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 04, 2021 10:46 am
Zenny wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 7:30 am So this is really [this or that hypothesis]
What is the criterion of something really being what a hypothesis expresses?
Zenny wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 7:30 am 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.
So is there such a thing as 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: Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:46 pm
SteRo wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 10:46 am
Zenny wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 7:30 am So this is really [this or that hypothesis]
What is the criterion of something really being what a hypothesis expresses?
Zenny wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 7:30 am 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.
So is there such a thing as truth?
Is there such a thing as falsehood?
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 05, 2021 3:43 am
Zenny wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:46 pm
SteRo wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 10:46 am
What is the criterion of something really being what a hypothesis expresses?


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.
So is there such a thing as truth?
Is there such a thing as falsehood?
Yes.
Lies are one example.
There are also innacuracies.
There are also truths.
This is all self evident.
Without truth what is your guage for the persuaveness of an argument,evidence or proof?
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 05, 2021 4:33 am
SteRo wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:43 am
Zenny wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:46 pm
So is there such a thing as truth?
Is there such a thing as falsehood?
Yes.
Lies are one example.
There are also innacuracies.
There are also truths.
This is all self evident.
Without truth what is your guage for the persuaveness of an argument,evidence or proof?
No.
Lies are no example.
There are no innacuracies.
Truths cannot be found.
There is no evidence.
Truth is not needed for the persuasiveness of an argument,[alleged] evidence or [alleged] proof.


See, I can perfectly mirror your style of mere assertions without arguments. You assert this and I assert the opposite of it. We can go on interminably unless you provide a criterion for truth and a corresponding proof. Conventions are no critierion for truths because I myself take cultural conventions as guidelines in everyday life although there are arguments against conventions being truths or being based on truths.

With this I do not assert that there are no truths. I am just saying that arguments for there being truths and counter-arguments balance each other and that therefore I don't take a position.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 6231
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by confusedlayman »

Zenny wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:44 pm
confusedlayman wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 4:55 pm 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?
When u exp other pain it is ur assuption and feeling happening inside u .. so u aint literally seeing or feeling others hormone as suchb
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Zenny »

confusedlayman wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:23 am
Zenny wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:44 pm
confusedlayman wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 4:55 pm 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?
When u exp other pain it is ur assuption and feeling happening inside u .. so u aint literally seeing or feeling others hormone as suchb
I am seeing and perceiving that pain of others.
That's direct,no assumptions or just my own internal reactions.
It's a matter of certainty and confidence in perception.
If you don't think that,that has no relevance to the fact I perceive that.
It is your assumption that I don't perceive directly.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Zenny »

SteRo wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:48 am
Zenny wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:33 am
SteRo wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:43 am

Is there such a thing as falsehood?
Yes.
Lies are one example.
There are also innacuracies.
There are also truths.
This is all self evident.
Without truth what is your guage for the persuaveness of an argument,evidence or proof?
No.
Lies are no example.
There are no innacuracies.
Truths cannot be found.
There is no evidence.
Truth is not needed for the persuasiveness of an argument,[alleged] evidence or [alleged] proof.


See, I can perfectly mirror your style of mere assertions without arguments. You assert this and I assert the opposite of it. We can go on interminably unless you provide a criterion for truth and a corresponding proof. Conventions are no critierion for truths because I myself take cultural conventions as guidelines in everyday life although there are arguments against conventions being truths or being based on truths.

With this I do not assert that there are no truths. I am just saying that arguments for there being truths and counter-arguments balance each other and that therefore I don't take a position.
Taking no position is a position.
The criteria for truth is myself and common sense.
You have made a truth and a criterion out of agnosticism. You can't get round that fact. You've asserted your agnosticism several times with no evidence except for your uncertainty.
In order words you seem certain in your uncertainty.
Not a convincing framing at all.
So you do not assert that there are no truths.
But are there truths? Or are you agnostic 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: Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:27 pm
SteRo wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:48 am
Zenny wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:33 am
Yes.
Lies are one example.
There are also innacuracies.
There are also truths.
This is all self evident.
Without truth what is your guage for the persuaveness of an argument,evidence or proof?
No.
Lies are no example.
There are no innacuracies.
Truths cannot be found.
There is no evidence.
Truth is not needed for the persuasiveness of an argument,[alleged] evidence or [alleged] proof.


See, I can perfectly mirror your style of mere assertions without arguments. You assert this and I assert the opposite of it. We can go on interminably unless you provide a criterion for truth and a corresponding proof. Conventions are no critierion for truths because I myself take cultural conventions as guidelines in everyday life although there are arguments against conventions being truths or being based on truths.

With this I do not assert that there are no truths. I am just saying that arguments for there being truths and counter-arguments balance each other and that therefore I don't take a position.
Taking no position is a position.
The criteria for truth is myself and common sense.
You have made a truth and a criterion out of agnosticism. You can't get round that fact. You've asserted your agnosticism several times with no evidence except for your uncertainty.
In order words you seem certain in your uncertainty.
Not a convincing framing at all.
So you do not assert that there are no truths.
But are there truths? Or are you agnostic on that?
Since there are persuasive arguments for and against I take no position. I cannot argue for taking no position since it isn't a position but taking no position happens to me in the face of equally persuasive arguments for and against.
The inability to take a position isn't agnosticism either because neither is it based on a view nor an a decision. It happens to me in the face of equally persuasive arguments for and against. Therefore it neither is uncertainty because uncertainty is the inability to decide when experiencing a need to decide. But I do not experience a need to decide because suspension of judgment just happens to me in the face of equally persuasive arguments for and against. My suspension of judgement cannot have any convicing power on others because it just happens to me in the face of equally persuasive arguments for and against and isn't an argument. It also isn't a conceptual framing because suspension of judgement is nonconceptual. It happened to me that I suspended judgement about there being truths or there being no truths because of equally persuasive arguments for and against.
0f course your criterion for truth is your self. How could it be otherwise? Because truth and your experience are the same for you. You experience 'I am' therefore for you self exists and you experience 'truth' therefore for you truth exists. I for my part have come across equally persuasive arguments for and against personal self so suspension of judgment as to [non-]existence of self also happend to me.
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 05, 2021 4:30 pm
Zenny wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:27 pm
SteRo wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:48 am
No.
Lies are no example.
There are no innacuracies.
Truths cannot be found.
There is no evidence.
Truth is not needed for the persuasiveness of an argument,[alleged] evidence or [alleged] proof.


See, I can perfectly mirror your style of mere assertions without arguments. You assert this and I assert the opposite of it. We can go on interminably unless you provide a criterion for truth and a corresponding proof. Conventions are no critierion for truths because I myself take cultural conventions as guidelines in everyday life although there are arguments against conventions being truths or being based on truths.

With this I do not assert that there are no truths. I am just saying that arguments for there being truths and counter-arguments balance each other and that therefore I don't take a position.
Taking no position is a position.
The criteria for truth is myself and common sense.
You have made a truth and a criterion out of agnosticism. You can't get round that fact. You've asserted your agnosticism several times with no evidence except for your uncertainty.
In order words you seem certain in your uncertainty.
Not a convincing framing at all.
So you do not assert that there are no truths.
But are there truths? Or are you agnostic on that?
Since there are persuasive arguments for and against I take no position. I cannot argue for taking no position since it isn't a position but taking no position happens to me in the face of equally persuasive arguments for and against.
The inability to take a position isn't agnosticism either because neither is it based on a view nor an a decision. It happens to me in the face of equally persuasive arguments for and against. Therefore it neither is uncertainty because uncertainty is the inability to decide when experiencing a need to decide. But I do not experience a need to decide because suspension of judgment just happens to me in the face of equally persuasive arguments for and against. My suspension of judgement cannot have any convicing power on others because it just happens to me in the face of equally persuasive arguments for and against and isn't an argument. It also isn't a conceptual framing because suspension of judgement is nonconceptual. It happened to me that I suspended judgement about there being truths or there being no truths because of equally persuasive arguments for and against.
0f course your criterion for truth is your self. How could it be otherwise? Because truth and your experience are the same for you. You experience 'I am' therefore for you self exists and you experience 'truth' therefore for you truth exists. I for my part have come across equally persuasive arguments for and against personal self so suspension of judgment as to [non-]existence of self also happend to me.

Is there any persuasive arguments on anything that you have made an affirmative judgement on?
Or are all arguments uncertain?
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 05, 2021 9:47 pm
SteRo wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:30 pm
Zenny wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:27 pm
Taking no position is a position.
The criteria for truth is myself and common sense.
You have made a truth and a criterion out of agnosticism. You can't get round that fact. You've asserted your agnosticism several times with no evidence except for your uncertainty.
In order words you seem certain in your uncertainty.
Not a convincing framing at all.
So you do not assert that there are no truths.
But are there truths? Or are you agnostic on that?
Since there are persuasive arguments for and against I take no position. I cannot argue for taking no position since it isn't a position but taking no position happens to me in the face of equally persuasive arguments for and against.
The inability to take a position isn't agnosticism either because neither is it based on a view nor an a decision. It happens to me in the face of equally persuasive arguments for and against. Therefore it neither is uncertainty because uncertainty is the inability to decide when experiencing a need to decide. But I do not experience a need to decide because suspension of judgment just happens to me in the face of equally persuasive arguments for and against. My suspension of judgement cannot have any convicing power on others because it just happens to me in the face of equally persuasive arguments for and against and isn't an argument. It also isn't a conceptual framing because suspension of judgement is nonconceptual. It happened to me that I suspended judgement about there being truths or there being no truths because of equally persuasive arguments for and against.
0f course your criterion for truth is your self. How could it be otherwise? Because truth and your experience are the same for you. You experience 'I am' therefore for you self exists and you experience 'truth' therefore for you truth exists. I for my part have come across equally persuasive arguments for and against personal self so suspension of judgment as to [non-]existence of self also happend to me.

Is there any persuasive arguments on anything that you have made an affirmative judgement on?
Or are all arguments uncertain?
Wanting to know whether something is the case I study the arguments for it and the outcome may be that I judge: these are persuasive. Then I study the arguments against it and the outcome may be: these are persuasive, too.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Zenny »

SteRo wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 9:54 am
Zenny wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:47 pm
SteRo wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:30 pm

Since there are persuasive arguments for and against I take no position. I cannot argue for taking no position since it isn't a position but taking no position happens to me in the face of equally persuasive arguments for and against.
The inability to take a position isn't agnosticism either because neither is it based on a view nor an a decision. It happens to me in the face of equally persuasive arguments for and against. Therefore it neither is uncertainty because uncertainty is the inability to decide when experiencing a need to decide. But I do not experience a need to decide because suspension of judgment just happens to me in the face of equally persuasive arguments for and against. My suspension of judgement cannot have any convicing power on others because it just happens to me in the face of equally persuasive arguments for and against and isn't an argument. It also isn't a conceptual framing because suspension of judgement is nonconceptual. It happened to me that I suspended judgement about there being truths or there being no truths because of equally persuasive arguments for and against.
0f course your criterion for truth is your self. How could it be otherwise? Because truth and your experience are the same for you. You experience 'I am' therefore for you self exists and you experience 'truth' therefore for you truth exists. I for my part have come across equally persuasive arguments for and against personal self so suspension of judgment as to [non-]existence of self also happend to me.

Is there any persuasive arguments on anything that you have made an affirmative judgement on?
Or are all arguments uncertain?
Wanting to know whether something is the case I study the arguments for it and the outcome may be that I judge: these are persuasive. Then I study the arguments against it and the outcome may be: these are persuasive, too.
So basically truth=persuasive to you.
Is it possible we can make judgements instantly. Non discursively. Like intuition?
If your hand is near a fire and very hot do you weigh the arguments for and against the moving of your hand?
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 06, 2021 9:51 pm
SteRo wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 9:54 am
Zenny wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:47 pm

Is there any persuasive arguments on anything that you have made an affirmative judgement on?
Or are all arguments uncertain?
Wanting to know whether something is the case I study the arguments for it and the outcome may be that I judge: these are persuasive. Then I study the arguments against it and the outcome may be: these are persuasive, too.
So basically truth=persuasive to you.
No. The question of truth is a different one. But the question what persuasiveness of argumentation is based on is an interesting one and worth to be investigated. Formally in logic we speak of "true" and "false" but what makes one believe something is different from that. In this context the question "what is the criterion for truth?" becomes relevant because it asks for the objective criterion not for the subjective mental phenomenon that you are confusing with objective truth.
To stay on topic: Is personal self an objective truth? Or is it merely a subjective truth? If the latter then everything people experience may be called truth and we arrive at there being countless contradicting truths or at truth being mere convention [of a majority].
"Truth" is an abstract idea that seems to pull one's attention into a deadlock because there is simply no objective criterion for truth and the epistemological approach will necessarily end up in infinite regression or reciprocity or plain hypothesis. So the relevant question is "what makes humans believe [in] this or that?" because it also covers the belief in "truth[s]" and in case "belief" is necessarily connected with taking the object of belief to be true or truly existing then again the relevant question is "what makes humans believe [in] this or that?".
To stay on topic: What makes humans believe [in] personal self?
You have already answered what it is that makes you believe in personal self: your [subjective] experience which includes the way you are thinking.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
form
Posts: 3471
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by form »

Human beings have a general idea of atman. It is not restricted to Indian culture. It is about existence forever.
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by SteRo »

form wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 2:31 pm Human beings have a general idea of atman. It is not restricted to Indian culture. It is about existence forever.
No, "atman" is an Indian concept. Western/European interpretations of the term "atman" upon being confronted with texts of Indian origin have been stated above:
SteRo wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 3:55 am There are different understandings of "atman". One is personal self and the other is "soul". While there are convincing reasons that negate both, there are only convincing reasons that affirm personal self but none that affirm soul.
The concept of "soul" has meanings only in religious contexts while the concept of personal self has indispensable meanings in everyday life.
I would not rely on religions when it comes to personal self but simply acknowledge that there are convincing reasons that negate personal self as there are convincing reasons that affirm personal self.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
form
Posts: 3471
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by form »

SteRo wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 6:10 pm
form wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 2:31 pm Human beings have a general idea of atman. It is not restricted to Indian culture. It is about existence forever.
No, "atman" is an Indian concept. Western/European interpretations of the term "atman" upon being confronted with texts of Indian origin have been stated above:
SteRo wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 3:55 am There are different understandings of "atman". One is personal self and the other is "soul". While there are convincing reasons that negate both, there are only convincing reasons that affirm personal self but none that affirm soul.
The concept of "soul" has meanings only in religious contexts while the concept of personal self has indispensable meanings in everyday life.
I would not rely on religions when it comes to personal self but simply acknowledge that there are convincing reasons that negate personal self as there are convincing reasons that affirm personal self.
The term is. But the concept is not. The concept is present in the universal dukka concept. Again the term is but concept is not.
Post Reply