Cause of existence

[Ground]

The above elaboration on impermanence (asserted to be of Dharmakirti) actually illustrates how scientific progress has led to an increase of valid knowledge and removed the uncertainty of ancient times.

What is said above is 1. that there are neither external causes for the temporary continuity of things nor external causes for the final disintegration of things and 2. that things nevertheless have neither an inherent existent nature to disintegrate nor an inherent existent nature to continue.

Today, considering thermodynamics, one would not exclude external causes categorically, neither would one exclude internal causes as an aspect of the nature of things. Today one knows that every thing is actually an open system being subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

[sky]

Ground can you not just disagree with others without calling them ignorant ?
You come on to a Buddhist thread and seem to constantly find fault with most of Buddha's teachings, why not just post on another Non-Buddhist thread.
Was Buddha also ignorant ? he believed in re-birth and taught re-birth as do most Buddhist Masters.
If you don't believe in Buddhist teachings then you could just stop posting on here and leave the ones who do to find their way without being mocked all the time. I am certain you will stop learners asking questions and exploring Sutras for fear of your attitude, you are not helping anyone.....

[Ground]

Originally Posted by sky123

Ground can you not just disagree with others without calling them ignorant ?

What is called ignorance? It is ignoring facts.
It is common parlance to call persons that ignore facts that they can know 'ignorants'.

Originally Posted by sky123

You come on to a Buddhist thread and seem to constantly find fault with most of Buddha's teachings, why not just post on another Non-Buddhist thread.

The buddha himself is speaking about ignorance:

From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.... Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....002.than.html

Originally Posted by sky123

Was Buddha also ignorant ? He believed in re-birth and taught re-birth as do most Buddhist Masters.

The buddha we are talking about is a figure of narratives. At the time of which these narratives originate and when 'buddhism' was inexistent there was a culture of believing in re-birth due to the dominant religions of that time.

Who can validly say what a buddha of our present time would teach?

Originally Posted by sky123

If you don't believe in Buddhist teachings

I validly know for myself that many aspects in the scripture do apply and lead to liberation from beliefs, i.e. the raft being left behind and liberation from hope and fear.
Do you want me to replace my knowledge by belief? If yes, why?

Originally Posted by sky123

then you could just stop posting on here and leave the ones who do to find their way without being mocked all the time. I am certain you will stop learners asking questions and exploring Sutras for fear of your attitude, you are not helping anyone.....

See the person who prefers belief instead of rationality could stop to argue with me. Don't you think so? Why does this person again and again try to argue with me? The person could just stop arguing with me and fine. But if this persons asserts to be proving something with something that isn't a proof at all then why should I not respond to defend logic and rationality? The purpose of this forum isn't to damage people's intelligence, or?

I have never approach a learner with rejecting the scriptures. However I do explain things my way.

Also, look at what you yourself have written in my 'righ knowledge' thread where the topic is buddhist logic. It is fine if you prefer belief but honestly why then have you engaged in the 'righ knowledge' thread where the topic is buddhist logic? It simply isn't correct that the whole of buddhism would be only about beliefs. Most of the Samyutta Nikaya is actually analysis.

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Ground

What is called ignorance? It is ignoring facts.
It is common parlance to call persons that ignore facts that they can know 'ignorants'.


The buddha himself is speaking about ignorance:



The buddha we are talking about is a figure of narratives. At the time of which these narratives originate and when 'buddhism' was inexistent there was a culture of believing in re-birth due to the dominant religions of that time.

Who can validly say what a buddha of our present time would teach?


I validly know for myself that many aspects in the scripture do apply and lead to liberation from beliefs, i.e. the raft being left behind and liberation from hope and fear.
Do you want me to replace my knowledge by belief? If yes, why?



See the person who prefers belief instead of rationality could stop to argue with me. Don't you think so? Why does this person again and again try to argue with me? The person could just stop arguing with me and fine. But if this persons asserts to be proving something with something that isn't a proof at all then why should I not respond to defend logic and rationality? The purpose of this forum isn't to damage people's intelligence, or?

I have never approach a learner with rejecting the scriptures. However I do explain things my way.

Also, look at what you yourself have written in my 'righ knowledge' thread where the topic is buddhist logic. It is fine if you prefer belief but honestly why then have you engaged in the 'righ knowledge' thread where the topic is buddhist logic? It simply isn't correct that the whole of buddhism would be only about beliefs. Most of the Samyutta Nikaya is actually analysis.

Your "right knowledge" can only right when you have the right direction or knowledge. How about a spell or incantation can your right knowledge quote that it's nonsense of ignorance. They're many that can't explain but can be believed as true that's believe reality. That's you're lacking of such right knowledge.

Rebirth is true only one that it's true by wise people with certain wisdom with one's special dramatic understanding but not limited by unsure believe as you. You can never win the truth for it's only true when you can understand the samsara and karma. This is a true that you can't see by direct perception or right knowledge or other means. It's because you're limited by your current abilities.

