Likes Likes:  0
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 87

Thread: Enlightenment = good ?

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    6,227
    Likes (received)
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Mitchell
    ...To qoute from the amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court in the Edwards v. Aguillard case by 72 Nobel laureates, 17 state academies of science, and seven other sientific organizations...
    I would just like to point out for any readers not familiar with this case, that it was -- if I recall -- related to whether or not Creationism should be taught as an alternate explaination of life in science classes.

    No one presenting testimony said that Creationism wasn't a valid theory, nor that it was irrational, nor that it didn't have a place in Philosophy or Theology classes; only that it didn't belong in a science class.

    I agree with them.

    I also believe in a Supreme Being.

    The two are not mutually exclusive.
    Yours in Budo,
    ---Brian---

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,549
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Owens
    No one presenting testimony said that Creationism wasn't a valid theory, nor that it was irrational
    Well they should have done.

    At least that's one hoary old chestnut that Buddhism doesn't have to contend with.
    Cheers,

    Mike
    No-Kan-Do

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    113
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Hi Bruce,

    My argument does not breakdown just because I am using physical system examples to demonstrate that principles of rational thinking apply to metaphysical knowledge. I am trying to point out that if we chose not to accept any knowledge until it has passed through rigorous empirical scientific protocol we could not accept anything as truthful knowledge because rigorous scientific protocols are all inherently flawed as well.

    The flaws that you seem to believe are inherent when determining the truth of metaphysical principles is inherent within ALL scientific protocols. If the observer affects/changes the test by merely observing it, then we may conclude that a scientist’s preconceived expectations will affect his experimental results and his subjective conditioning will determine what he perceives and how he interprets what he perceives. In fact, his preconceived notions will influence what he chooses to test and how he chooses to test it as well. This is cause enough to bring into doubt any scientific conclusion.

    Many scientific conclusions are brought into doubt later in time because of further scientific testing. We may say, “Well that is just science adjusting itself according to further studies”, but what it really does is demonstrate that those who consider themselves rational thinkers are guilty of the same errors they accuse others of committing. They blindly accept incorrect conclusions because of faith in a flawed system of thinking. Therefore your argument that the mystic will perceive what he has been told he will perceive applies to the scientist as well. Scientists are just as conditioned by their preconceived notions as anyone else. Their primary error is their blind faith in a scientific system when it is clear that errors are inherent within the system.

    The fact that the truths of metaphysical principles cannot be tested in a lab under controlled circumstances is not proof that the principles are not Truths. It only demonstrates they may not be tested within controlled circumstances. This is an inherent flaw of all controlled testing. Life does not occur within the vacuum of a controlled test. There are innumerable influences in every environment that affect phenomena and all of them cannot be accounted for within any test. This creates flaws in every conclusion reached. Further, just because something occurs within a controlled test does not necessarily mean it will apply in the real world due to the unaccounted for variables that occur in the real world. The Placebo effect alone occurs in approximately 32% of test subjects. That is a huge margin of error, or if you prefer, a huge margin of variable effect. Nearly one third of test subjects are affected by their mental conditioning! Are we to presume that scientists are beyond this inherent human characteristic that clearly influences scientific testing?

    Metaphysical knowledge may be tested. It just may not be tested according to the “exact” protocols that apply to the physical system. As I have mentioned previously, we accept as true information obtained from observational studies by scientists. This information is presumed valid because we have faith in the recording ability of the scientist and because these studies may be further validated by further observations provided by other scientists. But the same thing occurs with those who record their Enlightenment experiences. There are numerous records of Enlightenment experience from nearly every culture and historical era. They record similar themes with some variation according to culture and other factors, but they all have the same basic theme. Are you suggesting that each experiencer from all cultures, religions and historical eras have the obtained identical conditioning designed to produce identical themes? This is not possible, but even if it were to what purpose? To presume a mystic will automatically experience what he was told to expect is not accurate since Enlightenment experience occurs within all cultural and religious traditions from all historical eras. As I have previously state there are common themes that occur and variations may be attributed to cultural and religious conditioning in accord with variations in intelligence, literacy and ability to communicate ideas.

    Observation is “always” influenced by the subjective conditioning of the observer regardless of whether the observer is a scientist or a mystic. It seems you are implying that we may accept the observational studies of a scientist, but NOT a mystic merely because we presume the scientist to be formally trained. It seems you are willing to ignore the inherent biases of a scientist merely because you presume they are capable of being objective. This is erroneous thinking! It is impossible to be objective even if one is presumably trained to be so. At best one may be considered less biased than another, but this is neither required nor guaranteed by formal training! Further, since we are all biased who is to determine who is less biased than another? The chooser is biased as well which creates bias in his choice! There is no reason then to avoid researching the records of Enlightenment experience, identify the common themes and investigate the experience for ourselves.

