As baker remarked, the idea is quite explicit in some strands of Mahayana with the concept of 'Buddha nature'. However, it can be said that it is implied by the fact that the Buddhist practice is seen as a way to purify the mind, i.e. removing all the 'impurities'. So, rather than a transformation into something 'alien', the Buddhist path actually seems to have been presented as a way to bring the mind-stream to its 'purity'. — boundless

But with a caveat. The concept of Buddha nature can be taken to mean that all one needs to do is get to some primeval, pure state, and that's that. But we have this:

/.../
Then Pañcakanga went to Uggahamana and, on arrival, greeted him courteously. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat down to one side. As he was sitting there, Uggahamana said to him, "I describe an individual endowed with four qualities as being consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. Which four? There is the case where he does no evil action with his body, speaks no evil speech, resolves on no evil resolve, and maintains himself with no evil means of livelihood. An individual endowed with these four qualities I describe as being consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments."

Then Pañcakanga neither delighted in Uggahamana's words nor did he scorn them. Expressing neither delight nor scorn, he got up from his seat & left, thinking, "I will learn the meaning of this statement in the Blessed One's presence."

Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, after bowing down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he told the Blessed One the entire conversation he had had with Uggahamana.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to Pañcakanga: "In that case, carpenter, then according to Uggahamana's words a stupid baby boy, lying on its back, is consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. For even the thought 'body' does not occur to a stupid baby boy lying on its back, so from where would it do any evil action with its body, aside from a little kicking? Even the thought 'speech' does not occur to it, so from where would it speak any evil speech, aside from a little crying? Even the thought 'resolve' does not occur to it, so from where would it resolve on any evil resolve, aside from a little bad temper? Even the thought 'livelihood' does not occur to it, so from where would it maintain itself with any evil means of livelihood, aside from its mother's milk? So, according to Uggahamana's words, a stupid baby boy, lying on its back is consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments.

"If an individual is endowed with these four qualities, I do not describe him as consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. Rather, he stands on the same level as a stupid baby boy lying on its back. Which four? There is the case where he does no evil action with his body, speaks no evil speech, resolves on no evil resolve, and maintains himself with no evil means of livelihood. If an individual is endowed with these four qualities, I do not describe him as consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. Rather, he stands on the same level as a stupid baby boy lying on its back.

"An individual endowed with ten qualities is one whom I describe as being consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments.
/.../
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.078.than.html

In other words, cultivation is required, not just some regression to a primal, "innocent" state. In Buddhist cosmology, there is no such thing as a primal, "innocent" state the way there is in Christianity.

But we’re not looking forward, we’re looking infinitely backwards, and in the past ignorance has necessarily never been removed because we are here in ignorance. — praxis

That's still thinking in terms of reincarnation, not rebirth.
Or perhaps you're referring to humanity as a whole??

If a cycle of rebirth and death is beginingless then there will always be a previous cause or rebirth and this would go back infinitely. If there’s no beginning then there’s no end. — praxis

In the grand scheme of things, roughly, yes. In Buddhist cosmology, universes keep coming in and out of existence (in contrast to Christianity, where it's a one-off deal).

And as universes keep coming into existence, so do living beings. And the way for them to exit existence is to follow the path of a buddha, who also appears each time around.

You’re saying that in an eternity, and across all space and time, innumerable sentient beings never had the insight that one dude on earth—the Buddha—had? — praxis

See above.

"Buddha" is actually a title, a function, not the identity of a person. Brahma, Shiva, Buddha -- these are all functions, roles; we can actually write them in lower case.

Even if samsara is beginningless…
— boundless

You’re claiming that teaching may be false? — praxis

I'm thinking of it in terms of "the same kinds of things are happening over and over again".
Not the identic, same thing.

It's like in a theatre play where in different performances of the play different actors can play the same role. The role is the same, the words are the same, the actions are the same, but the actors differ.
Nibbana is like when an actor decides not to play the role anymore.

'Saṃsāra has no beginning, but it has an end. Nirvāṇa has a beginning, but it has no end' ~ Buddhist Aphorism (quoted on Dharmawheel.) — Wayfarer

Which is why laundry and dishes are excellent candidates for being Nirvana. They, too, have no end.

Having studied a bit of both Buddhism and Hindusim, I find there is a peculiar fit between the two.
— baker
Why would it be peculiar when they both were born in the same place and the Buddha grew up in the Hindu tradition? — unimportant

I man that they "fit" in the sense that Buddhism is similar to a kind of Hindu monotheism but without the theistic references (and all concepts adjusted accordingly). It very much fits the idea that God incarnated himself as the Buddha. Where Hindu theism is explicitly theistic, Buddhism is silent. It seems the two don't contradict eachother. (Practitioners of both like to claim otherwise, of course. But if you look at just the Pali Canon, there doesn't seem to be anything that contradicts Hindu ideas.)

By default, a theist starts off with:
There is God.
God created man.
Man has the characteristics and abilities as given to him by God.
Naturalism is wrong because God exists and man is created in the image of God.
— baker

No that’s a reductionist account, Hart arrives there via philosophical arguments not dogma. He is a Neoplatonist. — Tom Storm

It's short, but it's not reductionist. A monotheist has the above as a starting point, as the ground from which he makes his "philosophical" arguments.

But the question remains even if they ignore it. — Tom Storm

A person has questions, or doesn't have them. Questions don't somehow exist and matter on their own.
It's on the person to pursue a question, or not; and why they choose to do so, or not.

I'm thinking that this, if nothing else, is the reason rebirth is not claimed to be a motivator for practice. — praxis

Not claimed by whom? Names?

People are motivated by different things. Some are motivated by the notion of rebirth, some are not.

We've have literally been practicing forever without end.

Who is "we"?

On the contrary, I see little point in there only being one life for each being. It would be like introducing a whole lot of interesting threads and by the time of introducing one’s self to them, one is told, time is up now, before one has even begun. — Punshhh

I actually find both rebirth and reincarnation entirely plausible.

I also find the Hindu explanation plausible according to which Vishnu/Krishna incarnates himself as a buddha/the Buddha.
Having studied a bit of both Buddhism and Hindusim, I find there is a peculiar fit between the two.

You’re claiming that according to Buddhist doctrine there are births that are not rebirths? — praxis

That would be "spontaneously arisen beings", yes.

That some births are not part of the cycle of life and death?

Some births are last births, yes, and as such, are not part of the cycle of life and death anymore.

Yes, that’s it. It can also be approached from the opposite direction, as I see it, i.e. nirvana would inevitably pervade all of existence. Thus would pervade all incarnate beings and worlds. I would take it further that all is nirvana and that it is a specific impediment that veils it from us. — Punshhh

This ventures into some concepts more native to some schools of Hinduism, with the veil being the "veil of Maya".

The problem with assuming defaults, innate essences (such as "all beings have Buddha nature") is that they bog one down.

If you have Buddha nature, then why are you here, suffering, instead of being happy and enlightened?
If you suffer now, despite having/being Buddha nature, and later become enlightened, then where's the guarantee that you won't lose your enligtenment and suffer again?
If you are now covered by the veil of Maya, how can you possibly trust your choice of spiritual guidance?

Thus assuming some kind of innate natrure, an essence, implies, among other things, that you are ultimately helpless against that veil of Maya, helpless against suffering.

It's how the outlook of innate nature is demoralizing, unless, of course, one has a grand enough ego to compensate for it.

Going back to what I was saying about the idea that we are already in nirvana, but are blind to it. Is there an idea like this in Buddhism? as it’s an important idea for me. I can’t really remember where it came from. — Punshhh

You seem to be referring to the idea of "Buddha nature"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature

If rebirth is true then there are no ‘causeless’ births, and given that there is no beginning to the wheel of life and death, that means we have always existed. We have existed for eternity. — praxis

You're talking about reincarnation, not rebirth.

The idea of ending suffering for all beings seems to be in both traditions and also seems impossible to me. Buddhist cosmology posits a beginning-less creation―if the (illusory?) world has existed forever — Janus

Not "forever", but cyclically. In Buddhist cosmology, a universe comes into existence, exists, and then disappers. And then another one appears, exists, disappears, and so on.

, and suffering is still universal then how could progress in that goal ever be imagined to be plausible?

By understanding paticcasamuppada, dependent co-arising.

Personally I like to think of death as being liberation for all―either in eternity or oblivion―the idea of rebirth makes little sense to me. It seems to be, if anything, to be motivated by attachment to the self. — Janus

Hence the characteristic distinction between reincarnation (as in Hinduism, where an eternal soul transmigrates between different bodies), and rebirth (where a conglomerate, a stream of aggregates goes on and on (externally appearing as different lifeforms, such as humans, cows, dogs, ghosts)).

Indeed. Can it be demonstrated that a single person has achieved this end? How would we even do that? How do we even know it is a plausible possibility? — Tom Storm

In Dhammic religions, the context of spiritual efforts is different than what we are used to in the West (under the influence of Christianity).

Namely, in Dhammic religions, they basically don't care whether anyone believes them or not.
This isn't like in Christianity where people are expected to believe things and where religious/spiritual teachings are shoved down people's throats. In Dhammic religions, if you don't believe something they claim, they consider that your problem (and that you just have "too much dust in your eyes"). It's not something they feel responsible for fixing.

I agree. I think the idea of the enlightened one is just a case of the usual human myth-making. — Janus

I don't think so.
Enlightenment the Buddhist way is not something many people would or even could want. I find it odd that the idea has such prominence in culture at large, when it's such a highly specific niche interest.

In any case no one but the actual enlightened would know,

Indeed, the phrase colloquially used is "It takes an arahant to know an arahant". Other than that, there are in traditional teachings some pointers as to how even non-arahants might recognize one.

and is it even credible that any human being could not be mistaken in thinking they were enlightened?

It happens all the time in Buddhist venues. It's actually not a problem there.

It claims cyclical existence without beginning. A circular ladder doesn’t progress, it goes round and round without beginning or ending. — praxis

Now that's a creative interpretation I haven't heard before ...

In terms of making progress on the path, I'm referring to the stages to nibbana, namely, stream-entry, once-returner, non-returner, and arahant.

Hart arrives there via philosophical arguments — Tom Storm

Can you post them here?

Ever heard of Parkinson’s Law? — praxis

Lol.

A similar view is sometimes held by some Buddhists who believe that belief in rebirth makes people lazy and complacent, thinking, "If I don't make it this time around, there's always the next, so I can just relax".
But this takes a dim view of human nature, assuming that unless people are pushed by external constraints and rewards, they are lazy and unmotivated. And while this is certanly true for some people, it's not true for everyone.

But back to Parkinson's Law and Buddhist practice: Buddhist practice rests on the premise that there first must be causes and conditions in place before any next rung on the scale of progress can be reached. Without the right causes and conditions, progress can't be made. Causes and conditions, however, take time, for some people a little time, for others, more, depending on how much work one was able to do up to that point in a previous life (!).

This brings me to a thought I have often had regarding Buddhist conceptions of nirvana. If the self etc is annihilated in the realisation of nirvana. Whom is experiencing the exalted state?
I know this might sound like a simplistic question, but there is a deeper issue in it. Or rather if there is total annihilation, such that all is left is a state of non-existence, whom, is, present, in it? Who, or what remains? — Punshhh

It's not about annihilation, that would be wrong view.

I find Thanissaro Bhikkhu's approach here the easiest to understand: not-self(ing) is a strategy. We already use it anyway every day when we disidentify with things we don't want or don't like. He explains it that the Buddhist practice takes this strategy further, though.

He writes and talks about this a lot, see here, for example.

I’m interested in the same thing. I don’t think it’s correct for you to suggest that because I disagree, I’m interested in a wrong aspect of this discussion, or in some ‘objective’ and erroneous analysis. We’re just having a conversation, and what I said would apply to both an insider and an outsider. I simply resisted the idea you put forward that my argument would not be understood by an insider. But let's move on since this is a minor part of the overall discussion. — Tom Storm

Not understood by, but relevant to. Things that are relevant to outsiders might not be the same as the things relevant to insiders, and vice versa.

I think that to you, as to an outsider, it makes perfect sense to think relatively highly of doubters. But to an insider, it doesn't.

And many times, for insiders, the reasons are entirely practical. From an insider's perspective, a doubter (who attends a religious venue along with the insiders and tries to participate in their community) is simply "high maintenance", more work than they are worth. It's tedious for the insiders to deal with a doubter, to try to accomodate the doubter, to explain things over and over again. I've seen this all too often myself: People just got tired of me, the doubter. Sometimes, quite aggressively tired. Some things I've been told:
"Lead, follow, or get out of the way."
"By now you should have figured out what you want and what to do next."
"If you don't like something, leave."
"I've offered you a finger but you want the whole arm."

The point I made was that it would be okay for a pope to have doubts, and that this would not make him a bad pope.

Perhaps from your perspective as an outsider.

You took us to stake burning for reasons that are still unclear to me. You introduced the notion of an abuse of power, but to my knowledge the discussion was not about this.

You introduced the concept of "abuse of power". I'm saying it still needs to be established whether the Crusades etc. were an abuse of power, or actually proper use of power. (See also my reply to Boundless above, about "skillful means".)

As for stake burnings: The RCC still considers itself entitled to rule over all the people on this planet, just like it did five hundred years ago. How it goes about ruling or attempting to rule the planet is changing with the times, but its belief that it has the right to rule over everyone has not. If circumstances change sufficiently, we could be faced with more crusades and inquisitions -- and stake burnings. (Notice how when popes apologized for things done by the RCC in the past, they apologized for the methods, but not for the motivations.)

It was about whether a follower of a religion, or a pope, can have doubts about their faith and still be a productive member of that faith. I say yes. You seem to say no. I have heard no good reason why.

When you formulate it that way --
If a nominally religious person has doubts about their religion, then the motivation for their actions will be problematic, even if their actions externally match the expectations for said religion. Because of their doubts, their actions cannot be properly motivated in accordance with the religion. Eventually, this lack of proper motivatedness shows up somewhere, usually in the form of inconsistently performing the expected actions. Due to this inconsistency, they cannot be a productive member of that faith.

The more common form of punishment is to slowly push the doubting person out of the group, without this ever being made explicit and instead made to look like the person's own choice and fault.
— baker

Yes, this happens especially in fundamentalist groups. But so what?

So what? A lot of time and resources get wasted, a lot of grief is caused, for many of the involved. Some even commit suicide.

This could have been prevented, simply by people being more straightforward about things, and sooner, both the insiders as well as the doubter.

Humans often shun people they disagree with or do not understand. This seems to occur when there is dogma and a kind of certainty that brooks no diversity.

See my point earlier about doubters being more work than they are worth.

It would be nice, wouldn’t it, to expect religious followers or theists more specifically to behave in superior ways to the rest of the community, but they don’t. It seems we can’t expect people in a religion to behave differently from people in a family, a sporting club, or a corporate management group. Does this tell us that religions are just ordinary beliefs in fancy dress, or does it say we strive imperfectly to reach God?

Actually, my basic thesis is that a religion is supposed to be practiced exactly the way the people who claim to be its members practice it. I'm now in my "Take things at face value" phase. I'm done helping religious/spiritual people look for excuses and keeping up pretenses. I'm done with "Oh, but they didn't mean it" and "They are just imperfect followers of God." No. They've had more than enough time to get their act together.

This may well be the case if the religion is misogynist, classist, and elitist. In such cases, it seems we have a religion where more followers need to doubt those doctrines and work to reform beliefs.

But why should they reform themselves??
Their religion is what it is; anyone who doesn't like it should stay away from it.

It's not clear whence this desire to reform a religion.

The religious dogma has been ripe in this discussion. — unimportant

Lol.
It would help the discussion if you'd stop shooting from the hip like that.

This is my view too but the majority voice in this thread has been the usual pushback I expected from 'devouts' that any attempt to question the teachings or go outside the box will be met with failure, and maybe derision. — unimportant

For someone so critical of "dogma", you know remarkably little of it.

I guess they will say neither of us are enlightened so we have no place to try and change the tried and true method of the prophets. I have had the same arguments from most things I have learned in life, which have nothing to do with Buddhism. Most often ridiculed for 'going against the grain' and outside of the box but I have found it easy to separate the wheat from the chaff of what is good information vs. bad and irrational stuff in other areas and the proof is in the pudding when I achieve my goals in whatever thing I set out, so I don't see this as being any different.

For someone who is supposedly interested in "enlightenment", you sure spend an awful lot of time _not_ pursuing it.

Were the Inquisition and the Crusades an abuse of power, or a mere use of power? What if the popes in the past did what they did because they were "further along than you"?
— baker

Sorry, but I don't understand your point here. Are you claiming that if a behaviour that is blatantly in contradiction with a religion's 'code of conduct' is done by a large number of those who hold a authority position in that religion it is evidence that the religion in question is false (or it is at least a reason to be skeptical of it)? — boundless

I can't retrace how you arrived at this ...

I'm plainly asking what I'm asking.

You can see a lot of this in various religious and esp. "spiritual" traditions where it's sometimes called "crazy wisdom" and where actions, if done by an ordinary person, are deemed inappropriate, but when done by a "spiritually advanced person", are deemed appropriate and "above the understanding of ordinary people". So, for example, if a sadhu gets drunk or high, that's exalted and spiritual somehow, but if an ordinary person gets drunk or high, it's just ordinary intoxication which is frowned upon.

Then in Mahayana, with the Secondary Bodhisattva vows, they've even found a way to excuse killing, raping, and pillaging, all in the name of "compassion" and "spiritual advancement".

Then there is the issue of "skillful means". Again, doing things that are ordinarily considered immoral or wrong, but when done for some "higher purpose" and/or by a "spiritually advanced person", considered perfectly right.

So in the light of this, I'm wondering whether the Crusades and the Holy Inquisition (with the stake burnings and all that) were actually examples of such "spiritual advancement" that we ordinary folks simply cannot even begin to comprehend.

Can you sketch out the argument being suggested that naturalism can't explain intelligibility and intentionality?

How are they (Hart) arriving there? — Tom Storm

By being theists.

By default, a theist starts off with:
There is God.
God created man.
Man has the characteristics and abilities as given to him by God.
Naturalism is wrong because God exists and man is created in the image of God.



Nicely put here:

Hart is a metaphysical realist of a classical persuasion. That means that he thinks reality is objectively real, intrinsically intelligible, value-laden, purposive, and metaphysically grounded in God.

Human reason isn’t a matter of trial and error representations we place over things, reason is formed by the world’s own intelligible structures acting directly on the mind.

In other words, the mind is inclined naturally to grasp the truth of the world. — Joshs

Mahayanis and their fans keep saying that. It's not true, though. It's that Theravada doesn't believe that one can save another, and this goes back to the workings of kamma. Not some kind of "selfishness" or "small-mindedness" or some such as Mahayana likes to accuse Theravada of.
— baker

I believe that Wayfarer meant that the end goal for Theravada is a state in which the 'enlightened' can't help other sentient beings. Buddhas and arhats can help sentient beings while alive but they can't keep help after 'Nirvana without reminder'. — boundless

Surely @Wayfarer will answer for himself. But this was about a pretty standard theme: According to Theravada, one person cannot save another, ever, one person cannot do the work for another, ever. And this goes back to intention being kamma, and kamma being what matters; and one person cannot intend for another, instead of another.

Personally, I consider Mahayana and Theravada separate religions. They of course share a lot in common but they have radically different beliefs.

Absolutely.

Yes, that's a good source. However, I don't see how a disagreement about rebirth would disqualify one to try and see for himself or herself.

Not disqualify, but certainly demotivate. From what I've seen, people who believe this one lifetime is all there is just don't explore much Buddhism; they just don't. Apparently they're so put off by any mention of rebirth that they lose their ability to pay attention or something.

Personally, I think that if rebirth isn't real, then also the Buddhist (of all schools) conceptions of Nibbana/Nirvana, anatta/anatman and so on become incoherent.

I've seen some Buddhists who hold a view that rebirth applies on a moment-to-moment basis (and not to multiple, serial births); and the proponents of the "momentariness" view have put in considerable effort to interpret all teachings in line with that (recasting some of those that don't seem to fit as "metaphorical", others as "later additions", and yet others as "corruptions").

However, I can understand why someone who can't accept the traditional belief of rebirth might still want to achieve 'the mind at peace' that Buddhist traditions promise (a mind that is freed from all hatred, anxiety etc is certainly a desirable goal not just for Buddhist). At the end of the day, despite what I have said before, I do believe that the 'only way to know' is actually try to practice and see for oneself. Philosophical and exegetical arguments can get us up to a point.

Exactly, as I've been trying to tell the OP.

Yes, I tend to agree with you that without the belief in rebirth long-term practice is difficult to maintain and one might become convinced of one or all these things. However, since we are in a philosophical forum, I would point out that this outcome is not logically necessary.

Of course. There are also those who just stick around, go through the motions with the "practice", and who don't seem to be all that concerned about the doctrinal stuff one way or another.

It is arguable that without a strong motivator, one can't sustain the practice (such was my case, just to make an example) but that doesn't imply it is the necessary outcome.

Or else, one may realize that motivation is not enough and that one also needs the right external conditions. In my case, I realized there was a limit as to what I can attain, spiritually/religiously, given my current physical, social, and economic status, and that persisting longer and trying to push further would just be a case of diminishing returns.

To an outsider, this makes sense. To an insider or a prospective insider, it doesn't.
— baker
That sounds like a kind of argument from authority. The authority in this instance is the insider, whose world the outsider could not possibly understand. I'm not convinced. — Tom Storm

Again, I'm interested in looking at things from the perspective of a (prospective) insider, and specifically, "What would it be like and what would it take to become a practitioner and to obtain the promised results?"

You seem to be interested in some objective, external analysis of the situation and people. It's not clear why.

How did we suddenly arrive at stake burning?

A seeker has to know the history and the formal power that the leaders have in the religion he's approaching, even if there are at first unpalatable aspects to this.

Whether a given pope had doubts or not, in history he could make whatever decision he wanted, which shows the abuse of power is inherent in the authority, not the doubting.

Were the Inquisition and the Crusades an abuse of power, or a mere use of power? What if the popes in the past did what they did because they were "further along than you"?

A seeker needs to come to terms with such things if he wants to explore a religion, or else he's up for some very rude awakenings.

Well, this doesn’t really address the issue of whether holding doubts within a belief system is good or bad.

For me, this has never been the issue in this discussion. I think it's inevitable at least for a seeker or a beginner to have doubts. The question is what to do about them, how to make sense of them and of one's prospective membership in a religion.

What you describe just seems to be common human behavior. But what do you mean by a 'double standard'? Are you referencing a hypocrisy,

or a bifurcated belief system with different practices for each stream? An elitist stream and an ordinary or folk stream?

Yes.

Who is punished for not holding a particular belief today, except by faiths with narrow, intolerant, and fundamentalist belief systems?

The punishment doesn't have to be in the form of whipping or hanging. The more common form of punishment is to slowly push the doubting person out of the group, without this ever being made explicit and instead made to look like the person's own choice and fault.

As an aside, isn't it the case that in hierarchies there is often a large gulf between the top and lower levels in terms of belief? Sometimes this is simply a question of education and sophistication. Beliefs about the nature of God, built from classical theism and held by an educated Jesuit, will be completely different from the God beliefs built from the theistic personalism of a common believer.

Of course. The thing is that if you're a person of a particular category, then in a religion, a level of the spiritual attaiment possible for you will be ascribed to you and you will be treated accordingly, regardless of what you want or know or do. For example, if you're poor and female and new to the religion, you'll be considered as something of a spiritual retard and treated like this (at least metaphorically, but possibly physically, too). And this is by people you are supposed to depend on for your spiritual guidance. So what do you do? Do you accept that they are "further along than you" and that you need to accept their treatment (however abusive you find it)?

We're talking here about people who go up to the pulpit, who sit in front of others, and who tell others that the teachings of their religion are true, and who hold it against others and judge them and even expell them for not professing such belief. And yet these same people in positions of power, in other situations, go ahead and admit to having doubts.
— baker

I’m at somewhat of a loss here—if you’re pearl clutching over that, all I can think is you haven’t been around much in Buddhist circles. — praxis

Well, I don't deny that I am "overly sensitive" and a "weakling" ...

Although my main issue is that the kind of group dynamics sketched out above and which I witnessed in various religious/spiritual settings are a waste of time, at the very least. It's like willingly entering a dysfunctional relationship.

Have a read of the suttas contained in SN 15. Belief in literal rebirth was indeed seen as a motivator.
— boundless

You haven’t read the chapters and can’t point out where it says that?
— praxis

Ok, I'll quote some of those suttas. I leave the judgment for the reader. It seems to me evident that these suttas treat the belief of literal rebirth in samsara as a strong motivator for practice but I'll let the reader to judge for himself/herself (again, in order to avoid misunderstanding, I don't think that this proves that rebirth is logically necessary to get enlightnened). — boundless

Or just read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's The Truth of Rebirth And Why It Matters for Buddhist Practice.
He conveniently compiled a great number of arguments and sources.


One thing I would point out, if we're talking about taking belief in rebirth as a motivator for practice is this: The practice to make an end to suffering as worked out in the Nible Eightfold Path is something that requires a lot of work, a lot of time; and as such, for many people, probably more than one lifetime. It's a multi-lifetime project.

If, however, one limits oneself to just this one current lifetime, then enlightenment is an extremely uncertain possibility, since death can happen at any time and all of one's efforts can be cut short without coming to fruition. The belief that there is only this one lifetime is actually demotivating as far as practice for enlightenment goes.

So what tends to happen in Western Buddhist circles where people believe there is only this one lifetime is this:

1. People believe nibbana (a complete cessation of suffering) is impossible.
2. People believe nibbana is a matter of luck.
3. People believe nibbana requires very little work and can be attained easily.
4. People believe they are already enlightened.
5. People believe they will certainly become enlightened, at the very least at the moment of death.

