Buddhism appears to be especially vulnerable to this type of exploitation, probably largely due to its foundational scriptures being unknown and not readily available for a long time. — baker
virtue signalling — Tom Storm
I mean, there really isn't anything being sold here in Buddhism apart for a way of living... — Shawn
I have no doubt of this. And I've noticed that for many Westerns who are rebelling against the religious culture of their parents and grandparents, Eastern faiths, particularly Buddhism, give them an opportunity for retaining a sense of the numinous whist virtue signalling their penchant for cultural diversity. — Tom Storm
Did I say it was all that matters? I said that interpretation is significantly involved in areas other than in directly observed events where, it could be argued, interpretation is of no significant significance. I have no idea where this conversation is going. — Janus
Regarding experience there may be an 'as it is', but as soon as it is spoken about interpretation enters. Ideas are always open to interpretation. — Janus
I way of living by denying what many consider to be life - ie. no sex, no pain, no desire. It's just a warped nihilism. — I like sushi
Pffft. Westerners, a sense of the numinous? When an aged Western celebrity chants some Eastern mantra, and does so for "inner peace", that isn't "a sense of the numinous", that's just commercialisation, consumerification of religion. She might as well pray Our Father, but, oh, those words she understands!
Unless, of course, having no clue what one is doing should pass for "a sense of the numinous". Yes, Westerners are very good at that when it comes to Eastern religions. — baker
When I say 'numinous' I simply mean people's sense of mystery, awe or majesty when out in nature, say, or listening to some music. I meant nothing philosophically or spiritually intricate.
I'm pretty sure this feeling of wonder is hard-wired in humans. — Tom Storm
But what if they actually know, and are above and beyond interpretation? — baker
Well, Buddhism does separate emotion from expression Instead of a natural feeling----> expression with sound, facial expression, posture we have a witnessing process. A disidentification. Expression of emotion is a part of life. Now, of course, Buddhists do express emotions, but in practical terms it is frowned upon more than in many other subcultures (judgements of emotions and their expression is pretty common) and at the practice level one is disconnection emotion from expression. So, there's a facet of life that is cut off. — Bylaw
Sure, all cultures have limits and taboos and encourage suppression of emotions. But in Buddhism you have a complete disidentification with them. You train to disconnect the emotion-> bodily expression/voice expression natural process. This is qualitatively different. IOW there are per se judgments of emotions which can be contrasted with judgments of what is outside the person. One is discouraged from judging what is outside, but implicitly encouraged to see the natural expression and identification with emotions (and desire) as something to be stopped. If we consider the meditation practice as training, this is, amongst other things, what it is training one to do.Not sure what you're talking about. Controlling the expression of one's emotions is common in traditional cultures, as well as in modern times ("emotional intelligence"). — baker
Sure, all cultures have limits and taboos and encourage suppression of emotions. But in Buddhism you have a complete disidentification with them. — Bylaw
If you can give me a link to a searchable Pali Canon — Bylaw
I am going by Buddhist practice in any of the major traditions. What that practice is doing. Coupling that with the statements of masters in several traditions, both in the East and West and what the social pressures are like in temples both East and West, modern and traditional. From my memory what i am talking about is often not explicit. No one says emotions are bad, though some are view as per se destructive. But the practice cut off the natural feeling to expression. Emotions are passing phenomena to be observed. Officially they are not judged. They are passing forms. But the practice itself judges the flow from feeling to expression. Desire is often more openly blamed.
Regarding the idea that sages can directly see the ultimate truth, consider the following from Stephen Batchelor. After Buddhism Yale University Press. Kindle Edition, where he is discussing the "two truths" idea: — Janus
As for what Gotama thinks of those who talk about the “supreme” (parama), we only have to turn to the Chapter of Eights, the text cited earlier as an example of a skeptical voice in the early canon:
The priest without borders doesn’t seize on what he’s known or beheld. Not passionate, not dispassionate, he doesn’t posit anything as supreme. One who dwells in “supreme” views and presents them as final will declare all other views “inferior”— he has not overcome disputes.
You mentioned you are unfamiliar with secular Buddhism; Batchelor is one of its chief proponents.
