Eastern mysticism

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

In fact, you already have all the evidence you need to know that the Eastern Mystical God exists. If you fail to believe in this God it can only be because you don't understand the religion. Because if you did understand the religion you could not deny its God. At least not as the religion defines it.

The tables are turned in Eastern Mysticism. In other words, if you wish to argue for a purely secular materialistic existence, then the burden for that claim is on your shoulders. You'd have to explain how that can be true.

Over to Divine Insight or anyone that can explain it please.

Q1) what is the god of eastern mysticism?

Q2) why is the burden of proof on the materialist?

[Vango]

And so what is it that can't die?

Seems like a reasonable question don't you think?

All conditioned things are subject to cessation, ie death.

Very reasonable question.

all conditioned things are not subject to cessation because not all things are subject to death. if they are subject to death, they must be subject life. that's why things die not often except when we are in a conditioned mind.

Ok, not sure what you are trying to say here. Can you elaborate?

[chevron1]

all conditioned things are not subject to cessation because not all things are subject to death. if they are subject to death, they must be subject life. that's why things die not often except when we are in a conditioned mind.

Ok, not sure what you are trying to say here. Can you elaborate?

the way to know if something has died is to see if it is still alive in the mind of the buddha.

[Divine Insight]

the way to know if something has died is to see if it is still alive in the mind of the buddha.

So do you view the mind of Buddha as "God"?

And what does it mean for something to be "alive"?

Are plants alive? Do they "suffer"?

And there is still the question of precisely what it is that is suffering?

That question hasn't been addressed at all here.

The claim that there is no "self" is the same as claiming that there can be no suffering, because it is the "self" that experiences this suffering.

No self = no suffering.

[Vango]

all conditioned things are not subject to cessation because not all things are subject to death. if they are subject to death, they must be subject life. that's why things die not often except when we are in a conditioned mind.

Ok, not sure what you are trying to say here. Can you elaborate?

the way to know if something has died is to see if it is still alive in the mind of the buddha.

Where is this "mind of the Buddha"?

[Vango]

And there is still the question of precisely what it is that is suffering?

That question hasn't been addressed at all here.

The claim that there is no "self" is the same as claiming that there can be no suffering, because it is the "self" that experiences this suffering.

No self = no suffering.

Ok, so let's address the question of who/what is "suffering". Since you seem to know a great deal about this topic, why don't you go ahead and provide your primary source of truth for your assertion. We have ascertained in this very thread that the burden of proof is the onus of those that assert the affirmative.

You claim that it is the "self" that experiences the suffering. Please provide a reference from the Buddhist suttas (and here I am referring to the Pali texts of the Theravadin tradition) in which the Buddha is quoted as making this same assertion.

I'll give you a little clue as I don't want you floundering and fluffing around with any misunderstandings. Suffering is the common translation of the Pali word Dukkha. It is also sometimes translated as stress. This is one of the difficulties in communicating subtle concepts especially when they are translated into a language that is not suited to communicating these concepts. I would personally describe it as a disturbance of mental phenomena but even that doesn't do it justice.

I eagerly await your sutta reference.

[Divine Insight]

You claim that it is the "self" that experiences the suffering. Please provide a reference from the Buddhist suttas (and here I am referring to the Pali texts of the Theravadin tradition) in which the Buddha is quoted as making this same assertion.

Why should I be restricted to the Theavada tradition or the P�li Canon? I don't necessarily agree with those interpretations of Buddhism.

I subscribe to a far more open interpretation of Buddhism where the Buddha is said to hve told people not to accept anything on "authority", but rather to question and test everything for yourself and follow what calls to you.

It appears to me that you are attempting to shove some form of "highly dogmatic Buddhism" onto me. I don't buy into, nor do I endorse any highly dogmatic Buddhism, especially any that demand strict adherence to a specific tradition or Canon.

This is one reason why I reject Christianity and their strict "Canon". As far as I'm concerned any Buddhism that has chosen that kind of dogmatic demand has "Lost it's way" already. And this include Theravada Buddhism, even though it may historically be one of the first formalized attempts to institutionalize Buddhism as a strict dogma.

If I was going to support a historical dogmatic version of Buddhism I would be more supportive of Mahayana Buddhism which is the concept of "The Great Vehicle". The whole idea there was to try to avoid these kinds of strict dogmas such as Theravada Buddhism.

I would also support Tibetan Buddhism over Theravada Buddhism, but even Tibetan Buddhism embraces too many dogmas for my taste. Finally, I find Tantra Buddhism to be one of the most attractive forms. But I Tantra Buddhism isn't pure Buddhism, it's actually a mixture of ideas from Buddhism and Shamanism. I might add that Tantra Buddhism actually had an influence on Tibetan Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism has retained many traditions of Tantra Buddhism.

Having said all of the above, I don't think I am under any obligation to support my views on Buddhism using suttas from Theravada Buddhism.

Now onto the more important concept for which you have requested "proof".

Ok, so let's address the question of who/what is "suffering". Since you seem to know a great deal about this topic, why don't you go ahead and provide your primary source of truth for your assertion. We have ascertained in this very thread that the burden of proof is the onus of those that assert the affirmative.

I personally don't feel that any proof is required. As far as I'm concerned the fact that you are having an experience should be "self-evident" to you.

If it's not, then I really have no clue what to say to you. If you claim that you aren't having an experience then exactly what is it that I am conversing with here?

I'm having an experience. And that's self-event to me. I require no "proof" beyond that.

If you require proof that you are having an experience, I'm afraid I can't help you with that.

Why should you need someone to recite any suttas to prove to you that you are having an experience? I can't even imagine how that could work. You are either having an experience, or you aren't. Reciting any suttas isn't going to change that.

[Vango]

You claim that it is the "self" that experiences the suffering. Please provide a reference from the Buddhist suttas (and here I am referring to the Pali texts of the Theravadin tradition) in which the Buddha is quoted as making this same assertion.

Why should I be restricted to the Theavada tradition or the P�li Canon? I don't necessarily agree with those interpretations of Buddhism.

They're not interpretations. They are the written record of the longest extant form of Buddhism on the planet. Somehow you think you know better. Ok. Good luck with that.

I subscribe to a far more open interpretation of Buddhism where the Buddha is said to hve told people not to accept anything on "authority", but rather to question and test everything for yourself and follow what calls to you.

Otherwise known at the Kalama Sutta from the Pali canon. Maybe you should do some reading of the suttas instead of making it all up as you go along.

It appears to me that you are attempting to shove some form of "highly dogmatic Buddhism" onto me. I don't buy into, nor do I endorse any highly dogmatic Buddhism, especially any that demand strict adherence to a specific tradition or Canon.

This is one reason why I reject Christianity and their strict "Canon". As far as I'm concerned any Buddhism that has chosen that kind of dogmatic demand has "Lost it's way" already. And this include Theravada Buddhism, even though it may historically be one of the first formalized attempts to institutionalize Buddhism as a strict dogma.

If I was going to support a historical dogmatic version of Buddhism I would be more supportive of Mahayana Buddhism which is the concept of "The Great Vehicle". The whole idea there was to try to avoid these kinds of strict dogmas such as Theravada Buddhism.

I would also support Tibetan Buddhism over Theravada Buddhism, but even Tibetan Buddhism embraces too many dogmas for my taste. Finally, I find Tantra Buddhism to be one of the most attractive forms. But I Tantra Buddhism isn't pure Buddhism, it's actually a mixture of ideas from Buddhism and Shamanism. I might add that Tantra Buddhism actually had an influence on Tibetan Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism has retained many traditions of Tantra Buddhism.

Having said all of the above, I don't think I am under any obligation to support my views on Buddhism using suttas from Theravada Buddhism.

Now onto the more important concept for which you have requested "proof".

Ok, so let's address the question of who/what is "suffering". Since you seem to know a great deal about this topic, why don't you go ahead and provide your primary source of truth for your assertion. We have ascertained in this very thread that the burden of proof is the onus of those that assert the affirmative.

I personally don't feel that any proof is required.

And there we have it. So I can make whatever claims I want about a religion I have not studied and others are supposed to accept them? I think not! In fact this would go against the Kalama sutta which you have inadvertently invoked. I would prefer to question the assertion and if no evidence can be provided, reject it.

As far as I'm concerned the fact that you are having an experience should be "self-evident" to you.

If it's not, then I really have no clue what to say to you. If you claim that you aren't having an experience then exactly what is it that I am conversing with here?

I'm having an experience. And that's self-event to me. I require no "proof" beyond that.

If you require proof that you are having an experience, I'm afraid I can't help you with that.

Experiences are great but deluded experiences are rooted in ignorance. Either one accepts the path and experience of one more experienced or one gains that experience for oneself. I don't claim to have achieved complete awakening therefore, not having experienced it, I study the word and path of those that have.

Why should you need someone to recite any suttas to prove to you that you are having an experience? I can't even imagine how that could work. You are either having an experience, or you aren't. Reciting any suttas isn't going to change that.

