I feel for your frustration with how difficult it is to compare highly subjective experience and how terminology is always a huge pain, so your earlier comment is quite interesting in the parts when you are not talking about the burden of proof but…
… but the burden of proof is an element of any sensible rational discussion, be it a scientific, spiritual, or purely practical one, of which debates are only one kind. If you feel like you are not able or it is generally impossible to provide a rational proof of your point, well, then just be sincere about it and acknowledge you can’t do it: ‘Oh, I am afraid it is a question of faith…’ If you think that acknowleding it could harm your bigger point or argument, then having an open-minded discussion as you suggest would mean you should be ready to admit you may be wrong
If you think people misunderstood you just point out where and why, preferrably using evidence to prove your point. Asking people to discard basic rules of discussion that were created after literally hundreds of years of trial and error makes the conversation you are having to anything but a discussion. Nice fuzzy chit chat about lofty matters that make us all fell warm inside? Sure. Discussion? Hardly.
If we are having a discussion, then sure. Which is why I am happy to admit I accept the concept of Nibbana on faith.
I just came to my mind that hardcore anti-religion atheists may be the most hardcore perennialist ever too: ‘All religions are teaching the same thing: utter malarkey.’
I disagree. Brainstorming is an example of a type of discussion where a burden of proof is not placed on various ideas that might come up during such a session. Another example: I have a problem with my car and I take it to a mechanic. We engage in a conversation about symptoms and possible causes. Can you imagine how long a mechanic would last if after I explain the problem he responds with ‘Prove it’? Demanding proof where none is called for simply shuts down any kind of meaningful discourse.
As I stated earlier:
If someone could demonstrate how it is possible to prove one way or the other what a persons intentions were - possibly living thousands of years ago - when a religion formed around their teachings - then sure, we can talk about burden of proof. Short of that, to ask for proof in such a situation makes no sense. But this does not mean we can’t have a discussion about these things.
Indeed. I think generally, anytime someone makes such a sweeping statement there is a tightly held view lurking beneath.
Please excuse me for butting in, but wont the people who know the religious practices and know what it will do best, is not us, but the founders of the religions? Maybe best to see how they described the end result and compare it? They had to teach it to their students so they would be have been quite specific in how they worded their doctrines, assuming we have accurate representations of those words nowadays.
A pile of New Agers sitting around a fire, smoking a bowl, and yammering on about what-ifs and I-thinks… let me tell you, when chronic illness made these topics of supreme importance to me, evidence became of paramount concern - I’m not gonna bother wasting my time, you know? So, watching this sort of self-indulgence is frustrating and even repulsive. Unfortunately, this leaves me brusque and even dismissive.
But honestly, those damned New Agers are just like virtually every other religious adherent I’ve ever had discourse with, obfuscatory to the max. But there’s still something to the Dhamma; and all this sh_tuff just gets in the way. Took me decades to pull all that dross aside, and just as I hated it, I hate to see other people wallow in vapid treacle.
There is a big difference between ‘I heard this and this and my car was like this’ and ‘I think it is the engine’. In the latter case any sensible mechanic would like to know what your evidence is even though not saying ‘prove it’. The shortest formula used in everyday discussions is usually 'Why?’
Brainstorming also requires that a proposed idea should be either proven or disproven. Someone says: ‘Okay, let’s try this’, and then this or other peopel try to figure out whether this could work, in other words they try to come up with evidence. All the situations you listed as an example include feature the burden of proof in some way or another, that’s the problem.
If one person says ‘since the beginningless time there is a round of rebirth and we should stop it’, and another person says ‘there is only one God and one life and I am His messenger’, then it is highly probable these people had somewhat different intentions and talked about completely different things even though we can’t figure out their intentions exactly, don’t you think? Not that it looks like these two sentences talk about the same topic but merely in different words, right? If not, then, well, any physical law cannot be said to be a law because any inductive observation can give us only a ore or less plausible answer that cannot be 100 % certain. I mean if we can assume that these two sentences are about teh same thing, then we can assume pretty much anything, anything goes, no matter how slim the chances are.
As far as I remember even the Buddha warned against these conversations. I am trying to reduce my participation in unnecessary conversation as far as possible these days, and I don’t always succeed, but I surely know what you are talking about.
I agree - at least where such clear documentation is available. This is one of the great aspects of Buddhism - the amount and quality of the teachings that were recorded. In other cases not much is known. Jesus had much less time to teach and the environment wasn’t the most friendly or supportive. So I think in these cases it makes sense to consider later commentary such as from Pseudo Dionysius, St. John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, and so on. I also think descriptions of how the practice develops are useful - and these could be historical or contemporary. I recently encountered some writings of Muhammad Husayn Tabataba’i - and he taught something referred to as comparative gnosis:
not only the classical texts of divine wisdom and gnosis were discussed, but also a whole cycle of what Nasr calls comparative gnosis, in which in each session the sacred texts of one of the major religions, containing mystical and gnostic teachings, such as the Tao Te Ching, the Upanishads and the Gospel of John, were discussed and compared with Sufism and Islamic gnostic doctrines in general.
Hi Vstakan,
Yes, I agree with you. But how you say something is as important as what is said. Asking ‘why’ is collaborative while asking for proof comes across as combative. I addressed the ‘why’ in my first post:
In some cases yes and in others no or not until a much later time. As an example, we have the recent thread regarding a thought experiment on a gender free vinaya. It was presented as purely a thought experiment - no judgement or proof was called for or even relevant to the discussion.
Very productive discussions can be held without the need to judge or take sides. I have conducted hundreds of meetings through places I have worked and I have found this to be true. By simply developing and working through ideas with a collaborative instead of combative attitude much more is accomplished and decisions often move toward consensus. Of course, it takes a group of people willing to withhold judgement and go along with helping evolve ideas they may feel are wrong or unworkable. As people work through these things it will become clear what will work and what won’t - and it is much easier to change your view or position when you have not had to defend it from the beginning.
I will try to post an example or two of what I am talking about - because I get the sense that at this point there is some misunderstanding among my fellow posters.
It appears now he had apologised to the Sangha disciplinary board for some of his misrepresentations. He had been given first warning and will be expelled from Sangha after the third warning.
Are all religions a different path to the same destination?
If this is about the teachings of Jesus and the Buddha, then I would say no - they are the same path to different destinations. Once sila is firmly established, maybe one can be said to be on the right path and heading in the right direction? Whatever ‘skillful means’ are used to get you there is maybe irrelevant? Once you are on the path you can see for yourself.
It is very possible that both their intentions could be rephrased as: 'What I have to say is really important for your well being so please pay attention.
We know from the suttas that not everyone who awakens has past life experiences - so I would not base a conclusion on its absence.
What does this individual mean by God? The flemish mystic John Ruysbroek defines God as “unknowable and incomprehensible”. Could be a reasonable description of nibbana - you don’t give me a definition in your quote so can’t say.
Buddha essentially says ‘I am the way and there is no other (at least at this time)’ is that so different? Actually most founders of religions say something like that. I take it to mean that only by passing through the same experience that they did - taking the same path - can one succeed.
Here are what I think would be some good indicators to look for:
What is the role of virtue in a religion?
Does it naturally develop toward something that sounds like jhana?
Is the final awakening permanent?
Does the awakening come in stages?
Is there anything about an old or worldly self having to die or be abandoned?
At the highest stage is there anything about seeing or experiencing things really differently? (Here consider Buddha’s statement ‘I see but I see nothing…’ and other similar comments in the suttas.
Yes, it is important to find what it means by God or Nibbana.
Nibbana is a common word used in Buddha’s days and Buddha gave a clear definition of what he meant by Nibbana . He showed what is not Nibbana (Dukkha) and the reason and a Path to attain Nibbana. He did not give vague answers such as Nibbana is unknowable and incomprehensible etc.
You’re picking and choosing what suits your argument. Here’s another quote from Ruysbroek:
“Man, having proceeded from God is destined to return, and become one with Him again.”
“There where I assert that we are one in God, I must be understood in this sense that we are one in love, not in essence and nature.”
Clearly he sees a dualism between man and God. God creates man, man returns to God but not fully only ‘in love’. This is pretty standard Christian theology. Does Buddha say we arise from nibbana and ‘return’ to it? Nope.
Buddha essentially says ‘I am the way and there is no other (at least at this time)’ is that so different?
Absolutely different, the Buddha didn’t claim to be the way itself, he claimed to teach the way.
It is the Unformed, the Unconditioned, the End, the Truth, the Other Shore, the Subtle, the Everlasting, the Invisible, the Undiversified, Peace, the Deathless, the Blest, Safety, the Wonderful, the Marvellous, Nibbæna, Purity, Freedom, the Island, the Refuge, the Beyond.
These are terms taken from The Island by Ajahn Amaro and Ajahn Passano that Buddha uses to describe nibbana. If you put yourself in the position of someone unfamiliar with Buddhist terms just as we are unfamiliar with Ruysbroek’s then aren’t some of these pretty vague?
Buddha used both positive and negative (via negativa) terms to describe nibbana. As did Ruysbroek when describing God. Here are a few:
the brightness - above all creaturely activity - without cease - eternal now without time - bringing fathomless and incommensurable bliss and joy - ineffable waylessness beyond reason - Here there is nothing but eternal rest in the fruitive embrace of outpouring love - this is without time, that is to say, without before or after in an eternal present.
The man wrote a ton about his experience. That took a few minutes to grab. But as you can see he also uses both positive and negative terms.
So what might ‘unknowable’ and ‘incomprehensible’ refer to? From his writing he obviously directly experiences this thing he refers to as God - so he doesn’t mean that. I think what he is referring to is that it can not be known as a thing - as an object. And incomprehensible meaning that it can not be understood or analysed by mind.
Having gone through this exercise I think it can be useful to look at these accounts from a positive/negative perspective. It can be used as another pattern for comparison.
When you take it out of context - yes it would appear to disprove my point. I followed that statement with: I take it to mean that only by passing through the same experience that they did - taking the same path - can one succeed. To clarify: It is not about the individual but about the path that this individual has followed. For Buddha that is the path that begins with sila. Ruysbroek on the other hand, says it begins with virtue.
Discussion? Hardly. 
