But why are people so easily duped to being with? — Mikie

They aren't duped. They are that way to begin with.

I stil however have to see a fully convincing explanation of this. — boundless

This seems to be part of the problem: Thinking that it's about becoming convinced through an explanation. You know how it goes: Don't go by reports, traditions, logical conjecture ...

The denial is apparent when you consider that the text clearly asserts that the aggregates, sense bases etc and Nirvana are 'known' whereas the 'self' isn't. Just to make an example from the Kathavatthu:

At dissolution of each aggregate.
If then the “person” doth disintegrate,
Lo! by the Buddha shunned, the Nihilistic creed.
At dissolution of each aggregate.
If then the “soul” doth not disintegrate.
Eternal, like Nibbāna, were the soul indeed. — boundless

There's absence of evidence. That's not yet evidence of absence.

If the Theravadins (or rather, their 'ancestors') believed that a third option was possible, it was good time to make it clear but they didn't.

There is still the possibility of a placeholder self, for example. A placeholder that can be filled later on, insight permitting.

Either the self is knowable and can be described as permanent or impermanent or it is unknowable precisely because it doesn't exist (except as an illusion).

Well, what would it do to you to consider yourself in those ways, and to base those considerations solely on reports, traditions, logical conjecture, deference to authority?

BTW, here is another excerpt from the later commentarial text Visuddhimagga:

So in many hundred suttas it is only mentality-materiality that is illustrated,
not a being, not a person. Therefore, just as when the component parts such as
axles, wheels, frame poles, etc., are arranged in a certain way, there comes to be
the mere term of common usage “chariot,” yet in the ultimate sense when each
part is examined there is no chariot—and just as when the component parts of
a house such as wattles, etc., are placed so that they enclose a space in a certain
way, there comes to be the mere term of common usage “house,” yet in the ultimate
sense there is no house—and just as when the fingers, thumb, etc., are placed in
a certain way, there comes to be the mere term of common usage [594] “fist,”—
with body and strings, “lute”; with elephants, horses, etc., “army”; with
surrounding walls, houses, states, etc., “city”—just as when trunk, branches,
foliage, etc., are placed in a certain way, there comes to be the mere term of
common usage “tree,” yet in the ultimate sense, when each component is
examined, there is no tree—so too, when there are the five aggregates [as objects]
of clinging, there comes to be the mere term of common usage “a being,” “a
person,” yet in the ultimate sense, when each component is examined, there is
no being as a basis for the assumption “I am” or “I”; in the ultimate sense there
is only mentality-materiality. The vision of one who sees in this way is called
correct vision.
(same chapter quoted in the previous post of mine, par. 28)

It is evident to me that this is saying that the 'self' is illusory because it is a composite entity and all the composite entities are illusory. Only what is irriducible is regarded as ultimately real. I can't see how this is saying anything different.

With an emphasis on the Visuddhimagga being a later text.

I agree with you that the suttas are less 'clear' on how to interpret anatman than the commentarial texts and a pragmatic view that you seem to endorse is perhaps compatible with them. And yes, I agree with all you're saying that the point of the teaching of anatman/anatta is to dis-identify with what normally we identify without however identifying with something else. This is compatible with a 'pragmatic view' of anatman, a denial of it and perhaps even the Pudgalavada's indeterminate self view. I believe that it is not a chance that even Buddhists disagree on how to interpret the suttas. They aren't clear as one would think them to be.

However, the explicit denial of the self is a time honoured interpretation, not just a bad 'Western reading' that introduces extraneous metaphysical categories.

Yes, of course, I'm aware that the mainstream Buddhist party line is "there is no self."

That's my point. Kamma simply breaks down if you don't assume persisting agents.

How?
The fact that there is an agent at all is due to kamma. The agent and kamma are not somehow separate, there can't be one without the other.

So one can have reasonable doubts about the consistency of Buddhism.

Or perhaps that currently being unenlightened one might not fully understand it yet ...

Rather than 'rebirth', the thing that is IMO at odds with anatta is kamma itself. If one takes kamma very seriously then and also accepts that Nibbana is the end of kamma, one automatically thinks of Nibbana in annihilationist terms.

And yet one can also stop oneself from thinking that way.

So, how can one truly arrive to a state that supposedly is freed from thinking in 'personal' terms if one takes kamma seriously?

By focusing on the present moment ...

Look, I'm not being glib here. I think a major problem that many people, esp. Westerners have with Buddhism is that they think too far ahead, try to commit to too much at once. I think a crucial part of "spiritual work" is to fight for one's "breathing space", literally, instead of trying to force oneself into some preexisting box of "how I'm supposed to think, feel, speak, and do as an aspiring Buddhist."

Many people who have an interest in Buddhism are inadvertedly shaping their involvement with Buddhism in line with the expectations they have picked up from Western culture in general, or from Christianity in specific. Ie. "You have to figure it all out within a foreseeable time, and then you have to commit to it for the rest of your life."

The scary thing is not to do it that way, but to take one's time, and space. I've seen all too many people who are into Buddhism, who go all in early on, and then they spend decades playing catch up to their commitment. My personal experience has been that giving myself time and space has a marvelous effect on my ability to think things through. And not just a weekend here and there, but months, years, too. Of course, this cost me all my Buddhist "friends".

A pithy saying says that differentiation is an illusion, and that for things to exist separately, it is only necessary to name them.
— baker

This is very good for a monistic view where all differentiations collapses in one real entity (like Advaita Vedanta) or even a Madhyamaka view where all differentiations ultimately are negated without however an 'ultimate entity' that remains. I'm not sure that this can be accepted by a 'traditional' Theravadin that follows the 'Abhidhammic' tradition.

I don't know what else to say to your question ...

Yes, I see three options:
1) there is a 'true nature' that is real and spiritual practice aims at perfecting it
2) there is a 'true nature' that is real and spiritual practice aims at replacing it with something else
3) there is no 'true nature' and the aim of the spiritual practice aims at recognizing it

Alternative (2) would imply an annihilation, so I'm not sure how it can be motivating unless one wants to annihilate oneself. (3) seems to be closer to the Buddhist view. However, I believe that conceptually has its problems (how to explain regularities, responsibility/karma) and so on. (1) has the big advantage that sees spiritual life as a sort of 'perfecting' oneself even it that means to 'die to oneself' in some sense.
To be honest, I see (1) as the most motivating here because it explicitly says that there is a continuity between 'me' and the 'final state'.

I still can't see why you think that it automatically leads to 'laziness'. I mean, you can still have to make much effort to reach the 'final state' even if it is somehow the fulfillment of the 'true nature'.

If you currently don't know what exactly your true nature is, this means you have to go by what someone else told you or what you concluded through reasoning. Meaning that at the core of your spiritual practice you're placing something that is uncertain. Sure, it may look nice and worthwhile, but is it true? You don't know that yet. It is my thesis that this has a demotivating effect, and that according to the suttas, there is a way around that.

What about zazen which emphases that meditation is 'just sitting' and that this is all that is required to achieve it which would imply that no metaphysical beliefs are necessary? — unimportant

Whatcha waiting for?! The zafu's waiting!

It is not just meditation as whole school emphasises this sudden enlightenment approach.

