Is This A Tribal Site Or A Philosophy Site?

[amanitamusc]

Greetings all, new user here, thanks for making this forum available.

A brief introduction: My understanding of Buddhism is very modest, average man in the street level. I spend a ton of time in nature where I enjoy silence, and a ton of time on the Net where I enjoy noise. Thus my screen name: Nature + Talk.

Here's a place to start, a question that can help me start to understand the culture of this forum. Is this a tribal site, or a philosophy site? What I mean by that is...

TRIBAL SITE: Like minded people gather together to create a tribe. The glue that holds the tribe together is their shared beliefs. Typically the tribe is declared superior to other tribes, and members enjoy mutually reinforcing each other's conclusion that this is so. A certain amount of challenge to the tribe's beliefs may be welcome, particularly if the response to that challenge can be used to further articulate the tribe's belief. If the challenge becomes too challenging, if the glue that holds the tribe together is perceived to be under threat, then trouble often begins.

PHILOSOPHY SITE: On what I'm calling a philosophy site (for lack of a better term) it is widely accepted that any belief which is presented will be subjected to a process of challenge, you know, like kicking the tires on a used car to see if they hold up. Such sites are also somewhat of a tribe in that members share the belief that such tire kicking is a useful necessary process. Trouble is routine on such sites, but is moderated somewhat by the shared belief that being inconvenient is really what the site is all about.

I realize the above is a pretty simplistic and typically dualistic paradigm, but this is a forum post and not a book so I'm attempting to get to a point without much further delay.

I'm asking this question here in the Lounge as my first post because...

I was born with a very "philosophy site" kind of mind. That is, when I'm on the net and in the land of thought. I'm generally a pretty cheerful fellow, but I can also be annoyingly inconvenient to members of tribes.

It's a bit embarrassing to start off with my life story here but I thought it might be helpful to put some cards on the table before engaging further. I am sincerely interested in learning more about Buddhism, and also in sharing my own related views.

In my next post I will share the story of my life starting at age 1 and take you day by day through the entire story that followed so that I can talk about myself without pause for the next seven years to demonstrate how I've left my ego totally behind. BTW, this is a joke, not a threat.

I'm done. Say stuff at me should that interest you. Thanks.

You can find the answers to your questions by using the search function if you have a true interest.

[Kim O'Hara]

...but it's not recommended. The site search has always been slow and stupid. Better to use a site-specific search on Google or DuckDuckGo or whatever you use:
site:https://www.dharmawheel.net/ sunnyata [or whatever you're looking for]


Kim

[Matt J]

That's exactly why we have living teachers.

Other posters elsewhere have pointed me to Nāgārjuna, so I'm listening. Having difficulty so far translating language from another time and place in to every day conversational English.

[amanitamusc]

Farewell.

[NatureTalk]

The following is of interest here. I don't if or how such an analysis might be related to Buddhism, so perhaps members can help out there.

The source of tribalism is the divisive nature of thought. By "divisive" I'm mean "to divide" and not argumentative, which is just a symptom. The evidence for this source of tribes is that every ideology ever invented inevitably subdivides in to competing internal factions which come in to conflict with each other. The fact that this subdivision process happens in all tribes suggests that the source of the division is something all tribes have in common, that which they are all made of.

The divisive nature of thought creates the "me", which feels vulnerable, and so we attempt to attach ourselves to something larger, a tribe. The boundaries of the tribe have to be defended because without such definitions there is no tribe, and we are alone and vulnerable again.

1) Thought generates the fundamental human problem which religions then attempt to solve.

2) The suggested solution typically comes in the form of some collection of thoughts, the very thing causing the problem the religion is attempting to solve.

3) This process might be compared to the alcoholic who attempts to cure their disease with a case of scotch.

And this post too is a collection of thoughts. If readers were to agree with these thoughts and we formed a new tribe it would only be a matter of time before the new tribe began breaking up in to factions, and conflict would arise between the factions. Various people who feel particularly threatened by the smallness of "me" would take control of the tribe so as to ensure their security.

And so the usual tribal dance begins, again. It doesn't appear to matter what the tenets of the tribe are, the same process always seems to unfold.

[NatureTalk]

The Lounge, as defined by the moderators.

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).

Does "almost" mean, "except anything which challenges the tribe's perception of itself"?

If yes, it may save the moderators some work to add this clarification to the publicly available description. If such a description were applied to the Lounge, that would be a clear signal to outsiders that this is a tribal site, and they could then proceed or leave based on that understanding. If the rules for anything are unclear, it's less likely people will follow them.

If a visitor were to rhetorically attack a tribe's ideas, what exactly is it that is being attacked? A collection of thoughts. If particular members of the tribe were assigned unflattering labels, what exactly is it that is being attacked? A collection of thoughts.

Conceptual tribes are made of thought, and all thoughts are vulnerable due to the nature of thought, thus fear becomes a defining characteristic of all tribes. And it is from that fear that conflict arises.

My genetic heritage is Catholic culture. As you probably know, Catholicism is very thought intensive. Thus, fear pervades that culture. If a reader doubts this, just go to any Catholic site, challenge some key tenet of Catholicism in the most polite manner possible, and see what happens. If your challenge is weak and easily deflected, it may work out. If your challenge is too inconvenient to be deflected, it won't.

This is not commentary on Catholicism, Buddhism or any other tribe. It is instead commentary on the nature of all tribes which are made of thought.

If Buddhism addresses any of the above in any manner, would be happy to learn more about that.

[NatureTalk]

Here's a principle which may assist any tribe in it's relations with the world beyond the tribe.

Each user is responsible for their own emotional experience of the Internet.

There are exceptions of course. Children need to be protected. Threats of physical violence do not merit public exposure. Perhaps there are other exceptions which should be considered too.

Such a principle seems generally in tune with what I know about Buddhism, which is admittedly not all that much. From the Buddhist point of view, if I am not responsible for my emotional experience of the Internet, who is? You?

What I do know is that in Catholic culture manners tend to be pretty rigidly enforced. This is typically done with the best of intentions, and seems relevant to the authority based structure of Catholicism, it does come with the price tag of not being very helpful in assisting Catholics in understanding how well Catholicism is working for them.

If everyone HAS to be nice, it's easy to lose track of whether we actually are nice.

[NatureTalk]

Oops! Correction of error by this user. This thread is not in the Lounge. I put it there based on my understanding of forum guidelines, but the thread was then moved to here.

[GDPR_Anonymized001]

A couple of clarifying questions:

1) Can you explain what you mean by "thought" ?
2) Is this applicable only to "thoughts" in humans? Or all animals with thoughts?

The following is of interest here. I don't if or how such an analysis might be related to Buddhism, so perhaps members can help out there.

The source of tribalism is the divisive nature of thought. By "divisive" I'm mean "to divide" and not argumentative, which is just a symptom. The evidence for this source of tribes is that every ideology ever invented inevitably subdivides in to competing internal factions which come in to conflict with each other. The fact that this subdivision process happens in all tribes suggests that the source of the division is something all tribes have in common, that which they are all made of.

The divisive nature of thought creates the "me", which feels vulnerable, and so we attempt to attach ourselves to something larger, a tribe. The boundaries of the tribe have to be defended because without such definitions there is no tribe, and we are alone and vulnerable again.

1) Thought generates the fundamental human problem which religions then attempt to solve.

2) The suggested solution typically comes in the form of some collection of thoughts, the very thing causing the problem the religion is attempting to solve.

3) This process might be compared to the alcoholic who attempts to cure their disease with a case of scotch.

And this post too is a collection of thoughts. If readers were to agree with these thoughts and we formed a new tribe it would only be a matter of time before the new tribe began breaking up in to factions, and conflict would arise between the factions. Various people who feel particularly threatened by the smallness of "me" would take control of the tribe so as to ensure their security.

And so the usual tribal dance begins, again. It doesn't appear to matter what the tenets of the tribe are, the same process always seems to unfold.

[Arnoud]

Greetings all, new user here, thanks for making this forum available.

A brief introduction: My understanding of Buddhism is very modest, average man in the street level. I spend a ton of time in nature where I enjoy silence, and a ton of time on the Net where I enjoy noise. Thus my screen name: Nature + Talk.

Here's a place to start, a question that can help me start to understand the culture of this forum. Is this a tribal site, or a philosophy site? What I mean by that is...

TRIBAL SITE: Like minded people gather together to create a tribe. The glue that holds the tribe together is their shared beliefs. Typically the tribe is declared superior to other tribes, and members enjoy mutually reinforcing each other's conclusion that this is so. A certain amount of challenge to the tribe's beliefs may be welcome, particularly if the response to that challenge can be used to further articulate the tribe's belief. If the challenge becomes too challenging, if the glue that holds the tribe together is perceived to be under threat, then trouble often begins.

PHILOSOPHY SITE: On what I'm calling a philosophy site (for lack of a better term) it is widely accepted that any belief which is presented will be subjected to a process of challenge, you know, like kicking the tires on a used car to see if they hold up. Such sites are also somewhat of a tribe in that members share the belief that such tire kicking is a useful necessary process. Trouble is routine on such sites, but is moderated somewhat by the shared belief that being inconvenient is really what the site is all about.

