Ruthless Truth

[Otis]

One of the traps that the Buddha warns against is "self-evidence", i.e. ideas seeming "self-so", so obvious in our world view, that we don't even question them.

 

Of course, that is the ground for questioning self, because self seems entirely obvious.

 

However, we should be careful not to take this logic too far. We shouldn't entirely ignore the obvious, because there is a hidden truth behind it.

 

Ruthless Truth demands: look for a self. If you can't find it, it must not be there. They declare that this non-self is self-evident.

 

But of course, this is substituting an obscure self-evident thought, for an obvious one. Yes, the obvious one (there is a self) is delusion to believe, but that doesn't mean that it is 100% wrong. When I look in the mirror, it is not a non-self that is looking back at me. There are not 7 billion non-selves in this world. Most of those 7 billion may each have a delusion of self, but that doesn't meant that they are not individuals.

 

Self is wrong. Non-self is also wrong. Concepts do not hold the truth, especially bite-size concepts.

 

To ally ourselves with either extreme is just to reinforce beliefs that don't make sense, and to exacerbate division with fellow seekers. Inability to embrace subtlety and nuance is no virtue.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Otis]

Once you realize the nature of reality, you'll have direct insight into how a God is impossible.

Let me ask you: would you accept, from me, an argument like this?

 

If I wrote: "the reason why you think the way you do, is that you just don't have the insight that I do, and I know that I am right, because I know better than you", do you think you'd be convinced? Or would I sound like an ignorant person, trying to prove my importance, without bothering to try to make sense?

 

I imagine you'd prefer it if I made intelligent, thoughtful arguments, rather than dismissive "you just don't get it".

 

Likewise me from you. I do not recognize your authority as someone who has "realized the nature of reality". In fact, I see claims about "realizing the nature of reality" as signs of delusion.

 

So why should I accept your argument, when it is entirely based on the assumption that somehow you have a more perfect view than I?

 

And that assumption is based on what? The fact that I don't agree with you? Well, that would be an entirely circular argument, wouldn't it?

Edited May 15, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

Though to "purify" our defilements, to "break through" the five skhandas, and reveal these qualities requires that someone cultivates. A lot.

I agree. I think Blasto's earlier list of "Valuable Intellectual Traits" is a great way of helping to spot our argumentative "defilements".

[Otis]

It's so nice, I've got to post it twice:

 

 

Valuable Intellectual Traits

 

Intellectual Humility: Having a consciousness of the limits of one's knowledge, including a sensitivity to circumstances in which one's native egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively; sensitivity to bias, prejudice and limitations of one's viewpoint. Intellectual humility depends on recognizing that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the lack of intellectual pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit, combined with insight into the logical foundations, or lack of such foundations, of one's beliefs.

 

Intellectual Courage: Having a consciousness of the need to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs or viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions and to which we have not given a serious hearing. This courage is connected with the recognition that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions and beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading. To determine for ourselves which is which, we must not passively and uncritically "accept" what we have "learned." Intellectual courage comes into play here, because inevitably we will come to see some truth in some ideas considered dangerous and absurd, and distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our social group. We need courage to be true to our own thinking in such circumstances. The penalties for non-conformity can be severe.

 

Intellectual Empathy: Having a consciousness of the need to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them, which requires the consciousness of our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions of long-standing thought or belief. This trait correlates with the ability to reconstruct accurately the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than our own. This trait also correlates with the willingness to remember occasions when we were wrong in the past despite an intense conviction that we were right, and with the ability to imagine our being similarly deceived in a case-at-hand.

 

Intellectual Integrity: Recognition of the need to be true to one's own thinking; to be consistent in the intellectual standards one applies; to hold one's self to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which one holds one's antagonists; to practice what one advocates for others; and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in one's own thought and action.

 

Intellectual Perseverance: Having a consciousness of the need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite the irrational opposition of others; a sense of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time to achieve deeper understanding or insight.

 

Faith In Reason: Confidence that, in the long run, one's own higher interests and those of humankind at large will be best served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions by developing their own rational faculties; faith that, with proper encouragement and cultivation, people can learn to think for themselves, to form rational viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think coherently and logically, persuade each other by reason and become reasonable persons, despite the deep-seated obstacles in the native character of the human mind and in society as we know it.

 

Fairmindedness: Having a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to one's own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of one's friends, community or nation; implies adherence to intellectual standards without reference to one's own advantage or the advantage of one's group.

 

Who on this thread is living up to these standards? And if you're not, what's your excuse?

Edited May 15, 2011 by Otis

[xabir2005]

Let me ask you: would you accept, from me, an argument like this?

 

If I wrote: "the reason why you think the way you do, is that you just don't have the insight that I do, and I know that I am right, because I know better than you", do you think you'd be convinced? Or would I sound like an ignorant person, trying to prove my importance, without bothering to try to make sense?

 

I imagine you'd prefer it if I made intelligent, thoughtful arguments, rather than dismissive "you just don't get it".

 

Likewise me from you. I do not recognize your authority as someone who has "realized the nature of reality". In fact, I see claims about "realizing the nature of reality" as signs of delusion.

 

So why should I accept your argument, when it is entirely based on the assumption that somehow you have a more perfect view than I?

 

And that assumption is based on what? The fact that I don't agree with you? Well, that would be an entirely circular argument, wouldn't it?

Why has this become an issue of authority?

 

I did not make a statement without explanation... the verses from Visudhimagga is already very clear... the reason why a God cannot exist, is because everything interdependently originates.

Edited May 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[Otis]

124. ... if Creation were dependent upon conditions, the complete collection of those causal circumstances would be the cause, and not Ishvara [Note: Ishvara was a common name for God in ancient India, similar to Yahweh.] If the complete conditions were assembled, Ishvara would be powerless not to create; and if they were absent, there would be no creation.

 

~ Shantideva’s Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life, the Ninth Chapter on Wisdom. Verse 124

Yeah, but I didn't say anything about Creation or God's role. I just said: we cannot know there is no God. How you define God is up to you. Besides, interdependent creation is another story for how the universe came about, not something that we can know.

 

Nor do I disagree with your quotes. I do not believe in a theistic God, and I see plenty of reason to believe that that concept is wrong. But that is different from knowing that God does not exist.

 

As for authority, it is not the "existence of God" I was countering at all. It was merely the "Once you realize the nature of reality...". That is a very bad argument, which is what I was pointing out. Why in the world would you suggest that you DO see the "nature of reality?

Edited May 15, 2011 by Otis

[xabir2005]

Yeah, but I didn't say anything about Creation or God's role. I just said: we cannot know there is no God. How you define God is up to you. Besides, interdependent creation is another story for how the universe came about, not something that we can know.

 

Nor do I disagree with your quotes. I do not believe in a theistic God, and I see plenty of reason to believe that that concept is wrong. But that is different from knowing that God does not exist.

 

As for authority, it is not the "existence of God" I was countering at all. It was merely the "Once you realize the nature of reality...". That is a very bad argument, which is what I was pointing out. Why in the world would you suggest that you DO see the "nature of reality?

A God means a creator.

 

Since everything arises via interdependent origination, a specific source/origin/creator cannot be found.

 

For example. Hand, stick, drum, air, ears, action of hitting - all these requisite conditions for the auditory consciousness of drum hitting.

 

Does the hearing therefore come from the air, or the hand, or the stick, or the action of hitting, or anywhere in between?

 

No. It is a new and complete phenomenon arising in dependence of all these requisite conditions. It does not 'come from' anywhere, but it is interdependent with all these conditions.

 

Seeing that everything arises interdependently, the notion of a source is seen to be flawed - there is NO source, god, origin of anything which arises interdependently.

 

D.O. is the nature of all phenomena - they arises dependently, and have no independent, self-existing essence.

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[Otis]

A God means a creator.

 

Since everything arises via interdependent origination, a specific source/origin/creator cannot be found.

 

For example. Hand, stick, drum, air, ears, action of hitting - all these requisite conditions for the auditory consciousness of drum hitting.

 

Does the hearing therefore come from the air, or the hand, or the stick, or the action of hitting, or anywhere in between?

 

No. It is a new and complete phenomenon arising in dependence of all these requisite conditions. It does not 'come from' anywhere, but it is interdependent with all these conditions.

 

Seeing that everything arises interdependently, the notion of a source is seen to be flawed - there is NO source, god, origin of anything which arises interdependently.

 

D.O. is the nature of all phenomena - they arises dependently, and have no independent, self-existing essence.

That may very well be the truth. But we do not, cannot know it.

 

D.O. is an alternative cosmology to Creationism. To me, it makes a lot more sense, and presumably, to you as well.

 

However, we do not know that D.O. is right and Creationism is wrong. It is entirely possible that a Creationist God has created a Universe that has all the markings of dependent origination. It doesn't seem likely, but it cannot be disproved.

 

My point was never about the existence of God, but about the limits of knowledge. If you claim that you have some special vantage point, from which you can tell that there is no possibility of God existing, then I call B.S. on you. I think that is a deluded statement, and one that you cannot support without purely circular reference to your own belief system.

 

I'm not trying to win against you, Xabir. I just want to reflect back to you: when you use arguments that suggest that you are right precisely because you have some special perspective, it gives you no credibility. Every troll on the internet claims that they see the nature of reality; only the wise are able and willing to admit when they cannot know. Credibility comes from making sense, not from making claims to authority.

[xabir2005]

That may very well be the truth. But we do not, cannot know it.

 

D.O. is an alternative cosmology to Creationism. To me, it makes a lot more sense, and presumably, to you as well.

 

However, we do not know that D.O. is right and Creationism is wrong. It is entirely possible that a Creationist God has created a Universe that has all the markings of dependent origination. It doesn't seem likely, but it cannot be disproved.

No, it cannot be.

 

Dependent Origination of Buddhism means INTER-dependent origination, not dependent origination in the sense that all things dependent on a single source/God. Nothing whatsoever is created, it arises only in dependence with various requisite conditions.

 

If you experience, and realize interdependent origination, you will have no doubts that God does not exist. I am not resorting to authority here, I am just stating you CAN experience and realize dependent origination... it is a truth exhibiting itself every moment and can be discovered, realized, experienced. It is not just theory.

 

However, I am not saying 'accept me or believe me or have faith in me cos I see it'. I am saying, go see for yourself. I even provided you reasoning why it makes sense.

My point was never about the existence of God, but about the limits of knowledge. If you claim that you have some special vantage point, from which you can tell that there is no possibility of God existing, then I call B.S. on you. I think that is a deluded statement, and one that you cannot support without purely circular reference to your own belief system.

I am speaking from experience.

 

Just as the Buddha would say:

 

The Perfect One is free from any theory, for the Perfect One has understood what the body is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what feeling is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what perception is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what the mental formations are, and how they arise, and pass away. He has understood what consciousness is, and how it arises, and passes away.

 

Therefore, I say, the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection, and getting rid of all opinions and conjectures, of all inclination to the vainglory of I and mine.

 

- Majjhima Nikaya, 72

 

As the nature of everything is interdependent origination, there cannot be a cause, a source, and all beings, be they Ishvara, or whatsoever - arises via interdependent origination. A Brahma*, a being deluded into thinking he was God, is himself arisen due to karma and interdependent origination. There is no real creator.

For example: if the ear, the hand, the action of hitting, the air, the drum, all these conditions come together... the act of 'hearing drumbeat' MUST arise - and even Brahma has no control over it! That arising must occur when the conditions come together, Brahma has no place in it - he never created it, nor can he prevent it from happening. When causes and conditions meet, he has no power to create or prevent something from manifesting... so how can he be a creator? Just in the same way, then the causes and conditions meet, hearing must occur... whether you want that sound of drumbeat to be heard or not, it WILL occur! So can you see that an agent, controller, hearer is an illusion? Both 'God' and 'Self' are as illusory as a unicorn and such a fictitious entity has no control and relation whatsoever with reality! A non-existent God or Self has no control over what happens... which does so by dependent origination. I hope you see this.

 

You may think, ok I can't prevent the sound from being heard when the action of hitting drum and the ear is there... but can't I just physically move away from that location? Yes, but then the action would have arisen due to various causes and conditions... it is not that 'you' did the moving away.. there is no agent at all! Everything is the universe interacting manifesting as this moment of action and experience. No such thing as a 'self' or a 'God' controlling and creating or making things happen.

 

A God, a Self, is seen to be as fictitious as a rabbit with horns, or a unicorn. Every single moment, it is directly seen how everything arises via interdependent origination with all requisite conditions - so how can the delusion of a creator or creation arise?

 

D.O. basically throws away all notion of a God or source. The insight into D.O. is a direct insight into how things are neither created nor self-existent. Just like the insight into Anatta is a direct insight into the absence of a self. There can be no doubts about it.

 

*John Reynolds, among western scholars I am familiar with, has written with clarity on this issue:

 

As for the existence of God, of the Creator of heaven and earth, this is the concept central to religion as we know it in the West. Was the Buddha an atheist or an agnostic in relation to the existence of a Supreme Being or God? ...

In the Suutras there is found a Buddhist account of Genesis. [This account appears in several sources both in the Mahayana and the Theravada Canons.] In reply to questions from His disciples, the Buddha explained that the humanity found on this planet earth once inhabited another planetary system. Ages ago when the sun of that world went nova and the planet was destroyed in the ensuing solar eruptions, the bulk of its inhabitants, as the result of their arduously practicing the Dharma for ten thousand years, were reborn on one of the higher planes of the Form World or Ruupedhaatu, a plane of existence known as Aabhaasvara or “clear light.” Here they enjoyed inconceivable bliss and felicity for countless aeons. Then, when their great store of past karma came onto maturity, our own solar system and planet earth began to evolve and some among their numbers were reborn on the lower planes of the Ruupadhaatu in the vicinity of the nascent earth. This plane of existence where they found themselves reborn is known as Brahmaaloka. The first of these beings to reawaken and be reborn, upon seeing the solar system evolving below him, exclaimed in his delight, “I am the Creator!” In this way, he came to believe that he was the actual creator of the universe which he saw about him, for he did not remember from whence he came and was born without any parents. But in actuality the manifestation of this universe was due to the collective karma of all in that company and his own individual manifestation, which was a case of apparitional birth, was due to his own great stock of meritorious karma coming into maturation at that time because the requisite secondary conditions were present.

( Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness, translated by John Myrdhin Reynolds, Snow Lion, Ithaca, NY, 2000, pages 97-99.)

I'm not trying to win against you, Xabir. I just want to reflect back to you: when you use arguments that suggest that you are right precisely because you have some special perspective, it gives you no credibility. Every troll on the internet claims that they see the nature of reality; only the wise are able and willing to admit when they cannot know. Credibility comes from making sense, not from making claims to authority.

I am not resorting to authority as I have stated many times - I have given clear examples and reasoning.

 

I am however also saying that you can go beyond reasoning, theories (just as Buddha stated above for himself) and see it for yourself. There is a difference between intellectually understanding it and experiencing and realizing it.

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[Informer]

Plain and simple.

 

If you don't exist, then there is nothing to know you don't exist.

 

It's a paradox and you're a fool.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Informer

[xabir2005]

Plain and simple.

 

If you don't exist, then there is nothing to know you don't exist.

 

It's a paradox and you're a fool.

Like I said, 'you don't exist' implies there is a self that can exist or not exist.

 

If a self cannot be pinned down inside or outside the five skandhas as the Buddha has stated so*, then there is no self that can exist, not exist, etc.

 

As for 'know', knowing arises, no knower. Hearing is, no hearer. Seeing is, no seer. A knower is never needed in the first place for knowledge. Knowledge and vision arises due to conditions, not an agent. This, the Buddha has stated many many times**.

