Eastern Philosophy

[TINNY]

OK, fine. I'll start a topic about it.

1)What is it?

2)What is the methodology used?

3)How is it different from western philosophy

4)Can it be accepted?

 

I'm not claiming I'm an expert in this area, neither have I read much about it. Just want to know what everybody thinks about it.

[TINNY]

So I'll get the ball rolling.

1)It's a vast collection of philosophical and religious ideas derived from ancient cultures of India, China, Persia, Japan, Tibet... Ok.. maybe that is a tautology. any better answers?

The aim is still to explain the world we live in and what shapes it.

And there are also many different definitions since there are differences in Chinese, INdian philosophy etc.

Typical questions are:

What is true reality?

How should man transcend earthly life? This is raised because there is neverending cycle of being and death.

 

2)More towards contemplation and meditation I think.

 

3)Need to define western philosophy before I answer this one. who can give?

Simply, it's the methodology. I think the purpose is the same, just that the east come up with fundamentally different answers.

 

4) leave that to last

[Uncle Martin]

Tinny,

Is eastern philosophy a natural search for the true meaning of life without the science that the west induces into the same philosophy of physics? The definition of philosophy is truth, so I think that physics is as true a philosophy as any. How would you compare the two? Or is eastern philosophy more closely related to western religions? This is a fascinating subject,... I am however in need of a refresher course to get me up to speed. Thanks for starting this thread!

[Freethinker]

Eastern seems to be aligned with contemplation. Searches for "truth", while not interested in scientific facts. Ugh! :-)

 

Eastern seem to tend to stay away from nmonotheistic supreme beings. Instead they may have many deities.

[TINNY]

west - once God was abandoned only reason remained, and science became the new God. they also emphasize individuality and individual things (materialism)

east- They see a fundamental unity in all things and they are more holistic. they say western science has got us into a terrible environmental mess by not living in harmony with the cosmos.

 

but buddhism does not have any deities, Pappy.

 

Is eastern philosophy a natural search for the true meaning of life without the science that the west induces into the same philosophy of physics? The definition of philosophy is truth, so I think that physics is as true a philosophy as any.

The advocates of eastern philo seem to neglect science. but I see no contradictions, since modern science has gotten beyond what we daily see. It has penetrated the deep mysteries of the universe. The unity of the cosmos is in agreement with modern science because we know that there is essentially an all pervasive ubiquitous electromagnetic energy and that matter is just high concentrations of energy. in relativity, we find that there is absoluteness. this sort of denies previous notions of individuality. so western science has gotten to the point that we can grasp the true nature of the universe beyond newtonian physics.

[Tim_Lou]

"This is raised because there is neverending cycle of being and death" religious ideas, not ture.....

 

its just that the average "Chan" in china get mixed up pretty well by religions... these ideas are brought by movies, cultures, everyday talking......

[TINNY]

The central issue here is whether intuition can be a means of knowing the truth. Or is it the only way, since reason and scientific methodologies are limited by our senses.

[TINNY]

Materialists would attribute intuition to psychological cognitive experiences

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TINNY

The central issue here is whether intuition can be a means of knowing the truth. Or is it the only way, since reason and scientific methodologies are limited by our senses.

Reason is not limited by our senses. Reason is a process of evaluating information. The information we can access may be limited by our senses, but not the process itself.

 

Scientific methodology was developed specifically to overcome errors caused by the limits and mistakes of our senses.

 

The accuracy of a person's "intuition" is based upon a combination of chance, previous experience and factual knowledge base.

 

Thus "intuition" varies, sometime greatly, from one person to another and from one topic to another.

 

And as a "means of knowing the truth", it is only as good as the individual's combination of these. It is in and of itself no specific level of accuracy. It has no metaphysical advantage much less existence.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TINNY

Materialists would attribute intuition to psychological cognitive experiences

And your proof that it is anything else is?

[TINNY]

Reason is not limited by our senses. Reason is a process of evaluating information. The information we can access may be limited by our senses, but not the process itself.

I got the limitation wrong but our process of evaluating information is limited by our ability to think.

 

I'm not saying that the scientific methodology is false.

 

The accuracy of a person's "intuition" is based upon a combination of chance, previous experience and factual knowledge base.

You are assuming that intuition is a physical phenomena. but eastern philosophers say that by intuition, we are seeing it from the perspective of the absolute, beyond space and time. Assuming that they are right, therefore, intuition is not from chance, experience or knowledge base of the person. Taoists teachings preach that we have to be in harmony with the environment to obtain that enlightenment, although it is quite vague what 'being in harmony with the environment' is.

 

It's easy to refute it by saying there is no scientific evidence of spiritual existence/going beyond space-time; although the nature of photons, going at the speed of light, hints that there is a possibility to transcend it where there time is either none or infinite. Sometimes we tend to wrongly interpret scientific data when we are too dogmatic in proving what we already so sure about.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TINNY

I got the limitation wrong but our process of evaluating information is limited by our ability to think.

