I don't say people can attribute whether they want; well actually they can, but we don't have to take them seriously. — Janus

I'm just completely amazed by their confidence, and I wonder what role it plays in spiritual development.

Modern misattributions are obviously even further removed both temporally and culturally, but nonetheless a misattribution is a misattribution, and unfortunately since he wrote nothing we have no way of determining just what is and what is not misattributing what was said by Gautama. That said, if we take the earliest texts as authoritative then we should be able to clearly identify anything which does not tally with those. — Janus

The gist of it is, there is probably no single authoritative version of the Buddha's teachings, in that there are parallel re-tellings of many of the suttas (sayings) in various dialects - no 'single source of truth' has been unearthed. — Wayfarer

Of course. If you study the early texts and discuss them with other people who have also studied them, then, even though you might be working with different translations (or even different versions of the Tipitaka), still, there characteristically emerges an understanding that contextualizes or transcends the differences.

:yawn: — 180 Proof

You are very kind.

Oh, and this:

Well, I never took you for an optimist. — Tom Storm

How about taking your own advice and actually get to know a person?

The Dalai Lama is not the Buddha, nor is he the pope of Buddhism.

It could also be that buddhists are ok with coexisting other religions because they view them as simply alternative routes to the same destination - there being no concept of orthodoxa (right view), just various means to one ultimate end which is nirvana aka salvation. — TheMadFool

I suppose there are California Buddhists who believe such a thing (a "California Buddhist" is a person with some interest in Buddhism, but who believes Buddhism is, basically, whatever you want it to be (as long as it's something politically correct)).

Otherwise, Buddhists believe there is Right View, and they don't believe that "all paths lead to the top of the mountain".

I haven't been able to get my hands on a good explanation of Nagarjuna's tetralemma on the www. Do you know of any online resources I can bite into? — TheMadFool

I'm quite sure I've already given you links. The key is in understanding why the terms "exist", "not exist", "neither exist nor not exist" don't apply to the Tathagata.

There are many challenges on both sides but I don't see a deep incompatibility in principle with anything science has discovered. — Wayfarer

Do you think that the doctrine of paṭiccasamuppāda is compatible with science, or that science can demonstrate it to be wrong?

"Accommodate" is an understatement:
If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.
— Tenzin Gyatso, The 14th Dalai Lama — 180 Proof

Why should a relatively small school within Buddhism and its most visible representative be considered representative of all Buddhism?


Although I do give the Dalai Lama credit for saying "certain claims in Buddhism". Heh. He could be referring to spelling mistakes, historical data, and culturological findings -- things that are indeed the domain of science. And mostly irrelevant to Buddhism.

Did the Buddha ever think about what The Doctrine Of Impermanence (Anicca/Anitya), the cornerstone of Buddhism, meant for Buddhism? — TheMadFool

Yes, he said that at some point, his teachings will become lost.

Does anicca/anitya apply to The Four Noble Truths? It should, right?

If that were the case, then we'd be living in a chaotic universe, and in a chaotic universe enlightenment wouldn't be possible (since the attainment of enlightenment depends on there being cause and effect, reliably), and the whole project of looking for true happiness would be pointless. Upon realizing this, one would give up on it, and succomb to misery.

Ergo, there's plenty of room in Buddhism for science and even other stuff to set up house.

In which case, why still call it "Buddhism"?

Effective at changing minds? Surely. — Xtrix

Blaming people, limiting your goodwill, showing contempt, considering them infantile, irrational, and so on is _not_ effective in changing people's mind.

“… we humans have long believed that rationality makes us special in the animal kingdom. This origin myth reflects one of the most cherished narratives in Western thought, that the human mind is a battlefield where cognition and emotion struggle for control of behavior.
/.../ — Joshs

Indeed, this dichotomy is not universal. In some Eastern cultures, they don't distinguish between "head" and "heart" like Westerners do.

Personally, this dichotomy always struck me as strange, I never understood how people can draw a line between what they call "head" and "heart".

We can be rational, but so often are not. — Bitter Crank

Says who? The Holy Inquisition?

Why narcissism? Why neuroticism? Free floating aggression? Etc.???

Because people need labels and the justifications that come with them. You can't just burn someone at the stakes; instead, you need to make it look justified, such as by saying, "She's a witch!"

Since the Holy Inquisition isn't particularly en vogue anymore, but people still have a need to scapegoat, to be intolerant, to lash out, to absolve themselves of the responsibility for how they treat others, they've invented labels that enable them to go on in those old ways.

The primary function of psychiatric labels is that they absolve the "normal" folks from any responsibility for how they treat those on whom they pin those labels. People apparently need freedom like that.

