I don't get Buddhism

Mindfullness is doing something ethical, but that is exactly the point : doing right things , the emphasis on doing " rather then merely in accordance to some thought up truth"

Up in realization the distinction fades.

What is this if not yet another gigantic “general description intellectual contraption.”!!

He left out this part:

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.

How, then, pertaining to a situation we are all likely to be familiar with, in a world of conflicting value judgments, is his own understanding of human interactions in a No God world different?

In other words…

Now, with regard to an issue like abortion, to what extent are your own value judgments understood by you given that at one end of the spectrum are those who, re God, ideology, deontology, enlightenment etc., believe that they are in sync with the real me in sync with the right thing to do. While those at the other end of it [folks like me] see their value judgments as “existential contraptions”…moral and political prejudices rooted in dasein, confronting conflicting goods ultimately “resolved” by those in any particular community who have the political and economic clout to call the shots. Legislatively, say.

and

Thus, taking into account all of those experiences and access to information, knowledge and ideas that you did not encounter. How your life and your thinking about it might have been profoundly different given a different trajectory. And then the part where, in a world of contingency, chance and change, new experiences and ideas can reconfigure “I” again. And then the part where philosophers are able to take that into account in attempting to pin down the optimal or the only rational thinking and feeling and behaving. In regard to abortion or any other conflicting good.

So, let him note a set of circumstances in which moral and political values often come into conflict. With or without God. Talk about how he would react to the behaviors he observed. I’ll note how I would react to the behaviors in turn.

Then, as the discussion unfolds, he can ask me those specific questions above. He can make the specific observations he always makes about me. Only in regard to the actual situation at hand.

In other words, forget “belief X.” What does he believe, what do I believe? How did we come to believe what we did given the actual existential trajectory of our experiences? And, given the fact that these conflicts are often derived precisely from of the manner in which I construe “I” here as an existential contraption, what, using the tools of philosophy, can we conclude comes closest to a “moral obligation” on the part of all rational human beings.

Let’s see what “happens” then.

Mindfullness has nothing to do with ethical behavior as phyllo said. One can find ethical precepts in Buddhism and this would cover

I am sure there are lots of people practicing mindfulness out there, and practicing it well, who few of us would want near our children.

Believe it or not, odds are in the favour that a thief or burguler may be more mindful than a mormal person. Mindfulness means more alert, vigilant and focussed on himself and surroundings, knowing and witnessing very clearly what is happening in one’s mind. 100% focus and commitment. it has nothing to do with ethics. Mindfulness may happen for both reasons, right or wrong. It is merely a mental state not thought out conclusions.

With love,
sanjay

Yes, if you are outside the law or outside the local moral codes, to protect yourself you have to pay more attention. Be on the lookout.

I think that mindfulness can relate to a plethora of situations. As you guys say, being a criminal, I think would predispose someone to being naturally more mindful. But generally, there are situations where everyone is more mindful. In circumstances where there is immediate danger, or even when engaged in tasks that require us to concentrate more I believe that our general awareness (or mindfulness) increases and perhaps our reaction times too.

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

Does that clear things up for you?

Because I’m still really confused.

The language that we use is derived from the biological evolution of life on Earth. It has [so far] culminated in brains able to invent language in order to communicate what individual minds have become conscious of to other thinking and feeling minds. Now, communicating “conventional reality” is more or less objective depending on the extent to which what is being discussed combines elements from both the either/or world and the is/ought world.

Some things are crystal clear to all of us. Other things are open to dispute. Language is just one more factor that allows us to make this crucial distinction between what we think or believe is true and what we are able to demonstrate that all other rational men and women are obligated to think and believe is true as well.

This combines both genetic and memetic components of human interaction, as well as the manner in which the conscious mind is intertwined in the subconscious and the unconscious components of the human brain intertwined in turn in ever more primitive components of the brain – the id, the libido, the instincts that drive us going all the way back to the evolution of life on earth.

Now, with death of course we are calling upon language to communicate something that, to the best of my current knowledge, no component of the brain has had any actual substantive contact with. We can only extrapolate regarding our own demise based on the experiences that we have had with respect to the death of others.

So, to speak of immortality or salvation or Heaven or Hell or reincarnation or Nirvana is to merely assume that what others have told us about them or what we have thought up about them. Isn’t this basically the extent to which our beliefs are demonstrable?

Of course there have been any number of articles and books and films from those who profess to have been on the other side. But have any of them provided evidence that goes beyond the language they use to describe this?

And, in regard to the writings of Nagarjuna in the Mulamadhyamakakarika, what on earth does modern logic make of it all such that this particular “world of words” reflects a “good thing”?

Then, in particular, this part:

What language relating to what assessment of conventional reality? And what “ultimate reality” relating to the condition of the “enlightened dead person” one claims to have experienced in “meditative states”? A reality that one is not able even to describe with words, let alone demonstrate as an actual “thing”.

How is the fact that this is all “ineffable” not basically a clue that the belief itself is more a psychological component of “I”?

The “I” you speak of seems to stand for ego consciousness. You assume that consciousness is the whole of the psychological individual. But knowledge of the phenomena that can only be explained on the hypothesis of unconscious psychic processes makes it doubtful whether the ego and it’s contents are in fact identical to the whole. Neuroscience has confirmed the existence of unconscious processes. They must really belong to the totality of the individual even though they are not components of the conscious ego. If these processes were part of the ego they would necessarily be conscious because everything that is directly related to the ego is conscious. Consciousness can be equated with the relation between the ego and a psychic contents. But unconscious phenomena are so little related to the ego that people like yourself do not hesitate to deny their existence outright. Nevertheless, unconscious processes manifest themselves in an individual’s behavior. This has been demonstrated numerous times in controlled psychological experiments. See Subliminal by Leonard Mlodinow, where he cites numerous studies. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. To understand Buddhism would take a profound comprehension of the wisdom tradition’s relation to the unconscious psyche. Or you could just keep treading around the ninth circle of hell. :wink:

Great, just what we need, another “general description intellectual contraption” from you. :wink:

Again, let’s bring this down to earth. For those here who do understand Buddhism because they have in fact taken the time to secure a “profound comprehension of the wisdom tradition’s relation to the unconscious psyche”, how is that translated into your conscious reaction to the coronavirus pandemic [as I pointed to above]? And how is that related to what you believe in your head about enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana? And, finally, how have you [thus far] been able to demonstrate that what you do believe about it in your head is that which all other rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

FELIX:
notice what he does below. First he dismisses your entire response as an intellectual contraption. Rather than, for example, respecting what you communicated with and asking for clarification or concrete examples OF WHAT YOU WROTE already. IOW what you chose to respond to in his post
he
doesn’t
give a
shit about.

Now, I think his questions are potentially reasonable. IOW he isn’t just rude. He’s rude and dismissive, then asks for you to write about something else. I don’t think asking someone with some experience those latter questions is rude. The context, however, gives the lie. It is rude in the frame of dismissing how you want to communicate. Presumably your knowledge of Buddhism informed how you responded to his post. You chose to focus on consciousness and what it seemed like he was assuming. Your knowledge informed your response. Instead of treating your response as potentially useful, he dismisses it.

Now he is acting as if you can now respond as an expert on the entire system of Buddhism regarding some very tough issues,

directly after

treating your response as worthless.

Why would someone dismiss what a person actually chooses to focus on as worthless and not let whatever expertise they have guide the discussion? It doesn’t make any sense. He obviously doesn’t think you know how to introduce some of the relevent ideas. And any confusions he has are not subject to discussion. He has nothing to learn from you…then he throws huge questions at you as if the context was that he could learn from you.

And he gives you a big assignment. He simply cannot be expecting to get any answers he respects since he cannot show minimal respect for what your expertise led you to focus on in relation to him and his issues.

So, he is trolling, not that I think he knows it.

That’s because, in these matters, he sees expertise and non-expertise as just different contraptions. Expertise is no better than lack of expertise.

Buddha himself would be dismissed as having contraptions.

Then he should NOT be then asking them for answers as experts. He dismisses the line the Felix choses in reaction to his post - bringing up what Felix sees, from Felix’s background which includes Buddhism - related to consciousness. Oh, that’s all worthless, tell me about something else.

The person I am treating as an expert - OK, so you have knowledge about X - I am rude to and dismiss how they want to and decide to approach the issue as worthless, but
directly afterward as for answers to incredibly complicated and to some degree very abstract questions.

It makes no sense. If he thinks Felix might have knowledge, then he should be interested in why the consciousness issue arose. If he has trouble with Felix’s answer because it is too abstract, then he can ask for concrete examples related to consciousness and/or further clarification. But he does not.

It’s a bit like negging…

You make an offhand slightly negative comment, and the woman is placed on lower status while sending the message that you aren’t out after her. The aim is to get her to move toward you and unfortunately this is often successful.

And all this is in relation to a tradition that prioritizes practices over intellectual conversation. It is core component to try to calm the mind, meditate and not get wrapped up in questions and ideas one is not in a position to understand being a beginner, and also in general part of tradition that believes this is all a lot of mental wanking that adds to suffering and confusion.

He asks for answers in order to show that the answers are the product of dasein. Therefore, there are no good, bad, better, worse answers … there are only different answers.

Undermining self-confidence is part of the point. It’s at the heart of his struggle against objectivists.

What’s wrong with objectivists? They are confident that they know and understand something. They need to be taken down a notch.

How Does a Buddhist Monk Face Death?
An e-mail interview in the New York Times between George Yancy and Geshe Dadul Namgyal, a Tibetan Buddhist monk

Again, how is this not just another “general description intellectual/spiritual contraption”? One in which the relationship between life and death is broadly explored only as a factor embedded in the “human condition” as a whole.

In fact, each of us as individuals may well have very different reactions to these words insofar as they seem applicable to our own lives. After all, what does it mean to speak of loving life, “a little too much”? Of looking at “just the preferred side of it”? Of “cling[ing] to a fantasized life, seeing it with colors brighter than it has”?

Will it mean the same thing to you as it does to me?

Instead, each of us as individuals are ensconced in a particular set of circumstances, with more or less to lose in tumbling over into the abyss. And with a greater or lesser capacity to convince ourselves that immortality and salvation await us on the other side.

Sure, if a particular Buddhist is able to think herself into confronting death from a more serene perspective, only a fool would just shrug that off. But, from my frame of mind, they are able to do this only to the extent that “in their head” they have accepted certain assumptions about the existence of karma, enlightenment, reincarnation and Nirvana.

And, in my view, it is not unreasonable for those who are not Buddhists to ask those who are to demonstrate why these things are believable beyond just being thoughts and feeling in their head. Again, with so much at stake.

Exactly. So, obviously, to the extent that one is able to think oneself [or are indoctrinated] into embracing one or another religious antidote, how could they/would they not have come to embody a greater sense of comfort and consolation than those who cannot?

That’s not the point. The point is how each of us as individuals come to make that distinction given an intertwining of their circumstances and their philosophy of life.

And then the extent to which this is derived more or less from dasein than from an attempt to actually “think it through” to the most rational point of view.

Assuming of course that human autonomy here is an actual factor.

Hey man, the clock is ticking, Go for your best happy, however you construe it.

Okay, I’ll go for that if you’ll go for this:

I’m not claiming that I have a profound understanding of Buddhism’s relation to the unconscious psyche. I have some insights into it based on my experience. What we know about our own unconsciousness comes to us internally in the form of images and externally through the observations of others.

To me, and to many others, Buddhism is a matter of practice not objective beliefs. So, regarding the coronavirus, mindfulness meditation is relevant as way of coping with panic, hysteria and fear by getting into a peaceful mindset from which to act calmly, and rationally toward myself and others around me as the situation demands.

Enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana are images “in [my] head” like images in a dream. I am agnostic at best about their objective reality. Completely rational men and women don’t exist. Buddhism promotes the values of empathy and compassion. In so far as people are rational, they should seek to live empathically and compassionately.

Yes, and in two ways. First, that it is a set of practices that lead to understandings and attitudes which may not be intelligible without long term practice. This is true about many disciplines: that you cannot possibly understand certain things without having engaged in long term practice. This is true in math and physics and dance and acting and psychology…and then Second: Buddhism is concerned about papancha - the proliferation of thought - and considers this part of what causes suffering. The combination of the two is a very strong criticism of trying to figure out stuff one has very little knowledge of, both because it is cart before the horse and more or less impossible, but also because it leads to repetitive thinking with an underlying anxeity that is nto simply not resolved but exacerbated by this looping thinking.

Enlightenment must be an objectively real state of being - a better state of being with identifiable characteristics.

If not, then what are the monks striving for? And what did the masters attain?

What does the Zen master tell you? You are the Buddha.