"...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Malcolm » Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:08 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:...Is it because being human only happens in the human realm?


It is axiomatic that human birth can only happen to humans. Where ever there are humans, there is womb birth. That is not the case in our idealized paradises like Sukhavat (but unlike Abhirati) where there are no wombs at all, not even women in fact. I never met human being that did not derive in some way from a human womb (even test tube babies), have you?
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12735
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Sherab » Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:58 am

Arjan Dirkse wrote:On the topic of science vs. religion I' m with the Greek skeptics: you can believe what you want, just don't think your faith is something you can arrive at by using rational arguments. The kind of ineffable "truths" declared by religions are outside the scope of logical argumentation.

It's all a leap of faith I think; I believe in certain things simply because I like them, because they sound true maybe, but without using rational arguments for them. The two, science and religion, are completely different.

If faith is necessary, then I would like to have a rational basis for that faith. So while "ineffable truths" declared by religions are outside the scope of logical argumentation, I would like to see logical argumentation that points to the possibility of "ineffable truths".
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 806
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby reddust » Sat Dec 14, 2013 1:12 am

Sherab wrote:
Arjan Dirkse wrote:On the topic of science vs. religion I' m with the Greek skeptics: you can believe what you want, just don't think your faith is something you can arrive at by using rational arguments. The kind of ineffable "truths" declared by religions are outside the scope of logical argumentation.

It's all a leap of faith I think; I believe in certain things simply because I like them, because they sound true maybe, but without using rational arguments for them. The two, science and religion, are completely different.

If faith is necessary, then I would like to have a rational basis for that faith. So while "ineffable truths" declared by religions are outside the scope of logical argumentation, I would like to see logical argumentation that points to the possibility of "ineffable truths".


I read a long time ago that there are two kinds of faith. One is based on the teachings of a trust worthy wise person, someone you know that has shown they know what they teach and your own experience that has brought about wisdom and the other is based on opinion of unknown sources and your own lack of experience.
Mind and mental events are concepts, mere postulations within the three realms of samsara Longchenpa .... A link to my Garden, Art and Foodie blog Scratch Living
User avatar
reddust
 
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:29 am
Location: Oregon

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby dude » Sat Dec 14, 2013 1:37 am

Einstein said :
"Science without religion is barbarism. Religion without science is blind."
dude
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:38 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Arjan Dirkse » Sat Dec 14, 2013 1:40 am

Sherab wrote:
Arjan Dirkse wrote:On the topic of science vs. religion I' m with the Greek skeptics: you can believe what you want, just don't think your faith is something you can arrive at by using rational arguments. The kind of ineffable "truths" declared by religions are outside the scope of logical argumentation.

It's all a leap of faith I think; I believe in certain things simply because I like them, because they sound true maybe, but without using rational arguments for them. The two, science and religion, are completely different.

If faith is necessary, then I would like to have a rational basis for that faith. So while "ineffable truths" declared by religions are outside the scope of logical argumentation, I would like to see logical argumentation that points to the possibility of "ineffable truths".


It would be nice if a rational basis was possible I guess, but it is an impossibility. At least, it is impossible to construct a convincing argumentation why one religion is objectively true. It is mostly tautological ("it is true because the Buddha said it/ because it is in the sutra, and what Buddha or the sutra says is true")

It all comes down to "feeling good about it". If I practise Buddhism, I notice that it makes me feel good; I feel good using some of the insights from Buddhism in my daily life, it fits me like my favorite pair of jeans. But it might work very differently for other people, Buddhism might make them miserable. So it's very subjective, and it;s intuitive more than a logical argument. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Arjan Dirkse
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:53 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sat Dec 14, 2013 1:56 am

Malcolm wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:...Is it because being human only happens in the human realm?


It is axiomatic that human birth can only happen to humans. Where ever there are humans, there is womb birth. That is not the case in our idealized paradises like Sukhavat (but unlike Abhirati) where there are no wombs at all, not even women in fact. I never met human being that did not derive in some way from a human womb (even test tube babies), have you?


The baby you were born as is dead.
Every cell of that body died a long time ago.
You don't repeatedly come out of a womb every moment, do you?
Yet, here you are today.
If you say that you are the same person that came out of that womb, then
you are still clinging to a notion of an intrinsic 'self' , as I suggested before.
But,
Are you your body?
Who (or what) is it that that you regard as you
now occupying this human realm?

Is it the physical conditions that compose your body
or is it awareness of that physical phenomena?

What appears as our experience of the human realm
is the arising of concurrent events,
and they have causes.
when those same causes arise in Sukhavati (Amitabha's "PureRealm")
naturally, our experience is as a human
whether we have an actual physical body there or not.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Malcolm » Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:15 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:[

The baby you were born as is dead.
.


This is annihilationism. The opposite of the view you accused pensum of holding.

Although the aggregates are serially connected,
the wise are to comprehend that nothing transfers


As I said on the other thread.
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12735
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Malcolm » Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:18 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:you are still clinging to a notion of an intrinsic 'self' , as I suggested before.
.


You are confusing me with Pensum.
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12735
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Malcolm » Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:20 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Are you your body?

.



The Buddha suggests in the Majjihma NIkaya that if, between the body and the mind, we were to choose one to regard as our self, he suggested it was better to choose the body since it least it lasted some 80 odd years, while the mind only lasts but an instant.
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12735
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby duckfiasco » Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:44 am

Malcolm wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:Are you your body?

.



The Buddha suggests in the Majjihma NIkaya that if, between the body and the mind, we were to choose one to regard as our self, he suggested it was better to choose the body since it least it lasted some 80 odd years, while the mind only lasts but an instant.

It's surprising to me that people tend to do the opposite, myself included.
These thoughts, these feelings, this personality, these must be "me" that I have dominion over and are the actions of a self.
People go to war over their cherished opinions.
Why is this? :toilet:
Namu Amida Butsu
User avatar
duckfiasco
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am
Location: Oregon

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby daverupa » Sat Dec 14, 2013 4:34 am

Malcolm wrote:The Buddha suggests in the Majjihma NIkaya that if, between the body and the mind, we were to choose one to regard as our self, he suggested it was better to choose the body since it least it lasted some 80 odd years, while the mind only lasts but an instant.


Just to be clear:

SN 12.61 wrote:“It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed worldling to take as self this body composed of the four great elements rather than the mind. For what reason? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for one year, for two years, for three, four, five, or ten years, for twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years, for a hundred years, or even longer. But that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night. Just as a monkey roaming through a forest grabs hold of one branch, lets that go and grabs another, then lets that go and grabs still another, so too that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night.


although, the fuller point is

“Bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling might experience revulsion towards this body composed of the four great elements; he might become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. For what reason? Because growth and decline is seen in this body composed of the four great elements, it is seen being taken up and laid aside. Therefore the uninstructed worldling might experience revulsion towards this body composed of the four great elements; he might become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.

“But, bhikkhus, as to that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ —the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. For what reason? Because for a long time this has been held to by him, appropriated, and grasped thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’ Therefore the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.


for what it's worth - not speculation about elsewheres.

:heart:
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:52 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby duckfiasco » Sat Dec 14, 2013 4:51 am

Smart chap, that Shakyamuni :rolleye:

Thanks for finding that for us! :cheers:
Namu Amida Butsu
User avatar
duckfiasco
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am
Location: Oregon

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sat Dec 14, 2013 5:07 am

Malcolm wrote:
Although the aggregates are serially connected,
the wise are to comprehend that nothing transfers



My point exactly.
there is no thing transferring,
and nothing that transfers from moment to moment either.
Nonetheless, the experience of continuum arises
...the illusion of a self.
This is undeniable (although, ironically, there are many who deny it anyway).

.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sat Dec 14, 2013 5:08 am

Malcolm wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:you are still clinging to a notion of an intrinsic 'self' , as I suggested before.
You are confusing me with Pensum.


I was responding to the statement "Where ever there are humans, there is womb birth."
Didn't you say that?
.
.
.
Last edited by PadmaVonSamba on Sat Dec 14, 2013 5:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sat Dec 14, 2013 5:24 am

Malcolm wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:The baby you were born as is dead

This is annihilationism. The opposite of the view you accused pensum of holding.


No, Annihilationism requires some sort of 'self' that is annihilated. The total destruction of a soul.
That is not what Ii was talking about at all.
I was responding specifically to the statement "Where ever there are humans, there is womb birth".
"The baby you were born as is dead" means that every cell of whatever came out of that womb is dead and gone like old fingernails or hair, decomposed, returned to its elements.

My point is that what describes human birth in Sukhavati is not a meat & bones body,
but the still-conditioned arising, the projection of mind, of the experience of being human, hearing, seeing, and so forth, the same way as it is experienced here and now,
because the causes for that result to occur have not been severed yet.

