Reflective thoughts on Logic and Buddhism

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The correct way to state it would be either your Christian or your not Christian . You cannot be both a Christian and not a Christian.

Well, yeah, actually, you can.

I believe the lessons Jesus taught were important and invaluable to humanity at large. Great guy, important ideas. So, I'm a "Christian" in that regard.

I do NOT, however, believe that he was raised from the dead (or even that he died on the cross! and I'm not even sure if he existed at all!) or that he was born of a 'virgin'.

so - what about my stance makes me either/or Christian? Can I not believe in his teachings without buying the mythology attached to it?

Your not a Christian if you deny the deity of Christ . So you are not Christian. A Christian is someone who has accepted Jesus as their lord and savior and understands the need for that savior . Just because you think his moral ethics were spot on doesn't make you a Christian.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

If you agree with the statement that things can be both this and that at the same time and place and the same way . That means you are saying I either use "both and" logic or nothing else to describe reality is that right?

No. Of course not.

Lol you just said you agreed with both and logic... Which means you believe it can be both raining and not raining at the same time in the same place and in the same way

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The correct way to state it would be either your Christian or your not Christian . You cannot be both a Christian and not a Christian.

Well, yeah, actually, you can.

I believe the lessons Jesus taught were important and invaluable to humanity at large. Great guy, important ideas. So, I'm a "Christian" in that regard.

I do NOT, however, believe that he was raised from the dead (or even that he died on the cross! and I'm not even sure if he existed at all!) or that he was born of a 'virgin'.

so - what about my stance makes me either/or Christian? Can I not believe in his teachings without buying the mythology attached to it?

"I do NOT, however, believe that he was raised from the dead (or even that he died on the cross! and I'm not even sure if he existed at all!) or that he was born of a 'virgin'."

Either you believe Jesus is God and died for your sins, or you're not a Christian. It's that simple.

Folding Bronze Tablets found near Blooming Grove, Texas by R. G. Rutherford on March 30, 1936

web.archive.org...://www.texaschapbookpress.com/magellanslog113/bronzetablet.jpg

an interpretive transcription of the tablets:

THERE IS THAT WHOSE EXISTENCE CAN NEITHER BE PROVED NOR DISPROVED; NEITHER CAN ITS NONEXISTENCE.
IT IS NOT GOD. IT IS NOT NOT-GOD.
IT IS NOT TRANSCENDANT. IT IS NOT NOT-TRANSCENDANT.
THOSE WHO KNOW IT - AND THEY ARE LEGION - DO NOT SPEAK OF IT, BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE SPOKEN OF.
TO NAME IT, IS TO LOSE IT. TO NOT-NAME IT, IS NOT TO FIND IT.
IF YOU THINK IT HAS LAWS, QUALITIES, LIMITATIONS, DIMENSION OR DISPLACEMENTS, YOU ARE THINKING LIKE AN ANT.
IF YOU THINK IT COMES OR GOES, WAITS OR HURRIES, EMBRACES OR REJECTS, REWARDS OR PUNISHES, YOU ARE THINKING LIKE AN AMOEBA.

O (zen circle)

The Predicament of Buddha
By Franklin Merrell-Wolff
From Experience and Philosophy

