Buddhism's end destiny of man according to the FWBO. [Archive]

yrreg

20th August 2007, 03:53 PM

FWBO -- abbreviation for Friends of the Western Buddhist Order.
The Friends of the Western Buddhist Order
The FWBO is an international network dedicated to communicating Buddhist truths in ways appropriate to the modern world.

The essence of Buddhism is timeless and universal. But the forms it takes always adapt according to context.

Now that Buddhism is spreading around the globe, the task is to create new Buddhist traditions relevant to the 21st century. During the past 35 years the FWBO has become one of the largest Buddhist movements, with activities in many cities and rural retreat centres around the world.

http://fwbo.org/

.
Well, I have been reading about this Buddhist group and movement that is organized and regimentalized, to find out what it teaches about the end destiny of man in Buddhism; so far I can't make out anything about the end destiny of man in Buddhism from its website.

Of course I have not read enough yet.

I will appreciate contributions from people in this JREF forum to enlighten me about what they know to be the end destiny of man in Buddhism, if possible as taught by the FWBO, or at least generally and but commonly by people who call themselves Buddhists.

Am I going to have a great laugh with some people here who will answer again in the quizzical way that:
Buddhism does not teach anything definite about the end destiny of man.
[Hahahaha suppressed; this is a serious discussion.]

Repeated image removed
Yrreg

...the Laughing Buddha, is an interpretation of the Bodhisattva Maitreya, the predicted Buddha to succeed Gautama Buddha in the future.

Tsukasa Buddha

20th August 2007, 03:59 PM

Man will die.

osmosis

20th August 2007, 04:18 PM

perhaps you will enlighten us as to why we should do your research for you, and why you've got such a problem with buddhism.

Piscivore

20th August 2007, 05:26 PM

...the end destiny of man

Do you mean that in the singular or the plural; The "end destiny" of a man or the "end destiny" of mankind?

Not that I endorse "destiny" per se.

linusrichard

20th August 2007, 05:34 PM

Buddhism does not teach anything definite about the end destiny of man.
What would be so "quizzical" if this were true?

I have a guess as to why you would find this quizzical. It's also a hypothesis of your problem with Buddhism in general. Remember, it's only a hypothesis, so don't get offended if it's wrong. And don't bother telling me if it's right or wrong. Just tell yourself, and be honest.

My hypothesis is this: you, like most Westerners, have a great deal of familiarity with Christianity, especially some Protestant denominations and Catholicism. You may also have a reasonable amount of knowledge about other Christian denominations, and Judaism, and Islam. Maybe you know a little bit about some cults that exist or have existed in the West. Maybe you know a little bit about Baha'i. All of these religions sort of "work" in a similar way. So with your familiarity with these religions, you begin to get the sense that religions have to work in this way. So it's confusing when you encounter a religion (like Buddhism) that doesn't work that way, and what you end up doing is superimposing your own ideas of what religion "should" do onto that religion. Christianity makes statements about "the end destiny of man." Judaism and Islam may well make statements about "the end destiny of man" (I don't know). So maybe it seems that Something a Religion Ought to Do is make statements about "the end destiny of man." And so you consider it "quizzical" for someone to say that a religion, like Buddhism, "does not teach anything definite about the end destiny of man." That's my hypothesis.

I'd like to say that Buddhism does not teach anything definite about the end destiny of man, but I don't know enough to make that statement. I know I've never encountered anything in Buddhism about it. I just thought I would look into why you think it would be a problem if it didn't.

yrreg

20th August 2007, 05:57 PM

[Sorry for the edit, the message got sent accidentally before I even managed to have written a line.]

----------------------------

I'd like to say that Buddhism does not teach anything definite about the end destiny of man, but I don't know enough to make that statement. I know I've never encountered anything in Buddhism about it. I just thought I would look into why you think it would be a problem if it didn't. -- linusrichard
It is not a problem in the sense of an obstacle on getting on with life like my pet dog and pet cat; and I guess primitive men just out of the stone age or still within the stone age did not find it to be any problem just like the pet dogs and pet cats I would imagine they already kept with them.

By being a problem you know as well as yours truly that I am referring to our cognitive curiosity which is the sign of a more complex awareness of existence.

Simply put, it is a question we ask ourselves when we have fed ourselves well and attended to our libido satisfactorily, instead of looking forward to feeding again and copulating again.

I don't know about others, but for myself that is one question among many I entertain myself with in my spare time and it is very engrossingly enjoyable.

So, if Buddhism does not have any awareness of such a question or problem, perhaps Buddhists are better of for being still in the stone age. Forgive me though if this sounds unkind, but for some people I envy them for their innocence on this basis -- in a way.

Yrreg
Repeated image removed

Yrreg

...the Laughing Buddha, is an interpretation of the Bodhisattva Maitreya, the predicted Buddha to succeed Gautama Buddha in the future.

Piscivore

20th August 2007, 07:02 PM

You still haven't said if you mean the end of an individual or the end of the species. Primitive man would certainly be concerned with his own individual end, it was one of the reasons religion was invented in the first place. I think we can forgive him for not being overly concerned with the end of the species- aside from a few death cults with perspective issues in the Middle East I don't think very many people in the ancient world were either, so I'm willing to give Buddhism a pass as well. Not that many people have an apocalyptic mindset, and it isn't of particular benefit.

Unless you are trying to instigate a zombie uprising, that is.

linusrichard

20th August 2007, 07:05 PM

Well now, hold on.

I've taken a bunch of math classes, a bunch of foreign language classes, a bunch of history classes. None of them made any claims about "the end destiny of man." I've played in a half-dozen bands, and none of them made any claims about "the end destiny of man." I worked for the same company for 11 years, and they never told me anything about "the end destiny of man." I was on a darts team, in a league, and neither the team nor the league had anything to say about "the end destiny of man." I'm partway through law school, and they haven't said anything to me about "the end destiny of man" so far, and I don't think they're planning to. I read all the Harry Potter books, and they didn't say anything about "the end destiny of man." I watched a bunch of Derren Brown videos on YouTube, and he never said anything about "the end destiny of man." (I hope it's obvious by now that I could go on and on.)

To you, does this mean that my professors, my bands, my employer, my team, the league, my law school, and J.K. Rowling and Derren Brown are all "still in the stone age"? Or might it be more reasonable to conclude that it's just not the job of any of these people/groups/institutions to make guesses about "the end destiny of man," but that maybe they have other roles to play?

If, as I suspect but do not know, Buddhism makes no claims about "the end destiny of man," it is not because Buddhism is "still in the stone age," but simply because that's just not what Buddhism does. Also note that your question seems to assume that man has an "end destiny." This isn't necessarily the case either.

(This whole post will become moot if the more well-informed posters point out that Buddhism does have something to say about "the end destiny of man," but I still enjoy pointing out the more obvious of your fallacies.)

nosho

20th August 2007, 07:53 PM

Man will die.

Bingo.

Nothing lasts forever, including man or humankind or whatever.

Are we all done with the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89294) now? Frankly, that one seemed a lot more interesting than this one.

osmosis

20th August 2007, 10:36 PM

Dancing David

21st August 2007, 05:26 AM

FWBO -- abbreviation for Friends of the Western Buddhist Order

.

.
Well, I have been reading about this Buddhist group and movement that is organized and regimentalized, to find out what it teaches about the end destiny of man in Buddhism; so far I can't make out anything about the end destiny of man in Buddhism from its website.

Of course I have not read enough yet.

I will appreciate contributions from people in this JREF forum to enlighten me about what they know to be the end destiny of man in Buddhism, if possible as taught by the FWBO, or at least generally and but commonly by people who call themselves Buddhists.

Am I going to have a great laugh with some people here who will answer again in the quizzical way that:

Buddhism does not teach anything definite about the end destiny of man.

[Hahahaha suppressed; this is a serious discussion.]

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/2889/user22071174288457qf4.jpg
Yrreg

...the Laughing Buddha, is an interpretation of the Bodhisattva Maitreya, the predicted Buddha to succeed Gautama Buddha in the future.

Have a laugh, the end destiny of man is a bogus supposition based upon many errors of thought. I will check the pali canon and see what i can find, but the furure is unknowable, i do not need the pali canon to think that. Amida buddhism will give great entertainment of this score.

I predict we will have the future!

Dancing David

21st August 2007, 05:30 AM

[Sorry for the edit, the message got sent accidentally before I even managed to have written a line.]

----------------------------

It is not a problem in the sense of an obstacle on getting on with life like my pet dog and pet cat; and I guess primitive men just out of the stone age or still within the stone age did not find it to be any problem just like the pet dogs and pet cats I would imagine they already kept with them.

By being a problem you know as well as yours truly that I am referring to our cognitive curiosity which is the sign of a more complex awareness of existence.

Simply put, it is a question we ask ourselves when we have fed ourselves well and attended to our libido satisfactorily, instead of looking forward to feeding again and copulating again.

I don't know about others, but for myself that is one question among many I entertain myself with in my spare time and it is very engrossingly enjoyable.

So, if Buddhism does not have any awareness of such a question or problem, perhaps Buddhists are better of for being still in the stone age. Forgive me though if this sounds unkind, but for some people I envy them for their innocence on this basis -- in a way.

Yrreg

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/2889/user22071174288457qf4.jpg
Yrreg

...the Laughing Buddha, is an interpretation of the Bodhisattva Maitreya, the predicted Buddha to succeed Gautama Buddha in the future.

Ak Yrreg at his finest.

I guess the pursuit of peace and universal health are too simple for you.

yrreg

21st August 2007, 04:55 PM

Of course, Piscivore, I mean by man, the species; that should be obvious since we are into religion and philosophy here. May I address you as, good man Piscivore? Okay, good man Piscivore, please for the love of Buddha consider the context of the thread and the language of the whole message.

You are a good man, Piscivore, because you take the trouble to join me in this thread; good for me, that is and also for people who read this thread.

Because no less you seem to love belaboring the obvious sense of a question, like if someone asks you where you live, you say in a house, that's very funny hahaha of you; then if you see an item in an application form for sex, you answer three times a week, that is also very funny, hahahaha. In that sense you are a good man, you enjoy missing the context just for a laugh. That is good, but you can be better, okay?

----------------------------(This whole post will become moot if the more well-informed posters point out that Buddhism does have something to say about "the end destiny of man," but I still enjoy pointing out the more obvious of your fallacies.) -- lunisrichardWhich fallacy is that? I am asking for the end destiny of man in Buddhism according to the group called Friends of the Western Buddhist Order; because they are an organized and regimentalized collectivity living an updated and upgraded Buddhism, their own kind of Buddhism, and hence they must have something about end destiny of man from Buddhism that might be more clearly drafted in order to be legible to contemporary man.

Just the same I also enjoy seeing my fallacies pointed out if any, for we are both cognizant of fallacies as mental puzzles; just the same fallacies are rife and they serve the purpose of bringing our attention to aspects and paths of thought otherwise we would not be aware of.

---------------------------

Posted by Tsukasa Buddha
Man will die. Bingo.

Nothing lasts forever, including man or humankind or whatever.

Are we all done with the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89294) now? Frankly, that one seemed a lot more interesting than this one.

"Man will die," and nosho like Buddha you must arrive at an enlightenment to know that.

Are you trying to be like Piscivore or for having converted to Buddhism like Gautama the Buddha (enlightened one) you discover things after meditating for years, like Gautama discovered that there is suffering in life and suffering comes from desire (I will tell Gautama, also, if he means only). I guess you are trying to do a 'Piscivore'.*

About the earlier thread on the role of good, erh, right deeds in Buddhism, I am aware that we have reached an impasse because you think and talk in a manner different from my way of thinking and talking: you think and talk in what I call motherhood statements but nothing specific and concrete, for my part I always want to dwell on the specific and concrete like a particular human experience, for example, the pangs of hunger.
repeated image removed

Yrreg

...the Laughing Buddha, is an interpretation of the Bodhisattva Maitreya, the predicted Buddha to succeed Gautama Buddha in the future.[/quote]
*Piscivore, if my etymological skill does not fail me, that name means a eater of fish. In my place fish is supposed to be good for the brain, but I always tell people to watch out lest they think within the limits of a fish brain for ingesting too much brain food with fish.

Chicken feet are supposed to be good for the legs, and I also always tell people to watch out lest they feasting on chicken feet believing it good for the legs, start walking like chickens.

Hahahaha! See? it's so enjoyable engrossing ourselves in a forum.

yrreg

21st August 2007, 05:36 PM

Here in North America, it is Christianity, not Buddhism, that comprises the bulk of mainstream religion. In fact, it's not even clear to me that Buddhism fully qualifies as religion. Then again, I don't know a whole lot about it.

It just seems odd that someone has such an axe to grind with Buddhism in particular. There are bigger fish to fry if one is simply against religion (as I am).

In the standard reference work there is an entry for Buddhism, the philosophy, and Buddhism, the religion; but it seems to be the general accepted meaning of Buddhism as referring to a religion.

Tell me what makes a philosophy different from a religion?

Are converts to Buddhism in the West like Ryokan and Dancing David and nosho and perhaps now lunisrichard, are they into religion with Buddhism or just plain philosophy.

What about capitalism and communism, what about atheism, are they philosophies or religions or philosophies that have their religion twins?

When we can see the difference between the one and the other, then we will understand why the Buddhists in this forum or converts to Buddhism in the West are into religion with Buddhism instead of into philosophy only.

Let's find out together. Here is my contribution: we have to first see how a person into Buddhism is behaving on account of Buddhism, then we will know that he is into religion and not into philosophy.
Repeated image removed

Yrreg

...the Laughing Buddha, is an interpretation of the Bodhisattva Maitreya, the predicted Buddha to succeed Gautama Buddha in the future.

linusrichard

21st August 2007, 07:14 PM

I am asking for the end destiny of man in Buddhism according to the group called Friends of the Western Buddhist Order; because they are an organized and regimentalized collectivity living an updated and upgraded Buddhism, their own kind of Buddhism, and hence they must have something about end destiny of man from Buddhism that might be more clearly drafted in order to be legible to contemporary man.
Why? How do you get from "they are an organized and regimentalized collectivity living an updated and upgraded Buddhism" to "they must have something about end destiny of man from Buddhism"? Where does that leap come from? If they have something, they have something. If they don't, they don't. Who are you, the end destiny of man police?

qayak

21st August 2007, 07:29 PM

Simply put, it is a question we ask ourselves when we have fed ourselves well and attended to our libido satisfactorily, instead of looking forward to feeding again and copulating again.

Snip snip!

To quote the book of Daratians, chapters 11 and 12, be nice and keep it OT in the public areas. Ramen.

qayak

21st August 2007, 07:31 PM

Tell me what makes a philosophy different from a religion?

For it to be a religion, the belief in a deity is required.

nosho

21st August 2007, 09:40 PM

"Man will die," and nosho like Buddha you must arrive at an enlightenment to know that.

No, it's just pretty obvious that everyone dies eventually.

Are you trying to be like Piscivore or for having converted to Buddhism like Gautama the Buddha (enlightened one) you discover things after meditating for years, like Gautama discovered that there is suffering in life and suffering comes from desire (I will tell Gautama, also, if he means only). I guess you are trying to do a 'Piscivore'.*

What? I have no idea what you're saying.

About the earlier thread on the role of good, erh, right deeds in Buddhism, I am aware that we have reached an impasse because you think and talk in a manner different from my way of thinking and talking: you think and talk in what I call motherhood statements but nothing specific and concrete,

Care to offer a specific and concrete example?

... for my part I always want to dwell on the specific and concrete like a particular human experience, for example, the pangs of hunger.

Here's a specific and concrete human experience you completely ignore: The fact that not everyone is the same. Some people react to pangs of hunger differently than others. When you were an infant, you probably cried every time you got hungry. Now you don't. Why not? Because you have grown and learned a little more about the nature of the "suffering" of hunger.

That's what we all do. We grow and learn, to varying degrees. And that's why not every unwanted situation causes the same kind or same degree of suffering for every person. So what is it that prompts some people to suffer less than others when faced with the same situation? That, yyreg, is a concrete and specific question that "Buddhism," no matter how you slice it, seeks to address.

It's pretty obvious you're back to your old tricks with this new thread, trying to provoke others into an emotional reaction. Okay, fine, I know that's your little game, trying to have fun at the expense of others.

When you're ready to get serious again, I'll be here.

Dancing David

22nd August 2007, 05:20 AM

In the standard reference work there is an entry for Buddhism, the philosophy, and Buddhism, the religion; but it seems to be the general accepted meaning of Buddhism as referring to a religion.

Tell me what makes a philosophy different from a religion?

Are converts to Buddhism in the West like Ryokan and Dancing David and nosho and perhaps now lunisrichard, are they into religion with Buddhism or just plain philosophy.

No conversion here, i am the cafeteria buddhist remeber?

i take what i like and leave the rest.

Buddhism is both, but in the prescense of antidepressants I have very little magical/religous thinking. So I no longer invoke Avoloketeishivara and Kwan Yin like I used to.

What about capitalism and communism, what about atheism, are they philosophies or religions or philosophies that have their religion twins?

it depends on the level of belief vs. knowledge.

When we can see the difference between the one and the other, then we will understand why the Buddhists in this forum or converts to Buddhism in the West are into religion with Buddhism instead of into philosophy only.

I would say that faith/belief are the key to religion

calebprime

22nd August 2007, 07:40 AM

What would be so "quizzical" if this were true?

I have a guess as to why you would find this quizzical. It's also a hypothesis of your problem with Buddhism in general. Remember, it's only a hypothesis, so don't get offended if it's wrong. And don't bother telling me if it's right or wrong. Just tell yourself, and be honest.

My hypothesis is this: you, like most Westerners, have a great deal of familiarity with Christianity, especially some Protestant denominations and Catholicism. You may also have a reasonable amount of knowledge about other Christian denominations, and Judaism, and Islam. Maybe you know a little bit about some cults that exist or have existed in the West. Maybe you know a little bit about Baha'i. All of these religions sort of "work" in a similar way. So with your familiarity with these religions, you begin to get the sense that religions have to work in this way. So it's confusing when you encounter a religion (like Buddhism) that doesn't work that way, and what you end up doing is superimposing your own ideas of what religion "should" do onto that religion. Christianity makes statements about "the end destiny of man." Judaism and Islam may well make statements about "the end destiny of man" (I don't know). So maybe it seems that Something a Religion Ought to Do is make statements about "the end destiny of man." And so you consider it "quizzical" for someone to say that a religion, like Buddhism, "does not teach anything definite about the end destiny of man." That's my hypothesis.

I'd like to say that Buddhism does not teach anything definite about the end destiny of man, but I don't know enough to make that statement. I know I've never encountered anything in Buddhism about it. I just thought I would look into why you think it would be a problem if it didn't.

This is a good post, and a good hypothesis. Given the history of yrreg's posts, however, don't expect satisfaction from him. Still, the rest of us appreciate it.

There are things to be criticized in the practice of Buddhism--I suppose--but somehow yrreg's adversarial style preempts the very criticism he claims to seek.

Piscivore

22nd August 2007, 11:51 AM

Of course, Piscivore, I mean by man, the species; that should be obvious since we are into religion and philosophy here.
It was not obvious; religion and philosophy deal as much with the individual as it does the group, but thanks for clarifying.

May I address you as, good man Piscivore?
I'm sure plenty of people would take issue with the appropriateness of applying either term to me, but as I said before, you may call me whatever you like.

Okay, good man Piscivore, please for the love of Buddha consider the context of the thread and the language of the whole message.
Do you love Buddah now, that you appeal to his name? Do you forget that Buddhists do not think or act as they to for the sake of the Buddha or to earn or keep his love, as the Christians do their zombie king? Or that I told you a few times now that I no longer consider myself a Buddhist?

I really couldn't consider the context of the whole thread, because when I aske you that question the thread had just begun. I did indeed consider the author of the thread, his national origins, his propensity for equivocation, the sometimes confusing nature of the English language due the frequency with which a word can have many disparate meanings and how this often enough trips up native speakers let alone those for whom it is a second language.

So I asked the question in that context to be sure I addressed the actual concerns of the OP rather than what I might guess them to be.

Because no less you seem to love belaboring the obvious sense of a question, like if someone asks you where you live, you say in a house, that's very funny hahaha of you; then if you see an item in an application form for sex, you answer three times a week, that is also very funny, hahahaha. In that sense you are a good man, you enjoy missing the context just for a laugh. That is good, but you can be better, okay?

Please do not sell me short- I like to belabour every sense of a word. It is funny, but sometimes it has a point, as well. I cannot think of how I could possibly improve on that. And do not sell humour short either. There is very little of greater importance, especially in the study of Religion and Philosophy.

You have often said that for you the "study" of buddhism is an avocation, a hobby of yours. Why would that be so if you do not enjoy it?

I am asking for the end destiny of man in Buddhism according to the group called Friends of the Western Buddhist Order; because they are an organized and regimentalized collectivity living an updated and upgraded Buddhism, their own kind of Buddhism, and hence they must have something about end destiny of man from Buddhism that might be more clearly drafted in order to be legible to contemporary man.
Ignoring for now that this goup is not the whole of Buddhism, why must they "have something about end destiny of man from Buddhism" if buddhism itself has nothing to say about "end destinies". Not every religion or philosophy is an apocalytic one, and Buddhism in particular has more to say to the individual man than the species.

*Piscivore, if my etymological skill does not fail me, that name means a eater of fish.
Very good.

In my place fish is supposed to be good for the brain, but I always tell people to watch out lest they think within the limits of a fish brain for ingesting too much brain food with fish.
I'm actually far more concerned about mercury poisoning, actually.

Chicken feet are supposed to be good for the legs, and I also always tell people to watch out lest they feasting on chicken feet believing it good for the legs, start walking like chickens.
Do you mean the drumstick, or the actual foot- the scaly bit with the claws?

Hahahaha! See? it's so enjoyable engrossing ourselves in a forum.
If you are eating chicken feet you are en-grossing this part of the forum. :)

yrreg

22nd August 2007, 04:46 PM

Please, gentlemen, let's not get overly impassioned -- and aggressive -- that is a sign of being religious instead of being philosophical.---------------------

What about capitalism and communism, what about atheism, are they philosophies or religions or philosophies that have their religion twins? -- Yrreg

it depends on the level of belief vs. knowledge. – D David

When we can see the difference between the one and the other, then we will understand why the Buddhists in this forum or converts to Buddhism in the West are into religion with Buddhism instead of into philosophy only. – Yrreg

I would say that faith/belief are the key to religion – D David

.
Tell me, David, what you think about my idea of philosophy and religion and their difference.

For me philosophy is the ceaseless and continuous searching by man for the program that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reason.

And religion is the behavior of man founded upon a belief in forces beyond the visible nature that might exist endowed with a personalistic nature, the belief resulting in affection and action from man to influence the forces to react favorably to himself.

In religion the behavior enacted by by man is intended to influence personalistic forces they believe in, so that these will relate to man benevolently.

In philosophy there is no belief in personalistic forces, but in some speculated program or order or scheme of things, call that perhaps also tao or dharma, but without any personalistic character.

By personalism I mean the property of judgment and choice in an entity, susceptivity to influence or bargaining.

Applying my ideas to Buddhism, it is a purely philosophical system if people just take their concepts as speculative constructs, and do not carry out their preceptive observances.

Buddhism however is religion when people undertake its preceptive observances like meditation to arrive at enlightenment and thus to free themselves from dukkha, or the Eightfold Path also to arrive at delivery from dukkha, of which the essential and most crucial acme is karma and rebirth.

Is there then a kind of personalistic interaction between the religious Buddhist and the invisible forces he is relating to and with?

I think there is because the religious Buddhist must execute what Buddhists like to call right behavioral enactments, like
1. Right View
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration
Personalism comes in between the two parties in an influence or bargaining relationship: the religious Buddhist and the invisible forces he is directing his attention to. Why personalism from both sides? Because when it is a matter of being and doing what is right, then judgment and choice are involved -- judgment and choice of what is right, that is personalism.

And that is why I see the Buddhists here in JREF forum to be into religion, because they are into judging and choosing what they judge and choose to be right or accept from others and expect thereby to attain liberation from dukkha.

Let's laugh together though -- hahahahaaaaa.

Repeatedly hotlinking this large image into every post is flooding the forum. Please stop adding it to your posts.

Yrreg

...the Laughing Buddha, is an interpretation of the Bodhisattva Maitreya, the predicted Buddha to succeed Gautama Buddha in the future.

Tanstaafl

22nd August 2007, 05:11 PM

You know, yrreg, the laughing Buddha in every post is getting annoying.

As is your refusal to address why you are obsessed with fighting Buddhism.

Invidious

22nd August 2007, 05:28 PM

For me philosophy is the ceaseless and continuous searching by man for the program that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reason.

And religion is the behavior of man founded upon a belief in forces beyond the visible nature that might exist endowed with a personalistic nature, the belief resulting in affection and action from man to influence the forces to react favorably to himself.

In religion the behavior enacted by by man is intended to influence personalistic forces they believe in, so that these will relate to man benevolently.

In philosophy there is no belief in personalistic forces, but in some speculated program or order or scheme of things, call that perhaps also tao or dharma, but without any personalistic character.
But where does the end destiny of man fit into your description of religion (or philosophy, for that matter)? It seems to be missing from either definition, which is odd because it is apparently a necessary function for a religion (or philosophy) to fill. Unless your definition was written by a caveman?

osmosis

22nd August 2007, 09:53 PM

In the standard reference work there is an entry for Buddhism, the philosophy, and Buddhism, the religion; but it seems to be the general accepted meaning of Buddhism as referring to a religion.

Perhaps, but let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There will always be people who put a religious spin on all their pursuits, but let us not paint everyone else with that same brush.

Tell me what makes a philosophy different from a religion?

The essense of religion is lack of question, reliance on revealed knowledge and divinity (the impossible/miraculous). Divinity implies god(s).

As far as I'm aware, and I invite anyone to correct me on this point if I'm wrong, Buddhism proper is missing the "Deus ex Machina". There's no "and god said, and it was so."

Are converts to Buddhism in the West like Ryokan and Dancing David and nosho and perhaps now lunisrichard, are they into religion with Buddhism or just plain philosophy.

I wouldn't know, I'm not the anti-Buddhist crusader you appear to be.

What about capitalism and communism, what about atheism, are they philosophies or religions or philosophies that have their religion twins?

Philosophies. One needn't believe in god to be communist or capitalist, and such a belief precludes atheism.

When we can see the difference between the one and the other, then we will understand why the Buddhists in this forum or converts to Buddhism in the West are into religion with Buddhism instead of into philosophy only.

Well, let's be rational; some are, some aren't. If indeed you are correct and the vast majority of them are "into religion with Buddhism," as you put it, perhaps that is simply because religious memes tend to spread like weeds in fertile minds.

Let's find out together. Here is my contribution: we have to first see how a person into Buddhism is behaving on account of Buddhism, then we will know that he is into religion and not into philosophy.

Uhm, what you appear to be proposing is that we: a) Observe how a "person into Buddhism" behaves on account of Buddhism, and b) conclude that s/he is into religion and not philosophy.

Non sequitor.

Keep in mind that philosphy can (and does) affect behavior every bit as much as religion. For example, it is my philosophy (not my religion) that killing other humans is patently wrong, and that killing animals should generally only be done for food, and that one should use as much of the killed animal as possible and not waste any. And I even act this way as well. No religion required.

PS. Why do you insist on including that jpg of the laughing Buddha? Are we actually having a worthwhile discussion or are you just yanking our chains..

nosho

22nd August 2007, 10:04 PM

Are we actually having a worthwhile discussion or are you just yanking our chains..

He's yanking our chains, but sometimes a worthwhile discussion emerges despite his best efforts.

osmosis

22nd August 2007, 10:07 PM

Snip snip!

To quote the book of Daratians, chapters 11 and 12, be nice and keep it OT in the public areas. Ramen.

Whenever I see this I can't help but wonder what exactly they said that got censored.. is it just me? :D

nosho

22nd August 2007, 10:43 PM

... religion is the behavior of man founded upon a belief in forces beyond the visible nature that might exist endowed with a personalistic nature, the belief resulting in affection and action from man to influence the forces to react favorably to himself.

In religion the behavior enacted by by man is intended to influence personalistic forces they believe in, so that these will relate to man benevolently.

In philosophy there is no belief in personalistic forces, but in some speculated program or order or scheme of things, call that perhaps also tao or dharma, but without any personalistic character.

By personalism I mean the property of judgment and choice in an entity, susceptivity to influence or bargaining.

Applying my ideas to Buddhism, it is a purely philosophical system if people just take their concepts as speculative constructs, and do not carry out their preceptive observances.

Buddhism however is religion when people undertake its preceptive observances like meditation to arrive at enlightenment and thus to free themselves from dukkha, or the Eightfold Path also to arrive at delivery from dukkha, of which the essential and most crucial acme is karma and rebirth.

Is there then a kind of personalistic interaction between the religious Buddhist and the invisible forces he is relating to and with?

I think there is because the religious Buddhist must execute what Buddhists like to call right behavioral enactments, like
1. Right View
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration
Personalism comes in between the two parties in an influence or bargaining relationship: the religious Buddhist and the invisible forces he is directing his attention to. Why personalism from both sides? Because when it is a matter of being and doing what is right, then judgment and choice are involved -- judgment and choice of what is right, that is personalism.

And that is why I see the Buddhists here in JREF forum to be into religion, because they are into judging and choosing what they judge and choose to be right or accept from others and expect thereby to attain liberation from dukkha.

This is actually a fairly decent criticism, if I understand you correctly. You seem to be arguing that Buddhists are religious if they believe that by doing what they judge to be right, they will be rewarded by invisible forces. Is that what you're trying to say?

It's a good criticism because I can see how someone might have this misunderstanding.

Here are a few things you do not appear to understand:

1) The word "right" in this context isn't about any kind of moral judgment. It's not about "right" and "wrong." The word "right" in this context is a translation of the Pali word "samma," which means something more along the lines of straight, or not crooked, or "in the right way." Think of it from the perspective of baking a cake. There's a "right" way to bake a cake, but if you don't bake a cake the right way, it's not immoral. It just means you won't have a very good cake.

2) No invisible forces are necessary to understand how a person benefits from "right" living, which by definition means living in a manner that benefits oneself and others.

3) While Buddhist traditions teach basic precepts of right conduct, such as not to steal, there is no strict black-and-white code of behavior one is supposed to follow, unless one takes monastic vows. Even then, the traditions are alive with stories of difficult choices, wise monks who break their precepts, etc. The fundamental teaching in this regard is ultimately to see for oneself what is "right." A lot of people might criticize that as a kind of moral bankruptcy, because they fail to understand we're not talking about "right" and "wrong" from a moralistic perspective. Rather, we're talking about what is beneficial to oneself and others. Of course people will sometimes disagree about those kinds of choices.

I'm not going to argue that many (perhaps most) of the Buddhist traditions are not religions. But I will argue that for the most part, they are not religions in the way you define religion. Your definition of religion does not fit most Buddhist paths.

yrreg

23rd August 2007, 05:47 AM

1) The word "right" in this context isn't about any kind of moral judgment. It's not about "right" and "wrong." The word "right" in this context is a translation of the Pali word "samma," which means something more along the lines of straight, or not crooked, or "in the right way." Think of it from the perspective of baking a cake. There's a "right" way to bake a cake, but if you don't bake a cake the right way, it's not immoral. It just means you won't have a very good cake.

[...]

You mean that right behavior are just like right mechanically effective actions that get a car fixed to run; otherwise you don't get the car to run?

Theft and adultery are wrong actions because they don't get the Buddhist to undo bad karma and store up good karma, just like wrong actions in car maintenance and repairs will not keep your car running?

Respecting your neighbor's private possession and not sleeping with your neighbor's wife are mechanically effective for undoing bad karma and storing up good karma; so that one day all a Buddhist's bad karmas will have been undone by his good karmas, at which time he will no longer suffer rebirth, but will get to Nirvana which is the end destiny of man in Buddhism -- is that what you mean by no strict moralistic precepts in Buddhism but right and wrong are to be understood mechanically like the right way to maintain and repair a car, bake a cake?

And that is the way to understand the Eightfold Path of right behavioral enactments in Buddhism?

That is interesting.

I wonder how the Thais in Thailand and the rest of Buddhists in the Far East and East Asia will react to your kind of understanding of Buddhist rightness and wrongness.

Just one question, what do you think about karma and rebirth and nirvana for the traditional Buddhists in East Asia, are they moral entities, categories, or physico-mechanical ones, like the ingredients for a cake and the right procedures to bake it so that a genuine cake will ensue?

Yrreg

osmosis

23rd August 2007, 09:15 AM

I get it now, he's a Taoist living in a predimonantly Buddhist part of Asia.

sackett

23rd August 2007, 01:01 PM

yrreg

23rd August 2007, 03:13 PM

You know, yrreg, the laughing Buddha in every post is getting annoying.

As is your refusal to address why you are obsessed with fighting Buddhism.

Thanks for the feedback.

Yrreg

Tanstaafl

23rd August 2007, 03:16 PM

Thanks for simplifying your posts.

But, why are you obsessed with critiquing Buddhism (and please, you are obsessed).

yrreg

23rd August 2007, 03:29 PM

Posted by yrreg
For me philosophy is the ceaseless and continuous searching by man for the program that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reason.

And religion is the behavior of man founded upon a belief in forces beyond the visible nature that might exist endowed with a personalistic nature, the belief resulting in affection and action from man to influence the forces to react favorably to himself.

In religion the behavior enacted by by man is intended to influence personalistic forces they believe in, so that these will relate to man benevolently.

In philosophy there is no belief in personalistic forces, but in some speculated program or order or scheme of things, call that perhaps also tao or dharma, but without any personalistic character.

But where does the end destiny of man fit into your description of religion (or philosophy, for that matter)? It seems to be missing from either definition, which is odd because it is apparently a necessary function for a religion (or philosophy) to fill. Unless your definition was written by a caveman?

Philosophy hypothesizes about the end destiny of man while religion works for it.

But there is theoretical philosophy and applied philosophy; for example, communism is a theoretical philosophy of economics and politics; but when people exert efforts to achieve a society founded upon the theories of communistic economics and politics, then you have the applied philosophy of communism.

In religion there is the applied philosophy of the theoretical underpinnings of a particular religion like Buddhism; but what distinguishes the applied philosophy in communism and that in Buddhism is that in the latter the application goes beyond the grave and anterior to the grave, to achieve what Buddhists in the Far East believe must be the end destiny of man, which for Buddhists of the Far East is nirvana, that state in which karma and rebirth become obselete or irrelevant.

Yrreg

yrreg

23rd August 2007, 03:47 PM

[...]

As far as I'm aware, and I invite anyone to correct me on this point if I'm wrong, Buddhism proper is missing the "Deus ex Machina". There's no "and god said, and it was so."

[...]

You should ask the Buddhist ideologues in the Far East who have been doing Buddhism more than a millennium and a half and even earlier, they pray to Buddha for assistance even in the search for a life partner; but of course you will say that they are into the wrong Buddhism -- and you have the right Buddhism, I see?

[...]

Uhm, what you appear to be proposing is that we: a) Observe how a "person into Buddhism" behaves on account of Buddhism, and b) conclude that s/he is into religion and not philosophy.

Non sequitor.

[...]

I said in a preceding post today that what makes Buddhism a religion is that its applied philosophy reaches beyond the grave and anterior to the grave for man.

Therefore the religious man in Buddhism seeks to achieve by his affective and active behavioral enactments, to establish what for him is the end destiny of man including himself for one; that end destiny for man in Buddhism of the Far East, the millennial traditional homeland of Buddhism the religion, is nirvana where or when karma and rebirth become obselete or irrelevant.

Yrreg

Dancing David

23rd August 2007, 03:58 PM

Please, gentlemen, let's not get overly impassioned -- and aggressive -- that is a sign of being religious instead of being philosophical.---------------------

.
Tell me, David, what you think about my idea of philosophy and religion and their difference.

Okay.

For me philosophy is the ceaseless and continuous searching by man for the program that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reason.

I would disagree, the problem with that statement is that often someone will just say "It is logical" and then not present a reason why they believe their argument to be valid. So often philosophy is based as much upon belief and unreason as religion, but the basic premise is right. I would definitely agree with the speculative, in philosophy that is often the modus operandi .

And religion is the behavior of man founded upon a belief in forces beyond the visible nature that might exist endowed with a personalistic nature, the belief resulting in affection and action from man to influence the forces to react favorably to himself.

I can agree with this in principle as being the guiding force to some sorts of religion. The term I would use in 'anthropomorphic', however there are religions that do not use supplication as the main tool. There are forms of buddhism with intercessionary forces and there are forms that do not have them.
The main premise to most religion after the agricultural revolution is that there are special people who are closer to the truth than other people.

In religion the behavior enacted by by man is intended to influence personalistic forces they believe in, so that these will relate to man benevolently.

In some cases yes, in other cases no. Especially when devotes ones self to prayer and mystical processes, the nature of the prayers changes "grant me serenity" rather than "grant me money".

In philosophy there is no belief in personalistic forces, but in some speculated program or order or scheme of things, call that perhaps also tao or dharma, but without any personalistic character.

Again it depends there are people who throw terms around like 'qualia' and 'consciousness' and they attribute as much belief to them as "God" or "righteous". So your statement would seem to apply more to the sceptical end of philosophy.

By personalism I mean the property of judgment and choice in an entity, susceptivity to influence or bargaining.

Right, also called 'anthropomorphic' and 'infantile thinking' or 'magical; thinking". In some religions it is true, in others it is not.

Applying my ideas to Buddhism, it is a purely philosophical system if people just take their concepts as speculative constructs, and do not carry out their preceptive observances.

I have to disagree, the basis of religion would be appeal to an intercessionary force that has a supernatural basis. Some forms of buddhism would fit, others would not. Just as some forms of Xianity would fit and others would not.

Buddhism however is religion when people undertake its preceptive observances like meditation to arrive at enlightenment and thus to free themselves from dukkha, or the Eightfold Path also to arrive at delivery from dukkha, of which the essential and most crucial acme is karma and rebirth.

Again the goal of meditation is to train the mind in some schools and the action of the eightfold path does not have to involve supernatural forces.

When someone prays to the Amida buddha or they recite a chant or spin a prayer wheel with the intent of invoking a supernatural force, that is religion or shamanism. If some one uses a meditational tool, such as visualization of Kwan Yin and believes that it is just a mental tool for the study of the mind, I am not sure if that is religion or not. The eightfold path can be interpreted in strictly materialistic manners that say there are just choices and consequences, which would be materialism.

Is there then a kind of personalistic interaction between the religious Buddhist and the invisible forces he is relating to and with?

it depends on the school and the form, I linked a google page of references to mystical and magical buddhism very early on.

I think there is because the religious Buddhist must execute what Buddhists like to call right behavioral enactments, like
1. Right View
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration
Personalism comes in between the two parties in an influence or bargaining relationship: the religious Buddhist and the invisible forces he is directing his attention to.

excuse me Yrreg, but where did the invisible forces come from? I don't see them in the eightfold path, nor are they a teaching of the alleged historical buddhas.

Why personalism from both sides? Because when it is a matter of being and doing what is right, then judgment and choice are involved -- judgment and choice of what is right, that is personalism.

So you are saying that ethics and morality depend upon religion, okay, I disagree as would most atheists on this forum.

You can have the eightfold path with out anything other than atoms and forces of nature.

And that is why I see the Buddhists here in JREF forum to be into religion, because they are into judging and choosing what they judge and choose to be right or accept from others and expect thereby to attain liberation from dukkha.

Let's laugh together though -- hahahahaaaaa.

Repeatedly hotlinking this large image into every post is flooding the forum. Please stop adding it to your posts.

Yrreg

Uh huh, and you are not a graduate from Catholicism is you believe on this forum that ethics are religious.

Look out for the Vast Buddhist Conspiracy. Hotlinking is against the rules.

...the Laughing Buddha, is an interpretation of the Bodhisattva Maitreya, the predicted Buddha to succeed Gautama Buddha in the future.

yrreg

23rd August 2007, 04:09 PM

I get it now, he's a Taoist living in a predimonantly Buddhist part of Asia.

No, I am not a Taoist or anything but a critical thinker. Yet Ryokan is correct, I am a cultural Catholic, however I call myself a postgraduate Catholic, an apostate Catholic, most recently a defector Catholic.

The whole contemporary world seems to be getting imbued with some Christian cultural artifacts like Christmas and the use of the Christian calendar. just an observation from my part; so please don't take me to task for being a cultural Catholic Christian.

Another thing, there is really no need to search for English words to translate Buddhist categories, which English words are reminiscent of psychotherapy; there are in fact very close words or categories in the West which is culturally Christian that will match very effectively the philosophical and religious categories of Buddhism -- another obiter from yours truly.

Yrreg

Ryokan

23rd August 2007, 04:19 PM

The whole contemporary world seems to be getting imbued with some Christian cultural artifacts like Christmas and the use of the Christian calendar. just an observation from my part; so please don't take me to task for being a cultural Catholic Christian.

I'm a cultural Christian myself, and I believe most of us in here are, so no one should hold that against you. I just wanted to inform you that the calendar we use is a Roman one, with many of the months named after Roman gods and Roman emperors, not a Christian one.

Christmas also antedates Christianity, although not under that name, of course. In my country, we still call it jul/yule.

A derail, yes. But you've already derailed your own thread, so I thought, what the hell.

As for the topic you've chosen this time, that sure is strange criticism considering the forum you're in. If this was a theistic forum, I could understand criticizing a religious group for not pondering upon the 'end destiny of man', but such criticism won't work on a sceptics forum full of atheists. I'm rather proud of belonging to a group that doesn't speculate upon questions that are ultimately unanswerable, instead of making stuff up. But that's me.

yrreg

23rd August 2007, 04:19 PM

Student Monk: "Master, what is the ultimate end of man?"

Master: "You're sitting on it."

(Ten-beat pause) Monk: "Master, why are you such a smart-ass?"

Master: "Now you're getting it!"

Monk: "How about my boot up your smart ass? Then you'll be the one getting it."

Master: "Try it, monk-boy. Try it anytime."

(Some undignified scuffling. Finally the other monks recognize it as a fight, and break it up. Nobody experiences enlightenment. The incident does not enter the canon.)

That is one very true aspect of life in a Buddhist sangha or monastery; no matter what words and concepts men use to talk about their religious aspirations or hang-ups, they are still after an easy life, freed from laborious harsh menial exertions to get food into their stomach; life in the sangha or monastery fits perfectly man's dream for a leisurely existence.

And Buddhism in the Far East believes and advocates that monks should live from begging; you can live very well and even opulently from begging instead of as peasants in the fields or factory workers in the city or office workers.

Yrreg

Ryokan

23rd August 2007, 04:22 PM

Davo

23rd August 2007, 05:09 PM

Its a shame how buddhism has changed from a Philosophy to a religion, as I`m sure thats not what he intended.Especially when you look at what he says, I think most skeptics will agree with this quote of his:

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it"

The Buddha

yrreg

23rd August 2007, 05:40 PM

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it"

The Buddha

The man conveniently forgot or intentionally omitted himself from among the "the authority of your teachers and elders," who must be subjected to the criteria of reason and the welfare of one and all.

Perhaps he should have said that with enlightened beings like himself, one has to take such an enlightened being seriously, and not subject him to the criteria of one's own reason and one's own judgment of contribution to the welfare of one and all.

The problem has been solved however from since man learned to follow the judgment and choice of the greater number among themselves concerned with an issue: call a council and put it to a vote.

Still that does not really solve the problem either, because the lesser number outvoted by the greater number usually leave and form their own 'true' Buddhist or religious group, following their own acceptable enlightened leader who of course got the teachings of the Buddha right -- again according to their reason and judgment of contribution to the welfare of one and all.

Yrreg

Nosaj

23rd August 2007, 05:48 PM

yrreg,

That is one very true aspect of life in a Buddhist sangha or monastery; no matter what words and concepts men use to talk about their religious aspirations or hang-ups, they are still after an easy life, freed from laborious harsh menial exertions to get food into their stomach; life in the sangha or monastery fits perfectly man's dream for a leisurely existence.

And Buddhism in the Far East believes and advocates that monks should live from begging; you can live very well and even opulently from begging instead of as peasants in the fields or factory workers in the city or office workers.

While I understand that many people, especially those from predominately Western countries and cultures, have this perception of monastic life, my own experiences living at Theravada monasteries were anything but easy or free from physical labor. Even though the monastic order was created to give people the chance completely devote themselves to the study and practice of the Noble Eightfold Path, each and everyday is full of hard work and mental training. Regardless of the fact that a certain percentage of monks probably do ordain because they desire an "easy" life, there are serious and dedicated monks that spend every single day practicing to the best of their ability. Therefore, to be fair to those that are sincere, I would like to give a brief overview of that life.

The day begins relatively early, generally between 3:00am-5:30am. The times vary from temple to temple, but usually fall in between these times. Everyone rises and gathers in the sala (meditation hall) for morning chanting and meditation. After the morning chanting, everyone begins their chores, which usually consist of sweeping, mopping, cleaning, yard work, building repairs, et cetera. This generally lasts until it is time to eat. Certain traditions are more strict than others and only eat one meal a day before noon, while others might have a small breakfast. After the meal, the rest of the work is completed by the junior monks, anagarikas, and upasikas, while the more senior monks receive visitors, give Dhamma talks, answer questions, et cetera. Later, other work is done such as learning Pali, translating texts, teaching students, and other such duties. If there is little to do in this regard, then this is a good time to practice sitting and walking meditation.

In the evening, generally around 6:00pm, everyone gathers in the sala once again for evening chanting and meditation. After the evening chanting, a Dhamma talk is usually given and the senior monk will answer any questions. When the Dhamma talk is over, each person is allowed to practice meditation or study on their own. This lasts until it is time for bed. The majority of monastics who are serious about their practice will go to bed anywhere from 10:30pm-12:30am. There are even some that will meditate long into the night, and on certain days, the entire community will meditate together through the night. This kind of all-night meditation will most likely take place on the new and full-moon uposatha days (days which are times of renewed dedication to Dhamma practice).

Jason

Loss Leader

23rd August 2007, 05:51 PM

I'm partway through law school, and they haven't said anything to me about "the end destiny of man" so far, and I don't think they're planning to.

Actually, the end destiny of man is revealed in Securities Litigation. But since you need to take Income Tax, Corporate Tax and Complex Lit to qualify for the course, very few 3Ls actually ever find it out. Luckily, you can learn the end destiny of man in the nutshell ( http://www.amazon.com/Securities-Regulations-Nutshell-Thomas-Hazen/dp/0314172432/ref=pd_bbs_1/105-4894801-6778846?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187916632&sr=8-1).

Nosaj

23rd August 2007, 05:55 PM

yrreg,

The man conveniently forgot or intentionally omitted himself from among the "the authority of your teachers and elders," who must be subjected to the criteria of reason and the welfare of one and all.

The Buddha did say that his teachings should be tested, especially by being put into practice to see if they lead to the desired result. He was never one to shy away from a debate of logic or reason either.

Jason

Invidious

23rd August 2007, 09:00 PM

Actually, the end destiny of man is revealed in Securities Litigation. But since you need to take Income Tax, Corporate Tax and Complex Lit to qualify for the course, very few 3Ls actually ever find it out. Luckily, you can learn the end destiny of man in the nutshell (http://www.amazon.com/Securities-Regulations-Nutshell-Thomas-Hazen/dp/0314172432/ref=pd_bbs_1/105-4894801-6778846?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187916632&sr=8-1).
Also luckily, the end destiny of man has only ever come up in about 3% of bar exams, so most students don't even bother studying that chapter, focusing instead on wills and estates.

yrreg

24th August 2007, 04:56 AM

Please enlighten me, people of the law here in this thread: Invidious, Loss Leader, lunisrichard, what are you talking about in connection with the end destiny of man as a course subject of study in your law curriculum?

By end destiny of man I mean that final point of arrival from where there is no further point of departure, or that point of arrival which is not any further in its turn a point of departure for an ulterior arrival elsewhere.

From my reading, by the very term, Eightfold Path, Buddhism considers man's existence as a sojourn; there is an end destiny which is arrived at or realized or achieved and attained in nirvana. because at this point which is final there is no further rebirth according to the inescapable recompense of karma.

At which point of ultimate arrival in nirvana, I would imagine Buddhists will tell us karma and rebirth will have dissipated their drive for an individual, as well as for all sentient beings ever having existed in the recurring loop of rebirths, according to the rule of karma.

What I know about the end destiny of man in the institution of Western law is a decent burial owed to the deceased from his nearest next of kin or otherwise from the government.

But Buddhism like every complexly evolved religion postulates an end destiny of man beyond the grave.

Now, I want to ask the Buddhists here in this forum, what is the original point of departure in Buddhism for man?

Yrreg

yrreg

24th August 2007, 05:20 AM

yrreg,

Posted by yrreg
The man conveniently forgot or intentionally omitted himself from among the "the authority of your teachers and elders," who must be subjected to the criteria of reason and the welfare of one and all.

The Buddha did say that his teachings should be tested, especially by being put into practice to see if they lead to the desired result. He was never one to shy away from a debate of logic or reason either.

Jason

But he experienced enlightenment per his own testimony, by which enlightening experience he was certain that he had acquired unchallengeable knowledge that he must teach to others, so that others and all men, all sentient beings would also attain enlightenment, and whence nirvana.

I suggest that Buddhists worldwide should get together and establish a board of certification for enlightenment attained by a Buddhist, in order to prevent or at least lessen the ease with which any John Doe can claim to have experienced enlightenment and can now go forth and teach his own kind of enlightenment religion, gathering around himself as a guru his own group of followers, or seekers of enlightenment like the kind he had experienced and now qualified to teach and lead others.

Yrreg

linusrichard

24th August 2007, 05:35 AM

The man conveniently forgot or intentionally omitted himself from among the "the authority of your teachers and elders," who must be subjected to the criteria of reason and the welfare of one and all.
Do you have any basis for this statement, or is it just something you say because you don't like Buddhism? It seems obvious to me from reading that statement that he was including himself - why wouldn't he be?
Perhaps he should have said that with enlightened beings like himself, one has to take such an enlightened being seriously, and not subject him to the criteria of one's own reason and one's own judgment of contribution to the welfare of one and all.
Why "should" he have said that if he didn't believe it? Or do you have a reason to think he did believe it? Are you taking your hatred of Buddhism more seriously than you want people to take the Buddha, that is, are you failing to subject your hatred of Buddhism to the criteria of your own reason?

What is meant by the statement, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him"?
Please enlighten me, people of the law here in this thread: Invidious, Loss Leader, lunisrichard, what are you talking about in connection with the end destiny of man as a course subject of study in your law curriculum?
My statement was that you don't learn about "the end destiny of man" in law school. It was part of a point I was making that you probably didn't get. Invidious and Loss Leader turned it into a joke, and a pretty funny one (kudos, you two). Now that I had to explain it to you, the humor's sort of gone out of it.

What is meant by the statement, "Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested, and the frog dies"?

By the way, that's the second time you've called me "lunisrichard." One is a typo.

yrreg

24th August 2007, 05:43 AM

yrreg,

While I understand that many people, especially those from predominately Western countries and cultures, have this perception of monastic life, my own experiences living at Theravada monasteries were anything but easy or free from physical labor. Even though the monastic order was created to give people the chance completely devote themselves to the study and practice of the Noble Eightfold Path, each and everyday is full of hard work and mental training. Regardless of the fact that a certain percentage of monks probably do ordain because they desire an "easy" life, there are serious and dedicated monks that spend every single day practicing to the best of their ability. Therefore, to be fair to those that are sincere, I would like to give a brief overview of that life.

The day begins relatively early, generally between 3:00am-5:30am. [...]

That is a very tedious existence of a life.

You were there, tell me what did you expect to get from this kind of a regimentalized protracted round of days, weeks, months, years, I imagine wearisome ordeal?

What do the monks indentured inside for the duration of their earthly epoch expect to get out of this routinized course of unappetizing activities, before they die, and after?

I have a brilliant idea -- brilliant to myself of course but you might share my enthusiasm, what is there to prevent the monks to go forth and sweep the streets of their Buddhist cities and towns and villages, and do their meditation all the while sweeping the streets and also other chores of keeping an inhabited area clean and neat and looking swell?

When I clean my car which is a boring routine I get the most enlightening thoughts and ideas, even without doing any meditation. Since those monks in Theravadan territories are no different from me for being fellow humans, I am sure sweeping the streets and other chores like the garbage collection detail will incite flashes of enlightenment sparks for them.

What's there to prevent them from such an adaptation of Buddhist monastic life to the contemporary world?

Yrreg

linusrichard

24th August 2007, 06:22 AM

linusrichard

24th August 2007, 06:51 AM

sackett

24th August 2007, 07:31 AM

...life in the sangha or monastery fits perfectly man's dream for a leisurely existence....you can live very well and even opulently from begging....

Well, depends on your monastery. At least some Zen* outfits in Japan still require work in the garden, allsame those cheese-packing and brandy-bottling monks in the West.

*I know, the Zennists are esoteric Buddhists and not representative of the popular religion at all. But I hope they're less corrupt than more mainstream cults.

As for begging, I'd wish to see some evidence of how well it pays, and how easy a life it really is. We used to hear about lay panhandlers hauling in a pretty good day's pay, but I have to wonder about the majority of them. And genuine street begging is work, make no mistake about that.

Not that I'm any particular defender of Buddhism, I just find it more seemly -- more wholesome -- than other religions. At least it can be practiced in a non-religious way, unlike more primitive belief systems like, oh, for instance, Chrstianism and Moslemism.

ETA: Elohim has filled us in on monastic life as he's lived it. Unlike you and me, he appears to know what he's talking about. Of course, the futility of chanting, Dhamma lectures, and maybe meditation is obvious. But, somehow, they seem milder and more harmless hobbies than some, and if a man requires them to find peace of mind, I for one will overlook them. Worse things happen.

Buddha himself (and there's no reason to think he didn't really live) would probably enjoy a good game of kicking buddhism.

Nosaj

24th August 2007, 07:49 AM

yrreg,

That is a very tedious existence of a life.

That is one possible perception I suppose.

You were there, tell me what did you expect to get from this kind of a regimentalized protracted round of days, weeks, months, years, I imagine wearisome ordeal?

I did not expect anything, I simply desired to strengthen my meditation practice. It was far from being a wearisome ordeal, however. I quite enjoyed each of my stays.

What's there to prevent them from such an adaptation of Buddhist monastic life to the contemporary world?

Well, for one thing, all of the people who actually get paid to do such work would basically be out of a job.

Jason

Nosaj

24th August 2007, 08:17 AM

sackett,

Of course, the futility of chanting, Dhamma lectures, and maybe meditation is obvious.

That is an interesting point of view. Nevertheless, I would have to disagree that the futility of the above mentioned activities is obvious. Leaving aside the subject of Dhamma talks, chanting serves at least two purposes. Chanting is a way of preserving the Buddha's teachings as the chants are predominately discourses from the Pali Canon. Even the devotional chants contain teachings in them. Of course, this aspect is not as important today when books are readily available and literacy is relatively high. Chanting is also a form of meditation that (i) calms the mind of discursive thinking while (ii) strengthening mindfulness.

Meditation has many benefits, some of which have been observed and documented under laboratory conditions. One example that immediately comes to mind is the research done with functional magnetic resonance imaging on meditators who were meditating on compassion which showed that regions of the brain that keep track of what is self and what is other became quieter (Time Vol. 169, No.5, 79). Another is the study (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3047291.stm) where tests carried out in the United States apparently revealed that the areas of the brain associated with good mood and positive feelings are more active in those who practice meditation regularly.

Jason

sackett

24th August 2007, 08:57 AM

Well, Elohim, I said maybe about the futility of walking and sitting meditation. Heck, I've practiced the sitting variety, and it didn't do me any harm. How much good did it do? Don't know; other activities were more attractive, and I left it off. It was only quarter-assed zazen anyway.

Chanting as meditation? Okay, if you say so. I believe benefit has also been claimed for group drumming, and maybe for other seemingly hypnotic practices. (Lamas whirling prayer-wheels come to mind.)

It's only the superstitious accretions to Buddhism that I reject.

Can you enlighten (har har!) me on something? Did Buddha still believe in reincarnation by the end of his life?

Nosaj

24th August 2007, 09:39 AM

sackett,

Chanting as meditation?

Yes, chanting as meditation.

It's only the superstitious accretions to Buddhism that I reject.

That is understandable, but how would you define "superstitious"?

Jason

sackett

24th August 2007, 10:41 AM

Superstition: Accepting something as true when there's no evidence for it.

I probably should have said "the religious accretions to Buddhism," but I like to equate religion with superstition. (In one of my earliest posts on this forum, I proposed an exact equivalence between the two -- and I still challenge anybody to show a useful distinction between them.)

I think that the acceptance of reincarnation should be called superstitious, especially if you base some of your actions on it. If Buddha was still Hindu enough to believe in reincarnation, then I fault him for it. I would also, if he appeared before me reincarnated, treat him to a dinner of pork vindaloo* and a cold Brahma Chop. He was a fine man, and I can overlook at little irrationality in a pal.

*Unless he had a an aversion to it. After all, the tale tells that he died from eating tainted pork.

Nosaj

24th August 2007, 10:43 AM

sackett,

For my own part, it disturbs me that what the Buddha taught has become enshrouded within such a superstitious aura; nevertheless, I have found that many aspects of Buddhism have been labelled as "superstitious" more out of ignorance of their actually uses than anything else. For example, many people misunderstand the real purposes of chanting — purposes such as preserving teachings by memorizing them and passing them down orally, calming discurisive thinking, strengthening mindfulness, showing respect to the Buddha and his teachings, etc. — and subsequently label chanting as being "superstitious".

To say that chanting is superstitious might true if those chanting were to believe that the words themselves had some magical power that was released when the words are spoken correctly or whatnot, but that is certainly not a standard belief that is supported by the teachings of the Buddha. Just for reference, to give an example of one the more practical uses of chanting that is found within the Pali Canon, the Buddha advises the Venerable Maha Moggallana to "repeat aloud in detail the Dhamma as you have heard and memorized it" in order to shake off and overcome drowsiness when practicing meditation (AN 7.58).

Jason

sackett

24th August 2007, 11:03 AM

Chanting, as you explain it, doesn't qualify as superstitious in my book. I hope that the pragmatic purposes of chanting that you cite will always prevail in the minds of observant Buddhists. As you describe it, it's therapy, and for a lot of people it may well be good therapy.

I needn't tell you that I'm not a religious sort of man. The bare idea of getting together with other folks for the purpose of "showing respect to the Buddha and his teachings, etc." makes me feel creepy all over. Practices like that are for my private chamber only!

Put another way: When my doctor prescribes medicine, I take it at home, out of other people's view. Dr. Buddha wouldn't object.

Nosaj

24th August 2007, 11:21 AM

sackett,

Chanting, as you explain it, doesn't qualify as superstitious in my book. I hope that the pragmatic purposes of chanting that you cite will always prevail in the minds of observant Buddhists. As you describe it, it's therapy, and for a lot of people it may well be good therapy.

I generally feel the same way.

I needn't tell you that I'm not a religious sort of man. The bare idea of getting together with other folks for the purpose of "showing respect to the Buddha and his teachings, etc." makes me feel creepy all over. Practices like that are for my private chamber only!

:D

Put another way: When my doctor prescribes medicine, I take it at home, out of other people's view. Dr. Buddha wouldn't object.

I doubt that he would object too.

Jason

Nosaj

24th August 2007, 11:25 AM

sackett,

Superstition: Accepting something as true when there's no evidence for it.

If you define superstition as accepting something as true when there is a lack of evidence for it, what do you consider to be acceptable evidence? Would a direct personal experience, for example, be evidence enough for one to accept something?

I think that the acceptance of reincarnation should be called superstitious, especially if you base some of your actions on it. If Buddha was still Hindu enough to believe in reincarnation, then I fault him for it.

If the answer is yes, how can one fault the Buddha for teaching about rebirth if he had evidence in the form of a direct personal experience of past life memories? This happened at a time when experiences were all one really had to go on.

In addition, while I understand that scientists today have put forth a lot of evidence to support the idea that these experiences can be accounted for, especially in the field of modern psycology, that does not necessarily negate such experiences.

I probably should have said "the religious accretions to Buddhism," but I like to equate religion with superstition. (In one of my earliest posts on this forum, I proposed an exact equivalence between the two -- and I still challenge anybody to show a useful distinction between them.)

All in all, I admit that I take certain concepts such as rebirth on faith—faith in the possibility that they are true. I am also able to admit, however, that there is the possibility that science will one day be able to prove that these concepts are false.

Jason

sackett

24th August 2007, 12:04 PM

Yes, the problem of evidence. "Direct personal experience" hardly rises to the level of usable evidence. It can only be an anecdote, i.e., a recounting of something by somebody -- and it doesn't matter if the somebody is yourself or another person.

Did Buddha really think he had memories of an earlier life? Many people do, not just Hindus. But what confirming evidence did he have to support that belief, which, incidentally, contradicts our best knowledge of human and animal life? I fear that he had none, and that nobody does to this day.

There are still Navahos who believe, or half-believe, that when you die your spirit breaks up into good and bad parts. The good part goes off somewhere or other, and the bad part stays in this world, causing mischief where it can. How's that for a wierd metaphysic? It's not Eastern, it's not Western; it's Other! But in the nature of things, it's certainly not supported by personal experience. I think that Buddha, if he were told about it, would say, "Find out for yourself" -- and then smile.

We can never say for sure what's possible, but we can do a fair job of determining what's probable. On that basis, it seems to me that modern science is coming pretty damn close to proving that reincarnation is, well, highly improbable.

There. Now I believe I'll practice some zazen tomorrow; it's been awhile since I sat and did nothing. And if I happen to murmur "Om mani padme hum," nobody will ever know.

yrreg

24th August 2007, 05:07 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2900592&postcount=52

[...]

Quote from Yrreg:
Perhaps he should have said that with enlightened beings like himself, one has to take such an enlightened being seriously, and not subject him to the criteria of one's own reason and one's own judgment of contribution to the welfare of one and all.

Why "should" he have said that if he didn't believe it? Or do you have a reason to think he did believe it? Are you taking your hatred of Buddhism more seriously than you want people to take the Buddha, that is, are you failing to subject your hatred of Buddhism to the criteria of your own reason?

Are you saying that the man Gautama was never sure in himself and from himself that he had attained enlightenment by which he was qualified to teach others about it? In which case I would say that he was teaching things he himself was uncertain about; perhaps he should have always started his lectures with the disclaimer:

What you are going to hear from me is not anything I am certain about but purely guess work that I am not convinced about; take it like the food supplements displaying the clear notice that the product is not intended to have any therapeutic efficacy.

Is that also what or how you regard Gautama on whom the label of Buddha has been conferred by his followers?

That is interesting.

.
Quote from Yrreg:
Please enlighten me, people of the law here in this thread: Invidious, Loss Leader, lunisrichard, what are you talking about in connection with the end destiny of man as a course subject of study in your law curriculum?

My statement was that you don't learn about "the end destiny of man" in law school. It was part of a point I was making that you probably didn't get. Invidious and Loss Leader turned it into a joke, and a pretty funny one (kudos, you two). Now that I had to explain it to you, the humor's sort of gone out of it.

What is meant by the statement, "Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested, and the frog dies"?

Honestly, tell me where and what the joke is that you are trying to share with me but I missed it; I still haven't got it.

.
By the way, that's the second time you've called me "lunisrichard." Once is a typo.

No offense intended, I really thought I read 'lunisrichard' and wrote accordingly; at most it could be a Freudian slip the second time around. You should give attention to what Loss Leader calls himself: Opinionated Jerk. Or is that the designated title given to him by this JREF forum for having written a minimum or maximum number of messages?

.
Please don't attribute hatred to my critique of Buddhism, just say that I am adversely critical; all critique and criticism is adverse probing, according to my mentor, Pes Oir Amsus (Ask Ryokan who is this authority of Yrreg, he made a search in the web for Pes Oir Amsus).

Yrreg

yrreg

24th August 2007, 05:23 PM

Addressing Elohim and sackett:

Please work together to produce a synopsis of the Pali Canon with this title:

The Pali Canon
sanitized and abridged
for the Modern West
(in less than ten pages)

I will order a copy if it does not cost me more than five US dollars.

---------------------

I like to have your definitions or descriptions in a hundred words or less for religion, superstition, and philosophy, throw in also spirituality.

I was asking Buddhists and sympathizers of Buddhism, in the previous thread on the role of good, erh, right deeds in Buddhism, how they would define or describe in ten words or less what is dukkha; to the Buddhists and Buddhism fans here, please give this request your cranial attention, I would appreciate it very much.

Yrreg

yrreg

24th August 2007, 05:51 PM

There are three jewels in Buddhism which Buddhists are always reminding themselves about:

The Buddha, read that the man Gautama who experienced enlightenment and preached about it.

The Dharma, read that which he borrowed from Brahmanism.

The Sangha, read that the fellowship of Buddha's fans.

What kind of Dharma did he take over from the Brahmins? practically all of it: lock, stock and barrel -- except in some matters he kept a stance of no comments, saying that in effect it is not crucially urgent for attending to the dukkha in the immediate instance afflicting like for example a man wounded by an arrow.

This is his famous attitude toward questions which he considered to be pointless issues.

Now, the Brahminic Dharma is very prevalently conspicuous about and concerned with karma and rebirth.

Yrreg

Loss Leader

24th August 2007, 06:22 PM

You should give attention to what Loss Leader calls himself: Opinionated Jerk. Or is that the designated title given to him by this JREF forum for having written a minimum or maximum number of messages?

How cool would that be? "Yeah, I'm an opinionated jerk but fifty more messages and I'll be a bloviated dillwad."

Please don't attribute hatred to my critique of Buddhism, just say that I am adversely critical; all critique and criticism is adverse probing, according to my mentor, Pes Oir Amsus

Oh lord, are we starting with this character tic again?

linusrichard

24th August 2007, 06:47 PM

Are you saying that the man Gautama was never sure in himself and from himself that he had attained enlightenment by which he was qualified to teach others about it? In which case I would say that he was teaching things he himself was uncertain about; perhaps he should have always started his lectures with the disclaimer:

What you are going to hear from me is not anything I am certain about but purely guess work that I am not convinced about; take it like the food supplements displaying the clear notice that the product is not intended to have any therapeutic efficacy.

Is that also what or how you regard Gautama on whom the label of Buddha has been conferred by his followers?

That is interesting.
What is "interesting" is the false dichotomy you posit. Either Gautama has to say about himself "with enlightened beings like [my]self, one has to take such an enlightened being seriously, and not subject him to the criteria of one's own reason," or he has to say "What you are going to hear from me is not anything I am certain about but purely guess work that I am not convinced about." It would be impossible for you to conceive of him saying something in between, something like
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it"
Oh, except he did say that, but you're claiming (with no evidence that I've seen) that he didn't mean that to apply to himself. I think it makes more sense to believe that he meant it as a general rule, and didn't intend himself as an exception.

What is meant by the statement, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him"?

Honestly, tell me where and what the joke is that you are trying to share with me but I missed it; I still haven't got it.
Pass, it's too late.

Please don't attribute hatred to my critique of Buddhism, just say that I am adversely critical; all critique and criticism is adverse probing, according to my mentor, Pes Oir Amsus (Ask Ryokan who is this authority of Yrreg, he made a search in the web for Pes Oir Amsus).
Pes Oir Amsus. You really impress yourself, I can tell. Your criticism is "adverse probing," you say? To probe is to test, to "prove," in an archaic sense of that word - to put it simply, a way to try to gain knowledge and understanding. But you gain no knowledge or understanding by your criticism, because your mind is closed to any answers. Your aim in criticism is not to probe, or to gain understanding, but it is simply criticism for its own sake. You criticize only in order to criticize. If you were seeking understanding, you wouldn't have to agree with what anyone else says, but I would expect you to read, comprehend, and to a certain extent accept what they are saying. But you do none of this. You approach it with a closed mind, you cling to your disagreement, and then assert that your disagreement presents a problem for Buddhism.

What you claim to be doing seems somewhat admirable. I recommend that you try to do it.

yrreg

24th August 2007, 10:42 PM

Well, linusrichard, I won't argue about whether Gautama included himself in his caution not to take teachers seriously without subjecting them to one's reason and the welfare of one and all.

What I will say is that he being human will enjoy tremendously the label his followers had conferred on him, calling him thereby, Gautama the Buddha.

You say that I am immune to learning; now, just have a smile and see that I have learned to not any further use that laughing fat Buddha graphic, and I don't anymore utter that laughter as to annoy people here.

But don't be deadpan serious of the kind that inhibits good camaraderie, we are all here for fun -- but in having fun there is greater possibility of learning than getting all deadpan serious.

=======================

You are a law student, tell me who wants to learn from aspirants of the legal profession, if I am right in my ideas:

About rightness and wrongness of human actions there are three areas or kinds of in the contemporary Western mind:

1. Right is that which is healthy, so that wrong will get you sick; going wrong is stupid or ignorant.

2. Right is that which does not disturb your sense of self-respect, wrong is what should disturb your self-respect; going wrong is to be without self-respect.

3. Right is what the law and government expects you to do, going wrong will get you in jail to keep you out of circulation in society.

Now, where does the Eightfold Path of the Gautama come in, he being some 2,400 plus years behind the contemporary Western mind?

Yrreg

nosho

24th August 2007, 11:01 PM

You mean that right behavior are just like right mechanically effective actions that get a car fixed to run; otherwise you don't get the car to run?

That might be one way of looking at it, insofar as one learns through experience what types of actions, thoughts, intentions, etc., are beneficial. That's not exclusively a "Buddhist" concept.

BTW, in my post I was trying to help you get a better understanding of how the word "right" is used in the eightfold path. It's a loose translation of the Pali word "samma." Based on your response, I think you completely missed the point.

Theft and adultery are wrong actions because they don't get the Buddhist to undo bad karma and store up good karma, just like wrong actions in car maintenance and repairs will not keep your car running?

Respecting your neighbor's private possession and not sleeping with your neighbor's wife are mechanically effective for undoing bad karma and storing up good karma; so that one day all a Buddhist's bad karmas will have been undone by his good karmas,

I don't know what you mean when you use the word "karma" in this way. That's not at all what I said.

... at which time he will no longer suffer rebirth, but will get to Nirvana which is the end destiny of man in Buddhism

That's not what I said.

-- is that what you mean by no strict moralistic precepts in Buddhism but right and wrong are to be understood mechanically like the right way to maintain and repair a car, bake a cake?

And that is the way to understand the Eightfold Path of right behavioral enactments in Buddhism?

No, that's not what I was trying to say.

That is interesting.

I wonder how the Thais in Thailand and the rest of Buddhists in the Far East and East Asia will react to your kind of understanding of Buddhist rightness and wrongness.

Just one question, what do you think about karma and rebirth and nirvana for the traditional Buddhists in East Asia, are they moral entities, categories, or physico-mechanical ones, like the ingredients for a cake and the right procedures to bake it so that a genuine cake will ensue?

I guess you're trying to say that in your opinion, "Buddhism" teaches moral absolutism, a black-and-white kind of right and wrong that either earns merits for a person or acrues as "bad karma," whatever that might be.

I'm sure there are some forms of Buddhism like that. It's a big world out there.

I sense that none of this has helped you to understand how the word "right" is used in the terms "right speech," "right thinking," "right concentration" and so on. Your critique would be much richer if you tried a little harder to understand the term "samma."

yrreg

25th August 2007, 02:57 AM

I sense that none of this has helped you to understand how the word "right" is used in the terms "right speech," "right thinking," "right concentration" and so on. Your critique would be much richer if you tried a little harder to understand the term "samma."

That word, samma, is a Pali term, which term is not of the language used by the Gautama in his preaching years.

Then also Pali is a dead language without a written script.

Writing without an alphabet
Pali is a phonetic language with no written alphabet of its own. Students of the language have therefore relied on their own native alphabets to read and write Pali, ever since the 1st century BCE, when Sri Lankan scribes first recorded the Tipitaka in the Sinhala alphabet. But the Europeans who began to take an interest in South Asian languages in the 19th century quickly discovered that their own roman alphabet was no match for the wide range of phonemes (sounds) present in South Asian languages. European scholars thus began representing the more problematic Pali phonemes by augmenting the roman alphabet with a system of letter-pairs and diacritics, including the macron (horizontal bar), dot-over, dot-under, and tilde...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bullitt/learningpali.html#warder

.
Anyway, since human experiences are the same everywhere with humans and at all times, we can say that if samma means anything that has to do with the universal experiences of mankind, then it should not be difficult for you to say in a few words today, what you understand to be samma in the Pali term as translation of whatever word used by the Gautama.

Yet we can say that in specific instances we have today after some 2,400 years from the lifetime of Gautama more experiences than ever possible in his times and climes; so some of the experiences of Gautama according to which he fashioned his religious views and precepts while essentially still valid on their universal basis of human experiences owing to common human nature, in the light of our vastly greater knowledge of life and the universe today, are no longer of any useful relevance to us.

Let me see just the same what samma is supposed to mean from Gautama as translated in Pali and now understood by you.

If you know, really know, then you should be able to say it in a few words in English for the peoples today everywhere, who do understand English enough to read intelligibly any piece of publication in English intended for an international audience.

Please work on your understanding of samma as you can derive it from your knowledge of Pali and your knowledge of Buddhism, and present it here.

Yrreg

Mojo

25th August 2007, 04:28 AM

...my mentor, Pes Oir Amsus (Ask Ryokan who is this authority of Yrreg, he made a search in the web for Pes Oir Amsus).

"Amsus" is one of Yrreg's made-up authorities, much like his source for the claim about newspaper editors in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1500182#post1500182) (could anyone outside yrreg's imagination think that someone being considered for the post of "chief-editor" of a newspaper would need to be tested for reading comprehension?).

Dancing David

25th August 2007, 05:45 AM

But he experienced enlightenment per his own testimony, by which enlightening experience he was certain that he had acquired unchallengeable knowledge that he must teach to others, so that others and all men, all sentient beings would also attain enlightenment, and whence nirvana.

Some schools say that the buddha taught that you should challenge his knowledge and if you find it unappealing to go elsewhere. So yet again after almost two years you are just putting your monolithic catholic perspective on buddhism.

Nirvana is a state of being.

I suggest that Buddhists worldwide should get together and establish a board of certification for enlightenment attained by a Buddhist,

No that is your beloved catholicism again. Enlightenment is a personal state of freedom.

in order to prevent or at least lessen the ease with which any John Doe can claim to have experienced enlightenment

there goes your confusian side again. each person is responsible for themselves Yrreg, what I consider foolish they may consider to be bliss. people can claim what they want, you still don't know what critical thinking is.

and can now go forth and teach his own kind of enlightenment religion,

You like freedom don't you?

gathering around himself as a guru his own group of followers, or seekers of enlightenment like the kind he had experienced and now qualified to teach and lead others.

Why do you want to restrict freedom?

Yrreg
[/quote]

Dancing David

25th August 2007, 05:52 AM

Well, depends on your monastery. At least some Zen* outfits in Japan still require work in the garden, allsame those cheese-packing and brandy-bottling monks in the West.

*I know, the Zennists are esoteric Buddhists and not representative of the popular religion at all. But I hope they're less corrupt than more mainstream cults.

As for begging, I'd wish to see some evidence of how well it pays, and how easy a life it really is. We used to hear about lay panhandlers hauling in a pretty good day's pay, but I have to wonder about the majority of them. And genuine street begging is work, make no mistake about that.

Hiya , Yrreg will of course ignore this. A buddhist begs for food at the doors of the community. They do not beg for money.

Yrreg is beloved of his catholic tradition and just wants the buddhists to be like the catholic monks he adores. He thinks that they are not parasites like the buddhists. he has never depended on the charity of others (from what he has said) and brags about how he is the one to host his family on the holidays.

Yrreg just does this because he likes to suggest and say that buddhists are parasites and that people hould be mean to them because Yrreg does not like them.

the first story Yrreg presented about buddhists was one of being mean and humiliating to the monks.

Dancing David

25th August 2007, 05:57 AM

Please don't attribute hatred to my critique of Buddhism, just say that I am adversely critical; all critique and criticism is adverse probing, according to my mentor, Pes Oir Amsus (Ask Ryokan who is this authority of Yrreg, he made a search in the web for Pes Oir Amsus).

Yrreg

For the lurkers. Yrreg is the Pes Oir Amsus. he is such an attention seeker.

Dancing David

25th August 2007, 06:00 AM

Addressing Elohim and sackett:

Please work together to produce a synopsis of the Pali Canon with this title:

I will order a copy if it does not cost me more than five US dollars.

---------------------

I like to have your definitions or descriptions in a hundred words or less for religion, superstition, and philosophy, throw in also spirituality.

I was asking Buddhists and sympathizers of Buddhism, in the previous thread on the role of good, erh, right deeds in Buddhism, how they would define or describe in ten words or less what is dukkha; to the Buddhists and Buddhism fans here, please give this request your cranial attention, I would appreciate it very much.

Yrreg

You will just ignore it anyway.

You have had your answers but feel free to be ignorant of them.

Loss Leader

25th August 2007, 06:03 AM

You are a law student, tell me who wants to learn from aspirants of the legal profession, if I am right in my ideas:

I don't know why you'd ask a law student when this board has actual lawyers, but I'll have a go at this from the legal perspective.

About rightness and wrongness of human actions there are three areas or kinds of in the contemporary Western mind:

You can stop right there. At least as far as the law is concerned, there is no general definition of "right" or "wrong." All definitions are situational. In additions, there are degrees and shades of right and wrong as well as justifications, excuses, mitigating factors and enhancements. I cannot imagine any three categories that would encompass them all.

1. Right is that which is healthy, so that wrong will get you sick; going wrong is stupid or ignorant.

This concept has absolutely no place in law whatsoever. It forms no basis for any legal definition of right or wrong in any way. Moreover, I don't think it's actually true. Marie Curie's research into radioctivity made her sick but the research wasn't wrong nor was her approach stupid or (for the time) ignorant.

2. Right is that which does not disturb your sense of self-respect, wrong is what should disturb your self-respect; going wrong is to be without self-respect.

This concept also has nothing to do with law. In fact, all law is concerned about is the individual's relationship with others. So, the individual's relationship with himself (which is the essence of self-respect) is probably the thing that least interests the law. Nobody cares if killing a store clerk for twenty-five dollars makes you feel good about yourself.

3. Right is what the law and government expects you to do, going wrong will get you in jail to keep you out of circulation in society.

Also incorrect. There are plenty of ways to be wrong without ending up in jail. Civil wrongs, no matter how egregious, cannot land you in jail. Breach of contract isn't a crime. The worst fall someone can take on your icy driveway won't cause you to go to jail. Moreover, even for crimes there are lots of ways to be responsible and not go to jail. Mental illness when you committed the crime will keep you out of jail; so will mental illness when you're being tried even if you were sane when you committed the crime. There are dozens of other examples.

