Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Zenny »

SteRo wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 4:37 am
Zenny wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 9:11 pm
SteRo wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 10:50 am

You can assert what you want since you can believe what you want. Of course you don't have to believe what say because I myself am just expressing thoughts that happen to me without judgement as to either truth or falsehood of my thoughts.

Belief is an interesting topic, isn't it? What makes human beings believe this or that? And what are the conditions for belief? What is the experience corresponding to the assertion of "this is true" or "this is false" and what are the conditions for these experiences without there being an objective criterion for truth that is independent of subjective experience? The dualism truth vs falsehood may be an inherent feature of human mentality that is dropped when it is experienced that life is possible without beliefs and that a life without beliefs is very peaceful or can be very peaceful ... well at least it is peacefuller than a life with beliefs ... I would say but whether it is true or not I prefer to leave open. Once belief arises that things or mental states are inherently good or bad the trouble begins ... and one may even become a buddhist :lol:
All that you just said above are your beliefs.
Only thoughts happening to me upon seeing your words. <- These again are only thoughts happening to me. <- These again are only thoughts happening to me. <- ... <- ... etc etc ad infinitum.
But your thoughts. Your beliefs. Which you are now asserting.
Is it true that there are thoughts? Or are you undecided?
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 Jul 12, 2021 4:15 am
SteRo wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 4:37 am
Zenny wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 9:11 pm
All that you just said above are your beliefs.
Only thoughts happening to me upon seeing your words. <- These again are only thoughts happening to me. <- These again are only thoughts happening to me. <- ... <- ... etc etc ad infinitum.
But your thoughts. Your beliefs.
Neither do my thoughts exist, nor are my thoughts inexistent, nor both, nor neither. In this sphere they aren't beliefs and aren't not beliefs and aren't both and aren't neither.
Zenny wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:15 am Which you are now asserting.
I am not asserting anything and not not asserting anything and not both and not neither.
Zenny wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:15 am
Is it true that there are thoughts?
Neither is there a criterion for truth, nor is there no criterion for truth, nor both, nor neither.
Zenny wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:15 am
Or are you undecided?
Neither am I, nor am I not, nor both, nor neither.
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 Jul 12, 2021 5:44 am
Zenny wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:15 am
SteRo wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 4:37 am
Only thoughts happening to me upon seeing your words. <- These again are only thoughts happening to me. <- These again are only thoughts happening to me. <- ... <- ... etc etc ad infinitum.
But your thoughts. Your beliefs.
Neither do my thoughts exist, nor are my thoughts inexistent, nor both, nor neither. In this sphere they aren't beliefs and aren't not beliefs and aren't both and aren't neither.
Zenny wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:15 am Which you are now asserting.
I am not asserting anything and not not asserting anything and not both and not neither.
Zenny wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:15 am
Is it true that there are thoughts?
Neither is there a criterion for truth, nor is there no criterion for truth, nor both, nor neither.
Zenny wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:15 am
Or are you undecided?
Neither am I, nor am I not, nor both, nor neither.
See,this is purely wordplay and makes a mockery of language.
The above post is your current beliefs and thoughts.
See nagarjuna was like a postmodernist. But that kind of arguement falls flat at the first hurdle.
I'm sure you can see that.
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 »

This is what happens when dilettantes take up the tetralemma.
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.
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 Jul 12, 2021 3:19 pm
SteRo wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:44 am
Zenny wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:15 am

But your thoughts. Your beliefs.
Neither do my thoughts exist, nor are my thoughts inexistent, nor both, nor neither. In this sphere they aren't beliefs and aren't not beliefs and aren't both and aren't neither.
Zenny wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:15 am Which you are now asserting.
I am not asserting anything and not not asserting anything and not both and not neither.
Zenny wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:15 am
Is it true that there are thoughts?
Neither is there a criterion for truth, nor is there no criterion for truth, nor both, nor neither.
Zenny wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:15 am
Or are you undecided?
Neither am I, nor am I not, nor both, nor neither.
See,this is purely wordplay and makes a mockery of language.
The above post is your current beliefs and thoughts.
Not at all wordplay or mockery and neither belief.

Let's take a proposition p. If a thought happens to me that I express as "X is p" you assert "This is your belief". But I merely express thoughts that happen to me for the purpose of keeping conversation going. But since there is no criterion for truth I suspend judgement as to the truth or falsehood of my thoughts. As a dogmatist you can't accept this.
Now in order to prepare my mode of expression in a way that it is most close to the attitude I have towards my thoughts instead of expressing "X is p" I have to express "X is neither p, nor non-p, nor both, nor neither." so that you may understand the way I myself see my thoughts.
Now if you keep on asserting "This is your belief," then you must assess for yourself what it is that I might believe in when I say "X is neither p, nor non-p, nor both, nor neither." See?

But honestly compared with the conventional way of expression the "neither p, nor non-p, nor both, nor neither."-mode would in the long run be very tiresome ... and it makes reading difficult. But I just wanted to demonstrate to you the attitude I have towards thoughts that happen to me even if I choose the conventional way of expression which omits three of the four alternative. But actually if you read a statement of mine you always should associate the missing three alternatives to get my attitude towards what I am expressing.
Understand?
Zenny wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:19 pm See nagarjuna was like a postmodernist. But that kind of arguement falls flat at the first hurdle.
I'm sure you can see that.
I am not a follower of Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna was a dogmatist. The tetralemma I am applying above is also used in skepticism and does not necessarily originate from Nagarjuna. Now of course a small selection of Nagarjuna's verses in the MMK can be read as if those where the verses of a skeptic but if you look at all of his verses in the MMK he clearly is outing himself as a dogmatist even in the MMK - not to mention all his other dogmatist writings. Since I have nothing to do with dogmatism because no criterion for truth has been found so far I also have nothing to do with the dogmatist Nagarjuna and his dogmatist followers.
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 Jul 12, 2021 4:08 pm
Zenny wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:19 pm
SteRo wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:44 am
Neither do my thoughts exist, nor are my thoughts inexistent, nor both, nor neither. In this sphere they aren't beliefs and aren't not beliefs and aren't both and aren't neither.


I am not asserting anything and not not asserting anything and not both and not neither.


Neither is there a criterion for truth, nor is there no criterion for truth, nor both, nor neither.


Neither am I, nor am I not, nor both, nor neither.
See,this is purely wordplay and makes a mockery of language.
The above post is your current beliefs and thoughts.
Not at all wordplay or mockery and neither belief.

Let's take a proposition p. If a thought happens to me that I express as "X is p" you assert "This is your belief". But I merely express thoughts that happen to me for the purpose of keeping conversation going. But since there is no criterion for truth I suspend judgement as to the truth or falsehood of my thoughts. As a dogmatist you can't accept this.
Now in order to prepare my mode of expression in a way that it is most close to the attitude I have towards my thoughts instead of expressing "X is p" I have to express "X is neither p, nor non-p, nor both, nor neither." so that you may understand the way I myself see my thoughts.
Now if you keep on asserting "This is your belief," then you must assess for yourself what it is that I might believe in when I say "X is neither p, nor non-p, nor both, nor neither." See?

But honestly compared with the conventional way of expression the "neither p, nor non-p, nor both, nor neither."-mode would in the long run be very tiresome ... and it makes reading difficult. But I just wanted to demonstrate to you the attitude I have towards thoughts that happen to me even if I choose the conventional way of expression which omits three of the four alternative. But actually if you read a statement of mine you always should associate the missing three alternatives to get my attitude towards what I am expressing.
Understand?
Zenny wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:19 pm See nagarjuna was like a postmodernist. But that kind of arguement falls flat at the first hurdle.
I'm sure you can see that.
I am not a follower of Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna was a dogmatist. The tetralemma I am applying above is also used in skepticism and does not necessarily originate from Nagarjuna. Now of course a small selection of Nagarjuna's verses in the MMK can be read as if those where the verses of a skeptic but if you look at all of his verses in the MMK he clearly is outing himself as a dogmatist even in the MMK - not to mention all his other dogmatist writings. Since I have nothing to do with dogmatism because no criterion for truth has been found so far I also have nothing to do with the dogmatist Nagarjuna and his dogmatist followers.
It is a dogma to think there is no criterion for 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: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:29 pm It is a dogma to think there is no criterion for truth.
Mere thinking something isn't a dogma when the expression of the thought isn't asserted to be true or isn't put foward as claim. Thoughts simply happen to people due to conditionings and habits.
So far no criterion for truth can be decided on because debates about it are ongoing and epistemological approach ends up with infinite regression, reciprocity of argumentation or mere hypothetical assertion.
Therefore judgement about existence or non-existence of a criterion of truth is suspended [for the time being] ... or in other words: [for the time being] neither is there a criterion for truth, nor is there no criterion for truth, nor both, nor neither.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by SteRo »

Zenny, I think what needs to be further analysed is affirmation and negation.

Let's take the proposition p.
Affirmation may be expressed like "p is true" or "it is the case that p". You may see that there is a mental factor involved when one says "p is true" or "it is the case that p" and that mental factor is assigned a subjective truth value of +1.
Now another contradicts saying "p is false" or "it is not the case that p but not-p is the case". Then this is called negation of p, right? Since from the perspective of the subject this is the exact opposite of the affirmation a mental factor is involved which is assigned a subjective value of -1.

Now both, +1 and -1 are connected with belief. In case of +1 there is belief that p is true and in case of -1 there is belief that not-p is true.

But what about '0' (zero)? If the expression "it is not the case that p" is without "not-p is the case" but is a mere removal of affirmation of p without affirmation of not-p? In that case a mental factor is involved which must be assigned a subjective truth value of 0 (zero). See? In this case saying "is not" or "has not" or "does not" does not affirm the negation to be true but only removes the affirmation without setting something in its place and the result is neither +1 nor -1 but 0 ('zero' truth).

So when conventionally negating something in speech that may mean that one affirms the negation to be true (switching from +1 to -1) or that may mean that one only removes the affirmation (switching from +1 to 0) without affirming the opposite (-1). But as to the words used in both cases it's something like 'is not', 'has not' or 'does not' which makes it impossible for a believer in truths to differentiate a negative claim of truth (-1) from an expression of non-belief (0) in either affirmation or negation.

Therefore for the dumb believers in truths the skeptics have the tetralemma expression "neither is, nor is not, nor both, nor neither" which leaves no room for misunderstanding a simple negation as a truth claim since it extends the negation to all possible alternatives of truth claims :lol:
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 Jul 14, 2021 9:34 pm Zenny, I think what needs to be further analysed is affirmation and negation.

Let's take the proposition p.
Affirmation may be expressed like "p is true" or "it is the case that p". You may see that there is a mental factor involved when one says "p is true" or "it is the case that p" and that mental factor is assigned a subjective truth value of +1.
Now another contradicts saying "p is false" or "it is not the case that p but not-p is the case". Then this is called negation of p, right? Since from the perspective of the subject this is the exact opposite of the affirmation a mental factor is involved which is assigned a subjective value of -1.

Now both, +1 and -1 are connected with belief. In case of +1 there is belief that p is true and in case of -1 there is belief that not-p is true.

But what about '0' (zero)? If the expression "it is not the case that p" is without "not-p is the case" but is a mere removal of affirmation of p without affirmation of not-p? In that case a mental factor is involved which must be assigned a subjective truth value of 0 (zero). See? In this case saying "is not" or "has not" or "does not" does not affirm the negation to be true but only removes the affirmation without setting something in its place and the result is neither +1 nor -1 but 0 ('zero' truth).

So when conventionally negating something in speech that may mean that one affirms the negation to be true (switching from +1 to -1) or that may mean that one only removes the affirmation (switching from +1 to 0) without affirming the opposite (-1). But as to the words used in both cases it's something like 'is not', 'has not' or 'does not' which makes it impossible for a believer in truths to differentiate a negative claim of truth (-1) from an expression of non-belief (0) in either affirmation or negation.

Therefore for the dumb believers in truths the skeptics have the tetralemma expression "neither is, nor is not, nor both, nor neither" which leaves no room for misunderstanding a simple negation as a truth claim since it extends the negation to all possible alternatives of truth claims :lol:
You claim you are not asserting your view/thoughts.
And yet you called people dumb who believe in truth.
This is taking a position.
And its a position you claim is not verified yet.
To be honest,it's amazing how you don't see that you refute yourself.
By your own logic your/statements/assertions are not true or valid.
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: Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:44 am
SteRo wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:34 pm Zenny, I think what needs to be further analysed is affirmation and negation.

Let's take the proposition p.
Affirmation may be expressed like "p is true" or "it is the case that p". You may see that there is a mental factor involved when one says "p is true" or "it is the case that p" and that mental factor is assigned a subjective truth value of +1.
Now another contradicts saying "p is false" or "it is not the case that p but not-p is the case". Then this is called negation of p, right? Since from the perspective of the subject this is the exact opposite of the affirmation a mental factor is involved which is assigned a subjective value of -1.

Now both, +1 and -1 are connected with belief. In case of +1 there is belief that p is true and in case of -1 there is belief that not-p is true.

But what about '0' (zero)? If the expression "it is not the case that p" is without "not-p is the case" but is a mere removal of affirmation of p without affirmation of not-p? In that case a mental factor is involved which must be assigned a subjective truth value of 0 (zero). See? In this case saying "is not" or "has not" or "does not" does not affirm the negation to be true but only removes the affirmation without setting something in its place and the result is neither +1 nor -1 but 0 ('zero' truth).

So when conventionally negating something in speech that may mean that one affirms the negation to be true (switching from +1 to -1) or that may mean that one only removes the affirmation (switching from +1 to 0) without affirming the opposite (-1). But as to the words used in both cases it's something like 'is not', 'has not' or 'does not' which makes it impossible for a believer in truths to differentiate a negative claim of truth (-1) from an expression of non-belief (0) in either affirmation or negation.

Therefore for the dumb believers in truths the skeptics have the tetralemma expression "neither is, nor is not, nor both, nor neither" which leaves no room for misunderstanding a simple negation as a truth claim since it extends the negation to all possible alternatives of truth claims :lol:
You claim you are not asserting your view/thoughts.
And yet you called people dumb who believe in truth.
This is taking a position.
And its a position you claim is not verified yet.
To be honest,it's amazing how you don't see that you refute yourself.
By your own logic your/statements/assertions are not true or valid.
Please be referred to my posts above. There you can see that from the outset I expressed that I don't take my thoughts to be true because they just happen to me and because so far no criterion for truth has been found.
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 Jul 16, 2021 11:49 am
Zenny wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:44 am
SteRo wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:34 pm Zenny, I think what needs to be further analysed is affirmation and negation.

Let's take the proposition p.
Affirmation may be expressed like "p is true" or "it is the case that p". You may see that there is a mental factor involved when one says "p is true" or "it is the case that p" and that mental factor is assigned a subjective truth value of +1.
Now another contradicts saying "p is false" or "it is not the case that p but not-p is the case". Then this is called negation of p, right? Since from the perspective of the subject this is the exact opposite of the affirmation a mental factor is involved which is assigned a subjective value of -1.

Now both, +1 and -1 are connected with belief. In case of +1 there is belief that p is true and in case of -1 there is belief that not-p is true.

But what about '0' (zero)? If the expression "it is not the case that p" is without "not-p is the case" but is a mere removal of affirmation of p without affirmation of not-p? In that case a mental factor is involved which must be assigned a subjective truth value of 0 (zero). See? In this case saying "is not" or "has not" or "does not" does not affirm the negation to be true but only removes the affirmation without setting something in its place and the result is neither +1 nor -1 but 0 ('zero' truth).

So when conventionally negating something in speech that may mean that one affirms the negation to be true (switching from +1 to -1) or that may mean that one only removes the affirmation (switching from +1 to 0) without affirming the opposite (-1). But as to the words used in both cases it's something like 'is not', 'has not' or 'does not' which makes it impossible for a believer in truths to differentiate a negative claim of truth (-1) from an expression of non-belief (0) in either affirmation or negation.

Therefore for the dumb believers in truths the skeptics have the tetralemma expression "neither is, nor is not, nor both, nor neither" which leaves no room for misunderstanding a simple negation as a truth claim since it extends the negation to all possible alternatives of truth claims :lol:
You claim you are not asserting your view/thoughts.
And yet you called people dumb who believe in truth.
This is taking a position.
And its a position you claim is not verified yet.
To be honest,it's amazing how you don't see that you refute yourself.
By your own logic your/statements/assertions are not true or valid.
Please be referred to my posts above. There you can see that from the outset I expressed that I don't take my thoughts to be true because they just happen to me and because so far no criterion for truth has been found.
So everything you say is not true.
That's what I thought!
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: Fri Jul 16, 2021 2:45 pm
SteRo wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2021 11:49 am
Zenny wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:44 am

You claim you are not asserting your view/thoughts.
And yet you called people dumb who believe in truth.
This is taking a position.
And its a position you claim is not verified yet.
To be honest,it's amazing how you don't see that you refute yourself.
By your own logic your/statements/assertions are not true or valid.
Please be referred to my posts above. There you can see that from the outset I expressed that I don't take my thoughts to be true because they just happen to me and because so far no criterion for truth has been found.
So everything you say is not true.
No because the concepts "true" or "not true" don't apply.
Zenny wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2021 2:45 pm That's what I thought!
Of course. Your thinking is the thinking of a dogmatist.
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 Jul 16, 2021 9:36 pm
Zenny wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2021 2:45 pm
SteRo wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2021 11:49 am

Please be referred to my posts above. There you can see that from the outset I expressed that I don't take my thoughts to be true because they just happen to me and because so far no criterion for truth has been found.
So everything you say is not true.
No because the concepts "true" or "not true" don't apply.
Zenny wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2021 2:45 pm That's what I thought!
Of course. Your thinking is the thinking of a dogmatist.
Well your thinking that those who don't agree with your scheme are dogmatists doesn't apply!
So you have refuted yourself.
Seriously,you don't see this?
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by cappuccino »

Zenny wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 4:52 am So you have refuted yourself.
Seriously, you don't see this?
you seem to take delight in arguing
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Zenny »

cappuccino wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 1:07 pm
Zenny wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 4:52 am So you have refuted yourself.
Seriously, you don't see this?
you seem to take delight in arguing
I take pride in refuting terrible ideas.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Post Reply