I don't get Buddhism

[zinnat]

That doesn't satisfy the people who think that conflicts ought to go away ... that there ought to be one solution that everyone accepts as the only right one.

That is not this prayer is suggesting. It does not claim that there can be any single formula written in the sky for all people which they have to follow blindly in all cases.

Instead, this is saying that morality should be addressed at individual lavel and also case by case. Which means, one act may be moral for an individual in one case but the same act may be immortal to the same individual in other case.There cannot be any universal theory or solution. Morality depends on the contexts.

With love,
Sanjay

[felix dakat]

Zinnat,
I am an extremely spiritual atheist.

As I said there, the concept of spiritual atheist is oxymoron to me. An atheist cannot be spiritual in strict sense, unless you consider morality as spirituality, which is not logical. Morality is spirituality but only a part of it and does not cover spirituality completely. Means, one can be moral without being spiritual which is fine to me but being spiritual demands many others things also, of course including morality.

“Spirituality must be distinguished from religion—because people of every faith, and of none, have had the same sorts of spiritual experiences.”
― Sam Harris, self-declared atheist, Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion

“In fact, we can directly experience that consciousness is never improved or harmed by what it knows. Making this discovery, again and again, is the basis of spiritual life.”
― Sam Harris, Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2 ... t-religion

I agree that all or many people, whether religious or not, at some point in their lives experience something extraordinary which they call spiritual. It is fine to me but so what and what next? Does the story ends here? And, if not, what next and how one is supposed to move further?

Do these so called atheist spiritualist like Sam harris have any answer? I do not think that they have any. Do they even understand why one feels spiritually awakened at times?

What these people are trying is something similar to when one tries to draw or understand the formulas of algebra without learning basic maths. This approach has never worked for anybody, nor it will work ever.

With love,
Sanjay

I don't know, Sanjay. Buddhism is not a fundamentally theistic religion. Do you deny that it is spiritual?

[zinnat]

No, I do not deny it. Spirituality entails Religiousity but not thesim. Having said that, it is still the issue of debate whether Buddhism is a theistic religion or not.

With love,
Sanjay

[Ecmandu]

No, I do not deny it. Spirituality entails Religiousity but not thesim. Having said that, it is still the issue of debate whether Buddhism is a theistic religion or not.

With love,
Sanjay

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmā_(Buddhism)

My link didn’t copy to ILP ... just look up Brahma in Buddhism and pick the Wikipedia page that says “Brahma Buddhism”

The Buddha taught that the god realms are rebirth realms.

[zinnat]

No, I do not deny it. Spirituality entails Religiousity but not thesim. Having said that, it is still the issue of debate whether Buddhism is a theistic religion or not.

With love,
Sanjay

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmā_(Buddhism)

My link didn’t copy to ILP ... just look up Brahma in Buddhism and pick the Wikipedia page that says “Brahma Buddhism”

The Buddha taught that the god realms are rebirth realms.

I am aware or all that. That is precisely why i said to Felix it is a mater of debate whether Buddhism is a theistic religion or not. Secondly, asked about the presence of soul, Buddha never said that soul does not exist. Rather, he became silent.
It is one of the 14 famous questions which Buddha chose not to answer either way.

With love,
Sanjay

[MagsJ]

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.

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.

A Buddha state is more about the here and now, in retrospect of one’s did and was, with a view to cultivating a better there and then.. so not so much about one’s afterlife, as it is about how the rest of one’s life is spent living, in conjunction with past lessons learned.. so being the best you can be.

You have a fate after death? how do you know that that is a certainty? Why are you less concerned with living than you are with dying?

Thus...

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

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.

Well yes.. those that know better, disseminate that knowledge to those that don’t, through canonical texts and other such vehicles of dissemination.

We can live like gods, or live like dogs.. it’s a choice we all can make, in which path or paths to take.

Take Brahman?

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...

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?

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?

Once we know better, can we stop knowing better? answering that question will lead you to the answer you keep on asking, but do feel free to keep on with your circular inquiry, won’t you. ; )

Okay, in regard to the political prejudices you embody relating to, say, vaccines or Donald Trump, what does it mean then to be "taskless"?

They are not political prejudices.. the first has nothing to do with politics, the second is a personal preference that has no bearing on any decisions I make here in the UK.

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

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?

An agenda has a plan, a purpose has no plan to follow..

My context is drawn from that of the greater good, not from that of any one subjective point and purpose.

Also, is there any way possible that Brahman can be discussed by the faithful in regard to morality here and now and immortality there and then? Or does it ever and always come down merely to how you think about it "spiritually" in your head? How comforting and consoling one's assessment of it is sustained.

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.

The latter then I'll take it.

If that’s how you’ve interpreted my reply, then sure..

The morality/immortality issue, isn’t an issue at all.. why do you think it so? or perhaps that’s just you?

[iambiguous]

That doesn't satisfy the people who think that conflicts ought to go away ... that there ought to be one solution that everyone accepts as the only right one.

Yes, and given the topic of the thread, the idea that everyone should do Buddhism OR no one should
are the choices is just silly.
We have different needs, goals, skills, interests, temperments....
That one spiritual path or a self-improvement path or one philosohpical approach is the right one for everyone has a lot of assumptions in it that I haven't seen justified.

Sure, Buddhism can be discussed in general description intellectual contraptions of this sort. But, in my view, one thing never changes.

This: that, as with all other religious practitioners, Buddhists sooner or later have to actually choose behaviors in the course of interacting with others...behaviors deemed to be either right or wrong, enlightened or unenlightened. A world where others -- religious or humanists -- will come into conflict with their own assessments and, in any given community, actual rules of behaviors will be prescribed and proscribed based on who has access to the political power necessary to enforce these rules.

And, one way or another, given God or No god religions, there has to be a connection made between the behaviors chosen on this side of the grave and the fate of "I" on the other side.

And yet many of the discussions/exchanges here go on and on as though this part of religion -- the actual existential consequences embedded in day to day human interactions -- need barely to register at all.

The whole point seems to be in keeping the discussions "philosophical" or "spiritual".

If I do say so myself.

[iambiguous]

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.

A Buddha state is more about the here and now, in retrospect of one’s did and was, with a view to cultivating a better there and then.. so not so much about one’s afterlife, as it is about how the rest of one’s life is spent living, in conjunction with past lessons learned.. so being the best you can be.

You have a fate after death? how do you know that that is a certainty? Why are you less concerned with living than you are with dying?

As I noted today in my post above, it is precisely this sort of "general description intellectual contraption" that I wish to steer the discussions away from. I'm far more interested in how you relate this sort of abstract assessment to the life that you actually live. To the moral and political values that you choose to embody. And in regard to confrontations with those who embody other religious and nonreligious values. As this is understood by you in regard to the fate of "I" after death.

My own moral and political values are no longer rooted in religion, but in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. My own approach to value judgments is encompassed in the OP on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

Others will either be willing to take Buddhism there, or, sure, eschew my arguments/posts here altogether. And if they choose to, fine. I would not insist that, necessarily, they are being less reasonable than I am. That they are on the wrong path. Only that our interest in religion is different. This as well seen by me as as embodied in dasein.

Thus, from my own frame of mind, we are clearly on two different paths here:

Take Brahman?

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.

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?

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?

Once we know better, can we stop knowing better? answering that question will lead you to the answer you keep on asking, but do feel free to keep on with your circular inquiry, won’t you. ; )

Know what better? In what set of circumstances? As this knowledge is intertwined in enlightenment precipitating a karma that results in what level of existence on the other side? Is it ever and always only what a Buddhist believes is true here, or are there ways to demonstrate that what they believe is in fact true experientially, experimentally, empirically?

And then when I do focus in on a particular context:

Okay, in regard to the political prejudices you embody relating to, say, vaccines or Donald Trump, what does it mean then to be "taskless"?

They are not political prejudices.. the first has nothing to do with politics, the second is a personal preference that has no bearing on any decisions I make here in the UK.

First, I am still not clear as to what you mean by "taskless" here.

And are you actually telling us that arguments exchanged in regard to vaccines are not intertwined existentially in the political values that liberals and conservatives and others become predisposed to existentially given the experiences, relationships and access to particular information and knowledge that unfold over the course of their lived lives? You really believe that how you feel about vaccines goes beyond a set of political prejudices and really does reflect the optimal or the only rational way in which to think about them?

That all the points raised by the folks on the pro side here -- https://vaccines.procon.org/ -- are simply wrong.

Instead, my point is that men and women living individual lives do become predisposed to political prejudices that some come to insist is reflective instead of the one and the only objective truth. The objectivists among us. Those that in my view choose a frame of mind that allows them psychologically to think themselves into believing that in regard to vaccines they really are in touch with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

The embodiment of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Updated as follows:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life in regard to vaccines

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective regarding vaccines expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about vaccines; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this view about vaccines with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth about vaccines with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument about vaccines that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original quest for truth about vaccines, for wisdom, has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with the quest for truth at all. But only in propagating their own objectivist rendition of it.

[phyllo]

That doesn't satisfy the people who think that conflicts ought to go away ... that there ought to be one solution that everyone accepts as the only right one.

That is not this prayer is suggesting. It does not claim that there can be any single formula written in the sky for all people which they have to follow blindly in all cases.

Instead, this is saying that morality should be addressed at individual lavel and also case by case. Which means, one act may be moral for an individual in one case but the same act may be immortal to the same individual in other case.There cannot be any universal theory or solution. Morality depends on the contexts.

With love,
Sanjay

I don't think it's about morality at all.

I think it's saying not to waste time and energy on things beyond our control. But also not to forget that something things we are able to change and we should not be afraid to try.

[zinnat]

I think it's saying not to waste time and energy on things beyond our control. But also not to forget that something things we are able to change and we should not be afraid to try.

Well, if is not about morality then what else for? It certainly does not talk about moving heavy things like bed or almirahs from one place to another in a house. It is talking about the life and daily circumstances/questions and takling those for sure. And, this is precisely what morality is.

With love,
Sanjay

[MagsJ]

MagsJ wrote: Why our path over someone else’s? because one is not supposed to stray too far from their inherent Dharma is why, otherwise one would become open to coercion, corruption, abuse, etc.

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.

..in relation to.. what?

You decide. Choose a context, a set of behaviors that is important to you. My aim here is to explore Buddhism [as another religious denomination] in terms of how Buddhists understand enlightenment, karma, reincarnation, and Nirvana in a manner such that I might be able to translate that given the manner in which I have come to understand human interactions in the is/ought world given the arguments I make in my signature threads. Morality here and now/immortality there and then. As that pertains "for all practical purposes" to the lives we live from day to day.

Acquiring an omni-state of being through regular practice, helps the Practitioner in achieving an optimal state of Being, and in Becoming so, acquiring an acute state of awareness on a macro level, in their day-to-day actions and interactions.

You seem to always want to break down these day-to-day actions and interactions into individual moments and constant changes in thought-processes, but those should be seamless.. so context is irrelevant, but consistency is not.

In other words, to reconfigure an assessment of this sort...

You seem to have described an environment of conflicting goods occurring, and to reconcile the disparities between self and environment.. so-as to achieve a dharmic point in time and continuum, would mean to appease those conflicts through gaining much more mindful thoughts on the impact those conflicts are causing.. so some hindsight and forward-thinking would be helpful at this point, in achieving that state, and thus the required reconciliation.

...into a discussion involving actual behaviors that Buddhists choose, insofar as "general description intellectual contraptions" of this sort are made clearer in descriptions of "sets of circumstances" such that the words you choose above can be linked to the lives that we interact in socially, politically and economically. As that is then linked to the fate of "I" there and then on the other side of the grave.

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

Then don’t!

The onus is on you to choose a particular circumstance that you wish to be explored, in the manner in which a Practitioner would undertake the specific endeavour, of which you wish to understand the ‘how’.

And, in turn, how this relates to the fate of "I" beyond the grave.

“The possibility of death is something that is my own, and at any time before the power of today, I can reveal that the possibility of “I” is of death, particularly “I”.” -Heidegger.

What do you see your fate as? what would you wish it to be beyond the grave? isn’t that nothing but a legacy?

More to the point, what does Heidegger himself think about this "here and now"? Is he still sympathetic to the Nazis?

What "I" believe is that my own death will result in the disintegration of my body back to "star stuff". I also believe that I have no soul to carry on with in Heaven or Hell. Or in one or another reincarnated state. Why? Because I have no demonstrable arguments or evidence from those who believe the opposite.

But, as well, "I" have no more capacity to demonstrate this than do the Buddhists of Nirvana.

Unless, of course, there are Buddhists here among us actually able to explain how exactly reincarnation and Nirvana work in their No God religion. That in fact their beliefs are not just a psychological device to comfort and console them all the way to the grave.

I have no idea what happens to the energy that is released after we demise, but that does indicate that something is transpiring after the fact, so not just a psychological belief-system that comforts and consoles..

Finally, to those who do embrace a religious denomination as a foundation they are able to anchor "I" to:

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".

I have always been well aware of my true self and nature, in relation to the artificial instilled-values of my politico/religious upbringing.. it wasn’t as harsh a process as to diminish or eradicate one’s inner ‘I’ as you think.. it wasn’t Christianity. And so.. the politico-religious aspect, ran parallel to the innate ‘I’, so making for an intertwined socio/moral experienentiality of an existence.. as I was growing up.

Again, to the extent that you still believe in the "true self" in sync with the "right thing to do" [re things like conservatives/liberals, Trump, vaccines etc], we are on opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum...one that runs from moral objectivism to moral nihilism.

..and that matters how? It doesn’t to me, but to you.. in your judgemental state of moral nihilism.

Is my moral objectivism showing again? oops

But what I would still be most interested in is your own rendition of this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side
and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

In other words, you exploring your own value judgments as the existential intertwining of personal experiences and philosophy.

In regard to a "conflicting good" that is of most importance to you. And likely to be be familiar to most of us.

Sure, I’ll give that a go.. though I have offered such insights over the years, but which are obviously now lost via the antiquity of time.. and 1000s of posts.

Here’s a short version for now:

0-16 years old: Roman Catholic / Conservative household and upbringing

17-present day: non-practising RC/Spiritual, but still attend RC church for family Sacraments and local Community events / Conservative values, so started supporting the Conservatives, became a part of my Local Association, and standing in Elections since 2010

During my college and uni days, so from age 16-21, I declared myself as Labour, as it stopped those around me from debating politics with me, and I couldn’t think of anything worse than that at that age.. my Art-student peers did likewise, for the very same reason, as we were all inward-facing introverted types that weren’t about that debating-life, but we were not Left-leaning in the slightest.

[MagsJ]

@Zinnat.. it seems that it’s not only Gib that doesn’t get Buddhism.

Buddhism, Hinduism, Vedism Brahminism etc. are the vehicle, in which rta/Dharma are delivered through.. it is beyond religion.. it is irreligious. The second that a person realises that, is the second they will start to understand.

Rta, is a state of mind, borne from original thought, disseminated through South/SE/E Asian Canons and Religions.. either you’ll get it or you won’t, but it ain’t fucking rocket science. How is knowing what the right thing to do, so difficult and complicated.. like rocket science is?

We.. as a peoples and planet are truly doomed, if we cannot simply differentiate right action from wrong.. the difference between maturity and immaturity/adult and children. Ffs!

MagsJ,

It looks to me that it is not me but you who needs a bit more clarity about karma and religions.

I didn’t mean that you didn’t get Buddhism, but that those who have no concept of what it actually is and meant to ultimately achieve don’t.. but this misunderstanding has worked out well, in you sharing your much-appreciated knowledge on the dissemination of the teachings.

Let me take the intellectual issue first.
People often get it wrong but prophets are the most important parts of the religions, even more than respective Gods itself. That begs a question. Why so?

The answer is that it is not the gods but prophets who bring these religions in this world. It were Jesus and Mohammad who founded Christianity and Islam, neither God nor Allah by themselves. So, you have to believe the prophets first before believing the Gods and religions. It cannot be the other way around. There cannot be any Islam without Mohammad and neither any Christianity without Jesus. And, that applies to all religions. You have to believe the massanger first before believing in the dilevered massage. It would be illogical to claim that I believe only in the massage, not in the massanger.

Why are messengers always martyrs? I guess that’s why I probably look to god first, before I look to the messenger to see what they’ve got to say.

[The important thing to remember here is that if you follow this route and believe in the prophets first, you become religious by default. In the same way, if you are believing in karma and Dharma, you are accepting that what Buddha and Mahavira said about Karma is true. That makes you a religious person, whether you like it or not. Because, the concept of Karma has no place in pure western intellectual philosophy, it is an out and out eastern religious doctrine.

I’ll go with the pre-Vedic notion of the karmic/dharmic concept.. as passed down by my ancestors, which knows not of religion, but of an ideal.

Not all in the subcontinent follow a religion but local customs and conduct.. as I’m sure you know.

Wikipedia says:

The word Hindu is an exonym, and while Hinduism has been called the oldest religion in the world, many practitioners refer to their religion as Sanātana Dharma, "the eternal way" which refers to the idea that its origins lie beyond human history, as revealed in the Hindu texts.

Secondly, other than Buddhism but in all other Indian religions, the concept of Karma goes beyond one life but spreads its jurisdiction to all previous and future incarnations. Now again, how one is supposed to be a irreligious and believing in incarnations?

I have no belief system on the matter..

We release energy when we die.. I know that much, but nothing more besides, beyond that point.

MagsJ, unlike west, there is no pure intellectual philosophy or philosophers in the east, especially in india. All philosophers were religious scholars first, though they covered all non religious verticals also. Both of Kamsutra and Ayurveda were written by religious sages, not any medical professional.

Just because the Rishis were revered by many religions, doesn’t mean that they themselves were religious.. the Jains, for instance, revered many Thirthankaras that weren’t Jain at all. And just to add to the confusion further.. many of the newer religions borrowed historical figures from pasts, and even countries, other than their own.

The ancient concept of Religion actually meant Custom, and in the last few thousand years became Religion, as we know it today.. so initially socio-political, not dogmatic.. that came later, with the arrival of the newer tribes on the subcontinental-block. ; )

Wikipedia says:

Dravidian folk religion. The early Dravidian religion refers to a broad range of belief systems which existed in South Asia before the arrival of Indo-Aryans. ... The worship of tutelary deities and sacred flora and fauna in Hinduism is also recognized as a survival of the pre-Vedic Dravidian religion.

[phyllo]

I think it's saying not to waste time and energy on things beyond our control. But also not to forget that something things we are able to change and we should not be afraid to try.

Well, if is not about morality then what else for? It certainly does not talk about moving heavy things like bed or almirahs from one place to another in a house. It is talking about the life and daily circumstances/questions and takling those for sure. And, this is precisely what morality is.

With love,
Sanjay

It doesn't talk about right and wrong or moral and immoral. It talks about 'changable'.

It would apply to things like death, disease, aging, people doing nasty things to you(intentionally or not).

In the context of this thread, conflict and consent violation are not going away. You gotta accept that.

[Ecmandu]

No Sanjay,

It’s not complicated. Spirits exist, god doesn’t. What next? That’s all there is.

[Dan~]

The point is that you don't have to use those words.

In fact, people may be more open to what you are saying if you don't use those words.

From my life experience (which I don’t really expect people to have). Zinnat is a flaming asshole. Preaching the praises to and sucking up to the supreme consent violator. Extra senses are common in the human species, even some strange ones.

What zinnat is saying is actually meaner and more aggressive than what most people say. Being in hell for so long, I’m finely attuned to it.

There are some people who only understand force, otherwise zinnat might spend the rest of his life abusing people. That’s unconscionable to me.

I’ve resurrected at least 3 times, I’ve been to hell for a long time... I’m an extremely sensitive person to slight abuses being massive to the regard zinnat is using them.

I don't think Zinnat is a flaming asshole. And I don't think you should post that he is.

[Ecmandu]

The point is that you don't have to use those words.

In fact, people may be more open to what you are saying if you don't use those words.

From my life experience (which I don’t really expect people to have). Zinnat is a flaming asshole. Preaching the praises to and sucking up to the supreme consent violator. Extra senses are common in the human species, even some strange ones.

What zinnat is saying is actually meaner and more aggressive than what most people say. Being in hell for so long, I’m finely attuned to it.

There are some people who only understand force, otherwise zinnat might spend the rest of his life abusing people. That’s unconscionable to me.

I’ve resurrected at least 3 times, I’ve been to hell for a long time... I’m an extremely sensitive person to slight abuses being massive to the regard zinnat is using them.

I don't think Zinnat is a flaming asshole. And I don't think you should post that he is.

I get very mad when people suck up to the great consent violator in the sky with seeming kindness in what most perceive an innocuous way. I was sent to hell by beings like this. For no reason.

And then in walks zinnat, seemingly the kindest ILPer...

Like I said, I don’t expect people to understand what I’ve been through.

Appearances are very deceiving. The wolf in sheep’s clothing. I get it. I shouldn’t say that theists are flaming assholes. I had to deal with billions of zinnats in hell. This glib shit is not fun to endure. I haven’t healed from hell yet.

[Ecmandu]

Anyways, I’ll say a bit and then go to Buddhism again.

Spirits exist. Hell exists. God doesn’t exist. Empaths don’t have a heaven if even a single being in existence is having their consent violated, which means heaven doesn’t exist either, if the Buddha is not a psychopath, “nirvana” is not heaven.

[iambiguous]

Choose a context, a set of behaviors that is important to you. My aim here is to explore Buddhism [as another religious denomination] in terms of how Buddhists understand enlightenment, karma, reincarnation, and Nirvana in a manner such that I might be able to translate that given the manner in which I have come to understand human interactions in the is/ought world given the arguments I make in my signature threads. Morality here and now/immortality there and then. As that pertains "for all practical purposes" to the lives we live from day to day.

Acquiring an omni-state of being through regular practice, helps the Practitioner in achieving an optimal state of Being, and in Becoming so, acquiring an acute state of awareness on a macro level, in their day-to-day actions and interactions.

From my own frame of mind I'm thinking: What does your response here have to do with that which I would like to focus on in discussing Buddhism: connecting the dots between the behaviors a committed Buddhist chooses in a particular context involving conflicting goods as that relates to his or her understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana. Given a context most here are likely to be familiar with.

The onus is on you to choose a particular circumstance that you wish to be explored, in the manner in which a Practitioner would undertake the specific endeavour, of which you wish to understand the ‘how’.

I'm simply asking you to focus in on a context involving conflicting goods that are of particular importance to you. How are the behaviors that you choose related to the manner in which you have come to acquire particular moral and political values, relating to how you connect the behaviors that you do choose to that which you imagine the fate of "I" to be beyond the grave. Then to explore how a Buddhist might react to that. Then to shift the discussion from that which we believe is true to that which anyone of us is able to demonstrate that others should believe in turn. Why? Because what we believe to be true in our head is able to be demonstrated as in fact true for all reasonable men and women.

As for this...

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side
and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

In other words, you exploring your own value judgments as the existential intertwining of personal experiences and philosophy.

Here’s a short version for now:

0-16 years old: Roman Catholic / Conservative household and upbringing

17-present day: non-practising RC/Spiritual, but still attend RC church for family Sacraments and local Community events / Conservative values, so started supporting the Conservatives, became a part of my Local Association, and standing in Elections since 2010

During my college and uni days, so from age 16-21, I declared myself as Labour, as it stopped those around me from debating politics with me, and I couldn’t think of anything worse than that at that age.. my Art-student peers did likewise, for the very same reason, as we were all inward-facing introverted types that weren’t about that debating-life, but we were not Left-leaning in the slightest.

...I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves the difference between the long and the short version of "I" as an existential contraption intertwined in philosophy.

My main point being that suppose, for whatever reason as a child, circumstances resulted in your being raised by radical left wing parents who were atheists instead. Your experiences were very different and you found yourself embracing moral and political values quite the opposite of the ones you embody now.

Given this what might philosophers/ethicists be able to tell us about value judgments that attempt to take these diverse existential paths into account in order to derive the most rational set of moral and political values. The optimal intertwining of genes and memes so that in regard to an issue like vaccines, it really would be possible to embody true wisdom in the choices one makes.

This thread merely shifts that discussion to one in which God and religion become an important factor in connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then.

I'm not arguing that my point of view here makes more sense than yours does. I am only pointing out that we think about these relationships in very different ways. Maybe the gap can be closed, maybe not. In part because I have come to construe identity here as basically an existential manifestation of what I have come to understand as the embodiment of the "psychology of objectivism".

It's not what moral and political objectivists believe is the right or the wrong thing to do, but that they have convinced themselves that it must be either one or the other.

[Meno_]

Choose a context, a set of behaviors that is important to you. My aim here is to explore Buddhism [as another religious denomination] in terms of how Buddhists understand enlightenment, karma, reincarnation, and Nirvana in a manner such that I might be able to translate that given the manner in which I have come to understand human interactions in the is/ought world given the arguments I make in my signature threads. Morality here and now/immortality there and then. As that pertains "for all practical purposes" to the lives we live from day to day.

Acquiring an omni-state of being through regular practice, helps the Practitioner in achieving an optimal state of Being, and in Becoming so, acquiring an acute state of awareness on a macro level, in their day-to-day actions and interactions.

From my own frame of mind I'm thinking: What does your response here have to do with that which I would like to focus on in discussing Buddhism: connecting the dots between the behaviors a committed Buddhist chooses in a particular context involving conflicting goods as that relates to his or her understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana. Given a context most here are likely to be familiar with.

The onus is on you to choose a particular circumstance that you wish to be explored, in the manner in which a Practitioner would undertake the specific endeavour, of which you wish to understand the ‘how’.

I'm simply asking you to focus in on a context involving conflicting goods that are of particular importance to you. How are the behaviors that you choose related to the manner in which you have come to acquire particular moral and political values, relating to how you connect the behaviors that you do choose to that which you imagine the fate of "I" to be beyond the grave. Then to explore how a Buddhist might react to that. Then to shift the discussion from that which we believe is true to that which anyone of us is able to demonstrate that others should believe in turn. Why? Because what we believe to be true in our head is able to be demonstrated as in fact true for all reasonable men and women.

As for this...

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side
and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

In other words, you exploring your own value judgments as the existential intertwining of personal experiences and philosophy.

Here’s a short version for now:

0-16 years old: Roman Catholic / Conservative household and upbringing

17-present day: non-practising RC/Spiritual, but still attend RC church for family Sacraments and local Community events / Conservative values, so started supporting the Conservatives, became a part of my Local Association, and standing in Elections since 2010

During my college and uni days, so from age 16-21, I declared myself as Labour, as it stopped those around me from debating politics with me, and I couldn’t think of anything worse than that at that age.. my Art-student peers did likewise, for the very same reason, as we were all inward-facing introverted types that weren’t about that debating-life, but we were not Left-leaning in the slightest.

...I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves the difference between the long and the short version of "I" as an existential contraption intertwined in philosophy.

My main point being that suppose, for whatever reason as a child, circumstances resulted in your being raised by radical left wing parents who were atheists instead. Your experiences were very different and you found yourself embracing moral and political values quite the opposite of the ones you embody now.

Given this what might philosophers/ethicists be able to tell us about value judgments that attempt to take these diverse existential paths into account in order to derive the most rational set of moral and political values. The optimal intertwining of genes and memes so that in regard to an issue like vaccines, it really would be possible to embody true wisdom in the choices one makes.

This thread merely shifts that discussion to one in which God and religion become an important factor in connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then.

I'm not arguing that my point of view here makes more sense than yours does. I am only pointing out that we think about these relationships in very different ways. Maybe the gap can be closed, maybe not. In part because I have come to construe identity here as basically an existential manifestation of what I have come to understand as the embodiment of the "psychology of objectivism".

It's not what moral and political objectivists believe is the right or the wrong thing to do, but that they have convinced themselves that it must be either one or the other.

Iambig writes, :


It's not what moral and political objectivists believe is the right or the wrong thing to do, but that they have convinced themselves that it must be either one or the other.[/quote]


'They' have for sure, but their conviction may not be absolutely convincing, where even a scintilla of difference may not disqualify them from either / or ; and/or both views.

It is that micro difference which carries an overwhelming weight .

Their opinion could be compared to the difference between the visible part of an observable ice berg above , or the insurmountable part below.

In Buddhic estimation, that perspective could be multiples million fold.

[iambiguous]

It's not what moral and political objectivists believe is the right or the wrong thing to do, but that they have convinced themselves that it must be either one or the other.

'They' have for sure, but their conviction may not be absolutely convincing, where even a scintilla of difference may not disqualify them from either / or ; and/or both views.

It is that micro difference which carries an overwhelming weight .

Their opinion could be compared to the difference between the visible part of an observable ice berg above , or the insurmountable part below.

In Buddhic estimation, that perspective could be multiples million fold.

I don't get Meno.

[Meno_]

It's not what moral and political objectivists believe is the right or the wrong thing to do, but that they have convinced themselves that it must be either one or the other.

'They' have for sure, but their conviction may not be absolutely convincing, where even a scintilla of difference may not disqualify them from either / or ; and/or both views.

It is that micro difference which carries an overwhelming weight .

Their opinion could be compared to the difference between the visible part of an observable ice berg above , or the insurmountable part below.

In Buddhic estimation, that perspective could be multiples million fold.

I don't get Meno.

I don't get Buddhism.

Maybe there could be some correspondence there possibly, , figuratively & literally.

[iambiguous]

I don't get Meno.

I don't get Buddhism.

I don't get Buddhism either. But I don't get you even more. And no one gets me most of all.

[phyllo]

"Our life is shaped by our mind; we become what we think. Joy follows a pure thought like a shadow that never leaves."

[Meno_]

Iambig said:

"don't get Buddhism either. But I don't get you even more. And no one gets me most of all.


Except You have repeatedly expressed that sentiment about Buddhism and Meno, yet Meno has never once expressed in any way, shape or form not to understand Iambiguous.


So the 3 way correspondence is more difficult by powers far exceeding X3.

[Meno_]

"Our life is shaped by our mind; we become what we think. Joy follows a pure thought like a shadow that never leaves."

Beautiful Zen image!