Back to Buddhism :
people drawn to buddhism are usually either experiencing some kind of economic hardship or they’re just interested in it because it’s a designer religion that gives them a feeling of culture and depth (that isn’t there). and, so long as it still exists, it will serve only as a distraction… away from things which, ironically, are part of the very circumstances that cause their attention to be drawn to it (in the case that they aren’t just religious tourists).
That’s the idea that the problems are outside of you and so are the solutions to those problems. Political action is the way to proceed.
Religions are the opium of the people. They keep people distracted, busy, wasting their time and energy.
I recall that Biggus also expressed that sentiment.
Is that a part of nihilism?
Sorry to break the news to you, but none of that is relevant or applies to a practitioner born into a practising environment… so a way of every day life, for such families and communities.
I would then say, that you are looking at it from an externalised viewpoint, as opposed to allowing the self to become entrenched in the concept… as the only thing the practitioner seeks is stillness of mind.
You are thinking about it in Western terms and analogies. Religions are belief systems, that you gotta buy into to believe in… with meditation and mindfulness, there is nothing to buy into.
I would say that it’s not about meaning, but about having control and direction of one’s own thoughts, as opposed to being ruled by them, and nurturing the ones that have utility. I would say that that is what non-practitioners can’t get, in not letting one’s problems cloud one’s judgment and interactions. Too many have been guilty of that.
…from within, which then manifests outwardly, with every interaction we have.
Attitude? Practice erases unnecessary thoughts and habits, so call it a detox for the mind… if you will. A seasoned practitioner can automatically reset their thinking habits at will, so as to be constantly operating from a place of mindfulness… and so the practice has become second nature, hardwired into the mind.
which part? calling bollocks for what it is, or criticizing the reasons why people believe in the bollocks? this is more along the lines of skepticism than nihilism, though. if there is any nihilism happening here, it’s probably from biggs (and myself to a degree) standing aghast at the sight of all this. it’s enough to make you lose all hope. i mean look at poor biggs. he’s been asking for a particular context for what, three years now? and all he keeps getting are the same redundant generalizations… or statements so obscure they make hegel and heidegger look like third grade english teachers.
really though there’s no such thing as ‘nihilism’. nihilism is kinda like skeptical existentialism with an attitude, you might say. it doesn’t ‘deny all values’ because that’s impossible. think of it as hume on adderall, instead.
Do they? What, when, where, how, why? Under what set of circumstances?
Okay, you and others come to a conclusion about that. Me, what I am then interested in [in regard to religion] is how that conclusion “in your head” is intertwined in your interactions with others. In particular as this relates to a context in which value judgments [derived from religion] come into conflict with the value judgments of others [derived from religion or not] such that you find yourself having to choose a behavior that you are able to reconcile with what you believe God or your religious faith demands of you in order to sustain “I” beyond the grave.
But: that’s just me here. That’s what I am interested in. Why? Because from my frame of mind “here and now”, in regard to all of this, my “I” is fractured and fragmented. My “I” thinks that in a No God/No Nirvana world, my interactions with others are embedded existentially in subjective/subjunctive fabrications/constructions rooted historically, culturally and experientially in dasein rooted in an essentially meaningless world. And that, in the end, “I” will topple over into oblivion.
So, sure, I come here and ask those who don’t think like I do, to explain why perhaps I should think like they do instead. It’s just that, based on my many, many experiences with many, many objectivists over the years, it is my frame of mind that starts to upend theirs.
Then comes the huffing and puffing, the retorts, the name calling, the making me the issue. Some – like phoneutria and tab of late – not only “foe” me, but encourage others to foe me too.
After all, look what is at stake for them here in regard to their own “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do”. All the comfort and consolation that they sustain in believing this. Either through God or one or another secular font.
And I know this because I was once one of them myself. First as a fierce Christian, then as a fierce Socialist.
I know what is at stake here. But, who knows, given my own philosophical assumptions, maybe someone will actually be able to bring some of it back.
Yep, that’s how it works for me. As a moral nihilist [here and now], I don’t believe there is a God or a religious narrative or an enlightened point of view that would enable me to distinguish between right and wrong behavior on this side of the grave so as to sustain “I” on the other side of the grave.
That’s it. That’s my own personal proclivity at the intersection of philosophy and theology and science.
And either someone is able to demonstrate to me why I should think and feel and say and do the things that they do in regard to this utterly fundamental aspect of the human condition, or I am not likely to be impressed.
Now, here, you and I are both “pragmatists”. But: my own rendition of pragmatism seems to leave me a considerably more “fractured and fragmented” “I” than yours does. That’s the part with you that interest me. But only out in the world relating to a particular context in which you and I both react to conflicting goods at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments and political power.
Right, back to this again. But I can then point out that you should invite all those who share a relgious or a philosophical or a political or moral narrative different from your own into your life as well. After all, they might be a hell of a lot closer to the whole truth than you are.
But, really, you’ll never know until one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by
one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one by one you cross them off the list.
And then it’s back to la la land:
As though the experience of swimming is on par with the experience of behaving as one ought to here and now in order to attain the experience of immortality and salvation there and then.
This is so far removed from what I am trying to communicate here that it serves only to remind me of what [no doubt] many of us come to feel here in regard to the reactions of others to our posts: huh?!!
We just can’t figure out how they could possibly have gotten it [u]that[/u] wrong after all of our exchanges!
Me in regard to your reactions, you in regard to mine.
And this in and of itself is [to me] truly fascinating.
We’ll need a context of course.
What’s bollocks? Buddhism or something else? Internal focus versus external focus? Personal change versus political change?
All of what?
All Biggus really needed to say was “I glanced at Buddhism and I did not find it appealing” and it ends there. Nobody is forcing him to be a Buddhist.
Instead he formulates this response based on some bizarre obligation that KT has to explore every narrative in turn.
And who the hell brings up “the whole truth” aside from Biggus? Or “optimal”? Or the obligations of all rational people?
He’s in a thread on Buddhism and it has been pointed out that 1) plucking quotes online from random texts from various Buddhisms is not only facile but disingenous 2) Buddhism is an experiential tradition, one that specifically encourages silent participation 3) that there are similarities between Buddhism and Iambs descriptions of himself
And, then 3 years??? lol. It’s been a lot longer than that. And he has gotten concrete examples which he promptly forgets.
And here you are calling him poor biggs, falling for this adult man’s victim positioning.
People have responding to him in a variety of ways and you know little about it. He hijacks threads, like this one. And it should be noted that despite that he has gotten excellent feedback in relation to his justified skepticism about Buddhism. I say it is justified because one should question things like this. As it happens, there is a great deal of scientific evidence, that is evidence about the ‘is’ world that Buddhist meditation is beneficial or considered to be by practitioners of many different backgrounds and goals and values.
He accuses others of abstraction, in a philosophy forum no less, but his posts are in the main some of the most abstract posts available and he never wants to discuss the most possible concrete events we actually share which is what is happening here in the dialogue with him. He wants, generally, to have discussions of symbolic people who are considering abortions and the like, and what every rational person should be convinced of, and never what he might do, despite whining aobut his fractured self, his not knowing if his actions are determined or not, his seeming not to have an I and so on.
And perfect, while rushing to his defense you confirm the obvious. He is taking the position of the victim, perhaps sometimes ‘for all of us’ unless we are objectivists, not that he can listen to people who are not or read their posts and respond to actual points made.
Poor Iamg indeed that his supporter cannot treat him like an adult fully capable of making choices here, and even, God forbid, learning something.
You are in a thread about Buddhism asking about Buddhism. You are showing and interest in that. If you have an interest and given that it is a participatory religion that focuses on practices that makes the most sense. If you were throwing up your arms in a thread about some other thing that one learns about via practices or experiences, I would make the same suggestion.
If you actually were interested, and since you claim that there is nothing more important.
And, in a sense I agree. And, fuck you, I actually have done quite a bit of trial and error. I did try Buddhism and since when I did this I was healthier physically than you are, I went to the temples. I did participate and engage in the practices, not just throw my arms up in the air and pick random quote from various traditions in Buddhism to feel confused by. I did this with other systems out there. Why? Because it mattered to me. I didn’t just pretend it mattered to me, it did matter to me.
I tend to go towards things that for some reason interested me. There were portions of the freedom and spontaneousness in ZEn that appealed to me and also the idea of not going round and round in my head (sound familiar) so
GIVEN
my interest, I participated. In the end I decided it was not what I wanted. I did not wait around for all rational people on earth to be convinced by an argument. I did not demand that as if that is rational. It’s not rational Iamb to make that demand. To pout like a baby and demand that people convince you nto simply you might, note might, get something of value from it, but rather that every single person would.
It is quite a predicament we are in, but as far as I can tell you show no real interest in trying anything, but act as if it is all of critical importance to you.
It did seem like over the course of this thread you acknowledged that there is scientific evidence that people’s stress levels and other generally accepted measures of health in science do improve from Buddhist practices. Not in an ‘ought’ way, but in an ‘is’ way. But still you go on bemoaning new portions of texts that present ideas you can throw your hands up in relation to. When it is pointed out that in many fields, prior to participation, conclusions and ideas in those fields will not be comprehensible to neophytes or people completely ignorant of that field.
Now, should you test out Buddhism? How the fuck should I know?
I don’l like it myself based on my experience of it, my experience of experts, and the understanding my experiences and training gave me about the goals of the system. I have no interest in you becoming a Buddhist.
But you are bullshitting us. The hard part is you are probably bullshtting yourself. You don’t want a solution, you wanna bitch, because despite this being supposedly so important, you never do anything to actually try.
And amazingly…you don’t know if you have an i. You experience yourself as fractured.
But when people give you feedback about how you are interacting here, you never actually take them seriously and actually consdier they might be on to something about you.
You give a little disclaimer, but you are not moved. You never concede a damn thing, ever. Despite your own claim not to know yourself, it is not something that interests you much at all, the possibility that some of the response you are getting might actually be spot on.
You nod to the idea, with no feeling, no interest. No, just back to your repetition.
And notice. You attacked me above for the supposedly silly trial and error path that I should take. And I explained in this post how in fact I did carry something like that out, but not in some silly abstract mathematical way.
But here’s the thing. I’ve explained that before.
But you don’t read. You have no memory. I remember things you’ve said. I respond to how you present yourself. I have taken you seriously. I still do.
You can’t be bothered.
It’s
What can I say?
Buddhism interest me only to the extent that its adherents address that which draws me to discussions of religion: morality here and now, immortality there and then.
How does being a Buddhist impact the behaviors that they choose in particular contexts as that relates to what they imagine their fate to be after they die.
Members here will either go there or they won’t. And I am certainly not insisting that they are obligated to. Let alone forcing them to.
And my request to KT is bizarre only to the extent that we accept your assumption about it. Which was not my assumption at all.
There are hundreds of religious and political and moral and spiritual and enlightened paths to choose from. And, with so much at stake – morality here and now, immortality there and then – how is it not reasonable to suggest that one try as many of them as they possibly can in order to be certain of their own behaviors on this side of the grave and the fate of “I” in the other side?
Apparently, I am obligated to pursue Buddhism with that in mind while they are quite content to just accept what they believe now.
But, in that respect, I don’t get Buddhism either. Only, instead, Phyllo and KT want to reconfigure the thread into “how you ought to get iambiguous”.
My guess: like they do.
I addressed specific points to you in posts above. Today. Please respond to those points rather than focusing the exchange entirely on me.
Exactly. If he is interested, drawn to it. It’s participatory. And one can back out at any time. It’s not the Moonies. He won’t find himself forced into a marriage with a stranger. And jeez, there’s even scientific evidence that the practices increase health in terms considered healthy in medicine. That’s is stuff. Concrete ‘is’ stuff.
And he wanting people to let Buddhists answer. All he has to do is do some local googling, find a center and speak to a Buddhist. I cannot possibly give a more concrete suggestion than that, unless he tells me where he lives and I act like a matchmaker.
That’s why people don’t take him seriously in terms of his supposed goals. He claims it’s important, now he wants to know about Buddhism. Is he in a Buddhist online forum even? No. Though I am not going to give him links to one. That’s not fair to them. But he’s not a moron, and yet he does not take obvious steps.
I end up, via process of elimination, deciding that he likes the process of saying there is no way to know and demanded people come with perfect arguments.
this might not be what’s happening, but it sure looks like it.
I can tell you something about the Buddha …
I am grand central station for the spirit world.
Once the Buddha communed with me for about two hours.
I’ve never seen anything like it my entire life. The understanding, compassion and love for all beings was unprecedented in my life. I never wanted it to end.
But it did.
Trance / Meditation ?
Nah… it doesn’t work like that for me. Just a psychic visit.
I have to say it again. I’ve never seen anything like it.
In saying that, there are all forms of beings like this on earth, I’ve just never “met” one before. I’m an empath, which means that I can feel every being, what they feel. Doesn’t mean I always learn from it, but I can feel them.
When the Buddha came into my heart, it’s the first time in my life that I realized I don’t have the greatest heart in existence.
It was astounding.
And then it left, just like it came.
Dan, additionally, I have to tell you —- despite people’s impressions of me on this board, I’m a very likable guy.
When the Buddha came to me, it was a mind boggling likability … like I said. I’ve never seen anything like it before.
I guess the Buddha decided I only needed a couple hours to move with my life.
I would have loved to stay there forever
Dan,
Doubly additionally …
Probably not forever, because I moved on.
My passion is very simple. Make sure that no beings consent is ever violated again.
But I must say… it was nice while it lasted.