Atheist vs believer research

igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.

How do I know the Buddha knew this because it's published in his teachings.

What I mean by this statement will obviously have to be explained. He knew that he had to teach Hindus in this way to help them to see there was no Atman.

How do you get to where you are here?

Here is what I said the Buddha knows as now agreed by you Frank:

Quote:

igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.

This means that the Buddha taught that reincarnation is not to be taken literally but has only a provisional meaning. He was teaching Hindus who believe that a soul or Atman is reincarnated life after life. He had to gently undermine this mistaken belief with a teaching that was ‘provisional’ by also teaching alongside that, that there is no soul or Atman. So, this was not the ‘absolute truth’ just a ‘provisional’ one. Taught at the beginning but later the deeper understanding of reality i.e. that no soul or atman can go from one life to the next was eventually taught. They could accept this later because they could see the benefit of letting go of the mistaken concept of Atman (the soul) in the light of all the other Buddhist teachings they now knew. Not to mention ‘no caste system’ which was a great bonus for those from a lower Hindu caste?

Below is appended later:

How do I know the Buddha knew this because it's published in his teachings.

What I mean by this statement will obviously have to be explained. He knew that he had to teach Hindus in this way to help them to see there was no Atman.

maxdancona wrote:

Buddhism is a religion.

You are somewhat correct; some (but not all) people say Buddhism is a religion. As you point out whether it is a religion or not it is atheist.

maxdancona wrote:

It is a world view that is based on "truths" that are accepted without being proven.

In my opinion, the goal of Buddhism is to understand that there is no such thing as conceptual ‘absolute truth’, because believing there is such a thing, is a fundamental source of suffering. Conventionally the Buddha taught ‘provisional conventional truths’ to undermine beliefs in grosser forms of belief but they were stepping-stones to refuting the belief that there is such a thing as a conceptual absolute truth.

It is understandable that you as a non-Buddhist would believe your statements are correct as do many others, even many Buddhists who have not studied the philosophical texts which deal with such things.

So, you have every reason to say what you’ve said but ultimately it is incorrect… IMHO.

As I said above (previous post) I believe:

Conventionally the Buddha taught ‘provisional conventional truths’ to undermine beliefs in grosser forms of belief but they were stepping-stones to refuting the belief that there is such a thing as a conceptual absolute truth.

Your post is understandable, my opinion now is what I've said in the post above. If I was unclear in the past then I apologise for any misunderstanding.

What an accomplished dancer! Are you saying now that you do not believe that reincarnation occurs?

Set, I stand by my reply to Max above and only by that reply; everything I said last year or in previous years is superseded by that reply. So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth and to believe that there is, can be extremely problematic. At least, that is how I now understand it. I don’t speak for other Buddhists; I am only speaking about my personal understanding of the Buddha’s teachings.

Quote:

Set, I stand by my reply to Max above and only by that reply; everything I said last year or in previous years is superseded by that reply. So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth and to believe that there is, can be extremely problematic. At least, that is how I now understand it. I don’t speak for other Buddhists; I am only speaking about my personal understanding of the Buddha’s teachings.

Do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this...or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

We are already way off topic with these posts, so create a new topic about this and I'll post some of my thoughts on this subject as I hope will others… if you'd like to of course.

Do I believe the attempt to tell you would help you in any way? I'm yet to be convinced from your past posts. If you can convince me then I'd try but I believe it would be a waste of time... both mine and yours... I have of course spotted your recurring argument... you know your agnostic argument.

If you really want my response to your question, PM me. I wish you all the best Frank but my gut says you're not really interested in what I have to say only your replies.

Your conclusion does not follow from my post but that's probably not the point of your post is it? I did say it would take you probably years to even understand the full import of what the Buddha taught on wisdom and I could not hope to convey it in a single post. You as usual have rushed to the wrong conclusion.

Let's not waste any more of our time. You can maintain that you are correct and then there's no harm done to your ego.

Also, I'm perfectly happy thanks for your concern.

If my style of debate seem 'testy' to you then I apologise I was just being direct and open with a Frank Apisa I know only too well... it saves time

Oops, igm...you are absolutely correct. I made a mistake. I screwed up with the word order. Apologies.

May I prevail on you to change the order of the words...and respond to the post as though they had been written in the correct order!

You are the one nitpicking about semantics, igm...I am not. You are the one evading answering questions...I am not.

Quote:

And your rebuttal is?

Why should I rebut something that apparently is a point of contention between you and Setanta?

Frank, I'm willing to try to answer your question to this post if you'd like? I wanted to go through it step by step but I'll answer 'your' concerns about the post you questioned.

Here it is, with the text 'you' enlarged in order to draw my attention to it:

Quote:

Set, I stand by my reply to Max above and only by that reply; everything I said last year or in previous years is superseded by that reply. So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth and to believe that there is, can be extremely problematic. At least, that is how I now understand it. I don’t speak for other Buddhists; I am only speaking about my personal understanding of the Buddha’s teachings.

Let's start afresh and just stick to the subject itself leaving out any peripheral comments about Buddhism or ourselves... I await your reply...

I agree to your terms, igm, and I am delighted we are going to discuss the issue.

Let's have at it.

And I think a great place to begin would be for you to deal with the question I asked about the text you quoted (which was your text, with my emphasis).

My question was:

Quote:

Do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this...or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

If, by the way, you think that not the best place to start...start where you will...as long as you agree that we will come back to that question--which is the primary reason I came to this thread in the first place.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I agree to your terms, igm, and I am delighted we are going to discuss the issue.

My question was:

Quote:

Do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this...or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

Here is what I said the Buddha knows:

igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.

Do we agree?

Quote:

Here is what I said the Buddha knows:

Quote:

igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.

Do we agree?

I am not really sure.

Are you asking if I agree that you wrote that...or are you asking if I agree that the Buddha knows there are no conceptual absolute truths?

If the former...I agree.

If the later...not on a bet. That, obviously was the reason for my original question.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:

Here is what I said the Buddha knows:

Quote:

igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.

Do we agree?

I am not really sure.

Are you asking if I agree that you wrote that...

I’m asking you to confirm that when I say that the Buddha ‘knows’ something that it is that passage that I’m referring to.

The reason I’m asking is that you said:

Quote:

Do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this...or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

We are just agreeing on what you meant by ‘KNOWS’ as you didn’t specify.

So we are agreed… yes?

Quote:

So we are agreed… yes?

I've already answered that. Please go on to whatever point you are trying to make.

Here is what I said the Buddha knows as now agreed by you Frank:

Quote:

igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.

This means that the Buddha taught that reincarnation is not to be taken literally but has only a provisional meaning. He was teaching Hindus who believe that a soul or Atman is reincarnated life after life. He had to gently undermine this mistaken belief with a teaching that was ‘provisional’ by also teaching alongside that, that there is no soul or Atman. So, this was not the ‘absolute truth’ just a ‘provisional’ one. Taught at the beginning but later the deeper understanding of reality i.e. that no soul or atman can go from one life to the next was eventually taught. They could accept this later because they could see the benefit of letting go of the mistaken concept of Atman (the soul) in the light of all the other Buddhist teachings they now knew. Not to mention ‘no caste system’ which was a great bonus for those from a lower Hindu caste?

Below is appended later:

How do I know the Buddha knew this because it's published in his teachings.

What I mean by this statement will obviously have to be explained. He knew that he had to teach Hindus in this way to help them to see there was no Atman.

How do you get to where you are here?

Here is what I said the Buddha knows as now agreed by you Frank:

Quote:

igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.

This means that the Buddha taught that reincarnation is not to be taken literally but has only a provisional meaning. He was teaching Hindus who believe that a soul or Atman is reincarnated life after life. He had to gently undermine this mistaken belief with a teaching that was ‘provisional’ by also teaching alongside that, that there is no soul or Atman. So, this was not the ‘absolute truth’ just a ‘provisional’ one. Taught at the beginning but later the deeper understanding of reality i.e. that no soul or atman can go from one life to the next was eventually taught. They could accept this later because they could see the benefit of letting go of the mistaken concept of Atman (the soul) in the light of all the other Buddhist teachings they now knew. Not to mention ‘no caste system’ which was a great bonus for those from a lower Hindu caste?

Below is appended later:

How do I know the Buddha knew this because it's published in his teachings.

What I mean by this statement will obviously have to be explained. He knew that he had to teach Hindus in this way to help them to see there was no Atman.

maxdancona wrote:

Buddhism is a religion.

You are somewhat correct; some (but not all) people say Buddhism is a religion. As you point out whether it is a religion or not it is atheist.

maxdancona wrote:

It is a world view that is based on "truths" that are accepted without being proven.

In my opinion, the goal of Buddhism is to understand that there is no such thing as conceptual ‘absolute truth’, because believing there is such a thing, is a fundamental source of suffering. Conventionally the Buddha taught ‘provisional conventional truths’ to undermine beliefs in grosser forms of belief but they were stepping-stones to refuting the belief that there is such a thing as a conceptual absolute truth.

It is understandable that you as a non-Buddhist would believe your statements are correct as do many others, even many Buddhists who have not studied the philosophical texts which deal with such things.

So, you have every reason to say what you’ve said but ultimately it is incorrect… IMHO.

As I said above (previous post) I believe:

Conventionally the Buddha taught ‘provisional conventional truths’ to undermine beliefs in grosser forms of belief but they were stepping-stones to refuting the belief that there is such a thing as a conceptual absolute truth.

Your post is understandable, my opinion now is what I've said in the post above. If I was unclear in the past then I apologise for any misunderstanding.

What an accomplished dancer! Are you saying now that you do not believe that reincarnation occurs?

Set, I stand by my reply to Max above and only by that reply; everything I said last year or in previous years is superseded by that reply. So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth and to believe that there is, can be extremely problematic. At least, that is how I now understand it. I don’t speak for other Buddhists; I am only speaking about my personal understanding of the Buddha’s teachings.

Quote:

Set, I stand by my reply to Max above and only by that reply; everything I said last year or in previous years is superseded by that reply. So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth and to believe that there is, can be extremely problematic. At least, that is how I now understand it. I don’t speak for other Buddhists; I am only speaking about my personal understanding of the Buddha’s teachings.

Do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this...or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

We are already way off topic with these posts, so create a new topic about this and I'll post some of my thoughts on this subject as I hope will others… if you'd like to of course.

Do I believe the attempt to tell you would help you in any way? I'm yet to be convinced from your past posts. If you can convince me then I'd try but I believe it would be a waste of time... both mine and yours... I have of course spotted your recurring argument... you know your agnostic argument.

If you really want my response to your question, PM me. I wish you all the best Frank but my gut says you're not really interested in what I have to say only your replies.

Your conclusion does not follow from my post but that's probably not the point of your post is it? I did say it would take you probably years to even understand the full import of what the Buddha taught on wisdom and I could not hope to convey it in a single post. You as usual have rushed to the wrong conclusion.

Let's not waste any more of our time. You can maintain that you are correct and then there's no harm done to your ego.

Also, I'm perfectly happy thanks for your concern.

If my style of debate seem 'testy' to you then I apologise I was just being direct and open with a Frank Apisa I know only too well... it saves time

Oops, igm...you are absolutely correct. I made a mistake. I screwed up with the word order. Apologies.

May I prevail on you to change the order of the words...and respond to the post as though they had been written in the correct order!

You are the one nitpicking about semantics, igm...I am not. You are the one evading answering questions...I am not.

Quote:

And your rebuttal is?

Why should I rebut something that apparently is a point of contention between you and Setanta?

Frank, I'm willing to try to answer your question to this post if you'd like? I wanted to go through it step by step but I'll answer 'your' concerns about the post you questioned.

Here it is, with the text 'you' enlarged in order to draw my attention to it:

Quote:

Set, I stand by my reply to Max above and only by that reply; everything I said last year or in previous years is superseded by that reply. So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth and to believe that there is, can be extremely problematic. At least, that is how I now understand it. I don’t speak for other Buddhists; I am only speaking about my personal understanding of the Buddha’s teachings.

