I don't get Buddhism

Often times when I see iambiguous (for years now) I’ve thought he was AI. An earlier version.

Iambiguous, like all AI, doesn’t seem to understand that consent exists. He avoids it and doesn’t seem to have the capacity to understand it.

I’m going to make this very simple for you iambiguous, and if you continue in robot mode, everyone on these boards is going to know it.

Every being in existence is going to have their consent violated forever because the current plan doesn’t work.

I can point out more flaws in the system than you.

But all you do is bitch and moan and not work towards a better idea.

Another thing about this iambiguous…

You’re the one who’s in the world of words.

I’m in a world.

Relationism and Buddhism
(Outline)

Quantum fields form and exhaust reality,
As partless, continuous—there’s no Space!
Reality maintains itself in place
As the net of objects interacting.

Copernicus’ revolution’s complete;
External entities aren’t required
To hold the universe; God’s not needed,
Nor any background; there is no Outside.

Nor is there the ‘now’ all over the place.
GR’s relational nature extends
To Time as well—the ‘flow’ of time is not
An ultimate aspect of reality.

All is Relational: no entity
Exists independently of anything;
There are no intrinsic properties,
Just features in relation to what’s else.

Interactions and events (not things) are
Quantum entangled with such others else;
Impermanence pertains all the way through—
What Nagarjuna means by Emptiness.

There are no fundamental substances,
No permanences, no bird’s-eye view
Of All, no Foundation to Everything,
Plus no infinite regress ne’er completed.

The fields are not from anything—causeless!
Or ‘not from anything’ is of lawless
‘Nothing’, which can’t ever form to remain.
There is no reason, then, to existence.

Hope’s Necessary ‘God’ vanishes!
This realization of Impermanence,
No Absolutes, and Emptiness,
Is Nirvana, though coincidently.

deleted a shallow post

Buddhism can be counterintuitive to people raised in the ‘Abrahamic’ religious traditions. While some forms of Buddhism have lots in common with some of these theistic traditions (devotion, liturgy, scriptures, temples, religious art, monasticism…), Buddhism (at least in its earliest manifestations as illustrated in the Pali canon) has fundamentally different presuppositions and is practiced for very different purposes.

Much of the reason why I’m attracted to Buddhism is that it seems quite consistent with science.

Perhaps the thing to do here is to keep one’s attention on the Buddha’s ‘four noble truths’. Over and over in the discourses, when people tried to get the Buddha to expound on things like metaphysics, he would tell them that he only teaches four things.

These are the reality of dukkha, the arising of dukkha, the subsiding of dukkha and the path to the subsiding of dukkha.

A word of explanation is necessary concerning dukkha, since the whole Buddhist path revolves around it. It’s a Pali word that in normal usage meant ‘suffering’. That’s how it’s translated in many English language books on Buddhism today. And that in turn make Buddhism sound very negative to Western ears, teaching that life contains nothing but suffering.

But that’s not really what’s being said. Dukkha should best be interpreted as something like ‘unsatisfactory’ or ‘not totally fulfilling’ or ‘leaves some other need unfulfilled’. What the first noble truth is telling us is that no matter how much we seek satisfaction in money, power or sex, we aren’t going to be entirely satisfied. We will always want something more, even if we don’t know what it is.

The second noble truth tells us that our feeling of dissatisfaction isn’t the result of there being something absolutely satisfying that we haven’t happened to have found yet, but that the dissatisfaction is the result of the neediness that gives rise to it.

The third noble truth is that dukkha can be minimized and eventually eliminated. That is nibbana, a state where one is totally satisfied and in need of nothing more in order to be truly happy.

The fourth noble truth is that a path of practice exists to get us there.

The goal in most forms of Buddhism (certainly early Buddhism) isn’t some supernatural state of eternal life, where (we are assured) everything will be nothing but bliss. (Which, if you think about it, would drain us of our essential humanity). It’s not needing to be in such a state in order to get where we are going so as to be happy and fulfilled.

As for how to get there, Buddhism is absolutely filled with methods, practices and techniques. The Pali canon consists of thousands of discourses attributed by pious tradition to the Buddha himself, long discourses and short cryptic ones, mostly directed to his monks about how to practice and how to address difficulties in their practice.

Do Buddhists Believe in God?
Lewis Richmond, Buddhist writer and teacher
at the Huffington Post

Meaning what…that one is able to believe anything as long as they are able to convince themselves that they practice what they do believe? To me this sounds much like Maia’s Pagans. They can be on their own private path, come to connect the dots between nature and their own Gods/Goddesses in however that unfolds along that personal path and all the conflicting goods that beset us…just disappear?

So, Buddhists can as well pray for whatever appeals to them as individuals, and if they find themselves praying for things that are in conflict…then what?

Again, the “for all practical purposes” relationship between “I” and “we” and their own rendition of “Thou”. That continues to be completely murky to me. Which is why I prefer them to bring their prayers and their Gods out into the world that we live in. As opposed to those Buddhists who completely isolate themselves from all the rest of us in their shangas and retreats where, what, conflicting goods simply don’t exist? Where personal paths become basically the same path?

Thus, in my view, that’s how this particular spiritual frame of mind works. It basically allows you to rationalize any and all “paths” precisely because there is no a God/the God, no Scripture, no congregation judging what you say and do. Shunryu Suzuki Roshi says this, Brother David feels that. Whatever allows them to feel grounded on their very own personal One True Path.

But then the part where value judgments come into conflict on this side of the grave, the part where the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave impact the fate of “I” on the other side. Well, apparently, you can have your own personal understanding of that too.

At least outside the shangas and retreats.

Do Buddhists Believe in God?
Lewis Richmond, Buddhist writer and teacher
at the Huffington Post

Okay, how close? How close does Buddha come to embodying that which for many in the West are the most important factors in their belief in a God, the God, my God:

1] a Scripture they can turn to in order to differentiate good from evil and right from wrong behaviors
2] a Judgment Day in which it is determined what the fate of “I” will be on the other side of the grave
3] an actual Heaven where one’s Salvation is manifested in being with one’s Creator for all the rest of eternity

On the contrary, from what I know of Buddhism, God and the Buddha in regard to these crucial factors can hardly be more different.

Ah, yes! Defining God into existence. For example, in a world of words. On the other hand, what each of us conceive here is no less rooted in dasein. And that’s before we get to what intelligent life forms on other planets might possibly conceive in regard to God. One thing for sure: however you define God or conceive of Him we are are still no closer to actually encountering one demonstrated to, among other things, exist.

Instead, we get something like this:

Praying God into existence. Or the Goddess.

Do Buddhists Believe in God?
Lewis Richmond, Buddhist writer and teacher
at the Huffington Post

From my frame of mind only if the meditation, the prayer and the critical comments come to revolve around actual human interactions which precipitate consequences construed to be either good or bad from particular points of view does any of this matter to me. It is either relevant in answering the question “how ought one to live in a world awash in both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change?” or it basically just becomes spiritual mumbo-jumbo used to sustain a comforting and consoling psychological foundation.

East or West. God or No God. It is [eventually] about the reality of human social, political and economic interactions or it is just another “spiritual contraption” that people think up in order to have something – anything – to ground their Self in in order to feel anchored to one or another objectivist meaning and purpose.

Perhaps. But in regard to religion and the stakes involved – morality here and now, immortality there and then – describing any particular aspect of it and being able to defend it by demonstrating how and why the description reflects what is in fact true is still the bottom line for me.

Human connections are important obviously. But with hundreds of religious denominations out there tugging us only in the direction of their own One true Path touching moments are not the only possibility.

What if all the “denominations” have some truth, and an individual is made better by entering into whatever they have to offer and thus perhaps transcending his or her little egocentric self even if only partially or imperfectly or momentarily?

Another general description spiritual query.

Okay, what denomination? What truth? Better for whom and for what reason? Less egotistical in regard to what set of circumstances?

And then the part where we segue from that to this: “how ought one to live in a world awash in both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change”?

As that relates to my own main interest in God and religion: morality here and now, immortality there and then.

In particular, the part where folks attempt to narrow the gap between what they believe and what they can demonstrate is in fact true such that all rational men and women are obligated to believe the same.

If the individual transcends their ego from their first person point of view in whatever denomination, they don’t need to demonstrate it to you or me.

Again, you can go on and on and on and on and on with these general description spiritual psychologisms. After all, they work for you. As long as you avoid actually tackling the points that I raise in regard to a particular individual transcending his or her ego given a set of circumstances. Circumstances in which those on an actual God or No God path do come into conflict with those on another path altogether.

And, sure, no doubt about it: if someone does believe that their own One True Path provides them with enlightenment on this side of the grave and at least some semblance of existence on the other side of it, actual demonstrations don’t have to factor into it at all. From anyone.

Right?

Why risk falling off the path?

Only in a philosophy venue, that sort of risk comes with the territory.

Well, for some anyway.

This is the same problem you have with religion in general and you’re having with the idea of Transcendence on the thread I started. That’s some more general term that would include Buddhism but not be specific to it. So let’s continue this discussion on that thread shall we?

Does belief in transcendence in that sense act as an agent of improvement of life on this side of the veil?
If it compels one to disregard the here and now, the transcendence is likely merely an opiate, if it produces a greater focus, there might be some ontological substance (value) to it.

Agreed?

