To end of suffering is to end dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction is suffering. . .

There would be three kinds of suffering. The third kind is conditioned states. This refers to a basic lack of satisfaction and a feeling that our expectations and standards are never met. It’s often caused by the fact that life in all its forms changes and is impermanent with no substance or inner core. Once one transcends substance and change there is no dissatisfaction.

You may not believe this, but this is the teachings and the experience of many people. In Buddhist texts the word 'suffering' is often translated as 'dissatisfaction'.

Scepticism is fair enough, but it has to be aimed at the actual teachings.


. . , .

Sorry I misinterpreted what you were saying. I didn't realize that you were only referring to Baker in the OP. Anyway, Baker's criticism is that the doctrine is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I have an idea of what he means and don't disagree. — praxis

No problem. I take it for granted that there will be at least five misunderstindings for every ten posts.

I don't understand how you arrive at this view, but It might depend on what you mean. If you predict that following the practices of Buddhism will lead you to realise your immortality and transcend life and death, and if this prediction becomes a belief that is sufficiently strong to lead you to do the work, and if you succeed in your goal, then this might be called a self -fulfilling prophecy.

But I doubt this is what you mean. Perhaps you could elaborate.



.

. .

I don't understand your last message so suspect we're in the middle of a misunderstanding.

Let's rewind. I responded to OP because I felt he (let us assume) was distancing himself from Buddhism for a poor reason. I find it difficult to believe Buddhists would act in the way he describes, but if this was his experience then I must believe it. But why is this a reason for anybody to distance themselves from Buddhism?

If the OP is still around I'd like to ask him which branch of Buddhism he become involved with, since if it was with the Thevadans I'll apologise for getting involved and and say no more. They are unpredictable. If the OP is distancing himself from Theravada Buddhism then in my opinion this is a wise thing to do. But this would be for philosophical reasons, not for the reasons given here. .

My main point, if I remember right, was that anybody can call themself a Buddhist. If people distanced themselves from Christianity because of their disgust with the behaviour of people calling themselves Christians then it wouldn't be surprising. However, this is a philosophically unsound reason, since what we are actually saying is that very few of these people are what Jesus would call a Christian, while the few that might seem to qualify may be observed to behave better than the rest.

If the OP has a substantial disagreement with the teachings then this is a different matter, but It appears not..



. .. ,

Blunt is fine. Condescending is rhetorical rather than philosophical. And it starts unnecessary and unproductive scuffles. — T Clark

Apparently being blunt is sometimes interpreted as being condescending, as we see here. .

I suspect that nothing would convince you otherwise. Am I right? Be honest. — praxis

I don't know what your agenda is but it doesn't interest me. If you want to show me I'm missing the point then show me where the OP has made a complaint against Buddhism. Maybe I missed something,.

FR! Thank you for your response. I agree that there are gaps (some of which obviously having to do with recent discoveries over time...) but what is your take on that notion of DDS? — 3017amen

I don't know it well enough to say much, but what I see in it is the Christian version of the Perennial view. The simplest phenomenon possible is a Unity, so the DDS brings Christian teachings in line with the teachings of the Buddha and Lao Tsu, as were the Classical teachings of the early Church before the great purge of mysticism.by the Roman bishopric in the fourth century.. . .

What then, would be your creation ex nihilo theory?[/quote]

I find ex nihilo creation to be a blatantly absurd idea.

Creation becomes a rather different idea in nondualism since metaphysically-speaking nothing would really exist or ever really happen. After all, it it did then we'd be unable to explain how it is created.

Some of your responses come across as really condescending. — T Clark

Sorry about that. I tend to be blunt.

The topic is an invitation to express our disillusionment with Buddhism and I too wish synth the best of luck with that endeavor. — praxis

i was trying to point out that I see no rejection of Buddhism. All I see is a rejection o some Buddhists. The OP does not indicate that he understands the doctrine.or the method.

But if he wants to distance himself that's his business. It dosn't seem to be a philosophical matter. . .

I give up. Maybe synthesis will have more luck.

.

No. A bodhisattva is not yet a buddha, a bodhisattva is not yet enlightened, he doesn't have that status.
The idea that the unelightened could lead others to enlightenment is absurd. — baker

I think it is outrageous that you say these daft things and don't bother to check your facts. It's the very opposite of doing philosophy.

I'm sorry mate, but I have you down as someone not worth arguing with.

. .

Knowledge is Realisation. . . . — FrancisRay

I know a lot about Africa but have never been there and haven’t experienced it. For all I know it may not actually exist. — praxis

Exactly. Knowledge is going there,

It's not sensible to have a shallow experience and then form views about how important it is. — FrancisRay

Is it sensible to have a grandiose view of something without any evidence of its grandiosity?

I don't know what you mean by 'grandiose view'. If you mean what I you mean it would be idiotic. .

Fascinating how wildly views can vary. I think we're too far apart to communicate across the gulf, and I wouldn't want to make the topics so complicated, but I've enjoyed the chat. So far I've found this a very good forum, ...

Ha. I wish I had the good sense to keep a low profile.



.

For a secular Westerner interested in Buddhism, it is indeed quite likely politically incorrect to propose that Buddhism requires that we take some things for granted. — baker

I have explained that Buddhism does not require that we take anything for granted,. The Buddha spends half his time telling us not to do this. There is no such thing as 'politically incorrect in mysticism. I can't imagine where you get these ideas. . .

In contrast, cradle Buddhists typically take for granted that the tenets of their religion are true.

A person who take this for granted is not a Buddhist but a credulous fool.

Oh? And you think that all the bowing, kneeling, prostrating before monks and teachers "has nothing to do with epistemology" either?

Of course it has nothing to do with epistemology.

It seems you want me to explain what is explained in ten thousand books. This is not fair. I'll probably stick to recommending relevant texts in future. . .

mysticism endorses a non-dual description of Reality — FrancisRay

Any description of reality is necessarily dualistic. Mysticism endorses transcendence. — praxis

Yes..Subject-predicate language cannot capture the truth. It remains the case the mystics endorse a nondual description or reality. This states that true words seem paradoxical, and even then cannot avoid an implied dualism. . . .

Unless nonduality is the basis of the 'mystical' teachings then the knowledge claims it makes would not be possible. Hence sects that do not endorse the nondual teachings usually stress the need for faith, while those that do stress the importance of replacing faith with knowledge (realization of emptiness). — FrancisRay

Fixed that for ya.

Ahem. I'm afraid you fixed nothing. Knowledge is Realisation. . . .

I've only had a rather shallow experience of the kind were talking about, but even though whole-hog realization may be something to write home about, it ain't the end-all be-all that it's cracked up to be. After enlightenment, the dishes, as the saying goes. It is certainly not anything worth building an entire religion around, and that is exactly why Buddhism is so unpopular. Not to suggest that religions need to be built around anything of substance.

I feel you;d do well to hold off with your views and just study the facts. It's not sensible to have a shallow experience and then form views about how important it is.

As for religion, you must be speaking about Theravada. The Mahayana is not a religion in the common sense of the word. I do not endorse the Theravada approach since it has no metaphysical foundation.and appears to be faith-based.

If Buddhism is unpopular because it is a religion,then this just goes to show how poorly it is understood. But its an odd comment seeing that Buddhism is the most popular religion on the planet at this time.
. .
For the mystic view on organised religion check out Sadhguru or Alan Watts on youtube. They advise us to rise above it. .

Just curious as to your take on this. Do you think Kantian intuition, noumenon, etc. is closely related to Christian Revelation (revelatory knowledge about a novel thing)? — 3017amen

Yes! The underlying idea is that Reality is a Unity as described by the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity. Kant got most of the way there but we have to go beyond Kant for an understanding of the noumenal. .
. .

I'm not sure I'm following that. If we could create something from nothing, to posit meaninglessness, frankly, would not even be an issue or concern.

Ex nihilo creation is logically absurd. Thus if it is true the universe is logically absurd. It would then be incomprehensible and mysticism would not exist. If the idea is that God created it from nothing then this is not an ex nihilo theory.

Sure, no exceptions taken. But that assumes other 'logically' possible worlds existing. Thus the point that Paul makes about the fact that our sense of logic and math may not suffice here.

I see no need to make assumptions, not even about possible worlds. The inability of logic to take us all the way to Truth is not an assumption but an experience. It is demonstrable. One might interpret the history of Western philosophy as a proof. . .

In that sense, the theories of multiverse and other possible worlds come into play. Meaning, there may be a whole other metaphysical language (mathematics, logic, etc.) that is needed

No problem. Metaphysics and mysticism cover all universes. They study Reality, not this or that universe. It makes no difference whether there is one or an infinite number. . . .

That would be in conflict with the interpretation of the [Paul's] aforementioned proposition... .

I can't quite follow this point.

By the way, if I suddenly drop out please don;t be offended. I'm struggling to keep up with the discussions having stupidly joined too many. . .

One doesn't have to be a Buddhist to endorse its teachings. — FrancisRay

That's confused. — baker

As synthesis points out, Buddhists have no need to identify as such. The most skilled Buddhist I know prefers to be thought of as a Taoist. He's also the most skllled Taoist I know.

If I had to state my affiliations I'd say I'm a Buddhist, a Taoist, a Christian, a Sufi, a Kabbalist, and a Hindu. Its all the same teaching underneath the clutter. I don't call myself any of these things since I'm a lazy practitioner.and it would be misleading and hypocritical to do so.

Besides, the adjective 'Buddhist' is pretty meaningless. It includes the greatest masters and the most naive beginners. .











. . . , . .

In what ways do they "represent a threat to the status quo"? By "status quo" do you mean 'of any historical era' or only 'of the current era'? — 180 Proof

I see the status quo as Materialism, Realism and the idea that metaphysics is hopeless and mysticism is irrelevant to philosophy. I subscribed to the Journal of Consciousness Studies for three years and saw perhaps two mentions of the mystic teachings. They are not considered 'scientific' so three millennia of research is dispatched to the dustbin. Then researchers wonder why they cannot make any progress. It means the literature of this new 'science' is not worth reading. .

Why are they so badly "taught in academia"? Is it better to learn them outside the academy? With (a) teacher(s) or in a small, dialectical, circle of seekers or autodidactally?

They are badly taught because there are no teachers around to do the job. I've never met an academic philosopher with a decent grasp of either topic. I;ve spoken to one or two academics who do, but not from the philosophy department. The problem is the absence of the idea of Unity. Heidegger blames this absence on the post-Socratics. Whatever the reason it cripples the Western tradition of philosophical thought.

Yes, better to learn philosophy outside the walls of the Academy. There is little understanding of it on the inside. Indeed. the claim that metaphysics is comprehensible would probably be considered heretical. . . . .

I would vote for the autodidactic approach every time. This is the philosophical equivalent of the Buddha's advice to 'be a lamp unto yourself'. . .

In a sentence or two – describe metaphysics.

The study of fundamental questions.

In a sentence or two – describe mysticism

.
The art of union with reality.

(I wonder how convergent with or divergent from your conceptions of metaphysics & mysticism my conceptions are (to be provided for comparison) – and both of our conceptions may seem in comparison to the Platonic-Aristotlean (i.e. "onto-theological") tradition – in order to better understand the points you're making.)

After Plato this tradition became just a series of footnotes, as Whitehead pots out. It has never made a yard of progress. But a proper comparison would take a month. One is dualism, the other non-dualism, and never the twain shall meet. .


.

Oh okay.

What made me hopeless about Buddhism is that its epistemology is, essentially, a self-fulfilling prophecy: first, one takes some premises for granted; then one acts in line with those premises; and then one "sees" that those premises "are true".

Do you really need me to explain that this is a misunderstanding? I would have thought it impossible to misunderstand Buddhism this wildly.

As I've already pointed out, Buddhism never asks us to take any premises for granted.

So maybe we could start by asking why you believe it does. Of course, as Fooloso4 mentions, there may have to be some suspension of disbelief at the start for practical reasons, but this has nothing to do with epistemology. .

Good point, I wonder why? — 3017amen

If you pursue this question you will unlock metaphysics.

It is because all 'this or that' conclusions about the world-as-a-whole would be wrong. Metaphysical antinomies take the form of a choice between just two options both of which are absurd. Thus they are undecidable. The mystics say these questions are undecidable because both answers are wrong and our intellect is able to calculate this. They say that these questions are false dichotomies. Our intellect is able to calculate that their dualistic answers are absurd, but only if we study mysticism can we make sense of their falsity since this is the only description of reality that explains it.

Most people can work out that these questions are undecidable, but few ever see the reason why. This requires a study of nondualism.(or a lot of meditation). . .

If logic cannot explain existence ex-nihilo, could it be that he universe is absurd and meaningless....

. ,

Not at all, If ex nihilo creation was the case then the universe would be absurd and meaningless, and we could never know much about it.

o...or is understanding of its existence and properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought?

A subtle issue. The Truth would be beyond thought, much as Kant surmises, but this is not to say we cannot usefully think about it. An intellectual understanding would be possible, but only for those who have explored what lies beyond the intellect. The crucial component of this understanding has to be an grasp of the principle of nonduality, and this cannot be meaningfully grasped without first-hand experience. . .

In that sense, the theories of multiverse and other possible worlds come into play. Meaning, there may be a whole other metaphysical language (mathematics, logic, etc.) that is needed.

I think not. But we have to be much more careful than usual with our use of logic. ... .

Otherwise, mysticism seems to have some popularity in Physics.

:

I've long believed that physicists are deeper and braver thinkers than academic philosophers. Many of the quantum pioneers immediately realised that their discoveries implied the truth of the mystic teachings. Erwin Schrodinger is something of a hero of mine for his insight. Regrettably, modern physicists are generally less well educated and more ideologically hide-bound. . .

...mystical thought lies at the opposite extreme to rational thought, which is the basis of the scientific method.

A misperception.. Rational thought is rational thought, and the methods of mysticism are scientific. They depend entirely on experiment and empiricism, albeit that here the latter would extend beyond sensory data. This is why mysticism makes no claims that contradict science or logic. There's no chance of it doing so since it proceeds by the methods of science and logic Our ordinary brain is quite up to the task. . . .

Also, mysticism tends to be confused with the occult, the paranormal, and other fringe beliefs.

Amen to that. Few people bother to study it seriously. Metaphysics and mysticism are the two worst taught subjects in academia, and this is no coincidence. Both represent an immediate threat to the status quo.

many of the world's finest thinkers, including some notable thinkers such as Einstein, Pauli, Heisenberg, Eddington, and Jeans, have also espoused mysticism...some scientists and mathematicians claim to have had sudden revelatory insights akin to such mystical experiences...Roger Penrose...Gödel...-Paul Davies

Paul Davies' book The Mind of God' is an excellent introduction to metaphysics. It got me started and led me immediately to mysticism. Schrodinger is the most eloquent of them, since he wrote about this for forty years and knew the Upanishads well.

I;m utterly baffled as to why, somewhere around the 1960's, physicists suddenly became deaf to the Perennial philosophy. I suspect it might have been a reaction to hippy culture, and the baby went out with the bathwater. . .

I suppose the question is how to justify Buddhist epistemology. This is equivalent to asking how to justify Buddhist teachings and so it's a big ask.

Could you narrow down the problem by asking a more specific question?

If you're simply asking how the mystics acquire their knowledge of the true nature of Reality then the answer is 'introception', or 'knowledge by identity', but I think you're asking more than this. .

You're right to say there is not yet a consensus. However, it is demonstrable that mysticism endorses a non-dual description of Reality. This translates into metaphysics as a neutral metaphysical position.

This is not a speculation. Unless nonduality is the basis of the 'mystical' teachings then the knowledge claims it makes would not be possible. Hence sects that do not endorse the nondual teachings usually stress the need for faith, while those that do stress the importance of replacing faith with knowledge.
. .
You're right also about emptiness bei9ng the basis of the metaphysics. I prefer the word 'Unity' since it's more helpful in logic, but either way we end up with a neutral theory. .

The only non-faith based consensus is scientific...

No arguments here. But note that authentic Yoga is a science by Popper's definition. . .

where this is reduced to a mere brain state.

Not sure what you mean here.






.

Point well taken. As the video suggested, the part of metaphysics that's intriguing is that it uses logic to arrive at illogical conclusions which in turn, comprise consciousness and Being (itself), which is another reason why I posited the analogy to the concept of a God. In other words, using logic, we can't even explain our own conscious existence, so how are to explain a cosmological God's(?). — 3017amen

There is much confusion about logic. The view I'm endorsing is perfectly (!) in accord with logic. What logic proves is that Reality outruns the categories of thought, but this is easy enough to think about.

A God cannot be logically explained because the idea is not logically coherent. It only becomes coherent when we equate 'God' with the 'Brahman',of the Upanishads and non-dualism. but almost all theists would rather give up thinking logically than do this.

It is true that many people conclude that the non-dual doctrine requires a modification to ordinary logic, but this is only because of a widespread misunderstanding of Aristotle's rules It is generally assumed that metaphysical questions take the form 'A/not-A', but the mystics deny this. . .
. , . ' , . .

What you say makes some sense. But for me metaphysics is a matter of logic and reason and it makes no difference who's doing it or what we want from it. It's just cold, hard logic.The facts of metaphysics are demonstrable. It makes no difference whether we're a physicist, a mystic or a plumber.

I would agree that many people see metaphysics as an excuse for a lot of woolly nonsense and speculative opinions, but in an academic context it is a science of logic with no room for opinion or speculation. The speculation only has to begin when it comes to interpretation of results. The results are not speculative and leave no room for dispute.

This is clear if you review the literature. Approximately all philosophers everywhere agree that metaphysics does not produce a positive result, which is to say it does not endorse a positive theory. The only alternative is a neutral theory which is mysticism. No speculation or opinion is required, just the calculations.

Of course, the subject becomes almost impossibly complex if one denies the facts and rejects mysticism, as we see from the literature. It is very much simpler if one is free of ideology and treat it like mathematics. This is a point made by Merrill-Wolff, a famous writer on philosophy and consciousness who trained as a pure mathematician. In metaphysics it is always best to shut up and calculate. . . . . .

. . . . . . .

Okay. What's the question?

One doesn't have to be a Buddhist to endorse its teachings. The Buddha was not a Buddhist.

. ,

I think you should at least do some reading. The entire message of mysticism is that Knowledge outruns thought. This is explained at vast length in ten thousand texts. .

But yes, it is aggravating.

No. You said that I misunderstood Buddhism. It's on you to make your case. — baker

Ah yes. Quite right. But your disparaging comments about Buddhist epistemology suggest that it is a lot of nonsense, and it might take a long time to dispel this idea. If you start a thread on the topic I'll join in, but I'm stupidly getting caught up in too many conversations at once to keep track, so I'd rather leave it here.

Calling all Buddhists fools for not seeing the faults in their own epistemology even after two and half thousand years puts you out on a very fragile limb, so I could argue it's up to you to present a clearly reasoned objection - but let;s call it a draw. . .

Have you taken the Secondary Bodhisattva Vows? — baker

I've taken no vows. I'm not a Buddhist. .. .

How do you think that Buddhism explains or justifies its epistemology? — baker

I should have said 'philosophically justified'.

It is most famously justified logically by the Noble Nagarjuna in his Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way. The doctrine states that knowing is fundamental, so epistemology and ontology become one.at the base of metaphysics. This is true also in experience, but this is not a justification since it cannot be demonstrated. In metaphysics it can be demonstrated.

But I have no wish to browbeat. You don't have to take my word for it. The literature is extensive,.

Maybe they are fools, but maybe they know the truth. Maybe the teachings in the Pali Canon were never meant to be taken at face value. — baker

If they knew the truth of the Pali canon they would not behave in the way you describe.

I wonder if you we're with a Theravada group. They are a bit touchy, since their Buddhism has a strong element of faith and dogma. I forgot this, since for me Buddhism is the Mahayana.

No matter. Thanks for the chat. . . . .

Darn it. I thought you'd call me out on that one.

Thanks for the chat. .

If negation is always required for thought, but there is a way out, such that negations are not always required, then some system must be possible that is not a (human) system of thought.

I’m beginning to find that out. Amazing to me, how many people don’t know what it is to think, or, knowing that, choose to re-name it and thereby justify their insistence that that’s not really what they’re actually doing. — Mww

There are no excepions to the rule. negation are always required. The point is not that there is a way around this limit, but that we can know more than we can think. Nobody is re-naming anything. We're only agreeing with Kant. . .



. . ./

Yes, but only when "metaphysical analysis" is inadequate (i.e. Woo-of-the-Gaps via the principle of explosion). From the incoherent to the unintelligible is the shortest "leap of faith" imaginable. — 180 Proof

I don't know what this means. I'm endorsing logical analysis, avoiding any explosions. But people just don't want to do the sums. Nor is there any need for faith. Indeed, this is what I'm trying to say. .

But hey ho. It's tough fighting against entrenched views.

I'm happy to leave it here.

Nonsense. If that were the case in metaphysics, then there'd be wide consensus, or agreement, of long standing on those "results", which there never has been. — 180 Proof

Yes. This is what is so difficult to get across. There is a firm consensus. It states that all the theories that academic philosophers can think of don't work. It does not state that the view i;m endorsing doesn't work, because the consensus is that the metaphysical basis of mysticism is not worth getting to know.

But I'll bow out.now . Thanks for the chat. .

Of course Miles is more than fun. Can't disagree about that. I speak as a musician.

My point is simply that in metaphysics there is no choice of paths. There is only the results of logic and reason, and we cannot simply take or leave them. These results lead to Spinoza's world, or something very like it. . . . .

If you can get a grip on the metaphysical scheme of Plotinus then you'll have no trouble with any other authentic teacher. They all say the same thing in their own way. But you;re right to say this is difficult to confirm. This is why I feel metaphysics is so important, since the only other way to syncretise their teachings is meditation.

I am not giving my opinions. I can demionstrate everything I state. However, I wouldn't expect you to believe this without more evidence.or even advise you to do so.

I don't know Coliongwood but it's clear from what you say the he doesn't understand metaphysics or claim to do so. I never understand how so many people who believe metaphysics is incomprehensible can also believe they have understood it.

For Lao Tsu's metaphysics all positive statements about Reality would be unrigorous, and false in this sense rather than false as opposed to true, and to this extent Collingwood would be correct. But he doesn't know why he is correct, so for him metaphysics is incomprehensible. Anyone who believes metaphysics is incomprehensible is clearly not as well-informed as Lao Tsu. He knows why all positive metaphysical statements are incorrect. .

But can you make clearer what you mean by "leads ineluctably to mysticism"? — tim wood

The study of metaphysics reveals that all extreme metaphysical theories are logically absurd. This is the most general and final result of metaphysical analysis. It is not disputed by the academics or the mystics. for it is just a matter of logic. The difference is one of interpretation. The mystics reject all these absurd theories and states they are absurd because they are false.

In this way the results of metaphysical analysis lead ineluctably to the door of mysticism. It is a simple argument but unassailable. Quite why so few people see it is a comlpex question, but I think mainly it is because professional philosophers don't do their job properly.

Now I'll be in trouble.
.