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 » Wed Jul 08, 2020 6:29 pm

Thinking makes it so.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11956
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:11 pm

phyllo wrote:Thinking makes it so.


Isn’t that also a load of crap! Jump off a cliff when you think you can fly.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10468
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:22 pm

MagsJ wrote:
How the ancients practised their Dharma and why.. or whatever their local nuanced Practice was, is not pertinent for today’s needs, so the How and Why are based on the Here and Now, to aid the individual in the There and Then.. whatever that There and Then might be.


iambiguous wrote: Well, I can't explore this with the ancients of course so it's between me and those who are reading these words. And my interest in religion revolves almost entirely around connecting dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality there and then. Given the fact that there are hundreds and hundreds of different spiritual paths to choose from. And, in turn, given what is at stake. Why yours and not theirs? Why should a No God atheist believe there is an afterlife at all? How do the faithful demonstrate it? Through leaps of faith? Okay, fine. But with all the paths out there [and that's just on this planet] what are the odds that theirs is The One?


MagsJ wrote: Why our path over someone else’s? because one is not supposed to stray too far from their inherent Dharma is why, otherwise one would become open to coercion, corruption, abuse, etc.


Okay, let's reconfigure this into a discussion of a particular context involving behaviors that come into conflict over value judgments derived from a particular religious narrative that includes Dharma in its own rendition of a scripture. And, in turn, how this relates to the fate of "I" beyond the grave.

And to what extent have those who have chosen a path explored the extent to which choosing here is itself predicated largely on the manner in which, in regard to value judgments, I construe the "self" as an existential contraption rooted in dasein.


MagsJ wrote: You tell me? as you’re the one questioning it, not I.. perhaps it’s a reason why one should be practicing their Dharma, then perhaps there’d be less questions and more self-actualised answers.


Well, sure, if you don't question your sense of identity much beyond what a particular religious narrative presumes, then the answers enable you to sustain both the comfort and the consolation that come with them. The arguments I give in regard to the historical, cultural and experiential parameters of "I" as an existential contraption rooted in dasein are just shrugged away.

To what extent have you delved into your religious, moral and political values given the manner in which I myself approach them here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

This is always my own aim here when it comes to examining "I" in the is/ought world. God or No God. In other words, the extent to which someone is convinced that in regard to their religious, moral and political values, they are in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".
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: 36486
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:36 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
phyllo wrote:Thinking makes it so.


Isn’t that also a load of crap! Jump off a cliff when you think you can fly.

phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11956
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:00 pm

phyllo wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
phyllo wrote:Thinking makes it so.


Isn’t that also a load of crap! Jump off a cliff when you think you can fly.



Clever. And exactly how long does this person defy gravity?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10468
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:20 pm

He never "defies" gravity.

Longest recorded flight was 9 minutes 6 seconds.

The point is that it's not just black and white.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11956
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:33 pm

phyllo wrote:He never "defies" gravity.

Longest recorded flight was 9 minutes 6 seconds.

The point is that it's not just black and white.


Actually it is black and white. You’re trying to play “grey word games” when flying as the term is being used here is the infinite ability to always defy gravity.

I said it was clever. I didn’t say it was true, that beliefs determine reality.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10468
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:18 pm

iambiguous wrote:Forget chairs and forks and Ben. The is/ought world revolves instead around choosing behaviors derived from value judgments derived [in my view] from dasein. The part that revolves around conflicting goods construed by different people in different historical, cultural and experiential contexts. "I" then. "I" construed to be enlightened riding karma into the sunset and coming out on the other side re reincarnation and Nirvana.


gib wrote:Did my answer not suffice? I'd give the same answer whether we're talking about the either/or world or the is/ought world. The self is an illusion because it is not permanent. It is not permanent in the either/or world or the is/ought world. We're not just talking about molecules or energy transitioning in and out of the body, we're talking about my inner world--my feelings and thoughts, my values and beliefs, my memories, my character, my experiences--all of which are extremely hard to pin down in the either/or world.


First, of course, we don't know how to talk about forks and chairs and neighbors definitively because we don't know how to grapple with and understand them given the very nature of existence itself. And we don't know if the exchanges we do have about them reflect beyond all doubt the capacity of human beings to exchange posts with some measure of free will in venues such as this.

Therefore, what "I" do then is all that I can do:

1] presume that my assessment of forks and chairs and neighbors bares at least some relevance to the nature of existence itself and...

2] presume that I do have some measure of free will in broaching, assessing and evaluating them in venues such as this

Given that what can we know about forks and chairs and neighbors...information and knowledge able to be communicated to others demonstrably? What empirical, material, phenomenological facts can we exchange confidently about them? And how would these facts be understood differently by different religious denominations? Are forks and chairs and neighbors construed by Western religions different from how they are construed by Eastern religions? As they become pertinent to our day to day interactions?

How are the use of forks and chairs and neighbors intertwined existentially when Buddhists connect the dots between enlightenment and karma here and now and reincarnation and Nirvana there and then?

And what changes when, say, forks and chairs are used as weapons to harm others? And how are enlightened men and women obligated to treat neighbors?

gib wrote: So there's an intellectual contraption if there ever was one, and a typical response from an average Buddhist as I understand Buddhists (if I'm wrong, it's what this Buddhist responds with). If you say this falls short of an objective demonstration that all rational men and women are obligated to concur with, I would agree. But it does expose the logic and reasoning going on inside this Buddhist's mind, that which underlies his position on the self and its illusory nature. So what's your next move? What do you do with this?


iambiguous wrote:Again, we'll need an actual context. One that most here will be familiar with. Connecting the dots between what we think you mean by these words and how they would be applicable to the behaviors we choose...given the extent to which "I" is understood to be or not to be an illusion.


gib wrote: Sure. So let's take a common Buddhist practice that involves morality. Say the alleviation of suffering. Suffering is a very real part of life for the Buddhist (despite life being an illusion), and it is important to alleviate it for as many souls as we can. Therefore, as one who has been enlightened and has found a path out of suffering, it is incumbent on the Buddhist to bring others out of their suffering by showing them the path to enlightenment. The way out of suffering leads to the disillusionment of the 'I'. With that, there is no more 'I' to suffer, and there is no more 'I' to reincarnate. One is therefore not only free from suffering but from the wheel of Samsara itself.


No, suffering itself is still too general.

We need a more specific context. Suppose John is a prison inmate about to be executed for murdering Mary. If the state kills him some of his family and friends and loved ones will suffer. But if he is not executed many who loved Mary will suffer because they believe that he deserves to die.

Same with abortion and animal rights and gun laws and vaccines and the role of government. Same with all conflicting goods. Some construe suffering if this is done while others if that is done instead.

Then with religion the stakes get jacked up all the more. Behaviors on this side of the grave become anchored to things like sin and enlightenment. Which then get anchored "in the head" of the faithful with one's fate on the other side of the grave. Only with most Western religions that becomes intertwined with God and Judgment Day. And I still don't really have a solid clue as to how it might work in a No God religion.

gib wrote: So I'll take this to mean you're asking me directly (as opposed to asking me what I'd do when confronted with other "unsavory" people demanding an irrefutable demonstration of my beliefs). As this Buddhist character I'm playing, I would probably appeal to the argument about permanence again--seems to be the founding pillar of the whole Buddhist philosophy, or at least that part of it that takes everything to be illusion--I would say that it follows from the impermanence of everything that everything we think we know about the world is false.


iambiguous wrote:Okay, fine. But how exactly does that actually unfold in the course of living one's life as a Buddhist? From day to day to day? How are value judgments embodied on this side of the grave reconfigured into existence on the other side? And how does one go about bridging the gap between what one believes in his or her head about all this and how one goes about substantiating it as in fact true?


gib wrote: In much the same way as I explained above. The path to salvation according to Buddhist teaching is to become enlightened to the truth about reality--about its illusory nature--for this alleviates one of all earthly suffering. The moral obligation of the Buddhist is to show this path to others so that their suffering may be alleviated too. The practice is by meditating and following the eight-fold path: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path. This is connected to the fate of the 'I' in the afterlife by allowing one's self to let go of the self, to let it dissolve, thereby leaving nothing behind to cling to, nothing to bring one back into this life reincarnated. One essentially "escapes" the wheel.


Then I'm back to bringing this "general description intellectual/spiritual contraption" out into the world pertaining to particular conflicting goods in a particular set of circumstances. And the part where Buddhists are able to demonstrate that their own spiritual path is preferable to the "hundreds and hundreds" of other denominations out there who might share the conviction that there is but one truly enlightened path.

But it is their own.

Instead.

gib wrote: The part about suffering and the alleviation of it through enlightenment follows from that.


iambiguous wrote:Yes, if you swallow the assumptions -- the intellectual contraptions -- that Buddha concocted in his head all those years ago. Sure, human suffering itself staggers on at an ever more ghastly rate but at least Buddhists have found a way to subsume it on their own spiritual path.

I get that part. But do they get the parts that I suggest instead? Ah, but why on earth would they? An essentially meaningless human existence that ends for all of eternity in oblivion?


gib wrote: Is that the note you like to end on? A dismal look at your nihilistic point of view and how glaringly it contrasts with the religion of the spiritualist or the objectivist, with a slant for more grounded realism on your side, and in-the-clouds phantasmagoria on the other? Is this an expression of dissatisfaction with where your inquiry leads or the final jab you ultimately aim to deliver?


The note that I end on -- encompassed in the arguments I make in my signature threads -- merely reflects my own existential contraption here. The manner in which I make a distinction between the Self in the either/or world and the "self" in the is/ought world. And, then, in threads such as this one, in connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then.

From my perspective, philosophy is not about coming up with something that makes you feel better, but something that seems the most reasonable to you "here and now". Religion just ups the ante by proposing that if you follow down a certain path [their own] you will feel all the better still. And then for all the rest of eternity.

That's basically the assumption I make about any number of reactions to me from the moral and political and spiritual objectivists. They recognize what is at stake for them if, perhaps, the assumptions I make are more reasonable. And on both sides of the grave.

On the other hand, since there are so many more of them than there are of me, I would be a fool not to hear them out. At this point in my life, I have little more to lose and a whole heap to gain if they can convince me to go a little further still down their path.
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: 36486
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby MagsJ » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:43 am

iambiguous wrote:Okay, connect that to my own interest in Brahman: how it becomes intertwined in the lives that Hindus/Buddhists live. Lives that involve distinguishing between behaviors thought to be enlightened and behaviors thought not to be; and how that becomes intertwined in the understanding of "I" on the lother side of the grave.

In regard to your own life for example. On the other hand, if that is not of significant concern to you in regard to Brahman, we'll just have to move on to others.

I aim in having a minimal negative impact on others, and steer clear of those that don’t do likewise for me.. so keeping my environment as non-toxic as is possible.

Enlightenment is self-awareness of negative behaviours that are harmful to others.. that doesn’t mean we can’t have a little fun and crack a few jokes, but not at the constant expense of others and their feelings.

It’s about having a clean karmic line, unfettered by wrong-doings and negatives.. which kin inherit, and hopefully continue to uphold that Dharma.

So then we are left with the task of sifting through all of that and coming up with the most enlightened understanding of Brahman. And that I presume [on this thread] would come from those who call themselves Buddhists or Hindus.

On the other hand, my own interest in religion revolves more around connecting the dots between the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave and how that will impact the fate of "I" after death.

And here the enlightened either can or cannot, will or will not take Brahman.

How can we know how our behaviours will impact our fate after death, except through the interactions and actions of our kin?

Take Brahman?

Is there a choice in the matter, once a significant amount of enlightenment has been achieved in the manifestation of Brahman within one’s psyche? Once we know better, can we stop knowing better?

Okay, in regard to the political prejudices you embody relating to, say, vaccines or Donald Trump, what does it mean then to be "taskless"?

..in, me not having an agenda, but more a purpose.. whatever it is, at any given point in time.

Also, is there any way possible that Brahman can be discussed by the faithful in regard to morality here and now and immortality there and then? Or does it ever and always come down merely to how you think about it "spiritually" in your head? How comforting and consoling one's assessment of it is sustained.

Brahman is to be, then to express that through doing/words and actions, so that the morality/immortality issue is appeased.. so being a sacrificial alter unto ourselves, if you will.
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: 20087
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …Suryaloka.. the sun

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jul 11, 2020 7:28 pm

MagsJ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Okay, connect that to my own interest in Brahman: how it becomes intertwined in the lives that Hindus/Buddhists live. Lives that involve distinguishing between behaviors thought to be enlightened and behaviors thought not to be; and how that becomes intertwined in the understanding of "I" on the other side of the grave.

In regard to your own life for example. On the other hand, if that is not of significant concern to you in regard to Brahman, we'll just have to move on to others.

I aim in having a minimal negative impact on others, and steer clear of those that don’t do likewise for me.. so keeping my environment as non-toxic as is possible.

Enlightenment is self-awareness of negative behaviours that are harmful to others.. that doesn’t mean we can’t have a little fun and crack a few jokes, but not at the constant expense of others and their feelings.

It’s about having a clean karmic line, unfettered by wrong-doings and negatives.. which kin inherit, and hopefully continue to uphold that Dharma.


But: in regard to the behaviors that you choose here and now as they pertain to what you imagine your fate to be there and then, I have no clear understanding of your point here. And that is always my aim in regard to God and religion and all other spiritual paths.

We are just not in sync in terms of intent and motivation here. Others can share your assessment above but then attach it to conflicting goods. Attaching this assessment further to the part after they die. That's my "thing" here. Exploring that in regard to actual sets of circumstances.

Thus...

So then we are left with the task of sifting through all of that and coming up with the most enlightened understanding of Brahman. And that I presume [on this thread] would come from those who call themselves Buddhists or Hindus.

On the other hand, my own interest in religion revolves more around connecting the dots between the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave and how that will impact the fate of "I" after death.

And here the enlightened either can or cannot, will or will not take Brahman.


MagsJ wrote: How can we know how our behaviours will impact our fate after death, except through the interactions and actions of our kin?


Well, that's my point. Religious/spiritual folks have, down through the centuries, concocted scriptures and texts and traditions and mores and folkways that may or may not be reconfigured into enforceable laws. The idea being that there is a way to differentiate vice from virtue, sin from transgression, enlightened from benighted behavior. Linked to a God, the God by and large but not always.

MagsJ wrote: Take Brahman?


Yes. You choose to behave in the way that you do. And if Brahman denotes/connotes "the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe" how do you connect the dots between that and this choice. Why not another choice instead? Here of course I link "I" to dasein. But that then precipitates [for me] the feeling of fragmentation.

Instead, you note...

MagsJ wrote: Is there a choice in the matter, once a significant amount of enlightenment has been achieved in the manifestation of Brahman within one’s psyche? Once we know better, can we stop knowing better?


Which I react to as but another "general description intellectual contraption". Again, people can share this "spiritual" assessment but then come to embody profoundly conflicting moral and political agendas. What then in regard to the fate of "I" on the other side?

Okay, in regard to the political prejudices you embody relating to, say, vaccines or Donald Trump, what does it mean then to be "taskless"?


MagsJ wrote: ..in, me not having an agenda, but more a purpose.. whatever it is, at any given point in time.


I have no clear idea what you mean here. With regard to moral and political prejudices how is an agenda differentiated from a purpose. And how are either one not basically derived subjectively from the manner in which I construe dasein embedded in a particular historical, culturally and interpersonal context?

Also, is there any way possible that Brahman can be discussed by the faithful in regard to morality here and now and immortality there and then? Or does it ever and always come down merely to how you think about it "spiritually" in your head? How comforting and consoling one's assessment of it is sustained.

MagsJ wrote: Brahman is to be, then to express that through doing/words and actions, so that the morality/immortality issue is appeased.. so being a sacrificial alter unto ourselves, if you will.


The latter then I'll take 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: 36486
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Meno_ » Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:14 pm

biggie says:

"have no clear idea what you mean here. With regard to moral and political prejudices how is an agenda differentiated from a purpose. And how are either one not basically derived subjectively from the manner in which I construe dasein embedded in a particular historical, culturally and interpersonal context?"


As per a leap of/to faith , as a represented , necessary irony, per Meno's paradox: which I will quote summarily:

" he was looking for, this is known as Meno's paradox. Kierkegaard puts his paradox this way, "what a man knows he cannot seek, since he knows it; and what he does not know he cannot seek, since he does not even know for what to seek."[10]


In other words , it is undifferentiable, That knowledge is an undivided part of him.

Meno cam not to seek is the inverted primal premise. That is the basis of looking at/for IT, the argument flows reversely , by necessity.

This necessity was pointed out thus:


"Rush argues that this is primarily a social-ontological term and not, as is often supposed, a metaphysical concept."


This is why a philosophical fragment requires a platonic intuition to foreshadow a Divine fragmentation.

Thereafter this must adhere to a comedy of divine proportions.

That is the basis of the saying, a little bit of Plato is like a little bit of poison, and so Socrates fate foreshadowed a sacrifice, that an invitation of Christ could not then illiterate

And that, gave an appearent right for Faust to take on the bargain.....unwittingly taking a required leap, to recapture the Ring.


Many are called , few chosen, and Meno knows not for what, ....this is the Absolute requirement for the fragmented, self learned man.


He can never understand himself, and how he was able to learn, against all odds.



Post script:


Wittgenstein's family of resemblances deluged Christ's alleged Buddhic journey through the silk road, and so Rush's argument, supports Shlegel's and Fischte's view on the romantic mode, thereby reinforcing Jung's conflation of a necessary construction, or reaffirmation of values.

Without God, He has to be reinvented by reassemblage.

There has to occur a sliver of hope that an exit be found.

An exit, which serves as a reentry simultaniously.

This necessity prevents singular Crucifiction by Freud's displacement of economic recovery of the ID, by a social reconstructive rather then an singular ontologically derived responsibility-to attain the entrance to enlightenment.

That should consist of the successful journey from sacrificial -factual modes of realization toward the purposeful, functional signal of an impending objective.

The two then are not really logically reducible, but are substantiated by Christ's miracles.

Ecmondu I see You on board, if You happen to read the above, this is the proof You may be seeking.

Biggy, I promised a revision with more clarity, .& safely, do try to indulge , even after the fact, with darely as a witness for the defense. Dare You!
all, Karpel & Dan, included.

MagsJ , who made clear the various perimeters that a Meno type personality may actualize.


Post post script

Biggie asks,


"Unless, of course, he's right":

What I'd escape from the mundane, through religious myth was simply an avoidance, a possible exit from the box of genetic social determinate, a displacement which tries to overcome an inferiority, apparently of Darwin through god?

Does the phenomenological continuum of metaphysically verified moral prerogatives stand up to the test of identifiable families of resemblances?
Last edited by Meno_ on Sun Jul 12, 2020 7:48 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6863
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jul 12, 2020 6:36 pm

Meno_ wrote:biggie says:

"have no clear idea what you mean here. With regard to moral and political prejudices how is an agenda differentiated from a purpose. And how are either one not basically derived subjectively from the manner in which I construe dasein embedded in a particular historical, culturally and interpersonal context?"


As per a leap of/to faith , as a represented , necessary irony, per Meno's paradox: which I will quote summarily:

" he was looking for, this is known as Meno's paradox. Kierkegaard puts his paradox this way, "what a man knows he cannot seek, since he knows it; and what he does not know he cannot seek, since he does not even know for what to seek."[10]


In other words , it is undifferentiable, That knowledge is an undivided part of him.


Meno cam not to seek is the inverted primal premise. That is the basis of looking at/for IT, the argument flows reversely , by necessity.

This necessity was pointed out thus:


"Rush argues that this is primarily a social-ontological term and not, as is often supposed, a metaphysical concept."


This is why a philosophical fragment requires a platonic intuition to foreshadow a Divine fragmentation.

Thereafter this must adhere to a comedy of divine proportions.

That is the basis of the saying, a little bit of Plato is like a little bit of poison, and so Socrates fate foreshadowed a sacrifice, that an invitation of Christ could not then illiterate

And that, gave an appearent right for Faust to take on the bargain.....unwittingly taking a required leap, to recapture the Ring.


Many are called , few chosen, and Meno knows not for what, ....this is the Absolute requirement for the fragmented, self learned man.


He can never understand himself, and how he was able to learn, against all odds.



Post script:


Wittgenstein's family of resemblances deluged Christ's alleged Buddhic journey through the silk road, and so Rush's argument, supports Shlegel's and Fischte's view on the romantic mode, thereby reinforcing Jung's conflation of a necessary construction, or reaffirmation of values.

Without God, He has to be reinvented by reassemblage.

There has to occur a sliver of hope that an exit be found.

An exit, which serves as a reentry simultaniously.

This necessity prevents singular Crucifiction by Freud's displacement of economic recovery of the ID, by a social reconstructive rather then an singular ontologically derived responsibility-to attain the entrance to enlightenment.

That should consist of the successful journey from sacrificial -factual modes of realization toward the purposeful, functional signal of an impending objective.

The two then are not really logically reducible, but are substantiated by Christ's miracles.

Ecmondu I see You on board, if You happen to read the above, this is the proof You may be seeking.

Biggy, I promised a revision with more clarity, .& safely, do try to indulge , even after the fact, with darely as a witness for the defense. Dare You!
all, Karpel & Dan, included.

MagsJ , who made clear the various perimeters that a Meno type personality may actualize.


Unless, of course, he's right. 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: 36486
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:10 am

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1801007/
Reduced cortisol, reduced stress. Those are pretty clear positive. Interesting about reduced reaction times. Obviously not the best thing to do before a big table tennis tournament. But in general allowing more nuanced responses to what is happening around you, probably better chance of not responding with habitual responses.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 1?via=ihub
Here reduction in anxiety and depression

So, for any person suffering there is strong evidence that the practices (of a practice focused tradition) have benefits that most modern people want. This means that they could START participating in the practices on solid ground even if they are not sure about the supposed long term effects of the practices or some of the possibly metaphysical aspects of the religion/approach.

I see no findings indicating that the practice of posting online reduces anxiety, cortisol levels, depression.

So if one is looking for rational arguments and one is making a choice based on purely rational/scientific grounds, the choice is really quite obvious.

And it is always a choice (not in the determinism vs free will debate types of metaphysical types of choice with a big C).

So what are the arguments in favor of the practices of posting online and demanding proofs. Why should any rational person do that, given the criteria asked for, let alone all rational people do that?

And, of course, there are now utterly secular versions of meditation practice (the whole mindfulness movement in workplaces and elsewhere) where one does not need to ever think for a second about Karma or REincarnation or Enlightenment. One can simply engage in a simplified version of the practices supported by scientific research.

Posting online vs. mindfulness practice.

Some people choose the former (ONLY since one can, of course, do both) as their primary practice, despite having criteria that should logically and rationally lead them to at least ADD the latter and trust it more.

One can only shake one's head in confusion over what their own criteria indicate, by their own demands and admissions here, is their avoidance of a rational choice.wide

another option is to admit that people making choices can do this ratioanally for a wide range of reasons, and be rational despite not being able to convince everyone to make the same choices.

This can be very hard for some people to admit, even they also do this themselves.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3095
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:42 pm

Sounds like an either or argument.
Participation mystique aside, what about a reduction to the question of an emergent and unviable intelligent resurfacing colonialism, that simply can't squeeze through any possible loop in the shirt termed time allotted?
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6863
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:57 pm

The Role of Karma in Buddhist Morality
Barbara O’Brien

Karma can be understood on many levels, both mundane and mystical. At its most basic level, karma teaches us that the volitional actions created by our thoughts, words, and deeds have effects. These effects can be both immediate and far-reaching, and they can be both subtle and significant. And once set in motion, the karma of our actions can continue, triggering more actions and effects we may never know about.


Encompassed here perhaps: https://youtu.be/E548-OkACkc

All of the things that we choose to do rather than not to do. They lead to one set of consequences rather than another. And some are clearly more mundane than others. But what of the truly significant events in which the tiniest of things can set into motion the most horrific of events. What of karma then? Or, rather, karma in a world that is not wholly determined to unfold only as it must.

But: my concern with karma here is the extent to which it can be attributed to the mystical -- spiritual -- aspects of our interactions. The part where it becomes intertwined in enlightenment intertwined with the fate "I" beyond the grave.

What of karma then?

It’s important to understand that, in Buddhism, karma is not fate. According to some other doctrines of karma, if you have done X amount of harmful things in the past you are fated to experience X amount of harmful things yourself. But in Buddhism, the effects of past actions can be mitigated by present action. We always have the choice to change course.


Then we are back to how Buddhists differentiate the right [enlightened] choice from the wrong [benighted] choice. And if karma is not fate here what exactly is it? In regard to the trajectory of behaviors you choose over the course of your life. Not X this and Y that but considerably more detailed and descriptive accounts that others may be able to relate to their own lives.
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: 36486
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:58 pm

Meno_ wrote:Sounds like an either or argument.
Participation mystique aside, what about a reduction to the question of an emergent and unviable intelligent resurfacing colonialism, that simply can't squeeze through any possible loop in the shirt termed time allotted?


Yeah, KT, what about that?! :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: 36486
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 13, 2020 6:08 pm

Meno_ wrote:Biggie asks,


"Unless, of course, he's right":

What I'd escape from the mundane, through religious myth was simply an avoidance, a possible exit from the box of genetic social determinate, a displacement which tries to overcome an inferiority, apparently of Darwin through god?

Does the phenomenological continuum of metaphysically verified moral prerogatives stand up to the test of identifiable families of resemblances?


Note to others:

Convince me that he actually means this. First of course by convincing me that you actually understand what he means. You know, as it relates to "morality here and now and immortality there and then".

And not just to, say, "meditating". :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: 36486
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:04 pm

Meno_ wrote:Sounds like an either or argument.
How so? I even suggest that one can post online AND try Buddhism. They are not mutually exclusive. However if one has the criterion that one will only engage in an activity it is can be proven to be the right activity for everyone, this should apply to what one already does. Which, in the case of everyone in this thread, includes posting online. This
hypocrisy also holds if one repeatedly accuses Buddhists, for example, of just spouting a lot of gibberish, or making stuff up to soothe themselves.
If one is already engaged in an activity that has no evidence that it improves life - at least no scientific evidence has been presented - how can one position oneself as rational or as in a position to have other people demonstrate things that one does not and in fact cannot demonstrate half as well as Buddhists can that their practices are useful?

Participation mystique aside, what about a reduction to the question of an emergent and unviable intelligent resurfacing colonialism, that simply can't squeeze through any possible loop in the shirt termed time allotted?
Who is the colonist in this scenario and whom is the colonized?

Also, participation mystique, I think that's a bit of a harsh judgment of Iamb....
There is no reasoning with a person caught in the spell of participation mystique. One can offer the most clear cut evidence yet the projective identification with that belief or point-of-view blocks rational analysis or clear thinking.

A person caught up in this spell would rather die or injure him or herself than consider new information that might upend their thinking.


How does one arrive at participation and activity`? How do you, Meno?
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3095
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:46 am

A horse suddenly came galloping quickly down the road. It seemed as though the man had somewhere important to go.

Another man, who was standing alongside the road, shouted, "Where are you going?" and the man on the horse replied,

"I don't know! Ask the horse!"
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3095
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby gib » Wed Jul 15, 2020 2:57 am

iambiguous wrote:First, of course, we don't know how to talk about forks and chairs and neighbors definitively because we don't know how to grapple with and understand them given the very nature of existence itself. And we don't know if the exchanges we do have about them reflect beyond all doubt the capacity of human beings to exchange posts with some measure of free will in venues such as this.

Therefore, what "I" do then is all that I can do:

1] presume that my assessment of forks and chairs and neighbors bares at least some relevance to the nature of existence itself and...

2] presume that I do have some measure of free will in broaching, assessing and evaluating them in venues such as this

Given that what can we know about forks and chairs and neighbors...information and knowledge able to be communicated to others demonstrably? What empirical, material, phenomenological facts can we exchange confidently about them? And how would these facts be understood differently by different religious denominations? Are forks and chairs and neighbors construed by Western religions different from how they are construed by Eastern religions? As they become pertinent to our day to day interactions?

How are the use of forks and chairs and neighbors intertwined existentially when Buddhists connect the dots between enlightenment and karma here and now and reincarnation and Nirvana there and then?

And what changes when, say, forks and chairs are used as weapons to harm others? And how are enlightened men and women obligated to treat neighbors?


You see, Biggy, I'm playing the part of a Buddhist here because I want to play your game and see where you go. I figure a traditional mediocre Buddhist would be a relatively innocuous subject that probably fits your mold. And I'm watching how this plays out. Here you seemed to get derailed. We started talking about how I, as a Buddhist, conceptualize the 'I'. I explained the illusory nature of the I based on the Buddhist principle of impermanence. You then replied with "Forget chairs and forks and Ben. The is/ought world revolves instead around choosing behaviors derived from value judgments derived [in my view] from dasein."--presumably because the examples I gave were one's involving physical impermanence. I then explained the abstract aspects of the 'I', which belong squarely in the is/ought realm, receive the same treatment, that they are no less impermanent than chairs, forks, and Ben. Thinking this would keep us on track and get us closer to the heart of the subject (which I figured you were aiming at), you then turned around and suddenly became very interested in talking about chairs, forks, and Ben. <-- What is that?

I'll also note that this is a move I've seen you make more than a few times--when the conversation just starts to get interesting, when we seem to be making progress, you fall back on your general overall agenda, describing in the broadest strokes what it is you're here to do--almost as if the closer we get to an actual example of what it is you're asking for overwhelms you and you have to give your head a shake and start over.

So on this line of discussion, I'd like to keep on topic. We were discussing how the Buddhist conceptualizes the 'I'--the impermanence of it, the illusion of it--and usually this is where you ask for a concrete example of how this conception informs the Buddhist's behavior in situations of conflicting goods and value judgements, and where moral decisions are at stake. Can we carry on from here?

iambiguous wrote:No, suffering itself is still too general.

We need a more specific context. Suppose John is a prison inmate about to be executed for murdering Mary. If the state kills him some of his family and friends and loved ones will suffer. But if he is not executed many who loved Mary will suffer because they believe that he deserves to die.


Excellent predicament. It's almost like a no win situation. There is definitely suffering to be had no matter how you cut it.

Well, I suppose the question is, how do I, as a Buddhist, carry my Buddhist convictions and values over to a situation like this so that I can feel relatively confident that I know the right thing to do? First, I don't think I'd interfere in the affairs of the state. I think John's fate is more or less cealed. Then I would make myself available to anyone involved--on the side of the victim or on the side of the perpetrator, or even John himself--to grieve. I would offer myself as a shoulder to cry on and an ear to listen. And if they asked for advice or insight or consultation, of course I would draw on little morcels of Buddhist wisdom inherited from teachers or scripture or maybe my own life experience if it affords itself. I think I would try to avoid group counciling--at least if the group would be a mix of the families on either side as that, no doubt, would create undue tension--but selecting wisely for time and place, I think offering myself as a person who cares would do more good than harm.

iambiguous wrote:Then I'm back to bringing this "general description intellectual/spiritual contraption" out into the world pertaining to particular conflicting goods in a particular set of circumstances. And the part where Buddhists are able to demonstrate that their own spiritual path is preferable to the "hundreds and hundreds" of other denominations out there who might share the conviction that there is but one truly enlightened path.


I think you might be presupposing that all a religious person ever wants to do--or indeed, anyone who believes in an objective truth--is to push their convictions onto others--either forcefully jamming it down their throats or jumping through logical hoops in an attempt to sound as rational as possible. What if the practice of the religious person was more to do good, to leave the world a better place, rather than to spread their doctrine or to convince as many people as possible that they're right? I gave the example above about what I would do to alleviate a bit of suffering on the part of the families of the victim (Mary) and/or the perpetrator (John), and that doesn't require that I demonstrate to them that the Buddhist path is the one and only true path to follow. It just requires that I be effective, to whatever degree, in alleviating a bit of their suffering. It might lead to an exploration of the Buddhist path and why I believe it is effective, but I leave that up to them to inquire, and I only guide them along the path insofar as they accept it on their own according. I don't think forcing one along the path does anyone any good nor is it an effective approach at all.

But if it's a question of why I think the Buddhist path is the one true path--what kind of rationality and demonstrability I have in my head that keeps me convinced--such that all I'd have to do in response to someone asking to be convinced is poor it out--well, I started offering little bits and pieces of it above (about impermanence) and I could give more--but I'll say right off the bat that I don't believe, nor do I need to believe, in being absolutely certain and 100% right. It's enough for me that my reasons for believing in Buddhism are "good enough", and the rest I chalk up to faith.

iambiguous wrote:The note that I end on -- encompassed in the arguments I make in my signature threads -- merely reflects my own existential contraption here. The manner in which I make a distinction between the Self in the either/or world and the "self" in the is/ought world. And, then, in threads such as this one, in connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then.


Ah, is that what you were doing here:

"But do they get the parts that I suggest instead? Ah, but why on earth would they? An essentially meaningless human existence that ends for all of eternity in oblivion?"

iambiguous wrote:From my perspective, philosophy is not about coming up with something that makes you feel better, but something that seems the most reasonable to you "here and now". Religion just ups the ante by proposing that if you follow down a certain path [their own] you will feel all the better still. And then for all the rest of eternity.

That's basically the assumption I make about any number of reactions to me from the moral and political and spiritual objectivists. They recognize what is at stake for them if, perhaps, the assumptions I make are more reasonable. And on both sides of the grave.

On the other hand, since there are so many more of them than there are of me, I would be a fool not to hear them out. At this point in my life, I have little more to lose and a whole heap to gain if they can convince me to go a little further still down their path.


And we're back to generalities. I suppose in this case it's warranted. We sort of ended this line of discussion on "the note you end on" so back to square one. And of course, I want to know: what's your next move?
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: 9010
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:06 am

gib wrote:[
But if it's a question of why I think the Buddhist path is the one true path--what kind of rationality and demonstrability I have in my head that keeps me convinced--such that all I'd have to do in response to someone asking to be convinced is poor it out--well, I started offering little bits and pieces of it above (about impermanence) and I could give more--but I'll say right off the bat that I don't believe, nor do I need to believe, in being absolutely certain and 100% right. It's enough for me that my reasons for believing in Buddhism are "good enough", and the rest I chalk up to faith.
Or for another Buddhist, making a choice based on experience and whatever evidence they have that Buddhism, participating in it, is a good choice, given that absolute knowledge is not something most people have access to or expect another to produce. Further when I was in the East, I noticed that many, many Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, were NOT viewing their path as the only good or best path and showed respect to other traditions in a variety of ways. The Buddhist you are pretending to be here, may not be one of those, but it is as if everyone who believes in any tradition MUST think it is the only path. My saying this is not to deny that many people, perhaps most religious practitioners believe their path is the best and/or only. Sure. But to just assume this is part of these traditions is a way for someone like Iamb to make it easier to dismiss and also to give his discussion partners even more of a burden to prove. Not just that it might be a rational choice to be a Buddist, but that it is the only one. That ends up being a strawman.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3095
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:32 am

iambiguous wrote:
No, suffering itself is still too general.

We need a more specific context. Suppose John is a prison inmate about to be executed for murdering Mary. If the state kills him some of his family and friends and loved ones will suffer. But if he is not executed many who loved Mary will suffer because they believe that he deserves to die.




Excellent predicament. It's almost like a no win situation. There is definitely suffering to be had no matter how you cut it.
They suffer because they are attached to their desires ... some desiring that John dies and others desiring that John lives.

If they eliminated these attachments, then they would not suffer.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11956
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:48 pm

gib wrote:
You see, Biggy, I'm playing the part of a Buddhist here because I want to play your game and see where you go. I figure a traditional mediocre Buddhist would be a relatively innocuous subject that probably fits your mold. And I'm watching how this plays out. Here you seemed to get derailed. We started talking about how I, as a Buddhist, conceptualize the 'I'. I explained the illusory nature of the I based on the Buddhist principle of impermanence. You then replied with "Forget chairs and forks and Ben. The is/ought world revolves instead around choosing behaviors derived from value judgments derived [in my view] from dasein."--presumably because the examples I gave were one's involving physical impermanence. I then explained the abstract aspects of the 'I', which belong squarely in the is/ought realm, receive the same treatment, that they are no less impermanent than chairs, forks, and Ben. Thinking this would keep us on track and get us closer to the heart of the subject (which I figured you were aiming at), you then turned around and suddenly became very interested in talking about chairs, forks, and Ben. <-- What is that?


The heart of the subject?

Well, I would conjecture that any number of folks around the globe do not consider the existential relationship between "morality here and now" and "immortality there and then" as a "game" at all. Though some approach it as either a "leap of faith" or a "wager".

Over and over and over again, I make it abundantly clear that my own interest in God and religion revolves around this existential relationship. A game though? Sure, if some think so, feel so, say so.

As for distinguishing between chairs and forks and neighbors on this side of the grave and any role they might play in the fate of "I" on the other side of it, I'll just have to keep trudging away at any gap that might exists between Buddhists and myself.

gib wrote:I'll also note that this is a move I've seen you make more than a few times--when the conversation just starts to get interesting, when we seem to be making progress, you fall back on your general overall agenda, describing in the broadest strokes what it is you're here to do--almost as if the closer we get to an actual example of what it is you're asking for overwhelms you and you have to give your head a shake and start over.


A "move"? No, given my own current set of circumstances and my current philosophy of life, I have made no bones about what interest me in regards to religion. If others find the existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then less interesting they should consider steering clear of my posts.

But I won't think the less of them. After all, how could I given the manner in which I construe the "self" here as an "existential contraption", a manifestation of dasein.

gib wrote:So on this line of discussion, I'd like to keep on topic. We were discussing how the Buddhist conceptualizes the 'I'--the impermanence of it, the illusion of it--and usually this is where you ask for a concrete example of how this conception informs the Buddhist's behavior in situations of conflicting goods and value judgements, and where moral decisions are at stake. Can we carry on from here?


If your own focus here is not in the general vicinity of mine, I don't see the point. Unless you can convince me that an understanding of Buddhism should go in another direction. For example, Karpel Tunnel seems ever intent on noting how, in using various techniques embedded in Eastern philosophies, one can learn to more constructively command the mind and body...and make one's day to day existence less stressful and more quiescent.

Fine, for those that pursue this. But that's not my aim here. I have distractions for that.

iambiguous wrote:No, suffering itself is still too general.

We need a more specific context. Suppose John is a prison inmate about to be executed for murdering Mary. If the state kills him some of his family and friends and loved ones will suffer. But if he is not executed many who loved Mary will suffer because they believe that he deserves to die.


gib wrote:Excellent predicament. It's almost like a no win situation. There is definitely suffering to be had no matter how you cut it.

Well, I suppose the question is, how do I, as a Buddhist, carry my Buddhist convictions and values over to a situation like this so that I can feel relatively confident that I know the right thing to do? First, I don't think I'd interfere in the affairs of the state. I think John's fate is more or less cealed. Then I would make myself available to anyone involved--on the side of the victim or on the side of the perpetrator, or even John himself--to grieve. I would offer myself as a shoulder to cry on and an ear to listen. And if they asked for advice or insight or consultation, of course I would draw on little morcels of Buddhist wisdom inherited from teachers or scripture or maybe my own life experience if it affords itself. I think I would try to avoid group counciling--at least if the group would be a mix of the families on either side as that, no doubt, would create undue tension--but selecting wisely for time and place, I think offering myself as a person who cares would do more good than harm.


To me this frame of mind is just one more political prejudice rooted in dasein rooted in the manner in which I pursue the existential trajectory of the "self" on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

In fact, the many different - profoundly problematic -- manifestations of dasein was powerfully explored here: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=179469&p=2359312&hilit=dead+man+walking+directed+sean#p2359312

Basically, it comes down to, "you're right from your side, and I''m right from mine".

And on both sides of the grave?

Then [of course] back to my "thing" in regards to religion:

iambiguous wrote:Then I'm back to bringing this "general description intellectual/spiritual contraption" out into the world pertaining to particular conflicting goods in a particular set of circumstances. And the part where Buddhists are able to demonstrate that their own spiritual path is preferable to the "hundreds and hundreds" of other denominations out there who might share the conviction that there is but one truly enlightened path.


gib wrote: I think you might be presupposing that all a religious person ever wants to do--or indeed, anyone who believes in an objective truth--is to push their convictions onto others--either forcefully jamming it down their throats or jumping through logical hoops in an attempt to sound as rational as possible. What if the practice of the religious person was more to do good, to leave the world a better place, rather than to spread their doctrine or to convince as many people as possible that they're right? I gave the example above about what I would do to alleviate a bit of suffering on the part of the families of the victim (Mary) and/or the perpetrator (John), and that doesn't require that I demonstrate to them that the Buddhist path is the one and only true path to follow. It just requires that I be effective, to whatever degree, in alleviating a bit of their suffering. It might lead to an exploration of the Buddhist path and why I believe it is effective, but I leave that up to them to inquire, and I only guide them along the path insofar as they accept it on their own according. I don't think forcing one along the path does anyone any good nor is it an effective approach at all.


What can I say? What I am "presupposing" is that all men and women who choose to interact with others are going to find themselves confronting conflicting goods given a particular point of view out in a particular world where economic and political power go a long way in establishing behaviors that are either prescribed or proscribed. Now, in regard to morality here and now, "I" am myself "fractured and fragmented". Why? Because, given the assumption that 1] we live in a No God/no religion world and 2] the manner in which I construe human identity as an existential contraption rooted in dasein, it makes sense to think that way. And, in a No God/no religion world as "I" now understand it, oblivion is right around the corner for me.

That -- existentially -- is what preoccupies me. Though, sure, if an others approaches God and religion for different reasons, my own frame of mind might seem considerably less interesting to them.

And that's fine. I'm here to explore how others themselves confront what I construe to be "religion in a nutshell": Morality ---> Immortality.

Thus:

iambiguous wrote:The note that I end on -- encompassed in the arguments I make in my signature threads -- merely reflects my own existential contraption here. The manner in which I make a distinction between the Self in the either/or world and the "self" in the is/ought world. And, then, in threads such as this one, in connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then.


gib wrote:Ah, is that what you were doing here:

"But do they get the parts that I suggest instead? Ah, but why on earth would they? An essentially meaningless human existence that ends for all of eternity in oblivion?"


Yeah, that's part of it. If they can't yank me up out of the hole "I" am in, then maybe "I" can yank them down into it instead. At least I'll have someone able to empathize with me...up to a point.

In trying to understand my "self" here, I often come back to this:

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

Only I recognize that here there countless existential variables that have gone into the making of "I" going all the way back to the womb. Then all the way back to an understanding of existence itself. The unimaginably, staggeringly vast chasm between what I think here and now as an infinitesimally tiny speck of existence and "all there is".

Thus culminating in this frame of mind...

iambiguous wrote:From my perspective, philosophy is not about coming up with something that makes you feel better, but something that seems the most reasonable to you "here and now". Religion just ups the ante by proposing that if you follow down a certain path [their own] you will feel all the better still. And then for all the rest of eternity.

That's basically the assumption I make about any number of reactions to me from the moral and political and spiritual objectivists. They recognize what is at stake for them if, perhaps, the assumptions I make are more reasonable. And on both sides of the grave.

On the other hand, since there are so many more of them than there are of me, I would be a fool not to hear them out. At this point in my life, I have little more to lose and a whole heap to gain if they can convince me to go a little further still down their path.


gib wrote:And we're back to generalities. I suppose in this case it's warranted. We sort of ended this line of discussion on "the note you end on" so back to square one. And of course, I want to know: what's your next move?


All I can do here is to seek out religious/spiritual narratives in which others speak directly to me regarding how they manage themselves to connect the dots between morality and immortality. And how they would then go about demonstrating to me that what they think is true here is in fact true for all reasonable men and women.
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: 36486
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jul 19, 2020 8:15 pm

The Role of Karma in Buddhist Morality
Barbara O’Brien

In his book The Six Perfections: Buddhism and the Cultivation of Character, Dale Wright says that karma is “a way to understand the relationship between moral acts and the kinds of life that they help shape.” In other words, an appreciation of karma is an appreciation of consequences, of cause and effect. The circumstances of our life right now are the result of all the choices we’ve made, all the thoughts and words and actions we have generated.


This book is described as...

"...a lucid, accessible, and inspiring guide to the six perfections--Buddhist teachings about six dimensions of human character that require "perfecting": generosity, morality, tolerance, energy, meditation, and wisdom. " Google Books

And every other religious denomination has their own rendition of this. Yet I'll bet there is little or nothing in the way of a detailed description of particular behaviors in particular contexts such that examples are given of these character traits before and after one comes to subscribe to this rather than that religious agenda. Let alone the dots being connected between these "perfected" traits and the fate of "I" beyond the grave.

Let alone a vigorous demonstration as to why men and women are obligated to choose this path rather than the hundreds and hundreds of others that are more or less arguing the same thing. Instead, the point is basically to provide the path itself. That one follows it is the whole point.

Obviously: if you swallow a scripture hook, line and sinker, then the consequences will necessarily follow. Reality is described in such a way that cause and effect are accepted as ever in sync with the Holy Writ. The classic mentality of the authoritarian personality. It's not what the authorities [God or No God] preach but that the authorities are, in fact, thought to exist.

This appreciation of causality is critical to the Buddhist approach to morality. The Buddha taught his disciples to think and reflect on moral issues and not simply adhere to external rules, and consideration of the karmic effects of an action is central to that reflection. Although the Precepts provide guidance, ultimately the Buddhist practitioner is charged with analyzing his own intentions and motivations and considering possible consequences — and not just to himself — when making moral judgments.


Yes!

This is exactly what I aim to explore here.

You are a Buddhist. So, instead of just accepting the rules of behavior in any given community that you belong to, you reflect deeply on those behaviors you choose in order to determine which would embody as well an enlightened frame of mind. These enlightened behaviors will then engender consequences which over the course of living your life precipitates a karma that assures you better options in regard to reincarnation and Nirvana.

Or does it all unfold differently? In any event, that's my goal in exploring morality here and now and immortality there and then as a Buddhist.

Now, from my frame of mind, the behaviors we choose here are attributed to the manner in which I have come to understand the "self" as an existential contraption rooted in dasein out in a particular world historically, culturally and interpersonally. Given a particular set of circumstances embedded in any particular individual's actual life.
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: 36486
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Mon Jul 20, 2020 11:36 am

In his book The Six Perfections: Buddhism and the Cultivation of Character, Dale Wright says that karma is “a way to understand the relationship between moral acts and the kinds of life that they help shape.” In other words, an appreciation of karma is an appreciation of consequences, of cause and effect. The circumstances of our life right now are the result of all the choices we’ve made, all the thoughts and words and actions we have generated.

"The circumstances of our life right now"

Buddhism/karma is about a person's life right now. It's not about collecting points to be used in an afterlife.

Not this : "These enlightened behaviors will then engender consequences which over the course of living your life precipitates a karma that assures you better options in regard to reincarnation and Nirvana."
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11956
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users