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?
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
You die tomorrow. What then becomes of that which you know as “I” here and now? How is who you think you are here and now intertwined in what you think here and now is encompassed in reincarnation and Nirvana?
Here is one take on it:
But how is this anything other than an intellectual contraption on spiritual steroids? Sure, if you can believe it and it brings you a comforting sense of serenity and peace of mind, good for you.
I’m just not able to make a leap like that anymore.
Then this part [for me]:
How are the behaviors that you choose on this side of the grave relevant to whatever you think becomes of “I” on the other side of it?
Finally, how do you go about demonstrating [if only to your self/“self”] that what you believe “in your head” is in fact what does unfold?
Why what Buddha says and not what hundreds of other religious advocates down through the ages have argued instead?
Is there the possibility that you have thought yourself into believing in Buddhism because, mentally, emotionally and psychologically, it simply comforts and consoles you to believe it?
Never mind, Biggy. I just wanted to know why you said that Brahman can only be a real thing in a deterministic universe.
That’s fine. But how do you expect an exchange about the spiritual ‘I’ in the is/ought world to go down between you and a Buddhist–that is, one who believes the ‘I’ is an illusion?
I ask because your approach always seems to hinge on a disillusionment eventually happening–pulling the rug from under the objectivist’s pillars, fragmenting the ‘I’ of the one who believes so firmly in it. A Buddhist is committed to letting that go, to embracing the disillusionment.
So let’s say that I’m a Buddhist, and you approach me with your questions about the ‘I’ (I don’t know how well I’ll do this since I’m not Buddhist but I’ll try to respond as I think a Buddhist would respond). How do you want to challenge my preconceptions about the ‘I’?
Possibly. And there’s no reason you couldn’t apply your manner of inquiry to the vast majority of them. They probably fit the bill and you’d probably get the results you’d expect. But speaking as someone who didn’t fit the bill on several encounters with you, I’ll take the liberty of commenting on your inflexibility to adapt to such exceptional cases, rare as they may be. For example, I remember on a few occasions having to insist that my beliefs on consciousness and the fabric of reality don’t inform my morality, or prescribe any manner of behavior that would have an effect on my fate in the afterlife, but you didn’t seem to be able to process that kind of response. Every belief or value system, you seem to believe, must have implications for morality and how we ought to behave.
All I am trying to do is to reconfigure the use of the word Brahman [as conveyed above] into a well known context that, out in the world we live in, is anything but an illusion. My own example being vaccination in the age of covid-19.
That and how/why such a terrible disease is embedded at all in a world where, “Brahman alone Is. The world is Brahman”.
The part where the discussion does not revolve almost entirely around a “world of words”.
On the contrary, in so many ways, “I” is anything but an illusion. I either contract covid-19 or I don’t. I either die from it or I don’t. I live in a particular community bursting at the seams with all manner of empirical/factual interactions relating to an extant relationship between government, government policy, citizenship and the corona virus.
Now, someone can argue that, “Brahman alone Is. The world is Brahman”, and simply detach that from the actual lives that we live. Or they can at least make an attempt to intertwine the two given that which is of interest to me: mortality here and now and immortality there and then.
That’s your rendition of my rendition. Though, sure, particular Buddhists can congregate in a community of Buddhists and avoid altogether the conflicting goods that, time and time again, rend the lives of all the rest of us. And certainly not just in regard to global health calamities. But what on earth does it mean to be enlightened then? And how is being enlightened connected to karma connected to the fate of “I” on the other side?
Again, to those here who do call themselves Buddhist, how is your understanding of self/“self” in the either/or world a manifestation of the world as an illusion? And how do you connect the dots between enlightenment/karma and what most other religious denominations refer to as immoral or sinful behavior. How, as well, is that connected to one’s fate on the other side of the grave…given that, again, most other religious denominations subsume this in God and Judgment Day and an immortal soul and salvation.
And are your beliefs here basically just leaps of faith or do you have hard evidence to back up what you believe “in your head”?
Just possibly? How about closer to irrefutably? Again unless human history as I have come to understand it really is just part of an illusion…or way out there on the metaphysical linb where reality is nothing at all like we think it is.
Again, given the existence of human autonomy.
As for this…
…what can I say.
As I note to others time and again, this is just another example of what I call a “general description intellectual contraption”. A world of words.
We need to bring them out into the world of actual flesh and blood human interaction. A set of circumstances in which things like religion and enlightenment and morality and faith and consciousness and reality are encompassed and described given actual behaviors we choose and our reaction to the behaviors that others choose.
That’s the part I want Buddhists to discuss Brahman regarding. The part I intertwine in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
Otherwise we end up with what I construe to be abstract [even silly] exchanges on threads like this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195793
21 pages of preposterous assumptions in which everything revolves almost entirely around words defining and defending other words.
‘I’ is like a cat that walks across a room. The cat at the end of the walk is not the same cat that started walking. It’s changed … it’s aged, it has shed some hair, it has worn its claws, it has crushed some cells and grown some new ones, it has digested some food or grown hungry, it may have become aware of some thing, it may have forgotten some other thing. A vast number of changes.
We say that it’s the same cat because we ignore the details. This is part of the illusion.
The Role of Karma in Buddhist Morality
Barbara O’Brien
If for no other reason then that with the preponderance of religions around the globe, an omniscient/omnipotent God is around to ensure that 1] no one can “kill, lie or steal” without it being known by God and 2] no one who does these things can ever hope to escape punishment.
How then is that part applicable to a religious denomination that has no actual omniscient/omnipotent entity to bring this about?
Really? Telling a 4 year old that the stork brought her baby brother is readily rebutted when as a 14 year old she is introduced to sex education in school. What can the Buddhists actually teach this 14 year old about morality and immortality? What can be demonstrated here given a particular set of circumstances such that it is the equivalent of the stork being replaced by sex education. For example, what if the 14 year old is told that she does not have a baby brother because Mommy aborted him?
Guess what? This cries out for a context.
You pick one and we can explore the practical implications of grasping words like these placed in this particular order.
Here however the assumption must be that our discussion of Brahman on this thread is not an inherent/necessary manifestation of a wholly determined world. Why? Because if we assume the opposite even the very words that I type and the very words that you read are just another inherent/necessary manifestation of the only possible reality there can ever be.
Okay, but these changes are rooted in the either/or world. Changes in which the details can in fact be noted and understood by particular experts in, among other things, zoology.
No, my “I” revolves far more around the construction, deconstruction and reconstruction of the self/“self” among our own species out in the is/ought world. And from the cradle to the grave.
And, on this thread in particular, the extent to which “I”, given a sequence of actual experiences, relationships and access to ideas, comes into contact with the chief components of Buddhism – enlightenment, karma, reincarnation, Nirvana.
“I” might come to understand them differently over the course of a life bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change. But is there the most enlightened manner in which to grasp them?
And how is this related to the behaviors that one chooses here and now as that pertains to what is anticipated for “I” there and then?
After all, if you come back as a cat, is not the “I” you know now essentially obliterated? Or, if you are a particularly superb cat is there a possibility that in your next incarnation you can become one of us again?
In other words, here it becomes the equivalent of the Christian God’s “mysterious ways”. Mere mortals are not able to put it into words. How convenient. So, it can really become anything you want it to be. Anything you need it to be.
Choose a set of circumstances in which to discuss Brahman. That way I can distinguish between words that, in my view, define and defend other words alone, and words that, in my view, focus in on actual human behaviors relating to morality on this side of the grave and the fate of “I” on the other side.
Biggus just substitutes the word ‘Buddhism’, ‘enlightenment’ and ‘Nirvana’ for the word ‘Christianity’, ‘salvation’ and ‘afterlife’.