 

It is nothing like a parodox, it is only a parodox to those who presumes a knower is necessary for knowledge - which is a warped view with a wrong premise.

 

 

* http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html

 

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

 

 

** http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.nypo.html#fn-7

 

"Who, O Lord, feels?"

 

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'"

 

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html

 

"Thus, monks, ignorance is the supporting condition for kamma formations, kamma formations are the supporting condition for consciousness, consciousness is the supporting condition for mentality-materiality, mentality-materiality is the supporting condition for the sixfold sense base, the sixfold sense base is the supporting condition for contact, contact is the supporting condition for feeling, feeling is the supporting condition for craving, craving is the supporting condition for clinging, clinging is the supporting condition for existence, existence is the supporting condition for birth, birth is the supporting condition for suffering, suffering is the supporting condition for faith, faith is the supporting condition for joy, joy is the supporting condition for rapture, rapture is the supporting condition for tranquillity, tranquillity is the supporting condition for happiness, happiness is the supporting condition for concentration, concentration is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as they really are, the knowledge and vision of things as they really are is the supporting condition for disenchantment, disenchantment is the supporting condition for dispassion, dispassion is the supporting condition for emancipation, and emancipation is the supporting condition for the knowledge of the destruction (of the cankers).

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[Soar]

That may very well be the truth. But we do not, cannot know it.

 

D.O. is an alternative cosmology to Creationism. To me, it makes a lot more sense, and presumably, to you as well.

 

However, we do not know that D.O. is right and Creationism is wrong. It is entirely possible that a Creationist God has created a Universe that has all the markings of dependent origination. It doesn't seem likely, but it cannot be disproved.

 

My point was never about the existence of God, but about the limits of knowledge. If you claim that you have some special vantage point, from which you can tell that there is no possibility of God existing, then I call B.S. on you. I think that is a deluded statement, and one that you cannot support without purely circular reference to your own belief system.

 

I'm not trying to win against you, Xabir. I just want to reflect back to you: when you use arguments that suggest that you are right precisely because you have some special perspective, it gives you no credibility. Every troll on the internet claims that they see the nature of reality; only the wise are able and willing to admit when they cannot know. Credibility comes from making sense, not from making claims to authority.

 

Why can we not know such things? You dont give any reasons why through personal experieince some people could not come to know things for certain which others do not.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Mandrake]

However, we do not know that D.O. is right and Creationism is wrong. It is entirely possible that a Creationist God has created a Universe that has all the markings of dependent origination. It doesn't seem likely, but it cannot be disproved.

 

 

In that case the Creationist God acts as a cause for the effect, so the God is already involved in dependent origination.

 

To insist that the scenario in the quote could exist, is analoguous to saying "we can't disprove that a square circle exists".

 

It could be the case that the universe was created, yesterday, with all the markings for a seemingly longer past, by an entity also functioning in causality/DO, but to maintain that that entity is outside of causality/DO is ruled out by definition; it's not a matter of likelihood however I try to see it.

 

 

Mandrake

[Informer]

[Informer]

How do you explain then the Taoists basically talking of an oscillating universe, (expansion and contraction of the universe) centuries before Albert Einstein?

 

Believe it or not, it is possible through meditation, to verify and know things. Do you currently have a meditation schedule? It is through deep states of meditative absorption that you can verify for yourself, the nature of yourself and the universe.

 

Exactly, to know it it must be 1st hand information, it cannot be assumption or belief. Because someone else has claimed to know that, does that mean that you too know that?

 

RTer's know that self doesn't exist (or think they know) to them this is true and ultimate, as they made it so, and believe it to be so. They are Nothing Nowhere. That is not true from my perspective however. I know I do exist as well as not. Some know that they do exist as everything everywhere, and worry about nothing else. All of these can be true and false, depending on the perspective that is being spoken from.

 

Ones reality is not always anothers reality. Can you be nothing nowhere? Certaintly, but that is not Buddha's path. Claiming it to be so is heresy.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Informer

[Otis]

As the nature of everything is interdependent origination,

Again, here is the crux.

 

The above sentence should read: "IF the nature of everything...", to reflect the uncertainty that is built into our view of the actual.

 

There is no way to actually find out what the nature of everything is. We can only create models and metaphors for the "actual world". We can amass evidence, and create theories. But we cannot know. D.O. is theory, not knowledge.

 

Your earlier statements, and the one above, only say: the concept of a creationist God is incompatible with the concept of interdependent origination. And one concept may fit the evidence better, but neither concept is provable or disprovable.

 

Tell me why you think you KNOW what is real. What makes you special, that you can see beyond the epistemological limits that are built into the human species? And why is it that you are sure that your certainty is not a sign of delusion, when experience of the world continually shows that the people with the most certainty (fundamentalists, nationalists, cultists, trolls) are usually the most deluded? What makes you different from them?

Edited May 16, 2011 by Otis

[Informer]

RTer's know that self doesn't exist (or think they know) to them this is true and ultimate, as they made it so, and believe it to be so. They are Nothing Nowhere. That is not true from my perspective however. I know I do exist as well as not. Some know that they do exist as everything everywhere, and worry about nothing else. All of these can be true and false, depending on the perspective that is being spoken from.

 

Ones reality is not always anothers reality. Can you be nothing nowhere? Certaintly, but that is not Buddha's path. Claiming it to be so is heresy.

 

Please OP prove to me that I do not exist and show your methodology in an open forums that is not locked down as it is in the RT forums.

 

Show it for all to see where it is free to be critiqued, so people know what they are in for!

 

You can even bring in all your goonies, if you think that will help you.

 

Yes this is a challenge, if you refuse, then you obviously have nothing of value to teach anyone.

[Otis]

Why can we not know such things? You dont give any reasons why through personal experieince some people could not come to know things for certain which others do not.

Human beings do not experience the outside world directly. We have senses, which translate the outside world into an internal simulacrum (re-creation) of the world, and it is that which our brains experience. So we never have access to the "actual" at all.

 

What if someone has extra senses? Then that person will experience a richer simulacrum than mine. But he will still be bound by the fundamental rules of epistemology, just as I am.

 

Nothing that does not fall within the senses will be perceived. No matter how extensive the senses are, they are still tuned to register certain ranges of information. Outside of those ranges, is unknown.

 

Plus, all perception is illusion. My perception tells me that objects are solid and the sky is blue, but physics tells me otherwise.

 

I am an individual being, who has only lived for a certain number of years, has never been off this planet, and has only visited a limited portion of this globe. So my "knowledge" will be bound by the "reality bubble" that I live in; what I do not experience, will forever be only hearsay (at best; of most things I will remain ignorant).

 

I may sit with wise and learned people, but their experience is limited by their own bubble, and so too, for their teachers. Ad infinitum. The origins all come from limited human beings. There's no omniscient beings in that chain, because even Buddhas are human beings, with the limits that are built into the organism.

 

What about OBEs, trance states, channeling of the original mind, etc.? Can't we achieve "knowing without a knower"? No. These are merely experiences. They may indeed show us a different way of looking at the world. But this way is not something divorced from our reality bubble; it is merely a part of the bubble that we didn't otherwise see. These are equivalent to the "extra senses". And they still do not add up to knowledge! We have an experience, but "knowledge" is just the conclusion that our analyzing minds make about that experience.

 

It is precisely Dependent Origination that forces the conclusion of "I don't know", because the source/true meaning of the experience is always out of sight, impossible to pin down. D.O. is the antidote to superstition, which is what happens when our brains try to turn experience into knowledge. All knowledge is superstition to some degree; some of it happens to correlate more closely with repeated experience, but none of it is 100% legit. That's why the mathematics of phenomena is statistics, because we can only measure the correlation, and hypothesize the causal.

 

Knowledge is merely a subset of opinion; there is not one scrap of "knowledge" that is not also opinion. "This is" really just means "I believe this is".

Edited May 16, 2011 by Otis

[xabir2005]

Again, here is the crux.

 

The above sentence should read: "IF the nature of everything...", to reflect the uncertainty that is built into our view of the actual.

 

There is no way to actually find out what the nature of everything is. We can only create models and metaphors for the "actual world". We can amass evidence, and create theories. But we cannot know. D.O. is theory, not knowledge.

D.O. is theory for you, not me. It is also not theory for the Buddha as the Buddha already stated he is free from theories and clearly know the causes and conditions for body, mind, etc (in other words: he clearly realize D.O. in direct experience).

 

I am saying this not again to say "I see it, believe me" but I am saying this to let you know that it is entirely possible to see it for yourself, to experience it for yourself. Don't stop at theories or beliefs.

Your earlier statements, and the one above, only say: the concept of a creationist God is incompatible with the concept of interdependent origination. And one concept may fit the evidence better, but neither concept is provable or disprovable.

 

Tell me why you think you KNOW what is real. What makes you special, that you can see beyond the epistemological limits that are built into the human species? And why is it that you are sure that your certainty is not a sign of delusion, when experience of the world continually shows that the people with the most certainty (fundamentalists, nationalists, cultists, trolls) are usually the most deluded? What makes you different from them?

Fundamentalists require you to believe them and there is no way you can know for certain.

 

I am saying, what I, Buddha, and countless practitioners proclaimed by direct experience, can be directly realized, and experienced. We don't need your belief, just your open mindedness to deeply consider this, to see and experience this for yourself.

 

Just like scientists.

 

I am not saying faith is no good either.

 

If you can have faith in what countless practitioners reported via direct experience - well great if it inspires you, but don't stop there. Investigate, see for yourself. That's what truly matters.

 

If you don't have faith in what countless practitioners reported via direct experience - well, that's ok, but at least be open-minded would you? And do the experiment, see for yourself.

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

RTer's know that self doesn't exist (or think they know) to them this is true and ultimate, as they made it so, and believe it to be so. They are Nothing Nowhere. That is not true from my perspective however. I know I do exist as well as not. Some know that they do exist as everything everywhere, and worry about nothing else. All of these can be true and false, depending on the perspective that is being spoken from.

 

Ones reality is not always anothers reality. Can you be nothing nowhere? Certaintly, but that is not Buddha's path. Claiming it to be so is heresy.

 

Please OP prove to me that I do not exist and show your methodology in an open forums that is not locked down as it is in the RT forums.

 

Show it for all to see where it is free to be critiqued, so people know what they are in for!

 

You can even bring in all your goonies, if you think that will help you.

 

Yes this is a challenge, if you refuse, then you obviously have nothing of value to teach anyone.

RT's method is simple really. And it does deliver.

 

There is no you... investigate is this true? In direct experience. In seeing... there is just the seen, no seer. Is this true? etc... (you can do it with anything)

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Something I wrote in RT:

 

When I am called by my name, this body-mind responds, but my name does not refer to a findable self.

 

It is like the word 'weather' does not actually point to a findable, locatable, graspable entity.

 

The word 'weather' is a mere convenient label collating the various ever-changing weatherly phenomena, such as rain, snow, wind, lightning, clouds, etc. Yet not one moment do they even remain the same. There is no such thing as a findable and real entity called 'weather' as such. It is a mere label.

 

Similarly, names are used, and I respond to them, conventionally speaking. But that does not evince a real self.

 

It just means a name is conveniently labelled collating this particular body-mind, which does not exist as an entity but are merely ever-changing bodily and mental sensations, phenomena, a sensation of itch arising and falling on my leg, the sound of music manifesting momentarily where it is, the thought popping up in my mind about something yet disappearing instantaneously like a bubble.

 

Everything is just like this... phenomena manifesting... subsiding.... insubstantial like bubbles, like weather. Names are mere labels for a conglomerate of flickering and insubstantial phenomena that are simply aware where they are without an agent.

 

Sounds are heard, no hearer. Thoughts arise, no thinker. Scenery sees, no seer. And they all self-releases, no traces are left, just as weatherly phenomena pass moment by moment leaving no traces whatsoever.

 

Names are still useful even though the illusion of self has long ended.