Elections in various countries

[rotting bones]

most Buddhists are either foreigners or recent converts.

Non-Indians might not know this: The converts largely come from lower castes. Many indigenous communities in India have caste stratifications.

Isn't a primary reason, aside from rule by foreigners such as the Mughals, for the spread of Islam historically in the Indian subcontinent is that there are no castes in Islam, which made it very attractive to lower castes and like?

They say that originally, many poor and lower caste Indians converted to Islam. The violence against Muslims is a continuation of the violence against those groups. "Muslim" is often treated as a caste whose customs are alien to the Brahmin ideal. That said, some Muslim communities in India have castes too, though Muslims have always expressed ideological opposition to the caste system. For example, I have heard Bengali Muslims regard Muslims with the surname Khan as lower caste. Muslims with the title Kazi are higher caste. Kazi is Arabic Qadi, meaning judge. If anyone in the family was ever a medieval judge, the title stays with their descendants. This system is not as organized as in Hinduism, and I have never heard religious leaders support it.

This is very different from the situation with Buddhists. Dr. Ambedkar led a movement in modern times to convert large numbers of lower caste Hindus to Buddhism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit_Buddhist_movement

[Travis B.]

This is very different from the situation with Buddhists. Dr. Ambedkar led a movement in modern times to convert large numbers of lower caste Hindus to Buddhism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit_Buddhist_movement

This to me seems to have the characteristics of a new religious movement in that it deliberately substantially modifies many core Buddhist beliefs.

[rotting bones]

This to me seems to have the characteristics of a new religious movement in that it deliberately substantially modifies many core Buddhist beliefs.

Well, they are the main population of Indian Buddhists. There are also many indigenous and refugee Tibetans. The only other indigenous Buddhist group I know of has survived in Nepal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newar_Buddhism

I have heard that Muslims are to blame for the regress of skeptical thought on the subcontinent. They tolerated other religious communities to some extent, but all skeptical groups disappeared under their rule. I think there is some truth to this accusation, but not in the way it sounds. If Muslims had the power to enforce their morality, they would have eradicated the practices of Sati and human sacrifice first. Of course, Muslims carried out lots of oppression, but that was insufficient in the face of determined opposition. I think what happened is that Sufism influenced bhakti (devotional) movements of various kinds in all religions. This was the new and fun thing. As a result, religious art subsumed the previous period of skeptical philosophy.

[zompist]

This is very different from the situation with Buddhists. Dr. Ambedkar led a movement in modern times to convert large numbers of lower caste Hindus to Buddhism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit_Buddhist_movement

This to me seems to have the characteristics of a new religious movement in that it deliberately substantially modifies many core Buddhist beliefs.

The same can be said of Mahayana.

[Travis B.]

This is very different from the situation with Buddhists. Dr. Ambedkar led a movement in modern times to convert large numbers of lower caste Hindus to Buddhism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit_Buddhist_movement

This to me seems to have the characteristics of a new religious movement in that it deliberately substantially modifies many core Buddhist beliefs.

The same can be said of Mahayana.

That is definitely true -- when I read about Mahayana Buddhism I was like "what does any of this have to do with what Buddhism is about?"

[rotting bones]

Wait, I remember now. Chakmas follow Theravada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakma_people But they are a rural hill tribe who traditionally practiced slash-and-burn agriculture. They do not control cultural centers. For example, they are the majority in Rangamati ("red earth") District: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangamati ... ct#Chakmas But they don't look like the majority in the district capital: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangamati#Demographics

Chakmas are culturally tied to Burma rather than representing an indigenous survival of Buddhism. Buddhism reformed into Theravada in Sri Lanka, spread from there to Burma and converted some hill tribes in the border regions with India. These tribes now speak a tonal language related to Bengali: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakma_language (Sylheti is another tonal language related to Bengali. Rohingya might also be tonal.)

There are similar small Theravada communities across India. I have seen a Theravada temple in Kolkata.

[rotting bones]

That is definitely true -- when I read about Mahayana Buddhism I was like "what does any of this have to do with what Buddhism is about?"

Both earlier/reformed strands of Buddhism like Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism are based on the idea of impermanence: things don't have essential natures because they are subject to change. Applying this to the personal ego leads to the understanding of non-self. Theravada Buddhism teaches people how to see all things including the self as impermanent and thereby overcome the sorrow of existence. Theravada uses an atomist metaphysics of names and forms to explain impermanence: https://www.theravada.gr/wp-content/upl ... y-Life.pdf In that way, it has the same spirit as Western Stoicism.

Mahayana says beings who have reached this arhat state can still fall back into non-enlightenment. The only way to reach lasting enlightenment is to reach Buddhahood. To become a Buddha, the perception of impermanence is not sufficient. One must cultivate the two qualities of compassion and emptiness. Through compassion, one rouses the intention to teach enlightenment to all beings. Emptiness is a development of impermanence. In emptiness (also "zeroness"), all things are seen as not fully captured by conceptual predicates. The classic teaching is catuskoti, the four-fold negation: For all objects x, for all predicates a, ① x is not fully a and ② x not fully not a and ③ x not fully a and not a and ④ x is not fully neither a nor not a. This goes beyond atomism to logical skepticism.

Seeing all phenomena through compassion and emptiness develops the perception of "skillful means", consequentialist reasoning about how beings are brought to enlightenment. As all beings are brought to enlightenment, the self is naturally seen to dissolve into a network of mutual freedoms. When seen through the doctrine of non-self, all phenomena are seen as the enlightening qualities of cosmic buddhas at work. The selfless being of the practitioner is seen as skillful means wielded by the cosmic buddhas in a way similar to avatars in Hinduism. Even in Mahayana, the doctrines of the cosmic buddhas are understood to be upaya "skillful means" trying to describe the indescribable manner in which enlightened beings perceive the world. Some people reach enlightenment more quickly, apparently, when told these stories, depending on one's level of attainment. All such doctrines are subject to emptiness and the four-fold negation.

---

Zizek says this shows the Buddhist approach of dealing with antinomies dissolves into superstition. He accepts that Buddhism is saying something important about the nature of reality. However, there is another way to say it which is more compatible with a scientific temperament. That is a development of Kant's mathematical and dynamical antinomies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant%27s_antinomies When conceived in ideal terms, this leads to dialectical idealism. When conceived in material terms, it leads to dialectical materialism. Zizek says he's not a Marxist because Marx himself is more idealistic than Hegel in some ways. He thinks Marx isn't Marxist enough and Hegel isn't Hegelian enough. Everyone should be as thoroughly themselves as possible. That is the only way out of confusion. I do appreciate this idea.

Personally, I don't like his analogy of quantum physics, where he says that quantum physicists have delved so deep that they have unearthed the metaphysical antinomies underlying reality. Zizek has many strange ideas. For example, he thinks that not having a master is unstable. People will drift back into idolatry. We need to have a master who will not command us to do specific things but will rather inspire us to be free. That is the role of the analyst in psychotherapy.

I think Zizek is ultimately an idealist with many misunderstandings about the world. He promoted the dumb idea that Trump is better than Hillary to shake up the liberal establishment. However, he does have a kind of philosophical worldview: instead of trying to embody the contradiction as in Buddhism, treat it as a term in your statements like x and a in the catuskoti. I once tried to write it up in a way that I understand to be scientific: https://snapshotsofthelabyrinth.photo.b ... f-leftism/

[rotting bones]

BTW, my personal opinion on the Buddhist argument is that it doesn't follow from impermanence that nothing can have an essential nature. You could change what kinds of things have them. For example, it's true that physical objects don't have fixed natures across time. However, the laws of nature by which physical objects transform could have essential natures.

Let's say object x is a at time t and b at time t'. x is not essentially either a or b (or both or neither). However, the law of nature that a transforms into b in time t'-t in specific situations could be essentially fixed.

The way I would word it is that "impermanence" is not specific enough to be relevant. To have skillful means, you need to know which phenomena transform into which other phenomena at which points on the timeline.

[Raphael]

BTW, my personal opinion on the Buddhist argument is that it doesn't follow from impermanence that nothing can have an essential nature. You could change what kinds of things have them. For example, it's true that physical objects don't have fixed natures across time. However, the laws of nature by which physical objects transform could have essential natures.

Let's say object x is a at time t and b at time t'. x is not essentially either a or b (or both or neither). However, the law of nature that a transforms into b in time t'-t in specific situations could be essentially fixed.

The way I would word it is that "impermanence" is not specific enough to be relevant. To have skillful means, you need to know which phenomena transform into which other phenomena at which points on the timeline.

Yes, see the thread I started here: https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?t=1707 To quote my own opening post there,

[...] I recently got to look at my old elementary school report cards. In the written notes, some parts made me cringe, and I hope I've improved in some regards, but some other parts made me think, "Yep, that's me".

In your example, a might be the result of d + e or d x e, while b might be the result of d + f or d x f, in which case d would be something that stayed the same about object x, while e would be something that got turned into or replaced by f.

[Torco]

the reason mahayana feels weird is that, if i remember correct, the mahayana texts are like "look, i found some additional sutras in the bottom on the sea... no yeah trust me, for sure, the buddha dictated them to the nagas for safekeeping, and the nagas totally gave them to me". kinda like john smith's golden tables, they're in reality later compositions by religious reformers retconned as original, long-lost canon.

[Travis B.]

the reason mahayana feels weird is that, if i remember correct, the mahayana texts are like "look, i found some additional sutras in the bottom on the sea... no yeah trust me, for sure, the buddha dictated them to the nagas for safekeeping, and the nagas totally gave them to me". kinda like john smith's golden tables, they're in reality later compositions by religious reformers retconned as original, long-lost canon.

That and all the whole pantheon of extra cosmic Buddhas beyond the original Shakyamuni who can be prayed to for this and that, that if you pray hard enough to such and such Buddha you can have a shortcut to enlightenment and so on.

[Raphael]

the reason mahayana feels weird is that, if i remember correct, the mahayana texts are like "look, i found some additional sutras in the bottom on the sea... no yeah trust me, for sure, the buddha dictated them to the nagas for safekeeping, and the nagas totally gave them to me". kinda like john smith's golden tables, they're in reality later compositions by religious reformers retconned as original, long-lost canon.

For once, I agree with you.

[Torco]

the reason mahayana feels weird is that, if i remember correct, the mahayana texts are like "look, i found some additional sutras in the bottom on the sea... no yeah trust me, for sure, the buddha dictated them to the nagas for safekeeping, and the nagas totally gave them to me". kinda like john smith's golden tables, they're in reality later compositions by religious reformers retconned as original, long-lost canon.

That and all the whole pantheon of extra cosmic Buddhas beyond the original Shakyamuni who can be prayed too for this and that, that if you pray hard enough to such and such Buddha you can have a shortcut to enlightenment and so on.

.
sure, that too. the way i think about it it's a sort of regression to the mean, turning buddhism into a more "normal" religion.

then again, there's no shortage of mystical stuff already in therevada, before mahayana: jhanas give you superpowers, there's 31 afterlives, you got devas, relics and so on. if one is really commited to the notion that buddhism has a non-fantastic core that's distinct from fantastic addons one can say that the texts sort of diminish the importance or power of the gods in a way that's almost heretical (mogalana went to heaven and easily conjured up an earthquake that terrified the gods, so these teachings are so true they make people stronger than the gods), but it feels too militant an interpretation to me.

[Travis B.]

the reason mahayana feels weird is that, if i remember correct, the mahayana texts are like "look, i found some additional sutras in the bottom on the sea... no yeah trust me, for sure, the buddha dictated them to the nagas for safekeeping, and the nagas totally gave them to me". kinda like john smith's golden tables, they're in reality later compositions by religious reformers retconned as original, long-lost canon.

That and all the whole pantheon of extra cosmic Buddhas beyond the original Shakyamuni who can be prayed too for this and that, that if you pray hard enough to such and such Buddha you can have a shortcut to enlightenment and so on.

.
sure, that too. the way i think about it it's a sort of regression to the mean, turning buddhism into a more "normal" religion.

then again, there's no shortage of mystical stuff already in therevada, before mahayana: jhanas give you superpowers, there's 31 afterlives, you got devas, relics and so on. if one is really commited to the notion that buddhism has a non-fantastic core that's distinct from fantastic addons one can say that the texts sort of diminish the importance or power of the gods in a way that's almost heretical (mogalana went to heaven and easily conjured up an earthquake that terrified the gods, so these teachings are so true they make people stronger than the gods), but it feels too militant an interpretation to me.

It should be noted that there is a lot of criticism of Westerners and people under Western influence trying to strip the mystical elements out of Buddhism, which when combined with things like deprecation of monasticism and an emphasis on sola scriptura is often called 'Protestant Buddhism'.

[rotting bones]

the reason mahayana feels weird is that, if i remember correct, the mahayana texts are like "look, i found some additional sutras in the bottom on the sea... no yeah trust me, for sure, the buddha dictated them to the nagas for safekeeping, and the nagas totally gave them to me". kinda like john smith's golden tables, they're in reality later compositions by religious reformers retconned as original, long-lost canon.

Mahayana doesn't accept mundane mind-body distinctions. If you obtain a text from the Buddha within your mind, trying to distinguish between that Buddha and some historical Buddha is delusion. If you meet the historical Buddha on the road, kill him.

That and all the whole pantheon of extra cosmic Buddhas beyond the original Shakyamuni who can be prayed to for this and that, that if you pray hard enough to such and such Buddha you can have a shortcut to enlightenment and so on.

Buddhism thinks in terms of causal networks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net Cosmic Buddhas are aspects of these causal networks.

In metaphysical terms, Amitabha interpreted as the Sambhogakaya: https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Sambhogakaya A Buddha has three bodies: emptiness/truth, appearance/form and enjoyment/consumption. Amitabha is the enjoyment of all the Buddhas. By praying to Amitabha, you are surrendering your personal ego to the enjoyment of mutual liberation that arises within the world's causal networks. That way, you can follow theism-like practices while effectively being an atheist. I have read suggestions that Pure Land was created specifically to appeal to Zoroastrians and/or Manicheans. Amitabha is, after all, the Buddha of Infinite Light. Pure Land Buddhism might be the largest surviving Zoroastrianish sect colored with Buddhist aesthetics. Some people enjoy following the theistic model. That's who Pure Land Buddhism is for.

All of this is interpreted as "skillful means", BTW. Unlike actual theists, you still get to reject revelation by being a Buddhist. For example, unlike Zoroastrianism, Pure Land set itself against the revealed practice of incest and the ritual killing of "unclean creatures" like ants and other creations of Ahriman.

Buddhism accepts two forms of proof: perception and reasoning. This pointedly excludes revelation of any kind, and this extends to Pure Land Buddhism. The ancient Atheists rejected reasoning and accepted only perception. Buddhists thought they could prove the afterlife through "reasoning": If there is no afterlife, where are the consequences of your actions? Causes must have effects. Good deeds must be rewarded and evil punished.

Apart from that, the biggest problem with Buddhism is that it believes in literal omniscience. The Buddha couldn't possibly have been omniscient because Buddhism has always thought the world is flat.

[rotting bones]

If you want to know more about forms of proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana

As you can see, the epistemological difference between Buddhism and ancient Atheism is that Buddhism accepted inference and Atheism rejected it.

[Torco]

It should be noted that there is a lot of criticism of Westerners and people under Western influence trying to strip the mystical elements out of Buddhism, which when combined with things like deprecation of monasticism and an emphasis on sola scriptura is often called 'Protestant Buddhism'.

anthropologically i tend to agree: this western interpretation where what one might call the epistemological and practical aspects of are thought of as a sort of "true" buddhism in such a way that the more religious aspects of the tradition are chalked up as silly eastern superstition that's somehow not true buddhism and overlaid onto it... yeah, that's absolutely bad and dumb. that isn't its core, it's just what*i*¨like about buddhism, and the buddha was cool and so am I so he probably meant the parts that i like, right? of course the answer is no.

*but* if you're is a naturalist or an empiricist or a secular humanist or whatever you wanna call it, and you find useful stuff inside buddhism that actually helps you reduce suffering and have a richer, more intentional life, objectively makes it less shitty to exist inside this thing we call a mind, or be one, that shouldn't make you feel obliged to accept as fact the heavenly earthquakes from mogalana's magical toe, or that a dude from ancient nepal performed feats of telekineses with the ease you tie your shoes.

the reason mahayana feels weird is that, if i remember correct, the mahayana texts are like "look, i found some additional sutras in the bottom on the sea... no yeah trust me, for sure, the buddha dictated them to the nagas for safekeeping, and the nagas totally gave them to me". kinda like john smith's golden tables, they're in reality later compositions by religious reformers retconned as original, long-lost canon.

Mahayana doesn't accept mundane mind-body distinctions. If you obtain a text from the Buddha within your mind, trying to distinguish between that Buddha and some historical Buddha is delusion. If you meet the historical Buddha on the road, kill him.

That and all the whole pantheon of extra cosmic Buddhas beyond the original Shakyamuni who can be prayed to for this and that, that if you pray hard enough to such and such Buddha you can have a shortcut to enlightenment and so on.

Buddhism thinks in terms of causal networks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net Cosmic Buddhas are aspects of these causal networks.

In metaphysical terms, Amitabha interpreted as the Sambhogakaya: https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Sambhogakaya A Buddha has three bodies: emptiness/truth, appearance/form and enjoyment/consumption. Amitabha is the enjoyment of all the Buddhas. By praying to Amitabha, you are surrendering your personal ego to the enjoyment of mutual liberation that arises within the world's causal networks. That way, you can follow theism-like practices while effectively being an atheist. I have read suggestions that Pure Land was created specifically to appeal to Zoroastrians and/or Manicheans. Amitabha is, after all, the Buddha of Infinite Light. Pure Land Buddhism might be the largest surviving Zoroastrianish sect colored with Buddhist aesthetics. Some people enjoy following the theistic model. That's who Pure Land Buddhism is for.

like in a metaphorical sense? I always saw dependent origination as like the fact that you can see, sometimes, with skillful observation, the causes of things, and that there's a sort of complicated weave or causes in any situation... that's easy to believe... like but there's not an actual mount meru somewhere, right?

.

All of this is interpreted as "skillful means", BTW. Unlike actual theists, you still get to reject revelation by being a Buddhist. For example, unlike Zoroastrianism, Pure Land set itself against the revealed practice of incest and the ritual killing of "unclean creatures" like ants and other creations of Ahriman.

Buddhism accepts two forms of proof: perception and reasoning. This pointedly excludes revelation of any kind, and this extends to Pure Land Buddhism. The ancient Atheists rejected reasoning and accepted only perception. Buddhists thought they could prove the afterlife through "reasoning": If there is no afterlife, where are the consequences of your actions? Causes must have effects. Good deeds must be rewarded and evil punished.

Apart from that, the biggest problem with Buddhism is that it believes in literal omniscience. The Buddha couldn't possibly have been omniscient because Buddhism has always thought the world is flat.

.
sure, i was reading about the historical context this happened (parsing your post demanded like an hour of looking stuff up, which i thank you for)

and there's a radical inclusiveness to the "fuck it, you know what, chant her name you're clean and valid and saved. you're all clean and valid and saved, lets try to better get mental health and cessation of suffering and, you know what? chanting her name helps with that, too". it was probably the right thing to do. it was probably the buddhist thing to do, but it probably doesn't *work* as well, is what I'm guessing, as the older, more core "look at the mental things that happen in your mind and just note them, don't engage. try that for a while, it's hard i know, but if you get good at it, you'll be so much more mentally stable and have so much less suffering"... which has worked decently for me at times. it sounds more like a concrete response to the weird globalization thing alexander the great did, like... seems like it was a thing of its time

also, i dunno, maybe the guy really was omniscient and just didn't want to argue with flat earthers. this is probably the choice of the all-knowing, all-wisdom, supremely sane person.

[rotting bones]

like in a metaphorical sense? I always saw dependent origination as like the fact that you can see, sometimes, with skillful observation, the causes of things, and that there's a sort of complicated weave or causes in any situation... that's easy to believe... like but there's not an actual mount meru somewhere, right?

As it says in the article, Indra's net is a metaphor. Buddhism doesn't accept metaphors or analogies as proof. It uses metaphors, but doesn't believe in them.

To understand Amitabha, I would distinguish among:

1. Mythology consists of claims from folk history. Mount Meru is a mythological place. Buddhists have always assumed it exists. This argues against them having access to omniscience, but otherwise it is not particularly important in Buddhist philosophy.
2. Symbolism consists of metaphors, often where tangible realities refer to intangible concepts. Indra's net, Amitabha Buddha, ornaments on the body of the Sambhogakaya, etc., are taken to be symbolism in most Mahayana schools. Vajrayana also places value on the literal claims.
3. Theology arranges concepts to form a metaphysical system. Interdependent causation and the trikaya are examples of theology.

Buddhism, especially Mahayana, uses a metaphysics of interdependent causation similar to ecological reasoning. (I would distinguish this from Dependent Origination, which is a highly technical theory about how the skandhas hang together in mutual dependence.) It is a fact that beings within the network of interdependent causation cause each other's liberation. These causal factors are symbolized as the cosmic Buddhas. Liberation gives rise to enjoyment. There is nothing irrational about constructing a set that draws a boundary around all of this enjoyment as one collection. This conceptual set is symbolized as the cosmic Buddha Amitabha, a theological concept. The various details of the tangible Amitabha symbolize features of the abstract set he refers to.

Understood as "skillful means", the symbolism need not be interpreted as historical claims. Buddhism has always sided with utilitarian and consequentialist thinking against essentialist claims. It takes this orientation so far that it thinks the concept of objective reality is a form of equivocation.

Zizek says a key factor by which the Buddhist approach leads to superstition is that it offers no way to distinguish between practical utility and unshakable convictions. This is part of why I'm skeptical of the utility of Buddhism. I don't have a spiritual practice unless you count studying science/philosophy, solving puzzles and listening to Rabindra Sangeet. When there is a lot going on in my mind, slow music slows it down. The closest thing to meditation I would recommend in engaging in debate. You might have to debate yourself and be humble about the positions you defend. You could note down all your thoughts and reason about which are more defensible and why. I believe this is called journaling. I also think controlling your food intake is very important and supplements might be needed. Your brain is a physical object that requires maintenance. The sleep deprivation traditionally practiced by Buddhists is symptomatic of cults.

and there's a radical inclusiveness to the "fuck it, you know what, chant her name you're clean and valid and saved. you're all clean and valid and saved, lets try to better get mental health and cessation of suffering and, you know what? chanting her name helps with that, too". it was probably the right thing to do. it was probably the buddhist thing to do, but it probably doesn't *work* as well, is what I'm guessing, as the older, more core "look at the mental things that happen in your mind and just note them, don't engage. try that for a while, it's hard i know, but if you get good at it, you'll be so much more mentally stable and have so much less suffering"... which has worked decently for me at times. it sounds more like a concrete response to the weird globalization thing alexander the great did, like... seems like it was a thing of its time

This is not just an early approach. Pure Land Buddhism taught meditation too until it reached Japan. It was the Japanese who created rival schools specializing in each of the techniques. This is not how Chinese Buddhism works, neither Chan nor Pure Land. Vajrayana offers incredibly sophisticated forms of meditation.

Some later Mahayana theories are more sophisticated than Hinayana atomism. Buddhists noticed that multiple mutually contradictory abhidharmic descriptions of atomism are possible, and none of them stand out from the others by reasoning alone. This is what led to development of non-foundationalism, the stance that underpins logical skepticism.

I also prefer the Mahayana orientation that when you free others, you free yourself. This lends itself to socialism more than Theravada individualism.

also, i dunno, maybe the guy really was omniscient and just didn't want to argue with flat earthers. this is probably the choice of the all-knowing, all-wisdom, supremely sane person.

On the one hand, the Buddha said he didn't want to make teach ideas unrelated to overcoming suffering. On the other hand, Mount Meru is mentioned prominently in Buddhist texts, old and new. Note that the Indian scholar Aryabhata (476–550 CE) discovered the Heliocentric model.

As a mechanical materialist, I don't believe it is possible to discover scientific truths by reasoning or manipulating your mind in any way. To be scientific, you must treat your perceptions as lunacy and replace them with externally discovered facts. These facts cannot be discovered without experimentation. I actually sympathize with the ancient Atheists who didn't believe in reasoning, but I think it's possible to train your mind by solving logic puzzles and this helps you form connections between concepts. Personally, I don't believe in anecdotal perceptions either. This means I reject all the proof methods mentioned in traditional Indian epistemology. The approaches I believe in weren't accessible to ancient Indians at their level of social development. Truth is not available without social revolution.

[Torco]

Fair enough but the whole "it's a meeetaphor" thing is... i don't know, it feels like a way to say "all of these claims are true, even the ones that are false, becuase the false ones are true metaphorically". I get that not all traditions of knowledge have to be epistemologically identical to western enlightenment-originated natural science to be valid, interesting or useful, but in a bag with lemons and oranges, it becomes easy to confuse one for the other. then again, people do use a mixture of metaphor and straightforwards statements (and if you're picky, those are full of metaphors too) so i guess telling limes from lemons is what wisdom is all about.

the only meditation i've found useful is this practice i understand is mostly emphasized by the vipassana therevadins: this thing about focusing on breathing and noting anything that arises in the consciousness: breathe in, thinking, thinking, cold, sensation of discomfort... "this is silly", okay thinking, that kind of thing, breathe out, thinking... i dunno about you but when my mind idles, it does a loooot of pointless thinking.

I also prefer the Mahayana orientation that when you free others, you free yourself. This lends itself to socialism more than Theravada individualism.

i think it's a nice sentiment, but like... can you really socialize the means of enlightenment? it seems intuitive that training your mind in this and that way leads to having a mind that does less of this or that thing (for example, panicking at things not worth panicking about), but how praying to some buddhist god of salvation might be different from praying to some jewish or italian god of salvation is less intuitive.

As a mechanical materialist, I don't believe it is possible to discover scientific truths by reasoning or manipulating your mind in any way...

I meeean... you ultimately have to rely on perception, right? if the thermometer reads 33 degrees, that's a sensation in your retina and whatever else. sure, scientists will try to rely on relatively uncontroversial sensations, like the thermometer reading 33, try and repeat them as much as they can, and be skeptical of more complicated, more error-prone perceptions like "silver is pure and iron is impure", but it's all going to be tinglings in the brain, so to speak, no?

[rotting bones]

Fair enough but the whole "it's a meeetaphor" thing is... i don't know, it feels like a way to say "all of these claims are true, even the ones that are false, becuase the false ones are true metaphorically". I get that not all traditions of knowledge have to be epistemologically identical to western enlightenment-originated natural science to be valid, interesting or useful, but in a bag with lemons and oranges, it becomes easy to confuse one for the other. then again, people do use a mixture of metaphor and straightforwards statements (and if you're picky, those are full of metaphors too) so i guess telling limes from lemons is what wisdom is all about.

In traditional Indian philosophy, schools of thought are classified by which forms of proof they accept as valid. Buddhism was identified as that school of thought which accepts perception and reasoning, rejecting testimony, analogy, postulation and absence. In scholarship, this is the defining characteristic which identifies a Buddhist.

the only meditation i've found useful is this practice i understand is mostly emphasized by the vipassana therevadins: this thing about focusing on breathing and noting anything that arises in the consciousness: breathe in, thinking, thinking, cold, sensation of discomfort... "this is silly", okay thinking, that kind of thing, breathe out, thinking... i dunno about you but when my mind idles, it does a loooot of pointless thinking.

Zen teaches you to "just sit", watching thoughts arise and fall away, leading to the insight of their impermanence. In Chinese and Vietnamese Buddhism, similar classic Buddhist meditation practices are taught by both Chan and Pure Land.

In Tibetan Buddhism, "Vipashyana" is integrated into other forms of training: https://studybuddhism.com/en/tibetan-bu ... esentation https://studybuddhism.com/en/tibetan-bu ... ve-meaning https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-s ... meditation https://studybuddhism.com/en/tibetan-bu ... meditation

However, it is not regarded as the highest form of training. One example of the kind of thing that is regarded as the highest training is The Six Vajra Yogas of Kalachakra: https://dzokden.org/yogas/ This kind of training is not available without guidance from an instructor:

1. The Vajra Yoga of Withdrawal
Skt. Pratyāhara, Tib. sordut

This First Vajra Yoga includes a night-time practice, carried out in a dark room with eyes wide open, and a day-time practice which involves focusing one’s vision on the clear blue sky. Through these practices, the conceptual movement of your mind is cut, as the ten inner winds which circulate in the subtle body are absorbed into the central channel. The ten signs and clear-light mind are experienced, which then become stronger, clearer, and more stable. Four of these signs are objects of the night-time practice while the remaining six are objects of the day-time practice. On the basis of these ten signs, an “inner world” that is quite independent of the outside world is unveiled. At this stage, however, these signs are still perceived as being separate from the subjective awareness of the mind.

2. The Vajra Yoga of Stabilisation
Skt. Dhyāna, Tib. samten

Through this Second Vajra Yoga, the perception of the empty-forms attained in the previous practice is unified indivisibly with the awareness of an inner perceiver, and therefore one’s speech, inner wind, and awareness become unwavering. While the First Vajra Yoga allows one to perceive the empty-forms of the ten signs as the objects of the mind, the Second Vajra Yoga enables the practitioner to “mix” these signs with the mind and experience the joy and bliss of analysis (special insight). Prior to this stage, you practice with the eye sense consciousness and visual forms. Here, you practice with each of the sense consciousnesses and their objects individually—including sound, smell, taste, and touch. At this stage, special conditions such as a dark room are not necessarily needed.

3. The Vajra Yoga of Life-Force Control
Skt. Prāṇāyāma, Tib. sogtsol

Previously, the empty-forms were mixed with the perceiving awareness itself. These two are now combined with the inner winds so that there is no separation between the three entities. The ten winds of the left and right channels are unified as they are drawn into the central channel, thereby causing the circulation of the inner winds in the left and right channels to cease. This is achieved by focusing on the navel center, where the blazing fire of authentic tummo is directly experienced. As the energy in the central channel intensifies, it generates an increasingly intense experience of bliss.

4. The Vajra Yoga of Retention
Skt. Dharāṇā, Tib. zinpa

During the previous stage, the practitioner was able to retain the essential bodily fluids and thereby unify empty-forms, awareness, and subtle winds. Through this Fourth Vajra Yoga, these three elements are then integrated with the indestructible subtle fluid essences located in the six subtle chakra centers. Beginning with the white essences that are retained and stabilized at the forehead chakra, the practitioner learns to direct the essences down the central channel, moving from chakra to chakra. As one does this, aspects of great bliss are experienced. This bliss increases as the subtle essences continue to melt, giving rise to what are known as the sixteen aspects of joy.

5. The Vajra Yoga of Recollection
Skt. Anusmṛiti, Tib. jeeten

The fifth of the Six Vajra Yogas is known as Recollection. At this stage, the practitioner has gained complete control of the movement of the subtle essences which allows them to completely fill the six chakras with the pure essence of great bliss. To achieve the most powerful form of concentration, all of the gross and subtle essences must be gathered at the lower opening of the central channel. This is achieved by working with three types of consort: a physical consort, a generated (visualized) consort, and the great consort of empty-form. Through the first two, it becomes possible to manifest the third, which is the only consort capable of supporting the immutable bliss that abides without movement in the definitive meaning.

6. The Vajra Yoga of Absorption
Skt. Samādhi, Tib. ting nge dzin

The final stage of the Six Vajra Yogas is Meditative Absorption. Having developed a stable absorption in the state of supreme immutable bliss, one progresses along the twelve bodhisattva stages of absorption. At the beginning of this process, the Path of Insight is achieved, during which time the unshakeable non-dualistic mind of sublime emptiness is experienced directly for the first time with perfect single-pointed concentration. At this point, one attains an approximate Kālachakra form, similar to the actual form of the enlightened deity. By remaining in this state of absorption, each of the six chakras is filled from the bottom up with the white essence of immutable great bliss. As the process develops, one progresses along the Path of Habituation. In total, one experiences 21,600 moments of immutable great bliss, which purify 21,600 defilements, gradually dissolving the inner winds and exhausting the elements of the material body. When all afflictive and cognitive obscurations are thereby eliminated, buddhahood is achieved in the form of the co-emergent fully-actualised Kālachakra deity.

Unless I'm mistaken, this practice involves visualizing a 722-deity mandala at one point, all of which symbolize aspects of consciousness. Notice that the second Vajra Yoga mentions "analysis" and "insight" (Pali. vipassana). What weirds me out is that Vajrayana takes the "womb of emptiness" literally to imply a consort. Also note that Vajrayana explicitly prohibits denigrating women. See point 14: https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?tit ... _downfalls

Personally, I have never practiced meditation unless you count lying in bed staring at the ceiling. Note that Buddhism forbids music and chess, which I think are more helpful in overcoming delusion than meditation. I don't want the mind to be quiet and stable. I want it to be active and engaged with the distinctions that are causally relevant to my goals. (Neoconfucians also made this point.) I sympathize with the Neoplatonists who wanted to energize the mind. (If I had the timenergy, I would solve chess puzzles, the android apps Code Breaking, Einstein's Riddle, Calcudoku, Elevate and Lumosity everyday. If I could afford it, I would take turmeric, probiotic supplements and citicoline. I would also play Hive and other random strategy games on BoardGameArena. Maybe the card game Dominion, which changes with every game.)

i think it's a nice sentiment, but like... can you really socialize the means of enlightenment?

Yes, you are a reflection of who you hang out with. Given non-self, Mahayana is skeptical about the possibility of individual enlightenment. The causal web is all there is. The sorrows of others will find a way to drag you back down to earth, physically if not emotionally. Enlightenment is an emergent phenomenon that arises in societies. Your enlightenment is synonymous with you helping to create an environment where beings can live enlightened lives. In some sense, the only enlightened beings are the cosmic Buddhas symbolizing the mutual arising of enlightened thinking in the causal networks. There is an internal disagreement within Mahayana about whether the network of consciousness is itself real or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangtong_and_shentong

All this is good, but it won't work because Buddhism prioritizes the subjective over the physical. The only thing that would really work is the dirty term social engineering.

it seems intuitive that training your mind in this and that way leads to having a mind that does less of this or that thing (for example, panicking at things not worth panicking about),

The ability to train your mind is a privilege afforded to you by society. What are the conditions enabling you to sit up there, pretending to be all enlightened and shit?

but how praying to some buddhist god of salvation might be different from praying to some jewish or italian god of salvation is less intuitive.

Pure Land never says praying to Amitabha leads to enlightenment. It says it will lead to enlightenment in a future lifetime. The way that scholars understand it is that it leads you to unselfish thinking without the delusions accompanying theism. This is good karma which will give you the privilege to enter real practice in the afterlife. (Buddhism really accepts the afterlife. It's not a metaphor for anything else.)

I meeean... you ultimately have to rely on perception, right? if the thermometer reads 33 degrees, that's a sensation in your retina and whatever else. sure, scientists will try to rely on relatively uncontroversial sensations, like the thermometer reading 33, try and repeat them as much as they can, and be skeptical of more complicated, more error-prone perceptions like "silver is pure and iron is impure", but it's all going to be tinglings in the brain, so to speak, no?

By that definition, testimony is also perception, as is everything else since abhidharma classifies the mind as a sense organ. This is not what pratyaksha means.

I only trust the thermometer because the institutional framework behind the thermometer is trustworthy. I wouldn't trust a thermometer being sold by a snake oil salesman. Rather than the thermometer itself, it's the institutional framework behind it that I trust. That's the sense in which I reject the anecdotal perception accepted by traditional Indian epistemology. Note that I use perceptions, but I don't believe in them.

PS. Clarification: I would accept any trustworthy system of experimentation, not just specific institutions.