The annoying thing about a "lecturing" tone is the adopted posture of superior knowledge on the part of the "lecturer". Those who really do have superior knowledge usually don't adopt a superior tone in my experience.

The other possible mode of 'lecturing tone' action of is that someone presents a whole lot of fairly basic information, either because they unjustifiably presume the other to be ignorant of what they are presenting, or because they want to appear learned themselves.

Your posts don't usually come off as "lecturing" in either of these senses; not to me at least. The only thing you do sometimes that annoys me is failing to state your case while claiming that if your interlocutor was familiar enough with certain texts they would see that what you are saying is true.

The only thing you do sometimes that annoys me is failing to state your case while claiming that if your interlocutor was familiar enough with certain texts they would see that what you are saying is true. — Janus

This is wrong.

The direction of my quest is, "If the other person knows X, and I know X, what else does the other person know because of which they think of X differently than I do?"

If, in the discussion, it becomes clear that the person doesn't know X, I usually cease discussion with that person, as any further discussion with them would not be conducive to my quest.


The most I claim is that if my interlocutor was familiar enough with certain texts they would see what I'm seeing. If I would be certain that I know the truth, I wouldn't be discussing things with anyone. I'd be off blissing out or something.

The most I claim is that if my interlocutor was familiar enough with certain texts they would see what I'm seeing. — baker

Since any text is subject to interpretation; why would you think that? When it comes to the Pali Canon or Plato, for example, if you are not fully conversant with Pali or Ancient Greek, respectively, then you are reading something which has already been interpreted by the translator.

So what exactly is the issue? That you resent being lectured by someone inferior/junior to yourself?
Or lectured altogether?
— baker

That it’s inappropriate in this medium. I’m happy to debate ideas and I am open to criticism but I don’t want to be told what I should think. — Wayfarer

And on this account, you dismissed some of my most insightful posts. The shoulds in them are really not controversial, but are well-meaning truisms.


(Although I suspect I know what's actually bothering you.)

In my experience, this is actually not a problem. I've had the opportunity to interact with some people who focus primarily on the Pali suttas, some of them are fluent in Pali. After interacting with them for a couple of years, and doing some work on my own, the problems of translation started to look vastly different than they did in the beginning. In the beginning, they seemed final, definitive, set out for a final, definitive answer. Over time, I developed a dynamic, progressive approach to the matter.

I think that to get a sense for this, one would just need to interact with some people who focus primarily on the Pali suttas, consistently over a longer period of time.

Surely you've experienced something similar in other fields of expertise.

I also speak three languages fluently, an bits of others. The notion that there should be 1:1 translation is, based on experience, foreign to me. When one is fluent in several languages, one naturally develops a dynamic, flexible approach to translation. I don't think someone who speaks only one language can understand this.

As you say, the notion that there should be 1:1 translation is absurd. I don't think one needs to speak more than one language to appreciate this. I've studied some German . French and Spanish, but I'm no where near fluent. However I have read various translations of Plato, some German and French philosophers, and Spanish and Italian poets, and it's easy to see, by comparing translations, that interpretation is heavily involved, that translation is "flexible" and "dynamic" as you say.

Add to this, in the case of Buddhism, that the Suttas were written around 150-200 years after the death of Gotama, and were based on a verbal tradition that, knowing human nature, would have been variously embellished, changed, added to and subtracted from, plus the fact of the proliferation of schools that have evolved to this day, and it is clear that there is no one consistent Buddhism. In any case it doesn't matter because only ideas that makes sense to you and that you can use for your own practice of living are of any relevance. It doesn't matter where they originated, or how close you might be convinced that they are to Gotama's original teachings. It wouldn't even matter if Gotama turned out to be a mythical figure..

I suppose this thread isn't the right one to post this (vide infra) in but since it's a live thread, let me do so:

1. Luck. Basically inexplicable events that make you wanna ask "whatever did I do to deserve this?" The events in question maybe either good (winning the lottery) or bad (being laid off).

2. The principle of sufficient reason states that for everything there's always a reason.

3. What goes around comes around. As you sow, so shall you reap. These rules/laws are in the here and now. We can see them in action in our everyday lives.

Take all 1, 2 & 3 together and you have

i) The law of karma (moral causation)

ii) Death-rebirth cycle or reincarnation

From i) and ii) arises the desire for escape from this nauseating "merry"-go-round (note people enjoy going round and round in carousels. Maybe samsara ain't that bad, huh?) which leads us to...drumroll please...nirvana!

In a manner, a person is more in correspondence with the laws of causality in nature with the natural dispositions of human nature in mind. — Shawn

What do you mean exactly by that ?

That's skipping a lot of Buddhist doctrine and enshrining Western science as the highest ... — baker

I think that was a sentence worth finishing. I certainly think scientific methodology is incredibly useful, but other processes lead me to opinions and my sense of reality.

And in order to improve the situation, one has to get one's emotions under control. For example, children are taught early on not to indulge in their anger, hostility, dislike, feeling down, in order to do their homework and studies. — baker

I don't think one has to get one's emotions under control and that's a statement that needs some support, especially in this context, where the Buddhist form of control and disidentification is generally not turned to by poor people, especially if we look at people who might turn to it. And most Eastern Buddhist, iow those raising in the tradition are much like Sunday Christians. They are not intense meditators. Their priorities are elsewhere. And as I say later, the poor in the just don't seem attracted to Buddhism. The middle and upper classes are vastly more likely to join/participate/convert.

Further, notice that you regularly mention emotions as something that gets indulged in, not thoughts. And yes, I recognize that Buddhism does have admonitions not to indulge in thinking, but I want to point out that while you deny having a heart head dichotomy, you consistantly refer to emotions as the things that are problematic. And this mirrors the judgments, both in Eastern and Western Buddhism, in communities in general, about the expression of emotions. I am not sure if you have mentioned emotions once without the verb indulging. And you do not distinguish indulging from expressing, if you see any difference. When I bring up the expression of emotions, you mention indulgence, a pejorative. I am critical of the universalizing and making objective Buddhist values, and you respond as if the only option is indulging, which is negative.

If I mention that there is a head heart dichotomy, you don't have one, you claim. But since you are expressing ideas and thinking (and in fact many Buddhists would say we are both indulging in thinking) you seem to assume that expressing thoughts at least can be ok. But at the mention of expressing emotions, you respond about indulging.

And this in fact mirrors my experience in every single Buddhist setting and with nearly every Buddhist person I have met. They may openly say they do not judge emotions or see a split between heart and head. But in practical, body language, verbal actions (whether implicit or explict) they react negatively to emotions much more than they do the expression of thoughts. They use terms like indulge and they tend to classify emotions into negative and positive (this you haven't done explicitly but implicitly in the list of emotions that are problematic.

I find it very cake and eat it to. Give off the judgments, but then claim not to have them. Say they do not have the heart mind split, but in their reactions and admonitions repeatedly focus on the expression of emotions.

And this is fine if they are defining their values and goals. IOW as subjective choices for how they want to live and perhaps for lifestyle of others they are around. But then it is often presented as objective and it isn't.

As far as children controlling emotions, it is controlling emotions like British upper class kids are taught or working class Italians, ,because it sure produces vastly different types of control. Or African kids. (I realize there are diverse patterns of pedagogy and parenting in these groups, but there are tendencies and what is considered acceptable emotional expression varies wildly amongst such groups.
Well, no. I think that artificial and also, not natural in the sense I mean with emotional expression. We have physiological structures and neurological processes that go from stimulas to emotional reactions to expression. — Bylaw

I haven't been "trained" to think this way, so I cannot really relate.
I think that that which is usually called "emotions" is inseparable from one's thoughts. I think a person's emotions are this person's condensed ethical and ideological stances or attitudes. (I think the dichotomy head vs. heart is misleading.)

Well babies have emotions and small children well before they have such things to condense. I would see them as a spectrum or facets of the same thing. Nevertheless one can suppress emotional expression without suppressing thinking. One can suppress that aspect of that one thing without suppressing the other end.

And you regularly refer to indulging in emotions and not indulging in attitudes or thoughts.

So emotions can protect one. We don't have to implicitly consider the limbic something one indulges in or disidentifies with (he dichotomy implicit in those pejorative words I highlighted, given the context of the paragraph they were in that I did read. Did you read about the dichotomy I read or did you just check to see if I focused on what you wanted me to focus on?) We don't have to view the limbic system as at odds with the prefrontal cortex and side with one. Our images of what would happen if we allowed our emotions to express much more as the rule is tainted by the situation we are in having been trained to view emotions from the eit

Like I said, I'm not "trained" that way, and it has nothing to do with my exposure to Buddhism, I was like that long before. I also don't subscribe to the current mainstream scientific theories about emotions.

Well current scientific theories don't see them as separate. And, yes, people who have certain values or proclivities then to be attracted to spiritualites and philosophies that fit with those value and ps. This doesn't make them objective, but it sure can make it seem that way.

We are taught there is a need to choose emotions or reason.


I was never taught that. I know people often talk that way, but I don't. If anything, to me, it's all one. I don't differentiate between "head" and "heart".

Then you statements about what a child must do, is odd in what is left out and what it emphases. I talk about emotions in general. And your reation is to say that a chlld should not indulge in emotion when learning. I see the statements where you say you don't believe there is a split and then I see what your attitudes are and they seem to clearly have that split. The idea of expressing and not disidentifying with emotions leads to responses from you that one will be indulging in emotions, not attitudes. And you list the emotions.

Support someone else pursuing trying to reach the state they want to achieve? As long as they are not hurting me or someone else or something I value, I do this sort of thing all the time. I don't want those horrible ear rings or nose rings in my face. But if that is what someone else wants, go for it.

I'm not like that. I wouldn't openly oppose them, but I wouldn't be supportive either.

I respect the fact that they are making a choice that fits their values. If it does no harm to me I would not want them stopped. I prefer a world where people can do that. if people follow their subjective choices as long as it does not harm others. But it's a very large digression to flesh out why I prefer that world and I am already writting too much.

If someone wants to disidentify with their emotions, well, then fine. I object to them saying or implying that it is objctively better to do this or it is simply being realisitic. Or that, really, deep down is what would be best for me - which most Buddhists do seem to believe. I think they are incorrect. And I do think they are judging and not accepting. What is outside them is accepted, but certain natural flows are not accepted. That is their free choice to make. If it becomes the state religion, than I am a rebel. But that's unlikely in the extreme where I am.

There certainly are preachy and bossy Buddhist types who will go out of their way to tell you how wrong you are. But unless you make a point of talking to them, seeking them out even, then what does it matter to you what they believe about this or that?

How do you even know what Buddhists (of whichever kind) believe, unless you actually go out of your own way to find out, going into their territory?

It's not what they believe, it is what they communicate, for example in philosophical forums, or in workplaces or other settings where I still encounter them often regularly. If they present it as objective, I disagree. If the judgments seep out of them or are stated directly then I react to that. This thread is talking about Buddhism simply being realism and also here and elsewhere the idea that certain Buddhist ideas are objective truths that I do not think are objective truths.

In the past I had a lot of contact with Buddhists. I lived in places where it was the dominant belief system and I encountered many in the US and had contacts and experiences of Buddhist communities and temples. There I encountered the 'this is objective' facet of the beliefs and resisted it, especially when it became clear to me that their goals were not my goals - in relation to how one relates to emotions, for example. Nowadays it can come up as a discussion topic in forums like this one and I find it interesting and also just want to express my reaction to the idea that it is objective.

As far as going into their territory I went both out of interest in Buddhism and then moved to where it was the dominant religion for other reasons. But Buddhist territory is not limited to temples in the West, where I now live again, and I encounter it and Buddhists and also similar belief systems presented as objective.

Is there a problem with arguing in a philosophy forum that what is presented in Buddhism as objective is not objective? I don't see any other belief system getting a pass, regardless of territories.
I suppose if I started threads attacking Buddhism that would be closer to just creating a disagreement. I don't think I will end up doing that, but even then, if I want to clarify my own thoughts through interacting with others, even that seems implicitly accepted by most people's desires for a philosophy discussion forum.

I find this ad hom, not in the sense of you going to the man, but as if I am doing something wrong even weighing in on the subject. IOW focusing on me, discussing ideas in a philosophy forum, this act of mine, rather than on the arguments themselves.

You've never stated if you think the Buddhist values are objective. IOW the Buddhist goals are what we really want, deep down, or will in a future rebirth when we have, like Siddheartha, realized that we aren't getting what we want, etc. through material things, etc. It seems implicit. Since my saying it is not objective seems to be to you not only wrong, but wrong to even argue for in a philosophy forum.

I think I'll find other interlocuters who don't think this is a problem per se.

And just to repeat in reaction to your poor person example - poor people don't turn to Buddhism as much as people from other classes in the West AND I certainly don't find them less expressive of emotions. Generally I find that suppression of emotions correlates is inversely with income. At least in the cultures I have come in contact with and it seems often in many historical contexts, Victorian England, the Court in Versaille, upper class Japan in many eras. I can understand why some poor person in Detroit might not make the leap to Buddhism and how priviledge and education,which correlate with class, might keep him from even considering the leap. But I don't see the people in that category (or the less well off than the middle class working class) making the choice to suppress emotions more let alone disidentify with them. I see the opposite.