Thank you for your wonderful suggestions. Its futile to search for the truth when the truth is in each potential enlightened beings. Thank you for provable skepticism. I just think, I am skeptical about your views because you base everything has to be proven. Can you prove love or enlightenment for that matter? Well, its all good and may the light find your way as well. I see dukha everywhere because one is always trying to prove. My Karma is proven to me. I don't have to prove to none. ;) Love!
You say coincidence, I say Karma. You say no re-birth. I say possible. You say Buddha says to skeptical, I say Buddha said understand within. You say NO-Self. I say NO-Self only if you understand the Atma. Without Atma, your understanding may not have ground. You say SB. I say vows. After all there is nothing new under the sun. Nothing new to discover or rediscover. You say no Karma. I say Karma is an idea to be on the path to understand deeper atma. Nothing is perfect, therefore it is Samsara.
When did I say "coincidence?" When did I say "no rebirth"? Is "being skeptical" the opposite of "understanding within"? I am an agnostic, not a believer in one way or another. I accept what there is good evidence for, on every other point, I keep an open mind.
Karma as "cause and effect" is fine, I have evidence for that, and it has value toward morality.
But surely you are not saying the Buddha believed in Atma -- you represent the Hindu view?
Then you believe in re-birth. Then also you believe in not just coincidence that this discourse is even taking place. It is our Karma that lead to this point. AGain it is my view you would say. If your 5-6 senses cannot feel, see or touch it then it is not true for you. I may agree but not entirely. Nothing is real therefore everything is real for this samsara. Believe and you will know. Why just Buddhism? It could apply to any other philosophy as well. I am learning from you. Thank you. Namas
I do not "believe" in rebirth, I do not believe it's a coincidence we're having this conversation, I believe you were drawn to a subject that I posted a video about; that's nothing to do with karma or coincidence, that's cause and effect.
I read widely, not just Buddhism, but Buddhism takes enough of my effort as a practice! : ) Namasté, pklama, may the light always be there to lead you.
So, in other words, SB is perfect, without any defect. No I didn't say, I am doing good because I want re-birth? I am doing good as a human because I can. Compassion is always present in human nature as well as negativity. Buddha's path was simple follow 4 noble truths and 8 fold paths. It is one's way of looking the coin this or that side, doesn't mean you are looking at complete different coin. It still the same coin. Buddha-nature? U say concept, I view a path to disciplining our action. OM
(B) The origin of compassion in Buddhism is that once we correctly perceive the lack of self, and how we suffer from incorrect views of ourselves and the world, we then can very easily see that all of us suffer under the same confused views. We understand why people "do bad things" -- they are confused; we understand that intolerance (the lack of compassion) is not helpful to us or to them.
(1) The Buddha did not say there was an atman. That is a Vedic/Brahminical/Hindu concept. The Buddha's teaching was about ANatmant -- not-self.
(2) Karma and rebirth are likewise V/B/H concepts. The Buddha taught that we should NOT cling to concepts.
(3) Many Christians believe that without the threat of "damnation" people would not be moral. It sounds like you believe without rebirth people would not be moral.
I still feel samsara in your words. What is the purpose of compassion then? I don't have to feel compassion. Atma (higher than western view of self) exists in all beings. Then according to you one can kill 100s & 1000s and you wouldn't feel remorse or negative because its ok because no Karma. U rather ended their suffering. It may apply to you because that is your view. Mentioning Buddhist culture, which is based on Buddha Dharma is wrong, isn't OK to me and I feel there is much taints in SB.
Do you mean "what is the origin of compassion"? Are you saying that you agree with the Christians, that morality must be compelled by outside threats (bad rebirth/damnation)? "According to [me]"? I didn't say anything that came close to implying that killing would cause me to feel no remorse. Seems to me those are views you have of the implicatoins of no rebirth; they are certainly not mine. Maybe you need to ask another what their view is, rather than telling them what their view is?
Yes, define the origin of compassion then or compassion itself. Define Atma (the self). Karma, Incarnation, Samsara (Cyclic existence). I didn't say damnation like you worded. May be I didn't understand the whole point, after all English isn't first language. Pardon me. What is your view on Buddha nature? Where you going with SB? Bring about clarity in understanding Buddhism or to show the fault it carries? This is all based on clean intentional discourse. Please don't feel bad. What is fact?
