I don't get Buddhism

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:22 pm

Sure, there is much speculation about life and death in Star Wars [with its Dark Side], the Matrix [with its oracle] and Avatar [with its alien race?].

But to what extent can any of that be taken seriously by, among others, scientists, philosophers and theologians?

Same with your sheer speculations about energy sinks and lifeforms and "wellsprings of life" at the heart of the galaxy and souls. What here can be demonstrated with ample empirical and physical evidence able to be shared with scientists, philosophers and theologians across the globe.

Instead, in delving into "how" -- and "why"? -- others might believe it you offer this:

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.


I don't doubt that, in all sincerity, you believe all of this is true. But our respective understanding of "demonstrating it" is very different.

From my frame of mind -- and that's all it is, a point of view -- this is just one more "intellectual contraption" that some concoct in their heads here. From James Saint to Exuberant Teleportation to phenomenal_graffiti. It allows them to subsume "I" into a grand "theory of everything". Another psychological defense mechanism basically.

Finally, my own interest in Buddhism and religion revolves around the existential relationship between "I", morality here and now and immortality there and then. How does that factor into your beliefs? What spiritual assessment shapes the behaviors you choose when confronting conflicting goods? And how is that integrated into the manner in which you have come to understand the nature of identity itself here in grappling with these things?
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 6:37 pm

I'll just answer that our science is impotent, my friend. Look at rockets, what do they tell you. There is a lot about the electromagnetic story that we simply don't understand. We observe the cosmic waves and say it is there, not what laws govern it.

Our poor race can't speculate about the center of the galaxy either. Star Wars, is mythology, to be interpreted per the laws of Euhemerus. Again, ideas probably donated by aliens or angels as you would call them in Christianity.

But in the absence of the light of science, I'd just say (neo-)mythology and the law of Euhemerus are the best crutches we got.

As I said...
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.)

Again, my book was not about Buddhism or your questions per se, I just landed up here. It just introduces the earthly part with the cycle of life form (mainly human) activities taking energy and thunderclouds (or other humans) giving it back.

I merely speculate that this energy stealing or donation is what might explain the Buddhist ideas of karma. At least this is one theory in a space where previously we had none.
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 6:47 pm

anand_droog wrote:I'll just answer that our science is impotent, my friend. Look at rockets, what do they tell you. There is a lot about the electromagnetic story that we simply don't understand. We observe the cosmic waves and say it is there, not what laws govern it.

Our poor race can't speculate about the center of the galaxy either. Star Wars, is mythology, to be interpreted per the laws of Euhemerus. Again, ideas probably donated by aliens or angels as you would call them in Christianity.

But in the absence of the light of science, I'd just say (neo-)mythology and the law of Euhemerus are the best crutches we got.

As I said...
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.)

Again, my book was not about Buddhism or your questions per se, I just landed up here. It just introduces the earthly part with the cycle of life form (mainly human) activities taking energy and thunderclouds (or other humans) giving it back.

I merely speculate that this energy stealing or donation is what might explain the Buddhist ideas of karma. At least this is one theory in a space where previously we had none.


You believe this. Fine. You have not been able to demonstrate to me why I might be inclined to believe it. That's fine too.

Speculating is always important in regard to either a God or a No God world. Imagination as Einstein preferred to call it.

Let's just leave it at that.

Unless, of course, you would like to attempt another demonstration of your conjectures. That's also fine.

Uh, cue Curly?
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 Meno_ » Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:59 pm

[quote="anand_droog"]I'll just answer that our science is impotent, my friend. Look at rockets, what do they tell you. There is a lot about the electromagnetic story that we simply don't understand. We observe the cosmic waves and say it is there, not what laws govern it.

Our poor race can't speculate about the center of the galaxy either. Star Wars, is mythology, to be interpreted per the laws of Euhemerus. Again, ideas probably donated by aliens or angels as you would call them in Christianity.

But in the absence of the light of science, I'd just say (neo-)mythology and the law of Euhemerus are the best crutches we got.

As I said...
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.)

Again, my book was not about Buddhism or your questions per se, I just landed up here. It just introduces the earthly part with the cycle of life form (mainly human) activities taking energy and thunderclouds (or other humans) giving it back.

I merely speculate that this energy stealing or donation is what might explain the Buddhist ideas of karma. At least this is one theory in a space where previously we had none.[/quote



>>>>>><<<>>>>><<< >>><<>><<> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Mere speculation? This problem, if it can be called that has eschathologicgoal traces, phenominal, as is Heidegger's take on Husserl.

Jesus says, 'You have to die presently to live in eternal life. '
In sure by now, of all that has been said of Jesus' travels in Asia, that his references to Buddhism had been veiled.

The constructied and deconstruction of the ego what is implied here, and a nearly total egoless state is unimaginable back in His lifetime, as it is now, by most souls.

The emptiness of the self, the void, is probably the most advanced state. of Being,and I believe traces of this can be found in Heidegger's reconstruction of Husserl.

I can referentially state, that Heidegger's thought that 'nihilism eats up Days Sein' , with the ontological process that prepossesses metaphysics and positivism , tries to solve the incongruity.

This is not some intellectual excercise, but a building of a structural basis based on the presentation. in and through the observation of the movement of man's soul.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:08 pm

Perhaps someone could mention one thing about Buddhism they don't get and why they want to know about it.

One facet of Buddhism. And the reasons why this one facet seems important to know about now. (not to interrupt the exchanges I can't understand much at all and which don't seem to be about Buddhism)
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Meno_ » Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:00 pm

The one facet of Buddhism that is intriguing is how and why it kept into Western Philosophy
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:02 pm

There is no one Buddhism.

In Tibet alone there are 5 distinct branches/schools/lineages.

That’s not even counting shambala which is the eternal sensual realm school. Then you have zen schools. You then have kundalini / chakra schools.

Then you have death schools.

Buddhism is not monolithic.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10671
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:22 pm

Meno_ wrote:The one facet of Buddhism that is intriguing is how and why it kept into Western Philosophy
Intrumentalism.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Meno_ » Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:35 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Meno_ wrote:The one facet of Buddhism that is intriguing is how and why it kept into Western Philosophy
Intrumentalism.



Yes, and particularly to German philosophy. ((Zen))
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:33 pm

Iambiguous has performed an excellent epistemological public service on this forum by demonstrating the impossibility of waiting for certain answers to the questions of Ultimate reality before one embarks on a spiritual path. In the vast and open ended universe the unknown is infinitely greater than the known. A life and way of living based only on what one knows, is likely to fail. If knowledge is a map, only by looking away from the map can one see the territory as it actually is. The map of Buddhism is not Buddhism. The one who confuses the map of Buddhism for Buddhism doesn't "get it."
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 » Wed Sep 09, 2020 6:28 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Perhaps someone could mention one thing about Buddhism they don't get and why they want to know about it.

One facet of Buddhism. And the reasons why this one facet seems important to know about now.


Which is precisely what I have done. Given my own interest in religion as one particular font for connecting the dots between morality/enlightenment on this side of the grave and immortality/salvation -- the fate of "I" -- on the other side, I don't get how the components of Buddhism function here [existentially] insofar as Buddhists choose the behaviors that they do in a world teeming with conflicting goods. Or how this dot is then connected to reincarnation and Nirvana. And how any of it is actually demonstrated to in fact be true beyond a leap of faith. Especially given the fact that Buddhism is a No God religion.

Why is this important to know about now? Because we do live in a world where conflicting value judgments become important aspects of human interactions. And where there are hundreds and hundreds of both God and No God religious paths to choose from. And where, given that the whole of eternity awaits us after we die, the stakes in choosing the right path could scarcely be higher.
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 » Wed Sep 09, 2020 6:56 pm

felix dakat wrote: Iambiguous has performed an excellent epistemological public service on this forum by demonstrating the impossibility of waiting for certain answers to the questions of Ultimate reality before one embarks on a spiritual path.


Indeed. And that in my view is surely one possible explanation for why religions are born in the first place. "I" can be subsumed [either through indoctrination or not] in an already existing spiritual path that allows one to attain and then sustain the "comfort and consolation" that comes with in fact having faith in or believing that as a Buddhist or a Christian or a Shinto or a Hindu or a Taoist or a Moslem or a Sikh or a Jew, your soul is fully covered.

