For Awareness.......Science or Buddhism?

I think we need both. Hard to say which one is "more important."

Though if I had to throw out one, I'd keep the Buddhism. I believe there lies some essential keys to Ultimate Reality.

Science might help us stay alive a few years longer, live more physically comfortable lives, explain events in nature, etc., but the benefits of Buddhism appear to be more eternal.

I found the following two quotes by Dalai Lama. Interesting to note that he has a marked affinity for the scientific discipline. I submit that he suggests we need both Buddhism and science:

"Everything on this planet functions according to the law of nature. Particles come together, and on the basis of their co-operation everything around us, our whole environment, can develop and be sustained. Our own body too has the same structure. Different cells come together and work together in co-operation, and as a result, human life is sustained. In a human community the same law and principle of co-operation applies. Even for an aeroplane to fly or for a single machine to work, it can only do so by depending on many other factors, and with their co-operation. Without them it is impossible. Just so, to sustain everyday life in human society we need co-operation."
-Dalai Lama--from Dzogchen: Heart Essence of the Great Pefection

"Unlike science, the religious tradition teaches the concept of forgiveness, tolerance and compassion. Scientists cannot help you change your emotion, only religion can." -Dalai Lama

0 Replies

Very good, Extra Medium.

0 Replies

extra medium:
Thank you for your reply to my question.....but I must differ with you on your acceptance of the statement that "science cannot help you change your emotion--only religion can".
Science can, and does help in changing the emotionally disturbed people, for one thing, and more so than all the prayers that religion can muster it would appear. And it is not
enough to dismiss that type of emotion as not being
the "emotion" you would prefer to address in your argument.

Asherman:
I note that you are in agreement with the above quote from Dalai Lama. This surprises , somewhat, because if I remember correctly you , (or was it JLNobody), did not look upon Buddhism as a religion.....more like a philosophy.

0 Replies

I believe that both JL and myself are Buddhists by religion. Further, I believe we both belong to Zen Sects (I was trained in Soto). Some regard Buddhism more as a philosophy than as a religion, but what's in a name?

There are various levels of religious experience. At the crown is the direct, transcendant experience. A person in one moment is as ensnared in the mundane world as any other, and in the next experiences a profound shift in consciousness. The mundane world is filled with change and competing "things" for ascendancy. Values are balanced and our attention is divided as we struggle to find momentary surcease from existence. The transcendant occurs in less than a nanosecond but fills all Time and shatters the illusion that things exist as separate entities. Self and ego evaporate into the Oneness of God. All suffering is transformed into perfection, and wholeness. Awakening is to step outside perceptual reality and experience first-hand infinity. The least kernel of fear or doubt causes a ripple in perfection and one returns to the illusory world of multiplicity and suffering. If one panics and tries to hold tightly to their separateness at the moment of transcendence, they may go mad.

This state is available to all, regardless of where or when they exists. The transcendant experience is within the grasp of all, no matter how smart they are, their social class, or how well educated they are. When the person is charismatic and able to express their experience in compelling terms understandable to their social grouping, they may be regarded as teachers, shamans, or religious leaders. These are the founders of religions.

A second variety of religious experience is second-hand. Those who haven't directly had the transcendant experience, but believe in it and the founder's teachings typify this sort of religion. They struggle to understand, and categorize the teaching. They bring an intellectual order to analogy and metaphor, and construct a doctrinal system to the Master's experience as they believe it to have been. The disciples "compete" with one another for leadership of the evolving idea of what the Master meant, and it is the interpretation of those who prevail that tend to dominate the doctrinal legacy. This level of religion has value, but it is drifting away from the immediate experience. To have clear doctrine and practices is useful as a guide to others who wish to duplicate the Master's Experience, but it can also lead to strange distortions as well. From this sort of religious experience we have priests and clergy and theologians who write and interpret what the meaning of the religion is. Some are very insightful, and others can mislead the seeker into dark corners where little of the original enLIGHTenment survives.

A third from of religious experience is the religious idea as it is actually practiced by most religious groups. There is a healthy respect for the teachings and doctrines as interpreted by the clergy, a reverence for the founder and what are believed to have been his teachings, but few spend much time or effort to duplicate the transcendant experience of the Master. The religion of most is a complex mixture of superstition, cultural traditions and un-thinking acceptance of doctrinal beliefs as interpreted by their immediate clergy. Religion is a means of connecting with their peer group, of insuring the transmission of cultural values from one generation to the next. Myths and parables are accepted almost at face value. This sort of religious experience is the most common we see in every major religious movement, both East and West.

Zen and Theravada Buddhism with their emphasis on direct, personal effort and experience, it seems to me, are more useful in bringing the transcendental experience within the grasp of each sentient being.

0 Replies

Asherman, I had understood based on what I had read and heard prior that not everybody is capable of having a transcendant experience due to the way their brains are wired.

0 Replies

Perhaps, but I don't think so. I believe that everyone is capable of having the experience, but not very many seek it. That seems so strange, that we should choose to suffer when there is an alternative. We do the best we can with what we have. A good many people are reasonably comfortable with the perceptual world, and are content to have what pleasure they can and endure the suffering. Some birds, finding the doors to their cages open, still choose to remain.

Only when one decides that the suffering inherent to mundane existence should be directly addressed, does one begin to think about release. Caught up by Karma (consequence) not everyone is "ready" at the same dreamtime for awakening. The dream dissolves only gradually, and may never be completely gone. Who knows the mind of God? Ultimately, time and space are illusory, so let the band play on. We do have before us choices, or apparent choices in any case. We can base our lives either upon attachment to self, or by careful and thoughtful effort to mitigate suffering. One may not "win the prize" and have that glorious and transforming awakening, but it can be prepared for.

The sort of life implied by the transcendant awakening experience will in itself reduce suffering. By living lives of moderation, and patience there will be less suffering. To be mindful and guarded against selfish thoughts, words and actions, causes less suffering. Recognizing the illusion of multiplicity we are more patient and objective about the importance of things. The path toward enlightenment is one of non-attachment, and of discipline. We can control so very little, but if we can control ourselves we can make great inroads against the general suffering. If we are all only phantom expressions of God, why should we hate our brother, ourselves? Can one mistreat a rattlesnake, or defile a crystal lake, knowing that we are both God? If we were to eventually be a world of serious Buddhists and no one, not a single one, were to have the Awakening experience would the world be worse off? I belive that the more we as individuals live our lives with understanding and according to the precepts, the less we personally suffer and the less general suffering there will be in the world.

0 Replies

Asherman,

Have you ever considered writing a sort of "Buddhism for the Masses" text? You have a unique skill in making the concepts accessible and meaningful to lay people.

Seriously. What a service that would be.

I realize there are already such texts out there. But your stuff is as good as anything I've read in the texts by contemporary authors.

Oh well, in any event we lucky few get to read you here. Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge. Deeply appreciated. Very Happy

0 Replies

tcis,

Well put. I agree. Asherman should write a book, if he hasn't already?

I always enjoy learning from his posts.

0 Replies

People do from time to time suggest that I write a book on the subject. I like responding to questions, and trying to clarify. If I could get a compendium of the things I've written on these threads, they might be compiled into something. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to efficiently recover the hundreds of posts on Buddhism. To make sense of many of those posts, we would need the question that prompted the reply. On the other hand, bringing them together into one place in an organized fashion has its appeal.

0 Replies

I never partake in these kind of threads.
But I read and felt what you were saying, and I feel that it's right. I've never had the words for it before, but reading ashermans writing makes me think.

I I never had a religion to call my own, but the way I act towards fellow beings, is it christian or buddhist or just the love to my fellow man? I guess my mom never knew anything about buddhism, and she never forced me into a church, but still, I have no enemies...

0 Replies

[note: Unfortunately all the posts from around Sept 22 to this morning have been permanently lost., so we'll have to make do,. use our memories and such. Smile

]

Terry

Quote:

Sensory data generates a sense of self only if it includes beliefs that a self exists.

Quote:
No. The sense of self is produced automatically, long before a child is able to understand complex concepts or believe in them.

is the sense of self. The ego-self, what you/I think we are right now, IS the sense of self.

Quote:

You've answered your own question. It doesn't exist if it has to be continually regenerated, i.e. no generation no self.

Quote:
The light from the sun has to be continually regenerated for us to see it. Do you deny the existence of the sun?

The ego-self exists when we are conscious. It is dormant when we are in dreamless sleep or unconscious, like a window on your computer screen that is minimized.

Quote:

The fact that the neural processes that produce the sense of ego-self can be suppressed with practice, drugs, or trauma does not preclude its existance under normal conditions, any more than closing your eyes proves that vision is an illusion.

You're missing the point. When, during full wakefulness, in which the self is not present, the recognition that this self is an illusion is revealed by the sheer fact (as mentioned above), that you continue to be when the ego-self does not.

Quote:

Closing your eyes may seem to make the world go away, but it is still there when you open them again. So what? Pure awareness seems pretty useless to me compared to the ability to consciously process information.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

[note: Unfortunately all the posts from around Sept 22 to this morning have been permanently lost., so we'll have to make do,. use our memories and such. ]

Terry

Quote:
Sensory data generates a sense of self only if it includes beliefs that a self exists.

Quote:
No. The sense of self is produced automatically, long before a child is able to understand complex concepts or believe in them.
is the sense of self. The ego-self, what you/I think we are right now, IS the sense of self.

Quote:
You've answered your own question. It doesn't exist if it has to be continually regenerated, i.e. no generation no self.

Quote:
The light from the sun has to be continually regenerated for us to see it. Do you deny the existence of the sun?

The ego-self exists when we are conscious. It is dormant when we are in dreamless sleep or unconscious, like a window on your computer screen that is minimized.
Quote:
The fact that the neural processes that produce the sense of ego-self can be suppressed with practice, drugs, or trauma does not preclude its existance under normal conditions, any more than closing your eyes proves that vision is an illusion.

You're missing the point. When, during full wakefulness, in which the self is not present, the recognition that this self is an illusion is revealed by the sheer fact (as mentioned above), that you continue to be when the ego-self does not.

Quote:
Closing your eyes may seem to make the world go away, but it is still there when you open them again. So what? Pure awareness seems pretty useless to me compared to the ability to consciously process information.

Very interesting guessing going on here, Twyvel.

It reminds me of Christian guessing...all dressed up in reasons.

HERE IS ONE OF MY GUESSES: You do not know any more about REALITY than I do...or anyone else in this thread....and the entire of your thesis has about as much value in honing in on REALITY as do Christian guesses.

0 Replies

This word "awareness" needs particular attention.

In the same way that we would not be "aware of X-rays" without the whole paradigm of "electromagnetic radiation" and "sensory transducers" we cannot be "aware" of other aspects of "reality" without a supporting substructure (paradigm) which guides perceptual selectivity. Philosophy in general, and Buddhism in particular provides and analyses such substructures.

This issue, which has raised with Frank before, is not therefore a matter of "guessing" versus "knowledge". Such a debate is too low level with repect to "awareness". It is a matter of the nature of the interaction of observer and observed, and indeed whether this dichotomy can be coherently sustained at all. Buddhism(etc) attempts to capture the essence of the removal of this dichotomy.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

This word "awareness" needs particular attention.

In the same way that we would not be "aware of X-rays" without the whole paradigm of "electromagnetic radiation" and "sensory transducers" we cannot be "aware" of other aspects of "reality" without a supporting substructure (paradigm) which guides perceptual selectivity. Philosophy in general, and Buddhism in particular provides and analyses such substructures.

This issue, which has raised with Frank before, is not therefore a matter of "guessing" versus "knowledge". Such a debate is too low level with repect to "awareness". It is a matter of the nature of the interaction of observer and observed, and indeed whether this dichotomy can be coherently sustained at all. Buddhism(etc) attempts to capture the essence of the removal of this dichotomy.

I have no idea of what Buddhism does or does not attempt to do, Fresco, but I do know that the Buddhist who post here constantly attempt to tell everyone what the REALITY is.

I think they are guessing...and I think their guesses are based on the same thing thesist and atheists base their guesses about REALITY...which is JUST ABOUT NOTHING.

Sorry you can't see that Buddhism is as much a belief system as is Christianity...but it is.

0 Replies

Frank,

Among the lost posts was one where I addressed this business of "knowing" v. "believing". I'll try to reconstruct.

We are unable to provide an objective proof of much of anything. No one can prove the existence, or non-existence of God, or Ultimate Reality. No one can provide proof of even their own existence. Descarte's "I think, therefore I am" isn't really proof of his, or my existence, only that a thought exists. In the strictest sense, everything is belief. We have faith in the belief that the sun will still shine tomorrow, and that no one will suddenly discover a means of trisecting an angle. We believe that in the purity of mathematical reasoning that the world can be "known", but ultimately that is still an article of faith and belief.

Yet we all still continually say, I/we know. When our belief is very strong and is based on what we believe are objective and repeatable tests, we call that set of beliefs knowledge. "I know" that 2+2=4 is a very strong belief. "I know" my children love me is another strong belief, but isn't quite so strong a belief as a simple mathematical equation. There is a whole range of beliefs that people regard as knowledge, even though sometimes the evidence is pretty thin. For this sort of "knowing" we do need to hold ourselves to a high standard, and I believe that you certainly do.

I think that people tend to put greater reliance on personal experience when claiming to know. If someone tells me that it is raining, I'm less apt to believe it than if I stick my head out the window and feel rain drops falling on my head. A blind person who has never seen may believe that colors exist, but they probably aren't able to really conceive of the idea "color". When we see a portion of the spectrum labeled "red" in our language, and someone asks us what color is it, we "know" the color because we have directly experienced it ... or have we? Our senses are notorious for misleading, so perhaps my experience of seeing "red" is false.

When I speak with great certainty, it is from accepting personal experience as "knowing". That is a belief raised to a high level on the basis of personal experience. It could be that the Awakening Experience is no moe than a chemical reaction in the brain. Some have suggested that the hallucinogenic experience may support that possibility. I've had both sorts of experience, and they are similar but still very different. I accept the Awakening Experience as valid, based on my own experience and taking into account the possibility that it is a mistake. Does that make the experience any less important to me? Certainly not.

Charismatic Christians pester us with their sanctimonious certainties after being born again. Unless the whole thing is a fraud, their "Knowing that God is Great and that all that nonsense in the Bible is absolutely true" is based somehow on a real, or believed, personal experience. The likelihood of their revelation being actually factual is pretty small, but they probably do really believe it. "Knowing" is what blinds them to all contradictory facts and logic. They "know", even though their knowledge is mistaken, even as my "knowledge" of the Awakening Experience may be mistaken. I hope that I've been able to keep an open mind, but "knowing" by personal experience is a high hurtle to get over.

So long as a person who elevates belief to the a matter of personal certainty, why argue with them that their "knowing" is really only belief? So long as the "knower" doesn't add to the world's store of suffering, what's the loss? Of course, it would be nice if we all were logical, but we're not.

I think my lost post was better reasoned and worded. This draft is less satisfying to my mind. Oh well.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Frank,

Among the lost posts was one where I addressed this business of "knowing" v. "believing". I'll try to reconstruct.

I read it before it was lost...and it was a well written piece....but, I disagree with the bottom line.

Lemme make this as short as I can.

And I will start with a question you included at the end of this reconstructed post.

Quote:

So long as a person who elevates belief to the a matter of personal certainty, why argue with them that their "knowing" is really only belief? So long as the "knower" doesn't add to the world's store of suffering, what's the loss? Of course, it would be nice if we all were logical, but we're not.

For the same reason you folks are sharing your guesses.

This is an Internet forum devoted to discussing these things.

And because I question the reliability of beliefs that have, as you put it, been elevated to personal certainty.

I think (guess, suppose, suspect), Christians who argue that they have had personal revelations that there is a God...and that the God is the god described in the Bible...are deluding themselves.

I (all those things) that Buddhists who argue that they have had personal revelations about the true nature of REALITY...are deluding themselves.

ASIDE: I am of the opinion that the world would be much, much better off without all this guesswork.

I think we are in a war with religion...and amongst religions...at the moment.

I think the only way it can be won...is by a concession from everyone that knowledge (or even reasoned speculation) about the Ultimate REALITY...is futile...and probably greatly counterproductive.

So this is not just a case of Frank Apisa deciding to poke a stick at anyone claiming to have special knowledge of the Ultimate REALITY in order to get his rocks off.

I'm a very happy guy...extremely content. I could leave this forum and never post another word on the Internet...and easily fill my time with a half dozen other activities that I enjoy.

But right now...this is what I am doing.

I might ask you in return...why do you post comments purporting to explain what REALITY is (or what it isn't, which essentially is the same thing)?

Why are you supposing your "personal revelations" are not delusions?

Why do you not simply acknowledge that the Ultimate REALITY is way beyond your ken?

Why do you want to present the beliefs/guesses of Buddhism as somehow superior to the beliefs/guesses of Christians, for instance?

The Christians may be right, you know!

Quote:

Charismatic Christians pester us with their sanctimonious certainties after being born again.

On A2K recently, the Buddhists pester us with their sanctimonious certainties.

Quote:

Unless the whole thing is a fraud, their "Knowing that God is Great and that all that nonsense in the Bible is absolutely true" is based somehow on a real, or believed, personal experience.

Just as the tenets of Buddhism are based on real or imagined personal experience...which, as I tend to do with Christians, I suspect are imagined.

Quote:

The likelihood of their revelation being actually factual is pretty small, but they probably do really believe it.

I have no idea of the likelihood or probability of the supposed revelations of Christians or Buddhists...and I suppose both "believe" (guess) it to be true....but so what? I am guessing that both are nonsense.

All of this revelation stuff should be taken with a grain of salt.

But the Christiand insist their revelations are real...and the Buddhists insist their revelations are real.

Quote:

"Knowing" is what blinds them to all contradictory facts and logic. They "know", even though their knowledge is mistaken, even as my "knowledge" of the Awakening Experience may be mistaken.

Now we are getting somewhere.

You may be mistaken.

You may be right also...but there appears to be no way for you to know which it is.

So why not simply end it at "I do not know the nature of the Ultimate REALITY?"

Why give lecture after lecture on what the REALITY is...as though you know it...when you KNOW you do not KNOW it?

Can you not see that to be the more ethical avenue?

Quote:

I hope that I've been able to keep an open mind, but "knowing" by personal experience is a high hurtle to get over.

Regression. Immediate regression from all the ground you gained in that last paragraph.

"Knowing by personal experience" (in the circumstances we are discussing) is not a high hurdle to get over. It is, I suspect, an impossible one to get over.

I hope you will open YOUR mind to the truth.

Quote:

I think my lost post was better reasoned and worded. This draft is less satisfying to my mind. Oh well.

This one was excellent. I thank you for it.

0 Replies

What is the truth Frank? No one knows anything for sure. Ultimately everything is based on belief. Sometimes we believe things with very little evidence of any kind. I like beliefs grounded on reason, mathematics, and physics. I'm suspicious of beliefs that are thoughtlessly held, especially when they seem to contradict reason, mathematics and physics. If everything could be reduced to pure logic, direct observation and could be replicated by objective tests things would be much simpler.

Things aren't like that though. Humans are more complicated, and damn near unpredictable in many cases. When we can't use pure logic, mathematics, physics etc., how can we decide which of our beliefs we will regard as "knowing"? If someone tells us something that we haven't experienced for ourselves, that is certainly belief. If my informant is someone who I trust because of our past association, then my belief may be very strong. If, on the other hand, a known perjurer tells me that he would never lie to me about his guilt in a recent robbery my belief is not likely to be very great.

If I hike to the top of a mountain and it takes me half a day to go there and return. I believe that the hike is difficult, because I experienced it personally. Perhaps the hike for someone else might be a regarded as a stroll in the park. I get home and Frank comes by for a beer. As we sit enjoying the sunset I say, "That hike up Mt. Fuji is difficult". Frank replies, "you don't know that, its just a belief, a guess."
"No, I know its difficult because I just got back from hiking it". At this point, the discussion lapses into silence because we aren't talking about the same thing anymore. I realize that my "knowing" may be faulty, after all I may have dreamed the whole thing up in an alcoholic stupor the night before. I still think my opinion/knowledge about hiking up Mt. Fuji is valid, and I probably will say that to others.

I don't think it is a "guess", but it may indeed be more accurate to typify our personal experiences as strong beliefs. Though many of my posts are far too long, we are still constrained to only a thousand words or so. In that short space we tend to gloss, perhaps too much. When I say that something "IS", it would be better to attach to the statement all of the qualifiers to insure that the reader does not come to think that they should accept my certainty without using their own brains.

0 Replies

Frank,

I see *some* of your points. On the other hand, I don't.

It appears that you think most everything here adds up to "meaningless guesswork." So in your opinion, why should we bother having this Philosophy & Debate Forum at all?

Its fairly easy to agree: NOTHING CAN BE PROVEN. Everything in our existence can easily be dismissed as "guesswork."

Can you prove that you are alive? Can you prove that you are not dreaming at this very moment? We either accept the value of Philosophy & Debate, or we don't. I choose to believe in the value of philosophy & debate. I guess one could debate that too.

I think without some of this "guesswork" we'd still be living in caves figuratively and literally. Which might not be so very bad...we'd still be looking at the shadows illumated by the fire on the cave wall, and calling that reality. Which most of us probably do anyway.

Here's a quote from the Admin post for Philosophy & Debate Forum Guidelines
"Purpose
Our wish for this forum is that all who attend come away with a richer understanding of the issues being debated, and with an increased appreciation of differing viewpoints held by others. These guidelines are in place to encourage that end above any others."

For the most part, I can say that the posts I read here help me reach the above purpose. I may not agree with the poster, but I definitely learn more about the issue. Sometimes I learn the most when I disagree the strongest. For example, I don't care much for most of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Disagree with many of her thought patterns and many of the posters who support her style of objectivism. However, in examining her models and formulating my stands on it, I learned a lot of valuable information about various forms of objectivism.

Sometimes, it isn't so much that some of us might look to i.e. Buddhism as being The Answer, I feel often its like we're looking to learn the Buddhist perspective on things, for example. To understand & comprehend Buddhism. Not that it is necessarily The One & Only Truth. Its just that we've been so inundated in the West with Christianity (especially twisted Christianity that doesn't resemble Jesus's teachings in my opinion), we've been so inundated with that view, its nice to be able to learn about other perspectives out there in this world.
***
If people here debate various topics, then someone comes along (as they appear to at irregular intervals) and claims that everyone here is basically beneath them, this is all guesswork, etc. then...Why even have this Debate Forum (in your opinion)?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, etc.

I'm just trying to clarify your message in my mind.

If Philosophy & Debate is all meaningless guesswork, why even bother having this Forum or post to it? Very Happy

In fact, are you saying all philosophy and debate through the ages basically adds up to meaningless guesswork? (by the way, I believe that is a distinct school of Philosophy in itself). So all philosophy is meaningless guesswork, all rubbish? Or are only some schools of philosophy not guesswork? Which ones? How does one differentiate?

I'd also be interested in your logical proof that Buddhism, for example, is guesswork. Seriously.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

What is the truth Frank? No one knows anything for sure. Ultimately everything is based on belief. Sometimes we believe things with very little evidence of any kind. I like beliefs grounded on reason, mathematics, and physics. I'm suspicious of beliefs that are thoughtlessly held, especially when they seem to contradict reason, mathematics and physics. If everything could be reduced to pure logic, direct observation and could be replicated by objective tests things would be much simpler.

Things aren't like that though. Humans are more complicated, and damn near unpredictable in many cases. When we can't use pure logic, mathematics, physics etc., how can we decide which of our beliefs we will regard as "knowing"? If someone tells us something that we haven't experienced for ourselves, that is certainly belief. If my informant is someone who I trust because of our past association, then my belief may be very strong. If, on the other hand, a known perjurer tells me that he would never lie to me about his guilt in a recent robbery my belief is not likely to be very great.

If I hike to the top of a mountain and it takes me half a day to go there and return. I believe that the hike is difficult, because I experienced it personally. Perhaps the hike for someone else might be a regarded as a stroll in the park. I get home and Frank comes by for a beer. As we sit enjoying the sunset I say, "That hike up Mt. Fuji is difficult". Frank replies, "you don't know that, its just a belief, a guess."
"No, I know its difficult because I just got back from hiking it". At this point, the discussion lapses into silence because we aren't talking about the same thing anymore. I realize that my "knowing" may be faulty, after all I may have dreamed the whole thing up in an alcoholic stupor the night before. I still think my opinion/knowledge about hiking up Mt. Fuji is valid, and I probably will say that to others.

I understand what you are saying here.

Quote:

I don't think it is a "guess", but it may indeed be more accurate to typify our personal experiences as strong beliefs.

"Strong" guesses?

Based on what?

The Christians tell me: If only you would go down on your knees and ask God to show you that He does exist and that He loves you...really, really ask...He WILL show you that He does exist and that He loves you.

But if I were to do that with Zeus...or Santa Claus...and if I did it with the fervor they ask of me...Zeus and Santa Claus would eventually show me that they are real.

The Christians CANNOT or WILL NOT acknowledge that this personal experience knowledge of God...MAY be a figment of their imagination...delusion occasioned by their desire for it to be so.

Buddhists tell me that I can become one with the Universe if blah, blah, blah...but they CANNOT or WILL NOT acknowledge that this personal experience of Oneness...MAY be a figment of their imagination...delusion occasioned by their desire for it to be so.

Quote:

Though many of my posts are far too long, we are still constrained to only a thousand words or so. In that short space we tend to gloss, perhaps too much. When I say that something "IS", it would be better to attach to the statement all of the qualifiers to insure that the reader does not come to think that they should accept my certainty without using their own brains.

I am addressing your "certainty" here, Asherman...not the fact that you have zeal and tend to proselytize. And I am doing it for many of the reasons that motivate you to share of what you see to be the truth.

0 Replies

For Awareness.......Science or Buddhism?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know