Well, if it makes you feel good, Ratty, I have a couple of stale leftover saltine crackers in my cabinet and a couple of pieces of sliced cheese (still wrapped) in my fridge. Would that be okay?
Yumm!!!
Can you mail them parcel package via East 27th avenue 1500 block sewer drain - Area Code 5G277 New Jersey, USA?
Jim the mail man usually sets packages by the sewer grate and I use my front teeth to knaw through the cardboard.
That would be great, friend!
It was an unevidenced claim, and it asserted woo woo nonsense. Dress it up anyway you want.
If you can’t be bothered to read my reasons when you respond, or quote them in your hand waving dismissal, then I’m not going to keep repeating them for you. The number of my post is right there in your response, it takes literally just a few seconds to find it.
You’re just repeating your original appeal to authority fallacy. As I already said the gushing approbation of his (Buddha’s) followers is not objective evidence his claims are valid, if it were then all deities and religious claims would be validated by such fallacious appeals to authority, but they’re not as this is irrational.
Asinine comparison, and the hilarity of the claim that it "just happens to be right " is palpable. Also a straw man since I made no claims about the work of Pythagoras as it has zero relevance. You’re hoping into non sequitur rather than addressing your use of an appeal to authority fallacy.
You already have, unless you demonstrate objective evidence that what you’re describing is extant, and natural.
Like your woo woo claim for a sixth sense…
*waving hands in air hand 
*…I KNOW - see, let me explain… you wrote this
Kinda makes you special now, don’t it???
Ohhh 
and your lack of perception and disconnect from reality in your “brain states” (but as pointed out, you are still perceiving thought ) and chalking it up to “something” more - a connection or reconnection of some sort (but not calling it god)…sounds mystical to me.
OH - and this definitely makes you special
RE: post 
your reply to Cog
Stop assuming, its painful to watch. Your original assumption was erroneous, thus your analogy meaningless. Go back to that point and re-examine what you were responding to. I pointed out your appeal to authority fallacy when you made claims about Buddha, I had asked if his work was peer reviewed or objectively evidenced, especially the claims you are making about it here. This was your response…
Which is nonsense. Do you know what peer reviewed means, and when & why it is applied? Do you know the difference between objective evidence and subjective claims?
Forget Pythagoras ffs, it has zero relevance. Especially since it is a straw man as I made no claims about Pythagoras’s work.
The Buddha’s followers making subjective claims about him, is no different to the religious apologetics of all other religions doing the same, it is an appeal to authority fallacy, precisely because the claims are not based on objective evidence.
Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy , or an argument based on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority , they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an " authority " on the subject
Which is precisely what you did.
The ignominy of its contents forever being associated with you. 
1 Like
YES… how many posters (theists) have touted their personal experience with “spiritual things” - most recently, “spiritual fruits” 
like peace, long suffering, kindness, “all good” qualities ONLY being granted or coming through them by god or Jesus? Ignoring the “fact” that humans have these qualities and benefit from them (BUT for theists these are “special” OR “more” than what we experience, so they say)…
Unconvincing shit…
2 Likes
Exactly so, ratspit makes several unevidenced claims, he’s asked for objective evidence as they appear to be woo woo nonsense, he cites that they originate from the teachings of Buddha.
So fucking what? Without objective evidence how are his claims anymore valid than my late uncle? Who though a lovely guy had a propensity for dishonest exaggeration only his family could overlook.
The name Buddha might command reverence for his teachings from its adherents, as do all religions, but if you are offering such claims here then we are going to need a little more than appeal to authority fallacies.
How in the fuck do you know you had the cessation of perception and feeling without sensing it? When we wake from a deep dreamless sleep, we remember nothing. But you say you can recall a sense of cessation of perception and feeling. Whose chain are you trying to yank?
You hang on to your Buddhist bullshit as if it is a valued treasure. You actually think you have achieved something when there is nothing at all there to achieve.
I did not describe it as Buddhism, you did. I described it as a very common brain state that people have known about throughout history. NOTHING SPECIAL AT ALL and like the Christian usurping of morality, the Buddhists et, al, have attempted to usurp various brain states and make them mystical. It’s all horseshit.
Any moron with an IQ of 3 can have direct knowledge of a Buddhist teaching. What will you do next? Talk in tongues to prove you have the Holy Spirit in you. You have been duped. Plain and simple.
2 Likes
You fucker, that made me guffaw loudly in work…
Exactly…how is this any different to any other faith based religious BS.
Big woop, I’ve achieved that many times coming home from the pub. Even managed to buy a takeaway Indian meal, and eat the fucking lot, with zero perception or feeling of it…
1 Like
Can’t say I’ve had zero perception, (outside of anesthesia during surgery) - but CAN say, I’ve zoned out while driving…auto piloted my way to the grocery store when I wanted to go to the post office 
totally unaware of where I was going until “tuning back into my environment”.
I think you just made my point. Ratty ratty ratty… you silly goose.
