Dear Dancing David:
First, I would like to go over that word permanence and impermanence again with you, if you would accommodate.
I can try, but it might not lead anywhere, epistomology is always a circular set of self referencing interactions. As a materialst I had come to a strong perception of the transitory nature of reality long before I studied buddhism. So in this case it is buddhism reinforcing a strong personal belief.
From the beginning and without looking up the dictionaries I have always understood permanence as in a time context, so that permanence means a thing, anything at all, even a color, endures long even forever; that persistence, endurance in time for me has always been the immediate meaning whenever that word permanence is mentioned.
Did you just look up the first dictionary on hand and read that the common ordinary usual meaning of permanence denotes not time endurance but the feature of unchangeability or resistance to change?
The American Heritage is my prefered dictionary, is has been since about 1974. It was the family Scabble dictionary.
The meaning found in your dictionary defines permanence not principally in a time context but in a change context; whereas for my own knowledge and use of English, permanence is primarily understood in a time context.
That is the nature of idomatic usage, we all use the same words with different meanings. The second definition in the AH dictionary denotes the lang lasting yet transitory use of permanence. They are both correct.
This issue is quite slippery, we can both see that. Tell me, can you look up at least five or more online dictionaries and report to me, aside from that one you had already consulted, whether their primary definition is oriented to a time context or to a change context.
And again I could yet when i asked you where is permanence I meant in the sense of not transitory. So while the persistant nature of permanence is part of the deifinition, for clarity, my question can become, where is that which is not transitory? Or where is that which does not change? That way the intention in my use of permanence is more apparent, even though the defintions vary.
So, the question can be restaded , where is that which is not transitory?
That is why also I am now, at the risk of making myself look so dummy, wondering why Buddhists want to use the word permanent and then negate it, when they can just use the word more direct and thus simpler, namely changeable.
Because that is the nature of idiomatic language and fashion, american english in particular is very fluid. I used permanent in the sense of not changing, but there are other meanings. But american english is very modal and idiomatic, so the restatement will clarify, but i do not feel that it sia deficiency in my use of the word. The use of the word permanacy is appropriate in my usage context and confusing in yours.
I don't recall negating the word permanent, change also has multiple meanings. So your use of english varies from ine, and will continue to do so, I would assume that China, S. Africa, Jamaica and Australia will have variants of idiomatic usage of the english language.
You will say that in fact they don't usually use the word permanent and then negate it, they use regularly the word changeable to express the feature of things that change and not stay the same in time.
Is that what you will tell me?
No, but then it is your contention that i negated my use of the word permanent, so it would be quite a leap to say that is a trait of buddhists, when it was my alleged acts.
Somewhat of an overgeneralization.
Anyway, I will just ask you some questions and hope that I will get to know exactly what kind of a Buddhist you are, compared to the Buddhists as should be observing the
The Buddhist Inter-traditions Consensus on Commitment and Practice.
1. Last night when you went to bed and this morning when you got up, are you the same identical person your parents or wife and kids know you to be; or prescinding from them, you being a Buddhist maintain at lest within yourself that you are not the same identical person, but a different one from that of some eight hours more or less previously?
And this is awhere buddhism reinforces beliefs that I had prior to my study of buddhism. About the age of twenty, I thought about the fact that all I was , was very temporay in terms of my physical and psychological nature. There are some wierd things that happen in psychology as well, such as persistance of vision and the confabulation of material we see in our blind spot.
So in a very physical sense, no I am not the same person that I was even a fraction of a second ago, my molecules and atoms change place, enter and leave my body. And the mish-mash in my head is very strange stuff. So while I have memories and they lead to the belief that I am the same person I was went i went to bed, they to are fluid. I have noted great differences between my recollections and my friend's recollections of events long ago. Which has led me to understand that many parts of my memory, or thiers, are wrong.
But despite the physical changes that would state I am not the same person i was when i went to sleep, it would seem that some changes occur more slowly than others, so while my body is not exactly the same as it was when i went to sleep, it is mostly the same body i had when I went to sleep. Some of the calcium in my body may actualy be neer seven years resident, and given the nature of organic bodied it is concievable that there are calcium atoms which are in body that have been there my whole life, although they have changed position a number of times.
So parts of me are the same as when I went to bed, some are not. So I would say that no, I am not exactly the same person i was when i went to bed. There is some continuity and some change.
2. Do you believe in karma, rebirth, and nirvana, the way the standard Buddhist dictionary explains them? If yes, why? if no, why?
Proabably not, during my training in witchcraft I was known as rather a 'galloping sceptic'. Most likely I am sure that many buddhists would not agree with me.
Karma: I would say is the consequence of actions, each choice has consequences. But as a materialist i believce solely in the material world, I do not beleieve that there is any sort of devine or mystic influence to karma.
Rebirth: can't say I believe in it, when I die I die, when my body ceases to function then it will decompose, there will be a phase transition in the body and it will no longer be conscious. I don't find the idea od a soul or spirit to be likely so there would be nothing to rebirth.
Nibbanna: as stated many times, it is a state of psychology, the attainment of the unattached life style. When the body dies the state of nibbanna ceases, when the person becomes attached to thoughts and the like then nibbanna ceases.
But I am sure that about 80% of the people who call themselves buddhists feel very differently, my perspective was founded in material nihilism before I studied the dharma.
3. Do you really believe that for you Buddhism has helped you in your adjustment to life problems which you could not have effected for yourself without, notwithstanding that you have a good head and know a lot of DIY materials outside Buddhism to do a DIY self-therapy?
As stated before it gave me more tools, and mindfullness and the eight fold path were the main ones. i have been through individual, group and chemotherapy for depression and OCD. I reached a point where I had the techniques but not the where or what, for me mindfullness and the 8FP were very helpful. More tools, more wisdom, the better it gets, I learn alot from other people in general, not just the buddha.
4. What do you think of the idea of taking refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, think about that word refuge? what are you taking refuge from?
As in refuge from the storm, or from other detrimental states, but my interpretation of the Three Jewels is likely to be very different from others.
The buddha is a teacher, although I have used buddhist images for mystic and spiritual purposes.Kwan Yin and Avolokiteishavara. The buddha is a teacher, and so a refige from my own ignorance.
The dharma is a guide or map, it reminds me to weeed the garden of my mind and plant helthy thoughts and acts, it is a way of approaching things and keeping perspective. Although now that i work in a school, my boundaries are not quite as tested as they used to be, and since I am now in a very healthy relationship, my boundaries are less tested than they used to be.
The sangha is the association of healthy individuals and teschers who surrond me, there are so many, and most of them are not buddhists. So that one is most likely a big strech.
I have other questions for you, later; if you like you can ask me questions also.
If I may, with no malice or ill will to offend, I have the impression very strong from you, that you argue for the sake of arguing to not appear illogical or self-contradictory or mistaken in your thought processes, even though the way I see it the whole world knows that you are grabbing at straws.
Not really, but our perceptions will differ, most of the ideas I have i have had a long time and they do not come from buddhism. Our interpretations are going to vary. My reading about Bihaya and yours are very different. If I look at my life as it was and they way my life is now, my life is calmer, more satisfying, more nuturing and more enjoyable.
See, what you call grabbing at straws is most likely my nihilism, I truely believe that all human thoughts, words, concepts and beliefs are inherently false, they are just symbols we use to communicate to ourselves and others, they are approxiamations of reality and should not be mistaken for reality.
I have felt that way for a long time, before I called myself a buddhist.
If I argue then that would be an error, I am explaining my thoughts, they are not for the sake of argument. When I have looked at the words which are attributed to the alleged historical buddha, I do not fid them to be full of the nonsense that many of his followers state. I am very opposed and detaching from the attitude of many forms of buddhism. And I am sure that if I read all the Pali Canon, I would find things that i find to be nonsense. I haven't so far but it is likely.
that you argue for the sake of arguing to not appear illogical or self-contradictory or mistaken in your thought processes, even though the way I see it the whole world knows that you are grabbing at straws
And the way i see it i am removing the things that come between me and the real world, so different paths for different people.
I give you the same impression? That makes two of us with the same opinion respectively to each other, no impasse here. Smile.
When i use the word duplicitous, it is because of the perception of inconsistancy in your alleged scepticism.
I believe that you stated that you found the teachings of the buddha to be less valid because they did not reference god, or something like that. The fact that they don't come from god, but a man who only claimed to be human is better for me.
Why is devinity imporatant?
Yrreg
=========================================
My words may not be soothing, but consider the ideas
The Buddhist non-self, and its implications, living the everyday non-self existence?
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...ost&pid=500486
[From the Kalama Sutra by Gautama]
01. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it long ago.
02. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
03. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
04. Do not confirm anything just because it agrees with your scriptures.
05. Do not foolishly make assumptions.
06. Do not abruptly draw conclusions by what you see and hear.
07. Do not be fooled by outward appearances.
08. Do not hold on tightly to any view or idea just because you are comfortable with it.
09. Do not accept as fact anything that you yourself find to be logical.
10. Do not be convinced of anything out of respect and deference to your spiritual teachers.
11. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reasons and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
See:
http://www.buddhistinformation.com/the_kalama_sutra.htm
