Buddha and his teachings

[ahimsaman72]

Exporter:

Just a thought,

Having read most of the posts on this thread and find that quickly the conversation turns to the abstract; how many in the Orient actually know the teachings of the Buddha?

I am thinking that it would seem that only the privalidged few who also had a high I.Q. would be able to profit from Buddhism. I know that in Japan the Temples (Shinto) are attended by the public only on a few days during the year. What do you have to offer?

I can’t answer the first question. I’m not sure. There are alot of teachings, I know. And, honestly, I know only a fraction of them. One part of the Pali Canon is the Abhidhamma which is the “psychological” part of Buddha’s teachings. They are very detailed and difficult. The only ones who could ultimately learn his full teachings would have to be monks and nuns.

Buddhism is going through some changes. In Burma, for example, the Theravada temples have now begun to allow lay Buddhists to practice alongside the monks in meditation. This is a huge step for them. Lay participation is becoming more and more common, so the opportunities are there.

One doesn’t have to believe in rebirth or karma, 31 planes of existence, none of this to be a Buddhist and practice. Neither does one have to know everything to become enlightened. Zen teaches us this. Awakening is a moment by moment process. The Theravada school asserts it is a gradual process of enlightenment. The Mahayana schools assert it is a moment by moment process. In all schools of Buddhism the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path are the guiding teachings. One only has to understand these at their core.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

dennisknapp:

True, the goal then is to figure out who’s view of reality is the correct one by the use of reason and logic, which at its most basic form is the law of non-contradiction.

Peace

How can you choose whether or not the singer is singing well? Give me an example of how you would choose. Whether or not a person can sing well is a purely subjective decision - based on one’s own experiences and knowledge. Aren’t one’s own experiences and knowledge relative truth?

If Sally wrote her own song and sang the notes exactly how she had written them out - would that automatically tell us she was a “good singer”?

If she failed to hit the notes of the song, we could say she needed more experience and practice to become a good singer. But if she hit them all we still can’t say she is a good singer. We may be biased. She could be singing jazz, but we like rap (God forbid). She could sing hard rock, but we like classical.

What constitutes a “good singer”? What constitutes “God”?

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

dennisknapp:

The link you speak of was never posted. I would like to see it though.

I may disagree with this fellow regarding his reasoning but I would have to see what he is saying before I would say it is rideculous.

Why is it so hard to understand that the law of non-contradiction is true when you yourself use it all the time? It just boils down to–if something is self-defeating or contradictory to reality it cannot exist.

If you want to believe contradictory things you have that right in our country, but you will not be reasonable and therefore your opinion may not be taken seriously.

In truth, I am fighting to make what you say meaningful. I am not trying to assert my opinion on you. I am trying show you that in order for what you say to have meaning there needs to be ultimate truth.

Peace

I don’t doubt your intentions.

So, your path to ultimate truth would include what?
look at the facts, weigh the evidence, use logic and reason?

This approach would be similar in a murder trial by jury. The jury sits in on all the testimony. They go to a room, weigh the evidence, look at the facts, use logic and reason. Say 8 out of the 12 say John Doe is guilty. The other 4 are not sure. In the end the 8 convince the other 4 (by logic and reason). They come out with a verdict. John Doe is guilty - murder 1.

However, the ultimate truth is that John Doe didn’t commit the murder. The evidence was tainted. The jurors were influenced. The judge was an idiot. John Doe was framed.

What would we say about this? It happens in America. Truth slips through the cracks. People spend long terms in jail and are innocent. It’s happened.

Peace…

 

[dennisknapp]

ahimsaman72:

How can you choose whether or not the singer is singing well? Give me an example of how you would choose. Whether or not a person can sing well is a purely subjective decision - based on one’s own experiences and knowledge. Aren’t one’s own experiences and knowledge relative truth?

If Sally wrote her own song and sang the notes exactly how she had written them out - would that automatically tell us she was a “good singer”?

If she failed to hit the notes of the song, we could say she needed more experience and practice to become a good singer. But if she hit them all we still can’t say she is a good singer. We may be biased. She could be singing jazz, but we like rap (God forbid). She could sing hard rock, but we like classical.

What constitutes a “good singer”? What constitutes “God”?

Peace…

Whether Sally can sing or not is not the issue. The issue is whether contradictions can exist in reality. I never said there where not subjective truths. I like the color blue. It is the best color in the world, but this is different from saying that blue and non-blue exist at the same time and in the same sense. Or Sally the “questionable singer” exist and does not exist at the same time and in the same sense.

How can we say anything is meaningful if it all boils down to opinion and subjective truth? How could we say Hilter was wrong in what he did to the Jews? Or that if you jump off a building you will hit the ground?

You did not respond to one of my post regarding Buddhism’s view of reality,

"But to say that there are wrong distinctions is to say that there are right ones, correct?

If Buddhist assert ANYTHING they are using the law of non-contradiction by default.

If they say (and they do) that reality is an illusion they are proclaiming an ultimate truth which excludes all other beliefs regarding reality. And so by doing this they are using the law of non-contradiction. Is this clear?

To assert a truth claim is one thing. It is quite another to prove this truth claim true and therefore make it binding on all.

Reality cannot be both an illusion and a non-illusion at the same time and in the same sense because this would make the goal of escaping it meaningless."

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

ahimsaman72:

I don’t doubt your intentions.

So, your path to ultimate truth would include what?
look at the facts, weigh the evidence, use logic and reason?

This approach would be similar in a murder trial by jury. The jury sits in on all the testimony. They go to a room, weigh the evidence, look at the facts, use logic and reason. Say 8 out of the 12 say John Doe is guilty. The other 4 are not sure. In the end the 8 convince the other 4 (by logic and reason). They come out with a verdict. John Doe is guilty - murder 1.

However, the ultimate truth is that John Doe didn’t commit the murder. The evidence was tainted. The jurors were influenced. The judge was an idiot. John Doe was framed.

What would we say about this? It happens in America. Truth slips through the cracks. People spend long terms in jail and are innocent. It’s happened.

Peace…

Yes, this is exactly my point. John Doe can not be a murder and a non-murder at the same time and in the same sense. He is either guilty or innocent, but not both.

But in your view of reality John Doe can be both innocent and guilt of murder at the same time and in the same sense. So, he should be convicted of murder 1 and go free at the same time…? Do you see how this is irrational?

Peace

 

[ahimsaman72]

Dennis,

You have raised some good, basic points that I have taken seriously and begun to research (thanks alot! - as if I didn’t have anything else to do ). With just a casual browsing of the web, I found some sites that dealt with Aristotle’s logic. They all agree that Aristotle postulated it and that it is indeed considered Western logic. Believe me, this is all new to me and merits more research on my part.

There are disagreements as to the completeness or fullness of his logic. One person cites the need for a fourth law of logic. I’m including a portion of an article from there concerning Aristotle’s original laws.

"Aristotle’s Laws and the Paradox of Change

 A variety of arguments can easily be produced to show that these laws are incomplete; i.e., they do not specify all reality, for parts of reality can be shown to contradict one or more of Aristotle's laws.

 Indeed, all "observed" reality can be shown to violate all three laws.

 E.g., the most direct violation is posed by the problem of change, a problem originally propounded by Heraclitus about 500 B.C., and unsolved to this day. Heraclitus pointed out that, for a thing to change, it must turn into something else, and then asked how a thing could be something other than itself?

 We may think of a thing - say, α - some feature A of which is said to change. If A changes, it turns into , thus violating logic laws one and two. Further, we are considering A as the "changed thing, ," i.e., something which is somehow both A and , so logic law three is violated as well. 

 Thus, if Aristotle's laws are taken to be all the fundamental laws of logic, then logically there can be no change whatsoever, because change negates all three laws.  I.e., either change does not exist or it is totally illogical.

 Since all measurements, detections, thoughts, and perceptions are simply changes, then it follows that these operations logically cannot exist. Or, if we assume the "operations" to exist, their outputs cannot exist. If the operations do not exist, then again their outputs do not exist.

 So if the products or outputs cannot exist, then by this reasoning no perceived, detected, measured, conceived thing exists. If we then insist that such things do indeed exist, then all is paradoxical and illogical. This is essentially the nature of the paradox posed by Heraclitus.

 Heraclitus's change paradox has not been satisfactorily resolved to this day, and rigorously all the rational science of the Western world, being based on paradoxical change (detection, perception, observation) is itself totally illogical by its own logical standards."

cheniere.org/books/aids/appendixIII.htm

The link above will take you to the source of this document.

Peace…

 

[dennisknapp]

ahimsaman72:

Dennis,

You have raised some good, basic points that I have taken seriously and begun to research (thanks alot! - as if I didn’t have anything else to do ). With just a casual browsing of the web, I found some sites that dealt with Aristotle’s logic. They all agree that Aristotle postulated it and that it is indeed considered Western logic. Believe me, this is all new to me and merits more research on my part.

There are disagreements as to the completeness or fullness of his logic. One person cites the need for a fourth law of logic. I’m including a portion of an article from there concerning Aristotle’s original laws.

"Aristotle’s Laws and the Paradox of Change

A variety of arguments can easily be produced to show that these laws are incomplete; i.e., they do not specify all reality, for parts of reality can be shown to contradict one or more of Aristotle’s laws.

Indeed, all “observed” reality can be shown to violate all three laws.

E.g., the most direct violation is posed by the problem of change, a problem originally propounded by Heraclitus about 500 B.C., and unsolved to this day. Heraclitus pointed out that, for a thing to change, it must turn into something else, and then asked how a thing could be something other than itself?

We may think of a thing - say, α - some feature A of which is said to change. If A changes, it turns into , thus violating logic laws one and two. Further, we are considering A as the “changed thing, ,” i.e., something which is somehow both A and , so logic law three is violated as well.

Thus, if Aristotle’s laws are taken to be all the fundamental laws of logic, then logically there can be no change whatsoever, because change negates all three laws. I.e., either change does not exist or it is totally illogical.

Since all measurements, detections, thoughts, and perceptions are simply changes, then it follows that these operations logically cannot exist. Or, if we assume the “operations” to exist, their outputs cannot exist. If the operations do not exist, then again their outputs do not exist.

So if the products or outputs cannot exist, then by this reasoning no perceived, detected, measured, conceived thing exists. If we then insist that such things do indeed exist, then all is paradoxical and illogical. This is essentially the nature of the paradox posed by Heraclitus.

Heraclitus’s change paradox has not been satisfactorily resolved to this day, and rigorously all the rational science of the Western world, being based on paradoxical change (detection, perception, observation) is itself totally illogical by its own logical standards."

cheniere.org/books/aids/appendixIII.htm

The link above will take you to the source of this document.

Peace…

I still don’t see how this makes the law of non-contradtion void. You have not responded to my other post where I said,

"Yes, this is exactly my point. John Doe can not be a murder and a non-murder at the same time and in the same sense. He is either guilty or innocent, but not both.

But in your view of reality John Doe can be both innocent and guilt of murder at the same time and in the same sense. So, he should be convicted of murder 1 and go free at the same time…? Do you see how this is irrational?"

I am not talking about a changing into *b *I am talking about *a *and non-a existing at the same time and in the same sense.

Peace

 

[ahimsaman72]

dennisknapp:

I still don’t see how this makes the law of non-contradtion void. You have not responded to my other post where I said,

"Yes, this is exactly my point. John Doe can not be a murder and a non-murder at the same time and in the same sense. He is either guilty or innocent, but not both.

But in your view of reality John Doe can be both innocent and guilt of murder at the same time and in the same sense. So, he should be convicted of murder 1 and go free at the same time…? Do you see how this is irrational?"

I am not talking about a changing into *b *I am talking about *a *and non-a existing at the same time and in the same sense.

Peace

The three laws don’t answer to the fact that all things change. It considers static information, not variable information. If it doesn’t factor in everything, then it is not complete, although a good foundation for logic.

My point about John Doe was that the idea of “ultimate truth” is entirely subjective. Yes, you are correct. John Doe can’t be innocent and guilty at the same time and in the same sense. The process whereby we establish this is the important point I want to make. The ultimate truth is that he is innocent. The evidence points to guilt. Both can’t be true.

I posit that the evidence is faulty, not that ultimate truth doesn’t exist. What we have is evidence (phenomenon). The ultimate truth is noumena. So, we use phenomena to understand noumena. Can we sufficiently do this?

I also have asked you numerous questions:

1. What is your path/process to find ultimate truth?
2. How do you recognize it when you see it?
3. What constitutes God?

And, I would like to see any comments regarding the original link where the person was discussing basic Christian doctrines and refuting them using Aristotle’s model of logic. Supposedly, as one person has put it, there was the game of yes/no that was a long held practice for students. Aristotle simply wrote down the rules of logic used to play the game (which existed - he just identified them) and that is basically the three laws of logic that we have today. This is very interesting - indeed.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

This thread is done. I have left the building. Peace to all.

 

[Tlaloc]

“God is more than can be expressed in a single philosophy.” Can you not see that you are contradicting yourself? To make such a truth claim would mean that you KNOW that God is more than can be expressed in a single philosophy and therefore is not expressed soley in ONE philosophy. This is an ultimate truth claim and therefore proves the law of non-contradiction.

I’m not claiming that I know it, I only claim that that is one way the situation can be perceived. You claimed that Christianity and Buddhism CANNOT both be correct so I gave an example of how they could.

For in your opinion,

1. God can not be expressed in one single philosophy.
2. Christianity believe that God is express in one single philosophy.
   Therefore, Christianity’s truth claim regarding God is false.

No not false, just not complete.

But you would also say Christianity’s truth claim is it true from the point of view of Christians…? How does this make sense?

Because it is true, it just isn’t the whole truth. If I say “there are brown cows” you can interprete that one of two ways:

1. only brown cows exist
2. some brown cows exist

The first is false, the second is true but it is not the ultimate truth in the question of cow colors.

"Also, I did not say, “God IS as Christianity believes.” I used in an argument “IF God IS as Christianity believes then God CANNOT be as Buddhist believe.” I am not saying in this argument that Christianity is true, but that IF it is true then Buddhism’s belief regarding God is false.

I’m sorry if it sounded like I was ascribing a position to you. The statements I used weren’t supposed to be attributed to you but as hypothetical statements. Your conclusion though still rests on one idea:
that saying God Is as Christianity believes means God is ONLY as Christianity believes. See the cow example above. Christians have seen a brown cow. That doesn’t mean only brown cows exist.

 

[Exporter]

I have noticed over the years that when someone is trying to make a point they either do what is called “Name Dropping” or they try to “dazzle” the others with a reference to something they don’t really know much about. And that is nuclear physics and/or Quantum Mechanics. It just takes a phrase from Quantum Mechanics to cause a few people to freeze - so the name dropper wins. Isn’t that correct?

Here is an example of what I am writting about. “Interestingly enough our sense of logic breaks down in some physical ways as with QM. A particle is not “here” or “there” but can be in an intermediate state of being partially in both places. Whether such examples point to any larger more sublime truths is debatable but the potential exists.”

I can say this briefly. If a man attempts to determine how far a particle (electron) is located from a nucleus, a measuring device is necessary. Here is the point. When the apparatus used for the measurement “IT”, the measuring device becomes part of the experiment and the electron reacts to the presence of that measuring device. So that electron has been changed or moved because of the apparatus.:yup:

 

[flameburns623]

ahimsaman72:

The following is a list of questions asked of me considering my interest in Buddhism and practice thereof.

Q1. Did this Buddha fella ever have a real job, or career, or did he just ride blissfully on inherited wealth?

Answer: He was born as the prince of a small “tribe” in what is now modern-day Nepal. He was wealthy by the standards of his day. He left his home at 29 years old because of experiences that led him to seek after an end to the cycle of birth and death.

Q2. Did this buddha ever claim divine authority to teach, or was he just a really neat homeless fella?

Answer: He claimed he attained enlightenment by direct, determined will to do so. He did not seek or obtain “divine authority”. Coming from a Hindu background - he sought to change his own circumstances and obtain his own freedom from death instead of relying on a god that he could not directly experience.

Q3. If some things are too strict, are they objectively too strict for all humans or just certain humans? Same with loose?

Answer: Let me give you an example: a man who followed the Buddha named “Sona” came to Buddha and claimed he had tried very hard to reach enlightenment and meditate well, but was becoming frustrated with his results. Buddha asked Sona about his previous experiences playing a musical instrument. He asked him if his strings were too tight on his instrument did it give a good sound - Sona replied no. And so he asked him if the strings were too loose,would they give a good sound then? Sona replied no. So, as the Buddha explained, it is not by being too tight or too loose that one achieves his goals.

Q4. Did buddha rise from the dead?

Answer: In the sense you are speaking of - no. He was not divine.

Q5. Did all those Apostles and others lie about Christ rising from the dead?

Answer: I don’t believe they lied. I believe Christ rose from the dead. Since the Buddha was alive 500± years before Christ he knew nothing of Him but I’m sure he would have like Him.

Q6. If so, how do you know this with certainty?

Answer: See above answer.

I am a life-long Baptist who attends Sunday worship and who reads Buddhist teachings and meditate regularly.

I find no dichotomy in this practice. I find that the Buddha’s teachings are beneficial and can lead to the end of suffering - to the endless cycle of birth and death. Of course to most Catholics and devout protestants this approach to life is absurd. It is contradictory.
So, the questions are:

Can we learn anything from Buddhism and its founder, Siddhartha Guatama (the Buddha - “enlightened one”) and apply it to our lives today as Christians or is it complete nonsense that isn’t even worth a second look? I will post a second time and give parallel beliefs of both Buddhism and Christianity that most if not all of us could agree on.

Peace…

Nam myoho renge kyo.

Namu Amida Butsu.

Which is to say–don’t say ‘Zen’ too loudly to adherents of it’s competing Japanese sects, which have a reputation for militancy. The Nichiren Shoshu are notorious iconoclasts. The Amidists are close on their heels. Neither are paragons of tolerance.

But then again–Zen Buddhists saw little contradiction between being master warriors (samurai) and devout Buddhists.

 

[Tlaloc]

Exporter:

I have noticed over the years that when someone is trying to make a point they either do what is called “Name Dropping” or they try to “dazzle” the others with a reference to something they don’t really know much about. And that is nuclear physics and/or Quantum Mechanics. It just takes a phrase from Quantum Mechanics to cause a few people to freeze - so the name dropper wins. Isn’t that correct?

I used QM as an example because
a) I’m a physicist so it’s easier sometimes for me to use my specific field
b) God most likely would exist according to rules that are very different than everyday life. Having a direct real world example that such violations of our intuition are true can be instructive.

I can say this briefly. If a man attempts to determine how far a particle (electron) is located from a nucleus, a measuring device is necessary. Here is the point. When the apparatus used for the measurement “IT”, the measuring device becomes part of the experiment and the electron reacts to the presence of that measuring device. So that electron has been changed or moved because of the apparatus.:yup:

No we are talking about more than just the pertubation by measurement. Electrons (and all matter) has a wavelike property to it. When you say it is “here” you are oversimplifying the situation. It is really most probably, but not entirely “there.”

 

[Exporter]

ahimsaman72 is leaving.

I not only enjoyed his time here, I learned from his posts. Thanks, ahimsaman72 for a good attitude and a weath of knowledge.

