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

@Chumly,

I think igm simply wants you to specify one or more reasons why you question his beliefs.

@igm,

igm wrote:

. . . They may have cultural meanings as well and also simple folk may misunderstand the meaning and link it to old belief systems or myths.

Many modern religious rituals have links to the past, most particularly to beliefs popular in ancient Babylon.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Couple of observations about Internet chats and discussions that should be in mind when posting:

Agreements very often are less “combatively” delivered and better received…than disagreements. That is simply the nature of things.

A conversation in-person on a subject such as being discussed in most Internet threads…will go on for minutes and minutes…often for a half hour or more. I’ve filled entire evenings with discussions with friends about religion and religious issues. Here on the Internet, even in very long threads, the discussion is truncated and often disjointed. Everything I’ve said in this thread wouldn’t make a significant part of a discussion on the same items in a regular discussion in non-cyber life…so the material is often presented in a more terse way.

There are no nuances of facial and body expression…other than emoticons…to convey subtlety of content. And subtlety can often be completely misunderstood when used on-line.

Anyway, you see me as “combative”…I see myself as persistent. Often I repeat myself because I honestly think the person to whom I am addressing my remarks just is not getting what I am saying.

As I pointed out early in my postings here…I have a bias…just as igm and the other Buddhists have a bias. Both sides of that equation have a right…probably an obligation…to be persistent. (I often, as I did in this thread) mention my bias early so there is no misunderstanding that I am arguing from a counter position.

Glad we’ve taken this sidebar discussion, Vikorr. In a very real way, it has contributed to the OP, because some of the things we have explored matter in EVERY thread...no matter the primary subject.

2 Replies

@Chumly,

I have not been sure how to reply to your post ending in 308. If you want to ask me a question in connection with my OP or express an opinion on my OP or anything else... please do.

I won't be able to answer your questions in the post ending in 308.

I hope this clarifies the matter, as I haven't managed to be able to do so, in each of my subsequent replies, prior to this one.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Ok. Buddhism is circa 500 bc, and therefore, 'old beliefs and myths' can go way back.

1 Reply

@igm,

I'm also aware that your post about Babylon could be about biblical 'Babel'... I leave that for you to elaborate on, if you wish to, if that is indeed what you were referring to.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Good statement, Frank. I agree.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Good statement, Frank. I agree.

Thanks, JL.

0 Replies

I'm not aware, at this moment in time, of not answer any questions that have been raised or at least saying why I couldn't answer them. If I have missed a question that does required answering then let me know.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Hi Frank,

Thanks for the post. I see where you are coming from...just remember that in truncating communication, as you mentioned it can become terse, and can be seen by others as combative (there are ways around this, but that's a different discussion)

But again, thanks for the post, and I can see where you are coming from Smile

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I've been looking over your posts to me Frank and I'd like to discuss this one.

Frank Apisa wrote:

You can easily “see” that Buddha knew how to identify suffering…and knew how to “put an end” to it…and was able to establish landmarks to guide others to get to that particular golf course, so to speak.

I get that.

Do you also “see” that this may all be illusionary?

Do you also “see” that everything you are offering is simply glorified guessing about the REALITY?

Do you also “see” that Buddhism, no matter the inclusion or non-inclusion of a god like the gods of other religions…is just another belief system?

In my reply I'd say that it, as you've said, 'may all be illusionary' but what you have done is taken what I've said up to this post, as all there is (from my side) to say on the matter but the reason that it is less likely that it is illusionary are the teachings of the Buddha on the true nature of reality for example.

To say, as you have that all belief in Buddhism could be simply illusionary without asking what the Buddha taught, in order to back up his assertion that he could end mental suffering, is in my opinion to go a step too far, given what I've said in this thread up to this point. Which is nothing at all about the teachings on e.g. impermanence and the true nature of reality.

What do you think about, what I've said about, you jumping to the conclusion that you have, without asking about the teachings themselves which back up the core assertion?

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

I've been looking over your posts to me Frank and I'd like to discuss this one.

Frank Apisa wrote:

You can easily “see” that Buddha knew how to identify suffering…and knew how to “put an end” to it…and was able to establish landmarks to guide others to get to that particular golf course, so to speak.

I get that.

Do you also “see” that this may all be illusionary?

Do you also “see” that everything you are offering is simply glorified guessing about the REALITY?

Do you also “see” that Buddhism, no matter the inclusion or non-inclusion of a god like the gods of other religions…is just another belief system?

In my reply I'd say that it, as you've said, 'may all be illusionary' but what you have done is taken what I've said up to this post, as all there is (from my side) to say on the matter but the reason that it is less likely that it is illusionary are the teachings of the Buddha on the true nature of reality for example.

To say, as you have that all belief in Buddhism could be simply illusionary without asking what the Buddha taught, in order to back up his assertion that he could end mental suffering, is in my opinion to go a step too far, given what I've said in this thread up to this point. Which is nothing at all about the teachings on e.g. impermanence and the true nature of reality.

What do you think about, what I've said about, you jumping to the conclusion that you have, without asking about the teachings themselves which back up the core assertion?

Once again (as I mentioned earlier)...I am NOT jumping to conclusions. I am merely asking questions...which is what you asked me to do. Read post http://able2know.org/topic/220485-3#post-5416216 which is part of where we discuss this.

I am not saying that the "beliefs" are illusionary...I am asking if you have considered if they might be.

The sum total of what you are saying indicates that perhaps you are not actually considering that...but that you are accepting a lot of stuff as true...even though there is no way to verify it.

For you to suggest, for instance, that the Buddha "taught" about the true nature of REALITY is a huge step in that direction. What on Earth makes you suppose that the Buddha knew enough about the "true nature of REALITY" to "teach" anything about it?

Let's take that as a (rather late coming) starting point for another question:

What did the Buddha teach about the true nature of REALITY that you know cannot possibly be illusionary?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Let's take that as a (rather late coming) starting point for another question:

What did the Buddha teach about the true nature of REALITY that you know cannot possibly be illusionary?

Ok Frank... we will continue from here. I will consider your question and get back to you.

1 Reply

@igm,

........ continued from my last post.....

@Frank Apisa,

First Frank, before I spend time on my answer to your question:

"What did the Buddha teach about the true nature of REALITY that you know cannot possibly be illusionary?"

____________________________________________________

Do you accept anything at all as not being illusory?

Do you accept some things as less likely to be illusory, than other things and if so can you give one example?

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

........ continued from my last post.....

@Frank Apisa,

First Frank, before I spend time on my answer to your question:

"What did the Buddha teach about the true nature of REALITY that you know cannot possibly be illusionary?"

____________________________________________________

Do you accept anything at all as not being illusory?

I have no idea whatsoever about the true nature of REALITY, so I cannot accept anything as "not being illusionary" with the exception that even if everything that I consider to be the physical universe is an illusion...there is something that is perceiving it as an illusion. (The "I" part of that may be an illusion...but the perception part seems absolutely to be REALITY.)

Even then I may be wrong...so I try not to make definitive statements about the REALITY...and I certainly would never say that there is a person from history that can teach me about the true nature of REALITY.

Of course, nothing may be illusionary also.

Quote:

Do you accept some things as less likely to be illusory, than other things and if so can you give one example?

Other than what I said above...I do not.

So...could you give me something...anything...that the Buddha taught about REALITY that cannot possibly be an illusion.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

So, you are saying that anything and everything is either an illusion or not an illusion.

The Buddha says that the true nature of reality is:
Not existent.
Not nonexistent.
Not both existent and nonexistent.
Not something alternative to existent, nonexistent or both existent and nonexistent.

How is the Buddha’s position any different to yours?

Also, what has this to do with the Buddha’s core assertion that, ‘He can show what suffering is and show how to put a complete end to it, if people want to follow his teachings and they follow them correctly and for long enough?

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

So, you are saying that anything and everything is either an illusion or not an illusion.

The Buddha says that the true nature of reality is:
Not existent.
Not nonexistent.
Not both existent and nonexistent.
Not something alternative to existent, nonexistent or both existent and nonexistent.

How is the Buddha’s position any different to yours?

I did not say that at all…and I would prefer that you not put words into my mouth.

I quite specifically wrote: “I have no idea whatsoever about the true nature of REALITY…”

Regarding the "true nature of REALITY and existence", igm, I simply do not know what it is. Make no further mistakes about that...I do not know and am not willing to guess anything must be included or excluded.

Whatever the Buddha is saying about it means about as much to me what you say about it or about what the guy down the street says about it…or about as much as the sound of one hand clapping.

Quote:

Also, what has this to do with the Buddha’s core assertion that, ‘He can show what suffering is and show how to put a complete end to it, if people want to follow his teachings and they follow them correctly and for long enough?

I have no idea. You are asking me questions right now and I am answering them.

Earlier I did ask you why you are willing to accept that the Buddha “can show what suffering is”…and “can show how to put a complete end to it.” Why are you not willing to accept that the Buddha may have been deluding himself about all this?

I must say that the “…if people want to follow his teachings and they follow them correctly and for long enough” is an interesting addition. Zeus could probably had said the same thing. If a person is willing to suspend true logic and thought…he/she can convince him/herself of damn near anything…which may well be what you are doing.

FINISH:

Some questions that you still have not answered:

Why are you willing to accept that the Buddha “can show what suffering is”…and “can show how to put a complete end to it.”

Why are you not willing to accept that the Buddha may have been deluding himself about all this?

Name one thing the Buddha taught about "the true nature of REALITY" that you know cannot be an illusion?

Lemme add one:

Name one thing the Buddha taught that is not really more than just a guess?

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

If it is possible to put an end to suffering then that would be important, not just to me but to all others as well. I believe we all want happiness and to be free from suffering but every happiness we find is eventually lost and every suffering we remove returns.

And how did that go for you? Did Buddhism end your suffering and that of others?

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

When the Buddha first taught it was referred to as 'Turning the wheel of the dharma' literally, 'Giving the teachings of the Buddha'.

A prayer wheel is a physical representation of that, i.e. on the wheel is a Buddhist teaching phrase and when you turn it... you turn the wheel of the Buddha's dharma... literally.

If it's a representation, how can you turn it "literally"? How is that not a contradiction in terms?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You've misunderstood what I was saying but let’s leave that to one side.

Also your post is so long I couldn't possibly reply to all of it in one go, therefore:

In your reply you also said:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I must say that the “…if people want to follow his teachings and they follow them correctly and for long enough” is an interesting addition. Zeus could probably had said the same thing. If a person is willing to suspend true logic and thought…he/she can convince him/herself of damn near anything…which may well be what you are doing.

The example you have given about Zeus makes my statement about following the Buddha’s teachings seem illogical. But you could change the word Zeus to ‘Golf Pro’ i.e. you want to learn something about golf. The golf pro says he knows how to teach you what you want to know. You don’t know for certain that he can but you follow his teachings on the subject until they are complete. You then attempt them yourself. If you are successful you are now certain the golf pro could teach you but before that you were uncertain. Now the golf pro example as opposed to the Zeus example seems very reasonable. If in everyday life someone knows something that we do not, then we have to follow the advice of that person, if we want to know what that person knows. Only when we have finished following that person’s advice can we know that the advice was worth following. How can anyone teach anyone anything without following their advice?

So, what are you saying? The Buddha says he knows something. He will teach it, if you’d like. After you've followed his teachings you will know if he was correct or not. On the way to accomplishing his teachings you should not have cause to doubt that his teachings are correct, if you understand them correctly, because they will obviously be correct ,up to that point, as they will be in accord with your own commonsense based on your growing knowledge of the subject. The same would be true of a Math, Physics or Science teacher or any teacher of any subject.

2 Replies

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