I don't get Buddhism

[Karpel Tunnel]

We'll need a context of course.

Sometimes the things you say are so stupid, I find it hard to believe you're not joking.
The context, for example, for the last part of my post was shown by the quote from your post. The context was the mindfucky thing you said in a specific exchange with another person (Phyllo), and it's right there, as a context, to be checked again and again. Other parts of my post referred to the thread and the participation in it. That being a more general context.

I don't know if you think that was a clever quip.

Or perhaps you mean, I should have included something about the afterlife or conflicting goods and my take on some specific one.

But that's what you want. That's not what 'we need.'

There is no 'we' that you represent.

Little mindfucks. Sometimes bigger ones.

You don't represent a we. Can't you take responsibility for your own desires. That's all it is. Not 'we need' but 'Iamb wants X'

[iambiguous]

We'll need a context of course.

Sometimes the things you say are so stupid, I find it hard to believe you're not joking.
The context, for example, for the last part of my post was shown by the quote from your post. The context was the mindfucky thing you said in a specific exchange with another person (Phyllo), and it's right there, as a context, to be checked again and again. Other parts of my post referred to the thread and the participation in it. That being a more general context.

I don't know if you think that was a clever quip.

Or perhaps you mean, I should have included something about the afterlife or conflicting goods and my take on some specific one.

But that's what you want. That's not what 'we need.'

There is no 'we' that you represent.

Little mindfucks. Sometimes bigger ones.

You don't represent a we. Can't you take responsibility for your own desires. That's all it is. Not 'we need' but 'Iamb wants X'

No, I mean a real context. One which, in regard to value judgments, identity, and political economy, relates to a set of behaviors in conflict such that we are able to explore more substantively what it means to speak of karma, enlightenment, reincarnation and Nirvana.

You pick it.

[felix dakat]

All that exists is impermanent. If something is born it must die. And this birth and death is taking place in every instant.

Impermanence implies that all things arise dependent on each other. All that exists comes to be, endures, and disappears because of certain causes and conditions.

This is because that is. This is not because that is not.

This is born because that is born. This ceases to be because that ceases to be. This is the principle of dependent arising.

Because everything arises in dependence on something else, there is no such thing as a separate existing self-nature.

All things are in essence empty. This contains that. That contains this. This is principle of interpenetration

This is that and that is this. This is the principle of interbeing.

Time contains time and time contains space. Space contains space and space contains time. Space is itself time. Space and time cannot exist separately from each other.

Every instant contains infinite time. The smallest particle contains limitless space. This is the principle of all is one and one is all.

Accordingly, birth and death, being and non-being, are all seen to be illusions. Reality is birthless and deathless. Thus, nirvana is the extinction of illusion and sorrow

[iambiguous]

All that exists is impermanent. If something is born it must die. And this birth and death is taking place in every instant.

Impermanence implies that all things arise dependent on each other. All that exists comes to be, endures, and disappears because of certain causes and conditions.

This is because that is. This is not because that is not.

This is born because that is born. This ceases to be because that ceases to be. This is the principle of dependent arising.

Because everything arises in dependence on something else, there is no such thing as a separate existing self-nature.

All things are in essence empty. This contains that. That contains this. This is principle of interpenetration

This is that and that is this. This is the principle of interbeing.

Time contains time and time contains space. Space contains space and space contains time. Space is itself time. Space and time cannot exist separately from each other.

Every instant contains infinite time. The smallest particle contains limitless space. This is the principle of all is one and one is all.

Accordingly, birth and death, being and non-being, are all seen to be illusions. Reality is birthless and deathless. Thus, nirvana is the extinction of illusion and sorrow

Well, yeah, as general description intellectual contraptions go, nicely put. But, as with KT and his own general description intellectual contraptions...

I need a real context. One which, in regard to value judgments, identity, and political economy, relates to a set of behaviors in conflict such that we are able to explore more substantively what it means to speak of karma, enlightenment, reincarnation and Nirvana.

You pick it.

[Karpel Tunnel]

No, I mean a real context. One which, in regard to value judgments, identity, and political economy, relates to a set of behaviors in conflict such that we are able to explore more substantively what it means to speak of karma, enlightenment, reincarnation and Nirvana.

You pick it.

Exactly. That's what you want to discuss. It had absolutely nothing to do with my post.
You presented what you wanted the discussion to focus on in terms of

'we need...'

when in fact it is merely what 'Iambiguous wants'

IOW you are being an objectivist. Instead of taking responsibility for the fact that what you are claiming 'we need, merely has to do with your desires....that is, you frame your desires as a universal need. The word need making it sound objective. The we making it sound universal.

Both the 'we' and the 'need' are hallucinations. It's objectivist BS. We don't need it. You merely want that to be the focus of the discussion.

The experts in Buddhism emphasize practice as the way to 'get Buddhism'. For others, Iamb's random grabbing of texts and throwing up his hands in relation to them is nto a good way to learn about anything. At a minimum, most fields would be better approached through texts that are intended to be introductions to the most easy to understand facets of that field. And then there is a added set of issues related to a field that deals with changing fundamental ways of experiencing. Such a field, and there are a number in religion/psychology/spirituality are much better approached via practices of various kinds - were one actually interested - since habits of mind, not just the verbal contents of thoughts, are being changed.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Well, yeah, as general description intellectual contraptions go, nicely put. But, as with KT and his own general description intellectual contraptions...

I need a real context. One which, in regard to value judgments, identity, and political economy, relates to a set of behaviors in conflict such that we are able to explore more substantively what it means to speak of karma, enlightenment, reincarnation and Nirvana.

You pick it.

I noticed the change in what you are 'quoting' as if it was what you said to me, but here you changed it a bit, taking out the 'we'. (though the substitution was actually 'need' for 'mean', you ended up taking a bit more responsibility for having a person desire, rather than reporting a universal need.) Hard, for you, to actually concede anything openly. isn't it? Still using that word need however. Can't quite come down to the human level and say you want a certain kind of context and for this context to focus the discussion in the way you want it. These are wants/desires not needs. But I appreciate the implicit concession while noting the lack of maturity to openly acknowledge the concession.

As far as my post, my post was not a general intellectual contraption, it was a pointing ouf of a very specific set of actions you took, using words, here in this thread. It could not possibly have been more grounded as far as context, and contained, very clearly in quotes, the specific actions I was commenting on.

Earlier in this thread and in other threads I have given extremely specific ideas about what specific actions you could take to approach Buddhism if you were truly interested in it. You have shown no interest in that. So that set of specific suggestions and that context was something I did not repeat.

So, in regard to what I wanted to focus on, your mindfucks, there was no lack of context or specific concrete references.

As far as what you want, I am not interested in what you want. So, while you characterize my post as a general intellectual contraption and it was not...yes, it was certainly not trying to solve those issues that you want us to focus on and deal with.

But that's obvious. There is nothing there that could possibly mislead you into thinking I was trying to resolve those issues of yours.

[iambiguous]

No, I mean a real context. One which, in regard to value judgments, identity, and political economy, relates to a set of behaviors in conflict such that we are able to explore more substantively what it means to speak of karma, enlightenment, reincarnation and Nirvana.

You pick it.

Exactly. That's what you want to discuss. It had absolutely nothing to do with my post.
You presented what you wanted the discussion to focus on in terms of

'we need...'

when in fact it is merely what 'Iambiguous wants'

IOW you are being an objectivist. Instead of taking responsibility for the fact that what you are claiming 'we need, merely has to do with your desires....that is, you frame your desires as a universal need. The word need making it sound objective. The we making it sound universal.

Both the 'we' and the 'need' are hallucinations. It's objectivist BS. We don't need it. You merely want that to be the focus of the discussion.

The experts in Buddhism emphasize practice as the way to 'get Buddhism'. For others, Iamb's random grabbing of texts and throwing up his hands in relation to them is nto a good way to learn about anything. At a minimum, most fields would be better approached through texts that are intended to be introductions to the most easy to understand facets of that field. And then there is a added set of issues related to a field that deals with changing fundamental ways of experiencing. Such a field, and there are a number in religion/psychology/spirituality are much better approached via practices of various kinds - were one actually interested - since habits of mind, not just the verbal contents of thoughts, are being changed.

Will someone please define "real context" to him.

[iambiguous]

Well, yeah, as general description intellectual contraptions go, nicely put. But, as with KT and his own general description intellectual contraptions...

I need a real context. One which, in regard to value judgments, identity, and political economy, relates to a set of behaviors in conflict such that we are able to explore more substantively what it means to speak of karma, enlightenment, reincarnation and Nirvana.

You pick it.

I noticed the change in what you are 'quoting' as if it was what you said to me, but here you changed it a bit, taking out the 'we'. (though the substitution was actually 'need' for 'mean', you ended up taking a bit more responsibility for having a person desire, rather than reporting a universal need.) Hard, for you, to actually concede anything openly. isn't it? Still using that word need however. Can't quite come down to the human level and say you want a certain kind of context and for this context to focus the discussion in the way you want it. These are wants/desires not needs. But I appreciate the implicit concession while noting the lack of maturity to openly acknowledge the concession.

As far as my post, my post was not a general intellectual contraption, it was a pointing ouf of a very specific set of actions you took, using words, here in this thread. It could not possibly have been more grounded as far as context, and contained, very clearly in quotes, the specific actions I was commenting on.

Earlier in this thread and in other threads I have given extremely specific ideas about what specific actions you could take to approach Buddhism if you were truly interested in it. You have shown no interest in that. So that set of specific suggestions and that context was something I did not repeat.

So, in regard to what I wanted to focus on, your mindfucks, there was no lack of context or specific concrete references.

As far as what you want, I am not interested in what you want. So, while you characterize my post as a general intellectual contraption and it was not...yes, it was certainly not trying to solve those issues that you want us to focus on and deal with.

But that's obvious. There is nothing there that could possibly mislead you into thinking I was trying to resolve those issues of yours.

Look, this still sounds like a personal problem to me.

Yo, any shrinks in the house

[iambiguous]

How Does a Buddhist Monk Face Death?
An e-mail interview in the New York Times between George Yancy and Geshe Dadul Namgyal, a Tibetan Buddhist monk

Yancy: Can you say more about how we achieve a peaceful mind?

Namgyal: Try first to gain an unmistaken recognition of what disturbs your mental stability, how those elements of disturbance operate and what fuels them. Then, wonder if something can be done to address them. If the answer to this is no, then what other option do you have than to endure this with acceptance? There is no use for worrying. If, on the other hand, the answer is yes, you may seek those methods and apply them. Again, there is no need for worry.

So is this "general description" remedy more or less applicable to you? Sure, given that one way or another most of us are going to be disturbed by death, to the extent that you can think yourself into this frame of mind, you are clearly better off than those who cannot.

But then when we take that leap from a general description of the human condition to a description of your own particular set of circumstances, how can it not be the case that this either makes sense or does not make sense to each of us in our own unique way?

Again, depending on how close you are "here and now" to death. And depending on how many things and how many people you love dearly will be obliterated along with "I" for all of eternity.

Unless, of course, as a Buddhist monk, you are also able to convince yourself that, given your understanding of karma and enlightenment on this side of the grave, and given how you chose to embody this understanding in the behaviors you chose in turn, there is something other than nothingness awaiting you on the other side of the grave. You have managed to convince yourself instead that "I" will either be reincarnated [whatever that means] or experience Nirvana [whatever that means].

In other words, of course it is easier for him to endure the thought of dying!

In a sense it's like imaging the agony that Christ endured in being crucified, all the while knowing what His fabulous fate would be on the other side.

[phyllo]

Try first to gain an unmistaken recognition of what disturbs your mental stability, how those elements of disturbance operate and what fuels them. Then, wonder if something can be done to address them.

This is the problematic "general" part of the answer. Can you identify the disturbances? Do you know what can be done to address them?

Probably not unless you have been practicing doing just that.

Imagine suddenly being placed in a survival situation with nothing but the clothes on your back.

The general advice to "build a shelter, make a fire, purify water, find edible plants, snare small animals, smoke meat to preserve it ... " is not very helpful. How do you do any of that stuff?

You had to research those things and practice them before you needed to apply them in a real life and death situation.

So. What does a disturbance feel like? Can I think of any ways to deal with it? How can I generate ideas? What happens when I use option A to deal with it? How do I feel about the results? Am I still disturbed in the same way or a different way? Do I need to try option B? How did option B work out?

Deal with a variety of specific disturbances in your life. Start small and work your way up to death and oblivion.

[iambiguous]

Try first to gain an unmistaken recognition of what disturbs your mental stability, how those elements of disturbance operate and what fuels them. Then, wonder if something can be done to address them.

This is the problematic "general" part of the answer. Can you identify the disturbances? Do you know what can be done to address them?

Probably not unless you have been practicing doing just that.

Imagine suddenly being placed in a survival situation with nothing but the clothes on your back.

The general advice to "build a shelter, make a fire, purify water, find edible plants, snare small animals, smoke meat to preserve it ... " is not very helpful. How do you do any of that stuff?

You had to research those things and practice them before you needed to apply them in a real life and death situation.

So. What does a disturbance feel like? Can I think of any ways to deal with it? How can I generate ideas? What happens when I use option A to deal with it? How do I feel about the results? Am I still disturbed in the same way or a different way? Do I need to try option B? How did option B work out?

Deal with a variety of specific disturbances in your life. Start small and work your way up to death and oblivion.

"...when we take that leap from a general description of the human condition to a description of our own particular set of circumstances, how can it not be the case that this either makes sense or does not make sense to each of us in our own unique way?"

[iambiguous]

Is Karma a Law of Nature?
It seems Matthew Gindin is destined to ask, and answer, this question.

Karma is the concept that, eventually, ‘you get back what you give’. The idea that karma is an observable type of causality, just as gravity or the laws of thermodynamics are, might strike some as far-fetched. Isn’t karma a mere piece of wishful thinking or grim moralising which asserts, against all evidence, that the universe is just?

After all, most of us know from practical experience that over and over and over again, the fact that someone behaves in a manner that brings pain and suffering to others, does not entail that in the end it will all come back around to get him. Just look at what the rich and the powerful right here on planet Earth have been able to get away with now for centuries. Is the man who runs that despicable sweatshop in some Third World hellhole going to eventually get what's coming to him?

Well, yes, if you are a Christian and you have thought yourself into believing that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

But what if you are a Buddhist?

Yet a careful perusal of the doctrine, at least in its elaboration in the early texts of Indian Buddhism, yields a thought-provoking picture which might contribute to our own thinking about ethics.

Thought-provoking is one thing. But how then are these thoughts made applicable to all of the terrible injustices that do occur day in and day out around the globe?

In India for example. Just ask the Muslims there of late.

What of karma then? With no God, what actual entity/mechanism/force are Buddhists relying on to make sure that karma is accounted for. Not just on this side of the grave but on the other side as well.

The source of the concept of karma appears to be the idea of karman in the Hindu scriptures the Vedas, where it refers to ritual acts. If the ritual gestures (karman) are performed correctly, the future is bright. It was the shramanas – countercultural philosophers, including the Buddha and Mahavira, the founder of Jainism – who transformed the idea to refer to human action in general.

Okay, let's go back to how Muslims have fared in India as a result of the coronavirus outbreak there: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/worl ... gotry.html

If you are a Buddhist, how, in your view, will karma be made applicable here? What of those who have persecuted the Muslims there? And what of those who have been persecuted by Muslims themselves elsewhere? Or those persecuted by Christians or any other religious denomination that throughout history has sustained one or another inquisition, crusade, jihad or holy war?

What "rituals" are required of the players here in order that their own future is bright? And that, when karma comes around, their future is brighter still. And that, when they die, the karma that is their fate in the afterlife also as bright as can be.

[felix dakat]

Is Karma a Law of Nature?
It seems Matthew Gindin is destined to ask, and answer, this question.

Karma is the concept that, eventually, ‘you get back what you give’. The idea that karma is an observable type of causality, just as gravity or the laws of thermodynamics are, might strike some as far-fetched. Isn’t karma a mere piece of wishful thinking or grim moralising which asserts, against all evidence, that the universe is just?

After all, most of us know from practical experience that over and over and over again, the fact that someone behaves in a manner that brings pain and suffering to others, does not entail that in the end it will all come back around to get him. Just look at what the rich and the powerful right here on planet Earth have been able to get away with now for centuries. Is the man who runs that despicable sweatshop in some Third World hellhole going to eventually get what's coming to him?

Well, yes, if you are a Christian and you have thought yourself into believing that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

But what if you are a Buddhist?

Yet a careful perusal of the doctrine, at least in its elaboration in the early texts of Indian Buddhism, yields a thought-provoking picture which might contribute to our own thinking about ethics.

Thought-provoking is one thing. But how then are these thoughts made applicable to all of the terrible injustices that do occur day in and day out around the globe?

In India for example. Just ask the Muslims there of late.

What of karma then? With no God, what actual entity/mechanism/force are Buddhists relying on to make sure that karma is accounted for. Not just on this side of the grave but on the other side as well.

The source of the concept of karma appears to be the idea of karman in the Hindu scriptures the Vedas, where it refers to ritual acts. If the ritual gestures (karman) are performed correctly, the future is bright. It was the shramanas – countercultural philosophers, including the Buddha and Mahavira, the founder of Jainism – who transformed the idea to refer to human action in general.

Okay, let's go back to how Muslims have fared in India as a result of the coronavirus outbreak there: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/worl ... gotry.html

If you are a Buddhist, how, in your view, will karma be made applicable here? What of those who have persecuted the Muslims there? And what of those who have been persecuted by Muslims themselves elsewhere? Or those persecuted by Christians or any other religious denomination that throughout history has sustained one or another inquisition, crusade, jihad or holy war?

What "rituals" are required of the players here in order that their own future is bright? And that, when karma comes around, their future is brighter still. And that, when they die, the karma that is their fate in the afterlife also as bright as can be.

Karma symbolizes ultimate justice.

[phyllo]

He's saying that he sees no ultimate justice and that there isn't any.

(In his own passive-aggressive way, of course.)

[felix dakat]

He's saying that he sees no ultimate justice and that there isn't any.

(In his own passive-aggressive way, of course.)

That there is or is not ultimate Justice would require a God's eye point of view. But there is Justice in Iambiguous' heart or he wouldn't have a problem with the fact that he cannot see it in the world. So did the authors of the Dhammapada, the Daodejing, and the Psalms of the Hebrew Bible.

[iambiguous]

Is Karma a Law of Nature?
It seems Matthew Gindin is destined to ask, and answer, this question.

Karma is the concept that, eventually, ‘you get back what you give’. The idea that karma is an observable type of causality, just as gravity or the laws of thermodynamics are, might strike some as far-fetched. Isn’t karma a mere piece of wishful thinking or grim moralising which asserts, against all evidence, that the universe is just?

After all, most of us know from practical experience that over and over and over again, the fact that someone behaves in a manner that brings pain and suffering to others, does not entail that in the end it will all come back around to get him. Just look at what the rich and the powerful right here on planet Earth have been able to get away with now for centuries. Is the man who runs that despicable sweatshop in some Third World hellhole going to eventually get what's coming to him?

Well, yes, if you are a Christian and you have thought yourself into believing that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

But what if you are a Buddhist?

Yet a careful perusal of the doctrine, at least in its elaboration in the early texts of Indian Buddhism, yields a thought-provoking picture which might contribute to our own thinking about ethics.

Thought-provoking is one thing. But how then are these thoughts made applicable to all of the terrible injustices that do occur day in and day out around the globe?

In India for example. Just ask the Muslims there of late.

What of karma then? With no God, what actual entity/mechanism/force are Buddhists relying on to make sure that karma is accounted for. Not just on this side of the grave but on the other side as well.

The source of the concept of karma appears to be the idea of karman in the Hindu scriptures the Vedas, where it refers to ritual acts. If the ritual gestures (karman) are performed correctly, the future is bright. It was the shramanas – countercultural philosophers, including the Buddha and Mahavira, the founder of Jainism – who transformed the idea to refer to human action in general.

Okay, let's go back to how Muslims have fared in India as a result of the coronavirus outbreak there: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/worl ... gotry.html

If you are a Buddhist, how, in your view, will karma be made applicable here? What of those who have persecuted the Muslims there? And what of those who have been persecuted by Muslims themselves elsewhere? Or those persecuted by Christians or any other religious denomination that throughout history has sustained one or another inquisition, crusade, jihad or holy war?

What "rituals" are required of the players here in order that their own future is bright? And that, when karma comes around, their future is brighter still. And that, when they die, the karma that is their fate in the afterlife also as bright as can be.

Karma symbolizes ultimate justice.

Sigh...

We'll need a context of course.

[iambiguous]

He's saying that he sees no ultimate justice and that there isn't any.

(In his own passive-aggressive way, of course.)

What I am proposing is that, given my attempts as a philosopher to probe the life that I have lived, I am no longer able to conclude that, re either a God or a No God moral and political narrative, an ultimate justice does in fact exist.

But: ultimate justice in regard to what particular human behaviors that come into conflict as a result of conflicting value judgments in what particular context?

Thus for those who believe that through the "real me" they have themselves come to conclude that ultimate justice does exist objectively in sync with their own understanding of "the right thing to do", let's focus in on experiences in their own life or situations we are all likely to be familiar with and explore this in conjunction with the components of our own moral philosophy.

As for my own so-called "passive-aggressive way", what on earth does that mean?

For example, in regard to the arguments I made in reacting to your views on Communism, how did I display this tendency then?

Finally, I always come back to the gap between what any of us think about these things here and now and all that can be known about them given a complete understanding of human interactions...given a complete understanding of existence itself.

[phyllo]

As for my own so-called "passive-aggressive way", what on earth does that mean?

It means that you put questions into your posts but they are not questions at all ... they are your statements, your assertions, your arguments.

It makes it look as if you are seeking answers when in fact you are simply telling people "how it is". It makes it look as if you are open, when you are closed off to their answers. It makes it look as if you are not an objectivist, when you are being one.

[iambiguous]

As for my own so-called "passive-aggressive way", what on earth does that mean?

It means that you put questions into your posts but they are not questions at all ... they are your statements, your assertions, your arguments.

It makes it look as if you are seeking answers when in fact you are simply telling people "how it is". It makes it look as if you are open, when you are closed off to their answers. It makes it look as if you are not an objectivist, when you are being one.

Again, note specific examples of this in regard to our exchanges about Communism. And note how you yourself in reacting to my points, did not do this in turn.

I wasn't telling people "how it is" in regard to Communism, abortion or to any other set of conflicting goods. I was suggesting only there appears [to me] to be a limit beyond which philosophers or ethicists or political scientists cannot go in pinning down [one way or the other] how all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think about these things.

That, instead, our reactions to these conflicts seem rooted more in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Oh, and what of all the other points I raised above?

[felix dakat]

Before justice/karma became a putatively objective religious doctrine it was a goddess.

[iambiguous]

How Does a Buddhist Monk Face Death?
An e-mail interview in the New York Times between George Yancy and Geshe Dadul Namgyal, a Tibetan Buddhist monk

Yancy: What do you think that we lose when we fail to look at death for what it is?

Namgyal: When we fail to look at death for what it is — as an inseparable part of life — and do not live our lives accordingly, our thoughts and actions become disconnected from reality and full of conflicting elements, which create unnecessary friction in their wake. We could mess up this wondrous gift or else settle for very shortsighted goals and trivial purposes, which would ultimately mean nothing to us. Eventually we would meet death as though we have never lived in the first place, with no clue as to what life is and how to deal with it.

If somehow you can take these words and make them useful...make them meaningful and relevant insofar as you react to your own death...then he has been successful in delivering his message.

But from my frame of mind, reading this sort of thing is the equivalent of encountering a Hallmark greeting card...or interpreting a numbingly vague horoscope in the newspaper. In terms of both life and death, it really tells me nothing at all.

Virtually anyone can read it and fit it snuggly into lives that from day to day span the entire moral and political spectrum. Almost any behaviors can be rationalized because who is to say what it means to be connected to reality. It doesn't even make the attempt to deal with the consequences of conflicting goods attached to one or another religious narrative that, down through the ages have precipiated all manner of ghastly human deaths.

It is just another "world of words" that some feel compelled to create and then sustain in their head because in there it really doesn't matter the extent to which the dots can be connected between the words and the world that we live in. Only that in believing them it makes you feel less disturbed and perturbed about all the terrible things that can unfold on this side of the grave by feeling so much better about all the wonderful things that will unfold on the other side of it.

And I suspect my own inflection here encompasses some measure of the bitterness I feel at having lost the capacity to think myself into believing it as well.

[felix dakat]

How Does a Buddhist Monk Face Death?
An e-mail interview in the New York Times between George Yancy and Geshe Dadul Namgyal, a Tibetan Buddhist monk

Yancy: What do you think that we lose when we fail to look at death for what it is?

Namgyal: When we fail to look at death for what it is — as an inseparable part of life — and do not live our lives accordingly, our thoughts and actions become disconnected from reality and full of conflicting elements, which create unnecessary friction in their wake. We could mess up this wondrous gift or else settle for very shortsighted goals and trivial purposes, which would ultimately mean nothing to us. Eventually we would meet death as though we have never lived in the first place, with no clue as to what life is and how to deal with it.

If somehow you can take these words and make them useful...make them meaningful and relevant insofar as you react to your own death...then he has been successful in delivering his message.

But from my frame of mind, reading this sort of thing is the equivalent of encountering a Hallmark greeting card...or interpreting a numbingly vague horoscope in the newspaper. In terms of both life and death, it really tells me nothing at all.

Virtually anyone can read it and fit it snuggly into lives that from day to day span the entire moral and political spectrum. Almost any behaviors can be rationalized because who is to say what it means to be connected to reality. It doesn't even make the attempt to deal with the consequences of conflicting goods attached to one or another religious narrative that, down through the ages have precipiated all manner of ghastly human deaths.

It is just another "world of words" that some feel compelled to create and then sustain in their head because in there it really doesn't matter the extent to which the dots can be connected between the words and the world that we live in. Only that in believing them it makes you feel less disturbed and perturbed about all the terrible things that can unfold on this side of the grave by feeling so much better about all the wonderful things that will unfold on the other side of it.

And I suspect my own inflection here encompasses some measure of the bitterness I feel at having lost the capacity to think myself into believing it as well.

You're obsessed by tropes that you want others to believe that you don't believe and you're too complex to understand yourself.

[iambiguous]

You're obsessed by tropes that you want others to believe that you don't believe and you're too complex to understand yourself.

You forgot this:

Right?

[Karpel Tunnel]

It is just another "world of words"

So, we have a Buddhist 'wall of words', which is associated with practices that have scientfic support that they help people

and we have your wall of words here, your practice, that has no backing behind it at all, scientific of otherwise. Yet you continue to produce your wall of words and will not try something that has more evidence behind it than your current behavior.

From here you 'make them the issue' which you just as not good when aimed at you, but par for your behavior aimed at others. That's a context, and one in which you engage in at least two types of hypocrisy in a single post.

that some feel compelled to create and then sustain in their head because in there it really doesn't matter the extent to which the dots can be connected between the words and the world that we live in. Only that in believing them it makes you feel less disturbed and perturbed about all the terrible things that can unfold on this side of the grave by feeling so much better about all the wonderful things that will unfold on the other side of it.

And I suspect my own inflection here encompasses some measure of the bitterness I feel at having lost the capacity to think myself into believing it as well.

That's a context relevant to your pain and bitterness. It's your context.

[felix dakat]

You're obsessed by tropes that you want others to believe that you don't believe and you're too complex to understand yourself.

You forgot this:

Right?

Maybe if you can convince others that you don't believe, it will help you overcome your fear that there may be an afterlife. ( Shrug.)