Let's start afresh and just stick to the subject itself leaving out any peripheral comments about Buddhism or ourselves... I await your reply...

I agree to your terms, igm, and I am delighted we are going to discuss the issue.

Let's have at it.

And I think a great place to begin would be for you to deal with the question I asked about the text you quoted (which was your text, with my emphasis).

My question was:

Quote:

Do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this...or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

If, by the way, you think that not the best place to start...start where you will...as long as you agree that we will come back to that question--which is the primary reason I came to this thread in the first place.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I agree to your terms, igm, and I am delighted we are going to discuss the issue.

My question was:

Quote:

Do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this...or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

Here is what I said the Buddha knows:

igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.

Do we agree?

Quote:

Here is what I said the Buddha knows:

Quote:

igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.

Do we agree?

I am not really sure.

Are you asking if I agree that you wrote that...or are you asking if I agree that the Buddha knows there are no conceptual absolute truths?

If the former...I agree.

If the later...not on a bet. That, obviously was the reason for my original question.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:

Here is what I said the Buddha knows:

Quote:

igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.

Do we agree?

I am not really sure.

Are you asking if I agree that you wrote that...

I’m asking you to confirm that when I say that the Buddha ‘knows’ something that it is that passage that I’m referring to.

The reason I’m asking is that you said:

Quote:

Do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this...or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

We are just agreeing on what you meant by ‘KNOWS’ as you didn’t specify.

So we are agreed… yes?

Quote:

So we are agreed… yes?

I've already answered that. Please go on to whatever point you are trying to make.

Here is what I said the Buddha knows as now agreed by you Frank:

Quote:

igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.

This means that the Buddha taught that reincarnation is not to be taken literally but has only a provisional meaning. He was teaching Hindus who believe that a soul or Atman is reincarnated life after life. He had to gently undermine this mistaken belief with a teaching that was ‘provisional’ by also teaching alongside that, that there is no soul or Atman. So, this was not the ‘absolute truth’ just a ‘provisional’ one. Taught at the beginning but later the deeper understanding of reality i.e. that no soul or atman can go from one life to the next was eventually taught. They could accept this later because they could see the benefit of letting go of the mistaken concept of Atman (the soul) in the light of all the other Buddhist teachings they now knew. Not to mention ‘no caste system’ which was a great bonus for those from a lower Hindu caste?

Below is appended later:

How do I know the Buddha knew this because it's published in his teachings.

What I mean by this statement will obviously have to be explained. He knew that he had to teach Hindus in this way to help them to see there was no Atman.

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5246124)
Frank Apisa wrote:

How do you get to where you are here?

I can show you. It started with my post to Max saying that reincarnation is a provisional teaching. Setanta butted in and said I believed in reincarnation. I said it was a provisional teaching. You, Frank didn’t understand that the subject under discussion was reincarnation and believed it was about ‘absolute truth’.

This makes perfect sense if you know the context:

igm wrote:

Here is what I said the Buddha knows as now agreed by you Frank:

Quote:
igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.

This means that the Buddha taught that reincarnation is not to be taken literally but has only a provisional meaning. He was teaching Hindus who believe that a soul or Atman is reincarnated life after life. He had to gently undermine this mistaken belief with a teaching that was ‘provisional’ by also teaching alongside that, that there is no soul or Atman. So, this was not the ‘absolute truth’ just a ‘provisional’ one. Taught at the beginning but later the deeper understanding of reality i.e. that no soul or atman can go from one life to the next was eventually taught. They could accept this later because they could see the benefit of letting go of the mistaken concept of Atman (the soul) in the light of all the other Buddhist teachings they now knew. Not to mention ‘no caste system’ which was a great bonus for those from a lower Hindu caste?

Below is appended later:

How do I know the Buddha knew this because it's published in his teachings.

What I mean by this statement will obviously have to be explained. He knew that he had to teach Hindus in this way to help them to see there was no Atman.

That Frank is where it all came from and you just plain made a mistake…sorry about that!

