I don't get Buddhism

Is Karma a Law of Nature?
It seems Matthew Gindin is destined to ask, and answer, this question.

To me this is somewhat analogous to compatibilists reconciling the laws of matter with free will. Which is to say, I simply cannot wrap my head around it as it pertains to actual human interactions.

What part of the behaviors that I choose are the embodiment of karma. And how specifically does this karma intertwine with the laws of nature, biological imperatives, human psychology and the truths taught by Buddha?

In other words, to the extent that a believer does not, will not or cannot take me through a sequence embedded in an experience of their own and note in more detail how, for all practical purposes, these five factors unfold together [and separately] resulting in this choice rather than another, I can only assume instead that what really counts here is what/how they have come to think about this “intellectually”/“spiritually” as a general description of karma “in their head”.

The parts they can’t explain [philosophically or otherwise] then get subsumed in what many Western religious denominations embed in their own God’s “mysterious ways”.

Thus, whatever in the universe is “behind” karma – “which operates without recourse to a deity or any other metaphysical grounding” – does its thing and we just have to accept that.

Or, sure, am I way off base here?

The quote in that post that lists three primary foci of Buddhism that even a housecat could see directly connects to your issues. You didn’t respond to two of those. Then the point that your approach, distinct from Abrahamic and in general scientists ways of determining, or trying to, how to act in the world, has to do with intra-psychic approaches. IOW you are more alligned with Buddhists than with most objectivists and also those you might align with epistemologically (such as scientists and those who accept scientific epistemology). All that you ignored.

You brought up Karma and Reincarnation. Then act as if my pointing out that you did not respond to what I posted was not accurate. I mena, you couldn’t even bother to look at the post when it is pointed out that you didn’t respond to it. Further you brought up reincarnation and Karma AS IF these were relevent to my post. It was mentioned as irrelevent in my posts as far as the many striking similarities between Buddhism and your own conclusions.

This would be a relevant point IF I said that all Buddhist ideas were shared by you. I did not.

If you had actually checked the link you would see nothing there about morals, just blanket statements about a mind that constucts potentially fallible ideas. One piece…(though, of course, it pisses me off that your continuous denial, inability to interact with ideas and laziness mean I have to repeat myself. This hallucination that others will come in an explain is religious in nature)

Further, it has repeatedly been said to you that your focus is on concepts that are very hard for even long practicing buddhists to understand. Let alone someone who has no interest or experience in Buddhism.

You are dishonest.

The post I wrote was directed to others, pointing out something obvious to others with some knowledge of both you and Buddhism. You could have honestly ignored it and said nothing. Instead you dishonestly post as if you are responding to it, when you were clearly not. When I point this out, you act like this cannot be shown, which is so dumb it boggles the mind.

I pointed out in a good half dozen quotes precisely what I was pointing out to others: the tremendous affinity between many things you say (and repeat) and Buddhism.

[/quote]
Obviously it does not just revolve around that and I pointed out specific portions of those posts that make that clear.

Notice what Iambguous does. Instead of actually responding to the places where I point this out - iow dealing with the justification for my conclusion, he simply makes a blanket claim.

It is easy to make a blanket claim. It is harder when one has to actually respond to specific points. So, he avoids the latter.

He is dishonest.

Iamb you are dishonest.

And this is one of the main reasons you generate ire in others. The story you come up with for the ‘real reasons’ is simply convenient.

Seriously: how does it feel to have to lie about yourself over and over. And look, I know you are capable of posting a denial that you do this. Or playing to the gallery.

But if you respect yourself at all, even if you play those bs games, how does it feel that after all these years of struggle, you can’t even be honest with yourself and have to lie over and over about what you do in relation to others?

You can play dumb and pretend I am one of three stooges, but you know better.

Lie again here to me publically. Easy as pie. But ask yourself, what the fuck do you gain from that lie? And what might you lose?

And notice the narcissism in a thread that is not yours, that if we are not focusing on what you want to focus on, this is somehow a failure to address something. I have responded to you in a myriad of ways, including being right on point with what you want to criticizing to your behavior and assumptions and more. what I did here was to point out an irony to others. I don’t have to satisfy your need for a solution to conflicting goods and fragmentation - though I have come at that issue elsewhere in a variety of tones and approaches. I think the truly fascinating thing is how much I avoid the conclusion that you might just be a moron. I would never have pictured a moron stringing together some of you posts, but maybe this is why you repeat yourself so often. You had an idea and you just keep repeating it. A one trick pony. Like someone using the same response in a dialogue, regardless, and you literally cannot conceive of anything else.

Eliade said that man was created in order to serve the gods, who, first of all, needed to be fed and clothed. We want to make reality match our fantasies–to please the gods, so to speak. Shall we blame them if they each claim to show the one true path? They are gods after all. Perhaps there is but one path with many “denominations”. Who are you, fractured and fragmented, to say? There is wisdom in humility, many religions, common sense, and experience unite in teaching us.

These “three foci” of Buddhism. What are they again? But only as they relate to that which is of interest to me on this thread: connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then.

You note things like this. And I don’t doubt that “in your head” the claims are all perfectly legitimate. But, again, what on earth do they have to do with Buddhists connecting the dots between enlightenment and karma on this side of the grave, and reincarnation and Nirvana on the other side?

In no substantive sense do I see my own rendition of “I” here aligned with Buddhism…or with any religious denomination. We seem clearly intent on exploring these relationships differently.

Note to others: Weigh in here please.

I bring them up only in order to explore the choices that Buddhists make themselves in connecting them to their behaviors from day to day insofar as it impacts on the fate of “I” then. Anything else is of considerably less importance to me.

Again, what interest me about Buddhism is in how it deconstructs “I” – the “self” – given how clearly demonstrable one’s identity often is in the either/or world. Sure, it changes over time. But these changes can be measured reasonably given an understanding of human biology, demographics, and the extent to which the empirical world is in sync with the laws of nature, mathematics, and the logical rules of language.

Here the Buddhist “self” is just like the rest of us.

Instead, it is only when we explore identity given conflicting moral and political value judgments, that, in my view, “I” becomes an ever more shifting/evolving existential fabrication – given new experiences, relationships and access to ideas in a world inundated with contingencies, chance and change.

All I can note here is that I am not able to grasp what it is exactly that you are accusing me of here. Which is why our only recourse is keep the focus on particular sets of circumstances involving the components of Buddhism. Here you can point to specific examples of the claims you make about me.

That’s your assessment. My assessment of the irritation I spark revolves more around this:

[b]1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives “for all practical purposes” from day to day.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can’t know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can’t know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that “I” in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods — and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where “I” becomes fractured and fragmented.[/b]

On the contrary, I don’t doubt that the iambiguous you have conjured up in your head here is guilty of all these things. But then you keep insisting that your own assessment here is by default the starting point for any and all discussions of him. And to the extent I don’t agree I am merely continuing to be dishonest.

Your whole argument about me has devolved into this sort of thing:

I don’t recognize myself here at all. And, again, it speaks considerably more about you than it does me.

Now, I have my own speculations regarding why I seem to generate this sort of reaction from you. A reaction that in the past has almost always come from the objectivists. So, sure, maybe it will come to the surface down the road. Or maybe not.

Yes, there are many experts or experienced practitioners who do not consider there to be one true path. This assumption makes it easier to dismiss people if one assumes that a path is valid is one must prove that everyone should follow it and need have no experience of it to know this.

It’s a recipe for not doing anything to present the issue this way.

A good rule of thumb is that if you want to dismiss something rationally, find the proponents of it who are the hardest to dismiss, not the easiest.

Unless your goal is to dismiss rather than to potentially learn something.

Contingency, Impermanence, and one could even say dasein interlock in Buddhism…

I was actually referring to the gods themselves not their practitioners. Look at the Greek gods for example. They’re very selfish and demand sacrifice. Or Yahweh. He called himself a jealous god, and he certainly acted like it in the Hebrew Bible. Now I have encountered a very different spirit in Buddhism and with the liberal Jesus. We could talk about the historic Buddha versus the mythic Buddha, much as scholars talk about Jesus. But I refuse to discuss Buddhism as if I am an objective authority. Let someone who claims to be a Buddhist do that. For better or worse, my philosophy of life is religiously eclectic and subjective.

