The Word for World is Forest by Ursula K. Le Guin.

I’ll put it on my list. Give us your thoughts when you’re done.
— T Clark

It's a little more solemn and preachy than I would normally go for but she's such a great writer she won me round. Definitely recommended. It really packs a punch; lesser authors like the more recent space opera guys take 3 or 5 hundred pages to do a lot less than she does in just over 100.

It's not simply an anti-imperialist allegory for America's actions in Indochina, although it partly is that. It's also classic, masterful science fiction, and more subtle and complex than it seems at first. — Jamal

Just read it. Seems like the original Avatar story, only the aliens were small and green rather than big and blue.

Method of production maybe, but consumption? — hypericin

I won't bother to do it but I could post a digital painting and a watercolor painting where you couldn't tell which was which. Your 'consumption' would be the same. The digital could be printed and again your experience would be the same in terms of medium.

About production, what is essential? Using an instrument on a surface to apply marks and forming an image with shape, value, edges, and color.

For synthetic meat to be comparable, it would need to be nearly indistinguishable from meat (like a chicken leg for example) in experience and nutrition. More significantly, the methods used to create it would need to be comparable. A rancher couldn't walk into a lab and produce synthetic meat using the same essential methods they use on a ranch. That's nonsensical.

Yes, they're called digital paintings specifically to distinguish them from... paintings. Sort of like vegetarian meat. — LuckyR

"Digital paintings" to distinguish the particular medium of painting.

Vegetarian meat is a poor analogy because both the method of production and consumption are fundamentally different from non-vegetarian meat.

A traditional 'analog' painter can paint digitally using the same fundamentals (shape, value, edge, color, etc). Their style and basic technique could be the same, and the produced work could be practically indistinguishable from their non-digital painting.

A rancher couldn't produce meat in a lab using the same methods they use on a ranch. And they couldn't produce a convincing T-bone steak or chicken thigh with the same nutritional properties as non-synthetic meat.

Digital painting is a verb. The product of this action isn't a painting. — LuckyR

It's a digital painting or just a particular medium. There are many types of paintings, like oil, watercolors, gouache, etc.

But we’re not looking forward, we’re looking infinitely backwards, and in the past ignorance has necessarily never been removed because we are here in ignorance.
— praxis
That's still thinking in terms of reincarnation, not rebirth. — baker

I can't fathom how you arrive at that conclusion from the one sentence I wrote.

It's like in a theatre play where in different performances of the play different actors can play the same role. The role is the same, the words are the same, the actions are the same, but the actors differ.
Nibbana is like when an actor decides not to play the role anymore. — baker

Are you saying that you don't believe sentient beings are reborn and there's just reoccurring archetypes? Sort of a Joseph Campbell/Buddha fusion thang.

Explain to me the worth of continuing? — AmadeusD

Frankly, entertainment.

One example is your claim that Kirk and his followers personally wanted trans people to cease existing. — AmadeusD

To call something an abomination is to suggest it should be rejected, erased, or undone, not merely regulated or punished. Something that is believed to be so wrong, corrupt, or unnatural that its existence itself is offensive. Not just “bad” or “harmful,” but ought-not-be.

That's a fact.

It is trivial in a larger, mature conversation. — AmadeusD

Ah, I see. It is apparently extremely significant when conversing with me though. It's odd that you take immature conversation so seriously. I think I'm the other way around, taking mature conversations seriously and usually find immature conversations trivial.

I've been thinking along the same lines. In fact yesterday I was recalling a time when I was part of a Zen temple in LA. The temple was founded by Maezumi Roshi, who incidentally was an infamous alcoholic and womanizer. The Roshi I practiced with occasionally gave 'the big talk' to the sangha where he sort of laid out a condense version of Buddhism. Zen folks usually just do a lot of sitting. I couldn't for the life of me remember any of what he said except for the beginning where he started with, "through no fault of our own..." and something to the effect 'we are ignorant'.

He's right of course, if we've always—literally alway and for all time—been ignorant then it can't be our fault that we're ignorant. Original sin? That similarity is the sort of thing I mean when I say Buddhism is fundamentally the same as other religions.

I understood that. But, again, my point is that the mere infinite succession of lifetimes doesn't guarantee that either of us has already practise seriously the Dharma. Indeed, as I said, it is generally emphasized that being born as a human is a rare event and being born a human and live in a time when it is possible to practise the Dharma is even rarer. But even in the best conditions, at the end of the day one has still to choose to practice.
So even if samsara is beginningless, it doesn't follow that you have already practised the Dhamma in a serious way. — boundless

You’re saying that in an eternity, and across all space and time, innumerable sentient beings never had the insight that one dude on earth—the Buddha—had?

That is laughable, isn’t it? I would say the basic insight is profound, sure, but really. And the religion is fundamentally the same as any other.

This isn't necessarily the case. Traditional buddhists would reply that the ultimate cause of the cycle is ignorance. If ignorance is removed, samsara stops. If ignorance is never removed, the cycle will go on forever. — boundless

But we’re not looking forward, we’re looking infinitely backwards, and in the past ignorance has necessarily never been removed because we are here in ignorance.

it doesn't follow that you have practised since beginningless times and you have already practised with diligence infinite times and you somehow always failed. — boundless

If a cycle of rebirth and death is beginingless then there will always be a previous cause or rebirth and this would go back infinitely. If there’s no beginning then there’s no end.

Even if samsara is beginningless… — boundless

You’re claiming that teaching may be false?

You’re claiming that according to Buddhist doctrine there are births that are not rebirths?
— praxis
That would be "spontaneously arisen beings", yes. — baker

Opapātika means only not born through parents or biological reproduction. It is still rebirth and causally conditioned.

I'm thinking that this, if nothing else, is the reason rebirth is not claimed to be a motivator for practice. We've have literally been practicing forever without end.

You’re claiming that according to Buddhist doctrine there are births that are not rebirths? That some births are not part of the cycle of life and death?

If rebirth is true then there are no ‘causeless’ births, and given that there is no beginning to the wheel of life and death, that means we have always existed. We have existed for eternity.

Think about it for a second, if the wheel has no beginning then it has been spinning for eternity.

Being composed of paint is an objective measure. — LuckyR

Not really. Digital painting is very common nowadays, where 'painting' seems to mean merely coloring an area.

Buddhist practice rests on the premise that there first must be causes and conditions in place before any next rung on the scale of progress can be reached. — baker

It claims cyclical existence without beginning. A circular ladder doesn’t progress, it goes round and round without beginning or ending.

I think to be clear you should give your version of what enlightenment is because it seems different to the general notion of it. — unimportant

The realization or actual experience of emptiness or the true nature of being. More mundanely, it's an experience or brain state.

I am getting the sense you are just seeing enlightenment as some kind of self help style self-actualisation akin to ticking all the boxes on Maslow's hierarchy of needs? — unimportant

Not at all, in fact the Buddhist project is rather uninterested in self-overcoming because such a project embraces life and suffering in order to grow and reach for full potential.

I would say it would extinguish those existential issues by coming to the realisation they don't matter... — unimportant

That sounds like nihilism to me. I would like to think that people and things still matter to enlightened Buddhists.

Facts be damned? What facts have I damned?

Speaking of facts…

The most glaring example of late is that you say the trans abomination comment is trivial but treat it in a way that is anything but trivial. We literally have been talking about it for weeks.
— praxis

Because you continually made something of it which was erroneous, and asked me, continually, to explain myself. — AmadeusD

I just reviewed our posts in this thread. A month ago I posted the disgusting Kirk quote—not responding to you but someone else—and you rushed in to defend it, like you did in another topic. If it’s trivial then why bother to defend it so earnestly for weeeeeeks?

One thing I would point out, if we're talking about taking belief in rebirth as a motivator for practice is this: The practice to make an end to suffering as worked out in the Nible Eightfold Path is something that requires a lot of work, a lot of time; and as such, for many people, probably more than one lifetime. It's a multi-lifetime project. — baker

Ever heard of Parkinson’s Law?

A very dishonest conclusion you have drawn there and shows you do not have a serious interest in exploring this topic. — unimportant

Sorry. If you’re willing to indulge me I’ll try again, and try very hard to be honest this time.

Honestly I think the salvation is found in the limitations or order that religion provides. The grand narratives and moral codes offer a sense security and meaning. And of course comfort is found in a unified community.
— praxis

Maybe in part but you cannot really be claiming that is all that is entailed in becoming enlightened? — unimportant

I’m suggesting that salvation may not be all that, uh, mystical or grand, and that religion helps to fulfill basic needs such as meaning, purpose, and connection, for those who have difficulty fulfilling such needs on their own.

You know another huge institution which has those qualities you state? The military. Not seen many Buddhas come out of their ranks. :D — unimportant

An institution like the military may share some of the same basic aspects of religion, like rituals for instance, but obviously other aspects differ. We seem to agree on this point, judging by the rest of what you say in the post.

Many professions have mechanical rituals and again we cannot say they have anything to do with the subject of enlightenment. — unimportant

Which seems to imply that the rituals (and other aspects of religion?) are superfluous to enlightenment :starstruck: . If that's the case then what purpose does religion serve?

You seem to finally admit that I am not defending maliciousness — AmadeusD

I don't know what you're doing, so many of your statements are contradictory. The most glaring example of late is that you say the trans abomination comment is trivial but treat it in a way that is anything but trivial. We literally have been talking about it for weeks.

Kirk catered to his audience, and they enjoyed him deadnaming and claiming that Thomas was an abomination to God. Like you, I imagine that Kirk also didn't give a shit. He was being their culture warrior and putting bread and butter on the table.

We're talking here about people who go up to the pulpit, who sit in front of others, and who tell others that the teachings of their religion are true, and who hold it against others and judge them and even expell them for not professing such belief. And yet these same people in positions of power, in other situations, go ahead and admit to having doubts. — baker

I’m at somewhat of a loss here—if you’re pearl clutching over that, all I can think is you haven’t been around much in Buddhist circles.

I see, the Newman effect strikes again! :lol:

Charlie Kirk deadnamed deliberately and in a demeaning way and it functioned socially like an epithet. His audience loved it though and cheered appreciatively.

You don't give a shit – that's why we've been arguing this for weeks. :lol:

Spitting on someone, or pushing them is assault or battery depending on circumstance. — AmadeusD

Pretti spit on a car. I haven't seen any evidence of him pushing anyone.

An honorable person will simply not take on positions of power in a religious organization whose tenets they doubt. — baker

Why not, or what makes it dishonorable?

So you’re as callous as Kirk.
— praxis

No. — AmadeusD

The following sounds rather callous to me.

I simply couldn't give a shit. — AmadeusD

Pretti assaulted federal agents?
— praxis

Yes. — AmadeusD

When did he assault them?

I don’t see how hiding their doubts would indicate a greater seriousness. If they’re serious about preserving the religion then yeah, I suppose hiding one’s doubts about it could show a serious effort to towards the conservation of it. For a serious spiritual seeker, on the other hand, questioning and doubt may come with the territory.

Perhaps. But when people make a point of considering themselves members and representatives of a religion and even attain positions of power in said religion's organizations, and yet openly declare their doubts about the basic tenets of said religion -- then one has to wonder what is going on and what kind of people they are. — baker

They sound like honest people to me.

Pretti assaulted federal agents?

If you can admit he was stupid, not lying, then we're good. — AmadeusD

How do you know he didn’t lie? Stupid people lie.

she wasn't even hired — AmadeusD

I told you that after graduating from Harvard she was hired a top international law firm. She’s had other positions as well.

its not lying or any other kind of bigotry. — AmadeusD

Right, it’s an example of the “Newman effect.”

Very, extremely, disagreed. — AmadeusD

So you’re as callous as Kirk.

Making a false claim is not lying; it's being wrong. — AmadeusD

Well, personally, I wouldn’t make false claims—claims that politifact or others could easily debunk—to people I love.

acknowledge were DEI-derived hires — AmadeusD

Michelle Obama has never acknowledged that she was a DEI hire. Why would she if she never was?

That you appear to choose not to understand English in situations that it wouldn't be helpful for your position, isn't my problem. — AmadeusD

I’m sure it makes sense to you.

i'd suggest he had a better understanding of Biblical matters than the majority of American xtians. — AmadeusD

:lol: Agreed.

just a vibe — AmadeusD

Deadnaming someone and telling them they’re an abomination to God is just a vibe too—a hateful vibe.

Honestly I think the salvation is found in the limitations or order that religion provides. The grand narratives and moral codes offer a sense security and meaning. And of course comfort is found in a unified community.

If that's your point of view then you must be saved. Congrats! :party:

Don is the only difference. — AmadeusD

To be a little more specific:

• Warrantless home entry policies that ignore judicial warrant requirements.
• Expanded mandatory detention without bond opportunities.
• Allegations of racial profiling and suspicionless stops.
• Reduced procedural protections in sensitive community locations.
• Lowered internal oversight and accountability.

I think it’s pretty much the same with all religions: they promise salvation but only deliver limitations.

And even after all that time, they didn't move one bit, they had the same doubts and questions after all that time as they had when they first got involved. — baker

There are things in religion that no one knows and there are no answers to.