Buddhists...

religion is not science, exactly, it is more a set of beilefs in "otherness" in whatever form you have decided it takes, science is intended more to be a path to get where you're going

this is true, but the way you get to know the path itself is true reasoning and scientific analysis. Unless your religion is solely dogmatic. Most religions start with one or a few Dogmas and start reasoning from there.

1. suffereing exists.
2. suffereing comes from expectation (or desire)
3. you can stop your suffering.
4. the way to stop it is the eightfold path.

This is to me clearly sientific reasoning and analysis of the reality of suffering. Althoug with a religious flavour and based on the dogma that an eightfold path exists, and that this path works.

You call this scientific curiosity, i cal it a "form of science" (I didn't cal it exact science, becouse religion can never be that). Perhaps my name for it isn't as good as yours, or not acurate enough, I leave each person to determine that for himself.

Religion isn't something that an be universaly defined for everyone. Each person experiences it differently...
 
linus, all you said your posts was correct but it was kinda funny because most of the information you provided was already given by others in past posts. for example i explained what a boddhisattva is and other peopl have already named the four noble truths. I mean it does not bother me, I just thought it was a bit peculiar :).
 
Originally posted by Voltaire
linus, all you said your posts was correct but it was kinda funny because most of the information you provided was already given by others in past posts. for example i explained what a boddhisattva is and other peopl have already named the four noble truths. I mean it does not bother me, I just thought it was a bit peculiar :).

i was going through one by one and commenting. and yes, other people did name the four noble truths, but in buddhist text words, not in laymens terms. that is why i expressed that i wanted to define it is regular folk terms. the only other one i came across was boddhistava and you had defined that, but i like the idea of several different wordings.
 
Dukkha

The first noble truth is usually translated as "life is suffering". The term "dukkha" is much more subtle than that, though. It also means "unsatisfactoriness", "anguish", "pain" and "sadness". See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dukkha.html for a longer discussion of dukkha. I look deeper than the bare assertion that life is dukkha, to the idea that is expressed in the second truth, that dukkha is caused by desire. To me, dukkha is separation, and that is a powerful idea when connected to the notion that human consciousness is defined by separation - at conception we are united with the mother, and the entire rest of our life (in western culture, anyway) is a process of separation. This process causes psychosis to a greater or lesser degree in every person, and religion (among other things) is an attempted antidote to this psychosis. The irreducable heart of every religion is that we are all one, and that is the only solution (as well as the only necessary concept - everything else is just commentary) to the trauma of separation.
 
Re: Dukkha

Originally posted by te jen
The first noble truth is usually translated as "life is suffering". The term "dukkha" is much more subtle than that, though.

The term dukkha actually tranlates more closely to "off-centered-ness" or "not-quite-right-ness" whihc is key in understanding that what he was sayiung is that life is not quite right, but there is a way to make it right, so to speak. the association with sufffereing has been added since, though it is definatly of high importance on the list of things that are not right.
 
Originally posted by UnaMi


This is to me clearly sientific reasoning and analysis of the reality of suffering. Althoug with a religious flavour and based on the dogma that an eightfold path exists, and that this path works.

actually i was making that statement and explaining the four noble truths the way i did, in an effort to underscore the mathmatic qualities of it. it has the nature of any proof.

Originally posted by UnaMi


You call this scientific curiosity, i cal it a "form of science" (I didn't cal it exact science, becouse religion can never be that). Perhaps my name for it isn't as good as yours, or not acurate enough, I leave each person to determine that for himself.


my point here was only that, religion by nature (and buddhism can be seen as distinct from this) is destination based, here are these truths figure out how to live with them, so to speak, as opposed to science wihich is path-based whihc is here is a question, let me see where it leads me. the first leadsw you where you told it to lead you (and i'm not commenting on postive or negative of this) and is therefor reverse logic, whereas science, is more just a discovery process. look at it as the distinction between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning, both are necessary, but both have their place.
i do also want to point out that i was not critisixing you in any way, merely throwing some more facts and commentary on the table for you to chew on. of course, when it comes to beliefs, no one can change anothers.
 
Re: Dukkha

Originally posted by te jen
See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dukkha.html for a longer discussion of dukkha.

upon looking at this definiton it is noteworthy to say that the word itself is not it's symptoms. i do agree that it is of unending subtlty and all encompassing, but the key to remember is that it is in itself a comment, the definitions found here or more symptoms and only distract you from the trueer meaning of the word. for instance, one would not say, AIDS is legions, rather one would say that legions are an indicator of AIDS, not the actual disease.

but it is an interesting site, and worth looking at. thatnks for posting it.
 
Originally posted by Fraggle Rocker
But then he came up with a really fanciful version of history in which the Greeks weren't inventing science at the same time a few weeks' ride to the west. I didn't investigate his reasoning on that one either, but I don't have to because he's just flat wrong.


there is a primary distinction between the two types of thought used in greece and that used by buddha. buddha used almost exclusively intuition and inductive reasoning (what kant would have called emperical logic) whereas, the greeks were very decductive (what kant would have called pure logic). it also brings into account the distincitons between destination based thought and path based thought as listed in another comment i made earlier on.
 
i do also want to point out that i was not critisixing you in any way, merely throwing some more facts and commentary on the table for you to chew on

it was not taken in a critisising way, i also just wanted to point out that religion is also science, in a way. But of course that is not entirely true. If science = religion would be true, there wouldn't need to be 2 words for it. Science is science, and religion is religion.

The way the budhist ways were reasoned up by sidharte gautama are scientifical to me, but the way you follow these ways are not, they are a religious path.

I am also just trowing some ideas and commentary for other to chew on. Thats why we are here of course :D
 
pardon my ignorance but i don't think the Buddha got all of his information from intuition and mere luck but i think he took the time to analyze how people think and react and jumped off from that. He was able to dtermine what was the root of suffering and offered a way to help extinguish it- sort of like a psychologist.
 
Originally posted by Voltaire
pardon my ignorance but i don't think the Buddha got all of his information from intuition and mere luck but i think he took the time to analyze how people think and react and jumped off from that.

you're right he didn't. he used intuition and inductive reasoning as it states above if you had read it.
He was able to dtermine what was the root of suffering and offered a way to help extinguish it- sort of like a psychologist.

exactly like psycology, whihc is a science based on factoring INDUCTIVELY to reach rthe possible causes and then, from that point solving the problem. i agree, no dumb luck was used. that's why, as far as i have seen in this thread, no one even mentions concept of dumb luck as a reason for what the buddha knew (or for any other reason as far as i can tell)
 
I'm currently reading the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, it's realy messing with my mind it makes so much sense and yet I can't fathom to grasp it....

Anyone read this? What do you think about the lack of inherent existence of phenomena?

Originally posted by Voltaire
pardon my ignorance but i don't think the Buddha got all of his information from intuition and mere luck but i think he took the time to analyze how people think and react and jumped off from that.

This is true, inferential reasoning is a big part of enlightenment.
 
Back
Top