in human history. ...
Really? I think the distortion of truth is the cause of some of the worst atrocities in human history.
I doubt the atrocites believe their truths are distorted.
I've struggled with the concept of reincarnation for a long time. I'm not a practicing Buddhist, but I find your discussions instructive. I've been under the assumption that Buddhist don't believe that a "self" is permanent and capable of assuming a new life as it would in reincarnation. The more acceptable notion being that fragments of consciousness can be reborn into a new life with no awareness of any past lives. Please correct me if I've gotten this wrong. I don't know what the many sects of Buddhism teach on the matter.
From my pursuit of esoteric materials and from meditation and observations, I lean more towards reincarnation. Maybe it's ego that makes me think that we survive intact but unaware into a new life. I find it hard to believe that all of life is just random and that all our experiences are a one time thing.
I see patterns through all aspects of life- beliefs, cultures, memes, etc. If one looks at modern day behavior- you can often find it in prior time periods. The behavior adapts to the present day sensibilities. It looks like we're in an unending loop. I think we become aware of this at some point and realize that we need to let go of these patterns that keep us in the loop.
I'm not sure if stories of people describing past lives are genuine or if it works that way or not. I do think that we are in a constant state of refinement in our physical lives. If we can overcome troublesome traits and develop better awareness, we take these with us to form a new life. We can then either continue to refine ourselves or fall back. Either way- what we do here and now matters very much.
Another idea, that has bothered me, is having to reincarnate with the same group of people over and over. New age teachers have made this claim maybe with the intention of reassuring people that they won't lose touch with their loved ones. What if your family is abusive? Are you stuck with them forever because you had the bad luck of being born into their group? Do you have to keep meeting enemies until you can let go of anger? Off topic and I apologize.
@kayte regarding the latter there are unmanifest messages from earthly, whole, existence. So our connections with people are indestructible. Our body and skhandas dissolve. But the heart connections are always there whether they are manifest or unmanifest. I was thinking about summer tomatoes just now but it will soon become unmanifest. Still next year when I pass the farmers market I will think "cool tomatoes". Just like that karma will at some point draw you to be with your heart connections for many times forward. If you look at the biological timeline humans are just a scratch relative to how long plants have been on the land. Just as that is so, this lifetime is just a scratch. In the limitless time hence the heart connections will manifest again. This is why heart connections to people in the dharma, gurus, meditation, and even love of incense can draw us back to a rebirth where we may have leisure and endowment (includes the wish or gravitation) to study and meditate.
Yes, negative ones too. Thanks and kudos to look up the terms; I have to do that also. A heart connection is... hmm I'm not sure. I think that it is just our nature to have love for others. It could even be less than love, even hate. That is rather sobering to one who is trying to get away from bad relationships isn't it! :hair:
In religion right has to be right, wrong has to be wrong, and true has to be true. It is this kind of fundamentalist dogma that is responsible for the worst atrocities in human history. In secular life what's true has merely proved to be reliable, but it doesn't always have to be.
Well, @Nevermind, I cannot see how you arrive at this view. What is right is right, what is wrong is wrong, and what is true is true. This is just a fact, one that is not dependent on whether the context is religious or secular. It's not anybody's fault. It's just the way we use the words. It doesn't cause anything.
What causes problems is, as you say, when someone mistakes a belief for a truth. But this is just a simple error. The fact that people sometimes make this error does not not imply that there are no truths, just that human beings do not always think straight. This is as true in secular life as in religion.
You seem to have the belief that there is no such thing as truth. But this is not a truth, it is just your belief. If it is a truth, then there are truths.
I take it you are not a fan of Buddhism, seeing as how it claims to lead us to a knowledge of truth. Given your view of truth I cannot see how you could take any religion seriously. I think you should consider reconsidering it. But I can see that you would have no reason to do so if no view is true.
You seem to have the belief that there is no such thing as truth. But this is not a truth, it is just your belief. If it is a truth, then there are truths.
Sorry mate, but I don't get it at all. You have said that a religious truth need not be true. There is nothing at all that I get about this idea.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding Nevermind, but here's what I think he's saying:
The people in the neighborhood Methodist Church have a set of things they accept as truth. That doesn't mean those things are all true.
The Catholic Mass has a rite during every Mass that starts with "I believe in..." It is a set of truths that Catholics generally accept as being true. That doesn't mean those things are all true.
Muslims have a set of principles they regard as the truth. That doesn't mean those things are all true.
Buddhists have a set of principles they accept as the truth. That doesn't mean those things are all true.
All those things that may or may not be true to those groups are accepted on faith. We believe in the Pali scriptures regarding the life of Buddha. We have faith in them (to one degree or another). Yet they were written long after Buddha passed. But we accept the truth of those scriptures as a matter of faith.
Additionally, despite different religions various and often contradictory truths, all those religions fulfill their primary purpose, which proves that religious truths don't need to be true, they only need to be meaningful.
I don't think you can say they work equally well in all contexts. @Nevermind, in the context I am thinking of I posit that each person is unique. So one Buddhist might experience the teaching as a way of shutting out contradictory beliefs and be a fundamentalist whereas another might become more loving and liberated from fear. So each person responds to any religion, whatever that religion might be, differently. I agree that meaning is important, but truth is also important as my Lama teaches. The wall of doubt is hidden by wrong views and we need to get some sense of truth for us to break the wrong views and become confident in our minds.
I don't think you can say they work equally well in all contexts. @Nevermind
I agree, and that's probably why I didn't say that all religions work equally well in all contexts.
I agree that meaning is important, but truth is also important as my Lama teaches. The wall of doubt is hidden by wrong views and we need to get some sense of truth for us to break the wrong views and become confident in our minds.
People of other faiths have what you describe as "wrong views." The fact is that people with Buddhist "right views" are no more wise, compassionate, or moral than these others with so called "wrong views." This is not a problem that anyone normally even considers, because deep down we know that religion is about meaning, and doesn't need to be true.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited July 2013
The only absolute "Right" views, as far as I am concerned (and as far as I have been taught by those "in the know") are the 4 Noble Truths.
All else is Personal Right View - which makes it Right and True for that person, but others' MMV.
Even then, I'm not going to shove the 4NT's down anyone's gullet. That's just not playing the game Skilfully.
A wrong view would be something that is an obstacle to wisdom.
This is not a problem that anyone normally even considers, because deep down we know that religion is about meaning, and doesn't need to be true.
This is a nice paradox caused by language trying to capture experience. The paradox is that if we are not looking for truth we would never experience stress when our truth is challenged. This is actually what we see happening when atheists and Christians aggressively debate and resort to tearing down the other persons life line. So I totally agree with your saying our meaning may not be truth and that our whole perspective should be to let things be flexible and skillful to the situation. The counterpoint to the paradox is that not knowing truth is vexing and it is hard to find meaning other than in our experience of truth. I am saying we have an innate desire for BOTH truth and meaning. I don't experience satisfaction from rebirth other than as a tool for positive and patient thinking. I DO experience a greater amount of satisfaction from seeing true things that I can rely on.
Sorry mate, but I don't get it at all. You have said that a religious truth need not be true. There is nothing at all that I get about this idea.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding Nevermind, but here's what I think he's saying:
The people in the neighborhood Methodist Church have a set of things they accept as truth. That doesn't mean those things are all true.
The Catholic Mass has a rite during every Mass that starts with "I believe in..." It is a set of truths that Catholics generally accept as being true. That doesn't mean those things are all true.
Muslims have a set of principles they regard as the truth. That doesn't mean those things are all true.
Buddhists have a set of principles they accept as the truth. That doesn't mean those things are all true.
All those things that may or may not be true to those groups are accepted on faith. We believe in the Pali scriptures regarding the life of Buddha. We have faith in them (to one degree or another). Yet they were written long after Buddha passed. But we accept the truth of those scriptures as a matter of faith.
Every religion is the same in that regard.
Thanks @vinlyn. I agree with all this, of course, but I do not see it it as relevant. We cannot say that there is no truth just because some people hold beliefs that they do not know are true. It would need some sort of proof or argument. Sure, what some people call truth is not known to them to be true. This would have no bearing on what is true and what is not, nor on whether there are truths or not.
I could equally well say 'Muslims have a set of principles they regard as the truth. This does not mean these things are all false.' It is not relevant to the question of whether there are truths.
We cannot dismiss Buddhism, or any other religious teaching, just because some people believe in things that are not true. I'm sure we can all agree that a truth is not an untrue belief.
Additionally, despite different religions various and often contradictory truths, all those religions fulfill their primary purpose, which proves that religious truths don't need to be true, they only need to be meaningful.
All religions work equally well.
But truths cannot be contradictory. It is beliefs that can be contradictory. We cannot call something a truth just because someone thinks it is. If something is not true then it is not a truth, even if a billion people believe it is.
I cannot imagine that many Buddhists would agree that it doesn't matter whether the teachings are true just as long as they are meaningful, or that there is no such thing as truth.
Okay, some religious teachings are not true. What relevance would this have to the question of whether there are religious truths, scientific truths or any other kind of truth?
Florian, I think we understand where you're coming from. And I think the issue is how different people are defining a "truth".
Federica's post above is interesting because I think it points out exactly what the salient points are here. Like most people who believe in some religion (any person and any religion) she has some "absolute 'Right' views", which in her case happen to be Buddhist views (although she does admit "as far as I am concerned"). And where did she learn those views? From "those 'in the know'". Again, who in what religion couldn't say exactly the same thing. I very much like Federica's explanation that "All else is Personal Right View - which makes it Right and True for that person". And, I also very much like her comment that, "Even then, I'm not going to shove the 4NT's down anyone's gullet. That's just not playing the game Skilfully."
Now my point here isn't whether Federica is "right" or "wrong". My point is that my friend John, a born again Christian, could easily outline for you WHBA the "truths". My friend Preston, a rather devout Catholic, could easily outline for you WHBA the "truths". My son Imran, a fairly faithful Muslim, could easily outline for you WHBA the "truths". My former student George, a serious Hindu, could easily outline for you WHBA are the "truths". You see my pattern here? What is WHBA? -- "what he (or she) believes are".
Each person who is serious about any religion believes the "truths" are on his or her side. And, in my view, that comes down to faith. There are some TRUTHS. But I'm not sure anyone knows what those TRUTHS are. And so we cling to the truth that our individual truths are true. And none of us can prove we're the one who is actually right, and even if we could, millions of people would not believe us!
And, I tend to see the same thing in politics. The die hard conservatives believe they own the truth. The die hard liberals believe they own the truth. The die hard libertarians believe they own the truth.
Many, many people believe -- whether it is religion or politics -- that they know the truth. But we're all just trying to work through it.
As a person with a scientific background, I am less and less convinced that even in science we know the truths.
Okay, some religious teachings are not true. What relevance would this have to the question of whether there are religious truths, scientific truths or any other kind of truth?
That was never my point. I don't know how many times I've written this but my point is that religion is about meaning, not necessarily truth. Meaning is essential in religion, truth is not essential.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
It's true that different people will have an equal conviction that their "truth" is the right one. I don't think that means some truths don't have better reasons than others and that they are all equally valid. Buddhism doesn't revert to an appeal to authority in the way that most other religions do.
While it's true that many Buddhists will often quote or reference the scriptures or wise men like Nagarjuna, that just seems like short hand for all the reasons and arguments these people have made regarding their position.
Of course certain "very hidden phenomenon" such as rebirth or other realms fall more into the realm of faith, the argument is made that such sources can reasonably be trusted as the rest of what they have said can be validated as correct. Even so, there should be a willingness to change ones position should such beliefs ever to be shown to be false.
It's true that different people will have an equal conviction that their "truth" is the right one. I don't think that means some truths don't have better reasons than others and that they are all equally valid.
Yes of course, so what would validate???
Buddhism doesn't revert to an appeal to authority in the way that most other religions do.
You're claiming that religious truths in Buddhism don't rely on authority figures? Please...
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I follow the Tibetan tradition so I can only speak about what I see there. I see monks spending hours a day debating and arguing points so they can learn what are valid points and what are invalid.
I'm not trained in philosophy but my understanding is that there is a formal logic system which indeed can show that certain arguments are valid and some aren't. There is a way to sort out various truth claims.
You're claiming that religious truths in Buddhism don't rely on authority figures?
Yes, many Buddhists do rely on authority figures. I think the difference is those figures back up their claims with logic and reasons, they don't simply rely on some sort of divine revelation.
Several claims do come from first hand claims of inner first hand knowledge, I spoke about it briefly with "very hidden phenomenon". Also, there are methods taught which are said to lead oneself to being able to gain such gnosis for oneself and many people have claimed to have done so.
I follow the Tibetan tradition so I can only speak about what I see there. I see monks spending hours a day debating and arguing points so they can learn what are valid points and what are invalid.
I'm not trained in philosophy but my understanding is that there is a formal logic system which indeed can show that certain arguments are valid and some aren't. There is a way to sort out various truth claims.
...
I would posit that they are still coming from a particular frame of reference, and therefore they would come to different conclusions than, for example, a group of equally eminent Catholic clerics...or Muslim clerics...or _____ clerics.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I follow the Tibetan tradition so I can only speak about what I see there. I see monks spending hours a day debating and arguing points so they can learn what are valid points and what are invalid.
I'm not trained in philosophy but my understanding is that there is a formal logic system which indeed can show that certain arguments are valid and some aren't. There is a way to sort out various truth claims.
...
I would posit that they are still coming from a particular frame of reference, and therefore they would come to different conclusions than, for example, a group of equally eminent Catholic clerics...or Muslim clerics...or _____ clerics.
Well, its true. They often aren't knowledgeable about arguments outside their education. However, in ancient India Buddhists regularly debated against outside traditions and today they are open to hearing and processing new information and changing their minds.
I guess in the end I see Buddhists as building their faith upon reasons and other faiths as building upon revelations.
I follow the Tibetan tradition so I can only speak about what I see there. I see monks spending hours a day debating and arguing points so they can learn what are valid points and what are invalid.
I'm not trained in philosophy but my understanding is that there is a formal logic system which indeed can show that certain arguments are valid and some aren't. There is a way to sort out various truth claims.
Claim: eating x will cure what ails you.
Claim: eating y will cure what ails you.
Evidence: people who eat x are no more or less healthy than people who eat y.
Conclusion: eating is essential, but a particular diet, such as x or y, is apparently not essential.
You're claiming that religious truths in Buddhism don't rely on authority figures?
Yes, many Buddhists do rely on authority figures.
So you don't rely on authority figures? Do you have a teacher?
I follow the Tibetan tradition so I can only speak about what I see there. I see monks spending hours a day debating and arguing points so they can learn what are valid points and what are invalid.
I'm not trained in philosophy but my understanding is that there is a formal logic system which indeed can show that certain arguments are valid and some aren't. There is a way to sort out various truth claims.
You're claiming that religious truths in Buddhism don't rely on authority figures?
Yes, many Buddhists do rely on authority figures. I think the difference is those figures back up their claims with logic and reasons, they don't simply rely on some sort of divine revelation.
Several claims do come from first hand claims of inner first hand knowledge, I spoke about it briefly with "very hidden phenomenon". Also, there are methods taught which are said to lead oneself to being able to gain such gnosis for oneself and many people have claimed to have done so.
I follow the Tibetan tradition so I can only speak about what I see there. I see monks spending hours a day debating and arguing points so they can learn what are valid points and what are invalid.
I'm not trained in philosophy but my understanding is that there is a formal logic system which indeed can show that certain arguments are valid and some aren't. There is a way to sort out various truth claims.
You're claiming that religious truths in Buddhism don't rely on authority figures?
Yes, many Buddhists do rely on authority figures. I think the difference is those figures back up their claims with logic and reasons, they don't simply rely on some sort of divine revelation.
Several claims do come from first hand claims of inner first hand knowledge, I spoke about it briefly with "very hidden phenomenon". Also, there are methods taught which are said to lead oneself to being able to gain such gnosis for oneself and many people have claimed to have done so.
A ) There is much in Mahayana Buddhism which is neither logical nor illogical but is alogical. to B ) Although many western Buddhists appear to feel betrayed when it is brought to their attention there are whole schools of Buddhism who point to a divine revelation for their origin.. Dzogchen and Pureland to name but two.
And of course, Buddhism has its ultimate authority figure -- Buddha.
Who in some schools, including some Dzogchen schools, is not the ultimate authority. In Dzogchen the ultimate authority is Samantabhadra. Who revealed the Dzogchen teachings to Vajrasattva who revealed them to Shakyamuni Buddha.
I follow the Tibetan tradition so I can only speak about what I see there. I see monks spending hours a day debating and arguing points so they can learn what are valid points and what are invalid.
I'm not trained in philosophy but my understanding is that there is a formal logic system which indeed can show that certain arguments are valid and some aren't. There is a way to sort out various truth claims.
Claim: eating x will cure what ails you.
Claim: eating y will cure what ails you.
Evidence: people who eat x are no more or less healthy than people who eat y.
Conclusion: eating is essential, but a particular diet, such as x or y, is apparently not essential.
I guess I see that dedicated Buddhists are wiser and kinder than those of other faiths. Not that others aren't kind and wise just that Buddhists are more so.
Certain beliefs and techniques will be more appropriate for some people and others for other people. In the end though I do feel that it is possible to discern techniques that, on the whole, work better than others.
You're claiming that religious truths in Buddhism don't rely on authority figures?
Yes, many Buddhists do rely on authority figures.
So you don't rely on authority figures? Do you have a teacher?
My Buddhist teachers have wanted me to learn and improve myself not just believe what they say as truth and leave it at that.
Maybe others have had different experiences with other faiths but mine have been that what is taught is the truth, end of story. I think like what you have been saying throughout this thread, only my experience of Buddhism has set it apart from this paradigm.
He is not an authority figure. He is a trusted teacher. He is an authority figure in the same way as any senior academic would be.
I've not seen anything in Mahayana Buddhism that is alogical. But maybe there's an example we could discuss.
@Nevermind - There is no truth in any religion or science that relies on authority figures. Truths do not rely on anything. They are true. If they are not true they are not truths. What you mean (presumably) is that what some people call truths are not knowledge but dogma. This is not news.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I follow the Tibetan tradition so I can only speak about what I see there. I see monks spending hours a day debating and arguing points so they can learn what are valid points and what are invalid.
I'm not trained in philosophy but my understanding is that there is a formal logic system which indeed can show that certain arguments are valid and some aren't. There is a way to sort out various truth claims.
You're claiming that religious truths in Buddhism don't rely on authority figures?
Yes, many Buddhists do rely on authority figures. I think the difference is those figures back up their claims with logic and reasons, they don't simply rely on some sort of divine revelation.
Several claims do come from first hand claims of inner first hand knowledge, I spoke about it briefly with "very hidden phenomenon". Also, there are methods taught which are said to lead oneself to being able to gain such gnosis for oneself and many people have claimed to have done so.
A ) There is much in Mahayana Buddhism which is neither logical nor illogical but is alogical. to B ) Although many western Buddhists appear to feel betrayed when it is brought to their attention there are whole schools of Buddhism who point to a divine revelation for their origin.. Dzogchen and Pureland to name but two.
Yeah, I suppose I shouldn't paint Buddhism with such a broad brush. My background in particular is with Gelugpa Buddhism, which is very scholarly and philosophical.
I myself am turned off by the terma tradition and the mystical origins of the lineages (Maitreya/Asanga, Nagas), also much of the devotional aspect of TB.
He is not an authority figure. He is a trusted teacher. He is an authority figure in the same way as any senior academic would be.
I've not seen anything in Mahayana Buddhism that is alogical. But maybe there's an example we could discuss.
@Nevermind - There is no truth in any religion or science that relies on authority figures. Truths do not rely on anything. They are true. If they are not true they are not truths. What you mean (presumably) is that what some people call truths are not knowledge but dogma. This is not news.
What about the example of the Rainbow Body ? I would say that it is an example of a widely held Buddhist teaching that is neither logical nor illogical...it is of a different order.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
And of course, Buddhism has its ultimate authority figure -- Buddha.
Of course there is the Kalama sutra
Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.
I think that this sets Buddhism apart in regards to belief in an authority.
And of course, Buddhism has its ultimate authority figure -- Buddha.
Of course there is the Kalama sutra
Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.
I think that this sets Buddhism apart in regards to belief in an authority.
Which 'Buddhism' is that ? A reductionist form of the Theravada suited to the western mind ? The Mahayana including the Vajrayana, is replete with all sorts of structures that rely entirely on authority. Frequently non -human celestial authority. But I realise that this is an embarrassment to some...and does not fit the humanistic rationalistic agenda and flattened heirachy at all.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
And of course, Buddhism has its ultimate authority figure -- Buddha.
Of course there is the Kalama sutra
Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.
I think that this sets Buddhism apart in regards to belief in an authority.
Which 'Buddhism' is that ? A reductionist form of the Theravada suited to the western mind ? The Mahayana including the Vajrayana, is replete with all sorts of structures that rely entirely on authority. Frequently non -human celestial authority. But I realise that this is an embarrassment to some...and does not fit the humanistic rationalistic agenda and flattened heirachy at all.
Fair enough, I guess I only find Vajrayana valid as a technique because I can see the effectiveness of the results of practice.
Faith is fine, if you don't base your faith on logic and reason how can you differentiate between valid, skillful teachings and unskillful ones though? Seriously, I'm genuinely asking how you make the distinction.
Comments
Also, I'm not sure of which permanent truth you mean.
If impermanence is the rule of the day, at the end of the day nothing is true, or rather, what is true today may not be true tomorrow. I can live with that. Can you?
:om:
The only thing that stays the same is the fact that everything changes.
I'm glad we can live with that because the other option will come along soon enough.
From my pursuit of esoteric materials and from meditation and observations, I lean more towards reincarnation. Maybe it's ego that makes me think that we survive intact but unaware into a new life. I find it hard to believe that all of life is just random and that all our experiences are a one time thing.
I see patterns through all aspects of life- beliefs, cultures, memes, etc. If one looks at modern day behavior- you can often find it in prior time periods. The behavior adapts to the present day sensibilities. It looks like we're in an unending loop. I think we become aware of this at some point and realize that we need to let go of these patterns that keep us in the loop.
I'm not sure if stories of people describing past lives are genuine or if it works that way or not. I do think that we are in a constant state of refinement in our physical lives. If we can overcome troublesome traits and develop better awareness, we take these with us to form a new life. We can then either continue to refine ourselves or fall back. Either way- what we do here and now matters very much.
Another idea, that has bothered me, is having to reincarnate with the same group of people over and over. New age teachers have made this claim maybe with the intention of reassuring people that they won't lose touch with their loved ones. What if your family is abusive? Are you stuck with them forever because you had the bad luck of being born into their group? Do you have to keep meeting enemies until you can let go of anger? Off topic and I apologize.
What causes problems is, as you say, when someone mistakes a belief for a truth. But this is just a simple error. The fact that people sometimes make this error does not not imply that there are no truths, just that human beings do not always think straight. This is as true in secular life as in religion.
You seem to have the belief that there is no such thing as truth. But this is not a truth, it is just your belief. If it is a truth, then there are truths.
I take it you are not a fan of Buddhism, seeing as how it claims to lead us to a knowledge of truth. Given your view of truth I cannot see how you could take any religion seriously. I think you should consider reconsidering it. But I can see that you would have no reason to do so if no view is true.
The people in the neighborhood Methodist Church have a set of things they accept as truth. That doesn't mean those things are all true.
The Catholic Mass has a rite during every Mass that starts with "I believe in..." It is a set of truths that Catholics generally accept as being true. That doesn't mean those things are all true.
Muslims have a set of principles they regard as the truth. That doesn't mean those things are all true.
Buddhists have a set of principles they accept as the truth. That doesn't mean those things are all true.
All those things that may or may not be true to those groups are accepted on faith. We believe in the Pali scriptures regarding the life of Buddha. We have faith in them (to one degree or another). Yet they were written long after Buddha passed. But we accept the truth of those scriptures as a matter of faith.
Every religion is the same in that regard.
All religions work equally well.
All else is Personal Right View - which makes it Right and True for that person, but others' MMV.
Even then, I'm not going to shove the 4NT's down anyone's gullet.
That's just not playing the game Skilfully.
I could equally well say 'Muslims have a set of principles they regard as the truth. This does not mean these things are all false.' It is not relevant to the question of whether there are truths.
We cannot dismiss Buddhism, or any other religious teaching, just because some people believe in things that are not true. I'm sure we can all agree that a truth is not an untrue belief.
I cannot imagine that many Buddhists would agree that it doesn't matter whether the teachings are true just as long as they are meaningful, or that there is no such thing as truth.
Okay, some religious teachings are not true. What relevance would this have to the question of whether there are religious truths, scientific truths or any other kind of truth?
Federica's post above is interesting because I think it points out exactly what the salient points are here. Like most people who believe in some religion (any person and any religion) she has some "absolute 'Right' views", which in her case happen to be Buddhist views (although she does admit "as far as I am concerned"). And where did she learn those views? From "those 'in the know'". Again, who in what religion couldn't say exactly the same thing. I very much like Federica's explanation that "All else is Personal Right View - which makes it Right and True for that person". And, I also very much like her comment that, "Even then, I'm not going to shove the 4NT's down anyone's gullet.
That's just not playing the game Skilfully."
Now my point here isn't whether Federica is "right" or "wrong". My point is that my friend John, a born again Christian, could easily outline for you WHBA the "truths". My friend Preston, a rather devout Catholic, could easily outline for you WHBA the "truths". My son Imran, a fairly faithful Muslim, could easily outline for you WHBA the "truths". My former student George, a serious Hindu, could easily outline for you WHBA are the "truths". You see my pattern here? What is WHBA? -- "what he (or she) believes are".
Each person who is serious about any religion believes the "truths" are on his or her side. And, in my view, that comes down to faith. There are some TRUTHS. But I'm not sure anyone knows what those TRUTHS are. And so we cling to the truth that our individual truths are true.
And, I tend to see the same thing in politics. The die hard conservatives believe they own the truth. The die hard liberals believe they own the truth. The die hard libertarians believe they own the truth.
Many, many people believe -- whether it is religion or politics -- that they know the truth. But we're all just trying to work through it.
As a person with a scientific background, I am less and less convinced that even in science we know the truths.
While it's true that many Buddhists will often quote or reference the scriptures or wise men like Nagarjuna, that just seems like short hand for all the reasons and arguments these people have made regarding their position.
Of course certain "very hidden phenomenon" such as rebirth or other realms fall more into the realm of faith, the argument is made that such sources can reasonably be trusted as the rest of what they have said can be validated as correct. Even so, there should be a willingness to change ones position should such beliefs ever to be shown to be false.
I'm not trained in philosophy but my understanding is that there is a formal logic system which indeed can show that certain arguments are valid and some aren't. There is a way to sort out various truth claims. Yes, many Buddhists do rely on authority figures. I think the difference is those figures back up their claims with logic and reasons, they don't simply rely on some sort of divine revelation.
Several claims do come from first hand claims of inner first hand knowledge, I spoke about it briefly with "very hidden phenomenon". Also, there are methods taught which are said to lead oneself to being able to gain such gnosis for oneself and many people have claimed to have done so.
I guess in the end I see Buddhists as building their faith upon reasons and other faiths as building upon revelations.
Claim: eating y will cure what ails you.
Evidence: people who eat x are no more or less healthy than people who eat y.
Conclusion: eating is essential, but a particular diet, such as x or y, is apparently not essential. So you don't rely on authority figures? Do you have a teacher?
Several claims do come from first hand claims of inner first hand knowledge, I spoke about it briefly with "very hidden phenomenon". Also, there are methods taught which are said to lead oneself to being able to gain such gnosis for oneself and many people have claimed to have done so. Yes, many Buddhists do rely on authority figures. I think the difference is those figures back up their claims with logic and reasons, they don't simply rely on some sort of divine revelation.
Several claims do come from first hand claims of inner first hand knowledge, I spoke about it briefly with "very hidden phenomenon". Also, there are methods taught which are said to lead oneself to being able to gain such gnosis for oneself and many people have claimed to have done so.
A ) There is much in Mahayana Buddhism which is neither logical nor illogical but is alogical.
to
B ) Although many western Buddhists appear to feel betrayed when it is brought to their attention there are whole schools of Buddhism who point to a divine revelation for their origin..
Dzogchen and Pureland to name but two.
In Dzogchen the ultimate authority is Samantabhadra. Who revealed the Dzogchen teachings to Vajrasattva who revealed them to Shakyamuni Buddha.
Certain beliefs and techniques will be more appropriate for some people and others for other people. In the end though I do feel that it is possible to discern techniques that, on the whole, work better than others. So you don't rely on authority figures? Do you have a teacher?
My Buddhist teachers have wanted me to learn and improve myself not just believe what they say as truth and leave it at that.
Maybe others have had different experiences with other faiths but mine have been that what is taught is the truth, end of story. I think like what you have been saying throughout this thread, only my experience of Buddhism has set it apart from this paradigm.
I've not seen anything in Mahayana Buddhism that is alogical. But maybe there's an example we could discuss.
@Nevermind - There is no truth in any religion or science that relies on authority figures. Truths do not rely on anything. They are true. If they are not true they are not truths. What you mean (presumably) is that what some people call truths are not knowledge but dogma. This is not news.
to
B ) Although many western Buddhists appear to feel betrayed when it is brought to their attention there are whole schools of Buddhism who point to a divine revelation for their origin..
Dzogchen and Pureland to name but two.
Yeah, I suppose I shouldn't paint Buddhism with such a broad brush. My background in particular is with Gelugpa Buddhism, which is very scholarly and philosophical.
I myself am turned off by the terma tradition and the mystical origins of the lineages (Maitreya/Asanga, Nagas), also much of the devotional aspect of TB.
Which 'Buddhism' is that ? A reductionist form of the Theravada suited to the western mind ?
The Mahayana including the Vajrayana, is replete with all sorts of structures that rely entirely on authority. Frequently non -human celestial authority.
But I realise that this is an embarrassment to some...and does not fit the humanistic rationalistic agenda and flattened heirachy at all.
The Mahayana including the Vajrayana, is replete with all sorts of structures that rely entirely on authority. Frequently non -human celestial authority.
But I realise that this is an embarrassment to some...and does not fit the humanistic rationalistic agenda and flattened heirachy at all.
Fair enough, I guess I only find Vajrayana valid as a technique because I can see the effectiveness of the results of practice.
Faith is fine, if you don't base your faith on logic and reason how can you differentiate between valid, skillful teachings and unskillful ones though? Seriously, I'm genuinely asking how you make the distinction.