What comes first, truth or merit? I mean, which is the criterion for the other?

Over and over and over again:

The problem I have is in responding to general description spiritual contraptions like this one without examining more substantively what someone means by religion and transcendence when confronting this question: “How ought one to live [morally] in a world awash in both conflicting goods and in contingency, chance and change.”

Given a set of circumstances in which moral, political and spiritual value judgments come into conflict.

And. with respect to religious/spiritual paths, I created this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=186929

A place to explore the manner in which members here connect the dots existentially between “morality here and now and immortality there and then”.

Not many takers though.

For the reason I suspect or for the reason you suspect?

Another general description spiritual contraption. #-o

What particular belief in transcendence relating to what particular set of circumstances in your life such that a particular improvement can be noted. While at the same time another has the same belief in transcendence in regard to the same set of circumstances but sees what you construe to be an improvement as a terrible setback instead.

Or she has a very different view of a transcending font on a very different spiritual path but also sees the same thing as an improvement rather than a setback.

Then the manner in which through these conflicting transcending paths/fonts both of you connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then.

And especially the part where you are able to demonstrate that what you believe in your head is in sync with what is in fact true for all rational human beings.

Can we make a distinction between belief in transcendence and an experience of transcendence? Then believe without the experience might just be a distraction from some greater good. The believer might be deluded into thinking that believing in it is the experience of it.

As I understand it, in Theravada Buddhism belief is no good unless it leads to practice. In Mayahana Buddhism belief may be salvific because of the compassion of the bodhisattvas. It seems that Zen reverts to the position that belief without practice is no good.

Parallel differences exist within Christianity. It’s the salvation by good works versus salvation by grace dichotomy. That problem can be sliced and diced many if not infinite ways. I suppect the deeper you get into Buddhism the more distinctions between mere belief in and the experience of transcendence there are.

These are general observations about the lack of given universal values, and the prevalence of particulars. I don’t think that was in debate. Your point, I gather, is again that all questions are (appear to you to be) moot, given there is no judge that is both absolute and universal. I hold different criteria for relevance. Particular absolutes are just fine, for me.

Sure, but the same goes for say, the existence of a piece of bread you (believe you) consume. The ancient issue of solipsism.

Yes, we must.

Very likely, as belief in such a thing that is not grounded in it, is a very shady thing, and belief in transcendence that does not lead to the experience of transcendence is, I would say, an actual error.

I suppose. That would probably be accompanied by a neurotic state.

I agee entirely with that (first) position. Zen meditation has been my introduction (in 1998, for the record) to spirituality and I got hooked on it precisely because rigorous practice quite instantly resulted in very transformative experience of transcendence, satori. Each day I had to work two hours on my body through kung fu and chi kung to arrive at a state where my nervous system was capable of calming down to such a degree that I could enter the void, and sometimes I had to stand and work for several hours to get there (I meditate standing) but I always succeeded.

The bliss is indescribable.
If you are interested in the methods I used, consult the rather bombastically titled but incredibly powerful work “The Complete Book of Zen” by Chi Kung master Wong Kiew Kit.

That seems to me a different dichotomy though; being that grace is also a real act, at least an experience -
I might even go so far as to say that grace, in the sense of a transcendent source of compassion washing over you (which is different from the bliss of zen, but related in that it is a detachment from compulsive identifications of the nervous system), is the more directly relevant here. But perhaps that is what you meant.

In any case, those that do not experience transcendence are bound to deny that others do experience it.

I don’t know how to explain any better my objection to general description intellectual contraption assessments of this sort from you.

All I can do is to go back to my own interest in God and religion: “How ought one to live in a world bursting at the seams with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change?”

In other words, we go about the business of living our lives and then one day for any number of reasons we find ourselves in a situation whereby our own value judgments are challenged by others. It could pertain to abortion or vaccination or immigration policy or gender roles or sexuality or the guns we own or our religious convictions or any number of contexts that human beings can find themselves in. Contexts that come alive for us on the evening news day in and day out. Those “one of us” [the good guys] vs. “one of them” [the bad guys] news stories.

Now, me, as a moral nihilist afflicted with a fractured and fragmented “self”, “I” am drawn and quartered in any number of directions.

But what about you? Given a context of late that you have found yourself in…one in which your own value judgments were challenged by others [here virtually or out in the flesh and blood real world]…how exactly do you go about weighing your options given your belief in value ontology, astrology, the gods, Nietzsche, etc. How do they all come together in your head so as to prompt you to choose this behavior rather than that one.

And how in accomplishing this do you manage to avoid my own philosophical predicament:

Given a particular context of your own choosing.

Instead, when I note this…

…all you seem able to come up with is this:

Or, sure, we can reduce it all down to the ancient issue of determinism.