• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

To Elohim, tell me about cherry picking in the Pali Canon

Mike Finch is almost a critical thinker on empirical evidence.




Mike can be a good introduction to Buddhism on an almost critical thinking basis, he grounds his findings on empirical evidence, that of his experiences.

He has this quotation from Emerson, the thought of which I have been trying to instill in a good number of people in this JREF forum, who to my impression have not outgrown their dependency on authoritarianism, betrayed by their resorting time and again to quotations from published writers.

I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson​


Here is his method of cherry picking from the Pali Canon for what is critically important to himself:

First for him, experience is more to be relied upon than an ancient writing, but then you must validate your experience on an ancient writing like the Pali Canon of Buddhism, which validation must of course be done on the basis of your experience.​


Kind of circular, what you think?


Yrreg
 
yrreg said:
Because Randi is himself the judge in his own cause, that's why.
Click to expand...


Not true: challenge protocols are designed, by agreement with the challenger, so that no judgment is necessary. If you had bothered to find out anything about the challenge before commenting on it you would know this. Are you even cherry-picking which of the Ten Commandments you follow?

And do you ever eat shrimp?
 
yrreg said:
You use that phrase meaningful understanding, please don't go away, tell me what you have in mind with the phrase meaningful understanding.


Perhaps you might care to tell me for my curiosity, What in the Pali Canon you find to be of meaningful understanding to yourself?
Click to expand...

You're right that you've clearly articulated that this discussion board is all just a game for you.

The fact that you view this discussion as one big game is probably the reason so many people have expressed negative views about your approach. Most people don't like to be treated as pawns in a game, especially if they enter the discussion seriously, trusting that you are interested in what they have to say. If you demonstrate that you're really not interested, but that you're just playing a game, then of course that turns people off.

I know you're smart enough to realize what you're doing. Sometimes it's obvious that you're just tweaking people to get a reaction. That's the game, right?

Problem is, underneath it all, I sense on a certain level that you're actually trying to explore these issues in your own way. So when you claim it's all just an intellectual game, just for fun, to me that looks like you're putting up a wall, trying to run away when things start to get serious. You should ask yourself, what are you running away from? What are you afraid of?

That is what I mean by "meaningful understanding." It means to understand that, despite what you say, on a certain level this is more than just a game for you. It's something much deeper. It's some kind of struggle. Part of you knows it. But outwardly, you just keep running away.

If you want to understand what it's like to play the piano, you have to sit down at the keyboard and give it a try. It's no good just reading books about music theory, or having debates with other people about playing the piano.

For many people, Buddhism is like that. All the debate in the world is meaningless at a certain point if you have no interest in "doing" Buddhism, or at least acknowledging that practice is the critical element of Buddhism, not philosophical views, not canon.

When you ask me what in the Pali canon I find to be of meaningful understanding to myself, I have no way of answering that. The question doesn't make any sense.

Understand what you are doing here. Understand why you spend so much time doing it. Everyone can see it's more than just a game to you.

It's ok to change your mind. Sometimes it's even good for you.
 
From Mike Finch

I was notified by email of this thread. I don't know what this Forum is about, apart from the blurb at the top of the page, and I don't know who 'yrreg' is (I note that his Profile has no info about him/her at all).

First, thank you Yrreg for posting some of my thoughts and reading my site. All your quotes are from my earlier writings (and are clearly identified as such), and if you are interested in what I think now please read my more recent stuff: (for some reason I am not allowed to quote my own website, but you can find it from Yrreg's posts, and click my link 'Recent Writings').

Yrreg calls me an 'intellectual' - I am not sure what an intellectual is, though it is clear he is using the term negatively. I would describe myself as someone who tries to think clearly and precisely. I also have an emotional and feeling side (who doesn't?) and to my mind part of living well is to do justice to both aspects. So Nosho hits the nail on the head with his comment that my approach is 'to balancing practice with study.'

I am not quite sure what Yrreg's main point really is. Certainly to a religious Buddhist, who holds the Pali Canon as a sacred scripture not to be questioned and having authority in itself, my attitude of what he calls 'cherry picking' would be anathema. But I am not a religious Buddhist (in fact I would not describe myself as a Buddhist at all).

I would call myself a disciple of Nature and experience (Leonardo da Vinci's phrase, not that I am comparing myself to him) and to me it is hugely important to stand on my own two feet, facing myself and the universe without any intermediary or broker in between. But of course I need help, and so when I experience certain things, and try to explain to myself why, what and how I am experiencing, I thrash around in confusion and look for assistance.

I find such assistance in the Pali Canon, or at least some of it. I certainly cherry-pick, and I think to accept any body of writing as a whole uncritically is just naive and immature. I like Bertrand Russell's point that to understand a philosopher or any philosophical or spiritual writing, you first need to empathise - to really stand in the person's or writing's shoes as it were, and try to feel what it is like to belief what they believe and why they believe it. Only when you have done that is it fruitful to proceed to the next step which is to be critical..

I also cherry-pick other philosophers (classical Greek, medieval, modern), Christian mysticism, Taoism. I am trying to build my own understanding, but am hopefully not too arrogant to accept help wherever I can find it. Of course my mindset is influenced by my giving 30 years of my life to a guru, and I accept that my insistence on standing on my own two feet is a reaction against the mindless devotion I gave the guru for those 30 years, but I think it is a healthy reaction.

A couple of final points from Yrreg:

>>But why all that baggage? and to the present? all those years? and still at it?

At least I can see I have a lot of baggage, and I am trying to deal with it, put it down, take it off, see through it, accept it, ignore it, dissolve it, see it is an illusion (pick your favorite metaphor). Yep, all those years, and yep still at it. But in many respect those 30 years with the guru were the opposite to what I am doing now, so I certainly have not been dealing with the baggage using the same metaphor all that time.

>>I believe Mike has plenty to share with people here on what is Buddhism in his cherry-picked version from the Pali Canon.

I will pay Yrreg the compliment of assuming he meant this final line sincerely. I have no interest at all in investigating what 'Buddhism' is or is not (there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Buddhisms aren't there?) If anyone is really interested in how some of the ideas from the Pali Canon helped me personally, then please read my site, and I will be happy to correspond.

Thanks for the invite to join this thread.

-- Mike Finch


"They must find it difficult...
Those who have taken authority as the truth,
rather than truth as the authority."
-Gerald Massey
 
Welcome to the JREF forum, Mike. I hope you stick around! I'm sure you have some interesting stories to tell.

If you have lots of spare time, I suggest reading some of Yrreg's older threads. He's nothing but a troll, on a crusade to 'disprove' Buddhism.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your welcome, Ryokan.

One other point that I did not refer to specifically. Yrreg says:

>> First for him, experience is more to be relied upon than an ancient writing, but then you must validate your experience on an ancient writing like the Pali Canon of Buddhism, which validation must of course be done on the basis of your experience.

>> Kind of circular, what you think?

I agree that 'validate' might be the wrong word, perhaps 'support' would be better. For me, evidence and experience are primary. However, if I find an already existing system of thought (Pali Canon, some philosopher) which seems to address what I think and feel, and I find that I can use that system of thought to make sense of what I already feel and think, and further it, then why not do so? Perhaps like a young tree or sapling making use of a trellis or framework.

I dislike and avoid what is to me a trap, of taking what some authoritative scripture or teacher says I *should* be experiencing, and trying to shoehorn in my own experience to that mold.

So no, I don't think it is circular.

-- Mike
 
yrreg said:
.​



What about Randi, the founder of this website of JREF Educational Foundation? I see him as having a hell of a good time and making good money playing his game of critique of paranormal phenomena and pseudoscience and his one million dollars challenge -- which he has so designed as to make it foolproof against ever having to part with his million dollars.
Click to expand...

Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo


Wow Yrreg, care to talk about this and tell us why you think it is true?

Why can't someone win the million dollars challenge?

You know that is the last mark of a troll, claiming that the Challenge is rigged.
 
Mike Finch said:
I was notified by email of this thread. I don't know what this Forum is about, apart from the blurb at the top of the page, and I don't know who 'yrreg' is (I note that his Profile has no info about him/her at all).

First, thank you Yrreg for posting some of my thoughts and reading my site. All your quotes are from my earlier writings (and are clearly identified as such), and if you are interested in what I think now please read my more recent stuff: (for some reason I am not allowed to quote my own website, but you can find it from Yrreg's posts, and click my link 'Recent Writings').

Yrreg calls me an 'intellectual' - I am not sure what an intellectual is, though it is clear he is using the term negatively. I would describe myself as someone who tries to think clearly and precisely. I also have an emotional and feeling side (who doesn't?) and to my mind part of living well is to do justice to both aspects. So Nosho hits the nail on the head with his comment that my approach is 'to balancing practice with study.'

I am not quite sure what Yrreg's main point really is. Certainly to a religious Buddhist, who holds the Pali Canon as a sacred scripture not to be questioned and having authority in itself, my attitude of what he calls 'cherry picking' would be anathema. But I am not a religious Buddhist (in fact I would not describe myself as a Buddhist at all).

I would call myself a disciple of Nature and experience (Leonardo da Vinci's phrase, not that I am comparing myself to him) and to me it is hugely important to stand on my own two feet, facing myself and the universe without any intermediary or broker in between. But of course I need help, and so when I experience certain things, and try to explain to myself why, what and how I am experiencing, I thrash around in confusion and look for assistance.

I find such assistance in the Pali Canon, or at least some of it. I certainly cherry-pick, and I think to accept any body of writing as a whole uncritically is just naive and immature. I like Bertrand Russell's point that to understand a philosopher or any philosophical or spiritual writing, you first need to empathise - to really stand in the person's or writing's shoes as it were, and try to feel what it is like to belief what they believe and why they believe it. Only when you have done that is it fruitful to proceed to the next step which is to be critical..

I also cherry-pick other philosophers (classical Greek, medieval, modern), Christian mysticism, Taoism. I am trying to build my own understanding, but am hopefully not too arrogant to accept help wherever I can find it. Of course my mindset is influenced by my giving 30 years of my life to a guru, and I accept that my insistence on standing on my own two feet is a reaction against the mindless devotion I gave the guru for those 30 years, but I think it is a healthy reaction.

A couple of final points from Yrreg:

>>But why all that baggage? and to the present? all those years? and still at it?

At least I can see I have a lot of baggage, and I am trying to deal with it, put it down, take it off, see through it, accept it, ignore it, dissolve it, see it is an illusion (pick your favorite metaphor). Yep, all those years, and yep still at it. But in many respect those 30 years with the guru were the opposite to what I am doing now, so I certainly have not been dealing with the baggage using the same metaphor all that time.

>>I believe Mike has plenty to share with people here on what is Buddhism in his cherry-picked version from the Pali Canon.

I will pay Yrreg the compliment of assuming he meant this final line sincerely. I have no interest at all in investigating what 'Buddhism' is or is not (there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Buddhisms aren't there?) If anyone is really interested in how some of the ideas from the Pali Canon helped me personally, then please read my site, and I will be happy to correspond.

Thanks for the invite to join this thread.

-- Mike Finch


"They must find it difficult...
Those who have taken authority as the truth,
rather than truth as the authority."
-Gerald Massey
Click to expand...


Hi Mike Welcome to the forum!
 
yrreg said:
The cards in effect are stacked by Randi against the challenger.


Yrreg
Click to expand...


One more layer comes off, Yrreg is a woo. And he thinks that he can stack the deck against buddhists.

For shame Yrreg, you are true troll.

Shall we take this to General Scepticism, if you dare?
 
yrreg,

I am not sure what the underlying point is that you are attempting to make with this thread, or why it is specifically addressed to me; however, I would like to address what appears to be a topic with the potential to evolve into a discussion about belief-structures selectively derived from the Pali Canon. To begin with, regardless if individual Buddhists, or people who simply adopt Buddhist practices, utilize the Pali Canon to selectively pick out teachings in order to construct a world view out of them, the Buddha himself made it clear that (i) these teachings and practices are designed to put an end to suffering, and that (ii) these teachings are like a raft to be used to cross a dangerous river—once that river has been crossed, the teachings have served their purpose (MN 22). What this means is that these teachings in and of themselves are not to be used to construct a world view of concepts that act as a theoretical box that practitioners have to fit their experiences and insights into, regardless of what they are, but they are to be used for the specific purpose of leading the practitioner to a direct experience of an unconditional nature—an experience that will free the mind from its afflictions of greed, hatred, and delusion.

The basic foundation of the teachings in the Pali Canon, the Four Noble Truths, treat suffering as a disease; the first noble truth is that there is an illness (i.e. suffering), the second noble truth is that there is a cause for the illness (i.e. craving), the third noble truth is that there is a cure for the illness (i.e. nibbana), and the fourth noble truth is that there is a treatment to bring about a cure (i.e. the Noble Eightfold Path). Therefore, more than anything, practitioners utilizing the teachings in the Pali Canon are encouraged to use those teachings as a basic framework for their practice, which essentially means following the Buddha's methodology for ending suffering i.e. to take the teachings found within the Pali Canon as working hypotheses, and then test them through following the Buddha's path of practice. What works, works. So, for example, if one person finds a particular type of meditation practice (of which there are forty dinstinct methods of meditation enumerated throughout the Canon) more suited to their character, they are encouraged to develop that method as far as it takes them as long as it leads to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, and nibbana.

Jason
 
To Elohim and Mike, and everyone else, welcome to my gaming.

Dear Elohim, I addressed this thread to you because I thought you could and would exchange views with me on what is Buddhism to you and why it is important, that is from your part; from my part I want to do critical thinking and the search for empirical evidence on what people think Buddhism is to themselves and why it is important; and essentially this activity is a game for me.

.​
As I said in answer to nosho saying that to him I am taking my inquiries about Buddhism as an intellectual game, I said to him:

A game is a drama of sorts and life is a stage. ​

If anyone cares to be attentive, that is exactly what I think of my inquiries here and my purpose, to play a game; and my life itself is a game and it is also the stage for my game; and I claim to be the playwright of my game of life.

Dear Mike, I found your website and I thought that it is very useful for my game of critical thinking and the search for empirical evidence in Buddhism.

Thank you so much for coming here and joining my game of critical thinking and search for empirical evidence in Buddhism.


My suspicion from the start of my curiosity with Buddhism and Western Buddhists is that
yrreg said:
I see Western converts to Buddhism or enthusiasts over some ingredients of Buddhism as also playing a game, their peculiar game of Buddhism. And my impression from the start is that they seem to find so far the game to be absorbing as to put in time, labor, and money into it.

But one day as with every game there is an ending, and everyone will have to return to the game as scripted in biology: stay alive, stay healthy, live long, contribute to the conservation and propagation or continuation of the species, and also for us humans its enhancement in all areas of human assets and potentials. And my impression is that the game of Buddhism is not as conducive to the enhancement of life as other games people play.
Click to expand...


And I am here for fun, fun in playing the game of critical thinking and the search for empirical evidence in regard to Buddhism and Western Buddhists or Buddhism enthusiasts.


Let us all join in this game, and remember a game is played according to rules, and the first rule is to act civil, keep to the game and abstain unsportslike behavior.



This thread is about cherry-picking in the Pali Canon.



Yrreg

ANNEX:

yrreg said:
A game is a drama of sorts and life is a stage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by nosho
Posted by yrreg
See anything circular in the chain of reasoning from this intellectual?​
.​

I have said it many times already but some people keep on disregarding it.

I am here for the fun hobby of a mental exercise in critical thinking and the search for empirical evidence, and critique of Buddhism fits perfectly the bill.

Not only my critique of Buddhism here is a game, all life for me is a game, and I am still looking for more component games in life.

I see Western converts to Buddhism or enthusiasts over some ingredients of Buddhism as also playing a game, their peculiar game of Buddhism. And my impression from the start is that they seem to find so far the game to be absorbing as to put in time, labor, and money into it.

But one day as with every game there is an ending, and everyone will have to return to the game as scripted in biology: stay alive, stay healthy, live long, contribute to the conservation and propagation or continuation of the species, and also for us humans its enhancement in all areas of human assets and potentials. And my impression is that the game of Buddhism is not as conducive to the enhancement of life as other games people play.

I am at present playing with satisfaction the game of biological life and its enhancement for myself and my family, wife and two kids. Critique of Buddhism is just another game among several I engross myself in, to make my life more enjoyable after having assured the big game of biological and sociological life has been or is being played out as I said quite satisfactorily to date.


You say:

I think that if you view this as a purely intellectual game and ignore the role of practice, then you're unlikely to arrive at any meaningful understanding.​

You use that phrase meaningful understanding, please don't go away, tell me what you have in mind with the phrase meaningful understanding.


Perhaps you might care to tell me for my curiosity, What in the Pali Canon you find to be of meaningful understanding to yourself?


Just in confidence, every morning or when I have some free time, I wished I had a better game to play in the web; but too bad or I am lucky I have this game of critique of Buddhism to play in web forums, for which I believe anyone with an average good head can play delightfully.

What about Randi, the founder of this website of JREF Educational Foundation? I see him as having a hell of a good time and making good money playing his game of critique of paranormal phenomena and pseudoscience and his one million dollars challenge -- which he has so designed as to make it foolproof against ever having to part with his million dollars.

Some people here insist on playing the game of hecklers and bickerers, and they seem to have such an impoverished imagination as to not know the game of critique of Buddhism and join in, or they are in dire need of attention anyhow they can get it, what we call in my place of the world and even kids just three years old know: kulang sa pansin.*


Yrreg

*Pilipino for lacking in, as in seeking for, attention. ​
Click to expand...
 
I am recruiting a Westernized Buddhist to this thread.


http://www.serve.com/~cmtan/Meng/


To: cmtan-at-serve.com

There is a post about your concern, in the JREF forum, please see if you can sign up and join the discussions there.


-- earlier message --

Please change the background color of your pages from black to another color like light green or any light color except black -- reserve black for text matters.

Otherwise it is impossible to read text that is aborbed by the black background for being also shades of black.

Your quotation from Einstein is worth a check as regards its authenticity.


Thanks for a most useful website.


But it would be more welcome were the background color not black.
Please change it.
Click to expand...


Hope he come to join us here, we can use his knowledge and experiences.


Yrreg
 
yrreg said:
And I am here for fun, fun in playing the game of critical thinking and the search for empirical evidence in regard to Buddhism and Western Buddhists or Buddhism enthusiasts.

Let us all join in this game, and remember a game is played according to rules, and the first rule is to act civil, keep to the game and abstain unsportslike behavior.

This thread is about cherry-picking in the Pali Canon.

Yrreg
Click to expand...


Yrreg - It is important for everyone to understand that you are utterly unfamiliar with truth.

There is no 'us'. I am not aware of anyone that wishes to be associated with you.

You're playing a game while the rest of us get on with our lives.

No one else is playing your game and no one is subject to your 'rules'.

Practice what you preach. 'Civil'? You sleazy little toad.

This is not a game and you don't get to make up rules for it.

This thread is about your answering questions that several of us have put to you.

Nothing else is going to happen until you answer these questions.

Answer the questions.
 
Hi Yrreg

The 'game of life' is certainly a good metaphor, and within that 'game' is the fun you describe. But there can also be pain and suffering, and of course ultimately death as 'scripted in biology' (nice phrase of yours).

I agree with you that many people (all of us probably) are avoiding, or attempting to avoid, the issues of the real game by playing a kind of sub-game, or creating a diversion. And religion or any of the various Buddhisms can and are being used as the kind of sub-game you describe.

The real question is: Can any of these extra-curricular activities, if you like (sub-games) make a real difference to the biologically scripted game of life, beyond being merely diversion or distraction? Can they lead to your phrase: 'enhancement in all areas of human assets and potentials'?

I believe they can, and so my search is to find one. I think I have to forge or create my own, which I am doing. Critical thinking is certainly a part of that process, and I am quite content to think in terms of metaphor like 'game', but with serious connotations as well as 'fun' - well, 'serious' in the sense of being taken seriously, not serious as in grim.

So to me, my life (inner and outer) and my attempts to understand a little of it and enhance it, are serious endeavors in the above sense. In other words, my critical thinking about the Buddhist scriptures, for instance, is grounded in the main biologically scripted game of life, and is not a sub-game to no purpose. When and if I find a sub-game is not so grounded, then I drop it.

Or of course deliberately just play for fun, but if that is the case then I can think of many activities more fun than thinking about the Pali Canon.

Take care

-- Mike
 
Mike Finch said:
Hi Yrreg

The 'game of life' is certainly a good metaphor, and within that 'game' is the fun you describe. But there can also be pain and suffering, and of course ultimately death as 'scripted in biology' (nice phrase of yours).

I agree with you that many people (all of us probably) are avoiding, or attempting to avoid, the issues of the real game by playing a kind of sub-game, or creating a diversion. And religion or any of the various Buddhisms can and are being used as the kind of sub-game you describe.

The real question is: Can any of these extra-curricular activities, if you like (sub-games) make a real difference to the biologically scripted game of life, beyond being merely diversion or distraction? Can they lead to your phrase: 'enhancement in all areas of human assets and potentials'?

I believe they can, and so my search is to find one. I think I have to forge or create my own, which I am doing. Critical thinking is certainly a part of that process, and I am quite content to think in terms of metaphor like 'game', but with serious connotations as well as 'fun' - well, 'serious' in the sense of being taken seriously, not serious as in grim.

So to me, my life (inner and outer) and my attempts to understand a little of it and enhance it, are serious endeavors in the above sense. In other words, my critical thinking about the Buddhist scriptures, for instance, is grounded in the main biologically scripted game of life, and is not a sub-game to no purpose. When and if I find a sub-game is not so grounded, then I drop it.

Or of course deliberately just play for fun, but if that is the case then I can think of many activities more fun than thinking about the Pali Canon.

Take care

-- Mike
Click to expand...


Thank you Mr. Mike!

Yrreg is a troll and just here to talk to him self, i learn a lot by trying to talk to him.

Your input would be great on this forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom