I don't get Buddhism

[Karpel Tunnel]

Has anybody ever managed to have a discussion about a particular context with Biggus?

I went into a specific context at least once with him. I had avoided it because I make no claim to resolve conflicting goods such that every rational person...etc. I am not an objectivist. But since he kept demanding it of me, I did it. He did not really respond to it. Not too much time later he began demanding it again. He also accused me of having contraptions since I was less fractured and fragmented than him. And he told me what these were. I told him he was incorrect. This did not deter him from his mindreading for months and months. He just kept repeating it. Despite his lack of an 'i' and being fragmented and fractured he managed to be utterly confident that he could read my mind and knew what I was thinking. A fractured adn fragmented mind with no 'i', it seems to me, would be nervous being certain about his OWN thinking, but here he was sure about my inner motivations. He also predicted he would scare me away from ILP.

I mean a discussion in which he does not characterize your posts as "existential contraptions", "general descriptions", "abstract", "in the clouds", "words defending other words".

Criticisms that might make one believe that an utterly concrete solution like participating in the practices of a process, rather than having an abstract discussion of it would be something he would consider at least potentially a good suggestion. But no. He is incredulous that anything other than his approach is the best one. See my post above to him. Incredulous. No, the best thing for his to do to learn if Buddhism might make him feel better is to have abstract discussions with non-Buddhists online, rather than taking steps to have a live interaction with actual Buddhists and have the concrete experiences of the practices themselves.

If he accuses anyone of being abstract, he should be snorted at.
If he tells us he is fragmented and fractured he should be snorted at. Someone who actually believes that about themselves should wonder if perhaps, possibly, they might be confused about what they need or have more ambiguous opinions about the right way for them to learn something. But after nearly a decade of posting his process is the same. It hasn't helped him, yet he is incredulous that there could possibly be anything wrong with it, in practical terms, or that any other approach could be better. This is not a fractured and fragmented person. This is a stubborn monad.

In which he does not dismiss your posts with "huh?" and "what on earth does it mean?".

Or maybe his responses are appropriate or adequate and my expectations of what constitutes a discussion are wrong.

Those could be fine responses, but he is not open.

[iambiguous]

Meditating with Descartes
Karen Parham asks how close Western philosophy gets to Buddhism.

Let’s consider what rationalists shift their consciousness towards before comparing it to the Buddhist mental shift. The rationalist will direct their attention towards something abstract – towards concepts or ideas. Descartes shifts his consciousness towards the idea of God, for example: an idea that he believes is innate. The idea he has in his mind is of an infinite and perfect being.

And there we go. Certain Western philosophers can rationalize both God and The Good into existence. Grasping them abstractly sets up the battles to come when confronting other philosophers who "in their head" grasp them differently. Then it becomes an [at times] fierce contest to pin down the most technically correct definitions and deductions. This actually becomes what passes for "serious philosophy" for some. Even regarding discussions of morality and immortality.

The same with those here who want to focus the discussion not on their belief in Buddhism as that impacts the behaviors they choose here and now to effectuate what they would like karma to embody for them there and then, but on whether others understand what the Buddha imparts "properly".

This is quite different from the idea he has of himself. He makes mistakes, is subject to change, will one day cease to exist as an embodied thinking thing, and has trouble getting out of bed in time to teach philosophy to the Queen of Sweden. So Descartes is finite and imperfect. But Descartes’ natural light tells him that a cause must be equal to or greater than its effect (this is known as the causal adequacy principle). So the cause of the idea of God must be something either equal to the idea of God or greater than it. But what could be equal to or greater than the idea of a perfect being? The only possibility is that God must be the cause of the idea of God that Descartes has. So God exists.

I think therefore I am. But leaving aside an understanding of how the fact that you think must somehow be connected to an understanding of Existence itself, and that, in thinking, you do so autonomously, what in particular are you thinking? And in what particular context are you thinking it?

Do others think the same thing? Can you pin down those things that all men and women agree do in fact exist? What about the relationship between the things that seem to exist objectively but precipitate human behaviors that different people think differently about. Particular behaviors which generate conflicting moral narratives and political agendas?

And is it not these very conflicts that become an important factor in prompting the minds of men and women to create Gods "in their heads". You may exist because you think but so do others. And, in regard to those things you can't agree on in the is/ought world, well, there's God!

Or, for the Buddhists, whatever it is that they think is "behind" karma, reincarnation and Nirvana.

[MagsJ]

Do you intend to respond Phyllo?

I know a few that have grown up in a Western/Catholic etc. / Eastern/Buddhist/Hindu etc. household, and the two seem to co-exist well together.

I don't think that I need to respond.

You posted your thoughts. I read them.

I’ll take that as a good thing..

I guess I find the scepticism weird, but I know that some don’t like going ‘within/deeper’ for fear of what they may find, but that.. my friends, is the best but hardest part.

[iambiguous]

Look, if, on this side of the grave, you have an interest in morality and, on the other side of the grave, immortality, then discussions of religion are likely to appeal to you. But there are hundreds and hundreds of enlightened paths out there to choose from.

And: No one really has the time to explore each of them one by one by one in order to make certain that their agendas are not better than the one they have now.

Assumptions 1) if you can't try them all, there is no point in trying any of them [even though there are no more important issues according to you and you are terrified of the situation you find yourself in.] That makes no sense.

And around and around we go...

My existential options for trying much of anything these days are...limited. And, given all of the hundreds and hundreds of "paths to enlightenment" there are out there in regard to objective morality on this side of the grave and immortality on the other side, what are your own options for going down that list above? How many have you tried so far? Note a list of them over, say, the past five years. Having already rejected Buddhism.

You and I will just have to agree to disagree that, in regard to that which interest me about religion, I feel the enlightened ones need first to convince me [in places like this] they can first demonstrate that what they believe in their head [re morality and immortality] is the real deal.

And what makes no sense to you is not how I think about all of this but how you think that I think about all of this. That's what you do here. You analyze me. You "expose" me to everyone. But all you are really doing is taking out of me that which you must of necessity first put into me: yourself. I become your own iambiguous. Just as you and others become my own renditions in turn. There's just no getting around the implications of that in virtual reality. Instead, in my view, we can only make attempts to bring what we think and feel about human interactions out into the world by focusing in [over and over again] on particular sets of circumstances and probing the existential parameters of "I" there.

Terrified? No, more in the way of feeling disturbed from time to time at being fractured and fragmented out in the is/ought world; and in feeling dread at the prospect of oblivion. But, in the interim, that's what the distractions are for: all the things I do that bring me enormous satisfaction and fulfillment; and take me away from what I think philosophically about the human condition.

Now, for me that revolves around the manner in which, given a set of circumstances that most here are familiar with, their arguments at least address themselves to the components of my own moral philosophy. If I can't be persuaded by them that the manner in which I construe human identity, value judgments and political power as they pertain to actual existential junctures is something they confront with some really persuasive points, why on earth should I then move on to an even more important concern of mine.

Why on earth....you say.

On the one hand you are supposed to experience yourself as fractured and fragmented.
On the other hand you behave in precisely the same way for many, many years now AND you are so sure your approach is correct that you
1) express incredulity that any suggestion from people with more experience of the subject you are supposedly interested in could possibly be correct.
2) feel no need to even argue against that other approach and instead, as usual simply repeat why you do what you do - which you also might have some doubt about.

If you are so fractured and fragmented, why does it never seem to, for a fucking second, occur to you, even when it is pointed out, that your motivations might not be the ones you think they are.

No, that is impossible.

Again, up into the stratosphere of the general description intellectual contraptions you go!!

Instead, choose another context in which, in regard to morality on this side of the grave and the fate of "I" on the other side of it, you yourself reacted to the conflicting goods embodied by individuals as that pertains to the part where the choices impact their fate on the other side.

I will then note the extent to which, in reacting to this same particular set of circumstances, I do feel fractured and fragmented -- down in my hole. Then you can note the extent to which you either feel similarly or very much different.

Just make it about a situation in which we do have particular reactions and then make an attempt to explain them.

Yep, that's how it works for me. As a moral nihilist [here and now], I don't believe there is a God or a religious narrative or an enlightened point of view that would enable me to distinguish between right and wrong behavior on this side of the grave so as to sustain "I" on the other side of the grave.

That's it. That's my own personal proclivity at the intersection of philosophy and theology and science.

And either someone is able to demonstrate to me why I should think and feel and say and do the things that they do in regard to this utterly fundamental aspect of the human condition, or I am not likely to be impressed.

Now, here, you and I are both "pragmatists". But: my own rendition of pragmatism seems to leave me a considerably more "fractured and fragmented" "I" than yours does. That's the part with you that interest me. But only out in the world relating to a particular context in which you and I both react to conflicting goods at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments and political power.

Then [sigh] this is how you respond:

I have responded to this dozens of times in many different threads.

Okay, pick that time you believe best encompasses a substantive exchange between us in which, given a particular situation, we exchange perspectives on the "fragmented and fractured" "I" down in this hole existentially:

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.

How is this applicable and not applicable to you in this particular situation?

