Hi John, I really appreciate your open-mindedness, but I have nothing to say about the god-pattern. I really have nothing to say, and bringing Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny into the discussion will not inspire me to change my mind. I am sorry to say no to you.
Marsha On Apr 27, 2010, at 4:43 PM, John Carl wrote: > Marsha, > > You need no argumentation to convince at least me, that Buddhism used logic > and purely rational philosophical methods to achieve realizations which are > highly advanced, even today. > > The Buddha was not only an amazing thinker and philosopher, but a superb > teacher as well and his students built on his insights to an astoundingly > wonderful degree. I only have had a small exposure to their teaching, a > compilation of the ancient antecedents of zen, called chan where it was > born, but that small exposure was enough to make me realize the extremely > high quality of intellectual attainment in this line of thinking. What a > gift for the world! > > The book was called "The Roaring Stream" and its poetry and power have left > me wanting more. Another library book to order from ebay. > > > But regardless of this high quality intellectual thinking at the heart of > the east, the area under Buddha's purview seems somewhat lacking in > comparison to the Christianity-dominated west. > > I believe this ties in to a dialogue I wanted to have with you, that I tried > to raise with you on an earlier thread, but which I never found your answer. > > The dialogue concerns whether it is better for society to have an idea of > God to struggle against and overcome, or no idea of God at all in the first > place. My analogy centered on whether we should rid our children of such > ideas as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and just give them the straight > facts from birth... > > Or, whether perhaps, there is an intellectual strength to be gained from > attaining to atheism on your own, bucking your parental authority, bucking > social authority, bucking God Himself! in order to assert your own > intellectual being. > > See, I see that as a process. A way of strengthening and in fact creating > an intellectual "muscle" that wouldn't exist unless it had something as big > as God to push against. And that future generations are deprived of this > musclular selfdom, by our egoistic assertions of subjective enlightenment as > absolute. > > Is kinda what I wondered if you'd ever thought about... > > yours ever, > > John > > > > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 1:12 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> To recap why I think Buddhism cannot be used as an exception to >> the Intellectual Level being SOM, I offer these to quotes that indicate >> that Buddhism used logic and the scientific method for an objective >> study of 'Mind'. >> >> >> "... So at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the Buddha's >> path, >> observation plays an extremely important role. This is similar to the role >> that >> objective observation plays in the scientific tradition which teaches that >> when >> we observe a problem we first formulate a general theory followed by >> specific >> hypothesis. We find the same thing happening in the teaching of the Four >> Noble Truths and here the general theory is that all things have a cause, >> and the specific hypothesis is that the causes of suffering are craving and >> ignorance." >> >> " Experience in Buddhism is comprised of two components - the objective >> component and the subjective component. In other works, the things around >> us and we the perceivers. Buddhism is noted for its analytical method in >> the >> area of philosophy and psychology. What we mean by this is that the Buddha >> analyzes experience into various elements, the most basic of these being >> the >> five Skandhas or aggregates - form, feeling, perception, mental formation >> or >> volition and consciousness. The five aggregates in turn can be analyzed >> into the eighteen elements (Dhatus) and we have a still more elaborate >> analysis in terms of seventy two elements. This method is analytical >> as it breaks up things. We are not satisfied with a vague notion of >> experience, >> but we analyze it, we probe it, we break it down into its component parts >> like >> we break down the chariot into the wheels, the axle and so on. And we do >> this in order to get an idea how things work. When we see for instance a >> flower, or hear a piece of music, or meet a friend, all these experiences >> arise as a result of components. This is what is called the analytical >> approach. >> And again this analytical approach is not at all strange to modern science >> and >> philosophy." >> >> >> (Peter D. Santina, 'Fundamentals of Buddhism',BAUS) >> >> ___ >> >> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >> > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html ___ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
