Bubble of a Believer
Tahir Qazi August 25, 2009
#291 Posted by dost_mittar on September 4, 2009 8:24:23 am
TehsinA:
I am generally ill at ease in discussing subjects where I am myself not very clear. However, I would say that from your description, Plato's concept of mind is similar to that of earlier Hindus than of Buddha. I am still not sure whether or not Buddha believed in a soul; he did believe in something and there is a lot of literature on it but it seems to be too subtle and nuanced for my puny mind.
Here are some samples:
From: http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma8/imperm.html
"Hinduism also believes in the impermanent nature of life. But it deals with this problem differently. According to Hinduism, impermanence can be overcome by locating and uniting with the center of permanence that exists within oneself. This center is the Soul or the self that is immortal, permanent and ever stable.
According to Hinduism, Atman is the fundamental truth that exists in every being, while at the microcosmic level it is Brahman who is the fundamental and supreme truth of all existence. He who realizes Atman verily becomes Brahman and attains immortality.
The Buddha differed radically with this most fundamental concept of Hinduism and in line with his preaching the early Buddhists did not believe in the existence of a permanent and fixed reality which could be referred to as either God or soul. According to them what was apparent and verifiable about our existence was the continuous change it undergoes.
Thus early Buddhism declares that in this world there is nothing that is fixed and permanent. Every thing is subject to change and alteration. "Decay is inherent in all component things," declared the Buddha and his followers accepted that existence was a flux, and a continuous becoming."
From: http://www.arrowriver.ca/dhamma/soul.html
This is a long, intellectual exposition by a Buddhist monk, from which I give a few excerpts. I found it a bit tiresome and too nuanced for me but you will probably find it fascinating:
"Is There a Soul in Buddhism?
To give the short answer first: "No."
As you might expect, the long answer is much more nuanced. The short answer depends on the commonly understood idea of "soul" as an unchanging personal principle that continues in time infinitely. This is the concept of "soul" usually implicit when one begins with the assumptions of a theistic religion. On the other hand, if by soul we mean simply that human beings have a spiritual aspect that is not ultimately bound up with physical processes, then Buddhism would be much more sympathetic to the idea. Buddhism may deny the existence of a "soul" but it is not for that reason "soul-less" in the same way as is materialist philosophy."
..............
"The first sutta of the Digha Nikaya lays out sixty-two false views, or philosophical errors. These make a complex matrix of nuanced positions regarding metaphysical questions but we can simplify them all into two broad categories, (and one additional minor category.) The first major category of error is eternalism, or the belief that there are some "things" (such as a soul) that continue essentially unchanged forever. This was represented in the Buddha's time by all those Indian schools which postulated an eternal "atman", the Self or Soul or "jiva", life-principle. In later times, this philosophy was adopted in some form or another by all the theistic religions like Christianity, Islam or most forms of Hinduism"
......
"So, mind, in the Buddhist understanding, is a separate irreducible class separate from body (and from mental concomitants but we need not digress that far from the main line of argument.) It is however, causally arisen and conditioned. In other words, subject to cause-and-effect like everything else. It is also, most of the time, intimately bound up with a physical body, which can act as one of the causal factors. Fill the bloodstream with alcohol and the conscious mind is dulled and bewildered because its physical correlate is not functioning normally. Likewise, mind can be a causal factor for body, and every time I move my limbs I demonstrate this"
I am generally ill at ease in discussing subjects where I am myself not very clear. However, I would say that from your description, Plato's concept of mind is similar to that of earlier Hindus than of Buddha. I am still not sure whether or not Buddha believed in a soul; he did believe in something and there is a lot of literature on it but it seems to be too subtle and nuanced for my puny mind.
Here are some samples:
From: http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma8/imperm.html
"Hinduism also believes in the impermanent nature of life. But it deals with this problem differently. According to Hinduism, impermanence can be overcome by locating and uniting with the center of permanence that exists within oneself. This center is the Soul or the self that is immortal, permanent and ever stable.
According to Hinduism, Atman is the fundamental truth that exists in every being, while at the microcosmic level it is Brahman who is the fundamental and supreme truth of all existence. He who realizes Atman verily becomes Brahman and attains immortality.
The Buddha differed radically with this most fundamental concept of Hinduism and in line with his preaching the early Buddhists did not believe in the existence of a permanent and fixed reality which could be referred to as either God or soul. According to them what was apparent and verifiable about our existence was the continuous change it undergoes.
Thus early Buddhism declares that in this world there is nothing that is fixed and permanent. Every thing is subject to change and alteration. "Decay is inherent in all component things," declared the Buddha and his followers accepted that existence was a flux, and a continuous becoming."
From: http://www.arrowriver.ca/dhamma/soul.html
This is a long, intellectual exposition by a Buddhist monk, from which I give a few excerpts. I found it a bit tiresome and too nuanced for me but you will probably find it fascinating:
"Is There a Soul in Buddhism?
To give the short answer first: "No."
As you might expect, the long answer is much more nuanced. The short answer depends on the commonly understood idea of "soul" as an unchanging personal principle that continues in time infinitely. This is the concept of "soul" usually implicit when one begins with the assumptions of a theistic religion. On the other hand, if by soul we mean simply that human beings have a spiritual aspect that is not ultimately bound up with physical processes, then Buddhism would be much more sympathetic to the idea. Buddhism may deny the existence of a "soul" but it is not for that reason "soul-less" in the same way as is materialist philosophy."
..............
"The first sutta of the Digha Nikaya lays out sixty-two false views, or philosophical errors. These make a complex matrix of nuanced positions regarding metaphysical questions but we can simplify them all into two broad categories, (and one additional minor category.) The first major category of error is eternalism, or the belief that there are some "things" (such as a soul) that continue essentially unchanged forever. This was represented in the Buddha's time by all those Indian schools which postulated an eternal "atman", the Self or Soul or "jiva", life-principle. In later times, this philosophy was adopted in some form or another by all the theistic religions like Christianity, Islam or most forms of Hinduism"
......
"So, mind, in the Buddhist understanding, is a separate irreducible class separate from body (and from mental concomitants but we need not digress that far from the main line of argument.) It is however, causally arisen and conditioned. In other words, subject to cause-and-effect like everything else. It is also, most of the time, intimately bound up with a physical body, which can act as one of the causal factors. Fill the bloodstream with alcohol and the conscious mind is dulled and bewildered because its physical correlate is not functioning normally. Likewise, mind can be a causal factor for body, and every time I move my limbs I demonstrate this"
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#290 Posted by tahmed32 on September 4, 2009 6:08:37 am
(sorry for double posting #288/289).
to complete #289, the problem with traditional societies - whether european before the renaissance, or of the indian subcontinent to this day - is that the best brains are engaged in this "armchair hiking". As opposed to "real hiking" that has enabled western science to go far further towards answering life's fundamental problems in a meaningful and certain manner, than the traditional aalims and sufis of the east can even imagine.
to complete #289, the problem with traditional societies - whether european before the renaissance, or of the indian subcontinent to this day - is that the best brains are engaged in this "armchair hiking". As opposed to "real hiking" that has enabled western science to go far further towards answering life's fundamental problems in a meaningful and certain manner, than the traditional aalims and sufis of the east can even imagine.
#289 Posted by tahmed32 on September 4, 2009 6:04:30 am
Tehsin: More seriously, I agree that we should all examine life's fundamental questions. It is just we should go about it in a disciplined and thoughtful manner.