I realize the above is a pretty simplistic and typically dualistic paradigm, but this is a forum post and not a book so I'm attempting to get to a point without much further delay.

I'm asking this question here in the Lounge as my first post because...

I was born with a very "philosophy site" kind of mind. That is, when I'm on the net and in the land of thought. I'm generally a pretty cheerful fellow, but I can also be annoyingly inconvenient to members of tribes.

It's a bit embarrassing to start off with my life story here but I thought it might be helpful to put some cards on the table before engaging further. I am sincerely interested in learning more about Buddhism, and also in sharing my own related views.

In my next post I will share the story of my life starting at age 1 and take you day by day through the entire story that followed so that I can talk about myself without pause for the next seven years to demonstrate how I've left my ego totally behind. BTW, this is a joke, not a threat.

I'm done. Say stuff at me should that interest you. Thanks.

Welcome.

Maybe it would be better to try to understand what Buddhism actually thinks and teaches about these subjects?

You seem smart but so far you also seem more inclined towards the talk than the nature part of your screen name.

[NatureTalk]

Maybe it would be better to try to understand what Buddhism actually thinks and teaches about these subjects?

I've already invited members to share such information in the thread above.

You seem smart but so far you also seem more inclined towards the talk than the nature part of your screen name.

That is entirely true, in this medium. In a few minutes I'll be heading out the door just after dawn in to the 32 degree air to spend the entire day in the woods, as I typically do any time the weather is agreeable.

You may have meant to say that I am more inclined to talking than to listening, which is also true. The solution to this could be for members to start teaching me about Buddhism, instead of continually suggesting that I should do so on my own. Say something interesting, and I'll listen to it.

Maybe I'll start a thread filled with talk about experiences in nature?

[NatureTalk]

A couple of clarifying questions:
1) Can you explain what you mean by "thought" ?
2) Is this applicable only to "thoughts" in humans? Or all animals with thoughts?

Jake, thanks for your questions. I did reply to them in some detail, but that post seems to have vanished. I don't have an explanation.

[GDPR_Anonymized001]

I think you're probably referring to this discuss thread: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 38#p565538

However, my questions are not answered there either.

Enjoy your walk outside.

[NatureTalk]

Enjoy your walk outside.

That's on hold, weather changing for the worse. So let's try again.

What do I mean by thought? Hmm...

Conceptual objects which attempt to point to the real world beyond the mind. A bio-chemical process which attempts to manage these conceptual objects.

And this, from the thread you linked to...

My understanding so far is that thought operates by a process of division. That is, thought breaks a single unified reality in to conceptual objects, nouns being the easiest example. Thought attempts to impose this pattern of division upon everything it touches, and thus to observe reality through thought is typically to see division everywhere we look.

So, briefly, a process of conceptual division.

What does thought mean to you?

[NatureTalk]

Given that this is now an introduction thread, and thus would seem to be specifically designed to be all about me, all about me, all about me...

It seemed important that I provide photographic proof that I am the greatest sage of all time bar none. And also, let us not forget, triumphant winner of the 2020 Most Humble Man competition.

[NatureTalk]

Still not convinced? Afflicted with unenlightened skepticism?? Trapped in a tiny karmic prison cell of confusion and doubt?

Well ok then, so here's more proof. This is His Most Eminent Flatulence Sri Baba Bozo, founder of Bozoism, the next great world religion, giving profoundly sage!!!! crapsang at the Gullible Gals Ashram, high in the myst covered mountains of north Florida.

[Arnoud]

I've already invited members to share such information in the thread above.

It works better if you would ask more pointed question I think. What have you read about Buddhism or heard from teachers that is unclear to you. You will get more sharing that way. Otherwise it's like asking random people to share on an extremely vast topic. At this point, I think you don't know yet what you don't know. And most people here won't be amenable to debate the truth of Buddhism's fundamental tenets, assuming that's something you want to do.

That is entirely true, in this medium. In a few minutes I'll be heading out the door just after dawn in to the 32 degree air to spend the entire day in the woods, as I typically do any time the weather is agreeable.

That's amazing. Sincerely.

You may have meant to say that I am more inclined to talking than to listening, which is also true. The solution to this could be for members to start teaching me about Buddhism, instead of continually suggesting that I should do so on my own. Say something interesting, and I'll listen to it.

Most people here are willing to answer any question to the best of their abilities. But I don't know if you will find a lot of random musings on Buddhism. I just try to apply the Buddhist teachings to my own mind as best as I can. It is pretty personal really. But, I can say that it has been amazing and life-altering in a good way. How can I convey that to someone who doesn't yet know these teachings? I am not a teacher and there are multiple videos and books available from people who are much better at explaining these basic tenets.

Maybe I'll start a thread filled with talk about experiences in nature?

That would be great.

[NatureTalk]

It works better if you would ask more pointed question I think. What have you read about Buddhism or heard from teachers that is unclear to you. You will get more sharing that way. Otherwise it's like asking random people to share on an extremely vast topic.

I'm agreeable that members should relate anything I'm posting to anything in Buddhism in any way that they wish. If there is no relation which can be pointed to, I'm agreeable that they say that. Take any part of the admittedly vast topic of Buddhism (whose vastness could itself perhaps be a topic of it's own) and say anything you want. Anything at all. The mods may limit some articulations, I really can't say. But I am proposing no limits myself.

And most people here won't be amenable to debate the truth of Buddhism's fundamental tenets, assuming that's something you want to do.

Such things are typically something I wish to do, but surely no one is obligated to participate in that.

To honk my own philosophy while waiting for others to do the same....

It's my contention that anything made of thought can be unraveled by some other pattern of thought. Not necessarily by me of course, but by somebody somewhere. If this is true, and to the degree it is, exploring this phenomena might bring useful insights in to the nature of thought, ideology, tribal organization etc.

Every tribal society is willing and able to perform this operation on the assumptions of somebody else's tribe. That's a start, but typically ends in nothing more than the tribe reaffirming it's belief that it is right while others are wrong. If such an analysis is aimed at the tribe's own beliefs, then the cross, hammers and nails usually begin to appear and the investigation is over.

The above may be of interest to no one. That's ok here, no problem. I'm just reporting the topic is of interest to me, and should Buddhist thought comment on any of the above in any way, that would interest me too.

I just try to apply the Buddhist teachings to my own mind as best as I can. It is pretty personal really. But, I can say that it has been amazing and life-altering in a good way.

Ok, so say that to whatever degree you are willing and able.

How can I convey that to someone who doesn't yet know these teachings?

Like this. Lay your hands on the keyboard, start typing, say whatever comes to mind, engage those who show up to yell at you and follow the trail where ever it leads.

Or not, could be that too.

[GDPR_Anonymized001]

Enjoy your walk outside.

That's on hold, weather changing for the worse. So let's try again.

What do I mean by thought? Hmm...

Conceptual objects which attempt to point to the real world beyond the mind. A bio-chemical process which attempts to manage these conceptual objects.

And this, from the thread you linked to...

My understanding so far is that thought operates by a process of division. That is, thought breaks a single unified reality in to conceptual objects, nouns being the easiest example. Thought attempts to impose this pattern of division upon everything it touches, and thus to observe reality through thought is typically to see division everywhere we look.

So, briefly, a process of conceptual division.

What does thought mean to you?

So, you define thoughts as conceptual objects that operate by a process of division breaking the single unified reality into conceptual objects?

You mention "conceptual" does this then limit what constitutes a thought to only those of which one is aware? e.g. placing a hand on a hot stove and jerking it away is not conceptual, so it is not a process of division? (hot/cold)?

It's also a bio-chemical process. This, I assume is a bit more specific, meaning only certain bio-chemicals are involved?

If reality is unified, how is it broken down into conceptual objects?

[NatureTalk]

So, you define thoughts as conceptual objects that operate by a process of division breaking the single unified reality into conceptual objects?

Basically, yes. As seen from here, thought is an electro-chemical information medium which operates by dividing a single unified reality in to conceptual objects. Nouns are an easy example.

You mention "conceptual" does this then limit what constitutes a thought to only those of which one is aware? e.g. placing a hand on a hot stove and jerking it away is not conceptual, so it is not a process of division? (hot/cold)?

More good questions! Thank you. My first impression is to agree with what you've said. Given that according to my theory thought operates by division, then implied in that is the division between "me" and "my thoughts". If the "me" is not present, such as in the example you cite, then division doesn't exist, and the action would seem to be an automated reaction of the body and not a product of thought. This is my impression at the moment, subject to further review.

If reality is unified, how is it broken down into conceptual objects?

This seems like a scientific question which I am far from qualified to address.

What I do feel able to claim is that this process is extremely useful to human beings, while coming at the high price tag of introducing substantial distortion in to our perception of reality.

As example, nouns like "tree" imply a neat and tidy black and white division between "tree" and "not-tree". In the real world beyond thought the relationship between the tree and it's environment is far more complicated and interdependent.

To perhaps wander in the direction of Buddhism (??) the noun "me" may be of this same nature. I experience this post as an expression of "my thoughts" but it is more accurate to say these words express a swirling ocean of cultural influences going back thousands of years. Because I'm not a scholar I can't begin to sort the pile and comment on which ideas came from where.