Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

TimeSeeker wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:26 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:02 am The same dilemma is applicable to all past authors.
Exactly. But if we are to speak statistics here - something written in the last 20 years is far more likely to use the meaning of words as they are colloquially used (and therefore - as I understand them) than if it were written 300 years ago. Don't you think? Metaphysics is a tricky field!
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:02 am The 90% objectivity is based on all the understanding [not necessary agree with] of Kant's major theories that are expressed in his books in consensus within the Kantian community including some disputed points between various camps on certain critical issues.
That is circular. How do you know that you understand? How do you know that the Kantian community understands? What if you are all, collectively wrong?

Your way of thinking about Kant is in direct opposition to the scientific epistemology (which is self-correcting). How do you test that you understand? How do you reproduce the understanding? How do you falsify your own claim to understanding?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:02 am It is possible that those who claimed to understand [not necessary agree with] Kant fully could be wrong. But that is beside the point as Kant is not available to confirm it at present.
That is PRECISELY the point. What does is mean 'to understand'? Is it a feeling or is it something that you can verify objectively?

Do you agree rhetorically or empirically? Because without empiricism you have nothing...
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:02 am However many questions were raised during Kant's time and he did explain whatever doubts that were raised.
He even wrote a Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, to supplement greater understanding of his Critique of Pure Reason.
I would love to see Kant's analytic approach to analyzing the ontology of 'reason'
The above problem is generic to all similar situations.

Specific to Kant in this case, if you have not spent the necessary minimal hours, I personally believe you will not have sufficient understanding to have a meaningful serious [not casual] discussion on Kant's philosophy. My purpose is to avoid wasting time on inevitable irrelevant issues in this case with Kant.

I will readily avoid discussing issues re Computer Science and Programming with you because I have not covered sufficient grounds on the subject.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by TimeSeeker »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:41 am The above problem is generic to all similar situations.
That is a great observation - there is hope that we can make a scientist out of you yet!

Since you RECOGNIZE the problem, I am asking you how you have SOLVED the problem.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:41 am Specific to Kant in this case, if you have not spent the necessary minimal hours, I personally believe you will not have sufficient understanding to have a meaningful serious [not casual] discussion on Kant's philosophy. My purpose is to avoid wasting time on inevitable irrelevant issues in this case with Kant.
Observe how you keep using the word 'understand' even though you can't tell me what it means to 'understand'. How do you VERIFY your own understanding?

How do you know you understand?

^^^ This problem is generic to ALL epistemology. How do you solve it?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:41 am I will readily avoid discussing issues re Computer Science and Programming with you because I have not covered sufficient grounds on the subject.
I didn't mention computer science OR programming. I merely asked about the ontology of 'reason'. You are the one who equates the two ;)

And so if you have not spent the necessary minimum hours practicing 'reason' and epistemology solving real-world problems how can you have a serious debate on it?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

TimeSeeker wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:41 am The above problem is generic to all similar situations.
That is a great observation - there is hope that we can make a scientist out of you yet!

Since you RECOGNIZE the problem, I am asking you how you have SOLVED the problem.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:41 am Specific to Kant in this case, if you have not spent the necessary minimal hours, I personally believe you will not have sufficient understanding to have a meaningful serious [not casual] discussion on Kant's philosophy. My purpose is to avoid wasting time on inevitable irrelevant issues in this case with Kant.
Observe how you keep using the word 'understand' even though you can't tell me what it means to 'understand'. How do you VERIFY your own understanding?

How do you know you understand?

^^^ This problem is generic to ALL epistemology. How do you solve it?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:41 am I will readily avoid discussing issues re Computer Science and Programming with you because I have not covered sufficient grounds on the subject.
I didn't mention computer science OR programming. I merely asked about the ontology of 'reason'. You are the one who equates the two ;)

And so if you have not spent the necessary minimum hours practicing 'reason' and epistemology solving real-world problems how can you have a serious debate on it?
You missed my original point and we are going off tangent.

I stated I would not prefer to discuss Kant seriously and in details with anyone [not necessary you] who has not covered and understand Kant fully.
Note the issue is not 'understand' 100% of what was in Kant's mind. Surprised you raised this point.

For example if the Critique of Pure Reason has 10,000 statements.
If you have covered only 1000 statements and have not read 10,000 statements many times within the whole contexts you will be handicapped in discussing Kant.
I am not implying you are not capable of "understanding" Kant but to understand Kant one has to go through a lot of groundwork, reading and rereading.

There are many reasons why reading and understanding Kant is SO difficult.

One main thing is the issues are very complex and involve a lot of gymnastics. I have drawn up more than 50 flowcharts with complicated 'flows' and connectivity to improve understanding of the linkages.

The other is Kant is a bad writer and the CPR has to be translated from German. Some sentences can be half a page long and most are longer than the average. I have to spend a lot of time parsing each sentences into small bits of ideas in the whole book [downloaded to Words].

In addition Kant used loads of neologisms and impute new meaning to existing words, thus one need a large dictionary to supplement the reading.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by TimeSeeker »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:22 am
TimeSeeker wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:41 am The above problem is generic to all similar situations.
That is a great observation - there is hope that we can make a scientist out of you yet!

Since you RECOGNIZE the problem, I am asking you how you have SOLVED the problem.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:41 am Specific to Kant in this case, if you have not spent the necessary minimal hours, I personally believe you will not have sufficient understanding to have a meaningful serious [not casual] discussion on Kant's philosophy. My purpose is to avoid wasting time on inevitable irrelevant issues in this case with Kant.
Observe how you keep using the word 'understand' even though you can't tell me what it means to 'understand'. How do you VERIFY your own understanding?

How do you know you understand?

^^^ This problem is generic to ALL epistemology. How do you solve it?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:41 am I will readily avoid discussing issues re Computer Science and Programming with you because I have not covered sufficient grounds on the subject.
I didn't mention computer science OR programming. I merely asked about the ontology of 'reason'. You are the one who equates the two ;)

And so if you have not spent the necessary minimum hours practicing 'reason' and epistemology solving real-world problems how can you have a serious debate on it?
You missed my original point and we are going off tangent.

I stated I would not prefer to discuss Kant seriously and in details with anyone [not necessary you] who has not covered and understand Kant fully.
Note the issue is not 'understand' 100% of what was in Kant's mind. Surprised you raised this point.

For example if the Critique of Pure Reason has 10,000 statements.
If you have covered only 1000 statements and have not read 10,000 statements many times within the whole contexts you will be handicapped in discussing Kant.
I am not implying you are not capable of "understanding" Kant but to understand Kant one has to go through a lot of groundwork, reading and rereading.

There are many reasons why reading and understanding Kant is SO difficult.

One main thing is the issues are very complex and involve a lot of gymnastics. I have drawn up more than 50 flowcharts with complicated 'flows' and connectivity to improve understanding of the linkages.

The other is Kant is a bad writer and the CPR has to be translated from German. Some sentences can be half a page long and most are longer than the average. I have to spend a lot of time parsing each sentences into small bits of ideas in the whole book [downloaded to Words].

In addition Kant used loads of neologisms and impute new meaning to existing words, thus one need a large dictionary to supplement the reading.
You are ignoring my epistemic and pragmatic point and going on a literary tangent.

Because of all the reasons above (Kant is a bad writer, uses neologisms, his work has been translated, his sentences need to be decomposed into investable chunks etc.

Whether you have read anything (Kant or otherwise) once, or 100, or 10000 or 1000000000 or 100000000000000000000000000 times.

How do YOU (the reader) you know that you have understood it?

If your epistemology is not grounded in praxis and calibrated against reality (accurate prediction) you don’t know the empirical meaning of the word ‘understand’.

Simply: you have never experienced ‘understanding’, you just learned the word.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:22 am You missed my original point and we are going off tangent.

I stated I would not prefer to discuss Kant seriously and in details with anyone [not necessary you] who has not covered and understand Kant fully.
Note the issue is not 'understand' 100% of what was in Kant's mind. Surprised you raised this point.

For example if the Critique of Pure Reason has 10,000 statements.
If you have covered only 1000 statements and have not read 10,000 statements many times within the whole contexts you will be handicapped in discussing Kant.
I am not implying you are not capable of "understanding" Kant but to understand Kant one has to go through a lot of groundwork, reading and rereading.

There are many reasons why reading and understanding Kant is SO difficult.

One main thing is the issues are very complex and involve a lot of gymnastics. I have drawn up more than 50 flowcharts with complicated 'flows' and connectivity to improve understanding of the linkages.

The other is Kant is a bad writer and the CPR has to be translated from German. Some sentences can be half a page long and most are longer than the average. I have to spend a lot of time parsing each sentences into small bits of ideas in the whole book [downloaded to Words].

In addition Kant used loads of neologisms and impute new meaning to existing words, thus one need a large dictionary to supplement the reading.
You are ignoring my epistemic and pragmatic point and going on a literary tangent.

Whether you have read anything (Kant or otherwise) once, or 100, or 10000 or 1000000000 or 100000000000000000000000000 times.

How do YOU (the reader) you know that you have understood it?

If your epistemology is not grounded in praxis and calibrated against reality (accurate prediction) you don’t know the empirical meaning of the word ‘understand’.

Simply: you have never experienced ‘understanding’, you just learned the word.
I am keeping to my original point. In am not interested in the new point you raised.

If you or any one claimed to be an expert in say Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Hume or any other past philosophers, how can they claimed they have understood their philosophies precisely since those philosophers are dead?

It is the same point I wrote of Kant above.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by TimeSeeker »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:23 am I am keeping to my original point. In am not interested in the new point you raised.

If you or any one claimed to be an expert in say Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Hume or any other past philosophers, how can they claimed they have understood their philosophies precisely since those philosophers are dead?

It is the same point I wrote of Kant above.
Your 'original point' is a red herring in context (of 4NT-8FP); and in proportion.

I claim that I am an expert in epistemology, and unlike Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Hume or Kant I am not dead. Therefore I have an empirical concept of what it means ‘to understand’ which I have acquired through praxis, not through reading and "thinking about it an awful lot" (what a Kantian would call analysis).

If you are not interested in addressing the practical obstacles that come with acquiring/applying knowledge ("the new point I raised"), but only DISCUSSING the works of dead philosophers then we need not continue this discussion. Because we would be paying only lip-service to both knowledge AND 4NT-8FP.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:23 am I am keeping to my original point. In am not interested in the new point you raised.

If you or any one claimed to be an expert in say Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Hume or any other past philosophers, how can they claimed they have understood their philosophies precisely since those philosophers are dead?

It is the same point I wrote of Kant above.
Your 'original point' is a red herring in context (of 4NT-8FP); and in proportion.
You missed my point again.
Original point was in reference to 'Kant' not the OP.
Re the point on Kant, all I wanted to state was I am not interested in discussing Kant [even if he is alive] seriously and in detail with any one who has not read Kant thoroughly as it would be waste a lot of time.
I claim that I am an expert in epistemology, and unlike Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Hume or Kant I am not dead. Therefore I have an empirical concept of what it means ‘to understand’ which I have acquired through praxis, not through reading and "thinking about it an awful lot" (what a Kantian would call analysis).

If you are not interested in addressing the practical obstacles that come with acquiring/applying knowledge ("the new point I raised"), but only DISCUSSING the works of dead philosophers then we need not continue this discussion. Because we would be paying only lip-service to both knowledge AND 4NT-8FP.
You can raise an OP on 'To Undertand Empirically' and I will discuss if I have anything to contribute.
Note I agree praxis and theory [from dead or alive philosophers, etc.] are two critical elements that must interact complementarily to facilitate survival optimally.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by TimeSeeker »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:03 am You missed my point again.
Original point was in reference to 'Kant' not the OP.
Re the point on Kant, all I wanted to state was I am not interested in discussing Kant [even if he is alive] seriously and in detail with any one who has not read Kant thoroughly as it would be waste a lot of time.
That sounds exactly like the argument Christians make against atheists criticizing the bible :lol: :lol: :lol:
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:03 am Note I agree praxis and theory [from dead or alive philosophers, etc.] are two critical elements that must interact complementarily to facilitate survival optimally.
ALL theory is post-hoc praxis! You observe and identify patterns THEN you reduce it down to a theory.

As for metaphysical theory - pick whatever foundation works for the challenge at hand! You get to DECIDE what you classify as 'real' or 'imaginary'!
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

TimeSeeker wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:03 am You missed my point again.
Original point was in reference to 'Kant' not the OP.
Re the point on Kant, all I wanted to state was I am not interested in discussing Kant [even if he is alive] seriously and in detail with any one who has not read Kant thoroughly as it would be waste a lot of time.
That sounds exactly like the argument Christians make against atheists criticizing the bible :lol: :lol: :lol:
I don't agree with the Bible but it is an intellectual responsibility to understand [not necessary agree with] to the max possible before one critique the Bible with a high degree of seriousness.
That was why I spent >7000++ hours full time study and researching the Quran to ensure I understand it as thoroughly as possible so I can critique it effectively and with justified confidence.
I did the same with Buddhism, i.e. >5000 hours.
These are the only subjects, i.e. Kant, Islam and Buddhism, where I have spent at least 5000 hours thus the appropriate confidence in them accordingly.
I tried doing the same with Heidegger but got stalled midway.

Reading a book once over or reference to Wiki will not give one much credibility to critique a subject or book.

Btw, do you understand the Principle of Charity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
"it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings."

I mentioned one simple point re not wanting to discuss Kant serious in this case and you splayed it all over and waste time, note the number of unnecessary posts we have wasted on this point.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by TimeSeeker »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:26 am I don't agree with the Bible
I don't believe you. Are you telling me that there is NOTHING in the Bible you agree with? Surely it is (always) the case (with any text) that there are some things you agree with and some things you disagree with?

Which begs the question: is the agreement/disagreement a product of your own (mis?)understanding?
Would you still disagree if you understood it?
Would you switch your agreement back to disagreement if you realised that you misunderstood it in the first place?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:26 am but it is an intellectual responsibility to understand
In the context of metaphysics-on-paper - I disagree with that statement. Entirely!

It is an intellectual, mathematical, statistical, pragmatic and otherwise impossibility to understand. "il n'y a pas de hors-texte" -- Jacques Derrida
Because there is nothing TO understand. Your metaphysical taxonomy is EMPIRICALLY inconsequential to your actions/behaviours. Which is why you can't EMPIRICALLY determine whether I am a theist or an atheist.

You MAY be able to reduce small texts to a handful of possible interpretations, but you cannot converge on a single interpretation without interacting with the author and performing some experiments to determine their meaning.

In my epistemology - this is a fact.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:26 am Btw, do you understand the Principle of Charity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
"it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings."
Like I told you - you don't understand the meaning of the word 'understand' like I understand it. I am a very charitable person - and precisely because I can interpret infinite meaning in any metaphysical text. Which is why I agree with just about every philosopher - they all had something useful to say and point out. I take the good and leave the bad behind and move on.

Because of my background in computational linguistics and software engineering I know how MEANING and INTERPRETATION works. As in- I have a conception of the very process taking place in my head - and so I am able to take control over it.

I can CHOOSE to charitably interpret the writer in 10 different ways. Statistically - there is a 90% chance that I will charitably misunderstand you.
http://jkorpela.fi/wiio.html

Furthermore, the very word 'rationality' has different meanings in different contexts. In economics it means 'behavior consistent with and maximising one's likelyhood for achieving one's primary objective'. It is the definition I like to use.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:26 am I mentioned one simple point re not wanting to discuss Kant serious in this case and you splayed it all over and waste time, note the number of unnecessary posts we have wasted on this point.
I made one simple point that we have no shared consensus on what it means to understand. But you keep using the word as if we do...

Note the number of posts YOU have made while failing to address that point.

My definition of 'understanding' is closest to that of Feynman: What I cannot create - I do not understand.
Which is par for the scientific criterion of reproduction.

How you CHOOSE to design your metaphysics to reach understanding is entirely up to you! Freedom of thought :)
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:35 am
TimeSeeker wrote: Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:12 am You are re-inventing the wheel. In 2018 we call this approach “systems theory”/“systems thinking”. The problem-solving wisdom is the same, but the language is more accessible to the present-day population.

Plus it includes new and even more useful tools/techniques (from all cultures and corners of society) we have acquired since the Buddha departed.

Whether one uses this tool for analysing self (introspection) or an external system is but a matter of preference.
My point is the following;

Humans have been solving problems for ages and there are many successes.
Those who have been successful follow certain principles of problem of solving techniques but they were not made explicit.

It is claimed the first explicit problem solving techniques were written down 2600+ BCE ago.
The first recorded examples of medical diagnosis are found in the writings of Imhotep (2630–2611 BC) in ancient Egypt (the Edwin Smith Papyrus).[2] A Babylonian medical textbook, the Diagnostic Handbook written by Esagil-kin-apli (fl.1069–1046 BC), introduced the use of empiricism, logic and rationality in the diagnosis of an illness or disease.[3] Traditional Chinese Medicine, as described in the Yellow Emperor's Inner Canon or Huangdi Neijing, specified four diagnostic methods: inspection, auscultation-olfaction, interrogation, and palpation.[4] Hippocrates was known to make diagnoses by tasting his patients' urine and smelling their sweat.
-wiki
However Buddhism is the first religion and perhaps the only religion that introduce an explicit Problem Solving Technique specifically in the Four Noble Truth which is the main core principle of Buddhism.

If you will note, the Abrahamic religion approach is something like this;
  • God to believers: Shut the fcuk up and just obey my commands or else I will burnt you in Hell.
Buddhism on the other hand provide believers the Problem Solving Technique so that one can resolve one's own spiritual and existential issues.

Thus my point is, in comparison to all the religions and spiritualities, Buddhism is very efficient and know its stuff in relation to spirituality.

The generic Problem Solving Technique is not specifically System Theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

Problem Solving Techniques may be a tool used within a large system or
some of the specific areas of problem solving technique [root cause analysis] may use the system approach.
Buddhism is a doctrine which says shut up and listen otherwise one will reincarnate in a lower realm. All religions have doctrines, all being is an act of faith, all being is thus a religion, all being has some doctrine behind it.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:16 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:35 am
TimeSeeker wrote: Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:12 am You are re-inventing the wheel. In 2018 we call this approach “systems theory”/“systems thinking”. The problem-solving wisdom is the same, but the language is more accessible to the present-day population.

Plus it includes new and even more useful tools/techniques (from all cultures and corners of society) we have acquired since the Buddha departed.

Whether one uses this tool for analysing self (introspection) or an external system is but a matter of preference.
My point is the following;

Humans have been solving problems for ages and there are many successes.
Those who have been successful follow certain principles of problem of solving techniques but they were not made explicit.

It is claimed the first explicit problem solving techniques were written down 2600+ BCE ago.
The first recorded examples of medical diagnosis are found in the writings of Imhotep (2630–2611 BC) in ancient Egypt (the Edwin Smith Papyrus).[2] A Babylonian medical textbook, the Diagnostic Handbook written by Esagil-kin-apli (fl.1069–1046 BC), introduced the use of empiricism, logic and rationality in the diagnosis of an illness or disease.[3] Traditional Chinese Medicine, as described in the Yellow Emperor's Inner Canon or Huangdi Neijing, specified four diagnostic methods: inspection, auscultation-olfaction, interrogation, and palpation.[4] Hippocrates was known to make diagnoses by tasting his patients' urine and smelling their sweat.
-wiki
However Buddhism is the first religion and perhaps the only religion that introduce an explicit Problem Solving Technique specifically in the Four Noble Truth which is the main core principle of Buddhism.

If you will note, the Abrahamic religion approach is something like this;
  • God to believers: Shut the fcuk up and just obey my commands or else I will burnt you in Hell.
Buddhism on the other hand provide believers the Problem Solving Technique so that one can resolve one's own spiritual and existential issues.

Thus my point is, in comparison to all the religions and spiritualities, Buddhism is very efficient and know its stuff in relation to spirituality.

The generic Problem Solving Technique is not specifically System Theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

Problem Solving Techniques may be a tool used within a large system or
some of the specific areas of problem solving technique [root cause analysis] may use the system approach.
Buddhism is a doctrine which says shut up and listen otherwise one will reincarnate in a lower realm. All religions have doctrines, all being is an act of faith, all being is thus a religion, all being has some doctrine behind it.
I stated Buddhism-proper which is in line with its main principles, not what is supposedly-Buddhism which are at the fringes.

There are some fringes of Buddhism which promote some sort of eternal life based merely on belief, belief in Rebirth, load of Buddhists pray with offerings and joss-sticks to the statue of Buddha in Buddhist temples, etc. These are not Buddhism-proper.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:33 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:16 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:35 am My point is the following;

Humans have been solving problems for ages and there are many successes.
Those who have been successful follow certain principles of problem of solving techniques but they were not made explicit.

It is claimed the first explicit problem solving techniques were written down 2600+ BCE ago.



However Buddhism is the first religion and perhaps the only religion that introduce an explicit Problem Solving Technique specifically in the Four Noble Truth which is the main core principle of Buddhism.

If you will note, the Abrahamic religion approach is something like this;
  • God to believers: Shut the fcuk up and just obey my commands or else I will burnt you in Hell.
Buddhism on the other hand provide believers the Problem Solving Technique so that one can resolve one's own spiritual and existential issues.

Thus my point is, in comparison to all the religions and spiritualities, Buddhism is very efficient and know its stuff in relation to spirituality.

The generic Problem Solving Technique is not specifically System Theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

Problem Solving Techniques may be a tool used within a large system or
some of the specific areas of problem solving technique [root cause analysis] may use the system approach.
Buddhism is a doctrine which says shut up and listen otherwise one will reincarnate in a lower realm. All religions have doctrines, all being is an act of faith, all being is thus a religion, all being has some doctrine behind it.
I stated Buddhism-proper which is in line with its main principles, not what is supposed to be Buddhism which are at the fringes.

There are some fringes of Buddhism which promote some sort of eternal life based merely on belief, believe in Rebirth, load of Buddhists pray with offerings and joss-sticks to the statue of Buddha in Buddhist temples, etc. These are not Buddhism-proper.
So buddhism does not state if you do not follow its principles you will be reincarnated in a lower realm?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:33 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:16 am

Buddhism is a doctrine which says shut up and listen otherwise one will reincarnate in a lower realm. All religions have doctrines, all being is an act of faith, all being is thus a religion, all being has some doctrine behind it.
I stated Buddhism-proper which is in line with its main principles, not what is supposed to be Buddhism which are at the fringes.

There are some fringes of Buddhism which promote some sort of eternal life based merely on belief, believe in Rebirth, load of Buddhists pray with offerings and joss-sticks to the statue of Buddha in Buddhist temples, etc. These are not Buddhism-proper.
So buddhism does not state if you do not follow its principles you will be reincarnated in a lower realm?
Buddhism-proper lays down its core principles as universal guidance for a Life's Problem Solving Technique.
  • 1. NT1 Life problems are inevitable
    2. NT2 which arise from its root causes
    3. NT3 which can be resolved via
    4. NT4 the Noble 8 Folds Path.
The above is an iterative model of continuous improvements.

One of the core principles, i.e. anatta and emptiness, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81
re no soul,
thus nothing to be reborn.

Buddhism is a very flexible religion and if people [Buddhists] want to believe in rebirth of the soul or part thereof, they can do so, but that is not Buddhism proper.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 5:48 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:33 am
I stated Buddhism-proper which is in line with its main principles, not what is supposed to be Buddhism which are at the fringes.

There are some fringes of Buddhism which promote some sort of eternal life based merely on belief, believe in Rebirth, load of Buddhists pray with offerings and joss-sticks to the statue of Buddha in Buddhist temples, etc. These are not Buddhism-proper.
So buddhism does not state if you do not follow its principles you will be reincarnated in a lower realm?
Buddhism-proper lays down its core principles as universal guidance for a Life's Problem Solving Technique.
  • 1. NT1 Life problems are inevitable
    2. NT2 which arise from its root causes
    3. NT3 which can be resolved via
    4. NT4 the Noble 8 Folds Path.
The above is an iterative model of continuous improvements.

One of the core principles, i.e. anatta and emptiness, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81
re no soul,
thus nothing to be reborn.

Buddhism is a very flexible religion and if people [Buddhists] want to believe in rebirth of the soul or part thereof, they can do so, but that is not Buddhism proper.
Buddhism proper is about ending the cycles of reincarnation as cycles of suffering, you cannot seperate buddhism from reincarnation.
Post Reply