This is the history of the whole thing:
igm wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

Buddhism is a religion.

You are somewhat correct; some (but not all) people say Buddhism is a religion. As you point out whether it is a religion or not it is atheist.
maxdancona wrote:

It is a world view that is based on "truths" that are accepted without being proven.

In my opinion, the goal of Buddhism is to understand that there is no such thing as conceptual ‘absolute truth’, because believing there is such a thing, is a fundamental source of suffering. Conventionally the Buddha taught ‘provisional conventional truths’ to undermine beliefs in grosser forms of belief but they were stepping-stones to refuting the belief that there is such a thing as a conceptual absolute truth.

It is understandable that you as a non-Buddhist would believe your statements are correct as do many others, even many Buddhists who have not studied the philosophical texts which deal with such things.

So, you have every reason to say what you’ve said but ultimately it is incorrect… IMHO.

igm wrote:

As I said above (previous post) I believe:

Conventionally the Buddha taught ‘provisional conventional truths’ to undermine beliefs in grosser forms of belief but they were stepping-stones to refuting the belief that there is such a thing as a conceptual absolute truth.

Your post is understandable, my opinion now is what I've said in the post above. If I was unclear in the past then I apologise for any misunderstanding.


Setanta wrote:

What an accomplished dancer! Are you saying now that you do not believe that reincarnation occurs?

igm wrote:

Set, I stand by my reply to Max above and only by that reply; everything I said last year or in previous years is superseded by that reply. So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth and to believe that there is, can be extremely problematic. At least, that is how I now understand it. I don’t speak for other Buddhists; I am only speaking about my personal understanding of the Buddha’s teachings.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Set, I stand by my reply to Max above and only by that reply; everything I said last year or in previous years is superseded by that reply. So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth and to believe that there is, can be extremely problematic. At least, that is how I now understand it. I don’t speak for other Buddhists; I am only speaking about my personal understanding of the Buddha’s teachings.


Do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this...or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

igm wrote:

We are already way off topic with these posts, so create a new topic about this and I'll post some of my thoughts on this subject as I hope will others… if you'd like to of course.

igm wrote:

Do I believe the attempt to tell you would help you in any way? I'm yet to be convinced from your past posts. If you can convince me then I'd try but I believe it would be a waste of time... both mine and yours... I have of course spotted your recurring argument... you know your agnostic argument.

If you really want my response to your question, PM me. I wish you all the best Frank but my gut says you're not really interested in what I have to say only your replies.


igm wrote:

Your conclusion does not follow from my post but that's probably not the point of your post is it? I did say it would take you probably years to even understand the full import of what the Buddha taught on wisdom and I could not hope to convey it in a single post. You as usual have rushed to the wrong conclusion.

Let's not waste any more of our time. You can maintain that you are correct and then there's no harm done to your ego.

Also, I'm perfectly happy thanks for your concern.

If my style of debate seem 'testy' to you then I apologise I was just being direct and open with a Frank Apisa I know only too well... it saves time

Frank Apisa wrote:

Oops, igm...you are absolutely correct. I made a mistake. I screwed up with the word order. Apologies.

May I prevail on you to change the order of the words...and respond to the post as though they had been written in the correct order!

Frank Apisa wrote:


You are the one nitpicking about semantics, igm...I am not. You are the one evading answering questions...I am not.


Quote:
And your rebuttal is?


Why should I rebut something that apparently is a point of contention between you and Setanta?


igm wrote:

Frank, I'm willing to try to answer your question to this post if you'd like? I wanted to go through it step by step but I'll answer 'your' concerns about the post you questioned.

Here it is, with the text 'you' enlarged in order to draw my attention to it:

Quote:
Set, I stand by my reply to Max above and only by that reply; everything I said last year or in previous years is superseded by that reply. So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth and to believe that there is, can be extremely problematic. At least, that is how I now understand it. I don’t speak for other Buddhists; I am only speaking about my personal understanding of the Buddha’s teachings.

Let's start afresh and just stick to the subject itself leaving out any peripheral comments about Buddhism or ourselves... I await your reply...


Frank Apisa wrote:

I agree to your terms, igm, and I am delighted we are going to discuss the issue.

Let's have at it.

And I think a great place to begin would be for you to deal with the question I asked about the text you quoted (which was your text, with my emphasis).

My question was:

Quote:
Do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this...or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?


If, by the way, you think that not the best place to start...start where you will...as long as you agree that we will come back to that question--which is the primary reason I came to this thread in the first place.


igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I agree to your terms, igm, and I am delighted we are going to discuss the issue.

My question was:

Quote:
Do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this...or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?




Here is what I said the Buddha knows:

igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.


Do we agree?


Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Here is what I said the Buddha knows:

Quote:
igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.


Do we agree?


I am not really sure.

Are you asking if I agree that you wrote that...or are you asking if I agree that the Buddha knows there are no conceptual absolute truths?

If the former...I agree.

If the later...not on a bet. That, obviously was the reason for my original question.

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Here is what I said the Buddha knows:

Quote:
igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.


Do we agree?


I am not really sure.

Are you asking if I agree that you wrote that...

I’m asking you to confirm that when I say that the Buddha ‘knows’ something that it is that passage that I’m referring to.

The reason I’m asking is that you said:

Quote:
Do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this...or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?


We are just agreeing on what you meant by ‘KNOWS’ as you didn’t specify.

So we are agreed… yes?


Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
So we are agreed… yes?


I've already answered that. Please go on to whatever point you are trying to make.

igm wrote:

Here is what I said the Buddha knows as now agreed by you Frank:

Quote:
igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.

This means that the Buddha taught that reincarnation is not to be taken literally but has only a provisional meaning. He was teaching Hindus who believe that a soul or Atman is reincarnated life after life. He had to gently undermine this mistaken belief with a teaching that was ‘provisional’ by also teaching alongside that, that there is no soul or Atman. So, this was not the ‘absolute truth’ just a ‘provisional’ one. Taught at the beginning but later the deeper understanding of reality i.e. that no soul or atman can go from one life to the next was eventually taught. They could accept this later because they could see the benefit of letting go of the mistaken concept of Atman (the soul) in the light of all the other Buddhist teachings they now knew. Not to mention ‘no caste system’ which was a great bonus for those from a lower Hindu caste?

Below is appended later:

How do I know the Buddha knew this because it's published in his teachings.

What I mean by this statement will obviously have to be explained. He knew that he had to teach Hindus in this way to help them to see there was no Atman.


+++++++++++++
Frank Apisa wrote:

How do you get to where you are here?


I can show you. It started with my post to Max saying that reincarnation is a provisional teaching. Setanta butted in and said I believed in reincarnation. I said it was a provisional teaching. You, Frank didn’t understand that the subject under discussion was reincarnation and believed it was about ‘absolute truth’. You believed that this would enable you to how did the Buddha ‘Know’ but you didn’t say what exactly. The post you questioned was about reincarnation and how it is a provisional truth and not the absolute truth.
I told you that you had made a mistake and misunderstood I have now explained what I meant when responded to Set. You have taken a part of what I said ‘out of context’ and tried to make it about absolute truth. I ran with your mistake for quite a while (for which I apologise) today I came back to set the record straight and say exactly what I had meant when I replied to Set and you jumped in with your mistaken view of what I’d said. The rest is history.
This makes perfect sense if you know the context:
igm wrote:

Here is what I said the Buddha knows as now agreed by you Frank:

Quote:
igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.

This means that the Buddha taught that reincarnation is not to be taken literally but has only a provisional meaning. He was teaching Hindus who believe that a soul or Atman is reincarnated life after life. He had to gently undermine this mistaken belief with a teaching that was ‘provisional’ by also teaching alongside that, that there is no soul or Atman. So, this was not the ‘absolute truth’ just a ‘provisional’ one. Taught at the beginning but later the deeper understanding of reality i.e. that no soul or atman can go from one life to the next was eventually taught. They could accept this later because they could see the benefit of letting go of the mistaken concept of Atman (the soul) in the light of all the other Buddhist teachings they now knew. Not to mention ‘no caste system’ which was a great bonus for those from a lower Hindu caste?

Below is appended later:

How do I know the Buddha knew this because it's published in his teachings.

What I mean by this statement will obviously have to be explained. He knew that he had to teach Hindus in this way to help them to see there was no Atman.

That Frank is where it all came from and you just plain made a mistake…sorry about that!
This is the history of the whole thing:
igm wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

Buddhism is a religion.

You are somewhat correct; some (but not all) people say Buddhism is a religion. As you point out whether it is a religion or not it is atheist.
maxdancona wrote:

It is a world view that is based on "truths" that are accepted without being proven.

In my opinion, the goal of Buddhism is to understand that there is no such thing as conceptual ‘absolute truth’, because believing there is such a thing, is a fundamental source of suffering. Conventionally the Buddha taught ‘provisional conventional truths’ to undermine beliefs in grosser forms of belief but they were stepping-stones to refuting the belief that there is such a thing as a conceptual absolute truth.

It is understandable that you as a non-Buddhist would believe your statements are correct as do many others, even many Buddhists who have not studied the philosophical texts which deal with such things.

So, you have every reason to say what you’ve said but ultimately it is incorrect… IMHO.

igm wrote:

As I said above (previous post) I believe:

Conventionally the Buddha taught ‘provisional conventional truths’ to undermine beliefs in grosser forms of belief but they were stepping-stones to refuting the belief that there is such a thing as a conceptual absolute truth.

Your post is understandable, my opinion now is what I've said in the post above. If I was unclear in the past then I apologise for any misunderstanding.


Setanta wrote:

What an accomplished dancer! Are you saying now that you do not believe that reincarnation occurs?

igm wrote:

Set, I stand by my reply to Max above and only by that reply; everything I said last year or in previous years is superseded by that reply. So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth and to believe that there is, can be extremely problematic. At least, that is how I now understand it. I don’t speak for other Buddhists; I am only speaking about my personal understanding of the Buddha’s teachings.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Set, I stand by my reply to Max above and only by that reply; everything I said last year or in previous years is superseded by that reply. So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth and to believe that there is, can be extremely problematic. At least, that is how I now understand it. I don’t speak for other Buddhists; I am only speaking about my personal understanding of the Buddha’s teachings.


Do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this...or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

igm wrote:

We are already way off topic with these posts, so create a new topic about this and I'll post some of my thoughts on this subject as I hope will others… if you'd like to of course.

igm wrote:

Do I believe the attempt to tell you would help you in any way? I'm yet to be convinced from your past posts. If you can convince me then I'd try but I believe it would be a waste of time... both mine and yours... I have of course spotted your recurring argument... you know your agnostic argument.

If you really want my response to your question, PM me. I wish you all the best Frank but my gut says you're not really interested in what I have to say only your replies.


igm wrote:

Your conclusion does not follow from my post but that's probably not the point of your post is it? I did say it would take you probably years to even understand the full import of what the Buddha taught on wisdom and I could not hope to convey it in a single post. You as usual have rushed to the wrong conclusion.

Let's not waste any more of our time. You can maintain that you are correct and then there's no harm done to your ego.

Also, I'm perfectly happy thanks for your concern.

If my style of debate seem 'testy' to you then I apologise I was just being direct and open with a Frank Apisa I know only too well... it saves time

Frank Apisa wrote:

Oops, igm...you are absolutely correct. I made a mistake. I screwed up with the word order. Apologies.

May I prevail on you to change the order of the words...and respond to the post as though they had been written in the correct order!

Frank Apisa wrote:


You are the one nitpicking about semantics, igm...I am not. You are the one evading answering questions...I am not.


Quote:
And your rebuttal is?


Why should I rebut something that apparently is a point of contention between you and Setanta?


igm wrote:

Frank, I'm willing to try to answer your question to this post if you'd like? I wanted to go through it step by step but I'll answer 'your' concerns about the post you questioned.

