Buddhism is just realism.
I read the title of this thread from a book about Buddhism.
The author claims that Buddhism's four noble truths and eightfold path lead to a life in accordance with nature. In a manner, a person is more in correspondence with the laws of causality in nature with the natural dispositions of human nature in mind.
The way it's phrased in the short text above presents a hard argument for treating 'Nature' and human nature in an equilibrium between the two through the belief or mediated in Buddhism.
If all of this is true, which I find hard to believe in some respects, then Buddhism indeed is very desirable and realistic.
Would you agree with this?
The author claims that Buddhism's four noble truths and eightfold path lead to a life in accordance with nature. In a manner, a person is more in correspondence with the laws of causality in nature with the natural dispositions of human nature in mind.
The way it's phrased in the short text above presents a hard argument for treating 'Nature' and human nature in an equilibrium between the two through the belief or mediated in Buddhism.
If all of this is true, which I find hard to believe in some respects, then Buddhism indeed is very desirable and realistic.
Would you agree with this?
Comments (189)
And, I'll spell it out succinctly here. Why is Buddhism so realistic if Stoicism or Epicureanism isn't?
How would would even qualify the statement that Buddhism is realistic? After all, Buddhism isn't a religion; but, is in a sense some kind of way of living?
Is that really true? I mean, there really isn't anything being sold here in Buddhism apart for a way of living...
Read Adam Gopnick's review of Wright's book.
Also Bhikkhu Bodhi's Facing the Great Divide ('the divide' between secular and traditional in Buddhism.)
That said, Buddhism does indeed practice harmony with nature, but not on the basis of the modern understanding of 'naturalism' which negates the possibility of transcending it.
A book I have on Buddhism by Mark Epstein (Thoughts without a Thinker) says that Buddhism rejects pride in self and also negative views of oneself. They seem to always tread the narrow road. Their goal in life is a moral stance, one that doesn't ask if their is eternal joy as a reward
That is the secular Buddhist view, which is perfectly fine as far as it goes. But there are verses like this:
[quote=Pubbakotthaka Sutta;https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.044.than.html] I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi, at the Eastern Gatehouse. There he addressed Ven. Sariputta: "Sariputta, do you take it on conviction that the faculty of conviction, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation? Do you take it on conviction that the faculty of persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation?"[/quote]
'The deathless' is an apt synonym for 'eternal joy' and is plainly spelled out as the fullfilment of Buddhist life.
What about the part about samsara being nirvana? Does it mean we always live with the world of appearance or is there nirvana beyond samsara ?
Tell me what makes Epicureanism unrealistic in comparison to (X tradition / school of) Buddhism.
Proof in numbers?
I mean, that a larger population of people seemingly prefer Epicureanism rather than Buddhism nowadays? Therefore, the masses decided what's best??
The salient question is as to what is meant by "eternal joy".
[i]To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour[/i]
William Blake from 'Auguries of Innocence'
Quoting Shawn
Another book compares Buddhism with pragmatic Stoicism. In my review of Brian Morris' Buddhist Metaphysics, I noted that, "Although mainstream Buddhism is a “form of mystical idealism”, the author says that it’s actually “a heady mixture of four quite distinct and contrasting metaphysical systems” : Common-sense Realism ; Theistic Spirituality ; Phenomenalism ; and Mystical Idealism." Later, he said, “Enlightenment as awareness suggests a common-sense realism”.[my emphasis] So, take your pick. Buddhism can be treated as romantic mysticism or as practical self-help advice. :smile:
Buddhist Metaphysics :
Atheistic Spirituality?
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page21.html
Buddhism is pretty explicit about that, and romantic poetry, it ain't.
'Christianity has always been a religion seeking a metaphysic, in contrast to Buddhism which is a metaphysic generating a religion' ~ Alfred North Whitehead Religion in the Making
Quoting Janus
The term 'eternity' is not much used. 'The deathless', 'imperishable', 'unconditioned', and so on, are synonymous to all intents. The crucial hermenuetic point is that Buddhism never posits any everlasting entity, thing, or object. Understanding what that means however takes considerable reflection, as it is quite frequently and erroneously taken to mean that Buddhism is nihilistic. And to address that requires an analysis of the whole question of nihilism and eternalism in Buddhism (which happened to be the topic of my thesis should you have some time on your hands.)
Buddhism is about achieving ego death through right ontology.
Consensus gentium fallacy.
Calling Buddhism "realistic" is clearly an attempt to make Buddhism more marketable, more palatable to Westerners.
But to have a better sense of how this is so, one must be familiar with Buddhism, so that one is aware of all the ways Buddhism is decidedly not realistic by Western standards.
(Even popular modern Western pseudo-Buddhist concotions are not realistic by Western standards.)
I bet this is a Western conception as well, a Western reading of Mahayana.
Easterners generally don't see the "ego" as as problematic as Westerners do.
[i]“There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones notices:
“When this is, that is.
“From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
“When this isn’t, that isn’t.
“From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
“In other words:
“From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
“From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
“From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.
“From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.
“From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.
“From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.
“From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
“From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.
“From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.
“From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
“From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
“Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications.
From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness.
From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form.
From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media.
From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact.
From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling.
From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving.
From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance.
From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming.
From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth.
From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease.
Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
“This is the noble method that he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out through discernment.[/i]
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN10_92.html
You know, if you really want to point out a fallacy, it would seem that whoever utters that Buddhism is realism, seems to suffer from a confirmation bias, no?
But, to believe that such a stipulation definition as true makes it a propositional attitude, in the least.
Apart from the fallacy here - there's an assumption made that we can measure this accurately. Do you have a source for this?
No, that's just a hypothesis about human nature, that Epicureanism or Stoicism suites people better, and hence the proof of the hypothesis cannot be deemed as sound based on generalizations like that a greater number of people can decide this as true.
But, people change their beliefs all the time. So, what's the problem with saying that Buddhism is a belief about human nature?
Is Buddhism a belief about human nature? I wonder how meaningful this is. Can this not be said for most beliefs: fascism, science, Randian Objectivism, the theater...
Personally what passes for Buddhism is so broad and subjective I'm more interested in what can't be said about it.
Exactly, hence "eternity in an hour".
According to this interpretation that state might last for an hour, a day, a week or a lifetime, but it is not everlasting.
The evil ego is gonna getcha!
The difference being...
To be eternal is basically to claim that the passage of time doesn't/fails to register change. Suppose an object, call it x, becomes eternal at exactly 5:00:00 PM. For all intents and purposes it's properties, it itself, is stuck at that particular moment. Basically, any duration after 5:00:00 PM is, for x, zero/nought! In the simplest sense, time no longer matters to x and isn't that equivalent to being outside of time? I dunno.
What should I have been talking about?
The Tathagata is a synonym for Nagarjuna's tetralemma. You can take him/her (the Tathagata) as a personification of the madhyamaka.
Quoting baker
This thread seems to be arguing about different meanings of the label "Buddhism", as-if it is a homogenized belief & practice system. But, in fact, Buddhism is just as fragmented as Christianity, in terms of both creeds and rituals. The most basic division is between Theravada (orthodox) and Mahayana (heterodox). Then there is the range from Tibetan (traditional superstitions) to Zen (no doctrine, just doing). Some of these Buddhisms are somewhat "realistic", while others are more idealistic, and a few are just Wacko. So, for simplicity and accuracy, I think we need to stipulate whether we are talking about the various popular religions, or about the core philosophical (highbrow) worldview. In my opinion, it would be more profitable to discuss the latter on a Philosophical Forum. Perhaps Wayfarer could give us a synopsis to agree on. :smile:
Mahayana vs. Theravada :
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Mahayana_vs_Theravada
By all means, interpret.
No need for such consideration. The OP is talking about Buddhism being "realistic" in the popular, vernacular sense of "realistic", namely, "commonsensical", "practical". It's a catchy self-help term.
Hence my reply.
You get your finger, from earth, you put it back after time.
It is small at first now is bigger, how ? Food from earth.
Dony forget you are the nature and truth is always only what really works, conciouss is 100% nature.
OK. But who is doing the marketing : The Mad Men? Asian practitioners of Buddhism would be expected to evangelize their own "brand" of Buddhism. For example, Chinese immigrants in the 19th century were mostly religious instead of philosophical. So, the marketing of an obscure oriental Philosophy to Westerners seems to have begun with academic scholars, such as D.T Suzuki. His austere Zen variant may have been presented in "realistic" terms, in order to make it more acceptable to secularists, and less threatening to Christians. But the non-scholars were seldom so pragmatic. And acceptance of vague Buddhist notions in the US, first became widespread among Beatniks and New Age Hippies, looking for an alternative to stagnant Western religions. So, even in its self-help forms, it retained some religious trappings such as mantras & symbolic spiritual candles. :smile:
Buddhism Travels West :
Knowledge of Buddhism has come through three main channels: Western scholars; the work of philosophers, writers and artists; and the arrival of Asian immigrants who have brought various forms of Buddhism with them to Europe, North America and Australia.
https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/to-west.htm
D. T. Suzuki :
Note -- not a marketer of motorcycles. :wink:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/D-T-Suzuki
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.
