Someone Buddhify me

[February Makamba]

As a person who prize logical consistency, I could not accept Buddhism as a true religion or a logically consistent philosophy.

What religion have you found true now?

Because if you pursue logic, what is the point?What's the catch? Is it the only tool that can lead you to truth?(I'll get back to this)

For that matter, why should it even matter? Is truth the ultimate prize that humans ought to pursue? Why you think that is?
If our specie has always lived in falsehood, and still has managed to pretty much conquer the planet, what is there to gain from truth? We're all going to die anyway, why should it matter?

And is it even attainable? Can you prove that it's possible for the human brain to chase, reach, grasp and understand the true nature of reality?
We might be using a corckscrew to open a conversation.
An ant may probably think the world begins and ends on the back of an elephant.

Getting back to logic, I might grant you all yeses, that the truth is of ultimate value and it is attainable(the brain can grasp it).
But how then, do you come to the conclusion that logic is the correct formula?

If It all begins in the human brain,
(Because I beleive that brains are the only machines currently available on this planet that are capable of grasping and undertaking the pursuing of truth.)

Why then do you trust that your brain (and a couple of a few other brains from your comrades) is using the correct algorithm (that's logic) and is on the right path?

If pretty much 99% of all brains to ever exist have come to the conclusion that there is a God and in him is truth.
(Sorry, You and a few of others that object the God solution account for like 1% of humans. That's just statistically insignificant, we can almost assume that all humans on earth say that the true nature of reality is spiritual and is there is a god/gods that created everything and he/she/it/they wants us to worship him/her/it/them.)
Why should we trust your brains? The 1%?
Why should we trust that your few brains are currently the only ones on Earth actually making progress on the pursuit of ultimate truth?

If i'm wrong in all my assumptions about your beleifs/stances, please correct me by explaining why you dont agree with the assumptions?

Like if you dont pursue the truth, what do you then? What gives you a purpose in life?

And if the truth is unattainable, why should we bother with logic?

Because the jews and christians might say; it may false that the god formula is the correct algorithm to truth, but at tleast there's a comfort in beleiving death isn't the end. It has a benefit.
What is the benefit of logic? What is the reason for your obsession with it?

Golly, I've gotten it all backwards haven't I?

 

[Kiranga]

What religion have you found true now?

Because if you pursue logic, what is the point?What's the catch? Is it the only tool that can lead you to truth?(I'll get back to this)

For that matter, why should it even matter? Is truth the ultimate prize that humans ought to pursue? Why you think that is?
If our specie has always lived in falsehood, and still has managed to pretty much conquer the planet, what is there to gain from truth? We're all going to die anyway, why should it matter?

And is it even attainable? Can you prove that it's possible for the human brain to chase, reach, grasp and understand the true nature of reality?
We might be using a corckscrew to open a conversation.
An ant may probably think the world begins and ends on the back of an elephant.

Getting back to logic, I might grant you all yeses, that the truth is of ultimate value and it is attainable(the brain can grasp it).
But how then, do you come to the conclusion that logic is the correct formula?

If It all begins in the human brain,
(Because I beleive that brains are the only machines currently available on this planet that are capable of grasping and undertaking the pursuing of truth.)

Why then do you trust that your brain (and a couple of a few other brains from your comrades) is using the correct algorithm (that's logic) and is on the right path?

If pretty much 99% of all brains to ever exist have come to the conclusion that there is a God and in him is truth.
(Sorry, You and a few of others that object the God solution account for like 1% of humans. That's just statistically insignificant, we can almost assume that all humans on earth say that the true nature of reality is spiritual and is there is a god/gods that created everything and he/she/it/they wants us to worship him/her/it/them.)
Why should we trust your brains? The 1%?
Why should we trust that your few brains are currently the only ones on Earth actually making progress on the pursuit of ultimate truth?

If i'm wrong in all my assumptions about your beleifs/stances, please correct me by explaining why you dont agree with the assumptions?

Like if you dont pursue the truth, what do you then? What gives you a purpose in life?

And if the truth is unattainable, why should we bother with logic?

Because the jews and christians might say; it may false that the god formula is the correct algorithm to truth, but at tleast there's a comfort in beleiving death isn't the end. It has a benefit.
What is the benefit of logic? What is the reason for your obsession with it?

The "you can't trust 1%" argument is a logical fallacy.

It is called argument from popularity.

Let's get that out of the way first. It's a logical fallacy.

Ad Populum: Appeal to Popularity

The ad populum argument claims a conclusion is true because most, all, or even an elite group people irrelevantly think, believe, or feel that it is.

philosophy.lander.edu

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[sumbai]

I don't believe in the existence of the self, therefore, I don't believe in my self.

Who are u now? If you don't believe on your self...

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app

 

[sumbai]

Poppy Hatonn tumekutana Buddhist Temple mara kadhaa nakumbuka Rev. Pannasekara alikuwa anataka kutafsiri Dhammapada kwenda kwenye Kiswahili akatupa hiyo kazi mimi na wewe.

Rev. Pannasekara introduced me to you. Ila mimi ndiyo nilikuwa naondoka kuja Marekani kusoma muda huo.

Sijasoma Buddhism kwa muda, lakini nimepata mengi ambayo bado ninayo kutoka Buddhism na nafikiri pengine bila hata kujua consciously, nayatumia.

Sijui hata ile project ya kutafsiri Dhammapada kwenda Kiswahili ilishaje?

Mbona kwenye kitabu cha good question and good answer cha Buddhism wamesema Buddhism sio dini it's just a philosophy.

Wakaendelea kusema they don't believe on tradition, here say, revelations and etc.

How can a man live without religion?? God??

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app

 

[Kiranga]

Who are u now? If you don't believe on your self...

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app

First things first, believe in, not believe on.

What is the self?

 

[Kiranga]

Mbona kwenye kitabu cha good question and good answer cha Buddhism wamesema Buddhism sio dini it's just a philosophy.

Wakaendelea kusema they don't believe on tradition, here say, revelations and etc.

How can a man live without religion?? God??

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app

I mentioned about Buddhist as a philosophy above. Buddhism is very diverse too.

I live without religion or God, religion and God are both man made, and therefore, I can make my own set of morality that is just but Godless.

 

[Uhakika Bro]

Godel's Incompleteness Theorems forbid total acceptance or total rejection without frameworks, proper definitions and contexts.

So, if you have an example of an unqualified rejection or acceptance from my side, please bring it here as an example for further examination.

Anhaa, oookay.

I said you totally rejected everything because it shows in your statements that:

1. You reject the big thing, the big picture of it.

2. When someone tries to break it down into smaller packages of reality, to try to then say. See you accepted these parts of the whole. So kind of you accept a big chunk of it at least. Heeh! You always manage come back with an argument to reject each and every part/package of it to!!

Example how you rejected the 'I' using budhism. Forgeting that budhist rejects the I in the selfish sense of it, but affirms that it is all I, yaani we are all one big I. Everything is I, it is I and I only just like Rastafarians.

That is why I deemed it true that, you my friend have decided to reject everthing totally. By rejecting the very part of it, and every part of it(reality).

 

[Kiranga]

Anhaa, oookay.

I said you totally rejected everything because it shows in your statements that:

1. You reject the big thing, the big picture of it.

2. When someone tries to break it down into smaller packages of reality, to try to then say. See you accepted these parts of the whole. So kind of you accept a big chunk of it at least. Heeh! You always manage come back with an argument to reject each and every part/package of it to!!

Example how you rejected the 'I' using budhism. Forgeting that budhist rejects the I in the selfish sense of it, but affirms that it is all I, yaani we are all one big I. Everything is I, it is I and I only just like Rastafarians.

That is why I deemed it true that, you my friend have decided to reject everthing totally. By rejecting the very part of it, and every part of it(reality).

1. Where did I reject the big thing, the big picture, give me an example.

2. Give me an example. How do you you know this is so, and not just your faulty interpretation?

I just finished saying that Buddhism is diverse, you do not possibly expect me to get into all the nitty gritty of it all in a few puny post now, do you?

I haven't rejected the roman alphabet, I am obviously using it to communicate with you, otherwise you would not understand me enough to refute me in detail.

So, your assertion that I have rejected everything totally is clearly misguided and delusional.

In fact the concept of me rejecting everything implies I have also rejected rejecting everything.

Which means I have not rejected anything, which would make your statement a contradiction.

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Uhakika Bro]

I was attracted to Buddhism by its more philosophical nature, more peaceful outlook and my intrigue with meditation.

I learned a lot of useful things, the eightfold noble path, the four noble truths, the Dhammapada, the Tripitaka, I learned from enriching my cultural intelligence to history of King Asoka and The Buddha himself.

But eventually I realized that Buddhism is just another religion/ philosophy, a narrative -beautiful natrative- but very human.

Ultimately it rested on a lot of unproven and unprovable mysticism that has no scientific base that I found to be incredible not only empirically, but also logically.

As a person who prize logical consistency, I could not accept Buddhism as a true religion or a logically consistent philosophy.

That does not mean I do not draw a lot of useful lessons and inspirations from Buddhism, such as staying with loving-kindness in a reasonably balanced way in a world that is full of hate, walki g the middle way, believing in being able to awaken my inner power (Buddha nature) and gaining my own emancipation and enlightenment from ignorance.

It was the most fun and most useful religion I have ever came across.

I truly advise you to at least read the main texts and familiarize with the major concepts.

That will at least give you another very different perspective from the usual Judeo-Christian/ Islamic worldview most of our people are familiar with.

Wow!

This one is good.

I know you wouldn't call it your, religion or your faith. But hey, if we define ones religion as a total way of life, then the attitude you hold is a good religion.

Because you said you do not like illogicals, mysticm and religion in this word sense. I would suggest to read some texts which 'inaegemea zaidi' to logic. Like the URANTIA PAPERS for example. To build your own way of life, your own religion.

I guess you have read it, and I guess it pissed you of just by its cosmology🏃, but sir, it is imposible to find something that talks about reality without some basis in its version of the cosmos. That is why even chaos people have their own too, the so called scientific which still have a lot of unproven speculations. Every side requires one to do some believing, some faith in incomplete unprovable thing. Godel so insisted.

 

[Uhakika Bro]

1. Where did I reject the big thing, the big picture, give me an example.

2. Give me an example. How do you you know this is so, and not just your faulty interpretation?

I just finished saying that Buddhism is diverse, you do not possibly expect me to get into all the nitty gritty of it all in a few puny post now, do you?

First is obvious that everything I write back, everything you write back is my and your interpretation. If you think it is faulty or anything, again it will remain another interpretation. That is what intelligent beings do. They interprete reality, more like create it for themselves actually.

Do I need to bring all the evidence that you rejected 'I' the part of the whole. Yeah you defined some contexts, illusion and so. And also rejected God to be not 'real' but fidgment of thought.

If I is an illusion, fidgment of thought, and God too, and do you know reality is itself (fidgment of thought) too? Don't you see that you reject all the parts and the whole itself?

 

[Kiranga]

Wow!

This one is good.

I know you wouldn't call it your, religion or your faith. But hey, if we define ones religion as a total way of life, then the attitude you hold is a good religion.

Because you said you do not like illogicals, mysticm and religion in this word sense. I would suggest to read some texts which 'inaegemea zaidi' to logic. Like the URANTIA PAPERS for example. To build your own way of life, your own religion.

I guess you have read it, and I guess it pissed you of just by its cosmology🏃, but sir, it is imposible to find something that talks about reality without some basis in its version of the cosmos. That is why chaos people have their own too, the so called scientific which still have a lot of unproven speculations.

I talked above about not liking absolutes, about going with contexts/ frameworks/ definitions.

Like how Albert Einstein talks about frames of references in his Theory of Relativity.

From that perspective, I could draw meaning from some of what appears to be the most illogical scriptures.

And at the same time I could criticize the seemingly most logical axioms of Euclidian geometry with Godel's Incompleteness theorems, well, because the axioms are axiomatic, not logical on the base of being axiomatic and therefore borne of fiat decree.

That is to say, I can draw meaning from The Urantia Papers, and reject them, that is not the important part. The important part is by which context?

I am not sure if you are familiar with Sartre, Jean-Paul Sartre, a famous French philosopher. He wrote a book about culture, he was describing some supposedly primitive African village.There is a village elder in that village, a chief. The chief warns the villagers about a certain well, he says the well is haunted by ghosts, no one should drink water from the well, because the water is cursed, jinns live in the well.

From the scientific western world, this is of course nonsense. There are no spirits, no jinns, this story is sheer nonsense.

But there is a deeper interpretation of this story. What if the water in the well had some deadly chemicals, the chief did not know chemistry, the whole village did not know chemistry, so there was no way of explaining that the water is deadly using scientific means, by chemistry, but there is a way of describing the ater as deadly and getting people from drinking the water by using something that the villagers could relate to? Jinns and spirits perhaps? Yes, that works.

And so the villge elders does not need to learn the periodic table of elements to warn the villagers, he just need to talk about jinns and spirits.

So, you see? The same thing can be broken down in different contextual levels to get to the same result.

My problem is, I see most people overusing the jinn story, in the age of chemistry.

I want to say that, now that we know chemistry, we do not need the jinn story, let us use chemistry, in fact we can tell by using chemistry and geology where is safe to dig a well and where it's not.

So, I can enjoy the prophesies of Nostradamus in context, if only to learn about French stanzas of the age, while knowing that it is totally bonkers.

 

[February Makamba]

I guess you have read it, and I guess it pissed you of just by its cosmology🏃, but sir, it is imposible to find something that talks about reality without some basis in its version of the cosmos. That is why even chaos people have their own too, the so called scientific which still have a lot of unproven speculations. Every side requires one to do some believing, some faith in incomplete unprovable thing. Godel so insisted.

I guess what you're saying in one sentence is, No one f*cking knows anything?

 

[Uhakika Bro]

I guess what you're saying in one sentence is, No one f*cking knows anything?

Yeah broh, no one is a hundred percent sure of that one thing he/she may claim to know.

So anyone who affirm to anything must have some faith in his affirmation. Nothing can stand totally on its own, nothing is that complete. One should never be ashamed that he/she believes in sth, after all we are all believers one way or another.

 

[Kiranga]

Yeah broh, no one is a hundred percent sure of that one thing he/she may claim to know.

So anyone who affirm to anything must have some faith in his affirmation. Nothing can stand totally on its own, nothing is that complete. One should never be ashamed that he/she believes in sth, after all we are all believers one way or another.

This is why context, framework, caveat, margin of error, probability, use cases etc are very important.

We may not know the exact value of pi in decimal format, pi is an irrational number.

But, if all we need to build a bridge that will allow a 60 ton lorry is knowing pi to the fifth decimal place, knowing the exact value of pi in decimal format is irrelevant. In our context, for our use case, pi to the fifth decimal place is good enough to build the bridge.

If we go back to Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, we can't ascertain anything with certainty, because we will always be basing our assertion on some assumptions.

Bit that does not necessarily mean we can't know anything, because we can always contextualize things and use frameworks, probabilities, margins of errors, use cases etc.

For example, let us use an example that seems so obvious. It is not certain that all of us will die. Just because we have seen people dying always, it does not mean that people will always die. If you project that we will all die, that is the problem of induction in philosophy.

But, you can bet your bottom dollar with high confidence that we will probably all die.

 

[Uhakika Bro]

For example, let us use an example that seems so obvious. It is not certain that all of us will die. Just because we have seen people dying always, it does not mean that people will always die. If you project that we will all die, that is the problem of induction in philosophy.

But, you can bet your bottom dollar with high confidence that we will probably all die.

Heeeh, broh just today, I have finished a proposal, a draft about the whole "We do not have to die thing😳😳". Hivi umefikiria nini hadi kutoa huo mfano, au ndio we are all connected. Our minds at least.!

Death is not a must, I am starting to see some reasons that this. Illusion of continuity of the self can continue indefinetely. All we need is just a marriage of information.

It is not a must to disintegrate, there is a possibility to intergrate too🤔.

I am presenting it here, I ll consider myself lucky if it is challenged here so I can publish a cleaner version on the blog

 

[Kiranga]

Heeeh, broh just today, I have finished a proposal, a draft about the whole "We do not have to die thing😳😳". Hivi umefikiria nini hadi kutoa huo mfano, au ndio we are all connected. Our minds at least.!View attachment 2650449

Death is not a must, I am starting to see some reasons that this. Illusion of continuity of the self can continue indefinetely. All we need is just a marriage of information.

It is not a must to disintegrate, there is a possibility to intergrate too🤔.
View attachment 2650447
I am presenting it here, I ll consider myself lucky if it is challenged here so I can publish a cleaner version on the blog

Great minds think alike. Chapisha tuchambue.

 

[Uhakika Bro]

Great minds think alike. Chapisha tuchambue.

As planned

For your viewing pleasure. February Makamba pia you are welcome saaaaana.

Kwa matakwa ya anonymity(some people are so obsessed with this) unaruhusiwa kusoma huko kisha kuchallengia hapa hapa Jf.

Death is not a must trust me, at least not in the way we know it. – Sahili

sahili.net

 

[Poppy Hatonn]

Alisema, “Mtoto huzaliwa na kufuata mtindo fulani wa ukuaji. Katika umri tofauti, inatofautiana kulingana na kila mtu, maendeleo ya kweli yanatajwa kuwa yamesimama, ukuaji halisi wa thamani umesimama, na kuanzia hapo kuna kile kinachojulikana kama kuzorota kwa uzee ambapo tunapata mtu mrefu kuwa mfupi. mifupa yake husinyaa”. Alitazama ili kuona kama tunafuata, na alipoona nia yangu hasa aliitikia kwa kichwa na kutabasamu kwa urafiki zaidi. Aliendelea:— “Mtu anapaswa kujengwa upya seli kwa seli ili kwamba tukikatwa, sehemu ya ubongo lazima ikumbuke muundo wa nyama kabla ya kukatwa, na kisha lazima itoe seli zinazofanana, au zinazokaribia kufanana. kurekebisha kasoro. Sasa, kila wakati tunapojishughulisha tunasababisha seli kuchakaa, na visanduku hivyo vyote vinapaswa kujengwa upya, kubadilishwa. Bila kumbukumbu kamili hatutakuwa na uwezo wa kujenga mwili kama ulivyokuwa." Alitazama tena, kisha akakunja midomo yake, na kusema, "Ikiwa mwili, au tuseme, ikiwa ubongo utasahau muundo sahihi basi seli zinaweza kukua kiholela zinakua kulingana na muundo wa awali na hivyo seli hizo za kiholels huitwa kansa. seli. Inamaanisha kuwa ni seli ambazo zimetoroka kutoka kwa udhibiti wa sehemu hiyo ya ubongo ambayo inapaswa kudhibiti muundo wao sahihi. Hivi ndivyo inavyokuwa, unapata mtu mwenye ukuaji mkubwa kwenye mwili wake. Hilo husababishwa na chembe zinazokua kwa njia isiyo ya kawaida na ambazo zimetoroka kutoka kwa udhibiti wa ubongo.” Alisimama ili kunywea maji, na kisha akaendelea, “Kama wengi wetu kituo cha ukuaji na kubadilisha cha ubongo kina kumbukumbu mbovu. Baada ya kuzaliana seli kwa mara elfu chache husahau muundo sahihi na kwa kila ukuaji unaofuata wa seli kuna tofauti kwa hivyo hatimaye tunakuwa na kile tunachoita kuzeeka. Sasa, ikiwa tungeweza kukumbusha ubongo mara kwa mara juu ya umbo na ukubwa kamili wa kila seli itakayobadilishwa basi mwili ungeonekana sikuzote kuwa wa umri uleule, sikuzote ungeonekana kuwa na hali ileile. Kwa ufupi, tungekuwa na kutokufa, kutokufa isipokuwa katika hali ya uharibifu kamili wa mwili au uharibifu wa seli.

 

[Poppy Hatonn]

He said, “A child is born and follows a certain pattern of growth. At a varying age, it varies according to each person, real development is stated to have stopped, real worthwhile growth has stopped, and from then on there is what is known as the degeneration of old age where we get a tall man becoming shorter as his bones shrink”. He looked about to see if we were following, and when he saw my particular interest he nodded and smiled most amiably. He continued:— “A person has to be rebuilt cell by cell so that if we get a cut, part of the brain has to remember the pattern of the flesh before the cut, and then must supply identical, or near-identical, cells to repair the defect. Now, every time we move we cause cells to wear out, and all those cells have to be rebuilt, replaced. Without an exact memory we should not be able to rebuild the body as it was.” He looked about again, then pursed his lips, and said, “If the body, or rather, if the brain forgets the precise pattern then the cells may grow wild, they grow according to no previous pattern and thus those wild cells are called cancer cells. It means that they are cells which have escaped from the control of that part of the brain which should regulate their precise pattern. Thus it is, you get a person with great growths on his body. That is caused by cells growing in haphazard fashion and which have escaped from the brain's control.” He stopped to take a sip of water, and then continued, “Like most of us the growth and replacing centre of the brain has a faulty memory. After reproducing cells for a few thousand times it forgets the precise pattern and with each succeeding growth of cells there is a difference so eventually we have that which we call aging. Now, if we could remind the brain constantly of the exact shape and size of each cell to be replaced then the body would always appear to be of the same age, always appear to be the same condition. In short, we would have immortality, immortality except in the case of total destruction of the body or damage to the cells.”

 

[Poppy Hatonn]

Watu wameundwa kwa seli. Chembechembe za udhibiti wa mwili katika umri mdogo sana ni, naweza kusema, zimeandikwa na tabia na mwonekano wa jumla wa wazazi. Kwa hivyo seli hizo zina kumbukumbu kamili ya jinsi zinavyopaswa kuonekana, lakini mtu anapozeeka kila seli husahau kidogo jinsi muundo unavyopaswa kuwa. Seli, tutasema, ina'tanga'(tanga) kutoka kwa kumbukumbu ya seli iliyojengwa ndani. Kwa mfano, unaweza kuwa na mwanamke, kama unavyoona, na huenda alikuwa—tuseme—hajaamka na kwamba chembe zake zinafata kwa upofu mfano wa chembe za hapo awali. Ninakuambia haya yote kwa njia rahisi zaidi niwezavyo, utajifunza zaidi kuyahusu haya huko Chakpori, na baadaye Chungking. Lakini kila seli katika mwili ina kumbukumbu ya uhakika ya nini inapaswa kuwa katika afya. Kadiri mwili unavyozeeka kumbukumbu ya muundo asili inakuwa-tuseme-inapotea au haiwezi, kwa sababu fulani, kufuata muundo sahihi, hivyo inatofautiana kidogo kutoka kwa seli za awali na kisha, mara baada ya kuondoka kutoka kwa muundo wa awali, ni rahisi na rahisi kusahau zaidi na zaidi jinsi mwili unapaswa kuonekana. Tunaita hiyo kuzeeka, ni wakati mwili hauwezi tena kufuata muundo halisi uliowekwa kwenye seli basi tunasema kwamba mambo yameharibika na mwili una ugonjwa wa akili. Baada ya miaka michache zaidi mabadiliko hayo yanazidi kuonekana, na hatimaye mtu hufa