Never underestimate the Zen folks. That's a whole other kind.

- What happens if women do not want to be provided for or protected by men. — I like sushi

Surely there are women who "do not want to be provided for or protected by men".
But probably the more prevalent situation is "women who realize that an increasing number of men cannot be counted on to provide and protect."

So, if women do not have children and they have a drive to nurture and care for children, then how might this present itself in modern life? — I like sushi

They become Karens.
But hopefully, they just become old ladies with cats.

The evidence from cases like Pam Reynolds or the Toulouse amputation — Sam26

It would be absolutely bizarre to believe in some kind of "life after death" based on the narratives of a few people who had NDE's.
The topic of "life after death" is far too important to rely on testimonial evidence of strangers.


I have an NDE. In some regards, it's similar to the standard descriptions: looking at myself from the outside, feeling warm, insight into meaning of life. But all in all, it was a miserable experience. My own NDE leads me to consider the possibility that people's narratives about their NDE primarily have to do with their overall situation in life at the time, reflecting their beliefs, wishes, concerns -- as opposed to being something they've experienced for the first time in that traumatic situation.

I'd be interested to hear the NDE narratives of people living in dysfunctional life situations. I predict they would be quite similar, and characteristically different from those of the NDE narratives of people living orderly lives.

The "immaterial" components persist.
Well Buddhists do a very good job of not mentioning this. Is this one of the things they don’t give an answer to? — Punshhh

I can't answer for them.

Also is this how a person’s Karmic record is linked to their next incarnation?

Yes.

I’m no Buddhist scholar, but it seems to me from what I’ve heard and read over the years that Buddhism does include pretty much all the cosmogony of Hinduism, but behaves as though it doesn’t exist. Is silent on the issue and assumes a spiritual, or divine ground, while sometimes denying there is one, or refusing to discuss it.

Because divinity, in Buddhism, is nothing particularly special or worth aspiring to (even the devas are not enlightened). As for "assuming a divine ground" -- are you thereby refering to creation by Brahma?

In a nutshell the self is an embodied, individuated expression of divinity.

Mhm.

I'm not talking about an external spiritual teacher, but a development within one’s self. Remember Buddha nature, there is an inviolable bit of one’s self. That is the teacher, or intuition*.A school in the external world and a life in the world are necessary and for most a mentor is required. It is a dance, a journey, with many roots in the path to trip up on.

This doesn't sound promising.

If we restrict ourselves only to the Theravada, what about the very long first chapter of the Kathavatthu, a commentarial text included in the Pali Canon (TBH, I haven't read the whole thing but it is a lengthy denial of the existence of the 'person')? — boundless

And where is there denial?
It says that the controverted point is "That the “person” is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact."
It's about how a person can be known and whether it can be known as a real and ultimate fact. And even the puggalavadin says it can't.
That's not denial of person or soul, that's saying it cannot be known as a real and ultimate fact. This is neither pedantry nor avoidance, although some claim it is. It just says what it says, and one shouldn't make unwarranted inferences.

Perhaps one of the crucial points in Eastern philosophy in general is its use of the ex negativo approach: defining something by what it is not, or otherwise using negation. (Hence also all the terms beginning with a(n)- (such as ahimsa, alobha, adosa, amoha), which often make for strange sounding translations into English and other Western languages.)

The fifth century Visuddhimagga also has this impressively reductionist view about this topic and quotes an equally reductionist earlier commentary (now lost):

Therefore, just as a marionette is void, soulless and without curiosity, and
while it walks and stands merely through the combination of strings and wood,
yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness, so too, this mentality-materiality
is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands
merely through the combination of the two together, yet it seems as if it had
curiosity and interestedness. This is how it should be regarded. Hence the
Ancients said:

"The mental and material are really here,
But here there is no human being to be found,
For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll—
Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks."
(Visuddhimagga, Part 3, ch.28, 31; bold mine)

(As a side note, this is different from modern reductionism that deny the reality of consciousness. Here it is denying the existence of the self. But still, when I read it I was surprised on how reductionist Buddhist texts can be)

Mahayana texts can be even more reductionist, to say nothing of the reductionism of pop Buddhism.

And what about this passage from an early sutta: "Bhikkhus, since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established" (from MN 22)? Isn't this after all a denial of atman?

No, it's says just that: that a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established. Which I agree with. For the life of me, I can't apprehend as true and established a self and what belongs to a self. What I see is the body of a person, I'm aware there is a concept that this is a person, I'm aware that there is a popular consensus that this is a person. But can those things properly be regarded as the self? I don't see how.

Who am I? What am I? Whatever I can think of as answers to these questions, I can't think of anything that I would find satisfying. Whatever answer I can think of, or whatever answer some other people want to impose on me, is something that I feel miserable about, a disappointment. I imagine that "my true self" would be something I feel happy and confident about, and not a source of misery. And if it's a source of misery, why insist on it??

A contextual point here is that traditional Buddhism (as per the suttas), is only really appealing to those who have become considerably fed up with life as it is usually lived. It's not clear that one will stick around Buddhism for long if one is only curious about it. One has to have some sense of samvega for traditional Buddhism to be appealing. (It's actually very strange that Buddhism grew into a religion at all.)

Of course, you can go on with a Pudgalavada view or perhaps bikkhu Thanissaro's practical view of anatta but telling that Buddhism hasn't usually deny the existence of the self is weird.

No, it's just accurate, as far as the Pali Canon goes. And of course, in practice, Buddhists of all varieties often claim "there is no self", but they can't provide a canonical scriptural reference for that claim if their life depended on it. It's an ongoing dispute in Buddhist circles, too.

Kamma is what makes you.
— baker

If so, then, when kamma ceases, I am annihilated.

In roundabout, yes.

Provisionally, this is might true for Buddhists. But ultimately, most would deny it.

Who would deny it? Most people in general, or most Buddhists?

It looks like you're trying to fit Buddhism into the metaphysical categories you're already familiar with.
— baker

I disagree. I can't exclude it but to be honest Buddhist themselves seem to have debated in similar terms.

We could look into those in detail ... but time is of the essence.

Held accountable by whom? A Jehovah-like judge god? A galactic court of law? Whom?
— baker

I'm not necessarily positing it in legalistic terms. But any kind of moral theory seems to posit persistent (either temporal or everlasting) agents.

So does the theory of kamma.

Perhaps not. However, TBH, I think that Buddhist critiques of the self assume that their opponents accept a static self of some sorts.

Well, because that's just what they often do, the same as 80-year old you below.

What about thinking the self as a river, i.e. something that stays the same precisely because in some respects it is always changing in some ways?

Like the ship of Theseus analogy?
This is actually in line with the Buddhist notion of self as a process, an activity, changing throughout rebirths, but somehow staying the same.

I see, but then one might ask why there is a multiplicity in the first place. This is not an objection to what you have said here and it tells more about me than anything else. But one is left wondering about how differentiation originated in the first place.

A pithy saying says that differentiation is an illusion, and that for things to exist separately, it is only necessary to name them.

Sure. But the true-nature theory would have us believe that we don't have to make any big, life-changing decisions, that it's somehow enough if we just "follow our hearts", and that if we "do our best", this will somehow suffice and we are sure to become enlightened.
— baker

Well, yes, perhaps this is a danger for the 'true-nature' views. But what about the opposite view? If I believe that the 'final' state is something 'alien' to my own nature, how can I not conclude that the 'final state' entails a replacement of 'me' with 'something else'? To me this other view would completely render spiritual life meaningless because, at the end of the day, the 'realized' would be a different 'entity' from me.

This is still assuming a "true nature" throughout it all. How can you not conclude that the 'final state' entails a replacement of 'you' with 'something else'? Because you believe that you have your own nature. It's how any belief about "true nature" hinders you in one way or another, by making you complacent or despondent. It doesn't really matter what in particular one believes that one's "true nature" is; as long as one believes on "has a true nature", this will be hindersome in some way.

Regarding what you say about Protestants and Roman Catholics, it is arguably the reverse. I believe that even someone like Thomas Aquinas would say that the 'visio beatifica' is the ultimate fulfillment of human nature, whereas many protestants would retort and say that there is a greater discontinuity between our fallen nature and the state of the blessed, in a way to imply a sort of complete and discontinuous transformations. But to be honest, I think that you can't make such a kind of general statement for both traditions (in the same way that one can't say that, for instance, all Theravadins nowadays agree on how to interpret Nibbana, anatta etc).

Like I said, the issue at hand is the personal conviction of one's salvation or enlightenment. If one believes that one's salvation or enlightenment is guaranteed, one will not be motivated to practice toward salvation or enlightenment. (Upthread, we were discussing motivation for practice.)

I personally think I am truly the same person. If not, holding the 80 years old me accountable wouldn't make sense.

In a legal, worldly way, of course it makes sense. But beyond that? Should we take worldly standards as the ultimate standards? Why?
If "who I really I am" is what worldly standards claim that I am, then that puts me into a hopeless situation. Now why would I freely resign myself to that??

If enlightenment is somehow a part of our nature, then this means that it's inevitable that we will somehow become enlightened and that no effort is required of us in this direction
— baker

Just wanted to comment on this. I think this is wrong. Consider for instance the potency of an infant to grow up in an adult or the potency of a person to learn a skill or a subject. You can say that such a potency is intrinsic to the infant but can't be actualized without the agent efforts and also the aid of others. Likewise for the second example. — boundless

Sure. But the true-nature theory would have us believe that we don't have to make any big, life-changing decisions, that it's somehow enough if we just "follow our hearts", and that if we "do our best", this will somehow suffice and we are sure to become enlightened.

However, if 'potency for enlightnment' isn't an essential property of a being, then arguably 'enlightnment' would be like transforming a rabbit to a volcano, i.e. doing a transformation that completely lacks any intelligible continuity.

Again, sure. But the true-nature theory is overstating the case. Namely, that if you have the potential to become enlightened, it's somehow guaranteed that you'll become enlightened.

Traditional Buddhism is in this somewhat similar to Roman Catholicism; in RC, the person cannot be sure until the end whether they are in fact saved or not; in contrast, there are Protestant churches where a person is considered saved from the moment they are baptized. In RC, you're regarded as having the potential for salvation, but you won't know until the end, there are no guarantees; in some Protestantisms, you're sure of your salvation from the onset.

The issue at hand is this personal conviction of one's salvation or enlightenment. The true-nature theory and the Protestantisms are keeping one confident and thus comparably lazy, in comparison to traditional Buddhism and Roman Catholicism, where one is always on one's toes until the end.

I would say that a similar thing IMO happens with moral responsibility. It doesn't seem possible to me to consistently believe that 'provisionally' you remain tbe same person and hence responsible for past actioms and also believe that ultimately this is illusory.

To give a mundane example: Suppose you killed someone when you were 20 years old. Somehow, the police didn't catch you then; you escaped, moved to a different town, changed your name. Now you're 80 years old, and the police come knocking on your door.
Are you the same person at the age of 80 as you were when you were 20? Only provisionally.

I wasn't denying that Buddhism accepts moral agency and moral responsibility. I was questioning how the latter concept can be consistent with a denial of unchanging (either temporary or eternal) identity. — boundless

Denial of self, denial of atman, denial, denial, denial. Where do you get this? What is your source for learning about Buddhism?

In the Pali suttas, the Buddha never says "there is no self", even when asked directly, he is silent (as has already been quoted in this thread). But he goes to great lengths to list what is _not fit_ to be regarded as the self.
Have you thought about this concept of something not being fit to be regarded as the self?

If there is such unchanging identity I can't see how one can attribute accountability. TBH, all the arguments that I have encountered from Buddhists have failed to persuade me. I have found them as more like attempts to rationalize the denial of an unchanging self by trying to explain moral responsibility in terms of mere continuity. For instance, if I do a 'bad action' I leave a damage in the successive instances of my mind-streams which might ripen in a future lifetime. However, if I at the same time hold that "it is incorrect to say that it will be me that suffer from these consequences because there is no fixed identity" I would be correct to say that if there is no unchanging self, it would be not 'just' for the 'future being' to experience the results of 'my' actions.

Kamma is what makes you.

The Pudgalavada posited an indeterminate self to explain these issues. However, I think that my other argument also applies to them.
If there are no essences that constraint the ways in which a sentient being might exist, why are there regularities at all? If there are no essences, why does an acorn give rise to an oak tree rather than an apple tree? In other words: if anatman is interpreted as denying essences or even essences with determinate defining characteristics, why do we observe regularities?

It looks like you're trying to fit Buddhism into the metaphysical categories you're already familiar with.

If there is no unchanging identity, how can one be held accountable? — boundless

Held accountable by whom? A Jehovah-like judge god? A galactic court of law? Whom?


If you're asking how come there is a legal system, complete with the punishment system, in traditionally Buddhist countries, then that's another question.

OK. I know that. I stil however have to see a fully convincing explanation of this.

If you're waiting to be convinced, then you're possibly in for a very long wait.

I can see that but indeed we are 'unique', right? Individual differences are undeniable even among animals, let alone humans. This does suggest that there is 'something' that distinguishes individuals.

Of course. But are those things fit to be regarded as your self? Is, say, the amount of melanin in your skin somehow definitive of who you are?

And to be honest, if there isn't anything essential to individuals, how differentiations in separate 'mind-streams' is even possible?

In about the same way as you can make differently shaped biscuits out of the same dough.

I do respect Buddhism and find it fascinating - both Theravada and Mahayana. However, I have intellectual and practical doubts and concerns that keep me outside.
Regarding the last sentence, I see it more as evidence that people hardly take some teachings seriously rather than they shouldn't be taken seriously even if those people belong to a tradition and perhaps are even 'intellectualy' convinced that these teachings should be taken seriously. In other words, cognitive dissonance seems to be very widespread.

Once I've seen Buddhist Trumpistas, it made me doubt how well I understood Buddhism. I mean, I know Buddhists who understand Pali, who can quote the suttas and all kinds of Buddhist texts far better than I, and yet they are Trumpistas. Things like that make me think there is something about the big picture of Buddhism that I don't understand, even though I'm quite confident that I have a measure of understanding of the teachings from the Pali Canon.

Up until the point of reminding one's self there's always more to know — Outlander

If people would only study primary religious texts as a primary source, many problems they proclaim to have with said religion would go away. Instead they tend to rely on hearsay, or tertiary sources at best, and then, quite predictably, there is confusion and frustration and ill will and dismissal ...

Granted, unlike the Bible or the Kuran, the Pali Canon hasn't been around in readily available translation for that long. But it is now, and there is no reason not to reference to it.

Just to clarify, you're claiming that, judging from what I've posted so far in this topic, I'm thinking in terms of reincarnation, not rebirth. I asked how you arrived at that conclusion from what I've written in this topic so far and your answer is that you "distinguish between rebirth and reincarnation." — praxis

Earlier, you said that "we" keep getting reborn. I asked you who is "we", and you won't tell me. You also won't define what you believe is the self and what a living being.

Do I have to ask you three times ...

I agree that humans being reborn as animals, even insects, makes little sense even within the doctrine of karma. — Janus

In fact, that's where the idea comes from to begin with, and this is where it does make sense.

Buddhism altogether lacks any metaphysical force insofar as it lacks any capacity to explain the world we experience in common.

According to traditional Buddhism, the Buddha taught only one thing: suffering and the end of suffering. That's all. Whatever worldly (or supernatural) benefits one might obtain through practicing the Path are incidental to the Path, not integral to it. Traditional Buddhism isn't interested in explaining "the world we experience in common", that has never been its scope, even though especially later, some have tried to make it part of its scope.

According to traditional Buddhism, you're either interested in making an end to suffering, or you aren't. And if you aren't, then what are you doing around someone who clearly states that suffering and the end of suffering is all he teaches?

Wouldn't it be better to say "intelligibility is our response to being"? — Ludwig V

How is it that people typically prefer to say
"This doesn't make sense"
and
"You're not making any sense"

as opposed to
"I don't understand this"
"I don't understand you"
?

Why externalize and say that intelligibility is somehow "out there", immanent to things, as opposed to being something we do, or that it is simply possible for humans to understand things?

So who are these arguments for?

The only answer that makes sense to me—one where there would be genuine consequences for the success of the argument—is believers who have somehow become "natural science curious". Here, Hart's arguments could find real purchase, and keep that little sheep from straying, or, rather, bring the sheep that has already strayed back into the fold.

I can't think of anyone else who would be interested and would take seriously what he has to say. — Srap Tasmaner

I can: People who try to make sense of the traumatic experiences they've had with theists.

When I'm reading this thread, I feel relief, finally, especially as I read Joshs' earlier post:

Hart rejects naive naturalism in favor of an even more naive divine naturalism. — Joshs

This is the first time that I'm able to make sense of why my interactions as a non-theist with theists are so straining and frustrating (to say the least). (And I know I'm not the only one.)

To me, a crucial part about philosophy is looking into how holding a particular worldview, a particular philosophy plays out in interpersonal interactions. Because this is where it matters.

The odd part there is that in studying philosophy one can also learn to do the opposite -- to defend one's viewpoint from all possible objections and prove oneself right. — Moliere

Yes.

I find it is extremely rare to find people who take one's expression of one's feelings, opinions, and experiences as in fact one's expression of one's feelings, opinions, and experiences. Because most people tend to take them as criticism and judgment.
— baker

This seems confused. Do you mean its rare to find people who hear other people's opinions and feelings, and read them as such? — AmadeusD

Of course.

Why not simply be assertive? Textbook assertiveness pretty much does away with the majority of the problems brought up in this thread
— baker

I cannot understand what you're driving at here, I am sorry. Assertive about what? Which party in the above tension? Being assertive against someone who claims 'my truth' either results in circular nonsense, as, fair enough, this thread became - or violence.

Where do you live that you have not heard about assertiveness?

If all involved would use I-messages, the conflict would either go away, or be shaped into something solvable. Alas, people don't seem to be fond of assertiveness ...

What are you talking about? Not incredulousness, I just have no clue what you're talking about. I do not know of any prison anywhere who would let any inmate walk out in the way you describe.

Some people get to live the Trumpian dream ...

Or when a judge asks you a question with a double negative and demands you to answer it with only a yes or no; and when you ask for a clarification or answer with a full sentence, he threatens to hold you in contempt of the law.
— baker

Are you able to provide it? I have never seen a judge do something similar, and not have their judgment recalled at a later date. It is not a contempt of court to not answer a question. You have every right (in a criminal case. If you're not talking Criminal many other considerations to consider).

It's not in English and the records are not available online.

If you refuse to sign it, you're taken to the police station where trouble ensues, and you have to hire a lawyer and so on. (And forget about free legal representation. It's virtually impossible to qualify for that here.)
— baker

Where do you live? This seems to me a gross misunderstanding of any related practices i've ever come across. Would be interested to see what the policies are. Particularly given your description of a document for signing is Federally illegal in most states I'm aware of.

Welcome to the EU!

Bottomline, my point is that for some -- many -- people, the experience with how the law is practiced is quite dismal, and it's a good example of "my truth" vs. "their truth".

Is demanding a one-size-fits-all truth the sign of maturity or a kind of childish tantrum in the face of perspectives that don’t fit neatly into the established norms?
— Joshs

The former, as far as I'm concerned, without question. It is the child who refuses to accept their position is wrong because they want to hold on to it. — AmadeusD

In other words, this comes down to might makes right.
A child doesn't accept another person's position because that person would "be right", but because that person is in some position of power over the child.

(And to begin with, the dispute between the two probably arose because the older person was using their position of power against the child in some way.)

Can two competing beliefs both be right? Is demanding a one-size-fits-all truth the sign of maturity or a kind of childish tantrum in the face of perspectives that don’t fit neatly into the established norms? — Joshs

Considering what goes on in politics nowadays, it's prudent to rethink this. That many people in positions of such great power cannot simply be written off as childish or throwing tantrums.

Have you asked anyone whether their feelings about an issue have changed and what made them change? What if they respond that their feelings express their personal assessment of the meaning of something, and they can reassess the basis of that assessment such as to change the resultant feelings? Would you respond that their personal assessment must be open to critique from the vantage of third personal criteria of objective empirical truth in order to be valid? — Joshs

Ha ha. That's exactly the situation I was in with a Christian "friend". We were talking about our relationship, and yet he expected me to prove, objectively, that my feelings on the matter mattered. !!!! He actually said he expected me to quote reputable sources. Seriously.

To label a generation as narcissistic is to stop construing their ways of framing situations and start condemning.

When a teenager pushes me away and cuts in front of me in the waiting line at the grocery store, what is this?
Should this behavior be applauded?

The rise of “my truth” may not simply be narcissism run amok, but evidence of people experimenting, sometimes clumsily, with ways of owning their constructions while navigating pluralism. The task, then, is not to shame those experiments, but to ask which ones expand the range of anticipation and which ones constrict it.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your perspective here. But there is such a thing as too much empathy, having too much understanding for others. This is when that empathy starts to destroy you, put you in disadvantageous positions.

If I say my truth about my own gender is unique to me, is that an opinion or true? — Joshs

You can say it is true, while there are esp. religious people who say it's merely your opinion.
So now what?

Isnt this even more the case with political, spiritual , ethical, psycho-sexual and gender attitudes? Do any two people interpret the meaning of these domains in exactly the same way. And what are the implications of this for navigating the day to day conflicts among family, friends and strangers? Should we scoff at the idea that the source of interpersonal conflicts and disagreements is often the result of different perspectives on the truth of situations? Do we then look to find the one objectively correct interpretation that must apply to everyone?

Or do we recognize that each individual perspective is a valid datum that must not be discarded when trying to reach between-person understanding? — Joshs

Oddly enough, there is a mode of communication called "assertiveness" that is supposed to address and solve precisely this problem. It's not particularly popular, and when one uses it, it's usually interpreted to be either a mark of weakness or too aggressive.

Do you mean whoever is the best lawyer wins, regardless of truth? — AmadeusD

I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to how the practice of the law is in the service of power.

For example, how the traffic police doesn't hunt down and fine people in fancy cars, even when it's clear they've broken the law, but they hunt down people in middle-class cars and poor-people cars for minor transgressions.
Or how a high politician who was sentenced to a prison sentence can walk out of a prison -- physically wallk out of the building -- and no guard stops him. And this is in a first-world country.

Or when a judge asks you a question with a double negative and demands you to answer it with only a yes or no; and when you ask for a clarification or answer with a full sentence, he threatens to hold you in contempt of the law. (Real example.)

Cause there's no "might" in the law at all until you get activist judiciaries.

Hm. For example: I live in a jurisdiction where, after a routine traffic stop by the traffic police, the driver is offered to sign a document stating that the police officers have acted professionally and in accordance with the law. If you sign it, you can go. If you refuse to sign it, you're taken to the police station where trouble ensues, and you have to hire a lawyer and so on. (And forget about free legal representation. It's virtually impossible to qualify for that here.) We could discuss whether this is a use or an abuse of power. Case in point: The traffic police likes to wait for people on an overpass, with very poor visibility and little room. So after they're done with you and they let you go, you have to drive backwards onto the main road, on an overpass with poor visibility. As far as traffic laws go, this is illegal and punishable, yet the police are forcing you to break the law.

Is demanding a one-size-fits-all truth the sign of maturity or a kind of childish tantrum in the face of perspectives that don’t fit neatly into the established norms?
— Joshs

The former, as far as I'm concerned, without question. It is the child who refuses to accept their position is wrong because they want to hold on to it. It is the religious impulse in the species that grasps onto empirically false beliefs. It is immature historically and individually. — AmadeusD

Why not simply be assertive? Textbook assertiveness pretty much does away with the majority of the problems brought up in this thread.

Sure, and that's not in argument I don't think. But attaching hte word 'truth' to it unjustifiably semantically rarefies the concept beyond "my feelings" or "my opinion" which is what we're talking about, and those terms are completely adequate. — AmadeusD

Again, my experience has been that this is not the case. Say that something is your opinion or your feeling or your experience, and sure enough others will shoot you down. Even when you are in fact talking about your opinions, feelings, and experiences. I find it is extremely rare to find people who take one's expression of one's feelings, opinions, and experiences as in fact one's expression of one's feelings, opinions, and experiences. Because most people tend to take them as criticism and judgment.

Which also explains why they are so eager to rebut them, and why "my truth" can emerge as a defense against that rebuttal.

I think it's related to the rise of "I feel like ..." as an alternative to "I think ..." or even "I believe ..." In 21st America, your feelings are not open to critique. They just are what they are. Your opinions, your thoughts, your beliefs (but not your faith)—these are all open to critique and by saying "I think we should do this," you're practically inviting others to give their opinions or to critique yours. Not the case when you're expressing your feelings. — Srap Tasmaner

Interestingly, where I come from, feelings would be among the first to be attacked, especially in religious/spiritual circles.

"I don't feel the presence of the Holy Spirit."
"Then you're wrong. Just because you don't feel it doesn't mean it's not there."

Something along Moore's paradox would be more troubling, like "My truth is that it is raining, but it is not" (or "I believe it is raining, but it is not"). — Hanover

A Christian "friend" (who believed that vegetarianism was wrong or inferior) once told me that I was allowed to be a vegetarian, on the condition that I believe it is wrong or inferior to be vegetarian.
Seriously. I couldn't believe it when I heard it. But it wasn't the only instance of such reasoning on his part; after that I began to notice it in in some other people as well. A more common example is the way some religious people expect homosexual people to believe homosexuality is wrong.
There are people who do expect us to believe contradictions. This has to count for something.

Exactly this. Its a person using language to manipulate an outcome that they personally want vs using language to clearly communicate accuracy and clarity. The only way to defeat accuracy and clarity, is to attack the words themselves and diminish anyone who would dare use them in that way. Hate, unwarranted moral justification, and self-righteousness of cause are all tools to attack the one who wishes to be clear, rational, and assess the claim honestly. — Philosophim

Speaking of "honestly". In the recent years, this adverb has become something of a filler word, frequently used in contexts where it makes no other sense to use it than as a filler word; but it's also used in what seems like a deliberately offensive manner. "Truth" to be a similar type of word: sometimes just a filler word; other times, an invocation of an offense and hostility.

Could you explain what you were getting at? It's pretty obscure, and in Law "might" is not relevant. — AmadeusD

Theoretically, not. Practically, it's everything.

No, not "might makes right." Just the law. But as Gaius Petronius Arbiter said, "What power has law where only money rules?" — Ciceronianus

How long can one idealistically maintain a sharp distinction between what law, theoretically, ideally is or should be, and how it is actually practiced?

“Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.”
― Jonathan Swift

Look at certain political options, I won't mention names here. These people are the kind of people who would be satisfied if certain people died, regardless of method. These political options have a considerable voter base, they win elections. To dismiss such considerable numbers of people as "psychopaths" is naive and irresponsible.

Other than those, there are those who wish to revenge themselves but aren't able to, and are satisfied if the other person dies; again, not a case of psychopathy.

If you told someone to kill themselves in earnest (from their perspective) and they do it, it is going to be pretty traumatic to then admit that you caused someone's death vicariously. — AmadeusD

Traumatic how? In the sense that such a person could be in some way legally responsible for the other's suicide?
To the best of my knowledge, legal systems in different countries treat such cases differently, and this at least to some extent informs the way people will treat other people.

Hart rejects naive naturalism in favor of an even more naive divine naturalism.
/.../ — Joshs

This explains a lot about the often absolutely vicious authoritarian attitude of theists in interpersonal relationships.
It explains why one's experience (as a non-theist) with theists can be as demoralizing and exhausting as with narcissists and sociopaths, even though theists are not necessarily either.

The point of Hart’s discourse on these matters is that he starts from reasoning and arrives at theism. — Tom Storm

But like Moliere has been saying:

The argument is going to sound plausible to those who reject naturalism as an adequate metaphysics and not plausible to naturalists.

The naturalist is content with it being a capacity of our species that was selected for through a chaotic process. When Thomas Nagel talks about consciousness as a metaphysical problem for naturalism the naturalist simply shrugs. I'm criticizing the persuasive power of the argument. Hart can make a conceptual division, and of course the argument can be rendered independent of theism, but the appeal of the argument will be heavily determined by the beliefs of a listener. — Moliere

Yes, and this is really the area I’m interested in: understanding the argument, not refuting it or trying to sidestep it. — Tom Storm

But arguments don't somehow "speak for themselves", don't somehow stand in a vacuum, don't "stand on their own". They depend on unstated premises that are simply taken for granted -- just not necessarily always and by everyone.

Isn’t this why reason has been so assiduously employed by the Church over the centuries, to demonstrate the logical necessity of God?

No ...
"Reason has been so assiduously employed by the Church" ... no. They sure like to talk a lot, yes, but that's not the same as "reason assiduously employed".
There's a reason why philosophy and religion are two different areas of expertise.

Now, I happen to believe that, for the most part, behind all this, the atheist’s and the theist’s reasons for believing are much the same. Their accounts make sense to them for reasons informed by emotion and aesthetics. The reasoning is often post hoc.

Of course. And this is something to bear in mind when approaching your OP.

In my own life (I agree with you) I am content with not having explanations for things, like life or consciousness. My favourite three words are 'I don't know' and I wish more people would employ them. But that's a separate matter to trying to understand this argument. — Tom Storm

What should we do when we disagree?
When can we afford to "agree to disagree"?

So much of politics and religion is about addressing these questions; obviously, with an eye on winning.

Naturalism says we need to explain who is explaining in terms of what is being explained.

Me, I'm still partial to 'God breathing life into clay'. — Wayfarer

Come to think of it, science is generally one massive attempt to disprove religion. Billions are poured into space exploration, evolutionary topics, etc. -- and for what? To show that life and everything in the universe can come about and function without God.



- - -

If people claim that physics can explain everything, then they are obviously wrong. I haven't heard many, or even any, claims to that effect on this site. — Janus

Sure. But IRL, scientism seems to be one of the main streams of thought. And many religious arguments are geared against scientism.

The physicalist/naturalist can fairly say "why should we posit entities for which we have no evidence, and maybe even no possibility of evidence?". — Janus

In order to win the argument, of course.

I work in law. We do not have "our truths". — AmadeusD

Of course not. You have might makes right.

I’ll rephrase that, I can't fathom how you arrive at that conclusion from what I’ve said so far. — praxis

Because I distinguish between rebirth and reincarnation.

Now tell me: What is the self? What is a living being?

The Buddhist teaching on rebirth does not say that you — understood as a persisting personal subject, ego, or bearer of identity — will be reborn. That is precisely what the doctrine of non-self (anattā) rules out from the start. If there were a “you” in that sense, rebirth would amount to reincarnation - a single self which is born again and again, and which Buddhism explicitly rejects. That is the ‘eternalist’ view. But the idea that actions in this life have no consequence beyond physical death is the opposite mistake, the ‘nihilist’ view. (An implication being that modern thought is basically nihilist in orientation.)

What continues is the causal process that underlies and gives rise to living beings. There is continuity without strict identity. And that stands to reason, because all of us are both the same as, and different to, the person we were in the past. Self is a dynamic stream of consciousness, called in Sanskrit ‘cittasantana’ — but without an unchanging kernel or eternally existent core.

The aggregates arise, function, and cease. If ignorance and craving persist, the causal conditions for further arising persist. — Wayfarer

This.

This is why the Buddha 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.

His silence on these matters strikes me as a case of, "*sigh* Didn't you listen to anything of what I've said so far?"

In my experience, Buddhists can be very harsh in the treatment of this topic. If you're a newcomer and start asking questions about the self, chances are you'll get shot down with a "You're only asking this because you want a permanent self! Now STFU!"

How do I ‘know this is true’? I don’t ’know that it’s true.’ But to me, it makes considerably more sense than the idea that all the righteous dead will be resurrected at the End Times and bodily ascend in the Rapture.

Oddly enough, both Buddhists as well as non-Buddhists are reluctant to discuss matters of selfhood.

I can't fathom how you arrive at that conclusion from the one sentence I wrote. — praxis

It's in line with what you have said so far.

It's like in a theatre play where in different performances of the play different actors can play the same role. The role is the same, the words are the same, the actions are the same, but the actors differ.
Nibbana is like when an actor decides not to play the role anymore.
— baker

Are you saying that you don't believe sentient beings are reborn and there's just reoccurring archetypes? Sort of a Joseph Campbell/Buddha fusion thang.

I'm saying the pertinent question is, "What is a living being?"
And also, "What is the self?"
Most problems that people have with the notions of kamma and rebirth stem from a lack of clarity on these two questions.


See also my other replies to other posters here.

This is where my thinking differs from Buddhist theology and I move back to the Hindu tradition. I find the dissolution of the individual upon death as incoherent in the way it is generally presented. — Punshhh

What dissolution of the individual upon death??
The body and what is related to it is said to dissolve upon death, yes, but that's it. The "immaterial" components persist.

For a plethora of scriptural references in various contexts, search https://www.accesstoinsight.org/index.html
by the keywords
reappears
and
dissolution

I am aware of the explanation for it, but see it as part of an apology for the wholesale rejection of atman and a presence of the divine world in our world.

Buddhism doesn't reject divinity; it just doesn't think much of it.

I am unsure about the identity of the Bodhisattvas and enlightened beings. Also there does seem to be some equivocation around this point. There is a universal consciousness, but each individual is one drop of water in an ocean of water drops. There is a denial of a permanent self, or identity, but a permanent self, a universal self is smuggled in and plays the same role.

In Buddhism? What you say sounds like Hinduism.
A permanent self in Buddhism? Where did you hear that?

There seems to be equivocation around Karma too, that it shapes one’s next life, while denying that the individual remains after death. And how can the karmic debt be repaid, when the agent who took out the karmic debt does not any more exist. Again, I understand there is a explanation given, but it comes across as apologetics again.

What is your source for Buddhist doctrine??

In Hinduism, the divine world is here with us, walking alongside, interacting with us and the theology delineates it’s presence.

Well, as long as one isn't an outcast!

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? — Punshhh

The first thing to ask is, "What is the self?"
Also, "What is a living being?"

I presume that if you had a definitive answer to this question, you wouldn't be here. Secondly, the Buddha goes into great lengths to define what the self is not or what is not fit to be regarded as the self.

Yes, I was not implying this when I introduced the idea that brought up Buddha nature. I was simply pointing out that the nature is within us.

I would suggest though that the process of achieving enlightenment may well be an entirely natural process and that a participant would naturally go through the mental struggles, or adaptation in a form concomitant with their circumstances. For example a shaman in a community of forest dwellers. Or a Stone Age person. — Punshhh

Do you mean this in a sense that enlightenment is inevitable, a given, just a matter of time?

Yes, so my intuition is actually an acceptance (or realisation) of a deeper understanding underlying these religions. That they are playing a role in a process of purification of the self. That the self is not required, to go anywhere, to do anything, achieve anything in reconciling (becoming liberated from) their incarnation. But rather to relinquish, to lay down the trappings of our incarnate selves. — Punshhh

The Hare Krishnas call those trappings "the false ego".

This ventures into some concepts more native to some schools of Hinduism, with the veil being the "veil of Maya".
Yes, my position is more on the Hinduism side of the issue (via Theosophy)

The problem with assuming defaults, innate essences (such as "all beings have Buddha nature") is that they bog one down.
Assumed for the purpose of discursive discussion.

If you have Buddha nature, then why are you here, suffering, instead of being happy and enlightened?
One is going through a process, there may be many other things going on (behind the veil), or of which we are a small part. Which entail what is going on here. One of the first things that occur to us as individuals as a young child is the realisation of our individuality and therefore questions arise about our circumstances, what is going on here, where is this, why am I here? I remember this realisation in my life, I must have been about 3yrs old.

These questions have not been answered, even though I have searched long and hard for an answer. As such there cannot be an answer for your question, because the circumstances relating to it have not been established. — Punshhh

Then what's the use of assuming you have Buddha nature"?

If you suffer now, despite having/being Buddha nature, and later become enlightened, then where's the guarantee that you won't lose your enligtenment and suffer again?
Again this can’t be answered, as above. However, presumably, one would have sufficient agency to prevent the onset of suffering. Although I would suggest that there is likely an exalted state equivalent to suffering within that exalted realm. On the cosmic scale, there may be imperfect gods, or greater processes beyond our understanding going on.

Sure. But currently, we suffer, our molars rot, and dishes and laundry pile up.

If you are now covered by the veil of Maya, how can you possibly trust your choice of spiritual guidance?
Through humility and faith. This would necessarily require living a relatively simple and stress free life.

Really? How do humility and faith help you find the right spiritual teacher? And how do you know he's the right one, given that you're still under the veil of ignorance?

Thus assuming some kind of innate natrure, an essence, implies, among other things, that you are ultimately helpless against that veil of Maya, helpless against suffering.

I’m not quite sure where the implication lies here.

See my earlier points.

It's how the outlook of innate nature is demoralizing, unless, of course, one has a grand enough ego to compensate for it.

Or perhaps it is an acceptance in humility of a reality. Presumably, by this point one would have deflated and reconciled one’s ego.

See also Thanissaro Bhikkhu: Freedom from Buddha nature

Right, but it seems undeniable that each entity is unique and that there will never be another the same. In our thinking about the one, I think we should not dis-value or deny the reality of the many.

No matter how we might want to diminish its importance by intellectualizing it, it is undeniable that each biological entity's deepest instinct is to survive. I think that is the unconscious motivation for concerns with rebirth and afterlife. — Janus

Justice is another strong motivator. If someone wrongs you, and you're unable to revenge yourself or they die before you have the chance, then what?

In order to effectively maintain that a system of ethics is worthwhile, one has to believe that justice will prevail, if not in this life, then in the next.

It is really a motivation deriving from, a concern that finds its genesis in, the very sense of self these various religious teachings are advocating liberating ourselves from in one way, by means of faith, meditation or practice, or the other.

So, I don't see it as being a help, but rather as a hindrance, to effective practice leading to liberation from the fear of death.

A particular person's fear of death will be shaped in accordance with the beliefs they have internalized in their prerational phase, ie. as children too young to understand what it is they are internalizing. There are, for example, people who were born and raised Christian; such people have no fear of death per se, but they have the fear of displeasing God, fear of God's judgment, and other times, none of these, because (like some Protestants), they are confident that their eternity is with God, in eternal happiness.

Not "forever", but cyclically. In Buddhist cosmology, a universe comes into existence, exists, and then disappears. And then another one appears, exists, disappears, and so on.
— baker

I don't see how that helps the case unless universal liberation were achieved at the end of the life of each universe. — Janus

In traditional Buddhism, there is no notion of universal liberation.

By the way, do you have a citation from the scriptures to support that cosmological view?

Didn't think this would ever be necessary ...
See here, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology#Temporal_cosmology

By understanding paticcasamuppada, dependent co-arising.
— baker

That might be the theory, but where is the practice?

The Noble Eightfold Path.

I don't think so.
Enlightenment the Buddhist way is not something many people would or even could want. I find it odd that the idea has such prominence in culture at large, when it's such a highly specific niche interest.

In any case no one but the actual enlightened would know,

Indeed, the phrase colloquially used is "It takes an arahant to know an arahant". Other than that, there are in traditional teachings some pointers as to how even non-arahants might recognize one.

and is it even credible that any human being could not be mistaken in thinking they were enlightened?

It happens all the time in Buddhist venues. It's actually not a problem there.
— baker

But how do you, presumably a self-acknowledged unenlightened one, know all this? Or, on the basis of what do you believe it?

I don't believe it per se, but I know it's standard Theravada doctrine and I'm familiar with it.
I'm not posting here in order to convince anyone of the "truth of Buddhism"; I'm just trying to make sense of my experience with Buddhism and Buddhists and it seems to help me to talk about it in this setting (such discussion is pretty much impossible in a Buddhist setting).

Also, rebirth is quite consistent with anatman. If the male human John Smith can become in the future a female ant, then there is little in John Smith that can be considered an underlying essence.
— boundless

If there is little (nothing?) in John Smith that can be considered to be an underlying essence, then the idea of him becoming a future female ant seems unintelligible. I've heard the "candle flame" analogy, but it seems simplistically linear and naive in the context of a vastly interconnected world.

The pertinent question is, "What is a living being?"
And also, "What is the self?"
Most problems that people have with the notions of kamma and rebirth stem from a lack of clarity on these two questions.

To be clear, I wasn't saying that 'essential goodness' is an initial state and spiritual practice aims to 'go back to that' but rather to an intrinsic potential present and that the aim of spiritual practice is the fulfillment of one's nature. — boundless

If enlightenment is somehow a part of our nature, then this means that it's inevitable that we will somehow become enlightened and that no effort is required of us in this direction.

Which would be nice enough, but then one has to wonder why it hasn't happened already.

I think the best way to see 'moral teachings' of religions is to try to see them as a way to cultivate our own nature. While a 'legalistic' way of seeing them has perhaps its purpose, the deepest way to see them is IMO to see them as aiming to our education and assist our (spiritual) growth. — boundless

But what is "spiritual growth"? @Wayfarer likes to call me cynical, but I think I'm merely, at long last, being realistic, when I think "spiritual growth" looks an awful lot like Social Darwinism.

The Buddhist teaching on rebirth does not say that you — understood as a persisting personal subject, ego, or bearer of identity — will be reborn.
— Wayfarer

I have never been able to make sense of how one can build a coherent moral philosophy about this (Disclaimer: I'm not saying that one cannot live a virtuous life!).
I mean, any concept of 'moral responsibility' that I find coherent assumes that the agent of an action and the bearer of moral responsibility of that action is the same person. — boundless

And they are, for thousands of rebirths-- just not forever and not absolutely.

I personally agree with this. At the end of the day, even Buddhists would say, for instance, that Buddha and Ananda were, in some sense, different individuals and when the Buddha reached enlightenment it was an event that had an effect on him and not on others. Simply saying that their individuality is merely a product of different 'causes and conditions' seems too reductive to me.

If selves are ultimately illusory, why are all the 'fruits' of practice experienced 'individually'?

Because such is the nature of experience.

There's even a semi-formal modern school of Buddhism, called "Buddhist phenomenology", precisely to account for this.

The very fact that we can distinguish between individuals IMO implies that, as you say, each being is unique and this points to an underlying essence that is, ultimately, what distinguishes that being from other beings.

Even ordinary worldy psychology doesn't grant people such uniqueness.
We are unique for various legal and taxation purposes, but otherwise, systemization, categorization, depersonalization are the norm.

I already stated that I'm not a Buddhist and I don't believe in the Buddhist teaching of rebirth. I am very interested in Buddhism, however. — boundless

I'm not a Buddhist either.
I don't specifically take any issue with any of the teachings, but on the whole, from my dealings with Buddhists and with religious/spiritual people in general, I can't escape the impression that religious/spiritual teachings somehow aren't supposed to be taken all that seriously.


- - -

Fwiw to the thread, the reason I stopped is because asking simple questions of Buddhists generally results in incoherent platitudes — AmadeusD

Is there a place where it's not like that?
Even at a philosophy discussion forum, people will not simply answer one's questions, and when they do, it's often with platitudes.

Do unto others possibly precarious as a moral imperative[/quote]
Of course. If you're nice to others, they'll probably notbe nice to you in return, but will treat you as a weakling an as someone who invites and deserves to be exploited, or at least ridiculed.

Our shared reality isnt going to help you figure out why your perspective doesnt jibe precisely with those whose reality you share. Group consensus can take us a long way, but on some things what is a mistake and what is fitting we have to figure out on our own terms. — Joshs

Then how about "figuring out on your own terms" what is a mistake and what is fitting in regard to being gay, for example?

I agree that it implies the opposite of the OP's interpretation. In fact while it happens to use the label "truth", it really means "my interpretation", since it's not describing objective facts, rather how objective facts appear to them subjectively, given their personal experiences. And we're all allowed to have our subjective interpretation/opinion. — LuckyR

For some people (many, probably), the concept of "interpretation" is unintelligible, unacceptable, a sign of inferiority, or a sign of evil intent.

As a religious/spiritual person told me, "I do not interpret, I tell it like it is, I speak the truth." I've known many such people. What you just said above is unintelligible to them, or dismissed as "sophistry".

Because there is no such thing as "my truth". There are your opinions and feelings. — AmadeusD

You go tell that to your boss. Or your arresting officer. Or any such person who is in any way relevant at any point in your life.

Does waving an American flag now mean surrendering your humanity? — Questioner

When did it not?

As baker remarked, the idea is quite explicit in some strands of Mahayana with the concept of 'Buddha nature'. However, it can be said that it is implied by the fact that the Buddhist practice is seen as a way to purify the mind, i.e. removing all the 'impurities'. So, rather than a transformation into something 'alien', the Buddhist path actually seems to have been presented as a way to bring the mind-stream to its 'purity'. — boundless

But with a caveat. The concept of Buddha nature can be taken to mean that all one needs to do is get to some primeval, pure state, and that's that. But we have this:

/.../
Then Pañcakanga went to Uggahamana and, on arrival, greeted him courteously. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat down to one side. As he was sitting there, Uggahamana said to him, "I describe an individual endowed with four qualities as being consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. Which four? There is the case where he does no evil action with his body, speaks no evil speech, resolves on no evil resolve, and maintains himself with no evil means of livelihood. An individual endowed with these four qualities I describe as being consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments."

Then Pañcakanga neither delighted in Uggahamana's words nor did he scorn them. Expressing neither delight nor scorn, he got up from his seat & left, thinking, "I will learn the meaning of this statement in the Blessed One's presence."

Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, after bowing down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he told the Blessed One the entire conversation he had had with Uggahamana.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to Pañcakanga: "In that case, carpenter, then according to Uggahamana's words a stupid baby boy, lying on its back, is consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. For even the thought 'body' does not occur to a stupid baby boy lying on its back, so from where would it do any evil action with its body, aside from a little kicking? Even the thought 'speech' does not occur to it, so from where would it speak any evil speech, aside from a little crying? Even the thought 'resolve' does not occur to it, so from where would it resolve on any evil resolve, aside from a little bad temper? Even the thought 'livelihood' does not occur to it, so from where would it maintain itself with any evil means of livelihood, aside from its mother's milk? So, according to Uggahamana's words, a stupid baby boy, lying on its back is consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments.

"If an individual is endowed with these four qualities, I do not describe him as consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. Rather, he stands on the same level as a stupid baby boy lying on its back. Which four? There is the case where he does no evil action with his body, speaks no evil speech, resolves on no evil resolve, and maintains himself with no evil means of livelihood. If an individual is endowed with these four qualities, I do not describe him as consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. Rather, he stands on the same level as a stupid baby boy lying on its back.

"An individual endowed with ten qualities is one whom I describe as being consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments.
/.../
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.078.than.html

In other words, cultivation is required, not just some regression to a primal, "innocent" state. In Buddhist cosmology, there is no such thing as a primal, "innocent" state the way there is in Christianity.

But we’re not looking forward, we’re looking infinitely backwards, and in the past ignorance has necessarily never been removed because we are here in ignorance. — praxis

That's still thinking in terms of reincarnation, not rebirth.
Or perhaps you're referring to humanity as a whole??

If a cycle of rebirth and death is beginingless then there will always be a previous cause or rebirth and this would go back infinitely. If there’s no beginning then there’s no end. — praxis

In the grand scheme of things, roughly, yes. In Buddhist cosmology, universes keep coming in and out of existence (in contrast to Christianity, where it's a one-off deal).

And as universes keep coming into existence, so do living beings. And the way for them to exit existence is to follow the path of a buddha, who also appears each time around.

You’re saying that in an eternity, and across all space and time, innumerable sentient beings never had the insight that one dude on earth—the Buddha—had? — praxis

See above.

"Buddha" is actually a title, a function, not the identity of a person. Brahma, Shiva, Buddha -- these are all functions, roles; we can actually write them in lower case.

Even if samsara is beginningless…
— boundless

You’re claiming that teaching may be false? — praxis

I'm thinking of it in terms of "the same kinds of things are happening over and over again".
Not the identic, same thing.

It's like in a theatre play where in different performances of the play different actors can play the same role. The role is the same, the words are the same, the actions are the same, but the actors differ.
Nibbana is like when an actor decides not to play the role anymore.

'Saṃsāra has no beginning, but it has an end. Nirvāṇa has a beginning, but it has no end' ~ Buddhist Aphorism (quoted on Dharmawheel.) — Wayfarer

Which is why laundry and dishes are excellent candidates for being Nirvana. They, too, have no end.

Having studied a bit of both Buddhism and Hindusim, I find there is a peculiar fit between the two.
— baker
Why would it be peculiar when they both were born in the same place and the Buddha grew up in the Hindu tradition? — unimportant

I man that they "fit" in the sense that Buddhism is similar to a kind of Hindu monotheism but without the theistic references (and all concepts adjusted accordingly). It very much fits the idea that God incarnated himself as the Buddha. Where Hindu theism is explicitly theistic, Buddhism is silent. It seems the two don't contradict eachother. (Practitioners of both like to claim otherwise, of course. But if you look at just the Pali Canon, there doesn't seem to be anything that contradicts Hindu ideas.)