As expected ...

but if word were to spread you would be confident that the majority would sympathize with you. — BitconnectCarlos

This is highly questionable. Even good friends and family can turn on you if you find yourself in trouble, what to speak of semi-stangers/acquaintances like people in the same town.

People generally don't want trouble and they tend to shun those that are in any kind of trouble (such as being targeted by a racist; it can be anything from losing your job, to getting cancer or being robbed).

Siding with the person in trouble will possibly mean trouble for you.

Well, if you have too much time on your hands ...

The first precept against killing, since all life is sacred. And all living things partake of Buddha nature. — Pantagruel

This is a Mahayana/Vajrayrana view. Other Buddhist schools would point out that by killing, one accrues "bad karma" for oneself. A Buddhist might also argue that killing is wrong because it doesn't solve the problem of suffering, even though one engages in kiling for the purpose of solving the problem of suffering.

You have to kinda be able to be a evil person too do good. Or else, you can't do anyone anything — Caleb Mercado

You seem to be starting from the position that a person has a "true self", a "core" and that this "core" is permanent, unchangeable, and knowable.

While such a position is convenient when it comes to judging and condemning people, it's also impossible to prove it.

Lets say one of your neighbors - an acquaintance - comes to you with incontrovertible proof that another one of your neighbors said what the bigot said. You don't have strong pre-existing ties to either of these two people. Has your attitude changed towards the offender? Do you smile and wave next time you see the bigot? If the bigot tries to talk to you and befriend you, how do you react? — BitconnectCarlos

Actually, I know a similar situation first-hand. What I do is I make an effort to be professional and that's it. Don't smile, don't chit chat, don't get involved. This always seems to be the best policy: not becoming too cordial too soon, but giving things time and waiting for facts to become known.

Another example I remember back from college: A classmate whose father was a Serb told me about this. Another classmate told her to her face that Serbs should go "back where they came from". Meaning, one girl said to another girl that people like that other girl's father should go away (and presumably, her included, since she was also half-Serbian). Yet the girl who said that carried on as if all was well between the two. The girl whose father was a Serb told me that and asked me for advice on how to treat the other girl, given that up to that point, they were on very good terms.

If anything, partaking by degrees of the same consciousness as us should afford rights, not subject to ignomies. — Pantagruel

Should. Doesn't mean that it does. Look at arguments for antisemitism, racism, meat-eating: many of them are based on the idea that some beings are lesser beings and that it is therefore okay to treat them in ways that would be unacceptable to our peers.

Buddhists don't step on insects.

What do you think is the maxim behind that?

I'm not referencing some real event here - my situation is entirely hypothetical and in the situation that I envisioned the community is not racist or sympathetic to racism, the community is mostly just composed of relatively isolated individuals who are not racist. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. I'm saying that people generally don't want trouble. And in an effort to avoid trouble, they will do things that can look racist, homophobic etc. even though they aren't motivated by such intentions.
"You're X, the new neighbor is against X. I don't want any trouble, so I'm going to shun you. It's probably best if you move out."

The neighbor is polite, do you return their courtesies? Do you show up at a neighborhood brunch or dinner where the neighbor is present? How do you react to others in the neighborhood getting acquainted with this neighbor? — BitconnectCarlos

Indeed, there now exists a (potential) conflict of interests. Your status in the community, since you're now the target of someone's ism, is in question. Your relationship with other neighbors is now put to the test. Will they still accept you, will they demote you, or will they shun you because you've become the target of someone's ism?

It's similar to the situation you find yourself in if your kid gets beaten up by the neighbor's kid or vice versa, or if a drunk neighbor runs you over with the car.

A neighbor isn't automatically a friend, nor an ally.

I'd counter that the universal experience of being a child versus being an adult is exemplary of a difference of degree of consciousness. — Pantagruel

I remember when I was little, and still in elementary school and even into my teens, there were adults, including some teachers, who held that view -- that I am less conscious than they are. I still remember how one teacher said about me to someone else, in my presence, "It doesn't feel anything".
I was there, I felt, yet they referred to me as "it" and that I don't feel anything.


If anything, the idea of there being different degrees of consciousness is first and foremost an ideological one. Assuming different beings have different degrees of consciousness serves a particular ideology -- such as that it's okay to treat children like cattle, or that animals don't feel pain or much of anything (and it's therefore okay to farm them for meat and other products, in ways that are "economical" for humans).

I think that the actual problem is that you're externalizing things that are, by their nature, private, personal. Indeed, you can point out that professional philosophers, politicians etc. are doing so as well, and there is a whole culture of doing this. But the difference is that they're getting payed for their speculations, and you aren't. Amateur philosophy is fine, as long as it doesn't become dilettantism. And it becomes dilettantism when the person is in fact facing an issue in their personal life, but tries to present it to others as an objective, general social issue and insists on lenghty public discussion of it. By its nature, one's issue might very well be such, but unless one actually holds some position of power in society where one actually has some say in the matter, then one is assuming oneself to have more competence and more power than one actually has -- and therefore one will burn out in one's efforts, achieving nothing.

In other words, your own justification for not having children is your own thing. But if you care so much about the suffering of prospective as yet nonexisting humans, it would be wiser to start a political movement, or obtain some position of power in the government where you can actually influence people and make policy changes.

"Who are you to tell me what to think?!" is the reply you'll probably get from most people to your AN suggestions.

If you, as an AN, care so much about future, potential people that you want for them not to suffer even one iota of harm, then how come you don't extend the same care to people who are already alive?

Your AN arguments are presumably based on empathy and compassion for people who don't even exist yet, but you don't muster the same empathy and compassion for existing people*. That's strange.


*Which you'd need in order to get through to them.

What happens if we now say no to Nihilism too? — TheMadFool

Our teeth continue to rot as if nothing happened.

*sigh*

Well, desire is fundamental to our psychological make-up, it's extremely difficult to get rid of. And there is always that secret nagging desire to attain nirvana. — Apollodorus

What a rookie.

There’s your problem right there. It’s a religion, and belief is involved. Either get over it, and get on with it, or walk away. They’re your choices. — Wayfarer

I don't experience those as my choices, though.

If I was a bodhisattva I could help guide you to enlightenment — Fooloso4

No. A bodhisattva is not yet a buddha, a bodhisattva is not yet enlightened, he doesn't have that status.
The idea that the unelightened could lead others to enlightenment is absurd.

But it looks like our friend baker will require a good few rebirths - hopefully as a Buddhist - to achieve that. — Apollodorus

While you, of course, are inevitably close to nirvana, or already there, right? Right.

So humans have to constantly buffer why they do anything. There is no automatic reason why we need to do anything at all. — schopenhauer1

I think only some people are like that; in fact, possibly the minority. A case can be made that a psychologically normal person does usually not reflect upon their choices at all, and this is actually preferred both by psychologists and people at large.

In fact, someone who reflects on their choices like you suggest, someone who wonders about their motivations that way is likely to score highly on the neuroticism scale (at least that), and render themselves somewhere in "mentally unwell" territory.

What you describe as "humans have to constantly buffer why they do anything", normal people would classify as "doubting oneself, second-guessing oneself", and thus as "lack of self-confidence", "lack of belief in oneself". A more charitable normal person would tell you that you "think too much".

It is at the most "bad faith" in not recognizing the fact that again, people choose justifications for why the do any task at all. — schopenhauer1

No, I think that typically, they don't "choose" their justifications. They just have them, end of story.

No power hierarchy exists in this scenario. It’s just two individuals in a community. The thoughts he has or expresses are unable to elevate him to any position of power. — NOS4A2

Young jedi, you yet have a lot to learn.

Thank heavens you've got the alcohol to blame! And not perhaps that smoking pot induced the person to a number of other bad choices, such as drinking and driving.

I have explained that Buddhism does not require that we take anything for granted,. — FrancisRay

You most certainly did not explain it. You just claimed it, with nothing further.

The Buddha spends half his time telling us not to do this. There is no such thing as 'politically incorrect in mysticism. I can't imagine where you get these ideas. . .

How about you actually reading what I said? The you'll see that I don't have the ideas you imagine I have!

It seems you want me to explain what is explained in ten thousand books. This is not fair. I'll probably stick to recommending relevant texts in future. . .

*sigh*
Well, you described yourself as "lazy". That says a lot.

But I do agree that some assumptions that are fundamental to Buddhism can be flawed. — Apollodorus

I never said that they are flawed. I don't think they are. I only pointed out that doing some practices and holding some views can lead to some trouble for the practitioner.

Do you really need me to explain that this is a misunderstanding? — FrancisRay

Yes, by all means, do. This is key.

As I've already pointed out, Buddhism never asks us to take any premises for granted.

For a secular Westerner interested in Buddhism, it is indeed quite likely politically incorrect to propose that Buddhism requires that we take some things for granted.
In contrast, cradle Buddhists typically take for granted that the tenets of their religion are true.

So maybe we could start by asking why you believe it does.

For one, from listening to Buddhists of various walks and provenances and from reading the Pali suttas.
For two, it's the only sensible explanation. Up until stream entry, a practitioner can't possibly know he's on the right path or that the practice "works".

Of course, as Fooloso4 mentions, there may have to be some suspension of disbelief at the start for practical reasons, but this has nothing to do with epistemology..

Oh? And you think that all the bowing, kneeling, prostrating before monks and teachers "has nothing to do with epistemology" either?

As I understand it, knowledge for the Buddhist comes with enlightenment. It is experiential not theoretical. — Fooloso4

Sure. But the issue is that relevant experiences are gained through doing a particular practice. Doing this practice to begin with requires that some things are taken for granted.

What made me hopeless about Buddhism is that its epistemology is, essentially, a self-fulfilling prophecy: first, one takes some premises for granted; then one acts in line with those premises; and then one "sees" that those premises "are true".
— baker

If you see it that way, you should definitely abandon interest in it. If you start with the opinion that it's all a foregone conclusion, then there's obviously nothing to be learned by studying it. — Wayfarer

I think this problem of circularity/self-referentiality applies to many (if not all) fields of knowledge. To me, that it should apply to Buddhism, is nothing special.

I don't think there is anything to be learned (strictly speaking) by studying something, but there very well is something to become, something to do, something to attain. Like when one enrolls in a course of
education to acquire a qualification, and then one can do things one was not able to do before.

I don't think one can test or learn whether the Four Noble Truths are in fact true. But by starting off by taking them for granted, one might be able to do and attain things that one otherwise might not be able to.

To me, the real problem in regard to knowledge is epistemic triviality. As above with Buddhism, I think similar applies with other religions and philosophies. For example, I think that if one tries hard enough, Jesus becomes one's lord and savior and one lives happily ever after. So the question is, how on earth does one choose a religious (etc.) path???

Not so. 'Epistemology' has a name in Indian philosophy, it's pramāṇa-vāda , the theory of justification and Hetu-vidya, the science of causation. The two exemplary sources are the scholar-monks Dharmakirti and Dignāga, whose treatises on logic and epistemology are studied in every Mahāyāna Buddhist institution worldwide. By all means don't believe it, but your depiction of it as a matter of subjective choice is mistaken, based on indlvidualist liberal philosophy, 'what is right for me'. It's a very rigorous and highly structured doctrine.

I was discussing the pramanas once with a Hindu brahmacari. I asked him whether it was possible to choose as to which pramana one considers authoritative. He had to pause (otherwise, he was extremely fluent and fast-spoken), and said that it would depend on whatever pramana one currently holds as authoritative. Ie. the idea is that there are pramana positions from which individual choice is possible, and others, from which it is not.
What do you think of that?

Could you narrow down the problem by asking a more specific question? — FrancisRay

You're the one who said that I misunderstood. So it's on you to show me how, where, why I misunderstood.

This is anecdotal evidence, of course.
I grew up in what was almost entirely a monoracial monoculture. I am certain that we were taught racism. From what I can remember, at first, none of the kids cared one way or another about race, it was simply not an issue. But then some liberal, politically correct school policy was introduced according to which we whites were all assumed to be evil racists and needed to be taught interracial tolerance. This policy came along with reverse racism, where the few people of other races were given extra care, credit, and protection by those in positions of power. So those few kids of other race got away with shit that the rest of us would be punished for. Yes, that taught us racism.

This still does nothing to explain why you care so much about the lives of others (whom you'd prefer weren't born at all).

Has anyone actually done this experiment, or is there any anecdotal evidence of how actual people have acted in such situation?

Extending an olive branch is sometimes the antidote to hatred. — NOS4A2

While many other times, it's a act of submission and letting the other person have the upper hand. And to fuck with you.
And once you make the mistake of extending that olive branch, it's too late, the power hierachy between the two of you is set for as long as you live.

People who will piss on your lawn, slit the tires on your car ...

Why would it necessarily be obligatory or a dogma? Could it not be optional? — 0 thru 9

Once something is deemed "normal", it eventually becomes the norm, obligatory.

That is a distinct possibility. But like the mob boss said, “if you want to make an omelet, you gotta break some legs”.

Because STI's are such fun!
Don't just think chlamidya or HIV, think treatment-resistant tuberculosis.

The chain of: words ----> feeling bad ----> acting in response ----> repeat is nothing but trouble, both for the individual and for groups. — Bitter Crank

Not for the one who casts the first stone. That person comes out the winner.

Can you live peacefully next to someone who tells you don't deserve to exist?

Yes, I can. — NOS4A2

And you talk to them, greet them, as if all was well?

I know Marion played quite a few of those roles, but it's never seemed to me to be much to aspire to, and I've always been a bit bewildered by the role played by the cowboy in our culture. — Ciceronianus the White

I think those films were exercises in stylization and were never meant to be taken at face value. The height of that stylization were then the Spaghetti Westerns.

Of course I can live peaceably next door to someone who thinks I should not exist (there are such people, actually) and they can live peaceably next door to me. We will both probably make some effort to stay out of each other's way. No comradely beers in the yard for us! — Bitter Crank

I suppose this is easier to handle when being neighbors in an apartment building where people can mostly ignore eachother without this having any bad consequences. But being neighbors in neighboring houses in a suburb is another matter, because there are issues of infrastructure, trees, fences, etc. that you must discuss with the neighbor and come to some agreement to.

Hearing or reading objectionable opinions will not so much as move a hair on one's head. — Bitter Crank

Even when they are said by a person living just a few meters away from you?

Whenever you see that person, you know, "This person wishes me dead". Does that make for a good life for you?

How much would Western Civilizational (WC) be changed, if both public sex and public nudity were accepted and tolerated? — 0 thru 9

It would be just another dogma, just another standard of behavior that would become normative and obligatory for all. And sexually transmitted infections would have a field day, obviously.

One doesn't have to be a Buddhist to endorse its teachings. — FrancisRay

That's confused.

So you're favoring selective antinatalism. Some types of antinatalism are not destructive or harmful. In fact, they can help humanity toward a better gene pool.