It is similar to the experience of being a human in a dream in that
the experience resembles the type of experience one usually experiences already, as a human.

.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Malcolm » Sat Dec 14, 2013 1:45 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:you are still clinging to a notion of an intrinsic 'self' , as I suggested before.
You are confusing me with Pensum.


I was responding to the statement "Where ever there are humans, there is womb birth."
Didn't you say that?
.
.
.


Sure, but it does not bear the consequence you impute.
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12735
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Malcolm » Sat Dec 14, 2013 1:49 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:The baby you were born as is dead

This is annihilationism. The opposite of the view you accused pensum of holding.


No, Annihilationism requires some sort of 'self' that is annihilated. The total destruction of a soul.

.


No, it us not that restrictive. it also means the belief that some entity (like a seed) which existed before, does not exist now. See Nagarjuna.
Last edited by Malcolm on Sat Dec 14, 2013 1:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12735
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Malcolm » Sat Dec 14, 2013 1:53 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
My point is that what describes human birth in Sukhavati is not a meat & bones body,
but the still-conditioned arising, the projection of mind, of the experience of being human, hearing, seeing, and so forth, the same way as it is experienced here and now,
because the causes for that result to occur have not been severed
.
.


Devas and asuras are also held to be anthropomorphic, but we do not term them human births.
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12735
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:04 pm

Malcolm wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:My point is that what describes human birth in Sukhavati is not a meat & bones body,but the still-conditioned arising, the projection of mind, of the experience of being human, hearing, seeing, and so forth, the same way as it is experienced here and now,because the causes for that result to occur have not been severed.
Devas and asuras are also held to be anthropomorphic, but we do not term them human births.

In that case, the question--and the point of disagreement-- becomes one of defining the term "human".
Devas and asuras, and pretas too, are also held to be "humanoid" as well, with arms and legs, and,
afflictions that we humans can 'relate' to.

What then, is the defining characteristic, from a buddhist understanding, or,
since you mention other beings in other realms of samasara, of a human,
of of beings in the human realm?
My understanding is that it is the suffering of change
a constant sense of dissatisfaction,
wanting things to change when they do not change,
wanting things to stay the same when they start to change.
But it is also this very thing that gives humans
the greatest opportunity for dharma understanding and practice.
We are not constantly hungry and thirsty, as is preta,
not constantly jealous, as is an asura,
not constantly feeling tortured, as a hell-being.
Likewise, we cannot say that being born from a womb is a specifically human trait.
it is common among all mammals (most of whom are in the animal realm)
So, i think the real question is not so much a point of any real disagreement
over whether one is born as a human or not in Sukhavati,
but rather, what defining characteristic of "human"
would make saying "born as a human in Sukhavati"
either an accurate, or else inaccurate phrase.
For that matter, is "born" or "reborn" really even the right terms?
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Malcolm » Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:35 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
What then, is the defining characteristic, from a buddhist understanding, or,
since you mention other beings in other realms of samasara, of a human,
of of beings in the human realm?
My understanding is that it is the suffering of change
a constant sense of dissatisfaction,
wanting things to change when they do not change,
wanting things to stay the same when they start to change.
But it is also this very thing that gives humans
the greatest opportunity for dharma understanding and practice.
.


All these features are lacking in Sukhvati: there is no dissatisfaction at all in Sukhavati, hence the name Sukhavativyuha, the field of bliss/happiness, etc.

Thus by your own analysis we cannot consider birth in Sukhavati a human birth place, not just because there is no womb birth in Sukhavati, according to its mythos, but because none of the feature you are defining as integral to human experience are present in that place. Hence the reason why birth in Sukhavati is a desiderata, according the Sukhavtivyuha sūtras. One wishes to be born there precisely because all the obstacles we experience as human beings are lacking there. In reality, Sukhavati is just a heaven -- no different than the heaven of Christians, Muslims, or Hindus.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, there is good reason to suppose in fact that the blueprint for the concept of a Buddhist paradise arose in Central Asia (and not India) because of the Persian custom of building wall gardens, such as Cyrus the Great's walled garden at Pasargadae. The word "paradise" ultimately comes from the Avestan word "pairidaēza", which simple means walled garden where one can engage in peaceful pursuits.


And therefore, the reason I stated that human birth depends on being born from a human womb, which seemed obvious to me at the time, and still seems obvious. There are also no women in Sukhavati, and certainly our gendered experience is crucial to being human as well.
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12735
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

PreviousNext

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 21 guests

>