perfectbite

No. I am not that clever. I am telling it like it is with some help from my very wise, long gone to dust friends.


I have no problem with you stating that the premises of the first verses of the Dhammapada are demonstrably plain wrong but I do take objection to you calling them 'drivel'.

You don't know enough to be able to state that they are drivel. And, by extension, because I said that they are the basis of all Buddhist thought, then it is taken by you that the rest of Buddhism must also be drivel is really the sign that you have overlooked Buddhism's prime instruction: 'Keep an open mind.' or didn't you get that from Buddhism?

Your take on the Dhammapada is as if the Buddha had told you;

'Yer 'ouse is gown't on feer.'

And you took the time to correct the Buddha's grammar and spelling and pronunciation and spent time ascertaining whether it was it actually your house being referrred to as your house cheerily burnt to the ground.

You have mixed charismatic and personality driven 'saviour'/teacher/avatar cults with the religious/ideological/practices those personalities propound.


Buddhism isn't for you. Just say that. Slandering Buddhist thought isn't the way to go.



When I used to say 'All the best' in parting from friends, I really meant it. (It is not commonly used here in the states) so I am not so sure that the same thing is intended now because obviously the term 'all the best' seems to have become a cliched old saw, somewhat akin to drivel.

David B

In order, since I haven't mastered using multiple quotes. You came up with the idea that I was referring to pricking my finger with a pin. I said (or questioned whether, I forget which) that you were making it up. Now you say that some dead people led you to telling me that it was the truth. Wow!!!! Are you going to support this somewhat unlikely assertion with any evidence?

I'm glad you don't have a problem with my assertion that the premises of the texts are demonstrably wrong. Garbage in Garbage out. Perhaps drivel is the wrong word. I'm quite happy to withdraw that, and substitute 'garbage'.

I do know enough to assert that they are wrong. Now, I will grant you that true statements can result from false premises, if the logic is faulty. Without reading the rest, I can't say.

I kept an open mind. I read them, and noticed that the premises were false. How open do you want my mind to be? Open to the point of credulity, to the point of believing the false.

My take on the verses you cited is that I read them and noticed that they started on false premises. My house isn't on fire. In what way have I acted as you claim?

Please support your assertion that I have mixed charismatic and personality driven 'saviour'/teacher/avatar cults with the religious/ideological/practices those personalities propound.

For something to be slanderous it has to be untrue. The premises in the verses are false. Unless the logic is wrong, then the conclusions are false. Where is the slander?

All the best is something of a cliched old saw, like much in good manners.

You seemed to me to dispense with yours in your pin pricl post


David B

Eikonoklast

But I wonder if you actually have a hold on the perspective from which these people are coming from to be able to make such a statement.

It seems to me that this passage is addressing what we are in terms of a self-aware consciousness -- the thing that allows us to even say that "we are" in the first place. It's addressing the normal state of consciousness in which most humans normally reside.

I wouldn't say that is true. Then again, I haven't seen you present any valid theory of mind and consciousness.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "mind" doesn't it? I'm sure that a Buddhist would say that your heartbeat is a product of mind, though it occurs without you consciously forcing it to do so. You seem moreso to be addressing the self aware conscious state that humans have devoloped over time, which is really no more than a practical construct that is in a way both real and an illusion, but also a product of mind. My understanding is that in Buddhism mind and matter are essentially inseperable.

David B

Perhaps your understanding is right. It's my impression too. My view is that they pretty much are seperable. Vitalism is a busted flush, as best U can tell.

Not all matter has mind, but you can't have mind without matter, would be a very brief synopsis of what I think. And I see the evidenceas pointing strongly that way.

All the best

David B

Eikonoklast

Nothing you've written here is in conflict with what I have written or what the Dhammapada 1 reads.
Dhammapada 1 doesn't even address "mind". It addresses "thought", which is a product of mind.


But we don't even really know what mind or matter are do we? So how could you say that the evidence points one way or the other?

Eikonoklast

I'm an atheist as well. My interest in Zen, like so many people, was highly influenced by my very few experiences with LSD and psylocibin mushrooms. Buddhism is not about "finding" happiness and peace. It's about recognizing that pain, struggle, and torment are part of life, as well as joy, happiness, and inner peace. It's not intended to draw a curtain of foggy, new-agey sense of happiness in front of your eyes that creates a rosy tint permeating every part of your existence. Enlightenment is a rational understanding of how the world works that helps alleviate the cognitive dissonance that so many carry around in their heads. Enlightenment is NOT about the warm fuzzies.

As others have recommended already, Alan Watts.

perfectbite

Upon David B posting the following;


I replied;

Go back and read the Buddha, Theravadan AND Mahayanist, start with Dhammapada stanzas one and two.



To which David B replied;


And so I did:

All that we are is the result of what we have thought.
It is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts.
If one speaks or acts with an evil thought pain follows them
as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the wagon.

Dhammapada 1.

Mind is the forerunner of all states.
Mind is chief. Mind made are they.
If one speaks or acts with a pure mind,
because of that, happiness follows one
even as one’s shadow that never leaves.

Dhammapada, 2

And this is what it was met with:


and now David B is saying;

I'm sorry, I am experiencing some cognitive dissonance here.

I'm glad you asked that. The language we are conversing in was developed by those who are long dead (of course, if you wish, you could start your own language and teach it to those who would think it has value and immediately after your death that language would be null and void (which would be an understood part of that language because its creator would be dead).

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.

perfectbite

You wish.

David B

Well, here I am again, somewhat soberer than when I last wrote. Here goes


We don't really know what 'to know' is, I'd say. I've certainly seen a lot of disagreement when people closely explore the concept. Nonetheless, we can use the word meaningfully - I know it's Sunday as I write this, you will understand what I mean by that. Before the dawn of modern physics, people knew what matter is well enough to understand that if they kicked a large stone with a bare foot, it would hurt. And we know enough about minds for me to know I have one, impute one to you, and not impute one to a stone.

I'd still maintain that within the limits of what we know about mind and matter, incomplete though it is, the evidence strongly points to no mind without matter, and only rare bits of matter having mind, though that is a clumsy way of putting it.

All the best

David B

premjan

Buddhism attributes identity (what we are) to mental processes (what we have thought). However, there is quite a bit of identity that arises from our "chemical reactions" which are not mental in nature.