Did Buddha claim to be a god & request to be worshiped? If not, will we see him in heaven?

[Grym]

Then you are not consistently applying your paradigm of “everyone gets to believe what he wants to believe”.

Hmm when exactly did that become my paradigm?

When you decide that something is immoral, then you step in.

But it appears that you do not allow others to do the same thing, if their decision for what is immoral differs from yours.

No that is a false conclusion.
I respect everybodys right to step in whenever they think their moral commands it.
And I also respect my right to step in whenever I think my moral commands it.

For example, if a Catholic steps up and says, “We do not believe that suicide is moral”, would you applaud our efforts?

Why would I applaud something that should be selfgratifying? But of course since it on par with my own judgement I like it. It is a sound moral stand.

And if a Buddhist reads the old texts and discerns that it is correct to enslave women, would that be ok?

If anybody discerns this or anything disrespecting women from the old text, which indeed already has happened, I would kick their butt, which actually already has happened too, figurativley speaking of course. .

Br
Victor

 

[Grym]

So is it incorrect, then, to say that Quantum mechanics is a purely binary logical realm?

That statement is correct.

Or is that incorrect?

That statement is nonsensical.

Is a photon both a wave and not a wave at the same time?

Well judge for yourself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality.

What do you think? My guess is as good as yours I guess.

Kindly
Victor

 

[PRmerger]

You are right! But only if you are dealing in binary logic or in binary evaluation. . Quntum mechanichs does not abide in the purly binary logical realm.

So is it incorrect, then, to say that Quantum mechanics is a purely binary logical realm?

That statement is correct

Then, it appears, Grym,that you have just applied binary logic and binary evaluation to the above premises.



You appear to reject binary evaluation, yet also argue using binary evaluation.

 

[Grym]

Then, it appears, Grym,that you have just applied binary logic and binary evaluation to the above premises.



You appear to reject binary evaluation, yet also argue using binary evaluation.

Ha ha ha. So that was where you were going! Well played.

But, as the saying goes in sweden, coming close does not kill the rabbit!

I was not using Binary logic. I was using Multivalued logic! .

That is why this question…

Or is that incorrect?

…was nonsensiacal in relation to the previous question!

Multivalued logic in contrast to binary can have several truthvalues. And if not defined so, they might not even be mutualy exclusive! (Sorry if I lack the english mathematical vocabulary since I did the Stochastical course in Swedish!)

The easiest extention is the “Undefined” value used by Kleene. Even binary logic sometimes uses a third value “X” meaning dont care (if the propositionis true or false). But that does not really count.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic.

For an example using Kleenes logic. Saying,

It is impossible to catch Victor in a binary logical trap.

might have 3 values True, False or Undefined.

If asked

*So is it incorrect, then, to say that Victor can be caught in an binary logical trap?
*
The answer will be.

That statement is correct

But if asked, in relation to the first question

Or is that incorrect?

The answer is that that question is nonsencical because the there is no way to determine the negation of a three valued proposition without additional information!

Now if you had asked

*So is it correct, then, to say that Victor can be caught in an binary logical trap?
*

The answer would have been

No way man!!!

But please do try again! I am game! :tiphat:

Br
/Victor

 

[PRmerger]

Ha ha ha. So that was where you were going! Well played.

But, as the saying goes in sweden, coming close does not kill the rabbit!

Really? I didn’t kill it but came close?

Why then do you say that this was “well played”? I don’t consider losing to be “well played”.

Rather, I think you got my point and that, indeed, I did win. Hence, the well played comment you gave me.

IOW: you reject binary logic, while using binary logic.

All logical, reasonable people understand binary logic. And appeal to it. It is a necessary component to be a logical person who uses reason to apprehend the truth.

I was not using Binary logic. I was using Multivalued logic! :thumbsu

LOL!

The above, too, is binary logic. “I was not using binary logic. Rather I was using…[A]”.

Is that not binary?

 

[weller2]

So they actually saw Jesus crucified, and saw him alive after 3 days, ate and conversed with him.

And then spread the gospel “He is risen!”

And they didn’t lie about this.

But Jesus did? Jesus lied? Jesus said that he died and he really didn’t?

Is that your position?

Let me go back a moment.

The claim made in the OP was that Buddha declared himself to be God and requested to be worshipped. This is not true. However, it appears to be a common misconception among Christians, who see Buddha as someone like Jesus.

