10
   

THANK HUMANS THERE ARE HUMANS, BECAUSE...

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 10:29 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

You seem to agree with what the Buddha had to say. He does not teach that one should rely on authority when contemplating his teachings.

igm wrote:

How do you know that, "Buddhists are pretentious guessers"? Give at least one example.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Igm.

That's not an example... you'll need to give an example of igm making a pretentious guess... and saying it is Buddhism.. or... just an example of a pretentious guess not being attributed to Buddhism (I don't believe that will count as an example though).


BY igm:

The Buddha said that there is no self, ego, Atman, soul (all are synonymous for the purposes of this discussion).

If one can't show there is a self then that removes the subject from subject/object dualism. So unless one can show there is a self then how is one going to show that dualism is correct? The self must either be in the body, mind, both or some other location. If not then one cannot assert a self or dualism because if you don't have self then you can't have other.

They (subject/object) are merely ‘dreamed up by the mind’ concepts we use to communicate; that’s fine but the self is just a useful fiction, as is dualism. If you can’t find a truly existing self then the other side of the coin 'other' is also not found because the concepts depend on one another.

Buddha isn’t saying there is something else, he's just saying dualism is a fiction based on the mistaken belief there is a truly existent self. When we look for it the self cannot be found. The absence of dualism, the mere negation of it or the letting go of it is the absolute is ultimate reality. So it’s not something it’s the absence of mistaken views based on the subject/object dualism that cannot be proved.

The burden of proof is with anyone who says there is a truly existing self. The Buddha just says OK find it and I'll believe in it; if not then I won’t believe in dualism.

Abosolute truth is the mere absence of the belief in dualism according to the Buddha.

Please discuss, I’ve just taken and edited this from a post in another topic so it sounds too forceful. I apologise for that.

Buddhism also teaches that Loving Kindness and Compassion to all is a prerequisite quality to develop and of course meditation.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 10:48 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

...I consider Buddhists to be, for the most part, pretentious guessers.


What exactly do you find pretentious in that old OP of mine?

pre·ten·tious
Adjective
Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.
Synonyms
showy


What in that old OP is a guess and why would a guess be wrong?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 11:01 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

...I consider Buddhists to be, for the most part, pretentious guessers.


What exactly do you find pretentious in that old OP of mine?

pre·ten·tious
Adjective
Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.
Synonyms
showy


What in that old OP is a guess and why would a guess be wrong?


The OP and most of your defense of it...claim there is no self...and the claim is based on what "the Buddha" taught.

It is pretentious to suppose that there is no "self" just because the Buddha taught it...and to suppose that others have to prove there are selves or a self.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 12:55 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
and to suppose that others have to prove there are selves or a self.


You believe that others, read, Frank Apisa, don't have to provide proof for anything. When you get to the end of any of your "arguments", which comes with amazing rapidity for a "top of the class renowned editorial writer", you immediately fall back on your lame, "well [name], you have your opinion and I have mine".
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 01:28 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
and to suppose that others have to prove there are selves or a self.


You believe that others, read, Frank Apisa, don't have to provide proof for anything. When you get to the end of any of your "arguments", which comes with amazing rapidity for a "top of the class renowned editorial writer", you immediately fall back on your lame, "well [name], you have your opinion and I have mine".



http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/1/vomit.gif
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 03:24 pm
@Frank Apisa,
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I consider Buddhism to be nothing more than an appeal to authority...and I consider Buddhists to be, for the most part, pretentious guessers.

I disagree.


Frank Apisa wrote:

... I consider Buddhists to be, for the most part, pretentious guessers.


Quote:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2. How do you know that, "Buddhists are pretentious guessers"? Give at least one example.



Frank Apisa wrote:

Igm.


Frank Apisa wrote:

It is pretentious to suppose that there is no "self" just because the Buddha taught it...and to suppose that others have to prove there are selves or a self.

The Buddha couldn't find a self and when I looked for a self I couldn't find one... so I don't have an absence of a belief in a self because the Buddha taught it but because I couldn't find one nor could I find a reason to believe there was one.

The absence of a belief in a self because of the reasons I have given is not what you are accusing me of and is therefore not pretentious, even under your definition of 'pretentious'.

This is trivial anyway... it doesn't matter to me whether you believe I'm one thing or another. The fact that you agree that Buddhism is not just an appeal to authority is more important as you previously said the opposite and I've changed your mind with a quote from the Buddha showing that he was against appeals to authority... as I say you misunderstand Buddhism and so are not qualified to critique it in any depth, which is perfectly understandable, but please try to resist making the attempt.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 03:37 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I consider Buddhism to be nothing more than an appeal to authority...and I consider Buddhists to be, for the most part, pretentious guessers.

I disagree.


Frank Apisa wrote:

... I consider Buddhists to be, for the most part, pretentious guessers.


Quote:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2. How do you know that, "Buddhists are pretentious guessers"? Give at least one example.



Frank Apisa wrote:

Igm.


Frank Apisa wrote:

It is pretentious to suppose that there is no "self" just because the Buddha taught it...and to suppose that others have to prove there are selves or a self.

The Buddha couldn't find a self and when I looked for a self I couldn't find one... so I don't have an absence of a belief in a self because the Buddha taught it but because I couldn't find one nor could I find a reason to believe there was one.


Look harder. It is more difficult not to find one than to actually find one.

But of course, that would make the appeal to authority wrong...and you cannot do that.


Quote:

The absence of a belief in a self because of the reasons I have given is not what you are accusing me of and is therefore not pretentious, even under your definition of 'pretentious'.

This is trivial anyway... it doesn't matter to me whether you believe I'm one thing or another. The fact that you agree that Buddhism is not just an appeal to authority is more important as you previously said the opposite and I've changed your mind with a quote from the Buddha showing that he was against appeals to authority... as I say you misunderstand Buddhism and so are not qualified to critique it in any depth, which is perfectly understandable, but please try to resist making the attempt.


So have you seen any good movies lately, igm?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jul, 2013 02:31 am
@Frank Apisa,
...it is amazing Frank how those who often speak against materialism are the most materialistic of us all...they ask us where is the "I" in hope we can point to something immediately n sensibly tangible, otherwise it doesn't exist...I tell you, this forsaken world is full of irony... Laughing
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jul, 2013 05:45 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...it is amazing Frank how those who often speak against materialism are the most materialistic of us all...they ask us where is the "I" in hope we can point to something immediately n sensibly tangible, otherwise it doesn't exist...I tell you, this forsaken world is full of irony... Laughing


It is, indeed, Fil. Amazing that igm actually considers that a logical request! Laughing
0 Replies
 
Logicus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 02:20 pm
From a detached and logical point of view, this doesn't make sense. The Universe would still exist, different, but the Universe is not center around us. Not meaning to be rude or offensive, but those who think that show a slight degree of arrogance. The Universe seems to be teeming with mysteries and things we do not know. To say we are the sole cause of its existence is to say we are the masters of the Universe. And that is a pretty authoritative position for a species who enjoys watching people murder people on a television screen.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/02/2021 at 02:42:06