I don't get Buddhism

Fine. Do that.

But my offer still stands:

Based on my assumption that…

The part that has “fractured and fragmented” my own particular “I”.

With me, it’s less a question of being right or wrong about these relationships and more an effort to explore how, using the tools of philosophy, it can be determined if there is a right and a wrong way to grasp them.

Out in a particular context out in a particular world understood in a particular way. Something that [in my own opinion] you and phyllo and felix avoid like the coronavirus. On this thread for example.

As soon as anyone tries to discuss right and wrong it gets labelled as an existential/intellectual contraption in the head. And that’s the end of that discussion.

It’s like trying to play a hockey game without any agreed rules. A frustrating waste of time.

If you establish “this is what right is like” and “this is what wrong is like”, then you can talk.

Beyond true and false
Buddhist philosophy is full of contradictions. Now modern logic is learning why that might be a good
Graham Priest

Well, which is it? Or is asking that entirely missing the point of being enlightened?

But: How could contemplating one’s fate after death ever really be a waste of time? After all, the time we spend from the cradle to the grave is basically a blink of the eye compared to the eternity to come. In particular when it seems entirely reasonable to connect the dots between living as an enlightened human being on this side of the grave and whatever that portends for “I” in eternity.

From my frame of mind time is wasted instead when your thinking about this never goes much beyond what you believe is true “in your head”. Indeed, why not spend considerably more time contemplating ways in which to demonstrate that what the Buddha noted in his sutras is in fact “the case”.

Why? Because to the best of my knowledge no one ever has. So the focus always comes back to the way in which you think about being enlightened. That can be used to bring about the actual benefits of a disciplined mind. A more contemplative and serene outlook on life.

No small thing of course. But that is just not my own “thing” in regard to religion. I’m more intent on grappling with morality and immortality. What in this regard does it mean to live as an enlightened human being.

And here there is either demonstrable arguments or there are not.

Here we go again. Another “general description intellectual contraption” that tells me absolutely nothing about the things that “I” want to “get” about Buddhism. How, in a particular situation involving behaviors chosen here and now in order to impact one’s thinking about there and then, does one encompass these “empty” things?

For example, If those here who do claim to “get” Buddhism properly contemplate the ongoing global clamor over the coronavirus, how does “emptiness” fit in there? How are all things here to be understood as related to everything else? If no “intrinsic” nature then how is the enlightened man or women to interact with others in a context in which this disease does become a full blown global pandemic?

Okay, so note what you deem to be right and wrong about human behaviors in a particular context. Something new. Something other than Communism and abortion.

That way you can substantiate your claim here by noting when I do these things.

And even with these two “conflicting goods” my point was ever and always to distinguish between what we believe about them and what we are able to demonstrate that all rational and virtuous human beings are obligated to believe in turn.

The historical fact of Communism, the biological/medical fact of abortion. How is that the same or different from our reactions to them embodied in particular moral and political prejudices?

Instead of simply stating : “These are my criteria for right and wrong. Let’s play with those.”

It’s : Phyllo needs to do something for me now.

As usual, the onus is on everyone else and you sit in judgement on them.

Spoiler : Everyone is found lacking.

At least a billion times — right? — I have noted that “here and now” my criteria for right and wrong is rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

While your criterion seems to be rooted in what to me is still an entirely obscure intertwining of objective morality and…God?

And you will either do what I think needs to be done here in order to explore our differences more substantively or you won’t.

If that’s where it’s rooted, then right and wrong can change at any time and for any reason. There is no structure. It’s purely in your mind (and my mind).

There is nothing to discuss because it’s impossible to establish any common ground whether in similarities or differences.

Biggus hockey game:

High sticking is a penalty for Bob but not for John.

Then 30 seconds later, high sticking is not a penalty for anyone. Then 10 seconds later it is a penalty for everyone.

Then the height of the hockey stick that is considered ‘high’ changes.

Then the meaning of hockey stick changes.

