I don't get Buddhism

[iambiguous]

The Case Against “Buddhism”
Randy Rosenthal talks to scholar Glenn Wallis about his thought-provoking new book A Critique of Western Buddhism: Ruins of the Buddhist Real.
at Lion's Roar website
Lion's Roar describes itself as "BUDDHIST WISDOM for OUR TIME"

Glenn Wallis’s new book A Critique of Western Buddhism: Ruins of the Buddhist Real may be disturbing, if not infuriating, to anyone who considers themself Buddhist. For forty-plus years, Wallis has been “actively surveying the Buddhist landscape.” With a Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies from Harvard, he’s a scholar and translator of Pali, Sanskrit, and Tibetan texts. He’s also studied with ajahns in Thailand, rinpoches in the Himalayas, and roshis in Japan. Yet, he doesn’t wear robes or call himself a dharma teacher, or even a Buddhist. This is in part because, after everything, Wallis has concluded that Western Buddhism must get ruined.

Think about it. Why would those who call themselves Buddhists become disturbed or infuriated by a book that critiques Western Buddhism?

I can think of two reasons. One, the author gets any number of actual facts able to be determined and confirmed wrong. Two, the author's argument that Buddhism in the West "must get ruined" because it is not in accord with their own beliefs regarding the main components of the religion. Which is always crucial for me because with so much at stake in getting enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana right -- from both sides of the grave -- isn't it vital that those who choose to call themselves Buddhists are on the same page? Otherwise the one true spiritual path gets missed. And then any path that anyone is able to convince themselves is the one true path is okay. However far removed it might be from the original intent of Buddha himself. And how can that not be problem when choosing the behaviors you do with the "next world" in mind?

Thus:

“Ruin” is the keyword in Wallis’s new book...As he says below, it doesn’t refer to destruction or annihilation. In his usage, it describes a return to an unkempt state. Wallis argues that Western Buddhism has been diffused through Enlightenment, Romantic, and Protestant thinking. It claims ancient legitimacy while ignoring aspects of the early Buddhist scriptures — such as stories of the Buddha’s supernatural powers and the teachings on rebirth.

An "unkempt state". What can this reflect but an insistence that any number of "Western" paths are in fact not in sync with the Buddha's intent. With his own understanding of the main components of a religion that, after all, he invented. And that's important to note because unlike the many diverse Western denominations, they can always go to a God, the God, my God. So, for the Buddhist, the intent of the Buddha himself becomes all that much more important.

As for the supernatural powers of Gautama Buddha, what are we to make of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_ ... %20himself.

Today, the Buddha is depicted as an empirically-minded scientist. These and other doctrinal alterations, argues Wallis, represent the troubling upkeep of Buddhism’s facade. In order to maintain itself as an institution within the consumerist capitalist framework in which it operates, says Wallis, “Buddhism” must package and market itself. In doing so, he contends that Buddhism negates the very teachings it aims to convey.

In other words, as with Catholicism configuring into Protestant denominations to accommodate the historical reality of capitalism, Buddhism here in the West must follow suit.

But that just begs the question: in regard to the behaviors that, say, the Dalai Lama chooses in our postmodern world how much is he willing to "ignore aspects of the early Buddhist scriptures".

[iambiguous]

Okay, but my own interest in all of this revolves around the extent to which someone chooses to observe a dietary regimen because it is a part of a religious regimen. And thus is seen not only to be a matter of health but of being in sync with any particular religious denomination insisting that one must eat or drink or not eat or not drink this or that because it is a requirement given the parameters of one's faith. And, thus, that the behaviors one chooses in regard to diet will be judged either by God or by whatever the equivalent of God is re "the universe" for the Buddhists.

With Buddhism, there is no judge jury and executioner, only what’s right and works for you and/or your sect or monastery.

Non-adherence, to banned consumerables, would probably incur extra duties, more hours spent meditating, days or even weeks of kneeling, etc. I doubt that one of the penalties would be death, like in the olden days of the more ancient Indian religions.

So, if what's right and what works for you as an individual need be as far as it goes, then anyone who believes anything at all about being a Buddhist need be as far as it goes when whatever that is the equivalent of God out there in the universe sets into motion the parts that revolve around reincarnation and Nirvana.

And all those other religious denominations that, instead, believe God judges your behaviors on this side of the grave...they have got it all wrong?

And then the part where, from their own frame of mind, this is not rooted in dasein but in one or another equivalent of the real me -- soul -- in tandem with the right thing to do given their commitment to a particular spiritual path.

Buddhism is a much more relaxed practice than you think.. as are many of the Asian practices and religions, so it’s more a case of what the individual wants to put in, in relation to what they want to get out or gain from the practice.. so they need to choose their monastery, sect, or Buddhist Centre, in accordance with that.

It must be relaxed when individual Buddhists are able to pick and choose only those practices and behaviors they think are in accord with what they have read or heard about the Buddha. Choices that, in turn, are in sync only with the "lifestyle" they are most comfortable with.

[iambiguous]

The Case Against “Buddhism”
Randy Rosenthal talks to scholar Glenn Wallis about his thought-provoking new book A Critique of Western Buddhism: Ruins of the Buddhist Real.
at Lion's Roar website
Lion's Roar describes itself as "BUDDHIST WISDOM for OUR TIME"

Randy Rosenthal: In the introduction to your book, you argue that “Western Buddhism must be ruined.” What do you mean?

Glenn Wallis: It’s obviously provocative to say Buddhism must be ruined, but it’s not what people think. It doesn’t mean you need to annihilate this and be done with it.

A ruin is not annihilated structure. It is transformed. It is returned to its natural condition. It’s still a beautiful, profound structure that is uplifting and inspiring. It no longer functions as a place of commerce or bureaucracy. That’s the idea of a ruin.

Western Buddhism must be radicalized — stripped of the pretension, of the principle of “sufficient Buddhism.” It just becomes raw cultural material that human beings can work with.

Buddhism. Returned to its "natural condition". Ruined in the West by those who have reconfigured it into a spiritual path more in sync with our postmodern industrial world thoroughly shaped and molded by, among other things, our capitalist political economy. A "context" wholly unfamiliar to Gautama Buddha, who lived in "ancient India" 500 years before the birth of Christ.

Not annihilated however. Just refashioned into a shape more to the liking of someone convinced that they in fact grasp the "original intent" of Buddha. Their own "transformation" in other words.

Randy Rosenthal: An important idea in your book is “sufficiency.” What do you mean when you use that word?

Glenn Wallis: The principle of sufficient Buddhism says simply that in the end it must be the Buddhist idea that prevails. It must prevail over other forms of knowledge that might be better in the situation. Some people apply this thinking to addiction theory, saying that everything you need to understand about addiction is in the Buddhist teaching of the Four Noble Truths.

And what can this be other than the strictest interpretation of what Gautama Buddha meant by what he said in regards to enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana. And that's basically what I am interested in. What did he say about them and how can what he said [and meant] be made applicable to the behaviors that Buddhists choose. Whether in the East or the West. But less in regard to things like addiction and more in regard to moral and political values that come into conflict.

Glenn Wallis: Buddhist institutions operate as edifices to protect the Buddhist sufficiency. If you take away the principle of sufficiency, all of a sudden Buddhism doesn’t seem to necessarily have the goods. All these other forms of knowledge appear — biology, psychology — and then Buddhism comes into dialogue with them.

That's my point in regard to all religious denominations. What is the bare minimum commitment when it comes to being sufficiently Buddhist or Hindu or Christion or Shinto? And this dialogue would include anthropology and political science and ethics and sociology and the physical laws of nature.

And then after someone is able to establish that in fact he or she is sufficiently Buddhist, we can discuss this given a set of circumstances revolving around my own interests in religion.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Asian practices tend not to be "relaxed". They are hard-assed and dare I say, at times sadistic.

When they were brought to the West, they were watered down because the master practitioners thought that Westerners could not (or would not) handle it.

That's what you seem to be describing ... Western Buddhism or Western Asian practices.

I was thinking about this watering down recently, first in relation to mindfullness and then in relation to the way pharmaceutical companies pull out a single chemical from a plant (and tweak it in the lab if they can so they can patent it) rather than using the whole plant and herbalists generally do. So you have mindfullness which is a single practice from Buddhist without any of the culture - including the four noble truths, including stories of the Buddha, rituals, chanting, incense, the practical morals, compassion and so on.

I am not saying this is wrong per se, but extremely reductionistic. It presumes one can pull one piece of a whole and use it. Most of the herbalists I have worked with consider plants to have a complex of chemical or traits and that these can offset the sideeffects of the specific chemical or trait that one most wants to use in plant, say for arthritis or whatever. Also that mixes of plants can be much better than single plants because there are synergistic effects, but also one then needs a lower dosage of each drug thus reducing any toxic side effects.

So we have this tendency to reduce in the West - take out the single 'best' piece and reproduce it and consider the rest chaff. In the pharma world we can see the incredible amount of side effects of the medicines themselves, often causing really rather large numbers of deaths and other serious problems. Of course many of these medicines are extremely effective. It's not that reductionism is wrong per se, nor is holism necessarily right. Each have positive and negative aspects. But it seems like it would be positive if people in Western medicine say, or those importing pieces of other systems, at least

considered

that they might be making mistakes when plucking out single strands of fiber from a whole cloth.

Which, by the way, is not me saying that one must take wholes and I don't 'take the whole' of Buddhism, though I think Buddhism did help me disentangle myself from some problematic ideas in Western philosophy (take philosophy in this in very broad terms to include cultural assumptions). Sometimes teachers and experts are totally spot on about one thing but off on others.

I am not selling a counterrule.

It's just that someting like Buddhism is an ecology of pieces, an interlocking, intercausal whole. And there is a hubris in thinking that one understands what it means to pluck out just one piece. At least acknowledging this hubris seems rational and cautious to me.

[zinnat]

This is one of those rare occasions when i have to agree with lamb, at least for pointing out something which i said before in this very thread and some other threads too.

Unlike Glenn, i have not studied pali language or Buddhism for forty years but as i am involved in serious meditation in person, though not essentially according to Buddhism since but last thirty years and counting, thus able to understand what Glenn is saying and why. Any honest and serious investigator would reach the same conclusion

Buddhism goes way beyond mere mindfulness and likewise concepts which are generally considered as the ultimate goal of Buddhism in the west. It is not about only calming one's mind and easing tensions and thus improving mental health. These practices are just enablers to get real goal, which is ascending in spiritually. Having said that is also true that these practices are essential also. Just as a tennis player musk know how to top spin, side spin and undercut a tennis boll but all these skill will not serve any purpose in he would not have a good running stamina. So, in a way, running endurance is essential for a successful tennis player otherwise he will be worn out in just five minutes during a match but just having good running stamina is enough to be successful tennis player? Of course not. He must have a lot of other skills also.

The same is true for Buddhism also. All these practices are good and necessary but neither goal nor sufficient. These are just the necessary groundwork to build on further. But, the Western Buddhism stops there and have no intention to go on further.

Just as KT pointed out in the last post, west nitpicked what it found suitable and agreeable from the Buddhism and named it Buddhism. And, Buddhism did not object to it either. Perhaps that is only reason why Buddhism is the only Eastern religion which is able to spread its roots in the west. If one goes purely about the basic concepts of the religion, it is Jainism not Buddhism which is more closer to western ideology than Buddhism but it never found any takers in the west just because Jainism did not allow itself migrating from the core principles.

Western intellectuals think that they can attain enlightenment by discussing Buddhism while having Chicken wings with a glass of wine, But it is never going to work. Having said that i am not saying that it is a bad thing either.

with love,
sanjay

[Karpel Tunnel]

Just as KT pointed out in the last post, west nitpicked what it found suitable and agreeable from the Buddhism and named it Buddhism. And, Buddhism did not object to it either. Perhaps that is only reason why Buddhism is the only Eastern religion which is able to spread its roots in the west.

Sufism and Taoism have made inroads and Hinduism has done quite well in the West through various ashrams and gurus, though not as well as Buddhism. However the parallel there is Yoga: here a physical process has been plucked out of the wider religious and cultural practices, just as mindfulness has been plucked out of Buddhism. And Yoga is all over the place. And portions the New Age movements have plucked bits and pieces from both and other traditions. And, of course, there are many Hinduisms and many Buddhisms, the differences between them, as Mags pointed out, even in the East can be staggeringly different.

[phyllo]

It's just that someting like Buddhism is an ecology of pieces, an interlocking, intercausal whole. And there is a hubris in thinking that one understands what it means to pluck out just one piece. At least acknowledging this hubris seems rational and cautious to me.

When Buddhism is brought into a new area, it doesn't take the entire culture of the old area with it. It's absorbed into the existing culture of the area. It changes. One can see that in the move east out of India. China, Tibet, Japan all adapted it to their own needs. The move into the West is yet another adaptation.

I thought a lot about it last night when I read your post. I don't know which parts of Buddhism ought to be retained by the West and which ought to be dropped. It's an interesting question. I wonder what Glenn Wallis thinks the "ruins" of Buddhism are. And by "ruins" he means the core foundations which survive the weathering of time and place. I'm tempted to get the book.

[Karpel Tunnel]

When Buddhism is brought into a new area, it doesn't take the entire culture of the old area with it. It's absorbed into the existing culture of the area. It changes. One can see that in the move east out of India. China, Tibet, Japan all adapted it to their own needs. The move into the West is yet another adaptation.

Sure, though when Buddhism moved to China and Tibet it retained a complex ecology that was transformed in the new culture. This also happened in the WEst. But one thing that also happened in the West was this plucking out of one portion, for example mindfulness. Perhaps this happened in other countries in the East, I don't know, but it certainly happened here not unlike how Yoga was plucked out from Hinduism. I am not saying this is bad, in fact I pluck myself from different systems and approaches in a number of areas in my life. I think, though it's good if one is aware one may be missing something vital even for that single piece.

I thought a lot about it last night when I read your post. I don't know which parts of Buddhism ought to be retained by the West and which ought to be dropped. It's an interesting question. I wonder what Glenn Wallis thinks the "ruins" of Buddhism are. And by "ruins" he means the core foundations which survive the weathering of time and place. I'm tempted to get the book.

I don't think there is any universal answer. It would depend on one's goals and needs and what else one is working with.

[phyllo]

Sure, though when Buddhism moved to China and Tibet it retained a complex ecology that was transformed in the new culture. This also happened in the WEst. But one thing that also happened in the West was this plucking out of one portion, for example mindfulness. Perhaps this happened in other countries in the East, I don't know, but it certainly happened here not unlike how Yoga was plucked out from Hinduism. I am not saying this is bad, in fact I pluck myself from different systems and approaches in a number of areas in my life. I think, though it's good if one is aware one may be missing something vital even for that single piece.

You really only find out if you missed a vital part after you try it without that part and you discover a problem.

One could say that the ancient Buddhists already did that and discovered what was vital. But they were living in another world.

Are the same parts vital in the modern high tech world that were vital back then?

If you focus purely on mindfulness, then which vital part are you missing? And why is it vital?

I don't think there is any universal answer. It would depend on one's goals and needs and what else one is working with.

It would be interesting to see what conclusions he reached after 40 years of study.

[iambiguous]

This is one of those rare occasions when i have to agree with lamb, at least for pointing out something which i said before in this very thread and some other threads too.

Unlike Glenn, i have not studied pali language or Buddhism for forty years but as i am involved in serious meditation in person, though not essentially according to Buddhism since but last thirty years and counting, thus able to understand what Glenn is saying and why. Any honest and serious investigator would reach the same conclusion

Buddhism goes way beyond mere mindfulness and likewise concepts which are generally considered as the ultimate goal of Buddhism in the west. It is not about only calming one's mind and easing tensions and thus improving mental health. These practices are just enablers to get real goal, which is ascending in spiritually. Having said that is also true that these practices are essential also. Just as a tennis player musk know how to top spin, side spin and undercut a tennis boll but all these skill will not serve any purpose in he would not have a good running stamina. So, in a way, running endurance is essential for a successful tennis player otherwise he will be worn out in just five minutes during a match but just having good running stamina is enough to be successful tennis player? Of course not. He must have a lot of other skills also.

