I don't get Buddhism

[MagsJ (..a chic geek)]

@iambiguous

As I noted previously, we are in two different discussions here. I wish to bring what I construe to be your “general descriptions” out into the world and explore how you reconfigure them into particular behaviors that “here and now” you deem to be “the right thing to do”. And how you then connect this dot to that which [God or No God] you imagine the fate of “I” to be when you die.

As that is understood by me given the components of my own moral philosophy embedded in my signature threads.

And, yes, my own approach to God and religion is very much “situation dependent”.

You can no doubt find others here who wish to pursue your own interest in religion. But I’m more intent on focusing the beam on the things that interest me instead. Acknowledging that my own priorities are by no means the priorities that others are obligated to pursue.

Focus away, babe.

[MagsJ (..a chic geek)]

@iambiguous

We are clearly in two different discussions here. And, sure, your understanding of it may well be more reasonable than mine. But for someone who is reading my posts on this thread to ask me what our individuals paths – our actual lived lives – have to do with a discussion of Buddhism is simply beyond my capacity even to grasp. As though the historical, cultural and circumstantial parameters of the life that we do live [b]as it relates to anything and everything we come into contact with or do not come into contact with relating to Buddhism[/b] is not pertinent in a discussion of Buddhism.

For example, what of all of the millions and millions of human beings who lived and died on planet Earth before Buddha himself even existed? What of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana for them when there wasn’t even a Buddhist religion around to turn to?

At least with Western religions we have God to fall back on. One might ask what of all the millions and millions of human beings that existed before the birth of Christ? But God Himself was always around. And questions like this can be dumped into that vast gap between an omniscient/omnipotent God and mere mortals like you and I.

But what of Buddhism here?

Note to others:

What am I missing in her reaction here? What point is she making that, in your opinion, succeeds in actually responding to the points that I raise? And [of course] let’s take this out into the world and focus in on a particular context.

I’ve acknowledged the many very real benefits of Buddhism insofar as it allows one to attain and then to sustain a more constructive mental and emotional outlook on life. And how that is translated into better physical health.

But over and over again, I note that my own interest in Buddhism – in religion itself – is the existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then. As that relates to the actual life that we live at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political economy.

That was addressed in previous posts… you remain circular in your argument and keep bringing the discussion back to the beginning. Is that what you mean by “Back to the beginning morality”?

And, from my frame of mind, the manner in which you go there is far removed from the manner in which I do. And that’s fine. But until you demonstrate to me that you have at least some understanding of my own approach, the exchange is basically not worth pursuing from my end.

You’re not of the ‘fluid, like water’ kind of mind, that much has become evident… that is perhaps where we are differing in our approaches.

[surreptitious75]

When water is poured into a vessel it occupies all parts of it equally and naturally
From a Buddhist perspective the optimum state for a mind should also be like this

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@surreptitious75

When water is poured into a vessel it occupies all parts of it equally and naturally
From a Buddhist perspective the optimum state for a mind should also be like this

Can a vessel be anything other than what it is?

[phyllo]

When water is poured into a vessel it occupies all parts of it equally and naturally
From a Buddhist perspective the optimum state for a mind should also be like this

A fluid mind trapped within a rigid vessel.

Ouch. :-&

[iambiguous]

Buddhist Retreat
Why I gave up on finding my religion.
By JOHN HORGAN at Slate Magazine

The major vehicle for achieving enlightenment is meditation, touted by both Buddhists and alternative-medicine gurus as a potent way to calm and comprehend our minds. The trouble is, decades of research have shown meditation’s effects to be highly unreliable, as James Austin, a neurologist and Zen Buddhist, points out in Zen and Brain. Yes, it can reduce stress, but, as it turns out, no more so than simply sitting still does. Meditation can even exacerbate depression, anxiety, and other negative emotions in certain people.

Here we go again. Anecdotal accounts in which particular individuals insist that Buddhist meditation techniques have enabled them to achieve an extraordinary control over mental and emotional states that once beat them to a pulp. And I have myself met more than just a handful of people who have noted remarkable turnabouts in their lives as a result on their investment in these and other spiritual techniques.

Indeed, there are any number of programs out there that promise much the same thing. In fact, HBO is now airing a documentary examination of Nxivm. The first episodes focus on the group before it became synonymous with sex scandal. Techniques were introduced that greatly facilitated any number of members in acquiring more balanced and meaningful lives. For others, it’s Scientology. Or est. Or astrology. Or numerology. Or any one of dozens of New Age “paths” that are available in order to find purpose and direction in life.

Here’s a list of just some of them: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l … anizations

But in regard to all of them, my reaction is the same: morality here and now, immortality there and then. What say you? And what are you actually able demonstrate that I should say it too.

Then the part that is examined more critically, more rigorously, more scientifically:

The insights imputed to meditation are questionable, too. Meditation, the brain researcher Francisco Varela told me before he died in 2001, confirms the Buddhist doctrine of anatta, which holds that the self is an illusion.

Okay, then the part of the self that contends that the self is an illusion is an illusion too.

Come on, get serious. There are any number of actual empirical truths – facts – we can communicate to others about ourselves that are easily confirmed by our senses, by our brain’s capacity to exchange rational information about ourselves.

I challenge anyone to explain how, in an autonomous world, we could manage to interact socially, politically and economically from day to day to day if “I” in these contexts was illusory.

Elusory, sure. Especially in regard to our reactions to conflicting goods in the is/ought world. But even here there are countless facts about our lives that can be communicated. Why? Because they describe aspects of our relationships that did/do/will in fact occur. Well, barring the usual arguments about sim worlds and dream worlds and the matrix.

Varela contended that anatta has also been corroborated by cognitive science, which has discovered that our perception of our minds as discrete, unified entities is an illusion foisted upon us by our clever brains. In fact, all that cognitive science has revealed is that the mind is an emergent phenomenon, which is difficult to explain or predict in terms of its parts; few scientists would equate the property of emergence with nonexistence, as anatta does.

Again: Given what set of circumstances in which “I” is attempting to communicate something to another when the need to verify it as true or not true [or true here but not there] becomes important.

Anatta: In Buddhism, the term anattā or anātman refers to the doctrine of “non-self”, that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in phenomena. It is one of the seven beneficial perceptions in Buddhism, and one of the three marks of existence along with dukkha and anicca.

Let’s take this out into the world of human experiences and note the extent to which we are able to make the self disappear.

[iambiguous]

@MagsJ

@iambiguous

As I noted previously, we are in two different discussions here. I wish to bring what I construe to be your “general descriptions” out into the world and explore how you reconfigure them into particular behaviors that “here and now” you deem to be “the right thing to do”. And how you then connect this dot to that which [God or No God] you imagine the fate of “I” to be when you die.

As that is understood by me given the components of my own moral philosophy embedded in my signature threads.

And, yes, my own approach to God and religion is very much “situation dependent”.

You can no doubt find others here who wish to pursue your own interest in religion. But I’m more intent on focusing the beam on the things that interest me instead. Acknowledging that my own priorities are by no means the priorities that others are obligated to pursue.

Focus away, babe.

Count on it.

[iambiguous]

@iambiguous

We are clearly in two different discussions here. And, sure, your understanding of it may well be more reasonable than mine. But for someone who is reading my posts on this thread to ask me what our individuals paths – our actual lived lives – have to do with a discussion of Buddhism is simply beyond my capacity even to grasp. As though the historical, cultural and circumstantial parameters of the life that we do live [b]as it relates to anything and everything we come into contact with or do not come into contact with relating to Buddhism[/b] is not pertinent in a discussion of Buddhism.

For example, what of all of the millions and millions of human beings who lived and died on planet Earth before Buddha himself even existed? What of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana for them when there wasn’t even a Buddhist religion around to turn to?

At least with Western religions we have God to fall back on. One might ask what of all the millions and millions of human beings that existed before the birth of Christ? But God Himself was always around. And questions like this can be dumped into that vast gap between an omniscient/omnipotent God and mere mortals like you and I.

But what of Buddhism here?

@MagsJ

That was addressed in previous posts… you remain circular in your argument and keep bringing the discussion back to the beginning. Is that what you mean by “Back to the beginning morality”?

Then we will have to agree to disagree regarding what it means to address the points I made above.

And, from my frame of mind, the manner in which you go there is far removed from the manner in which I do. And that’s fine. But until you demonstrate to me that you have at least some understanding of my own approach, the exchange is basically not worth pursuing from my end.

@MagsJ

You’re not of the ‘fluid, like water’ kind of mind, that much has become evident… that is perhaps where we are differing in our approaches.

Again, in regard to Buddhism, what is of most interest to me is that which is of most interest to me regarding all other religions: how do the faithful connect the dots existentially between what they believe is the “right thing to do” on this side of the grave… given that in doing the right things [or the most enlightened things] they will achieve that which they believe will be their fate on the other side of the grave.

Now, given examples from your own life, what does it mean to have a “fluid, like water” kind of mind?

And, in particular, how would you describe that in regard to your moral and political and spiritual convictions.

What I construe to be a “fluid, like water” kind of mind is a mind that flows over time…coming into contact with new experiences, new relationships, new ideas…that can act to change that mind.

A mind embedded in the manner in which I attempt to describe my own here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382

So, given the course of your own life, how is your mind deemed by you to be fluid, like water?

[iambiguous]

@surreptitious75

When water is poured into a vessel it occupies all parts of it equally and naturally
From a Buddhist perspective the optimum state for a mind should also be like this

Perhaps the perfect example of how a “spiritual” frame of mind tells us practically nothing at all about the actual lives we live in confronting conflicting goods and the possibility of oblivion.

[iambiguous]

@phyllo

When water is poured into a vessel it occupies all parts of it equally and naturally
From a Buddhist perspective the optimum state for a mind should also be like this

A fluid mind trapped within a rigid vessel.

Ouch. :-&

Ouch for some, true.

But, for others, it becomes the spiritual equivalent of Temple Grandin’s “hug machine”. Only we’re people not cows so the hug comes in the form of a soothing frame of mind in which God or the universe fills all parts of us equally and naturally.

[felix_dakat]

@iambiguous

@felix dakat

Yes. Mindfulness of death doesn’t fit Iam’s model of what a religion is supposed to do. He doesn’t show that he has comprehended the proposition, nor does he refute it. He just dismisses it and clings to his prior conception.

On the contrary, I suggest that any particular individual’s “model of what religion is supposed to do” is rooted historically and culturally and experientially in dasein. My own certainly is. Thus, subjectively/subjunctively, I have come to conclude religions function down through the ages seems to revolve around creating a font that enables human behaviors to be judged on this side of the grave, and providing assurance that death is just a door opening up to the path encompassing immortality and salvation on the other side.

Then the stuff Marx focused in on. Religion as a manifestation of political economy.

Oh, and for all the different religious folks here, what “proposition” – as a general description intellectual contraption – is the most rational in regard to “the mindfulness of death”.

Perhaps you can at least pin down how technically serious philosophers are obligated to grasp it.

@felix dakat

He asks if mindfulness of death would comfort and console a person. On the contrary, the idea of mindfulness of death is intended to move a person to live more fully. In the experiences of the people that I cited, that’s exactly what happened, when they were confronted with the immediate possibility of their own death.

No, I ask those who subscribe to one or another religious narrative/path/dogma if their own spiritual bent comforts and consoles them. And then I note the manner in which I fit this into what I call the “psychology of objectivism”: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296

In other words, they believe what they do because it does comfort and console them. The belief itself can be practically anything.

As for “living more fully”, how are the choices embedded in this not profoundly rooted in dasein? And what of those behaviors that come into conflict over value judgments rooted objectively in one or another God/No God font? Then the part where all of this is connected to death. Is there an understanding a “mindfulness” here that is to be preferred?

@felix dakat

“Being-toward-death” Heidegger called it. Like the religious orientation that he criticizes, Iambiguous’ method appears to be a desperate means of avoiding authentic confrontation with "Being- towards- the-end"which were he to do so might propel him into life more abundantly.

I ask with Heidegger “Can Dasein…understand authentically its ownmost possibility which is non-relational and not to be outstripped which is certain and as such indefinite?”

Heidegger! No “general description intellectual contraptions” from him, right?

Next up: “authentic confrontation with ‘Being-towards-the-end’”

Cue the skyhooks: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27 … and_cranes

And, of course, as all know too well, there are both religious and philosophical renditions of those.

I’ve already cited Buddhist texts which are entwined with personal experiences which you denigrated and said were irrelevant to your concerns. Zen Buddhism does not conform to your model of being directed toward an afterlife. It doesn’t require a leap of faith just a practice of mindfulness meditation. Being shocked into consciousness of the preciousness of living in the present moment doesn’t fit your model of what a religion has to be ie that it connects morality here and now and immortality there and then. As far as the terrible conditions around the globe that you describe Buddha said that life was suffering. The terrible conditions are in no way inconsistent with that. I think the problem lies not with what Buddhism is but rather with your inadequate conception of religion.

[phyllo]

I challenge anyone to explain how, in an autonomous world, we could manage to interact socially, politically and economically from day to day to day if “I” in these contexts was illusory.

Most of the lifeforms on this planet do all that they need to do without an “I”.

Why would humans need an “I” to function?

[iambiguous]

@felix dakat

I’ve already cited Buddhist texts which are entwined with personal experiences which you denigrated and said were irrelevant to your concerns.

As with everyone else here, I choose to devote a certain amount of time each day to these discussions. Reading all of the links that you and others provide may or may not pique my interest. Nothing that you haver excerpted so far has.

So, why don’t you cite what you deem to be the best examples from “Buddhist texts” in which personal experiences are explored in the manner in which a Buddhist connects the dots between enlightenment and karma on this side of the grave [given the behaviors they choose in regard to particular sets of circumstances] and the fate of “I” given reincarnation and Nirvana on the other side.

Better yet why don’t you cite your own experiences and note how your understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana evolved over time given the particular life that you have lived.

Note to others:

Given your familiarity with these texts, can you cite examples of this?

@felix dakat

Zen Buddhism does not conform to your model of being directed toward an afterlife. It doesn’t require a leap of faith just a practice of mindfulness meditation. Being shocked into consciousness of the preciousness of living in the present moment doesn’t fit your model of what a religion has to be ie that it connects morality here and now and immortality there and then. As far as the terrible conditions around the globe that you describe Buddha said that life was suffering. The terrible conditions are in no way inconsistent with that. I think the problem lies not with what Buddhism is but rather with your inadequate conception of religion.

Yet another “general description intellectual contraption” in which Zen Buddhism is reduced down to that which you claim to believe about it “in your head”. Or “from the texts”?

As for what the Buddha said about suffering…did he also explain why “the universe” feels it necessary to make this suffering so enormous for some and so minimal for others.

Let’s take the suffering here: un.org/en/chronicle/article … d%20hunger.

"Each day, 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes. Some 854 million people worldwide are estimated to be undernourished, and high food prices may drive another 100 million into poverty and hunger. "

Give it your best shot as to how you image Buddha reacting to that if he were around today. For Christians of course that’s all subsumed in their loving, just and merciful God’s “mysterious ways”.

Also, assuming that Buddha did fact achieve the “ultimate spiritual goal” that is Nirvana – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism – how might his existence here be compared to his existence on our side of the grave?

In other words, with most Western religious folks, their Nirvana is Heaven. And their “I” as a soul is presumably still connected with their “I” here and now.

But what of the Buddha’s sense of self on this side of the grave. Is that obliterated at death such that when he achieves Nirvana it is as…as what? as who?

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@phyllo

I challenge anyone to explain how, in an autonomous world, we could manage to interact socially, politically and economically from day to day to day if “I” in these contexts was illusory.

Most of the lifeforms on this planet do all that they need to do without an “I”.

Why would humans need an “I” to function?

The first irony is that he always puts ‘I’ in citation marks, just like that, as if one cannot assume an I. He also considered it contingent (all the dasein and bemoaning that he might change his mind like he did in the past). And then that there is no way to know what is authentic as ‘I’. He is constantly acting like a half-awake Buddhist, bemoaning the

impermanence (a facet of Buddhism anyone interested would have noticed and if he had related to his own bemoanings)

of various facets of his ‘I’.

Further he can see little that says there might be free will - see the determinism thread.

In a deterministic universe what is an ‘I’. An observer, an epiphenomenon at best.

And note the lack of interest in defining ‘I’ on his part. So the discussion can run on with people talking past each other.

Last, again, as is his usual tack these days: an argument from incredulity.

He is incredulous that it could work

BUT MAKES NO ARGUMENT.

Other people are supposed to make arguments. He just gets to assert things.

He’s a troll and a hypocrite.

[iambiguous]

@phyllo

I challenge anyone to explain how, in an autonomous world, we could manage to interact socially, politically and economically from day to day to day if “I” in these contexts was illusory.

Most of the lifeforms on this planet do all that they need to do without an “I”.

Why would humans need an “I” to function?

Am I actually meant to take this seriously?

It’s not so much what our own species needs with “I” to function, but that the biological evolution of life on planet Earth has resulted in a species able to invent the word “I”, and grapple with its meaning in the world around it.

And again regarding this…

I challenge anyone to explain how, in an autonomous world, we could manage to interact socially, politically and economically from day to day to day if “I” in these contexts was illusory.

…how far will you go in reconfiguring the things you think, feel, say and do down to an illusion.

Illusory in what sense given our interactions in, say, the either/or world.

Assuming free will, you are now reading these words of your own volition. In what way is this just an illusion in regard to how to you understand a “self” functioning out in the world?

Same for the Buddhists. How far is the illusory “I” taken in regard to those posting on this thread?

[iambiguous]

@Curly

@phyllo

I challenge anyone to explain how, in an autonomous world, we could manage to interact socially, politically and economically from day to day to day if “I” in these contexts was illusory.

Most of the lifeforms on this planet do all that they need to do without an “I”.

Why would humans need an “I” to function?

The first irony is that he always puts ‘I’ in citation marks, just like that, as if one cannot assume an I. He also considered it contingent (all the dasein and bemoaning that he might change his mind like he did in the past). And then that there is no way to know what is authentic as ‘I’. He is constantly acting like a half-awake Buddhist, bemoaning the

impermanence (a facet of Buddhism anyone interested would have noticed and if he had related to his own bemoanings)

of various facets of his ‘I’.

Further he can see little that says there might be free will - see the determinism thread.

In a deterministic universe what is an ‘I’. An observer, an epiphenomenon at best.

And note the lack of interest in defining ‘I’ on his part. So the discussion can run on with people talking past each other.

Last, again, as is his usual tack these days: an argument from incredulity.

He is incredulous that it could work

BUT MAKES NO ARGUMENT.

Other people are supposed to make arguments. He just gets to assert things.

He’s a troll and a hypocrite.

Nope, nothing new here.

Instead, he is just getting more and more frenetic in attacking me. And, over and again, I marvel at the fact that I bring this out in someone who, to the best of my knowledge, professes not to be a moral or a political objectivist, who professes not to be a religious advocate.

That’s a first for me. At least given this level of vitriol.

On the other hand, if he is willing to, we can create a new thread and discuss an issue relating to “morality here and now, immortality there and then”. An entirely civil attempt to grapple with how we construe human interactions at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments and political economy. And, in turn, given the components of his own moral philosophy.

This would give him an excellent opportunity to note specifically where and when and how his accusations above are applicable.

Again though, civilly. With respect for each other’s intelligence given the extraordinary complexities involved [genetically, memetically] in human interactions.

[felix_dakat]

@Karpel Tunnel

@felix dakat

Abstract
In this article, I argue that “mindfulness of death” (maraṇasati) can be a tool to induce mortality salience and can have a positive psychological impact. The mindfulness of death is described in detail in the early Buddhist texts Aṅguttara Nikāya and Visuddhimagga. The texts stress that death should be consciously connected with temporality and mindfulness. Here, I look at the mindfulness of death in relation to the mortality salience of terror management theory. “Mortality salience” is a term proposed in terror management theory that means “the state of conscious activation of the thoughts of death”. In addition, after conscious activation of the thought of death, I examine the psychological changes, such as the increase of pro-social attitudes which emphasizes ethics and morality, and the emphasis on the intrinsic value of life due to the operation of a cultural worldview and self-esteem. In this paper, I conclude that mindfulness of death can be an effective tool to induce mortality salience. mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/6/353/htm

Iamb:
Note to others:

See if you can spot a particularly ponderous intellectual contraption take on death here.

After you spot it, imagine that you find out that your own actual existential death is imminent. Would repeating the above over and over and over again comfort and console you?

How about if you believed deeply in a religious faith that promised immortality and the chance to attain and then sustain salvation for all the rest of eternity?

As has been pointed out ad nauseum, you’re the one stuck in intellectual contraptions. You’re gonna give nihilism a bad name.

That is true, but also he simply does not address what you posted while acting as if he has. Instead of pointing out what is the contraption and then justifying that label, he asks others to find it. Instead of considering what the article actually suggests, he asks people if repeating ‘the above’ would comfort and console one. IOW he misrepresents what the article suggests as a beneficial practice and then does not in any way justify dismissing what the article actually suggests. He presents, as if often the case, an argument of incredulity., iow a fallacy. Something he might make fun of if it was done by some young guy from over at knowthyself, but is perfectly fair game on his part.

So, misrepresentation, a fallacy, and not a single justification of anything he asserts. A teenager wanting to come home after family curfew does much better than this in arguments. They understand that you have to justify your assertions.

Right. Iambiguous is really a model of poor communication. Before one enters into criticism of a proposition, good communication requires that one paraphrase the proposition in such a way that shows that they understood it. Iambiguous doesn’t do that. He just labels the proposition a contraption. He simply dismisses ideas without making it clear that he understands them. If I or anyone here do the same thing, it immediately becomes apparent that that’s no way to conduct a dialogue. His inability to see this seems to reflect an incapacity for personal insight. You’ve been diagnosing his problem correctly for some time in my opinion, but he doesn’t seem to be profiting from your comments.

[iambiguous]

@Larry

Right. Iambiguous is really a model of poor communication. Before one enters into criticism of a proposition, good communication requires that one paraphrase the proposition in such a way that shows that they understood it. Iambiguous doesn’t do that. He just labels the proposition a contraption. He simply dismisses ideas without making it clear that he understands them. If I or anyone here do the same thing, it immediately becomes apparent that that’s no way to conduct a dialogue. His inability to see this seems to reflect an incapacity for personal insight. You’ve been diagnosing his problem correctly for some time in my opinion, but he doesn’t seem to be profiting from your comments.

Note to others:

Once again we are are asked to entertain yet more psychobabble, more intellectual glop from one of the Stooges: it’s all about me.

And yet when I ask them to take these accusations and intertwine them into a particular context relating to the main components of Buddhism, a set of circumstances likely to be familiar to all of us? Nothing.

You would think they would relish the opportunity to point to actual instances of my “contraptions”, my “dismissals” my “incapacity for personal insights”, my “problems”.

I challenge them to do so.

For example, my contention above that the manner in which Buddhists deem the self to be an “illusion” overlaps in some respects with my understanding of dasein, but in other respects it does not. And the manner in which I construe I in the either/or world contra “I” in the is/ought world as this relates to the Buddhist understanding of enlightenment and karma reflected in the behaviors they choose over the course of living their lives.

Let Larry, Moe and/or Curly choose a “situation” involving conflicting goods in which “I” explore the components of my moral philosophy, they explore the component of theirs and, if there are any committed Buddhists among us, they can react to the points we raise.

Or, if no Buddhists participate, references can be taken from “the texts”.

An intelligent and civil exchange such that I can dispense with the part about the “Stooges” altogether.

[felix_dakat]

@iambiguous

@Larry

Right. Iambiguous is really a model of poor communication. Before one enters into criticism of a proposition, good communication requires that one paraphrase the proposition in such a way that shows that they understood it. Iambiguous doesn’t do that. He just labels the proposition a contraption. He simply dismisses ideas without making it clear that he understands them. If I or anyone here do the same thing, it immediately becomes apparent that that’s no way to conduct a dialogue. His inability to see this seems to reflect an incapacity for personal insight. You’ve been diagnosing his problem correctly for some time in my opinion, but he doesn’t seem to be profiting from your comments.

Note to others:

Once again we are are asked to entertain yet more psychobabble, more intellectual glop from one of the Stooges: it’s all about me.

And yet when I ask them to take these accusations and intertwine them into a particular context relating to the main components of Buddhism, a set of circumstances likely to be familiar to all of us? Nothing.

You would think they would relish the opportunity to point to actual instances of my “contraptions”, my “dismissals” my “incapacity for personal insights”, my “problems”.

I challenge them to do so.

For example, my contention above that the manner in which Buddhists deem the self to be an “illusion” overlaps in some respects with my understanding of dasein, but in other respects it does not. And the manner in which I construe I in the either/or world contra “I” in the is/ought world as this relates to the Buddhist understanding of enlightenment and karma reflected in the behaviors they choose over the course of living their lives.

Let Larry, Moe and/or Curly choose a “situation” involving conflicting goods in which “I” explore the components of my moral philosophy, they explore the component of theirs and, if there are any committed Buddhists among us, they can react to the points we raise.

Or, if no Buddhists participate, references can be taken from “the texts”.

An intelligent and civil exchange such that I can dispense with the part about the “Stooges” altogether.

Another case in point. You’re really not worth talking to accept as a case. Trying to communicate with you is about as amusing as picking at a scab. About that edifying too.

[iambiguous]

@Larry

Another case in point. You’re really not worth talking to accept as a case. Trying to communicate with you is about as amusing as picking at a scab. About that edifying too.

Again, if it doesn’t embarrass Larry that I reduce him down to Kidstuff “retorts” like this, it doesn’t embarrass me to keep letting him.

On the other hand, maybe Moe or Curly will take up my offer to pursue an intelligent and civil exchange revolving around this:

For example, my contention above that the manner in which Buddhists deem the self to be an “illusion” overlaps in some respects with my understanding of dasein, but in other respects it does not. And the manner in which I construe I in the either/or world contra “I” in the is/ought world as this relates to the Buddhist understanding of enlightenment and karma reflected in the behaviors they choose over the course of living their lives.

Or something of their own choosing.