>If consciousness is valid, then certainty is determined by evidence from
this
>world, whether or not another state exists. This doesn't prevent me from
>imagining other universes or hyperspaces, or whatever.
Consciousness may be valid, in some contexts. I do not accept it as an
axiom, however.
>There seems to be an assumption that objectivism is a doctrine. It is a
natural
>way of common sense thinking that was put into a system which has some
>mind-blowing implications. When I was arguing with these objectivists,
there was
>something I was not right about and a few things that they were wrong
about. Any
>particular point of view about reality has a better point of view, and
I'd say
>that neither of our visions of Objectivism were definitively correct,
just as
>there is no ultimate truth. Yet we all may have gained an improvement in
our
>views of objectivism, among other things. It's like a group of chemists
reaching
>a better understanding through disagreement.
You can accept that any "particular point of view about reality has a
better point of view."
Can you accept that there are better points of view that do not include
Objectivist axioms?
If not, why not?
>Buddhism used the same words, in a different context. Without getting
into
>Buddhism or Zen, have you ever asked yourself the question, "If Buddhism
or Zen
>are so great, why are all the heavily Buddhist countries like Burma,
Thailand,
>Laos, etc. in such bad shape socially, politically, and economically?"
Buddhism
>influences people to retreat from society, weakening the economy,
causing all
>sorts of suffering, which the Buddhists claim to reduce. The Buddhists
*are* the
>problem, since they are running a hoax of pretending to fix the problem
which
>they created. You admitted that you haven't experienced states like
nirvana.
>What makes you think the Buddhists have something?
Your comments show little understanding of Buddhism, and I am hardly
qualified to clarify, but I will try:
"In such bad shape socially, politically, economically?" This is a value
judgement,based on a point of view outside their systems. Buddhism is not
a political system anyway (outside the monastery organizations
themselves), so I cannot debate that assertion. Since Buddhism does
include "non-attachment" in its scope, and that includes "non-attachment
to money", they can hardly be expected to be concerned with that aspect
either. Socially? Within the monasteries, where life is structured
rigorously with respect to its principles, "in bad shape socially " does
not apply.Outside the monasteries, with the common people who may or may
not practice what they preach (just like Christians, Moslems, etc.) it
may be a different story.
I though Thailand was one of the "tigers" of Asia; have they lost
economic growth lately?
"Buddhism influences people to retreat from society, weakening the
economy, causing all sorts of suffering, which the Buddhists claim to
reduce."
Where on earth did you develop this misconception? True, when meditating
and gaining self-knowledge, one may choose to retreat; it can be helpful
to the concentration. But, after having attained enlightenment, one is
expected to RETURN to the world and help relieve its suffering, as in
compassion for the suffering of a sick man. Buddhism actually frowns on
developing enlightenment for one's own sake or benefit; your concept is
not Buddhist practice.
"The Buddhists *are* the problem, since they are running a hoax of
pretending to fix the problem which they created."
There is no hoax here; no one benefits from deluding another, or causing
incorrect ideas to proliferate. You are maligning what you do not
understand, and what I barely begin to understand.
"You admitted that you haven't experienced states like nirvana."
I have not personally experienced death yet, either, although I have no
doubt of its reality. I have not personally experienced blindness,
although I have no doubt of its reality either. Are you imitating a blind
man who, never having experienced sight, denies its reality?
Actually, I've never even MET someone who has made the claim of being
enlightened. I look forward to the day, as another experience I would
enjoy. I do not claim to speak comprehensively and totally accurately
about Buddhism or Zen; I simply relate what I remember from my reading,
and understanding.
"What makes you think the Buddhists have something?"
Buddhism alone, among the major systems, has never tried to spread itself
by force or war. It does not require any type of faith, but rather
requests that you "Come and see! There is nothing hidden in the closed
hand of the teacher. " Buddhists are not attached to money, property,
fame, prestige, ego, or even non-attachment. They are unlikely to come
steal your TV, speak badly of you for fun & profit, try to rip you off or
screw you over, or lie to get you in trouble. They make great neighbors
for that reason.
On the other hand, David, you appear to insult and malign the Buddhists
without understanding them. Why?
>> "In the beginning there was Objectivism"...
>Yes, Objectivism has primacy
Over what? In whose opinion? Supported by what evidence, evaluated on
what basis?
<SNIP to end>
David, your words above should be an embarrassment to you. Please read
"The Three Pillars of Zen" by Philip Kapleau and learn more about
Buddhism before you malign it further. I do not ask that you do any more
than learn; if you choose not to understand, that is your affair, but
please do not malign those you understand poorly at best.