Read another translation of this:
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp4_11.html — baker
Batchelor's translation is suspicious from the onset. The Buddha of the Pali Canon has no qualms about praising himself or the Dhamma he discovered. — baker
Yet nowhere, not even once, will we find a mention of either sammuti-sacca or paramattha-sacca in any of the hundreds of discourses attributed to Gotama in the Pali Canon. — Janus
He lost me at hello. — baker
I know. But when it's formulated like that, it's like being thrown in at the deep end.
There is quite a bit that is supposed to happen for a person and that a person must decide on before they even go near a temple or meditation hall where they could hear such instructions as you mention. And those things that are supposed to happen before then adequately contextualize the instructions the person is given there. — baker
And the effects on one's relation to emotions would take many years. But that is the goal. The practices sever the natural flow of emotion to expression. — Bylaw
That is not even recognizable as the same text and nor is it titled "Chapter of Eights". — Janus
Batchelor's translation is suspicious from the onset. The Buddha of the Pali Canon has no qualms about praising himself or the Dhamma he discovered.
— baker
The issue was not about whther the Gotama of the Pali Canon praises himself or the Dhamma.
Try to focus: perhpos provide me with some quotations which contradict Batchelo'rs claim that
Yet nowhere, not even once, will we find a mention of either sammuti-sacca or paramattha-sacca in any of the hundreds of discourses attributed to Gotama in the Pali Canon.
— Janus
Says a lot about your open-mindedness, and nothing about Batchelor. I doubt you have even read his works.
And welcome to the wonderful world of free translations. — baker
The point is that the Buddha would not say the sort of politically correct things that Batchelor and so many other modernists ascribe to the Buddha. — baker
I told you already, there is an old dispute about the two truths doctrine in Buddhism — baker
Sometimes, a few words from someone are enough to get a pretty good picture of where he's coming from. — baker
I actually don't think this is true. I see parallels in the corporate world, where Buddhism fits nicely with a kind of stoicism. The popularity of mindfullness (don't worry I am not confusing this with a dedicated Buddhist practice in most cases) shows that people from all walks of life are craving, to varying degrees, more detachment and disidentification from emotions, something corporations are often happy to support.For a relatively wealthy and healthy person who doesn't have a problem with getting their work done, earning a living, and their regular practical and social obligations, such severing as you speak of surely feels unnatural, perverse even. — baker
I highlighted the perjorative terms. And I think this has been scene as the dichotomy, both in the West and East. Indulge and be ruled by emotions or disidentify, control, suppress and/or keep from expression emotions. I think it is a false dichotomy. That accepting emotions including their expression leads to being ruled by them, etc.But someone fighting a chronic illness, living in relative poverty or under social stigma, or facing such prospects, can be inclined to find ways not to be ruled by emotions. For such a person, developing equanimity can be a matter of necessity. When one is ill, poor, or has fallen from grace, or is facing such prospects, indulging in emotions in simply counterpoductive. — baker
For a relatively wealthy and healthy person who doesn't have a problem with getting their work done, earning a living, and their regular practical and social obligations, such severing as you speak of surely feels unnatural, perverse even.
— baker
I actually don't think this is true. — Bylaw
I see parallels in the corporate world, where Buddhism fits nicely with a kind of stoicism. The popularity of mindfullness (don't worry I am not confusing this with a dedicated Buddhist practice in most cases) shows that people from all walks of life are craving, to varying degrees, more detachment and disidentification from emotions, something corporations are often happy to support.
But someone fighting a chronic illness, living in relative poverty or under social stigma, or facing such prospects, can be inclined to find ways not to be ruled by emotions. For such a person, developing equanimity can be a matter of necessity. When one is ill, poor, or has fallen from grace, or is facing such prospects, indulging in emotions in simply counterpoductive.
— baker
I highlighted the perjorative terms. And I think this has been scene as the dichotomy, both in the West and East. Indulge and be ruled by emotions or disidentify, control, suppress and/or keep from expression emotions. I think it is a false dichotomy. That accepting emotions including their expression leads to being ruled by them, etc.
This is a huge subject, but even if you are correct, that maintaining the natural identification with and expression of emotions is being ruled by them and indulging
it is still Buddhism going against a natural process.
We live in societies that suppress and judge emotional expression.
Again, if someone wants to have this as a goal, they I am all for them pursuing it. But it is not objective and it's not for me.
But it is not objective
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.