I don't get Buddhism

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.

Huh?

Religions are either true in the manner in which they connect the dots between morality/enlightenment here and now and immortality/salvation there or then or they are not.

You are either in sync with the one true path or you are not.

And, if you think you are, you are either able to demonstrate this to others or you are not.

You will die, right? And you do think about what happens to you after you die, right? And you do think about choosing behaviors here and now that will enable you to embody that which you would most like your fate to be there and then, right?

You tell me: What assumptions could possibly be more basic in regard to religion down through the ages?

What are you saying, that the only important assumption about religion is that in regard to morality here and now and immortality there and then, all that matters is what you happen to think is true here and now in your head?

Indeed, ILP is often bursting at the seams with members who preach one or another “general description intellectual contraption” rendition of that.

And, even in regard to this, they, like you, invariably refuse to explore with me the manner in “I” here is but the embodiment of dasein out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.

Instead, their whole point is embedded in the belief itself. That’s the part that comforts and consoles them. Next to this, what they believe often pales in importance.

Or, sure, so it seems to me.

Those are your assumptions about religion based, I suppose, on your past religious orientation and your disillusionment with it. For you it’s about BELIEVING in a set of what? objective propositions. That’s one particular model of religion and it doesn’t fit all. Over and over you try to fit ways of being that don’t fit in that model like trying to fit Cinderella’s sister’s feet into her glass slipper. And people have pointed this out to you, but you refuse to learn.

Note to others:

Please explain to me how his point above is in any way applicable to the points I raised here:

He simply avoids responding to them at all.

In no way am I arguing that my “model of religion” here ever could [let alone should] fit all.

I am merely noting that given my assumptions about religion, I see no way in which to connect the dots between moral/enlightened behaviors here and now and immortality/salvation there and then.

And that if religious folks [of whatever denomination] do believe that they can and are connecting these dots, how do they go about demonstrating that their path is the one true path…with so much at stake!!

How are they not simply just insisting that the fact that they do believe it “in their head” need be as far as they go.

But that’s the beauty of religious faith. In order to sustain the comfort and consolation that it brings them all they have to do is to believe it!

They win and I lose to the extent that I cannot. I would never deny that.

Again you appeal to the voices in your head. Do you BELIEVE that they agree with you? Yes! Because they are rational like you are. Of course they are. Because they ARE you. It’s your fantasy after all. You have the COMFORT AND CONSOLATION of knowing that yours is the ONE WAY of achieving the dopamine rush you get from BELIEVING in your intellectual superiority to the religionist. You go boy! :dance:

However, Buddhist mindfulness meditation has been noted to confer benefits on secular, agnostic and atheistic practitioners with no belief in an afterlife. As avowed atheist Sam Harris holds, as I do, that there is “nothing irrational about seeking the states of mind that lie at the core of many religions. Compassion, awe, devotion, and feelings of oneness are surely among the most valuable experiences a person can have.” These forms of religion or spirituality don’t fit your model.

Note to others:

Please explain to me how his point [b]above[/b] is in any way applicable to the points I raised here:

How about it, one more chance? [-o<

Have the “others” you’re talking to explained it to you?