humans, possessed of a more complex language, should be capable of understanding languages that are simpler, in fact too simple, like animal languages. Hence, The Too Simple Paradox Of Language. — TheMadFool

This sounds a bit like the "curse of knowledge/expertise":

The curse of knowledge is a cognitive bias that occurs when an individual, communicating with other individuals, unknowingly assumes that the others have the background to understand.[1] This bias is also called by some authors the curse of expertise,[2] although that term is also used to refer to various other phenomena.

For example, in a classroom setting, teachers have difficulty teaching novices because they cannot put themselves in the position of the student. A brilliant professor might no longer remember the difficulties that a young student encounters when learning a new subject. This curse of knowledge also explains the danger behind thinking about student learning based on what appears best to faculty members, as opposed to what has been verified with students.[3]
/.../
Such research drew from Baruch Fischhoff's work in 1975 surrounding hindsight bias, a cognitive bias that knowing the outcome of a certain event makes it seem more predictable than may actually be true.[5] Research conducted by Fischhoff revealed that participants did not know that their outcome knowledge affected their responses, and, if they did know, they could still not ignore or defeat the effects of the bias. Study participants could not accurately reconstruct their previous, less knowledgeable states of mind, which directly relates to the curse of knowledge. This poor reconstruction was theorized by Fischhoff to be because the participant was "anchored in the hindsightful state of mind created by receipt of knowledge".[6] This receipt of knowledge returns to the idea of the curse proposed by Camerer, Loewenstein, and Weber: a knowledgeable person cannot accurately reconstruct what a person, be it themselves or someone else, without the knowledge would think, or how they would act. In his paper, Fischhoff questions the failure to empathize with ourselves in less knowledgeable states, and notes that how well people manage to reconstruct perceptions of lesser informed others is a crucial question for historians and "all human understanding".[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge

Nope. I'm not the one making stuff up.

So all our philosophical resistance is futile.

No. It's called being silenced by a mob. — Book273

Yet the world has worked that way for millennia.

Do you recall a day of life when you didn't walk on eggshells? Honestly?

I live in a society where a man on a TV politics talk show was told by a member of the audience that his opinion was illegitimate because of his skin colour; and that woman thought she was in the right - because the man was white. I live in a country pervaded by a form of reverse identity politics - that clothes itself in the garb of moral righteousness while stereotyping people, and discriminating against them on that basis. — counterpunch

This is simply small town mentality, it has been around for millennia. It just seems more egregious when it's broadcatsed on tv and the internetz.

Lurking behind this entire discussion is the question “what is the proper relationship b/w the university and the government?”, and that is a question that is very old, reaching all the way back to when the university was called the “academy”. — Todd Martin

And back when it was only the elites who had access to higher education. It seems that the elites somehow figured out what is proper to say and what isn't and didn't make much of a fuss about it, or settled it with a duel.

Troubles began when higher education became open to plebeians who didn't have the necessary class prowess required to handle social issues gracefully. And when duels became officially illegal.

Freedom imposed by law with legal penalties for not obeying its strictures is tyranny in double-think. — unenlightened

Plebeification on steroids.

So there are limits to free speech. On what grounds? — Isaac

I suspect that the free speech clause in the US might have been actually motivated in a similar way as freedom of religion.

Namely, I once heard the opinion, which I find plausible, that the constitutional clause on the freedom of religion in the US was intended to get the various Christian factions to stop fighting with eachother for supremacy (because they were causing general unrest and collateral damage with those fights). It wasn't out of some deep appreciation of religious diversity or notions of equality.

I think this goes for free speech as well. Imposed equality is one of the government's ways to get people to watch their words, talk less, or to shut up altogether.


It's the same as getting a bunch of children to stop fighting over toys: give them all the same type of toy. Or even better: make them earn their toys by cleaning toilets.

The method of questions and answers is one of the ways to organize one's thoughts. "Where have I put my red socks? -- In the bottom drawer."

In this method, the question isn't a true question of the kind "What is the half-life of caesium-137?", but simply a part of the means to organize one's thoughts.

The Socratic method is a way to help another person organize their thoughts in a particular way; and one can use this same method in one's own thinking as well (after one has learned the method). It's more dynamic than just using declarative sentences and it makes it easier to point out the salient bit of information.

So you don't have personal experience, nor can you quote actual sources, but still you can make claims about nirvana ...

Really, you live in a society where people don't have to walk on eggshells all the time??!

You don't get to delegitimise, shout down, drown out and de-platform other people — counterpunch

It's not possible to do so anyway, so the whole idea is a non-starter. Deplatforming would be possible if there would exist neutral communication avenues, a no-man's land where everyone would equally belong and not belong. But there is no such place.

Every newspaper, every tv and radio station, every website, every youtube channel, every physical space fit for any kind of communication is owned by someone, and that person or organization gets to call the shots on what can be said there and what can't.

That's why, for example, Twitter closing down someone's account is not an act against free speech: because Twitter is a private company, and it is fully in their right to decide whose posts they will publish and whose they won't.

How Kafkaesque! Always on trial for a crime you might commit by saying something someone else might find offensive. — counterpunch

Yes. It's called "being civilized".

Remember, I am explicitly trying to think outside of the historical belief systems of Buddhism. — Constance

The early Buddhist teachings on karma and rebirth are _not_ mere "historical trappings".

One may ask:
"Can we strip the Buddha's teachings of any mention of rebirth and still get the full benefits of what he had to teach? In other words, can we drop the Buddha's worldview while keeping his psychology and still realize everything it has to offer?"

See here for the answer: The Truth of Rebirth And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice.

I only want to know what meditation is at the level of basic assumptions.

You're trying to force the issue. More below.

I mean, what really happens in this event in which one sits, ceases thinking, wanting, anticipating, and does this rigorously over time?

I don't know what happens in that event, because what you describe is some new-agey meditation mishamash that has nothing to do with Buddhism.

Buddhists famously want the purity of the event to be untainted by presuppositions,

Well, as long as those self-declared "Buddhists" are also New Agers or practitioners of corporate mindfulness (that's a term, look it up).


Like I said, you've been trying to force the issue. You've been trying to strip Buddhism of everything that "makes it Buddhist" and you're trying to find some Buddhism-independent truth but one which also happens to be at the core of Buddhism.

I'm saying you're wrong to do this, on multiple levels.

I'll briefly touch on one here:

Buddhism has a virtue epistemology. It supposes that in order to know the truth, one needs to practice a sufficient measure of virtue. The trio sila, samādhi, and pañña is central: moral conduct, concentration (meditation), and wisdom. These are the three fundamental categories of training. One has to train in all three, simultaneously and progressively. One cannot have one without the other.

In contrast, the popular mindfulness movement is trying to force the issue by focusing primarily or solely on the concentration/meditation, but generally avoiding the Buddhist prescription of the necessity of moral behavior, which is captured for lay people in the first five precepts.
Some philosophers are trying to force the issue by focusing on the wisdom component, and, again, neglecting morality and the actual practice of meditation.

The idea that one could force the issue like that and figure out the truth about Buddhism or the truth that "Buddhism is about" is incompatible with the actual Buddhist practice. It's akin to someone claiming he wants to learn to swim, but who refuses to even approach the water.

If the government has decided that universities need a "free speech champion" then free speech has been being stifled for a long time. — Book273

And now they are gong to actively, governmentally champion stifling free speech!

The dogmatic view of certain religions kills the individual and transforms the herd's view in such a way that their actions, reactions, and emotions are almost made unconscious. — Gus Lamarch

And yet they rule the world.

Sarcasm travels poorly online.

I was agreeing with you. I don't know why some people believe that if it doesn't hurt, it isn't the truth.

Personally, I believe that the truth can never hurt.
There is a certain feeling that can come with a sobering realization or discovery, but that feeling is not hurt.

That the more difficult something is to believe the more “genuine” or “correct” it is.

A morphing from “Truth can hurt” to “What hurts is the truth”. — khaled

Yes. If it doesn't hurt, it ain't the truth.

I was even told once, and I remember this verbatim: A truth that doesn't condemn the one who speaks it is no truth at all.

In fact I'd add 'the self' itself. As in 'true to yourself, 'not being yourself'... As if there were some sacred fixed point from which certain feelings rebelliously deviate. — Isaac

I think this "just be true to yourself" (BTW, funny how people love to quote that line from Hamlet, when it's said by the one of the dumbest characters in the play) is not a lie, but a domination strategy and a self-defense strategy, and I suspect that people are aware of this.

Santa Claus was good while he lasted, but the hope for some sort of imaginary gift-giver, some sort of sugar-daddy, lingers on. — Bitter Crank

The Santa Claus story is an age-appropriate strategy to instill in children this hope, so that they can later on become sugar daddies and sugar mamas themselves (such as to their parents, ideally), and to not have qualms about looking for a sugar daddy or sugar mama and to use such relationships to their advantage.
It's corporate primig for toddlers!

you are born and you receive an education, and you become this education, and once you have been duly assimilated into a culture with its language and history, and then, there is your private history that ends up becoming a repository for future possibilities, the plot and character development, if you will, of the narrative you will write into existence.

But the rub: this is the way of everyday living, and everyone lives this life of unfolding affairs with implicit trust and unquestioned confidence, and one is entirely absorbed in the grand narrative. — Constance

Oh god, no.
Where do people get such ideas ...

Then one opens a copy of Heidegger's Being and Time, and begins to question, and if s/he is lucky, or unlucky, there is an epiphanic moment of startling awareness that there is a discontinuity in our questioning self and the world that is there to meet questions at the basic level. /.../ Most are not disturbed by this, that is, until they start reading Heidegger.

Eh ...?
No, one most certainly doesn't need to read Heidegger for that. Oh dear.

For me, it is the question, "why are we born to suffer and die?"

If you like to question basic assumptions, then how about qualifying the above as a mere assumption and questioning it?

Are we really born to suffer and die?
We suffer, and we die, yes, but is this all we're born to??

Bear in mind that people's compassion and generosity are not infinite.
So be careful how you appeal to them.

Those whom seek nirvana, will not find it and those whom do not seek nirvana will also not find it and yet nirvana may still be found, nevertheless! — Present awareness

*sigh*
Are you enlightened?

If it is, it may explain many of the problems associated with civilization as well as philosophy. The belief the world isn't truly real or important as something else, like heaven, is; the belief that nature and our fellow creatures are ours to do with as we please; the prevalence of self-conceit; the indifference to the state of the planet; all can be seen as resulting from an assumption we aren't parts of the world or somehow superior to it. — Ciceronianus the White

This too, but I was thinking the other way around: "The world is real and important, but the individual is not. The individual is an intruder, an impostor, and it would be best if he didn't exist in the first place, and failing that, he should at least see to it that he makes himself as invisible as possible."

Sometimes, this is modified to "a specific individual" or "a specific group/category of individuals".

The facet of my philosophical views that has perhaps gotten the most push-back on these forums is my view on the relationship between the parts of philosophy like metaphysics and epistemology, which I broadly call the descriptive side of philosophy, the side concerned with reality, truth, facts, etc; and the parts of philosophy like ethics and political philosophy, which I broadly call the prescriptive side of philosophy, the side concerned with morality, goodness, norms, etc.

I'm curious if it's just a few vocal people here who disagree so vehemently, rather than the dominant opinion, and also more generally where people fall in their views on the relationship between these two domains. — Pfhorrest

I don't see how it is possible to separate between ethics and metaphysics -- thinking that they are unrelated.
I think metaphysics dictates ethics; ethics must have a metaphysical foundation. What one believes that should be done must have a foundation in how things really are.

The difficulty I have with much of this is its de facto assumption of the world as something apart from us. I think that conception is embedded in any claim of being thrown into the world without choice, as if we're from one place and have come unwilling into another. I think it's also assumed whenever we speak of the world being suspended for our viewing and understanding, and perhaps most clearly when we complain of alienation. — Ciceronianus the White

(You say this so nicely.)

Yes, the assumption of separation between self and the world. It seems to me that an essential part of being "civilized" is to hold this assumption.

I completely agree with this. But there is a certain inevitability. There is the nature of language itself which is inherently mediatory, standing "between" actualities like the feeling of happiness or dread, or deliciousness or disgust; I am referring to the actuality of these events that are qualitatively distinct from the thoughts we have of them. We call a thing by its name and its concept subsumes all particulars, but this is NOT the feeling of being abandoned by a a loved one, e.g. We don't "know" what this is, but in the calling it something, we reduce it to a manageable form that can be discussed and fit into pragmatic contexts. The point is, and this is straight out of Kierkegaard's Concept of Anxiety, reason and actuality, understanding and the "real" events of the world are ontologically different. — Constance

I would think that everyone thinks so, at least intuitively. It's not like people actually confuse words for reality.

Confusion emerges when people say things they don't mean, or when the parties involved have irreconcilably different understandings of the matter at hand -- and this in plain terms, not in some fancy, abstract sense.
"Yes, I told you that loved you, but that doesn't mean I want to be with you, so bugger off."

What is fascinating to me, off the charts fascinating,is that we can "understand" this, making, as Wittgenstein put it, for ( I know this is rather esoteric; apologies) the "other side" of the requirement for posting something. Consider when he says, "in order to draw a limit of thought, we should have the limits of both sides thinkable."

Yes. That's why a line "drawn" in the air isn't a meaningful demarcation.

THIS is his line: Metaphysical "talk" is talk about something the "other side" of which is completely unknown; no, not unknown, but just nonsense, because such an "other side", is not conceivable, for in the conceiving, one deploys "this side's" language, logic, ideas, and so forth.

I'm not sure I understand what he meant here ... He may be saying something that is strongly influenced by Christian and anti-Christian thought. Metaphysics have such a bad reputation ... and I'm not sure I can redeem it in one forum post.

So, one cannot "say" the color yellow. And this makes references to the color AS color impossible.

Still, language is good enough. It serves a purpose.

Why I say this is so fascinating is this: It is my palpable, intuitive grasp that there is someting "other" there that is not language that affirms my own metaphysical Being, for the intuitive grasp of the thing, or the color, or the pain or bliss, does not issue from the thing out there, but from me. The nonconceptual Being of the world is my own Being affirmed in the relationship.
I am aware this likely sounds far flung, but this is the way it is, and I am quite willing to defend it.

You're not an alien. You're part of this universe. :)

"You're an intruder, you don't belong here" is an assumption that seems to be tacitly held in so much of our culturally specific discourse.
This assumption could be inherited from Christianity, or from European classism, or from reductive materialism, or a combination thereof. Be that as it may, it's a culturally specific discourse that is making us alien to our own lived experience.

I came across this picture the other day, I love it: https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Image-from-iOS-26-1024x976-1-e1611927131807-660x559.jpg

/.../ Samvega was what the young Prince Siddhartha felt on his first exposure to aging, illness, and death. /.../

The term sought for here is Existential Anxiety. Again, and especially the reference to childhood, see Kierkegaard's Concept of Anxiety, this above plays into existential thought in a central way, not merely a sideline issue. It is THE issue, for this deathbed realization is a withdrawal from from the grand "narrative" we all live in, going work, raising a family, outings with friends, all "blindly" priveleged and hermeneutically sealed.

There is an important difference here, though: the early Buddhist samvega narrative and the existential anxiety narrative are different.

The narrative of existential anxiety is conceived within a framework of one lifetime.
The early Buddhist one is conceived of in the framework of rebirth.

The person who conceives of life in the framework of one lifetime experiences the threat of loss of everything that is meaningful and dear to him as unique, ultimate, and fatal.

The person who conceives of life in the framework of many lifetimes experiences the threat of loss of everything that is meaningful and dear to him as serial, cyclical: they get it and then they lose it, and then they get it again, and lose it again, and so on.

That's how such a person sees those things as inherently unsatisfactory, whereas the person who thinks in terms of one lifetime, doesn't.

This is how the existential anxiety of a Western secular existentialist is qualitatively different from the existential anxiety as experienced by a rebirthist.

hermeneutically sealed

Heh.

I know you would like thinking more controlled in this way. Tell you what, I'll call what I do with Buddhist thinking, "philosophical Buddhism". Just thought of it, and it seems there should be no objections.

The Buddhism of philosophers, a la the God of philosophers ...

So the questioner is applying the Socratic method to themselves?

My point is this: regardless of word accuracy, does what was said resonate within you as being true? — Present awareness

Do you mean the things you ascribed to the Buddha? No.

The strength of the US is that the US means so many different things to different people. — ssu

The perfect Humpty Dumpty land, then!

Do you mean that when it comes to things intellectual, asking questions is always a matter of the Socratic method?

It does”t really matter whom said what or if anyone said anything, what matters most is does any of what was reported as being said, make any sense to you? — Present awareness

One cannot just ascribe to someone some words just because they "make sense to one". That's bestial.

"This makes sense to me, therefore, [insert name of favorite religious/spiritual figure] said it" --?????

The US is a free country and everyone is responsible for themselves.
— baker

...and there's your problem. — Banno

I was being cynical.

It seems that the only way to live up to the American ideals of freedom and responsibility would be to abolish the United States of America altogether.

Like they say, The greatest trick that the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist.

Growing up, it was my family constantly reminding me that the world outside is a 'bad place'. — OneTwoMany

The opposite: I was expected to believe, on pain of physical punishment, that the world is a good place.

So he was acquitted, as expected. Now what?

The OP was not asking about the veracity of Buddhist doctrine, but only if any human mind can achieve an altered state in which the sufferings of life, and the fear of death are of no consequence. — Gnomon

Such states are trivially possible. Just ask any meth addict.

The salient point is, and this is where veracity issues come into play, 1. whether such an altered state can be brought about deliberately, and 2. whether the person can be in such a state and still go about their daily life in a productive way.

"Deep meditation" and trance states are fine, but of entirely no use, if you can't handle being stuck in traffic for three hours with three crying children in the backseat.

The US is a free country and everyone is responsible for themselves.

Faith is not an valid argument. — Gus Lamarch

But it _is_ _their_ argument.

Most religious people have come to believe their religious doctrine before they were even old enough for their capacities for critical thinking to develop. This is the norm in religions, not just monotheistic ones. These religious people simply don't know any other way. Epistemically, they are in a situation that is impossible to deliberately replicate for an adult person. They cannot empathize with non-believers, and non-believers cannot empathize with them. This is why any attempt to discuss the justification for a person's religious belief is bound to be fruitless.

There is no such thing as an enlightened person, there is only an enlightened moment. All religions are based on someone else’s words.

If you google Buddhism, the text will be there. — Present awareness

At 27 posts, you should be able to already post links.


There are all kinds of things circulated around as being "the teachings of the Buddha".
One would hope that the people who are making those claims would have enough respect for the Buddha not to ascribe to him words he didn't say, or words for which there is good reason to believe or suspect he did not say them.

Which one says it's all an illusion? — frank

That would be more Mahayan-ish.
It's ironic, to say the least, that the one Buddhist religion that maintains that the world needs saving and which is willing to go to tremendous lengths to save others, also maintains, for all practical intents and purposes, that it's "all an illusion".


Early Buddhism and Theravada hold that one person cannot save another person, and so there can be no question of "the world needing to be saved".

Who is President now?

So, you have nothing. — Benkei

That's a nifty princple!

If a person does something that would normally be prosecuted, but they do it close to the end of their term, in a time-window too short for the legal proceedings of prosecution to take place, then said person must be allowed to get away with what they've done.

Yay!

They say a picture is worth a thousand words -- here's one, with a few words to it:

https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Image-from-iOS-26-1024x976-1-e1611927131807-660x559.jpg