I don't get Buddhism

[phyllo]

It actually has nothing to do with me.

He says that he wants something. I offer him a means of getting it. He is resentful.

I don't know why. I don't get it.

[iambiguous]

It actually has nothing to do with me.

He says that he wants something. I offer him a means of getting it. He is resentful.

I don't know why. I don't get it.

Okay, I don't get Buddhism in regard to that which most interest me in discussing religion, and you don't get me in regard to that which most interest you in discussing me.

We are clearly stuck. Not only that but going absolutely nowhere fast

Right?

[phyllo]

Who the fuck knows what's going on?

[iambiguous]

Who the fuck knows what's going on?

Certainly not me. But now only in regard to three things:

1] before I was born
2] the life I live
3] after I die

Well, unless I become a Buddhist of course.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

I cannot possibly see how such a specific discussion, how Buddhists would discuss abortion, is not served vastly better by its own thread. And since there are, so far, no practicing Buddhists, here, how this discussion would not work better in a forum made up of Buddhists.

If this, is really, what, you, want.

But it's not what you want. I mean, notice how you keep deciding not to go where Buddhists are.

Rather, you spend time trying to wrap Gib's get - which is about getting things like how Buddhism would help him and what is enlightenment and Nirvana and why for selfish reasons (not judging by saying selfish, just noting it has nothing to do with morals) he should participate.

You however want to see Buddhists discuss a specific moral issue, even though you made it clear nothing attracts you about Buddhism AND there are no practicing Buddhists present AND there are easy options now given you by Phyllo, but allways within your skill set to find.

This is why we don't take you at face value. What you say you want, and what you do, do not match.

But no one could possibly be irritated that you hijack threads and do not respond with candor, perhaps not with yourself either.

So, what do you do here...spend energy trying to place your offtopic agenda into the word 'get' rather than simply going 'Yeah, you're right, even if lightning might strike here, if I want to see Buddhists discuss and issue, I would likely be better off going where there are large numbers of Buddhists.'

No, that would take a minimal adult maturity.

[iambiguous]

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.

I cannot possibly see how such a specific discussion, how Buddhists would discuss abortion, is not served vastly better by its own thread. And since there are, so far, no practicing Buddhists, here, how this discussion would not work better in a forum made up of Buddhists.

If this, is really, what, you, want.

But it's not what you want. I mean, notice how you keep deciding not to go where Buddhists are.

Rather, you spend time trying to wrap Gib's get - which is about getting things like how Buddhism would help him and what is enlightenment and Nirvana and why for selfish reasons (not judging by saying selfish, just noting it has nothing to do with morals) he should participate.

You however want to see Buddhists discuss a specific moral issue, even though you made it clear nothing attracts you about Buddhism AND there are no practicing Buddhists present AND there are easy options now given you by Phyllo, but allways within your skill set to find.

This is why we don't take you at face value. What you say you want, and what you do, do not match.

But no one could possibly be irritated that you hijack threads and do not respond with candor, perhaps not with yourself either.

So, what do you do here...spend energy trying to place your offtopic agenda into the word 'get' rather than simply going 'Yeah, you're right, even if lightning might strike here, if I want to see Buddhists discuss and issue, I would likely be better off going where there are large numbers of Buddhists.'

No, that would take a minimal adult maturity.

If this absurd obsession you have for exposing me has not gone beyond embarrassing for you by now what can I possibly say
that might make you aware of it?

Perhaps we should start a new thread and grapple with it there.

[felix dakat]

I've been practicing the way of meditation I learned from the books of Zen monk Thich Nhat Hanh since 1997 beginning with "Peace Is Every Step: The Path of Mindfulness in Everyday Life". I've found it beneficial as have many other whom I know personally. His is the simplest most effective method of meditation I know of. It didn't take me years of practice to get into it.

[iambiguous]

I've been practicing the way of meditation I learned from the books of Zen monk Thich Nhat Hanh since 1997 beginning with "Peace Is Every Step: The Path of Mindfulness in Everyday Life". I've found it beneficial as have many other whom I know personally. His is the simplest most effective method of meditation I know of. It didn't take me years of practice to get into it.

Yes, I noted above that Buddhist exercises and practices can be/have been very, very beneficial for any number of individuals. Including more than a handful of folks that I have known. That part of Buddhism I do get. And I think I get why many go beyond that and accept its teachings in regard to karma, enlightenment, reincarnation and Nirvana. It's one of many religious/spiritual paths that allow for millions and millions to ground "I" in a meaningful and purposeful life.

But that's not the same as actually demonstrating that what they believe is in fact true. Nor does it focus in on the extent to which this sort of thing is not merely the embodiment of how I construe the meaning of dasein.

[felix dakat]

I've been practicing the way of meditation I learned from the books of Zen monk Thich Nhat Hanh since 1997 beginning with "Peace Is Every Step: The Path of Mindfulness in Everyday Life". I've found it beneficial as have many other whom I know personally. His is the simplest most effective method of meditation I know of. It didn't take me years of practice to get into it.

Yes, I noted above that Buddhist exercises and practices can be/have been very, very beneficial for any number of individuals. Including more than a handful of folks that I have known. That part of Buddhism I do get. And I think I get why many go beyond that and accept its teachings in regard to karma, enlightenment, reincarnation and Nirvana. It's one of many religious/spiritual paths that allow for millions and millions to ground "I" in a meaningful and purposeful life.

But that's not the same as actually demonstrating that what they believe is in fact true. Nor does it focus in on the extent to which this sort of thing is not merely the embodiment of how I construe the meaning of dasein.

Yeah it's all about getting unstuck from that kind of shit in the present moment.

[MagsJ]

Yes, I noted above that Buddhist exercises and practices can be/have been very, very beneficial for any number of individuals. Including more than a handful of folks that I have known. That part of Buddhism I do get. And I think I get why many go beyond that and accept its teachings in regard to karma, enlightenment, reincarnation and Nirvana. It's one of many religious/spiritual paths that allow for millions and millions to ground "I" in a meaningful and purposeful life.

But that's not the same as actually demonstrating that what they believe is in fact true. Nor does it focus in on the extent to which this sort of thing is not merely the embodiment of how I construe the meaning of dasein.[/quote]

[iambiguous]

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

[Descartes] could have tried to shift his awareness further away from the world of appearances, as Theravada Buddhists do during samatha meditation. Samatha meditation involves focusing on the breath or some neutral object in order to achieve calmness, in preparation for a second type of meditation called vipassana, which aims to achieve insight. As the practitioner becomes more proficient they will experience profound states of absorption known as jhana s. Theravada Buddhists recognise eight jhanas. As the meditator progresses from one jhana to the next, they experience deeper levels of concentration, to the point that they have transcended time and space and even nothingness in their experience, and the meditator enters a realm of immateriality. In the sixth jhana the successful Buddhist will encounter boundless consciousness; in the seventh nothingness; and in the eighth neither perception nor non-perception. These are the realms of the infinite; of no-thing-ness and of non-dual awareness. The mind has here surpassed any idea of an infinite and perfect being; that idea would only be an obstacle to achieving enlightenment. In other words, for the Theravada Buddhist, the idea of God would be a distraction standing in the way of seeing the true nature of reality.

This is clearly the part where those among us who do not have any in-depth experience with disciplines of this sort, are more or less completely in the dark.

But my point of view revolves more around the part where Buddhists who do achieve this level of discipline either are or are not out in the world like all the rest of us.

In other words, you make it to the realms of the infinite, but, in your interactions with others in any particular community, your behaviors either come into conflict with others or their behaviors come into conflict with you. One or the other of you is than able to create a situation [legal or political] in which someone's behaviors are going to have to change or they will be punished.

And then the part [for me] where one is able to demonstrate how these higher, more enlightened forms of consciousness insure the continued existence of "I" beyond the grave. Aside from merely insisting that this is what they believe in their head.


That's important to me because there are dozens and dozens and dozens of additional religious practitioners out there all insisting that, no, only if you become one of them, is this possible. Folks who insist that God is anything but a "distraction" to them.

Isn’t this distraction exactly what happened to Descartes? So if he had been able to let go of his idea of God, he may have come to some deeper realisations… Then again, if he had done this, he may not have delivered a treatise so thought-provoking that it has kept Western philosophers busy ever since.

How could God be thought of as a distraction to Descartes? Isn't he but one more philosopher down through the ages who recognized how truly fundamental this "transcending font" was in sustaining a teleological component in human existence. Not to mention immortality and salvation? No God, no "I" to think at all.

So then it comes down to how deep in a No God world the realizations of mere mortals can go. In fact, I'd like to believe that my own existential narrative here is enough to keep most philosophers busy all the way to the grave.

[felix dakat]

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

[Descartes] could have tried to shift his awareness further away from the world of appearances, as Theravada Buddhists do during samatha meditation. Samatha meditation involves focusing on the breath or some neutral object in order to achieve calmness, in preparation for a second type of meditation called vipassana, which aims to achieve insight. As the practitioner becomes more proficient they will experience profound states of absorption known as jhana s. Theravada Buddhists recognise eight jhanas. As the meditator progresses from one jhana to the next, they experience deeper levels of concentration, to the point that they have transcended time and space and even nothingness in their experience, and the meditator enters a realm of immateriality. In the sixth jhana the successful Buddhist will encounter boundless consciousness; in the seventh nothingness; and in the eighth neither perception nor non-perception. These are the realms of the infinite; of no-thing-ness and of non-dual awareness. The mind has here surpassed any idea of an infinite and perfect being; that idea would only be an obstacle to achieving enlightenment. In other words, for the Theravada Buddhist, the idea of God would be a distraction standing in the way of seeing the true nature of reality.

This is clearly the part where those among us who do not have any in-depth experience with disciplines of this sort, are more or less completely in the dark.

But my point of view revolves more around the part where Buddhists who do achieve this level of discipline either are or are not out in the world like all the rest of us.

In other words, you make it to the realms of the infinite, but, in your interactions with others in any particular community, your behaviors either come into conflict with others or their behaviors come into conflict with you. One or the other of you is than able to create a situation [legal or political] in which someone's behaviors are going to have to change or they will be punished.

And then the part [for me] where one is able to demonstrate how these higher, more enlightened forms of consciousness insure the continued existence of "I" beyond the grave. Aside from merely insisting that this is what they believe in their head.


That's important to me because there are dozens and dozens and dozens of additional religious practitioners out there all insisting that, no, only if you become one of them, is this possible. Folks who insist that God is anything but a "distraction" to them.

Isn’t this distraction exactly what happened to Descartes? So if he had been able to let go of his idea of God, he may have come to some deeper realisations… Then again, if he had done this, he may not have delivered a treatise so thought-provoking that it has kept Western philosophers busy ever since.

How could God be thought of as a distraction to Descartes? Isn't he but one more philosopher down through the ages who recognized how truly fundamental this "transcending font" was in sustaining a teleological component in human existence. Not to mention immortality and salvation? No God, no "I" to think at all.

So then it comes down to how deep in a No God world the realizations of mere mortals can go. In fact, I'd like to believe that my own existential narrative here is enough to keep most philosophers busy all the way to the grave.

So much mental masturbation so little time.

[iambiguous]

So much mental masturbation so little time.

Unless of course we are reincarnated as serious philosophers.

[MagsJ]

Yes, I noted above that Buddhist exercises and practices can be/have been very, very beneficial for any number of individuals. Including more than a handful of folks that I have known. That part of Buddhism I do get. And I think I get why many go beyond that and accept its teachings in regard to karma, enlightenment, reincarnation and Nirvana. It's one of many religious/spiritual paths that allow for millions and millions to ground "I" in a meaningful and purposeful life.

But that's not the same as actually demonstrating that what they believe is in fact true. Nor does it focus in on the extent to which this sort of thing is not merely the embodiment of how I construe the meaning of dasein.

[/quote]
Oops.. I was supposed to click ‘save draft’, not ‘submit’.. will post my intended comment on this, later.

