Buddhism opts for a reasoned approach, basing itself on not metaphysics but on the empirical - impermanence is its foundation and who, in his right mind, can deny the truth of the ever-changing nature of reality? — TheMadFool
Such simplicity with such profundity is missing even in the dominant faiths of present times.
This, however, isn't the case which proves that it's not ignorance in and of itself that's the obstacle but ignorance of certain truths,...
According to the doctrine, impermanence isn't the cause of suffering but ignorance. Ignorance of our true nature (emptiness). If we could realize our true nature or 'make emptiness real' then we wouldn't suffer, — praxis
it's not ignorance in and of itself that's the obstacle but ignorance of certain truths, e.g. the four noble truths and impermanence, that lead to suffering. — TheMadFool
but there still remains a cultural aversion to engaging with consciousness. — Pop
In a way the Buddha got what he wanted - he meditated furiously on impermanence and came to the conclusion that change is the only constant. Perhaps not, his desire to exit the causal web, cause being the engine of impermanence, and attain nirvana (extinguishment) - his hope was to transcend impermanence by extricating himself from the causal web and, in that, achieving something eternal. — TheMadFool
There is, monks, an unborn— unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned. 1
We humans are not designed to let go of our desires that's like pretending to be full when you're hungry... — Gitonga
there are many such as the book "sapiens" but you can also read this article for a summary https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/930860/what-is-the-purpose-of-happiness/amp/ — Gitonga
The key term in translations of Buddhist texts is the 'unconditioned'. There is a canonical statement to that effect:
There is, monks, an unborn— unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned. 1
I think the Buddhist diagnosis of the problem with the human condition is that humans cling to, or identify with, that which by its nature is impermanent, compound, fabricated, subject to change, and therefore painful. In a pan-religious sense, this is a universal theme - that humans have 'fallen' into the domain of impermanence and suffering but in their ignorance, they take this to be real, when according to the Buddha is 'empty' of anything permanent or enduring (which in my view is the meaning of the Buddhist 'śūnyatā'). So humans are clinging to an illusory reality which results in endless suffering, even though, in the final analysis, nothing compels them to do that beyond force of habit (albeit a very long-standing habit). — Wayfarer
I wonder what your thoughts are on the matter? — Pop
Someone discovered empirical evidence for karma, rebirth, etc. and didn’t tell me? :sad: — praxis
The alleged simplicity has you expressing curious thoughts like ‘cause is the engine of impermanence’, I notice. Anyway, you could just as easily reduce Christianity to ‘love’ or whatever, claim its simplicity, and be equally wrong. — praxis
We can’t say that something like ‘emptiness’ is true, can we? — praxis
This is what is unique to Buddhism - it always has some connection, even if vague and tenuous, to some sound logical principle. — TheMadFool
absence of inconsistencies
Look at my reply to wayfarer
A vague and tenuous connection to sound logical principles — praxis
I think you’re guilty of seeing what you want to see. I could point out some glaring inconsistencies though, if you like. — praxis
I’m completely with you, nevertheless, I think we’re too ignorant (in the general sense) to say this is true. — praxis
I’m completely with you, nevertheless, I think we’re too ignorant (in the general sense) to say this is true.
— praxis
Explain where. — TheMadFool
Feel free to do so. — TheMadFool
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.