Buddha talked of purification of self

[Gjallarhorn]

No founder of revealed religions vouched for blind faith.
Did Buddha favour blind faith? If, yes, please quote from him.

Without doubt, there is no experiment, therefore nothing but blind acceptance. Simple logic, really. The fact that you equate doubt with confusion is also telling.

 

[paarsurrey]

Experiments are done to understand nature and to take benefit from it in everyday human needs of life; doubt is not essential.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Experiments are done to understand nature and to take benefit from it in everyday human needs of life; doubt is not essential.

If you do not doubt, you have no need to experiment, as you are certain things are as you believe them to be.

 

[atanu]

If you do not doubt, you have no need to experiment, as you are certain things are as you believe them to be.

Gjallarhorn I do not know your position and thus allow me a question.

How is the intellect, which is said to be a product of chemical interactions (as per atheistic materialists) and of interaction of skandhas (as per understanding of some buddhists) can doubt wisely?

Do you see possibilty of real 'doubting-deciding' in a deterministic process?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Gjallarhorn I do not know your position and thus allow me a question.

How is the intellect, which is said to be a product of chemical interactions (as per atheistic materialists) and of interaction of skandhas (as per understanding of some buddhists) can doubt wisely?

Do you see possibilty of real 'doubting-deciding' in a deterministic process?

...I don't see why not, but then again, I'm not sure I understand your question.

 

[atanu]

...I don't see why not, but then again, I'm not sure I understand your question.

Ha ha. I knew. THat is characteristic of post modern Buddhism. I repeat.

Do you see possibilty of real 'doubting-deciding' in a deterministic process?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Ha ha. I knew. THat is characteristic of post modern Buddhism. I repeat.

Do you see possibilty of real 'doubting-deciding' in a deterministic process?

Doubting? Yes. Deciding? No. I don't understand why you have coupled the two though. No one ever chooses to doubt. It's just something that sneaks in.

 

[paarsurrey]

Doubting? Yes. Deciding? No. I don't understand why you have coupled the two though. No one ever chooses to doubt. It's just something that sneaks in.

One should doubt when there is a valid reason to doubt.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

One should doubt when there is a valid reason to doubt.

I agree, like when your beliefs fail to match up with observation. Otherwise it's just paranoia.

 

[atanu]

Doubting? Yes. Deciding? No. I don't understand why you have coupled the two though. No one ever chooses to doubt. It's just something that sneaks in.

It is good question and you point out a good thing: No one ever chooses to doubt.

How is doubting and its resolution possible in a deterministic system? Do you believe that doubts could sneak in without sentience. Do you believe that doubts could sneak in non-sentient?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

It is good question and you point out a good thing: No one ever chooses to doubt.

How is doubting and its resolution possible in a deterministic system? Do you believe that doubts could sneak in without sentience. Do you believe that doubts could sneak in non-sentient?

I don't see why you assume a deterministic system lacks sentience.

 

[atanu]

I don't see why you assume a deterministic system lacks sentience.

In a deterministic situation, a product of the deterministic situation claiming "I know this. I know better than you all", is crazy. His claim is already determined and there is no chance of any understanding.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

In a deterministic situation, a product of the deterministic situation claiming "I know this. I know better than you all", is crazy. His claim is already determined and there is no chance of any understanding.

Why not? Surely a computer can find a true solution to a problem. So can humans. Determinism hinders nothing.

 

[atanu]

Why not? Surely a computer can find a true solution to a problem. So can humans. Determinism hinders nothing.

I have agreed that you are a simulation.​

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I have agreed that you are a simulation.​

I am not arguing that I am a simulation, so how can you agree?

 

[atanu]

I am not arguing that I am a simulation, so how can you agree?

It is thus determined, my boy. It is not different from your assertions that also are pre-determined.

BTW, I just wanted to know whether you are speaking from a particulr Buddhistic perspective or whether you are airing your view?

 

[paarsurrey]

"I know this. I know better than you all", is crazy.

One should give a reason or an argument to substantiate one's viewpoint.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

It is thus determined, my boy. It is not different from your assertions that also are pre-determined.

BTW, I just wanted to know whether you are speaking from a particulr Buddhistic perspective or whether you are airing your view?

As far as I know, most Buddhist teachings reject determinism to some degree. Some more than others. It is not, however, my own view. It is a deduction based on modern science and philosophy. It is as much my own view as gravity is my own view.

 

[atanu]

As far as I know, most Buddhist teachings reject determinism to some degree. Some more than others. It is not, however, my own view. It is a deduction based on modern science and philosophy. It is as much my own view as gravity is my own view.

Yes. Karma concept indicates that Buddhist teaching is not deterministic.

My point was different. My point was that when some materialists, while holding the universe to be deterministic, still mouth Buddhism, they are ignorant of Buddhism. Further, Buddha does talk of self-awakening, contrary to opinions of many thervAdins and of many materialist Buddhists. I think we cannot by-pass those teachings and keep parroting 'anatta anatta'.

I do not follow what you mean in the red highlighted part.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Yes. Karma concept indicates that Buddhist teaching is not deterministic.

I don't see why. Will still exists within determinism. Karma is based in cause and effect, which is also deterministic.

My point was different. My point was that when some materialists, while holding the universe to be deterministic, still mouth Buddhism, they are ignorant of Buddhism. Further, Buddha does talk of self-awakening, contrary to opinions of many thervAdins and of many materialist Buddhists. I think we cannot by-pass those teachings and keep parroting 'anatta anatta'.

How does the self rid the self of the self? I also do not see why materialism has anything to do with it. Lack of free will exists no matter how many base substances you ascribe to.

I do not follow what you mean in the red highlighted part.

It means lack of free will isn't a view of mine. It is knowledge, just as mathematics is.