[felix dakat]

So much mental masturbation so little time.

Unless of course we are reincarnated as serious philosophers.

Mindfulness is its own reward regardless of metaphysical speculation.

[iambiguous]

So much mental masturbation so little time.

Unless of course we are reincarnated as serious philosophers.

Mindfulness is its own reward regardless of metaphysical speculation.

We'll need an actual context of course. God or No God.

[Karpel Tunnel]

So much mental masturbation so little time.

Unless of course we are reincarnated as serious philosophers.

Mindfulness is its own reward regardless of metaphysical speculation.

One could even generalize that experience (practice) comes before belief (should it come at all). That's how science works. That's also the way we learn in general.

[iambiguous]

One could even generalize that experience (practice) comes before belief (should it come at all). That's how science works. That's also the way we learn in general.

Okay, but in regard to Buddhism as it relates to my own interest in religion -- morality here and now, immortality there and then -- how are generalizations pertaining to experiences and beliefs approached when they come into conflict with regard to particular behaviors in a particular context?

Being mindful of what actual set of circumstances? It would seem that, depending on what the individual becomes mindful of, there might be rewards and there might be punishments.

There is how science and learning works in the either/or world and how these techniques can get all jumbled up in regard to morality here and now and immortality there and then.

It still must come down to that which we are able to demonstrate to others is the right thing or the wrong thing to learn.

[promethean75]

Has it occurred to anyone else that Biggs is actually something of a Zen master here?

Can anyone tell me why? Let's see if you can identify the characteristics displayed by Biggs that make him a Zen master.

[Ecmandu]

Has it occurred to anyone else that Biggs is actually something of a Zen master here?

Can anyone tell me why? Let's see if you can identify the characteristics displayed by Biggs that make him a Zen master.

Well like any “zen master”, rational discussion doesn’t exist.

[iambiguous]

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

Western Philosophy In General

What can we say about Western philosophy in general? How far are its methods compatible with those of Buddhism?

Well, the aims of philosophy do not seem so far removed from the aims of Buddhism. Both philosophers and Buddhists want peace of mind; to rationalise does require a shift in consciousness; and philosophical questions do sometimes seem to resemble koans.

Yep, you know what's coming: "We'll need a context of course".

And yet I still get reactions from those who seem to suggest that in going out into the world and exploring particular aims in order to acquire and then sustain a grasp on that which embodies peace of mind, somehow misses the point of encompassing all this...philosophically.

First we must pin down the precise definition and the meaning of words like "aim" or "peace of mind" or "shift in consciousness".

The enlightened Zen Buddhist, however, can respond to any type of question, paradox, or unanswerable question using their method.

Apparently not counting the questions that I raise regarding the existential parameters of enlightenment and karma on this side of the grave, or the manner in which they are able to describe in detail how reincarnation comes about, or what it means to have reached Nirvana. Here they seem no different [to me] than any other religionists I have come upon down through the years.

The philosopher, on the other hand, has a different task. First, she needs to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable questions before attempting to answer the reasonable ones in a systematic way. Once the right questions are asked, the philosopher is less likely to stumble into inconsistencies or make errors in reasoning. She can then let her rational faculties run wild in the hope of finding an answer; but should not fall into the trap of thinking that the answer will be the final say on the matter.

No, first the philosopher needs to take one or another more rather than less reasoned leap of faith to those questions in which answers are there to be demonstrated to others who either do not understand them or have come up with entirely different answers. In fact, some answers are "the final say on the matter". It just depends on the context. There are any number of empirical truths that philosophers can accumulate in regard to Buddhism.

For example, facts about the religion that can be easily confirmed. But once the questions are aimed instead at probing the capacity of Buddhists to embody enlightenment in a particular set of circumstances what of those answers?

Both the philosophers and the religionists are tasked with closing the gap between what is believed to be true and what is shown to be true.

The question of certainty cannot be a sound philosophical question in this mould, as Descartes has unintentionally demonstrated, since nothing in the realm of thought is certain; but in the realms beyond thought and ideas it may well be.

And this is pertinent to what exactly? Some questions and answers [and thoughts] are clearly more sound than others. As for the realm beyond thought, certainty is no less shown to be either within reach or not.

Again, unless we go all the way out on the metaphysical limb. Out where reality itself is linked beyond all doubt to an understanding of existence itself.

[Karpel Tunnel]

It still must come down to that which we are able to demonstrate to others is the right thing or the wrong thing to learn.

Universal speak, objective speak and objectivist speak. It must, not 'I prefer'. And then binary. It is right or wrong, period. And by universal, that everyone wants the same thing, so the solution would be one for all.

The utterly depersonalized abstract approach of our resident serious philosopher.

One should not just live and explore and do the best one can given our in situ fallibility and individual desires and needs and skills and proclivities. No, One should wait, before choosing a path, for that path to be proven to all rational individuals it is the right path for everyone.

And yet the clock is ticking.

It is always a choice between paths. I wonder if the path of posting as you do has been demonstrated to be the path that all rational people should consider the right one. If it has, which is implicit in what I quoted, show the proof.

If the path you are already following has not be demonstrated such that all rational people should agree.....

Then the issue is which path that has not been proven will one choose and on what grounds.

Your on a path, with practices: heady, mental, verbal, abstract practices. The issue is: why believe it is better than the other options (and I would add 'for you')?

That is, taking all this repetitious blather at face value, believing that you are, indeed, looking to find a path.

[phyllo]

Being mindful of what actual set of circumstances? It would seem that, depending on what the individual becomes mindful of, there might be rewards and there might be punishments.

Mindful of that you're doing, feeling, sensing, thinking, what's happening around you.

[iambiguous]

It still must come down to that which we are able to demonstrate to others is the right thing or the wrong thing to learn.

Universal speak, objective speak and objectivist speak. It must, not 'I prefer'. And then binary. It is right or wrong, period. And by universal, that everyone wants the same thing, so the solution would be one for all.

The utterly depersonalized abstract approach of our resident serious philosopher.

One should not just live and explore and do the best one can given our in situ fallibility and individual desires and needs and skills and proclivities. No, One should wait, before choosing a path, for that path to be proven to all rational individuals it is the right path for everyone.

And yet the clock is ticking.

It is always a choice between paths. I wonder if the path of posting as you do has been demonstrated to be the path that all rational people should consider the right one. If it has, which is implicit in what I quoted, show the proof.

If the path you are already following has not be demonstrated such that all rational people should agree.....

Then the issue is which path that has not been proven will one choose and on what grounds.

Your on a path, with practices: heady, mental, verbal, abstract practices. The issue is: why believe it is better than the other options (and I would add 'for you')?

That is, taking all this repetitious blather at face value, believing that you are, indeed, looking to find a path.

We'll need a context of course.

[felix dakat]

It still must come down to that which we are able to demonstrate to others is the right thing or the wrong thing to learn.

Universal speak, objective speak and objectivist speak. It must, not 'I prefer'. And then binary. It is right or wrong, period. And by universal, that everyone wants the same thing, so the solution would be one for all.

The utterly depersonalized abstract approach of our resident serious philosopher.

One should not just live and explore and do the best one can given our in situ fallibility and individual desires and needs and skills and proclivities. No, One should wait, before choosing a path, for that path to be proven to all rational individuals it is the right path for everyone.

And yet the clock is ticking.

It is always a choice between paths. I wonder if the path of posting as you do has been demonstrated to be the path that all rational people should consider the right one. If it has, which is implicit in what I quoted, show the proof.

If the path you are already following has not be demonstrated such that all rational people should agree.....

Then the issue is which path that has not been proven will one choose and on what grounds.

Your on a path, with practices: heady, mental, verbal, abstract practices. The issue is: why believe it is better than the other options (and I would add 'for you')?

That is, taking all this repetitious blather at face value, believing that you are, indeed, looking to find a path.

We'll need a context of course.

As if the process you are displaying here "over and over" as described by Karpal Tunnel above is not enough of a context. You refuse to see what you're doing: what the Buddhists call the chatter of the monkey mind in your case in hyperdrive.