"purpose of life" +Buddhism

[yrreg]

False basis for dedication to ancient texts

Is there a chance that your evaluations might be wrong? That people who have studied Buddhism sees more truth in it than one who refuses to even read Buddhist texts?​

You are referring to ancient Buddhist texts.

Buddha didn't put down anything in writing which scholars can agree to be genuinely from him -- at least they do know and admit so that he didn't put down anything in writing from his own pen; although they might disagree as to whether what he put down in writing was his final mind on any question, or which writings in available manuscripts are authentically from his hand, and even more difficult: how to understand them.

Then also the search for Buddha's original and final thought on any questions by Buddhists since from the death of Buddha to the present, that is founded upon the presumption that he said things which are today true like Einstein talked about relativity in physics during his lifetime and Darwin about evolution in biology.

But the man was not talking about matters which can be true to this day like relativity and evolution are true to this day, even in today's paradigm of science.

He was talking about wishes of how he would desire life and the cosmos to be, speculations founded on emotions of fear, despair, hope, quest for peace or acceptance or resignation in regard to the hardship, suffering, decay, and death he saw in humans.

The man was into emotion not cognition.

Just like Bush and his people are into emotion, and behaving from emotion not cognition, in their invasion and occupation of Iraq, even granting that they went in to build or rebuild Iraq into a modern democratic state and society, and not to grab more territory and economic resources for the empire of the USA.


No, you don't need to delve into ancient Buddhist texts to know what to do with life and how to see the cosmos; people today are in a much better and superior position to know by themselves and to design for themselves what they want to do with life and how life and the universe are to be appreciated for their own emotional concerns.


And that is why I feel a dismay for intellectuals or so-called intellectuals who embrace Buddhism and study Buddhist texts to learn the genuine and authentic teachings of Buddha on life and the cosmos, imagining that the man had the real payload in his musings and surmisings with which the man fell in love and became so addicted to that he had to see that others also appropriate his fixations, to follow him.

Seek your own life's purpose and perspectives of the universe, to satisfy your own emotions of fear and hope and vision,

The way I see it, few are self-leaders, may are followers and prefer the ease and comfort and security of discipleship -- whereas more modern minds tell us that everyman has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, by which words they are saying that everyman owes it to himself to draft his own life philosophy and his outlook of the universe, just that you also respect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of your neighbors and conserve these parameters of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all men who aspire after liberty, equality, and fraternity.


Yrreg

 

[Ryokan]

You are referring to ancient Buddhist texts.

Indeed. You critizise them plenty, but you haven't read them. To me, that's a silly thing to do.

Buddha didn't put down anything in writing which scholars can agree to be genuinely from him -- at least they do know and admit so that he didn't put down anything in writing from his own pen; although they might disagree as to whether what he put down in writing was his final mind on any question, or which writings in available manuscripts are authentically from his hand, and even more difficult: how to understand them.

It's true, Gautama Buddha didn't put anything down in writing. It's also true, it's impossible to know what it genuinely from the historical Buddha, and how much was improved, or even invented, before it was written down.

However, how can you judge how they should be understood? You haven't even read them, nor do you want to.

In any way, none of what you say here has been disputed. Buddhists aren't slaves to The One Truth in any way or form. We follow the teachings of the Buddha as written in the canons, and wether they are the True and Original teachings of Gautama Buddha doesn't matter at all. It's the content that matters, not the source. Perhaps you'd know this if you researched Buddhism a bit, or even, dare I say, read some of the texts for yourself.

Then also the search for Buddha's original and final thought on any questions by Buddhists since from the death of Buddha to the present, that is founded upon the presumption that he said things which are today true like Einstein talked about relativity in physics during his lifetime and Darwin about evolution in biology.

Any evidence that buddhists do this, or are you just assuming or constructing a strawman? Why are you comparing the Buddha to Einstein? Philosophy and science are two completely different subjects, and the Buddha never claimed to possess The Truth, only one path towards happiness and enlightenment.

But the man was not talking about matters which can be true to this day like relativity and evolution are true to this day, even in today's paradigm of science.

Much has changed since the time of the Buddha, but the human mind has not. And I also assume you are aware that many scientific and mathematical theories from the age of the Buddha are still in use today. To give you one example, I suggest you read up on Archimedes.

He was talking about wishes of how he would desire life and the cosmos to be, speculations founded on emotions of fear, despair, hope, quest for peace or acceptance or resignation in regard to the hardship, suffering, decay, and death he saw in humans.

The man was into emotion not cognition.

How do you know? You haven't read any Buddhist texts, how do you know what the Buddha was talking about? Are you psychic and able to channel the spirit of Gautama Buddha?

Just like Bush and his people are into emotion, and behaving from emotion not cognition, in their invasion and occupation of Iraq, even granting that they went in to build or rebuild Iraq into a modern democratic state and society, and not to grab more territory and economic resources for the empire of the USA.

And you are advocating this as The Truth?

No, you don't need to delve into ancient Buddhist texts to know what to do with life and how to see the cosmos; people today are in a much better and superior position to know by themselves and to design for themselves what they want to do with life and how life and the universe are to be appreciated for their own emotional concerns.

Has anyone claimed otherwise?

And that is why I feel a dismay for intellectuals or so-called intellectuals who embrace Buddhism and study Buddhist texts to learn the genuine and authentic teachings of Buddha on life and the cosmos, imagining that the man had the real payload in his musings and surmisings with which the man fell in love and became so addicted to that he had to see that others also appropriate his fixations, to follow him.

Again, can you point us to such an individual?

Any source for your claims of the Buddha, or are you just making it up as you go?

Seek your own life's purpose and perspectives of the universe, to satisfy your own emotions of fear and hope and vision,

I did.

The way I see it, few are self-leaders, may are followers and prefer the ease and comfort and security of discipleship -- whereas more modern minds tell us that everyman has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, by which words they are saying that everyman owes it to himself to draft his own life philosophy and his outlook of the universe, just that you also respect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of your neighbors and conserve these parameters of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all men who aspire after liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Now you're thinking like a Buddhist

 

[yrreg]

What is the purpose of life?

Buddhism starts with a description of one phenomenon in life, not the only one, suffering.

Do animals start with that phenomenon in life: suffering, animals which are very close to mankind? like the pets at home, dogs and cats.

Many of us treat pets like family, in the same sense as a spouse and children are family.

I must commend Buddhism for respecting the life of animals; and unless I am mistaken, it is because they are re-incarnates of humans or entities of the more generic term into which every living thing is under as under the umbrella of, namely, sentient beings -- not of course including plants.* In Buddhism every living thing -- not including plants of course -- are re-incarnates of sentient beings.

Did sentient beings at one time suddenly appear in some generic sentient being configuration, prior to any subsequent re-incarnations. That is a vain question not worthy of occupying one's mind with, and not useful for achieving the ultimate end of man or sentient beings -- according to Buddha in effect.

Animals know pain or feel pain but they don't appear to be aware of suffering, or they don't appear to be engaged in doing something about suffering, like say committing suicide or burying their heads in the sand, like the lemming for the first and the ostrich for the second -- according to humorous popular belief.

But if you look at them carefully, the dogs and cats at home, I think I can see in their behavior instances of awareness of suffering. Animals like the dogs, cats, lions, elephants are emotional like humans: they can be sad, happy, vengeful, excited, remorseful, and jealous even. Was that news item about the pet dog of a couple killing their first baby, because until the baby came it was the idol of the couple, an actual event or an urban legend?


Maybe I should devote my leisure to study how animals deal with their suffering, like do they construct a philosophy of life whereby suffering would not be as unpleasant as it is without the philosophy? and the consequent lifestyle they adopt to conform to the philosophy -- instead of being curious about Buddhism and Buddhist converts among so-called intellectuals of the West.

----------------

The Purpose of Life According to Buddhism - ReligionFactsExploration of the Buddhist view of the purpose and meaning of life. http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhis...fs/purpose.htm - 19k - Cached - Similar pages

In Buddhism, the primary purpose of life is to end suffering.

. . . . .

This is done by recognizing the impermanence of all things and freeing oneself from attachment to these things. This will lessen suffering and eventually end the cycle of rebirth. ( . . . . . )

http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhis...fs/purpose.htm
​

Why free oneself from suffering by fleeing from the cause of suffering, attachment to things?

There is some very wrong thinking in this attitude. It is more like retaliation but not thinking, feeling hostile and acting hostile but not reasoning in a positive light.

First, desire and attachment are not always the cause of suffering, they are also the cause of pleasure, joy, a sense of satisfaction, even peace and equanimity, a sense of well-being.

Second, when desire and attachment cause supposedly suffering, because we cannot fulfill our desire as we would want to, or what we are attached to is taken away from us which is deprivation, the answer is not to do without desire and attachment, but to use our physical and moral resources more effectively to ensure the satisfaction of our desire and the guarantee of our attachment.


A young man saw a fellow human wasted by diseases, so he observed that life is not worth living, better not to be attached to life wherein is the devastation of diseases, thereby suffering. So his philosophy is that the purpose of life is to flee from life?

Someone should have told him that not all people suffer from diseases, and not all diseases are incurable. And a better purpose of life is to exert one's mind and heart and labor to the discovery and production of cures for diseases, and likewise the inculcation of ways and means to fellow humans for avoiding and preventing diseases.


To sum up a long story, people who would convert to Buddhism should better employ themselves for a purpose of life to the cultivation of life and its enhancement, for everybody; so that life gets better and better and one day life would attain indefinite duration, and even restoration of life could be enacted, should if by some tragic accident life be lost to an individual.


Yrreg

*Plant life is not to my reading on Buddhism included in the life forms that command man's respect and regard. I once talked with an otherwise learned person who had converted to Buddhism, asking him what he thinks about eating plants when he does not eat animal flesh, not even sea creatures for food, out of respect and regard for life forms. I reminded him that he knows plants are life forms even possessed of sex organs for reproduction and all the other physiological systems of man and other animals. He told me that Buddhists have to eat plants else they would not have anything to eat to stay alive, besides he told me plants consider it an honor to be used by humans for food. I guess the plants told him so. If I remember correctly, I think I told him that I wouldn't accept that honor from Buddhists were I a plant.

 

[Dancing David]

Speaking of gratuitous myths Yrreg, what was the deal with that 'philospoher' Pes Oir Amsus, which turns out to be you?

Is that not the truth, or would you care to offer another truth to us?

Why should we take you seriously when you can't find sources for your thoughts on buddhism and manufacture even your sources of wisdom.

I write fiction myself, but I credit myself, not some imaginary philosopher.

So you again stand in a status that is comparable to what you claim buddhism is, "myths and gratuitous premises".

Not only are you only here to seemingly impress yourself but you are seemingly full of false pretense as well.

 

[Dancing David]

There once was a poster who pressed the button while it was already going to post.

 

[Dancing David]

So yrreg, where can you show that buddhism espouses a 'fleeing'?

I know that you are most likely to never answer except from the depths of your ego, but I doubt you can find a source where the buddhs (or those placing words in the mouth of the buddha) recomend fleeing, that after all would be avoiding the distastefull, which the buddha did not recomend. In fact that is akin to clinging to that which is pleasurable, it is a form of atacment and likely to lead to suffering.

The goal is to live a free life, one can not avoid all suffering but one can learn to decrease it.

 

[yrreg]

No need to read ancient texts to know ancient opinions.

Originally Posted by yrreg :
You are referring to ancient Buddhist texts. ​

Indeed. You critizise them plenty, but you haven't read them. To me, that's a silly thing to do.​

---------

I am not criticizing ancient Buddhist texts as to style and literature, but as to the opinions expounded in them.

It is only required and it is more than enough to read the explanations by scholars of the opinions found in ancient texts, students who give their expertise, labor, and time to bring us accounts of the opinions expressed by the ancient authors supposedly of these texts; these contemporary researchers have a greater mastery than believers who take the authority of the texts most zealously, which zeal does not render their understanding of the opinions in the texts to be in fact corresponding to the intention of the original writers.

That is why if you really want to know about the opinions of the ancient writers as recorded in their authentic texts, then it is better for you to have recourse to scholars, specially experts not professing Buddhism but simply dedicated to the study of ideas and writings of early Buddhism, than to devote years and efforts to master what the scholars have already established on text analysis and history of society and culture.

I say opinions of ancient Buddhist authors because their prescription for the purpose of life and the nature of the universe is just that, so many opinions.

If these writers were telling us how to turn lead into gold by a secret formula only they knew, or how to get to the top of the Himalayan peak, the summit of Mount Everest, by an easy and short and safe path only they knew, then we might have to study their writings first-hand, and prefer not to depend on scholars who should have reasons of self-interest to not share with us their understanding of the writings.

You see, there are as many self-appointed teachers on the purpose of life as there are purposes of life or several versions of the purpose of life -- yes, I am also one such proponent of my version for the purpose of life.

Why spend so much time and effort into reading the ancient Buddhist texts on the purpose of life, when in the first place who are these ancient Buddhist masters that should command our attention? or what personal merits or achievements do they hold which entitle them to a dutiful hearing from us?

Yes, they have meditated long and hard, like their master, Buddha, to attain knowledge of what and how we should strive for in the way of the purpose of life. However, if that is all the justification for the worth of their message, then I would say it amounts to nothing except mental calisthenics of their own imagination and flights of fancy.


For the several considerations indicated above, I submit that reading accounts by scholars of the opinions of ancient Buddhist texts is more than enough for a knowledge of Buddhism with an end to its critique.

What about this illustration? A car manufacturer published a 150 page manual of thick text on the design, crafting, and operation, and above all the attractive features of its latest model for the current year. Do you have to read that book in order to know the car, and to be in a position to criticize it for the end of determining whether it is the car you want to own and therefore pay the stiff price for? No, you don't have to; if you are possessed of some practical wisdom, you go to magazines where you can read serious and thorough reviews by reputable and experienced drivers with knowledge of auto design and engineering.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

It's a literary device.

Not only are you only here to seemingly impress yourself but you are seemingly full of false pretense as well. -- Dancing David​

​

Susma and Pes Oir Amsus are pseudonyms, literary devices for yours truly.

My intention is not to present a personage of authority but just your good friend here in exchange of ideas and views.

If you probe more keenly into what appear to you as authoritative sayings of Susma or Pes Oir Amsus, you will conclude that they are nothing but the experience of mankind on how to live, how to know human nature, and how to act in this world so as to reap an enjoyable and rich existence of worthwhile experiences.

The words of Susma and Pes are no different from the maxims of Confucius or the moral guidelines of Aesop or the slogans of the famous cynic, Diogenes of Sinope, and also more contemporary Ambrose Bierce.

Such is human vice, once a person takes on a system of a philosophy to follow faithfully which is not of his own making but appropriated from another human with ancient provenance, like say Buddha or Christ or Mohammad, he then continues with his acquired habit which is now to him a virtue, of unknowingly seeking persons of authority instead of the intrinsic authority of the words in a text, because the words themselves make sense on the universal encounters of mankind.

“What's in a name?
That which we call a rose by any other name
would smell as sweet.”​

​

For people who know what's a rose, those words are authoritative even if never penned by Shakespeare. So also are the words of Susma and Pes Oir Amsus, they are authoritative in themselves even if never spoken by Susma and Pes Oir Amsus, but on the meanings of the words themselves.


Thich Nhat Hahn, hahahahn; if his words make sense to any person of reason, and experience, and insight, they are good enough even without mention of his name; if his words are of no intrinsic worth but empty sounds, mention of his name will only bring him discredit from any person of reason, experience, and insight. Where does he get his insights, from observation and having a life or from meditation and reading of Buddhist scriptures?


Yrreg

 

[Dancing David]

So, who are these scholars that say buddhism is a fleeing? Can you cite more than one.

Scientificaly you have yet to cite your source or demonstrate that they are authoratative at all. I would not consider that a high school student who had read a book on Plato would be athoratative. Nor do I believe that a lay person with no grasp of mathematics would be able to speak well upon the meaning of Einstein's theory of photons and the electro voltaic properties of a xerox machine.

As usual Yrreg you are pseaking in an unscepticsl fashion, you merely present us with 'because I say so".

Too bad, if you actualy read things then you might have some debate to you.

And you make the error that you accuse buddhists of, that we should blindly follow ypur beliefs, you do not even offer them up for critical examination, so you are less sure than the buddha.

1. What sources say that buddhism is a fleeing?
2. What experience do they have as a reader of buddhism?
3. What sources do they cite for thier beliefs?

The fact that you laugh at Thich Naht Hahn reflects solely upon your mental status as a debator. Sigh, have you read anything he wrote? If you had you would see that it contains some wisdom and some foolishnes. I might say he has more isdom and less foolish than you, but that is a matter of perspective.

 

[Mojo]

What do you guys say?

Come on, guys. Yes or No.

 

[yrreg]

Buddhism is essentially flight, escapism.

1. What sources say that buddhism is a fleeing?
2. What experience do they have as a reader of buddhism?
3. What sources do they cite for thier beliefs?

1. What sources say that buddhism is a fleeing?

Answer: Observation of how and into what classes Buddhists can be arranged tells us that Buddhism is essentially flight from life instead of having a life and making a life, as in the phrases "have a life" and "make a life." There are over all two kinds of Buddhists, those leading an existence outside a monastic community, and those select minority who live apart from fellow humans in such communities, namely, monks and nuns.

Buddha himself started the philosophy of flight by leaving his wife, child, family, and home to supposedly seek the purpose of life by fleeing life, i.e., life with the fellow humans most close to him who can be the most fertile milieu for the study of the purpose of life. Following Buddha, Buddhists who would be better and best Buddhists take up the ideal of life or more correctly flight from life by adopting celibate seclusion from the society and community of fellow humans -- all in the name of escaping so-called suffering to which Buddhism erroneously attributes as to a cause, desire.


2. What experience do they have as a reader of buddhism?

Answer: What experience do I have as a reader of Buddhism to criticize Buddhism? I have observed -- that is the experience, observation -- that Buddhist monks and nuns, the cream of Buddhism, are in fact living or rather dying away from home and family, and depriving themselves of the most common of human needs and desires, like to have a family and home and to contribute something genuinely useful to mankind, by adding to the improvement of human life and the enhanced perpetuation of mankind.

These Buddhist monks and nuns show all the signs of gloom and doom; but they put up a mask of peace and apparent serenity by telling themselves and non-Buddhists that their reward is great in Nirvana -- which happens to mean etymologically, extinction.


3. What sources do they cite for their beliefs?

Answer: What sources do I cite to show that I do know what Buddhists believe in, and that as a whole and essentially that their beliefs all add up to flight from life or fleeing? What about the book of observation and reasoning from observation and also experimenting?

I observe that Buddhists have only two sources of knowledge for the purpose of life, one meditation and two reading of Buddhist scriptures: both purvey nothing about life except if and when the Buddhist or would-be Buddhist makes the self-lethal decision to flee from life by accepting that living is suffering and desire is the cause, so abandon all desires, overcome them, and then you will be worthy or qualified for Nirvana, namely, extinction. And the idea of Nirvana, that also is accepted by the decision to embrace it, not from evidence nor logic, reasoning.

--------------------

You see Buddhism has moralistic teachings on how to live a peaceable life with oneself and with one's neighbors; but the basic grounds for the why one should live a peaceable life are founded upon decisions to accept Buddhistic teachings blindly, or from meditation, instead of from facts of human existence and the rise of civilization, society, and culture.

In this respect, meditation for Buddhists and would-be Buddhists is a process of convincing oneself and finally effecting self-conviction by decision in place of cognitive perception: to accept that life is all suffering owing to desire, and to rid oneself of suffering one must give up and even overcome all desires -- and the end thereof? Nirvana, or extinction of the self.

It's like, if you don't want to risk having a bad day, don't leave the house today, any day; then one day enclosed in your home which is now a tomb of a womb, you will succumb to self-extinction -- no more suffering because you are no more -- now you can congratulate yourself for being no longer around to suffer from desire, and to suffer from working long and hard to stifle desire (presuming that you are around post Nirvana).


Yrreg

 

[Dancing David]

I observe that Buddhists have only two sources of knowledge for the purpose of life, one meditation and two reading of Buddhist scriptures: both purvey nothing about life

You can't prove that a buddhism, it is about living life. Can you show your work?

except if and when the Buddhist or would-be Buddhist makes the self-lethal decision to flee from life by accepting that living is suffering and desire is the cause,

I am sceptical, where did the budha teach that you have to flee, he was very imature and had no knowledge of life, this does not absolve him of his burden when he abandones his wife and family, as well as the responsibilities for a prince.
So he chose to run, but he does not teach running.
He also didn't benefit from fasting, meditation and yoga.
When the buddha understood what had brought him to the point of nirvana, he stopped running.
As a sceptic, where does the buddha teach that one should flee from life?

so abandon all desires, overcome them, and then you will be worthy or qualified for Nirvana, namely, extinction. And the idea of Nirvana, that also is accepted by the decision to embrace it, not from evidence nor logic, reasoning.

The decision to persue the teachings of the buddha is always that of the student.

You can not document in any way that the buddha taught by faith.

Again, the buddha taught that if you examine his teachings then you can decide if they have merit.

You have studied the teachings of the buddha, you have found that they do not have merit.

The buddha taught that that is fine, peachy, coolarino and just marvelous in every way.

--------------------

You see Buddhism has moralistic teachings on how to live a peaceable life with oneself and with one's neighbors; but the basic grounds for the why one should live a peaceable life are founded upon decisions to accept Buddhistic teachings blindly

You can't prove that, there are those who practise warfare who are chistians, they are ignoring the teachings of jesus.
You can't prove that the buddha taught by faith.

You are asking me to accept your faith, the buddha and the teachers do not teach by faith. There is pure land buddhism which does teach by miraculous salvation.
Not a teaching the the buddha.

, or from meditation, instead of from facts of human existence and the rise of civilization, society, and culture.

The buddha stated a single fact Yrreg, if you feel that your life is out of balance than there is a way to balance it.

Where did the buddha teach from anything but facts.

You have yet to prove your assertion.

Show your work.

In this respect, meditation for Buddhists and would-be Buddhists is a process of convincing oneself and finally effecting self-conviction by decision in place of cognitive perception: to accept that life is all suffering owing to desire, and to rid oneself of suffering one must give up and even overcome all desires -- and the end thereof? Nirvana, or extinction of the self.

The negation of suffering. yes. Not that life is all suffering.
You can't overcome desire, the eight fold path teaches one to live with it and free ones self from it.

There is no self to extinct. It is the negation and extinction of suffering, the body, the eotions, the thoughts, the feelings, the perceptions and the actos of volition continue.
The self never existed to begin with.
One can obtain nirvana, have a family, go to work and save the world, if they wish.

All in the practise of living.

If you are free from sufferin, that is agood thing. It doesn't mean your life stops.

It's like, if you don't want to risk having a bad day, don't leave the house today, any day; then one day enclosed in your home which is now a tomb of a womb, you will succumb to self-extinction -- no more suffering because you are no more -- now you can congratulate yourself for being no longer around to suffer from desire, and to suffer from working long and hard to stifle desire (presuming that you are around post Nirvana).

That is not what the buddha taught.

Unfortunatly it is what some people do. It is highly recomended that one isolate from the world in many forms of chistianity and agorophobia.

But buddhism and in fact monastic budhhism can be living and engaged.

Yrreg

You can make a telling point here, but you have only said that it is your opinion that the buddha taught fleeing and the end of life.

Ther buddha did abandon his family. bad buddha, bad buddha.

But the teachings of the buddha do not teach that.

If you feel that you are already free, then there is not point to following the teachings of the buddha, and that is a good thing.



And as far as the 'western intelectuals' tolerating buddhism, far more of them tolerate the whole christianity and New Age thing.

That and repressive capitalist hierarchies, fascist dictatorships and the hegemony of modernamericanpuritanthought.

Comapred to GWB and the growth of the international conglomlobalization, the followers of the buddha seem much less threatening than the Wal-mart shopping, SUV driving , world dominating americans.

 

[yrreg]

Buddha does not claim to possess

( . . . . . )

Originally Posted by yrreg :
Then also the search for Buddha's original and final thought on any questions by Buddhists since from the death of Buddha to the present, that is founded upon the presumption that he said things which are today true like Einstein talked about relativity in physics during his lifetime and Darwin about evolution in biology.​

Any evidence that buddhists do this, or are you just assuming or constructing a strawman? Why are you comparing the Buddha to Einstein? Philosophy and science are two completely different subjects, and the Buddha never claimed to possess The Truth, only one path towards happiness and enlightenment.

( . . . . . )

Philosophy and science are two completely different subjects, and the Buddha never claimed to possess The Truth,​

Why then follow Buddha or take up Buddhism when the founder never claimed to possess The Truth?

--------------------


Correct me if I am mistaken.

Philosophy tells us that being is preferable to non-being, as for example life is preferable to death; and science tells us how in concrete circumstnaces to secure better life and longer life, even indefinite duration of life.

So, it is not correct to say that philosophy and science are two completely different subjects with the attitude that they are conflicting disciplines. They are in fact collaborating fields of human knowledge.

Now, philosophy is founded on science as the general is founded upon the particular and specific. The sphere of science is the realm of the senses, while philosophy is the mind that sees the pattern or hopes to see the pattern in life and in the world from the inputs of the senses, by perceiving regularites and constancies in the inputs.

We are talking induction as a method of information; remember that deduction can only operate on the general conclusions from induction.

-------------

Does Buddhism possess the true metaphysics that is always the situational setup in which man exists and operates as extant entities?

If I am not mistaken, the first principle of metaphysics insofar as humans are concerned, is that being is preferrable to non-being; for example life is preferable to death -- unless by some twisted logic a man puts himself to death, brings about his own non-being, by suicide; because for him the trials of life or an incurred shame in life are intolerably overwhelming, so that he considers death a liberation from trials and shame. I say twisted logic because when a man has killed himself he is not liberated for he is no longer around as an entity freed of trials and shame.

----------------------

Philosophy and science are two completely different subjects, and the Buddha never claimed to possess The Truth,​

This means that Buddha or Buddhism does not possess what I might call the true metaphysics of life and the universe, and much less, the physics of life and the universe. I agree with this statement of Ryokan whoeheartedly; and if being a Buddhist and poring long and hard over ancient Buddhist lores has taught him or led him to nothing more profound than that

... the Buddha never claimed to possess The Truth,​

​

then I must congratulate him that his time and labor and stamina have not been totally wasted on an enterprise that yielded nothing of value to his knowledge of life and the universe.

But why did he have to go inside Buddhism to find that out? and more of illogic, why is he defending Buddhism and explaining it no end that it is the best philosophy or religion for mankind?

He could have just read and thought carefully what scholars tell us about Buddhism, and reached easily, quickly, and economically of time and labor that Buddha does not claim to possess The Truth, does not claim because in fact he doesn't have it.

----------------


The moral of this post is the following:

If you would save time and work in life so as to live more truly and better and more fruitfully in terms of genuine satisfactions in life, learn from others who have studied dispassionately but critically the various philosophies and relgions concerned with life, then design your own cusotmized one for yourself; don't take up any one particular philosophy or religion, although it has been around for two millenia or there be millions following it.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

"The Truth" in Buddhism, then if any.

Philosophy and science are two completely different subjects, and the Buddha never claimed to possess The Truth,​

Why then follow Buddha or take up Buddhism when the founder never claimed to possess The Truth?

( . . . . )

What then is The Truth in Buddhism if any?

So, I will look up the net with Google, entering into the search box the following phrase: Buddhism +"The Truth", and report back here.



A cursory reading of the returns from Google on Buddhism +"The Truth" tells us: not only does Buddhism claim to possess The Truth, but it proffers Four Noble Truths to people who would follow the Buddha.

To those who would object by quibbling that Buddha did not say this or that, all right then to be more exact, the teachers of Buddhism state that their master, Buddha, indeed possesses The Truth.

Why this casuistic qualification? That is the device of Buddhists who want to insist that Buddha did not teach this or that or anything all, but his disciples or persons arrogating to themselves the custody of Buddha's preachments, in order to save Buddha from any so much as a shadow of an error, or any so much as an iota or a dash which they from their own sense of fuller and deeper knowledge to be unworthy of Buddha.

Thus, I have the impression of some people here parading the designation of Buddhist, for example Ryokan, saying that Buddha never claims to possess The Truth, by which they want to convey that whatever truth or The Truth you think that Buddha is claiming to possess, that "The Truth" is not claimed by him to have attained and to be teaching.

That kind of an attitude is the fallacious shirting of the issue, namely, does Buddha have something to tell us that he insists is genuinely true in his times and also specially in our times; or whether the truths, four of them enumerated by his followers to this very day, called the Four Noble Truths, are anything so special that anyone with common mental grasp and reflection cannot arrive at.

But the end product of such a mentality of would-be defenders or apologists or polemicists of Buddha, which denies that anyone outside them can get to know Buddha's mind and expectation, is that in which case Buddha cannot be known to have taught anything at all that can be known. But wait, "can be known to be from him (i.e., cannot)," that clause they understand as a caveat to be applicable to anyone except themselves, who are the only ones in their own self-confidence to know that they know what Buddha certainly taught.

And they will demand that we read the Buddhist scriptures in their entirety, instead of consulting standard references on Buddhism.

If they would be logical, perhaps they should also face these questions squarely: have they themselves read all the Buddhist scriptures of all the schools of Buddhism in the original scripts they were redacted? And do they have the certitude of having at hand all the manuscripts of Buddhist scriptures? Moreover, should they not also entertain most seriously that there are manuscripts, which must still be extant in this universe, but not yet discovered or unearthed by scholars of ancient Buddhist literary artifacts?


So much for such unending prevarication of pretentious loyalty to supposedly canonical Buddhist texts.


What I like to do now is to list the major teachings and observances of Buddhism as generally established by recognized scholars of Buddhism, specially those who are unbiased students, researchers, without any partisan attachment to Buddhism as to a religio-philosophical world-view.

And see whether these principal common doctrines and observances of Buddhists can be revised to make Buddhism more palatable to secular humanists of today.


In an enterprise I would like to call constructive criticism.

Yrreg

 

[Dancing David]

What then is The Truth in Buddhism if any?

So, I will look up the net with Google, entering into the search box the following phrase: Buddhism +"The Truth", and report back here.

[qimg]http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/7196/budthetruth15bl.gif[/qimg]

A cursory reading of the returns from Google on Buddhism +"The Truth" tells us: not only does Buddhism claim to possess The Truth, but it proffers Four Noble Truths to people who would follow the Buddha.

To those who would object by quibbling that Buddha did not say this or that, all right then to be more exact, the teachers of Buddhism state that their master, Buddha, indeed possesses The Truth.

Why this casuistic qualification? That is the device of Buddhists who want to insist that Buddha did not teach this or that or anything all, but his disciples or persons arrogating to themselves the custody of Buddha's preachments, in order to save Buddha from any so much as a shadow of an error, or any so much as an iota or a dash which they from their own sense of fuller and deeper knowledge to be unworthy of Buddha.

Thus, I have the impression of some people here parading the designation of Buddhist, for example Ryokan, saying that Buddha never claims to possess The Truth, by which they want to convey that whatever truth or The Truth you think that Buddha is claiming to possess, that "The Truth" is not claimed by him to have attained and to be teaching.

That kind of an attitude is the fallacious shirting of the issue, namely, does Buddha have something to tell us that he insists is genuinely true in his times and also specially in our times; or whether the truths, four of them enumerated by his followers to this very day, called the Four Noble Truths, are anything so special that anyone with common mental grasp and reflection cannot arrive at.

But the end product of such a mentality of would-be defenders or apologists or polemicists of Buddha, which denies that anyone outside them can get to know Buddha's mind and expectation, is that in which case Buddha cannot be known to have taught anything at all that can be known. But wait, "can be known to be from him (i.e., cannot)," that clause they understand as a caveat to be applicable to anyone except themselves, who are the only ones in their own self-confidence to know that they know what Buddha certainly taught.

And they will demand that we read the Buddhist scriptures in their entirety, instead of consulting standard references on Buddhism.

If they would be logical, perhaps they should also face these questions squarely: have they themselves read all the Buddhist scriptures of all the schools of Buddhism in the original scripts they were redacted? And do they have the certitude of having at hand all the manuscripts of Buddhist scriptures? Moreover, should they not also entertain most seriously that there are manuscripts, which must still be extant in this universe, but not yet discovered or unearthed by scholars of ancient Buddhist literary artifacts?


So much for such unending prevarication of pretentious loyalty to supposedly canonical Buddhist texts.


What I like to do now is to list the major teachings and observances of Buddhism as generally established by recognized scholars of Buddhism, specially those who are unbiased students, researchers, without any partisan attachment to Buddhism as to a religio-philosophical world-view.

And see whether these principal common doctrines and observances of Buddhists can be revised to make Buddhism more palatable to secular humanists of today.


In an enterprise I would like to call constructive criticism.

Yrreg

This ia worse than your usual stuff Yregg, you have one site where a Nirichen budhist claims to have the truh, and you sate that this means that all buddhists feel that the buddha possesed The Trusth. I would say that this is rather an overgeneralization, just like saying all people from the phillipines are sceptics of the buddha because one person from the phillipines is a sceptic of the buddha.

On the four noble truth, or whaterever translation you like. You forgot soemthing, the title should be The first noble truth of suffering, etc. they are limited truths and again you may have engaged in overgenralizatioin

That kind of an attitude is the fallacious shirting of the issue, namely, does Buddha have something to tell us that he insists is genuinely true in his times and also specially in our times; or whether the truths, four of them enumerated by his followers to this very day, called the Four Noble Truths, are anything so special that anyone with common mental grasp and reflection cannot arrive at.

the buddha claimed to have four truths, that is a far stretch to 'the truth', seems to be overgenralization, like saying someone is stupid because they say some thing stupis.

And then you wave the flag of COMMON SENSE.

That demonstrates my belief that you are a psuedo sceptic, any sceptic knows that common sense is a poor excuse for a lack of critical thinking. Are you sure you are a sceptic?

And they will demand that we read the Buddhist scriptures in their entirety, instead of consulting standard references on Buddhism.

What a hoot !

You have quoited about three sources in your rambling posts, and you almost never even cite a quote.

So what are the standard texts and do they say that the buddha taught 'the truth'?

I suspec t that you are a poseur with an axe to grind yrreg, but by all means don't let your active ignorance deter your from your chosen path.

Blessed be.

 

[Ryokan]

That demonstrates my belief that you are a psuedo sceptic, any sceptic knows that common sense is a poor excuse for a lack of critical thinking. Are you sure you are a sceptic?

After this thread, I wouldn't even call him a pseudo-sceptic.

Yrreg is a fraud that is full of himself, and this 'evidence by Google search' is just silly.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Buddha = Awakened

Buddhism = How to awaken yourself

Still, discussions about the subject are related to words, concepts and meanings, what a boring thing.

BTW, Zen teachers try to live it (the Buddhism), and show you how to live it. No more complexity is needed.

 

[yrreg]

Arguments by labels or libels, and fallacy of the unknowable

I just post my views from my readings on Buddhism and glean my impressions thereby of Buddhists who would explain, defend, customize Buddhism in accordance with their own mastery [sic] of Buddhist lores and fads -- and some showcasing themselves to be connoisseurs of Buddhist texts, which they approach as though or with the assumption that for much reading they can milk out more and better acquaintance with the really true authentic genuine sure incontestable teachings of the Gautama and samples of life acts to emulate.

Please, no arguments by labels or libels here. I don't engage in that habit myself.


Another impression I derive is that there is a lot of resort to the unknowable or the unspeakable or the ineffable or the indescribable, when it comes to mention of this or that doctrine and practice of Buddhists in pursuit of enlightenment and nirvana.

Do this exercise, look up enlightenment and nirvana, and you will never get any straight answers from Buddhist writers, who pose themselves to be adepts of Buddhism, the knowledge and the life experience of.

Suggestion to them: don't mention anything which you will not come forth with something definite but must harp on its being unknowable, etc. If it is unknowable, don't mention it, for then you are taking refuge in what I call the fallacy of the unknowable: saying that you know and then maintaining that it is unknowable and indescribable in words.

In which case, just be honest and simple, say that you feel it is very important and you get excited, but it is nothing that you know the way you know what is home to you and what is food to you and what is money to you.

Or do as the Muslims do or Mohammad about paradise, there you will get served by houris; when pressed to the wall they will admit that it is not really houris but in a crude manner bliss as multiplied to an nth times and elevated to a most pure kind and state.

Try that tack when you talk about enlightenment and nirvana.


Yrreg

 

[Mojo]

After this thread, I wouldn't even call him a pseudo-sceptic.

Yrreg is a fraud that is full of himself, and this 'evidence by Google search' is just silly.

He's a self-confessed troll:

I am modesty aside a super skeptic: where everyone is in the bandwagon, like taking up Buddhism or bashing acupuncture, then I will take the opposite tack.


Yrreg

He's certainly full of himself: "modesty aside" indeed.

 

[Dancing David]

More words meaning less!

if you enter "enlightenment nirvana" into google what do you get?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=enlightenment+nirvana&btnG=Google+Search

This one from the first hit and a non-buddhist one, the buddha preached against the atma

We know we contain the Atmic spirit within us yet our consciousness is normally centered in the lower realms of mind, emotions, and sensations.

second hit: appears to be buddhist

Nirvana- The End of Suffering... In this lifetime and all future lifetimes.
...
Enlightenment- The Wisdom of Emptiness... The wisdom that arises from the direct experience of all phenomena being empty of independent existence.

third hit: appears to be buddhist

Enlightenment comes essentially one step before nirvana. It is the realizing of the true nature of the cosmos, the link between samsara and nirvana.
...
Nirvana for Gautama is to live the life on earth as the result of the Enlightenment, it is not a place, but a state of mind in which one is released from desire, craving, fear... and, most specially, Nirvana brings a Buddhist out of the cycles of the curse of reincarnation for ever

fourth hit : wikipedia on nirvana

Nirvāa?a (from the Sanskrit Nirvaana, Pali: Nibbāana , Pinyin: niè pán), literally "extinction" and/or "extinguishing", is the culmination of the pursuit of liberation in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, & Jainism. In India the term Moksha is also used instead of nirvana. And Nirvana is sometimes used to describe the state of moksha. It is spoken of in several Hindu tantric texts as well as the Bhagavad Gita.

fifth hit: how stuff works

is called nirvana. The word is Sanskrit for "to extinguish." In this case, it means to extinguish ignorance, hatred and earthly suffering. The term is most closely associated with Buddhism, though it's applied to a similar concept in Hinduism

Seems that the definitions are there and very clear.

Aumgnha!