Interfaith Dialogue

[KevinSolway]

KevinSolway dude just call it mind or minds.

Mind is the last thing I would call it.

To me, calling it a "mind" would imply that there is something other than mind, such as a cause of mind, or an object of mind.

Wherease in the case of the All there is no other thing.

[KevinSolway]

I didn't say, "I hope it is God's will that we meet next time." Even if the latter was more convenient, I would be deliberately misinforming them.

Yes, I would only say "God-willing" to a fellow philosopher who knew what I was talking about.

Interestingly, even everyday atheists tend to appeal to "God" a lot in normal conversation. Such as "God help me, how the *!@*!# hell am I going to be able to cope with these religious nutcases."

So even they are appealing to a sort of "higher power", which is in the direction of the All, even though they don't have a clear idea about what they are appealing to.

[LastLegend]

Who can design or create mind? It is empty.

[KevinSolway]

Who can design or create mind? It is empty.

"Empty" means "empty of inherent existence". It doesn't mean "cannot be caused or modified".

All things are empty in this manner.

[LastLegend]

Who can design or create mind? It is empty.

"Empty" means "empty of inherent existence". It doesn't mean "cannot be caused or modified".

All things are empty in this manner.

Empty in the sense that it is not tangible; cannot be touched, imagined, or conceptualized, or directly observed even at subatomic level you find no mind. But it's there. That's what we experience everyday.

[Acchantika]

Yes, I would only say "God-willing" to a fellow philosopher who knew what I was talking about.

To which the philosopher would reply, "What you are talking about is called Naturalism".

So even they are appealing to a sort of "higher power", which is in the direction of the All, even though they don't have a clear idea about what they are appealing to.

You say you are a man of reason, a man of knowledge. So you must know that it is contradictory to claim yours is the unique case. Science does not study unique events. What would be rational, reasonable is, rather than assume you are enlightened, assume that your perception and defintion of "the All" is precisely like the majority - an appeal to a "higher power", but not necessarily a clear understanding of what this refers to. It is not impossible that this is the case, therefore, any wo/man of worth must consider it.

[gregkavarnos]

Elsewhere he correctly calls it "the All as a phenomenon".

Where exactly?

Even then they don't use the term God interchangeably with Nature, because it just creates confusion.

Like using the term God interchangably with the term Dharmakaya for example?

[Jnana]

there should be no confusion.

Confusion arises when playing fast and loose with language. This is a difficulty for anyone trying to expound an over-reaching theory of contemplative pluralism. Of course, you're completely free to articulate your own trip, but others are equally free to point out what they see as idiosyncrasies and contradictions. In short, it's generally more productive to engage people in terms that resonate meaningfully for them. This requires skill in adaptation.

[Dechen Norbu]

OK, perhaps I should have said that you're speaking of God as though it is some sort of phenomenon or concept. Some kind of object. A finite object. That's what I was driving at.

I'm mainly talking about God as 1) an experience based on 2) a certain view under which such experience is interpreted. The quote of St. Augustine I used would rule out "phenomena and concept of sorts" since if one believes one understood God, it isn't God. I'm lead to believe that the meditative experience where one perceives a God is not easily describable conceptually. This doesn't necessarily means it is beyond concepts. It means it is an experience which words can't describe, as many deep meditative experiences. These experiences are not stranger to Buddhists, but they go beyond them.

God is just a label, and we use labels wherever useful.

I sometimes say things like "God-willing", meaning something like "if the forces of Nature - which includes me - so determine it", or "if the causal force of the past - which includes me - so determine it". Like all labels, they are a kind of shorthand we use for convenience. I find that there are a great many other situations where "God" just seems to be the best word of choice, as with the example of "God-willing".

I don't use such expressions. If God is just a label, what is it labeling?

A person can certainly use any label they like, but "Spaghetti-monster-willing" just doesn't do it for me, probably because spaghetti monster is something made-up, whereas God, as defined, definitely exists (because you exist).

I see your definition of God as something made up too. The fact that I have conventional existence proves nothing about the existence of a God. Btw, if God exists, then it can't be empty.

You've just rattled-off a whole lot of labels that have utility, such as "emptiness", "primordial state", "Truth", etc. If all those labels have utility, then the label "God" can have utility as well. There's no reason why not.

I can call an ox to a rabbit. This means I'm crazy or don't know English. I can call a rabbit to a rabbit and ox to an ox. This means I know what I'm talking about. Not all labels have utility, especially if they are wrong. If I label poison as medicine, the consequences will be dire. This is the problem with labels: we must share their meaning.

I agree with you, provided that when you say "existent" you mean "inherently existent".

I've explained why I disagree.

Things definitely do exist - such as these words - but they definitely aren't inherently existent. Or maybe only I can see this.

Things appear to exist.

What is negated, as always, is only the grasping, the settling down on, and the attaching to an imagined inherent existence. These things are delusions.

The thing is never negated. It is not a delusion. Things are as real as these words are.

I went through this in the last post. Fell free to disagree.

The latter is not denied. Only attachment to a false notion of it is denied.

It is by the madhyamika. But even if I agree with your position, this has nothing to do with God.

You don't know how all people use those words.

If people don't use those words to apply to a phenomenon of any kind, or any kind of concept, then they don't.

And I don't.

Words are concepts. This is why the fruit of the Dharma can only be experiential. All the Buddhadharma is conceptual. The finger pointing to the moon and not the moon itself. Its Sadharma that is beyond concepts.

Saying there is "one", which some people call "One", is only a poetic expression. When there is nothing other than itself, then numbers don't mean anything.

You are conveniently ignoring the definition of God.

How can God be "subjected" to cause and effect when God is the All, and includes cause and effect?

For this reason God cannot be subjected to cause and effect, but nor is it beyond cause and effect.

It was you who said it, not me.

[LastLegend]

You want to learn KevinSolway? I will teach you. Hehehehe





This is called Buddha Palm falling from heaven.

[padma norbu]

Interestingly, even everyday atheists tend to appeal to "God" a lot in normal conversation. Such as "God help me, how the *!@*!# hell am I going to be able to cope with these religious nutcases."

Colloquialisms. Not interesting.

So even they are appealing to a sort of "higher power", which is in the direction of the All, even though they don't have a clear idea about what they are appealing to.

That's quite a stretch. I'm gonna start calling you "Stretch."

[KevinSolway]

Yes, I would only say "God-willing" to a fellow philosopher who knew what I was talking about.

To which the philosopher would reply, "What you are talking about is called Naturalism".

The people that know me wouldn't say that. Giving up literally all attachments, both gross and subtle, is not something normally associated with Naturalism. Not to mention the positions I take as regards "masculinity" and "femininity".

So even they are appealing to a sort of "higher power", which is in the direction of the All, even though they don't have a clear idea about what they are appealing to.

You say you are a man of reason, a man of knowledge. So you must know that it is contradictory to claim yours is the unique case.

When did I claim to be a unique case? I am not a unique case. Perhaps exceedingly rare and gifted. I have only what other people have - namely consciousness - but to a higher degree. I see what other people see, but where other people tend to see vague shapes, I generally see things in a startling clarity.

Science does not study unique events.

It doesn't, mainly because it seeks to produce repeatable results.

What would be rational, reasonable is, rather than assume you are enlightened . . .

Awakening is nothing magical or out of this world. It's not something that just appears out of the blue. It's like when a certain amount of weight builds-up, and then the weight crashes through on its own, perfectly naturally.

Every person has some degree of this "weight", or awareness of reality. A "lightweight" in the realm of ideas or philosophy is a person who doesn't have much of said "weight". Perhaps they just have a few poorly linked or isolated intuitions.

. . . assume that your perception and defintion of "the All" is precisely like the majority - an appeal to a "higher power", but not necessarily a clear understanding of what this refers to.

My understanding of "the All" is indeed "like" that of everyone else, insofar as all people have a natural tendency to reach out, to extend themselves into the surrounding world, making links, seeking wider truths, seeking origins, looking for something more lasting and permanent than this fleeting existence. Only it has been given to me to have a more developed idea of it.

It is not impossible that this is the case, therefore, any wo/man of worth must consider it.

Anyone can do it, if they are so shaped for such a solitary path, and are willing to sacrifice whatever needs to be sacrificed.

[KevinSolway]

Elsewhere he correctly calls it "the All as a phenomenon".

Where exactly?

The text has been quoted at least two or three times in this topic. I believe the first time was by Namdrol. He may have provided the exact reference.

[Virgo]

Elsewhere he correctly calls it "the All as a phenomenon".

Where exactly?

The text has been quoted at least two or three times in this topic. I believe the first time was by Namdrol. He may have provided the exact reference.

There is no All as a phenomena. The text breaks down the separate moments of experience that we put together as "the all". "The all as a phenomena is a concept held of "all" which is comprised of the eye and sights, the ear and sound, the nose and scents, the tongue and tastes, the body and sensations that impinge upon the body door, and the mind and and mental phenomena that arise at that door.

Kevin

[Virgo]

- namely consciousness - but to a higher degree.

I have a physical body too. Apparently you do not, since you feel this realm is not phsyical and since you opt to leave it out.

How do you have a higher degree of consciousness than anyone else. Do you mean prajna? Use Buddhist terminology, please.

I see what other people see,

Doubt it.

Awakening is nothing magical or out of this world. It's not something that just appears out of the blue. It's like when a certain amount of weight builds-up, and then the weight crashes through on its own, perfectly naturally.

An object is pushed by the air element because space bends. It is called gravity.

My understanding... looking for something more lasting and permanent than this fleeting existence.

Nothings permanent. What's the difference?

Kevin

[Dechen Norbu]

You know Kevin, when I read your posts I get convinced you don't have a clue about Buddhadharma. I'm not trying to be offensive, I assure you. You say such things that I wonder if you ever spent some time studying under competent guidance or at least really making an effort to understand the theoretical aspects of it.

You seem to have self tailored a quite contradictory and inconsistent metaphysical systems of beliefs of your own, but fail to recognize its shortcomings, even when they are shown right in front of your face.

I mean, you have every right to think the way you do. Nobody is obliged to make sense to others. I'm sure you think you make sense, but to the rest of us (at least those who speak up), and we are quite an heterogeneous bunch, you don't. Your ideas are filled with contradictions, logical inconsistencies and what not. This is how they sound to us. Perhaps you shouldn't be so adamant about standing your ground and try to understand what others are trying to say. Does the idea of being wrong ever crosses your mind? If not, it should. It's healthy. I mean, if people who seem to know what they are talking about refute your arguments over and over again -and it's irrelevant if you can't realize that your arguments are successfully refuted as this is the problem I'm pointing- perhaps you should revise your ideas, even if at first their arguments don't seem convincing.

As fun as this may seem to you, some people are already annoyed. This thread has been completely hijacked!
This discussion can go on based on good reasoning, not capricious stubbornness.

So, what I'm really saying is that if those ideas are all you have to offer, Kevin, then I must say we read them, understood what you mean, but sadly we must disagree. Don't keep doing this, repeating the same stuff over and over again. We won't accept them because you write them often when you can't defend them properly, at least to our judgment. So let's agree to disagree, OK?

Best wishes.

[wisdom]

Incorrect.

That which is perceived as existing by enlightened beings is not an illusion of any kind.

LOL

Enlightened beings wouldn't make the mistake of claiming they are perceiving anything at all. There is nothing to perceive!

It absolutely does not. You added that last bit yourself.

Whether or not it includes God depends entirely on how God is defined. You are thinking of God as some sort of phenomena or concept, which is an error.

I'm not thinking of God at all, thats my point.

[KevinSolway]

I'm mainly talking about God as 1) an experience based on 2) a certain view under which such experience is interpreted.

Ok, well as I've defined God it's not an experience or a view of any sort.

It is all phenomena, all concepts, all that is unknown, and all that is beyond concepts.

So, given that we are using different definitions of God, it's no surprise that we will be at cross-purposes.

God is just a label, and we use labels wherever useful.