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 think this is true but does it not also remain that any account of anything becomes an interpretation? So much more ironic when people are not aware they are holding on to a particular expression of a religion . I can't think of many or any traditions that don't have a plethora of sects or sub-groups, hardliners and liberals.
One of the great myths of spiritual traditions is that of the immutable truth. The truth (whatever that is) may well be immutable but the pathway there is as bent and conflicted as a Vegas pawnbroker.
What's the difference between
1. Buddhism is (just) Realism.
and
2. Realism is (just) Buddhism?
Thanks in advance.
Back to issues of naive realism and direct realism.
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.
To accuse someone (or groups) of virtue signaling must make said person a virtue signaler.
I am aware that this is virtue signaling too. I don't have an issue with putting myself on a moral pedestal though. I'm not apologetic about it.
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.
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.
I am anticipating some usual courses of discussion of this topic, and addressing them early on to avoid dead ends.
Quoting Janus
I'd love to see you take this up with a Hare Krishna devotee!
Denying?
How did you get to the point where you hold that Buddhists deny "what many consider to be life"?
I didn't mention Richard Gere... :gasp:
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. Even in crass Westerners who buy books written by Herman Hesse or Jack Kornfield.
Quoting 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.
Yes. People I have known have called this meditation.
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.
But what if they actually know, and are above and beyond interpretation?
That possibility (even if it is a possibility) cannot mean anything to me. I think enlightenment is possible, but I don't see how it could consist in knowing (in the absolute sense you seem to be pointing to) any propositional thing, since any proposition entails the possibility of its falsity, any propositional "knowing" entails the possibility of being mistaken.
I acknowledge that an enlightened person could know ("know" in the biblical sense of "familiarity") an enlightened disposition, a presence, openness and freedom from attachment that I don't, just as a great pianist knows a presence, openness and freedom I, as a pianist, cannot.
Not sure what you're talking about. Controlling the expression of one's emotions is common in traditional cultures, as well as in modern times ("emotional intelligence").
Sure, all cultures have limits and taboos and encourage suppression of emotions. But in Buddhism you have a complete disidentification with them. You train to disconnect the emotion-> bodily expression/voice expression natural process. This is qualitatively different. IOW there are per se judgments of emotions which can be contrasted with judgments of what is outside the person. One is discouraged from judging what is outside, but implicitly encouraged to see the natural expression and identification with emotions (and desire) as something to be stopped. If we consider the meditation practice as training, this is, amongst other things, what it is training one to do.
Which is different from being wise about what situations and relations it is better to set limits on emotional expression (emotional intelligence). And this EI is also not some objective category but is itself a cultural product - a set of heuristics that seem to work in certain cultures that themselves have judgments of emotions.
I focused on disidentification, but it could also be described as blocking a natural flow in the body. I have sympathy for why Buddhists thought this had to be done, but it includes judgments that are treated as objective when they are not.
Could you reference a Buddhist source that teaches this? What you're describing sounds like what could be found in some modern secular Buddhist teachings (my knowledge of them is not very good), but I think it would be too much of a stretch to read the Pali canon that way. And I'm not saying this out of sympathy with the Pali canon or trying to defend it or present it as "normal". At best, the practice you're describing is skipping several important steps.
"The Therav?da tradition, whose teachings are based on the Pali Canon, sets forth a similar view. The late British scholar Maurice Walshe declares, in the introduction to his translation of the Long Discourses (D?gha Nik?ya):
An important and often overlooked aspect of the Buddhist teaching concerns the levels of truth, failure to appreciate which has led to many errors. Very often the Buddha talks in the Suttas in terms of conventional or relative truth (sammuti- or voh?ra-sacca), according to which people and things exist just as they appear to the naïve understanding. Elsewhere, however, when addressing an audience capable of appreciating his meaning, he speaks in terms of ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca).23
In reading Walshe’s text, we could easily get the impression that the Buddha himself spoke of these two truths in his discourses. Yet nowhere, not even once, will we find a mention of either sammuti-sacca or paramattha-sacca in any of the hundreds of discourses attributed to Gotama in the Pali Canon. It is not just that Gotama failed to use that particular terminology; he simply did not think along such lines. As soon as “truth” is parsed in this twofold manner, it becomes difficult to resist slipping into an ontological mindset. “Ultimate truth” becomes a signifier of what really is, whereas “conventional truth” signifies merely what people agree upon as true and useful. What may be the earliest mention of the two truths is found in Points of Controversy (Kath?vatthu), a polemical Buddhist treatise compiled in the centuries after Gotama’s death. The Buddha, the author declares:
spoke two truths, conventional and ultimate—one does not come across a third; a conventional statement is true because of convention and an ultimate statement is true because (it discloses) the real characteristics of things.24
To claim that “ultimate statements” describe the way things really are as opposed to how they conventionally appear is ontology. Yet the Buddha to whom I am drawn in the early discourses is not an ontologist. He has no interest in providing an accurate and final description of the nature of “truth” or “reality.” He warns repeatedly of the dangers of getting sidetracked by metaphysical speculation of any kind, of being caught in what he calls “thickets of opinion.”
As for what Gotama thinks of those who talk about the “supreme” (parama), we only have to turn to the Chapter of Eights, the text cited earlier as an example of a skeptical voice in the early canon:
The priest without borders doesn’t seize on what he’s known or beheld. Not passionate, not dispassionate, he doesn’t posit anything as supreme. One who dwells in “supreme” views and presents them as final will declare all other views “inferior”— he has not overcome disputes."
You mentioned you are unfamiliar with secular Buddhism; Batchelor is one of its chief proponents.
Most complete available online:
https://suttacentral.net/pitaka/sutta
A selection:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/index.html
I know. But when it's formulated like that, it's like being thrown in at the deep end.
There is quite a bit that is supposed to happen for a person and that a person must decide on before they even go near a temple or meditation hall where they could hear such instructions as you mention. And those things that are supposed to happen before then adequately contextualize the instructions the person is given there.
In Buddhism, there is fierce intersectarian fighting going on about this issue.
Read another translation of this:
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp4_11.html
Batchelor's translation is suspicious from the onset. The Buddha of the Pali Canon has no qualms about praising himself or the Dhamma he discovered.
He lost me at hello.
That is not even recognizable as the same text and nor is it titled "Chapter of Eights".
Quoting baker
The issue was not about whther the Gotama of the Pali Canon praises himself or the Dhamma. Try to focus: perhpos provide me with some quotations which contradict Batchelo'rs claim that
Quoting Janus
Quoting baker
Says a lot about your open-mindedness, and nothing about Batchelor. I doubt you have even read his works.
Sure, But I am not arguing they do this quickly. And the effects on one's relation to emotions would take many years. But that is the goal. The practices sever the natural flow of emotion to expression. Which is fine, to me at least, if that is what you want. Many do. In the beginning the severing will happen, to the degree that it does, during the meditation and perhaps other facets of Buddhist communal life if one has gone that far as to join such a community or to the degree one does. But you are training to change that natural process. And it seems, in my experience, to be effective. It's not my goal, but those for whom it is, I do think it can deliver.
Thanks for the links, I will check them out..
I think it depends on the context in which one sees this practice.
For a relatively wealthy and healthy person who doesn't have a problem with getting their work done, earning a living, and their regular practical and social obligations, such severing as you speak of surely feels unnatural, perverse even.
But someone fighting a chronic illness, living in relative poverty or under social stigma, or facing such prospects, can be inclined to find ways not to be ruled by emotions. For such a person, developing equanimity can be a matter of necessity. When one is ill, poor, or has fallen from grace, or is facing such prospects, indulging in emotions in simply counterpoductive.
Look it up yourself then. It's from the Sn.
And welcome to the wonderful world of free translations.
The point is that the Buddha would not say the sort of politically correct things that Batchelor and so many other modernists ascribe to the Buddha.
I told you already, there is an old dispute about the two truths doctrine in Buddhism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine
Different Buddhists, depending on their school/lineage, will take a different approach to this matter. Where the difference becomes relevant is in the practical implications that holding a particular view on this will have for oneself, for one's own approach to the teachings, and the way one relates to others.
(So that, for example, those who do believe in the two truths will expect that newcomers should take a lot more on faith.)
Sometimes, a few words from someone are enough to get a pretty good picture of where he's coming from.
Right and what were we disagreeing over earlier regarding interpretation?
Quoting baker
If the most reliable testament we have as to what Gotama actually said is the Pali Canon, and translator's interpret that freely, according to their own prejudices, then the only way you could possibly assess the accuracy of Batchelor's translations would be to be able to read Pali (and even then how would you free yourself from your own prejudices)?
Quoting baker
So what? I haven't said that Batchelor's position is entirely novel or original.
Quoting baker
You might get a sense of where he's coming from from "a few words" but you won't know anything of his arguments for holding the position he's coming from.
Even if, due to your own entrenched commitments, you are bound to disagree with someone's position, and you know that from "a few words" it pays to familiarize yourself with the arguments of those whose positions do not agree with yours, even if only to have a coherent understanding of just why you disagree with them.
In the Pali canon, the distinction is not made between a lower truth and a higher truth, but rather between two kinds of expressions of the same truth, which must be interpreted differently. Thus a phrase or passage, or a whole sutta, might be classed as neyyattha or samuti or voh?ra, but it is not regarded at this stage as expressing or conveying a different level of truth.
This is in accordance with what Batchelor says.
[i]Nagarjuna's M?lamadhyamakak?rik? provides a logical defense for the claim that all things are empty (sunyata) of an inherently-existing self-nature.[14] Sunyata, however, is also shown to be "empty", and Nagarjuna's assertion of "the emptiness of emptiness" prevents sunyata from constituting a higher or ultimate reality.[24][25][note 4][note 5] Nagarjuna's view is that "the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth".[25] According to Siderits, Nagarjuna is a "semantic anti-dualist" who posits that there are only conventional truths.[25] Jay L. Garfield explains:
Suppose that we take a conventional entity, such as a table. We analyze it to demonstrate its emptiness, finding that there is no table apart from its parts [...] So we conclude that it is empty. But now let us analyze that emptiness […]. What do we find? Nothing at all but the table’s lack of inherent existence [...] To see the table as empty [...] is to see the table as conventional, as dependent.[24]
In N?g?rjuna's M?lamadhyamakak?rik? the two truths doctrine is used to defend the identification of dependent origination (prat?tyasamutp?da) with emptiness (??nyat?):
The Buddha's teaching of the Dharma is based on two truths: a truth of worldly convention and an ultimate truth. Those who do not understand the distinction drawn between these two truths do not understand the Buddha's profound truth. Without a foundation in the conventional truth the significance of the ultimate cannot be taught. Without understanding the significance of the ultimate, liberation is not achieved.[27][/i]
This is also in accordance with Batchelor's position, as I read it.
I actually don't think this is true. I see parallels in the corporate world, where Buddhism fits nicely with a kind of stoicism. The popularity of mindfullness (don't worry I am not confusing this with a dedicated Buddhist practice in most cases) shows that people from all walks of life are craving, to varying degrees, more detachment and disidentification from emotions, something corporations are often happy to support.Quoting bakerI highlighted the perjorative terms. And I think this has been scene as the dichotomy, both in the West and East. Indulge and be ruled by emotions or disidentify, control, suppress and/or keep from expression emotions. I think it is a false dichotomy. That accepting emotions including their expression leads to being ruled by them, etc.
This is a huge subject, but even if you are correct, that maintaining the natural identification with and expression of emotions is being ruled by them and indulging
it is still Buddhism going against a natural process.
And I do know how it looked. We live in societies that suppress and judge emotional expression. So, expressing them publically at the very least leads to problems. Unless they are expressed in the approved channels. From my perspective the widespread problematic assumptions out there do not justify themselves, but mean that one must use caution as one explores emotions, again, and gets past all these judgments. Further I also see that Buddhism goes way beyond these judgments into a systematic process. Again, if someone wants to have this as a goal, they I am all for them pursuing it. But it is not objective and it's not for me.
Actually, I was thinking of the French people who live in the fancy homes pictured in magazines about interior design.
Such corporate mindfulness is practiced with entirely different intentions than in a Buddhist setting, or at least some of them. Some Buddhists are very critical of corporate mindfulness.
You focused on what you consider the pejorative terms, but did you read the paragraph I wrote?
Is being poor a "natural process"?
Is being chronically ill a "natural process"?
Is falling from grace a "natural process"?
Not universally, though.
Emotional expression is regulated by socioeconomic class membership, by the power differential between the persons involved, by consdieration of prospective abuse, endangerment.
There are times when you are supposed to express (certain) emotions, and times you're not.
Express your emotions to the wrong people, at the wrong time, and chances are, you will find yourself in trouble. As a victim of ridicule, bullying, or helping create an image of yourself as a weak or otherwise inappropriate person. Again, the issue isn't the expressing of emotions per se, it's that you do it in front of the wrong people, at the wrong time.
If you think it's so wrong, so not objective, then how can you support pursuing it?
And we have to believe you're the arbiter of what is objective and what isn't?
I didn't read it as a disagreement.
You were approaching the conversation from the perspective that we're disagreeing. I wasn't.
I'm not interested in a scholarly analysis of an author's work, nor in painting an objective picture of Buddhism.
What drives me is the question whether the Buddha of the Pali Canon as I know him was in fact not trying hard enough to find satisfaction in "life as it is usually lived" (and that such satisfaction can indeed be found, by everyone) and that his teaching on dependent co-arising is wrong. This is a matter of great importance to me. I address it with people who say or imply that he didn't try hard enough and that he was wrong. Batchelor is an author who quickly proved himself irrelevant to my quest. This is all that matters to me as far as he is concerned.
Batchelor seems to me to be asserting that the view of Buddha as life-denying is mistaken and that satisfaction is to be found, if at all, only in "life as it is usually lived". Perhaps you should read his work first and then decide whether is irrelevant to your question. Or not...
[quote=Brahmaj?la Sutta;https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html ]These are those dhammas, bhikkhus, that are deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful and sublime, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, comprehensible only to the wise, which the Tath?gata, having realized for himself with direct knowledge, propounds to others; and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tath?gata in accordance with reality would speak.[/quote]
In the context in which those texts are memorised and handed down, the monastic orders, and some of the laity, devote themselves to realising just these states. That is their raison d'etre. It's in that context that the idea of 'higher knowledge' (Abhijñ?) is meaningful.
I think the lurking problem behind many of these debates are the stereotypical ideas of religion - that religion means such and such, it's 'faith' not 'knowledge', and so on. A lot of that is deeply culturally conditioned by Western history in particular where 'religion' was defined in a particular way, and then modern culture defining itself to exclude that. That is behind such sentiments as 'all religions are the same' when really Buddhism is based on radically different principles and ideas to other religions.
As a consequence secular Buddhism tends to favour scientific realism, but that is a long way from traditional Buddhism.
[quote=Bhikkhu Bodhi, Facing the Great Divide;https://www.inquiringmind.com/article/3102_20_bodhi-facing-the-great-divide/][Traditional] Buddhism sees human existence as embedded in the condition called sams?ra, understood literally as the beginningless chain of rebirths. From this standpoint, humans are just one class of living beings in a vast multidimensional cosmos. Through time without beginning all beings have been roaming from life to life in the five realms of existence, rising and falling in accordance with their karma, their volitional deeds. Life in all these realms, being impermanent and fraught with pain, is inherently unsatisfactory—dukkha. Thus the final goal, the end of dukkha, is release from the round of rebirths, the attainment of an unconditioned dimension of spiritual freedom called nibb?na. The practice of the path is intended to eradicate the bonds tying us to the round of rebirths and thereby bring liberation from repeated birth, aging and death.
Secular Buddhism, in contrast, starts from our immediate existential situation, understood without bringing in non-naturalistic assumptions. Secular Buddhism therefore does not endorse the idea of literal rebirth. Some Secular Buddhists regard rebirth as a symbol for changing states of mind, some as an analogy for biological evolution, some simply as part of the dispensable baggage that Buddhism drags along from Asia. But Secular Buddhists generally do not regard rebirth as the problem the Dharma is intended to resolve. Accordingly, they interpret the idea of sams?ra as a metaphor depicting our ordinary condition of bewilderment and addictive pursuits. The secular program thus reenvisions the goal of Buddhist practice, rejecting the ideal of irreversible liberation from the cycle of rebirths in favor of a tentative, ever-fragile freedom from distress in this present life itself.[/quote]
Of course the concept of sa?s?ra is remote not only from secular culture but even from Western culture as a whole, so I don't suggest that anyone should believe it. But in interpreting Buddhism, if that is lost sight of, then Buddhism really becomes not much more than a form of therapy or means of adaptation to a comfortable life (which is what many critics of Western Buddhism say it is).
I've read Stephen Batchelor's 'Buddhism without Belief' - actually I remember that when I bought it, one of the last books I bought at the Adyar Bookshop, the guy who sold it to me remarked semi-humorously that Batchelor was 'too Protestant for my liking'. I've heard Batchelor speak a couple of times and he reminds me a lot of faculty at a Comparative Religion department. He's a thoroughly decent chap, but I think his overall interpretation is shallow. I prefer one of his slightly older English contemporaries, David Brazier, who provides a good counter to Batchelor's secular interpretation. But on the other hand, Batchelor's approach lends itself to many of those who otherwise would be driven away by the implications of belief in sa?s?ra and rebirth and the other supposedly supernatural aspects of Buddhism.
I wonder what makes you think that belief in Karma or rebirth would be necessary to the practice of Buddhism? Soto zen consists in 'just sitting' and that is understood to be no different than enlightenment. Vipassana relies on not dogma, but just on the stages of 'calming' and 'insight'. I think you are clinging to outworn ideas; and I think they are just another form of attachment.
It is a matter of fact that Buddhism incorporates those elements. They're obviously impossible to reconcile with what is normally called 'realism' hence a lot of people will simply ignore them or reject them, but it remains the case that they are inextricably part of the tradition. So in other words, I don't agree with the OP. And the reason is, that 'realism' in our everyday sense is actually built on assumptions, many of which or most of which are not obvious or may not even be discernable. So Buddhism goes further than realism, in discerning those assumptions which underpin the attitude that is normally called realism.
Definitely worth the read. He discusses Batchelor too.
Wish I could write like that (or, like that.)
Quoting Janus
Buddhism nevertheless embodies a profound metaphysic, that of ??nyat?, however it is an experiential quality, not 'a doctrine' or 'a proposition'.
I agree with that. I interpret ??nyat? to mean that things have no stable identity. If the idea of stable identity is due to our attachments to things then, releasing that attachment, we might see things as they are, in all their particularity, and not as stable generalized identities.
So, I'm not sure we are disagreeing about enlightenment being a radical shift of how we see things, but not in any doctrinal or propositional sense. I believe that such a shift of being is possible, to be sure.
When it comes to
I would ask why we would need to tiptoe at all. Of course we must acknowledge that such super-naturalist beliefs have been an integral part of Buddhism in the past, but why would we be constrained to include them in our thinking now, any more than a good Christian would be constrained to believe in the literal existence of hell and damnation?
I think the gist is, that Stephen Batchelor and Robert Wright have to 'tiptoe' because they're both purportedly teaching Buddhist principles but are not able to endorse it's so-called 'supernatural' aspects. But as Adam Gopnick points out:
Quoting Janus
I'm not so much 'constrained' as 'impelled', on the basis that I think the taken-for-granted 'naturalist' attitude is itself mistaken, in ways which its denizens, and I include myself, find hard to discern. As David Loy, another Buddhist writer, says, 'The main problem with our usual understanding of secularity is that it is taken-for-granted, so we are not aware that it is a worldview. It is an ideology that pretends to be the everyday world we live in. Most of us assume that it is simply the way the world really is, once superstitious beliefs about it have been removed.' And among those 'superstitious beliefs' are the fundamental principles of Buddhism.
Yes, I've been struck by this aspect of modern secular Buddhism too. Do you consider what Wright et al practice to be Buddhism or is it simply secularism inspired by some Buddhist principles?
I met an earnest Liberal Catholic some years ago who insisted that he was a practicing Christian. Except he thought Jesus did no miracles, died on the cross, was not resurrected and that much of the New Testament was 'an insult to the intelligence'. (shades of the Jefferson Bible) I told him that I considered him to be a secularist with some handpicked Christian cultural values, but not a Christian. This irritated him greatly.
When do calculated changes and omissions made to a belief system transform that system into something else?
Quoting Tom Storm
It happens continuously. If you take an historical view of Buddhism it has changed tremendously over the millenia - first the emergence of the Mah?y?na, then the Yog?c?ra , then Tantra. Buddhism has a way of dealing with that in terms of calling them the 'second' and 'third' turnings of the wheel of dharma. It managed to retain the core principles through otherwise massive changes. But everything is massively impacted by modernity.
(Strangely, perhaps, I have realised that I really do believe in the resurrection/. You may remember in the mid-teens, a rogue archeologist claimed to have found an ossuary containing the mortal remains of Jesus (very quickly dismissed by other experts). We had a rather heated dinner-table argument about that, with me saying that it would fundamentally and irrevocably change Christianity forever, and the others saying they couldn't see why it would be a 'big deal'. I ended up with a cup of tea thrown over me. )
Quoting Wayfarer
Would you contend that Buddhism has incorporated this ongoing dialectic or evolution in its approach? Do you have a view about phenomenology and how it might resonate with Buddhism?
Whether we call secular Buddhism "real" Buddhism or not is not a matter of much importance; it will remain a matter of opinion..
It's not simply an "obsession with purity", but a matter of efficacy. Can the newer developments that are occuring under the banner of Buddhism deliver, or at least promise what the older one(s) did?
Some of them don't even say that they can deliver the complete cessation of suffering, but offer only the minimizing or managing of suffering.
But have you attained the complete cessation of suffering?
No amount of commitment to the wrong practice can lead to the right results.
In my view it's the core principles of practice and ethical principles which matter; the rest is disposable furniture. If the guy you spoke about follows the moral principles as given in the sermon on the mount, then he is a Christian in my book.
Does someone have to believe in hell and everlasting damnation to be a Christian? Does someone have to believe in the literal biblical story of creation and the fall as described in the story of Adam and Eve?
Secular Buiddhists, as far as I am aware, practice the same core way as traditionalists.
I think that's right too. What do you think of contemporary Wester secular Buddhism in its various expressions?
Quoting baker
This is more or less the question that preoccupied me 30 years ago. I personally have never felt dissatisfied by life, even though it has often been difficult, so the question lost urgency. A different question if you live in more dire or horrific conditions, no doubt.
I can't get there.
No. Secular Buddhists don't try to realize dependent co-arising. Traditionalists do.
Kamma and rebirth are actually implied in dependent co-arising, it's strange to try to consider them separately, on their own.
They are religion/spirituality for rich people. They are an expression of (upper) middle class mentality, as is typical for any secularism. (Although not that its adherents would all actually be members of said class; mostly, they aren't, just aspire to be.)
Then how come that it preoccupied you?
You said there was a time when you slept in phone booths -- and still, you did not feel dissatisfied by life?
And whatever feel-good-feelings these secularists have in their "spiritual practice" come from their relatively good socioeconomic status, not from their "spiritual practice", and if anything, they have those feel-good-feelings _despite_ their "spiritual practice".
It's so easy to underestimate the religious/spiritual effects of a good socioeconomic status.
Quoting Wayfarer
Do you know if any of those people later move on to the more traditional forms of Buddhism?
Not true according to my reading; they just interpret the idea differently.
Quoting baker
Do you have an argument to support that?
Your pompous generalizing pronouncements are impossible to take seriously.
It's so easy to underestimate the religious/spiritual effects of a good socioeconomic status.
Quoting baker
So instead of argument you just repeat your assertion?
It's so easy to talk about non-attachment when your life situation is such that you're in a flow of new things coming to you, with no end in sight. It's easy to detach yourself from this piece of cake when you see the next piece coming, or have so far had no trouble obtaining one.
Quoting Janus
Ah yes, turning Buddhism against itself. As if the Buddha ever said, “Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense.”
The whole thing is even more ironic, given your earlier reference to Batchelor's rendition:
Quoting Janus
If you don't posit anything as supreme, then what are you doing here?
To posit the view "nothing is supreme" as supreme?
Who knows? But it's more than just an ethical system. I follow almost all Christian moral values - but I do not consider myself Christian - perhaps culturally Christian... If you leave out the supernatural component and the numinous, it could be said you leave out the raison d'être.
Whose life situation are you referring to?
Quoting baker
This is nothing but your own prejudicial view, and it has nothing to do with that passage you quoted from me, that it is supposed to be responding to. My point was not that belief in rebirth or karma would stand in the way of practice, but that it is not essential to practice. If you can find any text from the Pali Canon that says it is necessary, then present them.
I'm repeating it to encourage you to think about it.
I've posted this several times already:
The Truth of Rebirth And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice
I don't think it's I who needs to think more about this.
It's not about me or you Janus I would have thought. People are free to call themselves philosophers without ever having read or undertaken any actual philosophy. I have no problem with that, but are they philosophers?
Then where's the problem?
You are you, you believe what you believe, you find possible what you find possible.
Others are others, they believe what they believe, they find possible what they find possible.
What do you want? Respect from the traditionalists?
A recognition that your ideas about what the Buddha really taught are supreme?
If they think philosophically I would say they are philosophers. If someone follows Christian morals then I would say they are Christians. I asked before what you think would be the essential features of being a Christian. Belief in heaven and hell, thinking Christ died for our sins, belief in physical resurrection at the end of time, acceptance of Christ as savior, going to church every Sunday, being a Catholic, being a Methodist, being a Calvinist? What?
Actually, there are important differences between what the Buddha taught about kamma and rebirth, and what other religions in his time taught about them.
Wayfarer and I have posted about this before.
But, like I said -- What do you want?
That the traditionalists would convince you of their view, that it's their job to do so?
This isn't going to happen. Traditional Buddhism isn't that kind of proselytizing religion.
A big if. Janus we just disagree on this. No point in going on. Take care.
It is you and @Wayfarer who say there is a problem with the secular Buddhists. I'm saying there is no problem, when it comes to matters of personal belief regarding rebirth and karma. I'm not seeking respect from anyone, I'm just expressing my opinion about what I think is the case. I've said I see no reason to think that what one believes re karma and rebirth is an impediment to practice. If you think it is necessary to believe certain things then you need to provide an argument and textual support support for your contention.
Only if their reason for "following Christian morals" is to be a Christian.
It could be said that I "follow Christian morals" and some people have thought I was a Christian. I'm not, and I resent the label they identified me by.
I'm not seeking to be convinced of any view.
Then we don't have to support our views.
I've offered arguments to support my view. If someone presents a convincing enough argument I will change my view. I invite that, but I'm not seeking it.
I'm sure what the implications of the "big if" are. Just to be clear I wasn't saying that people who don't think philosophically can rightly call themselves philosophers, just as people who don't practice art or music can rightly call themselves artists or musicians, or people who don't write poetry are entitled to call themselves poets. It goes without saying that there are good and bad artists, musicians and poets, just as there are good and bad philosophers. applying an objective standard in making such qualitative judgements is not so easy though.
Anyway no problem if we disagree... :smile:
I don't know, but I don't see why they shouldn't. Some might also leave Buddhism altogether, or convert to another religion. Batchelor, to his credit, is never dogmatic in his approach, he always used to publish negative reviews of his books on his website (not that I've looked for a long time).
Quoting baker
There is often an inevitable kind of artificiality involved in trying to practice Buddhism as a middle-class modern westerner. A lot of those kinds - like myself - were drawn to Buddhism as the consequence of their spiritual quest. To me, earlier in life, Buddhism seemed to have the most logical and consistent approach to the whole question of self-knowledge, discipline and meditation. But as life went on, I encountered many obstacles, mainly arising from myself. I still believe, though.
Quoting Tom Storm
That well-known book, The Embodied Mind (Thomson, Varela, Rosch) is basically about the fusion of phenomenology and Buddhism. (I'm listening to the audio book at the moment). Buddhist Abhidharma (philosophical psychology) has a lot in common with phenomenology, as it is based on the direct contemplation of the nature of experience, which is very similar to Husserl's approach, although obviously with important differences due to their separation in culture and history. But the underlying point is, Buddhism never conceived of their analysis in terms of subject and object, or of enduring material objects, but in terms of direct awareness of the nature of lived experience (a.k.a. mindfulness). The elements of abhidharma, called (confusingly) 'dharmas', are the momentary constituents of the stream of experience - not the supposed objects of objective analysis in the Western sense. It's a subtle but momentous distinction. (That's why in Buddhist atomism, the atoms - kalapa - have no temporal duration but arise and perish moment by moment.)
You'll find some good popular articles about Buddhism and modernity by Linda Heuman on her article page, several of which are about Buddhism and phenomenology, particularly this one.
I've read about Buddhism as a form of process philosophy, which works also. And of course Carlo Rovelli's latest book draws on N?g?rjuna for his model of relational dynamics in physics, albeit devoid of any ethical dimension. But there are many touch-points between Buddhist principles and Western philosophy. Again Linda Heuman's articles are often good on that.
Thompson, Evan (2020-01-27T23:58:59) Why I Am Not a Buddhist. Yale University Press. Kindle Edition. The Kindle preview provides a good introduction to the substance of the book.
What arguments does Thompson proffer to support the contention that Buddhist modernism is philosophically unsound?
https://secularbuddhistnetwork.org/a-review-of-evan-thompsons-why-i-am-not-a-buddhist/
Quoting praxis
A vacuous question unless you make it more specific.
As a general point, since I'm sure you would acknowledge that there have been enlightened individuals (whatever we might take that to mean) associated with all the various religions, I think this shows that realizing enlightenment is not dependent on believing any particular thing. How could it be when what is believed in the different religions is so different?
That wasn't why I mentioned it. I'm interested in his view of 'Buddhist modernism' and his criticism of the assumptions behind that. Especially because of his background and deep knowledge of both Buddhism and the 'embodied cognition' movement, of which he was one of the authors. I am intending to read more of him.
Quoting Janus
John Hick addresses that question.
[quote=John Hick, Who or What is God?;http://www.johnhick.org.uk/jsite/index.php/articles-by-john-hick/19-who-or-what-is-god ]The basic principle that we are aware of anything, not as it is in itself unobserved, but always and necessarily as it appears to beings with our particular cognitive equipment, was brilliantly stated by Aquinas when he said that ‘Things known are in the knower according to the mode of the knower’ (S.T., II/II, Q. 1, art. 2). And in the case of religious awareness, the mode of the knower differs significantly from religion to religion. And so my hypothesis is that the ultimate reality of which the religions speak, and which we refer to as God, is being differently conceived, and therefore differently experienced, and therefore differently responded to in historical forms of life within the different religious traditions.
What does this mean for the different, and often conflicting, belief-systems of the religions? It means that they are descriptions of different manifestations of the Ultimate; and as such they do not conflict with one another. They each arise from some immensely powerful moment or period of religious experience, notably the Buddha’s experience of enlightenment under the Bo tree at Bodh Gaya, Jesus’ sense of the presence of the heavenly Father, Muhammad’s experience of hearing the words that became the Qur’an, and also the experiences of Vedic sages, of Hebrew prophets, of Taoist sages. But these experiences are always formed in the terms available to that individual or community at that time and are then further elaborated within the resulting new religious movements. This process of elaboration is one of philosophical or theological construction. Christian experience of the presence of God, for example, at least in the early days and again since the 13th-14th century rediscovery of the centrality of the divine love, is the sense of a greater, much more momentously important, much more profoundly loving, personal presence than that of one’s fellow humans. But that this higher presence is eternal, is omnipotent, is omniscient, is the creator of the universe, is infinite in goodness and love is not, because it cannot be, given in the experience itself.[/quote]
Indeed.
Which you have contested so far. You don't consider this or that author authoritative; you say that this or that sutta or doctrine can be interpreted in some other way.
Quoting Janus
An impediment to the practice of what?
Can people have what they call "spiritual practice" and yet not "believe in karma and rebirth"? Of course they can.
Can they reach with that practice the same goals as those who do "believe in karma and rebirth"? I think not. In fact, if you look at the goals that people state for themselves and their spiritual practice, it is clear from that that they don't have the same goals to begin with, so any further comparison is moot.
Quoting Janus
No. You have provided assertions.
It's not clear that things work like that when it comes to things like ethics and religion. For reference, see Kohlberg's theory of moral development, as well as Fowler's stages of faith.
Unless you agree with the premises, whatever syllogism someone might provide, you won't be convinced by it.
When it comes to issues of Buddhist doctrine, in order to work out a convicing argument, we would need to go into a level of detail that is just too much for this forum, and it would also include the need for you to do some practical things (like engaging in renounciation, behaving in line with the precepts).
Also, at least in traditional Buddhism, a person is supposed to do this on their own to begin with. They won't teach you unless you're willing to be taught.
In traditional Buddhism the rules of engagement and the standards for discussion are different than in secular academia. To enforce the latter in the context of the former is another form of cultural appropriation.
"Whatever we might take that to mean"??
This isn't Humpty Dumpty Land where one can make words mean whatever one wants them to mean.
What reasons do you see to think that all those various people were/are "enlightened"?
Already as a matter of linguistic principle, it makes no sense to posit that "enlightenment" could mean so many different things. To do so only makes it a useless word.
I have to say though that I am amazed by many modernists, secularists, and various spirishal people. They sure have confidence, and I envy them that. (This envy is actually what drives me in discussions with them.)
But this shouldn't be the case. There is, to the best of my knowledge, nothing in the Buddha's teachings that would preclude one from practicing according to them, even as one is a "middle-class modern westerner".
There are, of course, many things in some relation to Buddhism that a middle-class modern westerner can't be and can't do, or at least not without feeling somehow fake. For example, a middle-class modern westerner cannot have the type of faith that people born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries have; a middle-class modern westerner cannot bow and kneel and venerate Buddha stupas with the ease and naturalness as those born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries can. Giving alms to monks. Chanting. Sitting cross-legged. Sitting on one's heels. Taking refuge in the Three Jewels. Every day.
Culturally-specific Buddhism is out of the question, and at best artificial for the "middle-class modern westerner".
But one's situation is whatever one's situation is, and one has to deal with it, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing or only limited to Westerners of a certain class. It's not like the people born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries aren't facing any challenges and can easily, confidently, genuinely practice in accordance with the Buddha's teachings. They can't. For example, they are, for all practical intents and purposes, bound and obligated to a particular Buddhist school, lineage, monastery/temple, teacher, and religious community, monastic and lay, regardless what those teach and how they behave. An ordinary person born and raised into a religion has very little choice in the matter of religion; their very situation is forcing them into stagnation, conformism, quietism, and the prioritizing of whatever the local culturally-specific form of Buddhism might be where they live. (Just think: probably most Buddhists born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries do not read suttas and have no access to them. Not just a few of them can't even read.)
In the West, we tend to have romantic notions of how things are for people born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries. One should scrutinize those romantic notions.
The request is that you provide some textual evidence which is not equivocal, if you are arguing that there is such.
Quoting baker
If the goal is non-attachment then on what basis would you claim that a practice to realize that is dependent upon certain beliefs (other than that the practice itself is a sound method for achieving non-attachment)? If there is some other goal, then what would you say that other goal is?
Quoting baker
You're begging the question; if it cannot be argued for, then why are you here purporting to be arguing for it?
Quoting baker
There are different views of what enlightenment consists in in different traditions. Do you deny that there are, or at least can be, enlightened individuals within the different traditions? The sufis, kabbalists, the western hermetic tradition, Christian mystics and saints, advaita vedantists and so on? Are you arguing for "Buddhist exceptionalism" as Thompson calls it? If so, how do you think Buddhist enlightenment differs from other conceptions of enlightenment, on what basis do you think it does differ and on what basis do you think it could be clear that Buddhist enlightenment is "higher" or more true or authentic or whatever?
Quoting baker
What reasons do you see to think that anyone is enlightened? There are equivalent ideas taken by adherents in the various traditions to define the state of those who have "seen the truth" in all the religious traditions I mentioned. How do you define enlightenment? What reason would you give to support a claim that those in other traditions who are purported to be enlightened or seers of the truth are not?
Quoting baker
It's you who seems to be arguing for Buddhist exceptionalism when it comes to enlightenment, and who seems to think you know what it consists in. I'm asking you to state your case and provide an argument for it. which you have so far failed to even attempt. I'm not claiming that secular Buddhism definitely measures up to traditional forms, I just haven't seen any reason to think it doesn't or couldn't; if you want to argue that it doesn't or couldn't then you need to provide some argument for your claim.
Quoting baker
In the above two passages you seem to be contradicting yourself. Are you saying that secular Buddhism cannot provide the means to realize enlightenment (however you define it) or not? To be honest, Baker, you just seem confused, or to be arguing for the sake of it.
When I look at Buddhism in the US and other parts of the West, it seems most appealing to middle class people. Yes, some of the middle and upper classes would find the potential, but not neccessay abstemiousness of Buddism to be offputting. And so with the wealthy. But really, there is no barrier.
https://lotus-happiness.com/10-buddhist-billionaires-asia/
https://www.thedailymeditation.com/50-surprising-celebrity-buddhists-36-stunned-us
Unless being rich in France is the issue.
(of course, some Buddhists and other will say these people aren't Buddhists, using different criteria depending on the critique, but actually Western Buddhists and other Westerners, would find many, if not most Eastern Buddhists to be not Buddhists (if we described their behaviors and said they lived in New York, say) because you will find them doing all sorts of supposedly non-Buddhist things, including focus on materialism, including praying for material goods and treating temples much or less than Sunday Christians do.
]Some Buddhists are very critical of corporate mindfulness.[/quote]Pretty much every cultural phenomenon is objected by some Buddists (and some Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or some members of any fully secular belief system with hundreds of subgroups and manifestations).
But let's go back to the quote of mine you responded to....
Most of the Buddhists I have encountered in the West were just fine financially, above average incomes, precisely with time to go to retreats, or explore practices the main religions in their countries. Often highly educated.
And in the East Buddhism runs through all classes.
And it was started or at least purported to be started by someone from a wealthy and powerful family. Buddhism that is.
Quoting bakerYup. I don't think your (mainly implicit) argument holds. For reasons stated here and there. Yes, some people in those situations will want to suppresse their emotions in a variety of ways. But that doesn't really counter what I said that you were responding to. Quoting bakerWell, no. I think that artificial and also, not natural in the sense I mean with emotional expression. We have physiological structures and neurological processes that go from stimulas to emotional reactions to expression. A lot of possible outcomes for human societies can avoid poverty. But generally thenatural response in humans to being poor is to try to improve the situation, rather than to disengage from the supposedly negative emotional reaction to the problems of being poor. Some obviously do turn to Buddhism. But in the East, they generally are already in Buddhism and in the West those people are underrepresented in Buddhist groups. This is a religion founded by someone who had it all and still suffered.
Quoting baker
I think it is universal that there are judgments. Yes, class, culture, family, country all affect which emotions, how they are judged and suppressed, what ok outlets are and so on.Quoting bakerAgreed.Quoting bakerAnd if you haven't judged your fear, then you stand a better chance of picking up the cues that now is not a good time to express rage, for example. But we have been trained to think we must choose between the two. So emotions can protect one. We don't have to implicitly consider the limbic something one indulges in or disidentifies with (he dichotomy implicit in those pejorative words I highlighted, given the context of the paragraph they were in that I did read. Did you read about the dichotomy I read or did you just check to see if I focused on what you wanted me to focus on?) We don't have to view the limbic system as at odds with the prefrontal cortex and side with one. Our images of what would happen if we allowed our emotions to express much more as the rule is tainted by the situation we are in having been trained to view emotions from the eit
I have been in catastrophic situations recently, downsized out because of Covid, spouse at death's door, having lost my parents and my best friend. Nothing was stable in my life and it felt like survival level issues, including homelessness.. Yes, I would be able to feed myself, probably, but the loss of all reason to live felt life threatening. I chose not to disidentify with emotions. I went right into them and for me this felt right and even extremely helpful. Of course I modified myself, out of caution (read based on boht emotion and reason) when in the company of certain other, especially potential employers), but when I could,I expressed. I think a lot of the supposed objective reasons to not fully feel and express our emotions are hallucinated and absolutely not objective. I have a great deal of sympathy for not wanting to feel them. I have sympathy for people believing that it is better to suppress and disidentify with them. It can seem like the wise move. And if they want to make that choice, for themselves, fine. I find the opposite to be true for me. And I prefer to identify with my emotions. I feel more human and complex in ways I appreciate. Others might not, fine. There is room for us each to choose. There are other issues where our choices directly harm or take away the freedom of others.
which emotions and reason can both help one determine: is it the right time or not. But given the complexity of social situations and cues, the logical mind needs the intuitive emotional responses to flow into actions and non-actions also. We are taught there is a need to choose emotions or reason.
Quoting bakerSupport someone else pursuing trying to reach the state they want to achieve? As long as they are not hurting me or someone else or something I value, I do this sort of thing all the time. I don't want those horrible ear rings or nose rings in my face. But if that is what someone else wants, go for it. It is not objective better to have those things (or, god forbid a penis ring) but if they want it and they are happier, go for it. This includes all sorts of things, including lifestyles with a great deal of risk. IOW I don't feel like I should decide for someone who likes free solo ice climbing or even argue against it. I can't say their live, even if cut short or statistically is objectively worse (or better) than mine. But it is not what I want to do.
If someone wants to disidentify with their emotions, well, then fine. I object to them saying or implying that it is objctively better to do this or it is simply being realisitic. Or that, really, deep down is what would be best for me - which most Buddhists do seem to believe. I think they are incorrect. And I do think they are judging and not accepting. What is outside them is accepted, but certain natural flows are not accepted. That is their free choice to make. If it becomes the state religion, than I am a rebel. But that's unlikely in the extreme where I am.
That's skipping a lot of Buddhist doctrine and enshrining Western science as the highest ...
And in order to improve the situation, one has to get one's emotions under control. For example, children are taught early on not to indulge in their anger, hostility, dislike, feeling down, in order to do their homework and studies.
I haven't been "trained" to think this way, so I cannot really relate.
I think that that which is usually called "emotions" is inseparable from one's thoughts. I think a person's emotions are this person's condensed ethical and ideological stances or attitudes. (I think the dichotomy head vs. heart is misleading.)
Like I said, I'm not "trained" that way, and it has nothing to do with my exposure to Buddhism, I was like that long before. I also don't subscribe to the current mainstream scientific theories about emotions.
I'm sorry to hear about that.
I think times of personal crisis are the worst time to get involved in "meaning of life questions", even though it is precisely at those times that those questions seem most pressing. Duress or hardship don't guarantee the right answer.
I was never taught that. I know people often talk that way, but I don't. If anything, to me, it's all one. I don't differentiate between "head" and "heart".
I'm not like that. I wouldn't openly oppose them, but I wouldn't be supportive either.
There certainly are preachy and bossy Buddhist types who will go out of their way to tell you how wrong you are. But unless you make a point of talking to them, seeking them out even, then what does it matter to you what they believe about this or that?
How do you even know what Buddhists (of whichever kind) believe, unless you actually go out of your own way to find out, going into their territory?
Like I said in another current thread:
Quoting baker
Moreover, it's not a text that is equivocal or unequivocal. If F = ma seems unequivocal to you, that's because you have a certain knowledge that contextualizes it and makes sense of it. Someone who lacks such knowledge cannot make sense of F = ma, or at least not in the way those who do have that knowledge can. Its' the same with other things, including those in religion.
Complete cessation of suffering.
No, I'm saying that you need to do certain things, and that this your doing is what supplies some of the necessary premises. Again, see the quote above.
Yes.
Yes, I deny thusly. Already because I'm not Humpty Dumpty and I don't even attempt to just make words mean whatever I want them to mean.
No.
That would take a book to reply.
For one, a purely epistemistcally trivial linguistic one: the same word can't mean all kinds of things.
Complete cessation of suffering (among other things, for now, I'll go with this).
They still suffer. By this I don't mean that they get crossed or stoned, but that they still see their happiness as dependent on their sights, smells, sounds, tastes, tactile sensations, and ideas being in a particular way, and their sights, smells, sounds, tastes, tactile sensations, and ideas not being that way.
But when you're not listening, and not remembering.
I also have no desire to defend Buddhism, I'm chasing an altogether different ghost.
Where is the contradiction??
What makes you think I'm talking about secular Buddhism above??
Someone familiar with the Buddhist doctrine of the Pali Canon (such as @Wayfarer to whom the post you quote was a reply) will know immediately what I'm talking about.
This has been a tedious conversation because you're not familiar enough with the Pali Canon.
I remember a remark made by a maverick guru I used to read in regard to Westeners pursuing Eastern spiritual disciplines: 'you don't have the archetypes'.
By this I think he meant that we are configured certain ways - by the culture we're born into, the habits we inherit and develop, our habituated ways of being in the world. They're very difficult things to change. And the effort we make to change them can itself become a hindrance, if it's too self-conscious.
Quoting baker
I used to be part of an informal group that met monthly or bi-monthly for nearly ten years up until 2018. It comprised a cross-section of people, some from Asian backgrounds, some, like myself, from Anglo backgrounds. We would generally work on a presentation about some topic - Buddhism and the environment, Abhidharma, Madhyamika, and so on - and prepare a slide deck. That would the subject of discussion for the meeting, held at the Buddhist library. Usually a small group, from about 4 up to about a dozen.
Some of those from Asian backgrounds - mainly Singaporean - said that their parents' Buddhism was very much 'temple Buddhism' - you go to the temple, make obeisance, give a donation, and pray that your son or daughter does well in their exams or has a child or whatever. Very like Church in the west, and nothing like what we used to discuss at the Library.
They said that where they really appreciated about the dharma-sharing group was the emphasis on meditation - most Asian Buddhists don't meditate - and on understanding Buddhist philosophy and principles.
Buddhism means something different to the Western audience than it does in its native cultures - not least because of the novelty, in that the Buddhist worldview is radically different from the Anglo -Christian. But also people like myself who came to it were seeking the enlightenment we believed could be found in it. That was answered by the Zen popularisers - Sukuki, Kapleau, and others - and also by the Thai Forest tradition that taught meditative practices to the laity. Looking back, however, these are actually very innovative schools within Buddhism itself.
But I also found that I learned from Buddhism the importance of actually bowing. This is not something Western individualists will generally do. Nothing is above their own ego. Bowing is a way of recognising that the Buddha's wisdom is something above your grasp. My daily practice was bow, chant, sit, although the last couple of years it's fallen away somewhat. I'm still working on it, I'm by no means giving up on it. I've had a rather flat patch the last couple of years, but I also know that through those years of practice there was definitely a shift which has not dissipated.
Do you still find yourself thinking like this when you try to think this in the context of the Pali Suttas, ie. with the Suttas as your background?
There are many kinds of "Westerners", though. There still are cultures in the West that are intensely classist and with what is for all intents and purposes a state religion with a strong emphasis on piety (such as the traditionally Catholic countries in Europe). This is actually a fairly similar psycho-socio-economic context as in traditionally Buddhist Asian countries.
That's a "Western" way to put it. I don't see it that way. I think that if one feels uncomfortable with bowing to the Buddha, this probably has to do with not being certain enough whether the Buddha was right or not and whether to follow the Buddha or not. It's not necessarily an ego issue.
If you don't go to a mosque and don't bow to Allah, does this mean you're indulging in your individualism, letting your ego rule? No. (Although there probably are Muslims who claim just that. )
You could actually be in a similar situation in regard to Buddhism.
My point being that Westerners sometimes overcriticize themselves and for things they aren't even guilty of, and thereby miss out on important insights about themselves.
If one has serious doubts about whether the Buddha is worth following or not, then forcing oneself to bow to him isn't going to make those doubts go away. But it can result in superstition, blind faith, and eventually falling away from Buddhism altogether.
This is a weak argument: F=ma cannot be understood simply by virtue of understanding English. Do you read Pali? If not I presume you read the Pali Canon in your first language. I have read parts of the Pali canon in English, and the concepts are not difficult to understand. Of course faith, or belief, not to mention practice, is another matter.
I don't deny that Eastern practitioners have a whole culture of ritual and belief that informs their practice and their understanding of enlightenment; but all that shows is that they have their own cultural understandings of what is a universal human concept, like love or compassion. I have not argued that it will not be experienced differently by those in different cultures.
Quoting baker
And how is complete cessation of suffering achieved? By letting go of all attachment? So, you haven't answered the question which was on what basis would you claim that complete cessation of suffering is impossible (assuming for the sake of argument that it is possible at all) without believing in karma and rebirth. I am not asking why it would not be possible for those who have been enculturated into believing in karma and rebirth, to become enlightened without those beliefs, but why it would be impossible per se without those beliefs.
If westerners are not capable of really believing in karma and rebirth; are you saying that that would preclude them from ever being able to realize complete cessation of suffering, assuming that is possible at all for anyone?
Since you persist in talking around my questions without providing any counterarguments, and since the above is the salient point I am interested in, I am not going to respond to the rest of what you wrote, until I am satisfied that you have responded to the above. I'm not here to waste my time.
Quoting baker
I've studied them to some extent, and even passed Pali 101. But I'm at a loss as to how to relate to Theravada Buddhism, when not in a Buddhist cultural setting. It always seems to me to be one of those cultural forms which is deeply intertwined with the society in which it is located. My interest in it arose from the practice of meditation. So the suttas aren't really part of my cultural background, they're something I've learned about. I don't think it would be meaningful to identify as a Theravadin without being assimilated into those cultures.
The point I made about bowing - and I really didn't want to start an argument about that - is simply that it's an acknowledgement of the idea of there being a higher truth, which is, generally speaking, something which has been practically obliterated in Western culture.
Not sure how to take this ...
The suttas are not the same as Theravada Buddhism, though. They are part of Theravada Buddhism, but TB is a lot more than just the suttas.
I can't get my head around how someone can be interested in Buddhism, but have not much regard for the suttas.
I can't relate to that, because I've always operated with the idea that there is such a thing as "the highest truth" (only that for me, the problem has always been how to find out what that is).
All I can say is that we're worlds apart, and I'm not interested in bridging the chasm. It's too much work, and whatever reward might come of it doesn't justify it. Like I already said more than once, I'm engaged in these discussions for my own reasons and my own understanding of meta-Buddhist topics that would be impossible or inappropriate to bring up in a Buddhist setting.
It's not that I don't have regard for them. I hold them in the highest regard. What I said was, outside the social context in which they are lived, it is difficult to know how to relate to them. Pali Buddhism is strongly bound to a cultural setting which is remote from my real circumstances.
Quoting baker
As do I. That's what I was getting at with the remark about bowing to the Three Jewels. It's an acknowledgement of that.
Quoting baker
I like your posts a lot, but sometimes they can be didactic.
Fair enough, but if you look back I think you'll find that it has been predominantly you initiating these conversations by responding to posts I've made responding to others.
To me, the suttas seem relatable enough, it's the socio-cultural context in which they are provided (by this I mean various Buddhist venues, such as temples, books, websites) and the people who provide them that I don't know how to relate to (and around whom I generally feel out of place).
There is a relatively new development in Buddhism, called "Suttavada", 'the Path of the suttas'. Suttavadis focus primarily on the suttas. I had the opportunity to interact a little bit with some of them, but mostly listen to their Dhamma talks.
I got the sense that there is a whole world of endavor on the Path that is not defined by the more superficial aspects of Buddhism (those being Buddhist school/lineage/teacher, one's nationality/race/cultural heritage etc.). That there is a whole world of things one can do (by following the instructions in the suttas) which are not bound to being a member of a particular Buddhist school/group.
Suttavadis are generally few and far inbetween, not exactly sociable folks, quite independent, although some of them are formally members of a particular Buddhist school/lineage. It's not easy to get an opportunity to talk to them.
How can that be? It seems to me that Pali Buddhism is the most neutral form of Buddhism there is.
intended to teach, particularly in having moral instruction as an ulterior motive
I'm sorry my posts come across unfavorably. I've shared some hard-won insights that finally begin to make sense of my position in relation to Buddhism. I've been under the impression you've been dealing with a similar problem, so told you about those insights.
Sure. I try this and that. I have a personal guideline that I can't cry foul until I have given something at least 100 good tries.
For example, I mow the law for my parents. They have an old lawn mower that doesn't want to start easily, one usually has to pull the engine many times before it starts. I once counted and it took me 53 pulls to start it. (Although since then, my father fixed it a bit and it now usually takes less than 10 pulls.)
So 100, that's my scope for patience.
But you just said:
Quoting baker
which is what I meant.
I found Suttavada, I'll definitely look into that.
Quoting baker
Not unfavourably - it's that sometimes you come across lecturing - like the post I made that remark about. That's what I meant by 'didactic'. But as I said, generally I like your posts a lot.
Actually, traditional minded folk still bow before Royalty, as a show of respect and deference to their authority. It helps to reify the hierarchical social order, which is essential to all religious institutions and tribes with ‘traditional’ values. Many of Trump’s base would probably love to bow before him if it were somehow made customary.
People of his ilk makes a lot of money out of misguided idealism. One of the devil's best tricks.
Okay. It's been over a year now since I've distanced myself from organized Buddhism. I can report that its grip on me has loosened a bit. While before, I thought it was impossible to have any kind of practice inspired in any way by Buddhism without this practice being defined by organized Buddhism, it now doesn't seem this way anymore. I've been able to carve out some space for myself. Of course, this came with a cost -- I lost all my Buddhist "friends".
So what exactly is the issue? That you resent being lectured by someone inferior/junior to yourself?
Or lectured altogether?
A didactic tone is common in all religions/spiritualities.
That it’s inappropriate in this medium. I’m happy to debate ideas and I am open to criticism but I don’t want to be told what I should think.
The other possible mode of 'lecturing tone' action of is that someone presents a whole lot of fairly basic information, either because they unjustifiably presume the other to be ignorant of what they are presenting, or because they want to appear learned themselves.
Your posts don't usually come off as "lecturing" in either of these senses; not to me at least. The only thing you do sometimes that annoys me is failing to state your case while claiming that if your interlocutor was familiar enough with certain texts they would see that what you are saying is true.
This is wrong.
The direction of my quest is, "If the other person knows X, and I know X, what else does the other person know because of which they think of X differently than I do?"
If, in the discussion, it becomes clear that the person doesn't know X, I usually cease discussion with that person, as any further discussion with them would not be conducive to my quest.
The most I claim is that if my interlocutor was familiar enough with certain texts they would see what I'm seeing. If I would be certain that I know the truth, I wouldn't be discussing things with anyone. I'd be off blissing out or something.
Since any text is subject to interpretation; why would you think that? When it comes to the Pali Canon or Plato, for example, if you are not fully conversant with Pali or Ancient Greek, respectively, then you are reading something which has already been interpreted by the translator.
And on this account, you dismissed some of my most insightful posts. The shoulds in them are really not controversial, but are well-meaning truisms.
(Although I suspect I know what's actually bothering you.)
I think that to get a sense for this, one would just need to interact with some people who focus primarily on the Pali suttas, consistently over a longer period of time.
Surely you've experienced something similar in other fields of expertise.
I also speak three languages fluently, an bits of others. The notion that there should be 1:1 translation is, based on experience, foreign to me. When one is fluent in several languages, one naturally develops a dynamic, flexible approach to translation. I don't think someone who speaks only one language can understand this.
Add to this, in the case of Buddhism, that the Suttas were written around 150-200 years after the death of Gotama, and were based on a verbal tradition that, knowing human nature, would have been variously embellished, changed, added to and subtracted from, plus the fact of the proliferation of schools that have evolved to this day, and it is clear that there is no one consistent Buddhism. In any case it doesn't matter because only ideas that makes sense to you and that you can use for your own practice of living are of any relevance. It doesn't matter where they originated, or how close you might be convinced that they are to Gotama's original teachings. It wouldn't even matter if Gotama turned out to be a mythical figure..
1. Luck. Basically inexplicable events that make you wanna ask "whatever did I do to deserve this?" The events in question maybe either good (winning the lottery) or bad (being laid off).
2. The principle of sufficient reason states that for everything there's always a reason.
3. What goes around comes around. As you sow, so shall you reap. These rules/laws are in the here and now. We can see them in action in our everyday lives.
Take all 1, 2 & 3 together and you have
i) The law of karma (moral causation)
ii) Death-rebirth cycle or reincarnation
From i) and ii) arises the desire for escape from this nauseating "merry"-go-round (note people enjoy going round and round in carousels. Maybe samsara ain't that bad, huh?) which leads us to...drumroll please...nirvana!
What do you mean exactly by that ?
Quoting bakerI don't think one has to get one's emotions under control and that's a statement that needs some support, especially in this context, where the Buddhist form of control and disidentification is generally not turned to by poor people, especially if we look at people who might turn to it. And most Eastern Buddhist, iow those raising in the tradition are much like Sunday Christians. They are not intense meditators. Their priorities are elsewhere. And as I say later, the poor in the just don't seem attracted to Buddhism. The middle and upper classes are vastly more likely to join/participate/convert.
Further, notice that you regularly mention emotions as something that gets indulged in, not thoughts. And yes, I recognize that Buddhism does have admonitions not to indulge in thinking, but I want to point out that while you deny having a heart head dichotomy, you consistantly refer to emotions as the things that are problematic. And this mirrors the judgments, both in Eastern and Western Buddhism, in communities in general, about the expression of emotions. I am not sure if you have mentioned emotions once without the verb indulging. And you do not distinguish indulging from expressing, if you see any difference. When I bring up the expression of emotions, you mention indulgence, a pejorative. I am critical of the universalizing and making objective Buddhist values, and you respond as if the only option is indulging, which is negative.
If I mention that there is a head heart dichotomy, you don't have one, you claim. But since you are expressing ideas and thinking (and in fact many Buddhists would say we are both indulging in thinking) you seem to assume that expressing thoughts at least can be ok. But at the mention of expressing emotions, you respond about indulging.
And this in fact mirrors my experience in every single Buddhist setting and with nearly every Buddhist person I have met. They may openly say they do not judge emotions or see a split between heart and head. But in practical, body language, verbal actions (whether implicit or explict) they react negatively to emotions much more than they do the expression of thoughts. They use terms like indulge and they tend to classify emotions into negative and positive (this you haven't done explicitly but implicitly in the list of emotions that are problematic.
I find it very cake and eat it to. Give off the judgments, but then claim not to have them. Say they do not have the heart mind split, but in their reactions and admonitions repeatedly focus on the expression of emotions.
And this is fine if they are defining their values and goals. IOW as subjective choices for how they want to live and perhaps for lifestyle of others they are around. But then it is often presented as objective and it isn't.
As far as children controlling emotions, it is controlling emotions like British upper class kids are taught or working class Italians, ,because it sure produces vastly different types of control. Or African kids. (I realize there are diverse patterns of pedagogy and parenting in these groups, but there are tendencies and what is considered acceptable emotional expression varies wildly amongst such groups.
Well, no. I think that artificial and also, not natural in the sense I mean with emotional expression. We have physiological structures and neurological processes that go from stimulas to emotional reactions to expression. — Bylaw
Well babies have emotions and small children well before they have such things to condense. I would see them as a spectrum or facets of the same thing. Nevertheless one can suppress emotional expression without suppressing thinking. One can suppress that aspect of that one thing without suppressing the other end.
And you regularly refer to indulging in emotions and not indulging in attitudes or thoughts.
So emotions can protect one. We don't have to implicitly consider the limbic something one indulges in or disidentifies with (he dichotomy implicit in those pejorative words I highlighted, given the context of the paragraph they were in that I did read. Did you read about the dichotomy I read or did you just check to see if I focused on what you wanted me to focus on?) We don't have to view the limbic system as at odds with the prefrontal cortex and side with one. Our images of what would happen if we allowed our emotions to express much more as the rule is tainted by the situation we are in having been trained to view emotions from the eit
Well current scientific theories don't see them as separate. And, yes, people who have certain values or proclivities then to be attracted to spiritualites and philosophies that fit with those value and ps. This doesn't make them objective, but it sure can make it seem that way.
Then you statements about what a child must do, is odd in what is left out and what it emphases. I talk about emotions in general. And your reation is to say that a chlld should not indulge in emotion when learning. I see the statements where you say you don't believe there is a split and then I see what your attitudes are and they seem to clearly have that split. The idea of expressing and not disidentifying with emotions leads to responses from you that one will be indulging in emotions, not attitudes. And you list the emotions.
I respect the fact that they are making a choice that fits their values. If it does no harm to me I would not want them stopped. I prefer a world where people can do that. if people follow their subjective choices as long as it does not harm others. But it's a very large digression to flesh out why I prefer that world and I am already writting too much.
It's not what they believe, it is what they communicate, for example in philosophical forums, or in workplaces or other settings where I still encounter them often regularly. If they present it as objective, I disagree. If the judgments seep out of them or are stated directly then I react to that. This thread is talking about Buddhism simply being realism and also here and elsewhere the idea that certain Buddhist ideas are objective truths that I do not think are objective truths.
In the past I had a lot of contact with Buddhists. I lived in places where it was the dominant belief system and I encountered many in the US and had contacts and experiences of Buddhist communities and temples. There I encountered the 'this is objective' facet of the beliefs and resisted it, especially when it became clear to me that their goals were not my goals - in relation to how one relates to emotions, for example. Nowadays it can come up as a discussion topic in forums like this one and I find it interesting and also just want to express my reaction to the idea that it is objective.
As far as going into their territory I went both out of interest in Buddhism and then moved to where it was the dominant religion for other reasons. But Buddhist territory is not limited to temples in the West, where I now live again, and I encounter it and Buddhists and also similar belief systems presented as objective.
Is there a problem with arguing in a philosophy forum that what is presented in Buddhism as objective is not objective? I don't see any other belief system getting a pass, regardless of territories.
I suppose if I started threads attacking Buddhism that would be closer to just creating a disagreement. I don't think I will end up doing that, but even then, if I want to clarify my own thoughts through interacting with others, even that seems implicitly accepted by most people's desires for a philosophy discussion forum.
I find this ad hom, not in the sense of you going to the man, but as if I am doing something wrong even weighing in on the subject. IOW focusing on me, discussing ideas in a philosophy forum, this act of mine, rather than on the arguments themselves.
You've never stated if you think the Buddhist values are objective. IOW the Buddhist goals are what we really want, deep down, or will in a future rebirth when we have, like Siddheartha, realized that we aren't getting what we want, etc. through material things, etc. It seems implicit. Since my saying it is not objective seems to be to you not only wrong, but wrong to even argue for in a philosophy forum.
I think I'll find other interlocuters who don't think this is a problem per se.
And just to repeat in reaction to your poor person example - poor people don't turn to Buddhism as much as people from other classes in the West AND I certainly don't find them less expressive of emotions. Generally I find that suppression of emotions correlates is inversely with income. At least in the cultures I have come in contact with and it seems often in many historical contexts, Victorian England, the Court in Versaille, upper class Japan in many eras. I can understand why some poor person in Detroit might not make the leap to Buddhism and how priviledge and education,which correlate with class, might keep him from even considering the leap. But I don't see the people in that category (or the less well off than the middle class working class) making the choice to suppress emotions more let alone disidentify with them. I see the opposite.