Buddhism opts for a reasoned approach, basing itself on not metaphysics but on the empirical - impermanence is its foundation and who, in his right mind, can deny the truth of the ever-changing nature of reality? — TheMadFool

Someone discovered empirical evidence for karma, rebirth, etc. and didn’t tell me? :sad:

Such simplicity with such profundity is missing even in the dominant faiths of present times.

The alleged simplicity has you expressing curious thoughts like ‘cause is the engine of impermanence’, I notice. Anyway, you could just as easily reduce Christianity to ‘love’ or whatever, claim its simplicity, and be equally wrong.

This, however, isn't the case which proves that it's not ignorance in and of itself that's the obstacle but ignorance of certain truths,...

We can’t say that something like ‘emptiness’ is true, can we?

According to the doctrine, impermanence isn't the cause of suffering but ignorance. Ignorance of our true nature (emptiness). If we could realize our true nature or 'make emptiness real' then we wouldn't suffer, — praxis

it's not ignorance in and of itself that's the obstacle but ignorance of certain truths, e.g. the four noble truths and impermanence, that lead to suffering. — TheMadFool

I think you both bring up excellent points.

Would you say that it was consciousness that Adiyogi and Buddha engaged with some 5000 years ago?

When we speak of our true nature, would that not reside in our consciousness?

In the West, for the past 2000 years, consciousness has been the domain of the soul, and as such has been off limits to philosophy. I wonder if Descartes would have gone further if he could have? That he could have gone further seems likely, given Buddha managed to some 5000 years before him.I think therefore I am begs the question why do you think? But he stops there, just short of consciousness! – and consciousness remains off limits – in some peoples minds – the unknowable – ineffable.

It wasn’t until Jung and Freud, that consciousness was first dealt with in the west, and lately there has been some progress, but there still remains a cultural aversion to engaging with consciousness.
I wonder what your thoughts are on the matter?

but there still remains a cultural aversion to engaging with consciousness. — Pop

At first I thought that might not be an accurate statement, that it’s just that we begin to wobble when we address it, but on reflection you might be right.

Edit: maybe not an aversion but a pretence to engaging with it which, I guess, is a form of aversion.

Consciousness is what it feels like when your brain is working.

Consciousness is what it feels like when your brain is working. — praxis

Working to do what?

Freud and Jung put forward theories of consciousness. They proposed Brain working took a certain form.

I think the tradition is not to engage with it, so when somebody dose, it seems crazy! Uncomfortable?

Like an internal family feud that can’t be resolved because they can’t talk about it because it just causes trouble.

Yeah, something like that.
Why do you think it is?

Why do you think it is? — Pop

Maybe because we’re essentially materialist creatures. Without that the world’s full of ghosts and devils,

Thanks Brett, That could easily be the case. I'm hoping to get a few opinions, and then I need to think long and hard about it.

Maybe I should gave said that we’ve become essentially materialist creatures.
Consciousness contains the past. Like I said, ghosts and devils.

Yes that is a very good point. If history was different here and there, we might be very different people - with a very different consciousness.

Evolutionary psychology..

Evolutionary psychology.. — Gitonga

(Deep breath...count to ten...)

Which particular work of psychology gave you that impression?

In a way the Buddha got what he wanted - he meditated furiously on impermanence and came to the conclusion that change is the only constant. Perhaps not, his desire to exit the causal web, cause being the engine of impermanence, and attain nirvana (extinguishment) - his hope was to transcend impermanence by extricating himself from the causal web and, in that, achieving something eternal. — TheMadFool

The key term in translations of Buddhist texts is the 'unconditioned'. There is a canonical statement to that effect:

There is, monks, an unborn— unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned. ¹

I think the Buddhist diagnosis of the problem with the human condition is that humans cling to, or identify with, that which by its nature is impermanent, compound, fabricated, subject to change, and therefore painful. In a pan-religious sense, this is a universal theme - that humans have 'fallen' into the domain of impermanence and suffering but in their ignorance, they take this to be real, when according to the Buddha is 'empty' of anything permanent or enduring (which in my view is the meaning of the Buddhist 'śūnyatā'). So humans are clinging to an illusory reality which results in endless suffering, even though, in the final analysis, nothing compels them to do that beyond force of habit (albeit a very long-standing habit).

isn't it more that he wanted what he got?

What do you mean that consciousness is off limits to philosophy? Haven't many philosopher's debated consciousness?

there are many such as the book "sapiens" but you can also read this article for a summary https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/930860/what-is-the-purpose-of-happiness/amp/

so what's an example of something permanent?

We humans are not designed to let go of our desires that's like pretending to be full when you're hungry... — Gitonga

Indeed, desire is very the essence of man (Spinoza) and trying to get rid of it is illusion. But there is value in realizing that desire is never ending, that you will never be fully satisfied. It helps manage the frustration.

I think ‘enduring’ is better than ‘permanent’. Permanence implies some unchanging substance, something which persists through time unchanging. That’s what diamonds signify, but even diamonds aren’t forever.

In any case, your op, and most of your other remarks, mistake Darwinism for philosophy, which it isn’t. An understandable mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

there are many such as the book "sapiens" but you can also read this article for a summary https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/930860/what-is-the-purpose-of-happiness/amp/ — Gitonga

I see a lot about links between dopamine and environmental stimuli which may have conferred a competitive advantage. Ignoring for now the question begging problem of evolutionary explanations, all you have here are a collection of links between certain environmental stimuli and certain reports of mental state (or neurotransmitter activity).

Nothing necessitates an inflexible link between the two, nothing shows that self-reported happiness is limited to these environmental stimuli, and nothing shows that the measures of happiness used exhaust the range of measures of happiness.

Quite a long way to go before evolutionary psychology even indicates what you're claiming, let alone justifies it.

The clergy were too powerful.

How many of your toys have provided you with enduring happiness?

The key term in translations of Buddhist texts is the 'unconditioned'. There is a canonical statement to that effect:

There is, monks, an unborn— unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned. 1

I think the Buddhist diagnosis of the problem with the human condition is that humans cling to, or identify with, that which by its nature is impermanent, compound, fabricated, subject to change, and therefore painful. In a pan-religious sense, this is a universal theme - that humans have 'fallen' into the domain of impermanence and suffering but in their ignorance, they take this to be real, when according to the Buddha is 'empty' of anything permanent or enduring (which in my view is the meaning of the Buddhist 'śūnyatā'). So humans are clinging to an illusory reality which results in endless suffering, even though, in the final analysis, nothing compels them to do that beyond force of habit (albeit a very long-standing habit). — Wayfarer

Is śūnyatā based on impermanence - nothing being capable of withstanding the forces of change and so a becomes b and b becomes c, and so on, none of them lasting long enough to constitute something and thus are empty?

I wonder what your thoughts are on the matter? — Pop

I stop short of idealism and its many incarnations.

Someone discovered empirical evidence for karma, rebirth, etc. and didn’t tell me? :sad: — praxis

An indirect inference to karma can be made based on causality. This is what is unique to Buddhism - it always has some connection, even if vague and tenuous, to some sound logical principle.

The alleged simplicity has you expressing curious thoughts like ‘cause is the engine of impermanence’, I notice. Anyway, you could just as easily reduce Christianity to ‘love’ or whatever, claim its simplicity, and be equally wrong. — praxis

I only refer to simplicity that is also rational, in the simplest sense the absence of inconsistencies. Christianity has more many inconsistencies than I care to mention.

We can’t say that something like ‘emptiness’ is true, can we? — praxis

Look at my reply to wayfarer, if you wish.

This is what is unique to Buddhism - it always has some connection, even if vague and tenuous, to some sound logical principle. — TheMadFool

A vague and tenuous connection to sound logical principles. :chin: :lol:

absence of inconsistencies

I think you’re guilty of seeing what you want to see. I could point out some glaring inconsistencies though, if you like.

Look at my reply to wayfarer

I’m completely with you, nevertheless, I think we’re too ignorant (in the general sense) to say this is true.

A vague and tenuous connection to sound logical principles — praxis

A connection missing in other faiths. Something is better than nothing seems to apply here.

I think you’re guilty of seeing what you want to see. I could point out some glaring inconsistencies though, if you like. — praxis

Feel free to do so.

I’m completely with you, nevertheless, I think we’re too ignorant (in the general sense) to say this is true. — praxis

Explain where.

I’m completely with you, nevertheless, I think we’re too ignorant (in the general sense) to say this is true.
— praxis

Explain where. — TheMadFool

In general. For example, it may have once been reasonable to conclude that the earth was flat. Today it's highly reasonable to say that the earth is spherical or even to say that it's true that the earth is spherical.

Feel free to do so. — TheMadFool

Let's start with inconsistencies in the foundational principles of rebirth and emptiness. I imagine there are countless vague and tenuous ways to make these concepts appear consistent with each other, but none are reasonably sound.

For an essence or soul-like thing to be reborn in another body, it would need to be immaterial or unaffected by matter, and therefore separate and unchanging, which is the very antithesis of emptiness.