If only it'd enable virtual diarrhoea.

But who is doing the marketing — Gnomon

Self-help authors, wannabe gurus who try to borrow the legitimacy and authority of a religion without actually promoting that religion.

Buddhism appears to be especially vulnerable to this type of exploitation, probably largely due to its foundational scriptures being unknown and not readily available for a long time.

And what effect were you trying to induce in me by pointing this out?

Problem of evil is a bad argument for atheism, it has been defeated and therefore using it just makes atheism look wrong. So if you want to win debates don't use it. Find better ones.

Why does evil exist? Well there is two kinds of evil: Evil done by humans happens because of free-will and there is justice in the afterlife. Evil done by nature happens because this is creation not heaven. Any physical creation is going to contain good and bad. Changing it will just create a new set of goods and bads. — Miller

And then, of course, there's the option that what some people believe is "evil", is actually good.

So, my impression is that most self-reference is useless. — T Clark

Self-referentiality points to our tendency to conflate the thing with our thoughts about said thing.
Also, more generally, it points to the possibility of saying one thing and meaning two things.
(Of course, this works because we take into consideration other statements that contextualize the one under scrutiny, but we do not verbalize those others.)

I'm getting out of this discussion. — T Clark

*sigh*
Hey, I don't even have the time to turn on the computer every day!

People who hold other people to blame are asking to be treated like children. — T Clark

Interesting. On the contrary, I find that usually, when people blame others, they do so in an effort to get the upper hand in the situation, to obtain the position of power.

Wayfarer is just sticking to one narrow definition of theism and seemingly refusing to accept that there are broader meanings beyond belief in 'a creator' or 'deity'. — I like sushi

Hence, Elvis is god, and Elvis fans are theists ...

It's possible to be so open-minded that your brain falls out.

Usually we play by the rules of civil discourse. They do not. If they break the rules, we need to be able to respond appropriately and in timely manner. — tim wood

How?

Do iIllustrate this on an example of your choosing.

It never will be perfect, but democracy has worked up until now somehow. — ssu

Or maybe things have somehow worked out so far _despite_ democracy.

I guess the point is to notice the vicious-circles where can really go downhill compared to those times that were just "more restless" than others. In my view open discussion in a democracy upholds the system. Democracy is the best safety valve we have.

I only need to look at the situation in the country I live in, and I see that democracy doesn't work. In fact, it seems that it is precisely because we have a democracy that the current mess has come about.

I think that what matters most for a functioning society is that people (everyone, those in positions of power included) are honorable, regardless of what the officially declared system of government is.

Because when people are not honorable, things go wrong.

It's also the best way we have to legitimize the state as not many of us believe in monarchs having been given the rule by God.

In the end, it's probably better to believe that monarchs have been given the rule by God, as opposed to having no other choice but to conclude that might makes right.

Worth doing something about it, at least getting informed, wouldn't you agree?

And be concerned, but powerless.

Calling Buddhism "realistic" is clearly an attempt to make Buddhism more marketable, more palatable to Westerners.
— baker
This thread seems to be arguing about different meanings of the label "Buddhism", as-if it is a homogenized belief & practice system. But, in fact, Buddhism is just as fragmented as Christianity, in terms of both creeds and rituals. The most basic division is between Theravada (orthodox) and Mahayana (heterodox). Then there is the range from Tibetan (traditional superstitions) to Zen (no doctrine, just doing). Some of these Buddhisms are somewhat "realistic", while others are more idealistic, and a few are just Wacko. So, for simplicity and accuracy, I think we need to stipulate whether we are talking about the various popular religions, or about the core philosophical (highbrow) worldview. In my opinion, it would be more profitable to discuss the latter on a Philosophical Forum. — Gnomon

No need for such consideration. The OP is talking about Buddhism being "realistic" in the popular, vernacular sense of "realistic", namely, "commonsensical", "practical". It's a catchy self-help term.
Hence my reply.

That seems to be very much open to interpretation to me. — Janus

By all means, interpret.

Do explain why ephemerality makes life worth living.

Rare and fleeting doesn't automatically make something worthwhile. There are many horrible rare diseases, many rare destructive cosmic events, etc. and you wouldn't say that they make life worth living. They just don't.

So whence the idea that rare and fleeting makes life worth living?

"Life's a Bitch and Then You Die"; and then God sends your ass to hell because suicide is wrong. — Wheatley

I dare you to provide actual primary religious scriptural references for the claim that suicide is wrong.

I completely disagree, because no one really know whom said what, thousands of years ago and it doesn’t even matter! — Present awareness

Then why preface your sentences with "the Buddha said" and such?

What matters most are the ideas and ways of looking at things, regardless if Buddha, Jesus or any other wise man may have said them. If you read something that rings true, regardless of the source, who cares where it comes from? It may not be right, it may not be true, but you and only you, are the final judge on whether it has value!

So my earlier point about clinging to the desire for pleasure still stands.
You're not actually letting things go -- things such as romantic relationships, delicious foods, etc. -- you're just using them up one by one, all along relying that there will be an endless supply of them. Sure, you can let go of this piece of cake after eating some of it, but can you give up desiring to eat delicious food altogether?

The problem is that it's just not enough. Any fulfillment I experience is dwarfed by suffering. — Nicholas Mihaila

Such is the nature of seeking pleasure.

We are all like flowers, doomed to wither and be forgotten, but this does not make life meaningless - it would be meaningless if it lasted forever - but it is precious and meaningful because it is unique and fleeting. — unenlightened

You haven't actually done an actual analysis as to whether our life is unique, have you?

And fleeting -- a rabies infection or a tsunami devastating the country you live in, for example, are fleeting too, but you wouldn't say that they make life worth living.

I make good money and can afford to do what I like, but there’s nothing I want. — Nicholas Mihaila

I wish I had your problems!

I think that it is dangerous if in a democracy real issues aren't openly discussed and rhetoric not adhered to facts and reality but to public sentiment and feelings takes over. — ssu

What's the use of discussing a problem if no workable solution is in sight, or worse, when there's reason to believe that there is no workable solution at all?

But I have problems with the use of "interpreting."
I think it implies a degree of intent or reflection that isn't normally present. I think it can also suggest that we misinterpret, i.e. that we're so encumbered by mental, cultural, social, physical, factors that we're incapable of making reasonable judgments regarding our interactions with the rest of the world. — Ciceronianus

Rather, the salient point is that perception is an active, deliberate process.

Indeed, we normally don't see ourselves that way. We tend to think that perception is something that "just happens" without us having anything to do with it.

Yet already popular phrases like "People see what they want to see" suggest there is a folk understanding that perception isn't the passive, reactive process we generally believe it to be.

That may appear to be the case, but appearances in this if not in every case are deceptive. — unenlightened

Then sketch out how it is appearances that deceive us.

A naive realist talks about moral issues with the same certainty as he talks about tables and chairs.
— baker

That's not the impression I've gleaned. Nor is there any obvious reason a realist would think along these lines. — Banno

His complete epistemic self-confidence is that reason.
Once you see yourself as the arbiter of the truth about other entities, what's there to stop you, except perhaps a little common decency?

(Of course, with the proviso that to a naive realist, "seeing oneself as the arbiter of the truth about other entities" is not an intelligible sentence.)


- - -

Are you saying all moral realists do that? If so, why is that the case? — Ciceronianus

You mean naive realists?
See above.

When I was a young man, I studied Buddhism in general and Zen Buddhism in particular. It was long ago, so I’m unable to reference any particular book I’ve read at the time — Present awareness

For every "Buddha said" one should have a canonical reference. One wouldn't want to spread as "the word of the Buddha" something for which one doesn't have a reference. One wouldn't want to put words into his mouth. So one relies on a bonafide source for his words.

, but I came away with the impression that the Buddha’s insights were simple and yet profound. Whatever has happened in the past, cannot be changed and it makes no difference whether we accept it or resist it. Whatever might happen in the future, has not yet happened, so why worry about imagined outcomes? The only moment we have any power at all, to do anything, is here and now.

Well, that's not so profound, that's pretty much pop psychology. It's also so general it's not specifically Buddhist either.

If one can cultivate the ability to live in the present moment and let things go, it will be a very useful attitude to have, at the moment of our own death.

You said earlier:

If one may simply enjoy the moment as it comes, without attachment, there will be a willingness to let things go, once they are gone. — Present awareness

But in all this, there's one thing you're firmly clinging on to: your desire to enjoy sensual pleasures.
With this desire firmly in place, death will be horrible. Things will be gone, but your desire for them will be unsatisfied. That's dying thirsty and hungry, cold and desiring warmth, in pain and desiring wellbeing.

Normalization of deviance is a term used by the American sociologist Diane Vaughan to describe the process in which deviance from correct or proper behavior becomes normalized in a corporate culture.[1]

Vaughan defines this as a process where a clearly unsafe practice comes to be considered normal if it does not immediately cause a catastrophe: "a long incubation period [before a final disaster] with early warning signs that were either misinterpreted, ignored or missed completely".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance

obliged, thereby, to make any particular moral judgmen — Ciceronianus

Not obliged. Where did you get that?

Like I said,

A naive realist talks about moral issues with the same certainty as he talks about tables and chairs. — baker

If one may simply enjoy the moment as it comes, without attachment, there will be a willingness to let things go, once they are gone. — Present awareness

Do provide a canonical reference for this.

But our interaction with the rest of the world establishes that our perception of it
is valid enough for there to be no concern, except perhaps for those who are naive enough to think otherwise. — Ciceronianus

The problem with naive realism doesn't apply as long as we talk about tables and chairs (except for the rare cases of optical, auditory and other illusions).

The problem is thst a naive realist takes for granted that the same that goes for observing tables and chairs also goes for humans, for moral/ethical issues. To a naive realist, a sentence like
This chair has four legs
is epistemically the same as
Women are essentially inferior to men
or
Henry is an evil person.
or
Witches should be burnt at the stakes.

A naive realist talks about moral issues with the same certainty as he talks about tables and chairs. Do you see any problem with that?

their own enemy fiercer than even them themselves, because armed in right. — tim wood

? Can you rephrase that? It's not clear what you mean.

What exactly are you wondering about?

Another example: A few years back, a minister in the Croatian government was found to be involved in some illegal business. He was investigated by the police. Several other politicians and ministers (who were from other parties) called for him to step down. What did the prime minister do? He removed those ministers from office, on account of not supporting their colleague.

It's how right-wing politics works.

I have lost most of the faith that I once had in human decency. These days, even when I meet a person who seems what you might call "nice", I find myself thinking, "yeah, this is just the mask he/she shows to the world". — Michael Zwingli

You do realize the absurd irony of talking about this with people, right?


Anyway, the way I see it, your problem is a case of simplificationism, the desire to have things categorized in neat boxes, with neat labels, wanting things to be either this or that. It's a common human tendency.

Early Buddhism goes against that tendency, and this is another misgiving that not just a few people have about Buddhism. Often, Early Buddhism expects one to think in very different categories than one is used to, and that can be alienating. For example, people tend to expect that a religion/spirituality will take a firm stance on human nature (whether humans are "essentially good" or "essentially bad"), but Early Buddhism doesn't hold that the term "human nature" is meaningful to begin with.

You should consider if that might be something like a self-fulfilling prophecy, or self-reinforcing, at any rate.

I think the problem you're having, if you don't mind me saying, is that you find it impossible to conceive of any motivation beyond self-interest. — Wayfarer

Rather, the problem is that he doesn't seem to conceive of a life _with_ that insight in it. It seems a rather common problem.

Look at people in strife.
I will tell how
I experienced
terror:
Seeing people floundering
like fish in small puddles,
competing with one another—
as I saw this,
fear came into me.
The world was entirely
without substance.
All the directions
were knocked out of line.
Wanting a haven for myself,
I saw nothing that wasn’t laid claim to.
Seeing nothing in the end
but competition,
I felt discontent.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp4_15.html


This actually speaks of a type of misgivings about Buddhism, and why some people find fault with the Buddha, saying he gave up on humanity too soon and that his outlook was too grim (and why they feel compelled to ascribe to him fancier motivations and views).

This is where the old spat between Mahayana and Theravada is, again, instructive. Namely, Mahayana accuses Theravada of being "selfish".

But the crux of the matter is really delusions of grandeur, seeking pleasure in believing oneself to be morally superior (whatever that means in any particular social context).


Further, "selfishness" is a complex term, confusingly, misleadingly complex (but at the same time, conveniently so). We can conceptualize the same behavior that is considered "selfish" as an expression of greed, lust, hatred, passion. But doing so is not acceptable in our culture. For one, because those terms hail back to our Christian heritage of the capital sins and we feel that is just baggage to get rid of. For two, conceptualizing it in terms of greed, lust, hatred, passion induces us to think what would be an example of not acting out of greed, lust, hatred, passion -- and this is something we are reluctant to do, because we can't see a way to act without greed, lust, hatred, passion. Or else, we resort to ad hoc judgments about what in particular passes for greed, lust, hatred, passion, and what doesn't, and those ad hoc judgments are bound to confuse us. So we use an amorphous term like "selfish" to air our criticism of someone, while at the same time, remain in the comfort of conceptual mist.

I mean, the horror of the realization that nobody will ever love or value me nearly as much as they do themselves. That in the end, myself, my life, and my hopes don't mean a shit to anybody else...that to them, I am just an object to be used in the achievement of their ends, and am otherwise utterly expendable. — Michael Zwingli

And you feel exactly the same way about other people. So you're even, and you can't cry foul.


What you say above is actually a view expressed in Early Buddhism:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Sāvatthī at Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. And on that occasion King Pasenadi Kosala had gone with Queen Mallikā to the upper palace. Then he said to her, “Mallikā, is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?”

“No, great king. There is no one dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?”

“No, Mallikā. There is no one dearer to me than myself.”

Then the king, descending from the palace, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, “Just now, lord, when I had gone with Queen Mallikā to the upper palace, I said to her, ‘Mallikā, is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?’

“When this was said, she said to me, ‘No, great king. There is no one dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?’

“When this was said, I said to her, ‘No, Mallikā. There is no one dearer to me than myself.’”

Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:

Searching all directions
with your awareness,
you find no one dearer
than yourself.

In the same way, others
are thickly dear to themselves.

So you shouldn’t hurt others
if you love yourself.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/Ud/ud5_1.html

Note: This is a king asking his wife whom she loves the most. He surely expected that she would say that she loves him, his majesty the most. But no. The Buddha then acknowledges that this is indeed the state of affairs in the world.

I think that the essence of an act is determined by what motivates it — Michael Zwingli

Kamma is intention, is sometimes said.

As I noted above, however, I have become quite misanthropic over a period of years, — Michael Zwingli

Acknowledging that humans are a mixed bag, a mixure of good and bad is not misanthropy, it's realistic. But it is a view that can be quite difficult to live with, without proper contextualization. So people generally tend toward one or the other extreme: ie. they believe that people are "essentially good", or they believe that people are "essentially bad". Early Buddhism offers a way to transcend this duality altogether.

I wonder too if finding pleasure in, say, anonymously donating money to a charity is the same type of pleasure as finding pleasure in murdering children. — Tom Storm

Much to their chagrin, scientists will have to agree that to the brain, the above two pleasures are the same. And if the brain is the measure of all things ...

Hence the doctrine of inconceivable one-ness and difference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achintya_Bheda_Abheda

Sure, suffering is okay -- as long as it's not you who has to suffer.
— baker

Alas! Few understand this. The question is why? — TheMadFool

For one, there is in our culture barely any setting in which it would be appropriate to talk about suffering. One cannot talk about it at the watercooler at work, not at the family dinner, not in a cafe with friends. Not at a baseball game. Doctors generally don't have time for any actual discussions, nor do priests or monks. One must also always be alert so as to not give other people reason to doubt one's mental wellbeing. We're left with self-help groups, but there, the group discussion is guided by whoever happens to lead the group, which limits the scope.

There is something perverse in talking about suffering -- regardless of the setting -- and then going back to one's life (even more so if it's a relatively comfortable life) as if nothing happened.
So it's no surprise people don't talk much about suffering, or mostly only in very superficial, sketchy ways.

Buddha stands out...like a sore thumb - he was able to, I surmise, actually feel the pain of other beings, both on earth and other worlds.

He once said "a good horse moves at the shadow of a whip." Too bad that's just a myth!

Well-trained animals understand hints.

"There is the case where a certain excellent thoroughbred person hears, 'In that town or village over there a man or woman is in pain or has died.' He is stirred & agitated by that. Stirred, he becomes appropriately resolute. Resolute, he both realizes with his body the highest truth and, having penetrated it with discernment, sees. This type of excellent thoroughbred person, I tell you, is like the excellent thoroughbred horse who, on seeing the shadow of the goad-stick, is stirred & agitated. Some excellent thoroughbred people are like this. And this is the first type of excellent thoroughbred person to be found existing in the world.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.113.than.html

The salient question is as to what is meant by "eternal joy". — Janus

“There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones notices:

“When this is, that is.

“From the arising of this comes the arising of that.

“When this isn’t, that isn’t.

“From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.

“In other words:

“From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.

“From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.

“From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.

“From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.

“From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.

“From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.

“From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.

“From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.

“From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.

“From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.

“From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

“Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications.

From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness.

From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form.

From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media.

From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact.

From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling.

From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving.

From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance.

From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming.

From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth.

From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease.

Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

“This is the noble method that he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out through discernment.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN10_92.html

Buddhism is about achieving ego death through right ontology. — Miller

I bet this is a Western conception as well, a Western reading of Mahayana.

Easterners generally don't see the "ego" as as problematic as Westerners do.

Is that really true? I mean, there really isn't anything being sold here in Buddhism apart for a way of living... — Shawn

Calling Buddhism "realistic" is clearly an attempt to make Buddhism more marketable, more palatable to Westerners.

But to have a better sense of how this is so, one must be familiar with Buddhism, so that one is aware of all the ways Buddhism is decidedly not realistic by Western standards.

(Even popular modern Western pseudo-Buddhist concotions are not realistic by Western standards.)

Although it seems there's something nastier about all this when it's a part of spirituality. — Tom Storm

Or maybe that's what religion/spirituality is all about!

In no other field of life is the mindfuck so complete and so pervasive as in religion/spirituality.

Your boss or a coworker can ruin your job, or even your career, but you can still have some semblance of a life after that, and could even recover fully. Or a romantic relationship can go awry. But not in religion/spirituality: because that has the potential to destroy you from the inside and the outside, never to recover.