Have you ever questioned other peoples beliefs?

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

That's what I thought. So to explain my post that you asked about :

I found that religion (well, christianity anyway) offered 'the path as explained by the religion', while I found that examples from life itself offered a much clearer, and much more solid path.

This would or at least could be part of my answer (but please read my further comments in the final 15 lines of this post):

vikorr wrote:

That is to say...I believe that even the path to enlightenment will be a personal path, rather than 'the path of Buddha' ....which is not to say that a path already trodden by someone else does not offer lessons (it may well offer many), or even a structured way to begin.

The Buddha's path is as you have explained because:

vikorr wrote:

In the end, I have the suspicion that Buddha couldn't actually articulate how to find enlightenment, but rather, that he hoped that people would realise they would have to eventually tread the path to it of themselves.

The Buddha's final words are reported to have been: "All composite things are perishable. Strive for your own liberation with diligence"

This was explained to me as meaning basically what you have said i.e. that one should seek one’s own path to liberation but not try to reinvent the wheel but to stand on the shoulder of a giant… to mix metaphors.

Also, when you said the Buddha was not sure he could explain his enlightenment to anyone, you are correct, it is reported that he said this after his enlightenment and before he was requested not once but three times to explain how he had attained enlightenment.

After his enlightenment in Bodh Gaya, the Buddha thought: "This is such a subtle teaching. I cannot possibly convey in words what I have discovered so I will not teach. I will just sit under the Bodhi tree for the rest of my life."

What you say is in accord with my understanding of Buddhism. But I would qualify that by saying in addition:

I could easily have said this as an explanation of the Buddhist path but in addition to what you have said, one needs a guide on the path and that is the Buddha's teachings and a current qualified Buddhist teacher who expounds those teachings and makes the extensive general teachings, specific to an individual Buddhist as that person explores their own path with the spiritual and philosophical tools given to that person by the Buddha via one's contemporary teacher.

One thing one cannot do oneself is to remove entirely one’s own selfishness as it can be very subtle and hard to spot and needs to be removed entirely. The Buddha’s teachings and one’s Buddhist teacher are said to be like a mirror that reflects what one needs to work on but one doesn't wish to confront i.e. the selfishness that one needs to work on.

2 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

one needs a guide on the path and that is the Buddha's teachings and a current qualified Buddhist teacher who expounds those teachings and makes the extensive general teachings, specific to an individual Buddhist as that person explores their own path with the spiritual and philosophical tools given to that person by the Buddha via one's contemporary teacher.

This reminds me of the difference between self made millionaires (self made in the older sense, from at least 30 years ago), and millionaires who inherited or followed the traditional paths to wealth. The vast majority are the latter.

For you as a teacher, I do have a question. When teaching :

- Do you consider the pros and cons of what you start with (in other people) - even the pros of cynicism?

- And do you consider the valid reasons for the beliefs other people hold? (there may well be many erroneous reasons, but there is always a valid reason, from their viewpoint)

Quote:

One thing one cannot do oneself is to remove entirely one’s own selfishness as it can be very subtle and hard to spot and needs to be removed entirely. The Buddha’s teachings and one’s Buddhist teacher are said to be like a mirror that reflects what one needs to work on but one doesn't wish to confront i.e. the selfishness that one needs to work on.

Depending on what you mean by selfishness, it may be that you and I disagree on this point. Just to clarify, I can't define selfishness in the traditional sense, because there is no other word in the English language that means 'of the self'. And to avoid argument on self, we will have to define it as 'the entity that is the person'

And to further clarify, from that definition - the Buddha can't have attained enlightment without spending a great deal of time on himself.

Life also shows that those who don't respect their emotional needs usually react in ways they don't like, that lead to conflict & grief....whereas those who always respect them their emotional needs, can give of themselves genuinely without the complaining (sometimes bitter) 'what about me' voice running through their mind, disrupting and influencing their decision making.

I almost never fail to see this play out. The lesson to me is that you need to be as much for yourself as for other people. The other lesson is that the more you are for yourself, the more you can be for other people. Unfortunately in western society, so many people focus on the first half of this equation, and fail to see the enormous benefits to the second half - in regards to the degree of genuineness people exhibit, and the degree of truly 'being' for others.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

For you as a teacher, I do have a question. When teaching :

Vikorr, I'm not sure how I gave you the impression I'm a teacher... I definitely am not. I gave neo a hard time questioning him about the JW religion and I wanted to show that I too am willing to be questioned about Buddhism. Also, someone said that I was avoiding being questioned about my beliefs.. i.e. what the Buddha taught.

I'm glad you have a personal life philosophy which you believe works best for you and you are not interested in an alternative... that could be the best thing for you.. I wish you all the best with it.

If you have any questions... please go to my thread and as explained in my OP (I believe you have visited) I will try and answer them as per my OP. If not have a good evening.

1 Reply

@igm,

My apologies, I read one word wrong in your previous post, that changed the meaning of it.

Quote:

I'm glad you have a personal life philosophy which you believe works best for you and you are not interested in an alternative...

The red part is misleading. It would suggest that I don't look for outside ideas. I do look for outside ideas, but those I choose to take on, must be either good enough to require a modification to my belief systems, or fit into them.

In relation to questions - you do understand that just discussing differing ideas can often be as informative as receiving answers to questions?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
I'm glad you have a personal life philosophy which you believe works best for you and you are not interested in an alternative...

The red part is misleading. It would suggest that I don't look for outside ideas. I do look for outside ideas, but those I choose to take on, must be either good enough to require a modification to my belief systems, or fit into them.

In relation to questions - you do understand that just discussing differing ideas can often be as informative as receiving answers to questions?

There was no intention to mislead... words can be ambiguous at times. Of course your personal philosophy would only work... as you have said if you're open to other ideas. You can't question your own ideas or that of others without a skilled sounding board...is my only comment.

In answer to your question...yes, of course, that is what I've been doing, prior to asking for questions, in this and my other thread. Having said that... I can learn much from those questions though...

1 Reply

@igm,

Hi igm, I didn't say that it was intentionally misleading Wink

Quote:

You can't question your own ideas or that of others without a skilled sounding board...is my only comment.

If you mean 'another (skilled) human sounding board' I don't find this to be true - helpful in many circumstances, but not necessarily true...

...There are many times I will view (or review) an action & consequence, and see if it fits my beliefs - from several angles. When something is discordant, then it's a matter of finding the cause. The cause may be internal fears, or it may be flawed beliefs etc. If there's enough information to modify my systems, then I do...if not, then I will wait until a pattern emerges - check the pattern against existing patterns, and decide how to proceed.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

... without a skilled sounding board ...

What does 'skilled sounding board' mean? Is it reviews from board of experts in the field, or is it something else?
If you have knowledge and skills for verification and validation, you can verify everything: your own or other people's ideas, theories, hypotheses, ligical inferences, reasonable arguments, etc.
Verification is not only in terms of validity, it may check also applicability, feasibility, plausibility, possibility, etc.
When somebody verifies his own theories and hypotheses he is usually prejudiced and the assessment of the verification and validation may not be objective, but this is another issue.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Quote:
... without a skilled sounding board ...

What does 'skilled sounding board' mean? Is it reviews from board of experts in the field, or is it something else?
If you have knowledge and skills for verification and validation, you can verify everything: your own or other people's ideas, theories, hypotheses, ligical inferences, reasonable arguments, etc.
Verification is not only in terms of validity, it may check also applicability, feasibility, plausibility, possibility, etc.
When somebody verifies his own theories and hypotheses he is usually prejudiced and the assessment of the verification and validation may not be objective, but this is another issue.

I believe you've made an excellent point. Thanks for your input.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sounding%20board

c : a person or group on whom one tries out an idea or opinion as a means of evaluating it

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

There are many times I will view (or review) an action & consequence, and see if it fits my beliefs - from several angles. When something is discordant, then it's a matter of finding the cause. The cause may be internal fears, or it may be flawed beliefs etc. If there's enough information to modify my systems, then I do...if not, then I will wait until a pattern emerges - check the pattern against existing patterns, and decide how to proceed.

This all sounds excellent... except it must help to bounce your views off someone you trust enough to evaluate any advice they might offer.

I am going to say something controversial now... your system, very probably will work for one lifetime... but if reality manifests as a series of apparent lives... your system will eventually fail.. probably when you wake up in your new life with no memories of this one... and have to start all over again with whatever habits ripen from not just your last life but all those previous lives. It could be the habits of a previous life where you hadn't a clue about how to conduct a life successfully... it depends on your (to use a Buddhist word) karma (it means literally 'actions' i.e. cause and effect).

Buddhism teaches how to create strong enough karma in this life to have a positive start in the next even though there is no memory of the previous life.

So if there is but one life your personal philosophy should be fine...

3 Replies

@igm,

Slightly amended my previous post.

Also, even in science we can't find the actual start to anything or the actual end... it all seems to just change without a findable beginning or end.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Buddhism teaches how to create strong enough karma in this life to have a positive start in the next even though there is no memory of the previous life.

If you don't have any memory of the previous life, how did you come to know that you have had such life at all? In this way you may claim everything.
This 'strong karma in this life to have positive start in the next' is without any scientific and logical evidences, isn't it? It is merely based on beliefs and nothing else ... even without any reasonable ground to believe?
The B. teaching may have another meaning - that in this life one should do his best and live it to a max in order to provide maximal chances for the future generations.
... This afterlife is not entirely bad idea, but is very disputable.

1 Reply

@Herald,

I agree the positive statement that there is a future life is a belief... what else could it be? Unless one can remember something before this life... even if I said I could... that would be hearsay... and one could easily be ridiculed for saying such a thing. The Buddha said that many of his other teachings are more important to begin with and if one finds those to be true then one may as well withhold judgment on rebirth until the time comes for that to be looked at during one's studies.

The flipside of this, is if it's possible to find in any way whatsoever that things don't just change but in fact actually become non-existent? There is no evidence for this... things change... they don't cease to exist. We as humans have decided that one's mental continuum (for want of a better relative term) ceases to exist when the body ceases to function and basically changes via decomposition.

I have an open mind which does not grasp the extreme of non-existence and given that, I must prepare for infinite lives ahead for the mental continuum that others see as 'me'. If I'm wrong Buddhism works very effectively at reducing mental suffering and increasing happiness in this very life. That is good enough for me. There are many other things to do with this life, that I believe, are just a pointless waste of time.

Also the cause and effect of this life and previous lives ripen into a future effect and since we have done countless things in the past and it is easier to do the wrong thing as opposed to the right thing... we can expect more poor quality lives than good ones unless we know what the cause of a good future life is... hence my belief in Buddhism which addresses this very issue.

1 Reply

At this the liar said to the woman "You certainly will not die". (See Genesis 3:4)
Mankind, in general, has been deceived by this ever since.

Any lie is preferable to the truth. When you're dead, you're dead.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

... a future life is a belief... what else could it be? ...

O.K. you validate it as a belief, but virtually it can be everything. So and so this blog is about verification & validation of beliefs, why don't you run some verification tests, to verify the concept in terms of: validity, applicability, feasibility, plausibility, possibility, etc.
Let's take plausibility for example. Can you find a plausible interpretation for the concept of afterlife?
If we consider life as the life of the human species (mankind), the previous life is the life of our ancessotirs and the afterlife is the life of our heirs. Is it plausible - yes. Are the ideas of Einstein still living today - yes. Are the musical perceptions of Mozart alive - definitely yes. Pay attention that the people nowadays don't even remember the name of the local goverener having ordered the delay poison. The history remembers selectively only some names ... and forgets selectively some others ... and everything falls into its place.
I you want to live an afterlive, design some NPP on Helium-3 and this will guarantee you afterlife in the next 1000 years ... as a minimum ... and all the guys with the SUVs will be forgotten in perpetuity.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

When somebody verifies his own theories and hypotheses he is usually prejudiced and the assessment of the verification and validation may not be objective, but this is another issue.

I think this is an issue, whether the 'sounding board' is internal or external. It's one of the main contributors to heated arguments in this forum.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Can you find a plausible interpretation for the concept of afterlife?

This is the way I see it... but who knows... and those who do can't prove it...

How to be a Buddhist only matters moment to moment. If there is no end to being conscious of reality then letting go of the misunderstandings about reality will be like glimpsing something that cannot be forgotten. If there is no end to being conscious of reality then this glimpse will never be forgotten even when everything else is... after the transition from one life to the next.

From the world of science the non-ending of life is explained in, 'The Many-Worlds Theory' for example:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/science-questions/quantum-suicide3.htm

"This is the same case with quantum suicide. When the man pulls the trigger, there are two possible outcomes: the gun either fires or it doesn't. In this case, the man either lives or he dies. Each time the trigger is pulled, the universe splits to accommodate each possible outcome. When the man dies, the universe is no longer able to split based on the pulling of the trigger. The possible outcome for death is reduced to one: continued death. But with life there are still two chances that remain: The man continues living or the man dies.When the man pulls the trigger and the universe is split in two, however, the version of the man who lived will be unaware that in the other version of the split universe, he has died. Instead he will continue to live and will again have the chance to pull the trigger. And each time he does pull the trigger, the universe will again split, with the version of the man who lives continuing on, and being unaware of all of his deaths in parallel universes. In this sense, he will be able to exist indefinitely. This is called quantum immortality.

So why aren't all of the people who have ever attempted to kill themselves immortal? What's interesting about the Many-Worlds interpretation is that according to the theory, in some parallel universe, they are. This doesn't appear to be the case to us, because the splitting of the universe isn't dependent on our own life or death. We are bystanders or observers in the case of another person's suicide, and as observers we're subject to probability. When the gun finally went off in the universe -- or version -- we inhabit, we were stuck with that result. Even if we pick up the gun and continue shooting the man, the universe will remain in a single state. After all, once a person is dead, the number of possible outcomes for shooting a dead person is reduced to one."

0 Replies

@igm,

Hi igm,

In relation to Karma. I believe in cause & effect...which may be Karma - I've never looked into the actual Buddhist belief of it.

I think that if you focus on possible other lives, that the motivation for becoming the best you can, can become flawed. I doubt that flawed motivation would help ones karma.

Even say reincarnation were true (and I don't believe it is) - belief in it would not enable me to be any further along my path than I am now.

In other words, I don't think I could create a better Karma for a future life, were I a believer in it.

It reminds me of religions view that people need 'God' (the belief in God) to become a better person...I think many people do, but not everyone does.

Quote:

This all sounds excellent... except it must help to bounce your views off someone you trust enough to evaluate any advice they might offer.

I'm quite happy to discuss individual beliefs of mine with others. But beyond that, the issue with this is with evaluation & integration...

Evaluation - to evaluate the finer points of an 'action' - you must first have been motivated to learn about & evaluate the major points. This may have included extensive education vs observation (to see consistencies), or self learning....but in any event, you need to be interested (for some time), and come up with theories that stand the test of time (ie. many multiple human variations of that theory) while remaining open to modification (ie nothing is ever perfect). Not many are that interested in human nature & behaviour. This often, but not always, creates an issue in discussion.

Integration - perhaps every one of my major beliefs is linked to several other major beliefs - there should be no reason why one belief is discordant with another...from my point of view, any test must be tested against all the links as well...if people are talking with me and I run these tests - this tends to frustrate people. I find it both fascinating and necessary to run these tests, but others find it frustrating.

These boards are a good source of other peoples belief systems. Books are probably better (more thought, more stories, less arguments)...but you do see peoples belief systems play out in their responses here.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

After his enlightenment in Bodh Gaya, the Buddha thought: "This is such a subtle teaching. I cannot possibly convey in words what I have discovered so I will not teach. I will just sit under the Bodhi tree for the rest of my life."

By the way, I meant to comment on this one earlier.

I have always been of the view that our beliefs should enhance our life / who we are, and that this comes out in all of our actions...that we should become more 'us' in our actions. I find in the philosophy forum so many beliefs that seem to drive 'thinkers' towards indecision and inaction. I find this sort of thinking to be abhorrent. I think gluing yourself under a tree for the rest of your life would be something to avoid.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
After his enlightenment in Bodh Gaya, the Buddha thought: "This is such a subtle teaching. I cannot possibly convey in words what I have discovered so I will not teach. I will just sit under the Bodhi tree for the rest of my life."

I think gluing yourself under a tree for the rest of your life would be something to avoid.

The Buddha didn't (you know that because it's in my post along with this quote) this was his thought before he was asked to teach how to put an end to suffering and before he realized he could teach it, although it was, "a subtle teaching."

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Thanks for your interesting comments. I still believe that one cannot create one's own philosophy without talking with another person who can be trusted to give good honest feedback.

I don't see any questions in your post and I don't have any at this time.

By the way it's best to call it rebirth and not reincarnation which is to do with a truly existent soul transmigrating, this belief is Hindu... the Buddhist notion of rebirth is much more subtle... but I won't bore you with the details.

2 Replies

Have you ever questioned other peoples beliefs?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know