And yet you have a retirement fund, don't you?
Also, some people feel burdened by ambition. Some don't. — baker
There are worthy people and unworthy people inside and outside all those traditions. — Wayfarer
I'm not saying there won't be anything in the future, but that when there is something it will be the present. — Janus
If not, then what do you make of the fact that one's spiritual master is another's charlatan? — Janus
That reality is intelligible is the presupposition of all scientific endeavours: that the intelligibility science proposes is always subject to empirical verification means that science never actually explains existence itself but must submit itself to a reality check against the empirical data. This existential gap between scientific hypotheses and empirical verified judgment points to, in philosophical terms, the contingency of existence. There is no automatic leap from hypothesis to reality that can bypass a "reality check." — Neil Ormerod, The Metaphysical Muddle of Lawrence Krauss
Earlier on I referred to a book by Evan Thompson, 'Why I am not a Buddhist'. — Wayfarer
As for 'objectivity' as we've discussed there are criteria beyond the objective. Or put another way, what is truly excellent is more than what is just objectively the case. Objectivity is always conditional, if there is a true good, then its goodness is more than simply objective, it's transcendent (i.e. transcends conditions.) — Wayfarer
According to the phenomenologists, the very structure of the present itself is such that it intends, anticipates beyond itself. And the present is the fulfillment of a previous moment’s anticipating beyond itself. So one could say that to be in the moment is to experience a particular degree of intimacy with respect to one’s past and future. For the depressed person the present moment will appear as a disappointment of prior expectations as well as an anticipating of further disappointment. — Joshs
I asked you whether Platonism teaches dependent co-arising. — baker
Philosophy, taking possession of the soul when it is in this state, encourages it gently and tries to set it free, pointing out that the eyes and the ears and the other senses are full of deceit, and urging it to withdraw from these, except in so far as their use is unavoidable, and exhorting it to collect and concentrate itself within itself, and to trust nothing except itself … (83a).
The soul of the true philosopher believes that it must not resist this deliverance, and therefore it stands aloof from pleasures and lusts and griefs and fears, so far as it can, considering that when anyone has violent pleasures or fears or griefs or lusts he suffers from them not merely what one might think—for example, illness or loss of money spent on his lusts … (83b).
Each pleasure or pain nails it [the soul] as with a nail to the body and rivets it on and makes it corporeal, so that it fancies the things are true which the body says are true. For because it has the same beliefs and pleasures as the body it is compelled to adopt also the same habits and mode of life, and can never depart in purity to the other world, but must always go away contaminated with the body; and so it sinks quickly into another body again and grows into it, like seed that is sown. Therefore it has no part in the communion with the divine and pure and absolute ... (83d).
If there is no living tradition with unbroken continuation, then your Platonism faces the same type of problem as, say, Celtic revivalism (which we already discussed). — baker
What reason do you have to think that Plato would think you have the right understanding of his teaching? — baker
The "transcendent" tells us nothing. — Janus
In terms theologian Bernard Lonergan develops in his major work Insight, Krauss is caught in a notion of reality as "already-out-there-now," a reality conditioned by space and time. Lonergan refers to this conception of reality as based on an "animal" knowing, on extroverted biologically dominated consciousness. He distinguishes it from a fully human knowing based on intelligence and reason, arguing that many philosophical difficulties arise because of a failure to distinguish between these two forms of knowing.
In the present context, if we think of the real as an "already-out-there-now" real of extroverted consciousness, then God is not real. God becomes just a figment of the imagination, a fairy at the bottom of the garden, an invisible friend. However, if the Real is constituted by intelligent grasp and reasonable affirmation, then reality suddenly becomes much richer, and the God-question takes on a different hue.
But it is not just the God-question that we can now begin to address more coherently. There are a whole range of other realities whose reality we can now affirm: interest rates, mortgages, contracts, vows, national constitutions, penal codes and so on. Where do interest rates "exist"? Not in banks, or financial institutions. Are they real when we cannot touch them or see them? We all spend so much time worrying about them - are we worrying about nothing? In fact, I'm sure we all worry much more about interest rates than about the existence or non-existence of the Higgs boson! Similarly, a contract is not just the piece of paper, but the meaning the paper embodies; likewise a national constitution or a penal code. [It is here you can see the lingering trace of Platonism in the reality of intelligible objects.)
Once we break the stranglehold on our thinking by our animal extroversion, we can affirm the reality of our whole world of human meanings and values, of institutions, nations, finance and law, of human relationships and so on, without the necessity of seeing them as "just" something else lower down the chain of being yet to be determined.
Affirming the real as intelligible and reasonable allows us to resist the overpowering reductionism of many scientific claims.
In light of the fact that Buddha never wrote anything, you can't even know beyond reasonable doubt what his exact teachings were or, for that matter, that he existed in the first place.
Also, there is no evidence that he was "enlightened". And even if he was, as no one can explain exactly what "Nirvana" is, it's all just speculation if you analyze it objectively. — Apollodorus
Correct. It seems that Buddhism threatens its followers not only with the suffering of hell but also with the horrors of heaven. The message is "Forget everything and attain Nirvana right now, or else!" :smile: — Apollodorus
There is considerable archeological evidence of the Buddha's life recorded in many languages and scripts, dating back to within a couple of centuries of his death. The oral tradition of course dates back his lifetime — Wayfarer
And if you have no understanding of what is meant by 'Nirvāṇa', then surely it is just a word. — Wayfarer
The Buddha explained very clearly what Nirvāṇa/Nibbana is, and many of those around him and his successors realised it. — Wayfarer
No, what I said was that I thought your remark about the 'rolling of the dice' in respect of Christianity was arrant nonsense.
Are you an actual member of an actual Christian congregation? Are you? Have you ever tried to be?
How have you conducted your choice?
— baker
I was born into a Christian culture, — Wayfarer
What reason do you have to think that Buddha would think you, a 21st-century Westerner, have the right understanding of his teaching? — Apollodorus
In light of the fact that Buddha never wrote anything, you can't even know beyond reasonable doubt what his exact teachings were or, for that matter, that he existed in the first place.
Also, there is no evidence that he was "enlightened". And even if he was, as no one can explain exactly what "Nirvana" is,
it's all just speculation if you analyze it objectively.
3. My point was that there is no evidence that Buddha would think baker has the right understanding of his teaching any more than that Plato would think Platonists have the right understanding of his teaching. — Apollodorus
Otherwise said, if Buddhists can have the "right understanding" of Buddha's teachings, then Platonists can equally have the right understanding of Plato's teachings, Christians can have the right understanding of Jesus' teachings, etc., etc.
There is no logical reason to believe that Buddhists have an exclusive monopoly on the "right understanding" of their founder's teachings.
You were asking as to what criteria to judge a spiritual teacher. I said the criteria are not objective, because what is objective is contingent, and the 'true good' is not contingent. — Wayfarer
as per Buddhist doctrine, one can only know whether one has the correct understanding once one reaches what is called "stream entry". This can be described as a cognitive event at which one realizes that one has the correct understanding. — baker
Last but not least, Platonism has been taught without interruption down to the present. In Greece, for example, it has never "died out". — Apollodorus
Moreover, as I said, you don't need a "Church" to follow the teachings of Plato if you so choose. The point is that Platonism is available where there is an interest in it.
This is strange in so many ways. The idea that there can be religiosity without a religious community is problematic in many ways, it deserves its own thread. — baker
And what if you believed with all your heart that you had reached "stream entry", but were deluding yourself? — Janus
The possibility of that cannot be ruled out; which undermines the very notion that anyone could ever be infallibly correct, as opposed to merely subjectively certain, about that.
Of course I don't deny that a feeling of absolute certainty might be gratifying enough to satisfy those who possess it; maybe that's all they are looking for.
Prior to the covid situation, I could walk through the city on any given day and in the course of a month be approached by Christian proselytizers of various denominations: Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and some others whose names escape me. The essence of their message was always the same: Join our church, do as we say, or burn in hell forever. — baker
The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is and happens as it does happen. In it there is no value—and if there were, it would be of no value.
If there is a value which is of value, it must lie outside all happening and being-so. For all happening and being-so is accidental.
What makes it non-accidental cannot lie in the world, for otherwise this would again be accidental.
It must lie outside the world. — TLP, 6.41
I believe that such delusion is not possible. — baker
Eh. For one, the number of people interested in this approach is, I think, very small. I am confident that those who actually do take that route, given how ardous it is, would not make the kind of mistake you talk about. And they would not seek the kind of lowly gratifications you suggest. I know such people, so I know what I'm talking about.
And I suppose you find satisfaction in doubting others the way you do, assuming very bad things about people. — baker
What I mean is whether there are criteria whereby it could be determined that it is in fact the case that a spiritual teacher is worthy or not worthy, or whether it remains a matter of opinion, or faith if you prefer. — Janus
Good for you. I think that in itself is a deluded belief. — Janus
There are people who devote their lives to all kinds of gurus and religious leaders and arduous practices. That you believe the small subset you are familiar with must be the only authentic one says more about you than anything else.
And it makes you feel all giddy inside to say this, doesn't it. — baker
Dude, this is a philosophy forum, even if this is a religion thread. Get your thinking straight. — baker
Any such criteria would be liable to the same criticsm you put forth to begin with, because they would be set by a person.
You solve nothing by focusing on the external like that. — baker
So that's 'the real Christianity' in your mind? — Wayfarer
A problem with religion (and a lot of other cultural forms), is that it has been packaged and repeated in various formulae for thousands of years, often by proponents with very peculiar ideas of their own, it's been corrupted and perverted and strayed far from its origins. But to me that is not representative. I agree with Apollodorus, that strictly speaking the admonitions by Christians about hell are warnings more than threats.
Besides in traditional Buddhism there are voluminous descriptions of hell realms, in fact in Buddhism there are a number of them.
And it makes you feel all giddy inside to say this, doesn't it.
— baker
So, you have nothing to say but to speculate about how I, someone you know very little about, feel?
Dude, this is a philosophy forum, even if this is a religion thread. Get your thinking straight.
— baker
Now that's a powerful rebuttal! — Janus
In Platonism, the root ignorance is ignorance of one’s true identity as pure, unconditioned and free intelligence. So it is a matter of correct self-identity. — Apollodorus
*shrug*So I for one see nothing special, unique, or "superior" about Buddhism, though I wouldn't reject it wholesale, either.
However, if we are serious about philosophy in the original Greek sense of "love of, and quest after, truth", then I think we will get there in the end, with or without Buddhism.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.