Well because the idea of a true self is a pretty big motivator in modern society in the west. The idea that we can be happy if we just follow our true self or what we really want to do. If there is no such thing then what do we do? How does one live? The prospect of just being “made” is chilling since we often chide some who say that are doing something because someone said to do it or they saw it on TV, etc. Inherent qualities feel more real and personal while external ones feel artificial. It’s the desire to call something one’s own and use it as a guide.
TO be honest I cannot be certain of this. I know they SAY so and their experience is supposedly a testament to that. But I’m wondering if that is really the truth of reality and not just the product of a path. Does it stop suffering, likely. But does it really describe reality? I don’t think so. I mean I know that belief tends to have a strong impact of people and the way they experience life, so it’s likely that’s what’s going on with such “enlightened folks”. It seems to fit the hypothesis that this is just the result of the teachings and practice but not proof of them.
I know they believe they are beyond value, but maybe not. I mean we are affected by externals even if we aren’t aware of them and there is decision making below awareness level. It just seems to me that much of the effects of their practice requires an amount of belief in them to work.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Everybody has been changed by things and that’s fine. Somebody who hadn’t changed, who was all still their inherent original self, would be a mewling infant forever.
Growth and change are life. Nobody is what they started as. This is perfectly normal and entirely accepted - except by people who profit from convincing people that a $200 course is required to turn you into the zygote you truly are.
The groups Buddha was talking about in the section you directly linked weren’t really nihilists and didn’t really disbelieve in value. Based on that secition, nihilism in Buddhism was just not being a Buddhist. Persons who aren’t Buddhists don’t value Buddhist values and aren’t concerned with which things Buddha says are good and bad, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have value systems. Of course they have values systems, everyone does. Even people Buddha didn’t like.
Seriously, that’s totally what that section says.
The next section goes on to say that nirvana ain’t nihilism and anybody who mixes the two up is wrong.
Suffice to say, Buddhism isn’t telling you to be nihilistic. Far from it, it seems.
You threw me when you started talking about (and linking to pages about) nihilism.
So this nirvana business. As I’ve previously discussed with you, as best I can tell* it’s all about lowering expectations so that you don’t get disappointed. I see this as being different from not having preferences at all; you still prefer to not be punched in the face, but when you do get punched in the face you’re all like, “Meh, this is the sort of thing that happens when you annoy people by talking about weird philosophy all the time. Such is life.” And then you’re advised to shrink back from all relationships with people and things, not because you don’t like people and things, but because you like them so much that you can’t stand the thought of losing them once you have them. A “It’s better to not have loved at all, than to have loved and lost” thing. “Better to starve in heaven than to have to finish eating and look at an empty plate in heaven,” as the common saying goes.
So (as best I can tell*), it’s not about not having preferences, it’s about training yourself not to reach for the things you want, and to be okay with not having them.
I do get that this is a subtle distinction.
And of course the reward for doing all this is oblivion after death (the ‘punishment’ for still being interested in life is getting repeat shots at life forever). Honestly atheism is easier - we get oblivion for free!
The problem I have with this is the rebirth part, which has no evidence for it. There isn’t anything to suggest that consciousness survives death and is reborn. There is also the point that even if it WAS true, how would the Buddha know that this doesn’t lead to another birth. Like what if you don’t have memories of a previous life or anything?
I get that reaching for things you want only leads to temporary happiness (well depends), but does that mean just be a rock your whole life?
I still can’t get over him saying that value is an imaginary metric. I scanned the whole article for clarity on what he said and got nothing.
Keeping in mind that all this has nothing to do with ‘IS value imaginary’…
I’m no expert in the silly mythology of Buddhism, but the simple fact is that these type of guys (by which I mean, all religion-starters) have no evidence for their claims about the way the universe works. If you’re looking for to argue in favor of this stuff being accurate you’re barking up the wrong tree - I’m very much an atheist myself.
Regarding the fiction in question, though, it’s my understanding that according to it you don’t have memories of your previous lives. It’s not so much a prolonged learning process the universe throwing you repeatedly at the wall until you happen to meet the success criteria, at which point you’re destroyed.
And yes, as best I can tell you’re supposed to be a rock your whole life. (Again, I’m not an expert in this particular fiction. Ask me about Star Wars instead; I know more about that one.)
[/OP-induced hijack]
I don’t recall which article you’re talking about, but all articles aside value is subjective. There are some that (incorrectly) think that that means it’s imaginary - mostly people who think value is objective/inherent for one reason or another and have a hard time understanding other points of view.
That was my thought too, that such things are subjective but not that they don’t exist. I mean every decision is based on a value judgment whether you want it to or not. It could even be something you aren’t aware of.
