[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And the closed-mindedness of PWI never fails to show itself. I KNOW GAL is a waste of time. I KNOW SAMA is a cesspool. But PWI is an insidious booby-trap. On the surface, it looks like a perfectly good place to discuss “meaty” subjects. But once inside, it’s no less a waste of time or a cesspool than the others.
There is a reason polite people refuse to discuss religion or politics. This is the ant farm that proves the wisdom. [/quote]
That is why you have to pick your battles and have a reason for discussing issues on PWI.
[/quote]
It’s also why I leave it for months at a time. :)[/quote]
Same here; there’s only so much you can rehash time after time. But this thread has promise (:
You might be interested in the Dalai Lama’s collaboration with neuroscientists to research whether or not the claims of certain Eastern beliefs regarding the power of meditation and mind over matter are true. http://www.dalailama.com/news/post/104-how-thinking-can-change-the-brain
[/quote]
I’m just slapping at low-hanging fruit here, but you don’t find it ironic that it is Western scientists he is working with to get to the bottom of this issue?
I think I am going to throw shit in the pot and piss in the cheerios. I think that not only is eastern thought not superior, I find it inferior. I think it’s weak and way behind western philosophy. Why? Because Eastern philosophy is statement philosophy. It makes a conclusion, but doesn’t give you any background. You have to figure out why its true. Further, if you think it’s incorrect, you are wrong because you haven’t thought about it enough. Hog-fucking-wash.
(…)
Western philosophy is more advanced, better laid out and conceived. It think it’s way superior. [/quote]
You may not be spoonfed and told, “this is it”, but to claim superiority is a bold one, to say the least.
[/quote]
It was meant to be bold. That’s why I said it. I see no point in being timid, I made a stand and I’ll stick by it. But, really it’s just my opinion in the end. I am not into the mystical ‘oooo laa laa’ factor of eastern philosophy. “Oh it’s soooo deep!” Is it really? Let’s take an eastern tenet and discuss it. [/quote]
Some might call Christianity “mystical ooooo laa laa”. You know, with that virgin birth, resurrection, miracles and such. But just as I don’t believe in Christianity, I can accept the wisdom contained therein and I wouldn’t ask God to “faith heal” my torn ACL as if you have fallacious and derisively suggested Eastern “medicine” should repair the torn ACL. If you’re going to bother discussing something, shouldn’t you do it in earnest and respectfully? Or, not at all?
[/quote]
Some might, but I thought we were discussing philosophy not religion? This is called a Red Herring. Introducing and attacking different or lesser subject than the one at hand. There is enough threads on religion and certainly no shortage of Christianity bashing. Let’s save that for those threads and discuss east v. west philosophy.
I think I am going to throw shit in the pot and piss in the cheerios. I think that not only is eastern thought not superior, I find it inferior. I think it’s weak and way behind western philosophy. Why? Because Eastern philosophy is statement philosophy. It makes a conclusion, but doesn’t give you any background. You have to figure out why its true. Further, if you think it’s incorrect, you are wrong because you haven’t thought about it enough. Hog-fucking-wash.
(…)
Western philosophy is more advanced, better laid out and conceived. It think it’s way superior. [/quote]
You may not be spoonfed and told, “this is it”, but to claim superiority is a bold one, to say the least.
[/quote]
It was meant to be bold. That’s why I said it. I see no point in being timid, I made a stand and I’ll stick by it. But, really it’s just my opinion in the end. I am not into the mystical ‘oooo laa laa’ factor of eastern philosophy. “Oh it’s soooo deep!” Is it really? Let’s take an eastern tenet and discuss it. I’ll show you what I mean.
Western arguments aren’t ‘spoon fed’. They are argued. ‘X is true and here is why’, Eastern Philosophy just says ‘X is true’, but it doesn’t tell you why. The western example you can argue and counter argue, the eastern example is only true if you think about it, and if you find it not true you haven’t thought about it enough.[/quote]
Then let me return the favor pat: instead of regurgitating tired old dogma and interpretation of men, eastern philosophy encourages you to uncover truth for yourself. It requires your attention instead of submission; that you question instead of placidly accept religion.
