I don't get Buddhism

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 20, 2020 7:53 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote: I think one interesting thing about Iamb's positions/experiences is how well they fits Buddhism.


On the other hand, I don't have access to enlightenment and karma here and now culminating in reincarnation and [possibly] Nirvana there and then.


Um. You didn't respond to anything I wrote here. I don't even know what the phrase 'access to enlightenment and karma' would possibly mean. So, responding as if I said anything of the sort is odd.


Let's try this. Note the top 3 things you posted above on this thread that I did not respond to.

And since [presumably] Buddhists do have some measure of access to what the Buddha meant by enlightenment and karma, how do they apply that to the behaviors they choose so as to embody what they believe the Buddha meant by reincarnation and Nirvana down the road. Which, as I note time and again, reflects my own personal interest in religion.

Not theirs though? Not yours? Then, sure, steer clear of my posts.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: His sense of self. He puts 'I' often in citation marks. He talks about experiencing himself as fractured and fragmented.


Ah, but only in regard to moral and political values in the is/ought world. Whereas in my interactions with others in the either/or world, I don't feel fractured and fragmented at all.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: Bizarre so your fragmented and fractured state in relation to morals has no effect on how you feel in interactions with other people. Morals have to do amongst other things with how one should behave in relation to others and often how one judges their actions. But being utterly fragmented and fractured about morals has no effect on your interactions with others.


Huh?!

In my interactions with others involving conflicting goods, there are things in the either/or world we can all agree on. The facts embedded in abortion, the facts embedded in gun ownership, the facts embedded in vaccination policy. Facts in which neither I nor they feel fractured and fragmented. But in reacting to those facts as that impacts on one's moral and political convictions, my "I" is fractured and fragmented here in a way that the objectivists sense of self is not. Why? Because they have either been indoctrinated by others or thought themselves into believing they are in sync with a "real me" in tandem with the conviction that "as one of us", they know the right thing to do.

Then it's all about focusing in on a particular context and examining each other's moral philosophy.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: But most important: I note that you do not mention you're putting I in citation marks: 'I' - all the time. And all your tying this in to identity, in general!!! Noticed, again, that you avoid stuff, make up stuff, can't really be bothered to interact with others. Perhaps that's a sign that you're fragmentation around morals has no affect on your interactions with others.


I don't agree. It's bullshit. Sometimes I go with "I", other times with I. Then again your accusations. Accusations not centered on an unfolding discussion revolving around a particular set of circumstances whereby in detail you can note when I do all of these things.

Iambiguous: Only I have come to conclude that human interactions are essentially meaningless. And I have deconstructed human identity into the fractured and fragmented "I" that I have come to embody myself.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: Note the generalization over human interactions in total. Note the refernce to identity (not just for example moral conclusions or something else)


Over and over and over and over again, I make a distinction between essential meaning in the either/or world -- things that mean the same for all of us -- and what appears to me to be a lack of essential meaning given our moral and political reactions to that which we can all agree is in fact true.

Abortion as a medical procedure. A particular abortion in a particular context bursting at the seams with facts that everyone concurs regarding. Essential, objective truths here. At least as I understand the meaning of it.

Then the ethicists and all the rest of us weigh in on the rightness or the wrongness of abortion. The part "I" construe to be rooted far more subjectively in the existential fabrication embodied in dasein. Now, there may well be essential truths here as well. Rooted in God, or, if No God, rooted deontologically in a demonstrable philosophical argument.

And, if so, produce this God. Produce this secular argument.

As for this...

Iambiguous: Instead, the assumption that life is essentially meaningless has become an important factor for me in that it has precipitated a "fractured and fragmented" sense of identity. At least in regard to my understanding of human social, political and economic interactions.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: Note the inclusion of social. Note the conclusion related to life in general.

and what is a whole thread here....
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=173716&p=2186078&hilit=identity+real#p2186078
that first paragraph being also extremely Buddhist.
and your second post is also Buddhist and note that morals are not even peripheral.

You're not honest. You are not an honest person, here at ILP at least, Iamb. Not that you'll ever ever admit it even on the smallest little mistakes, let alone hilarious large issue contradictions like these.


...a little help from others here please. What exactly is he arguing here about me? Reconfigure his point so that I might actually grasp these contradictions of mine more perspicuously. Same with my dishonesty.

In my view, philosophy comes down to this: the extent to which we can demonstrate to others that our own sense of reality is either embedded in truth objectively [and thus accessible to all rational minds] or is, instead, reflective only our own particular existential interpretation of what constitutes a "reasonable" assessment of reality from moment to moment as dasein.


There is an enormous gap between my argument here and Buddhism. Again, "the existential interpretation" revolves around "I" in the is/ought word, and not in the either/or world. How in fact did the Buddha himself make this distinction?

And my fractured and fragmented "I" here does not conclude that through enlightenment and karma I will continue on in being reincarnated after death with the potential for achieving Nirvana.

Whatever that actually means and however that might actually be demonstrated.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: and more....
That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my "self" is, what can "I" do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknowledging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we "anchor" our identity to so as to make this prefabricated...fabricated...refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.
That sentence there about acknowledging that identity is an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice is extremely Buddhist. And precisely what I was referring to that you deny above.


Again, all of this revolves around "I" in the is/ought world. I would never conclude this regarding the biological, demographic, experiential I embedded in the laws of nature, embedded in the actual unfolding empirical world around me.

Here, instead, my uncertainty revolves more around the extent to which determinism might be the case. Rendering the distinction between "I" and I entirely moot.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36132
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Wed May 20, 2020 9:08 pm

So then you're undecided about determinism? Lol
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8686
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 20, 2020 9:33 pm

felix dakat wrote:So then you're undecided about determinism? Lol


Aren't you, Curly? 8)

On the other hand, seriously, aren't you?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36132
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Wed May 20, 2020 11:15 pm

iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:So then you're undecided about determinism? Lol


Aren't you, Curly? 8)

On the other hand, seriously, aren't you?


No. I love a good paradox.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8686
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Thu May 21, 2020 6:29 pm

felix dakat wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:So then you're undecided about determinism? Lol


Aren't you, Curly? 8)

On the other hand, seriously, aren't you?


No. I love a good paradox.


Yes, the really big questions. The ones that religious denominations explore -- answer? -- on the one true path.

Their own, for example.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36132
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Thu May 21, 2020 7:28 pm

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

...in the Sivaka Sutta, an early Buddhist discourse, the Buddha denies that karma is a total explanation for what happens to a person, stating that other factors also play a role. Later commentaries talk of five natural laws: the laws of physics, biology, karma, psychology, and dhamma-niyama, or the truths taught by the Buddha. These are all seen as being utterly dependable natural laws which operate without recourse to a deity or any other metaphysical grounding. Does this make any sense with regards to the idea of karma?


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?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36132
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri May 22, 2020 8:24 am

iambiguous wrote:Let's try this. Note the top 3 things you posted above on this thread that I did not respond to.
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.

And my fractured and fragmented "I" here does not conclude that through enlightenment and karma I will continue on in being reincarnated after death with the potential for achieving Nirvana.
This would be a relevant point IF I said that all Buddhist ideas were shared by you. I did not.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Note the inclusion of social. Note the conclusion related to life in general.

and what is a whole thread here....
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=173716&p=2186078&hilit=identity+real#p2186078
that first paragraph being also extremely Buddhist.
and your second post is also Buddhist and note that morals are not even peripheral.


You're not honest. You are not an honest person, here at ILP at least, Iamb. Not that you'll ever ever admit it even on the smallest little mistakes, let alone hilarious large issue contradictions like these.




...a little help from others here please. What exactly is he arguing here about me? Reconfigure his point so that I might actually grasp these contradictions of mine more perspicuously. Same with my dishonesty.
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)

If the "self" ceaselessly constructs, deconstructs and reconstructs fragments of "reality" is it not, in turn, merely a reflection of its own uniqurely existential moments from birth to death? And, if so, how then can we ever trust that each moment of reflection itself is not just a calcultated assumption regarding the relationship between what we think is reasonable [in a sea of conflicting variables] and what may or may not be construed as reasonable from a broader or more sophisticated viewpoint?


