I don't get Buddhism

Me evading you? On this thread :laughing:

Unless of course I am. :wink:

How about this: we leave it up to others here to decide for themselves?

Or, there is always this: [-o<

Do Buddhists pray? :sunglasses:

Thanks for helping me feel less fragmented bro.

I have nothing to do with that. And, believe it or not, I never have.

Haha. From what I’ve seen, you deny all things personal and most especially personal responsibility. Hey that could be a kind of Buddhism. He denied the existence of a self. You could start your own sect.

Note to others:

Can you believe this? No, seriously. He actually believes that I deny all things personal! That I deny personal responsibility!

He has not a glimmer of understanding of how, in regard to “I” in the is/ought world, I root all of this in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy in my signature threads. Then reconfigured into the points I make on this thread.

Uh, just like you, right? :wink:

Bullshit. Nothing but mental contraptions there bro.

Since you are asking, sure. In a few ways.

In the abstract, in the clouds, you certainly focus on the personal, as in personal history, dasein…

That is, in your philosophy you focus on the personal. Your philosophy focuses on how individual/personal history, culture, experiences (etc) affect what one believes. Peachy. You’re right you are centered on the personal…in your philosophy, in the abstract or in the clouds as you like to put it.

Above, Felix is, I would guess, focusing on your not having any community sense at all. You have nothing to do with his coming to feel less fragmented. Though your posts are often presented as you trying to get help with your F & F, people sharing their approaches and justifying them, for your sake.

And then in the context of Buddhism, this thread, there is the Buddhist idea that one’s own suffering is intertwined with the suffering of others and compassion for and helping others helps one’s own pain and fragmentation reduce. But since you know next to nothing about Buddhism and as a participant in ILP show very little interest in such things, what Felix might mean would be missed by you. So, he gets told, yet again, what you have written before countless times as if it is a relevent response.

You certainly elict quite a bit of angry, critical responses. But even when people share their approaches without criticism, approaches that might help what you present as the negative, searching state you are in, they get told what they are saying is all in their heads, or a contraption, even if their approach has more science behind it than yours. The main point here however is your responses are anti-communal, anti-Buddhist, anti-compassionate. The second being relevant in this thread.

And then there is you inability to take responsibility, here, for your actions! In your philosophy sure…in any particular interpersonal interaction here, no.

You simply cannot, as far as I have seen, take any responsibility for what you do. You were never wrong about things. If someone critiques a behavior, it was was not what they say happened. Always.

Hence, you cannot take personal responsibility, here, in any case.

Up in the clouds you would readily admit that you might be wrong. But in any specific interaction, nah, you never notice that you were. Humility in the clouds, but here on the ground in concrete interactions, never.

Last, another way you get rid of the personal is that you present your goal, often, as finding that which every rational person should do. Rather than, for example, what you would want to do as a single person. And you will not try anything, other than your habits, unless it can be demonstrated that every single human should do X. That is also an elimination of the personal, presuming there is the one best path for every human, as if we were ciphers.

That last point I don’t think is what Felix is getting at.

In any case, up in the clouds you talk about the powerful affects of the personal on what people believe.

Unfortunately we interact with you here on the ground where you do not take responsibility for your individual actions and choices.

which is…
Uh, just like you, right? :wink:

You literally could not see what he was writing about. You saw it in a way that 1) allowed you to repeat your philosophy and 2) removed any need to look at yourself as someone interacting with others in certain specific ways.

When you read the posts of someone you have had a number of interactions with and you find yourself thinking

this is a good moment to repeat my philosophy, that’s what they need to hear…

consider that you are most likely utterly wrong. They don’t need to hear it (yet again). You are literally not seeing them and merely habitually repeating yourself.

You haven’t read what they wrote well.

And if you think there is no context here because we are not talking about my or Felix’s ideas about, say, abortion, you are not seeing the very specific, concrete context of your response to Felix above. These are contexts, your interactions here with individual posters here at ILP. That was one moment, one act on your part. Where you utterly failed to understand or even show the least interest in trying to understand another mind. Where you interpreted out of a kind of functional narcissism.

How ought you live?

i dunno, when you find your scientifically demonstrated rules someday, it won’t matter because you won’t be able to even notice other people. At least, so it seems, from your behavior here.

Now you’re catching on!!! =D>

Just so you evade avoid and deny the personal.

Sorry, but this is just not the sort of context I had in mind.

My interest in Gods and religions revolves around those who tell us that they already know how to live. Why? Because in being a Christian or a Buddhist they have access to a “script”. And if they follow that script here and now – behaving in an enlightened manner, not committing a Sin – they get rewarded there and then.

I then ask them to note how, for all practical purposes, that actually works for them in their interactions with others when value judgments relating to morality and mortality come into conflict.

And, to the best of their ability, explain how they would actually go about demonstrating that what they do believe is in fact true. In other words, able to be demonstrated.

You take issue with this given all the accusation you make about me.

But you won’t focus in on the sort of context that would generate the sort of discussion that would allow you to point out more specifically why/how your accusations above are correct.

Either that, or, again, it’s a personal problem. Something about me just ticks you off.

Talking about the belief-systems of Religion we have to play a kind of “what if?” game.

As we are discovering the cosmos, we are discovering more and more complexity, inwardly, in the very small and outwardly, in the very large. In the universe the sheer vastness of it is awe inspiring, and to think that this had a beginning like the ancients believed, mind-boggling. It is namely here that many of the ancient traditions began. The complexity if the cosmology of the great Religions is akin to what we have been discovering recently. Obviously, they didn’t have science or the rational language that we have today, but they attempted a philosophy that has held up over millennia.

The big question that science hasn’t answered is what consciousness is and how could it arise, if indeed we follow a mechanistic understanding of reality. If everything is just material and a result of accident or coincidence, then the sentient human being is not explainable. The ancients have also noticed this and assumed that it was intended from the beginning. Human beings have been said to straddle the heavens and the earth. We belong in both spheres of existence according to these traditions, having received our “spirit” from the ground of being, the gods, or God.

Another observation has been integral in Religion, the ability to love or selflessly devote oneself to another or others. This too, so the ancients, must have a higher source. In Christianity, Religion culminated in selfless love. This, they reasoned, has a far different quality than our “love” and was seen in Christ as the highest realisation of what was intended from the beginning of time. This inspiration calls for a reaction, and is seen to be our own devotion to love and to our fellow human beings.

So, what if our sentience is installed into our bodies at birth and returns somewhere at death? There has been an argument for this in the various traditions over millennia. What if, at the end of life, we enter the presence of the source of beginning, and come to realise how badly we had encountered life? What if the realisation of such a reality shocks us into realisation that we had negated its possibility all our lives and turned away from it. The only hope we would have is of forgiveness and deliverance from our missing the mark.

This is what Christianity sees as having happened in the Cross of Christ. The culmination of love and forgiveness in one act. A sign, held up high so that whosoever looks upon it should be healed. How do Buddhist answer this question? Karma and rebirth?

Nah … not Karma and rebirth which are side issues of Buddhism.

The central issue for any religion, theistic or non-theistic is dealing with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

Buddhism provide the potential, i.e.
Buddha’s 4NT-8FP -A Life Problem Solving Technique
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&hilit=4NT
to deal with all problems and issues arising from the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

Unfortunately whilst Buddhism has the potential, it’s potential is not fully realizable for all yet due to various constraints and limitation of the majority in their present psychological states on existential issues.

Given the current psychological states of the majority, at present [not future] the most optimal option for the majority would be Christianity [with ‘pacifist’ advantage over Islam and others], i.e. just surrender then believe and viola, one is saved and the relief from the cognitive dissonance is immediate.

Whilst theism and religions has pros which outweigh their cons at present, the evident trend towards the future is the cons of theism and religions are slowly outweighing whatever pros they have at present.

Since the inherent unavoidable existential crisis is a permanent feature, it would wiser for humanity to explore the potentials of Buddhism and extract its principles to develop non-religious alternatives to replace theism and religions in the future.
Note it is for the future generations not for the present. The current theists can cling to their theistic crutch to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

Whilst I think of these steps as helpful (I have both 4NT & 8FP in my meditation journal) I agree with James that these methods have not been more successful than Christianity. Having used several problem solving techniques in my professional life, I know that dedication is the main aspect. Without dedication, no technique is successful.

The implementing solutions would, of course, need further explanation since they can be separated into three areas: ethical conduct, mental discipline and, finally, wisdom. Mental discipline being what ethical conduct and wisdom is reliant upon. In the Christian model, devotion and prayer have the same importance. Here, the probability of not attaining completeness is taken into account and forgiveness is guaranteed if you integrate your dark side and do not pretend it isn’t there.

I know that the 8FP provides the understanding that we must always continue to return, so it is a circular motion, as you have shown. However, many problems are not so easy to capture by your method and I miss the higher principle of Agape (selfless love) as a guide along the path. So I appreciate the usefulness of Buddhism, and I believe that Buddha is right as far as it goes. It is just that Christianity gives me more.

I appreciate the story of the Buddha being a myth, but one that can teach us something too. In one way, Guatama was in his own garden of Eden until he discovered suffering and started the search for a solution. The conflict led through a number of trials until he realised that continually doing things was killing him. So he sat down and listened, and awoke to the nature of things.

The story of Jesus pre-supposes the story of Adam and Eve and he becomes a new Adam, who understands the nature of things. You see, Adam/ mankind was intended for good things and be a bridge between heaven and earth. When he fell, these realms were separated but the new Adam joined them together again, and enables his followers to do so as well. This is the profound myth of Christianity.

The myth enhances the principles and help us follow them. Principles can also be considered to be laws, just as Israel had laws, but they have to be transcended and not just followed, otherwise they bind us and prevent our freedom. In Christianity, it is said that the Spirit is more important than the letter (of the law), in Buddhism it is the Spirit of the Buddha story that enables people to follow the 4NT & 8FP.

The West has put, in general, a greater emphasis on belief and moral behavior (participation in what I would call more passive rituals) then Eastern religions. This a huge generalization, I get that. But Christianity has a tradition (certainly amongst monks and nun orders and mystics) where practices intended to change one’s experiencing/relationships/participation in life (and also to help reduce suffering) parallel in many ways Hinduism and Buddhism. Ken Wilber has a lot of great writing on this and also can connect people to other resources. For example this rather short book…
amazon.com/Integral-Spiritu … 1590305272

Some of my generalization comes from the fact that when you come from the West to Eastern religions you are coming in contact generally with monks, masters, gurus, so the religion is presented by people who are not just doing the equivalent of ‘going to church on Sunday’ so this can skew the sense of things. But in general, from my experiences in the East, I would say there is a little clearer sense that being a good person and believing in Shiva or the Buddha is not enough. One must engage in practices that radically change the self. Perhaps in a future life, or perhaps when retiring from work when the kids have moved out, but at some point. Whereas with Christianity believing the right things and being good is oftne presented as enough, at least implicitly. People do of course talk about taking Jesus into your heart and there is prayer. But this is still quite different from steady ongoing transformational practices with great discipline.

I just realized this could seem like I disagree with you. Actually I agree. I think in the WEst the mystical side and the transformational practices aspect of Christianity has gotten lost for the masses. Many in the East never move into a temple or ashram or hit the road with a blanket and a bowl. Most. But I think there is a more widespread understanding that full achievement of the sort of equivalent to heaven will require, someday, and/or in some futher life, tremendous dedication, time and energy. Some Christians think this also, but it is less out there for most people.

I’m familiar with Ken Wilber, and with Thomas Merton & Bede Griffiths, who in their own ways showed how the traditions can be integrated and something more profound can arise. Merton, of course, remained a Trappist monk, but Bede Griffiths blended Hinduism and Catholicism and was considered a holy man by the Hindus. What is important to remember is that the tradition you are brought up in never really lets you go. At least, one can say, your conscience is guided by early connection to a tradition. It is this with which many people struggle later in life, despite having supposedly changed Religions.

The Eastern Orthodox Church has maintained more the mystical traditions, to which I am attracted, but I think that the lack of faith in the West has been due to the lack of Soul, or crippled Soul if you like. The onslaught of Reason tried to drive out Faith and Soul, so that we have incredible numbers of people with mental health problems and addiction. I have too gone through a phase of darkness and feel that I have now come out of it, strengthened. The most important experience I had was that it wasn’t just practise that brought me out of it, but love. I feel this is the most important part. Listening to and reading Jack Kornfield has made this more obvious, even though he is Buddhist.

I’m not sure that you can claim that the East is better with regard to discipline. People are different there, I’ll acknowledge, but I wouldn’t say they were more devout. Having traveled there a lot, they are people who are trying to make a living, and their generally honest, but there are some bad ones amongst them. I spoke to a Buddhist guide in Sri Lanka many years ago who had studied in Europe. He told me that, as far as Religion goes, there similarities despite the differences. We left the hotel early on Sunday morning and came across a huge crowd of people wearing white, bustling about. He said, “you see here, these people are all going to their temples, churches, mosques etc. and you can’t tell the difference. That’s how it’s supposed to be.”

I believe too, that the spiritual work done in the East after (early) retirement would be of great value to people in the West, because many people sink into lethargy when the don’t have to work anymore. I am fortunate and have just entered retirement and am able to do just that. It will have to gain some form, but COVID is interrupting that at present.

Yes, for the reasons I gave above. When you feel the want to speak about an experience today, it has to be PC, otherwise you’re a nut. After some harrowing time as a manager, I am glad to be out of it and doing something I consider worthwhile.

Great! I suppose my main circles have been in the Left often the fringe Left, anarchists and hippies. I have tended to feel more at home there, more aligned. At the same time there is a great deal of hatred of spirituality, religion, anything that smacks of the supernatural, the numinous. I have sympathy for the historical and cultural reasons for this, I do. But it ends up just being a kind of secular church with its own shunning, shaming and guilt tripping. Of course the Right can do all this also, in secular and religious contexts both, but I was surprised to find many things rejected in a facile and really rather hateful manner. People simply get triggered and are very confident in their assessments, when they are triggered.

From my frame of mind, this is basically just another “thought experiment”. It’s something that matter having evolved into a conscious mind is [somehow] able to “think through”. But the highly speculative conclusion is not able actually to be demonstrated as in fact true.

In other words, “what if” there is another altogether different “thought up” explanation? And we’ve encountered a few of them here, haven’t we?

Also, it bears no real relevance to that which most preoccupies me here: the existential relationship between morality and mortality. Which, however one “thinks up” an explanation for the intertwining of the cosmos, human consciousness and religion, is surely the most fundamental explanation for why people practice religion down through the ages. With God you get a font from which to judge human behaviors here and and now. And with God you gain access to immortality and salvation there and then.

Only with Buddhism, there does not appear to be a God. So what then accounts for and reconfigures mere mortals in the process of reincarnation? What set into motion and sustains Nirvana?

And yet given the history of inquisitions and crusades and jihads, another integral aspect of relgion seems to anything but love and devotion to our fellows. Or love and devotion only to those who are “one of us” in sync with a God, the God, our God. It’s easy enough to ascribe all the “good” things to God. But what about all the “bad”. And what about all the “natural disasters” and “extinction events” and things like, say, the coronavirus?

And what if it’s not? Again and again and again [for me]: with so much at stake – both here and now and there and then – how does any particular one of us go about actually pinning this down?

Through more or less blind leaps of faith it would seem.

Okay, let’s explore this then.

Let’s agree on a context that most here will be familiar with. A set of circumstances in which to examine Buddhism and karma and enlightenment and reincarnation and Nirvana.

Then as the discussion unfolds you can note more specifically how I evade and deny the personal.

Here or on a new thread.

From the Dhammapada: “All experience is preceded by mind, led by mind, made by mind.” So where do you start from? You are very active on this forum, conducting mind-experiments over and over again, so why have you got something against those people who were first. In the lack of proof, intelligent speculation seems to be the way ahead, as long as it doesn’t get me into trouble. The ancients were looking for something to guide them, and idea that helped them find their bearing in a world of mysteries. There were those who had what they called God or gods in the equation and some who did not.

Paraphrasing a Buddhist (because I can’t find the book anymore), “Buddhism isn’t atheistic, it just doesn’t address the subject.” If there is karma there must be, as you asked, some sort of order installed. Does order come natural to the universe? Some say yes, but others point to entropy as the course of the universe.

You want an answer to the relationship between morality and mortality? Well, Bert Brecht once told a story:
A man asked Mr. K. whether there is a God. Mr. K. said: “I advise you to consider whether, depending on the answer, your behavior would change. If it would not change, then we can drop the question. If it would change, then I can at least be of help to the extent that I can say, you have already decided: you need a God.”

Of course, the old counter-argument which doesn’t change the integral message of Christianity, regardless of how many Christians failed to meet it. I think one problem you have is to focus on the bad, which, under circumstances we have at one time discussed, is probably understandable. However, this leads you in a vicious circle leaving you to disappear up your rear end if you’re not careful. The answer is to break the cycle and break out of the circle, with whatever means available.

Really, if you are honest about it, you are scared out of your wits and need proof to soothe your troubles. However, proof has never been available, however, people have broken the cycle with faith.

Okay, but with regard to God and religion and morality, I am most interested in reconfiguring our thoughts about these things into a discussion of how, given our interactions with others in which what we think precipitates actual conflicts, we are able to more or less demonstrate how and why what we think permits us to choose particular behaviors here and now that we think are most in sync with what we want for “I” there and then.

Again, it is this that, to me, “for all practical purposes” down through the ages, has been the most important function of religion. Sure, some take time to go further out on the metaphysical limb, but my aim is more existential. So, those who react to your focus here may well be interested in reacting to mine as well. I don’t sneer at people who are fascinated with the points you raise, I am just more inclined to focus instead on morality and mortality.

Of course [for me] this just evokes the part where the cosmos and human consciousness and religion and everything else are actually “at one” only with the immutable laws of matter. Karma as determinism. Entropy as merely another manifestation of that too. Embedded in the psychological illusion that “I” am “free” to think it up in order to describe that which “I” was never able not to describe. God and religion then being just another inherent, necessary component of whatever brought into existence nature/reality itself.

No, I am far more curious to determine if there is an fact an answer at all. Objectively, as it were.

Yes, my point in turn revolves around the assumption that if there is no God, then He must be invented. Why? Because He is the necessary/inherent component of objective morality. And He is the necessary/inherent component of immortality/salvation.

Now, if someone here were able to demonstrate to me that beyond all doubt Christianity or Buddhism reflected the one true reality, I would still need to know which particular behavior in which particular context it would be obligatory for me to change given what could be demonstrated further to be the consequences for me on the other side if I choose not to change it.

Wouldn’t that be the same for you?

Whether one chooses not to focus on the bad, doesn’t make it go away. And not “good” or “bad” in the manner in which mere mortals describe vice and virtue. Rather, it is good or bad embedded in the either/or world. God or whatever is “behind” Buddhism teleologically has brought the coronavirus into existence. It is pummeling the planet with all manner of ghastly pain and suffering for millions and millions.

But: What on earth does that have to do with, “this leads you in a vicious circle leaving you to disappear up your rear end if you’re not careful.”?

Instead, the faithful fall back on their own tried and true rationalizations: God’s mysterious ways, tests of faith, being “at one” with whatever is behind the universe.

After all, what else is there? Take away God and the tenets of religions like Buddhism, and one may well find himself confronted with the possibility that the covid-19 pandemic is but the embodiment of an essentially meaningless world that, for those who perish as a result of it, ends for all eternity in oblivion.

So, of course Gods and religions will be invented!

My guess: Few things are more the embodiment of dasein than thinking like this.

And, of course, like mine.