Refuting Buddhism

[rinnie]

Not so much a purpose as an observation. You are not the person you were a year ago, the person you were back then no longer exists. That person can never live again, s/he is confined irrevocably to the past no matter what you do.

“You can never step in the same river twice, because it is not the same river and it is not the same you.”

rossum

I am the same person I was a year ago. And I went to the river last summer. And the same person who went to the river a year ago stepped into the same river this year.

I am always myself. Sometimes I can be a better VERSION of myself sometimes I can be a worse VERSION. But it does not even take a year. It could happen in minutes.

I have learned since my Son moved out to let him live his own life. He chooses what he wants to do, where he wants to eat, how he wants to live.

I knew this before he left that someday he would have to make his own choices.

I am the same person today then when he lived with me. Do I feel I could make better choices for him then he could at this point. Of course I do.

But I also know when a Child moves out he has to learn on his own. Will he make wrong decisons in life. Yes he will. Will the wrong decisions make him a different person.

No they will not. They may make the SAME person wiser, etc because you learn from your mistakes. You also learn what you did right and wrong in this world.

But how could you learn from your mistakes if you are a different person as you mature in life.

Just like a baby is born at 7 pounds. So that baby is still the same person at 150 pounds. Only wiser and more independant.

But if what you are saying is if I weighed 125 when I got married, and then gained 20 pounds a year later. Then I lose the 20 pounds what I am then the same person again. It makes no sense.

I am the same person at 125 as I am at 145. Only more THICK as my Son puts it.

 

[rinnie]

How is it possible to accept a non-absolute proof that a given truth is Absolute? The proof could not be relied on.

If you propose an Absolute Proof, then naturally you will need to prove that your proof itself is Absolute.

In order to get an Absolute result out of any logic chain, then you need at least one Absolute (name removed by moderator)ut into that logic chain. You cannot just conjure up the Absolute from nothing, you need an absolute starting point. Absent that, you will not be able to establish any Absolute. I do not deny that such an Absolute starting point may exist, but if it does it has not yet been found. Until it has been found I will remain sceptical of any claims to Absoluteness.

rossum

I love my Children and Family. That is the Absolute Truth. Can you claim that you truly love someone. Yes you can. Only you can make this claim. Is it absolute truth, only you know.

But my point is you can have absolute truth without absolute proof. Because you could try to prove to someone how much you love them but it could never be enough for them to believe you.

But there you have it absolute truth without being able to provide absolute proof.

And everyone in this world could testify to this. Even you yourself would have to agree with me. Unless you have no love for anyone in this world.

 

[Peter_Plato]

How is it possible to accept a non-absolute proof that a given truth is Absolute? The proof could not be relied on.

rossum

The proof could not be relied upon by anyone who insists that truth could not be absolute because that would be impossible for them to know, ergo, such a person wrongly concludes, Absolute Truth cannot exist (which is a non sequitur.) Just because you cannot know that something exists, it does not follow that the thing in question does not exist. That comes with the territory of having limited powers of knowing.

This issue is interesting because the point of Zen Koans - that entered the thread a while back - is to create a paradox so that the practitioner moves beyond the process of reasoning in order to intuit truth directly. Yet, here you are “stuck” in fallible reasoning and using your quandary as a pretext for not moving beyond human reasoning. That, in itself might be a Koan, or in Christian thinking a revelatory “sign” that is intended to guide you where your reasoning cannot.

 

[rinnie]

The proof could not be relied upon by anyone who insists that truth could not be absolute because that would be impossible for them to know, ergo, such a person wrongly concludes, Absolute Truth cannot exist (which is a non sequitur.) Just because you cannot know that something exists, it does not follow that the thing in question does not exist. That comes with the territory of having limited powers of knowing.

This issue is interesting because the point of Zen Koans - that entered the thread a while back - is to create a paradox so that the practitioner moves beyond the process of reasoning in order to intuit truth directly. Yet, here you are “stuck” in fallible reasoning and using your quandary as a pretext for not moving beyond human reasoning. That, in itself might be a Koan, or in Christian thinking a revelatory “sign” that is intended to guide you where your reasoning cannot.

Wow!

 

[rossum]

I am the same person I was a year ago.

So, you haven’t aged over that year? None of your cells have died, and no new cells have grown? Your telomeres are still the same length they were? You have no memory of the past year because your memories have not changed? You are a strange person indeed.

I am always myself. Sometimes I can be a better VERSION of myself sometimes I can be a worse VERSION. But it does not even take a year. It could happen in minutes.

Correct. Each different you only lasts for an instant before it changes. There are no different versions, each “version” is a new fleeting instantaneous you: here and then gone, never to return.

Just like a baby is born at 7 pounds. So that baby is still the same person at 150 pounds. Only wiser and more independant.

You say that you have not changed. Then whatever has changed since you were born cannot be that unchanging you, obviously. Your body has changed, so your body cannot be you. Your memories have changed, so your memories cannot be you. Your perceptions have changed, so your perceptions cannot be you. Your feelings have changed, so your feelings cannot by you. Your mind has changed, so your mind is not you. Go through everything you think that you are, and eliminate anything that has changed. Only the unchanging things are the unchanging you, all the rest is not you and should be discarded. Even your soul can change, from unsaved to saved. There is not a lot left to be the unchanging you.

I am the same person at 125 as I am at 145. Only more THICK as my Son puts it.

This morning I was 10 stone 4.5 pounds, that’s 144.5 in American money. Not bad for me, I’m usually closer to 10 st. 7 lbs (147 lbs).

rossum

 

[rossum]

I love my Children and Family. That is the Absolute Truth.

It is not an Absolute Truth because it is dependent on time. You did not love your children when you were six months old. It is a relative truth, relative to time and to the existence of both yourself and of your children.

rossum

 

[rossum]

This issue is interesting because the point of Zen Koans - that entered the thread a while back - is to create a paradox so that the practitioner moves beyond the process of reasoning in order to intuit truth directly. Yet, here you are “stuck” in fallible reasoning and using your quandary as a pretext for not moving beyond human reasoning. That, in itself might be a Koan, or in Christian thinking a revelatory “sign” that is intended to guide you where your reasoning cannot.

However, not everything that we intuit directly is correct:

People long for big thrills. Peak experiences. Some people come to Zen expecting that Enlightenment will be the Ultimate Peak Experience. The Mother of All Peak Experiences. But real enlightenment is the most ordinary of the ordinary. Once I had an amazing vision. I saw myself transported through time and space. Millions, no, billions, trillions, Godzillions of years passed. Not figuratively, but literally. Whizzed by. I found myself at the very rim of time and space, a vast giant being composed of the living minds and bodies of every thing that ever was. It was an incredibly moving experience. Exhilarating. I was high for weeks. Finally I told Nishijima Sensei about it . He said it was nonsense. Just my imagination. I can’t tell you how that made me feel. Imagination? This was as real an experience as any I’ve ever had. I just about cried. Later on that day I was eating a tangerine. I noticed how incredibly lovely a thing it was. So delicate. So amazingly orange. So very tasty. So I told Nishijima about that. That experience, he said, was enlightenment.

You need a teacher like that. The world needs lots more teachers like that. Countless teachers would have interpreted my experience as a merging of my Atman with God, as a portent of great and wonderful things, would have praised my spiritual growth and given me pointers on how to go even further. And I would have been suckered right in to that, let me tell you! Woulda fallen for it hook line and sinker, boy howdy. If a teacher doesn’t shatter your illusions he’s doing you no favors at all.

Boredom is what you need. Merging with the Mind of God at the Edge of the Universe, that’s excitement. That’s what we’re all into this Zen thing for, right? Eating tangerines? Come on, dude! What could be more boring than eating a tangerine?

– Brad Warner, Zen is Boring.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

However, not everything that we intuit directly is correct…

rossum

How would you know whether it was correct or not without a prior commitment in terms of how to view such things?

Where did that prior commitment come from? Not the intuition itself presumably since the intuition would be sui generis and hence, intuitive.

Yet, if the intuition is truly an intuition, it would be self-revelatory even in terms of its correctness, which is what makes it an intuition, no? Otherwise, it is not an intuition but merely a false impression. Which begs the question, “How is it possible to distinguish between them without a process of reasoning?” Another paradox, perhaps.

That question does seem to cast doubt on the idea of intuition itself and Zen Koans specifically.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is not an Absolute Truth because it is dependent on time. You did not love your children when you were six months old. It is a relative truth, relative to time and to the existence of both yourself and of your children.

rossum

Is it a relative truth because it is about relatives?

