What happens if we now say no to Nihilism too? — TheMadFool

Our teeth continue to rot as if nothing happened.

*sigh*

Well, desire is fundamental to our psychological make-up, it's extremely difficult to get rid of. And there is always that secret nagging desire to attain nirvana. — Apollodorus

What a rookie.

There’s your problem right there. It’s a religion, and belief is involved. Either get over it, and get on with it, or walk away. They’re your choices. — Wayfarer

I don't experience those as my choices, though.

If I was a bodhisattva I could help guide you to enlightenment — Fooloso4

No. A bodhisattva is not yet a buddha, a bodhisattva is not yet enlightened, he doesn't have that status.
The idea that the unelightened could lead others to enlightenment is absurd.

But it looks like our friend baker will require a good few rebirths - hopefully as a Buddhist - to achieve that. — Apollodorus

While you, of course, are inevitably close to nirvana, or already there, right? Right.

So humans have to constantly buffer why they do anything. There is no automatic reason why we need to do anything at all. — schopenhauer1

I think only some people are like that; in fact, possibly the minority. A case can be made that a psychologically normal person does usually not reflect upon their choices at all, and this is actually preferred both by psychologists and people at large.

In fact, someone who reflects on their choices like you suggest, someone who wonders about their motivations that way is likely to score highly on the neuroticism scale (at least that), and render themselves somewhere in "mentally unwell" territory.

What you describe as "humans have to constantly buffer why they do anything", normal people would classify as "doubting oneself, second-guessing oneself", and thus as "lack of self-confidence", "lack of belief in oneself". A more charitable normal person would tell you that you "think too much".

It is at the most "bad faith" in not recognizing the fact that again, people choose justifications for why the do any task at all. — schopenhauer1

No, I think that typically, they don't "choose" their justifications. They just have them, end of story.

No power hierarchy exists in this scenario. It’s just two individuals in a community. The thoughts he has or expresses are unable to elevate him to any position of power. — NOS4A2

Young jedi, you yet have a lot to learn.

Thank heavens you've got the alcohol to blame! And not perhaps that smoking pot induced the person to a number of other bad choices, such as drinking and driving.

I have explained that Buddhism does not require that we take anything for granted,. — FrancisRay

You most certainly did not explain it. You just claimed it, with nothing further.

The Buddha spends half his time telling us not to do this. There is no such thing as 'politically incorrect in mysticism. I can't imagine where you get these ideas. . .

How about you actually reading what I said? The you'll see that I don't have the ideas you imagine I have!

It seems you want me to explain what is explained in ten thousand books. This is not fair. I'll probably stick to recommending relevant texts in future. . .

*sigh*
Well, you described yourself as "lazy". That says a lot.

But I do agree that some assumptions that are fundamental to Buddhism can be flawed. — Apollodorus

I never said that they are flawed. I don't think they are. I only pointed out that doing some practices and holding some views can lead to some trouble for the practitioner.

Do you really need me to explain that this is a misunderstanding? — FrancisRay

Yes, by all means, do. This is key.

As I've already pointed out, Buddhism never asks us to take any premises for granted.

For a secular Westerner interested in Buddhism, it is indeed quite likely politically incorrect to propose that Buddhism requires that we take some things for granted.
In contrast, cradle Buddhists typically take for granted that the tenets of their religion are true.

So maybe we could start by asking why you believe it does.

For one, from listening to Buddhists of various walks and provenances and from reading the Pali suttas.
For two, it's the only sensible explanation. Up until stream entry, a practitioner can't possibly know he's on the right path or that the practice "works".

Of course, as Fooloso4 mentions, there may have to be some suspension of disbelief at the start for practical reasons, but this has nothing to do with epistemology..

Oh? And you think that all the bowing, kneeling, prostrating before monks and teachers "has nothing to do with epistemology" either?

As I understand it, knowledge for the Buddhist comes with enlightenment. It is experiential not theoretical. — Fooloso4

Sure. But the issue is that relevant experiences are gained through doing a particular practice. Doing this practice to begin with requires that some things are taken for granted.

