What makes you think that non-attachment would make you "an uncaring zombie"?

It is meaningless to say that anyone doesn’t rely on sensory knowledge because minds are built on it. No sensory input, no mind. — praxis

Is it the senses that tell you that?

You have no attachment to anything or anyone, including yourself? — praxis

I wouldn't claim that. I also wouldn't claim it is not possible for me, and even less would I be inclined to claim it is impossible per se.

I can also achieve a state of non-attachment by shooting myself. — Tom Storm

I think the idea is that it should be a living non-attachment.

You've tried and found it impossible?

but I take it from all this that a empiricist will never find the soteriological release of nirvana. — Tom Storm

I don't see why not if nirvana is though of in a deflationary way as being nothing more than realizing the state of non-attachment. Soto Zen conceives of enlightenment or nirvana precisely in this way as practicing zazen; that is transcending the body and mind in maintaining perfect sitting posture. Dogen equates this with enlightenment because it is impossible to sit this way while being attached to the body and mind.

Philosophy consists in different ways of thinking about many different things; it is not merely "fancy ways of talking", not if that is taken to indicate vacuity at least. We have philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, philosophy of language, logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, phenomenology, Perhaps the best philosophy is not high-falutin' vacuous talk but is descriptive of our practices and experience, that is elucidative and insightful, and even creative and beautiful in the sense that poetry can be.

For Plotinus, man "is in some sense divine, and the object of the philosophic life is to understand this divinity and restore its proper relationship with the divine All and, in that All, to come to union with its transcendent source, the One or Good". Plotinus's philosophy is difficult to elucidate, precisely because what it seeks to elucidate is a manner of thinking that precedes what one terms 'discursive thought'. — Plotinus, Lecture Notes

And yet man being thought as in some sense divine, the philosophic life being thought of as consisting in understanding this divinity and restoring its "proper relationship with the Divine All", and "coming into union with its transcendent source", the One or Good" is either nebulous, even vacuous, or else discursive, and not a manner of thinking that precedes discursive thought; or perhaps it is both not thinking which precedes discursive thought and it is vacuous.

So, the question is whether all this conceptualization of a "goal" is necessary or whether it is all not just one of the many fancy ways of talking about the radically different disposition of one who has realized a state of non-attachment.

The common thread defining the state of consciousness referred to in the various traditions as enlightenment, seeing the truth, becoming the real self, becoming free, seeing the true nature of things, becoming authentic and so on, seems to be non-attachment to the ego, the opinions of others and the things of this world in general.

You don't consider this or that author authoritative; you say that this or that sutta or doctrine can be interpreted in some other way. — baker

The request is that you provide some textual evidence which is not equivocal, if you are arguing that there is such.

Can they reach with that practice the same goals as those who do "believe in karma and rebirth"? I think not. In fact, if you look at the goals that people state for themselves and their spiritual practice, it is clear from that that they don't have the same goals to begin with, so any further comparison is moot. — baker

If the goal is non-attachment then on what basis would you claim that a practice to realize that is dependent upon certain beliefs (other than that the practice itself is a sound method for achieving non-attachment)? If there is some other goal, then what would you say that other goal is?

and it would also include the need for you to do some practical things (like engaging in renounciation, behaving in line with the precepts). — baker

You're begging the question; if it cannot be argued for, then why are you here purporting to be arguing for it?

"Whatever we might take that to mean"??
This isn't Humpty Dumpty Land where one can make words mean whatever one wants them to mean. — baker

There are different views of what enlightenment consists in in different traditions. Do you deny that there are, or at least can be, enlightened individuals within the different traditions? The sufis, kabbalists, the western hermetic tradition, Christian mystics and saints, advaita vedantists and so on? Are you arguing for "Buddhist exceptionalism" as Thompson calls it? If so, how do you think Buddhist enlightenment differs from other conceptions of enlightenment, on what basis do you think it does differ and on what basis do you think it could be clear that Buddhist enlightenment is "higher" or more true or authentic or whatever?

What reasons do you see to think that all those various people were/are "enlightened"? — baker

What reasons do you see to think that anyone is enlightened? There are equivalent ideas taken by adherents in the various traditions to define the state of those who have "seen the truth" in all the religious traditions I mentioned. How do you define enlightenment? What reason would you give to support a claim that those in other traditions who are purported to be enlightened or seers of the truth are not?

I have to say though that I am amazed by many modernists, secularists, and various spirishal people. They sure have confidence, and I envy them that. (This envy is actually what drives me in discussions with them.) — baker

It's you who seems to be arguing for Buddhist exceptionalism when it comes to enlightenment, and who seems to think you know what it consists in. I'm asking you to state your case and provide an argument for it. which you have so far failed to even attempt. I'm not claiming that secular Buddhism definitely measures up to traditional forms, I just haven't seen any reason to think it doesn't or couldn't; if you want to argue that it doesn't or couldn't then you need to provide some argument for your claim.

But this shouldn't be the case. There is, to the best of my knowledge, nothing in the Buddha's teachings that would preclude one from practicing according to them, even as one is a "middle-class modern westerner".

There are, of course, many things in some relation to Buddhism that a middle-class modern westerner can't be and can't do, or at least not without feeling somehow fake. For example, a middle-class modern westerner cannot have the type of faith that people born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries have; a middle-class modern westerner cannot bow and kneel and venerate Buddha stupas with the ease and naturalness as those born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries can. Giving alms to monks. Chanting. Sitting cross-legged. Sitting on one's heels. Taking refuge in the Three Jewels. Every day. — baker

In the above two passages you seem to be contradicting yourself. Are you saying that secular Buddhism cannot provide the means to realize enlightenment (however you define it) or not? To be honest, Baker, you just seem confused, or to be arguing for the sake of it.

Maybe, but I don't see that as being necessarily so, according to my own experience. It also depends very much on what is meant by "materialist"; for example if it is defined as being obsessed with accumulating material wealth, then I would say you are probably right.

You're still imputing implications that I didn't intend. Anyway I have no interest in discussing this further, since my only purpose was to encourage the moderators to take a more compassionate line in cases like this; a purpose which has obviously failed and drawn some self-righteous ire to boot, so there is little point in continuing to talk about it.

If you (anyone) are expressing an opinion you care about I am stating that it is due to 'anger/annoyance'. — I like sushi

I sometimes get annoyed if people are not providing arguments to support their positions, or are being condescending or seem obviously to be projecting their own motivations onto others, or are putting words into my mouth, etc.. But I don't mostly post out of a feeling of anger or annoyance; I post in order to clarify to myself what I think about things and in the interaction with other minds, hopefully improve my own thinking.

Ah ok. So we should just delete any posts that seem pessimistic. Wouldn’t want it affecting people, their partners, or society after all. Gotcha.

My objection is to the idea that mods should be responsible for the societal and personal impact of the site. That’s ridiculous. — khaled

I haven't said that pessimistic posts should be deleted. What is to be deleted is up to the mods. I also haven't said they are or should be responsible for " the societal and personal impact of the site", I was just pointing to possible negative effects of such a rejection and advocating a bit of compassion.

All I was suggesting is deletion of offending posts (with of course a warning) rather than immediate banning in all cases; of course if the person persists in producing offensive posts then that would be another matter. What's "ridiculous" is putting words in the mouth of others..

I agree that interpretations of what might be termed religious experiences are culturally dependent. Indeed a materialist would interpret such an experience quite differently than any person of religious faith. I don't buy the idea that a materialist would be precluded from practice or from becoming enlightened.

I downloaded the book and his argument has nothing to do with the necessity of believing in rebirth or karma. It seems that what he targets is "Buddhist exceptionalism" or the idea that Buddhism is somehow special in the sense of being a science of consciousness and not a religion. From what I've read so far Thompson's critique has no bearing on secular Buddhism as espoused by Stephen Batchelor.

As a general point, since I'm sure you would acknowledge that there have been enlightened individuals (whatever we might take that to mean) associated with all the various religions, I think this shows that realizing enlightenment is not dependent on believing any particular thing. How could it be when what is believed in the different religions is so different?

I admire your enthusiasm.

Oh no, I would never indulge in such doggerel; I'd rather be eliminated from the herd.

It seems you do nothing but wank in public...and no, that doesn't make you a philosopher... :wink: :rofl:

You realize that argument only works for realists. Skeptics and idealists will remain unconvinced by it. They will just reply that we can't make justified claims about a mind-independent real world. — Marchesk

From that position it seems to follow that we cannot make any justified claims at all.

I understand the indirect argument to mean there is something mental mediating perception of the real thing, as a result of all that neural activity. Thus why we have illusions, hallucinations and secondary qualities. Also why it's possible to have internal visual and auditory experiences, like with dreams and imagination. — Marchesk

Sure, but internal visual and auditory experiences, hallucinations, dreams and imaginings are not shareable except by report.

No, I didn't read the context, and I imagine the conversation has been deleted.

If I explain what's in my backyard, isn't that most likely a good explanation of what's in my yard, or do you need to test it. There are plenty of good explanation we use everyday that don't need testing. This gets back to the notion that somehow if science can't do experiments to confirm one's claim, then it can't be knowable, or it's somehow not real knowledge. — Sam26

Sorry, I missed your response earlier. If I am inclined to take your word for what's in your backyard, then I would count your explanation as a good one, and would probably not require that i see for myself. The point is that such an explanation is testable; whereas claims about NDEs and their implications for the postmortem existence of consciousness are not. If you report an NDE and I am inclined to believe you are not only telling the truth about what you experienced, but that you are also free of any confirmation bias, then I might accept your report as a good explanation; but I could not test it even if I wanted to.

Sure, we can all only describe things as they appear to us. But, if studying, describing and analyzing those appearances do not provide any basis for knowing anything about things, then you have no justification for claiming that there is "a faculty within the brain that processes the impulses received from the various sense organs", or saying "I envision that because that's exactly what happens".

It might have been a perverse outburst because he was having a very bad day...or not. Was he given the chance to explain? If he was and he said he would not moderate the expression of his views, then the banning would be justified in my view.

It's amusing how up in arms the self-righteous become.

What I envision is a faculty within the brain that processes the impulses received from the various sense organs. I envision that because that's exactly what happens. — Hanover

If we don't see things as they are; if things in themselves are unknowable, then how do you know "that's exactly what happens". I posed this question earlier and you failed to respond—too difficult?

Thanks, that seems to me a balanced review. I downloaded Thompson's book and have started reading it, and my thought so far is that Thompson's critique is not applicable to Batchelor's secular Buddhism. In other words the Buddhist modernism Thompson targets does not equate to secular Buddhism, at least not as espoused by Batchelor, .

Is Buddhism philosophically sound? — praxis

A vacuous question unless you make it more specific.

If we’re concerned about the effects of the forum on individual lives maybe we should start banning any pessimistic users or threads eh. Wouldn’t want it to affect people, their partners, family or society. — khaled

My point was not to ban anyone at least not on the strength of one outburst or statement. Delete offensive posts was my suggestion; reject the idea, not the person. So, your objection is misdirected.

Since I see no way for myself to be a Buddhist without being a Buddhist modernist, and Buddhist modernism is philosophically unsound, I see no way for myself to be a Buddhist without acting in bad faith. That is why I’m not a Buddhist.

What arguments does Thompson proffer to support the contention that Buddhist modernism is philosophically unsound?

Thumbs up to the ‘one strike you’re out’ policy of unrepentant misogynists. Thanks for the exercise in futility. — praxis

So, the person in question was given a chance to repent? That was not how it appeared to me. My point was at least they ought to be given a second chance. If the person in question was given a second chance and remained unrepentant, then I have not understood the situation.

Enjoy the evening. — James Riley

I will when the evening comes. It's morning here.

:up:

I was responding to your framing of the banning as being the righteous action of a real man. I wasn't saying it was just as bad as the misogynist view of a real man. The misogynist belittles women, not their ideas but women as such. Banning belittles the bigot, not their ideas but the bigot as such. In that sense, and that sense alone it is the same game in reverse. Deletion belittles the ideas, not the person.

What if a woman on here said:"I am an unrepentant misandrist. For me, the concept that a man should be considered the equal of a woman, if he is any kind of woman, is simply fucking ludicrous"?

Now of course, I am not denying there would not be any difference, given that women obviously have not been treated fairly in this patriarchal society. they have been, and in ways still are, the oppressed class.

Anyway, I've said enough on this. All I was expressing is the idea I have that a less rigorous approach might be, all things considered, better. But I'm not a moderator and I don't know how much effort is required to carry out the task.

When I said that truth need not tip it's hat to BS, I meant that if X kicks a man when he's down, and Y beats X to stop the kicking, then yes, both are acts of violence. So what? It's not the same game. Y is righteous for stopping X, just like Baden was righteous for banning. So calling it the "same game in reverse" is fundamentally untrue. Truth need not tip it's hat to BS. — James Riley

Does Y need to "beat" X or just restrain X? I'm not arguing that, if the choice was only between banning and not banning, with no other option, that banning would not be preferable. Deletion is another option, which restrains the person, while rejecting the material and not the person.

Such posts would be seen and they would offend. Don’t you care about that? They would also promote bigotry, and by allowing them the forum could be perceived as supportive. Does anyone follow up on what posts are deleted? My own posts could be deleted and I wouldn’t know. — praxis

They've already been seen by the time the member is banned for them. I don't think offense is the real issue; it's the actions that such views support which count. How would bigotry be promoted if bigoted posts are deleted? Deleting them is not "allowing them". Also if someone bloody-mindedly persisted in posting offensive material, then of course they should be banned. I just don't favour the 'one strike you're out' way of dealing with bigotry.

Truth need not tip it's hat to BS. — James Riley

Of course not; that's why I said it should be deleted.

Of course, but wider implications could be taken into account, or not...
Of course moderators have to make their own call, and I'm not trying to "guilt trip" anyone; everyone has to make up their own minds when it comes to such issues. I'm just expressing my opinion about how I think I might handle it if I were a moderator, which I'm not, so...

If they're angrier elsewhere, it's not the mods' problem. — Kenosha Kid

No, of course it's not if they don't care about it.

So deleting their posts could make them change their minds but banning them will make them worse? Sounds like a hopelessly gerrymandered argument to me. Is it just a random thought you've had or based on something? — Baden

If they are not constantly posting offensive material, and when they do post it it is deleted it might lead them to rethink their position. Total rejection, in the form of banning, and for just one offense, would, it seems to me, be more likely to just make them angrier.

Distinction without a difference. — Baden

Obviously not; in your view...

or should try to reform bigots by being nice to them. — Baden

By being firm with them, but not rejecting them utterly.

So you want the mods to vigilantly moderate self-professed sexists, or whatever-ists, in good service to society? Banning is much easier, and it sends a very clear message. — praxis

Admittedly banning is easier, but I think deletion of offensive posts would send an equally clear, and more compassionate, message.

When he said: "if he is any kind of man" I was transported back to a day when any kind of man would have done exactly what Baden did. — James Riley

To me this amounts to " You think you're a man; I'll show you what a man is"; in other words playing the same game in reverse.

Anyway, I'm not the moderator here, so what I think doesn't really count.

It's not quite the same, since women are not, to the same degree, a marginalized minority. I have no truck with sexism or racism, but I would have thought deletion of offensive posts would be enough to get offending posters to change their tune at least, and perhaps even, with luck, their minds. Banning them might just make them double down, which won't be the forum's problem, because they are gone from here, but it may become a greater problem for their partners, family or society.

Clear enough of course, but not justified, in my view; but you set the rules.

I just noticed it may have appeared that I was referring to your position. I have corrected the post to make it clear I was referring to Hanover's.