• 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.

Why

JetLeg said:
First, it is hard to appreciate the motives an omniscient being, if he is one. Perhaps he might lie to be humble.


And third, my reasoning is based not upon his claims about being omniscient, but about his claims of not feeling hatred towards the chinese (not suppressing, but simply the fact that it does not arise), which is explained by buddhist scripture as the result of being omniscient. And buddhist scripture is proven for example, by that monks that meditate about emptyness, are found to be happy, (scripture explains that this meditation Should cause hapiness, because emptyness and anatta is a true doctrine ).
Click to expand...

You're being as good a spokesman for Buddhism as yrreg, our resident Buddhism hater.
He always complains we're much more polite to Buddhism and Buddhists here than Christianity, when to his view we should give it equal condemnation.
Your threads are turning into dart boards attracting just the kind of negative attention yrreg would like to see. :lol2:

For example, in this thread you have transformed guru devotion into something completely repugnant.
In you thread on Faith vrs. Skepticism you transform Contemplation into delusion.
 
Last edited:
JetLeg said:
Honestly, please do.
Click to expand...

Nvm, just saw the part where you said it was about Gandhi.

Still, to go with what others are saying, why would such a pure, omniscient being lie about his omniscience? He says he doesn't know which Buddha he is, so he's not omniscient, if you believe him. If you can't believe what he says, how can you follow him? You don't know what he wants you to do!
 
Last edited:
I have to admit that I don't believe him when he says he is not omniscient. You ask how can I follow him?

-1- I can follow his ethical teachings without a problem, for example. Ethics is not statements about reality.

-2- I can say that I believe him, unless he contradicts something which I know.

-3- I do have some problem because part of my appreciation of tibetan culture, which was so influenced by buddhism, is based on his autobiography. May be I can just pick and choose? What's wrong with that?

I fail to see the disconnect in my logics, I am not familiar with formal.
 
Loss Leader said:
The real question is: What criteria are you using to determine that the Dalai Lama is the "right" individual to follow?

What criteria would a Chinese person have used at the time to know that Chairman Mao was the "wrong" individual to follow?

And, for the $64,000.00 grand prize, how is the process of determining which individual is "right" different from the process of philosophical thinking in general?
Click to expand...

Agreed. Many followers soon find that the person they thought was the right person turns out to be the wrong person. Jonestown comes to mind.:pirateflag
 
Well, as far as I can make out from what you've written, your logic is as follows.

1) The DL does not feel anger.
2) Scripture states that enlightenment is acheived by not feeling anger or negative emotions
3) Scripture also states that if one becomes enlightened, one acheives omniscience.
4) Scripture is true because monks who meditate about emptiness have been shown in a study to be 'happier than average'.
5) Therefore the DL is omniscient.

Is this a fair statement of your position?
 
Yes, it is a fair statement, though I would add

(4.5) Scripture explains that monks who meditate on emptyness are happier specifically because emptyness is true.
(4.6) Therefore emptyness is true
(4.7) Therefore scripture is true

and replace "happier than average" with "extremely happy", with regards to the monks.
 
The whole presumption of 'negative is bad' rather rests on the rather odd notion that somehow you act in your best interests rather than your genes.

Feeling bad in a universe where man was created special makes no sense.

Feeling bad in a universe where feeling bad is a mechanism to effect change on the other hand...
 
JetLeg said:
I have to admit that I don't believe him when he says he is not omniscient. You ask how can I follow him?

-1- I can follow his ethical teachings without a problem, for example. Ethics is not statements about reality.

-2- I can say that I believe him, unless he contradicts something which I know.

-3- I do have some problem because part of my appreciation of tibetan culture, which was so influenced by buddhism, is based on his autobiography. May be I can just pick and choose? What's wrong with that?

I fail to see the disconnect in my logics, I am not familiar with formal.
Click to expand...

Look, either you follow him unconditionally, or you don't, and you only follow him partially and have to judge his claims at least partially on their own merits. If you follow him unconditionally, you accept all he says is true, so he is not omniscient, and hence your reasons for following him fall. If you follow him only on some things, you must pick and choose, so you still must use rationality like the rest of us.

Oh, and I doubt this is yrreg. It's simply not parodyish enough.
 
truethat said:
Agreed. Many followers soon find that the person they thought was the right person turns out to be the wrong person. Jonestown comes to mind.:pirateflag
Click to expand...

True, but the misperception is that it's restricted to a certain group of people, even Michael Shermer of Skeptic magazine did admit that he found something a little off with people forming a cult around Ayn Rand.

In history it's not to hard to find examples like Stalin, Kim jung il, Mao Zedong, might I add that these people are not affiliated with religion and the later case being anti-religion and followers of dialectical materialism.
 
JetLeg said:
Yes, it is a fair statement, though I would add

(4.5) Scripture explains that monks who meditate on emptyness are happier specifically because emptyness is true.
(4.6) Therefore emptyness is true
(4.7) Therefore scripture is true

and replace "happier than average" with "extremely happy", with regards to the monks.
Click to expand...

I'll just pick one thing from the list to show a logical disconnect.

Scripture is a large body of work. If, for the sake of argument, we accept proposition (4.5), it does not lead to (4.6), as meditation on emptyness may cause happiness irrespective of its truth, we have no way of knowing. Even if we accept (4.6) to be true, you have only proved one aspect of scripture. You cannot then extrapolate out and say 'because one section of this work is true, everything else in it must also be true.'

My lack of formal logic knowledge means I don't know the appropriate terms for the fallacies committed, but they're there. :)
 
I think you're missing the big picture on this one, JetLag. The DL isn't there to tell you what to think, only show you HOW to think. Leading by example, as it were.

You said he used critical thinking, logic, and science and gave examples of him having compassion and morality. If someone else were to do the same, use critical thinking, logic, and science, and temper them with Morality and Compassion, I've no doubt they would be called enlightened people as well.
 
Last edited:
Mashuna said:
I'll just pick one thing from the list to show a logical disconnect.

Scripture is a large body of work. If, for the sake of argument, we accept proposition (4.5), it does not lead to (4.6), as meditation on emptyness may cause happiness irrespective of its truth, we have no way of knowing. Even if we accept (4.6) to be true, you have only proved one aspect of scripture. You cannot then extrapolate out and say 'because one section of this work is true, everything else in it must also be true.'

My lack of formal logic knowledge means I don't know the appropriate terms for the fallacies committed, but they're there. :)
Click to expand...

If I accept (4.5), and accept as true the fact monks are indeed happier -

we need to give hypothesis as to the reason for the happiness of the monks. We know that scripture gives us explanations for this, and monks meditate on emptiness using the definitions of scripture, so the simplest explanation would be to accept the explanation of the scripture - emptiness is true. What other explanations can you offer?

From

http://www.dalailama.com/page.54.htm

:

"Question: During the course of your life, what have been your greatest personal lessons or internal challenges? Which realizations and experiences have had the most effect on your growth as an individual?

Answer: Regarding religious experience, some understanding of shunya (emptiness: lack of independent self nature) some feeling, some experience and mostly bodhichitta, altruism. It has helped a lot. In some ways, you could say that it has made me into a new person, a new man. I’m still progressing. Trying. It gives you inner strength, courage, and it is easier to accept situations. That’s one of the greatest experiences."

So, if emptiness is true, it fits together. I find it hard to believe he is just delluding himself...
 
Well, it just doesn't fit for me... The combination of him having the personality he has, and him meditating on emptiness, and him saying that it is due to emptiness, and the scriptures confirming that - don't you think that assuming that emptiness is true is the simplest explanation?
 
Not even that simple, because it means you have to accept all kinds of other pseudoscientific silliness.
 
But it IS very easy to accept this silliness - metaconcepts are not any more powerful descriptors than concepts. How is their brain supposed to magically tell the difference?
 
Yes Jetlag, your brain cannot tell the difference between these theorems because they are built from inherently meaningless identifiers. At the lowest levels either your neurons fire or they don't. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom