Fear is the root of All suffering

[Aithrobates]

Is freaking hilarious when people, no name mentioned it, talk about logic like the next Jesus Christ. 

 

The "next Jesus Christ" ? As for my own posts: I'm not preaching. The topic of logic came in that thread, I just gave my view of it. That's all. I noted that there was a confusion here, modern, ancient, eastern and western logic not being separated, I just wanted to contribute on this subject.

 

 

by the end of the 1900, philosophers aren't occupied with Plato or Aristotle. Hehehehehehhehehehe..........Romanticism and existentialism took hold.

 

That's true. Philosophical fashion changed all the time, and so ? Does it change the fact that western logic is rooted in Aristotle. I don't understand your point. Who claimed in this thread that Plato and Aristotle where the main themes of the late 1900's ?

 

 

By 1940, the world was at war.  Because logic failed to save the world???

 

Same thing. Who claimed here that logic would "save the world" ?

 

Making us saying extravagant things so that you can prove us wrong by contesting those word we never wrote...

 

I really enjoy this forum, but very often people will think that the discussion is a contest and try to bash you, make fun of what you're writting, like if we were trying to prove who is the smartest... It's annoying :/

[ChiForce]

The "next Jesus Christ" ? As for my own posts: I'm not preaching. The topic of logic came in that thread, I just gave my view of it. That's all. I noted that there was a confusion here, modern, ancient, eastern and western logic not being separated, I just wanted to contribute on this subject.

 

 

 

That's true. Philosophical fashion changed all the time, and so ? Does it change the fact that western logic is rooted in Aristotle. I don't understand your point. Who claimed in this thread that Plato and Aristotle where the main themes of the late 1900's ?

 

 

 

Same thing. Who claimed here that logic would "save the world" ?

 

Making us saying extravagant things so that you can prove us wrong by contesting those word we never wrote...

 

I really enjoy this forum, but very often people will think that the discussion is a contest and try to bash you, make fun of what you're writting, like if we were trying to prove who is the smartest... It's annoying :/

Don't worry, I wasn't referring to you. 

 

Yes, this person thinks that logic is the next Jesus Christ but without having the ability to study the history of philosophy to conclude that his revelation and discovery aren't consistent with the development in the western thoughts.  As we all know, racial philosophy and racial theory and nationalism dominated the intellectual thoughts of the 1930s.  Philosophers and social thinkers and intellectuals aren't talking about Plato or Aristotle regardless of its root. 

 

Why in the world, 100 years after, this person decides that logic is the next best thing since sliced bread????  Is out of time and out of sync with history. 

 

To claim that logic isn't supposed to promote peace, love, and compassion (this person claims the otherwise hilariously )....it is inferior to the Buddhist and Taoist teachings. 

[Marblehead]

 

I really enjoy this forum, but very often people will think that the discussion is a contest and try to bash you, make fun of what you're writting, like if we were trying to prove who is the smartest... It's annoying :/

This gave me a chuckle.  Yeah, both Buddhism and Taoism speak about reducing or eliminating desires but here at DaoBums we are very attached to our ego and we love to win.  Yes, I'm in that basket too.

 

It's not logical to argue about logic.  But we still do.  Hehehe.  At best it keeps our brain juices flowing.

[Aithrobates]

ChiForce: Oops sorry for the confusion.

I actually thought that you were referring to the content of the topic and to the posters talking about logic here. My bad.

 

I'll have to sleep some hours before deciding if your post came too much out of the blue, and if it was not clear, or if I'm too tired... Providing that I feel like sleeping the second hypothesis seems likely.

 

I never heard of this person but he inded looks hilarious.

 

 

Marblehead: Yeah... Ego... but well it's just a forum. It can be annoying, but it's not really a bad thing. I have nobody to talk about such thing IRL. So it's better to disagree with you guys than not to talk about it at all.

 

The fun thing being that my remark was totally out of context as we can see now...o_0

Edited August 15, 2015 by Aithrobates

[ChiForce]

This gave me a chuckle.  Yeah, both Buddhism and Taoism speak about reducing or eliminating desires but here at DaoBums we are very attached to our ego and we love to win.  Yes, I'm in that basket too.

 

It's not logical to argue about logic.  But we still do.  Hehehe.  At best it keeps our brain juices flowing.

I generally love to shoot posters down when their statements can be easily dismantled with a simple common sense and a bit of historical study.  If I have the time.....  Like logic is supposed to promote peace, love, and compassion.  Let's look at the world history in the west.  The 1940s is considered a very turmoil period in the world history.  What happened to logic?  Did logic manage to bring peace and love to all those European nationalism, to the Nazi, and to the Japanese imperial army (ironically a Buddhist nation).  Is common sense...something was happening in that period that can not be explained with some simple logic this and logic that.  Political nature and human nature were at work.  It has nothing to do with logic and WHY???  

 

Two, Romanticism and Existentialism took hold during the late 1800 and replaced by racial and nationalist philosophies by the mid 1930s.  Why???  What happened to logic?  Did Aristotle and Plato logic fell out of favors within the European intellectual elites?  Again, western philosophy has been undergoing with some major changes since the Aristotle time.  And why 100 years later since 1900, this person decided that he has discovered the next Jesus Christ....   And those that went before him didn't???  The historical context says a lot......         

Edited August 15, 2015 by ChiForce

[Marblehead]

Political nature and human nature were at work.  It has nothing to do with logic and WHY???  

I can't answer this or any of your other questions either.  Did ego gain control over logic?  Perhaps.

 

Or was it a reaction of suffering due to fear of loss?  Loss of permanence?  What a concept!

[ChiForce]

I can't answer this or any of your other questions either.  Did ego gain control over logic?  Perhaps.

 

Or was it a reaction of suffering due to fear of loss?  Loss of permanence?  What a concept!

Is called rationalization within the historical time frame, spirit of the age.  Even logic can not be immune from the impermanence of our existence or the ego...oh snap, I just dis the ego and its logic with another Buddhist teaching.  hehehehehe....

 

Man's ego will rationalize their existence in accordance to the historical time frame they are living in.  That was why even Nazism was acceptable in the 1930s Germany.  

 

I think Karl's mind will explode trying to understand the problems with the ego and its rationalization.     

[Aithrobates]

Well it's getting us far from the root of all suffering (or not ?)... But I have allways looked at the sad history of the 19-20th with the eyes of an anti-capitalist. I think that local factions of capitalists were fighting each other, and so had to produce nationalist ideologies to support the claim to rule such or such country.

 

Before that kings and noble were justifiying their rules by claiming divine right. Religion, not nationalism was the common ideology. People flet more Christian than Basque or Venetian, etc... The revival of Platonism since the Renaissance was then an attempt to "upgrade" christianism, and so was an universal project, not limited to a country.

 

But with the advent of capitalist states, nation became the new reference. Everybody had to exalt its identity and so romantism, nationalism, racism, and so on.

[ChiForce]

Well it's getting us far from the root of all suffering (or not ?)... But I have allways looked at the sad history of the 19-20th with the eyes of an anti-capitalist. I think that local factions of capitalists were fighting each other, and so had to produce nationalist ideologies to support the claim to rule such or such country.

 

Before that kings and noble were justifiying their rules by claiming divine right. Religion, not nationalism was the common ideology. People flet more Christian than Basque or Venetian, etc... The revival of Platonism since the Renaissance was then an attempt to "upgrade" christianism, and so was an universal project, not limited to a country.

 

But with the advent of capitalist states, nation became the new reference. Everybody had to exalt its identity and so romantism, nationalism, racism, and so on.

Europe is inherently a very divisive continent without any unity.  It has been Christianity and the Catholic Church largely forging the unity within the continent with brute force and the crusade.  Schism in Christianity was during the Reformation separating the Protestant North and the Catholic South. Then, we have France and Napoleon militarism trying to expand their empire within the Europe.  WWI and WWII were inevitable with a divided Europe.  And capitalism fueled the UK colonial expansion.  In return, fascism fueled the German racial regime and its war path on all of Europe.  Logic???  Probably got stuck in some attics of some crazy thinkers who were obsessed with their own thoughts without caring a thing in the real, non-academic world.        

Edited August 16, 2015 by ChiForce

[ChiForce]

To be fair,  I am not saying that a Buddhist nation does not go to war or causing miseries around the world, ie the imperial Japan.  With the feudal China, at least, the society tried to model with harmony with the Tao, whatever that is according to Confucianism.  There was the Warring period during the late Han dynasty with blood relatives fighting against each others for land and power.  That was before the introduction of Buddhism in China.  However, Taoist and Buddhist priests were appointed court officials traditionally.  

 

Oh, and India and its caste system...forget about it.....         

[3bob]

Where is Spock when you need him?

[Marblehead]

Where is Spock when you need him?

He got beamed up.

[Karl]

WTF is logic anyway???  A set of paradigms and you are supposed to reason with your mind with a set of rules.  New paradigms, new rules.  Simple logical conclusion.  They are only true as long as you play by their rules.  Let's take "form is formless, formless is form."  Logic would say WTF is this???? 

 

From a Taoist paradigm, form inherently has no instinct value but dualistic.  Once the mind realizes that form is formless, it gives rise to a new form.  That the mind is no longer subjected to the condition of the external environments.  It can create its own manifestation.         

 

It's just formalised reasoning. Aristotle looked at how we make decisions based on reasoning and the places where errors occur. Remember that-just like you are doing in a more mystic sense-the Greeks were doing from a logic sense. They wanted to know the nature of things and would argue for years over the meaning of something. It required formal argumentation on a flat plane where everyone knew the rules. Today there is a confusion about argumentation because of our tendency to try and win. Winning isn't what logic is for, it's about setting up rules by which an argument can be had between a group/or individual to ensure those in the discussion don't fall into predictable traps. Aristotle did an incredible job of recognising and cateloguing the common fallacies that lead to errors in thinking-poor reasoning. It meant that during discussion participants could censure, or accept their arguments were in error very clearly and then move on to the next set of assertions. It isn't far off a kind of human computer.

 

The rules of Aristotlian logic are correct. If you study them, then it becomes very obvious that this is so. The hard part is seeing the fallacy and error in arguments. For instance a definition of the Sun.

 

'The sun is a star that shines by day' : is an example of begging the question. The subtlety of the fallacy makes it hard to discover. It isn't enough to say that an error has been committed. It's that the error must be identified.

 

Here is another very commonly known set of premises: think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do your country.

How many bought that line ? Millions. Yet it is an example of a cleverly constructed false argument that logic sees through.

[Karl]

I have no doubt I have at least a dozen logically fallacies you have already analyzed and can blow holes through any combination of words I can type out with ease. I watched you singlehandedly out-logic-game a large group of people, many of whom are already much better than average at playing. You far exceed anything I can offer in your ability to highlight fallacy while cleverly not stepping in your own, and an impressively razor thin layer of delusion left compared to even most dedicated philosophers.

 

In compassion, I just want to share awareness with you somehow that the razor of logic you've skillfully wielded to shave away so many delusions is a yet remaining delusion. You are master swordfighter who thinks his sword has become him rather than also being one of the delusions he needs to liberate himself from to get closer to approaching reality.

 

It's an acceptance of the bounds of a system being limited to the pieces it's played with, and no amount of adding more pieces or more elaborate combinations of pieces equates reality.

 

There is nothing to know. Reality to humans is a state of perception.

 

With Unlimited Love,

-Bud

It's just one tool, the edge of the sword and not the sword itself. I can only be a litmus for my own state. After many false dawns it became clear just how many ways I could invent to fool myself. What was required was some method to discover if it was a 'state' or reality. This is difficult because a 'state' IS reality. That paradox exists. However nature has given us emotion. It is the twinning of one with the other than creates a natural pumping effect. One tests the other once the fighting has ceased. They are married and learn to listen to each other. This I believe is what unity means.

