I don't get Buddhism

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Tue May 26, 2020 1:44 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Iambiguous said "Besides, does life have to be meaningful to enjoy good food, good music, good art, good sex, good careers, good friendships, good accomplishments?"

Oh okay. So it seems that you acknowledge certain imminent values even if you are agnostic about transcendent ones. How are all those goods not meaningful?



Who says they are not meaningful?

Iamb says there is only the tiniest chance they are not meaningful....
That's how it all unfolded for me back when I was able to believe in immortality and salvation. Now I'm left only with slimmest of hopes that somehow someone in places like this might manage to rekindle a spark of promise that this is not just an essentially meaningless existence that ends in oblivion.

Here it is stated as simply the case...
Only I have come to conclude that human interactions are essentially meaningless.
Who said it? He said it.

Right, like the Buddhists among us can speak of enlightened behavior on this side the grave precipitating karma precipitating a favorable reincarnation, precipitating whatever it is they think that Nirvana is, while I get to embody the consolation of construing myself in an essentially meaningless human existence tumbling over into the abyss that is oblivion.


That's why KT is of interest to me. In some respects, he would seem to be in the same boat that I am in. Living in an essentially meaningless No God world, sans objective morality, that ends in the obliteration of "I" for all time to come.


The fear and anxiety are instead merely construed by me to be part and parcel of the brute facticity embedded in my own essentially meaningless existence.

Then all they need but do is to ask me about my own fractured and fragmented reaction to an essentially meaningless world that ends in the obliteration of "I" for all of eternity.
Note: his reaction to what is simply stated as a meaningless world.

These quotes are all fairly recent, but they actually go back years, in slightly different formulations, where he states that existence is meaningless.

He's a liar.
You missed the one essential word that he uses.

"ESSENTIALLY meaningless"

He's not saying that people don't find things or actions to be meaningful. He's not saying that he personally doesn't find things or actions to be meaningful.

The 'real problem' is that he has not found something which all rational people are obligated to consider meaningful.

Notice also that he is not saying that there is no such thing. He's only saying that he has not found it.

And this mirrors the other 'problems' :

He has not found the objective morality that all rational people are obligated to accept.

He has not found a god, the true god, THE God that all rational people are obligated to believe in.

He has not found the one religion ...

He has not found the one philosophy ...
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11904
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Tue May 26, 2020 6:24 pm

phyllo wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Who says they are not meaningful?

Iamb says there is only the tiniest chance they are not meaningful....
That's how it all unfolded for me back when I was able to believe in immortality and salvation. Now I'm left only with slimmest of hopes that somehow someone in places like this might manage to rekindle a spark of promise that this is not just an essentially meaningless existence that ends in oblivion.

Here it is stated as simply the case...
Only I have come to conclude that human interactions are essentially meaningless.
Who said it? He said it.

Right, like the Buddhists among us can speak of enlightened behavior on this side the grave precipitating karma precipitating a favorable reincarnation, precipitating whatever it is they think that Nirvana is, while I get to embody the consolation of construing myself in an essentially meaningless human existence tumbling over into the abyss that is oblivion.


That's why KT is of interest to me. In some respects, he would seem to be in the same boat that I am in. Living in an essentially meaningless No God world, sans objective morality, that ends in the obliteration of "I" for all time to come.


The fear and anxiety are instead merely construed by me to be part and parcel of the brute facticity embedded in my own essentially meaningless existence.

Then all they need but do is to ask me about my own fractured and fragmented reaction to an essentially meaningless world that ends in the obliteration of "I" for all of eternity.
Note: his reaction to what is simply stated as a meaningless world.

These quotes are all fairly recent, but they actually go back years, in slightly different formulations, where he states that existence is meaningless.

He's a liar.
You missed the one essential word that he uses.

"ESSENTIALLY meaningless"

He's not saying that people don't find things or actions to be meaningful. He's not saying that he personally doesn't find things or actions to be meaningful.

The 'real problem' is that he has not found something which all rational people are obligated to consider meaningful.

Notice also that he is not saying that there is no such thing. He's only saying that he has not found it.

And this mirrors the other 'problems' :

He has not found the objective morality that all rational people are obligated to accept.

He has not found a god, the true god, THE God that all rational people are obligated to believe in.

He has not found the one religion ...

He has not found the one philosophy ...


Since this is all about iambiguous not Buddhism, I responded to it on iambiguous' thread "on discussing god and religion".
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8689
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue May 26, 2020 7:00 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Iambiguous said "Besides, does life have to be meaningful to enjoy good food, good music, good art, good sex, good careers, good friendships, good accomplishments?"

Oh okay. So it seems that you acknowledge certain imminent values even if you are agnostic about transcendent ones. How are all those goods not meaningful?



Who says they are not meaningful?

Iamb says there is only the tiniest chance they are not meaningful....


No, I note that given the manner in which, in many important respects, I construe the self here as an existential fabrication/contraption rooted in dasein, "I" have come to conclude certain things -- here and now -- about certain aspects of human interactions in a particular subjective, subjunctive fashion.

That it does not appear to "me" that philosophers are able to pin "meaning" down definitively.

And that of greater importance is one's capacity to close the gap between what one claims to believe [about anything] and an actual demonstration that all rational people are obligated to believe the same.

And then for, among others, the Kantians to note their capacity to link rationality with virtue given their reaction to human behaviors in conflict over value judgments in a particular context.

Only I have come to conclude that human interactions are essentially meaningless.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: Who said it? He said it.


What's your point? How, in the absence of a God, the God, my God, or demonstrable proof that there is in fact an essentially meaningful link between enlightenment/karma and reincarnation/Nirvana, are religious value expressed here not instead the embodiment of existential meaning rooted in dasein?

I'm not claiming that essential meaning doesn't exist between life and death, between "I" here and now and "I" there and then, only that "I" myself [here and now] don't believe it. Though I never I argue that I can actually demonstrate this!

iambiguous wrote: Right, like the Buddhists among us can speak of enlightened behavior on this side the grave precipitating karma precipitating a favorable reincarnation, precipitating whatever it is they think that Nirvana is, while I get to embody the consolation of construing myself in an essentially meaningless human existence tumbling over into the abyss that is oblivion.


iambiguous wrote: That's why KT is of interest to me. In some respects, he would seem to be in the same boat that I am in. Living in an essentially meaningless No God world, sans objective morality, that ends in the obliteration of "I" for all time to come.


iambiguous wrote: The fear and anxiety are instead merely construed by me to be part and parcel of the brute facticity embedded in my own essentially meaningless existence.


iambiguous wrote: Then all they need but do is to ask me about my own fractured and fragmented reaction to an essentially meaningless world that ends in the obliteration of "I" for all of eternity.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: Note: his reaction to what is simply stated as a meaningless world.

These quotes are all fairly recent, but they actually go back years, in slightly different formulations, where he states that existence is meaningless.

He's a liar.


Again: Huh?!!!

Over and over and over again, I make this distinction between 1] things construed as meaningful to us in regard to objective realities embedded in the either/or world and 2] moral and political value judgments that revolve around assessments of what constitutes a rational understanding of the world around us. That which "I" construe to be more the intersubjective/intersubjunctive embodiment of dasein.

How, in this regard, am "I" a liar? Well, it could be shown that in fact God does exist. Or that in a No God world mere mortals can in fact define or deduce rational and moral behavior into existence. Or science is able to demonstrate empirically why a particular behavior in a particular context either is or is not inherently/necessarily rational/virtuous.

So, sure, I could be a liar in that what I think is true here and now turns out not to be true at all.

So, okay, Mr. Religious objectivist or Mr. No God moral objectivist, come up with the demonstrable argument and settle it.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36171
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue May 26, 2020 8:08 pm

phyllo wrote:You missed the one essential word that he uses.

"ESSENTIALLY meaningless"

He's not saying that people don't find things or actions to be meaningful. He's not saying that he personally doesn't find things or actions to be meaningful.

The 'real problem' is that he has not found something which all rational people are obligated to consider meaningful.

Notice also that he is not saying that there is no such thing. He's only saying that he has not found it.

And this mirrors the other 'problems' :

He has not found the objective morality that all rational people are obligated to accept.

He has not found a god, the true god, THE God that all rational people are obligated to believe in.

He has not found the one religion ...

He has not found the one philosophy ...


This, however, is not the most important point in my view. That revolves instead around the God and the No God objectivists who insist that not only are there essential religious and moral and political truths, but that there must be because they have, in fact, already found them.

Then down through the ages they have acquired the necessary political power to, among other things, weed out the infidels.

And, no, not just the Communists.

And to the extent that conclusions of this sort become either solutions or problems is in turn embedded existentially in dasein.

Then, in grappling with this aspect of one's "self", it can devolve further into the assumption that "I" is fractured and fragmented.

That, all the more grimly, some think, it appears entirely reasonable that this be the case.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36171
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed May 27, 2020 8:50 am

phyllo wrote:You missed the one essential word that he uses.

"ESSENTIALLY meaningless"


He's not saying that people don't find things or actions to be meaningful. He's not saying that he personally doesn't find things or actions to be meaningful.
'Essentially' doesn't personalize what it modifies. It means...
used to emphasize the basic, fundamental, or intrinsic nature of a person or thing.
It is an objective adverb. IOW it means that those are the qualities of the thing not merely his experience of them. Though maybe I misunderstood your point. Something might seem meaningful, but essentially, it is not that. It's real nature is meaningless.

Who says they are not meaningful?

Do you imagine my point here is to suggest the beliefs that Buddhists hold dear are not meaningful?

Do you imagine my points is to debunk religious values as, what, inherently meaningless?

Notice here, he denies that he is saying that their values are 'inherently' meaningless.

SYNONYMS FOR INHERENT
1innate, native, inbred, ingrained. See[b] essential[/b].
My emphasis.

He denies it but uses a synonym elsewhere to describe values in general, and here in the Buddhist thread.

And that's a valid philosophical viewpoint. It's not that he makes the claim, it's that he denies making the claim.

And there is a big difference between saying that one is not convinced something is X and stating that something is not X. Since he denied the latter, I quoted him saying the latter. That life was in essence meaningless. That's its real nature is meaningless.

I really don't know how to get more smoking gun than this. I never said X. Quote of person saying X.

The 'real problem' is that he has not found something which all rational people are obligated to consider meaningful.
Sure. I mean, I've seen the 'all rational people criterion' aimed at morals and then also at processes that might make one feel better. I hadn't seen it aimed at meaning, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Notice also that he is not saying that there is no such thing. He's only saying that he has not found it.
He asserts that they are essentially meaningless. He doesn't say that he hasn't found it himself. He may say that elsewhere.

I would not be surprised at all if on other occasions he personalizes it and frame things in skeptical terms and/or in terms of what he has not found. But then he also allows himself to dismiss things in objective terms as if they do not exist. He said he never said something, yet, in the very thread he denies saying such things, he said precisely that a number of times.

I mean, if we had a man in a relationship who made it clear on many occasions that he thought women and men were equal, but every now and then said to his wife something like 'Well, of course you'd say that, all women are C____s' , I don't think one has to believe he isn't sexist or, in this case, making objective claims. One can have contradictory beliefs. One can also be confused about what one believes.

We are not monolithic creatures and I think it's a disservice to everyone to pretend he doesn't act like an objectivist, for example, when at other times he denies it.

In this instance he clearly made statements that SHOULD lead someone to believe what Felix said he believed. I mean, even a tiny bit of integrity would have led him to concede that he made a lot of statements that would give any human being the impression he meant that, but he communicated poorly.

But no, he responded with 'I never said that.'

Well, sorry, he did. And not just once. And I stopped looking, just in this thread, after I had a number of examples.

Notice how he responds to you....
Essential in the sense of being "absolutely necessary".

So, on this thread, if you believe that it is essential to connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then in a way that is embraced by a particular religious denomination, cite some examples of this from your own life. And then note how you go about demonstrating that all other rational and virtuous human beings are obligated to do the same.

Otherwise, in my view, God and religion become this ecumenical, Ierrellian contraption where there is virtually nothing that can't be rationalized as okay in the eyes of God.


So, as quoted he claimed several times that it is absolutely necessary that human interactions/human existence/the world is meaningless.

And then he tries to shift the onus.

I didn't say X.
What I meant was X (again).
If you think that's wrong, demonstrate it to all rational people.

Notice where he skips demonstrating his position, one he also denies he has, to all rational people.

I do understand he believes people may think something is meaningful.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Wed May 27, 2020 1:23 pm

Essential meaning is objective meaning.

Biggus doesn't say that it doesn't exist. He says that he has not found it and nobody has demonstrated it to him.

Biggus doesn't deny subjective meaning. But it's the product of dasein. An existential contraption.

Is he lying? Technically no.
Is he confusing? Yes.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11904
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri May 29, 2020 9:02 am

phyllo wrote:Essential meaning is objective meaning.

Biggus doesn't say that it doesn't exist. He says that he has not found it and nobody has demonstrated it to him.

Biggus doesn't deny subjective meaning. But it's the product of dasein. An existential contraption.

Is he lying? Technically no.
Is he confusing? Yes.


LOL That he is.

Perhaps, he is himself confused about what he believes and this shows through in what he writes. He is confusing because he si confused, even about himself. Or cagey: he might also realize that consciously or not, that making the strong claim that there is no meaning means HE would bear the burden of proof.

And I think we both know he wants the burden of proof always to be something only other people bear.

In any case, it seems to me in his quotes, for example the one describing me, he is saying that meaning doesn't exist. I know on other occasions he will say he hasn't found it. But it seems to me he allows himself to make objective claims that it does not exist, then is surprised and sometimes outraged that anyone could think he meant that claim.

Like here again...
Then all they need but do is to ask me about my own fractured and fragmented reaction to an essentially meaningless world that ends in the obliteration of "I" for all of eternity.
This sentence even includes his reaction AND the essentially meaningless world. Not his interpretation, not his experience of, not what seems to be....

but is reaction to an essentially meaningless world. Not qualification. And there were other quotes and I quite looking early.

I do believe that when called out on this he will return to his 'official position' which is that he does not know. But people can have official positions they identify with and not take responsibility for what they also believe. And sometimes these unofficial opinions are more real for them.

But I'll drop this here. Just to be clear again, I think you are correct about his official position and that you could probably find a number of quotes to support that, just as I did for mine.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sat May 30, 2020 8:02 pm

phyllo wrote: Essential meaning is objective meaning.

Biggus doesn't say that it doesn't exist. He says that he has not found it and nobody has demonstrated it to him.


On the contrary, in regard to human interactions in the either/or world, there are any number of variables, factors, relationships etc., that we seem able to demonstrate to others as essentially/objectively true.

For example, Donald Trump is now president of the United States. Unless, of course, unbeknownst to me, Trump just died of a heart attack.

Now, assuming he is still alive and well, there is a mountain of objective/essential facts that we can accumulate about the man. Dasein here revolves only around what as an individual I think I know about him. Can what I think I know about him be demonstrated to others?

Or, on this thread, what can I demonstrate is true about Donald Trump in regard to what he gets about Buddhism?

So, I can Google Donald Trump and Buddhism: https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... ent=psy-ab

I can wade through all of this and decide for myself what is in fact essentially/objectively true.

Instead, on threads like this, my interest revolves around what others think they "get" about Buddhism as this is pertinent to the manner in which I construe subjective points of view here as the embodiment of dasein. And then in what they might be able to demonstrate that all rational and enlightened people are obligated to "get" about it in turn.

In regard to "morality here and now" and "immortality there and then". My own "thing" here in regard to God and religion.


phyllo wrote: Biggus doesn't deny subjective meaning. But it's the product of dasein. An existential contraption.




But this is always a tricky thing even in regard to the either/or world. For example, meaning is pouring in around the country regarding the death of George Floyd. Individuals impart different meaning to it. And that meaning is subject to what they think they know about the death itself, the circumstances surrounding it, the role that race and police brutality plays in it...and on and on.

phyllo wrote: Is he lying? Technically no.
Is he confusing? Yes.


To construe "I" in the is/ought and not often feel confused, uncertain, ambiguous, ambivalent etc., is basically/precisely the point I make about the objectivists. All of that is subsumed for them in whatever they anchor "I" to in order to sustain that feeling of being in sync with the "real me" in sync with the "right thing to do".

Like somehow you do?

How about this:

Why don't you and KT get into a discussion about these two factors in regards to God and religion? And, sure, by all means, completely avoid contact with anything resembling "a particular context". :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36171
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:54 pm

Is Karma a Law of Nature?
It seems Matthew Gindin is destined to ask, and answer, this question.

There are two further objections to the idea of karma as causal law that are not so easy to deflect. The first is that karma is believed to apply not only within this life but beyond it, yielding results in future lives too. In principle there is no reason to deny that karma could operate on this scale, providing one believes in reincarnation. For those who don’t so believe (and there are of course good reasons to be skeptical about the doctrine) then karma could still be regarded as functioning within this lifetime.


Sure, it's one thing to speculate that "overall" karma has a role to play in our lives. Clearly there are behaviors that we can choose that precipitate consequences that come back to impact our lives in either a constructive or destructive manner. And, up to a point, this can be calculated in a reasonable manner. Cause and effect here is calibrated day in and day out by many of us. Given the gap between what we think we know about any particular situation and all that can be known. But then to reconfigure this into a religious narrative where karma becomes linked to either enlightened or unenlightened choices leading to an afterlife where one is better or worse off...?

How is that brought down to earth?

The second problem is the claim that karma operates as an absolute law. It is hard to believe that this is the case. But consider again the example of gravity. Gravity is indeed in a sense an absolute law; but many kinds of other laws interact with it, mitigating its effects. You cannot be certain that if you throw a piece of bread into the air it will land on the ground: there may be a crow in the vicinity. It also seems reasonable to see karma as one of many laws – which the Buddha himself suggested, as we’ve seen. This would also imply (contra the opinion of some Buddhists) that although karma is an absolute law, it is mitigated and modified by the operation of other laws. So although karma exerts an influence over all things, it does not provide a guaranteed Cosmic Justice.


Here of course the "absolute law" is ever and always encompassed in the religious narrative itself. Subscribe to Buddhism and you have one set of moral parameters, subscribe to Catholicism and you have another, subscribe to Scientology and you have another still. Some with a God, the God, others with altogether different fonts.

But, for me, it always comes down to this: that while karma "exerts an influence over all things", what does it mean to speak of "Cosmic Justice" here and now in this set of circumstances given all that is at stake?

Either this or that denomination can, demonstrably, encompass the optimal choices that one can make, or, instead, it's the way it actually seems to be: leaps of faith taken to any number of denominations that are ever evolving and changing over time historically or across space culturally.

Then coming down experientially to the actual experiences that any individual has predisposing him or her to this rather than that leap of faith.

But just how "absolute" are the paths here? And what happens when they come into conflict? It's no wonder then that any number of "ecumenical" pathways are forged through the dogmatic thickets. That way religion becomes a kind of cafeteria. You pick and choose only those behaviors that provide you with the least possible restrictions. You bet on a more progressive or liberal God to judge your soul.

In terms of ethics, the idea of karma can offer a workable theory of morality. Good and bad are, as Spinoza said, not transcendent categories, but simply names for whatever brings us well-being or suffering. There is a regularity to the causality wherein acting on certain mental states generally either brings weal or woe. It also provides some succor for those of us who wish to see wicked people get their come-uppance. They generally will, although not in every case, and not in ways we will necessarily see as proportionate.


Sure, if you're after a "workable theory of morality", almost any "world of words" can suffice. But either enlightened behavior and karma are better suited to, say, giving birth to unborn babies or it's okay to abort them. Well-being may revolve for any particular pregnant woman around giving birth or in killing the unborn baby. Same with suffering. And given the manner in which someone "gets" Buddhism that will translate into a better afterlife or a worse one.

But which? And how can that actually be demonstrated?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36171
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:55 pm

From the Secular Buddhism Podcast

"What Is Secular Buddhism"

There are many schools of Buddhism and they all explain/teach Buddhism in different ways. Some traditions emphasize reason; others devotion; others mysticism; most combine several of these things. The end goal for all of them is to help people to arrive at a state of “awakening” or “enlightenment”. When I started studying Buddhism, I had a hard time understanding many of the concepts being taught. As my understanding grew, many of the differences between these schools became much less significant. Rather than focusing on which one was “right” or “wrong”, I focused on which one spoke to me. Secular Buddhism takes a pragmatic approach to explain and apply Buddhist teachings and is based on humanist values. I practice/teach Secular Buddhism because it makes the most sense to me. I have a deep love for Buddhist wisdom and I respect all Buddhist traditions.


First, of course, secular Buddhism? Is that even possible in the minds of those who call themselves religious Buddhists? Here for example?

Buddhism in which the benefits of the practice -- a way to constructively discipline the mind and body -- are not attached to an understanding of enlightenment and karma as a means to an end. The end being reincarnation and Nirvana.

Indeed, to what extent does secular Buddhism delve at all into the actual existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then.

After all, if the aim is to focus in on a Buddhism that "speaks to me", where does that frame of mind end and my own frame of mind -- dasein -- begin? One can choose to be a secular Buddhist in any particular historical and cultural and experiential context? How then do the variables attached to a "particular world" impact one's understanding/embodiment of Buddhism?

Secular Buddhism is a non-dogmatic way of understanding and practicing Buddhism. Buddhism is often referred to as the path of liberation. But liberation from what? From our habitual reactivity and self-inflicted suffering. The aim of Buddhist teachings is to understand the nature of reality, the nature of suffering and to let go of the causes of suffering. The process starts by taking a look at how we see the world. When we understand the way we see things, the way we see things will change. This introspection will give us insight into the nature of our own minds. Rather than trying to change the world (our circumstances), we focus on changing ourselves and in that process the world around us changes.


Yes, up in the stratosphere of psychologisms -- "a tendency to interpret events or arguments in subjective terms" -- this "general description intellectual contraption" can do wonders [for some] in attaining and then sustaining some semblance of mental and emotional equanimity.

But: it ever and always depends on what you "see". On the actual experiences and sets of circumstances you must endure; and on the options available to you in dealing with them.

Everyone has a different line to draw/cross here.

Thus when someone speaks of "the way we see things", the implication is that there are better ways in which to see them instead. And sometimes there are. And if a secular Buddhist provides you with a pathway that does in fact make your life more tranquil and productive and worthwhile...?

On the other hand, anyone who suggests the focus should be more on changing the way you see the world rather than changing the world itself has never read, among others, Marx and Engels.

Or take the reality of racism and police violence. The headlines screaming at us here. Does secular Buddhism focus in on things like that?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36171
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby MagsJ » Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:08 pm

Without Dharma there would be no Buddhism, no.. anything.

There would be no anything without Dharma, no.. Buddhism.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ


Nobilis Est Ira Leonis | Om Surya Devaay namah | Manus justa nardus
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 19964
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …Suryaloka.. the sun

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Berkley Babes » Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:33 pm

Suffering, you know, as like, more than just a concept.
User avatar
Berkley Babes
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: Everywheres In The Atmosfear

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby MagsJ » Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:38 pm

Why do many think we need to suffer though?

What is this suffering thing about, that many speak of? Don’t stray far from Dharma, and you’ll redeem your karma.. a question of checks and balances, weights and measures, is all it is.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ


Nobilis Est Ira Leonis | Om Surya Devaay namah | Manus justa nardus
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 19964
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …Suryaloka.. the sun

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Jun 14, 2020 4:47 am

iambiguous wrote:First, of course, secular Buddhism? Is that even possible in the minds of those who call themselves religious Buddhists? Here for example?

Buddhism in which the benefits of the practice -- a way to constructively discipline the mind and body -- are not attached to an understanding of enlightenment and karma as a means to an end. The end being reincarnation and Nirvana.
Sure, it's possible. Those can be taken as metaphors. Someone does the practices, notes benefits, presumably (since they are calling themselves a secular buddhist), for example less suffering.
Indeed, to what extent does secular Buddhism delve at all into the actual existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then.
That would depend on the secular buddhist in question.

After all, if the aim is to focus in on a Buddhism that "speaks to me", where does that frame of mind end and my own frame of mind -- dasein -- begin? One can choose to be a secular Buddhist in any particular historical and cultural and experiential context? How then do the variables attached to a "particular world" impact one's understanding/embodiment of Buddhism?
This seems up in the clouds and abstract. 'The aim'....? Whose aim?

Yes, up in the stratosphere of psychologisms -- "a tendency to interpret events or arguments in subjective terms" -- this "general description intellectual contraption" can do wonders [for some] in attaining and then sustaining some semblance of mental and emotional equanimity.
Actually it seems like it is not mere semblence, but mental and emotional equanity as measure during scientific research of people who have meditated a long time. But this has been pointed out before.

But: it ever and always depends on what you "see". On the actual experiences and sets of circumstances you must endure; and on the options available to you in dealing with them.
What depends on this?
Everyone has a different line to draw/cross here.
Sure. Same with studying to be a chef.

Thus when someone speaks of "the way we see things", the implication is that there are better ways in which to see them instead. And sometimes there are. And if a secular Buddhist provides you with a pathway that does in fact make your life more tranquil and productive and worthwhile...?
And if that's what you want, then you probably are glad that you followed that path. If it isn't what you want or you didn't seem to get it or fit the path or changed your mind, then not.
On the other hand, anyone who suggests the focus should be more on changing the way you see the world rather than changing the world itself has never read, among others, Marx and Engels.
I dont think that's true. I think people could read Engels and Marx and...disagree. Or do you mean here that Marx and Engels were just plain right, so if they have read them they should be convinced. That seems to be the implicit claim.

Or take the reality of racism and police violence. The headlines screaming at us here. Does secular Buddhism focus in on things like that?
Secular buddhist certainly could, and I would guess some do.

It seems like you are making some unsupported assumptions in this post. Quite a number.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Jun 14, 2020 4:51 am

iambiguous wrote:
Why don't you and KT get into a discussion about these two factors in regards to God and religion? And, sure, by all means, completely avoid contact with anything resembling "a particular context". :wink:
Hm. I've presented my thoughts in particular contexts a number of times. Could you demonstrate that you claim above that we are avoiding contact with particular contexts such that all rational people will agree.

I still haven't quite gotten why your claims never seem to need any justification at all but others should produce utterly convinging arguments.

it's remarkably like solving little chess problems responding to you. Find the implicit or explicit fallacy or objectivist claim on your part.

Of course with chess problems, if you find the solution, at least online, you get a response that says you found the solution.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:15 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:First, of course, secular Buddhism? Is that even possible in the minds of those who call themselves religious Buddhists? Here for example?

Buddhism in which the benefits of the practice -- a way to constructively discipline the mind and body -- are not attached to an understanding of enlightenment and karma as a means to an end. The end being reincarnation and Nirvana.
Sure, it's possible. Those can be taken as metaphors. Someone does the practices, notes benefits, presumably (since they are calling themselves a secular buddhist), for example less suffering.
Indeed, to what extent does secular Buddhism delve at all into the actual existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then.
That would depend on the secular buddhist in question.

After all, if the aim is to focus in on a Buddhism that "speaks to me", where does that frame of mind end and my own frame of mind -- dasein -- begin? One can choose to be a secular Buddhist in any particular historical and cultural and experiential context? How then do the variables attached to a "particular world" impact one's understanding/embodiment of Buddhism?
This seems up in the clouds and abstract. 'The aim'....? Whose aim?

Yes, up in the stratosphere of psychologisms -- "a tendency to interpret events or arguments in subjective terms" -- this "general description intellectual contraption" can do wonders [for some] in attaining and then sustaining some semblance of mental and emotional equanimity.
Actually it seems like it is not mere semblence, but mental and emotional equanity as measure during scientific research of people who have meditated a long time. But this has been pointed out before.

But: it ever and always depends on what you "see". On the actual experiences and sets of circumstances you must endure; and on the options available to you in dealing with them.
What depends on this?
Everyone has a different line to draw/cross here.
Sure. Same with studying to be a chef.

Thus when someone speaks of "the way we see things", the implication is that there are better ways in which to see them instead. And sometimes there are. And if a secular Buddhist provides you with a pathway that does in fact make your life more tranquil and productive and worthwhile...?
And if that's what you want, then you probably are glad that you followed that path. If it isn't what you want or you didn't seem to get it or fit the path or changed your mind, then not.
On the other hand, anyone who suggests the focus should be more on changing the way you see the world rather than changing the world itself has never read, among others, Marx and Engels.
I dont think that's true. I think people could read Engels and Marx and...disagree. Or do you mean here that Marx and Engels were just plain right, so if they have read them they should be convinced. That seems to be the implicit claim.

Or take the reality of racism and police violence. The headlines screaming at us here. Does secular Buddhism focus in on things like that?
Secular buddhist certainly could, and I would guess some do.

It seems like you are making some unsupported assumptions in this post. Quite a number.


Nothing new here.

Unless, of course, I missed it. 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36171
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:53 pm

The Role of Karma in Buddhist Morality
Barbara O’Brien

What is morality? How do we determine what actions are moral and which are not? These are questions philosophers and religious scholars have debated for centuries. What does Buddhism teach about the basis of morality?


Isn't that basically my aim here as well?

What can Buddhism teach us about morality here and now? But: only insofar as this is explored in connecting the dots existentially between the behaviors that individual Buddhists choose on this side of the grave and that which they anticipate the fate of "I" to be on the other side of it.

In other words, the nitty gritty reality of practicing Buddhism from day to day in their own actual lives.

Within the world’s religions, the basis of morality can be understood on many levels. At the most common — and I would say most superficial — level, morality often is judged by adherence to long-established external rules, such as the Ten Commandments.


Actually, depending on the context, adherence to "external rules" can be anything but superficial. They can literally revolve around life and death, around immense personal satisfaction and fulfilment...or an even greater plunge into misery and travail.

And either individual Buddhists are willing to explore the uncertainties and the ambiguities embedded in "conflicting goods" with me here or they aren't. After all, my own attempts to grapple with them have resulted in a fractured and fragmented "I". How have they avoided this?

And it can’t be denied that for centuries morality has been “sold” to laypeople by promises of a reward in heaven or a punishment in hell. It should be noted, however, that many of the great theologians have had other views on the matter.


Okay, true enough. But there has to be some measure of reward and punishment able to be calculated by particular individuals in order to invest all of the time and the effort required to master a discipline like Buddhism. And sooner or later this disciplined mind is confronted with existential contexts in which conflicting goods run rampant and one's reactions to them are connected -- somehow -- to one's fate on the other side of the grave.

All I'm interested in pursuing on this thread is an exploration of it all in depth. You live your life as a Buddhist. You are confronted with the same world as I am. A world inundated with human pain and suffering. Pain and suffering often derived from conflicting assessments of morality here and now and immortality there and then.

How specifically in terms of the behaviors that you choose do you intertwine that choice in enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36171
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:35 am

“The world is illusion. Brahman alone Is. The world is Brahman.” Shankaracharya

Brahman?

"Brahman connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe. In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. It is the pervasive, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes." Wikipedia

Come on, realistically, how could this be true in any other but a wholly determined universe?

Once you factor in human autonomy, you factor in the subjective point of view that has never been able to pin down the 'Ultimate Reality'. Instead we have perspectives on things which very, very often engender conflicts that afflict us time and again with all manner of human pain and suffering.

So of course in the world that we live in such things as Brahman are invented in order to subsume all the harrowing aspects on human interactions in that which one only has to believe is true "in one's mind".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36171
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby gib » Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:07 am

iambiguous wrote:Come on, realistically, how could this be true in any other but a wholly determined universe?


What about an indetermined universe? Why wouldn't it be true in that universe?

iambiguous wrote:Once you factor in human autonomy, you factor in the subjective point of view that has never been able to pin down the 'Ultimate Reality'. Instead we have perspectives on things which very, very often engender conflicts that afflict us time and again with all manner of human pain and suffering.

So of course in the world that we live in such things as Brahman are invented in order to subsume all the harrowing aspects on human interactions in that which one only has to believe is true "in one's mind".


And that is exactly what's in question in this thread. My main question is: how can anybody know this?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9002
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:53 am

gib wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Come on, realistically, how could this be true in any other but a wholly determined universe?


What about an indetermined universe? Why wouldn't it be true in that universe?


I already speculated about that here:

iambiguous wrote:Once you factor in human autonomy, you factor in the subjective point of view that has never been able to pin down the 'Ultimate Reality'. Instead we have perspectives on things which very, very often engender conflicts that afflict us time and again with all manner of human pain and suffering.

So of course in the world that we live in such things as Brahman are invented in order to subsume all the harrowing aspects on human interactions in that which one only has to believe is true "in one's mind".


What I construe subjectively to be the "psychology of objectivism". The part that comforts and consoles the objectivists. And, for some, all the way to the grave.

gib wrote: And that is exactly what's in question in this thread. My main question is: how can anybody know this?


Well, my main interest revolves more around those who think that they do get Buddhism. I ask them to connect the dots between their take on karma and enlightenment and how their understanding of them actually impacts the behaviors that they choose on this side of the grave. For example, what exactly constitutes enlightenment to them when they are confronted with conflicting goods? And then to connect that dot to their take on reincarnation and Nirvana. In other words, how their assessment of enlightened behavior here and now is applicable to their understanding of "I" there and then. Especially given that there is no God to judge. How is one's fate decided if there is no actual who involved?

That [to me] is the part where they at least attempt to demonstrate how what they believe here is in fact true. Or is that too [as with other denominations] all just a manifestation of more or less blind faith?

Then [of course] the part where I link anything that anyone claims to know at all to all that we do not know -- ontologically? teleologically? -- about Existence itself.

Assuming in turn that human autonomy is not just an illusion built into human psychology by the laws of matter itself.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36171
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby gib » Wed Jun 24, 2020 6:08 am

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:What about an indetermined universe? Why wouldn't it be true in that universe?


I already speculated about that here:

iambiguous wrote:Once you factor in human autonomy, you factor in the subjective point of view that has never been able to pin down the 'Ultimate Reality'. Instead we have perspectives on things which very, very often engender conflicts that afflict us time and again with all manner of human pain and suffering.

So of course in the world that we live in such things as Brahman are invented in order to subsume all the harrowing aspects on human interactions in that which one only has to believe is true "in one's mind".


What does that mean though? Are you saying that with human autonomy involved, any possibility of Brahman would have to be just a human concoction invented to ease the pain of existence? Could this not happen if it were all wholly determined? And couldn't Brahman be real even if there is human autonomy? Even if that human autonomy ultimately lead to the invention of Brahman as a psychological coping mechanism?

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote: And that is exactly what's in question in this thread. My main question is: how can anybody know this?


Well, my main interest revolves more around those who think that they do get Buddhism. I ask them to connect the dots between their take on karma and enlightenment and how their understanding of them actually impacts the behaviors that they choose on this side of the grave. For example, what exactly constitutes enlightenment to them when they are confronted with conflicting goods? And then to connect that dot to their take on reincarnation and Nirvana. In other words, how their assessment of enlightened behavior here and now is applicable to their understanding of "I" there and then. Especially given that there is no God to judge. How is one's fate decided if there is no actual who involved?

That [to me] is the part where they at least attempt to demonstrate how what they believe here is in fact true. Or is that too [as with other denominations] all just a manifestation of more or less blind faith?

Then [of course] the part where I link anything that anyone claims to know at all to all that we do not know -- ontologically? teleologically? -- about Existence itself.

Assuming in turn that human autonomy is not just an illusion built into human psychology by the laws of matter itself.


Yes, these are indeed the kinds of questions I'm raising in this thread. It's interesting that your relentless questioning of the 'I' actually has a place in this thread--because the Buddhist is always first in line to question the 'I' along the same lines as you. They seem to embrace its disillusionment just as much as you. What form does your challenge take with them?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9002
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:10 pm

:-k Biggus just substitutes the word 'Buddhism', 'enlightenment' and 'Nirvana' for the word 'Christianity', 'salvation' and 'afterlife'.

IOW, he interprets it through the filter of western Christianity ... Buddhism is merely Chstianity-Asia ... a difference of names only.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11904
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby gib » Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:46 pm

phyllo wrote::-k Biggus just substitutes the word 'Buddhism', 'enlightenment' and 'Nirvana' for the word 'Christianity', 'salvation' and 'afterlife'.

IOW, he interprets it through the filter of western Christianity ... Buddhism is merely Chstianity-Asia ... a difference of names only.


Well, Biggy is definitely predictably formulaic... to the point where you could treat his arguments as a set of predicates the variables of which can be swapped out. One size fits all with Biggy.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9002
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 24, 2020 6:58 pm

gib wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:What about an indetermined universe? Why wouldn't it be true in that universe?


I already speculated about that here:

iambiguous wrote:Once you factor in human autonomy, you factor in the subjective point of view that has never been able to pin down the 'Ultimate Reality'. Instead we have perspectives on things which very, very often engender conflicts that afflict us time and again with all manner of human pain and suffering.

So of course in the world that we live in such things as Brahman are invented in order to subsume all the harrowing aspects on human interactions in that which one only has to believe is true "in one's mind".


What does that mean though? Are you saying that with human autonomy involved, any possibility of Brahman would have to be just a human concoction invented to ease the pain of existence? Could this not happen if it were all wholly determined? And couldn't Brahman be real even if there is human autonomy? Even if that human autonomy ultimately lead to the invention of Brahman as a psychological coping mechanism?


Again, my main interest in religion revolves around the existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then. So, someone who believes that Brahman is real is either willing and able to relate it to that or they won't/can't. In particular in regard to human interactions that come to collide as a result of conflicting moral and political value judgments.

Again, in turn, assuming that Brahman is not merely another inherent/necessary manifestation of human interactions wholly in sync with immutable laws of matter/nature.

Given human autonomy, there is the particular individual's subjective assessment of right and wrong behavior. Assessments rooted in dasein in my view. There is also a possible objective truth. Finally, there is the particular context involved.

And then there's...Brahman? What on Earth does that mean?

So, sure, tell us what you think it means "in your head". Then demonstrate to us why all "enlightened" men and women are obligated to think the same thing.

What else is there here "for all practical purposes".

And then the part [for me] where one's beliefs about this are connected to what one construes the fate of "I" to be on the other side. Reincarnation? Nirvana? How so? How does that get intertwined in Brahman as well?

So, suppose someone believes that Brahman is real and is confronted with a context relating to, say, vaccinations. The state demands/requires that their children be given the new covid-19 vaccine. They believe vaccines are dangerous and refuse. What of Brahman given a set of circumstances such as this?

Also, how is the coronavirus now stampeding around the globe to be understood as part of "the world as illusion"?

And how would the existence of something as terrible as the coronavirus itself be understood given Brahman? Now, with a religion like Christianity, things like this are merely subsumed in a God, the God's "mysterious ways". But in a No God religious narrative?

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote: And that is exactly what's in question in this thread. My main question is: how can anybody know this?


Well, my main interest revolves more around those who think that they do get Buddhism. I ask them to connect the dots between their take on karma and enlightenment and how their understanding of them actually impacts the behaviors that they choose on this side of the grave. For example, what exactly constitutes enlightenment to them when they are confronted with conflicting goods? And then to connect that dot to their take on reincarnation and Nirvana. In other words, how their assessment of enlightened behavior here and now is applicable to their understanding of "I" there and then. Especially given that there is no God to judge. How is one's fate decided if there is no actual who involved?

That [to me] is the part where they at least attempt to demonstrate how what they believe here is in fact true. Or is that too [as with other denominations] all just a manifestation of more or less blind faith?

Then [of course] the part where I link anything that anyone claims to know at all to all that we do not know -- ontologically? teleologically? -- about Existence itself.

Assuming in turn that human autonomy is not just an illusion built into human psychology by the laws of matter itself.


gib wrote: Yes, these are indeed the kinds of questions I'm raising in this thread. It's interesting that your relentless questioning of the 'I' actually has a place in this thread--because the Buddhist is always first in line to question the 'I' along the same lines as you. They seem to embrace its disillusionment just as much as you. What form does your challenge take with them?


I am considerably less inclined to question the existence of my self -- my self -- in the either/or world. Here [for me] that becomes problematic only to the extent that solipsism or sim worlds or dream worlds or The Matrix might be reality instead. In fact, I can imagine Brahman as the manifestation of our physical laws from the perspective of materialism or naturalism.

But introduce the "spiritual" realm and "I" becomes considerably more problematic for me. What here is able to be demonstrated as true and what is not.

Instead, the "I" that interest me far more is the embedded in the is/ought world.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36171
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 24, 2020 7:09 pm

phyllo wrote::-k Biggus just substitutes the word 'Buddhism', 'enlightenment' and 'Nirvana' for the word 'Christianity', 'salvation' and 'afterlife'.

IOW, he interprets it through the filter of western Christianity ... Buddhism is merely Chstianity-Asia ... a difference of names only.


No, Biggus is far more interested in exploring how any and all religious/spiritual folks connect the dots existentially between the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave and the fate of "I" on the other side. Morality -----> Immortality.

That and the extent to which they are able to demonstrate that what they believe about this "in their head" is able to be linked [here at ILP] to the sort of evidence that might incline me to actually take them seriously.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36171
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron