Debunking a Creator

[RongzomFan]

 

Finally - you admit your guilt!

 

 

 

I was talking about you trolling my thread.

[adept]

This thread has turned into a complete circus.

[RongzomFan]

QED

 

Summary of Gatito debunk:

 

1. Gatito calls Dennis Waite a "recognised [sic] academic source" (WHICH IS A LIE)

I've provided a recognised academic source for the definition of "neoadvaita",

2. Gatito cites Dennis Waite all over the forum, including his personal forum:

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32791-neoadvaita/

 

3. Dennis Waite endorses Greg Goode in the highest terms.

"In modern times, it finds expression through teachers such as Greg Goode and Francis Lucille."

"Greg goes on to say:"

"As Greg Goode points out...."

"As Greg Goode puts it:"

"was recommended to me by Greg Goode"

Quotes from Back to the Truth: 5000 years of Advaita by Dennis Waite

 

4. Gatito even cites Greg Goode directly:

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32760-direct-path-advaita-resource/?p=500348

5. Greg Goode follows Madhyamaka

6. Gatito lies about debunking all of the above.

As you know, I completely demolished your position regarding that issue on another thread

 

 

As you know, I completely demolished your position regarding that issue on another thread

Edited February 4, 2014 by RongzomFan

[gatito]

QED

 

Summary of Gatito debunk:

 

1. Gatito calls Dennis Waite a "recognised [sic] academic source" (WHICH IS A LIE)

 

2. Gatito cites Dennis Waite all over the forum, including his personal forum:

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32791-neoadvaita/

 

3. Dennis Waite endorses Greg Goode in the highest terms.

"In modern times, it finds expression through teachers such as Greg Goode and Francis Lucille."

"Greg goes on to say:"

"As Greg Goode points out...."

"As Greg Goode puts it:"

"was recommended to me by Greg Goode"

Quotes from Back to the Truth: 5000 years of Advaita by Dennis Waite

 

4. Gatito even cites Greg Goode directly:

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32760-direct-path-advaita-resource/?p=500348

5. Greg Goode follows Madhyamaka

6. Gatito lies about debunking all of the above.

 

 

Reported for calling me a liar

[RongzomFan]

You are a liar

[gatito]

This thread has turned into a complete circus.

 

The funniest thing is that "creator" implies "creation" - a fundamental duality - and therefore actually incorrect.

 

However, if Creator is employed as a synonym for Consciousness.....

 

The problem is that the vast majority of Buddhists (both teachers and aspirants) haven't actually realised the teachings of the Buddha for themselves and remain stuck firmly in duality arguing for a position that they haven't actually grasped.

 

Hence, Buddhism is actually discredited by the very people who fanatically espouse it.

 

Another root of this problem lies in the fact that noting that can be said about nonduality is actually true and that the best that can be achieved is a removal of false beliefs - one of which is that there isn't a creator because there is and there isn't depending solely on how you choose to represent the situation.

 

However, having said this, there are some things that can be said that are less untrue than others and, on balance, it's extremely unhelpful to try to argue that there isn't a creator because, in a sense, that's all that there is and the Creator and the Creation are actually an indivisible unity (or slightly more accurately a nonduality )

[Apech]

The funniest thing is that "creator" implies "creation" - a fundamental duality - and therefore actually incorrect.

 

However, if Creator is employed as a synonym for Consciousness.....

 

The problem is that the vast majority of Buddhists (both teachers and aspirants) haven't actually realised the teachings of the Buddha for themselves and remain stuck firmly in duality arguing for a position that they haven't actually grasped.

 

Hence, Buddhism is actually discredited by the very people who fanatically espouse it.

 

Another root of this problem lies in the fact that noting that can be said about nonduality is actually true and that the best that can be achieved is a removal of false beliefs - one of which is that there isn't a creator because there is and there isn't depending solely on how you choose to represent the situation.

 

However, having said this, there are some things that can be said that are less untrue than others and, on balance, it's extremely unhelpful to try to argue that there isn't a creator because, in a sense, that's all that there is and the Creator and the Creation are actually an indivisible unity (or slightly more accurately a nonduality )

 

QED?