Your claim: No self = no suffering

You refuse to provide a shred of evidence for this.

I gave up faith-based western religions because of this concept of believing in something with no evidence. I have no faith in you. I don't believe what you say.

Where do we go to from here?

[Divine Insight]

Otherwise known at the Kalama Sutta from the Pali canon. Maybe you should do some reading of the suttas instead of making it all up as you go along.

I don't need to. I never claimed to support any dogmatic fundamentalism of any religion, including Buddhism.

I have no clue why you think that you could demand that of me. I have never many any such claim.

Your claim: No self = no suffering

You refuse to provide a shred of evidence for this.

I've already stated my position that it is clearly self-evident. If you refuse to accept this then I can only conclude that you have no 'self'. In other words, you are claiming to be a non-sentient entity that has no experiences.

Of course, I don't buy that. I simply accept that you are either in denial of the obvious truth, or you would rather argue semantics rather than face the truths of reality.

I see no need to prove your experience. If you claim to not have any experience, I won't argue with you. But I do. So I'll go with my experience, and you can go with what you believe you aren't experiencing.

I gave up faith-based western religions because of this concept of believing in something with no evidence. I have no faith in you. I don't believe what you say.

Where do we go to from here?

I don't really care where you go from here. Personally I'm going to go have something to eat and enjoy the experience.

I asked you a simple question and all you can offer me is dogma that claims that I don't even exist?

That would require more than mere faith on my part Vango. That would require that I totally ignore my actual experience in favor of placing my faith in an absurd doctrine that fails to recognize the sentient experience of living humans.

I am that I am. And no amount of dogma can take that away from me.

Clearly I don't agree with the dogmatic version of Buddhism that you are apparently into. The Mahayana Buddhists also rejected Theravada Buddhism, for if they didn't there would have been no reason for them to create a whole new sect of Buddhism.

I don't accept your fundamentalist approach to Buddhism. Period. That's all there is to that, and now I'm going to go and enjoy the experience of eating my meal. I might add that all of life's experience do not equate to "suffering" either.

The "self" you claim doesn't exist is going to enjoy this meal very much.

[Vango]

Otherwise known at the Kalama Sutta from the Pali canon. Maybe you should do some reading of the suttas instead of making it all up as you go along.

I don't need to. I never claimed to support any dogmatic fundamentalism of any religion, including Buddhism.

I have no clue why you think that you could demand that of me. I have never many any such claim.

Your claim: No self = no suffering

You refuse to provide a shred of evidence for this.

I've already stated my position that it is clearly self-evident. If you refuse to accept this then I can only conclude that you have no 'self'. In other words, you are claiming to be a non-sentient entity that has no experiences.

Of course, I don't buy that. I simply accept that you are either in denial of the obvious truth, or you would rather argue semantics rather than face the truths of reality.

I see no need to prove your experience. If you claim to not have any experience, I won't argue with you. But I do. So I'll go with my experience, and you can go with what you believe you aren't experiencing.

I gave up faith-based western religions because of this concept of believing in something with no evidence. I have no faith in you. I don't believe what you say.

Where do we go to from here?

I don't really care where you go from here. Personally I'm going to go have something to eat and enjoy the experience.

I asked you a simple question and all you can offer me is dogma that claims that I don't even exist?

That would require more than mere faith on my part Vango. That would require that I totally ignore my actual experience in favor of placing my faith in an absurd doctrine that fails to recognize the sentient experience of living humans.

I am that I am. And no amount of dogma can take that away from me.

Clearly I don't agree with the dogmatic version of Buddhism that you are apparently into. The Mahayana Buddhists also rejected Theravada Buddhism, for if they didn't there would have been no reason for them to create a whole new sect of Buddhism.

I don't accept your fundamentalist approach to Buddhism. Period. That's all there is to that, and now I'm going to go and enjoy the experience of eating my meal. I might add that all of life's experience do not equate to "suffering" either.

The "self" you claim doesn't exist is going to enjoy this meal very much.

Your experience is a delusion. You make statements about that delusion expecting other to believe it based on your word. You use this delusional self-philosophy which you espouse to rant against Buddhism and make false statements about it and other eastern religions.

There is nowhere to go from here. I let you suffer in your delusion.

[Divine Insight]

There is nowhere to go from here. I let you suffer in your delusion.

This is not a problem for me.

At least I got you to confess that I have the ability to "suffer" and that I even have the ability to "have a delusion".

So apparently I'm right then whether Buddhism has a clue or not.