None of this is, of course, in line with the traditional Buddhist teachings, nor is it motivating for practice.

The 'framework of understanding' is that of 'depedendent origination' (Pratītyasamutpāda) - the sequence of stages which culminate in birth (and hence sickness, old age and death). — Wayfarer

But this holds only within Buddhism and in regard to Buddhism. Of course, Buddhists will possibly say it applies to everyone, but outsiders to Buddhism aren't likely to think so.

I'm sensing @Joshs is looking for something that requires neither insider knowledge nor insider status
in order to make sense.

The aim of Theravada Buddhism is cessation tout courte, with no mind to the suffering of others. — Wayfarer

Mahayanis and their fans keep saying that. It's not true, though. It's that Theravada doesn't believe that one can save another, and this goes back to the workings of kamma. Not some kind of "selfishness" or "small-mindedness" or some such as Mahayana likes to accuse Theravada of.

Hence the centrality of compassion in Mahāyāna Buddhism.

Oddly enough, religions that focus heavily on compassion also like to balance this out with cruelty otherwise...

The intention of 'secular Buddhism' aims to retain the therapeutic and emotionally remedial aspects of Buddhism, without the soteriological framework within which it was originally posed. Which is all well and good, as far as it goes, but from the Buddhist perspective, that is not necessarily very far!

Yes.

I am confident Buddhism is exactly what it takes itself to be, a way to end suffering. The issue for me is what framework of understanding it uses to define suffering and its alleviation. There are those who see suffering through a very different lens, such that ending it is not only not desirable but also an incoherent notion. — Joshs

Yes. And?

It's not clear what you want in all this.
Are you just doing research for your writing work?
Do you actually, personally, want to relieve your suffering?
Do you want to "know how things really are"?


If you want the traditional Buddhist framework of understanding it uses to define suffering and its alleviation, then I can tell you that as beings who are not Buddhas (not "rightfully self-enlightened") we cannot know that for ourselves. The traditional image is that of a handful of leaves; ie. what the Buddha teaches is like a mere handful of leaves, compared to all the leaves that are in the forest, which is the image of the extent of the Buddha's full knowledge. As we are born within a current Buddha's dispensation, we are bound to have limited knowledge and we are bound to have to follow in the Buddha's footsteps, in the sense that we cannot blaze our own trail to enlightenment. We are unable to know and do what a "rightfully self-enlightened" being is able to know and do. -- Thus says the tradition.

For a modern Westerner, a basic assumption is that knowledge is in some essential way liberal and democratic and that everyone can potentially attain to it, regardless of socio-economic status. But traditional cultures don't make this assumption, and ordinary people are actually expected not to wonder why and not to make reply (and just give money and do favors and die, to be a bit cynical). The metaphysical framework in which understanding in traditional cultures works has hierarchy and authoritarianism as essential components.


Also, for a framework of understanding Buddhism uses to define suffering and its alleviation you could look to the grand Buddhist meta-text, the Abhidhamma, which goes into details about such things in a systematic way.

But, again, I sense that this is not what you're looking for. You seem to be looking for some kind of neutral, objective, impersonal, depersonalized, suprareligious account of things. I'll contend that no such account exists.

This is exactly what the 'you must completely adhere to the teachings or you are going to get nowhere' folks in the thread, and the usual mindset I see when I have asked similar questions elsewhere in the past, are like imo. Fundamental uncritical faith or you are not practising at all. — unimportant

You misunderstand.

It's a case of simple causality: In order to get A, you need to do B.

You, on the other hand, seem like someone who, say, wants to make an egg omelette, but refuses to use eggs. Or like someone who claims he wants to know the taste of an apple, but refuses to actually taste an apple.

Nobody is telling you you must do B, this isn't Christianity or Islam.
You are perfectly free not to do B.
All they are saying is that if you want to get to A, you need to do B.

I just realised this is actually really ironic and the opposite of what the Buddha himself suggested. In his sutras he would talk about how you should not believe him, but practice and see for yourself through experience.

People keep saying this. You'll need to provide an actual quote from the Canon for this.

Also didn't he become enlightened by refuting all the myriad systems he tried before and looking for his own way?

That's your Western take on it.
He didn't "refute them", he later realized where they went wrong.

How far would he have gotten if he followed these 'total faith in one school or nothing' folks?

By following the other teachers, he got to the doorstep of nibbana.

The problem is that you refer to the Buddha as some kind of authority or a worthy role model -- when it pleases you. But other times, and regarding other traditional aspects of the Buddha, you dismiss.
This Humpty Dumpty attitude is tiresome, at the very least.

Well then, whatcha waiting for?!

People who promise to know the way to enlightenment are a dime a dozen, including those who believe one doesn't need the "supernatural elements". It's on you to take the next step, though, which is actually what seems to be at issue here.
— baker

Making the post, and studying religions and the common threads does not count as a step? — unimportant

No. It's procrastination.
You clearly say you want "enlightenment", but all you do is putter around, spinning your wheels.

Not sure why baker has derailed the thread into some back and forth about how leaders should act in positions of power? I don't see how it is related to the OP, which is asking how a lay seeker should find their own path. If so please 'enlighten' me. — unimportant

See my reply to Tom Storm above. My posts are not about how leaders should act, but about how a seeker can understand the actions of those leaders when they preach one thing and expect it from the lowly others, but they themselves don't adhere to what they preach. Which is exactly about the problem of how a seeker can find their own path.

Of course. But you overstate this. They might take issue with some or several things, not all things. I would have serious concerns with someone who is 100% accepting of any philosophy or religion. — Tom Storm

To an outsider, this makes sense. To an insider or a prospective insider, it doesn't.

You pick an unlikely one. But a Pope who doubts aspects of doctrine and practice is natural.

Really? And you don't mind submitting to such a doubting pope? You don't mind if such a pope, being the Grand Inquisitor, orders people like you (including you) to be burnt at the stakes for heresy?

People without doubt tend toward fundamentalism or zealotry. Certainty, and deference to power, are seductive for certain people: acolytes and followers, most notably. Certainty is also the perfect mindset if you wish to practice a little mass murder. — Tom Storm

You (and @praxis) keep taking this in the direction I don't want it to go, and you keep ignoring my direction.

What I want is to put yourself in the shoes of a seeker, an outsider even, or at most a beginner, who shows up in a religious organization and witnesses there are double standards: those higher up in the hierarchy don't have to act in line with the tenets of the religious organization, but those lower in the hierarchy do, and are punished if they don't. Now what do you make of it?

This is the kind of dynamics that tends to crop up in various human communities, not just religious ones. It happens in society in general where aristocrats can routinely get away with murder (somehow, noblesse doesn't oblige, it absolves). In big businesses, the higher-ups can do all kinds of shit and get away with it, while the ordinary employees pay the price. Parents get to do things that children are punished for -- such as lying or using physical force.

How is it that morality is so amoebic, so status-dependent? How does one make sense of it? Specifically in the context of a spiritual search?

An honorable person will simply not take on positions of power in a religious organization whose tenets they doubt.
— baker

That’s obviously your strong opinion. — Tom Storm

Really? You believe than an honorable person will take on positions of power in a religious organization whose tenets they doubt?

A lack of doubt is a red flag for me. — Tom Storm

You like a pope who doubts God exists, for example?

@Tom Storm

Why not, or what makes it dishonorable? — praxis

Like I said: Remember, we're talking here not about an ordinary seeker, but about people who attain positions of power within religious organizations.

We're talking here about people who go up to the pulpit, who sit in front of others, and who tell others that the teachings of their religion are true, and who hold it against others and judge them and even expell them for not professing such belief. And yet these same people in positions of power, in other situations, go ahead and admit to having doubts.

In other words, it's a case of double standards: Those in positions of power don't have to take the religion seriously, but those lower in the hierarchy do.

You don't have a problem with that?

I don’t see how hiding their doubts would indicate a greater seriousness. If they’re serious about preserving the religion then yeah, I suppose hiding one’s doubts about it could show a serious effort to towards the conservation of it. For a serious spiritual seeker, on the other hand, questioning and doubt may come with the territory. — praxis

Who said anything about "hiding" one's doubts?

An honorable person will simply not take on positions of power in a religious organization whose tenets they doubt.

Remember, we're talking here not about an ordinary seeker, but about people who attain positions of power within religious organizations.

Honestly I think the salvation is found in the limitations or order that religion provides. The grand narratives and moral codes offer a sense security and meaning. And of course comfort is found in a unified community. — praxis

I actually don't doubt that Buddhist practice (as defined and described in traditional Buddhism) leads to the complete cessation of suffering. It's just that nobody in their right mind could want that. For all practical intents and purposes, Buddhism is basically saying, "No man, no problem," ie. "conceptually annihilate yourself and you will not suffer, for there will be no one to suffer". One cannot, in one's currently unenlightened position, intelligibly and consistently want such a thing.

Can enlightenment be achieved without appeal to any supernatural elements?
/.../
I suppose a definition of enlightenment in the current discussion would be appropriate. I would just put it as finding inner peace in this life to get rid of the usual gnawing existential anxiety of 'birth, old age, sickness and death'. Nothing more or less. — unimportant

Well then, whatcha waiting for?!

People who promise to know the way to enlightenment are a dime a dozen, including those who believe one doesn't need the "supernatural elements". It's on you to take the next step, though, which is actually what seems to be at issue here.

All of which is premised on the assumption that Buddhism cannot be what it describes itself to be, which is, a way to the total ending of suffering. Not amelioration or adjustment. — Wayfarer

@Joshs What do you have to say to this?
Do you agree with Wayfarer's assessment of your stance?

They sound like honest people to me. — praxis

To me, they sound like people who are not serious about their religion.

I’ve always thought that modern Western readers supplement ancient Eastern wisdom with ideas that are strictly modern,

and in so doing are taking what I call a nostalgic position. — Joshs

Yes, to the first part, but it's not clear what you mean by the second part.

The nostalgic position asserts that some individual or culture in our distant past ‘got it right' by arriving at a way of understanding the nature of things that we drifted away from for many centuries and are just now coming back to. So the latest and most advanced philosophical thinking of the West today is just a belated return to what was already discovered long ago.

Yes.

I dont buy the nostalgic position. I think it is only when we interpret ancient thought in a superficial way that it appears their ideas were consonant with modern phenomenology and related approaches. Why are we so prone to misreading the ancients this way? I believe this comes from emphasizing only the aspect of their thought which appears familiar to we postmoderns (recursive becoming) and ignoring the crucial hidden dimension (a pre-Platonic , pre-Christian universalism).

Yes.

/.../
The metaphysics behind Indra's web, the Tao Te Ching and related teachings as they were intended two thousand years ago are so profoundly alien to contemporary Western philosophical thinking that they run the risk of being mistaken as profoundly similar and compatible.

Agreed.

Whereas Postmodern views of change and becoming originate from a radically self-subverting groundless ground, Buddhist becoming rests on a cosmology of universalistic , sovereign normative grounds (what it is that unifies the infinite relational changes within Indra's web). Unlike Platonic and Christian metaphysics, this sovereign ground is not made explicit. The ancients were not able to articulate this ground in the universalistic language of a philosophy.

I'm not sure they were "unable"; in terms of the Pali Canon, the operating concept is "an inconceivable beginning, "a beginning point is not discernible".
A standard formulation goes like this:
“From an inconceivable beginning comes the wandering-on. A beginning point is not discernible, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on."
E.g. here in SN 15:13.

I have heard several explanations as to why the teachings don't say explicitly "why and where did it all start", and some of those explanations amount to "it's not necessary to know this in order to practice".

But it authorizes and justifies conformist, repressive social ethics and political practices which have persisted for two millennia in Buddhist cultures.

They are "conformist, repressive" only from a particular modern perspective. The Asians themselves traditionally don't think those ethics and practices are repressive or conformist; on the contrary, they believe that people are just "getting what they deserve".
There are, for example, ethics and practices in traditionally Buddhist cultures that a Westerner would call misogynistic, but the Asians don't think so.

So what do you make of that?

Postmodernism emerges from a self-undermining, groundless critique of Western metaphysics, whereas Buddhism often presupposes a cosmic order (e.g., karma, Dharma, Indra's net) that is anything but contingent. Many ancient philosophies, including Buddhism, Taoism, and Vedic thought, operate within a framework of normative cosmology: an ordered, purposeful universe with implicit or explicit ethical imperatives. This is starkly different from postmodernism's rejection of fixed foundations.

Buddhist metaphysics (e.g., dependent origination, Indra's net) was not a proto-deconstruction but a cosmological model of interdependence, often tied to hierarchical, tradition-bound societies. The ethical and political dimensions of Buddhism (e.g., monastic conformity, merit-based hierarchies) reflect this embedded universalism, which contrasts sharply with postmodernism's anti-foundationalism.

The Taoist wu-wei or Buddhist anatta (no-self) are not mere parallels to postmodern fluidity but are situated within teleological or soteriological frameworks that postmodernism explicitly rejects. Buddhist societies, like all traditional cultures, have often enforced conformity, hierarchy, and static social orders, precisely because their metaphysics assumes a normative cosmic blueprint. This is a far cry from the emancipatory aims of much postmodern thought, even if both might critique the "ego" or "fixed identity.

To get back to the beginning of your post and my reply to it: I have found that the most radical thing one can do, as far as Buddhism is concerned, is to be a Westerner and explicitly approach (or at least attempt to approach it) the Asian way. Show up in some Buddhist venue, whether a Western or Asian one, and show that you take for granted that the Buddhist tradition is correct, and, if you're lucky, you'll be ridiculed. If not so lucky, you'll be considered disrespectful, "spreading lies about Buddhism" and such.

It's bizarre, really. In my experience, the most rebellious, radical thing you can do is to openly have no qualms about kamma and rebirth -- and Buddhists East and West will at least dislike you.
This is what I would call the nostalgic position: to take the Buddhist tradition at face value, along with all the things that are utterly unpalatable to modern Western consumers (!) of Buddhism, but, oddly enough, to Easterners too.

You said "modern Western readers supplement ancient Eastern wisdom with ideas that are strictly modern". Next to the ones you mentioned already, I'll add democratic and liberal ideas. Which are just not there in the tradition, yet esp. Western Buddhists tend to read them into the teachings, and get offended if you point this out. In so doing, they are actually enacting that very authoritarian, hierarchial mentality that they nominally so vehemently oppose.

And even after all that time, they didn't move one bit, they had the same doubts and questions after all that time as they had when they first got involved.
— baker
There are things in religion that no one knows and there are no answers to. — praxis

Perhaps. But when people make a point of considering themselves members and representatives of a religion and even attain positions of power in said religion's organizations, and yet openly declare their doubts about the basic tenets of said religion -- then one has to wonder what is going on and what kind of people they are.

"What makes many applications of artificial intelligence so disturbing is that they don’t expand our mind’s capacity to think, but outsource it…" — Questioner

This is that cultist aspect to the use of AI.

Just like many people like to outsource their thinking to cults, so many people like to outsource their thinking to AI.

This speaks to the fairly common human desire to escape responsibility for one's own life and actions. That desire to be comfortably numb, and to approach life as a matter of going through the motions.

I am grateful that I don't have to do my laundry by hand, beating it on rocks in the river. — BC

Wait until you piss and shit your pants on a regular, or at least a semi-regular basis. Those things need to be washed first manually, and in cold water, at that. That is, if you want to keep the clothes for a while and prevent your washing machine from going all foul (despite using special detergents).

Which brings me to my point: with the ever wider implementation of AI, it looks like humans will be left with doing the dirty jobs, literally.