In many religions/philosophies there is the idea that we have an innermost desire/implicit knowledge of the 'highest good'.

Yes, or that there is an inner most part of* us which is in some way present in nirvana. Perhaps like a seed.

Going back to what I was saying about the idea that we are already in nirvana, but are blind to it. Is there an idea like this in Buddhism? as it’s an important idea for me. I can’t really remember where it came from.

* I’m thinking of the idea of a part of our being, which is not physical, or mental, but an aspect of a living being.

But perhaps you meant something different.

I was probably continuing the thought in my head following my reply to Wayfarer. Namely that we don’t know whom experiences nirvana, but in a sense, we do, as it is within us. But we don’t know that, or what we know.
It follows on perhaps from the idea that we are already in nirvana if we could but see it. We are blind to it.

I think people are still digesting what was released last week. Also there are sources you can go to find out all this stuff. But I wouldn’t start going on about that here, I would probably be painting myself as a conspiracy theorist. I would agree with what you’re suggesting here and I can understand why Epstein (of someone else) put a rope around his neck.
The Rothschild connection sounds interesting, do you have a link?

the idea of rebirth makes little sense to me.

On the contrary, I see little point in there only being one life for each being. It would be like introducing a whole lot of interesting threads and by the time of introducing one’s self to them, one is told, time is up now, before one has even begun.

I find Thanissaro Bhikkhu's approach here the easiest to understand: not-self(ing) is a strategy. We already use it anyway every day when we disidentify with things we don't want or don't like. He explains it that the Buddhist practice takes this strategy further, though.

Thankyou, that is an interesting read and I do relate to the idea of strategy here.

(I noticed the reference to a Buddhist centre in the south of France, I am familiar with one near one of my favourite villages in the South of France, Saint Leon Sur Vezere)

Thankyou, that was illuminating. I think we do know the answer to my question, but just can’t put it down on paper, it always misses the mark. But in person, a nod and a glint in the eye will suffice as a common understanding.

This is why the Buddha consistently avoids answering questions like “Is it the same person who is reborn?” or “Is it a different one?” Or for that matter “who experiences Nirvāṇa?”Such questions are posed on the basis of a false conception of the nature of self, which is why they are left unanswered.

Thanks, that chimes with how I see it and where I was heading in this line of questioning. I just wasn’t quite sure what Buddhism has to say on it.
For me the “whom” I was asking about is both (I need a word for both that is about three not two, which is why I keep mentioning the trinity*) the self, the not self and the absolute, while not actually those at all, but somewhere in the middle. That we know that “whom” intimately, but could not say who, or what we know.
So the whom is, isn’t, could not be, could not not be, the self, the not self, the universal self, the absolute. Or if you could fathom the central point between them, you would know what you know.

*I really do think in threes, not two’s.

The problem with this is that I've seen several first-hand videos (i.e the person is in the situation themselves while filming, not following up some other person's claim) of Islamic groups literally roaming streets and accosting people for their garb, what they're eating, how their women are presented and behaving etc.. across the UK

The problem with this is that it is difficult to determine what is going on in videos, or what that is saying about a community. There are a lot of videos of dubious origin circulating on social media and I mean a lot. I follow accounts on X where such videos are posted continuously day and night. Backed up by armies of followers with a political disposition to the right. Insisting all sorts of things. Usually twisting truths and spreading disinformation, hate and prejudice. Also a lot of these people are making a living posting content which their followers want to see. Giving them an incentive to continue and grow their base. So I don’t see any point going down the route of viewing this material and coming to views or opinions about real places and communities.
I follow current affairs closely in the U.K. and have a wide range of sources through which what you describe would show up and I’m not seeing it. There are always some extreme, or unusual events going on somewhere in a large and diverse population and when something that fits the bill becomes known by the above crowd, it is picked up on a broadcast far and wide on their platforms. And before you know it Farage is talking about it on the BBC, unchallenged.

Now when I look to the left of the political spectrum, the groups are far fewer in number and are usually bickering on about how Jeremy Corbyn was smeared by the establishment. Or fighting amongst themselves.

I have slews of evidence of unhinged leftists carrying out assaults, property damage and behaviours that genuinely appear to be mental illness let loose. If you want to see it, I can give it to you.

Can you define an unhinged leftist and describe the sort of behaviour you’re describing. Or provide a link (I don’t want it on DM, it needs to be here, this is what the thread is about).

We're not arguing facts here, we're talking about how people are so intensely unwillingly to see examples of their side being assholes.

I’m not seeing a two sides situation here. Are you assuming I’m on the left side? Or that there is a left right thing going on in the community?

Indeed, in one sutta the Buddha is reporter to have said that notions of self can only arise when the aggregate of feeling is present:

Yes, I think I’m getting the feeling for it now. My first thought is a reference to a transfiguration of the aspect of the self which is constituted of/in the aggregate. Also if there is a reference to ultimate meaning (paramattha), the self and not-self may lose their distinction, while in a sense remain, reconciled.

This brings me to a thought I have often had regarding Buddhist conceptions of nirvana. If the self etc is annihilated in the realisation of nirvana. Whom is experiencing the exalted state?
I know this might sound like a simplistic question, but there is a deeper issue in it. Or rather if there is total annihilation, such that all is left is a state of non-existence, whom, is, present, in it? Who, or what remains?

I’m not expecting an answer to it, particularly. Just expressing the question that immediately occurred to me on learning the Buddhist conception of nirvana.

For those interested on this peculiar view of Nirvana, I compiled some textual evidence on this post:

I had a look, but got stuck on the meaning here;

But when the Aggregates are described as empty and not-self,15 nirvana is characterized not as their opposite but as their intensification: it is ultimately empty (paramasunna) and that which has ultimate meaning (or: is the ultimate goal, paramattha, Patis II 240).

(The second paragraph in the Stephen Collins section)

Is it suggesting that ultimate meaning (paramattha) is the intensification of not-self? I can’t work it out, can you shed any light on it?

Exactly but the dogmatists will say even changing it 1% is bastardising it beyond recognition.

That is just orthodoxy, it works for some and not for others.

I have had the same arguments from most things I have learned in life, which have nothing to do with Buddhism. Most often ridiculed for 'going against the grain' and outside of the box but I have found it easy to separate the wheat from the chaff of what is good information vs. bad and irrational stuff in other areas and the proof is in the pudding when I achieve my goals in whatever thing I set out, so I don't see this as being any different.

Very much so, as I say, a strict approach will work better for some than others and a pick and mix approach for people like you and me.
I would say though about strict adherence, I found it important once or twice to go through the process of humility and obedience etc, in a controlled setting. So even for less strict adherents, it is necessary at some point.

A stronger point though, that I want to make is that our thinking mind, our sense of self, emotions, our daily being, or person is not really the one doing the work, so to speak, but a deeper watcher, or seer (we could use the word soul perhaps) within us is doing it and our surface day to day personality is only really a bystander, or like a childlike expression of our true nature. So in a very real sense, what we, as a personality, think and believe is not important. Our thinking mind is not where we are doing what is required, although it can and does play some role in the use and development of intuition.

I was just poking the troll. Sorry.

We get to watch in real time as a once-powerful empire turns into a commie shithole.

It never was Spain that was great, it was Portugal.

A lot of the other moves used by Orban would not work in the U.S. system because of the Constitutional boundaries in place (so far).

Yes, I hope so, I doubt it would work, but then I’m reminded about what authoritarian leaders do when they can’t get something to work. They just attack their own people and try at get the people to attack each other. Then all the rules can be thrown out of the window.

I think you just need some more of whatever mind altering substance you have available. Then you'll get it.

I think it’s time to play Tom Waites; The Piano has been Drinking.

Joking aside, Zeno’s paradox is an anomaly, just like infinity, they’re both anomalies thrown up by thinking. They don’t apply to the real world.

Maybe there are two kinds of worlds, one where nothing happens (I can’t describe that world), or a world where everything is in motion, everything is happening (moving), such that there isn’t anything that isn’t happening (moving). Now we’ve solved the problem of how to get from A to B, but we can’t stop now, we’re just going to have to keep moving (happening) now, add infinitum.

For God’s sake, who the hell decided to set everything in motion.

No, I just Googled images

Yes, I thought so. Joking aside, I expect anything salacious will have been redacted. But at least we will have Melania’s movie to watch instead.

Have you been leafing through those files?

Can enlightenment be achieved without appeal to any supernatural elements?

Well the problem with this is that enlightenment as an idea and a goal was introduced in a system which took the supernatural for granted*. Although, what was meant by the supernatural was very different to what is meant now. Indeed everything was so different then in every way. So in reality in the modern world, we have to reinvent it in a modern context. This may be where the root of the conflict of ideas about the supernatural and modern practice arises.

If by enlightenment you mean the awakening of your true being, or what Google describes as;

enlightenment in Eastern religions, particularly within the Indian context of Buddhism and Hinduism, refers to a profound shift in consciousness, the cessation of suffering (dukkha), and the realization of the true nature of reality. It is generally understood as an awakening from the ignorance (avidya) that binds beings to the cycle of rebirth, rather than just an intellectual achievement.

Then this can be done absent any religion, ideology, or teaching. It is a natural process which can be done in isolation. But religious teachings and practice provide a system that helps, or directs people in achieving this goal**.

My advice to you would be to view the supernatural teachings in Buddhism as symbolic, or allegorical. They provide a narrative which provides a framework, or intellectual structure that the individual can use to build a personal narrative which enables them to undertake that natural process. From what I’ve experienced from my brief foray into Buddhism, a few years ago now, is that it is the meditation based practice itself which is important here, not the religious teachings.

*I don’t want to get into discussions of religious teachings and ideology here, as I’m no expert and focus more on practice myself than studying religion.

**It is important to mention here, that to undergo this process, there are a number of stumbling blocks, which most people fail to navigate at some point along their journey and to go all the way, would require guidance of some sort. Although I think there are “naturals” who emerge from time to time in societies who get there on their own. Also, I don’t think anyone can be a candidate for enlightenment, but only those who are at a suitable point of natural development. Which in their nature would cause them to seek out a suitable school, or route to undergo the process.

but roaming enforcers of Sharia in that case (and this well before Oct 7), and in the other, roaming groups of unhinged leftists assaulting and harassing random passersby(unfortunately, I have only instagram videos for this.

These are rare extremist lone wolf, or small group actions. If we’re talking about this kind of extremism. It has been on the rise since the allied attack on Afghanistan in 2002, but really got going after the second gulf war and the rise of Isis. There has been quite a lot of activity around this, but when it comes to day to day life for the ordinary person it is an extremely rare event and doesn’t affect their lives and there are no no-go areas as suggested by Trump. Also the anti terrorism police are highly effective at monitoring and foiling these plots. I think over a 95% success rate (I don’t have the figures in front of me at the moment).
Regarding “unhinged leftists”, there is no such thing, it’s possible there are a handful in a population of 65 million, but it really doesn’t exist (Unless you are referring to climate protesters).

Regarding extreme right wing violence, there is a fare amount, it just doesn’t make the news so much these days. Remember a member of parliament (Joe Cox) was murdered by them in 2016.

Currently, there's no mutuality even of the facts admitted.

Yes, I know, it’s a highly charged issue.

The FBI just raided the Fulton County storage of election results for the 2020 election in Georgia.

looks like their looking for ways to back up Trump’s claims that it was via postal votes that the 2020 election was rigged.
It follows the pattern in the U.K. of the far right claiming voter fraud via postal votes. Something which is patently false.

I think the issue here is that social opinion is more effective

Yes, I think this is getting to the nub of it. The phenomena of the majority of the population addicted to social media, where they get their dissemination of current affairs, rather than watching BBC news, or other reputable news sources. Has resulted in a kind of Wild West of opinion, truth and world view. Where people are siloed into separate groups with very different opinions and beliefs. Where they can become indoctrinated with a particular position, or showered with self affirming content, drowning or over powering any personal ideological, or moral compass.

I think the authorities are struggling to adapt to this and politics is in turmoil because of the way it can be manipulated.

People shouldn't be interfering with other's beliefs in these ways, and we have literal roaming gangs of enforcers of political opinions, whether Islamic or Democratic (I simply don't know of any on the right at this time - if i'm ignorant, i'm ignorant).

Yes, there is some of this going on in the U.K. There are two main groups at the moment. The Islamic, anti-Jewish crowd and the far right anti-immigration crowd. (There are a handful of smaller groups, but they don’t really cut through like the main two) The Islamic crowd has been stimulated into action due to the genocide going on in Palestine and the fact that Western governments seem to be endorsing it and supplying the offender with weapons. The far right group has been mobilised by Nigel Farage over the issue of illegal immigration, which has amalgamated with the traditional right wing groups such as the BNP and the Tommy Robinson crowd.

However, I don’t see any censorship going on here. Rather a public order issue due to large and regular protests and marches. Along with some extremely violent terrorist attacks, from both sides. The tabloid media has been using this to stir up a range of angry opinions including on immigration and the idea of free speech being under attack and two tier policing. Both which may be happening in a very small number of notable cases, which are blown up into national issues by wall to wall coverage in the media.

Of course the real head that should roll here (because it won't be Trump) is Stephen Miller.

Yes, he gave ICE agents federal immunity,

To all ICE officers: You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. Anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony. You have immunity to perform your duties, and no one — no city official, no state official, no illegal alien, no leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist — can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations and duties. The Department of Justice has made clear that if officials cross that line into obstruction, into criminal conspiracy against the United States or against ICE officers, then they will face justice."

https://www.fox9.com/news/trump-adviser-stephen-miller-tells-ice-have-federal-immunity-when-dealing-protesters

Thanks for the comments. I do agree with what you say about free speech on social media. As it’s a new thing, and society and the authorities are still sorting out how they will react and use it. I do see it as somewhere between private and published. A grey area perhaps.

Im saying I don’t care. I do not recognize/accept your exclusion of published material as separate from free speech. Free speech isnt about how many people are reached. I make no distinction between public or private free speech on this matter.

Well ideally I would agree with you here. But there are differences in the effects of the speech on the public. So there is a difference. Also, I am a cartoonist in my spare time, I know there are no-go areas, even if I am only disseminating them to close friends, or family. But I don’t feel my freedom of speech to be restricted. I know there are taboo words, or opinions and there always have been. There is no absolute free speech within a society. Also within all the people I know, I haven’t seen any evidence of anyone’s free speech being restricted (other than in the case of long established taboo areas) and no one has ever told me, their free speech is being restricted.

As Ive said, incitement and libel. The “spectrum of material” has to be directly and clearly one of those otherwise my stance is it should not be restricted.
Certainly not jokes and certainly not opinion, whatever they may be.

The use of explicit material, such as revenge porn, grooming of minors and online fraud which also interest the police.

There is also gaslighting, manipulation of the Overton window and the manipulation of elections. The corruption of politics. Which can occur. Areas which are of no interest to the police, at this time.

Going back to the cartoons, there is a famous cartoonist I follow on X, who inadvertently included an anti-Semitic trope in a cartoon a couple of years ago. He was chastised in the media, had to give serious apologies and nearly lost his job for a national newspaper. And yet, nothing illegal was done and the police would not have any interest in it. I can give many more examples like this. None of them cases where censorship was enacted by the authorities. But where there is often some kind of chastisement by society. As there has been in one form or another throughout history.

So I’m still not seeing these new restrictions of the freedom of speech. Care to give an example?

In either case though (lets assume that every case is a publication issue) that is still clearly wrong in a democratic, adult society. Particularly one where, increasingly, use of social media is akin to talking shit with at the pub. It’s a bit of a category error to capture social media posts by non-public figures with that i think (but this is just my opinion).

Yes, agreed. There probably does need to be a distinction made between the two.

Its not like that at all, no one is forcing people to read and listen to published material so your analogy fails.

For the analogy to work, it only has to demonstrate that more people will be exposed to the material than if it were expressed in private. It is self evident. Or are you saying publishing speech doesn’t reach a wider audience?

Not opinions, jokes or pugs doing the nazi salute (yes, even to a wide audience) are not. Indeed the police have more important things to do, such as preventing murder or rape.

Yes and the police will do their job. I would think that the police would only look into it after a specific public order issue has been brought to their attention.

I agree that some content on social media is harmless when it reaches a wider audience. But there is a spectrum of material and there is a clear phenomena of populists, or bad actors, for whatever reason exploiting the process. This is also on the police’s radar.

There is also a pattern emerging in these debates. It only seems to be issues given publicity by the right wing press, or populists groups where there is a free speech concern. When the speech doesn’t not fit these agendas, it is of no concern. Indeed it is often the same people who might start saying this other speech should be restricted. It’s odd that, isn’t it?

Correction, freedom to publish.

I just dont buy the distinction as I’ve already stated

Cool, that’s your prerogative. I didn’t see an issue particularly when I first took to social media. But then I kept hearing stories of posters being sued for defamation. Then I realised that posting on social media is legally a form of publishing. To publish speech is to amplify it, meaning that large numbers of people will hear it. This makes it a special kind of free speech, the freedom to communicate what you have to say to large numbers of people. It’s like walking around in a crowd of people with a loud haler shouting everything you’re thinking, so that everyone there has to hear it.
Now we are free to say anything we want to our friends and our family, even a stranger. There are no laws against it. This is free speech. But should we also be free to shout it through a loud haler in a crowded place? Is this a necessary part of free speech? Or should free speech include the freedom to publish in a paper, or broadcast on the TV anything I want to say, whenever I like?

“May” be “risk” of incitement or abuse (huh?) is flimsy and weak as a basis for authoritarian control.

Well the police have a role to play in society, they are experts at their job and that job includes maintaining public order, amongst many other things.

You can say anything you like, or teach your dog anything you like in private, or in a non public space. When you do it in a public space there may be a risk of incitement, or abuse, of others, such as vulnerable groups sharing that space. The authorities will police those spaces with an eye to public order. On most occasions the risk is low, so the authorities will not intervene.

When it comes to publishing the law is more strict because the extent of exposure could increase exponentially and is unpredictable.

The one redeeming quality of the Sudanese government is that it isn't clever enough to hide its incompetency and corruption, and therefore no one views it as a vessel for meaningful change.

He’s talking about naturalised Sudanese U.S. citizens, who are being targeted by ICE.

Agreed. It’s actually far worse than what we’re hearing.

There are lots of people who would be of interest to ICE hold up in their houses in Minneapolis having to have food delivered by friends. They’re too scared to go outside.

They’re rough people, in many cases from jails, prisons, from mental institutions, insane asylums. You know, insane asylums, that’s ‘Silence of the Lambs’ stuff. ... Hannibal Lecter, anybody know Hannibal Lecter?”

You know where he got the idea that many of them come from insane asylums. They’re asylum seekers. Who came from asylums.

I agree with your premise, but would suggest that this system is better than all the others (except perhaps some forms of socialism, which are rarely successful).

Democracy is about preventing authoritarian control of a population. What the political party’s do when they get into office is not all that important, provided the democratic principle is maintained.

We have a different problem when it comes to money. Capitalism has turned toxic, big finance strips out opportunity for small players to compete. The middle classes are becoming squeezed leaving the super rich and the poor (people who are struggling to keep their heads above water). This kind of polarisation is destructive.

So…no problem with free speech to see here.

I answered that earlier in the thread;

As a person on the ground I can’t think of any speech, which wasn’t already taboo, being restricted in the population. What there is is some cancellation in University speaking events around sensitive issues such as gender, transsexuality, issues which have been exploited by the populists and some political correctness around these issues in institutions. These are limited circumstances and forums, while the public at large has no restriction at all on their free speech.

If you can give an example of speech which is becoming more restricted I’d be interested to know. Then we would have something to debate.

is mindset, his symbolism, and his rhetoric all underscore the point he made to The New York Times this month: his own mind and morality are the only limits on his global power. This is Fascism 101.

Except he’s a Klutz, just look at his performance at Davos. Mark Rutte patted him on the back and pretended to make a deal, so Trump could save face.
Also he’s in cognitive decline, with contenders for the top spot starting to jostle behind him. The MAGA base isn’t big enough to keep the show on the road, once Trump is out of the picture.

The parallels with Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party in the U.K. are there. It all fell apart like a cheap suit and the party imploded. The rats are fleeing the sinking ship and joining the Reform Party.

There isn’t a hard right alternative in the U.S., where will they flee to?

You haven't given a reply to my post about Trump's fascism

He’s a troll, best left alone.

So…no problem to see here.

That’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying it isn’t about free speech, but rather about public order and the authorities grappling with the recent developments in social media. While trying not to get drawn into political rows.

Riots are the “public order” issue. Peoples feelings do not justify violence. Public order is maintained through laws other than free speech laws, like no rioting and violence and looting.

And the riots were incited through social media groups and the tabloid press. Now what are the police supposed to do about that? Just sit back and let the mob just roam around on the streets?

In the U.K. the authorities seem powerless when the ring leaders are politicians, or Media moguls. Either there aren’t the requisite powers in place, or they won’t go near them for fear of a backlash and greater public disorder.

It is commonplace for the authorities to label an issue political and then just leave it alone taking no action. So rather than the authorities clamping down, or repressing free speech. The opposite is happening. Political free speech is left alone, even when it is inciting a breakdown in public order, or crossing a line into racial prejudice. Leaving the authorities only able to deal with offenders when they commit criminal offences.

This is where the breakdown is happening. So infact free speech is alive and well in the U.K. and now includes incitement, where it is labelled political and racism because it’s alright for people to be racist if they have legitimate concerns about immigration. Infact it seems to be a greater offence in the media space for someone to accuse someone of being racist, than to actually be racist.

Only one South American country and two African countries. That’s a poor turnout, it looks as though South America and Africa favour China in the shakedown.

The UK is fucked on free speech. It’s insane so many refuse to even admit there is a problem, but humans are gonna human what can you do?

It isn’t, it’s a culture war fabrication whipped up by the tabloid media and populists.