Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by SteRo »

Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:50 pm
SteRo wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:39 pm
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:11 pm If you claim suspension of judgement,that is still a judgement.
No, because suspension of judgement is suspension of judgement and is not suspension of judgement and is both and is neither.
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:16 pm On the fundamentals thinking and knowing are always one.
I think that I am God and therefore I know that I am God. :lol:
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:16 pm On other knowledge there are degrees of accuracy and the process of gauging and measuring.
On knowledge there is only belief.
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:11 pm That my user name is Zenny is an irrefutable fact.
Since your self isn't proved to be true there can't be an irrefutable fact in the context of your self.
And all my points still stand.
No. All your points don't stand.
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:50 pm My username is still Zenny!
No. Why should any username be yours?

Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:50 pm You see,this abstract logic and nagarjunan methodology leads to obvious Contradictions. You can't refute reality.
I can't see why I should comment on "abstract logic" or "nagarjunan methodology". And I neither refute nor affirm any reality.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Zenny »

SteRo wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:40 pm
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:50 pm
SteRo wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:39 pm
No, because suspension of judgement is suspension of judgement and is not suspension of judgement and is both and is neither.


I think that I am God and therefore I know that I am God. :lol:


On knowledge there is only belief.


Since your self isn't proved to be true there can't be an irrefutable fact in the context of your self.
And all my points still stand.
No. All your points don't stand.
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:50 pm My username is still Zenny!
No. Why should any username be yours?

Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:50 pm You see,this abstract logic and nagarjunan methodology leads to obvious Contradictions. You can't refute reality.
I can't see why I should comment on "abstract logic" or "nagarjunan methodology". And I neither refute nor affirm any reality.

In other words you claim not to know but in fact treat your opinions as knowledge and knowing.
Is your above post knowledge? Because if not then it's all refuted,all wrong. Blanket Uncertainty is not knowledge,so is incapable of saying anything.
You can't say my username is not Zenny because you are not sure!
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Coëmgenu »

Zenny wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:17 pmSo,from your point of view,what is your criterion for truth?
I believe in certain non-falsifiable claims because they seem reasonable to me. I have other personal reasons for believing in these non-falsifiable claims, but I'm not really willing to discuss them on an often-hostile web forum. The non-falsifiable claim is the existence of the Buddhas and the Āryan saints (and, yes, I'm aware of all sorts of issues and hangups, bad associations etc., that people have with the term "Āryan" and the word "saint") and the authenticity of their realizations. Their realizations are called "the Dharma" and it pre-exists them and is not invented by them. These are things that I believe in that are criteria of truth for me. I'm sure that they're ideology to you and whatever else you'd consider them. That "the Dharma" is a criterion of truth for me does not mean that I need to believe in every single thing called "the Dharma." Hinduism is also called "the Dharma" and I don't believe in that, largely because I've no connection to it. Nothing has ever made me think, "I bet these guys have things right." I think Hinduism is interesting, but am not convinced that "their Dharma" ought to be for me personal criteria of truth.
Zenny wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:20 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:16 pmConsider, when someone is baffled by something complex and unclear, particularly when that complex unclear thing is nonsensical instead of sensical, they aren't actually convinced by the complexity. What people do, I'd wager, is select some simple sentiment(s) that they can understand from within the muck that they don't understand and stick to it as a matter of faith in the muck. Why? The muck is purported to be something fancy, but it also has general simple sentiments within it that are easy to cling to.
OK. But why even be drawn towards muck?
Clear sentiments need not be mixed with unnecessary admixtures.
Well, the easiest answer to that is, IMO, in the last sentence of that post that you responded to: "Why? The muck is purported to be something fancy, but it also has general simple sentiments within it that are easy to cling to."

We can't take things like the fluency heuristic too far. Why? The fluency heuristic is an example of the fluency heuristic. It is problematically self-referential. That people are likely to believe in simple explanations as truth because they are simple is itself a simple explanation for widely divergent human behaviours. It is "simple" to believe in. We have to remember that the fluency heuristic is a bias, not a principle of good reasoning. If the heuristic labels itself a bias, that's an issue.

There are too many other reasons why people might be "drawn towards muck." Two broad categories are "they think it's not muck" or "that it is 'muck' it mistaken." As for why someone might think that muck is non-muck -- they are confused and think that they've worked out 'a system' to what is essentially muck in truth. The human brain likes to look for patterns and regularity. As for why someone might think that non-muck is muck -- they are confused and that they don't understand the non-muck makes them insecure. They believe it is muck because they have to, lest they deal with their insecurity at fundamentally not understanding the non-muck.

I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye. Things that I think are non-muck are things that you think are muck.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Zenny »

Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 1:23 am
Zenny wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:17 pmSo,from your point of view,what is your criterion for truth?
I believe in certain non-falsifiable claims because they seem reasonable to me. I have other personal reasons for believing in these non-falsifiable claims, but I'm not really willing to discuss them on an often-hostile web forum. The non-falsifiable claim is the existence of the Buddhas and the Āryan saints (and, yes, I'm aware of all sorts of issues and hangups, bad associations etc., that people have with the term "Āryan" and the word "saint") and the authenticity of their realizations. Their realizations are called "the Dharma" and it pre-exists them and is not invented by them. These are things that I believe in that are criteria of truth for me. I'm sure that they're ideology to you and whatever else you'd consider them. That "the Dharma" is a criterion of truth for me does not mean that I need to believe in every single thing called "the Dharma." Hinduism is also called "the Dharma" and I don't believe in that, largely because I've no connection to it. Nothing has ever made me think, "I bet these guys have things right." I think Hinduism is interesting, but am not convinced that "their Dharma" ought to be for me personal criteria of truth.
Zenny wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:20 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:16 pmConsider, when someone is baffled by something complex and unclear, particularly when that complex unclear thing is nonsensical instead of sensical, they aren't actually convinced by the complexity. What people do, I'd wager, is select some simple sentiment(s) that they can understand from within the muck that they don't understand and stick to it as a matter of faith in the muck. Why? The muck is purported to be something fancy, but it also has general simple sentiments within it that are easy to cling to.
OK. But why even be drawn towards muck?
Clear sentiments need not be mixed with unnecessary admixtures.
Well, the easiest answer to that is, IMO, in the last sentence of that post that you responded to: "Why? The muck is purported to be something fancy, but it also has general simple sentiments within it that are easy to cling to."

We can't take things like the fluency heuristic too far. Why? The fluency heuristic is an example of the fluency heuristic. It is problematically self-referential. That people are likely to believe in simple explanations as truth because they are simple is itself a simple explanation for widely divergent human behaviours. It is "simple" to believe in. We have to remember that the fluency heuristic is a bias, not a principle of good reasoning. If the heuristic labels itself a bias, that's an issue.

There are too many other reasons why people might be "drawn towards muck." Two broad categories are "they think it's not muck" or "that it is 'muck' it mistaken." As for why someone might think that muck is non-muck -- they are confused and think that they've worked out 'a system' to what is essentially muck in truth. The human brain likes to look for patterns and regularity. As for why someone might think that non-muck is muck -- they are confused and that they don't understand the non-muck makes them insecure. They believe it is muck because they have to, lest they deal with their insecurity at fundamentally not understanding the non-muck.

I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye. Things that I think are non-muck are things that you think are muck.

I'm going to simplify.
Your criterion is the dhamma,and obviously you made a personal judgement to verify that this particular buddhist and aryan Saint dhamma is correct. The criterion was it made sense to you.
No problem. As long as you recognise YOU are the criterion. And for everybody the criterion is their own judgement.
Now some criterion/judgements are intersubjective,aka common sense.
The problem occurs,as you alluded to,when people are insecure so they profess ideas which are patently against common sense,and/or when they lie through insecurity about basic intersubjrctive matters.
And the big problem is when people preach their own personal coping mechanisms as universal.
It's quite easy to tell a coping mechanism from a universal truth.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by SteRo »

Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:46 pm
SteRo wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:40 pm
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:50 pm

And all my points still stand.
No. All your points don't stand.
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:50 pm My username is still Zenny!
No. Why should any username be yours?

Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:50 pm You see,this abstract logic and nagarjunan methodology leads to obvious Contradictions. You can't refute reality.
I can't see why I should comment on "abstract logic" or "nagarjunan methodology". And I neither refute nor affirm any reality.

In other words you claim not to know but in fact treat your opinions as knowledge and knowing.
No, I neither claim not to know nor do I treat thoughts that happen to me as "opinions or knowledge or knowing".
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:46 pm Is your above post knowledge?
It's the expression of thoughts that happen to me. How do you define "knowledge"?
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:46 pm Because if not then it's all refuted,all wrong. Blanket Uncertainty is not knowledge,so is incapable of saying anything.
You can't say my username is not Zenny because you are not sure!
You are suffering from an obsession with a metaphysically speculative concept. As I myself you are merely expressing the thoughts that happen to you. That's ok. But your psychological obsession is that you conceive of your thoughts to be related with a metaphysical concept "truth" and "knowledge" [of that metaphysical "truth"].
Everything can appear without being related to a fictive "truth" which is merely a placeholder for grasping and appropriating one's own thoughts.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Zenny »

SteRo wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 8:42 pm
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:46 pm
SteRo wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:40 pm
No. All your points don't stand.


No. Why should any username be yours?



I can't see why I should comment on "abstract logic" or "nagarjunan methodology". And I neither refute nor affirm any reality.

In other words you claim not to know but in fact treat your opinions as knowledge and knowing.
No, I neither claim not to know nor do I treat thoughts that happen to me as "opinions or knowledge or knowing".
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:46 pm Is your above post knowledge?
It's the expression of thoughts that happen to me. How do you define "knowledge"?
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:46 pm Because if not then it's all refuted,all wrong. Blanket Uncertainty is not knowledge,so is incapable of saying anything.
You can't say my username is not Zenny because you are not sure!
You are suffering from an obsession with a metaphysically speculative concept. As I myself you are merely expressing the thoughts that happen to you. That's ok. But your psychological obsession is that you conceive of your thoughts to be related with a metaphysical concept "truth" and "knowledge" [of that metaphysical "truth"].
Everything can appear without being related to a fictive "truth" which is merely a placeholder for grasping and appropriating one's own thoughts.

You are correcting others whilst claiming not to know...
Just ponder on that...
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by SteRo »

Zenny wrote: Sat Aug 07, 2021 8:31 pm
SteRo wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 8:42 pm
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:46 pm

In other words you claim not to know but in fact treat your opinions as knowledge and knowing.
No, I neither claim not to know nor do I treat thoughts that happen to me as "opinions or knowledge or knowing".
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:46 pm Is your above post knowledge?
It's the expression of thoughts that happen to me. How do you define "knowledge"?
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:46 pm Because if not then it's all refuted,all wrong. Blanket Uncertainty is not knowledge,so is incapable of saying anything.
You can't say my username is not Zenny because you are not sure!
You are suffering from an obsession with a metaphysically speculative concept. As I myself you are merely expressing the thoughts that happen to you. That's ok. But your psychological obsession is that you conceive of your thoughts to be related with a metaphysical concept "truth" and "knowledge" [of that metaphysical "truth"].
Everything can appear without being related to a fictive "truth" which is merely a placeholder for grasping and appropriating one's own thoughts.

You are correcting others whilst claiming not to know...
Just ponder on that...
That's merely expressing thoughts that happen to me. Neither is there an intention to correct anybody nor is anything claimed. This is because thoughts happen to me but I am not involved in thinking these thoughts, understand?
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Zenny »

SteRo wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2021 12:15 pm
Zenny wrote: Sat Aug 07, 2021 8:31 pm
SteRo wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 8:42 pm
No, I neither claim not to know nor do I treat thoughts that happen to me as "opinions or knowledge or knowing".


It's the expression of thoughts that happen to me. How do you define "knowledge"?


You are suffering from an obsession with a metaphysically speculative concept. As I myself you are merely expressing the thoughts that happen to you. That's ok. But your psychological obsession is that you conceive of your thoughts to be related with a metaphysical concept "truth" and "knowledge" [of that metaphysical "truth"].
Everything can appear without being related to a fictive "truth" which is merely a placeholder for grasping and appropriating one's own thoughts.

You are correcting others whilst claiming not to know...
Just ponder on that...
That's merely expressing thoughts that happen to me. Neither is there an intention to correct anybody nor is anything claimed. This is because thoughts happen to me but I am not involved in thinking these thoughts, understand?
I understand that you are contradicting yourself at every turn.
There is intention. There are claims. And you are expressing these thoughts,claims and intentions.
Nothing you can say or do changes the fact you have intentions.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
sunnat
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:08 am

Post by sunnat »

there is coma
Q : where is self.
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by SteRo »

Zenny wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2021 8:17 pm
SteRo wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2021 12:15 pm
Zenny wrote: Sat Aug 07, 2021 8:31 pm

You are correcting others whilst claiming not to know...
Just ponder on that...
That's merely expressing thoughts that happen to me. Neither is there an intention to correct anybody nor is anything claimed. This is because thoughts happen to me but I am not involved in thinking these thoughts, understand?
I understand that you are contradicting yourself at every turn.
There is intention. There are claims. And you are expressing these thoughts,claims and intentions.
Nothing you can say or do changes the fact you have intentions.
That's funny, isn't it?

What I am verbally expressing is that there is no intention in the thoughts that happen to me and I am not claiming and asserting anything when verbally and spontaneously expressing thoughts as they appear to me

but still

upon seeing my words thoughts seem to happen to you that convey the meaning that I would have intentions and that I would claim and assert.

Now there is no evidence that you are claiming and asserting what you express (namely that I would have intentions and that I would claim and assert), so I suspend judgement as to whether you claim and assert what you express. Why? Because it may be perfectly natural when these thoughts happen to you in case your brain has been conditioned to think this way earlier in your history. But there is no problem when these thoughts happen to you due to earlier conditioning (of conceptual framing) and when you express these thoughts spontaneously in the same way I express my thoughts because you may be in a position to not apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by these thoughts in the same way I do not apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by the thoughts that happen to me.

See? Even if on the surface of the mere words it might seem that we are taking opposite positions there is no evidence that this is the case.

This is a wonderful conversation, isn't it? :D
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Zenny »

SteRo wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 4:44 am
Zenny wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2021 8:17 pm
SteRo wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2021 12:15 pm

That's merely expressing thoughts that happen to me. Neither is there an intention to correct anybody nor is anything claimed. This is because thoughts happen to me but I am not involved in thinking these thoughts, understand?
I understand that you are contradicting yourself at every turn.
There is intention. There are claims. And you are expressing these thoughts,claims and intentions.
Nothing you can say or do changes the fact you have intentions.
That's funny, isn't it?

What I am verbally expressing is that there is no intention in the thoughts that happen to me and I am not claiming and asserting anything when verbally and spontaneously expressing thoughts as they appear to me

but still

upon seeing my words thoughts seem to happen to you that convey the meaning that I would have intentions and that I would claim and assert.

Now there is no evidence that you are claiming and asserting what you express (namely that I would have intentions and that I would claim and assert), so I suspend judgement as to whether you claim and assert what you express. Why? Because it may be perfectly natural when these thoughts happen to you in case your brain has been conditioned to think this way earlier in your history. But there is no problem when these thoughts happen to you due to earlier conditioning (of conceptual framing) and when you express these thoughts spontaneously in the same way I express my thoughts because you may be in a position to not apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by these thoughts in the same way I do not apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by the thoughts that happen to me.

See? Even if on the surface of the mere words it might seem that we are taking opposite positions there is no evidence that this is the case.

This is a wonderful conversation, isn't it? :D

You are confusing thoughts with feelings.
You are confusing speculative thoughts with direct expressions of fact.
You are confusing intrusive thoughts with your own thoughts.
Last edited by Zenny on Mon Aug 09, 2021 8:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by SteRo »

Zenny wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 8:39 am
SteRo wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 4:44 am
Zenny wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2021 8:17 pm

I understand that you are contradicting yourself at every turn.
There is intention. There are claims. And you are expressing these thoughts,claims and intentions.
Nothing you can say or do changes the fact you have intentions.
That's funny, isn't it?

What I am verbally expressing is that there is no intention in the thoughts that happen to me and I am not claiming and asserting anything when verbally and spontaneously expressing thoughts as they appear to me

but still

upon seeing my words thoughts seem to happen to you that convey the meaning that I would have intentions and that I would claim and assert.

Now there is no evidence that you are claiming and asserting what you express (namely that I would have intentions and that I would claim and assert), so I suspend judgement as to whether you claim and assert what you express. Why? Because it may be perfectly natural when these thoughts happen to you in case your brain has been conditioned to think this way earlier in your history. But there is no problem when these thoughts happen to you due to earlier conditioning (of conceptual framing) and when you express these thoughts spontaneously in the same way I express my thoughts because you may be in a position to not apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by these thoughts in the same way I do not apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by the thoughts that happen to me.

See? Even if on the surface of the mere words it might seem that we are taking opposite positions there is no evidence that this is the case.

This is a wonderful conversation, isn't it? :D

You are confusing thoughts with feelings.
You are confusing speculative thoughts with direct expressions of fact.
You are confusing intrusive thoughts with your own thoughts.
Might be nice thoughts that happen to you on the occasion of my post :) though I have to admit that your words can't cause an understandable meaning (how confuse thoughts and feelings? is "fact" just a synonym for "truth"? what is "intrusive" about thoughts that just happen when all my thoughts are the same in that they just happen and I am not involved in them?)
Now - as I have expressed above - that there is no evidence on the basis of the mere words we use to express the thoughts that happen to us whether
- we both don't apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by our thoughts or
- we both do apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by our thoughts or
- you apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by your thoughts but I don't apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by my thoughts or
- you don't apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by your thoughts but I apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by my thoughts,
since there is no evidence for any of these options (since the words we use do not carry with them your and my mode of apprehension), how shall we proceed?
Last edited by SteRo on Mon Aug 09, 2021 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Sam Vara »

SteRo wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 5:52 pm Now - as I have expressed above - that there is no evidence on the basis of the mere words we use to express the thoughts that happen to us whether
- we both don't apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by our thoughts or
- we both do apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by our thoughts or
- you apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by your thoughts but I don't apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by my thoughts or
- you don't apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by your thoughts but I apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by my thoughts,
since there is no evidence for any of these options (since the words we use do not carry with them your and my mode of apprehension), how shall we procede?
Have you thought about giving up and doing something useful? :lol:
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by SteRo »

Sam Vara wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 6:02 pm
SteRo wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 5:52 pm Now - as I have expressed above - that there is no evidence on the basis of the mere words we use to express the thoughts that happen to us whether
- we both don't apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by our thoughts or
- we both do apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by our thoughts or
- you apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by your thoughts but I don't apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by my thoughts or
- you don't apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by your thoughts but I apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by my thoughts,
since there is no evidence for any of these options (since the words we use do not carry with them your and my mode of apprehension), how shall we proceed?
Have you thought about giving up and doing something useful? :lol:
:lol: I like your humour.
I find my conversation with Zenny very interesting and inspiring since different thoughts happened to me in the course of it. And even though I can't say what it might be useful for I don't think it's useless. At least it's kind of entertaining and/or fascinating.

And I have to compliment Zenny on nearly perfectly playing the role of an obsessive person (from my conditioned perspective) when the only means of expression (s)he has is words. Great performance.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Zenny »

SteRo wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 5:52 pm
Zenny wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 8:39 am
SteRo wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 4:44 am

That's funny, isn't it?

What I am verbally expressing is that there is no intention in the thoughts that happen to me and I am not claiming and asserting anything when verbally and spontaneously expressing thoughts as they appear to me

but still

upon seeing my words thoughts seem to happen to you that convey the meaning that I would have intentions and that I would claim and assert.

Now there is no evidence that you are claiming and asserting what you express (namely that I would have intentions and that I would claim and assert), so I suspend judgement as to whether you claim and assert what you express. Why? Because it may be perfectly natural when these thoughts happen to you in case your brain has been conditioned to think this way earlier in your history. But there is no problem when these thoughts happen to you due to earlier conditioning (of conceptual framing) and when you express these thoughts spontaneously in the same way I express my thoughts because you may be in a position to not apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by these thoughts in the same way I do not apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by the thoughts that happen to me.

See? Even if on the surface of the mere words it might seem that we are taking opposite positions there is no evidence that this is the case.

This is a wonderful conversation, isn't it? :D

You are confusing thoughts with feelings.
You are confusing speculative thoughts with direct expressions of fact.
You are confusing intrusive thoughts with your own thoughts.
Might be nice thoughts that happen to you on the occasion of my post :) though I have to admit that your words can't cause an understandable meaning (how confuse thoughts and feelings? is "fact" just a synonym for "truth"? what is "intrusive" about thoughts that just happen when all my thoughts are the same in that they just happen and I am not involved in them?)
Now - as I have expressed above - that there is no evidence on the basis of the mere words we use to express the thoughts that happen to us whether
- we both don't apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by our thoughts or
- we both do apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by our thoughts or
- you apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by your thoughts but I don't apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by my thoughts or
- you don't apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by your thoughts but I apprehend [as true] the meaning conveyed by my thoughts,
since there is no evidence for any of these options (since the words we use do not carry with them your and my mode of apprehension), how shall we proceed?

There is irrefutable evidence that expressions are true.
It's just your procustean ideology can't accept it.
You see,your not robust enough to accept that words have meaning,and are backed by feelings.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Post Reply