Once you understand the nature of the Relative, you can see the changing nature of all things (especially your self). As all things Relative are born, have life, and pass, all things Absolute, transcend these states, having never been born, will never pass, and "exist" outside of existence. — synthesis

Doesn’t it feel wrong to contrive the duality of Relative/Absolute?

Accessing The Absolute is the goal of all spirituality and religion — synthesis

It may be the goal of spirituality but it’s certainty not the goal of religion. If it were the goal of religion then it would all be geared towards that end, but it’s not. Even in a relatively austere tradition like zen it’s not.

Couldn’t really afford to be an individualist in 99.9% of human evolution, I’ve heard.

the truth is in the garbage. — Bitter Crank

A meaningful story can woven out of anything, even mere garbage. Truth isn’t necessary and rather beside the point.

Would it matter if it wasn't the same person as long as they were convinced they were? — Aoife Jones

I think that they’d need a lot of convincing that they weren’t.

Atman

"Empty" in Buddhism is always of something, like the emptiness of a pot. It's a reference to illusion.

Is that what you mean by emptiness? — frank

The illusion is permanence. The truth, allegedly, is emptiness.

Let me know if you need a secular scholar. — frank

I would ask for no other kind, and it is kind of you to offer.

It is a quote from the Buddha that you presented yourself.

There's the false self (ahamkara) and the true self (atman). — Dharmi

Yeah, whatever, there’s no such animal (eternal atman) in Buddhism, only emptiness. Does the passage that you quote suggest that the Blessed One wants to be in good keeping with the teaching of atman?

“No, lord”

If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?

"No, lord."

He apparently wants to keep with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self. Hmm... why would he want to do that???

Weird. Buddhism teaches that suffering arises from ignorance of our true nature, which is emptiness, and that everything (including formless realms) are empty.

No, you're 100% right. Buddha's teaching was to focus on the teaching of the Four Noble Truths, he was not willing to talk about atman or anatman because that would muddy the waters. That's correct. — Dharmi

But Hindu's talk about atman. Atman is all the rage in Hinduism.

Zen vs the original. — frank

If you see your original face, slap it for me.

That's a famous zen koan.

??? If that's how you're interpreting it, he also denies teaching atman.
— praxis

Yes. Because Buddha was an Apophatic thinker. Via Negativa. — Dharmi

It's obviously a teaching about avoiding the extreme views of eternalism and annihilationism.

Try again.

Atman is permanent. In the Ananda Sutta, he denies he teaches anatman. — Dharmi

??? If that's how you're interpreting it, he also denies teaching atman.

↪frank The illustrious secular scholars claim that nothing can be said with authority in what the historical Buddha said. So secular of them to claim such a thing.
— praxis

Scholars disagree, what else is new? — Dharmi

The moral of the story is that secular scholars lack faith or, in other words, don't rely on religious authorities.

The illustrious secular scholars claim that nothing can be said with authority in what the historical Buddha said. So secular of them to claim such a thing.

What are you babbling about?

Hinduism teaches impermanence too. — Dharmi

Atman is impermanent, so Buddha was right about anatman. :grin:

Where?

His teaching on impermanence and the Four Noble Truths is totally accurate. — Dharmi

Impermanence is an illusion. :nerd:

Gotta love the "I refute you by challenging you to teach me something.". It works! For teaching you something. :lol: — frank

I challenged him to name a secular scholar that will admit that the Buddha's original teaching was not emptiness or non-Self. He, of course, failed to do this.

He admits that the Buddha taught impermanence (nothing to do with emptiness?) though.

This stood out: "there is no word that can be traced with unquestionable authority to Gotama Sakyamuni as a historical personage, although there must be some sayings or phrases derived from him." Can't be sure about anything he supposedly said but can be absolutely sure that certain things were attributed to the Buddha falsely. Hmm... :chin:

Still don't get why you don't just claim that the Buddha was mistaken. Is the Bible True?

No, even secular scholarship will admit that the Buddha's original teaching was not emptiness or non-Self. I don't need yoga to figure that out. — Dharmi

Okay, name a secular scholar that claims this and I'll look it up for myself since you are apparently incapable of supporting your claims.

If mistakes like this happen in Buddhism then it's reasonable to assume that such mistakes happen in other religions. I guess we'll just have to have faith in religious authorities. :starstruck:
— praxis

That's certainly not what we say. Religious authorities, especially in Hinduism, are typically frauds and liars. We go by the Vedic method of knowing God, yogic meditation. — Dharmi

:lol: Yogic meditation told you that certain things attributed to the Buddha are wrong? What exactly?

God is sentient — Dharmi

In Buddhism a sentient being is as you say, just the fleeting aggregates that arise from dependent origination.

certain things attributed to the Buddha are wrong — Dharmi

If mistakes like this happen in Buddhism then it's reasonable to assume that such mistakes happen in other religions. I guess we'll just have to have faith in our religious authorities. :starstruck:

Change is considered illusory in Buddhism as well, so what? Gods are merely considered another type of sentient being.
— praxis

No, change is the essential feature of Buddhism. — Dharmi

Don't know what you're trying to say but I think it would be better to say that emptiness is the essential feature of Buddhism.

When one has reached Adi-Purusha, that is to say, Vishnu, then one has reached eternity. There is no change that occurs. It only occurs in an illusory state, like in a dream. But everything is eternal, no true change happens. No death, no rebirth. No Karma or reincarnation. — Dharmi

Significantly, you didn't answer my question about sentient beings in Adi-Purusha.

Kindly explain how then. You say yourself that "perception is indeed transient."
— praxis

In Parmenides' system, change is merely illusory. In the spectral world, that's how change operates. The spectral world is non-different from God, and God does not change, he's unchanging, boundless, infinite. — Dharmi

Change is considered illusory in Buddhism as well, so what? Gods are merely considered another type of sentient being.

All beings which reside in maya have sense perception. Beyond which, there's only pure consciousness, or Purusha. — Dharmi

I know next to nothing about Hinduism. Sentient beings reincarnate after Purusha, and are still considered sentient beings?

Yeah, Buddhism got formless realms too. But nut'n escapes the rule of transiency, not even stuff in the formless realms. Perhaps if someone thought up a changeless realm, now that would be a realm worth having around, forever! :razz:

Seriously though, perception requires change, in the material world or the spectral.
— praxis

No, it doesn't. Parmenides went over this a long time ago. — Dharmi

Kindly explain how then. You say yourself that "perception is indeed transient."

Because the world of sense perception is transient... — Dharmi

And all sentient beings have sense perception, right?

certain things attributed to the Buddha are wrong ... but the Buddha was not wrong. — Dharmi

What exactly? The rule of transiency?

The rule of transiency, my friend, is definitely incompatible with atman.
— praxis

No it isn't. There's a false ego and a true ego. Within the material world, all is transcient. But in the world of Forms, the spectral world, Vaikuntha, there is eternality, no transcience. No change. Maybe the perception, but not actual. — Dharmi

Yeah, Buddhism got formless realms too. But nut'n escapes the rule of transiency, not even stuff in the formless realms. Perhaps if someone thought up a changeless realm, now that would be a realm worth having around, forever! :razz:

Seriously though, perception requires change, in the material world or the spectral. Without change, well, nothing would change and everything would be static and dead. The rule of transiency may only be relevant to sentient beings, however, if that's what you're getting at. In any case, you haven't shown how the Buddha's rule of transiency is comparable with Hinduism.

I don't understand why you don't simply claim that the Buddha was wrong.

There either is a Self or there is no-Self.

But the Buddha himself didn't teach non-Self. It's a Buddh-ist doctrine. The Buddha's teachings, by themselves, are totally Hindu. — Dharmi

Do not vainly lament, but do wonder at the rule of transiency and learn from it the emptiness of human life. Do not cherish to unworthy desire that the changeable might become unchanging. — Gautama Buddha

The rule of transiency, my friend, is definitely incompatible with atman.

Buddha himself was not a Buddh-ist, he was a Sanatani. — Dharmi

The Hindu atman apparently contradicts with the Buddhist concept of emptiness. I imagine that there are all sorts of ways to talk around the issue, but I don’t see a way to resolve it, and if there’s no resolution then at least one story must be false.

What do mean by inherent meaning?

Meaning is used by those in a position of power or influence to control the masses. If a society taught its citizens about meaning, what it is and how to find it for themselves, it wouldn’t be as easy to corral them like sheep to the slaughter.
— praxis

Just because meaning is utilized in this way doesn't mean there is no meaning. — Dharmi

I didn’t suggest there is no meaning. In fact, I believe that we are all utterly saturated in meaning.

Here nobody teaches us the pursuit of happiness or at least something close to. — javi2541997

Nobody in the USA (a capitalist society) does either.

Meaning is used by those in a position of power or influence to control the masses. If a society taught its citizens about meaning, what it is and how to find it for themselves, it wouldn’t be as easy to corral them like sheep to the slaughter.

Well, this is supposedly the normal curve of happiness.

... nobody knows how thinking works.

...there is a part of the brain that... — synthesis

Do you mean to say that only you know how thinking works?

So Hrvoje bested me in our 16 day game.

Looked like this at the end where there was no way for me to win so I resigned.


Never played a game like that before. About halfway through I started really analyzing and planning for many moves ahead. Hrvoje always succeeded in thwarting my best laid plans though. :grimace:

Good game, @Hrvoje

We can only make decisions based on our thinking. Reacting without thought is not decision making. It's an involentary conditioned responce. We can deliberatly condition ourselves to react in particular ways, but that requires planning etc., i.e., thinking. For example, if you were speeding down the freeway and the car in front of you abruptly slowed down you'd probably hit the brakes without thinking or deciding to hit the brakes. With deliberate practice we can train ourselves to do this as well as possible. That's something that we can chose to do, and that decision would be based in reason.

Deciding something based on a gut feeling or intuition is also thinking in that it involves the subconscious, it's just not well considered, or perhaps it is well considered if deliberate conditioning were involved.

Fortunately, it is not necessary to function in this highly ineffectual manner. If we can simply observe and accept (without comment), then we can see things for what they really are and respond with the most appropriate measures. — synthesis

It's not necessary to think for ourselves, that's true. We can rely on others to see things for what they really are and inform us on how to respond with the most appropriate measures. Not everyone is made to be a follower though.

"Nobody has a clue as to how thinking works."

"Oh, yeah?!"

"Yeah!"

"Yeah?!!"

"YEAH!!!"

:lol:

K, if you're as convinced as you seem there's no point in trying to convince you otherwise. :victory: