Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Buddhist Paradigm: Not Desirable?

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2010 12:47:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Most tend to think that religion gives people a fantasy paradigm to believe in and find comfort in, but I don't think Buddhism applies. Its approach seems to accept reality as it is and then glorifies what actually is, rather than glorifying and asserting what people hope for.

According to the Buddha himself:

"If the intelligent disciple looks at everything in life from this perspective, he will not carry the burden of the past, not fantasize about the future... He faces and accepts the present moment with an open mind, instead of waiting anxiously for all desires to be fulfilled. He would then have moved in the right direction, extinguished and acquired freedom."

"The assertion of philosophical views concerning the elements that make up personality and its environing world that are non-existent, assume the existence of an ego, a being, a soul, a living being, a "nourisher", or a spirit. This is an example of philosophical views that are not true. It is this combination of discrimination of imaginary marks of individuality, grouping them and giving them a name and becoming attached to them as objects, by reason of habit-energy that has been accumulated since beginningless time, that one builds up erroneous views whose only basis is false-imaginations."

"Gripped by fear people go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines."

"The world, indeed, is like a dream and the treasures of the world are an alluring mirage! Like the apparent distances in a picture, things have no reality in themselves, but they are like heat haze."

"The thought of self is an error and all existences are as hollow as the plantain tree and as empty as twirling water bubbles."

"Truth is subject to practice and testing. If it is proper Truth, we definitely should be able to acquire sweet fruits through practice right away. If it only abstractly promises a reward in the next life, this may be an irresponsible trick to delude the ignorant."

"Depending on the bodhisattva's Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom, one dwells without any mental hindrance. Because of the absence of mental hindrance, one is fearless; freed from delusory thoughts, one will reach Nirvana."

"The Tathagata sees the Universe face to face and understands its nature. "

Sources: Lankavatara Sutra, Heart Sutra, sacredtexts.com, buddhanet.net, and others.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2010 5:12:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Geo, you're an Atheist Buddhist, correct? If so why do you treat the Buddha as an infallible source of info.?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2010 2:12:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/22/2010 5:12:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Geo, you're an Atheist Buddhist, correct? If so why do you treat the Buddha as an infallible source of info.?

I don't treat him as infallible. For example, I don't adhere to his monastic precepts that he laid out. Though, his claims are falsifiable, it's just that no one has ever falsified Buddha to this day.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2010 2:31:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Delicious cherries for you.

Falsifying negatives belongs into the lol what category of things to do. It's quite easy to condemn in other areas such as ethics, epistemology etc.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2010 2:37:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/22/2010 2:31:54 PM, Puck wrote:
Delicious cherries for you.

Falsifying negatives belongs into the lol what category of things to do.

I was referring to his claims in general, not merely the ones posted in this thread. For example, he asserts the impermanence of reality, he asserts the non-self principle, he asserts the emptiness of reality, he asserts how consciousness arises, as well as many other positive assertions.

It's quite easy to condemn in other areas such as ethics, epistemology etc.

Could you explain further?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2010 2:46:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/22/2010 2:37:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I was referring to his claims in general, not merely the ones posted in this thread. For example, he asserts the impermanence of all things in reality, he asserts the non-self principle, he asserts the emptiness of reality, he asserts how consciousness arises, as well as many other positive assertions.

Edit: *impermanence of all things in reality
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 12:46:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/22/2010 2:37:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
he asserts the non-self principle

Escape of anicca through Nirvana. One cannot refute Nirvana outside of 'you have no reason to assume it is so' - it belongs in the irrational discarded bin labelled 'no need to consider'. Like all metaphysical based proving the negatives, it's not my job to refute it, it's yours to prove it - refutation is then built upon insufficient justification from your end.

he asserts the emptiness of reality

sunyata?

"form is emptiness; emptiness is form" is one of those paradoxes that simply plays with definitions - it simply states identity is not identity.

It's quite easy to condemn in other areas such as ethics, epistemology etc.

Could you explain further?

I could but condemnation requires a basis to launch it from, and since you are a Buddhist, the best you will arrive at is a 'I disagree' when you read any condemnation.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 1:18:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
@ Puck

You do realize that I was just listing positive assertions right? You claimed that I put you up to falsifying negatives, so I was showing you the positive assertions of Buddha.

At 8/23/2010 12:46:28 AM, Puck wrote:
At 8/22/2010 2:37:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
he asserts the non-self principle

Escape of anicca through Nirvana.

That's not the principle of non-self. This is what he meant by non-self.

the Buddha: "There is not a self residing in name and form, but the cooperation of the conformations produces what people call a man. Just as the word 'chariot' is but a mode of expression for axle, wheels, the chariot-body and other constituents in their proper combination, so a living being is the appearance of the groups ... as they are joined in a unit. There is no self in the carriage and there is no self in man. O bhikkhus, this doctrine is sure and an eternal truth, that there is no self outside of its parts. This self of ours which constitutes Name and Form is a combination of the groups ..., but there is no ego entity, no self in itself." -- http://www.sacred-texts.com...

One cannot refute Nirvana outside of 'you have no reason to assume it is so' - it belongs in the irrational discarded bin labelled 'no need to consider'. Like all metaphysical based proving the negatives, it's not my job to refute it, it's yours to prove it - refutation is then built upon insufficient justification from your end.

That's not Nirvana. Nirvana itself is a negative term, not an assertion. It literally means "to extinguish" and refers to both the experience of extinguishing into nothingness/void, and the void itself (sunyata).

Buddha described extinguishing into Nirvana as such:

"The extinction of the Blessed One will be by that passing away in which nothing remains that could tend to the formation of another self. Nor will it be possible to point out the Blessed One as being here or there. But it will be like a flame in a great body of blazing fire. That flame has ceased; it has vanished and it cannot be said that it is here or there." -- the Buddha

And Buddha also described Nirvana as:

"Where there is nothing; where naught is grasped, there is the Isle of No-Beyond. Nirvāṇa do I call it -- the utter extinction of aging and dying." -- the Buddha

Nirvana is when the ego (the part of you that identifies as separate from everything else) is extinguished. Like an ice cube melting into the ocean. So what problem do you have with this philosophical notion?

The problem you have is that you think that I am asking you to prove a negative, that a certain "thing" doesn't exist or isn't true. However, Nirvana isn't a thing, but is itself negatory by nature.

he asserts the emptiness of reality

sunyata?

"form is emptiness; emptiness is form" is one of those paradoxes that simply plays with definitions - it simply states identity is not identity.

False. You fundamentally misunderstand what is meant by this. The Heart Sutra itself explains what is meant:

"All phenomena of existence are marked by emptiness." -- Heart Sutra

Here, the Dalai Lama explains and defends this notion.

Dalai Lama: "The notion of intrinsic existence is incompatible with causation; this is because causation implies contingency and dependence, while anything that inherently existed would be immutable and self-enclosed. In the theory of emptiness, everything is argued as merely being composed of dependently related events; of continuously interacting phenomena with no fixed, immutable essence, which are themselves in dynamic and constantly changing relations. Thus, things and events are 'empty' in that they can never possess any immutable essence, intrinsic reality or absolute ‘being' that affords independence."

Could you explain further?

I could but condemnation requires a basis to launch it from,

You have no basis for condemnation of a negatory epistemic method?

and since you are a Buddhist, the best you will arrive at is a 'I disagree' when you read any condemnation.

Come on Puck, you know me better than that. I never resort to an "I disagree" response.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 1:34:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 1:18:26 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
And Buddha also described Nirvana as:

"Where there is nothing; where naught is grasped, there is the Isle of No-Beyond. Nirvana do I call it -- the utter extinction of aging and dying." -- the Buddha

*Edit.

and since you are a Buddhist, the best you will arrive at is a 'I disagree' when you read any condemnation.

Come on Puck, you know me better than that. I never resort to an "I disagree" response.

And let me add, being Buddhist doesn't mean that you avoid argumentation concerning its own doctrines. On the contrary, the very essence of Buddhism involves argumentation to support its claims and debate is actually a real and pertinent aspect of the religion; i.e. the Tibetans actually hold ceremonies designated for debate between all monks, and even have an established Buddhist guideline and structure for debate.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 12:12:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 1:18:26 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
That's not Nirvana. Nirvana itself is a negative term, not an assertion. It literally means "to extinguish" and refers to both the experience of extinguishing into nothingness/void, and the void itself (sunyata).
The way these terms (nothingness/void) are being used here, are in essence contradictions. When we use the word nothing or void to mean the absence of some thing, it is a valid term because it is referring to some thing(s) that is(are) not something else. For example, we can ask "what's in the fridge, Bub," and get an answer like "nothing." Now, what this means is that the refrigerator is empty of things that are usually in the fridge (i.e. food); however, there is air, energy, shelves, etc. in the fridge. This kind of void or nothing is fine; however, when start to refer to nothingness or voids as the absence of all things or some kind of absence of existence we are in grave error. This is a paradox and an example of a meaningless statement: not unlike square circles. This kind of nothingness is the absence of all things which is ludicrous as that would be a thing in and of itself and thus is the paradox.

"The extinction of the Blessed One will be by that passing away in which nothing remains that could tend to the formation of another self. Nor will it be possible to point out the Blessed One as being here or there. But it will be like a flame in a great body of blazing fire. That flame has ceased; it has vanished and it cannot be said that it is here or there." -- the Buddha
However, it can be said that it did exist there at an earlier point in time and thus possible to point out the Blessed One as being here or there at a particular point in time.

"form is emptiness; emptiness is form" is one of those paradoxes that simply plays with definitions - it simply states identity is not identity.
I think so too.

False. You fundamentally misunderstand what is meant by this. The Heart Sutra itself explains what is meant:
"All phenomena of existence are marked by emptiness." -- Heart Sutra
What is meant by "emptiness" here? If emptiness = non-existence then Puck is right. Otherwise, what is meant by emptiness.

Here, the Dalai Lama explains and defends this notion.
Dalai Lama: "The notion of intrinsic existence is incompatible with causation; this is because causation implies contingency and dependence, while anything that inherently existed would be immutable and self-enclosed.
But existence is immutable and self-enclosed; there is no other alternative.

In the theory of emptiness, everything is argued as merely being composed of dependently related events; of continuously interacting phenomena with no fixed, immutable essence, which are themselves in dynamic and constantly changing relations.
But this is contradictory because the "immutable essence" IS that "everything is a continuously interacting phenomena"; i.e. the fact that "things always change" will "never change." I do not agree with this because there will come a time where change will not be possible anymore.

Thus, things and events are 'empty' in that they can never possess any immutable essence, intrinsic reality or absolute ‘being' that affords independence."
This too is contradictory; however, I do agree that ALL things are interrelated. All things share at LEAST 1 property: existence.

The fact that the Dali Lama is saying that any subdivision of the whole is an illusion is fine, so long as one realizes (by the same token) that the whole is also an illusion as well.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 1:50:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 1:18:26 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@ Puck

You do realize that I was just listing positive assertions right? You claimed that I put you up to falsifying negatives, so I was showing you the positive assertions of Buddha.

Proving negatives, it was a typo on my part. The status of proving a non existence from the base of your 'Buddhism belief Y is X' - otherwise the rest of the prior post on it is applicable.


One cannot refute Nirvana outside of 'you have no reason to assume it is so' - it belongs in the irrational discarded bin labelled 'no need to consider'. Like all metaphysical based proving the negatives, it's not my job to refute it, it's yours to prove it - refutation is then built upon insufficient justification from your end.

That's not Nirvana. Nirvana itself is a negative term, not an assertion. It literally means "to extinguish" and refers to both the experience of extinguishing into nothingness/void, and the void itself (sunyata).

Nirvana is the state of 'true death' removed from biological death. It's a nonsensical term employed as a state and belongs in the above categories.

And Buddha also described Nirvana as:

the utter extinction of aging and dying." -- the Buddha

Yes, which is exactly what I was addressing.

So what problem do you have with this philosophical notion?

See above.

The problem you have is that you think that I am asking you to prove a negative, that a certain "thing" doesn't exist or isn't true. However, Nirvana isn't a thing, but is itself negatory by nature.

I never stated it was a thing. It is a state of property attributed to existence, hence a metaphysical claim, hence a positive.


he asserts the emptiness of reality

sunyata?

"form is emptiness; emptiness is form" is one of those paradoxes that simply plays with definitions - it simply states identity is not identity.

False. You fundamentally misunderstand what is meant by this.

No, I know what it is - it is the claim that nothing has inherent identity.

You have no basis for condemnation of a negatory epistemic method?

I believe I implied the exact opposite of that ...

and since you are a Buddhist, the best you will arrive at is a 'I disagree' when you read any condemnation.

Come on Puck, you know me better than that. I never resort to an "I disagree" response.

What you type in response is irrelevant to the theme of your response. I am not at all interested in your particular hack interpretation of whatever scriptures you deem to count as necessary for which you use to construct the claim 'I am Buddhist'; all that's needed here is that I consider certain Buddhist tenets either false, unprovable or in the case of ethical judgements, wrong.