Of the three items in your list, none of them have anything to do with how Western society determines what is right or wrong in the public sphere.

Dancing David

25th August 2007, 06:05 AM

There are three jewels in Buddhism which Buddhists are always reminding themselves about:

The Buddha, read that the man Gautama who experienced enlightenment and preached about it.

The Dharma, read that which he borrowed from Brahmanism.

I suppose at this point that asking you for evidence might produce a result.

What citations might you give that would lead you to believe this. Specificaly how annataa was part of bramhanic teachings?

But feel free to spout your unsupported assertions.

The Sangha, read that the fellowship of Buddha's fans.

What kind of Dharma did he take over from the Brahmins? practically all of it: lock, stock and barrel

care to provide evidence of that?

-- except in some matters he kept a stance of no comments, saying that in effect it is not crucially urgent for attending to the dukkha in the immediate instance afflicting like for example a man wounded by an arrow.

That makes sense, you remove the arrow, not ask who shot it and what kind of bow and pedigree the shooter had.

This is his famous attitude toward questions which he considered to be pointless issues.

Now, the Brahminic Dharma is very prevalently conspicuous about and concerned with karma and rebirth.

So where did the buddha say that it was important. Except to be free of it.

Do you know the tale of Sariputta and the implements of fire worship?

I suppose that you think the buddhas taught that the caste system was good and that killing animals brought merit.

Yrreg

nosho

25th August 2007, 10:40 AM

That word, samma, is a Pali term, which term is not of the language used by the Gautama in his preaching years.

Then also Pali is a dead language without a written script.

As you know, Pali texts are generally regarded as a valid reference point to discuss Buddhism. Are you actually arguing that Pali texts have no place in a discussion about Buddhism? If so, you're needlessly hobbling your effort to understand Budhism.

Unless, of course, you're not really interested in understanding but just want to make a lot of noise. As I wrote before, it looks to me like you intentionally desire not to understand any branch of Buddhism. Everything you do here in this forum appears to be fundamentally dishonest. Is that what you mean when you call it a game?

Anyway, since human experiences are the same everywhere with humans and at all times, we can say that if samma means anything that has to do with the universal experiences of mankind, then it should not be difficult for you to say in a few words today, what you understand to be samma in the Pali term as translation of whatever word used by the Gautama.

Yet we can say that in specific instances we have today after some 2,400 years from the lifetime of Gautama more experiences than ever possible in his times and climes; so some of the experiences of Gautama according to which he fashioned his religious views and precepts while essentially still valid on their universal basis of human experiences owing to common human nature, in the light of our vastly greater knowledge of life and the universe today, are no longer of any useful relevance to us.

Let me see just the same what samma is supposed to mean from Gautama as translated in Pali and now understood by you.

If you know, really know, then you should be able to say it in a few words in English for the peoples today everywhere, who do understand English enough to read intelligibly any piece of publication in English intended for an international audience.

Please work on your understanding of samma as you can derive it from your knowledge of Pali and your knowledge of Buddhism, and present it here.

I already did that. But you ignored it. Try to pay attention this time: "Samma" is an adverb meaning straight, or not crooked, or upright, or not bent, or "in the right way."

You are misinterpreting "right" as a moral judgment, or as an arbitrary standard imposed from outside. You may have this misunderstanding because, in the Catholic tradition, that is what "right" means. In Buddhist traditions, "right" is neither a moral judgment nor an arbitrary standard imposed from outside. Rather, through one's own awareness and experience, one discovers what is beneficial. That's the idea in Buddhist traditions. I'm trying to enable you to understand this so that you can offer a critique that makes sense.

This is not the first time this idea has been presented to you in simple, easy-to-understand terms. But you keep ignoring it. It's clear you don't want to understand.

yrreg

25th August 2007, 12:57 PM

I like to have your definitions or descriptions in a hundred words or less for religion, superstition, and philosophy, throw in also spirituality.

I was asking Buddhists and sympathizers of Buddhism, in the previous thread on the role of good, erh, right deeds in Buddhism, how they would define or describe in ten words or less what is dukkha; to the Buddhists and Buddhism fans here, please give this request your cranial attention, I would appreciate it very much.

You will just ignore it anyway.

You have had your answers but feel free to be ignorant of them.

.
So far no one here has tried to define or describe dukkha in ten words or less.

If you ask me, I will give it to you, and from pure generosity.

About Buddhist meditation being efficacious for what purposes, I am still waiting for Buddhists here like Ryokan to produce references in peers-reviewed journals.

"If you see the Buddha, kill him," that is supposed to be a piece of profound discovery or dictum on how to deal with anyone claiming to be Buddha; notwithstanding, Buddhas or enlightened guys are multiplying like it's the fastest growing industry today in the domain of spirituality and transcending your earthly existence.

Luckily for them in the West today, there is no more witch hunting and burning, otherwise these Buddhas would be leading a precarious existence instead of living off their sheepish followers.

Watch out you don't fall into your consumerism trap in taking up what is fashionable today; learn to be yourself and if you need religion, spirituality, and transcendence, device your own kind instead of being led by the nose with self-proclaimed gurus.

I am an independent critic of Buddhism for my own fun hobby of critical thinking, and I have found time and again here how people can be so gullible, even though professing to be skeptics.

First rule of rational skepticism: "Call no one teacher unless you are weak with your reasoning resources and bereft of life's experiences from which you should be able to distill precious lessons." -- Pes Oir Amsus

I see this first rule continuously disregarded and spurned by people here who are proud to call themselves Buddhists.

Dancing David has only one argument to my critique of Buddhism, and he knows it; he has not written one original thought in his own words, because the man has been conditioned to disgorge words from his mentor, one Thich Nhat Hanh.

Thich should be home in Vietnam but still hanging about in France, because this country is a much more congenial place to live in and teach Buddhism, than among his own Vietnamese folks who are deserting their traditional Buddhism for Western materialism and sensualism, because they want life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, in lieu of deliverance from desire.

That is calling a spade a spade, not a silver spoon; Thich knows that in his more honest moments free of scripts.

These some of my favorite gripes in my critique of Buddhism, and they are terrific for engendering lightnings of insights about men and their foibles.

Yrreg

yrreg

25th August 2007, 01:27 PM

Posted by yrreg
...my mentor, Pes Oir Amsus (Ask Ryokan who is this authority of Yrreg, he made a search in the web for Pes Oir Amsus).

"Amsus" is one of Yrreg's made-up authorities, much like his source for the claim about newspaper editors in this post (could anyone outside yrreg's imagination think that someone being considered for the post of "chief-editor" of a newspaper would need to be tested for reading comprehension?).

.
Truly great minds speak in the third person and often utilize pseudonyms to identify themselves.

Mediocre minds pay faithful attention to literalism and miss the delectable flavor of literary devices.

Awfully impoverished minds deny the existence of the self as they assert themselves with speech, giving the lie away and not knowing it -- typical.

Yrreg

yrreg

25th August 2007, 02:17 PM

[...]

Of the three items in your list, none of them have anything to do with how Western society determines what is right or wrong in the public sphere.

Thanks, Loss, for your opinionated view. That is one opinion about how Western society determines what is right or wrong in the public sphere.

Here you have another opinion really more into the predications of the words right and wrong to human actions in the West today:

...tell me who wants to learn from aspirants of the legal profession, if I am right in my ideas:

About rightness and wrongness of human actions there are three areas or kinds of in the contemporary Western mind:

1. Right is that which is healthy, so that wrong will get you sick; going wrong is stupid or ignorant.

2. Right is that which does not disturb your sense of self-respect, wrong is what should disturb your self-respect; going wrong is to be without self-respect.

3. Right is what the law and government expects you to do, going wrong will get you in jail to keep you out of circulation in society.

.
I am in the message quoted not directly into what is legally right or wrong.

Just the same, what do you say? can we agree that in law there are two kinds of wrongs (however, understanding wrong in a general sense as any action not acceptable to the community): the criminal wrong and the civil wrong; the first you have to pay for to the government in money or in jail or in your own life; and the second you have to pay for with money or with service to your neighbor.

If I may go further, the first kind of wrong by which you have to pay the government in money or in jail or in your own life is what I would call a public wrong, the second by which you have to pay your neighbor with money or with service is what I would call a private wrong -- of course the terminology is not legal, I am sure; but just to put my ideas in what appear to me more simple words.

Still more, a private wrong could be purely a wrong suffered by an aggrieved person though not delivered by the person bound nevertheless to make up for the suffered wrong of the aggrieved person with money or with service, owing to the latter being any kind of instrumentality, like having icy driveway.

In many instances the government can declare allowing a condition like an icy driveway to exist is a public wrong, a criminal wrong.

Tell me if you know of what I call the crime of not acting the good Samaritan; but the law will have to locate the Samaritan who could have been good but neglected his chance to be good.

Yrreg

Loss Leader

25th August 2007, 02:54 PM

Thanks, Loss, for your opinionated view. That is one opinion about how Western society determines what is right or wrong in the public sphere.

Honestly, Gerry, why did you even ask the question? You didn't actually want an answer and you don't seem to have taken in a word I wrote. You just asked so that you could give your own little lecture about your beliefs as to what the law says. And, of course, you have done absolutely no research before coming to your conclusions. They're just whatever happened to pop unbidden into your head.

Fine, let's take a look.

Just the same, what do you say? can we agree that in law there are two kinds of wrongs (however, understanding wrong in a general sense as any action not acceptable to the community): the criminal wrong and the civil wrong; the first you have to pay for to the government in money or in jail or in your own life; and the second you have to pay for with money or with service to your neighbor.

Um, no. We can't agree to that because it's not actually true. While law can roughly be divided into criminal and civil, such is only a very broad approximation. There are plenty of things that are neither criminal nor civil; the largest catagory being administrative law. When you register your car late and pay an extra $25.00 fine, is that a criminal penalty or a civil penalty? It is both and it is neither. The catagories don't work.

And your assignment of possible punnishments is just absolutely wrong. Criminal punishments can include having you pay money directly to a victim. Civil punishments can include any number of remedies and injunctions that are neither money nor service to one's neighbor.

So, everything you wrote is wrong.

If I may go further, the first kind of wrong by which you have to pay the government in money or in jail or in your own life is what I would call a public wrong, the second by which you have to pay your neighbor with money or with service is what I would call a private wrong -- of course the terminology is not legal, I am sure; but just to put my ideas in what appear to me more simple words.

Well, kind of but not really. The thing is that something can be both a civil and criminal action. If I kill my wife and her friend, Ron Goldman, I have committed the crime of murder and I have also committed the civil tort of wrongful death. But it was all the same act, so whatever "wrong" I committed was morally one thing; but legally it is dealt with as two things. Heck, I can even be not guilty of one and liable for another; yet it was still one act on one day. There is no way "right" and "wrong" can be made to fit that.

Still more, a private wrong could be purely a wrong suffered by an aggrieved person though not delivered by the person bound nevertheless to make up for the suffered wrong of the aggrieved person with money or with service, owing to the latter being any kind of instrumentality, like having icy driveway.

This appears to be gibberish.

Tell me if you know of what I call the crime of not acting the good Samaritan; but the law will have to locate the Samaritan who could have been good but neglected his chance to be good.

Oh, I can do that. It was actually a big part of first year criminal law. Here's the answer:

Generally in the United States, it is never, ever illegal to refuse to render aid to someone who needs it. I fall into a lake and begin to drown and Olympic swimmer Amanda Beard is standing on the shore nearby. I call out, "Ms. Beard, Ms. Beard, help me, Ms. Beard!" And she replies, "Sink, sucker." This is perfectly legal.

There is a different rule if Amanda has put me in that situation or if she actively prevents others from learning of my plight.

Why is this the rule? Think of it: You know for a fact that right now there are people starving to death in the Sudan. This is undeniable. And you have the power to help them. Hell, you don't even have to go to the Sudan. You could just give fifty bucks to an aid organization. But you don't. People in the Sudan will starve to death and they will do so because you did not render aid.

Imagine the chaos if that were a crime.

yrreg

25th August 2007, 06:11 PM

Loss Leader

25th August 2007, 06:53 PM

I looked up the Good Samaritan Law and found out that my stock idea from general reading about this law is more on the compulsory duty of a person to come to the assistance of another in need of assistance, for example in a car accident; neglect to do so would be criminal negligence which is prosecutable.

In the US the law is more focused on non-liability of the good Samaritan if he should cause additional injury in assisting someone in need of assistance as in a traffic accident.

The focus on obligation to come to the assistance of another in need of assistance like in a traffic accident, that focus is more the intention of the law in most countries other than the US.

Yrreg

You are correct. In some countries outside the US, they are attempting to create a more active duty on passers-by who could render aid (or at least call for help) without risk to themselves. So far, however, I don't think any country has yet to craft a law that actually works without being overbroad.

If you read French, that nation has had some excellent cases on the topic.

yrreg

25th August 2007, 09:52 PM

I like to go a bit deeper into this matter of right and wrong, because the Buddhists talk about right behavioral enactments in the Eightfold Path; and may I just invite you to collaborate in putting their right and wrong in the right (pun not intended) place in the Western mind's concepts of right and wrong in the most broad parameters.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2904277&postcount=83

Posted by yrreg
Thanks, Loss, for your opinionated view. That is one opinion about how Western society determines what is right or wrong in the public sphere.

Honestly, Gerry, why did you even ask the question? You didn't actually want an answer and you don't seem to have taken in a word I wrote. You just asked so that you could give your own little lecture about your beliefs as to what the law says. And, of course, you have done absolutely no research before coming to your conclusions. They're just whatever happened to pop unbidden into your head.

I want to find out whether you have a juristic mind or a legalistic mind; how do you rate yourself: juristic or legalistic, or both and equally on both camps or more on one than on the other?

Quote:
Just the same, what do you say? can we agree that in law there are two kinds of wrongs (however, understanding wrong in a general sense as any action not acceptable to the community): the criminal wrong and the civil wrong; the first you have to pay for to the government in money or in jail or in your own life; and the second you have to pay for with money or with service to your neighbor.

Um, no. We can't agree to that because it's not actually true. While law can roughly be divided into criminal and civil, such is only a very broad approximation. There are plenty of things that are neither criminal nor civil; the largest category being administrative law. When you register your car late and pay an extra $25.00 fine, is that a criminal penalty or a civil penalty? It is both and it is neither. The catagories don't work.

Administrative law, isn't that in its construct within the big big basket of civil law? because an infringement in administrative law is not an infringement against the body politic of the state, but from one person physical or collective against another?

In the example of car registration, that is an obligation of a citizen toward the government as some kind of in Western democratic society contractual service provider.

Now, in the law against theft, theft is construed as an infringement against the body politic that is the state of which the government is again a contractual policeman.

And your assignment of possible punnishments is just absolutely wrong. Criminal punishments can include having you pay money directly to a victim. Civil punishments can include any number of remedies and injunctions that are neither money nor service to one's neighbor.

Paying money directly to the victim is not a criminal punishment but a civil compensation or damage imposed by the judge in conjunction with the criminal sentence upon the culprit.

I like to know from you, in a civil suit what aside from money and service to the winning party, a judge can impose on the losing party.

Quote:
If I may go further, the first kind of wrong by which you have to pay the government in money or in jail or in your own life is what I would call a public wrong, the second by which you have to pay your neighbor with money or with service is what I would call a private wrong -- of course the terminology is not legal, I am sure; but just to put my ideas in what appear to me more simple words.

Well, kind of but not really. The thing is that something can be both a civil and criminal action. If I kill my wife and her friend, Ron Goldman, I have committed the crime of murder and I have also committed the civil tort of wrongful death. But it was all the same act, so whatever "wrong" I committed was morally one thing; but legally it is dealt with as two things. Heck, I can even be not guilty of one and liable for another; yet it was still one act on one day. There is no way "right" and "wrong" can be made to fit that.

When you murder your friend who is a private citizen, not a president of the country -- murder of a president would be some kind of lèse majesté in a way -- that murder of your friend is a private wrong essentially, but the body politic that is the state construes it as a public wrong, in order bring the whole force of the state against you and to deter others from doing likewise, murdering other people.

Quote:
Still more, a private wrong could be purely a wrong suffered by an aggrieved person though not delivered by the person bound nevertheless to make up for the suffered wrong of the aggrieved person with money or with service, owing to the latter being any kind of instrumentality, like having icy driveway.

This appears to be gibberish.

Gibberish? not if you have a juristic mind instead of a legalistic mind.

In my part of the world civil law dictates as one of its broad principles: everyone must take the customary care to prevent any harm to others or damage to their property; allowing an icy driveway or wet with laundry water to prevail, where pedestrians have to walk on as part of the sidewalk, that is not customary care to prevent people from getting hurt.

Quote:
Tell me if you know of what I call the crime of not acting the good Samaritan; but the law will have to locate the Samaritan who could have been good but neglected his chance to be good.

Oh, I can do that. It was actually a big part of first year criminal law. Here's the answer:

Generally in the United States, it is never, ever illegal to refuse to render aid to someone who needs it. I fall into a lake and begin to drown and Olympic swimmer Amanda Beard is standing on the shore nearby. I call out, "Ms. Beard, Ms. Beard, help me, Ms. Beard!" And she replies, "Sink, sucker." This is perfectly legal.

There is a different rule if Amanda has put me in that situation or if she actively prevents others from learning of my plight.

Why is this the rule? Think of it: You know for a fact that right now there are people starving to death in the Sudan. This is undeniable. And you have the power to help them. Hell, you don't even have to go to the Sudan. You could just give fifty bucks to an aid organization. But you don't. People in the Sudan will starve to death and they will do so because you did not render aid.

Imagine the chaos if that were a crime.

Chaos, if that were a crime? No, no chaos here, because while the government can prosecute a Samaritan who refuses to be good when the occasion as a traffic accident occurs in his presence, the government is not bound to the impossible task of seeking for such recusant Samaritans; how would the government then locate the recusant Samaritan? Simple, from the surviving victim in an accident.

You are trapped in a crushed car and you call out to the store-owner across the street for help, he plays blind and deaf; if you survive the accident you can get the government to criminally prosecute the store-owner for violation of the Good Samaritan Law.

Of course, the obligation to be a good Samaritan has to do with one or two victims in a traffic accident, and you are nearby; it does not take you to launch a one man relief operation in Sudan; that is the duty of the United Nations or more wealthy and more noble nations toward socalled dysfunctional states.

The US focus in the Good Samaritan Law on clearing the Samaritan from liability, is not inspired by juristic concern but motivated by legalistic concern; it should rise higher and stress the fraternal altruism import of the law in European countries.

=============

Now, I am asking the Buddhists here how their Eightfold Path of right behavioral enactments will redound to the relief of suffering in victims of crimes, civil infringements, traffic accidents, calamities of nature -- by skillful meditation on the no- non- or not- self?

Yrreg

nosho

26th August 2007, 12:25 AM

Now, I am asking the Buddhists here how their Eightfold Path of right behavioral enactments will redound to the relief of suffering in victims of crimes, civil infringements, traffic accidents, calamities of nature -- by skillful meditation on the no- non- or not- self?

There is no lasting relief from suffering. A cessation of suffering does not constitute relief from suffering. You go deeper into your suffering, you get to know it, you understand it better and better. You begin to see its nature more clearly. That is the path. The path to the cessation of suffering goes ever closer toward suffering. It doesn't turn away.

Crimes, civil infringements, traffic accidents, calamities of nature, all these things and more are bound to happen. You can't avoid them. That's life. But you are not a victim. You may think you are a victim. You may act like a victim. You have the power to make things as hard on yourself as you want. In the end, you will see you are not a victim.

Of course there is a self. There is an "I" that feels and reacts and exists in a very real way. But it is not permanent, it is not unchanging, it is not independent of the entire universe from which it arises, and on which it has an immediate, uninterrupted and lasting effect. The path takes you deep into the self. You begin to see its nature more clearly. And you realize it is always dissolving, and every moment is a kind of death and a kind of rebirth. The process goes on and on. You can't cling to it for even a moment, no matter how hard you try. You think you can, but that's an illusion. That's where the illusion is born.

You don't meditate on not-self. You just meditate. The experience is what it is. Yes, whatever happens on the cushion, whatever thoughts arise, there they are, and that's all there is to it. It's never right or wrong. It's only ever just what it is.

You have the wrong idea, yyreg. You're asking the wrong questions. You're looking in the wrong direction. I would love to help you with your critique of Buddhism. Buddhism needs criticism. Without a good, hard, skeptical orientation, the path goes nowhere. I wish you could say something, anything, that would force me to change my mind.

I would thank you for it.

yrreg

26th August 2007, 03:01 AM

Good man, nosho, just tell me what you as a Buddhist look forward to, like for example. a good life on this side of the grave and a good existence beyond the grave if any?

What I know from reading about Buddhism is that the end destiny is nirvana which is the result arrived at for having made up for all the bad karma by the performance of deeds which outbalance the bad karma.

When the bad karma is all compensated for, then also there is the end to recurring rebirth, at this point one gets to nirvana.

What is nirvana? From my reading: for the simple or lay Buddhists it is an existence of happiness; with the elite Buddhists things get to be unspeakable -- so they can't talk about it because it is unspeakable.

You must qualify for an elite Buddhist, so I guess you will tell me that nirvana is unspeakable about; so there, end of conversation.

I will just say this about you, you have a good stomach for guys like myself, unlike Dancing David who in previous encounters with him -- not so much now -- could not keep to right speech notwithstanding all the lessons from his mentor, Thich Nhat Hanh who should on his part be back in his homeland teaching his people not to abandon Buddhism.

They are abandoning Buddhism, but he had earlier abandoned them to preach to strangers in strange lands but no less congenial to him on material considerations.

Christian missionaries are preaching the Christian faith to Buddhists and assorted pagans in East Asia, when they should be reviving the Christian faith of their fellow countrymen; while Buddhist monks from East Asia are forsaking their own countrymen to preach Buddhism to jaded Christians in the West.

If Buddha does not roar with laughter, then he has a very low and straiten cognisense.

Yrreg

Dancing David

26th August 2007, 04:09 AM

.
So far no one here has tried to define or describe dukkha in ten words or less.

If you ask me, I will give it to you, and from pure generosity.

You have been asked repeatedly, you are not that generous in many ways and many times and places.

...

"If you see the Buddha, kill him," that is supposed to be a piece of profound discovery or dictum on how to deal with anyone claiming to be Buddha; notwithstanding, Buddhas or enlightened guys are multiplying like it's the fastest growing industry today in the domain of spirituality and transcending your earthly existence.

Hmm, is that what it means?

Okay dokay.

Luckily for them in the West today, there is no more witch hunting and burning, otherwise these Buddhas would be leading a precarious existence instead of living off their sheepish followers.

Hmm, what are you saying here? Oh that’s right you think killing people for their religious beliefs is funny.

...

Dancing David has only one argument to my critique of Buddhism, and he knows it; he has not written one original thought in his own words, because the man has been conditioned to disgorge words from his mentor, one Thich Nhat Hanh.

See there you go, you ask for our thoughts and ideas and then you start with the degrading stuff as soon as it turns out that you are empty like a dried out gourd. I have written probably a thousand pages of all original material. All you have is bullying, and like most bullies you claim to be funny.

Thich should be home in Vietnam but still hanging about in France, because this country is a much more congenial place to live in and teach Buddhism, than among his own Vietnamese folks who are deserting their traditional Buddhism for Western materialism and sensualism, because they want life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, in lieu of deliverance from desire.

More gadfly poop, the only thing that Yrreg is capable of.

That is calling a spade a spade, not a silver spoon; Thich knows that in his more honest moments free of scripts.

You don't know what calling a spade a spade means, did you know that spade is a term used to refer to african americans? Just like 'shine' and 'nig**r"

I suppose you think that you are funny like when you ask "Why was Onemind suspended for calling people retards?" , so you think racism is funny. Just like your other antiquated notions

These some of my favorite gripes in my critique of Buddhism, and they are terrific for engendering lightnings of insights about men and their foibles.

the truth Yrreg is that you are incapable of critical thought and like FOX News Network you can only resort to 'nanny nanny boo boo' as a debate technique.

Yrreg

Truly lacking in any substance Yrreg, not your best at all.

Dancing David

26th August 2007, 04:13 AM

.
Truly great minds speak in the third person and often utilize pseudonyms to identify themselves.

Mediocre minds pay faithful attention to literalism and miss the delectable flavor of literary devices.

Awfully impoverished minds deny the existence of the self as they assert themselves with speech, giving the lie away and not knowing it -- typical.

Yrreg

I sense a vibration in the Farce, as though Yrreg has run out of any new thoughts and will be leaving the thread soon.

;)

Dancing David

26th August 2007, 04:29 AM

Good man, nosho, just tell me what you as a Buddhist look forward to, like for example. a good life on this side of the grave and a good existence beyond the grave if any?

Looking forward is not as productive as looking at the moment. One watches the road to avoid the accidents.

No existence beyond the grave, as your self. No soul only the atoms and moleculs as they disperse.

What I know from reading about Buddhism is that the end destiny is nirvana which is the result arrived at for having made up for all the bad karma by the performance of deeds which outbalance the bad karma.

In some schools yes, in other schools you can't compensate for bad karma, because you can only redress the harm you have caused and try to avoid it by not repeating it.

When the bad karma is all compensated for, then also there is the end to recurring rebirth, at this point one gets to nirvana.

Nah, you can always make unhealthy choices.

What is nirvana? From my reading: for the simple or lay Buddhists it is an existence of happiness; with the elite Buddhists things get to be unspeakable -- so they can't talk about it because it is unspeakable.

This too has been answered at length in many places, a state of free action.

You must qualify for an elite Buddhist, so I guess you will tell me that nirvana is unspeakable about; so there, end of conversation.

You must qualify as a cultural racist. People must stick only to their cultures of origin. Except for consumerism and the totalitarian way.

I will just say this about you, you have a good stomach for guys like myself, unlike Dancing David who in previous encounters with him -- not so much now -- could not keep to right speech notwithstanding all the lessons from his mentor,

Sorry Tar Baby, I forgot that you are glue like. You dance with a Tar baby then you have to remain aware.

Glory in causing other people to loose their balance, it is part of the dance.

You have no substance, you are a bully.

Thich Nhat Hanh who should on his part be back in his homeland teaching his people not to abandon Buddhism.

Why should it matter Yrreg, if they don't want to be buddhists that is their choice.

They are abandoning Buddhism, but he had earlier abandoned them to preach to strangers in strange lands but no less congenial to him on material considerations.

And you are just a funny man.

Christian missionaries are preaching the Christian faith to Buddhists and assorted pagans in East Asia, when they should be reviving the Christian faith of their fellow countrymen; while Buddhist monks from East Asia are forsaking their own countrymen to preach Buddhism to jaded Christians in the West.

Such limited thinking "Stay in you box I tell you!"

If Buddha does not roar with laughter, then he has a very low and straiten cognisense.

That makes about as much sense as any of your posts. The alleged historical buddha is dead and long since returned to soil.

Yrreg

Apparently you just keep pushing buttons, I think you and Ann Coulter would make bookends.

Ryokan

26th August 2007, 05:25 AM

If Christian missionaries staid in Europe, and didn't go seek converts in Asia, Yrreg would probably be a Buddhist. Oh, the irony :p

Loss Leader

26th August 2007, 06:20 AM

I want to find out whether you have a juristic mind or a legalistic mind; how do you rate yourself: juristic or legalistic, or both and equally on both camps or more on one than on the other?

Despite some quick research, I can find absolutely no definition anywhere that indicates a distinction between "juristic" and "legalistic." I do not understand what you think you mean by these catagories.

Administrative law, isn't that in its construct within the big big basket of civil law? because an infringement in administrative law is not an infringement against the body politic of the state, but from one person physical or collective against another?

Whatever you just said makes no sense. Administrative law, as I indicated before, is neither criminal nor civil.

example of car registration, that is an obligation of a citizen toward the government as some kind of in Western democratic society contractual service provider.

Now, in the law against theft, theft is construed as an infringement against the body politic that is the state of which the government is again a contractual policeman.

I have absolutely no idea what you intend the above two paragraphs to mean. They make no sense.

money directly to the victim is not a criminal punishment but a civil compensation or damage imposed by the judge in conjunction with the criminal sentence upon the culprit.

You can go ahead and call it civil, but that doesn't make it true. As part of a criminal sentence and after being found guilty of a crime, a person can be made to pay money directly to a victim. It's a criminal punishment. Calling it a "civil compensation" doesn't actually change it into one.

to know from you, in a civil suit what aside from money and service to the winning party, a judge can impose on the losing party.

I'll give you five:

Custody of the minor children
Return of the master tapes
An injunction against using the name in advertisements
Division of the property into two lots
An order not to come within 50 feet of the person's home

u murder your friend who is a private citizen, not a president of the country -- murder of a president would be some kind of lèse majesté in a way -- that murder of your friend is a private wrong essentially, but the body politic that is the state construes it as a public wrong, in order bring the whole force of the state against you and to deter others from doing likewise, murdering other people.

Nothing you just wrote has anything to do with my point that mudering a private person is both a crime and a tort. One act is both things.

Gibberish? not if you have a juristic mind instead of a legalistic mind.

Perhaps, but as near as I can tell the distinction between "juristic" and "legalistic" is itself gibberish.

In my part of the world civil law dictates as one of its broad principles: everyone must take the customary care to prevent any harm to others or damage to their property; allowing an icy driveway or wet with laundry water to prevail, where pedestrians have to walk on as part of the sidewalk, that is not customary care to prevent people from getting hurt.

Well, no. That's civil tort law. But there's also at least civil contract law and civil family law that have nothing to do witrh duty, breach, harm and causation.

Chaos, if that were a crime? No, no chaos here, because while the government can prosecute a Samaritan who refuses to be good when the occasion as a traffic accident occurs in his presence, the government is not bound to the impossible task of seeking for such recusant Samaritans; how would the government then locate the recusant Samaritan? Simple, from the surviving victim in an accident.

This paragraph makes no sense.

You are trapped in a crushed car and you call out to the store-owner across the street for help, he plays blind and deaf; if you survive the accident you can get the government to criminally prosecute the store-owner for violation of the Good Samaritan Law.

Well, not in the US, you can't. And even in the strictest "good Samaritan" countries, the store owner would only ever be bound to call the police and report the accident. Also, nobody's legal responsibilities change depending on whether I survive the crash.

Of course, the obligation to be a good Samaritan has to do with one or two victims in a traffic accident, and you are nearby; it does not take you to launch a one man relief operation in Sudan; that is the duty of the United Nations or more wealthy and more noble nations toward socalled dysfunctional states.

But why doesn't it? Why is the store owner who sees a car crash on the street in front of him different than the stor owner who sees starving people on TV? We know instinctively that "of course" they are different, but what makes them different? How many feet in front of you does your Good Samaritan duty extend? If I am a shop owner on a busy street of fifty shops and all fifty owners see the crash, do I have the same duty as if I were the only one who witnessed it?

You can't just wave away the Sudan with "of course" it's different. We need to know exactly what makes it different.

It is these difficulties that keep Good Samaritan laws at the fringes of acceptability.

The US focus in the Good Samaritan Law on clearing the Samaritan from liability, is not inspired by juristic concern but motivated by legalistic concern; it should rise higher and stress the fraternal altruism import of the law in European countries.

I have no idea what you mean by "juristic" and "legalistic."

Ryokan

26th August 2007, 06:46 AM

Loss Leader, you'll just have to accept that Yrreg knows more about law than you do, without ever having read a book or taken courses in law, just like he knows more about Buddhism than Buddhists do, without ever having studied the subject.

Remember, Yrreg is a Truly Great Mind (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2904060#post2904060) and a Super Sceptic. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1453440#post1453440)

Nosaj

26th August 2007, 01:10 PM

yrreg,

What I know from reading about Buddhism is that the end destiny is nirvana which is the result arrived at for having made up for all the bad karma by the performance of deeds which outbalance the bad karma.

When the bad karma is all compensated for, then also there is the end to recurring rebirth, at this point one gets to nirvana.

This is incorrect. This is essentially the doctrine of the Jains, i.e. followers of Nigantha Nataputta (Mahavira). Theoretically, if we assume for the moment that all of the teachings on rebirth are true, then it would be statisitcally impossible to make up for all of the "bad kamma" due to the fact that a beginning point to samsara, the cycle of birth and death, is not evident (SN 15.3). It would be a never-ending task. The Buddha's teachings, on the other hand, state that to gain release from suffering, stress, and the cycle of birth and death, one must put an end to kamma. Honestly, if you are going to critique anything, you should at least have a reasonable grasp of what you are critiquing.

What is nirvana? From my reading: for the simple or lay Buddhists it is an existence of happiness; with the elite Buddhists things get to be unspeakable -- so they can't talk about it because it is unspeakable.

What exactly is Nibbana? The Third Noble Truth focuses on the cessation of suffering. The cessation of suffering is Nibbana. According to Nyanatiloka Thera’s Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, Nibbana literally means “extinction, to cease blowing, to become extinguished.” Nibbana is the state of final deliverance, the extinction of craving (AN 10.60), the extinguishing of lust, the extinguishing of hatred, and the extinguishing of delusion (SN 38.1). Nibbana is without a cause, unborn, unmade, and therefore, it is unconditional. Nibbana lies outside of the world as we know it, outside of conditioned existence, outside of space and time, and as such, it lies beyond cause and effect. Furthermore, as Piyadassi Thera echoes in The Buddha’s Ancient Path, all things conventional or subjective are relative, however, Nibbana being neither conventional nor subjective has no relativities, and thus in a sense, absolute (73). The Buddha himself makes clear that the deliverance found within this truth is unshakable (MN 140), and at one point he even declares that, "Reality, monks, is a name for Nibbana" (SN 4.195).

In one instance, the Buddha gives an almost unbelievable and yet incredible description of Nibbana, clearly describing it as being beyond the world of common experience. The Buddha declares that, “Nibbana is that base where there is neither earth, nor water, nor heat, nor air; neither the base of the infinity of space, nor the base of the infinity of consciousness, nor the base of nothingness, nor the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another; neither sun nor moon. Here there is no coming, no going, no standing still; no passing away and no being reborn. It is not established, not moving, without support. Just this is the end of suffering” (Ud 8.1).

In addition, the Buddha described two elements of Nibbana. The Nibbana element with residue remaining is the destruction of lust, hatred, and delusion attained by a Noble One (arahant) while still alive, with the residue itself being a reference to the five aggregates. The Nibbana element without residue remaining is the final passing away of a Noble One in which “all that is felt, not being delighted, will become cool right here” (Iti 44). As for the fate of a Noble One after death, the Buddha refused to answer in terms of existence, nonexistence, both, or neither. While reason might suggest that since the five aggregates are the constituents of subjective experience that cease with the full attainment of Nibbana, Nibbana must be a state of nonexistence, a state of nothingness. Bhikkhu Bodhi, however, points out that, “… no text in the Nikayas ever states this. To the contrary, the Nikayas consistently refer to Nibbana by terms that refer to actualities. It is an element (dhatu), a base (ayatana), a reality (dhamma), a state (pada), and so on” (In the Buddha’s Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon 319).

Jason

Nosaj

26th August 2007, 01:17 PM

yrreg,

So far no one here has tried to define or describe dukkha in ten words or less.

The Pali commentaries define dukkha as "that which is hard to bear." (Six words)

Jason

Nosaj

26th August 2007, 02:12 PM

yrreg,

You mean that right behavior are just like right mechanically effective actions that get a car fixed to run; otherwise you don't get the car to run?

In the context of the Noble Eightfold Path, the Pali word samma, often translated as "right," means leading towards the goal of nibbana; whereas the Pali word miccha, often translated as "wrong," means not leading towards and/or away from the goal of nibbana.

Theft and adultery are wrong actions because they don't get the Buddhist to undo bad karma and store up good karma, just like wrong actions in car maintenance and repairs will not keep your car running?

In my opinion, it would be more correct to say that theft and adultery are wrong actions because they do not lead one towards the goal of nibbana, which is analogous to the ending of kamma, not because they do not undo bad kamma and store up good kamma.

Respecting your neighbor's private possession and not sleeping with your neighbor's wife are mechanically effective for undoing bad karma and storing up good karma; so that one day all a Buddhist's bad karmas will have been undone by his good karmas, at which time he will no longer suffer rebirth, but will get to Nirvana which is the end destiny of man in Buddhism -- is that what you mean by no strict moralistic precepts in Buddhism but right and wrong are to be understood mechanically like the right way to maintain and repair a car, bake a cake?

Again, this is incorrect. To reiterate, this is essentially the doctrine of the Jains, i.e. followers of Nigantha Nataputta (Mahavira), which was rejected by the Buddha. To gain release from suffering, stress, and the cycle of birth and death, one must put an end to kamma.

Jason

Nosaj

26th August 2007, 02:18 PM

Everyone,

Perhaps this reference from Getting To Know Buddhism (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9280/getting.htm) by Sunthorn Plamintr will be helpful in regard to understanding the difference between "good" and "bad" kamma in Buddhism:

"Sometimes the terms 'good' and 'evil' are used to translate the Pali kusala and akusala, but students should also be aware of the fine points of distinction that exist between them and keep in mind those differences when referring to specific instances concerning Buddhist ethical values. For example, detachment, being content with little, and renunciation are considered kusala, but they are not necessarily good for most people; melancholy, attachment, and worry are akusala, but they are not generally taken to be evil. Even greed, positively an akusala state, may often be considered good by some, say, in business and politics. The concepts of good and evil have something to do with social values, whereas kusala and akusala are more connected to the inner qualities of the mind. That is why non-judgmental terms like 'wholesome' or 'unwholesome' are more preferable. If 'good' and 'evil' are used, they should be used with due caution and awareness.

Kusala and akusala are mental qualities, which initially affect the conditions of the mind. From this source of actions, kamma is performed through the body, the speech, or the mind itself. Thus wholesome or unwholesome actions are generally determined by the condition or the contents of the mind. Buddhist commentators define kusala as being characterized by (1) a healthy mind which is free from illness and affliction (arogya); (2) a clear mind which is untarnished and unstained (anavajja); (3) a judicious mind imbued with wisdom and knowledge (kosalasambhuta); and (4) a content and happy mind which has well-being as its reward (sukhavipaka). The definition of akusala is directly opposite to that of kusala for it is associated with the mind that is weak and unhealthy, harmful, ignorant (lacking in knowledge and understanding), and resulting in pain and suffering.

Thus kusala represents the mental conditions that promote mental quality, and akusala is that which causes mental degeneration and brings down the quality and efficiency of the mind."

Sincerely,

Jason

yrreg

26th August 2007, 08:26 PM

Posted by Yrreg:
I like to know from you, in a civil suit what aside from money and service to the winning party, a judge can impose on the losing party.

I'll give you five:

Custody of the minor children
Return of the master tapes
An injunction against using the name in advertisements
Division of the property into two lots
An order not to come within 50 feet of the person's home

What you wrote is an indication of a legalistic mind as distinct from a juristic mind.

A juristic mind will tell you that after the invention of money, everything that can be done by the losing party to compensate the winning party as imposed by the judge, is either money or service or both.

Service is any action you do or don't do to the relief of the winning plaintiff; examine your list of what you consider neither money nor service, and with a juristic mind instead of a legalistic mind you will see the light, that they are all instances of service categories of doing or abstaining from doing an action.

Custody of the minor children -- by doing the positive service of turning over custody of minor to the winning party

Return of the master tapes -- by doing the positive service of turning over the master tapes;

An injunction against using the name in advertisements -- by doing the negative service of ceasing and desisting from using the name;

Division of the property into two lots -- by doing the positive service of dividing the property;

An order not to come within 50 feet of the person's home -- by doing the negative service of not approaching within 50 feet.

You need a juristic mind to know that whatever in a civil suit is not delivered by the losing party in money, is delivered in the way of service by doing or not doing an action.

--------------------

Posted by Yrreg:
So far no one here has tried to define or describe dukkha in ten words or less. The Pali commentaries define dukkha as "that which is hard to bear." (Six words)

That's good, Elohim; but I wished you being already skillful (pun not intended) in poring over the Pali Buddhist texts, would make it an agenda to develop and practice the talent of saying in your own words, what you think you understand from the Pali texts.

Otherwise guys like yours truly will conclude that you don't understand but seek to pass the buck to someone you look up to, like the author you read, who in most instances had just also taken the buck from still others who are just as vague abut what they really understand behind their volumes of undecipherable words.

Okay, just the same, say those six words, "that which is hard to bear," in just one word -- what the French might call le mot juste.

--------------------

posted by Yrreg:
Dancing David has only one argument to my critique of Buddhism, and he knows it; he has not written one original thought in his own words, because the man has been conditioned to disgorge words from his mentor, one Thich Nhat Hanh.

See there you go, you ask for our thoughts and ideas and then you start with the degrading stuff as soon as it turns out that you are empty like a dried out gourd. I have written probably a thousand pages of all original material. All you have is bullying, and like most bullies you claim to be funny.

I thought I read your ten or less words definition of dukkha; probably in another past rebirth. Please, work on those ten words or less definition or description of dukkha, no need to write thousand of pages of original materials.

================

Are we all entertained? Good.

Yrreg

yrreg

26th August 2007, 08:34 PM

Everyone,

Perhaps this reference from Getting To Know Buddhism (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9280/getting.htm) by Sunthorn Plamintr will be helpful in regard to understanding the difference between "good" and "bad" kamma in Buddhism:

Quote:
"Sometimes the terms 'good' and 'evil' are used to translate the Pali kusala and akusala, but students should also be aware of the fine points of distinction that exist between them and keep in mind those differences when referring to specific instances concerning Buddhist ethical values. For example, detachment, being content with little, and renunciation are considered kusala, but they are not necessarily good for most people; melancholy, attachment, and worry are akusala, but they are not generally taken to be evil. Even greed, positively an akusala state, may often be considered good by some, say, in business and politics. The concepts of good and evil have something to do with social values, whereas kusala and akusala are more connected to the inner qualities of the mind. That is why non-judgmental terms like 'wholesome' or 'unwholesome' are more preferable. If 'good' and 'evil' are used, they should be used with due caution and awareness.

Kusala and akusala are mental qualities, which initially affect the conditions of the mind. From this source of actions, kamma is performed through the body, the speech, or the mind itself. Thus wholesome or unwholesome actions are generally determined by the condition or the contents of the mind. Buddhist commentators define kusala as being characterized by (1) a healthy mind which is free from illness and affliction (arogya); (2) a clear mind which is untarnished and unstained (anavajja); (3) a judicious mind imbued with wisdom and knowledge (kosalasambhuta); and (4) a content and happy mind which has well-being as its reward (sukhavipaka). The definition of akusala is directly opposite to that of kusala for it is associated with the mind that is weak and unhealthy, harmful, ignorant (lacking in knowledge and understanding), and resulting in pain and suffering.

Thus kusala represents the mental conditions that promote mental quality, and akusala is that which causes mental degeneration and brings down the quality and efficiency of the mind."

Sincerely,

Jason

Well, that is a big excerpt, I will try to understand it and rewrite it in a hundred words or less, just the chief important thought of the author -- if he has anything intelligibly coherent. I love doing this kind of thing.

Yrreg

nosho

26th August 2007, 08:37 PM

Thank you, Jason.

yrreg

26th August 2007, 09:31 PM

Here is what the excerpt reproduced below is saying very concisely and in very common language and concepts in my assessment, in three sentences:

1. The Pali terms, kusala and akusala, are not exactly equivalent to the terms, good and bad in English.

2. They refer to actuations of and within the mind of a person, not acts executed in and with the body by the person.

3. But as a person entertains actuations of and within the mind, so also will his acts executed in and with his body be in accordance with his actuations in and within the mind.

Now, my question to the author of this excerpt and to Buddhists who see something so terrifically enlightening with this excerpt:

Okay, tell me what in the actuations of the mind of a person and in the acts of his body is the determinant of kusala or akusala, good or evil, right or wrong, wholesome or unwholesome, healthy or unhealthy, tarnished or untarnished, judicious or injudicious, wise or foolish, etc.?

Yrreg

======================

Originally Posted by Elohim

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2906203&postcount=98

Everyone,

Perhaps this reference from Getting To Know Buddhism by Sunthorn Plamintr will be helpful in regard to understanding the difference between "good" and "bad" kamma in Buddhism:

Quote:
"Sometimes the terms 'good' and 'evil' are used to translate the Pali kusala and akusala, but students should also be aware of the fine points of distinction that exist between them and keep in mind those differences when referring to specific instances concerning Buddhist ethical values. For example, detachment, being content with little, and renunciation are considered kusala, but they are not necessarily good for most people; melancholy, attachment, and worry are akusala, but they are not generally taken to be evil. Even greed, positively an akusala state, may often be considered good by some, say, in business and politics. The concepts of good and evil have something to do with social values, whereas kusala and akusala are more connected to the inner qualities of the mind. That is why non-judgmental terms like 'wholesome' or 'unwholesome' are more preferable. If 'good' and 'evil' are used, they should be used with due caution and awareness.

Kusala and akusala are mental qualities, which initially affect the conditions of the mind. From this source of actions, kamma is performed through the body, the speech, or the mind itself. Thus wholesome or unwholesome actions are generally determined by the condition or the contents of the mind. Buddhist commentators define kusala as being characterized by (1) a healthy mind which is free from illness and affliction (arogya); (2) a clear mind which is untarnished and unstained (anavajja); (3) a judicious mind imbued with wisdom and knowledge (kosalasambhuta); and (4) a content and happy mind which has well-being as its reward (sukhavipaka). The definition of akusala is directly opposite to that of kusala for it is associated with the mind that is weak and unhealthy, harmful, ignorant (lacking in knowledge and understanding), and resulting in pain and suffering.

Thus kusala represents the mental conditions that promote mental quality, and akusala is that which causes mental degeneration and brings down the quality and efficiency of the mind."

Mojo

27th August 2007, 05:23 AM

.
Truly great minds speak in the third person and often utilize pseudonyms to identify themselves.

As do those suffering from megalomania and paranoia.

Mediocre minds pay faithful attention to literalism and miss the delectable flavor of literary devices.

Awfully impoverished minds deny the existence of the self as they assert themselves with speech, giving the lie away and not knowing it -- typical.

And frauds use invented authorities and fabricated "facts" to support their arguments.

Loss Leader

27th August 2007, 05:35 AM

What you wrote is an indication of a legalistic mind as distinct from a juristic mind.

A juristic mind will tell you that after the invention of money, everything that can be done by the losing party to compensate the winning party as imposed by the judge, is either money or service or both.

Service is any action you do or don't do to the relief of the winning plaintiff; examine your list of what you consider neither money nor service, and with a juristic mind instead of a legalistic mind you will see the light, that they are all instances of service categories of doing or abstaining from doing an action.

Custody of the minor children -- by doing the positive service of turning over custody of minor to the winning party

Return of the master tapes -- by doing the positive service of turning over the master tapes;

An injunction against using the name in advertisements -- by doing the negative service of ceasing and desisting from using the name;

Division of the property into two lots -- by doing the positive service of dividing the property;

An order not to come within 50 feet of the person's home -- by doing the negative service of not approaching within 50 feet.

You need a juristic mind to know that whatever in a civil suit is not delivered by the losing party in money, is delivered in the way of service by doing or not doing an action.

You have not actually defined your terms "juristic" and "legalistic" even though I have asked you to.

Instead, you simply claimed that I was being "legalistic" but a "juristic" person would agree with your definitions. Since your definitions were originally and continue to be wrong, I must conclude that a "juristic" mind is "One that does not understand law and seeks to shoehorn everything in the world into two catagories even though: a) there's no reason to; and b) it's wrong."

Once again, after inviting a conversation about how the law views right and wrong, you've cut off the conversation, told a lawyer he doesn't understand the concepts and vomited up your own answers which appear to be free from research, insight or common sense.

My only question is why?

sackett

27th August 2007, 08:01 AM

"If you meet the Buddha, kill him" is a cake of half-baked zen a few samurai used to justify their brutish ways. "Cut off two heads and leave one sword against the sky" is another of their dimwit cow-pies. Pfui.

Odd, the way yrreq seems to give a damn about all this. Oh well, that's why God made the scroll function.

Nosaj

27th August 2007, 08:02 AM

yrreg,

Now, my question to the author of this excerpt and to Buddhists who see something so terrifically enlightening with this excerpt:

Okay, tell me what in the actuations of the mind of a person and in the acts of his body is the determinant of kusala or akusala, good or evil, right or wrong, wholesome or unwholesome, healthy or unhealthy, tarnished or untarnished, judicious or injudicious, wise or foolish, etc.?

I cannot answer for the author, but I can hazard what the author might say. What determines whether an action of body, speech, or mind is kusala or akusala is the quality of the intention (cetena) that precedes it. As the author attempts to explain, "All actions lead to certain results; every action produces a reaction. If you walk, you get to a certain place; if you eat, you get full; if you lie down and close your eyes, you will fall asleep. But the Buddhist doctrine of kamma does not concern these morally indeterminate actions because they have no ethical implication and have little to do with moral training. However, these very same ordinary actions are potentially good or bad from the moral standpoint if and when they are accompanied by respective moral or immoral volition ."

Furthermore, "The Abhidhamma classifies intention or volition as a mental concomitant ([i]cetasika) that is present in all types of consciousness. There is no consciousness that arises without it. Volition has the function of assisting the mind to select objects of awareness. By nature it is morally indeterminate, but becomes qualified as wholesome or unwholesome in accordance with the wholesome or unwholesome mental concomitants which arise with it. It is on the basis of these factors that an action is determined as morally good or bad. Of course, for the sake of convenience we may refer to a particular element of intention as skillful or unskillful volition, but the Abhidhamma analyses this down to the very fundamental qualities of each and every individual type of consciousness."

Jason

Nosaj

27th August 2007, 08:22 AM

yrreg,

That's good, Elohim; but I wished you being already skillful (pun not intended) in poring over the Pali Buddhist texts, would make it an agenda to develop and practice the talent of saying in your own words, what you think you understand from the Pali texts.

I see no reason to restate what is already quite clear. Dukkha, in short, is defined as the five aggregates of clinging (SN 56.11), the five aggregates of clinging are described as being a burden (SN 22.22); therefore, dukkha is said to be "that which is hard to bear."

Otherwise guys like yours truly will conclude that you don't understand but seek to pass the buck to someone you look up to, like the author you read, who in most instances had just also taken the buck from still others who are just as vague abut what they really understand behind their volumes of undecipherable words.

In all honesty, this statement is quite humorous coming from a person who claims to be critiquing Buddhism for a fun hobby, yet seems to be critiquing the doctrines of Jainism instead. I think it would be a shame if you were to conclude that I do not understand Buddhism since I am trying to give you accurate information to critique.

Jason

yrreg

27th August 2007, 05:05 PM

You have not actually defined your terms "juristic" and "legalistic" even though I have asked you to.

[...]

A keen reader should be able to know what a writer means with a word that is unaccustomed to himself, by attending to the immediate and also if need be the whole context of the discourse of the writer.

You know what is legalism, from the Latin word: lex, legis.*

Next, you know what is jury, from the Latin word: jus, juris.*

So, from your knowledge of what is legalism and what is the work of a jury, and from you acquaintance with their source origins from Latin, the language of the Roman law experts and philosophers, then you should know from the context of my messages, that juristijuristic has to do with the higher principles of law while legalistic is c has to do with the higher principles of law while legalistic is concerned on the letters of particular statutory enactments.

Please derive the meanings of words from the context, instead of looking them up in the dictionary, unless you have the attitude that the dictionary can tell you everything an author means with the words he uses.

Yrreg

*Brush up on your legal Latin vocabulary for the difference between lex and jus.

yrreg

27th August 2007, 05:57 PM

Here is the corrected text of the previous message:

(Typos corrected)

A keen reader should be able to know what a writer means with a word that is unaccustomed to himself, by attending to the immediate and also if need be the whole context of the discourse of the writer.

You know what is legalism, from the Latin word: lex, legis.*

Next, you know what is jury, from the Latin word: jus, juris.*

So, from your knowledge of what is legalism and what is the work of a jury, and from you acquaintance with their source origins from Latin, the language of the Roman law experts and philosophers, then you should know from the context of my messages, that juristic has to do with the higher principles of law while legalistic is concerned with the letters of particular statutory enactments.

Please derive the meanings of words from the context, instead of looking them up in the dictionary, unless you have the attitude that the dictionary can tell you everything an author means with the words he uses.

Yrreg

*Brush up on your legal Latin vocabulary for the difference between lex and jus.

yrreg

27th August 2007, 06:10 PM

"If you meet the Buddha, kill him."

That is the wise saying or koan cited by linusrichard. I am not impressed but just for a fun hobby in critical thinking I gave my comments.

----------------

Suppose Elohim you tell me why is theft, adultery, and murder wrong or evil or whatever you would label it in Buddhism, if it is wrong or evil in Buddhism.

