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.
So when I try to keep clear of the either/or world, you feel a need to contradict.
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.
The proof is in the pudding, not in words that describe the pudding.
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.
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…
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?
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?
[b]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.[/b]
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
‘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?
“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.
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.
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.
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.
That merely confirms that you need to try things yourself instead of relying on the words of other people.
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.
That’s the way you see it. I don’t see a connection.
One can come to all sorts of conclusions without being enlightened.
Belief in the existence of God and belief in immortality are entirely separate. There is no reason for the two to go together.
It may be entertaining if I talk about it but it’s mostly worthless.
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.
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.
Yes, but no one is insisting we enact laws that reward and punish someone for not tasting bacon the way it ought to taste.
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?
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.
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.
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
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)
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.
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.
And since most interesting experiences don’t make for good selfies…
softened by civilization and also disinformed by it.
Meditating with Descartes
Karen Parham asks how close Western philosophy gets to Buddhism.
From my frame of mind, whether this meditation relates to either Western or Eastern philosophy, what becomes crucial is not what you meditate about, but the extent to which the conclusions you come to as a result of your meditations are able to actually be demonstrated to others as the conclusion one is obligated to reach as a rational human being.
All the rest, in my view, are just existential leaps of faith to conclusions [rooted in dasein] that comfort and console you psychologically.
I then aim this particular conclusion that I have come to myself in the general direction of conflicting value judgments on this side of the grave and to assessments of an afterlife for “I” on the other side of the grave.
So, sure, practice any “techniques” you wish – Western or Eastern – but why should others believe that the conclusions you have come to through meditation are ones that they should seriously consider in turn?
And you know my reaction to this in turn. To the extent that one’s “theory” is encompassed in a “general description” “world of words” “intellectual contraption” is the extent to which this “peace of mind” need be accepted only “in your head”.
In other words, all you need to do is to “think” and to “feel” that what you believe is true.
Why believe anything that Socrates, Aristotle, Epicurus, Epictetus says? (Or pick any other philosopher.)
You apply it to your life and see if it works.
It works if you get something out of it.
If you are looking for “peace of mind” and you get it from a philosophy then the philosophy works. (At least, it works for you. It may work for others.)
