Is Buddhism exclusive ?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4092
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Is Buddhism exclusive ?

Post by Sam Vara » Wed May 23, 2018 8:52 pm

binocular wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 7:56 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 11:35 am
Yes, that sounds like vicikiccha to me. The point is to get rid of it, rather than thinking there is an end to it that can be obtained by indulging it on its own terms.
In its proper application, the analytical mind exhausts itself. "Exhausts": as in 'comes to its end'.
It might do, although that sounds like an untested theory to me. But the point here is that vicikiccha is not the analytical mind in its proper application; quite the opposite.
It's precisely because of its practical implications that the problem of transcendental morality is so relevant. If you truly know what the true right and wrong are, in each situation, you can settle all disputes (at least on your part), find closure for all situations, you always know what to do and what not to do, you never doubt or second-guess yourself. Transcendental morality is the silver bullet, the panacea. Knowing it, one would be sure to know which religion to choose, which teacher, which teaching, everything would be clear. No need to ever discuss anything anymore.
Sounds great! Let me know your plan for achieving it...
LOL! I look at the Buddhists, and the vast majority of them believe or imply that their version of Buddhism isn't merely a version, but The One True Buddhism, pure Buddhism, that they know what the Buddha really taught, and that it's plain as day (and how can other people be so deluded as to not to see it).
Ah, so you've met some deluded Buddhists!
How did the others find it?
They didn't, binocular! I already told you that it doesn't exist.
Given the clause to the effect "If you don't find that the claims we make are true, then you simply haven't tried hard enough", verification by effort is out of the question. With this clause, the instructions are set up as unfalsifiable.
You might want to reflect on the fact that Popper sees unfalsifiability as evidence of the unscientific nature of a conjectural hypothesis, or else of its truth. Mutatis mutandis, any instructions as to how to achieve a specified result suffer from a similar flaw. Teaching you to swim or to write must have been fun! "But binocular, first you have to get in the water!"..."Never! I'll sink, and then you'll just say I didn't try hard enough! You can't fool me!" (Rinse and repeat...)
This clause can be found in the sutta where the Buddha discusses with another monk how come some people attain the goal of the path and some don't, and then gives the analogy with how come some people arrive at a town by correctly following directions, and that those who don't arrive, haven't followed them correctly. I couldn't find that sutta right now.
It's the Ganakamoggalana Sutta. Note how the people in the sutta actually want to go to the town. If you don't want to go to the town, then don't make the effort. The same applies to nibbana.
Whether or not there is some kind of transcendent reality will not affect that practice,
???
That's a strange idea.
Not if the practice is the only way you have of verifying the transcendent reality. Until you practice, you just won't know one way or the other. Or do you know now? If so, job done. If you don't know, then the practice is to seek it.
That's a strange idea too. Even if you go, how can you know whether you're going in the right direction? This kind of thinking may work well for geographical locations, but for spirituality????
Where do you want to go, binocular? Why are you here on DW? If you want to spend a decade and 5k+ posts speculating about Buddhism, then you've got an excellent strategy. But tell me if you want to go somewhere else.
If people are so damn sure that they know How Things Really Are, then why don't they finally just say how to arrive at that, or declare that some people are just barred from that knowledge and would do best to just bugger off? Some religions at least have the decency to say so straightforwardly, as opposed to stringing people along.
Who is stringing you along, binocular? Who has encouraged you to stay here and expend the energy of 5k+ posts over a decade? Who is so damn sure that they know how things really are, and why do you choose to give them the slightest credence?
This is what I have been assuming for a long time: that others are strong and I am weak; that others are right and I am wrong. That didn't help.
And what did the Buddha say about comparing oneself with others in that way? Of course, you can't trust what he said, because that would mean accepting that his answer was right before you took his word for it, and that, in turn...(repeat ad infinitum...)

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4092
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Is Buddhism exclusive ?

Post by Sam Vara » Wed May 23, 2018 8:59 pm

binocular wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 8:48 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 11:35 am
I don't think many people here object to questioning. They might think that rudeness is inappropriate, or a habitually oppositional stance that remains unassuaged by their answers.
Oh, you're getting there. (You could take a short cut and take a page from Samana Johann's book about respect and veneration.)
Demanding submission and obedience has a bad reputation is Western secular circles, and yet it's central to most human endeavors. Why beat around the bush and deny that.
I'm afraid you've lost me. I'm not making a point about submission and obedience. I'm saying that an habitually oppositional stance is self-defeating, as one never thereby learns anything. Those Western secular Buddhists don't like submitting and obeying, but their success in the middle-class world has often taught them to listen, to acknowledge that others might have something useful to teach them, and that one can solve problems with a bit of application and effort.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Is Buddhism exclusive ?

Post by Saengnapha » Thu May 24, 2018 3:36 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 8:52 pm
binocular wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 7:56 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 11:35 am
Yes, that sounds like vicikiccha to me. The point is to get rid of it, rather than thinking there is an end to it that can be obtained by indulging it on its own terms.
In its proper application, the analytical mind exhausts itself. "Exhausts": as in 'comes to its end'.
It might do, although that sounds like an untested theory to me. But the point here is that vicikiccha is not the analytical mind in its proper application; quite the opposite.
I agree with Sam in that vicikicca(cute word) is not the proper application of analysis. It is mixed with all kinds of assumptions and emotional habits and leads to more anguish. I do think that the analytical 'mind' can exhaust itself and can come to an end in the sense of not creating more illusion. But this can only be when the limitation of the analytical 'mind', is seen as the wrong tool to be used. Thought cannot transcend itself. It must be relegated to its proper application where it does not create 'identity' and 'grasping'. This happens when thought recognizes that this is what it is doing and can never go beyond itself. If you don't see this as clear as the glass of water on the table, then thought is improperly creating 'the dream of existence' and the dreamer.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Fruitzilla, kamui, Volovsky, Yahoo [Bot] and 83 guests