"Agnostic Buddhism"

[ska invita]

Most religions encapsulate nuggets of truth / wisdom. They have to do this to lend some credibility to all the rest of their thought-free nonsense.

Your phrasing makes it out to be a conspiracy - the reason it's half truths is because the knowledge it's based on comes from insights gained in (- utterly subjective) transcendental/meditative states (christianity too had its roots in this tradition - most ancient religions do).

Many of the insights from these states have been born out by modern science where a huge amount of cross over exists between modern physics and ancient gnostic 'knowledge' about the universe.
Here's a quick, lazy example reagrding hinduism and cosmology- there are better ones (some more posted on the atheist v agnostic thread):
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Hindu_Cosmology.htm

Buddhism seems to have more nuggets than other religions. Anything that further decouples it from superstition and irrationality is to be welcomed.

Seconded.

Gnostic insights are great, but were originally made at a time predating the culture of modern skepticism and rigorous questioning (plus modern understanding of physics, chemistry and biology). It seems that these insights have become insitutionalised, so that future meditators experience simliar things as theyv'e been told by (buddhist) texts.

To have a truly agnostic meditative process why not try and leave behind as many older texts and start afresh - they can only cloud your experience. A physicist would have a very different experience tripping on mesaclin, say, than would a student of buddhism.

I guess a healthy agnostic position would try and learn about all traditions which have any insight on the nature of the universe (religious>scientific), then using gnostic trasncendental techniques and reason and logic try and sketch out an answer as to how the universe came into existance, but then disqualify any conclusions from being any kind of objective truth and admit that it is still unknowable.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

But in a direct parralel to atheists on the atheism vs agnostic thread, these buddhist atheists resolutely choose not answer the question of how creation came to be - just like modern physicists!

because there is no such thing as "creation" in physics - just the universe. no puppet-master

but i've read pages and pages of stuff by physicists trying to describe what happens at the beginning of time and speculating on why.

personally i don't have a problem with people trying to know things. but it's odd, you never get people looking at the North Pole and asking, what happens in the place that's even more north than the north pole, because that question makes no sense. no-one tries to say there's a magic thing north of the north pole that makes north and south.

if you meet a mystic, shoot him

A physicist would have a very different experience tripping on mesaclin

so would my cat - it would still just be a load of bollocks brought on by a chemically-induced brain malfunction

 

[ska invita]

because there is no such thing as "creation" in physics - just the universe. no puppet-master

of course there is - taking the big bang, what "caused" the big bang, what "created" the big bang, what happened to create the universe. Absolutely a question of physics.

personally i don't have a problem with people trying to know things. but it's odd, you never get people looking at the North Pole and asking, what happens in the place that's even more north than the north pole, because that question makes no sense. no-one tries to say there's a magic thing north of the north pole that makes north and south.

This more north than the north pole thing is a ridiculous argument - the question "what happens in the place that's even more north than the north pole" you are right makes no sense.

The terms of reference (poles) are absolute constructs - more north than the north pole is nonsense. The question what created the big bang (if the bang bang indeed took place), or what came before the big bang is in no way comparable. An answer to this question exists, its just unlikely we'll ever know what it is.

mescalin

so would my cat - it would still just be a load of bollocks brought on by a chemically-induced brain malfunction

Mescalin was short hand for gonstic states - as I've pointed out there is a lot of evidence for gnostic insights having come up with the profoundly similiar insights into the universe as modern physics. Whatever the biological reasons for this, these insights have validity in that they have clearly often arrived at the same answers as science. I've posted a few examples of this overlap on this and the other agnostic thread - will post more if you're not convinced.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

inverted commas won't help you - creation still implies a creator.

This more north than the north pole thing is a ridiculous argument - the question "what happens in the place that's even more north than the north pole" you are right makes no sense.

The terms of reference (poles) are absolute constructs - more north than the north pole is nonsense. The question what created the big bang (if the bang bang indeed took place), or what came before the big bang is in no way comparable.

no, it is, you just don't see it, because you crave a creator, or worse: you want to be eternally ignorant of creator AND creatorlessness, for some reason of your own which is unclear to me.

asking what happens before the beginning of time is like asking what happens in the place more to the left than the most left thing there is. you say the big bang was "created" - how can it be a matter of cause and effect when there is no extent, no previous time, in which to have a cause. you are thinking like someone who believes they are "moving" through time. instead, the whole 4D universe is all there, all the time, complete. the beginning is only the beginning because of your perspective as a thing which uses thermodynamics to think in the first place.

as I've pointed out there is a lot of evidence for gnostic insights having come up with the profoundly similiar insights into the universe as modern physics

yes, but so what; lots of things appear similar at first glance. especially if they're couched in the mystic language of professional obscurantists, like shamans and priests.

i like eastern philosophy and i like physics but let's not pretend they're the same thing.

 

[ska invita]

inverted commas won't help you - creation still implies a creator.

possibly. possibly not. im an agnostic - i dont know. A blade of grass came into existance at one point in time - at another time it did not exist. do you think it was created? did the fact that it came into being at a point in time mean there is a creator? The universe has a beginning much as the blade of grass - i want to know about the nature of that process where it came into being.

no, it is, you just don't see it, because you crave a creator, or worse: you want to be eternally ignorant of creator AND creatorlessness, for some reason of your own which is unclear to me.

Im agnostic, and i've spelled out my position [at length] on the other thread

asking what happens before the beginning of time is like asking what happens in the place more to the left than the most left thing there is. you say the big bang was "created" - how can it be a matter of cause and effect when there is no extent, no previous time, in which to have a cause. you are thinking like someone who believes they are "moving" through time. instead, the whole 4D universe is all there, all the time, complete. the beginning is only the beginning because of your perspective as a thing which uses thermodynamics to think in the first place.

First off you clearly seem to have some kind of model of the universe that you believe to be true and are convinced of the authority of this position- 4d universe , a concept of time in which " there is no extent, no previous time". As a "model agnostic" I dont think your model is correct (bit about model agnosticism below).

I think it is very convenient that as the current model of the unvierse put forward by physicists is unable to get to the question of what happened "before" and what created the conditions for the big bang, it also puts forward a model that makes such questions seem irrelevant by theorising its way out of them.

The theory that time begins at that point hardly takes away all doubt and further questions - perhaps it satisfies you, but it doesnt me. I would have thought that as someone who ins interested in sceince you would practice the first rule of science - always question what you have been told.

Now, this theoretical model of the universe you propose may well be correct - but I would be my life that it is a long way away from the Truth.

"model agnosticism":

" My attitude is identical to that of Dr. Gribbin and the majority of physicists today, and is known in physics as "the Copenhagen Interpretation," because it was formulated in Copenhagen by Dr. Niels Bohr and his co-workers c. 1926-28. The Copenhagen Interpretation is sometimes called "model agnosticism" and holds that any grid we use to organize our experience of the world is a model of the world and should not be confused with the world itself. Alfred Korzybski, the semanticist, tried to popularize this outside physics with the slogan, "The map is not the territory." Alan Watts, a talented exegete of Oriental philosophy, restated it more vividly as "The menu is not the meal."

Belief in the traditional sense, or certitude, or dogma, amounts to the grandiose delusion, "My current model" -- or grid, or map, or reality-tunnel -- "contains the whole universe and will never need to be revised." In terms of the history of science and knowledge in general, this appears absurd and arrogant to me, and I am perpetually astonished that so many people still manage to live with such a medieval attitude."
http://www.rawilson.com/trigger1.html

yes, but so what; lots of things appear similar at first glance. especially if they're couched in the mystic language of professional obscurantists, like shamans and priests. i like eastern philosophy and i like physics but let's not pretend they're the same thing.

of course its not the same thing but you were dismissing it [gnosticism] as "brain malufinction" - i say it has validity, a validity backed up by how many of its results have been echoed in scientific developments, is all.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

I think it is very convenient that as the current model of the unvierse put forward by physicists is unable to get to the question of what happened "before" and what created the conditions for the big bang, it also puts forward a model that makes such questions seem irrelevant by theorising its way out of them.

*gives up*

 

[ska invita]

woops. double post

 

[ska invita]

*gives up*

why are you so certain of the nature of time as you propose? its a theory isnt it?

 

[fudgefactorfive]

why are you so certain of the nature of time as you propose? its a theory isnt it?

this isn't really on topic at all

i'm not certain - if the greatest minds that ever lived aren't certain, i have no right to be - but that doesn't make me an agnostic - you're making me start to suspect that agnostics are just people hung up on questions that have internal contradictions. "i can never answer this question, therefore there are things that are intrinsically unknowable", they say, not realising they just asked bad questions.

maybe the "single big bang" model is wrong - maybe it's a repetitive bang-crunch cycle or bang-degeneracy-void-bang cycle - maybe the "baby universe" models will yield more fruit - but the irrationality of asking what happens "before time" still persists in all the models, in all possible models.

if the big bang wasn't just a "one off" - if there was a previous "cause" to it - then it wasn't the beginning of time by definition. just as if you discovered something more north than the north pole, then the north pole wouldn't be a pole any more. i can't think of any other way of phrasing this.

maybe it is just "elephants all the way down" - i dunno - i just would have thought a buddhist-minded person would prefer ideas that are mutually self-supporting, that bootstrap themselves, over and above systems which require a magic jelly.

it is all one thing and the one thing is whole and complete, self-supporting. any arbitrary division you make of it is therefore mutually dependent. it does not need to be "created". it just is, because it just has to be.

 

[ska invita]

it does not need to be "created". it just is, because it just has to be.

Exactly - thats what I thought you (and the modern physics model) were saying - ultimately it just is, because it just has to be.

I am not willing to take that as a definitive answer - in fact it rings of the convenience of tying up scientific loose ends.

Im not saying it does "need to be created", as I said on the other thread i consider myself to be a number 4 on Dawkins scale, an agnostic with no preference or leanings towards theism or atheism, as both positions require some confidence in (non-existant) evidence to swing one way or the other.

this isn't really on topic at all

you're right - this is a little off topic - but to recap it arose becasue Buddhism, like your scientific model, refuses to acknowledge an alternative to the "it just is, because it just has to be" approach to the nature of the universe.

For me this is far too limiting a view of the universe - it's not impossible that it is true, but no more so than a number of other, perhaps humanly-inconceivable, versions.

EDIT: just noticed you were refering to the question of the nature of time in saying it was off-topic - which i think is on topic - this view that time can only be measured from the beginning of the universe, so that nothing can be counted as coming before, rings of a sophists trick to me. To believe wholeheartedly in such a theory is at the heart of whether you feel the question of what came before can be asked.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

you're right - this is a little off topic - but to recap it arose becasue Buddhism, like your scientific model, refuses to acknowledge an alternative to the "it just is, because it just has to be" approach to the nature of the universe.

which is why i like them both. neither puts much value in ignorance

the alternative is your "there is a limit to rationality" mysticism, which to be honest, would stop me from even getting out of bed in the morning if i took it literally.

this thread is about stripping the mysticism away from buddhism, paring it down to useful, practical essentials, not making it worse - that way stands Tibetan psychedelic nightmares with a thousand arms.

 

[nosos]

the alternative is your "there is a limit to rationality" mysticism, which to be honest, would stop me from even getting out of bed in the morning if i took it literally.

Surely the whole point is that you can't think yourself out of conditioned existence?

 

[nosos]

The book sounds very interesting. The FWBO are weirdos though.

Could you be more specific?

 

[fudgefactorfive]

Surely the whole point is that you can't think yourself out of conditioned existence?

well, you know i have big problems with all this it's why i wouldn't say i was a buddhist. i'm drawn to it but also repelled.

i like thinking. it's fun

 

[ska invita]

the alternative is your "there is a limit to rationality" mysticism, which to be honest, would stop me from even getting out of bed in the morning if i took it literally.

Well, there is so much that rationalism can solve - but for now this one fundamental point is unsolvable. THat still leaves much to get out of bed for! Just cos its probably unsolvable for humans doesnt take away from the experience of life - in fact i think i am happier living with the mystery than i would be with living with any concrete knowledge (much as Id love to know for certain) - that mystery leaves room for innocence and wonder - seemingly lacking in the modern world.

 

[nosos]

I like thinking yet the most meaningful parts of my life are only there when thinking isn’t. Thought’s something I like doing because if I do it enough my brain shuts the fuck up and I just experience rather than think about the fact of my experience.

As I look it, cognition is like a box: there are any number of moves you can make, many different reactions you can have to a move you’ve made, yet they’re all just entrenching your position within the box. The more vigorously you think, the more you look for some other move you can make in thought. There’s an idea in the Alexander Technique called inhibition: consciously attempting to correct your posture inevitably fails, you have to try to let your posture correct itself, to let the mental awareness fall away so the body’s natural poise can be left unobscured. Yet you have to try to do this without trying to do it. You just have to simply do it: to step outside the system of thought, awareness and reaction.

I often feel trapped in this box.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

Well, there is so much that rationalism can solve - but for now this one fundamental point is unsolvable. THat still leaves much to get out of bed for! Just cos its probably unsolvable for humans doesnt take away from the experience of life - in fact i think i am happier living with the mystery than i would be with living with any concrete knowledge (much as Id love to know for certain) - that mystery leaves room for innocence and wonder - seemingly lacking in the modern world.

it's not unsolvable - it's not even a problem in the first place - that's the thing, you are creating a problem where there is no problem. but that's your karma i suppose, just as it's my karma to hate the authority of theists. you're hooked on the arrow of time. but it's not an arrow. cause and effect breaks down at small scales, and the universe is small at the time of the big bang.

as for wonder, you've already made it abundantly clear you think atheists are dullards incapable of awe, but in my case at least, you are wrong. luckily i don't need to prove to you that i'm capable of awe - my awe is already enough.

yes, you are happy living with mystery, you actively prefer it. that's why you want to be an agnostic. i'm not - mystery is annoying as hell - which is why i want to be an atheist. neither of us are particularly good buddhists.

just because there are questions you cannot answer doesn't mean that (a) they are questions worth asking in the first place and (b) that no-one can ever answer them. (b) in particular is arrogance.

 

[greenfield]

Gone off thread topic slightly!

 

[fudgefactorfive]

Gone off thread topic slightly!

yeah i know, sorry, can't help myself with mystics

 

[nosos]

I'm sorry.

I think the idea of skill-in-means lends a lot of credecent to an anti-realist interpretation of Buddhist mysticism and metaphysics.

According to Mahayana Buddhism one of the attributes of a Bodhisattva is to use skill-in-means or upaya-kausalya. This refers to the ability to present Buddhist teachings in such a way as to be be understood by audiences with different levels of comprehension. Hence skill-in-means is ultimately an instrument of compassion which means that no individual is denied the dharma or teaching. One interpretation that all Buddhist teachings are merely conceptual frameworks to aid the practitioner towards enlightenment. They are not ultimately truths in themselves. As an individual approaches enlightenment, all concepts will be dispensed with, just as crutches are dispensed with by someone who no longer has any need for them.

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/buddhism/skill-in-means.html

The cultural apparatus is a tool. It's why Buddhism has produced such a diverse range of forms (going from essentially monotheistic pure land Buddhism to zen iconoclasm) and consequently why it’s proved so gloriously adaptive.

I think the FWBO’s self-conscious attempt to adapt Buddhism to the modern west fits very comfortably into this tradition.

 

[ska invita]

as for wonder, you've already made it abundantly clear you think atheists are dullards incapable of awe, but in my case at least, you are wrong. l

of course - if ive called anyone a dullard i take it back (unless they are!). i try to avoid generalistations, but may have made some to make a point. It is true that as a society there is a lack of wonder, though (generally speaking). I have met some pretty unimaginative, cosy-in-their-world-view atheists though.

yes, you are happy living with mystery, you actively prefer it. that's why you want to be an agnostic. i'm not - mystery is annoying as hell -

I have made (a happy) peace with it - i would much rather know - but taking the zen approach here i am not going to swim against the stream to claim i can know something about the ansewer when i clearly cant. I dont "want" to be an agnostic - i have to be in recognising the limits of our ability to know about this subject.

just because there are questions you cannot answer doesn't mean that (a) they are questions worth asking in the first place and (b) that no-one can ever answer them. (b) in particular is arrogance.

Perhaps one day someone will irrefutably answer it - it seems a long way off to me - but then Im skeptical of all proposed models.

I think it is worht asking - the implications of the answer are huge in terms of "the meaning of life" - (if it has any!).

 

[fudgefactorfive]

Surely the whole point is that you can't think yourself out of conditioned existence?

been thinking about this () and decided i don't really know

there's thinking, and then there's thinking about thinking, surely?

buddhists prize contemplating nature - there is certainly a lot you can learn about "being" from observing the natural world and being mindful of your responses to it - surely that qualifies as "thinking"? interacting with the environment is the physical bedrock on which cognition is based. you can't turn thinking off completely. or you're literally dead.

on another thread people went to some lengths to convince me that the state of detachment is not brain death, sleep, death, or an abyss. you're still thinking, even if you're "in the moment" and unaware of your own thinking. i don't believe a less egotistical world would have less invention, imagination, creativity.

surely contemplation IS a way out of many forms of prejudice. how else can you see things in a new light without thinking? it's not the be all and end all, but nor is mental activity the demon in itself.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

I think it is worht asking - the implications of the answer are huge in terms of "the meaning of life" - (if it has any!).

no cause, no reason - no meaning

that's freedom

 

[118118]

"Most religions encapsulate nuggets of truth / wisdom."

i think any truth tends to be emotional truths, emotional resonance etc. i'm not sure if many stricly theistic inventions (what are these, 'omnipotence' - garbage, surely) are truthful, though of course some of the other work of the church may have elements of truth - but are these really "religious" truths?

 

[118118]

thats probably neither clear nor a good argument ^^ tsk.

 

[118118]

fff: you really don't think you exist then!

verily, i do!

 

[118118]

think i exist i mean.

 

[ska invita]

no cause, no reason - no meaning
that's freedom

thats drawing a conclusion before all the evidence is in.

 

[118118]

is it that all humans have no self, or enlightned buddhists only. cos i just don't understand how anyone can believe that there is actually no self.

 

[Meltingpot]

Does everyone have a self?

As I understand it, you start off your self-enquiry thinking you've got one, look for it and discover that you can't find it. Then you realise it doesn't exist.

Another way of putting that; we're all enlightened, but most of us don't know it.