I don't get Buddhism

I know how he feels. He feels like the cocky, pompous , self righteous cloud he sits on is being undermined.

I need people to understand… if one single being in all of existence is having their consent violated, god is evil. My words are a joke compared to hell.

The point is that you don’t have to use those words.

In fact, people may be more open to what you are saying if you don’t use those words.

From my life experience (which I don’t really expect people to have). Zinnat is a flaming asshole. Preaching the praises to and sucking up to the supreme consent violator. Extra senses are common in the human species, even some strange ones.

What zinnat is saying is actually meaner and more aggressive than what most people say. Being in hell for so long, I’m finely attuned to it.

There are some people who only understand force, otherwise zinnat might spend the rest of his life abusing people. That’s unconscionable to me.

I’ve resurrected at least 3 times, I’ve been to hell for a long time… I’m an extremely sensitive person to slight abuses being massive to the regard zinnat is using them.

Fundamentals of Buddhism: Morality
From the BuddhaNet web site

Mountain climbing? That’s the example used in order to explore the existential relationship between human suffering and Buddhist morality?

Why not instead the summit being Buddhist morality and abortion or just war or animal rights or suicide or the right to bear arms?

If you are a Buddhist and your life begins to revolve around, say, acknowledging that you are a homosexual, what might the summit be construed as here? What behaviors might be deemed to be either enlightened or benighted? By the Buddha himself. Or suppose you are either a homosexual or a heterosexual and you find yourself feeling attracted to a fourteen year old. But: A very precocious fourteen year who is mature beyond his or her years. A fourteen year old willing and able to consent to sexual intercourse with an adult.

In other words, reconfigure the assessment above into a context of this sort such that the steps you take morally to the summit are in sync with that which you would want the fate of “I” to be on the other side of the grave.

Iambiguous,

I always tell people…

The goal of philosophy is not to learn how to die. The goal of philosophy is to learn how to live forever.

As much as death scares people! Living forever scares them more! What’s even worse than that is that people don’t ‘invest’ in forever. They invest in like 200 years max, maybe in their great, great grandchildren!

[b]Note to others:

He’s all yours. I’m ending my exchanges with him. Why? Because I am really beginning to wonder just how close he might be to toppling over into, well, whatever the nature of his “condition” might precipitate: “I’ve resurrected at least 3 times, I’ve been to hell for a long time…”; “I deal with voices and possessions on a daily basis. I meet gods on a regular basis.”

Unless this is all tongue and cheek, I don’t want to be the one who pushes it all too far.

Really, this happened to me once before in an old Yahoo philosophy venue. I was accused of causing someone to attempt suicide. It turned out to be just a stupid prank, but you can never really be sure of these things online.

Whatever the actual reality here, I hope things turn out well for him. But that’s it for me.[/b]

Interesting how your reply borrowed from other posts and not the one you quoted. You didn’t respond to the post you quoted …

That people are more terrified of living forever than dying.

Iambiguous, I’m just going to tell you straight up.

Let’s assume I’m crazy. That I even have schizophrenia. Sociologically, schizophrenics are the least violent sub-group in the entire human population. You know why ?? Because they’re too busy suffering too much to even have the luxury of being violent.

Look at your bias before you try to speak to the peanut gallery.

Ecmandu,

First of all, you need to understand one thing very clearly is that using insulting language does not prove your point. On the contrary, it tells that you do not have much to support your arguments thus using this tactics to divert the conversation from actual issue. Nevertheless, this does not work on me because I have enough of life experience and thus derived understanding to discern between real anger and fake posing. So. Please get passed to it.

Now, to your points-
Getting diabetes does not require anybody’s consent. It just happens like an accident whether one wants it or not so your argument does not hold any water. And, it is not only the only one example which shows that it is impossible to honour the consents of all at the same time as most of the time they tend to violate each other. I can give you million such examples.

Assume that there is a very beautiful lady and every man wants to have her. Yes, he wants a particular man and goes for it. In this way, her consent is honoured but what about the consent of all those other men who cannot have her? How your theory of consent is supposed to address this issue?

Lastly, you talk very highly about honouring everyone’s consent yet you use such filthy language to all. Why? Do you have other’s consent for this! At least, try to behave according to what you say, believe or propose.

With love,
Sanjay

Ecmandu, by the way, religions answered you deliema of conflicting consents long lime ago, if you have an eye for it.

--------God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference. -------

That is precisely the solution for conflicting consents. Think over it.

With love,
Sanjay

That doesn’t satisfy the people who think that conflicts ought to go away … that there ought to be one solution that everyone accepts as the only right one.

Yes, and given the topic of the thread, the idea that everyone should do Buddhism OR no one should
are the choices is just silly.
We have different needs, goals, skills, interests, temperments…
That one spiritual path or a self-improvement path or one philosohpical approach is the right one for everyone has a lot of assumptions in it that I haven’t seen justified.

My “one solution that everyone ought accept”

Is!

Positive non zero sum hyper dimensional mirror realities attached to individual desire matrices forever.

You know what that means? My “one way” is actually everyone’s way. “Individual desire matrices”

If it’s your gig to kill bacteria or have bacteria kill you. you can play that game without harming other beings.

I actually know a lot about ‘god people’. They want to be able to violate consent with no consequence or punishment… because that’s the god they worship, “the almighty, supreme consent violator” (who’s in heaven by the way!)

Every fucking being in all of existence is having their consent violated, presumably forever, and so to preserve their dignity, to enjoy their memories, they fabricate excuse after excuse to make meaning from consent violation “faith” “spirit contracts” “the path to enlightenment” “the highest possible level of consciousness be it god or enlightenment sees everything as perfect”, “moral nihilism”, “post modernism and post structuralism”, “bad is good”… ANYTHING to not be in the abyss!!! ANYTHING to find meaning!! It’s all shit. Here, I have a door for you… step into the abyss for a moment. I’m not going to hell you, I just want you to have a casual conversation with me in the abyss.

I edited my last message. I consider these edits important enough to point that out in another post.

“Spirituality must be distinguished from religion—because people of every faith, and of none, have had the same sorts of spiritual experiences.”
― Sam Harris, self-declared atheist, Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion

“In fact, we can directly experience that consciousness is never improved or harmed by what it knows. Making this discovery, again and again, is the basis of spiritual life.”
― Sam Harris, Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion

goodreads.com/work/quotes/2 … t-religion

I agree that all or many people, whether religious or not, at some point in their lives experience something extraordinary which they call spiritual. It is fine to me but so what and what next? Does the story ends here? And, if not, what next and how one is supposed to move further?

Do these so called atheist spiritualist like Sam harris have any answer? I do not think that they have any. Do they even understand why one feels spiritually awakened at times?

What these people are trying is something similar to when one tries to draw or understand the formulas of algebra without learning basic maths. This approach has never worked for anybody, nor it will work ever.

With love,
Sanjay

That is not this prayer is suggesting. It does not claim that there can be any single formula written in the sky for all people which they have to follow blindly in all cases.

Instead, this is saying that morality should be addressed at individual lavel and also case by case. Which means, one act may be moral for an individual in one case but the same act may be immortal to the same individual in other case.There cannot be any universal theory or solution. Morality depends on the contexts.

With love,
Sanjay

I don’t know, Sanjay. Buddhism is not a fundamentally theistic religion. Do you deny that it is spiritual?

No, I do not deny it. Spirituality entails Religiousity but not thesim. Having said that, it is still the issue of debate whether Buddhism is a theistic religion or not.

With love,
Sanjay

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmā_(Buddhism)

My link didn’t copy to ILP … just look up Brahma in Buddhism and pick the Wikipedia page that says “Brahma Buddhism”

The Buddha taught that the god realms are rebirth realms.