[gatito]

You are a liar

 

Thanks

 

Also about to be reported

[Simple_Jack]

The funniest thing is that "creator" implies "creation" - a fundamental duality - and therefore actually incorrect.

 

However, if Creator is employed as a synonym for Consciousness.....

 

The problem is that the vast majority of Buddhists (both teachers and aspirants) haven't actually realised the teachings of the Buddha for themselves and remain stuck firmly in duality arguing for a position that they haven't actually grasped.

 

Hence, Buddhism is actually discredited by the very people who fanatically espouse it.

 

Another root of this problem lies in the fact that noting that can be said about nonduality is actually true and that the best that can be achieved is a removal of false beliefs - one of which is that there isn't a creator because there is and there isn't depending solely on how you choose to represent the situation.

 

However, having said this, there are some things that can be said that are less untrue than others and, on balance, it's extremely unhelpful to try to argue that there isn't a creator because, in a sense, that's all that there is and the Creator and the Creation are actually an indivisible unity (or slightly more accurately a nonduality )

 

Please stop engaging in sophistry.

[gatito]

QED?

 

 

I'm assuming that your question is "what has gatito demonstrated?"

 

One answer to that question is that a Creator cannot be debunked because the Creator is unborn, undying, ever-present nondual Consciousness and that the nihilism inherent in the attempt to debunk the reality of that undeniable fact is always doomed to failure.

 

Incidentally, there are lots of possibleanswers to sincere questions - however there is no satisfactory way to answer insincere questions (satisfactory for the insincere questioner that is). Sometimes, the best way to deal with those questioners is to ignore them.

[Simple_Jack]

The funniest thing is that "creator" implies "creation" - a fundamental duality - and therefore actually incorrect.

 

However, if Creator is employed as a synonym for Consciousness.....

 

The problem is that the vast majority of Buddhists (both teachers and aspirants) haven't actually realised the teachings of the Buddha for themselves and remain stuck firmly in duality arguing for a position that they haven't actually grasped.

 

Hence, Buddhism is actually discredited by the very people who fanatically espouse it.

 

Another root of this problem lies in the fact that noting that can be said about nonduality is actually true and that the best that can be achieved is a removal of false beliefs - one of which is that there isn't a creator because there is and there isn't depending solely on how you choose to represent the situation.

 

However, having said this, there are some things that can be said that are less untrue than others and, on balance, it's extremely unhelpful to try to argue that there isn't a creator because, in a sense, that's all that there is and the Creator and the Creation are actually an indivisible unity (or slightly more accurately a nonduality )

Please stop engaging in sophistry.

 

In the process of saying this, you also deprecate your good friend Greg Goode, who now advocates and practices Buddhism:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=15368&p=212112&hilit=greg+goode#p212112

 

Greg Goode wrote about this not too long ago:

"Nagarjuna argues that the faculty of vision cannot ultimately exist. And then neither can a seer or visual objects.

 

Then generalizes to other senses.

 

Even the first two verses deserve lots of contemplation:

 

3.1. "Vision, hearing, taste, smell, touch, and the inner sense (manas or the mind)

are the six faculties; the visible and so on are their fields."

 

(This is the doctrine, and it is held that they exist inherently. This latter claim is what Nagarjuna will refute.)

 

3.2. "In no way does vision see itself.

If vision does not see itself, how will it see what is other?"

 

Verse 3.2 seems odd, because we would normally think that vision is not SUPPOSED to see itself. It is only SUPPOSED to see something other than itself, right?

 

Verse 3.2.a is a version of the non-reflexivity principle. The eye cannot see itself, the knife cannot cut itself.

 

Verse 3.2.b seems like a non-sequitur. Here is what the Indian commentaries said about it.

 

There are at least several ways to look at this:

 

-1-

 

Think of being seen as a property or attribute, something that pervades a substance. It is like the scent of jasmine pervades the jasmine flower before pervading the air around it. If the flower is not pervaded by its own scent, then neither can the air be pervaded by it.

 

So in this way, is vision itself pervaded by the property or essence of being seen? Clearly not. So, like the example of the flower, the property of being seen cannot pervade anything else.

 

So nothing is pervaded by the property of being seen, and the visible is not established. Vision is also not established.

 

-2-

 

If seeing is the inherent, intrinsic property of vision, then it must see all by itself, regardless of whether there is an object present. If vision depended on an object in order for seeing to work, then vision would not be ultimately, inherently existent. Seeing would not be an inherent property of vision.

 

But vision does not see by itself. So it isn't an inherently existent element, and can't inherently see anything.

 

-3-

 

Another way to look at vision is by the objects it sees.

 

Vision either sees the presently visible, or the presently invisible, or both, or neither.

 

Vision doesn't see objects that are presently visible, because they are already being seen. Because they are already being seen, they do not need vision to see them. So this vision is not what is seeing them.

 

Vision doesn't see objects that are presently invisible. Invisible objects have the property of not being seen, so nothing can see them.

 

Vision doesn't see objects that are both visible and invisible because of a combination of the first two reasons above.

 

Vision doesn't see objects that are NEITHER visible nor invisible because we can REVERSE the first two reasons above.

 

Therefore vision doesn't see. If it doesn't see, then seeingness is not its intrinsic nature. Then it makes no sense to think that vision exists in the ultimate way that it appears to.

 

If vision doesn't exist, then how can visible objects exist?"

...

"Vision doesn't see itself. It is not reflexive. Vision is not pervaded by the property of being seen. So if it can't even pervade itself with a property it is supposed to have inherently, then how can it ever spread out and pervade other things? So therefore, the analogy with the flower fails. Vision is more like a knife that can't cut itself than it is like a flower that pervades itself with its own scent.

 

If it is the intrinsic nature of something to be seen, then vision doesn't see it (as it's not necessary), and non-vision doesn't see it (as it's not possible)..

 

If it is the intrinsic nature of something not to be seen, then vision doesn't see it (or then it would be seen and not unseen), and non-vision doesn't see it (because non-vision cannot see).

 

A visual object is either seen by vision or not seen by vision. If vision doesn't see it (because vision is superfluous), then it is not a visual object. If it is not seen by vision because its own nature is to be unseen, then it is also not a visual object.

 

Therefore there are no visual objects.

 

The key to getting this logic is that the assumption of inherent properties make any relationships either impossible or superfluous."

[gatito]

Please stop engaging in sophistry.

 

Thanks. I'll take that as a compliment (unless, of course, you'd like to clarify it as an intentional personal insult ) : -

 

Sophism is a method of teaching. In ancient Greece, sophists were a category of teachers who specialized in using the techniques of philosophy and rhetoric for the purpose of teaching arete—excellence, or virtue—predominantly to young statesmen and nobility. The practice of charging money for education and providing wisdom only to those who could pay led to the condemnations made by Socrates, through Plato in his dialogues, as well as Xenophon's Memorabilia. Through works such as these, Sophists were portrayed as "specious" or "deceptive", hence the modern meaning of the term.

The term originated from Greek σόφισμα, sophisma, from σοφίζω, sophizo "I am wise"; confer σοφιστής, sophistēs, meaning "wise-ist, one who does wisdom," and σοφός, sophós means "wise man".

 

Although any wisdom that exists in what gatito writes is, of course, impersonal

[Simple_Jack]

In the process of saying this, you also deprecate your good friend Greg Goode, who now advocates and practices Buddhism:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=15368&p=212112&hilit=greg+goode#p212112

 

Greg Goode wrote about this not too long ago:

"Nagarjuna argues that the faculty of vision cannot ultimately exist. And then neither can a seer or visual objects.

 

Then generalizes to other senses.

 

Even the first two verses deserve lots of contemplation:

 

3.1. "Vision, hearing, taste, smell, touch, and the inner sense (manas or the mind)

are the six faculties; the visible and so on are their fields."

 

(This is the doctrine, and it is held that they exist inherently. This latter claim is what Nagarjuna will refute.)

 

3.2. "In no way does vision see itself.

If vision does not see itself, how will it see what is other?"

 

Verse 3.2 seems odd, because we would normally think that vision is not SUPPOSED to see itself. It is only SUPPOSED to see something other than itself, right?

 

Verse 3.2.a is a version of the non-reflexivity principle. The eye cannot see itself, the knife cannot cut itself.

 

Verse 3.2.b seems like a non-sequitur. Here is what the Indian commentaries said about it.

 

There are at least several ways to look at this:

 

-1-

 

Think of being seen as a property or attribute, something that pervades a substance. It is like the scent of jasmine pervades the jasmine flower before pervading the air around it. If the flower is not pervaded by its own scent, then neither can the air be pervaded by it.

 

So in this way, is vision itself pervaded by the property or essence of being seen? Clearly not. So, like the example of the flower, the property of being seen cannot pervade anything else.

 

So nothing is pervaded by the property of being seen, and the visible is not established. Vision is also not established.

 

-2-

 

If seeing is the inherent, intrinsic property of vision, then it must see all by itself, regardless of whether there is an object present. If vision depended on an object in order for seeing to work, then vision would not be ultimately, inherently existent. Seeing would not be an inherent property of vision.

 

But vision does not see by itself. So it isn't an inherently existent element, and can't inherently see anything.

 

-3-

 

Another way to look at vision is by the objects it sees.

 

Vision either sees the presently visible, or the presently invisible, or both, or neither.

 

Vision doesn't see objects that are presently visible, because they are already being seen. Because they are already being seen, they do not need vision to see them. So this vision is not what is seeing them.

 

Vision doesn't see objects that are presently invisible. Invisible objects have the property of not being seen, so nothing can see them.

 

Vision doesn't see objects that are both visible and invisible because of a combination of the first two reasons above.

 

Vision doesn't see objects that are NEITHER visible nor invisible because we can REVERSE the first two reasons above.

 

Therefore vision doesn't see. If it doesn't see, then seeingness is not its intrinsic nature. Then it makes no sense to think that vision exists in the ultimate way that it appears to.

 

If vision doesn't exist, then how can visible objects exist?"

...

"Vision doesn't see itself. It is not reflexive. Vision is not pervaded by the property of being seen. So if it can't even pervade itself with a property it is supposed to have inherently, then how can it ever spread out and pervade other things? So therefore, the analogy with the flower fails. Vision is more like a knife that can't cut itself than it is like a flower that pervades itself with its own scent.

 

If it is the intrinsic nature of something to be seen, then vision doesn't see it (as it's not necessary), and non-vision doesn't see it (as it's not possible)..

 

If it is the intrinsic nature of something not to be seen, then vision doesn't see it (or then it would be seen and not unseen), and non-vision doesn't see it (because non-vision cannot see).

 

A visual object is either seen by vision or not seen by vision. If vision doesn't see it (because vision is superfluous), then it is not a visual object. If it is not seen by vision because its own nature is to be unseen, then it is also not a visual object.

 

Therefore there are no visual objects.

 

The key to getting this logic is that the assumption of inherent properties make any relationships either impossible or superfluous."

 

Gatito, please stop the biased double standards.

[gatito]

Gatito, please stop the biased double standards.

 

Reported

[Apech]

I'm assuming that your question is "what has gatito demonstrated?"

 

One answer to that question is that a Creator cannot be debunked because the Creator is unborn, undying, ever-present nondual Consciousness and that the nihilism inherent in the attempt to debunk the reality of that undeniable fact is always doomed to failure.

 

Incidentally, there are lots of possibleanswers to sincere questions - however there is no satisfactory way to answer insincere questions (satisfactory for the insincere questioner that is). Sometimes, the best way to deal with those questioners is to ignore them.

 

 

The question was more - have you proved your point - and the '?' indicated uncertainty.

 

The equating of Creator and Consciousness (a word which is used in many ways but here for the universal non-dual) is a little suspect I think. Even in theist systems the creator is relegated to demiurge and not equated to the godhead.

 

However - it is an impossible argument to place Buddhist views against theist or other views as they start from a different premise. In practically every cosmology the function of Creator properly defined is completely valid and cannot be debunked in the context it is used. 'Creator' has meaning in relation to 'Creation' and the 'Created'. If any one of these is refuted then it has no meaning.

[RongzomFan]

Reported

 

I'll just engage in your tactics.

 

Lie, get called a liar, report you to the mods.

[gatito]

The question was more - have you proved your point - and the '?' indicated uncertainty.

 

The equating of Creator and Consciousness (a word which is used in many ways but here for the universal non-dual) is a little suspect I think. Even in theist systems the creator is relegated to demiurge and not equated to the godhead.

 

However - it is an impossible argument to place Buddhist views against theist or other views as they start from a different premise. In practically every cosmology the function of Creator properly defined is completely valid and cannot be debunked in the context it is used. 'Creator' has meaning in relation to 'Creation' and the 'Created'. If any one of these is refuted then it has no meaning.

 

Certainly not an position that's completely unfounded, however, as the title of the thread is a tautology, which I'm reasonably certain that you recognise yourself, I can't see any real issue between us here that would require resolution, unless you try to drag "buddhist views" into the equation and start off with a false axiom based on the usual misunderstanding of Emptiness:)

 

However, if you want to go down that particular route, you'll be travelling it alone

 

Put it another way, I'm not the one trying to prove something in this thread (i.e. that a Creator doesn't exist) because tnat's an excercise in futility, which I think that most readers will have recognised and therefore it's another dead-end wrapped-up and binned.

 

Regarding Consciousness/Atman however......that's a completely different ballgame.....

[gatito]

I'll just engage in your tactics.

 

Lie, get called a liar, report you to the mods.

 

Reported

[Apech]

Certainly not an position that's completely unfounded, however, as the title of the thread is a tautology, which I'm reasonably certain that you recognise yourself, I can't see any real issue between us here that would require resolution, unless you try to drag "buddhist views" into the equation and start off with a false axiom based on the usual misunderstanding of Emptiness:)

 

However, if you want to go down that particular route, you'll be travelling it alone

 

Put it another way, I'm not the one trying to prove something in this thread (i.e. that a Creator doesn't exist) because tnat's an excercise in futility, which I think that most readers will have recognised and therefore it's another dead-end wrapped-up and binned.

 

Regarding Consciousness/Atman however......that's a completely different ballgame.....

 

Are you equating Consciousness with Atman?

[gatito]

Yes. Consciousness, Atman (and Brahman) are ultimately synonymous (and they're Empty )

 

Different thread perhaps?

[RongzomFan]

Yes. Consciousness, Atman (and Brahman) are ultimately synonymous (and they're Empty )

 

Different thread perhaps?

 

no, they are not synonyms.

 

Atman is just Sanskrit for identity, and is found in all indian philosophies including Buddhism.

[RongzomFan]

The funniest thing is that "creator" implies "creation" - a fundamental duality - and therefore actually incorrect.

 

Then why are you constantly arguing for a Creator?

Edited February 4, 2014 by RongzomFan

[BaguaKicksAss]

***Tech here for some thread locking. After a mere 93 pages!****

[dawei]

Newbie mod here with a notice and reminder. Thanks.

 

 

~~~~~~~~ Moderator Team Comments ~~~~~~~~

The moderating team received several ‘reports’ on this thread and have already issued several warnings/suspensions.

 

While TTB is about individual points of view and discussion, even spirited disagreement, this thread has gone in circles and caused too much head butting and animosity.

 

For those involved, let’s remember the TTB wish to respect others points of views without name calling or belittling. The moderating team is aware that this also occurs in other threads with the same members.

 

The value of the topic is well worn out and it is time to close its doors.

 

~~~~~~~~~~ Moderating Team out ~~~~~~~~~~