juantoo3's comments in 'Proofs for God's Non-Existence' thread

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

perhaps this is true of Europeans, Lunamoth, but please.... the rest of the world does exist and we do have a long history of both secular views and religious views.

it simply isn't an accurate statement to proclaim that the secular paradigm arose during the European Enlightenment period.

metta,

~v

Apologies, Vajradhara (and all). Please forgive my arrogance.

lunamoth

[juantoo3]

I do not know that I received an answer to my question of the roots of Taoism, and whether or not there is a connection to animism? If so, it could then tie Taoism, and by association Buddhism, into the Neolithic past (which I suspect anyway). In lack of that evidence, Buddhism is a recent philosophy, and in spite of that stills searches for the unknowable its adherants intuit as being "out there." (Correction, "in there." Still, beyond our ability to fully grasp, and {not that it has of yet entered the argument} requiring faith to reach towards.)

No less illogically, I might add, than those who seek God in the sense God is commonly understood.

[juantoo3]

I would hope our history demonstrates I mean no disrespect, and that what I have written is received in the spirit it is intended. That of a student asking difficult but sincere questions.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

How so?

you claimed:

without a "God" concept, we would not be able to think or "see" into the future, in the sense of understanding the consequences of our actions.

which i dispute complete and totally predicated on the fact that my religion does not have anything like a "god" concept yet, we still understand that our actions have future consequences.

thus, i would encourage you to reconsider your thiestic insistence on recognizing the consequences of our actions.

Quite the contrary. I am making a leap of speculation, but either you did not read the entire thread, or you misunderstood.

read the whole thread. it must be my misunderstanding.

I have tried as best I can to illustrate the "God concept" includes Buddhism.

a god concept, by definition, cannot include the Buddha Dharma. unless, of course, by god concept you are meaning something like the Greek or Roman pantheon and so forth... at which point, i would tell you that though Buddhism says that those beings exist, they cannot be of any assistance to sentient beings in the journey to the Other Shore and thus, have no bearing on our practice.

Earl said it well, I think, in that Buddhists chase an Other called "Buddha mind," whereas theists chase an Other called "God."

you may well like Earls view. it is not the Buddhist view as explained by the historical Buddha, which is only relevant to Buddhists, naturally.

there is not one single Sutta or Sutra that can be brought forth to show that there is a teaching in Buddhism which points to buddhanature being somehow seperate from the intrisinc nature of the sentient being.

to think that Buddhists chase an "other" is to have the view of non-buddhist thinking. to posit an other, there first must be a "self" to determine what the "other" (which is not "me") is. Buddha Dharma is not dualistic nor monistic, it is the Middle Way between extremes.

perhaps nowhere is this more clearly seen than in the famous Neti/Neti philosophical formulations of the later Sanatana dharma and Buddha dharma schools.

Either way, we are all chasing something we cannot rationally prove, but intuitively know, at least on some level.

which is why Buddhists are not engaged in what you think we are engaged in. we are not chasing anything... this is a fundamental misconception of what is going on.

Buddha Dharma does not want and specifically teaches against, accepting anything on an intuitive basis. it is only through thorough testing that we are supposed to uphold a teaching. we are specifically instructed to not adopt a teaching if we cannot verify it for ourselves. of course, that verification may be, and probably is, different for each being.

Consequences have to do more with our understanding the "cause/effect" of our actions in a future sense, *not a God dealing punishment*, as I have explained previously.

clearly. nor did i indicate otherwise.

Yet too, Karma must be taken on faith.

not at all. it is clearly demonstrable through your actions, in my view. perhaps you have not had the experience of reaping what you sow, thus, you must accept this on faith. i, by contrast, have had this experience and thus, it is a teaching which i accept based on my own testing of the concept through the experience of this present skandha.

It is still the search beyond ourselves to what we know exists but cannot see.

Buddha Dharma does not teach the existence of a self to search beyond.

It is but another way to approach the "God concept," although I knew full well you would object to my choice of terms. I stated as much earlier.

how could i not? to imply that only a theistic outlook allows moral decisions is something which i am obligated to speak against.

I have posed this to you before, I will ask again as I do not recall if you answered. As you have some familiarity with Christianity, more so than I with Buddhism, I would ask how you would term "God concept" in an inclusive manner for the major world faiths?

i would not do such a thing for i do not think it can be done. if, a faith is a theistic faith, then perhaps you could do so. in that consideration, most theistic faiths have a view that their conception of God is the ultimate source, the root sequence, for all phenomena and noumena. thus, you could take a page from Protestant Christian theologian Paul Tillich and call it the "Ground of Being" and probably be ok with respect to most theistic traditions.

Buddha Dharma does not have this "ground of being" to reference. Buddha Shakyamuni explains that there is nothing, within the Buddhist paradigm, that can rightly be considered the root sequence.

How would you describe the inherent search by humanity as far back as pre-history for that "something out there" over which we have no control, and to which we are helpless and submissive?

Namaste. And Peace.

it is not my view that a) we are searching for something out there, b) that we are helpless and c) that we submit to whatever it is which is being sought.

consciousness has a particular quality, that of awareness and knowing. thus, it seems clear enough that sentient beings, humans in this case, are attempting to broaden their knowledge and awareness of their surroundings through a variety of means and methods with varying degrees of success.

thus, i would describe the inquisitive nature of humans as simply that... an inquisitive nature.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I do not know that I received an answer to my question of the roots of Taoism, and whether or not there is a connection to animism? If so, it could then tie Taoism, and by association Buddhism, into the Neolithic past (which I suspect anyway).

if this is your view, what point is there in dialog?

In lack of that evidence, Buddhism is a recent philosophy,

you can call something which is over 2,500 years old new if you'd like. by implication, then, Christianity is quite new as well, yes?

and in spite of that stills searches for the unknowable its adherants intuit as being "out there." (Correction, "in there." Still, beyond our ability to fully grasp, and {not that it has of yet entered the argument} requiring faith to reach towards.)

No less illogically, I might add, than those who seek God in the sense God is commonly understood.

you are free to hold this view if you'd like, it is, however, not the Buddhist understanding.

it is not beyond our ability to grasp... if it were, there would be no chance of liberation. it is beyond the ability of the discursive intellect to grasp. i'll let you decide if your intellect comprises the totality of your consciousness.

metta,

~v

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

It is nice to have an in depth discussion with you again! Thank you for your input!

(*without a "God" concept, we would not be able to think or "see" into the future, in the sense of understanding the consequences of our actions.) which i dispute complete and totally predicated on the fact that my religion does not have anything like a "god" concept yet, we still understand that our actions have future consequences.

Indeed, a very well defined, even codified set of moral guidelines that have served about half of the world for, as you say, some 2500 years. No doubt. So, right about now I am thinking that the major stumbling block deals primarily with attempting to find a way to word a concept that is difficult to define in the best of circumstances. Since my approach is Western, and my audience was predominantly Western (with a nod to both Awaiting and earl, who both acknowledge familiarity with Western concepts), I was indeed using a Western approach using Greek logic.

thus, i would encourage you to reconsider your thiestic insistence on recognizing the consequences of our actions.

I cannot help but think the point is missed. I am not trying to make Buddhists seem "theist," per se. I am trying to point out that it is inherent to humanity in every expression I have looked into to reach towards something beyond their individual and collective "self." You quibble with "self," yet surely you must acknowledge that in order to move beyond self, you must begin with self. Self may not be the ideal place to be in the Buddhist way of thinking, but it is still the place we are born into. Shedding / growing beyond / peeling back / whatever until there is no more self implies there is self to begin with. If I am to understand you in that Buddhism looks inward rather than outward, the beginning point is still "self", as it is in the other paradigm.

a god concept, by definition, cannot include the Buddha Dharma. unless, of course, by god concept you are meaning something like the Greek or Roman pantheon and so forth...

Yes! Indeed, all (I hesitate here) valid forms of religious expression throughout history. I say "valid" to exclude those spurious "fly by night" self-appointed profits (pun intended).

My focus has been to start with neolithic religions, from which all other religious expressions "evolved." (Unless it can be definitively shown that some one religion or other "dropped down out of the sky," a supposition to this point scoffed at rather uniformly).

at which point, i would tell you that though Buddhism says that those beings exist, they cannot be of any assistance to sentient beings in the journey to the Other Shore and thus, have no bearing on our practice.

Ummm, I'm not quite sure I follow. Buddhism agrees in "gods" (lower case) when convenient? Yet denies God in a greater sense? I am not attempting to place anything into anyplace in the Buddhist system, I am trying to demonstrate Buddhism does have a system, as opposed in this thread by raw atheism. This thread was begun by atheists, and it is towards them that my argument was predominantly pointed. I do not see Buddhism as atheist in the raw sense. Buddhism does believe in "something," whereas in my understanding raw atheism seems to believe in effectively nothing, or perhaps better said believes in self and self alone (or at best, collective "self").

Earl said it well, I think, in that Buddhists chase an Other called "Buddha mind," whereas theists chase an Other called "God."

It is in this regard that I still feel earl said it well. Short, sweet, to the point.

you may well like Earls view. it is not the Buddhist view as explained by the historical Buddha, which is only relevant to Buddhists, naturally.