I sometimes say things like "God-willing", meaning something like "if the forces of Nature - which includes me - so determine it", or "if the causal force of the past - which includes me - so determine it". Like all labels, they are a kind of shorthand we use for convenience. I find that there are a great many other situations where "God" just seems to be the best word of choice, as with the example of "God-willing".

I don't use such expressions. If God is just a label, what is it labeling?

Usually you get an indication of the meaning from the usage. In the above case I used "God-willing" to mean "if the forces of Nature - which includes me - so determine it".

So that's a fairly clear indication of what the word "God" is labeling. It is labeling the forces of Nature (all phenomena), both known and unknown, and the forces of mind (all concepts and thoughts), and anything else which might factor in.

A person can certainly use any label they like, but "Spaghetti-monster-willing" just doesn't do it for me, probably because spaghetti monster is something made-up, whereas God, as defined, definitely exists (because you exist).

I see your definition of God as something made up too. The fact that I have conventional existence proves nothing about the existence of a God.

Given my definition of God, then if you exist (conventionally) then it logically follows that there is God, because you would necessarily be a part of it.

"Exists" is a bad word with regard to God, since, by the definition I have provided, there is nothing other than God, and so there is nothing for it to exist in relation to.

You've just rattled-off a whole lot of labels that have utility, such as "emptiness", "primordial state", "Truth", etc. If all those labels have utility, then the label "God" can have utility as well. There's no reason why not.

I can call an ox to a rabbit. This means I'm crazy or don't know English. I can call a rabbit to a rabbit and ox to an ox. This means I know what I'm talking about. Not all labels have utility, especially if they are wrong. If I label poison as medicine, the consequences will be dire. This is the problem with labels: we must share their meaning.

Yes indeed, and that's the purpose of defining our terms, which I believe I have done very clearly in relation to the label "God".

Things appear to exist.

These words you are reading right now don't merely appear to exist. They actually exist, otherwise you wouldn't be reading them. There doesn't need to be any words on your computer screen for them to exist, and for you to read them. They don't need to have any physical or objective existence.

You don't know how all people use those words.

If people don't use those words to apply to a phenomenon of any kind, or any kind of concept, then they don't.

And I don't.

Words are concepts.

If I look up "words" in the dictionary it won't tell me they are "concepts".

The important thing about words are their meaning. And the meaning of a word doesn't have to be a concept.

God, which by definition includes all concepts, cannot for that reason be a concept, and yet it can still be indicated by a label, just as the moon can be indicated by a pointing finger.

[KevinSolway]

You know Kevin, when I read your posts I get convinced you don't have a clue about Buddhadharma.

I understand how you can think that, but the truth is that I have an entirely different understanding of it than you do. I claim that my understanding comes from direct experience and direct understanding, and it seems to me that you are seeking to weave something together on a conceptual level.

. . . fail to recognize its shortcomings, even when they are shown right in front of your face.

Understand that from my perspective it is you who appear not to have any understanding of the Buddhadharma, and fail to recognize all of the shortcomings of your understanding, even when they are shown right in front of your face.

It's simply because we have a different understanding.

Your ideas are filled with contradictions, logical inconsistencies and what not.

They're actually not. It's just that you don't understand what I'm saying, or you ignore my definitions - which is fine.

As fun as this may seem to you, some people are already annoyed. This thread has been completely hijacked!

Looking at it in perspective, this is merely one small topic on only one of many forums on Dharmawheel.net, and that forum has as its title, "Dharma-free-for-all. No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma", and the priority of the forum is so low that it is positioned right at the bottom of the list, off the bottom of the screen.

So it's not the end of the world as we know it.

[Kunga Lhadzom]

the fact that all the great philosophers that I have found are male...

Of all the millions of men and women in the Universe...a few men pop up in the equation (the famous ones), how about the possibility of unknown men and women philosophers that may have "existed" in "time", but are UNKNOWN ? Let alone the FACT that women have been supressed throught history.

Could be possible that the greatest philosophers were/are women, but they are UNKNOWN.
(Just a thought ((original ?))

BTW...Huang Po said something to the effect:

If you think you know...you don't know.
If you don't know.....you know.

What are your thoughts on that ?

Thinking blocks the Ultimate Truth.
Because when you conceptualize, you lose it.