Is there a defeater for Buddhism?

[quip]

You do not exist as a physical entity?
------------
For example, is it illusory for me to speak of myself? "You're wrong" →How did reading that phrase make you feel? You have felt I'm wrong about these subjects. Well, if me is an illusion, you were wrong too, or we were both right if you were right because there is no me. Quite a conundrum. Well of course, it's because that way of speaking is erroneous. I exist. My existence is not an illusion.

From what empirical foundation can you assert "I exist"? You seem to imply that it is self-evident that "you exist", yet as Kant illustrated 'exist' cannot be predicated, in other words, to state ontologically that "you exist" presupposes your existence.... an interesting dead-end.

Second, you seem to conflate the physical entity you refer to as "you" to "your"-self. Physically your origin is obvious - man meets woman, has sexual intercourse, concieves of a child.....Let me ask you, within this simplified equation (M+W=C) pertaining to procreation, where exactly is the 'self' determined? From the millions of billions of sex and subsequent conceptions throughout the dawn of mankind, what determined the unique 'self' so-named Logos at this time and place? why now? Empiricism is rendered useless in answering such questions, thus generally decides to ignore such issues.

Nothing has inherent existence; your 'self' is no different, it's empty of inherent existence....you exist, yet 'you' do not exist, it's a persistent illusion.

[Kharakov]

From what empirical foundation can you assert "I exist"? You seem to imply that it is self-evident that "you exist", yet as Kant illustrated 'exist' cannot be predicated, in other words, to state ontologically that "you exist" presupposes your existence.... an interesting dead-end.
Yeah, with that finite reasoning. You forget the infinite reasoning skillz of the 1337.

[perfectbite]

Positing a no self or a nothingness that exists or that underpins this existence is indulging in philosophy (as in where do we come from? or what is the core of our being?) and, next to the more than apparent but actual and fait accompli given of existence that needs no empiricism to validate its existence, such philosophizing (even 'holy' Buddhist philosophizing) entirely misses the point.

However, the point in Buddhism is the possession of consciousness and what one can do with that consciousness to make it meaningful.

If it is accepted that 'how should we live' is a valid question, given our undoubted existence then philosophizing on the import of nothingness and no self bears no relation to the question 'How should we live?' (A question that has been asked of many different spiritual figures.)

Non-self and emptiness belong to (are mentioned in) the Buddha's Truth and do not belong to the teachings of the Buddha's Dharma Path and dragging them into the teachings of the Buddha's Dharma Path is not only as useless as carrying coal to Newcastle but is an unnecessary and confusing addition to the teaching of the Buddha's Dharma Path.

Philosophically the ideas of no self and emptiness serve absolutely no purpose in the light of day to day existence and if no self and emptiness are taken as the underlying rational for Buddhist behaviour as in "How should we live?" then no wonder everyone is confused.

Buddhism is really simple, no ongoing being self after death; anatma, mindfulness, the practice of compassion, wisdom and living in loving kindness and it is the same for both those who have yet to realize the Buddha's Truth and those who have realized the Buddha's Truth.

[aupmanyav]

Something of you does exist, just something of everything exists. That is the underlying substrate, the energy/substance of the universe (We call it Brahman). It is not God, it is like heat, electricity, light, magnetic force, wave/particle. It is relativistic. Make out anything and everything out of that.

As for what we do with this form and the situation, humans in 21st Century, we have the 'dharma' of hinduism, 'dhamma' of buddhism, commandments of christianity, hidayat of islam; so that we could live together in peace and prosperity. All of them are true, and only they are true (rules of socially acceptable behaviour, humanism), the rest is garnering on the cake or plain BS.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

You do not exist as a physical entity?
------------
For example, is it illusory for me to speak of myself? "You're wrong" →How did reading that phrase make you feel? You have felt I'm wrong about these subjects. Well, if me is an illusion, you were wrong too, or we were both right if you were right because there is no me. Quite a conundrum. Well of course, it's because that way of speaking is erroneous. I exist. My existence is not an illusion.

From what empirical foundation can you assert "I exist"? You seem to imply that it is self-evident that "you exist", yet as Kant illustrated 'exist' cannot be predicated, in other words, to state ontologically that "you exist" presupposes your existence.... an interesting dead-end.



Let me throw the ball back to you in the same way: From what empirical foundation have you asserted what the philosopher from Königsberg is the touchstone of reality and what he says is true so much as to trump any observation?

If you don't exist, I'm not discussing with anyone. I will now stop wasting my time and continue the discussion with existent participants. YOu are not typing, you are not using Kant as a touchsote of truth, you've never been on IIDB, you never lived, you do not exist. Ohmygoodness, that means I've finally become psychotic -I'm debating a figment of my imagination!




Second, you seem to conflate the physical entity you refer to as "you" to "your"-self.

This shopuld be interesting. Now it happens that I am conflating my inexistent me with my physical existent me? Mein Gott!



SecoPhysically your origin is obvious - man meets woman, has sexual intercourse, concieves of a child.....Let me ask you, within this simplified equation (M+W=C) pertaining to procreation, where exactly is the 'self' determined?

I am me. I can refer to the glass of water in front of me, a persona I may have next to me, or I can refer to me. This is what I call "myself", this which is sitting here in my chair.



From the millions of billions of sex and subsequent conceptions throughout the dawn of mankind, what determined the unique 'self' so-named Logos at this time and place?

Want a photo? I'm here.
Are you ok?


why now?

Because my parents got all happy one night in 1972? C'mon! What kind of a question is that?


Empiricism is rendered useless in answering such questions, thus generally decides to ignore such issues.


Noooo.... Open your eyes, buy an airline ticket to San José, Costa Rica, call me, I'll tell you my address, come and experience my reality. Empiricism doesn't "decide" anything, it's not a person. Empirical experience can show you if someone exists or not. What oddball convoluted philosophical standpoint are you adopting to deny the existence of yourself and still feed yourself, work to buy stuff for yourself, etc?


Nothing has inherent existence; your 'self' is no different, it's empty of inherent existence....you exist, yet 'you' do not exist, it's a persistent illusion.

What do you mean "inherent existence"? You are or you are not. Why invent reasons to complicate things in your head so much?

[aupmanyav]

Logos, you exist. Logos is how we describe a collection of quantum waves/particles in San Jose, Costa Rica. IIDB also is a chimera consisting of these waves/particles. Time we are making the posting also is a chimera, had our speed been close to zero or close to that of light, we would have described our experience differently. :D (think relatively)

[Jason]

Everyone,

The First Noble Truth focuses on suffering. Suffering is defined as birth, aging, illness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain grief, despair, associating with the unloved, separation from the loved, not getting what one wants, and in particular, the five aggregates of clinging (upadanakhandha) (SN 56.11 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html)). Suffering, then, falls under three types; namely, the suffering due to pain, due to formations, and due to change (SN 38.14 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn38/sn38.014.than.html)). It is because the five aggregates of clinging arise — and according to the Buddha, whatever has the nature of arising has the nature of passing away — that they are subject to illness, aging, and death. It is only due to our lack of understanding their true nature that we inevitably cling to either one or all of these phenomena as ‘me’ or ‘mine’. In other words, the form of the body consisting of the four great elements is unsatisfactory, impermanent, and not pertaining to or related to a self in any way. The six classes of feeling, feeling born of contact through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind are unsatisfactory, impermanent, and not pertaining to or related to a self in any way. The six classes of perception, perception of form, sounds, odours, tastes, tactiles, and mental phenomena are unsatisfactory, impermanent, and not pertaining to or related to a self in any way. The six classes of volitional formations, volitions regarding forms, sounds, odours, tastes, tactiles, and mental phenomena are unsatisfactory, impermanent, and not pertaining to or related to a self in any way. Finally, the six classes of consciousness, eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind consciousness are unsatisfactory, impermanent, and not pertaining to or related to a self in any way. Hence, the Buddha points out the ultimately unsatisfactory nature of the psycho-physical entity consisting of mind and matter in a variety of ways as well as the insubstantiality of our ego which is built upon these five, fleeting phenomena.

The truth that the Buddha tried to convey regarding the doctrine of anatta (not-self) is that we have no real control over the unsatisfactory and impermanent nature of our existence, and this is evident by the fact that we cannot say, "Let my body be thus, Let my body not be thus. Let my feelings be thus. Let my feelings not be thus. Let my perceptions be thus. Let my perceptions not be thus. Let my mental process be thus. Let my mental process not be thus. Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus" (SN 22.59 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html)). These things that we cling to as our own, these five phenomena that comprise our experience of the world, they arise from causes and conditions. Whether we may wish to see this aspect of our existence or not, the fact that whatever is both inconstant and subject to change is not worth clinging to remains true if we understand that samsara is not a place, but a process of continual change. To summarize, these five aggregates of clinging are unsatisfactory and unreliable due to their potential for suffering (dukkha), their impermanency (anicca), and their lack of anything worth clinging to as a self, or in other words, the lack of a permanent, unchanging substance that is perceivable as being ‘me’ or ‘mine' (anatta). This is because, as Piyadassi Thera mentions in The Buddha’s Ancient Path, "A beings and the empirical world are both constantly changing" (43). Being in a continual state of flux, these things by their very nature arise, persist for a period, and then pass away relative to various causes and conditions that sustain them (43). The Buddha teaches that whatever is inconstant, i.e., whatever is subject to change, is stressful because to hold onto anything that is inconstant, subject to change, break-up, and dissolution is a cause for suffering. As such, the teachings on anatta are a method for deconstructing our false perceptions about reality, as well as an important tool in removing the vast net of clinging that holds beings fast to the cycle of birth and death.

That being said, the doctrine of anatta does not mean that the conventional person (puggala) does not exist. It merely breaks down the conceptual idea of a self, i.e., that which is satisfactory, permament, and completely subject to our control, in relation to the various phenomena that comprise the conventional person. Therefore, while the conceptual 'person' is said to not exist in the ultimate sense, the collection of aggregates that constitute 'a person' is never said to be non-existent. What this means is that from a subjective standpoint, the contemplative examines their experience for anything that fits the criteria of being 100% satisfactory, permament, and completely subject to their control. According to Buddhism, such a 'self' cannot be found within the complex make-up of any psycho-physical entity, or for that matter, anything that is conditioned, i.e., arising from causes and conditions, and therefore, subject to cessation. In other words, there are human beings, but they are comprised of things that have the characteristic of impermenence, and hence, not-self—keeping in mind, of course, 'self' being that which "having passes away, that I shall be—permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change" (SN 23.4). And this is something that has yet tp be refuted by scientific evidence, i.e., science agrees that, so far, nothing in the human body has been seen to remain unchanging from the moment of conception until the moment of death. The goal of Buddhism is to essentially take this knowledge, along with a specific set of practices, as a stepping stone to what I can only describe as a profound psychological event in the mind. We skillfully fabricate our reality in such a way that we come to a point of gnosis, or transcendental understanding. It is in the experience of this profound gnosis, realized through unestablished consciousness, that we are finally able to transcend the conditional world in an experience that is completely free from fabrication, from stress, and therefore, space and time.

The way I see it, craving is the cause of suffering, and to end suffering its cause must be removed; the difficulty arises when it comes to how exactly this is done. My theory is that craving is a very subtle aspect of the mind, or better put, that craving is a very subtle but powerful aspect of our psychology. It is there, latent in the mind, waiting to exert its influence through mental fabrications by directing or, at the very least, encouraging the mind to desire sensory experiences, to desire becoming, or to desire non-becoming, i.e., it is the 'appetite' of the mind to feed upon sensory experiences via the five clinging-aggregates, the desire to desire. The problem is that these processes of subtle movement in the mind are so subtle that they are almost impossible to discern as they are taking place. That is where I believe meditation comes in; meditation helps to calm and still the mind so that these mental events become easier and easier to observe. One, in effect, uses conditionality in order to fabricate controlled states of mental absorption until they are able to discern the presence of craving, its movement in the mind, and the fact that even these refined and subtle states of mental absorption are ultimately stressful, unsatisfactory and not-self. This leads one to develop dispassion, and dispassion leads one to cease fabrication thus opening the doors to the deathless by ending the chain of causation. But ultimately, in the Buddha's path of practice, there is no use is asking the question, "Who am I?" Why not? Because, as Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains, "As for the question, "Who am I?" the Buddha included it in a list of dead-end questions that lead to "a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion, a writhing, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, [you] don't gain freedom from birth, aging, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair." In other words, any attempt to answer either of these questions is unskillful karma, blocking the path to true freedom" (Questions of Skill (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/questions.html)).

Sincerely,

Jason

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Thanks Jason. Always very knowledgeable. What am I saying? You're practically a text book!

Hope you're staying to discuss a while.

[Jason]

Everyone,

Nothing has inherent existence; your 'self' is no different, it's empty of inherent existence....you exist, yet 'you' do not exist, it's a persistent illusion.

I think that there is some truth to this statement, but it is a very subtle point that often gets muddled. Statements like this are usually said in relation to the teachings on emptiness (sunnata), especially SN 22.95 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html). While it is a very common misconception that the Buddha said nothing exists, that everything is an illusion, the Buddha never actually said that nothing exists; in fact, he said, "'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle..." (SN 12.15 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html)). In regard to the teachings on emptiness in the Pali Canon, my personal opinion is that they are often taken out of context, and coincidentally, far removed from their intended purpose. The view of emptiness that things have no inherent existence, while philosophically complex and seemingly implicit in the teachings on dependent co-arising, actually developed over time. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains, "Emptiness is a mode of perception, a way of looking at experience" (Emptiness (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/emptiness.html)). Moreover, "... the idea of emptiness as lack of inherent existence has very little to do with what the Buddha himself said about emptiness" (The Integrity of Emptiness (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/integrityofemptiness.html)). For an excellent analysis of emptiness and its place in the practice, please listen to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's day long lecture on the topic. It can be found here (http://www.audiodharma.org/talks/ThanissaroBhikkhu.html) under Emptiness (Part 1-7) and Emptiness Revisited.

Sincerely,

Jason

[Jason]

Lógos,

Thanks Jason.

You're welcome. :)

Jason

[Lógos Sokratikós]

craving is the cause of suffering, and to end suffering its cause must be removed; the difficulty arises when it comes to how exactly this is done.

I guess you've taken into account the fact that according to the medical and psychological understanding of human life, desires can't be elliminated, and telling just where a desire becomes craving is like holding water in your hand. The thoughts that accompany desire can be suspended for a moment (I'll say "maybe", I cannot assure it) via meditation. As such it can be good practice to become watchful of your desires and more in control of them.

So I am immediately suspicious of any purpose to end craving, and even more of any pretention to elliminate suffering, it is our sure company for as long as we may live, together with pleasure. If one says "minimize (reduce, as much as our time-to-time capacity to do so permits)" that's something different.

[Jason]

Lógos,

I guess you've taken into account the fact that according to the medical and psychological understanding of human life, desires can't be elliminated, and telling just where a desire becomes craving is like holding water in your hand. The thoughts that accompany desire can be suspended for a moment (I'll say "maybe", I cannot assure it) via meditation. As such it can be good practice to become watchful of your desires and more in control of them.

So I am immediately suspicious of any purpose to end craving, and even more of any pretention to elliminate suffering, it is our sure company for as long as we may live, together with pleasure. If one says "minimize (reduce, as much as our time-to-time capacity to do so permits)" that's something different.

Two things that I have learned when it comes to the place of desire in Buddhism is that context is key, and the term itself does not encompass all potential forms of motivation. For example, when asked by Unnabha what the purpose of living the holy life under the ascetic Gotama was about, Ananda, the Buddha's cousin, answered, "It is for the sake of abandoning desire, brahmin, that the holy life is lived under the Blessed One" (SN 51.15 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html), Bodhi). Nevertheless, the arahant, one whose mind is free of defilement, is not completely motivationless for their consciousnesses can still be colored by compassion and a whole array of other wholesome mental factors, e.g., Maha Kassapa explains that compassion motivates him to continue to meditate in the wilderness even though he is already an arahant (SN 16.5 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn16/sn16.005.than.html)). In addition, contrary to popular belief, there are two types of desire in Buddhism, i.e., desire as a defilement and desire as a part of the path. That means that desire in and of itself is not rejected by the Buddha as most people mistakenly believe; in fact, desire plays a very important role in the Buddha's path of practice. For instance, we have the four bases of power (iddhipada), which are desire, persistence, intent, and discrimination. In regard to desire as a part of the path, Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains in Wings to Awakening (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part2.html#part2-d):

Many popular Western writings criticize the four qualities listed in the bases of power — desire, persistence (effort), intent (will), and discrimination (the discriminating mind) — as enemies of proper meditation, both in that they interfere with the calming of the mind and are antithetical to the goal of the Unfabricated, which lies beyond desire, effort, and the categories of discrimination. The first part of the extended formula deals with the first of these criticisms.

There is the case where a monk develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion, thinking, 'This desire of mine will be neither overly sluggish nor overly active, neither inwardly restricted nor outwardly scattered.' (Similarly with concentration founded on persistence, intent, and discrimination.)

This passage shows that the problem lies, not in the desire, effort, intent, or discrimination, but in the fact that these qualities can be unskillfully applied or improperly tuned to their task. If they were absent, the practice — if it could be called a practice — would stagnate from loss of direction or motivation. If they ran wild, they would interfere with mindful concentration. So the trick is not to deny them, but to tune them skillfully so that they will help focus the mind on the present moment. Thus, for instance, in the practice of meditation, as with any skill, it is important not to focus desire too strongly on the results one hopes to get, for that would interfere with the mind's ability to focus on giving rise to the causes leading to those results. If, instead, one focuses desire on putting the causes in proper order in the present moment, desire becomes an indispensable part of the process of mastery.

Passage §67 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part2.html#passage-67) deals with the second criticism — that desire, etc., are antithetical to the goal — by showing that these qualities are necessary for anyone who pursues a path, but are automatically abandoned on reaching the goal at the path's end. The image of the path is important here, for it carries important implications. First, the path is not the goal; it is simply the way there, just as the road to the Grand Canyon should not be confused with the Grand Canyon itself. Even though many stretches of the road bear no resemblance to the Grand Canyon, that does not mean that the road does not lead there. Secondly, the path of practice does not cause the goal, it simply leads there, just as neither the road to the Grand Canyon nor the act of walking to the Grand Canyon can cause the Grand Canyon to be. The goal at the end of the Buddhist path is unfabricated, and therefore no amount of desire or effort can bring it into being. Nevertheless, the path to the goal is a fabricated process [§105 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part2.html#passage-105)], and in that process desire, effort, intent, and discrimination all have an important role to play, just as the effort of walking plays a role in arriving at the Grand Canyon.

Therefore, we can conclude with a reasonable amount of certainty that the Buddha made a distinction between skillful (kusala) and unskillful (akusala) forms of desire. We can see from the second paragraph that desire as a part of the path is a skillful type of desire that is accompanied by other skillful qualities. However, if we take a closer look at the passage mentioned in the last paragraph recording an exchange between Ananda and the brahmin Unnabha in SN 51.15 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html), we can see that the attainment of the goal is indeed achieved through desire, even though paradoxically, the goal is said to be the abandoning of desire. That is because at the end of the path desire, as well as the other three bases of power, subside on their own. As Ananda explains at the end of SN 51.15 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html), "He earlier had the desire for the attainment of arahantship, and when he atained arahantship, the corresponding desire subsided. He earlier had aroused energy for the attainment of arahantship, and when he attained arahantship, the corresponding energy subsided. He earlier had made up his mind to attain arahantship, and when he attained arahantship, the corresponding resolution subsided. He earlier had made an investigation for the attainment of arahantship, and when he attained arahantship, the corresponding investigation subsided" (Bodhi).

Jason

[Kharakov]

Sheesh. Buildings look better with scaffolding anyways.

[William]

Time for me to come out of lurk mode ...

Jason, as always, thanks for your posts. They always help to clear things up ;).

I have to say, all in all, I've been finding myself agreeing with most of what Logos has said through most of this debate. To me, Quip's understanding of anatta is problematic. In fact, in general, I feel that many tend to unnecessarily over-complicate anicca and anatta. Based on what Jason has said here, and from what I've read about them, (and from my own opinions regarding the nature of reality,) I believe anatta/anicca are nothing more than an acknowledgment of our own limitations and basic assertions regarding the nature of reality. On a daily basis I can see how I, and others, in big or small ways, try to act as if things were different, and how this often brings about frustration.

Regarding desires and their cessation, as a humanist, I really like the Mahayana view. Desires never go away, but if we try to understand the nature of our desire, our self, reality, etc., then they will have less of a chance to cause us to suffer, or the suffering will be less extreme. From a humanistic standpoint, "enlightenment" gets played down to simply trying to understand the nature of ourSELVES and reality for the purposes of living better and alleviating (but never fully ENDING) our suffering.

[wordy]

Hi there Jason/Elohim.

Craving and clinging and having desires?

That is life! That is as it is. To live life to the full.
comes with the package. Not something one should
try to eliminate. One could try to find a balance between
being content with what one already have and how much
one strive to achieve other things.

All this craving and clinging and being into suffering sounds more
like a description of obsessed people or people who are into deep
dependency of habits.

Most people don't go around like that. Most people are rather
happy and don't crave and cling and have overly desire for
things.

Buddhism seems to sell a solution for something that aint there.

Sure there exist a few percent of humans that do crave and
who cling and who have desires that makes them unhappy.

But that is not how Buddhism present itself. They seems to say
this is how everybody feel. The truth about every person.

I'm sure of that you know much more about Buddhism than I do.

Is it ok to ask you about one of the most popular version.

Shin or Yodo or Pure Land Buddhism say that Amida will help me
if I sincerely have faith in his vow to help those that ask for help.

I spent many hours this week to try to find Amida Buddhists in
Sweden. If you know of them could you give link or write a PM
to me with names and where they live. I live in Stockholm the capital
and biggest city. We have several centra of Buddhists. Almost one
for each ethnic immigrant to Sweden. Thibetan, Chinese, Thai, Japan,
SriLanka, and from England too.

I've used the phone book and internet but failed to find a supporter
of one of the most popular buddhist practice. Kind of surprising.

I wonder what they think of how we write about buddhism here.

Do they also say that life is all suffering?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Pure Land Buddhism = Evil northern heretics :devil1:

[wordy]

Pure Land Buddhism = Evil northern heretics :devil1:

Naah not Northern, Western. The Pure Land is in West?

as this text support.
Sukhavati, the Pure Land of the West, is discussed in the Amitabha Sutra, one of the three sutras that are the principal texts of Pure Land. ...
buddhism.about.com/od/purelandbuddhism/a/pureland.htm

[quip]

What do you mean "inherent existence"? You are or you are not.

Based on what?

[aupmanyav]

.. say that Amida will help me if I sincerely have faith in his vow to help those that ask for help.The teachings of all wise men help, be it Krishna, Amida, Mahavira, Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, Vallabha, Chaitanya, Kabir, or Nanak, all in their own way. People are also helped by Moses, Jesus or Mohammad.

Geeta advised one to have a balance between pleasure and sorrow. It is not overly focussed on sorrow. It says take both in stride, because they are like seasons, come and go. That is equanimity.

You seem to have a craving to belong. You belong to the mass of humanity and share the earth with all other living beings. You have a large family. Is that not enough?

Will, shorn of pholosophical verbiage, I think you got it exactly right.

[abaddon]

... I believe anatta/anicca are nothing more than an acknowledgment of our own limitations and basic assertions regarding the nature of reality. On a daily basis I can see how I, and others, in big or small ways, try to act as if things were different, and how this often brings about frustration.
I see them as an acknowledgement of the expansiveness of our nature(s) -- of all Nature. We know from science we’re not isolated “souls”. Evolution, for one, put us back into nature where religions had tried to make humans different from it. Ecology enumerates some of our relations. I rely on all nature to be who I fully am -- not an isolate self (atta) but the opposite of that (anatta). It’s all context. If I felt I were just myself, alone, and not integral with nature, then I’d indeed find that very “unsatisfactory.”

If there were no change (anicca), nothing new can happen, we’d all be frozen in place... Same for “emptiness” (sunyata). There’s no where to go (no flourishing of life, for example) if any-thing were an isolate "solid thing" in itself, and not a strand in a web of relations. “Nothingness” = “not things” = a processual nature.

Anatta and anicca are really very elementary, and abundantly evident. And profound too if you feel them, and not only philosophize them.

... "enlightenment" gets played down to simply trying to understand the nature of ourSELVES and reality for the purposes of living better and alleviating (but never fully ENDING) our suffering.
And the nature of our selves is relation. That, in a nutshell, is what anatta/sunyata are about. If one doesn’t feel related to earth enough to suffer for the destruction of the biosphere, then his disconnect is itself a kind of dukkha. What a lonely being such a creature would be.

[quip]

To me, Quip's understanding of anatta is problematic. In fact, in general, I feel that many tend to unnecessarily over-complicate anicca and anatta.

Could you be more specific. I don't feel that anatta is complicated at all; the origin of self under close, critical analysis is obviously undeterminable thus illusory.

[perfectbite]

... The goal of Buddhism is to essentially take this knowledge, along with a specific set of practices, as a stepping stone to what I can only describe as a profound psychological event in the mind. We skillfully fabricate our reality in such a way that we come to a point of gnosis, or transcendental understanding. It is in the experience of this profound gnosis, realized through unestablished consciousness, that we are finally able to transcend the conditional world in an experience that is completely free from fabrication, from stress, and therefore, space and time.
...

Sincerely,

Jason

Everyone;

Another view of Buddhism is that we want to feel the sun on our skin, we want to feel the wind in our hair we want to try to be brave and strong and true. We want to love and be loved and this life is the way to accomplish it.

Space and time is ours to have and to hold and the psychological transcendence of space and time is false mystical hogwash that is inserted into Buddhism.

Isn't one of the Buddhist monastic vows the pledge to attain awakened mind?

From what I have read of your posts the Buddha may as well have not bothered teaching his Dharma Path of living in compassionate and wise loving kindness because it was (and is) deemed as being insufficient by some of the monastic unawakened minded of the Buddha's Sangha.

Which is it? Making one's own Buddha's Truth up and creating a wholly unawakened minded, Sangha owned and copyrighted structure of being or sincerely trying to live in simple compassionate and wise loving kindness and seeing what happens?

They can't both be true to Buddhism.

[William]

To me, Quip's understanding of anatta is problematic. In fact, in general, I feel that many tend to unnecessarily over-complicate anicca and anatta.

Could you be more specific. I don't feel that anatta is complicated at all; the origin of self under close, critical analysis is obviously undeterminable thus illusory.

I guess just in watching the discussion going back and forth between you and Logos, you seemed to be challenging the fundamental existence of any being that is Logos. Perhaps I misunderstood the exchange though. How do YOU define anatta?

Who are you? Who aren't you? Where does the doctrine of anatta come into play with regards to this?

[quip]

Could you be more specific. I don't feel that anatta is complicated at all; the origin of self under close, critical analysis is obviously undeterminable thus illusory.

I guess just in watching the discussion going back and forth between you and Logos, you seemed to be challenging the fundamental existence of any being that is Logos. Perhaps I misunderstood the exchange though. How do YOU define anatta?

Who are you? Who aren't you? Where does the doctrine of anatta come into play with regards to this?

I'm attempting to explain the concept of emptiness in regard to the self to an empiricist. This is not an easy task.

Logos obviously exists just not in the way Logos perceives himself to exist...He'll most likely level an objection to this.

[Brion]

dialetheism permits some contradictions.
Wow -another daft Greek word. would you consider using English ?

[wordy]

I had no idea either so I looked it up
Dialetheism

Graham Priest and other logicians have proposed that the liar sentence should be considered to be both true and false, a point of view known as dialetheism.

In a dialetheic logic, all statements must be either true, or false, or both.

Dialetheism raises its own problems. Chief among these is that since dialetheism recognizes the liar paradox, an intrinsic contradiction, as being true, it must discard the long-recognized principle of ex falso quodlibet.

This principle asserts that any sentence whatsoever can be deduced from a true contradiction. Thus, dialetheism only makes sense in systems that reject ex falso quodlibet. Such logics are called paraconsistent.

I have had the notion that Buddhism has taken the Koan paradox to an extreme.

Dictionary:
koan

A puzzling, often paradoxical statement or story, used in Zen Buddhism as an aid to meditation and a means of gaining spiritual awakening.

The Buddhist philosophy itself could be a sophisticated koan. A paradox.
Not solvable by intellect. Only meant to be subjectively experienced.

The purpose of all the Buddhist texts seems to be that one should stop trying
to figure it out and to just accept the tradition of practice.

I could be wrong though. But it looks that way sometimes.

How can life be suffering when most people find life to be something
that makes them very happy and content. If it was all suffering they
would not be motivated to go on living and more likely kill themselves.

Some actually do but we get very surprised when they do cause life
is so rewarding that it seems not logical to end it.

I think Buddhism is set up to be a big mystery.

[Jason]

perfectbite,

Another view of Buddhism is that we want to feel the sun on our skin, we want to feel the wind in our hair we want to try to be brave and strong and true. We want to love and be loved and this life is the way to accomplish it.

Space and time is ours to have and to hold and the psychological transcendence of space and time is false mystical hogwash that is inserted into Buddhism.

Isn't one of the Buddhist monastic vows the pledge to attain awakened mind?

There are certainly many different views regarding samsara and Nibbana and mine is but one. In one sense, one could say that samsara is the antithesis of Nibbana. Pragmatically speaking, samsara, literally "wandering on," is the potential for the arising of human [mental] suffering, while Nibbana, literally, "extinguishing," is the cessation of that potential. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/nirvanaverb.html) puts it, "Samsara is a process of creating places, even whole worlds, (this is called becoming) and then wandering through them (this is called birth). Nirvana is the end of this process." Nirvana is "realized only when the mind stops defining itself in terms of place ... it's realized through unestablished consciousness." To touch the deathless element (amata-dhatu), one must transcend the experience of space and time.

From what I have read of your posts the Buddha may as well have not bothered teaching his Dharma Path of living in compassionate and wise loving kindness because it was (and is) deemed as being insufficient by some of the monastic unawakened minded of the Buddha's Sangha.

Which is it? Making one's own Buddha's Truth up and creating a wholly unawakened minded, Sangha owned and copyrighted structure of being or sincerely trying to live in simple compassionate and wise loving kindness and seeing what happens?

To anybody that takes the time to read what I have written, they will see that nowhere have I explicitly stated, nor even remotely implied, that compassion and loving-kindness are insufficient and denounced by anyone, let alone members of the Sangha. Such topics are irrelevant to the points and questions I am addressing in this thread. There are as much a part of the path as generosity, mindfulness, et cetera. Nevertheless, it seems that once again you are doing your best to intentionally misrepresent what I have said, and, might I add, with absolutely no evidence or references to support your claims such as "the psychological transcendence of space and time is false mystical hogwash that is inserted into Buddhism." Perhaps this is true, but if so, by whom and for what purpose?

SIncerely,

Jason

[aupmanyav]

The purpose of all the Buddhist texts seems to be that one should stop trying to figure it out and to just accept the tradition of practice.You are not wrong, Wordy. That was what Buddha said, brought peoples' attention to what exists and how to deal with it. He was categorical about what he denied and what he did not deny (Malunkyaputta Sutra).

[aupmanyav]

The purpose of all the Buddhist texts seems to be that one should stop trying to figure it out and to just accept the tradition of practice.You are not wrong, Wordy. That was what Buddha said, brought peoples' attention to what exists and how to deal with it. He was categorical about what he denied and what he did not deny (Malunkyaputta Sutra)..."the psychological transcendence of space and time is false mystical hogwash that is inserted into Buddhism." Perhaps this is true, but if so, by whom and for what purpose? JasonElohim, you and Perfectbite, both, are knowledgeable buddhist, Tathagatas, as Perfectbite says. I also read buddhism like that, without mystical hogwash, practical, focussed on what exists (sorrow and its removal), by Buddha himself. That, perhaps, is what Buddha was fighting against in hinduism.

[wordy]

There are certainly many different views regarding samsara and Nibbana and mine is but one.

In one sense, one could say that samsara is the antithesis of Nibbana.

Pragmatically speaking, samsara, literally "wandering on,"
is the potential for the arising of human [mental] suffering,
while Nibbana, literally, "extinguishing," is the cessation of that potential.

As Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it,

"Samsara is a process of creating places, even whole worlds,
(this is called becoming) and then wandering through them (this is called birth).

Nirvana is the end of this process." Nirvana is "realized only when the mind stops
defining itself in terms of place ... it's realized through unestablished consciousness."

To touch the deathless element (amata-dhatu), one must transcend the experience of space and time.

Doesn't that text confirm what I wrote?

Although your view are only one of many it confirms that many or most Buddhists
views are similar to Koans.

As I get you what you refer to is how one use concepts to name experiences and
it is not about what is really going on. It is more like a constructed world view that
is an interpretation of how it feels and what the traditions see as solutions to these
feelings.

Could you translate this part in more common or simple english?

As Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it,

"Samsara is a process of creating places, even whole worlds, (this is called becoming) and then wandering through them (this is called birth). Nirvana is the end of this process." Nirvana is "realized only when the mind stops defining itself in terms of place ... it's realized through unestablished consciousness." To touch the deathless element (amata-dhatu), one must transcend the experience of space and time.

I know it is not your own text but you have to be better than me to get what he says.

[wordy]

As Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it, "Samsara is a process of creating places, even whole worlds, (this is called becoming) and then wandering through them (this is called birth). Nirvana is the end of this process." Nirvana is "realized only when the mind stops defining itself in terms of place ... it's realized through unestablished consciousness." To touch the deathless element (amata-dhatu), one must transcend the experience of space and time.

Whom or what is doing the creating places?

(this is called birth) But birth is normally a word used to refer to
when my body is a fetus and baby in my Mother's womb for 9 month and
then the body that are my Mother make me be birth.

That doesn't seems to be what his text is about? So my view that Buddhists
text are more like Koans seems to get confirmed. The text is a paradox.
It uses words in ways that set up a paradox.

Take this part ""Nirvana is "realized only when the mind stops defining itself in terms of place ... it's realized through unestablished consciousness.""

Is that the emerged mind of the body that see itself as Wordy or does that text
refer to a more general mind that created the worlds that text refers to?

[wordy]

As Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it, "Samsara is a process of creating places, even whole worlds, (this is called becoming) and then wandering through them (this is called birth). Nirvana is the end of this process." Nirvana is "realized only when the mind stops defining itself in terms of place ... it's realized through unestablished consciousness." To touch the deathless element (amata-dhatu), one must transcend the experience of space and time.

Whom or what is doing the creating places, even whole worlds,?

(this is called birth) But birth is normally a word used to refer to
when my body is a fetus and baby in my Mother's womb for 9 month and
then the body that are my Mother make me be birth.

That doesn't seems to be what his text is about? So my view that Buddhists
text are more like Koans seems to get confirmed. The text is a paradox.
It uses words in ways that set up a paradox.

Take this part ""Nirvana is "realized only when the mind stops defining itself in terms of place ... it's realized through unestablished consciousness.""

Is that the emerged mind of the body that see itself as Wordy or does that text
refer to a more general mind that created the worlds that text refers to?

Maybe the original text is here?
A Verb for Nirvana by Thanissaro Bhikkhu from 2005
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/nirvanaverb.html

[Jason]

Everyone,

Since the issue has been raised, I think that this would be a good place to stop and stress that the Buddha did not say life is nothing but suffering. The Buddha did not deny happiness, and he taught many ways to cultivate various forms of happiness—especially to lay-followers. What the Buddha denied, however, was that the end justifies the means because he saw a relationship between intentional actions, the experience of pain and pleasure, and the interconnectedness of all things.

The Buddha stressed that most of the ways that we seek happiness are unskillful (akusala) in that we often act in ways that harm ourselves as well as others. The basic premise behind this being that, when observed with equanimity (upekkha) and compassion (karuna), the harm we cause will be seen to not be worth the relatively small and fleeting amounts of happiness and pleasure that the results of our unskillful actions produce. In addition, we will also discern that if our happiness is built upon the unhappiness of others, they will do everything in their power to undermine our happiness. That is one of the reasons why the Buddha stressed non-violence (ahimsa) in the form of moral precepts, and taught forms of happiness that are blameless and not dependent upon exploiting others. He also denied that any form of happiness that is dependent upon causes and conditions is permanent, and therefore, truly satisfactory.

In essence, the happiness and pleasure that we experience, when it is dependent upon external conditions, will cease when those conditions cease; and furthermore, if we mentally cling to those pleasures and/or conditions, when they cease, suffering will arise due to the presence of that very clinging. Basically, it is here where I am focusing my attention in this thread, i.e., the ultimate goal of practice as stated in the Buddha's discourses, Nibbana, the highest happiness (Dhp. 204).

Sincerely,

Jason

[Jason]

wordy,

The majority of the "paradoxes" that you are presenting here seem to be do to misunderstandings of what the Buddha taught more than anything else. Most of them seem to based upon faulty assumptions as well as lack of detailed knowledge concerning the references being used. This is quite common, and I have had the same difficulties many times myself (and still do to some extent). I would very much like to go through and give you a detailed analysis of where I think you are getting confused, but I simply do not have the time. Please do not think that I am simply ignoring your posts; it is just that answering them would entail a complete overview of Buddhism, detailed analysis of the references cited and finding a way to explain all of that in a way that does not give rise to more confusion—all of which I am unable to provide at this time.

Jason

[wordy]

I quote from Thanisaro Bhikku link above.

"If one stays obsessed with form, that's what one is measured (limited) by. Whatever one is measured by, that's how one is classified.

"If one stays obsessed with feeling...

"If one stays obsessed with perception...

"If one stays obsessed with fabrications...

"If one stays obsessed with consciousness, that's what one is measured by. Whatever one is measured by, that's how one is classified.

"But if one doesn't stay obsessed with form, that's not what one is measured by. Whatever one isn't measured by, that's not how one is classified.

"If one doesn't stay obsessed with feeling...

"If one doesn't stay obsessed with perception...

"If one doesn't stay obsessed with fabrications...

"If one doesn't stay obsessed with consciousness, that's not what one is measured by. Whatever one isn't measured by, that's not how one is classified."

Doesn't that show how similar it is to a Koan?

It establish a paradox. Nirvana as a subjective experience
if you practice that described way of living life.

To someone on outside reading it it sounds more like a Meme
of the type that Richard Dawkins writes about in his books.

[wordy]

the Buddha did not say life is nothing but suffering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

The Four Noble Truths (Sanskrit: catvāri āryasatyāni; Pali: cattāri ariyasaccāni) are one of the most fundamental Buddhist teachings. In broad terms, these truths relate to suffering's nature, origin, cessation and the path leading to the cessation. They are among the truths Gautama Buddha is said to have realized during his experience of enlightenment.[1]

The Four Noble Truths appear many times throughout the most ancient Buddhist texts, the Pali Canon. Mahayana Buddhism regards these as a preliminary teaching for people not ready for its own teachings.[2]

Strictly speaking, "truths" is a mistranslation; "realities" would be better: these are "things", not statements, in the original grammar

Pali canon text

1. The Nature of Suffering (Dukkha):
"Now this ... is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."[8]
2. Suffering's Origin (Samudaya):
"Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."[8]
3. Suffering's Cessation (Nirodha):
"Now this ... is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it."[8]
4. The Way (Mārga) Leading to the Cessation of Suffering:
"Now this ... is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration."[9][10]


But this is how it is presented by most Buddhists. How they prefer to present Buddhism.

If you ask a Buddhist about Buddhism then they refer you to the 4NT and 8NP

Jason if Buddha really did as you say in my quote of your text here above
then most Buddhists doesn't seem to see that as the most important to tell
somebody wanting to learn about B.

Buddhism seems to be its own worst enemy,. always choosing the worst way
to present itself.

It is very similar to how Christians describe why we need Jesus as a Savior.
Cause he died for our sins. In Buddhism it is us who need to do the sacrifice
of our ego through the 8NP. Or if one get into Pure Land Buddhism one could
put faith into the vows of Amida to help one to lose ego.

[wordy]

Sorry took me a while to find it here it is

Dukkha

Main article: Dukkha

Whatever is impermanent is subject to change. Whatever is subject to change is subject to suffering.
— The Buddha
From here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism


I think it is more logical to interpret that text as I did and not as you
did Originally Posted by Elohim
the Buddha did not say life is nothing but suffering.

Cause Impermanence is one of the three characteristics the other two are

# Dukkha (Sanskrit duhkha) or unsatisfactoriness, 'dis-ease' (also often translated "suffering," though this is somewhat misleading). Nothing found in the physical world or even the psychological realm can bring lasting deep satisfaction.

# Anatta (Sanskrit anatman) impersonality, or non-Self.

So the only thing that is permanent is Nirvana. All else is impermanent and as Buddha
say in my quote that is subject to suffering.

I think it is symptomatic that the writer of the wiki find it helpful to point out this
Nothing found in the physical world or even the psychological realm can bring lasting deep satisfaction.


As if the person that want to know about Buddhism has that craving or clinging
to get lasting deep satisfaction. Maybe somebody hooked on power trips or into
drugs or somebody who have not learned much about life for a while seek such.

Most people where I live doesn't behave like that.

[Jason]

wordy,

"Now this ... is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."

But you will notice that the Buddha does not say that the five aggregates that are not subject to clinging are suffering. Additionally, happiness is included in the fourth noble truth. Within the path factor of right concentration, for example, there is mention of both rapture and pleasure (SN 45.8 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html)). Right there, the statement that the Buddha said life is nothing but suffering is invalidated.

Buddhism seems to be its own worst enemy,. always choosing the worst way to present itself.

I have no control over what other people do and how other people attempt to explain the Dhamma.

Jason

[Jason]

wordy,

From here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

In my opinion, wikipedia is not a very reliable source.

I think it's ok for quick reference, but not much else.

Jason

[Jason]

wordy,

As if the person that want to know about Buddhism has that craving or clinging to get lasting deep satisfaction. Maybe somebody hooked on power trips or into drugs or somebody who have not learned much about life for a while seek such. Most people where I live doesn't behave like that.

Most people tend to seek some degree of happiness and satifaction in all of life's experiences, and stress will likely arise when the conditions for that happiness and satisfaction cease. It sounds like basic common sense, but the Buddha proposes that there is a happiness that is not contingent upon conditions.

Jason

[quip]

I quote from Thanisaro Bhikku link above.

"If one stays obsessed with form, that's what one is measured (limited) by. Whatever one is measured by, that's how one is classified.

"If one stays obsessed with feeling...

"If one stays obsessed with perception...

"If one stays obsessed with fabrications...

"If one stays obsessed with consciousness, that's what one is measured by. Whatever one is measured by, that's how one is classified.

"But if one doesn't stay obsessed with form, that's not what one is measured by. Whatever one isn't measured by, that's not how one is classified.

"If one doesn't stay obsessed with feeling...

"If one doesn't stay obsessed with perception...

"If one doesn't stay obsessed with fabrications...

"If one doesn't stay obsessed with consciousness, that's not what one is measured by. Whatever one isn't measured by, that's not how one is classified."

Doesn't that show how similar it is to a Koan?

It establish a paradox. Nirvana as a subjective experience
if you practice that described way of living life.

To someone on outside reading it it sounds more like a Meme
of the type that Richard Dawkins writes about in his books.

This is not a Koan. Koan's have no rational answer.

Thanisaro Bhikku is simply stating that when one allows them self to obsessively cling to feelings, perceptions and fabrications their existence will be defined by these fleeting concepts while suffering in attempting to attain existential permanence through vacillating concepts.

Likewise, when one is free from the obsessions of these states, one's existence is not delimited by such external phenomenon, thus no associated suffering.

[Kharakov]

Aight buddhists. Check this out to clarify your selves:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wcEnqlClZM0

[aupmanyav]

(this is called birth) But birth is normally a word used to refer to when my body is a fetus and baby in my Mother's womb for 9 month and then the body that are my Mother make me be birth.Let me help you with this. You have taken a very restricted meaning of birth. Take for example the sentence, 'Knowing about relativity' is like taking a new birth (when all old conceptions about energy and substance are changed). When your mind takes congnisence of what your information your senses are sending it, seeing the stars, the sun, the earth, your city, your neighbourhood, sorrow and pleasure, life and death, then you understand the meaning of birth. A newly-born baby would not know death. If your mind processes what information your senses are sending it in any alternate way, then there may not be any life or death, darkness or light. Death and birth are there when you finitize yourself. In my case, I was not born and I would not die, because I am energy which was always there since the universe began 14 billion years and would be there for all concievable time. Hope I am able to make my meaning clear.

[wordy]

This is not a Koan. Koan's have no rational answer.

That was why I say "like a" or "similar to" or "seems to me" like a Koan.

It fills the same purpose, it is a similar rhetoric tool and your answer or
explanation in that post confirms it to me. You behave as the "Koan"
set up to make possible as a social construct.

Maybe me use these words in a non-formal way which misleads you.

I don't mean Koan in the very strict forum way you give example of here.

I should have used the word "functional". I know nothing about functionalism
so I hope I am not saying anything about such. I mean function as a tool for
indoctrination. I think it is obvious that the "Koan" has made it possible for you
to see it the way the Buddhists wants it to be seen while see it from outside of
Buddhism.

Remember this is my perspective. How I see it. I don't say this is how it is.
But to me it is the best model I have up to now.

aupmanyav.

But the text talk about before the baby is born and after the human is dead?
I know one can use birth in metaphorical ways too.

Are you using "energy" literally or metaphorically now in your text?

In my case, I was not born and I would not die, because I am energy which was always there since the universe began 14 billion years and would be there for all concievable time. Hope I am able to make my meaning clear.

The "I" you refer to is not the "I" I refer to when I talk about the body that see itself
as Wordy. If you use it metaphorically I can see your text as kind of poetic but if you
mean it literally then I would say it sounds like woo to me.

I would say that the body that refer to itself as Aupmanyav has been born and are a body now and that body use energy like food digested but are not energy other than that matter in a very truistic way is "locked into matter energy". You can use muscle energy to move your body from one place to another but you can't power up a computer with that energy unless you have a generator you mechanically turn.

The brain use maybe 30% of the energy in our food intake but we are not energy
we are biological cells that DNA have made humans of. The word energy gets very
confusing if you start referring to yourself as energy.

[quip]

I mean function as a tool for
indoctrination. I think it is obvious that the "Koan" has made it possible for you
to see it the way the Buddhists wants it to be seen while see it from outside of
Buddhism.

Remember this is my perspective. How I see it. I don't say this is how it is.
But to me it is the best model I have up to now.


I believe I understand where you're going here. The quote mentioned is not an attempt at propagating Buddhism but rather a call to personally endeavor to understand the underlying wisdom fundamental to these words. Buddhism is not dogma to be taken by way of faith or manipulation, quite to the contrary to be honest.

[wordy]

I believe I understand where you're going here.

But the text you wrote after saying "I believe I understand where you're going here."
doesn't make me trust you actually got what I said.

But that could be my failure to use proper words.

I don't mean dogmatic in the formal way.

I've read and met buddhists for some 40 years.

Functionally they are very "dogmatic" about being non-dogmatic.

They say they are not dogmatic and formally that is so too
but functionally they are persistent in that they follow the
non-dogma in they way it says.

They don't seem to change the message during these 40 years.

If they where non-dogmatic in the functional way me try to describe
they would have changed the non-dogma decades ago.

They still present buddhism in a way very similar to how they did it
40 years ago. To me that is to be dogmatic. One keep the text and
use same rhetoric year after year regardless of feedback on how it
get perceived.

We could agree to disagree what the word dogma refers to.
formally I guess you are right. They say they are not into dogma.

I say they behave as dogmatic in their practice as they did some 40 years
ago. But I can be wrong but all the years me have been active here confirm
it too.

[hinduwoman]

You are not wrong, Wordy. That was what Buddha said, brought peoples' attention to what exists and how to deal with it. He was categorical about what he denied and what he did not deny (Malunkyaputta Sutra)..."the psychological transcendence of space and time is false mystical hogwash that is inserted into Buddhism." Perhaps this is true, but if so, by whom and for what purpose? JasonElohim, you and Perfectbite, both, are knowledgeable buddhist, Tathagatas, as Perfectbite says. I also read buddhism like that, without mystical hogwash, practical, focussed on what exists (sorrow and its removal), by Buddha himself. That, perhaps, is what Buddha was fighting against in hinduism.

The problem is that the insistence on sorrow, the deep dislike for women, and monastic life soon made Buddhism inward looking.
Hence the reaction in Gita that men must work and have families, otherwise society would collapse.

[aupmanyav]

Aupmanyav,

Are you using "energy" literally or metaphorically now in your text?

The "I" you refer to is not the "I" I refer to when I talk about the body that see itself as Wordy. If you use it metaphorically I can see your text as kind of poetic but if you mean it literally then I would say it sounds like woo to me.

I would say that the body that refer to itself as Aupmanyav has been born and are a body now and that body use energy like food digested but are not energy other than that matter in a very truistic way is "locked into matter energy". You can use muscle energy to move your body from one place to another but you can't power up a computer with that energy unless you have a generator you mechanically turn.

The brain use maybe 30% of the energy in our food intake but we are not energy we are biological cells that DNA have made humans of. The word energy gets very confusing if you start referring to yourself as energy.I am referring to it in a very literal way. I (you can also say this temporary body which people, including myself, describe as Aupmanyav) am made up of atoms, and atoms are nothing else but energy. Aupmanyav may have been born and Aupmanyav will die, but what I am made up of, the Brahman, knows no birth and no death. Cells too, are just bundles of atoms, and consequently energy. It is 'the truth' and in no way voodoo.

For another of your posts: Truth does not change. That is why hindus have not changed for the last 5,000 years (+ or -) and buddhist have not changed for 2,500 years. Various Gods/Goddesses may come and go.

[Jason]

wordy,

Whom or what is doing the creating places, even whole worlds,? (this is called birth) But birth is normally a word used to refer to when my body is a fetus and baby in my Mother's womb for 9 month and then the body that are my Mother make me be birth.

In Buddhism, the teachings on dependent co-arising, which attempt to give an overview of the key factors involved in the conditional arising of both the mental and physical phenomena that constitute a living being, apply on two levels—moment-to-moment and life-to-life.

On one level, dependent co-arising refers to physical birth. The Buddha said that, in the human realm, this is due to (i) the union of the mother and father, (ii) the mother being in season and (iii) the presence of the gandhabba (consciousness of the unborn being) (MN 38 (http://www.dhammasukha.org/Study/Sutta/MN-038-R.htm)).

When we dream, the process of creating a new thought-world (i.e., becoming) and then becoming fully immersed in that world (i.e., birth) is said to be similar to the process of rebirth. Seeing as you are fond of koans, here is one for you: What goes from dream to dream?

Jason

[perfectbite]

The problem is that the insistence on sorrow, the deep dislike for women, and monastic life soon made Buddhism inward looking.

Hence the reaction in Gita that men must work and have families, otherwise society would collapse.

As I see it, Buddhist monastics were perfectly capable of infusing Buddhism with their own chauvinist views which they did.

As a practical theologian I cannot see where the Gita is responding to Buddhism qua Buddhism but I can see where the followers of the Gita and the Buddha instituted a fairly common view of society and being.

[perfectbite]

Seeing as you are fond of koans, here is one for you: What goes from dream to dream?

Jason

Hello Jason,

In my view, the direct question of "What goes from dream to dream" affirms atta/atma and isn't Buddhist.

[perfectbite]

perfectbite,

Another view of Buddhism is that we want to feel the sun on our skin, we want to feel the wind in our hair we want to try to be brave and strong and true. We want to love and be loved and this life is the way to accomplish it.

Space and time is ours to have and to hold and the psychological transcendence of space and time is false mystical hogwash that is inserted into Buddhism.

Isn't one of the Buddhist monastic vows the pledge to attain awakened mind?

There are certainly many different views regarding samsara and Nibbana and mine is but one. In one sense, one could say that samsara is the antithesis of Nibbana. Pragmatically speaking, samsara, literally "wandering on," is the potential for the arising of human [mental] suffering, while Nibbana, literally, "extinguishing," is the cessation of that potential. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/nirvanaverb.html) puts it, "Samsara is a process of creating places, even whole worlds, (this is called becoming) and then wandering through them (this is called birth). Nirvana is the end of this process." Nirvana is "realized only when the mind stops defining itself in terms of place ... it's realized through unestablished consciousness." To touch the deathless element (amata-dhatu), one must transcend the experience of space and time.

From what I have read of your posts the Buddha may as well have not bothered teaching his Dharma Path of living in compassionate and wise loving kindness because it was (and is) deemed as being insufficient by some of the monastic unawakened minded of the Buddha's Sangha.

Which is it? Making one's own Buddha's Truth up and creating a wholly unawakened minded, Sangha owned and copyrighted structure of being or sincerely trying to live in simple compassionate and wise loving kindness and seeing what happens?

To anybody that takes the time to read what I have written, they will see that nowhere have I explicitly stated, nor even remotely implied, that compassion and loving-kindness are insufficient and denounced by anyone, let alone members of the Sangha. Such topics are irrelevant to the points and questions I am addressing in this thread. There are as much a part of the path as generosity, mindfulness, et cetera. Nevertheless, it seems that once again you are doing your best to intentionally misrepresent what I have said, and, might I add, with absolutely no evidence or references to support your claims such as "the psychological transcendence of space and time is false mystical hogwash that is inserted into Buddhism." Perhaps this is true, but if so, by whom and for what purpose?

SIncerely,

Jason

Jason,

I thought about your final statement for quite a while and came up with a condensation of what I do find troubling about some kinds of Buddhisms.

Just in the same way that has happened to some other religions, NARP and ARP both, I see that through inordinate study the intellectual has made a land grab for the spiritual and has, as far as hierarchical (time in grade) Theravadan Buddhism is concerned, for the most part succeeded.

Buddhism no less subscribes to the difference between the taking the letter of the word to taking the spirit of the word than other faiths and given the Buddha's exhortation not to fasten on the Buddha's textual Dharma and essentially to spiritually travel light (and not to be dragging spiritually cumbersome baggage around all of one's life) such taking of the direct spirit of the Buddha's textual Dharma on the part of those who do not have the time or inclination to methodically dissect what the Buddha actually said and who like their spiritual to be as clear and as simple as possible i.e.; compassion, wisdom, living in loving kindness, is not sour grapes on their part but, especially in view of the Buddha's teaching of the possibility of liberation in this very life, is a valid and profoundly workable interpretation of the Buddha's teachings which essentially is; here are the guidelines, get a life and get on with it.

I could go in to the guidelines being like a path that one can wander from side to side or leave altogether and return to as one wishes or feels the need to but I do draw the line at the Buddha's Dharma Path being taken as the right of way for a fixed in place spiritual railroad track on which the trains have engineers and conductors drawn solely from the ranks of the Buddha's monastic Sangha.

[Jason]

perfectbite,

In my view, the direct question of "What goes from dream to dream" affirms atta/atma and isn't Buddhist.

Well, perhaps you are not good with koans. As with all koans, it's not a direct question with a rational answer.

It's a stupid question to begin with. Realizing this, one is then able to attend to what is fit for attention (MN 2 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html)).

Jason

[Jason]

perfectbite,

I thought about your final statement for quite a while and came up with a condensation of what I do find troubling about some kinds of Buddhisms ...

This does not really answer my question, but I would like to share something with you that I also shared with Aupmanyav. For the most part, I do not think that either of you are wrong in your understanding of Buddhism per se. To be more specific, you both certainly understand Buddhism better than most, and I feel that what you make out of it is no more right or wrong that what I make out of it as long as it leads to compassion, generosity, loving-kindness and peace.

That being said, my new teacher teaches something similar to SN 35.95 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.095.than.html) regarding Nibbana. It is not unlike what the late Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, who my teacher studied with for a short time, taught as well (see Nibbana for Everyone (http://www.suanmokkh.org/archive/nibbevry.htm)). Perhaps you are right about Nibbana; however, there are suttas that say some extraordinary things about Nibbana that go far beyond that, e.g., Ud 8.1 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.than.html), etc. I cannot dismiss them simply because others find them to be "mystical hogwash."

Sincerely,

Jason

[perfectbite]

I read the post of the Ud 8.1 and, as you may remember, a while back I made the disctinction between the Buddha's Dharma Path and the Buddha's Truth and this cognition properly belongs to the Buddha's Truth and not to the Buddha's Dharma Path.


Cognizing this 'knowing' (it can also be called the uncreate) is perceived only by those on their way to attain fully awakened minded but it also belongs the unawakened minded because it is they who can and do become the awakened minded and such 'knowing' is the affirmation of the attainment of awakened mind by the awakened minded for the unawakened minded but it is beyond the compass of the unawakened minded to intellectually attain knowledge of the uncreate.

(The cognition of the uncreate is a small (tiny and brief) but vital part of the cognition of Nirvana that appears just before the far to travel and not immediately given or presented end of the process of fully attained Nirvana and which cognition or knowing also gives the cognizor (man or woman) the not so subtle difference between the alaya vijnana and the vinnanam anidassanam.)

There are many slips between cup and lip and even the most spiritual of us can miss the uncreate even if they experience Nirvana, especially if they believe Nirvana to be something other than what it is.

In this very forum I have come across Buddhist beliefs that posit that the attainment of bliss is the sum total of the Buddha's teaching and, not even getting to Nirvana's gates, have stopped there.

This particular teaching of the Buddha's is that there is much more than just the bliss of the attainment of Nirvana to cognize but as a teaching it is an urging for those who have actually attained Nirvana to travel on to see and experience.

Buddhism really is a one stop shop sort of thing with rooms and rooms and rooms of spiritual wares for both the unawakened minded and the awakened minded but, even upon one's attainment of sotapannahood and the attainment of Nirvana, as one goes deeper into such Buddhist 'shop' the rooms become filled with less and less and less to see but with much more to spiritually grasp so if you attain Nirvana don't stop, keep going.

[aupmanyav]

What a journey! Perfectbite.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I guess just in watching the discussion going back and forth between you and Logos, you seemed to be challenging the fundamental existence of any being that is Logos. Perhaps I misunderstood the exchange though. How do YOU define anatta?

Who are you? Who aren't you? Where does the doctrine of anatta come into play with regards to this?

I'm attempting to explain the concept of emptiness in regard to the self to an empiricist. This is not an easy task.

Logos obviously exists just not in the way Logos perceives himself to exist...He'll most likely level an objection to this.

Definitely yes I will. I still have no idea what you think I think of myself. I am an organism living in an environment with which I have diverse relationships.

Something tells me your idea of self is completely different than mine. Mine is simply a linguistic one. My finger points to the computer screen one moment, then to the phone, then to the window and then to my chest, which is pointing towards myself, this organism. That is me.

This is in fact a very boring subject.

I'm attempting to explain the concept of emptiness in regard to the self to an empiricist.

I don't think neither your concept nor Nagarjuna's concept (the mast is not the charriot, the wheels are not the charriot [etc] therefore there is no charriot) is refuted by modern set theory. The chariot exists as a set. Even the wheels exist, even though one can divide it in spokes, hub and rim, and these also in smaller parts, etc. Nevertheless they exist. If I hit you on your head with a wheel, your head will hurt, and you will know why. You won't wonder at all why your head hurts.

These are sets:

http://threebit.net/tutorials/nestedset/set.jpg

Each one "exists" by denotation (somebody is around to name or to recognize it). I am made of atoms, molecules and cells, but that doesn't mean I don't exist. Not only am I "an anatomy", I'm "a physiology", my parts work together. When they cease being functional together, there will just be a cadaver, a lifeless set of no longer working parts, but in that case, it will be a set too, albeit a lifeless one.

[aupmanyav]

Then the set will break and new sets will be formed out of the material of the first set. So what is basic, the material that makes those sets, i.e., Brahman. The set is a 'Vyavaharika' (pragmatic, Vyavahar - use) truth but not the ultimate truth (Paramarthika). Of course, different people will have different views, and that does not trouble us even a little. To each his/her own 'mata' (opinion) or 'panth' (road).

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Back to the OP.

Defeaters:

"All sentient beings live in an infinite cycle of suffering".
> Actually, no, they die.

"Suffering is caused by their ignorance concerning the true nature of phenomena".
> Um, noooo... Suffering is caused by the irritability of living matter. It cannot be removed. Luckily. It's what makes us "work".

The Blessed One said: "Monks, sensuality is inconstant, hollow, vain, deceptive. It is illusory, the babble of fools. Sensuality here & now; sensuality in lives to come; sensual perceptions here & now; sensual perceptions in lives to come: both are Mara's realm, Mara's domain, Mara's bait, Mara's range."
> Lives to come? No such thing has been proven, it explains nothing and it comes from no empirical observation, it's mythological. Mara? Mythology. What's wrong about sensuality? It's part of the good in life. Does it lead to addictions and suffering? It may, but not necessarily. If life has its unavoidable suffering, why renounce to it's goodies? It's cruel and unwarranted.

How avoidable is suffering and pleasure? The Vinaya Pitaka (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/index.html) is kind of an inadvertant admission to this. It's rules avow to the fact meditation etc does not produce the promised results: a reward and punishment system needs to be implemented in the monastery. Then what improves people's behavior? Common learning? It sure does seem.

Does meditation help people reach the conclusions Gautama reached? I don't think so. Neophytes are fed Buddhist theory before being trained in meditation. C'est nommé indoctrination, sans doute! You know what you're looking for in meditation, and you want to find it very much −giving up your liberties to live in a monastery is quite an expression of strong desire!

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Then the set will break and new sets will be formed out of the material of the first set. So what is basic, the material that makes those sets, i.e., Brahman.

What matters is human life in the concrete, regardless if you believe atoms or the quantum field (or whatever else you fancy) is the "ultimate reality" (whatever that's supposed to mean!). We are. Well then the least we can do is make the most of it.

[conradg]

I would say that the primary message of Buddhism is twofold: Impermanence - that nothing lasts; and self-sufficiency - the whole "be a refuge unto yourself". When asking what the original teaching of Buddhism is, we have to immediately encounter these two realities.

One, that even the original teaching of Buddhism is impermanent, and cannot be expected to last. The search for some pure, unchanging, "original" Buddhism goes against the grain of Buddhism itself. There is no "concept" behind Buddhism that can last forever. Even impermanence itself changes as we try to apply it in life, because life itself is always changing. Hence Buddhism as a communicated set of teachings must also always change. THere are basic principles that remain in the midst of that changing environment, but they do not mean that the character and application of those teachings is not constantly changing.

Two, that Buddha's oft quoted admonition to "be a light unto yourself" is actually slightly misquoted. The real phrase is "be a refuge unto yourself", meaning, look to yourself not only for guidance, but take refuge within oneself from the ever-changing world around us. This also goes against the grain of the notion that we should try to find some pure, "original" Buddhism that is historically located in the teachings of Gotama some 2500 years ago in India. To take refuge in oneself, to be a light unto oneself, means we have to figure these things out for ourselves, by examining ourselves now, not by trying to apply the teachings of "original" Buddhism to ourselves as if they, and not ourselves, are what we should take refuge in.

Buddha was a radical teacher asking us to examine ourselves to find the truth, just as he did, not one who was trying to create a fixed and unchanging teaching that we should adopt because he taught it, in a form that never changes, that is always outside ourselves, and immune to our own intelligent inquiry and application, because he knew better than us. He taught us to have faith in ourselves, in our own intelligence, and that is why Buddhism has always changed and evolved wherever it has spread, and why this is exactly what Buddha intended it to do. It's a living being, not a set of dead scriptures we are supposed to endlessly recite and believe in and apply in some kind of pure form to ourselves and our culture. Keeping the Buddha alive means killing the Buddha every day.

[wordy]

Buddha was a radical teacher asking us to examine ourselves to find the truth, just as he did, not one who was trying to create a fixed and unchanging teaching that we should adopt because he taught it, in a form that never changes, that is always outside ourselves, and immune to our own intelligent inquiry and application, because he knew better than us.

But when I tell buddhists the result of such self reliance Me trusting myself,
then they say me have not understood what Buddha teached.

He taught us to have faith in ourselves, in our own intelligence, and that is why Buddhism has always changed and evolved wherever it has spread, and why this is exactly what Buddha intended it to do.

That is and was what I have done for 40 years but the buddhists didn't like
the result I came to. They want the original Buddha's answer.

I mean that the truth about us humans are that we are mainly or on average
a social animal and as such social relations are very important to us.

Their interpretation of Buddha seems to see such as clinging and craving
and something bad.

[William]

Then the set will break and new sets will be formed out of the material of the first set. So what is basic, the material that makes those sets, i.e., Brahman.

What matters is human life in the concrete, regardless if you believe atoms or the quantum field (or whatever else you fancy) is the "ultimate reality" (whatever that's supposed to mean!). We are. Well then the least we can do is make the most of it.

Amen to that. Just want to say though, many of us here have gotten a great deal of benefit from studying Buddhism with regards to trying to make the most of what we've got. To me, this is a great message of Buddhism.

I agree with your previous post though, that there's a lot of bullshit going on. But for me personally, it's not difficult to ignore mumbo jumbo like rebirth and still get a great deal out of the rest of Buddhism. To ignore parts like this does not detract from the rest of Buddhism. Furthermore, regarding suffering, it's not difficult to look at things from a more pragmatic standpoint. Suffering never ends, but aspects of Buddhism can help lead one to understand suffering and its origin to lesson the blows. Of course, none of this is solely found within Buddhism, but if it's found there as well, why not make use of it?

Now, if I do this, am I or aren't I distorting Buddhism? To be honest, I don't really care one way or the other, because I don't care about Buddhism per se. What I care about is the fact that I'm here, so I may as well try to make the most of it. And if cherry picking from Buddhism helps, why not continue to do so?

[conradg]

I originally wrote this post for a different thread, and mistakenly posted it here while perusing this one. But maybe it works here too.

But when I tell buddhists the result of such self reliance Me trusting myself, then they say me have not understood what Buddha teached.

Taking refuge in yourself is no guarantee of social acceptance by others. The Buddhists you talk to may have a point that you don't understand Buddha's teaching, but you are the one who has to live with yourself, so go at it as best you can and don't worry about the approval of others. Buddha certainly didn't.

That is and was what I have done for 40 years but the buddhists didn't like the result I came to. They want the original Buddha's answer.

Are you doing this for the approval of "Buddhists", or for the sake of enlightenment? Why is what they want of any concern to you?

I mean that the truth about us humans are that we are mainly or on average a social animal and as such social relations are very important to us.

Is this what inspection of yourself has shown you about yourself? Maybe you need to examine your "self" a little more closely.

[conradg]

Now, if I do this, am I or aren't I distorting Buddhism? To be honest, I don't really care one way or the other, because I don't care about Buddhism per se. What I care about is the fact that I'm here, so I may as well try to make the most of it. And if cherry picking from Buddhism helps, why not continue to do so?

I think concerns about whether one is distorting Buddhism are not are the last thing we need to worry about. Buddha was not concerned about such things when he sat under the Bodhi tree. He was interested in understanding himself and penetrating his illusions. If we find out that Buddhism is one of the illusions we have to penetrate, so much the better, it makes us real Buddhists, rather than just people with a nice nametag identifier.

That doesn't mean its bad to read Buddhist teachings and try to understand them. It's just that there's no substitute for directly inspecting oneself, free of all concepts. Buddhist teachings are great, but they have to be put aside when we get down to business.

[abaddon]

... it's not difficult to ignore mumbo jumbo like rebirth and still get a great deal out of the rest of Buddhism. To ignore parts like this does not detract from the rest of Buddhism....

Now, if I do this, am I or aren't I distorting Buddhism?
No. Only a fundy Buddhist would say so. Or a skeptic that wishes his strawman target would just sit still (stick to the "weird" stuff that most contradicts his own culture's stories) for easier “debunking”.

Moderns who might want to call themselves “Buddhist” or practice Buddhism don't have to absorb the worldview and myths of an ancient and/or foreign culture in order to be “real Buddhists” when it’s the essential message that matters, and not that other culture’s idiomatic expressions.

As others have pointed out, it’s antithetical to the spirit of Buddha’s message. And he's just one of the "messengers" anyway. Obviously Buddhism has transformed from culture to culture over time, and the essential message remains in most varieties. There’s no reason that process must freeze at any point in time. (IMO, there's been some improvements over what you get in the earliest writings.)

Worrying over what some ancient text got wrong (or that the reader takes too literally) is a huge distraction from what’s important. It’s like pointing at dents in a race car, and refusing to take it for a spin because the “skeptic” can’t stop obsessing: “Dents! Dents! It’s got dents!”

[aupmanyav]

What matters is human life in the concrete, regardless if you believe atoms or the quantum field (or whatever else you fancy) is the "ultimate reality" (whatever that's supposed to mean!). We are. Well then the least we can do is make the most of it.Sure, it is our duty to make the most of it without harming others who also are trying to make the most of it, that is what 'dharma' or 'dhamma' or in (layman's language) social rules are for.

'Lives to come': Buddha had to explain truth to people who had their own pre-suppositions and had limited knowledge. Therefore, he used such words. Some thing like how you would describe quantum mechanics to aboriginals in Andaman Island or Amazonian jungles. :)

Good post, Conrad-ji, Buddhism, having evolved from hinduism carries the same property of being emanable to change.

But when I tell buddhists the result of such self reliance Me trusting myself, then they say me have not understood what Buddha teached. .. I mean that the truth about us humans are that we are mainly or on average a social animal and as such social relations are very important to us. .. Their interpretation of Buddha seems to see such as clinging and craving and something bad.Elohim posted a very nice message, saying 'your buddhism is as good as mine'. Wordy, do not worry about what other people say, you have a right to your views. Sure, social relations are important to the uninitiated, but both hinduism and buddhism want you not to be tied down by these relations. It is like parents being spurned by the children in India. As they build their world around children only, they are in for sorrows. Buddhism and hinduism want us to avoid that, unnecessary dependence on outside things.

[wordy]

Sure, social relations are important to the uninitiated, but both hinduism and buddhism want you not to be tied down by these relations.

But to others that is not to be tied down that is to be lifted up to be included
in a group of caring humans.

You use the rope to lift one up from the cave of isolation one have fallen into.

the tie is so you don't fall back when they pull you out of the deep hole.

now I don't say this is how everybody feels about it.

But humans biologically seems to be on average social animals.

I didn't want to be like that but my long experience tells me I am.

[wordy]

---Quote---
Wordy wrote : I mean that the truth about us humans are that we are mainly or on average a social animal and as such social relations are very important to us.
---End Quote---
conradg wrote : Is this what inspection of yourself has shown you about yourself? Maybe you need to examine your "self" a little more closely.


Wordy says: See what I mean. Now you tell me my results are wrong.

I say my result is a better model of how my human body works.
Your human body may be different from mine. I've tested this many times.

[conradg]

---Quote---
Wordy wrote : I mean that the truth about us humans are that we are mainly or on average a social animal and as such social relations are very important to us.
---End Quote---
conradg wrote : Is this what inspection of yourself has shown you about yourself? Maybe you need to examine your "self" a little more closely.


Wordy says: See what I mean. Now you tell me my results are wrong.

I say my result is a better model of how my human body works.
Your human body may be different from mine. I've tested this many times.

Are you suggesting that you are infallible? Of course our results are sometimes wrong. Mine certainly are. If you didn't have your own doubts, why are you even asking about these matters?

The first thing you might do is find out if you are the body. Don't just presume you are the body, and then conclude that because the body is a social animal that you are. Find it out by observing yourself. Perhaps if you examine yourself you will find something else entirely is true of you. The basic Buddhist argument is that you must see that everything about the body is impermanent, and is therefore not something we can base our identity on, or we have a constantly changing identity that endlessly confuses us and immerses us in endless desiring and suffering. Finding out that this is a false presumption and path frees us from the notion that we must link our identity to any conditional feature of bodily life, including the mind itself, and allows us to merely observe ourselves in freedom. Our real nature is not the body, nor is it any "thing" at all. We are empty of any "thing" that we can call ourselves, including the body That is the nature of liberation.

Examine the body. What is it? A collection of cells, each with their own DNA and programming. Where are "you" in the midst of that? Examine a cell, and ask what it is? A collection of atoms, particles, fields of force, etc. Where is there an "I" in any of that? Finding out that there is no such thing is the path of relief from existential fear and desiring. The Buddha taught that if we do this, we realize that we are unborn, that we never have been born, that we never die, that we are not anything that has appeared or disappeared. This is freedom from the cycle of birth and death. He had confidence that anyone who devoted themselves to inspecting reality would find this out. Give it another try.

[wordy]

See what I mean. Now you are doing it again.

Telling me what result I will get.

How do you know? Your not my body are you?
And you refer to Buddha. That is the authority error.

I did this for fourty years and I am a social animal
despite what you tell me I am. Buddha was wrong about my body.

My body doesn't work like he describe it.

[perfectbite]

Good post, Conrad-ji, Buddhism, having evolved from hinduism carries the same property of being emanable to change.

IMHO, that Buddhism evolved from Hinduism isn't a given. I think it is the opposite and that it was Hinduism that was amenable to change in attaching itself to atma, not Buddhism.

[perfectbite]

Wordy,

If you see yourself as a social animal then you are in good company.

But would you go so far as to say that we have a hive mind?

[wordy]

But would you go so far as to say that we have a hive mind?

We are Borg. Resistance are futile. You will be assimilated into our hive. :)

Mind is maybe a too strong word. But my practical experience are that the majority of humans are child of their time. They are caught up in the vogue
of their current culture. Even old persons here do "Give me Five" with young relatives. We had no such when I was young. :)

Mind to me is an emergent property of a biological body. A process or a doing
of the body.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

What matters is human life in the concrete, regardless if you believe atoms or the quantum field (or whatever else you fancy) is the "ultimate reality" (whatever that's supposed to mean!). We are. Well then the least we can do is make the most of it.

Amen to that. Just want to say though, many of us here have gotten a great deal of benefit from studying Buddhism with regards to trying to make the most of what we've got. To me, this is a great message of Buddhism.

I agree with your previous post though, that there's a lot of bullshit going on. But for me personally, it's not difficult to ignore mumbo jumbo like rebirth and still get a great deal out of the rest of Buddhism. To ignore parts like this does not detract from the rest of Buddhism. Furthermore, regarding suffering, it's not difficult to look at things from a more pragmatic standpoint. Suffering never ends, but aspects of Buddhism can help lead one to understand suffering and its origin to lesson the blows. Of course, none of this is solely found within Buddhism, but if it's found there as well, why not make use of it?

Now, if I do this, am I or aren't I distorting Buddhism? To be honest, I don't really care one way or the other, because I don't care about Buddhism per se. What I care about is the fact that I'm here, so I may as well try to make the most of it. And if cherry picking from Buddhism helps, why not continue to do so?


Amen amen amen amen amen amen! Such honesty is true enlightenment -or a part of, that is. Why lie to oneself in order to feel one is on the road to some mysterious, inexpressible enlightenment? Our culture teaches us that if we want to follow a spiritual way, we have to lie to ourselves. This self mendacity they call faith.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Worrying over what some ancient text got wrong (or that the reader takes too literally) is a huge distraction from what’s important. It’s like pointing at dents in a race car, and refusing to take it for a spin because the “skeptic” can’t stop obsessing: “Dents! Dents! It’s got dents!”

That only happens when the Buddhist goes "Truth, truth, it's the truth! Enlightenment bla bla! Monkey mind yada yada!"

[quip]

Definitely yes I will. I still have no idea what you think I think of myself. I am an organism living in an environment with which I have diverse relationships.

Something tells me your idea of self is completely different than mine. Mine is simply a linguistic one. My finger points to the computer screen one moment, then to the phone, then to the window and then to my chest, which is pointing towards myself, this organism. That is me.

I am made of atoms, molecules and cells, but that doesn't mean I don't exist. Not only am I "an anatomy", I'm "a physiology", my parts work together. When they cease being functional together, there will just be a cadaver, a lifeless set of no longer working parts, but in that case, it will be a set too, albeit a lifeless one.

This is in fact a very boring subject.

Yes, very banal at the least.

Just ask yourself what heralded these so-enamored, affirmations of "I", "me", "my"...etc.

[Jason]

Lógos,

"All sentient beings live in an infinite cycle of suffering".
> Actually, no, they die.

As I also mentioned earlier in this thread, one "defeater" of Buddhism might be to scientifically disprove the possibility of rebirth. It is true that the teachings of the Buddha that are preserved in the Pali Canon state that living beings are subject to death while positing that death is not necessarily the final end of phenomena in regard to the arising and passing away of beings, and the currently held assumption is that rebirth is simply not possible. Nevertheless, while I admit that the literal interpretation of rebirth is difficult, if not impossible, to prove (all of the most convincing evidence I have seen in support of this possibility has been in the form of case studies and first-hand accounts), it has yet to be disproven. Perhaps consciousness is simply a by-product of electrochemical processes in the brain, but perhaps there is another dimension to consciousness that science has yet to discover. Either way, until science has found a way to rule out the possibility that consciousness can exist outside of the body or condition the arising of a new consciousness, rebirth is simply an unproven hypothesis.

"Suffering is caused by their ignorance concerning the true nature of phenomena".
> Um, noooo... Suffering is caused by the irritability of living matter. It cannot be removed. Luckily. It's what makes us "work".

What is the evidence that mental stress and suffering cannot be removed? The Buddha seemed to be well aware that physical discomfort and pain was a source of suffering for a mind that is "addicted" to the material form of the body (e.g., this passage from SN 22.79 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.079.than.html): "And why do you call it 'form' [rupa]? Because it is afflicted [ruppati], thus it is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger & thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles. Because it is afflicted, it is called form."). But is it really impossible to think that the mind cannot be trained to react in a different way; that certain mental addictions and compulsive responses to painful bodily sensations are always going to give rise to mental stress and suffering contrary to what the Buddha said in SN 36.6 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.than.html)? The Buddha taught that one of the main mental factors involved in our experience of suffering is upadana, which if often translated as "clinging" but can also mean "addiction." Addictions, whether mental or physical, can be overcome, and I do not see why this type of addiction cannot be overcome as well.

The Blessed One said: "Monks, sensuality is inconstant, hollow, vain, deceptive. It is illusory, the babble of fools. Sensuality here & now; sensuality in lives to come; sensual perceptions here & now; sensual perceptions in lives to come: both are Mara's realm, Mara's domain, Mara's bait, Mara's range."
> Lives to come? No such thing has been proven, it explains nothing and it comes from no empirical observation, it's mythological. Mara? Mythology. What's wrong about sensuality? It's part of the good in life. Does it lead to addictions and suffering? It may, but not necessarily. If life has its unavoidable suffering, why renounce to it's goodies? It's cruel and unwarranted.

No such thing has conclusively been disproven either. The fact is, during a state of deep meditative absorption, the Buddha experienced memories of his past lives. While I understand that most people do not accept direct personal experiences as evidence, I think that it would be foolish to dismiss them simply for the fact that science has yet to find anything that would preclude the possibility that consciousness can exist outside of the body or condition the arising of a new consciousness. In addition, while I understand that scientists today have put forth a lot of evidence to support the idea that these experiences can be accounted for, especially in the field of modern psychology, that does not necessarily negate such experiences. As for Mara, in most contexts, Mara is a reference to death. In others, Mara is used in reference to the kilesas (defilements), the temptations of sensuality that lead one into heedlessness, and, on occasion, an actual being who apparently considered himself the head of the kamavacara world (see the Buddhist Dictionary of Pali Proper Names (http://palikanon.com/english/pali_names/ma/maara.htm) for more information).

How avoidable is suffering and pleasure? The Vinaya Pitaka (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/index.html) is kind of an inadvertant admission to this. It's rules avow to the fact meditation etc does not produce the promised results: a reward and punishment system needs to be implemented in the monastery. Then what improves people's behavior? Common learning? It sure does seem.

I fail to see how the Vinaya Pitaka is a "kind of an inadvertent admission" that suffering and pleasure are unavoidable. First of all, the goal of the practice is not to avoid anything; it is to observe and ultimately understand how phenomena, especially suffering and pleasure, arise and pass away. The various rules for monastics are designed to make this easier, as well as to promote harmony with the lay-community—nothing more, nothing less. As for meditation, all I can say is that meditation has many benefits, some of which have been observed and documented under laboratory conditions. One example that immediately comes to mind is the research done with functional magnetic resonance imaging on meditators who were meditating on compassion which showed that regions of the brain that keep track of what is self and what is other became quieter (Time Vol. 169, No.5, 79). Another is the study (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3047291.stm) where tests carried out in the United States apparently revealed that the areas of the brain associated with good mood and positive feelings are more active in those who practice meditation regularly.

Does meditation help people reach the conclusions Gautama reached? I don't think so. Neophytes are fed Buddhist theory before being trained in meditation. C'est nommé indoctrination, sans doute! You know what you're looking for in meditation, and you want to find it very much −giving up your liberties to live in a monastery is quite an expression of strong desire!

I do not know if meditation ultimately helps people reach the end of suffering as I have yet to do so myself, but it I think that you are confusing its purpose. Meditation is not meant to give rise to "conclusions" about anything, meditation is a tool to help observe the mind and body. Meditation is meant to calm and still the mind so that very subtle aspects of the mind become easier and easier to observe, e.g., craving, a very subtle but powerful aspect of our psychology latent in the mind, waiting to exert its influence through mental fabrications by directing or at the very least encouraging the mind to desire sensory experiences. The teachings are merely there to help utilize these techniques effectively; once they have served their purpose, they are not longer needed (see the simile of the raft at MN 22 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html)). Also, in my case, I was taught meditation well before I was taught anything about Buddhist theory. In fact, I did all of my textual studies on my own. I was never "fed" anything unless I asked a specific question. All my first teacher taught was to focus on the breath and develop mindfulness.

Jason

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Definitely yes I will. I still have no idea what you think I think of myself. I am an organism living in an environment with which I have diverse relationships.

Something tells me your idea of self is completely different than mine. Mine is simply a linguistic one. My finger points to the computer screen one moment, then to the phone, then to the window and then to my chest, which is pointing towards myself, this organism. That is me.

I am made of atoms, molecules and cells, but that doesn't mean I don't exist. Not only am I "an anatomy", I'm "a physiology", my parts work together. When they cease being functional together, there will just be a cadaver, a lifeless set of no longer working parts, but in that case, it will be a set too, albeit a lifeless one.

This is in fact a very boring subject.

Yes, very banal at the least.

Just ask yourself what heralded these so-enamored, affirmations of "I", "me", "my"...etc.

They're not enamored. I was explaining my idea that I exist. How else would I explain self reference without self reference?

That is truly a knee-jerk post, and non-sequitur with respect to the discussion.

I wonder if you, Quip, could last a day of normal conversation without using the first person pronoun (both subject and object varieties). Whhether you can (which I doubt) or you can't, it really doesn't say much about you. You're judging people because of a feature of the English language. Excuse me, but that is " :banghead: ".

[Jason]

Will,

To ignore parts like this does not detract from the rest of Buddhism. Furthermore, regarding suffering, it's not difficult to look at things from a more pragmatic standpoint. Suffering never ends, but aspects of Buddhism can help lead one to understand suffering and its origin to lesson the blows. Of course, none of this is solely found within Buddhism, but if it's found there as well, why not make use of it?

I certainly agree with you that one does not have to fully subscribe to concepts such as rebith, especially if they are more interested in the purely practical applications of Buddhism such as the fourth noble truth, i.e., the noble eightfold path. Perhaps Buddhism is unabe to ultimately end suffering, but it can at least go a long way to minimize it by, as you say, "help lead one to understand suffering and its origin to lesson the blows."

Jason

[hinduwoman]

The problem is that the insistence on sorrow, the deep dislike for women, and monastic life soon made Buddhism inward looking.

Hence the reaction in Gita that men must work and have families, otherwise society would collapse.

As I see it, Buddhist monastics were perfectly capable of infusing Buddhism with their own chauvinist views which they did.

As a practical theologian I cannot see where the Gita is responding to Buddhism qua Buddhism but I can see where the followers of the Gita and the Buddha instituted a fairly common view of society and being.

I think Gita's insistence that living in a detached manner even within society is possible and emphasis that being engaged in the material world complete with marriage and children is all-important is a direct response to Buddhism's exaltation of monasticism.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Lógos,


Yoh!

the literal interpretation of rebirth [...] has yet to be disproven

So is the Holy Spirit, Neverland, Osiris' judgement of the dead, Jesus' magical undeadening of the dead, Russell's teapot, etc. Agnosticism is warranted for these subjects, but trust in them in whatever degree is not: Trust in the unlikely unreasonable unseen is basically wishful thinking. And probably even "un-Buddhist", which is ironic in quite an intense manner.


I admit that the literal interpretation of rebirth is difficult, if not impossible, to prove (all of the most convincing evidence I have seen in support of this possibility has been in the form of case studies and first-hand accounts),

So is the Holy Spirit and friends.


Perhaps consciousness is simply a by-product of electrochemical processes in the brain,

I don't think so. From the bulk of what reaserch has seen it's the collective cognitive representations of the perceptible world, both internal and external, which enables organisms with a cerebral cortex to manage their life in their environments.



What is the evidence that mental stress and suffering cannot be removed?

Mental stress and suffering themselves. Their defining characteristics can be found in everyone, and as I have said before, they are basic to our functioning, so their existence is adaptive. We're lucky to have them, precisely and even though they're aversive. For example, people who have their skin pain sensors neurologically impaired, injure themselves a lot, so pain to a certain degree is good for you, it's here for a reason.




What is the evidence that mental stress and suffering cannot be removed? The Buddha seemed to be well aware that physical discomfort and pain was a source of suffering for a mind that is "addicted" to the material form of the body

The mind can be addicted "to the material form of the body"? The mind is a property (same as, for instance, tissular respiration) of the human organism. I'm not following you. (?)


But is it really impossible to think that the mind cannot be trained to react in a different way;

Yes. We agree.



The fact is, during a state of deep meditative absorption, the Buddha experienced memories of his past lives. While I understand that most people do not accept direct personal experiences as evidence,

Personal experience is evidence. What it is not is demonstration (what people commonly call "proof"). Also, I should remind you that what you've said in the part I just quoted and you call "a fact" is not. Stuff written in old books are not facts. And even if there was a Gautama who said such a thing, it doesn't mean it's true. It only means he thought so (or made it up, but I'm not going there, because that will only muddy the discussion and practically end it then and there, obviously).



No such thing has conclusively been disproven either.

Hardly any disproving is "strictly" conclusive BTW, only "reasonably".



In addition, while I understand that scientists today have put forth a lot of evidence to support the idea that these experiences can be accounted for, especially in the field of modern psychology, that does not necessarily negate such experiences.

Not the experience as such. Pentecostalists do have an experience of being taken over by the Holy Spirit, or Vouodoun adherents taken over by whatever gods they have. But it "reasonably" isn't what they think it is.



As for Mara, in most contexts, Mara is a reference to death. In others, Mara is used in reference to the kilesas (defilements), the temptations of sensuality that lead one into heedlessness, and, on occasion, an actual being who apparently considered himself the head of the kamavacara world (see the Buddhist Dictionary of Pali Proper Names (http://palikanon.com/english/pali_names/ma/maara.htm) for more information).


I understand that for some sects it may not be literal, but I personally know a Thai who does. I know this is anecdotal and thus not evidentiary, but it leads me to doubt, and once I have the opportunity to do a more "anthropological" inquiry, I surely will.



I fail to see how the Vinaya Pitaka is a "kind of an inadvertent admission" that suffering and pleasure are unavoidable.

For me it's quite clear. If meditation etc is supposed to have certain effects towards the enlightened characteristics of arhants, such rules would have no point. ;)



First of all, the goal of the practice is not to avoid anything;

"Elliminate" referred to "defilements" is a big word one would think. If you have elliminated your assassinee, why keep shooting? It's like a king having beheaded a certain transgressor in the Tower of London and then make a series of rules destined to stop the elliminated enemy's transgressive behavior!



As for meditation, all I can say is that meditation has many benefits, some of which have been observed and documented under laboratory conditions. One example that immediately comes to mind is the research done with functional magnetic resonance imaging on meditators who were meditating on compassion which showed that regions of the brain that keep track of what is self and what is other became quieter (Time Vol. 169, No.5, 79). Another is the study (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3047291.stm) where tests carried out in the United States apparently revealed that the areas of the brain associated with good mood and positive feelings are more active in those who practice meditation regularly.


Yes. We agree here too.



I do not know if meditation ultimately helps people reach the end of suffering as I have yet to do so myself, but it I think that you are confusing its purpose. Meditation is not meant to give rise to "conclusions" about anything, meditation is a tool to help observe the mind and body. Meditation is meant to calm and still the mind so that very subtle aspects of the mind become easier and easier to observe, e.g., craving, a very subtle but powerful aspect of our psychology latent in the mind, waiting to exert its influence through mental fabrications by directing or at the very least encouraging the mind to desire sensory experiences. The teachings are merely there to help utilize these techniques effectively; once they have served their purpose, they are not longer needed (see the simile of the raft at MN 22 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html)).


Those objectives you cite are authentic. Nevertheless, the objetcives one finds in the texts also include the pretty bombastic, and that is my point of disagreement. If you want a brighter mind, keener attention, improved cardiac functioning, go right ahead. But I will tell them to save their wowees for folks more unwary than myself.

[wordy]

the temptations of sensuality

Sounds interesting.

Food is sensual at times. Take the taste and texture against the tongue of a Kiwi fruit.
Or a good Tomato or a tasty Banana and many other. Strawberries? Very sensual
and tempting indeed to some of us. Icecream with chocolate and yoghurt Meze
and such is very sensual in my mouth at least. A cup of Coffee. A beer.

what about touching somebody one like. Very sensual.

Buddhism seems to be very puritanistic ?

Dare I ask about such sensual thing like masturbation?

[abaddon]

Worrying over what some ancient text got wrong (or that the reader takes too literally) is a huge distraction from what’s important. It’s like pointing at dents in a race car, and refusing to take it for a spin because the “skeptic” can’t stop obsessing: “Dents! Dents! It’s got dents!”
That only happens when the Buddhist goes "Truth, truth, it's the truth! Enlightenment bla bla! Monkey mind yada yada!"
I think an error happens, too often, and causes many misunderstandings. It goes like:

Person #1 argues not-A.

Person #2 argues that the argument is flawed.

Person #1 assumes Person #2 is arguing A.

It doesn’t follow.

I don’t find the superstitions you emphasize significant. I find your interpretations of Buddhist ideas unnecessarily rigid. I don’t see enlightenment as an impossible “superlative” ideal. It takes just a few seconds of attending to the difficulty of attending to observe “monkey mind”.

You most often make “the glass is half empty” arguments, I most often make “it’s half full” arguments. If someone hadn’t noticed your occasional allowance that there’s at least some limited value in Buddhist thought/practice, some others might get the impression that you “hate Buddhism”. Likewise, if someone missed my occasional criticisms of Buddhism or thought I spoke too often about more positive views on Buddhism, they might mistake me for a religiously devout Buddhist.

[abaddon]

Dare I ask about such sensual thing like masturbation?
To jack off like a good Buddhist would do, do it mindfully. With as total mental presence as one can muster. Learn with practice to set aside distracting thoughts that’d make the experience "unsatisfactory". When "Oneness" with whacking off is achieved, there is no “Me” that is pounding the pud, and there is no pud. Then the experience is complete in itself and thus not "defiled" with abstractions that detract from it.

[conradg]

See what I mean. Now you are doing it again.

Telling me what result I will get.

How do you know? Your not my body are you?
And you refer to Buddha. That is the authority error.

I did this for fourty years and I am a social animal
despite what you tell me I am. Buddha was wrong about my body.

My body doesn't work like he describe it.

I'm telling you what results the Buddha got. Yours are clearly different. To answer your earlier question, then, it sounds like you're not probably not doing Buddhism. Not that this matters. You are entitled to assert your results, and Buddha is entitled to assert his. You can't fake it and assert Buddha's results for yourself just because he's more famous than you are. But you can re-examine yourself and see if perhaps you have missed something.

Why not ask yourself why you refer to "my body", if you are the body? Do you really experience yourself as the body, or do you just observe it and identify with it from some other position? Take a look and see. Talking about "my body" is like talking about "my car". Clearly, while we may drive around in a car, we are not the same as a car. Similarly, we may walk around in a body, but does that make us the body? If my car is red, does that mean I am red? What do you think?

[wordy]

I think one need to be a good thinker and good at formulating to sort such out.

But I say it is typical to blame me if I fail to get same result as Buddha.
I say it is more likely he got it wrong.

Now am I in a body or does the body refer to itself as I am.

I think it is a better description to say that the body get feedback from all its input and output and make up a model of itself and that model behave as I do now. So the body is the one that refer to itself as Wordy.

It is not as you seem to say. I trust my version more than yours.

Do you share Abaddon's view on buddhism and masturbation?

My memory tells me that Buddhists officially are very puritanistic
and don't recommend masturbation. What is your view.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I find your interpretations of Buddhist ideas unnecessarily rigid.

I take what I read and then take them to their logical* consequences. (*Logical in my view of course, I don't consider myself a walking logic textbook, heavens no).


It takes just a few seconds of attending to the difficulty of attending to observe “monkey mind”.


Whoa. I was refering to the folks that use those concepts as missiles in arguments or when using an "us them" view. It's kind of like a "self-righteousness" a la neobuddhist ("self-enlightenedness"?). Quite condescending when used in a phrase like "they just haven't left the monkey mind" (or something of that flavor).



You most often make “the glass is half empty” arguments, I most often make “it’s half full” arguments.

Typically I'm not that fuzzy. Typically I write "true / not true" stuff. I'm not a pessimist and I believe I have been open about it when I express my admiration for such and such points in buddhism. More I cannot do and would be dishonest towards the true color of my views.


If someone hadn’t noticed your occasional allowance that there’s at least some limited value in Buddhist thought/practice,

Oh, ok... All I had to do was read ahead, LOL. I'm glad you're aware of that so that's one less item to cover. :)

[some others might get the impression that you “hate Buddhism”.

Not my problem, you will agree, I hope.


Likewise, if someone missed my occasional criticisms of Buddhism or thought I spoke too often about more positive views on Buddhism, they might mistake me for a religiously devout Buddhist.

I haven't missed them.
And well I initially mistook you for a devout b, but that was a long time ago. There's one you don't have to cover any more, at least for me. :)

[quip]

How else would I explain self reference without self reference?


:banghead:

Indeed!

A journey of a thousand miles ...............

[conradg]

I think one need to be a good thinker and good at formulating to sort such out.

But I say it is typical to blame me if I fail to get same result as Buddha.
I say it is more likely he got it wrong.

So now you're blaming Buddha? How do you think that's going to make him feel?

Personally, just judging by your respective responses, I think Buddha seems more credible than you. Maybe if you described the process you have gone through to come to these conclusions they might seem more credible, however. So far you've done nothing but make assertions.

Now am I in a body or does the body refer to itself as I am.

I think it is a better description to say that the body get feedback from all its input and output and make up a model of itself and that model behave as I do now. So the body is the one that refer to itself as Wordy.

Are you sure? It sounds like you see the body as something you are related to, rather than something that you are.

It is not as you seem to say. I trust my version more than yours.

And does your version bring you release from suffering? If not, why do you trust it?

Do you share Abaddon's view on buddhism and masturbation?

My memory tells me that Buddhists officially are very puritanistic
and don't recommend masturbation. What is your view.

I think masturbation can be fun, but also isolating. I thought you were the guy who said he's social and relational? Masturbation sure doesn't seem like a very social activity. Maybe you should get a girlfriend.

I don't think Buddha had much of anything to say about masturbation, but his monks were celibate, so he's probably not much into it. What do you care?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I think masturbation can be fun, but also isolating. I thought you were the guy who said he's social and relational?

That's like saying feeding yourself is antisocial. C'mon! Masturbation is healthy! Do we HAVE to be social in everything we do? You could say the same thing about having a girlfriend: monogamy is selfish. I just don't think so.

Religion seems awfully concerned with compulsory stuff.

[conradg]

I think masturbation can be fun, but also isolating. I thought you were the guy who said he's social and relational?

That's like saying feeding yourself is antisocial. C'mon! Masturbation is healthy! Do we HAVE to be social in everything we do? You could say the same thing about having a girlfriend: monogamy is selfish. I just don't think so.

Religion seems awfully concerned with compulsory stuff.

I didn't say you can't do it now and then. I certainly do. It's just that sex is even healhier with a partner. The more the merrier. I'm a big fan of the show "Big Love". Not sure what any of that has to do with Buddhism, however.

[aupmanyav]

This is in fact a very boring subject.IMHO, it is not boring. On the contrary, it is very interesting. Part of me will go to a flower, the other part will go to a beetle. I come from a million things, will go to a million (for all I know perhaps a billion things). That makes me, what they call, omnipresent. One could use 'this body' for self to avoid objections. Many hindu ascetics use that word. Ask them for their name and they would say 'What is in a name, the name belongs to God, this body is called Atma Ram (or whatever).'

Logos, I think it is Arihanta (killer of enemies) in Sanskrit or Arhat (same in Pali or Prakrit, the language of Mahavira Jain) not Arhant. Just BTW.

Elohim: 'I think that it would be foolish to dismiss them simply for the fact that science has yet to find anything that would preclude the possibility that consciousness can exist outside of the body or condition the arising of a new consciousness.' In that way, even God has not been disproved. I see strains of Hrvoje and Figuer here. Meditation is a successful bio-feedback procedure.

My memory tells me that Buddhists officially are very puritanistic and don't recommend masturbation. What is your view.I generally recommend 25 push-ups (distraction) in such cases.

[perfectbite]

I think Gita's insistence that living in a detached manner even within society is possible and emphasis that being engaged in the material world complete with marriage and children is all-important is a direct response to Buddhism's exaltation of monasticism.

What does the Gita have to say about leaving home to become a sadhu?

Do you think that Buddhist monastics went overboard via the idea of a sadhu?

Given the Vimilakirti Sutra, a bona fide Mahayanist Buddhist Sutra written by an awakened minded householder (a Licchavi), it would seem that Theravadan Buddhist monastics did go overboard on the purity and pre-eminence of monastic life to the exclusion of other ways of being but Mahayanist Buddhism offered Hindu India an alternative before they too went the way of the obsession with monasticism.

I'm still not sure if it is a drawback of all interpreted spiritual ways of being or if such obsession with monasticism was and maybe perhaps still is peculiar to Buddhism.

Some Western faiths encourage big families but their intent is not to support the society but to keep the faith strong and supplied with the ever increasing faithful.

[perfectbite]

Logos, I think it is Arihanta (killer of enemies) in Sanskrit or Arhat (same in Pali or Prakrit, the language of Mahavira Jain) not Arhant. Just BTW.

I have read the word Arhant that intended Arhat.

Except for spelling mistakes I am generally very careful to use what I have read in Buddhist translations into English and have come across the word 'Arhant' often.

For the Chinese the name is Lohan but I am not sure if that is Buddhist or Taoist.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

That's like saying feeding yourself is antisocial. C'mon! Masturbation is healthy! Do we HAVE to be social in everything we do? You could say the same thing about having a girlfriend: monogamy is selfish. I just don't think so.

Religion seems awfully concerned with compulsory stuff.

I didn't say you can't do it now and then. I certainly do. It's just that sex is even healhier with a partner. The more the merrier. I'm a big fan of the show "Big Love". Not sure what any of that has to do with Buddhism, however.

Now you're regulating that it's not bad to do it now and then!
And who says if you masturbate you don't have other sorts of sex? It's creepy how religions turn EVERYTHING into a moral issue. BTW Conrad, may I pick my nose or should I be more social?

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/sad020.gif

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I think Gita's insistence that living in a detached manner even within society is possible and emphasis that being engaged in the material world complete with marriage and children is all-important is a direct response to Buddhism's exaltation of monasticism.

But wasn't Gita written waaay before Buddhism?

[premjan]

Not way before I think. Maybe contemporary.

[conradg]

I didn't say you can't do it now and then. I certainly do. It's just that sex is even healhier with a partner. The more the merrier. I'm a big fan of the show "Big Love". Not sure what any of that has to do with Buddhism, however.

Now you're regulating that it's not bad to do it now and then!
And who says if you masturbate you don't have other sorts of sex? It's creepy how religions turn EVERYTHING into a moral issue. BTW Conrad, may I pick my nose or should I be more social?

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/sad020.gif

I think you are entirely missing the point of the Buddhist perspective. "Good" and "bad" are not moral imperatives in Buddhism, and there is no objection to masturbation for moral reasons that I'm aware of, in the same way that there is in Christianity. The criticism Buddhism has of masturbation is the same criticism they would have of every kind of pleasure or pain - it's impermanent, it doesn't last, and it inevitably leads to its opposite. Hence, there's nothing but an endless cycle of seeking that results in nothing but ups and downs and no real satisfaction. If you've ever masturbated, you ought to know what I mean. In fact, if you've ever had sex, or had a girlfriend, or been married, you ought to know what I mean.

My suggestion to wordy about getting a girlfriend was a strictly personal comment on my part, not related to some Buddhist stricture or regulation, but purely my getting the feeling that wordy needs to get out more and stop masturbating in private so much. Maybe I misjudge him, but I haven't heard back from him yet, and maybe I won't, so maybe he's out looking for a girl. I certainly hope so.

And btw, you seem awfully sensitive about sex, what's the big problem there? Why do you presume that every time someone says something about sex, they are trying to regulate you? Do you have a problem with self-discipline or something?

[conradg]

I think Gita's insistence that living in a detached manner even within society is possible and emphasis that being engaged in the material world complete with marriage and children is all-important is a direct response to Buddhism's exaltation of monasticism.

But wasn't Gita written waaay before Buddhism?

No, after. Buddha was 6th century BC, the Gita was about 200 BC. Of course, even the Upanishadic rishis from Buddha's time and before were generally married guys with families, but living in the forest in "hermitage". The sadhu tradition of ascetical renunciates was contemporaneous with both, and it's that tradition the Buddha was critical of, and advocated the "middle way" as an alternative to. But he kind of neglected the fact that there already were people practicing a "middle way" of a kind without becoming celibate renunciates as Buddha's discples were. By our standards, Buddha's "middle way" would still be considered a fairly ascetical way of life.

[perfectbite]

. But he kind of neglected the fact that there already were people practicing a "middle way" of a kind without becoming celibate renunciates as Buddha's discples were. By our standards, Buddha's "middle way" would still be considered a fairly ascetical way of life.

I firmly believe that the Buddha did specifically address the worldly but that the Buddhist ascetic monastics contorted the Buddha's teachings so that they addressed themselves. For instance; the plethora of "Oh bhikkhus" and the glorification of the Buddha's monastic Sangha by the Buddha's monastic Sangha who presented themselves as being the arbiters of ALL Buddhist thinking and spiritual effort and in doing so struck any attempt at being spiritual out of the 'unworthy' hands of the unordained worldly.

[wordy]

Do you have a problem with self-discipline or something?

Masters of Self-discipline Just me teasing.
Sometimes religious and spiritual people come through
as having a longing for to be Masters of Self-discipline.

The issue if I personally masturbate or not is against the
rule to ask but to ask my views on it are most likely ok to do.

I think of it as eating. Obsessive eating have consequenses too.
But to stop eating lead to anorexia which also can be obsessive.

So I try to find balance in both eating and masturbation and
in having a girlfriend. Too much of anything can get one hooked.

There are even people hooked on water. They drink so much of it
that their body gt wrong balance and they need to do something
about their obsession.

So some buddhists accept masturbation but as I remember those who
took deciscions for the monks they was very much against it.

Could it be that some "western" buddhists play down on puritanism
in the eastern buddhism to make buddhism more modern?

[perfectbite]

Could it be that some "western" buddhists play down on puritanism in the eastern buddhism to make buddhism more modern?

Wordy,

Perhaps you are confusing the general and the specific.

Some rules of behaviour woud apply to Buddhist monastics (the specific) but would not apply to the worldly (the general).

[aupmanyav]

What does the Gita have to say about leaving home to become a sadhu?It is generally not appreciated. In Bhagawat Purana, an accomplished ascetic (whose angry gaze could kill a crane, Kaushik) is sent to a butcher (Dharmavyadha) to know dharma. When Kaushik understands dharma, he goes back to his aged parents to serve them.No, after. Buddha was 6th century BC, the Gita was about 200 BC.I would not give it that definite a date but certainly later than Buddha. The language is modern (Paninis - 400 BC?) Sanskrit. Who wrote it (IMHO, one of the great mysteries of Hinduism)?And btw, you seem awfully sensitive about sex, what's the big problem there?Nobody here is overly sensitive about sex, neither Logos nor Wordy. Only that it is not the subject of discussion in the topic.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I think you are entirely missing the point of the Buddhist perspective. "Good" and "bad" are not moral imperatives in Buddhism, and there is no objection to masturbation for moral reasons that I'm aware of, in the same way that there is in Christianity. The criticism Buddhism has of masturbation is the same criticism they would have of every kind of pleasure or pain - it's impermanent, it doesn't last, and it inevitably leads to its opposite. Hence, there's nothing but an endless cycle of seeking that results in nothing but ups and downs and no real satisfaction.

"Inevitably leads to its opposite"? No, it doesn't. Eating to the point of satisfaction does not lead to hunger. The utilization of the food is what leads to hunger. Do not confuse temporal succession with causation. Water (and of course, water-drinking) does not cause thirst, lack of hidration does.

Of course it's impermanent! If it weren't, human life would not be, we'd be like rocks! Biography: "I once ate, drank, slept, crapped and pissed. That was when I was 1 day old. I haven't done anything since, except count my 44 birthdays". Human living is a collection of cycles, it's what it's all about. Is that terrible? No, it's life. You laugh, you cry, you shit, you wipe, you eat, you brush, you love, you relish. One thing is not clinging like an insecure baby to certain things, and something else not indulging in pleasures off and on.



My suggestion to wordy about getting a girlfriend was a strictly personal comment on my part, not related to some Buddhist stricture or regulation,

I know. But you were awfully moralizing about it.


but purely my getting the feeling that wordy needs to get out more and stop masturbating in private so much.

Don't demonstrate what I was saying so much, you're pampering me and I could get used to it. :cool:



I certainly hope so.


I don't. I hope he has a great time in his life living it as he sits fit.



And btw, you seem awfully sensitive about sex, what's the big problem there? Why do you presume that every time someone says something about sex, they are trying to regulate you? Do you have a problem with self-discipline or something?

Me? Or you? I focused on that because that was a clear point of moralizing for you.


Why do you presume that every time someone says something about sex, they are trying to regulate you?

Whaa?! You've got a hidden camera following me!

Now seriously, you didn't simply "say something about sex". You were ruling on sex. I intervened. Nice try, Freud.



Do you have a problem with self-discipline or something?

No, I didn't say anything against self discipline. I have a problem with people going around telling others they're unsocial because they touch themselves. I prefer life free and self-regulating, not "should"ing on itself.

[ravenscape]

This thread has taken an interesting, and rather personal, turn, and I encourage folks to take care to stay within the rules.

How would you say that sexuality relates back to the question of a defeater for Buddhism?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

No idea.




http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing013.gif

[premjan]

Buddhist monks are celibate. That's not so great is it?

[aupmanyav]

I have not interacted with buddhist monks (they are strong in Maharashtra), but hindu, christian, muslim and jain monks, most would not miss a chance. I do not expect buddhist monks to be any different. It is good that vedic rishis and hindu saints did not have the tradition of celebacy. ;)

[Jason]

Lógos,

So is the Holy Spirit, Neverland, Osiris' judgement of the dead, Jesus' magical undeadening of the dead, Russell's teapot, etc. Agnosticism is warranted for these subjects, but trust in them in whatever degree is not: Trust in the unlikely unreasonable unseen is basically wishful thinking. And probably even "un-Buddhist", which is ironic in quite an intense manner.

I agree agnosticism is warranted for these subjects, but in regard to rebirth, I think that there are ways to test whether this phenomena is possible. The problem is, besides people like Ian Stevenson, most scientists seem to be unwilling to do so.

Mental stress and suffering themselves. Their defining characteristics can be found in everyone, and as I have said before, they are basic to our functioning, so their existence is adaptive. We're lucky to have them, precisely and even though they're aversive. For example, people who have their skin pain sensors neurologically impaired, injure themselves a lot, so pain to a certain degree is good for you, it's here for a reason.

The Buddha never said that an awakened person will not feel physical pain or discomfort, but that such feelings will no longer cause mental suffering, emotional distress, et cetera. This point is made clear in the simile of the dart found in SN 36.6 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nypo.html).

The mind can be addicted "to the material form of the body"? The mind is a property (same as, for instance, tissular respiration) of the human organism. I'm not following you. (?)

Yes, it has to do with the mind's attitude toward the body. Since my time is limited and it would take a long time for me to attempt to explain what I mean, I will refer you to a short Dhamma talk (http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/080317%20The%20Right%20Attitude%20to%20the%20Body.mp3) by Thanissaro Bhikkhu that is somewhat relevent.

Personal experience is evidence. What it is not is demonstration (what people commonly call "proof"). Also, I should remind you that what you've said in the part I just quoted and you call "a fact" is not. Stuff written in old books are not facts. And even if there was a Gautama who said such a thing, it doesn't mean it's true. It only means he thought so (or made it up, but I'm not going there, because that will only muddy the discussion and practically end it then and there, obviously).

Yes, you are right. It would have been more accurate if I had said, "The fact is, were are told that during a state of deep meditative absorption, the Buddha experienced memories of his past lives." I was simply in a hurry when I wrote my reply.

For me it's quite clear. If meditation etc is supposed to have certain effects towards the enlightened characteristics of arhants, such rules would have no point. ;)

In a perfect world, nobody would need rules. The Buddha's first disciples certainly did not need them, but the fact of the matter is, not everyone who ordains is enlightened, nor is everyone who ordains serious about achieving enlightenment.


I don't think so. From the bulk of what reaserch has seen it's the collective cognitive representations of the perceptible world, both internal and external, which enables organisms with a cerebral cortex to manage their life in their environments.

Basically, I agree with Susan Greenfield that consciousness is probably associated with global brain gestalts than any particular anatomical area; however, this is a topic that lies well outside of my scope of knowledge so, I will leave it at that.

But wasn't Gita written waaay before Buddhism?

As far as I know, at the time of the Buddha, at least some of the Upanishads were already existent in some form and there is a great deal of correlation between these and the Buddha's teachings. The Gita, however, seems to post-date these.

Aupmanyav,

Elohim: 'I think that it would be foolish to dismiss them simply for the fact that science has yet to find anything that would preclude the possibility that consciousness can exist outside of the body or condition the arising of a new consciousness.' In that way, even God has not been disproved. I see strains of Hrvoje and Figuer here. Meditation is a successful bio-feedback procedure.

My main point was that rebirth can act as a defeater if it can be disproven, not if people simply do not like the idea. As for my own standpoint regarding concepts such as rebirth and their place in the practice, I take a more pragmatic stance, e.g.:

"In presenting his teachings on karma and suffering to his listeners, the Buddha would offer empirical evidence to corroborate them — noting, for instance, how your reaction to another person's misery depends on how attached you are to that person — but he never attempted to back these teachings with full-scale empirical proof. In fact, he heaped ridicule on his contemporaries, the Jains, who attempted to prove their more deterministic teaching on karma by claiming that all those who kill, steal, lie, or engage in illicit sex will suffer from their actions here and now. "Haven't you seen the case," the Buddha asked, "where a man is rewarded by a king for killing the king's enemy, for stealing from the king's enemy, for amusing the king with a clever lie, for seducing the king's enemy's wife?" Even though the basic principle of karma is simple enough — skillful intentions lead to pleasure, unskillful intentions to pain — the dual principle of causality through which karma operates is so complex, like a Mandelbrot set, that you would go crazy trying to nail the whole thing down empirically.

So instead of an empirical proof for his teaching on karma, the Buddha offered a pragmatic proof: If you believe in his teachings on causality, karma, rebirth, and the four noble truths, how will you act? What kind of life will you lead? Won't you tend to be more responsible and compassionate? If, on the other hand, you were to believe in any of the alternatives — such as a doctrine of an impersonal fate or a deity who determined the course of your pleasure and pain, or a doctrine that all things were coincidental and without cause — what would those beliefs lead you to do? Would they allow you to put an end to suffering through your own efforts? Would they allow any purpose for knowledge at all? If, on the other hand, you refused to commit to a coherent idea of what human action can do, would you be likely to see a demanding path of practice all the way through to the end?" (Faith in Awakening (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/faithinawakening.html))

Jason

[Jason]

perfectbite,

I firmly believe that the Buddha did specifically address the worldly but that the Buddhist ascetic monastics contorted the Buddha's teachings so that they addressed themselves. For instance; the plethora of "Oh bhikkhus" and the glorification of the Buddha's monastic Sangha by the Buddha's monastic Sangha who presented themselves as being the arbiters of ALL Buddhist thinking and spiritual effort and in doing so struck any attempt at being spiritual out of the 'unworthy' hands of the unordained worldly.

It should not be surprising that the discourses contain many "Oh bhikkhus" considering that they were teachings that were predominately taught to, memorized and eventually recorded by the Sangha. Nevertheless, to me, it is clear that the Buddha did address the "worldy" as there are examples of this throughout the Pali Canon; and, while I am sure that many of the monastic Sangha have held too fast to the letter and not the spirit of the Dhamma, I do not think that they ever intended to strike "any attempt at being spiritual out of the 'unworthy' hands of the unordained worldly" because they did the same to themselves.

In the Pali Canon, there are many instances of lay-followers attaining stages of awakening all the way up to arahantship (full-awakening), e.g., one notable example of a lay-follower that attained awakening is King Suddhodana, the Buddha's father. Sadly, the idea has arisen that awakening is no longer possible for lay-followers and monastics alike! As S. Dhammika notes: "In Sri Lanka it is widely believed that it is not possible to become enlightened anymore and it’s not just simple folk who believe this either ... Others say that there may still be human arahats, but it is unlikely and/or undiscoverable" (The Broken Buddha (http://www.buddhistische-gesellschaft-berlin.de/downloads/brokenbuddhanew.pdf)).

Jason

[Lógos Sokratikós]

but in regard to rebirth, I think that there are ways to test whether this phenomena is possible. The problem is, besides people like Ian Stevenson, most scientists seem to be unwilling to do so.


Yeah, evil scientist conspiration agaist the Truth. How many folks are out there complaining scientists don't cater to their cheirshed beliefs? It's never the case science doesn't agree with me, it's because scientist wish to protect their dogma. Tired old story.

Listen, if you want to believe in your several thousand year old magic to help you sleep at night that's fine, you're in the company of legions. These things won't be settled on web fora anyway. The way science works, if Santa Claus does exist, eventually it will become accepted. Until then it's still wishful thinking and Stevenson will remain an excuse to keep believing in just another item in the catalog of the unlikely unreasonable unseen.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

So instead of an empirical proof for his teaching on karma, the Buddha offered a pragmatic proof: If you believe in his teachings on causality, karma, rebirth, and the four noble truths, how will you act? What kind of life will you lead?

Probably not so unselfish as a Francis of Assisi who believed a load of BS regarding the afterlife. It doesn't prove anything except that many are willing to fool themselves in order to prove their worthiness to their own neurotically overinflated consciences.

I on the other hand believe that the truth can be preserved and still be honorable, instead of fooling myself in order to reassure myself I'm not a horrible individual.

How lazy or selfish do you think you are, that you think you have to carrot-and-stick yourself with unfalsifiable ideas so as to be moral or blameless? Do you think you're that bad?

[conradg]

I think you are entirely missing the point of the Buddhist perspective. "Good" and "bad" are not moral imperatives in Buddhism, and there is no objection to masturbation for moral reasons that I'm aware of, in the same way that there is in Christianity. The criticism Buddhism has of masturbation is the same criticism they would have of every kind of pleasure or pain - it's impermanent, it doesn't last, and it inevitably leads to its opposite. Hence, there's nothing but an endless cycle of seeking that results in nothing but ups and downs and no real satisfaction.

"Inevitably leads to its opposite"? No, it doesn't. Eating to the point of satisfaction does not lead to hunger. The utilization of the food is what leads to hunger. Do not confuse temporal succession with causation. Water (and of course, water-drinking) does not cause thirst, lack of hidration does.

One of the main arguments of both Buddhism and non-dual Vedanta is that in the long run, every positive leads to a negative, and vice-versa, not necessarily by causation, but because experience simply evens out. Eating to the point of satisfaction leads to disatisfaction, not necessarily through hunger, but by boredom, indulgence, even ill health as a result of eating too much rich food. Satsifaction itself is not lasting, even when the supposed cause of satisfaction persists. If you are hungry, food will satisfy temporarily, but if you are consistently well-fed, one finds other reasons for disatisfaction. The rich, one might notice, are not appreciably happier than the poor, in part because they find that obtaining all the things they thought would bring them satisfaction does not actually do that. What one discovers through this is that happiness is not actually caused. What we think brings us happiness is not actually the cause of happiness. The cycles of life bring happiness and unhappiness, pleasure and pain, in a fairly regular rhythm, often in spite of conditions and causes. So yes, pleasure does inevitably give way to pain, which gives way to pleasure, and then pain again, ad infinitum. Noticing this pattern is part of what Buddhism teaches us to do, rather than merely seek pleasure and the avoidance of pain. It suggests we should step out of that cycle, rather than perpetuate it in the vain hope that we will someday find a way to be in a state of pleasure at all times, and never pain.

Of course it's impermanent! If it weren't, human life would not be, we'd be like rocks! Biography: "I once ate, drank, slept, crapped and pissed. That was when I was 1 day old. I haven't done anything since, except count my 44 birthdays". Human living is a collection of cycles, it's what it's all about. Is that terrible? No, it's life. You laugh, you cry, you shit, you wipe, you eat, you brush, you love, you relish. One thing is not clinging like an insecure baby to certain things, and something else not indulging in pleasures off and on.

Yes, it's not "terrible" all the time. Is that the best that can be said for it? It's still suffering. And sometimes it is terrible. Read the papers. Sometimes it's good, sometimes bad, but it's never satisfying. Buddhism is simply saying, notice this, take it seriously, and stop seeking satisfaction in life, because it doesn't produce satisfaction. Buddhism is about paying attention to what's actually going on here, and seeing that our efforts to attain satisfaction are actually counter-productive, in that they keep us wedded to this endless cycle rather than stand free of it. If you think there is no freedom from this cycle, fine, but Buddhism says otherwise. Not living on the basis of our cravings and desirings is the first step. You say that we should not cling like babies to things, or indulge in pleasure on and off, and yet that is exactly what people do. How do you suggest people actually stop doing that? Buddhism would say that it takes some basic understanding of what's really going on here.

I know. But you were awfully moralizing about it.

"Awfully moralizing"? Good God, man, get a grip. I haven't been moralizing at all. I'm just pointing out certain facts of life. It seems to me your definition of "moralizing" is saying anything critical about sex, as if it were some kind of Divine and perfect activity that it's blasphemy to talk about realistically. Please. Sex is just part of the pleasure/pain cycle of life, and anyone with any experience of it at all knows it doesn't bring lasting satisfaction of any kind. And yet it's also one of the things people perpetually seek lasting satisfaction through. Masturbation is one of those ways. I can't say it's harmful or harmless, it's just a particularly self-focused activity that is bound to be disatisfying even in the fairly short run. There's no need to interpret my criticism as "moralizing", in that I've specifically said there's no moral problem with it. There's simply a very obvious practical problem, which is that it really isn't very satisfying. So it doesn't accomplish what it seems to promise. But that's true of everything of course.

Me? Or you? I focused on that because that was a clear point of moralizing for you.

That's the excuse you give, but it seems to me that you talk about it because it concerns you, not because it's my obsession. I'm not the one who brought it up, and I'm not the one who keeps harping on it. I've said before that it really has nothing to do with Buddhism or this discussion, and yet you still remain somehow offended and defensively accuse me of moralizing, when I've done nothing of the kind.

No, I didn't say anything against self discipline. I have a problem with people going around telling others they're unsocial because they touch themselves. I prefer life free and self-regulating, not "should"ing on itself.

But why do you impute any "moralizing" to that criticism? I think it's rather obvious that masturbation is an unsocial sexual activity. I brought that point up because wordy had been arguing that as bodily beings we are inherently social creatures, and that it is unnatural to think otherwise. It seems odd to me that he would then be looking for some justification for a clearly asocial activity. I was arguing that the body is not our identity, but only something with which we have an intimate relationship. Masturbation would seem to support this notion, since when we masturbate, we are relating to the body as if it were an other, not ourselves. We manipulate it to achieve temporary pleasure. Buddhism merely points out the futility of this activity, not just in relation to sex, but everything else.

[abaddon]

... You're the one "should"ing us not to do it. Doing stuff alone isn't in itself wicked, it's normal, and masturbation is just one of those alone things you can do. Nothing different from blowing your own nose or speaking your own mind.
Announcing “it’s good” is moralizing too. I don’t see the “should”ing in conradj’s posts the way you characterize it, more a general explication of a Buddhist take on pleasure/pain.

[conradg]

This thread has taken an interesting, and rather personal, turn, and I encourage folks to take care to stay within the rules.

How would you say that sexuality relates back to the question of a defeater for Buddhism?

Since Buddhism states that no pleasures are either ultimate or lasting, if some form of sexual activity were found that brought permanent and profound relief from suffering, that would certainly defeat one of the primal postulates of Buddhism.

[perfectbite]

perfectbite,

I firmly believe that the Buddha did specifically address the worldly but that the Buddhist ascetic monastics contorted the Buddha's teachings so that they addressed themselves. For instance; the plethora of "Oh bhikkhus" and the glorification of the Buddha's monastic Sangha by the Buddha's monastic Sangha who presented themselves as being the arbiters of ALL Buddhist thinking and spiritual effort and in doing so struck any attempt at being spiritual out of the 'unworthy' hands of the unordained worldly.

It should not be surprising that the discourses contain many "Oh bhikkhus" considering that they were teachings that were predominately taught to, memorized and eventually recorded by the Sangha. Nevertheless, to me, it is clear that the Buddha did address the "worldy" as there are examples of this throughout the Pali Canon; and, while I am sure that many of the monastic Sangha have held too fast to the letter and not the spirit of the Dhamma, I do not think that they ever intended to strike "any attempt at being spiritual out of the 'unworthy' hands of the unordained worldly" because they did the same to themselves. .

I agree, I do not think it was intentional but the result was exclusionary and hierarchical.

But at the same time I do think it started very early on and perhaps was a teaching clothed in the robe of the Buddha that put words in the dying Buddha's mouth. For instance in the Maha Parinibbana Sutta, DN ?.? the dying Buddha is said to have told the Sangha not to continue to call each other simply 'friends' but to adopt a titled, structured system of time in grade with a deliberate distinction between elder monks and newly ordained monks and the Buddha that I know would not have paid even the slightest attention to such fol-de-rol-dery.



In the Pali Canon, there are many instances of lay-followers attaining stages of awakening all the way up to arahantship (full-awakening), e.g., one notable example of a lay-follower that attained awakening is King Suddhodana, the Buddha's father. Sadly, the idea has arisen that awakening is no longer possible for lay-followers and monastics alike! As S. Dhammika notes: "In Sri Lanka it is widely believed that it is not possible to become enlightened anymore and it’s not just simple folk who believe this either ... Others say that there may still be human arahats, but it is unlikely and/or undiscoverable"(The Broken Buddha (http://www.buddhistische-gesellschaft-berlin.de/downloads/brokenbuddhanew.pdf)).

Jason

Who the hell are the simple folks? (I'll guess that they aren't Buddhist monastics but are the workaday worldly). Are they the folks the spiritual Bronco Busting monastic Buddha's Sangha deliberately rendered simple through the insistence of their exaltation?

Because the Buddha's monastic Sangha, not the Buddhist laity, would make such pronouncements they can wear yellow robes and be ordained and ordain other monks and be bhikkhus and chant the Suttas until the cows come home but such view that the Buddha's Truth is unnatainable unequivocally tells me that such Buddhist monastics have forsaken the Buddha's teaching that the attainment of awakened mind is attainable by ALL intelligent consciousnesses with effort and because such view is diametrically opposed to the Buddha's teaching that means that they are not Buddhist.

The sadness of this all is that they will steadfastly cling to their holy texts and their view and will not change their ways and nor will they recognize the attainment of awakened mind in those who are not of their own way of dogmatic Buddhist thinking but Buddhism is much, much, much bigger than that and in their limited and male chauvinist monastic parochiality (especially in Sri Lanka) they have cheapened and demeaned Buddhism. Tacky, tacky, tacky.

As I see it, the problem in removing Buddhist thought from its couch of Hinduism is that the Hindu Indian idea that consciousness in its existence and manifestation is the absolute and only mystery and one that Indian Buddhism directly addressed and such omission renders a hollow and empty Buddhism away from such question.

[aupmanyav]

My main point was that rebirth .. JasonDon't know if that is what Buddha believed or if that is what he thought was best for his people with their presumptions. I like Geeta's line better, you act good because it is your duty to your society; results of your action are immaterial.

[Jason]

Aupmanyav,

Don't know if that is what Buddha believed or if that is what he thought was best for his people with their presumptions. I like Geeta's line better, you act good because it is your duty to your society; results of your action are immaterial.

I do not know either, but I prefer the Buddha's teaching that our actions should be skillful because the results of our actions matter and because it is our duty to our society to act out of compassion, generosity, harmlessless and loving-kindness.

Best wishes,

Jason

[perfectbite]

I do not know either, but I prefer the Buddha's teaching that our actions should be skillful because the results of our actions matter and because it is our duty to our society to act out of compassion, generosity, harmlessless and loving-kindness.

Best wishes,

Jason

And, to make the mix more interesting, trying to live one's life with all its demands and ups and downs our very own lives. A life that allows us to be happy even if we have to be a little selfish.

Aye and there's the rub. How much of this life is for us and how much of this life is for others?

What would a supposed ratio be like? 50/50? 60/40? 75/25? 90/10?


100/0 isn't realistic although the extremely selfish or the extremely self denying would have no problem with such ratio.



I believe that we do have the right to be happy and joyous in this life and to experience life as it is dealt to us.

[William]

Just thought I'd step in from lurk mode for a brief moment...

Does it necessarily have to be some ratio between "for others" and "for ourself" though?? I feel that the economic system that most of the west has embraced since Smith has left us with this subconscious cultural need to see things in terms of competition, and "good for them" vs "good for me."

Sure, it's true that humans might be innately competitive to a certain degree, but I think we are also innately cooperative, and I've found that sometimes what helps me most also happens to help others. Often-times my psychological well-being and happiness come from what helps others in these ways as well...

[perfectbite]

Just thought I'd step in from lurk mode for a brief moment...

Does it necessarily have to be some ratio between "for others" and "for ourself" though?? I feel that the economic system that most of the west has embraced since Smith has left us with this subconscious cultural need to see things in terms of competition, and "good for them" vs "good for me."

Sure, it's true that humans might be innately competitive to a certain degree, but I think we are also innately cooperative, and I've found that sometimes what helps me most also happens to help others. Often-times my psychological well-being and happiness come from what helps others in these ways as well...

As I wrote. What would such suppositioned ratio look like? We can do away with the idea of 100/0.

(and I don't mean doing away with the virtually 100/0 effort required to take care of a human infant.)

I am not addressing co-operative effort although such would certainly instill a sense of community but rather the effort one would require of one's self to achieve a satisfactory balance. Between feeling that one is being taken advantage of or that one is usefully pulling up the slack.

When no-one else is being aware attempting to be aware.

(A very long time ago I was coming down the manual stairs of a very busy commuter station in a very large US city. Everyone (probably about two hundred or more folks) was using the manual stairs because the down escalator was blocked for some reason and I was part of the crowd as they went down the stairs and flowed out to the buses through the turnstiles but I happened to glance over at the down escalator and saw an old woman who was trying to go up the down escalator and I started to continue walking but stopped and went over to her and she was terrified.

She was very frail and had confused the time of day when the escalator went up and not down and the flat part of the going down escalator had become the treadmill from hell for her and because she wasn't agile enough to turn and step off the escalator it was all she could do keep facing forward and walking on the flat and not fall and break something and be carried backward where her clothing could become caught in the spaces where the elevator treads disappeared.

She had no strength to call for help and after I got her off the escalator and sat her down at a station bench she told me that at least three commuter trains had come into the station before mine and hundreds of folks who had come down the regular stairs hadn't noticed her or if anyone had noticed her plight I was the first to help.

Although I was glad to be of help I found it difficult to believe that 800 + (maybe even a 1,000) folks (four end of the line packed commuter trainloads) were so intent on getting home that only one person took the time to notice that she was in trouble and stopped to help her.

Being aware of one's environment for the benefit of others can approach 100/0 and perhaps should be as close to 100/0 as we can get it.)


But in ordinary day to day life becoming aggrieved that someone isn't pulling their weight and then finding that a dearly loved family member of theirs was gravely ill or even moribund and their effort was understandably half-hearted would knowing that make a difference to one's view would one's effort go from 50/50 to 90/10 just for that person or in dropping such aggrievement would it then be considered someone else's problem?

It is interesting.

[aupmanyav]

I would say the story is revealing, making us aware.

Self interest and community interest are not in conflict if one goes by 'dharma' (duty and righteous action).

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Just thought I'd step in from lurk mode for a brief moment...

Does it necessarily have to be some ratio between "for others" and "for ourself" though?? I feel that the economic system that most of the west has embraced since Smith has left us with this subconscious cultural need to see things in terms of competition, and "good for them" vs "good for me."

Sure, it's true that humans might be innately competitive to a certain degree, but I think we are also innately cooperative, and I've found that sometimes what helps me most also happens to help others. Often-times my psychological well-being and happiness come from what helps others in these ways as well...

Neither capitalism nor competition were invented by Smith. They're much older that the Gita, and it has been present since the very beginnings of recorded history, from China to Iberia.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

This thread has taken an interesting, and rather personal, turn, and I encourage folks to take care to stay within the rules.

How would you say that sexuality relates back to the question of a defeater for Buddhism?

Since Buddhism states that no pleasures are either ultimate or lasting, if some form of sexual activity were found that brought permanent and profound relief from suffering, that would certainly defeat one of the primal postulates of Buddhism.

I don't think so.

Why doesn't seem nobody reads me but everyone wants to refute me? (That does say a lot, doesn't it?)

NOTHING brings permanent relief to suffering. That's the point. The point that suffering is our lifelong company, and so precisely because it's part of what makes us human, is what definitely defeats one central tenet of buddhism.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Aupmanyav,

Don't know if that is what Buddha believed or if that is what he thought was best for his people with their presumptions. I like Geeta's line better, you act good because it is your duty to your society; results of your action are immaterial.

I do not know either, but I prefer the Buddha's teaching that our actions should be skillful because the results of our actions matter and because it is our duty to our society to act out of compassion, generosity, harmlessless and loving-kindness.

Best wishes,

Jason

Buddha says, buddha says, buddha says. In another day and age, you'd be going around saying "Jesus says, Jesus says, Jesus says". And with the same level of authority that says-so brings. Approximately nill.

[ravenscape]

Thread closed for review/clean-up. I hope to have it reopened before the day is done (California time).

Thanks,

Raven

ETA: Thread will not open before tomorrow sometime.

ETA2: I'm reopening the thread. Please review the forum rules (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=235594), particularly the following portions:


b) Users are not permitted to post derogatory comments about other users, insults, or flames. For example, calling a fellow poster "delusional" or "deceitful," or making a similarly inflammatory accusation, is not acceptable even if you believe that the accusation is true. You may attack ideas but you are not allowed to attack the individual who offers them.

d) Users are not permitted to post material which the II staff at IIDB determines has the appearance of being deliberately goading.
If you feel that a post is disruptive, please report it via this button http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/images/001/buttons/report.gif (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/report.php?p=5433694), rather than respond to it.

NARP participants are generally able to discuss difficult topics without resorting to insults and goading. Unfortunately, this thread has become problematic in that personal comments have tipped over into personal attacks.

Please take care to focus your rebuttals on the arguments rather than the personalities and perceived shortcomings of the people making those arguments.

Derailing comments were moved to here (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=247672).

Thanks,

Raven
NARP Team

[conradg]

NOTHING brings permanent relief to suffering. That's the point. The point that suffering is our lifelong company, and so precisely because it's part of what makes us human, is what definitely defeats one central tenet of buddhism.

That's almost one of the central tenets of Buddhism. The first noble truth is that life is suffering. Where Buddhism differs with you is that it says there is a cause for suffering, that it doesn't just arise naturally. The cause of suffering, according to Buddhism, is "craving", which means more than just ordinary hunger and so forth, but something akin to what we call "seeking". Contained within that description of the cause of suffering is the notion that one can cease to suffering by undoing the cause - and no other way. In other words, nothing you do by seeking to cease from suffering will actually bring about the end of suffering. No desire or craving, even when fulfilled, will result in the absence of suffering. Only the end of craving will end suffering, because then suffering will not be given birth to. The fourth noble truth is that there is a way out of suffering, which is to undo craving and all its illusions. The cessation of craving is what "nirvana" means, not the fulfillment of craving. So it's a very different idea of the end of suffering than "heaven" (of either the religious or the secular kind), which is generally conceived of as a place where all one's desires are fulfilled.

When you talk about suffering as being a part of what makes us human, this is only because many people don't know what causes suffering, or why it appears. They think it is natural, rather than something they are creating themselves. Observation of oneself leads to the insight that suffering does not exist naturally in us, it exists because we crave various pleasures, or avoid various pains. In this sense, Buddhism does not equate suffering with pain, but with the reaction to pain that seeks its ultimate end, rather than its acceptance as a part of life. And perhaps that is what you mean when you say that suffering is a part of what it means to be human. If you mean that pain is a part of being human, Buddhism would agree. But suffering is more than mere pain, it is the refusal to accept pain as natural, and the attempt to be free of pain instead.

[aupmanyav]

Suffering is of three kinds (ask buddhists to give more divisions, they are good at it), Adhidaivic (created by God or chance as you would like to have it), Adhyatmic (mind-created), and Adhibhautic (physical). You can't do much about Adhidaivic and adhibhautic, they will occur however well you control your mind. In those cases, it is fore-bearance and equanimity which would help one. It is the mind-created suffering where buddhism could help. So making suffering a slogan in not good. This is for discussion.

Thanks, ConradG, we are not victorian, and can discuss sex just as well, but injecting that in another discussion is not fair. I hope you would consider the sentiments of members. We value your posts. And Logos, Abaddon, sometimes others too, why can't you leave being personal and spoil a good discussion? NAR&P should not require intervention by mods.

[conradg]

Suffering is of three kinds (ask buddhists to give more divisions, they are good at it), Adhidaivic (created by God or chance as you would like to have it), Adhyatmic (mind-created), and Adhibhautic (physical). You can't do much about Adhidaivic and adhibhautic, they will occur however well you control your mind. In those cases, it is fore-bearance and equanimity which would help one. It is the mind-created suffering where buddhism could help. So making suffering a slogan in not good. This is for discussion.

If by "God-created", you mean things like hurricanes and accidents, yes, we can't do much about these, but we can let go of our reactions to these, which is what creates the mass of our suffering. People tend to get angry or sad or fearful of these things, adding all kinds of inner torment to the simple fact of nature's randomness. On the other hand, there are many schools of Buddhism which suggest that even the material world is "mind-created", and that the events of life are the result of karma, and are not random at all. Thus, it is considered even more important not to perpetuate these karmas through reaction, since that will only make things worse. Not only will it create mental suffering, but it will result in even more karmic events to suffer, thus keeping in place a wheel of action/reaction that is without end.

Thanks, ConradG, we are not victorian, and can discuss sex just as well, but injecting that in another discussion is not fair. I hope you would consider the sentiments of members.

I have no problem with that. I didn't bring up the issue of masturbation, nor was it my intention to perpetuate it. I'm a little befuddled as to why it was made such a big issue by some participants in the discussion, except to the degree that sexuality is almost always a hot-button.

[aupmanyav]

You mean the 'wheel of dharma' will stop Earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, tornadoes, fires, floods, and draughts? Also Mad Cow disease and Bird Flu?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

NOTHING brings permanent relief to suffering. That's the point. The point that suffering is our lifelong company, and so precisely because it's part of what makes us human, is what definitely defeats one central tenet of buddhism.

That's almost one of the central tenets of Buddhism. The first noble truth is that life is suffering. Where Buddhism differs with you is that it says there is a cause for suffering, that it doesn't just arise naturally. The cause of suffering, according to Buddhism, is "craving", which means more than just ordinary hunger and so forth, but something akin to what we call "seeking". Contained within that description of the cause of suffering is the notion that one can cease to suffering by undoing the cause - and no other way. In other words, nothing you do by seeking to cease from suffering will actually bring about the end of suffering. No desire or craving, even when fulfilled, will result in the absence of suffering. Only the end of craving will end suffering, because then suffering will not be given birth to. The fourth noble truth is that there is a way out of suffering, which is to undo craving and all its illusions. The cessation of craving is what "nirvana" means, not the fulfillment of craving. So it's a very different idea of the end of suffering than "heaven" (of either the religious or the secular kind), which is generally conceived of as a place where all one's desires are fulfilled.

When you talk about suffering as being a part of what makes us human, this is only because many people don't know what causes suffering, or why it appears. They think it is natural, rather than something they are creating themselves. Observation of oneself leads to the insight that suffering does not exist naturally in us, it exists because we crave various pleasures, or avoid various pains. In this sense, Buddhism does not equate suffering with pain, but with the reaction to pain that seeks its ultimate end, rather than its acceptance as a part of life. And perhaps that is what you mean when you say that suffering is a part of what it means to be human. If you mean that pain is a part of being human, Buddhism would agree. But suffering is more than mere pain, it is the refusal to accept pain as natural, and the attempt to be free of pain instead.

Well that's more like it. Craving, not wishing; addiction, not necessity. I've said it before.

And perhaps that is what you mean when you say that suffering is a part of what it means to be human.

That is exactly what I mean.

But suffering is more than mere pain, it is the refusal to accept pain as natural, and the attempt to be free of pain instead.

I don't think that is the cause of suffering, unless you're talking about another acception of suffering that is unknown to me.

The wish to free oneself of pain and its indisoluble companion, the attempt to relieve oneself of it, are natural to humans. Not even the demented avoid wishing and attempting to free themselves of pain (the case of masochists is a curious one but not an exception: masochists desire to dosify pleasure-provoking bearable pain by their standards, and are known to get quite grumpy if not aggressive when the pain is REALLY not controlled and requested by them).

It's quite curious that humanists like myself do not embrace the slightest expectation of feeing ourselves from suffering, only suffering needlessly and avoidably. IMHO buddhism instills into people that expectation (notice I'm saying "expectation" not "desire"). Of course, buddhism isn't the only religion that does that. I agree wholeheartedly that "living is to suffer" (although I would add that it's also pleasure including all the pleasantries one can think of, such as fun, humor, etc). It's odd the core buddhist message omits that --hmmm. It's the rest of the message I have seemingly unsurmountable troubles in agreeing with. I agree rather with Epicurus when he emphasizes the avoidance of "suffering over pursuing pleasure, because they find that the greatest happiness lies in a tranquil state (ataraxia) free from pain and from the worrisome pursuit or unwelcome consequences of pleasure" (citation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering#Philosophical.2C_ethical_perspectives)). Furthermore, the promise of nibbana appears rather specious, as it contains elements of the highest improbability, such as an "unconditional mind" (what happened to the doctrine of dependent co-origination? Everything is dependent except the canyland we're promising the neophytes?), termination of births (Hello, faith in the unlikely unseen, we meet again), the end of ignorance ("How do I know I'm not ignorant any longer?" -"When you have accepted what I'm saying" - Oh how charming, I've always wanted to give away my brain!), etc.

[conradg]

But suffering is more than mere pain, it is the refusal to accept pain as natural, and the attempt to be free of pain instead.

I don't think that is the cause of suffering, unless you're talking about another acception of suffering that is unknown to me.

The wish to free oneself of pain and its indisoluble companion, the attempt to relieve oneself of it, are natural to humans. Not even the demented avoid wishing and attempting to free themselves of pain (the case of masochists is a curious one but not an exception: masochists desire to dosify pleasure-provoking bearable pain by their standards, and are known to get quite grumpy if not aggressive when the pain is REALLY not controlled and requested by them).

If you accept the distinction between pain and suffering that Buddhism makes, which it appears that you do, then it is quite natural to avoid pain in the ordinary way, but to turn that into a universal quest to acheive a pain-free life is not, in that pain is an unavoidable part of life. Hence, to acheive a pain-free life, one would have to get out of life, which is what heaven is all about. This is why Buddhism does not worship the goal of heavenly bliss. As one of my favorite quotes from the Buddha says,

No worldly pleasure
No heavenly bliss
Is equal to the the most infinitesimal fraction
Of the bliss of the cessation of craving

In other words, the real, inherent enjoyment of life comes when we are free from craving, not when we are free from pain. Obviously, as you say, physical pain is something we naturally avoid, unless we are masochists. But just as the pleasures of life are nothing compared to the joy of a life free from craving, the ordinary pains of life are nothing compared to the miseries of the life of craving. "Suffering" is not the same as pain, it is an entire mindset built on craving and its fulfillment, or lack thereof. It is a life of reaction - reaction to pain, and the pursuit of pleasure.

It's quite curious that humanists like myself do not embrace the slightest expectation of feeing ourselves from suffering, only suffering needlessly and avoidably. IMHO buddhism instills into people that expectation (notice I'm saying "expectation" not "desire").

I can't speak for you, but modern secular culture in general is definitely in thrall to an entire course of monumental craving through every possible avoidance of pain and pursuit of pleasure, in ways that previous generations could only dream of. As a consequence, it isn't very happy, in spite of all its "success".

And your statement carries with it what from the Buddhist understanding is a misconception about pain and suffering. You say that humanists have no expectation of freeing themselves from suffering, while Buddhists would say that they ought to, since they have created suffering out of their sheer reaction to life, and thus it can rather easily be undone by no longer reacting to life. It is pain that people should have no expectation of being free from, but suffering is another matter entirely. People don't generally make the distinction, and that is the source of most of their confusion about life. They pursue the cessation of pain, not realizing that their pursuit creates a life of endless suffering which goes round and round feeding on itself and creating innumerable illusions. They indentify with their suffering to such a degree that they think it is natural to them, that it is even their own true nature, and thus you end up with both cynical materialists and original-sin religionists. Whereas it is simply a self-created concept with no real core to it, just a reaction born of ignorance.

Furthermore, the promise of nibbana appears rather specious, as it contains elements of the highest improbability, such as an "unconditional mind" (what happened to the doctrine of dependent co-origination? Everything is dependent except the canyland we're promising the neophytes?), termination of births (Hello, faith in the unlikely unseen, we meet again), the end of ignorance ("How do I know I'm not ignorant any longer?" -"When you have accepted what I'm saying" - Oh how charming, I've always wanted to give away my brain!), etc.

Buddhist terminology differs from sect to sect, and it's sometimes hard to decipher. The Buddhist word that often gets translated as "mind" is really more like "heart". It doesn't refer to the thinking mind at all, but to a primordial sense of being. It doesn't so much hold out the promise of deconditioning the mind, but of understanding that our real nature has never been conditioned at all, and despite all the illusions we have generated through craving, it remains unconditioned even now. So the "attainment" of nirvana is not the result of some deconditioning of the mind, but of ceasing to generate the cravings which create all these conceptual illusions that we call "mind", so that we can see that our real nature has never been corrupted, has never been lost, but has only been unnoticed by us because our attention is habitually engrossed in our cravings and its consequent sufferings.

One of the primary criticism of the Buddha was of "the conceptual mind", by which he meant literally all conceptions about life and mind, not just impure or "bad" ones. Nirvana means nothing more than the absence of these concepts, and the living of life as it actually is. In other words, it is not life that is conditioned by concepts, they have no reality to them at all, and nothing is lost by shedding them. So the "unconditioned mind" is really "no concepts", because concepts are self-generated, they do not exist in nature. To live in nirvana means to live without concepts, directly, wholly, immediately, without craving. This is what "mindfulness" is about.

As for no more births and deaths, from Buddha's point of view, those too are merely concepts created by craving. The real being, he taught, is never born to begin with, and cannot die. The world itself is merely a concept, as is the cessation of the world. To make a concept of that would be a mistake, so arguing about whether this is so or not is also a way of perpetuating the illusion itself. In fact, the whole of Buddhism isn't even about these arguments, but about the silence that comes from going beyond concepts. Which is why the Buddha answered all metaphysical questions with "noble silence".

[conradg]

You mean the 'wheel of dharma' will stop Earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, tornadoes, fires, floods, and draughts? Also Mad Cow disease and Bird Flu?

Yes, in the sense that enlightenment brings to an end the illusions of the mind, including the illusion that we are born and die. If you dreamt you were in a hurricane last night, where is that hurricane when you wake up in the morning? The contents of a dream are dependent upon the one who dreams. They do not arise from without.

[aupmanyav]

Sadhu, sadhu (Good, very good). Why did you have to get entangled in sex?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Conrad, your last reply to me is precisely what I find distatsteful about buddhists. They always find a way to wiggle out of every questioning by jumping on the next lily pad to avoid being falsified... avoiding the falsifying of the specious promises by recurring to ambiguity across sects. It's like catching a greased pig. Similar to defending Christianity by jumping from Catholic to Calvinist, to Lutheran, to Methodist and back, which makes it typical among religionists: they can never be made to admit their beliefs are false.

I'm not going to play that sick game any more. I'm fed up. All we have to do is sit back and contemplate the beautiful view of religions having less and less adherents as time goes by. Ignorance can be dispelled by truth. I'm content I don't have to push the river as it flows on its own.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

And by the way, about this:

I can't speak for you, but modern secular culture in general is definitely in thrall to an entire course of monumental craving through every possible avoidance of pain and pursuit of pleasure, in ways that previous generations could only dream of. As a consequence, it isn't very happy, in spite of all its "success".

You watch too much TV. Get real: Our societies are getting better.

Constant and impressive drop in violence in the US:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/defenseandsecurity/a/famviolence.htm
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=usgovinfo&cdn=newsissues&tm=25&gps=239_948_1001_578&f=20&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fvs.htm
Violence has remained stable in western Europe while it increased in Russia and other NISs:
http://www.euro.who.int/document/mediacentre/fs1002e.pdf
... while enjoying a durable peace never before seen.
Drug use is dropping especially among teens:
http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol14N1/TeenTrends.html

We have problems, but hey, isn't it unfair to compare a society (who are composed of populations, and therefore have statistics) and religions (which are composed of beliefs and practices, not populations)? Why not compare the above western countries with traditionally buddhist ones, so we can compare societies with societies!

http://www.ahrn.net/library_upload/uploadfile/Thai2000.pdf
Thailand. Lot's of drugs there...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=violence+increase+thailand&start=10&sa=N
Violence against women. Ooo, shame.

Let's see Sri Lanka: Just one step away from "failed state" status of collapse.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4350&page=1

Let's see... if we could offer one of these two to help Mexico, for instance, what would it be? Buddhism so it reaces the enlightened levels of Sri Lanka or Thailand... or science and technology so it becomes like France or Great Britain?

[Kharakov]

Conrad, your last reply to me is precisely what I find distatsteful about buddhists. They always find a way to wiggle out of every questioning by jumping on the next lily pad to avoid being falsified... avoiding the falsifying of the specious promises by recurring to ambiguity across sects. It's like catching a greased pig. Similar to defending Christianity by jumping from Catholic to Calvinist, to Lutheran, to Methodist and back, which makes it typical among religionists: they can never be made to admit their beliefs are false.
Hrmm. For me, when I become uncomfortable with a certain position, I shift. Does this mean every position I have reclined in is wrong?

[Kharakov]

In other words, the real, inherent enjoyment of life comes when we are free from craving, not when we are free from pain. Obviously, as you say, physical pain is something we naturally avoid, unless we are masochists. But just as the pleasures of life are nothing compared to the joy of a life free from craving, the ordinary pains of life are nothing compared to the miseries of the life of craving. "Suffering" is not the same as pain, it is an entire mindset built on craving and its fulfillment, or lack thereof. It is a life of reaction - reaction to pain, and the pursuit of pleasure.
Ummmmm.... so buddhism is a reaction to mental pain, and pursuit of mental pleasure? Same thing, different name.

[aupmanyav]

Kharakov: Like a member in another forum, JC for Sundays, Shiva for Mondays, Hanuman for Tuesdays, Vishnu for Thursdays, Allah for Fridays, YHWH for Saturdays, Wednesday free. :)

[Kharakov]

Why not. I'm a little more chaotic minded than that. Destination calabria.

I need no excuses for my behaviors. Others do.

[ravenscape]

Kharakov: Like a member in another forum, JC for Sundays, Shiva for Mondays, Hanuman for Tuesdays, Vishnu for Thursdays, Allah for Fridays, YHWH for Saturdays, Wednesday free. :)
Dude. Wednesdays are for Odin (Woden/Wodin). Just sayin'.

[conradg]

And by the way, about this:

I can't speak for you, but modern secular culture in general is definitely in thrall to an entire course of monumental craving through every possible avoidance of pain and pursuit of pleasure, in ways that previous generations could only dream of. As a consequence, it isn't very happy, in spite of all its "success".

You watch too much TV. Get real: Our societies are getting better.

Better is of course always a relative term. The modern world thrives on the idea of progress, improvement, etc. So yes, it is getting better by all kinds of metrics. The question is, is getting better really a meaningful metric? In other words, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Modern science and tech frees us in many important ways, but they also enslaves us in many other ways, and the future world of high tech politics is not exactly all rosey. There's a point where rational, practical improvements in society are overwhelmed by the massive search for existential freedom and the creation of a paradise on earth through technological salvation. Consumer society itself is one of those manifestations, and science is the new Santa Claus. I'm not saying we should be anti-science and anti-progress, but a healthy skepticism is necessary to prevent the madness of our cravings from overwhelming us. We are on the verge of destroying our planet merely to satisfy our cravings, not our needs.

We have problems, but hey, isn't it unfair to compare a society (who are composed of populations, and therefore have statistics) and religions (which are composed of beliefs and practices, not populations)? Why not compare the above western countries with traditionally buddhist ones, so we can compare societies with societies!

It's a bit of an understatement to say that we have problems. Of course, the world has always had problems, and it always will. What Buddhism says is that this is just the way samsara is. Craving, if organized and pursued systematically, will indeed produce "progress" in the fulfillment of our cravings. However, this will not bring an end to our problems, but will produce new ones to solve ad infinitum. At a certain point we have to step back from that whole cycle and say, wait a minute here, enough is enough. But to the life of craving, there's never enough.

I'm not trying to compare modern western societies to traditional Buddhist ones. Buddhism is not really intended to be a "society" in any case, it simply adapts to whatever society it enters. It's not a way to organize a society, in other words, it's merely a way to temper whatever society it encounters with some kind of wisdom. As it has worked out, Buddhism has certainly shaped societies to some degree, but in most respects those societies have remained what they were before Buddhism came along, with a few changes. Tibetan Buddhism, for example, is really traditional Bon religion and culture with a Buddhist orientation. It's similar wherever you look, including the modern west where Buddhists can be scientists and business leaders, and where such traditions as Zen adapt themselves quite well to modern bohemians and anyone with a yearning for a deeper meaning to their lives. So it's not as if we can simply say, western nations with science and tech are better than places where Buddhism has traditionally been dominant, because Buddhism could also become dominant in our science and tech culture without turning it into some kind of western, secular Thailand. It would simply be a scientific, technologically advanced country with a powerful Buddhist orientation. It would simply put a check on our cravings.

[conradg]

In other words, the real, inherent enjoyment of life comes when we are free from craving, not when we are free from pain. Obviously, as you say, physical pain is something we naturally avoid, unless we are masochists. But just as the pleasures of life are nothing compared to the joy of a life free from craving, the ordinary pains of life are nothing compared to the miseries of the life of craving. "Suffering" is not the same as pain, it is an entire mindset built on craving and its fulfillment, or lack thereof. It is a life of reaction - reaction to pain, and the pursuit of pleasure.
Ummmmm.... so buddhism is a reaction to mental pain, and pursuit of mental pleasure? Same thing, different name.

No, it's not. Buddhism treats mental pain and pleasure the same as it does sensual pain and pleasure.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Better is of course always a relative term. The modern world thrives on the idea of progress, improvement, etc. So yes, it is getting better by all kinds of metrics.

Orientation does not assure success. Truth does.

The question is, is getting better really a meaningful metric? In other words, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The tree that burns becomes ashes. Of course things change. Except in Sri Lanka. ;)


Modern science and tech frees us in many important ways, but they also enslaves us in many other ways, and the future world of high tech politics is not exactly all rosey.

Let's talk about the actual, not your nightmarish predictions of the future. I'd like to discuss with you in what ways knowledge (science) and know-how (technology) enslave us.



There's a point where rational, practical improvements in society are overwhelmed by the massive search for existential freedom and the creation of a paradise on earth through technological salvation. Consumer society itself is one of those manifestations, and science is the new Santa Claus.

Only for those dumb enough to think so. The US, for instance is quite materialistic (in the acception of pursuing the coolest and shiniest) though it is quite religious in comparison to, say, Sweden and Denmark, who, by the way, are among the most secular on the planet, and pale in comparison to how materialitic as the US.

Interesting journalistic report on this subject: http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=247240



I'm not saying we should be anti-science and anti-progress, but a healthy skepticism is necessary to prevent the madness of our cravings from overwhelming us.

"Healthy skepticism"? What's that? The kind that doubts but skips your religion? How bold to suggest such a thing. Yours is not skepticism, it's a fanciful application of your version of certain buddhist terms.



We are on the verge of destroying our planet merely to satisfy our cravings, not our needs.


I disagree.
Some people are making bad decisions that are destroying our planet from lack of critical thinking. The kind that refrains to uncritically sticking to ancient beliefs but dares to use logic and empirical testing to every idea presented.




We have problems, but hey, isn't it unfair to compare a society (who are composed of populations, and therefore have statistics) and religions (which are composed of beliefs and practices, not populations)? Why not compare the above western countries with traditionally buddhist ones, so we can compare societies with societies!

It's a bit of an understatement to say that we have problems. Of course, the world has always had problems, and it always will. What Buddhism says is that this is just the way samsara is. Craving, if organized and pursued systematically, will indeed produce "progress" in the fulfillment of our cravings. However, this will not bring an end to our problems, but will produce new ones to solve ad infinitum. At a certain point we have to step back from that whole cycle and say, wait a minute here, enough is enough. But to the life of craving, there's never enough.


Again with your catechism. It surprises me how you don't find it humorous that you do that and mention "healthy skepticism" in the same post. I personally find it hillarious.



I'm not trying to compare modern western societies to traditional Buddhist ones.

Oh, but I am!
Wanna know why? Because I compare promises with effects. What the comparison tells me is that either (1) the search for enlightement produces backward societies, or (2) it doesn't help either.

That's the difference between you and I: You keep the promise and don't look if it is confirmed, while I attempt to find confirmation.

It's the differnce between wishing to believe in something and having a more peaceful attitude (like, say, "if it's true then it's true, if not, so there" versus "I gotta believe, if not my sense of meaning will go down the drain!").



Buddhism is not really intended to be a "society" in any case,

Neither does empiricism, rationalism, etc. It's an irrelevant point.

What is relevant is not what the intentions are but what trhe effects of its application are.



It's not a way to organize a society, in other words,

Nobody is saying that, and it's an unnecessary assumption.



As it has worked out, Buddhism has certainly shaped societies to some degree, but in most respects those societies have remained what they were before Buddhism came along, with a few changes.

Exactly. It's excess fat for society.

Let me take advantage of this precious opportunity to point out your disingenuous strategy: You criticize modern society to indict our scientific and technological philosophical structure, propose a "spiritual" outlook to remedy it, but then you come and tell us that your "spiritual" outlook cannot be held accountable for any effects or lack of them in society!

That's what I call a verbal sleight of hand!



It's similar wherever you look, including the modern west where Buddhists can be scientists and business leaders,

And some people can believe a Hebrew deity created ADN-based life, or feng-shui, or thousands of other superstitions and still make a living. It's kind of irrelevant, Conrad.



and where such traditions as Zen adapt themselves quite well to modern bohemians and anyone with a yearning for a deeper meaning to their lives.

So do existentialism and drugs.
We can be pretty sure the Nazis and the 9/11 terrorists had loads of meaning in their lives, each in their own, twisted ways. It's not about meaning, we've been discussing page afer page about truth --"Is there a defeater for Buddhism?" is the subject. If it was so easy as "It gives meaning to my live" the discussion would have ended on page one. But we all know that any given BS can give meaning to anyone's life so "meaningfulness" is not guarantee for truth.



So it's not as if we can simply say, western nations with science and tech are better than places where Buddhism has traditionally been dominant, because Buddhism could also become dominant in our science and tech culture without turning it into some kind of western, secular Thailand. It would simply be a scientific, technologically advanced country with a powerful Buddhist orientation.

And the fact that such a society doesn't exist is intriguing. For instance, Buddhism lost following in Japan when it joined the big leagues of social progress.

[conradg]

Orientation does not assure success. Truth does.

Then Christianity and Islam must be true, since they are so successful. Theism must be true, since so many people believe in it, and atheism false, since it has been so unsuccessful at gaining a following. I'm glad you think it's so easy to sort out the true from the false.

Let's talk about the actual, not your nightmarish predictions of the future. I'd like to discuss with you in what ways knowledge (science) and know-how (technology) enslave us.

Well, there's plenty of wage slaves here and in third world countries who could explain this to you. We work ridiculously hard just to maintain our status quo. Unfortunately, only the very rich and the very poor have much freedom. Most in between are locked into a confining pattern that requires constant work to keep ourselves in place. We do this not to survive, but to feed our cravings and aussage our fears. Isn't this rather obvious?

Only for those dumb enough to think so. The US, for instance is quite materialistic (in the acception of pursuing the coolest and shiniest) though it is quite religious in comparison to, say, Sweden and Denmark, who, by the way, are among the most secular on the planet, and pale in comparison to how materialitic as the US.

I'm not sure what your point is here? Sweden also has a very high suicide rate. It's not clear that getting things really well organized and clean makes for happy people. Then again, I'm not arguing against organization or cleanliness. I'm arguing that these are not the metrics of happiness.

"Healthy skepticism"? What's that? The kind that doubts but skips your religion? How bold to suggest such a thing. Yours is not skepticism, it's a fanciful application of your version of certain buddhist terms.

I mean by the term "healthy skepticism" an aversion to any claims that we are going to become happy by this or that or the other form of progressive change. Happiness simply does not come about as the result of these things, though a sane and sensible life does indeed come about as a result of being happy.

I disagree. Some people are making bad decisions that are destroying our planet from lack of critical thinking. The kind that refrains to uncritically sticking to ancient beliefs but dares to use logic and empirical testing to every idea presented.

Uncritical thinking is not a result of ancient religious beliefs per se, but it is a result of craving. Our cravings distort our thinking, and lead us to imagine that certain lines of argument are rational when they are not, and that certain lines of cultural development are "progress" when they are not. In both religious and secular forms of craving, illusions are fostered because they seem to promise the fulfillment of our cravings, but in the meantime they only exagerate our miseries. If you cannot see this within our own modern secular materialist culture, you may be part of the problem. Perhaps you should question just how sane and critical we are of ourselves.

Oh, but I am! Wanna know why? Because I compare promises with effects. What the comparison tells me is that either (1) the search for enlightement produces backward societies, or (2) it doesn't help either.

Again, this depends on how you define "backwards". If by that, you mean any society not as technologically advanced as the modern west, the argument is a tautology. The modern west promises happiness, but people in the modern west simply are not happy. They are certainly not demonstrably happier than people living in far more primitive conditions. Go to Asia some day. Go to some really backwards village. You will find the most impoverished but happy kids there, much happier than western children raised with all the privileges of the high tech age. You will find happy people in the backwards conditions of Nepal, Tibet, Bhutan, and southeast asia. Why? Because these people are smart enough to realize that happiness doesn't depend on the outward conditions of your life, it depends on your inner disposition. It depends most of all on being free of our cravings and all the illusions that our cravings foster. The problem with the modern west is that while it does succeed very well in improving basic conditions for survival, it also magnifies our cravings, and creates unnecessary misery as a result. The crime rate in America may have dropped somewhat in recent years, but it is still hugely higher than it is in many more primitive places. Why? Because our poor see our rich and they want more, more more, even though their poverty is "rich" by the standards of many third world countries. This is the destructiveness of craving as a way of life, of a culture that values "the pursuit of happiness" more than it does intrinsic notions of happiness. The idea that happiness is something we can pursue through our cravings is the cause of much more misery than anything one finds in simpler and more "primitive" societies".

That's the difference between you and I: You keep the promise and don't look if it is confirmed, while I attempt to find confirmation.

I look to see if people are happy. If they are not, the promise is a lie. I see western people, and I see that they are not generally happy. Thus, the promise of a happy life as depicted in our TV commercials is a lie. People are still struggling with miseries that are almost entirely self-created, or created by a culture that pursues its cravings with abandon, regardless of the effect on oneself, one's neighbor's, one's culture, one's world. It is not Christianity or Islam or Buddhism which is depleting the world's resources and making a mess of this world, it is the engine of craving that is behind our economic system. Criticize religion as you will, and there is much to criticize in it, but don't turn a blind eye to the many crimes of modern technological society. And I do mean crimes.

Neither does empiricism, rationalism, etc. It's an irrelevant point.

It was YOUR point, however. By your own admission, you made an irrelevant point. Own it, dude.

What is relevant is not what the intentions are but what trhe effects of its application are.

Yes, but you are not looking at the effects of Buddhism on a society, you are looking at the whole society, and saying "Buddhism made it this way". It did not. Buddhism did not make Tibet into a medieval empire of superstitious, shamanistic believers. It was already that way when Buddhism was introduced. It merely adapted itself to the existing culture. The same is true of every place that Buddhism has spread to. You confuse it with some kind of totalitarian "-ism" like communism which tries to radically change the existing culture into something completely different. It doesn't. There aren't many cultures which act that agressively to destroy the old and replace it with something new. Modern secular democratic capitalism is one of those things, to a serious extent, and it does a lot of damage to existing cultures. Buddhism is not. So it's rather ridiculous to point to Thailand, say, and accuse Buddhism of holding back technological progress. It hasn't. Those places are technologically backwards for reasons that have nothing to do with Buddhism.


Let me take advantage of this precious opportunity to point out your disingenuous strategy: You criticize modern society to indict our scientific and technological philosophical structure, propose a "spiritual" outlook to remedy it, but then you come and tell us that your "spiritual" outlook cannot be held accountable for any effects or lack of them in society!

You're right to a degree, in that a spiritual outlook does not in itself change a society directly. What I should say about modern western society is that it really is unique in the history of the world, and it's not comparable to societies in the past, whether they are secular or religious, and of course almost all have been religious. The freedom from the past that modern western society has acheived is commendable. What is not commendable is that it has been systematically destroying all restraints on the pursuit of human cravings, which religious society generally and to some degree quite sensibly put in place to preserve society. What we have in the world now is a radical social engine that is destroying the traditional fabric of every society it touches, by unleashing our cravings. There are some positive things about this, in that people have an opportunity to become free of the past, and of restraints that have outworn their usefulness, but it is highly negative in that it has replaced these restraints with an ideology based on little more than unrestrained pursuit of our cravings, which not only does not produce happiness, but which produces virtually irresolvable neursosis in a pandemic form, making our societies highly unstable, inflamable, and strangely threatened with nearly total destructive on a variety of fronts, from nuclear and biological weapons to environmental catastrophe to social unrest on an unprecedented scale. We have already seen disastrous wars in the last century, international and civil, and we see the potential for even worse in the years ahead. The world simply cannot restrain its cravings, because it is losing any rationale for restraint. it does not see that the life of pursuing one's cravings is not a happy life, but a miserable existence. It just holds out the promise for some kind of technological paradise to come if we just wait long enough. In the meantime, however, we run roughshod over the world in pursuit of satisfaction.

And some people can believe a Hebrew deity created ADN-based life, or feng-shui, or thousands of other superstitions and still make a living. It's kind of irrelevant, Conrad.

We can be pretty sure the Nazis and the 9/11 terrorists had loads of meaning in their lives, each in their own, twisted ways. It's not about meaning, we've been discussing page afer page about truth --"Is there a defeater for Buddhism?" is the subject. If it was so easy as "It gives meaning to my live" the discussion would have ended on page one. But we all know that any given BS can give meaning to anyone's life so "meaningfulness" is not guarantee for truth.

Yes, there's a defeater for Buddhism. If you can demonstrate that there's some final end to our cravings, some fulfillment to our cravings, after which we no longer need to crave, but are simply happy and content with ourselves and life, then you have defeated Buddhism. Buddhism says that the life of craving has no end, it just goes round and round forever, courting death and destruction along the way. If you can show that our life based in the pursuit of happiness ever actually acheives lasting and permanent happiness, then you have defeated Buddhism. I wish you all the luck in the world. If you succeed, that's great, and if you fail, at least you will have proven to yourself that craving is a dead end.

Of course, one can always say that we just haven't been craving the right things, in the right way, and that there's some other path that will lead to the satisfaction of our cravings. I'm reminded of one of my favorite Zen stories. One morning the monks at a monastery come into the meditation hall to find the Master, who is normally seated in silence on a dias at the front, sitting on the floor eating a bowl of hot chili peppers. They sit down in zazen, watching him eat, and they notice that as he does so, his mouth is swelling up from the chilis. Soon, his lips are turning red, his cheeks are bulging, and his whole head is swollen. Sweat is pouring down his forehead, and it's obvious that he's in tremendous pain, but he keeps eating, chili after chili. Finally, one of the monks can't stand it anymore. He can't take the sight of his Master in such pain, and he shouts out, "Stop! Please stop this!" The Master looks up, eyes puffy and barely even able to see, but he doesn't stop eating the chilis. The student asks him, tearfully, "Master, why are you doing this? Why are you eating these chilis?" The Master just calmly replies, "These? Oh, I'm looking for a sweet one."

And the fact that such a society doesn't exist is intriguing. For instance, Buddhism lost following in Japan when it joined the big leagues of social progress.

The modern world hasn't been around for very long, and how these things will end up shaking out is hard to say. Buddhism doesn't actually have any aspirations towards social dominance and cultural hegemony. It's not really a mass movement, it's just that it spread fairly well in the ancient world. There already are quite a few practicing Buddhists in the west, and there's already a fairly well-established Sangha in many western countries. Whether it develops into a mainstream cultural force is virtually irrelevant to its own philosophy and practice. My sense is that it would actually be for the best if Buddhism lost its cultural trappings of predominance in most countries, in that such a position is rather corrupting and unnecessary. But traditions are hard to break. Buddhism works better as a critical voice that keeps reminding us, whatever our cultural framework might be, that the pursuit of our cravings is not the road to happiness.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Then Christianity and Islam must be true, since they are so successful.

No, it's the other way around.

If you have truthful, correct charts, you will succeed in predicting eclipses. ;)

[abaddon]

... Criticize religion as you will, and there is much to criticize in it, but don't turn a blind eye to the many crimes of modern technological society. And I do mean crimes.

... Modern secular democratic capitalism is one of those things, to a serious extent, and it does a lot of damage to existing cultures... What we have in the world now is a radical social engine that is destroying the traditional fabric of every society it touches, by unleashing our cravings...
Excellent and true critique of modernity. And a very funny Zen story. Great post! :thumbs:

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Well, there's plenty of wage slaves here and in third world countries who could explain this to you.

Do nyou have hemorrhoids? Because we could blame empiricism for that too! :rolleyes:
Get serious!


We do this not to survive, but to feed our cravings and aussage our fears. Isn't this rather obvious?


We have hundreds of posts on this thread, and you still believe your own beliefs are obvious to everyone who lives outside your head?



I'm not sure what your point is here? Sweden also has a very high suicide rate. It's not clear that getting things really well organized and clean makes for happy people. Then again, I'm not arguing against organization or cleanliness. I'm arguing that these are not the metrics of happiness.


Metrics of happiness? Voila: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness#Research



I mean by the term "healthy skepticism" an aversion to any claims that we are going to become happy by this or that or the other form of progressive change. Happiness simply does not come about as the result of these things, though a sane and sensible life does indeed come about as a result of being happy.


Ok: Words don't mean what you want them to. Buy a dictionary.



Uncritical thinking is not a result of ancient religious beliefs per se, but it is a result of craving.

More catechism.

I'll tell you what I tell the Christian apologists: Don't use your beliefs to demonstrate your beliefs. It just doesn't work that way.



Perhaps you should question just how sane and critical we are of ourselves.


I've been doing that tirelessly.
You, on the other hand, have been repeating your religious beliefs like a rosary to us.



Again, this depends on how you define "backwards". If by that, you mean any society not as technologically advanced as the modern west, the argument is a tautology.

No, I mean a society where the kids are starving and malnurished, people are sick, government is corrrupt, etc.

You wish it were a tautology.



The modern west promises happiness, but people in the modern west simply are not happy. They are certainly not demonstrably happier than people living in far more primitive conditions. Go to Asia some day.

You didn't check out the link I gave you. Of course, it's a weblink not a sutra, why would you want to read something that may challenge your views?

For the rest of the readers who do give a rat's toosh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_happiness.png


Go to some really backwards village. You will find the most impoverished but happy kids there, much happier than western children raised with all the privileges of the high tech age.

Oh yes, the happiness is glaringly evident:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1745000/images/_1747667_famine_afp.jpg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:tqFKigDH7cYQKM:http://www.spur.asn.au/Sri_Lanka_in_Tears_15_Oct_1997.jpg



It was YOUR point, however. By your own admission, you made an irrelevant point. Own it, dude.


Now I have some sort of magical power that makes you write things against your will... Powerful trip you got there, "dude"...


Yes, but you are not looking at the effects of Buddhism on a society, you are looking at the whole society, and saying "Buddhism made it this way". It did not. Buddhism did not make Tibet into a medieval empire of superstitious, shamanistic believers. It was already that way when Buddhism was introduced. It merely adapted itself to the existing culture. The same is true of every place that Buddhism has spread to.

Yeah, I know. Curious how Buddhism hasn't helped these societies, huh?


Yes, there's a defeater for Buddhism. If you can demonstrate that there's some final end to our cravings, some fulfillment to our cravings, after which we no longer need to crave, but are simply happy and content with ourselves and life, then you have defeated Buddhism.

No... The falsity of the claims of Buddhism, if any, are the defeater of Buddhism. And I have shown quite a few: I'm beating a dead horse.



Of course, one can always say that we just haven't been craving the right things, in the right way, and that there's some other path that will lead to the satisfaction of our cravings. I'm reminded of one of my favorite Zen stories. One morning [...]

I'm so not interested in your stories. I'm interested in reality. But I no it's impossible for you, since you seemingly have an intense interest in fiction.


What is not commendable is that it has been systematically destroying all restraints on the pursuit of human cravings,

DUCK! Here comes an evil "craving"! And we all know what your catechism says about that!

Oh wait- I just snapped out of it. It's almost as if someone had been repeating the word "craving" like a hypnotic induction here! Whew!


And the fact that such a society doesn't exist is intriguing. For instance, Buddhism lost following in Japan when it joined the big leagues of social progress.

The modern world hasn't been around for very long, and how these things will end up shaking out is hard to say. Buddhism doesn't actually have any aspirations towards social dominance and cultural hegemony.

Irrelevant. Alka Seltzer doesn't have aspirations of hegemony but it's mere presence neutralizes acid. If your white disc doesn't neutralize acid, it's not Alka-Seltzer: we know so because it doesn't do shit. Buddhism is no answer either: it doesn't do shit either! Get it?

Countries like Sri Lanka are full of people with the meme that tells them that going into a monastery, dressing McDonald's colors, reciting and sitting on mats is the answer to their ills. It actually distracts them from the true roots of suffering, while illness, hunger, and a myriad of resolvable social evils wreck havoc of the country.

Japan used to be like that. Now they're into serious problem-solving! Sweden has high suicide rates you say? Sweden could have this or that problem, but you know what? What Sweden doesn't have is a meme-system that tells them that sitting on a mat and chanting is not a correct response to suffering, but getting off of your ass and doing something with realistic assessments and realistic solutions is the only ethical one. Sweden and Sri Lanka have different problems, though Sri Lanka's are by any reckoning worse... in any case who do you think is in better conditions of resolving them?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Everybody else has left for the day (even the moderators), and I should do the same. Good evening, Conrad.

[conradg]

Logos,

I think you are drifting once again into ad hominem and reactionary posting. I suggest you discipline yourself before the moderater does so for you. Your last post is simply incoherent and inanswerable. If you would like to try again, do so in essay form. I think it keeps you on a more even keel.

[perfectbite]

So there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS conradg,

If you think my tone is haughty then I suggest that you take a number and get in line.

The line starts about a mile back from where you are now and temporarily ends in NYC where those in the line take a two week vacation before wending their way back to California.

[aupmanyav]

Dude. Wednesdays are for Odin (Woden/Wodin). Just sayin'.That takes care of the whole week. :)Why did you have to get entangled in sex?Don't get entangled with anything, anybody.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Logos,

I think you are drifting once again into ad hominem and reactionary posting. I suggest you discipline yourself before the moderater does so for you. Your last post is simply incoherent and inanswerable. If you would like to try again, do so in essay form. I think it keeps you on a more even keel.

Really? What is unanswerable? This...




I'm not sure what your point is here? Sweden also has a very high suicide rate. It's not clear that getting things really well organized and clean makes for happy people. Then again, I'm not arguing against organization or cleanliness. I'm arguing that these are not the metrics of happiness.


Metrics of happiness? Voila: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness#Research



or maybe this...




Uncritical thinking is not a result of ancient religious beliefs per se, but it is a result of craving.


More catechism.

I'll tell you what I tell the Christian apologists: Don't use your beliefs to demonstrate your beliefs. It just doesn't work that way.



or maybe this...




Again, this depends on how you define "backwards". If by that, you mean any society not as technologically advanced as the modern west, the argument is a tautology.


No, I mean a society where the kids are starving and malnurished, people are sick, government is corrrupt, etc.

You wish it were a tautology.




or maybe this other...




The modern west promises happiness, but people in the modern west simply are not happy. They are certainly not demonstrably happier than people living in far more primitive conditions. Go to Asia some day.


You didn't check out the link I gave you. Of course, it's a weblink not a sutra, why would you want to read something that may challenge your views?

For the rest of the readers who do give a rat's toosh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_happiness.png



... or you could try answering...



Go to some really backwards village. You will find the most impoverished but happy kids there, much happier than western children raised with all the privileges of the high tech age.


Oh yes, the happiness is glaringly evident:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1745000/images/_1747667_famine_afp.jpg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:tqFKigDH7cYQKM:http://www.spur.asn.au/Sri_Lanka_in_Tears_15_Oct_1997.jpg


... or...



Yes, but you are not looking at the effects of Buddhism on a society, you are looking at the whole society, and saying "Buddhism made it this way". It did not. Buddhism did not make Tibet into a medieval empire of superstitious, shamanistic believers. It was already that way when Buddhism was introduced. It merely adapted itself to the existing culture. The same is true of every place that Buddhism has spread to.


Yeah, I know. Curious how Buddhism hasn't helped these societies, huh?


... or perhaps...



Yes, there's a defeater for Buddhism. If you can demonstrate that there's some final end to our cravings, some fulfillment to our cravings, after which we no longer need to crave, but are simply happy and content with ourselves and life, then you have defeated Buddhism.


No... The falsity of the claims of Buddhism, if any, are the defeater of Buddhism. And I have shown quite a few: I'm beating a dead horse.


:deadhorse:

Or just maybe this other...



Of course, one can always say that we just haven't been craving the right things, in the right way, and that there's some other path that will lead to the satisfaction of our cravings. I'm reminded of one of my favorite Zen stories. One morning [...]


I'm so not interested in your stories. I'm interested in reality. But I know it's impossible for you, since you seemingly have an intense interest in fiction.


... or maybe...



What is not commendable is that it has been systematically destroying all restraints on the pursuit of human cravings,


DUCK! Here comes an evil "craving"! And we all know what your catechism says about that!

Oh wait- I just snapped out of it. It's almost as if someone had been repeating the word "craving" like a hypnotic induction here! Whew!


... a point dressed in irony. Or perhaps you meant...




And the fact that such a society doesn't exist is intriguing. For instance, Buddhism lost following in Japan when it joined the big leagues of social progress.
The modern world hasn't been around for very long, and how these things will end up shaking out is hard to say. Buddhism doesn't actually have any aspirations towards social dominance and cultural hegemony.

Irrelevant. Alka Seltzer doesn't have aspirations of hegemony but it's mere presence neutralizes acid. If your white disc doesn't neutralize acid, it's not Alka-Seltzer: we know so because it doesn't do shit. Buddhism is no answer either: it doesn't do shit either! Get it?

Countries like Sri Lanka are full of people with the meme that tells them that going into a monastery, dressing McDonald's colors, reciting and sitting on mats is the answer to their ills. It actually distracts them from the true roots of suffering, while illness, hunger, and a myriad of resolvable social evils wreck havoc of the country.

Japan used to be like that. Now they're into serious problem-solving! Sweden has high suicide rates you say? Sweden could have this or that problem, but you know what? What Sweden doesn't have is a meme-system that tells them that sitting on a mat and chanting is not a correct response to suffering, but getting off of your ass and doing something with realistic assessments and realistic solutions is the only ethical one. Sweden and Sri Lanka have different problems, though Sri Lanka's are by any reckoning worse... in any case who do you think is in better conditions of resolving them?


... or maybe it's just because YOU don't have any answer for any of these? Hmmmm...

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/think005.gif

[Kharakov]

Ummmmm.... so buddhism is a reaction to mental pain, and pursuit of mental pleasure? Same thing, different name.
No, it's not. Buddhism treats mental pain and pleasure the same as it does sensual pain and pleasure.
Ohh really....
Obviously, as you say, physical pain is something we naturally avoid, unless we are masochists. But just as the pleasures of life are nothing compared to the joy of a life free from craving, the ordinary pains of life are nothing compared to the miseries of the life of craving. "Suffering" is not the same as pain, it is an entire mindset built on craving and its fulfillment, or lack thereof. It is a life of reaction - reaction to pain, and the pursuit of pleasure.
So buddhists crave not craving? Interesting. I, for one, don't give a fuck. :D

[conradg]

... or maybe it's just because YOU don't have any answer for any of these? Hmmmm...

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/think005.gif

No, Logos, it's just that the answers are too obvious, and I'm just not interested in going down the ad hominem road with you once again. It's not enough to say something in opposition, it actually has to make enough sense to engage me. You're failing that standard.

[conradg]

No, it's not. Buddhism treats mental pain and pleasure the same as it does sensual pain and pleasure.
Ohh really....
Obviously, as you say, physical pain is something we naturally avoid, unless we are masochists. But just as the pleasures of life are nothing compared to the joy of a life free from craving, the ordinary pains of life are nothing compared to the miseries of the life of craving. "Suffering" is not the same as pain, it is an entire mindset built on craving and its fulfillment, or lack thereof. It is a life of reaction - reaction to pain, and the pursuit of pleasure.
So buddhists crave not craving? Interesting. I, for one, don't give a fuck. :D

You confuse "suffering" with mental pain. Perhaps, if you mean "conceptual pain", you would be right, but taking into account that to a buddhist, the physical world is also a concept.

The point being that when you are experiencing "mental pain", meaning troubled thoughts, emotions, mental imagery, etc., the Buddhist response is the same as it would be to physical pain: not to react to this, not to create some plan to eliminate it, but merely to observe it, accept it as part of life, and be free of the craving mental desire to create some sort of eternally happy mind state. Freedom from cravings of ALL KINDS is what Buddhism is about. And of course the craving to be free of cravings is also something we need to be free of. Hence the saying, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."

But then again, you're not really interested in this, you're just looking for empty logical contradictions. I guess we could play that game all day.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

... or maybe it's just because YOU don't have any answer for any of these? Hmmmm...

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/think005.gif

No, Logos, it's just that the answers are too obvious, and I'm just not interested in going down the ad hominem road with you once again. It's not enough to say something in opposition, it actually has to make enough sense to engage me. You're failing that standard.

Excuses were invented for a reason... But I don't see a reason to give pretexts. The door is open for both coming and and going out anytime.

[ravenscape]

Thread is once again closed for review.

I commend the forum rules (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=235594) to you.

Raven