I turn to the Gospel of Buddha and find these words: "he -- the worldling -- will call resignation what to the Enlightened One is purest Joy. He will see annihilation where the Perfected One finds Immortality. He will regard as death what the Conqueror of Self knows to be Life Everlasting."
According to the record, this was said soon after Gautama had attained Enlightenment under the Bodhi tree. At first the Tathagata was tempted to keep silence, for it seemed useless to preach a Message of Liberation which certainly could not be understood by most men. In the end, Buddha decided to give the Message for the benefit of those who could understand. But the problem He faced is a very fundamental one, since it is very difficult for the man who is bound to subject-object consciousness to conceive of another kind of Life where egoism ceases. The average man can imagine a heaven or a hell built upon the subject-object pattern where life is more intense, whether in a pleasurable or painful sense, but the truly Emancipated Life is beyond his comprehension. The Christian world has interpreted the Kingdom of Heaven as simply a sublimated subject-object domain, and thus quite missed the real meaning of Jesus. Christ brought a Message of Emancipation, just as Buddha did, and Its meaning was exactly the same, though stated in a form to fit the consciousness of a different people. Few, indeed, of the Christian world have ever truly understood His meaning. A subject-object world experienced after physical death as a highly blissful state is not Liberation. Essentially it is not different from this present world right here. Consequently such a world could be represented in terms of conceptual language just as this is. But such is not the case with respect to Nirvana or the Kingdom of Heaven.
The impossibility of genuinely formulating and conveying to others what the Liberated State is is not simply the difficulty afforded in trying to give expression to an unfamiliar experience. The problem, in the latter case, may be great but it is not, in principle, beyond solution. It is simply a question of inventing the appropriate concepts and word-signs, and this can be done by men who are sufficiently skillful. But the kind of consciousness that falls outside the subject-object field is more than difficult to express in relative terms. It is absolutely impossible to do so. It is not simply a question of our not yet having developed sufficient skill. The impossibility inheres in the fact that the subject-object form, essential to language as such, can only distort the Transcendent. The "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Nirvana" are simply names pointing to a deathless Reality. But that Reality is ever something other than anything that can be conceived in relative terms. Hence it is the negation of everything we know in the subject-object sense. Thus, It is not-evil and not-good, not-large and not-small, not-colored and not-colorless, and so on through all pairs of opposites. More than this, It is not-good and not not-good, not-large and not not-large, not-colored and not not-colored, and so on, also, through all pairs of contradictories. This means that It is not to be found anywhere in the "universe of discourse," as understood in logic. Naturally, this must appear as annihilation to the subject-object consciousness.
Yet, in point of fact, It is Infinite Life. It is pure Joy, the utterly satisfying Richness. It is the absolutely certain Knowledge. But It can be Known only through Identity. Once it is known, even though it be for but a moment, then It is realized as the one and only adequate solution of human misery. More than that, It supplies the basis which, alone, affords an adequate solution of the final problems of philosophy and science. The combined testimony of Those who have attained Realization builds well the case for the Reality of this Transcendent World, and something deep in the heart of every man whispers: "Yes, it is so." If only men would listen to this still, small Voice!
But man must be born again before he can Know. And He who is born again is There, whether or not He remains correlated with embodiment in the relative world. In being born again, he has died to subject-object consciousness, in the essential sense, even though he continues to function in this field. He has died in a far more fundamental sense than is true of the worldly man who merely departs from the physical body. The latter type of transition does not lead out of the subject-object domain. But the Great Transition leads beyond the ordinary heaven and hell, just as much as it does beyond this world.
That which man overcomes finally in the Great Transition is the vehicle of egoism. This is an entirely different matter from that of merely losing the instruments of action and of relative knowledge in a particular one of consciousness.
www.selfdiscoveryportal.com...

a reply to: sahajprem

Interpretive transcription, eh? Sounds like lots of room for errors. Also, your link is not working.

a reply to: windword

That's exactly right either Jesus is visible on earth at this moment or he is not. Right now he is not visible.

We'll your quoting that verse and ignoring that the bible that their are two deaths mentioned in the bible. Salvation is from the second death, which is exactly what that verse is referring to. Even if you throw in the rapture either or still applies.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword

That's exactly right either Jesus is visible on earth at this moment or he is not. Right now he is not visible.

We'll your quoting that verse and ignoring that the bible that their are two deaths mentioned in the bible. Salvation is from the second death, which is exactly what that verse is referring to. Even if you throw in the rapture either or still applies.

So? I don't get what you're trying to prove.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

hmmm here is a working link on my end. i don't know why it did not post well. i will try once more.

web.archive.org...://www.texaschapbookpress.com/magellanslog113/bronzetablet.jpg

if that doesnt work directly, you can go to the internet archive wayback machine

archive.org...

and enter the orginal web link (it is no longer on the web) in the search box

which is.... this:

www.texaschapbookpress.com...

interpretation are mostly to correct spelling and at least one archaic word, as i recall.

peace to you

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Are you trying to understand non duality with logic assertion that something must either be A or not A when in fact it can be a probability of both A and not A found out at the time measurement?

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Are you trying to understand non duality where dual separation of issues do not work and normally is between to extremes and the phrase the truth is normally between the 2 extremes.

I am not trying to understand anything I am making a point. That to say one must use "both and" logic is to use either or logic to make that claim. Which makes both and logic self defeating and there for incorrect

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Lol you just said you agreed with both and logic... Which means you believe it can be both raining and not raining at the same time in the same place and in the same way

No I didn't. You're putting words in my mouth.

YOU
I have heard many spiritualist and Buddhist say that one must abandon the idea of either/or because reality itself contains contradictions, and believe that things can be both this and that at the same time in the same place in the same way.

ME
Yes. I agree with this.
- See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

YOU
If you agree with the statement that things can be both this and that at the same time and place and the same way . That means you are saying I either use "both and" logic or nothing else to describe reality is that right?

ME
Of course not.

Things can be two things at the same time, but not always. You're being obtusely pragmatic, but your logic still doesn't work.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The correct way to state it would be either your Christian or your not Christian . You cannot be both a Christian and not a Christian.

Well, yeah, actually, you can.

I believe the lessons Jesus taught were important and invaluable to humanity at large. Great guy, important ideas. So, I'm a "Christian" in that regard.

I do NOT, however, believe that he was raised from the dead (or even that he died on the cross! and I'm not even sure if he existed at all!) or that he was born of a 'virgin'.

so - what about my stance makes me either/or Christian? Can I not believe in his teachings without buying the mythology attached to it?

"I do NOT, however, believe that he was raised from the dead (or even that he died on the cross! and I'm not even sure if he existed at all!) or that he was born of a 'virgin'."

Either you believe Jesus is God and died for your sins, or you're not a Christian. It's that simple.

Not true. You've been brainwashed by fundamentalists.

Chris·tian
adjective
1.
of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.
"the Christian Church"
noun
1.
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

A thing can be described in different way and be a truthful description at the same time as another description can also be true. At all have to do with where you measure and what you are trying to describe behind the words.

"The Elephant and the Blind Men"
Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, "Hey, there is an elephant in the village today."

They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, "Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway." All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant.



"Hey, the elephant is a pillar," said the first man who touched his leg.

"Oh, no! it is like a rope," said the second man who touched the tail.

"Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree," said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.

"It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.

"It is like a huge wall," said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.

"It is like a solid pipe," Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.

They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the elephant is like." Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said."

"Oh!" everyone said. There was no more fight. They felt happy that they were all right.

The moral of the story is that there may be some truth to what someone says. Sometimes we can see that truth and sometimes not because they may have different perspective which we may not agree too. So, rather than arguing like the blind men, we should say, "Maybe you have your reasons." This way we don’t get in arguments.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Are you trying to understand non duality where dual separation of issues do not work and normally is between to extremes and the phrase the truth is normally between the 2 extremes.

I am not trying to understand anything I am making a point. That to say one must use "both and" logic is to use either or logic to make that claim. Which makes both and logic self defeating and there for incorrect

But with playing around with duality you place two opposing views against each other when it can be that the thing in between.
A=All Christians are not Greedy
Opposing A=All Christians Are Greedy.

Neither A or Opposing A are true since the truth lies between the two opposing views. Some Christians are greedy and some Christians are Not Greedy. Both A and Opposing A can be an untrue measurement.

But A=Bible and B=Buddhism can point towards the same en-light-ment thing and describe the same thing with different words. If it is the Meta thing that exists behind the words that is important and not proving just that A is right and B is wrong. And A B can both be very bad descriptions of the Meta and unprecise in their description making en-light-ment hard to achieve.

I have read both Jesus and Buddha and I find no real contradiction between their. Paul is another matter that is contradicting both Jesus and Buddha.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Either you believe Jesus is God and died for your sins, or you're not a Christian. It's that simple.

A very Paulian view from my way of looking at it. For me Jesus died because humanity was un evolved spiritually. His teaching make people avoid sin and I am happy for the guidance. Do not want any free rides so if I do something wrong I want to be informed about it to fix it. I like repairing what I break so I can have a clear conscience.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
I have heard many spiritualist and Buddhist say that one must abandon the idea of either/or because reality itself contains contradictions, and believe that things can be both this and that at the same time in the same place in the same way.

You really need to define exactly what school of Buddhism or the theorist you're actually addressing with this type of claim.

1. Buddhism is much more of a 'living' philosophy, as in it can actually change and have new parts added. Therefore thoughts on its practice and implications are incredibly varied.

2. Even if I was addressing a more fixed religion such as Christianity, I can't just say 'I've heard a lot of arguments about infinite density and the creation of the universe and this proves Christianity is illogical'. I might say William Lane Craig is wrong though.

"Things can be two things at the same time, but not always. You're being obtusely pragmatic, but your logic still doesn't work."


Ok, but you are still misunderstanding me. I am not saying A is true therefore B cannot be true. I am saying A is either A or not A never both. In Eastern philosophy A can be both A and not A. This is why teachers in Buddhism can contradict themselves in their teachings and it supposedly not matter.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The correct way to state it would be either your Christian or your not Christian . You cannot be both a Christian and not a Christian.

Well, yeah, actually, you can.

I believe the lessons Jesus taught were important and invaluable to humanity at large. Great guy, important ideas. So, I'm a "Christian" in that regard.

I do NOT, however, believe that he was raised from the dead (or even that he died on the cross! and I'm not even sure if he existed at all!) or that he was born of a 'virgin'.

so - what about my stance makes me either/or Christian? Can I not believe in his teachings without buying the mythology attached to it?

"I do NOT, however, believe that he was raised from the dead (or even that he died on the cross! and I'm not even sure if he existed at all!) or that he was born of a 'virgin'."

Either you believe Jesus is God and died for your sins, or you're not a Christian. It's that simple.

Not true. You've been brainwashed by fundamentalists.

Chris·tian
adjective
1.
of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.
"the Christian Church"
noun
1.
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

Lol pulling a definition from the dictionary for Christian doesn't get you anywhere. The statement was using the word Christian as a noun. So a person who has received a Christian Baptism(get into the theology and this can only happen to those who have been born again) or is a believer in Jesus. You have already stated that you do not even have on opinion on whether or not Jesus was real.....

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

But, don't you see, you're doing the same thing by saying that Jesus is the physical manifestation of God, but he can't be seen? Christianity has an aspect that is equally as mystical and mysterious as Buddhism or even Taoism.

originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
I have heard many spiritualist and Buddhist say that one must abandon the idea of either/or because reality itself contains contradictions, and believe that things can be both this and that at the same time in the same place in the same way.

You really need to define exactly what school of Buddhism or the theorist you're actually addressing with this type of claim.

1. Buddhism is much more of a 'living' philosophy, as in it can actually change and have new parts added. Therefore thoughts on its practice and implications are incredibly varied.

2. Even if I was addressing a more fixed religion such as Christianity, I can't just say 'I've heard a lot of arguments about infinite density and the creation of the universe and this proves Christianity is illogical'. I might say William Lane Craig is wrong though.

Buddhism can contradict itself and have as many paths as it wants to enlightenment even if the paths contradict themselves.