I don't get Buddhism

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.

Who thinks in this way? Who knows what this means?

How could it be applicable to me when I already stated that there is only the present?

If there is only the present, then there is only one “I” … the one that exists now.

What would a “real me” be? It must be the “now me”.

And how many times have I said that I give no thought to immortality. Not on the map at all.

We’ll need a context of course.

You know, this coming from one of the Stooges. And, of late, Curly no less!! [-o<

[b]Note to Moreno, von rivers and IPLers of old:

What the hell happened to phyllo? Or is it just my imagination that something did happen to him?

By the way, what the hell happened to you?!

I sure hope it wasn’t something that “I” said?[/b] :laughing: :wink: :laughing:

Just insults and pointless jabber.

And right back at you in retort mode! :wink:

Note to Buddhists:

Fit this into the quest for Nirvana!!

No, seriously.

The Role of Karma in Buddhist Morality
Barbara O’Brien

In conclusion…

And it is in regard to “ideals” that I am most likely to react as I do. Ideals derived from ideas derived from words defining and defending other words in general description intellectual/spiritual contraptions that define and defend still more general description intellectual/spiritual contraptions.

You wouldn’t think these “worlds of words” have anything to do at all with actual human interactions.

And is it or is it not appropriate to ask of these long time practitioners that their “spiritual” understanding of karma be reconfigured in a philosophy venue into a description of these changes that encompasses the behaviors deemed enlightened on this side of the grave reconfigured further into an attempt to describe the fate of their own particular “I” on the other side of the grave.

In other words, what am I really missing here about Buddhism that sets it apart from Western “there is a God” religions?

Warrior monks exist in a number of religions.

Which suggests that non-violence is not always workable even if it is preferable.

Let’s take the Dalai Lama as an example …

Let’s say a woman makes a pilgrimage to visit him and a man walks in the room and starts raping her right in front of him … his training teaches him that’s her karma and that he should be unattached. That’s some evil fucking shit!

What he should do is stand up and beat the shit out of the rapist!

No my friend,
That is not how the concept of the karma should be implemented. Karma is not supposed to work in isolation but implies that karma shouldnot be seperated from Dharma. In Hinduism( including Buddhism and Jainism) the term Dharma stands very close to duty. The concept is that one is supposed to react to all kind of cercumstances how he or she ought to be.

Means, do the karma with Dharma, and then leave the results to the destiny.

With love,
Sanjay

@Zinnat… it seems that it’s not only Gib that doesn’t get Buddhism.

Buddhism, Hinduism, Vedism Brahminism etc. are the vehicle, in which rta/Dharma are delivered through… it is beyond religion… it is irreligious. The second that a person realises that, is the second they will start to understand.

Rta, is a state of mind, borne from original thought, disseminated through South/SE/E Asian Canons and Religions… either you’ll get it or you won’t, but it ain’t fucking rocket science. How is knowing what the right thing to do, so difficult and complicated… like rocket science is?

We… as a peoples and planet are truly doomed, if we cannot simply differentiate right action from wrong… the difference between maturity and immaturity/adult and children. Ffs!

Phyllo: Speaking for Moreno, as I very well can, what I notice is you not getting as stuck, as we all have been at some time or other, in the goop of his not responding or his not being clear or his attacking or his not making sense or his repeating himself for no reason or here, as you point out, merely insulting you (and not bothering to respond at all with any substance). So nice catch simply pointing out what is doing and not doing, rather than getting entangled in the muck.

Not getting entangled in the muck might be one way to describe Buddhism.

If something isn’t working, then I will try something else.

Although at this point, there may be nothing left to try.

Zinnat,
I am an extremely spiritual atheist.

If Vishnu or anyone else held in high esteem came to this world and taught “zero sum realities are shit”, this species would be a billion times better. These are all false gods! I know all the eastern religions (except Shintoism) came from India.

The dharma should have been, “zero sum worlds are shit, but while you’re here, reduce consent violation as much as possible”

Now wouldn’t that have started a REAL conversation in this species!!!

Nobody said that before me! I don’t claim to be the king or queen. I’d never in forever sit on a fucking throne. I’d never forever decide it’s a good thing to be eternally the ‘best’. I want everyone on my level, not simply to be better than. This is a hard task in this species.

I always tell people that their concept of god is what they’d be if they were god!

Never an equal, always prayer and worship. I’m trying to wake this species up and you’re not letting me!

Note to warrior monks of any and all denominations:

Describe examples of violence in your own life. Describe in turn how you intertwine violence on this side of the grave with that which you imagine as the fate of “I” to be on the other side of the grave.

As, finally, all of this might be understood by the hundreds and hundreds of religious warriors in other denominations. As it all might be encompassed in a philosophy venue with respect to the existential relationship between morality and immortality.

My own fascination of choice here and now given that I possess some measure of autonomy and accepting that what any of us think about all of this can only be wild ass guesses going back to an explanation for existence itself.

Oh, and link us to arguments and evidence that will serve to demonstrate that what you believe in your head is in fact true for all rational men and women.

Note to others:

Know any religious warriors? Persuade them to join us here as, to the best of our ability, we connect the dots being beingness and nothingness. As but infinitesimally tiny specks of existence in the context of all there is.

We’ll need a context of course. Stooge or not. :sunglasses:

MagsJ,

It looks to me that it is not me but you who needs a bit more clarity about karma and religions.

Let me take the intellectual issue first.
People often get it wrong but prophets are the most important parts of the religions, even more than respective Gods itself. That begs a question. Why so?

The answer is that it is not the gods but prophets who bring these religions in this world. It were Jesus and Mohammad who founded Christianity and Islam, neither God nor Allah by themselves. So, you have to believe the prophets first before believing the Gods and religions. It cannot be the other way around. There cannot be any Islam without Mohammad and neither any Christianity without Jesus. And, that applies to all religions. You have to believe the massanger first before believing in the dilevered massage. It would be illogical to claim that I believe only in the massage, not in the massanger.

The important thing to remember here is that if you follow this route and believe in the prophets first, you become religious by default. In the same way, if you are believing in karma and Dharma, you are accepting that what Buddha and Mahavira said about Karma is true. That makes you a religious person, whether you like it or not. Because, the concept of Karma has no place in pure western intellectual philosophy, it is an out and out eastern religious doctrine.

Secondly, other than Buddhism but in all other Indian religions, the concept of Karma goes beyond one life but spreads its jurisdiction to all previous and future incarnations. Now again, how one is supposed to be a irreligious and believing in incarnations?

MagsJ, unlike west, there is no pure intellectual philosophy or philosophers in the east, especially in india. All philosophers were religious scholars first, though they covered all non religious verticals also. Both of Kamsutra and Ayurveda were written by religious sages, not any medical professional.

With love,
Sanjay

Ecmandu,

Before replying me, you have to read my previous post addressed to MagsJ and consider it in your reply.

As I said there, the concept of spiritual atheist is oxymoron to me. An atheist cannot be spiritual in strict sence, unless you consider morality as spirituality, which is not logical. Moraliy is spirituality but only a part of it and does not cover spirituality completely. Means, one can be moral without being spiritual which is fine to me but being spiritual demands many others things also, of course including morality.

Not violating other consents is only morality not spirituality, unless you explain me otherwise.

Let me ask you one thing.
Think of a child suffering of diabetes. As we all know that it is not right for parents to let him have cakes and pastries but he continues to demand these.

Now, what should the parents do? Either they shoud reject the demand of the child to have more sweets because of his heath condition or should allow him having more sweets in order to honour his consent?

See, understanding and decoding even the morality is not as simple as only not violating others consent. That would not be enough. Spirituality is even more complicated.

With love,
Sanjay