I don't get Buddhism

With respect to the either/or world, I think most Buddhists would agree with you. With respect to the is/ought world, I can’t say what a Buddhist would say, but I have an idea. So let me put my Buddhist cap back on. Ah-hem Well, Biggy, the self is an illusion because nothing is permanent. Everything eventually fades into oblivion. Even when it’s here, it is always changing so that whatever it is in one moment, it ceases to be that in the next. We identify the things we see in our environment on the principle of permanence. We say: that is a chair, this is a fork, over there is my neighbor Ben. But is it really a chair? Is it really a fork? Maybe it was at one point. Maybe at one point the object I point to matched my conception of “chair” perfectly, but since then it has changed, and is therefore not the chair as I conceptualize it. Why would it be any different for myself? Maybe the self I conceptualize myself to be was that conceptualization perfectly, but since then I have changed, and I am no longer the self I imagine myself to be. In fact, I can never pin down myself. As soon as I think I’ve pegged myself for who I really am, I’m changed.

^ So there’s an intellectual contraption if there ever was one, and a typical response from an average Buddhist as I understand Buddhists (if I’m wrong, it’s what this Buddhist responds with). If you say this falls short of an objective demonstration that all rational men and women are obligated to concur with, I would agree. But it does expose the logic and reasoning going on inside this Buddhist’s mind, that which underlies his position on the self and its illusory nature. So what’s your next move? What do you do with this?

But you didn’t ask for a demonstration–not in this instance anyway. I just said the truth as I see it remains the truth regardless of whether others believe me or not. That doesn’t mean the truth is as it is because I believe it.

So I’ll take this to mean you’re asking me directly (as opposed to asking me what I’d do when confronted with other “unsavory” people demanding an irrefutable demonstration of my beliefs). As this Buddhist character I’m playing, I would probably appeal to the argument about permanence again–seems to be the founding pillar of the whole Buddhist philosophy, or at least that part of it that takes everything to be illusion–I would say that it follows from the impermanence of everything that everything we think we know about the world is false. What we think we know is based on our ingrained habit of identifying things–the chair, the fork, my neighbor Ben–of imposing concepts, labels, and words to things and adorning them with a superficial identity that seems to “fix” them. This completely decorates our world and without it, we would fail to recognize the world to be anything remotely like what we’re familiar with. Thus, the mind distorts the world into an illusion, into something it is not.

The part about suffering and the alleviation of it through enlightenment follows from that. Once we realize this deep truth, all our worries and our angst disappear, all our suffering, which is based on our desires to achieve things in this illusory world, for this world to be a certain way–for us to have certain things, to gain wealth, to be adored, to be free of sickness and pain–vanishes. Why? For the same reason our longing and suffering vanishes when we wake from a dream. Realizing it is all a dream means realizing there is nothing to long for, nothing to desire. Whatever way we wanted the world to be, whatever we wanted to have, however we wanted to fix our lives, it could never have been in the first place–none of it was real–so we breath a sigh of relief, understanding that there is no need to struggle, to strive, to wallow in the fact that our life is like this and not like that.

Now, again, this probably doesn’t meet your standard of a rigorously thorough demonstration of the Buddhist’s truth. And at this point, I don’t think the Buddhist would be all that pressed to try harder, to attempt to construct a more convincing and solid argument. I imagine a Buddhist would be apt to let it go at this point, and even to admit that a lot of his beliefs rest on faith. What do you do in that case? What do you do when the objectivist you wish to challenge gives up and admits he doesn’t have the perfect demonstration for you and believes what he believes, to a degree, on faith?

I’m surprised you let this go. I haven’t seen you do that in past encounters. You must have grown. In the past, whenever we’d arrive at an impasse, I’d try to make it clear I see nowhere to go from here, but you’d come back saying you really want to know how to get out of your dilemma, or that these are extremely important matters–of the highest moral imperative–which we can’t just let go of–which would implore me to keep trying. But now I see you sometimes do put it to rest when you recognize there’s nothing left to do with it. I believe this is a step forward for you.

Precisely. It depends on the behaviors, circumstances, dilemmas, etc. When the stakes are extremely high, people are more apt to fall back on their fundamental beliefs and values and defend them more rigorously. ← These are the contexts in which they might “insist” or be more “dogmatic”. But in other calmer, more relaxed, situations, they may be able to tolerate and entertain differing points of view, admit that while they believe what they believe, maybe they don’t know it with absolute certainty.

I think it depends on the religion, the contents thereof. Some religions may encourage arrogant insistence and dogmatic intolerance of any questioning of their authority, while other religions may encourage open mindedness and humbleness with respect to confidence in knowledge.

And I think it depends on the person too. Two people from the same religion, with faith in the same beliefs, may differ noticeably in terms of how much they insist that they are right and that they know the truth.

This is why I said your initial statement was a bit of a hyperbole.

I’m still talking about the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of religions, not you.

I think I’ve given a fair sample of what I think a Buddhist would say above. Does that suffice?

In Buddhism language is not used nor is it viewed in the same way that language is used in either most Western academic contexts nor in most Western common sense uses of language views. IOW much of this discussion is extremely naive philosophically, because it is just assumed that ‘self’ ‘Karma’ ‘reincarnation’ and all the other words Iamb wants to treat like nouns are used in Buddhism just like in common sense use of nouns and how nouns are used in science.

And in the actual practice of Buddhism a great deal of work is done to undermine how language is normally used and how thought about ‘things’ proceeds.

Since these assumptions are not even discussed and Iamb has no consciousness of his own assumptions in the philosophy of language, he might as well be discussing quantum theory with his kindergarten teacher.

Elsewhere Phyllo pointed out his tendency to hijack threads. Well the whole fucking thread is hijacked by his (non-existent) ‘interest’ but also by the general lack of knowledge of both Buddhism and the philosophy of language.

And then further by a heady approach to something that is learned by doing.

Like using flash cards to become a good husband or parent.

This is all mental wanking to a hilariously anti-Buddhist degree. Shut the fuck up, try meditating or don’t. But the pretense that there is any real interest on Iamb’s part is lie number one.

Anyone care to convince all rational people that Iamb is interested in Buddhism or interested in learning about it?

You don’t just dismiss whole sections of posts as gibberish if one is interested. You actually get into specific questions about what you don’t understand.
For example.

One is asked to accept this claim at face value and spend time engaging in a ‘dialogue’ based on this claim of interest.
Well, one could try out Buddhism based on a similar assumption.

But for some reason the latter needs to have an argument designed to convince every rational person to spend time doing Buddhism.
The former claim, and the whole activity of posting in a philosophy forum, does not require any such argument.

The entire enterprise of Iamb’s criterion is based on a lie. You’re engaging with a liar. Not that he has the insight to notice this himself.

Karpel,

You’re only referring to particular sects of Zen Buddhism.

Yes. Zen Buddhism invented what the west now calls post modernism or post structuralism.

In Zen Buddhism you get a koan like “butterfly farts swim greenly” and you’re supposed to mediate on it for years. Kind of silly if you ask me.

A koan can help you get out of the intellectual trap that you are in.

Actually a koan just turns the world into a world of iambiguous’. “Words are just words talking about words; no matter what you say, it has nothing to do with me. I’m not accountable for anything. Might makes right.”

It’s a disease on this planet.

No. It forces you out of your “world of words” because it’s not understandable or solvable in terms of words.

All it means is that words are a double edged sword. One one side, might makes right, on the other, right makes might. Zen koans always solve as might makes right: words don’t matter.

Note to Buddhists here:

Please note where/when, in your view, “I” becomes part of the world – of human interactions – as illusion. In particular, as it relates to the behaviors that you choose here and now as that pertains to the fate of “I” there and then beyond the grave. What can you pin down here and what is merely that which you believe to be the case “in your head”.

Note an example of how this all unfolds for you by focusing in on a particular context in which you choose one set of behaviors rather then another. In the either/or world.

Is there an agreed upon assessment of this by all Buddhists?

Forget chairs and forks and Ben. The is/ought world revolves instead around choosing behaviors derived from value judgments derived [in my view] from dasein. The part that revolves around conflicting goods construed by different people in different historical, cultural and experiential contexts. “I” then. “I” construed to be enlightened riding karma into the sunset and coming out on the other side re reincarnation and Nirvana.

Again, we’ll need an actual context. One that most here will be familiar with. Connecting the dots between what we think you mean by these words and how they would be applicable to the behaviors we choose…given the extent to which “I” is understood to be or not to be an illusion.

But, yes, this is merely how “I” think about these things. And that’s because my interest in God and religion revolve almost entirely around morality here and now and immortality there and then. If others have a different interest they should stand clear of my posts. Why? Because, as is often pointed out, I will “steer” the discussion back to that which is understood by me to be the most important function of God and religion.

Here, however, I prefer Milan Kundera’s ruminations from the preface of The Unbearable Lightness of Being:

But, of course, Buddhists, like most other religious denominations, offer up an “antidote”: their own particular denominational “spiritual” path connecting here and now with there and then.

Okay, fine. But how exactly does that actually unfold in the course of living one’s life as a Buddhist? From day to day to day? How are value judgments embodied on this side of the grave reconfigured into existence on the other side? And how does one go about bridging the gap between what one believes in his lor her head about all this and how one goes about substantiating it as in fact true?

Especially given that there are hundreds and hundreds of alternative spiritual paths out there…and with so much that is at stake.

Yes, if you swallow the assumptions – the intellectual contraptions – that Buddha concocted in his head all those years ago. Sure, human suffering itself staggers on at an ever more ghastly rate but at least Buddhists have found a way to subsume it on their own spiritual path.

