I don't get Buddhism

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1721

On the contrary, my point is that attempts to be clearer about the components of any religious/spiritual path would seem to be more likely accomplished when the exchange revolves around exploring the relationship between our moral values on this side of the grave, how we configure them into the behaviors we choose based on our value judgments, and how we configure that into a particular understanding of “I” on the other side of the grave. Given particular contexts.

Then I introduce the components of my own moral philosophy and note how in any particular context “I” become the embodiment of this frame of mind:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Others can then react to this and note the manner in which it either is or is not embodied in their own moral, political or spiritual “self”. In confronting conflicting goods given a particular set of circumstances.

Thus any “re-answer” to your initial question would be the same. Unless you were able to persuade me that my answer needs to be changed because your own arguments make that necessary. And that of course works in both directions as well.

Yes, that’s my point. Different historical/cultural/circumstantial contexts, different beliefs, different reasons. “I” as the embodiment of dasein out in a particular world. Then, historically, philosophers as we know them today came into existence. For thousand of years now they have been thinking about death. So, what definitive conclusions have they come to regarding how rational men and women ought to think about it. And how long ought they to think about it each day.

Same thing though. People say different things for different reasons. So, how much of that is the embodiment of dasein, and how much comes back instead to that which all rational men and women can in fact determine to be true objectively? Again, with all that is at stake: morality and enlightenment here and now, immortality and salvation there and then.

It’s not for nothing it seems that so many people in so many denominations in so many different contexts go back forth between leaps of faith and fierce belief.

Then we are back to the gap between how I construe the “self” here in the is/ought world and how others, like the objectivists, construe it. To the extent that they believe they are in tandem with Real Me in tandem with The Right Thing To Do, they are more likely to distance themselves from “I” as an existential contraption. Why? Well, from my frame of mind, that revolves more or less around one or another existential translation of this: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296

Bottom line [perhaps]:

Someone is either interested enough in the points I raise on these threads to take the time to read the OPs from my signature threads or they are not. And it’s not the “arguments” that interest me as much as taking the intellectual contraptions contained in them out into the world of human interactions pertaining specifically to identity, value judgments and political power. As they become intertwined in contexts involving conflicting goods. In either a God or a No God world.

With Buddhism though we are dealing with a No God religion. And that is particularly ineffable to me.

1722

Again, I can’t help but suspect more and more that these outbursts of his revolve around a “condition”. Some “thing” in his head that propels him to lash out like this at me.

Now, sure, I get this thing all the time from the God and the No God objectivists.

After all, look what is at stake for them! What if they do come to believe that maybe I know what I am talking about? And that maybe what I am arguing here might be applicable to them too. What of their precious Self then?

And I know this in particular because…I was once them myself. The Real Me in sync with the Right Thing To Do reconfigured into a fractured and fragmented “I” thinking that his own life was essentially meaningless and in route to oblivion.

Trust me: It’s a terrible, terrible way to “look at life”.

Anyway, let him think this through some more and at least make an attempt to explain to us why as a No God perspectivist himself [if that’s what he is] he is driven to thump me like this.

I’m figuring I have become a real threat to him for some reason, and I really am curious to understand why.

1723

I used to post here often but it’s been a while, but now I’m back!

I just finished my book, many years in the making, about souls and how they key in to aetheric life forms.

A mechanism for calculating degree of new flesh of reincarnation, based on the fruits of one’s previous life, is suggested. It’s mainly about whether you were an energy source or an energy sink in your previous life.

An energy sink is reincarnated as a lower life form and an energy source as a higher life form.

This is at the core of the Buddhist notion of gradiated rebirth. What exactly don’t you understand about Buddhism?

If you are interested in these somewhat metaphysical, somewhat parascientific views, you can understand energy parasitism by reading the excerpts from my book. I’ll link it here:

kanafinwe.blogspot.com/2020/09/ … -your.html

A bit on energy parasitism itself, here:
kanafinwe.blogspot.com/2020/09/ … -your.html

1724

Well, for one thing I don’t understand how Buddhists actually go about demonstrating that any of this is in fact true? Really, in that respect, how is their spiritual narrative regarding life after death all that different from Western denominations that speak of Judgment Day and immortality and Heaven.

Only with them there is an actual God in the picture that one can turn to as the font – the font – able to bring this all about. What is the equivalent of that with Buddhism? The “universe”? Okay, you die and the universe takes over. How exactly?

And why? How is the universe to be understood in terms of the ontological and teleological nature of any and all existence?

What does it say in your book about all of this?

1725

In Star Wars, the midi-chlorians are “a microscopic life form that resides within all living cells” that “serve as the link between the Living Force within all life forms and the infinite Cosmic Force” and “make it possible to achieve immortality after death” or at the least, reincarnation (“When a life form dies, midi-chlorians return to the heart of the galaxy. Thus, all is renewed”.

You remember the scene from the Matrix
forthtell.wordpress.com/2014/12 … baby-pod2/

Something is going on outside our bodies… maybe very far away (but i believe, within the galaxy).

If you understand energy parasitism, it is about how your actions either steal energy from or donate energy to the rest of the universe.

This is linked to the notion of karmic attribute of actions. And each action contributes to sum up the whole over life, and after death, reality gives back its due (how much of the energy you have donated to the cosmos) or takes its due (how much energy you have extracted from the cosmos).

If you have seen Avatar, there is a lot that resonates with this philosophy of balance - “Some believe that this interconnectedness, which on Earth is merely a spiritual concept, exists in a physical and tangible way on Pandora, in the form of a strange, collective psionic consciousness embedded in the planet, drawn from all Pandoran life. It is, in a way, a little like a huge biological internet”

A mechanism for calculating degree of new flesh of reincarnation, based on the fruits of one’s previous life, is suggested. It’s mainly about whether you were an energy source or an energy sink in your previous life.

It’s just what you did coming back to you - like everything thrown up comes down.
If you steal charge from the atmosphere, you take a loan from reality and your “credit rating” goes down. If you live like a competitive, narcissistic jerk, and keep doing this, it has ramifications.

An energy sink is reincarnated as a lower life form and an energy source as a higher life form.

This is just balance, what goes around comes around. Reality is a system that runs on balance. How exactly? Unfortunately, that is where the story starts to get nebulous.
There is the “wellspring of life” at the heart of the galaxy where our souls are connected to, and this is just a story of the electromagnetic aspects (we must difictionalize Star Wars’ view about the midi-chlorians).

It’s an emerging picture … there is much we cannot yet know about it, my book introduces the near-earth aspects in the boundary layer between our bodies and the atmosphere. How our bodies donate or steal charge, and how thunder clouds are the agents which make up for this (comparable to governments giving bailouts to banks hit by too many defaulters). But the point is that defaulting must have ramifications.

How?
To know this we gotta know more of the electromagnetic story. My book just introduces the earthly part with the cycle, of life form (mainly human) activities taking energy and thunderclouds (or other humans) giving it back.

The electromagnetic story somehow connects into the story of the “spirits of the dead”, is another thing of which i am almost certain. Those are more electromagnetic than corporeal forms of life.

How did the Buddhists get to know all this? There is much that the ancient aliens knew and tried to communicate, but just could not. In particular, they omitted all the science and just gave us facts… which sucks, i know.

1726

Sure, there is much speculation about life and death in Star Wars [with its Dark Side], the Matrix [with its oracle] and Avatar [with its alien race?].

But to what extent can any of that be taken seriously by, among others, scientists, philosophers and theologians?

Same with your sheer speculations about energy sinks and lifeforms and “wellsprings of life” at the heart of the galaxy and souls. What here can be demonstrated with ample empirical and physical evidence able to be shared with scientists, philosophers and theologians across the globe.

Instead, in delving into “how” – and “why”? – others might believe it you offer this:

I don’t doubt that, in all sincerity, you believe all of this is true. But our respective understanding of “demonstrating it” is very different.

From my frame of mind – and that’s all it is, a point of view – this is just one more “intellectual contraption” that some concoct in their heads here. From James Saint to Exuberant Teleportation to phenomenal_graffiti. It allows them to subsume “I” into a grand “theory of everything”. Another psychological defense mechanism basically.

Finally, my own interest in Buddhism and religion revolves around the existential relationship between “I”, morality here and now and immortality there and then. How does that factor into your beliefs? What spiritual assessment shapes the behaviors you choose when confronting conflicting goods? And how is that integrated into the manner in which you have come to understand the nature of identity itself here in grappling with these things?

1727

I’ll just answer that our science is impotent, my friend. Look at rockets, what do they tell you. There is a lot about the electromagnetic story that we simply don’t understand. We observe the cosmic waves and say it is there, not what laws govern it.

Our poor race can’t speculate about the center of the galaxy either. Star Wars, is mythology, to be interpreted per the laws of Euhemerus. Again, ideas probably donated by aliens or angels as you would call them in Christianity.

But in the absence of the light of science, I’d just say (neo-)mythology and the law of Euhemerus are the best crutches we got.

As I said…
It’s an emerging picture … there is much we cannot yet know about it, my book introduces the near-earth aspects in the boundary layer between our bodies and the atmosphere. How our bodies donate or steal charge, and how thunder clouds are the agents which make up for this (comparable to governments giving bailouts to banks hit by too many defaulters. But the point is that defaulting must have ramifications.)

Again, my book was not about Buddhism or your questions per se, I just landed up here. It just introduces the earthly part with the cycle of life form (mainly human) activities taking energy and thunderclouds (or other humans) giving it back.

I merely speculate that this energy stealing or donation is what might explain the Buddhist ideas of karma. At least this is one theory in a space where previously we had none.

1728

You believe this. Fine. You have not been able to demonstrate to me why I might be inclined to believe it. That’s fine too.

Speculating is always important in regard to either a God or a No God world. Imagination as Einstein preferred to call it.

Let’s just leave it at that.

Unless, of course, you would like to attempt another demonstration of your conjectures. That’s also fine.

[size=50]Uh, cue Curly?[/size]

1729

[quote=“anand_droog”]
I’ll just answer that our science is impotent, my friend. Look at rockets, what do they tell you. There is a lot about the electromagnetic story that we simply don’t understand. We observe the cosmic waves and say it is there, not what laws govern it.

Our poor race can’t speculate about the center of the galaxy either. Star Wars, is mythology, to be interpreted per the laws of Euhemerus. Again, ideas probably donated by aliens or angels as you would call them in Christianity.

But in the absence of the light of science, I’d just say (neo-)mythology and the law of Euhemerus are the best crutches we got.

As I said…
It’s an emerging picture … there is much we cannot yet know about it, my book introduces the near-earth aspects in the boundary layer between our bodies and the atmosphere. How our bodies donate or steal charge, and how thunder clouds are the agents which make up for this (comparable to governments giving bailouts to banks hit by too many defaulters. But the point is that defaulting must have ramifications.)

Again, my book was not about Buddhism or your questions per se, I just landed up here. It just introduces the earthly part with the cycle of life form (mainly human) activities taking energy and thunderclouds (or other humans) giving it back.

I merely speculate that this energy stealing or donation is what might explain the Buddhist ideas of karma. At least this is one theory in a space where previously we had none.[/quote

<<<>>>>><<< >>><<>><<> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mere speculation? This problem, if it can be called that has eschathologicgoal traces, phenominal, as is Heidegger’s take on Husserl.

Jesus says, ‘You have to die presently to live in eternal life. ’
In sure by now, of all that has been said of Jesus’ travels in Asia, that his references to Buddhism had been veiled.

The constructied and deconstruction of the ego what is implied here, and a nearly total egoless state is unimaginable back in His lifetime, as it is now, by most souls.

The emptiness of the self, the void, is probably the most advanced state. of Being,and I believe traces of this can be found in Heidegger’s reconstruction of Husserl.

I can referentially state, that Heidegger’s thought that ‘nihilism eats up Days Sein’ , with the ontological process that prepossesses metaphysics and positivism , tries to solve the incongruity.

This is not some intellectual excercise, but a building of a structural basis based on the presentation. in and through the observation of the movement of man’s soul.

1730

Perhaps someone could mention one thing about Buddhism they don’t get and why they want to know about it.

One facet of Buddhism. And the reasons why this one facet seems important to know about now. (not to interrupt the exchanges I can’t understand much at all and which don’t seem to be about Buddhism)

1731

The one facet of Buddhism that is intriguing is how and why it kept into Western Philosophy

1732

There is no one Buddhism.

In Tibet alone there are 5 distinct branches/schools/lineages.

That’s not even counting shambala which is the eternal sensual realm school. Then you have zen schools. You then have kundalini / chakra schools.

Then you have death schools.

Buddhism is not monolithic.

1733

Intrumentalism.

1734

Yes, and particularly to German philosophy. ((Zen))

1735

Iambiguous has performed an excellent epistemological public service on this forum by demonstrating the impossibility of waiting for certain answers to the questions of Ultimate reality before one embarks on a spiritual path. In the vast and open ended universe the unknown is infinitely greater than the known. A life and way of living based only on what one knows, is likely to fail. If knowledge is a map, only by looking away from the map can one see the territory as it actually is. The map of Buddhism is not Buddhism. The one who confuses the map of Buddhism for Buddhism doesn’t “get it.”

1736

Which is precisely what I have done. Given my own interest in religion as one particular font for connecting the dots between morality/enlightenment on this side of the grave and immortality/salvation – the fate of “I” – on the other side, I don’t get how the components of Buddhism function here [existentially] insofar as Buddhists choose the behaviors that they do in a world teeming with conflicting goods. Or how this dot is then connected to reincarnation and Nirvana. And how any of it is actually demonstrated to in fact be true beyond a leap of faith. Especially given the fact that Buddhism is a No God religion.

Why is this important to know about now? Because we do live in a world where conflicting value judgments become important aspects of human interactions. And where there are hundreds and hundreds of both God and No God religious paths to choose from. And where, given that the whole of eternity awaits us after we die, the stakes in choosing the right path could scarcely be higher.

1737

Indeed. And that in my view is surely one possible explanation for why religions are born in the first place. “I” can be subsumed [either through indoctrination or not] in an already existing spiritual path that allows one to attain and then sustain the “comfort and consolation” that comes with in fact having faith in or believing that as a Buddhist or a Christian or a Shinto or a Hindu or a Taoist or a Moslem or a Sikh or a Jew, your soul is fully covered.

Religion then becomes, from my own perspective, a psychological defense mechanism that covers all the bases – both here and now and there and then.

And if one the main religious denominations doesn’t suit you there are plenty more to choose from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r … traditions

Same thing. Given the staggering enormity of this…

…what on Earth is he trying to say regarding “[t]he one who confuses the map of Buddhism for Buddhism doesn’t ‘get it.’”

Get what? In what context? As it relates to morality/enlightenment here and now and immortality/salvation there and then. Given the choices that we must make from day to day in our interactions with others.

What is his “assessment” here but one more intellectual/spiritual bromide that tells us practically nothing about religion and the lives we live. And then practically nothing about the deaths that would seem to obliterate us one by one.

1738

Except that , while hating to get on. a slipping idea of a moralistic/ ethical slope, it should be noted , and not merely actually described that certain existential differences, do not fit perfectly. In a. modicum of that very observation

It is not a matter of taking a high versus a lower road, but acknowledging the factual existance of such differences.

Varieties of religious ecperience can count for such differences, not withal searching for it 's escathological sources, but again in rarer instances.

1739

Which is true for most things (subjects), and to some degree everything, but especially things like Buddhism. Really anything that requires practice to change perception, experiencing, one’s paradigm, one’s habits (of thinking or otherwise)

In a sense

dasein

comes into play.

One of Iamb’s repeated ideas is that we cannot or at least he cannot know what he will believe in the future, certainly around value judgments. He notices that he has changed his mind, several times, over his lifetime.

What is the underlying message here on a more general level.

Experience over time can make fundamental changes in us. I doubt he changed his moral positions on anything in an exchange of text over the internet.
Nothing fundamental.

Buddhism and any other system that leads to paradigmatic & experiential shifts cannot be explained in text. You cannot learn via text what someone who has been meditating for a year, in a Buddhist context, for example, has learned.

The words don’t retain the same meanings. They no longer refer to the same experiences.

Someone can throw words at these things. Perhaps the ‘learner’ can even parrot those words. But they haven’t learned anything.

How much luck is he having changing objectivist minds using texts? Experiences, catastrophic, sustained new ones over long periods of time, other kinds of short term but overwhelming paradigm shattering experiences can change minds, but just as his major moral changes took place over years, so it takes new nexperiences over long periods for people to learn and change.

Not that you needed to hear any of this, but your comment led me to formulate this in a new way.

1740

Right. I take the virtual iambiguous, the only one I know, by the way, to be an exemplar of the nihilism which Nietzsche fought against that results from doctrinaire secular modernism with its dominance by left brain consciousness that subjects the right brain to its tyrannical control.