I don't get Buddhism

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

Basically, this revolves around the extent to which, given any particular aspect of any particular set of circumstances, human language is or is not able to capture it more or less wholly.

Noumenon: “In Kantian philosophy a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes.”

Thus, using our reaction to a particular context involving the coronavirus, what actual components of human interactions can be encompassed as “things as they are” as opposed to things as “[they are] knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes.”

Now, from my frame of mind, philosophers/ethicists will either take their premises and conclusions there or they will not. And, to the extent that they don’t, their “technical” assessments have little or no use value or little or not exchange value at all.

The same with Buddhists who speak of karma, enlightenment, reincarnation and Nirvana. At what point does language fail them? At what point do they take that existential leap to sets of assumptions that “for all practical purposes” are “ineffable”?

And that’s before the part where language itself gives way to actual demonstrable proof regarding the existential parameters of karma, enlightenment, reincarnation and Nirvana.

Well, for one thing I don’t have access now to the drugs I once had access to back then. And, besides, they are still included in that list of substances cited in “Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act”. In fact, existentially, my imploded world is very, very different from what it once was.

What do you suggest?

And how many times do I have to note that in a thread devoted to “getting” Buddhism, my interest revolves almost entirely around morality here and now and immortality there and then.

And, from my frame of mind, you won’t go there. At least not pertaining to a particular set of conflicting behaviors in a particular context. In either a God or a No God world. As you understand it.

We’ll need a context of course.

We don’t need any more spam, of course.

Look, I didn’t drag you down to retort mode so much as you allowed me to drag you down to retort mode.

Next up:

Fish: Like shooting objectivists in a barrel.

He said in jest. :wink:

Stop your spamming.

Just out of curiosity, given that spamming is defined as…

…the use of messaging systems to send an unsolicited message, especially advertising, as well as sending messages repeatedly on the same website…

…how would you go about demonstrating that this is what I am doing on this thread?

On the contrary, over and again, I have included arguments raised in philosophy magazines and scholarly journals that aim to explore Buddhism in anything but “spam” mode.

Instead, I suspect that, slowly but surely, my arguments are chipping away at yours. And it pisses you off. And then when you get pissed off at me you say things like “Fuck you”…and resort to retorts like this one.

Here though I can only extrapolate from my own past experiences with objectivists. It is what “here and now” I have thought myself into believing is true about them “in my head”. But no more than that.

One definition of spam as it is used in a broad sense is

What Imabiguous does is take nearly random bits of online copiable texts related to Buddhism and makes precisely the same kinds of appeals to incredulity in relation to them, hoping to pull in someone to demonstrate some concept (like Karma) that Iambiguous has little interest in. The high volume is how much all of this posts end up in the 2 or 3 grooves of all of this posting. The added irony in relation to Buddhism is that Buddhism is an extremely experiential tradition, where one of the fundamental ideas as practiced all around the world is that experiential practice comes first. Iamb’s whole process is spammy because there is no real interest in Buddhism. There is no sense that he understands that he plucks quotes from different strains of Buddhism and that the quotes are more of less ‘in the middle of Buddhism’. IOW there is no building up from basic ideas and practices, it’s just grabbing some random topic which is not meant to serve as a start to understanding Buddhist concepts or practices.

I think the term trolling is better than spamming. But his posts certainly have high volume low value and are extremely repetitive.

He may not be consciously disingenous, but disingenuous it is. He wants to learn about something about Buddhism, is how he presents his ‘interest’, but he is utterly uninterested in what the experts of that something would suggest he do to create a foundation for understanding Buddhism. And what those with more experience have suggested in the thread.

It’s a farce carried out not to understand Buddhism but to create a dynamic where someone takes the bait and tries to explain nirvana, say, to someone who has no interest and no foundation.

Iamb is a spammer.

Or that’s a contraption I came up with because it’s so irritating he spams.

You have to love his cake and eat it too: insult the person, say what he obviously believes. Then add a disclaimer.

In a heterosexual relationship the equivalent would be something like…
Iamb’s girlfriend complains that he doesn’t really listen to her.
He says shes a fucking bitch.
Then he adds: I have thought about the fact that my thinking you are a fucking bitch is a contraption that I get in relation to women who call me on stuff.
Then he goes back to not listening to her.

That’s the kind of mindfuck cake and eat it too in writing like this…

We’ll need a context of course.

Sometimes the things you say are so stupid, I find it hard to believe you’re not joking.
The context, for example, for the last part of my post was shown by the quote from your post. The context was the mindfucky thing you said in a specific exchange with another person (Phyllo), and it’s right there, as a context, to be checked again and again. Other parts of my post referred to the thread and the participation in it. That being a more general context.

I don’t know if you think that was a clever quip.

Or perhaps you mean, I should have included something about the afterlife or conflicting goods and my take on some specific one.

But that’s what you want. That’s not what ‘we need.’

There is no ‘we’ that you represent.

Little mindfucks. Sometimes bigger ones.

You don’t represent a we. Can’t you take responsibility for your own desires. That’s all it is. Not ‘we need’ but ‘Iamb wants X’

No, I mean a real context. One which, in regard to value judgments, identity, and political economy, relates to a set of behaviors in conflict such that we are able to explore more substantively what it means to speak of karma, enlightenment, reincarnation and Nirvana.

You pick it.

All that exists is impermanent. If something is born it must die. And this birth and death is taking place in every instant.

Impermanence implies that all things arise dependent on each other. All that exists comes to be, endures, and disappears because of certain causes and conditions.

This is because that is. This is not because that is not.

This is born because that is born. This ceases to be because that ceases to be. This is the principle of dependent arising.

Because everything arises in dependence on something else, there is no such thing as a separate existing self-nature.

All things are in essence empty. This contains that. That contains this. This is principle of interpenetration

This is that and that is this. This is the principle of interbeing.

Time contains time and time contains space. Space contains space and space contains time. Space is itself time. Space and time cannot exist separately from each other.

Every instant contains infinite time. The smallest particle contains limitless space. This is the principle of all is one and one is all.

Accordingly, birth and death, being and non-being, are all seen to be illusions. Reality is birthless and deathless. Thus, nirvana is the extinction of illusion and sorrow

Well, yeah, as general description intellectual contraptions go, nicely put. But, as with KT and his own general description intellectual contraptions…

You pick it.

Exactly. That’s what you want to discuss. It had absolutely nothing to do with my post.
You presented what you wanted the discussion to focus on in terms of

‘we need…’

when in fact it is merely what ‘Iambiguous wants’

IOW you are being an objectivist. Instead of taking responsibility for the fact that what you are claiming 'we need, merely has to do with your desires…that is, you frame your desires as a universal need. The word need making it sound objective. The we making it sound universal.

Both the ‘we’ and the ‘need’ are hallucinations. It’s objectivist BS. We don’t need it. You merely want that to be the focus of the discussion.

The experts in Buddhism emphasize practice as the way to ‘get Buddhism’. For others, Iamb’s random grabbing of texts and throwing up his hands in relation to them is nto a good way to learn about anything. At a minimum, most fields would be better approached through texts that are intended to be introductions to the most easy to understand facets of that field. And then there is a added set of issues related to a field that deals with changing fundamental ways of experiencing. Such a field, and there are a number in religion/psychology/spirituality are much better approached via practices of various kinds - were one actually interested - since habits of mind, not just the verbal contents of thoughts, are being changed.

I noticed the change in what you are ‘quoting’ as if it was what you said to me, but here you changed it a bit, taking out the ‘we’. (though the substitution was actually ‘need’ for ‘mean’, you ended up taking a bit more responsibility for having a person desire, rather than reporting a universal need.) Hard, for you, to actually concede anything openly. isn’t it? Still using that word need however. Can’t quite come down to the human level and say you want a certain kind of context and for this context to focus the discussion in the way you want it. These are wants/desires not needs. But I appreciate the implicit concession while noting the lack of maturity to openly acknowledge the concession.

As far as my post, my post was not a general intellectual contraption, it was a pointing ouf of a very specific set of actions you took, using words, here in this thread. It could not possibly have been more grounded as far as context, and contained, very clearly in quotes, the specific actions I was commenting on.

Earlier in this thread and in other threads I have given extremely specific ideas about what specific actions you could take to approach Buddhism if you were truly interested in it. You have shown no interest in that. So that set of specific suggestions and that context was something I did not repeat.

So, in regard to what I wanted to focus on, your mindfucks, there was no lack of context or specific concrete references.

As far as what you want, I am not interested in what you want. So, while you characterize my post as a general intellectual contraption and it was not…yes, it was certainly not trying to solve those issues that you want us to focus on and deal with.

But that’s obvious. There is nothing there that could possibly mislead you into thinking I was trying to resolve those issues of yours.

Will someone please define “real context” to him. :laughing:

Look, this still sounds like a personal problem to me.

Yo, any shrinks in the house :question: :question: :question:

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

So is this “general description” remedy more or less applicable to you? Sure, given that one way or another most of us are going to be disturbed by death, to the extent that you can think yourself into this frame of mind, you are clearly better off than those who cannot.

But then when we take that leap from a general description of the human condition to a description of your own particular set of circumstances, how can it not be the case that this either makes sense or does not make sense to each of us in our own unique way?

Again, depending on how close you are “here and now” to death. And depending on how many things and how many people you love dearly will be obliterated along with “I” for all of eternity.

Unless, of course, as a Buddhist monk, you are also able to convince yourself that, given your understanding of karma and enlightenment on this side of the grave, and given how you chose to embody this understanding in the behaviors you chose in turn, there is something other than nothingness awaiting you on the other side of the grave. You have managed to convince yourself instead that “I” will either be reincarnated [whatever that means] or experience Nirvana [whatever that means].

In other words, of course it is easier for him to endure the thought of dying!

In a sense it’s like imaging the agony that Christ endured in being crucified, all the while knowing what His fabulous fate would be on the other side.

This is the problematic “general” part of the answer. Can you identify the disturbances? Do you know what can be done to address them?

Probably not unless you have been practicing doing just that.

Imagine suddenly being placed in a survival situation with nothing but the clothes on your back.

The general advice to "build a shelter, make a fire, purify water, find edible plants, snare small animals, smoke meat to preserve it … " is not very helpful. How do you do any of that stuff?

You had to research those things and practice them before you needed to apply them in a real life and death situation.

So. What does a disturbance feel like? Can I think of any ways to deal with it? How can I generate ideas? What happens when I use option A to deal with it? How do I feel about the results? Am I still disturbed in the same way or a different way? Do I need to try option B? How did option B work out?

Deal with a variety of specific disturbances in your life. Start small and work your way up to death and oblivion.

“…when we take that leap from a general description of the human condition to a description of our own particular set of circumstances, how can it not be the case that this either makes sense or does not make sense to each of us in our own unique way?”