Personally, I think Buddhism has some interesting theories but it doesn't seems to contribute much to the discussion because its explanation of reincarnation is too nebulous. — Apollodorus

"Nebulous" is certainly not the word I would use. I think the Early Buddhist take on rebirth is so complex and requires one to keep in mind so much doctrine that it's just too much for the ordinary person to bother with it.

You sound ... confused. — 180 Proof

You externalize.

It can often be an understandable response to experience. — Tom Storm

A psychologist saying this?? Surely you don't mean it. Else they'll draw and quarter you!

I imagine also we sometimes use the word apathy to describe someone who doesn't share our enthusiasms.

Yeah. Externalizing rocks.

Is it possible to be fascinated by everything? Is it possible to sustain a lifestyle of total curiosity? — Benj96

So that unless one is blessed with great intelligence to master advanced math and such, one is stuck in being Amelie? Oy vey.

The Hedonic Question: Do things have value because they make us happy or do they make us happy because they have value? — TheMadFool

I think that to pursue an answer to this question will necessarily lead to an unsatisfactory result, because both happiness and value need to come with a sense of being apriori or else they lose their lustre.

I was talking to a member of the Shaolin and they told me that Buddhism at least as practiced by the Shaolin is not so much a religion as a method of discovering the true nature of the world. — TiredThinker

It's not uncommon for religious/spiritual people to claim that theirs is "not a religion" but that it "is the truth".
I've seen Christians do this, and Buddhists, too.

I generally think of Buddhism as focused on reincarnation and karma which presumes things about life after death, but his definition made it sound more scientific.

Some proselytizers try to appeal to Western secular people, so they introduce some pseudoscientific vocabulary. I've seen Christians, Hare Krishnas, Buddhists, and Bahais do it.

Can a religion be used as a scientific method in terms of at least only accepting things that can be proven through our senses?

Or is the methods of actual scientists superior in that arena?

Presuming that science and religion have different goals, the question becomes moot.

Yay!!!!

Or look at the Republican states denying medicaid expansion or federal unemployment funding. It's truly insane. — Xtrix

I think the whole idea of there being Red and Blue states within one country is insane. It's a miracle the US has any semblance of functionality at all, given the political principles by which it is governed.

And then this whole notion of the president being a member of a political party! How could things not go wrong?! Sure, it's a system that keeps people on their toes all the time (as in, "Now we have 4 years of peace and prosperity, but in the next presidential term, we could be looking at the end of times if we don't make sure that our candidate win again!"), and it keeps them divided. But beyond that? Unless, of course, this system was specifically designed for controlling the population, making it impossible for the people to rebel in any effective way, and even making them lack the motivation to do so.

I realize more and more the importance of power in numbers, and that almost anything worth achieving can be done easier (and sometimes only) with groups of people working together. After writing this down, it feels like a truism -- and while that may be accurate, I don't see it showing up in our society (the United States) to the degree it does in others. — Xtrix

A fish stinks from the head.

The American political system is, in most states, based on the motto "winner takes all". As long as this is in place, in law and in popular culture, there's just no reason to place much value on working together with others.

Another thing that is bound to divide a nation is that the president of the country (which is the most powerful position in the country) can be / must be a member of a political party. In contrast, in some European countries this is impossible, and the person who is the president cannot also be a member of a political party, because they're supposed to represent all people in the country, not just a particular party.

And something else that's pretty neat from the Tractarian:

5.64, Wittgenstein asserts that “Here it can be seen that solipsism, when its implications are followed out strictly, coincides with pure realism. The self of solipsism shrinks to a point without extension, and there remains the reality co-ordinated with it.” — Shawn

Yes. Neither the solipsist nor the realist have any notion of "perspective" (other than in the sense of 'wrong/faulty', as in "People who see things from their own perspective don't see things as they really are, but only from their narrow, wrong viewpoint").
A sentence like "Things are the way I see them" is unintelligible to a realist, and if the solipsist is also a realist, then to such a solipsist as well. IOW, it's impossible to get through to such people and to meaningfully communicate with them, at least as far as metadiscussion goes.

So, trying to connect this with your earlier post on trusting experience: are you saying that in a spiritual community, one has to be cocky enough to trust their own experiences so as not to be influenced by the thoughts, opinions, criticisms etc of others? — TLCD1996

Yes.

If so, I'm wondering what this might look like, or how it might manifest.

As (right-wing) authoritarian mentality.

Cockiness to me conveys an attitude of mistrust toward others (based on one's own conceit), which isn't all that healthy in a small spiritual community as far as I know.

The thing about noble friendship (kalyanamittata) is that it bears very little resemblance to ordinary friendship. There's no (need for) mutual respect and trust. It's all about one person assuming superiority over the other person in terms of the Dharma, and that's pretty much it. "If you don't like it, leave" is the motto.

Why bother responding irrelevantly to my response to Wayfarer's interpretation of "reincarnation" when his differs substantively, so to speak, from your own? — 180 Proof

What are you talking about??
He and I are having a discussion here too.

Discuss, man, don't score points.

I'm getting tired of all these balls I'm supposed to drag around ...

Just out of interest, do you identify as a Buddhist? — Tom Storm

Not at all. Discussing it in this context is part of my effort to find closure to my involvement with it.
(In a Buddhist setting, there is such immense pressure to approve of and agree with the doctrine that it paralyzes one's critical thinking abilities.)

Do people have agency in Buddhism? That's often how reincarnation is interpreted in the west: as a solution to earthly injustice. That's obviously the main use of the concept of immortality of the soul, though that's not at all what Plato had in mind.

I think that deep need to see divine justice comes from Christianity's role as the religion of the weak and oppressed. — frank

No, Christians don't hold monopoly over this notion, as there is a parallel in Eastern folk theories of karma.
The basic formula in such folk beliefs about karma is: "If this time around, you suffer from X, this means you did X to someone in a past life. If you do X to someone this time around, you will suffer from it now or the next time around."

The actual, scripturally based doctrines of karma suppose that the process of how the consequences of actions play out over the course of lifetimes is much more complex than what those folk beliefs have us think.

You're a sunshine full of hope and optimism!
:halo: :starstruck: :love: :blush: :up: :hearts:

Ethics/morality is more or less the study of what you should do. So, when saying “why should I be moral?”, surely that is no different to saying: Why should I do what I should do. — Georgios Bakalis

It is inevitable that one follows some moral code. The question is, which one, and how to make that choice.
"Why should I do what I should do?" asks about the justification for the choice of one moral code over others.

The question is actually asking:
"Why should I behave in line with moral code A, as opposed to moral code B?"

Practically, this translates into questions such as:
"Why should I not steal, instead of stealing?"
"Why should I always speak truthfully, instead of speaking the truth only sometimes and lie at other times?"
"Why should I follow the Christian moral code, instead of the Muslim or Viking one?"

No, more basically, and not just in reference to leaders. In religious/spiritual circles, a measure of cockiness and haughtiness is an absolute necessity for day-to-day survival.

The fallacy fallacy: The mistake of thinking/inferring that the conclusion of an argument is false because it contains a fallacy.

Comments... — TheMadFool

It makes sense to call something out as a fallacy provided that the other person handed in their text as the final version, the final product of their reasoning.

This is mostly not the case in forum discussions like this, which, whether people acknowledge it or not, are often a collaborative effort where many or all the posters involved are still looking for and working on their final version of the argument, so that the discussion is primarily a process of testing for errors and making corrections.

Do you know any solipsists? Exactly.

I hear God likes virgins. — unenlightened

But not when they are 80 years old, eh?

Problem with Bartricks is that his polemics are powerful but he constantly insults and derogates anyone who challenges him. — Wayfarer

It's Mahayana/Vajrayana style. Some Tibetan monks, for example, regularly have debating practices where heavy insults are part of the course. The practice of dishing out and handling insults is supposedly good for one's ego, or for overcoming one's ego (it works both ways).

I don't think that you'd get it, though. — thewonder

*sigh*
I would love to be wrong on this matter. I still sometimes hope I am wrong on this matter. I fear that I am not wrong, though.

In any case, there is said to be continuity between births, although the theory is, that there is no eternal changeless core or entity. — Wayfarer

It's difficult to discuss these things with people who aren't fluent in Buddhist doctrine, specifically, in dependent co-arising, and it's too much to try to present these doctrines in forum posts and discussions.
(Earlier, I posted some passages from the Visuddhimagga, but nobody took note of them. If already that is too much, then what about the suttas that explain dependent co-arising?)

So ... no need for me-of-this life to be concerned because that "next life" won't be, or affect, me-of-this life. — 180 Proof

Oh, but it will affect you, because you do not simply stop when your heart stops beating. The "stream of kamma" that is "you" continues on after the death of this current body. -- But this doesn't mean much to you, does it ...

Like I said above, the discussion here breaches what is normally possible for forum discussions. I cannot rightfully expect other posters to study a topic that even many Buddhists shun because of its complexity and extent. So I'm kind of at a loss here ...

( I write here about Buddhism to test my own understanding of it, not because I'd be an advocate.)

Convicted felons are not allowed to run. — Wayfarer

But then they first need to be convicted felons. And even then ...

There are all kinds of rules. Someone has to make this argument. If he flouts the rules then he can’t be allowed to play the game. Very simple.

Our prime minister was found guilty by a court of law and should now be serving a prison sentence. He isn't. Anything is possible.

The last four-hundred and forty-five pages are just NOS4A2 trying to convince a single other person here to support Donald Trump. — thewonder

No, they're not, you're not being precise. Some of it is abstract discussion about the US legal and political systems and other political systems. Some of it is people letting off steam. Etc.

Besides, letting things continue as such will have the effect of reminding me a period of American history that I would just as soon forget sooner rather than later. — thewonder

Die fighting or perish on your knees.

What I’m saying it, the price of being allowed to run, must be the acknowledgment that he lost. He can’t have it both ways. Get it? — Wayfarer

That would be a matter of honor. Pffft.

Who decides who is allowed to run??
Is there a law about it?
Is there an official election commission in the US who decides on such matters?

You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not an advocate of reincarnation or the existence of a soul. For myself, I resolved this issue by taking a middle way in that I contextualized it (ie. by pointing out how the key terms have different meanings in different discourses, and that the choice of which discourse to consider authoritative cannot be conducted deliberately), thus rendering it moot. I think that's a fine solution (it's based on the standard psychological approach of dealing with double binds), and I wonder how come more people don't accept it.

Trump’s GOP should be ruled ineligible to stand candidates, unless Trump recognises the 2020 election. — Wayfarer

Ruled ineligible -- by whom?

We're a scared, petty nation. — StreetlightX

Who isn't?

Why give him the floor in that sense? — thewonder

It's a challenge, isn't it? How should a moral, liberal, democratic, cooperative person treat someone who refuses to cooperate?
Banning them would be against one's own moral principles. So what's left?

So I guess the question is, if Trump refuses to recognise the result of the 2020 election, and the party falls in behind him, then how can they qualify to contest an election? Unless they’re prepared to acknowledge they lost, then they should be disqualified from running on the grounds that that party won’t honour the democratic conventions that govern elections. — Wayfarer

Have you not learned anything?!
They are winners, they don't dwell on old failures and they don't listen to naysayers. Mark my words, they'll breeze over all past troubles, toward new victories.

Reviewing his term, when elected the Republican Party had a majority in both chambers of congress and held the executive branch. They lost it all in only four years, and particularly ungracefully at the end. Republicans don't learn is what you seem to be saying. — praxis

Or they'll view it as a minor hiccup. They are resilient, tough folks with a winner mentality.

Perhaps it looks like that because you yourself have extreme views? — Benkei

The prime minister here (the most powerful position in the country) congratulated Trump for the victory in the presidential election. So -- I'm not so hopeful.

"The soul is what gets reincarnated" is the part that several soul doctrines have in common. Where they differ is in the details. From this point on, one has to choose which soul doctrine to go with. I haven't made that choice, so I can't say.

f you need coalitions to rule, the dynamics change a lot. — Benkei

Sure, and I live in a country that has such a system. There is a trend toward simplification, polarization into two camps. The political parties sometimes differ pretty much only in name.

The mind boggles as to how you could actually campaign on that. — Wayfarer

Sedevacantism is a thing.

His ongoing appeal is still a symptom of some dreadful malady regardless. — Wayfarer

Or just evidence of how the world really works.

Don't be silly. You know damn well that the term has many definitions.

What is it that is born and dies? If we can clear that up, then probably there's nothing further to discuss. — Wayfarer

As far as Hindu-style reincarnation goes, it's the soul that gets reincarnated, and the body is that gets born and dies.

The question as to what, specifically, belongs to the body and what to the soul, is answered differently by different soul doctrines.

I think the real question is which soul doctrine to choose and commit to, and whether such a choice can be made and justified rationally or not. I'm inclined to think it can't.

What is it that is reincarnated?

Telling us that there is no problem will not do. — Banno

I already told you, several times: the soul. Do we really need to go through a couple of hundred pages of summaries of soul doctrines?

I find it hard to believe that while chanting the Names of of the Lord and eating all that curry, you didn't pick up on the theology.

the discussion — spirit-salamander

The mistake is in thinking it's a discussion. It's not a discussion, it never was.

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