It would seem as if the answer to your âunbelievableâ question is fairly obvious or, did you miss something?
There is no essential nature that is irreducible - everything is dependently arisen - this is Buddhism 101. Did you fall asleep at the wheel?
The Buddha did not provide us with a teaching about âhuman natureâ - is that unbelievable?
Show me a single reference from the EBTâs where we hear about the essential fundamental nature of human beings or any other sentient beings or anything - at all?
Human nature is an empty signifier that refers to an empty-being.
We are not who we think we are and, we are not what we take ourselves to be.
Plain and simple!
You are deluded and so am I, therefore, how we perceive things to be has to be mistaken.
If we believe we are somebodyâs going somewhere who have some kind of irreducible nature that inherently exists from its own side then, we can forget about the Buddhaâs teachings - they ainât gonna help much. Just be a good person and keep busy imagining you are a somebody!
Human nature is a conceptual invention that belongs on the scrap heap of redundant notions.
Moving the goal posts again. You claimed human nature was only a philosopherâs invention, not something scientists study. I have now provided ample evidence that there is a very active field of empirical scientific inquiry into human nature, and that scientists employ that concept frequently.
It does matter to me whether eminent scientists, lets say, Dr. Einstein, Dr. Hawking or, Dr. Dawkins were to insist that human nature existed. They were/are all ignorant and delusional beings from the Buddhaâs point of view.
OK, so your cards are finally on the table. Then lets leave it there, since there is no possibility of resolving the debate rationally if one party to the debate insists on faith-based premises that ignore the results of empirical inquiry.
I apologise for not making myself clearer in my last response. I love science! What I meant to convey was Einstein, Hawking and, Dawkins are famous names in science, as they were/are not awakened beings like the Buddha they are in the same boat that we are in.
When the ennobling truths have been fully realised ignorance is dispelled.
This does not mean that empirical inquiry is a waste of time. It is vitally important that we pay attention to science and take its advice on what we need to do to avert an ecological Catastrophe.
I do not have blind faith in anything. I am willing to question everything including so-called scientific postulates that I believe are false and misleading.
Science and doubt go hand in hand. Science encourages us to question everything. I respect your right to have a different opinion. We donât have to be on the same page. I know you are a good hearted Buddhist with the best intentions.
May you be liberated - thanks for the time we have shared together.
I edited the first to correct spelling and trim it. Tried to bin the earlier one but it didnât work. Should be gone now!
Similiar response as to the OP:
Starting from those common premises about better organization, government etc reasonable, informed persons will reach and recommend distinctly different sets of what they views as better policy.
Further, the assertion creates a mess by mixing better and the idea of not less; a quality (better) and a quantity (less).
By some measures of âorganization, government, coordination and regulationâ less is better.
Between âmore and betterâ, âless and betterâ or âjust focus on betterâ Iâd tend to âjust focus on betterâ.
The causes and conditions under which any of those strategies will lead to âmore viable and durable change in the way humans liveâ will likely remain the subject of reasonable disagreement for a long time.
I agree with much of the rest of your piece and appreciated the exposition of it.
To me itâs seems self evident that a socially engaged Buddhism ethically would begin with a explicit acknowledgement that:
Starting from the common root of the dharma and the EBTs reasonable, informed even enlightened persons may reach and recommend distinctly different sets of what they view as better social policy.
The causes and conditions under which any of those policies are likely to lead to âmore viable and durable change in the way humans liveâ will likely remain the subject of reasonable disagreement for a long time.
All of this discussion takes us far beyond the Buddhaâs teachings. He encouraged, for instance, us to take advantage of medicine. He did not lay down precepts on how to conduct medical research.
I suspect that the Buddha may have considered teaching more about social action but realized that
a) he already had a full plate of highly worthy teachings for one lifetime
b) The dharma he taught was the low hanging fruit; a social level dharma was perhaps exponentially more complicated and difficult to realize
c) It would take the collected wisdom of a well establish and diverse four-fold sangha â something that wouldnât exist in his lifetime.
Lisi Krall seems to emphasis the darker side of ultrasociality. Modern ultrasociality as it has evolved through societal evolution also makes it possible for huge numbers of people to live together with far, far less violence than in past.
There is an argument that the benefits of ultrasocial institutions are only felt at the larger scales of social organization and costs are born by lower-level units. But it seems to me that individuals living longer, healthier and are simply not dead as they might be otherwise is a benefit enjoyed by âlower-level unitsâ. So some strong benefits are felt at all levels.
If the price of ultrasociality means we donât have to enjoy the conditions currently in Syria now âŚ
First of all let me just say this that I donât think that there is an agreement about the definition of ultrasociality, either on the part of evolutionary biologists, or on the part of anthropologists and economists like myself. So I think that it is word thatâs used by different people to describe different things in the broader sense. I think it refers to complex societies that have highly articulated divisions of labor and develop into large scale â essentially city states, and practice agriculture.
â Lisi Krall New Ecological Economics: Superorganism and Ultrasociality | P2P Foundation
For contrast see:
http://www.nimbios.org/SocialComplexity/doku.php?id=ultrasociality