In that respect I consider mandatory vaccinations for specific services/industries a curious hill to want to die on. — Benkei

But the covid vaccines are not actually being made mandatory, in the actual legal sense of the word.

On principle, a medication that legally has the status of merely an experimental medication cannot be made mandatory. A medication has to pass a long vetting process before it can move up from being merely an experimental medication, and again there is a vetting process before it can be made mandatory by law.

Do you know, for a fact, what the legal status of the covid vaccinations is in countries that are reported to have made it mandatory for some professions?

Do you know, for a fact, that the US, France, Greece, and some others have actually passed a law according to which covid vaccinations are mandatory (for some professions)?

Or is it the case that in those countries, covid vaccinations are demanded by government decree (which is less than a law), or they found a roundabout way to enforce covid vaccinations?

To the best of my knowledge, people who were fired or suspended for not getting a covid vaccination were fired or suspended _not_ on account of violating a health law, but on account of a much more general principle (failure to comply with the demands of the employer).


The problem is that we are not living under the rule of law, but under the rule of quasi-legal misnomers and legal loopholes.

The governments are actually encouraging us to be ignorant of the law, and it is to our harm.

So bodily integrity is only a right that can be granted by governments? Interesting. — Benkei

As things stand, every human on the planet is subject to some government, so, yes. (Even those people who don't have citizenship; and there is, on principle, no no-man's land, so that wherever on planet Earth someone is, one is always under someone's jurisdiction.)

If you don't get caught, who can say that you didn't have the freedom to do those things?
— baker

You're always free to break the law. But we generally agree it is opportunistic to do so as those breaking the law are only too happy to get all the protections a well organised state offers. This is why ndividuals generally cannot be the arbiter of law (only state sanctioned individuals, e.g. judges) even though there are extreme cases where norms ought to precede laws and therefore require civil disobedience.

If the State truly is as powerful and as authoritative as it says it is, then why does it catch only some of those who break the law?

It's this discrepancy between the proposed authority of the State and its actual effectiveness that gives reason to doubt its authority.

There is an unwritten social norm that we shall all respect the State and consider it authoritative, even though it quite frequently fails to deliver. This is the weakest link in the system. Whose fault is it when this weakest link is exploited? The State's or the individual person's?

If everything was determined by the past, then how could there be freedom? — Wayfarer

You'll need to ask those who claim that everything is determined by the past. Such as the contemplatives & brahmans who hold such a view:

“Having approached the contemplatives & brahmans who hold that… ‘Whatever a person experiences… is all caused by what was done in the past,’ I said to them: ‘Is it true that you hold that… whatever a person experiences… is all caused by what was done in the past?’ Thus asked by me, they admitted, ‘Yes.’ Then I said to them, ‘Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of what was done in the past. A person is a thief… uncelibate… a liar… a divisive speaker… a harsh speaker… an idle chatterer… greedy… malicious… a holder of wrong views because of what was done in the past.’ When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort (at the thought), ‘This should be done. This shouldn’t be done.’ When one can’t pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn’t be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my first righteous refutation of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold to such teachings, such views.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN3_62.html

Thus such sectarians remain stuck in (a doctrine of) inaction. Another group of sectarians who are similarly stuck in (a doctrine of) inaction are those who believe in a creator god and those who believe in luck ("all is without cause, without condition").


You seem to be suggesting that the valid dichotomy to work with is as follows:
either everything is determined by the past
or there are things that are determined by the past but there is also luck.

It seems you're saying that the only way to overcome "hard karmic determinism" is through luck.

Also: What do you think is the relationship between free will and luck, within the Early Buddhist framework?

Rather, I nailed you, reason for which you are now speechless... — Olivier5

And things like this are the reason why mankind doesn't deserve to be saved.

We'll see who's first to become enlightened!

See this source, under the heading ‘karma doesn’t explain everything’. Provides citations. — Wayfarer

Do you think that those passages are evidence that there is luck?

Here the Buddha explicitly denies that everything that occurs to one is a consequence solely of past actions. And I can see why: because to assert that is to be dogmatic.

By "dogmatic", do you refer to "going beyond what one knows by oneself and what is accepted as true by the world"?

Dan Lusthaus comments

No one, except perhaps a few 'extremists' at that tiime in India thought that all of one's experiences were determined by past experiences. No one, including Buddha, thought that karma was all-determining, Karma did not denote an all-encompassing model of human behaviour. — Wayfarer

See Thanissaro Bhikkhu's more recent comment on the Sivaka Sutta (probably in reply to Mr. Lusthaus):

Some people have interpreted this sutta as stating that there are many experiences that cannot be explained by the principle of kamma. A casual glance of the alternative factors here—drawn from the various causes for pain that were recognized in the medical treatises of his time—would seem to support this conclusion. However, if we compare this list with his definition of old kamma in SN 35:145, we see that many of the alternative causes are actually the results of past actions. Those that aren’t are the result of new kamma. For instance, MN 101 counts asceticism—which produces pain in the immediate present—under the factor harsh treatment. The point here is that old and new kamma do not override other causal factors operating in the universe—such as those recognized by the physical sciences—but instead find expression within them. A second point is that some of the influences of past kamma can be mitigated in the present—a disease caused by bile, for instance, can be cured by medicine that brings the bile back to normal. Similarly with the mind: Mental suffering caused by physical pain can be ended by understanding and abandoning the attachment that led to that suffering. In this way, the Buddha’s teaching on kamma avoids determinism and opens the way for a path of practice focused on eliminating the causes of suffering in the here and now.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_21.html

So truth for you has become either authoritarian or idealistic.

You've forgotten so much? — Banno

Prospective truth lover, heal thyself!


I have not forgotten how hastily you assigned me to the anti-vaccer camp. You've displayed there an amazing lack of critical thinking, empathy, and common decency. And you cry foul when Christians do the same thing?

↪baker :rofl: — TheMadFool

You think that's funny???????

Good that you brought that issue -epistemic autonomy - up; it (epistemic autonomy) is, to me, basically the idea that one must reserve one's belief only for those claims/theories that has oneself studied and thought through. Buddha was a staunch advocate. — TheMadFool

Compare what the Buddha has actually said (or at least what is generally accepted in Buddhism to be the word of the Buddha):

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html

The popular rendition of this is like this (similar to what you've been saying):

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense.”

Clearly, a lot has been lost in translation/transition.

I never implied that Buddhism is a DIY hobby. Straw man. — TheMadFool

You give me the credit you think I deserve, obviously.

The Buddha doesn't have to to, like some people, spell out everything he wished to convey. You have to, like a rational person, infer some things from what he did say. — TheMadFool

"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.023.than.html

"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred. These are two who slander the Tathagata."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.025.than.html

When making decisions about one's own body, there isn't a need for one's arguments to be understood as rational anyway. — Tzeentch

Indeed, because according to the constitutions of many countries, one's body is by default considered private and granted the right to exist.

Obviously decisions about your body need to be weighed against the interest of others if those decisions have consequences for others and once you reached a conclusion you'll have to argue for it. — Benkei

Legally, this is actually quite a tricky area. Because in order to argue for or against, one has to take into account what the constitution and the laws of one's country say. This way, one quickly ends up in problems that even professional constitutional lawyers have difficulty to be unanimous about.

And your decisions can also have consequences. You're free to drink, but you don't get to drive. You're welcome to walk around naked, just not in public.

If you don't get caught, who can say that you didn't have the freedom to do those things?

You take yourself very seriously, that's for sure, and you're a hero in your own mind, but to me you're just another coward running away from a needle, and rationalizing his fears. — Olivier5

Will the irony never end!

You're so far off the mark that I'm at a loss what else to say.

I feel really awkward having this discussion with you.

you’re splitting hairs now. — Wayfarer

Sadly, no.
I'll get back to you, I need a chunk of time to compose a reply to you.

