romansh

wrong spot

:lol: Our underlying individual chemistry is being adjusted all the time. What would cause you to say that other than Joseph's posts?

Just to add Steve ... we talk about intellect and these non-intellect things as though they are some disembodied artefacts. They are not ... they are rooted in what passes as the physical. Soma ... I hope when you asked why? of people, I hope they had the intellect to describe the underlying causes rather than some nebulous purpose.

It was not meant to be cynical at all Steve. But it would seem evolution has endowed us with many emotions and shades thereof. Have you never put on a smile in a difficult situation ... either to hide your own discomfort or to comfort another in a moment of pain?

If I were more of a sociopath than I already might be, I would use "empathy, compassion, my listening skills and the like" to manipulate others. Evolution has endowed me with these tools too. I think children like being treated like adults ... at least in my experience. Especially when they get to the "why?" stage. And if we insist on using dualistic language to describe what is essentially a monistic concept ... I am neither a master nor a slave of the chemistry that comprises the constituents of my not-self. I am that chemistry. Both intellect and the non-intellect, aspects of my life, are that chemistry. And it's Robin Sharma ... Robin Sharma is in constant demand internationally as keynote speaker at the conferences of many of the most powerful companies on the planet including Microsoft, Nortel Networks, General Motors, FedEx and IBM. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/534889-the-mind-is-a-wonderful-servant-but-a-terrible-master

Steve Explaining what I understand by a certain interpretation of Buddhism, I don't see as faith. Believing it true is another matter. Having said that ... essentially I have only one sensible route to drive to work. I take it every work day. Do I have faith that the route (barring road works and the like) that route will lead me there? I have 30 years of evidence that it does ... is that faith? I have a good understanding of the map of the geography is that faith or is it [intellect] a terrible master? While I agree in that it is all an illusion [not as it seems], but the illusion is a reflection, albeit an imperfect and incomplete relection. This is I suppose my faith. My not-self faith that is.

. Terrible master? I think not. Poor implementation of intellect perhaps.

And was this person using intellect to make this statement? Either way it is a no win for this person.

Tongue in cheek? Not at all Thomas. Having said that I don't think this is the only interpretation of relativity. I have no reason to dismiss causality. What Joseph has described is a single cause that cemented the universe and the way we think it evolves. We are not even causally responsible (never mind ultimately responsible) for the actions we perceive. Any peace, whatever, Joseph might find in this universe is not an unfolding, more predetermined when this universe came into existence. Of course our interpretations of quantum mechanics have not been reconciled with relativity. But then quantum phenomena, despite Soma's viewpoint, don't give us a brighter viewpoint for those of us who believe in and want to have an intrinsic self.

Interesting Joseph. This is similar to one of the interpretations of general relativity. It is like a movie reel where each frame follows another but the frames are not causative. This movie reel came into being at the beginning of time. The upshot of this not only are we not responsible for what we appear to do .... we don't cause it either.

I agree Thomas language leads to into dualism .... Thomas the concept .... the rest of are not Thomas. Is Thomas truly human every moment? At which point did he become more truly human. If by being [lower case] you are pointing simply to existence .n the sense of a verb then fine, we are in agreement to some degree. The upper case Being noun is a non starter for me.

Beginnings are irrelevant (I think) and I would argue Buddhism is wise not to dwell upon them. I certainly find them interesting but we will by definition never see that far back and even the first cause might not be a valid concept. [why is a first cause a default position, a similar question for nothing]? My understanding of dependent origination is that you and I are caused as is everything else. And we are related through cause. This is where oneness comes from. cf Interbeing I would agree intrinsic selves are a nonsense ... A self is just an arbitrary boundary.

This will require some clarification for me Joseph .... photons hit an object, some are absorbed, some are reflected or radiated back, some are focussed on to your retina, photochemical reactions occur, electrochemical pulses pass down the optic nerve, the brain does it stuff, causes electrochemical pulses in the nerves to your fingers, which causes buttons to be depressed which in turn cause electrons to move, which in turn cause photons to go down a glass fibre cable to my telephone line which transmit electrons to my router which transmits photons to my computer which causes electrons to radiate photons to my eyes. Sure these might be determined (almost surely are) ... but to say one does not see it? OK the whole thing might be an illusion in the sense that time is an illusion. Having said that I have done a little bit of planning for my retirement regardless that some think the future is an illusion. It still exists.

Thomas Your language for me trips with duality ... physical and more, complete and not complete, becoming truly human. It is interesting rom

"Why" has two general distinct meanings ... purpose and cause. Purpose is a strange and uncertain beast ... cause while generally is understandable it too is uncertain and I suppose strange. So does love have no cause? Even in Buddhism dependent origination suggests there is a cause? Evolutionary psychology certainly does.

I can't help thinking because we live in a psychic world, we ask questions like why (purpose or what was the cause?). To make sense of the world and act in it, we have to have a model of it. And here I mean we have a model regardless of its shallowness. Anyway, with what I think you are trying to say, I agree ... its what we do with our model rather than any faith we may have in it that counts. But if like Batchelor you have a tendency to dismiss free will ... all this acting on our models etc tends to have a quality of internal regression and iteration. Of course all this is fine if we understand that we have no [free] choice.

It is self evident that the Sun rises in the East. As to the last paragraph ... A tree is some how complete? Billions of years of evolution and it becomes complete in your three score and ten? It took the Big bang and who knows how many suns to make that complete rock. Completeness is an aberration while the second law of thermodynamics still holds.

Yes I get it ... I am not maligning Batchelor's Buddhism ... that is for the more orthodox Buddhists (rendering unto Caesar so to speak), Batchelor in opposition to the Buddhist orthodoxies does not believe in free will (and reincarnation at least not in the traditional sense). As far as I can tell Batchelor is doing what the Buddhist texts say we should do: Examine the world and live our "results". I am more in line with Batchelor than I am with Buddhism ... if you see what I mean.

To me it seems a question of what is? Rather than thinking it is more or less. The process of science moves towards what is ... scientists may want more or perhaps less.

Tariki Here's a nice quote ... "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all." This, I think. is true of dead authors and poets regardless of expiration date. So with your TS Elliot quote I wonder if it means the same to you as it does to me? I describe myself neither as Buddhist nor Christian and yet I recognize the their effects on our societies and societal effects on me. Nor am I a deist or panentheist ... I am sure these concepts have affected me too. As for pantheism ... It can't rule it out. So what is your take on Batchelor's position that Buddhism if fundamentally agnostic?

In that case there is no way of knowing whether I have fairies or not under my garden shed. Any method will be inadequate if my fairies are "more". But it is easier to believe in them if you don't look. And this to a large degree is the point of this thread.

This is true Thomas ... but then again we can believe all sorts of things. But it is about evidence ... show me evidence of this "more" that is not dependent on chemistry or perhaps physics. You cannot prove I don't have fairies under my garden shed, but of course that is not any reason for me to believe in said fairies under my garden shed. Science does not deal in proof!

I like the little bit of Batchelor I have read too. I occasionally go to his website to see what is new. I have not read any of his books though.. I have read Buddhism for Dummies ... my general impression was so close but no cigar. It almost got it "right". And that is for Buddhism rather than the book. And it assumes the book is a reasonable reflection of the various flavours of Buddhism. I think this enlightenment thingy should boil down to acceptance ... this emptiness business while in some sense might be true it is irrelevant at least for my brain chemistry.

So there is knowing, believing etc. etc. Well I have my doubts that they are actually there as 'perceived'. Each of these cases are a direct result of chemistry in the brain. Because this chemistry forms different patterns we see them as somehow different. Yet I am forced into this duality by using words ... or at least this is what my chemistry seems to be dictating. Anyway if we are not getting it we can grok it instead. Or our chemistry can.