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 iambiguous » Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:06 pm

phyllo wrote:
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."


Okay, what particular person in what particular context out in what particular world understood in what particular way? The part I ascribe to dasein. The existential "I".

You? Me? Others here?

Don't we interact in a world where chosen behaviors often precipitate conflicts rooted in moral and political prejudices? Some anchored in God and religion, others anchored in secular facsimiles?

Isn't "enlightened" one way in which these behaviors are described?

And isn't it just common sense that, among the religious, the behaviors they choose here and now are connected to that which they have come to believe will be the fate of "I" on the other side? How is Buddhism the exception?

Otherwise, to note that "Buddhism/karma is about a person's life right now" is just another classic general description intellectual contraption that tells us nothing at all about any actual flesh and blood human being. Out in a particular world understood in a particular way.

I ask the Buddhists among us to describe in depth the existential relationship between enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana in regard to their own "life right now".

Or, sure, let them just believe what they already do about their "life right now". It is, after all, the belief itself that comforts and consoles them.

Also...

This is from the BBC "Bitesize" website:

'The five moral precepts are:

* to refrain from taking life, ie killing any living creature
* to refrain from taking what is not freely given, ie theft
* to refrain from misuse of the senses or sexual misconduct, ie overindulgence in sex or committing sexual offences
* to refrain from wrong speech, ie lying or gossiping
* to refrain from intoxicants that cloud the mind, ie drugs or alcohol

'Buddhists do not believe in a deity, so the five precepts are suggested ways of living rather than commandments given by a god. A Buddhist must want to behave in a morally good way in order to achieve enlightenment.'


So, for the Buddhists among us, how does this translate into your own behaviors? And what of situations where there are disagreements over which behaviors to refrain from? Conflicting goods as I call them. And do you or do you not connect the dots between the behaviors you choose on this side of the grave, enlightenment, and the fate of "I" on the other side of the grave?

And from the Cake website:

'The way someone acted in a previous life will influence what they reincarnate as. Someone who cultivated positive karma through right actions in life may reincarnate as someone who will enjoy a positive and pleasant life. Negative karma has the opposite effect.'

After all, what other way could religion work? Without making a distinction between behaving this way instead of that, between behaviors you are rewarded for and behaviors you are not, how would someone know what to choose at all?
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: 36474
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:46 am

Still this thread goes on....
not the blind leading the blind
but the blind leading the not interested in learning....

One could point out the parasitical 'interpretation' of Buddhism by outsiders and their projections based on their own biases (which show up in confusing reincarnation with rebirth, for example)

https://www.learnreligions.com/reincarn ... ism-449994

But even there you are dealing with many Buddhisms. So we get a conversation between non-Buddhists with a little knowledge and a person with even less knowledge who cuts and pastes his way to....

no they are not even arguments

they are disingenuous 'questions' framed inside a bunch of assumptions
that he keeps asserting
without the tiniest bit of humilty that should go along with his supposed being influenced by the idea of dasein.

Third parties could learn more listening to beauty pagent contestants in the Personal Interview section.

What is the sound of one troll posting?

What the Buddhists see as the good news about the 'i', he sees as a problem. Fine. But after all this time he can't even notice they share anything in common.

It might as well be a bot you are talking to.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3092
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:22 pm

'The five moral precepts are:

* to refrain from taking life, ie killing any living creature
* to refrain from taking what is not freely given, ie theft
* to refrain from misuse of the senses or sexual misconduct, ie overindulgence in sex or committing sexual offences
* to refrain from wrong speech, ie lying or gossiping
* to refrain from intoxicants that cloud the mind, ie drugs or alcohol
These things slow progress. That's why one is encouraged to refrain.

It's not like one behavior is enlightened and the other behavior is not enlightened. Those are labels that don't apply.
'The way someone acted in a previous life will influence what they reincarnate as. Someone who cultivated positive karma through right actions in life may reincarnate as someone who will enjoy a positive and pleasant life. Negative karma has the opposite effect.'
A "positive and pleasant life" is still a life of suffering. A Buddhist doesn't want a "positive and pleasant life" as a reward. He/she want to end the cycle. When the cycle ends, positive, negative, pleasant and unpleasant disappear.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11956
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:13 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Still this thread goes on....
not the blind leading the blind
but the blind leading the not interested in learning....

One could point out the parasitical 'interpretation' of Buddhism by outsiders and their projections based on their own biases (which show up in confusing reincarnation with rebirth, for example)

https://www.learnreligions.com/reincarn ... ism-449994

But even there you are dealing with many Buddhisms. So we get a conversation between non-Buddhists with a little knowledge and a person with even less knowledge who cuts and pastes his way to....

no they are not even arguments

they are disingenuous 'questions' framed inside a bunch of assumptions
that he keeps asserting
without the tiniest bit of humilty that should go along with his supposed being influenced by the idea of dasein.

Third parties could learn more listening to beauty pagent contestants in the Personal Interview section.

What is the sound of one troll posting?

What the Buddhists see as the good news about the 'i', he sees as a problem. Fine. But after all this time he can't even notice they share anything in common.

It might as well be a bot you are talking to.


We'll need a context of course.
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: 36474
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:25 pm

Well... this not “I” thing is interesting on several levels. Iambiguous uses dreams as an example.

But that’s not actually the best example. Spiritual possessions are the best example.

Life has a strange quirk though. We all have souls.

You see, I know what “non I” people mean:

“I am that”. That’s true. We are all everything. But it’s not the full story, we are also “I am this”. You are also yourself!

Sure... existence gets weird. But you are also always yourself, your “thisness” with all the “thatness”.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10455
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:37 pm

phyllo wrote:
'The five moral precepts are:

* to refrain from taking life, ie killing any living creature
* to refrain from taking what is not freely given, ie theft
* to refrain from misuse of the senses or sexual misconduct, ie overindulgence in sex or committing sexual offences
* to refrain from wrong speech, ie lying or gossiping
* to refrain from intoxicants that cloud the mind, ie drugs or alcohol
These things slow progress. That's why one is encouraged to refrain.

It's not like one behavior is enlightened and the other behavior is not enlightened. Those are labels that don't apply.


Again, another general description intellectual contraption. Slow what progress down in what context? And in particular contexts out in particular worlds historically, culturally and experientially, when flesh and blood human beings interact, behaviors deemed more or less enlightened engender actual consequences that reward and punish these flesh and blood human beings in real time here and now. And, again, religious denominations all have their "scriptures" that do connect the dots between moral/enlightened behaviors here and now and immortality there and then.

It's just that with most "Western" religions this is all embodied in God, in Heaven and Hell, in Judgment Day. "I" continues on as a soul, making contact again with all one's loved ones for all of eternity. What could possibly be more comforting and consoling?

For Buddhists though? I'm still unable to grasp how this all "works" with a No God religion. Somehow it just seems to become part of how the universe itself "works"? Or, rather, what Buddhists have thought themselves into believing "in their head" is how it all "works".

'The way someone acted in a previous life will influence what they reincarnate as. Someone who cultivated positive karma through right actions in life may reincarnate as someone who will enjoy a positive and pleasant life. Negative karma has the opposite effect.'


phyllo wrote:A "positive and pleasant life" is still a life of suffering. A Buddhist doesn't want a "positive and pleasant life" as a reward. He/she want to end the cycle. When the cycle ends, positive, negative, pleasant and unpleasant disappear.


Right. Two completely abstract intellect contraptions reconfigure into two completely abstract spiritual contraptions.

Isn't that what these are?

How does the individual Buddhist reconfigure them as "worlds of words" into the life that they live, confronting the manner in which I construe human interactions here as the embodiment of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Given actual sets of circumstances that meld here and now with there and then.
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: 36474
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:45 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Well... this not “I” thing is interesting on several levels. Iambiguous uses dreams as an example.

But that’s not actually the best example. Spiritual possessions are the best example.

Life has a strange quirk though. We all have souls.

You see, I know what “non I” people mean:

“I am that”. That’s true. We are all everything. But it’s not the full story, we are also “I am this”. You are also yourself!

Sure... existence gets weird. But you are also always yourself, your “thisness” with all the “thatness”.


I'm sorry, but my reaction to your posts are of two kinds:

1]

"I have told you repeatedly that I am of the opinion -- and that is all it is, my own personal opinion -- that you are afflicted with a "condition" that prompts you to post things here at ILP that make absolutely no sense at all. Surreal, bizarre things. You pummel us with all of these assumptions about everything under the sun but you fail to convince me that you are actually able to demonstrate that they are true much beyond you believing that they are.

Something is proven only in the fact of you having posted it."


2]

:scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked:
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: 36474
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:49 pm

Fine by me iambiguous. You see, I have a past as well , where I never had exposure to the spirit world. I know what it’s like to not be exposed to it. I have those memories.

So... I can look at a guy like you and see no fault.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10455
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:54 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Fine by me iambiguous. You see, I have a past as well , where I never had exposure to the spirit world. I know what it’s like to not be exposed to it. I have those memories.

So... I can look at a guy like you and see no fault.


Then we're still friends?
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: 36474
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:01 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Fine by me iambiguous. You see, I have a past as well , where I never had exposure to the spirit world. I know what it’s like to not be exposed to it. I have those memories.

So... I can look at a guy like you and see no fault.


Then we're still friends?


Here’s the thing. You don’t have exposure to the spirit world. Everyone who doesn’t (as much as you may hate this) is actually an innocent.

Now, when you know spiritual things and you say or do something ... that’s some intense shit! It’s a different way of living.

I don’t hate people for not being spiritually awakened.

I wouldn’t wish my life on you.

You do say very interesting things!

I have no ill will towards you. I actually enjoy your posts.

What is friendship if not enjoyment of another?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10455
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:27 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Here’s the thing. You don’t have exposure to the spirit world. Everyone who doesn’t (as much as you may hate this) is actually an innocent.

Now, when you know spiritual things and you say or do something ... that’s some intense shit! It’s a different way of living.

I don’t hate people for not being spiritually awakened.

I wouldn’t wish my life on you.

You do say very interesting things!

I have no ill will towards you. I actually enjoy your posts.

What is friendship if not enjoyment of another?


Friends it is then! :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: 36474
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:36 pm

I’ve become exceptionally tolerant over the years.

I hate winking... it implies exclusive knowledge and is used to assert dominance.

I also hate peace signs... there’s no peace here! It’s another form (like winking) to assert taunting and provocation.

Knowing what sends people to hell has relaxed me substantially ... I almost feel like smirking when someone does these things because I know everyone will eventually be spiritually awakened and I know they’re going to have to regret all those memories or be sent to hell to be forced to regret all those memories.

Sometimes I get furious at people because they don’t know their hells, I dig into them, they think I’m a jerk, what I did to you emotionally doesn’t remotely resemble hell. As I grow wiser,I realize nicer ways to try to explain things. It’s a process to be sure.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10455
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:05 pm

Don't get attached to each other.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11956
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:11 pm

phyllo wrote:Don't get attached to each other.


Not to worry. As a moral objectivist, he hates winking. As a moral ironist, it's all but expected of me. :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: 36474
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:18 pm

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:Don't get attached to each other.


Not to worry. As a moral objectivist, he hates winking. As a moral ironist, it's all but expected of me. :wink:


People get really cocky for their interludes of spiritual protection.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10455
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 22, 2020 6:05 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
People get really cocky for their interludes of spiritual protection.


Cocky?

Just for the record, I'm the one here who has managed to think himself into believing that what he does think, feel, say and do is just another manifestation of "I" as an existential contraption rooted in dasein. "I" embedded in an essentially meaningless world edging closer and closer to the abyss that is oblivion.

I don't even know for sure if I am not compelled by the immutable laws of nature to post this. Let alone the extent to which my understanding of all this is even remotely close to the knowledge it would take to understand my existence in the context of all there is. Going back to the explanation for existence itself.

On the other hand, Ecmandu strikes me as among the least "fractured and fragmented" posters here. Ever and always he is haranguing us with all that he claims to know is true about...everything?

I'm just ever curious about the extent to which he has come to embody a mental "condition" that propels what "I" construe to be these fierce flights of fancy in his brain. After all, there are so many of them. People come to believe all sorts of things. Some hear voices, some hallucinate, some think they are somebody else...some historical figure perhaps. There are so many different ways in which chemically, neurologically our brains propel us to think, feel, say and do things that, in many crucial respects, really are "beyond our control". I'm certainly no exception.
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: 36474
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby gib » Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:41 am

iambiguous wrote: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".

Don't make this out to seem like you're doing anything remotely as virtuous. What you're doing--"here and now"--is a game.

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.

Oh, it's a game for sure... as much as any philosophical debate can be.

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.


What does "trudging away" consist of? I don't really see any sincere effort on your part to really close the gap, more of an attempt to keep discussions like this within the parameters of your game. Hence, my question "What is that?" Hence, why none of the above answers it.

iambiguous wrote: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.


You certainly haven't made any bones about it. I just think it's all a bit disingenuous.

iambiguous wrote:If your own focus here is not in the general vicinity of mine, I don't see the point.


But that's just the thing. My whole aim here is to try to align my interests squarely with yours. I'm trying to play your game. With anyone else on this board, I've never had any trouble staying on topic and making progress. Only with you have I repeatedly experienced minimal progress conforming to your own agenda before you bring the discussion back to vague generalities.

iambiguous wrote: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.


And are you saying you have a similar reaction to what I said about Buddhism and its take on the 'I'?

iambiguous wrote: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


Yes, this is generally how it ends with you. But this is precisely what I want to understand. Do you consider this a failed attempt at bridging the many gaps you aim to close (between one's beliefs and moral behaviors, between what we do "here and now" and the fate of the 'I' "there and then", between what we think we know and all there is to know, etc.)? Do you consider this closure on your inquiries (as in: ah, I finally understand what gib believes, though it's still just another existential contraption)? Is it your way of saying "Not good enough; try again"--as if to insist that all responses from those with whom you engage must fit the mold you expect of such responses? Is it something you *could* persue further if you felt so inclined, or is there literally nothing you can do with this insofar as your agenda is concerned?

iambiguous wrote: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.


And what do you want people to do with this scenario? Are you trying to extract how they think they would handle such a situation? How they would resolve it once and for all? What they think is the "right" thing to do? What kind of a response would satisfy Biggy here?

As an aside, I must say that you make it out to seem like high stakes interactions like what you describe are not only inevitable and commonplace, but fatally irresolvable. But I think the scenario you describe is actually a rare occurence. Sure we live in a world where people disagree on all manner of important issues, and indeed the stakes do get high, enough to sometimes resort to violence and war, but I personally find this kind of experience extremely rare. Maybe if I were living in a different part of the world, and I felt my convictions were worth standing up for in the face of incredibly dangerous opposition, but to say that "all men and women who choose to interact with others are going to find themselves confronting conflicting goods..." seems a bit hyperbolic, at least for most people here.

iambiguous wrote: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.


This seems a bit more honest, but I think you left out the aspect wanting to challenge others.

iambiguous wrote:
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.


So essentially, you'd move on.
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: 9009
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:51 pm

Gib wrote:
But that's just the thing. My whole aim here is to try to align my interests squarely with yours. I'm trying to play your game. With anyone else on this board, I've never had any trouble staying on topic and making progress. Only with you have I repeatedly experienced minimal progress conforming to your own agenda before you bring the discussion back to vague generalities.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3092
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:40 pm

The word 'progress' was used and that never goes over well with Biggus. You know 'progress' is in your head, it's whatever you want to think it is. :lol:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11956
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jul 24, 2020 7:06 pm

iambiguous wrote: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".


gib wrote: Don't make this out to seem like you're doing anything remotely as virtuous. What you're doing--"here and now"--is a game.


Well, if you say so. But there are still millions upon millions of actual flesh and blood human beings around the globe who see the behaviors they choose "here and now" and the fate of their soul "there and then" as anything but a game. And not just in the theocracies.

Now, my own aim on this thread is to explore the Buddhist rendition of it. Buddhists here will either go there or they won't. Though, again, I'll admit that my motivation here is, at least in part, embedded in my own murky understanding of 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."

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.


gib wrote: Oh, it's a game for sure... as much as any philosophical debate can be.


Okay, whatever that means. Though what are the odds it will mean the same thing for both of us? For me, philosophy is as much about what we seem unable to understand as what we can and do. Mostly regarding "I" in the is/ought world. And "I" going back to a complete understanding of existence itself. Though for some here these seem to be trivial pursuits.

If I do say so myself.

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: What does "trudging away" consist of? I don't really see any sincere effort on your part to really close the gap, more of an attempt to keep discussions like this within the parameters of your game. Hence, my question "What is that?" Hence, why none of the above answers it.


What else could it mean given the gap between what any of us think we know about all of this and all that there is to be known? I mean, come on, please, what would a "sincere effort" consist of here? All I can do is to note the conclusions that I have come to "here and now" in my signature threads and then connect the dots between them, morality here and now and immortality there and then.

iambiguous wrote: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.


gib wrote: You certainly haven't made any bones about it. I just think it's all a bit disingenuous.


Given the fact that 1] we all have to confront conflicting goods on this side of the grave and 2] that the spiritual/religious among us connect the dots here to one or another ecclesiastical scripture anchored to one or another rendition of "I" on the other side, what would the least disingenuous approach to this be?

What is your own? Given a particular context.

iambiguous wrote:If your own focus here is not in the general vicinity of mine, I don't see the point.


gib wrote: But that's just the thing. My whole aim here is to try to align my interests squarely with yours. I'm trying to play your game. With anyone else on this board, I've never had any trouble staying on topic and making progress. Only with you have I repeatedly experienced minimal progress conforming to your own agenda before you bring the discussion back to vague generalities.


Again, this is an intellectual contraption.

Choose a particular context that will be recognizable by most of us here. A set of circumstances in which mere mortals connect the dots between morality/enlightenment here and now and one's fate there and then.

What in this discussion would constitute "progress"?

iambiguous wrote: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.


gib wrote: And are you saying you have a similar reaction to what I said about Buddhism and its take on the 'I'?


What are you and others saying about Buddhism in regard to the existential relationship between enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana --- as this pertains to the lives that they live from day to day?

iambiguous wrote: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


gib wrote: Yes, this is generally how it ends with you. But this is precisely what I want to understand. Do you consider this a failed attempt at bridging the many gaps you aim to close (between one's beliefs and moral behaviors, between what we do "here and now" and the fate of the 'I' "there and then", between what we think we know and all there is to know, etc.)? Do you consider this closure on your inquiries (as in: ah, I finally understand what gib believes, though it's still just another existential contraption)? Is it your way of saying "Not good enough; try again"--as if to insist that all responses from those with whom you engage must fit the mold you expect of such responses? Is it something you *could* persue further if you felt so inclined, or is there literally nothing you can do with this insofar as your agenda is concerned?


Again, let's bring this "general description intellectual contraption" down to earth. You choose the context. Then with more specificity you can note all the instances in which the points you raise here about me become clearer.

iambiguous wrote: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.


gib wrote: And what do you want people to do with this scenario? Are you trying to extract how they think they would handle such a situation? How they would resolve it once and for all? What they think is the "right" thing to do? What kind of a response would satisfy Biggy here?


The distinction I always come back to here is the manner in which "I" as a moral nihilist have come to understand human interactions when confronting conflicting goods as dasein out in a particular political economy, and the objectivists -- God or No God -- who insist that the manner in which they have come to understand it is in turn obligatory for all others who wish to think of themselves as rational and virtuous human beings. A further distinction here being those who insist that if one chooses to live one's life in accordance with rational and ethical and enlightened truths, they will be rewarded on the other side given one or another religious dogma.

But, again, it's straight back up into the clouds of abstraction:

gib wrote: As an aside, I must say that you make it out to seem like high stakes interactions like what you describe are not only inevitable and commonplace, but fatally irresolvable. But I think the scenario you describe is actually a rare occurence. Sure we live in a world where people disagree on all manner of important issues, and indeed the stakes do get high, enough to sometimes resort to violence and war, but I personally find this kind of experience extremely rare. Maybe if I were living in a different part of the world, and I felt my convictions were worth standing up for in the face of incredibly dangerous opposition, but to say that "all men and women who choose to interact with others are going to find themselves confronting conflicting goods..." seems a bit hyperbolic, at least for most people here.


What on earth are you talking about here? Note an example of what you construe to be behaviors in which moral and political value judgments come into conflict. Reconfigure your words into this discussion.

Just follow the news. You want conflicting goods? How about the coronavirus, the economic crisis, the social unrest? Hundreds and hundreds of issues in which both religious and nonreligious objectivists are hell bent on yanking everyone else onto their own "side". And then the nihilists who own and operate the global economy. What of their "convictions"?

Hyperbolic? What planet are you living on?

iambiguous wrote: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.


gib wrote: This seems a bit more honest, but I think you left out the aspect wanting to challenge others.


Challenging others is all there is if I have any chance at all of being yanked up out of the brutally grim hole that I have thought myself down into. Only I suspect the more others become queasy about me yanking them down into it instead, the more they react by making me the issue instead.

Like, say, my "three stooges" here. :wink:

So, are you going to become the 4th? :o
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: 36474
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jul 24, 2020 7:07 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Gib wrote:
But that's just the thing. My whole aim here is to try to align my interests squarely with yours. I'm trying to play your game. With anyone else on this board, I've never had any trouble staying on topic and making progress. Only with you have I repeatedly experienced minimal progress conforming to your own agenda before you bring the discussion back to vague generalities.


We'll need a context of course.
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: 36474
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jul 24, 2020 7:20 pm

phyllo wrote:The word 'progress' was used and that never goes over well with Biggus. You know 'progress' is in your head, it's whatever you want to think it is. :lol:


On the contrary, if the discussion revolved around whether Communism or Capitalism best reflected "human nature", my argument would suggest that any particular individual's answer would be rooted in how I construe "I" here to be an existential contraption rooted in dasein; rather than in anything philosophers or ethicists or political scientists can conclude about it.

As for "progress", that's easy. For the moral and political objectivists among us -- all up and down the ideological spectrum -- progress would revolve solely around the extent to which you agreed with them.

So, let's go back to the points we discussed about Communism on earlier threads.

Let's see if one of us is now better able to pin down that which would encompass progress here.
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: 36474
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Sat Jul 25, 2020 4:05 pm

'Progress' would be pursuing points of mutual interest, dropping points which are not interesting, agreeing on points, conceding points to the other person, reaching new conclusions based on the ideas that come out in the discussion, movement on to new points ...
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11956
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby gib » Sat Jul 25, 2020 6:13 pm

iambiguous wrote:Well, if you say so. But there are still millions upon millions of actual flesh and blood human beings around the globe who see the behaviors they choose "here and now" and the fate of their soul "there and then" as anything but a game. And not just in the theocracies.


Sure. But since I'm not talking to them, that's irrelevant.

iambiguous wrote:Okay, whatever that means. Though what are the odds it will mean the same thing for both of us? For me, philosophy is as much about what we seem unable to understand as what we can and do. Mostly regarding "I" in the is/ought world. And "I" going back to a complete understanding of existence itself. Though for some here these seem to be trivial pursuits.


Yes, you've made that abundantly clear. Given that description, you wouldn't call it a game. I do. I see philosophy, or at least debate, as competition--competition between two contenders over their conflicting views--each one making moves and counter-moves with the goal of "winning"--if not in the eyes of each other then in the eyes of other readers.

iambiguous wrote:What else could it mean given the gap between what any of us think we know about all of this and all that there is to be known? I mean, come on, please, what would a "sincere effort" consist of here?


For starters, stop being so resistant to the offers of help and suggested solutions to the gap problem that others here bring to the discussion. This is what I'm calling disingenuous. You say you're trying to close the gap, but I think the impossibility of this task is precisely your point in all your posts, and you're trying to demonstrate this by challenging others to make the attempt--dressing it up as a plea for help--and then putting every effort into tearing apart and rejecting those attempts with response like "well, that to me is just another intellectual contraption".

iambiguous wrote:Given the fact that 1] we all have to confront conflicting goods on this side of the grave and 2] that the spiritual/religious among us connect the dots here to one or another ecclesiastical scripture anchored to one or another rendition of "I" on the other side, what would the least disingenuous approach to this be?


^ Similar response to this. A more "ingenuous" approach would be to be more honest about your true motives. I don't think you're simply trying to connect those dots the same as everyone else--as if once you've made the connection, you could save the world by offering it to all those seekers--but an attempt to prove that it cannot be done. I think your motive runs opposite to trying to connect the dots, but to dismantle any attempt by others to do so.

iambiguous wrote:What is your own? Given a particular context.


What? My least disingenuous approach to 1) and 2) above? I live a relatively peaceful lifestyle and engage with people with whom any "conflicting goods" (whatever that means) are minimal and trivial. (This is why I described your earlier statement on this front as hyperbolic--though I know for many others it's not.) I don't feel a pressing urgency to deal with 1) all that much. I feel like I'm lucky enough to have a life and live in a place in the world where 1) more or less deals with itself. As for 2), I have my beliefs about the afterlife, but again, I don't feel this is a pressing urgency that demands a kind of rigorous and serious approach. I don't even feel I have to justify it with flawless logic and objective demonstration. It just sort of sits there in my mind as what I currently believe for the moment.

I'll give you a particular context if you want, but we already tried that with my Buddhist persona, and that seemed to lead nowhere. I'd prefer to resume that than start a new one with respect to my approach to 1) and 2).

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:If your own focus here is not in the general vicinity of mine, I don't see the point.

gib wrote:But that's just the thing. My whole aim here is to try to align my interests squarely with yours. I'm trying to play your game. With anyone else on this board, I've never had any trouble staying on topic and making progress. Only with you have I repeatedly experienced minimal progress conforming to your own agenda before you bring the discussion back to vague generalities.

Again, this is an intellectual contraption.


So if my interests don't align with yours, you don't see the point in pursuing the discussion further, but if they do, it's just another intellectual contraption? Is there space here for a win?

iambiguous wrote:Choose a particular context that will be recognizable by most of us here. A set of circumstances in which mere mortals connect the dots between morality/enlightenment here and now and one's fate there and then.

What in this discussion would constitute "progress"?


Well, let's resume where we left off with the Buddhist scenario. You gave the context--a murderer on death row--how do I as a Buddhist alleviate the suffering involved in this scenario when it seems the alleviation of each party's suffering is mutually exclusive with the other's? My response wasn't so much to address how I would alleviate everyone involved's suffering but to do what I can (as a Buddhist) to offer a bit of alleviation to whichever party is willing to lean on me for such alleviation--regardless of which party that is--the only caveat being I don't think it would be a good idea to engage both parties at the same time. I'm not a perfect person (whether as this phony Buddhist I'm pretending to be or IRL) and I can't resolve the grand scale problems you seem to be interested in--but I can do whatever's in my power to move a bit closer.

Admittedly, this focus on a particular scenario seems to lose focus on the broader question you asked--morality/enlightenment here and now and one's fate there and then--but maybe that's the problem with particular contexts--being particular means coming down from the vagueries of abstract generalities. Nonetheless, I feel we can still connect this particular scenario with the other points you asked about if we give it a chance at least for a few iterations.

^ A few more iterations and a response from you that shows me you're sticking to your claimed agenda is what I would call progress.

iambiguous wrote:What are you and others saying about Buddhism in regard to the existential relationship between enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana --- as this pertains to the lives that they live from day to day?


I actually answered this question in several places above. I prefer not to find the quotes and paste them here (I'm lazy) but you know we've gone into very specific details about what I'm saying about Buddhism in regards to [yada yada yada]. Not that you're obligated to understand them, but you could reference specific things I've said and ask what I meant by those.

iambiguous wrote:Again, let's bring this "general description intellectual contraption" down to earth. You choose the context. Then with more specificity you can note all the instances in which the points you raise here about me become clearer.


I didn't raise any points about you. I asked a series of questions (which you're not answering <-- a lack of progress). I'm trying to understand what it means to you when you say things like "that's just another intellectual contraption" or "well, if that's what you believe in your head, I guess that works for you; as for me however [yada yada nihilism yada meaninglessness yada other side of the grave etc]." Does it meet your goals? Does it frustrate them? Does it confuse you? Is it just a comment on where we are in conversation? I don't even understand what it means to bring these questions into a particular context, especially given that they come from a particular context--the discussion that invoked them--so why don't you look at that to understand their context?

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:And what do you want people to do with this scenario? Are you trying to extract how they think they would handle such a situation? How they would resolve it once and for all? What they think is the "right" thing to do? What kind of a response would satisfy Biggy here?
The distinction I always come back to here is the manner in which "I" as a moral nihilist have come to understand human interactions when confronting conflicting goods as dasein out in a particular political economy, and the objectivists -- God or No God -- who insist that the manner in which they have come to understand it is in turn obligatory for all others who wish to think of themselves as rational and virtuous human beings. A further distinction here being those who insist that if one chooses to live one's life in accordance with rational and ethical and enlightened truths, they will be rewarded on the other side given one or another religious dogma.


Again, back to vague generalities. ^ I call this a lack of progress because it doesn't answer my question. You're pointing out a couple distinctions you focus on when you ask others for particular contexts, but I'm asking what a response from them would look like such that you get a clear picture of the distinctions you're looking for. You know what would help? If you gave a hypothetical example of what a discussion between you and an objectivist would look like. You pose your questions, and then write a response from a hypothetical objectivist that would satisfy your inquiries.

iambiguous wrote:What on earth are you talking about here? Note an example of what you construe to be behaviors in which moral and political value judgments come into conflict. Reconfigure your words into this discussion.


How 'bout the BLM movement? That's a prime example of moral/political value judgments coming into conflict if there ever was one. My point is that most people on this board (I could be terribly wrong here) typically aren't forced to engage in the thick of the conflicts surrounding the BLM movement on a regular basis (though this movement and others related to it seem to be picking up momentum pretty fast and I'm not sure how much longer most Americans, or even Canadians, can stay out of it).

iambiguous wrote:Just follow the news. You want conflicting goods? How about the coronavirus, the economic crisis, the social unrest? Hundreds and hundreds of issues in which both religious and nonreligious objectivists are hell bent on yanking everyone else onto their own "side". And then the nihilists who own and operate the global economy. What of their "convictions"?


What of their convictions? I assume when you engage others on this board with your questions, the focus is on their convictions. My point was that when you bring up the point about having sooner or later to engage with particular people out in a particular world over particular conflicts [yada yada Biggy-talk yada], you make it out to seem like unless we figure out how to connect the dots once and for all, we're all doomed--doomed--to get pulled into these conflicts with such intensity that we'll have a major crisis on our hands--violence, war, oppression, death, you name it; again, I'm not saying this isn't commonplace throughout the world or throughout history, just not as commonplace amongst most of the members on this board with whom you engage (hence, my describing it as a hyperbole).

iambiguous wrote:Challenging others is all there is if I have any chance at all of being yanked up out of the brutally grim hole that I have thought myself down into. :violin: Only I suspect the more others become queasy about me yanking them down into it instead, the more they react by making me the issue instead.


And rightfully so. When people recognize what you're trying to do (in addition to the points you're making), you are an issue. Not that they have no choices, but they have options on how to react, and making you the issue is one of them. This is different from throwing ad homs when you don't like what another is saying, it's a response to your "disingenuous" posturing.

iambiguous wrote:Like, say, my "three stooges" here. :wink:

So, are you going to become the 4th? :o


Biggy, I would be honored. :D
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: 9009
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby gib » Sat Jul 25, 2020 6:18 pm

phyllo wrote:The word 'progress' was used and that never goes over well with Biggus. You know 'progress' is in your head, it's whatever you want to think it is. :lol:


To tell you the truth, I wasn't 100% sure about that term myself. I'm not sure what I experience with most others here that I don't with Biggy I'd call progress. I just meant most people are able to keep the discussion on track no matter where it goes. So if it starts with questioning the existence of God, it could end with a discussion on the corruption of the health care system. With Biggy, it could start with questioning the existence of God (because that falls within the domain of his interests) but as soon as the conversation moves outside this domain, he loses the ability to focus and returns to his own familiar waters.

The irony is that this seems to happen most notably when you actually give him the particular contexts he asks for.
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: 9009
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users