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 »

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.
:goodpost:
arising is manifest;
ceasing is manifest;
change-while-standing is manifest.

Link to website: http://dicsonstable.blog/
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 »

Clear, like simple and complex and unclear, is in the eye of the beholder, more accurately the mind of the beholder. That being said, I never claimed that complex and/or unclear thought was necessarily correct. This is something you have introduced into the conversation. The saying "bullshit baffles brains" is the opposite of the fluency heuristic, if you'll forgive my French.

I've a personal suspicion that the fluency heuristic and bull excrement baffling brains happens about equally frequently, but that's hardly a scientific statistic. There is a lot more literature on the fluency heuristic being particularly ubiquitous, however, of the two.
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.
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 »

Consider, when someone is baffled by something complex and unclear, particularly when that complex unclear thing is nonsensical instead of sensical, they aren't actually convinced by the complexity. What people do, I'd wager, is select some simple sentiment(s) that they can understand from within the muck that they don't understand and stick to it as a matter of faith in the muck. Why? The muck of statements is purported to be something fancy, but it also has general simple statements within it that are easy to cling to, consent to, uphold, etc.
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 4:08 pm Clear, like simple and complex and unclear, is in the eye of the beholder, more accurately the mind of the beholder. That being said, I never claimed that complex and/or unclear thought was necessarily correct. This is something you have introduced into the conversation. The saying "bullshit baffles brains" is the opposite of the fluency heuristic, if you'll forgive my French.

I've a personal suspicion that the fluency heuristic and bull excrement baffling brains happens about equally frequently, but that's hardly a scientific statistic. There is a lot more literature on the fluency heuristic being particularly ubiquitous, however, of the two.

So,from your point of view,what is your criterion for truth?
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 »

Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:16 pm Consider, when someone is baffled by something complex and unclear, particularly when that complex unclear thing is nonsensical instead of sensical, they aren't actually convinced by the complexity. What people do, I'd wager, is select some simple sentiment(s) that they can understand from within the muck that they don't understand and stick to it as a matter of faith in the muck. Why? The muck is purported to be something fancy, but it also has general simple sentiments within it that are easy to cling to.
OK. But why even be drawn towards muck?
Clear sentiments need not be mixed with unnecessary admixtures.
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 a difficult question, because why people might be drawn to what others see as muck and why some persons might see non-muck as muck (as well as vice-versa) is too broad a field of inquiry. I'm very busy over the weekend. I might get to this thread again next week.
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 11:51 pm This is a difficult question, because why people might be drawn to what others see as muck and why some persons might see non-muck as muck (as well as vice-versa) is too broad a field of inquiry. I'm very busy over the weekend. I might get to this thread again next week.
OK,cool. No rush.
I would say the answer lies in correct psychology.
All truths are from a viewpoint,and so are subjective and personal . And there is huge agreement on many truths,eg intersubjectivity.
The point is how to distinguish between non agreed upon subjective "truths",what is the criterion?
Well,this is where clear language combined with a person's calm certainty is key. If one has to explain one's basic terms in essays,cannot be concise and clear, and appeals to unquestionable authority that is wrong. If one repeats formulas of "logic" that is also wrong.
A truth should be intuitive and clear and instinctive. Truth should be recognisable,not a idea or feeling foreign to one's psyche or bizarre and dramatic. Otherwise everybody can make a case for aliens,Virgin births and sky gods in the name of "complexity" and say "you need to study more and experience these aliens that I'm talking about",to be happy.
What if I'm already happy,do I need somebody to inform me of some additional ideology? Especially when they don't strike me as happy.The proof of truth is in the positive happy outcome and a positive mindset.
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: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:27 amI would say the answer lies in correct psychology.
Let's see how this 'correct psychology' goes :popcorn:
Zenny wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:27 amAll truths are from a viewpoint,and so are subjective and personal . And there is huge agreement on many truths,eg intersubjectivity.
Sounds unbiased so far, let's see what the further analysis entails :popcorn: . Intersubjective truths co-exist because opinions, cultures and traditions vary to name a few, which an individual holds dear and differ from one person to another.
Zenny wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:27 amThe point is how to distinguish between non agreed upon subjective "truths",what is the criterion?
:popcorn:
Zenny wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:27 amWell,this is where clear language combined with a person's calm certainty is key
Well at least the term 'clarity' should be agreed upon before assessing one view or another. Same case with 'calm certainty' :popcorn:
Zenny wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:27 amIf one has to explain one's basic terms in essays,cannot be concise and clear, and appeals to unquestionable authority that is wrong. If one repeats formulas of "logic" that is also wrong.
Let me count how many subjective criteria you have posited here: 1, 2, 3... 4. :popcorn:

Criteria 1 and 2 seem okay under non-confrontational situations but doesn't make it untrue. It could just mean that the individual is not very certain on how to communicate it sometimes out of concern for the other person. Einstein was certain of his E = mc2 theory (clear and concise) before it was objectively proven (which means it was subjective at the time) and could explain them to other physicists with ease but even he would have scratched his head if he were to explain it to a curious grade-schooler. Different individuals have different mental capabilities to process and understand ideas, with some requiring more information than others. Unless you are saying that mental processing is not required, which would mean that it is something the this other person already understood. If so, it would be questionable for the need of any conversation to take place and perhaps this could make a good example for the simple-minded as Cöemgenu put it. In the event of a debate or argumentation, it is only one's responsibility to provide clear and developed reasonings as opposed to empty statements potentially born of incoherent reasonings. One is not entitled for another's understanding simply because one has replied in short, neither is another obliged to read one's mind and fill in the gaps in his/her understanding.
:coffee:

Criteria no. 3: the only logical conclusion to arrive at is that the adoption of a view out of faith (i.e. regarding it as a belief) invalidates the understanding of that view but not necessarily the view itself. Unless the whole ideology itself is fully based on faith, which would mean that those who adopt it do not actually know what they are talking about. Reminds anyone of the view born of jumping to conclusion with regard to the idea of an eternal Soul or independent will? Sounds like the perfect example for this 3rd criteria of yours! :D
Zenny wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:27 amA truth should be intuitive and clear and instinctive. Truth should be recognisable,not a idea or feeling foreign to one's psyche or bizarre and dramatic. Otherwise everybody can make a case for aliens,Virgin births and sky gods in the name of "complexity" and say "you need to study more and experience these aliens that I'm talking about",to be happy.
Pythagoras was the first to propose the idea of a round Earth based on his observation of moon phases (simple enough?), which is not spherical as we know it today, but closer to the truth than anyone else's 'common sense' back in the day. About 150 years later, Aristotle declared with certainty that the Earth is round through observing constellations in the sky. Can you fathom? I can't make sense of it from this concise statement. Perhaps I should read more into it but does sound complex to me even by today's standard. By your 1st and 2nd criteria, Aristotle who actually got the truth as we can know with certainty today with the availability of satellite images is farther from truth than Pythagoras, but this is not the case. Furthermore, by virtue of your additional criteria quoted, I suppose you would conclude that the common people back in the day who took for granted the idea of flat-earth (which conforms to their mundane experience like a walk in the park) was true whilst Aristotle was false? If you choose to hold the view that it's only true (or honest) to conform to 'common sense', that's on you. Hence why i suggested you to study your own experience and not some external material - perhaps you could start with your own rhetorics and logical reasonings. :)
Zenny wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:27 amWhat if I'm already happy,do I need somebody to inform me of some additional ideology? Especially when they don't strike me as happy.The proof of truth is in the positive happy outcome and a positive mindset.
Nope, nobody needs to push their ideology on anybody else even if it is that which one regards as 'common sense'. Reminds us of someone who went around calling others 'sophists' for not having 'common sense' in another subforum, which he got suspended for. I never knew of the term 'sophistry' until then but it was really ironic to find out that it was this same person whose motivation was to argue for the sake of winning arguments. What I already knew of, though, is the term 'hypocrisy' and I thought it was the perfect example for it. Regarding your last sentence, I agree that being happy and having a positive mindset is the way to go, and oftentimes the happiest people are those who can acknowledge that they don't know the truth or have a proof for it, and that's okay - they can be honest with themselves regarding the prospect that their current understanding is limited and reserve the right to live it, at the same time being at peace with others living their own unintrusive subjective truth.
arising is manifest;
ceasing is manifest;
change-while-standing is manifest.

Link to website: http://dicsonstable.blog/
sunnat
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:08 am

Post by sunnat »

Atman or atta is a word to name a universal sense that there is an I. Life itself is a process of I-making. No moment in conscious life is not an affirmation that there is a self.

Q : When a feeling disappears does this self become less?
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.

Post by Zenny »

@Dicsoncandra
To be concise,If one doesn't recognise intuition,common sense and axiomatic facts or eternal principles then one is in reality a kind of partial skeptic.
Being a skeptic is a product of uncertainty on axiomatic matters.
The discursive intellect in general is used when one is uncertain or to clarify an already understood issue. The discursive intellect does not recreate the axiomatic wheel.
Its like debating if humans can breathe using the intellect.
Well,we already know we can breathe,it's axiomatic.
If someone wants to dispute that,well that's a product of confusion not a sign of impartiality, or an unbiased mind.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re:

Post by Zenny »

sunnat wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:26 am Atman or atta is a word to name a universal sense that there is an I. Life itself is a process of I-making. No moment in conscious life is not an affirmation that there is a self.

Q : When a feeling disappears does this self become less?
The self is always expressed even when a particular feeling stops. There is always feeling even when asleep.
Life is an expression of the self and selves.
To deny your self is to deny breathing or personal agency.
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 »

dicsoncandra wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:39 pm
Zenny wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:27 amIf one has to explain one's basic terms in essays,cannot be concise and clear, and appeals to unquestionable authority that is wrong. If one repeats formulas of "logic" that is also wrong.
...

Criteria no. 3: the only logical conclusion to arrive at is that the adoption of a view out of faith (i.e. regarding it as a belief) invalidates the understanding of that view but not necessarily the view itself. Unless the whole ideology itself is fully based on faith, which would mean that those who adopt it do not actually know what they are talking about. Reminds anyone of the view born of jumping to conclusion with regard to the idea of an eternal Soul or independent will? Sounds like the perfect example for this 3rd criteria of yours! :D
Criteria 4 goes hand-in-hand with criteria 3 so I can group them together since it is only a description of a method or approach in the belief system. An attachment to a "no method" or "common sense" approach is in itself a view attachment and thus a belief, which as explained invalidates one's understanding of the view whilst the view in itself is inconclusive at this point until further assessment. By virtue of criteria 3, you have failed to meet your own subjective criteria since your dogmatic viewpoint was proven to involve leaping to conclusion.
dicsoncandra wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:34 am
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.
All of these are built on the premise that good reasoning determines the validity of views as truths. Otherwise there is no good reason for anyone to argue for or against any view in the first place.

:coffee:

correction to previous post:
dicsoncandra wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:39 pm
Zenny wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:27 amA truth should be intuitive and clear and instinctive. Truth should be recognisable,not a idea or feeling foreign to one's psyche or bizarre and dramatic. Otherwise everybody can make a case for aliens,Virgin births and sky gods in the name of "complexity" and say "you need to study more and experience these aliens that I'm talking about",to be happy.
About 150 years later, Aristotle declared with certainty that the Earth is spherical through observing constellations in the sky.
It turned out that this one man's intuition and instinct that led him to his hypothesis and bizarre formula proved to be true. Two millennia ahead of his time :meditate:
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 »

Zenny wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:00 am @Dicsoncandra
To be concise,If one doesn't recognise intuition,common sense and axiomatic facts or eternal principles then one is in reality a kind of partial skeptic.
Being a skeptic is a product of uncertainty on axiomatic matters.
The discursive intellect in general is used when one is uncertain or to clarify an already understood issue. The discursive intellect does not recreate the axiomatic wheel.
Its like debating if humans can breathe using the intellect.
Well,we already know we can breathe,it's axiomatic.
If someone wants to dispute that,well that's a product of confusion not a sign of impartiality, or an unbiased mind.
I do recognise the existence of intuition, common sense and axiomatic facts or universal principles. Where I disagree is to conclude a view as facts based on intuition and common sense alone without unbiased empirical evidence that makes them axiomatic or universal. Being dogmatic is a product of the insistence on certainty despite lacking clear unbiased understanding, which is fundamentally a dishonest act. Concrete reasoning unveils whether one has got this clear unbiased understanding with regard to one's own view and experiences or whether they are influenced by preconceptions. A primordial metaphysical truth is conceptual that comes with the person's preconceived notion and biases and thus requires closer inspection whereas the simple action of breathing is an axiomatic fact because it is verifiable through empirical evidence and can be unbiasedly said to be true.

As I said, reflect on your own intention behind actions because these logical fallacies aren't helping you in undoing your own confusion. One who is unafraid of uncertainty isn't afraid of being wrong and thus prioritises clear unbiased understanding with empirical evidence over 'certainty' that another has proven to stem out of dogmatic belief upon closer assessment.
Last edited by dicsoncandra on Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:01 am, 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 »

@Dicsoncandra.
We agree breathing is certain,axiomatic,irrefutable.
Well,my certainty includes many expressions,experiences and concepts as well.
And in truth,everybody has these certainties,but some have a lesser degree,some cannot express these certainties linguistically but express it in their behaviour.
You seem to think that these heroic individuals come along and discover some vital "truth" which nobody has expressed before.
Well,then if you desire that narrative then you are always in thrall to some abstract possibility of a new heroic truth,are you not?
Or is there a hero to end all heroes?
Tell me,do you believe in eternal immediatel truths? Or do you think everything must be reasoned or discovered?
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: Sun Aug 01, 2021 8:50 am @Dicsoncandra.
We agree breathing is certain,axiomatic,irrefutable.
Well,my certainty includes many expressions,experiences and concepts as well.
And in truth,everybody has these certainties,but some have a lesser degree,some cannot express these certainties linguistically but express it in their behaviour.
You seem to think that these heroic individuals come along and discover some vital "truth" which nobody has expressed before.
Well,then if you desire that narrative then you are always in thrall to some abstract possibility of a new heroic truth,are you not?
Or is there a hero to end all heroes?
Tell me,do you believe in eternal immediatel truths? Or do you think everything must be reasoned or discovered?
Read my post again, I'm saying conceptual expressions require much closer inspection and empirical evidence before any could be concluded as facts.

Yes, it's true that everybody has certainties that's not where I pointed the issue is at. It doesn't necessarily make the view a fact and there is no need to insist on it. Hence why I would suggest one to take closer inspection of one's own experience if he sincerely wants to understand clearly without bias.

No, don't flip the coin and start with projections to distract or conceal my clear and concise point - I find no need for the possibility of some heroic truth. My point is this clear and simple: A fact is unestablished upon anyone's attachment or aversion toward it (view). Before concluding anything as fact, reflect on your own viewpoint whether it is influenced by biases or not, that is whether you feel the need for it to be true (attachment) or in the case of another's view do whether you feel the need for it to false (aversion). Because if the bias is present in one's own experience, and it is indeed verifiable upon reflection, one is not in the position to claim a view as fact or non-fact.

You are free to believe what you want to believe without unbiased empirical evidence but in reality you are not in the position to claim it as fact - you don't know that - regardless whether it turns out to be true or not. My example was simply for the purpose of illustration and demonstration - I find no attachment or aversion within my experience with regard to the possibility of a new heroic truth or another.
Tell me,do you believe in eternal immediatel truths? Or do you think everything must be reasoned or discovered?
If your objective is to genuinely and wholeheartedly be happy and have a positive mindset as you claimed in a previous post, then believing in 'eternal immediate truths' has got nothing to do with it. I find no reason to intrude others living their own unintrusive subjective truths but I may find an empathetic case for speaking up against a dogmatic and oppressive view through the use of unbiased concrete reasonings. I can be in tune with my own emotions and have love and empathy for others without needing to reason it - my emphasis has always been on understanding and not otherwise. In the case of a conceptual view, concrete reasoning would allow one to access the more fundamental layers of that view and its bases (context), but no amount of reasoning alone leads one to understanding because it is not mechanical in nature, as I have emphasised time and again.
arising is manifest;
ceasing is manifest;
change-while-standing is manifest.

Link to website: http://dicsonstable.blog/
Post Reply