I would tell the guy that posed the choice wtf he means because it’s not like Chinese people can’t conceive of scientific theories or British people can’t conceive of meditation. It’s not like these discoveries are inherent in the geographic configuration of a bunch of rocks. If I look from the opposite side the East is the West and the West is the East.

I think a better question would be “Do you think the answer to our suffering is primarily fixing the world or primarily configuring our mind?” To which I would answer “I don’t care which one is “primary” just do both as efficiently as possible” — khaled

One must consider all possibilities. Surely, you must've fallen for more than one woman/man as the case may be and decided to court one and not the other on pain of losing both by being a two-timing jerk. How did you cope with that?

Because they want to know that all their suffering has some purpose behind it, that there is someone or something that will make everything right at the end, that world is not just a bunch of floating rocks indifferent to their suffering. Heaven is a bonus. Idk about Christianity but at least in Islam it is emphasized that one shouldn’t follow Islam for the Heaven but only do so when they can have full faith in its teachings. It is said that if you’re just a Muslim because you think you have to be or else you’ll suffer that you’re not a real Muslim and that God would rather see you continue questioning the faith until you’re convinced rather than harbor doubt in your mind which you muffle because you want to get into heaven. — khaled

I suppose there's a grain of truth in what you say but what do you mean by "...all their suffering has some purpose behind it..." You seem to be trying to eat the cake and have it too. Implicit in your sentence is the claim that suffering is bad. Isn't that why you want to know the purpose? To find out if it's in the service of good/god? The get right to the point, you've contradicted yourself by both admitting that suffering is bad and that it, in some warped sense, is also good.

How did you cope with that? — TheMadFool

Saying “do both” in this case does not make me a two timing jerk unless you consider Eastern and Western views people. I’m a practical guy so that’s my answer

suffering is bad. — TheMadFool

You have defined suffering

in some warped sense, is also good. — TheMadFool

*can be coped with or eliminated* is what I said. Not that it is good.

Anyways I don’t care to debate this detail anymore because we can at least agree that the Kalama Sutta applies. — khaled

It does not apply to dogma, an issue that you brought up.

On the other hand, you know what they call someone who tries to reform Buddhist doctrine?
— praxis

Where did this come from? Who’s trying to reform Buddhist doctrine? — khaled

Anyone resisting religious dogma.

Saying “do both” in this case does not make me a two timing jerk unless you consider Eastern and Western views people. I’m a practical guy so that’s my answer — khaled

I put in a condition you're ignoring.

*can be coped with or eliminated* is what I said. Not that it is good. — khaled

In what sense do you mean "can be coped with or eliminated"? It is next to impossible to "cope" with suffering because it's bad. Ergo, to cope with it, it must, as of necessity, be good.

I put in a condition you're ignoring. — TheMadFool

No offence but why can't you just say something directly? If I didn't get what you're saying the first time saying "go back and read" will likely not change that.

In what sense do you mean "can be coped with or eliminated" — TheMadFool

Things hurt less. Maybe eventually reaching 0.

:ok: :up:

There are many interesting philosophies, ways that people attempt to explain the world they perceive, and ways to get along. It's interesting to talk about Western vs Eastern, but in reality there are many other ways to get the world to work. For example, In New Zealand, there is the Maori way of seeing the world and establishing how we should get along (from this webpage: Kaupapa Maori

Whanaungatanga refers to the building and maintenance of relationships. It’s the process of establishing meaningful, reciprocal and whānau or family-like relationships through cultural respect, connectedness and engagement.

Manaakitanga describes sharing, hosting and being generous. It supports collaborative research and evaluation and helps knowledge flow both ways between researcher/evaluator and participant.
Aroha means love but it also means respect. Treating people with respect means allowing them control: where to meet and on their own terms, and when to meet. Aroha also relates to the information collected. You should let the participant decide what information will become public and what will stay confidential. They can also choose whether to participate anonymously.

Mahaki is about showing humility when sharing knowledge. Mahaki reminds us to share knowledge and experiences to understand each other better and to foster trust in the research or evaluator relationship.
Mana relates to power, dignity and respect. Kaua e takahia te mana o te tangata “Do not trample on the mana or dignity of a person”. People are the experts on their own lives, including their problems, needs and aspirations. Look for ways to work together.

Titiro, whakarongo, kōrero means to look, listen and then speak. When researching and evaluating it’s important to look and listen to develop understanding and find a place to speak from. You need to take time to understand people’s day-to-day realities, priorities and aspirations. This will make your questions relevant to the participant.

Kia Tupato is being cautious. You need to be politically savvy, culturally safe, and reflective about your insider or outsider status. Staying safe might mean working with elders and others in the community who can guide your research and evaluation.

He kanohi kitea means being a familiar face. You should seek to be involved with communities and familiar to them to build trust and communication
.

What does this mean? It means that we often think that our western way to analyse ideas and concepts is the only way, but Kaupapa Maori teaches us some useful rules of life, but also how one should interact with other people, and that one should start with the community, not the individual.

I like these two quotes...

I think a better question would be “Do you think the answer to our suffering is primarily fixing the world or primarily configuring our mind?” — khaled

The main thing a Buddhist hopes to do by meditating is to understand how his/her own mind is constructed. — khaled

It seems the broken world is created by our broken minds. So the Buddhist meditates to better understand the internal suffering which is the source of the broken external world. Perhaps what some Buddhists discover in their meditations is...

1) Suffering is made of thought.

2) Thought is a required mechanical function of the body, like eating and sleeping.

3) Thought, and thus suffering, can be managed by simple mechanical means, just as it true with eating and sleeping.

Thought, eating, and sleeping are required for survival. So there is no permanent solution to physical hunger, tiredness, or suffering. There is nothing we can eat which will end all future hunger. There is no nap we can take which will end all future weariness. And there is no philosophy, theology or psychology which will end all future suffering. That's the bad news, no permanent fix.

The good news is that just as the mechanical functions of digestion and sleep can be managed for enhanced health by simple mechanical means, so can thinking. And thus, so can suffering.

Do you need a fancy abstract philosophy to tell you what to do when you're physically hungry? No, you recognize a simple mechanical problem, and you solve it by simple mechanical means.

And you're way to sensible to spend years looking for some food you can eat which will end your need to eat again, right? You don't waste a minute on that. You know you're going to have to eat pretty much every day for the rest of your life, and you don't make that in to a problem. When you're hungry, you eat something. Simple.

Because suffering arises from a mechanical process of the body it can be addressed and managed (but not solved) by simple mechanical means.

This is really good news for everyone, except....

Philosophers. :-)

And there is no philosophy, theology or psychology which will end all future suffering. — Hippyhead

Then again, I don't think the primary purpose of those fields (except psychology) is to alleviate suffering. I think they are steps in the attempt to make the world better. To know what the world is and how it works will allow us to change it. Philosophy is primarily concerned with what the world is and how it works, but the results can also be used practically. Similar to how a Buddhist is mainly concerned with how his mind is constructed but the results of that search can be used practically. But otherwise I agree with everything.

But otherwise I agree with everything. — khaled

Well, ok, maybe we can explore that a bit...

Do you agree that suffering is made of thought?

Do you agree that thought is a mechanical function of the body?

Why are we complicating suffering? You know, to my knowledge, there is no sophisticated philosophy or religion which addresses itself to constipation. :-) Instead, we see a mechanical problem, and reply to it with mechanical solutions. Simple, direct, practical, serious. If we take such an approach to other mechanical problems of the body, why not suffering too?

Would looking at suffering in such a simple practical manner be in the spirit of some flavors of Buddhism? If so, which flavors?

One technique employed in psychology is graded exposure in which a person with a phobia is made to face the object of his/her fears in slow incremental steps of intensity. The idea behind this is simply, "get used to it". No arguments are made about the nature of fear itself. Why we fear? is left unanswered. — TheMadFool

Actually, meditators may also try the "get used to it" method to overcome a personal problem. I once worked with a man who flew-in from California to open a local aerial mapping office. On his first day in town, he realized that he was coming down with the flu. Since he didn't have "time" to treat the symptoms in the usual way --- bed rest, etc --- he decided to meditate on the symptoms themselves. As he related it, he experienced the flu intensely for about an hour. And then, having "gotten used to them", the symptoms abated, so he could get back to work setting-up his new office.

He was not a Buddhist, but had been trained in rigorous Erhard Seminars (EST). One of those self-improvement techniques was something similar to Bruce Lee's philosophy, to paraphrase : "don't just passively experience the pain, be the pain". I suppose you could call that a Westernized form of the Buddhist answer to suffering, or simply self-imposed Mind Control. One of the most effective forms of modern psychotherapy is Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT), which uses similar inward looking techniques to overcome suffering. These modern therapies don't require any religious commitments, but simply a buy-in to a "philosophical" perspective on suffering, similar to Buddhism and to Stoicism. :smile:


EST : I considered the training to be a brilliantly conceived Zen koan, effectively tricking the mind into seeing itself, and in thus seeing, to be simultaneously aware of who was doing the seeing, a transcendent level of consciousness, a place spacious and undefined, distinct from the tired old story that our minds continuously tell us about who we are, and with which we ordinarily identify.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erhard_Seminars_Training

REBT : A fundamental premise of REBT is humans do not get emotionally disturbed by unfortunate circumstances, but by how they construct their views of these circumstances through their language, evaluative beliefs, meanings and philosophies about the world, themselves and others
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_emotive_behavior_therapy

don't just passively experience the pain, be the pain — Gnomon

Be the pain. In other words, don't think about the pain, experience the pain. To the degree we are able to do this we eliminate the thought generated distance between "me" and "pain". Or to use fancy language, between subject and object. It's that division which is the source of suffering. That division is auto-generated by thought, because that's how thought works, by generating conceptual divisions.