Here it is, with the text 'you' enlarged in order to draw my attention to it:

Quote:
Set, I stand by my reply to Max above and only by that reply; everything I said last year or in previous years is superseded by that reply. So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth and to believe that there is, can be extremely problematic. At least, that is how I now understand it. I don’t speak for other Buddhists; I am only speaking about my personal understanding of the Buddha’s teachings.

Let's start afresh and just stick to the subject itself leaving out any peripheral comments about Buddhism or ourselves... I await your reply...


Frank Apisa wrote:

I agree to your terms, igm, and I am delighted we are going to discuss the issue.

Let's have at it.

And I think a great place to begin would be for you to deal with the question I asked about the text you quoted (which was your text, with my emphasis).

My question was:

Quote:
Do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this...or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?


If, by the way, you think that not the best place to start...start where you will...as long as you agree that we will come back to that question--which is the primary reason I came to this thread in the first place.


igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I agree to your terms, igm, and I am delighted we are going to discuss the issue.

My question was:

Quote:
Do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this...or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?




Here is what I said the Buddha knows:

igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.


Do we agree?


Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Here is what I said the Buddha knows:

Quote:
igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.


Do we agree?


I am not really sure.

Are you asking if I agree that you wrote that...or are you asking if I agree that the Buddha knows there are no conceptual absolute truths?

If the former...I agree.

If the later...not on a bet. That, obviously was the reason for my original question.

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Here is what I said the Buddha knows:

Quote:
igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.


Do we agree?


I am not really sure.

Are you asking if I agree that you wrote that...

I’m asking you to confirm that when I say that the Buddha ‘knows’ something that it is that passage that I’m referring to.

The reason I’m asking is that you said:

Quote:
Do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this...or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?


We are just agreeing on what you meant by ‘KNOWS’ as you didn’t specify.

So we are agreed… yes?


Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
So we are agreed… yes?


I've already answered that. Please go on to whatever point you are trying to make.

igm wrote:

Here is what I said the Buddha knows as now agreed by you Frank:

Quote:
igm wrote:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.

This means that the Buddha taught that reincarnation is not to be taken literally but has only a provisional meaning. He was teaching Hindus who believe that a soul or Atman is reincarnated life after life. He had to gently undermine this mistaken belief with a teaching that was ‘provisional’ by also teaching alongside that, that there is no soul or Atman. So, this was not the ‘absolute truth’ just a ‘provisional’ one. Taught at the beginning but later the deeper understanding of reality i.e. that no soul or atman can go from one life to the next was eventually taught. They could accept this later because they could see the benefit of letting go of the mistaken concept of Atman (the soul) in the light of all the other Buddhist teachings they now knew. Not to mention ‘no caste system’ which was a great bonus for those from a lower Hindu caste?

Below is appended later:

How do I know the Buddha knew this because it's published in his teachings.

What I mean by this statement will obviously have to be explained. He knew that he had to teach Hindus in this way to help them to see there was no Atman.

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5246196)
You made a mistake Frank.

Admit it and I'll look at your 'new' questions.

We carefully went through each post together and I gave you a reply that was in context with the history of the post 'before' you entered my post with Set. You misunderstood the context and asked the wrong question and without mentioning the subject, paraphrased: 'Just how does he 'KNOW that', this was unclear to others but obviously clear to you... a simple mistake.

I ran with your misunderstanding and as I say I apologise for that. But now I have explained myself clearly. So admit your mistake Frank and I'll be happy to answer your 'new' questions.

By the way, the concept of non-dualism comes from an eastern religious tradition even older than Buddhism. Contrary to popular belief, it is not a philosophical concept with a sound epistemological underpinning. It is in fact, entirely the product of the hermeneutics of Hindu mysticism.

Matt...I understand non-dualism. That, most assuredly is not the reason this discussion is occurring.

But if you are going to assert that the Ultimate REALITY is non-dualism...you should be prepared to come with lots of ammunition...unless you are doing it just for laughs.

If, in fact, the language actually is the problem...rather than the concept being conveyed...then you people should simply stop using language.

That has its counterpart in Christianity. All you have to do to be sure GOD EXISTS...is to have "faith."
You are dressing up guesses...that is all you are doing.