SJoseph
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Jun, 2009 06:43 pm
@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.
Whoever
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Jun, 2009 05:17 am
@SJoseph,
Quote:
hammersklavier http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
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
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 09:34 pm
@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
 
Whoever
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 05:06 am
@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
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 05:33 am
@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
 
Whoever
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 11:41 am
@hammersklavier,
Yes, I understand all that. Under no circumstances will you find me disgreeing with the Buddha except through ignorance.
0 Replies
 
void123
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Apr, 2014 01:50 am
@hammersklavier,
impermanece is permanent is just another way of saying all things are impermanent no conflict
0 Replies
 
Jasper10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Mar, 2021 01:47 am
@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
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 08:34 pm
@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.
Jasper10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2021 12:20 am
@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.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/17/2021 at 11:00:07