There was backlash before as well. So what does it matter. — Xtrix

Do you want to be effective or not?

Goodwill doesn’t last forever. — Xtrix

Then it wasn't goodwill in the first place. It was pity.

Then it seems such to you ...

So, I take it you don't enjoy your life at all, or at least not very much? — Janus

What on earth makes you think that?

Well, sounds like you enjoy righteous indignation at least. It's an acquired taste; you have to bracket off the great annoyance caused by what you are indignant about or else it's more aggravating than enjoyable I'd say..

Nah. Righteous indignation rocks! People are addicted to it, it's orgasmic, and then some.

And blaming them is helping you how exactly?
— baker

Helping with what? — Xtrix

Changing them.

They are to blame, bringing everyone down with them, and patience is rightfully wearing thin.

Goodwill doesn’t last forever.

Again, there's that authoritarianism.

Patience and empathy have their limits. If you don’t listen to reason, evidence, and argument — you leave little recourse. — Xtrix

You treat people like they are your underlings. And you think they should just accept that, submit to you?

Patience and empathy have their limits. If you don’t listen to reason, evidence, and argument — you leave little recourse. — Xtrix

The thing is that you see yourself as the arbiter of rationality.

If you don't see the problem with that ...

Well, expect backlash.

My point is that as long as one is looking for happiness outside, one is going to be faced with an endless amount of problems.
— baker

Well, I never took you for an optimist. This reads like early Woody Allen.

And yet despite everything you say there I have known many people who are happy and found happiness readily achievable. And they weren't rich or powerful. They just went about their business taking an interest in some matters and not others, working, raising a family, gardening, reading and finding humor in many things. And sure, it's hard to do this is a warzone or when sick, but frankly it isn't impossible. — Tom Storm

Working, raising a family, gardening, reading and finding humor in many things needn't necessarily be done in an effort of looking for happiness outside.

My reference was to the Buddhist concept of looking for happiness inside. This means that one's happiness doesn't depend on how the world is, or how one manages to make it. Looking for happiness inside doesn't mean that one stops engaging with the world, on the contrary, one still engages with it, it's just that one doesn't believe that working, raising a family, gardening, reading and finding humor in many things is what is going to make one happy.

Quite the opposite. I have— they haven’t. — Xtrix

And blaming them is helping you how exactly?

I need people that disagree with me in order to improve my ideas. — Cheshire

It's more mundane than that. Imagine if you were to boycott the products and services provided by anyone who isn't particularly enthusiastic about vaccination. You'd be hungry, cold, homeless, and naked.

The people who aren't particularly enthusiastic about vaccination are still people who are making the economy possible. So to dismiss them just like that (either as subhuman, or as irrational or childish) is to dismiss the work they otherwise get done, and from which you benefit.

My question is whether we should engage with them -- assuming I'm correct about their irrationality. — Xtrix

If you try to engage someone whom you believe to be irrational, then you are the one who is irrational, and at fault.

Here's part of the problem, for me: is time better spent organizing/mobilizing those who agree, or perhaps with those who are "on the fence"/ those who are more persuadable, who really just want to understand the issue and weight the evidence?

Unless you're a high politician or otherwise influential, this question is beside the point, you're just spinning your wheels, wasting time that would better be spent otherwise.

contempt.

In this context, I find that thought a bit chilling. — Srap Tasmaner

Of course. In cultures where contempt has been normalized, vaccination tends to go slowly, despite there being enough of the vaccine. And things are going from bad to worse.


Instead, look at a country like Denmark: they have officially ended the pandemic, all restrictions have been cancelled. Marvelous things can happen when people don't insist on contempt.

This is true, but in the American culture war, if that's part of the topic here, it goes both ways. — Srap Tasmaner

Sure. But the pro-vaccers are trying to present their contempt as justified, and as if people who are not enthusiastic about vaccination (and they are a very versatile group) are somehow obligated to accept this contempt.

This is simply megalomania on the part of the pro-vaccers. If they really are trying to make a difference, one would expect that they would go about it more constructively, instead of using medieval methods of coercion.

Taking the 'high road' in the moment looks like weakness, but we forget it's a choice. It is often frustrating to play by the rules while the opponent would cheat at every turn. — Cheshire

It's not about "taking the high road" -- and it's telling that people conceive of it this way.

It's about employing a strategy that may have a better chance of success, with less collateral damage.

Contempt breeds contempt. If you attack people, they will fight back, what else? That's not a way to change them, or at least not for long.

People get persuaded by goodwill, not by arguments, nor by force.

Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers, Covid-19 deniers, et al have the specifics of their quirky views tied to deeper fundamentals. Those who found a home for all their various resentments in the person of Donald Trump can't change their views about vaccinations for the virus. Election fraud and disease hoax are welded together. Getting vaccinated is tantamount to accepting that there was no fraud in the 2020 election. — Bitter Crank

It's not just that.

Given the combative culture that has been present in so many societies for quite some time, and which capitalism thrives on, to do what another person tells you to do amounts to admitting defeat, it amounts to submitting oneself to another person, to enslave oneself to them.
And this is what some people are fighting against, not the vaccination.

What is sometimes happening now is that if a person who previously wasn't particularly enthusiastic about vaccination gets vaccinated, the pro-vaccers interpret their decision as "Finally, you have accepted the truth" or "Finally, you have decided to listen to science" and such. And this is what is so offensive: not being allowed to own one's intentions for one's actions. You bet people are going to fight against that.


The chance for a constructive approach to the covid pandemic was wasted long ago, somewhere around the time when capitalism was enshrined as the only good and just world order. We're now reaping the fruits of having normalized capitalism.

Good to know I’m not alone in my empathy fatigue. — Xtrix

Should other people work hard to earn your empathy?

Replying not to just this point, but in general to your quest:

When it starts to effect society, the education of future generations, and the future of the planet, then I don't take this position anymore. I think it should be called out -- but whether one should bother spending time running through claim after debunked claim, that's a different question entirely. — Xtrix

The issue aren't the specific claims (whether the topic is slavery, climate change, or the pandemic, or whatever), but the basic mode of interaction.
On your part, and on the part of so many who are enthusiastic about vaccination, this basic mode of interaction is combative, it's contempt. What is more, this hasn't come into being in this pandemic, it's been there for centuries. It's become normalized.

And what many people are actually replying to, is precisely this combativeness, this contempt. That's why arguments about what ostensibly seems to be the topic are irrelevant. You have not demonstrated goodwill toward them, and that's why they don't listen to you.

Since a combative culture is already in place, one that has been combative for so long (remember, you had a civil war and multiple civil unrests), it will be very difficult to change things at this point.

President Biden will likely succeed with forcing people to get vaccinated, but this will likely only further cement the combative culture. Forcing people to get vaccinated may help to weather the covid pandemic, but it's questionable whether such force will help in the future crises that are sure to come.

My question is whether we should engage with them -- assuming I'm correct about their irrationality. — Xtrix

new agey, pseudo-Buddhistic bullshit. — Xtrix

Do you really think that farting a few quips of contempt in the general direction of those you don't like is going to make them change their minds and become more to your liking, err, "finally see the truth"?

You want the world to be the way you want it to be -- but what are you willing to invest?
What are you willing to do to change the world?

Some people who want to change the world amass wealth, armies, they seamslessly inflitrate themselves into people's lives, they take decisive action, they make an effort. But what are you doing? You just expect others to be other than they are, as if they owed you that. What if someone treated you that way? Would you change? If someone considered you a child, irrational, you'd tell them to fuck off, wouldn't you?

*sigh*
Have you ever read a book of advice (or a book that can be read as a book of advice) and thought that in order to put that advice into practice, you'd need to be an entirely different person, with a different socio-economic status? That in your current state, acting on that advice is impossible for you, or would even be detrimental for you?

Do you think cunning is a virtue? Do you strive to build your cunning? Do you encourage cunning in others?

You choose. What you choose tells us about you. — Banno

Your questions and your formulation indicates that you're a proponent of ethical authoritarianism.
You are very much in favor of rules: your rules.

Since Gautama wrote nothing, how many of his earliest attributed "sayings" are already misattributions? — Janus

Does that mean that we can attribute to him whatever we want to?

Do read my post above yours.

Do you disagree that righteous indignation is a great feeling?

My point is that as long as one is looking for happiness outside, one is going to be faced with an endless amount of problems. Even if you were to opt for the final solution (as some in the past did) and executed it in full (as those in the past haven't succeeded), so that you'd be left only with like-minded people, you'd still be living on a planet where there are volcano eruptions, tsunamis, earthquakes, dangerous animals, unwelcome genetic mutations, limited natural resources, and at that a planet that is on collision course with some asteroids, in a solar system whose sun will eventually explode. IOW, living on such a planet and looking for happiness outside, you'd still be miserable.

My take is that they're sick in some way, even if just the sickness of stupidity. — tim wood

Goshdarn, righteous indignation is the best feeling there is!!!

Sometimes it's worth it to ask yourself what your motivation really is. — frank

Yes.

At worst the worst of adjectives properly apply. And that leaves the question, are such people necessarily part of the price of living in a free society? — tim wood

Throughout history, men of great acumen and power have devised final solutions to such problems ...

Are you at peace with the fact (or at least the option) that you're living in a dangerous world?