It seems key to grasp that suffering arises from the nature of thought itself. The evidence for this is that human psychological suffering is universal. Suffering exists in every time and place and in every person, whatever the culture, religion or philosophy of that time, place and person.

These modern therapies don't require any religious commitments, but simply a buy-in to a "philosophical" perspective on suffering, similar to Buddhism and to Stoicism. — Gnomon

I suppose such a buy-in might be necessary for some to be willing to experiment with "be the pain", especially we philosopher types. But if it's true that suffering arises from the nature of thought, then the less analyzing we do perhaps the better. Really no philosophical anything is required. One can simply do the experiment by trying such techniques and then proceed from there.

It seems key to grasp that suffering arises from the nature of thought itself. — Hippyhead

William Shakespeare — 'There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.'

The closest western philosophcal doctrine to buddhism that I can think of is stiocism. Stoicism actually tries to do the same thing so now that I think about it maybe IT was the first rather than psychoanalysis but phsychoanalysis is definitely closer in terms of "methodology". It tries to figure out what to do about being in such a terrible world in terms of what you should do with your mind. — khaled

Your claims are oddly contradictory. Stoicism utilizes psychotherapy similar to modern CBT. This is not the same as phsychoanalysis.

Reducing maladaptive negative thoughts, such as "being in such a terrible world" is exactly the sort of thing that Stocisim, Buddhist meditation, and CBT try to accomplish.

The main thing a Buddhist hopes to do by meditating is to understand how his/her own mind is constructed. — khaled

No this is false, the main thing is to realize emptiness.

But as he/she understands more about the mind they become able to perscribe people certain meditations that help alleviate their stress just like a personal trainer perscribes a workout schedule. It will work regardless of whether or not you understand why.

That's the same as psychoanalysts... — khaled

Buddhist teachers are not psychoanalysts. I don't think that this can be stressed enough. Of course, a Buddhist teacher may be a psychoanalyst if they've gone through the training and have a graduate degree in the mental health field, but that must be quite rare.

Anyone could outline the basics of CBT, on the other hand, and it's a practice that doesn't require a psychoanalyst.

Other than that the west seems to have largely tried to deal with this issue by changing the world itself. That is the key. The East tries to deal with this problem by configuring our minds so as to deal with it best. Just look at the second noble truth, to the East the problem is in the mind not the world. The West tries to deal with the problem by "fixing" the world (results vary from crusades to scientific revolution, handle with care).

I think that's part of the reason why the scientific revolution showing how insignificant we are, and the weakening of the belief in God caused such a massive void in the West which existentialists, absurdists and Co tried to fix. You hardly hear of existentialism in the East. That's because in The East there was no belief that the world needs to be fixed for us to be able to live in it, no need for mankind to be the centrepiece of the world for it to be worth it, it was always believed that the world is fine and we should just fix ourselves to deal with it. — khaled

This is just a weird and confused way of saying that religious life is spiritual and secular life is materialistic. There is no difference between East and West in this regard.

Notice how most Eastern religions don't have any sort of afterlife or "great quest" or purpose or destination baked in unlike most Western religions and myths. You can argue Nirvana is... — khaled

:lol: Yeah, you could do that.

... but a Buddhist will never tell you "You must seek Nirvana". Nirvana is a state of enlightenment but there is no pressure to get there unless one personally thinks it's worth it. Unlike heaven where the only altenative is eternal damnation. — khaled

I guess you've never heard of the 'hell realms' or being reborn as a scarabaeinae (dung beetle).

To sum, your heart appears to have been pierced by the seductive arrow of Eastern Mysticism, a rather common affliction in the West.

Your claims are oddly contradictory — praxis

Your posts are predictably of the gotcha flavor. Try developing your own ideas instead of just waiting for someone to post something you can object to.

What is that supposed to mean?

Should I cheer whatever someone posts because they merely participated, like this were a kindergarten classroom? And if that’s what you want, why have you failed to praise my contributions? Have I not made a sincere effort to correct misrepresentations about things that I think are important?

You’ve got a lot of explaining to do, Mr. Hippyhead. Or maybe this is only a gotcha thing and nothing of any substance.

Should I cheer whatever someone posts because they merely participated — praxis

I said nothing about cheering. What I did say was, develop and share your own ideas. Start some threads. Present your thesis.

Or not. If you prefer to be boring and predictably reactive, ok, they're your posts.

Well, forgive me for caring about stoicism, Buddhist meditation, CBT, the difference between religion and philosophy, and whatever else fucking bores you.

I said nothing about being bored by those topics. I said nothing about cheering posts. If you're going to be purely reactive, you could perhaps react to things I've actually said.

It looks like you've started 3 threads over the last 3 years. If you are indeed interested in those subjects, and have anything interesting to say about them, why not start some new threads where you outline your perspectives on those topics.

I said nothing about being bored by those topics. — Hippyhead

Don’t be an ass, I clearly said my caring for those topics. I’ve demonstrated that caring in this topic. I don’t care if it bores you.

I’ve demonstrated that caring in this topic. — praxis

You've demonstrated that you like other people to type things you can object to.

Humans suffer from a negativity bias which helps organisms to survive in nature by paying attention to threats. This is a considerable source of ruminative suffering (eg. what if the economy collapses and my savings is wiped out and my Christian neighbor pulls a gun on me and my parents die of covid and everybody tells me to fuck off and die)

Mindfulness helps people to diminish the suffering caused by their negativity bias and their automatic rumination. A lot of well adjusted folks might have no need to structure their lives by a ritualistic/secular mindfulness practice but at least they may be aware, via the memes of Buddhism, that there are great tools for the amelioration of mental suffering. Mindfulness works if you can make it work for you. Thank you Buddha!

:flower:

You've demonstrated that you like other people to type things you can object to. — Hippyhead

Fine, if that’s what you want to believe then be my guest.

Objecting to things that other people type makes me feel like a big dog and boosts my fragile lil ego.

Can we return to the topic now? If you have any objections thoughts about any of my objections please share, I'd love to shoot them down.

I found these:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07Z6JTB9Z/ref=sspa_dk_detail_1?psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUEzUVRIOTA3V0xSSklFJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwMTM5NjM0MjBTUlhLR1FNRDlQOSZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwNjI3OTQ0MlVPRVkyMEtWMlVQTCZ3aWRnZXROYW1lPXNwX2RldGFpbCZhY3Rpb249Y2xpY2tSZWRpcmVjdCZkb05vdExvZ0NsaWNrPXRydWU=

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1654888036/ref=sspa_dk_detail_2?psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUEzUVRIOTA3V0xSSklFJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwMTM5NjM0MjBTUlhLR1FNRDlQOSZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwMTUwMzQ0SExDTVUyMloxM01CJndpZGdldE5hbWU9c3BfZGV0YWlsJmFjdGlvbj1jbGlja1JlZGlyZWN0JmRvTm90TG9nQ2xpY2s9dHJ1ZQ==

What is truly "scientific" in psychology is debatable, considering how complex the subject matter is (humanity) and that it is studying itself. But all the topics in these books sound interesting

Switching the subject from psychology to psychiatry, I've found medication to be helpful for my bipolar symptoms. There are those out there who say psychiatry is hurtful. There is much debate about whether medication helps or hinders people who feel stuck or depressed.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Become-Schizophrenic-Biological-Psychiatry/dp/0595242995

More like a philosophy, really.

:up:

If you'll allow me to reframe the question: Which of the existing religions is closest to the spirit of philosophy? — TheMadFool

:chin:

Marxist-Communism?
Psychoanalysis?
Reformed Judaism?
Christian Atheism?
Gnostic Christianity?
Apophatic theism(s)?
Advaita Vedanta?
Theravāda (Abhidhamma) Buddhism?
Dao(jia)ism?
...

... ask 180 Proof about how pessimism is the only realistic attitude to adopt. Hint: entropy. Always indebted to you 180 Proof. — TheMadFool

:cool:

Dear 180 Proof,

How is pessimism the only realistic attitude to adopt? — praxis

@TheMadFool was referring to another thread discussion where I'd posted this quote

The only ism that has justified itself is pessimism — George Orwell

and pointed out that the total entropy - disorder - of the universe never decreases, which describes everything inexorably decaying, running down, collapsing, and freezing in "cosmic heat death" in the end. Things fall apart locally & cosmically no matter what we do (whereby "all doings", in fact, contribute to, as they themselves are manifest by, things falling apart). Asymmetry of pain over pleasure; asymmetry of breaking-destruction over making-creation; asymmetry ("arrow") of time ... loss, extinction, oblivion ... future over past.

I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away. — Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1818

(emphasis is mine)

:fire:

Nevertheless, life is not disorder. It requires order and chaos.

Life (i.e. biomes, ecosystems, technospecies), however, is somewhat more disorderly (i.e. complex and complexifying (e.g. erosion, oxidation, anthropic pollution)) than its precursors (e.g. abiotic / molecular stews or geological processes).

:up: