Buddhism enters the arena and says what we should really strive for/desire is the changeless, nirvana being the apotheosis. — TheMadFool

No, there is no such universal should in Buddhism. All that the buddhas say is, if you want to be free from suffering, you should do such and such. But beyond that Buddhism is not a religion of commandments the way most other religions are.

True, Buddhism has no creator God, but it does have many gods and above all else an "omniscient one". — Janus

In Buddhist cosmology, the heaven realms are blissful abodes whose present inhabitants (the devas) gained rebirth there through the power of their past meritorious actions. Like all beings still caught in samsara, however, these deities eventually succumb to aging, illness, and death, and must eventually take rebirth in other realms — pleasant or otherwise — according to the quality and strength of their past kamma. The devas are not always especially knowledgable or spiritually mature — in fact many are quite intoxicated by their sensual indulgences — and none are considered worthy of veneration or worship. Nevertheless, the devas and their happy realms stand as important reminders to us both of the happy benefits that ensue from the performance of skillful and meritorious deeds and, finally, of the ultimate shortcomings of sensuality.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/index.html

In Buddhism, a deva is not a permanent identity, it's a type of body that one can be born into if one has the merit.

We respond to the hindrances otherwise they would not hinder us, no? I thought the idea is pretty standard Buddhist fare. I just performed a search and found plenty of references. Here's one on the top of the list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_hindrances — Janus

I have never before heard of "responding to the hindrances". To "respond" to sensual desire, ill will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and worry, and doubt?

Can you provide a Buddhist source that uses this formulation, "responding to the hindrances"?

The question is as to whether it is really possible (and desirable) to permanently cease responding to them, i.e. become liberated from them. Why would you try unless you believed it is possible?

The formulation used in Buddhist sources tends to be "abandoning / overcoming the hindrances". I have never heard "liberated" in this context.

Why would you try unless you believed it is possible?

Because you have faith in your teacher's instructions; because you've seen other people succeed in abandoning them; because you have a measure of insight that the hindrances are bad for you, already in a worldly sense, ie. that they hinder you and so it would be good to overcome them; because you've already had some success in abandoning them.

But I see no reason to think anyone would attempt to give up responding to the five hindrances if they didn't believe that liberation from them is possible. — Janus

Where did you get that phrase "responding to the five hindrances"? I've never heard it before. The hindrances as something to "respond to"?

That depends on whether the Buddha of the Pali Canon really was sourgraping or not.
— baker

What do you think? — Tom Storm

I don't know. The Buddha of modern Buddhism is an entirely different figure from the one in the Pali Canon. To say that there are modern Buddhists who are appaled by the Buddha of the Pali Canon is an understatement.

It is not ordinary unhappiness — Janus

The reference is to Freud's idea that the goal of psychotherapy is to overcome being neurotically miseable and instead be ordinarily unhappy.

It is a mix of up and down. I am familiar with the Buddhist idea of learning to cease to respond to the "five hindrances", but you will not be motivated enough to do that unless you have become convinced that liberation from them is actually possible.

I actually don't know a canonical reference for this. @Wayfarer, do you? How is the order of things-- must one first be convinced that abandoning the hindrances is possible before one can begin abandoning them?

Was the Buddha sourgraping?
— baker

"sour grapes"
"bad behavior that happens because someone else is more successful"
Cambridge Dict — Hermeticus

"Sourgraping" refers to the old tale of the fox and the grapes: The fox was eager to eat some grapes, but because they were too high on the vine for his reach, he gave up and disparaged them, saying that they are probably sour anway and not worth the effort.

I don't think so. Supposedly Siddhartha Gautama was a prince, with a lifestyle to show for it. Pretty clothes, good food, servants and guardians, all that jazz.

The story goes that he was unhappy despite all that luxury.

Of course it also depends what you understand as a "life usually lived"?

Seeking satisfaction in food, drink, sex, work, art.

Either way, I don't see the Buddha being "sour" about anything.

By modern standards, he exemplifies antisocial tendencies, depression, and other pathologies.

Basically, he can be accused of not trying hard enough to find happiness in his marriage, family, work etc.

Therapists or physicians are not "sourgraping" when they treat, and teach others how to treat, illnesses. — 180 Proof

In the case of the Buddha, his solution to the problem of suffering is so radical that it doesn't seem like a solution at all, but, rather, a whole new pathology.

(Besides music, what could be more life-affirming?)

Then you're not talking about the Buddha of the Pali Canon.

Only needed if your demand is to be completely happy all the time. — Janus

If "ordinary unhappiness" is your aim ...

what's worse - no understanding of Buddhism or a familiarity with the self-help variety? — Tom Storm

That depends on whether the Buddha of the Pali Canon really was sourgraping or not.

For me pleasure or delight is felt in moments, in glimmers of experience.

Those moments do not have to be permanent to be cherished. — Tom Storm

As long as there is an infinite supply of those moments.

Is social media making society more mentally ill? — TheQuestion

I think social media and technology in general are lessening the quality of the interpersonal interactions conducted through them, and this lessening of the quality then can have adverse psychological effects.

Handling the technology takes up too much brain power, so less of it is left for quality of the interpersonal interactions.

I wrote this on a smsrtphone and I feel like a retsrd now.

There is no downside to death, if one does not see it coming — boagie

But you know it's coming, it's just a matter of time when, and you know it could be anytime.

You can't fool yourself or buy yourself time.

@Xtrix And you believe you can go gently into that night, a good one even, with no regrets, no desire to continue to be alive?

/am currently on a smartphone. Very tedious, can't quote properly. Later./

@frank

I checked again: they said the highest daily incidence per million. I'm still looking for a reference and exact number, cumulative statistics take a while.

I think we fear pain and the unknown.

Just you wait for the pain.

Two weeks ago, I had to go to the ER, I was in such pain. Gastrointestinal spasms because of a viral infection. I was thinking that death hurts like this, although probably more.
They gave me IV painkillers ... But without those!!

And what is it that is eternal?
List 3 examples.

I don't buy into that assumption that humanity is indeed faced with brute suffering that can't be remedied.[/quote]

As long as there is eating, consumption of any kind, this long there is going to be suffering.

True, but do you ever ponder if the four noble truths are actually true in modern day living? — Shawn

They are timeless, they are not bound to any particular time and place. They are about the nature of existence, not about a particular person or society.

Had Buddha been born today would he arrive at the same conclusions?

Of course, provided his father wouldn't lock him up in a mental health institution.

My point is that in order for people to treat animals better, people would need to adopt a whole different outlook on life. It's why popular slogans at protests can't possibly make a difference, as they are too particular, have too small a scope.

It's a philosophy forum, I'm exploring the philosophical question of the nature of rights. The fact that this is so dimly apprehended says something in my view. — Wayfarer

People in general are reluctant to acknowledge the rights of other people or the wellbeing of other people to begin with. It's ... romantic to expect them to extend such consideration to animals when they won't even do it for humans. Generally, people don't believe in the rights of others, regardless what the laws say, so it's no surprise that they don't think about the nature of rights.

As for the nature of rights: I personally don't believe there exist rights, only privileges, conferred by those with more power onto those with less power, regardless whether those with less power are of the same species as those with more power.

So now, religious or philosophical conviction is 'special pleading', and the secular view is normative. — Wayfarer

It depends on whom you want to convince.

Ever heard the Buddhist expression, 'this precious human life'? Do you know what that's about? Why human life, in particular, is so designated? — Wayfarer

Because the human form is said to be the one most suitable for attaining enlightenment.
But, like I said, outside of a religious/ideological context, there is no argument for human uniqueness. Moving the whole discussion into a specific religious/ideological context is a step that requires special justification.

but if the uniqueness of h. sapiens is not obvious, then I don't know what argument could be used to establish it. — Wayfarer

Outside of a religious/ideological context, there is no such argument.

What would it take to have some form of humane treatment for the animals. — Caldwell

Humans would need to sacrifice some (or much) of their comforts.
Material ones, such as space and natural resources. And psychological ones, such as the feeling of human superiority over animals.

Another facetious remark. — Caldwell

You keep forgetting that resources on planet Earth are limited and that life is a struggle for resources. Humans and animals compete for the same resources.

Any argument for animal welfare has to take this into consideration. Animal welfare comes at the cost of human welfare. In order for humans to treat animals better, humans would need to sacrifice their own comfort. And for doing this, they would need to have some very good reasons.

Hm. On the news, they said we currently hold the record.

Let's examine the will of the animals. Let's give them the natural proclivity to live in their natural habitat. — Caldwell

And evict humans?

What I'm getting at is that if you want to devise a perspective for a better treatment of animals, it will have to be such that is indeed unique for animals; or it will have to be so universal that it will pertain to all living beings.

With the former, you'd then have to decide upon issues such as whether rats and cockroaches deserve the same good treatment as cows or dogs.

The latter is so all-encompassing as to be paralyzing.

That's why I went back to the basics -- the will, where everyone has equal shot at getting acknowledgement. Animals can't win when we start talking about rationality. — Caldwell

Nor can children, the disabled, Jews, women, blacks, the poor, or any other category of humans that is disenfranchized in any given context.
IOW, what you're saying about animals is not specific to animals or how humans treat animals; it pertains to categories of humans too.

Whereas, I'm arguing that rights pertain to humans, because they are rational agents, and not to animals, because they are not. — Wayfarer

How do you figure that animals are not rational agents? By your human fiat?

For the last week in Slovenia, the 7-day incidence in 100,000 people is 948,8.

I live in a country that has record incidence. In the world.

With the assumption that he is a moral agent, and decides to go against the prevailing scientific belief that vaccination works, we have to think about whether admitting such decision within our system makes the system unstable. Well, does it? — Caldwell

This is too simplistic. The fact is that sometimes, people get vaccinated and get sick from the vaccine, or get covid despite being vaccinated.

If the state of facts would be "If you get vaccinated, you're safe from covid and you don't get sick from the vaccine", your line of reasoning would hold. But clearly, it's not the case.

We could morally hold it against people if they don't get vaccinated only if the vaccines would actually be 100% safe and effective. But they're not, so if we want to launch a moral charge against the unvaccinated, it has to be based on some other grounds. Such as, for example, "It is immoral to refuse to take upon oneself the risk and cost of experimental vaccination in the case of a pandemic", or "It is immoral to go against social expectations."

Humans are not all the same but for the purposes of determining human rights, are treated as equal for those purposes. — Wayfarer

But who actually cares about this purported equality? Perhaps the lawmakers, in the abstract. But for practical intents and purposes, nobody does. There is a clear discrepancy between the legal ideal, and the actual reality. So why ignore the obvious?

You then created two hypothetical examples which had no bearing on what I said, as if they represented what I said. — Wayfarer

You missed the first line:
You are assuming too much uniformity and unanimousness for humans.

What you're saying isn't limited to how humans think of animals; it's also how humans think of other (categories) of humans.

Humans are different to animals because they have symbolic communication, can take alternative courses of action, foresee the consequences of what they do, and act from a variety of motives.

Of course animals have a will to live, they suffer if abused, they can be unhappy or happy, they can flourish or be miserable. But that doesn't mean that the concept of 'animal rights' is meaningful.

I'm in no way disagreeing with the latter. I've been saying that the general human dismissal of animals has the same structure as when (categories of) humans dismiss other (categories of) humans.
And if humans won't even accept other humans as human, and deny them as being holders of rights, what consideration can humans be expected to have for animals?

The notion of animal rights is just as shaky as the notion of human rights.

I think the salient question in all this is whether they are so rich because of their specific beliefs, or whether they have those beliefs because they are so rich.
Or, in the case of the first-generation rich, whether they now, when established as rich, they still have the same beliefs that made it possible for them to become rich in the first place.

I would, instead, formulate the question like that:
"If one "looks within" by following someone else's instructions (on how to look within), is then one actually looking within at all? If one is following someone else's instructions (on how to look within), is this not simply a case of internalizing someone else's ideas about one's identity?"

The underlying assumption and concern here (and it seems, in your formulation as well), is that a person's inner life is unique and incomprehensible for other people, to the point that any kind of conceptual systematization of the inner life of humans as such is impossible. In short, that humans are complete strangers to eachother. And what is more, that this is how it should be. That it would be a breach of personal boundaries to assume otherwise. And that it would be an act of self-deception and self-humiliation to consider or worse, accept, someone else's ideas about the structure of (one's) inner life.

If you’re here just to act like a dick good for you. — I like sushi

It must be great to be you.

Worshipping Elvis surely then is theism, as well, and Elvis fans are theists.
— baker

Why? Is Elvis supernatural? — I like sushi

Elvis is god.