That is quite understandable. I want to say any faith path can be described in terms from outside of that faith path, depending on the audience. I have not looked deeply yet, and it is possible I may be shown incorrect here, but I would think that terms basically foreign to a particular path can still be used to describe that path. Obviously not to the complete satisfaction of that particular faith's adherents, but in the effort to compose something understood by a wide audience, terms defined and available to a wide audience must be used. I was attempting to speak to the audience.

I is my hope, that particularly where I seem most "unskilled," that sincere alternative explanation would be offered. Unless it is the desire and will of Eastern paths to deliberately separate themselves, which by a number of things from what I have seen you list in the past, I do not believe to be the case. Did you not say before that there are many valid paths up the mountain? I seem to recall, what, 84 thousand doors? Not all of which, as I recall you mentioning, are Buddhist. But all are valid refuges depending on the individual.

there is not one single Sutta or Sutra that can be brought forth to show that there is a teaching in Buddhism which points to buddhanature being somehow seperate from the intrisinc nature of the sentient being.

Very well. It does not make the reach towards Buddha nature any less illogical to an outsider than the reach towards God is to you. Yet both of us still desire and continue to reach!

to think that Buddhists chase an "other" is to have the view of non-buddhist thinking. to posit an other, there first must be a "self" to determine what the "other" (which is not "me") is. Buddha Dharma is not dualistic nor monistic, it is the Middle Way between extremes.

Yes, of course. I am not Buddhist. Neither was my immediate audience, excepting Awaiting and earl, both of whom expressed understanding of Greek logic and Western views. I see no way to describe what I wished to say in a way that was completely without...unskilled action. I have no qualm with your beliefs. The point is you believe.

(*Either way, we are all chasing something we cannot rationally prove, but intuitively know, at least on some level.) which is why Buddhists are not engaged in what you think we are engaged in. we are not chasing anything... this is a fundamental misconception of what is going on.

I know that I do not know what Buddhists are "engaged" in. My point has always been that you are engaged.

that verification may be, and probably is, different for each being.

Indeed, and it finds expression in many different ways across time. But it does find expression, effectively across all societies across time.

(*Yet too, Karma must be taken on faith.) not at all. it is clearly demonstrable through your actions, in my view. perhaps you have not had the experience of reaping what you sow, thus, you must accept this on faith. i, by contrast, have had this experience and thus, it is a teaching which i accept based on my own testing of the concept through the experience of this present skandha.

It is not my intent to seem in any way adversarial, but I have yet to see demonstrable proof in rebirth. No more proof than my own heartfelt belief in heaven. And while yes I can see you accept this teaching of Karma based on your personal subjective experience, likewise I can see and accept "guidance" from what I believe to be God by my own personal and subjective experience. Neither of us can prove our beliefs with satisfaction to the other, but we both have our beliefs.

Buddha Dharma does not teach the existence of a self to search beyond.

Forgive me, I understood it to be "shedding" of self. As in peeling back layers of an onion.

to imply that only a theistic outlook allows moral decisions is something which i am obligated to speak against.

With all due respect, that is not what I have meant at all. I had thought I had made myself pretty clear in this regard.

if, a faith is a theistic faith, then perhaps you could do so. in that consideration, most theistic faiths have a view that their conception of God is the ultimate source, the root sequence, for all phenomena and noumena. thus, you could take a page from Protestant Christian theologian Paul Tillich and call it the "Ground of Being" and probably be ok with respect to most theistic traditions.

Very well, but this would disenfranchise Buddhism from the historic reality I am attempting to describe. I wish to be inclusive in my description, am I to understand that you do not wish Buddhism to be shown in an historic light and perspective in its rightful place among the great world religions? I would hope this is not the case.

(*How would you describe the inherent search by humanity as far back as pre-history for that "something out there" over which we have no control, and to which we are helpless and submissive?) it is not my view that a) we are searching for something out there, b) that we are helpless and c) that we submit to whatever it is which is being sought.

Very well, therein lies the difficulty I face in my attempt. Nevertheless, I still believe it stands that Buddhists hold a system of belief, just as other societies have and did. Not in form, but still in function. There are many forms, and ultimately one function.

consciousness has a particular quality, that of awareness and knowing. thus, it seems clear enough that sentient beings, humans in this case, are attempting to broaden their knowledge and awareness of their surroundings through a variety of means and methods with varying degrees of success.

Agreed. This is a sincere attempt at that very thing. Obviously at this point with limited success.

i would describe the inquisitive nature of humans as simply that... an inquisitive nature.

Very well. And that inquisitive nature began where? And to what did it look? Most especially in an animist/shamanist society?

[juantoo3]

Continued:

(*the roots of Taoism, and whether or not there is a connection to animism?)
if this is your view, what point is there in dialog?

It is not yet my view, it is my guess at this point in the lack of evidence. Is Taoism older than Buddhism, particularly in China? Does China have a long and storied history of animist and nature-based religions?

(*Buddhism is a recent philosophy,) you can call something which is over 2,500 years old new if you'd like. by implication, then, Christianity is quite new as well, yes?

Nowhere did I say it wasn't. Monotheism in the Middle East, by contrast, is considerably older by my understanding. Hinduism is by my understanding older still. And animism/shamanism is the oldest of all.

it is not beyond our ability to grasp... if it were, there would be no chance of liberation.

If those people who followed your paradigm were fully capable of grasping the path, all would be Buddas in short time. Likewise, if all people who followed my paradigm were fully capable of grasping the path, none would sin and all would see heaven. There would be no conflict among competing "denominations," and likely no need for codified morality and law among any of our paradigms.

it is beyond the ability of the discursive intellect to grasp. i'll let you decide if your intellect comprises the totality of your consciousness.

The way that can be spoken is not the true way. Agreed. No problem. Yet this is a discursive discussion. This discussion in no way is the path. It is an attempt to show the development of the path across time. So no, I have no illusions that my intellect comprises the totality of my consciousness. For one, there is also conscience.

[juantoo3]

continued thought:

And while yes I can see you accept this teaching of Karma based on your personal subjective experience, likewise I can see and accept "guidance" from what I believe to be God by my own personal and subjective experience. Neither of us can prove our beliefs with satisfaction to the other, but we both have our beliefs.

Why do either of us believe, or anybody for that matter, across time and around the world, if there is nothing to believe in to begin with, as raw atheists posit? There must be something there, whatever that something may happen to be. Call that something Buddhamind if you prefer, it is still something to which you seek.

I have no illusions that all, or any, can fully grasp that something in its totality. Indeed, I think none of us have that something fully within our grasp. Our religious paradigms are merely tools to attempt to understand that something. From there, we do the best we can with what we understand.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste juan,

thank you for your post.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Indeed, a very well defined, even codified set of moral guidelines that have served about half of the world for, as you say, some 2500 years. No doubt. So, right about now I am thinking that the major stumbling block deals primarily with attempting to find a way to word a concept that is difficult to define in the best of circumstances. Since my approach is Western, and my audience was predominantly Western (with a nod to both Awaiting and earl, who both acknowledge familiarity with Western concepts), I was indeed using a Western approach using Greek logic.

i submit that the Greek paradigm is not capable of rederning a proper cognition of the Indian view unless a being is able to, sorry to paraphrase a movie line... unlearn what they have learned.

this is, in fact, the point. it is beyond verbalized formulations regardless of their fineness and eloquence.

I cannot help but think the point is missed. I am not trying to make Buddhists seem "theist," per se. I am trying to point out that it is inherent to humanity in every expression I have looked into to reach towards something beyond their individual and collective "self."

perhaps, i am quite dense.

clearly, this is your view. you have communicated it with all due clarity. yet, Buddhism does not teach this view and, if you feel that it does, then i would suggest that you could revisit the issue when you have more leisure time.

You quibble with "self,"

this is such a fundamental teaching of mine that i find it rather hard to believe that you would deign to engage in this sort of conversational tactic.

yet surely you must acknowledge that in order to move beyond self, you must begin with self. Self may not be the ideal place to be in the Buddhist way of thinking, but it is still the place we are born into. Shedding / growing beyond / peeling back / whatever until there is no more self implies there is self to begin with. If I am to understand you in that Buddhism looks inward rather than outward, the beginning point is still "self", as it is in the other paradigm.

if a magician creates an illusion... even if that magician talks to the illusion and finds emotive response with the illusion, the illusion is not real no matter how much the magician may wish it to be so. the illusion was never real and to misconceive of this fact does in no way mitigate the fact that it is, in the final analysis, an illusion.

i do agree that beings need to begin at the beginning, however, at no point does Buddhism posit a "provisional" self nature until a more spiritually mature understanding is attained.

Yes! Indeed, all (I hesitate here) valid forms of religious expression throughout history. I say "valid" to exclude those spurious "fly by night" self-appointed profits (pun intended).

a valid spiritual refuge is a technical sort of thing in the Buddha Dharma, i would agree. there are many so-called religous traditions which are not valid spiritual refuges, in my opinion.

My focus has been to start with neolithic religions, from which all other religious expressions "evolved." (Unless it can be definitively shown that some one religion or other "dropped down out of the sky," a supposition to this point scoffed at rather uniformly).

well... you are using a rather unique definition of the term evolution, which is properly meant to refer to biological evolution.

Ummm, I'm not quite sure I follow. Buddhism agrees in "gods" (lower case) when convenient? Yet denies God in a greater sense?

not "when convenient". this is a foundational teaching of the Buddha Dharma. sentient beings can take rebirth in the heavenly realms and, to beings here, they would be "gods". these beings are precisely what you would call "God".

Buddhism denies, totally, the concept of a Creator Deity from which all things arise. this is not a philosophical objection, it is a relgious objection being that a Creator God is completely at odds with the Buddhist ontological view of continual arising.

I am not attempting to place anything into anyplace in the Buddhist system, I am trying to demonstrate Buddhism does have a system, as opposed in this thread by raw atheism.

clearly, Buddhism has a system. it is not a theistic system at all. so, it depends on what you mean by "atheist". if it means a belief in "deity" then Buddhism has that. if it means "belief in a Creator Deity" then Buddhism is atheistic.

It is in this regard that I still feel earl said it well. Short, sweet, to the point.

of course.

I is my hope, that particularly where I seem most "unskilled," that sincere alternative explanation would be offered. Unless it is the desire and will of Eastern paths to deliberately separate themselves, which by a number of things from what I have seen you list in the past, I do not believe to be the case.

hmm... that is the only alternative that you could think of? it must be because we want to be seperate from you?

Did you not say before that there are many valid paths up the mountain? I seem to recall, what, 84 thousand doors? Not all of which, as I recall you mentioning, are Buddhist. But all are valid refuges depending on the individual.

of course. as i am sure that i said then, and will say again now, a spiritual refuge is a technical term in the Buddha Dharma and it denotes a spiritual tradition which is capable of transforming a being in a positive manner through moral and ethical teachings.

84,000 Dharma doors, my friend, are different than just 84,000 doors.

Very well. It does not make the reach towards Buddha nature any less illogical to an outsider than the reach towards God is to you. Yet both of us still desire and continue to reach!

hmm. you do not "reach" towards it, juan. it is already part of you.

this is not the place for a more detailed discussion of Buddhanature. suffice it to say that it is not at all in the same category as deity seperated from being.

It is not my intent to seem in any way adversarial, but I have yet to see demonstrable proof in rebirth.

and hence, you should not accept that teaching, as explained previously.

No more proof than my own heartfelt belief in heaven.

naturally. heck, we have heavens in our teachings as well.

And while yes I can see you accept this teaching of Karma based on your personal subjective experience, likewise I can see and accept "guidance" from what I believe to be God by my own personal and subjective experience. Neither of us can prove our beliefs with satisfaction to the other, but we both have our beliefs.

the problem is, juan, is that your religion teaches the concept of karma as well. this is not just an Indian religion thing. i would suggest you read your St. Paul and his teachings on reaping what you sow.

Forgive me, I understood it to be "shedding" of self. As in peeling back layers of an onion.

a plantain tree. hollow, non-existent.

Very well, but this would disenfranchise Buddhism from the historic reality I am attempting to describe.

provided you can describe that world view without a Creator Deity or Ground of Being or anything of that nature, you can probably include the Buddha Dharma. otherwise, why would you do so?

I wish to be inclusive in my description, am I to understand that you do not wish Buddhism to be shown in an historic light and perspective in its rightful place among the great world religions? I would hope this is not the case.

goodness. nice appeal to my vanity, juan

it matters not how the Greek concept of history is imposed upon the Buddha Dharma, our view is not linear, it is cyclic and thus the Dharma will wax and wane regardless of historical perspective.

Very well, therein lies the difficulty I face in my attempt. Nevertheless, I still believe it stands that Buddhists hold a system of belief, just as other societies have and did. Not in form, but still in function. There are many forms, and ultimately one function.

even though the Buddha specifically teaches otherwise, you would hold the view that we do teach that.

as you wish, juan.

Very well. And that inquisitive nature began where? And to what did it look? Most especially in an animist/shamanist society?

why must i use your Greek philosophical concepts regarding time? our view is not linear, it is cyclic... there is nothing that "came first". our teaching is called Interdependent Co-Arising, this is because that is. you've read the Tao of Physics, juan, we've spoken about it before. though a bit dated now, it explains in a very scientific sort of way the same concept.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

It is not yet my view, it is my guess at this point in the lack of evidence. Is Taoism older than Buddhism, particularly in China?

yes, the Tao was established in China before the arrival of the Buddha Dharma. the Buddha Dharma entered China in a formal way with the arrival of Bodhidharma. the Buddha, Lao-Tzu and Confucious were contemporaries.. along with Pythagorias, by the by.

Does China have a long and storied history of animist and nature-based religions?

yes.

Nowhere did I say it wasn't. Monotheism in the Middle East, by contrast, is considerably older by my understanding. Hinduism is by my understanding older still. And animism/shamanism is the oldest of all.

Sanatana Dharma and Buddha Dharma do not share your linear view of time and history... it is, in fact, a very different world view.

If those people who followed your paradigm were fully capable of grasping the path, all would be Buddas in short time.

juan, please, if you do not know of what you speak, why make such assertions? this is not, at all, the case. Buddhas are rare to arise in a world system. beings are liberated without, necessarily, becoming Buddhas. furthermore, this is a relatively common occurance, all things considered. naturally, you will be skeptical, which is how it should be. put it to the test or don't accept it, like a goldsmith testing gold.

Likewise, if all people who followed my paradigm were fully capable of grasping the path, none would sin and all would see heaven.

pardon me. whilst it is correct that you are a Christian and i am not, i would beg to differ with your interpetation of your religions view of the fundamental human condition, that of the fallen nature. your tradition teaches that one cannot be like Jesus.

of course, you may not subscribe to the orthodox or catholic views of Christianity, thus, your individual beliefs may be different.

metta,

~v

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Thank you for your thoughtful reply and peer review! My apologies for my tardiness in responding.

i submit that the Greek paradigm is not capable of rederning a proper cognition of the Indian view unless a being is able to, sorry to paraphrase a movie line... unlearn what they have learned.

this is, in fact, the point. it is beyond verbalized formulations regardless of their fineness and eloquence.

OK, and I suspect that is the aim of our conversation here, at least from your perspective. You mentioned a couple of times the significance of the cyclical point of view in your tradition as compared with the linear point of view from Greek logic. The trouble is, I have been attempting to describe a linear evolution of our current human psycho-social constructs as applied to this existence, which cannot be adequately understood by cyclical reasoning outside of that paradigm. So, I am beginning to draw the conclusion that we speak two entirely different languages, across which it is darn near impossible to bridge the gap. I cannot seem to find a way to adequately describe linear historic reality by means of circular reasoning.

In the end, I suppose it is inevitable that I offend, even though it is my express intent not to. What can I say? I do not go around my elbow to get to my tail.

i do agree that beings need to begin at the beginning, however, at no point does Buddhism posit a "provisional" self nature until a more spiritually mature understanding is attained.

Very well, my bad. I do find a minor degree of solace in an offhanded confirmation of what I was trying to say.

(*My focus has been to start with neolithic religions, from which all other religious expressions "evolved.” –jt3) well... you are using a rather unique definition of the term evolution, which is properly meant to refer to biological evolution.

Not really. Human psycho-social development is often couched in evolutionary language. A great deal, I would think, of what anthropology does is connect dots between different developments throughout cultural and social historical time. Perhaps, if she is up to it, path of one may expand on this. But of the few anthropologists I have read, I can think of none that were “afraid” to use developmental language that closely parallels the language of biological evolution.

In the end, we again return to the biological origins of morality. Is biology all there is to the equation of morality? If so, then evolutionary language is precisely the correct language. If not…then it is still a supplementary language.

Where do we draw the line?

clearly, Buddhism has a system. it is not a theistic system at all. so, it depends on what you mean by "atheist". if it means a belief in "deity" then Buddhism has that. if it means "belief in a Creator Deity" then Buddhism is atheistic.

OK, this is precisely why I placed the inclusive disclaimers pertaining to Buddhism. I understand Buddhism has no “God” in the theistic sense, which is why I worded everything the way I did from the very beginning, and cautioned that my choice of term would draw fire. And it has. I am beginning to feel prophetic, all sarcasm intended. It seems like my comment became an invitation.

Again I find solace in confirmation of the concept I have been attempting to convey, even if my choice of words was not fully up to the task.

I even specifically defined atheism, to which Buddhism could only logically be disincluded.

a spiritual refuge is a technical term in the Buddha Dharma and it denotes a spiritual tradition which is capable of transforming a being in a positive manner through moral and ethical teachings.

Indeed! And this would also include theistic teachings and paths, if I recall earlier discussion.
In other words, provided my path is capable of transforming my being in a positive manner through moral and ethical teaching, it need not be Buddhist to “elevate” me. Of course, the proof remains in the pudding, but I would like to believe I am coming along nicely on the path I find myself upon. Not better, but certainly no worse.

provided you can describe that world view without a Creator Deity or Ground of Being or anything of that nature, you can probably include the Buddha Dharma. otherwise, why would you do so?

To demonstrate that morality (as commonly understood by civil humanity) not only cannot, but by historic evidence has not, “evolved” in the absence of a system of belief in something beyond our collective selves, something “more than us.” I am sorry Vajra, I still cannot find a suitable replacement for this concept of self in this context.

nice appeal to my vanity, juan

ok, the smart aleck in me wants to say that vanity is not possible without self. However, I will refrain.

it matters not how the Greek concept of history is imposed upon the Buddha Dharma, our view is not linear, it is cyclic and thus the Dharma will wax and wane regardless of historical perspective.

I am not imposing anything on anybody. I am placing significant cultural developments into historic perspective, as applied to human psycho-social development. In other words, the history of the development of morality.

(*There are many forms, and ultimately one function. –jt3) even though the Buddha specifically teaches otherwise, you would hold the view that we do teach that.

It was not my intent to suggest the Buddha said anything of this sort. These are my words, and to this point I stand by them.

why must i use your Greek philosophical concepts regarding time? our view is not linear, it is cyclic... there is nothing that "came first". our teaching is called Interdependent Co-Arising, this is because that is. you've read the Tao of Physics, juan, we've spoken about it before. though a bit dated now, it explains in a very scientific sort of way the same concept.

Yes, I recall our conversation regarding the Tao of Physics. I also recall our lengthy discussion on evolution (remember “evilution?,” {which for those not aware was not my contribution}) I do not understand the reticence to address a linear development here, when it seemed quite natural elsewhere. I am not about to goad on the issue, I just find it remarkably…ummm, inconsistent. I say this with utmost respect.

yes, the Tao was established in China before the arrival of the Buddha Dharma. the Buddha Dharma entered China in a formal way with the arrival of Bodhidharma. the Buddha, Lao-Tzu and Confucious were contemporaries.. along with Pythagorias, by the by.

Cool! So, what belief system was Lao-Tzu culturally and socially indoctrinated in prior to writing his book?

(*Monotheism in the Middle East, by contrast, is considerably older by my understanding. Hinduism is by my understanding older still. And animism/shamanism is the oldest of all.) Sanatana Dharma and Buddha Dharma do not share your linear view of time and history... it is, in fact, a very different world view.

And rightly it should be. And age is no validation of itself. And every path of faith and system of belief has some internal validation (memes and all that…). And one should rightly view the path they are on as the correct path (or find another path).

(*If those people who followed your paradigm were fully capable of grasping the path, all would be Buddas in short time. –jt3) juan, please, if you do not know of what you speak, why make such assertions? this is not, at all, the case. Buddhas are rare to arise in a world system. beings are liberated without, necessarily, becoming Buddhas. furthermore, this is a relatively common occurance, all things considered. naturally, you will be skeptical, which is how it should be. put it to the test or don't accept it, like a goldsmith testing gold.

Very well, I stand corrected. My apologies. If those people who followed your paradigm were fully capable of grasping the path, all would be liberated in short time. Yet, from what I have seen taught here of Karma, the typical lay Buddhist is no more certain than the typical lay Christian, or layperson of any other walk of faith. We are all guilty of transgression, that is my point here with this comment. Call it unskilled action if you prefer, the concept translates.

pardon me. whilst it is correct that you are a Christian and i am not, i would beg to differ with your interpetation of your religions view of the fundamental human condition, that of the fallen nature. your tradition teaches that one cannot be like Jesus.

Indeed, so why karma, either?

Cause and effect. As understood by prehistoric society. Opening the eyes into a new paradigm. Witnessing, among other things, the birth of morality as we know it.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste juan,

thank you for the kind response.

i admit that my responses in this thread and a few others have been quite poor recently. i offer my apologies to you, Earl, and Devadatta for my unkind remarks.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

OK, and I suspect that is the aim of our conversation here, at least from your perspective. You mentioned a couple of times the significance of the cyclical point of view in your tradition as compared with the linear point of view from Greek logic.

understanding, of course, that it is not just an Indian view of cyclic time, to wit, the Mayans.

they simply are completely different paradigms which lead beings to completely different conclusions, what more can be said?

The trouble is, I have been attempting to describe a linear evolution of our current human psycho-social constructs as applied to this existence, which cannot be adequately understood by cyclical reasoning outside of that paradigm.

why do you say that? why can a being not hold the view of cyclical time and apply the concepts of this particular arising in a linear fashion? it is a strange thing that you Greek types posit a bi-valent view of reality when it is demonstrably a multi-valent reality.

So, I am beginning to draw the conclusion that we speak two entirely different languages, across which it is darn near impossible to bridge the gap. I cannot seem to find a way to adequately describe linear historic reality by means of circular reasoning.

must you resort to such tactics, juan? honestly "circular reasoning" is not likely to engender much positive dialog. our reasoning is not circular, our view of time/universe is. hopefully, those are two distinct things in our conversation.

In the end, I suppose it is inevitable that I offend, even though it is my express intent not to. What can I say? I do not go around my elbow to get to my tail.

it is the intent that counts most. i do not understand the last sentence, can you explain it differently?

Very well, my bad. I do find a minor degree of solace in an offhanded confirmation of what I was trying to say.

perhaps, you could consider not implying motivations and so forth to me? i was not being "offhanded" or "backhanded" or anything of that sort. nor was i being equivical. i specifically stated that i agreed with this point but disagreed that this referent was a "self", even a provisonal "self".

Not really. Human psycho-social development is often couched in evolutionary language. A great deal, I would think, of what anthropology does is connect dots between different developments throughout cultural and social historical time. Perhaps, if she is up to it, path of one may expand on this. But of the few anthropologists I have read, I can think of none that were “afraid” to use developmental language that closely parallels the language of biological evolution.

just different understandings of the term, then. i use the term quite narrowly and, it would seem, that many beings do not.

OK, this is precisely why I placed the inclusive disclaimers pertaining to Buddhism. I understand Buddhism has no “God” in the theistic sense, which is why I worded everything the way I did from the very beginning, and cautioned that my choice of term would draw fire. And it has. I am beginning to feel prophetic, all sarcasm intended. It seems like my comment became an invitation.

we have had many prophets visit this site.

I even specifically defined atheism, to which Buddhism could only logically be disincluded.

Indeed! And this would also include theistic teachings and paths, if I recall earlier discussion.

that is correct.

In other words, provided my path is capable of transforming my being in a positive manner through moral and ethical teaching, it need not be Buddhist to “elevate” me. Of course, the proof remains in the pudding, but I would like to believe I am coming along nicely on the path I find myself upon. Not better, but certainly no worse.

well.. i have no idea about elevations and things of this nature, your path may or may not do such a thing. the Chrisitian religion is viewed as a valid spiritual refuge for beings from the perspective of the Buddha Dharma.

perhaps, it doesn't need to be said but i'll say it nonetheless. my tradition is called "Buddhism" because of its linguistic origins, not for some other reason. as a consequence, one does not need to use the Sanskrit name to put into practice compassion, empathy, generosity or charity. engaging in those actions with the "samyak" intent (right intent) is practicing the Dharma and thus, it is not limited to a partcular set linguistic conventions.

To demonstrate that morality (as commonly understood by civil humanity) not only cannot, but by historic evidence has not, “evolved” in the absence of a system of belief in something beyond our collective selves, something “more than us.” I am sorry Vajra, I still cannot find a suitable replacement for this concept of self in this context.

no worries, juan. you do not need to find a replacemet for the concept of self.

ok, the smart aleck in me wants to say that vanity is not possible without self. However, I will refrain.

perhaps your refrain is more loudly refrained than you intended?

I am not imposing anything on anybody. I am placing significant cultural developments into historic perspective, as applied to human psycho-social development. In other words, the history of the development of morality.

from a Greek point of view. this isn't meant to be a detraction from your point, however, it is as if you are claiming that you aren't imposing anything on anybody, yet, your argument is only considerate of the linear Greek view. thus, to participate in your discussion i must also assent to a linear view or risk having my reasoning be called circular.

whilst i can accept the concept of linear time in an academic sense, it is not a view which i hold as a personal view.

It was not my intent to suggest the Buddha said anything of this sort. These are my words, and to this point I stand by them.

so be it.

Yes, I recall our conversation regarding the Tao of Physics. I also recall our lengthy discussion on evolution (remember “evilution?,” {which for those not aware was not my contribution}) I do not understand the reticence to address a linear development here, when it seemed quite natural elsewhere. I am not about to goad on the issue, I just find it remarkably…ummm, inconsistent. I say this with utmost respect.

what can i say? clearly, it is my view that Evolution and God are not opposed to each other and are, in fact, completely seperate topics that hardly relate. i am not reluctant to address a linear element here, juan, what i am reluctant to do is conflate the two issues.

more to the point, perhaps, can you find someplace where i've stated my belief in a linear time and not a cyclic view? if you cannot, then i would suggest that you may have misunderstood my posts from previous threads.

Cool! So, what belief system was Lao-Tzu culturally and socially indoctrinated in prior to writing his book?

you do know that Lao-tzu didn't write the Tao Te Ching, correct? it is attributed to him, however, he dicated the text, according to the popular history, at the last gatehouse before he left China. the gate guard realized who he was and asked if he would leave some of his teaching behind and thus, the Tao Te Ching is what we have. as this thread isn't concerning itself with the Tao, i am unclear as to the benefit of getting into a scholarly discussion of the Tao Te Ching.

as to your question, he was a Taoist before the Tao Te Ching was written. the I ching was around well prior to the advent of the Tao Te Ching, by the by.

Quote: