# I don't get Buddhism
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576
**Category:** Religion and Spirituality
**Created:** [October 4, 2019, 10:05pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576 "2019-10-04T22:05:09Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 67
### Author:  [@Karpel\_Tunnel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Karpel_Tunnel)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2020, 3:42am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576/1321 "2020-07-02T03:42:24Z")
In Buddhism language is not used nor is it viewed in the same way that language is used in either most Western academic contexts nor in most Western common sense uses of language views. IOW much of this discussion is extremely naive philosophically, because it is just assumed that ‘self’ ‘Karma’ ‘reincarnation’ and all the other words Iamb wants to treat like nouns are used in Buddhism just like in common sense use of nouns and how nouns are used in science.
And in the actual practice of Buddhism a great deal of work is done to undermine how language is normally used and how thought about ‘things’ proceeds.
Since these assumptions are not even discussed and Iamb has no consciousness of his own assumptions in the philosophy of language, he might as well be discussing quantum theory with his kindergarten teacher.
Elsewhere Phyllo pointed out his tendency to hijack threads. Well the whole fucking thread is hijacked by his (non-existent) ‘interest’ but also by the general lack of knowledge of both Buddhism and the philosophy of language.
And then further by a heady approach to something that is learned by doing.
Like using flash cards to become a good husband or parent.
This is all mental wanking to a hilariously anti-Buddhist degree. Shut the fuck up, try meditating or don’t. But the pretense that there is any real interest on Iamb’s part is lie number one.
Anyone care to convince all rational people that Iamb is interested in Buddhism or interested in learning about it?
You don’t just dismiss whole sections of posts as gibberish if one is interested. You actually get into specific questions about what you don’t understand.
For example.
One is asked to accept this claim at face value and spend time engaging in a ‘dialogue’ based on this claim of interest.
Well, one could try out Buddhism based on a similar assumption.
But for some reason the latter needs to have an argument designed to convince every rational person to spend time doing Buddhism.
The former claim, and the whole activity of posting in a philosophy forum, does not require any such argument.
The entire enterprise of Iamb’s criterion is based on a lie. You’re engaging with a liar. Not that he has the insight to notice this himself.
---
### Author:  [@Ecmandu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ecmandu)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2020, 3:52am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576/1322 "2020-07-02T03:52:12Z")
Karpel,
You’re only referring to particular sects of Zen Buddhism.
Yes. Zen Buddhism invented what the west now calls post modernism or post structuralism.
In Zen Buddhism you get a koan like “butterfly farts swim greenly” and you’re supposed to mediate on it for years. Kind of silly if you ask me.
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2020, 10:52am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576/1323 "2020-07-02T10:52:41Z")
A koan can help you get out of the intellectual trap that you are in.
---
### Author:  [@Ecmandu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ecmandu)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2020, 2:41pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576/1324 "2020-07-02T14:41:25Z")
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> A koan can help you get out of the intellectual trap that you are in.
Actually a koan just turns the world into a world of iambiguous’. “Words are just words talking about words; no matter what you say, it has nothing to do with me. I’m not accountable for anything. Might makes right.”
It’s a disease on this planet.
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2020, 3:51pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576/1325 "2020-07-02T15:51:55Z")
No. It forces you out of your “world of words” because it’s not understandable or solvable in terms of words.
---
### Author:  [@Ecmandu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ecmandu)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2020, 3:55pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576/1326 "2020-07-02T15:55:11Z")
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> No. It forces you out of your “world of words” because it’s not understandable or solvable in terms of words.
All it means is that words are a double edged sword. One one side, might makes right, on the other, right makes might. Zen koans always solve as might makes right: words don’t matter.
---
### Author:  [@iambiguous](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/iambiguous)
#### Post date: [July 3, 2020, 6:13pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576/1327 "2020-07-03T18:13:08Z")
> [@gib](#):
>
> With respect to the either/or world, I think most Buddhists would agree with you.
Note to Buddhists here:
Please note where/when, in your view, “I” becomes part of the world – of human interactions – as illusion. In particular, as it relates to the behaviors that you choose here and now as that pertains to the fate of “I” there and then beyond the grave. What can you pin down here and what is merely that which you believe to be the case “in your head”.
Note an example of how this all unfolds for you by focusing in on a particular context in which you choose one set of behaviors rather then another. In the either/or world.
Is there an agreed upon assessment of this by all Buddhists?
> [@gib](#):
>
> With respect to the is/ought world, I can’t say what a Buddhist would say, but I have an idea. So let me put my Buddhist cap back on. _Ah-hem_ Well, Biggy, the self is an illusion because nothing is permanent. Everything eventually fades into oblivion. Even when it’s here, it is always changing so that whatever it is in one moment, it ceases to be that in the next. We identify the things we see in our environment on the principle of permanence. We say: that is a chair, this is a fork, over there is my neighbor Ben. But is it really a chair? Is it really a fork? Maybe it was at one point. Maybe at one point the object I point to matched my conception of “chair” perfectly, but since then it has changed, and is therefore not the chair as I conceptualize it. Why would it be any different for myself? Maybe the self I conceptualize myself to be was that conceptualization perfectly, but since then I have changed, and I am no longer the self I imagine myself to be. In fact, I can never pin down myself. As soon as I think I’ve pegged myself for who I really am, I’m changed.
Forget chairs and forks and Ben. The is/ought world revolves instead around choosing behaviors derived from value judgments derived [in my view] from dasein. The part that revolves around conflicting goods construed by different people in different historical, cultural and experiential contexts. “I” then. “I” construed to be enlightened riding karma into the sunset and coming out on the other side re reincarnation and Nirvana.
> [@gib](#):
>
> So there’s an intellectual contraption if there ever was one, and a typical response from an average Buddhist as I understand Buddhists (if I’m wrong, it’s what this Buddhist responds with). If you say this falls short of an objective demonstration that all rational men and women are obligated to concur with, I would agree. But it does expose the logic and reasoning going on inside this Buddhist’s mind, that which underlies his position on the self and its illusory nature. So what’s your next move? What do you do with this?
Again, we’ll need an actual context. One that most here will be familiar with. Connecting the dots between what we think you mean by these words and how they would be applicable to the behaviors we choose…given the extent to which “I” is understood to be or not to be an illusion.
But, yes, this is merely how “I” think about these things. And that’s because my interest in God and religion revolve almost entirely around morality here and now and immortality there and then. If others have a different interest they should stand clear of my posts. Why? Because, as is often pointed out, I will “steer” the discussion back to that which is understood by me to be the most important function of God and religion.
> [@iambiguous](#):
>
> Again, I’m asking anyone to demonstrate that what they claim is true, all rational men and women are in turn obligated to believe. There are scientific claims and religious claims. What’s the difference between them? Well, scientific claims revolve mostly around the either/or world in which objective answers seem within reach. Depending how far out into the really, really big or far down into the really, really small you go. But what of religious claims? Up there or down here, what of demonstrations regarding claims pertaining to “enlightenment, karma, reincarnation, Nirvana, Brahman, the Four Noble Truths etc.”?
> [@gib](#):
>
> So I’ll take this to mean you’re asking me directly (as opposed to asking me what I’d do when confronted with other “unsavory” people demanding an irrefutable demonstration of my beliefs). As this Buddhist character I’m playing, I would probably appeal to the argument about permanence again–seems to be the founding pillar of the whole Buddhist philosophy, or at least that part of it that takes everything to be illusion–I would say that it follows from the impermanence of everything that everything we think we know about the world is false.
Here, however, I prefer Milan Kundera’s ruminations from the preface of The Unbearable Lightness of Being:
> [@](#):
>
> [b][Nietzsche’s] idea of eternal return is a mysterious one…to think that everything recurs as we once experienced it and that recurrence itself recurs ad infinitum!
>
> Putting it negatively, the myth of eternal returns states that a life which disappears once and for all…is like a shadow, without weight, dead in advance, and whether it was horrible, beautiful or sublime, its horror, sublimity, and beauty mean nothing. We need take no more note of it than a war between two African kingdoms in the 14th century, a war that altered nothing in the destiny of the world, even if a 100,000 blacks perished in excruciating torment…
>
> Let us therefore agree that the idea of eternal return implies a perspective from which things appear other than as we know them: they appear without the mitigating circumstance of their transitory nature. This mitigating circumstance prevents us from coming to a verdict. For how can we condemn something that is ephemeral, in transit…?
>
> Not long ago, I caught myself experiencing a most incredible sensation. Leafing through a book on Hitler, I was touched by some of his portraits: they reminded me of my childhood. I grew up during the war; several members of my family perished in Hitler’s concentration camps; but what were their deaths compared with the memories of a lost period of my life, a period that would never return?
>
> This reconciliation with Hitler reveals the profound moral perversity of a world that rests essentially on the nonexistence of return, for in this world everything is pardoned in advance and therefore everything cynically permitted. [/b]
But, of course, Buddhists, like most other religious denominations, offer up an “antidote”: their own particular denominational “spiritual” path connecting here and now with there and then.
Okay, fine. But how exactly does that actually unfold in the course of living one’s life as a Buddhist? From day to day to day? How are value judgments embodied on this side of the grave reconfigured into existence on the other side? And how does one go about bridging the gap between what one believes in his lor her head about all this and how one goes about substantiating it as in fact true?
Especially given that there are hundreds and hundreds of alternative spiritual paths out there…and with so much that is at stake.
> [@gib](#):
>
> The part about suffering and the alleviation of it through enlightenment follows from that.
Yes, if you swallow the assumptions – the intellectual contraptions – that Buddha concocted in his head all those years ago. Sure, human suffering itself staggers on at an ever more ghastly rate but at least Buddhists have found a way to subsume it on their own spiritual path.
I get that part. But do they get the parts that I suggest instead? Ah, but why on earth would they? An essentially meaningless human existence that ends for all of eternity in oblivion?
Instead, from my frame of mind, it’s straight back up into the “spiritual” clouds:
> [@gib](#):
>
> Once we realize this deep truth, all our worries and our angst disappear, all our suffering, which is based on our desires to achieve things in this illusory world, for this world to be a certain way–for us to have certain things, to gain wealth, to be adored, to be free of sickness and pain–vanishes. Why? For the same reason our longing and suffering vanishes when we wake from a dream. Realizing it is all a dream means realizing there is nothing to long for, nothing to desire. Whatever way we wanted the world to be, whatever we wanted to have, however we wanted to fix our lives, it could never have been in the first place–none of it was real–so we breath a sigh of relief, understanding that there is no need to struggle, to strive, to wallow in the fact that our life is like this and not like that.
Now, you tell me: What on earth does this sort of thing really have to do with the world as we know it today? The pandemic, the economic travail, the social unrest. The realities embedded statistically here: [ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-undernourishment](https://ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-undernourishment)
Well, obviously, if you can think yourself into believing what Buddhists do, everything right?
> [@iambiguous](#):
>
> First, we’ll need a context. “Dogmatism” or “just objective sounding statements” about what? Values revolving around what actual behaviors in what set of circumstances in which enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana are broached, examined and assessed.
> [@gib](#):
>
> Precisely. It depends on the behaviors, circumstances, dilemmas, etc. When the stakes are extremely high, people are more apt to fall back on their fundamental beliefs and values and defend them more rigorously. ← These are the contexts in which they might “insist” or be more “dogmatic”. But in other calmer, more relaxed, situations, they may be able to tolerate and entertain differing points of view, admit that while they believe what they believe, maybe they don’t know it with absolute certainty.
All Buddhists can do here then is to note actual examples from their own life. Connecting the dots between the behaviors that they choose, what they believe about enlightenment, karma, the four noble truths etc., and how that becomes intertwined in their head with reincarnation and Nirvana.
> [@gib](#):
>
> And I think it depends on the person too. Two people from the same religion, with faith in the same beliefs, may differ noticeably in terms of how much they insist that they are right and that they know the truth.
Okay, to the extent particular Buddhists might acknowledge this, I would then ask them to delve into the manner in which I construe human identity here, with respect to differing or conflicting value judgments, as the embodiment of dasein. Again, not an illusive “I”, but “I” situated out in a particular world understood in a particular way. A world which sans God and religion precipitates a fractured and fragmented sense of identity. An argument outlined in my signature threads.
---
### Author:  [@Ecmandu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ecmandu)
#### Post date: [July 3, 2020, 6:30pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576/1328 "2020-07-03T18:30:50Z")
You guys are all still in illusion. Though I point this more to iambiguous.
Being awake is extremely simple!!
All you need to understand to be awake is that zero sum realities never work. Positive non zero sum realities solve all of your problems iambiguous because there are no longer mutually exclusive or conflicting goods.
Sure iambiguous, you are correct in harping on this world as insolvent, but in doing so, you missed WHY!
It’s because this is a zero sum world!
Once you understand the root of all problems in existence (zero sum realities) you are an awakened one. You are awake.
Part of the hurdle for people to wake up is this wall around them that they can fix this world. They struggle to maintain that wall and the more they do, the more they suffer. They want to be the important one that conquers or fixes the world.
Existence will always eventually destroy that wall.
I don’t want everyone to be like me, that’d fucking suck! I do want everyone to be awake.
---
### Author:  [@iambiguous](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/iambiguous)
#### Post date: [July 3, 2020, 6:44pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576/1329 "2020-07-03T18:44:38Z")
> [@Ecmandu](#):
>
> You guys are all still in illusion. Though I point this more to iambiguous.
>
> Being awake is extremely simple!!
>
> All you need to understand to be awake is that zero sum realities never work. Positive non zero sum realities solve all of your problems iambiguous because there are no longer mutually exclusive or conflicting goods.
>
> Sure iambiguous, you are correct in harping on this world as insolvent, but in doing so, you missed WHY!
>
> It’s because this is a zero sum world!
>
> Once you understand the root of all problems in existence (zero sum realities) you are an awakened one. You are awake.
>
> Part of the hurdle for people to wake up is this wall around them that they can fix this world. They struggle to maintain that wall and the more they do, the more they suffer. They want to be the important one that conquers or fixes the world.
>
> Existence will always eventually destroy that wall.
>
> I don’t want everyone to be like me, that’d fucking suck! I do want everyone to be awake.
But I repeat myself… 😆😉
> [@](#):
>
> I have told you repeatedly that I am of the opinion – and that is all it is, my own personal opinion – that you are afflicted with a “condition” that prompts you to post things here at ILP that make absolutely no sense at all. Surreal, bizarre things. You pummel us with all of these assumptions about everything under the sun but you fail to convince me that you are actually able to demonstrate that they are true much beyond you believing that they are.
>
> Something is proven only in the fact of you having posted it.
And this is certainly no exception. Or, rather, not to me.
Again, unless we’re both wrong. And I certainly have no doubt that I may well be.
---
### Author:  [@iambiguous](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/iambiguous)
#### Post date: [July 3, 2020, 7:05pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576/1330 "2020-07-03T19:05:06Z")
> [@Karpel Tunnel](#):
>
> In Buddhism language is not used nor is it viewed in the same way that language is used in either most Western academic contexts nor in most Western common sense uses of language views. IOW much of this discussion is extremely naive philosophically, because it is just assumed that ‘self’ ‘Karma’ ‘reincarnation’ and all the other words Iamb wants to treat like nouns are used in Buddhism just like in common sense use of nouns and how nouns are used in science.
>
> And in the actual practice of Buddhism a great deal of work is done to undermine how language is normally used and how thought about ‘things’ proceeds.
>
> Since these assumptions are not even discussed and Iamb has no consciousness of his own assumptions in the philosophy of language, he might as well be discussing quantum theory with his kindergarten teacher.
>
> Elsewhere Phyllo pointed out his tendency to hijack threads. Well the whole fucking thread is hijacked by his (non-existent) ‘interest’ but also by the general lack of knowledge of both Buddhism and the philosophy of language.
>
> And then further by a heady approach to something that is learned by doing.
>
> Like using flash cards to become a good husband or parent.
>
> This is all mental wanking to a hilariously anti-Buddhist degree. Shut the fuck up, try meditating or don’t. But the pretense that there is any real interest on Iamb’s part is lie number one.
>
> Anyone care to convince all rational people that Iamb is interested in Buddhism or interested in learning about it?
>
> You don’t just dismiss whole sections of posts as gibberish if one is interested. You actually get into specific questions about what you don’t understand.
> For example.
>
> One is asked to accept this claim at face value and spend time engaging in a ‘dialogue’ based on this claim of interest.
> Well, one could try out Buddhism based on a similar assumption.
>
> But for some reason the latter needs to have an argument designed to convince every rational person to spend time doing Buddhism.
> The former claim, and the whole activity of posting in a philosophy forum, does not require any such argument.
>
> The entire enterprise of Iamb’s criterion is based on a lie. You’re engaging with a liar. Not that he has the insight to notice this himself.
A stooge on steroids?!
Probing me?! Exposing me?! Pummeling me?!
Note to others:
Having only just skimmed this latest “thumping” from him, is there anything at all that strikes you as worth my while? A point raised that I really should address?
Oh, and don’t forget to include an actual context.
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [July 4, 2020, 12:00pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576/1331 "2020-07-04T12:00:17Z")
You completely ignored this part:
> [@](#):
>
> KT wrote :
> In Buddhism language is not used nor is it viewed in the same way that language is used in either most Western academic contexts nor in most Western common sense uses of language views. IOW much of this discussion is extremely naive philosophically, because it is just assumed that ‘self’ ‘Karma’ ‘reincarnation’ and all the other words Iamb wants to treat like nouns are used in Buddhism just like in common sense use of nouns and how nouns are used in science.
>
> And in the actual practice of Buddhism a great deal of work is done to undermine how language is normally used and how thought about ‘things’ proceeds.
---
### Author:  [@iambiguous](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/iambiguous)
#### Post date: [July 4, 2020, 7:32pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576/1332 "2020-07-04T19:32:57Z")
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> You completely ignored this part:
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > KT wrote :
> > In Buddhism language is not used nor is it viewed in the same way that language is used in either most Western academic contexts nor in most Western common sense uses of language views. IOW much of this discussion is extremely naive philosophically, because it is just assumed that ‘self’ ‘Karma’ ‘reincarnation’ and all the other words Iamb wants to treat like nouns are used in Buddhism just like in common sense use of nouns and how nouns are used in science.
> >
> > And in the actual practice of Buddhism a great deal of work is done to undermine how language is normally used and how thought about ‘things’ proceeds.
Wow, that’s the part I would have pointed to as well!
But: you know me…
My interest in language on this thread revolves around the words used by religious folks to describe the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave. Coupled with the words used to describe what they imagine the fate of “I” to be on the other side of the grave.
And then their capacity to demonstrate that what they think these words mean “in their head” can be reconfigured into actual experiences that are able to convince others that they should share in this meaning. I merely connote “I” here as an existential contraption rooted in dasein.
Buddhists, Christians, Eastern, Western.
It’s all basically the same thing to me: Morality here and now, immortality there and then. Religion [existentially] in a nutshell. Words you concoct in your head. Deeds that bear them out.
After all, nouns in science are one thing, nouns in religion are, well, another thing altogether?
You know, depending on the context.
---
### Author:  [@Karpel\_Tunnel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Karpel_Tunnel)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2020, 6:53am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576/1333 "2020-07-05T06:53:07Z")
Let’s say you suffer from feelings of malaise or depression…
You decide to spend more time in nature. You read about this, give it a try. You find you feel a bit better. So, you add in camping or the occasional canoe trip. Or you take ac course in wild edibles or tracking animals, or move to the country…or…increase whatever seems like the part of ‘more time in nature’ that makes you feel better.
Is this something everyone should do? Who knows and probably not, people being different, having different needs and tastes. For someone else perhaps Buddhism might work…
They try the meditation while commuting. They notice they have more energy or are less disturbed by pressure at work or…
so they go to the local temple and get some mentoring.
Should everyone do this? Who knows and probably not, people being different, having different needs and tastes.
Maybe someone tries nature and notice no changes or find it boring. Maybe someone tries Buddhism and has the same results. Maybe someone tries posting online and notices no real changes in their emotional state or maybe this works for them.
A certain amount of trial and error, guided by intuition (fallible, but also connected to the individual) in finding things that make one feel better.
Everyone has already made choices that they spend a lot of time on and they cannot convince everyone that their choices should be everyone’s. EVeryone has already arrived, via non-scientific means, at a way of living that is working and not working to those degrees it does and doesn’t.
That’s what humans do. Of course they can try to be more scientific or more intuitive (since it is their own live own tastes and needs they are trying to aid).
But here we are, already having invested all our time for the last year in priorities of activities that we cannot demonstrate all others should copy.
Interests lead, rationality help or muddy, intuition has to be involved.
Time is passing.
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2020, 12:48pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576/1334 "2020-07-05T12:48:08Z")
Taking the first step requires being open to change. Believing that some states of existence are better than others and that those states are attainable. Accepting that some pursuits may turn out to be “a waste of time”.
---
### Author:  [@phyllo](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phyllo)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2020, 1:13pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576/1335 "2020-07-05T13:13:37Z")
Some assumptions allow you to move, other assumptions hold you back.
These assumptions cannot be demonstrated or proven correct.
One could not do science without the assumptions of science.
At best, they turn out to be useful assumptions.
---
### Author:  [@Karpel\_Tunnel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Karpel_Tunnel)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2020, 2:59pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576/1336 "2020-07-05T14:59:03Z")
> [@phyllo](#):
>
> Taking the first step requires being open to change. Believing that some states of existence are better than others and that those states are attainable. Accepting that some pursuits may turn out to be “a waste of time”.
Yes, and of course, there is that risk. Of course not doing anything new is also a risk - not that you are saying anything different, just adding to what you said. We do our best or try to. Or we don’t try.
---
### Author:  [@iambiguous](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/iambiguous)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2020, 7:19pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576/1337 "2020-07-05T19:19:35Z")
The Role of Karma in Buddhist Morality
Barbara O’Brien
> [@](#):
>
> Karma
>
> The Sanskrit word karma (or kamma in Pali) refers to volitional action. A doctrine of karma, then, is one that explains the effects of volitional action. Many religions of Asia have doctrines of karma. However, they are not the same doctrines.
The assumption then being that men and women [mere mortals] have free will. No omniscient God to explain away. On the other hand, how do Buddhists demonstrate the existence of human autonomy other than by way of simply assuming it? And how specifically is karma understood differently from, say, fate or destiny?
> [@](#):
>
> This is an important point, because I hear people dismiss karma as superstitious nonsense when I can tell they don’t actually know what Buddhism teaches about karma. Especially if you are new to Buddhism, I suggest putting aside any concept of karma you might already have and approaching the subject with an open mind.
Here, however, my own interest in karma – karma understood by the most enlightened of Buddhists – is how this comprehension/appreciation is made applicable in grappling with the existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then. What of karma then? How are the behaviors we choose manifested through karma into one rather than another manifestation of “I” upon shuffling off this mortal coil that, here and now, is all we know?
> [@](#):
>
> First, the Buddha taught that karma is a kind of natural law, not directed by any sort of supernatural intelligence. The is no Big Giant Karma Director in the sky handing out rewards and punishments.
A “kind” of natural law? Okay, in regard to the pursuits of science, natural laws have come to be understood with extraordinary precision. This very technology that we use to exchange points of view for example. And the knowledge that medical doctors have come to grasp in dealing with biological afflictions has accumulated leaps and bounds.
But what of karma as a “kind of natural law”? Specifically in regard to the things that interest me here? And, if not a “Big Giant Karma Director in the sky handing out rewards and punishments”, what then?
What could the Buddha have grasped about karma centuries ago when even today it is conjectured that…
“It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.”
Try to even imagine Buddha being confronted with natural laws of this magnitude.
Or this:
> [@iambiguous](#):
>
> Light travels at approximately 186,000 miles a second. That is about 6,000,000,000,000 miles a year.
>
> The closest star to us is Alpha Centauri. It is 4.75 light-years away. 28,500,000,000,000 miles.
>
> So, traveling at 186,000 miles a second, it would take us 4.75 years to reach it. The voyager spacecraft [just now exiting our solar system] will take 70,000 years to reach it.
>
> To reach the center of the Milky Way galaxy it would take 100,000 light-years.
>
> Or consider this:
>
> “To get to the closest galaxy to ours, the Canis Major Dwarf, at Voyager’s speed, it would take approximately 749,000,000 years to travel the distance of 25,000 light years! If we could travel at the speed of light, it would still take 25,000 years!”
>
> The Andromeda galaxy is 2.537 million light years away.
>
> Or this:
>
> “The universe is about 13.7 billion years old. Light reaching us from the earliest known galaxies has been traveling, therefore, for more than 13 billion years. So one might assume that the radius of the universe is 13.7 billion light-years and that the whole shebang is double that, or 27.4 billion light-years wide.”
>
> For all practical purposes, it is beyond the imagination of mere mortals here on planet Earth to grasp just how staggeringly immense the universe is.
>
> As for situating “I” in all of this…?
Really, how on earth do Buddhists factor karma into all of this?
---
### Author:  [@Karpel\_Tunnel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Karpel_Tunnel)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2020, 8:11pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576/1338 "2020-07-05T20:11:45Z")
One can always start with what one is doing now.
What is the evidence that it works or makes life better or is supported by science or…
one could evaluate what one does now by whatever values one uses: is what I am doing now fun? Do I miss something else that I value?
One can collect all the information one has about what one does now?
Does it meet the criteria I demand of activities I have no participated in?
For ex. Does it seem to be moving me towards my goals?
Do I seem to be developing in the direction I would like=
Is there any chance it will improve my life? How much chance?
Does it help me achieve what I value?
Then one can use this to decide whether to look for anything new at all. And also one can compare the level of evidence/satisfaction
with what evidence there is that the other activities might help or lead to satisfaction or both.
One is never on neutral ground. One has already invested a huge amount of energy in activities that likely cannot be demonstrated to all rational people, for example, that these should be engaged in by everyone.
Should everyone be convinced that posting in a philosophy forum is something that everyone should do? Watching films? Whatever the list of current activities are.
If these activities, the ones one is currently engaged in do not meet that criterion, then it is not a valid criterion in relation to a new activity. It has to be a comparative one. Or an interest based one.
And since other activities generally are safe to explore for short periods in limited ways, there is no loss in exploring, unless one is utterly satisfied and also thinks what one is doing now is something all rather people should be convinced to engage in and only those activities.
So, if one is satisfied with what one is doing epistemologically AND in terms of satisfaction, well there is no problem.
If one’s current activity does not meet the epistemological demands one makes on others, one is being hypocritical. And also, happily enough, one is free to explore.
---
### Author:  [@Karpel\_Tunnel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Karpel_Tunnel)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2020, 8:24pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576/1339 "2020-07-05T20:24:05Z")
For me the choice of not being a Buddhist is based on experience and the goals of Buddhism. The practice related goals, for example, are not my goals. It doesn’t match what I value. My experience of Buddhist practices as opposed to other activities I do engage in leads me to the conclusion that Buddhism is not leading me towards what I want for myself, or would not. I do something that could be called meditation, but for me it does not lead to a split between urge and action, nor between the limbic system and the neocortex.
This took time for me to understand. I do not regret my practical, immersed exploration of Buddhism. But it is not for me.
It is nto like I think, however, that all rational people should do what I do, should engage in my activities. They don’t share my goals, values, tastes, interests and much more.
Buddhism tend to lead, also, from what I have experienced in both the East and WEst, to certain ways of relating to oneself and others that I do not want. These are tendencies, strong ones I think, but not universal ones. But when you engage in practices the practices, even posting here, will lead to certain kinds of relations with others and yourself. Join the military and you have tendencies towards certain traits. Follow Phish as a groupie in social contact with other groupies and this will lead to certain tendencies, not universally, but statistically. What you do affects how you relate. Corporate culture, anarchist communes, monasteries, English football clubs…likewise.
I think it’s probably better for most people to follow what they are drawn to, so it fits them. But even that has exceptions since some people seem to like cultures and practices that feel bad or that don’t fit them but they love or value the struggle to fit something they don’t fit well.
If you want to observe but not identify with your limbic system, well Buddhism might be a good fit.
If you want quiet and peace, but not rajasic experience (pardon the cross-tradition metaphor) then Buddhism might be a good fit.
If want control as opposed to full expression as prioritized value then Buddhism might be a good fit for you.
No unviersals. No proofs.
We are immanent, we have challenges. And a lot of things cannot be known in advance of experience.
Time is passing.
---
### Author:  [@Karpel\_Tunnel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Karpel_Tunnel)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2020, 8:31pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576/1340 "2020-07-05T20:31:44Z")
And by the way, my writing here might make it sounds like I consider this easy. I don’t.
I mean, i suppose it might be for some, but these kinds of things have not been easy for me. Time, experience, poor choices, rechoosing, being confused, disappointment and a lot of other not easy or unpleasant things happened.
My tone is in relation to idea of proof, this third person, I won’t move unless it is proved to me, childish attitude, which in the end is extremely extremely idealistic and hallucinated. It’s not that easy, in fact, is part of my point.
It’s not something one gets like a self-help books in the mail, there’s the answer, whew now I am happy or great or enlightened or not suffering or living forever or whatever one’s goals are.
Reading shit is not going to address the issues that experiencing and exploring might address, if they are given the chance.
But one can hold one’s metahorical breath and expect the adults to save you.
Time is passing.
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576.md?page=66)
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-dont-get-buddhism/46576.md?page=68)