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”.