I am a Buddhist and if anyone wants to question my beliefs then they are welcome to do so...

@igm,

Max put it best a page ago.

Quote:

This post is a good example of the Buddhist superiority complex that some of us find annoying.

You won't win any hearts and minds being smug igm.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

...

Raise you one, igm: ....

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

You won't win any hearts and minds...

I don't need to, nor would I want to. It's what the Buddha actually taught that matters. My contribution was the waste of time that many predicted... but as I say Buddhism should be untouched by my contribution... and that's how it should be... that's all folks!

1 Reply

@igm,

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Your philosophy is that everything is a guess...

I may not agree with everything Frank says but I would have to say that his philosophy may be one that is far more advanced than a philosophy based on beliefs.

I have always admired you as a person and hope that you become all that you hope to but just as I think of Frank and myself, I think you too are not able to see where you are wrong at times. Wink

0 Replies

@igm,

That was an interesting conversation. I appears that igm was replying to the whole intent of Frank's posts (show me the evidence for everything you believe you know), while I daresay Frank was taking guesses as igm's personality...

- Frank gets defensive in a rather clever way...

- igm gets defensive (just reiterate 'this is what I choose to believe' - does it really matter?)

What Frank appears to me to be suggesting :
- History is unknowable because we weren't there to see it for ourselves. What people said outside of our direct view is unknowable because we didn't witness it for ourselves.

My take on that :
- books etc. provide knowledge, even while they should always be read/viewed with a degree of discerning awareness; and
- it'd be a rather paralysed world if we needed evidence (ie to hear & view it for ourselves) for everything in schools, books etc.

Ie...in that light, what does the evidence to what is said/believed actually matter, so long as what is learned is of benefit to both you and others?

Please correct me if this is incorrect in any way (including the foundation)

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

That was an interesting conversation. I appears that igm was replying to the whole intent of Frank's posts (show me the evidence for everything you believe you know), while I daresay Frank was taking guesses as igm's personality...

- Frank gets defensive in a rather clever way...

- igm gets defensive (just reiterate 'this is what I choose to believe' - does it really matter?)

What Frank appears to me to be suggesting :
- History is unknowable because we weren't there to see it for ourselves. What people said outside of our direct view is unknowable because we didn't witness it for ourselves.

My take on that :
- books etc. provide knowledge, even while they should always be read/viewed with a degree of discerning awareness; and
- it'd be a rather paralysed world if we needed evidence (ie to hear & view it for ourselves) for everything in schools, books etc.

Ie...in that light, what does the evidence to what is said/believed actually matter, so long as what is learned is of benefit to both you and others?

Please correct me if this is incorrect in any way (including the foundation)

I am saying nothing about history in particular...and I do not know where that line of thought on your part comes from. When I talk about “guesses”…I am almost always talking about guesses being made about the true nature of REALITY.

If someone says, “There is a GOD that has expectations of humans and who is pleased or offended by what humans do”…I consider that to be a guess. My consideration itself is a guess…the person truly may KNOW there is a GOD…and that the GOD is of that kind. Normally I do not say “You are just guessing”…but rather I ASK HOW THE PERSON KNOWS WHAT THEY CLAIM TO KNOW…or if the person is asserting this in the form of a belief…I call attention to the fact that a “belief” in this context is just a guess that is pretending to be something else.

As for “great teachers”…well, if you want to “believe” that Jesus died and came back to life and walked on water and brought people back from the dead…do so. But I cannot see that as anything more than a guess disguised with the word “belief.” If you want to "believe" the Buddha "attained enlightenment" (whatever that is)...do so; if you want to "believe" in rebirth...do so; if you want to believe you can also attain enlightenment....do so.

But I cannot see those things as anything more than guesses disguised as beliefs.

I don’t care about your guesses (whether you call them guesses or beliefs)…nor do I have any way of determining whether the guesses are correct or incorrect. At no point have I ever stated that a particular guess is correct or incorrect. There is no way I have of knowing that. Nor have I ever stated that everything is a guess. But igm has accused me of both those things.

All the rest of that stuff you have in here has nothing to do with what I have been saying.

I would suggest you simply pick out something that I have actually said…reference and quote it…and tell me what problems you have with it. That way we can actually deal with what I am saying…rather than your characterization of what I am saying.

(There is a difference between “getting defensive” and defending a point. I think you are blurring that distinction in your posts. That can be a problem.)

0 Replies

I am bothered by one aspect of this thread, i.e., the assumption that Buddhism is in the same category as other religions, especially the Abrahamic three. I can see how it would be considered the same: a system of propositions that one must believe and comply with. Most "buddhists" (at the level of popular religion) do treat Buddhism as a "religion" in the same way as do most Christians, Muslims and Jews with their confessions. But there is an aspect of Buddhism (and even of the Abrahamic faiths--the Christian mystics, Muslim Sufis and Jewish Cabalists) that does not rest on beliefs and metaphysical proposition. Indeed, like the Taoists, it contains a general expression of a mistrust in language as a way of finding and describing ultimate reality. Indeed, it emphasizes a feeling (more than a belief) that Reality is fundamentally ineffable. This is at the heart of a FORM of Buddhism called Zen, the result of a fusion between Indian Buddhism and Chinese Taoism. Indeed, most zen buddhists refer to their buddhism as a practice rather than a faith. It is more a matter of knowing HOW to live rather than holding onto a linguistically formed belief about WHAT is.
And where this "mysticism" does use language it does so (with little regard for logic or grammar) to stimulate or express one's inherent enlightenment, one's actual or potential awareness of one's unity with Reality. examples are abundant within the zen literature and such mystical sayings as that of the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart : "I see God with the same eye that God sees me"

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

I am bothered by one aspect of this thread, i.e., the assumption that Buddhism is in the same category as other religions, especially the Abrahamic three. I can see how it would be considered the same: a system of propositions that one must believe and comply with. Most "buddhists" (at the level of popular religion) do treat Buddhism as a "religion" in the same way as do most Christians, Muslims and Jews with their confessions. But there is an aspect of Buddhism (and even of the Abrahamic faiths--the Christian mystics, Muslim Sufis and Jewish Cabalists) that does not rest on beliefs and metaphysical proposition. Indeed, like the Taoists, it contains a general expression of a mistrust in language as a way of finding and describing ultimate reality. Indeed, it emphasizes a feeling (more than a belief) that Reality is fundamentally ineffable. This is at the heart of a FORM of Buddhism called Zen, the result of a fusion between Indian Buddhism and Chinese Taoism. Indeed, most zen buddhists refer to their buddhism as a practice rather than a faith. It is more a matter of knowing HOW to live rather than holding onto a linguistically formed belief about WHAT is.
And where this "mysticism" does use language it does so (with little regard for logic or grammar) to stimulate or express one's inherent enlightenment, one's actual or potential awareness of one's unity with Reality. examples are abundant within the zen literature and such mystical sayings as that of the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart : "I see God with the same eye that God sees me"

Some good points made here, JL…but even you must see that much is reflective of your personal “take” on things rather than the result of logical, independent thinking.

The idea that you were so easily able to see a difference between “a feeling” that REALITY is fundamentally ineffable…and a “belief” that it is...indicates that to me.

Look, we all realize the difficulties of attempting to describe notions of REALITY, let alone REALITY itself, because of the limitations of language. That almost goes without saying! (Irony intended.) But there is a REALITY...and it matters not one whit if beings like us can come near describing it. (Or so I suggest.)

I am not sure of what you intend to use as a significant difference between “linguistially formed beliefs”…and beliefs that are not linguistically formed, but I expect you will cover that more if you decide to discuss this further. Certainly an area worth investigating more.

In any case, to suggest that there are aspects of Buddhism that do not rest on beliefs (or guesses about REALITY) seems to me to be a stretch. It does present an interesting diversion, though, for discussion.

Can you name a specific significant aspect of Buddhism (or any of the other “practices” you named above) that truly does not have at its heart…a guess about REALITY.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I'm come back to scientific theories vs scientific laws on that one. Scientific theories are, in Franks terms, guesses about reality.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

I'm come back to scientific theories vs scientific laws on that one. Scientific theories are, in Franks terms, guesses about reality.

Educated guesses that have scientific laws supporting them?

Quote:

what does the evidence to what is said/believed actually matter, so long as what is learned is of benefit to both you and others?

If only good benefits came out of believing I doubt anyone would be against beliefs.

1 Reply

"I am a Buddhist and if anyone wants to question my beliefs then they are welcome to do so..."

The difference is the identity.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Reasoning Logic - please look up the difference between Scientific Theories and Scientific Laws. Your comments seem to say you don't understand the difference.

In any event, in terms of educated guesses - that was one of the points of my previous post.

In terms of educated guesses and supporting science - are you sure that many things aren't educated guesses? Are you aware how many aspects of modern psychology are starting to agree with many aspects of Eastern Mysticism? (not all aspects of course)

Quote:

If only good benefits came out of believing I doubt anyone would be against beliefs.

What thread are you in? The comment makes perfect sense in others (depending on how you define 'good')...but I think you need in clarify yourself, due to the Buddhism context of this thread.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

In terms of educated guesses and supporting science - are you sure that many things aren't educated guesses? Are you aware how many aspects of modern psychology are starting to agree with many aspects of Eastern Mysticism? (not all aspects of course)

Psychology...as do most "ologies"...changes...sometimes (probably most often) progressing...sometimes regressing.

I imagine in the minds of people who see benefit in "Eastern Mysticism"...there may be a disposition to see modern psychology as "starting to agree with many aspects" of it.

It is worth discussing.

Will you cite a single specific instance of that which can use as a start to such a discussion.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

Reasoning Logic - please look up the difference between Scientific Theories and Scientific Laws. Your comments seem to say you don't understand the difference.

I will admit that my understanding of the differences is only an approximation of what the truth is. Will you kindly help me to see the differences as you see them?

This is very similar how I see the difference and maybe you could point out the flaws to me.
I do admit to having cognitive flaws. The gears or cogs in my brain do get jammed with monkey wrenches at times.

The first video is short and one person's view. the next video is less than ten minutes with the views of a few people who I seem to agree with.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Hi Frank,

Quote:

I imagine in the minds of people who see benefit in "Eastern Mysticism"...there may be a disposition to see modern psychology as "starting to agree with many aspects" of it.

It is worth discussing.

Having been brought up in a church, I was always a skeptic of eastern mysticism, and for the most (that is literally the major part) part, I still am. The psychology in the 80's and prior decades touched on much close to it, perhaps excepting Carl Jung - but I was only to learn about that in the last 5 years. The psychology since the late 90's has agreed with more & more aspects of it.

I still don't agree with much of Eastern Mysticism that I come across.

...but the labels of an idea don't bother me. Just the contents, support (reasoning or evidence),and the results.

Quote:

will you cite a single specific instance of that which can use as a start to such a discussion.

Unfortunately I won't, for that is not feasible :

- Firstly, my statement is in regards to changes over decades - that can't be shrunk down to a single event, because then you are arguing over a single event, and believing that single event represents the changes over decades. It's a faulty and pointless exercise.
- secondly, I'm talking about an impression from around 300 books I've read (that's just a guess, I have around 600, and about 2/3 are somehow related to psychology).
- thirdly (and closely related to the second), I can't be bothered with what would likely be unknown hours of work to find something with sufficient clarity...and even then it wouldn't be able to back up what I am saying (see my first point)

In the end, I can only say ....you need to go and read for yourself (and likely that won't be feasible for you). The subject likely won't matter, for it's visible across most of them. My books are mostly on negotiations, conflict, lying/deception, subconscious, body language, handwriting analysis etc.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Hi Frank,

Quote:

I imagine in the minds of people who see benefit in "Eastern Mysticism"...there may be a disposition to see modern psychology as "starting to agree with many aspects" of it.

It is worth discussing.

Having been brought up in a church, I was always a skeptic of eastern mysticism, and for the most (that is literally the major part) part, I still am. The psychology in the 80's and prior decades touched on much close to it, perhaps excepting Carl Jung - but I was only to learn about that in the last 5 years. The psychology since the late 90's has agreed with more & more aspects of it.

I still don't agree with much of Eastern Mysticism that I come across.

...but the labels of an idea don't bother me. Just the contents, and the results.

Quote:

will you cite a single specific instance of that which can use as a start to such a discussion.

Unfortunately I won't, for that is not feasible :

- Firstly, my statement is in regards to changes over decades - that can't be shrunk down to a single event, because then you are arguing over a single event, and believing that single event represents the changes over decades. It's a faulty and pointless exercise.
- secondly, I'm talking about an impression from around 300 books I've read (that's just a guess, I have around 600, and about 2/3 are somehow related to psychology).
- thirdly (and closely related to the second), I can't be bothered with what would likely be unknown hours of work to find something with sufficient clarity...and even then it wouldn't be able to back up what I am saying (see my first point)

In the end, I can only say ....you need to go and read for yourself (and likely that won't be feasible for you). The subject likely won't matter, for it's visible across most of them. My books are mostly on negotiations, conflict, lying/deception, subconscious, body language, handwriting analysis etc.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Hi RL,

They are correct. I'm sure many people will describe them with some variations, but in the end, that doesn't matter to where I was angling my comments. My comments weren't on the validity or not of scientific theories.

My comment was in relation to Frank's definition of guesses & the apparent value, degree of value, or no value, he places on 'guesses'.

My comments on psychology vs mysticism in the same post are also along the same line.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

P.S. Frank, I tried to edit a previous post, and it just ended up in a double post. Hence they will be slightly different at the ..but the labels of an idea don't bother me. Just the contents, and the results. The one with 'support/reasoning' is the correct one.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Interesting post,Vikorr. I remember the enthusiasm for zen shown by psychologists like Jung and Fromm in the mid-20th century. Their concerns, like that of psychologists of an earlier era, Wm. James, Gudgieff/Ospensky, were for the potential value for human health of "mysticism"*, of the transcendence of the West's attachment to dualism, i.e., Descartes' metaphysical split between subject and object.

*as far as I can tell this is the core nature of (true) "religion" the so-called unification or "re-connection" between the perceiver and the perceived, between the illusory individual (ego) and all else. Of course this is a purely subjective transformation; what actually occurs is the realization that no re-connection (ligio or ligament) between self and Reality is necessary, that they have never been separate.

1 Reply

I am a Buddhist and if anyone wants to question my beliefs then they are welcome to do so...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know