Is Buddhism exclusive ?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Is Buddhism exclusive ?

Post by binocular »

User1249x wrote: Tue May 22, 2018 11:17 pm
Saying categorically "it is not possible that the Buddha was rightfully said to have attained the highest meditative attainments and that his disciples nowadays also attain the highest meditative attainments and that it is impossible to go beyond faith in the Dhamma" that does not really mean anything because it is neither backed by proof nor authority established as such.
Who said that??
imo it has been assumed by implication by many, you as well

How has it been assumed by implication?? By not looking to you as my teacher?
binocular wrote: Tue May 22, 2018 6:57 pm I say that other religions make the same type of statement, the same type of claims, not the same statements, not the same claims.
Buddhist apologists often sound like Christian apologists. The names and key concepts are of course different, but the religious epistemology they present, or imply, is often the same.
can you give some actual examples of particular analogues in the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to methods of validition and scope of justified belief and verification between Buddhist and Christian doctrines?
I'm talking about apologetics from various religions and the epistemology implied in that. They make claims such as:
"The teachings are for everyone in as far as a good advice is for everyone."
"He did, however, maintain that the truth was real, and that it was available to those who awaken to it."
And so on.
"If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth. /.../
And Christian apologists say that one should build one's house on a rock, not on sand. And if you agree with that, they conclude that you (should) believe that the right thing to do is to build you (spiritual) house on the rock that is Jesus.
IOW, they put forward some noncontroversial claim, a truism, but then insist that it proves their very specific point.

Would you say that if I don't look up to you as my teacher, then I'm thereby implying that the Buddha wasn't enlightened?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Is Buddhism exclusive ?

Post by binocular »

binocular wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 7:29 pm
User1249x wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 8:03 amThey may say such things but it does not make it true does it. Buddhism is like the only doctrine i know that goes well with quantum science and information theory.

Also other teachings may be true in other doctrines but i know no doctrine that is as true in it's entirety and as comperhensive as the 4NTs.
You're just making statements of faith. I can talk to a Christian and they will, with the same confidence as you here, assure me that Christianity is true, comprehensive, etc..
User1249x wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 9:50 pm
binocular wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 7:29 pm You're just making statements of faith. I can talk to a Christian and they will, with the same confidence as you here, assure me that Christianity is true, comprehensive, etc..
I think it is very rude to basically claim that the Dhamma does not invite verification and going beyond doubt. You can believe what you want tho, does not make it true.
You're missing the point. I'll illustrate:

A couple of years back, the local university hosted an interfaith conference open to the public. There were a high Catholic cleric, a high Protestant cleric, and a high Muslim cleric.
I wanted to go to that conference and ask them this question:
"This is a question for all three of you. Each of you claims to have the one and only true religion, or at least the most true one, the best one. The Catholic claims that his is the best one; the Protestant claims that his is the best one; the Muslim claims that his is the best one. And all three of you threaten us with eternal damnation if we don't choose the right religion. Each one of you believes I will go to hell forever if I choose the religion of either of the other two. But which one of you is actually right? Which one religion is actually the right one, the true one, the best one? And when you answer this question, look at the other two persons next to you, and consider that they're saying the same things about their religion as you're saying about yours."
I didn't go to the conference, because eventually, I was sure that my question would be written off as a mere provocation and not taken seriously. While their claims of exclusivity and threats of eternal damnation continue ... and we still don't know which religion is the right one.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Is Buddhism exclusive ?

Post by binocular »

Sam Vara wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 11:35 amI 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.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User1249x
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Is Buddhism exclusive ?

Post by User1249x »

binocular wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 8:19 pm Would you say that if I don't look up to you as my teacher, then I'm thereby implying that the Buddha wasn't enlightened?
there is no connection there. however if i tell you "Buddhism is true and verifiable" and you categorically state "That is your belief" that implies either that you think that
A) I neglect to specify that it is my conviction
B) Statement taken at face value can not be true because I can't know
C) Statement can not be true in general

Both B & C require proof on your part

When you further go on to say that epistemologically Buddhism is same as other Religions in what concerns such claims, that makes me think that you assert C and that "Buddhism is not verifiable beyond belief"
can you give some actual examples of particular analogues in the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to methods of validition and scope of justified belief and verification between Buddhist and Christian doctrines?
regarding this you did not actually give any examples..
nor did you draw parallels to anything but the part of the Sutta which does not transcend belief.
User1249x
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Is Buddhism exclusive ?

Post by User1249x »

binocular wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 8:37 pm
binocular wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 7:29 pm
User1249x wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 8:03 amThey may say such things but it does not make it true does it. Buddhism is like the only doctrine i know that goes well with quantum science and information theory.

Also other teachings may be true in other doctrines but i know no doctrine that is as true in it's entirety and as comperhensive as the 4NTs.
You're just making statements of faith. I can talk to a Christian and they will, with the same confidence as you here, assure me that Christianity is true, comprehensive, etc..
User1249x wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 9:50 pm
binocular wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 7:29 pm You're just making statements of faith. I can talk to a Christian and they will, with the same confidence as you here, assure me that Christianity is true, comprehensive, etc..
I think it is very rude to basically claim that the Dhamma does not invite verification and going beyond doubt. You can believe what you want tho, does not make it true.
You're missing the point. I'll illustrate:

A couple of years back, the local university hosted an interfaith conference open to the public. There were a high Catholic cleric, a high Protestant cleric, and a high Muslim cleric.
I wanted to go to that conference and ask them this question:
"This is a question for all three of you. Each of you claims to have the one and only true religion, or at least the most true one, the best one. The Catholic claims that his is the best one; the Protestant claims that his is the best one; the Muslim claims that his is the best one. And all three of you threaten us with eternal damnation if we don't choose the right religion. Each one of you believes I will go to hell forever if I choose the religion of either of the other two. But which one of you is actually right? Which one religion is actually the right one, the true one, the best one? And when you answer this question, look at the other two persons next to you, and consider that they're saying the same things about their religion as you're saying about yours."
I didn't go to the conference, because eventually, I was sure that my question would be written off as a mere provocation and not taken seriously. While their claims of exclusivity and threats of eternal damnation continue ... and we still don't know which religion is the right one.
Well your question is flawed as it assumes that one of the three is right and neither of those religions claim to go beyond belief and conviction in this very life.
Last edited by User1249x on Wed May 23, 2018 8:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Is Buddhism exclusive ?

Post by Sam Vara »

binocular wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 7:56 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 11:35 amYes, 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
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Is Buddhism exclusive ?

Post by Sam Vara »

binocular wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 8:48 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Wed May 23, 2018 11:35 amI 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 »

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 amYes, 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