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 MagsJ » Mon Aug 31, 2020 5:06 pm

iambiguous wrote:As I noted previously, we are in two different discussions here. I wish to bring what I construe to be your "general descriptions" out into the world and explore how you reconfigure them into particular behaviors that "here and now" you deem to be "the right thing to do". And how you then connect this dot to that which [God or No God] you imagine the fate of "I" to be when you die.

What is the point in living, if it’s mostly used to think about dieing? perhaps that is why we are in two different discussions..

Now that I have clarified my Behavior, in the manner in which I choose to live my life, perhaps your future inquiries will be less broad..

MagsJ wrote:
As that is understood by me given the components of my own moral philosophy embedded in my signature threads.

And, yes, my own approach to God and religion is very much "situation dependent".

You can no doubt find others here who wish to pursue your own interest in religion. But I'm more intent on focusing the beam on the things that interest me instead. Acknowledging that my own priorities are by no means the priorities that others are obligated to pursue.

Focus away, babe.
Count on it. :wink:

Haha!
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20354
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka/LDN Town

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Aug 31, 2020 6:17 pm

MagsJ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:As I noted previously, we are in two different discussions here. I wish to bring what I construe to be your "general descriptions" out into the world and explore how you reconfigure them into particular behaviors that "here and now" you deem to be "the right thing to do". And how you then connect this dot to that which [God or No God] you imagine the fate of "I" to be when you die.

What is the point in living, if it’s mostly used to think about dieing? perhaps that is why we are in two different discussions..


From my own perspective:

The extent to which someone does or does not think about death a lot or a little is no less an existential contraption rooted in dasein. That's true of you, that's true of me, that's true of others. Then it comes down to how wide the gap is between my understanding of "I" as "an existential contraption rooted in dasein" and yours and theirs. There is no right understanding though. There is only each individual's point of view. More or less rooted in the life they have lived and more or less rooted in a philosophical examination of that life.

Or are there those here able to argue not only what all rational men and women are obligated to think about death, but how much time each day should be allotted to the task?

Like they say, few things will narrow your thinking like a cancer diagnosis. Obviously, the closer you are to a set of circumstances which includes imminent death, the more likely you are to become preoccupied with it.

Then, of course, that other aspect of dasein here: God and religion. Thinking about death given the belief in an afterlife and salvation can be very different from thinking about it in the shadow of oblivion.

MagsJ wrote: Now that I have clarified my Behavior, in the manner in which I choose to live my life, perhaps your future inquiries will be less broad.


This clarification is, from my point of view, no less a subjective/subjunctive predisposition given the particular set of experiences that you have had, given the particular world that brought them about.

The point of philosophy then [in my view] revolves around exploring this:

Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables---some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are "thrown" into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of "reality" suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.

On the other hand:

In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of this. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making.

But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my "self" is, what can "I" do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknowledging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we "anchor" our identity to so as to make this prefabricated...fabricated...refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.


Existentially, these words have come to mean what they do to me "here and now". But, "here and now", your own life might have been such that they mean something...or almost nothing at all.

That's why I always suggest they be examined out in the world of actual human interactions.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37310
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Zone of Proximal Development

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Sep 01, 2020 5:41 am

Vygotsky was an innovator in education whose ideas are now mainly accepted. One of his basic ideas is that there are two ways to look at a student level. What problems they can solve on their own, and what problems they can solve with support from their teachers. The region in between these two ability levels is the Zone of Proximal Development.

To help the learner get from the independent level to the supported level there is scaffolding....

Scaffolding, or supportive activities provided by the educator, or more competent peer, to support the student as he or she is led through the ZPD.


Note that the support is in activities. Children dissect a pithed frog while studying anatomy and physiology in vertebrates. They go out in nature and study a parasitic vine on a tree. Younger children manipulate blocks to understand subtraction. Specialized professional adults first watch then use on animals a surgical robot or study the effects of partical impacts they created in cloud chamber images. They interact and control processes and experience stuff. And then they do it again. This can be for physical skills training but also to even understand abstruse concepts. Children and adults alike scaffolded by experiences organized by mentors.

Learning.

In Buddhism the scaffolding is primarily meditation. Very simple heuristics are given to aid and scaffold meditation (and a few other activities). One is also scaffolded by simple heuristics that can look like Western morality, but is actually practical rules for behavior that reduces suffering and also aids the meditation.

There is generaly very little intellectual discussion of terms like karma and nirvana. For several reasons. The terms are out of reach. They are

NOT

in the Zone of Proximal Development.

The student lacks the experiences to understand these concepts, just as nearly all third graders cannot be scaffolded to understanding Einstein's theory of relativity. No supportive activites can do this.

And let's remember that we, like in the Einstein example, dealing with paradigmatic challenges. Even at the level of thought you need to go through anxiety and tremendous resistance. Other 'things' to be learned have much more experiential support processes. 3rd graders using the words, without years of both experiential and conceptual slow building up, will not be able to use those words competently. No matter how much they banter those words about even with an MKO (more knowledgable other - another V term). The talking does not help. The difference is too great. Conclusions and understanding of the words are outside the ZPD.

And oversimplified version of Vygotsky's ideas here....
https://www.simplypsychology.org/Zone-o ... pment.html

A buddhist would recognize that their practices and MKO student relationship is an example of Zone of Proximal development and would also notice that Buddhism generally notes that introduction of concepts too early and CERTAINLY focus and intellectualizing them inhibits development.

But those without experience and little knowledge can lecture their MKOs that they are wrong and the best way to learn is intellectualling things with no experience.

The scaffolding in Buddhism is mainly meditation. That's thousands of hours this kind of experiential scaffolding for every minute of discussing buddhist ideas.

If the question is; why should I bother investing so much effort and time into something I do not understand? First off, notice that that is a different issue. If it is correct that one needs primarily experiential scaffolding AND mental blathering over concepts is not only not scaffolding but actually damaging, the this objection is not compelling in the least for changes in mentor practice. Second, if you are not interested, don't bother. If your motivation is low, don't bother. If the attraction is low, don't bother.

Edit: the suggestion after 'Second' is my suggestion, not an official stance of Buddhism, if there are such things.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Tue Sep 01, 2020 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby MagsJ » Tue Sep 01, 2020 12:02 pm

iambiguous wrote:We are clearly in two different discussions here. And, sure, your understanding of it may well be more reasonable than mine. But for someone who is reading my posts on this thread to ask me what our individuals paths -- our actual lived lives -- have to do with a discussion of Buddhism is simply beyond my capacity even to grasp. As though the historical, cultural and circumstantial parameters of the life that we do live as it relates to anything and everything we come into contact with or do not come into contact with relating to Buddhism is not pertinent in a discussion of Buddhism.

..a touch of ‘the solipsisms’ perhaps, in the unsureness.. on certain aspects of existence, that are as yet unknown.

For example, what of all of the millions and millions of human beings who lived and died on planet Earth before Buddha himself even existed? What of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana for them when there wasn't even a Buddhist religion around to turn to?

At least with Western religions we have God to fall back on. One might ask what of all the millions and millions of human beings that existed before the birth of Christ? But God Himself was always around. And questions like this can be dumped into that vast gap between an omniscient/omnipotent God and mere mortals like you and I.

But what of Buddhism here?

Iam said: What of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana for them when there wasn't even a Buddhist religion around to turn to?

Perhaps they had each other.

And, from my frame of mind, the manner in which you go there is far removed from the manner in which I do. And that's fine. But until you demonstrate to me that you have at least some understanding of my own approach, the exchange is basically not worth pursuing from my end.
MagsJ wrote: You’re not of the ‘fluid, like water’ kind of mind, that much has become evident.. that is perhaps where we are differing in our approaches.

Now, given examples from your own life, what does it mean to have a "fluid, like water" kind of mind?

And, in particular, how would you describe that in regard to your moral and political and spiritual convictions.

Iam asked: Now, given examples from your own life, what does it mean to have a "fluid, like water" kind of mind?

..to attain a constant stream of consciousness, that takes one through one’s day.. with ease, that helps with attaining and actioning thoughts during awake time. This would aid in stringing two or more helpful thoughts/actions together, and action them simultaneously.. multi-tasking, if you will.

Iam asked: And, in particular, how would you describe that in regard to your moral and political and spiritual convictions.

In choosing, doing, and being, that which my stream of conscious thoughts think is the best thing to do.. and don’t even get me started on my subconscious ones. :| And what is the best thing to do? I hear you ask.. Well! why that would be whatever brings peace to my mind, I would say.. Blocking out all else.. until only ‘I’ remain.. as the thoughts, in my head.

What I construe to be a "fluid, like water" kind of mind is a mind that flows over time...coming into contact with new experiences, new relationships, new ideas...that can act to change that mind.

A mind embedded in the manner in which I attempt to describe my own here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

So, given the course of your own life, how is your mind deemed by you to be fluid, like water?

..in constantly being there.. in never deserting, and always alerting.. although it almost did try to desert me, a few times now, through the Medium.. of death. The mind becomes different, after that.. as I’m sure others who have found themselves in a similar situation, can attest to, and what I can only describe as a hard reset followed by a very slow and constantly buffering re-upload of my former self.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20354
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka/LDN Town

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby MagsJ » Tue Sep 01, 2020 12:25 pm

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote:What is the point in living, if it’s mostly used to think about dieing? perhaps that is why we are in two different discussions..
From my own perspective:

The extent to which someone does or does not think about death a lot or a little is no less an existential contraption rooted in dasein. That's true of you, that's true of me, that's true of others. Then it comes down to how wide the gap is between my understanding of "I" as "an existential contraption rooted in dasein" and yours and theirs. There is no right understanding though. There is only each individual's point of view. More or less rooted in the life they have lived and more or less rooted in a philosophical examination of that life.

Or are there those here able to argue not only what all rational men and women are obligated to think about death, but how much time each day should be allotted to the task?

I think.. that it is only when one feels one is dieing, then when thinks about death, but otherwise no. You can beg to differ though.. from your perspective, that is.

Sein-zum-Tode, or.. being-toward-death ..a process of growing through the world where a certain foresight guides the Dasein towards gaining an authentic perspective.

In Dasein's individuation, it is open to hearing the "call of conscience" (German Gewissensruf), which comes from Dasein's own Self when it wants to be its Self. This Self is then open to truth, understood as unconcealment (Greek aletheia). In this moment of vision, Dasein understands what is hidden as well as hiddenness itself, indicating Heidegger's regular uniting of opposites; in this case, truth and untruth.[7]

One person’s dasein, is another’s ontological nightmare.. so Unheimlich, which hinders Gewissensruf.. but who, and for whom, respectively?

Like they say, few things will narrow your thinking like a cancer diagnosis. Obviously, the closer you are to a set of circumstances which includes imminent death, the more likely you are to become preoccupied with it.

Then, of course, that other aspect of dasein here: God and religion. Thinking about death given the belief in an afterlife and salvation can be very different from thinking about it in the shadow of oblivion.

I can relate to your first statement.. but it didn’t pertain to me, but to someone else.

With regard to your second statement.. it may depend on where one’s at in life, on the grand scale of being and becoming, that would suppress or trigger thoughts, on the preponderance of death.

MagsJ wrote:Now that I have clarified my Behavior, in the manner in which I choose to live my life, perhaps your future inquiries will be less broad.

This clarification is, from my point of view, no less a subjective/subjunctive predisposition given the particular set of experiences that you have had, given the particular world that brought them about.

The point of philosophy then [in my view] revolves around exploring this:
Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables---some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are "thrown" into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of "reality" suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.

On the other hand:

In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of this. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making.

But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my "self" is, what can "I" do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknowledging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we "anchor" our identity to so as to make this prefabricated...fabricated...refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.

Existentially, these words have come to mean what they do to me "here and now". But, "here and now", your own life might have been such that they mean something...or almost nothing at all.

That's why I always suggest they be examined out in the world of actual human interactions.

Quite.. the experiencer choosing that which they wish to experience, within the boundaries that they choose to exist within.. the parameters of the individual’s existence, if you will.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20354
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka/LDN Town

Re: Zone of Proximal Development

Postby phyllo » Tue Sep 01, 2020 2:10 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Vygotsky was an innovator in education whose ideas are now mainly accepted. One of his basic ideas is that there are two ways to look at a student level. What problems they can solve on their own, and what problems they can solve with support from their teachers. The region in between these two ability levels is the Zone of Proximal Development.

To help the learner get from the independent level to the supported level there is scaffolding....

Scaffolding, or supportive activities provided by the educator, or more competent peer, to support the student as he or she is led through the ZPD.


Note that the support is in activities. Children dissect a pithed frog while studying anatomy and physiology in vertebrates. They go out in nature and study a parasitic vine on a tree. Younger children manipulate blocks to understand subtraction. Specialized professional adults first watch then use on animals a surgical robot or study the effects of partical impacts they created in cloud chamber images. They interact and control processes and experience stuff. And then they do it again. This can be for physical skills training but also to even understand abstruse concepts. Children and adults alike scaffolded by experiences organized by mentors.

Learning.

In Buddhism the scaffolding is primarily meditation. Very simple heuristics are given to aid and scaffold meditation (and a few other activities). One is also scaffolded by simple heuristics that can look like Western morality, but is actually practical rules for behavior that reduces suffering and also aids the meditation.

There is generaly very little intellectual discussion of terms like karma and nirvana. For several reasons. The terms are out of reach. They are

NOT

in the Zone of Proximal Development.

The student lacks the experiences to understand these concepts, just as nearly all third graders cannot be scaffolded to understanding Einstein's theory of relativity. No supportive activites can do this.

And let's remember that we, like in the Einstein example, dealing with paradigmatic challenges. Even at the level of thought you need to go through anxiety and tremendous resistance. Other 'things' to be learned have much more experiential support processes. 3rd graders using the words, without years of both experiential and conceptual slow building up, will not be able to use those words competently. No matter how much they banter those words about even with an MKO (more knowledgable other - another V term). The talking does not help. The difference is too great. Conclusions and understanding of the words are outside the ZPD.

And oversimplified version of Vygotsky's ideas here....
https://www.simplypsychology.org/Zone-o ... pment.html

A buddhist would recognize that their practices and MKO student relationship is an example of Zone of Proximal development and would also notice that Buddhism generally notes that introduction of concepts too early and CERTAINLY focus and intellectualizing them inhibits development.

But those without experience and little knowledge can lecture their MKOs that they are wrong and the best way to learn is intellectualling things with no experience.

The scaffolding in Buddhism is mainly meditation. That's thousands of hours this kind of experiential scaffolding for every minute of discussing buddhist ideas.

If the question is; why should I bother investing so much effort and time into something I do not understand? First off, notice that that is a different issue. If it is correct that one needs primarily experiential scaffolding AND mental blathering over concepts is not only not scaffolding but actually damaging, the this objection is not compelling in the least for changes in mentor practice. Second, if you are not interested, don't bother. If your motivation is low, don't bother. If the attraction is low, don't bother.

That's learning Buddhism.

But one can see Buddhism as entertainment and distraction.

Buddhism provides an opportunity to watch and react. It's discussed in the same way as movies, books or music.

A forum is a sort of book or movie club. Other people have different and perhaps interesting reactions but that's as far as it goes.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12023
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 01, 2020 3:37 pm

Buddhist Retreat
Why I gave up on finding my religion.
By JOHN HORGAN at Slate Magazine

Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures. Far from it—and this is where the distance between certain humanistic values and Buddhism becomes most apparent. To someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial. This may explain why some Buddhist masters have behaved more like nihilists than saints.


Here we get closer to the part that some here want to focus on: the Buddhist "I" and my "I".

Sure, to the extent that someone does not view the self wholly as the embodiment of the "real me", they are able to distance themselves from the consequences that unfold in the course of living their life. But I focus in instead on the many, many factors embedded in the either/or world in which the consequences of human interactions are anything but illusory. And those Buddhists who choose the behaviors that bring about those consequences, just like all the rest of us, confront situations in which they find themselves thinking and feeling more or less inclined to associate certain behaviors with enlightenment that over time configures into karma that at the moment of death configures into...what exactly? And how exactly?

As for Buddhism and nihilism, Google it: https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... ent=psy-ab

Take your pick of assessments here and get back to us.

Chogyam Trungpa, who helped introduce Tibetan Buddhism to the United States in the 1970s, was a promiscuous drunk and bully, and he died of alcohol-related illness in 1987. Zen lore celebrates the sadistic or masochistic behavior of sages such as Bodhidharma, who is said to have sat in meditation for so long that his legs became gangrenous.


Or consider a particular cinematic portrayal of this intertwined frame of mind: https://youtu.be/UuVDrpl1tIY

On the other hand, what would be the reaction of Buddha himself to this sort of amoral behavior? Or the 14th Dalai Lama. And how do those who choose it advance their own point of view regarding enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana.

What’s worse, Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible—like the pope, but more so. Even the otherwise sensible James Austin perpetuates this insidious notion. "‘Wrong’ actions won’t arise,” he writes, “when a brain continues truly to express the self-nature intrinsic to its [transcendent] experiences.” Buddhists infected with this belief can easily excuse their teachers’ abusive acts as hallmarks of a “crazy wisdom” that the unenlightened cannot fathom.


If the self is an illusion what -- who -- exactly is being "morally infallible"? And how on earth are we to understand an illusory self expressing its nature "intrinsic to its transcendent experiences". Can anyone here take a crack at it in terms of their own experiences interacting with others in a conflicting goods world? Also, your best shot at fathoming the unenlightened and their failure to embody "crazy wisdom".

Cite particular examples of this from your own life.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37310
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 01, 2020 4:05 pm

MagsJ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote:What is the point in living, if it’s mostly used to think about dieing? perhaps that is why we are in two different discussions..
From my own perspective:

The extent to which someone does or does not think about death a lot or a little is no less an existential contraption rooted in dasein. That's true of you, that's true of me, that's true of others. Then it comes down to how wide the gap is between my understanding of "I" as "an existential contraption rooted in dasein" and yours and theirs. There is no right understanding though. There is only each individual's point of view. More or less rooted in the life they have lived and more or less rooted in a philosophical examination of that life.

Or are there those here able to argue not only what all rational men and women are obligated to think about death, but how much time each day should be allotted to the task?

I think.. that it is only when one feels one is dieing, then when thinks about death, but otherwise no. You can beg to differ though.. from your perspective, that is.


Yes, from my perspective when we speculate about the perspectives of others in regard to things like the meaning/purpose of life and death, it tells us more about ourselves than it does them. Unless, of course, there are facts and figures available to us able to demonstrate not only what others do think about them but what, if, as rational men and women, they ought to think as well.

Now, I'm not arguing this has not been done, only that if it has been done, I am not aware of either the conclusions or the proof.

Until then, in my view, in the world of conflicted value judgments, we don't take out of others what or who they are but what or who we think they are. We take ourselves out of them.

MagsJ wrote: Sein-zum-Tode, or.. being-toward-death ..a process of growing through the world where a certain foresight guides the Dasein towards gaining an authentic perspective.

In Dasein's individuation, it is open to hearing the "call of conscience" (German Gewissensruf), which comes from Dasein's own Self when it wants to be its Self. This Self is then open to truth, understood as unconcealment (Greek aletheia). In this moment of vision, Dasein understands what is hidden as well as hiddenness itself, indicating Heidegger's regular uniting of opposites; in this case, truth and untruth.[7]

One person’s dasein, is another’s ontological nightmare.. so Unheimlich, which hinders Gewissensruf.. but who, and for whom, respectively?


This, in my view, is just another general description intellectual contraption about either life or death. Then the points I make above kick in in reagard to how each individual might react to those words given my own understanding of dasein here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

Like they say, few things will narrow your thinking like a cancer diagnosis. Obviously, the closer you are to a set of circumstances which includes imminent death, the more likely you are to become preoccupied with it.

Then, of course, that other aspect of dasein here: God and religion. Thinking about death given the belief in an afterlife and salvation can be very different from thinking about it in the shadow of oblivion.


MagsJ wrote: I can relate to your first statement.. but it didn’t pertain to me, but to someone else.

With regard to your second statement.. it may depend on where one’s at in life, on the grand scale of being and becoming, that would suppress or trigger thoughts, on the preponderance of death.


My point however does not revolve around what you believe but around the fact that where [existentially] anyone "is at in life" is of crucial importance in regard to his or her reaction to death. In other words, when the "grand scale" for them is a belief in God or a No God spiritual path convincing them that one way or another immortality is at hand paving the way to one or another rendition of Heaven or Nirvana.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37310
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Zone of Proximal Development

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 01, 2020 4:25 pm

phyllo wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Vygotsky was an innovator in education whose ideas are now mainly accepted. One of his basic ideas is that there are two ways to look at a student level. What problems they can solve on their own, and what problems they can solve with support from their teachers. The region in between these two ability levels is the Zone of Proximal Development.

To help the learner get from the independent level to the supported level there is scaffolding....

Scaffolding, or supportive activities provided by the educator, or more competent peer, to support the student as he or she is led through the ZPD.


Note that the support is in activities. Children dissect a pithed frog while studying anatomy and physiology in vertebrates. They go out in nature and study a parasitic vine on a tree. Younger children manipulate blocks to understand subtraction. Specialized professional adults first watch then use on animals a surgical robot or study the effects of partical impacts they created in cloud chamber images. They interact and control processes and experience stuff. And then they do it again. This can be for physical skills training but also to even understand abstruse concepts. Children and adults alike scaffolded by experiences organized by mentors.

Learning.

In Buddhism the scaffolding is primarily meditation. Very simple heuristics are given to aid and scaffold meditation (and a few other activities). One is also scaffolded by simple heuristics that can look like Western morality, but is actually practical rules for behavior that reduces suffering and also aids the meditation.

There is generaly very little intellectual discussion of terms like karma and nirvana. For several reasons. The terms are out of reach. They are

NOT

in the Zone of Proximal Development.

The student lacks the experiences to understand these concepts, just as nearly all third graders cannot be scaffolded to understanding Einstein's theory of relativity. No supportive activites can do this.

And let's remember that we, like in the Einstein example, dealing with paradigmatic challenges. Even at the level of thought you need to go through anxiety and tremendous resistance. Other 'things' to be learned have much more experiential support processes. 3rd graders using the words, without years of both experiential and conceptual slow building up, will not be able to use those words competently. No matter how much they banter those words about even with an MKO (more knowledgable other - another V term). The talking does not help. The difference is too great. Conclusions and understanding of the words are outside the ZPD.

And oversimplified version of Vygotsky's ideas here....
https://www.simplypsychology.org/Zone-o ... pment.html

A buddhist would recognize that their practices and MKO student relationship is an example of Zone of Proximal development and would also notice that Buddhism generally notes that introduction of concepts too early and CERTAINLY focus and intellectualizing them inhibits development.

But those without experience and little knowledge can lecture their MKOs that they are wrong and the best way to learn is intellectualling things with no experience.

The scaffolding in Buddhism is mainly meditation. That's thousands of hours this kind of experiential scaffolding for every minute of discussing buddhist ideas.

If the question is; why should I bother investing so much effort and time into something I do not understand? First off, notice that that is a different issue. If it is correct that one needs primarily experiential scaffolding AND mental blathering over concepts is not only not scaffolding but actually damaging, the this objection is not compelling in the least for changes in mentor practice. Second, if you are not interested, don't bother. If your motivation is low, don't bother. If the attraction is low, don't bother.

That's learning Buddhism.

But one can see Buddhism as entertainment and distraction.

Buddhism provides an opportunity to watch and react. It's discussed in the same way as movies, books or music.

A forum is a sort of book or movie club. Other people have different and perhaps interesting reactions but that's as far as it goes.


Okay, let's assume that all of the above offer us important insights into Buddhism.

How then are these insights applicable to the preponderance of us. In other words, to flesh and blood human beings interacting with other flesh and blood human beings in any number of contexts in which spiritual and moral and political value judgments come into conflict among the hundreds and hundreds of spiritual/religious paths to choose from such that we are confronted with choosing in turn between moral/enlightened behaviors or immoral/benighted behaviors, believing that this is connected [either "in our head" or "in reality"] to the fate of "I" when we die.

Given descriptions/depictions of particular sets of circumstances.

You know, just in case some here want to go there in discussing what there is to get about Buddhism.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37310
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Zone of Proximal Development

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:37 am

phyllo wrote:That's learning Buddhism.
Though also learning about Buddhism. Perhaps with some adverb like 'really' before 'learning'.

But one can see Buddhism as entertainment and distraction.

Buddhism provides an opportunity to watch and react. It's discussed in the same way as movies, books or music.

A forum is a sort of book or movie club. Other people have different and perhaps interesting reactions but that's as far as it goes.
Sure, of course, I am not saying that discussion of Buddhism can't be interesting or useful, let alone can't be entertaining. It's just not going to lead to any well justified conclusions about abstract terms within Buddhism, for example. It won't resolve what one would or would not get out of it. It won't resolve whether it is true to its claims. And things like this. But one can certainly get smatterings of outlooks and struggle to understand, at least in part, something that views 'things' quite differently from everyday folk theories of selves and minds and 'reality' and what causes problems and so on. And yes, one can be entertained. Been mulling a way to talk about the problem of just talking about Buddhism rather than engaging in it, and I wanted to find a way to describe the problem using an explanation both outside Buddhism and also outside the usual way of talking about learning (about) something.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Wed Sep 02, 2020 5:53 pm

Maybe truth, resolution and understanding are not the goals of every participant in the discussion.

I'm not suggesting that those must be THE goals. It can be discussed on many levels. But there is going to be confusion and frustration if the goals are not similar.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12023
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:38 pm

phyllo wrote:Maybe truth, resolution and understanding are not the goals of every participant in the discussion.

I'm not suggesting that those must be THE goals. It can be discussed on many levels. But there is going to be confusion and frustration if the goals are not similar.


This is certainly a reasonable point of view to me.

The point of the thread being that what Gib doesn't "get" about Buddhism is based on what motivated him to want to "get" it enough to create the thread.

He has his own particular goals here and they may or may not overlap with the goals that others interested in Buddhism might be inclined to pursue.

I merely suggest this inclination itself is rooted existentially in dasein.

As for my own goals, I couldn't possibly make them any clearer. Buddhism is just another spiritual/religious path from my vantage point. It involves a spiritual/religious narrative that either is or is not made applicable to the behaviors that Buddhists choose in interacting with others in a world of conflicting goods. And their assessment of the behaviors they choose in sustaining these interactions either is or is not relevant to that which they imagine [or want] the fate of "I" to be on the other side of the grave.

And they are or are not able to link me to things that in their view take a belief in Buddhism beyond merely a leap of faith and into experiential/experimental proof that what is believed is in fact true.

Given their reaction to particular sets of circumstances.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37310
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:45 pm

phyllo wrote:Maybe truth, resolution and understanding are not the goals of every participant in the discussion.
Sure, and they don't need to be. It's fine if those aren't the goals. I mean, fine with me.

I'm not suggesting that those must be THE goals. It can be discussed on many levels. But there is going to be confusion and frustration if the goals are not similar.
I would think so. It need not be a problem, as long as people are clear. At least, I think so. I think a philosophy forum allows for speculation, also, which can be playful or serious or both. I suppose if someone is just entertaining themselves and others think that person is making what he or she thinks are well thought out arguments, then you'll get a problem. It could seem like disrespect. And I suppose that works the other way also.

But if your goals are to really arrive at conclusions in serious way and what you are demanding or putting out are supposed to be strong arguments, then with something like Buddhism, there may be a problem if you have no experience with it. I would think this holds for other topics also. Many things that are discussed in a philosophy forum we all experience - one can weigh in on the topics just for having been alive. Doesn't mean you'll be right or argue well, but you have the experience to potentially use terms to relate to them and also potentially like others would use them.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby MagsJ » Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:17 am

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote:What is the point in living, if it’s mostly used to think about dieing? perhaps that is why we are in two different discussions..
From my own perspective:

The extent to which someone does or does not think about death a lot or a little is no less an existential contraption rooted in dasein. That's true of you, that's true of me, that's true of others. Then it comes down to how wide the gap is between my understanding of "I" as "an existential contraption rooted in dasein" and yours and theirs. There is no right understanding though. There is only each individual's point of view. More or less rooted in the life they have lived and more or less rooted in a philosophical examination of that life.

..and I stated my perspective, above ..others here will have to speak for themselves, but you might have the monopoly on that existential contraption.

Or are there those here able to argue not only what all rational men and women are obligated to think about death, but how much time each day should be allotted to the task?

What society, religion, or peoples, do you know that does that? The ancients were supposed to have done so, but the reasons behind it back then would have dictated such a ritual be followed, that would not be deemed necessary now.

MagsJ wrote:I think.. that it is only when one feels one is dieing, then when thinks about death, but otherwise no. You can beg to differ though.. from your perspective, that is.
Yes, from my perspective when we speculate about the perspectives of others in regard to things like the meaning/purpose of life and death, it tells us more about ourselves than it does them. Unless, of course, there are facts and figures available to us able to demonstrate not only what others do think about them but what, if, as rational men and women, they ought to think as well.

Now, I'm not arguing this has not been done, only that if it has been done, I am not aware of either the conclusions or the proof.

Until then, in my view, in the world of conflicted value judgments, we don't take out of others what or who they are but what or who we think they are. We take ourselves out of them.

In conclusions or proof, you mean data?

If I have experienced an experience.. say, an outing or exhibition.. with a group, then part of the experience would be experienced.. as a group, so not solipsistic some of the time, but empiric more of the time than not.

MagsJ wrote:Sein-zum-Tode, or.. being-toward-death ..a process of growing through the world where a certain foresight guides the Dasein towards gaining an authentic perspective.

In Dasein's individuation, it is open to hearing the "call of conscience" (German Gewissensruf), which comes from Dasein's own Self when it wants to be its Self. This Self is then open to truth, understood as unconcealment (Greek aletheia). In this moment of vision, Dasein understands what is hidden as well as hiddenness itself, indicating Heidegger's regular uniting of opposites; in this case, truth and untruth.[7]

One person’s dasein, is another’s ontological nightmare.. so Unheimlich, which hinders Gewissensruf.. but who, and for whom, respectively?
This, in my view, is just another general description intellectual contraption about either life or death. Then the points I make above kick in in reagard to how each individual might react to those words given my own understanding of dasein here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

You totally bypassed my reply and went straight to one of your threads, instead of posting an excerpt from it or creating a new reply here and now, rather than from there and then.

MagsJ wrote:
Like they say, few things will narrow your thinking like a cancer diagnosis. Obviously, the closer you are to a set of circumstances which includes imminent death, the more likely you are to become preoccupied with it.

Then, of course, that other aspect of dasein here: God and religion. Thinking about death given the belief in an afterlife and salvation can be very different from thinking about it in the shadow of oblivion.
I can relate to your first statement.. but it didn’t pertain to me, but to someone else.

With regard to your second statement.. it may depend on where one’s at in life, on the grand scale of being and becoming, that would suppress or trigger thoughts, on the preponderance of death.
My point however does not revolve around what you believe but around the fact that where [existentially] anyone "is at in life" is of crucial importance in regard to his or her reaction to death. In other words, when the "grand scale" for them is a belief in God or a No God spiritual path convincing them that one way or another immortality is at hand paving the way to one or another rendition of Heaven or Nirvana.

Sounds like personal choices to me.. what do you always have against that? like people can’t think for themselves.. most can. Probably what I read in the bible is ingrained on my subconscious somewhere, but that is unavoidable.. due to the nature of reading.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20354
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka/LDN Town

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:54 pm

MagsJ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote:What is the point in living, if it’s mostly used to think about dieing? perhaps that is why we are in two different discussions..
From my own perspective:

The extent to which someone does or does not think about death a lot or a little is no less an existential contraption rooted in dasein. That's true of you, that's true of me, that's true of others. Then it comes down to how wide the gap is between my understanding of "I" as "an existential contraption rooted in dasein" and yours and theirs. There is no right understanding though. There is only each individual's point of view. More or less rooted in the life they have lived and more or less rooted in a philosophical examination of that life.

..and I stated my perspective, above ..others here will have to speak for themselves, but you might have the monopoly on that existential contraption.


Perhaps. But I'm far more curious regarding those who are willing to consider whether or not it is applicable to their own frame of mind pertaining to morality here and now and immortality there and then.

As that relates to a set of circumstances around which to build an exchange.

Or are there those here able to argue not only what all rational men and women are obligated to think about death, but how much time each day should be allotted to the task?

MagsJ wrote: What society, religion, or peoples, do you know that does that? The ancients were supposed to have done so, but the reasons behind it back then would have dictated such a ritual be followed, that would not be deemed necessary now.


Again, what interest me is why there are so many different and conflicting assessments of death down through the ages, cross culturally and given individual experiences. To what extent is that related to the manner in which I construe the "self" here as the embodiment of dasein. Or, instead, are philosophers able to provide us with the most reasonable explanation.

Or, for the religious folks, are they able to demonstrate why their own spiritual path is not only the best option, but the only true option available to mere mortals in connecting the dots between the behaviors we choose here and now and the fate of "I" there and then.

MagsJ wrote:I think.. that it is only when one feels one is dieing, then when thinks about death, but otherwise no. You can beg to differ though.. from your perspective, that is.


Yes, from my perspective when we speculate about the perspectives of others in regard to things like the meaning/purpose of life and death, it tells us more about ourselves than it does them. Unless, of course, there are facts and figures available to us able to demonstrate not only what others do think about them but what, if, as rational men and women, they ought to think as well.

Now, I'm not arguing this has not been done, only that if it has been done, I am not aware of either the conclusions or the proof.

Until then, in my view, in the world of conflicted value judgments, we don't take out of others what or who they are but what or who we think they are. We take ourselves out of them.


MagsJ wrote: In conclusions or proof, you mean data?

If I have experienced an experience.. say, an outing or exhibition.. with a group, then part of the experience would be experienced.. as a group, so not solipsistic some of the time, but empiric more of the time than not.


In what particular context though?

The example I sometimes use here is the one that revolves the conclusions we come to in regard to whether Donald Trump is now president of the United States vs. the conclusions we come to in regard to whether he is a good or a bad president. Proof/data for the one vs. proof/data for the other.

And then in regard to this thread, how do Buddhists react to Trump's policies given their own understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation, Nirvana, the Four Noble Truths, the Eight Precepts/Fold Paths etc.

MagsJ wrote:Sein-zum-Tode, or.. being-toward-death ..a process of growing through the world where a certain foresight guides the Dasein towards gaining an authentic perspective.

In Dasein's individuation, it is open to hearing the "call of conscience" (German Gewissensruf), which comes from Dasein's own Self when it wants to be its Self. This Self is then open to truth, understood as unconcealment (Greek aletheia). In this moment of vision, Dasein understands what is hidden as well as hiddenness itself, indicating Heidegger's regular uniting of opposites; in this case, truth and untruth.[7]

One person’s dasein, is another’s ontological nightmare.. so Unheimlich, which hinders Gewissensruf.. but who, and for whom, respectively?


This, in my view, is just another general description intellectual contraption about either life or death. Then the points I make above kick in in regard to how each individual might react to those words given my own understanding of dasein here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

MagsJ wrote: You totally bypassed my reply and went straight to one of your threads, instead of posting an excerpt from it or creating a new reply here and now, rather than from there and then.


And you totally bypassed my own reply in regard to taking intellectual contraptions like this and situating them in a discussion of an actual situation involving human interactions in which God and religion would come into play. Relating to either life or death or how the two become intertwined in the mind of any one particular "I".

Thus when you argue...

MagsJ wrote: Sounds like personal choices to me.. what do you always have against that? like people can’t think for themselves.. most can. Probably what I read in the bible is ingrained on my subconscious somewhere, but that is unavoidable.. due to the nature of reading.


...I go in one direction with "I" here and you go in another.

I engage any particular "self" and the choices he or she makes by introducing them to the arguments I make in my signature threads.

Sure, you can argue that your views on vaccines or on Trump are just "personal choices" confronting the "personal choices" of those who disagree.

But my point is to focus instead in on the extent to which these choices are either political prejudices rooted subjectively/subjunctively in dasein or are instead viewed by the objectivists among us as reflections of their own "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

Then "political prejudices" reconfigure into deontological, ideological, theological etc., Good and Evil and the world comes to be divided up self-righteously into those who are either "one of us" or "one of them".
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37310
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby MagsJ » Sat Sep 05, 2020 8:42 pm

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ said: What is the point in living, if it’s mostly used to think about dieing? perhaps [b]that is why we are in two different discussions..[/b]

From my own perspective:

The extent to which someone does or does not think about death a lot or a little is no less an existential contraption rooted in dasein. That's true of you, that's true of me, that's true of others. Then it comes down to how wide the gap is between my understanding of "I" as "an existential contraption rooted in dasein" and yours and theirs. There is no right understanding though. There is only each individual's point of view. More or less rooted in the life they have lived and more or less rooted in a philosophical examination of that life.
..and I stated my perspective, above ..others here will have to speak for themselves, but you might have the monopoly on that existential contraption.
Perhaps. But I'm far more curious regarding those who are willing to consider whether or not it is applicable to their own frame of mind pertaining to morality here and now and immortality there and then.

As that relates to a set of circumstances around which to build an exchange.

Your inquiries lack clarity.. and therefore direction, as I’m the only one giving our replies ‘a direction’ here, and you, are obviously not ..existential contraptions rooted in dasein, not withstanding or allowed, in your next reply. See if you can achieve that.. it would be much appreciated, if you do.

I’m willing to bet a fiver, you can’t. :lol:

So.. care to re-answer my initial question?

Iambiguous.. “the paternoster, still found across Europe, is the most existential of contraptions. You hop on and off at just the right moment to avoid death or dismemberment.

In theory, you could stay on it forever.” --I bet Iam could ; ) Oh yea, he does.

MagsJ wrote:
Or are there those here able to argue not only what all rational men and women are obligated to think about death, but how much time each day should be allotted to the task?
What society, religion, or peoples, do you know that does that? The ancients were supposed to have done so, but the reasons behind it back then would have dictated such a ritual be followed, that would not be deemed necessary now.
Again, what interest me is why there are so many different and conflicting assessments of death down through the ages, cross culturally and given individual experiences. To what extent is that related to the manner in which I construe the "self" here as the embodiment of dasein. Or, instead, are philosophers able to provide us with the most reasonable explanation.

The different and conflicting assessments of death are based on circumstance or belief, of what a Peoples thought was the best or intended thing to do.. for whatever reason that may have been. That reason could have been due to ritual, scientific knowledge, spiritual belief, and any other number of other reasons.

Or, for the religious folks, are they able to demonstrate why their own spiritual path is not only the best option, but the only true option available to mere mortals in connecting the dots between the behaviors we choose here and now and the fate of "I" there and then.

I wouldn’t say that others think that their own spiritual path is the best option for All, but that maybe it is, for Them.. the Messiahs and Buddhas that did, probably wanted to share the pain of their existential crisis, and so shared their experiences on that which not to do, that led them to those thoughts and that place, in time.

MagsJ wrote:

MagsJ said: I think.. that it is only when one feels one is dieing, then when thinks about death, but otherwise no. You can beg to differ though.. from your perspective, that is.

Yes, from my perspective when we speculate about the perspectives of others in regard to things like the meaning/purpose of life and death, it tells us more about ourselves than it does them. Unless, of course, there are facts and figures available to us able to demonstrate not only what others do think about them but what, if, as rational men and women, they ought to think as well.

Now, I'm not arguing this has not been done, only that if it has been done, I am not aware of either the conclusions or the proof.

Until then, in my view, in the world of conflicted value judgments, we don't take out of others what or who they are but what or who we think they are. We take ourselves out of them.
In conclusions or proof, you mean data?

If I have experienced an experience.. say, an outing or exhibition.. with a group, then part of the experience would be experienced.. as a group, so not solipsistic some of the time, but empiric more of the time than not.
In what particular context though?

The example I sometimes use here is the one that revolves the conclusions we come to in regard to whether Donald Trump is now president of the United States vs. the conclusions we come to in regard to whether he is a good or a bad president. Proof/data for the one vs. proof/data for the other.

And then in regard to this thread, how do Buddhists react to Trump's policies given their own understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation, Nirvana, the Four Noble Truths, the Eight Precepts/Fold Paths etc.

That, is an individual thing, for the Practitioner to decide.. their physiology, dictating their own personal thoughts on the matter. What Buddhist countries choose to do, is reliant on something else.. survival.

The matter, on a method of processing thoughts optimally, doesn’t necessarily mean controlling those thoughts into group-think.. but we know that that’s happened before, through propaganda, dogma, dictatorial, and other regimes.

MagsJ wrote:

MagsJ said: Sein-zum-Tode, or.. being-toward-death ..a process of growing through the world where a certain foresight guides the Dasein towards gaining an authentic perspective.

In Dasein's individuation, it is open to hearing the "call of conscience" (German Gewissensruf), which comes from Dasein's own Self when it wants to be its Self. This Self is then open to truth, understood as unconcealment (Greek aletheia). In this moment of vision, Dasein understands what is hidden as well as hiddenness itself, indicating Heidegger's regular uniting of opposites; in this case, truth and untruth.[7]

One person’s dasein, is another’s ontological nightmare.. so Unheimlich, which hinders Gewissensruf.. but who, and for whom, respectively?

This, in my view, is just another general description intellectual contraption about either life or death. Then the points I make above kick in in regard to how each individual might react to those words given my own understanding of dasein here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
You totally bypassed my reply and went straight to one of your threads, instead of posting an excerpt from it or creating a new reply here and now, rather than from there and then.
And you totally bypassed my own reply in regard to taking intellectual contraptions like this and situating them in a discussion of an actual situation involving human interactions in which God and religion would come into play. Relating to either life or death or how the two become intertwined in the mind of any one particular "I".

I think you keep inferring to a fanaticism of sorts, and so I cannot comment on the above, in that my own religious experience/indoctrination wasn’t a fanatical one.. like Christianity, and a spiritual path to take instead.. a personal choice. They are tools, to those that understand that that is what they initially were.. a means to an end.. that end being a more civil society, for all.

One person’s dasein, is now definitely another person’s ontological nightmare.. you want everyone to think about death as/as much as, you do.. isn’t that called a ‘religion’ or a death cult?

Thus when you argue...
MagsJ wrote:Sounds like personal choices to me.. what do you always have against that? like people can’t think for themselves.. most can. Probably what I read in the bible is ingrained on my subconscious somewhere, but that is unavoidable.. due to the nature of reading.
...I go in one direction with "I" here and you go in another.

I engage any particular "self" and the choices he or she makes by introducing them to the arguments I make in my signature threads.

Sure, you can argue that your views on vaccines or on Trump are just "personal choices" confronting the "personal choices" of those who disagree.

But my point is to focus instead in on the extent to which these choices are either political prejudices rooted subjectively/subjunctively in dasein or are instead viewed by the objectivists among us as reflections of their own "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

Then "political prejudices" reconfigure into deontological, ideological, theological etc., Good and Evil and the world comes to be divided up self-righteously into those who are either "one of us" or "one of them".

If you want to introduce the arguments that you make in your signature threads, then by all means share those excerpts, here.. so that a more complete exchange can take place, and not a guessing-game of what you are actually eluding to.

I don’t know why you think about death in the way that you do and interpolate it with everything, to arrive at your never-ending thoughts on the matter.. that most don’t have, but you do. That is why you are going in one direction, and I.. in another. Iambiguous.. now forever known as Thanatos.

I think you have a touch of da ‘intrusive thoughts‘ thing goin on, of which is why that perhaps you interpolate religion, politics, science etc., into the mix.. to drown them out. I heard that mindfulness helps, with that. ; )
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20354
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka/LDN Town

Re: Zone of Proximal Development

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Sep 06, 2020 2:55 pm

iambiguous wrote:
You know, just in case some here want to go there in discussing what there is to get about Buddhism.
And then they might want to know HOW to get what there is to get about Buddhism and why, for example, demanding non-Buddhists explain randomly chosen online buddhist blogs and articles when you have no understanding of the terms and no experiences of the practices might not a good method of learning about Buddhism or a whole host of other things. IOW if one was interested in getting what Iamb wants to get about Buddhism (which is actually not what most people want to get and other posts in this thread deal with their interests), my post was pointing out what a terrible methodology it is. But since he regularly doesn't read or interact with other people's ideas, he didn't notice any of this, and criticized my post and phyllo's on point response, for not doing something they were not trying to do. Not listening or reading is a great foundation for smugness and not learning. But are these worthwhile goals for him? I have no idea.

He's a troll. A non-troll would have simply posted his interests in their own post. Not as a faux response to other posts. Faux responses have, however, a better chance of being responded to, since they seem to be, well, responses. They seem to be engaging in dialogue. But his post is not a response.

He quoted two posts and then wrote something that had nothing to do with those posts and what they were doing.

Maybe he thinks the quote function, when used, means it's like he read what he quoted. He could simply have repeated his demand, but he showed once again that he is not a discussion partner. It is as if he is responding but he is not.

And let's not forget the irony that the person supposedly interested in concrete examples has no interest in actually experiencing Buddhism. IOW there is supposed to be this value in concrete examples - which actually are just abstract discussions of things IN GENERAL like abortion - but no interest in concrete experience. He just wants to move the discussion from the clouds to a specfic cloud. He has no interest in actually learning, which, as my post pointed out, often, not just with Buddhism, requires active concrete learning as scaffolding before a lot of abstract terms can have any useful meaning to the learner. It has also been explained to him that Buddhism is not a monolithic moral postion and even is a batching term for an array of quite different spiritual systems. Further it has been explained that it is not a moral system in the way Western systems are.

But bet the house or car on his continuing to think he is making sense.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Sep 06, 2020 6:39 pm

Buddhist Retreat
Why I gave up on finding my religion.
By JOHN HORGAN at Slate Magazine

...what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation.


Think of this from the perspective of those who suggest that much of the pain and suffering embedded in the human condition revolves around political economy. Very real flesh and blood human beings sustain a global economy that benefit the rich and the powerful far more than the "the masses". And they are all for any and all religious narratives that keep the masses from organizing socially, politically and economically to change that. Buddhism here becomes just one more rendition of the "opiate" that folks like Marx spoke of. Everything comes to revolve around one's "spiritual" growth. And that is perfectly fine with those getting richer and more powerful all the time out in the real world.

Buddha’s first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped.


Bingo. The further you can take the "soul" from the interactions that make us the species that we are going back now all the way to the caves, the further you can take your own life itself from it. Live in a community of those who think exactly like you do and it never even has to be confronted and questioned at all. Besides, their sense of identity is no less an illusion than your own.

Sure, I can understand why this sort of existence might appeal to some. A life that is completely ordered by all things spiritual. But we could hardly go about the business of subsisting from day to day if everyone took it up. Those who grow our food, build our homes, manufacture all the things we need just to survive from day to day. How illusory are their lives?

Some Western Buddhists have argued that principles such as reincarnation, anatta, and enlightenment are not essential to Buddhism. In Buddhism Without Beliefs and The Faith To Doubt, the British teacher Stephen Batchelor eloquently describes his practice as a method for confronting—rather than transcending—the often painful mystery of life. But Batchelor seems to have arrived at what he calls an “agnostic” perspective in spite of his Buddhist training—not because of it. When I asked him why he didn’t just call himself an agnostic, Batchelor shrugged and said he sometimes wondered himself.


Okay, but these more "secular" renditions of Buddhism...how do they reflect on the relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then. For example, confronting dasein, conflicting value judgments and political economy in what way? In what context relating to what actual behaviors chosen?

But I repeat myself.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37310
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:22 pm

...what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation.
I would eliminate the word 'ordinary' from that sentence, since it is detachment in general, from anything, Buddhism suggests one needs. And this I also find problematic with Buddhism. I don't know what the author is contrasting with 'ordinany life' but Buddhism absolutely encourages detachment from everything else also, including visions and insights and experiences of oneness and even any psychic phenomena or supernatural experiences one might have. Detachment is a rule. So while I am, with provisos, with this guy, I immediately wonder if he knows much about Buddhism.

Think of this from the perspective of those who suggest that much of the pain and suffering embedded in the human condition revolves around political economy. Very real flesh and blood human beings sustain a global economy that benefit the rich and the powerful far more than the "the masses". And they are all for any and all religious narratives that keep the masses from organizing socially, politically and economically to change that. Buddhism here becomes just one more rendition of the "opiate" that folks like Marx spoke of. Everything comes to revolve around one's "spiritual" growth. And that is perfectly fine with those getting richer and more powerful all the time out in the real world.
Well, to some extent I agree. But wouldn't this hold for a nihilist with the priviledge of spending his days online on his computer trying to find a reason not to be so afraid of death by posting in philosophy forums? I mean, that's not helping people out there is it? And promotiing the idea that one cannot, it seems, determine what is good or not is not exactly supporting say, poor people's movements and organizing socially. Nihilism could function like another opiate. What difference do my actions make? And if they make any difference, we'll all die anyway, there is no meaning, and the differences my actions make may even be bad differences for all I know? That seems like a negative opiate. Negative in the sense that the positive opiates - like some personal growth rich hippie - might make at least that person feel better. Negative opiate, postive opiate. I don't see either helping the single black mother with two jobs and a kid with a severe learning disability. Sink calling the toilet white and all that.

Buddha’s first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped.
And I am generally sympathetic here also. I think there is something anti-life in Buddhism. I think it judges the limbic system, and even mammalian social needs, desires and drives. It seems to promote accepting everything, but in fact does not accept a lot of things. Or better put it promotes the not accepting of a lot of things.

Bingo. The further you can take the "soul" from the interactions that make us the species that we are going back now all the way to the caves, the further you can take your own life itself from it. Live in a community of those who think exactly like you do and it never even has to be confronted and questioned at all.
I'm not sure where he got that from what he quoted. Most Western Buddhists unless they have moved into a temple or community are dealing with unlike minded people all the time. And the quoted author above is mistaken if he thinks in the West male monasticism is still the epitome of Buddhism.

Besides, their sense of identity is no less an illusion than your own.
Well, Iamb would need to demonstrate that.

Sure, I can understand why this sort of existence might appeal to some. A life that is completely ordered by all things spiritual. But we could hardly go about the business of subsisting from day to day if everyone took it up.Those who grow our food, build our homes, manufacture all the things we need just to survive from day to day. How illusory are their lives?
There have been self-sufficient monastaries that farm. Further many monastic orders in many different religions produce something (food, pots, music, woodwork...) to support their monastary.

Some Western Buddhists have argued that principles such as reincarnation, anatta, and enlightenment are not essential to Buddhism. In Buddhism Without Beliefs and The Faith To Doubt, the British teacher Stephen Batchelor eloquently describes his practice as a method for confronting—rather than transcending—the often painful mystery of life. But Batchelor seems to have arrived at what he calls an “agnostic” perspective in spite of his Buddhist training—not because of it. When I asked him why he didn’t just call himself an agnostic, Batchelor shrugged and said he sometimes wondered himself.
I don't think it makes sense to call yourself a Buddhism if you just take certain practices. If you take a Yoga class you are not a Hindu automotically, so I agree witht he author here.

Okay, but these more "secular" renditions of Buddhism...how do they reflect on the relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then. For example, confronting dasein, conflicting value judgments and political economy in what way? In what context relating to what actual behaviors chosen?
And as said before, in a wide variety of ways. One could go to a specific group and ask them what they do, though even within that group you may find a variety of answers, because Buddhism is not presented as a solution to all problems. It is not a morality. It is not trying to solve political issues. But one can challenge a horse by asking how it flies.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:36 pm

Here's some good advise about labels:

We are separated by labels, by words like “Israeli,” “Palestinian,” “Buddhist,” “Jew,” and “Muslim.” When we hear one of these words, it evokes an image and we immediately feel alienated from the other group or person. We’ve set up many habitual ways of thinking that separate us from each other, and we make each other suffer. So it’s important to discover the human being in the other person, and to help the other person discover the human being in us. As human beings we’re exactly the same. But the many layers of labels prevent other people from seeing you as a human being. Thinking of yourself as or calling yourself a “Buddhist” can be a disadvantage, because if you wear the title “Buddhist,” that may be an obstacle which prevents others from discovering the human being in you. The same is true whether you are Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. This can be an important part of your identity, but it is not the whole of who you are. People are caught in these notions and images, and they cannot recognize each other as human beings. The practice of peeling away all the labels so that the human being can be revealed is truly a practice for peace. Because people are very attached to these names and labels, it is important that we use gentle language and loving speech as we talk with people about matters of identity and injustice.

Injustice is suffered by both sides in any personal dispute. It’s crucial we understand that. Once understanding and compassion are born in our heart, the poisons of anger, violence, hatred, and despair will be transformed. The path is quite clear. The only solution is to get the poisons out and to get the insight and the compassion in! Then we will discover each other as human beings, not allowing ourselves to be deceived by the outer layers, by names like “Buddhism,” “Islam,” “Judaism,” “pro-American,” “pro-Arab,” and so on. This is a process of liberation—liberation from our ideas, our ignorance, our tendency to discriminate. The Earth is so beautiful and there is room enough for all of us, yet we kill each other. But when we can see each other as human beings with their own suffering, we won’t have the courage to shoot each other. We’ll work together for the chance to live peacefully together.

Hanh, Thich Nhat. The Pocket Thich Nhat Hanh (Shambhala Pocket Classics) . Shambhala Publications. Kindle Edition.


Reminds me of the current controversy surrounding identity politics. What does it mean when people identify themselves with a group? How deep does that go? What can we say about the "brand" of our inner experiences and the extent which they conform to the inner experiences of others who identify with our tribe? It's one thing to go to a "church" or "sangha" it's another to feel oneself a part of it. My own experience these days leads me to question whether I could ever do that again. I feel like I'm "post" the ability to see myself as literally belonging to a neat religious category and that even includes "agnostic", "atheist", "nihilist", "Jungian" or whatever. The more one individuates the less one fits in pre-conceived religious, or ideological boxes. The boxes are empty facades. Ironically, that seems like an idea compatible with Zen as I understand it. Also, with iambiguous' notion of "Dasein".
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: 8832
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Sep 07, 2020 6:13 pm

iambiguous wrote:...I'm far more curious regarding those who are willing to consider whether or not it is applicable to their own frame of mind pertaining to morality here and now and immortality there and then.

As that relates to a set of circumstances around which to build an exchange.

MagsJ wrote: Your inquiries lack clarity.. and therefore direction, as I’m the only one giving our replies ‘a direction’ here, and you, are obviously not ..existential contraptions rooted in dasein, not withstanding or allowed, in your next reply. See if you can achieve that.. it would be much appreciated, if you do.


On the contrary, my point is that attempts to be clearer about the components of any religious/spiritual path would seem to be more likely accomplished when the exchange revolves around exploring the relationship between our moral values on this side of the grave, how we configure them into the behaviors we choose based on our value judgments, and how we configure that into a particular understanding of "I" on the other side of the grave. Given particular contexts.

Then I introduce the components of my own moral philosophy and note how in any particular context "I" become the embodiment of this frame of mind:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Others can then react to this and note the manner in which it either is or is not embodied in their own moral, political or spiritual "self". In confronting conflicting goods given a particular set of circumstances.

Thus any "re-answer" to your initial question would be the same. Unless you were able to persuade me that my answer needs to be changed because your own arguments make that necessary. And that of course works in both directions as well.

Or are there those here able to argue not only what all rational men and women are obligated to think about death, but how much time each day should be allotted to the task?


MagsJ wrote: What society, religion, or peoples, do you know that does that? The ancients were supposed to have done so, but the reasons behind it back then would have dictated such a ritual be followed, that would not be deemed necessary now.


Again, what interest me is why there are so many different and conflicting assessments of death down through the ages, cross culturally and given individual experiences. To what extent is that related to the manner in which I construe the "self" here as the embodiment of dasein. Or, instead, are philosophers able to provide us with the most reasonable explanation.


MagsJ wrote: The different and conflicting assessments of death are based on circumstance or belief, of what a Peoples thought was the best or intended thing to do.. for whatever reason that may have been. That reason could have been due to ritual, scientific knowledge, spiritual belief, and any other number of other reasons.


Yes, that's my point. Different historical/cultural/circumstantial contexts, different beliefs, different reasons. "I" as the embodiment of dasein out in a particular world. Then, historically, philosophers as we know them today came into existence. For thousand of years now they have been thinking about death. So, what definitive conclusions have they come to regarding how rational men and women ought to think about it. And how long ought they to think about it each day.

Or, for the religious folks, are they able to demonstrate why their own spiritual path is not only the best option, but the only true option available to mere mortals in connecting the dots between the behaviors we choose here and now and the fate of "I" there and then.


MagsJ wrote: I wouldn’t say that others think that their own spiritual path is the best option for All, but that maybe it is, for Them.. the Messiahs and Buddhas that did, probably wanted to share the pain of their existential crisis, and so shared their experiences on that which not to do, that led them to those thoughts and that place, in time.


Same thing though. People say different things for different reasons. So, how much of that is the embodiment of dasein, and how much comes back instead to that which all rational men and women can in fact determine to be true objectively? Again, with all that is at stake: morality and enlightenment here and now, immortality and salvation there and then.

It's not for nothing it seems that so many people in so many denominations in so many different contexts go back forth between leaps of faith and fierce belief.

The example I sometimes use here is the one that revolves the conclusions we come to in regard to whether Donald Trump is now president of the United States vs. the conclusions we come to in regard to whether he is a good or a bad president. Proof/data for the one vs. proof/data for the other.

And then in regard to this thread, how do Buddhists react to Trump's policies given their own understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation, Nirvana, the Four Noble Truths, the Eight Precepts/Fold Paths etc.


MagsJ wrote: That, is an individual thing, for the Practitioner to decide.. their physiology, dictating their own personal thoughts on the matter. What Buddhist countries choose to do, is reliant on something else.. survival.

The matter, on a method of processing thoughts optimally, doesn’t necessarily mean controlling those thoughts into group-think.. but we know that that’s happened before, through propaganda, dogma, dictatorial, and other regimes.


Then we are back to the gap between how I construe the "self" here in the is/ought world and how others, like the objectivists, construe it. To the extent that they believe they are in tandem with Real Me in tandem with The Right Thing To Do, they are more likely to distance themselves from "I" as an existential contraption. Why? Well, from my frame of mind, that revolves more or less around one or another existential translation of this: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Bottom line [perhaps]:

MagsJ wrote: Sounds like personal choices to me.. what do you always have against that? like people can’t think for themselves.. most can. Probably what I read in the bible is ingrained on my subconscious somewhere, but that is unavoidable.. due to the nature of reading.



...I go in one direction with "I" here and you go in another.

I engage any particular "self" and the choices he or she makes by introducing them to the arguments I make in my signature threads.

Sure, you can argue that your views on vaccines or on Trump are just "personal choices" confronting the "personal choices" of those who disagree.

But my point is to focus instead in on the extent to which these choices are either political prejudices rooted subjectively/subjunctively in dasein or are instead viewed by the objectivists among us as reflections of their own "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

Then "political prejudices" reconfigure into deontological, ideological, theological etc., Good and Evil and the world comes to be divided up self-righteously into those who are either "one of us" or "one of them".


MagsJ wrote: If you want to introduce the arguments that you make in your signature threads, then by all means share those excerpts, here.. so that a more complete exchange can take place, and not a guessing-game of what you are actually eluding to.


Someone is either interested enough in the points I raise on these threads to take the time to read the OPs from my signature threads or they are not. And it's not the "arguments" that interest me as much as taking the intellectual contraptions contained in them out into the world of human interactions pertaining specifically to identity, value judgments and political power. As they become intertwined in contexts involving conflicting goods. In either a God or a No God world.

With Buddhism though we are dealing with a No God religion. And that is particularly ineffable to me.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37310
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

I don't "get" Curly

Postby iambiguous » Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:05 pm

Curly wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
You know, just in case some here want to go there in discussing what there is to get about Buddhism.
And then they might want to know HOW to get what there is to get about Buddhism and why, for example, demanding non-Buddhists explain randomly chosen online buddhist blogs and articles when you have no understanding of the terms and no experiences of the practices might not a good method of learning about Buddhism or a whole host of other things. IOW if one was interested in getting what Iamb wants to get about Buddhism (which is actually not what most people want to get and other posts in this thread deal with their interests), my post was pointing out what a terrible methodology it is. But since he regularly doesn't read or interact with other people's ideas, he didn't notice any of this, and criticized my post and phyllo's on point response, for not doing something they were not trying to do. Not listening or reading is a great foundation for smugness and not learning. But are these worthwhile goals for him? I have no idea.

He's a troll. A non-troll would have simply posted his interests in their own post. Not as a faux response to other posts. Faux responses have, however, a better chance of being responded to, since they seem to be, well, responses. They seem to be engaging in dialogue. But his post is not a response.

He quoted two posts and then wrote something that had nothing to do with those posts and what they were doing.

Maybe he thinks the quote function, when used, means it's like he read what he quoted. He could simply have repeated his demand, but he showed once again that he is not a discussion partner. It is as if he is responding but he is not.

And let's not forget the irony that the person supposedly interested in concrete examples has no interest in actually experiencing Buddhism. IOW there is supposed to be this value in concrete examples - which actually are just abstract discussions of things IN GENERAL like abortion - but no interest in concrete experience. He just wants to move the discussion from the clouds to a specfic cloud. He has no interest in actually learning, which, as my post pointed out, often, not just with Buddhism, requires active concrete learning as scaffolding before a lot of abstract terms can have any useful meaning to the learner. It has also been explained to him that Buddhism is not a monolithic moral postion and even is a batching term for an array of quite different spiritual systems. Further it has been explained that it is not a moral system in the way Western systems are.

But bet the house or car on his continuing to think he is making sense.


Again, I can't help but suspect more and more that these outbursts of his revolve around a "condition". Some "thing" in his head that propels him to lash out like this at me.

Now, sure, I get this thing all the time from the God and the No God objectivists.

After all, look what is at stake for them! What if they do come to believe that maybe I know what I am talking about? And that maybe what I am arguing here might be applicable to them too. What of their precious Self then?

And I know this in particular because...I was once them myself. The Real Me in sync with the Right Thing To Do reconfigured into a fractured and fragmented "I" thinking that his own life was essentially meaningless and in route to oblivion.

Trust me: It's a terrible, terrible way to "look at life".

Anyway, let him think this through some more and at least make an attempt to explain to us why as a No God perspectivist himself [if that's what he is] he is driven to thump me like this.

I'm figuring I have become a real threat to him for some reason, and I really am curious to understand why.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37310
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby anand_droog » Tue Sep 08, 2020 4:26 pm

I used to post here often but it's been a while, but now I'm back!

I just finished my book, many years in the making, about souls and how they key in to aetheric life forms.

A mechanism for calculating degree of new flesh of reincarnation, based on the fruits of one's previous life, is suggested. It's mainly about whether you were an energy source or an energy sink in your previous life.

An energy sink is reincarnated as a lower life form and an energy source as a higher life form.

This is at the core of the Buddhist notion of gradiated rebirth. What exactly don't you understand about Buddhism?

If you are interested in these somewhat metaphysical, somewhat parascientific views, you can understand energy parasitism by reading the excerpts from my book. I'll link it here:

https://kanafinwe.blogspot.com/2020/09/ ... -your.html

A bit on energy parasitism itself, here:
https://kanafinwe.blogspot.com/2020/09/ ... -your.html
User avatar
anand_droog
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:02 pm

anand_droog wrote:
A mechanism for calculating degree of new flesh of reincarnation, based on the fruits of one's previous life, is suggested. It's mainly about whether you were an energy source or an energy sink in your previous life.

An energy sink is reincarnated as a lower life form and an energy source as a higher life form.

This is at the core of the Buddhist notion of gradiated rebirth. What exactly don't you understand about Buddhism?



Well, for one thing I don't understand how Buddhists actually go about demonstrating that any of this is in fact true? Really, in that respect, how is their spiritual narrative regarding life after death all that different from Western denominations that speak of Judgment Day and immortality and Heaven.

Only with them there is an actual God in the picture that one can turn to as the font -- the font -- able to bring this all about. What is the equivalent of that with Buddhism? The "universe"? Okay, you die and the universe takes over. How exactly?

And why? How is the universe to be understood in terms of the ontological and teleological nature of any and all existence?

What does it say in your book about all of this?
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37310
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby anand_droog » Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:42 pm

iambiguous wrote:
anand_droog wrote:
A mechanism for calculating degree of new flesh of reincarnation, based on the fruits of one's previous life, is suggested. It's mainly about whether you were an energy source or an energy sink in your previous life.

An energy sink is reincarnated as a lower life form and an energy source as a higher life form.

This is at the core of the Buddhist notion of gradiated rebirth. What exactly don't you understand about Buddhism?



Well, for one thing I don't understand how Buddhists actually go about demonstrating that any of this is in fact true? Really, in that respect, how is their spiritual narrative regarding life after death all that different from Western denominations that speak of Judgment Day and immortality and Heaven.

Only with them there is an actual God in the picture that one can turn to as the font -- the font -- able to bring this all about. What is the equivalent of that with Buddhism? The "universe"? Okay, you die and the universe takes over. How exactly?

And why? How is the universe to be understood in terms of the ontological and teleological nature of any and all existence?

What does it say in your book about all of this?


In Star Wars, the midi-chlorians are "a microscopic life form that resides within all living cells" that "serve as the link between the Living Force within all life forms and the infinite Cosmic Force" and "make it possible to achieve immortality after death" or at the least, reincarnation ("When a life form dies, midi-chlorians return to the heart of the galaxy. Thus, all is renewed".

You remember the scene from the Matrix
https://forthtell.wordpress.com/2014/12 ... baby-pod2/

Something is going on outside our bodies... maybe very far away (but i believe, within the galaxy).

If you understand energy parasitism, it is about how your actions either steal energy from or donate energy to the rest of the universe.

This is linked to the notion of karmic attribute of actions. And each action contributes to sum up the whole over life, and after death, reality gives back its due (how much of the energy you have donated to the cosmos) or takes its due (how much energy you have extracted from the cosmos).

If you have seen Avatar, there is a lot that resonates with this philosophy of balance - "Some believe that this interconnectedness, which on Earth is merely a spiritual concept, exists in a physical and tangible way on Pandora, in the form of a strange, collective psionic consciousness embedded in the planet, drawn from all Pandoran life. It is, in a way, a little like a huge biological internet"

A mechanism for calculating degree of new flesh of reincarnation, based on the fruits of one's previous life, is suggested. It's mainly about whether you were an energy source or an energy sink in your previous life.

It's just what you did coming back to you - like everything thrown up comes down.
If you steal charge from the atmosphere, you take a loan from reality and your "credit rating" goes down. If you live like a competitive, narcissistic jerk, and keep doing this, it has ramifications.

An energy sink is reincarnated as a lower life form and an energy source as a higher life form.

This is just balance, what goes around comes around. Reality is a system that runs on balance. How exactly? Unfortunately, that is where the story starts to get nebulous.
There is the "wellspring of life" at the heart of the galaxy where our souls are connected to, and this is just a story of the electromagnetic aspects (we must difictionalize Star Wars' view about the midi-chlorians).

It's an emerging picture ... there is much we cannot yet know about it, my book introduces the near-earth aspects in the boundary layer between our bodies and the atmosphere. How our bodies donate or steal charge, and how thunder clouds are the agents which make up for this (comparable to governments giving bailouts to banks hit by too many defaulters). But the point is that defaulting must have ramifications.

How?
To know this we gotta know more of the electromagnetic story. My book just introduces the earthly part with the cycle, of life form (mainly human) activities taking energy and thunderclouds (or other humans) giving it back.

The electromagnetic story somehow connects into the story of the "spirits of the dead", is another thing of which i am almost certain. Those are more electromagnetic than corporeal forms of life.

How did the Buddhists get to know all this? There is much that the ancient aliens knew and tried to communicate, but just could not. In particular, they omitted all the science and just gave us facts... which sucks, i know.
User avatar
anand_droog
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 2:39 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users