Problems in Buddhism?

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier;52169 wrote:

I've been thinking about Buddhism and I realized that the concept of the intransigence of everything that one derives from duhkha and interdependent arising is a rather problematic statement, when analyzed metaphysically.

Basically, I think that by saying everything is impermanent you are implying permanent impermanence, that is, that there is a permanent thing, and that thing is permanence, which of course inherently means that not everything could possibly be impermanent--that is, the statement is an absurdity. Sure, most things are impermanent but you've got to have a permanence (even if it's impermanent).

The best solution to this problem would seem to be that everything material is impermanent, but that opens the door to the existence of a soul, which the Buddhists emphatically dispute, but anything tighter (i.e., everything is impermanent except for permanence itself) would seem to become so exclusionary as to become no provable statement but rather a tautology, and anything looser (i.e., most things are impermanent) doesn't really tell us anything.

So, what do you think? Is this a resolvable issue or is it an irresolvable problem within Buddhism, a foundation card that can destabilize the whole stack?

All you have done is attack the syntax, or the language of the principle. This is an issue that I am working through in all of my theories: whether my concern is with the meaning of the argument or the language used.

1 Reply

@SJoseph,

Quote:

hammersklavier
I've been thinking about Buddhism and I realized that the concept of the intransigence of everything that one derives from duhkha and interdependent arising is a rather problematic statement, when analyzed metaphysically. Basically, I think that by saying everything is impermanent you are implying permanent impermanence,

It could seem that way, and it's a very reasonable objection, but the metaphysics of Buddhism stands up to analysis. The Middle Way doctrine states that all psychophysical phenomena are impermanent, but there would be one phenomenon that is permanent, this is Nibbana. This would be the unconditioned element, the only dhamma not evanescent and subject to conditions.

In his Abhidhamma Studies - Buddhist Explorations of Consciousness and Time, Nyanaponika Thera writes,

0 Replies

@hammersklavier,

Quote:

[The Buddha's] doctrine is not trans-rational, (which means irrational as far as I can tell), it can be etablished by dialectical reasoning.

Quote:

"The Mundane Nature of Conventional Reasoning"

So far as logical reasoning [or philosophical speculation] based on cognitive perception is concerned, it is an established tenet that one can reflect on existence only within the confines of thesis and antithesis.

Therefore any attempt whatsoever to define an object-of-experience (visaya) by means of thought, is an affirmation of a "reality" (pramana) inherently negated by its own logical antithesis.

If thought is incapable [of positing ultimate reality], then what valid knowledge (pramana) can there be?

Hence, the conventional means of reasoning normal to worldly individuals does not apply to the Path of Yoga.

From Manjusri's Bodhicittabhavana ('Cultivation of the Enlightened Mind')

0 Replies

@hammersklavier,

The thing is, I agree with Manjusri, but still say that the doctrine can be established by dialectic reasoning. Nagarjuna logically proves this in his Fundamental Wisdom, and later Bradley does the same in Appearance and Reality.

The method is abduction. We eliminate all logically indefensible theories and what's left is the true one. So I would agree that, 'one can reflect on existence only within the confines of thesis and antithesis', by contradiction, but this reflection can reveal where the truth is, even if this does not bring us any understanding of it. We would arrive at the truth by establishing what it is not. Surprisingly, it isn't even particularly difficult.

0 Replies

@hammersklavier,

Fair enough. However from the outset, the Buddha's realisation has been said to 'surpass mere logic.' It is understood to derived from an insight superior to logic or reason, even though Buddhists use logic or reason very effectively. Nagarjuna uses logic to show that various metaphysical stances (including many Buddhist ones) are self-contradictory, without claiming to advance one of his own. For this reason he too speaks from a point 'beyond logic'. (Of course this would not be accepted by analytical or postitivist philosophers, for whom logic is supreme. And there is also a resistance to accepting the transcendent nature of the Buddha amongst those who wish to see buddhism as humanist, as distinct from religious.)

According to the tradition, the Buddha said "I reached in experience the nirvana which is unborn, unrivalled, secure from attachment, undecaying and unstained. This condition is indeed reached by me which is deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, tranquil, excellent, beyond the reach of mere logic, subtle, and to be realized only by the wise."

0 Replies

@hammersklavier,

Yes, I understand all that. Under no circumstances will you find me disgreeing with the Buddha except through ignorance.

0 Replies

@hammersklavier,

impermanece is permanent is just another way of saying all things are impermanent no conflict

0 Replies

@hammersklavier,

The problem with Buddhism is that if SELF goes within and asks the question of the 2 off internal reasonings whether SELF exists, all the reasonings can do ultimately is exercise HOPE/FAITH that SELF either does or doesn’t exist .All SELF can do is watch/experience this process pan out in practice.If SELF’s HOPE/FAITH is that SELF doesn’t exist then it remains trapped within consciousness.This is why the Buddha could go no further than consciousness and only viewed himself as such.He remained a prisoner of his own consciousness.The problem is that SELF can get seriously lost in consciousness states.SELF is not consciousness states.SELF has awareness of consciousness states.

0 Replies

@hammersklavier,

It always struck me as odd that they dispute a soul anyway.

They have a number of realms, like the Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm. This implies kinda an afterlife multiverse thing.

Perhaps what they mean is that the self doesn't really have any memory. We have a general idea of hammersklavier, but when hammersklavier dies he/she becomes hammerpiano, and after that maybe hammerdulcimer. All of them have similarities but there's more a sense of repeated patterns than a sense of "This is me, I am hammer."

There's a sense that you don't really have a soul that goes and keeps track of things, so you're stuck in stupid patterns that you don't even understand. Like, I keep getting in relationships but don't ever get to legit break up, we just move away. So today I sent a really nasty letter to a girl who had been treating me wrong before the COVID, but the damned thing hit before either of us could say "This sucks, let's stop talking to each other." I legit told her to go **** herself, and it felt sorta strangely satisfying.

There's a sense where we can't even remember our past. I think we're here to resolve these karmic problems and move beyond things. To move past our attachments. Sometimes there are definitely false steps. Like I'm honestly not sure I said the best things to her, but honestly things were very toxic to both of us.

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

The mistake they make is that they believe that awareness and consciousness types are the same hence their awareness remains trapped within +ve/-ve consciousness.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

Buddhist have no understanding of consciousness and awareness.and their relationship to it.

They need to start practicing inward/outward meditation.

Disappearing into an “out of synch” ,inward only meditative (consciousness) state,then embracing duality,then coming to the conclusion that the one that decided to go inward in the first place doesn’t exist is a self defeating exercise.

Any conclusions drawn from such a consciously biased and unaware one sided practice are merely hopeful conclusions as no definitive proof it provided one way or the other with duality.You are wasting your time therefore with this type of meditative practice.

You may as well try getting back in touch with yourself,hence inward/outward meditation.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

Inward only meditation only adopts 0,1…1,0 logic.

Inward/Outward meditation is more realistic and adopts 0,0….0.1….1,0….1,1 logic.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

The problem with Buddhism is that ultimately it denies the very thing that decided to go inward in the first place.

Buddhism meditation is just an inward only meditative practice.It’s a nothing special type of meditation that deep thinkers adopt and have always adopted.

The problem with inward only meditation is that it is an out of the moment meditation.So the individual goes inward and out of the moment and then divides (dualism).So the individual has already divided consciousness by the very act of going inward.The individual then divides again in dualistic reasoning in the already divided consciousness state.

So the question is, which side of the inward only, out of the moment fence does the individual reside The left or the right?

Buddhism and Secular science needs a better understanding of awareness and consciousness.

AWARENESS sits above consciousness

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

The problem with Buddhism is that you need to exist to claim that you do don’t exist.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

The problem with Buddhism is that it claims SELF doesn't exist and yet it can't prove it. Anyway, how can you prove it if you don't exist to be able to prove it for goodness sake. How ridiculous?

The problem with Buddhism is that it doesn't realize that you need to balance equal but opposites because you can't cancel them.

The problem with Buddhism is that it doesn't know how to balance equal but opposites.

The problem with Buddhism is that it doesn't understand how the equal but opposite electromagnetic forces in nature vibratory balance and therefore has no understanding of consciousness whatsoever and how it affects SELF.

The problem with Buddhism is that the individuals who practice it are trapped "prisoners of consciousness" because they believe that only + and - exist and that these forces cancel out. They don't of course because SELF vibratory balances them.

0 Replies

Sighhhhhhhh

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

There is absolutely no way that you can cancel out the two equal but opposite forces of nature as much as Buddhism claims you can. You can't. All you can do is vibratory balance these forces of nature by the formula +/-=+/-

You will never understand the brain/mind interface if you think these forces of nature cancel out.

You experience the in and out of the moment consciousness states BECAUSE OF the push/pull nature of these forces within the brain and we have the science to prove it.

We are NEITHER the in or the out of the moment consciousness states.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

That's such a #$#&*$ response. Thank you

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

It is not a "whatever" response at all. Your eyes are shut.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

The problem with Buddhism is that it is a one sided seeking meditative practice whereby the consciousness states are concerned. This practice is all INWARD ONLY and has no understanding of the in/out consciousness states whatsoever.

I know because I practiced it for years. It is absolutely NOT the way. This meditative practice has absolutely no understanding of how all the science are interconnected. No understanding whatsoever.

0 Replies

Problems in Buddhism?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know