It’s a definition. It’s not a claim. If you disagree with the whole establishment of critical thinking in Eastern countries such as India, is that really my problem? It doesn’t matter to me whether you believe the intellect is a faculty of sense or not.
Blah. Can’t be bothered to respond to this. All I recall is your straw man concerning “emotions” and “Nirodha Samapatti” - along with my very clear definition of “Nirodha Samapatti” having nothing to do with your precious emotions - thus nullifying you’re straw man.
Approbation? Try “verification”.
You claim that knowledge requires peer reviewed journals. This is clearly not the case. Example … Pythagorus. Straw man? No. Relevant example which negates your claim.
I was joking. Plus, I’ve already pointed that out specifically to you all ready. You’ve got such a hard on for the phrase “woo woo” that you’ll bite at anything to use it. I am NOT claiming that supernatural abilities exist in any sense other than in Dungeons and Dragons.
No sixth sense? What is echolocation? How does a colour blind cuddle fish camouflage itself in the wild?
The Western paradigm of five senses is just that … a paradigm.
The Eastern paradigm of six senses is superior.
You are likely hung up on the Western fantasy of a sixth sense which is psychic.
Read what I fucking say. I’m not saying the faculty is psychic. I’m saying that the intellect is a sense faculty and that ideas are the sense objects for that faculty. It’s a paradigm.
P.S. you have a raging boner when it comes to lengthy replies for posts that were never meant for you and were never addressed to you.
Keep replying to those posts that were never meant for you if it makes you feel special. Bare in mind that I won’t waste a second of my time on them.
I’ll repeat the evidence for the claim using logic … Christ on a stick; you’re a fickle man aren’t you Sheldon.
We have FIVE SENSES (NOT SIX THIS TIME, Okay? - just five).
This is how the Buddha taught that perception occurs.
There is a sense faculty and a sense object. Faculty and object make contact through “sense-consciousness”. Ie. Sense consciousness is necessary for the outside world to make contact with the inner world of a being.
By concentrating the mind you can remove “sense-consciousness”. Now, bare in mind. I said “sense-consciousness” - not “awareness-consciousness”. I am not proposing the elimination of bare awareness and I am using the term “sense consciousness” as a very TECHNICAL TERM.
If you remove “sense-consciousness” by focussed concentration you eliminate contact between sense faculties and sense objects. Ie. you create the state called “the cessation of perception and feeling”. It is a state where faculties remain vibrant, however the conditions for all sensation have been removed.
Simple enough? No “woo woo”. No appeal to authority. No appeal to Jesus or God or Mohammed. No appeal to the Buddha even - except for the fact that he’s the guy who discovered it and taught it to thousands of people during his life time.
It’s simple. It just requires an extended amount of concentration.
I’ve told you the what and the how. What more could I offer?
Faith in Buddhism is often supplanted by “conviction” - the difference being that one has causes and conditions supporting his or her “conviction” in the Buddha’s teaching.
Very often such causes and conditions are personal experience that align with the teachings and confirm them.
“Fire cooks meat. Meat tastes better when cooked.”
“All conditioned phenomenon are marked by stress, inconstancy, and are not-self.”
Truths. Verified by observation.
“The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides.”
Truth. Verified by repetition.
Truth is not confined to the scientific method or peer reviewed journals. Especially when it comes to personal experience.
Lol - except for some sushi 
and tartar … nah … I know what you’re saying
This I’m not sure what you are even saying…
Some “truths” are personal preferences and decided upon by the person themselves.
This is an untrue statement. Getting to what is “true” as relating to “reality”, scientific method is a preferred and accurate method.
Personal experience allows a person to decide what is true for them, however it is not measurable, can be biased and influenced by other factors (preconceived belief or results). Personal experience of what one decides is “true” for them, is not evidence for claims. There is a difference.
1 Like
Mmm. Tartar and vodka. Staples of a healthy Polish diet.
This is Buddhist teaching. The Buddha teaches that sentient beings are comprised of five factors - ie. form, feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness.
He calls these the “clinging aggregates” and he claims that the aggregates are 1. Stressful 2. Impermanent and 3. Not-Self
The Not-Self doctrine is a debated one among early Buddhist enthusiasts and it should really be seen with wisdom to appreciate. “Wisdom” in the Buddhist sense is gained when concentration is applied to any given meditation object.
In contrast, “The Hard Problem of Consciousness” will always be a philosophical problem.
Some argue that even if we completely understand the physical process of, for example, perceiving the colour red; we will never go beyond the inner experience of “redness”. Ie. “redness” lies beyond the scope of science.
Science has done one thing well where the defining of external reality is concerned.
For example, when we are not perceiving it, then it behaves as if it were a wave function.
However, when we are perceiving it, then it behaves as if it were made of particles.
Nirodha Samapatti is what happens when a person observes external reality without grasping at it through perception - ie. as one undifferentiated, ever flowing coalescence of a sense data wave function.