I don't get Buddhism

[iambiguous]

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.

Sigh...

World of words, not wall. If you can even grasp the distinction.

I have noted on a number of posts above that Buddhism has helped many people to attain and then to sustain a disciplined, constructive frame of mind in their interactions with others from day to day.

My "thing" with religion however revolves far more around the existential relationship between morality on this side of the grave and immortality on the other side of it. As that relates to the extent to which any religious denomination is able to demonstrate [to me] that what they believe about this relationship is in fact true. True for all men and women who wish to be thought of as rational, as enlightened, as virtuous human beings.

Out in a particular set of circumstances where moral and political conflicts are rife. As a result of either God or No God moral narratives and political agendas.

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.

The "issue" for me is always moral and political objectivism. And it's inherent danger when either God or No God objectivists have been able to gain access to the power necessary to act on their conviction that those who are not "one of us" are the enemy. Cue human history for example.

At the same time, I am more than willing to concede that moral nihilism, whether embodied by the "show me the money" folks who own and operate the global economy, or by those individuals -- sociopaths among others -- who act on the moral dictum that "in the absence of God all things are permitted", can be equally if not even more dangerous given particular sets of circumstances.

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.

Yep, that's what I think alright. You know, here and now.

[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?

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.)

Once again, Huh?!

My whole point is that my own argument here is just another existential contraption rooted in dasein. I can't even convince myself that it reflects the optimal manner in which to grasp human interactions and "I" going back to whatever the explanation is for existence itself. Let alone that it reflects the most rational manner in which to think about the afterlife.

And where on earth did you pick up on the idea that I fear there is an afterlife?

Hell, I can't even think myself into believing that beyond all doubt I have free will in regard to anything at all.

I merely speculate that your own peace of mind here is predicated not on what you yourself can demonstrate is true but only on that which you have managed to think up in your own head is true.

But, fuck that, right? As long as you can keep it up. All the way to the grave if possible.

Only I have to say that in discussing these things with me, you are rolling the dice.

After all, what if my points start to actually sink in?

[felix dakat]

Are you joking? Do you really imagine you're bringing something new to me? Do you suppose that your caricature of a religion is a threat to me? I've stared into the abyss. You've said nothing new to me. My image of you is a lonely man walking backwards like a crab crying for others to join him in his absurd retreat from betterment. Why? I'm thinking cowardice. Courage isn't a theme that I've seen you address.

[iambiguous]

Are you joking? Do you really imagine you're bringing something new to me? Do you suppose that your caricature of a religion is a threat to me? I've stared into the abyss. You've said nothing new to me. My image of you is a lonely man walking backwards like a crab crying for others to join him in his absurd retreat from betterment. Why? I'm thinking cowardice. Courage isn't a theme that I've seen you address.

Of course you're only paraphrasing Karpel Tunnel, right?

On the other hand, does he know that?

[felix dakat]

Are you joking? Do you really imagine you're bringing something new to me? Do you suppose that your caricature of a religion is a threat to me? I've stared into the abyss. You've said nothing new to me. My image of you is a lonely man walking backwards like a crab crying for others to join him in his absurd retreat from betterment. Why? I'm thinking cowardice. Courage isn't a theme that I've seen you address.

Of course you're only paraphrasing Karpel Tunnel, right?

On the other hand, does he know that?

Those were my thoughts. They had nothing to do with Karpal Tunnel. If our observations sound similar perhaps it's because they're converging on the same object i.e. you.

[felix dakat]

Buddha declined every request for a positive description of Nirvana, the unconditioned, insisting that it was "incomprehensible, indescribable, inconceivable, and unutterable".

[Karpel Tunnel]

Sigh...

World of words, not wall. If you can even grasp the distinction.

Yes, I typed the wrong word, but, wow. World of words is even better. It perfectly encapsulates your modus operandi, which you occasionally defend as the only one left to you because of your lack of mobility, even though that excuse is patently false. They would come to you. Practices can be engaged in, often, where you are with phone call or other guidance. You could check off many items on that list. You could start to go through them. You could ADD other approaches, a little bit, to what you have now, without stopping your so far failing approach that has no scientific backing.

Yet you keep using a method that has not worked, based only on words, rather than try things that have some scientific backing, that involve encounters with others, physical practices, participation without words, or with both words and action.

You expect to learn and change via and only via words on a screen. Learning not by doing, not via engagement, not by practices, but through a world of words only, in a process that that has not made any changes in a decade in, for example, your F&F.

Perfect, even better, thank you for the term. It fits you to a T.

You do understand that integrity includes being able to admit specific errors.

Tossing in, occasionally, that you might be wrong, in the abstract, is facile compared to actually being able to own up to your own specific BS in an interaction.

But you keep using that solely word-based modus for learning and change, while at the same time accusing others of being in a world of words, Mr Only Words On A Screen.

(and yes, duh, we are only words on a screen here, but the world of words is not the limit to how we learn and change)

Your criticisms fit your posts and approach much better than anyone else's posts and approach.

And you tell people with actual experience of the things you only know through words on a screen (or in judgements people you met once thirty years ago) about THEIR world of words. Sink calling the bathtub white. Wait. Sink calling the multicolored tiles white.

(your summation of the benefits of Buddhism is, by the way, a very poor one)

[iambiguous]

Buddha declined every request for a positive description of Nirvana, the unconditioned, insisting that it was "incomprehensible, indescribable, inconceivable, and unutterable".

How convenient. On the other hand, as long as it existed for him "in his head", he could go on taking comfort in the fact that even though, like everyone else, he would tumble over into the abyss that is death, there it was -- Nirvana! -- waiting for him on the other side.

Indeed, that's the part I do get about Buddhism. All a Buddhist has to do is to believe in Nirvana. That is what makes it real. Much like those who embrace Western faiths believe in Heaven. Much like those of all the other religious denominations who wallow blissfully in their own equivalent of salvation.

It's just that when it comes to the part where I ask Buddhists to connect the dots existentially between morality on this side of the grave and immortality on the other side, they fall back only on what they believe about karma, enlightenment, reincarnation and Nirvana.

Then all they need but do is to ask me about my own fractured and fragmented reaction to an essentially meaningless world that ends in the obliteration of "I" for all of eternity.

Right?

And all I can note here is that, just like them, this is merely something that, as a particular dasein, "I" have come to believe in turn. Like them, I have no capacity to actually demonstrate that what I believe is true.

It's just that I happen to believe it is far more incumbent upon those who claim the existence of something to prove that in fact it does exist. Rather than for others to prove that it doesn't exist instead.

But, no doubt about it, you are comforted and consoled here and I am not. And, yes, I wish I could think myself into believing in something that would comfort and console me too.

So, sure, revel in your "for all practical purposes" victory. However much it is manufactured only in your head.

[felix dakat]

Buddha declined every request for a positive description of Nirvana, the unconditioned, insisting that it was "incomprehensible, indescribable, inconceivable, and unutterable".

How convenient. On the other hand, as long as it existed for him "in his head", he could go on taking comfort in the fact that even though, like everyone else, he would tumble over into the abyss that is death, there it was -- Nirvana! -- waiting for him on the other side.

Indeed, that's the part I do get about Buddhism. All a Buddhist has to do is to believe in Nirvana. That is what makes it real. Much like those who embrace Western faiths believe in Heaven. Much like those of all the other religious denominations who wallow blissfully in their own equivalent of salvation.

It's just that when it comes to the part where I ask Buddhists to connect the dots existentially between morality on this side of the grave and immortality on the other side, they fall back only on what they believe about karma, enlightenment, reincarnation and Nirvana.

Then all they need but do is to ask me about my own fractured and fragmented reaction to an essentially meaningless world that ends in the obliteration of "I" for all of eternity.

Right?

And all I can note here is that, just like them, this is merely something that, as a particular dasein, "I" have come to believe in turn. Like them, I have no capacity to actually demonstrate that what I believe is true.

It's just that I happen to believe it is far more incumbent upon those who claim the existence of something to prove that in fact it does exist. Rather than for others to prove that it doesn't exist instead.

But, no doubt about it, you are comforted and consoled here and I am not. And, yes, I wish I could think myself into believing in something that would comfort and console me too.

So, sure, revel in your "for all practical purposes" victory. However much it is manufactured only in your head.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” When you stop believing your caricature of religion, reality will be there.

[iambiguous]

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” When you stop believing your caricature of religion, reality will be there.

And, after all, you are a janitor.

You know, like Will Hunting.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Buddha declined every request for a positive description of Nirvana, the unconditioned, insisting that it was "incomprehensible, indescribable, inconceivable, and unutterable".

How convenient.

You just ascribed motive. You get that, right? You, as usual, implicitly claimed to know why he said that. Of course you know nothing about Buddhism so you have no context for his assertion. But you're not interested. Which is convenient, because when you don't something about a subject you are not interested in, that puts a lot of emphasis on practice to aid undertanding, you can always mind read dead people. It's their fault you're ignorant or they are scamming.

On the other hand, as long as it existed for him "in his head", he could go on taking comfort in the fact that even though, like everyone else, he would tumble over into the abyss that is death, there it was -- Nirvana! -- waiting for him on the other side.

This just shows, again, that you know nothing about the subject. Wake up in Nirvana when he dies, duh. More mind reading here, also, as if you know things.

Indeed, that's the part I do get about Buddhism. All a Buddhist has to do is to believe in Nirvana.

Actually no, that's more than slightly confused.

That is what makes it real. Much like those who embrace Western faiths believe in Heaven. Much like those of all the other religious denominations who wallow blissfully in their own equivalent of salvation.

Nope.

It's just that when it comes to the part where I ask Buddhists to connect the dots existentially between morality int cont this side of the grave and immortality on the other side, they fall back only on what they believe about karma, enlightenment, reincarnation and Nirvana.

Some may do this, sure. But most probably find someone who is not interested in Buddhism, acting like he not only does know things know specific things about Buddhism which he does not, like the dumb quotes above, who tells why they believe what they believe, and what is going on in their minds.

Then all they need but do is to ask me about my own fractured and fragmented reaction to an essentially meaningless world that ends in the obliteration of "I" for all of eternity.

I don't think many would consider that a need.

Right?

And all I can note here is that, just like them, this is merely something that, as a particular dasein, "I" have come to believe in turn. Like them, I have no capacity to actually demonstrate that what I believe is true.

Which ironically serves as a basis for insulting people, 'reading' their minds and misrepresenting their religion.

It's just that I happen to believe it is far more incumbent upon those who claim the existence of something to prove that in fact it does exist. Rather than for others to prove that it doesn't exist instead.

Anyone who makes a claim gathers some onus to demonstrate their claim, positive, negative, whatever.

But, no doubt about it, you are comforted and consoled here and I am not. And, yes, I wish I could think myself into believing in something that would comfort and console me too.

Well, you may be suffering more, but you console yourself all the time here that you are the brave one, probably, facing the harsh epistemological situations we are in and the upcoming death. You also, with regularly, console yourself that, when criticized, you have never done anything anyone points out.

So, sure, revel in your "for all practical purposes" victory. However much it is manufactured only in your head.

Shit, I was just about to say that to you.

You're like a five year old who finds an adult book on, you pick the subject, and starts telling the adults the psychology of the people who wrote the books on subjects the kid has never studied nor has he ever participated in the activities necessary to understand the subject.

[iambiguous]

Sigh...

World of words, not wall. If you can even grasp the distinction.

Yes, I typed the wrong word, but, wow. World of words is even better. It perfectly encapsulates your modus operandi, which you occasionally defend as the only one left to you because of your lack of mobility, even though that excuse is patently false. They would come to you. Practices can be engaged in, often, where you are with phone call or other guidance. You could check off many items on that list. You could start to go through them. You could ADD other approaches, a little bit, to what you have now, without stopping your so far failing approach that has no scientific backing.

Great. A new world of words allowing us to grapple with his old world of words.

Then, what else, another world of words to make absolutely certain that you understand that I and I alone am the problem here.

Yet you keep using a method that has not worked, based only on words, rather than try things that have some scientific backing, that involve encounters with others, physical practices, participation without words, or with both words and action.

You expect to learn and change via and only via words on a screen. Learning not by doing, not via engagement, not by practices, but through a world of words only, in a process that that has not made any changes in a decade in, for example, your F&F.

Perfect, even better, thank you for the term. It fits you to a T.

You do understand that integrity includes being able to admit specific errors.

Tossing in, occasionally, that you might be wrong, in the abstract, is facile compared to actually being able to own up to your own specific BS in an interaction.

But you keep using that solely word-based modus for learning and change, while at the same time accusing others of being in a world of words, Mr Only Words On A Screen.

(and yes, duh, we are only words on a screen here, but the world of words is not the limit to how we learn and change)

Your criticisms fit your posts and approach much better than anyone else's posts and approach.

And you tell people with actual experience of the things you only know through words on a screen (or in judgements people you met once thirty years ago) about THEIR world of words. Sink calling the bathtub white. Wait. Sink calling the multicolored tiles white.

(your summation of the benefits of Buddhism is, by the way, a very poor one)

We'll need a context of course

Note to others:

What is it about me that reconfigures him into this sniveling caricature of a philosopher? Then reducing me down to much the same.

Again, I think it's a personal problem. And, he'll either get to that or he won't.

Until then it's "Fish: like shooting Karpel Tunnels in a barrel".

Philosophically as it were.



He earned that, right?

[felix dakat]

Suppose Buddha was nothing but a man who saw the suffering of the world and and tried to eliminate the unnecessary suffering that he saw. Suppose that people who follow his teachings are happier than they would be if they didn't. What other than sheer malevolence would cause someone to attack Buddha or those who follow his teachings? Only someone who thought she had a better way would be justified in criticizing Buddhism. A miserable person who thought that Buddhism didn't help would be motivated by evil if they sought to bring those who thought they were benefiting from it down to his level of misery. Iambiguous?

[iambiguous]

Suppose Buddha was nothing but a man who saw the suffering of the world and and tried to eliminate the unnecessary suffering that he saw. Suppose that people who follow his teachings are happier than they would be if they didn't. What other than sheer malevolence would cause someone to attack Buddha or those who follow his teachings? Only someone who thought she had a better way would be justified in criticizing Buddhism. A miserable person who thought that Buddhism didn't help would be motivated by evil if they sought to bring those who thought they were benefiting from it down to his level of misery. Iambiguous?

Look, if it gives you a smug satisfaction to portray me in this manner, fine. If it gives you a comforting and consoling contentment in portraying Buddha as you do, fine too.

On the other hand, other religious denominations will still go on insisting that until Buddhists accept their own faith, they will attain neither immortality nor salvation.

They will be left behind.

Why? Because what is religion if not something that was invented in order to connect the dots existentially between morality on this side of the grave and immortality on the other side. Cue, for example, human history to date.

The stakes here could not possibly be more substantial. Right?

And then there are those folks who insist that much of human suffering is embedded in political economy. That the rich and the powerful rig the system so that the biggest swaths of society suffer considerably more than others. That religion is just an "opiate" preventing these folks from rising up politically and changing the way things are.

But: No little fluffy clouds here, right?

Besides, what I ask of Buddhists is what I ask of all religionists: Where's the beef?

Where is the demonstration that what they believe in their head is in fact in sync with that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Again, with so much at stake!

[Karpel Tunnel]

Because what is religion if not something that was invented in order to connect the dots existentially between morality on this side of the grave and immortality on the other side. Cue, for example, human history to date.

For a fractured and fragmented guy, you sure have no trouble making ridiculous generalizations about things you know little about without qualifying your speculation. Here you batch religions around a very narrow idea of what religion does and one that doesn't fit some religions well at all - many versions of Hinduism and even objective forms of Buddhism do not fit this. Or that there is anything remotely like heaven in other traditions or immortality in any sense that wouldn't scare the shit out of most Westerners since you don't continue to exist. Your obsession with morality as a way to earn something - a very Western and really rather immoral attitude in most systems of morality - is being projected onto areas of life you are ignorant about. Your summation here also assumes you beliefs not only about the religions themselves, what they are for, but the motives of people lot dead. It's just an amazing bunch of implicit claims from someone who expects others to demonstrate stuff so every rational person on earth must agree.

Why do you allow yourself to spread a bunch of bullshit, when you expect others to create arguments with magical universal force?

This is generally called hypocrisy. And with good reason-

Besides, what I ask of Buddhists is what I ask of all religionists: Where's the beef?

Where is the demonstration that what they believe in their head is in fact in sync with that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Again, with so much at stake!

If you actually believed so much was at stake you'd try some stuff.

And where's the beef that your approach is a good one?

One is always faced with choosing between approaches and choosing not to try/add on other approaches.

You, however, want to be convinced, through the work of others, how you should behavior to earn immortality. Even many Christian moralities would consider this an unlikely way to get into Heaven.

In any case:You are whining here as if others are responsible for your trying things. They're not. You're not interested.

[felix dakat]

https://youtu.be/heSq98tNTlM

A dialogue between Robert Wright who wrote "Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment" and Evan Thompson who wrote "Why I Am Not A Buddhist". Wright advocates a secular, Westernized form of Buddhism focusing on the practice of mindfulness meditation and stripped of supernatural beliefs such as reincarnation. Thompson argues against what he calls Buddhist exceptionalism, "the belief that Buddhism is superior to other religions...or that Buddhism isn't really a religion but rather is a kind of "mind science," therapy, philosophy, or a way of life based on meditation. Insofar as I practice Buddhist meditation, I am more aligned with Robert Wright's way of thinking on this. Neither he nor I call ourselves Buddhists.

[iambiguous]

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

For the Buddha, karma, which literally means ‘action’, was part of the compound idea of karmavipaka (action and result), one of the key aspects of his teaching. The Buddha taught that karma was cetana – action was intention – and that the intentional quality of actions determines their results: whether they lead to well-being or to suffering.

Did the Buddha actually provide us with any specific examples of how "action and result" manifested themselves as karma given concrete actions that he took precipitating concrete results.

My problem with karma revolves around the extent to which it either is or is not another manifestation of determinism.

Consider:

Karma: (in Hinduism and Buddhism) the sum of a person's actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences.

The key word being "fate". Fate as in fatalism? Or does "what goes around comes around" in regard to the relationship between our past, present and future experiences involve some measure of autonomy? If some, how much?

Intention [to me] implies autonomy. Unless what we perceive to be our intention is really just a manifestation instead of the psychological illusion of intending freely. But let those here who believe in karma explain in more detail how this actually all works for them in terms of their own experiences involving actions that they have choosen and results that followed. Does what follows follow only because it must follow or does what follows follow because you freely chose this action instead of that.

To me, it is analoguous to those you claim that the heavenly bodies are instrumental in determining our future...but that somehow "I" is in there apart from all that. How with any specificity is a distinction made here?

The part that the author does not touch on at all:

Thus, for the Buddha, it is the quality of character, of the life of one’s mind, that determines one’s future. (This is reminiscent of Heraclitus’s dictum that ethos is telos: character is destiny.) The Buddha taught that intentions rooted in greed, hatred and confusion lead to suffering; and those rooted in non-greed (for instance, patience, calm, generosity), non-hatred (goodwill, compassion, empathy), and non-confusion (knowledge, clarity, rationality), lead to well-being. This will probably make a general kind of common sense to most people. But is it a principle worth elevating to the status of a law of nature?

What qualities in what minds revolving around what characteristics? In what set of circumstances?

Is character literally destiny? If so what role does "I" play in creating and then sustaining it?

And, on the contrary, in some situations, for some people, greed and hatred do not lead to confusion and suffering. And greed and hatred in regard to what particular situation viewed from what vantage point? Again, it's this "one size fits all" mentality that religious leaders often try to foist on the flocks that concerns me.

And the gap between "common sense" and a "principle worth elevating to the status of a law", has always varied profoundly across the course of human interactions historically, culturally and experientially.

But the whole point for any number of religious denominations is to not go there at all. Why? Because, in my view, the further you go down that path the closer you get to mine.

[iambiguous]

Because what is religion if not something that was invented in order to connect the dots existentially between morality on this side of the grave and immortality on the other side. Cue, for example, human history to date.

For a fractured and fragmented guy, you sure have no trouble making ridiculous generalizations about things you know little about without qualifying your speculation. Here you batch religions around a very narrow idea of what religion does and one that doesn't fit some religions well at all - many versions of Hinduism and even objective forms of Buddhism do not fit this.

Our problem here is in how each of us make a distinction between "I" in the either/or world and "I" in the is/ought world. I don't feel at all fractured and fragmented in observing that down through the ages, God and religion have in fact been used re one manifestation or another [culturally] to connect the dots between how one is expected/obligated to behave on this side of the grave in order to be judged favorably by God on the other side.

How is that not basically religion in a nutshell?

Now, with Buddhism, no God. But with Buddhism you still have reincarnation and Nirvana. And somehow their understanding of "enlightenment" and "karma" are connected to them.

Well, how?

As with Western religions, I am most interested in why particular behaviors are chosen by Buddhists "here and now" as this portends the fate of "I" there and then.

Out in a particular context where karma is examined given the existential relationship between enlightenment and conflicting goods. And where karma is examined given the existential relationship between "I" before and after death.

Or that there is anything remotely like heaven in other traditions or immortality in any sense that wouldn't scare the shit out of most Westerners since you don't continue to exist. Your obsession with morality as a way to earn something - a very Western and really rather immoral attitude in most systems of morality - is being projected onto areas of life you are ignorant about. Your summation here also assumes you beliefs not only about the religions themselves, what they are for, but the motives of people lot dead. It's just an amazing bunch of implicit claims from someone who expects others to demonstrate stuff so every rational person on earth must agree.

Again: For the Buddhist, in what context? How would this "general description intellectual contraption" of yours be applicable for the Buddhist faced with choosing an enlightened behavior here and now in this or that set of circumstances so that his or her understanding of karma is in sync with his or her understanding of "beyond the grave"?

Let the Buddhists here take us into their heads when, like the rest of us, they are confronted with situations in which value judgments are clearly in conflict depending on one's moral, political or religious beliefs.

Just as one would imagine that all Kantians would agree on those behaviors all rational and virtuous men and women are categorically and imperatively obligated to pursue, should one imagine in turn that all Buddhists are in agreement as to which behaviors are enlightened? Or are there degrees of enlightenment corresponding with levels of reincarnation. Behave over all in a less enlightened way and you come back as insects?

Again, how exactly does that work out in the world of human interactions? And how do the Buddhists go about convincing me -- demonstrating to me -- that it does in fact work that way?

Here on this thread what can they provide me with that might motivate me to go further in exploring their sense of reality?

But now on to your main point:

Why do you allow yourself to spread a bunch of bullshit, when you expect others to create arguments with magical universal force?

This is generally called hypocrisy. And with good reason-

It's all about me. I'm the problem. And yet over and again I ask you to focus in on a context, on a set of behaviors. We exchange our philosophical and experiential reactions and you are there to point out more specifically when I am spreading a bunch of bullshit hypocritically.

You pick the context and the conflicting goods. I'll react to them given the components of my moral philosophy and you'll react to them given yours.

Instead, around and around you go:

Besides, what I ask of Buddhists is what I ask of all religionists: Where's the beef?

Where is the demonstration that what they believe in their head is in fact in sync with that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Again, with so much at stake!

If you actually believed so much was at stake you'd try some stuff.

I've addressed this point over and again above. And turned it around and asked you what you are doing to pin down your own conviction that morality is not objective and that death appears to = oblivion.

I also noted how the very different lives we live might prompt us to view all of this differently. You know, the part embodied in dasein.

And where's the beef that your approach is a good one?

It's contained in my assessment of my own moral perspective on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

And this is the part where -- again! -- I ask you to in turn note the manner in which your own moral/religious views are intertwined in both your life experiences and your attempt to grapple with it all philosophically.

And I would never argue that my approach is a good one. At least not in the sense that this implies that those who do not share my own assessment here are engaging bad ones.

Instead, my arguments here are no less existential contraptions than your own. We just react to that very, very differently.

[felix dakat]

Because what is religion if not something that was invented in order to connect the dots existentially between morality on this side of the grave and immortality on the other side. Cue, for example, human history to date.

For a fractured and fragmented guy, you sure have no trouble making ridiculous generalizations about things you know little about without qualifying your speculation. Here you batch religions around a very narrow idea of what religion does and one that doesn't fit some religions well at all - many versions of Hinduism and even objective forms of Buddhism do not fit this.

Our problem here is in how each of us make a distinction between "I" in the either/or world and "I" in the is/ought world. I don't feel at all fractured and fragmented in observing that down through the ages, God and religion have in fact been used re one manifestation or another [culturally] to connect the dots between how one is expected/obligated to behave on this side of the grave in order to be judged favorably by God on the other side.

How is that not basically religion in a nutshell?

Now, with Buddhism, no God. But with Buddhism you still have reincarnation and Nirvana. And somehow their understanding of "enlightenment" and "karma" are connected to them.

Well, how?

As with Western religions, I am most interested in why particular behaviors are chosen by Buddhists "here and now" as this portends the fate of "I" there and then.

Out in a particular context where karma is examined given the existential relationship between enlightenment and conflicting goods. And where karma is examined given the existential relationship between "I" before and after death.

Or that there is anything remotely like heaven in other traditions or immortality in any sense that wouldn't scare the shit out of most Westerners since you don't continue to exist. Your obsession with morality as a way to earn something - a very Western and really rather immoral attitude in most systems of morality - is being projected onto areas of life you are ignorant about. Your summation here also assumes you beliefs not only about the religions themselves, what they are for, but the motives of people lot dead. It's just an amazing bunch of implicit claims from someone who expects others to demonstrate stuff so every rational person on earth must agree.

Again: For the Buddhist, in what context? How would this "general description intellectual contraption" of yours be applicable for the Buddhist faced with choosing an enlightened behavior here and now in this or that set of circumstances so that his or her understanding of karma is in sync with his or her understanding of "beyond the grave"?

Let the Buddhists here take us into their heads when, like the rest of us, they are confronted with situations in which value judgments are clearly in conflict depending on one's moral, political or religious beliefs.

Just as one would imagine that all Kantians would agree on those behaviors all rational and virtuous men and women are categorically and imperatively obligated to pursue, should one imagine in turn that all Buddhists are in agreement as to which behaviors are enlightened? Or are there degrees of enlightenment corresponding with levels of reincarnation. Behave over all in a less enlightened way and you come back as insects?

Again, how exactly does that work out in the world of human interactions? And how do the Buddhists go about convincing me -- demonstrating to me -- that it does in fact work that way?

Here on this thread what can they provide me with that might motivate me to go further in exploring their sense of reality?

But now on to your main point:

Why do you allow yourself to spread a bunch of bullshit, when you expect others to create arguments with magical universal force?

This is generally called hypocrisy. And with good reason-

It's all about me. I'm the problem. And yet over and again I ask you to focus in on a context, on a set of behaviors. We exchange our philosophical and experiential reactions and you are there to point out more specifically when I am spreading a bunch of bullshit hypocritically.

You pick the context and the conflicting goods. I'll react to them given the components of my moral philosophy and you'll react to them given yours.

Instead, around and around you go:

Besides, what I ask of Buddhists is what I ask of all religionists: Where's the beef?

Where is the demonstration that what they believe in their head is in fact in sync with that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Again, with so much at stake!

If you actually believed so much was at stake you'd try some stuff.

I've addressed this point over and again above. And turned it around and asked you what you are doing to pin down your own conviction that morality is not objective and that death appears to = oblivion.

I also noted how the very different lives we live might prompt us to view all of this differently. You know, the part embodied in dasein.

And where's the beef that your approach is a good one?

It's contained in my assessment of my own moral perspective on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

And this is the part where -- again! -- I ask you to in turn note the manner in which your own moral/religious views are intertwined in both your life experiences and your attempt to grapple with it all philosophically.

And I would never argue that my approach is a good one. At least not in the sense that this implies that those who do not share my own assessment here are engaging bad ones.

Instead, my arguments here are no less existential contraptions than your own. We just react to that very, very differently.

How do we know that your problem with karma isn't really that you've done some horrible shit in your life for which you don't want to be held accountable?

[iambiguous]

How do we know that your problem with karma isn't really that you've done some horrible shit in your life for which you don't want to be held accountable?

You tell me: How could we know?

[felix dakat]

How do we know that your problem with karma isn't really that you've done some horrible shit in your life for which you don't want to be held accountable?

You tell me: How could we know?

One of us actually does know.

[iambiguous]

How do we know that your problem with karma isn't really that you've done some horrible shit in your life for which you don't want to be held accountable?

You tell me: How could we know?

One of us actually does know.

Okay, how can we determine who that is?

Objectively for example.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Okay, how can we determine who that is?

Objectively for example.

If the person is you, then potentially you are conscious of this. That's generally something one can take as objective even if one cannot demonstrate it to others. IOW if you feel guilty about horrible things you done, you don't really need to question if you really feel guilty about horrible things you've done. One could bring in a radical skepticism and doubt your own sense of your own feeling of guilt. But then, once you get to that level of skepticism, you could also doubt all of science, since you might be reading it in a dream. So you could know, if the one person is you.

[felix dakat]

Okay, how can we determine who that is?

Objectively for example.

Ha ha. You're feigning ignorance. It seems I struck a nerve. Actually, you proved my point. You evade subjecting your own behavior to evaluation. There is the motivation for your nihilism. Better to deny all objective standards then to apply any of them to yourself. Hence your obsession with undermining religion as you understand it.

[iambiguous]

Ha ha. You're feigning ignorance. It seems I struck a nerve. Actually, you proved my point. You invade subjecting your own behavior to evaluation. There is the motivation for your nihilism. Better to deny all objective standards then to apply any of them to yourself. Hence your obsession with undermining religion as you understand it.

You forgot this: