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

@igm,

igm wrote:

You say that you 'may' be deluding yourself Frank... you cannot know... I agree with you Frank... you may be deluding yourself... How can I know the true nature of reality when I've been arguing that there is no 'self' apart from the body/mind interactions that can know the true nature of reality?

Don't go that far, igm.

Here is the shorter route: HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE NOT DELUDING YOURSELF WHEN YOU INSIST THAT THERE IS NO SELF!

Quote:

Also, I asked about if there is a 'self' that humans have such as yourself Frank... what has that to do with those who are not humans? In humans the self if it exists must be either a single self existing throughout life or multiple selves... most people would say that there sense of self is that there is one self e.g. I was born, I am living now, I will die. Your absurd objection that we have some other option but we are to stupid to work it out is not logical.. something is either one thing or not one thing... except to you Frank.. there is a race of people who know better... that Frank is illogical and no way to get anywhere using logic.

Getting a lecture from you on logic, igm...is like getting a lecture from Chris Christie on how to stay thin.

You are making assertions that I suspect to be guesses. You are not backing any of those assertions up with any real facts or evidence...you simply assert them.

And apparently you do not understand the function or utility of hypotheticals.

That doesn't make you a bad guy. I'd still like to have that beer.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Getting a lecture from you on logic, igm...is like getting a lecture from Chris Christie on how to stay thin.

So you deny this simple logic:

Explain how something can be something other than either:

One thing

or

Not one thing?

Can something be both one thing and not one thing?

Can something be not one thing and not more than one thing?

It is simple logic..

Someone back Frank up here and show he is correct and I'll hang up the towel.. to me his avoidance tactics are laughable.
but I could do with some feedback.

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Getting a lecture from you on logic, igm...is like getting a lecture from Chris Christie on how to stay thin.

So you deny this simple logic:

Explain how something can be something other than either:

One thing

or

Not one thing?

Can something be both one thing and not one thing?

Can something be not one thing and not more than one thing?

It is simple logic..

Someone back Frank up here and show he is correct and I'll hang up the towel.. to me his avoidance tactics are laughable.
but I could do with some feedback.

igm...try to stay under control.

The point I made...which you missed both times that I made it...is that it is not necessary for me to be able to give you something other than what you are suggesting. There may be answers that simply are not available to us at our stage of intellectual evolution.

All I am saying is that THERE MAY BE other explanations and other options that we simply cannot see.

There was a day on the planet when someone like you would assert with as much force as you are now...the points of light OBVIOUSLY go across our sky...and the sun OBVIOUSLY goes across our sky...and the moon OBVIOUSLY goes across our sky.

But now we know better. We know that entire movement thingy is an illusion of the rotation of our planet. We also know that our planet does not need support, because it is a celestial object...and is not borne on the shoulders of a gigantic god or a gigantic turtle.

Your logic, igm, is abysmal...which is the reason for what I said in that wise-ass remark. There is no "there" there in your "logic."

I am not much better...I will acknowledge that...but to be lectured by you on the issue is an insult.

0 Replies

BY THE WAY, IGM...

...on several occasions I have asked a question about assertions you have made regarding REALITY. The question takes the form of: How do you know you are not deluding yourself?

I don't know that I have ever seen a reasonable response to that question.

When you have asked the question of me...I have given a direct answer.

You haven't...or at least, I have not seen it.

When you say "I know there is no self...there is no soul..." how do you know you are not deluding yourself?

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Someone back Frank up here and show he is correct

Believe it or not....I am tempted to have a go at that since you have stated it as a case of "logic" !

Surely the major point, is that the observations common to meditators are metalogical and ineffable. We can "point the way" as best we can, hampered as we are by language, but we cannot convey the experiential via the verbal. To me, it is significant that metalogical positions are not confined to the realm of meditation. In philosophy, they were explored in Hegel's dialectic, later to be developed in Derrida's aporia. And they were epitomized in modern physics by Bohr's celebrated "You are not thinking, you are just being logical".

Frank has a naive realist's view of "reality" independent of observers which he religiously sticks to even though he admits we may never know "it". It has not dawned on him that gives the "it" exactly the same ontological status as an unfathomable "God". (Just subtract caring and purpose from "God" and you've got Frank's "reality"). He thinks we can in principal hypothetically test all propositions as "right" or "wrong" against this catch-all "reality" without realizing that the objects of concern of the proposition are functionally created by the human proposer within a particular cognitive and operational paradigm.

Let the Franks of this world who wallow in a self contended "cloud of unknowing" forget their fixation on "belief systems" and try to account for the findings of quantum physicists like Cox who subtitles his recent book "Whatever Can Happen Does Happen" ...and that's from a guy who completely rejects any whiff of "the mystical"!

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Frank has a naive realist's view of "reality" independent of observers which he religiously sticks to even though he admits we may never know "it".

Not sure where you get this from, Fresco, but it is wrong-headed...and I HAVE MENTIONED THIS TO YOU BEFORE.

I do not know what the true nature of the REALITY of existence…and I do not make guesses about the specifics.

I live here and now…so in a sense I am living in the “naïve realists” world (or suppose I am), but I truly grok that all of this may be an illusion.

One of the things I do not bring to the table is the fact that the only REALITY (or illusion of REALITY) that I can deal with is the REALITY that is the stuff of naïve reality (for "me"). I cannot offer meaningful considerations about what you deal with…because I have no way of knowing if there is any “you” out there. I am here…or the sensation of “I” is here.

I always have to consider that there is NOTHING else; that everything else that I consider apart from “me”…is an illusion created (or part of) the “me.”

That is my way of saying that no way in Hell am I more a naïve realist than you…if you exist.

You seem to be suggesting that because I am not willing to do what you apparently have done (decide that non-duality has to be the REALITY)…that means I have opted for the other side of that coin…or any side of whatever it is if not a coin.

I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence, Fresco…and I do not have anywhere near enough unambigous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

So I don’t.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Non-duality tends to make the word "reality" vacuous, as an entity in itself. It (n-d) is an experiential state which stands aloof from everyday transactions of "selves" and "the world" which it sees as co-extensive. For example, it may see the "reality of illness" as a function of the self''s adaptation to illness. It may see the reality of "rocks" as differentially dependent on what sort of "self" is concerned with a "rock concept" (farmer, sailor, walker etc). Non duality is another way of saying that all "reality" is interactional and subject to ephemeral shifting.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

http://able2know.org/topic/220485-35#post-5443914

http://able2know.org/topic/220485-35#post-5443948

1 Reply

@fresco,

From the western perspective this is a revolutionary notion,, i.e., a counter-intuitive idea--unless one has refined his intuitive grasp of our non-dual, interactionally ephemeral-unitary world.
I repeat: Tat tvam asi.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Of course...counter intuitive to those who cannot cope with the idea that "rocks" require "humans" to thing them.

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

How should one understand the true nature of reality and put an end to suffering?

A few quotes from the historical Buddha: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

Do not go by revelation;
Do not go by tradition;
Do not go by hearsay;
Do not go on the authority of sacred texts;
Do not go on the grounds of pure logic;
Do not go by a view that seems rational;
Do not go by reflecting on mere appearances;
Do not go along with a considered view because you agree with it;
Do not go along on the grounds that the person is competent;
Do not go along because "the recluse is our teacher."

Yes. Just go. As zen might put it "Just walk on."

0 Replies

@fresco,

Could we also say that Human Reality requires enculturated beings to construct all the "things" making up our culturally meaningful world?

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Non-duality tends to make the word "reality" vacuous, as an entity in itself. It (n-d) is an experiential state which stands aloof from everyday transactions of "selves" and "the world" which it sees as co-extensive. For example, it may see the "reality of illness" as a function of the self''s adaptation to illness. It may see the reality of "rocks" as differentially dependent on what sort of "self" is concerned with a "rock concept" (farmer, sailor, walker etc). Non duality is another way of saying that all "reality" is interactional and subject to ephemeral shifting.

Really!

So are you another of the people here who KNOW what the REALITY is...or who has determined that there is NO REALITY?

C'mon, Fresco...get "real."

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

http://able2know.org/topic/220485-35#post-5443914

http://able2know.org/topic/220485-35#post-5443948

And your point is????

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Of course...counter intuitive to those who cannot cope with the idea that "rocks" require "humans" to thing them.

You KNOW that...do you?

0 Replies

Obviously the non-dualists and Buddhists among us think that humans are the end-all of everything.

Christ!

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Could we also say that Human Reality requires enculturated beings to construct all the "things" making up our culturally meaningful world?

Of course you can.

You can also say: Bejumon onmlon soniil.oan...although that would probably be harder to pronounce!

Wink

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

http://able2know.org/topic/220485-30#post-5441344

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

http://able2know.org/topic/220485-30#post-5441344

What is your point, igm?

If you are saying I have not questioned it...you simply have been sleeping through this discussion.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

http://able2know.org/topic/220485-30#post-5441344

What is your point, igm?

If you are saying I have not questioned it...you simply have been sleeping through this discussion.

http://able2know.org/topic/220485-1#post-5415400

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