05 Jun 09
Originally posted by rwingettI don't know how that would be possible - or even reasonable. There are certain beliefs in denominations of Christianity (as in nearly every belief system) that contradict beliefs in other denominations or belief systems, which means they simply cannot be both valid. I see nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree about what the truth is, but to say 'both my belief and your belief are true' just doesn't make sense.
If Christians (and each Christian sect) was willing to admit that their particular approach is but one among many valid approaches,
05 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by TerrierJackI suspect you’re right about the differences being idiomatic. Also, if you’re a more traditional Mahayanist and I’m a more iconoclastic Zennist, then we both pretty much know where we’re sitting in that boat. 🙂
I concur and I think we've discovered (or uncovered) only a difference in idiom. I prefer a slightly more traditional Mahayanist terminology (I wince when you use the word illusion.) But as they say, "we are all in the same boat."
More later when I'm not busy wrangling dogs.
I wince when you use the word “enlightenment”. But that’s just because people tend to impute to it some kind of awful “quasi-angelized” status. But it’s clear, in the context of the rest of what you say, that that’s not how you intend it, and I suspect we are close there, too.
Now, in the interest of a friendly “locking of eyebrows”, I’ll move back to Zen-talk:
___________________________________________________________
I said that you are buddha, I am buddha, we are all buddhas—but…
I am no “somebody” at all. The tathagata is no “somebody”.
We all go through extensive “somebody-ness” training, beginning before we can even speak. We may later reject aspects of our learned somebody-ness, only to put on others—thinking that is now who we are.
Buddha-nature is no-somebodyness, that shines behind every “somebody” that we put on and project.
Attachment to being this or that “somebody”—and clinging to the “somebody-ness” that we see in others—is a root-cause of illusion. Dukkha is inescapable under that bewitchment.
Kensho—seeing into one’s “original nature”—is the beginning realization that I am no such “somebody” at all. But one can forget. Eternal vigilance!
If I show you such a “somebody”, I am showing you an illusion. If you show me such a “somebody”, you are showing me an illusion. If we both know that we are only playing in Maya, no problem. We laugh, and enjoy our “somebodies”.
Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form.
Form is also form; and emptiness, emptiness.
“Each thing reveals the One,
the One manifests as all things.”
—Seng Ts’an
The no-somebody that I am bows to the same no-somebody that you are.
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't want people to say "both my belief and your belief are true." That, as you say, is nonsensical. What I want for people to say is "We cannot know what the truth is (at least in relation to god). Therefore your approach is just as valid as mine." If it is useful then people can follow whatever belief system they wish, but they should drop the pretense that theirs is 'the truth.'
I don't know how that would be possible - or even reasonable. There are certain beliefs in denominations of Christianity (as in nearly every belief system) that contradict beliefs in other denominations or belief systems, which means they simply cannot be both valid. I see nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree about what the truth is, but to say 'both my belief and your belief are true' just doesn't make sense.
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by rwingettVery good!
I don't want people to say "both my belief and your belief are true." That, as you say, is nonsensical. What I want for people to say is "We cannot know what the truth is (at least in relation to god). Therefore your approach is just as valid as mine." If it is useful then people can follow whatever belief system they wish, but they should drop the pretense that theirs is 'the truth.'
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by rwingettBut that is essentially a claim that your belief is purely arbitrary. I doubt anyone, yourself included believe that to be the case. At best one would say 'the information I am privy to is not available to you and so I understand why you do not believe as I do', or 'I am not privy to the information available to you so I accept that should I be made privy to it I might change my beliefs'. But you are claiming that none of us has the slightest inkling of the truth and further making a claim that nobody can know the truth. What do you base that claim on?
I don't want people to say "both my belief and your belief are true." That, as you say, is nonsensical. What I want for people to say is "We cannot know what the truth is (at least in relation to god). Therefore your approach is just as valid as mine." If it is useful then people can follow whatever belief system they wish, but they should drop the pretense that theirs is 'the truth.'
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28002
05 Jun 09
I think the last post by vistesd dovetails into the point of rwingett and also illuminates the premise of this thread. Buddhism recognizes that the claim to know all the 'truth' of the universe can only be an ego projection. You can look back into history and discover only a few circumstances of buddhists resorting to violence to resolve doctrine and the reason is not that they were superior people (or even that their teaching was superior) but that the whole idea of claiming to be superior just doesn't make sense without 'self.' It disturbs me to no end to see the threads that crop up here regularly where christians bash muslims (and vice-versa but it is not hard to establish who has more numbers.) I see absolutely no difference between those religions. They both have their more than fair share of extremists who are so convinced of their righteousness that they will kill. Dr. Tiller in Kansas was recently killed by an american religious terrorist. I have argued here before and will continue to argue that this extremism is a natural result of this 'attachment' to being 'right' that leads to division even among their own. Christians and muslims don't just persecute differing religions - they persecute those who profess their own faith but follow a different interpretation. This craziness must stop! If you expect your faith to be taken seriously as anything other than excuse for the most heinous crimes you must recognize the common ground that we all share as sentient beings (vistesd: KU) and learn to actually treat others as you would want to be treated (sound familiar? the buddha said it also many years before.) Interpret you holy book however you want, dispute doctrine, argue shades of meaning but when you call someone stupid or wrong who disagrees with you, when you long for the day when everyone accepts only your version of the truth - then you have overstepped your bounds and have played into the hands of murderers. The blood of Dr. Tiller is on your hands. The blood of innocent children evaporated by aerial hell fire is on your hands. The blood of the towers is on your hands. Is it worth being 'right' if so many will suffer?
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28002
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadPlease read and attempt to understand the posts by vistesd and myself. We lay out this argument fairly completely. It is your attachment to self that leads you to claim the truth as your own private kingdom.
But you are claiming that none of us has the slightest inkling of the truth and further making a claim that nobody can know the truth. What do you base that claim on?
One of my favorite parables is the story of a particular incarnation of Vishnu (the creator god) who took his authority so seriously that he enlisted all the beings of heaven into a vast project to rebuild his palace. One day a little boy (Krishna) was idly playing when Vishnu passed by and scolded him for not taking part in the construction. The little boy continued to scramble around in the dirt laughing with joy. Exasperated, Vishnu demanded to know what he was fascinated with on the ground. The boy pointed to a line of ants traversing the dry earth and said, "Look, look at these ants! All former Vishnus, every one!"
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by TerrierJackat the risk of sounding like a cheer-leader again i will say this-
I think the last post by vistesd dovetails into the point of rwingett and also illuminates the premise of this thread. Buddhism recognizes that the claim to know all the 'truth' of the universe can only be an ego projection. You can look back into history and discover only a few circumstances of buddhists resorting to violence to resolve doctrine and the ...[text shortened]... od of the towers is on your hands. Is it worth being 'right' if so many will suffer?
Mr TJ and Vistesd produce points that i can stay with and work through.
I HATE LONG POINTS but if that is what is required then so be it
(I have asked to be corrected a few times b4 and i say it again ,if i am wrong. please correct me)
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI base my claim on the premise that god is inherently unknowable. This includes whether he exists at all and, assuming he does, what he is. For my part, I see no reason to 'believe' a god exists and am therefore an atheist. But many people apparently have a desire or need to believe in a god of some sort. I do not begrudge them this right. But their approach toward this god (whatever that may be) should be a provisional one that, by its very nature, can never be assumed to be the truth.
But that is essentially a claim that your belief is purely arbitrary. I doubt anyone, yourself included believe that to be the case. At best one would say 'the information I am privy to is not available to you and so I understand why you do not believe as I do', or 'I am not privy to the information available to you so I accept that should I be made privy ...[text shortened]... h and further making a claim that nobody can know the truth. What do you base that claim on?
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by TerrierJackBut surely that itself is a 'truth claim'? What about partial truth? What about being fairly sure that you are right and the other guy is wrong? At some point we all come to believe that we know at least one fact and that anyone who disagrees about that fact is wrong. Whether we consider ourselves superior as a result is another matter. Also how we deal with the disagreement is another matter.
Buddhism recognizes that the claim to know all the 'truth' of the universe can only be an ego projection.
I don't think anyone in this thread or even in religion claims to know all the 'truth' in the universe, but we all do claim to know some truth.
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by rwingettWhy? Surely if he does exist then unless there is some rather extraordinary reason for him to be hiding, his existence should theoretically be knowable. Of course he could be manipulating the universe to hide his presence but then we could all be part of the Matrix. If his hiding methods are effective then is existence is irrelevant.
I base my claim on the premise that god is inherently unknowable.
The very fact that you are atheist implies that you do in fact know of something that indicates one way or the other even if it is not conclusive. Surely if an indicator can exist then so can concrete proof? If not, why not?
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadtwhitehead has gone out on a limb here and should be commended.
Why? Surely if he does exist then unless there is some rather extraordinary reason for him to be hiding, his existence should theoretically be knowable. Of course he could be manipulating the universe to hide his presence but then we could all be part of the Matrix. If his hiding methods are effective then is existence is irrelevant.
The very fact tha ...[text shortened]... is not conclusive. Surely if an indicator can exist then so can concrete proof? If not, why not?
God IS knowable. But how exacly?
(this is a difficicult question )
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI do not presume to know anything about god. It may be that there is a deist god who set the laws of nature into motion but then has had no other interaction with his creation. Would the existence of that god be irrelevant? Irrelevant to whom, exactly? I cannot answer for everyone, but only for myself.
Why? Surely if he does exist then unless there is some rather extraordinary reason for him to be hiding, his existence should theoretically be knowable. Of course he could be manipulating the universe to hide his presence but then we could all be part of the Matrix. If his hiding methods are effective then is existence is irrelevant.
The very fact tha ...[text shortened]... is not conclusive. Surely if an indicator can exist then so can concrete proof? If not, why not?
My atheism does not imply a knowledge of anything, except that other people's claims for the existence of their god have been unpersuasive. I do not, and cannot, have any idea of whether a god exists. But as I have been given no good reason to believe one does, I am an atheist.
I suppose it is possible, in theory, that a god could be known to its creation if it wanted to be. But the existence of 80,000+ Christian and non-Christian sects makes clear that he is not currently known. There is nothing to indicate that this is likely to change any time soon, or at all. So I suppose that the statement that 'god is unknowable' is not an absolute truth, but a provisional one.
05 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelThe term "God" needs first to be properly defined for a coherent answer to that question can be given.
twhitehead has gone out on a limb here and should be commended.
God IS knowable. But how exacly?
(this is a difficicult question )
For the term "God" to be meaningful it needs to be knowable.