Disputes and your solutions for resolution.

[Zenny]

You know peace can be found outside buddhism.

Depends on your definition of "peace".

If it is actually peace, as in the permanent cessation of 5 Hindrances which aggrevate the mind, then no, I don't think it can.

I think stoicism is probably the closest thing to mental peace outside of Buddhism, and Buddhism just takes the main premise of stoicism (only worry about what you can control) up a notch.

Aside from that, another is Pyrrhonism, which was influenced by ancient Buddhism from Ghandhara.

And below that is Epicureanism, which is basically saying to accept pain because it's Impermanent and "your body gets used to it", but accepting pain is not peace, as acceptance of pain doesn't make pain go away. Even using pleasure to deny the existence of pain, doesn't make pain go away.

So what are some solutions you have?

Peace to me comes with expressing yourself instinctively and without fear with those you Love. An expression of growth,creativity,laughter,fun and healthy competition. In other words being myself.
I'm fully aware this is not for most people. Most including traditional buddhists have way too much respect for fear for this way.
Solutions to disputation is to be patient and stronger than the false ideas and methods. Eventually disputes will destroy themselves.

[Zenny]

I don't apprehend the meaning of the talk of others to be true so everything they say appears with zero truth-value. In case a thought of judgement might happen to me it wouldn't be judgement about the truth or falsehood and the judgement itself would be just a thought that happens to me the meaning of which I do not apprehend as true.


I merely apply my cultural conditiong and what has been handed down to me by my cultural tradition. No judgement as to truth or falsehood is involved.

So which cultural conditioning is it that doesn't judge things as true or not?

You misunderstand. My personal goal has been non-apprehension of truth due to insight that apprehension of truth is merely a habitual impulse. But to communicate or debate in everyday life when it comes to dissent about phenomena that can be accessed via the five senses I have to use conventional language nevertheless. But what words and concepts shall I use that are understood? Being culturally conditioned by the supremacy of science I use words and concepts that are in conformity with science when it comes dissent about phenomena that can be accessed via the five senses.

So why can't you break or purge the conditioning of science?
You must think science is the superior way or you would purge it like you did buddhist concepts.
Is your personal goal in tune with the scientific method? No. Science believes in judgements and truths and apprehensions.

[Sam Vara]

If a belief is clearly wrong sensible and even less than sensible people will question it.
The main reason for disputes is people using beliefs as a psychological crutch even when those beliefs aren't coherent.
Some of us like coherence and common sense.
Another reason is political. Some beliefs maintain a status quo or are necessary for group identity. And other groups dispute these beliefs because they claim their group is the one true sect.

Yes, they all seem like potential causes of conflict.

Now, do you welcome and relish the conflict?

Conflict is a current fact of the world.
I'm not a fan of conflict,but I will counter it wherever I see it.
Maybe you don't understand the difference between healthy competition (which I do relish) and conflict.

I would suggest then that the best way towards the resolution of disputes in Buddhism is to not worry about them unless they are issues which directly impinge upon practice. Then, to ask those who seem wise, and to retain an open mind with regard to their answers. Often, what seems unacceptable is merely that which we cannot currently understand.

[Zenny]

Yes, they all seem like potential causes of conflict.

Now, do you welcome and relish the conflict?

Conflict is a current fact of the world.
I'm not a fan of conflict,but I will counter it wherever I see it.
Maybe you don't understand the difference between healthy competition (which I do relish) and conflict.

I would suggest then that the best way towards the resolution of disputes in Buddhism is to not worry about them unless they are issues which directly impinge upon practice. Then, to ask those who seem wise, and to retain an open mind with regard to their answers. Often, what seems unacceptable is merely that which we cannot currently understand.

Well,let's see if your message accomplishes anything. You can't be the first buddhist that's ever said that.
Could it be the "wise ones' have things wrong? Maybe they need to open their minds. Have you thought of that?

[Sam Vara]

Conflict is a current fact of the world.
I'm not a fan of conflict,but I will counter it wherever I see it.
Maybe you don't understand the difference between healthy competition (which I do relish) and conflict.

I would suggest then that the best way towards the resolution of disputes in Buddhism is to not worry about them unless they are issues which directly impinge upon practice. Then, to ask those who seem wise, and to retain an open mind with regard to their answers. Often, what seems unacceptable is merely that which we cannot currently understand.

Well,let's see if your message accomplishes anything. You can't be the first buddhist that's ever said that.
Could it be the "wise ones' have things wrong? Maybe they need to open their minds. Have you thought of that?

Good point, but that's why I said that one ought to ask those who seem wise. If we follow their guidance and it actually pays off, then - to that extent - they actually are wise. And if they are wiser than us, then it is us who need to open our minds to what they have to say. If we want to make progress, that is.

[Zenny]

I would suggest then that the best way towards the resolution of disputes in Buddhism is to not worry about them unless they are issues which directly impinge upon practice. Then, to ask those who seem wise, and to retain an open mind with regard to their answers. Often, what seems unacceptable is merely that which we cannot currently understand.

Well,let's see if your message accomplishes anything. You can't be the first buddhist that's ever said that.
Could it be the "wise ones' have things wrong? Maybe they need to open their minds. Have you thought of that?

Good point, but that's why I said that one ought to ask those who seem wise. If we follow their guidance and it actually pays off, then - to that extent - they actually are wise. And if they are wiser than us, then it is us who need to open our minds to what they have to say. If we want to make progress, that is.

And what have these "wise" really accomplished apart from building up rigid institutions and sects?
What if one sees almost all of these "wise ones" as being totally wrong,and in fact a hindrance to practice.

[SteRo]

So which cultural conditioning is it that doesn't judge things as true or not?

You misunderstand. My personal goal has been non-apprehension of truth due to insight that apprehension of truth is merely a habitual impulse. But to communicate or debate in everyday life when it comes to dissent about phenomena that can be accessed via the five senses I have to use conventional language nevertheless. But what words and concepts shall I use that are understood? Being culturally conditioned by the supremacy of science I use words and concepts that are in conformity with science when it comes dissent about phenomena that can be accessed via the five senses.

So why can't you break or purge the conditioning of science?

Why should I? It does not cause unwanted artefacts in the context of non-apprehension of truth.

You must think science is the superior way or you would purge it like you did buddhist concepts.

Science neither is truth nor represents truth but in my native culture it is dominant and religion plays no role. And at times I can persuade people using scientific arguments to drop ideas that only cause harm. Also my professional background is science. By means of science it is possible to manipulate material appearances, so this makes science superior to idealistic religions and philosophies.

Is your personal goal in tune with the scientific method? No. Science believes in judgements and truths and apprehensions.

Why should my personal goals be in tune with anything that originates from others?

[Sam Vara]

Well,let's see if your message accomplishes anything. You can't be the first buddhist that's ever said that.
Could it be the "wise ones' have things wrong? Maybe they need to open their minds. Have you thought of that?

Good point, but that's why I said that one ought to ask those who seem wise. If we follow their guidance and it actually pays off, then - to that extent - they actually are wise. And if they are wiser than us, then it is us who need to open our minds to what they have to say. If we want to make progress, that is.

And what have these "wise" really accomplished apart from building up rigid institutions and sects?

If that's all they have accomplished, then I think we can safely say that they are not wise. That's not wisdom in the Buddha's dispensation, is it?

What if one sees almost all of these "wise ones" as being totally wrong,and in fact a hindrance to practice.

Then the question is moot, as again these ones would not seem wise.

[Zenny]

You misunderstand. My personal goal has been non-apprehension of truth due to insight that apprehension of truth is merely a habitual impulse. But to communicate or debate in everyday life when it comes to dissent about phenomena that can be accessed via the five senses I have to use conventional language nevertheless. But what words and concepts shall I use that are understood? Being culturally conditioned by the supremacy of science I use words and concepts that are in conformity with science when it comes dissent about phenomena that can be accessed via the five senses.

So why can't you break or purge the conditioning of science?

Why should I? It does not cause unwanted artefacts in the context of non-apprehension of truth.

You must think science is the superior way or you would purge it like you did buddhist concepts.

Science neither is truth nor represents truth but in my native culture it is dominant and religion plays no role. And at times I can persuade people using scientific arguments to drop ideas that only cause harm. Also my professional background is science. By means of science it is possible to manipulate material appearances, so this makes science superior to idealistic religions and philosophies.

Is your personal goal in tune with the scientific method? No. Science believes in judgements and truths and apprehensions.

Why should my personal goals be in tune with anything that originates from others?

Well science does deal in falsehoods and truths,you obviously didn't get the memo.
If you actually thought about it,science is a religion,but I doubt your ready for that level of depth.
Is harm a thing? How do you judge harm in your theory of suspending judgement?
Everybody is able to change material conditions,a coal miner and
a binman do so as well.
What is it that originates with you if your thoughts are not yours?

[Zenny]

Good point, but that's why I said that one ought to ask those who seem wise. If we follow their guidance and it actually pays off, then - to that extent - they actually are wise. And if they are wiser than us, then it is us who need to open our minds to what they have to say. If we want to make progress, that is.

And what have these "wise" really accomplished apart from building up rigid institutions and sects?

If that's all they have accomplished, then I think we can safely say that they are not wise. That's not wisdom in the Buddha's dispensation, is it?

What if one sees almost all of these "wise ones" as being totally wrong,and in fact a hindrance to practice.

Then the question is moot, as again these ones would not seem wise.

Rather than semantics address the meat.
Where are these wise and what have they accomplished?

[Sam Vara]

And what have these "wise" really accomplished apart from building up rigid institutions and sects?

If that's all they have accomplished, then I think we can safely say that they are not wise. That's not wisdom in the Buddha's dispensation, is it?

What if one sees almost all of these "wise ones" as being totally wrong,and in fact a hindrance to practice.

Then the question is moot, as again these ones would not seem wise.

Rather than semantics address the meat.
Where are these wise and what have they accomplished?

The Dhamma is paccattam vedittabbo vinnuhi which means that it is to be experienced individually. What one person finds comprehensible and beneficial may not be understood and appreciated by a different person. Were I to explain who I find wise and what I have learned from them, I think you would just criticise them. That's based on your past posting history here. If you don't understand something, you tend to lose your cool quite rapidly and descend into personal abuse.

That's why it wouldn't really help to say who I think is wise. It's best for you to stick to whoever you think is wise and helpful, and avoid conflict.

With that, I'll bow out of this conversation.

[Zenny]

If that's all they have accomplished, then I think we can safely say that they are not wise. That's not wisdom in the Buddha's dispensation, is it?



Then the question is moot, as again these ones would not seem wise.

Rather than semantics address the meat.
Where are these wise and what have they accomplished?

The Dhamma is paccattam vedittabbo vinnuhi which means that it is to be experienced individually. What one person finds comprehensible and beneficial may not be understood and appreciated by a different person. Were I to explain who I find wise and what I have learned from them, I think you would just criticise them. That's based on your past posting history here. If you don't understand something, you tend to lose your cool quite rapidly and descend into personal abuse.

That's why it wouldn't really help to say who I think is wise. It's best for you to stick to whoever you think is wise and helpful, and avoid conflict.

With that, I'll bow out of this conversation.

So what was the point of discussing in the first place?
A cop out.

[SteRo]

So why can't you break or purge the conditioning of science?

Why should I? It does not cause unwanted artefacts in the context of non-apprehension of truth.

You must think science is the superior way or you would purge it like you did buddhist concepts.

Science neither is truth nor represents truth but in my native culture it is dominant and religion plays no role. And at times I can persuade people using scientific arguments to drop ideas that only cause harm. Also my professional background is science. By means of science it is possible to manipulate material appearances, so this makes science superior to idealistic religions and philosophies.

Is your personal goal in tune with the scientific method? No. Science believes in judgements and truths and apprehensions.

Why should my personal goals be in tune with anything that originates from others?

Well science does deal in falsehoods and truths,you obviously didn't get the memo.

So what? Every system of thought (aka "theory") deals with truth vs falshood.

If you actually thought about it,science is a religion,but I doubt your ready for that level of depth.

Science might be grasped like a religion, yes, but it isn't a religion because it deals with the material and does not engage in metaphysical speculations like religions do.

Is harm a thing? How do you judge harm in your theory of suspending judgement?

If someone believes in a religion and/or in religious speculative tenets then that may be potentially harmful (e.g. causing fear, agitation, self-hate and the like).

Everybody is able to change material conditions,a coal miner and
a binman do so as well.

Yes but consider automobiles, computers, and the like ... these are manipulations of material appearance that could only be performed by science.

What is it that originates with you if your thoughts are not yours?

Cannot understand this question.

[SteRo]

...
With that, I'll bow out of this conversation.

So what was the point of discussing in the first place?
A cop out.

Sam Vara doesn't seem to enjoy conversation with you the way I enjoy it.

[Zenny]

Why should I? It does not cause unwanted artefacts in the context of non-apprehension of truth.


Science neither is truth nor represents truth but in my native culture it is dominant and religion plays no role. And at times I can persuade people using scientific arguments to drop ideas that only cause harm. Also my professional background is science. By means of science it is possible to manipulate material appearances, so this makes science superior to idealistic religions and philosophies.


Why should my personal goals be in tune with anything that originates from others?

Well science does deal in falsehoods and truths,you obviously didn't get the memo.

So what? Every system of thought (aka "theory") deals with truth vs falshood.

If you actually thought about it,science is a religion,but I doubt your ready for that level of depth.

Science might be grasped like a religion, yes, but it isn't a religion because it deals with the material and does not engage in metaphysical speculations like religions do.

Is harm a thing? How do you judge harm in your theory of suspending judgement?

If someone believes in a religion and/or in religious speculative tenets then that may be potentially harmful (e.g. causing fear, agitation, self-hate and the like).

Everybody is able to change material conditions,a coal miner and
a binman do so as well.

Yes but consider automobiles, computers, and the like ... these are manipulations of material appearance that could only be performed by science.

What is it that originates with you if your thoughts are not yours?

Cannot understand this question.

So you finally admit you follow a system which deals in true and false.
Science causes harm as well,witness the current confusion on vaccinations plus the weapons industry.
Science deals in metaphysics,its only subpar scientists who don't understand this. Reductionism is a metaphysics,as is the mathematics of science.
Cars and many other new inventions are engineering. Practical.
Most science is speculative idealism,but I doubt you understand that.
You claim your thoughts don't originates from you.
So what is it that does originates from you? What Is original from you? Or you just followed scientists blindly.