Belief and Reality

[puzzleannie]

ahimsaman72:

This wasn’t meant to be a Buddhism vs. Christianity thread.

Peace…

and I did not give a Buddhism vs Christianity answer, I responded to the first statement of the original post, which is the premise on which the rest of the essay is based. if the premise is false, the rest of the argument is false, so I attacked the premise.

 

[Tlaloc]

puzzleannie:

and I did not give a Buddhism vs Christianity answer,

Even when you said Truth is God, Buddhism is not of God, so Buddhism is not True? 'Cause that kind of sounds like a Christianity vs Buddhism response.

 

[ahimsaman72]

puzzleannie:

and I did not give a Buddhism vs Christianity answer, I responded to the first statement of the original post, which is the premise on which the rest of the essay is based. if the premise is false, the rest of the argument is false, so I attacked the premise.

"Belief is two steps removed from the reality of what’s being believed. When we talk about belief we talk only about belief, not about anything else – belief creates its own reality

Okay, this is the first statement from the article. This is psychological speak. You counter by saying:

Belief does not create its own reality. Truth creates reality. Belief is personal response to reality as revealed by the Creator of reality, perceived according to the capacity of the believer. Truth is God. Buddhism denies God if this statement reflects Buddhist philosophy. Buddhism is not of God, therefore Buddhism is not true, while its teachings may contain some kernels of Truth, those which are readily perceived and valued by natural human reason.

I can accept the normal text as a rebuttal. The rest (in bold) is an opportunity for you to vent your view of Buddhism. Since you know little of Buddhist thought and how it varies from school to school, I would leave judgements about it outside the scope of such discussions.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Tlaloc:

Even when you said Truth is God, Buddhism is not of God, so Buddhism is not True? 'Cause that kind of sounds like a Christianity vs Buddhism response.

Isn’t it funny that all religions claim their God as true and everyone else’s is a liar??!!???!!!

Peace…

 

[john_doran]

ahimsaman72:

Isn’t it funny that all religions claim their God as true and everyone else’s is a liar??!!???!!!

but they have to, since each of those gods say contradictory things to each of the other gods…

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

but they have to, since each of those gods say contradictory things to each of the other gods…

Oh boy…

I’m sure the Egyptian gods, Greek gods and Aztec gods are all fighting it out in the celestial realm somewhere…“is not”… “is to”…"is not, “is to”. I hear the swords clanging now.

I meant no disrespect to any religions or faiths. Just my silly thoughts.

Peace…

 

[john_doran]

Oh boy…

I’m sure the Egyptian gods, Greek gods and Aztec gods are all fighting it out in the celestial realm somewhere…“is not”… “is to”…"is not, “is to”. I hear the swords clanging now.

I meant no disrespect to any religions or faiths. Just my silly thoughts.

Peace…

yeah - i can see marduk whispering to loki, “you know, ra says that you’re a wuss”, and zeus telling tiamat that her mother dresses her funny…

 

[dhgray]

Scullinius:

This is a Catholic forum. Who cares about Zen Buddhist teachings? Maybe you should start a Buddhist website.

Scullinius

That is truly an un-Christian response.

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

yeah - i can see marduk whispering to loki, “you know, ra says that you’re a wuss”, and zeus telling tiamat that her mother dresses her funny…

 

[oat_soda]

This is a Catholic forum. Who cares about Zen Buddhist teachings? Maybe you should start a Buddhist website.

i agree. buddha is terrible. who want’s to worship a big fat guy? the guy was a total pacifist. they teach that the world is evil and somehow only total detachment from it will bring you happiness.

 

[ahimsaman72]

oat soda:

i agree. buddha is terrible. who want’s to worship a big fat guy? the guy was a total pacifist. they teach that the world is evil and somehow only total detachment from it will bring you happiness.

He’s not always depicted as a fat guy. Who knows? He was born approximately 563 BC, so we don’t really know. Yes, he was a pacifist - something I admire about him. The last sentence you got right also.

Peace…

 

[puzzleannie]

"Belief is two steps removed from the reality of what’s being believed. When we talk about belief we talk only about belief, not about anything else – belief creates its own reality

Okay, this is the first statement from the article. This is psychological speak. You counter by saying:

Belief does not create its own reality. Truth creates reality. Belief is personal response to reality as revealed by the Creator of reality, perceived according to the capacity of the believer. Truth is God. Buddhism denies God if this statement reflects Buddhist philosophy. Buddhism is not of God, therefore Buddhism is not true, while its teachings may contain some kernels of Truth, those which are readily perceived and valued by natural human reason.

I can accept the normal text as a rebuttal. The rest (in bold) is an opportunity for you to vent your view of Buddhism. Since you know little of Buddhist thought and how it varies from school to school, I would leave judgements about it outside the scope of such discussions.

Peace…

If you read above in the bold you quoted, I said "if this statement reflects Buddhist philosophy . . . "
It is your original post, not me, who presented this as a statement of Buddhist philosophy. I am basing my response solely on what you presented, since you are the self-described expert on Buddhism.

 

[Exporter]

ahimsaman72 http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_450907”, true);
Senior Member
Now that a few posters had made some negative remarks, may I make a few remarks also?

The original post by ahimsaman72 was a reasonable request. From previous posts I think he had admitted that his point of view is not the typical hard-line Roman Catholic’s view of the " seen and the unseen", philosophy or the origin of things. So he asked in a polite way what other people thought of what he copied.

What he says came from a Zen Buddhist is certainly not a religious text! It simply a short series of steps that writer takes to “travel” from an IDEA to a BELIEF. It is nothing more than ordinary basic philosophy. Ther is nothing sinister or Anti-Catholic here, in fact it could have been writen by a Sophmore at a good University,

 

[ahimsaman72]

puzzleannie:

If you read above in the bold you quoted, I said "if this statement reflects Buddhist philosophy . . . "
It is your original post, not me, who presented this as a statement of Buddhist philosophy. I am basing my response solely on what you presented, since you are the self-described expert on Buddhism.

Bologna. I have never said I was an expert to begin with. I have repeatedly stated that I was a student of Buddhism, nothing more. Where did you get that statement from me? I will retract it if you find it. You’re putting words in my mouth and I don’t like it.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

ahimsaman72 http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_450907”, true);
Senior Member
Now that a few posters had made some negative remarks, may I make a few remarks also?

The original post by ahimsaman72 was a reasonable request. From previous posts I think he had admitted that his point of view is not the typical hard-line Roman Catholic’s view of the " seen and the unseen", philosophy or the origin of things. So he asked in a polite way what other people thought of what he copied.

What he says came from a Zen Buddhist is certainly not a religious text! It simply a short series of steps that writer takes to “travel” from an IDEA to a BELIEF. It is nothing more than ordinary basic philosophy. Ther is nothing sinister or Anti-Catholic here, in fact it could have been writen by a Sophmore at a good University,

Yes, it’s merely a philosophical/psychological concept that I really wanted opinions on from a variety of people (as I stated), that is, Catholics, non-Catholics, atheists, etc. I honestly wanted to break this down and get an overall critique of it.

The premise makes sense to me and I wondered if it made sense to anyone else. If it failed the test of reasonable philosophy, that was okay with me. It certainly isn’t a religious text, although taken from an article in which an atheist woman is questioned by a Zen Buddhist monk as to why she doesn’t believe in God! Oh, the irony. I am unschooled myself. I never went past high school, got married and only finished one semester at a community college. So, I haven’t had the opportunity to study philosophy or religion academically. I’ve spent my adult years studying religion on my own. Anyway…

Peace…

 

[Exporter]

ahimsaman72,

Reading your copied essay by the Zen Buddists Monk’s conversation with the atheist requires no special cognitive abilities or a study of philosophy at a university. Having an adult mind and the ability to read on the 10th grade level prepares one to absorb this essay and make comments. I have 16 undergraduate hours of philosophy and 4 hours on the Graduate level and I don’t feel that that introduction to philosophy helped me to read this essay in particular.

It is most interesting that the atheist had not thought very deeply.I liked the changes in our world view as we age, it is true. It also pointed out the beliefs that we tell children to have are strictly authoritarian. That may be why some people become atheists. This line of reasoning could have come from a Catholic writer.

 

[Chris_W]

Belief is two steps removed from the reality of what’s being believed. When we talk about belief we talk only about belief, not about anything else – belief creates its own reality

Okay, i’m not a philosopher, but here’s my take on the text: I am gonna have to disagree with it for the following reason:

The conclusion ultimately is that belief creates its own reality. It is false because it is incomplete. It would be true to say that belief can create its own reality (as in the American Idol example). But in the author’s empty cans and cups example, the interpretation of the mind in viewing the site and calling it trash did not in fact create a different reality. It merely expounded upon the reality observed, while not discarding the reality that it remains empty cans and cups.

The steps which the mind takes, as he described, are true. In fact they are a necessary result of an intellect and will, in my opinion, and frankly, common sense results.

But to say belief creates its own reality is not a correct statement. I would answer, “not necessarily”. Furthermore, to suggest such a thing would have tendency to lead people to relativism, which ultimately benefits no one.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Belief is two steps removed from the reality of what’s being believed. When we talk about belief we talk only about belief, not about anything else – belief creates its own reality

Okay, i’m not a philosopher, but here’s my take on the text: I am gonna have to disagree with it for the following reason:

The conclusion ultimately is that belief creates its own reality. It is false because it is incomplete. It would be true to say that belief can create its own reality (as in the American Idol example). But in the author’s empty cans and cups example, the interpretation of the mind in viewing the site and calling it trash did not in fact create a different reality. It merely expounded upon the reality observed, while not discarding the reality that it remains empty cans and cups.

The steps which the mind takes, as he described, are true. In fact they are a necessary result of an intellect and will, in my opinion, and frankly, common sense results.

But to say belief creates its own reality is not a correct statement. I would answer, “not necessarily”. Furthermore, to suggest such a thing would have tendency to lead people to relativism, which ultimately benefits no one.

Thank you for your thoughts here. You’re probably right - the author should’ve said ‘could create another reality’. Well done.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Exporter:

ahimsaman72,

Reading your copied essay by the Zen Buddists Monk’s conversation with the atheist requires no special cognitive abilities or a study of philosophy at a university. Having an adult mind and the ability to read on the 10th grade level prepares one to absorb this essay and make comments. I have 16 undergraduate hours of philosophy and 4 hours on the Graduate level and I don’t feel that that introduction to philosophy helped me to read this essay in particular.

It is most interesting that the atheist had not thought very deeply.I liked the changes in our world view as we age, it is true. It also pointed out the beliefs that we tell children to have are strictly authoritarian. That may be why some people become atheists. This line of reasoning could have come from a Catholic writer.

It is rather amazing that the woman (as you said) hadn’t thought that deeply about the subject. It’s like a switch was turned off at some point in her life that wouldn’t allow her to be open to the possibility of the existence of God.

And, it is so true that our views and thoughts change dramatically over time. My thoughts certainly aren’t the same as they were when I was 15 years old. Our minds, thoughts and behavior change over time. You wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) give a 15 year old the same instructions that you would a 5 year old. Each has their own ability to understand at different levels.

As always, thank you for your honest remarks and nice insight.

Peace…

 

[Benadam]

this is a very accurate description of mans limitations in the ability to percieve reality. Even what the mind filters is data sent from the senses as electrical impulses that the mind reconstructs into a presentation of the tangible. Tangible, does it feel like that or is that how my skin has adapted to this stuff in order to respond to it in a way that favors my …life? Then we enterpret our experience within this place and construct a reality per our results. Then it is altered and eventually when we are an old fart no one can tell us what is and what aint so…:bowdown2:

without faith we are left to imagine reality. Got Faith?