 

Here, on this forum I see that it is emotion that remains dominant. It's expected. We have been emotional since we emerged from our mothers. Only later did we develop reasoning. In between logic and reasoning is the unfettered intellect. It can manifest as the clever tyrant or the suicidal teenager depending on how emotion drives it. It means we can mistake materialistic or spiritual things as the thing that must be obtained.

 

Reason is something which has to be developed and it can only be developed once it is accepted as being a final arbitrator. Intellect and emotion will get together to prevent that happening. If logic is developed as a means to obtain the material/spiritual things that are desired then it won't be pure. It will become a weapon and there can be no satisfaction in it. It becomes an appendage of intellect rather than its master and emotion will produce manipulation and the desire to win at all costs. I think of this as the province of Darth Vader in which the force is perverted by emotion into a weapon of grasping and success.

 

It is pointless to learn reasoning until the emotions and intellect are settled and give up the need to control things because they see it isn't getting them anywhere. This doesn't mean they take a back seat, it's a partnership. All three are necessary :-) maybe here I'm swayed by the religious terminology that has naturally been part of life, but it sounds very similar to the holy trinity. Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Unity.

 

I found that surrendering to a higher power-in my mind this was God-was necessary. As an Atheist this was immensely difficult for my intellect to accept and the emotions rebelled, but I kept at it. I had no idea what I was surrendering to until several years later.

 

I am only an adequate logician Bud. Barely adequate at that, but enough, in balance. I'm of average intelligence and had a raft of powerful dark, self destructive emotion barely contained by that intellect. The intention was never to become a master of logic. I'm not up to playing logic games. A half decent logician would leave me standing. However, logic is a natural opposition to mysticism and emotional mysticism will fight like hell to stay on top using the power of intellect. Emotion needs to accept that reasoning isn't it's enemy, but it's natural life partner.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Karl

[Karl]

I generally love to shoot posters down when their statements can be easily dismantled with a simple common sense and a bit of historical study.  If I have the time.....  Like logic is supposed to promote peace, love, and compassion.  Let's look at the world history in the west.  The 1940s is considered a very turmoil period in the world history.  What happened to logic?  Did logic manage to bring peace and love to all those European nationalism, to the Nazi, and to the Japanese imperial army (ironically a Buddhist nation).  Is common sense...something was happening in that period that can not be explained with some simple logic this and logic that.  Political nature and human nature were at work.  It has nothing to do with logic and WHY???  

 

Two, Romanticism and Existentialism took hold during the late 1800 and replaced by racial and nationalist philosophies by the mid 1930s.  Why???  What happened to logic?  Did Aristotle and Plato logic fell out of favors within the European intellectual elites?  Again, western philosophy has been undergoing with some major changes since the Aristotle time.  And why 100 years later since 1900, this person decided that he has discovered the next Jesus Christ....   And those that went before him didn't???  The historical context says a lot......         

 

Just weird :-)

 

Why concern yourself with externalities ? These go on regardless. Logic won't stop a volcano erupting or a man dying of cancer either.

 

Somehow you made the leap from internal to external. It is hypocritical. There is no need to apply logic to see that you gave up everything you hold to be truth to go on the offensive. With very little provocation you stopped internal self development and reached outwards for truths. You are claiming now that it is the material world that holds the truth and just a short while ago you were claiming that it was all illusiory. It cannot be both. You use phrases such as 'shooting down'. The imagery is clear.

 

You hold conflicting premises and this is all logic shows. Nothing more or less. It highlights the fallacies and conflicts by which you understand the world. Logic isn't a thing you can hold in your hand, it's neither weapon or saviour, it is simply the balance point on a scale that gives clear understanding of the measures on either side. It is incorporated not the sole device.

 

 

[ChiForce]

Just weird :-) Why concern yourself with externalities ? These go on regardless. Logic won't stop a volcano erupting or a man dying of cancer either. Somehow you made the leap from internal to external. It is hypocritical. There is no need to apply logic to see that you gave up everything you hold to be truth to go on the offensive. With very little provocation you stopped internal self development and reached outwards for truths. You are claiming now that it is the material world that holds the truth and just a short while ago you were claiming that it was all illusiory. It cannot be both. You use phrases such as 'shooting down'. The imagery is clear. You hold conflicting premises and this is all logic shows. Nothing more or less. It highlights the fallacies and conflicts by which you understand the world. Logic isn't a thing you can hold in your hand, it's neither weapon or saviour, it is simply the balance point on a scale that gives clear understanding of the measures on either side. It is incorporated not the sole device.

Typical Karl sophistry...saying a bunch crap but ending up not saying anything at all...typical....

[ChiForce]

OK, let me help out our Vulcan friend here..hehehe...

 

Instead of repeating the same words "premises, fallacy, premises, fallacy..," try to offer your arguments using historical context....since I disproved your logic using the historical study of the early 1900.    You think logic is the next Jesus Christ and can bring peace and love and compassion to the world. 

 

I have already offered my argument of why logic didn't work during the early and mid 1900...because the world suffered tremendously in that historical period.  That the ego rationalized its own existence in accordance to the historical time frame of that time.  This rationalization is called logic, according to you.  History has demonstrated that logic is historical and subjected to the condition of the historical age period...and subjected to the will of the ego.  Therefore, logic and ego are impermanent.  Oh snap......        

Edited August 16, 2015 by ChiForce

[Karl]

OK, let me help out our Vulcan friend here..hehehe...

 

Instead of repeating the same words "premises, fallacy, premises, fallacy..," try to offer your arguments using historical context....since I disproved your logic using the historical study of the early 1900.    You think logic is the next Jesus Christ and can bring peace and love and compassion to the world. 

 

I have already offered my argument of why logic didn't work during the early and mid 1900...because the world suffered tremendously in that historical period.  That the ego rationalized its own existence in accordance to the historical time frame of that time.  This rationalization is called logic, according to you.  History has demonstrated that logic is historical and subjected to the condition of the historical age period...and subjected to the will of the ego.  Therefore, logic and ego are impermanent.  Oh snap......        

 

There is no 'historical context'. It is you that is saying logic is the next Jesus Christ I have no understanding of that analogy. Neither do I think it will bring peace and compassion to the world.

 

The world is full of people making illogical choices based on gut instinct, fear, superstition and other mysticism. Wars are an example of that. What's more, just like religion, rhetoric from those trained in twisting logic, can be used to further causes of violence.

 

Logic is subject to reason which is subject to that capacity inherent in the human animal-as far as we currently know. When death occurs we cease to use reason and therefore logic, so from that perspective it is most definitely impermanent. So goes the syllogism.

 

All men are mortal

Aristotle is a man

Therefore Aristotle is mortal.

 

As ego is simply a mans identity then it will also die.

 

Ego and logic are therefore impermanent. Correct. You are improving in the art of logic every day. :-)

[Brian]

It's just one tool, the edge of the sword and not the sword itself. I can only be a litmus for my own state. After many false dawns it became clear just how many ways I could invent to fool myself. What was required was some method to discover if it was a 'state' or reality. This is difficult because a 'state' IS reality. That paradox exists. However nature has given us emotion. It is the twinning of one with the other than creates a natural pumping effect. One tests the other once the fighting has ceased. They are married and learn to listen to each other. This I believe is what unity means.

 

Here, on this forum I see that it is emotion that remains dominant. It's expected. We have been emotional since we emerged from our mothers. Only later did we develop reasoning. In between logic and reasoning is the unfettered intellect. It can manifest as the clever tyrant or the suicidal teenager depending on how emotion drives it. It means we can mistake materialistic or spiritual things as the thing that must be obtained.

 

Reason is something which has to be developed and it can only be developed once it is accepted as being a final arbitrator. Intellect and emotion will get together to prevent that happening. If logic is developed as a means to obtain the material/spiritual things that are desired then it won't be pure. It will become a weapon and there can be no satisfaction in it. It becomes an appendage of intellect rather than its master and emotion will produce manipulation and the desire to win at all costs. I think of this as the province of Darth Vader in which the force is perverted by emotion into a weapon of grasping and success.

 

It is pointless to learn reasoning until the emotions and intellect are settled and give up the need to control things because they see it isn't getting them anywhere. This doesn't mean they take a back seat, it's a partnership. All three are necessary :-) maybe here I'm swayed by the religious terminology that has naturally been part of life, but it sounds very similar to the holy trinity. Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Unity.

 

I found that surrendering to a higher power-in my mind this was God-was necessary. As an Atheist this was immensely difficult for my intellect to accept and the emotions rebelled, but I kept at it. I had no idea what I was surrendering to until several years later.

 

I am only an adequate logician Bud. Barely adequate at that, but enough, in balance. I'm of average intelligence and had a raft of powerful dark, self destructive emotion barely contained by that intellect. The intention was never to become a master of logic. I'm not up to playing logic games. A half decent logician would leave me standing. However, logic is a natural opposition to mysticism and emotional mysticism will fight like hell to stay on top using the power of intellect. Emotion needs to accept that reasoning isn't it's enemy, but it's natural life partner.

 

With respect, Karl, this post highlights in your own words the specific issue some on the forum have been attempting in various way to call to your attention.  You have deified reason.

 

You have turned logic (specifically, Aristotelian logic) into the dogmatic trappings of a religion and have converted reason into the Supreme Being.

 

"Reason is something which has to be developed and it can only be developed once it is accepted as being a final arbitrator."

 

Ummm...

 

No.

 

Reason is an aspect of our interface with that which is -- an important and valuable tool but not the "final arbitrator."

 

You go on to state it more explicitly: "I found that surrendering to a higher power-in my mind this was God-was necessary."

 

Until you recognize that your God is a false one, you are in a trap of your own making.  People can (and probably will) continue to toss you life preservers but you have to recognize you are in need of one before they will do anything but annoy you.

 

For your consideration, I ofter Bertrand Russell's conclusion on Aristotelianisn:

I conclude that the Aristotelian doctrines with which we have been concerned in this chapter are wholly false, with the exception of the formal theory of the syllogism, which is unimportant. Any person in the present day who wishes to learn logic will be wasting his time if he reads Aristotle or any of his disciples. Nonetheless, Aristotle's logical writings show great ability, and would have been useful to mankind if they had appeared at a time when intellectual originality was still active. Unfortunately, they appeared at the very end of the creative period of Greek thought, and therefore came to be accepted as authoritative. By the time that logical originality revived, a reign of two thousand years had made Aristotle very difficult to dethrone. Throughout modern times, practically every advance in science, in logic, or in philosophy has had to be made in the teeth of the opposition from Aristotle's disciples.

[Karl]

With respect, Karl, this post highlights in your own words the specific issue some on the forum have been attempting in various way to call to your attention. You have deified reason.

 

You have turned logic (specifically, Aristotelian logic) into the dogmatic trappings of a religion and have converted reason into the Supreme Being.

 

"Reason is something which has to be developed and it can only be developed once it is accepted as being a final arbitrator."

 

Ummm...

 

No.

 

Reason is an aspect of our interface with that which is -- an important and valuable tool but not the "final arbitrator."

 

You go on to state it more explicitly: "I found that surrendering to a higher power-in my mind this was God-was necessary."

 

Until you recognize that your God is a false one, you are in a trap of your own making. People can (and probably will) continue to toss you life preservers but you have to recognize you are in need of one before they will do anything but annoy you.

 

For your consideration, I ofter Bertrand Russell's conclusion on Aristotelianisn:

 

There is no God and therefore no deity. So, that argument doesn't follow. I surrendered to the religious concept of a Christian God, or the of Krishna but not logic. At that time I had no knowledge of logic. I was where you are now, a mystic believing in all the same things you claim are true.

 

I can however accuse you of deifying Tao and Buddhism as they actually do have people who have created religious ideologies. :-) similarly I can do that to Christians, but I'm sure they wouldn't mind.

 

 

That you believe you are 'throwing me a lifeline' is In sharp contrast to the fact that I don't believe I can throw anyone a lifeline. Who then is the egotist ?

 

That you quote BR.....purleeese. The man was a complete buffoon.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Karl

[Brian]

I could be mistaken, of course. People may not continue tossing life preservers in the water.

