Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
bold above = your beliefs.
people have different beliefs. beliefs vary from person to person.
knowledge varies from person to person. people don't all have the same knowledge.
knowledge and facts are not the same thing.
an earlier post mentioned (and I agree) that there are two very different ways the term "know" or "knowledge" is used.
one is to know what a word means, know the definition, be able to define or describe or label or classify it, know something "about" it.
the other is to know it through having proficiency in it.
for instance the Ukranian language. I may know it is an Indo-European language and is a Slavic language and is considered one of the most beautiful and melodic languages in the world. That is me knowing something about the Ukranian language. I know i love hearing the Ukranian language spoken and I know I could quite happily listen to it spoken for hours, without understanding a word of what is being said.
i can not speak it or understand it. But my friend Natasha knows Ukranian, she can speak it and understand it fluently.
same with dance. i am a dancer. i know how to dance. my knowledge of dance comes from my proficiency as a dancer. whereas someone who perhaps studies history of dance, watches people dance, can list names of different forms of dance, in this or that country or culture, but has never set foot on the dance floor does not know how to dance.
knowledge from book learning, data and statistics does not include and lacks the knowledge that comes from proficiency. i know what the martial arts form pa-qua is. my friend Abe knows pa-qua because he has black belt proficiency in it. his knowledge of pa-qua is very different from (and greatly exceeds) my knowledge of pa-qua.
knowing "about" something mentally or intellectually is very different from the knowledge which comes through proficiency or mastery.
While I do appreciate your perspective along with the others, really I do, I often wonder why you make the effort to explain all you do as if I've commented something otherwise...
I'm quite aware and comfortable with these distinctions you make. Not sure who isn't, but obviously there is the question of who is more correct about our shared reality and who is not? This question is also not important at the personal level. Of course not, but for people like me who are more interested in what are the actual facts and truths of these matters, there is no choice but to judge. Judge what is the truth and what is otherwise merely the belief of others not verifiably true in the same way. That's all.
Really. That's all I think I have time for today. A very nice Sunday to everyone who has an opinion about any of this. Whether in agreement with me or not. Here's to you and yours!
We can and should simply agree about what we don't know.
No, there can be no "agreement about what we don't know." i don't know anything about auto repair, professional wrestling, or cosmetics. i have zero desire to gain any knowledge whatsoever in any of those areas, either through book learning or hands on proficiency. But why should other people agree with me to also not know anything about those? particularly those who have a great deal of interest and proficiency and skill in those areas. each person is able to identify what they don't know. but not to impose that on others. everyone is free to acquire the type of knowledge they desire, in the areas they choose to gain knowledge and proficiency in. there is no one knowledge fits all.
Before I go, this is clearly an ongoing area of confusion that needs "fixing," but at this point I really don't think I have the "tools" to accomplish what needs doing here...
I don't know about a great many things as well, and of course we're all different in this respect! This is NOT what I'm referring to when it comes to understanding and simply accepting what we don't know about the how we all ended up here. The supernatural. The "other worldly." Again and again, there is no need to explain this about "imposing" on others! How is that even possible in a forum like this one? This is an exchange of opinion, perspective, logic and reason. Facts and beliefs. Clearly there is what we can know with all certainty "beyond a reasonable doubt," and then there is what can't be known in the same way.
This is ALL I'm explaining. What I suggest we simply distinguish in order to decide, for example, what goes into a educational text book for all of us to learn about such things. Not all the other notions, imaginings and personal beliefs we hold as individuals (that don't qualify for text books in the same way at all).
What is so very hard to accept about this simple inclination or suggestion I wonder?
If one wants to believe they are tapped into some source of oneness that has them believing they are enlightened in a way that others are not, very good and fine for them. If on the other hand anyone wants another manner in which to separate such notions from what we can all accept and agree to be true on a more universal basis, then what's wrong with that too?!?
Before I go, this is clearly an ongoing area of confusion that needs "fixing," but at this point I really don't think I have the "tools" to accomplish what needs doing here...I don't know about a great many things as well, and of course we're all different in this respect! This is NOT what I'm referring to when it comes to understanding and simply accepting what we don't know about the how we all ended up here. The supernatural. The "other worldly." Again and again, there is no need to explain this about "imposing" on others! How is that even possible in a forum like this one?This is an exchange of opinion, perspective, logic and reason. Facts and beliefs. Clearly there is what we can know with all certainty "beyond a reasonable doubt," and then there is what can't be known in the same way. This is ALL I'm explaining. What I suggest we simply distinguish in order to decide, for example, what goes into a educational text book for all of us to learn about such things. Not all the other notions, imaginings and personal beliefs we hold as individuals (that don't qualify for text books in the same way at all). What is so very hard to accept about this simple inclination or suggestion I wonder? If one wants to believe they are tapped into some source of oneness that has them believing they are enlightened in a way that others are not, very good and fine for them. If on the other hand anyone wants another manner in which to separate such notions fromwhat we can all accept and agree to be true on a more universal basis, then what's wrong with that too?!?
bold in post above seems to be very important belief in the view expressed above.
whereas for many people they do not need the approval and agreement and acceptance of everyone else to tell them what to believe and how to think and what is best suited for them.
the false dichotomy inherent in bold above is that something is "true" only if everyone accepts it and agrees with it. otherwise it is a "notion" and is not true.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-12-2021 at 10:46 AM..
Hmm. Mindfulness can be anything we add meaning to.
The Advaitic Oneness that JASG I believe is referring to is being conscious of the self that is feeling attacked by a rude post. Distance that hurt self from the witness Self which is unperturbed and access that state from which to respond. As a result one may decide to just practice silence.
Just wondering: when was Advaita Vedanta developed? Probably sometime in what we call "BC"? I'm curious, because it sounds so much like Buddhism. I'm wondering if the Buddha was influenced by it.
Just wondering: when was Advaita Vedanta developed? Probably sometime in what we call "BC"? I'm curious, because it sounds so much like Buddhism. I'm wondering if the Buddha was influenced by it.
Buddhism is derived from Brahmanism. Gautama simply did not believe in any permanent entity. or God.
Just wondering: when was Advaita Vedanta developed? Probably sometime in what we call "BC"? I'm curious, because it sounds so much like Buddhism. I'm wondering if the Buddha was influenced by it.
I defer to those who know far more than i do address Advaita, Vedanta.
Here is a lay-person's overview on the second questing asked: "Hinduism emerged about 3,500 years ago, and Buddhism, which started around 2,800 years ago, are two of the world’s main religions. They both originated in India. It could be said that Buddhism emerged out of Hinduism because Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, grew up learning Hindu teachings before he became a traveling monk and gained enlightenment."
Just wondering: when was Advaita Vedanta developed? Probably sometime in what we call "BC"? I'm curious, because it sounds so much like Buddhism. I'm wondering if the Buddha was influenced by it.
BC would be correct. 5000 years is not unheard of. While ShankaraAcharya is often credited with this school, what he did was select texts from a larger body of texts, compiled them, and wrote many tretises (tretisei?) on them. Huge body of work. He also composed several texts ON them. Other scholars and yogis have done as well. Later works based on the school of Philosophy are also abundant.
Buddha might have actually spurred the Advaita Philosophy to grow. Buddha rejected the rites and structure of orthodox Hinduism. His main mission, if you can call it that, was the end to suffering and he believed it is possible through right thinking and right action. He did not delve much into Philosophy although he understood all of it. He was tutored on all aspects of the Vedas as a prince.
The main difference between Buddha and Advaita is that Advaita takes a holistic view of life. There are 4 stages of life and one has responsibilities in each state and must complete them with devotion before arriving at Advaita philosophy. That includes performing the rites and living a regulated life as prescribed in the Vedas while earning a living, providing for your family, etc etc. - the worldly life. It is the 4 th stage when one can renounce the worldly life and become a yogi. But all through one can be mindful of what Advaita teaches - develop the 4 qualities that are essential to gain spiritual knowledge and gain liberation from the cycle of life.
Buddha had no use for worldly life at all and has nothing to say about it. But he does show the 8 fold path and the 4 ways. He renounced his domestic princely life, his wife and child, and went seeking answers for his questions - why death, why pain, why suffering. It is a simple philosophy of non-violence and there is beauty in its simplicity.
There is no such thing as Brahmanism. If you find it mentioned in the net, it is wrong.
I understand the distaste of the semantic association with the Brahmans, CB, but it has been used as the definition of the Vedic Hindu religion for a long time. (Besides just eliminating the vowels does not really alter what is being referred to. )
The word Brahmanism was coined by Gonçalo Fernandes Trancoso (1520–1596) in the 16th century. Historically, and still by some modern authors, the word 'Brahmanism' was used in English to refer to the Hindu religion, treating the term Brahmanism as synonymous with Hinduism, and using it interchangeably.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
