Freethought & Rationalism Archive

muon · 06-06-2003, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Answerer
Well, Mr professor, while most of us hope that the laws of physics are eternal, in reality that might as well be not the case. Seriously, do you think(for example) the law of gravity still existed before the birth of our universe or after the end of our universe? This is certainly something that you and I will never know.

I agree that we might not ever know whether the laws of physics are eternal or not. Does that mean you agree to stop citing "the breakdown of laws of physics at a singularity" as evidence that they aren't eternal?

Frankly I don't understand your interest in giving anicca the widest possible interpretation, and applying the term to things like Dhamma and nibbana that are never referred to as such in most Buddhist writings. What is the advantage of expanding the use of the term beyond its traditional domain? To me it looks like you're just making a dogma out of a fairly simple teaching.

andy_d · 06-06-2003, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oser
This is interesting. What branch of Buddhism teaches this? I've never heard this teaching in the tradition I know best (Theravadin).

Well, it's a typically Vajrayana viewpoint.

It's a kind of "cut to the chase" tactic. The idea is that if you start out by trying to experience mind directly, everything else will follow.

Seraphim: That's a nice little story. I think he'd be a better fisherman if he was looking for the fish

Answerer · 06-06-2003, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oser
I agree that we might not ever know whether the laws of physics are eternal or not. Does that mean you agree to stop citing "the breakdown of laws of physics at a singularity" as evidence that they aren't eternal?

Since you are so sensitive by what I had said, perhaps I should do you a favour by correcting my pervious statement a bit, I still agree that "our Current laws of physics still suffer a breakdown at the point of singularity" and that our current laws of physics are definitely not eternal.

Quote:

Originally posted by oser
Frankly I don't understand your interest in giving anicca the widest possible interpretation, and applying the term to things like Dhamma and nibbana that are never referred to as such in most Buddhist writings. What is the advantage of expanding the use of the term beyond its traditional domain? To me it looks like you're just making a dogma out of a fairly simple teaching.

Creating a dogma? Nah. Please observe that I'm already try to take a moderate stand the moment you guys start to disagree with me. I never bend on saying that I'm right, rather it is you guys who had been consisting that I must be seriously mistaken.

Besides, Nirvana had never been regarded some kind of forbidden language in Buddhism and it is not outside most buddhist writings. Zen and Tibetian Buddhism certainly have lots of it( But in Tibetian Buddhism, there are more emphasis on pure lands). I leave you to find out by yourself.

Answerer · 06-06-2003, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
No. A seven is a seven. This is a truth. Just because some people do not understand Nirvana using a brain, this does not mean that in some centuries in the future a seven grows to an eight or will decrease to a six. Talking such nonsense is an illusioric creation of the mind of the self, which is mentioned by the Buddha.

Okay, go and ask an animal if it thinks seven is a seven. Truth is always subjective whether you like it or not. And Buddha never encourage dogmatic truth like the above.

Quote:

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
Scientists have no knowledge about immaterial �things�. They do not know, what time is, they do not now what math is, the do not know what truth is, they do not know what logic is, they know nothing else the natural physical forces and their relations to the physical world. Not mentioned harmony or love.

Wait a second, how will you know that our scientist never have knew what time , logic, math, love or harmony is? Do you have something to support your assertion?

Quote:

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
Knowledge is a state of consciousness, where the consciousness is in communion with the truth of nature. This can be the physical nature or the immaterial - speak - spiritual nature. Energy never can be lost in universe, and an truth never can be an untruth.

From this one can be learn, that arguing with abstract terms, as �spacetime� or �singularity�, which should be the base of the laws of nature, is without any base or prove. It does help only to increase the disorder in mind instead to increase the order. Background ever for this claiming is the personal self, which do reject the reality of nature for a personal importance of the self. Not the nature has to align to the words of holy books; the consciousness of the mind has to align to the truth of the laws of nature.

I understand this is your own belief.

Quote:

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
I do not see, that this make any sense. Mentality is based on physical functions. But Nirvana is not a physical existence.

A concept is always how one makes out of it, since you think it is so, it must so. And I don't intend to change that.

Quote:

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
I you very certain, I have no intention to change this. Who cares about the energy in black holes? The argument, that some unknown values shell proves, that the truth, that there is no contradiction in the laws of physics, is senseless. Not the unknown is the reference of truth; it is the recognized knowledge, which is the reference. And this knowledge is not to find in remote black holes, it is only to be found in the own inner self. No results from logic have any meaning, if there is no soul consciousness, which is recognizing and acknowledge the result for true. And it has a special meaning, that it is called re_cognition.

I'm not clear what you are emphasising but if you are saying that our current laws of physics is always right again I'm sure that there are scientist willing to disagree with you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
Yes, but only if you do not change the values of time too. Why do you believe that time is constant?

My point was, that the order of nature is an order and not a disorder. A truth is ever a truth and an untruth is ever an untruth. A seven is ever greater as a six and a cause has ever an effect. If one teaches, that the principles of nature do change, then this can be misunderstood, that there is no order in nature. But this order is not to change into a disorder.

If you can make time a constant or stops, I will gladly believe that everything is eternal.

Quote:

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
The law of causality does not fail in QM, the law of causality does not interfere with QM, like the state of Nirvana has no time, no space and is not interfered by the law of Karma. This is known as acausality, also in physics.

Oh, is it? Then can you explain the significance of vaccum fluctation of why particles pops out of nowhere randomnly?

Quote:

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
Never mind. Spiritual laws cannot be thought, they can only be recognized. Some people respect holiness, some not. Some people respect woman�s, some not. Some people respect a being, some not. It is only a difference in the consciousness, not a point of definition. BTW. Definition is not to be need in nature. Nature must to be recognized as it is in its material parts and it�s immaterial (spiritual) parts; spiritual parts cannot be defined, because there is nothing to define. All definitions are results of a busy brain, and have no spiritual worth. The world is not to be defined from a personal Self, the world is to be understood in it�s meaning of it�s physical part and its spiritual part from each individual itself. No one other can do this for him.

Buddhism is not a part of nature. It is an idea of the personal self. Terms are senseless and an illusion of the mind. The Buddha has rejected all teachers and terms in his mind and has spoken from knowledge and from an insight. There is no need to press Buddhism in the mind, if one would understand the truth of nature.

To understand the spiritual nature beyond the personal self and the reason, why and who this person is, one must understand the causality law, known as law of Karma. Nirvana is to be transliterated to: �Where the winds of Karma do not blow�. This means, that there is a state of existence, where no karmic stress exist. It is not the Nirvana, which is important to deal with; it is the insight and knowledge about the spiritual laws and the permanent awareness about the quality of actions of the personal self. Hardly one can be free from karmic load, if he - as soul - rejects recognition, knowledge and insight about spiritual laws. The mind itself cannot recognize; it is only a processor of old things of a physical memory.

If you argue, that you say � I (don�t i � ) �, but cannot say and not prove what kind of existence this �I� is, you do claim to be something. As this something is not intended to debate on his own reality of existence, but on dead Buddhist terms and claims of old books, I think there is a personal self, that is not intended to debate. OK.

Volker

Ok Volker, the rest of post are mostly about your belief and I don't intend to go too deep into it. So, I shall stop here.

Volker.Doormann · 06-07-2003, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Answerer
Truth is always subjective whether you like it or not. ...

It seems, that this absolute statement is without any meaning.

Quote:

... I don't intend to go too deep into it. So, I shall stop here.

That's indeed not deep. Nevertheless - Thank you for your post.

Volker

Answerer · 06-07-2003, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
It seems, that this absolute statement is without any meaning.

I'm sorry, I seem to making a mistake here.

Quote:

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann

That's indeed not deep. Nevertheless - Thank you for your post.

Volker

See you.

VTboy · 06-09-2003, 11:21 AM

Well I am a Pure Land Buddhist and like most Buddhist I do beleive in Rebirth. I also beleive that when I die if I resite the name of the Amita Buddha I will be reborn into the land of Bliss. While there some who claim to be buddhist that dont beleive in rebirth, true buddhist infact do. Buddha even mention living past lives.

lugotorix · 06-09-2003, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by VTboy
Well I am a Pure Land Buddhist and like most Buddhist I do beleive in Rebirth. I also beleive that when I die if I resite the name of the Amita Buddha I will be reborn into the land of Bliss.

Welcome to the II forums.

Quote:

While there some who claim to be buddhist that dont beleive in rebirth, true buddhist infact do. Buddha even mention living past lives.

This is a variation on the No True Scotsman fallacy . Yes, in Pure Land Buddhism, rebirth is an integral part of the teaching. Not all Buddhists believe it, though, and it doesn't disqualify them from being Buddhists. Anyone who takes refuge in the Three Treasures and tries to follow the Five Precepts is a Buddhist, plain & simple.

lugotorix

bagong · 06-10-2003, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lugotorix
This is a variation on the No True Scotsman fallacy . Yes, in Pure Land Buddhism, rebirth is an integral part of the teaching. Not all Buddhists believe it, though, and it doesn't disqualify them from being Buddhists. Anyone who takes refuge in the Three Treasures and tries to follow the Five Precepts is a Buddhist, plain & simple.

lugotorix

So what if someone were to come along and say "I'm Buddhist, but I believe the 3 Refuges and the 5 Precepts are outdated Asian superstitions." Would it be comitting the True Scotsman fallacy to tell that person that they aren't "true Buddhists"?

Surely the word "Buddhist" needs to have some doctrinal delimitation? You've chosen "accepts the 3 Refuges and the 5 Precepts" as the boundary that separates Buddhist from non-Buddhist, VTBoy includes rebirth. There's good arguments to be made for both sides, but I don't think either really constitute a logical fallacy.

lugotorix · 06-10-2003, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bagong
So what if someone were to come along and say "I'm Buddhist, but I believe the 3 Refuges and the 5 Precepts are outdated Asian superstitions." Would it be comitting the True Scotsman fallacy to tell that person that they aren't "true Buddhists"?

Well, to my knowledge, the 3 Refuges and 5 Precepts are common to all the different schools of Buddhism. Going for refuge is something done by every Buddhist. Not every Buddhist I know of believes in rebirth.

Quote:

Surely the word "Buddhist" needs to have some doctrinal delimitation? You've chosen "accepts the 3 Refuges and the 5 Precepts" as the boundary that separates Buddhist from non-Buddhist, VTBoy includes rebirth. There's good arguments to be made for both sides, but I don't think either really constitute a logical fallacy.

I agree that it does need to have some delimitation; otherwise, anything and anyone could be called Buddhist. I just don't think the doctrine of rebirth is one of the core tenets, since I know of several well-known and respected teachers that don't believe in it. I don't think these teachers should be called "not true Buddhists" because of that.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-09-2003, 11:21 AM	#37
VTboy Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Fairfield, Ca Posts: 177	Well I am a Pure Land Buddhist and like most Buddhist I do beleive in Rebirth. I also beleive that when I die if I resite the name of the Amita Buddha I will be reborn into the land of Bliss. While there some who claim to be buddhist that dont beleive in rebirth, true buddhist infact do. Buddha even mention living past lives.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.