Yes I can agree with that. And as such, our ability of "evaluating information is limited" regardless of the source of that information. Thus a claim of better results from some metaphysical based information source is invalidated by your own admission.

The accuracy of a person's "intuition" is based upon a combination of chance, previous experience and factual knowledge base.

You are assuming that intuition is a physical phenomena.

Yes I do. That "intuition" is just one more of the processes of the human brain. I see no valid reason to assume anything else.

but eastern philosophers say that by intuition, we are seeing it from the perspective of the absolute, beyond space and time.

This would be the same as Western/ Christian claims of "Divine Guidance". That their god talks to them directly, emparting knowledge thru direct transmission. Perhaps the two are different more in termonology than concept?

Assuming that they are right, therefore, intuition is not from chance, experience or knowledge base of the person. Taoists teachings preach that we have to be in harmony with the environment to obtain that enlightenment, although it is quite vague what 'being in harmony with the environment' is.

Again, just as we would hear that you did not have enough or the right kind of "faith" when the Christian god does not provide the desired outcome. Just excuses built into the system to cover for failure.

It's easy to refute it by saying there is no scientific evidence of spiritual existence/going beyond space-time;

It is also easy to refute it simply by reviewing success/ failure rates of claims. Regardless of ability or inability to prove "spiritual existence", the claimed results of appeal to it or "being in harmony" can be checked for results.

although the nature of photons, going at the speed of light, hints that there is a possibility to transcend it where there time is either none or infinite.

This depends on what "it" is. If "it" is "space-time", I don't see where faster than light "transcends" it. Our current understanding of "space-time" requires faster than light information transmission. In quantum pairs and their spin.

 

If "it" is "spiritual existence", I don't see any connection with photons at all.

Sometimes we tend to wrongly interpret scientific data when we are too dogmatic in proving what we already so sure about.

Yes, when non- or psudeo-science is the end goal, correct scientific process is usually distorted if not ignored. Or when one is forced to make new observations fit into antiquated writings

 

As this topic is not about a factual subject, proof is not as much the issue. Understanding is. But I have to wonder if there should be a desire to validate. Why would anyone want to hold a philosophy which can not be validated? No matter how cute, interesting, appealing, ... a philosophy may sound, if it doesn't deliver, so what?

 

e.g. here you give the example of "intuition" on a metaphysical level. As it being a superior method of gaining insight. But can it actually be shown to be superior? Can the results achieved be documented to be better than without it? If not, why bother?

[TINNY]

Yes I do. That "intuition" is just one more of the processes of the human brain. I see no valid reason to assume anything else.

Maybe so. The process of obtaining intuition needs to go through several steps; I don't know exactly, but it is sort of a purifying and calming your mind (meditation). Through this, one gets a deeper insight into the reality of the world, avoiding/minimizing any prejudices or presumptions. I'm not saying for sure that it is a physical phenomena but it can be. The philosphers are preaching it as a way to better understand the reality.

 

This would be the same as Western/ Christian claims of "Divine Guidance". That their god talks to them directly, emparting knowledge thru direct transmission. Perhaps the two are different more in termonology than concept?

No problem with that either. Some say Buddhism and Hinduism originated from one of the prophets, but was altered as the teachings were passed down. Therefore, there might be some elements of similarities.

 

Again, just as we would hear that you did not have enough or the right kind of "faith" when the Christian god does not provide the desired outcome. Just excuses built into the system to cover for failure.

Firstly, I'm not a Christian. Anyway, why do you have to necessarily attack people's beliefs all the time? I only intended to discuss on the topic.

Of course it sometimes fails. Just like some mechanical failure of the car. You would attribute it for the manufacturer's/user's failure at making/using the car.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: TINNY

Freethinker wrote:

Again, just as we would hear that you did not have enough or the right kind of "faith" when the Christian god does not provide the desired outcome. Just excuses built into the system to cover for failure.

 

Firstly, I'm not a Christian. Anyway, why do you have to necessarily attack people's beliefs all the time? I only intended to discuss on the topic.

 

I think Freethinker's use of an example here cannot be considered an "attack". If we cannot allow examples like that then this is not a scientific discussion. His example is probably also recognizable as a known excuse for Christians ("we should have prayed harder" or "maybe our prayers were too selfish" etc).

 

Now keep up your otherwise interesting discussion.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TINNY

Yes I do. That "intuition" is just one more of the processes of the human brain. I see no valid reason to assume anything else.

Maybe so. The process of obtaining intuition needs to go through several steps; I don't know exactly, but it is sort of a purifying and calming your mind (meditation). Through this, one gets a deeper insight into the reality of the world, avoiding/minimizing any prejudices or presumptions. I'm not saying for sure that it is a physical phenomena but it can be. The philosphers are preaching it as a way to better understand the reality.

I realize that this discussion is not intended to be whether Eastern Philosophy is factually correct, but just a discussion of what it is and perhaps how it compares to other forms of pursuit of knowledge and even "truth". However it would seem we can watch for correlations and even validations or reasons for rejection along the way. IOW both what it IS and what it can offer to help arrive at "truth".

 

I find the concept of "calming your mind (meditation)" in line with stopping presuppositions which would promote mis-interpretation of data. While some of the formal methods of meditation may help achive this goal, I do not see where they in and of themselves offer any specific access to truths. IOW it is not the process that dertermines the truth. The process is just a tool to help cut thru the clutter in order to detect the truth out of the clutter. I am trained in various forms of meditation and have used them to accomplish this.

 

But I do not assign any metaphysical value to the meditation process. It is just like making sure I eat well so my body has the needed energy for my brain to work correctly. And to that extent, some forms of meditation, such as those that intentionally deprive the body/ brain of sufficient energy can actually be detrimental to accurate thought process.

 

And bottom line. All of this is purely physical in process. There is nothing that requires some metaphysical spiritual element to explain it. And again this would seem to add complications which would reduce the effectiveness of the processes.

This would be the same as Western/ Christian claims of "Divine Guidance". That their god talks to them directly, emparting knowledge thru direct transmission. Perhaps the two are different more in termonology than concept?

No problem with that either. Some say Buddhism and Hinduism originated from one of the prophets, but was altered as the teachings were passed down. Therefore, there might be some elements of similarities.

Yes they all seem to be something that was invented by a person or some group of people (and then claimed to come from A person). One of the problems then gets to be the additional baggage carried with them. Such as Hinduism being godless is a good thing. But it's caste system is harmful to soceity. Pure original Buddhism does not promote an actual person as the "1st Buddha" thus dropping any need for cult of personality problems. But most of it's current incarnations have developed dogma which promote it as a cult of personality.

Again, just as we would hear that you did not have enough or the right kind of "faith" when the Christian god does not provide the desired outcome. Just excuses built into the system to cover for failure.

Firstly, I'm not a Christian. Anyway, why do you have to necessarily attack people's beliefs all the time? I only intended to discuss on the topic.

I am not "attacking" anything. I am stating observable reality of the implementation of specific philosophies. In this case I am pointing out the similarity in process. That each aha built in some "escape clause" to remove failure of the system from the system's responsibility. Somet

[Machina80]

hello,

 

As far as Intuition, i believe it is with being in complete balalnce of yourself... mind, body and soul. Whenever iam in the "zone" things always seem to work into place perfect or obstacles are easily worked through with very limited effort. There are steps, but its more so what you accomplish. Like a mind growing process. If you think about it, you really can do and see and touch and feel and love every single thing in this worlds offering if only you beleive it. That is all it takes.

 

It seems though... the way many use their minds now, that this "natural gift" will soon be lost for most all. I know alot of drama in the world can affect me and set me off my own balance, but iam a very empathetic person so its not very hard to do. But then at the end of the day when you go back into your spot and really look and feel about the things affecting who you are, it makes you grow more and understand more. You can never stop learning, with every stimulation you endure.

 

I guess what iam getting at is a notice of a constant struggle of trying to prove and show and teach such ironicly similar things in these same such ways, that the purpose and meaning of it all becomes so lost. What message are we really trying to deliver?

sorry iam new here...

 

IAM.

[BEAKER]

What message are we really trying to deliver?

 

Who is "we"?

 

I guess what iam getting at is a notice of a constant struggle of trying to prove and show and teach such ironicly similar things in these same such ways, that the purpose and meaning of it all becomes so lost.

 

You said a mouthful!

 

If you seek advice from people it will surely be tainted with that persons bias; whether good or bad.

 

If you seek adice from God (assuming that there is One):

 

I find the concept of "calming your mind (meditation)" in line with stopping presuppositions which would promote mis-interpretation of data. While some of the formal methods of meditation may help achive this goal, I do not see where they in and of themselves offer any specific access to truths. IOW it is not the process that dertermines the truth. The process is just a tool to help cut thru the clutter in order to detect the truth out of the clutter.

 

"...it is not the process that dertermines the truth".

 

"what is Truth?"; Pilot asked Jesus and recieved no answer. But Jesus had declared previously that He was and is the Truth......Pilot didn't really want an answer like that from someone he was about to crucify, so jesus didn't expound.

 

Why would anyone want to hold a philosophy which can not be validated?

 

Exactly how much validaion is necessary? Each person will have to answer that for themselves. We pride ourselves on our ability to contemplate ideas and define by virtue of reason why the things that we believe are what they are, or at least what we are convinced they are; but no amount of reason and scientific deduction can eliminate some measure of faith from all that we assume about our universe.