4 ms·

Isn't attainment of nirvana and ending the cycle of death and rebirth the whole point of Buddhism? To avoid the suffering of another incarnation? So maybe for t

by msm_ 3y ago

Isn't attainment of nirvana and ending the cycle of death and rebirth the whole point of Buddhism? To avoid the suffering of another incarnation? So maybe for the monks the ritual suicide is something their gut feeling tells them is right? I mean, I don't know a whole lot about Buddhist, but I suspect that you don't either (please correct me if I'm wrong). And really, is dying in peace during a religious ritual really so much worse than desperately clinging to life in hospital for the final before death, maybe ruining and exhausting your closest family in the process? Don't get me wrong, I prefer our way of life, but I believe you think your (our) culture is the only correct one, and for example refer to it as "gut-checking" or "childlike simple thinking". I don't think it's as universal and obvious as you think.

rcoveson 3y ago
There's no Buddhism in the gut, though; at least not full-on nirvana Buddhism. Nor is their any orthodox Judaism, hardcore utilitarianism, or pauline Christianity. I'm talking about our ancient, shared core of self-preservation and empathy. The things you feel before you get taught to feel anything. The things that make us feel kinship with dogs and gorillas. So no, to answer your question, I don't know much about Buddhism. I don't know much about mathematics, either, at least not when compared to how much there is to be known. And yet, if I heard about a subset of mathematicians who believed in a proof that one was equal to zero, I'd still dismiss it (and them, to some extent). The same is true of a subset of philosophers (these particular Buddhist monks) who arrive at the conclusion that they should let their own functioning bodies die. I'm sure they've thought a lot about it; certainly a lot more than I have! But there's a thing that sometimes happens when you think about a problem too much, to the point of obsession: You can end up even further from the truth than you started. Just look at the hardcore utilitarians. Look at Ayn Rand. All of them know more about ethics and philosphy in general than I do. Doesn't mean I can't dismiss them with a heuristic, which I do. Why is there reverence for suicidal Buddhist monks in this arena, but not the equally-kooky Western utilitarians?
- msm_ 3y ago
  > And yet, if I heard about a subset of mathematicians who believed in a proof that one was equal to zero, I'd still dismiss it (and them, to some extent). I don't want to derail the conversation, but there are many pretty weird and diverse ideas in mathematics, including finitism and ultrafinitism (where people just don't believe in some very large numbers), various subsets of peano axioms (where 1 != 0 may not be provable), or modular arithmetics (where 0 = 2 may be true). > The things you feel before you get taught to feel anything. The things that make us feel kinship with dogs and gorillas. I'm not convinced I should listen the Things absolutely. The Things often tell me to hit someone annoying in the face, eat exclusively very caloric and fat food, and seek sexual gratification with every female of age around me. I don't think the Things are as smart as you give them the credit for. > (...) who arrive at the conclusion that they should let their own functioning bodies die. What about: - Medieval old people, who just left for the woods when they felt they're getting old and are a burden on the family. - Mothers sacrificing their life for their children - Strong and healthy males on Titanic who, despite their physical superiority, decided to let women and children first - People fighting in war/guerilla for their country or their beliefs
  - rcoveson 3y ago
    > I don't want to derail the conversation, but there are many pretty weird and diverse ideas in mathematics, including finitism and ultrafinitism (where people just don't believe in some very large numbers), various subsets of peano axioms (where 1 != 0 may not be provable), or modular arithmetics (where 0 = 2 may be true). That's not really what I'm talking about. I'm imagining somebody who is so sure of their own mathematical reasoning skills that upon proving to themselves that the number one, in its simplest sense, was equal to the number zero, they started behaving as though this were the case. Perhaps going mad and (in good service of the analogy I'm making) killing themselves. > I'm not convinced I should listen the Things absolutely. The Things often tell me to hit someone annoying in the face, eat exclusively very caloric and fat food, and seek sexual gratification with every female of age around me. I don't think the Things are as smart as you give them the credit for. FWIW I think everything you're listing has some amount of instinctive conflict. Violence requires you to disable empathy. Chronic gluttony eventually requires you to turn off your ego and hate yourself. These are conflicts that (apologies for leaning heavily on this point, but it's kind of central) pretty much everybody, from a very young age, learns about and has to work through. The red flag is when you arrive through cold reasoning alone at a conclusion that makes no sense to any of your instincts, as evidenced by the fact that the average person off the street is completely bewildered by your conclusion. Like the idea that you should starve yourself for no other reason than that you have freed your spirit of all desire. > What about... [four moral case studies] Moral conflicts are still moral conflicts. Killing to avoid killing, violence to avoid violence. In the more difficult cases, perhaps even killing to avoid non-lethal violence (e.g. slavery), or even suicide to avoid extreme pain or the moral paralysis of your family members. Yet again, the sorts of decisions that people actually have to make with some regularity. The sorts of things we feel we need to teach children about, as they become adults. Suicide for purely ascetic reasons is not a moral conflict. From an unlearned perspective, it's just wasteful and bizarre. It seems to be the ethical equivalent of the mathematician going mad after incorrectly proving to himself that one apple was equivalent to zero apples.
hosh 3y ago
This reminds me of this beautiful story I heard. I don't remember from where (probably a memoir of a shamanistic practitioner). This story took place somewhere in Africa, among a people whose custom and practice was that when someone knows in their heart their time is done, they'd walk out into the wasteland to die alone, with the blessing of their community. An NGO volunteer working with that community found out about an elder doing that walk. She went off looking for the elder, and found her. Sobbed and begged her to not do this. The beauty I see in this story isn't one where it ends with the NGO volunteer somehow convincing the elder to live longer. But rather, that of an elder, knowing that the time has come, and all those loose ends have been tied, the words have been spoken, resolving all the regrets and longings, at that last moment of stillness as profound as witnessing a birth, the elder took the time to comfort and guide a stranger to their ways. A child born in a culture who have lost the wisdom of death. And this elder, passes one more wisdom as a gift. The NGO volunteer thought she was saving the elder, but it was the elder saving the NGO volunteer. As a contrast there is this story that took place here in America, something I'll never forget. My wife and I visited my wife's grandmother when my son was about 6 months old. My grandmother-in-law was in bad health, having survived some major medical interventions where she is now on a highly restricted kidney diet and constant pain. We took the trip so that my grandmother-in-law has a chance to hold her great-grandson, and my son has a chance to connect with his great-grandmother, even if he will probably never remember it. I remember when my grandmother-in-law, spoke in a voice on the verge of breaking, that she didn't know how long she could keep going. And I remember my wife telling her, to hang on for a few more years, because we were planning on raising another one. And my grandmother-in-law then said to herself, "ok, there will be another one ..." She continued living to see another two great-grandchildren from the extended family, and if things work out, another one this summer. You just never know, just poking at the surface. It's easy to try to fit things in our comfortable narrative frames. Dealing with and surviving the death of another is no easy thing, and yet, there's great wisdom within those experiences.
- louison11 3y ago
  I just wanted to jump in and reply that you’re making a lot of sense and I can grasp your wisdom. It’s difficult to talk about spirituality on HN because a lot of people here are very attached to their rationality. It’s a beautiful story you shared. Westerners often have this idea that they know what’s right and need to awaken everybody else (isn’t that the whole point of missionaries? ;-)). I do not understand this mummification thing, but I do understand the concept that death is a transition to other worlds. A common goal of most spiritual traditions is to purify the person so that when they die they can ascend to the best possible next thing in their evolution. The Toltecs talk about cultivating “fire” inside one’s system such that they can use it to propulse themselves straight up into what’s next - and not get lost wandering into their attachments. The Buddhists talk about letting go of karma so we can stop reincarnating due to our attachments. It’s all very similar. My sense is these monks aren’t trying to escape life, but rather maybe felt ready to propulse their souls back into the cosmos with intentionality. I don’t understand it, but I can’t have the audacity of judging people who I know nothing of and who, if I met, would likely read me like an open book. I do believe that Harry Potter is accurate when it separates magicians from moguls, and that as one reaches much higher levels of consciousness - their perceptions and abilities become unfathomable to the uninitiated. It doesn’t mean they can’t be wrong, or become twisted in their perceptions. But it means I’m not going to pretend I know better than them.

by msm_ 3y ago

rcoveson 3y ago

There's no Buddhism in the gut, though; at least not full-on nirvana Buddhism. Nor is their any orthodox Judaism, hardcore utilitarianism, or pauline Christianity. I'm talking about our ancient, shared core of self-preservation and empathy. The things you feel before you get taught to feel anything. The things that make us feel kinship with dogs and gorillas. So no, to answer your question, I don't know much about Buddhism. I don't know much about mathematics, either, at least not when compared to how much there is to be known. And yet, if I heard about a subset of mathematicians who believed in a proof that one was equal to zero, I'd still dismiss it (and them, to some extent). The same is true of a subset of philosophers (these particular Buddhist monks) who arrive at the conclusion that they should let their own functioning bodies die. I'm sure they've thought a lot about it; certainly a lot more than I have! But there's a thing that sometimes happens when you think about a problem too much, to the point of obsession: You can end up even further from the truth than you started. Just look at the hardcore utilitarians. Look at Ayn Rand. All of them know more about ethics and philosphy in general than I do. Doesn't mean I can't dismiss them with a heuristic, which I do. Why is there reverence for suicidal Buddhist monks in this arena, but not the equally-kooky Western utilitarians?

msm_ 3y ago
> And yet, if I heard about a subset of mathematicians who believed in a proof that one was equal to zero, I'd still dismiss it (and them, to some extent). I don't want to derail the conversation, but there are many pretty weird and diverse ideas in mathematics, including finitism and ultrafinitism (where people just don't believe in some very large numbers), various subsets of peano axioms (where 1 != 0 may not be provable), or modular arithmetics (where 0 = 2 may be true). > The things you feel before you get taught to feel anything. The things that make us feel kinship with dogs and gorillas. I'm not convinced I should listen the Things absolutely. The Things often tell me to hit someone annoying in the face, eat exclusively very caloric and fat food, and seek sexual gratification with every female of age around me. I don't think the Things are as smart as you give them the credit for. > (...) who arrive at the conclusion that they should let their own functioning bodies die. What about: - Medieval old people, who just left for the woods when they felt they're getting old and are a burden on the family. - Mothers sacrificing their life for their children - Strong and healthy males on Titanic who, despite their physical superiority, decided to let women and children first - People fighting in war/guerilla for their country or their beliefs
- rcoveson 3y ago
  > I don't want to derail the conversation, but there are many pretty weird and diverse ideas in mathematics, including finitism and ultrafinitism (where people just don't believe in some very large numbers), various subsets of peano axioms (where 1 != 0 may not be provable), or modular arithmetics (where 0 = 2 may be true). That's not really what I'm talking about. I'm imagining somebody who is so sure of their own mathematical reasoning skills that upon proving to themselves that the number one, in its simplest sense, was equal to the number zero, they started behaving as though this were the case. Perhaps going mad and (in good service of the analogy I'm making) killing themselves. > I'm not convinced I should listen the Things absolutely. The Things often tell me to hit someone annoying in the face, eat exclusively very caloric and fat food, and seek sexual gratification with every female of age around me. I don't think the Things are as smart as you give them the credit for. FWIW I think everything you're listing has some amount of instinctive conflict. Violence requires you to disable empathy. Chronic gluttony eventually requires you to turn off your ego and hate yourself. These are conflicts that (apologies for leaning heavily on this point, but it's kind of central) pretty much everybody, from a very young age, learns about and has to work through. The red flag is when you arrive through cold reasoning alone at a conclusion that makes no sense to any of your instincts, as evidenced by the fact that the average person off the street is completely bewildered by your conclusion. Like the idea that you should starve yourself for no other reason than that you have freed your spirit of all desire. > What about... [four moral case studies] Moral conflicts are still moral conflicts. Killing to avoid killing, violence to avoid violence. In the more difficult cases, perhaps even killing to avoid non-lethal violence (e.g. slavery), or even suicide to avoid extreme pain or the moral paralysis of your family members. Yet again, the sorts of decisions that people actually have to make with some regularity. The sorts of things we feel we need to teach children about, as they become adults. Suicide for purely ascetic reasons is not a moral conflict. From an unlearned perspective, it's just wasteful and bizarre. It seems to be the ethical equivalent of the mathematician going mad after incorrectly proving to himself that one apple was equivalent to zero apples.

hosh 3y ago

This reminds me of this beautiful story I heard. I don't remember from where (probably a memoir of a shamanistic practitioner). This story took place somewhere in Africa, among a people whose custom and practice was that when someone knows in their heart their time is done, they'd walk out into the wasteland to die alone, with the blessing of their community. An NGO volunteer working with that community found out about an elder doing that walk. She went off looking for the elder, and found her. Sobbed and begged her to not do this. The beauty I see in this story isn't one where it ends with the NGO volunteer somehow convincing the elder to live longer. But rather, that of an elder, knowing that the time has come, and all those loose ends have been tied, the words have been spoken, resolving all the regrets and longings, at that last moment of stillness as profound as witnessing a birth, the elder took the time to comfort and guide a stranger to their ways. A child born in a culture who have lost the wisdom of death. And this elder, passes one more wisdom as a gift. The NGO volunteer thought she was saving the elder, but it was the elder saving the NGO volunteer. As a contrast there is this story that took place here in America, something I'll never forget. My wife and I visited my wife's grandmother when my son was about 6 months old. My grandmother-in-law was in bad health, having survived some major medical interventions where she is now on a highly restricted kidney diet and constant pain. We took the trip so that my grandmother-in-law has a chance to hold her great-grandson, and my son has a chance to connect with his great-grandmother, even if he will probably never remember it. I remember when my grandmother-in-law, spoke in a voice on the verge of breaking, that she didn't know how long she could keep going. And I remember my wife telling her, to hang on for a few more years, because we were planning on raising another one. And my grandmother-in-law then said to herself, "ok, there will be another one ..." She continued living to see another two great-grandchildren from the extended family, and if things work out, another one this summer. You just never know, just poking at the surface. It's easy to try to fit things in our comfortable narrative frames. Dealing with and surviving the death of another is no easy thing, and yet, there's great wisdom within those experiences.

louison11 3y ago
I just wanted to jump in and reply that you’re making a lot of sense and I can grasp your wisdom. It’s difficult to talk about spirituality on HN because a lot of people here are very attached to their rationality. It’s a beautiful story you shared. Westerners often have this idea that they know what’s right and need to awaken everybody else (isn’t that the whole point of missionaries? ;-)). I do not understand this mummification thing, but I do understand the concept that death is a transition to other worlds. A common goal of most spiritual traditions is to purify the person so that when they die they can ascend to the best possible next thing in their evolution. The Toltecs talk about cultivating “fire” inside one’s system such that they can use it to propulse themselves straight up into what’s next - and not get lost wandering into their attachments. The Buddhists talk about letting go of karma so we can stop reincarnating due to our attachments. It’s all very similar. My sense is these monks aren’t trying to escape life, but rather maybe felt ready to propulse their souls back into the cosmos with intentionality. I don’t understand it, but I can’t have the audacity of judging people who I know nothing of and who, if I met, would likely read me like an open book. I do believe that Harry Potter is accurate when it separates magicians from moguls, and that as one reaches much higher levels of consciousness - their perceptions and abilities become unfathomable to the uninitiated. It doesn’t mean they can’t be wrong, or become twisted in their perceptions. But it means I’m not going to pretend I know better than them.