Reflecting on TDB

[whocoulditbe?]

Just now, Daniel said:

Maybe.  But isn't the urgency a delusion?

A more useful one than sloth.

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

6 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

This has no connection to the logical truth:

 

If someone is declaring another person deluded they are declaring that they, themself, are NOT deluded.

 

You seem to want me to admit that, in general,  I can be wrong about ... stuff.  Of course I can be wrong about stuff, but, I'm not wrong about this.  I am very happy to hear another persepctive.  Go ahead.  Please, tell me about how a person who is deluded can accurately assess another person's delusion.  I am listening.

 

I am confident about this, because, I have put a lot of thought into it.  I put a lot of thought into everything I post here.   This is a good thing.  That's why people rarely, if ever, refute what I've written.  And the community doesn't like that.  The community wants to see my confidence knocked down.

 

Go ahead.  Knock it down.  I would absolutely love to be proven wrong, and or, to learn sometthing new.  Show me what I'm missing about this.

 

No but Daniel, sincerly, i am not your enemy. In fact i appreciate a lot of what you do. It is not a battle, but a forum for conversation

[Daniel]

5 minutes ago, NaturaNaturans said:

No but Daniel, sincerly, i am not your enemy. In fact i appreciate a lot of what you do. It is not a battle, but a forum for conversation

 

Great!  

 

2 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

That i dont see how that logically follows.

 

Do you now see how it logically follows?

[liminal_luke]

3 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

I'm delusional about what?

 

 

I was just playing around with your (good) idea that a person who is delusional -- me, in this case -- isn't necessarily a good judge of the delusions of others.  

 

(I do think that almost all of us are delusional by the standards of Buddhism in that we mostly don't "see through" the illusion of selfhood.  But I know that you do not agree with that view.)

[Master Logray]

A pickpocket can easily spot other pickpockets.  I suppose a delusional person can spot people with same trait easier than others.

[Daniel]

1 minute ago, Master Logray said:

A pickpocket can easily spot other pickpockets.  I suppose a delusional person can spot people with same trait easier than others.

 

Well... nice try.  Not a great example because a the pick-pocket has a cognitive skill, the deluded has a cognitive defect.

 

A proper analogy is, one who is no longer deluded can better spot those that are currently deluded, because, they know what it looks like and feels like.

[Maddie]

12 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

there it is... the classic buddhist insult against any who disagree...

 

Luke got it absolutely correct. It's not an insult it's just the condition of everybody who's not enlightened. Simply a technical term.

 

In Buddhism the problem is suffering, which is caused by desire, which is caused by delusion. It's the lowest common denominator problem according to the Buddha. And it affects everybody who's not enlightened.

 

Delusion ---> craving/aversion ---> suffering.

Edited December 26, 2023 by Maddie

[whocoulditbe?]

16 minutes ago, Master Logray said:

A pickpocket can easily spot other pickpockets.  I suppose a delusional person can spot people with same trait easier than others.

There are plenty of unenlightened beings who have denied the enlightenment of the Buddha, pickpockets who identify an innocent pedestrian as a pickpocket.

[Nungali]

3 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

You're delusional, Daniel.  Then again, I'm an ignorant queen* so you needn't take my opinion too seriously.

 

(Well, I'm not sure about the queen part but ignorant? Definitely.)

 

I dont like this answer  ^  .

 

So I will give mine to the 'Pedantic Daniel '  ;

 

The comparisons of a delusional person need not only be to another ; a person, depending on their delusion may be able to gauge the local societal  level of  'lusion'  and then decide if a certain individual , or even themselves, are outside of that and being 'de lusional ' .

 

I knw... I know  ....  PD is going to protest that , they are still hampered in their judgement by being delusional .  Well, when we (us lusional people )  look at who and or what is responsible for the local 'lusion' ... we might find that / them , even more delusional.

 

 

In case I used some tricky definitions there ;

 

Pedantic -   synonyms: overscrupulous, scrupulous, precise, exact, over-exacting, perfectionist, precisionist, punctilious, meticulous, fussy, fastidious, finical, finicky, dogmatic, purist, literalist, literalistic, formalist, scholastic, casuistic, casuistical, sophistic, sophistical, captious, hair-splitting, quibbling, pettifogging, fault-finding, hypercritical, cavilling, carping, nitpicking, pernickety, persnickety, overnice, learned, cerebral, didactic, bookish, pedagogic, donnish, highbrow, ivory-tower, pretentious, pompous, intellectual, academic, scholarly, literary, egghead.

 

Delusion -  a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, occurring especially in mental conditions.

 

synonyms: misapprehension, mistaken impression, false impression, mistaken belief, misconception, misunderstanding, mistake, error, misinterpretation, misconstruction, misbelief, fallacy, illusion, figment of the imagination, fantasy, chimera, fool's paradise, self-deception.

 

"deceive, impose upon, mislead the mind or judgment of," c. 1400, from Latin deludere "to play false; to mock, deceive," from de- "down, to one's detriment" (see de-) + ludere "to play" (see ludicrous). Related: Deluded; deluding.

 

 

[Nungali]

Oh, I left out  'lusional' 

 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Lusional

[wandelaar]

Maybe I (my ego) has something to add to this new turn of the discussion: 

 

The self is not the ego, the self (as a supposedly absolutely autonomous island of self determination) most likely doesn't exist, but the ego as something transient that gets born, lives and dies certainly (temporarily) exists, and we see ego's fighting with each other all over the place here and elsewhere. How could mere delusions fight with each other? In a sense tornado's or flames don't exist as substantial things either, for those are processes rather than substantial things. Just as our ego's. That's why trying to destroy the ego doesn't work. The best one could do is destroying the illusion of having a self, and this will take away a big chunk of our own supposed grandiosity. Which in turn will make it more likely that we appreciate the ideas of other people and get somewhat less obstinate in general (unless of course spiritual arrogance kicks in). In short: the self doesn't have to be destroyed because it doesn't exist in the first place (thus understanding that it doesn't exist is enough), and the ego doesn't need to be destroyed because its not the root cause of our problems. Epicurus in the West solved the problem of craving in a less convoluted way:

 

 

Moderate Buddhists are more like Epicurus.

[Sherman Krebbs]

6 hours ago, Daniel said:

A proper analogy is, one who is no longer deluded can better spot those that are currently deluded, because, they know what it looks like and feels like.

 

How can a deluded person ever know that they are no longer deluded?  isn't it a priori that they don't know.  Therefore, how could anyone ever really spot a deluded one.  Aren't we just spotting one with whom there is disagreement?  

 

imo, we are all deluded, and maybe accepting being deluded gets us not much closer to being undeluded.  e.g. acceptance of delusion could be equally delusional.. kind of a GOD Over Djinn problem. 

 

In a way, if there are only delusions, and there can be nothing else, maybe a delusion is a contradiction.  Maybe we are not delusional at all, but just real, actual people sitting in front of computers writing cute things on the internet.   

  

[Maddie]

46 minutes ago, Brad M said:

How can a deluded person ever know that they are no longer deluded?  

 

How does a person that wakes up from sleeping know they're awake?

 

One knows they're no longer deluded when they achieve Nirvana and they're suffering ends.

 

2 hours ago, wandelaar said:

The self is not the ego, the self (as a supposedly absolutely autonomous island of self determination) most likely doesn't exist, but the ego as something transient that gets born, lives and dies certainly (temporarily) exists, and we

 

I've been using the word self and ego synonymously. The Buddha never said there is no self although a lot of people assume that he did. What he said is that the five aggregates are not self. Basically what the Buddha is saying is what you think of as yourself is not that.

Edited December 26, 2023 by Maddie

[Sherman Krebbs]

4 minutes ago, Maddie said:

How does a person that wakes up from sleeping know they're awake?

 

I usually pinch myself  :  ).   

 

I think the point I was trying to make is:  we are all awake, at least while we are not sleeping.  One ceases to be deluded when one accepts the reality of living.  

 

We all have our different paths and places in the world, and fundamentally are dealing with our own "delusions" and suffering in our own lives in our own ways.  There is no single right or wrong (or deluded) path; in the end karma/Dao guides.  In other words, we are all equally perfect the way we are (however delusional we may unknowingly be).     

 

[Maddie]

6 minutes ago, Brad M said:

 One ceases to be deluded when one accepts the reality of living.  

 

And what does the reality of living mean?

[Daniel]

8 hours ago, Maddie said:

It's not an insult it's just the condition of everybody who's not enlightened.

 

If it's not an insult, then, being delusional is neutral?  Harmless?

 

Quote

In Buddhism the problem is suffering, which is caused by desire, which is caused by delusion. It's the lowest common denominator problem according to the Buddha. And it affects everybody who's not enlightened.

 

The one who is claiming others are delusional is asserting their own enlightenment? 

 

Quote

Delusion ---> craving/aversion ---> suffering.

 

See, it's not neutral.  The assertion is:  "You are causing your own suffering"  That's an insult.

 

Are these children causing their own suffering.  Is their "craving" the lowest common problem which needs to be solved.  Is the aversion to their starvation a problem?

 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

8 hours ago, whocoulditbe? said:

There are plenty of unenlightened beings who have denied the enlightenment of the Buddha, pickpockets who identify an innocent pedestrian as a pickpocket.

 

Speaking for myself, I do not deny the enlightenment of buddha.  I am not convinced this "enlightenment" is good, natural, or healthy.

[Maddie]

2 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

If it's not an insult, then, being delusional is neutral?  Harmless?

 

 

The one who is claiming others are delusional is asserting their own enlightenment? 

 

 

 

If there's a warning lable on a product that tells you not to eat the product because it's poisonous, the warning label is not an insult, but the product is not harmless either.

 

After obtaining enlightenment the Buddha explained the problem and the solution.

[Sherman Krebbs]

11 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

And what does the reality of living mean?

 

Not meaning too much by it other than life is real. For example, if you accept life is real, then you are not deluded.  One might posit that their composite person (i.e. aggregates) are empty null, void, illusory, etc., the life they are living is still very real and meaningful. Nihilism is a sad disease. Whether others might accept certain concepts which I happen to believe in deeply, it does not distract from the meaningfulness of their own lives, in which they will find their own paths to the end state, however many eons or whatever form it might take.  Therefore, how can we be deluded so long as we are living. 

[Maddie]

8 minutes ago, Brad M said:

Therefore, how can we be deluded so long as we are living. 

 

Have you ever met or spoken to a living person that you felt was deluded?

[Cobie]

9 hours ago, Maddie said:

… It's not an insult … Simply a technical term …

 

@Maddie I draw the line here. You are on my ignore list. I will never respond to any of your posts again.

 

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by Cobie

[Sherman Krebbs]

1 minute ago, Maddie said:

 

Have you ever met or spoken to a living person that you felt was deluded?

 

Yes.  I have seen drug addicts on the street.  I have worked with mentally unstable people.  While I have not met them, I have many questions about our world leaders.   Is a drug addict living on the street deluded? The addict is certainly not living up to his potential, but then again addiction is a terrible thing.   The addiction will crush him causing immense suffering, which only intensifies the addiction.  If he does not break the cycle, it will probably kill him.  Alternatively he might recover, and perhaps, as many people having overcome addiction, will gain great insight and perhaps some form of enlightenment from the process. Does my opinion of him being deluded, or not, matter in this process?

 

I cant however quite come up with a similar example for world leaders : )

 

Also, I was not trying to dispute anything you said, nor meaning too much by these posts other than having fun equivocating on the word delusional.  I think people object to the term--as it is most often used as a derogative--not necessarily the concept of the way you were meaning it. I'd also encourage people not to take offense so easily--takes just as much ego to take offense as it does giving it.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Maddie]

45 minutes ago, Cobie said:

 

@Maddie I draw the line here. You are on my ignore list. I will never respond to any of your posts again.

 

 

 

Okily dokily. I realize saying something isn't an insult is very insulting. 

 

Btw this is what I said:

Luke got it absolutely correct. It's not an insult it's just the condition of everybody who's not enlightened. Simply a technical term.

 

In Buddhism the problem is suffering, which is caused by desire, which is caused by delusion. It's the lowest common denominator problem according to the Buddha. And it affects everybody who's not enlightened.

 

Delusion ---> craving/aversion ---> suffering.

Edited December 26, 2023 by Maddie

[Apech]

I had to go back to the OP to see what this thread was about.  I was mildly surprised to see it was a reflection on TDBs and the changes we go through over the years.  I suppose one thing that is perennial is that threads often diverge into bad tempered rows about ... something or other.  

 

I suppose one thing that I can reflect on is how often the cause for the arguing is Buddhism.  Its kind of odd because from the inside (which I am a practicing Buddhist) it is benign and gentle - compassionate and thoroughly well meaning.  I'm not saying it's everyone's cup of tea - in fact I am sure that the reason there are so many systems/religions (whatevers) in the world is because different people see things differently and have different interests and needs.  I know quite a few on here don't like Buddhism or find the Buddhist view ridiculous or incoherent - which is fair enough.  I would like to say that it is not intended to insult people.  In fact insulting others is pretty much a no-no.  The idea that we cause our own suffering is a message of hope since it is therefore within our power to do something about it.  Starving children should be fed and cared for - as in states of extreme stress it is nigh impossible for us to address these issues - which is why Buddhists want all sentient beings to have the 'leiesure and endowment' to be able to reflect on the dharma.

 

My advice for what it is worth is, if you find yourself hostile to Buddhism just leave it and do something else.  Do good in whatever way you see best.

 

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by Apech

[wandelaar]

3 hours ago, Maddie said:

I've been using the word self and ego synonymously. The Buddha never said there is no self although a lot of people assume that he did. What he said is that the five aggregates are not self. Basically what the Buddha is saying is what you think of as yourself is not that.

 

Using the words self and ego synonymously is a huge cause of confusion, particularly when trying to understand Buddhism. However you're probably right about the Buddha not having said that the self doesn't exist. He didn't like to delve into philosophical questions with no baring on salvation. I have had an interesting discussion about that on Original Dao and it appears that the Buddha was silent about it. And thus that the anatta doctrine is a later interpretation, although an influential one. This is one of those cases where I had to change my original opinion. If you go by the words of the Buddha alone many a philosophical questions must indeed remain unsettled.