Still fixated in the illusory "self", aren't you?
Ha ha Luis.:drunk:
We know each other too well. Don't we?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'm having trouble absorbing even elementary Buddhist teaching.
- Thread starter GabrielWithoutWings
- Start date
Ha ha Luis.:drunk:
We know each other too well. Don't we?
Know who?
Know who?
Ya. That is a fine question. The finest in fact. So, who is asking 'know who?'?
(Hey. I am sorry. This DIR and actually I agree with you). Thanks.
Last edited:
A sense of self is asking "who".
Sense is all that is true of objects of this universe. So, my point is that upholding the objects as more real than the seer/knower of the sense objects is nonsense, IMO.
I guess we can only agree to disagree then, because I simply don't see the nonsense in that. In fact, I hold just the opposite view; sense is accidental in nature, and things lack a true essence.
GabrielWithoutWings
Well-Known Member
How is this not atheistic naturalism? When you die, you're dead and everything goes black.
Making Buddhism not Naturalism, perhaps
And that is probably the correct answer, too.
Naturalism, to the best of my knowledge, lacks an explicit moral directive.
Making Buddhism not Naturalism, perhaps
And that is probably the correct answer, too.
Naturalism, to the best of my knowledge, lacks an explicit moral directive.
That is the problem Luis. I respect you a lot but i must say this. Moral injunctions do imply that there is agency that registers Dukkha. It has to clean its register.
I baulk when Buddhists appear to be nothing but naturalists.
I don't feel slighted by what you are saying, Atanu.
But neither do I agree.
IMO Morality is quite naturalistic in its origin, and is best expressed by not straying too far from that source. From my point of view, the idea of an agency pollutes the concept and the expression of morality and is to be actively avoided.
And yes, that also means that my version of Buddhism is pretty naturalistic. Which suits me just fine. I'm not sure why that bothers you.
But neither do I agree.
IMO Morality is quite naturalistic in its origin, and is best expressed by not straying too far from that source. From my point of view, the idea of an agency pollutes the concept and the expression of morality and is to be actively avoided.
And yes, that also means that my version of Buddhism is pretty naturalistic. Which suits me just fine. I'm not sure why that bothers you.
Luis
What is the funadamental in naturalism? There is none. OTOH, I have shown you the verse regarding what Buddha teaches about the unborn truth.
If human awareness is a casually determined product then it is a product and no product has any abilty to unravel its cause or even align with any moral. Morality itself then will be what causal determination makes it. That there is a prescription shows that it is not so.
Sorry, I just don't see why.
I was also. But my confusion was removed when i put aside the interpretations and read Buddha. Buddha does teach that there is an unborn truth, without which striving for Nirvana and attaning Nirvana would be meaningless.
The immutable unborn does make the ephemerality of existence meaningless.
This thread should go to debate section.
1. Because by the commonly held notion of Naturalism that i see here, the awareness rises locally from chemicals. If awareness arises locally from chemicals then it is a purely law driven mechanism and its effects also will be so. We have not seen any product to control its source. It can affect its environment only to the extent that it has been designed for.
It will be absurd even to expect such an awareness (a product) to use discrimination to find the correct moral.
Further such local awareness cannot be expected to interact consistently with other such discrete awarenesses.
2, Buddha teaches about an unborn reality that makes it worthwhile for us to strive for freedom. I hope i do not have to cite the verse.
Now, is the unborn moral in Nature? How can that which is unborn be in Nature (of senses)? Is not Buddha asking us to know the transcendental
unborn that is not knowable in Nature that is composed of sensual objects?
...............
I will be honest with you. I think that many western Buddhists are mistaken. If you see the point above, then I will actually be seeking your help to clarify this point to some others.
If you cannot see the point even after contemplation, then we must agree to disagree.
And I respect you and your way of interaction.:yes:
Last edited:
Or at least fork into it, yes. Just a quick point, however:
Again, I just don't see why it would be so.
Assuming that awareness is a purely mundane phenomenon that arises naturally and, as you say, locally (and I happen to agree that it is just that, even if it is hard to prove so), it is still true that our actions and its effects are bound in a complex net of cause and effect that has very wide reach and is the root cause for the need of morality.
Of course, that is just as true if awareness is more mystical in nature, anyway.
I believe you did in past threads, only to have me disagreeing on that it has such an implication about unborn realities. Even if it does, it is a large step to conclude that it is meant literally, anyway.
Either way, feel free to post the verse again.
Far as I know, no. To the best of my knowledge he is asking us to know the transcendental that is born from causes and effects, that is born from circunstances. What I consider to be orthodox Buddhist view of the transcendental says that it is transcendental in reach, not in origin. I may be wrong, of course.
That is doubtless true. The trick is in placing the mistakes.
Far as I can tell, we must indeed agree to disagree. You insist on the claim of an unborn transcendental essence that IMO has no place in Buddhist doctrine (or, incidentally, in the reality of facts). I just don't see how it could fit in either of the two places. I simply don't agree that it exists, or that it can be made to work with Buddhism.
In my view local discrete awarenesses will have no basis to inteact. Then it is all deterministic. There is no scope for discretion.
“There is, O monks, an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed. Were there not, O monks, this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed.” ("Udana 8.1 -8.3").
According to Buddha, it is unborn, unoriginated, uncreated. According to Buddha the aim is to escape from the trap of ephemeral world of the born.
According to western Buddhist the transcendental is born from cause and effect. According to western Buddhist, the aim is to .....................? Well, I do not know.
That is doubtless true. The trick is in placing the mistakes.
True. There is no trick, however.Let us agree to disagree. I get more confirmed in view that Buddha is one thing and western Buddhism another.:yes:
Regards.
-----------------
A side note. I usually do not debate with Capricornians and Taureans. But I adore them.
Can I guess the answer...
Surely from my side. You are more than welcome.
And I agree with your guess but I am going to creep in a hole and hide now for some time.