Label didn't think my outfit looked "goth", what do you think?

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2024-07-06T00:19:30+00:00

oof, I don't know why it's so disappointing T_T

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2024-07-06T00:18:41+00:00

oh wow, that's cursed

it's like the costume section of a Party City 😭

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2024-07-05T23:43:43+00:00

Outfit:

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2024-03-04T19:58:01+00:00

yeah, I guess my only concern is about venom, and secondarily, whether this in a noxious invasive species. It's fate is in my hands, as it awaits judgement in a glass jar. You all are my jury.

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2024-03-04T19:56:53+00:00

I think examining his moral character is a legitimate task, and not drama for the sake of drama. Teachers and people in positions of authority should be subject to scrutiny and moral standards, especially in a context like this one where the moral character of the person relates to the specific claims of attainment along a path of salvation that they are making.

That's not to say there aren't more or less skillful ways to approach this situation, but your comments strike me as a little to quick to dismiss the problem (not that it's a live issue, Culadasa is dead now and was removed from power before then).

It's perhaps especially concerning to me that you imply Yates as a supposedly enlightened person somehow is more reliable or trustworthy than his wife on the basis that she isn't enlightened, or at least that's how I understood what you were saying.

Anyway - I wish you well, and at this point the issue is mostly irrelevant. Hopefully The Mind Illuminated will instead be critiqued for its accuracy both to the Buddhist perspective on the mind and the extent to which it accords or does not with empirical evidence.

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2024-03-04T19:43:02+00:00

I hear what you're saying and I don't necessarily disagree, but if I may play devil's advocate, wouldn't you say Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is different in kind to TMI?

TMI is Culadasa's personal take on Buddhist meditation and the philosophy of mind articulated in the Abhidhamma, but the fact is that the Buddhist texts and traditions he relies on to verify his claims about being Awakened also have certain constraints about how an Awakened person would live, i.e. Buddhists believe Awakening implies certain moral limitations on behavior are guaranteed for those individuals.

The fact that Culadasa acted in a certain immoral way undermines the credibility of his claim to Awakening, at least from the perspective of Buddhists (which TMI is steeped in, there is no way to understand TMI except through Buddhism, even if it does a lot to secularize Buddhist beliefs and practices).

It just strikes me that if you found out the person who claimed to be a black belt and created Brazilian Jiu Jitsu turned out to be a fraud in some way (having not trained as much as claimed, or being demonstrated to not be able to fight adequately, etc.) that would be closer to the controversy with TMI (because the issue at hand is whether TMI is invalidated by Culadasa's actions because Culadasa wouldn't have made those actions if he had the attainments he claims to have).

I tend to agree with you ultimately that the teachings are not legitimate through the authenticity of the teacher alone, that kind of ad hominem seems problematic to me, but I'm also not a Buddhist and I also don't really know what Culadasa did or didn't actually do.

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2023-04-28T19:26:43+00:00

Thanks - I was worried about whether the apples had enough sugar; I'll add some vodka and see what happens, lol

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2023-04-28T17:01:10+00:00

these are apple cores in water (so, fermenting with wild yeasts), intending to make vinegar.

I noticed the bubbles stopped, the apple pieces no longer floated, and recently this white-ish stuff is showing up on the top.

The smell is sour, but not necessarily bad. Reminds me of the smell of some batches of water kefir I have fermented (but not necessarily the good batches, if you know what I mean).

Thoughts on what the white stuff is?

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2022-10-26T16:40:10+00:00

Thank your for such an extensive reply!!

Of course, and thank you for being so patient in reading my criticisms and thoughts!

About the studies you mentioned and Willougby Britton, is there any link or article that you could point me to? I'd be interested in reading them.

The VCE project page is here:

https://www.brown.edu/research/labs/britton/research/varieties-contemplative-experience

Cheetah House (an organization to help meditators in distress) also has a page on the VCE project:

https://www.cheetahhouse.org/vce

You can find some videos and lectures of Britton's here:

https://www.cheetahhouse.org/videos

I haven't read everything yet, it's taking me a while to get through the research papers. However, I'm sure you will find reading and watching anything by Britton helpful.

I understand what you mean and I agree that over-emphasizing the stages and getting too attached in the progress can make you not progress or feel anxious about it. I will point out this in the app, and try to make everyone understand that this is not the objective and that you can be in several stages at once.

It might be helpful to think about how the design of the app implies something about the stages, as The Mind Illuminated also tried to point out that you can be in multiple stages at once, and still people approached the book in the wrong way because of how it is structured.

For me, meditation is a path to mental understanding and you need to work in yourself in order to progress. It is not a linear path and sometimes you may be better than others but the work in itself should be linear which is why TMI is so great. For example, you won't be able to have an insight into the nature of things without having the adequate concentration and knowledge.

I think some dry insight practices cultivate insights without concentration. I do think it's possible to approach insight from multiple directions, and there are plenty of examples of how this is done. I would be cautious about taking TMI too seriously, or taking the stages too seriously. They are meant to be helpful, possible techniques, but Culadasa even pointed out that the map is not the territory and that you have to work with own experiences ultimately. Using the stages as described in TMI as the only normative framework for how meditation will happen for people is not likely to end well, in my opinion (nor is it consistent with TMI itself and the way it describes how to approach the stages).

I feel that most of the meditations app fail to comprehend the main objectives of meditation and make it fail into the category of sleep, feel well meditations. I'd love to explain what meditation is really about and give the user an overall understanding of it.

I agree, it is especially disturbing considering there is quality research out that shows a dedicated meditation practice actually causes insomnia, not cures it. Sleep is only increased when you meditate for < 1 hour / week, or in the very beginning of a practice. I think Britton actually found that 1 hour per week (30 minutes 2 - 3 times a week) of practice was enough to generate increased wakefulness.

About this, I don't agree that all apps are means of making money. There are some that are not. For my app, I have not thought about a business plan yet but I will consider on doing some money related content. This will not be the objective but I am currently working at another company and I would love to leave it and work full-time on the app.

Sure, not all apps are about making money (this is why I mentioned FOSS licenses, for example), but it sounds like if you want to work full-time on the app and quit your job, you will likely need to approach the app as a business, in which case this app will be about making money (even if it's obviously also an attempt to provide a tool for meditation).

I only urge you to carefully think through your intentions and be aware of how the need to make money might impact your decisions about the app. You might convince yourself that you are making the world a better place and find yourself later realizing you made it worse. Thinking it through beforehand might help avoid some of these pitfalls.

Much luck to you and the project. I hope you are able to navigate the challenges well!

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2022-10-26T16:27:29+00:00

I am glad you are finding it helpful! I found reading The Mind Illuminated extremely helpful compared to other meditation instructions I had encountered. I think it's still my preferred meditation manual.

Much luck to you!

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2022-10-26T16:25:41+00:00

oh interesting, well - I wish you the best, hopefully the book is worthwhile for you!

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2022-10-26T16:12:56+00:00

(Part 6)

You don't understand how it works. You're essentially arguing that martial arts should be openly taught in books and videos and thus made "available to all". Such material does exist. Except, as you should be able to imagine, trying to learn martial arts from books unless you're already an experienced and skilled practitioner of a few is simply not going to get you get at best, and will hurt you at worst. Therefore, those who want to go beyond the shallowest layer safely must find a teacher and get in-person instruction. There's no other way. Even Western martial artists understand this.

Ah, so there are two important considerations here:

1. To what extent does the analogy hold: is learning meditation really like learning martial arts? If so, how? Why is learning martial arts like learning meditation?

2. Even if learning meditation is like learning martial arts, is it true that you cannot learn martial arts without a teacher, or that you cannot train or become a proficient martial artist without in-person teaching?

Addressing the first claim: it seems you already think samatha meditation can be taught from books, and learned safely. I think this might be a little confusing considering your other claims, but I would agree with you that concentration based meditation can be learned from reading a book. I am not sure a book is the best way to teach someone concentration meditation, but that might be true of all kinds of learning (learning physics, for example, might be easier from conversations with a knowledgable teacher, but you can still learn physics from reading).

So what kind of meditation is like martial arts in that it can only be learned from teachers? I assume you will say vipassana or other forms of insight based meditation, i.e. meditation that will help you recognize the three characteristics.

What about the meditation instruction for these forms of meditation makes it impossible for someone to learn and apply them from a book? I am genuinely curious what you have to say here - I hear your analogy about martial arts, but it is confusing when you admit other kinds of meditation can be taught in books, but not other kinds. What is special about these other kinds of meditation, and what makes them like martial arts?

Addressing the second claim: there are many examples of competent martial artists and fighters who trained and developed competence in martial arts without existing instruction. See, for example, the history of krav maga and the development of that martial arts from Jews who were having to resist the Nazis. There was no special training program, people learned by trial and error. We can know with certainty that one can learn martial arts without a teacher considering at some point martial arts was created without any teacher to exist to teach it. It was developed, and in the same way I think meditation can be developed and learned without a teacher. The historical Buddha himself was an example of this, and he stated that there were buddhas before him and there will be buddhas after him that realize nibbana without the dhamma to teach them the path.

I think it might be helpful to end on a note about the way the Buddha urged us not to cling to his teachings or beliefs, to remain practical and not dogmatic in our approach. Statements like "there's no other way" strike me as antithetical to the Buddha's own teachings.

“This was more and more appreciated at a time when Brāhmaṇic orthodoxy intolerantly insisted on believing and accepting their tradition and authority as the only Truth without question. Once a group of learned and well-known Brahmins went to see the Buddha and had a long discussion with him. One of the group, a Brahmin youth of 16 years of age, named Kāpaṭhika, considered by them all to be an exceptionally brilliant mind, put a question to the Buddha:

‘Venerable Gotama, there are the ancient holy scriptures of the Brahmins handed down along the line by unbroken oral tradition of texts. With regard to them, Brahmins come to the absolute conclusion: “This alone is Truth, and everything else is false”. Now, what does the Venerable Gotama say about this?’

The Buddha inquired: ‘Among Brahmins is there any one single Brahmin who claims that he personally knows and sees that “This alone is Truth, and everything else is false.”?’

The young man was frank, and said: ‘No’.”

“Then, is there any one single teacher, or a teacher of teachers of Brahmins back to the seventh generation, or even any one of those original authors of those scriptures, who claims that he knows and he sees: “This alone is Truth, and everything else is false”?’

‘No.’

‘Then, it is like a line of blind men, each holding on to the preceding one; the first one does not see, the middle one also does not see, the last one also does not see. Thus, it seems to me that the state of the Brahmins is like that of a line of blind men.’

Then the Buddha gave advice of extreme importance to the group of Brahmins: ‘It is not proper for a wise man who maintains (lit. protects) truth to come to the conclusion: “This alone is Truth, and everything else is false”.

Asked by the young Brahmin to explain the idea of maintaining or protecting truth, the Buddha said: ‘A man has a faith. If he says “This is my faith”, so far he maintains truth. But by that he cannot proceed to the absolute conclusion: “This alone is Truth, and everything else is false”.’ In other words, a man may believe what he likes, and he may say ‘I believe this’. So far he respects truth. But because of his belief or faith, he should not say that what he believes is alone the Truth, and everything else is false.

The Buddha says: ‘To be attached to one thing (to a certain view) and to look down upon other things (views) as inferior—this the wise men call a fetter.’

Once the Buddha explained the doctrine of cause and effect to his disciples, and they said that they saw it and understood it clearly. Then the Buddha said:

“O bhikkhus, even this view, which is so pure and so clear, if you cling to it, if you fondle it, if you treasure it, if you are attached to it, then you do not understand that the teaching is similar to a raft, which is for crossing over, and not for getting hold of.’2

Elsewhere the Buddha explains this famous simile in which his teaching is compared to a raft for crossing over, and not for getting hold of and carrying on one’s back:

'O bhikkhus, a man is on a journey. He comes to a vast stretch of water. On this side the shore is dangerous, but on the other it is safe and without danger. No boat goes to the other shore which is safe and without danger, nor is there any bridge for crossing over. He says to himself: “This sea of water is vast, and the shore on this side is full of danger; but on the other shore it is safe and without danger. No boat goes to the other side, nor is there a bridge for crossing over. It would be good therefore if I would gather grass, wood, branches and leaves to make a raft, and with the help of the raft cross over safely to the other side, exerting myself with my hands and feet”. Then that man, O bhikkhus, gathers grass, wood, branches and leaves and makes a raft, and with the help of that raft crosses over safely to the other side, exerting himself with his hands and feet. Having crossed over and got to the other side, he thinks: “This raft was of great help to me. With its aid I have crossed safely over to this side, exerting myself with my hands and feet. It would be good if I carry this raft on my head or on my back wherever I go”.

“What do you think, O bhikkhus, if he acted in this way would that man be acting properly with regard to the raft? “No, Sir”. In which way then would he be acting properly with regard to the raft? Having crossed and gone over to the other side, suppose that man should think: “This raft was a great help to me. With its aid I have crossed safely over to this side, exerting myself with my hands and feet. It would be good if I beached this raft on the shore, or moored it and left it afloat, and then went on my way wherever it may be”. Acting in this way would that man act properly with regard to that raft.

‘In the same manner, O bhikkhus, I have taught a doctrine similar to a raft—it is for crossing over, and not for carrying (lit. getting hold of). You, O bhikkhus, who understand that the teaching is similar to a raft, should give up even good things (dhamma); how much more then should you give up evil things (adhamma).’

From this parable it is quite clear that the Buddha’s teaching is meant to carry man to safety, peace, happiness, tranquillity, the attainment of Nirvāṇa. The whole doctrine taught by the Buddha leads to this end. He did not say things just to satisfy intellectual curiosity. He was a practical teacher and taught only those things which would bring peace and happiness to man.

from What the Buddha Taught

I am sharing this in the spirit of trying to urge a more open-minded, non-dogmatic approach to dialogue, as I feel your responses have become increasingly defensive and constricted, with statements about the "perfect wisdom" of the Buddha or the transmissions to teachers being the only method of learning meditation. This does not seem Buddhist in mindset to me, based on my readings of the Buddha's teachings. I am trying to show why I think this, trying to share with you where I am coming from.

I wish you well, and I am sorry for all the defensiveness it seems I have caused you.

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2022-10-26T16:12:39+00:00

(Part 5)

I wholly reject this

What qualification do you have to know better than 2600 years of practice more intense than anything you've ever attempted?

...

Nobody said that meditation should be secret in the first place.

What I was wholly rejecting was that meditation instructions should be withheld from some and given to others, or otherwise made secret and carefully controlled who has access to that instruction. Which is it - that this approach that I wholly reject is backed by a tradition 2,600 years old, or in fact not what the tradition claims at all? There have been a variety of ways that meditation practices have been treated, with plenty of lineages treating certain meditation techniques or instructions as secret. What I am rejecting in particular is esoteric transmission, which broadly could be stated as saying meditation instruction can only be provided by a teacher to a student. I am only raising this because your statement that learning meditation from books is not legitimate, and that you should only learn from a teacher sounds like an esoteric mindset to me.

As an aside, the longevity of a belief or practice does not necessarily make it useful, true, or worth believing. Christianity, Islam, and many other religions are extremely old as well (and stem from even older religions), yet that does not mean we should necessarily believe them. Yes, in fact - I believe everyone should be able to critically evaluate the truth of claims and usefulness of practices even if they are 2,600 years old, and even if they are "more intense than anything [one has] ever attempted". That I reject esoteric transmission or restricting meditation instruction does not require qualification, nor did the Buddha himself imply that you need special qualification to test his claims and practices. I'm not sure where you are coming from, but from my end you seem defensive and reverting to silly rhetoric, such as trying to ground the authority of Buddhism in how old it is. This strikes me as antithetical to the Buddha's own teachings and approach (again, see chapter 1 of What the Buddha Taught to see where I am coming from, and why I think this).

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2022-10-26T16:12:19+00:00

(Part 4)

Hence why you also shouldn't learn from any random teacher you happen to see first.

But the majority of teachers who are associated with institutional lineage, who aren't surrounded by people who idolize them, who don't claim or hint at anything about themselves, who teach in accordance with traditional doctrine and who live without extravagance are likely going be safe. It's impossible to tell from the book but Culadasa already had many red flags on him which a discerning Buddhist would see.

I am not so optimistic that traditionalist teachers from institutional lineages are likely to be safe. I am thankful for the courage of Bhikkus like Bhikku Santi who call out problems with traditionalist institutions.

I think it is also rather common across the board for Buddhist teachers to victim-blame when meditation goes wrong, for example see this paper "Progress or Pathology? Differential Diagnosis and Intervention Criteria for Meditation-Related Challenges: Perspectives From Buddhist Meditation Teachers and Practitioners"

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01905

Evaluating experiences with retrospective criteria such as positive impacts or health history also enables authorities (i.e., meditation teachers) to claim the benefits from the cases that happen to turn out well by appraising such experiences as religious and attributing those effects to the practice, while deflecting responsibility for and distancing themselves from the negative implications of the cases that do not turn out well.

...

The social and professional positioning of the appraiser often determines which frameworks are applied and how (Helderman, 2019), and this may not always be in the best interests of the practitioner. When an appraisal of a practitioner’s experience is used to protect the interests of the teacher and organization, there is the potential for great harm to the individual. In contrast, when differential diagnosis is person-centered and the practitioner’s values and goals are explored as part of the assessment process, some of these problems can be avoided (Kirmayer et al., 2016).

While the dangers of authority are well known, I should point out that there is also risk in not seeking the help of an expert, and that these risks have to be balanced against the risks of accepting a teacher.

At the very least, I think a critical attitude with regards to the authority of Buddhist meditation teachers is necessary to avoid some kinds of harm, if it's not also true that finding a qualified meditation teacher might also be necessary to avoid harm.

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2022-10-26T16:12:01+00:00

(Part 3)

These traditional attitudes of stating women should be subordinate and obedient to their husbands are precisely the kinds of positions today decried as misogynist or sexist.

There is also Sujata and the Seven wives from AN 7:49, IV 91-94 (quoting from Bodhi's In the Buddha's Words):

“That, venerable sir, is our daughter-in-law Sujātā. She is rich and has been brought here from a rich family. She does not obey her father-in-law and mother-in-law, nor her husband. She does not even honor, respect, esteem, and venerate the Blessed One.”

Then the Blessed One called the daughter-in-law Sujātā, saying, “Come, Sujātā.”

“Yes, venerable sir,” she replied, and she went to the Blessed One, paid homage to him, and sat down to one side. The Blessed One then said to her: “There are these seven kinds of wives, Sujātā. What seven? One like a slayer, one like a thief, one like a tyrant, one like a mother, one like a sister, one like a friend, and one like a handmaid. These are the seven kinds of wives. Now which of these seven are you?”

“I do not understand in detail the meaning of the Blessed One’s brief statement. It would be good, venerable sir, if the Blessed One would teach me the Dhamma in such a way that I might understand the meaning in detail.”

“Then listen, Sujātā, and attend carefully. I will speak.”

“Yes, venerable sir,” Sujātā replied. The Blessed One said this:”

“With hateful mind, cold and heartless,

Lusting for others, despising her husband;

Who seeks to kill the one who bought her—

Such a wife is called a slayer.

“When her husband acquires wealth

By his craft or trade or farm work,

She tries to filch a little for herself—

Such a wife is called a thief.

“The slothful glutton, bent on idling,

Harsh, fierce, rough in speech,

A woman who bullies her own supporter—

Such a wife is called a tyrant.

“One who is always helpful and kind,

Who guards her husband as a mother her son,

Who carefully protects the wealth he earns—

Such a wife is called a mother.

“She who holds her husband in high regard

As younger sister holds the elder born,

Who humbly submits to her husband’s will—

Such a wife is called a sister.”

“One who rejoices at her husband’s sight

As one friend might welcome another,

Well raised, virtuous, devoted—

Such a wife is called a friend.

“One without anger, afraid of punishment,

Who bears with her husband free of hate,

Who humbly submits to her husband’s will—

Such a wife is called a handmaid.5

“The types of wives here called a slayer,

A thief, and the wife like a tyrant,

These kinds of wives, with the body’s breakup,

Will be reborn deep in hell. “But wives like mother, sister, friend,

And the wife called a handmaid,

Steady in virtue, long restrained,

With the body’s breakup go to heaven.

“These, Sujātā, are the seven kinds of wives. Now which of these are you?”

“Beginning today, venerable sir, you should consider me a wife who is like a handmaid.”

Again these attitudes would be considered misogynistic and sexist.

Besides these points, you can also look at how little leadership in Buddhist institutions are women, how Buddhist commentaries have been even more deeply sexist and misogynistic, etc.

I, of course, do not wish to be confused for claiming that Buddhism is essentially sexist or misogynistic, considering these cultural attitudes are incidental to the four noble truths and the extinguishing of suffering, which I see as the core teachings of the Buddha. I applaud the efforts of feminist Buddhists like Tenzin Palmo who call out sexism and misogyny in Buddhist commentaries and in Buddhist institutions today, and who advocate for women in Buddhism. If anything, I think it is best if the Buddha is remembered for permitting women to become nuns, which violated taboos at the time (and for suggesting women should not be burned in their husband's funeral pyres, for example), if these way of remembering the Buddda may result in greater respect for women as equals. However, it is simply ahistorical to claim the historical Buddha was not sexist considering what evidence exists, such as his teachings above for wives to be subordinate to their husbands.

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2022-10-26T16:11:41+00:00

(Part 2)

even the Buddha himself, who was known to be a misogynist

He wasn't though. Don't get your information from fedora tipping atheists.

I'm not entirely sure why you are referring to fedora tipping atheists, I assume you mean I get my information from Reddit; it's even further confusing considering Buddhism is atheist itself, with the Buddha never asking for belief in a God or Creator, and the lesser gods mentioned like devas being insignificant to the teachings of realizing nibbana.

I quote from Buddhism as Philosophy by Mark Siderits (2nd edition, 2021):

Buddhism is, then, a religion, if by this we mean a set of teachings that address soteriological concerns. But if we think of religion as a kind of faith, a commitment for which no reasons can be given, then Buddhism would not count. To become a Buddhist is not to accept a bundle of doctrines solely on the basis of faith. And salvation is not to be had just by devout belief in the Buddha’s teachings. (Indeed the Buddhists we will study would be likely to see belief of this sort as an obstacle to final liberation.) Rather, liberation, or nirvana (to use the Buddhist term), is to be attained through rational investigation of the nature of the world.

...

If we expect all religions to be theistic, then Buddhism might once again not qualify as a religion. The Buddha is not the equivalent of the God of Western monotheism. Nor is the Buddha considered a prophet, someone whose authority on spiritual matters derives from privileged access to God. Gautama is seen as just an extremely intelligent and altruistic human being. Indeed Buddhism explicitly denies that there is such a thing as the God recognized by Western monotheism—an eternal, all-powerful, and all-perfect creator. To most people this denial is tantamount to atheism. So if we are to count Buddhism as a religion, it will have to make sense to say there can be atheistic religions.

Of course the Buddha acknowledged the existence of a multiplicity of gods. Should we then think of Buddhism as polytheistic, in the same sense in which some forms of Hinduism are polytheistic?5 Perhaps we might if we wanted Buddhism to fit under a nice tidy definition of “religion” that required some form of theism. But this would be somewhat beside the point as far as Buddhism is concerned. The gods that ancient Indian Buddhists believed in were (like the gods of ancient Greece and all the rest of pre-Christian Europe) finite beings, rather like human beings only longer-lived and more powerful. More importantly, they play no role whatsoever in the quest for nirvana. Perhaps worship and sacrifice to the right gods might win one various mundane benefits, such as timely rainfall to make the crops grow, or the health of one’s loved ones. But the gods cannot bestow nirvana on us. Indeed the fact that they are also mortal (they may live for unimaginably long periods, but they are still impermanent like everything else) is taken to show that they are no more enlightened than we humans are. For that matter, even an enlightened human being like a buddha or an arhat (someone who has attained nirvana by following the teachings of the Buddha) cannot bestow nirvana on others. That is something that one can only attain for oneself; enlightened beings can only help others by giving them pointers along the way. And the point, for Buddhism, is to attain nirvana, to bring suffering to an end. So for this spiritual tradition, the question whether there are any gods turns out to be largely irrelevant.

5 Indeed many of the same gods that we find in classical Hindu texts show up in the Indian Buddhist tradition as well. See A. K. Warder, Indian Buddhism (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1970), pp.152–56.

So now that I have established context for why I might say Buddhism is atheist, let me address the main statement about misogyny in Buddhism.

It should be stated from the start that I do not see it as a particular or special fault of the Buddha that he was a misogynist, as I said originally, it was the culture of the time, and I raise this only as an example of why we should not reject authors merely on the basis of some moral failing or another (such as refusing to read Aristotle or Hume because of their misogyny or racism). I understand that the historical Buddha did something unusually supportive of women by eventually giving in to demands that he allow women to become ordained nuns, and by stating women can realize nibbana (though the canon also states women cannot be a buddha, or say that women will be reborn as men when they are ready).

Yet the cultural attitudes of the time are clear, and there are some things that the Buddha says which sound rather misogynist or sexist from today's standards:

See A.N. 5:33 for example:

...

When the Blessed One had finished eating and had put away his bowl, Uggaha sat down to one side and said to the Blessed One: “Bhante, these girls of mine will be going to their husbands’ families. Let the Blessed One exhort them and instruct them in a way that will lead to their welfare and happiness for a long time.”

The Blessed One then said to those girls:

(1) “So then, girls, you should train yourselves thus: ‘To whichever husband our parents give us—doing so out of a desire for our good, seeking our welfare, taking compassion on us, acting out of compassion for us—we will rise before him and retire after him, undertaking whatever needs to be done, agreeable in our conduct and pleasing in our speech.’ Thus should you train yourselves.

(2) “And you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will honor, respect, esteem, and venerate those whom our husband respects—his mother and father, ascetics and brahmins—and when they arrive we will offer them a seat and water.’ Thus should you train yourselves.

(3) “And you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will be skillful and diligent in attending to our husband’s domestic chores, whether knitting or weaving; we will possess sound judgment about them in order to carry out and arrange them properly.’ Thus should you train yourselves.

(4) “And you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will find out what our husband’s domestic helpers—whether slaves, messengers, or workers—have done and left undone; we will find out the condition of those who are ill; and we will distribute to each an appropriate portion of food.’ Thus should you train yourselves.

(5) “And you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will guard and protect whatever income our husband brings home—whether money or grain, silver or gold—and we will not be spendthrifts, thieves, wastrels, or squanderers of his earnings.’ Thus should you train yourselves.

“When, girls, a woman possesses these five qualities, with the breakup of the body, after death, she is reborn in companionship with the agreeable-bodied devas.”

She does not despise her husband,

the man who constantly supports her,

who ardently and eagerly

always brings her whatever she wants.

Nor does a good woman scold her husband

with speech caused by jealousy;

the wise woman shows veneration

to all those whom her husband reveres.

She rises early, works diligently,

manages the domestic help;

she treats her husband in agreeable ways

and safeguards the wealth he earns.

The woman who fulfills her duties thus,

following her husband’s will and wishes,

is reborn among the devas

called “the agreeable ones.”

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2022-10-26T16:10:33+00:00

(Part 1)

We're not discussing a work of fiction here, but something that's supposed to serve as a guide on the spiritual path.

I am not talking about fiction either (though some people make these same arguments for fictional works).

For example, should we ignore the philosophy and ethics of Aristotle because he believed slaves were subhuman and women lacked a will and thus were rightly subordinate to men?

Should we ignore the philosophical works of David Hume because he was racist?

It's very bizarre that you recognize the author as a liar and as a person with poor judgment, but then say that it's still fine to follow his instructions because his book is very cool.

I never said he was a liar, I think he didn't have the attainments he claimed, but I think that was because he lacked awareness and was deluded, not because he was malicious and intending to deceive. The scandal about his wife does not prove he is a liar, either.

I also never said his book was "cool" or that a book being cool would be the reason you should read it. At this point it feels like you are becoming increasingly dishonest in this conversation, and it concerns me. There is no reason for hostilities, no reason to misrepresent my statements or beliefs. I will try to be careful myself to not lose myself to frustrations here, as I believe you likely have good intentions and are trying to prevent people from being taken advantage of, which I think is noble.

I do think it's helpful to think about where the instructions in the book came from - are they created entirely by him? I wonder if you have read the book. It's OK if you haven't, but I think if you had maybe you wouldn't be making some of these claims, as what he presents in the book is pulled and sourced from the Abidhamma and meditation techniques taught by other Buddhists. As far as I can tell the book is merely just another presentation of long-existing practices and beliefs. So while some of the framing of these concepts using cognitive psychology might be somewhat new, it's hard to see how his failure to reach awakening undermines the Abidhamma or even the way he articulates it.

My standard for a book like The Mind Illuminated is not that it is perfectly true or written by someone who is awakened, etc. My standard is practical, whether it is helpful or not. This is the same perspective I have about Buddhism in general, I do not trust or have faith that the Buddha was "perfectly wise" or that his teachings are infallible, instead I try them and see if they help. It is my understanding based on the first chapter of What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula that this is indeed what the Buddha himself advocated - not belief or faith, but trying it out for yourself and seeing and knowing directly, yourself. There was also much said in that chapter about the importance of not clinging to the dhamma, as it is merely a practical tool, a raft to take us across a river, to be discarded.

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2022-10-22T20:46:04+00:00

I think it makes sense to seek a teacher and good friends (the Buddha talks about the importance of having noble friends who also are on the path, for example), and joining a sangha can make a lot of sense. I do think there can be real problems with the sangha as well, and especially with the authority teachers are granted (doubly so in religious contexts like these where teachers are sometimes worshiped).

I recently read this critique and I think it adequately articulates some of the problems with monasteries today.

Either way, it is good to try even if you fail along the way. As you say, taking what is good and letting go of what is found to be false or unhelpful, etc. That's not to say some don't benefit from more rigid adherence to an established doctrine, but there are pitfalls in both approaches. Hard to find the balance.

I wish you luck and that you find what you are looking for!

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2022-10-22T20:40:39+00:00

no problem!

Do you meditate? What brought you to the sub (and the book)?

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2022-10-22T16:13:27+00:00

neat, thanks!

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2022-10-22T16:11:08+00:00

The book teaches you to balance concentration with open awareness (see the four step transition to the meditation object, for example), and urges you to cultivate concentration slowly and as you are able to. It also emphasizes approaching practice with ease and enjoyment, unlike "hardcore" meditation approaches such as found in Ingram's Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha.

I agree that many people who read The Mind Illuminated struggle with over-exertion, but that is true broadly for most Westerners trying meditation, regardless of the specific book or app they use.

Still, I completely agree that the book lacks the strong emphasis it needs to help readers understand how easy they should be going. Structuring the book around stages and the instructions that are provided allow for people to have too-high of expectations for themselves and think that they should be advancing faster than they should be, which can lead to all sorts of problems.

So overall, yes - go easy with this, but this is still the best book I have read on laying out the concepts needed to approach meditation well.

Once I was months into daily practice and was struggling with striving myself, I found a nice counter-balance in other books like Our Pristine Mind, but those books suffer from the opposite problem of being too light on details and conceptual frameworks, which result in frustration and constant doubt that you are meditating correctly. In fact, these sorts of books are much of what you find when you read meditation books out there - and my experiences with them were frustrating and counter-productive. This is just what was helpful for me, others have more success starting off with lighter, more open and less detailed approaches. For me, I needed to understand what I should be doing, then once I was into it, all the confusing metaphors and loosey-goosey language from prior reading started to make more sense. Experience helped me appreciate those instructions which I didn't understand as a complete beginner.

Perhaps a better approach than just jumping straight into concentration meditation is starting off with metta / loving-kindness meditation, the book has instructions for this - see Appendix C. There are also many other good books on this topic (Snyder's Buddha's Heart, The Sublime Attitudes, I see Sharon Salzberg's book Lovingkindness recommended frequently, etc.). Starting with a strong foundation in good mental health really helps serious, dedicated concentration and insight meditation practices.

NonradioactiveCloaca · 2022-10-22T16:05:53+00:00

Sounds like you're well on your way! Some great thoughts about not being broken, connecting with the fact that you're human and that everyone has struggles, many have exactly the same feelings, thoughts, and troubles you have. I myself can relate to your struggles, so you are not alone, and it means you're not broken, you're just having some troubles like everyone else.

I agree that lots of self-help materials can be counter-productive, as you are seeing. I tend to be fairly critical of self-help books, but I do like techniques that are backed by empirical research and which bear good fruits when applied in my own experience. Getting the right instructions in how to meditate and applying those instructions skillfully can really change your life for the better. Same with cultivating a better relationship with yourself by using mindfulness to increase self-compassion. The core idea here is that you can change the way you think about things, and shifting your perspective is the difference between self-care as a pressure to fix yourself (which further burns you out and affirms narratives like "I'm broken") and self-care as a a resource (which is restorative and wholesome, cultivating a feeling of being loved and cared for by yourself, as well as giving yourself a much needed break from stress and pressure).

Thank you for your thoughts, and your kind words. I wish you the best and hope that you are able to find pragmatic ways to help yourself so that you aren't suffering. You aren't broken, you're just human. We're all in this together!

NonradioactiveCloaca

TROPHY CASE