Instead, back up you go:

You say you are more fragmented and fractured, but I can't see the results of that. You do not change. You do not change approach. You trust yourself enough to know yourself, your approach, your motives, to react with incredulity that any other approach might be useful, for example here communicating with someone who has more experience and abstract knowledge both about Buddhism. You cannot imagine that my suggestion that you participate might actually be a suggestion of a better approach to understanding Buddhism and abstract descriptions of it. Or that following what draws you AS AN INDIVIDUAL might be a better approach to specific options. No you can dismiss them out of hand.

Like I haven't already responded to this above. But it's not the right response. It's the response that you would expect given the manner in which you think that you have pinned me down above. If I am your iambiguous then that's what you'd expect.

Then of course the part where you confirm all of this by making me the issue here:

You mock my 'having nailed you' but you do not for one moment consider that perhaps there was some truth in any of this.
And yet this is a fractured and fragmented person...
hm...

couldn't such a person have missed things about himself, about his self-pedagogy.

No, according to you. These things need simply be labels as me nailing you. And dismissed not via argument but through incredulity.

And none of this "makes sense" to you because I refuse to be other than this caricature of me that you "nail" in post after post after post.

Though, you assure me, in a truly "respectful" manner.

[iambiguous]

Now, here, you and I are both "pragmatists". But: my own rendition of pragmatism seems to leave me a considerably more "fractured and fragmented" "I" than yours does. That's the part with you that interest me. But only out in the world relating to a particular context in which you and I both react to conflicting goods at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments and political power.

I have responded to this dozens of times in many different threads

Has anybody ever managed to have a discussion about a particular context with Biggus?

I went into a specific context at least once with him.

What I suggest then is that, in regard to a brand new context we all agree on, we discuss the manner in our own respective "I" reacts to conflicting goods as that relates to our view about objective morality here and now and the fate of "I" there and then.

Given our take [assumptions] regarding either a God or a No God world.

My own favorite context revolves around abortion. But I'm open to any other that we can all agree would best highlight the things we might agree or disagree about.

[phyllo]

You can note your reactions in this non-discussion of abortion:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195498

Some participants are trying to discuss it but Biggus ... not so much.

The reactions are enough in themselves?

[iambiguous]

You can note your reactions in this non-discussion of abortion:
http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195498

Some participants are trying to discuss it but Biggus ... not so much.

The reactions are enough in themselves?

Indeed, here are some examples of me not discussing my views on abortion:

Okay, let's start with abortion.

I like to start here because...
1] it is a conflicting good almost all of us are familiar with
2] it literally revolves around life and death, and
3] I had an experience with it that resulted in my belief in objective morality being completely upended

And then all the points I raise about it here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

Now, this is the part where I ask you to note your own existential trajectory in regard to abortion. The manner in which both personal experiences and your contact with philosophy became intertwined so as to, what I call, "predispose" you to think and to feel about it as you do.

Or, if not abortion, a conflicting good more appealing to you.

Now, which words would you like me to define first?

And, even more important to me, how do you take your own definitions out into the world and situate them in a context in which different individuals embody different moral and political prejudices?

Edit:

In other words, how might philosophers go about articulating definitions here that would enable both the pro-life and pro-choice camps to finally pin down the optimal frame of mind...in order to legislate the optimal rules of behavior.

Then we're stuck. My approach to value judgments is to describe our reaction to a context in which moral and political values come into conflict. Then to note [in regard to an issue like abortion] what we construe to be appropriate and inappropriate behaviors.

From my end though that revolves around the manner in which I come to focus in on the existential juncture that is identity, conflicting goods and political power.

Now, with regard to abortion, I believe that 1] an abortion is the killing of a human being and 2] that women ought to have the right to choose it.

How do I reconcile this? I don't. Why? Because, philosophically or otherwise, I don't believe that I can.

Instead, I believe that, given the actual trajectory of the life I lived, taking into account both my experiences and my attempts to educate myself philosophically, I find myself fractured and fragmented. Torn ambivalently in different directions because both sides are able to note sets of assumptions the other side can't make go away. Therefore the best of all possible worlds [politically and legally] is to me [here and now] moderation, negotiation and compromise.

But, in a No God world, this doesn't make me any less fractured and fragmented.

Besides, with abortion, who gets to define the meaning of "human life". Is it at the point of conception? when there is a beating heart? when it is viable outside the womb?

You pin down the correct definition here.

I don't believe abortion is killing a human, but I still don't believe in a woman's right to choose, for it's unfair to fathers; it's hers until it's born, but it's both of theirs after.

From my point of view, it's not what someone believes is true about abortion, but what they can demonstrate to others that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Some [like me] believe that human life begins at conception. Others however believe that as a zygote/embryo the unborn are just "clumps of cells". Still others believe it revolves around a beating heart or around brain activity or around its capacity to survive outside the womb. While still others insist that a woman has the right to demand an abortion at any point from conception onward. In some sets of circumstances historically and culturally even new borns can be killed. Often revolving around gender or congenital health issues. Or, during the pregnancy, if the mothers physical or emotional health is imperiled.

