Does anyone have comments on Nietzsche's ideas of self-overcoming? — Tom Storm

Someone once told me that it has to do with "being better than you were before". E.g. if yesterday, it took you 15 sec to run 100 yards, aim to run the distance in 14 sec next time around. And so on; it's about improving one's results in reference to one's previous results.

I remember a remark made by a maverick guru I used to read in regard to Westeners pursuing Eastern spiritual disciplines: 'you don't have the archetypes'.

By this I think he meant that we are configured certain ways - by the culture we're born into, the habits we inherit and develop, our habituated ways of being in the world. They're very difficult things to change. And the effort we make to change them can itself become a hindrance, if it's too self-conscious. — Wayfarer

Do you still find yourself thinking like this when you try to think this in the context of the Pali Suttas, ie. with the Suttas as your background?

But I also found that I learned from Buddhism the importance of actually bowing. This is not something Western individualists will generally do. Nothing is above their own ego.

There are many kinds of "Westerners", though. There still are cultures in the West that are intensely classist and with what is for all intents and purposes a state religion with a strong emphasis on piety (such as the traditionally Catholic countries in Europe). This is actually a fairly similar psycho-socio-economic context as in traditionally Buddhist Asian countries.

Bowing is a way of recognising that the Buddha's wisdom is something above your grasp.

That's a "Western" way to put it. I don't see it that way. I think that if one feels uncomfortable with bowing to the Buddha, this probably has to do with not being certain enough whether the Buddha was right or not and whether to follow the Buddha or not. It's not necessarily an ego issue.

If you don't go to a mosque and don't bow to Allah, does this mean you're indulging in your individualism, letting your ego rule? No. (Although there probably are Muslims who claim just that. )
You could actually be in a similar situation in regard to Buddhism.

My point being that Westerners sometimes overcriticize themselves and for things they aren't even guilty of, and thereby miss out on important insights about themselves.

If one has serious doubts about whether the Buddha is worth following or not, then forcing oneself to bow to him isn't going to make those doubts go away. But it can result in superstition, blind faith, and eventually falling away from Buddhism altogether.

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. — Janus

Meaning that chicken are enlightened.

Hence Jesus as being described by some as a bodhisattva. — Tom Storm

Bodhisattva means 'a buddha-to-be', ie. a person on the path to buddhahood, but not yet a buddha.

Now that we seem to have quite definitely arrived at “the end of the world as we know it”, engines stopped, steam wafting through the air, conductors absent, and doors open, I’m not feeling fine. — Joshua Jones

That's what one gets for uncritically internalizing pop songs. :razz:

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

Like I said in another current thread:

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. — baker

Moreover, it's not a text that is equivocal or unequivocal. If F = ma seems unequivocal to you, that's because you have a certain knowledge that contextualizes it and makes sense of it. Someone who lacks such knowledge cannot make sense of F = ma, or at least not in the way those who do have that knowledge can. Its' the same with other things, including those in religion.

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?

Complete cessation of suffering.

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?

No, I'm saying that you need to do certain things, and that this your doing is what supplies some of the necessary premises. Again, see the quote above.

There are different views of what enlightenment consists in in different traditions.

Yes.

Do you deny that there are, or at least can be, enlightened individuals within the different traditions?

Yes, I deny thusly. Already because I'm not Humpty Dumpty and I don't even attempt to just make words mean whatever I want them to mean.

Are you arguing for "Buddhist exceptionalism" as Thompson calls it?

No.

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?

That would take a book to reply.

What reasons do you see to think that anyone is enlightened?

For one, a purely epistemistcally trivial linguistic one: the same word can't mean all kinds of things.

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?

Complete cessation of suffering (among other things, for now, I'll go with this).

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?

They still suffer. By this I don't mean that they get crossed or stoned, but that they still see their happiness as dependent on their sights, smells, sounds, tastes, tactile sensations, and ideas being in a particular way, and their sights, smells, sounds, tastes, tactile sensations, and ideas not being that way.

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 when you're not listening, and not remembering.

I also have no desire to defend Buddhism, I'm chasing an altogether different ghost.

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.

Where is the contradiction??

Are you saying that secular Buddhism cannot provide the means to realize enlightenment (however you define it) or not?

What makes you think I'm talking about secular Buddhism above??

Someone familiar with the Buddhist doctrine of the Pali Canon (such as @Wayfarer to whom the post you quote was a reply) will know immediately what I'm talking about.

To be honest, Baker, you just seem confused, or to be arguing for the sake of it.

This has been a tedious conversation because you're not familiar enough with the Pali Canon.

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

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

But generally thenatural response in humans to being poor is to try to improve the situation,

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.

And if you haven't judged your fear, then you stand a better chance of picking up the cues that now is not a good time to express rage, for example. But we have been trained to think we must choose between the two.

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.)

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.

I have been in catastrophic situations recently

I'm sorry to hear about that.
I think times of personal crisis are the worst time to get involved in "meaning of life questions", even though it is precisely at those times that those questions seem most pressing. Duress or hardship don't guarantee the right answer.

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".

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.

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?

Our current justice system sometimes allows for the guilty to go free and sometimes convicts the innocent. These are simply unavoidable evils, and in lieu of a more practical alternative, is something we just have to accept. And the same is true of our COVID regulations. — Michael

Sure, but then the government rhetoric should reflect this harsh reality. Although it's not actually harsh, it's the reality of living on this planet.

And the public discourse should reflect this as well.

The government is a repressive institution that is at least nominally interested in the wellbeing of the state, and for this it is willing, ready, and able to sacrifice the lives of some of its citizens, and citizens need to be aware of this, rather than thinking of the government as some kind of friend, older brother, or parent.

and it appears now that a lot of vaxed people still get sick. — Cartuna

Yes. The current numbers for Slovenia are:
40 % of those hospitalized for covid are vaccinated
20 % of those needing intensive care are vaccinated

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.