The same is true for Buddhism also. All these practices are good and necessary but neither goal nor sufficient. These are just the necessary groundwork to build on further. But, the Western Buddhism stops there and have no intention to go on further.

Just as KT pointed out in the last post, west nitpicked what it found suitable and agreeable from the Buddhism and named it Buddhism. And, Buddhism did not object to it either. Perhaps that is only reason why Buddhism is the only Eastern religion which is able to spread its roots in the west. If one goes purely about the basic concepts of the religion, it is Jainism not Buddhism which is more closer to western ideology than Buddhism but it never found any takers in the west just because Jainism did not allow itself migrating from the core principles.

Western intellectuals think that they can attain enlightenment by discussing Buddhism while having Chicken wings with a glass of wine, But it is never going to work. Having said that i am not saying that it is a bad thing either.

with love,
sanjay

From my own frame of mind this is just one more "general description intellectual contraption" that steers clear of that which is of most importance to me in regard to "ascending spiritually": morality here and now, immortality there and then.

The existential relationship between them given the manner in which I construe this as the embodiment of dasein.

Whether someone subscribes more to the original intent of Gautama Buddha, or to one of the many "schools of Buddhism" around today [East or West] -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism -- how are their beliefs reconfigured into the behaviors they choose? And how do they connect the dots between those behaviors and what they imagine the fate of "I" to be after having shuffled off this mortal coil.

And, finally, of most importance by far, how would they go about demonstrating that what they believe is true about any of this is something that can in fact be demonstrated as true beyond a leap of faith.

[iambiguous]

The Dalai Lama and Keith Raniere. East meets West. Cult to cult?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -cult.html

This might just be tabloid fare but there have been documentaries shown on HBO and Stars that noted this "exchange" as well.

[Karpel Tunnel]

You really only find out if you missed a vital part after you try it without that part and you discover a problem.

Or you never notice the problem because you have nothing to compare it to. How does the mindfulness focused person realize what they are missing.

One could say that the ancient Buddhists already did that and discovered what was vital. But they were living in another world.

Are the same parts vital in the modern high tech world that were vital back then?

I would think that to get at deep issues you need to make more global changes in your life. For example, the behaviora/'moralish' portions of Buddhism would have all sorts of affects on your self-relation and how you relate to other people and thus think of and feel as yourself. It certainly might need to be a different complete system, but a complete one nonetheless. But further, there might even be subtle bad effects, which the practitioners are not in a position to notice, having nothing to compare it to.

If you focus purely on mindfulness, then which vital part are you missing? And why is it vital?

Well, that's the question. Some serious meditators spent decades and decades of meditation and continued to decide that a more global approach was necessary. They might be wrong, but no one seems to even consider it a valid question in the West. Perhaps knowing the four noble truths might have a use. Perhaps the study with a master. Perhaps significant time in retreat from society. Perhaps a strong focus on compassion for other creatures. These are not small things.

Perhaps mindfulness on its own leads to a kind of peaceful narcissism, something that could be seen in much of the New Age Movement, which was notorious for going shopping in both Western and Eastern traditions like they were in a candy store.

And it's not that I would say even some of the more shallow approaches are wrong - heck, I don't like Buddhism - but people seem to simply assume they can take one thing out and it has to be peachy. The one trick pony experts abound. spirituality as fashion

I don't think there is any universal answer. It would depend on one's goals and needs and what else one is working with.

It would be interesting to see what conclusions he reached after 40 years of study.[/quote]Who is 'he'?

[phyllo]

Or you never notice the problem because you have nothing to compare it to. How does the mindfulness focused person realize what they are missing.

True.

I guess if you feel that there is no problem, then there is no problem.

What's an alternative course of action? Look for something better/different when you're satisfied? You have limited time and other resources.

Your intuitive feelings have to guide you.

Who is 'he'?

Glenn Wallis ... the guy that Biggus quoted.

[MagsJ]

Western intellectuals think that they can attain enlightenment by discussing Buddhism while having Chicken wings with a glass of wine..

Good point Zinnat! Tofu wings and mead would go down much better, as a more acceptable choice for the mindful Set.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I guess if you feel that there is no problem, then there is no problem.

Or you're in denial. Or.....

What's an alternative course of action? Look for something better/different when you're satisfied? You have limited time and other resources.

Sure. But in that limited time I think one can be wiser or less wise. The idea that one piece might be missing something vital, I think, is helpful. Knowing that sometimes complex systems work and parts that seem to workw without some or all of the rest may not work or even be damaging. Without it you are like many people just a bit more at the mercy of fads and advertisers.

You might avoid nightmare Cane Toad solutions. Where what works in the moment in the specific location (the Cane Toad eats the pest), also leads to all sorts of other problems because one is looking at the situation with blinders and not recognizing the ecological whole. I think it's a type of hubris. Knowing this does not make all decision making easier, but it creates a wiser base for things like intuition and rational analysis.

Your intuitive feelings have to guide you.

Yes, if you\ve had any training using those. For many people their training is just to follow the fad and expert of the moment. Right now mindfulness is being spread happily in the corporate world in large part because it mollifies workers.

Who is 'he'?

Glenn Wallis ... the guy that Biggus quoted.[/quote]
OK.

[zinnat]

Just as KT pointed out in the last post, west nitpicked what it found suitable and agreeable from the Buddhism and named it Buddhism. And, Buddhism did not object to it either. Perhaps that is only reason why Buddhism is the only Eastern religion which is able to spread its roots in the west.

Sufism and Taoism have made inroads and Hinduism has done quite well in the West through various ashrams and gurus, though not as well as Buddhism. However the parallel there is Yoga: here a physical process has been plucked out of the wider religious and cultural practices, just as mindfulness has been plucked out of Buddhism. And Yoga is all over the place. And portions the New Age movements have plucked bits and pieces from both and other traditions. And, of course, there are many Hinduisms and many Buddhisms, the differences between them, as Mags pointed out, even in the East can be staggeringly different.

KT,
I am not sure how much yoga is popular in the west, maybe you know about it more than me thus i take your word for it.

But, as you rightly mentioned in your post, just like Buddhism, the physical part of yoga has beet taken out of the context from the whole of the and considered is as an ultimate goal. What is generally taught in the name of yoga around the world is not yoga in true sense. That is yogasan, which means various physical postures in which yoga can be done.

The tern yoga is used in both of Sanskrit and Hindi as verb and noun. The verb stands for adding something while Noun means Total or Aggregate of all added things. Yoga symbolises the act or effort to be one with reality or the ultimate. If you go in details, yoga is one of the six Theistic Philosophies of Hinduism which are Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta while there are three other Atheistic philosophies are Buddhism, Jainism And Charvka. Having said that, the practices very similar to yoga are very much there in Buddhism and Jainism.

Essentially, Yoga is nothing but doing meditation in different ways and postures.As a philosophy, it was built on Samkhya school of thought which is basically a dualistic philosophy and proposes its ultimate goal in Moksha(Libration), which is the same as Buddhism and Jainism. The only difference is in terminology, nothing else.

Having said all that, i am not saying that physical aspect of yoga is bad. Not at all. It is good for health but that is it.

with love,
sanjay

[zinnat]

From my own frame of mind this is just one more "general description intellectual contraption" that steers clear of that which is of most importance to me in regard to "ascending spiritually": morality here and now, immortality there and then.

The existential relationship between them given the manner in which I construe this as the embodiment of dasein.

Whether someone subscribes more to the original intent of Gautama Buddha, or to one of the many "schools of Buddhism" around today [East or West] -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism -- how are their beliefs reconfigured into the behaviors they choose? And how do they connect the dots between those behaviors and what they imagine the fate of "I" to be after having shuffled off this mortal coil.

And, finally, of most importance by far, how would they go about demonstrating that what they believe is true about any of this is something that can in fact be demonstrated as true beyond a leap of faith.

Lamb,

Neither me nor anyone can help it if your own frame of mind is faulty, And, you do not wantt o correct it either. Each and everything what others say, you discredit that claiming it as intellectual contraption but hav you ever realized what you do every time is not the same?

Believe me or not, I am more than sure that not many of living people as of now have reached where i have been. You may think that i am exaggerating but i am not. I can provide you proof but not on the net. To get the proof, you have to submit me for some months and follow my instructions without any questions and you will get the proof But you will never be able to do that so let us put an end to that. There are no shortcuts.

With love,
sanjay

[Karpel Tunnel]

KT,
I am not sure how much yoga is popular in the west, maybe you know about it more than me thus i take your word for it.

It's hilariously popular. People carrying their plastic yoga mats under their arms, on the back of their bikes', tossed in the back seat of their cars. There are dozens of types of yoga, some where they heat the room, or yoga for pregnant mothers or yoga for seniors or.....and so on.

[phyllo]

Or you're in denial. Or.....

Recognition that there is a problem is a prerequisite for making changes.

If you're in denial, then that's it ... you're stuck in that spot at least for the time being.

Sure. But in that limited time I think one can be wiser or less wise. The idea that one piece might be missing something vital, I think, is helpful. Knowing that sometimes complex systems work and parts that seem to workw without some or all of the rest may not work or even be damaging. Without it you are like many people just a bit more at the mercy of fads and advertisers.

You might avoid nightmare Cane Toad solutions. Where what works in the moment in the specific location (the Cane Toad eats the pest), also leads to all sorts of other problems because one is looking at the situation with blinders and not recognizing the ecological whole. I think it's a type of hubris. Knowing this does not make all decision making easier, but it creates a wiser base for things like intuition and rational analysis.

Well, you're still going to make mistakes no matter how wise or enlightened you are.

If you are wise or aware and trust your feelings, then you might catch your mistake sooner and correct it faster.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Well, you're still going to make mistakes no matter how wise or enlightened you are.

I'm really not saying that my concern prevents all errors. Really.

If you are wise or aware and trust your feelings, then you might catch your mistake sooner and correct it faster.

Yes, that's more or less my point: a part of wisdom is knowing that parts of systems often need other parts to be effective or not damaging. If knowing this your intuition, for example, still leads to you try just one piece, well you probably have a better change or realizing something is missing or wrong later on.

[iambiguous]

Lamb,

Neither me nor anyone can help it if your own frame of mind is faulty, And, you do not wantt o correct it either. Each and everything what others say, you discredit that claiming it as intellectual contraption but hav you ever realized what you do every time is not the same?

Again, given that my own interest in religion [God or No God] revolves around how those on a spiritual path intertwine their religious beliefs in their behaviors in their assumptions about "I" -- the "soul" -- on the other side of the grave, you will either bring the words "faulty" and "correct" thinking down to earth here or you won't.

Given a particular context in which, depending on their religious and moral beliefs, different people choose different [and often conflicting] behaviors, how do we account for this? And how do those on their different spiritual paths come together in order to choose the optimal behaviors?

And how do they go about demonstrating that their own beliefs regarding morality here and now and immortality there and then reflect that which all other spiritual people are obligated to embrace in turn with so much at stake?

Here I suspect we may as well go back to the reasons our exchange on this thread -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=186929 -- ended.

But, again, all I can do is to ask you to bring the existential parameters of your own spiritual path "out into the world" and describe a set of circumstances in which you have thought yourself into believing that your own thinking is not faulty, but is correct. That way, in turn, you could note more substantively how and why my own thinking [encompassed in my signature threads] is in fact faulty and not correct.

Also, we could examine your accusation that I somehow manage to turn all of the arguments from others into "intellectual contraptions" more...existentially?

Instead, you go straight back up into the clouds of "spiritual" abstraction:

Believe me or not, I am more than sure that not many of living people as of now have reached where i have been. You may think that i am exaggerating but i am not. I can provide you proof but not on the net. To get the proof, you have to submit me for some months and follow my instructions without any questions and you will get the proof But you will never be able to do that so let us put an end to that. There are no shortcuts.

With love,
sanjay

You have proof. Proof for anyone. But they would have to "submit [to you] for some months and follow [your] instructions without any questions and [they] will get the proof."

I'm sorry but that sounds more like something out of Scientology or Nxivm or one of the dozens of new age/guru mentalities with their prepackaged spiritual agendas.

Only yours is the one true path, right?

Just out of curiosity, have you in fact taken others down this path? Did they see the light? Do you charge money for this? No, seriously.

Okay, if that's the argument you wish to use for explaining the behaviors that you choose in a world teeming with conflicting goods that ends in the death of each of us one by one, it virtually guarantees that no one here will be able to take you up on it.

But can't you at least give us some idea of how "correct thinking" persuades you to choose the behaviors that you do in your interactions with others when value judgments comes into conflict? And what you imagine the fate of your own "soul" to be on the other side?

[zinnat]

Lamb,

Neither me nor anyone can help it if your own frame of mind is faulty, And, you do not wantt o correct it either. Each and everything what others say, you discredit that claiming it as intellectual contraption but hav you ever realized what you do every time is not the same?

Again, given that my own interest in religion [God or No God] revolves around how those on a spiritual path intertwine their religious beliefs in their behaviors in their assumptions about "I" -- the "soul" -- on the other side of the grave, you will either bring the words "faulty" and "correct" thinking down to earth here or you won't.

Given a particular context in which, depending on their religious and moral beliefs, different people choose different [and often conflicting] behaviors, how do we account for this? And how do those on their different spiritual paths come together in order to choose the optimal behaviors?

And how do they go about demonstrating that their own beliefs regarding morality here and now and immortality there and then reflect that which all other spiritual people are obligated to embrace in turn with so much at stake?

Here I suspect we may as well go back to the reasons our exchange on this thread -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=186929 -- ended.

But, again, all I can do is to ask you to bring the existential parameters of your own spiritual path "out into the world" and describe a set of circumstances in which you have thought yourself into believing that your own thinking is not faulty, but is correct. That way, in turn, you could note more substantively how and why my own thinking [encompassed in my signature threads] is in fact faulty and not correct.

Also, we could examine your accusation that I somehow manage to turn all of the arguments from others into "intellectual contraptions" more...existentially?

Instead, you go straight back up into the clouds of "spiritual" abstraction:

Believe me or not, I am more than sure that not many of living people as of now have reached where i have been. You may think that i am exaggerating but i am not. I can provide you proof but not on the net. To get the proof, you have to submit me for some months and follow my instructions without any questions and you will get the proof But you will never be able to do that so let us put an end to that. There are no shortcuts.

With love,
sanjay

You have proof. Proof for anyone. But they would have to "submit [to you] for some months and follow [your] instructions without any questions and [they] will get the proof."

I'm sorry but that sounds more like something out of Scientology or Nxivm or one of the dozens of new age/guru mentalities with their prepackaged spiritual agendas.

Only yours is the one true path, right?

Just out of curiosity, have you in fact taken others down this path? Did they see the light? Do you charge money for this? No, seriously.

Okay, if that's the argument you wish to use for explaining the behaviors that you choose in a world teeming with conflicting goods that ends in the death of each of us one by one, it virtually guarantees that no one here will be able to take you up on it.

But can't you at least give us some idea of how "correct thinking" persuades you to choose the behaviors that you do in your interactions with others when value judgments comes into conflict? And what you imagine the fate of your own "soul" to be on the other side?

Sorry lamb,

I am no more interested in your - from my own frame of mind and note to others kind of philosophy. Please find someone else.

So, Sayonara. Take care.

With love,
Sanjay

[iambiguous]

Sorry lamb,

I am no more interested in your - from my own frame of mind and note to others kind of philosophy. Please find someone else.

So, Sayonara. Take care.

With love,
Sanjay

No problem. I can imagine what is at stake for you if you ever start to doubt your own years-in-the-making "spiritual contraption". All I have to do is think back on what happened to me when I began to doubt my own.

But what I wouldn't given to actually have the option to take you up on your claim to be able prove that what you do believe "in your head" really is the one true spiritual path to...what exactly?

Besides, there are plenty of folks here at ILP who are more than willing to explore religion with you -- East or West -- up in the stratosphere of more purely spiritual pursuits.

[phyllo]

Zinnat

Is it "the one true spiritual path"?

One can probably get to the same place with Christian contemplation/meditation. And other practices.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Zinnat

Is it "the one true spiritual path"?

One can probably get to the same place with Christian contemplation/meditation. And other practices.

Or maybe different paths lead to different places.