On the contrary, you're not taking it seriously enough.

I'm talking about life always being a matter of life and death anyway. It's a fact that people typically close their eyes to and behave as if all was well and as if life wasn't a matter of life and death. So that when push comes to shove, like in a health or economic crisis, people are caught off guard.

Like literature, yes? Like this?

"Good writing, good books, literature, just must -- must -- have an element of snobism to it. Trying to make it seem like something that can be accessible to plebeians -- that just misses the point." — tim wood

Of course.

Aspirational achievement lies within the capacity of everyone, and the appreciation of it I'd call taste and discernment, which anyone can learn and do.

No. If you would be born and raised in an old-fashioned European culture, one of the things that the educational system (even a public educational system) would make sure that you learn is that not everyone was born equal, and that there is a very clear limit to what a person of a particular background can do, in all areas of life, and also in terms of ability to properly appreciate art (where one's disadvatange becomes most apparent).

The elite has always had a "pearls before swine" attitude toward the commoners.

And high achievement and the appreciation of it does have some element. But not snobism, which is essentially ignorance's preening dance to compensate for itself.

The value of the classical is proved most simply by its endurance, that it touches and awakens something of value. And only a fool, an ignorant one, mocks it with the name of snobbery.

Why, indeed, the European elites agree with you on that. They surely don't consider themselves "snobs", but as possessing that "something" that cannot be learned, but which one must be born and bred with. And people born in rural areas and of low socio-economic backgrounds are by default exempt from having that "something" or ever attaining it.

Indeed, in more recent times, a part of the elite has been trying to popularize art and to "raise the spirit of the masses". But the condescension with which they do it! "You are a swine and you will always be a swine, you must never forget that. And know that we are so kind as to throw some of our pearls before you, swine." These people would pat you on the head, as if you were an imbecile, if only they wouldn't be too disgusted to touch you.

You should read The Elegance of the Hedgehog which also touches on this elitism.

"Determined by the past" and "kamma" are not synonyms in Early Buddhist doctrine. Even though in popular parlance, they tend to be treated that way.

Stories like that do not illustrate chance. They illustrate the standard doctrinal point that indulging in sense pleasures leads to a rebirth in the animal womb.
— baker

Yes, I think you're right. Badly chosen on my part. — Wayfarer

Not "badly chosen". I dare you to find a Buddhist story that actually illustrates luck. You can choose from any Buddhist tradition you like, including the modernists.

(The Chiggala Sutta is specifically about the appearance of a Tathagata and his dispensation, not about the ordinary person.)

What do you expect me to say? You make a claim about the Buddha, and I ask for a canonical reference for said claim. You don't provide it. You see no problem with not providing it.

*sigh*
— baker

There's no point in providing a reference, canonical or otherwise because, unlike other religions, buddhism isn't what philosophers refer to as arguementum ad verecundiam. — TheMadFool

Indeed, it isn't. But that doesn't make it a DIY hobby either.

If you say that the Buddha claimed something, you need to provide a canonical reference.

people first need to be in the clear about "the big existential issues" and have a definitive answer to the meaning of life question.
— baker

That's ... aiming rather high (unless I misunderstand, which is entirely possible). — jorndoe

A "high aim"? No, a most basic one.

There are historical/textbook case studies, and (cumulative) evidence, all that stuff, that we can learn from

So we can do what? Remain on autopilot? Eat, drink, and make merry? This is supposed to be the whole point of life?

Seems relevant for a functional society where all kinds of different people interact, yes?

No. Truth trumps diversity.

That doesn't answer my questions.

Why do the vocal pro-vaccers complain about having empathy or compassion for the unvaccinated?
Why do they complain about having to go to some lengths to help them, medically?

If the matter is really so simple and so black-and-white and so true and so obvious as the vocal pro-vaccers claim it is ("Just get vaccinated and all will be well"), then why not make it into laws?

What does the right thing consist of anyway...? — jorndoe

Given the hatred and contempt that some vocal pro-vaccers show for the unvaccinated and everyone else who isn't particularly enthusiastic about vaccination, I surmise that those vocal pro-vaccers are completely inthe clear about what "the right thing" is. So it shouldn't be hard for them to explicate it and to take according action against those who differ.

Don't assume that this is your usual 'Mary's room' amateur philo discussion. It's a matter of life and death for people. — Olivier5

It's always a matter of life and death anyway. Where some people go wrong is in assuming that this covid crisis is something special, rare, extraordinary.

A start to at least get a meaningful conversation going is that both sides realise they've not rationally arrived at their position, unless they're expert epidemiologists or virologists and some doctors, and stop assuming only the other is irrational. — Benkei

The pleasure that people get from accusing another to be irrational, evil, bad, weak, etc. should not be underestimated.

To ask them to give up that pleasure, you'd need to offer them something in return. What do you have in mind?

Classical music just must -- must -- have an element of snobism to it. Trying to make it seem like something that can be accessible to plebeians -- that just misses the point.

What happened? — TheMadFool

What do you expect me to say? You make a claim about the Buddha, and I ask for a canonical reference for said claim. You don't provide it. You see no problem with not providing it.

*sigh*

So you believe in objective/absolute morality?

As the quote suggests, one doesn't have to be a slip smacking sociopath to do evil - in some cases just follow the directions of your local preacher... — Tom Storm

But there has to be something in a person that makes them follow those directions. Because not everyone follows those directions, only some do.

Noble lie - Wikipedia — Apollodorus

The Wiki article does not mention a similar concept in Mahayana Buddhism -- upaya, "skillful means".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya

And your plan takes too long for the issue at hand. — Benkei

Most good plans are like that. People at large have allowed themselves to be lulled into a false sense of safety, and this is not something that can be remedied easily.

And it's true for both sides in a way. Assuming pro-vaxxers are right, what's the best way to go about convincing anti-vaxxers? Assuming anti-vaxxers are right, what's the best way to go about convincing pro-vaxxers?

I think that at this point, it's too late for convincing, too late for talking, too late for discussion. At this point, the only effective course of action seems to be to make vaccination and other sanitary measures mandatory, perhaps even enforce martial law.

A start to at least get a meaningful conversation going is that both sides realise they've not rationally arrived at their position, unless they're expert epidemiologists or virologists and some doctors, and stop assuming only the other is irrational.

This is a lot to expect even from academics, what to speak of ordinary people!

A question could be, what makes a good heuristic decision making process and why? Maybe that can take the conversation further, I don't know.

That conversation would take time, space, a period of peace with no crises, medical or otherwise.

People generally aren't used to function well under pressure; and even when they are, it's with the aim to get from under that pressure into a relaxed, "normal" way of being.
Perhaps, like the US Navy SEALs, we should all train under the motto "The only easy day was yesterday".

Actually an old folktale from Chinese Buddhism comes to mind. It concerned the death of a dedicated aspirant who had long left home and become completely detached from all his worldly concerns. At the moment of his dying, he happen to catch sight of a beautiful fawn in dappled sunlight. As I recall the story, this caused him to be reborn in the animal realm. — Wayfarer

Stories like that do not illustrate chance. They illustrate the standard doctrinal point that indulging in sense pleasures leads to a rebirth in the animal womb.

They also illustrate the vital point that one must be heedful at all times, esp. at the time of death.

appamāda
Heedfulness; diligence; zeal. The cornerstone of all skillful mental states, and one of such fundamental import that the Buddha's stressed it in his parting words to his disciples: "All fabrications are subject to decay. Bring about completion by being heedful!" (appamādena sampādetha).

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#a

For existential feelings that threaten to overwhelm, I would choose the largo movement from Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony. Or maybe the adagio from Mahler's unfinished 10th symphony. — Tom Storm

I don't find them particularly moving. But that's probably because I'm actually such an optimistic person!

Simon Rattle conducting.

Oh dear, Sir Rattle got so old since I last saw him!! How time flies!

I'm talking about decisions that are made solely or primarily on trust. In this case, it matters not (or very little) what the evidence about the matter at hand is, but whether the person who needs to make a decision and take a particular action trusts the person asking them to make said decision. In this case, whether the citizen trusts the government. To note that normally, this trust takes a long time to build and is virtually impossible to establish it deliberately.

There are citizens who act the way they act with little or no regard as to what the government does or tells them to do. Ie. for those citizens, trust in the government plays a minor role or none at all.

But then there is also a percentage of citizens (possibly a considerable one) for whom trust is the deciding factor. These are people who "in their heart of hearts" must feel that the government means well for them. Once such people come to distrust the government, this is a generalized distrust. If the government were to say 2 + 2 = 4, these people's first impulse would be not to believe it.

Sure, we can say that these people are irrational, that they are jumping to conclusions, and so on. That they rely on the government too much, that they are even childish and "can't think for themselves". But right now, this is irrelevant. For these people, trust is the primary heuristic, and that's how they function. Attempting to educate these people about vaccines is not going to make a difference, but it can make things even worse, it can strengthen their distrust of the government.
I think what could make a difference are long-term citizenship programs where people are taught to be professional citizens, which includes having a significantly less emotional attitude toward the government, feeling less like a subject or less like a child toward the government. But this, of course, takes time and effort.

The thought of this amuses me as it's a fairly lightweight composition. — Tom Storm

Be that as it may, some people did go mad about it.

Some people also think Das Wohltemperierte Clavier is "deep".

Which brings us back to the theme of listening to classical music for hedonic purposes.

Where you and the Christians differ is in the qualitative evaluation of some past events.
— baker

I don't think so. That the books were not transcribed, were thrown in the rubbish, and were burned is not a question of opinion. Again, 90% of the literature of the classical world disappeared over a few hundred years, at the instigation of Bishops, christianised emperors and their acolytes. We have the commands they gave. We have descriptions of their deed in their own words. And we have the hole in our literary heritage. — Banno

When you burn a pile of trash, do you feel sorry for doing so? Do you think you've done something bad? If someone asks you about it, will you indulge in their questions? No on all counts.
That's how the Christians feel about the matter of destroying other cultures.

But you've got an interesting clash of cultures here: You're sure of your position, and the Christians are sure of their position. And neither of you will budge.

What is at issue is not inherited guilt. It is an inherited denial of historical fact. It is an attitude that permits the churches to entrench the disenfranchising of women and to hide paedophilic predation. Should the destruction of indigenous lives and culture by Canadian residential schools also be whitewashed as saving souls? — Banno

Would you speak openly, truthfully, in detail if you were questioned by someone whose authority you do not acknowledge? You probably wouldn't. Same with Christians. They consider it beneath their dignity to discuss themselves and their church with outsiders.

Look, I'm not defending Christians or Christianity here. If the posters here had a competition as to who was most wronged by Christians, I'd probably be among the winners.

I can't quite tell whether you're just a stubborn authoritarian, or a romantic idealist, so I don't know how to tailor my responses to you.

Insisting that people use language the same in all contexts is amusing, but misguided. — Ennui Elucidator

Oh, the irony of using language for saying this.

True but what made "some (religious folk) recognize them (atrocities) and realize how unjust these atrocities were"? Can't be religion itself - scriptures have remained exactly as they were for nearly 20000 years. Ergo, this moral growth has to be the work of secular/atheistic forces. — TheMadFool

Or those people weren't particularly religious to begin with. Religions have cracks, and some people who were boon into religions, fall through those cracks.

kept in check only by our ability to concieve of right and wrong — Michael Zwingli

Your theory would be fine, if only people wouldn't have such vastly differing ideas about what constitutes right and wrong.

I think the downfall of Western civilization will be due to its craving for drama, for emotionalism, for hedonic pursuits. Islam lite is a stepping stone in this process.