Buddhism

[Panjandrum]

Gnostics at their most basic hold the view that the physical universe is a mere reflection of the 'true', spiritual universe. They generally believe it was made (or rather shaped) by a lesser being, itself a reflection of the 'true' god, who is variously seen as either foolish and arrogant or as outright evil (most gnostics equate the god of the old testement with this being). The consequence of thier doctrine is that they must 'overcome' physical reality, achieving a kind of transcendance, thru which they hope to escape the prison of the physical and ascend into the 'true' universe as beings analagous to demi-gods.

 

IMNSHO, the islamic gnostics known in the west as the assassins developed this doctrine to its highest and most beautiful form, describing the true god as 'unknowable' and 'self-contained', and offering advice such as 'nothing is real. everything is permitted.'.

 

Gnostiscism is usually seen as a christian heresy, but it really has as much to do with pre-christian hermetic mysticism and persian dualism. As a religion, I dont accept it of course, but as a metaphysical system I find it quite intruiging.

 

As for being a computer, hardly. I simply have an unfortunate affliction that prevents me from experiencing emotions. I am otherwise quite ordinary. :surprise:

[Jehu]

 

Gnostiscism is usually seen as a christian heresy, but it really has as much to do with pre-christian hermetic mysticism and persian dualism. As a religion, I dont accept it of course, but as a metaphysical system I find it quite intruiging.

 

Why do we always rely upon other people’s notions regarding the nature of reality, when each and every one of us has a front row seat in the theatre? If you are truly interested in a metaphysical approach to the question, we would welcome your joining us in a rational enquiry into the subject. It is hoped that we will be able to progress in our endeavour without the encumbrance of any predetermined religious or philosophical stances (though we have no objection to one’s holding such views), so that by way of reason and our own direct experience of the world, the true nature of things may be revealed. For a wisdom teacher one promised unconditionally that, “if you seek, you will find”.

 

The enquiry is underway at: What is time?

[Panjandrum]

Id be happy to engage in a metaphysical discussion. Youll need to clarify your terms first, tho.

[Jehu]

Id be happy to engage in a metaphysical discussion. Youll need to clarify your terms first, tho.

 

Delighted that you will be joining our enquiry! Regarding our “terms”, we ask only that one’s input is founded upon reason, and that, as in any true enquiry, we assist one another toward the furtherance of our common goal – to discover the Truth. I have offered a tentative definition of the tern “nature”, as a point of departure, since the term figures so prominently in our discussion. This is, however, merely a suggestion, and open to criticism and modification, if the truth of what has been stated is found to be in question. Looking forward to your input.

[Tormod]

I am free from many of the preconceptions and biases that aflict otherwise intelligent people, since my reasoning is uninhibited by such things as emotion, compassion and guilt. My vision is clear, my opinions formed through reason alone.

 

Your reason, however, is formed by a lot of things, unless you live under a rock and have no sensory input (and no Internet connection).

 

Talk like this scores very high on my BS meter. :note:

[Panjandrum]

Your reason, however, is formed by a lot of things, unless you live under a rock and have no sensory input (and no Internet connection).

 

Talk like this scores very high on my BS meter. :eek2:

 

What's your point? I didnt claim my reason was some supernatural power that springs fully formed into the world, merely that i use it alone to form my judgements, free as i am from emotional bias.

[Tormod]

What's your point? I didnt claim my reason was some supernatural power that springs fully formed into the world, merely that i use it alone to form my judgements, free as i am from emotional bias.

 

My point is that nobody is free from emotional bias. If you were, you would not be human.

[Michaelangelica]

Delighted that you will be joining our enquiry! Regarding our “terms”, we ask only that one’s input is founded upon reason, and that, as in any true enquiry, we assist one another toward the furtherance of our common goal – to discover the Truth. .

 

Jehu

Yet you also say "Neither Buddhism, nor Gnosticism, nor any other religion has a monopoly on the Truth."

The beauty of Buddhism for me is the tolerance I have seen in the Buddhists- I have read and met- towards differing points of view. The is no universal "Truth". Everyone has their own truth. We need to accept that and move on.

Panjandrum would be the most logical, unemotional poster I have met so far on the Science Forum

(Although she can get quite emotional about the fact that she has no emotions.):hyper:

 

Could you please restate your definition of nature I trawled though the posts but didn't find it and am not sure why you feel it is important to this discussion

 

Panjandrum

I too have problems with karma and re-incarnation. Reincarnation because I don't want to come back and start on the pills again. Anyway it is a silly concept.(Then again, my youngest daughter knows so much I often wonder if she has not been here before)

ALL religions have borrowed and cross fertilised each other. (you should read the new book "Ideas" A history of ideas from fire the wheel on. . . can't remember the author)

Karma can be useful when threatening my children about killing bugs etc. I personally don't believe in a God or an afterlife.

(Although, again, reading Terry Pratchett has made me wonder about Death -the various 'afterlifes' on offer-& Death's horse "Blinky")

 

The three big religions have little to be proud of in their history and ongoing intolerance to other people's "Truth". They certainly haven't read Christ's Sermon on the Mount. If I had to choose a religion (for census forms etc) based on my present total ignorance and interest in Religion- it would be Buddism.

(Jeddi come a close second on census forms. It may even have its own space in Austs next census)

m

:evil:

[Panjandrum]

My point is that nobody is free from emotional bias. If you were, you would not be human.

 

Now youve gone and hurt my feelings :hyper:

[Michaelangelica]

Now youve gone and hurt my feelings :note:

 

Sarcasm does not become you

 

(Although it is nice to know you have a sense of humour -or is it Irony?)

 

Looking back on my last post, it does seem to say "There is no universal truth and this is the Truth!'

 

life is a beach.

m

[Jehu]

Jehu

Yet you also say "Neither Buddhism, nor Gnosticism, nor any other religion has a monopoly on the Truth."

The beauty of Buddhism for me is the tolerance I have seen in the Buddhists- I have read and met- towards differing points of view. The is no universal "Truth". Everyone has their own truth. We need to accept that and move on.

Panjandrum would be the most logical, unemotional poster I have met so far on the Science Forum

(Although she can get quite emotional about the fact that she has no emotions.):)

 

Could you please restate your definition of nature I trawled though the posts but didn't find it and am not sure why you feel it is important to this discussion

 

:D

 

By “Truth” I mean the way things really are, that is to say, the “True Nature of Reality”. This “Reality” simply is, and it does not matter one iota whether you or I believe it to be so. Now, we can go on adhering to our own personal version of the truth, with all the resulting opposition and conflict, or we can endeavour to realize the “Truth”, an find ourselves in agreement and harmony.

 

With respect to the term “nature”, it is imperative that we reach a consensus as to the precise meaning of the term, if we are to have any hope of discovering the “nature’ of reality, for we must know what is we are looking for. The dictionary definition, “a thing’s innate or essential qualities or characteristics.” does not seem to go far enough, for it neglects the relationship that binds the elements (essential qualities or characteristics ) together. This relationship, law, or principle, is what the term “Dharma” signifies, and it is this principle that we wish to discover. Please join us in our enquiry at - What is time.

[Michaelangelica]

By “Truth” I mean the way things really are, that is to say, the “True Nature of Reality”. This “Reality” simply is, and it does not matter one iota whether you or I believe it to be so. Now, we can go on adhering to our own personal version of the truth, with all the resulting opposition and conflict, or we can endeavour to realize the “Truth”, an find ourselves in agreement and harmony.

There is no universal truth or reality, even in physics (the observer changes evrything), let alone spiritual matters.

m

[Jehu]

There is no universal truth or reality, even in physics (the observer changes evrything), let alone spiritual matters.

m

 

A philosopher has no business theorizing. I asume you are able to logically demonstrate your assertion that there is no "Absolute Reality"?

[Michaelangelica]

A philosopher has no business theorizing. I asume you are able to logically demonstrate your assertion that there is no "Absolute Reality"?

What I am saying is that there are as many "realities" especially in spiritual matters as there are people on the planet. What we need therefore is tolerance of each others point of view.

 

Philosophers business IS theorising. They do nothing else.

Ask a theoretical physicist "what is reality?"

 

There is no logic in religion. You must first make a 'leap of faith'

i,e., "Jesus Christ the son of God exists/(ed)" (+Catholics add a few others about the communion of saints, forgiveness of sins, heaven ,infallibility of the pope and others).

After you have made that/these illogical conclusion(S) some internal logic might exist

Michael

[Jehu]

What I am saying is that there are as many "realities" especially in spiritual matters as there are people on the planet. What we need therefore is tolerance of each others point of view.

 

Philosophers business IS theorising. They do nothing else.

Ask a theoretical physicist "what is reality?"

 

There is no logic in religion. You must first make a 'leap of faith'

i,e., "Jesus Christ the son of God exists/(ed)" (+Catholics add a few others about the communion of saints, forgiveness of sins, heaven ,infallibility of the pope and others).

After you have made that/these illogical conclusion(S) some internal logic might exist

Michael

 

Physicists are not philosophers, they are scientists, and as such, they begin from certain axioms or principles which they generally take to be “self-evident”, and then attempt to construct theories which will accord with both their founding principles and with empirical evidence. Now this is not to say that scientists do not dabble in philosophy, but philosophers certainly do not construct theories. Philosophers try to make sense of the very concepts upon which the scientists operate, concepts such as space, time, matter, energy, and matter.

 

In any event, the Buddha never dabbled in theories. The doctrine upon which the Buddhist religion is founded is purely metaphysical, and as the closing declaration of each sutra states, “this doctrine is reasonable”, that is to say, this doctrine can be arrived at though rational enquiry. Now, you may believe what you will, but do not think that Buddhism is founded upon a set of beliefs, for this is as far from the Truth as one can possibly get.

[Michaelangelica]

Physicists are not philosophers,

Philosophers try to make sense of the very concepts upon which the scientists operate, concepts such as space, time, matter, energy, and matter.

Now, you may believe what you will, but do not think that Buddhism is founded upon a set of beliefs, for this is as far from the Truth as one can possibly get.

 

Your logic defies me.

I don't know what to say.

I thought near everything was founded on a set of beliefs.

But there you go. . .

[Panjandrum]

The doctrine upon which the Buddhist religion is founded is purely metaphysical, and as the closing declaration of each sutra states, “this doctrine is reasonable”, that is to say, this doctrine can be arrived at though rational enquiry.

 

That is fine as far as it goes, but one thing Ive learnt from philosophy is that 'reason' can be used to proove anything. Do you have any objective, scientific evidence for your beliefs?