Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices

[murphythecat]

Murphy, if you can change your fate, it wouldn't be your fate. As a Buddhist, how do you interpret dependent origination?

I dont believe in fate though, my post was about me NOT believing in fate!

dependant origination is indeed in a way against the idea of fate. but as foreverafter explained, the way he see fate is much more related to your opinion and definition and mine that what the word fate means for most people. the way foreverafter described fate was very much alike the concept of dependent origination and conditioned realities almost and your also.

 

[ebola?]

How do you know that homosexuals can't change their sexuality?
Don't we accept it (sexuality) as unchangeable (by will)?

Sexual desire is one thing, and it doesn't seem particularly amenable to choice. Those who find the direction of their desires problematic usually fail in trying to erase or redirect their basic impulses. Accordingly, psychiatry has not developed any legitimately effective therapy to help people attempting such. However, this is only the beginning point (logical and causal) of human sexuality. Sexual practices, cognitive schemata, cultural meanings, and so forth are subject to a host of social influences and the history of the individual attempting to navigate both their desire and these external influences. It is only through this complex process that we establish sexual identity and express this identity to others. It's rather telling that our current framework of sexual orientation, primarily as a binary between gay and straight, is historically quite new, only truly consolidating during the Victorian period. Now from time immemorial, there have been people whose sexual desire is oriented primarily or solely toward the same sex, but only recently have they been compelled to choose to accordingly identify in terms of this binary orientation, which we take to be the most basic component of sexual identity.

ebola

 

[murphythecat]

foreverafter,
about gays in prison and all, I agree. its hard to know why some prefer to stay celibate ect.
the way sexuality is portrayed in our society is still very straight oriented and homosexuality is still super taboo I dont mean gay men live a lie, . what I said is I dont think anyone is mutually gay or mutually straight. therefore, everyone who pretend to be strictly gay or straight is, imo,omitting to say honestly that he is also BI.

about the choice to being bi, I dont think its a choice at all. I choose however to accept that part of me.

monk who stay monk all their lives, because 85% eventually disrobes, are those who have reached and mastered meditative absorption.
I should maybe pm you this, but there are 9 jhanas, and many monk describes each of them and says what each jhanas brings like insight.
the first jhana brings insight like this:
-once youve experienced the first jhana, you know that this experience was more fullfilling, blissful, satifying then ANY other experience youve ever had in your life.
- you understand that their cannot be contentment in the mind if there is wishes. in order to be conten, wishlesness in necessary.
- thinking process creates dukkha and they are detrimental to our happiness.
- what we are looking for in the world with the sense contact pleasure was inside all along and can be reached with concentration. therefore, that most incredible experience can be repeated as often as we want, with concentration. this brings liberation because we are dependant of outer ocniditon to brings us happiness, but with concentration and the first jhana, we realized that this experience is much more fullfilling then anything else.
-we dont need outer condition to happiness anymore.

the monk who do spent their lives in monastery are those who are able to reach those wonderful state of consciousness and are able to master it. once youve experienced those powerful states which bring immeasurable joy, Id say thats why they stay in a monastery: because they understand that the way to happiness is with concentration, with unification of mind with concentration rather then going outward, in the world and with the world trying to find pleasant sense contact.

if you see the buddha on the road, do you know why you should kill it? we say kill the buddha because the buddha creates the idea in people that he is a god or worshiped which puts buddhism as a religion. we should kill the idea of the buddha because buddhism is a philosophy and a way of life. kill the buddha would be a way to eliminate the bias that buddhism is a religion. and in our world, religion have a bad rep.

but I understand what you mean by my attitude toward the world. I cannot help myself anymore, I have had too many experience that showed me that nirvana is possible and real and that im the one to blame if I still suffer I have nothing else to blame but me!
theres nothing wrong with the world, just that the world is not what it looks like

nice talking to you 2 foreverafter (that is if you read me until here, cause I know you hate long post! )

 

[snazzy_sn]

I've read a few pages of this and will probably continue but I'd like to point something out that I'm sure has already been noted somewhere.

People know the difference, the fact that you're even able to make an argument that says something like 'are tigers immoral for killing the animals they eat?' in itself should tell you something.

We can tell the difference. A tigers fucking biological mechanisms evolutionary instinct whatever whatever and inability to use reason or logic to make consider the nature/morality of it's dietary habits is why a tiger can kill shit without being immoral, without questioning it's own morality etc. etc. is why the tiger is has no accountability and why we do. Well a lot of us I guess.

 

[ebola?]

So, since we're still grappling with the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, I don't see how you can - with any confidence - suggest that the universe is non-deterministic.

Right, but we similarly cannot say with any confidence that the universe is deterministic.

And while there is more than one interpretation of quantum physics, they sure aren´t equal, and as wierd and as unintuitive as the Copenhagen interpretation may be, none of the other interpretations comes close to it in the same degree of experimental verification.

I think that you are either mischaracterizing the relative merits of the differing interpretations of QM or are mistinterpretating the scope of these interpretations in general. Any viable interpretation will be consistent with empirical data (ie, we have discarded those interpretations that have been found inconsistent), but their purpose is not to predict observations but rather explain what these observations, laws, objects involved, etc. mean. So for any given set of observations, there will be multiple consistent interpretations, all equally empirically valid (but often differing in terms of parsimony). So for any given experimental result in particle physics, both the Copenhagen and many-worlds interpretations will work equally well (you're right in that because we haven't found any support for the hidden variables interpretation over many years, it has fallen out of favor). And both interpretations are still used commonly within both physics and among philosophers of science. In this way, interpretation of QM cannot be definitively mobilized in support or critique of the concept of fate.

ebola

 

[ForEverAfter]

if you see the buddha on the road, do you know why you should kill it? we say kill the buddha because the buddha creates the idea in people that he is a god or worshiped which puts buddhism as a religion. we should kill the idea of the buddha because buddhism is a philosophy and a way of life. kill the buddha would be a way to eliminate the bias that buddhism is a religion. and in our world, religion have a bad rep.

Yes, I understand what I quoted about killing the Buddha.
You are treating Buddhism, IMO, like a fundamentalist Christian treats Christianity.

theres nothing wrong with the world

I'm not convinced that you believe this, but - if you do - then that's great.

Right, but we similarly cannot say with any confidence that the universe is deterministic.

Agreed. I'm not saying the universe IS deterministic. I'm saying that I believe (strongly) in fate/determinism. I didn't tell anyone that they're "totally wrong"... Although I am confident in what I believe, I don't think I stated it (determinism) as a fact.

I'm not so sure, for the record.
I believe strongly that in fate, because I have observed it.

This is the sort of thing I was objecting to:

what is sure is that you don´t get to use quantum physics as some kind of evidence for determinism

And, having read your response to Fagott, you seem to agree with my objection.

QM cannot be definitively mobilized in support or critique of the concept of fate

 

[Incunabula]

I get the impression that nobody really understands what I'm suggesting.....

Well, I for one don´t understand it

My point isn't "totally wrong" because I subscribe to a different interpretation.

That´s not what I´m saying. Read my post again. Fact is, quantum mechanics are indeterministic and statistical. THAT is an undisputable FACT!
There is then different interpretations of why that is.

Some scientists have made hypotheses that tries to explain away with the apparent indeterminancy, and thus explain how quantum mechanics just appears indetermistic to us. Einstein believed in hidden variables, and then there´s the many worlds theory, for instance, among others.

The Copenhagen interpretation posits that the world on the quantum plane actually behaves the way quantum mechanics describes it. It kind of takes quantum mechanics at face value.

Thing is, among all the possible interpretations the Copenhagen interpretation is the one today that´s holding the best up to time, as far as I am informed.

But it doesn´t really matter if I am right or wrong in that assumption, because clearly, the jury is still out, which is why it´s called "interpretations". But that doesn´t change the fact, that you do not get to use quantum physics as proof of the existence of any kind of fate, destiny or determinism.

For all we know, all of quantum mechanics might actually be completely wrong, but for now it appears legit because it works!

Personally, I think it is as usual with science......some much deeper truths still lie hidden, that will make quantum mechanics look mundane like classical physics in comparison.

Anyway, my point was and still is:
You do not get to use quantum physics or or modern physics in general, to prove your particular brand of "fate".

You just don´t

Whether or not the universe is deterministic on a quantum level is not clear, yet. We can observe, in the short term, direct causal relationships. And we know - through modern science - that there are causal relationships that are extraordinarily complex that we can't begin to understand. So, since we're still grappling with the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, I don't see how you can - with any confidence - suggest that the universe is non-deterministic.
Although polls show that people opt for the Copenhagen interpretation over other options, that doesn't indicate that it is the "correct" interpretation. Rather, simply, that there are no better options on the poll. It DOES NOT have widespread acceptance, throughout the scientific community, as indisputably true. I couldn't be bothered looking into how popular it is, exactly, but - from what I've read - it's somewhat 50/50...

Actuallly, it´s completely irrelevant how many psycisists believe in it or not, as I´ve already said, quantum mechanics are indeterministic and statistical.

Yes, It might very well be that it just appears to us that way, that there actually is some kind of invisible determinism at work, or some other unknown, unmeasured reality behind it all. Of cause it´s possible, but using quantum mechanics as proof of determinism, is just wrong.

I have never said I believe the universe is indetermistic. Unlike you, I´ve never claimed any absolute truths.

I believe strongly that in fate, because I have observed it.

No offense, but you subjective experience is unimportant.

You believe (to some extent) in what you believe because you believe that the majority of scientists believe it (which they don't).

Nonsense Were do I say that?

Again, I´ve never stated wether I believe in fate, or a deterministic or a indetermistic universe.

Again, I simply stated that you do not get to use quantum physics as some kind of proof of your beliefs.

I think that you are either mischaracterizing the relative merits of the differing interpretations of QM or are mistinterpretating the scope of these interpretations in general. Any viable interpretation will be consistent with empirical data (ie, we have discarded those interpretations that have been found inconsistent), but their purpose is not to predict observations but rather explain what these observations, laws, objects involved, etc. mean. So for any given set of observations, there will be multiple consistent interpretations, all equally empirically valid (but often differing in terms of parsimony). So for any given experimental result in particle physics, both the Copenhagen and many-worlds interpretations will work equally well (you're right in that because we haven't found any support for the hidden variables interpretation over many years, it has fallen out of favor). And both interpretations are still used commonly within both physics and among philosophers of science. In this way, interpretation of QM cannot be definitively mobilized in support or critique of the concept of fate.
ebola

You´re absolutely right of cause.

But is there not a reason that the Copenhagen interpretation is favored more than other interpretations? I personally think it is because quantum mechanics are indeterministic and statistical. Any deterministic theory always comes off as an attempt at trying to explain this unpleasant fact away.

And while we certainly can´t discount the many worlds theory, for instance, I personally think that Occam´s razor says it´s way too complex. In my opinion it reads more like science-fantasy than anything else. But of cause, any interpretation of quantum physics not explicitly proven wrong, goes.

I personally like the Copenhagen interpretation, because I think it would be more wierd if the laws governing the very smallest microscopic plane of our universe would be exactly similar to the laws governing the macroscopic. I mean, it would be wierd, if quantum physics weren´t wierd

When I am talking of "evidence", by the way, I was of cause thinking of Bell´s inequality, which did away with Einsteins hidden variables. (or did it? Can there still be some kind of hidden variables?) And also an article I recently read about two danish physicists work on superposition. I´ll see if I can find it for you, but it´s in danish.

By the way, your last line is actually what I´ve been trying to say all along.

 

[ForEverAfter]

This is ridiculous.
I never said anything much about quantum physics in the first place.

This is all I said:

We can observe causality short-term and we are beginning to understand the complexity and scope of long-term casual relationships, thanks to the development of new ways of thinking (like quantum mechanics).

Note the word "like".
You responded to that sentence, with four and a half paragraphs.

Fact is, quantum mechanics are indeterministic and statistical. THAT is an undisputable FACT!

No, it isn't a fact. Read up on it, if you don't believe me. I've already double-checked.

No offense, but you subjective experience is unimportant.

None taken. And it is unimportant to what?
This isn't a science forum. It's a philosophy forum.
Your in the vegetarian thread. I was talking to somebody about fate.
So, my subjective experience is as relevant as anything else (as far as I'm concerned).

Nonsense W(h)ere do I say that?

You said that I was "totally wrong" because what I was saying contradicted the most widely accepted theory, indicating that it (the Copenhagen interpretation) is indisputable: you didn't say that the majority of scientists believed it; you said it was the most widely accept theory. My point remains. You have faith in the Copenhagen interpretation due to it's popularity (and, despite it's decline in popularity). That's all I was saying.

...

Unlike you, I´ve never claimed any absolute truths... Fact is, quantum mechanics are indeterministic and statistical. THAT is an undisputable FACT!

...

I simply stated that you do not get to use quantum physics as some kind of proof of your beliefs.

Yes, I don't "get to".
But, you do.
Right?

For all we know, all of quantum mechanics might actually be completely wrong

Yet quantum mechanics are unquestionably non-deterministic?
How does that make sense?

 

[ebola?]

Off-topic(c'mon: lay speculation about QM is fun)

But is there not a reason that the Copenhagen interpretation is favored more than other interpretations? I personally think it is because quantum mechanics are indeterministic and statistical. Any deterministic theory always comes off as an attempt at trying to explain this unpleasant fact away.

I think that the main reason is historical: this is the first interpretation that was developed, and it was championed by the fathers of QM, principally Bohr and Heisenberg. Beyond that, it comes down to what you consider "parsimony" in the absence of applicability to experimental adjudication. The many-universes interpretation is elegant explaining a great deal of bizarre phenomena by adding one simple assumption. In particular, it does well in reconciling the statistically determined behavior of observation in QM and deterministically functioning laws as we've typically known them Its main weakness is how far fetched and removed it is from all experience we know. The Copenhagen interpretation's parsimony lays in what you note as a seemingly direct understanding of the objects described by the theory. But its weakness lays in some of the bizarre behavior of the objects of its interpretation, principally the key and poorly explained role of the observer in this process.

In short, the shape of the blade on Occam's razor is in the eye of he who wields it.

So it's sort of a toss-up, and honestly not institutionally relevant to physicists or cosmologists: one can undertake literally any line of research, and any viable interpretation of physical law will be compatible with it...and work interpreting theory tends not to be rewarded heavily in terms of these scientists' careers as researchers.

When I am talking of "evidence", by the way, I was of cause thinking of Bell´s inequality, which did away with Einsteins hidden variables. (or did it? Can there still be some kind of hidden variables?)

I recall reading a description of this a while back, but my understanding is a bit too fuzzy to comment on it much. I'll have to give it a look again and return back here.

ebola

 

[murphythecat]

Yes, I understand what I quoted about killing the Buddha.
You are treating Buddhism, IMO, like a fundamentalist Christian treats Christianity.

I know you told me often
you simply do not understand all of it so you judge and reject rather then asking question. this is very detrimental for you
its not a opinion you have, its misinformation from your end.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I can see I'm not going to get through to you.
I give up. Let's just agree to disagree.
I only have good intentions.
Perhaps I am misguided.

 

[murphythecat]

I can see I'm not going to get through to you.
I give up. Let's just agree to disagree.
I only have good intentions.
Perhaps I am misguided.

I dont think your misguided at all! where do we disagree exactly?

 

[ForEverAfter]

This is getting crazy off topic, like beyond ridiculous at this point.
But, I think we disagree on how Buddhism can become a religion.

if you see the buddha on the road, do you know why you should kill it? we say kill the buddha because the buddha creates the idea in people that he is a god or worshiped which puts buddhism as a religion. we should kill the idea of the buddha because buddhism is a philosophy and a way of life.

I actually agree with the words, but we interpret them differently (and I think the difference is significant).
I think you should treat Buddhism more like a philosophy, if you believe it is one (as opposed to a religion).
There are hints (at least) of religiosity throughout many of the things you've said in the name of Buddha.
Killing Buddha means not being a Buddhist but - rather - adopting the tenants of Buddhism (IMO).
I think some people treat the word of Buddha like the word of God, and I get that from you.
In fact, I don't encounter many Christians on this site that are as openly devout as you are.

We've done this loop a couple of times already and I apologize for that.
But, you did ask.

 

[murphythecat]

there no other way but to treat buddhism as a philosphy, because it is one. it doesnt mean anything to be a buddhist: we are all stuck into samsara wheteher you believe it or not.

it doesnt ask you to believe, it shows the way to more and more peace and happiness and when you actually put in practice the technicques, you will know it is true. as long as you havent tried it into actions, buddhism remains a intelectual concept. but once you put it in practice, it beecomes obviously true that the experience we can gain with meditation are what we are truly looking for in the world.
we have a lot of gratitiude and love for the teaching of the buddha indeed, but there is not worship, no hope to unite with him, ect. only the belief that he really got out of suffering and found the way to the end of suffering and showed us the path and the way to also realize that.

theres a the topic about killing the buddha.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=12160

This is getting crazy off topic, like beyond ridiculous at this point.
But, I think we disagree on how Buddhism can become a religion.



I actually agree with the words, but we interpret them differently (and I think the difference is significant).
I think you should treat Buddhism more like a philosophy, if you believe it is one (as opposed to a religion).
There are hints (at least) of religiosity throughout many of the things you've said in the name of Buddha.
Killing Buddha means not being a Buddhist but - rather - adopting the tenants of Buddhism (IMO).
I think some people treat the word of Buddha like the word of God, and I get that from you.
In fact, I don't encounter many Christians on this site that are as openly devout as you are.

We've done this loop a couple of times already and I apologize for that.
But, you did ask.

 

[swilow]

As much as the thread is off-topic, I think its interesting to see the topic evolve so why not?

 

[Xorkoth]

Just like any conversation, they evolve over time because of everyone's opinions and perspectives.

 

[ForEverAfter]

it doesnt mean anything to be a buddhist: we are all stuck into samsara wheteher you believe it or not.

Then, why identify as one?
(This is what I'm saying.)

I disagree that Buddhism can't be treated as a religion: anything can; people worship Elvis.
Your belief that Buddhism cannot be treated as a religion allows you to treat it as one without realizing it.

it doesnt ask you to believe, it shows the way to more and more peace and happiness and when you actually put in practice the technicques, you will know it is true. as long as you havent tried it into actions, buddhism remains a intelectual concept. but once you put it in practice, it beecomes obviously true that the experience we can gain with meditation are what we are truly looking for in the world. we have a lot of gratitiude and love for the teaching of the buddha indeed, but there is not worship, no hope to unite with him, ect. only the belief that he really got out of suffering and found the way to the end of suffering and showed us the path and the way to also realize that.

I've said this before to you, and I'll say it again. Because, you keep acting as if I haven't said it. I guess you don't believe me, but: I have experienced what you're describing; and it doesn't belong to Buddhism. That's what kill Buddha means. Buddhism is not required. It is an avenue. You shouldn't focus too much on the avenue, once you've grown accustomed to navigating it. You should be ready, when the time comes, to shed your identity as a Buddhist (if that happens to be the avenue that you chose)... What Buddhism describes is universal. Buddhism has no ownership over enlightenment. Nor does Christianity. Or Asia.

There are literally millions of people who worship various incarnations of Buddha.
I'm not saying that you worship Buddha, btw, just that you treat Buddhism as a religion.

 

[murphythecat]

I play soccer, I identify as a soccer player. whats wrong with that?

funny enough, I agree with SOME of your points. definitely, we all practice mindfulness in life and some of what the buddha taught is already applied in most of us.

to me, it seems you are confuse and in doubt and not fully get the full implication of the buddha teaching and its MANY aspects. you seem to have a broad understanding and then come up with all sort of conclusion and assumption about buddhism.
I also highly suspect that your understanding of buddhism, its implication, its techniques used necessary to attain even first jhana is totally ignored by you.
I listen to maybe 3 talks per week from monk every week for a couple of years now and I still consider my understanding really limited. why? because its ONLY with practice that you can understand and realize his teaching.

killing the buddha. there was books written about it. killing the buddha means: killing the idea that buddhism is a religion because its not a religion and the fact that many people take it as a religion (even you men) is very detrimental to everyone. http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=12160

the buddha is simply a teacher for men. he teaches the way out of suffering. theres nothing religious about his teaching because it simply demands to apply and follow his methods and techniques. he dont ask to believe, in the contrary, he constantly reminds people that they have to verify what we taught and realize for ourselves what he, the buddha, realized. if you practice you will find out exactly what the buddha did realize.
some may treat buddhism like a religion, but those who really practice and apply Buddhist way of life in every moment, dont.

I understand what you said here: What Buddhism describes is universal.
I agree its universal

Buddhism is not required. It is an avenue. You shouldn't focus too much on the avenue, once you've grown accustomed to navigating it

youve grown accustomed to what exactly?

Then, why identify as one?
(This is what I'm saying.)

I disagree that Buddhism can't be treated as a religion: anything can; people worship Elvis.
Your belief that Buddhism cannot be treated as a religion allows you to treat it as one without realizing it.



I've said this before to you, and I'll say it again. Because, you keep acting as if I haven't said it. I guess you don't believe me, but: I have experienced what you're describing; and it doesn't belong to Buddhism. That's what kill Buddha means. Buddhism is not required. It is an avenue. You shouldn't focus too much on the avenue, once you've grown accustomed to navigating it. You should be ready, when the time comes, to shed your identity as a Buddhist (if that happens to be the avenue that you chose)... What Buddhism describes is universal. Buddhism has no ownership over enlightenment. Nor does Christianity. Or Asia.

There are literally millions of people who worship various incarnations of Buddha.
I'm not saying that you worship Buddha, btw, just that you treat Buddhism as a religion.

 

[turkalurk]

where did I say murphy believes in fate? He said he could change his fate. I said that if it a hypothetical fate was changed, it wouldn't have been your fate. Instead, it was your fate to change your life around. I am not saying that you should just accept the way you came to be. If something about you becomes unmanagable or harmful to you, I think it can be your fate to make the changes you need to make. We can't control fate, but that is unimportant. What is important is to be able to look into ourself and know we are giving it our best effort so that wr can appreciate who we are as individuals and be proud of our place in the world.

No murphy, most people are just plain straight. I would never consider sex with a man. Personally, i think its kinda gross. To each their own, but that shit is yours bro.

 

[swilow]

where did I say murphy believes in fate? He said he could change his fate. I said that if it a hypothetical fate was changed, it wouldn't have been your fate. Instead, it was your fate to change your life around. I am not saying that you should just accept the way you came to be. If something about you becomes unmanagable or harmful to you, I think it can be your fate to make the changes you need to make. We can't control fate, but that is unimportant. What is important is to be able to look into ourself and know we are giving it our best effort so that wr can appreciate who we are as individuals and be proud of our place in the world.

Your wrote:

Murphy, if you can change your fate, it wouldn't be your fate.

In response to:

In that way, Id say I think we can change our fate and that the actions we make right now will change your ''fate'', therefore I dont believe in fate.

You never said it. He did.

No murphy, most people are just plain straight. I would never consider sex with a man. Personally, i think its kinda gross. To each their own, but that shit is yours bro.

For some reason, I expected more then "its kinda gross" from you. Aren't you being discourteous to Murphy and undermining his 'place in the world' as a bisexual? You are undermining my own position too by making small-minded comments.

This really isn't the place for a discussion on sexuality, least of all whether its nature or nurture. I think the whole fate discussion has been of use, but this particular line of enquiry may not be.