Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

[Zenny]

But how can they be genuine truth if your not certain?

why argue with Buddhists?

It's a discussion.

[dharmavital]

The words, logic, language, are the wordly aspects of the Buddha-Dhamma.

All this wordly aspect give us a complex systems, with mithology, psicology, etc. This is provisional. Here we can learn about impermanence, suffering, and not-self. This is like a raft.

When you know and understand the Dhamma by yourself, you are in the other shore.

Once you arrive to the other shore, you can cast away the raft.

We cannot cast away the raft before arriving the other shore.

We should not cast away the raft now.

Regards.

[SteRo]

So everything you say is conjecture or your not certain about its veracity?

Referring to the dictionary as to "conjecture" what I say is not "conjecture"

Definition of conjecture


1a : inference formed without proof or sufficient evidence
b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork
c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved
2 obsolete a : interpretation of omens
b : supposition

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture

And there is no thinking about "veracity" before it is said

Definition of veracity

1 : conformity with truth or fact : accuracy
2 : devotion to the truth : truthfulness
3 : power of conveying or perceiving truth
4 : something true

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veracity

If you start thinking "is it true?" "is it not true?" before you utter words then you might end up not being able to say anything. Why? Because what is the criterion of truth?
So better to utter words spontaneously and thus genuinely.

But how can they be genuine truth if your not certain?

As I said it's not about truth because whether there is a criterion of truth and if yes what it is is undecidable. "Genuine" refers to myself ... there mustn't be intellectual artifice to spontaneously express how things appear to me.

And you are asserting as you are stating things contrary to others.. if its all just conversation why are you insistent on your views and why do you tell others they are incorrect?

My attitude may differ from the attitude of others [because whether there is a criterion of truth and if yes what it is is undecidable] because I do not assert to be truth what I say. Not sure what a view is so I can't decide whether I have views. Do I tell others that they are incorrect? Yes sometimes because my guidance are the conditionings received from my native culture. But "you are incorrect" is not based on believing what I say to be true because I just follow the conditioned standards of my native culture. My native culture tells me religion is not reliable, science is better, rationality and logical thinking may be reliable at times if one follows the conventional rules of logic but ultimately even rationality and logic don't reveal the truth but lead to infinite regression and reciprocity of reasoning. Nevertheless if there are rational/logical arguments for some thesis (e.g. "personal self exists") one should consider the arguments for the counter-thesis (e.g. "personal self does not exists"), too, because these may be equally persuasive. If you are happy with arbitrarily deciding "personal self exists" then fine, I don't mind but I won't agree because for me the case is undecidable.

[Zenny]

Referring to the dictionary as to "conjecture" what I say is not "conjecture"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture

And there is no thinking about "veracity" before it is said

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veracity

If you start thinking "is it true?" "is it not true?" before you utter words then you might end up not being able to say anything. Why? Because what is the criterion of truth?
So better to utter words spontaneously and thus genuinely.

But how can they be genuine truth if your not certain?

As I said it's not about truth because whether there is a criterion of truth and if yes what it is is undecidable. "Genuine" refers to myself ... there mustn't be intellectual artifice to spontaneously express how things appear to me.

And you are asserting as you are stating things contrary to others.. if its all just conversation why are you insistent on your views and why do you tell others they are incorrect?

My attitude may differ from the attitude of others [because whether there is a criterion of truth and if yes what it is is undecidable] because I do not assert to be truth what I say. Not sure what a view is so I can't decide whether I have views. Do I tell others that they are incorrect? Yes sometimes because my guidance are the conditionings received from my native culture. But "you are incorrect" is not based on believing what I say to be true because I just follow the conditioned standards of my native culture. My native culture tells me religion is not reliable, science is better, rationality and logical thinking may be reliable at times if one follows the conventional rules of logic but ultimately even rationality and logic don't reveal the truth but lead to infinite regression and reciprocity of reasoning. Nevertheless if there are rational/logical arguments for some thesis (e.g. "personal self exists") one should consider the arguments for the counter-thesis (e.g. "personal self does not exists"), too, because these may be equally persuasive. If you are happy with arbitrarily deciding "personal self exists" then fine, I don't mind but I won't agree because for me the case is undecidable.

So how sure are you that a criterion for truth is undecidable?

And if your native culture is source of your thoughts where does culture get its thoughts from?

[SteRo]

But how can they be genuine truth if your not certain?

As I said it's not about truth because whether there is a criterion of truth and if yes what it is is undecidable. "Genuine" refers to myself ... there mustn't be intellectual artifice to spontaneously express how things appear to me.

And you are asserting as you are stating things contrary to others.. if its all just conversation why are you insistent on your views and why do you tell others they are incorrect?

My attitude may differ from the attitude of others [because whether there is a criterion of truth and if yes what it is is undecidable] because I do not assert to be truth what I say. Not sure what a view is so I can't decide whether I have views. Do I tell others that they are incorrect? Yes sometimes because my guidance are the conditionings received from my native culture. But "you are incorrect" is not based on believing what I say to be true because I just follow the conditioned standards of my native culture. My native culture tells me religion is not reliable, science is better, rationality and logical thinking may be reliable at times if one follows the conventional rules of logic but ultimately even rationality and logic don't reveal the truth but lead to infinite regression and reciprocity of reasoning. Nevertheless if there are rational/logical arguments for some thesis (e.g. "personal self exists") one should consider the arguments for the counter-thesis (e.g. "personal self does not exists"), too, because these may be equally persuasive. If you are happy with arbitrarily deciding "personal self exists" then fine, I don't mind but I won't agree because for me the case is undecidable.

So how sure are you that a criterion for truth is undecidable?

So far it is undecidable whether there is one. Maybe future science will solve the issue? I don't know

And if your native culture is source of your thoughts where does culture get its thoughts from?

That doesn't need to be c concern of mine. Without cultural conditionings there wouldn't be any communication, literature, philosophy and the like.

[Zenny]

As I said it's not about truth because whether there is a criterion of truth and if yes what it is is undecidable. "Genuine" refers to myself ... there mustn't be intellectual artifice to spontaneously express how things appear to me.


My attitude may differ from the attitude of others [because whether there is a criterion of truth and if yes what it is is undecidable] because I do not assert to be truth what I say. Not sure what a view is so I can't decide whether I have views. Do I tell others that they are incorrect? Yes sometimes because my guidance are the conditionings received from my native culture. But "you are incorrect" is not based on believing what I say to be true because I just follow the conditioned standards of my native culture. My native culture tells me religion is not reliable, science is better, rationality and logical thinking may be reliable at times if one follows the conventional rules of logic but ultimately even rationality and logic don't reveal the truth but lead to infinite regression and reciprocity of reasoning. Nevertheless if there are rational/logical arguments for some thesis (e.g. "personal self exists") one should consider the arguments for the counter-thesis (e.g. "personal self does not exists"), too, because these may be equally persuasive. If you are happy with arbitrarily deciding "personal self exists" then fine, I don't mind but I won't agree because for me the case is undecidable.

So how sure are you that a criterion for truth is undecidable?

So far it is undecidable whether there is one. Maybe future science will solve the issue? I don't know

And if your native culture is source of your thoughts where does culture get its thoughts from?

That doesn't need to be c concern of mine. Without cultural conditionings there wouldn't be any communication, literature, philosophy and the like.

So basically your unsure and not concerned where your thoughts come from.
And you are asserting uncertainty,embracing the authority
of the scientific status quo and agnosticism.

[SteRo]

So how sure are you that a criterion for truth is undecidable?

So far it is undecidable whether there is one. Maybe future science will solve the issue? I don't know

And if your native culture is source of your thoughts where does culture get its thoughts from?

That doesn't need to be c concern of mine. Without cultural conditionings there wouldn't be any communication, literature, philosophy and the like.

So basically your unsure and not concerned where your thoughts come from.
And you are asserting uncertainty,embracing the authority
of the scientific status quo and agnosticism.

Basically I am applying a conceptual framing that is most efficient in terms of non-apprehension. You can only understand this if you can understand what I have expressed in the threads Experience - the yoga of illusions and Conceptual framing.
The skeptical approach I have taken in this thread is because it is perfectly compatible with what I have expressed in Experience - the yoga of illusions and Conceptual framing.

[Zenny]

So far it is undecidable whether there is one. Maybe future science will solve the issue? I don't know


That doesn't need to be c concern of mine. Without cultural conditionings there wouldn't be any communication, literature, philosophy and the like.

So basically your unsure and not concerned where your thoughts come from.
And you are asserting uncertainty,embracing the authority
of the scientific status quo and agnosticism.

Basically I am applying a conceptual framing that is most efficient in terms of non-apprehension. You can only understand this if you can understand what I have expressed in the threads Experience - the yoga of illusions and Conceptual framing.
The skeptical approach I have taken in this thread is because it is perfectly compatible with what I have expressed in Experience - the yoga of illusions and Conceptual framing.

You are making a "truth" out of your uncertainty and deferring to science.

[SteRo]

So basically your unsure and not concerned where your thoughts come from.
And you are asserting uncertainty,embracing the authority
of the scientific status quo and agnosticism.

Basically I am applying a conceptual framing that is most efficient in terms of non-apprehension. You can only understand this if you can understand what I have expressed in the threads Experience - the yoga of illusions and Conceptual framing.
The skeptical approach I have taken in this thread is because it is perfectly compatible with what I have expressed in Experience - the yoga of illusions and Conceptual framing.

You are making a "truth" out of your uncertainty and deferring to science.

It's funny how your thinking revolves around the concept of "truth", isn't it? The concept of "truth" is completely irrelevant in non-apprehension. Another good thing about my approach/attitude of non-apprehension is that it is independent of religion and thus has nothing to do with buddhism but is perfectly compatible with materialistic science and thus neatly matches the basic conditionings of my native culture. So I don't have to make any effort of changing anything. If I would have been born in Asia it would neatly match the basic conditionings of Asian culture, too. Thus due to its independence of the concept of "truth" non-apprehension matches any culture.

[Zenny]

Basically I am applying a conceptual framing that is most efficient in terms of non-apprehension. You can only understand this if you can understand what I have expressed in the threads Experience - the yoga of illusions and Conceptual framing.
The skeptical approach I have taken in this thread is because it is perfectly compatible with what I have expressed in Experience - the yoga of illusions and Conceptual framing.

You are making a "truth" out of your uncertainty and deferring to science.

It's funny how your thinking revolves around the concept of "truth", isn't it? The concept of "truth" is completely irrelevant in non-apprehension. Another good thing about my approach/attitude of non-apprehension is that it is independent of religion and thus has nothing to do with buddhism but is perfectly compatible with materialistic science and thus neatly matches the basic conditionings of my native culture. So I don't have to make any effort of changing anything. If I would have been born in Asia it would neatly match the basic conditionings of Asian culture, too. Thus due to its independence of the concept of "truth" non-apprehension matches any culture.

So basically,you don't believe in truth.
And what do you mean by non apprehension?

[SteRo]

You are making a "truth" out of your uncertainty and deferring to science.

It's funny how your thinking revolves around the concept of "truth", isn't it? The concept of "truth" is completely irrelevant in non-apprehension. Another good thing about my approach/attitude of non-apprehension is that it is independent of religion and thus has nothing to do with buddhism but is perfectly compatible with materialistic science and thus neatly matches the basic conditionings of my native culture. So I don't have to make any effort of changing anything. If I would have been born in Asia it would neatly match the basic conditionings of Asian culture, too. Thus due to its independence of the concept of "truth" non-apprehension matches any culture.

So basically,you don't believe in truth.

Again there are persuasive arguments for the existence of truth as there are persuasive arguments against the existence of truth. So non-believe here means neither believe that there is truth, nor believe that there is no truth. We had the same already in the context of existence of personal self. Neither affirm nor negate. Or as the skeptics would say "In the face of persuasive arguments in favor x and persuasive arguments against x judgment is suspended".

And what do you mean by non apprehension?

That's a special form of 'judgment having been suspended'. Be referred to my threads Experience - the yoga of illusions and Conceptual framing because I am not in the mood to elaborate on it again - it's tiresome because people usually don't understand anyway because either they are seeking something to believe in or they tightly hold on to their beliefs.

[Zenny]

It's funny how your thinking revolves around the concept of "truth", isn't it? The concept of "truth" is completely irrelevant in non-apprehension. Another good thing about my approach/attitude of non-apprehension is that it is independent of religion and thus has nothing to do with buddhism but is perfectly compatible with materialistic science and thus neatly matches the basic conditionings of my native culture. So I don't have to make any effort of changing anything. If I would have been born in Asia it would neatly match the basic conditionings of Asian culture, too. Thus due to its independence of the concept of "truth" non-apprehension matches any culture.

So basically,you don't believe in truth.

Again there are persuasive arguments for the existence of truth as there are persuasive arguments against the existence of truth. So non-believe here means neither believe that there is truth, nor believe that there is no truth. We had the same already in the context of existence of personal self. Neither affirm nor negate. Or as the skeptics would say "In the face of persuasive arguments in favor x and persuasive arguments against x judgment is suspended".

And what do you mean by non apprehension?

That's a special form of 'judgment having been suspended'. Be referred to my threads Experience - the yoga of illusions and Conceptual framing because I am not in the mood to elaborate on it again - it's tiresome because people usually don't understand anyway because either they are seeking something to believe in or they tightly hold on to their beliefs.

So this is really agnosticism.
Is your agnosticism true?

[SteRo]

So this is really [this or that hypothesis]

What is the criterion of something really being what a hypothesis expresses?

Is [this or that hypothesis] true?

In science it is thus: The one who postulates a hypothesis has to validate it. But if a hypothesis can be validated does that mean that it is true? No it just means that the corresponding hypothesis can be used as a theory in practice where the material results of applying the theory can be observed by sense perception.
Your hypothesis however completely belongs to the sphere of mentality ... so you will have to work with definitions and inferences and rely on the persuasiveness of your arguments. Finally you may claim truth without being able support your claim ... just the way all believers do.

[confusedlayman]

Zenny if u experence soul then you and soul are different entitites.. are u saying this?

[Zenny]

Zenny if u experence soul then you and soul are different entitites.. are u saying this?

No. In experience you experience yourself and others.
You can tell what's your pain and what's someone else's pain is.
Are you suggesting you can't experience your own pain?