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.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: His sense of self. He puts 'I' often in citation marks. He talks about experiencing himself as fractured and fragmented.


Ah, but only in regard to moral and political values in the is/ought world. Whereas in my interactions with others in the either/or world, I don't feel fractured and fragmented at all.




Karpel Tunnel wrote: But most important: I note that you do not mention you're putting I in citation marks: 'I' - all the time. And all your tying this in to identity, in general!!! Noticed, again, that you avoid stuff, make up stuff, can't really be bothered to interact with others. Perhaps that's a sign that you're fragmentation around morals has no affect on your interactions with others.


I don't agree. It's bullshit. Sometimes I go with "I", other times with I. Then again your accusations. Accusations not centered on an unfolding discussion revolving around a particular set of circumstances whereby in detail you can note when I do all of these things.
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.

Again, all of this revolves around "I" in the is/ought world. I would never conclude this regarding the biological, demographic, experiential I embedded in the laws of nature, embedded in the actual unfolding empirical world around me.
[/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.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3056
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Fri May 22, 2020 6:35 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Yes, the really big questions. The ones that religious denominations explore -- answer? -- on the one true path.

Their own, for example.

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.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8686
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sat May 23, 2020 2:02 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Let's try this. Note the top 3 things you posted above on this thread that I did not respond to.
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.


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.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: 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 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.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: 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.


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, all of this revolves around "I" in the is/ought world. I would never conclude this regarding the biological, demographic, experiential I embedded in the laws of nature, embedded in the actual unfolding empirical world around me.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: Obviously it does not just revolve around that and I pointed out specific portions of those posts that make that clear.


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.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: 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.


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.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Iamb you are dishonest.

And this is one of the main reasons you generate ire in others.


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

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.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: 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.


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:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: 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.


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.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36132
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat May 23, 2020 10:09 am

felix dakat wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Yes, the really big questions. The ones that religious denominations explore -- answer? -- on the one true path.

Their own, for example.

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.

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.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3056
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat May 23, 2020 10:30 am

Contingency, Impermanence, and one could even say dasein interlock in Buddhism....
The quality of anatta, in a sense, is an extension of anicca, impermanence. If all things are subject to change and transience, then nothing can have a fixed essence or ‘self’. Everything is in process, fluid, temporary and impermanent. All ‘things’ are really ‘events. If we examine any entity within the perceived world, we realise that it changes, however slow or fast, and therefore it has no fixed identity. Also, every entity is affected by other entities and by their surroundings. This is what we mean by karma, causality – the way in which actions have consequences.

The fact that all identities are subject to change and evolution, subject to the causal impact of everything that happens, applies as much to us, as it does to a mountain, a fly, an idea or an emotion. When the Buddha examined himself, or as we examine ourselves in mindful meditation, he, and we, find that there is no fixed essence to our being or identity. Our thoughts, feelings, opinions, beliefs and behaviour are constantly evolving, revised and modified in the light of everything that we experience. These changes may be small or great, fast or slow, but they are always occurring.

However, we can find ourselves, for many reasons, unable to recognise or accept this changeful contingency at the heart of our identity. We construct, instead, an image of ourselves that is fixed and rigid and we carry this image around as a flag or marker of what we are and what we stand for. This image of a fixed identity gives us a false sense of security and immediately rubs up against the changeful world in which we exist. So, we cling more and more tightly to our image, identity opinions and beliefs. This often leads us into conflict, both within ourselves (as we try to hang on to our fixed identity) and with others and the world (which are always changing and challenging our fixed opinions). What happens to individuals can also happen to communities or societies: rigid self-identity can become rigid national or racial identity – and it is obvious how this rigidity or fixed identity can lead to conflict.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3056
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Sat May 23, 2020 1:36 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Yes, the really big questions. The ones that religious denominations explore -- answer? -- on the one true path.

Their own, for example.

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.

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.

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.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8686
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sat May 23, 2020 7:35 pm

felix dakat wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Yes, the really big questions. The ones that religious denominations explore -- answer? -- on the one true path.

Their own, for example.

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.


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!
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36132
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Sat May 23, 2020 8:04 pm

iambiguous wrote:He also said, "...and I realize how useless wails are and how gratuitous melancholy is."


"Gratuitous melancholy"--- a good description of your bag.

iambiguous wrote:Here, however, with potent thinkers of this sort, I prefer Fernando "the book of disquiet" Pessoa and Emil "the trouble with being born" Cioran.

If "this brings you comfort and consolation [which it seems to] then, well, it worked!"
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8686
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sat May 23, 2020 8:23 pm

felix dakat wrote:
iambiguous wrote:He also said, "...and I realize how useless wails are and how gratuitous melancholy is."


"Gratuitous melancholy"--- a good description of your bag.


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.

iambiguous wrote:Here, however, with potent thinkers of this sort, I prefer Fernando "the book of disquiet" Pessoa and Emil "the trouble with being born" Cioran.


felix dakat wrote:If "this brings you comfort and consolation [which it seems to] then, well, it worked!"


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.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36132
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Sat May 23, 2020 9:16 pm

iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
iambiguous wrote:He also said, "...and I realize how useless wails are and how gratuitous melancholy is."


"Gratuitous melancholy"--- a good description of your bag.


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.

iambiguous wrote:Here, however, with potent thinkers of this sort, I prefer Fernando "the book of disquiet" Pessoa and Emil "the trouble with being born" Cioran.


felix dakat wrote:If "this brings you comfort and consolation [which it seems to] then, well, it worked!"


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.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8686
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sun May 24, 2020 2:01 am

There is no Enlightenment. There’s absolutely nothing to attain and no 'self' to attain it.
This is the ‘pathless path’ or the ‘gateless gate’ they speak about.


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?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36132
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sun May 24, 2020 2:13 am

felix dakat wrote: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.


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.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36132
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun May 24, 2020 3:28 pm

felix dakat wrote:If "this brings you comfort and consolation [which it seems to] then, well, it worked!"


iambiguous wrote: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.

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.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3056
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 25, 2020 5:58 pm

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

Yancy: You also said that we fear death because of our uncertainty about what follows it. As you know, in Plato’s “Apology,” Socrates suggests that death is a kind of blessing that involves either a “dreamless sleep” or the transmigration of the soul to another place. As a Tibetan Buddhist, do you believe that there is anything after death?


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:

Namgyal: In the Buddhist tradition, particularly at the Vajrayana level, we believe in the continuity of subtle mind and subtle energy into the next life, and the next after that, and so on without end. This subtle mind-energy is eternal; it knows no creation or destruction. For us ordinary beings, this way of transitioning into a new life happens not by choice but under the influence of our past virtuous and non-virtuous actions. This includes the possibility of being born into many forms of life.


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.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36132
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 25, 2020 6:55 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:The assumption here is that a depressing philosophy cannot be appealing due to various kinds of secondary gains that are in fact comforting.


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.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: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.


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.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: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.


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.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: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.


Psychobabble anyone?

Then this ridiculous "full disclosure":

Karpel Tunnel wrote: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.


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

As "comforting" as possible.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36132
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Mon May 25, 2020 8:32 pm

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?
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8686
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 25, 2020 9:55 pm

felix dakat wrote: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.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36132
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue May 26, 2020 7:51 am

iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote: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?

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

Here it is stated as simply the case...
Only I have come to conclude that human interactions are essentially meaningless.
Who said it? He said it.

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.


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.


The fear and anxiety are instead merely construed by me to be part and parcel of the brute facticity embedded in my own essentially meaningless existence.

Then all they need but do is to ask me about my own fractured and fragmented reaction to an essentially meaningless world that ends in the obliteration of "I" for all of eternity.
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.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3056
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue May 26, 2020 8:29 am

iambiguous wrote:
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?
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.

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

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.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3056
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron