Knowledge

[sabaijai]

I would suggest - this is just my opinion, nothing to do with Buddhism - that the questions you asked in your original post cannot be answered by philosophy or religion. If you really want to understand 'knowledge' I would think the materialistic approach is the only way to find something verifiable and reliable, ie cognitive science, neurophysiology, etc.

Sabaijai, isn't this just Comtean Positivism ("knowledge is that which is based on sense experience and positive verification" - Wikipedia)? And if so, although perhaps a good "working" form of knowledge, it is limited. Sense experience is potentially unreliable, and the findings of the sciences are only verifiable until such time as they may be falsified. As I say, a good working model, but still vulnerable to as yet unknown possible new findings.

In contention with positivist claims that science always gives you truth, Karl Popper put forward the criterion of falsifiability, i.e. the potential of a claim to be rendered false at some point in the future by virtue of its openness to empirical investigation and judgement. The falsifiability criterion, therefore, implies that hypotheses which survive the attempt to falsify them are only less false than those which have been falsified already. So, although we may be confident that we have synthetic knowledge, i.e. conclusions that are based on empirical data and where the conclusion is not implicit in the premise, we may not in fact have it to an unchallengeable extent.

There are certain core beliefs in Buddhism that are not falsifiable and are, therefore, articles of faith, though we may find levels of empirical support for them. We don't really know and can't demonstrate that the universe of phenomena is infinite in time and space, though it's a reasonable working hypothesis. We don't really know if there is no irreducible state of being underlying phenomena, though we haven't found one yet, so sunyata is a faith-based concept, though so far a reasonable one. And karma is still not unchallengeably demonstrable, though we can consider the remarkable cases of Shanti Devi and others (evidence for reincarnation rather than karma?). Really, in empirical terms, we are probably on safer epistemological ground to say that Buddhists believe empirical knowledge to be ultimately "unsoundable" in the sense that we'll never really get to the bottom of the deep mysteries of existence. In the meantime we proceed with working knowledge and the evidence of our own experience, as the Buddha advised.

Yes, I completely agree. Positivism is limited, as is every other theory of knowledge. None of them plug all the holes or answer all the questions. We can study cognitive processes empirically but when we try to cluster those processes into something as untestable and unquantifiable as 'knowledge,' it all comes down to opinion and aesthetics.

Our brains are active processors of information in pursuit of endlessly changing intentions and objectives, aren't they? What I think I know, changes from day to day, even moment to moment. One has the choice of getting caught up in the endless loops and blind alleys, or observing the process and not getting caught up.

As Wiki notes "There is no single agreed definition of knowledge presently, nor any prospect of one, and there remain numerous competing theories. Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, learning, communication, association and reasoning. The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject with the ability to use it for a specific purpose if appropriate."

With relation to Buddhism and just about any other set of tenets purporting to bear 'truth,' I'd say we're stuck with the latter notion, 'a confident understanding of a subject with the ability to use it for a specific purpose if appropriate.' I suppose that's a convenient working definition for use in conventional language.

Current models of information integration tend to focus on functional aspects, ie valuative vs social-adjustive etc. There are even algebraic expressions, as in the arguments here:

http://www.cios.org/encyclopedia/persuasion/Finformation_integration_1theory.htm

But five or 10 years from now, there will be another theory, followed by another and so on.

From what I have gleaned, Buddhism teaches how to directly observe the realities sitting before us, including both physical matter/forms and mental constructs. As the suttas say, if you care to test the veracity of such a claim, you have to investigate the methods yourself.

That's where liberation lies waiting, and it works the same way now as it did two and half millennia ago. How do I know that? I know it only as 'a confident understanding of a subject with the ability to use it for a specific purpose if appropriate.' That's what the system provided by Buddhism means to me, expedient means - not a theory of knowledge.

As the late Korean Zen master Soen Sanim said to me once, "You see this stick? A stick is just a stick, until you need it for something. Then it's either too long or too short."

[christiaan]

well. a lot of contributions and I would like to go into them all, but I am not sure if I will find the time.

I would like however to go into the last remark the saying of the Korean Zen Master.

"A stick is just a stick"

Well probably, I hope so, this Zen Master also realise a stick is not just a stick. A stick is the witness of a miracle, it has been part of a living organisme, it has been the result of all things that happened to a single seed growing out to a big tree. It shows charateristics of a certain specimen of tree, different from other trees and by this it is not the material expression of some spiritual tree it always is the material expression of a specific specimen of tree. For some people a stick is not just a stick but a book about a certain specimen of tree.

Somebody with real higher knowledge could write a book about just one specimen of tree, and even people only educated in the knowledge concerning the world of (living) matter, being experts in trees, can write fascinating books about trees and special trees.

But in this saying, this tree, the stick of it, this miracle, is reduced to something I can use, so before making my 'expedient mean' judgement I first reduce this miracle of life to "just a stick" and then I continue to submit this miracle to my functional goal by telling I need it, and in becoming aware of my specific desire of expedient mean I cannot see my desire is too long or too short for the stick but I tell the stick is too long or too short.

(Well isn't this a nice sample of material thinking?)

I wonder if I have to understand this saying is also aplicable to the teachings of Buddha.

You 'see' these teachings of Buddha? A teaching of Buddha is just a teaching of Buddha. But when you need Buddhism for something it is either too long or either too short.

That would mean it could be possible there are times one cannot use Buddhism anyway, anyhow.

Well if this all would be the case - Buddhism as an expedient mean- I would say that is a perfect demonstration, of how Buddhism in general is handled in Thailand.

That is not detachement that is pure attachment since we submit phenomenons in the world to our desire for functionality , so we are attached to functionality.

It also shows at the moment somebody is thinking and acting this way he sees him or her self as the sun where all other planets in his universe are circling around (when they are picked out being functional enough for this task)

I would advocate for some self thinking when we meet the things we meet.

