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 felix dakat » Sat Mar 07, 2020 5:28 am

iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Hey man, the clock is ticking, Go for your best happy, however you construe it.


Okay, I'll go for that if you'll go for this:

Again, let's bring this down to earth. For those here who do understand Buddhism because they have in fact taken the time to secure a "profound comprehension of the wisdom tradition’s relation to the unconscious psyche", how is that translated into your conscious reaction to the coronavirus pandemic [as I pointed to above]? And how is that related to what you believe in your head about enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana? And, finally, how have you [thus far] been able to demonstrate that what you do believe about it in your head is that which all other rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.


I'm not claiming that I have a profound understanding of Buddhism's relation to the unconscious psyche. I have some insights into it based on my experience. What we know about our own unconsciousness comes to us internally in the form of images and externally through the observations of others.

To me, and to many others, Buddhism is a matter of practice not objective beliefs. So, regarding the coronavirus, mindfulness meditation is relevant as way of coping with panic, hysteria and fear by getting into a peaceful mindset from which to act calmly, and rationally toward myself and others around me as the situation demands.

Enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana are images "in [my] head" like images in a dream. I am agnostic at best about their objective reality. Completely rational men and women don't exist. Buddhism promotes the values of empathy and compassion. In so far as people are rational, they should seek to live empathically and compassionately.
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: 8988
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:56 am

felix dakat wrote:
To me, and to many others, Buddhism is a matter of practice not objective beliefs.
Yes, and in two ways. First, that it is a set of practices that lead to understandings and attitudes which may not be intelligible without long term practice. This is true about many disciplines: that you cannot possibly understand certain things without having engaged in long term practice. This is true in math and physics and dance and acting and psychology.......and then Second: Buddhism is concerned about papancha - the proliferation of thought - and considers this part of what causes suffering. The combination of the two is a very strong criticism of trying to figure out stuff one has very little knowledge of, both because it is cart before the horse and more or less impossible, but also because it leads to repetitive thinking with an underlying anxeity that is nto simply not resolved but exacerbated by this looping thinking.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3409
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Sat Mar 07, 2020 1:42 pm

Enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana are images "in [my] head" like images in a dream. I am agnostic at best about their objective reality.
Enlightenment must be an objectively real state of being - a better state of being with identifiable characteristics.

If not, then what are the monks striving for? And what did the masters attain?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Sat Mar 07, 2020 3:17 pm

phyllo wrote:
Enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana are images "in [my] head" like images in a dream. I am agnostic at best about their objective reality.
Enlightenment must be an objectively real state of being - a better state of being with identifiable characteristics.

If not, then what are the monks striving for? And what did the masters attain?


What does the Zen master tell you? You are the Buddha.
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: 8988
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Sat Mar 07, 2020 4:45 pm

You're a sleeping Buddha.

The master helps you wake up.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Sat Mar 07, 2020 5:36 pm

phyllo wrote:You're a sleeping Buddha.

The master helps you wake up.


Buddha either way.
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: 8988
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:01 pm

felix dakat wrote:
To me, and to many others, Buddhism is a matter of practice not objective beliefs. So, regarding the coronavirus, mindfulness meditation is relevant as way of coping with panic, hysteria and fear by getting into a peaceful mindset from which to act calmly, and rationally toward myself and others around me as the situation demands.


Okay, by practice, this still seems to suggest that in regard to the behaviors Buddhists choose either alone or in interacting with others, they must draw on what they have come to believe about karma and enlightenment on this side of the grave and how they connect these dots to reincarnation and Nirvana on the other side of it.

I merely suggest that in regard to either coming into contact with Buddhism, or in how one comes to interpret it as a spiritual or religious path, "I" is no less the embodiment of dasein out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.

Think of the millions upon millions of human beings going all the back to the caves that existed before Buddhism was even around. Or the millions more today who have had no contact with it at all. How did/does karma and enlightenment become a factor in their lives? And how, given whatever is "behind" the part embedded in reincarnation and Nirvana, will their souls fare?

