Of the buddhists I've spoken with, there seems to be something peculiar - fishy - about the way they talk about causality. Karma.

I have to stop taking my medication for a day to figure out what you’re saying.

What really bugs me is when they claim that they do not believe anything and that it is all "really" a matter of actual experience; I think that is delusory nonsense if it claims anything beyond the ability to know whether one is in a relaxed and happy state of mind or the opposite. — Janus

You think many things I say about this topic are 'delusory nonsense', but I get by.

I understand 'philosophy' in the broad sense of meaning 'love~wisdom' - the aim of it is a practical discipline in pursuit of a state of being which encompasses these qualities. Buddhism, and some schools of ancient Greek philosophy, both support that kind of approach (eudomonia and virtue ethics, in particular.)

I often reflect that the aim of secular culture is to provide a safe space for us to do what we like. Which is great, and highly preferable to any form of autocracy or compulsion. But I still think that left to our own devices, we won't necessarily follow the path of 'love~wisdom', which is a demanding path to follow.

As far the experiential claims of Buddhism are concerned, these can be and have been validated by many Buddhist practitioners. Certainly faith is necessary in some respects, especially for the times when you loose sight of the goal, which does happen. But there is a kind of 'inner evidence' that becomes apparent from the practice meditation and the disciplines which support it, even if we're not all 'remote mountain hermits' the Fields of Gold think we must be.

Of the buddhists I've spoken with, there seems to be something peculiar - fishy - about the way they talk about causality. Karma. — creativesoul

I agree - whenever karma is used to rationalise misfortune or blame, it's superstitious fatalism. The only beneficial aspect of believing in karma is as a positive corrective, i.e. the realisation that whatever you do will come back to you. Beyond that it easily morphs into fatalism.

I agree - whenever karma is used to rationalise misfortune or blame, it's superstitious fatalism. The only beneficial aspect of believing in karma is as a positive corrective, i.e. the realisation that whatever you do will come back to you. — Wayfarer

Which if true, would be then true. But then even that means that if you are raped, then you raped before. Not a pleasant bit of insight to take in and if not the case, and I do not think it is the case, a real crime on the metaphysical level. I am utterly open to past lives and patterns, but from my experiences it is nto like this at all. People tend to find similar positions and carry out the same problematic acts and attitudes over long periods of time. It is the learning from inside the pattern that needs to take place, not some 'see how bad that was' karmic smack. Nice idea but not what I see going on. Does anyone think Hitler came back in his next life, suddenly transformed into some minority who minding his own business is dragged off to a camp. That is just not what is energy field (just throwing out a term not to be taken literally) is going to do. He didn't unlearn all his power mongering and harsness from dying in that bunker. He came back, somewhere most likely, with the same programming, perhaps even more desperately driven to dominate, control, rule, crush, clean out. It's a bizarre idea that souls would suddenly shed a perpetrating set of attitudes and come back as with a victim attitude, for exmaple. Or that what pulls they have magnetically (me again making up terms as metaphors not as literal) that will draw towards them entirely different life patterns. No, they come back with much the same attitudes, unless they manage in death bed encounters or over their lifetimes, to face their shortcomings and real motivations and fears. It is coming to face with what is really going on in oneself that breaks the pattern, not some Karmic flipflopping where you are born with entirely new patterns and draws.

But then even that means that if you are raped, then you raped before. — Coben

I really don’t see karma like that, and it’s certainly not how it’s treated in the Buddhist texts.

instead of promoting resigned powerlessness, the early Buddhist notion of karma focused on the liberating potential of what the mind is doing with every moment. Who you are — what you come from — is not anywhere near as important as the mind's motives for what it is doing right now. Even though the past may account for many of the inequalities we see in life, our measure as human beings is not the hand we've been dealt, for that hand can change at any moment. We take our own measure by how well we play the hand we've got. If you're suffering, you try not to continue the unskillful mental habits that would keep that particular karmic feedback going. If you see that other people are suffering, and you're in a position to help, you focus not on their karmic past but your karmic opportunity in the present: Someday you may find yourself in the same predicament that they're in now, so here's your opportunity to act in the way you'd like them to act toward you when that day comes.

This belief that one's dignity is measured, not by one's past, but by one's present actions, flew right in the face of the Indian traditions of caste-based hierarchies, and explains why early Buddhists had such a field day poking fun at the pretensions and mythology of the brahmans. As the Buddha pointed out, a brahman could be a superior person not because he came out of a brahman womb, but only if he acted with truly skillful [i.e. virtuous] intentions. — Thanissaro Bikhu

I understand 'philosophy' in the broad sense of meaning 'love~wisdom' - the aim of it is a practical discipline in pursuit of a state of being which encompasses these qualities. Buddhism, and some schools of ancient Greek philosophy, both support that kind of approach (eudomonia and virtue ethics, in particular.) — Wayfarer

Yes, and I'm totally on board with that aspiration.

But I still think that left to our own devices, we won't necessarily follow the path of 'love~wisdom', which is a demanding path to follow. — Wayfarer

Some, probably very many, people will not follow the path of "love-wisdom", but what to do about that? Force them?

As far the experiential claims of Buddhism are concerned, these can be and have been validated by many Buddhist practitioners. Certainly faith is necessary in some respects, especially for the times when you loose sight of the goal, which does happen. But there is a kind of 'inner evidence' that becomes apparent from the practice meditation and the disciplines which support it, even if we're not all 'remote mountain hermits' the Fields of Gold think we must be. — Wayfarer

The experiential claims that I would accept would be awareness of heightened states of awareness, compassion, and enhanced relaxation and well-being. I accept all of that. You experience that yourself and you don't need any "authority" to "validate" it for you. If you do...well...I would question the authenticity of your purported self-knowledge.

Validation of metaphysical beliefs that belong to Buddhism being validated by Buddhist practitioners does not impress me. Of course people will interpret their experiences of heightened states in accordance with cultural paradigms they relate to. Happens all the time.

Faith is always necessary, not just when you lose sight of the goal, but you must have faith in the goal itself. Youo can't have experience before you have experience, if you know what I mean. :wink:

Some, probably very many, people will not follow the path of "love-wisdom", but what to do about that? Force them? — Janus

Join a philosophy forum?

You experience that yourself and you don't need any "authority" to "validate" it for you. If you do...well...I would question the authenticity of your purported self-knowledge. — Janus

I think the intuition behind the original sin still holds true. Granted, ‘sin’ is the most politically-incorrect idea possible in the modern lexicon. But there needs to be an antidote to it.

One of the key things that drew me to Buddhism was the way that it is presented as a raft or a vessel. Yes, says that parable, by all means abandon the raft, when the river is crossed. The precise words are ‘abandon dharma, to say nothing of adharma’. But short of ‘making the crossing’ then a vessel is necessary.

I often reflect that the aim of secular culture is to provide a safe space for us to do what we like. — Wayfarer

The aim of secularity is to provide a safe space from irrationality, to put it bluntly. Not to claim that secular culture is entirely, or even majorly, rational. However, it’s generally not subject to the whims of the religious authority (absolute) and the intense passions generated in religiosity.

I don’t believe there is any evidence, by the way, that secular culture is any less moral than religious, if that’s the suggestion.

the thing with religious or spiritual practice is that you have to believe something or there is no incentive or direction to your practice. — Janus

I believe in the Buddhist concept of emptiness and that directs and motivates my practice to some degree. Orthodox Buddhists would say such a stark view is folly and leads only to nihilism.

Buddhist Karma ideas vary but there is the idea that one's habits of mind, degree of identification with emotions and passions are causal in leading one into darker more entangled futures. One's experiences are the fruit of past attitudes. In fact this is why some parts of modern Buddhist have rebelled against this:

Loy goes on to argue that the view that suffering such as that undergone by Holocaust victims could be attributed in part to the karmic ripenings of those victims is "fundamentalism, which blames the victims and rationalizes their horrific fate," and that this is "something no longer to be tolerated quietly. It is time for modern Buddhists and modern Buddhism to outgrow it" by revising or discarding the teachings on karma.[133]

that’s exactly what I said - that if karma is used to rationalise suffering or as a theory of retribution (‘getting what they deserve’) then it is useless fatalism. Buddhists are prone to that, but I don’t think it is the meaning of the original principle.

Join a philosophy forum? — Wayfarer

How will you joining a philosophy forum help the situation; that others do no follow the path of "love-wisdom"?

I have no sympathy whatsoever with the idea of original sin; I think it's pernicious nonsense.

As to a "raft"; everyone is different. I don't deny that faith in Buddhism, or Christianity or Daoism or Shamanism or whatever may variously help suitable people come to terms with their lives and become happier in themselves and better members of the community, which is what it is all about as far as I am concerned. None of us can avoid placing our faith in something for which there can be no empirical evidence.

The idea of esoteric knowledge, though, is an ego-driven fantasy. No one can give a coherent answer as to what this so-called "knowledge" could be. Religious people should be honest and admit to themselves and others that it is all merely a matter of faith, and there's nothing at all wrong with that, for anyone who is unable or unwilling to live with uncertainty, which is probably most people. Just let go of the pretence.

Nihilism is an interesting and I think, often misunderstood, proposition. People accuse Nietzsche of being a nihilist. Nietzsche claimed that nihilism is inherent in Christianity because it imposes meaning authoritatively and relieves the individual of the need, and even the capacity, to generate their own creative meanings.

I realize that in Buddhism the meaning of nihilism is different. The path is seen as a middle way between eternalism and nihilism; which refers to the idea of a soul or self being seen respectively as either immortal or non-existent. Gautama was famously cagey about such questions; which would indicate that he could not give a definitive and coherent answer and/ or that he thought the question was an unnecessary distraction.

The problem is that the idea of rebirth is incoherent without the idea of a soul or self which endures from life to life. Personally I find the idea of rebirth utterly irrelevant, unless you were to place your faith in an Atman which persists and aspires to become one with Brahmin (from which it was never separate in the first place). In that sense I think the Vedanta is actually more coherent philosophically than Buddhism.

Not the retributive, but the consequensive. That if one identifies and continues to attach (to life, to what one wants, to others) the entanglment continues or can get worse and one will suffer. It doesn't have the moral tinge the Hinduism especially Western versions of Hindu karma can have, but there is a judgment that the problem is your having wanted. What for me are natural human facets are pathologized. Now, of course, if he was right, well, that's the way it is. But I don't think he was. That however gets very hard to demonstrate, but I don't think he actually solved the problem. He came up with a way to locally detach from it - in the habitual expert meditator - and around him or her this detachment, and the judgments inherent in it - actually increase the judgments of emotions and desire, and do not help us solve the problems.

The Nature of Reality (Death, Rebirth and Reincarnation)
Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu

I find the idea of rebirth utterly irrelevant, unless you were to place your faith in an Atman which persists and aspires to become one with Brahmin (from which it was never separate in the first place). In that sense I think the Vedanta is actually more coherent philosophically than Buddhism. — Janus

From what I understand, Buddhism claims that all is empty and all sentient beings are Buddhas (enlightened), and it is only our ignorance (of our true empty nature) that prevents us from realizing this. There seems to be two ways to know emptiness: intellectually and experientially. Personally, I think impermanence is the key to understanding it intellectually. If everything is in a constant state of change then there cannot be static or independent things. If something was completely fixed and independent, well, it certainly wouldn't be alive.

As for knowing emptiness experientially, that can happen deliberately as with some form of contemplative practice, or it can be experienced unintentionally by something (such a stroke, see Jill Bolte Taylor) causing a particular brain state, or perhaps with the use of psychedelics. In any case, it is still just a transient experience. It may have benefits, such as relieving existential anxiety and whatever else, but these benefits may need to be maintained by regular practice.

From this perspective "enlightenment" doesn't live up to the hype, but it does explain why we don't see any enlightened people walking around, being all all-knowing, all-loving, all-compassionate, all-unsuffering, and all-whatever-the-hell-else-some-priest-can-dream-up.

Has anyone seen the film, Old Joy? There's a SPOILER ALERT quote at the end of the film that I really liked. He says that "Sorrow is just worn out joy." I was wondering if anyone might know the Buddhist concept or saying that this originates from. Kelly Reichardt or Jonathan Raymond could have just made it up, but it did seem to be inspired by some sort of Buddhist notion.

Of the buddhists I've spoken with, there seems to be something peculiar - fishy - about the way they talk about causality. Karma.
— creativesoul

I agree - whenever karma is used to rationalise misfortune or blame, it's superstitious fatalism. The only beneficial aspect of believing in karma is as a positive corrective, i.e. the realisation that whatever you do will come back to you. Beyond that it easily morphs into fatalism. — Wayfarer

Sorry for the delayed reply. I'm not sure that I follow your reasoning here Jeep.

The agreement is more superficial than it may seem. It begins and ends at the uncharted territory of marks on paper/screen. The same marks are often repeated - sometimes verbatim - in statements that differ remarkably in their meaning. I think that you and I are working from different world-views.

In layman's terms...

The issue is multi-faceted. In order for any of it to make sense - there must be some supernatural moral judgment at work. I reject cosmic justice.

The idea conflicts with everyday events/facts/happenings/actuality. Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people.

The idea conflicts with everyday events/facts/happenings/actuality. Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. — creativesoul

things often don't turn out in ways that seem right.

It begins and ends at the uncharted territory of marks on paper/screen. — creativesoul

Also, the Buddha's day, nothing was written down, so it couldn't have begun there.....

The idea conflicts with everyday events/facts/happenings/actuality. Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people.
— creativesoul

things often don't turn out in ways that seem right. — Wayfarer

Bad things happen to good people. Good things happen to bad people. We can watch it take place. There are innumerable historical examples thereof. So, to believe in karma in light of this...

In order to make any sense at all, we must further think/believe that things are not what they seem regarding the aforementioned unfortunate circumstances.

Your reply is a prima facie example.

It begins and ends at the uncharted territory of marks on paper/screen.
— creativesoul

Also, the Buddha's day, nothing was written down, so it couldn't have begun there..... — Wayfarer

I meant the depth of our agreement.

The most difficult part is not what you listed. It's that to accept the current world is no more than an illusion, or our daily knowledge delusional experience. If you have come across Plato's Allegory of the Cave, would have found that some best noble minds of both the West & East agree fundamentally (astonishingly).
It's deep-root truth which is untestable, you take it or leave it by yourself. If this is not passed, we can't continue.

Under that light: reincarnation is just a chain of big drama episodes, or dramas. Every living object (arguably non-living too) assumes a role, e.g a President or a cockroach, based on the being's own causally behavioral history where each episode is a chapter. Economy achievements how splendid are just on stage.

There are beings who can exit the reincarnation cycles but this requires too much insight into it to perceive. But also turns back the problem #1: self or self-less? Only vagueness around this to what it ultimately is. Falun gong doctrines do explain about it using metaphysical models same as superstring's multiverses, but it's also too complicated by words to elaborate.
Regardless, to exit reincarnation, i.e venturing through soul cleansing under any form of asceticism, one needs to have a strong leading prime from within which(who) is not delusioned by any surroundings.