What made me hopeless about Buddhism is that its epistemology is, essentially, a self-fulfilling prophecy: first, one takes some premises for granted; then one acts in line with those premises; and then one "sees" that those premises "are true".
— baker

If you see it that way, you should definitely abandon interest in it. If you start with the opinion that it's all a foregone conclusion, then there's obviously nothing to be learned by studying it. — Wayfarer

I think this problem of circularity/self-referentiality applies to many (if not all) fields of knowledge. To me, that it should apply to Buddhism, is nothing special.

I don't think there is anything to be learned (strictly speaking) by studying something, but there very well is something to become, something to do, something to attain. Like when one enrolls in a course of
education to acquire a qualification, and then one can do things one was not able to do before.

I don't think one can test or learn whether the Four Noble Truths are in fact true. But by starting off by taking them for granted, one might be able to do and attain things that one otherwise might not be able to.

To me, the real problem in regard to knowledge is epistemic triviality. As above with Buddhism, I think similar applies with other religions and philosophies. For example, I think that if one tries hard enough, Jesus becomes one's lord and savior and one lives happily ever after. So the question is, how on earth does one choose a religious (etc.) path???

Not so. 'Epistemology' has a name in Indian philosophy, it's pramāṇa-vāda , the theory of justification and Hetu-vidya, the science of causation. The two exemplary sources are the scholar-monks Dharmakirti and Dignāga, whose treatises on logic and epistemology are studied in every Mahāyāna Buddhist institution worldwide. By all means don't believe it, but your depiction of it as a matter of subjective choice is mistaken, based on indlvidualist liberal philosophy, 'what is right for me'. It's a very rigorous and highly structured doctrine.

I was discussing the pramanas once with a Hindu brahmacari. I asked him whether it was possible to choose as to which pramana one considers authoritative. He had to pause (otherwise, he was extremely fluent and fast-spoken), and said that it would depend on whatever pramana one currently holds as authoritative. Ie. the idea is that there are pramana positions from which individual choice is possible, and others, from which it is not.
What do you think of that?

Could you narrow down the problem by asking a more specific question? — FrancisRay

You're the one who said that I misunderstood. So it's on you to show me how, where, why I misunderstood.

This is anecdotal evidence, of course.
I grew up in what was almost entirely a monoracial monoculture. I am certain that we were taught racism. From what I can remember, at first, none of the kids cared one way or another about race, it was simply not an issue. But then some liberal, politically correct school policy was introduced according to which we whites were all assumed to be evil racists and needed to be taught interracial tolerance. This policy came along with reverse racism, where the few people of other races were given extra care, credit, and protection by those in positions of power. So those few kids of other race got away with shit that the rest of us would be punished for. Yes, that taught us racism.

This still does nothing to explain why you care so much about the lives of others (whom you'd prefer weren't born at all).

Has anyone actually done this experiment, or is there any anecdotal evidence of how actual people have acted in such situation?

Extending an olive branch is sometimes the antidote to hatred. — NOS4A2

While many other times, it's a act of submission and letting the other person have the upper hand. And to fuck with you.
And once you make the mistake of extending that olive branch, it's too late, the power hierachy between the two of you is set for as long as you live.

People who will piss on your lawn, slit the tires on your car ...

Why would it necessarily be obligatory or a dogma? Could it not be optional? — 0 thru 9

Once something is deemed "normal", it eventually becomes the norm, obligatory.

That is a distinct possibility. But like the mob boss said, “if you want to make an omelet, you gotta break some legs”.

Because STI's are such fun!
Don't just think chlamidya or HIV, think treatment-resistant tuberculosis.

The chain of: words ----> feeling bad ----> acting in response ----> repeat is nothing but trouble, both for the individual and for groups. — Bitter Crank

Not for the one who casts the first stone. That person comes out the winner.

Can you live peacefully next to someone who tells you don't deserve to exist?

Yes, I can. — NOS4A2

And you talk to them, greet them, as if all was well?

I know Marion played quite a few of those roles, but it's never seemed to me to be much to aspire to, and I've always been a bit bewildered by the role played by the cowboy in our culture. — Ciceronianus the White

I think those films were exercises in stylization and were never meant to be taken at face value. The height of that stylization were then the Spaghetti Westerns.

Of course I can live peaceably next door to someone who thinks I should not exist (there are such people, actually) and they can live peaceably next door to me. We will both probably make some effort to stay out of each other's way. No comradely beers in the yard for us! — Bitter Crank

I suppose this is easier to handle when being neighbors in an apartment building where people can mostly ignore eachother without this having any bad consequences. But being neighbors in neighboring houses in a suburb is another matter, because there are issues of infrastructure, trees, fences, etc. that you must discuss with the neighbor and come to some agreement to.

Hearing or reading objectionable opinions will not so much as move a hair on one's head. — Bitter Crank

Even when they are said by a person living just a few meters away from you?

Whenever you see that person, you know, "This person wishes me dead". Does that make for a good life for you?

How much would Western Civilizational (WC) be changed, if both public sex and public nudity were accepted and tolerated? — 0 thru 9

It would be just another dogma, just another standard of behavior that would become normative and obligatory for all. And sexually transmitted infections would have a field day, obviously.

One doesn't have to be a Buddhist to endorse its teachings. — FrancisRay

That's confused.

So you're favoring selective antinatalism. Some types of antinatalism are not destructive or harmful. In fact, they can help humanity toward a better gene pool.

In the scenario the racist also verbalizes that she would treat the person with common courtesy. Where exactly does the injury occur? — NOS4A2

Expressing hatred is a breach of (potential) trust. It's a declaration of war terms.

Can you live peacefully next to someone who tells you don't deserve to exist?

I don't think a person can become a victim of another's thoughts. Even if the racist imagined murdering the other, the so-called victim would be completely unaware, let alone injured by it. — NOS4A2

No, the scenario in the OP specifies that the racist clearly verbalizes their racist stance toward the target and that the rest of the community know about this.

That it might be difficult to tolerate those who hate me — Hanover

Does their continued presence diminish your faith in humanity, or your faith that life is worth living?
If not, how so?

Until there is an act, or even a reasonable belief an act might occur, I think we are stuck letting Archie Bunker rant away.

I've witnessed a situation like this, and I saw how quickly the police jumped to conclusions, issuing fines, and then other neighbors taking sides, reputations being damaged, practical problems (regarding fences and so on) becoming intractable, and so on. Shaky grounds.

Indeed. But can you be on good neighborly terms with someone who believes you should not exist?
— baker

That it might be difficult to tolerate those who hate me — Hanover

The thing is that once the other person actually tells you they hate you etc., you are now living in the knowledge that you cannot rely on your neighbor (!) for basic human decency toward yourself. They might not actively engage in acts of aggression toward you, but you now have reason to expect that they will engage in acts of omission that can lead to your harm. For example, if they see someone breaking into your home, they will not call the police.

Same way auto destruction is harm against myself, antinatalism is harm against humanity. — SpaceDweller

Surely you wish that some people would not procreate?

I've only read them in English, not in Latin & German, respectively. Both probably use "joy" & "happiness". Why that matters to you I can't fathom. — 180 Proof

I speak several languages and so I can compare. Something that can be a problem in one language isn't necessarily so in another (such as expressing one concept with one word -- e.g. Schadenfreude). Words often don't have 1 to 1 translations. I'm fluent in German and I can find my way around Latin. My native language is a Slavic one, not English.
Well, I guess this is just one more of those things that only multilingual people can relate to. Nevermind.

Well, I hope you don't learn the hard way how risky it can be to speak your mind.

I don't think he should be expelled. A guilty mind absent a guilty act doesn't equal a violation. — Hanover

Indeed. But can you be on good neighborly terms with someone who believes you should not exist?

Blame the victim for what? — NOS4A2

For being targeted for racism, in this case.

I've never been in such a situation where I felt I was taking a big risk to say my opinion — Judaka

Heaven help you!

/.../ You can find it too in the almost alimentary effects visible in say, the rhythm of marching of the SS, in uniform, bursting with pride. How to be critical about that kind of joy? — StreetlightX

For that kind of criticism, some metaphysical/transcendental edifice is necessary, or a big enough ego.

Ah yes. Quite right. But your disparaging comments about Buddhist epistemology suggest that it is a lot of nonsense, and it might take a long time to dispel this idea. If you start a thread on the topic I'll join in, — FrancisRay

This is the new thread, scroll up, join in.

Calling all Buddhists fools for not seeing the faults in their own epistemology even after two and half thousand years puts you out on a very fragile limb, so I could argue it's up to you to present a clearly reasoned objection - but let;s call it a draw. .

Talk about projection!