DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**wmzeto** · 07-19-2011, 06:27 AM

You are attempting to use "rational" arguments to defend the irrational and indict the rational. This is akin to the poor fellow at 2:45 in the video below.

And there you sit, cutting the branch out from under yourself.

You are attempting to use reason to dispute the veracity of reason. Kind of silly. One rejects what is unfounded for cause, which you are completely ignoring.

Nice video. But the example of 2:45 is not applicable because I am not arguing the absurd position that reason has no value, nor am I challenging its veracity. Reason is a very good thing.

However, like all things good and not so good, it can become a fetter. So in a way, sawing off the branch is a useful and relevant metaphor. Part of the task before us is to recognize whatever branch we are on and take care that it doesn't become a hindrance.

The Buddha taught the relinquishment of views, including those which are based in knowledge. Among other things, attachment to knowledge can foster conceit.

When dwelling on views as "supreme," a person makes them the utmost thing in the world, &, from that, calls all others inferior and so he's not free from disputes. When he sees his advantage in what's seen, heard, sensed, or in precepts & practices, seizing it there he sees all else as inferior.

That, too, say the skilled, is a binding knot: that in dependence on which you regard another as inferior. So a monk shouldn't be dependent on what's seen, heard, or sensed, or on precepts & practices; nor should he conjure a view in the world in connection with knowledge or precepts & practices; shouldn't take himself to be "equal"; shouldn't think himself inferior or superlative.

Abandoning what he had embraced, abandoning self, not clinging, he doesn't make himself dependent even in connection with knowledge; doesn't follow a faction among those who are split; doesn't fall back on any view whatsoever. It seems to me that polemical discourse, even when there is valid cause, runs the risk of pulling one into this trap.

07-19-2011, 06:27 AM	#27
wmzeto Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 463 Senior Member	You are attempting to use "rational" arguments to defend the irrational and indict the rational. This is akin to the poor fellow at 2:45 in the video below. And there you sit, cutting the branch out from under yourself. You are attempting to use reason to dispute the veracity of reason. Kind of silly. One rejects what is unfounded for cause, which you are completely ignoring. Nice video. But the example of 2:45 is not applicable because I am not arguing the absurd position that reason has no value, nor am I challenging its veracity. Reason is a very good thing. However, like all things good and not so good, it can become a fetter. So in a way, sawing off the branch is a useful and relevant metaphor. Part of the task before us is to recognize whatever branch we are on and take care that it doesn't become a hindrance. The Buddha taught the relinquishment of views, including those which are based in knowledge. Among other things, attachment to knowledge can foster conceit. When dwelling on views as "supreme," a person makes them the utmost thing in the world, &, from that, calls all others inferior and so he's not free from disputes. When he sees his advantage in what's seen, heard, sensed, or in precepts & practices, seizing it there he sees all else as inferior. That, too, say the skilled, is a binding knot: that in dependence on which you regard another as inferior. So a monk shouldn't be dependent on what's seen, heard, or sensed, or on precepts & practices; nor should he conjure a view in the world in connection with knowledge or precepts & practices; shouldn't take himself to be "equal"; shouldn't think himself inferior or superlative. Abandoning what he had embraced, abandoning self, not clinging, he doesn't make himself dependent even in connection with knowledge; doesn't follow a faction among those who are split; doesn't fall back on any view whatsoever. It seems to me that polemical discourse, even when there is valid cause, runs the risk of pulling one into this trap.
	Quote