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

@IRFRANK,

Quote:

So, if one is just looking for reasons to write Buddhism off as just another illusory religion, that can be easily done

Frank, would you write off Christianity as just another illusory religion? or Islam? or Zorastrianism?

I completely accept that people find Buddhism (or Christianity or Islam) to be deeply meaningful in their lives. I don't see this as "illusory". Instead I see this as the search for meaning... a very important part of human experience. People practicing different religions have very similar experiences.

My point is that the meaning people find in Buddhism is just as valid than the meaning that people find in Christianity or Islam or Judaism . I would not call any of these experiences "illusory".

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

Quote:

So, if one is just looking for reasons to write Buddhism off as just another illusory religion, that can be easily done.

(This also responds to comments from JL and Max on this specific.)

Some of us...me, for instance...do NOT write Buddhism off as just another illusory religion.

We do, however, ask the valid question: Are you sure some of these things are not illusory?

If the answer to that question cannot be an unqualified "YES"...then the possibility at least exists that some of the components ARE illusory (in other words, they MAY BE illusory)...just as some of the components of other religions MAY BE illusory.

That "possibility" is more significant than it might seem at first blush.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Frank, would you write off Christianity as just another illusory religion? or Islam? or Zorastrianism?

I completely accept that people find Buddhism (or Christianity or Islam) to be deeply meaningful in their lives. I don't see this as "illusory". Instead I see this as the search for meaning... a very important part of human experience. People practicing different religions have very similar experiences.

No, I would not. In fact, I agree that the experiences are probably similar. A search for meaning is a part of human existence. I did not say I write off other religions as illusory, I said that if that is your goal, so be it.

As for validity, that is up to each individual to decide.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

That is not my goal at all IrFrank. I respect your posts here. I took exception to some of Igm's posts mainly because he seems to be asserting the superiority of Buddhism over other religions/philosophies.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Some of us...me, for instance...do NOT write Buddhism off as just another illusory religion.

We do, however, ask the valid question: Are you sure some of these things are not illusory?

It seemed to me that is what you did. One of the reasons I continue to study Buddhism is that I do apply the 'common sense' filter and do not want to get caught up in any thoughts that are not real. Buddha himself said that we should question the teachings and make our own decisions as to the validity.

I can never be absolutely sure about anything using your definition of KNOW. I do know that my studies and practice help me see the world in a more clear way, without illusion, and have helped me make better choices on a moment to moment basis. I also helps me be aware of the life in front of me and I appreciate the world I exist in and my relationships more.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

Quote:
Some of us...me, for instance...do NOT write Buddhism off as just another illusory religion.

We do, however, ask the valid question: Are you sure some of these things are not illusory?

It seemed to me that is what you did. One of the reasons I continue to study Buddhism is that I do apply the 'common sense' filter and do not want to get caught up in any thoughts that are not real. Buddha himself said that we should question the teachings and make our own decisions as to the validity.

I can never be absolutely sure about anything using your definition of KNOW.

I am willing to accept the kind of definition of "know" that would include 2+2=4; the name on my birth certificate is Frank Apisa; I am sitting at my desk in my den typing at my keyboard.

I understand the difficulty with actually "knowing" stuff in a more rigorous philosophical setting.

I am not asking for that.

But if someone says, "There is no self" or "There is a God and the God loves us" or "there are no gods"...and asserts it as knowledge...I will question that...and I am not being unreasonable in doing so.

I am having some difficulty in understanding why you are not one with me in that.

Quote:

I do know that my studies and practice help me see the world in a more clear way, without illusion, and have helped me make better choices on a moment to moment basis. I also helps me be aware of the life in front of me and I appreciate the world I exist in and my relationships more.

Do you now????

You KNOW that you are seeing without illusions?

C'mon, Frank.

My guess is that you do not KNOW that in any sense of that word.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

Quote:

I didn't mean to say you were. I suppose that was a valid inference. I was relating my own experience. I would agree with JL that it takes more than reading books. Practice is required. I first got started with Buddhism through reading. I read because the teachings made sense and helped me understand why I was doing some things and I learned to stop causing myself grief. I found an awareness that helped me.

Once I joined a ganden, community, and started meditating with a Buddhist nun I became aware of much more. Now others can write that off as illusion, but they have no awareness of those experiences. So their dismissal means little to me.

So, if one is just looking for reasons to write Buddhism off as just another illusory religion, that can be easily done. And if that satisfies, fine. If you really
want to find out if there is anything meaningful in the teachings it takes more effort and time.

Yes, I suspected that may have been the case.

In any event, as I mentioned earlier - I ask out of curiosity. If I don't get the actual workings at the moment, the outline is okay.

Quote:

I read because the teachings made sense and helped me understand why I was doing some things and I learned to stop causing myself grief. I found an awareness that helped me.

I rather liked this part...I found a path that achieved much the same, and which I still find rather interesting Smile

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

That didn't actually answer my question.

Ok what is your question... perhaps reword it? I'll attempt an answer but if you'd rather not repeat your question then that's fine.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

But if someone says, "There is no self" or "There is a God and the God loves us" or "there are no gods"...and asserts it as knowledge...I will question that...and I am not being unreasonable in doing so.

I would agree that is within reason.

Quote:

Do you now????

You KNOW that you are seeing without illusions?

C'mon, Frank.

My guess is that you do not KNOW that in any sense of that word.

I have decided that I 'see' reality. As I said before, it is what I experience. I believe that is the common sense conclusion. To think there may be more complicated explanations, such as 'The Matrix' or another scenario does not seem reasonable to me. There may be a 1 or 2 or even 10% chance I am wrong, but I have chosen to continue with the world I have. Either way, I don't have access to more complicated information or insight, so why would it matter?

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

Quote:
But if someone says, "There is no self" or "There is a God and the God loves us" or "there are no gods"...and asserts it as knowledge...I will question that...and I am not being unreasonable in doing so.

I would agree that is within reason.

Thank you, Frank.

Quote:

Quote:
Do you now????

You KNOW that you are seeing without illusions?

C'mon, Frank.

My guess is that you do not KNOW that in any sense of that word.

I have decided that I 'see' reality. As I said before, it is what I experience. I believe that is the common sense conclusion. To think there may be more complicated explanations, such as 'The Matrix' or another scenario does not seem reasonable to me. There may be a 1 or 2 or even 10% chance I am wrong, but I have chosen to continue with the world I have. Either way, I don't have access to more complicated information or insight, so why would it matter?

First, allow me to apologize for the schmarmy "Do you now???" That was uncalled for on my part.

Anyway...respectfully as possible, what you have described here is a far cry from your suggestion that you are seeing reality without illusion.

All I am saying is that if we allow people to assert "I know" in the way you did here...we do a disservice to logic and to the discussion.

Obviously you MAY BE deluding yourself in thinking you are seeing things without any illusion. EVERYTHING may be an illusion...and that is not a far-fetched possibility; "existence" is a VERY mysterious thing.

In any case, I do agree that we all have to live life as though the REALITY is what we suppose to be the reality (the naive realist world)...and I suspect we all do.

Suggesting that you have insights (or knowledge) that cannot be wrong...or cannot be the result of delusion...does "matter." It is an assertion, Frank, that must be challenged in a conversation such as we are having here.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

But if someone says, "There is no self"...I will question that...and I am not being unreasonable in doing so.

Frank, I don't see any 'specific' questions from you on the subject, probably because you don't know about the subject and that is understandable.. here is some background information which may help you to be more specific when you ask questions on it. You may of course just say, 'I don't need to be specific... the Buddha was just guessing' but it could help to know something about why he taught on the subject of 'non-self', which is unique to Buddhism.

Meditating on No-Self

A Dhamma Talk (Edited for Bodhi Leaves)
by
Sister Khema
© 1994–2013

In Buddhism we use the words "self" and "no-self," and so it is important to understand just what this "no-self," anatta, is all about, even if it is first just an idea, because the essence of the Buddha's teaching hinges on this concept. And in this teaching Buddhism is unique. No one, no other spiritual teacher, has formulated no-self in just this way. And because it has been formulated by him in this way, there is also the possibility of speaking about it. Much has been written about no-self, but in order to know it, one has to experience it. And that is what the teaching aims at, the experience of no-self.......

It would help if you tried to read the whole article using the link below, as it is useful background information and written in simple language for a general audience...

... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khema/bl095.html

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

But if someone says, "There is no self"...I will question that...and I am not being unreasonable in doing so.

Frank, I don't see any 'specific' questions from you on the subject, probably because you don't know about the subject and that is understandable.. here is some background information which may help you to be more specific when you ask questions on it. You may of course just say, 'I don't need to be specific... the Buddha was just guessing' but it could help to know something about why he taught on the subject of 'non-self', which is unique to Buddhism.

Meditating on No-Self

A Dhamma Talk (Edited for Bodhi Leaves)
by
Sister Khema
© 1994–2013

In Buddhism we use the words "self" and "no-self," and so it is important to understand just what this "no-self," anatta, is all about, even if it is first just an idea, because the essence of the Buddha's teaching hinges on this concept. And in this teaching Buddhism is unique. No one, no other spiritual teacher, has formulated no-self in just this way. And because it has been formulated by him in this way, there is also the possibility of speaking about it. Much has been written about no-self, but in order to know it, one has to experience it. And that is what the teaching aims at, the experience of no-self.......

It would help if you tried to read the whole article using the link below, as it is useful background information and written in simple language for a general audience...

... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khema/bl095.html

Thanks you for all that, igm.

However, the notion of having someone immerse him/herself in the beliefs of a religion is not unique to Buddhism. All religions seem to do it.

I would guess that if I were to immerse myself in what "the Buddha taught"...at some point I would start to accept his guesses as revelation of the truth.

But that would not make the guesses revelation. They would still be guesses.

And your guesses about the teachings (and motivation or successes) of the Buddha are only guesses.

We obviously are never going to reach an understanding about this...and sometimes it is best to simply recognize, acknowledge and accept that to be the case.

I commend your feelings about your religion...and I am happy it brings you whatever satisfactions it does. My disagreements are not with the religion or the possible satisfactions...it is with the notion that guesses keep being accepted as truths. They MAY BE...but they may just as well NOT BE...correct.

The only question I would have would not require much study. It is (and has been right along):

How do you know you are not deluding yourself when you suggest (as a "for instance") that there is no self?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I guess we've come to some sort of agreement. I would add that all the speculation about possible dilusion is a red herring that takes away from our real experiences. Reality is what we experience and saying maybe not, is a distraction. I dont think that our conclusions are that much different, you just allow for some unknown abstraction that I dont see as important. Now if it was proven there is some unknown aspect of reality, that would be different. But then it wouldnt be unknown, would it?

Added as a result of IGMs post.

What IGM referenced, while a part of Buddha's teaching, is not strictly religious dogma. It is a very philosophical explanation of the concept of reality. Reading it and understanding it does not require any religious conversion.

Thank you IGM for the link.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

How do you know you are not deluding yourself when you suggest (as a "for instance") that there is no self?

As we both know Frank, one cannot prove a negative nor is one required to. The onus as you know is on the person who asserts there is a self, to prove it. That is why we are at an impasse and that is fine by me i.e. you are not asserting there is a self and I don't need to prove a negative and cannot.

I know that I experience an underlying happiness that I didn't before I studied whether there could be a self and not just a collection of body/mind interactions so to speak. I can never show you my experience as you can never show me your experience, again we are at an impasse and again that is fine by me.

My hope is that you read the entire article I posted in that link... just so that you know some background on a general level regarding that subject.

Selfishness may account for all of the suffering in the world, it is usually there underlying all the harm done in this world, whereas selflessness accounts for many acts of bravery and self sacrifice etc... in order to help others.. i.e. much of the good in the world.

2 Replies

@igm,

Added a sentence to my last paragraph, in my previous post.

0 Replies

We have finally come to something central to Buddhism (and "mystical religion" generally): the ontological character of ego, the feeling of being separate from the World. It seems to me that it matters not at all whether or not we can prove the existence or non-existence of the ego-self to others. What matters is the effect of the feeling that it exists or does not exist to ourselves (notice the contradiction imposed by our grammar). The persistent and skilled practice of meditation eventually erases (or liberates us from) the private and immediate sense--that we are egos isolated and separated from, and fundamentally alone in, a surrounding and impinging World. The point of the meditative process is to end the fundamental existential suffering generated by the sensation of an isolated self and to delight in the joyful realization that we are the World.
"Belief" in doctrinal principles has only the motivational function of inspiring one to meditate--in order to see for yourself (sic).

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

How do you know you are not deluding yourself when you suggest (as a "for instance") that there is no self?

As we both know Frank, one cannot prove a negative nor is one required to.

What gives you the idea that one cannot prove a negative?

Quote:

The onus as you know is on the person who asserts there is a self, to prove it.

Sez who????

Quote:

That is why we are at an impasse and that is fine by me i.e. you are not asserting there is a self and I don't need to prove a negative and cannot.

You are asserting that there is no self. YOU are asserting it!!!!

C'mon.

Quote:

I know that I experience an underlying happiness that I didn't before I studied whether there could be a self and not just a collection of body/mind interactions so to speak.

Quote:

I can never show you my experience as you can never show me your experience, again we are at an impasse and again that is fine by me.

Don't even want to go on...but you get the picture.

Quote:

My hope is that you read the entire article I posted in that link... just so that you know some background on a general level regarding that subject.

Selfishness may account for all of the suffering in the world, it is usually there underlying all the harm done in this world, whereas selflessness accounts for many acts of bravery and self sacrifice etc... in order to help others.. i.e. much of the good in the world.

Yeah. By the way...the guy who shot up that Navy Yard...was a Buddhist.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Yeah. By the way...the guy who shot up that Navy Yard...was a Buddhist.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/shooters-interest-in-buddhism-prompts-debate-about-stereotype-of-peaceful-faith/2013/09/18/f0ecd938-1fcf-11e3-94a2-6c66b668ea55_story.html?tid=pm_pop

...his attendance at temple services slipped from several times a week in 2010 to about once a month in 2011, before largely fading altogether.

Even the basic details about why, when and how Alexis came to dabble in Buddhism...

“Alexis also told me how he was present during the tragic events of September 11th, 2001, and how those events had disturbed him,” the arresting officer wrote in the report. Alexis’s father told authorities at the time that his son “had experienced anger-management problems” that the family thought were brought on by stress following his involvement in post-9/11

...ease what he described as post-traumatic stress disorder and hallucinations...

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Yeah. By the way...the guy who shot up that Navy Yard...was a Buddhist.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/shooters-interest-in-buddhism-prompts-debate-about-stereotype-of-peaceful-faith/2013/09/18/f0ecd938-1fcf-11e3-94a2-6c66b668ea55_story.html?tid=pm_pop

...his attendance at temple services slipped from several times a week in 2010 to about once a month in 2011, before largely fading altogether.

Even the basic details about why, when and how Alexis came to dabble in Buddhism...

“Alexis also told me how he was present during the tragic events of September 11th, 2001, and how those events had disturbed him,” the arresting officer wrote in the report. Alexis’s father told authorities at the time that his son “had experienced anger-management problems” that the family thought were brought on by stress following his involvement in post-9/11

...ease what he described as post-traumatic stress disorder and hallucinations...

Right. That is what I said. He was a Buddhist.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, is the assassin's status as "a Buddhist" presented by you as proof of the existence of the ego?
Has no one read my recent post?

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