:tiphat: :tiphat: :bounce: :whacky:

 

[Exporter]

Exporter wrote the quote:
Quote:
I can say this briefly. If a man attempts to determine how far a particle (electron) is located from a nucleus, a measuring device is necessary. Here is the point. When the apparatus used for the measurement “IT”, the measuring device becomes part of the experiment and the electron reacts to the presence of that measuring device. So that electron has been changed or moved because of the apparatus.:yup:
THIS IS THE ANSWER:No we are talking about more than just the pertubation by measurement. Electrons (and all matter) has a wavelike property to it. When you say it is “here” you are oversimplifying the situation. It is really most probably, but not entirely “there.”

---

And we see the one who answered my “quote” missed the point of my statement. You can easily see that I said THE APPARATUS BECOMES PART OF THE EXPERIMENT, AND DOES REACT WITH THE ELECTRON. THEREBY CHANGING THAT ELECTRONS POSITION AND PROPERTIES.

And the answer is giving a property of an electron. The wave-property of the electron was NOT the point. Investigators have to try to keep themeselves not to become part of the experiment.

 

[Tlaloc]

Um, okay. We were discussing how counter-intuitive things may indeed be true. Does the issue of measurement disturbing a system relate?

It seems like you’ve simply made veiled attacks and then wandered off topic.

 

[dennisknapp]

Tlaloc:

I’m not claiming that I know it, I only claim that that is one way the situation can be perceived. You claimed that Christianity and Buddhism CANNOT both be correct so I gave an example of how they could.

No not false, just not complete.

Because it is true, it just isn’t the whole truth. If I say “there are brown cows” you can interprete that one of two ways:

1. only brown cows exist
2. some brown cows exist

The first is false, the second is true but it is not the ultimate truth in the question of cow colors.

I’m sorry if it sounded like I was ascribing a position to you. The statements I used weren’t supposed to be attributed to you but as hypothetical statements. Your conclusion though still rests on one idea:
that saying God Is as Christianity believes means God is ONLY as Christianity believes. See the cow example above. Christians have seen a brown cow. That doesn’t mean only brown cows exist.

But how do you know this? It is one thing to say that God is both as Buddhist and Christians believe, but it is quite another to prove this. How do you justify your claim? By just saying it is true is circular and meaningless. How can you PROVE your claim and therefore give it meaning?

I mean, its sounds all nice and inclusive but what gives it value besides you claiming it?

Where is the proff that Christainity’s concept of God is not complete? All I am saying is that according to the law of non-contradiction both cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense because they are fundentally opposed to each other.

Peace

 

[Tlaloc]

dennisknapp:

But how do you know this? It is one thing to say that God is both as Buddhist and Christians believe, but it is quite another to prove this. How do you justify your claim? By just saying it is true is circular and meaningless. How can you PROVE your claim and therefore give it meaning?

I certainly can’t prove it. All I’m doing is showing your claim that the two CAN’T both be true is false. We now have a scenario in which both are true. Whether that is in fact the case is not proven. Only the possibility.

 

[dennisknapp]

Tlaloc:

I certainly can’t prove it. All I’m doing is showing your claim that the two CAN’T both be true is false. We now have a scenario in which both are true. Whether that is in fact the case is not proven. Only the possibility.

Is it possible for me to be typing and not typing in English right now?

Is it possible for me to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense?

Is it possbile for God to be both all good and all evil at the same time and in the same sense?

In what scenario can these examples both be true at the same time and in the same sense?

Peace

 

[Tlaloc]

dennisknapp:

Is it possible for me to be typing and not typing in English right now?

No but God is likely a little more complicated than just moving fingers.

Is it possible for me to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense?

in the same sense? No, but that gets to the heart of the matter, there are many different ways a person can exist just as there may be many different faces to God.

Is it possbile for God to be both all good and all evil at the same time and in the same sense?

Sure, why not? Why assume our limited notions of morality apply to a being entirely different than we are? Even amongst our limited perceptions there are philosophies that perceive unities between kindness and cruelty, thing normally thought to be opposites.