Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
September 02, 2014, 07:43:49 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ask a Buddhist  (Read 5311 times)
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11008


« Reply #125 on: July 16, 2012, 05:16:30 AM »

We apparently disagree about the nature of what a belief is. I think beliefs are posited to explain behavior and therefore cannot be divorced from it. Thus, there isn't really any such thing as believing X and yet acting exactly as if X is false. Treating a proposition as true (believing it) just means behaving as if it is true. If you believe the building you're in is on fire then you'll get the heck out of there; if you say "Yes, I believe it!" yet remain then we know you don't really believe it (assuming no suicidal tendencies or any other mental problems on your part).

1. A person doesn't necessarily have to act according to a belief one hundred percent of the time in order to genuinely believe it; there can be slip ups and set backs. We're really talking about general patterns of behavior rather than strict, 24/7 adherence.

2. The beliefs you focus on don't refute my point because the behavior you describe is perfectly consistent with those beliefs. A person can believe working out is healthy and not work out because they are engaging in some sort of trade-off, willfully being lazy because it satisfies some psychological need. As another example, a person can have true beliefs about the dangers of smoking and yet do it anyway, again because they are willfully engaging in a trade-off. The behavior you mention is only inconsistent with certain other beliefs, like "I love working out," "I am striving to be as healthy as I can be," and so forth. If anybody who rarely works out thinks they have these beliefs then they are sorely mistaken, because their behavior is entirely inconsistent with them.

3. So, patterns of behavior that are inconsistent with a stated belief indicate that that belief is not genuinely held by a person, regardless of what the person says (a person can be mistaken about what they believe). This is especially so when the pattern of behavior obtains over a person's entire lifetime. A pattern of attachment and base desire fulfillment seems to me inconsistent with the beliefs of Buddhism; therefore, anybody actively living this way isn't a Buddhist. They may say they believe in them; they may think they believe in them; they may be sympathetic to them; they may even occasionally gesture toward their being true; but, on the whole they don't actually believe them, because that's not how belief works.

What definition of belief are you working with that allows a person (in principle) to genuinely believe X and yet behave entirely as if X is false? What kind of belief is that?

very nice post...very well thought-out and thought-provoking....I agree with two thirds of it, and disagree with the other third....I am bumping for later when I will have time to respond
Report to moderator   Logged
Butterbean
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19460


« Reply #126 on: July 16, 2012, 07:02:55 AM »

I eat Clif Builder bars. They are produced in factories that produce milk, but are vegan and soy based.


 

I thought said you also eat non-soy bars and if so, what are they?  



Attachment is a term used in Buddhism (Upādāna) which means "clinging" or "grasping" which is the result of clinging to sensual pleasures, wrong-views (like the view that abstienence is pointless or that eating meat is acceptable), rites and rituals (chanting, ceremonies, etc.) and also personal beliefs (attavadupadana, which is the belief that you exist as an independent self which isn't true).  Loving someone else is not Upādāna. An important goal in Buddhism is love and loving-kindness (Meta).

Clinging (Upādāna) and also Thirst/hunger (in a metaphorical sense) ( tṛṣṇā ) cause suffering.
If you have someone in your life that you love, this does not necessitate "clinging" or Upādāna.

I thought Buddhists did chant?  But I think I got that from that Tina Turner movie.



Can you please explain more about how we don't exist as independent selves?
Report to moderator   Logged

R
garebear
Time Out
Getbig V
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 6517


Never question my instincts.


« Reply #127 on: July 16, 2012, 07:22:17 AM »

Cage Match: Jesus Vs. Buddha.

Who walks out of that cage?

Report to moderator   Logged

G
DKlent
Getbig III
***
Posts: 341



« Reply #128 on: July 16, 2012, 09:33:48 AM »

We apparently disagree about the nature of what a belief is. I think beliefs are posited to explain behavior and therefore cannot be divorced from it. Thus, there isn't really any such thing as believing X and yet acting exactly as if X is false. Treating a proposition as true (believing it) just means behaving as if it is true. If you believe the building you're in is on fire then you'll get the heck out of there; if you say "Yes, I believe it!" yet remain then we know you don't really believe it (assuming no suicidal tendencies or any other mental problems on your part).

1. A person doesn't necessarily have to act according to a belief one hundred percent of the time in order to genuinely believe it; there can be slip ups and set backs. We're really talking about general patterns of behavior rather than strict, 24/7 adherence.

2. The beliefs you focus on don't refute my point because the behavior you describe is perfectly consistent with those beliefs. A person can believe working out is healthy and not work out because they are engaging in some sort of trade-off, willfully being lazy because it satisfies some psychological need. As another example, a person can have true beliefs about the dangers of smoking and yet do it anyway, again because they are willfully engaging in a trade-off. The behavior you mention is only inconsistent with certain other beliefs, like "I love working out," "I am striving to be as healthy as I can be," and so forth. If anybody who rarely works out thinks they have these beliefs then they are sorely mistaken, because their behavior is entirely inconsistent with them.

3. So, patterns of behavior that are inconsistent with a stated belief indicate that that belief is not genuinely held by a person, regardless of what the person says (a person can be mistaken about what they believe). This is especially so when the pattern of behavior obtains over a person's entire lifetime. A pattern of attachment and base desire fulfillment seems to me inconsistent with the beliefs of Buddhism; therefore, anybody actively living this way isn't a Buddhist. They may say they believe in them; they may think they believe in them; they may be sympathetic to them; they may even occasionally gesture toward their being true; but, on the whole they don't actually believe them, because that's not how belief works.

What definition of belief are you working with that allows a person (in principle) to genuinely believe X and yet behave entirely as if X is false? What kind of belief is that?

Belief- An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
    Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
Report to moderator   Logged
DKlent
Getbig III
***
Posts: 341



« Reply #129 on: July 16, 2012, 10:08:44 AM »

I thought said you also eat non-soy bars and if so, what are they?  

I thought Buddhists did chant?  But I think I got that from that Tina Turner movie.



Can you please explain more about how we don't exist as independent selves?

No. The protein bars I eat have soy in them. The whey shake I drink doesn't.


"Self" is an illusion. The term Anatta has a mening more to the issue that there is no such thing as the classical idea of the "I". This implies and means what one thinks "I" to be, what we think of as "I"  is just an illusion in our own minds. Thoughts are computed by your mind before you know of them. A thought, once it enters the brain, is computed in the brain before I am conscious that it is there. A few microseconds before-hand. What does this mean? This means that my own thoughts are not my own doing, but are spontaneous. But they aren't really spontaneous because nothing is spontaneous, all things have a cause and thus my thoughts have a cause. What cause? Causes that preexist me, you, my environment, the world.

 There is not any  real or clear difference between what "I" am and what is seen as "out there" or "beyond the body" out in the world. One is costantly losing matter and gaining matter and energy and also exchanging mass and energy with the environment and the universe. There is no clear and obvioius line dividing what "I" am and what my environment is. If I touch a piece of wood there is no clear dividing line between the wood and your hand. Not only does the wood attach to your hand, but the skin cells attach to the wood making it one object. The forces holding the atoms all together in your hand are now interacting with the all of the atoms of the wood. It is a single object for all intents and purposes.  The idea of inter connectedness is important and relevant in Buddhism because it aids in stopping hate and promotes love because we are connected with everything and we are part of it all, as it is part of us, it becomes impossible to 'hate' anything.

Also, all that we are and all that we do is a DIRECT result of what has happened before we ever existed. We are our environments and our environments are us. You are the universe and the universe is in you. There isn't any separation, and any separations made are pure illusions. My and your thoughts, feelings, actions, etc. are all directly or indirectly influenced by the universe and the universe is influenced by us, resulting in one "thing". The universe is aware because we are aware and we are part of the universe. We, we the intelligent life, could consider ourselves the 'brain' of the universe. Now, The law of dependent origination is a clear example of the vast connectedness of the cosmos according to Buddhism. The laws of cause and effect are important in Buddhism, as our suffering has a cause and the effect is what we feel every day. All things have a cause.

"No self" means no permanent self in the real sense that we are always changing biologically and physically, not just our bodies but also our consciousness. We change moment to moment, and we are not the same people we were years ago. We think differently and see things differently, but the basic molecules are also all different. Our cells today are not the cells we had 10 years ago, nor are the bone cells or the neurons. So the brain we have today is not the same brain, not the same 'matter' that it was 10 years ago. We are different people  and the continuity of  our consciousness is our illusion.

The cosmos can be seen as a "NET" in Buddhism. A net is made up of a series of ties, so everything in this cosmos is connected by a series of ties.

Does free will exist?  It is Free Will still. Certainly our free will is predetermined due to causality, but it is still our own free will. We make our own choices, we choose our own choices...That does not imply that what we want to choose or decide to choose isn't predetermined. It IS "our choice" but "our choice" is  also predetermined. Predetermination doesn't  negate the fact that we still choose our own actions, it simply makes clear that what we do finally decide to choose is already predetermined. For humans to have "free will", it is not necessary that people make decisions in some vacuum uninfluenced by the laws of causality.




Report to moderator   Logged
syntaxmachine
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2533



« Reply #130 on: July 16, 2012, 09:47:46 PM »

Belief- An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
    Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

The nature of belief is a major topic of debate in cognitive psychology that will not be resolved by citing the dictionary. That's like precluding debate over the nature of God by pointing to the dictionary and saying, "Hey folks, take a look! It says what God is right here! No need to debate!"

Even if this definition is right, it does not reveal what it is to accept a statement as true. It may still be that accepting a statement as true means none other than behaving as if it is true. And that is what we are trying to figure out in the context of your claim that one can believe in Buddhist precepts and yet not act as if they are true. In other words, your citing the dictionary technically hasn't advanced the discussion any because the definition offered doesn't touch on the role of behavior in believing, which is the topic at hand.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25117


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #131 on: July 16, 2012, 09:55:50 PM »

lay Buddhists never achieve enlightenment either. Are you aware of that?

if you were enlighted this thread would not exist
Report to moderator   Logged
syntaxmachine
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2533



« Reply #132 on: July 16, 2012, 10:36:33 PM »


"Self" is an illusion. The term Anatta has a mening more to the issue that there is no such thing as the classical idea of the "I". This implies and means what one thinks "I" to be, what we think of as "I"  is just an illusion in our own minds. Thoughts are computed by your mind before you know of them. A thought, once it enters the brain, is computed in the brain before I am conscious that it is there. A few microseconds before-hand. What does this mean? This means that my own thoughts are not my own doing, but are spontaneous.


If the self is an illusion, then whose mind is it an illusion of? How can an illusion exist if there is no subject (self, 'I') to perceive it? If there is no self or I, why do you say thoughts are computed by our minds before we are consciously aware of them? Who are these subjects you keep referring to and how can they exist if selves and 'I's' don't? How is thought possible without thinkers?


"No self" means no permanent self in the real sense that we are always changing biologically and physically, not just our bodies but also our consciousness. We change moment to moment, and we are not the same people we were years ago. We think differently and see things differently, but the basic molecules are also all different. Our cells today are not the cells we had 10 years ago, nor are the bone cells or the neurons. So the brain we have today is not the same brain, not the same 'matter' that it was 10 years ago. We are different people  and the continuity of  our consciousness is our illusion.


Permanent selves (in the way you describe them here) can exist even in the face of change. This is an inevitable view because its contrary is absurd: for any change that occurs, a new self is created. If you scratch your nose and lose a few skin cells, a new being has been created and the old ceases to exist. If this is right then the Census is terribly mistaken about the population: there are trillions of people, each resulting from any change whatsoever! Clearly, this is in error and there are permanent entities that survive all sorts of change, e.g., biological organisms that are constituted by different sets of cells over the course of their existence.

Besides, you are using the words "we" and "people" here, terms which very much seem to refer to selves or 'I's' of one sort or another (the exact nature of these selves isn't important for my point). You even say that these things possess consciousness. Yet you say earlier that these entities are illusions (i.e., that there are no genuine selves or 'I's'). Things that don't exist can't have any properties at all, let alone be conscious. How can 'we' (whatever that means) be having this discussion right now if there aren't genuine participants on either side (i.e., genuine selves on either side)? Is the universe conversing with itself?
Report to moderator   Logged
DKlent
Getbig III
***
Posts: 341



« Reply #133 on: July 16, 2012, 11:48:20 PM »

The nature of belief is a major topic of debate in cognitive psychology that will not be resolved by citing the dictionary. That's like precluding debate over the nature of God by pointing to the dictionary and saying, "Hey folks, take a look! It says what God is right here! No need to debate!"

Even if this definition is right, it does not reveal what it is to accept a statement as true. It may still be that accepting a statement as true means none other than behaving as if it is true. And that is what we are trying to figure out in the context of your claim that one can believe in Buddhist precepts and yet not act as if they are true. In other words, your citing the dictionary technically hasn't advanced the discussion any because the definition offered doesn't touch on the role of behavior in believing, which is the topic at hand.

I fail to see how that makes any sense. Many people in the world do things they do not believe for many reasons and many people in the world do not do things, or refrain from doing things, that they do believe in.

