D’s Skeptical and Buddhism belief in my understanding, Buddhism is a religion that started in India thousands of years ago. Mom always says, “Khong lam CAC Dieu ac. Gang lam CAC view land. Luon to tam, tinh y. Do la Loi Phat day,” as I grow from a little girl into adulthood. This means every evil is never done and in wholesomeness increasing and one’s heart well-purifying this the Buddhism’ Sasana. Buddhism is definitely psychological and it was not interested in satisfying human curiosity about the origin of the world or the ultimate reality but was concerned exclusively with the human situation with the suffering and frustrations of human beings.
Buddhism rejects an identical mind-body reduction view as death will mean the end of existence. While dualism that mind and body are different as this lead to an unchanging soul. Buddhism aim at overcoming suffering by understanding that the mind and body are two forms of experience and together they participate in a circular and mutual relationship, this leads to learning about an ever-changing existence across many life.
Buddhism also does not conceive of individual consciousness but stresses appear ness and that there is an underlying unity to the universe.
Understanding my different beliefs set me in a different direction than Descartes. I will look at skepticism as a form of inductive (to refer to beliefs about ut matter of fact) beliefs are never rationally justified. Equal belief can be known empirically from experience; their negation implies no contradiction a posteriori.
Descartes views the relation of ideas as equal beliefs that can be known true demonstratively by reason alone; their negation implies a contradiction a priori. He thinks that to doubt to question belief until one provides sufficient evidence.
There are two types of skepticism about matters of fact. The skeptic about knowledgebase if S’s knows T, T must be true, but we never know for sure. Next, is ska epic about justified belief? This means if S has a justified belief that T, then S has a rational basis for believing that T; but there is no such thing as having rational basic for T. For example, Descartes is S in this case, has a justified belief that T equal GOD exist, then Descartes has a rational basis for believing in GOD. While, I don’t have the rational basics for T, therefore I don’t believe in T.
The revised skeptical argument stated: First, if I know something, then there are no possible grounds for doubt about it. Second, there are possible grounds for doubt about anything other than my existence and how things seem to me. Third, so, I don’t know anything other than that I exist and that things seem to be a certain way. There are two main points Descartes stated. First, knowledge implies certainly–to know something is to have no possible ground for doubt against it. Second, we can’t be certain about anything, and the possibility of an evil genius deceiving us. Under general rule premise, two stated: There is no morally justifiable reason for GOD to deceive us. Another reason is that under premise one, here is only true if reality does exist in degrees but it does not (Dan-Howard revised skepticism). For example, freedom is the promise of Buddhist practice. It is about feeling ourselves from psychological restraint and responding to each situation. Buddhismhist a strong emphasis on meditation and a denial of the “self”. Faith is about a heartfelt confidence in our awakening. In other words, we become our gods and we are the masters of our destiny… Therefore, we don’t have commandments, and any heaven or hell and rejected “rigidities” as to our destiny.