I don't get Buddhism

Again, and again and again: note a particular context in which you and I can explore our respective reactions to behaviors in conflict over moral narratives and political agendas at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments and political economy. As the discussion unfolds you can point in particular to things that confirm your assessment of me and the accusations you make about me above.

Then we can relate that to Buddhism and religion and pragmatism. More or less fractured and fragmented as the case may be.

No, I want them to spend their time and energy noting how they managed to convince themselves. Given the experiences in their lives and given the manner in which they then explored philosophy and various religious narratives in order to ascertain the optimal perspective in which to intertwine their moral values and their fate on the other side.

You, for example. Or Felix.

Again, that’s why I am here. This is the religon and spirituality board in a philosophy venue. I would expect to bump into other intelligent and articulate folks who, in turn, dive down deep below the surface in examining these relationships. What might I learn from them? What might I impart in turn.

That’s my problem, right? Only it’s not really much of a problem at all. After all, it’s not like these discussions we have here are fateful much beyond ILP itself. Right? I spend a few hours a day looking for new ways to stop myself from being the man I have thought myself into believing that, here and now, “I” am.

Lots to gain with plenty to lose.

So, you let me worry about that part, okay?

I’ll take that for a “no” then. :wink:

Since I and others are asked not to “derail” the second “I don’t get Buddhism” thread, I will spare them my attempt to explore the relationship between 1] what others do get about Buddhism and 2] my own interest in religion: the existential relationship between morality on this side of the grave and immortality on the other side.

The two components which, in terms of the lives that we actually live, encompass what I construe to be the heart and the soul of religion.

So, with respect to karma, enlightened behavior, reincarnation and Nirvana, forget – ultimately – about being rational?

That’s the advice we are being offered in a philosophy venue?

Now, true, with respect to the tools of philosophy in the is/ought world, I often note there seem to be clear limitations in regard to both reason’s use value and exchange value. But I point this out in order to suggest further that, with regard to the existential relationship between morality [value judgments] and immortality, philosophers/theologians to date have not yet succeeded in pinning this down. Instead, I suggest this relationship is rooted more in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

So what I’ll do on this thread is to ask those who adhere to the thinking of the OP on the second thread, to explore with me how this “experiential” approach to Buddhism allows them to “go further” when it actually comes down to choosing enlightened behaviors here and now in order to attain that which they are then able to demonstrate is the path that will allow them to avoid being reincarnated as, say, a dung beetle, and eventually attain that which they are able to demonstrate in turn as Nirvana.

On the other hand, here in a philosophy venue, we are being told that all of that isn’t necessary at all. “Experientially” one can eventually just come to “know” all of this “in their head”.

Now that part I “get”.

Okay, given your own interactions with others in which the behaviors you choose are thought to be more or less enlightened, precipitating an incarnation of karma that you’d prefer leading eventually to a reincarnation that you’d hope for leading or not leading to whatever you construe Nirvana to be, what on earth is the above actually in relationship to.

How, from day to day, given the life you that actually live, might you explain this particular “general description intellectual contraption”?

Or, instead, is this world of words meant solely to create a “psychological state” that comforts and consoles you “spiritually” in, for example, a world being ravished by the coronavirus.

Speaking of which how exactly would Buddhists go about conveying something analogous to an explanation of how and why their own equivalent of God – the universe? – allows something like this to exist at all? Let alone the occasional “extinction event” that profoundly cripples the evolution of life on planet Earth.

And, let’s face it, in the next one, our own species is likely to be included when that Big One hits.

Let’s face it, you’re a lonely life negating asshole who wants company in a personal hell of his own creation.

Note to others:

See what I sometimes drive the objectivists too? My guess is that increasingly there is a part of him that is beginning to recognize the reason that he is really this perturbed by the points I raise.

That’s why KT is of interest to me. In some respects, he would seem to be in the same boat that I am in. Living in an essentially meaningless No God world, sans objective morality, that ends in the obliteration of “I” for all time to come.

And yet he reacts to me all the more furiously.

What on earth could possibly be more practical [and crucial] then in exploring Enlightenment through the behaviors that we choose in our interactions with others? After all, what is clearly not the “same for all” are those behaviors deemed to be either right or wrong, good or evil, enlightened or unenlightened. Particularly as it relates to the other side of the religious coin: the part where we are dead and gone from this side of the grave.

What “practical” aspects are others more intent on exploring here?

And surely the one thing that “theories, definitions, historic developments or creeds” share in common is the extent to which one’s assessment of them get’s one closer to being reincarnated into a more preferable form. Or closer to Nirvana.

Only, sans God, how exactly does that work? What “entity” is behind it?

To refer to me as an objectivist shows you have no understanding of me whatsoever.

Okay, explain to me what you think I mean by an objectivist.

Then, in a particular context, regarding disagreements over what it means to get Buddhism, explain more specifically why you are not what you construe that I construe an objectivist to be.

Finally, in regard to whatever it is that you do think your are instead, explain how you connect the dots between the behaviors you choose on this side of the grave as that relates to what you imagine the fate of your own particular “I” to be on the other side of the grave.

How would you describe substantively why you are definitely not like “I” am here?

Same for Phyllo and Karpel Tunnel.

I don’t consider myself an objectivist. You referred to me as such. Instead of playing a guessing game, please explain what you meant.

Note to others:

Once again, the huge gap between what I asked of him above and his insubstantial “wiggle wiggle wiggle” response. There’s almost nothing he won’t do to avoid actually responding to those questions. Or so it still seems to me.

As to what I mean by it, for the umpteenth time:

[b]From my frame of mind, objectivists are those who, in regard to their moral, political, philosophical, esthetic and/or religious value judgments, makes a distinction between “one of us” [the good guys] and “one of them” [the bad guys].

And, in turn, are of the belief that they are in touch with the “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do.”[/b]

Now, given that, let him note if he distinguishes his I here from my “I”. And, if he does, how he construes himself with regard to this part:

Who are you conversing with there, buddy? The voices in your head?

Look, this is just my own personal opinion, but the only thing more grimly witless than your “philosophy” here, are your attempts to be, well, witty?

Leave that to those who actually are.

Like Zoots Allure.

Remember him? :wink:

I prefer Shut Up 'n Play Yer Guitar.

I know: Let’s tie this to Buddhism!

How might the most enlightened of Buddhists react to it?

They might:

a] laugh
b] slap you in the face
c] start a new thread
d] all of the above
e] none of the above
f] other________________________

Okay, let’s tie this to reincarnation and Nirvana.

I mean, ultimately, that is the whole point of being enlightened, right?

…asked the endarkened man. The objectivist view of an anti-objectivist. “Ultimately” as if anyone can think the ultimate view of Nirvana or any other symbolic structure of religion.

Right, like with immortality itself on the line, and with hundreds and hundreds of different religious denominations all claiming to encompass the one true path to it, it’s not important to understand these things at least in the general vicinity of ultimately.

You do get the part, don’t you?

I get that you’re claiming that someone is making that claim. And you apparently think that whoever is making that claim in effect owns whichever religion you’re talking about at the moment …in this case Buddhism. Now that claim would make Buddhism and whatever other religion makes the claim mutually exclusive. It would also depend on the religion being absolutely true in an objective sense. I don’t think that’s the way religions are true. So to me the way you approach the subject is wrong in it’s basic assumptions. Therein lies my problem with your approach in a nutshell.