1. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    11 Nov '10 21:56
    The people of Kalama asked the Buddha who to believe out of all the ascetics, sages, venerables, and holy ones who, like himself, passed through their town. They complained that they were confused by the many contradictions they discovered in what they heard. The Kalama Sutta is the Buddha's reply.

    – Do not believe anything on mere hearsay.
    – Do not believe in traditions merely because they are old and have been handed down for many generations and in many places.
    – Do not believe anything on account of rumors or because people talk a a great deal about it.
    – Do not believe anything because you are shown the written testimony of some ancient sage.
    – Do not believe in what you have fancied, thinking that, because it is extraordinary, it must have been inspired by a god or other wonderful being.
    – Do not believe anything merely because presumption is in its favor, or because the custom of many years inclines you to take it as true.
    – Do not believe anything merely on the authority of your teachers and priests.
    – But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as true, and shape your life in accordance with it.

    The same text, said the Buddha, must be applied to his own teachings.

    – Do not accept any doctrine from reverence, but first try it as gold is tried by fire.
  2. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    11 Nov '10 22:09
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    The people of Kalama asked the Buddha who to believe out of all the ascetics, sages, venerables, and holy ones who, like himself, passed through their town. They complained that they were confused by the many contradictions they discovered in what they heard. The Kalama Sutta is the Buddha's reply.

    – Do not believe anything on mere hearsay.
    – D ...[text shortened]... gs.

    – Do not accept any doctrine from reverence, but first try it as gold is tried by fire.
    Marketing people...take note.
  3. Donationbuckky
    Filthy sinner
    Outskirts of bliss
    Joined
    24 Sep '02
    Moves
    96652
    11 Nov '10 23:22
    I love it .
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    12 Nov '10 08:27
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    The same text, said the Buddha, must be applied to his own teachings.

    – Do not accept any doctrine from reverence, but first try it as gold is tried by fire.
    Interestingly the Kama Sutra fits many of those categories of things not to believe. Its instructions too must be 'tried as gold is tried by fire'.
  5. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    24 May '10
    Moves
    7680
    12 Nov '10 13:13
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    The people of Kalama asked the Buddha who to believe out of all the ascetics, sages, venerables, and holy ones who, like himself, passed through their town. They complained that they were confused by the many contradictions they discovered in what they heard. The Kalama Sutta is the Buddha's reply.

    – Do not believe anything on mere hearsay.
    – D ...[text shortened]... gs.

    – Do not accept any doctrine from reverence, but first try it as gold is tried by fire.
    I reflect on the reasons why he may have said that. And to be clear, "may" does not mean doubt in that sentence. Its pretty well accepted that he did say such.
    Very few other teachers have said such so clearly.

    I think it is probable that he was teaching people to use their own minds and become acquainted with them. There is much that is central about the nature of mind in his teaching.

    I think he was very confident, through his own experience that what he was teaching was diamond hard and would survive the closest logical scrutiny. Logics, by the way, was very rigorously practiced in those days, particularly in metaphysical discussions. Do not think that seeming nonsense like emptiness has not got good credentials.

    I think it is probable that he knew the limiting and misguiding dangers of the group mind and teacher subservience.

    I think it is probable that he knew that for a true realization to occur, an individual must see it for themselves, not secondhand from anyone, including himself.

    It is to this day, millennia later, an intellectually respected understanding of the nature of reality, even with disagreement, and has been shown to "fit in" to concepts arising from modern quantum physics findings.

    As such, you may not be surprised that I recommend along with Tathagata, personal exploration of the logics and reasoning behind such concepts as emptiness (sunyata) and no-self (anatta).

    One place to start:
    http://www.integralscience.org/sacredscience/SS_sunyata.html
  6. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    12 Nov '10 13:411 edit
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    The people of Kalama asked the Buddha who to believe out of all the ascetics, sages, venerables, and holy ones who, like himself, passed through their town. They complained that they were confused by the many contradictions they discovered in what they heard. The Kalama Sutta is the Buddha's reply.

    – Do not believe anything on mere hearsay.
    – D ...[text shortened]... gs.

    – Do not accept any doctrine from reverence, but first try it as gold is tried by fire.
    But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as true, and shape your life in accordance with it.

    Sound advice!


    But can we take it to the next level?

    What if there is truth that proceeds from a/the creator of all that exists? Is there not in existence the evidence of a creator? Cannot one with knowledge and experience and wisdom fail to see such truth if such truth exists? Is that not possible?

    By the same token, cannot the one that interprets that which exists as evidence for the existence of a creator, do so in error?

    Is there an answer to this dilemma?
  7. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14509
    12 Nov '10 14:44
    Originally posted by josephw
    [b]But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as true, and shape your life in accordance with it.

    Sound advice!


    But can we take it to the next level?

    What if there is truth that proceeds ...[text shortened]... evidence for the existence of a creator, do so in error?

    Is there an answer to this dilemma?[/b]
    Edit: "What if there is truth that proceeds from a/the creator of all that exists?"


    There is solely a causal field you perceive by means of your 6 senses, and you are a part of it, and you are on your own a causal field too; you decode constantly the pieces of information you receive so that you can live, and doing so you adjust your environment (the physical world, ie Popper’s World 1) by means of your ideas (World 3) and by means of your attitude and the modifications of your inner world (World 2), which are turned into actions that take place in the World 1. During this lifelong interaction your ever changing environment forces you to bring up constantly ideas and actions that ease you to live better, and since you modify your environment and yourself and the World 3 by means of your products (your attitude, your actions and your ideas) you are in fact a product of your products.

    There is no such a thing as a specific “truth that proceeds from the creator of all that exist” -mainly because Karma/ Cause-Effect/ Causal Chain is a buck that stops at the point singularity (for nobody enters this veil; beyond Clear Light there is solely Clear Light). But it addition there is the following reason why your idea does not hold:

    A cause (the so called creator that is supposed to be hidden in the veil known as point singularity) has an effect when there is an effect (the so called creation of all that exists), but when there is no effect (due to the fact that the observer universe does not need a creator in order to exist) the cause (the so called creator) amounts to no cause (and thus the so called creator cannot be established as an observer). Furthermore it is absurd to say that the effect (of the existence of the so called creator) neither exists nor does not exist, and it is absurd just the same to claim that cause (the so called creator) is active in past, present and future (because there is no such a thing as time in the point singularity)
    😵
  8. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    12 Nov '10 16:231 edit
    Originally posted by black beetle
    Edit: "What if there is truth that proceeds from a/the creator of all that exists?"


    There is solely a causal field you perceive by means of your 6 senses, and you are a part of it, and you are on your own a causal field too; you decode constantly the pieces of information you receive so that you can live, and doing so you adjust your environment (t ...[text shortened]... st, present and future (because there is no such a thing as time in the point singularity)
    😵
    What you're saying is true, but only in part.

    In your statements above you give a description. A definition. If what you say is true, then the statements are true, but if you are wrong, even a little, then the truth you espouse is in error.

    That which exists, exists independent of ones' involvement. Granted, we effect the environment by our actions, but only in accordance with pre-existing laws.

    One can cause harmony to this place we exist in, but only when action is in accordance with pre-existing laws. Or one can cause harm if in any way they are out of sync with those laws.

    It is those laws that I would refer to when stating that their existence precludes our inputs, and therefore suggest a creator.
  9. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14509
    12 Nov '10 18:00
    Originally posted by josephw
    What you're saying is true, but only in part.

    In your statements above you give a description. A definition. If what you say is true, then the statements are true, but if you are wrong, even a little, then the truth you espouse is in error.

    That which exists, exists independent of ones' involvement. Granted, we effect the environment by our actions, bu ...[text shortened]... er to when stating that their existence precludes our inputs, and therefore suggest a creator.
    Since you cannot establish the so called creator as an epistemic object, your hypothesis regarding the existence of this creator is not based on facts and thus it does not hold as a solid theory of reality. So I assume you beleive blindly in the existence of this creator of yours and I urge you to honour your spiritual teachers -however kindly please keep in mind that your hypothesis is not entering any "next level"
    😵
  10. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    12 Nov '10 22:03
    Originally posted by black beetle
    Since you cannot establish the so called creator as an epistemic object, your hypothesis regarding the existence of this creator is not based on facts and thus it does not hold as a solid theory of reality. So I assume you beleive blindly in the existence of this creator of yours and I urge you to honour your spiritual teachers -however kindly please keep in mind that your hypothesis is not entering any "next level"
    😵
    To the honest person, the whole creation shows us desighn, functionality, purpose and beauty, and all this cannot come about by chance or accident.

    Only a dishonest person who is envious of God will say there is no God, because their intelligence is defective.

    Having defective intelligence and saying there is no God is childish and silly, and your better off saying that there is a God, but I know nothing about it, this would at least make you honest.
  11. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14509
    13 Nov '10 05:46
    Originally posted by vishvahetu
    To the honest person, the whole creation shows us desighn, functionality, purpose and beauty, and all this cannot come about by chance or accident.

    Only a dishonest person who is envious of God will say there is no God, because their intelligence is defective.

    Having defective intelligence and saying there is no God is childish and silly, and your b ...[text shortened]... ff saying that there is a God, but I know nothing about it, this would at least make you honest.
    Read the OP and come again; when you come again, prey tell, how and by which means did you came to know in person that the so called creator is existent?
    😵
  12. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    13 Nov '10 08:10
    Originally posted by black beetle
    Read the OP and come again; when you come again, prey tell, how and by which means did you came to know in person that the so called creator is existent?
    😵
    And how did you come to know there is no creator, with your defective mind,when all evidence is declaring one?
  13. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14509
    13 Nov '10 08:29
    Originally posted by vishvahetu
    And how did you come to know there is no creator, with your defective mind,when all evidence is declaring one?
    I cannot establish the existence of the so called creator because there is neither a single fact nor the slightest evidence for the existence of this observer. This way I surely know herenow that your "creator" is a delusion of yours. However, since your beleive that your mind is not, say, defective, prey tell, how exactly and by which means you established in person the existence of the observer you name "creator"
    😵
  14. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    13 Nov '10 09:43
    Originally posted by black beetle
    I cannot establish the existence of the so called creator because there is neither a single fact nor the slightest evidence for the existence of this observer. This way I surely know herenow that your "creator" is a delusion of yours. However, since your beleive that your mind is not, say, defective, prey tell, how exactly and by which means you established in person the existence of the observer you name "creator"
    😵
    So are you like the atheistic scientist who says with their defective mind, that all of creation including thinking feeling people, have come about by a miraculous accident?....is that your defective logic? and will you teach your children this.
  15. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    13 Nov '10 09:48
    Originally posted by vishvahetu
    So are you like the atheistic scientist who says with their defective mind, that all of creation including thinking feeling people, have come about by a miraculous accident?....is that your defective logic? and will you teach your children this.
    You really are a scratched record aren't you? Now let's see, who do we think is wiser... the Buddha? Or Vishavegetable? Ooops! Scales broke.
Back to Top