I don't get Buddhism

Okay, let’s reconfigure this into a discussion of a particular context involving behaviors that come into conflict over value judgments derived from a particular religious narrative that includes Dharma in its own rendition of a scripture. And, in turn, how this relates to the fate of “I” beyond the grave.

Well, sure, if you don’t question your sense of identity much beyond what a particular religious narrative presumes, then the answers enable you to sustain both the comfort and the consolation that come with them. The arguments I give in regard to the historical, cultural and experiential parameters of “I” as an existential contraption rooted in dasein are just shrugged away.

To what extent have you delved into your religious, moral and political values given the manner in which I myself approach them here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

This is always my own aim here when it comes to examining “I” in the is/ought world. God or No God. In other words, the extent to which someone is convinced that in regard to their religious, moral and political values, they are in sync with the “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do”.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKqTe8F18sQ[/youtube]

Clever. And exactly how long does this person defy gravity?

He never “defies” gravity.

Longest recorded flight was 9 minutes 6 seconds.

The point is that it’s not just black and white.

Actually it is black and white. You’re trying to play “grey word games” when flying as the term is being used here is the infinite ability to always defy gravity.

I said it was clever. I didn’t say it was true, that beliefs determine reality.

First, of course, we don’t know how to talk about forks and chairs and neighbors definitively because we don’t know how to grapple with and understand them given the very nature of existence itself. And we don’t know if the exchanges we do have about them reflect beyond all doubt the capacity of human beings to exchange posts with some measure of free will in venues such as this.

Therefore, what “I” do then is all that I can do:

1] presume that my assessment of forks and chairs and neighbors bares at least some relevance to the nature of existence itself and…

2] presume that I do have some measure of free will in broaching, assessing and evaluating them in venues such as this

Given that what can we know about forks and chairs and neighbors…information and knowledge able to be communicated to others demonstrably? What empirical, material, phenomenological facts can we exchange confidently about them? And how would these facts be understood differently by different religious denominations? Are forks and chairs and neighbors construed by Western religions different from how they are construed by Eastern religions? As they become pertinent to our day to day interactions?

How are the use of forks and chairs and neighbors intertwined existentially when Buddhists connect the dots between enlightenment and karma here and now and reincarnation and Nirvana there and then?

And what changes when, say, forks and chairs are used as weapons to harm others? And how are enlightened men and women obligated to treat neighbors?

No, suffering itself is still too general.

We need a more specific context. Suppose John is a prison inmate about to be executed for murdering Mary. If the state kills him some of his family and friends and loved ones will suffer. But if he is not executed many who loved Mary will suffer because they believe that he deserves to die.

Same with abortion and animal rights and gun laws and vaccines and the role of government. Same with all conflicting goods. Some construe suffering if this is done while others if that is done instead.

Then with religion the stakes get jacked up all the more. Behaviors on this side of the grave become anchored to things like sin and enlightenment. Which then get anchored “in the head” of the faithful with one’s fate on the other side of the grave. Only with most Western religions that becomes intertwined with God and Judgment Day. And I still don’t really have a solid clue as to how it might work in a No God religion.

Then I’m back to bringing this “general description intellectual/spiritual contraption” out into the world pertaining to particular conflicting goods in a particular set of circumstances. And the part where Buddhists are able to demonstrate that their own spiritual path is preferable to the “hundreds and hundreds” of other denominations out there who might share the conviction that there is but one truly enlightened path.

But it is their own.

Instead.

The note that I end on – encompassed in the arguments I make in my signature threads – merely reflects my own existential contraption here. The manner in which I make a distinction between the Self in the either/or world and the “self” in the is/ought world. And, then, in threads such as this one, in connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then.

From my perspective, philosophy is not about coming up with something that makes you feel better, but something that seems the most reasonable to you “here and now”. Religion just ups the ante by proposing that if you follow down a certain path [their own] you will feel all the better still. And then for all the rest of eternity.

That’s basically the assumption I make about any number of reactions to me from the moral and political and spiritual objectivists. They recognize what is at stake for them if, perhaps, the assumptions I make are more reasonable. And on both sides of the grave.

On the other hand, since there are so many more of them than there are of me, I would be a fool not to hear them out. At this point in my life, I have little more to lose and a whole heap to gain if they can convince me to go a little further still down their path.

I aim in having a minimal negative impact on others, and steer clear of those that don’t do likewise for me… so keeping my environment as non-toxic as is possible.

Enlightenment is self-awareness of negative behaviours that are harmful to others… that doesn’t mean we can’t have a little fun and crack a few jokes, but not at the constant expense of others and their feelings.

