That's good to know.
But what relevance does it have to what I said?
Mike
Depends on how you are weighting rationality and intuition with reference to the two teachers' words you are imputing these phenomena to. Thus it depends on your attitude towards rebirth.
I agree. For me, it is the "denial of even the possibility of nibbana" that makes finding common ground difficult.Goofaholix wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:00 am I think if the practice they are undergoing has roots in early Buddhist practice and the purpose and goal of their practice is to free themselves of craving and awaken the human mind the I don't really care what they do or don't believe it's not up to me to accept or reject them.
At least the latter types don't argue with the idea of a liberative path, and will most likely be supportive of people who are pursuing it. It's just not on their agenda at the moment...Goofaholix wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:00 am But if they are practicing merely to reduce stress or sharpen the mind then that's not my path and not the Buddhas path. I could say the same of someone trying to buy their way to a better rebirth though I suppose.
Dhamma Chameleon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 10:34 am If someone strives honestly and diligently to practice the eightfold path and considers the Buddha their teacher, what is the problem? What business is it of mine to accept them or not? Accept them to what?
Categorical denial of objects of religious belief always is an extremist's attitude. E.g. I would not deny that a christian can attain unification with her/his "god" in case she/he claims that, so the same applies to a buddhist's attaining "nibbana".
If rebirth dont exist why should i follow morality?SteRo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:30 pmCategorical denial of objects of religious belief always is an extremist's attitude. E.g. I would not deny that a christian can attain unification with her/his "god" in case she/he claims that, so the same applies to a buddhist's attaining "nibbana".
The principle of "survival of the fittest" also is applicable to systems of thought: there will be continuity of this system of thought that optimally aligns itself to reality and in the course of this historical development the degree of closeness to reality determines the prevalence of one system of thought over the other. So there is no need to become involved in any system through affirming or denying because of natural selection.
And why shouldn't you? There are many existential questions humans feel urged to find an answer to. Shall I go this way or shall I go that way? Shall I take up this profession or shall I take up that profession? Shall I marry or not? Shall I have childrem or not? Shall I commit suicide or not? Countless existential questions. The system of thought that aligns itself optimally to reality will survive, i.e. find continuity in humans.confusedlayman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:37 pm If rebirth dont exist why should i follow morality?
because u gonna hurt people around u ? And hurting people feels bad, like hurting yourself?confusedlayman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:37 pmIf rebirth dont exist why should i follow morality?SteRo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:30 pmCategorical denial of objects of religious belief always is an extremist's attitude. E.g. I would not deny that a christian can attain unification with her/his "god" in case she/he claims that, so the same applies to a buddhist's attaining "nibbana".
The principle of "survival of the fittest" also is applicable to systems of thought: there will be continuity of this system of thought that optimally aligns itself to reality and in the course of this historical development the degree of closeness to reality determines the prevalence of one system of thought over the other. So there is no need to become involved in any system through affirming or denying because of natural selection.
Why should the principle of "survival of the fittest" apply to systems of thought? It applies to biology because of a selection mechanism. But there is no known selection mechanism for systems of thought; there is no evidence that a system of thought which does not align itself closely to reality is at any disadvantage at all, saving of course those that lead to the death of those that subscribe before they can be transmitted. Thoughts that are fit to survive are no more than that; their fitness has nothing to do with veracity.SteRo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:30 pm
The principle of "survival of the fittest" also is applicable to systems of thought: there will be continuity of this system of thought that optimally aligns itself to reality and in the course of this historical development the degree of closeness to reality determines the prevalence of one system of thought over the other.
Why shouldn't it apply?Sam Vara wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 1:46 pmWhy should the principle of "survival of the fittest" apply to systems of thought?SteRo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:30 pm
The principle of "survival of the fittest" also is applicable to systems of thought: there will be continuity of this system of thought that optimally aligns itself to reality and in the course of this historical development the degree of closeness to reality determines the prevalence of one system of thought over the other.
Caution. Don't confuse 'not following morality' with intentionally performing immorality. Coursing in signs, morality may appear as if important but not coursing in signs, morality and immorality are irrelevant concepts.sphairos wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 1:14 pmbecause u gonna hurt people around u ? And hurting people feels bad, like hurting yourself?confusedlayman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:37 pmIf rebirth dont exist why should i follow morality?SteRo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:30 pm
Categorical denial of objects of religious belief always is an extremist's attitude. E.g. I would not deny that a christian can attain unification with her/his "god" in case she/he claims that, so the same applies to a buddhist's attaining "nibbana".
The principle of "survival of the fittest" also is applicable to systems of thought: there will be continuity of this system of thought that optimally aligns itself to reality and in the course of this historical development the degree of closeness to reality determines the prevalence of one system of thought over the other. So there is no need to become involved in any system through affirming or denying because of natural selection.
Because, unlike the survival of species according to evolutionary theory, there is no mechanism which might explain why certain systems of thought succeed or fail according to their veracity. Someone making a positive claim about the natural selection of ideas ought to be able to explain why that is the case.SteRo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 4:27 pmWhy shouldn't it apply?Sam Vara wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 1:46 pmWhy should the principle of "survival of the fittest" apply to systems of thought?SteRo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:30 pm
The principle of "survival of the fittest" also is applicable to systems of thought: there will be continuity of this system of thought that optimally aligns itself to reality and in the course of this historical development the degree of closeness to reality determines the prevalence of one system of thought over the other.