I don't get Buddhism

I don’t pretend to understand what Ecmandu means by “consent violation”. All I know is that no one asked me for my consent to be born. And until someone can provide me with a demonstrable argument able to explain more fully how and why I exist going back to a complete understanding of why and how anything exist at all, I can only assume that there will always be those like him who “think things up” in their head about all of this and are somehow able to convince themselves that what they think is true makes it true.

Ecmandu just thinks things that are [to me] a lot more wacky than what “I” and others think here.

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, he doesn’t even make an attempt to demonstrate how his own ideas/ideals work “for all practical purposes” given our day to day interactions.

I ascribe it to a mental “condition” that he will either explore further himself or he won’t. We all have them. It’s just that some take us further away from whatever “reality” may or may not be than others.

And of course “defining” things into existence will always be first choice of some. For example, this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195793

Come on, does any of this intellectual/spiritual masturbation get us any closer to an actual extant God? Or, here, to reincarnation and Nirvana?

How many times do I have to say this on this fucking board?!

Just like someone can argue that the leading cause of death is birth, and that all people having babies are necessarily committing homicide…

Consent is not a concept of a fetus. It emerges later in life. Birth itself is not consent violation, and even if it was, it’s the rudimentary idea of consent that develops.

Iambiguous, I know you are full of shit. I know that you know exactly what consent violation is. Say chopping your pinky finger off, especially if you’re the best piano player on earth.

I not only think, I know you’re full of shit.

:scared-shocked: See :scared-shocked: What :scared-shocked: I :scared-shocked: mean? :scared-shocked:

How does he demonstrate any of this? Of course: in the act of posting it itself.

Note to Buddhists among us:

Weigh in on this please. Of the two of us, who has the least chance of reaching Nirvana?

Also, how do you figure that he figures “consent violation” works with reincarnation? Rounding it off to the nearest probability.

My post was slightly inarticulate (I forgot to add 1 phrase). The leading cause of life is also birth - meaning the leading cause of consent is also birth.

Also. You know that I know that you know that we both know what consent violation is. Every human on earth knows what consent violation is. Actually, even a cat knows what consent violation is. Actually, even a microbe knows what consent violation is. Actually, every possible being in existence knows what consent violation is.

Also, I know you use linguistic tokens that refer, because your post was something other than “ucpuxphs”… you’re playing a hypocritical language ‘game’. (It’s not really a game, it’s just you trolling)

Okay, connect the dots between this and the coronavirus. Then connect the dots between that and Buddhism.

Note actual experiences that you have had which served to demonstrate that what you believe here is true.

How about Youtube interviews with microbes, or reality TV segments with cats.

Also, what household experiments can be conducted with cats and microbes to confirm your point?

Poke a cat with a needle and watch it’s reaction. Use tea tree oil on a microbe and watch it’s reaction. Very simple.

You know. I’m in another thread about how syllogisms don’t work. In this thread I explain that the sequence of natural numbers can’t be proven without inferential logic! Nobody can prove in a syllogism (and not even the “is” of each part of the syllogism can be proven (let alone the inference)) (the ought). But we all know it!

My example is the counting numbers !!!

1,2,3,4,5,6,7 … etc…

We ALL know they go on forever in what is in mathematics called a “well ordered set” (that means that they’re sequential - and go on forever)

BUT!!! Because we can’t count them ALL!!! (Because they go on forever). Then we can make an argument from a lower level of cognition that the sequence of natural numbers is impossible!

Thing is, the logic of the brain is not constrained by syllogisms!

You, iambiguous, in every post, deny the logic of the brain constrained by syllogisms (while claiming that you are expressing the part of the brain not constrained by syllogisms!).

I can already think of a million ways you’ll
Reply to this. Do it !

We can then ask the cat and the microbe what they know about Buddhism.

Note to cats and microbes:

Philosophically, what’s your take on consents being violated? For example, going back to your own understanding of existence itself.

:-k

It’s all visceral. Even the simplest of beings comprehend “no!”

The cat and the microbe are connected to the universe. They are Buddhas.

Okay, but what do cats and microbes know – viscerally or otherwise – about comprehending consent violations and Buddhism? What can they communicate to us about them on this thread that confirms it?

For example, in the way in which you are insisting that all the rest of us must understand them too. Ever and always as you do.

On the other hand, if all that any of us understand about consent violations and Buddhism is a manifestation of a wholly determined universe, then in a way that we still do not fully understand, you and I and cats and microbes are all merely manifestations of the only possible reality there could ever be.

You know, going back to how this can be understood given an explanation for the existence of existence itself.

Perhaps phyllo’s God? Or is His consent no less violated in turn?

I’m not a Buddhist. I’m a gritty realist (with tons of experience with the spirit world - which to others makes look quite the fool).

I don’t know what they know about Buddhism. I do know that cats and microbes understand “no!”.

What’s my take on Buddhism? Bullshit!

Nirvana is the realization (the bliss in knowing that everything is perfect)! Everyone’s trying to get to heaven. Bullshit! There is no fucking heaven for me if even one being in existence is having its consent violated.

Okay, but what about this part:

What are you absolutely certain about here that all of the rest of us are obligated to agree with or be regarded as postmodern fools?

Look, depending on the nature of your “condition”, I may be able to help you. How? By liberating you from a frame of mind in which everything is always construed to be either this or that. To others, my way or the highway. That will afford you more options in how you think and feel, and in what you say and do about many things.

Of course there’s a cost to be paid as well. Depending on just how fractured and fragmented your own particular “I” becomes. Somewhere perhaps between phyllo and karpel tunnel and me. Little here can be pinned down definitively.

Take him up on the offer, Ecmandu.

I would love to see a Doctor Biggus advice/therapy session. ( And I bet that I’m not the only one.)

Come on, you know better.

Or, perhaps, sadder, more pathetic still, you don’t.

Doctor Biggus not only does not dispense advice and/or therapy in regard to Buddhism, consent violation, God, abortion, Communism and the visceral reactions of cats and microbes, he suggests instead that his own arguments about them are no less embedded as “I” in an existential contraption rooted in dasein embodied out in a particular world historically, culturally and circumstantially.

Ever embedded in turn in contingency, chance and change…given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas.

But not you, right? Not with your God and your objective morality. And all of the comfort and consolation that, psychologically, will sustain you [I suspect] all the way to the grave.

Same as Ecmandu. But, for him, with No God.

Me? I can only envy you both in that regard.

In other words, you left out this part:

My condition is extremely simple:

If any beings consent in all of existence is having their consent violated, so is mine.

That’s the definition of a good person.

By denying consent violation occurs, you speak moronically!

I understand how the human species works. You need to contradict yourself so a female will appreciate and/or fuck you… that’s how human females are wired. It actually provides massive spiritual protection. Problem is, once people start to realize the magnitude of the consent violating perpetual motion machine, they’ll start coming to my side. This level about contradiction isn’t even the highest level. The highest level is knowing zero sum realities don’t work at all. Even if it were not the case that only asshole males get sex (in this species that’s a law) the latter problem still rears it’s ugly head.

Let’s see what “I may be able to help you” actually looks like in this particular context.

Next up: Ecmandu’s definition of a definition.

Hint: It’s now yours too. :sunglasses:

Again, logic, meaning, purpose is visceral.

Obviously you can’t define definition. What you can do is state that the human mind contains levels of intelligence greater than syllogisms… inferential logic.

This is both a curse and a blessing.

The curse: people can always argue against you
The blessing: ultimately experience matters more than words and eventually no being will argue against you.

It’s more of a blessing than a curse, no matter how annoying people are when they debate the higher functioning of mind, brain, spirit.

I wonder how many people really think that history, culture, circumstances play no role in forming their opinions.

I wonder how many people really think that they would not change their minds.

IOW, who is Biggus constantly wrestling with?

That’s not my point though. At least not in regard to moral, political and spiritual objectivists. For them, history and culture and circumstances would still seem to be embedded in their belief that they are in touch with the “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do”.

So, is this the case with Buddhists? What do they mean by “enlightened” that is not but another rendition of objectivism? Same with the Four Noble Truths. And this: “The steps of the Noble Eightfold Path are Right Understanding, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration”.

I merely ask them to take these things out into their own particular world in regard to the behaviors that they choose in regard to connecting the dots between that and “I” beyond the grave. What do they believe and how do they demonstrate those beliefs to others.

Again, my own understanding of dasein – which is no less a subjective existential contraption – revolves around the assumption that objectivists might change their mind but only insofar as they see this as coming closer to the “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do”.

And since you profess still to be a moral objectivist how is this not applicable to you? Again, your font here being God. But in such a way that I still have no clear idea as to how you connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then.

It’s like your defense of religion and moral objectivism is still embedded in your own uncertainties and ambiguities. That basically they are embodied in your own Kierkegaardian “leap of faith”.

But I can only understand this to the extent to which you make further attempts to integrate what you believe is true into the behaviors that you choose and your thinking about beyond the grave.