Do two relative truths make an Absolute Truth, just as two negatives make a positive?

 

[rinnie]

It is not an Absolute Truth because it is dependent on time. You did not love your children when you were six months old. It is a relative truth, relative to time and to the existence of both yourself and of your children.

rossum

How does absolute truth have to be dependent on time?

Jesus said before Abraham I Am. Yet he did not come into this world or time until ages later.

God knew us before we were even born. Has not meaning of time.

 

[rinnie]

Is it a relative truth because it is about relatives?

Do two relative truths make an Absolute Truth, just as two negatives make a positive?

Thats cute!

 

[rossum]

How would you know whether it was correct or not without a prior commitment in terms of how to view such things?

You ask an expert for their expert opinion. Buddhists have been meditating for a very long time, and there is a great deal of built up experience of what works, what does not, what is useful and what is not. We do well to be guided by that experience.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

You ask an expert for their expert opinion. Buddhists have been meditating for a very long time, and there is a great deal of built up experience of what works, what does not, what is useful and what is not. We do well to be guided by that experience.

rossum

That would also beg the question, since in order to trust them you would need an independent means of assessing their expertise. If that “means” is already accessible to you then why would you need the expert?

Furthermore, that defeats the point of Zen Koans because their purpose is to provide you direct or immediate access to enlightenment - which I presume is the unmediated truth.

 

[rossum]

How does absolute truth have to be dependent on time?

An Absolute Truth is Absolute. It does not depend on anything outside of itself. It is valid for the entirety of space-time. It is true always, everywhere and in all circumstances. Truths that are not are only relatively true, dependent on when, where and the circumstances.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Furthermore, that defeats the point of Zen Koans because their purpose is to provide you direct or immediate access to enlightenment - which I presume is the unmediated truth.

So I understand. I will let you know when I get there.

rossum

 

[Grym]

Hi guys!

I was passing by and saw this thread. Let me say I am a Buddhist and I found your posts here full of humbleness and honest curiosity.

I just stopped by to see if maybe I could help you clarify some things that I find could muddle the discussion.

Still have not read all the posts here so I might be explaining something that has already been clarified.

To further clarify my answers I am a Theravada practitioner and my answers are as such.

First of all Buddha is not a deity nor God nor is he to be worshipped all though I do realize some buddhists do just that.

Second of all many Buddhist practice deity worship and being christian and buddhist is not a contradiction. The Dhamma deals with the “otherworldly” and to live in this world prayer to a deity and help from a God might be a good idea.

Thirdly Mara is a personification of Greed, Hatred and Ignorance and actually not maybe a demon as such. Greed, hatred and ignorance of the true nature of the world are seen as the basis of unskillfull action. What You might call evil action or sin. And the opposites, Genorosity, Love and Knowleadge of the nature of the world leads to skillfull action. Or what you would define as good action.

Buddhism believes there are a lot of spiritual beings and a whole lot of Creator Gods. But man is responsible for his own salvation. Therefore Gods do not play a central role in the Dhamma.

Not all beings will reach Nirvana. Not all are able to understand the Dhamma.
Nirvana is an absolute thruth. And it is that because It is the exact opposite of what can be found in this world. This world (As you might have figured out the term “this world” referrs to the world of humans *and * gods) is described by three carachteristics.
Always changing, void of meaning and full of unsatisfaction. Nirvana is its opposite.

Nirvana means the end of reincarnation/rebirth, sickness and death.

Nirvana is not a state of nonbeing or the opposite of life. It is total understanding of the nature of the world and self.

According to Buddhism it is as false to say that It is the same person that steps into the same river twice as it is to say that it is two diffrent people. But it is not possible to say that a persons love for someone else is an Absolute truth. Since both people are always in a state of flux. That which is Absolute does not change. Nothing in this world is seen as Absolute since everything changes.

As for refuting Buddhism I do not see any need to do that as litte as I see a need to refute Christianity. That being said refuting anything is pretty simple. Just axiom (does not have to be a true axiom) one truth of the system and then proceed to refute it.
It help to evaluate the refutation of one system using the values of another.

For an example it is as simple to refute buddhism using christian values as it is to refute christianity using buddhist values.

Kindly
Victor