Okay, different folks, different assumptions. Different assumptions, different conclusions. But how exactly would any of them, including myself, go about demonstrating beyond all doubt in a No God world when in fact a human being is being killed?

Either a potential mother should require the consent of the potential father to abort their unborn, or the responsibility of providing for children should fall squarely on mothers and the state.

Right, like this isn't just your own political prejudices being expressed. And, even here, my own interest revolves more around how particular individuals [including yourself] come to be predisposed existentially to choose one set of political prejudices over all the others.

Note to others:

Seriously, what point is he making here that I am clearly missing?

[phyllo]

Biggus sits on a fence:

Now, with regard to abortion, I believe that 1] an abortion is the killing of a human being and 2] that women ought to have the right to choose it.

How do I reconcile this? I don't. Why? Because, philosophically or otherwise, I don't believe that I can.

He asks posters and 'philosophers' a bunch of questions:

Now, which words would you like me to define first?

And, even more important to me, how do you take your own definitions out into the world and situate them in a context in which different individuals embody different moral and political prejudices?

In other words, how might philosophers go about articulating definitions here that would enable both the pro-life and pro-choice camps to finally pin down the optimal frame of mind...in order to legislate the optimal rules of behavior.

Besides, with abortion, who gets to define the meaning of "human life". Is it at the point of conception? when there is a beating heart? when it is viable outside the womb?

You pin down the correct definition here.

Okay, different folks, different assumptions. Different assumptions, different conclusions. But how exactly would any of them, including myself, go about demonstrating beyond all doubt in a No God world when in fact a human being is being killed?

If you give an answer :

Either a potential mother should require the consent of the potential father to abort their unborn, or the responsibility of providing for children should fall squarely on mothers and the state.

Right, like this isn't just your own political prejudices being expressed.

Then you have a political prejudice, an existential contraption, a general answer, it's in your head, you're abstract, you're in the clouds.

If not that, then your answer doesn't meet his interests:

And, even here, my own interest revolves more around how particular individuals [including yourself] come to be predisposed existentially to choose one set of political prejudices over all the others.

As always, the poster fails in some way.

[iambiguous]

Biggus sits on a fence:

Now, with regard to abortion, I believe that 1] an abortion is the killing of a human being and 2] that women ought to have the right to choose it.

How do I reconcile this? I don't. Why? Because, philosophically or otherwise, I don't believe that I can.

Yes, and to the moral and political objectivists [Buddhists, Christians, liberals, conservatives etc.] I ask for an explanation as to why they don't sit on the fence. How, in other words, their own convictions are not impinged by the manner in which they construe identity, value judgments, and political power in regard to abortion. Giving them the opportunity to explain why the intertwined components of my own moral philosophy are not at all reasonable to them. I sit on the fence because, philosophically, it makes sense to. And I suggest in turn the reason objectivists don't sit on the fence is embodied in what I call the "psychology of objectivism".

But beyond this I cannot go. My own assessment here is no less an existential contraption subject to change given new experiences, relationships and access to ideas. Just as is the case with them. And with you.

He asks posters and 'philosophers' a bunch of questions:

Now, which words would you like me to define first?

And, even more important to me, how do you take your own definitions out into the world and situate them in a context in which different individuals embody different moral and political prejudices?

In other words, how might philosophers go about articulating definitions here that would enable both the pro-life and pro-choice camps to finally pin down the optimal frame of mind...in order to legislate the optimal rules of behavior.

Besides, with abortion, who gets to define the meaning of "human life". Is it at the point of conception? when there is a beating heart? when it is viable outside the womb?

You pin down the correct definition here.

Okay, different folks, different assumptions. Different assumptions, different conclusions. But how exactly would any of them, including myself, go about demonstrating beyond all doubt in a No God world when in fact a human being is being killed?

If you give an answer :

Either a potential mother should require the consent of the potential father to abort their unborn, or the responsibility of providing for children should fall squarely on mothers and the state.

Right, like this isn't just your own political prejudices being expressed.

Then you have a political prejudice, an existential contraption, a general answer, it's in your head, you're abstract, you're in the clouds.

Yes, given the manner in which I assess moral convictions as political prejudices rooted historically, culturally and interpersonally in dasein, it makes sense to me to describe them as such.

But to the extent that others are not willing or able to demonstrate to me how and why their own value judgments transcend the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein and conflicting goods in my own argument, I can only react to what they post as I do. I'm not saying that they are necessarily wrong any more than I am saying that I am necessarily right. I am only pointing out that here and now they have failed to persuade me. Exactly what they do in regard to their reactions to me.

