Discussion in 'Eastern Philosophy' started by lixluke, Sep 15, 2009.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
If by "why" you mean "how" (ex. why is the sky blue?) then you are quite incorrect. If by "why" you mean "intent" (ex. why did he do that?) then you are also incorrect as science can uncover reasons for behavior. What science cannot do is answer questions of intent which are incoherent (ex. applying intent to a rainy day or the questions in this thread).
If you think "why" q's are covered by "how" q's you are quite incorrect.
For instance "why did you come to my house?" is not really answered by "Because I caught the train".
The only reason that the q "why is the sky blue?" or "why is today rainy" become incoherent is because the personalities and primary forces involved are beyond the purview of the paradigm.
when in doubt, consult wiki.
If that were so I wouldn't be able to answer "why is the sky blue" and yet I can,
That's a question of intent and not a question of how a person traveled. Science can answer those but as you hopefully realize there are more variables with intent.
Those example questions are only incoherent if they are questions of intent. If they are really how q's then they are perfectly answerable.
not in a way that "how is the sky blue?" doesn't cover.
hence the suggestion that "why" q's pack something that "how" q's don't
My point is that if one has no scope the presence of intention (or in philosophical language, teleology) for whatever reason, they're probably better off sticking to "how" q's.
Wrong. It is impossible for it to be neither. Either Buddhism has an explanation how/why the self/universe was created or it doesn't. There is no neither.
So Buddhism claims that our physical experience was caused by a misunderstanding? How/why? What is that supposed to mean?
It is impossible for "why" to be irrelevant. Relevance requires a subject matter in order for something to be relevant to. The subject matter itself cannot be irrelevant to the subject matter.
WTF? Science is going to answer my question about whether or not BUDDHISM has an explanation for creation? I don't think so.
You seem to know a bit more than most of the people around here. So the path of the self is the end of attachment to the material world. But there seems to be no description(within BUDDHISM) about how/why the self/material world came into being.
I don't know much about Buddahism, but it sounds like it doesn't have an answer, from what everyone is saying.
It's not an important question in Buddhism. I'll agree with the statement that our creation may not be a question worth trying to answer in our lifetime.
Correct. If we turn "why is the sky blue" into a question of intent; however, then it becomes incoherent (i.e. it's a stupid question).
They pack context... it's a switch between how and intent. Intent questions when applied to life forms that exist are complex how questions when you break them down. Intent questions when applied to life forms that don't exist or things that arent life forms are incoherent.
I think we're in agreement *scared*. At the same time a ridiculous amount of philosophical questions are ones of intent applied to things that don't have intent.
firstly, this is my first post (yay!),
I got some questions about Buddhism.
I agree with most of the teachings, though I don't understand this part.
Anatta, and moral compassion. WIth Anatta descriptions as no soul, I'm assuming the main foundation of this teaching is something like "Everything is nothing, and Nothing is everything".
I understand why Pranna, and Samadhi, but why moral compassion? I'm assuming Pranna and Samadhi is something that have to do with one's self, (self search, and enlightment), which is why i can understand, as these 2 have something in common. however, moral compassion is an act / acts that implicate others. I'm not saying the result of Pranna and Samadhi won't implicate others, but Pranna and Samadhi seems to implicate others via one's self search.
I never really study about Buddhism, so it's probably why the question.
The only reason one would not place any issues of intent with things like the sky is if one is working out of an understanding that such things are not inherently linked to any willed entity.
Kind of like the host of issues of intent that surround a car only come to bear when the owner is present (compare accidentally bumping into an empty car compared to one with a driver inside)
The beginning and ending of the cycles is to achieve the ability to come and go from the material world at will without causing pain. In another word to be able to enjoy a physical body at will and without suffering or pain. You live in a bigger place than you think with many more life forms than you can imagine and if you think you know something about time sharing then think about body sharing. Just a thought or perhaps a vision.
Bill Clinton Buddhism all in one breath, did you bump your head or waiting for it to explode?
Buddha did not know anything about Buddhism either.
And yet it is neither. When you understand neither, then you'll understand Buddhism a bit, or not.
It doesn't really matter. Seriously. What is more important is learning how to be moral and compassionate, insightful and wise and to be able to focus your mind and pay attention.
19 more and you suddenly become real... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Don't sweat it. The stuff you need to understand is interlocking. As you get one part the other parts fall into place as well. The rest is just a lot of fluff and filler.
Actually it is compounded objects (like you) have no inherant nature. Everthing about you comes from your composition, your organization and your history and interactions with your environment. There is no inherant or indestructible you (soul) which preexists this or survives it.
Because the three (sila, pranna and samadhi) form an interlocking whole.
Its like sex. You can work on your technique. You can practice, practice, practice. You can study all there is to know, get a PhD.
But until you are having sex with some one, you are still just beating off.
Moral compassion for others is what keeps Buddhism from being "just beating off."
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I understand why Buddhism tries to avoid these questions, as we don't have any definite answer.
However, is it not true, that Who we are now is a result of our past, and what we do now will determined our future?
After all, from the
we are who we are now as a result of our interactions, and such with environment in the past.
What if what I want to do NOW is actually to try and find answers to those questions? I believe, understanding why and how who we are now is crucial in our development.
Why is that car moving? or how is that car moving? which leads to possibly something bigger than cars, Why and How does the universe created? (though assuming that time travel is possible in the future, these two questions possibly not gonna be answered, and leave us with speculations, and thoughts)
Is it correct if i say, the moral compassion is a result of the other two? appreciation of things, no matter how small or big, live or dead? kinda like a realization?
If you are bleeding to death in a car wreck that just caught fire, does it really matter what route you drove there by?
They are interlocking and interdependent.
Buddhism works best in a small village. a village with very little knowledge of outsiders and it would be a young village in that the village has not matured. maturation in terms of multiple generations. as far as i can tell a Buddhist has to believe in creation.
and why, why call it buddhim? no buddha ever existed.
i do respect the culture though.
Separate names with a comma.