BUt for some reason I just can’t help giving Buddhism a blank check on this stuff.
It’s still wrong. Value is an arbitrary metric, but it most definitely not imaginary. When you walk down the aisles at a store you’re not hallucinating all those little numbers on the little tags everywhere.
(And yes, I’m aware that you can doubtlessly find some buddhist who says that you’re hallucinating the tags. All such buddhists are idiots.)
It is like saying a DVD is only a movie when you put it in a DVD player. That is true, but not meaningful because I’m not going to play a DVD in a toaster anyway. So what if values exist only in my mind–in my mind is where I live. If there are 10-foot tall blue alien lemurs living on a planet 18 billion light years away from here for whom my values have no meaning, so fucking what?
The above is the passage that talks about value. It reminds me a little about nihilism and that seems pretty true. Though hearing it from a Buddhist mouth makes it more real some how and absolute.
Normally I would like to say and believe that to be the case, but I find it harder to argue with the point she makes about value.
Like in the above link she mentions how our judgments about good and bad, right and wrong, like and dislike, value in a sense… gets in the way of viewing reality as it really is. I find it hard to say no to that statement because in one sense I know it is right. Nothing is inherently good, bad, right, wrong, it’s just what we judge to be so and it only carries weight as long as we live or as long as we decide it does. Knowing that, I don’t know what sort of case I would make for value at that point.
That link seems to make the opposite point. Like, the exact opposite point.
Maezumi heard about what was going on “and said, “We have to go get her.” So they went to the hospital. Maezumi was wearing his traveling robes. There were many times Maezumi wore Western clothes, so for this trip, he must have thought the robes were appropriate.” Seriously: what the hell kind of story is that? He heard something, and said they Had To Do something in response? And he wore robes for said trip because he must have thought They Were Appropriate?
And the person relating this tale adds that, back when, if she was giving a talk, she acted as if she “was an entertainer of sorts, and I was good at it. But entertainment doesn’t last. So I gave up trying to be popular and started going out in my robes to do what we do in Zen: sit. Instantly, it made everything easier. I didn’t have to make up what to say, and even strangers were consoled by it.”
So she tried out one approach, and noticed whether she was good at it, and noted how long something lasted; and then she tried a different approach, and found out whether it made things easier, and also noticed whether strangers were consoled? Absolutely sensible, if this is a story about someone who can (a) view things as they are, and (b) make judgments accordingly. Y’know, like a story where a guy concludes that he has to do something, and dresses appropriately.
Imagine folks who don’t much value anything over anything else: do they respond to what they hear with a We Have To Do Something reply? Give them evidence that one approach, which leads to people being consoled, makes things easier than another; would they be indifferent between the two approaches, or would they (a) get it right, and (b) tell this story so other people can learn from it?
Except you missed the part where they said that value and our judgments about right and wrong get in the way of reality, or the link and excerpt from a few posts ago about how value doesn’t exist and that it is just an imaginary metric that we use to judge the world.
It’s a theme about how much of our reality is really just what we project onto it. Like how "home’ is just a concept, and idea, that we have in our heads. It doesn’t exist in reality. If there were such a place then you would feel the sensation when you were there, yet often you hear how people mention how a house doesn’t feel like a home anymore. Because home is just in your head, it’s not a real thing you can point to.
The same thing applies in this case to value. I mean it’s a little heartbreaking to hear that part about home, because I do hold things like that dear, but to know that it’s something I made up and not special is rough to hear. It’s like how they mention that reality is just non conceptual silence, empty of all our ideas and concepts, and projections on it.
I really have a hard time understanding how you could possibly have ever thought otherwise. What, exactly, did you used to think? Did you think that scientists driving by with a homeometer could note that a specific house is emitting 2 kilomachinaforce homeons per second? What, exactly, did you envision an objective “homeness to Machinaforce” to be? Because in most of your posts you come across as someone boggling that they have just found out that the sky is blue and grass is green.
Which she’s doing. Right there, in that story. Even as she writes it, she still finds that one approach makes things easier than the other; and she of course then acts as if there’s a value judgment to be made, and people to be consoled.
She tells that story in the context of another one: a story about a guy she learned from, and a guy she still holds up as a fine example: a guy who heard some news and reacted by saying “We have to go get her.” Because of course that’s how he reacted: he became aware of some facts, and promptly reached a conclusion about what’s to be done (and what he should wear while he’s doing it).
That’s wholly unremarkable. Those are stories about people making judgments in accordance with what’s going on around them: not in a manner that gets in the way, but in a way that follows from what they experience and makes sense. As far as I can tell, the point is the exact opposite of what you’re making it out to be.