And what interest me on this thread is the extent to which Buddhists choose the behaviors that they do in interacting with others from day to day as that is reflected in their beliefs about karma, enlightenment, reincarnation and Nirvana.

The part that, in my opinion, you yourself nearly always avoid.

And, please, come on, on thread after thread after thread here others are either able to convince those who don't think like them to finally do, or they "fail" to.

I fail to convince you, you fail to convince me. Only with the objectivists, if someone fails to agree with them that makes them necessarily wrong. That makes them ineligible to become "one of us". And, for some, that then precipitates the retorts, the name calling, the huffing and puffing, the ad homs.

And, no, by all means, not just you.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Biggus sits on a fence:

Now, with regard to abortion, I believe that 1] an abortion is the killing of a human being and 2] that women ought to have the right to choose it.

How do I reconcile this? I don't. Why? Because, philosophically or otherwise, I don't believe that I can.

He asks posters and 'philosophers' a bunch of questions:

Now, which words would you like me to define first?

And, even more important to me, how do you take your own definitions out into the world and situate them in a context in which different individuals embody different moral and political prejudices?

In other words, how might philosophers go about articulating definitions here that would enable both the pro-life and pro-choice camps to finally pin down the optimal frame of mind...in order to legislate the optimal rules of behavior.

Besides, with abortion, who gets to define the meaning of "human life". Is it at the point of conception? when there is a beating heart? when it is viable outside the womb?

You pin down the correct definition here.

Okay, different folks, different assumptions. Different assumptions, different conclusions. But how exactly would any of them, including myself, go about demonstrating beyond all doubt in a No God world when in fact a human being is being killed?

If you give an answer :

Either a potential mother should require the consent of the potential father to abort their unborn, or the responsibility of providing for children should fall squarely on mothers and the state.

Right, like this isn't just your own political prejudices being expressed.

Then you have a political prejudice, an existential contraption, a general answer, it's in your head, you're abstract, you're in the clouds.

If not that, then your answer doesn't meet his interests:

And, even here, my own interest revolves more around how particular individuals [including yourself] come to be predisposed existentially to choose one set of political prejudices over all the others.

As always, the poster fails in some way.

I would just like to note that this thread is in no way about the solution to the abortion problem, so it is hijacked. Buddhism is not really a moral system, it is a practical system. I think the discussion of whether participation vs. abstract discussion of Buddhism is on the border to being off topic, but given that Buddhism so clearly, as a system and culture, is about getting away from overratiocination and emphasises practices vastly more than belief, our foray into Iamb's approach is at least somewhat relevent.

the thread is, after all, about 'getting' buddhism, no solving the moral conflict issues of a person who has said he has never been interested in participating in Buddhism despite exposure to Buddhist ideas and buddhists in his life.

Not that: he has never had any interest. Yet, here we are discussing his abortion issue in a thread about a subject he is not interested in.

In the West religious discussion revolved often around right beliefs. Eastern religions are much more focused on effective practices.

So he has been an effective virus.

[MagsJ]

..and yet you all seemed to enjoy the exchange.

[phyllo]

I would just like to note that this thread is in no way about the solution to the abortion problem, so it is hijacked. Buddhism is not really a moral system, it is a practical system. I think the discussion of whether participation vs. abstract discussion of Buddhism is on the border to being off topic, but given that Buddhism so clearly, as a system and culture, is about getting away from overratiocination and emphasises practices vastly more than belief, our foray into Iamb's approach is at least somewhat relevent.

the thread is, after all, about 'getting' buddhism, no solving the moral conflict issues of a person who has said he has never been interested in participating in Buddhism despite exposure to Buddhist ideas and buddhists in his life.

Not that: he has never had any interest. Yet, here we are discussing his abortion issue in a thread about a subject he is not interested in.

In the West religious discussion revolved often around right beliefs. Eastern religions are much more focused on effective practices.

So he has been an effective virus.

We can explore what a Buddhist has that Biggus (or someone like Biggus) lacks when meeting moral problems. IOW, what the difference in the two approaches?

That's easier to do when the questions are confined to a particular context like abortion.

[iambiguous]

We can explore what a Buddhist has that Biggus (or someone like Biggus) lacks when meeting moral problems. IOW, what the difference in the two approaches?

That's easier to do when the questions are confined to a particular context like abortion.

Combining the two?

From the wiki article "Buddhist ethics":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_ethics#Abortion

Well, what do you know: "There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion, although traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a human life and regards human life as starting at conception."

