agnosticism
-
i feel that many people and buddhist has come up with their own versions of truths and pseduo wisdom.
especially with internet, this is more true and expected that such pseudo wisdom exist. -
Now, now, such condescending comments won't do at all, will they?
Come on, January, we're all open to our beliefs; you don't believe in the existence of gods, that's fine with me really. It's your choice.
But you really don't have to pass off what others say as "pseudo-wisdom". It's all open to discussion. -
Originally posted by crimson soldier:
Take a look at these videos, imo by a very smart guy - his arguements are very strong.
i have trouble understanding you. are you arguing against agnosticism or against it?
you said "the argument against agnostic is simple." but it seems that your argument is for agnosticism! I cannot prove god exists and I cannot prove god doesn't exist also, therefore I do not bother with others' theist or atheist beliefs.
Agnosticism is Silly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POWCpqTplXc
Why agnosticism is not a relevant answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9wnV1AReSo -
The agnostic position is very important in the search for any truths. It is being able to respect what-is-now-considered-true while not refusing to realize that that knowledge may be superseded with new information and experience.
-
With regards to Emptiness and Ultimate Reality there can be no different interpretation - although in terms of usage of words and explanation different analogies and pointers may be used. Buddhism believes that there can be many dharma doors or paths to the same goal - enlightenment - but with regards to ultimate reality, emptiness, buddha nature, the 3 dharma seals, true dharma never deviates from these. When you awaken to reality it is the "same" reality. When you awaken/become enlightened, there is no trace of doubt about your realisation because what you realise is more real than real. Also as I said in Buddhism, everything from philosophy to practise and anything else are coherent.Originally posted by january:I think some buddhist misinterpreted original buddha teaching and make up their own theories.
Buddhism has certainly lost itself in some aspects and really need to wake up its idea.
Anyway, Budhhism nowadays is so divergent with so many different teachings. Everyone is conducting their different concepts.
Trying to say that Budhhism predicts what science has achieved is also trying to take credit from scientists.
i would urge eternal now to really start doubting your beliefs.
It so happens that there are many scientific findings such as the non-local experiments are completely in line with the sort of realisation through practise and meditation. BTW I see no reason that this is some form of pseudo wisdom.. because it is both backed by intuitive insights and experience from meditation as well as real scientific findings. -
I find it hard to digest ur point. Can you summarize in laymen terms so that i can point out your errors?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:With regards to Emptiness and Ultimate Reality there can be no different interpretation - although in terms of usage of words and explanation different analogies and pointers may be used. Buddhism believes that there can be many dharma doors or paths to the same goal - enlightenment - but with regards to ultimate reality, emptiness, buddha nature, the 3 dharma seals, true dharma never deviates from these. When you awaken to reality it is the "same" reality. When you awaken/become enlightened, there is no trace of doubt about your realisation because what you realise is more real than real. Also as I said in Buddhism, everything from philosophy to practise and anything else are coherent.
It so happens that there are many scientific findings such as the non-local experiments are completely in line with the sort of realisation through practise and meditation. BTW I see no reason that this is some form of pseudo wisdom.. because it is both backed by intuitive insights and experience from meditation as well as real scientific findings.