He also said, “…and I realize how useless wails are and how gratuitous melancholy is.”

All the more reason to invent religion. God – or the Buddhist equivalent? – hears your wails. And your melancholy will be weighed as well.

Here, however, with potent thinkers of this sort, I prefer Fernando “the book of disquiet” Pessoa and Emil “the trouble with being born” Cioran.

And, no, I certainly don’t blame the multitude of religious denominations for claiming the “one true path”.

On the contrary, over and over and over and over again, I come back to this:

LOOK WHAT IS AT STAKE!!!

Nothing seems more important to me than morality on this side of the grave and immortality on the other side. How the two are intertwined in the minds of the faithful.

But: that is no less my own existential contraption rooted in dasein.

And if there be “one true path” with many denominations what happens when they are up and down the moral and political spectrum when embracing enlightened behavior and sin?

Nope, it’s not for nothing I suspect that these denominations tend to claim the “one true path” as their own.

But, sure, if you and others are 1] able to convince yourself it is the other way around and 2] this brings you comfort and consolation then, well, it worked!

“Gratuitous melancholy”— a good description of your bag.

If “this brings you comfort and consolation [which it seems to] then, well, it worked!”

No, it’s a good description of a psychological state that comes to the surface when you have thought yourself into believing that human existence is essentially meaningless; and that “I” then tumbles over into the abyss that is oblivion.

Religion then becoming the antidote of choice for those able to think themselves into believing that their own is the “one true path”.

Or, even more incomprehensible to me now, think themselves into believing in one or another rendition of the ecumenical narrative.

And I was once on that path myself as a Unitarian.

Again, Curly, if you are actually dense enough to imagine that my frame of mind today brings me comfort and consolation, then, well, that explains so much more about you!

If I do say so myself.

If nothing else it brings you the comfort and consolation of believing in your intellectual superiority to the objectivists. You probably got a little shot of dopamine when you posted that post, and demonstrated to yourself how you’re one up on me intellectually. Go for it bro. It seems like it’s all you’ve got.

Come on, how is this not just “intellectual gibberish”?

And, if there is nothing to attain, then what the hell is the point of reincarnation and Nirvana?

And of course the “self” – at least from the cradle to the grave – is on a never ending quest to attain, among other things, something to eat, something to drink, something to wear, someplace to live.

Not to mention the endless task of sustaining all of the very real things that we – actual flesh and blood human beings – come to want.

In other words, in so many clearly delineated ways, the self is anything but a semblance.

The paths are there alright. But what may not be is the capacity to distinguish between enlightened and unenlightened journeys on them from the cradle to the grave.

Why yours and not another’s? Why yours then, but now another one altogether?

It’s not for nothing that some Buddhists prefer to live in enclaves…as far removed from the lives that most of us live as they can.

As for the “gateless gate”, there is clearly one that separates life from death. And there is being on one side of the gate here and now and the other side there and then.

Only no one has ever actually demonstrated the latter. So is it really a surprise that any number of religious traditions have to concoct that part in their heads?

Right, like the Buddhists among us can speak of enlightened behavior on this side the grave precipitating karma precipitating a favorable reincarnation, precipitating whatever it is they think that Nirvana is, while I get to embody the consolation of construing myself in an essentially meaningless human existence tumbling over into the abyss that is oblivion.

Sure, there are atheists who wallow in the sort of smugness that comes from thinking that they embody both intellectual honesty and integrity in shunning religion. And, as well, if it brings you some measure of satisfaction to think that I am one of them, so be it.

But this suggests far more about you than it does me.

Well, whatever that means.

The assumption here is that a depressing philosophy cannot be appealing due to various kinds of secondary gains that are in fact comforting. If all human interactions are meaningless, then one can ‘justifiably’ avoid them. And while this is depressing, that habit - of avoiding human contact - can protect one from the sharper, on a felt-level more catastrophic feelings that arise when one loses love or friends, for example.

And note, I am not saying that iambiguous has his depressing philosophy because of this particular desire to avoid. What I am saying is he presumes that because his ideas make him feel bad they cannot also be a comfort and self-protective. At least he will never be fooled/hurt/dumped/intimately judged again. For example.

Cynicism (and there are many varieties of this) despite it being in many instances paintful can also be soothing around greater pains. Various nihilisms also. Even pure clinical depression can be protective. The person in question, for example, may be avoiding anger. And the pain of ‘being like dad’ keeps them from expressing or even feeling anger when treated poorly at work or in relationships, because the pain of depressions seems or even is less acute then the guilts and fear about being a bad person.

And again, just to be doubly clear. None of these are my beliefs about what is really going on in Iambiguous. Who knows? My point is that his binary assumption that if some idea or set of ideas carries with it unpleasant emotions, it cannot also be comforting, is confused about human nature.

He is telling himself a story and now felix. It might even be comforting one.

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

Nothing new here. Asking someone what they believe will follow after death rather than how they would go about demonstrating that what they believe is actually true. Especially in regard to that which is of vital interest to all of us: the posthumous “I”.

So, let’s see what “in his head” he believes about it:

What could possibly be less ambiguous? Now all we need is for someone at the “Vajrayana level” to connect the dots between that and enlightened behaviors on this side of the grave.

Anyone here willing to note the distinction that they make between “virtuous and non-virtuous actions”…given their own past?

[-o<

How can things like this be believed other than as a component of human psychology? Religion basically becoming the mother of all psychological defense mechanisms. You “think” the after life into existence.

Though, in fact, most don’t even do that. They simply “rethink” what others have taught them given the paths invented by any number of religious denominations.

That’s how it all unfolded for me back when I was able to believe in immortality and salvation. Now I’m left only with slimmest of hopes that somehow someone in places like this might manage to rekindle a spark of promise that this is not just an essentially meaningless existence that ends in oblivion.

No, the assumption is that however appealing any philosophy an atheist subscribes to might be, how on earth does it stack up against the comfort and the consolation embedded in the belief that one can be Enlightened here and now and attain Immortality there and end?

I mean, come on, you would have to be a fucking idiot not to grasp how enormous that gap is.

More intellectual gibberish. Human interactions are anything but meaningless. It’s just that sometimes the meaning is derived objectively from the either/or world, and other times subjectively from the is/ought world.

Besides, does life have to be meaningful to enjoy good food, good music, good art, good sex, good careers, good friendships, good accomplishments?

As for avoiding or not avoiding human interactions, that can sometimes come down to actual options.

You know, whatever that means. But don’t ask me what I think it means, ask him to tell you what I think it means.

Psychobabble anyone?

Then this ridiculous “full disclosure”:

I dare challenge someone to translate this into “ordinary language philosophy”.

As “comforting” as possible.

Iambiguous said “Besides, does life have to be meaningful to enjoy good food, good music, good art, good sex, good careers, good friendships, good accomplishments?”

Oh okay. So it seems that you acknowledge certain imminent values even if you are agnostic about transcendent ones. How are all those goods not meaningful?

Who says they are not meaningful?

Do you imagine my point here is to suggest the beliefs that Buddhists hold dear are not meaningful?

Do you imagine my points is to debunk religious values as, what, inherently meaningless?

No, I am interested in exploring how Buddhists intertwine what they construe the meaning of enlightenment and karma to be here and now as that impacts on what they construe the meaning of reincarnation and Nirvana to be there and then. Insofar as they choose particular behaviors.

And, of far greater importance, the extent to which what they believe is able to be reconfigured into an actual demonstration such that I might be inclined to believe the same thing.

Iamb says there is only the tiniest chance they are not meaningful…

Here it is stated as simply the case…

Who said it? He said it.

Note: his reaction to what is simply stated as a meaningless world.

These quotes are all fairly recent, but they actually go back years, in slightly different formulations, where he states that existence is meaningless.

He’s a liar.

Note: you shift to atheism. My post was talking about your belief in the meaninglessness of life. This is a very common habit you have.

You shift the topic.

Now,yes, your atheism is part of why you think things are meaningless, but here we are in a Buddhism thread. Buddhism is actually more severe (in many of its forms) than mere Western atheism. The Western Atheist may or may not be afraid of the loss of self at death, but generally thinks they get this time. Their self lasts throughout their lifetime. Buddhism generally asserts that there is no self that persists through time. In fact the comfort comes in So you don’t even get that basic facet of Buddhism. One stops worrying about death because one realizes that there is no self to lose. That actually in much of buddhism what comes back via rebirth, not via reincarnation, is not you, but a pattern that is similar to the pattern that was there before. Not only will the ‘you’ that is now nto experience this next life, but ‘you’ won’t be around next week. There is no you. It’s dasein-based non-essentialism on steroids, Buddhism. And Buddhism is generally also atheist, so you’re raising atheism is, well, just silly, here, apart from the way it is a strawman, since I was focused on something else. And many atheists are fairly ok with dying, in the end, including Western ones. Unlike you. In fact scientific materialism also goes against a self that persists through a lifetime, since the matter in the body is being replaced all the time. YOu think you are facing uncomfortable truths and others comfort themselves, but that is hardly the case.

Many atheists are ok with dying. But not you. Some of them may have spent some time contemplating eternal existence. Some may simply be engaged in life in ways you are not. There are likely all sorts of reasons. But you assume that

your
ideas
must
lead
to
your despressed life hating state.

But notice also that you don’t actually deal with my argument.

People choose death, resignation, avoidance of life all the time to get away from social shame, embarrassment, guilt, loss of love.

You may think this is illogical, but then this presumes that people make all their choices based on logic. Or that people even know what they are doing. We know from cognitive science that people make poor choices all the times, make choices that are not based on logic all the time and so.

Further are you really going to tell me that people who kill themselves when it is found out that they have photos of them on the internet giving blow jobs to someone (say a high school girl) or have committed crimes or not longer have the wealth they had or the job they had and can’t face their families

all

think

they are going to heaven or will be reincarnated?

People actively choose actual death to avoid all sorts of social feelings, all the time.

Read that again: you think people would not choose a despressing belief to comfort themselves. Not only will they choose comforting beliefs to comfort themselves, they will actually end their own existences to avoid all sorts of social pains. And they are not assuming they are coming back. And these suicides are often well planned, not just impulsive.

You could certainly find comfort in holding onto beliefs that mean there is no point in trying to find love or intimacy ever again and going through pain you have gone through before. Humans do shit like that all the time.

People will avoid getting angry even if this leads to depression and suicide, because anger is so ego-dystonic for them.

You don’t realize it, but basically what you have just asserted is there is no chance you are confused about your own motives and further that you make choices based on logic.

Good luck with that type of blanket self-assessment.

And you can label things you do not understand as babble, but the truth it’s obvious you don’t know much about cognitive science, psychology in general, how people make decisions, contradictions in the self, secondary gain around beliefs and behavioral patterns and more. Just because you have lacked an interest and any study of a subject (either formal or self-guided) does not make it babble.

It must be gibberish, because you don’t like the door it opens.

And jesus, you don’t know basic shit about Buddhism. Notice your assumption that Buddhism offers comfort via beliefs. WEll, some manage that I’m sure, but actually Buddhisms beliefs are extremely disturbing, not only will you not go on experiencing after death, but tomorrow morning it will nto be you, there is no permanence at all. The comfort Buddhism offers is via practice not beliefs. That there is nothing to lose, rather than what you keep assuming that one comes to believe in reincarnation. But you’d know this kind of shit if you actually spent time trying to understand it and interacting with practitioners face to face and participating.

But you are not interested. So your posts just reveal idiotic Western assumptions and then your own particular idiotic twists on these. And if the conclusion is problematic, you pretend that your ignorance means you are a good judge of the coherence of anything presented to you.

You may think some gallery you are playing to will agree with you, but there’s only a few people interacting with you. And to a large degree the three of us notice the exact same things about you. Over and over.

You’re a troll here - faux interest - and a liar elsewhere.