I don't get Buddhism

[felix dakat]

The Buddha said, "If you endeavor to embrace the Way through much learning, the Way will not be understood. If you observe the Way with simplicity of heart, great indeed is this Way."

The sutra of 42 chapters, chapter 9


Jesus said, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

The Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5

[iambiguous]

The Buddha said, "If you endeavor to embrace the Way through much learning, the Way will not be understood. If you observe the Way with simplicity of heart, great indeed is this Way."

The sutra of 42 chapters, chapter 9

Jesus said, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

The Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5

See what I mean by "spiritual contraptions"?

The Way!!

This is what actually passes for some to be as far as they need to go in examining their own spiritual values. And in a philosophy forum no less!!



Another rendition perhaps of admonishing Adam and Eve for taking the free will that God permitted them and choosing to eat from the tree of knowledge?

Really, how can children be indoctrinated to follow their elders down one of hundreds and hundreds of conflicting spiritual paths if the quest for "learning" is not deemed to be a bad thing!!

Unless of course he is only being ironic.

[felix dakat]

The Buddha said, "If you endeavor to embrace the Way through much learning, the Way will not be understood. If you observe the Way with simplicity of heart, great indeed is this Way."

The sutra of 42 chapters, chapter 9

Jesus said, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

The Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5

See what I mean by "spiritual contraptions"?

The Way!!

This is what actually passes for some to be as far as they need to go in examining their own spiritual values. And in a philosophy forum no less!!



Another rendition perhaps of admonishing Adam and Eve for taking the free will that God permitted them and choosing to eat from the tree of knowledge?

Really, how can children be indoctrinated to follow their elders down one of hundreds and hundreds of conflicting spiritual paths if the quest for "learning" is not deemed to be a bad thing!!

Unless of course he is only being ironic.

The Buddha said, "Evildoers who denounce the wise resemble a person who spits against the sky; the spittle will never reach the sky, but comes down on himself. "

[iambiguous]

The Buddha said, "Evildoers who denounce the wise resemble a person who spits against the sky; the spittle will never reach the sky, but comes down on himself. "

Hmm, so you weren't being ironic.

[felix dakat]

The Buddha said, "Evildoers who denounce the wise resemble a person who spits against the sky; the spittle will never reach the sky, but comes down on himself. "

Hmm, so you weren't being ironic.

...surmised a man who never got tired of a kersplat in his eye!

[phyllo]

So what's the conflict here?

There is a Way. You understand it by non-intellectual means.

Versus

There is no Way. You come to realize that by talking about it.

If there is the Way, then you understand it by reading about it or talking about it.

[iambiguous]

So what's the conflict here?

There is a Way. You understand it by non-intellectual means.

Versus

There is no Way. You come to realize that by talking about it.

If there is the Way, then you understand it by reading about it or talking about it.

Well, the conflicts start with all of the hundreds and hundreds of God and No God renditions of The Way in a world ever and always awash in conflicting goods. Then those God folks who insist that only their own Way counts. And then what happens when the God folks gain access to power and cross paths with those who are invested in another Way.

Indeed, the Supreme Court is about to acquire a new Justice who is a religious fanatic. A devout Catholic. That particular Way. And she and the other conservatives with their own rendition of God and the Way will vote on issues like abortion and homosexuality. The lives of millions will then come down to which side of the Way they are on.

Are they "one of us" [on the right path] or "one of them" [on the wrong path].

And I'm still trying to "get" how the No God Buddhist Way here actually unfolds beyond the "spiritual contraptions" of folks like zinnat and felix.

[phyllo]

That's certainly a lot different than figuring out if there is a Way and how one goes about understanding the Way if there is one. Which is what I thought was being discussed.

[felix dakat]

It seems there are two kinds of exclusivists, those who exclude others and those who exclude themselves. Iambiguous puts himself in the latter category. Indeed he tells us that he was once in the former category. Perhaps that's why he can't understand that it doesn't have to be that way.

[phyllo]

To me it looks like he is most concerned with the use and misuse of power.

The religious beliefs and techniques appear to be almost insignificant.

[iambiguous]

That's certainly a lot different than figuring out if there is a Way and how one goes about understanding the Way if there is one. Which is what I thought was being discussed.

That's your take on what is being discussed. I'm more interested instead in how individuals come to embody any particular rendition of the Way as an existential contraption rooted in dasein.

And then how they intertwine what they think the Way is in the behaviors that they choose. And then how they intertwine that in what they believe the fate of "I" is on the other side of the grave.

And then the extent to which they are actually able to demonstrate that what they believe about the Way is something that all rational men and women are obligated to believe as well.

The parts that folks like felix and zinnat pretty much avoid like the plague on this thread.

And then the reasons why I suspect that they do.

At least I've got you abandoning an essential meaning for existence and figuring that oblivion is what awaits us when we die.

[phyllo]

You can't learn about the Way by jabbering about it.

That seems to be clear from the discussion.

[felix dakat]

To me it looks like he is most concerned with the use and misuse of power.

The religious beliefs and techniques appear to be almost insignificant.

It appears iambiguous has a beef with every objective religion on the basis that it cannot prove or guarantee what it promises in terms of an afterlife. To him any religion that can't do that is worthless.

Now to me that's an epistemological problem in the first place. In the second place it's a problem for institutional objective religions. Those are complex and diverse entities. There isn't one Buddhism. There are many. That's true of every major religion.

I'm pretty sure iambiguous doesn't understand any of them. Yet it is it is easy for him to call them all contraptions. It's like spitting at the sky.

Personally I make no knowledge claims about ultimate reality. To me spirituality is a capacity of the human psyche. I don't rule out a connection between the soul and the Ultimate, but neither can I prove such.

The connection between spiritual experience and the ultimate is more aptly termed "faith" than knowledge. Phenomenologically my inner experience connects me to the Ultimate.

In terms of knowledge claims about it, I am agnostic. My spirituality is personal, non-institutional, nondogmatic.

I don't call myself a Buddhist. But, today I felt I was one with the Buddha. Hence my statements earlier today.

And, in keeping with the faith in perennial wisdom, I showed how the teaching of Buddha harmonizes with the teachings of Jesus.

Iambiguous probably experienced some sort of trauma that cut him off from his own inner life making him hostile to that part of himself. I don't know that for sure but that's my hypothesis. It's not unusual. For all it's potential for callousness and brutality, the human psyche is a sensitive and fragile flower.

[iambiguous]

You can't learn about the Way by jabbering about it.

That seems to be clear from the discussion.

More to the point [mine] what of those who have learned all that they think they need to know about their own particular Way.

The part where, given my own interest in religion, these concerns kick in:

I'm more interested instead in how individuals come to embody any particular rendition of the Way as an existential contraption rooted in dasein.

And then how they intertwine what they think the Way is in the behaviors that they choose. And then how they intertwine that in what they believe the fate of "I" is on the other side of the grave.

And then the extent to which they are actually able to demonstrate that what they believe about the Way is something that all rational men and women are obligated to believe as well.

Now folks like zinnat and felix will explore this with me or they will continue to exchange their spiritual contraptions with each other and be content with that.

Either way, I'm content.

[iambiguous]

To me it looks like he is most concerned with the use and misuse of power.

The religious beliefs and techniques appear to be almost insignificant.

It appears iambiguous has a beef with every objective religion on the basis that it cannot prove or guarantee what it promises in terms of an afterlife. To him any religion that can't do that is worthless.

Now to me that's an epistemological problem in the first place. In the second place it's a problem for institutional objective religions. Those are complex and diverse entities. There isn't one Buddhism. There are many. That's true of every major religion.

I'm pretty sure iambiguous doesn't understand any of them. Yet it is it is easy for him to call them all contraptions. It's like spitting at the sky.

Personally I make no knowledge claims about ultimate reality. To me spirituality is a capacity of the human psyche. I don't rule out a connection between the soul and the Ultimate, but neither can I prove such.

The connection between spiritual experience and the ultimate is more aptly termed "faith" than knowledge. Phenomenologically my inner experience connects me to the Ultimate.

In terms of knowledge claims about it, I am agnostic. My spirituality is personal, non-institutional, nondogmatic.

I don't call myself a Buddhist. But, today I felt I was one with the Buddha. Hence my statements earlier today.

And, in keeping with the faith in perennial wisdom, I showed how the teaching of Buddha harmonizes with the teachings of Jesus.

Iambiguous probably experienced some sort of trauma that cut him off from his own inner life making him hostile to that part of himself. I don't know that for sure but that's my hypothesis. It's not unusual. For all it's potential for callousness and brutality, the human psyche is a sensitive and fragile flower.

Note to Phyllo:

You will discern that none of this pertains to my own interest in religion. And that's fine. He can always find folks at ILP who will be more than willing to discuss religion as he prefers to explore it here. The warm and fuzzy way.

In or not in Stooge mode.

[phyllo]

Different interests. Absolutely.

But how about ...

Being respectful of other people's interests. Allowing them to express their interests and how they pursue them. Letting them be themselves.

Without being dismissive or ridiculing or mocking or negating.

[iambiguous]

Different interests. Absolutely.

But how about ...

Being respectful of other people's interests. Allowing them to express their interests and how they pursue them. Letting them be themselves.

Without being dismissive or ridiculing or mocking or negating.

I only become a stooge myself when others insist on making me the issue. They become a stooge so, sure, I'll go down in the mud with them. For whatever reason, I am basically a "natural born polemicist".

Still, over and again, I let it be known that if others want an exchange that is both respectful and civil, I'm more than willing to go there as well.

I simply want the focus to be on morality here and now and immortality there and then. How the two are intertwined in regard to God and religion. Given particular contexts.

[MagsJ]

I simply want the focus to be on morality here and now and immortality there and then. How the two are intertwined in regard to God and religion. Given particular contexts.

In every single thread, on every single discussion that is being had in those threads?

How much more can you get out of a conversation, using that exact same criteria to debate by.. every single time?

It’s not going to be a thrilling or mind-expanding one. You ask a very big ask, imo.

[iambiguous]

I simply want the focus to be on morality here and now and immortality there and then. How the two are intertwined in regard to God and religion. Given particular contexts.

In every single thread, on every single discussion that is being had in those threads?

How much more can you get out of a conversation, using that exact same criteria to debate by.. every single time?

It’s not going to be a thrilling or mind-expanding one. You ask a very big ask, imo.

Huh?!

There are hundreds and hundreds of threads I don't participate in at all. And there are my quotes and my music threads. And my threads relating specifically to determinism and language and morality and identity.

If my posts don't thrill you or expand your mind, don't read them.

You clearly don't grasp the points I am trying to convey here. And that's fine. Move on to others. After all, no one at ILP is required to read or to respond to my posts. Nor me to theirs.

And, by all means, let's keep it that way.

[phyllo]

A person posts something that he/she thinks is important.

And it gets dismissed as a "general description", "intellectual contraption", "spiritual contraption", etc.

Then he/she is told what he/she is really supposed to be doing ... "bringing it down to earth", discussing a context, demonstrating things for everyone and talking about morality, salvation and an afterlife.

Who wants to be treated like that?

Is that any way to have a discussion?

[iambiguous]

A person posts something that he/she thinks is important.

And it gets dismissed as a "general description", "intellectual contraption", "spiritual contraption", etc.

Then he/she is told what he/she is really supposed to be doing ... "bringing it down to earth", discussing a context, demonstrating things for everyone and talking about morality, salvation and an afterlife.

Who wants to be treated like that?

Is that any way to have a discussion?

Over and again, I get this sort of thing from you. And over and again, I note my own objection to your objections. Nothing ever sinks in.

So why on earth would anyone who has this opinion of me keep reading my posts?

Do I have to explain it to you...again?

[MagsJ]

Huh?! There are hundreds and hundreds of threads I don't participate in at all. And there are my quotes and my music threads. And my threads relating specifically to determinism and language and morality and identity.

You misunderstood, as Phyllo has now clarified.. I am referring to the threads that you do participate in, not each and every thread on here.

If my posts don't thrill you or expand your mind, don't read them.

On the contrary, I do enjoy your posts, but enough of your preconceived context of parameters already. Samsara much? A discussion is being had, you reset it with your terms, it starts again, you reset it with your terms again.. the cycle never ends.. how mean of you Iam.

[phyllo]

Do I have to explain it to you...again?

You keep inviting people to have a respectful and civilized discussion with you ... KT, Felix, Zinnat ...

Then as soon as those people post something, you blow it off as a "general description" or "contraption".

And you only want talk about your interests and it has to discussed in your particular way.

It's not hard to explain why people don't want to talk to you any more.

And the only reason that I'm talking to you now is because when Felix posted something about "the Way" that was on topic, you jumped in dismissively. I thought that I would try to get you to see what you are doing once again.

[iambiguous]

Do I have to explain it to you...again?

You keep inviting people to have a respectful and civilized discussion with you ... KT, Felix, Zinnat ...

Then as soon as those people post something, you blow it off as a "general description" or "contraption".

And you only want talk about your interests and it has to discussed in your particular way.

It's not hard to explain why people don't want to talk to you any more.

And the only reason that I'm talking to you now is because when Felix posted something about "the Way" that was on topic, you jumped in dismissively. I thought that I would try to get you to see what you are doing once again.

And around and around you go.

As for my dismissal of felix, I'll note for you what I noted for Ierrellus on his thread:

As for my dismissal of Felix, you tell me: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... start=1900

Others here can judge for themselves my reaction.

[phyllo]

As for my dismissal of felix, I'll note for you what I noted for Ierrellus on his thread:

As for my dismissal of Felix, you tell me: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... start=1900

Ierrellus isn't even on that page. And I'm not talking about that thread.