boneyard bill

AdamWho writes:

The point of begging for a living was to maintain the monk's humility. For the same reason the monk was only allowed to own a robe and a begging bowl. Of course, eventually, some Buddhist monasteries became quite wealthy due to donations from rich laymen.

boneyard bill

Eudaimonist writes:

But "faith" is reason is perfectly sensible when you realize that we have no basis for grounding an epistemology. How can you prove that reason is valid? In fact, we've pretty well proven that all reason is tautological. So reason can't tell us anything about the real world. It only allows us to critique our claims about the world. The claims themselves come from another source than reason.

Whenever Ayn Rand spoke of mysticism it was, from everything I've read, derogatory. But it is also evident from her comments that she nothing at all about mysticism. Her critiques are not pertinent to what she was critiquing.

boneyard bill

Eudaimonist writes:

Failure wouldn't be nearly as big a problem as success. Success would tend to produce self-inflation and pride.

But you can't have it both ways. You can't have both success in life (whatever that is) and inner peace as supreme values. One has to be subordinated to the other. Which doesn't mean you can't be active in the world and still have inner peace as your supreme goal. Marcus Aurelius, after all, was the Emperor of Rome.

boneyard bill

AdamWho writes:

An absolutely blatant call for self-worship.

Panta Pei

I guess this is when the buddha would engage in his Noble Silence

victorialis

Eudaimonist, I'm glad I haven't hacked you off. I don't wish to antagonize your views; they make a lot of sense. I'm thinking about how an ex-theist might perceive your organization's methods of self-declaration; I'm not sure why self-declaration is necessary, outside of recruitment (the finding of like-minded people).

"Faith in reason" seems like a self-defeating approach to me, because of those situations in daily life which are utterly impervious to reason yet must still be addressed rationally. Otherwise, Buddhism would not intrigue me as it does. Objectivism seems to take refuge in saying that if I can't find a rational solution at all times, my reasoning is at fault. It blames the victim and essentially invalidates all emotion which is not under rational control.

I've been thinking, as AdamWho already said, that whatever sound core exists in Buddhism should be extractable and expressible apart from the forms, and I still share Eudaimonist's concern about goals representing attachment.

True and complete detachment would seem counter to whatever valid purpose there may be for existing in flesh in the first place... unless that valid purpose is no other than to get past oneself.

Manifest in order to disappear. Individuate in order to dissolve again. I'll agree that's what happens anyway, in big-picture terms. I'm less comfortable agreeing that we can or should cash out on what happens in between the coming and the going.

This, of course, I cannot resolve without full enlightenment... which (Zen) Buddhism would advise me to pursue either by means of deliberate and repeated psychological crisis (zazen discipline) or by having faith that my Buddha-nature is unfolding even as we speak.

I don't feel I'm being addressed by either of these answers. But since I'm not perfected, I can't know.

I suspect that if I were perfected, I wouldn't care anymore. Is that the object? I could arrive there by any number of other ways.

AdamWho

This is really turning out to be a great thread.

boneyard bill writes:

Quote:
How can you prove that reason is valid? In fact, we've pretty well proven that all reason is tautological.

You are right it is impossible to prove reason over non-reason just as it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. The argument then shifts to which is "better" reason or non-reason. I think that unless one is trying to escape from reality or impose their "reality" on others, reason is better. "Faith" might be needed to make the choice between the rational and irrational but history is full of examples of the disasters that follow the irrational; so it need not be a blind faith.

It seems that you are an advocate for Buddhism, so am I, but in a different way, as "best-practices" for living, not a religion. I see vegetarianism the same way.

Some questions:
Do you feel personally attacked when people question Buddhism?
Do you feel that you can better understand the world by looking inward or outward?
Do you believe that how you feel about the world changes the world?

These are very hot button questions for the Buddhists in my life. I hope that they don't offend you

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: AdamWho ]</p>

Eudaimonist

You say that we can't ground an epistemology, and then later in the same paragraph you say that it's been proven that all reason is tautological? Proven with what valid epistemology?

I don't think reason needs to be validated by reason. We simply need to gain confidence in the power of reason through life experience. We've sent men to the Moon; that's validation enough. (More than enough.) I don't have the time or inclination to debate this one, so let's just agree to disagree here.

My main purpose in posting here is to learn about Buddhism, and you have already been very helpful with your well-written post about better translations for important words. I am grateful for that.

I agree with you in this. I'm not relying on her critique though. I can see and think for myself. I'm not wedded to her views on mysticism.

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonist ]</p>

Eudaimonist

If one wasn't careful, this could very well be the result. I agree that self-inflation and pride (the vice) can be harmful.

However, I think it is possible to have the right kind (the healthy kind) of pride and self-esteem, which IMJ are vital spiritual goods.

I agree, which is why I don't regard inner peace as a supreme value. I regard inner peace as a less-than-supreme value to be pursued in moderation within the broader context of one's values. I personally think people should heroically engage life -- not shy away from great pursuits due to a fear of failure. It is best for people to take risks and work to increase their comfort zone, instead of playing it safe.

Yes, in the end this makes my ethical views very different than Buddhism, which is interesting given that there are some surprising things with which I agree with Buddhism.

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonist ]</p>

Eudaimonist

Actually, no, though it could be a call for the worship of one's highest potentials, which seems healthy to me.

Boneyard bill, I personally find that when discussing my most deeply held values with someone who clearly holds very different values, it can be very easy to get irritated. I just want you to know that I'm not here to bash your values. I'm here to learn. So please take a few deep breaths and restore your serenity, for your own sake.

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonist ]</p>