I notice that you or is it nosho or you both have found a escape valve in Jainism.

If you proceed along that line, eventually there would be nothing left of Buddhism except what you accept to be Buddhism in your own book.

Yrreg

Loss Leader

27th August 2007, 06:38 PM

A keen reader should be able to know what a writer means with a word that is unaccustomed to himself, by attending to the immediate and also if need be the whole context of the discourse of the writer.

A keen writer should use language in such a way as to comunicate with his audience. A keen writer writes in order to be understood and, thus, does everything in his power to make himself clear and cogent. A keen writer seeks to include and not alienate his audience and is grateful for the time and attention given to him.

You know what is legalism, from the Latin word: lex, legis.*

Next, you know what is jury, from the Latin word: jus, juris.*

Yes, in fact I do. Sadly, you do not. Lex (and legal) come from the Latin and mean "law."

"Jury" comes from the Latin word "Jur" meaning "Oath." A Jury is a group of people called to hear evidence given under oath.

So, Lex and Jury have, basically,, nothing to do with each other. They're not opposites, they're not two different aspects of the same thing. One means Oath and one means Law. They do not describe two different catagories. They certainly do not describe two catagories so simple that a person reading should instantly understand what they mean in relation to each other. They mean NOTHING in relation to each other.

So, from your knowledge of what is legalism and what is the work of a jury,

We've already learned that you are wrong here. A jury is a body that hears testimony under oath. Perhaps if you had done even the most basic research, you would have known that.

and from you acquaintance with their source origins from Latin,

Perhaps you were mistaken when you thought that Jury and Juris were closely related. Juris is a slightly different Latin word. What does it mean?

What does it mean, Gerry? What does it mean?????

It means "Law." That's right, Juris means Law. And Lex means Law. They both mean Law. They don't mean two different types of law. They don't mean two different aspects of law. They are synonyms.

The two words cannot be used to divide the study of law into two different catagories. They certainly are not so plain as to instantly suggest their meaning to the reader.

Once again, your utter and complete ignorance and refusal to learn has led you to make another idiotic comment.

the language of the Roman law experts and philosophers, then you should know from the context of my messages, that juristijuristic has to do with the higher principles of law while legalistic is c has to do with the higher principles of law while legalistic is concerned on the letters of particular statutory enactments.

Nope. In fact, I know the oposite. Juristic has to do with law. Legalistic has to do with law. They both mean exactly the same thing. And Dictionary.Com agrees with me. Juristic means "Of or relating to a law or legality." And that's the same meaning as Legalistic.

Please derive the meanings of words from the context, instead of looking them up in the dictionary, unless you have the attitude that the dictionary can tell you everything an author means with the words he uses.

Using your reasoning, Gerry, that a person should look to an author's words and not the dictionary meaning, I would like to tell you what a groundhog refrigeration you are. You are a huge, steaming pile of service desk. Your podiatrist is so organization that you couldn't option if you had two barcodes and a weekend. I sincerely hope you grove back to the louder, you firelog.

Brush up on your legal Latin vocabulary for the difference between lex and jus.

Herring you.

Ryokan

27th August 2007, 09:33 PM

Hey, how come Yrreg is allowed to use a dead language while we Buddhists are not? :(

lupus_in_fabula

27th August 2007, 11:15 PM

Hey, how come Yrreg is allowed to use a dead language while we Buddhists are not? :(

Because any coherence would take away all the fun from his “critical” evaluation :D

Dancing David

28th August 2007, 05:06 AM

A keen reader should be able to know what a writer means with a word that is unaccustomed to himself, by attending to the immediate and also if need be the whole context of the discourse of the writer.

You know what is legalism, from the Latin word: lex, legis.*

Next, you know what is jury, from the Latin word: jus, juris.*

So, from your knowledge of what is legalism and what is the work of a jury, and from you acquaintance with their source origins from Latin, the language of the Roman law experts and philosophers, then you should know from the context of my messages, that juristijuristic has to do with the higher principles of law while legalistic is c has to do with the higher principles of law while legalistic is concerned on the letters of particular statutory enactments.

Please derive the meanings of words from the context, instead of looking them up in the dictionary, unless you have the attitude that the dictionary can tell you everything an author means with the words he uses.

Yrreg

*Brush up on your legal Latin vocabulary for the difference between lex and jus.

More straw from the master.

Again Yrreg say "Because I say so."

sackett

28th August 2007, 06:34 AM

Yrreq old buddy, let a style-editor of almost forty years' experience suggest this: Take the time to make your posts shorter. Try, try to wring out the verbosity, pal. Use short words if you can. You may find that you have much less to say than you thought you did.

Yes, it takes effort, but it's worth it.

Nosaj

28th August 2007, 08:07 AM

yrreg,

Suppose Elohim you tell me why is theft, adultery, and murder wrong or evil or whatever you would label it in Buddhism, if it is wrong or evil in Buddhism.

Actions such as theft, adultery, and murder are considered to be unwholesome (akusala) because of the quality of the intention that precedes them. The root of all unwholesome actions are the mental defilements (kilesas) of greed, hatred, and delusion (MN 9 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html)). Ultimately, unwholesomes actions lead to unwholesome results in this life, the next life, or future lives.

I notice that you or is it nosho or you both have found a escape valve in Jainism.

If you proceed along that line, eventually there would be nothing left of Buddhism except what you accept to be Buddhism in your own book.

The truth is that you have confused elements of the Jainist doctrines of kamma and nibbana for those of Buddhism. While they appear to be similar, there are clear and important philosophical differences that I am attempting to point out. However, if you desire to remain ignorant of the subject that you are trying to critique, then there is no reason for me to continue.

Jason

Nosaj

28th August 2007, 09:06 AM

yrreg,

Just to clarify, while the Buddha often spoke about ways that one could limit the harmful results of past unwholesome actions, that in and of itself was not enough to reach nibbana. Again, if we assume for the moment that all of the teachings on rebirth are true, then it would be statisitcally impossible to make up for all of the "bad kamma" due to the fact that a beginning point to samsara, the cycle of birth and death, is not evident (SN 15.3). It would be a never-ending task. The Buddha's teachings, on the other hand, state that to gain release from suffering, stress, and the cycle of birth and death, one must put an end to kamma.

Essentially, the most important distinction between the Jain doctrine of kamma and the Buddhist doctrine of kamma is that the Jains saw kamma as linear and deterministic where present experience arises from past actions alone, whereas the Buddha saw kamma as a non-linear and complex process where present experience arises from past as well as present actions. Therefore, while the Jains theorized that nibbana was achieved through a life of non-violence and inaction in order to burn away past kamma, the Buddha theorized that it was achieved through the cessation of the cause by which kamma comes into play (AN 6.63).

Jason

Nosaj

28th August 2007, 10:10 AM

yrreg,

What I know from reading about Buddhism is that the end destiny is nirvana which is the result arrived at for having made up for all the bad karma by the performance of deeds which outbalance the bad karma.

I also forgot to mention that in Buddhist philosophy, limiting the harmful results of past unwholesome actions while performing wholesome deeds will, at best, lead to a pleasant rebirth, but it will not lead to nibbana.

When the bad karma is all compensated for, then also there is the end to recurring rebirth, at this point one gets to nirvana.

The ending of kamma, not the production of wholesome kamma to compensate for past unwholesome kamma, results in nibbana.

Jason

nosho

28th August 2007, 02:34 PM

I notice that you or is it nosho or you both have found a escape valve in Jainism.

Or maybe neither one of us.

The problem, yyreg, is that you are offering a critique of something that is not Buddhism. And if someone tries to help you by correcting your misinterpretation, you just ignore that.

Nobody here is backing away from a critique of Buddhism. Everyone here, as far as I can tell, would love an intelligent, thoughtful, informed critique of Buddhism. But you refuse to accept the fact that you just don't understand what it is you're trying to critique.

Generally, this is the point in the conversation where you bail out and start a brand-new thread. I'm waiting to see if this time, you actually stick with it.

Dancing David

28th August 2007, 04:41 PM

And kamma is not the sole key pin in the state of nibbanna. It is the removal of the conditioned response and it's replacement with a new response that leads to nibbanna as well. If one accumulates angst and anxiety and makes a hash of one's own life then it is harder to be free of conditioning to suffer.

yrreg

28th August 2007, 04:46 PM

[ To readers: In this thread I am trying to find out what the Buddhists and others here say about the end destiny of man in Buddhism, for the sake of exchanging views about what they know and think and what I know and think.

There is an ongoing exchange with Loss about legal right and wrong, and this can be linked to the end destiny of man, because legal right and wrong is a category and level of right and wrong, and if there be any destiny beyond the grave, I submit that man has so far arrived at the hypothesis that this destiny is attained with right rather than with wrong.

That is why also I am trying to find out from the Buddhists here and their sympathizers what is right and wrong for them, if they have any concept of end destiny for man -- which from reading I know that Buddhism does have such a notion even though Buddhists of the West some that is prefer to eschew this question.

I have my opinions, and I wish to hear the opinions of others, to see how they come to their opinions. ]

====================

Quote from Yrreg:
You know what is legalism, from the Latin word: lex, legis.*
Next, you know what is jury, from the Latin word: jus, juris.*

Yes, in fact I do. Sadly, you do not. Lex (and legal) come from the Latin and mean "law."

"Jury" comes from the Latin word "Jur" meaning "Oath." A Jury is a group of people called to hear evidence given under oath.

.
...."Jur" meaning "Oath."
You mean jurare, to swear; now recall what is the source word for the Latin word jurare.

.
A Jury is a group of people called to hear evidence given under oath.
Shouldn't you add very importantly, and to pass a verdict?

.
So, Lex and Jury have, basically,, nothing to do with each other. They're not opposites, they're not two different aspects of the same thing. One means Oath and one means Law. They do not describe two different catagories. They certainly do not describe two catagories so simple that a person reading should instantly understand what they mean in relation to each other. They mean NOTHING in relation to each other.

I am talking about jus and lex, please do recall the difference in Roman law between jus and lex. That is what I mean about your being legalistic instead of and also juristic, going higher above the particular statutory enactments of governmental legislatures.

.
Quote from Yrreg:
...the language of the Roman law experts and philosophers, then you should know from the context of my messages, that juristic has to do with the higher principles of law while legalistic is concerned on the letters of particular statutory enactments.

Nope. In fact, I know the oposite. Juristic has to do with law. Legalistic has to do with law. They both mean exactly the same thing. And Dictionary.Com agrees with me. Juristic means "Of or relating to a law or legality." And that's the same meaning as Legalistic.

Again, please recall what you learned in a good law school about the difference in Roman law between jus and lex.

=====================

To all of us here, are we being entertained and also very importantly getting some education in juristic philosophy and science?

Yrreg

yrreg

28th August 2007, 04:51 PM

Piscivore

28th August 2007, 04:51 PM

Loss Leader

28th August 2007, 05:28 PM

A Jury is a group of people called to hear evidence given under oath.
Shouldn't you add very importantly, and to pass a verdict?

I might add that sometimes juries reach verdicts but that wouldn't really help your point because the Latin root of jury still comes from the word meaning "oath." For that matter, not all juries reach verdicts. Grand Juries, for example, hand down indictments.

And even if I agreed that the important thing about juries is that they reach verdicts, it still wouldn't support your point. Guess why.

I'm just kidding - you can't guess because you know nothing about the topic on which you're writing.

The reason is that a jury reaching a verdict has to be the single most formalistic and unbending applications of the written rule of law that there is. The one thing juries are not doing is arguing back and forth on the philosophical nature of right and wrong and how law should encapsulate those ephemeral concepts.

So, even if you were right, you'd still be wrong.

I am talking about jus and lex, please do recall the difference in Roman law between jus and lex. That is what I mean about your being legalistic instead of and also juristic, going higher above the particular statutory enactments of governmental legislatures.

Absolutely, completely and utterly wrong.

You know, the sad part is that there actually are two words that mean what I think you're trying to get these words to mean. They're easy words and came to me with hardly any thought at all. A few moments of research would reveal them even to a person who knew nothing of the subject.

I could tell you the words, but you've been such a perfectly gruntalicious murphideon pralb that I don't feel at all inclined to come to your etymological aid.

Again, please recall what you learned in a good law school about the difference in Roman law between jus and lex.

Actually, law schools don't tend to concern themselves with the difference between the concepts that you erroniously believe "jus" and "lex" to describe. I learned most of it in my political science undergraduate and graduate training. This is in sharp contrast to you, Gerry, who have shown yourself to have had absolutely no training whatsoever.

To all of us here, are we being entertained and also very importantly getting some education in juristic philosophy and science?

You haven't actually gotten around to educating anybody in "juristic philosophy." You're still floundering for the definition of your terms. Even if you do somehow manage to pull yourself, bruised and battered, out of the gate, the odds are greatly weighted against you ever educating anyone about anything. The simple reason is that you have no knowledge of the subject yourself so will be incapable of imparting any information of any sort.

nosho

28th August 2007, 07:44 PM

To the Buddhists here like Elohim and nosho:

.
Theft, adultery, manslaughter, they are unwholesome because of what you have in your mind?

Are you not forgetting something more important than just what is in your mind unwholesome?

If you believe in nirvana, getting there that is, you think that just keeping to a wholesome mind will get you there?

Yrreg

What do you think, yyreg? I would like first to hear your answers to those questions, based on your understanding of Buddhism. If you understand Buddhism, you already know the answers.

Frankly, I'm disappointed with your post. I was curious, yyreg, to see how you would respond to the assertion that you are offering a critique of something that is not Buddhism. I'm still waiting. Do you agree with that assessment of your critique?

Or do you still feel that you are offering a critique of Buddhism? And if so, how do you reconcile your position with the fact that people here repeatedly have pointed out key areas where you seem to have completely misinterpreted Buddhism, and where your criticism and many of the questions you ask make no sense whatever?

Response, please. This is a relevant question at this moment in the thread.

Dancing David

29th August 2007, 05:00 AM

yrreg

29th August 2007, 03:08 PM

[...]

Quote:
I am talking about jus and lex, please do recall the difference in Roman law between jus and lex. That is what I mean about your being legalistic instead of and also juristic, going higher above the particular statutory enactments of governmental legislatures.

Absolutely, completely and utterly wrong.

You know, the sad part is that there actually are two words that mean what I think you're trying to get these words to mean. They're easy words and came to me with hardly any thought at all. A few moments of research would reveal them even to a person who knew nothing of the subject.

I could tell you the words, but you've been such a perfectly gruntalicious murphideon pralb that I don't feel at all inclined to come to your etymological aid.

Please, do look up the difference between jus and lex.

[...]

Quote:
Again, please recall what you learned in a good law school about the difference in Roman law between jus and lex.

Actually, law schools don't tend to concern themselves with the difference between the concepts that you erroniously believe "jus" and "lex" to describe. I learned most of it in my political science undergraduate and graduate training. This is in sharp contrast to you, Gerry, who have shown yourself to have had absolutely no training whatsoever.

Please, again, do look up the difference between jus and lex.

And everyone curious, also take the little labor to look up the difference between jus and lex and learn something about what is a jusristic mind which is superior to a legalistic mind.

[...]
Quote:
To all of us here, are we being entertained and also very importantly getting some education in juristic philosophy and science?

You haven't actually gotten around to educating anybody in "juristic philosophy." You're still floundering for the definition of your terms. Even if you do somehow manage to pull yourself, bruised and battered, out of the gate, the odds are greatly weighted against you ever educating anyone about anything. The simple reason is that you have no knowledge of the subject yourself so will be incapable of imparting any information of any sort.

Spoken like a thoroughbred legalistic mind.

I wonder what law school you got your law training from; do you think you are doing your school credit with your lack of knowledge on the difference between jus and lex?

Please, do look up the difference between jus and lex.

For everyone else, think about what is the difference between what is lawful and what is legal, even without looking up any dictionary.

Yrreg

Loss Leader

29th August 2007, 04:02 PM

Please, do look up the difference between jus and lex. Please, again, do look up the difference between jus and lex.
And everyone curious, also take the little labor to look up the difference between jus and lex

I have. You, sadly, still have not. Your two root words mean "Justice" and "Law." These concepts are not so different as to be two catagories of thought into which all talk of right and wrong can be divided. However, I will give you a hint and tell you that at least one of the words you think you mean does share a root with one of the words "Jus" and "Lex."

and learn something about what is a jusristic mind which is superior to a legalistic mind.

And ... those aren't the words. For perhaps the fifth time, the two words "juristic" and "legalistic" mean exactly the same thing. There are two words that mean what you wish these words do and one of them sounds a little like one of these, but these are not the words. Juristic and Legalistic are synonyms in every way. They do not denote or connote any different meanings.

I will tell you the two words that mean what you really, really wish these words mean. All you have to do is ask. All you have to say is, "Please tell me which two words correctly describe the concepts I'm trying to convey." You can even cut and paste that very sentence and I will tell you.

Continue to claim that Juristic and Legalistic correctly describe two distinct approaches to law, however, and the conversation will not proceed.

Spoken like a thoroughbred legalistic mind.

You have no idea what the word means.

I wonder what law school you got your law training from;

This one. (http://www.law.emory.edu/)

do you think you are doing your school credit with your lack of knowledge on the difference between jus and lex?

I am certain of it.

For everyone else, think about what is the difference between what is lawful and what is legal, even without looking up any dictionary.

Lawful and Legal mean the same thing. I'll tell you which two words mean what you want. All you have to do is ask.

Macoy

29th August 2007, 04:27 PM

philosopher: god's a tosspot and it's all your fault

religionist: die, infidel

yrreg

29th August 2007, 04:33 PM

[...]

Frankly, I'm disappointed with your post. I was curious, yyreg, to see how you would respond to the assertion that you are offering a critique of something that is not Buddhism. I'm still waiting. Do you agree with that assessment of your critique?

Or do you still feel that you are offering a critique of Buddhism? And if so, how do you reconcile your position with the fact that people here repeatedly have pointed out key areas where you seem to have completely misinterpreted Buddhism, and where your criticism and many of the questions you ask make no sense whatever?

Response, please. This is a relevant question at this moment in the thread.

My knowledge of Buddhism is derived from reading, and thereby I get the what I would call the essential teachings and practices of Buddhism.

From my reading I find answers to my questions:

on where Buddhism derived its beliefs and practices, answer: from Hinduism or more correctly Brahmanism;

on what is the origin of man, answer: man has always been around, rebirthing on and on after each death, in various sentient life forms; but the human rebirth is the one that will enable him to work his way out of recurring rebirth;

on the end destiny of man, answer: nirvana where or when or in whatever state or existence or non-existence mode man is freed from rebirth.

.
You want to tell me that I am not getting Buddhism as Buddhism should be taken, that I am mixing up Buddhism with Jainism.

Actually I am trying to precisely pin down what is Buddhism for people like you who call yourselves Buddhists.

That is why I named this thread: Buddhism's end destiny of man according to the FWBO, because I want to know in greater exactitude and definiteness what this Buddhist group believes and teaches about the end destiny of man, imagining that being an organized and regimentalized group they might have a statement on the end destiny for man in Buddhism.

I could not read anything in their website about end destiny of man in their version of Buddhism.

So, I am asking the Buddhists here what is the end destiny of man in their kind of Buddhism, if they have any belief from Buddhism, their kind that is, about the end destiny of man.

May I ask you, nosho, what group you belong to? where there might be some published statement of beliefs and practices; then I can see in the light of these published beliefs and practices whether my knowledge of Buddhism can concur with the kind of Buddhism group you belong to.

Unless you are one independent order of Buddhism of one man.

We are at present talking about right and wrong in Buddhism.

Do you want me to tell you what I think why theft, adultery, and manslaughter are wrong in my own book of rightness and wrongness?

Here: theft, adultery, and manslaughter are wrong because they are respectively an infringement of another person's exclusive right to his possession, his spouse, and his life.

I believe that all humans have certain rights which all humans should respect among themselves; right to possession, access to spouse, and conservation of life, these are some very important rights.

One of the foundations of rightness and wrongness among humans in my book are what I call rights of man which come with his existence; and that obligation on every man to respect these rights in every other man is what I call justice in my book of rightness and wrongness.

I acquired that kind of knowledge from my juristic insights into legal enactments from government legislatures, instead of legalistic rote memory of specific enacted dos and don'ts of government legislatures.

Do you have some other broader foundations of rightness and wrongness from your kind of Buddhism, or from Buddhism generally?

You tell me, and I will tell you what I think on the basis of my ideas about rightness and wrongness -- that is what I mean by my critique of Buddhism.

No need to bring in Jainism which started as a contemporary and very similar religion, to Buddhism; and both derived from Brahmanism.

If you say that any specific idea about Buddhism from me is not Buddhism, then tell me what you know to be Buddhism on that particular matter; no need to identify my idea as belonging to Jainism, so that we will keep this discussion to a neat order.

I would suggest that if you wish, you can start a new thread about mistaken notions on Buddhism, where you can tell people how they get mixed up with identifying Jainist beliefs and practices with Buddhist ones.

Yrreg

yrreg

29th August 2007, 04:50 PM

I usually write from stock knowledge obtained from reading and observing and thinking and more thinking.

So I don't have the habit of referring to authorities except my own by a literary device I call writing in pseudonyms, like referring to Pes Oir Amsus (ask Ryokan, he did a web search for the man), or the guy looking at me as I look at myself in the mirror.

I am disappointed with you, you certainly are trained to keep to published authorities and not go further and further and further until you come to your own knowledge of things.

Here, I found two quotes from the web that might be useful to you to know what is a juristic mind as distinct from and superior to a legalistic mind:

[Bolding from Yrreg]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=jury
jury (n.)

1398 (attested from 1188 in Anglo-L.), from Anglo-Fr. juree (1292), from M.L. jurata "an oath, an inquest," fem. pp. of L. jurare "to swear," from jus (gen. juris) "law" (see jurist). Grand jury attested from 1433 in Anglo-Fr. (le graund Jurre). Meaning "body of persons chosen to award prizes at an exhibition" is from 1851.

-------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2006_November_10

This seems to go back to the original Greek and Latin terms for law: jus and lex. Lex, legis is the word from where we get legal and jus, juris [not jusis in the original, author made a typo] is the word from where we get justice. Lex is the written law created by a civilization and Jus is the natural law that is innate among all living things. This idea was conceived in ancient times and expanded upon during the age of enlightenment. There are the natural laws of "All Men are Created Equal", one has a right to defend themselves etc. It is possible for a Lex to contradict a Jus, for instance a legislature could legalize slavery, but this would still be against the natural law. Emperor Justinian codified these nicely.

Yrreg

Loss Leader

29th August 2007, 05:12 PM

Here, I found two quotes from the web that might be useful to you to know what is a juristic mind as distinct from and superior to a legalistic mind:
Yrreg

Oh, my lord. Oh, my [rule10]ing lord. I thought Somerled was the alpha and omega of cites that don't support his point. You ... you, Gerry ... you just blew him out of the water.

Your first cite was http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=jury

This page actually agrees with me. It says that Jury comes from Jur, meaning Oath. And before that, it comes from Jus which means Law That's exactly what I said. It doesn't give any definition of Jus or Jury that somehow sets it apart from law.

But that's nothing compared to your next cite. Your next cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2006_November_10 first of all says that Legal and Lawful are synonyms. You claimed in your last message they weren't.

This is then followed by a quaint paragraph in which it is suggested that Jus has to do with natural law and Lex with statutes. But here's the great part: the paragraph is nothing other than the opinion of some random person on Wikipedia. It's not a dictionary, it's not a historical tract, it's not a page from a Latin professor. It is nothing. It's the opinion of some guy! His name appears to be Ben Trent.

So here's the opinion of another random guy on the internet, namely me: You, Gerry, are a flopwelching murdwad.

The two words STILL do not mean what you want them to mean. But I, being a man of extraordinary grace and manners, will be glad to tell you which words do mean what you think these do. All you have to do is ask.

Until then, we go nowhere.

Loss Leader

29th August 2007, 05:17 PM

I acquired that kind of knowledge from my juristic insights into legal enactments from government legislatures, instead of legalistic rote memory of specific enacted dos and don'ts of government legislatures.

No, no, no. No bootstrapping, Gerry. You can't hide your incorrect definitions deep in some post about how women are your property as a way of avoiding having to define your terms. The words "juristic" and "legalistic" above both have exactly the same meaning. You are using them wrong.

There are two words that mean what you want these two to mean. I'll tell them to you. All you have to do is ask.

P.S. You're about to be descended on for yet another post in which your subtle misogyny has revealed itself. I, however, will content myself with just trying to keep you honest about the definition of two simple, common and obvious words.

Hokulele

29th August 2007, 05:27 PM

nosho

29th August 2007, 05:38 PM

My knowledge of Buddhism is derived from reading, and thereby I get the what I would call the essential teachings and practices of Buddhism.

From my reading I find answers to my questions:

on where Buddhism derived its beliefs and practices, answer: from Hinduism or more correctly Brahmanism;

on what is the origin of man, answer: man has always been around, rebirthing on and on after each death, in various sentient life forms; but the human rebirth is the one that will enable him to work his way out of recurring rebirth;

on the end destiny of man, answer: nirvana where or when or in whatever state or existence or non-existence mode man is freed from rebirth.

.
You want to tell me that I am not getting Buddhism as Buddhism should be taken, that I am mixing up Buddhism with Jainism.

Actually I am trying to precisely pin down what is Buddhism for people like you who call yourselves Buddhists.

That is why I named this thread: Buddhism's end destiny of man according to the FWBO, because I want to know in greater exactitude and definiteness what this Buddhist group believes and teaches about the end destiny of man, imagining that being an organized and regimentalized group they might have a statement on the end destiny for man in Buddhism.

I could not read anything in their website about end destiny of man in their version of Buddhism.

So, I am asking the Buddhists here what is the end destiny of man in their kind of Buddhism, if they have any belief from Buddhism, their kind that is, about the end destiny of man.

May I ask you, nosho, what group you belong to? where there might be some published statement of beliefs and practices; then I can see in the light of these published beliefs and practices whether my knowledge of Buddhism can concur with the kind of Buddhism group you belong to.

Unless you are one independent order of Buddhism of one man.

We are at present talking about right and wrong in Buddhism.

Do you want me to tell you what I think why theft, adultery, and manslaughter are wrong in my own book of rightness and wrongness?

Here: theft, adultery, and manslaughter are wrong because they are respectively an infringement of another person's exclusive right to his possession, his spouse, and his life.

I believe that all humans have certain rights which all humans should respect among themselves; right to possession, access to spouse, and conservation of life, these are some very important rights.

One of the foundations of rightness and wrongness among humans in my book are what I call rights of man which come with his existence; and that obligation on every man to respect these rights in every other man is what I call justice in my book of rightness and wrongness.

I acquired that kind of knowledge from my juristic insights into legal enactments from government legislatures, instead of legalistic rote memory of specific enacted dos and don'ts of government legislatures.

Do you have some other broader foundations of rightness and wrongness from your kind of Buddhism, or from Buddhism generally?

You tell me, and I will tell you what I think on the basis of my ideas about rightness and wrongness -- that is what I mean by my critique of Buddhism.

No need to bring in Jainism which started as a contemporary and very similar religion, to Buddhism; and both derived from Brahmanism.

If you say that any specific idea about Buddhism from me is not Buddhism, then tell me what you know to be Buddhism on that particular matter; no need to identify my idea as belonging to Jainism, so that we will keep this discussion to a neat order.

I would suggest that if you wish, you can start a new thread about mistaken notions on Buddhism, where you can tell people how they get mixed up with identifying Jainist beliefs and practices with Buddhist ones.

Yrreg

Your post is a non-response.

The Buddhist notion of "right" has been explained to you in clear, simple, easy-to-understand terms. You have ignored that.

I realize you're playing a little game here. Obviously, you're not trying to offer a critique of Buddhism. What you're trying to do is personalize the discussion so that you can bait people into an emotional reaction. I believe that is why you ignore every well-intentioned effort to help you understand the topics under discussion. You don't want to understand. You just want to play your little game.

There's something fundamentally dishonest about everything you do in this forum, because you pretend that you want to know more and learn more, but you have demonstrated that you're not interested in gaining knowledge or understanding.

At this point it has long ceased to be entertaining for me.

lupus_in_fabula

30th August 2007, 12:23 AM

Dancing David

30th August 2007, 05:02 AM

Here: theft, adultery, and manslaughter are wrong because they are respectively an infringement of another person's exclusive right to his possession, his spouse, and his life.

I believe that all humans have certain rights which all humans should respect among themselves; right to possession, access to spouse, and conservation of life, these are some very important rights.

Marriage is a contract and the alleged crime of adultery is a breach of a contract. It is not a property issue, i am sure you mis-spoke your self.

The basis of law is much more complex, the only right you have is to have your body to be unabused. The role of property in society is very complex. The role of the contract of marriage is even more complex.

Loss Leader

30th August 2007, 08:24 AM

” Lex is the written law created by a civilization and Jus is the natural law that is innate among all living things.”

This is an interesting distinction, but first I guess we should nitpick a little and go back to classical latin, thus exchanging the letter j with i, so we are talking about lex and ius.

So, the obvious question about ius is, of course, WHO/WHAT evaluates something to be natural or intrinsic so that it can be talked about as ius? Kant’s answer is that “the self is capable of giving law to itself. It is auto-nomos” (Fletcher 2001: 15). And to continue with Fletchers words: “This act of law-giving requires the use of the term Gesetz [read lex] rather than Recht [read ius]. The self lays down the law to which it submits itself” (ibid.).

There's nothing I would enjoy more than a good discussion about the roots of natural law and its relation to codified law. But let's get one thing straight right off the bat: the words "juristic" and "legalistic" have absolutely no relation to those two catagories. They are synonyms in absolutely every way. Gerry's insistence that there is some difference between "juristic" thinking and "legalistic" thinking is utter nonsense.

If you feel like giving him a pass on this and just deciding that he has accidentally meandered close enough to actual words that we can guess what he's talking about, that is your business. I, however, don't think its that simple. In using the wrong words, refusing to be corrected and refusing to ask for help, Gerry has once again demonstrated that he has no intention of discussing anything. Instead, he seeks only to lecture, ignorant of the topic and full only of love for the sound of his own typing fingers.

yrreg

30th August 2007, 03:11 PM

Well, nosho, if you would be an informant to me on Buddhism, suppose you just tell me if it be so, again, what is the ultimate basis of right and wrong in Buddhism, briefly and in your own words; I will not ask you to refer me to posts here from people which posts are supposed to have told me already what is right and wrong in Buddhism in the ultimate terms.

If you demur, that is all right with me.

-------------------

Thanks, Lupus, for your instructive message:

” Lex is the written law created by a civilization and Jus is the natural law that is innate among all living things.”

This is an interesting distinction, but first I guess we should nitpick a little and go back to classical latin, thus exchanging the letter j with i, so we are talking about lex and ius.

So, the obvious question about ius is, of course, WHO/WHAT evaluates something to be natural or intrinsic so that it can be talked about as ius? Kant’s answer is that “the self is capable of giving law to itself. It is auto-nomos” (Fletcher 2001: 15). And to continue with Fletchers words: “This act of law-giving requires the use of the term Gesetz [read lex] rather than Recht [read ius]. The self lays down the law to which it submits itself” (ibid.).

The whole article from Prof. George P. Fletcher, who tries to find the roots of the distinction between lex and ius can be found here: http://www.iusetlex.pl/zalaczniki/wyklad_fletcher.pdf

The obvious Buddhist question here is, of course, WHO/WHAT determines the notion of self to be, well, itself? Can we use a similar Kantian perspective here too?

Did we have adversarial exchanges before? I am glad you did not nitpick on my words about right to possession, to spouse, and to life, by selectively misfocusing on right to spouse as to understand it as possession; no one is talking about any possession of spouse who can read intelligently.

About your question on the self in Buddhism, perhaps you want to ask the Buddhists here what is the WHO/WHAT determines the notion of self to be, well, itself?

Just in humor, most probably they will tell you that they get the idea of the self, erh, no- not- or non-self from meditation and from Gautama by way of the Pali Canon.

I salute you, Lupus, for your instructive message.

Yrreg

Loss Leader

30th August 2007, 03:45 PM

I salute you, Lupus, for your instructive message.

Cool. He doesn't even try to carry on the conversation about the sources of natural law or answer your question about how we would evaluate the same. He's just so happy that someone let him get by with his misuse of vocabulary, he salutes you and says nothing else.

Mojo

30th August 2007, 03:56 PM

I might add that sometimes juries reach verdicts but that wouldn't really help your point because the Latin root of jury still comes from the word meaning "oath." For that matter, not all juries reach verdicts. Grand Juries, for example, hand down indictments.

And even if I agreed that the important thing about juries is that they reach verdicts, it still wouldn't support your point. Guess why.

I'm just kidding - you can't guess because you know nothing about the topic on which you're writing.

On the contrary, because he knows nothing about the topic he has no option other than to guess.

The reason is that a jury reaching a verdict has to be the single most formalistic and unbending applications of the written rule of law that there is. The one thing juries are not doing is arguing back and forth on the philosophical nature of right and wrong and how law should encapsulate those ephemeral concepts.

Juries have nothing to do with the law; their function is to make decisions as to the facts.

yrreg

30th August 2007, 05:18 PM

According to Pes Oir Amsus (ask Ryokan, he did a search in the web for Pes Oir Amsus), there is such a sickness of fallacious thinking which can properly be called definitionitis.

When the meaning of a word used by a writer is obvious from the context and the whole text of his write-up, those who will not see the light from pseudo-intellectualism which is a perverse attachment to darkness as opposed to the conspicuous brilliance and clarity of understanding -- if they would exercise some modicum of reasoning, such people will insist on definitions from published dictionaries and reference works.

Anyway, here is your dictionary definitions of the words juristic and legalistic; if people were not legalistically conditioned for being thus trained, they would see the superiority of a juristic mind as distinct from a legalistic mind.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861623535

jurist

ju·rist [ jrist ] (plural ju·rists)

noun

Definition:

legal expert: an expert in the science or philosophy of law, especially a judge or legal scholar

[15th century. Directly or via French< medieval Latin jurista< Latin jur- "law"]

(Added by Yrreg, namely, jus, juris -- Latin nouns are customarily entered in dictionaries in both cases together, the nominative case and the genitive or possessive case; hence, jus in the nominative case, juris in the genitive case.)

ju·ris·tic [ joor ístik ] adjective
ju·ris·ti·cal adjective
ju·ris·ti·cal·ly adverb

----------------------

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=legalistic

legalistic

- adherence to letter of law: strict adherence to a literal interpretation of a law, rule, or religious or moral code
- law term: a word or phrase in legal jargon

.
-------------------------

Time and again I have noticed that Buddhists here fail to see that their whole Buddhism however and to what extent they embrace it is all an opinion made up of more sub-opinions.

Thus they assume that my questions to them about Buddhism are directed to them for their information on Buddhism as facts; but on my part it is all about opinions, and my intention is to invite them to discuss with me about Buddhism as a complex repertory of opinions.

Forgive this illustration.

Imagine that you are visiting a Buddhist sangha in New York, that is in plain English a monastery of Buddhist monks in New York, and you ask the American member there: "Where is the bathroom?" You are asking a question of fact.

But say you are visiting the same American Buddhist monk who has relocated to a sangha in an isolated undeveloped area of Burma, and you ask him this question: "What do you do for bathroom?" If I were you and most probably if you have a curious mind like mine, you are not asking for information on facts, but for an opinion on what Buddhist monks in an isolated undeveloped area of Burma do for bathrooms, and an invitation to a discussion.

I will just ask this question of the Buddhists here: What do you say, Buddhism as a whole is opinion or fact?

Yrreg

Nosaj

30th August 2007, 05:37 PM

yrreg,

About your question on the self in Buddhism, perhaps you want to ask the Buddhists here what is the WHO/WHAT determines the notion of self to be, well, itself?

Just in humor, most probably they will tell you that they get the idea of the self, erh, no- not- or non-self from meditation and from Gautama by way of the Pali Canon.

Sakkaya-ditthi, often translated as "self-identification" view or "personality-view", is said to arise when the average person assumes (i) one or more of the five aggregates of clinging (upadanakhandha) to be the self, (ii) the self to be in one or more of the five aggregates of clinging, (iii) the self to be the owner of one or more of the five aggregates of clinging, or the self to be independent of one or more of the five aggregates of clinging. All in all, there are twenty kinds of personality-view that are discernible.

The self, of course, is defined as being that which, "having passes away, that I shall be—permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change" (SN 24.3). Each of these twenty possible views of self are refuted in the suttas in various ways. Therefore, in Buddhist philosophy, the notion of self is determined by a fundamental lack of understanding in regard to the true nature of the five aggregates of clinging. Thus, the average person will almost inevitably clings to either one or all of these phenomena as ‘me’ or ‘mine’.

Nevertheless, Buddhist philosophy does not deny the importance of personal responsibility, and that is one of the reasons there are precepts. Even though what in the West we would call a soul is rejected in Buddhist thought, through a detailed understanding of conditionality, it is clear that a sentient being's actions still have consequences. In this regard, since the basic premise behind Buddhism is that all beings want to be happy, laws can be seen as a social convention that attempts to limit harm and suffering.

Jason

Dancing David

30th August 2007, 05:39 PM

Forgive this illustration:

From a post of Yrreg's even quoting himself no less.

posted by Yrreg
I like you to read what I say about the meanings of the English word permanence as distinct from the English word immutability, which both come from Latin, then also what you bring up from a standard English dictionary the definitions of the word permanence, and tell me do we have any essential or I have any essential difference in meaning of permanence with your dictionary's definitions. I want to confess to you that I did not look up the dictionary for the definitions of permanence, but I just know that permanence in English and in its Latin etymology is distinct from immutability as an English word derived from the Latin word, 'immutabilitas'.

Here below are my paragraphs on permanence as distinct from immutability, below the paragraphs from me in quotation box, you will find in quotation box your dictionary definitions of permanence.

Originally Posted by Yrreg
Okay, we have agreed that we both exist, we being engaged in discourse between ourselves.

Now, how do I explain to you that even though we are not permanent as you keep on wrangling about, we are still existing, still around while we live and until we die.

Look up the English dictionary the word permanent and you will find that it means something here today and here tomorrow, like you are here today and you will be here tomorrow at least in your home with your folks, and also it means something like young today and old tomorrow but still around tomorrow as today and until you die. Get it?

So when you say that nothing is permanent therefore it does not exist, you are not conversant with the complete meaning of the word permanent.

Permanent then means always around even though it changes in condition or mode or state of being, like you and I, we are young now but we are changing our youth to more mature years and then old age, and then death at which point we do not anymore exist as living entities but as lifeless tissues which will decay and turn to dust.

So from being a living entity we eventually end up dead and turn to dust, in all that process there is matter and energy, and that is permanent according to what physicists tell us, matter is not created nor destroyed.

In brief, your trouble is that you draw that conclusion that just because nothing remains in the same state, mode, condition, kind of existence, existence or matter/energy is not permanent.

Defintilism

Loss Leader

30th August 2007, 05:45 PM

When the meaning of a word used by a writer is obvious from the context and the whole text of his write-up, those who will not see the light from pseudo-intellectualism which is a perverse attachment to darkness as opposed to the conspicuous brilliance and clarity of understanding -- if they would exercise some modicum of reasoning, such people will insist on definitions from published dictionaries and reference works.

Translation: I haven't the faintest idea what I'm talking about but I should be excused from making sense because I, the writer, am more important than you, the stupid reader.

If people were not legalistically conditioned for being thus trained, they would see the superiority of a juristic mind as distinct from a legalistic mind.

If one were to substitute the actual words that mean what you wish "juristic" and "legalistic" do ... your statement would still be pompous and egotistic. You assume that there is a type of mind that is better than another type of mind. And you assume that you possess such a mind. You could have said "a juristic way of thinking," but you chose not to imagine that "juristic" is an approach to a problem. You chose to imagine that it is somehow a property of the very grey matter that you possess. And you're still wrong because "juristic" doesn't mean what you want it to.

Once again, there is a word that does mean what you wish "juristic" means and there's a word that means what you wish "legalistic" means. And, once again, I will tell them to you and we can move off of this ridiculous point. All you have to do is ask.

jurist

ju·rist [ jrist ] (plural ju·rists)

noun

Definition:

legal expert: an expert in the science or philosophy of law, especially a judge or legal scholar

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpag...x?q=legalistic

legalistic

- adherence to letter of law: strict adherence to a literal interpretation of a law, rule, or religious or moral code
- law term: a word or phrase in legal jargon

Ho ho. That's quite a bit of research you did there. It's quite a bit of misleading research, I mean to say. Looking up "Juristic" in Encarta, as you did, returns no results. Instead, you get the definition of a related word, "Jurist." And we can kind of shift around and imagine that "Juristic" is anything done in the manner of a "jurist."

But you put "legalistic" into Encarta and what you linked to was not the definition of legalistic. It wasn't even the definition of legal. It was the definition of "Legalism." And whatever "Legalism" means, it's not nearly as clean a step from "Legalism" to "Legalistic." In fact, I would argue that the two words are entirely dissimilar in denotation and connotation. And I'd be right.

In any case, let's pretend your definitions of these related words are actually the definitions of the words in question. A Jurist is an expert on the law and a Legalist is an advocate of strict adherance to the law.

Um ... okay.

Those are not two distinct catagories. They appear to overlap quite severely. I see no reason why a Jurist could not be a Legalist - an expert on the law who advocates strict adherance to it. In fact, I would have to say that in my considerable travels, I have found that the majority of Jurists are Legalists. Nor does it seem obvious that a Legalist could not also be a Jurist - so excited by the words of the law that he is compelled to become an expert in them.

These words as you yourself have defined them do not compass two different types of thought, let alone two different physically structured minds.

There is good news: There are two words that actually do mean what you are trying to get these words to mean. They are easy, common and agreeably pleasant to type and pronounce. And I will tell them to you.

All you have to do is ask.

lupus_in_fabula

30th August 2007, 11:32 PM

Just in humor, most probably they will tell you that they get the idea of the self, erh, no- not- or non-self from meditation and from Gautama by way of the Pali Canon.

But from where do you get the idea of self?

I salute you, Lupus, for your instructive message.

Uhm, okay... but if you follow the Kantian example, then you see that ius and lex is closely related; no Recht without a Gesetz. Hence, in practise it’s somewhat dubious if such a distinction should be drawn, especially so far as to treat them as different modes of thinking. They might differ as pure categories, but I don’t see how that difference can be exemplified in different modes of behaviour (juristic & legalistic).

Macoy

31st August 2007, 12:53 PM

yrreg,

Sakkaya-ditthi, often translated as "self-identification" view or "personality-view", is said to arise when the average person assumes (i) one or more of the five aggregates of clinging (upadanakhandha) to be the self, (ii) the self to be in one or more of the five aggregates of clinging, (iii) the self to be the owner of one or more of the five aggregates of clinging, or the self to be independent of one or more of the five aggregates of clinging. All in all, there are twenty kinds of personality-view that are discernible.

The self, of course, is defined as being that which, "having passes away, that I shall be—permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change" (SN 24.3). Each of these twenty possible views of self are refuted in the suttas in various ways. Therefore, in Buddhist philosophy, the notion of self is determined by a fundamental lack of understanding in regard to the true nature of the five aggregates of clinging. Thus, the average person will almost inevitably clings to either one or all of these phenomena as ‘me’ or ‘mine’.

Nevertheless, Buddhist philosophy does not deny the importance of personal responsibility, and that is one of the reasons there are precepts. Even though what in the West we would call a soul is rejected in Buddhist thought, through a detailed understanding of conditionality, it is clear that a sentient being's actions still have consequences. In this regard, since the basic premise behind Buddhism is that all beings want to be happy, laws can be seen as a social convention that attempts to limit harm and suffering.

Jason

So, ditthupadana, or wrong-view clinging, would be a worthy target in a buddhist boot camp?

yrreg

31st August 2007, 11:03 PM

[...]
Nevertheless, Buddhist philosophy does not deny the importance of personal responsibility, and that is one of the reasons there are precepts. Even though what in the West we would call a soul is rejected in Buddhist thought, through a detailed understanding of conditionality, it is clear that a sentient being's actions still have consequences. In this regard, since the basic premise behind Buddhism is that all beings want to be happy, laws can be seen as a social convention that attempts to limit harm and suffering.

Jason

Elohim, for being a Buddhist you aspire to one day get to nirvana from where you will not aspire after further destinations; nirvana then is your final destiny as for the rest of mankind -- in the Buddhist order of things.

You know the English words, good and bad, and the English word, deeds or actions. Tell me, will you get to nirvana with what you could understand in English to be good deeds, than with what you could understand to be bad deeds?

Yrreg

yrreg

31st August 2007, 11:09 PM

[...]

Uhm, okay... but if you follow the Kantian example, then you see that ius and lex is closely related; no Recht without a Gesetz. Hence, in practise it’s somewhat dubious if such a distinction should be drawn, especially so far as to treat them as different modes of thinking. They might differ as pure categories, but I don’t see how that difference can be exemplified in different modes of behaviour (juristic & legalistic).

I like you to tell me whether all men are equal is Gesetz or Recht in the mind of Herr Doktor Kant, and whether buying and selling of black men captured and shipped from Africa to the American colonies was sanctioned by Gesetz or Recht, if Herr Doktor Kant were to give his attention to that practice.

Yrreg

yrreg

31st August 2007, 11:17 PM

Cut the chicken legs from the knee down to the feet.

Trim the claws.

Now, boil the lower legs and feet in water for a time to soften the scales.

Remove the scales, an easy job I assure you.

Cook the chicken feet plus their adjoining lower leg parts in a thick broth of choice oriental spices, strips of spring ginger and a bit of sugar, vinegar, chili, salt, until the ligaments are tender.

Now, eat everything except the bones and remaining claws, as dimsum.

Good appetite!

Yrreg

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement - Posts must be on topic to the thread subject. On this Forum thread drift is expected but must follow from the discussion.

Loss Leader

1st September 2007, 12:28 PM

I like you to tell me whether all men are equal is Gesetz or Recht in the mind of Herr Doktor Kant, and whether buying and selling of black men captured and shipped from Africa to the American colonies was sanctioned by Gesetz or Recht, if Herr Doktor Kant were to give his attention to that practice.

Yrreg

I have been working for the better part of a day to figure out what in the blazes Immanual Kant's position on slavery has to do with anything that has been discussed in this thread. And, as far as I can tell, it doesn't. It's just another meandering alleyway in the unpaved shantytown that is Gerry's mind.

For what it's worth, as Kant was German and lived from 1724 to 1804, I would imagine that he shared the general feelings of his countrymen at the time. That would have meant that he was very mildly anti-slavery in his youth growing towards pretty much outright condemnation by the end of his life. By 1800, most of Europe had come out against the slave trade and, in fact, very shortly after his death England would almost single-handedly supress the exportation of slaves from Africa.

ETA: Yep. A little research bears out that Kant was strongly of the belief that all humans shared certain inalienable rights to freedom but that he also believed blacks were biologically inferior to Europeans. Considering the fact that he was such an influential thinker, his ideas on race closely mirrored those of his European contemporaries - "Africans shouldn't be slaves but they're not quite as good as us, either."

yrreg

1st September 2007, 02:54 PM

Well, addressing the Buddhists here, you must know by now what is jus and what is lex, what is a juristic mind and what a legalistic mind.

Tell me, what is more certain to get you to nirvana, observing the jus or the lex, being and acting juristic or legalistic?

Tell me further, whether the Holocaust and the enslavement of black men in America were founded on jus or on lex, inspired from a juristic mind or a legalistic mind?

If you know the English language as I presume you do well as to be able to express yourselves in English intelligibly, here is a question for you to meditate on or just think about:

Having converted to Buddhism or being clients of or patrons of Buddhistic beliefs and practices, you know the Buddhist world and universe, and for being conversant in the English language you know the world and universe as represented in the English language; you know the Buddhist word nirvana and the English phrase a just man, will you each one ever get out of Buddhist karma and recurring rebirth and arrive or attain Buddhist nirvana without ever getting to be a just man as understood in the English language?

If you answer: “No, no one would ever get to the Buddhist nirvana unless he has become a just man in the English language.” Tell me why?

Yrreg

yrreg

1st September 2007, 04:06 PM

I said time and again that I am doing critique of Buddhism for a fun hobby in critical thinking.

More and more I am realizing that what I am doing is actually to pin down Buddhist categories in English categories, on the strong suspicion that there is nothing of Buddhist categories that cannot be referred to corresponding English categories, if we just prescind from all the mystifying mumbo-jumbo of marketing gimmicks in Buddhism and from Buddhist philosophico-religious entrepreneurs.

To my stock knowledge there are two most generically categories in English, one genuine and the other pseudo or derivative: being and non-being; everything in any intelligible discourse among men, and we are the only ones, humans, who do engage in discourse, and among ourselves -- if anyone is having discourse with any entity not human, then that is not discourse as in English we understand by discourse.

[However, I am inclined myself to believe that we can communicate with non-human living things effectively but as in a discourse? no, not likely at the present state of our capability to communicate with non-human living things. I communicate all the time with our pet dog and cat at home effectively but I can't have any discourse with them.]

What I find to be most interesting and challenging is to see into the why's Westerners who have all the categories of their languages, like English, German, the Latin languages like French, Italian, Spanish, exhibit an attitude indicating that Buddhist categories cannot be translated into the categories of their own languages, and they must either transliterate the Buddhist categories into the language sounds of their languages, or construct unwieldy phrases to convey socalled most profound and transcendental categories in Buddhism.

So, speaking in plain English categories, I would say that simply put:

Buddhism is an opinion advanced by some men about the destiny of man beyond the tomb -- most importantly, and his origin before the womb -- not so importantly; this opinion also has instructions about what to do with your mind and heart and body so as to effect your arrival at the destiny beyond the tomb, but not so much (as I have so far read about) in regard to doing something about the origin of man before the womb, so that man will come out from the womb in a better stead than at present.

That's all there is to Buddhism, and the rueful wonder is why some Westerners are so thrilled with it, as to accuse me of hating Buddhism because I am doing 'critique' of Buddhism.

You might as well hate anyone who is doing critique of French cuisine or American public lips to lips kissing.

Back to the most generic of categories in English, being and non-being, my impression is that in Buddhistic thinking, Buddhists and Buddhist enthusiasts make a lot of non-being in their Buddhist minds, but their heart is all into being; that's the way they want to convince themselves and their listeners that they are into something so oh! profound and transcendental.

All non-being is a pseudo category or at most a derivative category: you can't in fact know any non-being categories unless you know first the being categories of which the corresponding non-being categories are negations. Thus Theravadans are drumming all the time on the no- or not- or non-self, but only by bringing up the self and all its manifestations then denying them existence.

So, please, good Buddhist friends here, your real favor to Buddhism is to talk Buddhism in plain English and hope to make it appealing to English speaking people -- and don't tell them that they must learn the Pali language and read the Pali Canon.

Yrreg

Loss Leader

1st September 2007, 04:54 PM

Well, addressing the Buddhists here, you must know by now what is jus and what is lex, what is a juristic mind and what a legalistic mind.

Jus means Justice, Lex means Law. Juristic and Legalistic are synonyms. They both mean "relating to law." They are not two different ways to view the world. There are two words that mean what I think you want Juristic and Legalistic to mean but those aren't them. I will be glad to tell you the two words. All you have to do is ask.

Tell me, what is more certain to get you to nirvana, observing the jus or the lex, being and acting juristic or legalistic?

Well, ignoring the "juristic" and "legalistic" part of your sentence because they make no sense, your question makes no sense. The first problem is that, assuming that there is natural law, there is no reason to think that it is different from written law. Why would written statutes by so necessarily incapable of expressing natural law that one would be required to abandon written law in order to reach nirvana? As a scholar of law myself, I can say that many, many people work very, very hard to make sure that the written law and the natural concepts of justice that we each feel are as closely alligned as possible.

The second problem is, of course, that you have in no way defined natural law. You have simply declared that such a thing exists. Perhaps it does, but just declaring it a catagory does nothing to put any laws into that catagory. Now you may say that natural laws are so obvious that they need no definition. In that case, why does written law have such a hard time encapsulating natural law? If natural law is obvious to every moral person, why is there any debate as to what our written law should be? Especially in a democracy, if our lawmakers are immoral, we should sense that the laws they pass are not in accordance with nature. We should then kick them out of office and correct the laws. But this does not happen. You need to first get everyone to agree what those natural laws are. (I'm not entirely convinced they exist).

Tell me further, whether the Holocaust and the enslavement of black men in America were founded on jus or on lex, inspired from a juristic mind or a legalistic mind?

(Ignoring the last part of your sentence because "juristic" and "legalistic" are synonyms) I can tell you with absolute certainty that the people who passed the Nueremberg Laws and the slavery laws were one hundred percent convinced that they did so in the interests of justice. What could be more natural that protecting the superior Aryan race from contamination from inferior races? What could be more natural that savages too genetically dim-witted to ever create their own civilization being shipped to more enlightened parts of the world and forced to adopt some sort of civilized behavior? And what could be more natural than that they pay for this privilege with their labor?

The formalism of written law didn't kill six million of my closest relatives; the perversion of the concept of "justice" did.

And this is true even of the laws that you believe are so clearly moral. Adultery is a good example. Are the laws against adultery in accordance with natural law? The answer is we don't know. They "seem right" to many people. But perhaps they just exist to keep economically inferior women enslaved and beholden to their husbands with no hope of escape. Another man who would treat the woman better stays away from her out of fear of an adultery prosecution. It enforces the concept that a wife is nothing but property. Hell, Gerry, you couldn't even mention adultery without sticking your foot in your mouth and calling it a property law.

So, while I would still enjoy a good discussion about the sources of law, you have not been able to provide it. Instead, you have assumed your conclusion. You have simply declared that justice is necessarily different from written law. And you have implied that there is something so obvious about natural law that all people should be able to agree on its definition. None of that is at all true.

Hokulele

1st September 2007, 06:22 PM

What I find to be most interesting and challenging is to see into the why's Westerners who have all the categories of their languages, like English, German, the Latin languages like French, Italian, Spanish, exhibit an attitude indicating that Buddhist categories cannot be translated into the categories of their own languages, and they must either transliterate the Buddhist categories into the language sounds of their languages, or construct unwieldy phrases to convey socalled most profound and transcendental categories in Buddhism.

kayak
kimono
tandoori
yin and yang
aloha
tipi
hammock
bar mitzvah
digeridoo
hibachi
moccasin
tortilla
feng shui
sayonara

yrreg

1st September 2007, 08:32 PM

I notice that some people cannot read intelligently, but must keep on and on maliciously confusing for their own perverse purpose what I wrote about theft having to do with infringement of possession, adultery infringement of the espousal relationship between two married partners, and manslaughter as infringement of the right to conserve one's life.

Well, that kind of behavior is not exceptional with the ilk of people referred to above; what is exceptional is that ilk of people will leave the darkness when they see the light, but that is assuming that these people can see.

Let the nitpickers here continue with their nitpicking since they cannot do any real thinking except to nitpick for their own as I said perverse purpose.

In regard to adultery, however, the way I see where mankind is heading toward, it would appear from present trends that traditional marriage as a social, cultural, and juristic institution would one day be obsolete in highly technologically developed societies, that marriage where exclusive mutual right to sexual cohabitation is binding on both parties.

By that time the juristic minds of society will no longer see the need to enforce statutory enactments punishing adultery.

What sayeth ye, Buddhists here, who are supposed to abstain from unwholesome sex relations; but as I read occasionally some Western Buddhists take to Buddhism because they think it has a broad liberal attitude toward sex -- and that is where they get unsavory publicity in newspapers every so often.

What sayeth ye, Buddhists here, will recidivist adulterers get to nirvana without repenting and abstaining henceforth from adultery?

For comic relief, I like to share with you what I heard from Fat Laughing Buddha ( that's me in another persona ):

Why is there such a massive population of humanity at this stage of cosmic history? because as humans put to extinction many other forms of sentient lives, these latters are rebirthed as humans, thus adding to the already excessive human population.

If you can laugh at that, then according to Fat Laughing Buddha, you are close to enlightenment, and nirvana is just a few more hours of meditation and wholesome thoughts.

Yrreg

Loss Leader

1st September 2007, 08:53 PM

I notice that some people cannot read intelligently, but must keep on and on maliciously confusing for their own perverse purpose what I wrote about theft having to do with infringement of possession, adultery infringement of the espousal relationship between two married partners, and manslaughter as infringement of the right to conserve one's life.

Well, that kind of behavior is not exceptional with the ilk of people referred to above; what is exceptional is that ilk of people will leave the darkness when they see the light, but that is assuming that these people can see.

Let the nitpickers here continue with their nitpicking since they cannot do any real thinking except to nitpick for their own as I said perverse purpose.

It is you who is having trouble with reading comprehension, Gerry, not me. In my last post I never accused you of claiming that adultery was a crime against a property right. What I accused you of was believing that adultery stemmed from any sort of natural law. I used your confused statements about adultery merely as evidence that the belief that spousal relationships follow some natural law is fraught with peril. It may in fact be the case that adultery laws are little more than property laws in disguise and are not rooted in any natural law.

You even seem to agree with me. You say:

In regard to adultery, however, the way I see where mankind is heading toward, it would appear from present trends that traditional marriage as a social, cultural, and juristic institution would one day be obsolete in highly technologically developed societies, that marriage where exclusive mutual right to sexual cohabitation is binding on both parties.

If matrimony is going the way of the dodo, it seems hard to claim that it arises from some natural or innately moral law. After all, it should be easy to stay on a moral path - all people have to do is agree to enact laws that they think are moral.

Still, at least we're kind of talking about what should and should not be included in our big basket of natural law. We kind of skipped the part where we decide whether it even exists, but let's just be happy we're making any progress at all.

Hokulele

1st September 2007, 09:42 PM

Yrreg, what do you consider "unwholesome sex relations" and why?

nosho

1st September 2007, 09:51 PM

So, speaking in plain English categories, I would say that simply put:

Buddhism is an opinion advanced by some men about the destiny of man beyond the tomb -- most importantly, and his origin before the womb -- not so importantly; this opinion also has instructions about what to do with your mind and heart and body so as to effect your arrival at the destiny beyond the tomb, but not so much (as I have so far read about) in regard to doing something about the origin of man before the womb, so that man will come out from the womb in a better stead than at present.

That's all there is to Buddhism ...

No. The key, core teaching of "Buddhism" is grounded in the present moment, right now. All of that stuff about rebirth and what might happen after death, it's all secondary at best. Relatively speaking, it's unimportant. Buddhism concerns itself with the here and now. Every practice is focused on bringing one into the present moment. This present moment, right now.

So, please, good Buddhist friends here, your real favor to Buddhism is to talk Buddhism in plain English and hope to make it appealing to English speaking people -- and don't tell them that they must learn the Pali language and read the Pali Canon.

Speaking for myself, I'm not trying to do any favors for "Buddhism," and I can't concern myself with whether it is appealing to you or others. That's your affair, not mine.

I have no problem telling you in my own words what I think Buddhism teaches, and I have done just that on many occasions in the threads you have created.

One problem is that you keep on using terms incorrectly. In order to help you understand what you are talking about, I and others have tried to explain very clearly and in plain English what the terms really mean, including their origins in Pali. Human languages, as a matter of simple reality, are not based on perfectly interchangeable words that all translate seamlessly into English. Different languages reflect different cultures and different ways of looking at the world. If you really want to understand Buddhism, it's worth your while to examine the Pali terms that are a common reference point across cultures for those who discuss Buddhism.

Of course you are welcome to ignore Pali and try to understand these terms without considering their origins. In doing so, you make your task needlessly more difficult and invite misunderstanding.

In plain English, if you really want to have a better understanding of Buddhism, forget the whole question about the "end destiny of man." That whole concept is just speculation about the future. Buddhism does not concern itself with idle speculation.

Nibbana is not about the "end destiny of man." Nibbana is about the present moment, the reality immediately at hand which, out of ignorance, we usually just don't experience.

If you are looking for the core of Buddhism in teachings about the past or the future, you are looking in the wrong direction. If you are looking for the core of Buddhism in teachings about mankind or others, you are looking in the wrong direction. The correct place to look for the core teachings is how they apply to oneself, in this very moment. That is where the teachings are applied. Not to others. Not to the future. Not to the past.

And yes, again, of course there is a "self" in the conventional sense. There is a person who calls himself "yrreg." Buddhism does not deny the convention of regarding oneself as an individual human being. If the idea of "not self" is too restrictive or confusing for you, then disregard it. All "not self" means is that this thing we call "self" is not permanent, is not unchanging, and is not independent of the universe from which it comes and on which it has a continuing effect. "Not self" is just a way of stating more clearly what we mean by "self." It is not a denial of the self in the conventional sense.

I hope these plain English explanations in my own words are helpful to you in some way. I believe this is what you keep asking for. None of this is new, however. All of it has been presented to you before.

yrreg

1st September 2007, 10:22 PM

Yrreg, what do you consider "unwholesome sex relations" and why?

Ask Elohim and nosho and Ryokan the Resident Buddhist here.

Can't you see that I am just using their terminology. but I am sure they understand by wholesome the old good English understanding of what are right and what are wrong sex relations, among which is adultery; but it seems to be on the way out for the majority in highly technological society, except for what the minorities will consider themselves the moral elites. Says Fat Laughing Buddha.

But honestly I still observe matrimonial chastity and fidelity, whatever liberties others accord themselves. I am satisfied with my wife and I love her, and she me; there, that's enough reason to stay chaste and faithful in our mutual regard.

Yrreg

Hokulele

2nd September 2007, 12:12 AM

Ask Elohim and nosho and Ryokan the Resident Buddhist here.

I don't care what they think, I want to know what you think.

Can't you see that I am just using their terminology.

No, you are using your own terminology. You are the one who brought up "wholesome sex relations", and I need to know what you mean before I can consider answering your question.

but I am sure they understand by wholesome the old good English understanding of what are right and what are wrong sex relations, among which is adultery; but it seems to be on the way out for the majority in highly technological society, except for what the minorities will consider themselves the moral elites. Says Fat Laughing Buddha.

Again, I didn't ask them, I asked you. So far, you have only identified adultery, but haven't explained why this is wholesome, or what is not wholesome.

But honestly I still observe matrimonial chastity and fidelity, whatever liberties others accord themselves. I am satisfied with my wife and I love her, and she me; there, that's enough reason to stay chaste and faithful in our mutual regard.

I don't care what you practice, I want to know what you believe. Is this the only type of "wholesome sex relation"? Why?

Mojo

2nd September 2007, 02:11 AM

Tell me further, whether the Holocaust and the enslavement of black men in America were founded on jus or on lex, inspired from a juristic mind or a legalistic mind?

What about the enslavement of black women in America? Why exclude them from your question? Do you consider enslavement of women to be acceptable?

lupus_in_fabula

2nd September 2007, 09:20 AM

I like you to tell me whether all men are equal is Gesetz or Recht in the mind of Herr Doktor Kant, and whether buying and selling of black men captured and shipped from Africa to the American colonies was sanctioned by Gesetz or Recht, if Herr Doktor Kant were to give his attention to that practice.

“Juristic” according to Merriam-Webster:

1 : of or relating to a jurist or jurisprudence <juristic thought>
2 : of, relating to, or recognized in law <juristic theory>

Why do you feel Kant’s position on slave trade is relevant here; he’s only saying that in his moral philosophy Recht requires the use of the term Gesetz?

I’m also unsure why you feel the term juristic is the proper derivative from ius, especially when the term jurist seems much closer than ius. We’re talking about an adjective after all, aren’t we? And if you haven’t noticed, there’s a tendency in many law traditions for ius to collapse into lex anyway – they do not exclude each other.

The funny thing about all this is that the two modes of behaviour you’re in such pain to explain aren’t mutually exclusive. Your usage of the term juristic is just, well, more weirdness. So yrreg, should a person inhale or exhale in order to stay alive – are you one of those inhaling or exhaling types? Or should we drop such nonsense and just recognize the importance of breathing?

lupus_in_fabula

2nd September 2007, 09:26 AM

I said time and again that I am doing critique of Buddhism for a fun hobby in critical thinking.

Of course it’s fun for you; why else would you bother giving a title to every post you write. But it’s also amusing… watching you trying to navigate by using the wind as a compass. Or should I say: You’re “critically” floating around! ;)

nosho

2nd September 2007, 12:02 PM

What sayeth ye, Buddhists here, will recidivist adulterers get to nirvana without repenting and abstaining henceforth from adultery?

This is the kind of pointless question that erodes any possibility of meaningful discussion. First, you're talking about "nirvana" as if it is equivalent to the idea of heaven, some kind of destination. That's not what it is.

Second, you're asking for general judgments about hypothetical other people, which also is not what Buddhism is about. Buddhism has nothing to do with theoretical speculation about what hypothetical people might have to do to follow the path more closely. There is no meaningful way to answer your question.

If you're going to ask a question, why not ask something that could change your life? Why ask pointless, trivial questions that contribute nothing to real insight?

A little earlier, I responded to your request for some explanation of my understanding in plain English in my own words, and thus far you have completely ignored that. So why did you request it?

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2926367#post2926367) is a link to what I wrote.

yrreg

2nd September 2007, 03:32 PM

Posted by yrreg
Tell me further, whether the Holocaust and the enslavement of black men in America were founded on jus or on lex, inspired from a juristic mind or a legalistic mind?

What about the enslavement of black women in America? Why exclude them from your question? Do you consider enslavement of women to be acceptable?

Most unworthy of any member in this JREF forum; and I will use the word perverse to describe this kind of a mind and speech, what I would call essentially legalistic instead of juristic.

Or perhaps the subject does not know how to read intelligently and to think and thus to understand comprehensively on what he reads.

That is what I have always observed in many posters here, nitpickers but having absolutely nothing to contribute to any advancement of knowledge for everyone here and guests who are concerned with knowledge and its advancement.

They will, nitpickers, go on and on and on; when you say that by the word men you mean people, persons, human beings, they will insist that just the same you have in mind men the ones with penis, and not both the ones with penis and the ones with vagina.

Next, they will say that you exclude children when you use the word men, and on and on and on and on and on.... And they see themselves as pretty smart with that kind of a pea brain.

Later they will broach into asking why you exclude the gays and the lesbians, and on and on and on and on...

Meanwhile they have not contributed anything to the distinction between what is a juristic mind and what a legalistic mind.

Is the rational skepticism of this ilk of posters here reduced to this kind of an argumentation dis-methodology, what I would identify as muddling up the water instead of catching the fish in the water.

Anyway, Mojo, snap out of that bad habit, says Fat Laughing Buddha; otherwise I welcome your posts whatever all the nitpicking, nothing new from your history here of interacting with me, where you have always stratified yourself on the nitpicking level.

Yrreg

Loss Leader

2nd September 2007, 03:35 PM

Why do you feel Kant’s position on slave trade is relevant here; he’s only saying that in his moral philosophy Recht requires the use of the term Gesetz?

As near as I can tell, Gerry thinks that "natural law" is so obvious and plain that only a close-minded moron would pretend not to recognize what is naturally moral and right as opposed to what words have been written into law by politicians.

But I have no idea why he thinks that. And Kant and slavery is probably a terrible example because Kant is sort of infamous for his belief that black people were biologically inferior to Europeans and could not through any amount of training be made to comprehend social discourse. I doubt he was a huge fan of slavery but he wasn't a huge fan of Africans, either.

So here we have a circumstance where Kant's personal ideas about what is "natural" would probably not vary much from the written laws of his day (at least the written laws in Germany). This makes any argument that "human equality" is obviously moral and "natural" very hard to sustain.

However, since Gerry abandoned the whole thread about Kant as soon as he picked it up, we'll probably never know what he was trying to say. I fear a similar fate for our discussion of adultery (another law that seems "natural" to him but which very well may be an unnatural and misogynistic vestige of a less enlightened time).

Loss Leader

2nd September 2007, 03:45 PM

Most unworthy of any member in this JREF forum; and I will use the word perverse to describe this kind of a mind and speech, what I would call essentially legalistic instead of juristic.

You can call them that but, since "legalistic" and "juristic" are synonyms, you wouldn't be making any sense.

They will, nitpickers, go on and on and on; when you say that by the word men you mean people, persons, human beings, they will insist that just the same you have in mind men the ones with penis, and not both the ones with penis and the ones with vagina.

I, for one, tend to try to avoid as completely as possible the men with vaginas. Especially during fleet week if you get my meaning (which you don't).

Meanwhile they have not contributed anything to the distinction between what is a juristic mind and what a legalistic mind.

Nor have you for the following reasons:

1. "Juristic" and "Legalistic" are synonyms and do not define two different catagories.

2. You assume that concern with justice and concern with statute are properties of the mind - that a mind can litterally be one or the other. You do this without argument or evidence. Furthermore, it is a distinction that demonstrates an unwarranted feeling of superiority by you. You have not in any way shown that your "mind" is a "juristic" one, whatever that is, or that other's minds are not.

3. Assuming that there is a difference between natural law and written law, you have not defined what that difference is. You have given us no criteria to consider something natural as oposed to statutory. You have given us no method of distinguishing one from the other. All you have done is imply very broadly that certain things like hatred of slavery are natural laws. Even in that, you have ignored any attempt to point out to you that there was a time when slavery was considered just and natural. How do you know as a moral certainty that we are right now and not that our forebearers were right then? You've given us no way to determine that.

yrreg

2nd September 2007, 04:41 PM

So, let us in a way start from the beginning again.

Addressing Buddhists: What do you expect to arrive at or attain with your Buddhism in the final terms or as the end destiny.

You can answer that there is no end destiny in Buddhism or there is and what you call that end destiny.

You can answer that the end destiny is for each individual or for each individual and for all men and all sentient beings.

You can answer that you don't know and you don't care and you have no curiosity at all to know about any end destiny in Buddhism, you are just into Buddhism for whatever you expect of Buddhism without any reference to any end destiny.

You can ask me what I mean by end destiny, and I will tell you that by end destiny I mean the point beyond which nothing further is to be arrived at or attained, and by destiny is the point where you will end up or want to end up with in the course of your existence.

Anyway, there is a discourse in the West on the subject of eschatology which is about the end things of man and the world and the universe.

Wait, I will look up the web whether anyone has taken up anything that might be connected with what I might call Buddhist eschatology.

Here, I entered "Buddhist eschatology" into Google search box, and there are quite a number of hits; I read some, and you know what I saw in that very limited reading?

There seems to be no end to ever recurring cycles of what we might call growth and bust of everything -- in Buddhism, not even the true dharma is available in contemporary today, and that another and yet another Buddha will come, and there will be catastrophic immorality so that even Buddhism will disappear (for a time only, of course), but some kind of Buddha will rule everything and everyone will be happy (seems like we are in familiar territory, a testimony to the common yearning of human nature, eh?), etc.

Read about "Buddhist eschatology" hits with Google and tell me what you see.

What I know however from stock knowledge derived from my reading about Buddhist karma, rebirth, and nirvana, is that the end destiny of an individual person is nirvana, and the end destiny of the whole of mankind and sentient beings is also nirvana.

Isn't' that what all that meditation and enlightenment and wholesome thoughts and deeds and the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path and whatever else Buddhists are supposed to think, to feel, to do, and/or to not think about, to not feel, and to not do, aren't all those things about getting to nirvana for each and every Buddhist human person, or every person for that matter even not into Buddhism, and also the whole of mankind and all sentient beings in the ultimate state of no further impermanent duration and mutation, meaning this time at this state it is permanently final and immutable, that is: NIRVANA.

[ To guests reading this thread, if you are like myself, curious about the end destiny of man in Buddhism, and are not into nitpicking and all manners of obstructionistic quibbling, please sign up and join me in examining if there is any end destiny of man in Buddhism and what it consists in. ]

Yrreg aka Fat Laughing Buddha

Loss Leader

2nd September 2007, 05:25 PM

[ To guests reading this thread, if you are like myself, curious about the end destiny of man in Buddhism, and are not into nitpicking and all manners of obstructionistic quibbling, please sign up and join me in examining if there is any end destiny of man in Buddhism and what it consists in. ]

It's not obstructionist quibbling, Gerry, to actually answer the very questions you yourself bring up. You wanted to talk about the difference between natural and statutory law (although you insisted on using the wrong words to describe them), and I asked you specific questions about them. You ignored me.

You asked about Immanual Kant's view on slavery. I and others answered you. You ignored us.

You attempted to sketch some areas that you believed defined natural law. I answered with objections. You ignored me.

I don't think I'm obstructing your message, Gerry, by asking you to clarify your message. It's not my fault that, so far, you have yet to say one single intelligent thing about natural law.

On a related note, vote for me in the Pith Poll (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92011).

Bodhi Dharma Zen

2nd September 2007, 05:39 PM

Man will die.

and yet, most people would never understand this ;)

nosho

2nd September 2007, 09:54 PM

What do you expect to arrive at or attain with your Buddhism in the final terms or as the end destiny.

In my experience, expectations are a hinderance. When I catch myself in the act of having some expectation about what I might get out of the path, I try to let that go. Ultimately, I try to practice without expectations.

In my experience, the result of practicing the eightfold path seems to be greater patience, less ill-will toward others, a greater capacity for concentration, less need for sleep, and so on. When I become lax in my practice, I find that I am more impatient, less able to concentrate, etc. So I do have a kind of expectation derived from direct experience, namely, that when I practice regularly, I am more at peace than when I don't.

With regard to my end destiny, I hope that as I practice, I will be prepared for death, so that I can be aware and at peace when the moment of death arrives. Beyond that, at this point in my practice and my experience, I don't know. Primarily, I practice for the present moment. The benefits of practice are immediate. I practice for now.

Read about "Buddhist eschatology" hits with Google and tell me what you see.

I see a lot of stuff that's mildly interesting but mostly irrelevant. That's the window dressing of Buddhism, not the real meat. At least not for me.

What I know however from stock knowledge derived from my reading about Buddhist karma, rebirth, and nirvana, is that the end destiny of an individual person is nirvana, and the end destiny of the whole of mankind and sentient beings is also nirvana.

Sure, because nibbana is the reality immediately at hand, right now. It's just that for most of us, we fail to experience it due to ignorance. As we develop in insight, it is possible to get closer to the nibbanic peace within. You don't have to go anywhere to get there. You can start right where you are.

In that respect, nibbana isn't a goal outside oneself. And since it is present right now, it's absurd to think of it as a kind of destiny.

Isn't' that what all that meditation and enlightenment and wholesome thoughts and deeds and the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path and whatever else Buddhists are supposed to think, to feel, to do, and/or to not think about, to not feel, and to not do, aren't all those things about getting to nirvana for each and every Buddhist human person, or every person for that matter even not into Buddhism, and also the whole of mankind and all sentient beings in the ultimate state of no further impermanent duration and mutation, meaning this time at this state it is permanently final and immutable, that is: NIRVANA.

Not in the sense that you seem to imagine. In my view, the practice is about awakening to reality, and to who we really are.

I think it's a mistake to view nibbana as some separate, absent phenomenon or state, or as some kind of reward. A more accurate view, I think, is that nibbana is part and parcel of who we are. Nibbana is now.

If you are chasing after nibbana, you are running in the wrong direction, because you don't have to chase it. You don't have to worry about it. You can't find it anywhere outside of your own experience.

Others may have different approaches. But ultimately, I think the teachings guide one toward letting go of expectations with regard to destiny. It's about following the path in this very moment. Every step along the way has meaning immediately. You don't have to wait for anything. It's all right here, right now, right where you are.

lupus_in_fabula

2nd September 2007, 11:50 PM

In my view, the practice is about awakening to reality, and to who we really are.

Yrreg, I think this is probably the most concise explanation you will get for your question.

Moreover, it is not very different from what some of the Gnostic texts seem to say (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas). For example: "[...] the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."(CGoT: 3).

Furthermore, it seems to be more about recognizing what already is rather than achieving anything new, albeit, of course, the act of recognizing might be considered the ultimate achievement. However, “you cannot become what you already are” (or achieve something you already have). So perhaps it’s ultimately just about ridding oneself from any misidentification.

Dancing David

3rd September 2007, 04:04 AM

Nibanna is not a place, it is a mode of free action.

There is no goal after death. Ask the dead.

Dancing David

3rd September 2007, 04:21 AM

So, let us in a way start from the beginning again.

Addressing Buddhists: What do you expect to arrive at or attain with your Buddhism in the final terms or as the end destiny.

This is silly Yrreg, the state of nibbanna is the way you move on the road of life/being. It is not an end goal or destination. You are confusing the way the vehicle moves with where the vehicle is going.

You can answer that there is no end destiny in Buddhism or there is and what you call that end destiny.

You can answer that the end destiny is for each individual or for each individual and for all men and all sentient beings.

You can answer that you don't know and you don't care and you have no curiosity at all to know about any end destiny in Buddhism, you are just into Buddhism for whatever you expect of Buddhism without any reference to any end destiny.

The way you go on the path is separate from the path itself.

You can ask me what I mean by end destiny, and I will tell you that by end destiny I mean the point beyond which nothing further is to be arrived at or attained, and by destiny is the point where you will end up or want to end up with in the course of your existence.

That is silly Yrreg, once one has attained freedom they can always make choices that bind them again.

Anyway, there is a discourse in the West on the subject of eschatology which is about the end things of man and the world and the universe.

And there is such in other areas as well.

Wait, I will look up the web whether anyone has taken up anything that might be connected with what I might call Buddhist eschatology.

Here, I entered "Buddhist eschatology" into Google search box, and there are quite a number of hits; I read some, and you know what I saw in that very limited reading?

There seems to be no end to ever recurring cycles of what we might call growth and bust of everything -- in Buddhism, not even the true dharma is available in contemporary today, and that another and yet another Buddha will come, and there will be catastrophic immorality so that even Buddhism will disappear (for a time only, of course), but some kind of Buddha will rule everything and everyone will be happy (seems like we are in familiar territory, a testimony to the common yearning of human nature, eh?), etc.

Read about "Buddhist eschatology" hits with Google and tell me what you see.

What I know however from stock knowledge derived from my reading about Buddhist karma, rebirth, and nirvana, is that the end destiny of an individual person is nirvana, and the end destiny of the whole of mankind and sentient beings is also nirvana.

That is one POV, there are quite a few. None are better, none are worse, none the same.

Isn't' that what all that meditation

Meditation is to learn how the alleged mind operates and to be aware of the way the five heaps operate.

and enlightenment and wholesome thoughts and deeds and the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path and whatever else Buddhists are supposed to think, to feel, to do, and/or to not think about, to not feel, and to not do, aren't all those things about getting to nirvana for each and every Buddhist human person, or every person for that matter even not into Buddhism, and also the whole of mankind and all sentient beings in the ultimate state of no further impermanent duration and mutation, meaning this time at this state it is permanently final and immutable, that is: NIRVANA.

This is silly Yrreg, once one attains freedom, the choice can always be made to bind ones self again. For some Mahayana schools that may be a goal, the freedom of all people, in other schools it is not.

But nibbanna is not fixed and immutable, it is the state of the vehicle on the road. The fixed and immutable does not exist.

Can you point to the fixed and immutable?