    In fact variation in Enlightenment experience should be considered normal, healthy and beneficial. It should be viewed similar to artists painting the same landscape scene. Each painting will be based upon the theme of an identical landscape and expressed utilizing identical media, but each expression will occur according to the artists’ unique painting style and perspective. Each painting then will reflect similar, but different qualities of the landscape as reflected through the unique perspective and ability of the painter. This provides a broader vision than just one perspective could provide. No painting is considered an inaccurate representation of the landscape because the landscape is meant to be reflected through various perspectives which provides for an enhanced quality of experience for the audience.
    Scott R. Brown

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    359
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Hi Scott,
    I am trying to point out that if we chose not to accept any knowledge until it has passed through rigorous empirical scientific protocol we could not accept anything as truthful knowledge because rigorous scientific protocols are all inherently flawed as well.
    This is a reducto ad absurdum arguement and doesn't make your case. Even if you are right, then your arguement becomes a fallacy of false negation (claiming that by discrediting one theory, we must accept the other). My mistake was probably bringing science into the arguement in the first place.

    To make things simpler, I will stick to my statement that the arguements for enlightenment are sound only if you accept the premise that it exist. If you don't accept that premise than all the arguements built on it, no matter how well constructed, are invalid.
    Best regards,
    Bruce Mitchell

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    113
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Hi Bruce,

    My comment is not reducto ad absurdum. It is unproductive and fallacious to cherry pick a few lines from an entire argument, take them out of the context of the entire argument, and then draw a conclusion based upon that changed context.

    We all have a specific view of reality. We all have a preconditioned perspective that will determine the manner in which we interpret our reality. This preconception influences everything we do and the conclusions we come to about our experiences.

    Mind is the essence of reality. The environment is not the source of what we perceive, the mind is! Empirical science is but a principle man uses to perceive and define his reality. Empirical science is only a measuring system. All data is filtered through and interpreted by the mind. Each mind is conditioned to filter and perceive according to its own specific qualities and environmental conditioning. This is subjective conditioning. Just because a scientist seeks to limit his subjective influences does not mean it is avoided. It means he is deluded by his conditioning to think his subjectivity has been limited. The fact is no one can avoid their subjectivity and there is no way to measure just how subjective we are being because those that measure our own subjectivity are influenced by their subjectivity as well. Trust in empirical science is a form of subjective conditioning and this influences how the scientist perceives his world. The empirically defined definition of the world is merely another subjectively influenced view and subject to the same flaws as any reality definition.

    You have made a comment indicating that the subjective observation cannot be trusted because it does not follow the scientific protocol notably the double blind test. This seems to indicate that you believe that subjective information cannot be trusted or accepted as truth unless it is filtered through empirical testing. This is erroneous thinking because all information is inherently subjective and its level of subjectivity cannot be accurately assessed due the subjectivity of the evaluation process. This means that inherently all conclusions about reality are subject to flaw.

    The following illustration is a variation of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. It is an example of how the mind is the essence of reality and subjectivity is the basis of all perceptions of reality:

    Below is the old woman/young woman optical illusion. It is one of the best examples to demonstrate the principle I am discussing. Does this picture exhibit an old woman or a young woman? It contains both. Which one is perceived depends upon the perceiver. It depends upon the perspective, the manner in which one chooses to, or is able to, perceive the picture. A person who is only able to perceive the old woman cannot be convinced the young woman in the picture exists because he cannot perceive it. He must learn to see the young woman on his own. Another person may point to the young woman’s specific features in order to assist the other in perceiving the young woman, but he cannot present the young woman empirically to the non-seer. You can either see it or you can’t!

    One must change their mind subjectively in order to perceive the young woman. Their lack of ability to perceive her does not mean she does not exist. The inability of the person who sees the young woman to empirically demonstrate she exists is due to the nature of subjective perception which is an inherent quality of the mind.

    If we were to take a group of people who can only see the old woman and add one person who can see the young woman as well as the old woman, the young woman perceiver would be considered nuts, foolish, misguided, etc. by the “old woman” group! He cannot prove to anyone the young woman exists. There is no empirical test able to demonstrate what others are inherently unable to perceive. They must perceive the young woman for themselves and to them she does not exist until they have that ability. The ability to perceive the young woman cannot be measured in any empirical manner. The measure is in the direct perception of her. Her existence can only be confirmed when the other individual’s can actually perceive her for themselves. According to your argument concerning Enlightenment experience this “new” perception is due to conditioning. However, the young woman is “actually” there in the picture even though the ability to see her occurs entirely within the mind!
    Scott R. Brown

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    113
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Addendum:

    When the young woman is finally perceived no change occurs within the picture, yet the "experience" of the the picture changes! Reality changes due to a change in perception. Reality did not change because there was a change in our environment, it changed because there was a subjective change in our mind. No empirical, measurable, tangible change has occurred. Change occurred solely within the mind!
    Scott R. Brown

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    St-Jerome, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    163
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Hahahahaha!

    Hahahahaha!

    The monkey is playing with the horse
    Sebastien Cyr 義真
    春風館道場
    Shunpukan Dojo

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    113
    Likes (received)
    0

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by roninseb
    Hahahahaha!

    The monkey is playing with the horse
    Touche!
    Scott R. Brown

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    7
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Enlightenment=good

    IF we equate enlightenment with emptiness, then in that event mind AND body disappear. In a nutshell "you" dissolve- hence why it is seen as a death. But the memory cells record prior and post event, allowing "you" to claim whatever happened as "your" experience. What is present is generally termed Spirit, Formless or the unborn deathless state.

    Alternatively enlightenment may also be equated with heat in the body, such as fire in the belly, a big warm heart and light in and beyond the brain. Or after the event a LIGHTness of being- hence the sayings "a spring in the step" or "feeling a few inches off the ground."

    Sounds good to me and lightens the load!
    Michael Powell

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    metropolitan new york
    Posts
    289
    Likes (received)
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott
    Hi Bruce,

    My comment is not reducto ad absurdum. It is unproductive and fallacious to cherry pick a few lines from an entire argument, take them out of the context of the entire argument, and then draw a conclusion based upon that changed context.
    Ah, so you reject the prasangika madhamakha.....

    Oh wait, this is e-budo, not the Tibetan section of e-sangha.

    Nevermind.....

    FL

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    113
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kokumo
    Ah, so you reject the prasangika madhamakha.....
    Hi Fred,

    I am not sure what you mean exactly since it seems that there are a few different interpretations of Prasangika Madhyamika. If you mean the principle that is and is-not do not exist then I would say yes and no to your comment. Both is and is-not occur from the dualist perspective. From the non-dual perspective they do not exist and do exist! I believe that existence/reality is both dual and non-dual. Which one occurs (is perceived at a present moment) is dependant upon ones Mind, their perspective. If one perceives solely from the non-dual perspective and considers this the True representation of reality then this is just as illusory as duality since both dual and non-dual are representations of the True reality depending upon ones perspective. This means that clear perception (Enlightenment), would require one to perceive one, the other, or both at the same time at will.

    It isn’t that duality is unreal or an illusion. The illusion/delusion is the view that duality is the only Real representation of existence/reality. Duality is real according to a specific perspective and non-dual is real according a specific perspective. A person limited to just one perspective and believing “that” perspective is the ‘only” True representation of True Reality is confused by an illusion, since both actually occur simultaneously, at the same time, in the same instant. So the view that non-dual is the True representation of reality is just as illusory as the view that duality is the True representation of reality.

    To illustrate this point I use the Old Woman/Young Woman optical illusion. (See above on this thread to see the pic.) Both the Old Woman and the Young Woman occur at once, at the same moment in time, occupying the same space. Which one is perceived is determined by the perspective of a mind. Just because a person can only perceive the Old Woman does not mean the Young Woman does not occur, it only means they are unable to perceive the Young Woman, and vise versa. Both occur regardless of whether one can perceive them. So to have complete perception/Enlightenment one would be required to perceive the Old Woman, the Young Woman or both at the same time at any time they chose. A mind that is free to move where it will and perceive according to its purpose has transcended the bonds of illusion and this is generally referred to as Enlightenment!
    Scott R. Brown

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    metropolitan new york
    Posts
    289
    Likes (received)
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott
    Hi Fred,

    I am not sure what you mean exactly since it seems that there are a few different interpretations of Prasangika Madhyamika.
    Quite simply, that the method of Prasangika IS refutation through reductio ad absurdum.

    FL

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    113
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Hi Fred,

    I see! I am not sure I agree with that, but I am not well versed in Prasangika Madhyamika.

    I consider the comment that my argument is reducto ad absurdum as a means of discarding the argument without having to address the questions it raises.
    Scott R. Brown

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    359
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott
    Hi Fred,

    I see! I am not sure I agree with that, but I am not well versed in Prasangika Madhyamika.

    I consider the comment that my argument is reducto ad absurdum as a means of discarding the argument without having to address the questions it raises.
    HiScott,
    I don't find any porblems with your arguement., but because you are unable to provide a proof for your premise, I do not have to address the questions that it raises. Plato's allogory of the cave suffers the exact same flaw as the arguement that you are making, i.e. it is dependent on accepting the premise that there exist a physical and metaphysical state. However the metaphysical state is not subject to disproof and therefore is not rational.
    Best regards,
    Bruce Mitchell

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    113
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Hi Bruce,

    The only way to demonstrate Enlightenment experience is to have the direct experience. As I have previously mentioned it is similar to proving the taste of an orange to another. I cannot prove to you what it taste like using rational argument, yet we know an orange has a taste because we can taste it for ourselves.

    Many arguments may be reduced to unprovable premises. Inherently many arguments originate from assumptions that have no real rational foundation and no provable premises.

    As an already cited example: we cannot prove the premises of geometry. We assume point, line and plane to exist and demonstrate the theorems based upon these unprovable assumptions/premises. If we accept geometric proofs based upon unprovable premises then we can accept those of other rational arguments!

    The proofs of Enlightenment experience are found in the direct experience. Just as the proof of the Old Woman and Young Woman in the above optical illusion are in the direct perception of them and the proof of the taste of an orange is found in the tasting of an orange!
    Scott R. Brown

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •