Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
dicsoncandra
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:19 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by dicsoncandra »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:04 pm
dicsoncandra wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:53 pm
Don’t feed the troll ;)
If that's the case I'd just roll with it lol
arising is manifest;
ceasing is manifest;
change-while-standing is manifest.

Link to website: http://dicsonstable.blog/
User avatar
dicsoncandra
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:19 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by dicsoncandra »

dicsoncandra wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:53 pm
Zenny wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:01 amIf it was just your personal experience that would be one thing,but
you are couching all your post in an ideology
Is ideology the problem? An 'ideology' merely informs someone of ideas but it does not define the attitude that one has with regard to it. You have your ideology of what free will is that you are very much attached to. I have described how I define 'understanding' as the clarity of mind that is not rooted in bias or selfish intention such as wanting to prove one's ideology right or proving others wrong. One's attitude toward a particular view is what defines whether that view is held as an ideology or not. This is why I could confidently say that I understood what I experienced and I require nobody else to acknowledge my understanding because I have confirmed it for myself without bias. We have some ideologies right here and there, fine, not a problem.. now let's assess them. And this is where your biases hindered you, not anywhere else. What of 'greed, aversion, delusion' that is divorced from the human experience? What is wrong with borrowing Buddhist terminologies when I am clear on my unbiased attitude even if I spoke out of personal experience. What I do know is that these terminologies do describe my phenomenological experience quite accurately. If you have a big problem with people using Buddhist terminologies, what are you even doing here in a Buddhist forum? What is your intention even? I certainly think you need to start reflecting and work on that, with all due respect, and I will do so individually.
Zenny wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:01 amplus an inconsistent use of "rationality".
Explain yourself, provide justifications. You haven't backed up your assertions with intelligible reasonings which make them worthless to be very frank. They are mere accusations that carry no weight at all.
Zenny wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:58 pmA person's reaction to another's freespeech is always instructive.
Again, what is your intention for going to a Buddhist forum and exerting "free speech"? Finding delight in arguments, taking pride in doing so? Very questionable and you shouldn't have needed anyone else (or multiple even) to point that out to you. I have no intention to publicly humiliate you but you have been very disruptive through imposing your "free speech" on people left and right. Regardless, this is what it has come down to so you work on what you need to do to be a mature and respectful human being. I'll mind my own business, good luck. PM me if you want me to respond to any of your refutation (defined as a disagreement with evidence), I don't need any rehearsal.

Metta
Zenny wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:33 pmIdeology is a second hand system used by someone as an appeal to authority.
Could be, but is authority the problem? Can one not agree without attachment or disagree without aversion toward an authority? An authority will have a stance, the individual would have his own. Whether both stances align is one thing and whether the individual's stance is biased is another. Your non-understanding of this is only telling that you are not free from bias and that you agree and disagree with another's view largely based on what makes you feel good as often seen in this forum.
Zenny wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:33 pmA system used dogmatically to fill in the gaps in one's understanding.
For someone who claims to believe in the strength of the 'will' as you described it, you don't seem to have much faith in it considering that you are placing the responsibility on the system instead of the individual. As I explained, dogmatism is defined by the individual's attitude toward a view regardless of where it comes from, whether one's own or another's that one has come to accept. A true understanding is non-dogmatic and can only be arrived through impartial assessment of one's own experiences. You are free to hold your dogma, but for as long as you are biased in its favour or biased against another's or both, you are not in the position to judge whether a view is right or wrong for what it is. You would not have that credibility.
Zenny wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:33 pmA procrustean system used to fit everything,including ones own experience.

Again, responsibility is on the individual and not on the system. When one understands one's own experience without bias, there are no ideals to 'fit in'.
Zenny wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:33 pmWhat I'm saying about the will is from no book or teacher but from ME.

I don't deny the phenomenological experiences of what you call the 'will' but I would be more specific and call it 'intention' to better describe an experience as such.
Zenny wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:33 pmLike a poet possessing original material and expression from his Soul.
Now this is a leap which I called 'assumption'. A phenomenological experience of the 'will' or intention is one thing, the conclusion of a Soul is another. To emphasise, I am not denying the existence of a Soul at this point but I am merely pointing out where the leap is. Remember, you do not have that credibility to make such a conclusion as you are not free from bias, which makes this view of yours dogmatic. Neither can anyone conclude that the Soul does not exist because that would just be another assumption. And so, to get to the bottom of our experience (i.e. understanding), we shall refrain from jumping to conclusions and suppress (not repress) our biased tendencies or inclinations until further assessment.

This is exactly where the Buddha's teaching is relevant because the individual is encouraged not to take it as a belief but as an approach to assess one's own experience and understanding of it. Sure, it would take little faith to pick up an approach, but true understanding does not come from any approach, because the nature of understanding is not mechanical. The individual is encouraged to develop a bigger perspective on things as opposed to jumping to conclusions out of bias habitually. When one gets to see where the bias is rooted in, which is that feeling and further dependencies, one would be able to arrive at true understanding (i.e. clarity) with regard to one's own experience. Or so is the claim and anyone is free to assess this approach or simply ignore it. But again, for as long as one is biased with regard to any view, one does not have the credibility to claim a definite conclusion out of their understanding of experience, one way or another. So are you up for the challenge or are you content with your biases? It sure is easy to jump to conclusions, often very convenient too.
Zenny wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:33 pmA person's attitude to this second hand ideology is instructive especially when someone disputes its Universal validity.

Could you clarify what is it that you refer as 'second hand ideology' and what do you mean by the term 'instructive'? Many claim a Universal validity one way or another and it is especially prevalent with biases. However, if these claims are not put to further assessments then they can only remain as that - mere claims. If the assessment is biased then the validity of the claim is inconclusive. If the assessment is unbiased, then the claim (with its context) can be concluded as valid or invalid.
Zenny wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:33 pmSomeone may dispute my expression of the word will,but he uses the will itself to dispute it! That's the difference.
As said, I don't deny the existence of 'will' that I call intention in my phenomenological experience but I do question your understanding of it. With all the biases that you have projected with regard to it (i.e. your dogmatism), it is pretty evident that you do not have a clear understanding of what it is and thus do not have the credibility to speak about it (or in reverse: what you spoke of is not credible). I am not suppressing your 'free speech' (how could I) but I am questioning the content of your 'free speech' (i.e. its validity) and its context (i.e. what your understanding of it is based on).

Also, you have just ignored half of what I questioned regarding your intention in this forum. Feel free to develop clarity with regard to it in your own time, or not.
arising is manifest;
ceasing is manifest;
change-while-standing is manifest.

Link to website: http://dicsonstable.blog/
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Zenny »

Your reading my concise posts and still misinterpreting them.
Bottom line is this. You don't feel certain enough to express your own thoughts without couching them in ideology. I am certain enough to do that. The fact you feel a conflict with this is what is instructive.
Last edited by retrofuturist on Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Verbatim quote removed - if you're using the quote function, please only quote the relevant part(s) of the post. Thanks.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
User avatar
dicsoncandra
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:19 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by dicsoncandra »

Zenny wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:01 am Your reading my concise posts and still misinterpreting them.
What evidence do you have to say that about me? If you think your posts have been concise then I am very sorry to say that they haven't been. They are short, sure, but that's about it. If anything, the only thing clear is with regard to how biased they have been. If you are certain and have clarity with regard to your own points then you should have no problem expanding on them.
Zenny wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:01 amBottom line is this. You don't feel certain enough to express your own thoughts without couching them in ideology.
Again, what is your evidence for this accusation? Was my last post laden with Buddhist terminologies, or even the current one? I could drop them, not an issue, and I did. What if my unbiased understanding of experience happens to be more aligned with this that you call an 'ideology' than the view that you hold dogmatically? Are you in the position to judge? Can you be impartial? Do you have that credibility?
Zenny wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:01 amI am certain enough to do that.
If what you mean by "certain" is jumping to conclusions that is rooted in biases, then there is no valid reason to accept your propositions. I have expanded on my points with concrete and precise refutations only for you to put blanket statements over them.
Zenny wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:01 amThe fact you feel a conflict with this is what is instructive.
What conflict am I feeling? Are you a mind-reader now? An intention-reader? The fact that you can't differentiate between the appearance of a neutral action and its underlying intention is telling of your lack of understanding. It is also due to your lack of clarity with regard to your own intentions that perpetuate you to misinterpret another and delight in argumentations with pride. I am clear with my own intentions and so I am capable of disagreeing with your view out of impartiality. How I make you feel as to regard these refutations as 'instructive' is an evidence that further strengthens my point on your lack of clarity with regard to your own intentions. You may choose to ignore this fact but it doesn't change the reality of it - I'm not the one who went around putting others down to take pride in it.

Perhaps an unbiased third party could have a say but it doesn't really matter anyway if one's bearing of truth remains solely based on what makes one feel good.
arising is manifest;
ceasing is manifest;
change-while-standing is manifest.

Link to website: http://dicsonstable.blog/
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Zenny »

If you reread your last post to me,you will see that you decry that I read intentions but then Do exactly the same.t's a fact that we can apprehend intentions from written material. It's whether they are accurate is the crux.
When you talk about impartiality and neutrality these are vague and ambitious terms. We can talk about common agreed principles and terms yes,but this special impartiality you claim is a view from nowhere,an impossibility.
What's instructive is that on simple matters which everbody experiences it should be easy to come to an agreement. What's instructive is that you cannot come to any common sense agreement except with those of your own ideology.
Is that what your calling impartiality? Because still its an ideology not a fact.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
User avatar
dicsoncandra
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:19 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by dicsoncandra »

Zenny wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:43 am If you reread your last post to me,you will see that you decry that I read intentions but then Do exactly the same.t's a fact that we can apprehend intentions from written material. It's whether they are accurate is the crux.
The crux is in your public admittance of your intention in response to cappuccino, which is to take pride in refuting what you deem "terrible" plus bashing people left, right and centre without developed reasonings.
Zenny wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 7:07 pm
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.
What is your criteria to refute another's idea as "terrible" when you haven't kept your biases in check for yourself? There have been multiple assertions made by you without evidence or intelligible reasonings so tell me what were they based on if not on biases based on this feeling of pride that you publicly announced? How do you defend yourself in this situation? Anyone is free to doubt my intentions but nobody else can really know them apart from myself, and so is with anybody else who haven't publicly announced their motivation with confidence. Thus, I also suggested you to keep yours in check and I would too for myself. Perhaps my motivation is grounded in restoring intelligible reasonings within this forum? Or perhaps because I simply have too much time on my hands? I haven't used any derogatory terms when arguing with another as far as I am concerned. I express my views, agreements and disagreements through my writings fair and square.
Zenny wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:43 amWhen you talk about impartiality and neutrality these are vague and ambitious terms. We can talk about common agreed principles and terms yes,but this special impartiality you claim is a view from nowhere,an impossibility.
How do you justify this view? How are you able to say that for anyone else if you haven't experienced it for yourself? Furthermore, how could you dismiss another's experience when you haven't invested sufficient effort to understand your own intentions behind experiences as opposed to resorting to a dogmatic belief? You can have the opinion that these terms 'impartiality' and 'neutrality' as I used them are vague, ambitious and perhaps out of reach for you at the moment, but in no way could you dismiss them to be invalid because you neither have provided a valid reasoning against it nor are you in the position to do so.
Zenny wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:43 amWhat's instructive is that on simple matters which everbody experiences it should be easy to come to an agreement.
I have reiterated multiple times that I acknowledge the existence of a 'will' or mental intention within my phenomenological experience. Where I disagree with you out of close assessment of my own phenomenological experience has got to do with the nature of this mental intention or what you call 'will'. You assume it to be that which is eternal and ever-expanding or growing (as seen in previous posts) whilst I do not make that conclusion for lack of evidence with regard to my own phenomenological experience. In fact, I began to see what the Buddha described as 'dependent co-arising' within my experience not out of dogmatic belief but through direct understanding with a clear and calm mind. Feel free to be aversive toward a completely honest answer from my end.
Zenny wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:43 amWhat's instructive is that you cannot come to any common sense agreement except with those of your own ideology.
Is 'common sense' the yard-stick to verify the validity of understanding with regard to the phenomenological experience? Which era of 'common sense' are you taking reference to? 50 years from now it is probable that it would be only 'common sense' to regard the 'self' as that which is produced by the brain, in the era of materialism. Would your 'common sense' evolve to conform with what this probable future generation regard as 'fact'? I mentioned I have had clarity of understanding with regard to my own experiences in the absence of selfish-motivation and I am at peace to take that as my personal reference point. Are you sure you aren't the one who is being instructive because you need another to conform with your idea of 'common sense' which who knows come from which era? Because what we have seen so far is that you bash these other people in the forum who have got their own view without providing clear and extensive reasonings on your end. Care to explain how such a behaviour is anywhere near responsible?
Zenny wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:43 amIs that what your calling impartiality? Because still its an ideology not a fact.
See 3rd previous paragraph above, I have responded. A clear and unbiased understanding of experiences is not an ideology but my personal reference point as fact. I pointed out where you made the leap and jump to conclusions with your ideology but you cannot reason in the same manner with me. I haven't arrived at my understanding without a pointer, but I can say that I have invested enough effort to walk the path and see for myself even if just a glimpse and I have no plans to swallow any teaching whole out of faith. If you think your ideology that you believe to have derived from yourself is sufficient and the one true answer to living a rightful life, let me just reiterate one more time that it hasn't shown and certainly not to the other people you harassed. You are free to dismiss my unbiased personal experience as baseless ideology or not take my word for it and I am genuinely unbothered. Just that you won't ever come close to understanding it for as long as your current attitude is maintained :D

By the way, I find it genuinely weird for you to create/jump from one forum topic to another just to reiterate the same thing and for needing people to conform to your ideology, or perhaps to your 'common sense' as you put it. There is a stark difference between promoting an approach or method for another to understand their own experiences versus proclaiming this idea of an ultimate truth that one just needs to close their eyes and surrender to.

edit: in all branches of Buddhism, there is this idea of 'sympathetic joy' that comes from delighting in another's well-being based on 'loving kindness' as opposed to one's own sense of pride. Perhaps Buddhism isn't too bad after all, care to test it out? :rofl:
Last edited by dicsoncandra on Fri Jul 30, 2021 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
arising is manifest;
ceasing is manifest;
change-while-standing is manifest.

Link to website: http://dicsonstable.blog/
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Zenny »

Longer and longer posts are not a measure of getting to a meaningful point.
Yes I do take pride in refuting nonsense arguments. I own my intentions and actions,I don't need to preach an ideology,nor do I see the need for intellectual gymnastics or skeptical strawman.
If you don't feel your will is eternal that's on you. If you haven't enough enough evidence or are not confident enough to feel an eternal soul that's on you. But you cannot refute my experience with your ideology or dialectics.
As the cliche goes," If you know,youknow".
I can refute yours because it goes against my certainty rather than your uncertainty.
This is the whole crux,what is more valid positive certainty or uncertainty?
Are you certain in your uncertainty?
Is negative certainty a winning ideology?
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
User avatar
dicsoncandra
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:19 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by dicsoncandra »

Zenny wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 12:18 pm Longer and longer posts are not a measure of getting to a meaningful point.
Yes I do take pride in refuting nonsense arguments. I own my intentions and actions,I don't need to preach an ideology,nor do I see the need for intellectual gymnastics or skeptical strawman.
If you don't feel your will is eternal that's on you. If you haven't enough enough evidence or are not confident enough to feel an eternal soul that's on you. But you cannot refute my experience with your ideology or dialectics.
As the cliche goes," If you know,youknow".
I can refute yours because it goes against my certainty rather than your uncertainty.
This is the whole crux,what is more valid positive certainty or uncertainty?
Are you certain in your uncertainty?
Is negative certainty a winning ideology?
I added this to my previous post: "In fact, I began to see what the Buddha described as 'dependent co-arising' within my experience not out of dogmatic belief but through direct understanding with a clear and calm mind. Feel free to be aversive toward a completely honest answer from my end."

Through this, I understand without bias that an eternal soul cannot be and I am certain of this. Either way, for someone else who is uncertain, your argument is a red herring :redherring:
But you cannot refute my experience with your ideology or dialectics.
Again, I questioned what this understanding of your experience is rooted in, which showed to be biased.

Now, before you proceed to respond to this post please go back to my previous ones that you ignored and respond to my reasoned confrontations would you? I had high hopes for your strong 'will' so please don't try to evade them. It would be a tad disappointing :D

edit: not only was your argument a logical fallacy but it also goes to show that your motive to converse with another is focused on "winning" using the view that you hold dogmatically.

edit 2:
But you cannot refute my experience with your ideology or dialectics.
Again, I questioned what this understanding of your experience is rooted in, which showed to be biased.
I provided reasons for my refutations, to which you haven't responded.
arising is manifest;
ceasing is manifest;
change-while-standing is manifest.

Link to website: http://dicsonstable.blog/
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Zenny »

You said earlier you wouldn't state wether there is or isn't a soul?
Is that Correct?
If so,you are uncertain are you not?
Dependent origination with no concept of eternity or individual causation is incoherent. What and who started the process? Its just a handwaive,a free miracle like the big bang or creation ex nihililo.
Your "certainty" on this refutes your self and your independent causation. In other words it refutes yourself and your will.
If your certain you have refuted yourself then I hope you see the irony and refutation of your own viewpoint.
You can't refute existence or your will,no matter how hard you will to try.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
User avatar
dicsoncandra
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:19 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by dicsoncandra »

Zenny wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:02 pm You said earlier you wouldn't state wether there is or isn't a soul?
Is that Correct?
I was saying before jumping to conclusions one needs to further assess one's own experience. I specifically said 'at this point' as I went through my reasonings with you. And even so my understanding is that the 'self' is real as such but is dependently co-arisen with its nutriments.
dicsoncandra wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:34 amNow this is a leap which I called 'assumption'. A phenomenological experience of the 'will' or intention is one thing, the conclusion of a Soul is another. To emphasise, I am not denying the existence of a Soul at this point but I am merely pointing out where the leap is. Remember, you do not have that credibility to make such a conclusion as you are not free from bias, which makes this view of yours dogmatic. Neither can anyone conclude that the Soul does not exist because that would just be another assumption. And so, to get to the bottom of our experience (i.e. understanding), we shall refrain from jumping to conclusions and suppress (not repress) our biased tendencies or inclinations until further assessment.
Zenny wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:02 pmDependent origination with no concept of eternity or individual causation is incoherent. What and who started the process? Its just a handwaive,a free miracle like the big bang or creation ex nihililo.
Your "certainty" on this refutes your self and your independent causation. In other words it refutes yourself and your will.
If your certain you have refuted yourself then I hope you see the irony and refutation of your own viewpoint.
You can't refute existence or your will,no matter how hard you will to try.
You start with a wrong assumption regarding the principle and jumped down the rabbit hole. I neither refute the existence of my 'self' nor my 'will' that you seem to equate so please refrain from the baseless accusation. Dependent co-arising as individual causation is not my take, my understanding is based on it being the principle of simultaneous presence of two or more natural phenomena (i.e. usually analysed as the five aggregates or with regard to the six-sense bases) and it being a conditioning principle rather than a causal one. If you believe in a single Soul, what I can be mindful of in my experience through non-fabrication (i.e. with clarity from the contextual awareness of the unbiased mind) is the arising, ceasing and change while standing of the aggregates. In fact, the five aggregates are what make up the experience in the first place. I am unafraid to elaborate on my understanding but I do doubt your aversive mind would be able to stand the terminologies and conflate it with being dogmatic since it's shown that you don't even understand the nature of action - you couldn't differentiate the appearance of an action from its underlying intention. Furthermore, you weren't even honest with regard to your own intentions as seen earlier until the evidence was brought up. Additionally, it's also shown that you haven't been thorough (at all) with your logical reasonings and rather indolent when it comes to what you label 'mental gymnastics'.

Clarify your own intentions then I may speak further if you are genuinely and sincerely interested to understand, not just of my understanding but with regard to your very own experience that you habitually ignore. I am unafraid to explain but neither am I obliged nor have the need to proof anything, which were never the point to begin with. You have had the wrong focus of "winning" an argument as opposed to understanding the nature of your own experience, which proved to be counterproductive. I have been coherent throughout while you have been fault-finding and now you think you have the chance to jump at me whilst at the same time ignoring all of the logical refutations that I posed on to you, not to mention your red herrings? Sorry, but I'm not that blind :D

If you have got a problem with basic terminologies such as greed, aversion, delusion and refuse to acknowledge the possibility of experiencing an unbiased mind despite not having experienced it even momentarily, there is no chance for you to understand dependent co-arising under these conditions (which you are responsible for by the way). It takes sense restraint and dedicated discipline (i.e. minimum 8 precepts, proper mindfulness) for a serious practitioner to get a glimpse of it because it is in the development of the unbiased mind where it is most challenging. The habitually agitated mind (with greed, aversion, delusion) stands no chance whilst understanding the principle within the experience comes with ease only in the stilled mind. Again, this is a non-dogmatic views but rather a practical one that does require a little faith to first take up the approach before any understanding can occur, as I have previously explained that understanding is not mechanical in nature. So, are you up for the challenge? I'm content with my current reference point of facts as it stands :D

P.S. I'm still waiting for your responses to my earlier refutations. It's been a one-way street for some time now :popcorn:

edit: it's also shown that you do not understand the nature of personal responsibility, which you conflate with your own assumption (i.e. jumping to conclusion) on the existence of an independent and eternal Soul :popcorn:
arising is manifest;
ceasing is manifest;
change-while-standing is manifest.

Link to website: http://dicsonstable.blog/
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Zenny »

Bottom line is eternal Soul or independent will cannot be refuted.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8149
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Coëmgenu »

It's like the fluency heuristic. Simple = True. The mind grasps it and holds onto it easily if it's simple. It gives us a sense of calm to "know things," particularly "how things go down." Simple is easy to get into your head. Simple is calming, or at least it seems calming to "know what's going on." Is it calming though? Are simple things, like eternal souls and eternal experience, necessarily true? When we tightly hold to simple narratives as true by virtue of their simplicity, are we actually calm? What happens when our simple explanation turns out to, instead of being merely simple, be simple-minded instead?

Tilting at windmills is what happens. Rage is what happens.

"This is simple! Why can't you get it?"
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: Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:35 pm It's like the fluency heuristic. Simple = True. The mind grasps it and holds onto it easily if it's simple. It gives us a sense of calm to "know things," particularly "how things go down." Simple is easy to get into your head. Simple is calming, or at least it seems calming to "know what's going on." Is it calming though? Are simple things, like eternal souls and eternal experience, necessarily true? When we tightly hold to simple narratives as true by virtue of their simplicity, are we actually calm? What happens when our simple explanation turns out to, instead of being merely simple, be simple-minded instead?

Tilting at windmills is what happens. Rage is what happens.

"This is simple! Why can't you get it?"
Substitute clear instead of simple.
If a person doesn't get a clear idea that's on them.
As for rage and calm. How about clear minded.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8149
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Coëmgenu »

I've no problem doing that. Simple things seem "clear" if they're well-said. As for the rest of your response, I don't agree. I don't think simple things, or things that "seem clear," are necessarily clear at all. I don't think they necessarily lead to calm of any sort, but they can certainly give the illusion of just that. Similarly, I don't think simple things that seem clear to many necessarily lead to a "clear mind" at all.

The fluency heuristic is an example of a cognitive bias, not a description of good reasoning.
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: Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:52 pm I've no problem doing that. Simple things seem "clear" if they're well-said. As for the rest of your response, I don't agree. I don't think simple things, or things that "seem clear," are necessarily clear at all. I don't think they necessarily lead to calm of any sort, but they can certainly give the illusion of just that. Similarly, I don't think simple things that seem clear to many necessarily lead to a "clear mind" at all.

The fluency heuristic is an example of a cognitive bias, not a description of good reasoning.

By the same token,because a thing is complex does not make it correct. You could say an attachment to complex unclear ideas is a cognitive bias.
The complexity heuristic.
And bottom line,if complex ideas are not clear then how can you say they are true?
A clear base is essential for all knowledge.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Post Reply