And however much "mindfulness" is sustained in the face of the coronavirus pandemic [or any other calamitous context], each and every individual is still faced with connecting the dots between "doing the right thing" here and now and achieving the fate they are shooting for there and then.

Instead, from my frame of mind, your frame of mind...

felix dakat wrote:Enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana are images "in [my] head" like images in a dream. I am agnostic at best about their objective reality. Completely rational men and women don't exist. Buddhism promotes the values of empathy and compassion. In so far as people are rational, they should seek to live empathically and compassionately.


Okay, this works for you up to a point and that's a good thing.

But if the coronavirus were to mutate into a particular vicious strain and stampede around the globe, empathy and compassion could very well be stretched to the limits. One or another rendition of survival of the fittest may prevail instead.

And in regard to issues like abortion or animal rights or social, political and economic justice or gun ownership, compassion and empathy tend to be reflected far more in being either "one of us" or "one of them". Compassion and empathy for the woman with the unwanted pregnancy or compassion and empathy for the unborn baby inside her?
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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38525
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:03 pm

iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
To me, and to many others, Buddhism is a matter of practice not objective beliefs. So, regarding the coronavirus, mindfulness meditation is relevant as way of coping with panic, hysteria and fear by getting into a peaceful mindset from which to act calmly, and rationally toward myself and others around me as the situation demands.


Okay, by practice, this still seems to suggest that in regard to the behaviors Buddhists choose either alone or in interacting with others, they must draw on what they have come to believe about karma and enlightenment on this side of the grave and how they connect these dots to reincarnation and Nirvana on the other side of it.
I merely suggest that in regard to either coming into contact with Buddhism, or in how one comes to interpret it as a spiritual or religious path, "I" is no less the embodiment of dasein out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially. Think of the millions upon millions of human beings going all the back to the caves that existed before Buddhism was even around. Or the millions more today who have had no contact with it at all. How did/does karma and enlightenment become a factor in their lives? And how, given whatever is "behind" the part embedded in reincarnation and Nirvana, will their souls fare?



And however much "mindfulness" is sustained in the face of the coronavirus pandemic [or any other calamitous context], each and every individual is still faced with connecting the dots between "doing the right thing" here and now and achieving the fate they are shooting for there and then.

Instead, from my frame of mind, your frame of mind...

felix dakat wrote:Enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana are images "in [my] head" like images in a dream. I am agnostic at best about their objective reality. Completely rational men and women don't exist. Buddhism promotes the values of empathy and compassion. In so far as people are rational, they should seek to live empathically and compassionately.


Okay, this works for you up to a point and that's a good thing.

But if the coronavirus were to mutate into a particular vicious strain and stampede around the globe, empathy and compassion could very well be stretched to the limits. One or another rendition of survival of the fittest may prevail instead.

And in regard to issues like abortion or animal rights or social, political and economic justice or gun ownership, compassion and empathy tend to be reflected far more in being either "one of us" or "one of them". Compassion and empathy for the woman with the unwanted pregnancy or compassion and empathy for the unborn baby inside her?


A philosopher said to the Buddha, “ I have heard that Buddhism is a doctrine of enlightenment. What is your method? What do you practice everyday?

The Buddha answered, "We walk, we eat, we wash ourselves, we sit down…”

The Philosopher replied, "what is so special about that? Everyone walks, eats washes, sits down…”

The Buddha answered, "Sir, when we walk, we are aware that we are walking; when we eat we are aware that we are eating…. When others walk, eat, wash, or sit down, they are generally not aware of what they are doing.”

In Buddhism mindfulness is the key.
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: 8988
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Mar 09, 2020 8:02 pm

felix dakat wrote:
A philosopher said to the Buddha, “ I have heard that Buddhism is a doctrine of enlightenment. What is your method? What do you practice everyday?

The Buddha answered, "We walk, we eat, we wash ourselves, we sit down…”

The Philosopher replied, "what is so special about that? Everyone walks, eats washes, sits down…”

The Buddha answered, "Sir, when we walk, we are aware that we are walking; when we eat we are aware that we are eating…. When others walk, eat, wash, or sit down, they are generally not aware of what they are doing.”

In Buddhism mindfulness is the key.


Okay, but in regard to the points I raised above, after a Buddhist replies, "I've got the coronavirus and the doctors say the prognosis is bleak and I'm aware that I have got coronavirus and that the doctors tell me the prognosis is bleak", how might that be applicable to her understanding of karma and enlightenment on this side of the grave and the fate of her "soul" or "spirit" or "self" on the other side of the grave?

Or, "I am pregnant and I am going to get an abortion, and I am aware that I am pregnant and that I am going to get an abortion". How might a Buddhist noting this in a community where abortion is against the law factor this mindfulness into her understanding of the most fundamental components of Buddhism?

Especially, given interactions with others who do not share her own moral and political and religious values?

Again, from my frame of mind, there is always the gap between what you believe in your head and how what you believe in your head fares "for all practical purposes" with what others believe instead.

If [here] it doesn't come down ultimately to what we can demonstrate to others is in fact true objectively for all of us, then it has to come down to one or another combination of might makes right [autocracy], right makes might [a wholly Buddhist community] or moderation, negotiation and compromise [democracy and the rule of law].

But that is only in regard to interactions on this side of the grave. As for the other side, Buddhists are much like all the other religious denominations: it all comes down to more or less blind faith.

Or so it seems to me.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38525
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:30 pm

iambiguous wrote:Okay, but in regard to the points I raised above, after a Buddhist replies, "I've got the coronavirus and the doctors say the prognosis is bleak and I'm aware that I have got coronavirus and that the doctors tell me the prognosis is bleak", how might that be applicable to her understanding of karma and enlightenment on this side of the grave and the fate of her "soul" or "spirit" or "self" on the other side of the grave?
It seems like you are missing his point. His point is that Buddhism as a system, and especially his version of it, which you were asking about, is focused on practice - mindfullness, for example - and not centered in the beliefs, especially about things he does not feel he knows the answers to. Chrisitianity is often centered on beliefs - it needn't be and there are versions and individuals whose focused on practices - but Buddhism is much more about practices. In fact you will find pressues by teachers and masters in many of the versions of Buddhism to get people to stop trying to resolve things they are not in a position to, to stop mulling over everything and/or to disidentify with that portion of themselves. It is an approach to suffering less or, to put it a bit paradoxically, to suffer one's suffering less. Yes, there may be Karma and reincarnation and enlightenment, but it is considered for the most part problematic to even fuss of this stuff, first of all because one cannot understand it. It's like a child trying to understand what a loving sex act is like and what the clues are that a sex act might be problematic. They are just not in any position to understand any of that, if they haven't been abused. It's bizzarre to ask how a diagnosis of fatal corona is applicable to karman and enlightmentment. It's more like how might the practices of Buddhism be applicable to finding out one might be dying. Or how might the idea of Karma be helpful in that situation. In Felix's case much more the former question.

Or, "I am pregnant and I am going to get an abortion, and I am aware that I am pregnant and that I am going to get an abortion". How might a Buddhist noting this in a community where abortion is against the law factor this mindfulness into her understanding of the most fundamental components of Buddhism?
You say 'this mindfullness' being factored somehow into an understanding in the context of an abortion. It's more like even this very charged situation can be aided directly by mindfulness. And truly, it is something that is ridiculous to even talk about since the word mindfullness is not one you understand. You understand it only as an abstraction. For Felix it is presumably a description of something he has experienced for years. You are trying to talk about something you don't understand and cannot come to understand via words on a screen.

Especially, given interactions with others who do not share her own moral and political and religious values?

Again, from my frame of mind, there is always the gap between what you believe in your head and how what you believe in your head fares "for all practical purposes" with what others believe instead.
Right, you are centered on beliefs. Buddhism is about relieving suffering and also about experiencing life in a more focused and potentially joyful way. Your questions and demands are a consistant category error. And that's because you have no interest in Buddhism. You've even acknowledge that there is a great deal of evidence people benefit from the practices. You've been told by people with much more experience than you that it is about practices. Yet you demand that it's beliefs be objective and solve things like the abortion issue, and you show no interest in Buddhist practice. Fine, skip to some other religion or path or therapeutic process. This one's not for you. You have no interest in it and you don't listen to the people who have more knowledge and experience than you. For example, that you are basically making category errors.
If [here] it doesn't come down ultimately to what we can demonstrate to others is in fact true objectively for all of us,
It is objectively true that many people benefit from Buddhist practices. Since people are different not all modalities are going to work for all people. You are not interested in the practices, or seeing if by any chance you are one of the people who benefits. Perhaps if you practiced for a long time then you would find out something about some of the ultimate metaphysical issues you want answers to now. Perhaps not. If you participated and felt better, according to your own evaluation, then there is no loss. Right now you want answers that you can't possible understand and in fact are considered blocks to what is considered growth away from suffering in Buddhism. A car mechanic is not going to fix you teeth.
then it has to come down to one or another combination of might makes right [autocracy], right makes might [a wholly Buddhist community] or moderation, negotiation and compromise [democracy and the rule of law].
Total category error.

But that is only in regard to interactions on this side of the grave. As for the other side, Buddhists are much like all the other religious denominations: it all comes down to more or less blind faith.

Or so it seems to me.
Yes, because you have blind faith that you can make evaluations of things you have no experience of via words on a screen from your bedroom. The Buddhists who decided certain kinds of metaphysical conclusions spent vast periods of time doing things you have no experience of. You haven't the slightly basis for saying it is faith, which is precisely not what Buddhism is about.

You are essentially so far from making any sense when you encounter Buddhism and show no interest in learning about Buddhism in any practical experiential sense that I find myself pointing out things about a system I do not like.

You always talk about bringing the debate down to concrete things. In this the Buddhist is with you. Shut the fuck up and meditate. Get some help with it if you need it. That's concrete. You're just throwing words and abstractions at a tradition you know nothing about, and making that clear in the way you talk about it and expect it to work for you on your verbal abstract issues. You're not interested.

What you present is a lie here. And you were just rude to Felix by not really reading or even trying to understand what he said to you. The guy spent some time to answer your questions. The least you could do is notice his answers, consider it possible that in some way he is representing a Buddhist response. A tiny step, not the final answer to all these metaphysical ideas and to resolving all the problems of the world. That a quasi-Buddhist in good faith offered you something you might be able to use as a step in a direction. You evaluate everything as 'did it just solve all moral conflicts' or' did it prove to me I will never truly die'. That's the attitude of a child. Fine we all have those child yearnings in us, to understand the ultimate answers without doing anything and right now, thanks Mom. But an adult that turns to the keyboard and the screen, and actually considers that perhaps tiny steps are necessary to get to knowledge and solutions to the world's problems. Would you want to make that first step? Would you want to try what this person respectfully suggesting suggests? No is a fine answer. It hopefully shows you read and deciding that isn't a step you want to take. Not even giving a shit about what the person wrote is rude. It's also a terrible way to use experts ro people with more knowledge and experience than you in a specific area. You call the expert and then ignore them. No, you know how they should teach you and what you need to understand their area of expertise. Not them, you. If you're real purpose was to learn, then you're not only being rude to them, but to yourself.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3409
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:12 pm

Attachment to his way of thinking and his way of doing philosophy.

What else is there to say?

We can't make him do something that he doesn't want to do.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:21 pm

phyllo wrote:Attachment to his way of thinking and his way of doing philosophy.

What else is there to say?

We can't make him do something that he doesn't want to do.
Yeah, and it's not really the right thread. To get Buddhism is to practice it. I think this is actually much more true in general in all sorts of fields, but it is openly acknowledged and stressed in Buddhism. He doesn't want to get Buddhism, he wants to test it at such an abstract, disengaged and all or nothing level that it's really an entirely different topic.

The irony is very strong for those who have experienced Buddhism because it so clearly is not, according to Buddhism, a good way to learn about it, and then further it's busy mind stuff that Buddhism strives to undermine.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3409
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:43 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote: It's bizzarre to ask how a diagnosis of fatal corona is applicable to karman and enlightmentment. It's more like how might the practices of Buddhism be applicable to finding out one might be dying. Or how might the idea of Karma be helpful in that situation. In Felix's case much more the former question.


It's bizarre to you. So, it must be bizarre to others as well?

My interest in Buddhism, as with my interest in religion as a whole, revolves almost entirely around how someone's beliefs/faith precipitate particular sets of behaviors in their interactions with others from day to day...behaviors thought to be in alignment with that which someone imagines or wishes his or her fate to be on the other side.

Who here, besides new members, doesn't know that by now?

In regard to the coronavirus, either karma and enlightenment factor into the behaviors chosen here and now by Buddhists or they don't. As that is factored into their thinking about "I" on the other side.

That is where I wish to take the exchange. If others do not, they should clearly move on to others. No hard feelings.

Or, "I am pregnant and I am going to get an abortion, and I am aware that I am pregnant and that I am going to get an abortion". How might a Buddhist noting this in a community where abortion is against the law factor this mindfulness into her understanding of the most fundamental components of Buddhism?


Karpel Tunnel wrote: You say 'this mindfullness' being factored somehow into an understanding in the context of an abortion. It's more like even this very charged situation can be aided directly by mindfulness. And truly, it is something that is ridiculous to even talk about since the word mindfullness is not one you understand. You understand it only as an abstraction. For Felix it is presumably a description of something he has experienced for years. You are trying to talk about something you don't understand and cannot come to understand via words on a screen.


Huh? He seemed to clearly be making a distinction between going about the business of walking, eating, washing and sitting down more or less mindlessly and, then, as a more enlightened sort, doing these things more "mindfully".

Okay, how is this distinction made by him in regard to human interactions swirling around coronavirus and abortion? Given his present understanding of Buddhism.

The rest is just you further explaining me -- pinning me down -- in a manner in which I don't recognize at all.

And how bizarre is that, right?
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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38525
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:51 pm

phyllo wrote:Attachment to his way of thinking and his way of doing philosophy.

What else is there to say?

We can't make him do something that he doesn't want to do.


Others here can go about the business of doing philosophy as they see fit. As Buddhists or not.

My own interest however revolves around them then bringing their philosophical conclusions out into the world and connecting the dots between these conclusions, the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave and how they imagine these behaviors play a part in what they imagine their fate to be on the other side of the grave.

Now, to me, that is religion in a nutshell. For all practical purposes. Out in a particular world understood in a particular way.
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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38525
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 10, 2020 6:16 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote: To get Buddhism is to practice it. I think this is actually much more true in general in all sorts of fields, but it is openly acknowledged and stressed in Buddhism. He doesn't want to get Buddhism, he wants to test it at such an abstract, disengaged and all or nothing level that it's really an entirely different topic.

The irony is very strong for those who have experienced Buddhism because it so clearly is not, according to Buddhism, a good way to learn about it, and then further it's busy mind stuff that Buddhism strives to undermine.


Here's this guy who, to the best of my knowledge, like me, does not believe in either God, an afterlife or objective morality.

Obviously, in regard to sustaining some measure of comfort and consolation, there are clear advantages to believing in a religion, the religion, my religion. It's a source of enlightenment on this side of the grave. It's a way in which to fall back on the right thing to do and the wrong thing to do. It's a way in which to imagine immortality and salvation as real things.

On the other hand, for those who do not believe in these things, much depends on their actual set of circumstances here and now. It's always a whole lot easier being an atheist when, for example, you are young and healthy, when your life is bursting at the seams with satisfaction and fulfilment, when all the boundless misery that others might be wallowing in, is, simply, fortuitously not a part of your own life here and now.

So, maybe KT is just not in the market for a way in which to embrace objective morality, immortality and salvation. Maybe his life allows him to push that stuff further back in his mind.

Here, everyone, as an individual, has their own "situation" from which to think about all of this.

But to the extent that objective morality might interest him in a world where conflicted morality precipitates enormous amounts of human pain and suffering, or the promise of immortality and salvation eases the fears embedded in his own close encounter with oblivion, there are any number of folks out there who would welcome him into the fold. He could live as they do for however long it takes to decide if it is right for him. And then move on to the next denomination.

Again, though, it all depends on how his situation is different from mine. The part that, in my view, is profoundly embedded in dasein.
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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38525
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Tue Mar 10, 2020 6:59 pm

The fundamental idea being that God and objective morality are fabricated to produce comfort and consolation.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:16 pm

phyllo wrote:The fundamental idea being that God and objective morality are fabricated to produce comfort and consolation.


Many ideas are fundamental only to the extent that some can convince themselves of that in their head.

Still, common sense would seem to indicate that feeling comforted and consoled is preferable to feeling disheartened and demoralized. And, when it comes to feeling grounded morally in a world that reconfigures into immortality and salvation, what comes closer than God and religion?

But they are fabricated only to the extent that someone is able to establish that in fact God and the afterlife do not exist.

And if you think that's me, well, that certainly wouldn't surprise me.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38525
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:26 pm

The logic here is bizarre.

For example, this statement clearly states that immortality and salvation are not real:
It's a way in which to imagine immortality and salvation as real things.


Yet he feels free to say it because he doesn't claim to have "established that in fact God and the afterlife do not exist"?

I mean, that's ass backward. He's in no position to say that those are not real things.

So why say it with certainty? Why say it and later claim gaps in knowledge and uncertainty?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:22 pm

phyllo wrote:The logic here is bizarre.

For example, this statement clearly states that immortality and salvation are not real:
It's a way in which to imagine immortality and salvation as real things.


Yet he feels free to say it because he doesn't claim to have "established that in fact God and the afterlife do not exist"?

I mean, that's ass backward. He's in no position to say that those are not real things.

So why say it with certainty? Why say it and later claim gaps in knowledge and uncertainty?


As I noted to you above...

Still, common sense would seem to indicate that feeling comforted and consoled is preferable to feeling disheartened and demoralized. And, when it comes to feeling grounded morally in a world that reconfigures into immortality and salvation, what comes closer than God and religion?

But they are fabricated only to the extent that someone is able to establish that in fact God and the afterlife do not exist.


Now, the thing that all of us share in common here is this: that when it comes to immortality and salvation all we have is our capacity to imagine them as real.

And that if you can think yourself into believing in a God, the God, my God, they become all the more real in your head. And that this need be as far as you go in demonstrating that they are real.

Which then brings me back [once again] to figuring out how exactly God and religion function in your own life in connecting the dots between objective morality here and now and whatever you imagine behaving in accordance with that inclines you to believe about "I" there and then.

Other than that being a Communist is a no-no.
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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38525
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Mar 11, 2020 12:54 am

iambiguous wrote:It's bizarre to you. So, it must be bizarre to others as well?
A great way to not even take a stand yourself or to respond to any points made.
That is where I wish to take the exchange. If others do not, they should clearly move on to others. No hard feelings.


IOW we should know that you won't really respond to what we or anyone writes. Sure, I do at least. I pretty much post to save them time.
Huh? He seemed to clearly be making a distinction between going about the business of walking, eating, washing and sitting down more or less mindlessly and, then, as a more enlightened sort, doing these things more "mindfully".

Okay, how is this distinction made by him in regard to human interactions swirling around coronavirus and abortion? Given his present understanding of Buddhism.
This ladies and gentlemen is what proud cluelessness looks like.

The rest is just you further explaining me -- pinning me down -- in a manner in which I don't recognize at all.

And how bizarre is that, right?
It's par for the course for someone who has never admitted he regretted saying anything here or admitted that his approach in any particular instance was rude or a poor way to go about achieving his claimed goals. In fact your inability to recognize yourself- which is a pretty good summing of the situation up- in what anyone ever says about you fits with never being willing to notice you every did anything problematic. No surprises.

Note to others: a man who is fractured and fragmented, who does not have a clear sense of an i, has never once, here, acknowledged a single contradiction in his posts or that he did in fact misrepresent another person's point. It's amazing how cocksure this broken shatter self is about himself.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3409
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Mar 11, 2020 1:15 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:It's bizarre to you. So, it must be bizarre to others as well?
A great way to not even take a stand yourself or to respond to any points made.
That is where I wish to take the exchange. If others do not, they should clearly move on to others. No hard feelings.


IOW we should know that you won't really respond to what we or anyone writes. Sure, I do at least. I pretty much post to save them time.
Huh? He seemed to clearly be making a distinction between going about the business of walking, eating, washing and sitting down more or less mindlessly and, then, as a more enlightened sort, doing these things more "mindfully".

Okay, how is this distinction made by him in regard to human interactions swirling around coronavirus and abortion? Given his present understanding of Buddhism.
This ladies and gentlemen is what proud cluelessness looks like.

The rest is just you further explaining me -- pinning me down -- in a manner in which I don't recognize at all.

And how bizarre is that, right?
It's par for the course for someone who has never admitted he regretted saying anything here or admitted that his approach in any particular instance was rude or a poor way to go about achieving his claimed goals. In fact your inability to recognize yourself- which is a pretty good summing of the situation up- in what anyone ever says about you fits with never being willing to notice you every did anything problematic. No surprises.

Note to others: a man who is fractured and fragmented, who does not have a clear sense of an i, has never once, here, acknowledged a single contradiction in his posts or that he did in fact misrepresent another person's point. It's amazing how cocksure this broken shatter self is about himself.


Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Get help. :lol:
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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38525
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Wed Mar 11, 2020 1:41 am

Now, the thing that all of us share in common here is this: that when it comes to immortality and salvation all we have is our capacity to imagine them as real.

And that if you can think yourself into believing in a God, the God, my God, they become all the more real in your head. And that this need be as far as you go in demonstrating that they are real.
How is this not an expression of certainty about "all we have"?

And also an expression of certainty about what some people are thinking?
:confusion-scratchheadblue:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:18 am

phyllo wrote:
Now, the thing that all of us share in common here is this: that when it comes to immortality and salvation all we have is our capacity to imagine them as real.

And that if you can think yourself into believing in a God, the God, my God, they become all the more real in your head. And that this need be as far as you go in demonstrating that they are real.


How is this not an expression of certainty about "all we have"?


Isn't it all we have? Or are you aware of someone who has been able to demonstrate that in fact immortality and salvation are real things and not just something some believe are real in their heads?

Again, I often note the gap between what I believe is true or think I know about these things here and now and all that can be known about them.

My certainty here is more your rendition of it than mine.

phyllo wrote: And also an expression of certainty about what some people are thinking?
:confusion-scratchheadblue:


Please. My focus here is always less on what others think and more on their capacity to demonstrate to me that all rational men and women are obligated to think the same. And I would never argue that others are obligated to think about these things as I do.

I would not even argue that I am.
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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38525
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:48 am

Oh. It hasn't been demonstrated to someone's satisfaction, therefore it does not exist.

In spite of references to a gap, the posts are peppered with certainty.

The threads dealing with the "psychology of objectivism" are all about what objectivists think.

The threads dealing with religion are all about what religious people think.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:58 am

iambiguous wrote:Now, the thing that all of us share in common here is this: that when it comes to immortality and salvation all we have is our capacity to imagine them as real.

And that if you can think yourself into believing in a God, the God, my God, they become all the more real in your head. And that this need be as far as you go in demonstrating that they are real.


Phyllo: How is this not an expression of certainty about "all we have"?


Isn't it all we have? Or are you aware of someone who has been able to demonstrate that in fact immortality and salvation are real things and not just something some believe are real in their heads?
This is called shifting the onus. You have made the claim that it is only in their heads, period. But now he suddenly, when he points out your claim, must demonstrate the opposite,w hen in fact you bear the onus for you own claims.

Again, I often note the gap between what I believe is true or think I know about these things here and now and all that can be known about them.

My certainty here is more your rendition of it than mine.
[/quote]What he quoted would be taken as certainty by anyone. No qualitification, it address when 'we all' share in common. If you didn't mean it, then take responsibility for your poor communication. Don't blame him for reading statements of certainty and noticing it.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3409
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users