Yes, because the US is too amoebic to blame.

So Buddhism has gods but no Supreme God we are trying to get too. Nirvana itself could seem to be atheistic to a Westerner looking for loving union with his creator. — Gregory

I think nontheistic (i.e. "devotion (attachment) to deities" is irrelevant for – perhaps even hinders – 'moksha') best describes Buddhism. — 180 Proof

That depends on the school of Buddhism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_deities

See Tara worship, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_(Buddhism)
People worship her for the purpose of making spiritual progress.

Firstly, wrong thread, — unenlightened

No, the question of whether the Buddha was sourgraping is often on my mind, it pertains also to topics that nominally don't seem related to it.

and secondly, nothing I have said is sceptical of Buddhism or its founder.

Of course you do:

Try it, and find out. No point in asking a bunch of amateur, mainly Western philosophers to speculate in ignorance, no point in trying to understand Nirvana from the outside, as a theory. That's like sitting in the cafe in the valley wondering about the view from the top of the mountain. Save your breath and get your boots on. — unenlightened

Try the practice that leads to Nirvana and experience what it is. — unenlightened

I pursued this, at length, but neither you nor @Wayfarer who agreed with you offered any actual answers, other than admitting that you aren't enlightened.

I am sceptical of much of the Western interpretation of Buddhism, and perhaps of the beliefs of some Buddhists that have a supernatural or magical turn. I lean more towards the Zen schools and a practical, psychological understanding of an end to the narrative self as a projection from memory to imagination, or past to future, a thought construction of the self that creates desire and suffering.

All this ego talk is a "Western interpretation of Buddhism", but you're not skeptical of that one.

If it is a lab leak and how China dealt with that then I'd like my 45 billion EUR spend on Covid measures back. — Benkei

Right. It's about the money. A powerful motive for blaming.

And we'd probably be far less relaxed next time something like this happens.

As long as people can blame others, their egos are satisfied.


But why doesn't anyone blame the US for leaking the 1918 influenza pandemic?

My concern is establishing the truth.

When a person is acting suspiciously, it is the duty of the police to investigate them and the same applies to state actors: the international community must investigate suspicious state activities for its own security.

In China’s case, no proper investigation has been conducted. So, pressure must be put on Western governments to take appropriate action. — Apollodorus

The desire to blame someone is strong. These days, China is the usual suspect for everything bad, so let's blame China ...

If they are mired in dogma I wouldn't bother. If they are open to other ideas then they must acknowledge the role of interpretation. — Janus

But what if they actually know, and are above and beyond interpretation?

But it isn't sufficient evidence as far as I'm concerned.

Here's what I'm proposing, regardless of whether it comports with anyone's idea of naive realism or direct realism. There are many constituents of the world. Some are human, some are bees, some are flowers. None of them exist in an "external world" apart from anything else. None of them is an "external object" in that sense. — Ciceronianus

This is Stoic doctrine, and we know you're a Stoic. Okay.

There is no "thing" called a perception which exists somewhere inside of us.

But this I don't understand.
Are you referring to Stoic epistemology, epistemology according to Stoicism?

Then sketch out how it is appearances that deceive us.
— baker

Naive realism simply isnt backed up by recent research in perceptual psychology or the more sophisticated thinking in A.I. — unenlightened

I asked you to sketch out how "appearances deceive us". I've never felt "deceived" by an appearance, I don't know what that would be like.

In what you say, I hear the echoes of Pema Chodron, Thich Nhat Hanh, Ajahn Sumedho. But not the Pali canon.

Do you believe there are any conditions that leave a person feeling powerless to achieve happiness?

It's a supposition that is impossible to substantiate, other than by an appeal to faith; ie. making a statement of faith, rather than a statement of fact.

As for my agreeing or disagreeing with it: All I can say is that I wish for it to be true, but I see no conclusive evidence for it to be true.

I meant the other now elderly lady. Not mentioning any names.

When I say 'numinous' I simply mean people's sense of mystery, awe or majesty when out in nature, say, or listening to some music. I meant nothing philosophically or spiritually intricate.

I'm pretty sure this feeling of wonder is hard-wired in humans. — Tom Storm

I'm not sure about that at all.


What I am sure is that people tend to love to zone out, and then call that "bliss", or "a sense of the numinous" or some such.

depression — Tzeentch

So failure to find satisfaction in things which, by their very nature, cannot provide satisfaction, is evidence of mental illness?

I way of living by denying what many consider to be life - ie. no sex, no pain, no desire. It's just a warped nihilism. — I like sushi

Denying?

How did you get to the point where you hold that Buddhists deny "what many consider to be life"?

Did I say it was all that matters? I said that interpretation is significantly involved in areas other than in directly observed events where, it could be argued, interpretation is of no significant significance. I have no idea where this conversation is going. — Janus

I am anticipating some usual courses of discussion of this topic, and addressing them early on to avoid dead ends.

Regarding experience there may be an 'as it is', but as soon as it is spoken about interpretation enters. Ideas are always open to interpretation. — Janus

I'd love to see you take this up with a Hare Krishna devotee!

I have no doubt of this. And I've noticed that for many Westerns who are rebelling against the religious culture of their parents and grandparents, Eastern faiths, particularly Buddhism, give them an opportunity for retaining a sense of the numinous whist virtue signalling their penchant for cultural diversity. — Tom Storm

Pffft. Westerners, a sense of the numinous? When an aged Western celebrity chants some Eastern mantra, and does so for "inner peace", that isn't "a sense of the numinous", that's just commercialisation, consumerification of religion. She might as well pray Our Father, but, oh, those words she understands!

Unless, of course, having no clue what one is doing should pass for "a sense of the numinous". Yes, Westerners are very good at that when it comes to Eastern religions.

Think you may find that religions argue about definitions all the time and have schisms over them on a regular basis. Philosophers are somewhat inclined to do the same. — unenlightened

Unless we have all been teleported to Humpty Dumpty Land, one still cannot make words mean whatever one wants them to mean.
Conceptual clarification is one of the main purposes of philosophy.

If the op wanted a doctrinal definition, a buddhist website would be the place to go for no doubt several lengthy ones.

From what I've seen, even self-identified Buddhists often can't find their way around Buddhist scriptures and other Buddhist sources. Some self-identified Buddhists also flat out ridicule the foundational Buddhist scriptures and consider them irrelevant. What to speak of non-Buddhists and their knowledge of Buddhism.
I asked the OP about his sources for his knowledge on the topic of Buddhism. From his answer to this, it is clear to me whence his OP.

But what is your beef?

I want to know whether the Buddha was sourgraping, so I question everyone who claims or implies that he was.

Meanwhile, lighten up dude, I'm not trying to steal your throne.

Oh, I have a throne that I don't know of?

Confusing "the moon" with the moon doesn't strike me as a self-reference issue. — T Clark

It can, depending on one's epistemic theory. The problem is also known as "confusing the map for the territory".

Also, more generally, it points to the possibility of saying one thing and meaning two things.
— baker

I don't understand what you mean.

Saying "There's a draft" when you're in a room with another person and there is a draft, can mean 'There's a draft' and 'Close the window'.

The desire to give up desire, is also a desire, so it doesn’t work. It’s like trying to wipe off blood, with blood or trying to stop thinking by thinking. — Present awareness

Then you need to read more "Buddhist literature". There, what you now claim "doesn't work" is very well worked out as working.

So whence the idea that rare and fleeting makes life worth living?
— baker
One's own lived time is (a) good in itself, no? — 180 Proof

What is the basis of your claim?


(It is at least inconsistent to praise rugged individualism to other people.)

I think this is true but does it not also remain that any account of anything becomes an interpretation? — Tom Storm

Back to issues of naive realism and direct realism.

So any attempt to answer the op's question is as theoretical as this one, and not based on experience. So there is a jolly little game that goes on of calling each other out over various issues and expertises about stuff that bears some relation to what none of us knows from experience. — unenlightened

In religious doctrines, terms have definitions.

Some people have been trying to bypass those definitions, and insist on using terms in idiosyncratic ways. What use is doing that?

Since when are empirically observable events or empirically observing events the priority or even all that matters?

You're just detracting from the logical consequences of your idea.

There can be no up without down, and no value without cost. — unenlightened

We can surmise you beat your spouse, so that they can appreciate your tendernesses.

Central planning works for military operations, so why not use the same techniques for meeting the basic needs of citizens like food, shelter, and healthcare? — frank

Because that would be socialism! We can't have that!! People must fight for their daily bread, or perish.

I think most people are not such relativists and "to interpret" is usually taken to be pejorative, derogatory. "Those who don't know the truth or who don't want to know or tell the truth, interpret."

Can you think of any conditions that leave a person feeling powerless to achieve happiness? — Athena

Do you really have to ask???

If intelligence agencies and scientists are in two minds about the possibility that China has something to do with the pandemic, there is no reason why we should rule it out. — Apollodorus

So what is it that you're really concerned about? That covid is China's biochemical warfare in an effort to take over the world?

Corporations should have their powers checked as much as the governments. Monopolies need to be broken up and competition promoted.
— Harry Hindu

Exactly the alternative I mentioned. "Free markets" and "competition" is the answer. Which has been a complete failure on every level except one -- namely, the level of plutocrats. Libertarianism is just another cover for plutocracy. Capitalism through and through. — Xtrix

How ironic that of all the patent holders of the different covid vaccines, we're nearing the monopoly of one of them.

"Interpretation" is a hot topic in some religious circles, surely you are aware of that.
The Hare Krishnas, for example, go so far as to say that they don't interpret, but simply say it "as it is".


Anyway, the items in the doctrine on dependent co-arising are much discussed in the Pali suttas, so there's actually not that much room for interpretation.

I only need to look at the situation in the country I live in, and I see that democracy doesn't work.
— baker
Just remember what the alternative is: authoritarianism. It is just like the alternative to individual freedom is regulation, control and supervision by some authority. Nothing in between. — ssu

Authoritarianism can come in subtle, implied form as well. The invisible force that makes people conform, live in constant fear of public censure.
The freedom we have in a democracy is illusory, or only applies to trifles.

I think that people are quite similar in every country. The vast majority are honorable, decent and abide the rules of the society and in every human population there is the fraction of people who are unsocial and those who are criminals. It's not an issue of individual character. The problem is that people are highly adaptable and do adapt to situations where the society doesn't work. When it doesn't work, people adapt to the reality.

How can that be then, how can the society not work, when, as you say, the vast majority are honorable, decent and abide the rules of the society?

My wife is Mexican and I've been many times in Mexico and know her relatives and friends. They are basically similar kind of people that Finns are and the cultural differences are in the end basically just small nuances. Yet the two countries are totally different with huge parts of Mexico having been collapsed into total anarchy and lawlessness. I try to explain the situation to Finns by telling that Finland would be similar - if criminals could do just whatever they want and the police wouldn't operate at all or would work with the criminals. Quite quickly the trust in the police and in officials in general would erode and social cohesion would take a hit. It would become similar to Mexico. That hasn't happened here, so the people, even the Mexicans living here, do trust the Finnish police. And Finns participate in various associations as eagerly as they take baths in saunas, so democratic participation comes naturally.

Or, alternatively, the Finns are extremely conformist people, with very little sense of individuality, in comparison to Mexicans.
Or, another alternative, the differences between the two countries are grounded in the different types of the natural resources that are available in each region. Ie. the natural givens form the basis for a particular type of human socioeconomic system that can exist in them.
Or, the Finns are a culture that is less focused on classism in comparison to Mexicans (classism being related to social strife).

It's not clear that the existence of an effective police force is what keeps crime levels manageable, or how this correlates with a particular socioeconomic system.

I think it's the societies themselves, which mold people to behave in a certain way. And how, why, societies change is the crucial part. How they change for the worst is the crucial issue. Key factors are the basics services any state should provide. The most basic issue that the state should give is the most important: safety of it's citizens, the monopoly over violence as Weber would put it.

On the other hand, there is the Christian doctrine of rendering unto Caesar. For example, during the WWII, the Catholic Church has mostly cooperated with the Nazis and Fascists. We can expect that those with a Christian perspective (and there are many such people), have a very specific view of what counts for "safety". Christians basically act by the principle "might makes right", and that can mean not protecting anyone, citizens or foreigners, from violence of any kind.

Do notice the reference to "partisanship tainting every facet of American life" and to "dysfunctional politics". Ackermann doesn't even have to argue for why he sees it like this, it's quite common knowledge. That the US military has had to state publicly that it basically accepts the election results and will work with the new administration is in my view a warning sign of things not being normal. And so is the text above written in the magazine published by the Council on Foreign Relations.

In my view the US is on a dangerous path, that easily could blow up again. All it take is an economic downturn, a monetary crisis or both. The immigration issue will just add to this as it will keep the sides in their "tribes". Because I see now examples of tensions easing out and things getting back to normal...whatever that was.

I'm sorry, I'm quite spent. The government of the country I live in has passed a law recently according to which all police commanders and some other high officials in the police were automatically demoted to acting commanders etc., and now there is an open competition for those functions, by new criteria. And more.

That's why I say that if God exist, God is a Trumpista. It's the simplest explanation.

The good thing about a monarchy is that the decision as to who should rule is, for all practical intents and purposes, taken out of people's hands (leaving aside the actual machinations in the royal court).
A king is placed into a position of power by God, and this, on principle, relieves everyone else of the responsibility for whom to choose as a leader, whom to follow.

This way, people focus on minding their own business and don't waste their time, energy, and other resources on things over which they can exert no control.

If only it'd enable virtual diarrhoea.

But who is doing the marketing — Gnomon

Self-help authors, wannabe gurus who try to borrow the legitimacy and authority of a religion without actually promoting that religion.

Buddhism appears to be especially vulnerable to this type of exploitation, probably largely due to its foundational scriptures being unknown and not readily available for a long time.

And what effect were you trying to induce in me by pointing this out?

Problem of evil is a bad argument for atheism, it has been defeated and therefore using it just makes atheism look wrong. So if you want to win debates don't use it. Find better ones.

Why does evil exist? Well there is two kinds of evil: Evil done by humans happens because of free-will and there is justice in the afterlife. Evil done by nature happens because this is creation not heaven. Any physical creation is going to contain good and bad. Changing it will just create a new set of goods and bads. — Miller

And then, of course, there's the option that what some people believe is "evil", is actually good.

So, my impression is that most self-reference is useless. — T Clark

Self-referentiality points to our tendency to conflate the thing with our thoughts about said thing.
Also, more generally, it points to the possibility of saying one thing and meaning two things.
(Of course, this works because we take into consideration other statements that contextualize the one under scrutiny, but we do not verbalize those others.)

I'm getting out of this discussion. — T Clark

*sigh*
Hey, I don't even have the time to turn on the computer every day!