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 » Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:00 pm

Larry wrote:
As for my dismissal of felix, I'll note for you what I noted for Ierrellus on his thread:

As for my dismissal of Felix, you tell me: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... start=1900
Ierrellus isn't even on that page. And I'm not talking about that thread.


I was directing him to my own thread in order to note the manner in which I responded to his own accusations regarding my reactions to felix/Moe.

You're not talking about that thread but I needed to note it in order respond to your own accusations.
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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38544
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:03 pm

It's remarkable that so many people tell you exactly what is bothering them about having a discussion with you.

And yet, you never acknowledge their feelings or admit any wrongdoing on your part.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:07 pm

phyllo wrote:It's remarkable that so many people tell you exactly what is bothering them about having a discussion with you.

And yet, you never acknowledge their feelings or to admit any wrongdoing on your part.


No, what's remarkable is that they keep coming back to tell me this again and again. Instead of just ignoring my posts and moving on to others.

Note to Gib:
I didn't hurt your feelings did I? 8)
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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38544
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 pm

felix dakat wrote:The Buddha said, "If you endeavor to embrace the Way through much learning, the Way will not be understood. If you observe the Way with simplicity of heart, great indeed is this Way."

The sutra of 42 chapters, chapter 9


Jesus said, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

The Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5
This seems to be the last post about Buddhism. I'm assuming that the Buddhist quote is related to thinking a lot about Buddhism - treating it as an academic issue - as being less effective than observing the way. Presumably the less common use of 'observe' - 3 : to celebrate or solemnize (something, such as a ceremony or festival) in a customary or accepted way. More to participate in the proper (according to practice) way.

If Jesus is talking about the same dichotomy is hard to know.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3409
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:37 pm

It could mean 'observation' in the conventional sense. Look at how "the Way" is at work all around you.

In that case, Jesus seems to mean something similar... look with a pure heart and you will see God.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:01 pm

phyllo wrote:It could mean 'observation' in the conventional sense. Look at how "the Way" is at work all around you.
It could. Buddhism certainly focuses on observing as opposed to doing more than other religions.

In that case, Jesus seems to mean something similar... look with a pure heart and you will see God.
Maybe. But there is no God (generally) in Buddhism.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3409
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:44 pm

In Tibetan tradition, death is a police officer who only lets you go if you are worthy of infinite freedom and infinite power.

Death controls the six realms of birth and rebirth (effectively, death IS god)

Otherwise known as Mara, the devil, Mazda etc...

Buddhism is the path of release. Death tests, tests and tests you again. Death is fierce. You either win or lose.

You’re not given this kind of power without earning it meritously and with zero doubt that you won’t EVER abuse it.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11051
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:46 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
felix dakat wrote:The Buddha said, "If you endeavor to embrace the Way through much learning, the Way will not be understood. If you observe the Way with simplicity of heart, great indeed is this Way."

The sutra of 42 chapters, chapter 9


Jesus said, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

The Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5
This seems to be the last post about Buddhism. I'm assuming that the Buddhist quote is related to thinking a lot about Buddhism - treating it as an academic issue - as being less effective than observing the way. Presumably the less common use of 'observe' - 3 : to celebrate or solemnize (something, such as a ceremony or festival) in a customary or accepted way. More to participate in the proper (according to practice) way.

If Jesus is talking about the same dichotomy is hard to know.


And we will never "know" in the rational intellectual sense. These two scriptures point to another way of knowing--that of the heart.
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: 8991
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:16 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
phyllo wrote:It could mean 'observation' in the conventional sense. Look at how "the Way" is at work all around you.
It could. Buddhism certainly focuses on observing as opposed to doing more than other religions.

In that case, Jesus seems to mean something similar... look with a pure heart and you will see God.
Maybe. But there is no God (generally) in Buddhism.


One of the most fundamental beliefs of Buddhism is that all the multitudinous and multifarious phenomena in the universe start from, and have their being in, one reality which itself has “no fixed abode,” being above spatial and temporal limitations. However different and separate and irreducible things may appear to the senses, the most profound law of the human mind declares that they are all one in their hidden nature. In this world of relativity, or nanatva as Buddhists call it, subject and object, thought and nature, are separate and distinct, and as far as our sense-experience goes, there is an impassable chasm between the two which no amount of philosophizing can bridge. But the very constitution of the mind demands a unifying principle which is an indispensable hypothesis for our conception of phenomenality; and this hypothesis is called “the gate of sameness,” samata, in contradistinction to “the gate of difference,” nanatva; and Buddhism declares that no philosophy or religion is satisfactory which does not recognize these two gates. In some measure the “gate of sameness” may be considered to correspond to “God” and the “gate of difference” to the world of individual existence. Soyen Shaku, [1906], at sacred-texts.com, Sermons of a Buddhist Abbot


This is totally consistent with my view.
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: 8991
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:47 pm

The biggest question about Buddhism is “what is nirvana?”

Nirvana is a carrot that nobody knows until they get there. And even if they get there, they might think that’s not nirvana!!!

It reminds me of the carrot of the Mormons ...

LDS - Church of Latter Day Saints

How do you know if the latter days ever come?

Nobody has a way of knowing this. It’s a perpetual Ponzi scheme !

I see nirvana the same way.

I know what being awake in the cosmos is...

It’s knowing that in zero sum realities, when you win you lose, and when you lose, you definitely lose.

Did I have a transfiguration where I became a being of pure light (sun worship)? No!! None of that shit happened to me. Do I know everything? Fuck no!

You have to put all this in the context of ancient philosophy and ideals.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11051
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Oct 28, 2020 10:48 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
phyllo wrote:It could mean 'observation' in the conventional sense. Look at how "the Way" is at work all around you.
It could. Buddhism certainly focuses on observing as opposed to doing more than other religions.

In that case, Jesus seems to mean something similar... look with a pure heart and you will see God.
Maybe. But there is no God (generally) in Buddhism.


One of the most fundamental beliefs of Buddhism is that all the multitudinous and multifarious phenomena in the universe start from, and have their being in, one reality which itself has “no fixed abode,” being above spatial and temporal limitations. However different and separate and irreducible things may appear to the senses, the most profound law of the human mind declares that they are all one in their hidden nature. In this world of relativity, or nanatva as Buddhists call it, subject and object, thought and nature, are separate and distinct, and as far as our sense-experience goes, there is an impassable chasm between the two which no amount of philosophizing can bridge. But the very constitution of the mind demands a unifying principle which is an indispensable hypothesis for our conception of phenomenality; and this hypothesis is called “the gate of sameness,” samata, in contradistinction to “the gate of difference,” nanatva; and Buddhism declares that no philosophy or religion is satisfactory which does not recognize these two gates. In some measure the “gate of sameness” may be considered to correspond to “God” and the “gate of difference” to the world of individual existence. Soyen Shaku, [1906], at sacred-texts.com, Sermons of a Buddhist Abbot


This is totally consistent with my view.
I don't know what your view is.

In some measure the “gate of sameness” may be considered to correspond to “God”
'in some measure' and 'may be considered' leave a great deal of swingroom.

One of the quotes was from Jesus.
Soyen Shaku seems to have been more OT than NT and Jesus.
Soyen served as a chaplain to the Japanese army during the Russo-Japanese War. In 1904, the Russian author Leo Tolstoy wrote Shaku to join him in denouncing the war. Shaku refused, concluding that "...sometimes killing and war becomes necessary to defend the values and harmony of any innocent country, race or individual." (quoted in Victoria, 1997) After the war, Shaku attributed Japan's victory to its samurai culture.

When I read the quote by him that you included, I see a kind of monism that I do not see in Christianity. It's more of a pantheism possibly panentheism.
https://www.google.com/search?q=panentheism+vs+pantheism&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ALeKk02H1hX7hSddM5PwnzIExEuwzInVcw:1603920727698&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=-CJEKgSN9P1NeM%252C_Q3UzShXdJR0AM%252C%252Fm%252F05wg1&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRT9kxmsGtr5ZR5Cmlbn9Iz5kkLJQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiBn-OpntjsAhVCi8MKHdtvAIMQ_B16BAglEAM#imgrc=Ci2QHjXjViv4-M
That Buddhism and Gnostic Christianity have some affinity, that I can see. But otherwise God is way too personified and active in C. Plus the practices are very different and the attitude between a Zen Master and his students is also quite different from that of Jesus to his disciples. Let alone Samuri culture which Soyen seems to have approved of.

EVen something like this....
But the very constitution of the mind demands a unifying principle which is an indispensable hypothesis for our conception of phenomenality
is more like Kantian analysis then the kinds of assertions and posited entities asserted in either the OT or the NT. Deduced abstract principles vs. directly posited deity.

My point is not that they can't possibly mean the same thing as each other, but I see little reason to believe it. Different practices that engage different parts of the brain, personification vs. non-personification, quite different relations between masters and disciples (especially in Zen), different descriptions, different metaphors and in my experience master practitioner groups with rather different priorities around emotions, interpersonal relations, the role or morality, conceptions of the afterlife (if any) and more.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3409
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:55 pm

I look for the esoteric unity in the perennial wisdom found in traditional cultures.

"Swingroom" is wise when dealing with a metaphor for Ultimate Reality which isn't strictly reducible to human concepts.

Shaku apparently didn't share Tolstoy's pacifism. Neither do most Christians. Does that rule out the possibility of a divine spark within them? Not for me.

The center of the anti-ontological bias of biblical religion is its personalism. The religions out of which mysticism arose in India, China, Persia and Europe are personalistic. They have personal gods who are worshiped even if it is recognized that beyond them there is a transpersonal one the ground and abyss of everything personal. Likewise esoteric Christianity.

Shaku, who I don't doubt was a fallible human (like me) and one of a very different cultural milieu than mine, also said "if God exists he must be felt. If he is love, it must be experienced and become the fact of one's inmost life." I affirm that.

But this is heart knowledge not head knowledge. Pascal: "The heart has its reasons which reason does not know." Which takes us back to the quotations of Buddha and Jesus regarding simplicity and pureness of heart.

In keeping with Taoism and Jungian psychology I seek to balance head and heart knowledge.
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: 8991
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Oct 29, 2020 9:37 pm

felix dakat wrote:I look for the esoteric unity in the perennial wisdom found in traditional cultures.
Well, given the abstract nature of many religious quotes you will find it.

"Swingroom" is wise when dealing with a metaphor for Ultimate Reality which isn't strictly reducible to human concepts.
Though there's no reason to hedge your bets. Metaphors state that X is Y. If you want to be cautious you could pick a similie.

Shaku apparently didn't share Tolstoy's pacifism. Neither do most Christians. Does that rule out the possibility of a divine spark within them? Not for me.
I don't know where this came from. I never said anything like his non-pacifism meant he or others don't have divine sparks. Not that it matters but I'm not a pacifist myself, so I don't think of not being one negatively. It just ain't so Jesuslike. Which, again, does not necessarily at all mean it is negative. Shaku certainly could find justification in the OT as many Christians do. The OT in not very mystical. You got a God calling for war. But this was Jesus being compared with.

The center of the anti-ontological bias of biblical religion is its personalism.
Its personalism is part of its ontology.

The religions out of which mysticism arose in India, China, Persia and Europe are personalistic. They have personal gods who are worshiped even if it is recognized that beyond them there is a transpersonal one the ground and abyss of everything personal. Likewise esoteric Christianity.
Some esoteric Christianity

But this is heart knowledge not head knowledge. Pascal: "The heart has its reasons which reason does not know." Which takes us back to the quotations of Buddha and Jesus regarding simplicity and pureness of heart.
Though Shaku was engaging in extremely head language. Extremely, hence my comparison wth Kant. And the hedging bets swingroom of what he said was not hearty either. That was an intellectual being cautious and extremely logical, though at an extreme level of abstraction.
In keeping with Taoism and Jungian psychology I seek to balance head and heart knowledge.
Sure, and then there's the gut, which from a scientific viewpoint has a mass of neurons as the heart does, from various traditions carries other ways of knowing/being/doing/perceiving from both the heart and mind.

My sense of the disconnnection between the various spiritual traditions is not based mainly on head, it first comes from the brute obvious felt differences between the practices, adherents and masters. Then one can go to the texts and find more differences to settle the mind or upper chakras down since there is so much guilt and fear around the idea that they might not all be the same path with the same ends. But I'll leave this here since that gut facet is something underneath words.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3409
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:26 pm

It's possible that none, or only some, of these practices get you to "The Real".

So which ones, if any do it? And how would one know?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:48 pm

phyllo wrote:It's possible that none, or only some, of these practices get you to "The Real".

So which ones, if any do it? And how would one know?
I don't know if you are asking me or everyone. I am not saying that religious practices x get you to the real and the others do not. That's not my focus or point, in case that's how you are taking what I am saying. My point has nothing to do with 'the right path' and others being wrong. I am black boxing that if anything, though more not focusing on that at all. I am saying that different practices lead to different skills/foci/states of mind.

It's more like if you practice identifying plants, seeing the details on the leaves, the bark, the way the plant parts move if they do, the textures, the nuances of the colors, then after years you will one set of experiences
and
if you practice communicating with, say, elephants, moving amongst them, making sounds, touching, changing your body posture to communicate, noting their postures, movements sounds, all the while focusing on relating and being their friend.

each of these long term practices will engage different parts of the brain, lead to different skills/foci/experiences. It's not that one is more real. It is what you end up being good at, the skills you have and the kind of experience you have. There may well be overlaps, but one is going to engage parts of the brain self mind used for communication, the other will emphasize perception without communication - more receiving alone. In this analogy neither is closer to the real, as far as I can tell, but they are quite different.

The foci could be even more different. Chess and psychotherapy training. Chess and Buddhist meditation. Kasparov certainly can concentrate, but his training does not lead to the same skills/experiences/foci. Many long term meditators can change their heartrates, skin resistance to electricity, consciously lower or raise their skin temperature, reduce radically the oxygen needs of their bodies. Most chess players have not gotten these skills, at least not through chess training. Nor do they tend to experience non-duality, etc.

What you work on affects how you experience things and your skills.

Now with something like religion or any other long set of practices, sure one might send you off to staring at phosphenes and you really connect with nothing profound. Perhaps some paths don't work very well or deepen your sense of reality. I think, for example, Scientology has facets that seem very disconnected to me. Heavy on the random ideas of the maker. I can't prove that let along comparatively. But it's my gut reaction and I am not ruling out such a thing.

But it is not my focus at all.

If you have a religion that detaches you from your emotions and not express them, compared to one that has practices that engage you in your emotions and their expression, you will experience and be good at very different things. For example.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Fri Oct 30, 2020 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3409
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Fri Oct 30, 2020 3:07 pm

I'm asking anyone who wants to share an opinion, insight or experience.

Go for it.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:47 pm

phyllo wrote:It's possible that none, or only some, of these practices get you to "The Real".

So which ones, if any do it? And how would one know?



One never knows with objective certainty. For that matter, like Christianity's portrayals of Jesus, there are conflicting portrayals of Buddha within Buddhism. If we don't know which portrayal of a religion's founder is correct, if any, how could we possibly know which religious experience is authentic in terms of what the founder taught? There are many Buddhas and many Christs, many Buddhisms and many Christianities. Which if any are the real ones? If you participate in a religious institution the authorities can confirm whether you outwardly conform to their criteria of behavior knowledge. But they can't know your inward experience directly or with certainty.
For me it's a matter of spiritual intuition and pragmatism. I can't know if my experience is ultimately grounded. But I can know within the horizon of my total conscious experience. I can answer to myself.
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: 8991
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Meno_ » Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:38 pm

felix dakat wrote:
phyllo wrote:It's possible that none, or only some, of these practices get you to "The Real".

So which ones, if any do it? And how would one know?



One never knows with objective certainty. For that matter, like Christianity's portrayals of Jesus, there are conflicting portrayals of Buddha within Buddhism. If we don't know which portrayal of a religion's founder is correct, if any, how could we possibly know which religious experience is authentic in terms of what the founder taught? There are many Buddhas and many Christs, many Buddhisms and many Christianities. Which if any are the real ones? If you participate in a religious institution the authorities can confirm whether you outwardly conform to their criteria of behavior knowledge. But they can't know your inward experience directly or with certainty.
For me it's a matter of spiritual intuition and pragmatism. I can't know if my experience is ultimately grounded. But I can know within the horizon of my total conscious experience. I can answer to myself.





For me it has approached certainty within a modicum of negligable error indistince between alpha and omega


The sartorial is naturally anticlimactic, an insurance against the karmic overindulgence, but the effects certainly correspond to an extra sensory cause. The karmic law dictates from that point on, and things take on a new transcendence, of course the price owe has to be annulled of debt.


It is not a hypnotic regression toward the mist possible archaic, while it dies not of necessity cancels that.

At this point, everything begot a reason, even with the widest missed convective spatial infinities, rebound transmuting those spaces as eckenkar flights over long lost illusive magic carpet ridden terrains.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7608
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:52 pm

felix dakat wrote:
phyllo wrote:It's possible that none, or only some, of these practices get you to "The Real".

So which ones, if any do it? And how would one know?



One never knows with objective certainty. For that matter, like Christianity's portrayals of Jesus, there are conflicting portrayals of Buddha within Buddhism. If we don't know which portrayal of a religion's founder is correct, if any, how could we possibly know which religious experience is authentic in terms of what the founder taught? There are many Buddhas and many Christs, many Buddhisms and many Christianities. Which if any are the real ones? If you participate in a religious institution the authorities can confirm whether you outwardly conform to their criteria of behavior knowledge. But they can't know your inward experience directly or with certainty.
For me it's a matter of spiritual intuition and pragmatism. I can't know if my experience is ultimately grounded. But I can know within the horizon of my total conscious experience. I can answer to myself.


...recognizing of course that "my total conscious experience" is never more than what I am aware of in the stream of consciousness in time.
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: 8991
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Oct 30, 2020 7:10 pm

The Case Against “Buddhism”
Randy Rosenthal talks to scholar Glenn Wallis about his thought-provoking new book A Critique of Western Buddhism: Ruins of the Buddhist Real.
at Lion's Roar website
Lion's Roar describes itself as "BUDDHIST WISDOM for OUR TIME"

Randy Rosenthal: What are we to make of Western Buddhism?

Glenn Wallis: This is the frustrating part of non-buddhism. You can’t say what to make of it. Saying what it might be is to start all over again with the harassment of a system — to harass you by saying what your life should be like.


And yet, with so much at stake -- enlightenment here and now, Nirvana there and then -- it would seem to become that much more imperative for all the many Buddhist "schools of thought" to insist that their own lives are the template for what it should be. Either that or you've got this world where anyone can say or believe anything at all about the original intent of Gautama Buddha...and that becomes as far as it need go for whatever forces in the universe reconfigure this life into whatever it becomes on the other side of the grave. What for most Western religions revolves around a God, the God. And Judgment Day.

Or, sure, I'm still failing to grasp how the "non-Western" Gautama Buddha might react to all this himself.

As for this...

Glenn Wallis: The non- is about the elimination of harassment. You lay out the materials. You do interesting things with it. But it can never be prescribed. The criticism of systems of thought is that they’re too prescriptive.


...you tell me.

Glenn Wallis: The One is ultimately the individual. There’s a profound sense of each individual having to make a life for him or herself, free to the greatest extent possible from harassing systems of thought.


You tell me here too.

For example, given my own take on a particular individual's religious beliefs being derived from any number of historical, cultural and circumstantial contexts. The part where "I" is derived in turn from personal experiences, personal relationships and personal access to specific sets of information, knowledge, ideas and ideals.

Or even speculate on the fate of all those men and women who lived before Gautama Buddha was even around. With most Western denominations that's covered by a God, the God that was never not around.
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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38544
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:18 pm

Do You Only Live Once? The Evidence for Rebirth
What happens after you die? That used to be just a religious question, but science is starting to weigh in. Sam Littlefair looks at the evidence that you lived before.
at Lion's Roar website
Lion's Roar describes itself as "BUDDHIST WISDOM for OUR TIME"

First, the "anecdotal" evidence:

On March 3, 1945, James Huston, a twenty-one-year-old U.S. Navy pilot, flew his final flight. He took off from the USS Natoma Bay, an aircraft carrier engaged in the battle of Iwo Jima. Huston was flying with a squadron of eight pilots, including his friend Jack Larsen, to strike a nearby Japanese transport vessel. Huston’s plane was shot in the nose and crashed in the ocean.

Fifty-three years later, in April of 1998, a couple from Louisiana named Bruce and Andrea Leninger gave birth to a boy. They named him James.

When he was twenty-two months old, James and his father visited a flight museum, and James discovered a fascination with planes—especially World War II aircraft, which he would stare at in awe. James got a video about a Navy flight squad, which he watched repeatedly for weeks.

Within two months, James started saying the phrase, “Airplane crash on fire,” including when he saw his father off on trips at the airport. He would slam his toy planes nose-first into the coffee table, ruining the surface with dozens of scratches.

James started having nightmares, first with screaming, and then with words like, “Airplane crash on fire! Little man can’t get out!”, while thrashing and kicking his legs.

Eventually, James talked to his parents about the crash. James said, “Before I was born, I was a pilot and my airplane got shot in the engine, and it crashed in the water, and that’s how I died.” James said that he flew off of a boat and his plane was shot by the Japanese. When his parents asked the name of the boat, he said “Natoma.”

When his parents asked James who “little man” was, he would say “James” or “me.” When his parents asked if he could remember anyone else, he offered the name “Jack Larsen.” When James was two and a half, he saw a photo of Iwo Jima in a book, and said “My plane got shot down there, Daddy.”

When James Leninger was eleven years old, Jim Tucker came to visit him and his family. Tucker, a psychiatrist from the University of Virginia, is one of the world’s leading researchers on the scientific study of reincarnation or rebirth. He spent two days interviewing the Leninger family, and says that James represents one of the strongest cases of seeming reincarnation that he has ever investigated.

“You’ve got this child with nightmares focusing on plane crashes, who says he was shot down by the Japanese, flew off a ship called ‘Natoma,’ had a friend there named Jack Larsen, his plane got hit in the engine, crashed in the water, quickly sank, and said he was killed at Iwo Jima. We have documentation for all of this,” says Tucker in an interview.

“It turns out there was one guy from the ship Natoma Bay who was killed during the Iwo Jima operations, and everything we have documented from James’ statements fits for this guy’s life.”


The first reaction from skeptics like me is how much of this can be verified as in fact true. Obviously, if there is seemingly no way that James Leninger could have even been aware of the existence of James Huston these events would be extraordinary.

If you Google James Huston James James Leininger you get this: https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... QUQ4dUDCAk

Someone would then have to wade through all of the articles and broadcasts and make an informed determination as to just how extraordinary the anecdotal evidence is.

This from wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ARe ... inger_case

In other words, it would be interesting [to me] the extent to which this case was reviewed by someone like James Randi.

Google James Randi and reincarnation and you get this: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1242& ... xUQ4dUDCA0

Or this:

http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php ... ation.html
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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38544
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Nov 13, 2020 7:56 pm

Do You Only Live Once? The Evidence for Rebirth
What happens after you die? That used to be just a religious question, but science is starting to weigh in. Sam Littlefair looks at the evidence that you lived before.
at Lion's Roar website
Lion's Roar describes itself as "BUDDHIST WISDOM for OUR TIME"

The first step in researching the possibility of rebirth is the collection of reports of past life memories. Individually, any one report, like James Leninger’s, proves little. But when thousands of the cases are analyzed collectively, they can yield compelling evidence.


Okay, when you Google "reincarnation anecdotal evidence" you get this:
https://www.google.com/search?ei=3N2tX6 ... ent=psy-ab

So, to what extent can one peruse cases examined here and conclude that there are thousand of cases on par with the one above?

I don't know. But what would be of particular interest to me are those cases which actually succeeded in convincing the doubters like James Randi and Michael Shermer -- https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive ... -on-earth/ -- to at least hold back on the criticisms we often encounter in the skeptic community.

Michael Shermer on Twitter: "My instant refutation of reincarnation: 6.9 billion people alive today, 100 billion people lived before: where did all those extra souls go?"

Well, it's big universe, right?

And, again, I have to remind others that I want to believe in something -- anything -- able to convince me that death is not the equivalent of oblivion.

After decades of research, the Division of Perceptual Studies now houses 2,500 detailed records of children who have reported memories of past lives. Tucker has written two books summarizing the research, Life Before Life and Return to Life. In Life Before Life, Tucker writes, “The best explanation for the strongest cases is that memories, emotions, and even physical injuries can sometimes carry over from one life to the next.”

Children in rebirth cases generally start making statements about past lives between the ages of two and four and stop by the age of six or seven, the age when most children lose early childhood memories.


2,500 cases. That's a lot. But reporting memories of past lives and providing the sort of evidence that would be very hard to dismiss is something else altogether.

For example, what physical injuries? If there are verified accounts where, say, a young man recalls a past life as a particular individual who had particular scars and tattoos and broken bones and afflictions that left physical marks on or in his body...and it turns out that this young man has the same exact accumulation of them himself [or acquires them], that would sure perk up my interest.
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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38544
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 22, 2020 7:13 pm

Buddha Travels West
Peter Abbs follows Buddhism’s path towards becoming a Western humanism.

Some years ago, I started a course of meditation. Although ‘mindfulness’ was in the air and meditation programmes were being offered in almost every other institution, I knew virtually nothing about meditation or mindfulness or the Buddhist traditions from which they came. ‘Mindfulness’ seemed obviously a good thing, for it was the opposite of mindlessness. Who could oppose that? But what exactly did it mean? How had it become so widely esteemed across so many institutions in the West? And what was happening to Buddhism itself as it entered our highly eclectic postmodern Western culture?


Mindfulness? One word: Nxivm.

Or, sure, two or more. Really, what does it matter what you call it when the whole point is to anchor the mind itself?

Or as Nietzsche [or someone like him] once suggested, "the opposite of a truth is not a lie, the opposite of a truth is a conviction."

As long as you are convinced that what you are mindful of is something that is inherently, necessarily that which any spiritually enlightened human being is obligated to be mindful, calling it Buddhism is as good a word as any.

Or, sure, it might have little or nothing to do with spirituality at all. It might just be a practical and effective way in which to make the mind more productive, less stressed.

My Buddhist course was practical. It was about physical posture and following the breath in various ways.


And, here, who could really find fault with it? If it allows you to make the most out of what you choose to be mindful of, the only possible objection might be if what you choose to become mindful involves behaviors that interfere with or even block the paths of those who choose to be mindful of something else.

On the other hand, the "for all practical purposes" path may not be enough for some. Instead they want to connect all the exercises and mental disciplines to something...bigger.

Here, for example, is the author's trajectory:

As my speculative questions remained unanswered they became more restless – until I decided to embark on my own journey. Being a poet and teacher of literature, my instinctive first move was to take a fresh look at T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land, for I remembered that this iconoclastic poem famously ended in Sanskrit. But it was soon to become a much more complicated quest, forcing me to go further back in time, to make unexpected connections and to see entirely new constellations. I had to discover the importance of the philosopher Schopenhauer, the febrile influence of Madam Blavatsky, the power of Zen especially during the 60s, the charisma of the Dalai Lama, and finally, enter the modern world of neurology and contemporary therapy. I discovered that in the West, meditation and mindfulness not only had a history many people were unaware of, but that as Buddhism adapted to the culture of the West its identity was changing. Without gods or a supernatural realm, it was fast becoming a form of philosophical humanism, committed to personal well-being and living the good life.


Your own trajectory might be different.
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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38544
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Thu Nov 26, 2020 6:14 pm

" Here is a piece of the superior wisdom of the East. The Yogin realizes that all the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and Devatas with which he has filled the heavens are Maya illusion just as the world itself is Maya. All this plurality is illusion." ~C. G. Jung, ETH Lecture XI, 3 Feb1939, Page 74.
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: 8991
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Nov 26, 2020 6:19 pm

felix dakat wrote:" Here is a piece of the superior wisdom of the East. The Yogin realizes that all the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and Devatas with which he has filled the heavens are Maya illusion just as the world itself is Maya. All this plurality is illusion." ~C. G. Jung, ETH Lecture XI, 3 Feb1939, Page 74.


We'll need a context of course.
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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38544
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users