(A) compassion is "a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering"
I really need to figure out how to get youtube to keep my comments in order. : )
Finally, in response to the question of my intention: ultimately it is to reduce suffering; in this case by demonstrating that what the Buddha taught is consistent and helpful and did not include nor does it need belief in karma and rebirth.
Om Mani Padme Hum: Hail to jewel in the lotus. Now, having said that I would like to mentions few things. You have pointed out that incarnations and having Karma effect on them is Dogma not the fact. What is a fact in a first place? Is fact a real? How do you define fact? Is this what you r saying? Everything changes so as your views. R u doubting the very teacher who taught you? After all this is Samsara, one cannot reduce suffering by being skepticism either so Good Luck & sorry. Namaste.
No sorry needed, pklama, I am always glad of discussion. My teacher taught me to base my understanding of his teachings on my direct experience, and I have no direct evidence of rebirth. He taught me to notice that I have no self to incarnate. He taught me that holding views about rebirth and karma is right view "with taints" and walking the noble path without clinging to such a view, is right view, no taints. Namasté.
Of course the only thing I can provide is anecdotal evidence; I'm not a professional scientist so have done no studies, there have been no comprehensive studies, and only a few targeting isolated aspects of Buddhism -- for example the ones on Ricard Mattiew's brain waves while meditating (you can hear him talk on TED).
The only way to know if it offers useful methods and truthful ones is to apply your critical thinking to it, phil. Watch my videos and see what you think.
It seem to me that, instead of delving deep into the teaching of Buddhism, one would be better served by honing critical thinking skills and general skepticism.
phil, I agree with you for the most part. But the benefit of delving into Buddhism is that it teaches how to hone critical thinking skills and general skepticism. Many can't do that on their own.
Buddhism has tools that teach us to be skeptical of information and how to be mindful and skeptical of our own thinking and believing.
Once you learn, you can drop it. Buddha teaches that once you use a boat to cross the river, don't carry the boat around on your back. Leave it behind!
There seems to be a trend among religions today to appropriate popular terms and concepts. "Skepticism", "critical thinking" and "scientific" are just a few examples that you'll now find used quite liberally in most religions.
Critical thinking skills are best evidenced by what works. I have difficulty following the causal chain from Buddhism to modern technologies and the current corpus of scientific knowledge.
It's just that I'm very results oriented. Any positive results are fine, but could you demonstrate how Buddhism provides superior positive results in some aspect of life? This would constitute the causal chain I was referring to.
Sorry, but it's just that I'm tired of all the bald, unsubstantiated affirmations out there.
I do understand the meditation part. When I told my Buddhist friends recently that I have no problems ever falling asleep at night and explained my technique of pushing everything out of my mind, they told me I was practicing meditation, though I learned it on my own in protestant Minnesota. Sam Harris also espouses exploration of this, but I'm not sure beneficial meditation need to be coupled with Buddhism. What do you think?
There certainly is some benefit from simple meditation, & some ability to do deeper meditations without introducing Buddhism into it. For example the Insight Meditation Center (online) does a meditation course to support mindfulness, and insight meditation can certainly be useful at that level. But it's a little like going to riding school and learning how to groom, saddle and bridle the horse, & never getting on. It may be a real confidence-builder, and of some help, but why not get on?
I could talk about remarkable positive results but most of the ones from my experience are pretty personal, so I probably won't do it here. (And I don't find a link on your page to send private notes.)
My family is christian, and insist that their god produces tangible results. But the evidence they offer is largely anecdotal and suspect. I guess it is for this reason that I'm looking for harder evidence that the horse is actually a horse and is pointed in the right direction before I get on. I've seen too many people get on horses of other ideologies only to find themselves in a desert a decade later.
Thank you for your wonderful suggestions. Its futile to search for the truth when the truth is in each potential enlightened beings. Thank you for provable skepticism. I just think, I am skeptical about your views because you base everything has to be proven. Can you prove love or enlightenment for that matter? Well, its all good and may the light find your way as well. I see dukha everywhere because one is always trying to prove. My Karma is proven to me. I don't have to prove to none. ;) Love!
pklama1 2 years ago
You say coincidence, I say Karma. You say no re-birth. I say possible. You say Buddha says to skeptical, I say Buddha said understand within. You say NO-Self. I say NO-Self only if you understand the Atma. Without Atma, your understanding may not have ground. You say SB. I say vows. After all there is nothing new under the sun. Nothing new to discover or rediscover. You say no Karma. I say Karma is an idea to be on the path to understand deeper atma. Nothing is perfect, therefore it is Samsara.
pklama1 2 years ago
When did I say "coincidence?" When did I say "no rebirth"? Is "being skeptical" the opposite of "understanding within"? I am an agnostic, not a believer in one way or another. I accept what there is good evidence for, on every other point, I keep an open mind.
Karma as "cause and effect" is fine, I have evidence for that, and it has value toward morality.
But surely you are not saying the Buddha believed in Atma -- you represent the Hindu view?
justalittledust 2 years ago
Then you believe in re-birth. Then also you believe in not just coincidence that this discourse is even taking place. It is our Karma that lead to this point. AGain it is my view you would say. If your 5-6 senses cannot feel, see or touch it then it is not true for you. I may agree but not entirely. Nothing is real therefore everything is real for this samsara. Believe and you will know. Why just Buddhism? It could apply to any other philosophy as well. I am learning from you. Thank you. Namas
pklama1 2 years ago
I do not "believe" in rebirth, I do not believe it's a coincidence we're having this conversation, I believe you were drawn to a subject that I posted a video about; that's nothing to do with karma or coincidence, that's cause and effect.
I read widely, not just Buddhism, but Buddhism takes enough of my effort as a practice! : ) Namasté, pklama, may the light always be there to lead you.
justalittledust 2 years ago
So, in other words, SB is perfect, without any defect. No I didn't say, I am doing good because I want re-birth? I am doing good as a human because I can. Compassion is always present in human nature as well as negativity. Buddha's path was simple follow 4 noble truths and 8 fold paths. It is one's way of looking the coin this or that side, doesn't mean you are looking at complete different coin. It still the same coin. Buddha-nature? U say concept, I view a path to disciplining our action. OM
pklama1 2 years ago
(B) The origin of compassion in Buddhism is that once we correctly perceive the lack of self, and how we suffer from incorrect views of ourselves and the world, we then can very easily see that all of us suffer under the same confused views. We understand why people "do bad things" -- they are confused; we understand that intolerance (the lack of compassion) is not helpful to us or to them.
justalittledust 2 years ago
(1) The Buddha did not say there was an atman. That is a Vedic/Brahminical/Hindu concept. The Buddha's teaching was about ANatmant -- not-self.
(2) Karma and rebirth are likewise V/B/H concepts. The Buddha taught that we should NOT cling to concepts.
(3) Many Christians believe that without the threat of "damnation" people would not be moral. It sounds like you believe without rebirth people would not be moral.
justalittledust 2 years ago
I still feel samsara in your words. What is the purpose of compassion then? I don't have to feel compassion. Atma (higher than western view of self) exists in all beings. Then according to you one can kill 100s & 1000s and you wouldn't feel remorse or negative because its ok because no Karma. U rather ended their suffering. It may apply to you because that is your view. Mentioning Buddhist culture, which is based on Buddha Dharma is wrong, isn't OK to me and I feel there is much taints in SB.
pklama1 2 years ago
Do you mean "what is the origin of compassion"? Are you saying that you agree with the Christians, that morality must be compelled by outside threats (bad rebirth/damnation)? "According to [me]"? I didn't say anything that came close to implying that killing would cause me to feel no remorse. Seems to me those are views you have of the implicatoins of no rebirth; they are certainly not mine. Maybe you need to ask another what their view is, rather than telling them what their view is?
justalittledust 2 years ago
Yes, define the origin of compassion then or compassion itself. Define Atma (the self). Karma, Incarnation, Samsara (Cyclic existence). I didn't say damnation like you worded. May be I didn't understand the whole point, after all English isn't first language. Pardon me. What is your view on Buddha nature? Where you going with SB? Bring about clarity in understanding Buddhism or to show the fault it carries? This is all based on clean intentional discourse. Please don't feel bad. What is fact?
pklama1 2 years ago
(A) compassion is "a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering"
justalittledust 2 years ago
I really need to figure out how to get youtube to keep my comments in order. : )
Finally, in response to the question of my intention: ultimately it is to reduce suffering; in this case by demonstrating that what the Buddha taught is consistent and helpful and did not include nor does it need belief in karma and rebirth.
justalittledust 2 years ago
Om Mani Padme Hum: Hail to jewel in the lotus. Now, having said that I would like to mentions few things. You have pointed out that incarnations and having Karma effect on them is Dogma not the fact. What is a fact in a first place? Is fact a real? How do you define fact? Is this what you r saying? Everything changes so as your views. R u doubting the very teacher who taught you? After all this is Samsara, one cannot reduce suffering by being skepticism either so Good Luck & sorry. Namaste.
pklama1 2 years ago
No sorry needed, pklama, I am always glad of discussion. My teacher taught me to base my understanding of his teachings on my direct experience, and I have no direct evidence of rebirth. He taught me to notice that I have no self to incarnate. He taught me that holding views about rebirth and karma is right view "with taints" and walking the noble path without clinging to such a view, is right view, no taints. Namasté.
justalittledust 2 years ago
But phil, if you watch these videos and I say anything in them that rings critical-thinking alarm bells, please let me know.
justalittledust 2 years ago
Of course the only thing I can provide is anecdotal evidence; I'm not a professional scientist so have done no studies, there have been no comprehensive studies, and only a few targeting isolated aspects of Buddhism -- for example the ones on Ricard Mattiew's brain waves while meditating (you can hear him talk on TED).
The only way to know if it offers useful methods and truthful ones is to apply your critical thinking to it, phil. Watch my videos and see what you think.
justalittledust 2 years ago
It seem to me that, instead of delving deep into the teaching of Buddhism, one would be better served by honing critical thinking skills and general skepticism.
philstilwell 2 years ago
phil, I agree with you for the most part. But the benefit of delving into Buddhism is that it teaches how to hone critical thinking skills and general skepticism. Many can't do that on their own.
Buddhism has tools that teach us to be skeptical of information and how to be mindful and skeptical of our own thinking and believing.
Once you learn, you can drop it. Buddha teaches that once you use a boat to cross the river, don't carry the boat around on your back. Leave it behind!
Dana
dnourie1 2 years ago
There seems to be a trend among religions today to appropriate popular terms and concepts. "Skepticism", "critical thinking" and "scientific" are just a few examples that you'll now find used quite liberally in most religions.
Critical thinking skills are best evidenced by what works. I have difficulty following the causal chain from Buddhism to modern technologies and the current corpus of scientific knowledge.
philstilwell 2 years ago
I'm not sure what kind of causal chain you're expecting to see extending from Buddhism to modern technology and sciences. Can you explain?
justalittledust 2 years ago
Hello phil. Your first post had me thinking all day and I put my answer on my blog
justalittledust 2 years ago
Nice blog!
It's just that I'm very results oriented. Any positive results are fine, but could you demonstrate how Buddhism provides superior positive results in some aspect of life? This would constitute the causal chain I was referring to.
Sorry, but it's just that I'm tired of all the bald, unsubstantiated affirmations out there.
philstilwell 2 years ago
I do understand the meditation part. When I told my Buddhist friends recently that I have no problems ever falling asleep at night and explained my technique of pushing everything out of my mind, they told me I was practicing meditation, though I learned it on my own in protestant Minnesota. Sam Harris also espouses exploration of this, but I'm not sure beneficial meditation need to be coupled with Buddhism. What do you think?
philstilwell 2 years ago
There certainly is some benefit from simple meditation, & some ability to do deeper meditations without introducing Buddhism into it. For example the Insight Meditation Center (online) does a meditation course to support mindfulness, and insight meditation can certainly be useful at that level. But it's a little like going to riding school and learning how to groom, saddle and bridle the horse, & never getting on. It may be a real confidence-builder, and of some help, but why not get on?
justalittledust 2 years ago
Thanks for the kind words about my blog.
I could talk about remarkable positive results but most of the ones from my experience are pretty personal, so I probably won't do it here. (And I don't find a link on your page to send private notes.)
justalittledust 2 years ago
My family is christian, and insist that their god produces tangible results. But the evidence they offer is largely anecdotal and suspect. I guess it is for this reason that I'm looking for harder evidence that the horse is actually a horse and is pointed in the right direction before I get on. I've seen too many people get on horses of other ideologies only to find themselves in a desert a decade later.
philstilwell 2 years ago