What can you say about the following claims?

[Douglas_Kraeger]

All descriptions of reality are false, so it is an error to get hung up on any particular desription.
That is an interesting comment or philosophy. How does one make that claim without at least implicitly claiming to be infallible?
If buddhism is a discription of reality, then does that make it false also? If buddhism is not, at least in part, a discription of reality, (the way things work, how to find peace and happiness, etc, etc) If partsof buddhism are ineffect adiscription of reality, onhow reality works, cause and effect and so on, what parts are therefore false and inerror?
To say that" we can not know all of reality" is not the same as, “we cannot know any of reality.” If we have a very simple description of reality, only"two" points, how can you say that we** can not be correct**? If all existence is merely by chance, why is it not possible that “by chance” we found two descriptions of reality that are correct?

Being alive makes all living things worthy of respect. Confining it to just human life is too narrow.
“worthy of respect” ?? What determines that all living things are worthy of respect? What determines that all living things are worthy of EQUAL respect? or unequal respect? Does the moss on the north side of a tree deserve the same respect as a human baby?
On the topic of my hypothetical police officer: Does buddhism state that karma must punish/ reward him differently dependingon whether or not he accidentily or deliberately shot and killed his wife?
All other things equal; how do you explain how karma remembers, when the man dies, what this man intended when he shot his wife maybe thirty years later, ifkarma has no intelligence, no mind, nothing to remember with? Does a stone remember who broke it into many little pieces with a stone hammer? If a stone can not remember who broke it into many little pieces withastone hammer, how can karma remember who did what, with what intent, when it is time to repay each for their wrong decisions, “in one of the heavens or in one of the hells”?
On another post, someone stated something like “Either God exists, or God does not exist.” Is there a third option possible? If there is no third option possible, either part one “God exists” is absolutely true, or it is absolutely false. Either way, there is absolute truth, correct? Do you agree that it is an absolute truth that the statement “1+1=4”, is false?

Try saying the Jesus Prayer. That is both simple and Christian.

rossum

 

[rossum]

We aren’t pierced by an arrow, with minutes to live.

Have you any idea how long it can take to discuss questions where there is no agreed information? I say 42 angels can dance on the head of a pin, you say 17 angels can dance on the head of a pin. We could spend lifetimes discussing that question without coming to a resolution. Such questions are useless time wasters and we have more important things to do.

Somehow, though, their spiritual progress was so urgent that they couldn’t spend an idle hour thinking about whether the soul/self is eternal - a question that is almost compelled by HIS teaching of rebirth?

The Buddha explicitly said that there is no eternal self/soul so that question is already answered, there is no need to discuss it. A human is analysed into five parts, none of which is a soul and none of which are permanent. The mechanisms for what transfers to the next life are already known. Those questions have been answered.

In fact, their spirtual agnony was so acute that the Buddha couldn’t even spare ten minutes to answer a question that was prompted by his teachings?

Didn’t you read the page you linked to back in your post #152:[The Buddha said:] “Malunkyaputta, any one who should say, ‘I will not lead the religious life under the Blessed One until the Blessed One shall elucidate to me either that the world is eternal, or that the world is not eternal, . . . or that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death;’ — that person would die, Malunkyaputta, before the Tathagata had ever elucidated this to him.”
This is not ten minutes, this is a whole wasted lifetime, “that person would die, Malunkyaputta, before the Tathagata [Buddha] had ever elucidated this to him.”

Thinking of nonself, apparently, is connected with allievating suffering, as is thinking about rebirth - but somehow thinking about the nature of the self of the enlightened is a horrible wrong turn?

You are mistaken here. Buddhists do not “think about nonself”. Buddhists learn to carefully distinguish between what is self and what in nonself. What emerges from that distinction is that what we conventionally think as “self” actually isn’t. I have used the image of a mirage here before. A mirage is not what it appears to be, in the same way what appears to be our self actually is no such thing.

Knwing the soul is eternal could give one peace, and promote release from suffering.

Only for a single lifetime. Getting drunk can give you peace and release from suffering for an afternoon. Neither is a permanent release from suffering. The Buddha was not content with merely temporary solutions.

So,how is it this simple question is singled out as unproductive - except that the Buddha didn’t have an answer?

Again, you have not read the website you linked to. There are fourteen questions there, all of them unproductive.

rossum

 

[rossum]

That is an interesting comment or philosophy. How does one make that claim without at least implicitly claiming to be infallible?

Simple logic. A description of X is not X. A match can light a fire, a description of a match cannot light a fire. Hence a description of reality is not reality. The finger that points at the moon is not the moon and it is an error to confuse the two.

If buddhism is a discription of reality, then does that make it false also?

Buddhism is a path to a destination. It does not aspire to be a description of reality. It is a series of practices that have been found to work in the past, the sets of instructions for carrying out those practices and the results to be expected from those practices.

If buddhism is not, at least in part, a discription of reality, (the way things work, how to find peace and happiness, etc, etc) If partsof buddhism are ineffect adiscription of reality, onhow reality works, cause and effect and so on, what parts are therefore false and inerror?

In Buddhism the criterion is not “is this correct?”, the criterion is “does this work?” We know that all descriptions of reality fall short, we are more interested in having descriptions of reality that are useful and help us to progress along the path. Looking at a map does not get me from A to B, but having the map will help me on my actual journey from A to B. The map is not the real terrain, but it does help. The description of the path may not be real but our individual progress along the path is real.

“worthy of respect” ?? What determines that all living things are worthy of respect?

What determines that jumping off a 40 storey building without a parachute is not a wise act? If you enjoy suffering then treat living things with disrespect, if you want to avoid suffering then treat living beings with respect.

What determines that all living things are worthy of EQUAL respect?

Where did I say that? All living beings are worthy of respect. They are not worthy of equal respect because living beings are different. A Buddha is worthy of more respect than a mouse. A mouse is worthy of more respect than an earthworm.

All other things equal; how do you explain how karma remembers, when the man dies, what this man intended when he shot his wife maybe thirty years later, ifkarma has no intelligence, no mind, nothing to remember with?

You persist in trying to personify karma. It is not a person. One of the constituents of a living being is their accumulated karma to date. New actions add to the record, matured results subtract from the record. Karma merely acts on the current state of the record and updates it. A bit like a computer program maintaining a database entry.

On another post, someone stated something like “Either God exists, or God does not exist.” Is there a third option possible?

That depends on what part of Buddhist logic you are talking about. There are some parts that deal with a tetralemma:* God exists.

• God does not exist.
• God both exists and does not exist.
• God neither exists nor does not exist.

For an utterly transcendent God it may be that the fourth option is the least incorrect - a transcendent God cannot be confined with the bounds of mere human concepts like “exist” and “not exist”.

Do you agree that it is an absolute truth that the statement “1+1=4”, is false?

No, I do not agree because the truth of that statement is dependent on the meaning we give to the symbols used and those meanings are not themselves absolute. That statement is only false within the scope of the the usual meanings of those four symbols. For example the symbol ‘=’ looks like the Japanese equivalent of ‘2’ so we cannot say that the symbol has an absolute meaning. If we are working within binary numbers then the statement is meaningless since the symbol ‘4’ has no meaning in the binary system. There are far too many external dependencies for this statement to be absolute. An absolute statement can have no external dependencies.

rossum

 

[DonM]

Have you any idea how long it can take to discuss questions where there is no agreed information? I say 42 angels can dance on the head of a pin, you say 17 angels can dance on the head of a pin. We could spend lifetimes discussing that question without coming to a resolution. Such questions are useless time wasters and we have more important things to do.

Buddhists have been discussing emptiness, nonself, and karma for thousands of years. Not just meditating. Discussing. Debating. Disagreeing. Somehow, this little set of questions are unique time wasters…because Buddhists don’t have time for discussion of abstract matters, only time for experiencing through mediation.

But - I thought you said it was “wrongly put.” How?

The Buddha explicitly said that there is no eternal self/soul so that question is already answered, there is no need to discuss it.

You know it’s not so simple. He leaves a fundamental gap in knowledge, and a set of elements that don’t fit - the concepts of rebirth, Buddha nature, nonself. You know they have been interpreted and practiced in far different ways. There are few, if any, works or practices for liberation in the between in Zen, but a huge body of literature on it in Tibet.

We have the question not only for the Buddha, but for the bodhisattva.

The question is far from answered.

“that person would die, Malunkyaputta, before the Tathagata [Buddha] had ever elucidated this to him.”

Consider the most exemplary Christians, some of whom are possibly enlightened in Budhist terms. They spend a lifetime contemplating their souls, and an unchanging God, but this eternalism does not waste a life or even interfere with their spiritual development.

You are mistaken here. Buddhists do not “think about nonself”.

Of course they do. Pick up any book on Buddhism. There will be a Chapter, at least, about nonself. There are books about nonself. There’s a wonderful book on psychology “Thoughts without a Thinker.” The author thought a great deal about nonself. I don’t think that made him a bad Buddhist. Thought is a precursor to action, and you can’t mediate on something unless you understand the how and why of it.

The story I linked has been told again and again, tens of thousands of times. Every time, someone has thought about why the Buddha thinks these questions are so unnecessary. The story itself is considered elucidating. So, its elucidating to think of these questions as not elucidating, and to consider why they are not elucidating - but that of course requires one to consider the nature of the questions, pretty considerably, doesn’t it? The story itself asks you to think about the questions, else you couldn’t understand why you shouldn’t waste time on them. The story disproves its own conclusion.

Only for a single lifetime.

How do you know that?!

How can you say that any particular thought or action is not helpful to some unique individual as he travels his path? No knowlege gives comfort into the next life, because everything has to be relearned. That is an objection to all knowledge - not this particular piece of knowledge. Are you saying that NO PERSON can be aided by consideration of this question?

Again, you have not read the website you linked to. There are fourteen questions there, all of them unproductive.

It isn’t careless reading that causes me to ask logical questions.

 

[DonM]

An absolute statement can have no external dependencies.

rossum

By your logic, no one could phrase an absolute truth, even if you thought that an absolute truth existed, because the sounds and letters are external dependencies. That isn’t saying there is no absolute truth, only that we can’t talk about absolute truth.

The statement 1 + 1 = 4 isn’t dependent on the symbols. The symbols express the idea that can be expressed graphically, or demonstrated with any number of objects. As long as objects exist, counting is possible. So, the only way that you can imagine a math conclusion to be not absolute (by this logic you have presented anyway) is to imagine a universe with absolutely nothing in it.

 

[rossum]

By your logic, no one could phrase an absolute truth, even if you thought that an absolute truth existed, because the sounds and letters are external dependencies. That isn’t saying there is no absolute truth, only that we can’t talk about absolute truth.

You are the one who is asserting the existence of absolute truth, I am the one who denies its existence. You have the problem, not me.

Human language is not absolute, it is contingent. Hence anything expressed in human language must be contingent and cannot be absolute: “The Tao that can be written is not the eternal Tao”.

The statement 1 + 1 = 4 isn’t dependent on the symbols. The symbols express the idea that can be expressed graphically, or demonstrated with any number of objects.

