The funny money is going to go away sooner than you think. — synthesis

If you simply mean that capitalism and the global banking system is unsustainable then yeah, no-shit Sherlock, but if you mean anything more specific it would be interesting to hear.

Is it impossible to save stupid people from smart people?

There, I fixed it for you.

The arguably irreversible damage done to children and teens by the restrictions and changes to their freedoms is huge. They have suffered and continue to suffer so much. — dazed

This is bad, if there's much truth to it, but the problem is not the virus. Something really messed up with the lives of these kids that a lockdown irreversibly damages them.

Does anybody in the West still want to be free? — synthesis

Few seem to understand freedom requires responsibility.

According to evolution theory we’re all 100% evolved from pond scum, I believe.

What if a vicious serial killer tripped on his way back from his most recent depravity and incurred a serious head injury. He is found and taken to the hospital where he lays in a coma for several months. When he awakes he has no memory of his past deeds. He recovers and spends the remainder of his life helping the poor and downtrodden. If evidence arises linking him to the crimes he committed should he be prosecuted. — Steve Leard

There is no remainder to prosecute.

Thank you for convincing me that your really ARE 100% evolved from pond scum. — Joe0082

He 100% debunked your debunking?

No clue about anything (intellectual). — synthesis

That's nonsensical because you would have to have a clue in order judge.

It could be a million different things. It never fails to amaze me that (the vast majority) of people simply cannot handle the notion that they have no clue. — synthesis

No clue about how to properly do the laundry, how the human mind works, or no clue about the nature of reality? Can you be clear about what you mean?

99.99....% of what you perceive leaves no time for interpretation. Just think about how much is going on in your field of view at once (an infinite number of things). You have the ability to process (before conceptualization) all of this information in order to make your way, but there is no time for interpretation. — synthesis

The process is based in prediction, it’s generally believed. For example:

The rain in Spain falls mainly on the ________.

Jake and Jill went up the ________.

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes, well, you might find
You get what you _______.

Chances are that your brain filled in at least one of the blanks above automatically and without your conscious consent. It is continuously making predictions in this manner. Do these predictions reflect ‘reality’? No, they are frequently wrong. Worse, they usually reflect some bias, and worse still, may trigger a maladaptive emotional response.

There are good reasons to value the mental state that your talking about but this ‘seeing reality’ business is pure fantasy.

How is it possible to see the near present (tree) and the past (star light) at the same time? — synthesis

Starlight is lazy?

I realize impermanence in just about every moment. It is made real with every change.

I know what you're trying to say. To me it seems like you're focussing too much on impermanence and should rather be explaining non-duality or transcendence to us.

The teaching is to get you to see the relative (impermanent) nature of all things intellectual and get back to your task...meditation. — synthesis

What is so difficult about observing or understanding impermanence? It seems extraordinarily simple to me. It is also * * * dare I say it * * * an intellection.

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?