I think the usual suspect for everything bad these days is the West. Slavery, genocide, global warming, you name it, it's all the fault of the West.

Like the original sin of the Bible, being a Westerner is bad by definition. Tainted, marked, and damned for ever .... — Apollodorus

Not sure where this is coming from.

But I didn't know that subscribing to Buddhism entails standing up for the Chinese Communist Party.

Or this.

Would you stand up for Putin, too? Or only for Xi?

And what about Tibet?

Oh, come on. What's the matter?

I don't think of myself as a Buddhist, and I have many problems with Buddhism. But maybe you guys will actually make me into one.

"Act in bad faith and blame others! appears to be the motto of many individuals and institutions, and not just in this covid situation.

as if people are unable to isolate and stay away from others without government internment. — NOS4A2

Of course they are.

Moreover, there is pressure from employers -- "Come to work, or go to quarantine and lose your job!"

I believe its overstepping the bounds of what should be permissible for governments to mandate. Vaccines are not 100% safe and unless you can guarantee that you shouldn't be forcing people to take it. — Benkei

It's still permissible to mandate less than safe medications, under the proviso that the situation is so dire that it warrants such a measure. Of course then the government would need to be consistent, and declare a state of emergency, enforce martial law and a lockdown that would epidemiologically actually be effective (unlike the ones we've had so far).

So why doesn't the government do that?

For one, as long as it can blame the lack of efficacy of the vaccines and their dangerous side effects on people, there is no incentive to stop. And they sure can blame the people.

That is more typical of those who dabble rather than just rejecting them outright which is more typical of straight-ahead secular culture. — Wayfarer

In your view, what do those rejectors hold as proper epistemological standards? What do they believe that it takes in order to know something?

Sam Harris is also socialized into a soulless, physicalist world, only from the point of view of an experienced meditator who studies cognitive science.

He helps dismiss the metaphysical crap thereabouts. — Banno

How do we know that when Mr. Harris uses the same words as the " metaphysical crap thereabouts", he means the same things as the "metaphysical crap thereabouts"?

If the two are not talking about the same things, any further comparison is moot.

Insofar as one can, I think it's more reasonable to prefer being a sad Socrates to being a satisfied swine than the other way around. — 180 Proof

This dichotomy doesn't really matter as long as one isn't in a position of power.

One of the things I notice on this board, in particular, is that much of this material is categorised, or should I say stereoptyped, as religious dogma, therefore superstitious, anti-rational and unscientific. — Wayfarer

I think that this is because so many people are approaching the matter too abstractly and too passively.

The various claims being contested by so many people were/are originally part of a system of practice and a system of social relationships. Those claims don't just somehow "hang in the air", as arguments or premises, or words "with magic power". They are part of a system of virtue epistemology, where it is assumed that by doing certain practices and developing certain virtues, one will come to realize that a particular claim is true.

But many people just don't do those practices, don't develop those virtues, but instead believe that all it takes and all it should take is a syllogism, or the right mantra, regardless of what one otherwise does, how one behaves, or what else one knows.

But I am willing and interested to hear about a rationale and examples in life --typical and enough of them-- that prove that high IQ is connected to unhappiness. — Alkis Piskas

The rationale is that a highly intelligent person is more likely (on account of being more intelligent) to see the complexity of life, more likely to see how complex problems in life are and thus, more likely to see how difficult it will be to solve them. This way, a highly intelligent person is less likely to be optimistic and confident.

However, a lot depends on the people one lives with and the resources one has available. The assumption is that for a highly intelligent person the lack of social input and resources that meaningfully respond to their complex understanding of the world will have a negative effect, whereas this same lack will not be as problematic for someone who doesn't think of the world in such complex ways.

So there can be no proof that high IQ is connected to unhappiness per se. But I think it goes without saying that a highly intelligent person, without proper support, without proper stimulation will not do well in life, their high intelligence becoming a curse.

I wonder if the question is meaningful given all the variables and potential descriptions of this vast territory. — Tom Storm

"Faith in humanity" is what makes the difference between being "normal" and being "antisocial".

Edited for typo.

"Faith in humanity" is too too general, too abstract. — Janus

It's a term like "world peace". You're not supposed to think about it too much, but you're supposed to have "faith in humanity" (and you're supposed to desire "world peace").

See this.

There is often an inevitable kind of artificiality involved in trying to practice Buddhism as a middle-class modern westerner. — Wayfarer

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.

Culturally-specific Buddhism is out of the question, and at best artificial for the "middle-class modern westerner".

