Atheist vs believer research

@MattDavis,

Are you kind of slow today? The concept of non-dualism comes from texts on Hindu mysticism, it doesn't come from any examination of the origins of knowledge, of the nature of knowledge or how it is acquired--which is what epistemology is all about. Western thinkers only embraced so-called non-dualism as the west became aware of eastern religious thinking. Then a group of philosophers, facing the loss of their prestige and possibly even their livelihoods because scientific research increasingly marginalized their contributions to knowledge, took on board one of the loveliest scams that ever came down the highway.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Apparently I misjudged your reasons for posting. I was hasty in my reply; did not set a foundation for my disagreement; and treated your remarks as though they were an extension of a long-lasting discussion I have been having with several non-dualism evangelists (just screwing with them here) who post in A2Kregularly.

I withdraw the remarks.

My sole interest in this thread is to ask igm about some things he claims the Buddha "taught." I am interested in what igm thinks about the teachings--particularly if he thinks the Buddha was teaching something he KNEW...or that he simply guessed about.

Since the teachings I referenced deal with "the REALITY" "the existence or non-existence of a soul" and "about what can and/or cannot happen after death"... I am of the opinion the Buddha's teachings are most likely just guesswork. Since igm raised the issues, I am wondering about igm's opinion on them.

You are correct, Matt...so far it has proven to be very unproductive undertaking.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:
You made a mistake Frank.

I did NOT make a mistake. I was interested in one thing...and I have told you that over and over.

I am interested in what YOU think about what the Buddha said about Ultimate REALITY issues.

This is the text that made you question that:

igm wrote:

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

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.

Then I explained the meaning of my post above:

igm wrote:

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!

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.

Now you show Frank how I’ve talked about ‘absolute truth’ the way you are using it?

Also where I’m saying the ‘Buddha knows’ in the way you are using it?

There’s no way that I’m talking about ‘Metaphysical Absolute Truth’. You just made a mistake. I ran with it for fun...

(and for far too long, but I explained yesterday when we restarted our discussion anew based on your original reply, and you agreed to forget all about that and concentrate on what I had said when you first posted. So, please disregard anything I’ve said following your mistaken interpretation of what I’d said to Set)

...but not because you had a valid argument just because you’d jumped in with the ‘How can you know ‘a’ exists and how can you know ‘a’ doesn’t exist argument that you always come up with.

Based on what I said and you agreed I said…………… it is a Non sequitur.

Therefore how can I answer your questions they are invalid...
... based on your original reply to my post to Set.

1 Reply

@igm,

Since you obviously want to play this game rather than actually answer my questions, igm…I’ll play along.

Let’s go back to the beginning:

I quoted you saying: "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."

I then posed a question…one that did not deal with any of the other items in your post…ONLY WITH THE HIGHLIGHTED PART…as you have acknowledged you recognized. Here is the question:

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

Answer that question.

And while you are at it, since you later posted that the Buddha “taught” that humans possess no soul…and that “reincarnation” doesn’t exist (however you worded it)…

…I asked:

Do you have any idea of how the Buddha knows that humans do not possess a soul…or that “reincarnation” is a myth…or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

You have made all sorts of excuses for not answering those questions, because the only logical answer is that the Buddha guessed those things…and that, igm, you seem incapable of acknowledging.

Looking forward to your next evasion, igm.

1 Reply

is anyone else getting deja-vu?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I don’t think you even considered my reply. Anyway let's forget about your mistake I'll let others decide about that.

Frank, please create a topic about these 'new' questions and I'll post my thoughts.. no evasion there... just a few minutes work from your side. I think I've done my fair share of work in this discussion. So, if these questions matter to you show it by creating a topic.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5246756)
I don’t think you even considered my reply. Anyway let's forget about your mistake I'll let others decide about that.

I did consider your reply.

Although I have made many mistakes in my life, I did not make the mistake you seem intent on pinning on me here. But I agree...we can let others decide about that.

In any case, you have asserted that the Buddha "taught" that there is no such thing as a "conceptual absolute truth”…you have asserted that the Buddha “taught” that “that there is no soul or Atman” and (redundantly, it seems that "no soul or atman can go from one life to the next.”

On each of these “teachings” I have asked you: Do YOU think the Buddha KNEW this…or do you think he just guessed at it.

On the first “teaching”…I think we have established that the teaching is completely illogical, because if correct, it would be a conceptual absolute truth…which would make it false. That has been shown to be a guess…and not an especially good one at that. But you have yet to acknowledged that.

As for the second and third…my question still apply:

Do YOU, igm, think the Buddha KNEW that humans do not possess a soul…or do you think it was just a guess? (HINT: Almost certainly it was just a guess!)

Do YOU, igm, think the Buddha KNEW there was no such thing as reincarnation…or do you think it was just a guess? (HINT: Almost certainly it was just a guess!)

If you would like to actually answer these questions…which really need no context…do so.

If you would like to answer them in a separate thread for some reason…start the thread and make the assertion. I most assuredly will visit and comment.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

That's a 'no' on creating a new topic then. No new topic no reply. Up to you Frank. I won't continue on this thread because everyone is bored with the both of us... IMHO

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5246781)
That's a 'no' on creating a new topic then. No new topic no reply. Up to you Frank. I won't continue on this thread because everyone is bored with the both of us... IMHO

At last...something on which we can enthusiastically agree. Wink

0 Replies

here i come to stir things up with my dodgy sense of humour.

if the Buddha "taught" that there is no such thing as a "conceptual absolute truth”, how do you know he was telling the truth?

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

Can you point to where it was said? I don't think he said that.

Appended later:
If you are quoting me I was saying that reincarnation is 'provisional' not an 'absolute' teaching. The Buddha 'knows' that provisional is best at first when teaching Hindus who believe in the soul/atman and reincarnation.

1 Reply

@igm,

Post: # 5,246,781 is where i saw, scroll up about 4 posts.

but please...don't take me seriously...i'm very sarcastic, and it doesnt always come across well in print. i was only messing about.

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

Have you read the 'addition' to my reply to you in the post above yours?

There's nothing metaphysical in what I was saying but Frank wants to read it that way. It's just about teaching style.

1 Reply

@igm,

i saw it after my last post...but seriously i really was messing about, playing with the word "truth". it was a flippant throw-away remark

what you two are discussing is way over my head, and i really shouldnt have butted in...was just trying to be funny.

that'll teach me!

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

Frank has a point if that was the point I was making but I wasn't.

2 Replies

@igm,

lol ok ok.

seriously i'm gonna take a step back. i don't know anything about hinduism, bhuddism, or duality.

your discussion is a bit lost on me.

i should stop gatecrashing threads and posting inane remarks.i just couldnt resist, it was too good an opportunity.

2 Replies

@Berty McJock,

Jock your honesty is refreshing, you've e made my day

0 Replies

@Berty McJock,

Jock your honesty is refreshing, you've made my day

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

honesty is the best policy.

i do try to always be honest. not always possible, but if you're not, you're only lying to yourself.

0 Replies

@igm,

Okay...if you are going to continue to discuss these issues rather than let them lie as you said you would...I am going to reply.

Respectfully as possible, igm, you have asserted some things about the "teachings" of the Buddha.

I have questioned you about YOUR take on what the Buddha (according to YOU) taught.

I ask those same questions when assertions about REALITY come from Christians, hard atheists, Jehovah's Witnesses and a host of others.

You have not responded to reasonable questions. For you to suggest that you were not making the point that the Buddha did teach those things...

...say it right here.

Tell me that the Buddha did not teach the things you have asserted the Buddha did. That would end the discussion right in its tracks.

If you cannot, because in fact the Buddha did teach those things...then answer my questions. We then can discuss those answers.

Otherwise, you really should abandon this thread...as you have suggested you intend to do several times now.

2 Replies

Atheist vs believer research

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know