No Buddhist hells? One of the 5 realms you can be incarnated to is the hell realm!
Buddhists don’t fuck around either! I’d rather be sent to Christian eternal damnation than a Buddhist one!
Seriously, Buddhists don’t fuck around!
One of the Buddhist hells is that if you reach the top of a mountain, your hell will end. Slight problem… the entire mountain has knives sticking out of it, making it impossible to get to the top! Ever!
No, Buddhists don’t fuck around!
Another Buddhists hell is that you are always starving and then you get one grain of rice every 10 trillion years - forever.
What would or does your set of circumstances look like, for a discussion of Brahman based on Your view? Is that onus not on You, in setting out the terms of that which you want to understand?
Then I don’t understand. Every Buddhist source I’ve come across says the world is an illusion and that the dream analogy fits.
Obviously, analogies shouldn’t be taken literally, so maybe the unreality of dreams is one aspect of the analogy that doesn’t carry over well, but I thought this was the key reason enlightenment brings so much peace of mind.
Now we could say that though a dream isn’t real, someone in the midst of a nightmare experiences real fear, and maybe we have a moral obligation to wake him up to relieve him of his fear. Is that what you have in mind?
In my view, once you assume the existence of 1] a determined universe in which matter interacts entirely in accordance with immutable laws, and 2] that the human brain is just more of it, then Brahman much like everything else is merely an inherent/necessary manifestation of the only possible reality. Or, as some argue, embedded in the psychological illusion of human autonomy.
But, once human autonomy is presumed instead, then the assumption would be that we are free to interpret the meaning of Brahman. And that can/will result in conflicting assessments. So, which assessment can those in possession of free will pin down as the actual correct assessment?
And in what particular context?
Okay, fair enough. But, in regard to religion, I can’t think of a more potent motive than the one that, historically and culturally, revolves around exploring the actual practical ramifications of connecting the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality there and then. What could possibly be of more importance than that? For the lives that we live.
Well, okay, for those Buddhists here among us, let’s choose a particular set of circumstances and explore the extent to which the “self” either can or cannot be deemed illusive. First in the either/or world. Then in the is/ought world.
Now, my distinction here is that in the either/or world of 1] biological imperatives 2] social, political and economic demographics and 3] empirical facts, the Buddhist self is as substantial as all the rest of ours. Whereas, in the is/ought world, I deem the “self” not to be entirely illusive, but elusive. An ever evolving existential contraption rooted in dasein from the cradle to the grave.
Sure, if some can convince themselves that “Everything is an illusion. The self is no exception. The self is an invention clung to by desire as a means to attain satisfaction”, what can I say. We’ll just have to agree to disagree about that.
Same here…
Yeah, if you can think yourself into believing this and then choose to live in a community consisting entirely of other Buddhists who have thought themselves into thinking the same, fine. If that works to bring you a far more comforting and consoling sense of reality, more power to you.
But: if you choose to interact with folks of other religious denominations and atheists and the nihilist who own and operate around the globe that we all reside on, be prepared to have your own sense of identity challenged. See if there are not some very, very real aspects of the self that are challenged by others.
For example, others might insist that you actually demonstrate to them what your own morality “stems from”. In regard to, say, the very real parameters of abortion, or animal rights, or gender roles, or sexual behaviors. What are you going to do, plead “illusion” when they challenge the things you say and do?
Actually, that can be seen as the least substantive question, in that Buddhists are no more able to demonstrate what one’s fate on the other side of the grave will be. Unless, of course, the Buddhists here are able to link me to such proof.
This is just intellectual gibberish to me, the sort of religious mumbo jumbo that the faithful [Buddhist or otherwise] are able to think themselves into believing but are entirely impotent in regard to substantiating. Again, from my perspective, the whole point is not in what you believe but that you believe it. It is the belief itself that instills the equanimity enabling one to deal with a world that is ever and always bursting at the seams with so many terrible things. And that’s before oblivion.
But I don’t cast doubt on all knowledge claims. Instead, I make a distinction between objective knowledge derived from human interactions in the either/or world, and subjective assessments relating to identity, value judgments and political economy. On this thread as that relates to behaviors deemed enlightened/unenlightened on this side of the grave and one’s fate on the other side of it.
And, come on, with so much at stake in regard to the fate of “I” for, say, all the rest of eternity, what could possibly be more crucial than to pick the right one?
Jesus I forgot how exhausting that song is. Don’t listen to it. It’s some of the worst showboating they’ve ever been guilty of. Leads persisting for over ten minutes. Okay John, we get it.
You can take the halo for that if you want. My motives are far more selfish. I’m here because Buddhism frustrates me. It delivers promises that only bear a possibility so long as I don’t pursue them.
Really? You’re just gonna leave it at that? I thought your goal was to probe until you could show that all my claims are vaccuous, or that you’ve fragmented my ‘I’? I thought for sure you’d ask for a demonstration that all rational men and women are obligated to agree with.
Well, that’s more like it. So speaking as the Buddhist that I’m not, I would argue that the truth as I see it is the truth regardless of what happens when I confront other people who disagree with me and insist that I demonstrate to them the truth of my convictions. Just like science remains true even when the scientist is confronted by religious zealots who insist that he’s wrong or that he prove to them the claims of his science. If it’s a question of how I would convince them if pressed to do so, I might plead illusion if I thought that might help, but I can only go so far. Some people just will not be convinced. In that case, I would try to avoid the subject with them, and (if they really do “insist”) maybe avoid them. The answer to your question really depends on to what extent they insist on involving themselves in my life? Are you suggesting an all-or-nothing scenario? Like I prove my position to them or die?
I meant substantive as in my beliefs definitely have something to say about it.
Then I’m not sure what you want me to say. You asked me a series of questions, I gave my answers. If it comes across to you as “intellectual gibberish” or “religious mumbo jumbo”, I’m afraid I cannot help you. Is that the end of the line, or did you want to try again rephrasing your request?
I think you took my question a little too literally. The question is: how can you know that literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of religions down through the ages insist that only their own take on morality here and now and immortality there and then reflect the real thing? I mean, to the extent that you seriously question my response: possibly.
I’m sure the sheer number of religions that have seen the light of day throughout literally all of history must be at least in the thousands, and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds which have insisted that they’ve got morality and the afterlife bang on with dogmatic certainty seems a fair bet, but reading between the line of your statement, I infer that you mean to say “the vast majority”. 300 religions out of a thousand would count as “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds” technically, but I don’t think you mean it that literally. We know a lot of religions in the modern world, and a lot have survived in the history books to be added to the count, and there is definitely a noticeable portion of them that take stances on morality and the afterlife with a dogmatic arrogance, but I’m going to hold back on saying that I know with certainty that almost all of them are like that. So… possibly.
Or is the part where, at death, the enlightened are reincarnated into that which might be construed as a higher form than those who are unenlightened just understood “spiritually” to be what it is?
Either Brahman can actually be discussed substantively [and then demonstrated] in regard to 1] the lives that we live and 2] the part where we are no longer among the living or, as an intellectual contraption, it can become anything you need it to be “in your head”.
Same with dasein. That’s why I attempt to explicate its meaning by noting how in regard to my own existence, it seems relevant to me. I merely make a distinction between I in the either/or world and “I” in the is/ought world.
What is this other than a “spiritual” observation that you make about Brahman that I and others either grasp or don’t grasp depending entirely on our own understanding of the words alone?
What does it have to do with, well, reincarnation and Nirvana?
Well, there’s not much that can’t be shaped and molded into reality if it all unfolds only in the human mind. As I noted to Gib above, here are examples of some of them: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r … ock%2Dwise
Well, for one thing, my set of circumstances are such that existentially I actually did come into contact with the spiritual/intellectual contraption that is said to be “Brahman”. No doubt the preponderance of human beings around the globe are completely oblivious to it.
In other words, the part embedded subjectively in dasein. The part where my own understanding of it is rooted in the actual sequence of experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge that I have accumulated in the course of living the life that I have.
And, in turn, assuming that others who have lived very, very different lives are likely to understand it differently.
So then we are left with the task of sifting through all of that and coming up with the most enlightened understanding of Brahman. And that I presume [on this thread] would come from those who call themselves Buddhists or Hindus.
On the other hand, my own interest in religion revolves more around connecting the dots between the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave and how that will impact the fate of “I” after death.
And here the enlightened either can or cannot, will or will not take Brahman.
I have no idea what this point has to do with my point above.
From my point of view, there are either material, empirical, biological, demographic etc., aspects of the self that we can demonstrate to be anything but illusions, or, instead, everything is an illusion. The either/or world claims are not deemed by me to be vacuous. I am not fractured and fragmented in regard to human interactions in the either/or world. Sure, I may be misunderstanding what is true, but what is true is there to be demonstrated. Or, rather, demonstrated to the best of our ability given all that we don’t know about existence itself.
Either that or I am misunderstanding you.
Yep, that’s how the moral and political and spiritual objectivists see it. The truth is demonstrated by them merely in the act of believing it. Others are either willing to become “one of us” and believe it too or they are wrong.
Science deals with claims that are either able to be demonstrated or they are not. Lots and lots of claims a 100 years ago may have been scoffed at but they have since been reconfigured into the astounding technologies and engineering feats that today we take for granted. On the other hand, with claims made regarding enlightenment, karma, reincarnation, Nirvana, Brahman, the Four Noble Truths etc., where is the evidence demonstrating the whole truth about them? After all, Buddha died 2,600 years ago.
Well, I’ve made it abundantly clear regarding the things that I would like to see substantiated by those who embrace religion as the foundation into which they anchor their self. Either what they believe “in their head” can be substantiated such that others are able – even obligated – to believe it in turn or it can’t.
Or, sure, we can just agree to disagree regarding what that in itself means.
What can I say? I can spend the rest of my life going down this list from wikipedia and, one by one, concluding that what they preach about morality and immortality is thought to be the One True Path, or I can take a subjective leap and conclude that most will believe this based on my own actual experiences with religious denominations over the years.
Or, as you note…
But…
Not at all clear where you are going with this.
For me the assumption is that down through the ages, religions are invented in order to connect the existential dots between the life that one lives here and now and the life that one wants to go on living there and then. One or another rendition of morality, then one or another rendition of immortality.
This and the part probed by folks like Marx: the politics of religion.
But ever and always [for me] there’s that gap between what someone believes about this in their head and what they can actually demonstrate that I should believe too.
How the ancients practised their Dharma and why… or whatever their local nuanced Practice was, is not pertinent for today’s needs, so the How and Why are based on the Here and Now, to aid the individual in the There and Then… whatever that There and Then might be.
Words cannot always express a thought(s) or a feeling(s), that has become entrenched in a Nation’s psyche over millennia and therefore become innate… an unspoken word, or is it a thought, passed on through genes but not necessarily memes.
Now that’s a lot of religions… any favourites? I quite like the ones where their god(s) were actually their ancestors, so praying to and giving alms to, fam.
…because all phenomena begin and end with mind… the human mainframe that sustains our being in its entirety… without it we are nothing, no-one.
I have said this before at ILP in other threads. Let me reiterate it once more to clear the issue.
People tend to forget that religions are neither pure ontologies nor pure Epistemologies. They stand somewhere between those two. They follow the route of Epistemology using ontology. If we keep this in mind while evaluating religions, many of the confusions will go away.
After that, considering above premise, religions further can be divided into two types. Process Epistemologies and Destiation Epistemologies. As far as i know, almost all religions, with the exception Buddhism and Janisim are destination Epistemologies as both of thse are process Epistemologies.
Again, in simple terms, destination Epistemological religions say that there is a certain spiritual destination, which should be attained by one and after that, one has to be there forever. These destinatins may differ accoeding to various religions. Like, abrahamic religions say that one has to reach and stay forever in the haven, something similar in the traditional Hinduism though it does not consider haven the last destination but still there is a final destination. Buddhism and Jainism do not believe that is a final destination to be reside permanently. Instead of that they propose that realising that one is in the process is sufficient. If one attains that understanding inperson but not by borowwed knoweledge, that is enlightenment.
Both types of religions consider this process as an illusion. Most religions comsider that one has to come out of this process while these two exceptions say that relilization of being struck in the process would be enough because that realization will make your suffering go away automaticlly.
This isn’t a moral “better”, it’s more of a desirable “better”. Peanut butter cookies are better than chocolate chip… because I like peanut butter better. A life free of suffering is better than a life with suffer… because I like freedom from suffering better.
Morality is something you do for it’s own sake–because it’s right–which is why it’s so much easier to regard doing things for others as moral–it controls for self-interested motives.
If I were a Buddhist, I’d find it a lot easier to regard the need to relieve others of their suffering as a moral imperative than my own suffering. I might still desire the relief of my own suffering but I might also desire a peanut butter cookie–hard to regard that as a moral imperative.
And you don’t regard the illusory self the Buddhist believes in to be part of the is/ought world?
Who said anything about believing?
What are you aiming at here? Are you simply asking me to demonstrate the reasoning behind my Biddhist convictions, or are you asking what I would do if confronted with
Then why don’t we do that–agree to disagree.
You can conclude what you want (and you will), but when I read between the lines of your statement, I read that you’re expecting dogmatism, not just objective sounding statements. If you inquire into the beliefs and values of any religion, what else would you expect but statements delineating what they believe and value structured in the usual objective grammar. That’s more or less the default structure of language. But when you say “religions down through the ages insist” it’s the insist part that I read as “dogmatically insist” and I’m not sure you can say that about every religion on that list.
(It occurs to me that the reason I, and probably you, haven’t heard of most of the religions on that list is because they never strove for world domination like the top 10, say, most popular religions, and that could be a consequence of not being militantly dogmatic.)
Quite possibly. But connecting the dots is one thing. Insisting is another.
If your suffering doesn’t bother you “too much”, then you could/may choose not to pursue Buddhism.
I don’t think that morality is detached from self-interest. It’s not just “right” in some abstract sense, it’s also good for you. And good for your family, your friends, your society.
That’s you personally?
A Buddhist would see reducing his own suffering as also reducing the suffering of others and reducing the suffering of others as reducing his own suffering. It goes together.
