What is your justification for thinking you know anything for sure?

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, what would you take as "evidence" for either the proposition there is or is not such a thing as a soul?

@igm,

Quote:

they aren't some special 'other' type of sentient being.

It seems to me that enlightenment is a fleeting experience that cannot be continuous. All people experience it from time to time; moments of untainted joy at living that vanish as suddenly as they come. A buddha, it seems to me, is one who can experience it at will.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
they aren't some special 'other' type of sentient being.

It seems to me that enlightenment is a fleeting experience that cannot be continuous. All people experience it from time to time; moments of untainted joy at living that vanish as suddenly as they come. A buddha, it seems to me, is one who can experience it at will.

I don't think they are able to stop the experience once it begins. Their lack of misunderstanding is irreversible. Enlightenment is either that or not enlightenment and therefore a pale reflection of that but nevertheless they share the same nature. One is always unobscured the other is always to varying degrees obscured.

2 Replies

@igm,

Previous post slightly amended.

0 Replies

@igm,

Enlightenment is knowing the difference between loving and owning someone. If you love someone, how can they hurt you? Not half as many ways as if you try to own them. Your love is yours, it does not belong to the person you direct it towards. If that person wants to leave you and be with someone else, why does that hurt? Who is the love directed towards, to make such a thing hurt? Not the person who leaves, but the one who is left; yourself. If you love someone who wants to leave, seeing them happy with someone they want to be with should make you happy. If it doesn't, it's not love for that person you feel the strongest, but love for yourself.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Enlightenment is knowing the difference between loving and owning someone. If you love someone, how can they hurt you? Not half as many ways as if you try to own them. Your love is yours, it does not belong to the person you direct it towards. If that person wants to leave you and be with someone else, why does that hurt? Who is the love directed towards, to make such a thing hurt? Not the person who leaves, but the one who is left; yourself. If you love someone who wants to leave, seeing them happy with someone they want to be with should make you happy. If it doesn't, it's not love for that person you feel the strongest, but love for yourself.

You make a very good point with wise words.

One type of 'Mahayana' Buddhist meditation is on 'Loving Kindness' where the one (as an unenlightened being in the conventional sense) imitates the qualities of a Buddha by developing loving kindness firstly towards one's mother then gradually extends this outwards to less obvious recipients such as enemies e.g. they see you for some reason as the enemy. Eventually one develops it to include all sentient beings without exception. So, one includes everyone but also of course one simultaneously excludes no one. This helps because one can settle non-conceptually after this by just ceasing to exclude anyone.

It's said that loving kindness is the channel that true compassion can flow through. This is one of the preliminary practices required before making the wish to become a fully realized Buddha for the sake of all sentient beings. All this is conventional truth teachings the help through the 'imitation' of the qualities of a Buddha. We naturally have these qualities but they are just covered up (or ignored) at present.

Your post could be classed within this type of meditation technique. Excellent for broken relationships of any kind.

0 Replies

I know only one thing for sure: the qualitative experience of this sensuous moment, my interpretation of its meaning is not certain. But what does this idea of certitude mean? Does it mean that noone can refute its veracity? That tells us more about the limitations of the other than about my interpretation. To me "certitude" is not something "objective", something I can coerce others into accepting. It's a feeling, a completely private and subjective phenomenon. Objective certitude is like a blue rose. We can search for it forever--without certainty that it exists.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Nothing more to say then Frank... on this subject... it was not hard to spot your true intention... maybe we'll find some common ground elsewhere... it won't be on your flavor of agnosticism though.

Not sure what you man by "spot your true intentions."

I hope we do find common ground on something, igm.

An old A2Ker (old Abuzzer), Ican, used to say, "What is there about the air above the subcontinent that causes them to be so sure they have the answers to ultimate questions?"

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Frank, what would you take as "evidence" for either the proposition there is or is not such a thing as a soul?

I cannot think of a thing.

That is one of the reasons why I will not take a position that a soul has to exist...or that a soul does not or cannot exist.

Do you have anything to suggest I might consider?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

No, but that leads me to a negative rather than a neutral agnostic stance. I cannot believe in the empirical reality of something if there is no tangible evidence for its existence that anyone can think of, either in fact or in principle.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

No, but that leads me to a negative rather than a neutral agnostic stance. I cannot believe in the empirical reality of something if there is no tangible evidence for its existence that anyone can think of, either in fact or in principle.

Sounds like a rationalization for what you prefer, JL, but if that is what makes you comfortable, I say, GO FOR IT!

In any case, there is no compelling reason to "believe" in either direction.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote
"Sounds like a rationalization for what you prefer, JL, but if that is what makes you comfortable, I say, GO FOR IT!"

I could say that same to you, but what a waste of time that would be.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 4981832)
Quote
"Sounds like a rationalization for what you prefer, JL, but if that is what makes you comfortable, I say, GO FOR IT!"

I could say that same to you, but what a waste of time that would be.

You could indeed...and in effect, you just have.

And it was not a waste of time. I listened, I considered, I rejected. (Wonder if that would sound cool in Latin?)

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

audivi considerabam, contempto

..accroding to google translate. But that thing has been known to make some very bad mistakes. Don't trust it for a second with chinese for instance.

0 Replies

I was just thinking, if we know today that "truth" is "what works", and that ultimately belief is required even to embrace facts, would it not be possible to suspend "knowing" and "believing" and just go with "it works, so I'll roll with it for now"?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I was just thinking, if we know today that "truth" is "what works", and that ultimately belief is required even to embrace facts, would it not be possible to suspend "knowing" and "believing" and just go with "it works, so I'll roll with it for now"?

In Mahayana Buddhism there are said to be two truths: conventional and ultimate. The first is how we help each other day-to-day and is how you describe it above; in any given time period and cultural setting. It is accomplished within the framework of the conventional moral teachings of Buddhism. Ultimate truth is Buddhahood and although explained using conventional truth (a far as is possible) it is ineffable and is understood by understanding 'what it isn't'.

0 Replies

What is your justification for thinking you know anything for sure?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know