It’s about having a clean karmic line, unfettered by wrong-doings and negatives… which kin inherit, and hopefully continue to uphold that Dharma.

How can we know how our behaviours will impact our fate after death, except through the interactions and actions of our kin?

Take Brahman?

Is there a choice in the matter, once a significant amount of enlightenment has been achieved in the manifestation of Brahman within one’s psyche? Once we know better, can we stop knowing better?

…in, me not having an agenda, but more a purpose… whatever it is, at any given point in time.

Brahman is to be, then to express that through doing/words and actions, so that the morality/immortality issue is appeased… so being a sacrificial alter unto ourselves, if you will.

But: in regard to the behaviors that you choose here and now as they pertain to what you imagine your fate to be there and then, I have no clear understanding of your point here. And that is always my aim in regard to God and religion and all other spiritual paths.

We are just not in sync in terms of intent and motivation here. Others can share your assessment above but then attach it to conflicting goods. Attaching this assessment further to the part after they die. That’s my “thing” here. Exploring that in regard to actual sets of circumstances.

Thus…

Well, that’s my point. Religious/spiritual folks have, down through the centuries, concocted scriptures and texts and traditions and mores and folkways that may or may not be reconfigured into enforceable laws. The idea being that there is a way to differentiate vice from virtue, sin from transgression, enlightened from benighted behavior. Linked to a God, the God by and large but not always.

Yes. You choose to behave in the way that you do. And if Brahman denotes/connotes “the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe” how do you connect the dots between that and this choice. Why not another choice instead? Here of course I link “I” to dasein. But that then precipitates [for me] the feeling of fragmentation.

Instead, you note…

Which I react to as but another “general description intellectual contraption”. Again, people can share this “spiritual” assessment but then come to embody profoundly conflicting moral and political agendas. What then in regard to the fate of “I” on the other side?

I have no clear idea what you mean here. With regard to moral and political prejudices how is an agenda differentiated from a purpose. And how are either one not basically derived subjectively from the manner in which I construe dasein embedded in a particular historical, culturally and interpersonal context?

The latter then I’ll take it.

biggie says:

“have no clear idea what you mean here. With regard to moral and political prejudices how is an agenda differentiated from a purpose. And how are either one not basically derived subjectively from the manner in which I construe dasein embedded in a particular historical, culturally and interpersonal context?”

As per a leap of/to faith , as a represented , necessary irony, per Meno’s paradox: which I will quote summarily:

" he was looking for, this is known as Meno’s paradox. Kierkegaard puts his paradox this way, “what a man knows he cannot seek, since he knows it; and what he does not know he cannot seek, since he does not even know for what to seek.”[10]

In other words , it is undifferentiable, That knowledge is an undivided part of him.

Meno cam not to seek is the inverted primal premise. That is the basis of looking at/for IT, the argument flows reversely , by necessity.

This necessity was pointed out thus:

“Rush argues that this is primarily a social-ontological term and not, as is often supposed, a metaphysical concept.”

This is why a philosophical fragment requires a platonic intuition to foreshadow a Divine fragmentation.

Thereafter this must adhere to a comedy of divine proportions.

That is the basis of the saying, a little bit of Plato is like a little bit of poison, and so Socrates fate foreshadowed a sacrifice, that an invitation of Christ could not then illiterate

And that, gave an appearent right for Faust to take on the bargain…unwittingly taking a required leap, to recapture the Ring.

Many are called , few chosen, and Meno knows not for what, …this is the Absolute requirement for the fragmented, self learned man.

He can never understand himself, and how he was able to learn, against all odds.

Post script:

Wittgenstein’s family of resemblances deluged Christ’s alleged Buddhic journey through the silk road, and so Rush’s argument, supports Shlegel’s and Fischte’s view on the romantic mode, thereby reinforcing Jung’s conflation of a necessary construction, or reaffirmation of values.

Without God, He has to be reinvented by reassemblage.

There has to occur a sliver of hope that an exit be found.

An exit, which serves as a reentry simultaniously.

This necessity prevents singular Crucifiction by Freud’s displacement of economic recovery of the ID, by a social reconstructive rather then an singular ontologically derived responsibility-to attain the entrance to enlightenment.

That should consist of the successful journey from sacrificial -factual modes of realization toward the purposeful, functional signal of an impending objective.

The two then are not really logically reducible, but are substantiated by Christ’s miracles.

Ecmondu I see You on board, if You happen to read the above, this is the proof You may be seeking.

Biggy, I promised a revision with more clarity, .& safely, do try to indulge , even after the fact, with darely as a witness for the defense. Dare You!
all, Karpel & Dan, included.

MagsJ , who made clear the various perimeters that a Meno type personality may actualize.

Post post script

Biggie asks,

“Unless, of course, he’s right”:

What I’d escape from the mundane, through religious myth was simply an avoidance, a possible exit from the box of genetic social determinate, a displacement which tries to overcome an inferiority, apparently of Darwin through god?

Does the phenomenological continuum of metaphysically verified moral prerogatives stand up to the test of identifiable families of resemblances?

Unless, of course, he’s right.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1801007/
Reduced cortisol, reduced stress. Those are pretty clear positive. Interesting about reduced reaction times. Obviously not the best thing to do before a big table tennis tournament. But in general allowing more nuanced responses to what is happening around you, probably better chance of not responding with habitual responses.

sciencedirect.com/science/a … 1?via=ihub
Here reduction in anxiety and depression

So, for any person suffering there is strong evidence that the practices (of a practice focused tradition) have benefits that most modern people want. This means that they could START participating in the practices on solid ground even if they are not sure about the supposed long term effects of the practices or some of the possibly metaphysical aspects of the religion/approach.

I see no findings indicating that the practice of posting online reduces anxiety, cortisol levels, depression.

So if one is looking for rational arguments and one is making a choice based on purely rational/scientific grounds, the choice is really quite obvious.

And it is always a choice (not in the determinism vs free will debate types of metaphysical types of choice with a big C).

So what are the arguments in favor of the practices of posting online and demanding proofs. Why should any rational person do that, given the criteria asked for, let alone all rational people do that?

And, of course, there are now utterly secular versions of meditation practice (the whole mindfulness movement in workplaces and elsewhere) where one does not need to ever think for a second about Karma or REincarnation or Enlightenment. One can simply engage in a simplified version of the practices supported by scientific research.

Posting online vs. mindfulness practice.

Some people choose the former (ONLY since one can, of course, do both) as their primary practice, despite having criteria that should logically and rationally lead them to at least ADD the latter and trust it more.

One can only shake one’s head in confusion over what their own criteria indicate, by their own demands and admissions here, is their avoidance of a rational choice.wide

another option is to admit that people making choices can do this ratioanally for a wide range of reasons, and be rational despite not being able to convince everyone to make the same choices.

This can be very hard for some people to admit, even they also do this themselves.

Sounds like an either or argument.
Participation mystique aside, what about a reduction to the question of an emergent and unviable intelligent resurfacing colonialism, that simply can’t squeeze through any possible loop in the shirt termed time allotted?

The Role of Karma in Buddhist Morality
Barbara O’Brien

Encompassed here perhaps: youtu.be/E548-OkACkc

All of the things that we choose to do rather than not to do. They lead to one set of consequences rather than another. And some are clearly more mundane than others. But what of the truly significant events in which the tiniest of things can set into motion the most horrific of events. What of karma then? Or, rather, karma in a world that is not wholly determined to unfold only as it must.

But: my concern with karma here is the extent to which it can be attributed to the mystical – spiritual – aspects of our interactions. The part where it becomes intertwined in enlightenment intertwined with the fate “I” beyond the grave.

What of karma then?

Then we are back to how Buddhists differentiate the right [enlightened] choice from the wrong [benighted] choice. And if karma is not fate here what exactly is it? In regard to the trajectory of behaviors you choose over the course of your life. Not X this and Y that but considerably more detailed and descriptive accounts that others may be able to relate to their own lives.

Yeah, KT, what about that?!

Note to others:

Convince me that he actually means this. First of course by convincing me that you actually understand what he means. You know, as it relates to “morality here and now and immortality there and then”.

And not just to, say, “meditating”.

How so? I even suggest that one can post online AND try Buddhism. They are not mutually exclusive. However if one has the criterion that one will only engage in an activity it is can be proven to be the right activity for everyone, this should apply to what one already does. Which, in the case of everyone in this thread, includes posting online. This
hypocrisy also holds if one repeatedly accuses Buddhists, for example, of just spouting a lot of gibberish, or making stuff up to soothe themselves.
If one is already engaged in an activity that has no evidence that it improves life - at least no scientific evidence has been presented - how can one position oneself as rational or as in a position to have other people demonstrate things that one does not and in fact cannot demonstrate half as well as Buddhists can that their practices are useful?

Who is the colonist in this scenario and whom is the colonized?

Also, participation mystique, I think that’s a bit of a harsh judgment of Iamb…

How does one arrive at participation and activity`? How do you, Meno?

You see, Biggy, I’m playing the part of a Buddhist here because I want to play your game and see where you go. I figure a traditional mediocre Buddhist would be a relatively innocuous subject that probably fits your mold. And I’m watching how this plays out. Here you seemed to get derailed. We started talking about how I, as a Buddhist, conceptualize the ‘I’. I explained the illusory nature of the I based on the Buddhist principle of impermanence. You then replied with “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.”–presumably because the examples I gave were one’s involving physical impermanence. I then explained the abstract aspects of the ‘I’, which belong squarely in the is/ought realm, receive the same treatment, that they are no less impermanent than chairs, forks, and Ben. Thinking this would keep us on track and get us closer to the heart of the subject (which I figured you were aiming at), you then turned around and suddenly became very interested in talking about chairs, forks, and Ben. ← What is that?

I’ll also note that this is a move I’ve seen you make more than a few times–when the conversation just starts to get interesting, when we seem to be making progress, you fall back on your general overall agenda, describing in the broadest strokes what it is you’re here to do–almost as if the closer we get to an actual example of what it is you’re asking for overwhelms you and you have to give your head a shake and start over.

So on this line of discussion, I’d like to keep on topic. We were discussing how the Buddhist conceptualizes the ‘I’–the impermanence of it, the illusion of it–and usually this is where you ask for a concrete example of how this conception informs the Buddhist’s behavior in situations of conflicting goods and value judgements, and where moral decisions are at stake. Can we carry on from here?

Excellent predicament. It’s almost like a no win situation. There is definitely suffering to be had no matter how you cut it.

Well, I suppose the question is, how do I, as a Buddhist, carry my Buddhist convictions and values over to a situation like this so that I can feel relatively confident that I know the right thing to do? First, I don’t think I’d interfere in the affairs of the state. I think John’s fate is more or less cealed. Then I would make myself available to anyone involved–on the side of the victim or on the side of the perpetrator, or even John himself–to grieve. I would offer myself as a shoulder to cry on and an ear to listen. And if they asked for advice or insight or consultation, of course I would draw on little morcels of Buddhist wisdom inherited from teachers or scripture or maybe my own life experience if it affords itself. I think I would try to avoid group counciling–at least if the group would be a mix of the families on either side as that, no doubt, would create undue tension–but selecting wisely for time and place, I think offering myself as a person who cares would do more good than harm.

I think you might be presupposing that all a religious person ever wants to do–or indeed, anyone who believes in an objective truth–is to push their convictions onto others–either forcefully jamming it down their throats or jumping through logical hoops in an attempt to sound as rational as possible. What if the practice of the religious person was more to do good, to leave the world a better place, rather than to spread their doctrine or to convince as many people as possible that they’re right? I gave the example above about what I would do to alleviate a bit of suffering on the part of the families of the victim (Mary) and/or the perpetrator (John), and that doesn’t require that I demonstrate to them that the Buddhist path is the one and only true path to follow. It just requires that I be effective, to whatever degree, in alleviating a bit of their suffering. It might lead to an exploration of the Buddhist path and why I believe it is effective, but I leave that up to them to inquire, and I only guide them along the path insofar as they accept it on their own according. I don’t think forcing one along the path does anyone any good nor is it an effective approach at all.

But if it’s a question of why I think the Buddhist path is the one true path–what kind of rationality and demonstrability I have in my head that keeps me convinced–such that all I’d have to do in response to someone asking to be convinced is poor it out–well, I started offering little bits and pieces of it above (about impermanence) and I could give more–but I’ll say right off the bat that I don’t believe, nor do I need to believe, in being absolutely certain and 100% right. It’s enough for me that my reasons for believing in Buddhism are “good enough”, and the rest I chalk up to faith.

Ah, is that what you were doing here:

“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?”

And we’re back to generalities. I suppose in this case it’s warranted. We sort of ended this line of discussion on “the note you end on” so back to square one. And of course, I want to know: what’s your next move?

Or for another Buddhist, making a choice based on experience and whatever evidence they have that Buddhism, participating in it, is a good choice, given that absolute knowledge is not something most people have access to or expect another to produce. Further when I was in the East, I noticed that many, many Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, were NOT viewing their path as the only good or best path and showed respect to other traditions in a variety of ways. The Buddhist you are pretending to be here, may not be one of those, but it is as if everyone who believes in any tradition MUST think it is the only path. My saying this is not to deny that many people, perhaps most religious practitioners believe their path is the best and/or only. Sure. But to just assume this is part of these traditions is a way for someone like Iamb to make it easier to dismiss and also to give his discussion partners even more of a burden to prove. Not just that it might be a rational choice to be a Buddist, but that it is the only one. That ends up being a strawman.

They suffer because they are attached to their desires … some desiring that John dies and others desiring that John lives.

If they eliminated these attachments, then they would not suffer.