Okay, so in regard to any one particular abortion in any one particular set of circumstances, how does any one particular Buddhist encompass his or her own moral parameters as that relates to his or her own individual understanding of karma, enlightenment, reincarnation and Nirvana.

As opposed to my own suggestion that individuals here [Buddhists or not] are likely to embody moral values rooted in their own particular historical and cultural contexts. And, then, from individual to individual, predicated largely on the confluence of actual experiences that they have had predisposing them to one rather than another set of political prejudices.

So, what I would be most interested in here, is a discussion about abortion among those who call themselves Buddhists. How would they rationalize the behaviors that they would choose if they were themselves burdened with an unwanted pregnancy. Or knew of someone they loved who was. Or, if not abortion, any other conflicting goods.

And then others who are not Buddhists noting the manner in which their own value judgments were derived and why from their point of view abortion is either moral or immoral.

And then philosophers [ethicists] taking all of these existential narratives into account and discussing the extent to which, using the tools of philosophy, it might be possible to arrive at the most reasonable and virtuous set of behaviors.

And, finally, theologians, who might reconfigure these conclusions into one that includes their own understanding of God and/or religion and/or Enlightenment --- as that relates to their assumptions regarding the afterlife and/or salvation.

All of which eventually coming down not to what one believes is true but what one is able demonstrate that all rational people are in fact obligated to believe is true in turn.

[phyllo]

So go and search all those people out and discuss it with them. Stop wasting your time here with people who don't meet all your needs and expectations.

[iambiguous]

So go and search all those people out and discuss it with them. Stop wasting your time here with people who don't meet all your needs and expectations.

Yet again you allow yourself to be reduced down to one these...retorts.

You know, maybe if you were to search out Buddhists and become one of them that would happen less often.

[phyllo]

What's the goat choking on now??

He just wrote that he is "most interested" in hearing from Buddhists, non-Buddhists, philosophers and theologians :

So, what I would be most interested in here, is a discussion about abortion among those who call themselves Buddhists.

And then others who are not Buddhists noting the manner in which their own value judgments were derived and why from their point of view abortion is either moral or immoral.

And then philosophers [ethicists] taking all of these existential narratives into account and discussing the extent to which, using the tools of philosophy, it might be possible to arrive at the most reasonable and virtuous set of behaviors.

And, finally, theologians, who might reconfigure these conclusions into one that includes their own understanding of God and/or religion and/or Enlightenment --- as that relates to their assumptions regarding the afterlife and/or salvation.

Most of those people are not here, aside from the non-Buddhists. He has to go someplace else to find them. That's just common sense.

[Karpel Tunnel]

So, what I would be most interested in here, is a discussion about abortion among those who call themselves Buddhists.

That's a different thread, easy to start. And likely more effecting in a Buddhist forum.

[MagsJ]

Generally, Buddhists do not consider Siddhartha Gautama to have been the only buddha. The Pali Canon refers to Gautama Buddha at least once as the 28th Buddha (see List of the 28 Buddhas). A common Buddhist belief is that the next Buddha will be one named Maitreya (Pali: Metteyya).

In Theosophy, the Maitreya or Lord Maitreya is an advanced spiritual entity and high-ranking member of a hidden Spiritual Hierarchy, the Masters of the Ancient Wisdom.

Maitreya (Sanskrit), Metteyya (Pali), is regarded as a future Buddha of this world in Buddhist eschatology. ... According to Buddhist tradition, Maitreya is a bodhisattva who will appear on Earth in the future, achieve complete enlightenment, and teach the pure dharma.

[iambiguous]

Meditating with Descartes
Karen Parham asks how close Western philosophy gets to Buddhism.

Unfortunately, Descartes has not managed to shift his consciousness entirely. Indeed, he has not really managed to distance his thought from the external world at all, because his idea of God could quite easily be built from experience. He believes that the idea of God is innate. Yet if it were innate, everyone would possess it. However, as John Locke pointed out when criticising the concept of innate ideas, some people do not have any idea of God, and others have a different idea of God.

Same with Buddha and Buddhism. Some people have a conscious understanding of them, others do not. And, from my frame of mind [rooted in dasein], some have one conscious understanding of them while others have a different understanding of them. So how, for all practical purposes, does that work in regard to karma, enlightenment, reincarnation and Nirvana? If there is no innate idea linking the teachings of Gautama Buddha to the billions of mere mortals around the globe, how would it not be the responsibility of practicing Buddhists to at least take their own assessment out into the world and to proselytize.

After all, if someone is not even aware of Buddha and his teachings, how can they possibly attain either enlightenment on this side of the grave or immortality [however that works] on the other side of the grave?

Hume proposed a better origin for the idea of God: the mind transposes, combines, and enlarges ideas derived from sense impressions to create the idea. As Hume states, “the idea of God – meaning an infinitely intelligent, wise, and good Being – comes from extending beyond all limits the qualities of goodness and wisdom that we find in our own minds” – adding that these latter ideas are copied from sense impressions. If Hume is right, then Descartes has been unsuccessful in actually distancing himself from the world of sense impressions.

Of course from my frame of mind, this changes very little. We can only project into God that which is derived from our own minds. In other words, that which is derived from our own minds. And how is that not rooted in dasein rooted out in a particular world understood from a particular point of view? Whether you come at God or Buddha inductively or deductively, from the East or from the West, there is still the part where your own unique accumulation of experiences, relationships and access to ideas predispose you to embody one subjective/subjunctive account rather than another. And, to my knowledge, no one able to pin down the optimal account.

Until there is a way to demonstrate both intellectually and empirically the existence of an entity that transcends both the minds and the lives of mere mortals, it really comes down to any particular existential leap that any particular one of us are able or not able to make.

More or less blindly as they say.

[iambiguous]

What's the goat choking on now??

He just wrote that he is "most interested" in hearing from Buddhists, non-Buddhists, philosophers and theologians :

So, what I would be most interested in here, is a discussion about abortion among those who call themselves Buddhists.

And then others who are not Buddhists noting the manner in which their own value judgments were derived and why from their point of view abortion is either moral or immoral.

And then philosophers [ethicists] taking all of these existential narratives into account and discussing the extent to which, using the tools of philosophy, it might be possible to arrive at the most reasonable and virtuous set of behaviors.

And, finally, theologians, who might reconfigure these conclusions into one that includes their own understanding of God and/or religion and/or Enlightenment --- as that relates to their assumptions regarding the afterlife and/or salvation.

Most of those people are not here, aside from the non-Buddhists. He has to go someplace else to find them. That's just common sense.

Given my current set of circumstances, I have no viable option to go much beyond this apartment. On the other hand, in virtual reality, there is always the possibility that someone [here or elsewhere] might be able to link me to an experience of their own relating to Buddhism relating to my own interest in it: morality on this side of the grave, immortality on the other side of it.

With Phyllo, he either has the option to explore other religious paths or he does not. But: Given that he is able to sustain some measure of comfort and consolation with his own current rendition of the existential relationship between God and objective morality, why bother?

Well, I suggest, with so much at stake -- good and evil here and now, immorality and salvation there and then -- shouldn't he at least attempt to probe other religious denominations in order to be more certain that the path he is on really is the right one?

Then, for most here, cue either blind faith, Kierkegaard or Pascal.

[iambiguous]

So, what I would be most interested in here, is a discussion about abortion among those who call themselves Buddhists.

That's a different thread, easy to start. And likely more effecting in a Buddhist forum.

No, it's not a different thread. Not if what I want to "get" about Buddhism is how those who practice it choose the behaviors that they do on this side of the grave [in sync with karma and enlightenment] so as to attain what they would like their fate to be on the other side of it [in sync with reincarnation and Nirvana].

Now, if there are Buddhists here do not spend a whole lot of time thinking about that part of their religious beliefs, fine, they can move on to other things with other people.

But some actually might. And it's them I'd like to exchange thoughts and feelings with.

[phyllo]

Given my current set of circumstances, I have no viable option to go much beyond this apartment. On the other hand, in virtual reality, there is always the possibility that someone [here or elsewhere] might be able to link me to an experience of their own relating to Buddhism relating to my own interest in it: morality on this side of the grave, immortality on the other side of it.

Google "theology forums" and you get lots of hits including:

The Top 40 Informative Forums for Theology Students and Educators

You don’t have to be studying for a theology degree to be confused about all the different religious and spiritual beliefs out there these days. Everyone from the most devout to the most skeptical can often have questions about the beliefs of others and even their own. And those who are learning or teaching are no exception.

To help connect you with answers, we have gathered the top 40 informative forums for theology students and educators. With a simple visit you can get answers from renowned experts in their field to the average church or non-church goer. So get ready to learn about everything from angels to demons in the below.

https://theologydegreesonline.com/the-t ... educators/

Google "buddhist forums" and you get lots of hits including:

What are the Buddhist communities & forums on the internet and in the real world? What are their history? How does BuddhismSE fit in with the others?

The first major Buddhist forum I was aware of was called E-Sangha, which was extremely sectarian, and banned lots of folks, including DD. Legend says it was cyber-attacked. Read here.

From the ashes of E-Sangha appeared to arise a number of Buddhist chatsites created by David N. Snyder Ph.D, such as:

dhammawheel.com (Theravada)
zenforuminternational.org (Zen; now defunk)
dharmawheel.net (Mahayana)

Most of the founding members of dhammawheel.com were active on E-Sangha, such as the current admin Retrofuturist and Venerable Dhammanando (and some now ex-DW moderators).

There is also a current chatsite at newbuddhist.com with moderators who were E-Sangha members (however, possibly not the site owner).

Another independent forum is buddhismwithoutboundaries.com, which I and another ex-E-Sangha-bannee posted a lot on.

There is the low traffic Goenka orientated vipassanaforum.net and more low traffic off & on forum called freesangha.com and low traffic secularbuddhism.org/community/

There is dharmaoverground.org, where members focus heavily on personal claims of attainments.

There is discourse.suttacentral.net, which appears to have a narrow doctrinal focus

There is bswa.org/forum/, connected to Ajahn Brahm's monastery.

That's probably it.

Oh... and there is Reddit, which looks like a sectarian free-for-all to me; where folks can set up their own site and cult.

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/ques ... ommunities

[iambiguous]

Given my current set of circumstances, I have no viable option to go much beyond this apartment. On the other hand, in virtual reality, there is always the possibility that someone [here or elsewhere] might be able to link me to an experience of their own relating to Buddhism relating to my own interest in it: morality on this side of the grave, immortality on the other side of it.

Google "theology forums" and you get lots of hits including:

The Top 40 Informative Forums for Theology Students and Educators

You don’t have to be studying for a theology degree to be confused about all the different religious and spiritual beliefs out there these days. Everyone from the most devout to the most skeptical can often have questions about the beliefs of others and even their own. And those who are learning or teaching are no exception.

To help connect you with answers, we have gathered the top 40 informative forums for theology students and educators. With a simple visit you can get answers from renowned experts in their field to the average church or non-church goer. So get ready to learn about everything from angels to demons in the below.

https://theologydegreesonline.com/the-t ... educators/

Google "buddhist forums" and you get lots of hits including:

What are the Buddhist communities & forums on the internet and in the real world? What are their history? How does BuddhismSE fit in with the others?

The first major Buddhist forum I was aware of was called E-Sangha, which was extremely sectarian, and banned lots of folks, including DD. Legend says it was cyber-attacked. Read here.

From the ashes of E-Sangha appeared to arise a number of Buddhist chatsites created by David N. Snyder Ph.D, such as:

dhammawheel.com (Theravada)
zenforuminternational.org (Zen; now defunk)
dharmawheel.net (Mahayana)

Most of the founding members of dhammawheel.com were active on E-Sangha, such as the current admin Retrofuturist and Venerable Dhammanando (and some now ex-DW moderators).

There is also a current chatsite at newbuddhist.com with moderators who were E-Sangha members (however, possibly not the site owner).

Another independent forum is buddhismwithoutboundaries.com, which I and another ex-E-Sangha-bannee posted a lot on.

There is the low traffic Goenka orientated vipassanaforum.net and more low traffic off & on forum called freesangha.com and low traffic secularbuddhism.org/community/

There is dharmaoverground.org, where members focus heavily on personal claims of attainments.

There is discourse.suttacentral.net, which appears to have a narrow doctrinal focus

There is bswa.org/forum/, connected to Ajahn Brahm's monastery.

That's probably it.

Oh... and there is Reddit, which looks like a sectarian free-for-all to me; where folks can set up their own site and cult.

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/ques ... ommunities

Same for you. You've got the path you are on now. But there may well be a more rational and virtuous path still. And, again, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, shouldn't you really be making an effort to set aside time to try them all?

Starting with, say, the major ones first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

And then moving on to all the rest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

Or is this part only relevant to me?

[phyllo]

Am I the only one confused by this?

Biggus repeatedly expresses an interest having discussions about his concerns ... most recently discussions with Buddhists, philosophers and theologians.

I link him to sites where he could have these discussions. He ought to grateful ... right? But he's not.

I don't express any particular interest in having these discussions personally. I don't care about oblivion, the afterlife or salvation. I have a little interest in general and practical philosophy and no interest in "serious" or academic philosophy.

So yeah, those links are relevant to him and not to me.

[iambiguous]

Am I the only one confused by this?

Biggus repeatedly expresses an interest having discussions about his concerns ... most recently discussions with Buddhists, philosophers and theologians.

I link him to sites where he could have these discussions. He ought to grateful ... right? But he's not.

I don't express any particular interest in having these discussions personally. I don't care about oblivion, the afterlife or salvation. I have a little interest in general and practical philosophy and no interest in "serious" or academic philosophy.

So yeah, those links are relevant to him and not to me.

You're not responding to the point I am making about you either more or less than I'm not responding to the point you are making about me.

We're stuck. Again.

Therefore, others can decide for themselves which of us is making the most sense.