In most of the discourses in the Khandhasamyutta of the Samyutta-Nikayas the Buddha is telling his followers that they should NOT identify their self (attâ/atma) with the five psycho-physical constituents (panca-khandha). Clearly, this is NOT a denial of self. It pays to read the Buddha's actual discourses and not Theravada Abhidhamma.
The Buddha is recorded to have said to a Brahmin who asserted that there is “no agency who is self or another.” To this the Buddha replied: “I have never heard or seen anything of the sort. When you move forward or backward, stand or sit or lie down, are you not using initiative? Well, isn’t that self-agency (attâ-kara)? (A.iii.377)
The legendary Thai monk Phramongkolthepmuni (1884–1959) even believed that Nirvana/Nibbana was the Self or atman. The Buddha's true body, the Dharmakaya, is, according to Phramonkolthepmuni, niccam (permanent), sukham (blissful), and atta (self/soul).
Buddha him self declared that his teachings (Dhammakaya) is also not permanant (Anicca). The three main foundations of Buddhism (thrilakshana) are Dhukka , Anicca and Anatta. To declare that there is actually a Atta (soul) is going against the basic teachings of Buddha. The Dhukka arise because of Illusion of "Self", The craving arises because of illusion of self.
In Pali atta (soul/self) and attâ are used in several ways. 1) The self is itself and not other. This stands to reason for if the self were other than itself it would be something else; 2) The self as a signifier of one's body and mind; 3) Self as transcendent to all determination, e.g., this is not the self. Most of the errors regarding self are called attagâbha, i.e., misconceptions regarding the self.
They wander about in the world (loke), having the soul/self as an island (attadipa), having no-thing (akiñcanâ), completely freed in every respect. ~ Sutta-Nipata
Make of the soul/self (attano) an island (dipam)! Strive quickly, be wise (pandito). With impurities removed now purified you will reach the divine (dibbam), the Aryan abode (ariyabhumi). — Dhammapada
This person is a complete fool, and knows utterly nothing about the pali term anatta (skt: anatman). is an adjective in sutra referring to phenomena as being devoid of the Soul, that being the ontological and uncompounded subjective Self (atman) which is the “light (dipam), and only refuge” [DN 2.100]. There are 662 occurrences of Anatta, its usage refers to 22 nouns. [KN J-1441] “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”. There is never and nowhere in sutra, a ‘doctrine of no-Soul’,
@kathodosdotcom Is this what incited you to post your videos, the time corresponds to your posts on your channel? If so t that's great! So this is how you get people who know stuff to come out of the academic closet. Without these turkeys, I'd never have found your website. It boggles the mind when you have "buddhists" talking about no self and in the same sentence talking about one's "essential nature/being". And now you are flagged as spam, nice.
I follow my feelings , my intelligence makes my feeling more and more diverse and varied as I live I pick up more and more knowledge to use as a tool of understanding and expression - This is all 100% TRUTH I know that no teachings or books can change my feelings just help me interpret them but truth in my feelings will never change :)
Just because Buddha denied Soul one need not accept it, that is against the Buddha's teaching first of all. I said Paradox, Truth is paradoxical, but Buddha is not hundred percent right in all the things. He failed. Buddhists are just blind followers, the less said the better the connection between Budha and ists. If Buddha has no evolved Soul, then what is the difference between an ignorant layman and an Enlightened Buddha being?
The Essential Spirit is the evolving SOUL which is in conjuction with Param Athma the Super Soul. Buddhists have erred in understanding properly and they have erred in understanding the Karma Theory also. Except for Buddhas Dhyana, all other or most of the things are repetitive borrowed from Hindu scriptures junk. All your Nirvana etc is a crap and nobody achieved any Nirvana upto now. Have you achieved Nirvana? Hence I said
No Soul is only half Truth and Soul is also half Truth a real paradox
@formless777 and what is a "Buddha" made of? Body and Mind?..lol...your own "Buddha" is an obstacle to your question. Then there is no "Buddha" as such, but you are unnecessarily following dead books and a dead wise-donkey....or some funny jathaka tales...
@formless777 Your invisible mind seems to animating your mouth - so you have a start. Just look deeper like the old Zen master did; then you will find what the Buddha transmitted to Mahakshapya.
The chemical and biological processes by which electrical impulses are sent from the brain to the mouth are well understood. Language creation is less well understood, but remarkable progress has been made recently regarding the formation of words in the brain. Science will in time understand all these things, and replicate them in medicine, and Buddha will be no part of that process. Also, you are delusional, I did not use my mouth to write this or my previous comment.
Hang on sunfield00, where is your proof of the soul ? Where is your tangible evidence that the soul exists ? Your entire position hangs on your ability to show us that the soul isn't an illusion. I bet you just have subjective personal evidence that is worth nothing to us.
where is the proof of "Buddha"? The monuments? Where is the proof of Nirvana? Even if anyone have, then it will be also subjective personal evidence that is worth nothing to us. Who cares about "Nirvana"? Sadness of monks? Soul is bliss, Enjoy Life...celebrate...don't be depressed with stale Buddhism...just because you uploaded video in you-tube doesn't make you right and me wrong...I have answered many like you fittingly...
Bliss is permanent and natural state, that which is not-anatta (arhata?) is soul. Soul is both: the universal and the individual. Two words have been used: universal soul, meaning pure consciousness, the divine; then the individual soul, or self. That the soul is immortal is not a theory; it is not an ideology. It is the experience of certain individuals. Only when experience is what you want can experience alone solve the riddle, “What is life? What is death?” ...CONTD next para
And as soon as you have the experience you will come to know that life is, that death is not – that only life is, that there is no death at all. Then we will be in a position to say that death just happens. We cannot think of God as being created because if he is created then he is not God; he becomes a thing. The same is true of the soul: the soul is not a created phenomenon. And not only the soul – even matter is not a created phenomenon.
Buddha has no body, he is just a soul. By soul I mean that every particle of his existence has become aware.
The individual soul is under bondage through ignorance and limiting adjuncts such as mind, body and senses. It is mere appearance. It is illusory. When it attains knowledge of the Imperishable, it is freed from limiting adjuncts and bondage. Just as the bubble becomes one with the ocean, so also the Jiva becomes one with the Supreme Soul when ignorance is destroyed.
Some do not bother about transmigration of souls, about philosophical questions like “Who am I? Whence and where? Whither? What remains after death? What is life? What is then on the other side of death? When the body dies what conditions shall man pass into; in which world shall he find himself?” They think that those who make such enquiries are ignorant persons and that they are the only clever and wise persons. No argument can convince them or change their views.
formless, you are fomfull with script. They have written volumes after volumes against the existence of the soul. Wonderful people indeed with perverted intellects!
Consciousness, intelligence and bliss are the attributes of the Universal Soul. This body is constantly changing. This physical body, which is a combination of the five elements, will be destroyed. But the eternal Soul which is the basis, substratum and source for matter, energy, mind will ever remain.
Okay, they say they have this experience...where is their proof ? Also, the location of the soul you have just suggested is within what is known as the Quantum Foam. It isn't there. Science has already looked.
We are just complex amalgams of carbon slowly oxidizing, and when we die, the meat goes off.
Soul ? Nope, try a pessimistic interpretation of the doctrine of Anatta instead.
The requirement that people who make extraordinary claims is in no sense a perversion of intellect, it is the necessary exercise of an open but skeptical mind.
There are 2 sorts of religious people... the insane, and the frauds. One is perversion by dint of mental malfunction, the other is cold evil and exploitative perversion. One must be medicated, the other must be jailed, and both are compassionate acts. There is no transcendence, only delusion.
Everyone asks the what remains after death question. Some people decide that because they can't imagine being dead, or because they can't market the obvious truth to the gullible public that some part of them doesn't die. On the other hand when called upon to quantify their Pollyanna subjectivism with evidence, they rudely faceplant... but the gullible persist in believing them because they fear the truth with all their cowardly delusional hearts.
You are totally wrong and arguing pointlessly. You are just making your own statements, without even trying to understand others. .. All your KARMAPAs, DalaiLamas believe in reincarnations..
