romansh

"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." That sounds terribly cynical to me, but I suppose that's chemistry too!

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.

Yes, he was using his intellect, which as a tool is a great servant, but if we identify with it, it is a terrible master leading us in circles, fear mongering and desiring everything that glitters in duality.

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

Someone said, "The intellect is a great servant, but a terrible master."

And was this person using intellect to make this statement?

Either way it is a no win for this person.

Joseph and Rom, I have to ask if any of your recent statements are tongue in cheek and in asking that I intend no disrespect, I am just left smiling at the notion that although you recognize that causality in this world is an illusion you still plan for retirement.

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.

 

What you see as a cause in your example is nothing more than a pre-condition or sequence when trying to find cause in a logical world. Sure we say this causes that... but then what causes this and we continue on a seemingly infinite number of causes that takes us through all of time.. Yes, i see causality in this world as an illusion and yet as you, i have planned for my retirement. While one might attribute my planning as the cause to a successful retirement i know that also is an illusion.

Joseph

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.

Rom,

 

I know it does; I believe it comes with the territory: man, using language, trying to say something about 'God.' Even here you have a duality in that 'a being' tries to say something about Being, seemingly other and therefore two but the being is 'of' Being and/or Being is manifest in the being, seemingly one (in some way).

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.

Buddhism is a bit weak when it comes to beginnings and often it seems difficult to discern ends. Unlike Christianity with its "In the beginning........" and then its various eschatologies, the "last things" AKA the "end times".

 

"No discernable beginning" seems an ongoing mantra of various texts. Dependant origination, as I understand it ( and there seems subtle variations between Theravada and Mahayana ) is not at all about initial causes or beginnings, nor about any sequence of cause and effect. I would see it more as yet another take on "emptiness", that there are no self existent/self explanatory entities that remain through time.

 

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.

Personally i see no cause and effect in this visual world. I only see sequences that we conceptualize and compartmentalize as events and then try to attach a cause when to me it seems there is no causes to be seen. Seems to me more like a story written and we are viewing the sequences or frames of the equation already written.

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

Eckhart said "Love has no why"

 

To say that the "why" of a human in some sense sets us apart creates the very duality that is the source and heart of suffering ( dukkha )

"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.

Just happened to hit this small section of Stephen Batchelors latest book......"Sometime.....after ( the Buddha's death ) Buddhism seems to have taken a metaphysical turn. By adopting a language of truth, Buddhists moved from an engaged agency with the world to the theorizing stance of a detached subject contemplating epistemic objects........they shifted.....from prescripton to description, from pragmatism to ontology, from skepticism to dogmatism."

 

Batchelor then asks why this happened.

 

Maybe because our instinct is to "grasp" rather than "pass over".

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 seems rather self-evident and known in experience that human beings are not merely things, along side of other things, that are encountered in the universe. We are more....more than mere things, more than objects. I am is not it is.

....

So, what is meant by the 'more?' A thing is in some way complete, there is no possibility. A rock, a tree, a lizard, a horse, even my beloved dogs - they are what they are, all they are 'meant' to be. The living thing can grow to adulthood, can learn things, including tricks, they can 'love' and sense my needs, but my dog is complete. Human being has an open space before him/herself. She/he is capable of more, not only doing but being more. Human is not merely a species, a thing we are, it is a possibility we can become. We are more: it is our possibility.

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.

I'm content that Stephen Batchelor makes sense of Buddhism for me.

 

Those texts considered fundamental, and often claimed to represent the historical word of the Buddha, state that the "heartwood of the Dharma" is an "unshakeable deliverance of mind". ( Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation )

 

As I see it, a mind committed to any metaphysical belief system CANNOT be free, and sets itself up to be "shaken" by reality.

 

"Agnosticism" for me, as for Stephen Batchelor ( and he has helped me see this ) leads to a metaphysics of empathy - rather that a metaphysics of hope and fear. We can LIVE truly. As I

see it, any "master" words can only "be true" in the empathic moment. Afterwards they enter the treacherous sea of language. Someone once said that the truth dies with each zen master, "the rest they put into their books".

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.

It seems to me that emptiness is the 'place' where all questions disappear. Without a question, there is no answer ... just pure being. Perhaps less, not more is better?

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?

Be that as it may, the study of things (or entities) is the model of knowing appropriate to the empirical sciences. If man is more than another mere object or thing in the universe, then the scientific model of knowing is not adequate to the subject of man or knowing man. But, as indicated above, there is no here either.

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.

"Each of these cases are a direct result of chemistry in the brain."

 

But it seems that some believe they there could be more to a human being - and neither side or any other side can definitively prove its case.

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 and believing etc etc. As the zen master once said, the main man at a monastery housing about 5000 wannabees when asked:- "Just how many followers do you actually have?" "Oh" he replied "about two or three".

 

Basically I am one who does not get it, whatever "it" is. And the longer I live the less I care, which just might be a way of getting it.

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.

I agree that we can have a conceptual/intellectual understanding yet not LIVE it and that the ultimate "story" is Reality itself.

I agree ... I can have a reasonable understanding of chemistry ... and still fall in the trap that it is the chemistry that drives me and not realize it.

I was under the impression that you had panentheist leanings Thomas. Did I miss something?

I have often been "saved" in spite of my choices and beliefs In my book it is the recognition that there is nothing to be saved (or need for forgiveness).

You seem to be saying that we ARE the story whether we like it or not. (I would put a smiley face here but I' m on my kindle and can't see how)

 

What does "on topic" mean? ( Another smiley )

 

Though if all things are inter-related..........

There I added the smiley.

Sort of ... I (and by inference we) are not what we seem. I would delete the definite article between the ARE and story. We are story. Ultimately there no separation between you, me, other, animate and inanimate.

On topic ... the general idea behind this thread is agnosticism and what we can say with certainty. The 'benefits' of doubt and certainty. cf my byline from Douglas Adams.

While I do find that topics do wander ... one outcome of keeping them "on topic" is a particular idea can be explored more coherently but on the other hand my might not go to interesting places.

Also ... Stephen Batchelor argues strongly that Buddhism is agnostic in nature.

Rom,

 

Wasn't talking about dragons, was talking about, as you indicated, 'must' become a story as captured in thou shalt (seemingly a command) as opposed to thou mayest (definitely a choice for or against). If it is about dragons - what dragons?

 

If a Story didn't resonate why would one 'become' it? Thou may presupposes choosing, so not sure of your point.

A bit of context for dragons