Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's a long-standing debate in the Buddhist world (although perhaps especially with Western Buddhists) about whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy. I think it's a valid question.
But let's look at some differences between 'my' Buddhism (remember, to an extent it is an individual path) and how some christians look at their religion:
The 5 Buddhist Precepts are...suggestions on how to reduce suffering. If you don't follow them, you may suffer more in everyday life.
The 10 Commandments are...well...commands, and if you don't do them you will be punished by god.
If you don't accept Buddha as your personal savior...you go on with your life.
If you don't accept Christ as your personal savior...you go to hell. You do not pass Go. You do not collect $200.
If you reject sections of the Tipitaka...you go on with your life.
If you reject books of the bible...you will go to hell.
There's a huge difference between using scriptures as A book of wisdom versus as THE source of wisdom.
All of the interpretations of negative consequences in Christian dogma are born of our ancestors' ignorant belief that ALL negative consequences were punishments from the wrath of God. The retention of that ancient ignorance is a major failing of the Abrahamic religions. That is really all that differentiates the principles since suffering is inevitably associated with negative consequences.
All of the interpretations of negative consequences in Christian dogma are born of our ancestors' ignorant belief that ALL negative consequences were punishments from the wrath of God. The retention of that ancient ignorance is a major failing of the Abrahamic religions. That is really all that differentiates the principles since suffering is inevitably associated with negative consequences.
I don't disagree with your last sentence.
However, I don't really care why many christians never really change, I just care that they don't.
I read through Kastrups essay again.
I'm sorry I just don't have time to comment on every aspect of it.
Just a couple of notes:
I disagree with his statement that living beings have been 'perceiving' the world for three and a half billion years. Single celled organisms may respond to stimuli, but that's not the same thing as perception to me. Do plants have perception, self awareness? I will leave you to judge.
I found his comparison of a photo of the cosmos with neurons in a mouses brain as representational of anything, too silly.
Yes, I had the same feeling about his argument that we have individual conscious identities because we are like some people who have multiple personality disorders.
He also claimed his model 'does not fall prey to the hard problem of consciousness' by simply asserting 'that experience is inherent to every fundamental physical entity in nature'. So the explanation for why we have qualia is not to explain it.
I did get a couple of useful things from it:
I followed up on one of Kastrups references in which a Prof Donald Hoffmann attempts to show how our perceptions are nothing like reality and that evolution has shaped our perceptions in order to benefit our survival: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-e...lity-20160421/
I found this much clearer set out than Kastrups, whose philosophy seems to either be largely based on Hoffmans work or is at least largely aligned with it.
Hoffman uses this analogy which is quite nice:
Again, I agree his icon analogy is a very good explanation of how we see the world, but unless I am missing something that is not explained in the article, there is a major logical flaw in his argument for a reality of only conscious agents. If he can replace the world W in his model with a conscious agent, that does not mean the conscious agent version is correct, that means his model works with both positions, either a real world W position, OR a conscious agent position.
So again Hoffman is in the position for all who argue an only conscious agent existence. His position must also explain what consciousness is, and why his theory explains consciousness better than a real world theory.
There's a long-standing debate in the Buddhist world (although perhaps especially with Western Buddhists) about whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy. I think it's a valid question.
But let's look at some differences between 'my' Buddhism (remember, to an extent it is an individual path) and how some christians look at their religion:
The 5 Buddhist Precepts are...suggestions on how to reduce suffering. If you don't follow them, you may suffer more in everyday life.
The 10 Commandments are...well...commands, and if you don't do them you will be punished by god.
If you don't accept Buddha as your personal savior...you go on with your life.
If you don't accept Christ as your personal savior...you go to hell. You do not pass Go. You do not collect $200.
If you reject sections of the Tipitaka...you go on with your life.
If you reject books of the bible...you will go to hell.
There's a huge difference between using scriptures as A book of wisdom versus as THE source of wisdom.
I hear you, and at least in part why if I were to adopt a religion as my own, it would be Buddhism. I've long appreciated Buddhist teachings. Especially as they compare with the alternative approaches more typical of other religions as you point out. Even to the point of the debate whether Buddhism is even really a religion (though typically found on just about every list of the major religions).
Meditation practices that have become almost commonly understood as having healthy and energizing effects on the brain, to blood circulation, calmling anxieties and addiction, improved performance for athletes and students, healing pain. I thought this was common knowledge. May be you were not aware that their roots lie in yogic breathing and meditation practices.
Many studies on how the mind works, about delusions and illusions, are derived from Vedic texts even if not credited or recognized. These studies parellel what is already in these texts dealing with inquiry into the body and mind and connections.
The effect of different food and herbs are from ancient yogic practices now seen in the frenzy of marketing of turmeric, ginger, garlic and ghee as part of a healthy diet. There is more to come.
That is just a sample. Anticipating your further comments I decline to discuss this further. You may do your own research.
Got it. Thanks!
As for what you seem to be anticipating and out of similar concern, I'll decline to discuss further as well.
I hear you, and at least in part why if I were to adopt a religion as my own, it would be Buddhism. I've long appreciated Buddhist teachings. Especially as they compare with the alternative approaches more typical of other religions as you point out. Even to the point of the debate whether Buddhism is even really a religion (though typically found on just about every list of the major religions).
And I do have to admit that there are people who do practice it as a religion. But personally, I don't believe in that. As one monk said to me: "Why pray to Buddha. He'd dead. He can't do anything for you now".
must be the concrete effect. or confirmation bias. incapacity in thinking outside of what one already knows he knows. lack of curiosity.
Sure do wish I had even half the capacity that you and Mystic have when it comes to all your outside thinking. No doubt I am not worthy by comparison...
I read through Kastrups essay again.
I'm sorry I just don't have time to comment on every aspect of it.
Just a couple of notes:
I disagree with his statement that living beings have been 'perceiving' the world for three and a half billion years. Single celled organisms may respond to stimuli, but that's not the same thing as perception to me. Do plants have perception, self awareness? I will leave you to judge.
Human-level perception seems to be unique to us among the examples available here on earth. But the underlying substrate of consciousness (the Universal field) exhibits varying levels of perceptual manifestations. Life itself requires a minimum level of perception of the environment to maintain and reproduce itself. The distinction between inanimate and animate creates an unnecessary barrier to understanding the composition of the Reality our consciousness seeks to make sense of.
Quote:
I found his comparison of a photo of the cosmos with neurons in a mouse's brain as representational of anything, too silly.
I did too. He seemed to be trying too hard to please the "woo-ish" audience rating the essays.
Quote:
I did get a couple of useful things from it:
I followed up on one of Kastrups references in which a Prof Donald Hoffmann attempts to show how our perceptions are nothing like reality and that evolution has shaped our perceptions in order to benefit our survival: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-e...lity-20160421/
I found this much clearer set out than Kastrups, whose philosophy seems to either be largely based on Hoffman's work or is at least largely aligned with it.
Hoffman uses this analogy which is quite nice:
Probably the most difficult to grasp is that there is nothing but "EVENTS" not matter. Everything is some vibratory state of the underlying substrate. What we perceive as constancy is the aggregate spherical standing waveforms that persist despite the underlying transcience of the waves that comprise them (including us). This would be the "inner operations of the computer" that we could not function under if we had to try to perceive its actuality without the desktop.
Quote:
In terms of Kastrup I looked him up and came across this video of him and Deepak Chopra. I'm not usually a big fan of Chopra. He is known to steal scientific terms like 'quantum' and use them as metaphors instead of their scientific definitions, but here I found myself agreeing with a lot of what was said and I enjoyed listening to the conversation between him and Kastrup. Kastrup is certainly a lot better speaker than he is a writer.
Again we seem to be in general agreement both about Chopra and about Kastrups' writing.
"All matter is the extrinsic appearance of mental processes when observed from a certain disassociated perspective."
I disagree. Matter is matter however or regardless of whether we perceive it. (I'm assuming he is basing this on wave-particle duality. I think it's a mistake to base a philosophy on that). Matter would be matter if humans didn't exist.
I understand that whether it is a repeating event or some actual permanent substance enduring through time can seem to be an important distinction. It can be distressing to contemplate the removal of the seeming stability to reality that the concept of matter provides. But matter consisting of perceived standing wave vibratory events is no less real. Their perceived configuration does not depend on humans, just on the phenomenon of consciousness itself.
Sure do wish I had even half the capacity that you and Mystic have when it comes to all your outside thinking. No doubt I am not worthy by comparison...
Yes, I had the same feeling about his argument that we have individual conscious identities because we are like some people who have multiple personality disorders.
He also claimed his model 'does not fall prey to the hard problem of consciousness' by simply asserting 'that experience is inherent to every fundamental physical entity in nature'. So the explanation for why we have qualia is not to explain it.
Again, I agree his icon analogy is a very good explanation of how we see the world, but unless I am missing something that is not explained in the article, there is a major logical flaw in his argument for a reality of only conscious agents. If he can replace the world W in his model with a conscious agent, that does not mean the conscious agent version is correct, that means his model works with both positions, either a real world W position, OR a conscious agent position.
So again Hoffman is in the position for all who argue an only conscious agent existence. His position must also explain what consciousness is, and why his theory explains consciousness better than a real world theory.
Yes I completely agree.
I like the icon analogy because there is a lot of truth in it as to how we perceive the world.
I was reminded of several instances that demonstrate how much we miss and how much we see that others don't and vice versa.
There's our perception of color for one thing and I don't just mean color blindness. We actually do see colors slightly differently. This became very obvious in the while black/blue, white/gold dress debate and so on. I remember arguing with my brother for years over whether turquoise was more green or more blue. It wasn't until later in life that I realised we were both seeing the color differently.
Also I met an artist a few years ago that didn't even realise he was color blind until he was in his forties.
Then there's the whole aphantasia phenomenon. Again I know another artist who claims she can't visualize anything in her head, yet she can't really explain how she draws from imagination. She didn't even know she had aphantasia until she heard about it.
Then there's this... if you've seen it before, don't give the game away. https://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo
You wonder how you could possibly have missed something so obvious.
I get the concept, but this idea that the whole world is an illusion goes too far for me. It's all there but it's not depended on us being there for it to exist. At the same time, I acknowledge that we do all perceive it slightly differently.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