Just because some Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhists insist that they are reincarnations (rinpoches) of former supposedly enlightened people doesn't mean it is true. In fact, given the endemic corruption of Tibetan Buddhism it is more likely to be a lie. If Tibet truly had such a brilliant and magnificent karma, how did it get over-run by the Chinese ? The mountains themselves would have risen in its defense if it weren't all just BS.
@formless777 Dude, "buddha" is the past participle of "bujjhati" which means 'to recognize' in the example of recognizing nirvana or Aryan truth. In the strict sense, Buddha is not the Buddha's name. Try Lord.
Yes, and even impermanence is impermanent - and suffering, too, is impermanent and will vanish if you should get lucky and stop clinging to mind's phenomenalizations.
By Aryan, I assume you mean Fascist or Nazi truth. Pardon me if I have little time for truths that waste lives and cannot be questioned for fear of blasphemy. If things are impermanent, then surely this truth of which you speak is also impermanent, by simple logical deduction.
@formless777 When one reads Sanskrit of Pali, Buddhist texts are rife with the word aryan (Pali, ariya). It is often trans. by the English word noble. But aryan is much deeper. At any rate, it was white folk who borrowed the term for the purposes of eugenics. Aryan has nothing whatsoever to do with race. If we speak of aryan, aryans follow the spiritual light (jyoti). They could be African, Native Americans, Chinese and yes - even white folks, but very few. ;)
Are you telling me you see no connection between Buddhism and Nazism ? The Aryanism and swastikas are no accident. Try harder. The fact is that the NAZIs made a point of going to Tibet, and a number of Tibetans became members of the SS.
The fact is that Buddhists have continuously supported fascist regimes (e.g. WW2 Japan & Nazis) throughout history. Not very humane or enlightened.
@formless777 Oh, it's Buddhism's fault (and Hinduism's) that stupid-ass Nazis used the Swastika and changed the word "aryan" into something far from its real meaning? Buddhism has no Pope or Holy See - so it collectively doesn't support any nation or its particular predatory ideology like fascism and capitalism. If you're looking for scape goats try Judaism and Christianity.
Really ? And what do the Chinese massacred at Nanjing with the blessings of Japan's various Mahayana sects have to say to that ? "Follow your guru without question and if this world is a veil of tears, try to make it a little bit worse for those less fortunate than you, because they deserve to suffer for the things they did in past lives that made their current incarnation horrible." A sick sick doctrine, but the core of Buddhist social policy.
@formless777 Wow! Now you are lumping up with Mahayana Buddhism with the rape of Nanjing. Seems like a lot of Christians followed Hitler who was a good Catholic. What kind of religion tells people to follow leaders who hate Jews except a sick religion that needs to be put into the dustbin of history.
You do know that the Japanese government held ceremonies in Nanjing to celebrate the capture of the Chinese capital and prominent Mahayana clergy officiated on the army's behalf, and the same sects backed the Japanese Fascists in the propaganda war from the outset I assume ? Many of those sects STILL support the re-militarization of Japan and the same world conquest agenda, no joke. Tibetan Buddhists also joined the SS, it's an historical fact.
Do you really think that defending your stupid cult is achieved by pointing out another stupid cult is similarly foul and iniquitous ? Mahayana Buddhism and Roman Catholicism are both guilty of grotesque evils, and if they had any sense of decency or humanity they would disband themselves rather than wear such vile stains.
@formless777 Mahayana Buddhism is not at all like the Catholic church. There is no Pope or Holy See. Tibetans embrace Mahayana Buddhism, too. So I guess according to your goofy logic they are also responsible for what went on in Nanking. Sorry But Mahayana Buddhism can't be a target for your lies and hatred. I celebrate Mahayana Buddhism, the true Aryan religion of light. Go back into your dark lair sir.
Firstly, Vajrayana is not Mahayana. Secondly I am not discussing the rude forms of the religion, I am discussing atrocities committed in the name of the religion. When the Mahayana Tendai, Nichiren and Pure Land sects all blessed the soldiers of Japan while Nanjing burned around them, and their followers actively raped and murdered defenseless Chinese civilians, they were complicit in the atrocities. Only a few Zen outcasts voiced any dissent. The dark lair of ignorance is yours sir.
@formless777 You've repeatedly shown your ignorance about Buddhism, including Tibetan Buddhism. Let the historians fight it out as to how many Chinese were actually killed in Nanking. As for Mahayana Buddhism its texts do not sanction the murder of fellow Buddhists, including sentient beings! Provide some evidence of Japanese Buddhist priests telling Japanese soldiers to slaughter sentient beings. Otherwise STFU.
Of course they told the Japanese soldiers to slaughter innocent civilians. It was the karma of those civilians to be slaughtered for their evil past deeds. Japanese Buddhist Priests didn't view the Chinese as being properly human beings at all, or truly sentient, but as sub-human animal killers who could never be enlightened. They blessed the troops to kill them. You will find Mahayana texts that support this attitude if you bother to look.
@formless777 Thus far you've produced no evidence for you claim. If the Japanese priests told the Japanese soldiers to slaughter the sub-human Chinese then where is your evidence? Produce a proper academic citation, title, author, specific page number etc.
No Soul is only half Truth and Yes Soul is also Some Truth, So Soul is actually Paradox,. Buddha never denied Hindu Gods or many of the Hindu knowledge. Soul at the Human level when equated with ego and mind, thoughts, conditioning etc is definitely an illusion and false, but when it is Pure and still with meditation and realized with total consiouness then that Soul is a Buddha or Awakened and it is really a Athma or Shudhathma or Jivathma at Individual level. So Anatta is obsolete, Athma Real
Buddha clearly denied soul. Not only that he considered that a major concept that blocks the way to Nirvana.
Soul is a meaningless idea that every religion, except Buddhism accepts. There were 64 philosophies and religions comtemporary to Buddhism but nothing called Hinduism was there at that time. Buddhism is unique in the sense that it denies soul and promply direct us to see that, behind perception there is no agent, soul or hidden entity.
I answered you above, by the way I did not talk or said anything about Hinduism or I am not obligatory to your Buddhas authority, you may be a slave to that thinking, I am free AND HENCE I believe in my experience of Atma and I know it...I don't go by Buddha's word and accept it, like you. You may be a theologian, I don't care, still you are wrong and you have no experience. You are talking but hiding contradictions in your Buddha's teachings, don't they accept Brahma, Gods..?
@craigMellow I gather you haven't read much Buddhism!
"'The Atman is the Tathagatagarbha. All beings possess a Buddha Nature: this is what the Atman is. This Atman, from the start, is always covered by innumerable passions (klesha): this is why beings are unable to see it." — Mahayanamahaparinirvana-sutra
I guess you follow Mahayana Buddhism. In fact Mahayana is a deviation of original teachings of Buddha. The Theravada or Hinayana Buddhism is the original teachings of Buddha which is Followed in Burma, Sri Lanka, Thailand etc. The westerners find it hard to grasp that There is no "agent", No "soul" or No "person" behind the fragile body that ultimately get reduced to dust. It is a fearful truth that the "I" you dearly cling to has no essence or soul in it. concur your fears!
@craigMellow I take it you have never read the Pali Nikayas.
Therefore, Ananda, stay as those who have the self as an island (attadîpâ), as those who have the self as refuge (attasaranâ), as those who have no other refuge; as those who have the dharma as an island, as those who have dhamma as refuge, as those who have no other refuge. ~ Mahaparinibbana Sutta
Puthujjana/hinayana don't make the self a refuge - they deny it. They are fools.
@craigMellow Puthujjana can refer to both monks and laypersons. Period. Ariyasavaka only refers to those who have sotapatti (the state of sotapanna). An ariyasavaka can be a layperson or a monk; they are in the triple gem sangha - puthujjana, never.
@craigMellow hina generally means 'inferior" and that certainly describes a puthujjana as well. Those who ride the inferior vehicle (hina-yana), who are puthujjana, are only looking for a better rebirth. They could not care less about the dhamma.
Ha ha ha! FYI "Hina" also means Small vehicle as opposed to "Maha".. And need I say it is Mahayana made the term "Hinayana" just because the Buddhas original teachings were too philosophical for them?? If you want to hide behind the words , be my guest!
@craigMellow Where has Mahayana deprecated the Nikayas/Agamas? It hasn't. Duh! If Mahayana goes after anyone (and it really doesn't) it would be the Theravada interpretation of Buddhism as found in their Abhidhamma.
