Pictures of rainbow body, footprints in stone

[ralis]

The dharma doesn't go with the model of origin or evolution as laid out by the modern physicalist/materialist scientific paradigm, so the line of reasoning you are attempting to introduce unfortunately does not apply.

 

And on top of that, notions such as origin, evolution, etc., in general are only held to possess conventional application and credibility in the eyes of the buddhadharma.

 

Of course my statement applies. I stated factual evidence as to the length of time the human species has evolved from primate species. Who are you to tell me it doesn't? How does your belief in religious absolutism and in this case Buddhism apply?

[ralis]

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Kalpa

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalpa_(aeon)

 

The first link contains the following which I object to. This idea of merit is no different than other religious beliefs in sin. The more sin in the world, the shorter the life span.

 

Each of these four periods is made up of twenty intermediate kalpas, which are also sometimes subdivided into periods of increase and decrease (of the merit and life-span of beings living during that period).

[asunthatneversets]

 

Of course my statement applies. I stated factual evidence as to the length of time the human species has evolved from primate species. Who are you to tell me it doesn't? How does your belief in religious absolutism and in this case Buddhism apply?

How does your belief in materialist physicalism ala the absolutism of the modern paradigm of scientific thought which cannot even explain how factors such as consciousness etc. formed in the first place, apply?

[ralis]

How does your belief in materialist physicalism ala the absolutism of the modern paradigm of scientific thought which cannot even explain how factors such as consciousness etc. formed in the first place, apply?

 

I doubt you know and understand scientific investigation from your remarks. Furthermore, there are no absolutes in scientific investigation, only probabilities. Before you try to posit an argument from a position as to the one you posited, I suggest you read this book.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-50th-Anniversary/dp/0226458121/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405546849&sr=1-1&keywords=thomas+kuhn

[asunthatneversets]

I doubt you know and understand scientific investigation from your remarks. Furthermore, there are no absolutes in scientific investigation, only probabilities. Before you try to posit an argument from a position as to the one you posited, I suggest you read this book.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-50th-Anniversary/dp/0226458121/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405546849&sr=1-1&keywords=thomas+kuhn

 

There are no absolutes in scientific thought but there can certainly be an air of absolutism in how one relates to scientific theory.

 

Either way you are missing the point. The dharma, which is a self-deconstructing, soteriological and solely epistemic methodology, is not going to (and does not need to) conform or relate to the ontological theories of science.

 

How do you propose the buddhadharma is going to bow to materialist science, when it does not even hold its own conventional models to be inherently true? It surely isn't.

[silent thunder]

seems to me...

absolutes are always absolutely ridiculous when followed to their extreme...

[ralis]

There are no absolutes in scientific thought but there can certainly be an air of absolutism in how one relates to scientific theory.

 

Either way you are missing the point. The dharma, which is a self-deconstructing, soteriological and solely epistemic methodology, is not going to (and does not need to) conform or relate to the ontological theories of science.

 

How do you propose the buddhadharma is going to bow to materialist science, when it does not even hold its own conventional models to be inherently true? It surely isn't.

 

It matters not as to how one relates, but that doesn't change the results of scientific investigation. The Buddhadharma is based on mythology and therefor is not absolute. No proof whatsoever. E.g. the Pali Canon in no way can be proven to contain the exact words of the Buddha.

[asunthatneversets]

It matters not as to how one relates, but that doesn't change the results of scientific investigation. The Buddhadharma is based on mythology and therefor is not absolute. No proof whatsoever. E.g. the Pali Canon in no way can be proven to contain the exact words of the Buddha.

 

Scientific investigation applies to the limited view of conventional reality. The buddhadharma has nothing to do with mythology, and has everything to do with a genuine, living, accurate, knowledge of one's experience.

 

Any so-called 'mythologies' that are associated with the conventional systems which are implemented in order to bring about an actualization of that wisdom, are rafts to be abandoned, and so the buddhadharma does not hold its own conventional models to be 'absolute' either. In fact absolutes, universals, and so on are only allowed a certain degree of conventional validity in the eyes of Buddhism, and there are no absolutes to be found otherwise (certainly not in the context of modern physicalist science).

 

The Pali Canon and the exact words of the Buddha are not relevant, you seem to treat Buddhism as a system of belief and mistake your principles of science to be otherwise. The buddhadharma has nothing to do with the accuracy of the Pali Canon. The dharma is a living teaching, and you either actualize it within yourself or you don't. Belief (apart from the initial interest it takes to begin one's path) has nothing to do with it in any way.

 

It is starting to become quite clear that you do not understand Buddhism at all.

[ralis]

Scientific investigation applies to the limited view of conventional reality. The buddhadharma has nothing to do with mythology, and has everything to do with a genuine, living, accurate, knowledge of one's experience.

 

Any so-called 'mythologies' that are associated with the conventional systems which are implemented in order to bring about an actualization of that wisdom, are rafts to be abandoned, and so the buddhadharma does not hold its own conventional models to be 'absolute' either. In fact absolutes, universals, and so on are only allowed a certain degree of conventional validity in the eyes of Buddhism, and there are no absolutes to be found otherwise (certainly not in the context of modern physicalist science).

 

The Pali Canon and the exact words of the Buddha are not relevant, you seem to treat Buddhism as a system of belief and mistake your principles of science to be otherwise. The buddhadharma has nothing to do with the accuracy of the Pali Canon. The dharma is a living teaching, and you either actualize it within yourself or you don't. Belief (apart from the initial interest it takes to begin one's path) has nothing to do with it in any way.

 

It is starting to become quite clear that you do not understand Buddhism at all.

 

I have been around Buddhism since the early 80's. I have studied it thoroughly and know that Buddhism is a belief system.

 

I think there are millions of Buddhists in Asia that would disagree with your statement in regards to the Pali Canon.

Edited July 16, 2014 by ralis

[GrandmasterP]

I have been around Buddhism since the early 80's. I have studied it thoroughly and know that Buddhism is a belief system.

 

Yep.

Buddhism's a religion for some and there are a few Buddha-fundamentalists knocking about online too.

There is that Buddhism Without Beliefs movement as well though.

Stephen Batchelor et al....

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Buddhism-Without-Beliefs-Contemporary-Awakening/dp/0747538433/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405551923&sr=1-1&keywords=buddhism+without+beliefs

 

Jolly good book is that one IMO.

[Simple_Jack]

I have been around Buddhism since the early 80's. I have studied it thoroughly and know that Buddhism is a belief system.

 

The majority of discussion on TTB's would fall under the category of religious belief.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[asunthatneversets]

 

I have been around Buddhism since the early 80's. I have studied it thoroughly and know that Buddhism is a belief system.

My case in point.

Edited July 16, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[ralis]

My case in point.

 

Why not explain yourself. Vague post.

[asunthatneversets]

 

Why not explain yourself. Vague post.

Buddhism is a pedagogical method which is predicated on non-affirming negations. It negates its own praxis and conventional models.

 

Those who are unfortunate enough to cling to the method and turn it into a belief system are simply prone to doing so, they do not understand.

 

The fact that they do not understand does not mean the self-deconstructing pedagogical method is a system of belief in and of itself... it simply means they have a fundamental poverty in relation to the praxis which causes them to see it as such.

 

The fact that someone is a fool and doesn't understand how to use a tool, doesn't mean the tool itself is flawed.

Edited July 16, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[ralis]

Buddhism is a pedagogical method which is predicated on non-affirming negations. It negates its own praxis and conventional models.

 

Those who are unfortunate enough to cling to the method and turn it into a belief system are simply prone to doing so, they do not understand.

 

The fact that they do not understand does not mean the self-deconstructing pedagogical method is a system of belief in and of itself... it simply means they have a fundamental poverty in relation to the praxis which causes them to see it as such.

 

The fact that someone is a fool and doesn't understand how to use a tool, doesn't mean the tool itself is flawed.

 

I am not impressed with your patronizing/condescending rhetoric. I am no fool and stop treating me as such!

[asunthatneversets]

 

I am not impressed with your patronizing/condescending rhetoric. I am no fool and stop treating me as such!

My apologies, I wasn't referring to you as a fool, just using that as an example.

[ralis]

My apologies, I wasn't referring to you as a fool, just using that as an example.

 

Thank you. Why not proof read what you write the next time. That would be much appreciated for all who are participating in this thread.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[ralis]

Billed as New Religious Movement:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta#Neo-Advaita

 

You are taking this OT with your incessant rant on Neo-advaita. Why not stay on topic.

[asunthatneversets]

Thank you. Why not proof read what you write the next time. That would be much appreciated for all who are participating in this thread.

Will do.

 

At any rate though, you've heard the various sayings which come from the Buddhist teachings themselves; the finger pointing at the moon, the raft which is abandoned upon reaching the shore, etc.

 

Those who turn Buddhism into a belief system are fixating on pointing fingers and carrying rafts around with them.

 

The system itself isn't flawed, it is just certain individual's understanding and relationship to the system which is flawed, for whatever reason.

Edited July 17, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[ralis]

Will do.

 

At any rate though, you've heard the various sayings which come from the Buddhist teachings themselves; the finger pointing at the moon, the raft which is abandoned upon reaching the shore, etc.

 

Those who turn Buddhism into a belief system are fixating on pointing fingers and carrying rafts around with them.

 

The system itself isn't flawed, it is just certain individual's understanding and relationship to the system which is flawed, for whatever reason.

 

 

How can you assert a system with no flaws? That creates an absolute defense where no one can have a rational discussion with you. Moreover, that puts you in the position of being absolutely right and everyone else is absolutely wrong.

Edited July 17, 2014 by ralis

[MooNiNite]

you don't need a guru or a lineage. Just proper understanding, which can be attained by one's own experiences

[asunthatneversets]

How can you assert a system with no flaws? That creates an absolute defense where no one can have a rational discussion with you.

For those who apply it correctly the system works, and there are teachings to suit the capacities and interests of any and everyone.

 

I'm just saying; he or she who blames the instructions for the fact that they cannot build a model airplane correctly is probably not being very honest with themselves.

 

He or she who blames the map for the fact that they cannot find a certain landmark is probably not being honest with themselves.

 

He or she who blames the food for the fact they have a food addiction isn't being honest with themselves.

 

And so on and so forth.

[asunthatneversets]

you don't need a guru or a lineage. Just proper understanding, which can be attained by one's own experiences

Depends on the system. In other teachings you may not need a guru or lineage, but in Vajrayāna you do.