Mascal's Pugging

Karma: 64

Mascal's Pugging 4 Jun 2024 20:23 UTC
11 points
5
on: Just admit that you’ve zoned out
I don’t say, “I just zoned out,” but I do often say, “sorry, could you repeat that?” I think people are less likely to take offense to this.

Mascal's Pugging 1 Jun 2024 21:33 UTC
8 points
4
in reply to: lsusr’s comment on: Awakening
Right, I don’t blame you for referencing those books to communicate, because they are what a lot of readers on a forum like this would be familiar with. TMI is also important in my personal chronology, but I wouldn’t recommend it either. What I would want to popularize among crowds like this is the recent scholarly study and practice of “Early Buddhism.”
I started typing out more of a reply, but I think I should maybe just make a post.
By the way, I started going to a local Zendo within the past 12 months, and it is actually in the lineage of Philip Kapleau Roshi, so one of the books they recommend is The Three Pillars of Zen: Teaching, Practice, and Enlightenment as well (I haven’t taken a look at it yet). The Visuddhimagga is debatably in the “Pali Canon.” It is a commentary written by the monk Buddhaghosha some 1200 years after the compilation of the Suttas. The book I recommended earlier by Bhikkhu Bodhi is just from the Suttas.

Mascal's Pugging 1 Jun 2024 17:50 UTC
24 points
4
on: Awakening
The books you mention, The Mind Illuminated (TMI), and Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha (MCTB), are quite popular among Western atheists, secular people, rationalists, and technically-minded intelligent individuals who spend a lot of time reading on the internet. I don’t mean that pejoratively—I count myself among these groups. However, if you have read these books, there is still much more to learn (and unlearn).
They are appealing because they promise to offer Buddhist meditation, insights, and strategies while jettisoning what they consider unnecessary religious scaffolding. Unfortunately, perhaps because of this, they contain numerous errors and often miseducate their readers about meditation and Buddhism in general. For example, Scott Alexander reviewed MCTB positively, saying it made him finally “get” Buddhism. This highlights an understandable bias: monks in robes teaching Buddhism, who accept religious and supernatural elements, are dismissed as religious men. On the other hand, figures like Daniel Ingram (author of MCTB) and John Yates, a neuroscientist and author of TMI, are seen as offering something more accessible to the secular mindset. There is also just the fact that Ingram and Yates were better at marketing and packaging their books in an enticing format than monks who aren’t allowed to touch money (literally).
However, in some circles, mentioning these books is considered a red flag. It’s well-known that readers of MCTB are particularly prone to psychotic breaks and highly unstable practice. From a traditional perspective, this is seen as a clear sign that something is amiss. Bhikkhu Analayo, for instance, has critically reviewed Ingram’s book, and it’s worth noting that John Yates was involved in a sex scandal.
If you’re interested in learning about Buddhism, I recommend starting with the Pali Canon, the collection of Early Buddhist Texts that offer the best historical record of the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha. This is akin to suggesting that someone interested in Christianity should read the Bible or an anthology of it before diving into modern interpretations that might strip away key religious elements.
The Pali Canon is extensive, so a curated selection is a good starting point. In the Words of the Buddha, an excellent text by scholar-monk Bhikkhu Bodhi, is a great introduction. Once you have a foundational understanding, you can better decide which aspects resonate with you and which might be products of folk religious beliefs.
Eh, maybe I should just make this a post.

Mascal's Pugging 31 May 2024 2:55 UTC
15 points
2
on: Is suffering like shit?
Did people seem to find shit getting on everything deep? Did serious writings explore the experiences of all manner of shit, and the nuances of the feces and piss involved?

It doesn’t seem like it? Maybe read Gargantua and Pantagruel for ideas…

Mascal's Pugging 11 May 2024 16:01 UTC
1 point
1
in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: Pascal’s Mugging and the Order of Quantification
Yeah, that’s the question. Saying that $| - P (X) \cdot X | < ϵ$ means that $P (X) < \frac{ϵ}{X}$ . So if $X$ doubles, then it’s required that $P$ is at least cut in half. I doubt there is a proof of this per se, but in a situation as strange as this it seems reasonable to me that if you claim you can do 10 times as much of something, then that is at least 10 times less likely.
I guess the main point I wanted to make is that in the usual phrasings of Pascal’s Mugging the choice of $X$ is oftentimes taken after the choice of $P$ . But $P$ should be a function of $X$ . So the mugger at least has to include this in his argument, and (some of) the burden of proof is on him.