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 » Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:41 pm

phyllo wrote:
Really, come on, here, what else is there?

We choose words that best describe the life that we live from day to day. Only here they revolve around value judgments that often come into conflict in either a God or a No God world.

Why your words and not mine? All we can do in this regard is the best we know how.

I wrote about the inadequacy of words. As did others. It''s the most recent theme in this thread.


On the contrary, there are any number of contexts in which words are perfectly adequate. For example, out in the either/or world.

phyllo wrote: There is more in life than words. I can't put it into words for you.


One more word then: options. Some of us are living lives in which there are a hell of a lot more options available for going beyond words than other.

On this thread though it still comes down to one's capactity to demonstrate that the options chosen in regard to enlightenment on this side of the grave as that relates to the fate of "I" on the other side of the grave is able to go beyond words and be linked to something [on or offline] that might persuade others to embrace those words and behaviors too.

Or, rather, so it seems to me.

Look, to the extent that someone's frame of mind here provides them with a meaningful life, a font from which to differentiate right from wrong behavior and a belief in one or another rendition of the afterlife, they, uh, win?

I have none of that myself.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

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: 33675
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby gib » Wed Jan 01, 2020 10:00 pm

iambiguous wrote:I forget, how did you escape? :wink:


Gracefully. ;)
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

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: 8896
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Wed Jan 01, 2020 10:00 pm

On the contrary, there are any number of contexts in which words are perfectly adequate. For example, out in the either/or world.
I can think of many examples when words are inadequate even in that world.

But anyways, that's not what we are talking about here.
One more word then: options. Some of us are living lives in which there are a hell of a lot more options available for going beyond words than other.
Ironically, the option of direct experience does not end unless you are comatose. Certainly not when it comes to enlightenment.

I get that maybe you can't go skiing or scuba diving or something else which would require you to leave your apartment.
On this thread though it still comes down to one's capactity to demonstrate that the options chosen in regard to enlightenment on this side of the grave as that relates to the fate of "I" on the other side of the grave is able to go beyond words and be linked to something [on or offline] that might persuade others to embrace those words and behaviors too.

Or, rather, so it seems to me.

Look, to the extent that someone's frame of mind here provides them with a meaningful life, a font from which to differentiate right from wrong behavior and a belief in one or another rendition of the afterlife, they, uh, win?
And back to the words.

Win, lose, meaningful, meaningless, right, wrong ... all words that can potentially drop away. That's what oneness refers to - the state without words.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11514
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jan 01, 2020 10:57 pm

gib wrote:
iambiguous wrote:I forget, how did you escape? :wink:


Gracefully. ;)


If you do say so yourself? :wink:
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

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: 33675
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Jan 02, 2020 2:16 pm

On this thread though it still comes down to one's capactity to demonstrate that the options chosen in regard to enlightenment .....
See, this is just crap. He is telling everyone what 'it' comes down to. Rather than taking responsibility for what he wants to focus on. it may come down to what he says for him, but he uses this kind of neo-passive voice formulation as if there is some universal same for everyone process and need.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Jan 02, 2020 2:21 pm

gib wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:And just to be clear. I think Iamb is toxic to have a 'dialogue' with Iamb - I put that in quotes because I don't think that is possible. But it can be interesting and perhaps useful to react to what he is doing and to some of his implicit positions.


I can attest to that. My experience is that of being pulled into a web from which it is extremely difficult to escape. As long as you know how to escape, a ride with Biggy can be fun.


All one has to do is just not respond, drop out. To NOT feel compelled by contraptions (lol) such as...

one should always respond to assertions and arguments
just around the next corner any reasonable mind must at least notice X
one can't just allow ludicrous statements to stand

etc.

iow a bunch of ideas about what one should do and what it means if one does not do something in response to repetitive, but only seemingly rational responses that in general do not response to points made.

He's not actually rational, there is no obligation to respond or even take him seriously - as in take his responses as serious responses to one's own posts. He is a singular example of a few serious and problematic patterns out there in the world.

But his 'responses' are not responses.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jan 02, 2020 8:24 pm

phyllo wrote:
On the contrary, there are any number of contexts in which words are perfectly adequate. For example, out in the either/or world.
I can think of many examples when words are inadequate even in that world.


Okay, you get up in the morning and you start to do things. Cite some examples of the things that you do in the either/or world -- get dressed, brush your teeth, eat breakfast, drive to work etc. -- in which the words describing your behaviors would be inadeqate to the rest of us?

Or, if they were inadequate given that you do something that another is unfamiliar with, couldn't they be made adequate once the other understood what you were doing?

Again, the gap between agreeing about what it means to eat bacon for breakfast, and agreeing about whether that is a moral or immoral behavior from the perspective of, say, pig farmers or PETA.

phyllo wrote: But anyways, that's not what we are talking about here.


On the contrary, with respect to understanding Buddhism, and accepting the meaning that they give to particular words placed in a particular order, that's always what I am talking about: words expressing things and relationships that all rational men and women are obligated to share, and words rooted in existential contraptions rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.

One more word then: options. Some of us are living lives in which there are a hell of a lot more options available for going beyond words than other.


phyllo wrote: Ironically, the option of direct experience does not end unless you are comatose. Certainly not when it comes to enlightenment.


Right, like it's either being comatose or dead, or everyone has access to the options needed to be among the Enlightened. To become "one of us". Like all of my arguments above just vanish into thin air. In the particular the one where there are hundreds "spiritual paths" out and one by one you are obligated to try them all. Or, rather, I am, not you. Why? Because you already embody the comfort and consolation you need to do the right thing here and now to gain your just reward there and then.

On this thread though it still comes down to one's capacity to demonstrate that the options chosen in regard to enlightenment on this side of the grave as that relates to the fate of "I" on the other side of the grave is able to go beyond words and be linked to something [on or offline] that might persuade others to embrace those words and behaviors too.

Or, rather, so it seems to me.

Look, to the extent that someone's frame of mind here provides them with a meaningful life, a font from which to differentiate right from wrong behavior and a belief in one or another rendition of the afterlife, they, uh, win?


phyllo wrote: And back to the words.

Win, lose, meaningful, meaningless, right, wrong ... all words that can potentially drop away. That's what oneness refers to - the state without words.


Huh? Each individual lives in a particular world understood in a particular way. They either embody the peace of mind that comes from seeing themselves as enlightened or chosen and on the path to immortality and salvation or they don't. If they do, they are either willing and able to demonstrate why and how others should choose their own path in turn, or they aren't.

They either back their words up or they don't. But since merely believing their words mean what they think they do in their head is enough why push their luck, right?

After all, in discussions with people like me, they risk losing their peace of mind once they begin to understand how beliefs of this sort may well be but existential contraptions rooted in dasein.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

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: 33675
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Thu Jan 02, 2020 9:09 pm

Okay, you get up in the morning and you start to do things. Cite some examples of the things that you do in the either/or world -- get dressed, brush your teeth, eat breakfast, drive to work etc. -- in which the words describing your behaviors would be inadeqate to the rest of us?

Or, if they were inadequate given that you do something that another is unfamiliar with, couldn't they be made adequate once the other understood what you were doing?

Again, the gap between agreeing about what it means to eat bacon for breakfast, and agreeing about whether that is a moral or immoral behavior from the perspective of, say, pig farmers or PETA.
So you have decided that it's possible to adequately explain eating bacon for breakfast but it's impossible to adequately explain the morality of eating bacon for breakfast.

You just maintain that arbitrary division.

But anyways, that's not what we are talking about here.
But anyways, that's not what we are talking about here.
On the contrary, with respect to understanding Buddhism, and accepting the meaning that they give to particular words placed in a particular order, that's always what I am talking about: words expressing things and relationships that all rational men and women are obligated to share, and words rooted in existential contraptions rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.
So when I try to keep clear of the either/or world, you feel a need to contradict. #-o
Right, like it's either being comatose or dead, or everyone has access to the options needed to be among the Enlightened. To become "one of us". Like all of my arguments above just vanish into thin air. In the particular the one where there are hundreds "spiritual paths" out and one by one you are obligated to try them all. Or, rather, I am, not you. Why? Because you already embody the comfort and consolation you need to do the right thing here and now to gain your just reward there and then.
I'm saying that you have the option to go for enlightenment and you insist that you don't.

I'm saying that you are not obligated to try every spiritual path and you insist that you are.

I never claimed that I am enlightened. Or that I am getting any reward.

I have no idea why you are saying these things. :-?
Huh? Each individual lives in a particular world understood in a particular way. They either embody the peace of mind that comes from seeing themselves as enlightened or chosen and on the path to immortality and salvation or they don't. If they do, they are either willing and able to demonstrate why and how others should choose their own path in turn, or they aren't.

They either back their words up or they don't. But since merely believing their words mean what they think they do in their head is enough why push their luck, right?

After all, in discussions with people like me, they risk losing their peace of mind once they begin to understand how beliefs of this sort may well be but existential contraptions rooted in dasein.
The proof is in the pudding, not in words that describe the pudding.

You have to eat the pudding.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11514
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jan 02, 2020 9:18 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
On this thread though it still comes down to one's capacity to demonstrate that the options chosen in regard to enlightenment .....
See, this is just crap. He is telling everyone what 'it' comes down to. Rather than taking responsibility for what he wants to focus on. it may come down to what he says for him, but he uses this kind of neo-passive voice formulation as if there is some universal same for everyone process and need.

You are a Buddhist. And, insofar as you have come to understand what it means to be a Buddhist, this impacts on the behaviors that you choose on this side of the grave. And in turn this impacts on what you imagine your fate to be on the other side of the grave.

For some, religion in a nutshell.

You bump into people who choose behaviors in conflict with the ones that you do. For any number of personal reasons rooted existentially in the life that they have lived.

What is to be done? And isn't that often what it does come down to? Now, sure, you can live in a cloistered community in which everyone is in sync with a particular assessment of enlightened behavior. And maybe you will be fortunate enough to go to the grave and never be challenged by those in other communities.

After all, there are in fact existing communities in existing nations where Buddhism is the predominant religious narrative. And I don't doubt that there my own arguments will have little impact.

But: My own interests revolve more around communities in the modern world in which there are many conflicting moral and religious narratives precipitating many conflicting political agendas regarding behaviors either to be prescribed or proscribed. And of those who come into venues like this one and are prepared to defend certain behaviors as either rational or irrational, ethical or unethical. Using the tools available to philosophers.

What else is there in these contexts but to probe the extent to which what you believe in your head is able to be demonstrated to others as that which they are obligated to believe in turn. Whether in regard to the "self" to "karma" to "enlightenment" to "reincarnation" to "Nirvana". After all, in regard to religion there is no getting around how big the stakes are here.

Again, let's focus in on a situation in which Buddhists and those who believe in conflicting religious or secular assessments of good and bad behavior, describe in more detail what they mean by using "this kind of neo-passive voice formulation" to defend their own moral narratives.

Let him choose the context.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

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: 33675
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Jan 02, 2020 10:12 pm

They either embody the peace of mind that comes from seeing themselves as enlightened or chosen and on the path to immortality and salvation or they don't.
Ludicrously binary. And why does one frame an issue like this as utterly binary. 0 or 1. What benefits does one get from framing an non-binary issue as utterly binary? I can think of a few, but there's one obvious one.

You talk about the is world and that parts of it can be hard to describe in words.

How does he describe that category?

as things like...

get dressed, brush your teeth, eat breakfast, drive to work etc
activities, at a general level, that one could put in a children's book. Not anything from intra- and interpersonal realms, for example. IOW he stacked the deck as if what you had said was silly. Then came up with extremely limited, abstracted physical behaviors. Though of course even these can be hard to communicate across cultures and personalities, especially if there is emotion involved. He treated the is world as a world of robots with no subjective experience. As if all the is world that we experience would be exactly the same if carried out by robots.

And all this effort to demand a perfect demonstration so he never has to try anything. IOW he wants to drag us into his unbelievably convoluted and universalized justification for giving up.

If not worse, perhaps he wants to convince people they should also give up.

I mean seriously, can't you see the teenager lying in bed saying there is no point in going to school - because of peak oil or the widening wage gap or global warming - and suddenly showing some cleverness with abstract concepts, all with the goal of not doing anything?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Arcturus Descending » Fri Jan 03, 2020 4:24 pm

gib wrote:Case in point: when I was younger, doing drugs, a part of me thought I had achieved enlightenment. Now I look back on that and laugh. But how is one to know? What is enlightenment supposed to feel like?


Perhaps it is less about feelings and more about a sudden realization of something like an epiphany of sorts.

Do enlightened people actually go in search of enlightenment in the same way that children will chase after a butterfly to capture it?

Etymology of enlightenment

The word enlightened comes from the Latin prefix en meaning "in, into" and the word lux meaning "light." Combine these meanings — "into the light" — and you're describing what it is that characterizes an enlightened person: a sense of clarity and understanding.


enlighten (v.)
late 14c., "to remove the dimness or blindness" (usually figurative, from one's eyes or heart); see en- (1) + lighten. From 1660s as "supply with intellectual light." Literal senses are later and less common in English: "put light in" is from 1580s; "shed light upon" is from 1610s. Related: Enlightened; enlightening. Old English had inlihtan "to illuminate, enlighten."


So, is it supposed to be based on feeling?
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15640
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:10 pm

phyllo wrote: So you have decided that it's possible to adequately explain eating bacon for breakfast but it's impossible to adequately explain the morality of eating bacon for breakfast.


Again, if your reaction to my points are deemed as obtuse by you as my reaction to your points are deemed obtuse by me...

If John says he ate strips of bacon for breakfast, how many of us here would not understand what he means?

As for the morality of eating bacon, over and over and over and over again I note the distinction between the arguments of those who react to the consumption of animal flesh by positing conflicting goods derived [in my view] from dasein.

In other words, it's not that they are unable to adequately explain their reasons for either eating or not eating bacon, but that they start with different assumptions regarding the moral relationship between people and pigs. One is right from her side, the other from his.

To wit: https://vegetarian.procon.org/

My point is only that there does not appear to be a way for philosophers to distinguish between right and wrong behaviors here in the same manner in which they can distinguish between eating bacon and eating pancakes.

phyllo wrote: I'm saying that you have the option to go for enlightenment and you insist that you don't.


And I'm saying that like most things of this sort, it will mean different things to different people depending on the actual set of circumstances from which they view their options.

phyllo wrote: I'm saying that you are not obligated to try every spiritual path and you insist that you are.


No, I'm merely pointing out that, with hundreds and hundreds of them out there [religious or otherwise], I feel there is an obligation on their part to first demonstrate to me why their own path is the one true path to enlightenment. And then to immortality and [possibly] salvation.

phyllo wrote: I never claimed that I am enlightened. Or that I am getting any reward.


How can one claim to be a believer in objective morality and not equate that with enlightenment? How can one posit one or another a rendition of God and not connect the dots between that and immortality?

You can either be more or less specific in regard to the behaviors you choose here and now as that relates to what you imagine your fate to be there and then.

Just how much specificity can you communitate to us here?
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

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: 33675
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Jan 04, 2020 1:18 am

Arcturus Descending wrote:
gib wrote:Case in point: when I was younger, doing drugs, a part of me thought I had achieved enlightenment. Now I look back on that and laugh. But how is one to know? What is enlightenment supposed to feel like?


Perhaps it is less about feelings and more about a sudden realization of something like an epiphany of sorts.

Do enlightened people actually go in search of enlightenment in the same way that children will chase after a butterfly to capture it?

Etymology of enlightenment

The word enlightened comes from the Latin prefix en meaning "in, into" and the word lux meaning "light." Combine these meanings — "into the light" — and you're describing what it is that characterizes an enlightened person: a sense of clarity and understanding.


enlighten (v.)
late 14c., "to remove the dimness or blindness" (usually figurative, from one's eyes or heart); see en- (1) + lighten. From 1660s as "supply with intellectual light." Literal senses are later and less common in English: "put light in" is from 1580s; "shed light upon" is from 1610s. Related: Enlightened; enlightening. Old English had inlihtan "to illuminate, enlighten."


So, is it supposed to be based on feeling?
'Enlightenment' is a translation or approximation of words from quite different languages. If we go with Indian Buddhism we are replacing bodhi, which, again of course translating, is to awaken, to wake up. to be woke - to play a bit with modern uses in political areas. But then it can't mean like, being awake. Like you were sleeping and your alarm goes off and, hey, time to get ready for work. So, it's a metaphor. Instead of waking up from normal sleep, everyday being awake is considered analogous to being alseep, so it's waking up from that. Coming out of the illusion, potentially of sleepwalking through life and not really getting it.

But then, what's that like?

Well, if you haven't experienced it, or flashes of it, or anything approaching it, any words that convey it would only convey it to others who have experienced it.

It's not, however, feelings, just, in any case. It includes an idea of understanding. Of having a clearer view of reality.

But that is very abstract.

So, why doesn't everyone just forget the last stage of some process most haven't even dabbled with, and see if the first stages and practices are at all appealing? Or meet some Buddhists, in person, and then meditate with them, have some tea, ask them why they do it. Have they noticed any changes they like?

I mean, you gonna try to understand what its like to share an orgasm with someone you love by asking someone to describe the connection you feel with the other person and what thats like? Or, heck, see if you like somebody enough to hold hands and start there.

Its a kind of byproduct of laziness, of the kinds of verbal not really understand that Buddhism encourages people to downplay, it's mental wanking, it's trying to achieve pseudoknowledge and can't even do that.

What is everyone's addiction non-experiential learning?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:36 am

Arcturus Descending wrote:
gib wrote:Case in point: when I was younger, doing drugs, a part of me thought I had achieved enlightenment. Now I look back on that and laugh. But how is one to know? What is enlightenment supposed to feel like?


Perhaps it is less about feelings and more about a sudden realization of something like an epiphany of sorts.

Do enlightened people actually go in search of enlightenment in the same way that children will chase after a butterfly to capture it?

Etymology of enlightenment

The word enlightened comes from the Latin prefix en meaning "in, into" and the word lux meaning "light." Combine these meanings — "into the light" — and you're describing what it is that characterizes an enlightened person: a sense of clarity and understanding.


enlighten (v.)
late 14c., "to remove the dimness or blindness" (usually figurative, from one's eyes or heart); see en- (1) + lighten. From 1660s as "supply with intellectual light." Literal senses are later and less common in English: "put light in" is from 1580s; "shed light upon" is from 1610s. Related: Enlightened; enlightening. Old English had inlihtan "to illuminate, enlighten."


So, is it supposed to be based on feeling?

"Enlightenment" is process driven something like progressing from kindergarten to a PhD which is supported by all the relevant knowledge, practices and experiences.

Where, those who claimed to have "instant enlightenment" that is pseudo-enlightenment.
    Analogy:
    It would be ridiculous for anyone to claim to be a PhD in Physics - say Quantum Mechanics, out of some instant experience and knowledge.
    Someone may have experiences an altered-state-of-consciousness which may be related to some points in QM, but then the person will still have to read up and understand all the basics of Physics and QM to be considered having a PhD level understanding of the subject.

What is more appropriate is as in Theravada, there are four stages of enlightenment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stag ... ightenment

    4 The four stages of attainment
    4.1 Stream-enterer
    4.2 Once-returner
    4.3 Non-returner
    4.4 Arahant

The other schools of Buddhism also have the same expectation of progress via various stages till 'enlightenment'.

There are certain schools in Buddhism [the sudden-school of Zen] who claimed instant-enlightenment but as stated above, that is pseudo-enlightenment.
This open up opportunity for those mental cases [brain damage, drug takers, etc.] who experienced some sort of extra-ordinary sudden altered-states-of-conscious [no-self, cosmic consciousness, etc.] to claim they are enlightened or are prophet/messengers of God.

One good example of sudden enlightenment, was Muhammad [caravan supervisor] who did not have a religious study background, then suddenly experienced some sort of altered state of conscious. He was terrified by the experiences but other convinced him he was the foretold prophet in the Bible. This is how the religion of Islam started, i.e. from some kind of pseudo-enlightenment.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2767
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Sat Jan 04, 2020 7:15 pm

If John says he ate strips of bacon for breakfast, how many of us here would not understand what he means?
They only understand eating because they have direct experience of eating all their lives. They understand 'breakfast' because they have experience of the phases of the day. (Although this is problematic in regions where the sun does not rise daily.)

The taste of bacon cannot be explained to them in words. They won't understand it unless they eat bacon themselves.
My point is only that there does not appear to be a way for philosophers to distinguish between right and wrong behaviors here in the same manner in which they can distinguish between eating bacon and eating pancakes.
You have made right/wrong really hard and bacon/pancakes really simple.

If a person has never eaten bacon and/or pancakes then his decision to eat one rather than the other, is as problematic as a choice between right or wrong. Both cases show the inadequacy of words and arguments in a similar ways. Or it seems so to me.
And I'm saying that like most things of this sort, it will mean different things to different people depending on the actual set of circumstances from which they view their options.
That merely confirms that you need to try things yourself instead of relying on the words of other people.
No, I'm merely pointing out that, with hundreds and hundreds of them out there [religious or otherwise], I feel there is an obligation on their part to first demonstrate to me why their own path is the one true path to enlightenment. And then to immortality and [possibly] salvation.
And I have pointed out many times that you have an unrealistic and impractical expectation.

You need to try it yourself. There is really no other way.
How can one claim to be a believer in objective morality and not equate that with enlightenment?
That's the way you see it. I don't see a connection.

One can come to all sorts of conclusions without being enlightened.
How can one posit one or another a rendition of God and not connect the dots between that and immortality?
Belief in the existence of God and belief in immortality are entirely separate. There is no reason for the two to go together.
You can either be more or less specific in regard to the behaviors you choose here and now as that relates to what you imagine your fate to be there and then.
It may be entertaining if I talk about it but it's mostly worthless.
Just how much specificity can you communitate to us here?
Honestly, none.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11514
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Jan 05, 2020 11:24 am

phyllo wrote:
If John says he ate strips of bacon for breakfast, how many of us here would not understand what he means?
They only understand eating because they have direct experience of eating all their lives. They understand 'breakfast' because they have experience of the phases of the day. (Although this is problematic in regions where the sun does not rise daily.)

The taste of bacon cannot be explained to them in words. They won't understand it unless they eat bacon themselves.

And if John said he made a friend over breakfast, how many people would think they understand but be wrong, or mostly wrong, and would they ever notice? Is friendship or affection in the 'is' world? Well, yes. But it's no easy to nail down, either experientially or even in terms of measurable behavior.

In his world this either proves that people never make friends - I am sure he would want a scientific study showing that after 5 years they verifiably have positive feelings about each other - or that saying one has a friend is just a 'bunch of words'.

There is no 'i' and there is no 'you' and since we can't measure friendship, the words refers to nothing. It is a contraption. It's all binary. Either friendship is a perfect state that can be tested in the lab and it solves all problems for all rational people on earth, or friendship is just a contraption people use to soothe themselves because in fact they are alone and there is no contact with others. Some people might be fooling themselves that they are friends, so all people are or might be. 100% or 0%.

There is no reason to get out of bed. If you get out of bed you are an objectivist. Unless you do it with the goal of demanding that others show you all rational people should get out of bed.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Sun Jan 05, 2020 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby promethean75 » Sun Jan 05, 2020 12:53 pm

4 The four stages of attainment
4.1 Stream-enterer
4.2 Once-returner
4.3 Non-returner
4.4 Arahant


bollocks! there is no escaping here!

...

perhaps i could give you a gift, yosef. maybe i could give you a thought...
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:27 pm

gib wrote:
To me, Buddhism teases like a "get rich quick" ad campaign. You don't doubt that the guy in the infomercial had a way of getting rich, but you know if you take the path he's offering, you still only stand a chance of 1 in a million of getting to where he is.


I thought I'd tighten the circle by going back to the OP.

The difference between the infomercial get rich quick scheme and Buddhism is that Buddhists tend to be pretty honest about the fact that their process takes a lot of time and effort, that it is simple and mundane...not, here's the yacht you will be driving next year. And it's true that infomercials will only help somepeople.

But when one thinks about those 'some people' I think gib's point is somewhat spot on.

Generally these get rich schemes benefit those with or who can develop a certain kind of attitude. Relentless pursuit, relentless sales, good elbow skills in relation to competition, not worrying about what other people think. Not that it is a guarantee if you are like that, but if you can be like that, you have a much better chance in most of these schemes (if there is any merit in them at all).

Buddhism does not benefit, mostly, those people, that subgroup of 'some people'.

But I think it is more likely to work for those who want what Buddhism has to offer, even in the short and medium term. Control, distance, disidentification, If those things are appealing AND you experience them as pleasant or right or the direction you'd like to head in, well,

that will motivate being a good boy or girl about the practices.

They do work. This is even scientifically demonstrated. The practices lead to measurable changes in how practitioners repond to stress, evaluate their well being and so on. If those are positive changes AND how it feels to be the person or entity you are after some small changes have taken place (that is, early in the process) then you are more likely to be a person that it works for.

Why?

Because you like what is happening which gives you motivation.
Because it works for you.

If you don't feel like the changes are what you want, then you don't have motivation.
If you don't see the changes as working, they you have other goals and likely some other path is better or at least this is not yours.

These things

are

not

universal.

Despite what Siddheartha or Iamb or many practitioners will tell you or imply.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jan 05, 2020 8:26 pm

phyllo wrote:
If John says he ate strips of bacon for breakfast, how many of us here would not understand what he means?
They only understand eating because they have direct experience of eating all their lives. They understand 'breakfast' because they have experience of the phases of the day. (Although this is problematic in regions where the sun does not rise daily.)

The taste of bacon cannot be explained to them in words. They won't understand it unless they eat bacon themselves.


Yes, but no one is insisting we enact laws that reward and punish someone for not tasting bacon the way it ought to taste.

My point is only that there does not appear to be a way for philosophers to distinguish between right and wrong behaviors here in the same manner in which they can distinguish between eating bacon and eating pancakes.


phyllo wrote: You have made right/wrong really hard and bacon/pancakes really simple.


Perhaps because for the overwhelming preponderance of us, it is. Buddhists by and large would seem to avoid bacon. But, as with most things of this sort, it depends on which existential narrative any particular Buddhists adheres to.

Is Nirvana within reach if you chow down on pork? How does karma come into play here? Might you be reincarnated as a pig?

Is there a way in which to finally pin this down?

phyllo wrote: If a person has never eaten bacon and/or pancakes then his decision to eat one rather than the other, is as problematic as a choice between right or wrong. Both cases show the inadequacy of words and arguments in a similar ways. Or it seems so to me.


Again, the moral and political tumult here does not revolve around eating pancakes, but eating bacon. So, what's the reason for that? Let's ask someone from PETA. After all, it's not called "people for the ethical treatment of pancakes". Well, unless, for some, you count the eggs.

As for the rest of it, around and around and around we go.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

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: 33675
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jan 05, 2020 8:35 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
phyllo wrote:
If John says he ate strips of bacon for breakfast, how many of us here would not understand what he means?
They only understand eating because they have direct experience of eating all their lives. They understand 'breakfast' because they have experience of the phases of the day. (Although this is problematic in regions where the sun does not rise daily.)

The taste of bacon cannot be explained to them in words. They won't understand it unless they eat bacon themselves.

And if John said he made a friend over breakfast, how many people would think they understand but be wrong, or mostly wrong, and would they ever notice? Is friendship or affection in the 'is' world? Well, yes. But it's no easy to nail down, either experientially or even in terms of measurable behavior.

In his world this either proves that people never make friends - I am sure he would want a scientific study showing that after 5 years they verifiably have positive feelings about each other - or that saying one has a friend is just a 'bunch of words'.

There is no 'i' and there is no 'you' and since we can't measure friendship, the words refers to nothing. It is a contraption. It's all binary. Either friendship is a perfect state that can be tested in the lab and it solves all problems for all rational people on earth, or friendship is just a contraption people use to soothe themselves because in fact they are alone and there is no contact with others. Some people might be fooling themselves that they are friends, so all people are or might be. 100% or 0%.

There is no reason to get out of bed. If you get out of bed you are an objectivist. Unless you do it with the goal of demanding that others show you all rational people should get out of bed.


Wow, this is approaching the sort of "assessment" one comes to expect from the Kids here!

Oh well, I guess I'll never really know how and why I manage to reduce otherwise very intelligent members here down to this sort intellectual drivel.

You know, if that's what it is. :wink:
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

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: 33675
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:03 pm

I suppose one could put the Buddhism issue like this, for each one of us but I will use Iamb as an example:

You have a certain lifestyle now.
In that lifestyle, all of which is in the 'is world' since it happens and we are not thinking of it in moral terms, part of what you do is to improve things for you.
Buddhism has suggestions for what might improve things for you.
Have you compared the scientific evidence of the TWO approaches, one approach which you do not use at all, and the other that in general takes up your days, and in the specific area of improving things takes up some percentage of time.
Which turned out to seem better from a scientific view?

And, of course, the two approaches - posting here as Iamb does, and meditating say - are not remotely mutually exclusive, so one should also consider, from a scientific 'is' viewpoint, if the combination might be better or worse also. So, there are three direct options. Using posting here to improve things, using Buddhist practices, using a combination.

Others who, for example, don't just go by scientific research might see how meditation felt, or if the goals sounded like goals they wanted. IOW each person can tailor fit my comparison recommendation into their own methods for choosing things.

The main idea is that each person ALREADY has an approach. The question is then, do you want to add Buddhist practice for a while to this or replace your current practices with Buddhist practice, for a bit, for a longer time, see as you go, or for some other more concrete period? Or are you content with your approach to solving the core issues of your life?

One has already chosen an approach.

How does Buddhism compare`?

For me I have quite a lot of experience of Buddhism. It's not for me. The practices are not the ones that I feel help move me in a direction I would like to go. I think there are judgments of portions of myself inherent in Buddhism that I disagree with. My goals are not in line with Buddhism's goals. The option not to participate is obvious for me.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phoneutria » Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:35 pm

cuz we're all too smart and jaded to just have a proper fucking religious epiphany or revelation
we gotta go shopping for one like we're trying on new shoes
cuz walking barefoot is out of fashion, and sometimes it hurts your toesies
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2877
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 07, 2020 7:01 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
For me I have quite a lot of experience of Buddhism. It's not for me. The practices are not the ones that I feel help move me in a direction I would like to go. I think there are judgments of portions of myself inherent in Buddhism that I disagree with. My goals are not in line with Buddhism's goals. The option not to participate is obvious for me.


Okay, cross Buddhism off the list. Try something else. Here in fact is one list of religious/spiritual denominations that folks here can choose to investigate on a trial basis.

One by one try them all?

Christianity (2.1 billion)
Islam (1.3 billion)
Hinduism (900 million)
Chinese traditional religion (394 million)
Buddhism 376 million
Primal-indigenous (300 million)
African traditional and Diasporic (100 million)
Sikhism (23 million)
Juche (19 million)
Spiritism (15 million)
Judaism (14 million)
Bahai (7 million)
Jainism (4.2 million)
Shinto (4 million)
Cao Dai (4 million)
Zoroastrianism (2.6 million)
Tenrikyo (2 million)
Neo-Paganism (1 million)
Unitarian-Universalism (800,000)

Then you can move on to others noted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

Or, if religion isn't the answer, try interacting with folks who embrace secular dogmas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

See if you can find something that is more "you".

Me, what I focus on instead is not what someone claims to believe, but how they came to believe that and not something else -- given the trajectory of experiences they had over the course of living their life.

As for whatever that might be for any particular individual here, I then ask them to note how, given their own religious/secular beliefs, that impacts on why they choose the behaviors that they do on this side of the grave and, if they believe in an after-life, how they are able to demonstrate their beliefs here beyond leaps of faith.

All I ask is that the discussion then shifts to a particular set of circumstances so we can deal with conflicting assessments of right and wrong behavior.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

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: 33675
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:19 pm

phoneutria wrote:cuz we're all too smart and jaded to just have a proper fucking religious epiphany or revelation
IOW you have a set of habits that prevents one from having certain experiences. And probably distracted by newish media, brains abuzz with a lot of abstractions and celebrity news. Much harder to tone down than village gossip.

we gotta go shopping for one like we're trying on new shoes
And since most interesting experiences don't make for good selfies...
cuz walking barefoot is out of fashion, and sometimes it hurts your toesies
softened by civilization and also disinformed by it.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phoneutria » Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:27 pm

you're a pretty good decoder of phoneutrisms
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2877
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users