But one's situation is whatever one's situation is, and one has to deal with it, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing or only limited to Westerners of a certain class. It's not like the people born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries aren't facing any challenges and can easily, confidently, genuinely practice in accordance with the Buddha's teachings. They can't. For example, they are, for all practical intents and purposes, bound and obligated to a particular Buddhist school, lineage, monastery/temple, teacher, and religious community, monastic and lay, regardless what those teach and how they behave. An ordinary person born and raised into a religion has very little choice in the matter of religion; their very situation is forcing them into stagnation, conformism, quietism, and the prioritizing of whatever the local culturally-specific form of Buddhism might be where they live. (Just think: probably most Buddhists born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries do not read suttas and have no access to them. Not just a few of them can't even read.)

In the West, we tend to have romantic notions of how things are for people born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries. One should scrutinize those romantic notions.

The states you say that some Buddhists devote their lives to realizing are states of non-attachment. I can't sustain that and nor can you, but I've tasted enough to know that such states are at the same time radically different to ordinary states and yet the same. — Janus

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.)

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. — Janus

"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.

How could it be when what is believed in the different religions is so different?

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

Already as a matter of linguistic principle, it makes no sense to posit that "enlightenment" could mean so many different things. To do so only makes it a useless word.

If you think it is necessary to believe certain things then you need to provide an argument and textual support support for your contention. — Janus

Which you have contested so far. 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.

I've said I see no reason to think that what one believes re karma and rebirth is an impediment to practice. — Janus

An impediment to the practice of what?

Can people have what they call "spiritual practice" and yet not "believe in karma and rebirth"? Of course they can.

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.

I've offered arguments to support my view. — Janus

No. You have provided assertions.

If someone presents a convincing enough argument I will change my view.

It's not clear that things work like that when it comes to things like ethics and religion. For reference, see Kohlberg's theory of moral development, as well as Fowler's stages of faith.

Unless you agree with the premises, whatever syllogism someone might provide, you won't be convinced by it.

When it comes to issues of Buddhist doctrine, in order to work out a convicing argument, we would need to go into a level of detail that is just too much for this forum, and it would also include the need for you to do some practical things (like engaging in renounciation, behaving in line with the precepts).
Also, at least in traditional Buddhism, a person is supposed to do this on their own to begin with. They won't teach you unless you're willing to be taught.

In traditional Buddhism the rules of engagement and the standards for discussion are different than in secular academia. To enforce the latter in the context of the former is another form of cultural appropriation.

I am putting forward that 'anger'/'annoyance' is the point from which we build, or directly express, our 'opinions' (items that we care about).

If not 'anger'/'annoyance' what are the other progressive mechanisms at work (progressive as helping us move onward and expand our understanding). — I like sushi

You didn't consider my first post in this thread https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/625528

Why not?

I am saying 'anger'/annoyance' is certainly a way to combat fear, and I am also putting a bold foot forward and saying it is the only real way. — I like sushi

In the short term, probably. In the long term, it's education and strategizing.

Is it illegal to farm without advanced farming equipment? No. Something being inefficient doesn't make it illegal. — khaled

Not immediately. But as technology advances, so do the legal matters concerning the use of it.
For example in the EU, a registered dairy farmer must have a licence for milking cows, it's illegal for an unlicensed person to milk cows at a registered dairy farm.

Nowadays, one needs a qualification or other license for most jobs. Such a requirement for qualifications and licenses is incompatible with slavery (as it was practiced in the past).

I'm not convinced about this anger angle.
— baker

I would think those all fall within the domain of what we're talking about.

Did you take note of my first post in this thread?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/625528

The main topic isn't so much anger explicitly but simply intense emotion, and whether it has a place.

In that case, the topic is too general.

I doubt disgust/revulsion (same thing), strategizing, or plain disagreement could get someone to shoot someone else however. Have you ever shot someone for not showering?

Did you ever go to school? People revile eachother for all kinds of things.

I can't imagine someone who freely volunteers in a war without being angry at the enemy.

On the contrary. A considerable portion of armed forces (in countries where miltary service is voluntary) are people who joined the military because for them, that was the only way out of poverty. Some join military causes out of ideas of heroism, or even boredom (such as Lord Byron). After WWI some artists in Europe looked forward to a war, because they believed this would be a "big cleanse"; some even joined and realized too late how brutal an actual war is.

If enough people get angry with their bosses you get the French revolution.

The French Revolutionaries were not ordinary workers, they were the (upper) middle class (who looked down on the rabble).

I believe in order to go to a war you need to be angry. And that in order to try to change another's mind you need to be at least mildly annoyed. There is a difference between standing up for yourself and actively trying to change others' behavior. The latter requires some hostility.

I think those are popular beliefs, but I don't agree with them.

Like I said earlier, entitlement, compassion, grandeur, and some others can also motivate one to engage in open conflict with others or to change them.
Anger and hostility are very common, but hardly the only motivations.

The consideration that I find most troubling is that given the placebo effect, there is the possibility that if we believe in the dogma "the covid vaccines are safe and effective", this will induce/increase the placebo effect.

It's irrational, but at the same time, it could make the difference between life and death. Possibly, it has made that difference many times already.

I find comedians generally too needy for love or hectoring bores. — Tom Storm

And miserable. So miserable.

When it eventually comes out that such and such comedian is depressed, or committed suicide, somehow, it's not a surprise. What is surprising is that so many people don't seem to see the signs early on -- the dropping corners of the comedian's mouth when they smile, the sad eyes, the conspicuous hyperoptimism.

The forum generally lacks the misogynist spirit, fortunately. — praxis

There aren't enough women here for this matter to really become clear one way or another.

I'm not seeking to be convinced of any view. — Janus

Then we don't have to support our views.

If someone follows Christian morals then I would say they are Christians. — Janus

Only if their reason for "following Christian morals" is to be a Christian.

It could be said that I "follow Christian morals" and some people have thought I was a Christian. I'm not, and I resent the label they identified me by.

Gotama accepted the general opinion of his time and place which was belief in karma and rebirth. These beliefs are common to Hinduism, Brahmanism and Jainism. They are simply culturally entrenched beliefs. — Janus

Actually, there are important differences between what the Buddha taught about kamma and rebirth, and what other religions in his time taught about them.
Wayfarer and I have posted about this before.

But, like I said -- What do you want?

That the traditionalists would convince you of their view, that it's their job to do so?
This isn't going to happen. Traditional Buddhism isn't that kind of proselytizing religion.

This makes belief in Karma and rebirth difficult or even impossible. I see no reason to believe that would preclude people form effective practice. — Janus

Then where's the problem?

You are you, you believe what you believe, you find possible what you find possible.
Others are others, they believe what they believe, they find possible what they find possible.

What do you want? Respect from the traditionalists?
A recognition that your ideas about what the Buddha really taught are supreme?

From the view of the government/state: — ssu

What when it's the government/state who is the actor who uses dubious methods?

My point was not that belief in rebirth or karma would stand in the way of practice, but that it is not essential to practice. If you can find any text from the Pali Canon that says it is necessary, then present them. — Janus

I've posted this several times already:

The Truth of Rebirth And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice

So instead of argument you just repeat your assertion? — Janus

I'm repeating it to encourage you to think about it.

Look, what do you want in this conversation? Clearly, your spiritual practice is not bringing you non-attachment, or you wouldn't be here arguing for it.

The whole thing is even more ironic, given your earlier reference to Batchelor's rendition:

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." — Janus

If you don't posit anything as supreme, then what are you doing here?
To posit the view "nothing is supreme" as supreme?

I read the article and, sorry to say, I found no counterargument to Batchelor's interpretation there. The states you say that some Buddhists devote their lives to realizing are states of non-attachment. I can't sustain that and nor can you, but I've tasted enough to know that such states are at the same time radically different to ordinary states and yet the same. As I said this is knowledge of a kind, but it is not any form of 'knowing-that'- it is instead a radical 'know-how'.

I wonder what makes you think that belief in Karma or rebirth would be necessary to the practice of Buddhism? Soto zen consists in 'just sitting' and that is understood to be no different than enlightenment. Vipassana relies on not dogma, but just on the stages of 'calming' and 'insight'. I think you are clinging to outworn ideas; and I think they are just another form of attachment. — Janus

It's so easy to talk about non-attachment when your life situation is such that you're in a flow of new things coming to you, with no end in sight. It's easy to detach yourself from this piece of cake when you see the next piece coming, or have so far had no trouble obtaining one.

According to Batchelor there is little or no evidence in the Pali texts to suggest that Gotama was concerned with ontology or the question of truth. His argument is that Gotama was a pragmatist who discouraged metaphysical speculation and answered metaphysical questions differently depending on what he saw as the needs of the questioner. — Janus

Ah yes, turning Buddhism against itself. As if the Buddha ever said, “Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense.”

Your pompous generalizing pronouncements are impossible to take seriously. — Janus

It's so easy to underestimate the religious/spiritual effects of a good socioeconomic status.

Start a new thread, to give this proper attention. Or better yet, just read the sequences on dependent co-arising.

But as Adam Gopnick points out:

All secularized faiths tend to converge on a set of agreeable values: compassion, empathy, the renunciation of mere material riches. But the shared values seem implicit in the very project of secularizing a faith, with its assumption that the ethical and the supernatural elements can be cleanly severed—an operation that would have seemed unintelligible to St. Paul, as to Gotama himself. The idea of doing without belief is perhaps a bigger idea than any belief it negates. Secular Buddhism ends up being . . . secularism. — Wayfarer

And whatever feel-good-feelings these secularists have in their "spiritual practice" come from their relatively good socioeconomic status, not from their "spiritual practice", and if anything, they have those feel-good-feelings _despite_ their "spiritual practice".

It's so easy to underestimate the religious/spiritual effects of a good socioeconomic status.

But on the other hand, Batchelor's approach lends itself to many of those who otherwise would be driven away by the implications of belief in saṃsāra and rebirth and the other supposedly supernatural aspects of Buddhism. — Wayfarer

Do you know if any of those people later move on to the more traditional forms of Buddhism?

I think that's right too. What do you think of contemporary Wester secular Buddhism in its various expressions? — Tom Storm

They are religion/spirituality for rich people. They are an expression of (upper) middle class mentality, as is typical for any secularism. (Although not that its adherents would all actually be members of said class; mostly, they aren't, just aspire to be.)

What drives me is the question whether the Buddha of the Pali Canon as I know him was in fact not trying hard enough to find satisfaction in "life as it is usually lived" (and that such satisfaction can indeed be found, by everyone) and that his teaching on dependent co-arising is wrong.
— baker

This is more or less the question that preoccupied me 30 years ago. I personally have never felt dissatisfied by life, even though it has often been difficult, so the question lost urgency.

Then how come that it preoccupied you?
You said there was a time when you slept in phone booths -- and still, you did not feel dissatisfied by life?

Secular Buiddhists, as far as I am aware, practice the same core way as traditionalists. — Janus

No. Secular Buddhists don't try to realize dependent co-arising. Traditionalists do.


Kamma and rebirth are actually implied in dependent co-arising, it's strange to try to consider them separately, on their own.

I think all that matters is whether the practice of the so-called secular Buddhists is as effective as the practice of traditionally oriented adherents. I see no reason why it shouldn't be if the same levels of commitment are in place. In other words, I see no need to consider questions about rebirth or karma in order to practice zazen or insight meditation. The important element is single-minded commitment. — Janus

But have you attained the complete cessation of suffering?

I think all that matters is whether the practice of the so-called secular Buddhists is as effective as the practice of traditionally oriented adherents. I see no reason why it shouldn't be if the same levels of commitment are in place.

No amount of commitment to the wrong practice can lead to the right results.

So often people are fixated by identifying a practice in its purity or as originally intended. Hence pietist movements like Hasidism or Islamic State (not that the two are comparable) — Tom Storm

It's not simply an "obsession with purity", but a matter of efficacy. Can the newer developments that are occuring under the banner of Buddhism deliver, or at least promise what the older one(s) did?

Some of them don't even say that they can deliver the complete cessation of suffering, but offer only the minimizing or managing of suffering.

I feel bad for Zwingli being banned. He was in the process of learning some new things about Buddhism, things that were actually making a difference for him. And now we'll never know.

Antinatalism comes in handy for young people trying to do this. — Bitter Crank

How? Reducing the work week is a complex problem requiring a long-term perspective in order to be solved. Antinatalists, on principle, can't have such a long-term perspective.

For complex, large-scale problems, a convincing reply to the question "Why?" is needed.
Why do we want a shorter work week?
Why do we want to stop global warming?
Why do we want sustainable energy?

Fortunately or unfortunately, long-term projects like that require future thinking, several generations ahead. At the end of the day, people only really care about their children, if even that, while other considerations are too abstract to generate much momentum for long-term, complex, large-scale change.

I already had some negative side effects after vaccination. If next time around, I get some more negative side effects, will the science fans tell me, "That's because you didn't have faith in the vaccine!" --?

I think it is a good combination actually. humour helps us cope in practice with the absurdity of existence and jokes confront us with missmatches between our idealized world of aims, ideas and endeavours and the every day stumbling and fooling around we engage in in practice. — Tobias

But philosophers don't all believe that our existence is absurd; in fact, many, if not most, don't.

As for the mismatch: If anything, philosophers are trying to make sense of it, not bemoan it and joke about it like third-class moralizing busybodies.