Religion then becomes, from my own perspective, a psychological defense mechanism that covers all the bases -- both here and now and there and then.

And if one the main religious denominations doesn't suit you there are plenty more to choose from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

felix dakat wrote: In the vast and open ended universe the unknown is infinitely greater than the known. A life and way of living based only on what one knows, is likely to fail. If knowledge is a map, only by looking away from the map can one see the territory as it actually is. The map of Buddhism is not Buddhism. The one who confuses the map of Buddhism for Buddhism doesn't "get it."


Same thing. Given the staggering enormity of this...

Light travels at approximately 186,000 miles a second. That is about 6,000,000,000,000 miles a year.
The closest star to us is Alpha Centauri. It is 4.75 light-years away. 28,500,000,000,000 miles.
So, traveling at 186,000 miles a second, it would take us 4.75 years to reach it. The voyager spacecraft [just now exiting our solar system] will take 70,000 years to reach it.
To reach the center of the Milky Way galaxy it would take 100,000 light-years.
Or consider this:
"To get to the closest galaxy to ours, the Canis Major Dwarf, at Voyager's speed, it would take approximately 749,000,000 years to travel the distance of 25,000 light years! If we could travel at the speed of light, it would still take 25,000 years!"
The Andromeda galaxy is 2.537 million light years away.
Or this:
"The universe is about 13.7 billion years old. Light reaching us from the earliest known galaxies has been traveling, therefore, for more than 13 billion years. So one might assume that the radius of the universe is 13.7 billion light-years and that the whole shebang is double that, or 27.4 billion light-years wide."
For all practical purposes, it is beyond the imagination of mere mortals here on planet Earth to grasp just how staggeringly immense the universe is.
As for situating "I" in all of this...?


...what on Earth is he trying to say regarding "[t]he one who confuses the map of Buddhism for Buddhism doesn't 'get it.'"

Get what? In what context? As it relates to morality/enlightenment here and now and immortality/salvation there and then. Given the choices that we must make from day to day in our interactions with others.

What is his "assessment" here but one more intellectual/spiritual bromide that tells us practically nothing about religion and the lives we live. And then practically nothing about the deaths that would seem to obliterate us one by one.
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 Meno_ » Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:50 pm

Except that , while hating to get on. a slipping idea of a moralistic/ ethical slope, it should be noted , and not merely actually described that certain existential differences, do not fit perfectly. In a. modicum of that very observation

It is not a matter of taking a high versus a lower road, but acknowledging the factual existance of such differences.

Varieties of religious ecperience can count for such differences, not withal searching for it 's escathological sources, but again in rarer instances.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:18 pm

felix dakat wrote:Iambiguous has performed an excellent epistemological public service on this forum by demonstrating the impossibility of waiting for certain answers to the questions of Ultimate reality before one embarks on a spiritual path. In the vast and open ended universe the unknown is infinitely greater than the known. A life and way of living based only on what one knows, is likely to fail. If knowledge is a map, only by looking away from the map can one see the territory as it actually is. The map of Buddhism is not Buddhism. The one who confuses the map of Buddhism for Buddhism doesn't "get it."
Which is true for most things (subjects), and to some degree everything, but especially things like Buddhism. Really anything that requires practice to change perception, experiencing, one's paradigm, one's habits (of thinking or otherwise)

In a sense

dasein

comes into play.

One of Iamb's repeated ideas is that we cannot or at least he cannot know what he will believe in the future, certainly around value judgments. He notices that he has changed his mind, several times, over his lifetime.

What is the underlying message here on a more general level.

Experience over time can make fundamental changes in us. I doubt he changed his moral positions on anything in an exchange of text over the internet.
Nothing fundamental.


Buddhism and any other system that leads to paradigmatic & experiential shifts cannot be explained in text. You cannot learn via text what someone who has been meditating for a year, in a Buddhist context, for example, has learned.

The words don't retain the same meanings. They no longer refer to the same experiences.

Someone can throw words at these things. Perhaps the 'learner' can even parrot those words. But they haven't learned anything.

How much luck is he having changing objectivist minds using texts? Experiences, catastrophic, sustained new ones over long periods of time, other kinds of short term but overwhelming paradigm shattering experiences can change minds, but just as his major moral changes took place over years, so it takes new nexperiences over long periods for people to learn and change.

Not that you needed to hear any of this, but your comment led me to formulate this in a new way.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:20 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Iambiguous has performed an excellent epistemological public service on this forum by demonstrating the impossibility of waiting for certain answers to the questions of Ultimate reality before one embarks on a spiritual path. In the vast and open ended universe the unknown is infinitely greater than the known. A life and way of living based only on what one knows, is likely to fail. If knowledge is a map, only by looking away from the map can one see the territory as it actually is. The map of Buddhism is not Buddhism. The one who confuses the map of Buddhism for Buddhism doesn't "get it."
Which is true for most things (subjects), and to some degree everything, but especially things like Buddhism. Really anything that requires practice to change perception, experiencing, one's paradigm, one's habits (of thinking or otherwise)

In a sense

dasein

comes into play.

One of Iamb's repeated ideas is that we cannot or at least he cannot know what he will believe in the future, certainly around value judgments. He notices that he has changed his mind, several times, over his lifetime.

What is the underlying message here on a more general level.

Experience over time can make fundamental changes in us. I doubt he changed his moral positions on anything in an exchange of text over the internet.
Nothing fundamental.


Buddhism and any other system that leads to paradigmatic & experiential shifts cannot be explained in text. You cannot learn via text what someone who has been meditating for a year, in a Buddhist context, for example, has learned.

The words don't retain the same meanings. They no longer refer to the same experiences.

Someone can throw words at these things. Perhaps the 'learner' can even parrot those words. But they haven't learned anything.

How much luck is he having changing objectivist minds using texts? Experiences, catastrophic, sustained new ones over long periods of time, other kinds of short term but overwhelming paradigm shattering experiences can change minds, but just as his major moral changes took place over years, so it takes new nexperiences over long periods for people to learn and change.

Not that you needed to hear any of this, but your comment led me to formulate this in a new way.

Right. I take the virtual iambiguous, the only one I know, by the way, to be an exemplar of the nihilism which Nietzsche fought against that results from doctrinaire secular modernism with its dominance by left brain consciousness that subjects the right brain to its tyrannical control.
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 Karpel Tunnel » Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:52 pm

felix dakat wrote:Right. I take the virtual iambiguous, the only one I know, by the way, to be an exemplar of the nihilism which Nietzsche fought against that results from doctrinaire secular modernism with its dominance by left brain consciousness that subjects the right brain to its tyrannical control.
Nice take. I hadn't come at it like that, and man I have come at it from a lot of angles. Yes, it is a very left brain set of demands and that might explain some of the behavioral issues, since the left brain has trouble with context. A really good book on left right brain stuff, and that took a different approach than other books I have read is

https://www.amazon.com/Master-His-Emiss ... 0300188374

I thought he argued a very solid case, with ton of references and information and great tangents, that the right brain HAS to be the one in charge, though of coure they need to work together. Further that the Right brain is also primary.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:44 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Right. I take the virtual iambiguous, the only one I know, by the way, to be an exemplar of the nihilism which Nietzsche fought against that results from doctrinaire secular modernism with its dominance by left brain consciousness that subjects the right brain to its tyrannical control.
Nice take. I hadn't come at it like that, and man I have come at it from a lot of angles. Yes, it is a very left brain set of demands and that might explain some of the behavioral issues, since the left brain has trouble with context. A really good book on left right brain stuff, and that took a different approach than other books I have read is

https://www.amazon.com/Master-His-Emiss ... 0300188374

I thought he argued a very solid case, with ton of references and information and great tangents, that the right brain HAS to be the one in charge, though of coure they need to work together. Further that the Right brain is also primary.


For the sake of simplicity, think of the left brain as dominated by words, and the right brain by images. Religion is based on imagery. It isn't rational in a narrow left brain sense of the word. As Carl Jung found by talking to his patients, the imagery is present in the psyche whether the person is religious or not.

But strict scientistic modernism denigrates this spontaneous aspect of human experience. Iambiguous appears to be a victim of the modern worldview that keeps him locked in Left-brain verbal abstractions severed from his own internal imagery.

Organized religion also systematizes these experiences into tightly defined boxes. Further, religions require that people believe the unbelievable in order to be fully fledged saved members. Iambiguous understandably protests against these tendencies of religious institutions.

A middle path involves entertaining one's own internal imagery as a means of getting in touch with the depth of oneself. Literal belief in the images isn't required. This includes awareness of nihilism in oneself, by the way. An integrated consciousness balances the personal with the impersonal, meaning and meaninglessness.

Iambigious, with his understanding of the function of religion as limited to providing "comfort and consolation" to the believer is in denial about the "comforts and consolations" of nihilism. They are there. And not just for mass murderers. I experience them myself. These are present within me in an internal dialectic with the possibility of transcendence.

Iambiguous is alienated from that possibility in himself. For him potential meaning is an external other with whom he wrestles like Jacob wrestled with the angel of God.
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 » Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:04 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Really anything that requires practice to change perception, experiencing, one's paradigm, one's habits (of thinking or otherwise)

In a sense

dasein

comes into play.

One of Iamb's repeated ideas is that we cannot or at least he cannot know what he will believe in the future, certainly around value judgments. He notices that he has changed his mind, several times, over his lifetime.

What is the underlying message here on a more general level.

Experience over time can make fundamental changes in us. I doubt he changed his moral positions on anything in an exchange of text over the internet.
Nothing fundamental.


Buddhism and any other system that leads to paradigmatic & experiential shifts cannot be explained in text. You cannot learn via text what someone who has been meditating for a year, in a Buddhist context, for example, has learned.

The words don't retain the same meanings. They no longer refer to the same experiences.

Someone can throw words at these things. Perhaps the 'learner' can even parrot those words. But they haven't learned anything.

How much luck is he having changing objectivist minds using texts? Experiences, catastrophic, sustained new ones over long periods of time, other kinds of short term but overwhelming paradigm shattering experiences can change minds, but just as his major moral changes took place over years, so it takes new nexperiences over long periods for people to learn and change.

Not that you needed to hear any of this, but your comment led me to formulate this in a new way.


Back again to the argument that Biggie needs to go out into the world and become involved with Buddhists/Buddhism in order to truly understand their frame of mind in regard to morality/enlightenment here and now and immortality/salvation there and then.

Never mind that as an "old man" with a body that affords him far fewer options in regard to accomplishing such a task, it makes more sense to him to probe the things Buddhists can link him to in venues such as this. Where is the hard evidence that, among the hundreds and hundreds of additional spiritual paths to choose from out there, Buddhism really is the one true path.

And then there is the path that KT and felix are themselves on. Morality here and now and immortality there and then is no less embedded in their own sojourn from the cradle to the grave. How then are they intertwined in the behaviors that they choose in a world awash in conflicting goods?

Given descriptions of actual sets of circumstances.

And, again, with so much at stake, should they not themselves be out there going down the list of all major and minor religious denominations? Personally checking them out one by one to see if perhaps there is a better, more demonstrable path to embody as mere mortals in regard to their own life and death?

Indeed, perhaps KT and felix ought to explore the extent to which religion and spirituality themselves seem reasonable pursuits given whatever evidence there is to sustain them among and between human communities. If nothing else they can show us how to avoid all of my own transgressions in these discussions.

Let's encourage them to go that route.
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 Meno_ » Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:30 pm

"Varieties of religious ecperience can count for such differences, not withal searching for it 's escathological sources, but again in rarer instances."

Iambigious,

One does not need to go out now days, except in rare cases of panic.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Meno_ » Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:34 pm

Meno_ wrote:"Varieties of religious ecperience can count for such differences, not withal searching for it 's escathological sources, but again in rarer instances."

Iambigious,

One does not need to go out now days, except in rare cases of panic.



Then, anything goes. Wittgenstein unabashedly went to the cinema, viewing non selectively anything on the screen.,
totally redundant , unselected flow of images, to prevent a real formation of adherance to some real or image binary formation to bind a cult of personality.


Apology- re-flection to whomever:


Such. outbursts despite meant for some reason, do not requisite to signals of ideal constructive infatuations, nor signal as tomes of infatuation of/to their source.

They are as it were, responses from heights, denigrated to the level of some uncertain depth, as arising from dreams.


Such, dreams or subterranian images can not be eternally ignored, otherwise they will cause such indolence, that can not forestall and ignore casual consequences.
Last edited by Meno_ on Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:54 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:41 pm

felix dakat wrote:

For the sake of simplicity, think of the left brain as dominated by words, and the right brain by images. Religion is based on imagery. It isn't rational in a narrow left brain sense of the word. As Carl Jung found by talking to his patients, the imagery is present in the psyche whether the person is religious or not.

But strict scientistic modernism denigrates this spontaneous aspect of human experience. Iambiguous appears to be a victim of the modern worldview that keeps him locked in Left-brain verbal abstractions severed from his own internal imagery.

Organized religion also systematizes these experiences into tightly defined boxes. Further, religions require that people believe the unbelievable in order to be fully fledged saved members. Iambiguous understandably protests against these tendencies of religious institutions.

A middle path involves entertaining one's own internal imagery as a means of getting in touch with the depth of oneself. Literal belief in the images isn't required. This includes awareness of nihilism in oneself, by the way. An integrated consciousness balances the personal with the impersonal, meaning and meaninglessness.

Iambigious, with his understanding of the function of religion as limited to providing "comfort and consolation" to the believer is in denial about the "comforts and consolations" of nihilism. They are there. And not just for mass murderers. I experience them myself. These are present within me in an internal dialectic with the possibility of transcendence.

Iambiguous is alienated from that possibility in himself. For him potential meaning is an external other with whom he wrestles like Jacob wrestled with the angel of God.


We'll need a context of course.

After all, what "on earth" is he talking about here given that all of us who choose to interact with others can at any time be confronted with value judgments that clash such that the behaviors we choose either are or are not intertwined in that which we believe to be the fate of "I" after we die.

He'll either examine this in terms of the behaviors that he himself chooses or he won't. Why think, feel, say and do this rather than that? And how is what any particular individual does choose here not, in his case, the embodiment of dasein? How is it instead what science or philosophy or theology has provided him in regard to the most reasonable and virtuous behaviors to choose.

I can only once again challenge him to bring the discussion "down here". To the existential parameters of spirituality in his life.

Instead, if the past is any indication, watch him wiggle out of that with yet another "world of words", purely speculative intellectual/spiritual contraption.

As for the function of religion, my point is that comfort and consolation revolve more around the extent to which religion becomes the font for differentiating moral and enlightened behavior from immoral and benighted behavior here and now...and for differentiating immortality and salvation from oblivion there and then. You can't have one without the other, right?

Meanwhile, over and again on various posts I have noted the extent to which nihilism can in turn provide comfort and consolation to those who come to embody it. How? By starting with the assumption that in a No God/No Religion world, one does not have to choose between the enlightened/moral things and the benighted/immoral things to do. On the contrary, any and all behaviors can be rationalized such that one's own self-gratification alone can be the deciding factor.

But: there's a price to be paid. For me it is a "fractured and fragmented" self getting closer and closer to oblivion.

Now, watch him a week or a month from now ignore the points I raise here and make the very same ones all over again. Let's look for that, okay?
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 » Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:58 pm

Meno_ wrote:
Meno_ wrote:"Varieties of religious ecperience can count for such differences, not withal searching for it 's escathological sources, but again in rarer instances."

Iambigious,

One does not need to go out now days, except in rare cases of panic.



Then, anything goes. Wittgenstein unabashedly went to the cinema, viewing non selectively anything on the screen.,
totally redundant , unselected flow of images, to prevent a real formation of adherance to some real or image binary formation to a cult of personality.


Once again I have no clear understanding of what "on earth" you mean to convey here. In fact, I'm still not entirely certain if that isn't your intention.

Anyway, you know my own approach to religion:

1] one either believes in or does not believe in a spiritual/denominational path
2] if one does then it either does or does not sustain a moral narrative he or she has come to embody
3] if it does sustain a moral narrative then in any particular context it will propel/compel the believer to choose particular behaviors in a world bursting at the seams with conflicting goods
4] if one does choose what "spiritually" is the right thing to do then this dot in turn either is or is not connected to the one revolving around the fate of "I" on the other side of the grave

And, then, in whatever one believes here, they either are or are not able to go beyond a leap of more or less blind faith in order to actually demonstrate that what they do believe is in fact that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe as well.

Now, you will either take the discussion here or you won't. And Wittgenstein may or may not be relevant if you do choose to take it there.
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 Meno_ » Thu Sep 10, 2020 7:16 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote:
Meno_ wrote:"Varieties of religious ecperience can count for such differences, not withal searching for it 's escathological sources, but again in rarer instances."

Iambigious,

One does not need to go out now days, except in rare cases of panic.



Then, anything goes. Wittgenstein unabashedly went to the cinema, viewing non selectively anything on the screen.,
totally redundant , unselected flow of images, to prevent a real formation of adherance to some real or image binary formation to a cult of personality.


Once again I have no clear understanding of what "on earth" you mean to convey here. In fact, I'm still not entirely certain if that isn't your intention.

Anyway, you know my own approach to religion:

1] one either believes in or does not believe in a spiritual/denominational path
2] if one does then it either does or does not sustain a moral narrative he or she has come to embody
3] if it does sustain a moral narrative then in any particular context it will propel/compel the believer to choose particular behaviors in a world bursting at the seams with conflicting goods
4] if one does choose what "spiritually" is the right thing to do then this dot in turn either is or is not connected to the one revolving around the fate of "I" on the other side of the grave

And, then, in whatever one believes here, they either are or are not able to go beyond a leap of more or less blind faith in order to actually demonstrate that what they do believe is in fact that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe as well.

Now, you will either take the discussion here or you won't. And Wittgenstein may or may not be relevant if you do choose to take it there.




No, I do want to. Except, and again i consider You an exception mentioned earlier, of potential gifts which can be shared.

Except, the bind is very strong, within and without the basic choice, and i surmise it signifies IT to be intended, unawares or not.

Within these bounderies, it is near impossible to inflect through even the mirror stage.

In leaving to Utah on a panic, givies time to reflect on the severity of possible fracture.(s)

At this moment it is impossible to realise rationally., except by aforementioned images, the significance of tying positively to Wittgenstein. ( except by aphorism)

Will comment time to time to the best , as it indulges ,and pertains to this I beg Your pardon if perhaps a more immediate ready reply. was expected.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Sep 10, 2020 7:35 pm

Meno_ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote:"Varieties of religious ecperience can count for such differences, not withal searching for it 's escathological sources, but again in rarer instances."

Iambigious,

One does not need to go out now days, except in rare cases of panic.



Then, anything goes. Wittgenstein unabashedly went to the cinema, viewing non selectively anything on the screen.,
totally redundant , unselected flow of images, to prevent a real formation of adherance to some real or image binary formation to a cult of personality.


Once again I have no clear understanding of what "on earth" you mean to convey here. In fact, I'm still not entirely certain if that isn't your intention.

Anyway, you know my own approach to religion:

1] one either believes in or does not believe in a spiritual/denominational path
2] if one does then it either does or does not sustain a moral narrative he or she has come to embody
3] if it does sustain a moral narrative then in any particular context it will propel/compel the believer to choose particular behaviors in a world bursting at the seams with conflicting goods
4] if one does choose what "spiritually" is the right thing to do then this dot in turn either is or is not connected to the one revolving around the fate of "I" on the other side of the grave

And, then, in whatever one believes here, they either are or are not able to go beyond a leap of more or less blind faith in order to actually demonstrate that what they do believe is in fact that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe as well.

Now, you will either take the discussion here or you won't. And Wittgenstein may or may not be relevant if you do choose to take it there.



Meno_ wrote:No, I do want to. Except...


Enough said. Just thought I'd ask. 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
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 Meno_ » Thu Sep 10, 2020 8:19 pm

Iambigious said,

No, I do want to. Except...


"Enough said. Just thought I'd ask."


>>>>>>>>>>> ><><>< >>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<>><<>><<>>>>?<>

except-
accept
I do
want to
no
know

Words convey ambiguity,
What does the phrase -no, I do want to, except mean in and out of context?

Like the visualization of the test of -the perception , whether a glass is half full, or, half empty mean?

It's not quite as simple, as it appears.

Enough seen? Thought I'd observe.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users