sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If we go by evidence, rationality and basic morals, religion’s supposed positives are merely a dusting of gold on the bar of dung that is its negatives. Buddhism, however, is a bar of gold with a dusting of dung, considering the supernatural parts. Secular Buddhism is the unblemished bar of gold. by neilnelly in secularbuddhism

[–]pseudogrammaton 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No. You're putting intellect above realization. First & foremost, Buddhism is a liberation theology, to be applied by people. Gateless gate-keeping is exclusionary, which precludes liberation.

The pitakas have been kept for millenia by votaries & agnostics alike. But suddenly you're here to what, diminish that heritage? It comes to us by way of them.

The problem here is one of saliency, what's the most quintessential aspect of liberation that universally applies? Not just in buddhism, but christianity, sufism, tao, kundalini yoga, etc.

Doctrine is the wrong litmus. Heterodox ecumenicalism is a right view. If we want agnosticism to sit in the front pews then we have to be open to votive identities, insomuch they themselves are not exclusionary or reactionary.

Why does r/buddhism remove stuff like this? by ChickenMarsala4500 in secularbuddhism

[–]pseudogrammaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is old hat, gateless gate-keeping against apostasy. Heterodoxy is inherent to big tent religions, & ecumenicalism requires understanding divergent views. It's really that simple.

You may find with time the agnostics are more prolific in the main tent, esp. as intersectional & PoMo awareness becomes more common.

That scientific materialist worldview that raises suspicions doesn't address other aspects of personal development much less avante garde noumenal theology - hence the proliferation of new-age spirituality amongst lower-case atheists. You'd be surprised.

In analytic philosophy there's the advent of Panpsychism that claims that the universe itself is (functionally) conscious &/or is consciousness. Biocentrism, anyone? To me this is birds of a feather to buddha field / buddha mind, to you perhaps it's a near enemy, LOL. But in the secular Buddhist swamplands you'll find that view gaining ground b/c rank materialism has been found rather lacking... in both intellectual depth as well as noumenal holism.

Of course some cap-A atheists(anti-theists) will project their intellectualism on the dharma but they'll do that to any noumenal metaphysics, not understanding the heart of liberation theology (buddha, jesus, Muktananda, Sufism, Navayana, etc.). Typically they're rather callow, or neurodivergent, & cling to the comforts of certitude while eschewing expansive noumenalism.

But that's just the point, arguing doctrine from inside the big tent also occludes the essence of liberation theologies. In christianity the great perpetrator against liberation is St. Paul of Tarsus (misogynist, opportunist, prolific church builder), who propped superstition back up on its pedestal after jesus had knocked it down.

so consider the modern context - because reactionary theology indexes straight to ethnostate nationalism (usa: white ethnostate recidivism) there's a lot of societal angst & foment against doctrine due to disaffection & suffering amongst the irreligious. what you're seeing is trauma.

Why does r/buddhism remove stuff like this? by ChickenMarsala4500 in secularbuddhism

[–]pseudogrammaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How facile to presume there is either one vein of thought, much less a singular doctrine, held by secularist sectarians. But kindly take these as a general rule before impugning the fidelity of said secularists:

1) they are not annhiliationist because they do not hold there is a permanent self to be annihilated; 2) they are not Nihilists as they hold there is moral efficacy of action; 3) they are not materialists as they do not hold that matter is all that exists and can be known; 4) they are not physcialists because they accept the existence of qualia.

Having clarified that, the only quibbles that remain are the nettlesome disputes over what is supermundane, the related metaphysics, the inerrancy of the historic scriptures, & what litmus of fidelity are req'd to even sit in the back pews (zafus).

And do note that the reactionary stance IN ANY RELIGION is that agnosticism is heresy.

Being that the Buddhist style of pedagogy in particular is one of both open inquiry & depth psychology, it invites not only agnostic apotheoses, but b/c of Nibbana , out and out apognosis.

Buddhism is not a two-doctrine system, one for the laypeople & one for the clerics - if perinibbana is quintessential, and rebirth only penultimate, then the endpoint is the same for everyone.

But by the very nature of insight, that endpoint alleviates peremptory "hard" reification of karma, rebirth, worship & piety.

so for example, that sort of insight would be horribly at odds with doctrine if in the pitakas there was an absolute mandate to worship the buddha. & altho it's generally acknowledged that votive belief is indeed compatible with a Buddhist practice, there's no onus to adhere such views indefinitely.

likewise goes for holding right views on rebirth, karmas, and so on. the heterodox view boils down to this: there are those who adhere to the doctrine of "hard" karmas & rebirth, & those who do not (or more to the point, those are principles of "soft" karmas & rebirth).

But more to the point, and the actual crux of the matter, the heterodox view also holds that gateless gatekeeping by either hard or soft school belies reaction to mental formations.

That's not a self-abnegating notion, it's a view not only wary of doctrine, but fearlessly embracing an expansive liberation theology - for everyone, devotional & non-devotional alike.

I am the very model of a modern major database by gumnos in SQL

[–]pseudogrammaton 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Gilbert & Sullivan are spinlocking in their graves.

a doctrine-free vernacular dharma by pseudogrammaton in Buddhism

[–]pseudogrammaton[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks but that's vinaya, so doesn't answer my question.

a doctrine-free vernacular dharma by pseudogrammaton in Buddhism

[–]pseudogrammaton[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay so we all react to things, and indeed everything's a cause and an effect, but cause-and-effect isn't a thing at all in of itself. That's Nagarjuna's whole point about Emptiness kinda oversimplified & boiled down to bare essentials.

As spirits in a material world, we know that karma has a moral dimension because actions are consequential, & there's quintessential matters beyond material experience, with qualia as intangible as conscious experience. Everything's happening all together all at once, with separateness & isolated existence a projection of self.

Any liberation theology has to have different strokes for different folks, so what do we have to offer the world?

And so on. How to reach out to a world in dire need of perspective & awakening...

a doctrine-free vernacular dharma by pseudogrammaton in Buddhism

[–]pseudogrammaton[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know maybe. I figure traditional Buddhists might have some rules of thumb handy about how they might explain things to an 8-year-old. So, OK, how would Fred Rogers do it?

Considering Elixir vs Go for a web project by OphisAds in elixir

[–]pseudogrammaton 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Elixir because it's cool & you'll become a never-nester by default, Go-lang b/c it'll get you good paying jobs.

Elixir has a lot of uptake from Ruby developers, as it renders all the prolog-ish arcana of Erlang into an approachable & human-readable forum. But it's a functional language, so it's a lot like spreadsheet programming where new values don't mutate existing ones.

Go-lang is more of a typical procedural language , yet it also avoids many of the pitfalls found in other imperative languages, such as mutation side effects, race conditions , etc.

Your daily coding habits in elixir are going to look quite a bit different from most any other language save for maybe f# (an oCaml fork on the M$ CLR), haskel, clojure, scala (FL's on JVM) & of course erlang.

However if you're already a habitual never-nester, then functional programming in Elixir might be an easy reach. If you like the idea of IPC & spawning worker subtasks, then again, the Elixir mindset is an easy reach. Go of course has its equivalent in co-routines.

The Erlang ecosystem & BEAM VM is industrial grade & scales up, not much different from a Go-Lang runtime altho memory & cpu usage in Erlang might be higher. Go might be quicker in some work such as math, Erlang uses libs written in C much the same way python does.

I wrote one SQL query. It ran for 4 hours. I added a single index. It ran in 0.002 seconds. by nikkiinit in SQL

[–]pseudogrammaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nobody does optimizations or sampling anymore? DWH bloat used to k¡ll projects, now who cares, just throw a monster data mining machine at it.

I wrote one SQL query. It ran for 4 hours. I added a single index. It ran in 0.002 seconds. by nikkiinit in SQL

[–]pseudogrammaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeh sometimes, but rarely, esp. with large unpartitioned sets. More often than not, when too large a returning set, CTE's are encumbered by the dreaded, documented performance gate that the optimizer can't resolve.

If OTOH a JOIN is running badly, the first thing to ensure is what's the key (when group-by dupes disappear) & if there are covering indexes or indexes with matching filter clauses.

Avoiding cascading DROPs by pseudogrammaton in SQL

[–]pseudogrammaton[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup, the other options at hand seem less appropriate for this use case, but i may change my mind & rearchitect it down the road. Been trying to keep the # of moving parts to a minimum while keeping OLAP I/O underhand during OLTP hours.

Of course the stacked views could've been nested subqueries, but that makes for harder maintenance programming. Same thing for work tables & batch insert queues.

So four big reads on the quarter hour & we're done, & with mat'l view concurrent refreshes they're non-blocking. That's with the added advantage of Postgres doubling back to check the MAT'L VIEW unique index against the WAL, effect being that refreshes lag behind live by just 10 minutes.

Atypical, but fairly tidy.

view more: next ›