 

<shrug>

 

I once thought that box a cozy home, too, until someone helped me draw back a curtain and I saw it was a cage. Now, when I see someone else in that same cage, I offer to show them the bars. There is no need to escape from this particular cage, you see - one can simply walk out. The door isn't locked but merely pulled shut.

[Karl]

I could be mistaken, of course. People may not continue tossing life preservers in the water.

 

I once thought that box a cozy home, too, until someone helped me draw back a curtain and I saw it was a cage. Now, when I see someone else in that same cage, I offer to show them the bars. There is no need to escape from this particular cage, you see - one can simply walk out. The door isn't locked but merely pulled shut.

 

Well I could just repeat that back to you from then where are we ? Pointless.

I don't see that anyone is in a cage, so I have no desire to free them, that they believe they are in a cage has been explicitly stated. If you think that, then you measure everyone by that yardstick. If someone helped you to see you were in a cage then they didn't help at all.

[Tibetan_Ice]

...

As ego is simply a mans identity then it will also die.

 

See, that is the problem with logic. If Your base assumption is false, the your logical conclusion is also false.

In this case, your base assumption that ego is a man's identity is erroneous. It may be seem correct to you as you believe it and have defined it, except for the fact that the mystical/spiritual ego does not die. Your assumption that body death also means death of the ego is false.

 

If you wish to define death as the dropping off of the body and that the spirit/self/ego lives on then I would agree. However, your use of logic is a magic act which hides the fact that you have no realization of ego in the mystical sense.

 

How do you explain reincarnation? It is not just a belief. There are many stories about Buddhist adepts whom have chosen their future births, stories about children whom can remember their previous lives. Do you discount them and ignore them?

 

http://www.iisis.net/index.php?page=semkiw-ian-stevenson-reincarnation-past-lives-research

 

There is a concept of the alaya vijinana in Buddhism, aka the substrate and the substrate consciousness. It is the storehouse of all the experiences, personality, individual traits and characteristics that a person accumulates during a lifetime. This storehouse continues from life to life. That is what reincarnates. That is why, once a person has mastered their mind and achieved great clarity, they can go back and remember previous lives. It is logical. It makes sense.

 

In mystical terms, the death or dissolution of the ego/substrate would be called enlightenment, the end of dukkha, the end of rebirths.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Tibetan_Ice

[Brian]

In the FWIW category, neither the mystic nor the logician sees the complete picture. The transition from one to the other is a significant one but allowing the pendulum to swing back towards the middle is the next step. Recognizing merit and value in both and resolving the dissonance between them will allow you to put some distance between you and the canvas, letting you take in more of the painting in a single view. This is not to say, mind you, that integrating the phenomenal and the noumenal is a fine step by any means. The verse, "first there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is" plays itself out over and over again, on different levels, in many flavors and colors. The road goes on forever and the party never ends.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Then as far as I'm concerned miracles don't exist, but don't let that stop you enjoying them. I haven't 'clung'. I asked you to demonstrate and you refused. All Mystics say the same thing when asked to provide proof-proof isn't something they want to give, they just want everyone to B-E-L-I-E-V-E. Well I don't buy it.

Actually, I have proof of the psychic ability to view a person whom is scrying at you. Right here on the forum. The poster was called damagednotbroken. I saw his face during one of my meditation sessions and then described his head to him. He then posted his picture (which he later removed). I did take a picture of it and saved it.. My description was right on. The part that was interesting is that I became aware of a tunnel between him and I that had opened up, which I could look through any time I wanted, I closed the tunnel for numerous reasons, but the point remains... Although it is not a miracle, the experience defies logic and reason.

 

http://thedaobums.com/topic/24351-i-hunger-for-more/?p=352085

 

 

Just because you do not have have these types of experiences does not give you the right to say that they are fiction. If you knew how to develope these abilities you could see for yourself.

 

How do explain the footprints? Or the rainbow bodies?

 

https://youtu.be/0yjM04PH56g"]https://youtu.be/0yjM04PH56g

Edited August 16, 2015 by Tibetan_Ice