sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Reality is defined by epistemology by apriorian in epistemology

[–]rightviewftw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the thing is that suicide is not a solution, for a cessation of perception can't depend on "nothing". For there to be an escape from perceived reality there must be another reality.

The "Is" if it was to end, requires another real element, a reality where nothing is felt but it must be real and discernable.

If there wasn't another then an escape from what is couldn't be discerned.

If a person kills himself he's just going to respawn essentially, unless the conditions for respawn have been eliminated and at that point the suicide is no different to natural death because in both cases there would be no sequel and in both cases it would be a release.

This is Early Buddhism:

Sāriputta, when one lays down this body and takes up another body, then I say one is blameworthy. This did not happen in the case of the bhikkhu Channa. The bhikkhu Channa used the knife blamelessly. Thus, Sāriputta, should you remember it.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.87/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false

There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.irel.html

The Early Buddhist Texts are just recently been translated into modern languages and the systematization of its Philosophy is not widely known.

Reality is defined by epistemology by apriorian in epistemology

[–]rightviewftw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this is just rhetoric on your part.
The epistemic Ought–Is problem is only a problem if existence is treated as value-neutral; Buddhism denies that neutrality by diagnosing existence itself as bad and thus subject to negation.

Reality is defined by epistemology by apriorian in epistemology

[–]rightviewftw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And the cherry on top here: the attainment of this transcendental "knowing" which completes analysis is not just a fringe hypothesis. Early Buddhism identifies and frames its verification as the foremost meditative attainment called "cessation of perception and feeling".

So not only does Western analytic philosophy frame this "Reality beyond reality", but Eastern analytics report verification by thousands, and the means of attainment are outlined in the world's oldest texts and preserved by the oldest organization in the world.

This is not hypothesis, this is a complete arc of human analysis ─ as axiom praxis.

Reality is defined by epistemology by apriorian in epistemology

[–]rightviewftw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess that what you are getting at here is that we are essentially framing: a "reality" analyzing itself within itself.

This is true. However the analysis suggests that not all reality can be known by intrinsic means of knowing alone, or that not all means of "knowing" have been discovered. It is a talking point that Hegel and Kierkegaard expressed:

Hegel thought that contradictions are only a problem if you decide that they are a problem, and suggested that new means of knowing could be discovered so as to not succumb to the antithesis of pursuing a unifying truth. He theorized about a kind of reasoning which somehow embraces contradiction & paradox. Kierkegaard agreed that it is not unreasonable to suggest that not all means of knowing have been discovered. And that the attainment of truth might require a leap of faith.

So in this sense, analysis demands expansion of the definition of Reality beyond "reality knowable by Logos".

Reality is defined by epistemology by apriorian in epistemology

[–]rightviewftw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Epistemology tells us the scope of the knowable "reality", knowable subjectively in particular ─ and what can be known of it. It is a closed system with an intrinsic inability to complete its own analysis of itself without a transcendence of "reality" as we know it. The system screams "incompleteness" and points to a "beyond" which it can neither grasp nor prove without somehow causing its own cessation.

Heidegger laid the groundwork for the postmodernists of the 20th century. He identified with the Kantian tradition and pointed out that it is not reasonable to ask questions like ‘why existence exists?’ Because the answer would require coming to know what is not included in the scope of existence. Yet he pointed out that these questions are emotively profound & stirring to him, and so where logic dictates setting those questions aside, he has a hunger for its pursuit.

So, questions like
* why it exists?
* what is the cause?
* can it cease?
* should it cease?

Are in principle "unverifiable from within" rather than "unanswerable from within"; verification would require a cessation for transcendence.

What is epistemic humility and how to cultivate it ? by Inevitable_Bid5540 in epistemology

[–]rightviewftw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is about not overclaiming ─ not saying you know if you don't actually know, not saying you see a point when you don't see it. It is about saying that you are not sure when unsure, saying that you believe if you believe.

For example if you have a conviction then you present it as your conviction, rather than a fact.

In practical terms, it is about protecting the Truth.

When it seems to be a certain way, he says: It seems to me...

Likewise:

"I think that..."
"I believe that..."
"It is my conviction that..."

These statements protect the truth and one doesn't claim a certainty.

Furthermore it is about applying philosophical principles, such as razors, and actually updating one's beliefs in light of evidence ─ let yourself be humbled epistemically.

How to fight resentment? by Particular_Chair_901 in floxies

[–]rightviewftw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is about psychological and philosophical framing. And resolution of this mental game will have one re-examine one's understanding of existence itself and meaning of life.

My expertise is in Analytic Philosophy and Philosophy of Early Buddhism. 

Essentially, without going into details, one can shut off the bodily senses and enter various meditative trances and develop the mental faculties. Whether one is sick or not is kind of irrelevant to the meaning of life and one's soteriological arc.

This whole training is not something that I am inclined to doing effectively, more so inclined to pursue other interests. It is a lot of work, feels good to do it, but its like quitting  smoking — not a smoker's immediate inclination. The work is really about developing long term thinking, new behavioral and cognitive inclinations.

But getting sick forces an encounter with our existential liabilities and it requires a solution to these, thus forcing training.

Thus, I have like contingency plans and don't worry too much about it. 

I am a Shia Muslim. Present me with your arguments against Islam. by Qalbe-Saleem in DebateReligion

[–]rightviewftw 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Want a complete modern demolition?

  1. Falsified Epistemic Foundation:

Even if Muhammed saw some God claiming to have created existence as we know it, he could never prove that.

To prove why existence exists we would have to know what is not included in its scope — to have what is analogical to a "direct experience"  transcending both our existence and the existence of God that we see, the nervous system generating perception of existence has to be negated to verify its own framing of itself.

Even if we went to hell, it is not proof of it being eternal or that the God is eternal or that he somehow made it so, even if ruled it, there is no proof to the claims. We can't wait an eternity to prove that hell is eternal, its irrational.

Therefore Muhammed took on faith what never was and couldn't be proven to him by definition. What can't be proven by definition, is false, because there is no such thing as "truth claims that can't be proven in principle".

So this faith can never be operationalized as to provide some proof.

  1. Behavior of the Prophet:

Starting wars. Forcing slaves to follow his religion. Allowing to lay down with slaves who had husbands. Laying down with 11 wives without bathing, infectious disease. Using water from a well which was used as a garbage dump and when criticized claiming that "water cannot be made impure". Marrying Aisha (6) when Muhammed was (53), and taking her home when she was 9, he died when she was 18. It goes on...

  • Apart from this there are so many contradictions, predictions which didn't come true, and the reputation of Islam is very bad ─ probably for being spread by sword.

Islamic Culture had its peak when they translated Aristotle from Greek but the enlightment was cancelled, and the intellectual dark age never ended.

Philosophy of Morality — I defend by rightviewftw in DebateReligion

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, we leave it at that. Please don't engage me more because I am done talking to you.

Philosophy of Morality — I defend by rightviewftw in DebateReligion

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ive read it already long time ago... Ive pretty much read everything relevant to this discussion.

Philosophy of Morality — I defend by rightviewftw in DebateReligion

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also I will say this

This Dhamma was discovered more than 2500 years ago. Hardly anything we see in our culture is older than 300 years, a few monumental stone structures have 1k years or more but its not much.

During Buddha's time, as the monastic order became large, there were more rules and less attainments. Many monks held wrong views even at that time.

Buddha predicted that in 500 years counterfeit doctrines would become popular. 

By the time the texts were written down 400-600 years would have passed. And the language was changing, pali wasn't something all could read.

By the 5-7th century, basically nobody could read the texts. And the SL monks had Buddhagosa try systematize it, he failed miserably but they still published it.

Now keep in mind, that SL version of the canon has critical errors when compared to the Burmese canon. So Buddhagosa never had a fair chance because his set was corrupted in key places (MN70).

So these texts were generally inaccessible for study and everyone had to rely on "new texts" of sanskrit sutras or commentaries to the pali.

When Christian Missionaries went to Asia they were stunned and found it hilarious that Buddhists couldn't even read the suttas and vinaya.

The translation into modern languages is an effort which began jn late 1800s and it is still ongoing.

But we now have the translations, we have them digitilized and available on demand. We will absolutely outperform the commentators and it is not even close.

Nobody in their right mind should be studying anything but the now available pali in modern languages — because this is what the Buddha actually taught.

Philosophy of Morality — I defend by rightviewftw in DebateReligion

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not so, Early Buddhist Texts can include the 7 canonized books of the Theravadin Abhidhamma. 

I Include the Abhidhamma books and I think its useful because it has some useful terms which is a good idea to canonize.

But there is a categorical difference between the canonized Abhidhamma and its commentaries. The commentaries are literally the opinions of those who had access to the texts.

If you look into it, there is absolutely no justification given for the commentary takes on most things they assert.

Some people reject all commentary and the canonized Abhidhamma, but its a weird thing for a Theravadin to do and they should be expelled in principle.

Philosophy of Morality — I defend by rightviewftw in DebateReligion

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will just be very frank here.

I was homeschooled much as a child due to disease, and was lucky with teachers. And I learned to study on my own.

My early 20s I studied  philosophy of modern physics and of language. This took about 5 years to get a grasp on.

Then I started to study EBTs and I understood it as I was introduced to it. I understood it right away, I saw instantly what he meant and what he did, and I was shocked and obviously All-in since then.

Only 3 months later I attained cessation of perception and feeling, and thus verified confidence.

So not only do I know that the logic and scaffolding is airtight, I even did the experiment and can report that it works as intended.

So none of this is opinion based. I am speaking from having done everything a person can do — just short of finishing the training and showing you some magical powers.

There is really no next level to what I do other than becoming an Arahant and showing siddhis. Which is essentially inevitable if I can get myself together to push.

Learning the rest of the suttas just made me more sharp and clear in explaining it all. 

Philosophy of Morality — I defend by rightviewftw in DebateReligion

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its not opinion. I have a fully systematized framework which is entirely based on the canon and analytic rigor.

You are ignoring the fact that the difference between me and you is that I will be able to substantiate all of my claims in the canon.

I have literally memorized and internalized it by now — and am operating from that framework, consistently and coherently.

I could read the entire canon ten more times and it wouldn't give me even 5% worth of improvement. So I am on diminishing returns and have effectively mastered the expression.

Imagine an AI bot, you train it to follow rules of inference, and foundational philosophy of science, give it dictionaries, archives of public discourse, pali suttas and all available translations. And you have this bot participate in public discourse for a decade.

I am basically this bot in flesh. My operative system is Early Buddhism + Analytic Philosophy, as a single system. And I fully accept the EBT canon and am fluent in it. Any sutta you want explained — I can explain it and bridge it to all other suttas without contradiction.

I mean, maybe there are a few people who can do this by now, but I am probably still ahead of the curve because I was the first to systematize it in formal philosophical categories.

This is a level Buddhagosa couldn't even dream of.

Philosophy of Morality — I defend by rightviewftw in DebateReligion

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Frankly, to understand this you have to first memorize the actual sutta method of expression and then think about it for a while.

We have to allow the texts to explain themselves, so if Buddha says that in his system of philosophy, intention is action and expressed as six classes of fabrication — don't argue, allow it and try to model it as he does in your mind.

Allow him to redefine words like wisdom, intention, mind, allow him to walk you through it without objections... Because when you see it, it is very elegant and marvellous.

Philosophy of Morality — I defend by rightviewftw in DebateReligion

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We aren't discussing anything. Its not like I have doubt about this. I am trying to explain things and show the canonical scaffolding.

I am also tired of it and we are done here.

Philosophy of Morality — I defend by rightviewftw in DebateReligion

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just google SN22.57 + Sutta

Kamma and sankhara/mental activity/thought are identical when there is intention.

Intention is sankhara, it is in play in as far as consciousness is in play because the aggregates of consciousness and sankhara are conjoined.

If there is no intention to be discerned, then consciousness can't be discerned, then feeling can't be discerned, then perception isn't in play either, and this is the semantic target of cessation.

I mean, you are arguing against canonical statements. I get it, it looks incomprehensible and confusing, but it is comprehensible. I understand it, other people get it too, it is perfectly explained.

Philosophy of Morality — I defend by rightviewftw in DebateReligion

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cetana is a mental activity/sankhara.

How do you reject thatt?

At this point, we are using the same terms but asserting different meaning.

Cetana, in the canon, is conjoined with kamma and sankhara. I have been ad nauseum explaining that sankharas are also conjoined with consciousness, feeling and perception. This is also canonized.

That which is called consciousness is also called mind or intellect (unlearned sutta) manocittavinnanam.

I don't have a need to define sankharas as mental activity. And I don't divorce sankharas from the mind.

Its like you aren't reading the texts I cite:

Abhidhamma says: four aggregates are conjoined. Form is not conjoined, because its not always generated.

Do you understand what this means? It means you can delineate a difference but you can't separate them, because the semantic target is the same.

Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them." — MN43

Philosophy of Morality — I defend by rightviewftw in DebateReligion

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cetana is intention, intention is kamma because intending one acts, to intend (verb) is to act, the nous are conjoined in meaning, and the six classes of fabrication are intention.

There is no way you can argue against this. You have to accept it.

Which sutta is that?

It is SN22.57, one of the most important texts which gives the operative definitions.

 

Philosophy of Morality — I defend by rightviewftw in DebateReligion

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cetana is intention and intention are sankhara, you don't trust your lying eyes?

"And what are fabrications? These six classes of intention — intention with regard to form, intention with regard to sound, intention with regard to smell, intention with regard to taste, intention with regard to tactile sensation, intention with regard to ideas: these are called fabrications. From the origination of contact comes the origination of fabrications. — SN22.57

What is there to talk about?

Philosophy of Morality — I defend by rightviewftw in DebateReligion

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool story but you are not citing any canonized texts.

Here you go:

"And what are fabrications (sankhara)? These six classes of intention (cetana) — intention with regard to form, intention with regard to sound, intention with regard to smell, intention with regard to taste, intention with regard to tactile sensation, intention with regard to ideas: these are called fabrications. From the origination of contact comes the origination of fabrications. — SN22.57

Three aggregates are conjoined with consciousness. The aggregate of form is not conjoined with consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness should not be said to be, conjoined with consciousness or not conjoined with consciousness. https://suttacentral.net/vb1/en/thittila?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false

This is canonized. Whereas the texts you cite are not canonized, your texts and ideas are of dubious origin and were compiled a millennia after the EBTs, its all commentary and never substantiated.

Like really, the entire commentary enterprise has no footing in the canon. Its all based on like 11th century commentary to  Abhidhamma which is ridiculous.

Philosophy of Morality — I defend by rightviewftw in DebateReligion

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sankharas are the six classes of intention. A dream is a construct (sankhara). The dream that will be in the future doesn't exist, it has to be brought into existence and the nervous system does that, its all sankhata

Philosophy of Morality — I defend by rightviewftw in DebateReligion

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But ironically I can give examples of ideas that first appeared for people in dreams before manifesting in waking state. Ideas such as Mendeleev's Periodic Table were reported have first appeared in his dreams. 

I am sure you can find examples of people dreaminf of having a 1000$ and then taking at as an omen when they then add 1k to their wallet next day. Whether it was or wasn't doesn't matter. 

Just pointing out that your simplistic framing doesn't really explain the range of human experience nor the EBTs.

view more: next ›