@craigMellow When you say, "sounds like some Hindu-Buddhist cross" you don't seem to realize that much of Vedanta stems from Buddhism. Buddhism is quite original and spiritually systematic. It is my impression that you are coming from Theravada Buddhism which ultimately rests on the Abhidhamma - not the Nikayas - which was probably compiled after the first major schism around 250 B.C.E. Let me add that nowhere in the Nikayas does the Buddha deny the self (nattha attâ).
Eccles and Robinson discussed the research of three groups of scientists ..
all of whom produced starling and undeniable evidence that a "mental intention" preceded an actual neuronal firing - thereby establishing that the mind
is not the same thing as the brain, but separate entity altogether"
The Wonders of Being Human: our Brain and Our Mind, 1984 pp. 156-164
Eccles (PH.D. Neurophysiology) and Robinson (PH.D. Psychology)
No, it is perfectly logical as a claim. Buddha was only ever one person. His collective knowledge is known in part by many people, but between them, each of those people knows less than Buddha knew, and so each of them is more ignorant than Buddha. When you sum their lack of wisdom (i.e. ignorance of Buddha's teaching) and compare it to the Buddha's total wisdom, it is clear that Buddhists are ignorant of the whole of Buddha's wisdom many times over, though each only partly ignorant
The doctrine of NO-SELF or 'anatta' cannot get properly into language and so requires a leap (or leaps) of intuition to understand . There is no individual soul because at bottom the individual soul IS the Universal One Self. It is NOT part of but IS the Universal One Self. The One is the reality, the many illusion. I say 'the One' but really there is not even One, for this implies 'other' or 'others' and there are no others. It would be nearer the truth to speak of the Undifferentiated.
But if there is no "self", there is no "karma", so why teach about "karma" ? Why teach about moral philosophy ? Who is being taught, and who is doing the teaching if, in fact there is only the undifferentiated unity ? Clearly if I strike myself I feel pain not you, and if I strike you, you feel pain, not I. Where is this undifferentiated unity to be found, for it is not found in common sense ?
@formless777 No, it is not found in common sense. Nor is quantum theory found in common sense. It is at odds with common sense. So is Einsteinian relativity. So is the philosophy of Kant, Schopenhaur, Wittgenstein, etc. 'Common sense' is only the framework of reality that our age is locked into, the paradigm in which we all live, move and breathe when we are not really thinking. It's a kind of conditioned thinking. Common sense is no guide to truth.
How very amusing. I once had a lineage holding Chan Buddhist Abbot from Taiwan tell me that Quantum theory and Relativity WERE common sense, because they could all be derived from logic and observation, provided you had ENOUGH common sense.
@formless Oh, here we go again - just when I thought we were having a rational, civilised exchange. Look, I might or might not agree with your 'lineage-holding Chan Buddhist' - I'd need to ask him what he means by 'common sense'. Is it common sense that (for example) the past exists in a state of quantum indeterminacy until collapsed by the observer? On the contrary, it violates the most fundamental common sense notions - yet it is part of quantum theory. Perhaps your abbot didn't know that!
We ARE having a rational civilized exchange, neither party has started abusing the other yet, though there is abuse implicit in your insinuation that this has been lost somehow. I put it to you, how can the natural world not be amenable to common sense ? However irrational the outcomes may seem, Chaos theory shows us that nothing is random if understood to enough decimal places. Also, many of the anomalies of Quantum Physics have been solved of late.
@formless You cannot violate pure logic e.g. say that something both IS and IS NOT. That would be violating the Law of the Excluded Middle. So propositions that are internally incoherent (i.e. self-contradictory when unpacked) cannot correspond to anything real because they’re non-sense. Pure logic can lead to conclusions totally at variance with ‘common sense’ i.e. with our most fundamental presumptions about reality. Where did you get the notion that many anomalies of QP have been 'solved'?
I ask you to reconsider. A person with real common sense has fewer solid presumptions about reality, and is thus more flexible mentally, and better able to adapt their minds to the situation they face rather than relying on assumptions. As to QP anomalies being solved, haven't you heard about the tunneling electron microscope proving that electrons are neither waves nor particles but rather something akin to "time spaghetti" ? May his noodly appendage touch us all indeed :D
@formless777 Fewer solid presumptions (etc.) than WHO? A person with mere ‘common sense’ lives, moves and breathes in a paradigm of reality that he never questions, holding presuppositions that pure icy logic destroys. How can that be the insignia of a flexible and adaptable mind? And Hyper Noodle Theory retains all the counter-‘common sense’ quantum weirdness of the other theories inc. non-locality! As Bohr said: ‘If you’re not shocked by quantum mechanics, you cannot have understood it’.
A flexible and adaptable mind is never required to accept any proposition without evidence, there is a massive difference between an open mind and slack jawed gullibility; an open mind is still a skeptical mind. Also Neils Bohr said that a long time ago, back when QP was shocking, if you have grown up with it, it is a lot less shocking and seems more like "free play". Common sense means sound practical judgment in the face of new things.
@formless777 I asked, 'fewer solid presumptions (etc.) than what?'. The issue is whether 'common sense' is suited to the pursuit of ultimate truths, not what a flexible, open mind etc. is. It is now a consensus, post Bell, Aspect et al., that quantum mechanics cannot be explained within the constraints of cs. Logic, yes (otherwise we should be uttering internally incoherent non-sense) but not cs. Why be surprised? Why should the universe be under any obligation to conform to common sense?
Well, mathematics is something common sense has produced, and mathematics can describe the universe very precisely. The universe is under no obligations to use common sense, but human are, and they do, and the results are pretty good.
@formless777 Fewer solid presumptions etc. THAN WHAT? (Third time of asking this!) You say, 'The universe is under no obligations to use [sic] common sense...'. Are you agreeing with me, then, that the universe may not CONFORM to common sense? How then, for goodness sake, can we arrive at truths via mere common sense? The nature of mathematics is a source of perplexity, for it seems to exist both in ourselves and in the external world – but it is not germane to this argument.
You dismiss mathematics, but that is your mistake. The link between mathematics and common sense is so intrinsic that every language has a counting system; that makes it common sense that all humans have access to. You may be perplexed by mathematics and it's relation to the physical world, but that merely suggests that you don't have common sense so any definition you come up with must be wrong, because you don't know what you are talking about.
@formless777 Answer my questions, for goodness sake! It’s daft to say mathematics IS or IS NOT common sense - it’s like saying ‘reason’ is or is not. Bell used maths to DEMOLISH common-sense concepts. The nature of mathematics is puzzling to philosophers generally! You obviously have not grasped WHY. When physicists say that our understanding of the universe runs counter to common sense they are not denying its mathematical properties. That’s why I said it’s not germane to the argument.
The notion of Bell using maths to demolish common sense is as absurd as saying that he used common sense to demolish mathematics. One is a species of the other. Mathematics can be used as a quantitative tool for observing and describing the physical world, so how is that not common sense ? Common sense is our instinct for likely outcomes for events, and that is also dependent on our observations. Science has to start somewhere, and it starts with common sense.
@formless I didn’t say he demolished common sense, I said cs concepts. Bell did mathematical analyses of experimental data to show that either NOT p or NOT q (in the notation of propositional logic) where p and q both stand for propositions that common sense takes as sacrosanct. Of course science STARTED with cs, but by early last century was discovering truths utterly anathema to cs. Philosophy was first off the mark: the pre-Socratics were challenging the fundamental premises of cs by 500 BC.
I think you are thinking according to the preconceptions of last century. Electronics, while based entirely on quantum physics is now common sense. These so-called violations of common sense refer to the previous century's conceptions of what common sense was. Once it was considered common sense that the Earth was flat, because nobody pondered why sails appeared first over the horizon, or why there was an horizon. True common sense is an adaptable mind.
@formless777 Certainly the notion that the earth was spherical and orbited the sun once ran counter to ‘common sense’. However, the cs concepts that QM has demolished are far more deep-rooted and the break with common sense far more radical (and the resistance to quantum reality correspondingly greater). Also the implications of QM have not yet filtered through even to other scientific disciplines, never mind down to street level. Electronics technicians don’t even think about such things.
Really ? That's weird, in between chatting about the football, plumbing, wineries, and the end of WW2 I was having a discussion with my local plumber about the implications of wave particle duality last week. He seemed to have a perfectly good grasp of Young's double slit experiment and it's implications, and so did his apprentice. Electronic Technicians in my country HAVE to learn enough QP to get what they are actually doing too.
@formless Wittgenstein asked his favourite pupil Liz Anscombe why they had thought the sun went round the earth. ‘Because it appeared to, I suppose’ she said. ‘Well how would it have appeared otherwise,’ said Wittgenstein. W’s point was that the geocentric universe was NOT the only possible interpretation of the sense data. It was grounded in the more fundamental and unquestioned presumption that man was the centre of the universe. Reason could have challenged this – and did. Cs never did.
I agree that Aristotle challenged CS. But he was completely wrong, because he didn't actually have any common sense.
You seem to think that everybody has the same amount of CS, and that CS is implicitly never counter-intuitive. Well, let me put it this way... What is the common sense thing to do when the obvious approach fails ? I would suggest, trying something innovative and different based on fresh observation... but that's just common sense...
@formless777 Aristotle? Who’s talking about Aristotle? Aristotle wasn’t a pre-Socratic (he was a pupil of Plato and Plato was a pupil of Socrates). I think you’d better define common sense before you go any further. You can’t generalise from particular plumbers to plumbers in general. Nonetheless, if your plumbers understand that QM is no bedfellow of common sense (and the story is not apocryphal) then yes, they have grasped SOMETHING of QM. If not, not.
@formless777 Well, I would say 'specific' rather than 'narrow' - specific to the linguistic and situational context in which physicists talk about QM being ‘inexplicable in common sense terms’, running ‘counter to common sense’ and so on. I agree, we should both make clear what we mean by the term. I’ll let you go first, as I suggested it – though if you would rather I go first, I will.
@formless777 Common sense is the mental faculty, possessed by most humans, by means of which conclusions about the world are deduced / induced (or intuited) from experience and PREMISES TAKEN AS SELF-EVIDENT. Examples of such premises are: the external world exists independent of consciousness; everything has a cause; and we have free will. When a philosopher argues for determinism as against free will, for instance, we say he is ‘denying common sense’.
Okay, I see the problem here... One person's "self-evident" is certainly not another person's "self evident". Consider other cultures as an example; are you saying that common sense applies only to things that a Dayak from Borneo, a Pakistani sweat shop laborer, and a Russian welder would all naturally assume about the world ? That might not add up to much due to their radically different personal experiences, which would render the idea of "common sense" meaningless.
@formless777 I think when most people use the term in this context they mean trans-culturally self-evident – even if there are instances when they can be challenged on this. The premises undermined by QM, relativity et al. are surely innate, hard-wired into the brain – as are those challenged by many of the great philosophers.
@archdeaconj I feel numbers are just an interpretation or translation of what is . We break things down do learn and understand hence we use numbers . Everything just is, we then separate and categorize to understand , which in irony is what we are doing . These categories are manufactured by us to help us . What I think you are saying is that true 'self' is awareness of no categorize (numbers). I feel true self can be on any level of understanding and is just honest feeling and expression!?
Thank you for that. I'm writing a paper on Buddhism and this helped me understand what anatta means on a more personal (for lack of a better word) level. =)
The soul is what makes the body alive. The name chariot - or ne1 else's name is not disproof (or for that matter proof) of souls.
so explain to me den - how cum scientists cannot bring a dead person back to lyf. I mean they could rite - if some1 died from blood loss lets say - scientist should be able to restore the blood and then bring the person back to lyf.
this is the problem with muslims. they never understand philosophy. what they can do is like parrots vomit simple logic and cling to that. As a ex-muslim i know how my friends and relatives argue. Buddhism is for the wise, not for the fools. so grow some braines first. there is no soul. if so why cannot one stop falling sick and death?? soul is a illusion.
What you say might make sense and be understandable.
But it wasnt adressing the real point of what your were trying to refute. I would say scientists could bring somone back to life if they had advanced enough technology.
But what does life actually mean anyway? Just the functioning of the machine that is the body.
Your far too enchanted by your own religious views and community to be open to other possibilities.
Are horses part of the chariot ? Is the driver ? Can its components be broken ? Can it's wood decay ? Parts of a chariot can die, other parts were already dead and can only rot away. The driver of a chariot is as much a part of the chariot as any other part. You say he has no soul ? Is he a ginger ? Are all chariot drivers gingers ?
Goodness me, how did you manage to leave Islam? It is a very2 serious offence - the punishment is very severe.
I was told that in Buddhism you should not accept anything that you know/told to you but you have to ensure that you fully understand whatever you know with full clarity and without any doubt whatsoever.
@nbvle1919 Even I can tell pumping blood into a brain dead human will not bring him/her back to life. The only thing you have proved is that you are an imbecile.
In most of the discourses in the Khandhasamyutta of the Samyutta-Nikayas the Buddha is telling his followers that they should NOT identify their self (attâ/atma) with the five psycho-physical constituents (panca-khandha). Clearly, this is NOT a denial of self. It pays to read the Buddha's actual discourses and not Theravada Abhidhamma.
mujaku 2 weeks ago
The Buddha is recorded to have said to a Brahmin who asserted that there is “no agency who is self or another.” To this the Buddha replied: “I have never heard or seen anything of the sort. When you move forward or backward, stand or sit or lie down, are you not using initiative? Well, isn’t that self-agency (attâ-kara)? (A.iii.377)
mujaku 2 weeks ago
The legendary Thai monk Phramongkolthepmuni (1884–1959) even believed that Nirvana/Nibbana was the Self or atman. The Buddha's true body, the Dharmakaya, is, according to Phramonkolthepmuni, niccam (permanent), sukham (blissful), and atta (self/soul).
mujaku 3 weeks ago
@mujaku
Buddha him self declared that his teachings (Dhammakaya) is also not permanant (Anicca). The three main foundations of Buddhism (thrilakshana) are Dhukka , Anicca and Anatta. To declare that there is actually a Atta (soul) is going against the basic teachings of Buddha. The Dhukka arise because of Illusion of "Self", The craving arises because of illusion of self.
craigMellow 2 weeks ago
In Pali atta (soul/self) and attâ are used in several ways. 1) The self is itself and not other. This stands to reason for if the self were other than itself it would be something else; 2) The self as a signifier of one's body and mind; 3) Self as transcendent to all determination, e.g., this is not the self. Most of the errors regarding self are called attagâbha, i.e., misconceptions regarding the self.
mujaku 3 weeks ago
They wander about in the world (loke), having the soul/self as an island (attadipa), having no-thing (akiñcanâ), completely freed in every respect. ~ Sutta-Nipata
Make of the soul/self (attano) an island (dipam)! Strive quickly, be wise (pandito). With impurities removed now purified you will reach the divine (dibbam), the Aryan abode (ariyabhumi). — Dhammapada
mujaku 3 weeks ago
@mujaku
Are you quoting from Dhammapada, could you be more specific ??
craigMellow 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This person is a complete fool, and knows utterly nothing about the pali term anatta (skt: anatman). is an adjective in sutra referring to phenomena as being devoid of the Soul, that being the ontological and uncompounded subjective Self (atman) which is the “light (dipam), and only refuge” [DN 2.100]. There are 662 occurrences of Anatta, its usage refers to 22 nouns. [KN J-1441] “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”. There is never and nowhere in sutra, a ‘doctrine of no-Soul’,
kathodosdotcom 3 weeks ago
@kathodosdotcom Is this what incited you to post your videos, the time corresponds to your posts on your channel? If so t that's great! So this is how you get people who know stuff to come out of the academic closet. Without these turkeys, I'd never have found your website. It boggles the mind when you have "buddhists" talking about no self and in the same sentence talking about one's "essential nature/being". And now you are flagged as spam, nice.
danielfedorchuk 7 hours ago
Comment removed
kathodosdotcom 3 weeks ago
I follow my feelings , my intelligence makes my feeling more and more diverse and varied as I live I pick up more and more knowledge to use as a tool of understanding and expression - This is all 100% TRUTH I know that no teachings or books can change my feelings just help me interpret them but truth in my feelings will never change :)
kateadam28 1 year ago
Just because Buddha denied Soul one need not accept it, that is against the Buddha's teaching first of all. I said Paradox, Truth is paradoxical, but Buddha is not hundred percent right in all the things. He failed. Buddhists are just blind followers, the less said the better the connection between Budha and ists. If Buddha has no evolved Soul, then what is the difference between an ignorant layman and an Enlightened Buddha being?
sunfield00 1 year ago
The Essential Spirit is the evolving SOUL which is in conjuction with Param Athma the Super Soul. Buddhists have erred in understanding properly and they have erred in understanding the Karma Theory also. Except for Buddhas Dhyana, all other or most of the things are repetitive borrowed from Hindu scriptures junk. All your Nirvana etc is a crap and nobody achieved any Nirvana upto now. Have you achieved Nirvana? Hence I said
No Soul is only half Truth and Soul is also half Truth a real paradox
sunfield00 1 year ago
@sunfield00
And what is a soul made of ?
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 and what is a "Buddha" made of? Body and Mind?..lol...your own "Buddha" is an obstacle to your question. Then there is no "Buddha" as such, but you are unnecessarily following dead books and a dead wise-donkey....or some funny jathaka tales...
sunfield00 1 year ago
@sunfield00
So, this Mind you speak of, what is that made of ? Is it made of the same stuff as this soul you speak of ?
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 Your invisible mind seems to animating your mouth - so you have a start. Just look deeper like the old Zen master did; then you will find what the Buddha transmitted to Mahakshapya.
mujaku 2 weeks ago
@mujaku
The chemical and biological processes by which electrical impulses are sent from the brain to the mouth are well understood. Language creation is less well understood, but remarkable progress has been made recently regarding the formation of words in the brain. Science will in time understand all these things, and replicate them in medicine, and Buddha will be no part of that process. Also, you are delusional, I did not use my mouth to write this or my previous comment.
formless777 2 weeks ago
@formless777 I take it you assume that language rises from biological matter. So when you eat a hamburger, does it talk to you? Hahahahaha!
mujaku 2 weeks ago
@sunfield00
Hang on sunfield00, where is your proof of the soul ? Where is your tangible evidence that the soul exists ? Your entire position hangs on your ability to show us that the soul isn't an illusion. I bet you just have subjective personal evidence that is worth nothing to us.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777
where is the proof of "Buddha"? The monuments? Where is the proof of Nirvana? Even if anyone have, then it will be also subjective personal evidence that is worth nothing to us. Who cares about "Nirvana"? Sadness of monks? Soul is bliss, Enjoy Life...celebrate...don't be depressed with stale Buddhism...just because you uploaded video in you-tube doesn't make you right and me wrong...I have answered many like you fittingly...
sunfield00 1 year ago
@sunfield00
If soul is bliss then it vanishes very quickly. All things are impermanent. How is it that you still speak of the Buddha ?
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777
Bliss is permanent and natural state, that which is not-anatta (arhata?) is soul. Soul is both: the universal and the individual. Two words have been used: universal soul, meaning pure consciousness, the divine; then the individual soul, or self. That the soul is immortal is not a theory; it is not an ideology. It is the experience of certain individuals. Only when experience is what you want can experience alone solve the riddle, “What is life? What is death?” ...CONTD next para
sunfield00 1 year ago
@formless777
And as soon as you have the experience you will come to know that life is, that death is not – that only life is, that there is no death at all. Then we will be in a position to say that death just happens. We cannot think of God as being created because if he is created then he is not God; he becomes a thing. The same is true of the soul: the soul is not a created phenomenon. And not only the soul – even matter is not a created phenomenon.
sunfield00 1 year ago
@formless777
Buddha has no body, he is just a soul. By soul I mean that every particle of his existence has become aware.
The individual soul is under bondage through ignorance and limiting adjuncts such as mind, body and senses. It is mere appearance. It is illusory. When it attains knowledge of the Imperishable, it is freed from limiting adjuncts and bondage. Just as the bubble becomes one with the ocean, so also the Jiva becomes one with the Supreme Soul when ignorance is destroyed.
-CONTD
sunfield00 1 year ago
@formless777
Some do not bother about transmigration of souls, about philosophical questions like “Who am I? Whence and where? Whither? What remains after death? What is life? What is then on the other side of death? When the body dies what conditions shall man pass into; in which world shall he find himself?” They think that those who make such enquiries are ignorant persons and that they are the only clever and wise persons. No argument can convince them or change their views.
sunfield00 1 year ago
@formless777
formless, you are fomfull with script. They have written volumes after volumes against the existence of the soul. Wonderful people indeed with perverted intellects!
Consciousness, intelligence and bliss are the attributes of the Universal Soul. This body is constantly changing. This physical body, which is a combination of the five elements, will be destroyed. But the eternal Soul which is the basis, substratum and source for matter, energy, mind will ever remain.
BEST REGARDS. OM
sunfield00 1 year ago
@sunfield00
Okay, they say they have this experience...where is their proof ? Also, the location of the soul you have just suggested is within what is known as the Quantum Foam. It isn't there. Science has already looked.
We are just complex amalgams of carbon slowly oxidizing, and when we die, the meat goes off.
Soul ? Nope, try a pessimistic interpretation of the doctrine of Anatta instead.
formless777 1 year ago
@sunfield00
The requirement that people who make extraordinary claims is in no sense a perversion of intellect, it is the necessary exercise of an open but skeptical mind.
There are 2 sorts of religious people... the insane, and the frauds. One is perversion by dint of mental malfunction, the other is cold evil and exploitative perversion. One must be medicated, the other must be jailed, and both are compassionate acts. There is no transcendence, only delusion.
formless777 1 year ago
@sunfield00
Everyone asks the what remains after death question. Some people decide that because they can't imagine being dead, or because they can't market the obvious truth to the gullible public that some part of them doesn't die. On the other hand when called upon to quantify their Pollyanna subjectivism with evidence, they rudely faceplant... but the gullible persist in believing them because they fear the truth with all their cowardly delusional hearts.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777
You are totally wrong and arguing pointlessly. You are just making your own statements, without even trying to understand others. .. All your KARMAPAs, DalaiLamas believe in reincarnations..
sunfield00 1 year ago
@sunfield00
Just because some Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhists insist that they are reincarnations (rinpoches) of former supposedly enlightened people doesn't mean it is true. In fact, given the endemic corruption of Tibetan Buddhism it is more likely to be a lie. If Tibet truly had such a brilliant and magnificent karma, how did it get over-run by the Chinese ? The mountains themselves would have risen in its defense if it weren't all just BS.
formless777 1 year ago
@sunfield00
There is no soul, it is merely the ancients reaching some erroneous conclusions about the human respiration.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 Dude, "buddha" is the past participle of "bujjhati" which means 'to recognize' in the example of recognizing nirvana or Aryan truth. In the strict sense, Buddha is not the Buddha's name. Try Lord.
Yes, and even impermanence is impermanent - and suffering, too, is impermanent and will vanish if you should get lucky and stop clinging to mind's phenomenalizations.
mujaku 2 weeks ago
@mujaku
By Aryan, I assume you mean Fascist or Nazi truth. Pardon me if I have little time for truths that waste lives and cannot be questioned for fear of blasphemy. If things are impermanent, then surely this truth of which you speak is also impermanent, by simple logical deduction.
formless777 2 weeks ago
@formless777 When one reads Sanskrit of Pali, Buddhist texts are rife with the word aryan (Pali, ariya). It is often trans. by the English word noble. But aryan is much deeper. At any rate, it was white folk who borrowed the term for the purposes of eugenics. Aryan has nothing whatsoever to do with race. If we speak of aryan, aryans follow the spiritual light (jyoti). They could be African, Native Americans, Chinese and yes - even white folks, but very few. ;)
mujaku 2 weeks ago
@mujaku
Are you telling me you see no connection between Buddhism and Nazism ? The Aryanism and swastikas are no accident. Try harder. The fact is that the NAZIs made a point of going to Tibet, and a number of Tibetans became members of the SS.
The fact is that Buddhists have continuously supported fascist regimes (e.g. WW2 Japan & Nazis) throughout history. Not very humane or enlightened.
formless777 2 weeks ago
@formless777 Oh, it's Buddhism's fault (and Hinduism's) that stupid-ass Nazis used the Swastika and changed the word "aryan" into something far from its real meaning? Buddhism has no Pope or Holy See - so it collectively doesn't support any nation or its particular predatory ideology like fascism and capitalism. If you're looking for scape goats try Judaism and Christianity.
mujaku 2 weeks ago
@mujaku
Really ? And what do the Chinese massacred at Nanjing with the blessings of Japan's various Mahayana sects have to say to that ? "Follow your guru without question and if this world is a veil of tears, try to make it a little bit worse for those less fortunate than you, because they deserve to suffer for the things they did in past lives that made their current incarnation horrible." A sick sick doctrine, but the core of Buddhist social policy.
formless777 2 weeks ago
@formless777 Wow! Now you are lumping up with Mahayana Buddhism with the rape of Nanjing. Seems like a lot of Christians followed Hitler who was a good Catholic. What kind of religion tells people to follow leaders who hate Jews except a sick religion that needs to be put into the dustbin of history.
mujaku 2 weeks ago
@mujaku
You do know that the Japanese government held ceremonies in Nanjing to celebrate the capture of the Chinese capital and prominent Mahayana clergy officiated on the army's behalf, and the same sects backed the Japanese Fascists in the propaganda war from the outset I assume ? Many of those sects STILL support the re-militarization of Japan and the same world conquest agenda, no joke. Tibetan Buddhists also joined the SS, it's an historical fact.
formless777 2 weeks ago
@mujaku
Do you really think that defending your stupid cult is achieved by pointing out another stupid cult is similarly foul and iniquitous ? Mahayana Buddhism and Roman Catholicism are both guilty of grotesque evils, and if they had any sense of decency or humanity they would disband themselves rather than wear such vile stains.
formless777 2 weeks ago
@formless777 Mahayana Buddhism is not at all like the Catholic church. There is no Pope or Holy See. Tibetans embrace Mahayana Buddhism, too. So I guess according to your goofy logic they are also responsible for what went on in Nanking. Sorry But Mahayana Buddhism can't be a target for your lies and hatred. I celebrate Mahayana Buddhism, the true Aryan religion of light. Go back into your dark lair sir.
mujaku 2 weeks ago
@mujaku
Firstly, Vajrayana is not Mahayana. Secondly I am not discussing the rude forms of the religion, I am discussing atrocities committed in the name of the religion. When the Mahayana Tendai, Nichiren and Pure Land sects all blessed the soldiers of Japan while Nanjing burned around them, and their followers actively raped and murdered defenseless Chinese civilians, they were complicit in the atrocities. Only a few Zen outcasts voiced any dissent. The dark lair of ignorance is yours sir.
formless777 2 weeks ago
@formless777 You've repeatedly shown your ignorance about Buddhism, including Tibetan Buddhism. Let the historians fight it out as to how many Chinese were actually killed in Nanking. As for Mahayana Buddhism its texts do not sanction the murder of fellow Buddhists, including sentient beings! Provide some evidence of Japanese Buddhist priests telling Japanese soldiers to slaughter sentient beings. Otherwise STFU.
mujaku 2 weeks ago
@mujaku
Of course they told the Japanese soldiers to slaughter innocent civilians. It was the karma of those civilians to be slaughtered for their evil past deeds. Japanese Buddhist Priests didn't view the Chinese as being properly human beings at all, or truly sentient, but as sub-human animal killers who could never be enlightened. They blessed the troops to kill them. You will find Mahayana texts that support this attitude if you bother to look.
formless777 2 weeks ago
@formless777 Thus far you've produced no evidence for you claim. If the Japanese priests told the Japanese soldiers to slaughter the sub-human Chinese then where is your evidence? Produce a proper academic citation, title, author, specific page number etc.
mujaku 2 weeks ago
@mujaku
Do you read Chinese ?
formless777 2 weeks ago
@mujaku
I agree with you on this.
This guy is trolling, I would Ignore him.
craigMellow 2 weeks ago
No Soul is only half Truth and Yes Soul is also Some Truth, So Soul is actually Paradox,. Buddha never denied Hindu Gods or many of the Hindu knowledge. Soul at the Human level when equated with ego and mind, thoughts, conditioning etc is definitely an illusion and false, but when it is Pure and still with meditation and realized with total consiouness then that Soul is a Buddha or Awakened and it is really a Athma or Shudhathma or Jivathma at Individual level. So Anatta is obsolete, Athma Real
sunfield00 1 year ago
@sunfield00
Buddha clearly denied soul. Not only that he considered that a major concept that blocks the way to Nirvana.
Soul is a meaningless idea that every religion, except Buddhism accepts. There were 64 philosophies and religions comtemporary to Buddhism but nothing called Hinduism was there at that time. Buddhism is unique in the sense that it denies soul and promply direct us to see that, behind perception there is no agent, soul or hidden entity.
craigMellow 1 year ago 3
@craigMellow
I answered you above, by the way I did not talk or said anything about Hinduism or I am not obligatory to your Buddhas authority, you may be a slave to that thinking, I am free AND HENCE I believe in my experience of Atma and I know it...I don't go by Buddha's word and accept it, like you. You may be a theologian, I don't care, still you are wrong and you have no experience. You are talking but hiding contradictions in your Buddha's teachings, don't they accept Brahma, Gods..?
sunfield00 1 year ago
@craigMellow I gather you haven't read much Buddhism!
"'The Atman is the Tathagatagarbha. All beings possess a Buddha Nature: this is what the Atman is. This Atman, from the start, is always covered by innumerable passions (klesha): this is why beings are unable to see it." — Mahayanamahaparinirvana-sutra
mujaku 3 weeks ago
@mujaku
I guess you follow Mahayana Buddhism. In fact Mahayana is a deviation of original teachings of Buddha. The Theravada or Hinayana Buddhism is the original teachings of Buddha which is Followed in Burma, Sri Lanka, Thailand etc. The westerners find it hard to grasp that There is no "agent", No "soul" or No "person" behind the fragile body that ultimately get reduced to dust. It is a fearful truth that the "I" you dearly cling to has no essence or soul in it. concur your fears!
craigMellow 3 weeks ago
@craigMellow I take it you have never read the Pali Nikayas.
Therefore, Ananda, stay as those who have the self as an island (attadîpâ), as those who have the self as refuge (attasaranâ), as those who have no other refuge; as those who have the dharma as an island, as those who have dhamma as refuge, as those who have no other refuge. ~ Mahaparinibbana Sutta
Puthujjana/hinayana don't make the self a refuge - they deny it. They are fools.
mujaku 3 weeks ago
@mujaku
You need to get the meanings of words correctly.
Puthagjjana are Laymen-those who have not fully entered the path of Nirwana. Puthagjjana has nothing to with Hinayana or theravada sects
craigMellow 2 weeks ago
@craigMellow Puthujjana can refer to both monks and laypersons. Period. Ariyasavaka only refers to those who have sotapatti (the state of sotapanna). An ariyasavaka can be a layperson or a monk; they are in the triple gem sangha - puthujjana, never.
mujaku 2 weeks ago
@mujaku
Puthagjana has nothing to do with the sects of Buddhism, that was my point.
craigMellow 2 weeks ago
@craigMellow hina generally means 'inferior" and that certainly describes a puthujjana as well. Those who ride the inferior vehicle (hina-yana), who are puthujjana, are only looking for a better rebirth. They could not care less about the dhamma.
mujaku 2 weeks ago
@mujaku
Ha ha ha! FYI "Hina" also means Small vehicle as opposed to "Maha".. And need I say it is Mahayana made the term "Hinayana" just because the Buddhas original teachings were too philosophical for them?? If you want to hide behind the words , be my guest!
craigMellow 2 weeks ago
@craigMellow Where has Mahayana deprecated the Nikayas/Agamas? It hasn't. Duh! If Mahayana goes after anyone (and it really doesn't) it would be the Theravada interpretation of Buddhism as found in their Abhidhamma.
mujaku 2 weeks ago
@mujaku
Hmm..Thathagathagarbha? Sounds like some Hindu-Buddhist cross to me.
craigMellow 2 weeks ago
@craigMellow When you say, "sounds like some Hindu-Buddhist cross" you don't seem to realize that much of Vedanta stems from Buddhism. Buddhism is quite original and spiritually systematic. It is my impression that you are coming from Theravada Buddhism which ultimately rests on the Abhidhamma - not the Nikayas - which was probably compiled after the first major schism around 250 B.C.E. Let me add that nowhere in the Nikayas does the Buddha deny the self (nattha attâ).
mujaku 2 weeks ago
Eccles and Robinson discussed the research of three groups of scientists ..
all of whom produced starling and undeniable evidence that a "mental intention" preceded an actual neuronal firing - thereby establishing that the mind
is not the same thing as the brain, but separate entity altogether"
The Wonders of Being Human: our Brain and Our Mind, 1984 pp. 156-164
Eccles (PH.D. Neurophysiology) and Robinson (PH.D. Psychology)
Texoki 2 years ago
we all come from the same big bang, at one point we were all very close
HealingVibrations 2 years ago
Nothing can be compared to the absolute wisdom of Buddha
gleb202 2 years ago
@gleb202
The ignorance of Buddha's followers seems greater than his wisdom.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 ''..The ignorance of Buddhas followers seems greater than his wisdom''
One of the most senseless claims i've ever heard, which moreover has nothing to do with what i wrote here either.
gleb202 1 year ago
@gleb202
No, it is perfectly logical as a claim. Buddha was only ever one person. His collective knowledge is known in part by many people, but between them, each of those people knows less than Buddha knew, and so each of them is more ignorant than Buddha. When you sum their lack of wisdom (i.e. ignorance of Buddha's teaching) and compare it to the Buddha's total wisdom, it is clear that Buddhists are ignorant of the whole of Buddha's wisdom many times over, though each only partly ignorant
formless777 1 year ago
The doctrine of NO-SELF or 'anatta' cannot get properly into language and so requires a leap (or leaps) of intuition to understand . There is no individual soul because at bottom the individual soul IS the Universal One Self. It is NOT part of but IS the Universal One Self. The One is the reality, the many illusion. I say 'the One' but really there is not even One, for this implies 'other' or 'others' and there are no others. It would be nearer the truth to speak of the Undifferentiated.
archdeaconj 2 years ago 8
@archdeaconj
But if there is no "self", there is no "karma", so why teach about "karma" ? Why teach about moral philosophy ? Who is being taught, and who is doing the teaching if, in fact there is only the undifferentiated unity ? Clearly if I strike myself I feel pain not you, and if I strike you, you feel pain, not I. Where is this undifferentiated unity to be found, for it is not found in common sense ?
Step 1. Gather underpants
Step 2.
Step 3. Enlightenment ?
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 No, it is not found in common sense. Nor is quantum theory found in common sense. It is at odds with common sense. So is Einsteinian relativity. So is the philosophy of Kant, Schopenhaur, Wittgenstein, etc. 'Common sense' is only the framework of reality that our age is locked into, the paradigm in which we all live, move and breathe when we are not really thinking. It's a kind of conditioned thinking. Common sense is no guide to truth.
archdeaconj 1 year ago
@archdeaconj
How very amusing. I once had a lineage holding Chan Buddhist Abbot from Taiwan tell me that Quantum theory and Relativity WERE common sense, because they could all be derived from logic and observation, provided you had ENOUGH common sense.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless Oh, here we go again - just when I thought we were having a rational, civilised exchange. Look, I might or might not agree with your 'lineage-holding Chan Buddhist' - I'd need to ask him what he means by 'common sense'. Is it common sense that (for example) the past exists in a state of quantum indeterminacy until collapsed by the observer? On the contrary, it violates the most fundamental common sense notions - yet it is part of quantum theory. Perhaps your abbot didn't know that!
archdeaconj 1 year ago
@archdeaconj
We ARE having a rational civilized exchange, neither party has started abusing the other yet, though there is abuse implicit in your insinuation that this has been lost somehow. I put it to you, how can the natural world not be amenable to common sense ? However irrational the outcomes may seem, Chaos theory shows us that nothing is random if understood to enough decimal places. Also, many of the anomalies of Quantum Physics have been solved of late.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless You cannot violate pure logic e.g. say that something both IS and IS NOT. That would be violating the Law of the Excluded Middle. So propositions that are internally incoherent (i.e. self-contradictory when unpacked) cannot correspond to anything real because they’re non-sense. Pure logic can lead to conclusions totally at variance with ‘common sense’ i.e. with our most fundamental presumptions about reality. Where did you get the notion that many anomalies of QP have been 'solved'?
archdeaconj 1 year ago
@archdeaconj
I ask you to reconsider. A person with real common sense has fewer solid presumptions about reality, and is thus more flexible mentally, and better able to adapt their minds to the situation they face rather than relying on assumptions. As to QP anomalies being solved, haven't you heard about the tunneling electron microscope proving that electrons are neither waves nor particles but rather something akin to "time spaghetti" ? May his noodly appendage touch us all indeed :D
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 Fewer solid presumptions (etc.) than WHO? A person with mere ‘common sense’ lives, moves and breathes in a paradigm of reality that he never questions, holding presuppositions that pure icy logic destroys. How can that be the insignia of a flexible and adaptable mind? And Hyper Noodle Theory retains all the counter-‘common sense’ quantum weirdness of the other theories inc. non-locality! As Bohr said: ‘If you’re not shocked by quantum mechanics, you cannot have understood it’.
archdeaconj 1 year ago
@archdeaconj
A flexible and adaptable mind is never required to accept any proposition without evidence, there is a massive difference between an open mind and slack jawed gullibility; an open mind is still a skeptical mind. Also Neils Bohr said that a long time ago, back when QP was shocking, if you have grown up with it, it is a lot less shocking and seems more like "free play". Common sense means sound practical judgment in the face of new things.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 I asked, 'fewer solid presumptions (etc.) than what?'. The issue is whether 'common sense' is suited to the pursuit of ultimate truths, not what a flexible, open mind etc. is. It is now a consensus, post Bell, Aspect et al., that quantum mechanics cannot be explained within the constraints of cs. Logic, yes (otherwise we should be uttering internally incoherent non-sense) but not cs. Why be surprised? Why should the universe be under any obligation to conform to common sense?
archdeaconj 1 year ago
@archdeaconj
Well, mathematics is something common sense has produced, and mathematics can describe the universe very precisely. The universe is under no obligations to use common sense, but human are, and they do, and the results are pretty good.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 Fewer solid presumptions etc. THAN WHAT? (Third time of asking this!) You say, 'The universe is under no obligations to use [sic] common sense...'. Are you agreeing with me, then, that the universe may not CONFORM to common sense? How then, for goodness sake, can we arrive at truths via mere common sense? The nature of mathematics is a source of perplexity, for it seems to exist both in ourselves and in the external world – but it is not germane to this argument.
archdeaconj 1 year ago
@archdeaconj
You dismiss mathematics, but that is your mistake. The link between mathematics and common sense is so intrinsic that every language has a counting system; that makes it common sense that all humans have access to. You may be perplexed by mathematics and it's relation to the physical world, but that merely suggests that you don't have common sense so any definition you come up with must be wrong, because you don't know what you are talking about.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 Answer my questions, for goodness sake! It’s daft to say mathematics IS or IS NOT common sense - it’s like saying ‘reason’ is or is not. Bell used maths to DEMOLISH common-sense concepts. The nature of mathematics is puzzling to philosophers generally! You obviously have not grasped WHY. When physicists say that our understanding of the universe runs counter to common sense they are not denying its mathematical properties. That’s why I said it’s not germane to the argument.
archdeaconj 1 year ago
@archdeaconj
The notion of Bell using maths to demolish common sense is as absurd as saying that he used common sense to demolish mathematics. One is a species of the other. Mathematics can be used as a quantitative tool for observing and describing the physical world, so how is that not common sense ? Common sense is our instinct for likely outcomes for events, and that is also dependent on our observations. Science has to start somewhere, and it starts with common sense.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless I didn’t say he demolished common sense, I said cs concepts. Bell did mathematical analyses of experimental data to show that either NOT p or NOT q (in the notation of propositional logic) where p and q both stand for propositions that common sense takes as sacrosanct. Of course science STARTED with cs, but by early last century was discovering truths utterly anathema to cs. Philosophy was first off the mark: the pre-Socratics were challenging the fundamental premises of cs by 500 BC.
archdeaconj 1 year ago
@archdeaconj
I think you are thinking according to the preconceptions of last century. Electronics, while based entirely on quantum physics is now common sense. These so-called violations of common sense refer to the previous century's conceptions of what common sense was. Once it was considered common sense that the Earth was flat, because nobody pondered why sails appeared first over the horizon, or why there was an horizon. True common sense is an adaptable mind.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 Certainly the notion that the earth was spherical and orbited the sun once ran counter to ‘common sense’. However, the cs concepts that QM has demolished are far more deep-rooted and the break with common sense far more radical (and the resistance to quantum reality correspondingly greater). Also the implications of QM have not yet filtered through even to other scientific disciplines, never mind down to street level. Electronics technicians don’t even think about such things.
archdeaconj 1 year ago
@archdeaconj
Really ? That's weird, in between chatting about the football, plumbing, wineries, and the end of WW2 I was having a discussion with my local plumber about the implications of wave particle duality last week. He seemed to have a perfectly good grasp of Young's double slit experiment and it's implications, and so did his apprentice. Electronic Technicians in my country HAVE to learn enough QP to get what they are actually doing too.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless Wittgenstein asked his favourite pupil Liz Anscombe why they had thought the sun went round the earth. ‘Because it appeared to, I suppose’ she said. ‘Well how would it have appeared otherwise,’ said Wittgenstein. W’s point was that the geocentric universe was NOT the only possible interpretation of the sense data. It was grounded in the more fundamental and unquestioned presumption that man was the centre of the universe. Reason could have challenged this – and did. Cs never did.
archdeaconj 1 year ago
@archdeaconj
I agree that Aristotle challenged CS. But he was completely wrong, because he didn't actually have any common sense.
You seem to think that everybody has the same amount of CS, and that CS is implicitly never counter-intuitive. Well, let me put it this way... What is the common sense thing to do when the obvious approach fails ? I would suggest, trying something innovative and different based on fresh observation... but that's just common sense...
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 Aristotle? Who’s talking about Aristotle? Aristotle wasn’t a pre-Socratic (he was a pupil of Plato and Plato was a pupil of Socrates). I think you’d better define common sense before you go any further. You can’t generalise from particular plumbers to plumbers in general. Nonetheless, if your plumbers understand that QM is no bedfellow of common sense (and the story is not apocryphal) then yes, they have grasped SOMETHING of QM. If not, not.
archdeaconj 1 year ago
@archdeaconj
Well, yes, perhaps we should define common sense. I suspect your definition is too narrow.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 Well, I would say 'specific' rather than 'narrow' - specific to the linguistic and situational context in which physicists talk about QM being ‘inexplicable in common sense terms’, running ‘counter to common sense’ and so on. I agree, we should both make clear what we mean by the term. I’ll let you go first, as I suggested it – though if you would rather I go first, I will.
archdeaconj 1 year ago
@archdeaconj
Well, my definition of common sense is this: An adaptable and intuitively practical approach to situations.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 Common sense is the mental faculty, possessed by most humans, by means of which conclusions about the world are deduced / induced (or intuited) from experience and PREMISES TAKEN AS SELF-EVIDENT. Examples of such premises are: the external world exists independent of consciousness; everything has a cause; and we have free will. When a philosopher argues for determinism as against free will, for instance, we say he is ‘denying common sense’.
archdeaconj 1 year ago
@archdeaconj
Okay, I see the problem here... One person's "self-evident" is certainly not another person's "self evident". Consider other cultures as an example; are you saying that common sense applies only to things that a Dayak from Borneo, a Pakistani sweat shop laborer, and a Russian welder would all naturally assume about the world ? That might not add up to much due to their radically different personal experiences, which would render the idea of "common sense" meaningless.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 I think when most people use the term in this context they mean trans-culturally self-evident – even if there are instances when they can be challenged on this. The premises undermined by QM, relativity et al. are surely innate, hard-wired into the brain – as are those challenged by many of the great philosophers.
archdeaconj 1 year ago
@archdeaconj I feel numbers are just an interpretation or translation of what is . We break things down do learn and understand hence we use numbers . Everything just is, we then separate and categorize to understand , which in irony is what we are doing . These categories are manufactured by us to help us . What I think you are saying is that true 'self' is awareness of no categorize (numbers). I feel true self can be on any level of understanding and is just honest feeling and expression!?
kateadam28 1 year ago
@archdeaconj
Thank you for that. I'm writing a paper on Buddhism and this helped me understand what anatta means on a more personal (for lack of a better word) level. =)
BlueBackflip 8 months ago
@BlueBackflip Ah, you're welcome. Good luck with your paper!
archdeaconj 8 months ago
oh damn sorry for using txt language - n slang. guess it means my spelling is poor and therefore not as educated as u.!!!!
nbvle1919 2 years ago
HAHA - stupid - the chariot is not alive.
The soul is what makes the body alive. The name chariot - or ne1 else's name is not disproof (or for that matter proof) of souls.
so explain to me den - how cum scientists cannot bring a dead person back to lyf. I mean they could rite - if some1 died from blood loss lets say - scientist should be able to restore the blood and then bring the person back to lyf.
so why has this not happened yet????
nbvle1919 2 years ago
this is the problem with muslims. they never understand philosophy. what they can do is like parrots vomit simple logic and cling to that. As a ex-muslim i know how my friends and relatives argue. Buddhism is for the wise, not for the fools. so grow some braines first. there is no soul. if so why cannot one stop falling sick and death?? soul is a illusion.
craigMellow 2 years ago
u r sooo stupid - look u just contradicted urself agen. u just sed that i cling to simple logic - so ur saying i make sense.
BTW - falling sick and death is very weak statement - so weak it don't make sense.
who sed the soul heals u - the soul is not a type of medicine u no!!!!!
in fact u die because u have a soul
the chariot cannot die - it has no soul - it cannot get sick (i'm just sayin dat last bit - dunno wat its got to do wid a soul)
explain what the sick bit has got do do wid the soul.
nbvle1919 2 years ago
oops what noob. real AH. wow ! you sounds like islamic einstein ...ha ha ha..
craigMellow 2 years ago
yep u wud say dat now - cos u got nufin to say lol.
n u still haven't explained what sikness has got to do wid the soul
u come out wid some rite weird stuff
nbvle1919 2 years ago
@craigMellow You are You, and I am Me, we are not the same person, There...... that's the soul...
watch this video to see what what anatman really means....
watch?v=ie8wd4aeBGE
BeamSurfer 1 year ago
What you say might make sense and be understandable.
But it wasnt adressing the real point of what your were trying to refute. I would say scientists could bring somone back to life if they had advanced enough technology.
But what does life actually mean anyway? Just the functioning of the machine that is the body.
Your far too enchanted by your own religious views and community to be open to other possibilities.
Jtherva 2 years ago
@nbvle1919
Are horses part of the chariot ? Is the driver ? Can its components be broken ? Can it's wood decay ? Parts of a chariot can die, other parts were already dead and can only rot away. The driver of a chariot is as much a part of the chariot as any other part. You say he has no soul ? Is he a ginger ? Are all chariot drivers gingers ?
formless777 1 year ago
Goodness me, how did you manage to leave Islam? It is a very2 serious offence - the punishment is very severe.
I was told that in Buddhism you should not accept anything that you know/told to you but you have to ensure that you fully understand whatever you know with full clarity and without any doubt whatsoever.
tfchan46 2 years ago
who is to punish this man for his offence? and what way?
MrGoodday2 2 years ago
@craigMellow still u didn t answer his question
delagrazia 1 year ago
@nbvle1919 Yeah!what a difficult puzzle u solved!U-r definitely wise!
and then the greeks look at each other in total surprise thinking .."wtf?"
"this couldnt have been a joke",
delagrazia 1 year ago
@nbvle1919
scientists do bring people back to life...it is called CPR.
formless777 1 year ago
@nbvle1919 Even I can tell pumping blood into a brain dead human will not bring him/her back to life. The only thing you have proved is that you are an imbecile.
TheGaGaGorillas 9 months ago
Best answer.
DharmaJourney 2 years ago
thanks.very good man....u have done very good video...
Boho pin...Keep it up ur good work
May u be happy always.
May tripple Gem Bless u
thejanudesilva 3 years ago
Buddha was so wise!!
kusalaviro 3 years ago