If we however question what the conclusion of such a war looks like, we can aquire an interesting perpective. — Vishagan

The outcome of a war is not necessarily predictable. If the prospective parties to go to war are unequally powerful, then going to war to settle a dispute can only work in favor of one party and the result is clear in advance. Such a war is a meaningless waste of resources.

Also, the actual act of fighting a war can change the perspectives of the parties involved.


Relying on a war to determine who is right is a form of judicium Dei, an ancient judicial practice; it's going to war based on the premise that those who win are right or innocent. It's an attempt to absolve oneself from the responsibility of deciding in ethical matters, and instead relying on the principle might makes right.

I dont conclude from the article that one has to be a practitioner of a religion in order to combine the emic and the etic. — Joshs

You think you can have insider knowledge without being an insider?

I'm no expert but there are earlier Christians traditions of universalism - all people will be saved and no one burned. Hell being a more recent idea in the history of Christianity. David Bentley Hart writes a lot about universalism and the early beliefs from patristic sources. If you read Christian writers like Father Richard Rohr, Thomas Merton, Cynthia Bourgeault (and Hart) you can see there were and remain other traditions utterly opposed to the judgmental, punishing, evangelizing tradition so well known to us all. Contemplative prayer (essentially mediation) plays a big role in this expression of Christianity, along with allegorical readings of scripture (which Hart maintains were the original readings in most cases). — Tom Storm

And what use are those other traditions?

Unless a person feels "in their heart of hearts" that one of those other traditions is the right one, why on earth would anyone want to go anywhere near Christianity, other than out of fear of eternal suffering?

What you describe also strikes me as an awfully self-indulgent spirituality, apparently devised to be more palatable to people who are not all that interested in might makes right or who don't want those interests of theirs to show.

Or it means that religions are explanatory systems around which rituals and practices are constructed, and as such one can compare their explanatory structures from a critical distance. — Joshs

I refer to the emic-etic distinction.

Such as by reading Machiavelli?
— baker

Of course. The West has never produced anything other than Machiavelli. — Apollodorus

You misread my tone.

The topic was Westerners who went East and what they have to offer being an enhanced feeling of inner happiness and peace (and perhaps a certain degree of self-importance), all of which may be equally achieved with practices that are available closer to home.
I think that much of what goes on under the heading of "religion" and "spirituality" is actually right-winger mentality. I'm not sure it is even possible to be religious/spiritual without being a right-wing authoritarian.

It's not clear it's even possible to get "an enhanced feeling of inner happiness and peace" from studying Plato and acting accordingly. Or from following the principles in De Imitatione Christi. The Prince, on the other hand, seems a more likely source. It's not a conicidence that religious/spiritual people tend to associate with right-wing political options, and that right-wing political options tend to associate with religion, insofar said religion has been a majority religion in the region for a long time (and that can be Roman Catholicism in traditionally Catholic countries, or Buddhism in traditionally Buddhist countries). Most Western Buddhists I know fit the right-wing profile, some are even vocal supporters of Trump.

And India does not have its own Machiavellis.

I don't appreciate your tone and you ascribing to me some kind of secret admiration for the East, or specifically, India. I've thought about writing you a long list of things I resent about the East, or, specifically, India. I decided against doing so. But if you persist, I might change my mind.

My only interest is in the Pali Canon, and because of this, I'm actually resented by Easterners and Westerners alike.
This is the type of attitude one usually gets if one is interested in the Pali Canon.

Western spirituality has no equivalent to (serial) rebirth or reincarnation, thus making a person limited to what they have here and now and to what they can do here and now.
— baker

Not true.

Some are reborn in the womb, those who are wicked in the underworld, the righteous go to heaven, those who are pollutant-free are emancipated (Dhammapada 22.1)

This is exactly what Plato is saying in his dialogues like the Phaedo:

The impure souls wander until the time when they are bound again into a body by their desire for the corporeality that follows them around (81e).
The soul that has performed an impure act, by engaging in unjust killings or perpetrating other similar deeds goes to the lower regions of Hades where it suffers every deprivation until certain lengths of time have elapsed and the soul is by necessity born into the dwellings suitable for it (108c; 114a).
On the other hand, each soul that has passed through its life both purely and decently receives Gods as companions and as guides alike, and then dwells in the region appropriate to it (108c).
The pure soul goes off into what is similar to it, the unseen, the divine, immortal and wise, where after its arrival it can be happy, separated from wandering, unintelligence, fears, and other human evils ... (81a).

The passage is too short to be able to discern much from it. It seems to be compatible with some more secular, "generous" versions of Christian doctrine, but it's not clear how far it is compatible with Buddhism.

Platonism of course places less emphasis on reincarnation than Buddhism and Hinduism.

Folk Buddhism "places a lot of emphasis" on rebirth. In the suttas, rebirth is mostly part of cautionary tales.

But this is exactly what one would expect from a system that focuses on liberation.

How does one achive liberation according to Platonism?

Does Platonism have a teaching on dependent co-arising?

This is one of the reasons why I think that Buddhism’s ability to create an ideal society is more wishful thinking than reality.

What a strange idea. The Buddhism of the Pali suttas is not concerned with creating a society at all, ideal or not. It gives some pointers on how to make do when living in a society, but its aim is to leave the process of rebirth (and with it, social life) altogether. The Buddhism of the Pali suttas is, essentially, a self-terminating project.

In the course of this thread (or a similar theme), people have posted links to articles talking about secular Buddhism and how it can contribute to society, or help create a better one, and such.
I have no interest in such "Buddhism". I do not believe that Buddhism can in any way create a better society or help toward it. Given its origin, I think it's actually rather bizarre that it had become a major religion in the world.

The way I see it, in order to find spirituality you need to be spiritual yourself. In which case you will tend to find spirituality wherever you are.

I generally dislike the term "spiritual", "spirituality". I do not consider myself "spiritual". I feel sickened if I read about "spirituality".

Realistically speaking, “Nirvana” or whatever we choose to call it, is either (a) unattainable (which is the case in the vast majority)

What do you mean by "which is the case in the vast majority"? That most people cannot attain nirvana?

or (b) it is attainable through meditation or introspection.

If (b), then Nirvana or enlightenment cannot be something distant, or different, from the meditator. If it is experienced, then there must be an experiencer. And the experiencer is the consciousness that gradually disengages itself from lower forms of experience until it experiences itself.

We may not be in a position to say what is beyond that, but I think all forms of meditation, Platonist, Buddhist, or Hindu, must logically lead to a point where consciousness experiences itself qua consciousness, i.e., not thoughts or consciousness of things.

If we posit a reality other than consciousness, we need to explain what that reality is, which is an impossible task especially in non-materialist terms. Even if we were to deny the existence of consciousness we would merely confirm it, as consciousness is needed to conceive that denial.

Again, back to dependent co-arising.

Suffering is certainly central to Christianity. The goal of Christianity is salvation from suffering and death, which is also the goal of Platonism and Buddhism. — Apollodorus

Christianity threatens with eternal suffering -- eternal suffering -- everyone who fails to pick the right religion in this lifetime.
It takes more imagination than I have to portray that as being concerned with "salvation from suffering and death".

Life is painful due to ignorance and sin (i.e., wrong conduct). This is what motivates all three traditions to engage in ethical conduct and seek higher knowledge.

Picking the wrong religion is an eternal death sentence, according to Christianity.

I don’t think scholars need to personally practice any of these systems in order to identify parallels between their intellectual frameworks.

This assumes that it is possible to ascertain the truth of a religion without practicing it.
It's not clear how such is in fact possible. And if it is, it means religion is nothing more but a process of going through the motions.

If you happen to live in Eastern Europe it is probably correct to say that non-European systems there are not in general highly regarded. But in the West the reverse is often the case, especially in large cities across the English-speaking world.

I wouldn't know. 30+ years ago when I went to school, a public, secular school, in a (nominally) secular country, it was the norm to consider Christianity (and by this was meant Roman Catholicism) the one and only true religion, and everything else was dismissed as wrong or nonsense. Secular academics (!!) had that attitude as well. Many still do.

(You can see this reflected in secular university curricula for philosophy. There is usually a course called "The existence of God", but all the course material is about Western, implicitly Roman Catholic notions of God, no hint of Hindu theism.)

If it's Leibniz optimism "We live in the best of all possible worlds", then yeah, that's quite stupid. Even geniuses as Leibniz undoubtedly was, say pretty silly things. — Manuel

How ironic that only his personal secretary attended his funeral.

It is easy to construct India as a nation of enlightened sages devoted to prayer, meditation, and the study of scripture. — Apollodorus

I never understood that. To me, India has always first and foremost been a country of cholera and poverty. And cholera. A dreadful country I hope I never have to visit. I wish to have nothing to do with it. Or any Eastern country.

The belief that earthly existence is painful; observance of abstinence and strict dietary rules; moral and spiritual purification through control or eradication of negative emotions and impulses, and cultivation of opposite inclinations; the attainment of detachment and impassibility (apatheia); meditation and contemplation, etc., are found in Western (Greek, Christian) and Indian (Hindu, Buddhist) traditions alike.

Sure, but they differ in the level of detail and in how actionable their advice is.
They also differ greatly in how approachable they are, depending on a person's level of formal education and socio-economic status.

Moreover: Western spirituality has no equivalent to (serial) rebirth or reincarnation, thus making a person limited to what they have here and now and to what they can do here and now. For many people, this means that they are facing the prospect of not accomplishing much and dying miserable. Hardly something to look forward to.

However, with the possibilities offered by the latest information technologies, I think it would be advisable for Westerners to first acquaint themselves with what is best in their own culture, before uncritically embracing other traditions.

The Dalai Lama advises people not to convert to Buddhism easily, but to first make the best they can out of the religion and culture they were born into.

If anything, what these Westerners have to offer is an enhanced feeling of inner happiness and peace (and perhaps a certain degree of self-importance), all of which may be equally achieved with practices that are available closer to home.

Such as by reading Machiavelli?

In fact, the term “enlightenment” itself is of Western origin and is not used in Indian traditions. So this may be a case of Westerners Westernizing Eastern traditions and believing their own perception of them as a substitute for the Western spirituality whose existence they choose to deny in the first place. If so, then the whole thing may have more to do with psychology than with spirituality as such.

Sure. In some of the Buddhism I have come to know there is actually a lot of criticism of Westerners, similar to what you're saying. But the mainstream Western Buddhism is usually louder and stronger.

Maybe she worked out you were not someone to con? — Tom Storm

It made me feel shitty. I saw her praising the others. But I was again the black sheep.

*sigh*

Maybe you're the kind of person who just likes to know things for the sake of knowing, someone who enjoys knowing.
I'm not. Knowing things should help one do this and that. Or knowing itself should do something, make a difference.

But now there is a new synthesis beginning to emerge, which is neither the standard-issue neo-Darwinian materialism or old-school theological. I mean, nobody can plausibly argue against the empirical evidence, whatever philosophy you have has to be able to accomodate that. But if you let go any form of literalism with respect to the interpretation of ancient texts, and read them allegorically, then it's possible to arrive at a holistic understanding based on both scientific discovery and spiritual principle. — Wayfarer

And what use is that understanding?

In highschool, I went with a small group of classmates to a tarot reader or palm reader (or whatever it is those people do). Nobody can say I'm not open-minded, so let's try that. She read my palm and said I was a very old soul. Her dislike of me was palpable. She gave me much less time than she gave the other young women.

Alan Watts — Wayfarer

Ha! Some years back, as part of my own quest, I summarized my quest as "how to be a genuine fake".
Then I googled it. Turns out someone else had that idea too! But I wasn't impressed with Watts' work.

Can I confuse anything else for you? — Cheshire

Yes. Your image of me.

If there were no common morals and each one followed his/her own morals, tradition, etc. there would exist just a group of individuals and much disorder. That could not be called a community or society, could it? — Alkis Piskas

Do you know any place where there is just a number of individuals who follow their own morals, tradition etc.?

Care.

Do you know what that is?

What are you talking about??
I'm vaccinated. Do I feel safe, protected? No.

refusing vaccination has basically saved government from further scrutiny — boethius

That's why mandatory vaccination could be a last resort. It would force the government to act more transparently and to take at least a part of the responsibility for the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.

The only problem is that with covid in particular, the "effectiveness" of the vaccine would be about the same as the course of the disease without the vaccine, and then the government could take the credit and make vaccination mandatory indefinitely.

What do you not understand?

Dealing in potentially dangerous substances, calculating odds, and playing Russian roulette is how mobsters, gamblers, and drug dealers operate.

But it appears that gone are the times when mainstream society would think that operating that way is not ethical.

...besides which, as I understand baker's position, it has nothing to do with the significance of the reduction and everything to do with the heartless abandonment of the poor sods for whom it doesn't work, or worse. — Isaac

At this forum, not once have I seen that a pro-vaccer said that people should get vaccinated for their own sake.
Not once has anyone who has told me to get vaccinated said that I should do it to protect my health.
Not once. Not a single time.

Instead, they said I should do it for others. Or that I should do it in order to protect others or not to be a burden on them.

I watch the national news on tv, and parts of the news on several other channels. It was only a handful of times that I've heard people who advocate for vaccination said that people should get vaccinated for their own sake. Instead, the overwhelming majority of exhortations to vaccinate are that we should do it for others. To show solidarity with medical personnel who are overwhelmed. To show solidarity with the already vaccinated. And so on, but it's almost always about others.

As if our lives don't matter, or as if we matter only insofar as we could be spreaders of the disease or take up a hospital bed that someone else wants.

Such profound contempt of humans, masquerading as altruism and solidarity.

the heartless abandonment of the poor sods for whom it doesn't work, or worse.

The moral numbness that we are now being forced into ...

Anyone who ever said that the vaccine totally prevents Covid is wrong. — EricH

And yet every day we hear things like, "If so and so would've gotten the vaccination, he'd be safe and well."
You said such a thing just the other day, I quoted you.

The pro-vaccination lobby insists on this simplificationism. Sure, when talking in the abstract, they'll say

The vaccine does not prevent a person from getting Covid. The vaccine significantly reduces the odds that you will catch it - and if you do catch it the vaccine significantly reduces the odds that you will have a serious case. — EricH

But when it comes to pointing fingers in actual cases, they forget all about that, and we get

Most victims are people who refused to get a simple vaccine that would keep them safe. — EricH

Your dead cousin being one of them.

More rightwinger sentiment.

800th time, a vaccine doesn't have to be perfect to be relevant.
— Cheshire

:up:

A good 250 pages in, I wonder how many times repetitions have been posted. — jorndoe

The same wrong argument made a million times is still the wrong argument.

You're forcing us into mediocrity, into thinking like gamblers, mobsters, and drug dealers. Into narrow-mindedness and hard-heartedness. Into moral depravity.

People just love it when something that has been nearly a vice can be portrayed as an virtue. — ssu

Is it really a vice or anything even resembling a vice?

Do you know anyone who actually believes that the stuff written in the Declaration of Human Rights matters?

Very few do, and they are ridiculed.

You keep pretending that the holes in the system are the system for the sake of an argument. There is no provision for an exception granted to infected persons who happen to be vaccinated. Can infected persons be allowed unintended admission? Yes, it isn't a perfectly exclusionary distinction. The "twist" is seeing this as hypocrisy instead of a statistical limitation.

An extreme example would be arguing that not everyone is required to wear a parachute because they don't open on occasion. — Cheshire

What are you talking about?!

I have stated my position many times, but you and your fellows just don't find it worth to remember it. This is the message you're sending.

Power granted to the government regarding matters of public health have been understood to be necessary for centuries. — Cheshire

Then why doesn't the government act accordingly?
Why is it placing the whole burden of responsibility on the people?

Do you mean to say in this particular case or during all or most outbreaks of disease? — Cheshire

Take a look: Is the country you live in actually in a state of an epidemic? Has the government declared it?

People keep talking about a pandemic, but whether a country is officially, legally in a state of an epidemic is another matter.

Yours is a perverse interpretation. As is the remainder of your post. I feel sorry for you. — Banno

A reply straight from the rightwinger's textbook:

Shoot, don't aim.
Act in bad faith.
Assume the other person is immoral, and an idiot.
Don't bother to get to know the other person or remember things about them.
Conjure up the most idiotic interpretation of their words, and then insist that this is what they mean.
Place the entire burden for the quality of the interaction on them.

This is how you win.

Does twisting the truth achieve anything? — Cheshire

What twisting of truth?

But it was very quickly clear that no communication was happening, until I finally had resorted to clear and unambiguous brutality. That is, I had to communicate with it on its terms. — tim wood

What do you mean? Spell it out.

The tribe doesn't pick a priest

Suppose that statement is false/a half-truth like so many fake Buddha quotes doing the rounds on the www, what, in your opnion, is the correct proposition Buddha made, long, long ago? — Agent Smith

That there is suffering.

Here's a discussion of this:
Life Isn’t Just Suffering
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/KarmaOfQuestions/Section0004.html

There is no reason that something that is part of a vast complex system of doctrine and practice might not seem vague, mystical, contrary, or ironic. — T Clark

Of course, as long as one is ignorant of said system.

It seems to me that the two contrary ways of seeing things is part of the plan.

Except that the apparent paradox has an explanation.
I remember an example of this from a Hindu text: The Lord walks and he doesn't walk. This is followed by scriptural commentary explaining how it is that the Lord walks and how it is that the Lord doesn't walk.

Paradoxes and contrary pairs are sometimes just literary and mnemonic means. They can sound like catchy phrases, witticisms, but sometimes they are just summaries of complex topics. Of course, if one doesn't know those topics, one doesn't know that either.

Most victims are people who refused to get a simple vaccine that would keep them safe. — EricH

At the forum, we even have a member who is fully vaccinated, a proponent of vaccination. And who is now sick with covid.

I can get behind the idea that selfish people deserve any negative consequence they reap, I find it a lot harder to get behind the idea that mistaken people do. — Isaac

It's Christian thinking: You deserve eternal suffering if you fail to pick the right religion.

No. It is overwhelmingly the unvaccinated - those who choose not to act in their own and the community's best interest; and children.

Don't bitch about something that is entirely in your control. If you don't like being cast out, get vaccinated. — Banno

Exactly. Vaccination is first and foremost a social measure, not a medical one.

The rules permit that a person infected with this disease can congregate with the uninfected,
— NOS4A2

No, they don't. — Banno

They do. All you need is a covid pass, and then you can do anything you want. You can be a superspreader.

The vaccinated folk get a cold. The unvaccinated folk get to go to the ICU. — Banno

Except when they don't.

In Slovenia and some other EU countries, 40% of those hospitalized for covid are vaccinated, 20% of those in ICUs are vaccinated.

If the consequence of congregating is a cold, then there is little need to slow the spread. Any rules still standing are only there to protect the unvaccinated. — Banno

What we're "protecting" first and foremost is the dogma, and the government and the pharmaceutical industry from any and all responsibility.

I question the efficacy of the vaccine. Yes, a whole bunch of people are going to call me names for it, but seriously consider: Vaccination for small pox= no more small pox. Vaccination for measles= no more measles. Same for polio; chicken pox, mumps. You get my point.

Then comes covid...
/.../
After achieving fully vaccinated status : Mask, social distance, limit movement (domestic and international), decrease social interaction, work from home when possible. Virus spreading, people dying. — Book273

Exactly. Covid simply isn't like small pox, or measles, or polio etc. With those diseases, once a person is infected, they mostly get the disease, and it's clear they have it. In contrast, in covid, most people have mild symptoms or none at all. Covid just isn't comparable to those other diseases.

I wonder if they’ll segregate the vaccinated, just to keep us safe. — NOS4A2

I wonder when (!) they'll start segregating the vaccinated based on which vaccine they've been vaccinated with.
There is already a trend to hold those who got Pfizer in better esteem than others.

I ask you to please consider this: if you given a choice to play Russian roulette with a loaded machine gun with 1999 live bullets and 1 blank; or else with a machine gun with 1999 blanks and 1 live bullet; which machine gun will you choose? — god must be atheist

This is the mentality of mobsters, gamblers, and drug dealers. I am none of that, so I don't reason this way.

We're supposed to have a scientific and ethical approach to the issue of public health.

Perhaps in 2030 when you go to your local medical center, you'll still see some signs about how to prevent COVID-19. And people won't bother about it, but likely many won't shake hands anymore. I assume that will happen: the World will be a colder place with less physical contact with people you don't know. Hand shaking is then such an old gesture then, I guess. Just like the gesture of a man kissing the hand of a woman, it will perhaps become too theatrical. — ssu

It's so convenient to blame covid for what is actually the general decline of quality in human interaction.

I sometimes watch interviews with people talking about how covid measures are restricting their lives, and how alienated they feel because of them. And I wonder, have these people never gone to school? Do they not work?

What has been the normal, regular, ordinary experience for so many minorites, for those bullied and mobbed, excluded from normal society, has now become a temporary experience for a few more people. And they cry foul?!

So I’m going to tell people to get vaccinated, am not morally responsible if it harms them, and won’t pay them any kind of compensation if it does. — Michael

So you command people to do things, or you give them (unsolicited) advice, and you take no responsibility for the outcome if they act accordingly.

I wouldn't dare do that.

Have you ever met anyone who would be happy about another's claims of enlightenment?
— baker

Well, for starters, there aren't many who actually make that claim. — Apollodorus

Must by just my karma that I've met some!

Second, you would want to first see some evidence in support of that claim.

No. Things don't work like that. But I suppose that to understand this, one needs to have first-hand experience of witnessing someone making the claim.

Third, you would need to know (a) what enlightenment is and (b) what enlightenment means in the case of the person making the claim.

Usually, people are so restricted and defined by their day-to-day concerns that they don't get involved into such things, and instead just shrug their shoulders when hearing claims of enlightenment.

So I think that, statistically, the chance of anyone being in a position to congratulate others for being enlightened is pretty small ....

The topic was how come claims of enlightenment generate so much hostility.