I did read several times about thinking and cognition to be neurological processes, sometimes even chemical neurological processes as with near dead experiences.

When argueing this way, then do not be surprised when people say this so called "enlightment" of Buddha was just some neurological proces .

Then also do not be surprised that as since the cognition is just some neurological happening in the brain, people will tell: When the cognition is a neurological proces in the brain, the human is not free and therefore not responsible for what his brain is thinking and so consequentily cannot be responsible and build up good or bad Karma.

In this way of thinking the human brain is just a conmputer in the flesh with wrong circuits and processors, and who is to blame the computer for malfunction??

This brings me to an interesting thought.

Just imagine people, humans, being computers in the flesh, they have no real self, no I , no independent thinking, no self engendered thinking, just combinative reactive thinking, based on the information/knowledge-food given from the outside (called programming, with humans called educating).

functioning by the processors, circuits and programms inside.

When they 'die', becoming just a pile of single parts (minerals), they could become 'some computer' in the 'flesh again, Beside the parts, there, in the new computer we cannot find anything of the former computer again. But it still bears Karma, what Karma?

These thoughts bring me very near to what I understand as the concept of human as I find in some interpretations of Buddhism.

When the ordinary computers in the flesh are programmed by monks, who is programming the monks?

And how does the entity - who is no computer in the flesh- gain the knowledge to program computers in the flesh?

[dutchguest]

Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge; they lost their innocence and naturalness and were driven out of paradise. They created a duality of subject and object, of knower and known, of self and the world. In other words, they created the mind and by identifying themselves with the processes of the mind they created the ego. By doing so they separated, alienated themselves from other people and from nature, also from their own nature. So by eating from the tree of knowledge they created more or less their own hel_l.

This seems to be a necessary step in the evolution of the human species. The same process is repeated in everybody's personal life. When we are born we live in paradise, but don't realize it. In the process of growing up we come to live more or less in a self created hel_l. We forget our natural state and forget that something is forgotten.

Buddha, and also other enlightened figures, have shown us that there is a way of transcending this suffering and self created hel_l and find back our "true nature". By transcending the mind processes, not identifying yourself with it but only looking at it in an objective way the identification fades away slowly and the awareness rises that the mind is a tool that you can use but it is not you. In this way knowledge can be transformed into wisdom, hel_l can become paradise again.

So i.m.o. in Buddhism essentially the process of how knowing and knowledge is created is not so relevant as it based on the separation of knower and known, subject and object and Buddhism is trying to overcome all dualism. I think if Buddha would have lived today he would have said that it are all rather useless games of the mind which we must try to transcend.

[canuckamuck]

It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil they ate from, not simply knowledge. It seems improbable that they had no knowledge prior to that point. So your theory needs to explain, what is it about the knowledge of good and evil that separates the knower from the known?

There is certainly a point in every human life where one passes from innocence to accountability, and this is when we begin to understand right from wrong. This is the beginning of good intention vs bad.

Is one's intention weighed in respect to one's knowledge of right action that determines whether an action causes karma, or is karma created regardless of knowledge. Or in other words is ignorance a buffer against karma.

[christiaan]

To understand knowledge in humans we could look to higher animals. Do animals know? Yes, there are a lot of animal species that know, we call this knowing, instinct. I would say this situation of knowing is living in a selfevident truth. These animals do not know about good and evil.

They are not separated from this knowing they live inside of it, they cannot do otherwise as living in their selfevident truth.

Humans can since we are separated from knowing because we do not livin in this world of selfevident truth anymore sincwe we started to know and gained selfawareness. We are outside.

Weare in some way free towards knowledge. Even when we know it is not good to tell young woman in the North their Karma is to become prostitutes in Bangkok , we still can do. And we can do when those girls and their families do not have the awareness to reject this wrongfull thinking.

When we see animals , we can see there are animals living in total dark, they have no eyes.

Allthough they have no eyes, living in the dark, this doesnot mean there is no light, there only is no leight in their 'world'

The eye therefore developed by the light. Without light no eyes.

The mind developed by thoughts.

Even when we would live in total thinking darkness it does not mean there is no world of living ideas.

Like the eyes developed by the light we can develop our mind, our thinking, by thinking living higher ideas.

So we can develop our thinking by 'observing' living higher ideas.

To do so should be an act of freedom.

To do right means: pure thinking, without being attached to anything at all, not to be attached by Catholicism, Hinduisme, et cetera, etcetera. not even in and 'expedient mean' way.

The living ideas make our thinking higher thinking , in spiritual way, (Buddha) in material way (Nikola Tesla)

[dutchguest]

I.m.o. animals, little children and primitives do not "live in the mind" like modern man who is alienated from (his) nature, from reality by mind processes, he confuses his ideas, conceptions, words with reality. I.m.o. Animals, little children and primitives live more intuitive, experience reality more direct, while modern man is rationalizing everything with the mind (as is said above: he filters reality in a certain way because he is conditioned this way by parents, teachers etc.) and confuses his mind processes with live or reality.

Notions of good and bad are mainly relative at the moment and part of the conditioning process: when two countries are at war with each other it is learned that is is good to kill the enemy but bad to kill the own soldiers. I believe people and may be also animals have a natural sense of good and bad but this sense becomes mainly unconscious in the process of growing up. And I think it is this natural sense of good and bad that creates karma, whether people are aware of it or not, ignorant or not. It is a objective law of cause and effect.

There is an essential difference between the methods of science and developing knowledge concerning the outer world and the growing of spiritual awareness, understanding yourself. In many respects the last is more a question of deconditioning, questioning, unlearning what is learned as evident.

[Brucenkhamen]

I haven't the time to fully digest this thread but I've noticed that it is talking about knowledge rather than wisdom or insight.

From a Buddhist perspective knowledge is just information, facts and figures, it's knowing about something.

The objective of Buddhism is not knowledge, it's wisdom, wisdom is deeply understanding how things are to the point where it transforms your outlook on life. A little knowledge helps start that process, however too much emphasis on knowledge can be a hindrance not a help.

Anyway I guess it could be that when the OP uses the word knowledge he really means wisdom.

[christiaan]

There is no wisdom without knowledge.

To determin the use of the word knowledge as it is used by me : When I write knowledge I mean every knowledge, i mean knowledge and higher knowledge also called wisdom.

[christiaan]

Dutchguest

There is an essential difference between the methods of science and developing knowledge concerning the outer world and the growing of spiritual awareness, understanding yourself. In many respects the last is more a question of deconditioning, questioning, unlearning what is learned as evident.

------------

All science is based on asking questions, or: every science starts with a question.

Asking the question is the method.

With regared to this 'birth' of every science there is no difference, no difference between asking questions about the world of matter or te world of spirituality.

Because the question is being interested, being passionate, being related.

The fact that the answers are different doesnot mean the method is different.

Without questions there is no science at all.

Only humans have questions, gain knowledge and can be scientifical based on knowledge with regard to everything in life.

So there is matterial science and there is spiritual science.

[Brucenkhamen]

There is no wisdom without knowledge.

To determin the use of the word knowledge as it is used by me : When I write knowledge I mean every knowledge, i mean knowledge and higher knowledge also called wisdom.

Yes, but there is plenty of knowledge without wisdom, the behaviour of mankind over the centuries demonstrates this well. If you differentiate between the two you might make a more convincing argument.

[christiaan]

Sabaijai

My thoughts on the ephemeral, unsatisfactory and unsubstantial nature of epistemology come directly from personal experience. If you experience life differently, that's fine. Right there we have an example of how 'knowledge' can never be codified by you or me or anyone else.

-----------------------------------------

I do not understand how epistomology can be assigened to codification.

Epistomolgy is science concerning knowledge.

Epistomology is the phenomenon of asking questions related to the phenomenon of knowledge

At least I see epistomology as science as described here above.

And when epistomology would also have another definition I would be happy to know.

Since it is not about codification but about science, it is not related to experiencing life in any way as a dead fact but only in free observing and questioning the origin and quality of knowledge.

The act of asking question - about-gaining - knowledge might be ephemeral, but at the moment it is actual,

It can only be unsatisfactory when we had an answer before questioning and the result of the questioning is not in accordance of the answer we made up ourself before,

The act of questioning - about gaining - knowledge cannot be unsubstantial becos knowledge is real and substantial and so the question also is,.....even when we do not like the answers.

People can look upon epistomology the way they like, that is fine, (we can question the way people do, objective or subjective), but telling this shows how to catagorize epistomology is an act of codifying.

[christiaan]

If Christiaan is arguing that the Buddha did indeed uncover profound truths, but what followed was the development of a religion and therefore the truths were undermined by empty dogma/rules/ceremony, than I can see his point and I would agree.

But he also seems to have an impression that man is on a path to enlightenment mainly through curiosity and rejection of tradition. I would say that that he is acting on faith alone by making this assumption. I wonder how he can put on his pure thinking without first rejecting his preconception.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I never wrote man is on a path to enlightment mainly through curiosity and rejection of tradition.

Then I also never wrote I am acting on faith.

So this all looks to be assumptions or interpretations with regard to my contributions.

There is also no explanation of the act of preconception bestowed to me.

No offense, but is this not mainly selfprojection in a reaction to my contribution?.

[dutchguest]

The process of developing (methods of) science of the outer world is done by the mind via analyzing of certain facts or objects and rationalizing about it. You have to focus on the facts or objects, concentrate your attention. This process is causing a tensed mind and it is tiering. It is not a natural process but you have to force (your) nature in a certain direction. In this way you can gather a lot of knowledge about -in a specializing world of science- smaller and smaller objects. You can come to know almost everything about atoms e.g. In the end you can come to know everything about nothing. You become very knowledgeable but it goes about nothing.

The way of spiritual grow is about opposite. You try to silence the mind, go beyond words, rationalizations and the continuous "talking" of the mind. Transcend the mind by meditation, relaxing and settle in your "natural way of being". This way you can try to some gain insight in your "true nature" and as a consequence in nature in general, insights about the whole, your connection with the whole. In the end you have no knowledge about anything specific but you have developed some wisdom in general, based on personal experiences.

Both ways have their pros and cons. In the west the first method is dominant, with the consequence that the west has become richer in the material world. In the east the second method is more prevalent with the consequence poverty in the material world but a much more developed insight in and experiencing of the inner world, human nature. In the west psychoanalysis tried something in this direction but does not go beyond the mind.

(Of course things are not so black and white and mutual exclusive as painted above, but just to give an impression of how I see some general tendencies).

[canuckamuck]

If Christiaan is arguing that the Buddha did indeed uncover profound truths, but what followed was the development of a religion and therefore the truths were undermined by empty dogma/rules/ceremony, than I can see his point and I would agree.

But he also seems to have an impression that man is on a path to enlightenment mainly through curiosity and rejection of tradition. I would say that that he is acting on faith alone by making this assumption. I wonder how he can put on his pure thinking without first rejecting his preconception.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I never wrote man is on a path to enlightment mainly through curiosity and rejection of tradition.

Then I also never wrote I am acting on faith.

So this all looks to be assumptions or interpretations with regard to my contributions.

There is also no explanation of the act of preconception bestowed to me.

No offense, but is this not mainly selfprojection in a reaction to my contribution?.

Regardless of what you have written verbatim, you have been very busy giving great detail about what you believe and given very little evidence beyond your proclamation that this is the way it is. It is not hard to see that you have a great faith in scientific method and head knowledge. You appear to me to be a devout humanist and I discern that your faith in this is just as channeled and narrow as anyone else. Following your path of science and embracing complementary philosophy can lead only into the finite things of the material world and human understanding and can answer nothing of the spiritual except perhaps to discover that more exists beyond material and human awareness.

The method for discovering truth is to honestly and humbly seek it.

Edited August 27, 2010 by canuckamuck

[christiaan]

canuckamut

This is your interpretation of my contributions,

Maybe you are to much attached to your way of interpreting and understanding the truth.

Still valuable becaus it is another starting point.

All evidence you ask are in fact dead facts that almost should be material for you so you can see it and be convinced by that.

It is however a matter of thinking without being attachjed to your own concepts, you place me inside your comprehendable concepts.

[christiaan]

The process of developing (methods of) science of the outer world is done by the mind via analyzing of certain facts or objects and rationalizing about it. You have to focus on the facts or objects, concentrate your attention. This process is causing a tensed mind and it is tiering. It is not a natural process but you have to force (your) nature in a certain direction. In this way you can gather a lot of knowledge about -in a specializing world of science- smaller and smaller objects. You can come to know almost everything about atoms e.g. In the end you can come to know everything about nothing. You become very knowledgeable but it goes about nothing.

The way of spiritual grow is about opposite. You try to silence the mind, go beyond words, rationalizations and the continuous "talking" of the mind. Transcend the mind by meditation, relaxing and settle in your "natural way of being". This way you can try to some gain insight in your "true nature" and as a consequence in nature in general, insights about the whole, your connection with the whole. In the end you have no knowledge about anything specific but you have developed some wisdom in general, based on personal experiences.

Both ways have their pros and cons. In the west the first method is dominant, with the consequence that the west has become richer in the material world. In the east the second method is more prevalent with the consequence poverty in the material world but a much more developed insight in and experiencing of the inner world, human nature. In the west psychoanalysis tried something in this direction but does not go beyond the mind.

(Of course things are not so black and white and mutual exclusive as painted above, but just to give an impression of how I see some general tendencies).

Adam and Eva, humanity did, not create the mind, and so they did not create duality . About 2500 years ago the faculty of thinking came into the human and by this awareness. And in evolving awareness they became aware of the different phenomenons in the world. The differences that were there even before they came to a thinking awareness.

Like the light created the faculty of seeing and the sound created the faculty of hearing, - light and sound did not became existent and relevant becos of the existence of eyes and ears - the world of living ideas created the mind, the faculty of thinking inside humans.

And this probably becos a human is about the almost total manifestation of a single spiritual entity.

as animals are in their specimens are as a group fragmented manifestation of a single spiritual entity.

Humans however did identify themself with the results of thinking, identified themself with concepts.

That is why people can tell of themself: I am an American, I am an emancipated human , I am a Buddhist, I am a free man. They also came to be an ego. An ego is in fact part of being a spiritual entity living enclosed in a material body. Becos, by our selfawareness we consider ourself to be a somehow, someway, independent organism. We realise in observing attention: we are an inner world separated of the outer world.

Being a person we can be aware of our inner life knowing we, at the same time, cannot be aware of the inner life of any other human being in the same way as we can know our self. This situation not only creates the reality of awareness of being an ego but also the feeling of it.

In selfawareness we are an ego, an I , when living in material reality.

In aware thinking we are separated from the outer world and that is why we can be aware of the outer world. In this 'becoming aware' we did not create hel_l, we became aware of the aspects that are part of the experiences and concepts of hel_l.

Animals live in the same world as we do, for many animals life is for a big part : living in hel_l. WE are aware of that.

But they do not live in constant awareness of this fact becaus they do not have this same faculty of

thinking as humans.

Animals live inside the selfevident truth and that is why elepants run to higher grounds and humans - living outside this selfevident truth - walk into the sea when the waves of Tsunami are aproaching the coastline.

It is interesting to read in the Bible Genesis 3 : 22 And the Lord God said, Behold. the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.

Becoming aware was a necessary step in evolution.

Everybodys personal life is in the beginning at some fase : living in paradise. I would think this is mainly the part when we are still in our mothers womb. From the moment we are born we start to suffer, we are only not actual aware of this. Most people fortunately cannot recall this time of life. We start to be able to recall our life from the moment we start to develop the faculty of thinking and that is for most people at about 3 years old.

This also is the point to wich we can go back with our memory. Ever wondered why we cannot go back in our memories to the time before we were about 3 years old? That is becos in the first 3 years of our life we come from paradise (pregnancy) to live inside the world of selfevident truth. We cannot

remember times in wich we did not have the faculty of thinking. (Do I have to come up with evidence for this or can we think this ourselves)

Looking to suffering in life we have to see : being born should be one of the most traumatic experiences in life, but we cannot remember.

When we start to think, we grow up in a world of concepts and our mind is becoming more or less conditioned this way in a particully way by the culture we live in. For millions of people this means by birth, not by awareness, one becomes, Hindu, Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist, Protestant and so on.

This is not based on free choise or independent thinking.

When living on earth at this time of evolution it is impossible to end suffering. Even in Buddhist terms suffering is only ended in leaving material life (in fact to live a suffering life in such a way that we can prevent born into such a life again) and so the only ending would be not returning again in material existence. As long as we live on earth we have situations of suffering and situations of happiness. These situations can differ according to the situation of life someone is in. There are people suffering less cos they disconnect from attachments that could cause suffering. One does not have to be a Buddhist . I disconnected to the attachment of having a car and this did spared me from a lot of misery that is part of having a car. Considering ' having a car' I am actualy in Nirvana. This choice of not having a car was not the result of enlightment but of combinative thinking based on knowledge. I freed myself by knowledge.

Since the situation of knowledge is created by ' the birth of the faculty of thinking about 2500 years ago" it is very relevant to become aware of the origin and the proces and the activity of thinking. There is no way to escape this awareness, unless you are more or less born without it - have you ever seen how happy children/humans with Down syndrome in general are? (Often Down syndrome is associated with some impairment of cognitive ability) - so I would not advocate an artificial Down syndrom for humans to become happy. But I would advocate for knowing-awareness and so also for knowing about knowing, so we can transcend this to higher knowledge also called deep wisdom.

Yes, science is important to me, since knowledge and awareness is important to me, since it is part of being human. I do not limit myself to material science, I am interested in both. I am interested in material and spiritual science.

I am also not only interested in combinative and reactive thinking, I am fascinated by te thinking of Krishnamurti, Kuhlewind and Tesla, Buddha and many others.

Talking about evidence? Did any of you read a good biography about Nikola Tesla? I am almost sure most of you did not.

Tesla made his very great 'inventions' not by reactive or combinative thinking.

Evidence? The biography itself and the fact there are a number of kept inventions of Tesla scientists today, 67 years after his dead, still cannot comprehend. Why can't they??. Becos these inventions were not based on concepts, but on something else, They did became concepts after Tesla 'discovered' them and only he knew these concepts and took them in his grave.

People with a broad interest do know all this or like to know this. People who are not interested in knowledge and the proces of knowledge do not know this and do not like to know this. Is that the result of independent thinking?

There have been some written verbatim I would consider my faith in science to be the road to enlightment. That is how combinative reactive thinking works. Sometimes you do not have to speak for your self , others 'seem' to have the wisdom to do so.

I think curiosity can also be very healthy and fruitfull when it is scientifically hygienic.

I advocate for rejecting any tradition when it affects freedom of people.

Allthough science is very important as I described above, it is not science alone that will free people,science on itself can free people and destroy people, so in my view the intention of a human regarding science is more important.

[canuckamuck]

canuckamut

This is your interpretation of my contributions,

Maybe you are to much attached to your way of interpreting and understanding the truth.

Still valuable because it is another starting point.

All evidence you ask are in fact dead facts that almost should be material for you so you can see it and be convinced by that.

It is however a matter of thinking without being attachjed to your own concepts, you place me inside your comprehendable concepts.

Of course I am attached to my way of interpreting truth, and so are you. You appear to enjoy speaking like one with superior understanding. Usually those with superior understanding/wisdom need not talk forever on a minor point with copious text but instead have the ability to illuminate with observation. In your writing we see only concepts which leads me to believe that your theory's are just things you wish.

And your idea that thinking started 2500 years ago is just fantasy and clearly wrong. There were civilizations and moral codes and religions before 2500 years and philosophy too. You give Tesla credit for invention; how about those who invented archery, and architecture long before the faculty of thinking appeared (as you say). I think these men must have been more aware than Tesla since their inventions came before men could think. How about the 10 commandments which is a perfect moral code, which fits well with the Buddhism's five precepts and concepts of right living and is a lens to determine intention. I assume you don't believe in God, so what was the source of that wisdom 3500 years ago?

I think I am probably done here, I don't wish to read another long thesis that ends up saying nothing greater than "I believe this therefore it is true".

Edited August 28, 2010 by canuckamuck

[Brucenkhamen]

Of course I am attached to my way of interpreting truth, and so are you. You appear to enjoy speaking like one with superior understanding. Usually those with superior understanding/wisdom need not talk forever on a minor point with copious text but instead have the ability to illuminate with observation. In your writing we see only concepts which leads me to believe that your theory's are just things you wish.

Very true, well said.

Much of his thinking is in line with what you will find in Buddhism, or at least sounds similar. The trouble is there is a whole mishmash of conceptualisation on top of that, this happens when one tries to build a conceptual framework explaining life the universe and everything.

The Buddha was only really interested in teaching a methodology of gaining freedom from desire, aversion, and delusion. So one needs to start with the purpose in mind.

And your idea that thinking started 2500 years ago is just fantasy and clearly wrong. There were civilizations and moral codes and religions before 2500 years and philosophy too.

Yes I thought this was an odd statement.

[dutchguest]

Like the light created the faculty of seeing and the sound created the faculty of hearing, - light and sound did not became existent and relevant becos of the existence of eyes and ears - the world of living ideas created the mind, the faculty of thinking inside humans.

I do not believe in a world of living ideas existing before the human brain developed in the evolution process. I think it are the instincts of survival of the individual and the species that resulted in creating a brain and thinking.

A world of living ideas is something different then light and sound which are natural, physical phenomena which can be demonstrated by any nature-scientist. By adopting to these circumstances eyes and ears developed to make certain species better equipped in the struggle to survive.

I also do not believe that god created man but I believe that man created god.

[christiaan]

Everyone is entitled to believe what he or she wants to believe. It is also much more convenient to believe what one likes to believe when one does not know or rejects to know. And it is also quite easy to compare some inventor with his invention of his polyphase power transmission system with the 'invention' of 'archery without thinking'. When we like to believe without knowing what to believe they are about the same: miracles. I distinghuised, in a contibution before, between revealed knowledge, as the story of Mozes very well shows about getting the ten commandments (thank you very much for bringing in this 'evidence' cannuckamuck) and the awareness Buddha developed by his inner power of thinking within a life of suffering and detachment. And were He, to my opinion, reached some level of enlightment at the moment he was able to think without being attached. Living without being physically attached , as he did before,- he almost died in being extremely detached to food- did not bring him enlightment.

Assuming I enjoy being superior, (how do concepts about persons come to existence?) and that I don't believe in God isn't very helpfull to deal with the question how we gain knowledge. That is just fantasy and clearly wrong!

I would say it could have been more helpfull to write about philosophy as it by some people did exist even long? time before about 2500 years ago. That there were civilizations and religions, traditions and codes long time before I had also wrote so we at least agree about that, an agreement one could have noticed before when reading my contributions without thinking out of attachments.

Scientists till this day agree about the fact philosophy - the faculty of thinking as an inner proces - came to existence about 2500 years ago. Why not give some 'evidence' about the existence of philosophy long? time before this and 'enlighten' the concepts of history?

As I wrote before I do see myself as a Buddhist (in a kind of option), and I am curious to know if this is true. Ofcourse not a traditional one, copying dead facts and standing in empty traditions denying the freedom and independent thinking of people, abusing their existence out of my self involvement. Buddhisme as I see it, is in the essence thinking without attachment within a life of being attached to all the aspects of living a life in a physical existence where about all sufferings are moments and guides in becoming aware. As I ask to many people I meet by my profession in life: "Does life in general not show us we learn the most by our mistakes when we live our life with consciousness? When we do, becoming aware are all moments of enlightment.

And preventing people assuming and by this making concepts that are fantasy and clearly wrong: I do not consider my self being superior and perfect, I am just a being like we all are. I am living in the awareness there is a 'God' the origin of the world of living ideas of wich some came to material existence. We didnt make God, we did not create the world of matter, we cannot even create 1 single-cell of organism out of nothing. We only can deal with what is existing, ponder about it and become aware of its origin and life. And we can when we can think without being attached in our activity of thinking. A living attentive thinking, a thinking dying and at the same time born again, freed from the past in its dying, living again to encounter the living moving and transforming world of living ideas, the spiritual world, the origin of our existence.

[canuckamuck]

The book of proverbs was written 3000 years ago, Ecclesiastes a couple of decades later.

Both loaded with wisdom and philosophy

Edited August 28, 2010 by canuckamuck

[Xangsamhua]

The book of proverbs was written 3000 years ago, Ecclesiastes a couple of decades later.

Both loaded with wisdom and philosophy

The sayings collected in the Book of Proverbs probably go back a very long time, how long we don't know, but there are sayings in there that appear to have been taken from the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope, which goes back to before David's time and, therefore, before Solomon (David's son) to whom the collection has been ascribed. However, the collection in its present form is probably late 6th century BCE, i.e. early Axial Age and a little before the Buddha's time (if I use Richard Gombrich's dating of the parinirvarna to the late 5th century BCE.

Ecclesiastes was probably written in the 5th or 4th century BCE. Please do not confuse it with the later Ecclesiasticus, a crankier and more misogynistic collection than Proverbs of homespun advice from a teacher to his well-bred students.

Generally, Proverbs is optimistic whereas Ecclesiastes is pessimistic and fatalist. There is more substance and more depth in Ecclesiastes. He does not seem to believe in God though he uses the term Elohim translated as God in English (in fact it means the Gods and could equally refer to the forces of nature) and he sees little meaning in accruing wealth, or wisdom for that matter, because at the end of one's life wisdom will count for nothing and one's remaining wealth will be spent by someone else. Like his near contemporary Epicurus, Ecclesiastes advises us to eat, drink and enjoy life while it lasts.

One wonders why the 1st and second century rabbis (all Pharisees) at Yavneh, when deciding on which books to include in the Hebrew Bible, agreed to include Ecclesiastes. It must have had a following and it must have appealed to the Jewish sense of realism and willingness to put God in the dock (see Job, for example).

Lloyd Geering, the 91 year-old New Zealand revisionist Christian, published a book this year on Ecclesiastes in which he compares his thought with that of the Buddha and sees some common ground - the centrality of suffering, the folly of attachment and a fundamental belief that at bottom the phenomenal world is empty. He retranslates Ecclesiastes' "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity" as "Everything is empty, there is nothing permanent".

One of the attractions of the Book of Ecclesiastes is its brevity. Much can be said in a short space. The book is less than eight pages of my NSRV Bible (a clear and readable version), including the Epilogue which he didn't write and which attempts to bring a more conventional view of God back in.

(My source for the dating, etc. above is the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary (1996). Lloyd Geering's book (2010) is A Close Encounter with Ecclesiastes (Polebridge Press).)

Edited August 28, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[dutchguest]

Like the light created the faculty of seeing and the sound created the faculty of hearing, - light and sound did not became existent and relevant becos of the existence of eyes and ears - the world of living ideas created the mind, the faculty of thinking inside humans.

I do not believe in a world of living ideas existing before the human brain developed in the evolution process. I think it are the instincts of survival of the individual and the species that resulted in creating a brain and thinking.

A world of living ideas is something different then light and sound which are natural, physical phenomena which can be demonstrated by any nature-scientist. By adopting to these circumstances eyes and ears developed to make certain species better equipped in the struggle to survive.

I also do not believe that god created man but I believe that man created god.

I want to nuance my view on this a little more:

If you give the words “God” and “existence” the same meaning, as I tend to do, it can also be said that existence or God created man in the cause of the evolution process. In an absolute sense there is only one (existence) and you can not separate man or anything else from it and give it a special position.

In a relative, restricted sense you can say that man created Gods, beliefs, churches etc.

But I stay by my point that there is no living world of ideas that has an independent existence apart from the mind (light and sound do have an independent existence) and created the mind without any further evidence of it. I think it is the opposite. And a living world of ideas or God (in a relative sense) are projections of the human mind that are given a life of there own apart from the mind.

[rockyysdt]

The sayings collected in the Book of Proverbs probably go back a very long time, how long we don't know, but there are sayings in there that appear to have been taken from the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope, which goes back to before David's time and, therefore, before Solomon (David's son) to whom the collection has been ascribed. However, the collection in its present form is probably late 6th century BCE, i.e. early Axial Age and a little before the Buddha's time (if I use Richard Gombrich's dating of the parinirvarna to the late 5th century BCE.

Ecclesiastes was probably written in the 5th or 4th century BCE. Please do not confuse it with the later Ecclesiasticus, a crankier and more misogynistic collection than Proverbs of homespun advice from a teacher to his well-bred students.

Generally, Proverbs is optimistic whereas Ecclesiastes is pessimistic and fatalist. There is more substance and more depth in Ecclesiastes. He does not seem to believe in God though he uses the term Elohim translated as God in English (in fact it means the Gods and could equally refer to the forces of nature) and he sees little meaning in accruing wealth, or wisdom for that matter, because at the end of one's life wisdom will count for nothing and one's remaining wealth will be spent by someone else.

Interestingly an earlier translation of the the word Elohim, which is the plural form, can also mean "those who came down from the sky, "

For the atheists among us, this could suggest Elohim refers to "creators from the sky" or aliens who came to earth with advanced scientific powers including genetics.

There was more than one traveler so hence, the plural of El or Eloha.

Like his near contemporary Epicurus, Ecclesiastes advises us to eat, drink and enjoy life while it lasts.

One wonders why the 1st and second century rabbis (all Pharisees) at Yavneh, when deciding on which books to include in the Hebrew Bible, agreed to include Ecclesiastes. It must have had a following and it must have appealed to the Jewish sense of realism and willingness to put God in the dock (see Job, for example).

Lloyd Geering, the 91 year-old New Zealand revisionist Christian, published a book this year on Ecclesiastes in which he compares his thought with that of the Buddha and sees some common ground - the centrality of suffering, the folly of attachment and a fundamental belief that at bottom the phenomenal world is empty. He retranslates Ecclesiastes' "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity" as "Everything is empty, there is nothing permanent".

One of the attractions of the Book of Ecclesiastes is its brevity. Much can be said in a short space. The book is less than eight pages of my NSRV Bible (a clear and readable version), including the Epilogue which he didn't write and which attempts to bring a more conventional view of God back in.

(My source for the dating, etc. above is the Harper Collins Bible Dictionary (1996). Lloyd Geering's book (2010) is A Close Encounter with Ecclesiastes (Polebridge Press).)

Ecclesiastes taught the opposite of the essence of Buddhism. Large numbers among us follow what he espoused.

If what the Buddha taught is true, then following Ecclesiastes will cause one to waste ones life with increased suffering.

On the other hand if Buddhism is an illusion one could say not listening to Ecclesiastes will lead to wasted opportunities to satiate the senses.

Edited August 28, 2010 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

Ecclesiastes taught the opposite of the essence of Buddhism. Large numbers among us follow what he espoused.

If what the Buddha taught is true, then following Ecclesiastes will cause one to waste ones life with increased suffering.

On the other hand if Buddhism is an illusion one could say not listening to Ecclesiastes will lead to wasted opportunities to satiate the senses.

I think you're right. You've summed it up well (an old biblical scholar, Rocky?).

Ecclesiastes is unrelievedly pessimistic. Unlike the Buddha, who found liberation through his own efforts, Ecclesiastes seems to have made little effort or to have given up.

Unlike the Buddha, also, Ecclesiastes was a Jew whose tradition at that time had no method for personal liberation within life and no place for hope in the after-life. He was looking at a post-mortem existence in Sheol, a place of darkness and non-consciousness. It wasn't until after Ecclesiastes' time (perhaps not long afterwards) that hopes for salvation following death became more popular among Jews with the growing Hellenization of Israel in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE (i.e. the low 300s and later) when the Pharisees began to teach the resurrection of the dead. They were opposed by the temple priests (Sadducees).

The epilogue to Ecclesiastes, written after his death, advises readers to "Fear God and keep his commandments ... for God will bring every deed into judgement". This doesn't sound like Ecclesiastes at all.

[rockyysdt]

The epilogue to Ecclesiastes, written after his death, advises readers to "Fear God and keep his commandments ... for God will bring every deed into judgement". This doesn't sound like Ecclesiastes at all.

Revisionism.

Edited August 29, 2010 by rockyysdt

[christiaan]

The book of proverbs was written 3000 years ago, Ecclesiastes a couple of decades later.

Both loaded with wisdom and philosophy

Everyone reading my contribution with attention will not be surprised when I confirm here that to my opinion, and not only to my opinion, the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, is a book of revelation. In other words a book showing revealed wisdom (and then I mean the wisdom in it since it is also a book of the history of the jewish people)

Everyone can have his or her ideas about this, that is the freedom we have.

In my view however the characteristic of revealing is clearly to be found in the overall saying: The word of the LORD came to me saying.... and this saying was done by prophets, priests and initiated ones.

Here the wisdom and knowledge about it, - because wisdom becomes knowledge after it is revealed came from outside the human.

The fact that wisdom came from outside doesnot reduce or enhance its value. The Tanakh is one of the most important books in the world. And in comparison with other holy scriptures it is a unique book because most of the revealations are atmost ethical.

Reading it one can feel the 'tone' of it. The tone is that of a father telling his children what to do and what not to do.

It is more or less an instructional manual for life, with laws, rules, supports and negative and positive rewards and prophecies..

Allthough it is a book of wich we now clearly can see and understand the wisdom it still does not show this wisdom came from inside human existence.

It is very interesting to see the book is no continuing story of wisdom and history of the jewish people with regard to the last 2000 years, the revelations as have been before ended, the prophets as there have been before, - intemediars between the spiritual world and the people living in the material world - ..........no prophets anymore.

The time by wich wisdom and knowledge came to the human by revelation had come to an end and beside the wisdom this is also what the Tanakh, and most other holy scriptures, show.

At the same time the new era of wisdom to gain by inner observation and thinking came to existence. These were no sudden happenings, times slowly fade away and even not completely disapeared. New times slowly were 'prepared and there where extraordinary evolved people who became welknown in their special positions. Like Mozes was the most welknown intermediair for revealed heavenly wisdom in jewish history, in Asia Siddhartha Gautama has become the most welknown man with regard to the personal human journey to inside experienced wisdom.

With regard to the revelations of wisdom the personality and the history of the jewish folk was important, with regard to the inside experienced wisdom the personality of this single person Siddhartha and his biograpy became important.

Becos from those days on every human would become to have the faculty to experience the wisdom inside in selfawareness, in actions of attentive observational thinking, contemplation, meditation.

By the biography of Siddhartha we can see there was no truth in continuing old revelations and their traditions outside him, so at the end he did reject everything to be able to go his lonely personal journey inside to meet 'God' inside his Self, to come to selfawareness and by this meeting 'God' and be enlighted.

Now it is time to look if we maybe have a situation in Asia, in Thailand, where as I see it, people mingle up the old ways of old revealing times, with the results od Bhuddas teachings.

From a western perspective the teachings of Buddha show a human rejecting all attachments in thinking to experience pure thinking and by this high spiritual wisdom not only experiencing inside the world of spiritual laws 'Nirvana' but also experiencing new wisdom, insight.

That is different from knowledge, since knowledge is the result, the past of experienced -new- wisdom.

What I see, as I described before is that the life of Buddha is not seen as it is, by many followers; a model for self independent thinking.

It is at many occasions a continuing situation of the times before Buddha, now dressed up in orange, attached to authority, doctrines, laws, rules, prescribed behavior and actions, leading to the situation that monks can cooperate in recruiting young girls to become prostitutes in Bangkok. And this is just 1 sample out of te book ' Broken Buddha".

These described situations will make people turn away from Buddhisme - not seeing the essence: the modelling of Siddhartha - just like the Catholic church will be diminished more and more by the revelations of child and sexual abuse by representatives of this institutionalised religion.

So that is why I would like to advocate to pay attention to the question: how do we gain knowledge?

We in fact are ending the times where in the new faculty of independent - reactive and combinative - thinking, has to be acquired and acomplished and to follow up this era in a new era of self engendered thinking out of independent thinking.

[christiaan]

I do not believe in a world of living ideas existing before the human brain developed in the evolution process. I think it are the instincts of survival of the individual and the species that resulted in creating a brain and thinking.

A world of living ideas is something different then light and sound which are natural, physical phenomena which can be demonstrated by any nature-scientist. By adopting to these circumstances eyes and ears developed to make certain species better equipped in the struggle to survive.

I also do not believe that god created man but I believe that man created god.

I want to nuance my view on this a little more:

If you give the words "God" and "existence" the same meaning, as I tend to do, it can also be said that existence or God created man in the cause of the evolution process. In an absolute sense there is only one (existence) and you can not separate man or anything else from it and give it a special position.

In a relative, restricted sense you can say that man created Gods, beliefs, churches etc.

But I stay by my point that there is no living world of ideas that has an independent existence apart from the mind (light and sound do have an independent existence) and created the mind without any further evidence of it. I think it is the opposite. And a living world of ideas or God (in a relative sense) are projections of the human mind that are given a life of there own apart from the mind.

Hi dutchguest, thanks for your contributions

I would say this is a nice sample of western style thinking, since it is showing realities can be aproached in a very abstract way.

This is where East and West have to meet eachother.

The western way of thinking should become a more living way of thinking and lesser abstract (cold)-thinking, and the eastern way of thinking should become a more intellectual way of thinking and lesser feeling (hot) -thinking.

There is no independent existence. light, sound, ideas, and so on are connected to eyes, ears and mind, The last ones are material manifestations related to the first ones. The first ones are the spiritual realities related to the last ones.

So you cannot give eyes or light a life out of your own and you cannot relate light to your ears.

And since I see you do think about these subjects I would suggest you to try to think out something completely new, something that did not exist in this world at all before you were thinking this. You will discover you cannot by reactive and combinative thinking because you think in concepts as being past facts of ideas (being knowlwedge) that came to existence into our world.

I have the idea we only think we think new, when we ad time and space in a new way to concepts and enter by this the theory of Popper.

This idea is something I still ponder about since it is very interesting.

[dutchguest]

Hi Christiaan,

I read your reactions but it gives me no argument to change my view:

Sometimes a solution for a problem on which you have worked for a long time can present itself in uncommon ways, e.g. as a revelation in a dream but it is the own unconscious at work. I also acknowledge that there are very sensitive figures who can experience things and recieve signals not everybody can but I don't believe in miracles.

Not an abstract world of ideas created the mind and thinking but the confrontation with reality, experiencing reality and trying to find solutions for problems, trying to find explanations for the way nature functions. That is the way it functioned in the past and still functions. There is no need for any hypothese that wisdom and knowledge come falling out of the air. Human effort can give a satisfying explanation. What is called revelation can be explained by what we now call the mechanism of projection and I am sure there will be explanations why in the past social/psychological situation it was more suitable to talk of a revelation by a higher power or something like that.

[christiaan]

ok.

But elephants run to high grounds when an earthquake causes a big Tsunami (and that is not out of their projection) and with all evolved 'survival of the fittest' humans take their surfboard and go into the sea at the same time.

A world of living ideas, certainly no abstract ideas, create and is reality. When there was no living world of ideas we were not here and there would be nothing to confront and nothing to meet confrontation.

We could not and still cannot just think anything new and so there is nothing new to be projected. all projection, especially projections, are reflected existing concepts.

In my view it is not as simple as you write, fortunately it is not as simple as you write, since humanity always deals with reactive combinative thinking to new events after they happen. If it would be reality what you write I think humanity and the world would be doomed.

but further on it could be enlightning for you to be on a buddhist subforum.