There're truth beyond the eyes can see and your knowledge can derive from. It's especially the spiritual world realities ,so now you're comment on this field and the one you're lacking of. That's your imagination isn't that high level whereas other have experienced and doing it everyday. I can see with my third eye but you can't so your comments is of no value and no truth.

[sky]

Buddhism isn't just about beliefs but the core teaching are...

Ignorance - ignorantum. Lack of knowledge/wisdom/unaware etc:
So you think Buddha lacked knowledge/wisdom and was unaware ?
Why?????

I and many others would disagree.....

You want the op to stop arguing with you but it can work both ways, they are not ignorant because they disagree with you, they see things differently as most of us do, that's life.

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Ground

What is called ignorance? It is ignoring facts.
It is common parlance to call persons that ignore facts that they can know 'ignorants'.


The buddha himself is speaking about ignorance:



The buddha we are talking about is a figure of narratives. At the time of which these narratives originate and when 'buddhism' was inexistent there was a culture of believing in re-birth due to the dominant religions of that time.

Who can validly say what a buddha of our present time would teach?


I validly know for myself that many aspects in the scripture do apply and lead to liberation from beliefs, i.e. the raft being left behind and liberation from hope and fear.
Do you want me to replace my knowledge by belief? If yes, why?



See the person who prefers belief instead of rationality could stop to argue with me. Don't you think so? Why does this person again and again try to argue with me? The person could just stop arguing with me and fine. But if this persons asserts to be proving something with something that isn't a proof at all then why should I not respond to defend logic and rationality? The purpose of this forum isn't to damage people's intelligence, or?

I have never approach a learner with rejecting the scriptures. However I do explain things my way.

Also, look at what you yourself have written in my 'righ knowledge' thread where the topic is buddhist logic. It is fine if you prefer belief but honestly why then have you engaged in the 'righ knowledge' thread where the topic is buddhist logic? It simply isn't correct that the whole of buddhism would be only about beliefs. Most of the Samyutta Nikaya is actually analysis.

Your "right knowledge" can only right when you have the right direction or knowledge. How about a spell or incantation can your right knowledge quote that it's nonsense of ignorance. They're many that can't explain but can be believed as true that's believe reality. That's you're lacking of such right knowledge.

Rebirth is true only for the one that it's true by wise people with certain wisdom with one's special dharma understanding but not limited by unsure believer as you. You can never win to seek the truth for it's only true when you can understand the samsara and karma. This is the truth that you can't see or perceive by direct perception or right knowledge or other means. It's because you're limited by your current abilities.

There're truth beyond the eyes can see and your knowledge can derive from. It's especially unless you're aware of the spiritual world realities ,so now you're comment on this field and the one you're lacking of. That's your imagination isn't that high level whereas other have experienced and doing it everyday. I can see with my third eye but you can't so your comments is of no value and no truth.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Bong

Your "right knowledge" can only right when you have the right direction or knowledge. How about a spell or incantation can your right knowledge quote that it's nonsense of ignorance. They're many that can't explain but can be believed as true that's believe reality. That's you're lacking of such right knowledge.

Rebirth is true only one that it's true by wise people with certain wisdom with one's special dramatic understanding but not limited by unsure believe as you. You can never win the truth for it's only true when you can understand the samsara and karma. This is a true that you can't see by direct perception or right knowledge or other means. It's because you're limited by your current abilities.

There're truth beyond the eyes can see and your knowledge can derive from. It's especially the spiritual world realities ,so now you're comment on this field and the one you're lacking of. That's your imagination isn't that high level whereas other have experienced and doing it everyday. I can see with my third eye but you can't so your comments is of no value and no truth.

Yes Jeremy there are many things the eyes can't see. but can be felt.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by sky123

Ground can you not just disagree with others without calling them ignorant ?

Let me guess (can't see his replies): he called you ignorant for posting that. I long ago understood the reasons why some people have to call others names in order to get their point across, why they never apologize for it, and why they re-direct at back at you. Look it up on any online psychiatry site if you're wondering what those reasons might be.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by sky123

Buddhism isn't just about beliefs but the core teaching are...

Not even the core teachings. There is no use of believing that the aggregates are impermanent and not self.

Originally Posted by sky123

I and many others would disagree.....

Of course. All believers will disagree.

Originally Posted by sky123

You want the op to stop arguing with you but it can work both ways, they are not ignorant because they disagree with you, they see things differently as most of us do, that's life.

No I do not want him/her to stop but you wanted me to stop replying. That is why I said if he/she does not argue then there will be no replies.
And as said above ignorance is ignoring facts. And fact is that re-birth cannot be proved because there is no evidence. Mere belief is no evidence. Fact is also that things that can be directly perceived do exist, so what's the purpose of asserting that they are 'unreal'? He/she did not even specify 'ultimately' but just denies reality because reality does not allow for mere belief being validly established.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by sky123

Yes Jeremy there are many things the eyes can't see. but can be felt.

Feelings can be directly perceived. Direct perception is not only seeing with one's eyes.