[/quote]
You apparently have a misconception that religion is tacitly accepted with out argument or tests. It’s bigoted view, nothing could be further from the truth. A little bit of research will reveal reams, upon reams of writings on soul searching, self enlightenment, etc. It’s not all about stories in the bible as you apparently had been led to believe.
Why would you call western philosophers ‘lesser men’? These lesser men are responsible for all science and modern discovery. Without Aristotle, Aquinas, Bacon, Hume, Liebnez, Kant, etc… There would never have been Edison and Einstein. All the modern sciences in which you have great faith based on probability.
I didn’t say religion, did I? I said philosophy. You want to attack my Christianity since I said Western Philosophy is superior? It’s the same red herring introduce by the Body Guard…Though will grant you eastern philosophy is intrinsically tied to religion, but I consider that one of it’s weaknesses.
That is arguable. See. Life means suffering? Certainly one must be alive to experience suffering, but I hardly say it defines it’s meaning. I would argue that life is a veritable cornucopia of experiences including suffering.
That is arguable as well. To detach from everything that exists including your body I would consider a suffering of the spirit. You may have life with out attachment, but it’s probably not worth living.
If you really want to make him nuts, why don’t you outline all the “teachings of Jesus” that have their roots in Buddhism or Eastern thought? That will make his head implode :)[/quote]
You don’t know me well then… I am not a bible thumper if you haven’t noticed. Most cultures managed in some way shape or form, to develop ‘Christian’ tenets for themselves. However, if you argue the direct link between eastern thought and Christianity “ripping it off” I am going to have to demand proof.
You might be interested in the Dalai Lama’s collaboration with neuroscientists to research whether or not the claims of certain Eastern beliefs regarding the power of meditation and mind over matter are true. http://www.dalailama.com/news/post/104-how-thinking-can-change-the-brain
[/quote]
I’m just slapping at low-hanging fruit here, but you don’t find it ironic that it is Western scientists he is working with to get to the bottom of this issue?
;)[/quote]
LOL! That occurred to me too.
[/quote]
Not at all. Now, let’s speed back a couple thousand years. All of the Western philosophers would be copying each others’ doctrines, which were not always accurate while the Eastern philosophers were branching out in radical pathways that were randomly useful to others a small percentage of the time. Now that the Western philosophy has changed to implement a process of questioning, the East can implement it in their old tradition of questioning to confirm personal anecdote. It’s the evaporation of a dichotomy.
This has some interesting implication. For instance, I’ve recently been researching the antif candida properties of garlic. There are plenty of peer reviewed articles proving it’s effectiveness in vitro, it’s active compounds, their half-life, and all of this information explains why the supplements don’t work, even though crushed garlic has been shown to be nearly as effective as common anti-fungals, without the toxicity.
Now, the interesting thing about this, to me, is that none of the periodical articles I’ve found were written by Western researchers. It seems that the West is only concerned with manufacturing new compounds. The middle eastern researchers and Chinese researchers are publishing in food safety and biochem periodicals and now trying to figure out how it’s effective to implement.
There is truth to many of the claims in Eastern medicine, but the old forms of supplementation often destroy the active compounds. By completely dismissing all of the old claims, we would miss out on many active compounds that can be isolated and used to progress medicine. It’s a mistake to dismiss old wisdom, but progress to see what part of the story is true. Unfortunately, the West often dismisses all old anecdote and tries to start from scratch, with the result of wasting trillions of dollars on manufacturing compounds that are too toxic to make it past the FDA.
[quote]You apparently have a misconception that religion is tacitly accepted with out argument or tests. It’s bigoted view, nothing could be further from the truth. A little bit of research will reveal reams, upon reams of writings on soul searching, self enlightenment, etc. It’s not all about stories in the bible as you apparently had been led to believe.
Why would you call western philosophers ‘lesser men’? These lesser men are responsible for all science and modern discovery. Without Aristotle, Aquinas, Bacon, Hume, Liebnez, Kant, etc… There would never have been Edison and Einstein. All the modern sciences in which you have great faith based on probability.[/quote]
Why did you move away from opinion to an appeal to authority? You defense of western religious philosophy could also be my defense: you [pat] simply do not know enough about eastern philosophy to make that judgment.
Western philosophy isn’t tied to christianity?
The one that experiences life as a separate entity living out its life is bound to life through suffering. Suffering is not just experiencing pain or emotional trauma, it can be something as simple as thirst.
A monk does the same thing: reliinquishing possession, social life and relationships so s/he is not distracted from their relationship to god/truth. Only when all is lost, everything is gained.
[quote]We call it death in the west.
A succession of suffering doesn’t mean happiness.[/quote]
In a way death is the correct way of describing ‘it’.
A succession of suffering does not mean happiness, that’s very true, lol, but when nothing distracts from happiness [which suffering does] happiness is all that remains.
I believe that the default state of being for a human is happiness, but we are too distracted by suffering to remember that.
Basically, it’s important to acknowledge the enthusiasm of prominent Eastern religious figureheads to test old beliefs with science. We see much more reluctance, fear, and even dismissal of contrary findings from the Western religions (for example, Galileo was put under house arrest by the Catholic Church because his findings contradicted religious beliefs at the time). We have yet to see a figurehead of Western religions beg scientists to assess the validity of their beliefs.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Galileo was put under house arrest by the Catholic Church because his findings contradicted religious beliefs at the time[/quote]
Careful…
I know of even two prominent atheists on PWI who will be happy to tell you that your statement here is rather, um, wrong.
You might be interested in the Dalai Lama’s collaboration with neuroscientists to research whether or not the claims of certain Eastern beliefs regarding the power of meditation and mind over matter are true. http://www.dalailama.com/news/post/104-how-thinking-can-change-the-brain
[/quote]
I’m just slapping at low-hanging fruit here, but you don’t find it ironic that it is Western scientists he is working with to get to the bottom of this issue?
;)[/quote]
LOL! That occurred to me too.
[/quote]
Not at all. Now, let’s speed back a couple thousand years. All of the Western philosophers would be copying each others’ doctrines, which were not always accurate while the Eastern philosophers were branching out in radical pathways that were randomly useful to others a small percentage of the time. Now that the Western philosophy has changed to implement a process of questioning, the East can implement it in their old tradition of questioning to confirm personal anecdote. It’s the evaporation of a dichotomy.
[/quote]
How about providing some examples of Eastern Philosophers branching out in to radical pathways, because I don’t see it. It may be lack of exposure though which is why I am asking for an example.
Western philosophers don’t copy each other’s doctrine, because they don’t write doctrine. It’s a discipline that studies it’s own history as it should. You need to know what’s already been done in order to move forward. If the information isn’t being exchanged, then the same shit is being rediscovered over and over again and not moving forward. That is what I am accussing eastern philosophy of doing.
I assure you, food safety in the west is light years ahead of the Chinese. You know all the mercury poisoning and shit. Little things like that. I like my Chinese food made in America.
[quote]
There is truth to many of the claims in Eastern medicine, but the old forms of supplementation often destroy the active compounds. By completely dismissing all of the old claims, we would miss out on many active compounds that can be isolated and used to progress medicine. It’s a mistake to dismiss old wisdom, but progress to see what part of the story is true. Unfortunately, the West often dismisses all old anecdote and tries to start from scratch, with the result of wasting trillions of dollars on manufacturing compounds that are too toxic to make it past the FDA.[/quote]
I agree it’s a mistake to disregard old wisdom. There were herbs and compounds that did and do work. But if I am deathly ill and have the choice between eastern and western treatments, I am going west young man…
[quote]pat wrote:
Most cultures managed in some way shape or form, to develop ‘Christian’ tenets for themselves. However, if you argue the direct link between eastern thought and Christianity “ripping it off” I am going to have to demand proof.[/quote]
I’m not knocking christianity here but most, if not all of the tenets existed in many cultures long before there was a christian religion.
I think I am going to throw shit in the pot and piss in the cheerios. I think that not only is eastern thought not superior, I find it inferior. I think it’s weak and way behind western philosophy. Why? Because Eastern philosophy is statement philosophy. It makes a conclusion, but doesn’t give you any background. You have to figure out why its true. Further, if you think it’s incorrect, you are wrong because you haven’t thought about it enough. Hog-fucking-wash.
(…)
Western philosophy is more advanced, better laid out and conceived. It think it’s way superior. [/quote]
You may not be spoonfed and told, “this is it”, but to claim superiority is a bold one, to say the least.
[/quote]
It was meant to be bold. That’s why I said it. I see no point in being timid, I made a stand and I’ll stick by it. But, really it’s just my opinion in the end. I am not into the mystical ‘oooo laa laa’ factor of eastern philosophy. “Oh it’s soooo deep!” Is it really? Let’s take an eastern tenet and discuss it. [/quote]
Some might call Christianity “mystical ooooo laa laa”. You know, with that virgin birth, resurrection, miracles and such. But just as I don’t believe in Christianity, I can accept the wisdom contained therein and I wouldn’t ask God to “faith heal” my torn ACL as if you have fallacious and derisively suggested Eastern “medicine” should repair the torn ACL. If you’re going to bother discussing something, shouldn’t you do it in earnest and respectfully? Or, not at all?
[/quote]
Some might, but I thought we were discussing philosophy not religion? This is called a Red Herring. Introducing and attacking different or lesser subject than the one at hand. There is enough threads on religion and certainly no shortage of Christianity bashing. Let’s save that for those threads and discuss east v. west philosophy.[/quote]
You never fail to entertain Pat, or be hypocritical to be precise. In one breath, you accuse someone in engaging in a fallacious argument, and in the very next sentence you employ by inference your own - “Christian bashing”. Good stuff.
If you really want to make him nuts, why don’t you outline all the “teachings of Jesus” that have their roots in Buddhism or Eastern thought? That will make his head implode :)[/quote]
You don’t know me well then… I am not a bible thumper if you haven’t noticed. Most cultures managed in some way shape or form, to develop ‘Christian’ tenets for themselves. However, if you argue the direct link between eastern thought and Christianity “ripping it off” I am going to have to demand proof.[/quote]
If they developed Christian “tenets” how is it that theirs predates Christianity?
"In 1883, Max Müller, the pioneering scholar of comparative religion and orientalist, asserted in his India: What it Can Teach Us: “That there are startling coincidences between Buddhism and Christianity cannot be denied, and it must likewise be admitted that Buddhism existed at least 400 years before Christianity.”
If you really want to make him nuts, why don’t you outline all the “teachings of Jesus” that have their roots in Buddhism or Eastern thought? That will make his head implode :)[/quote]
You don’t know me well then… I am not a bible thumper if you haven’t noticed. Most cultures managed in some way shape or form, to develop ‘Christian’ tenets for themselves. However, if you argue the direct link between eastern thought and Christianity “ripping it off” I am going to have to demand proof.[/quote]
Do you even (just a little bit) appreciate the irony of your astute sense of logic, compared to your utter suspension of logic as it relates to religion, and the hypocritical notion of your “demanding proof” when even mentioning religion? This is rich.
[quote]You apparently have a misconception that religion is tacitly accepted with out argument or tests. It’s bigoted view, nothing could be further from the truth. A little bit of research will reveal reams, upon reams of writings on soul searching, self enlightenment, etc. It’s not all about stories in the bible as you apparently had been led to believe.
Why would you call western philosophers ‘lesser men’? These lesser men are responsible for all science and modern discovery. Without Aristotle, Aquinas, Bacon, Hume, Liebnez, Kant, etc… There would never have been Edison and Einstein. All the modern sciences in which you have great faith based on probability.[/quote]
Why did you move away from opinion to an appeal to authority? You defense of western religious philosophy could also be my defense: you [pat] simply do not know enough about eastern philosophy to make that judgment.
[/quote]
Appeal to Authority? I did not say really smart dudes believe ‘X’ therefore ‘X’ is correct. You called western philosophers ‘lesser men’. Pointing out some of the heavy hitters of philosophy through out the years is just showing you an example of whom you are talking about when you say ‘lesser men’. Do you believe the great thinkers of history are truly lesser than Confucius?
That’s what I was arguing against. I am not saying that really smart people agree with me therefore I am right. Am I wrong that you put great faith in modern science and its implications. It may be a bit of an over generalization, but you certainly express such sentiments.
No. Of course religion and philosophy intersect in as much as science and philosophy intersect and in as much as all things are linked in some way. But otherwise they are separate disciplines.
Thirst is a physical discomfort. Since you are attached to your body, it causes you unpleasantness. But life isn’t determined by suffering. Suffering is one component of life, not the whole damn thing. Westernize it and it looks like this:
To experience suffering, you have to be alive.
non living things cannot suffer.
nothing else adequately defines life
therefore, suffering is life.
I would call bullshit in the monk. If you relinquish everything including your relationships, for personal enlightenment, you’re kind of a selfish asshole. An isolated soul is a miserable soul. You are an atheist, so you don’t attach to no God, spirit or anything else. If you have attachment to nothing, you are alone and the second state is worst than the first.
Ahhh, we don’t know that. Purging yourself from suffering just means you aren’t suffering, it does not mean your happy. Besides, is incorrect to say that attachments make you unhappy. Relationships make people happy, to relinquish them makes people sad and lonely, not enlightened. Go ahead, relinquish everything and everybody and see how happy you are. This theory is testable.
It may be wonderful to sit in the Tibetan mountains, moan and meditate, but you aren’t doing a lot of people very much good.
Happiness comes from service to people and attachments to people and yes some things, not a lack. If you have nothing and no one all you are is a lonely motherfucker. You may be enlightened, but then your just an enlightened, lonely motherfucker.
[quote]
I believe that the default state of being for a human is happiness, but we are too distracted by suffering to remember that.[/quote]
Like I said, this theory is testable, I just don’t think you’d really find happiness. If you do think you would, then why haven’t you done it? Don’t you want to be happy?
[quote]pat wrote:
Most cultures managed in some way shape or form, to develop ‘Christian’ tenets for themselves. However, if you argue the direct link between eastern thought and Christianity “ripping it off” I am going to have to demand proof.[/quote]
I’m not knocking christianity here but most, if not all of the tenets existed in many cultures long before there was a christian religion.
[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
Most cultures managed in some way shape or form, to develop ‘Christian’ tenets for themselves. However, if you argue the direct link between eastern thought and Christianity “ripping it off” I am going to have to demand proof.[/quote]
I’m not knocking christianity here but most, if not all of the tenets existed in many cultures long before there was a christian religion.
[/quote]
So? I would hope that some sense of love over hate permeated ancient cultures too. They couldn’t all be barbaric all the time. These tenets are not crazy from outter space ideas.
Now if you are using this to say that Christianity is all fake and nothing but a rip off of other cultures I would suggest you provide evidence.
If you really want to make him nuts, why don’t you outline all the “teachings of Jesus” that have their roots in Buddhism or Eastern thought? That will make his head implode :)[/quote]
You don’t know me well then… I am not a bible thumper if you haven’t noticed. Most cultures managed in some way shape or form, to develop ‘Christian’ tenets for themselves. However, if you argue the direct link between eastern thought and Christianity “ripping it off” I am going to have to demand proof.[/quote]
Do you even (just a little bit) appreciate the irony of your astute sense of logic, compared to your utter suspension of logic as it relates to religion, and the hypocritical notion of your “demanding proof” when even mentioning religion? This is rich. [/quote]
If your saying that Christianity is a rip off of eastern religion and therefore fake, you better prove it. There is nothing hypocritical about that. If you are making a very bold proclamation then I expect you to back it up. You’re the one who introduced relgion. I was talking philosophy and making claims and providing opinions on philosophy, not religion.