Reasons for all that : whatever.

Apply the same logic to every aspect of the game.

Result : chaos.

Any right and wrong there? None whatsoever.

Nobody is going to play this game.

How preposterous!!

Structurally, morality is always rooted genetically and memetically out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially. In some regards, we can all agree on what is in fact true for everyone, but in other regards we cannot. But to speak of moral values changing at anytime for any reason has little to do with the actual human condition down through the ages. People do give reasons for what they do. People on both sides of any particular conflict. And people change their minds for reasons too. It doesn’t just all unfold or happen out of the blue.

That’s why we need to focus in on a particular context: to sort out [to the best of our ability] what can be agreed upon and what cannot.

And, yes, given new experiences, “I” can be radically reconfigured. That’s what troubles the objectivists the most. For example, many want to believe that however dramatically their own reality changes if the coronavirus explodes into a particularly deadly worldwide pandemic, there is still the “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do” that remains intact.

And who knows how each of us as individuals will react if that does become the reality. That’s the part I attribute to dasein. But how likely are we to all agree on what ought to done in order to be deemed rational human beings?

Just look at the complex reactions to the AIDS virus. And imagine those reactions if AIDS had been a far more easily transmitted, air born pathogen.

That’s precisely why I focused in my post above on how Buddhists themselves might react to the coronavirus in their own lives. What does it mean to be enlightened then? When the context that you are in literally revolves around life and death?

Then you should be able to state the underlying structure of right and wrong in society (let’s say Baltimore 2020) without too much difficulty.

Once you do that, we use the tools of philosophy :

Yup.

Let’s look at the nihilistic hockey players.

They’re not trying to change the rules for “no reason”. Their reasons are fairly clear … gain a personal advantage, an advantage for your own team and a disadvantage for the opposing team. (Sure, that’s rational.)

But if every player, coach and spectator is yelling for these changes, then there won’t be much of a game.

The greater underlying “structure” is that all the participants want a game of hockey to be played.

That trumps limited personal desires for an advantage.

It’s decided ahead of time that certain rules will be used to play. They aren’t dropped off by God on stone tablets but they’re objective rules that make the game possible. And they’re founded on what people objectively consider to be fun, fair, challenging, entertaining.

What’s more pathetic, that this is your attempt to actually make a substantive point, or that this is your attempt to be…clever?

Okay, I’m done with this idiot.

Note to others…

If you don’t have anything better to do, please go back and tote up how many times he has been “done” with me. :laughing:

Though, sure, that he has now chosen to depict me as an “idiot” is, well, a disappointment.

You know, if he really means it. :sunglasses:

What an asshole.

In regard to the original concern of the OP… one should spring clean one’s mind, like one does one’s home and life.

Anything else?

It’s a good metaphor. Throw in ‘air the rooms’ now that one can. Of course to practicing Buddhists, then, it is always Spring clearning.

Yeah, I can be an asshole. Particularly [here] when, subjunctively, I come to embody [in any particular post] an ineffable combination of “the polemicist” and however I think 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.

…is applicable to me. After all, I am no less grimly fractured and fragmented in regard to understanding my own self.

But on this thread – on all threads relating to religion – my main objective revolves around grasping the manner in which others are still able to accept one or another assessment of objective morality derived from one or another rendition of God or Enlightenment.

That’s it. And, for others [like KT], how are they not as fractured and fragmented as “I” am given that they too reject objective morality and a transcending moral font.

But: only insofar as the discussion is brought down to earth.

What does that mean? Well, I can only tell you what “here and now” it means to me. How, in other words, it is intertwined existentially in my understanding of human interactions in my signature threads.

Though, sure, by all means, really mean it this time and move on to others. If for no other reason that, these days, I don’t even take your posts seriously.

A hockey game is down to earth.

A hockey game is a context.

A hockey game is an opportunity to examine morality and ethics.

Nuff said.

:chores-mop: