[bingobongo1]

I respect your assessment.

You may think I'm falling into an idealist's dilemma, however, that single statement is speaking on the nature of emptiness of phenomena and how certain thoughts and emotions arise. Objects do not exist inherently and independently. Everything arises from an interdependent network of causality.

The scientist will go splat, but why does he fear death?

I have to lightly refute your point about it not being a successful philosophy, it was very successful for thousands of years in India where it originated and very successful in Tibet and other eastern societies. Western materialism tends to be in direct conflict with Buddhist wisdom.

All beings suffer, compassion is the way out of suffering for the individual and for others. Ask the Tibetan Yogis who were imprisoned and tortured by the Chinese who harbor no resentment toward their captors after release and who say that the greatest danger they felt during their imprisonment was losing compassion toward their captors.

No one ever said it was easy to develop, as can clearly be seen by such stringent resistance to the notion of having compassion for others, even enemies.

[babesh]

Buddhism is a religion (along with many other religions) that allows a minority to brainwash a majority in order to exploit them. Those Buddhist temples don’t build themselves. You offer them afterlife or an end of suffering and in return they offer their independence of thought and action.

The concept of self is evolutionarily effective. For better or worse, so is the concept of us and them.

[bingobongo1]

It's not based on faith and has a rich history of academic development and logistical analysis by trained Nalanda scholars of 4th, 5th, and 6th century India.

Also there is a rich history of independent development and contemplative examination of the nature of reality, consciousness, and mind.

The western mindfulness genre is almost entirely made up of bits and pieces of Buddhist contemplative practice.

I don't expect to convince you that you don't know exactly what you're talking about.

Don't think for a second I'm surprised that most commenters here are pure material realists, part of the fun I guess.

[babesh]

Many religions rely on the attraction of a truth to blind people to the robbery taking place. Looking solely at one truth blinds you to other truths.

[babesh]

If the scientist isn’t concerned with going splat and doesn’t do something about it then he or she may not reproduce.

[zzzeek]

you can have compassion for an enemy and still defend yourself against them, just like you can run from an earthquake and not have hatred towards it. As you said, everything arises from an interdependent network of causality. that means everything that is, is what is. western materialism, buddhist wisdom, it all exists. to truly overcome the notion of "self" is to accept all of this. there is nothing "wrong" with any of it any more than there's something "wrong" with any other natural activities like earthquakes, planets crashing into each other, supernovas, owls eating little mice, you name it, and of course, our egos, as paradoxically nonexistent as they are are from this network of causality too. the whole thing is all one as are all of us. We can decrease our suffering by meditating on this truth. but it doesnt mean our physical manifestations need to be stupid.

[bingobongo1]

You're the only one calling anything stupid, I simply pointed out how selfishness arises from a well-known and well-developed perspective on the human mind (and how it interfaces with reality) and pointed to some contemporary discussions (with scientists) on the nature of compassion and how it has the potential to bring people together in a world that is struggling with divisiveness as it faces one collective struggle after another.

The book I recommended is particularly insightful as it probes into how a society such as South Africa can move forward after such heinous human rights violations as the apartheid era through forgiveness and compassion instead of revenge and retribution.

[zzzeek]

I'm all for forgiveness and compassion but I feel that people who are tremendous threats to society should be prevented from participating further.

Example, Jared Kushner's efforts to commit genocide, purposely sabotaging efforts to send coronavirus relief to so-called "blue" states, sending thousands of people to their deaths for perceived political gain. This person should not be free to roam about in our society as he is a threat to public safety. There is no need for "revenge" or "retribution" only that public safety be preserved by preventing mass murderers from participating.

[bingobongo1]

No doubt. Threats, threatening people, and threatening regimes exist and I'm certainly not advocating for a lack of justice and ethics.

It would help if society at various levels became less divisive, that's all. That certainly involves moving beyond the us vs them mentality in a lot of different ways, which takes emotional development starting at the level of the individual.

I can tell that you feel very strongly about the ongoing political situation, but there are of course many other contexts.