This is following on from a discussion between Sarkus and myself... Big aologies for the spelling error on Einstein's name, could one of the mods correct it, or tell me how I may do it? Thanks jan.
wynn. I made no mention of the Pali Cannon, only of the teaching of Buddha in specific regard to mine and Sarkus's discussion. However I have made an error here by implying that these are the teachings of Buddha, when in fact they are his understanding of the ''not-self/non-self'', or the illusion of identifying oneself as these aspects. It seemed that Einstein believed that these components did not amount to the actual self despite scientific reasoning (especially Charles Darwin's ideas). He talked of a spiritual aspect to man, even the universe, and one could easily be forgiven in thinking that the aspect he refers to transcends the five aspects. Real Buddism has to be what Buddha taught. Does that stand to reason? ''Modern science'' seems to be at odds with anything that cannot be reduced to naturalistic origins, so theres's no surprise there. The truth however, will not contradict itself, and will only be at odds with stubborn, willfull ignorance. Of course it is, as far as you're concerned, but I didn't have you in mind when I wrote that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! jan.
Why the questions? Did Buddha teach or didn't he? Did he assert those five skandhas or not?. If he did, then let's move on. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! jan.
I'm asking you how you know what the Buddha taught, what your source for the Buddha's teachings are. Unless you propose to have personal knowledge of him?
What are you saying? That when it comes to what the Buddha taught, people can just make stuff up and attribute it to the Buddha? If someone were to come and claim that God said such and such, would you not check whether that person's claim has any scriptural support? I'm sure you would check, and probably demand an exact reference too. You have done so before. But somehow, when it comes to the Buddha, it's suddenly anything-goes??
Agnosticism is not about belief but about what it is possible to know or not. In the quotes I have he clearly described himself as being agnostic with regard many concepts of God: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me agnostic..." And on the quotes I gave is almost the very definition of agnosticism: "I can not prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar." So he considered a personal god to be unknowable; he can not prove such does not exist, nor is he aware of anything that suggests it does. This is agnosticism. As I said, you can call it Eastern philosophy if you want, and it may be significantly influenced by such; I just consider it a philosophy, irrespective of where it comes from, and since "Eastern philosophy" is such a broad umbrella I'm not sure it adds anything by labelling it as such. I didn't imply that the quote suggested he was a total atheist. It merely served to reduce the scope of his beliefs. As for organised religions, he was generally against them. That he referred to Buddhism as a region that might best serve the scientific needs does not mean he endorses it as a religion... a fire extinguisher might best serve the needs of a sofa on fire... but that does not mean I should set my sofa on fire. I.e. if you wanted to be religious, you could do far worse than looking to Buddhism. Sure, but you are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say he was a "flat out agnostic". I said he could be described as such, especially when considering specific claims of a god. He saw the universe as evidence enough to "know god" which would not make him agnostic, but for most other aspects he is happy to say that he doesn't know... that he is happy with exploring the mystery (through his science). You seem to be trying to see labels as black and white, even when I have tried to explain how they are not. Perhaps, but unlikely given other things he has said which seem to suggest he saw morals as being purely human in nature: "The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image - a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere." from Albert Einstein: The Human Side. "I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I do consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." - also from Albert Einstein: The Human Side. So I find it unlikely he would think of morals as coming from god, even if the unguided mechanism for their eventual arising within humanity was created by god. My case being...? That he believed in god? I know that. It is a matter of understanding what god he believed in, and the extent to which he claimed to know anything about this god. As said, he considered the universe itself evidence enough for god, but everything i have read leads me to conclude that he did not know much more than that... I.e. as stated previously... was agnostic beyond knowing that god existed. This is why I consider his philosophy in this regard to have elements of deism, Panentheism, etc. If you think I am making a case for him being either an atheist (even as in "lack belief in god") or an agnostic with respect gods existence, then you misunderstand. But he is an agnostic with regard what can be known about the god he believed in (other than gods existence). Sure, he might have believed certain aspects, but he couldn't know them, and he ever claimed to know. Which was why he was more drawn to philosophies (as they seemed to make sense) and turned away by others (as they didn't make sense to him), rather than ever saying: "this is how it is, and I know it to be the case!" He had ideas, but they were more ideas of what god was not. There is nothing I have seen in his writings where he ever says that he knows what god is, what god does, any of the attributes of god, other than words to the effect that god exists and brought everything into being. He believed in God, yes. Have I said otherwise? For the same reason that describing someone as a "man" does not fully explain their physical capabilities. Or do you see this all as just theists claiming a scientist as their own, as if that somehow supports their position? He possibly wasn't concerned with it. He was a. Physicist, not a Biologist. He certainly admired the "structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it". So I think he would have accepted it, as a mechanism allowed by the laws that his God created. There is also no record of him (afaik) supporting an alternative. Expressing exactly how you see it does not mean that he expressed a clear notion. Where he was more clear was in what he was not, not in what his notion of God actually was. I'm not saying that he didn't express his beliefs perfectly as he saw them, just that what I have read it seems vague at best in trying to encapsulate it. But then I have not read everything he ever wrote, so I would of course welcome the clarity. It's "real" in as much as it is a belief held... in as much as any belief is similarly real, as patterns of activity within the brain/body etc. But you'll forgive me if I don't take you on your word that the tenets of this particular belief are real as in objectively "true". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Again, if you feel the need to "claim one for the East" then I won't stop you. This isn't a game of one-upmanship with trying to claim famous people adhering to what you think is an eastern or western philosophy.
Did he assert those five skandhas or not?. If he did, then let's move on. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The ball is in your court. jan.
The ball is still in your court until you actually provide a reference for your claim as to what the Buddha taught. You said - and you provided no reference for your claim. I'm still waiting for you to provide a reference for what you're claiming above about the Buddha.
I ammended what I wrote. If Buddha did not express those five skandhas, then we will take it from there with references, apart from that I shouldn't have to provide any, espedially as his teachings are all over the internet. So did he or didn't he? Last time before I put you on ignore. jan.
Oh, the famous It's-on-the-internetz-therefore-the-Buddha-taught-it argument! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/ You're not up to discussing Buddhism, that's all. Bah, I caught you in blasphemy, and now you resent me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Buddhism is a nontheistic religion that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, who is commonly known as the Buddha, meaning "the awakened one". According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha lived and taught in the eastern part of the Indian subcontinent sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE.[1] jan.
