[Discussion] Bad Faith

[Callypigia]

I was rereading Sartre and one of his concepts in Bad Faith stuck out to me: we create social norms, moral and ethic codes, civil laws, and religion as a means to escape our responsibility to authentically exist. Our authenticity is hindered by our fear to take responsibility for our actions. I was relating that (ironically) to my own spiritual practices.

To understand it I wanted to break it down into our basic evolutionary design and then incorporate the inception of moral indoctrination into our basic primal self. Simply put our species exists by the three f's: feed, fight, and f***. These inherently create societal conflict due to competition of resources, which in turn created the basis of moral and ethic codes (and religion) to help regulate conflict. But does moral and ethic law inhibit authenticity? Social norms as well are fluid and ever changing, waxing and waning with public opinion.

So I thought does my religion hinder my true self? The Buddha taught that the true self, or awakened enlightened self, is within us all. It is free from craving, free from suffering, but our basic nature is to crave food, power, and procreate. Cessation of craving ends suffering, but is ending suffering just a way to escape our innate responsibilities? Are people even capable of taking responsibility for their actions without relying on religion, social norms, laws...etc? People are always stating that the world would be better without religion. If we removed it would things change for the better? That is highly suspect. "Better" I suppose could be subjective. In counter to Sartre, if our true self is to appeal to our basic fundamental needs and take responsibility for our actions, is that an enlightened person? They would by definition be authentic on a primal level as even our concept of Self is impermanent and fluid. To me they are both correct. Our primal self is our true self, whereas the enlightened self (in a Buddhist sense) is the evolved self.

 

[YowYan]

That's the reason why spirituality and religion are completely separate from each other. Spirituality confronts your own psychological weaknesses directly. Religion soothes your delusions. Some exorcist show on tv showed this dumbass Christian from usa that claimed he was haunted by a demon that made him think perverted thoughts throughout his life. Dude can't even accept he's a pervert.

My dad (narrow-minded Christian) said the Buddha wallpaintings of mine are blasphemy and people worship it. Has anyone confirmed a Buddha statue being worshipped? (legit question)

 

[Venomous Cobra]

Nope religion brings more responsibility the more you get attached to it so how the hell is it suppose to be made to escape responsibility? As for the other part I don't think that the world would be peaceful without religion cause really and no matter how hard I think about it religion was always irrelevant whenever it comes to the world's most important conflicts .It's part of our nature to kill and fight, trying to reach perfection and even wanting to obtain peace is the most delusional thing in this world IMO

 

[Callypigia]

That's the reason why spirituality and religion are completely separate from each other. Spirituality confronts your own psychological weaknesses directly. Religion soothes your delusions. Some exorcist show on tv showed this dumbass Christian from usa that claimed he was haunted by a demon that made him think perverted thoughts throughout his life. Dude can't even accept he's a pervert.

My dad (narrow-minded Christian) said the Buddha wallpaintings of mine are blasphemy and people worship it. Has anyone confirmed a Buddha statue being worshipped? (legit question)

It's an interesting question, I don't really see many people exactly worshiping a crucifix either, like a statue of the Buddha, it's more of a reminder. I have seen people actually worshiping the Buddha like Jesus, Allah, or Yahweh in temple though.

I agree and disagree about what you're saying on religion and spirituality. I think they are entwined and compliment each other in a holistic sense. Spirituality without religion lacks direction, whereas religion without spirituality lacks meaning. That's why you often see a religious zealot following doctrine blindly without fully understanding his place in the universe, or even more myopically, in his own religion. On the opposite side of the coin I've seen the spiritual person who lacks the direction needed by religious construct. The path set by Buddha or even Jesus (since you were talking about Christianity) outlines a pretty simplistic (in theory not practice) path to reassessing and redefining our spiritual sense.

 

[Callypigia]

Nope religion brings more responsibility the more you get attached to it so how the hell is it suppose to be made to escape responsibility? As for the other part I don't think that the world would be peaceful without religion cause really and no matter how hard I think about it religion was always irrelevant whenever it comes to the world's most important conflicts .It's part of our nature to kill and fight, trying to reach perfection and even wanting to obtain peace is the most delusional thing in this world IMO

Well I agree that religion brings more responsibility in terms of self regulation. In this argument though the responsibility is less self-regulation, but owning up to the reaction of your actions. He's saying that our true nature is actually stymied by social constructs (including religion), thus not allowing us to own up to who we really are.

 

[Forest]

I was rereading Sartre and one of his concepts in Bad Faith stuck out to me: we create social norms, moral and ethic codes, civil laws, and religion as a means to escape our responsibility to authentically exist. Our authenticity is hindered by our fear to take responsibility for our actions. I was relating that (ironically) to my own spiritual practices.

To understand it I wanted to break it down into our basic evolutionary design and then incorporate the inception of moral indoctrination into our basic primal self. Simply put our species exists by the three f's: feed, fight, and f***. These inherently create societal conflict due to competition of resources, which in turn created the basis of moral and ethic codes (and religion) to help regulate conflict. But does moral and ethic law inhibit authenticity? Social norms as well are fluid and ever changing, waxing and waning with public opinion.

So I thought does my religion hinder my true self? The Buddha taught that the true self, or awakened enlightened self, is within us all. It is free from craving, free from suffering, but our basic nature is to crave food, power, and procreate. Cessation of craving ends suffering, but is ending suffering just a way to escape our innate responsibilities? Are people even capable of taking responsibility for their actions without relying on religion, social norms, laws...etc? People are always stating that the world would be better without religion. If we removed it would things change for the better? That is highly suspect. "Better" I suppose could be subjective. In counter to Sartre, if our true self is to appeal to our basic fundamental needs and take responsibility for our actions, is that an enlightened person? They would by definition be authentic on a primal level as even our concept of Self is impermanent and fluid. To me they are both correct. Our primal self is our true self, whereas the enlightened self (in a Buddhist sense) is the evolved self.

In some ways buddha and Satre views have a lot in common. Social norms, moral and ethic codes, civil laws, and religion are all forms of thought that humans use to identify with. Those are beliefs that buddha would have definitely said are illusion ultimately, maybe not "inauthentic", but definitely not the true self. If what Satre meant, was a means of existing, without having to label things as good or bad, right or wrong, from buddhas perspective, this wouldn't be so much of a fear, but more of an attachment to all thought and identity.
Being identified to the Buddha or any religion would be another form of the same attachment, and would thus hinder. That is why there are practices that are more psychological, than spiritual (in my opinion), left behind in the buddhist precepts that leave it up the individual mind to find it's way to where it wants to go. Gotta be mindful when thinking about what is enlightened and what isn't. To attach a belief or label of what an enlightened person is, could be an obstacle or wrong perception. Would they live with conditions to be in enlightenment, or would they just live in enlightenment? The cessation of suffering doesn't have to be a complete relinquishing of all "innate responsibilities" though, that was just one way the old monastics used to find it. Each mind is different, and each path is different. So to the answer of "But does moral and ethic law inhibit authenticity?" I think so, and not by creating humans that are not genuine, as all people are genuine imo, (by simply existing) but inauthenticity, in the sense that humans completely identify themselves with those content. As to the question of exterminating religion, what lies behind all religious conflict is the belief and thought of separation, ( is it instinctual or primal, who knows) but as long as it is left uncontrolled, the same thought can take form in other beliefs. So I agree abolishing religion wouldn't automatically create a better society.

 

[Callypigia]

In some ways buddha and Satre views have a lot in common. Social norms, moral and ethic codes, civil laws, and religion are all forms of thought that humans use to identify with. Those are beliefs that buddha would have definitely said are illusion ultimately, maybe not "inauthentic", but definitely not the true self. If what Satre meant, was a means of existing, without having to label things as good or bad, right or wrong, from buddhas perspective, this wouldn't be so much of a fear, but more of an attachment to ALL thought and identity.
Being identified to the Buddha or any religion would be another form of the same attachment, and would thus hinder. That is why there are practices that are more psychological, than spiritual (in my opinion), left behind in the buddhist precepts that leave it up the individual mind to find it's way to where it wants to go. Gotta be mindful when thinking about what is enlightened and what isn't. To attach a belief or label of what an enlightened person is, could be an obstacle or wrong perception. Would they live with conditions to be in enlightenment, or would they just live in enlightenment? The cessation of suffering doesn't have to be a complete relinquishing of all "innate responsibilities" though, that was just one way the old monastics used to find it. Each mind is different, and each path is different. So to the answer of "But does moral and ethic law inhibit authenticity?" I think so, and not by creating humans that are not genuine, as all people are genuine imo, (by simply existing) but inauthenticity, in the sense that humans completely identify themselves with those content. As to the question of exterminating religion, what lies behind all religious conflict is the belief and thought of separation, ( is it instinctual or primal, who knows) but as long as it is left uncontrolled, the same thought can take form in other beliefs. So I agree abolishing religion wouldn't automatically create a better society.

I pretty much agree. Buddhism has what I always called the Buddhist Paradox; at what point are you craving enlightenment? Buddhism's goal is to not need Buddhism. I think the Buddha's answer to Sartre would be once you reach an enlightened state you aren't denying basic needs, you just simply don't seek them out with unquenchable desire. A layman's answer would suggest moderation, but that could easily lead to slipping into a state of perpetual craving like a serpent eating it's own tail. And I don't think Sartre would except moderation as freedom to authentically exist.

In the same way that Buddhism's goal is to not need Buddhism I think that moral and ethic law do inhibit authenticity as well, but what point do we need that spiritual/religious direction to begin accepting our "innate responsibility?" Living in a civil (in a legal sense) world, we have subjective beliefs of "right and wrong." Can a purely anachronistic and atheistic society facilitate a moral society while indulging in a primal self? I actually think humans are too complicated for that, which is the beauty of Zen. Watching animals eat what is needed, interacting with a clear pack structure without social law or religion, living purely in the "now," and rarely if ever killing outside of feeding is a testament to a truly simple mind.

 

[YowYan]

It's an interesting question, I don't really see many people exactly worshiping a crucifix either, like a statue of the Buddha, it's more of a reminder. I have seen people actually worshiping the Buddha like Jesus, Allah, or Yahweh in temple though.

I agree and disagree about what you're saying on religion and spirituality. I think they are entwined and compliment each other in a holistic sense. Spirituality without religion lacks direction, whereas religion without spirituality lacks meaning. That's why you often see a religious zealot following doctrine blindly without fully understanding his place in the universe, or even more myopically, in his own religion. On the opposite side of the coin I've seen the spiritual person who lacks the direction needed by religious construct. The path set by Buddha or even Jesus (since you were talking about Christianity) outlines a pretty simplistic (in theory not practice) path to reassessing and redefining our spiritual sense.

General esoterism doesn't need religious doctrine to have direction. At all.

(nauscious to the point of vomitting at work so I keep I short)

 

[Callypigia]

General esoterism doesn't need religious doctrine to have direction. At all.

(nauscious to the point of vomitting at work so I keep I short)

Well, I agree in theory, but not practice. I haven't seen any atheist run soup kitchens (and I mean hard atheists, not soft atheists like Buddhists). I don't mean mandatory forced government wellfare programs to help people either, I mean self sacrificing (...and I suppose paying taxes for wellfare programs in conjunction with self sacrificing). I'm not saying it's impossible, I very much do believe it is. I just haven't seen very much of it. (Sorry you're vomiting).

 

[Forest]

I pretty much agree. Buddhism has what I always called the Buddhist Paradox; at what point are you craving enlightenment? Buddhism's goal is to not need Buddhism. I think the Buddha's answer to Sartre would be once you reach an enlightened state you aren't denying basic needs, you just simply don't seek them out with unquenchable desire. A layman's answer would suggest moderation, but that could easily lead to slipping into a state of perpetual craving like a serpent eating it's own tail. And I don't think Sartre would except moderation as freedom to authentically exist.

In the same way that Buddhism's goal is to not need Buddhism I think that moral and ethic law do inhibit authenticity as well, but what point do we need that spiritual/religious direction to begin accepting our "innate responsibility?" Living in a civil (in a legal sense) world, we have subjective beliefs of "right and wrong." Can a purely anachronistic and atheistic society facilitate a moral society while indulging in a primal self? I actually think humans are too complicated for that, which is the beauty of Zen. Watching animals eat what is needed, interacting with a clear pack structure without social law or religion, living purely in the "now," and rarely if ever killing outside of feeding is a testament to a truly simple mind.

Exactly.

"At what point would we need that spiritual / religious direction to begin accepting our innate responsibility".

Spiritual / religious direction, are they the most crucial, or even practical means to achieving this idea of Authenticity? We can label buddhism or any religious system as spiritual, or philosophy but in the end, it's all psychological. If we look at Zen, the state of acceptance is one in the same as the present moment living. They would both come simultaneous. Wouldn't the innate than be something that it is defined as, which is natural, and not something we'd have to accept outside of one's being, nor something that's connected to time in the way of action and reaction? "This is what I have to do and what I've been told to do, so I will do it", as opposed to just doing action free of conditions from the past and in what way serves the collective best, innately. It's how nature is built to function for the most part. So my answer is the same as yours, we can learn a lot from watching nature lol.

 

[Callypigia]

Exactly.

"At what point would we need that spiritual / religious direction to begin accepting our innate responsibility".

Spiritual / religious direction, are they the most crucial, or even practical means to achieving this idea of Authenticity? We can label buddhism or any religious system as spiritual, or philosophy but in the end, it's all psychological. If we look at Zen, the state of acceptance is one in the same as the present moment living. They would come both simultaneous. Wouldn't the innate than be something that it is defined as, which is natural, and not something we'd have to accept outside of one's being, nor something that's connected to time in the way of action and reaction? "This is what I have to do and what I've been told to do, so I will do it", as opposed to just doing action free of conditions from the past and in what way serves the collective best, innately. It's how nature is built to function for the most part. My answer is the same as yours, we can learn a lot from watching nature lol.

Zen is actually the most anti-Buddhist and holistically Buddhist subset of Buddhism. It rejects dogma that Mahayana and Theravada are plagued. It focuses on innate nature of existence by rejecting (or emptying --Sunyata) our muddled delusions of the Self. Once a Zen practitioner becomes a Zen master he throws away Zen. Animals don't need Zen to be Zen, they are inherently authentic beings.

Does this mean that we need to devolve to become our true self?

 

[Forest]

Zen is actually the most anti-Buddhist and holistically Buddhist subset of Buddhism. It rejects dogma that Mahayana and Theravada are plagued. It focuses on innate nature of existence by rejecting (or emptying --Sunyata) our muddled delusions of the Self. Once a Zen practitioner becomes a Zen master he throws away Zen. Animals don't need Zen to be Zen, they are inherently authentic beings.

Does this mean that we need to devolve to become our true self?

Devolve as in like, Charizard to Charmander? What do u mean exactly by "devolve"? Lol

Yeah. And for that reason, Zen is pretty straight forward, and simplistic. Which is great tho, cause life is better that way. Lol
Though now that you mention it, it's a wonder why the dogmas are there at all. Just one of their aphorisms, the diamond sutra (in the Mahayana branch, and of the few I know, it's a good one) is enough by itself to eradicate all of the dogmas and their notions.

 

[Callypigia]

Devolve as in like, Charizard to Charmander? What do u mean exactly by "devolve"? Lol

Yeah. And for that reason, Zen is pretty straight forward, and simplistic. Which is great tho, cause life is better that way. Lol
Though now that you mention it, it's a wonder why the dogmas are there at all. Just one of their aphorisms, the diamond sutra (in the Mahayana branch, and of the few I know, it's a good one) is enough by itself to eradicate all of the dogmas and their notions.

I looked up what a Charizard and Charmander were, but I don't know if it's a totally accurate metaphor. This site said that Charizard is the ultimate form of Charmander. I don't think this is our ultimate form. I meant devolve in the sense of losing the frontal cortex and reverting back to a less evolved, primitive state. I wasn't really being serious though. It seem to be the easiest way to obtain authentic existence in Sartre's views.

The only sutra I have is the Lotus Sutra. I don't memorize it though. I remember the Bodhidharma had taught that enlightenment was not obtained through the memorizing sutras, but through seeing one's nature. I believe he said, "words are illusions."

 

[Ldude]

Zen is actually the most anti-Buddhist and holistically Buddhist subset of Buddhism. It rejects dogma that Mahayana and Theravada are plagued. It focuses on innate nature of existence by rejecting (or emptying --Sunyata) our muddled delusions of the Self. Once a Zen practitioner becomes a Zen master he throws away Zen. Animals don't need Zen to be Zen, they are inherently authentic beings.

Does this mean that we need to devolve to become our true self?

No, it means this concept of an "evolved" self that you are citing is flawed. No one person is more "evolved" than another. Pretending to work towards such a state is pure ego.

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

Our Strabismus-infected friend is a man of contradiction, promoting Existentialism on one hand and Marxism on the other.

 

[ZK]

You bring up some interesting points, I suppose. I'm not entirely sure which of Sartre's books/essays you've read. Myself I've just read Nausea, which is early Sartre and decidedly more about Absurdism than Existentialism if you ask me. Still, the man was brilliant. I really liked his style of writing.

As to your dilemma I suppose there is no 'right' answer in the absolute sense. Many of the terms you use are disputed and most, if not all, are subjective (particularly in a relativistic sense). Rousseau once won a prestigious essay-competition with an essay that hypothesized that mankind was happiest and most 'pure' at his basest. Society was inherently corrupting, as was all its rules, norms and laws. Only at his most basest could man be happy. Later Rousseau expanded this theory to include small village communities, which he believed were the purest form of coexistence between men and women.
I don't know about your religion, but Sartre wasn't part of the religious existentialist movement. He and Beauvoir chose another path.

Tbh I don't even know what the heck you're asking. It all comes down to subjectivity and personal happiness, I suppose. There's no right answer to such a question.

 

[Callypigia]

No, it means this concept of an "evolved" self that you are citing is flawed. No one person is more "evolved" than another. Pretending to work towards such a state is pure ego.

It isn't about a competition to be more "evolved" than others. I'm not sure if you are replying to Sartre or Buddhism, but neither fit that description. Buddhism is about throwing away the ego and the misconceptions of our self and our world we have clung to that cause suffering. Sartre's concept of authenticity is rooted more in concepts of acting on the Id while maintaining the Super Ego (if you're going to use the term ego, I'll use Freudian terminology).

Our Strabismus-infected friend is a man of contradiction, promoting Existentialism on one hand and Marxism on the other.

He was indeed a Marxist and then later an anarchist. I don't believe they are a contradiction though, both communism and anarchism are the pinnacles of existentialism. The problem is that we haven't moved beyond the ego of self-preservation. Communism and anarchism work when everyone acknowledges the self does not exist with out the community. Communism works fantastic in monasteries, not so much in the general population.

You bring up some interesting points, I suppose. I'm not entirely sure which of Sartre's books/essays you've read. Myself I've just read Nausea, which is early Sartre and decidedly more about Absurdism than Existentialism if you ask me. Still, the man was brilliant. I really liked his style of writing.

As to your dilemma I suppose there is no 'right' answer in the absolute sense. Many of the terms you use are disputed and most, if not all, are subjective (particularly in a relativistic sense). Rousseau once won a prestigious essay-competition with an essay that hypothesized that mankind was happiest and most 'pure' at his basest. Society was inherently corrupting, as was all its rules, norms and laws. Only at his most basest could man be happy. Later Rousseau expanded this theory to include small village communities, which he believed were the purest form of coexistence between men and women.
I don't know about your religion, but Sartre wasn't part of the religious existentialist movement. He and Beauvoir chose another path.

Tbh I don't even know what the heck you're asking. It all comes down to subjectivity and personal happiness, I suppose. There's no right answer to such a question.

Chapter 2 of Being and Nothingness. I'm pretty sure Sartre was an atheist. I was applying his argument to reflect on my own religious beliefs and practices; does my faith inhibit or agree with Sartre's view of an authentic self? That's the beauty of philosophy; it's logical theory. You just have to argue from your point. My point could be disputed though by my root definition of the primal self. I agree that small communities are the purest form of cohabitation, look at monastic life. I would say the community can grow until it reaches a point where there can exist social loafing. The Smurfs are a prime example of an allegory for communism. Besides the obvious Karl Marx reference in Papa Smurf, each Smurf has their own responsibilities they carry out for the good of their community (don't want to think about poor Smurfette), but their society has one Smurf too many. Everyone is always taking care of Lazy Smurf.

 

[Forest]

It isn't about a competition to be more "evolved" than others. I'm not sure if you are replying to Sartre or Buddhism, but neither fit that description. Buddhism is about throwing away the ego and the misconceptions of our self and our world we have clung to that cause suffering. Sartre's concept of authenticity is rooted more in concepts of acting on the Id while maintaining the Super Ego (if you're going to use the term ego, I'll use Freudian terminology).

Ldude gave the only valid answer to the question, if you think about it. And it had to be said, why? It can be used to see that a form of discrimination, and judgement can be exposed as inherent with Satre's idea of authenticity, and the buddhist's Enlightenment. (as Authenticity being "limited" would imply that there is something greater. )So, now what would make Satre's idea of Authenticity, any different than the the concepts he said it was limited by? What we have to now clear out is, are we confusing or attributing a label to "Authenticity" or "Enlightenment" as something higher or "better" than something that is not authentic? Satre's work can be interpreted paradoxically in that sense too then. Probably because his idea of authenticity is based around the idea of an individual self. Can you do that and really seek the most foundational truth, if there is one? I know what you were trying to say too, but in the end I think we can agree that trying to give an answer to Satre is futile. I think the Zen buddhists answer might be, (if they bothered to give one) that the self is everything. So his authenticity is meaningless, as it is the pursuit of an illusion ultimately. Everything just is at is is, in a way. And even if we wanted to say that the prefrontal cortex changing would do something, it would change the species all together and you'd have to throw away the idea of authentic humans in the end again, regardless. A Zen Buddhist might take what she said even further, and say that no one idea or concept of anything, whether enlightened life form, or inanimate object is more evolved than another. Since everything is the self, or if you want to say it in science terms, everything is energy. The 10 fingers we used to devise the 10 base numeric system, thinking that the planets and other sensory perceived objects were anything but the self, itself, or energy came from discriminatory thought. Enlightened, unenlightened, authentic, in authentic, there is a duality there, duality implies something that can be quantified, and quantifiable terms of thinking is ultimately limited to being a paradox. That might be why Shakyamuni Buddha is quoted saying "Everything is the buddha without exception." What an ego that guy had huh? Lol

He was indeed a Marxist and then later an anarchist. I don't believe they are a contradiction though, both communism and anarchism are the pinnacles of existentialism. The problem is that we haven't moved beyond the ego of self-preservation. Communism and anarchism work when everyone acknowledges the self does not exist with out the community. Communism works fantastic in monasteries, not so much in the general population.

I really don't know enough about Satre, but I've been seeing his name around a lot, and Heidegger's as well. I might look into their work.

Chapter 2 of Being and Nothingness. I'm pretty sure Sartre was an atheist. I was applying his argument to reflect on my own religious beliefs and practices; does my faith inhibit or agree with Sartre's view of an authentic self? That's the beauty of philosophy; it's logical theory. You just have to argue from your point. My point could be disputed though by my root definition of the primal self. I agree that small communities are the purest form of cohabitation, look at monastic life. I would say the community can grow until it reaches a point where there can exist social loafing. The Smurfs are a prime example of an allegory for communism. Besides the obvious Karl Marx reference in Papa Smurf, each Smurf has their own responsibilities they carry out for the good of their community (don't want to think about poor Smurfette), but their society has one Smurf too many. Everyone is always taking care of Lazy Smurf.

What is your ultimate goal, or what do you look to get out of your religious principles?

 

[Callypigia]

Ldude gave the only valid answer to the question, if you think about it. And it had to be said, why? It can be used to see that a form of discrimination, and judgement can be exposed as inherent with Satre's idea of authenticity, and the buddhist's Enlightenment. (as Authenticity being "limited" would imply that there is something greater. )So, now what would make Satre's idea of Authenticity, any different than the the concepts he said it was limited by? What we have to now clear out is, are we confusing or attributing a label to "Authenticity" or "Enlightenment" as something higher or "better" than something that is not authentic? Satre's work can be interpreted paradoxically in that sense too then. Probably because his idea of authenticity is based around the idea of an individual self. Can you do that and really seek the most foundational truth, if there is one? I know what you were trying to say too, but in the end I think we can agree that trying to give an answer to Satre is futile. I think the Zen buddhists answer might be, (if they bothered to give one) that the self is everything. So his authenticity is meaningless, as it is the pursuit of an illusion ultimately. Everything just is at is is, in a way. And even if we wanted to say that the prefrontal cortex changing would do something, it would change the species all together and you'd have to throw away the idea of authentic humans in the end again, regardless. A Zen Buddhist might take what she said even further, and say that no one idea or concept of anything, whether enlightened life form, or inanimate object is more evolved than another. Since everything is the self, or if you want to say it in science terms, everything is energy. The 10 fingers we used to devise the 10 base numeric system, thinking that the planets and other sensory perceived objects were anything but the self, itself, or energy came from discriminatory thought. Enlightened, unenlightened, authentic, in authentic, there is a duality there, duality implies something that can be quantified, and quantifiable terms of thinking is ultimately limited to being a paradox. That might be why Shakyamuni Buddha is quoted saying "Everything is the buddha without exception." What an ego that guy had huh? Lol

What is your ultimate goal, or what do you look to get out of your religious principles?

I would define existentialism as the pursuit of meaning and the goal to reach and utilize our potential. He might not consider enlightenment to be authentic. Enlightenment, in theory, is a human construct of ultimate potential and self-improvement. But a true existentialist may argue that our authentic self is accepting who we already are. Society is constantly telling us we have to improve ourselves, which causes anxiety and lowers self-esteem. It's hard for me to grasp because I have no idea who I really am if I discard all the influence of my friends, family, culture, society, and experiences. Theologically emptying the mind of who we think we are is how we become an empty vessel, able to fill itself with more compassion; new possibilities. That is a noble thought, but it is exactly what Sartre would argue against because it's theology telling us we aren't good enough to be us. Thich Nhat Hanh looks at it differently than the concept of sunyata. Like a garden the garbage in our life can be recycled to create a flower. Instead of discarding who we are, we grow from it. To answer his question in a spiritual sense, if someone were to reach an enlightened state they would have no reason to discriminate. Can you picture the Dalai Lama segregating people based on spiritual development?

All religious figures have quite an ego. It takes an ego to state, "I know the path...follow me."

My ultimate goal is as fluid as my sense of self. It was initially to simply find a new path to be happier. It grew into seeking freedom from suffering, but then it changed and I just wanted to help people to be happier. In meditation I felt that if I were to ever have the choice of parinirvana I would decline it to be reborn again to continue helping others. Then for the last four years I got swallowed in my career and non spiritual life. I feel like I'm back at square one. So right now, my only current goal is to strive to see objectively, understand multiple perspectives, not just my subjective reality, and then help others as I continue back on my path.

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

He was indeed a Marxist and then later an anarchist. I don't believe they are a contradiction though, both communism and anarchism are the pinnacles of existentialism. The problem is that we haven't moved beyond the ego of self-preservation. Communism and anarchism work when everyone acknowledges the self does not exist with out the community. Communism works fantastic in monasteries, not so much in the general population.

In Existentialism, the definition of one's being is in the individual, in Communism, the individual is defined by the group/commune. Existentialism in itself is diametrically opposed to Dialectic Materialism, therefore they are incompatible, Jeannie tried to reconcile the two in his book The Critique of Dialectical Reason which ended up with him eating his own words, as the saying goes one cannot have cake and eat it too.