in-adequacy of direct perception = naive realism
Gileht.com
"Colin Hankin" <cha...@zenprime.demon.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news: MTQrflEB...@zenprime.demon.co.uk...
>
> The perceptions of an object that reach us via the senses are only
> bounded by the restrictions imposed by the senses themselves and, to a
> lesser extent, the disposition of the observer. (One rambler may
> interpret an indistinct shape in the mist as a bush, another may see a
> bull.) In either case, the uncertainty can be resolved by a cautious
> approach.
> The perceptions we get of any object in the external world may not tell
> us *everything* about it, they may even be mistaken, but this cannot
> effect the object itself in any way especially by making it unreal or
> illusory.
>
> Generally we know enough of the external world to be able to manage our
> environment in order to survive in it. If we need to know more we can
> use our machines (microscope, Geiger counter, mass spectrometer etc.)
>
> But why should the world be illusory?
Because the Buddha said so -- because everything else is not Buddhism. What
you are proposing is naive realism and it had been refuted by all other
philosophies and sicneces. Wake-up man.
Gileht
Samyutta Nikaya XXII.95 (Phena Sutta) Foam
On one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Ayojjhans on the banks
of the Ganges River. There he addressed the monks: "Monks, suppose that a
large glob of foam were floating down this Ganges River, and a man with good
eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him --
seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear
empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a glob
of foam? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines
any form that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or
subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him -- seeing it, observing it, &
appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without
substance: for what substance would there be in form?
"Now suppose that in the autumn -- when it's raining in fat, heavy drops --
a water bubble were to appear & disappear on the water, and a man with good
eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him --
seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear
empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a water
bubble? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any
feeling that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or
subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him -- seeing it, observing it, &
appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without
substance: for what substance would there be in feeling?
"Now suppose that in the last month of the hot season a mirage were
shimmering, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, &
appropriately examine it. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately
examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what
substance would there be in a mirage? In the same way, a monk sees,
observes, & appropriately examines any perception that is past, future, or
present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or
near. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it
would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there
be in perception?
"Now suppose that a man desiring heartwood, in quest of heartwood, seeking
heartwood, were to go into a forest carrying a sharp ax. There he would see
a large banana tree: straight, young, of enormous height. He would cut it at
the root and, having cut it at the root, would chop off the top. Having
chopped off the top, he would peel away the outer skin. Peeling away the
outer skin, he wouldn't even find sapwood, to say nothing of heartwood. Then
a man with good eyesight would see it, observe it, & appropriately examine
it. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it wo
uld appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be
in a banana tree? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately
examines any fabrications that are past, future, or present; internal or
external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him --
seeing them, observing them, & appropriately examining them -- they would
appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in
fabrications?
"Now suppose that a magician or magician's apprentice were to display a
magic trick at a major intersection, and a man with good eyesight were to
see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him -- seeing it,
observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void,
without substance: for what substance would there be in a magic trick? In
the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any
consciousness that is past, future, or present; internal or external;
blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him -- seeing it,
observing it, & appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void,
without substance: for what substance would there be in consciousness?
"Seeing thus, the well-instructed noble disciple grows disenchanted with
form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted
with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he grows
dispassionate. Through dispassion, he's released. With release there's the
knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life
fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One Well-Gone, the
Teacher, said further:
"Form is like a glob of foam;
feeling, a bubble;
perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a banana tree;
consciousness, a magic trick --
this has been taught
by the Kinsman of the Sun.
However you observe them,
appropriately examine them,
they're empty, void
to whoever sees them
appropriately.
Beginning with the body
as taught by the One
with profound discernment:
when abandoned by three things
-- life, warmth, & consciousness --
form is rejected, cast aside.
When bereft of these
it lies thrown away,
senseless,
a meal for others.
That's the way it goes:
it's a magic trick,
an idiot's babbling.
It's said to be
a murderer.
No substance here
is found.
Thus a monk, persistence aroused,
should view the aggregates
by day & by night,
mindful,
alert;
should discard all fetters;
should make himself
his own refuge;
should live as if
his head were on fire --
in hopes of the state
with no falling away."
-- From : Access to Insight Web site.
> It is defined this way to give us an excuse to retreat from it - to
> live the lives of hermits. These attitudes stem from the belief that the
> key statement is Buddhism: "Nirvana is the extinction of desire" is a
> philosophy of life, not (as it should be understood) as a statement of
> the mechanism of happiness in creatures with our sort of central nervous
> system.
>
> Taking the latter view removes any need to reject or retreat from the
> world.
> It integrates Buddhism into our everyday lives.
> If you wish to feel happy, relinquish conscious mental activity (no
> matter how temporarily).
> There is a simple physical relationship between how much thinking is
> going on in your head and how happy you are feeling.
>
> I suspect that the error of accepting the key statement as a philosophy
> crept into Buddhism at a very early stage - probably only a couple of
> hundred years after the Buddha's death. More importantly, before
> anything was written down. (Nothing was written down because there was
> nothing to write down!)
>
> At its inception, Buddhism was not a religion; it was psychology. Since
> then a (much fragmented) religion has been superfluously created, to the
> extent that many people pray to the Buddha as Christians pray to their
> God.
>
> Most people, it seems, want a deity to worship. Even though they will
> discover, in the long term, that their deity is a personification of a
> condition of their own mind.
> With luck!
> TTFN
> --
> Colin Hankin
Ludwig
"Gileht.com" <for...@it.net> wrote in message
news:_UU1a.29705$ns3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > But why should the world be illusory?
>
> Because the Buddha said so -- because everything else is not Buddhism.
What
> you are proposing is naive realism and it had been refuted by all other
> philosophies and sicneces. Wake-up man.
>
I am not aware of an instance in the Nikayas where the Buddha described the
world as illlusory.
Thats a very one-sided view of things imo.
Ludwig
Sphere
"Everything has mind in the lead,
has mind in the forefront, is made
by mind..."
--
"Mind is but a name. It is nothing apart from name.
Consciousness must be regarded as but a name.
The name too has no own-being."
-- Bodhicittavivarana
naked_ape
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E48339...@all.com...
>
>
> Ludwig wrote:
> > "Gileht.com" <for...@it.net> wrote in message
> > news:_UU1a.29705$ns3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> >
> >>>But why should the world be illusory?
> >>
> >>Because the Buddha said so -- because everything else is not Buddhism.
> >
> > What
> >
> >>you are proposing is naive realism and it had been refuted by all other
> >>philosophies and sicneces. Wake-up man.
> >>
> >
> > I am not aware of an instance in the Nikayas where the Buddha described
the
> > world as illlusory.
> > Thats a very one-sided view of things imo.
> >
> > Ludwig
>
>
> "Everything has mind in the lead,
> has mind in the forefront, is made
> by mind..."
>
Does this mean you believe there is no reality beyond your own mind? Ape;)
cupcake
> Re: in-adequacy of direct perception = naive realism
>
> From: "naked_ape" <naked...@msn.com>
> Reply to: [1]"naked_ape"
> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:36:49 -0800
> Newsgroups:
> [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [3]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,
> [4]alt.zen
> Followup to: [5]newsgroups
> References:
> [6]<MTQrflEB...@zenprime.demon.co.uk>
> [7]<_UU1a.29705$ns3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>
> [8]<b29b1i$90p$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>
> [9]<3E48339...@all.com>
>
>"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message [10]news:3E48339...@all.com...>> > [11]news:_UU1a.29705$ns3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> >
>> >
>> >>>But why should the world be illusory?
>> >>
>> >>Because the Buddha said so -- because everything else is not Buddhism.
>> >
>> > What
>> >
>> >>you are proposing is naive realism and it had been refuted by all other
>> >>philosophies and sicneces. Wake-up man.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I am not aware of an instance in the Nikayas where the Buddha described
>the
>> > world as illlusory.
>> > Thats a very one-sided view of things imo.
>> >
>> > Ludwig
>>
>>
>> "Everything has mind in the lead,
>> has mind in the forefront, is made
>> by mind..."
>>
>
> Does this mean you believe there is no reality beyond your own mind?
> Ape;)
>
Sphere likes to say he's juzt a "fart in the wind",
butt, he really thinks he's hot shit
(...typical vajrayani horse-manure)
tiresias
"naked_ape" > > >>>But why should the world be illusory?
> > >>
> > >>Because the Buddha said so -- because everything else is not Buddhism.
> > >
> > > What
> > >
> > >>you are proposing is naive realism and it had been refuted by all
other
> > >>philosophies and sicneces. Wake-up man.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I am not aware of an instance in the Nikayas where the Buddha
described
> the
> > > world as illlusory.
> > > Thats a very one-sided view of things imo.
> > >
> > > Ludwig
> >
> >
> > "Everything has mind in the lead,
> > has mind in the forefront, is made
> > by mind..."
> >
>
> Does this mean you believe there is no reality beyond your own mind?
Ape;)
Again this religiose fantasy division between the sensation of
self-awareness fancifully and vainly dreamt of as some disembodied "mind"
and the animal doing this which rots away. Comforting for an animal to
arrogantly imagine that because he is conscious enough to know that he will
die that he will not die because the knowing is clung to as being separate
in some fantastic/magical/religious/spiritual manner from the human animal
that it is.
Sphere
I don't own a mind.
naked_ape
"tiresias" <m...@mine.net> wrote in message
news:b29e12$1ai17o$1...@ID-167739.news.dfncis.de...
Mine is a symbiotic relationship with the animal I ride. It gave me life,
and when it dies, yes, I'll die with it. .. Ape:)
naked_ape
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E483EED...@all.com...
>
>
> naked_ape wrote:
> > "Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E48339...@all.com...
> >
> >>
> >>Ludwig wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Gileht.com" <for...@it.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:_UU1a.29705$ns3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>But why should the world be illusory?
> >>>>
> >>>>Because the Buddha said so -- because everything else is not Buddhism.
> >>>
> >>>What
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>you are proposing is naive realism and it had been refuted by all
other
> >>>>philosophies and sicneces. Wake-up man.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>I am not aware of an instance in the Nikayas where the Buddha described
> >>
> > the
> >
> >>>world as illlusory.
> >>>Thats a very one-sided view of things imo.
> >>>
> >>>Ludwig
> >>
> >>
> >>"Everything has mind in the lead,
> >> has mind in the forefront, is made
> >> by mind..."
> >>
> >
> >
> > Does this mean you believe there is no reality beyond your own mind?
Ape;)
>
>
> I don't own a mind.
Neither do I, but I am a mind. .. Ape;)
Sphere
You are just a story.
William Tucker
> news: MTQrflEB...@zenprime.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > The perceptions of an object that reach us via the senses are only
> > bounded by the restrictions imposed by the senses themselves and, to a
> > lesser extent, the disposition of the observer. (One rambler may
> > interpret an indistinct shape in the mist as a bush, another may see a
> > bull.) In either case, the uncertainty can be resolved by a cautious
> > approach.
> > The perceptions we get of any object in the external world may not
tell
> > us *everything* about it, they may even be mistaken, but this cannot
> > effect the object itself in any way especially by making it unreal or
> > illusory.
> >
> > Generally we know enough of the external world to be able to manage our
> > environment in order to survive in it. If we need to know more we can
> > use our machines (microscope, Geiger counter, mass spectrometer etc.)
> >
> > But why should the world be illusory?
>
> Because the Buddha said so -- because everything else is not Buddhism.
Who cares, what has that got to do with reality...
the word comes after the insight
put the word down and pay attention to what is going on
who gives a fuck what Buddhism is or isn't, Buddha certainly didn't
that's how he could have the insights that he had, he gave up wanting to own
and just wanted to see...what you are saying flies in the face of the
essence
which belongs only to the person that can stay there
do you think Jesus wanted to start a religion, or share some insights?
is deification the ultimate result of people not wanting to do the work
themselves, but to be able to gain fame by pointing at the right
work....fuck that
do the work and shut up
become god and quit pointing at it
Wm
William Tucker
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E48339...@all.com...
>
>
William Tucker
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
news:eMW1a.144$Yq....@news.more.net...
he's your boy...keepim
WM
William Tucker
naked_ape
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E484517...@all.com...
Actually, I see it as a movie, and from my perspective, I'm the central
character, co-director, scriptwriter and co-producer. ..
Ape;)
naked_ape
"William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2R%1a.10649$1q2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
SNIP
> > > But why should the world be illusory?
> >
> > Because the Buddha said so -- because everything else is not Buddhism.
>
> Who cares, what has that got to do with reality...
>
> the word comes after the insight
>
> put the word down and pay attention to what is going on
>
> who gives a fuck what Buddhism is or isn't, Buddha certainly didn't
>
>
>
> that's how he could have the insights that he had, he gave up wanting to
own
> and just wanted to see...what you are saying flies in the face of the
> essence
>
>
> which belongs only to the person that can stay there
>
>
> do you think Jesus wanted to start a religion, or share some insights?
>
>
> is deification the ultimate result of people not wanting to do the work
> themselves, but to be able to gain fame by pointing at the right
> work....fuck that
>
>
> do the work and shut up
> become god and quit pointing at it
>
> Wm
Whoa! Great post. .. Ape;)
SNIP
Sphere
Isn't fucking annoying the way
people can't take direction?
> Ape;)
George W. Cherry
"naked_ape" <naked...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:b2a7ct$1aiefo$1...@ID-10187.news.dfncis.de...
You are the movie while the movie lasts.
George
George W. Cherry
Yes.
George
Gileht.com
"Ludwig" <Lud...@nospamhudson09.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de news:
b29b1i$90p$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Gileht.com" <for...@it.net> wrote in message
> news:_UU1a.29705$ns3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> > > But why should the world be illusory?
> >
> > Because the Buddha said so -- because everything else is not Buddhism.
> What
> > you are proposing is naive realism and it had been refuted by all other
> > philosophies and sicneces. Wake-up man.
> >
> I am not aware of an instance in the Nikayas where the Buddha described
the
> world as illlusory.
You are funny! Or playing my game. ??
> Thats a very one-sided view of things imo.
>
> Ludwig
>
>
How about this one ? (see next) ;-)
In this Nikaya Sutra the Buddha describes reality (the five aggregates) as
"a large glob of foam foating down the river, a water bubble, a mirage, a
large banana tree, a magic trick".
And He explicitely says that the five aggregates are **"empty, void to
whoever sees them appropriately"**.
That means that the five aggregates (that includes everything in the world)
are empty of inherent existence ... as said in the Mahayana. That proves
that the source of the Mahayana is in the Hinayana.
What else would one need to be convinced that "the Buddha described the
world as illlusory".
Maybe I should post this text everyday for the next year or so for people
like you to start opening your mind a little bit. Hey ?
Which word is hard for you to read or understand in this ?
Gileht
Samyutta Nikaya XXII.95 (Phena Sutta) Foam
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-095.html
Gileht.com
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3E483EED...@all.com...
>
>
> naked_ape wrote:
> > "Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E48339...@all.com...
> >
> >>
> >>Ludwig wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Gileht.com" <for...@it.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:_UU1a.29705$ns3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>But why should the world be illusory?
> >>>>
> >>>>Because the Buddha said so -- because everything else is not Buddhism.
> >>>
> >>>What
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>you are proposing is naive realism and it had been refuted by all
other
> >>>>philosophies and sicneces. Wake-up man.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>I am not aware of an instance in the Nikayas where the Buddha described
> >>
> > the
> >
> >>>world as illlusory.
> >>>Thats a very one-sided view of things imo.
> >>>
> >>>Ludwig
> >>
> >>
> >>"Everything has mind in the lead,
> >> has mind in the forefront, is made
> >> by mind..."
> >>
> >
> >
> > Does this mean you believe there is no reality beyond your own mind?
Ape;)
>
>
> I don't own a mind.
Hey. Good answer.
Gileht
Gileht.com
"naked_ape" <naked...@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
b29fba$1a6goi$1...@ID-10187.news.dfncis.de...
Nope. And that one is explicit in the Sutras.
--
Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
Web site: http://www.gileht.com
Gileht.com
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3E484517...@all.com...
And a bad one. lol
Gileht
Gileht.com
"William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
2R%1a.10649$1q2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Unless you can prove to me that your work is not just self-hallucination
based on flawed techniques (Hinduism Yoga) then your point is totally lost
in the great void.
--
Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
Web site: http://www.gileht.com
> become god and quit pointing at it
Gileht.com
"William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
8S%1a.10653$1q2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> sound slike projection to me...not reality
Nope.
"Everything is dependent on the mind; nothing exist independently of the
mind with or without conceptualization. That is the meaning of dependent
origination and emptiness. But that ddoesn't mean that everything is "from
the mind only"; that would be idealism or nihilism.
