First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Can you define the cosmology/philosophy you operate under?
mxdan 
12308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/15/17

mittemeyer wrote:


mxdan wrote:
Buddhists understood the the law of energy without fully understanding the science behind it and applied it to ethics. It's amazing really. I was raised Christian and arrived at it eventually in my life. I meditate and look at the world on similar terms but I've never actually studied it in full. With that said, if there is a subjective good I think a true Buddhist is close to it. I have nothing but respect for them.


I've been trying to understand what you wrote here, and I've since given up and decided to just ask. What do you mean by "the law of energy" and how can it be applied to ethics?


That which does not arise cannot cease. It is unconditioned.

The form of energy is conditional--its state, its wavelength, whether it is in the form of matter, or gravitional force, or whatnot--but energy itself is unconditional. Neither created, nor destroyed.

Buddhism holds that what is unconditional, what is not arisen, by its very nature cannot cease. This holds true for laws of physics (thermodynamics, for instance) or laws of nature (karma, for instance) as well as for nirvana, dharma, etc.

"Permanent" is a contentious word though, because it (for whatever reason) infers an origination to whatever object or phenomena to which you refer. Energy might best be said to be neither permanent nor impermanent.
923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/15/17
Well, I guess if I subscribe to a system of belief that says truth only has conventional existence, it's hard for me to argue.
1387 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/15/17
Contradictivism. Defining it would be a pain in the ass; as it's founded on paradoxes, axioms and subjectivity. More or less, it's a compilation of realisations. In the end though, it's just my way on making sense of the world, and finding my own balance.
runec 
41454 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/15/17

-OlE- wrote:
dude, you need to incorporate some pandas into that somehow. i guarantee that would at least double the popularity of pandeism


I would! But apparently if you try to liberate one from a local zoo and take it home in the name of your religious beliefs it's "illegal" and "court ordered psych evaluation".
16004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/15/17

mxdan wrote:


mittemeyer wrote:


mxdan wrote:
Buddhists understood the the law of energy without fully understanding the science behind it and applied it to ethics. It's amazing really. I was raised Christian and arrived at it eventually in my life. I meditate and look at the world on similar terms but I've never actually studied it in full. With that said, if there is a subjective good I think a true Buddhist is close to it. I have nothing but respect for them.


I've been trying to understand what you wrote here, and I've since given up and decided to just ask. What do you mean by "the law of energy" and how can it be applied to ethics?


That which does not arise cannot cease. It is unconditioned.

The form of energy is conditional--its state, its wavelength, whether it is in the form of matter, or gravitional force, or whatnot--but energy itself is unconditional. Neither created, nor destroyed.

Buddhism holds that what is unconditional, what is not arisen, by its very nature cannot cease. This holds true for laws of physics (thermodynamics, for instance) or laws of nature (karma, for instance) as well as for nirvana, dharma, etc.

"Permanent" is a contentious word though, because it (for whatever reason) infers an origination to whatever object or phenomena to which you refer. Energy might best be said to be neither permanent nor impermanent.


So wait how can that be applied to ethics? Also can you define those terms in the bold as you understand them?
923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/15/17


I thought some more about what you said, and it occurred to me that what you are describing sounds suspiciously like metaphysics. And Kant, the modernist author par excellence, effectively banished metaphysics from the realm of philosophy. If you are as committed to modernism as much as you say, you might want to take a look at that. A book I recommend summarizing Kant's arguments and the role they have in the modernity debate is Modernism as a Philosophical Problem by Robert Pippin.
mxdan 
12308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/15/17

Potentsaliva wrote:


mxdan wrote:


mittemeyer wrote:


mxdan wrote:
Buddhists understood the the law of energy without fully understanding the science behind it and applied it to ethics. It's amazing really. I was raised Christian and arrived at it eventually in my life. I meditate and look at the world on similar terms but I've never actually studied it in full. With that said, if there is a subjective good I think a true Buddhist is close to it. I have nothing but respect for them.


I've been trying to understand what you wrote here, and I've since given up and decided to just ask. What do you mean by "the law of energy" and how can it be applied to ethics?


That which does not arise cannot cease. It is unconditioned.

The form of energy is conditional--its state, its wavelength, whether it is in the form of matter, or gravitional force, or whatnot--but energy itself is unconditional. Neither created, nor destroyed.

Buddhism holds that what is unconditional, what is not arisen, by its very nature cannot cease. This holds true for laws of physics (thermodynamics, for instance) or laws of nature (karma, for instance) as well as for nirvana, dharma, etc.

"Permanent" is a contentious word though, because it (for whatever reason) infers an origination to whatever object or phenomena to which you refer. Energy might best be said to be neither permanent nor impermanent.


So wait how can that be applied to ethics? Also can you define those terms in the bold as you understand them?


Buddhists, more or less, believe that the energy you interpret and receive is an opportunity. You can be born in higher states or lower states of energy but you are never destroyed. It all derives from how you internalize and release the energy being given to you in a moment.

Karma (Sanskrit) or kamma (Pali) since you asked -- “The law of kamma” is causal law or causality. Kamma vipaka (cause and effect) is one of the laws that form the universe. (Back to underlying rules of energy) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Nirvana is the highest state living things can achieve.

Dharma is literally translated in Buddhism to, "cosmic law and order". Dharma is basically the underlying ethical principal to all things that Buddhists apply to their lives. The principals are cited in the teachings of Buddha and more specifically the Four Noble Truths and The Noble Eightfolds.

The four are:

The truth of suffering (Dukkha)
The truth of the origin of suffering (Samudāya)
The truth of the cessation of suffering (Nirodha)
The truth of the path to the cessation of suffering (Magga)

I'm being lazy so I'm going to quote wiki for the eightfolds:


Right View: our actions have consequences; death is not the end, and our actions and beliefs have also consequences after death; the Buddha followed and taught a successful path out of this world and the other world (heaven and underworld/hell)[24][25][26][27][note 3] Later on, right view came to explicitly include karma and rebirth, and the importance of the Four Noble Truths, when "insight" became central to Buddhist soteriology.[28][29]

Right Resolve: the giving up home and adopting the life of a religious mendicant in order to follow the path; this concept aims at peaceful renunciation, into an environment of non-sensuality, non-ill-will (to loving kindness), away from cruelty (to compassion).[30] Such an environment aids contemplation of impermanence, suffering, and non-Self.[30]

Right Speech: no lying, no rude speech, no telling one person what another says about him, speaking that which leads to salvation;[23]

Right Conduct: no killing or injuring, no taking what is not given, no sexual acts.[23]

Right Livelihood: beg to feed, only possessing what is essential to sustain life;[23]

Right Effort: guard against sensual thoughts; this concept, states Harvey, aims at preventing unwholesome states that disrupt meditation.[30]

Right Mindfulness: never be absent minded, being conscious of what one is doing; this, states Harvey, encourages the mindfulness about impermanence of body, feeling and mind, as well as to experience the five aggregates (skandhas), the five hindrances, the four True Realities and seven factors of awakening.[30]

Right samadhi: practicing four stages of meditation (dhyāna) culminating into unification of the mind.

923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/15/17


I just want to note that what you describe as energy seems to have very little to do with the definition of energy in physics. It is true that energy in physics obeys the law of the conservation of energy, but I don't see what it has to do with reincarnation or karma. Besides, in pre-Mahayana Buddhism, the cycle of life, death, and rebirth could end with parinirvana. Nirvana itself means something like "quenching" in the original Sanskrit, and it's because when one achieves it, one ends the cycle of rebirth. When a person achieves nirvana, they effectively die, forever.
mxdan 
12308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/15/17

mittemeyer wrote:



I thought some more about what you said, and it occurred to me that what you are describing sounds suspiciously like metaphysics. And Kant, the modernist author par excellence, effectively banished metaphysics from the realm of philosophy. If you are as committed to modernism as much as you say, you might want to take a look at that. A book I recommend summarizing Kant's arguments and the role they have in the modernity debate is Modernism as a Philosophical Problem by Robert Pippin.


You're gonna have to explain your point in detail more (Partly cause I'm a bit tired). From my understanding Metaphysics is the historical foundation of philosophy; not the destruction of it.
923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/15/17


Kant argued in his Critique of Pure Reason that conceptual thought could not uncover fundamental laws of the universe. This is his famous argument that we could not really understand Ding an sich (a Thing in itself) either through conceptual reasoning or empirical observation.

Hence, all metaphysical speculation, for example, about whether human beings have "energies" and whether they are "conserved" or can "cease" can never be answered, according to Kant. He is the most influential philosopher of his generation, and is considered one of the most important Modernist philosophers to have ever lived.
mxdan 
12308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/15/17

mittemeyer wrote:



I just want to note that what you describe as energy seems to have very little to do with the definition of energy in physics. It is true that energy in physics obeys the law of the conservation of energy, but I don't see what it has to do with reincarnation or karma. Besides, in pre-Mahayana Buddhism, the cycle of life, death, and rebirth could end with parinirvana. Nirvana itself means something like "quenching" in the original Sanskrit, and it's because when one achieves it, one ends the cycle of rebirth. When a person achieves nirvana, they effectively die, forever.


Aye. I wasn't making an provable preamble really, I was more or less making a statement that speaks to the ironic emulation of scientific principals the Buddhists somehow landed near years before we had the slightest understanding of physics.

With that said to your second point, The question of what happens to an enlightened being after death is one of the unanswered questions i.e. does the Tathagata (Buddha) exist after death. The Buddha refused to address metaphysical issues such as these. He teaches one thing and that thing is liberation. He views other issues such as this, the nature of the universe, the nature of the 'soul' as a distraction.

It's not to say that this isn't a good question but it is one that is deliberately unanswered by the Buddha. As such I'm probably not going to be able to do it either.

It's the answer of no answer.
923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/15/17


Well, I am not so well-read in the Pali canon that comprises early Buddhist thought, but the doctrine of karma seems like metaphysics, to me anyway.
16004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/15/17

mxdan wrote:


Potentsaliva wrote:


So wait how can that be applied to ethics? Also can you define those terms in the bold as you understand them?


Buddhists, more or less, believe that the energy you interpret and receive is an opportunity. You can be born in higher states or lower states of energy but you are never destroyed. It all derives from how you internalize and release the energy being given to you in a moment.

Karma (Sanskrit) or kamma (Pali) since you asked -- “The law of kamma” is causal law or causality. Kamma vipaka (cause and effect) is one of the laws that form the universe. (Back to underlying rules of energy) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Nirvana is the highest state living things can achieve.

Dharma is literally translated in Buddhism to, "cosmic law and order". Dharma is basically the underlying ethical principal to all things that Buddhists apply to their lives. The principals are cited in the teachings of Buddha and more specifically the Four Noble Truths and The Noble Eightfolds.

The four are:

The truth of suffering (Dukkha)
The truth of the origin of suffering (Samudāya)
The truth of the cessation of suffering (Nirodha)
The truth of the path to the cessation of suffering (Magga)

I'm being lazy so I'm going to quote wiki for the eightfolds:


Right View: our actions have consequences; death is not the end, and our actions and beliefs have also consequences after death; the Buddha followed and taught a successful path out of this world and the other world (heaven and underworld/hell)[24][25][26][27][note 3] Later on, right view came to explicitly include karma and rebirth, and the importance of the Four Noble Truths, when "insight" became central to Buddhist soteriology.[28][29]

Right Resolve: the giving up home and adopting the life of a religious mendicant in order to follow the path; this concept aims at peaceful renunciation, into an environment of non-sensuality, non-ill-will (to loving kindness), away from cruelty (to compassion).[30] Such an environment aids contemplation of impermanence, suffering, and non-Self.[30]

Right Speech: no lying, no rude speech, no telling one person what another says about him, speaking that which leads to salvation;[23]

Right Conduct: no killing or injuring, no taking what is not given, no sexual acts.[23]

Right Livelihood: beg to feed, only possessing what is essential to sustain life;[23]

Right Effort: guard against sensual thoughts; this concept, states Harvey, aims at preventing unwholesome states that disrupt meditation.[30]

Right Mindfulness: never be absent minded, being conscious of what one is doing; this, states Harvey, encourages the mindfulness about impermanence of body, feeling and mind, as well as to experience the five aggregates (skandhas), the five hindrances, the four True Realities and seven factors of awakening.[30]

Right samadhi: practicing four stages of meditation (dhyāna) culminating into unification of the mind.



I don't understand how Karma can be a thing within their own framework if there was never an arising. If there was never an arising how can there be a beginning cause to start the chain of cause and effect?

So the whole system is basically centered around escaping suffering through the rules and guidelines outline by Buddha's knowing of the cosmic law's and order that revolve around a objective way to live in order to achieve Nirvana...that kinda just sounds like Christianity to me tbh albiet harder and more rigid and void of humanity.

I actually wonder if this really Buddhism as it was in the past?
mxdan 
12308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/15/17

Potentsaliva wrote:

I don't understand how Karma can be a thing within their own framework if there was never an arising. If there was never an arising how can there be a beginning cause to start the chain of cause and effect?

So the whole system is basically centered around escaping suffering through the rules and guidelines outline by Buddha's knowing of the cosmic law's and order that revolve around a objective way to live in order to achieve Nirvana...that kinda just sounds like Christianity to me tbh albiet harder and more rigid and void of humanity.

I actually wonder if this really Buddhism as it was in the past?


Most religions have some sort of similar framework when you boil it down. With that said early Buddhism explains the beginning of this world and of life as inconceivable since they have neither beginning nor end. Philosopher Bertrand Russell supports this school of thought by saying, 'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.' Obviously this is based in relativism but as I said before Buddhism steers clear of claims of origin and end and focuses on path so it's hard to actually debate this angle at all.

This is where Buddhists and Creationists part ways. Creationism's ethics seem to base themselves around narratives and the interpretation of it, while Buddhism tries to base itself around the interpretation itself.
mxdan 
12308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 11/14/17 , edited 11/15/17

mittemeyer wrote:



Kant argued in his Critique of Pure Reason that conceptual thought could not uncover fundamental laws of the universe. This is his famous argument that we could not really understand Ding an sich (a Thing in itself) either through conceptual reasoning or empirical observation.

Hence, all metaphysical speculation, for example, about whether human beings have "energies" and whether they are "conserved" or can "cease" can never be answered, according to Kant. He is the most influential philosopher of his generation, and is considered one of the most important Modernist philosophers to have ever lived.


To be honest I'm pretty unread in Kant but I'll add it to my reading list. But I think there is a practicality to it (He probably addresses) that I'd like to know -- That is, people interpret the world in any number of ways, and they react to those (for lack of a better word) energies and put out effort in the world in different ways (Socially, chemically [movement], etc.). The way we physiologically react to stimuli and envelope it is on some level energy dynamics, no?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.