Says you, who just this minute has pasted an entire paragraph from the Pali texts into another thread. — Wayfarer

Have you noticed that I am not discussing Buddhism in the manner of Western secular academia?

I don’t see any ‘bad blood’.

You don't say. I have to take breaks from this forum, as I feel downright metaphorically bespattered with blood.

Hostile reactions are only to be expected when people’s instinctive sense of reality is called into question.

What a spiritual take on the matter!

No one knows for sure so we are stuck with what seems most plausible. — Janus

While many people say such things, I doubt many people mean them. It seems to me that people are far more sure of themselves, far more certain than you make allowance for.

But unless one is enlightened, one cannot talk about these things with any kind of integrity, nor demand respect from others as if one in fact knew what one is talking about.
— baker

I tend to agree with this, although I would say not only "unless" but "even if".

Why the "even if"? Why couldn't one talk about enlightenment with integrity even if one is enlightened?

If you believe being enlightened is a real thing, what leads you to believe it, presuming you are not yourself enlightened?

I am aware of the standard definitions of enlightenment. Whether what those definitions say is "real" or not I can't say, given that according to those definitions, one would need to be enlightened oneself in order to recognize another enlightened being.


But I certainly acknowledge a strange pull that I feel towards these topics and a desire to reflect on them.

I am aware of the standard definitions of enlightenment. Whether what those definitions say is "real" or not I can't say, given that according to those definitions, one would need to be enlightened oneself in order to recognize another enlightened being. — baker

A monk asked, "What does the enlightened one do?"

Joshu said, "He truly practices the Way."

The monk asked, "Master, do you practice the Way?"

Joshu said, "I put on my robe, I eat my rice."

The monk said, "To put on one's robe, to eat one's rice are ordinary, everyday things. Master, do you practice the Way?"

Joshu said, "You try and say it then. What am I doing everyday?" — Joshu

Maybe you are already enlightened, and didn't know it. :grin:

Maybe you are already enlightened, and didn't know it. — Patterner

According to Early Buddhism, such is impossible, because an enlightened person knows they are enlightened, they have no doubt or confusion about it. Everyone who is enlightened knows they are enlightened.

I'm just kidding around. If you put on a robe and eat rice, you might be enlightened. :halo:

'Ain't never gonna do it without my fez on' ~ Steely Dan

What do you mean by "considering the current state of science"? There are any number of examples throughout history of the most plausible explanation for something, according to that time's current state of science, being as wrong as can be. What is it about our current state that convinces you that, despite the fact that it doesn't seem to be a physical process or function, not even to you, it is? — Patterner

It is irrelevant that past scientific theories have been shown to be wrong, or at least not as adequate as some later theory. That fact does not guarantee that any present theories will be proven wrong. Also, that is all we have to work with.

I haven't said consciousness doesn't seem to be a physical process per se. From a neuroscientific perspective it does seem to be a physical process. From the naive intuitive point of view, it may seem not to be physical to some. From my perspective it seems neither determinably physical (in the sense that it is not a physical object, but an activity) nor non-physical. It certainly doesn't seem otherworldly to me and this world definitely seems physical through and through.

I've always had trouble understanding this position. The way the mind seems to itself... The mind is an illusion being fooled by itself. Illusions fool the viewer. The audience. But, in this case, that upon which everything else is built, the viewer and the illusion are the same thing. — Patterner

You continue to misinterpret what I'm saying. I haven't said the mind is an illusion, I've said that what it may seem to us may be an illusion.

While many people say such things, I doubt many people mean them. It seems to me that people are far more sure of themselves, far more certain than you make allowance for. — baker

It doesn't matter whether people acknowledge that what they believe about matters which are not either logically or empirically determinable, is determined by what they think most plausible, which in turn is determined by which starting assumptions they are making.

It is also possible that in some, perhaps many, cases people believe what they want to believe.

I haven't failed to make allowance for people feeling certain at all. But there is a clear distinction between being certain (which is only possible in cases where what is believed is empirically or logically verifiable) and feeling certain, which is possible in all kinds of cases, including self-delusion.

Sorry for misinterpreting you. Looking at your previous posts, I see what you meant, and am rather annoyed with myself.

It certainly doesn't seem otherworldly to me — Janus

As it's in this world, it's obviously not otherworldly.

and this world definitely seems physical through and through. — Janus

Since there is no physical explanation for consciousness, it's possible consciousness is not physical through and through.

From a neuroscientific perspective it does seem to be a physical process. — Janus

The physical is certainly an essential ingredient.

Cheers. I guess the basic reason for my tendency to think of consciousness as a natural physical process is that I can't imagine what any non-physical element of it could be, and no one has ever offered an explanation as to what a purported non-physical element could be other than the old idea of a separate mental substance or else some kind of unfathomable panpsychism. Anyway, I think I've explained my position about as well as i can, and I certainly don't expect you to agree with me, so I'm not sure there's much else to be said by me on this topic.

Thanks for the conversation.

Anyway, I think I've explained my position about as well as i can, — Janus

I had hoped for some specifics. If what consciousness seems to be is an illusion, what is it really? What is the explanation for the existence of the illusion? How do the physical properties of matter and laws of physics give rise to the subjective experience of the physical processes that they are obviously acting out, as opposed to those physical processes taking place without the subjective experience (as Chalmers says, "in the dark")?

But if you're done, perhaps others will give their ideas. A thread dedicated to any physicalist explanation would be great. Of course, every thread begun to explore any particular approach to the issue soon turns into a debate. I wonder if there's any chance mods would enforce rules for such a thread.

Although I might be the only person who thinks such a thread might be valuable.