"Everything has mind in the lead, has mind in the forefront, is made by
mind..." (sphere)
Yes.
That is the meaning of karma. The whole world is dependent on accumulated
karma. Nothing exist on its own, independently of the mind. But as Shere
said in another post "the mind itself is juat another illusion".
--
Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
Web site: http://www.gileht.com
> "Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E48339...@all.com...
Gileht.com
"naked_ape" <naked...@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
b2a7ja$19uect$1...@ID-10187.news.dfncis.de...
Two naive realists padding each other's back.
Gileht.com
"George W. Cherry" <gwch...@alum.mit.edu> a écrit dans le message de news:
qz82a.73887$Ec4....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Another naive realist joining the club.
Hey. Don,t get me wrong. I was one before.
Sphere
Well, how is a story supposed to
own something?
Moving on to his question about
reality (sans ownership)... Reality
is just a social construction. Reality
is something we make up so we can tell
stories around the campfire.
--
Sphere
Gileht.com wrote:
> "William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 8S%1a.10653$1q2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>sound slike projection to me...not reality
>
>
> Nope.
>
> "Everything is dependent on the mind; nothing exist independently of the
> mind with or without conceptualization. That is the meaning of dependent
> origination and emptiness. But that ddoesn't mean that everything is "from
> the mind only"; that would be idealism or nihilism.
>
> "Everything has mind in the lead, has mind in the forefront, is made by
> mind..." (sphere)
Um, that's the opening line from Thomas Cleary's
translation of the Dhammapada.
>
> Yes.
>
> That is the meaning of karma. The whole world is dependent on accumulated
> karma. Nothing exist on its own, independently of the mind. But as Shere
> said in another post "the mind itself is juat another illusion".
Just more karma.
William Tucker
you spelled native wrong..
Wm
Lee Dillion
> What else would one need to be convinced that "the Buddha described the
> world as illlusory".
It depends on what you mean by illusory. See, for example, the comments
by Nyanaponika Thera in The Worn-out Skin: Reflections on the Uraga
Sutta at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel241.html
"The world is unreal in the sense of presenting a deceptive appearance,
being quite different in actuality from the way it appears to a greedy,
lustful, hating and ignorant mind. The Pali word vitatha, here rendered
by "unreal," has both in Pali and Sanskrit the meaning of "untrue" or
"false." These verses, however, are not meant to convey the idea that
the world is mere illusion, a play of the imagination. What underlies
its deceptive appearance, the flux of mental and physical processes, is
real enough in the sense that it is effect-producing. The unreality lies
in what we attribute to the world, and not in the world itself."
Lee
> What else would one need to be convinced that "the Buddha described the
> world as illlusory".
It depends on what you mean by illusory. See, for example, the comments
Sphere
Without bothering to go look it
up, I believe the standard definition
of illusion is seeing things not as
they are.
I happen to prefer 'delusion' over
'illusion' myself, since 'delusion'
refers specifically to the mind and
not just as well to the eye.
William Tucker
help me out here
you're saying that without television there is no world
and everything exsists because man exists
define planet karma so I can understand it
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E49404E...@all.com...
Shiva
news:b2bi4a$h0e$1...@kestrel.csrv.uidaho.edu...
How remarkable! Another poster calling himself Lee said the
same thing just a short while ago.
Shiva
Lee
> How remarkable! Another poster calling himself Lee said the same
> thing just a short while ago.
Don't listen to the other one. He's a snake.
Gileht.com
Yap. Exactly. All of this because our little illusory self is afraid of
ghosts.
And that is the whole point of Buddhism.
Labelling some ghosts "bad" and some other "good" is not going to help them.
What has to be done is to realize that they are all ghosts originating from
our own mind. No-self, no-ghosts, all dharma are empty as the Buddha said in
:
Samyutta Nikaya XXII.95 (Phena Sutta) Foam
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-095.html
and
Majjhima Nikaya 1 (Mulapariyaya Sutta) The Root Sequence
and many other sutras
Replacing one ghosts by a bigger one, like George said, is not going to help
those Vajrayanists, Hinduists and monists.
Gileht
Gileht.com
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3E49404E...@all.com...
>
>
> Gileht.com wrote:
> > "William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:
> > 8S%1a.10653$1q2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> >>sound slike projection to me...not reality
> >
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > "Everything is dependent on the mind; nothing exist independently of the
> > mind with or without conceptualization. That is the meaning of dependent
> > origination and emptiness. But that ddoesn't mean that everything is
"from
> > the mind only"; that would be idealism or nihilism.
> >
> > "Everything has mind in the lead, has mind in the forefront, is made by
> > mind..." (sphere)
>
>
> Um, that's the opening line from Thomas Cleary's
> translation of the Dhammapada.
Nice.
And from Shantideva's Bodhicaryavatara
Chapter V - Guarging Introspection
6. For the Propounder of the Truth said that **all fears and immeasurable
sufferings arise from the mind only**.
7. Who diligently constructed the weapons in hell? Who devised the floor of
heated iron? And from where have those women come?
8. The Sage declared that **all of that has arisen from the evil mind**, so
there is nothing else in the three worlds more formidable than the mind.
Chapter IX - Wisdom
17.cd [Madhyamika:] The Protector of the World stated that **the mind does
not perceive the mind**. Just as a sword cannot cut itself, so it is with
the mind.
And Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara
[VI.71cd]
114cd
"In short, the meaning you should understand is this:
Just as objects of mind do not exist, **mind also does not exist**."
"The phenomena that appear to the mental consciousness (i.e. mind), the
chief of them all,
Are conceptualized and then superimposed.
When this activity is abandoned, phenomena's lack of self-essence is known."
-- Nagarjuna, In Praise of the Dharmadhatu (43)
> > Yes.
> >
> > That is the meaning of karma. The whole world is dependent on
accumulated
> > karma. Nothing exist on its own, independently of the mind. But as Shere
> > said in another post "the mind itself is just another illusion".
Gileht.com
"Lee" <gra...@rockingchair.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
b2bgc9$dtb$1...@kestrel.csrv.uidaho.edu...
> Gileht.com wrote:
>
> > What else would one need to be convinced that "the Buddha described the
> > world as illlusory".
>
[snipped the comment of some other guy]
>
Let's get to the source of the meaning:
"Illusory" as in the following sutra:
In this Nikaya Sutra the Buddha describes reality (the five aggregates) as
"a large glob of foam foating down the river, a water bubble, a mirage, a
large banana tree, a magic trick".
And He explicitely says that the five aggregates are **"empty, void to
whoever sees them appropriately"**.
That means that the five aggregates (that includes everything in the world)
are empty of inherent existence ... as said in the Mahayana. That proves
that the source of the Mahayana is in the Hinayana.
What else would one need to be convinced that "the Buddha described the
world as illlusory".
Maybe I should post this text everyday for the next year or so for people
Gileht.com
"William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
VJb2a.11148$tO2.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
How "naive" of me !
What is a "native realist" ?
I taught you were a "naive realist" sorry !
Gileht.com
"Lee Dillion" <leedi...@cableone.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
b2bi4a$h0e$1...@kestrel.csrv.uidaho.edu...
I prefer the Buddha's definition of "illusory" as I quoted in the other
post.
Shiva
news:b2bo3v$lef$1...@kestrel.csrv.uidaho.edu...
Ah, now I think I am getting it! He is the snake and you are
the eel?
Shiva
Lee
But it wasn't the Buddha's definition we were arguing about but how you
understand the use of the word illusion (versus, say, mere illusion) in
the context of the early suttas. And of course you prefer your
particular ontological interpretation over the more pragmatic
understanding of a Theravada teacher. That is certainly your right -
though it doesn't make it right.
By the way, I called my daughter up at med school the other day. I
happened to mention that my 4 pound poodle was like a tiger when she
sees a piece of food on the ground. Smart girl that she was, she didn't
think I meant that the poodle had literally turned into a tiger.
Lee
ssssssomthing like that!
Shiva
"Lee" <gra...@rockingchair.com> wrote:
LOL. Are you implying that dear Gileht is a literalist? How
scandalous!
Shiva
Gileht.com
"Lee" <gra...@rockingchair.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
b2boq2$lef$2...@kestrel.csrv.uidaho.edu...
That is not what I said.
I said I prefer the Buddha's definition as I quoted in the other post.
But if you insist, then yes I think the interpretations of naive hinayanist
realists are biased and narrow.
I prefer that the Buddha defends himself directly. All you have to do is to
read directly what the Buddha said. Instead of reading other narrow minded
hinayanists that support your naive interpretation.
Better ?
Good ! lol
--
Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
Web site: http://www.gileht.com
Lee
> "Lee" <gra...@rockingchair.com> wrote:
>> By the way, I called my daughter up at med school the other day. I
>> happened to mention that my 4 pound poodle was like a tiger when
>> she sees a piece of food on the ground. Smart girl that she was,
>> she didn't think I meant that the poodle had literally turned into
>> a tiger.
>
> LOL. Are you implying that dear Gileht is a literalist? How
> scandalous!
From what I have seen, Gileht isn't so much a literalist as he is a
foundationalist who proceeds from an a priori mindset to his conclusions
about the world. So any interpretive structure that allows him to claim
certainty and foundational truths (such as his repeated ontological
claim that everything is empty of inherent existence) is acceptable.
Whether it would ever occur to him that the idea of emptiness may be
merely an after the fact psychological description of how we experience
the world with the ontological claims set aside, I don't know. His
current belligerance and close-mindedness do not speak well of his
ability to think of other possibilities.
Colin Hankin
<for...@it.net> writes
>
>"Colin Hankin" <cha...@zenprime.demon.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
>news: MTQrflEB...@zenprime.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> The perceptions of an object that reach us via the senses are only
>> bounded by the restrictions imposed by the senses themselves and, to a
>> lesser extent, the disposition of the observer. (One rambler may
>> interpret an indistinct shape in the mist as a bush, another may see a
>> bull.) In either case, the uncertainty can be resolved by a cautious
>> approach.
>> The perceptions we get of any object in the external world may not tell
>> us *everything* about it, they may even be mistaken, but this cannot
>> effect the object itself in any way especially by making it unreal or
>> illusory.
>>
>> Generally we know enough of the external world to be able to manage our
>> environment in order to survive in it. If we need to know more we can
>> use our machines (microscope, Geiger counter, mass spectrometer etc.)
>>
>
>you are proposing is naive realism and it had been refuted by all other
>philosophies and sicneces. Wake-up man.
>
>
>Samyutta Nikaya XXII.95 (Phena Sutta) Foam
>
I think I've answered this one before.
However, after a necessary reformat of my main drive (Ugh!) the message
may not have reached you.
It went something like this:
I'm sure the Buddha never said any such things.
The fallacy in all of them is almost too obvious to mention.
Just because a form has little substance does not mean it has *no*
substance.
>That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One Well-Gone, the
>Teacher, said further:
>"Form is like a glob of foam;
>feeling, a bubble;
>perception, a mirage;
>fabrications, a banana tree;
>consciousness, a magic trick --
> this has been taught
> by the Kinsman of the Sun.
>However you observe them,
>appropriately examine them,
>they're empty, void
> to whoever sees them
> appropriately.
>
>Beginning with the body
>as taught by the One
>with profound discernment:
>when abandoned by three things
> -- life, warmth, & consciousness --
>form is rejected, cast aside.
>When bereft of these
>it lies thrown away,
> senseless,
> a meal for others.
Cannibalism?
>That's the way it goes:
>it's a magic trick,
>an idiot's babbling.
>It's said to be
> a murderer.
>No substance here
>is found.
>
>Thus a monk, persistence aroused,
>should view the aggregates
>by day & by night,
> mindful,
> alert;
>should discard all fetters;
>should make himself
> his own refuge;
>should live as if
>his head were on fire --
> in hopes of the state
> with no falling away."
>
I prefer to integrate my Zen into everyday life rather than retreat
from the world.
TTFN
--
Colin Hankin
Colin Hankin
<for...@it.net> writes
>
>"
>
>You are funny! Or playing my game. ??
>
>> Thats a very one-sided view of things imo.
>>
>> Ludwig
>>
>>
>
>
>In this Nikaya Sutra the Buddha describes reality (the five aggregates) as
>"a large glob of foam foating down the river, a water bubble, a mirage, a
>large banana tree, a magic trick".
>
>And He explicitely says that the five aggregates are **"empty, void to
>whoever sees them appropriately"**.
>
>That means that the five aggregates (that includes everything in the world)
>are empty of inherent existence ... as said in the Mahayana. That proves
>that the source of the Mahayana is in the Hinayana.
>
>world as illlusory".
>
But the texts contain an obvious fallacy:
Just because an object contains little substance does not mean it
contains *no* substance.
The Buddha was no fool; he would have spotted the fallacy instantly.
Therefore he could not have said those things.
Therefore the world is not illusory.
TTFN
--
Colin Hankin
Colin Hankin
William Tucker <wmft...@earthlink.net> writes>news:_UU1a.29705$ns3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>
>> "Colin Hankin" <cha...@zenprime.demon.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
>> news: MTQrflEB...@zenprime.demon.co.uk...
>> >
>> > The perceptions of an object that reach us via the senses are only
>> > bounded by the restrictions imposed by the senses themselves and, to a
>> > lesser extent, the disposition of the observer. (One rambler may
>> > interpret an indistinct shape in the mist as a bush, another may see a
>> > bull.) In either case, the uncertainty can be resolved by a cautious
>> > approach.
>> > The perceptions we get of any object in the external world may not
>tell
>> > us *everything* about it, they may even be mistaken, but this cannot
>> > effect the object itself in any way especially by making it unreal or
>> > illusory.
>> >
>> > Generally we know enough of the external world to be able to manage our
>> > environment in order to survive in it. If we need to know more we can
>> > use our machines (microscope, Geiger counter, mass spectrometer etc.)
>> >
>> > But why should the world be illusory?
>>
>> Because the Buddha said so -- because everything else is not Buddhism.
>
It is fairly obvious that the world is not illusory.
The Buddha was no fool.
He would never have asserted that it was.
>Who cares, what has that got to do with reality...
>
around in the dark like a headless chicken.
>the word comes after the insight
>
>put the word down and pay attention to what is going on
>
>who gives a fuck what Buddhism is or isn't, Buddha certainly didn't
>
>
>
>that's how he could have the insights that he had, he gave up wanting to own
>and just wanted to see...what you are saying flies in the face of the
>essence
Infinitely beyond the reach of the imaginative contrivances."
No seeing there, Nick.
>
> which belongs only to the person that can stay there
>
>
>do you think Jesus wanted to start a religion, or share some insights?
>
>
>is deification the ultimate result of people not wanting to do the work
>themselves, but to be able to gain fame by pointing at the right
>work....fuck that
lost.
Guess what!
>
>do the work and shut up
>become god and quit pointing at it
TTFN
--
Colin Hankin
Colin Hankin
<gra...@rockingchair.com> writes
Buddhists wallow in a morass of conflicting and confusing texts.
How is the beginner to sort the dross from the gold?
Try Zen.
TTFN
--
Colin Hankin
Gileht.com
"Lee" <gra...@rockingchair.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
b2bqe5$lef$4...@kestrel.csrv.uidaho.edu...
> Shiva wrote:
> > "Lee" <gra...@rockingchair.com> wrote:
>
> >> By the way, I called my daughter up at med school the other day. I
> >> happened to mention that my 4 pound poodle was like a tiger when
> >> she sees a piece of food on the ground. Smart girl that she was,
> >> she didn't think I meant that the poodle had literally turned into
> >> a tiger.
> >
> > LOL. Are you implying that dear Gileht is a literalist? How
> > scandalous!
Now, that "is" another real Ad Hominem Argument.
Do you see the difference now Pema ?
> From what I have seen, Gileht isn't so much a literalist as he is a
> foundationalist who proceeds from an a priori mindset to his conclusions
> about the world.
And another one here.
> So any interpretive structure that allows him to claim
> certainty and foundational truths (such as his repeated ontological
> claim that everything is empty of inherent existence) is acceptable.
>
> Whether it would ever occur to him that the idea of emptiness may be
> merely an after the fact psychological description of how we experience
> the world with the ontological claims set aside, I don't know. His
> current belligerance and close-mindedness do not speak well of his
> ability to think of other possibilities.
You see such arguments are usually used by those who cannot prove their
point and have their back to the wall. It is a desperate move of the weak
minds.
It proves that I am pushing the right buttons and that I should go on. lol
Keep up the good works guy; your ridiculous moves are proving my points: you
are full of shit and cannot prove anything you are grasping onto.
Thanks
Lee
> I prefer that the Buddha defends himself directly.
Hahahah. And how would you have him do that? Are you so silly to think
that the words of the early suttas (or any text for that matter) speak
to you without interpretation?
Gileht.com
"Colin Hankin" <cha...@zenprime.demon.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news: YpbOh7Fg...@zenprime.demon.co.uk...
Ok. So you are saying that because the Buddha is not saying the same thing
as you then the Buddha must be misquoted here.
Have you thought that it might be possible that you are the one who is wrong
?
Is this something that you can still accept; or are you holding to tightly
to your illusion that you are simply refusing to accept the obvious ?
I wouldn't insist if I hadn't read the same thing thousands of time at other
places.
Think about it. Keep an open mind. Otherwise you will endup like those poor
narrow minded naive hinayanist realists. And that would be "bad" believe me.
Not as bad as a blind faith Vajraynanist who think there is a permanent self
and a universal God called Emptiness, but close. ;-)
Gileht.com
======================
> Hello Gileht,
> I think I've answered this one before.
> However, after a necessary reformat of my main drive (Ugh!) the message
> may not have reached you.
> It went something like this:
> I'm sure the Buddha never said any such things.
> The fallacy in all of them is almost too obvious to mention.
> Just because a form has little substance does not mean it has *no*
> substance.
>
> I prefer to integrate my Zen into everyday life rather than retreat
> from the world.
> TTFN
> --
> Colin Hankin
======================
Ho. I see. You message is more clear here.
Ok. I see what is the problem.
The Buddha, in the above sutra, is saying that the five aggregates (that
means everything in the world) is like "a large glob of foam", like "a water
bubble", like "a mirage", like "a large banana tree", like "a magic tree";
and when ie is saying that they are "empty, void to whoever sees them
appropriately".
There is no mistake here. That is exactly like it is taught in the Mahayana,
including Zen. He is saying exactly the same thing as all Zen Masters.
But you are the one misunderstanding the meaning of this; that is why you
are seeing a contradiction. There is no contradiction I assure you.
He is saying that everything is empty of inherent existence. He is saying
exactly the same thing as in the Prajnaparamitasutra, and in the Heart
Sutra.
Now, one has to understand that saying that everything is empty of inherent
existence, doesn,t mean that everything is completely non-existent. It only
means that everything is not existent. You see, the Middle Way is between
existence and non-existence. Everything is not existent (like He is saying
here), but still not completely non-existent either.
If you say things exist a little you are still wrong. But that doesn,t mean
that one should adopt the nihilist point of view (the Buddha explains this
in other sutras).
Lokayatika Sutta - The Cosmologist - SN XII.48
"Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything exist?"
"'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahmin." (i.e.
Realism)
"Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?"
"'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahmin."
(i.e. Idealism or nihilism)
"Then is everything a Oneness?"
"'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahmin." (i.e.
Monism)
"Then is everything a Manyness?"
"'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahmin. (i.e.
Dualism)
Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the
middle: ...
and
Kaccayanagotta Sutta - To Kaccayana Gotta (on Right View) - SN XII.15
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a
polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the
origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment,
'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one
sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment,
'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one." .
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. (i.e. Realism)
'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme.(i.e. Idealism or
nihilism)
Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the
middle."
etc.
So I hope you see now that there is no mis-quotation. The meaning is the
same as in all other sutras about the Middle Way.
Ch'an Fu
"Gileht.com" wrote:
you'd prefer, of course, that he worshipped
your god of non-existence...
gods are gods all over the world
gods are gods all over the world
Similarly made. Similarly sold
Just like KoolAid. Even better when they're old
gods are gods all over the world
gods are gods all over the world
gods are gods all over the world
Preacher in the front. Collector in the back
What a great stunt. Put 'em on the rack
gods are gods all over the world
gods are gods all over the world
But people are strangers
They change with the curve
From time zone to time zone
As we can observe
They shut down their borders
And think they're immune
They stand on their differences
And shoot at the moon
But gods are gods all over the world
gods are gods all over the world
Devils on the left. Druids on the right
Sneaking out to worship in the middle of the night
gods are gods all over the world
gods are gods all over the world
I once had a god
That was more like me
I lived in it, loved in it
Built it a dome.
If some of your gods
Had been more like my own
I probably wouldn't have
Ever left home.
gods are gods all over the world
gods are gods all over the world
gods are gods all over the world
gods are gods all over the world
gods are gods all over the world
Sphere
All readings of the Buddha are interpretation.
In comparing interpretations, I think Occam's
Razor comes in handy.
If Buddha says all views of self are wrong
and I interpret this to mean that any idea
allowing for an essence is incorrect while
someone else interprets this to mean that
there is some sort of subtle essence which
has been missed by all previous views of self;
which one of us has added fewer entities in
our interpretation?
(One reason I like Occam's Razor is that I
propose no entities at all.)
...
Gileht.com
"Gileht.com" <for...@it.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
OEe2a.549$3g1....@news20.bellglobal.com...
===========
Prajnaparamita Sutra: The Ten Similes :
Sutra: They understood all dharmas as being
like a [magically- conjured] illusion,
like a mirage,
like the moon reflected in water,
like empty space,
like an echo,
like the city of the Gandharvas,
like a dream,
like a shadow,
like an image in a mirror,
and like a [supernatural] transformation.
Upadesha: These ten similes are set forth for the sake of explaining [the
nature of] empty dharmas.
See Prajnaparamita Sutra / Kalavinka / The Ten Similes on my web site.
===========
Nagarjuna's Karikas -- section 17
31.
Just as a teacher, by his magical power, formed a magical form,
And this magical form formed again another magical form-
32.
Just so the "one who forms" is himself being formed magically; and the act
performed by him
Is like a magical form being magically formed by another magical form.
33.
Desires, actions, bodies, producers, and products
Are like a fairy castle, resembling a mirage, a dream.
Nagarjuna's Karikas Section 23
7.
Form, sound, taste, touch, smell, and the dharmas: this six-fold
Substance (vastu) of desire, hate, and delusion is imagined.
8.
Form, sound, taste, touch, smell, and the dharmas are
Merely the form of a fairy castle, like a mirage, a dream.
9.
How will "that which is salutary" or "that which is non-salutary" come into
existence
In a formation of a magical man, or in things like a reflection?
Nagarjuna's Karikas -- section 7
34. Like a dream, like a magician's illusion, like a city of gandharvas,
likewise birth and likewise remaining, likewise perishing are taught.
==============
Aryadeva's 400
325.
The firebrand's ring are magical creations,
Dreams, illusions, and the moon in water,
Mists, echoes, mirages, clouds
And worldly existence are alike.
360.
There is no coming of the produced,
Likewise no going of that which has ceased.
Since it is thus, why should existence
Not be like a magician's illusions?
===============
Hui Neng's Platform Sutra:
Sit down, all of you, and let me read you a stanza on reality and illusion,
and on motion and quietude. Read it, and your opinion will accord with mine.
Practice it, and you will grasp the aim and object of our School." The
assembly made obeisance and asked the Patriarch to let them hear the stanza,
which read as follows:
In all things there is nothing real,
And so we should free ourselves from the concept of the reality of objects.
He who believes in the reality of objects
Is bound by this very concept, which is entirely illusive.
He who realizes the Essence of Mind within himself
Knows that the 'True Mind' is to be sought apart from phenomena.
If one's mind is bound by illusive phenomena
Where is Reality to be found, when all phenomena are unreal?
Sentient beings are mobile; Inanimate objects are stationary.
He who trains himself by exercise to be motionless
(Gets no benefit) other than making himself as still as an inanimate object.
Should you find true Immobility
There is Immobility within activity.
Immobility (like that of inanimate objects) is immobility (and not Dhyana),
And in inanimate objects the seed of Buddhahood is not to be found.
He who is adept in the discrimination of various Dharmalaksana
Abides immovably in the 'First Principle' (Nirvana).
Thus are all things to be perceived, and this is the functioning of Tathata
(Suchness).
Treaders of the Path, Exert yourself and take heed
That as followers of the Mahayana School You do not embrace that sort of
knowledge
Which binds you to the wheel of birth and death.
With those who are sympathetic
Let us have discussion on Buddhism.
As for those whose point of view differs from ours
Let us treat them politely and thus make them happy.
(But) disputes are alien to our School,
For they are incompatible with its doctrine.
To argue with others in disregard of this rule
Subjects one's Essence of Mind to the bitterness of mundane existence.
Having heard this stanza, the assembly made obeisance in a body. In
accordance with the wishes of the Patriarch, they concentrated their minds
to put the stanza into actual practice, and refrained from religious
controversy.
===========
Heart sutra:
And the noble Lord Avalokiteshvara, the Bodhisattva and Mahasattva, spoke to
the elder Sariputra as follows:
"Sariputra, any son or daughter of good family who wishes to engage in the
practice of the profound Perfection of Wisdom should look upon it thus: he
(or she) beholds but five skandhas and that in their own-being, they are
empty.
============
Sphere
Gileht.com wrote:
> "Sphere" <no...@all.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 3E49404E...@all.com...
>
>>
>>Gileht.com wrote:
>>
>>>"William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de
>>
> news:
>
>>>8S%1a.10653$1q2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>sound slike projection to me...not reality
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>>
>>>"Everything is dependent on the mind; nothing exist independently of the
>>>mind with or without conceptualization. That is the meaning of dependent
>>>origination and emptiness. But that ddoesn't mean that everything is
>>
> "from
>
>>>the mind only"; that would be idealism or nihilism.
>>>
>>>"Everything has mind in the lead, has mind in the forefront, is made by
>>>mind..." (sphere)
>>
>>
>>Um, that's the opening line from Thomas Cleary's
>>translation of the Dhammapada.
>
>
>
> Nice.
Actually, I like dar's translation
better, but I usually don't quite get
it right...
"I am my thots
With my thots
I make my world."
(Not right, but...) The Pali
really isn't very many words.
dar's translation is probably
more literal.
>
>
Good stuff follows.
Ch'an Fu
Sphere wrote:
who shaves the barber?
Lee
>>> LOL. Are you implying that dear Gileht is a literalist? How
>>> scandalous!
> Now, that "is" another real Ad Hominem Argument.
You need to read up on what constitutes an ad hominem argument since no
such argument is present in what Shiva states above.
"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically,
this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character
of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made
(or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the
claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or
argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of
"argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the
character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases)
have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the
quality of the argument being made)."
The only statement made by Shiva was to question whether you were a
literalist. As an initial matter, that is not an irrelevant claim about
your character, circumstances, or actions, but is simply a posited
description of your interpretive approach. Such an observation is
extremely relevant to how a person understands an ancient text.
Second, Shiva does not use the observation as part of a structured
argument with a conclusion that your claim is false. You might be, but
not because you are or are not a literalist.
It reminds me of Hayes' oft repeated argument to the effect that the
claim that you are an idiot and cannot understand a simple argument is
not an ad hominem argument since it states a fact relevant to your
abilities to understand the discussion at hand.
Hope this helps.
Sphere
Just like Annhiliationism and eternalism,
nihilism and substantialism are wrong
views. All of them are built upon a view
of self -- of essence.
Buddha taught about the arising of Dukkha
and the cessation of Dukkha. He taught
the law of Kamma. All he ever taught was:
action, the stress which arises from action,
the stress is not eternal, and that the
stress need not be owned.
If there was any substance then that substance
would own its stress.
...
Sphere
There is no fallacy. The notion of
substance is wrong.
> Therefore he could not have said those things.
> Therefore the world is not illusory.
The world is not as you wish it, and
thus it is illusory.
> TTFN
Sphere
There is a simple way to measure
different interpretations.
naked_ape
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E490348...@all.com...
SNIP
> >>>>>Does this mean you believe there is no reality beyond your own mind?
> >>>>
> >>>Ape;)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I don't own a mind.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Neither do I, but I am a mind. .. Ape;)
> >>
> >>
> >>You are just a story.
> >
> >
> > Actually, I see it as a movie, and from my perspective, I'm the central
> > character, co-director, scriptwriter and co-producer. ..
>
>
> Isn't fucking annoying the way
> people can't take direction?
Yes, that's why I'm only a co-director. Ultimately, I'm the only one who
listens to me.)) Ape;)
naked_ape
"George W. Cherry" <gwch...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:Dx82a.73303$HN5.2...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
SNIP
> > > You are just a story.
> >
> > Actually, I see it as a movie, and from my perspective, I'm the central
> > character, co-director, scriptwriter and co-producer. ..
>
>
> You are the movie while the movie lasts.
>
> George
Exactly.)
naked_ape
Remind me to watch my step around you.)) Ape;)
naked_ape
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E493FCD...@all.com...
SNIP
> >>>Does this mean you believe there is no reality beyond your own mind?
> >>
> > Ape;)
> >
> >>
> >>I don't own a mind.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gileht
>
>
> Well, how is a story supposed to
> own something?
Go on, tell me the story. I'd like to hear it. .. Ape:)
naked_ape
>
> "naked_ape" <naked...@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> b29fba$1a6goi$1...@ID-10187.news.dfncis.de...news:3E483EED...@all.com...
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>Ludwig wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>"Gileht.com" <for...@it.net> wrote in message
> > > >>>news:_UU1a.29705$ns3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Because the Buddha said so -- because everything else is not
> Buddhism.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>What
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>you are proposing is naive realism and it had been refuted by all
> > other
> > > >>>>philosophies and sicneces. Wake-up man.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> described
> > > >>
> > > > the
> > > >
> > > >>>world as illlusory.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Ludwig
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> has mind in the forefront, is made
> > > >> by mind..."
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > Ape;)
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't own a mind.
> >
>
As far as I'm concerned the Sutras is just another Bible. Pointing to an
authority as your proof isn't about to change my mind. You'll have to make
sense, and you'll have to speak only English, if you truly wish to enlighten
me. .. Ape;)
Sphere
I'm a long, and rather boring story.
What's worse, like The Neverending Story,
in the middle of it I'd have to be telling
the story of me telling you the story, and
that would make it even longer and more
boring.
Sphere
There is only action.
Sphere
> understanding of a Theravada teacher. That is certainly your right -
> though it doesn't make it right.
Check to make sure the Theravada teacher is talking
about the Suttas, and not the Abhidhamma. You can
get very different answers out of them depending upon
what they are referring to.
>
> By the way, I called my daughter up at med school the other day. I
> happened to mention that my 4 pound poodle was like a tiger when she
> sees a piece of food on the ground. Smart girl that she was, she didn't
> think I meant that the poodle had literally turned into a tiger.
>
naked_ape
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E49AF95...@all.com...
>
>
> naked_ape wrote:
> > "Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message
news:3E493FCD...@all.com...
> > SNIP
> >
> >>>>>Does this mean you believe there is no reality beyond your own mind?
> >>>>
> >>>Ape;)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I don't own a mind.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Hey. Good answer.
> >>>
> >>>Gileht
> >>
> >>
> >>Well, how is a story supposed to
> >>own something?
> >
> >
> > Go on, tell me the story. I'd like to hear it. .. Ape:)
>
>
> I'm a long, and rather boring story.
> What's worse, like The Neverending Story,
> in the middle of it I'd have to be telling
> the story of me telling you the story, and
> that would make it even longer and more
> boring.
So, if you told your story, who and or what is the "you" telling it? Ape;)
Sphere
Various thoughts would poke up from time
to time and sort of discuss the matter
before wandering off again. Nothing would
be telling it. The story would just be
told.
Lee
If you had read the article you would see he was commenting on the sutta
named in the title of the article.
--
Lee
Robyn
>
> "Lee" <gra...@rockingchair.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> b2bqe5$lef$4...@kestrel.csrv.uidaho.edu...
> > Shiva wrote:
> > > "Lee" <gra...@rockingchair.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> By the way, I called my daughter up at med school the other day. I
> > >> happened to mention that my 4 pound poodle was like a tiger when
> > >> she sees a piece of food on the ground. Smart girl that she was,
> > >> she didn't think I meant that the poodle had literally turned into
> > >> a tiger.
> > >
> > > LOL. Are you implying that dear Gileht is a literalist? How
> > > scandalous!
>
> Now, that "is" another real Ad Hominem Argument.
>
> Do you see the difference now Pema ?
I would disagree with you on this point, Gileht, except I'm afraid you might
respond and I wouldn't want to fall asleep at the keyboard reading a Usenet
post.
Was that an ad hominem?
Always full of shit,
Robyn
<everything else run through the shredder>
William Tucker
>
> "William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:
> VJb2a.11148$tO2.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...> > news:iTa2a.30468$Ww1.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > >
> > > "George W. Cherry" <gwch...@alum.mit.edu> a écrit dans le message de
> > news:
> > > qz82a.73887$Ec4....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> > > >
> > > > "naked_ape" <naked...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:b2a7ja$19uect$1...@ID-10187.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > >
> > > > > "William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:2R%1a.10649$1q2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > > > SNIP
> > > > > > > > But why should the world be illusory?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Because the Buddha said so -- because everything else is not
> > > Buddhism.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the word comes after the insight
> > > > > >
> > > > > > put the word down and pay attention to what is going on
> > > > > >
> > > > > > who gives a fuck what Buddhism is or isn't, Buddha certainly
> didn't
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > that's how he could have the insights that he had, he gave up
> > wanting
> > > to
> > > > > own
> > > > > > and just wanted to see...what you are saying flies in the face
of
> > the
> > > > > > essence
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > which belongs only to the person that can stay there
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > do you think Jesus wanted to start a religion, or share some
> > insights?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > is deification the ultimate result of people not wanting to do
the
> > > work
> > > > > > themselves, but to be able to gain fame by pointing at the right
> > > > > > work....fuck that
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > do the work and shut up
> > > > > > become god and quit pointing at it
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wm
> > > > >
> > > > > Whoa! Great post. .. Ape;)
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > George
> > >
> > >
> > > Another naive realist joining the club.
> > >
> > > Hey. Don,t get me wrong. I was one before.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
> > > Web site: http://www.gileht.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Wm
>
>
> How "naive" of me !
>
> What is a "native realist" ?
>
Heritage wise, Cherokee and Shawnee, the rest is
English, German and Scotch/Welsh...
but no French...
> I taught you were a "naive realist" sorry !
I am only an egg
Wm
William Tucker
> I'm feeling sloppy to day
>
>
> help me out here
>
> you're saying that without television there is no world
>
> and everything exsists because man exists
>
> define planet karma so I can understand it
>
>
what no brave men here eh?! lazy bastids
Qm
George W. Cherry
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E49B143...@all.com...
Nope, there's the situation which prompted (provoked)
the action. We are Situation-Action Machines, machines
which map situations onto more or less appropriate ac-
tions.
George
boris_fuller
wrote:
>
>"Sphere" <no...@all.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>3E484517...@all.com...
>>
>> You are just a story.
>
>And a bad one. lol
>
>Gileht
>
...aaaaand in the "gold medal buddhist philosopher stakes" its a
meagre field today racing for first or last neither first nor last
place and the prize of the magnificent "ultimate great perfection
cup", the "2000 lifetimes pigs ear silk purse", and the truly
magnificent "i'm a living buddha" gold medal !
aaaaaand they're off!
.......and sphere is slow to emerge from the traps, dawdling with
solipsism and nihilism on the initial straight...... aaaaand gillette
faaaaaalls at the first dual obstacle...- detrimental judgement of
value there -
...and its a horse of a very different colour coming up on the
inside...........
Boris
Robyn
<Boris Fuller> wrote in message news:3e4a4bf7...@news.lineone.net...
ROLFMAO
Screw the idea of what the words really mean. When are we going to see a
real zen-off around here?
Gileht.com
<Boris Fuller> a écrit dans le message de news:
3e4a4bf7...@news.lineone.net...
You just won the prize for the highest number of informal fallacies in a
single post. Congratulations. You have a bright future as a politician. Hope
you will love serving in Bagdhad. lol
Gileht.com
"George W. Cherry" <gwch...@alum.mit.edu> a écrit dans le message de news:
Wwk2a.71307$SD6.4381@sccrnsc03...
Weird mantra you have there!
Can you change water into wine with this mantra ?
Gileht.com
Good for you. Those lazy self-centered narrow minded bastards ... oups ...
never mind.
Tang :-)
Gileht.com
"Robyn" <rob...@mchsi.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
Q2j2a.80783$Ec4....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
No. It is what is called "appeal to ignoramus like you". But both are
fallacies of relevance.
Glad I could help.
Hey !!!!! WAKE UP MAN !!!!
--
Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
Web site: http://www.gileht.com
> Always full of shit,
Gileht.com
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3E497F3F...@all.com...> > b2boq2$lef$2...@kestrel.csrv.uidaho.edu...
> >
> > I said I prefer the Buddha's definition as I quoted in the other post.
> >
> > But if you insist, then yes I think the interpretations of naive
hinayanist
> > realists are biased and narrow.
> >
> > I prefer that the Buddha defends himself directly. All you have to do is
to
> > read directly what the Buddha said. Instead of reading other narrow
minded
> > hinayanists that support your naive interpretation.
>
>
> All readings of the Buddha are interpretation.
> In comparing interpretations, I think Occam's
> Razor comes in handy.
>
> If Buddha says all views of self are wrong
> and I interpret this to mean that any idea
> allowing for an essence is incorrect while
> someone else interprets this to mean that
> there is some sort of subtle essence which
> has been missed by all previous views of self;
> which one of us has added fewer entities in
> our interpretation?
>
> (One reason I like Occam's Razor is that it
> propose no entities at all.)
I like the Prasanga for the same reason.
In fact I don,t need to prove anything: not by scripture, not by reasoning,
not by direct perception.
All I need to show is how ridiculus and absurd the opponent's position is.
So when I talk to somebody who bases his proofs on the Sutras, all I have to
show is Sutras that contradict his claims. That is what I did. But I agree
with you "All readings of the Buddha are interpretation" and all dharma are
empty of inherent existence.
The Buddha never taught anything; and Nagarjuna has no final view.
--
Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
Web site: http://www.gileht.com
> --
Gileht.com
"naked_ape" <naked...@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
b2c7ll$1aa52k$1...@ID-10187.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Lee" <gra...@rockingchair.com> wrote in message
> news:b2bqe5$lef$4...@kestrel.csrv.uidaho.edu...
> > Shiva wrote:
> > > "Lee" <gra...@rockingchair.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> By the way, I called my daughter up at med school the other day. I
> > >> happened to mention that my 4 pound poodle was like a tiger when
> > >> she sees a piece of food on the ground. Smart girl that she was,
> > >> she didn't think I meant that the poodle had literally turned into
> > >> a tiger.
> > >
> > > LOL. Are you implying that dear Gileht is a literalist? How
> > > scandalous!
> >
> > From what I have seen, Gileht isn't so much a literalist as he is a
> > foundationalist who proceeds from an a priori mindset to his conclusions
> > about the world.
I have no conclusion about the world. You do. And that "is" the problem.
>>So any interpretive structure that allows him to claim
> > certainty and foundational truths (such as his repeated ontological
> > claim that everything is empty of inherent existence) is acceptable.
How can I claim any truth since there is no such thing. You are the one who
is claiming at large.
> > Whether it would ever occur to him that the idea of emptiness may be
> > merely an after the fact psychological description of how we experience
> > the world with the ontological claims set aside
That is your "claim" and it is bull-shit. It is totally absurd and the fact
that you are grasping at it is the problem.
> , I don't know. His
> > current belligerance and close-mindedness do not speak well of his
> > ability to think of other possibilities.
There is no other possibility, no possibility. All dharma are empty.
If you think otherwise then prove it. Give me one example of a dharma that
is not empty of inherent existence, Just one. You stupid illeterate moron.
lol
Love you
--
Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
Web site: http://www.gileht.com
> Remind me to watch my step around you.)) Ape;)
Lee
>>> His current belligerance and close-mindedness do not speak well
>>> of his ability to think of other possibilities.
> There is no other possibility, no possibility. All dharma are empty.
> If you think otherwise then prove it. Give me one example of a dharma
> that is not empty of inherent existence, Just one. You stupid
> illeterate moron. lol
As I have noted before, the Christian dogmatist would easily dismiss
your contra-dogmatic claim by pointing to his God - who he believes is
the antithesis and disproof of your empty dharma claim. You and he
would each consider the other as fools, with aach demanding the other
prove him wrong - thereby increasing his confusion about the misguided
nature of the question. Such is the character and thinking ability of a
sectarian stuck in views.
--
Lee
Gileht.com
"Lee" <gra...@rockingchair.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
v4l9p1m...@corp.supernews.com...
> Gileht.com wrote:
>
> >>> His current belligerance and close-mindedness do not speak well
> >>> of his ability to think of other possibilities.
>
> > There is no other possibility, no possibility. All dharma are empty.
> > If you think otherwise then prove it. Give me one example of a dharma
> > that is not empty of inherent existence, Just one. You stupid
> > illeterate moron. lol
>
> As I have noted before, the Christian dogmatist would easily dismiss
> your contra-dogmatic claim by pointing to his God -
Bull shit. Nobody can prove that there is a God. Even Christians admit that
it is a matter of blind faith.
> who he believes is
> the antithesis and disproof of your empty dharma claim. You and he
> would each consider the other as fools,
The only fool here is you if you think this is a valid argument against the
emptiness of all dharma.
> with aach demanding the other
> prove him wrong - thereby increasing his confusion about the misguided
> nature of the question. Such is the character and thinking ability of a
> sectarian stuck in views.
To be a sectarian I would have to propose a view. I do not. So your ad
hominem argument cannot apply to me, or Nagarjuna or the Buddha.
> --
> Lee
In short you are dodging the question because you cannot prove your point.
So I repeat:
All dharma are empty. If you think otherwise then prove it. Give me one
example of a dharma that is not empty of inherent existence, Just one. You
stupid illeterate impotent moron. LOL
Your turn.
Shiva
> "Lee" <gra...@rockingchair.com> a écrit dans le message
de news:
> v4l9p1m...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Gileht.com wrote:
> >
> > >>> His current belligerance and close-mindedness do not
speak well
> > >>> of his ability to think of other possibilities.
> >
> > > There is no other possibility, no possibility. All
dharma are empty.
> > > If you think otherwise then prove it. Give me one
example of a dharma
> > > that is not empty of inherent existence, Just one. You
stupid
> > > illeterate moron. lol
> >
> > As I have noted before, the Christian dogmatist would
easily dismiss
> > your contra-dogmatic claim by pointing to his God -
>
> Bull shit. Nobody can prove that there is a God. Even
Christians admit that
> it is a matter of blind faith.
You have no comprehension of the methodology Lee is adopting
to refute your dogmatic claims. You made the initial claim
that all dharmas are empty. When you were then confronted
with a demand to prove this claim, you turned the argument
around to demand that your opponent prove that the claim is
false. This is a fallacy. Lee pointed out this fallacy to
you by giving the example of a dogmatic Christian who makes
similar claims. Get it?
Shiva
Lee
No, he doesn't - but that is to be expected.
--
Lee
Sphere
Whether he does or does not, can you
provide a counterexample to his claim?
It is, after all, falsifiable. All you
have to do is provide one dhamma with
inherent existence. Just one thing
which is permanent and perfect in
essence.
Physics has tried for centuries, and still
hasn't found anything to falsify his claim.
Lee
> In short you are dodging the question because you cannot prove your point.
I realize that your inability to reason causes you difficulty in keeping
your discussions focused, but just in case you have any critical
thinking skills intact, I will repeat again that I have never tried to
disprove your dogmatic assertion about your ontological claim regarding
emptiness. Such a debate is for sectarians and fools.
What I have done and what you cannot comprehend is the fact that I have
set up in opposition to your dogmatic claim its classic opposite - that
is, the theists claim that God exists and is not empty.
My purpose in setting up the two sides of the trope has nothing to do
with trying to change your cemented mind - for I do not think that is
possible. Instead, I merely wish to use you as an example of ossified
thinking, and for that, I thank you. I also do it as a way of assisting
those who would like to walk away from the debates of the dogmatists in
a way that is consistent with Buddhist practice.
As to your repeated misuse of the ad hominem fallacy, I will try to help
you if only get you back to the comfort of your normal nonsense.
Previously, you claimed that Shiva was engaging in an ad hominem fallacy
by asking whether you were a literalist when discussing the language in
the Samyutta Nikaya XXII.95 about the world being like an illusion.
Let's compare two structured arguments about the simile that appears in
the Samyutta Nikaya XXII.95:
The first is as follows:
1. Gileht claims that the simile in the Samyutta Nikaya XXII.95 (that
the world is “like an illusion”) is equivalent to saying the world *is*
an illusion.
2. Gileht is a cheese eating surrender monkey.
3. Therefore, Gileht's claim about the proper understanding of the
simile in the Samyutta Nikaya XXII.95 is suspect.
The second is:
1. Gileht claims that the simile in the Samyutta Nikaya XXII.95 (that
the world is “like an illusion”) is equivalent to saying the world *is*
an illusion.
2. Similes and metaphors in writing should not be read literally, and
Gileht's literalism causes him to misunderstand the many similes and
metaphors used in the early suttas.
3. Therefore, Gileht's claim about the proper understanding of the
simile in the Samyutta Nikaya XXII.95 is suspect.
In the first argument, while it might be true that you are, in fact, a
cheese eating surrender monkey, the assertion about your character has
no relevance to the argument - a classic ad hominem fallacy.
In the second argument, while the premises and the conclusion may be
debated, the structure of the argument itself does not meet the criteria
of the ad hominem fallacy since the claim in the second premise (your
alleged literalism) is highly relevant to the conclusion.
Fianlly, as to the use of similes in the very sutta you cited, here is
what Bhikkhu Bodhi had to say (at footnote 188 at p. 1085) in his
translation of the SN:
"In the context of early Buddhist thought, these similes have to be
handled with care. They are not intended to suggest an illusionist view
of the world but to show that our conceptions of the world, and our own
existence, are largly distorted by the process of cognition. Just as
the mirage and magical illusion are based on real existents - the sand
of the desert, the magiciams appurtenances - so these false coceptions
arise from a base that objectively exists, namely the five aggregates;
but when seen through a mind subject to conceptula distortion, the
aggregates appear in a way that deviates from their actual nature.
Instead of being seen as transient and selfless they appear as
substantial and a self."
I have my own quibbles with the Bhikkhu's language, but it should give
you pause when you claim to understand what sutta "must" mean. Note I
said should - not that you will.
--
Lee
Lee
Can you not read? I have pointed to the Christian asserting his God as
the counter-example. Naturally you do not accept that as a
counter-example, but that is why the sectarians keep going at it forever
as each argues from a hermetically sealed circle, never open enough to
see they are just making themseleves dizzy.
--
Lee
boris_fuller
wrote:
oh gosh ! now thats a *great* one teacher !
my first lesson in the mixed message ad hominem !
.... does that have a posh latin name too?
Boris
boris_fuller
someone hand robyn that big brown wooden spoon hanging up in the
corner....she has the makings of a trotskiite this one!
Boris
Shiva
I see that you are as addled as Gileht in your reasoning.
The point Lee was making was not so much about the *content*
of Gileht's claim as the *method* that he adopts, which is
thoroughly dogmatic. It is not surprising that you don't
understand the distinction for you are similarly inclined to
confuse method and content.
Shiva
Sphere
Here follows an appeal to authority....
> Fianlly, as to the use of similes in the very sutta you cited, here is
> what Bhikkhu Bodhi had to say (at footnote 188 at p. 1085) in his
> translation of the SN:
>
> "In the context of early Buddhist thought, these similes have to be
> handled with care. They are not intended to suggest an illusionist view
> of the world but to show that our conceptions of the world, and our own
> existence, are largly distorted by the process of cognition. Just as
> the mirage and magical illusion are based on real existents - the sand
> of the desert, the magiciams appurtenances - so these false coceptions
> arise from a base that objectively exists, namely the five aggregates;
> but when seen through a mind subject to conceptula distortion, the
> aggregates appear in a way that deviates from their actual nature.
> Instead of being seen as transient and selfless they appear as
> substantial and a self."
>
> I have my own quibbles with the Bhikkhu's language, but it should give
> you pause when you claim to understand what sutta "must" mean. Note I
> said should - not that you will.
>
--
Lee
> "Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message
>> Physics has tried for centuries, and still hasn't found anything to
>> falsify his claim.
> I see that you are as addled as Gileht in your reasoning. The point
> Lee was making was not so much about the *content* of Gileht's claim
> as the *method* that he adopts, which is thoroughly dogmatic. It is
> not surprising that you don't understand the distinction for you are
> similarly inclined to confuse method and content.
Sphere, at least, has the possibility of the "aha" moment on this point.
Gileht, I suspect, is lost.
--
Lee
Sphere
No. It is a counter claim. If it is not
accepted that the Christian God has the
attributes then it is not a counterexample.
> counter-example, but that is why the sectarians keep going at it forever
> as each argues from a hermetically sealed circle, never open enough to
> see they are just making themseleves dizzy.
Your bringing up sectarianism without demonstrating
that I am being sectarian is an ad hominem. The
objective is to throw doubt upon my character and
thereby doubt about my conclusions rather than
address the matter at hand.