Hi Balder,
Having gone over past posts and after reading your most recent posts, I realize a need to shift gears. My initial efforts were put toward better understanding your brand of Buddhism. I asked you specific questions about some of your claims and I ended up trying to sort through lots of jargon and nomenclature that I had no hope of understanding on my own. I don't view this as productive anymore. For all of your effort and typing, I am thankful and appreciative, but no closer to understanding even the basics of what you espouse. So if you will indulge me, I wish to ask you more general questions in light of my (admittedly inadequate) understanding of Buddhism. First, I will answer your questions.
Hilston wrote:
There is only one true system of logic, that which derives from the revealed nature of God. And then there are human corruptions of it.
Balder writes:
Do you know this one true logical system, or only the human corruptions of it?
I know aspects of the true logical system insofar as I understand what the Bible has to say about logic, by description and by example. I'm no logician, but I have a basic understanding. I'm also familiar with some of the human corruptions of logic.
Balder writes:
Exactly how and where is it revealed? How do you tell if you've discerned it correctly, and not been misled by fallible human corruptions of logic in the process of your evaluation of it?
The true logical system is both demonstrated and affirmed in the Judeo-Christian Bible. My knowledge of the general reliability of my logical processes is based on faith in the Judeo-Christian Bible. Of course, my initial use of logic, prior to my introduction to the Bible, came quite naturally, as it does with most everyone. However, my later encounters with the teachings of the Bible explained to me the nearly universal recognition and/or use of the laws of logic.
Hilston asked:
Are Knowing and Being mutually inclusive? Can an unconscious entity have Being?
Balder writes:
Yes, an unconscious entity can have being. Unconsciousness is still a form of consciousness, albeit often a stepped down, non-self-reflective form of consciousness.
So, would you say a shard of metal is an unconscious entity with a stepped down, non-self-reflective form of consciousness?
Hilston asked:
Why do you believe the teachings of the Dzogchen tradition to be true?
You wrote that "there are in fact quite a number of teachings that give a glimpse of what 'lies beyond.'" Why do you believe that these teachings are true?
Why do you believe Siddhartha was right?
Balder writes:
There are many reasons, but the only one that I think will carry much weight with you is the following: it is a humanly inexplicable gift of faith.
Is your belief in the verity and righteousness of Dzogchen tradition and Siddhartha's teachings based on the existence of the "humanly inexplicable gift of faith" or the
object of that faith, i.e. that which you believe in. In other words, in
what or who have you placed your faith?
Balder writes:
We do seem to be a bit astray from the theme of this thread, but hopefully not so far astray that we can't get back on track.
I agree, and that's partly my fault. I was genuinely interested (before I knew what I was getting into) in what you believed. Now, I'm not convinced that there is any need whatever to understand it. In fact, it seems deliberately obtuse, and you seem to be wholeheartedly swept away by its ambiguities. Your view seems to preclude any true desire or goal to understand with clarity, or to impart clear understanding to others.
Hilston wrote:
Don't forget about sogma-somnificance and simni-sigmatics.
Balder writes:
Oh, you’re a yuck a minute, H. If you don’t know what the words mean, just ask.
Balder, are you
really that out of touch with the rest of humanity that you
actually thought you could use these terms without defining them? What planet are you from? Line up a thousand people, and chances are, all one thousand people would look at you sideways if you used one or both of these terms.
Hilston asked:
Do you believe in the permanence of the soul, Balder? Or do you hold to the doctrine of anatta? Is a yes or no answer possible? Or is that going require another prolix treatise, complete with Tibetan transliterations and hyphenated character strings?
I now realize that I should have asked one question at a time. Do you believe in the permanence of the soul?
Hilston asked:
Does it impress you that Dzogchen understood the first law of thermodynamics? Did the middle way lead him to that understanding? Were Joule and Helmholtz relying on Buddhist thought when they codified the conservation of mass and energy?
Balder writes:
Something tells me that if you could show that a Biblical figure discovered the first law of thermodynamics, you would be waving that as a proud trophy in these conversations.
Then you don't understand my argument. There are plenty of Biblical data to affirm the first Law of Thermo', and myriad other recent scientific discoveries. There are plenty of data to show that the Biblical worldview and the ancients had vastly superior knowledge of science, mathematics, nature, etc. But I don't wave these things as proud trophies because it's not a biblical way to approach the matter.
Balder writes:
How do you understand Christian doctrine to have resolved the “problem” of unity and multiplicity? Is it just that the Bible teaches that God is both Three and One, and you believe it without necessarily understanding it?
Yes.
Balder writes:
Or do you have an intellectual understanding or a sense for how something could be both single and multiple?
Neither.
Balder writes:
What is the relationship between the triune nature of the Godhead and the manifest universe, if any?
I see a relationship between the Son's incarnation and the fact that the Son is described as holding the physical universe together. I see a relationship in the manifest universe between decree, vocalization/articulation, and actualization and the triune Godhead. There are others.
Balder writes:
Do you think the triune nature of the Godhead is mysterious, or is it really rather prosaic, like saying people are both “billions” and “one” because we’re all made of flesh, and yet we have different bodies?
It's mysterious.
Balder writes:
What I am asking here, I guess, is, What is your understanding of the perichoresis of the Trinity? Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg writes, "[T]he common essence of the three Persons does not have any separate reality prior to them but exists only in their interrelationship." What do you think of this claim?
I mostly agree with it, although I am loath to agree fully, not having explored what he intends by certain terms.
In a book titled
Buddhism: The Light of Asia, by Kenneth K.S. Ch'en, the author quotes: "Not to commit any sin, to do good, to purify one's own mind, that is the teaching of the Buddha." He goes on to define sin as "any act that is harmful to oneself or to another." Do you agree with these statements? If so, why is it your desire to eschew sin and to do good and to purify your mind?
