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

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

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

Postby gad rgyangs » Sat Dec 14, 2013 4:28 pm

from Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo's FB page:

One time I saw this Russian Orthodox priest who was being interviewed, and he said the first thing they learn in the novitiate is that anything they say or think about God – it’s not that. And we could say that exactly for the nature of our true existence. Whatever we think we are, we’re not that. It’s all just words, but the experience is beyond words.

This is the problem with books. This is the problem with lectures. Everything solidifies again – something which by its very nature is fluid and at the same time beyond words. It can be experienced but it cannot be talked of or thought about. So the important thing is just to remember that we don’t exist the way we think we do. And whoever we think we are, we’re not that.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

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

Postby Malcolm » Sat Dec 14, 2013 4:40 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:from Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo's FB page:

One time I saw this Russian Orthodox priest who was being interviewed, and he said the first thing they learn in the novitiate is that anything they say or think about God – it’s not that. And we could say that exactly for the nature of our true existence. Whatever we think we are, we’re not that. It’s all just words, but the experience is beyond words.


The old ontologiocal argument of St. Anselm:

Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
Therefore, God exists.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontologica ... ent#Anselm

Recast:
Our understanding of the Real is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of the Real exists in the mind.
A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
If the Real only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
We cannot be imagining something that is greater than the Real.
Therefore, the Real exists.


A flawed argument, from my POV, but there you go.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11734
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

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

Postby gad rgyangs » Sat Dec 14, 2013 4:48 pm

Malcolm wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:from Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo's FB page:

One time I saw this Russian Orthodox priest who was being interviewed, and he said the first thing they learn in the novitiate is that anything they say or think about God – it’s not that. And we could say that exactly for the nature of our true existence. Whatever we think we are, we’re not that. It’s all just words, but the experience is beyond words.


The old ontologiocal argument of St. Anselm:

Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
Therefore, God exists.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontologica ... ent#Anselm

Recast:
Our understanding of the Real is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of the Real exists in the mind.
A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
If the Real only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
We cannot be imagining something that is greater than the Real.
Therefore, the Real exists.


A flawed argument, from my POV, but there you go.


not only are all arguments about the nature of reality flawed, but so are all descriptions. what the lady said.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

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

Postby Malcolm » Sat Dec 14, 2013 4:53 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
not only are all arguments about the nature of reality flawed, but so are all descriptions. what the lady said.


It is not a description, it is intended as a proof that there can be a Real that is beyond all predicates.

Simply put, if one can think of a real beyond all predicates, there is a real beyond all predicates.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11734
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

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

Postby gad rgyangs » Sat Dec 14, 2013 5:05 pm

Malcolm wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:
not only are all arguments about the nature of reality flawed, but so are all descriptions. what the lady said.


It is not a description, it is intended as a proof that there can be a Real that is beyond all predicates.

Simply put, if one can think of a real beyond all predicates, there is a real beyond all predicates.


its not taken seriously anymore. and it certainly ain't no rigpa.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

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

Postby Malcolm » Sat Dec 14, 2013 5:07 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:
not only are all arguments about the nature of reality flawed, but so are all descriptions. what the lady said.


It is not a description, it is intended as a proof that there can be a Real that is beyond all predicates.

Simply put, if one can think of a real beyond all predicates, there is a real beyond all predicates.


its not taken seriously anymore. and it certainly ain't no rigpa.


Its taken very seriously among philosophers, and like all arguments, is interesting if only as a literary phenomena.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11734
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

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

Postby futerko » Sat Dec 14, 2013 5:09 pm

Malcolm wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:
not only are all arguments about the nature of reality flawed, but so are all descriptions. what the lady said.


It is not a description, it is intended as a proof that there can be a Real that is beyond all predicates.

Simply put, if one can think of a real beyond all predicates, there is a real beyond all predicates.


Surely, the "real" only comes into play in relation to predicates - the incompleteness of predication is what defines it in the first place.
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

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

Postby gad rgyangs » Sat Dec 14, 2013 5:17 pm

Malcolm wrote:Its taken very seriously among philosophers, and like all arguments, is interesting if only as a literary phenomena.


like science and most of Buddhism, philosophy is largely concerned with particulars of this dream rather than waking up. Since Colin Wilson died last week I was rereading his book "The Outsider" where you see accounts of many quite intelligent and talented individuals who were well aware that consensus reality it just a dream-construction but did not discover rigpa or have it pointed out to them. In many cases the outcome was insanity or at least feelings of alienation. OTOH, given at least a basic taste of rigpa, one can freely enjoy all the fun stuff in the dream including science, philosophy and Buddhism without being confused by it.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

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

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sat Dec 14, 2013 5:53 pm

Malcolm wrote: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.


Well argued!!! :namaste:
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 5:55 pm

gad rgyangs wrote: not only are all arguments about the nature of reality flawed, but so are all descriptions.

Then there must be a flaw in that argument as well.
:rolling:
.
.
.
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 gad rgyangs » Sat Dec 14, 2013 6:41 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote: not only are all arguments about the nature of reality flawed, but so are all descriptions.

Then there must be a flaw in that argument as well.
:rolling:
.
.
.


its not a statement about the nature of reality, its a statement about statements about the nature of reality. see Russell, Godel and Wittgenstein.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

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

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sat Dec 14, 2013 9:30 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote: not only are all arguments about the nature of reality flawed, but so are all descriptions.

Then there must be a flaw in that argument as well.
:rolling:
.
.
.


its not a statement about the nature of reality, its a statement about statements about the nature of reality. see Russell, Godel and Wittgenstein.


You said all arguments, and how can you separate
a statement about statements about the nature of reality
(which must either agree or disagree)
from
a statement about the nature of reality?
.
.
.
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 gad rgyangs » Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:08 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:You said all arguments, and how can you separate
a statement about statements about the nature of reality
(which must either agree or disagree)
from
a statement about the nature of reality?


any time you are using words, it is by definition vyavahāra.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

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

Postby smcj » Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:03 am

not only are all arguments about the nature of reality flawed, but so are all descriptions.

It isn't a description of the nature of reality per se, but a sample of literature with a view from the "other shore" is the 100k Songs of Milarepa.
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN
smcj
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

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

Postby gad rgyangs » Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:05 am

smcj wrote:
not only are all arguments about the nature of reality flawed, but so are all descriptions.

It isn't a description of the nature of reality per se, but a sample of literature with a view from the "other shore" is the 100k Songs of Milarepa.


poetry is acceptable since no one mistakes metaphors for "scientific" description (hopefully).
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

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

Postby gad rgyangs » Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:13 am

and of course it helps to remember that so-called "scientific" descriptions are metaphors too...
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

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

Postby Nighthawk » Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:00 am

Malcolm wrote:In reality, Sukhavati is just a heaven -- no different than the heaven of Christians, Muslims, or Hindus.

How is that so? Can you practice the Dharma and manifest Buddhahood in those heavens?
Nighthawk
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:04 am

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

Postby Malcolm » Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:59 am

Nighthawk wrote:
Malcolm wrote:In reality, Sukhavati is just a heaven -- no different than the heaven of Christians, Muslims, or Hindus.

How is that so? Can you practice the Dharma and manifest Buddhahood in those heavens?


Ummmmm.....I think the point is that I don't really believe in heavens, Buddhist or otherwise.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11734
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

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

Postby Nighthawk » Sun Dec 15, 2013 4:45 am

Malcolm wrote:
Nighthawk wrote:
Malcolm wrote:In reality, Sukhavati is just a heaven -- no different than the heaven of Christians, Muslims, or Hindus.

How is that so? Can you practice the Dharma and manifest Buddhahood in those heavens?


Ummmmm.....I think the point is that I don't really believe in heavens, Buddhist or otherwise.

Alrighty. :ugeek:
Nighthawk
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:04 am

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

Postby Wayfarer » Sun Dec 15, 2013 11:49 am

I don't think 'Darwin explains Einstein'. I don't believe that the biological theory of evolution explains why human beings ought to be able to devise such ideas as the Theory of Relativity. In fact, neither did Alfred Russell Wallace, who is often said to be a co-discoverer of the principle of natural selection, and whose own work on the idea was what finally impelled Darwin to publish his thesis, for fear that he might have his theory stolen out from under him. (Wallace's doubts about the Darwinian account of the descent of man was published in an essay by him called Darwinism as Applied to Man. His ideas are mostly discounted because of his interest in 'spiritualism'.)

But the same general objection can be made with regards to genius. Why should a Mozart or a Bach be born? I hope you don't want to argue that it is because 'their genomes are more likely to proliferate'. I find the argument unbearably vulgar. I don't think genius is explicable, full stop. Furthermore, from the viewpoint of strictly Darwinian theory, there is no reason why many human attributes should exist. To say that they only exist so that we can continue to proliferate barely amounts to philosophy in my opinion.
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas
User avatar
Wayfarer
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

PreviousNext

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

>