I get that part. But do they get the parts that I suggest instead? Ah, but why on earth would they? An essentially meaningless human existence that ends for all of eternity in oblivion?

Instead, from my frame of mind, it’s straight back up into the “spiritual” clouds:

Now, you tell me: What on earth does this sort of thing really have to do with the world as we know it today? The pandemic, the economic travail, the social unrest. The realities embedded statistically here: ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-undernourishment

Well, obviously, if you can think yourself into believing what Buddhists do, everything right?

All Buddhists can do here then is to note actual examples from their own life. Connecting the dots between the behaviors that they choose, what they believe about enlightenment, karma, the four noble truths etc., and how that becomes intertwined in their head with reincarnation and Nirvana.

Okay, to the extent particular Buddhists might acknowledge this, I would then ask them to delve into the manner in which I construe human identity here, with respect to differing or conflicting value judgments, as the embodiment of dasein. Again, not an illusive “I”, but “I” situated out in a particular world understood in a particular way. A world which sans God and religion precipitates a fractured and fragmented sense of identity. An argument outlined in my signature threads.

You guys are all still in illusion. Though I point this more to iambiguous.

Being awake is extremely simple!!

All you need to understand to be awake is that zero sum realities never work. Positive non zero sum realities solve all of your problems iambiguous because there are no longer mutually exclusive or conflicting goods.

Sure iambiguous, you are correct in harping on this world as insolvent, but in doing so, you missed WHY!

It’s because this is a zero sum world!

Once you understand the root of all problems in existence (zero sum realities) you are an awakened one. You are awake.

Part of the hurdle for people to wake up is this wall around them that they can fix this world. They struggle to maintain that wall and the more they do, the more they suffer. They want to be the important one that conquers or fixes the world.

Existence will always eventually destroy that wall.

I don’t want everyone to be like me, that’d fucking suck! I do want everyone to be awake.

But I repeat myself…

And this is certainly no exception. Or, rather, not to me.

Again, unless we’re both wrong. And I certainly have no doubt that I may well be.

A stooge on steroids?!

Probing me?! Exposing me?! Pummeling me?!

Note to others:

Having only just skimmed this latest “thumping” from him, is there anything at all that strikes you as worth my while? A point raised that I really should address?

Oh, and don’t forget to include an actual context.

You completely ignored this part:

Wow, that’s the part I would have pointed to as well!

But: you know me…

My interest in language on this thread revolves around the words used by religious folks to describe the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave. Coupled with the words used to describe what they imagine the fate of “I” to be on the other side of the grave.

And then their capacity to demonstrate that what they think these words mean “in their head” can be reconfigured into actual experiences that are able to convince others that they should share in this meaning. I merely connote “I” here as an existential contraption rooted in dasein.

Buddhists, Christians, Eastern, Western.

It’s all basically the same thing to me: Morality here and now, immortality there and then. Religion [existentially] in a nutshell. Words you concoct in your head. Deeds that bear them out.

After all, nouns in science are one thing, nouns in religion are, well, another thing altogether?

You know, depending on the context.

Let’s say you suffer from feelings of malaise or depression…

You decide to spend more time in nature. You read about this, give it a try. You find you feel a bit better. So, you add in camping or the occasional canoe trip. Or you take ac course in wild edibles or tracking animals, or move to the country…or…increase whatever seems like the part of ‘more time in nature’ that makes you feel better.

Is this something everyone should do? Who knows and probably not, people being different, having different needs and tastes. For someone else perhaps Buddhism might work…

They try the meditation while commuting. They notice they have more energy or are less disturbed by pressure at work or…
so they go to the local temple and get some mentoring.

Should everyone do this? Who knows and probably not, people being different, having different needs and tastes.

Maybe someone tries nature and notice no changes or find it boring. Maybe someone tries Buddhism and has the same results. Maybe someone tries posting online and notices no real changes in their emotional state or maybe this works for them.

A certain amount of trial and error, guided by intuition (fallible, but also connected to the individual) in finding things that make one feel better.

Everyone has already made choices that they spend a lot of time on and they cannot convince everyone that their choices should be everyone’s. EVeryone has already arrived, via non-scientific means, at a way of living that is working and not working to those degrees it does and doesn’t.

That’s what humans do. Of course they can try to be more scientific or more intuitive (since it is their own live own tastes and needs they are trying to aid).

But here we are, already having invested all our time for the last year in priorities of activities that we cannot demonstrate all others should copy.

Interests lead, rationality help or muddy, intuition has to be involved.

Time is passing.

Taking the first step requires being open to change. Believing that some states of existence are better than others and that those states are attainable. Accepting that some pursuits may turn out to be “a waste of time”.

Some assumptions allow you to move, other assumptions hold you back.

These assumptions cannot be demonstrated or proven correct.

One could not do science without the assumptions of science.

At best, they turn out to be useful assumptions.

Yes, and of course, there is that risk. Of course not doing anything new is also a risk - not that you are saying anything different, just adding to what you said. We do our best or try to. Or we don’t try.

The Role of Karma in Buddhist Morality
Barbara O’Brien

The assumption then being that men and women [mere mortals] have free will. No omniscient God to explain away. On the other hand, how do Buddhists demonstrate the existence of human autonomy other than by way of simply assuming it? And how specifically is karma understood differently from, say, fate or destiny?

Here, however, my own interest in karma – karma understood by the most enlightened of Buddhists – is how this comprehension/appreciation is made applicable in grappling with the existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then. What of karma then? How are the behaviors we choose manifested through karma into one rather than another manifestation of “I” upon shuffling off this mortal coil that, here and now, is all we know?

A “kind” of natural law? Okay, in regard to the pursuits of science, natural laws have come to be understood with extraordinary precision. This very technology that we use to exchange points of view for example. And the knowledge that medical doctors have come to grasp in dealing with biological afflictions has accumulated leaps and bounds.

But what of karma as a “kind of natural law”? Specifically in regard to the things that interest me here? And, if not a “Big Giant Karma Director in the sky handing out rewards and punishments”, what then?

What could the Buddha have grasped about karma centuries ago when even today it is conjectured that…

“It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.”

Try to even imagine Buddha being confronted with natural laws of this magnitude.

Or this:

Really, how on earth do Buddhists factor karma into all of this?

One can always start with what one is doing now.
What is the evidence that it works or makes life better or is supported by science or…
one could evaluate what one does now by whatever values one uses: is what I am doing now fun? Do I miss something else that I value?

One can collect all the information one has about what one does now?
Does it meet the criteria I demand of activities I have no participated in?
For ex. Does it seem to be moving me towards my goals?
Do I seem to be developing in the direction I would like=
Is there any chance it will improve my life? How much chance?
Does it help me achieve what I value?

Then one can use this to decide whether to look for anything new at all. And also one can compare the level of evidence/satisfaction
with what evidence there is that the other activities might help or lead to satisfaction or both.

One is never on neutral ground. One has already invested a huge amount of energy in activities that likely cannot be demonstrated to all rational people, for example, that these should be engaged in by everyone.

Should everyone be convinced that posting in a philosophy forum is something that everyone should do? Watching films? Whatever the list of current activities are.

If these activities, the ones one is currently engaged in do not meet that criterion, then it is not a valid criterion in relation to a new activity. It has to be a comparative one. Or an interest based one.

And since other activities generally are safe to explore for short periods in limited ways, there is no loss in exploring, unless one is utterly satisfied and also thinks what one is doing now is something all rather people should be convinced to engage in and only those activities.

So, if one is satisfied with what one is doing epistemologically AND in terms of satisfaction, well there is no problem.
If one’s current activity does not meet the epistemological demands one makes on others, one is being hypocritical. And also, happily enough, one is free to explore.

For me the choice of not being a Buddhist is based on experience and the goals of Buddhism. The practice related goals, for example, are not my goals. It doesn’t match what I value. My experience of Buddhist practices as opposed to other activities I do engage in leads me to the conclusion that Buddhism is not leading me towards what I want for myself, or would not. I do something that could be called meditation, but for me it does not lead to a split between urge and action, nor between the limbic system and the neocortex.

This took time for me to understand. I do not regret my practical, immersed exploration of Buddhism. But it is not for me.

It is nto like I think, however, that all rational people should do what I do, should engage in my activities. They don’t share my goals, values, tastes, interests and much more.

Buddhism tend to lead, also, from what I have experienced in both the East and WEst, to certain ways of relating to oneself and others that I do not want. These are tendencies, strong ones I think, but not universal ones. But when you engage in practices the practices, even posting here, will lead to certain kinds of relations with others and yourself. Join the military and you have tendencies towards certain traits. Follow Phish as a groupie in social contact with other groupies and this will lead to certain tendencies, not universally, but statistically. What you do affects how you relate. Corporate culture, anarchist communes, monasteries, English football clubs…likewise.

I think it’s probably better for most people to follow what they are drawn to, so it fits them. But even that has exceptions since some people seem to like cultures and practices that feel bad or that don’t fit them but they love or value the struggle to fit something they don’t fit well.

If you want to observe but not identify with your limbic system, well Buddhism might be a good fit.
If you want quiet and peace, but not rajasic experience (pardon the cross-tradition metaphor) then Buddhism might be a good fit.
If want control as opposed to full expression as prioritized value then Buddhism might be a good fit for you.

No unviersals. No proofs.

We are immanent, we have challenges. And a lot of things cannot be known in advance of experience.

Time is passing.