If there’s no beginning then there’s no end.
— praxis

How so? — Outlander

There’ll always be a previous cause or rebirth going back infinitely.

Religious revealed truths conflict and their moral codes vary accordingly.

For example, some religious traditions morally permit killing and even at times require it under certain conditions. Others treat nonviolence as an absolute or near-absolute moral principle.

I think this suggests that religious revealed truths are subjective, or rather, intersubjective, but I suppose the faithful would simply claim that their truths are truth and all conflicting revelations are false.

'Revealed truths' are said to arise from insight into a larger domain which transcends the subject-object division, to put it in modern philosophical terms - not as private psychological states, but as disclosures accessible in principle through shared forms of practice and understanding. — Wayfarer

Okay, looking at it differently, are not shared forms of practice and understanding private psychological states to the community that shares whatever these forms of practice and understanding are?

It's not a matter of religion, per se, but notice that as soon as the presumed soveriegnty of objective fact is called into question, it provokes the question 'is this religious dogma'? That says something about the cultural dynamics. — Wayfarer

I asked about revealed truths being relative or subjective. Then commented on your line about "a disenchanted universe: the modern subject—liberated from dogma yet exiled from a cosmos stripped of inherent meaning."

You didn't respond to my comment that the problem with Revealed Truths is that they differ greatly, and my speculation that perhaps the revealers access an assortment of 'larger domains'.

My interest isn't the sovereignty of objective fact vs the sovereignty of religious dogma or whatever.

It seems to me that revealed truths are relative or subjective.

Then perhaps you can argue it with Joshs?

The result was a self-conscious spectator of a disenchanted universe: the modern subject—liberated from dogma yet exiled from a cosmos stripped of inherent meaning. — Wayfarer

That seems to mean that meaning can only be found in religious dogma. That's not true.

'Revealed truths' are said to arise from insight into a larger domain which transcends the subject-object division, to put it in modern philosophical terms - not as private psychological states, but as disclosures accessible in principle through shared forms of practice and understanding. — Wayfarer

The problem with this is that Revealed Truths differ greatly. Or perhaps the revealers access an assortment of 'larger domains'?

Religious morality is not based on objective facts, but on revealed truths, in some cases, or transcendent knowledge in others. — Wayfarer

Aren't revealed truths relative or subjective?

Morality from a secular position is necessarily subjective.

Atheists ... have no basis for determining what is and isn't immoral. — Ram

You seem to be saying that subjective determination can have no basis. That makes no sense.

Because I distinguish between rebirth and reincarnation. — baker

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."

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. — baker

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

Frankly, entertainment.
— praxis

So, trolling. — AmadeusD

Being entertained by a discussion doesn't imply trolling, obviously.

You are forgetting the entirety of hte exchange and reverting back to default mode where you were proved factually wrong, lied about something you said you didn't say and then plum ignored both instances while continuing to press on his use of abomination in a specific context in which he was not giving his personal view. This is quite simple: You are not being serious anymore. — AmadeusD

What is that supposed to mean, that he wasn't giving his personal view? I don't think that I ever claimed he was expressing his personal view. He said:

"You hear that William Thomas [deadnaming Lia Thomas]? You're an abomination to God."
–– Charlie Kirk

He is apparently giving God's point of view. Though it should probably be taken into consideration that he was a follower of God, and being so inclined to adopt God's point of view. But as we've discussed, like you, I imagine he didn't really "give a shit" and he was simply catering to his audiences appetites ––being their culture warrior –– and making a tidy income in that role.

This is twilight zone stuff buddy. — AmadeusD

Indeed, I've always thought that show was quite entertaining.

You're lying about what can be plainly read in the thread you're in. — AmadeusD

You admit it's "twilight zone stuff," which means that you don't know what's going on. I suggest that your belief about my dishonesty is mistaken.

refusing to look at long-form examples of hte person you're lambasting — AmadeusD

How many times do I need to watch that ridiculous Williams video? :lol:

Kirk was clearly a smart guy, but I didn't realize how uneducated he was or how little religious training he seems to have had. I saw a video of him speaking with Jordan Peterson where he said how he vigorously studied business and economics. That tracks.

It would have just been easier for you to say you found this entertaining a long time ago, rather than being blatantly dishonest for pages. — AmadeusD

I claimed somewhere that it wasn't entertaining?

... following me around, and it's not surprising. Both yourself and Questioner seem to have his same pattern of posting. — AmadeusD

Huh? You jumped in to defend Kirk in this topic. If anything you followed me here.

And are you suggesting that I'm Questioner? Hey @Questioner are you me?

That indistinguishability is not there yet, but close. — hypericin

Went to a Lakers game in LA a few weeks ago and before the game we ate at a soul food restaurant called Fixins. I had fried chicken, collard greens, black eyed peas, and peach pie for desert. Delish! I mention it because it was hands-down the best fried chicken I've ever had. Tender and juicy on the inside with a well-seasoned crispy outside. If what you say were true, my experience of eating that chicken could be indistinguishable, or at least close to indistinguishable, using a non-meat substitute. We both know that's a fantasy.

The methods used to create it is not comparable, but neither are the methods of creating digital and physical art. It is the technique that is similar. — hypericin

The essential method AND technique can be virtually the same, actually. For example, both an oil painting and a digital painting can begin with preparing a canvas. The next step could be to establish the composition and basic forms with a dry brush technique. I like to use a notan method myself. From there block in color/values, and continue to refine until completion using a wet-on-wet technique.

That's just one example.

mixing paint colors to come up with the exact hue is nothing like clicking on a grid of possible colors — LuckyR

I don’t see a significant difference. In either case, you are mixing or selecting for the same properties: hue, saturation, and value.

Nice review.

One odd thing I liked about the book is how it started with Captain Davidson's point of view. At the end of that part I was like, am I supposed to like this guy? And then later, feeling a little dirty that on some level and to some extent I was on Davidson's side. We Americans are easy to trick that way.

Dongh's language is part of the apparatus of domination. (But now I'm ripping off the review I just wrote on my website). — Jamal

Link?

Yes, that was interesting. How the Athsheans dreamt was also interesting and I wish that was a little more developed.

The Word for World is Forest by Ursula K. Le Guin.

I’ll put it on my list. Give us your thoughts when you’re done.
— T Clark

It's a little more solemn and preachy than I would normally go for but she's such a great writer she won me round. Definitely recommended. It really packs a punch; lesser authors like the more recent space opera guys take 3 or 5 hundred pages to do a lot less than she does in just over 100.

It's not simply an anti-imperialist allegory for America's actions in Indochina, although it partly is that. It's also classic, masterful science fiction, and more subtle and complex than it seems at first. — Jamal

Just read it. Seems like the original Avatar story, only the aliens were small and green rather than big and blue.

Method of production maybe, but consumption? — hypericin

I won't bother to do it but I could post a digital painting and a watercolor painting where you couldn't tell which was which. Your 'consumption' would be the same. The digital could be printed and again your experience would be the same in terms of medium.

About production, what is essential? Using an instrument on a surface to apply marks and forming an image with shape, value, edges, and color.

For synthetic meat to be comparable, it would need to be nearly indistinguishable from meat (like a chicken leg for example) in experience and nutrition. More significantly, the methods used to create it would need to be comparable. A rancher couldn't walk into a lab and produce synthetic meat using the same essential methods they use on a ranch. That's nonsensical.

Yes, they're called digital paintings specifically to distinguish them from... paintings. Sort of like vegetarian meat. — LuckyR

"Digital paintings" to distinguish the particular medium of painting.

Vegetarian meat is a poor analogy because both the method of production and consumption are fundamentally different from non-vegetarian meat.

A traditional 'analog' painter can paint digitally using the same fundamentals (shape, value, edge, color, etc). Their style and basic technique could be the same, and the produced work could be practically indistinguishable from their non-digital painting.

A rancher couldn't produce meat in a lab using the same methods they use on a ranch. And they couldn't produce a convincing T-bone steak or chicken thigh with the same nutritional properties as non-synthetic meat.

Digital painting is a verb. The product of this action isn't a painting. — LuckyR

It's a digital painting or just a particular medium. There are many types of paintings, like oil, watercolors, gouache, etc.

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. — baker

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

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.

Explain to me the worth of continuing? — AmadeusD

Frankly, entertainment.

One example is your claim that Kirk and his followers personally wanted trans people to cease existing. — AmadeusD

To call something an abomination is to suggest it should be rejected, erased, or undone, not merely regulated or punished. Something that is believed to be so wrong, corrupt, or unnatural that its existence itself is offensive. Not just “bad” or “harmful,” but ought-not-be.

That's a fact.

It is trivial in a larger, mature conversation. — AmadeusD

Ah, I see. It is apparently extremely significant when conversing with me though. It's odd that you take immature conversation so seriously. I think I'm the other way around, taking mature conversations seriously and usually find immature conversations trivial.

I've been thinking along the same lines. In fact yesterday I was recalling a time when I was part of a Zen temple in LA. The temple was founded by Maezumi Roshi, who incidentally was an infamous alcoholic and womanizer. The Roshi I practiced with occasionally gave 'the big talk' to the sangha where he sort of laid out a condense version of Buddhism. Zen folks usually just do a lot of sitting. I couldn't for the life of me remember any of what he said except for the beginning where he started with, "through no fault of our own..." and something to the effect 'we are ignorant'.

He's right of course, if we've always—literally alway and for all time—been ignorant then it can't be our fault that we're ignorant. Original sin? That similarity is the sort of thing I mean when I say Buddhism is fundamentally the same as other religions.

I understood that. But, again, my point is that the mere infinite succession of lifetimes doesn't guarantee that either of us has already practise seriously the Dharma. Indeed, as I said, it is generally emphasized that being born as a human is a rare event and being born a human and live in a time when it is possible to practise the Dharma is even rarer. But even in the best conditions, at the end of the day one has still to choose to practice.
So even if samsara is beginningless, it doesn't follow that you have already practised the Dhamma in a serious way. — boundless

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?

That is laughable, isn’t it? I would say the basic insight is profound, sure, but really. And the religion is fundamentally the same as any other.

This isn't necessarily the case. Traditional buddhists would reply that the ultimate cause of the cycle is ignorance. If ignorance is removed, samsara stops. If ignorance is never removed, the cycle will go on forever. — boundless

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.

it doesn't follow that you have practised since beginningless times and you have already practised with diligence infinite times and you somehow always failed. — boundless

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.

Even if samsara is beginningless… — boundless

You’re claiming that teaching may be false?

You’re claiming that according to Buddhist doctrine there are births that are not rebirths?
— praxis
That would be "spontaneously arisen beings", yes. — baker

Opapātika means only not born through parents or biological reproduction. It is still rebirth and causally conditioned.

I'm thinking that this, if nothing else, is the reason rebirth is not claimed to be a motivator for practice. We've have literally been practicing forever without end.

You’re claiming that according to Buddhist doctrine there are births that are not rebirths? That some births are not part of the cycle of life and death?

If rebirth is true then there are no ‘causeless’ births, and given that there is no beginning to the wheel of life and death, that means we have always existed. We have existed for eternity.

Think about it for a second, if the wheel has no beginning then it has been spinning for eternity.

Being composed of paint is an objective measure. — LuckyR

Not really. Digital painting is very common nowadays, where 'painting' seems to mean merely coloring an area.

Buddhist practice rests on the premise that there first must be causes and conditions in place before any next rung on the scale of progress can be reached. — baker

It claims cyclical existence without beginning. A circular ladder doesn’t progress, it goes round and round without beginning or ending.

I think to be clear you should give your version of what enlightenment is because it seems different to the general notion of it. — unimportant

The realization or actual experience of emptiness or the true nature of being. More mundanely, it's an experience or brain state.

I am getting the sense you are just seeing enlightenment as some kind of self help style self-actualisation akin to ticking all the boxes on Maslow's hierarchy of needs? — unimportant

Not at all, in fact the Buddhist project is rather uninterested in self-overcoming because such a project embraces life and suffering in order to grow and reach for full potential.

I would say it would extinguish those existential issues by coming to the realisation they don't matter... — unimportant

That sounds like nihilism to me. I would like to think that people and things still matter to enlightened Buddhists.

Facts be damned? What facts have I damned?

Speaking of facts…

The most glaring example of late is that you say the trans abomination comment is trivial but treat it in a way that is anything but trivial. We literally have been talking about it for weeks.
— praxis

Because you continually made something of it which was erroneous, and asked me, continually, to explain myself. — AmadeusD

I just reviewed our posts in this thread. A month ago I posted the disgusting Kirk quote—not responding to you but someone else—and you rushed in to defend it, like you did in another topic. If it’s trivial then why bother to defend it so earnestly for weeeeeeks?

One thing I would point out, if we're talking about taking belief in rebirth as a motivator for practice is this: The practice to make an end to suffering as worked out in the Nible Eightfold Path is something that requires a lot of work, a lot of time; and as such, for many people, probably more than one lifetime. It's a multi-lifetime project. — baker

Ever heard of Parkinson’s Law?

A very dishonest conclusion you have drawn there and shows you do not have a serious interest in exploring this topic. — unimportant

Sorry. If you’re willing to indulge me I’ll try again, and try very hard to be honest this time.

Honestly I think the salvation is found in the limitations or order that religion provides. The grand narratives and moral codes offer a sense security and meaning. And of course comfort is found in a unified community.
— praxis

Maybe in part but you cannot really be claiming that is all that is entailed in becoming enlightened? — unimportant

I’m suggesting that salvation may not be all that, uh, mystical or grand, and that religion helps to fulfill basic needs such as meaning, purpose, and connection, for those who have difficulty fulfilling such needs on their own.

You know another huge institution which has those qualities you state? The military. Not seen many Buddhas come out of their ranks. :D — unimportant

An institution like the military may share some of the same basic aspects of religion, like rituals for instance, but obviously other aspects differ. We seem to agree on this point, judging by the rest of what you say in the post.

Many professions have mechanical rituals and again we cannot say they have anything to do with the subject of enlightenment. — unimportant

Which seems to imply that the rituals (and other aspects of religion?) are superfluous to enlightenment :starstruck: . If that's the case then what purpose does religion serve?

You seem to finally admit that I am not defending maliciousness — AmadeusD

I don't know what you're doing, so many of your statements are contradictory. The most glaring example of late is that you say the trans abomination comment is trivial but treat it in a way that is anything but trivial. We literally have been talking about it for weeks.

Kirk catered to his audience, and they enjoyed him deadnaming and claiming that Thomas was an abomination to God. Like you, I imagine that Kirk also didn't give a shit. He was being their culture warrior and putting bread and butter on the table.

We're talking here about people who go up to the pulpit, who sit in front of others, and who tell others that the teachings of their religion are true, and who hold it against others and judge them and even expell them for not professing such belief. And yet these same people in positions of power, in other situations, go ahead and admit to having doubts. — baker

I’m at somewhat of a loss here—if you’re pearl clutching over that, all I can think is you haven’t been around much in Buddhist circles.

I see, the Newman effect strikes again! :lol: