I don't get Buddhism

LOL That he is.

Perhaps, he is himself confused about what he believes and this shows through in what he writes. He is confusing because he si confused, even about himself. Or cagey: he might also realize that consciously or not, that making the strong claim that there is no meaning means HE would bear the burden of proof.

And I think we both know he wants the burden of proof always to be something only other people bear.

In any case, it seems to me in his quotes, for example the one describing me, he is saying that meaning doesn’t exist. I know on other occasions he will say he hasn’t found it. But it seems to me he allows himself to make objective claims that it does not exist, then is surprised and sometimes outraged that anyone could think he meant that claim.

Like here again…

This sentence even includes his reaction AND the essentially meaningless world. Not his interpretation, not his experience of, not what seems to be…

but is reaction to an essentially meaningless world. Not qualification. And there were other quotes and I quite looking early.

I do believe that when called out on this he will return to his ‘official position’ which is that he does not know. But people can have official positions they identify with and not take responsibility for what they also believe. And sometimes these unofficial opinions are more real for them.

But I’ll drop this here. Just to be clear again, I think you are correct about his official position and that you could probably find a number of quotes to support that, just as I did for mine.

On the contrary, in regard to human interactions in the either/or world, there are any number of variables, factors, relationships etc., that we seem able to demonstrate to others as essentially/objectively true.

For example, Donald Trump is now president of the United States. Unless, of course, unbeknownst to me, Trump just died of a heart attack.

Now, assuming he is still alive and well, there is a mountain of objective/essential facts that we can accumulate about the man. Dasein here revolves only around what as an individual I think I know about him. Can what I think I know about him be demonstrated to others?

Or, on this thread, what can I demonstrate is true about Donald Trump in regard to what he gets about Buddhism?

So, I can Google Donald Trump and Buddhism: google.com/search?source=hp … ent=psy-ab

I can wade through all of this and decide for myself what is in fact essentially/objectively true.

Instead, on threads like this, my interest revolves around what others think they “get” about Buddhism as this is pertinent to the manner in which I construe subjective points of view here as the embodiment of dasein. And then in what they might be able to demonstrate that all rational and enlightened people are obligated to “get” about it in turn.

In regard to “morality here and now” and “immortality there and then”. My own “thing” here in regard to God and religion.

But this is always a tricky thing even in regard to the either/or world. For example, meaning is pouring in around the country regarding the death of George Floyd. Individuals impart different meaning to it. And that meaning is subject to what they think they know about the death itself, the circumstances surrounding it, the role that race and police brutality plays in it…and on and on.

To construe “I” in the is/ought and not often feel confused, uncertain, ambiguous, ambivalent etc., is basically/precisely the point I make about the objectivists. All of that is subsumed for them in whatever they anchor “I” to in order to sustain that feeling of being in sync with the “real me” in sync with the “right thing to do”.

Like somehow you do?

How about this:

Why don’t you and KT get into a discussion about these two factors in regards to God and religion? And, sure, by all means, completely avoid contact with anything resembling “a particular context”.

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

Sure, it’s one thing to speculate that “overall” karma has a role to play in our lives. Clearly there are behaviors that we can choose that precipitate consequences that come back to impact our lives in either a constructive or destructive manner. And, up to a point, this can be calculated in a reasonable manner. Cause and effect here is calibrated day in and day out by many of us. Given the gap between what we think we know about any particular situation and all that can be known. But then to reconfigure this into a religious narrative where karma becomes linked to either enlightened or unenlightened choices leading to an afterlife where one is better or worse off…?

How is that brought down to earth?

Here of course the “absolute law” is ever and always encompassed in the religious narrative itself. Subscribe to Buddhism and you have one set of moral parameters, subscribe to Catholicism and you have another, subscribe to Scientology and you have another still. Some with a God, the God, others with altogether different fonts.

But, for me, it always comes down to this: that while karma “exerts an influence over all things”, what does it mean to speak of “Cosmic Justice” here and now in this set of circumstances given all that is at stake?

Either this or that denomination can, demonstrably, encompass the optimal choices that one can make, or, instead, it’s the way it actually seems to be: leaps of faith taken to any number of denominations that are ever evolving and changing over time historically or across space culturally.

Then coming down experientially to the actual experiences that any individual has predisposing him or her to this rather than that leap of faith.

But just how “absolute” are the paths here? And what happens when they come into conflict? It’s no wonder then that any number of “ecumenical” pathways are forged through the dogmatic thickets. That way religion becomes a kind of cafeteria. You pick and choose only those behaviors that provide you with the least possible restrictions. You bet on a more progressive or liberal God to judge your soul.

Sure, if you’re after a “workable theory of morality”, almost any “world of words” can suffice. But either enlightened behavior and karma are better suited to, say, giving birth to unborn babies or it’s okay to abort them. Well-being may revolve for any particular pregnant woman around giving birth or in killing the unborn baby. Same with suffering. And given the manner in which someone “gets” Buddhism that will translate into a better afterlife or a worse one.

But which? And how can that actually be demonstrated?

From the Secular Buddhism Podcast

“What Is Secular Buddhism”

First, of course, secular Buddhism? Is that even possible in the minds of those who call themselves religious Buddhists? Here for example?

Buddhism in which the benefits of the practice – a way to constructively discipline the mind and body – are not attached to an understanding of enlightenment and karma as a means to an end. The end being reincarnation and Nirvana.

Indeed, to what extent does secular Buddhism delve at all into the actual existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then.

After all, if the aim is to focus in on a Buddhism that “speaks to me”, where does that frame of mind end and my own frame of mind – dasein – begin? One can choose to be a secular Buddhist in any particular historical and cultural and experiential context? How then do the variables attached to a “particular world” impact one’s understanding/embodiment of Buddhism?

Yes, up in the stratosphere of psychologisms – “a tendency to interpret events or arguments in subjective terms” – this “general description intellectual contraption” can do wonders [for some] in attaining and then sustaining some semblance of mental and emotional equanimity.

But: it ever and always depends on what you “see”. On the actual experiences and sets of circumstances you must endure; and on the options available to you in dealing with them.

Everyone has a different line to draw/cross here.

Thus when someone speaks of “the way we see things”, the implication is that there are better ways in which to see them instead. And sometimes there are. And if a secular Buddhist provides you with a pathway that does in fact make your life more tranquil and productive and worthwhile…?

On the other hand, anyone who suggests the focus should be more on changing the way you see the world rather than changing the world itself has never read, among others, Marx and Engels.

Or take the reality of racism and police violence. The headlines screaming at us here. Does secular Buddhism focus in on things like that?

Without Dharma there would be no Buddhism, no… anything.

There would be no anything without Dharma, no… Buddhism.

Suffering, you know, as like, more than just a concept.

Why do many think we need to suffer though?

What is this suffering thing about, that many speak of? Don’t stray far from Dharma, and you’ll redeem your karma… a question of checks and balances, weights and measures, is all it is.

Sure, it’s possible. Those can be taken as metaphors. Someone does the practices, notes benefits, presumably (since they are calling themselves a secular buddhist), for example less suffering.

That would depend on the secular buddhist in question.

This seems up in the clouds and abstract. ‘The aim’…? Whose aim?

Actually it seems like it is not mere semblence, but mental and emotional equanity as measure during scientific research of people who have meditated a long time. But this has been pointed out before.

What depends on this?

Sure. Same with studying to be a chef.

And if that’s what you want, then you probably are glad that you followed that path. If it isn’t what you want or you didn’t seem to get it or fit the path or changed your mind, then not.

I dont think that’s true. I think people could read Engels and Marx and…disagree. Or do you mean here that Marx and Engels were just plain right, so if they have read them they should be convinced. That seems to be the implicit claim.

Secular buddhist certainly could, and I would guess some do.

It seems like you are making some unsupported assumptions in this post. Quite a number.

Hm. I’ve presented my thoughts in particular contexts a number of times. Could you demonstrate that you claim above that we are avoiding contact with particular contexts such that all rational people will agree.

I still haven’t quite gotten why your claims never seem to need any justification at all but others should produce utterly convinging arguments.

it’s remarkably like solving little chess problems responding to you. Find the implicit or explicit fallacy or objectivist claim on your part.

Of course with chess problems, if you find the solution, at least online, you get a response that says you found the solution.

Nothing new here.

Unless, of course, I missed it.

The Role of Karma in Buddhist Morality
Barbara O’Brien

Isn’t that basically my aim here as well?

What can Buddhism teach us about morality here and now? But: only insofar as this is explored in connecting the dots existentially between the behaviors that individual Buddhists choose on this side of the grave and that which they anticipate the fate of “I” to be on the other side of it.

In other words, the nitty gritty reality of practicing Buddhism from day to day in their own actual lives.

Actually, depending on the context, adherence to “external rules” can be anything but superficial. They can literally revolve around life and death, around immense personal satisfaction and fulfilment…or an even greater plunge into misery and travail.

And either individual Buddhists are willing to explore the uncertainties and the ambiguities embedded in “conflicting goods” with me here or they aren’t. After all, my own attempts to grapple with them have resulted in a fractured and fragmented “I”. How have they avoided this?

Okay, true enough. But there has to be some measure of reward and punishment able to be calculated by particular individuals in order to invest all of the time and the effort required to master a discipline like Buddhism. And sooner or later this disciplined mind is confronted with existential contexts in which conflicting goods run rampant and one’s reactions to them are connected – somehow – to one’s fate on the other side of the grave.

All I’m interested in pursuing on this thread is an exploration of it all in depth. You live your life as a Buddhist. You are confronted with the same world as I am. A world inundated with human pain and suffering. Pain and suffering often derived from conflicting assessments of morality here and now and immortality there and then.

How specifically in terms of the behaviors that you choose do you intertwine that choice in enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana?

“The world is illusion. Brahman alone Is. The world is Brahman.” Shankaracharya

Brahman?

“Brahman connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe. In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. It is the pervasive, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes.” Wikipedia

Come on, realistically, how could this be true in any other but a wholly determined universe?

Once you factor in human autonomy, you factor in the subjective point of view that has never been able to pin down the ‘Ultimate Reality’. Instead we have perspectives on things which very, very often engender conflicts that afflict us time and again with all manner of human pain and suffering.

So of course in the world that we live in such things as Brahman are invented in order to subsume all the harrowing aspects on human interactions in that which one only has to believe is true “in one’s mind”.

What about an indetermined universe? Why wouldn’t it be true in that universe?

And that is exactly what’s in question in this thread. My main question is: how can anybody know this?

I already speculated about that here:

What I construe subjectively to be the “psychology of objectivism”. The part that comforts and consoles the objectivists. And, for some, all the way to the grave.

Well, my main interest revolves more around those who think that they do get Buddhism. I ask them to connect the dots between their take on karma and enlightenment and how their understanding of them actually impacts the behaviors that they choose on this side of the grave. For example, what exactly constitutes enlightenment to them when they are confronted with conflicting goods? And then to connect that dot to their take on reincarnation and Nirvana. In other words, how their assessment of enlightened behavior here and now is applicable to their understanding of “I” there and then. Especially given that there is no God to judge. How is one’s fate decided if there is no actual who involved?

That [to me] is the part where they at least attempt to demonstrate how what they believe here is in fact true. Or is that too [as with other denominations] all just a manifestation of more or less blind faith?

Then [of course] the part where I link anything that anyone claims to know at all to all that we do not know – ontologically? teleologically? – about Existence itself.

Assuming in turn that human autonomy is not just an illusion built into human psychology by the laws of matter itself.

What does that mean though? Are you saying that with human autonomy involved, any possibility of Brahman would have to be just a human concoction invented to ease the pain of existence? Could this not happen if it were all wholly determined? And couldn’t Brahman be real even if there is human autonomy? Even if that human autonomy ultimately lead to the invention of Brahman as a psychological coping mechanism?

Yes, these are indeed the kinds of questions I’m raising in this thread. It’s interesting that your relentless questioning of the ‘I’ actually has a place in this thread–because the Buddhist is always first in line to question the ‘I’ along the same lines as you. They seem to embrace its disillusionment just as much as you. What form does your challenge take with them?

Biggus just substitutes the word ‘Buddhism’, ‘enlightenment’ and ‘Nirvana’ for the word ‘Christianity’, ‘salvation’ and ‘afterlife’.

IOW, he interprets it through the filter of western Christianity … Buddhism is merely Chstianity-Asia … a difference of names only.

Well, Biggy is definitely predictably formulaic… to the point where you could treat his arguments as a set of predicates the variables of which can be swapped out. One size fits all with Biggy.

Again, my main interest in religion revolves around the existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then. So, someone who believes that Brahman is real is either willing and able to relate it to that or they won’t/can’t. In particular in regard to human interactions that come to collide as a result of conflicting moral and political value judgments.

Again, in turn, assuming that Brahman is not merely another inherent/necessary manifestation of human interactions wholly in sync with immutable laws of matter/nature.

Given human autonomy, there is the particular individual’s subjective assessment of right and wrong behavior. Assessments rooted in dasein in my view. There is also a possible objective truth. Finally, there is the particular context involved.

And then there’s…Brahman? What on Earth does that mean?

So, sure, tell us what you think it means “in your head”. Then demonstrate to us why all “enlightened” men and women are obligated to think the same thing.

What else is there here “for all practical purposes”.

And then the part [for me] where one’s beliefs about this are connected to what one construes the fate of “I” to be on the other side. Reincarnation? Nirvana? How so? How does that get intertwined in Brahman as well?

So, suppose someone believes that Brahman is real and is confronted with a context relating to, say, vaccinations. The state demands/requires that their children be given the new covid-19 vaccine. They believe vaccines are dangerous and refuse. What of Brahman given a set of circumstances such as this?

Also, how is the coronavirus now stampeding around the globe to be understood as part of “the world as illusion”?

And how would the existence of something as terrible as the coronavirus itself be understood given Brahman? Now, with a religion like Christianity, things like this are merely subsumed in a God, the God’s “mysterious ways”. But in a No God religious narrative?

I am considerably less inclined to question the existence of my self – my self – in the either/or world. Here [for me] that becomes problematic only to the extent that solipsism or sim worlds or dream worlds or The Matrix might be reality instead. In fact, I can imagine Brahman as the manifestation of our physical laws from the perspective of materialism or naturalism.

But introduce the “spiritual” realm and “I” becomes considerably more problematic for me. What here is able to be demonstrated as true and what is not.

Instead, the “I” that interest me far more is the embedded in the is/ought world.

No, Biggus is far more interested in exploring how any and all religious/spiritual folks connect the dots existentially between the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave and the fate of “I” on the other side. Morality -----> Immortality.

That and the extent to which they are able to demonstrate that what they believe about this “in their head” is able to be linked [here at ILP] to the sort of evidence that might incline me to actually take them seriously.

Come on, we live in a world where down through the ages there have been literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of vast and varied religious narratives across the globe. Almost all of them insisting that only their own take on morality here and now and immortality there and then reflect the real thing.

The part that I root existentially in dasein. The part that “I” explore on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

One size fits all?!

Note to Phyllo:

Tell him about the stooges.