I believe that abstinence is necessary for enlightenment. I also believe that reading 1 new book a week is ideal, but I don't do that either. It takes training to achieve the ability to be abstinent as it takes training to do anything. Mental training.
Report to moderator   Logged
DKlent
Getbig III
***
Posts: 341



« Reply #134 on: July 16, 2012, 11:49:22 PM »

if you were enlighted this thread would not exist

Why?
Report to moderator   Logged
DKlent
Getbig III
***
Posts: 341



« Reply #135 on: July 16, 2012, 11:57:35 PM »

If the self is an illusion, then whose mind is it an illusion of? How can an illusion exist if there is no subject (self, 'I') to perceive it? If there is no self or I, why do you say thoughts are computed by our minds before we are consciously aware of them? Who are these subjects you keep referring to and how can they exist if selves and 'I's' don't? How is thought possible without thinkers?

To clarify, the illusion is in how we view "I" or "self". Not "self" itself. There is indeed a perceive. There is a subject. Cogito Ergo Sum. There is a a "self" but the "self" that we perceive is an illusion. We see the "self" as independent and individual, but in reality it is not. It is one part of a big picture and the decisions we make are not uninfluenced by the outside world, but are totally influenced by the outside world.


Permanent selves (in the way you describe them here) can exist even in the face of change. This is an inevitable view because its contrary is absurd: for any change that occurs, a new self is created. If you scratch your nose and lose a few skin cells, a new being has been created and the old ceases to exist. If this is right then the Census is terribly mistaken about the population: there are trillions of people, each resulting from any change whatsoever! Clearly, this is in error and there are permanent entities that survive all sorts of change, e.g., biological organisms that are constituted by different sets of cells over the course of their existence.

It is a different way to view things, but once all of our cells die and we become a 'new person', the old one is dead forever. We only perceive it as a break-less transition due to the way our brains function. The "you" from 15 years ago is dead. No cell from that person exists anymore. Every cell, including the brain-cells that make up your own thoughts and memories, are new. It is as if you have been vaporized and teleported to a new place, but with all new atoms. It is the paradox behind the "Beam me up Scottie" scenario. Did Spock die every time he was beamed back up? Technically, yes. Scientifically, yes.


Besides, you are using the words "we" and "people" here, terms which very much seem to refer to selves or 'I's' of one sort or another (the exact nature of these selves isn't important for my point). You even say that these things possess consciousness. Yet you say earlier that these entities are illusions (i.e., that there are no genuine selves or 'I's'). Things that don't exist can't have any properties at all, let alone be conscious. How can 'we' (whatever that means) be having this discussion right now if there aren't genuine participants on either side (i.e., genuine selves on either side)? Is the universe conversing with itself?

Limitations of language...But refer to above. There is "self" but the way that we view self, to clarify from earlier posts, is the illusion. I exist, if I didn't I could not ask the question of if I exist. However what is "I"? "I" am not some free-will entity, "I" am not unaffected by the outside world, "I" am totally affected by the outside world and also "I" am part of the outside world, as much as it is part of me. I am not separate. Also, there is no permanent "I".
Report to moderator   Logged
garebear
Time Out
Getbig V
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 6517


Never question my instincts.


« Reply #136 on: July 17, 2012, 12:00:01 AM »

Garebear, what are the rules of the match? If it is a metaphysical "no holds barred" match then it is obvious Jesus will destroy Buddha with his magical powers, just like he will destroy and cast all of us non-believers into Hell when he flies down from the clouds at the end of times and yields these same magical powers against us.

But, if it is a more conventional match, Buddha has a significant size advantage and a massive pain tolerance. Jesus' frail frame would be devastated by a bodyslam from the fatman. There's also the possibility that they are interconnected and aren't individual selves at all, which means you are asking a trick question.
Ha!

Report to moderator   Logged

G
DKlent
Getbig III
***
Posts: 341



« Reply #137 on: July 17, 2012, 07:56:22 AM »

Garebear, what are the rules of the match? If it is a metaphysical "no holds barred" match then it is obvious Jesus will destroy Buddha with his magical powers, just like he will destroy and cast all of us non-believers into Hell when he flies down from the clouds at the end of times and yields these same magical powers against us.

But, if it is a more conventional match, Buddha has a significant size advantage and a massive pain tolerance. Jesus' frail frame would be devastated by a bodyslam from the fatman. There's also the possibility that they are interconnected and aren't individual selves at all, which means you are asking a trick question.


The historical Buddha wasn't fat. See the first page of this thread for more info.


Historical Jesus vs. Historical Buddha? They were both pacifists.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25117


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #138 on: July 17, 2012, 02:13:53 PM »

Why?

this thread appears to be nothing more than an exercise to lecture eveyone and stroke your own ego

There are also statements like this

I'm in a relationship. My girlfriend is not a Buddhist. I am no more attached to her than I am to myself.

what buddhist goes around bragging about their detachment

When I first read this thread I thought it was some kind of joke and that you were just being a goof and trying to be ironic

Report to moderator   Logged
DKlent
Getbig III
***
Posts: 341



« Reply #139 on: July 17, 2012, 05:28:41 PM »

this thread appears to be nothing more than an exercise to lecture eveyone and stroke your own ego

How is that?

There are also statements like this

what buddhist goes around bragging about their detachment

When I first read this thread I thought it was some kind of joke and that you were just being a goof and trying to be ironic




You are confused. You misinterpret the word and my meaning.

Re-read my previous posts about what "detachment" is. The word isn't how you are thinking of it as being. "Detachment" in Buddhism is not how you view "detachment".  The Pali word is Viveka (or Viraaga), which is often translated as "detachment" but that isn't what it means. The real meaning is absence of lust or "craving" (hunger) which is the cause of suffering. Detachment in Buddhism isn't detachment from life or from loved ones. Detachment is separation from "craving". Detaching from that which makes us weak, which hinders our enlightenment. Buddhism is a philosophy of pure compassion, this would not be possible if it promoted "detachment" as you define it. 

Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25117


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #140 on: July 17, 2012, 06:34:55 PM »

How is that?


You are confused. You misinterpret the word and my meaning.

Re-read my previous posts about what "detachment" is. The word isn't how you are thinking of it as being. "Detachment" in Buddhism is not how you view "detachment".  The Pali word is Viveka (or Viraaga), which is often translated as "detachment" but that isn't what it means. The real meaning is absence of lust or "craving" (hunger) which is the cause of suffering. Detachment in Buddhism isn't detachment from life or from loved ones. Detachment is separation from "craving". Detaching from that which makes us weak, which hinders our enlightenment. Buddhism is a philosophy of pure compassion, this would not be possible if it promoted "detachment" as you define it. 

I've stated my opinion

All I see is someone consumed with ego and attached to his own beliefs who seems to have a strong desire to lecture people


Report to moderator   Logged
DKlent
Getbig III
***
Posts: 341



« Reply #141 on: July 17, 2012, 09:23:52 PM »

I've stated my opinion

All I see is someone consumed with ego and attached to his own beliefs who seems to have a strong desire to lecture people





An opinion that is ill informed is nothing more than delusion.
Report to moderator   Logged
syntaxmachine
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2533



« Reply #142 on: July 17, 2012, 09:52:53 PM »

I fail to see how that makes any sense. Many people in the world do things they do not believe for many reasons and many people in the world do not do things, or refrain from doing things, that they do believe in.

I believe that abstinence is necessary for enlightenment. I also believe that reading 1 new book a week is ideal, but I don't do that either. It takes training to achieve the ability to be abstinent as it takes training to do anything. Mental training.

You fail to see how it makes sense because you are presupposing some particular conception of belief (though I'm not exactly sure which) which is contrary to my own. I understand that the commonsense notion is compelling and that for the most part we simply presume it is correct, but the very nature of belief is what is under discussion here; we have competing notions each of which has different implications. So you can't just assume that people can genuinely believe some proposition X and yet always behave as if  X is false. In fact, I don't see why we would ever ascribe the belief to a person in that case.

Also, you need to remember that we are dealing with patterns of behavior. Of course individual instances exist where a person acts contrary to their beliefs. But when a pattern of behavior is consistently incompatible with a stated belief then I don't think we can legitimately ascribe the belief to that person. There isn't a scientific formula for ascribing belief based on behavior, but I think it is reasonable to say that even if a person tells us they believe a life of attachment and desire is base and to be avoided, if they live their entire life in terms of attachment and desire and do not take the requisite steps to 'detach' and pursue an alternative course of action, then they do not really believe what they say they believe.

I'm not necessarily saying that this is the case with you; perhaps you are genuinely easing in to a program of detachment and desire avoidance. But I still must wonder since the efforts you describe -- and those that so-called 'lay Buddhists' engage in all the time -- sound like token measures at best. If you really believed this stuff you could punch a ticket to Nepal/Tibet any moment now and join those who actually behave as if it is true. They clearly believe this stuff; in contrast, it seems lay Buddhists don't really believe it, or, at best, have an extremely weak degree of belief.

Again, on my view the above contrast between genuine believers and weak believers/non-believers is established by observing the behavior of the persons we are trying to attribute beliefs to. Behavior and belief ascription go hand in hand. There is no other way to establish belief. There is no such thing as someone always behaving contrary to proposition X, their telling us they believe proposition X all the same, and their being right about that. No matter how genuine they are, they are mistaken.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25117


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #143 on: July 17, 2012, 09:58:13 PM »


An opinion that is ill informed is nothing more than delusion.

I'm fully informed on your posts in this thread
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11008


« Reply #144 on: July 19, 2012, 06:45:10 AM »

lay Buddhists never achieve enlightenment either. Are you aware of that?

this is fine....its really not about the enlightenment part because very few people who belong to ANY religion achieve all the the goals of that said religion...its about the journey toward enlightenment and how you lead your life...
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11008


« Reply #145 on: July 19, 2012, 07:03:04 AM »

We apparently disagree about the nature of what a belief is. I think beliefs are posited to explain behavior and therefore cannot be divorced from it. Thus, there isn't really any such thing as believing X and yet acting exactly as if X is false. Treating a proposition as true (believing it) just means behaving as if it is true. If you believe the building you're in is on fire then you'll get the heck out of there; if you say "Yes, I believe it!" yet remain then we know you don't really believe it (assuming no suicidal tendencies or any other mental problems on your part).



2. The beliefs you focus on don't refute my point because the behavior you describe is perfectly consistent with those beliefs. A person can believe working out is healthy and not work out because they are engaging in some sort of trade-off, willfully being lazy because it satisfies some psychological need. As another example, a person can have true beliefs about the dangers of smoking and yet do it anyway, again because they are willfully engaging in a trade-off. The behavior you mention is only inconsistent with certain other beliefs, like "I love working out," "I am striving to be as healthy as I can be," and so forth. If anybody who rarely works out thinks they have these beliefs then they are sorely mistaken, because their behavior is entirely inconsistent with them.

3. So, patterns of behavior that are inconsistent with a stated belief indicate that that belief is not genuinely held by a person, regardless of what the person says (a person can be mistaken about what they believe). This is especially so when the pattern of behavior obtains over a person's entire lifetime. A pattern of attachment and base desire fulfillment seems to me inconsistent with the beliefs of Buddhism; therefore, anybody actively living this way isn't a Buddhist. They may say they believe in them; they may think they believe in them; they may be sympathetic to them; they may even occasionally gesture toward their being true; but, on the whole they don't actually believe them, because that's not how belief works.

What definition of belief are you working with that allows a person (in principle) to genuinely believe X and yet behave entirely as if X is false? What kind of belief is that?

1. A person doesn't necessarily have to act according to a belief one hundred percent of the time in order to genuinely believe it; there can be slip ups and set backs. We're really talking about general patterns of behavior rather than strict, 24/7 adherence.

I AGREE WITH THIS...AND BHUDDISM SAYS THAT THERE WILL BE SLIP-UPS AND SET BACKS...AND YOU ARE RIGHT...IT IS ABOUT GENERAL PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR AND HAVING GOOD INTENTIONS...AGAIN, STRICT ADHERENCE TO BHUDDISM IN A THIS DAY AND AGE AND IN A WESTERN SOCIETY IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE....I CAN CITE ALL OF US BEING ON THE INTERNET.......IF I AM A VEGETARIAN BUT I EAT A HAMBURGER ONE DAY, IT DOES NOT MEAN I HAVE RENOUNCED BEING A VEGETARIAN....HOWEVER IF I EAT A HAMBURGER EVERYDAY, THEN THATS DEFINITELY A PROBLEM


2. The beliefs you focus on don't refute my point because the behavior you describe is perfectly consistent with those beliefs. A person can believe working out is healthy and not work out because they are engaging in some sort of trade-off, willfully being lazy because it satisfies some psychological need. As another example, a person can have true beliefs about the dangers of smoking and yet do it anyway, again because they are willfully engaging in a trade-off. The behavior you mention is only inconsistent with certain other beliefs, like "I love working out," "I am striving to be as healthy as I can be," and so forth. If anybody who rarely works out thinks they have these beliefs then they are sorely mistaken, because their behavior is entirely inconsistent with them.

AGAIN, GOOD ANALOGIES......YOU HAVE TO MAKE TRADE-OFFS EVERYDAY IN ORDER TO FUNCTION IN SOCIETY....also if we do not have sex with our girlfriends, THEY WILL LEAVE US.....HOW DOES THAT HELP ME REACH ENLIGHTENMENT???..SEX HELPS KEEP THE BODY HEALTHY AND HAVING A RELATIONSHIP IS GOOD FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL PURPOSES.NOT TO MENTION IS IT FAIR TO DEPRIVE YOUR GIRLFRIEND OF SEX???

3. So, patterns of behavior that are inconsistent with a stated belief indicate that that belief is not genuinely held by a person, regardless of what the person says (a person can be mistaken about what they believe). This is especially so when the pattern of behavior obtains over a person's entire lifetime. A pattern of attachment and base desire fulfillment seems to me inconsistent with the beliefs of Buddhism; therefore, anybody actively living this way isn't a Buddhist. They may say they believe in them; they may think they believe in them; they may be sympathetic to them; they may even occasionally gesture toward their being true; but, on the whole they don't actually believe them, because that's not how belief works.

I DISAGREED WITH THIS AT FIRST BUT I THINK YOU ARE BASICALLY RIGHT...BUT IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU AND OTHERS CONSIDER TO BE "BASE DESIRE FULFILLMENT".....IF A GUY HAS SEX ONCE A MONTH IS THAT "BASE DESIRE FULFILLMENT"?  HOW ABOUT ONCE EVERY SIX MONTHS?....where do you draw the line between fulfillment and wanton desire???
Report to moderator   Logged
syntaxmachine
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2533



« Reply #146 on: August 18, 2012, 09:38:00 PM »

1. A person doesn't necessarily have to act according to a belief one hundred percent of the time in order to genuinely believe it; there can be slip ups and set backs. We're really talking about general patterns of behavior rather than strict, 24/7 adherence.

I AGREE WITH THIS...AND BHUDDISM SAYS THAT THERE WILL BE SLIP-UPS AND SET BACKS...AND YOU ARE RIGHT...IT IS ABOUT GENERAL PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR AND HAVING GOOD INTENTIONS...AGAIN, STRICT ADHERENCE TO BHUDDISM IN A THIS DAY AND AGE AND IN A WESTERN SOCIETY IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE....I CAN CITE ALL OF US BEING ON THE INTERNET.......IF I AM A VEGETARIAN BUT I EAT A HAMBURGER ONE DAY, IT DOES NOT MEAN I HAVE RENOUNCED BEING A VEGETARIAN....HOWEVER IF I EAT A HAMBURGER EVERYDAY, THEN THATS DEFINITELY A PROBLEM


2. The beliefs you focus on don't refute my point because the behavior you describe is perfectly consistent with those beliefs. A person can believe working out is healthy and not work out because they are engaging in some sort of trade-off, willfully being lazy because it satisfies some psychological need. As another example, a person can have true beliefs about the dangers of smoking and yet do it anyway, again because they are willfully engaging in a trade-off. The behavior you mention is only inconsistent with certain other beliefs, like "I love working out," "I am striving to be as healthy as I can be," and so forth. If anybody who rarely works out thinks they have these beliefs then they are sorely mistaken, because their behavior is entirely inconsistent with them.

AGAIN, GOOD ANALOGIES......YOU HAVE TO MAKE TRADE-OFFS EVERYDAY IN ORDER TO FUNCTION IN SOCIETY....also if we do not have sex with our girlfriends, THEY WILL LEAVE US.....HOW DOES THAT HELP ME REACH ENLIGHTENMENT???..SEX HELPS KEEP THE BODY HEALTHY AND HAVING A RELATIONSHIP IS GOOD FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL PURPOSES.NOT TO MENTION IS IT FAIR TO DEPRIVE YOUR GIRLFRIEND OF SEX???

3. So, patterns of behavior that are inconsistent with a stated belief indicate that that belief is not genuinely held by a person, regardless of what the person says (a person can be mistaken about what they believe). This is especially so when the pattern of behavior obtains over a person's entire lifetime. A pattern of attachment and base desire fulfillment seems to me inconsistent with the beliefs of Buddhism; therefore, anybody actively living this way isn't a Buddhist. They may say they believe in them; they may think they believe in them; they may be sympathetic to them; they may even occasionally gesture toward their being true; but, on the whole they don't actually believe them, because that's not how belief works.

I DISAGREED WITH THIS AT FIRST BUT I THINK YOU ARE BASICALLY RIGHT...BUT IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU AND OTHERS CONSIDER TO BE "BASE DESIRE FULFILLMENT".....IF A GUY HAS SEX ONCE A MONTH IS THAT "BASE DESIRE FULFILLMENT"?  HOW ABOUT ONCE EVERY SIX MONTHS?....where do you draw the line between fulfillment and wanton desire???

It seems we agree on the essentials then!

Regarding base desire fulfillment, as far as I am able to tell Buddhism defines all desires as base and thus advises its adherents to avoid them. If this is right, then very few people really believe in Buddhism, because very few people consistently behave as if its strictures are true, and it is on the basis of this behavior that we ascribe beliefs.

A corollary of this is my original point: the "casual Buddhists" don't really believe the strictures of Buddhism -- i.e., they don't consistently act as if they are true -- and instead are entertaining them either for popularity, complex psychological reasons, or whatever else (even if they think they really believe them).
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11008


« Reply #147 on: August 18, 2012, 10:53:04 PM »

It seems we agree on the essentials then!

Regarding base desire fulfillment, as far as I am able to tell Buddhism defines all desires as base and thus advises its adherents to avoid them. If this is right, then very few people really believe in Buddhism, because very few people consistently behave as if its strictures are true, and it is on the basis of this behavior that we ascribe beliefs.

A corollary of this is my original point: the "casual Buddhists" don't really believe the strictures of Buddhism -- i.e., they don't consistently act as if they are true -- and instead are entertaining them either for popularity, complex psychological reasons, or whatever else (even if they think they really believe them).

Good point.....I only practice the daily psychological living of Buddhism...I see Buddhism more as a philosophy of life rather than a religion....I simply keep most desires in check....and I try to want very little....money is not important to me really....I don't believe that the everyday Buddhist has to give up sex in its entirety....I believe thats mostly for the Monks......just as priests are supposed to not have any sex at all but those in his congregation can...........I don't believe in reincarnation so I don't believe that you can be born again.....and that you reach Nirvana through death...I believe you must try to reach Nirvana in life....get to the point where nothing bothers you....nothing phases you..there is no anger..no hate..no fighting..... no emotionalism.....you are calm and serene inside and out......to me , thats Nirvana...you've reached the ultimate peace with yourself, with others and with the world.....where you don't think materialistically....
Report to moderator   Logged
DKlent
Getbig III
***
Posts: 341



« Reply #148 on: September 03, 2012, 10:01:07 AM »

Good point.....I only practice the daily psychological living of Buddhism...I see Buddhism more as a philosophy of life rather than a religion....I simply keep most desires in check....and I try to want very little....money is not important to me really....I don't believe that the everyday Buddhist has to give up sex in its entirety....I believe thats mostly for the Monks......just as priests are supposed to not have any sex at all but those in his congregation can...........I don't believe in reincarnation so I don't believe that you can be born again.....and that you reach Nirvana through death...I believe you must try to reach Nirvana in life....get to the point where nothing bothers you....nothing phases you..there is no anger..no hate..no fighting..... no emotionalism.....you are calm and serene inside and out......to me , thats Nirvana...you've reached the ultimate peace with yourself, with others and with the world.....where you don't think materialistically....


Buddhism is not about being insensitive and cold to the world. Buddhism is about love and caring and compassion for ALL living beings, human or not. That is the point of Buddhism. Ultimate compassion. You must give up "yourself" to achieve this. Buddhism abandons the ego. Buddhism is about taking up everyone's misfortune and giving everyone your fortune and this is where Metta meditation comes in. Breathing in the world's bad karma and exhaling the good karma to all sentient beings in the world.

Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11008


« Reply #149 on: September 03, 2012, 11:13:55 AM »

Buddhism is not about being insensitive and cold to the world. Buddhism is about love and caring and compassion for ALL living beings, human or not. That is the point of Buddhism. Ultimate compassion. You must give up "yourself" to achieve this. Buddhism abandons the ego. Buddhism is about taking up everyone's misfortune and giving everyone your fortune and this is where Metta meditation comes in. Breathing in the world's bad karma and exhaling the good karma to all sentient beings in the world.



yes..agrees...I think you and I basically disagree on what exactly is a Buddhist??.......I don't believe you must adhere strictly to all the precepts as long as you grasp the overall concept and have good intentions on living your life mindfully
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!