Interfaith Dialogue

[tobes]

Guilty as charged!

Didn't mean you necessarily Greg.

[KevinSolway]

how about the possibility of unknown men and women philosophers that may have "existed" in "time", but are UNKNOWN ?

They may well exist. I know of at least a couple of women who are very impressive, and give an indication of what is possible for women. (I'm thinking of Celia Green and Esther Vilar)

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

Possible, but unlikely.

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.

It's not really thinking that's the problem, but grasping, clinging, ego.

The motivation of "Defend the p-r-e-c-i-o-u-s" is not a healthy one.

[tobes]

I am a founding member and ex-president of the Atheist Society of Australia. Is that atheist enough for you?

Gold. Who saw that one coming?

[KevinSolway]

Nothing's permanent.

Does that fact change?

[padma norbu]

Speaking of gold, I am giving my first award ever on an internet forum (or anywhere, since I can't think of one time where I would have been handing out awards...)

For outstanding excellence in comedy gold, intended or otherwise...

Stretch!



Speeeeeech!

[PadmaVonSamba]

there is no compassionate god.
If there was a compassionate god, he/she/it would have put this thread out of its misery long ago.

[KevinSolway]

The Buddha said:

"Monks, I will teach you the All as a phenomenon to be abandoned. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "And which All is a phenomenon to be abandoned? The eye is to be abandoned . . .

. . .

. . .

"This is called the All as a phenomenon to be abandoned."

There is no All as a phenomenon.

Take it up with the Buddha.

The text breaks down the separate moments of experience that we put together as "the all".

The term "the All" can be used to refer to any number of things. And so the Buddha says, "And which All is a phenomenon to be abandoned?"

Then he defines what is included in this phenomenon to be abandoned (eye and sights, ear and sound, . . . , mind and mental phenomena).

This is entirely different to how I have defined "the All", since "the All" includes all phenomena, and so itself cannot be phenomenon.

[Acchantika]

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".

The idea that the totality of reality is an interconnected natural process, that is conscious and intelligent only to the extent that the nodes within it are conscious and intelligent, and that this network is the only way "God" could have meaning is a Naturalistic idea, however.

In Buddhism, giving up all attachment includes attachment to experience ("direct experience") and mental objects (conceptual understanding) - the two ways you have yourself claimed to come to your awakening to "the All".

Ultimately, Buddhism is not empirical - that is, absolute truth cannot be approximated or known via experience, because all phenomena are empty, including experience, including absolute truth, and including whatever lies beyond phenomena. Since your argument is ultimately empirical - you know because you have experienced it - it is still perfectly compatible with Naturalism, but, unfortunately, incompatible with Buddhism.

In regards to the masculine vs feminine thing - this is an idea that runs through loads of Western Occultism and Indian religions. However, in those cases male represents subject, female represents object, and their union is consciousness; not masculine = consciousness. It is also intended symbolically.

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.

The point is, if the idea itself can develop, then is must be possible that some people, perhaps even on this forum, have a more developed idea of it than even you.

If this is even plausible, then your notion cannot be absolute; therefore, it cannot considered to be absolute truth, even by you. You cannot claim to know it. If you yourself cannot know it, it is useless, and should be discarded immediately if what you seek is truth.

[Acchantika]

This is entirely different to how I have defined "the All", since "the All" includes all phenomena, and so itself cannot be phenomenon.

You are missing the most important part:

Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range.

SN 35.23

[KevinSolway]

Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range.

SN 35.23

I have never claimed to be able to "describe" the All, or God. To "describe" it would be like drawing a boundary around it, or encapsulating it. All I claim to be able to do is to indicate it, or point to it. It is without limits, and thus "beyond range", as the Buddha says.

[Dechen Norbu]

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.

OK, I believe you believe in what you say. But that is as far as I'll go. The fact that you believe to know " from direct experience and direct understanding" doesn't mean your direct experience and direct understanding are correct. I believe you think they are and I respect that. However allow me to disagree.

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.

Yes, that's a given. But the point may be how our understanding came to be. Mine was through study and practice oriented by experts. Namdrol, Jnana and others (I hope nobody takes offense as these two were the first that popped in my mind) have studied more than me and know all these issues even deeper. I don't know Jnana as well as I know Namdrol, but Namdrol also has many years of practice. These guys know what they talk about and usually I trust what they say, because I have damn good reasons to do so.
You claim to have direct knowledge and all that... it's an unsubstantiated claim. As I said above, I believe you believe that. I also believe that people take deluded experiences by the real thing. Happens all the time if we have wrong views. this is why cultivating right view is so important. It's not a matter of mere orthodoxy. It's a way of guiding one's practice so that we never take an illusion, a temporary experience and so on for enlightenment. But let me say that through reasoning alone your theories don't hold much water or at least that's how I, and others, perceive them.
Still, you are free to harbor them and believe in them. It's your right and I respect that. When I ask you to stop, I don't mean stop believing in whatever you want. That's up to you. I just think that this thread has more to do with God and Buddhadharma, let's say mainstream, then God and your own idea of Dharma. I don't wish to annoy you, much less oppress you, but you too have to respect others. If people are not interested in the theories you present, they are in their own right since you aren't the OP of this topic. Did I mention it was totally hijacked, before?

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

You see Kevin... it's not just me. Either you are very smart and everyone else is dumb or there might be the case that indeed it is you who don't get it straight.

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.

It is a small topic, but you see there are those who care enough about others that feel compelled to set the record straight so that newcomers don't end up with wrong ideas about Buddhadharma after reading your own interpretation of it. I know you think you are a Buddha and all, but we disagree. If you are, you sure have been fooling us well. The position of this sub forum has nothing to do with its priority. The adherence of members to its topics shows this rather well, I think. It has 12047 posts, only topped by the Tibetan Buddhism sub forum.

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

We never know, you being a Buddha and all...

[Virgo]

I am a founding member and ex-president of the Atheist Society of Australia. Is that atheist enough for you?

Aren't you a Kiwi?

Kevin

[Dechen Norbu]

I am a founding member and ex-president of the Atheist Society of Australia. Is that atheist enough for you?

Gold. Who saw that one coming?

It says something about the quality of atheist societies, if you ask me. Not a surprise though...

[KevinSolway]

The idea that the totality of reality is an interconnected natural process, that is conscious and intelligent only to the extent that the nodes within it are conscious and intelligent, and that this network is the only way "God" could have meaning is a Naturalistic idea, however.

I suppose so, but that would be missing out the most important part of all, which is the dropping of all attachments, the dropping of all delusions, all false views.

In Buddhism, giving up all attachment includes attachment to experience ("direct experience") and mental objects (conceptual understanding) - the two ways you have yourself claimed to come to your awakening to "the All".

I have never said that I have come to my awakening via attachment to experience! To the contrary, I achieved my awakening precisely by dropping all attachments. The experience of the awakened has no attachment.

Ultimately, Buddhism is not empirical - that is, absolute truth cannot be approximated or known via experience
, because all phenomena are empty, including experience, including absolute truth, and including whatever lies beyond phenomena.

Absolute Truth cannot be experienced by a grasping mind. The Absolute Truth is not some kind of fact, like the number 47 (or whatever it was in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy). It's not something you can grab a hold of, but it can certainly be experienced.

Since your argument is ultimately empirical

It is not even slightly empirical. Empirical things can be measured and enumerated, but the Truth I have realized cannot be measured nor enumerated. It has nothing at all which can be grasped hold of, and nothing to be measured. It's not even something apart from me.

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.

The point is, if the idea itself can develop, then is must be possible that some people, perhaps even on this forum, have a more developed idea of it than even you.

It's possible, but I haven't seen any evidence of that.

If this is even plausible, then your notion cannot be absolute;

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

I would say that it's a certainty that there are beings somewhere in the Universe that are more highly developed than myself. I certainly hope there are, as I am far from perfect.

But that doesn't mean that the truths I have realized are not absolute. All awakened people realize the exact same truths.

[catmoon]

there is no compassionate god.
If there was a compassionate god, he/she/it would have put this thread out of its misery long ago.

hear hear, I leave the rest of this thread to inveterate floggers of dead horses, arguers of angels and pins, and advancers of positions they do not actually believe in. All such are condemned to an eternity of dealing with the Kevin Solways of the world, who, under no circumstances, will ever budge off their positions, acknowledge a point fairly made, or even doubt their Inerrant Revelations.

I'm even tempted to cease moderating it. I'm starting to think anyone participating in this farce deserves whatever gets thrown at 'em.

[Dechen Norbu]

You are absolutely correct Catmoon.
Indeed this was already more than anyone reasonable could take.
Your honest and plain spoken post plus:

To the contrary, I achieved my awakening[...]

Made me take a final decision. Kevin was banned. He is relentless and has no right to keep posting that sort of bs when he was warned so many times.
I hope we can resume normal activity now.
I also hope this debate continues, healthier than before.

Care to share some thoughts, tobes? You seem to have a few interesting ideas about this.

Best wishes.

[tobes]

I don't have much to say, except that philosophical consistently and cogency is hard to attain anywhere, least of all on internet forums.

[Dechen Norbu]

Agree. Still that can't be an excuse for such lack of coherence and stubbornness... I think there's a middle point that most find acceptable when we debate a subject, no?

[wisdom]

[Dechen Norbu]

When I said you had some interesting ideas, tobes, I was referring to the topic, not Kevin or the whole episode, by the way.
I really dislike that part of the job, but alas, other members also have their rights. Not being relentlessly pounded to death with that sort of arguments is one of them.