Ancient Buddhas

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby dharmagoat » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:27 am

catmoon wrote:Right so let's get back on topic. What was the topic again? Oh Buddha, its not even a legitimate topic. Why is this thread still open?

Beats me. It seems to have run its course. :smile:
User avatar
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Lhug-Pa » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:43 pm

Catmoon, are you kidding?

My entire initial post in this thread was about Buddha (save two or three paragraphs about Upasika Blavatsky (who was Buddhist) and her writings on Giants and Science in relation to the theme of this thread), and all you came back with was some emotional logical fallacies about "conspiracy theories", Ronald McDonald and L. Ron Hubbard. Then I proceeded to quote the Dalai Lama (on a Buddhist forum no less), and you kept flipping out bringing the thread further off topic instead of actually addressing anything I wrote.

And one of the main points of my post (which if you go back and read it, was hardly entirely dedicated to Upasika Blavatsky as you're trying to frame it) was agreeing with Asunthatneversets, one of the most knowledgable Dzogchen students who has ever posted here. So would you throw him—who has contributed more to the knowledge of Buddhadharma here than you ever have—off the forums too, simply because he doesn't agree with the conventional paradigm of orthodox scientism?

How about the quote from Jigme Lingpa's Sutra section of the Treasury of Precious Qualities I posted? Would you ban him too if he posted here, because he wrote about beings with immeasurable lifespans and bodies of light?

The topic is about the possibility of Ancient long-lived Buddhas, considering the 'findings' (like our alleged ape ancestry) of conventional contemporary science. Are we not allowed by the thought police to question the orthodox paradigms of official scientism?

Since you've only resorted to logical fallacies instead of addressing the topic matter, it is your credibility that is at stake here at this point.

Before anyone even thinks of taking Catmoon's side here, please go back and read the original post of this thread by xabir, then go read my initial post in this thread, and you'll see that I addressed two out of three of the OP's main specific points directly, and the third main specific point of the OP indirectly. Hardly off topic!
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby dharmagoat » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:58 pm

For a funny guy you can get pretty scary at times, catmoon.
User avatar
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Adamantine » Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:07 pm

Reminder: Ad Hominem and cruel posts will not be tolerated.
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
Adamantine
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2680
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby catmoon » Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:10 am

Yes. It seems to me that there certain forms of behavior that can place one entirely outside the pale of social niceties, times when strong firm action is required. Trouble is, such a belief can send one crashing through the forum rules in spectacular fashion. Ah well, there are other topics to pursue.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby dharmagoat » Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:45 am

catmoon wrote:Yes. It seems to me that there certain forms of behavior that can place one entirely outside the pale of social niceties, times when strong firm action is required. Trouble is, such a belief can send one crashing through the forum rules in spectacular fashion. Ah well, there are other topics to pursue.

I can't see how Buddhist principles can be dismissed as "social niceties".

Firm action may be required, but not in the manner that you prescribe.

I miss the "devil may care" catmoon. :consoling:
User avatar
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby catmoon » Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:02 am

dharmagoat wrote:
catmoon wrote:Yes. It seems to me that there certain forms of behavior that can place one entirely outside the pale of social niceties, times when strong firm action is required. Trouble is, such a belief can send one crashing through the forum rules in spectacular fashion. Ah well, there are other topics to pursue.

I can't see how Buddhist principles can be dismissed as "social niceties".

Firm action may be required, but not in the manner that you prescribe.

I miss the "devil may care" catmoon. :consoling:



Playing fast and loose with the board rules seems pretty devil-may-care to me. Got nailed on it, too. Now, Buddhist principles are dismissed all the time. As a matter of fact there are times when a monastic will be formally called to task for failing to dismiss certain principles if the situation calls for it. The upshot is there are no absolute rules, and no matter how well intentioned and thought out a rule is, there will always be some way to abuse a rule, or abuse others who hold the rule.

Hence the need to avoid rigid absolutism. Our court system is malfunctioning precisely because it is absolutist and precedent-bound. This idea has very wide ramifications.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby dharmagoat » Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:07 am

catmoon wrote:Playing fast and loose with the board rules seems pretty devil-may-care to me. Got nailed on it, too. Now, Buddhist principles are dismissed all the time. As a matter of fact there are times when a monastic will be formally called to task for failing to dismiss certain principles if the situation calls for it. The upshot is there are no absolute rules, and no matter how well intentioned and thought out a rule is, there will always be some way to abuse a rule, or abuse others who hold the rule.

Hence the need to avoid rigid absolutism. Our court system is malfunctioning precisely because it is absolutist and precedent-bound. This idea has very wide ramifications.

Okay. But let's play nice.
User avatar
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby catmoon » Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:18 am

dharmagoat wrote:
catmoon wrote:Playing fast and loose with the board rules seems pretty devil-may-care to me. Got nailed on it, too. Now, Buddhist principles are dismissed all the time. As a matter of fact there are times when a monastic will be formally called to task for failing to dismiss certain principles if the situation calls for it. The upshot is there are no absolute rules, and no matter how well intentioned and thought out a rule is, there will always be some way to abuse a rule, or abuse others who hold the rule.

Hence the need to avoid rigid absolutism. Our court system is malfunctioning precisely because it is absolutist and precedent-bound. This idea has very wide ramifications.

Okay. But let's play nice.


You are saying, dismiss the rule but don't dismiss all the rules at once? Gawd, I think you got me there. Okay we do it your way.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby greentara » Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:29 am

catmoon, "Hence the need to avoid rigid absolutism. Our court system is malfunctioning precisely because it is absolutist and precedent-bound. This idea has very wide ramifications" Ohh yes, I couldn't agree more!
greentara
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:03 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Alfredo » Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:26 am

To quote somebody-or-other, "There is no religion higher than truth."
Alfredo
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:52 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Aemilius » Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:48 am

catmoon wrote:
Aemilius wrote:What is accepted as truth is a result of social laws, result of the laws that govern of human behaviour, the laws of authority. Why doesn't a giant skeleton mean anything at all? Because it is against the established social structure, against the social hierarchy that is in power. Because people are ruled by ridicule, you are afraid of being laughed at, afraid of being shut outside of the circle of "normal people", maybe even afraid of losing your job and your social status. Therefore you don't see a giant skeleton, you don't see anything that would disturb your view and your social position.



More importantly, the most important thing about the scientific system of thought is that it is NOT based on social laws, authority, or established social structures. The scientific arbiters of truth are experiment and evidence. Without them no idea has scientific credence. And no amount of preconception, convention and authority will hold against a single, replicable experiment. If a child were to appear who knew how to build perpetual motion machines with Lego, a huge swath of scientific truth would be changed overnight.


Unfortunately, it just isn't so in actual truth. You have an incredible amount of faith in it. Science is also a community, and this community does reject and through out some people sometimes. They are just ignored and forgotten, and Science then continues without them, in its chosen tracks.
You will always have belief and trust, this happens when you believe and trust the authorities of Science.

Madam Blavatsky, who has been mentioned here, concretely experienced how the social order Religion and the social order of Science behave when they encountered her paranormal powers and capacities.

By the way, there are, or there have been, lots of perpetual motion machines in the http://www.youtube, but nothing happens in the science because of it. You can see them Yourself, they are quite interesting.
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Arjan Dirkse » Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:19 pm

It's quite simple for me. Neither Buddhism nor science purports to espouse absolute truth, so both may be wrong. Hence, no need to get upset. Yes maybe there were Buddhas billions of years ago, maybe it was on this planet or maybe on some other planet or some other dimension, but it's not necessarily true, it could "just" be a story meant to inspire or teach.

Evolution seeems pretty ironclad, it's as much a theory as gravity is, but I'm not a scientist so I am not here to argue with anyone who thinks otherwise, believe whatever you want.
Arjan Dirkse
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:53 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby futerko » Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:14 pm

Aemilius wrote:Madam Blavatsky, who has been mentioned here, concretely experienced how the social order Religion and the social order of Science behave when they encountered her paranormal powers and capacities.

By the way, there are, or there have been, lots of perpetual motion machines in the http://www.youtube, but nothing happens in the science because of it. You can see them Yourself, they are quite interesting.


I would suggest that it was in fact Blavatsky's writings they encountered.

I would also suggest that you can find you tube videos of Santa Claus, but hey, you keep looking for that "free energy" if you want.
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: Ancient Buddhas

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:31 pm

Aemilius wrote:
Science is also a community, and this community does reject and through (throw?)out some people sometimes.

Actually, no, "science" is not a community that you are either part of or not part of. True, there is what can be called "The scientific community" which is made of people who operate by using scientific standards to determine the validity of theories, and there is a sound methodology to determining that validity, and anyone can apply this methodology in order to determine whether a theory about something is valid or not. And this involves the observation of what is called empirical evidence.

Sometimes this evidence flies in the face of what appears to be reality. The most recent example that comes to mind is establishing a link between vaccines and autism. There are many people who swear that vaccines cause some children to develop autism. This is most likely due to the fact that signs of autism occur in children when they are at the age when they get vaccines. So, the two appear to be connected. But all attempts to prove this, to establish a connection, have failed. While in fact there may be a connection, it has yet to be proven, and thus, to base anything on such a theory is not likely to bring any positive results, because there is no reason to assume that they would.

A problem that seems to occur a lot these days is that
when people disagree with what can be proven
(or agree with what cannot be proven),
that because they have a different opinion on the matter,
they think that because they disagree, the facts are no longer facts
but are therefore, suddenly reduced to being mere opinions.
In other words, a fact becomes an opinion the moment that I disagree with it.
can't you see how ridiculous that is?
It's no longer about the available information, but about the person's opinions.

If you can show any evidence that anyone has ever lived for 20,000 years,
any evidence at all,
let's see it.
If you can provide sound evidence
then you are being a scientist.
.
.
.
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: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Aemilius » Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:52 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Aemilius wrote:
Science is also a community, and this community does reject and through (throw?)out some people sometimes.

Actually, no, "science" is not a community that you are either part of or not part of. True, there is what can be called "The scientific community" which is made of people who operate by using scientific standards to determine the validity of theories, and there is a sound methodology to determining that validity, and anyone can apply this methodology in order to determine whether a theory about something is valid or not. And this involves the observation of what is called empirical evidence.

Sometimes this evidence flies in the face of what appears to be reality. The most recent example that comes to mind is establishing a link between vaccines and autism. There are many people who swear that vaccines cause some children to develop autism. This is most likely due to the fact that signs of autism occur in children when they are at the age when they get vaccines. So, the two appear to be connected. But all attempts to prove this, to establish a connection, have failed. While in fact there may be a connection, it has yet to be proven, and thus, to base anything on such a theory is not likely to bring any positive results, because there is no reason to assume that they would.

A problem that seems to occur a lot these days is that
when people disagree with what can be proven
(or agree with what cannot be proven),
that because they have a different opinion on the matter,
they think that because they disagree, the facts are no longer facts
but are therefore, suddenly reduced to being mere opinions.
In other words, a fact becomes an opinion the moment that I disagree with it.
can't you see how ridiculous that is?
It's no longer about the available information, but about the person's opinions.

If you can show any evidence that anyone has ever lived for 20,000 years,
any evidence at all,
let's see it.
If you can provide sound evidence
then you are being a scientist.
.
.
.


"Fact" is an elastic concept. It easily transforms into a prejudice, like here when you have seen pictures of giant skeletons, you begin to call them "photoshopped", (without actual evidence of such deception). Then it gets repeated for a while, and you now believe it is a "fact", just because it conforms to people's preconceived ideas.

Scientific community exists very clearly, here briefly about its existence and nature: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community

I have before suggested that You will have to provide this evidence of long lifespans Yourself, through attaining the siddhis. It is also a question authority and culture: If australian aboriginals, or indian sadhus, brahmins or yogis, have met a person who has lived or existed for 20 000 years, would it count as an evidence to You? And if an austrian or swiss or german professor has met him, what would happen? Would he ever open his mouth to tell anybody?
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby futerko » Sat Nov 16, 2013 11:42 am

Aemilius wrote:"Fact" is an elastic concept. It easily transforms into a prejudice, like here when you have seen pictures of giant skeletons, you begin to call them "photoshopped", (without actual evidence of such deception). Then it gets repeated for a while, and you now believe it is a "fact", just because it conforms to people's preconceived ideas.


Yes, if there were more than just pictures of giant skeletons then the evidence would definitely point in that direction. Are you claiming to have seen them with your own eyes?
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: Ancient Buddhas

Postby catmoon » Sat Nov 16, 2013 12:58 pm

Aemilius wrote:
By the way, there are, or there have been, lots of perpetual motion machines in the http://www.youtube, but nothing happens in the science because of it. You can see them Yourself, they are quite interesting.


Yes, and you will also find pictures of twenty-foot tall mushrooms and learned articles on the Hood Canal Tree Squid.

The only way through is to apply a little reason.

1) Those of us with a little scientific training would be intensely interested in a source of free energy, precisely because it means new science to be done. We have all spent some time examining these claims, which have a history extending back to the fifties at least when ads appeared in the back pages of Popular Mechanics advertising carburetors that make your car run on water. There was Pons and Fleischmann and their cold fusion, there are guys showing up on Late Night television with electromagnetic wonder machines and on and on.
Every one of these claims and has been closely examined and dismissed, not because they violate the rules, not because they are suppressed, but because they do not work. A reasonable mind has to admit that if they did work, every scientist in creation would be building them in his lab and playing with them and maybe even patenting them. There's no way you could stop them from playing with the idea and half the scientists in the world would have a functioning perpetual motion machine on their desks just because it's so COOL. High school students would be copying the plans off the internet and building them in a million back yards.

2) Energy is big business. Fantastic sums of money change hands in this business. Now, if you had a chance to acquire the wealth of, say, the Exxon corporation would you take the opportunity? If not, I assure you that there are millions of wealthy businessmen who would. All you have to do is assemble a development team, start a company, and sell stock in it. I assure you that - if and only if you have a working prototype - you would have to hire security companies just to handle the swarms of job applicants and the mob of investors desperate to buy a piece of the action. Something like that happened to Microsoft and Apple and you will notice that no giant corporate conspiracy suppressed the development of the computer. Come to think of it, the vacuum tube companies didn't suppress the transistor, the tire companies didn't suppress the radial tire... and on and on. Such things simply cannot occur where there is money to be made. The companies you would expect to do the suppressing don't follow that path, ever. They either adopt the new technology and make a mountain o money, or they go under, trampled to death by the swarms of companies that DO adopt the new technology.
The difference between Apple and the perpetual motion people is simple. Apple had a working prototype. The perpetual motion guys don't.

3) But, just because perpetual motion machines don't work doesn't mean you can't make money off them. And this accounts for the persistent claims. Perpetual motion machine scammers sell plans over the internet for a nice bit of cash, there are books published, appearance fees collected, lecture tickets sold and websites accumulating advertising revenue. But it's really no different from those free-trip-to-Mexico real estate deals. Like selling $3000 vacuum cleaners, it's just an old standard con man's way of turning a buck.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby tatpurusa » Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:55 am

If we are already at it ...
No "scientific proof", but interesting anyway:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRuxw-nZoJw

This amazing footprint in granite was discovered in 1912 by a hunter called Stoffel Coetzee, while hunting in the remote area. At the time this was a deeply remote part of South Africa known as the Eastern Transvaal, teeming with wild life, including antelope and lions. It remains in the same condition as it was when first discovered and the possibility that this was a carved hoax is extremely low because of its remote location. Even today, it is difficult to find.
tatpurusa
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:17 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Norwegian » Sun Nov 17, 2013 1:08 am

Related to that of so called "first person observations", proof, evidence, and so on:

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson on UFO's:
Norwegian
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

>