As an example of a disciplined search to answer fundamental questions, the search for the "God Particle" (aka Higgs Boson) that the physicists are scrambling nowadays to try and find at Fermilab before the competing European Large Hadron Collider starts grinding away again in a few months after a false start last year, is an example of a potentially fruitful search. And the scientist knows that even if the God Particle is found, thereby confirming the validity of the Standard Model and achieving the goal of finding a new physics to replace the peaceful Newtonian physics that was shattered at the start of the 20th century. However, the scientist always knows that discovery of the God Particle would not bring him any closer to finding God - it would simply raise even more questions. Just as (and if you are a hiker you will know what i mean) when you reach one mountain peak, a whole set of new mountain peaks that are even higher come in to view.
The above disciplined search is valid. This undisciplined speculation of the nature of God, otoh, is fruitless. It is the province of the armchair hiker, who simply lets his imagination roam.
As an example of a disciplined search to answer fundamental questions, the search for the "God Particle" (aka Higgs Boson) that the physicists are scrambling nowadays to try and find at Fermilab before the competing European Large Hadron Collider starts grinding away again in a few months after a false start last year, is an example of a potentially fruitful search. And the scientist knows that even if the God Particle is found, thereby confirming the validity of the Standard Model and achieving the goal of finding a new physics to replace the peaceful Newtonian physics that was shattered at the start of the 20th century. However, the scientist always knows that discovery of the God Particle would not bring him any closer to finding God - it would simply raise even more questions. Just as (and if you are a hiker you will know what i mean) when you reach one mountain peak, a whole set of new mountain peaks that are even higher come in to view.
The above disciplined search is valid. This undisciplined speculation of the nature of God, otoh, is fruitless. It is the province of the armchair hiker, who simply lets his imagination roam.
#288 Posted by tahmed32 on September 4, 2009 6:04:29 am
Tehsin: More seriously, I agree that we should all examine life's fundamental questions. It is just we should go about it in a disciplined and thoughtful manner.
As an example of a disciplined search to answer fundamental questions, the search for the "God Particle" (aka Higgs Boson) that the physicists are scrambling nowadays to try and find at Fermilab before the competing European Large Hadron Collider starts grinding away again in a few months after a false start last year, is an example of a potentially fruitful search. And the scientist knows that even if the God Particle is found, thereby confirming the validity of the Standard Model and achieving the goal of finding a new physics to replace the peaceful Newtonian physics that was shattered at the start of the 20th century. However, the scientist always knows that discovery of the God Particle would not bring him any closer to finding God - it would simply raise even more questions. Just as (and if you are a hiker you will know what i mean) when you reach one mountain peak, a whole set of new mountain peaks that are even higher come in to view.
The above disciplined search is valid. This undisciplined speculation of the nature of God, otoh, is fruitless. It is the province of the armchair hiker, who simply lets his imagination roam.
As an example of a disciplined search to answer fundamental questions, the search for the "God Particle" (aka Higgs Boson) that the physicists are scrambling nowadays to try and find at Fermilab before the competing European Large Hadron Collider starts grinding away again in a few months after a false start last year, is an example of a potentially fruitful search. And the scientist knows that even if the God Particle is found, thereby confirming the validity of the Standard Model and achieving the goal of finding a new physics to replace the peaceful Newtonian physics that was shattered at the start of the 20th century. However, the scientist always knows that discovery of the God Particle would not bring him any closer to finding God - it would simply raise even more questions. Just as (and if you are a hiker you will know what i mean) when you reach one mountain peak, a whole set of new mountain peaks that are even higher come in to view.
The above disciplined search is valid. This undisciplined speculation of the nature of God, otoh, is fruitless. It is the province of the armchair hiker, who simply lets his imagination roam.
#287 Posted by tahmed32 on September 4, 2009 5:40:07 am
Anil sahib: Fortunately, I dont need anyone's permission for my beliefs.
#286 Posted by tahmed32 on September 4, 2009 5:39:04 am
TehsinA #283 I shall consider that accidental red flag to be like a gold star, a form of appreciation. :-)
#285 Posted by nemesis3 on September 3, 2009 9:28:52 pm
#282 Posted by TNITC
Thanks for clarifying.
Can you then say which of the quotes that I mentioned in my interact holds good?
Thanks for clarifying.
Can you then say which of the quotes that I mentioned in my interact holds good?
#284 Posted by TNITC on September 3, 2009 9:13:45 pm
Tahmed to Tehsin "My turn to ask a straight question: Do you think one has to be an atheist order to use one's common sense and understand that it is neither possible nor necessary nor even important for a human being to try and visualize God, let alone reach out and slap him (per the Hamidm Dictum), or at least "find him" in this life (as you I think are trying to do)?"
This is not a straight question, it is a loaded question that wants a person to ignore the reality that describes existence for those that accept through power of proof the existence of God. You cannot ignore in such cases the fundamental reality, therefore yes, to ignore it you must be an atheist or a closet atheist like tahmed.
These people will spend more time trying to figure out how much spice to put in their evening meal than contemplate God and the reality of human existence.
Have a nice day
This is not a straight question, it is a loaded question that wants a person to ignore the reality that describes existence for those that accept through power of proof the existence of God. You cannot ignore in such cases the fundamental reality, therefore yes, to ignore it you must be an atheist or a closet atheist like tahmed.
These people will spend more time trying to figure out how much spice to put in their evening meal than contemplate God and the reality of human existence.
Have a nice day
#283 Posted by TehsinA on September 3, 2009 9:03:58 pm
#270 Posted by tahmed32
No you don’t need to be an atheist, but everybody should examine life’s fundamental questions.
By mistake I clicked on the red flag for your post, how can I remove this?
No you don’t need to be an atheist, but everybody should examine life’s fundamental questions.
By mistake I clicked on the red flag for your post, how can I remove this?
#282 Posted by TNITC on September 3, 2009 8:42:23 pm
nemesis writes "This is what a religious scripture should have been, i.e. independent of time and context. However, elsewhere in Chowk, every embarrassing quote from Quran is brushed aside on an excuse that the same was made in respect of certain context and is being twisted out of context"
First there is no embarrassing quote in the Quran, second, when you say a book is not tied to a place and time, you do not mean that it is not tied to the context that it specifically mentions as logical premise for its conclusion. You need to get this straight before you Meccanize and medinize the verses of the Quran- there is no such division in the Quran either, that is all contrived nonsense that postdates the primary document and tries to invent non mentioned contexts for it.
First there is no embarrassing quote in the Quran, second, when you say a book is not tied to a place and time, you do not mean that it is not tied to the context that it specifically mentions as logical premise for its conclusion. You need to get this straight before you Meccanize and medinize the verses of the Quran- there is no such division in the Quran either, that is all contrived nonsense that postdates the primary document and tries to invent non mentioned contexts for it.
#281 Posted by TehsinA on September 3, 2009 8:37:07 pm
#269 Posted by dost_mittar
The tripartite theory of soul is very similar to Buddha’s conception. The way you explain it is almost the same except same words mean different things. First of all what Hindus call ‘soul’ ‘atman’ is actually called ‘mind’ in the Platonic conception. This is the seat of knowledge, justice and conscience. Plato also kind of ignored God as a final arbiter but only referred to a demiurge a decidedly lesser entity then what God would imply. It was Plotinus a 3rd century Neo Platonist who developed this concept further and claimed that at the time of death this part of the triad returned to a common pool from which souls received a portion once reborn.
The body of course dies but the soul I guess that would be consciousness or jeeva is immortal and similar to your description would be reborn until the cycle of rebirths is broken.
So, as a general framework Buddha and Plato were very similar. Isnt this fantastic that Buddha, Plato and Confucious happened to be contemporaries but independent of each other came up with strikingly similar conceptions of the big picture.
The tripartite theory of soul is very similar to Buddha’s conception. The way you explain it is almost the same except same words mean different things. First of all what Hindus call ‘soul’ ‘atman’ is actually called ‘mind’ in the Platonic conception. This is the seat of knowledge, justice and conscience. Plato also kind of ignored God as a final arbiter but only referred to a demiurge a decidedly lesser entity then what God would imply. It was Plotinus a 3rd century Neo Platonist who developed this concept further and claimed that at the time of death this part of the triad returned to a common pool from which souls received a portion once reborn.
The body of course dies but the soul I guess that would be consciousness or jeeva is immortal and similar to your description would be reborn until the cycle of rebirths is broken.
So, as a general framework Buddha and Plato were very similar. Isnt this fantastic that Buddha, Plato and Confucious happened to be contemporaries but independent of each other came up with strikingly similar conceptions of the big picture.
#280 Posted by nemesis3 on September 3, 2009 8:34:15 pm
#272 Posted by TNITC
"The Quran is not tied to a place and it is not tied to a particular time, it is the clearest elaboration of the scientific method of getting to truth through reason"
This is what a religious scripture should have been, i.e. independent of time and context. However, elsewhere in Chowk, every embarrassing quote from Quran is brushed aside on an excuse that the same was made in respect of certain context and is being twisted out of context.
Glaring example is the self contradictory quotes from quran which preaches on one hand that a non-believer should simply be ignored and forgiven(mecca phase, a la jesus christ) and again a non-believer should be annihilated (medina phase)
"The Quran is not tied to a place and it is not tied to a particular time, it is the clearest elaboration of the scientific method of getting to truth through reason"
This is what a religious scripture should have been, i.e. independent of time and context. However, elsewhere in Chowk, every embarrassing quote from Quran is brushed aside on an excuse that the same was made in respect of certain context and is being twisted out of context.
Glaring example is the self contradictory quotes from quran which preaches on one hand that a non-believer should simply be ignored and forgiven(mecca phase, a la jesus christ) and again a non-believer should be annihilated (medina phase)
#279 Posted by anil on September 3, 2009 8:30:00 pm
Re: # 272
Masadi continues to miss the point that descriptions rely on analogies of the type "possession of right hand". Probably analogies are not something everyone can handle.
"...it is the clearest elaboration of the scientific method of getting to truth through reason and empirical evidence and falsification long before these people who now parade as scientists ever thought of it..."
Only people's ignorance and irrational emotions make them express their ignorance and emotions in such strong terms.
Fortunately absurdities, emotional irrationality and ignorant attempts to claim proof positive evidence and science to explain a belief system do not go too far with many. No matter how much someone behaves like a cry baby, the reality does not change, because someone acts as a cry baby.
Masadi continues to miss the point that descriptions rely on analogies of the type "possession of right hand". Probably analogies are not something everyone can handle.
"...it is the clearest elaboration of the scientific method of getting to truth through reason and empirical evidence and falsification long before these people who now parade as scientists ever thought of it..."
Only people's ignorance and irrational emotions make them express their ignorance and emotions in such strong terms.
Fortunately absurdities, emotional irrationality and ignorant attempts to claim proof positive evidence and science to explain a belief system do not go too far with many. No matter how much someone behaves like a cry baby, the reality does not change, because someone acts as a cry baby.
#278 Posted by anil on September 3, 2009 8:17:39 pm
Re: # 271
Tahmed sahib:
What you say here, I have no problem whatsoever. I am not sure if Masadi-esque people from all religions will let you.
Tahmed sahib:
What you say here, I have no problem whatsoever. I am not sure if Masadi-esque people from all religions will let you.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- javedhaddi: parthab you are asking... A Very Costly Bill
- iron_mask: Re: # 19 that... My Lover Girl
- iron_mask: Padash, interesting character. I like... My Lover Girl
- pinku: rahul_capri, if you do... Cross Stitch Therapy
- pinku: #2 Posted by GB123... Cross Stitch Therapy
- freehussaini: The rich have learned... Ali Ki Tasbeeh
- Skeptical: Good read. Thank God... My Lover Girl
- pinku: [[ #10 Posted by rahul_capri... Cross Stitch Therapy
