×

What is the importance of ethics and morals in our everyday lives? by ClownTree22 in AskReddit

[–]ClownTree22[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not an assignment, I'm just curious as to why they're important to others.

ELI5: The difference between "logical" and "reasonable"? by ClownTree22 in explainlikeimfive

[–]ClownTree22[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No worries, you've been very helpful and your thoughts and pleasant dialogue are very much appreciated.

ELI5: The difference between "logical" and "reasonable"? by ClownTree22 in explainlikeimfive

[–]ClownTree22[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, I think I understand. Thank you. So not necessarily universal facts, but things held true by individuals... assumptions.

ELI5: The difference between "logical" and "reasonable"? by ClownTree22 in explainlikeimfive

[–]ClownTree22[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So "reasonable" is basically making decisions with the best intentions whether or not the reasons make sense in a logical way?

ELI5: The difference between "logical" and "reasonable"? by ClownTree22 in explainlikeimfive

[–]ClownTree22[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first poster of this thread says logic is based on assumptions while you say it is based in universal facts. Which is it?

ELI5: The difference between "logical" and "reasonable"? by ClownTree22 in explainlikeimfive

[–]ClownTree22[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you so much! Would it be fair to say that the decisions based on reasons would only be considered "reasonable" if they have evidence to support their validity? For example, if your wife says something outrageous is true for reasons with no evidence, then going along with the thought would be unreasonable even though your wife said the reasons

ELI5: The difference between "logical" and "reasonable"? by ClownTree22 in explainlikeimfive

[–]ClownTree22[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok so being "reasonable" also involves being open-minded and willing to consider evidence that contradicts previous beliefs. Holding onto beliefs that are not "reasonable" is not good because they are more likely result in negative consequences than more "reasonable" options. Gotcha, that sounds reasonable to be =)

ELI5: The difference between "logical" and "reasonable"? by ClownTree22 in explainlikeimfive

[–]ClownTree22[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks so much! Yeah, I tend to use those words myself synonymously because they all share this "makes sense" component to them. I should probably learn the differences between them well.

In your explanation, you say the assumptions can be reasonable but not logical; would it be right to say that "reasonable" has a "logical" component as well and is therefore can be an essential part of assumptions?

ELI5: The difference between "logical" and "reasonable"? by ClownTree22 in explainlikeimfive

[–]ClownTree22[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, that was super clear. Thank you so much! If what is reasonable refers to what is considered "good", then would a logical thought in the service of good be founded on "reasonable" assumption?

Neighbor is an asshole so I caused a potentially catastrophic rift in his marriage by lotsofbuttstuff in ProRevenge

[–]ClownTree22 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Perhaps OP left out the part where the neighbor yelled out the instructions to his son at the top of his lungs while simultaneously pointing at OP's trashcan with a lazer-pointer and making exagerated kicking motions with his legs.

Is Tibetan Buddhism safe? (I can't think of a good title) by dapub5 in Buddhism

[–]ClownTree22 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To me, the safest route would be to never place your full trust in what someone tells you and follow words/advice only when you understand why and how the practice will benefit you and personally agree with the practice. There will always be danger in placing your faith in other humans, and following advice that does not make sense/you don't personally agree with, no matter what their title or how many followers they have.

Heaven and hell by imjosefdes in Buddhism

[–]ClownTree22 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Some people do, and some people don't. I personally take the following view on the matter:

"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now: "'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires. "'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires. "'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires. "'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires. "One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now."

Having trouble with possible threat from the Buddha in the Sutta by Guga_ in Buddhism

[–]ClownTree22 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think its important to remember that, unlike other religions, the Suttas are not considered gospel and, as a practitioner, you are expected to analyze information and determine for yourself if it is worth pursuing/having faith in. I personally don't believe that I will end up in hell just for not believing someone had/has "superhuman states", even if it says so specifically in a Sutta. That is not consistent with what I have come to understand about the dharma, so I do not accept it. In the practice, you may come across lots of Suttas and teachers who claim "This is true, so you should believe it!"; however, you don't have to accept any of it if you don't personally find it agreeable.

Kalama Sutta

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.

Handling it like a professional actor by m4dh4mster in funny

[–]ClownTree22 49 points50 points  (0 children)

"I fear not the horse who has practiced 10,000 kicks one time, but I fear the horse who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."

Handling it like a professional actor by m4dh4mster in funny

[–]ClownTree22 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe the horse thought they were actually going to be in a battle and just wanted to practice his kicks beforehand?

Personal Thoughts on the Use of Scriptural Evidence in Buddhist Discourse by Gundi9 in Buddhism

[–]ClownTree22 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a practitioner who studies the Pali Canon, I would agree that simply quoting suttas is not, by itself, evidence of what the Buddha taught or representative of "true dharma", and should be read with a healthy dose of skepticism. I would also say the same holds true for the words of any so-called teacher or "master" past, present, or future, no matter what their title or reputation; their words should be heard or read with a healthy dose of skepticism. If a practitioner follows the words/advice/direction of a sutta or a teacher, it should be because those words are in accordance with their own understanding. I learned that from a Sutta, and accept it because it makes a lot of sense to do this.

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.

Personal Thoughts on the Use of Scriptural Evidence in Buddhist Discourse by Gundi9 in Buddhism

[–]ClownTree22 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Personally, I think if an idea makes sense (i.e., its plausible) according to what I have come to realize through my own experience as a practitioner, then I will consider it even if its not totally consistent with my prior beliefs. If an idea does not make sense according to my knowledge/experience, but I am still curious as to if the idea could be valid in some way that I am currently unaware, then I might ask for evidence to support the idea... if it's a Buddhist idea, then I would naturally ask for scriptural evidence. If there is scriptural evidence, then I would take the time to read and analyze the new information and see if it now makes sense; if it does, I adjust my view accordingly... if it doesn't, then I wont. The great thing about the Suttas is they usually don't simply say "this is true, believe it!"; they often times explain why something is true through similes and examples. If the person doesn't have scriptural evidence for me to analyze for myself and the only evidence they have is essentially "Believe me, its true!", then no thanks.

How did you come to believe the supernatural aspects of Buddhism? by Guga_ in Buddhism

[–]ClownTree22 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Believing in the supernatural aspects are not a requirement of walking the eightfold path:

Kalama Sutta

"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:

"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.

"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.

"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.

"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.

"One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now."

Compassion And Tribalism by DLDMcGee in Buddhism

[–]ClownTree22 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Depends on the tribe. The Buddha and his Sangha could be described as a tribe based on their common goal of putting an end to suffering, and they actively cultivated compassion.