But those ideas are ideas inside people’s heads. Different people have different ideas inside their heads. Someone who is red-green colour blind will have a different idea of colours from someone with standard three colour vision who will again have a different idea from a tetrachromat. Ideas inside people’s heads are not absolute because they are contingent on the current state of that person.

There is a South American tribe whose counting system goes: “one”, “two”, “many”. In their system 2 + 2 = 6 has exactly the same truth value as 2 + 2 = 4, both come out as 2 + 2 = many.

So, the only way that you can imagine a math conclusion to be not absolute (by this logic you have presented anyway) is to imagine a universe with absolutely nothing in it.

Almost right, not nothing but instead emptiness:Here, Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form, the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness.

Here, Sariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness; they are not produced or stopped, not defiled or immaculate, not deficient or complete.

• Heart sutra
  What we observe around us is not nothing; nothing can only look like nothing while what we see looks like all sorts of stuff. Emptiness is no nothing, emptiness looks like all sorts of stuff but it is a mirage - it is not all that stuff it is just emptiness pretending to be something else. A mirage is not nothing but neither is it water; it is deceptive.

What we perceive as reality is deceptive, it is not what we think it is. One of the common mistakes people make about reality is to see absolute truths in reality. They are not absolute truths, they are just another mirage.

rossum

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Simple logic. A description of X is not X. A match can light a fire, a description of a match cannot light a fire. Hence a description of reality is not reality. The finger that points at the moon is not the moon and it is an error to confuse the two.
You also say, “Here, Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form, the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness.” How do you reconcile this with your claim that buddhism does not aspire to be a description of reality?
If you take out the word “aspire”, and claim that that it is only a path, a map; How can a map or a path convey any information if there is no description of reality to have reference marks as a beginning or points along the path?

   You also say, "What we observe around us is not nothing; nothing can only look like nothing while what we see looks like all sorts of stuff. Emptiness is no nothing, emptiness looks like all sorts of stuff but it is a mirage - it is not all that stuff it is just emptiness pretending to be something else. A mirage is not nothing but neither is it water; it is deceptive.

What we perceive as reality is deceptive, it is not what we think it is. One of the common mistakes people make about reality is to see absolute truths in reality. They are not absolute truths, they are just another mirage."

I repeat, you say:
“emptiness looks like all sorts of stuff but it is a mirage- it is not all that stuff it is just emptiness pretending to be something else.”
“emptiness pretending” The verb pretend requires an intelligence, a consciousness in order to operate. a rock cannot pretend to be something else. Do you still claim emptiness is pretending to be something else?
How do conclude absolutely that itis all amirage? Why is it impossible that any of what we see is an accurate mental image of reality?
If there was an infinitely powerful Creatorod, would He be ableto create man in a way that at least some of our mental images were accurate?

Buddhism is a path to a destination. It does not aspire to be a description of reality. It is a series of practices that have been found to work in the past, the sets of instructions for carrying out those practices and the results to be expected from those practices.

We know that all descriptions of reality fall short, we are more interested in having descriptions of reality that are useful and help us to progress along the path. Looking at a map does not get me from A to B, but having the map will help me on my actual journey from A to B. The map is not the real terrain, but it does help. The description of the path may not be real but our individual progress along the path is real.

Here you seem to contradict yourself;  First, "It does not aspire to be a description of reality" then, " The description of the path may not be real but our individual progress along the path is real."  If you are describing a path that is part of reality;  why is that not an attempt todescribe reality?    And how  do you want me to understand, " The description of the path may not be real "?  other than as:  If Buddhism is the description of the path, and it is not real, then buddhism is not real?

Where did I say that? All living beings are worthy of respect. They are not worthy of equal respect because living beings are different. A Buddha is worthy of more respect than a mouse. A mouse is worthy of more respect than an earthworm.

Who says so?   Who, or what determines that buddha is inherently desrving of more respect than a mouse? By whose authority are you saying this?
    If all we see is "emptiness pretending to be something else"; Howcan you say living beingsare different? How can you knowthat if it is all a mirage?

You persist in trying to personify karma. It is not a person. One of the constituents of a living being is their accumulated karma to date. New actions add to the record, matured results subtract from the record. Karma merely acts on the current state of the record and updates it. A bit like a computer program maintaining a database entry.
A computer program “remembers”, but the key point I am aiming at is that for karma to work correctly, first it must know the intent of the hypothetical police officer. Do you agree?
And in order to know the intent, it must be able to know. Correct?
What is there in reality that can know that does not have intelligence? So do you admit that karma must have the ability to know our intentions, which are only in our minds and in order to know, it (karma) must have some sort of intelligence??
How does your explanation of how karma “just works” have any real difference from “it is magic”?

rossum

 

[rossum]

How do you reconcile this with your claim that buddhism does not aspire to be a description of reality?

I started my post be saying that no description of reality can actually be reality. There is no problem with Buddhism providing a partial description of reality, the problems may arise when people mistake the description of reality for reality itself. That is the point of the Zen story of not mistaking the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself.

“emptiness pretending” The verb pretend requires an intelligence, a consciousness in order to operate. a rock cannot pretend to be something else. Do you still claim emptiness is pretending to be something else?

I was guilty of some careless phrasing there, thank you for pointing out my error. Emptiness no more pretends than a mirage pretends to look like water. In both cases it is our brains that are making the error. A mirage is just a mirage, our brains perceive it as water - the error is in our brains. Similarly with emptiness being perceived as what it is not; the error is in our brains. That is why Buddhism emphasises meditation so we can work with our brains to try to correct those errors.

How do conclude absolutely that itis all amirage? Why is it impossible that any of what we see is an accurate mental image of reality?

If I see something, a horse say, examine what actually happens. Light from that horse reaches my retinas and is turned into electrical impulses by the cells in my retina. Those electrical impulses travel along my optic nerves to my brain where they are processed into a model of the external world. That model recognises a certain configuration of (name removed by moderator)uts as “horse” and places a model of a horse in the appropriate position in its internal model of the external world. We never ever get to “see” reality directly, all we ever get are electrical impulses arriving in our brains along sensory nerves. Those incoming signals cause updates to our real time simulation of the external world that we keep running in our brains while conscious. All we can ever know is that internal simulation. That internal simulation can never be reality, it can only ever be a simulation of reality.

If you are describing a path that is part of reality; why is that not an attempt todescribe reality?

A map of America is a description of part of America. It is not America and it does not describe all that constitutes America – a map would not generally include a biography of Abraham Lincoln for example. Buddhism deliberately limits itself in what it attempts to describe, just as a map limits itself to geographical information and not biographical information. That explains the fourteen unedifying questions we discussed earlier, they fall outside the part of reality that the Buddha found useful in following the path.

And how do you want me to understand, " The description of the path may not be real "? other than as: If Buddhism is the description of the path, and it is not real, then buddhism is not real?

If I lay out a map of America on my floor and I stand on New York and then step across to Los Angeles have I actually travelled from NY to LA? However, if I drive from NY with my map in the car with me then the map can assist me in my actual journey from NY to LA.

The map is not the real America, but the map can assist me with the real journey across America. The Buddhist map of the path is not the real path, but the map can assist me with my journey along the real path.

It is a mistake to take the map as the real thing; if I did that then I would just be walking on the map on my floor and would not actually get to LA.

Who says so? Who, or what determines that buddha is inherently desrving of more respect than a mouse? By whose authority are you saying this?

I would kill a mouse to save the life of a human being. I would not kill a human being to save the life of a mouse. That is why I think that a human being is worthy of more respect than a mouse. Would you act differently?

If all we see is “emptiness pretending to be something else”; Howcan you say living beingsare different? How can you knowthat if it is all a mirage?

It is a consistent mirage. It is not as real as we like to think it is but it does have some reasonably consistent rules – think of it as a computer driven Virtual Reality simulator if you like.

A computer program “remembers”, but the key point I am aiming at is that for karma to work correctly, first it must know the intent of the hypothetical police officer. Do you agree?

The Police Officer knows his own intent, all that karma does is to look at his own intent and store a copy attached to that police officer. Copying something from memory to long term storage, as in a database, requires no knowledge. Chemicals can copy information in DNA using purely chemical processes again with no knowledge required.

And in order to know the intent, it must be able to know. Correct?

No, it merely needs to be able to copy and we know that copying can be done without knowledge.

rossum

 

[DonM]

You are the one who is asserting the existence of absolute truth, I am the one who denies its existence. You have the problem, not me.

I haven’t asserted the existence of absolute truth. You’ve just made bad arguments against it. I could take the other side, if you’d like, and argue against absolute truth (although “absolute” is a tricky word).

Human language is not absolute, it is contingent. Hence anything expressed in human language must be contingent and cannot be absolute: “The Tao that can be written is not the eternal Tao”.

Your answer isn’t that there is no absolute truth, but instead argue language is relative - but mathematical propositions aren’t dependent on language.

There is a South American tribe whose counting system goes: “one”, “two”, “many”. In their system 2 + 2 = 6 has exactly the same truth value as 2 + 2 = 4, both come out as 2 + 2 = many.

Yes, there are many counting systems. The same counting or adding can be performed under many different systems and many different symbols. And the result is that if we have two objects, and then lay two more at the side of those objects, you have four objects.

I rather think it works that way in South America, whatever they call it, or whether they have words for it.

Almost right, not nothing but instead emptiness

This isn’t a dharma talk where everyone present is expected to nod at the most evasive response. Emptiness isn’t a lack of objects. Emptiness is the fundamental quality of all objects that are conditioned. The only way that counting doesn’t work is if there are no perceived objects. It doesn’t matter whether the objects are empty of inherent reality.

We are discussing whether mathematical propositions are absolutely true. Can you agree that they are always true, without getting to the question of “absolute,” which is another forbidden topic, rather like the soul?

 

[rossum]

I haven’t asserted the existence of absolute truth.

Apologies, I probably confused you with Douglas.

Your answer isn’t that there is no absolute truth, but instead argue language is relative - but mathematical propositions aren’t dependent on language.

It is arguable that mathematics is a language. However, no mathematical propositions are absolute since mathematics is an axiomatic system. A mathematical theorem is only valid if correctly derived from a set of axioms. Mathematics does not attempt to prove those axioms and they can be arbitrary. There are three different versions of the parallel axiom giving rise to three different geometries. Theorems in one geometry do not have to be valid in the other two. None of the three is absolute since all three are contingent on which version of the parallel axiom we assume.

Yes, there are many counting systems.

And not all of them start from the Peano axioms. In set arithmetic we have A + A = A for all values of set A. Mathematics is built on axioms and any mathematical statement is contingent on some set of axioms. If it is contingent then it cannot be absolute. The South American system I mentioned does not follow the Peano axioms, ‘lots’ is its own successor so S(lots) == lots, whereas in the Peano axioms S(x) =/= x.

Emptiness isn’t a lack of objects.

Agreed.

Emptiness is the fundamental quality of all objects that are conditioned.

I would disagree with the word “fundamental”, it smacks of reification. Emptiness is a quality of all conditioned objects.

We are discussing whether mathematical propositions are absolutely true. Can you agree that they are always true, without getting to the question of “absolute,” which is another forbidden topic, rather like the soul?

A mathematical proposition is completely dependent on the axioms from which it was derived. Being dependent on those axioms, it is only true in axiomatic systems where those particular axioms are true. With one version of the parallel axiom the angles of a triangle add up to exactly 180 degrees (plane geometry). With other versions of the parallel axiom the angles of a triangle may add up to more (spherical geometry) or less (hyperbolic geometry) than 180 degrees. All mathematical statements are dependent on the axioms from which they are derived.

rossum

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

I started my post be saying that no description of reality can actually be reality. There is no problem with Buddhism providing a partial description of reality, the problems may arise when people mistake the description of reality for reality itself. That is the point of the Zen story of not mistaking the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself.

I was guilty of some careless phrasing there, thank you for pointing out my error. Emptiness no more pretends than a mirage pretends to look like water. In both cases it is our brains that are making the error. A mirage is just a mirage, our brains perceive it as water - the error is in our brains. Similarly with emptiness being perceived as what it is not; the error is in our brains. That is why Buddhism emphasises meditation so we can work with our brains to try to correct those errors.

If I see something, a horse say, examine what actually happens. Light from that horse reaches my retinas and is turned into electrical impulses by the cells in my retina. Those electrical impulses travel along my optic nerves to my brain where they are processed into a model of the external world. That model recognises a certain configuration of (name removed by moderator)uts as “horse” and places a model of a horse in the appropriate position in its internal model of the external world. We never ever get to “see” reality directly, all we ever get are electrical impulses arriving in our brains along sensory nerves. Those incoming signals cause updates to our real time simulation of the external world that we keep running in our brains while conscious. All we can ever know is that internal simulation. That internal simulation can never be reality, it can only ever be a simulation of reality.

I also asked the questions,
" Why is it impossible that any of what we see is an accurate mental image of reality?
If there was an infinitely powerful Creator God, would He be able to create man in a way that at least some of our mental images were accurate?"
If I reach out my hand to your horse, and verify with my hand the ears, eyes, tongue etc…; does that prove my mental image is somehow amazingly accurate reflection, copy of, the physical reality of the horse?
You say our mental images are not real. Is the horse real when I touch it or it kicks me?

Buddhism deliberately limits itself in what it attempts to describe, just as a map limits itself to geographical information and not biographical information. That explains the fourteen unedifying questions we discussed earlier, they fall outside the part of reality that the Buddha found useful in following the path.
In buddhism, Does existense have a purpose, a meaning? What gives existense an inherent, objective meaning or purpose? Is this inherent meaning or purpose more than the sum of many subjective opinions of men and women? If so, how does the adding of many subjective opinions make it an objective truth?

If I lay out a map of America on my floor and I stand on New York and then step across to Los Angeles have I actually travelled from NY to LA? However, if I drive from NY with my map in the car with me then the map can assist me in my actual journey from NY to LA.

The map is not the real America, but the map can assist me with the real journey across America. The Buddhist map of the path is not the real path, but the map can assist me with my journey along the real path.

It is a mistake to take the map as the real thing; if I did that then I would just be walking on the map on my floor and would not actually get to LA.

I would kill a mouse to save the life of a human being. I would not kill a human being to save the life of a mouse. That is why I think that a human being is worthy of more respect than a mouse. Would you act differently?
I asked;
Who says so? Who, or what determines that buddha is inherently deserving of more respect than a mouse? By whose authority are you saying this?
Of coarse, I would act the same way. But you somehow missed the crux of my question with your response.
Is there some absolute authority that has determined that a man is inherently deserving of more respect than a mouse? Is it all personal subjective opinion?

It is a consistent mirage. It is not as real as we like to think it is but it does have some reasonably consistent rules – think of it as a computer driven Virtual Reality simulator if you like.

The Police Officer knows his own intent, all that karma does is to look at his own intent and store a copy attached to that police officer. Copying something from memory to long term storage, as in a database, requires no knowledge. Chemicals can copy information in DNA using purely chemical processes again with no knowledge required.

No, it merely needs to be able to copy and we know that copying can be done without knowledge.

  Can a rock look at the police officer and know his intent?  Why not? what is it missing (lacking) that would give (enable) the rock to know and understand the intent of the police officer?  How does karma understand the police officer's intent, if karma does not have intelligence?

You have said that mercy is good. How does karma understand and correctly reward mercy if it does not have an intelligence? A computer would have to be programmed with every possible combination of events and a very complicated formula for balancing all the variables to be able to come to the right programmed result. Would it understand the concept of mercy then? How does karma understand intent, if karma has no intelligence?

rossum

 

[bullfrogsrules]

no need to read the only claim is the word of god is all most powerful upon other websites

 

[rossum]

Why is it impossible that any of what we see is an accurate mental image of reality?

Because a mental image of reality is not reality. I can light a fire with a match, I cannot light a fire with a mental image of a match. A pity really as I can easily conjure up a mental image of 1,000,000 euros; unfortunately that mental image will not buy me anything.

I will agree that our mental image of reality is a reasonably good ad hoc working model of reality. However it should not be pushed too far, given the limitations on our senses.

If there was an infinitely powerful Creator God, would He be able to create man in a way that at least some of our mental images were accurate?

An infinitely powerful God can do a great many things. An infinitely powerful God could create a pink sky. Since we do not observe a pink sky therefore no such infinitely powerful God exists. Your logic works both ways.

If I reach out my hand to your horse, and verify with my hand the ears, eyes, tongue etc…; does that prove my mental image is somehow amazingly accurate reflection, copy of, the physical reality of the horse?

My hands return electrical impulses from touch sensors in the skin. All of our senses return electrical impulses from sensors.

A hawk’s eyes will return far more detailed images of the horse then our eyes do. A dog’s nose will return a far more detailed image of the horse than our nose does. A bee’s eyes will return an image of the horse in polarized light, which our eyes do not distinguish at all. A person with red-green colour blindness will get a different image of the colour of the horse than someone with standard trichromat vision. Which horse is the ‘True Horse’? Your horse, the hawk’s horse, the dog’s horse, the bee’s horse? All are sensing different horses.

You say our mental images are not real. Is the horse real when I touch it or it kicks me?

The horse is as real as anything else external. Our sense of touch is still just electrical impulses arriving at the brain along sensory nerves.

In buddhism, Does existense have a purpose, a meaning?

No, existence as a whole has neither purpose nor meaning. What purpose or meaning would you expect from a small piece of rock orbiting a star in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud? Individual people have their own individual purposes but I do not attribute purpose to pieces of rock.

Is there some absolute authority that has determined that a man is inherently deserving of more respect than a mouse? Is it all personal subjective opinion?

There is no “absolute” authority; as you should understand by now I do not accept an ‘absolute’ anything. There is an objective authority that determines that a man is worthy of more respect than a mouse. That objective authority is the collective wisdom of the human race, what the Kalama sutta calls “praised by the wise”. Many humans have looked at karma and worked out what to do and what not to do. Killing a mouse without good reason is an unwise act. Killing a human without good reason is a severely unwise act. Killing a mouse to save a human is a justifiable act.

How does karma understand the police officer’s intent, if karma does not have intelligence?

The Police Officer understands his own intent. Karma merely reads the Officer’s own intent; it uses the Officer’s own intelligence. The officer provides the intelligence, karma just follows it. I have already quoted the Dhammapada, “If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you”. Karma merely needs to look at your own mind as you act to see what your intentions are.

rossum

 

[DonM]

It is arguable that mathematics is a language.

Let’s say, solely for the sake of argument, that it is, and that the language of the South American tribe is quite different than the Peano axioms, and that they are even completely inconsistent. Let’s say that they both have equal utility in determining how much paint I need to buy to paint my living room and in designing an airplane wing.

Would it not be true, then, to say that the physical universe can be understood in terms of symbolic logic systems, but that there is more than one valid system? The systems, then, are simply different ways to understand a single reality that is objective?

I would disagree with the word “fundamental”, it smacks of reification.

Reification, that horrid thing that keeps me from getting hit by a car, and seems to be essential for healthy psychological development. Is there any concrete evidence that a system of belief based on extreme reification - heaven, God, and the soul - as a means of transcending the unsatisfactory nature of human existence is inferior in reducing suffering or producing virtue to one that so sedulously rejects reification?

 

[grannymh]

You are the one who is asserting the existence of absolute truth, I am the one who denies its existence. You have the problem, not me.

And I am the one who believes that “The human person is worthy of profound respect.” is an universal truth

Because this particular truth counters subjectivism, it serves as the basis for morality or immorality. It counters the implied relativism in the OP statement “1. There’s no such thing as absolute truth. What’s true for you may not be true for me.”

As an universal truth, “The human person is worthy of profound respect” is also an objective truth. Nonetheless, as I have been going over the ideas of contingency, I find that this truth does have a necessary contingency. Because it refers to a living organism which has a material anatomy that can cease living, this truth can only exist when a human being exists according to his particular nature on earth in time.

Once the necessary contingency of a human’s existence is met, this truth of profound respect becomes inseparable from the human person. Even after death, most cultures have some kind of burial or parting ritual because the body deserves respect. For some cultures, the ground itself (cemetery) becomes sacred.

The question has been raised that if human life deserves respect, why not all life.
Naturally, life and creation deserve respect from all humans. But that is because the human person has a rational nature and can make that determination.
The human person through the tools of reason can understand the value of life, because he himself is valuable.

While the effects of the animating principle of life are different between humans and other species, the person is able to comprehend the value of each kind of life and respect it accordingly. The reason this particular truth says the human person and not all life is because the uniqueness of human nature places him at the pinnacle of creation. While animals share the animating principle of life with humans, they do not share humans’ tools of intellect and will.
In other words, animal life is too narrow to be considered interchangeable with human life. Human life, being broad in its nature, is the producer of respect for animals.
Side note: Recently read an important essay by Andrew Linzey which explained one of the influences of Descartes regarding animals. Descartes sure left a legacy of trouble.

Having read various discussions over the meaning of absolute, my suggestion is that the truth “The human person is worthy of profound respect.” should be considered an universal truth rather than an absolute truth. In my humble opinion, classifying this truth as universal does not necessarily demote it. People who believe in God will always consider it as an universal which can also be an absolute.

Continued in Post 174.

 

[grannymh]

Continued from Post 173.

But when it comes to other faiths such as Buddhism, the universal truth needs to apply universally. Thinking about reincarnation, I keep going back to
Posts 106 & 155.

From Post 106. Remember also that we can be reincarnated on Earth as animals. There is a meditation exercise which focuses on any animal: “This living being was once my mother, … my father, … my son, … my daughter. Therefore I should treat this living being as I would my mother, … my father, … my son, … my daughter.” The whole thing is then repeated for the future, “This living being will be my mother, …”

From Post 155. There is a bundle of things that you can conveniently call “me”. That bundle changes over time. No single element of the bundle is “essence of me” since all the elements of the bundle can change. While “me” is a convenient and conventional designation it does not actually indicate anything more that the current temporary bundle. A car has a steering wheel but a steering wheel is not a car. No single part is the car, yet if we remove all the parts then there is no “car” left.

While I do not believe in reincarnation, it is necessary for an universal truth to be understandable by others than Christians. Understandable is the operative word because many things can be understood but not always accepted as personal beliefs.

For some unknown reason, this particular Buddhist meditation in Post 106 (I have heard similar before) is powerful for me. It did take a while to sort out my subjective feelings. My Dad, my children, my close family members all have strong relationships to myself.
It wasn’t until I saw my Mother in her casket that I knew for sure that there was eternal life – the mother-daughter relationship would never be broken by human death.
From these feelings, profound respect for all humans flowed.

If my mother, instead of being in a casket, had been reincarnated as an animal. the focus of the meditation is correct regarding the human person being worthy of profound respect. The contingency of the human’s existence on earth in time (as said above) is met. The difference is that in the case of reincarnation, the human’s existence is that of an animal while the actual statement of truth refers to the human’s existence as that of a person.

One thing about an universal truth is that even though it is objective, it can be sensed subjectively. In my humble opinion, this sentence from Post 155 is a good example of knowing something but not explaining it in familiar Christian terms. “There is a bundle of things that you can conveniently call ‘me’.” That is a good explanation of “person” and thus the “me” is worthy of profound respect. Elements changing are not that big a deal. Look in one’s mirror. Yet, if one removes all the parts from the car (changes in my terminology) then there is no car left. The key is that the “me” signifies “the current temporary bundle.” Didn’t St. Paul say something about a temporary tent?

“The current temporary bundle” makes possible the contingency of “me” existing as a human person on earth in time. Therefore, the truth “The human person is worthy of profound respect” can be seen as universal by Buddhists. At least I hope so.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect

 

[rossum]

Would it not be true, then, to say that the physical universe can be understood in terms of symbolic logic systems, but that there is more than one valid system? The systems, then, are simply different ways to understand a single reality that is objective?

The various symbolic logic systems are indeed different ways of dealing with reality. Whether that reality is “single” is not currently determinable. We can never know reality directly, everything we sense is mediated through our sense organs and converted into electrical impulses. What does reality smell like? A dog will give a different answer to a human and a dolphin, which has no sense of smell at all, will give yet a third answer. Is an eagle’s vision of reality better than ours? All we can be sure of is the imperfect models of reality we build in our heads, and our knowledge that those models are imperfect. “I know nothing and I know that I know nothing.”

Reification, that horrid thing that keeps me from getting hit by a car, and seems to be essential for healthy psychological development. Is there any concrete evidence that a system of belief based on extreme reification - heaven, God, and the soul - as a means of transcending the unsatisfactory nature of human existence is inferior in reducing suffering or producing virtue to one that so sedulously rejects reification?

Reification is a purely mental construct. We have all seen beautiful sights, none of us have seen ‘Beauty’ separate from any particular object. The reified ‘Beauty’ (the capital letter is a dead giveaway) can only be a purely mental construct which is not seen in reality. Dismantle any beautiful object atom by atom and when the last atom has been removed there is no ‘Beauty’ left separate from the atoms that made up the object.

The problem comes when people take their mental constructs and think that they reflect something in the real world. That attempts to distort reality by imposing our mental models on reality when the correct way to act is to let reality impose itself on our mental models. Trying to do the impossible is bound to result in failure, frustration and suffering.

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.
It is our tendency to reify that leads us into the deception of hidden depths to reality. There are no hidden depths; what you see is what you get.

rossum

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Because a mental image of reality is not reality. I can light a fire with a match, I cannot light a fire with a mental image of a match.
My question was," Why is it impossible that any of what we see is an accurate mental image of reality? " I do not see your answer as addressing the crux of my question. I agree an image of a match is not a match. But, " Why is it impossible that any of what we see is an accurate mental image of reality (stressing the "accurate mental image ") Of coarse other images might be more accurate (more detailed, more pixels), but does that prove our mental images are in error, or merely less detailed??

I will agree that our mental image of reality is a reasonably good ad hoc working model of reality. However it should not be pushed too far, given the limitations on our senses.
It “should not be pushed too far”? Agreed, but, what if a person refuses to learn what is learnable from their mental images, because they do not not want to admit they had been wrong in the past? Is it possible to refuse to learn what we should from our mental images because of pride (in other words; to go to far in the other direction)?
I also asked, “If I reach out my hand to your horse, and verify with my hand the ears, eyes, tongue etc…; does that prove my mental image is somehow amazingly accurate reflection, copy of, the physical reality of the horse?” yes or no?
An infinitely powerful God can … both ways.

 What?  Did you really mean to say that because "we do not observe a pink sky therefore no such infinitely powerful God exists. "? Why do you say what you say here?

My hands return electrical impulses from touch sensors in the skin. All of our senses return electrical impulses from sensors…
All are sensing different horses.
All are sensing the same real horse in reality, only with different degrees of accuracy.
The horse is as real as anything else external.
Do you exist in reality? Am I talking with something that does not really have any existence, is not really real? Boy, I must be good. Do you understand how it sounds when you refuse to simply admit that a horse is real when a horse kicks me?
Who was it that said, “I think, therefore I am”?

No, existence as a whole has neither purpose nor meaning. Individual people have their own individual purposes but I do not attribute purpose to pieces of rock.
So what you are really saying is, "There is no objective, inherent meaning or goodness to life, or love, or sacrifice, IN AND OF THEMSELVES, BECAUSE THERE IS NO INHERENT MEANING or goodness TO ALL OF EXISTENCE, BUT I will claim to give a meaning to my life (even though that does not really give it subjective meaning because how can I really give my self something I do not have to give, all I have is subjective opinions and they can not really give objective value to anything.)?

There is no “absolute” authority; as you should understand by now I do not accept an ‘absolute’ anything. There is an objective authority that determines that a man is worthy of more respect than a mouse. That objective authority is the collective wisdom of the human race, what the Kalama sutta calls “praised by the wise”.
So are you really claiming that the sum of many subjective opinions, makes something more than a subjective opinion, it makes it objective, it makes it a law? What happens if someone does not agree with your subjective opinion of what is objective?
"That objective authority is the collective wisdom of the human race, " Since there are at least some men who seem to claim that there is some benefit for all little girls being raped whenever the men feel it is right,(as is proved by their actions when they think they can get away with it), if their thinking became universal in your society, and it became the collective wisdom of a great number of people (even women), then that would be your objective authority? yes? If not, why not?

The Police Officer understands his own intent. Karma merely reads the Officer’s own intent; it uses the Officer’s own intelligence. The officer provides the intelligence, karma just follows it.
How does karma “read the officer’s own intent”? Does the karma have something a rock does not have? yes or no. Can a rock “look at” a police officer and read, (know) his intent? yes or no? The police officer kills his wife, thirty years later, he loses his memory, he does not remember his killing of his wife or the reason why he did it, he dies, does karma remember what the police officer has forgotten? how if it does not have a memory of it’s own?
And how can karma understand the intent of the police officer if karma does not have in it’s nature something more than the nature of a rock?
rossum

 

[grannymh]

The problem with treating an abstraction, beauty for example, as having material existence is that it cannot be put under the natural science microscope in the same way the eyeball can. The sensory realm used for informing oneself of reality is limited not only externally but also by what mechanical tools can be used for reality’s exploration.

When one chooses to close the door on anything that is not material, the human experience of reality is flawed. A flawed personal experience does not change reality; it only limits personal knowledge of it.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[rossum]

Of coarse other images might be more accurate (more detailed, more pixels), but does that prove our mental images are in error, or merely less detailed??

‘Less detailed’ means that some of the detail is missing. If some detail is missing then the image is incomplete. If the image is incomplete then it is in error. “100 + 23 = 1 3” is missing a single digit and so is in error.

What? Did you really mean to say that because "we do not observe a pink sky therefore no such infinitely powerful God exists. "? Why do you say what you say here?

You say that an infinitely powerful God could do certain things. I say that an infinitely powerful God could just as easily do other things. Some things He did do while other things He did not do. If you attempt to use the existence of things that God could do as proof of God then I will use things that God did not do as proof of His non-existence. Because He is infinitely powerful then it is not possible to reason from what He has done or what He has not done to His existence.

Do you exist in reality?

I am real, I am not Real. You appear to want to reify ‘real’ into ‘Real’ - to add extra stuff to your mental image of reality to turn it into Reality. I am contingent, changing, impermanent, soulless, essence-less just like everything else in reality. There are no hidden depths to reality, there is no Reality sitting behind reality.

Who was it that said, “I think, therefore I am”?

René Descartes.

So what you are really saying is, "There is no objective, inherent meaning or goodness to life, or love, or sacrifice, IN AND OF THEMSELVES, BECAUSE THERE IS NO INHERENT MEANING or goodness TO ALL OF EXISTENCE, BUT I will claim to give a meaning to my life (even though that does not really give it subjective meaning because how can I really give my self something I do not have to give, all I have is subjective opinions and they can not really give objective value to anything.)?

So, since you require the universe to have a purpose, what is the purpose of that piece of rock in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud? How does the purpose (or lack of purpose) of that piece of rock prevent or allow me setting a purpose for my life? If that piece of rock cannot love does that then prevent me or you feeling love? What mechanism links my purpose to that piece of rock?

I set my own purpose and I may act wisely or foolishly in setting my purpose. My purpose is my own so it is inherently subjective. I will act as a result of that purpose and the results of those actions will be objective. It is incumbent on me to choose my purpose wisely.

So are you really claiming that the sum of many subjective opinions, makes something more than a subjective opinion, it makes it objective, it makes it a law?

It is objective because it is outside myself. It is not a law because it may be incorrect, there is no guarantee of correctness until I have verified it for myself.

What happens if someone does not agree with your subjective opinion of what is objective?

What happens if someone does not agree with your choice of Holy Book as an objective source of morality? Whatever source we use, others may pick a different source. What is your objective method of picking an objective source of morality. The Tanakh, the (Catholic) Bible, the (Protestant) Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Tao Te Ching, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tripitaka and many others are offered as objective sources of morality. What objective method do we have to choose between them?

How does karma “read the officer’s own intent”? Does the karma have something a rock does not have?

Why do you think karma is like a rock? I have repeatedly used the analogy of karma as gravity, not as a rock. Gravity can do a lot of things a rock cannot do; karma can do a lot of things a rock cannot do. Gravity ‘knows’ when a body is unsupported yet gravity is not intelligent. Karma knows what a person’s motives are yet karma is not intelligent.

The police officer kills his wife, thirty years later, he loses his memory, he does not remember his killing of his wife or the reason why he did it, he dies, does karma remember what the police officer has forgotten? how if it does not have a memory of it’s own?

Our accumulated karma is not stored in our conscious memory, it is stored in our samskāra, which is one of the Five Aggregates. Often translated as “mental formations”, it does not have an exact equivalent in English. Karma reads our samskāra just as gravity reads our position in space.

And how can karma understand the intent of the police officer if karma does not have in it’s nature something more than the nature of a rock?

Because karma is not a rock. Karma is more like gravity than a rock.

rossum