GENIUS FORUMS

The Buddha:
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

Is the reason why Buddhism places reason above all.
Here is a .edu link for the above quote and commentary by the professor where he notes that

The lesson here is that whether today or 2500 years ago, within any collection of people, one finds those susceptible to suggestion at one end of the spectrum and those who question everything at the other. For those of us schooled in the Age of Enlightenment and attribute the impetus for all of our scientific advancement to discoveries and social changes in the 18th century, it is instructive and humbling to remember that there were teachers of critical thinking like Siddhartha Gutama who preceded the European intellectuals by more than 2000 years.

vicdan wrote: Dude, xians also claim that xianity is the essence of reason. in fact, they claim that reason is impossible without xianity. That doesn't mean diddly squat. x

And where did Christianity said that reason is above all. It is all about faith and dogma, fucking hell it fought Galileo and is fighting evolution now. Please back up your claims.

And what makes you think Zen Buddhism is more authentic than Dalai Lama's Tibetan Buddhism?

Well actually Tibetan Buddhism is full of symbolism and arcane rituals, Zen is closer to Buddha's spirit by focusing on the basics and not fooling around, with metaphors.

Dalai lama version of Buddhism is pablum is for the American media than anything else. It is not even Tibetan buddhism.

Vicdan wrote:You can't even decide what you mean by 'suffering', and yet it's my fault for arguing 'vague notions'?!.

I told you it is psychological suffering.

maestro wrote:Is the reason why Buddhism places reason above all.

I see you ignored my link showing how Zen endorsed murder, war, and atrocity. Facts inconvenience you, do they?

Jesus spoke of peace and submission. Does this make xianity a religion of peace?

And where did Christianity said that reason is above all. It is all about faith and dogma, fucking hell it fought Galileo and is fighting evolution now. Please back up your claims.

Done.

Well actually Tibetan Buddhism is full of symbolism and arcane rituals, Zen is closer to Buddha's spirit by focusing on the basics and not fooling around, with metaphors.

yeah. And protestantism is a more authentic form of xianity because it goes back to the source. Whatever. Sectarian sniping doesn't interest me.

Vicdan wrote:You can't even decide what you mean by 'suffering', and yet it's my fault for arguing 'vague notions'?!.

I told you it is psychological suffering.

Initially you had told me it was a very specific sort of psychological suffering -- philosophical suffering, the anguish about the 'big question', existential angst really. Do you remember what you had written initially?

I think that by suffering he means philosophical suffering, which has in fact afflicted many thinking persons from time immemorial, and even in the developed west the philosophical suffering has intensified, what is the purpose of life, what is a meaningful life, such questions are asked by a man with lots of creature comforts and not by a starving dude.

Once I showed how dealing with this 'philosophical suffering' in no way necessitates discarding emotions, you changed your tack, yet somehow your vacillations are my fault.

Your link is a mishmash of confused blabbering give me a clear quote by Jesus as that of the Buddha, about upholding reason above all else.

Anyway your links about some Zen dude using Buddhism to justify war is just silly.

Everyone knows the Buddhism is against violence even against animals and its influence converted half of India to Vegetarianism, had you attacked Buddhism on something substantial there would have been some argument.

Then your pathetic attempts to compare it to Christianity, a straw man argumentation. I suggest you read up on Buddhism and demolish it on its weak aspects rather than ideas pulled out of your ass.

Hint: there are gods and devils in Buddhist scriptures, as well as the idea of reincarnation, which is all fairy tale stuff. Your failure to bring up these glaring holes while weaving analogies comparing the first truth to original sin and Buddhism to Christianity is plain silly.

maestro wrote:Anyway your links about some Zen dude using Buddhism to justify war is just silly.

'Some Zen dude'? how about much of the Japanese Zen establishment?..

Everyone knows the Buddhism is against violence even against animals and its influence converted half of India to Vegetarianism, had you attacked Buddhism on something substantial there would have been some argument.

yeah. Everyone Knows... Try facts sometimes.

man, you are really emotionally vested in this picture of buddhism, huh?..

Then your pathetic attempts to compare it to Christianity, a straw man argumentation. I suggest you read up on Buddhism and demolish it on its weak aspects rather than ideas pulled out of your ass.

not I. History. it's historical fact, dude. As i recall, i actually calculated it once -- japanese buddhists as a proportion of buddhists worldwide compare rather unfavorably tot he percentage of worldwide xians engaged in major wars.

Hint: there are gods and devils in Buddhist scriptures, as well as the idea of reincarnation, which is all fairy tale stuff. Your failure to bring up these glaring holes while weaving analogies comparing the first truth to original sin and Buddhism to Christianity is plain silly.

Oh, i dunno, i seem to be getting you quite uncomfortable as it is. :)

I love it, though, when people start telling me how i ought to be arguing, because they find that the line i am taking is not what they are comfortable dealing with.

No, dude, I will show you how buddhism created unimaginable brutality as well; how it's no more a religion of peace and reason than xianity is. You have your comfy presuppositions which you aren't comfortable examining, and then you have the disposables (like the buddhist involvement with deities and afterlife) which you are OK with discarding. Guess what? You don't get to protect your comfy presuppositions from critical scrutiny.

Victor talking about Zen is like George W. Bush talking about logical positivism. It cannot help but produce fits of laughter.

-

The comparison to Bush is apt, the combination of ignorance and arrogance is a spectacle to behold.

vicdan wrote:man, you are really emotionally vested in this picture of buddhism, huh?..

What picture, I am not a Buddhist or anything. But the principle of nonviolence in Buddhism is well established. Dude almost a whole country has become vegetarian due to the religion, that is history for you. This was the effect of king Ashoka who was disgusted by war and then adopted Buddhism for its emphasis on non violence, and spread his influence over the country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa

vicdan wrote:I love it, though, when people start telling me how i ought to be arguing, because they find that the line i am taking is not what they are comfortable dealing with.

No I would have been comfortable talking about violence had Buddha advocated it in the first place. You are talking about the nexus between religion and politics.
If you wish to argue then talk about the philosophers of Buddhism eg.
Siddhartha Gautama
Bodhidharma
Nagarjuna
Hakuin
What zen buddhists do is not my concern, these luminairies are why I respect Zen philosophy. Foolish people can take anything worthwhile and turn it to crap, it does not argue against the inherent value in the idea. For example the Nazis hijacking Nietzsche.

David Quinn wrote:Victor talking about Zen is like George W. Bush talking about logical positivism. It cannot help but produce fits of laughter.

This is indeed funny, given that I am referencing a well-sourced, historically accurate examination of the atrocious conduct of the japanese Zen establishment in WWII. They promoted war, murder, and genocide, and used buddhism to justify it all.

You losers can pat yourself on the back all you want, but those facts won't vanish just because you plug up your ears and holler loudly. That Zen was used to justify atrocities is a historical fact.

maestro wrote:No I would have been comfortable talking about violence had Buddha advocated it in the first place.

The same is said of Jesus and violence, you know. By xian apologists spinning fast enough to power a small town.

You are talking about the nexus between religion and politics.
If you wish to argue then talk about the philosophers of Buddhism eg.

I don't wish to talka bout buddhism at all. Diebert brought it up, and you jumped on the bandwagon. I simply take on all comers.

What zen buddhists do is not my concern,

And yet Zen Buddhism is what Zen Buddhists do, just as xianity is what xians do.

these luminairies are why I respect Zen philosophy. Foolish people can take anything worthwhile and turn it to crap, it does not argue against the inherent value in the idea. For example the Nazis hijacking Nietzsche.

Yeah. And xians hijacking xianity. The apologia never stops, does it?..

Try another one, dude -- it's got bells on it.

vicdan wrote:The same is said of Jesus and violence, you know. By xian apologists spinning fast enough to power a small town.

I think so too very likely Jesus would not have been okay with the whole idea of killing everybody in south america.

vicdan wrote:And yet Zen Buddhism is what Zen Buddhists do, just as xianity is what xians do.

You are right in some sense. My repect for Zen Buddhism is due to its strong philosophical component which Xianity is lacking. All of old testament is full of bullshit and Jesus seems to be a very weak philosopher, more like a mild mystic.

maestro wrote:I think so too very likely Jesus would not have been okay with the whole idea of killing everybody in south america.

if the NT is to be believed about him -- no, he would assuredly not; however, this in no way invalidates blaming xianity for those atrocities, does it? When xians respond by saying 'well, that's not what xianity is really about, we point out that they engage in a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Similarly, you praised Zen Buddhism -- but Zen Buddhism is what Zen buddhists do.

You are right in some sense. My repect for Zen Buddhism is due to its strong philosophical component which Xianity is lacking.

But it's not. You simply haven't studied it very well, have you? Such philosophical luminaries as Tertulian and Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas, Kant and Kierkgaard and Plantinga, for example, are quite the philosophical heavyweights, within their religious constraints of course. You simply have your prejudice about buddhism, because out here in the west you have the luxury of picking-and-choosing its aspects, and you have convinced yourself that buddhism is the nice and rational religion. As i had already demonstrated, the same exact claim can be made about xianity.

Back to buddhism. The very first Noble Truth is a religious dogma. The rest of them have some philosophical arguments in their favor, apologetics really, just as xian principles of faith do; and they are also easily countered.

Thus, in buddhism, you have religious dogma from the very first step.

vicdan wrote: But it's not. You simply haven't studied it very well, have you? Such philosophical luminaries as Tertulian and Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas, Kant and Kierkgaard and Plantinga, for example, are quite the philosophical heavyweights, within their religious constraints of course. You simply have your prejudice about buddhism, because out here in the west you have the luxury of picking-and-choosing its aspects, and you have convinced yourself that buddhism is the nice and rational religion. As i had already demonstrated, the same exact claim can be made about xianity.

The Buddhist philosophers by using the tool of empirical mental study uncovered much more than the western guys, who started with silly dogmatic axioms to begin with turning their philosophy to dung. While the Buddhists started out with nothing at all and developed their philosophy around what they observed.

Are you sure Kant belongs to this list.

Kant was a Christian, if that is what you were asking.

maestro wrote:The Buddhist philosophers by using the tool of empirical mental study uncovered much more than the western guys,

yeah. 'my religion is better than their religion'. Whatever. You have no argument, just entrenched faith in your own type of candy-coated buddhism.

Are you sure Kant belongs to this list.

Yes.

vicdan wrote:You simply have your prejudice about buddhism, because out here in the west you have the luxury of picking-and-choosing its aspects, and you have convinced yourself that buddhism is the nice and rational religion. As i had already demonstrated, the same exact claim can be made about xianity.

That is well said, Surely if I were in the east I would have seen the ugly and silly sight of Buddhism in plain view and it would not have been impressive at all. It is funny actually, I could have argued your position too had you taken mine, and it has happened many times with my philosopher friends one day we argue on one side and some days later I take their position and they mine.

That being said I think that using the empirical method and without burdening yourself with dogmatic conceptual frameworks is the way to go. That Zen Buddhism has significant support for that is admirable.

vicdan wrote:

[dukkha] captures a whole range of concepts in one concentrated blow: unsteady, disquieted, sorrow, suffering (or pain), affliction, anxiety, dissatisfaction, discomfort, anguish, stress, misery, and frustration.

But not breathing, thinking, carbon, water, chemical reaction, etc.

Yes, wasn't that mentioned in the definition somewhere? The five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering. There you go, individual experiences. What has carbon for relation with individual experience? None without deploying one of these "aggregates".

Which is to say, that First Noble Truth cannot possibly be taken as the definition of suffering (or dukkha if you prefer).

You're only required to work with the definition when reading the material and the only way to confirm or deny is initially through introspection since the topic is individual experience. Scientific research is just starting to scratch this surface. But one is free to ignore Buddhism in these discussions, I never read anything Buddhist before I discovered similar things the texts are dealing with by other means. So I'm not a very good advocate I'm afraid.

I do wonder if Dalai Lama advocates crime, violence, and junk food as much as he advocates law, peace, and healthy living. He is somewhat of an authority on buddhism, I hear.

Now you're introducing a complete straw lama: analyzing the Buddhist teachings by attacking behavior of cherry picked proponents? Whatever he advocates, he should do that because he thinks it's wise to advocate, not because he feels disgusted or otherwise emotional charged by the dark side of societies [ which are fueled by strong emotion itself: violence, drugs and junk food are clearly outcroppings of the desire/hate tandem]. But I've no idea what he's up to these days or if he can be said to represent anything other than the Tibetan cause.

it's in doubt that it has anything significant to say -- just as xianity has very little significant to say on the notion of morality, responsibility, etc., despite the fact that it has all those pretensions.

That's your own belief. How would you propose to measure significance of philosophical systems that contain notions on morality, meaning and existence? Not by their success I hope! By their predictability? Their influence on long term? How would you go about making your view believable?

Erm, that's still not a reason to eschew unequal treatment (health over sickness, knowledge over ignorance, eating nutritiously over eating junk) in favor of equal treatment. i asked you to support your claim, and you instead merely expanded it, still without any actual support.

Again, the discussion was about emotion and passion. I've no idea where you are talking about now. You lost me. Why do you want to make it into a discussion about treatment? Actions flow from what? Decisions, passions, thoughts, logic, world view, automatisms?

Having no emotions is not equivalent to treating everything equally.

In emotional sense of course it can nothing but be that way. Since in that case all will be treated without emotion, whatever the treatment becomes.

So you attacked me for 'spin' not because you think my interpretation was unjustified, but for personal reasons. Gotcha. :D

No, you made an incorrect statement because of an obvious fallacy. It doesn't need to be rehashed again. If you don't see it than so be it. But here is the original for people tuning in later

Victor: "Did you know that humans make the decision about .2 seconds before they recognize the decision as being made, suggesting that what we perceive as self, our internal narrative, is not so much a king as a royal scribe?"

I agree with what the experiment suggests but do not agree with saying that humans "make snap decisions earlier than recognizing doing it". We don't know that yet.

by putting in the word 'decision' in the description of the experiment you created a false impression that it was already concluded.

It is concluded. it's not yet clear what this tells us about human mind, but it is clear that the actual 'decision' (inasmuch as the colloquial concept of 'decision' applies at all here) occurs before the awareness of it.

It was just an experiment Victor. Your interpretation forms an interesting hypothesis and hints at the distributed qualities of our perceived self.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:I never read anything Buddhist before I discovered similar things the texts are dealing with by other means. So I'm not a very good advocate I'm afraid.

Then why bring it up in the first place? Why bring it up unless you can actually draw upon it to formulate arguments?

Now you're introducing a complete straw lama: analyzing the Buddhist teachings by attacking behavior of cherry picked proponents?

OK, how about you name some buddhists who advocate crime, war, and unhealthy living? You know, just to balance it out.

That's your own belief.

Indeed. You are free to challenge it with buddhist arguments and evidence, but you have conspicuously failed to do this so far.

How would you propose to measure significance of philosophical systems that contain notions on morality, meaning and existence? Not by their success I hope!

Success is actually a pretty good metric, when properly applied; but let's set success aside for the moment. How about sound argument and empirical grounding? You could start by showing how buddhist thinking is a particularly accurate and predictively powerful analysis of the human condition. That would certainly make it significant.

Again, the discussion was about emotion and passion. I've no idea where you are talking about now. You lost me.

having trouble keeping up?.. You defended treating joy and suffering equally on the grounds of generally treating complementary dualities equally, as a matter of consistency. I have shown that in general, we don't treat the aspects of complementary dualities equally, and that there is no reason of consistency to do so, as you had claimed.

No, you made an incorrect statement because of an obvious fallacy. It doesn't need to be rehashed again. If you don't see it than so be it.

meaning, you can't point out why it was incorrect, you can just spin.

It was just an experiment Victor. Your interpretation forms an interesting hypothesis and hints at the distributed qualities of our perceived self.

There are very many other experiments 'hinting' at self being non-monolithic. AFAIK, by now, that self is not a monolithic cognitive process but a network of relatively independent agents (in computational sense) and processes, is pretty much a truism.

The only people who proclaim 'there is no inherent self!' as if it were some grand revelation, are scientific illiterates. And if those people furthermore disdain science while making such proclamations, one can solidly conclude that they are religious fanatics vested in their dogma and ignoring the epistemic approaches not matching that dogma.

There are very many other experiments 'hinting' at self being non-monolithic. AFAIK, by now, that self is not a monolithic cognitive process but a network of relatively independent agents (in computational sense) and processes, is pretty much a truism.
The only people who proclaim 'there is no inherent self!' as if it were some grand revelation, are scientific illiterates. And if those people furthermore disdain science while making such proclamations, one can solidly conclude that they are religious fanatics vested in their dogma and ignoring the epistemic approaches not matching that dogma.

Yep scientifically it is known but there is a difference between having the knowledge and applying it. As is the difference between knowing the physics of swimming and swimming. The intellectual knowledge is kept at a distance people do not play around with their daily behavior and observe and analyze, whether it is coming from habits centered around a nonexistent self and thus even with the knowledge the habits built around the false self dominate their lives.
In more scientific terms the self memeplex has an iron grip on the mind and codependent memes built around it have a field day. While the knowledge is compartmentalized

And even the knowledge is not known by all in the scientific community only those interested in neuroscience and cognitive sciences and such. You would not expect a physicist to know this stuff, at all. Why else do scientists say that well we do not have all the answers, and science cannot say anything about a soul, yadda yadda. At least the cognitive scientists should come up and say that guys we now know there is no soul period.


As the Buddha said; However many wise words you read,However many you speak,What good will they do you If you do not act on upon them?

Further: An idea that is developed and put into action is more important than an idea that exists only as an idea

And these pieces of advice are not important because they are said by Mr B. but are just common sense.

maestro wrote:Yep scientifically it is known but there is a difference between having the knowledge and applying it.

The same can be said of buddhism. the point is that buddhism is not a uniquely special way to get to recognizing the illusionary nature of this 'inherent self'; simply studying science and philosophy can do the same for you. As to applying it, well, the followers of buddhism also need the interest, desire, and will to actually transform their abstractly learned principles into the features of their daily lives.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that we now know way more about cognition that buddhists ever figured out.

And even the knowledge is not known by all in the scientific community only those interested in neuroscience and cognitive sciences and such. You would not expect a physicist to know this stuff, at all. Why else do scientists say that well we do not have all the answers, and science cannot say anything about a soul, yadda yadda. At least the cognitive scientists should come up and say that guys we now know there is no soul period.

They do. I have seen numerous cognitive scientists argue that soul could not possibly exist because of what we know about the mind. however, as we already established, you aren't very familiar with xian apologetics and the counterpoints thereto.

vicdan wrote:They do. I have seen numerous cognitive scientists argue that soul could not possibly exist because of what we know about the mind. however, as we already established, you aren't very familiar with xian apologetics and the counterpoints thereto.

Have you seen cognitive scientists say as much in the mass media.
You mean xian apologetics also figured this "no soul" out, interesting where? I thought the extent of their logic was calculating angels dancing on pins.

vicdan wrote: In fact, I would go so far as to say that we now know way more about cognition that buddhists ever figured out.

A lot of emphasis of many Zen masters was not intellectual knowledge but practical mastery of the mind. The difference is like a physicist computing trajectories of tennis balls and Federer playing tennis. So even if now we know more does not go too far, in fact for practical purposes the knowledge has to be of a different form than intellectual, it has to penetrate deep in the neuronal structure, hence practice is more important. You see a Tennis champ say of the 1600s (other than the fact that probably the game did not exist then) could be as good as any of today even though laws of motion were not discovered till then.

maestro wrote:Have you seen cognitive scientists say as much in the mass media.

Almost any good anti-apologetics book touch upon this at some point, including the recent "The End of Faith' by Sam Harris, IIRC.

You mean xian apologetics also figured this "no soul" out, interesting where? I thought the extent of their logic was calculating angels dancing on pins.

I meant that those countering xian apologetics know this, and that you obviously aren't very familiar with xian apologetics.

A lot of emphasis of many Zen masters was not intellectual knowledge but practical mastery of the mind. The difference is like a physicist computing trajectories of tennis balls and Federer playing tennis.

The difference of course is that the same physicists figured out the way to send humans ot the moon, but Federer couldn't possibly hit a ball anywhere near that far.

A very apt analogy. :)

Federer may be an awesome tennis player, but that's all he is (well, that, and fucking hot). He is not a good archer, he is not a good artillery commander, he is not a good astronaut, etc. And let's not even start on other aspects of basic physics which our hypothetical physicist can handle as easily as ballistics, if not more so.

There is a distinct advantage enjoyed by those who take the path of systematic, broad, scientific study of the subject, dude -- the advantage those who just practice it, cannot even touch.

vicdan wrote: There is a distinct advantage enjoyed by those who take the path of systematic, broad, scientific study of the subject, dude -- the advantage those who just practice it, cannot even touch.

Yup who denies that science is important, and will one day indeed change even the brain for the better. But is not going to happen for a long long time.

But for now, for the individual the advantage is in practice, and is going to remain like that for a long time. Until the time my car drives itself it is in my interest to learn good driving skills, and till the time science creates a trouble free mind it is best to gain expert skills in handling the mind.

... and you don't need buddhism for that.

Sure, buddhism might help you get a 'trouble-free mind'. So might xianity. So might many other approaches (not mine, I take in the bad with the good). The price of going the buddhist way, just like the price of going the xian way, is plunging into faith.

No thanks. I prefer to be an 'early adopter', and draw upon the vast body of modern knowledge to "roll my own" so to speak. You know, kinda like the early computer geeks building their own micro-computers at home from hobbyist kits and stuff. In the meantime, you can keep practicing doing the religiously revealed computation in your head.