JGL53

and

I cannot but agree. All my adult life this point has seems as clear to me as 2+2 = 4, in base 10 math. Does someone have a coherent argument against this assumption, i.e., a rational argument for a better assumption? I so, I would love to hear it.

This is my understanding – eastern thought in general, stripped of the ad-on religious superstitions, is psychology more than philosophy (Watts likened it even to western psychoanalysis). The joke is, christianity is about getting what you want, whereas Buddhism is about wanting what you get.


- Advice that bears repeating.


I cannot but agree with this. What is the alternative theory - christian science?

premjan

The alternative (we are the "soul") bears consideration especially if we consider our "chemical reactions" to be our essence or soul.

JGL53

Well, "All is One" - or the only real existence is The One. I believe (accept) this, but vitalism is still crap IMO, i.e., I still await a coherent argument to the contrary.

David B

Comments interpolated into the copy paste below. I really must spend a little time learning how this board works.


Yes, well, two things - one was I didn't see anything in the verses about the position of earth in the cosmos, and secondly each verse started with a premise which I think is just plain wrong. The first one unequivocably - all that we are is not the result of what we have thought, though I'm happy to concede that what we have thought has an input into what each of us is today, and the second - mind is the forerunner of all states - being a claim - I'd sy an extraordianry claim - for which there is no evidence.

I'd say that the evidence points the other way insofar as it seems that conditions in the early universe were inimicable to the minds which emerge from brains, oreven computers. This does depend on the view that mind only exists as a result of very complex dynamic structures - but the case for this seems strong to me.

I do think the premises of the verses are out of touch with reality.



Sorry about the spelling. I took the above as at best facetious and at worst disrespectful'


The way you phrased it didn't seem to me to be implying what you said above. More that you were somehow paranormally getting wisdom from the dead. Or, at any rate, that is how I read it. To quibble a little, I don't see languages as being developed by anyone, in a conscious sense. Except esperanto. I'd see languages more as phenomena which co-evolved with the human mind, as they continue to do. Seem to be coming to end of page, so will continue.

premjan

I like the Luther-Loyola vs. Buddha-Shankara comparison. I seem to remember Loyola was a great organizer who left many institutions behind whereas Luther was more of an idea man, like the Buddha. Shankara was a great synthesizer and a man of energy who produced a lasting Hindu edifice (and understood and coopted the opposing point of view better than many of his contemporaries).

David B

'The wisdom imparted by someone's grandmother or deceased friend didn't dissolve after they died but you would have it that those who read Shakespeare are deluded because Shakespeare is long dead and from the sounds of it there can be no wisdom in the words of those who are dead. (At least none that you can find.) Reading the wise words of dead people, I know it sounds macabre but you should try it sometime.'

There is really nothing in what I've written that could lead you to infer that I would have it that people who read Shakespeare are deluded. Of course there is wisdom in the writing of the ancients. Because I take the premises of a couple of verses to be wrong, you cannot infer that that I dismiss everything written or said before me.

So you really are making that up, whether with the help of dead frieds or not.

There is much wisdom in the writings of the ancient Greeks, for instance - though also much dross. The only people today who talk much about the world being divided into earth, water, fire and air are astrologers, as far as I know, with there water signs, earth signs etc.

There are dangers in taking the writings of even the best of the ancients as something approaching sacred text, not to be challenged, IMO. As it is dangerous having sacred texts not to be challenged. Aristotle was an amazingly clever man, but it was only around the time of Galileo and Newton that actual experiments found that much of what he wrote about motion, for example, was plain wrong. Unless I'm making a fool of myself, and it wasn't Aristotle at all, but someone different. Wouldn't be the first time or the last I think it was Aristotle, though.

From where I'm sitting your verses look to be wrong.

All that we are is not the result of what we have thought.

And I would maintain that mind is not the forerunner of all states.

So I'm dubious about philosophies based on those premises.

Anything unreasonable there?

David B

Eikonoklast

I'd repeat pretty much what premjan wrote. It depends on how you define yourself. In the case of Buddhist thought, the "I" is self awareness and doesn't go beyond that as far as I know. That's not to say that genes, hormones, etc. don't affect who "we" are. They do in fact.
I really don't disagree with what you are saying here. Looking this as well as the other posts over, I think that what appears to be disagreement is really a different use of terminology. Here's how I view these words within the context of Buddhism:

Mind = Tao, the Force, Natural Laws. (doesn't require consciousness)

Mind then has the ability to become conscious, or self-aware. You're calling this self-awareness "mind", but I don't believe that this is the meaning of the word within the context of Buddhism. Our self-aware consciousness, thoughts, and the mental construct of ego is a product of mind. This would all be in harmony with current science if I'm interpreting it correctly.

Again, I think this is just dependent upon a definition of mind. Within the context of Buddhist thought, I would probably substitute self-awareness for where you have mind in the above sentence.

Eikonoklast

That's pretty much how I've interpreted it as well -- as psychology. I have a feeling that many of the other religions, particularly the pre-Christian religions, and even Christianity are actually just different expressions in allegorical form of the same psychology. Of course, Christianity also has strong political elements to it as well. Over time people just began to read the words of an ancient people literally, rather than recognizing the importance of myth and allegory in their culture.

David B

Comments again interpolated into the quote.

So is a Buddhist claiming that there is no 'I' when someone is in deep sleep?

Would it be meaningless for a Buddhist to say 'You were asleep when the rain started last night' for example?




Then I would argue that that context is too broad to be an accurate meaning of mind - even taking account of our incomplete understanding of mind. I would agree, though, that mind doesn't require consciousness. I would say that it does require a brain, or perhaps some mechanical device with at least some of the same functions as a brain though. That is I don't rule out AI.

I don't believe that I am doing this, but if so I have expressed myself badly. There is lots of experimental evidence to suggest that we actually make decisions before we become consciously aware that we have made the decision - but I take our decision making to result from our minds nonetheless.

I agree.



I don't think this quite right - for reasons I hope I've managed to explain above.

All the best

David B

JGL53

Yeah, I think this is our problem. Western materialists define mind as the activity of the human brain, nothing more and nothing less. I suppose non-human animals have minds, but not having language and generally not having self-awareness, theirs is rather primitive.

The Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao. If you say the Tao = Mind - well, that is not the true Tao, because you just spoke of it.