But the fun part is that Jesus never really declared himself to be God or requested to be worshipped. The scriptural verses used to support this claim fall into three categories: (1) verses where Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, one with God, etc. ; (2) verses where Jesus performed miracles, cast of demons etc. in the name of God ; (3) verses, particularly from Matthews or Hebrews, which attempt to link Jesus to the Jewish Messiah prophecised by Isaiah.

But despite all that, there is no direct claim by Jesus himself saying that he is God. Quite the contrary in fact: Jesus was explicit that the Father is bigger than he is, and that Father knows things Jesus does not. At the same time, Jesus claimed to be Son of God, one with God, God’s word, etc., etc.

But recall that in Judaism, people and souls are separate from God – after death, they go to Sheol, not to Heaven. So God’s realm and man’s realm are completely separate. Jesus was the first to claim that humans can go to heaven and that heaven is unity with God (and that they can go to heaven through the teaching of Jesus). So not only has Jesus contradicted the the entire tradition, his contemporaries had a problem figuring out who he actually was: after all, he has joined two incompatible realms in one person. Jesus or Christ? Man-turned-God? God-turned-man? God-in-man? And who was actually crucified? Jesus? or Christ? And what happened during the Resurrection? The grave was empty, Mary of Magdala saw someone there – the guy must have looked pretty normal, because she mistook him for a gardener, the traveller on the road to Emaus looked like an average guy also, so we assume that Jesus was revived like Lazarus, body and all… But then on Pentacost Jesus walks through a closed door like a ghost and everyone freaks out.

You now handwave all that saying “Trinity!”, but try to imagine the shock of these people two hundred years before Trinity was theorized about. They had to come up with some explanation for Jesus, they latched onto the first concept they had, which was a god, because polytheistic world of late antiquity had many gods. Gods walked the earth and meddled in human affairs; soldiers prayed to a god of war, merchants to a god of trade, lovers to a goddess of love. One more god, no problem. Christianity became attractive for pagans: Wow, a cool god you guys have, sign me up. The philosophers came next; they already theorized that a supreme being must exist, and there is this new cult which had a monotheistic god – sign us up, and we will try to figure out what Jesus was. Most problem was with the Jews, who were strict monotheists, so having both YHWH and Jesus as gods was problematic. Greek philosophy to the rescue; Jesus is a separate person, but made of the same substance. Two (later three) persons, but still only one God. Contradiction resolved. Ta-Da!

Basically, Jesus baffled his contemporaries so much that it took combining different intellectual and spiritual traditions of late Antiquity to produce a coherent belief system explaining what he actually was.

However, all these problems with explaining Jesus do not appear if you work within the Eastern spiritual tradition. There, the realms of God, people, and nature are not separated. Instead, there are several several spiritual planes, and souls move up or down.
Who was Buddha then? A man who meditated and achieved enlightenment, meaning, his soul has moved “up” so much that he achieved (or almost achieved) unity with God/Universe/Absolute/whatever-the-top-level-actually-is, and taught people what he has himself learned. And he even performed miracles.

So if you look at Jesus from the point of view of Eastern tradition, there is nothing unprecedented. You can say that Jesus was re-incarnation of Buddha. You can say that Jesus was another man who achieved enlightenment like Buddha – either by having an epiphany, or by studying Eastern teachings and meditating himself. There is nothing in the Christian scriptures which would directly contradict this.

 

[PRmerger]

Let me go back a moment.

The claim made in the OP was that Buddha declared himself to be God and requested to be worshipped. This is not true. However, it appears to be a common misconception among Christians, who see Buddha as someone like Jesus.

But the fun part is that Jesus never really declared himself to be God or requested to be worshipped. The scriptural verses used to support this claim fall into three categories: (1) verses where Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, one with God, etc. ; (2) verses where Jesus performed miracles, cast of demons etc. in the name of God ; (3) verses, particularly from Matthews or Hebrews, which attempt to link Jesus to the Jewish Messiah prophecised by Isaiah.

But despite all that, there is no direct claim by Jesus himself saying that he is God. Quite the contrary in fact: Jesus was explicit that the Father is bigger than he is, and that Father knows things Jesus does not. At the same time, Jesus claimed to be Son of God, one with God, God’s word, etc., etc.

But recall that in Judaism, people and souls are separate from God – after death, they go to Sheol, not to Heaven. So God’s realm and man’s realm are completely separate. Jesus was the first to claim that humans can go to heaven and that heaven is unity with God (and that they can go to heaven through the teaching of Jesus). So not only has Jesus contradicted the the entire tradition, his contemporaries had a problem figuring out who he actually was: after all, he has joined two incompatible realms in one person. Jesus or Christ? Man-turned-God? God-turned-man? God-in-man? And who was actually crucified? Jesus? or Christ? And what happened during the Resurrection? The grave was empty, Mary of Magdala saw someone there – the guy must have looked pretty normal, because she mistook him for a gardener, the traveller on the road to Emaus looked like an average guy also, so we assume that Jesus was revived like Lazarus, body and all… But then on Pentacost Jesus walks through a closed door like a ghost and everyone freaks out.

You now handwave all that saying “Trinity!”, but try to imagine the shock of these people two hundred years before Trinity was theorized about. They had to come up with some explanation for Jesus, they latched onto the first concept they had, which was a god, because polytheistic world of late antiquity had many gods. Gods walked the earth and meddled in human affairs; soldiers prayed to a god of war, merchants to a god of trade, lovers to a goddess of love. One more god, no problem. Christianity became attractive for pagans: Wow, a cool god you guys have, sign me up. The philosophers came next; they already theorized that a supreme being must exist, and there is this new cult which had a monotheistic god – sign us up, and we will try to figure out what Jesus was. Most problem was with the Jews, who were strict monotheists, so having both YHWH and Jesus as gods was problematic. Greek philosophy to the rescue; Jesus is a separate person, but made of the same substance. Two (later three) persons, but still only one God. Contradiction resolved. Ta-Da!

Basically, Jesus baffled his contemporaries so much that it took combining different intellectual and spiritual traditions of late Antiquity to produce a coherent belief system explaining what he actually was.

However, all these problems with explaining Jesus do not appear if you work within the Eastern spiritual tradition. There, the realms of God, people, and nature are not separated. Instead, there are several several spiritual planes, and souls move up or down.
Who was Buddha then? A man who meditated and achieved enlightenment, meaning, his soul has moved “up” so much that he achieved (or almost achieved) unity with God/Universe/Absolute/whatever-the-top-level-actually-is, and taught people what he has himself learned.

So if you look at Jesus from the point of view of Eastern tradition, there is nothing unprecedented. You can say that Jesus was re-incarnation of Buddha. You can say that Jesus was another man who achieved enlightenment like Buddha – either by having an epiphany, or by studying Eastern teachings and meditating himself. There is nothing in the Christian scriptures which would directly contradict this.

So who lied, weller? The Apostles? Christ?

Or was it simply a misunderstanding? If so, how can you misunderstand a crucifixion and then seeing a resurrected person, and eating with him, and then proclaiming that this was a resurrected person?

Was it a lie or a misunderstandingm weller?

 

[weller2]

Was it a lie or a misunderstandingm weller?

If I say that photon is a particle, do I lie?

If I say that photon is a wave, do I lie?

If I say that it is both, do I lie?

If I say that it is whatever I want it to be at the moment, do I lie?

Is the result of Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment a misunderstanding or a lie?

 

[PRmerger]

If I say that photon is a particle, do I lie?

No. But if you say that it is a particle and a wave at the same time, then, yes, you do lie.

If I say that photon is a wave, do I lie?

No. But if you say that it is a particle and a wave at the same time, then, yes, you do lie.

If I say that it is both, do I lie?

No. But if you say that it is a particle and a wave at the same time, then, yes, you do lie.

If I say that it is whatever I want it to be at the moment, do I lie?

Yep. That would certainly be a lie, if you knew it to be [A], but claimed that it was **.

Is the result of Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment a misunderstanding or a lie?

I have no idea. **

 

[Grym]

Really? I didn’t kill it but came close?

Why then do you say that this was “well played”? I don’t consider losing to be “well played”.

Rather, I think you got my point and that, indeed, I did win. Hence, the well played comment you gave me.

The “well played” was just for encouragement! . I do not want you to loose heart! I *am * enjoying myself trying to figure out your next move.

IOW: you reject binary logic, while using binary logic.

1. What does IOW mean?
2. I do not reject binary logic! That right there is what is called building a straw man. I was pretty active in the rethorical part of my philosophy education as well!

All logical, reasonable people understand binary logic. And appeal to it. It is a necessary component to be a logical person who uses reason to apprehend the truth.

LOL!

The above, too, is binary logic. “I was not using binary logic. Rather I was using…[A]”.

Is that not binary?

Well that is all as it may be. But I was once told by my favorite Alien that.

*(Binery) Logic is only the beginning of wisdom! *

You cant possibly urgue with that! .

/Victor

 

[PRmerger]

The “well played” was just for encouragement! . I do not want you to loose heart! I *am * enjoying myself trying to figure out your next move.

1. What does IOW mean?

In other words.

1. I do not reject binary logic!

Excellent.

It’s pretty difficult to argue against binary logic, so I would win every time if you say you deny binary logic, then appeal to it (which you would have to do in order to present a coherent argument here.)

Well that is all as it may be. But I was once told by my favorite Alien that.

*(Binery) Logic is only the beginning of wisdom! *

You cant possibly urgue with that! .

/Victor

Huh?

Now, to bring this back to the point at hand: we are agreed, then, that there are some things which are true for everyone, yes? Not just “it’s true for me, but not true for you”.

Are we agreed on that, Victor?

 

[weller2]

Yep. That would certainly be a lie, if you knew it to be [A], but claimed that it was **.
**

If I have a setup for demonstrating that photon is a particle and I run a photon through it – it will show me it is a particle.

If I have a setup for demonstrating that photon is a wave and I run a photon through it – it will show me it is a wave.

If I have Wheeler’s setup which switches randomly between the two questions, and does so AFTER the photon has already passed through the setup – it will still give me answer according to the question that I asked.

Here is a short lecture from a guy who actually built the thing: youtube.com/watch?v=–BdgqH7pjI

The answer depends only on what question you ask. Even if you ask the question AFTER the photon has passed through the setup, and no longer exists.

A lie or a misunderstanding?

 

[PRmerger]

If I have a setup for demonstrating that photon is a particle and I run a photon through it – it will show me it is a particle.

If I have a setup for demonstrating that photon is a wave and I run a photon through it – it will show me it is a wave.

If I have Wheeler’s setup which switches randomly between the two questions, and does so AFTER the photon has already passed through the setup – it will still give me answer according to the question that I asked.

Here is a short lecture from a guy who actually built the thing: youtube.com/watch?v=–BdgqH7pjI

The answer depends only on what question you ask.

A lie or a misunderstanding?

Do you have a setup that shows it’s a particle and not a particle at the same time?

 

[weller2]

Do you have a setup that shows it’s a particle and not a particle at the same time?

Sort of. Watch the video.

 

[PRmerger]

Sort of. Watch the video.

“Sort of”, eh?

Do you mind addressing whether the Apostles/Christ lied or did the Apostles misunderstand?

Thanks.

 

[weller2]

“Sort of”, eh?

In Aspect’s version of the delayed choice experiment, the photon beam is split into two (using a device known as a beam splitter), and travels along two routes for 50 meters, where it reaches the detectors. Just before the detectors, there is a second beam splitter, which can be switched on and off. If the second splitter is switched off, the device checks if each photon travelled along path A or B (particle). If it is on, then the device checks if the photon travelled against both paths (wave).

When the photon hits the first beam splitter, it can either behave like a wave or like a particle. If it is a particle, it will take path A or path B. If it is a wave, it will take both paths. The photon does what it does, and after it has travelled 25 meters, the second splitter is switched to decide if we want to check for particle or wave-like behavior.

If the second splitter is off, the device ALWAYS shows that photon is a particle – it takes path A or B. If it is on, the device ALWAYS shows that photon is a wave – it takes both routes. But the decision to switch the second splitter is made 75 nanoseconds AFTER the photon passed the first beam splitter.

So at the first beam splitter, is the photon a wave, a particle, both, or neither?

Do you mind addressing whether the Apostles/Christ lied or did the Apostles misunderstand?

Thanks.

Nobody lied and their understanding was adequate, if limited.

 

[Grym]

It’s pretty difficult to argue against binary logic, so I would win every time if you say you deny binary logic, then appeal to it (which you would have to do in order to present a coherent argument here.)

Yes I know you westerners like to argue using binary logic. Thats why you often end up in the loosing end of an argumentation with me…

Huh?

Mr Spock! You who like logic. How can you not know of mr Spock? . The most logical creature known to Man!

Now, to bring this back to the point at hand: we are agreed, then, that there are some things which are true for everyone, yes? Not just “it’s true for me, but not true for you”.

Are we agreed on that, Victor?

There is nothing that has a truth value devoid of a subject.

I.e in this world with gods and men there is no Absolute Truth. All value is ascribed in the minds of beings. Consciously some times but most often unconsciously.

But there are values that we all agree upon out of different reasons. That is true.

/Victor

 

[PRmerger]

In Aspect’s version of the delayed choice experiment, the photon beam is split into two (using a device known as a beam splitter), and travels along two routes for 50 meters, where it reaches the detectors. Just before the detectors, there is a second beam splitter, which can be switched on and off. If the second splitter is switched off, the device checks if each photon travelled along path A or B (particle). If it is on, then the device checks if the photon travelled against both paths (wave).

When the photon hits the first beam splitter, it can either behave like a wave or like a particle. If it is a particle, it will take path A or path B. If it is a wave, it will take both paths. The photon does what it does, and after it has travelled 25 meters, the second splitter is switched to decide if we want to check for particle or wave-like behavior.

If the second splitter is off, the device ALWAYS shows that photon is a particle – it takes path A or B. If it is on, the device ALWAYS shows that photon is a wave – it takes both routes. But the decision to switch the second splitter is made 75 nanoseconds AFTER the photon passed the first beam splitter.

So at the first beam splitter, is the photon a wave, a particle, both, or neither?

I would rather stick needles in my eye than read any more about photons.

What you are saying is that a photon can sometimes be a particle, and sometimes be a wave.

But a photon can never be a particle and not a particle at the same time.

Thus, a photon still is still subject to the laws of non-contradiction.

Nobody lied and their understanding was adequate, if limited.

Excellent. So they were truthful about seeing the Resurrected Christ and about eating with him.

And when they proclaimed this truth to the ends of the earth, they were preaching what they believed to be true.

No one lied, in your estimation.

And it’s an interesting concept to propose that they were “limited” about their understanding of seeing someone crucified and then resurrected.

What, exactly, did they get wrong?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes I know you westerners like to argue using binary logic. Thats why you often end up in the loosing end of an argumentation with me…

Well, that’s like saying, “I know you mathematicians like to argue that 2 + 2 = 4. That’s why you end up on the losing end of argumentation with Grym.” :whacky:

Mr Spock! You who like logic. How can you not know of mr Spock? . The most logical creature known to Man!

Sorry. Mr. Spock is a little before my time.

There is nothing that has a truth value devoid of a subject.

An absolute truth you’ve just proclaimed, Grym! Your dogmatic proclamation, is, indeed, true.

You are indeed coming around.

I.e in this world with gods and men there is no Absolute Truth.

Is this Absolutely True?

It does appear to be another dogma you are proclaiming!

 

[Grym]

Very interesting. Thanks weller2. Just one tiny point Iwould like to clarify. Nirvana in the buddhist sense has nothing to do with unity with God.

Nirvana is totaly outside, seperated from “God/Universe/Absolute/whatever-the-top-level-actually-is”.

*delusion are given up, man aims neither at his own ruin, nor
at the ruin of others, nor at the ruin of both and he experi-
ences no mental pain and grief. Thus is
Nibb na
immediate,
visible in this life, inviting, attractive, and comprehensible to
the wise.
*

*The extinction of greed, the extinction of hate, the extinction
of delusion: this, indeed, is called
Nibb na
And for a disciple thus freed, in whose heart dwells peace,
there is nothing to be added to what has been done, and
naught more remains for him to do. Just as a rock of one solid
mass remains unshaken by the wind, even so neither forms,
nor sounds, nor odors, nor tastes, nor contacts of any kind,
neither the desired nor the undesired, can cause such a one to
waver. Steadfast is his mind, gained is deliverance.
*

*And he who has considered all the contrasts on this earth,
and is no more disturbed by anything whatever in the world,
the peaceful One, freed from rage, from sorrow, and from
longing, he has passed beyond birth and decay.
*

*Truly, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid, nor the
fluid, neither heat, nor motion, neither this world, nor any
other world, neither sun nor moon.
This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither standing
still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor
development, nor any basis. This is the end of suffering.
Ud. VIII. 3
There is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If
there were not this Unborn, this Unoriginated, this Uncre-
ated, this Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the
originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible.
But since there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated,
Unformed, therefore is escape possible from the world of the
born, the originated, the created, the formed.
*

from here

urbandharma.org/pdf/wordofbuddha.pdf.