tiltbillings wrote:As I said, truths in the Buddha's teachings in the suttas are cognitions.
Like jati...?
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form. John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form. John Stuart Mill
Cittasanto wrote:
and does that make them less true?
Less than true than what?
than anything else that is true, real, in line with reality.
You seem to want truth to "be out there." It looks, in the suttas, that truth really more to do with one's cognitions that are no longer colored by greed, hatred, and delusion. If you want truth to be "out there," fine. I have no intetest in getting into that sort of tar-baby argument. Simply, where does liberating knowledge happen, and what is it knowledge of? Which is now is as much as I am going to say here.
>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Cittasanto,
I'm having computer issues and probably won't be posting much fore another few days but I will definitely get back here first thing when it's fixed. Those links look very promising. Thanks a bunch.
Cittasanto wrote:...just to pick up on mind vs. matter, within the canon we have namarupa (name and form), internal & external.... particularly noticable with the Internal & external is the tetralima.
I'm currently of the opinion that the Buddha taught a primitive and now anachronistic psychology that has been much improved upon since its inception. This is not to dismiss but properly contextualize.
Cittasanto wrote:than anything else that is true, real, in line with reality.
You seem to want truth to "be out there." It looks, in the suttas, that truth really more to do with one's cognitions that are no longer colored by greed, hatred, and delusion. If you want truth to be "out there," fine. I have no intetest in getting into that sort of tar-baby argument. Simply, where does liberating knowledge happen, and what is it knowledge of? Which is now is as much as I am going to say here.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form. John Stuart Mill
Cittasanto wrote:...just to pick up on mind vs. matter, within the canon we have namarupa (name and form), internal & external.... particularly noticable with the Internal & external is the tetralima.
I'm currently of the opinion that the Buddha taught a primitive and now anachronistic psychology that has been much improved upon since its inception. This is not to dismiss but properly contextualize.
I think Buddhism is what it is depending on how you look at it. It can be a religion, psychology, way of life, philosophy....
I think the work of Alain debottom (sp?) is closer now, to what Buddhism was then at that time.
Studying psychology can help frame the teachings, but so can studying philosophy, theology and a number of other subjects. but no one area shows the full spectrum of the teachings.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form. John Stuart Mill
Cittasanto wrote:...just to pick up on mind vs. matter, within the canon we have namarupa (name and form), internal & external.... particularly noticable with the Internal & external is the tetralima.
I'm currently of the opinion that the Buddha taught a primitive and now anachronistic psychology that has been much improved upon since its inception. This is not to dismiss but properly contextualize.
I think Buddhism is what it is depending on how you look at it. It can be a religion, psychology, way of life, philosophy....
I think the work of Alain debottom (sp?) is closer now, to what Buddhism was then at that time.
Studying psychology can help frame the teachings, but so can studying philosophy, theology and a number of other subjects. but no one area shows the full spectrum of the teachings.
you miss my point; AS a psychology, the teachings are outdated; AS a philosophy--outdated; AS a theology--outdated...the teachings are an anachronism because they only "work" in a certain domain (the time and place of the Buddha); they're just the Buddha's opinions; impressive opinions, yes, but still just opinions
danieLion wrote:
you miss my point; the teachings are outdated; AS a philosophy--outdated; ...the teachings are an anachronism because they only "work" in a certain domain (the time and place of the Buddha); they're just the Buddha's opinions; impressive opinions, yes, but still just opinions
What led you to this conclusion?
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."
"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
danieLion wrote:
you miss my point; the teachings are outdated; AS a philosophy--outdated; ...the teachings are an anachronism because they only "work" in a certain domain (the time and place of the Buddha); they're just the Buddha's opinions; impressive opinions, yes, but still just opinions
danieLion wrote:
you miss my point; the teachings are outdated; AS a philosophy--outdated; ...the teachings are an anachronism because they only "work" in a certain domain (the time and place of the Buddha); they're just the Buddha's opinions; impressive opinions, yes, but still just opinions
What led you to this conclusion?
It's not a conclusion and I wasn't led.
Okay, to put it another way, why do you think that the teachings of the buddha are outdated across the board, i.e. as a psychology, philosophy, etc.? I would imagine you have some reasons for making this assertion. I'm more interested in why you think it's outdated as a philosophy, a psychology, and a way of life than anything else.
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."
"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
danieLion wrote:
you miss my point; AS a psychology, the teachings are outdated; AS a philosophy--outdated; AS a theology--outdated...the teachings are an anachronism because they only "work" in a certain domain (the time and place of the Buddha); they're just the Buddha's opinions; impressive opinions, yes, but still just opinions
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form. John Stuart Mill