I don't get Buddhism

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:42 pm

How on earth can you possibly know what went through/goes through the minds of all the millions of Nazis, Communists, serial killers, pedophiles there ever were, are now or ever will be?
You make general statements about what goes through the minds of objectivists and religious people all the time. Yet, when I make the same sort of general statement ,then there is problem with it.

That's the kind of hypocritical bullshit that really pisses me off in these interactions with you.

You have one set of rules for yourself and another set for everyone else.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 18, 2020 7:08 pm

phyllo wrote:
How on earth can you possibly know what went through/goes through the minds of all the millions of Nazis, Communists, serial killers, pedophiles there ever were, are now or ever will be?
You make general statements about what goes through the minds of objectivists and religious people all the time. Yet, when I make the same sort of general statement ,then there is problem with it.


Yes, but such statements come from the thoughts and the feelings of particular minds out in a particular world historically, culturally and circumstantially. A world awash in contingency, chance and change. A world in which new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas can reconfigure the thoughts and the feelings of those minds. And not just in regard to you and I and karpel tunnel and felix dakat and the Buddhists here.

And, come on, please:

Over and over and over again on this thread, I request that our exchanges take those general statements out into the world of flesh and blood human interactions relating to sets of circumstance in which enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana are explored more substantively.

But then you come back with another "general statement" about that.

phyllo wrote: That's the kind of hypocritical bullshit that really pisses me off in these interactions with you.


So maybe it might be better if you stopped interacting with me. No hard feelings from my end if you do.

phyllo wrote: You have one set of rules for yourself and another set for everyone else.


Okay, let's focus in on a context of your choice relating to the main components of Buddhism. Then as the exchange unfolds you can note specific instances of me doing this.

Or, if something other than Buddhism suits you more, you can start a new thread.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38520
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Aug 18, 2020 7:15 pm

iambiguous wrote:
He didn't try Buddhism very hard, it seems to me.


Okay...

You wish to live your life in a more enlightened manner. As this relates to, among other things, your interactions with others from day to day. And, then, in whatever manner, these behaviors are linked to that which you would like the fate of "I" to be after you die.

So, first it is suggested that you actually make contact with a spiritual/religious community and explore the manner in which they have come to embody this relationship in their denomination.

You do this. But it doesn't persuade you.

So, then it is argued that it didn't persuade you because you didn't try hard enough to be persuaded.

Who argued that? not me, the perso quoted
He made up stuff. He added a Santa Claus deity to a system that does not have it. my criticism had bithing to do with his not participating in a religion I don't participate in and am critical of. I never said anything about him 'not being persuaded,' not that you even realize how much you twist things to make yourself comfortable.
And then, how could you possibly have missed that I was not persuaded by Buddhism? I have mentioned this many times in the thread, including recently.

It's always your fault if you don't latch onto one or another spiritual path. And not the fault of the denominations in being unable to actually demonstrate that what they believe about human existence before and after we die is in fact true.
The opening quote there is from my post. Yet, here is more that I never said. I never said you should latch onto a spiritual path. I made suggestions about how to learn about it, if you were interested.

You have made lots of claims about why people attacks you or get irritated.

But the simple truth is, you don't read well. You are disingenous. You can never admit you are wrong about anything. You accuse people, regularly, of things you do regularly, you hijack threads.

It's your ugly behavior that leads to many people's reactions to you. Sure, some people may be devastated by their inability to convince you to do something or believe something. That's possible. But most people here have pointed out precisely what bothers them and there is a wealth of evidence to back up what they are claiming you do.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3406
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Tue Aug 18, 2020 7:36 pm

Over and over and over again on this thread, I request that our exchanges take those general statements out into the world of flesh and blood human interactions relating to sets of circumstance in which enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana are explored more substantively.
Yeah. Over and over you request that the exchanges be conducted only as you direct. There is only your way.

IOW, if someone has another approach, another way of communicating a point ... forget that. "We need a context."
So maybe it might be better if you stopped interacting with me. No hard feelings from my end if you do.
News for you : I'm not the only one who is pissed off by that sort of stuff.

Okay, let's focus in on a context of your choice relating to the main components of Buddhism. Then as the exchange unfolds you can note specific instances of me doing this.
You're going to deny that you make general statements about objectivists and religious people?

You're going to deny that you just had a problem with me making general statements about Nazis, etc?

You're going to deny being hypocritical in this instance?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:07 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
He didn't try Buddhism very hard, it seems to me.


Okay...

You wish to live your life in a more enlightened manner. As this relates to, among other things, your interactions with others from day to day. And, then, in whatever manner, these behaviors are linked to that which you would like the fate of "I" to be after you die.

So, first it is suggested that you actually make contact with a spiritual/religious community and explore the manner in which they have come to embody this relationship in their denomination.

You do this. But it doesn't persuade you.

So, then it is argued that it didn't persuade you because you didn't try hard enough to be persuaded.

Who argued that? not me, the perso[n] quoted
He made up stuff. He added a Santa Claus deity to a system that does not have it. my criticism had bithing to do with his not participating in a religion I don't participate in and am critical of. I never said anything about him 'not being persuaded,' not that you even realize how much you twist things to make yourself comfortable.


Starting here:

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
phyllo wrote:I was referring to the quote by John Horgan which Iamb posted and commented on :
Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses reincarnation, which holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new bodies, and karma, the law of moral cause and effect. Together, these tenets imply the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama.
He had tried Buddhism and come to this conclusion about karma.

I found it strange that he introduces a cosmic judge. If we were discussing evolution, for example, he probable would have no problem attributing the 'survival of the fittest' to unspecified mechanistic forces. But change the subject to karma and Buddhism and the thinking changes entirely.

And it's as you describe it ... no deity behind karma.
He didn't try Buddhism very hard, it seems to me. Yeah, that's an odd quote. And yes, some Buddhists believe something like that as far as tallies of niceness and nautiness - but I don't think I have ever encountered a Santa type entity or other cosmic judge in a Buddhist's beliefs.


Weren't you suggesting that Horgan, while trying Buddhism, failed to be persuaded because he didn't try hard enough. That's what I took it to mean.

Horgan's point seems to focus in on how Santa Claus was invented to keep children nice instead of naughty. In other words, kids believe that an omniscient entity exists able in fact to "know if they are naughty or nice". Same with God in most Western denominations. He is the "cosmic judge".

Okay, so what of Buddhism? What in the universe is up there/out there that brings about a particular reincarnation? That can be turned to in order to assess enlightenment and karma given the behaviors that we choose from the cradle to the grave?

Is it merely what Buddhists believe "in their head" or is there a way in which to demonstrate it to others such that only a fool wouldn't choose Buddhism as the true -- the only -- path to Nirvana.

It's always your fault if you don't latch onto one or another spiritual path. And not the fault of the denominations in being unable to actually demonstrate that what they believe about human existence before and after we die is in fact true.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: The opening quote there is from my post. Yet, here is more that I never said. I never said you should latch onto a spiritual path. I made suggestions about how to learn about it, if you were interested.


Whatever the quote from whatever the source, it's telling that after someone takes the advice of another to try interacting with a particular religious community, does so and is not persuaded, it then still becomes his fault because he didn't try hard enough. Meaning the only time someone tries hard enough is when he is at last persuaded. The objectivist mentality.

Indeed, how many times have I heard this myself from religious folks that I interacted it with. I call it the "Mary Lewis Syndrome". A long and painful story.

Then of course "the harangue". A blistering rebuke reinforcing all the more why the problem here is me.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: You have made lots of claims about why people attacks you or get irritated.

But the simple truth is, you don't read well. You are disingenous. You can never admit you are wrong about anything. You accuse people, regularly, of things you do regularly, you hijack threads.

It's your ugly behavior that leads to many people's reactions to you. Sure, some people may be devastated by their inability to convince you to do something or believe something. That's possible. But most people here have pointed out precisely what bothers them and there is a wealth of evidence to back up what they are claiming you do.


Again, as with Phyllo, I ask you to choose a context in which the main components of Buddhism can be explored more substantively, more substantially. Then, as the exchange unfolds, you can point to specific instances of me doing all of these things.

And, as with Phyllo, if you prefer a context involving something other than Buddhism, start a new thread.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38520
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:21 pm

phyllo wrote:
Over and over and over again on this thread, I request that our exchanges take those general statements out into the world of flesh and blood human interactions relating to sets of circumstance in which enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana are explored more substantively.
Yeah. Over and over you request that the exchanges be conducted only as you direct. There is only your way.
IOW, if someone has another approach, another way of communicating a point ... forget that. "We need a context."


Okay, choose a context, engage me in a discussion, and note specifically how this is true.

So maybe it might be better if you stopped interacting with me. No hard feelings from my end if you do.


phyllo wrote: News for you : I'm not the only one who is pissed off by that sort of stuff.


News for you: no one is required to read anything that I post here.

Then this part. The part regarding how and why, in my view, others -- the objectivists in particular -- react to me as they do:

I've narrowed it down to three possible reasons:

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes "fractured and fragmented".


Would you want to believe this is a reasonable way to look at the "human condition"?

Okay, let's focus in on a context of your choice relating to the main components of Buddhism. Then as the exchange unfolds you can note specific instances of me doing this.


phyllo wrote: You're going to deny that you make general statements about objectivists and religious people?

You're going to deny that you just had a problem with me making general statements about Nazis, etc?

You're going to deny being hypocritical in this instance?


In other words [yawn] everything but the actual context.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38520
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:22 pm

Whatever the quote from whatever the source, it's telling that after someone takes the advice of another to try interacting with a particular religious community, does so and is not persuaded, it then still becomes his fault because he didn't try hard enough. Meaning the only time someone tries hard enough is when he is at last persuaded. The objectivist mentality.
The point is not that Horgan was not persuaded by Buddhism. The point is that if he had researched Buddhist texts, he would find that the Buddha never associated karma with a cosmic judge who dishes out rewards and punishments.
Again, as with Phyllo, I ask you to choose a context in which the main components of Buddhism can be explored more substantively, more substantially. Then, as the exchange unfolds, you can point to specific instances of me doing all of these things.
I'm talking about karma. KT is talking about karma.

But it's not substantive??? #-o
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:34 pm

News for you: no one is required to read anything that I post here.
You keep asking people to explain Buddhism to you. So when you post a quote about Buddhism and your reaction to it, I point out the errors in the quote. KT points out the errors.

We're discussing karma in a thread about Buddhism.

Yet you react as if we (KT and I ) are not discussing Buddhism substantively.

We should ignore everything that you post about Buddhism? How are you going to learn anything about it?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:54 am

Does anyone appreciate that the guy who says he doesn't "get Buddhism" is mansplaining Buddhism to iambiguous by request? :lol: It's agonizing to read Mr. Biguous continue to recycle the same responses that he has made to me and virtually everyone he has conversed with on the subject.

I think Biggie's right brain atrophied somewhere along the way, if he ever had one. He preseverates on the same verbal abstractions "over and over" without comprehension of O's POV.

My involvement with Buddhist meditation is consciously phenomenological. I would think it would dovetail nicely with Iam's Dasein.
But, ironic to me, it is precisely my existential/phenomenological approach that he rejects because I recognize that I cannot represent Buddhism objectively. #-o

As Kierkegaard said "Subjectivity is Truth." My experience of Buddhism is no more or less than my experience of Buddhism. A religion that is devoid subjective experience is dead. And every experience of a religion is unique. That's why Kierkegaard addressed the "single individual". In spiritual matters it's the qualia that counts!

Anyway, rock on my brothers! :banana-stoner:
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8988
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:17 am

Whatever the quote from whatever the source, it's telling that after someone takes the advice of another to try interacting with a particular religious community, does so and is not persuaded, it then still becomes his fault because he didn't try hard enough. Meaning the only time someone tries hard enough is when he is at last persuaded. The objectivist mentality.


phyllo wrote: The point is not that Horgan was not persuaded by Buddhism. The point is that if he had researched Buddhist texts, he would find that the Buddha never associated karma with a cosmic judge who dishes out rewards and punishments.


Okay, given the behaviors that Buddhists choose...behaviors thought to encompass enlightenment, karma, reincarnation, and Nirvana in a no Santa Claus/no God religion...how does the universe function in order to connect the dots between here and now and there and then.

Note to committed Buddhists:

Give it your best shot. If there is no "cosmic judge" when it comes time for you to be reincarnated into a bacteria or a toad or a leopard or the next generation of human being, what does makes it happen?

And if Nirvana is understood as it is examined here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism) -- how does the universe function to bring this about?

Other then by way of what Buddha insisted was true based on what he thought up in his head all those years ago. Isn't Buddhism basically just another faith based religion? Nothing is able to be demonstrated about the fate of "I" after death, but it sure does make one feel good to believe that it's not the obliteration of "I" for all the rest of eternity.

Again, as with Phyllo, I ask you to choose a context in which the main components of Buddhism can be explored more substantively, more substantially. Then, as the exchange unfolds, you can point to specific instances of me doing all of these things.


phyllo wrote: I'm talking about karma. KT is talking about karma.

But it's not substantive??? #-o


No. It's no where near the manner in which I construe a substantive exchange here. Don't just talk about karma. Note how you factor it into your life over the years when choosing behaviors that you deem to be "the right thing to do". And then what happens when you bump into others who insist it's the wrong thing to do. And then those who insist not only that it's the wrong thing to do but that if you don't stop doing it their God will punish you.

Why his scripture here instead of Buddha's? Or why the Buddha's instead of all the hundreds of others?

And what on earth are you able to demonstrate is in fact true much beyond what you do believe in your head "here and now"?

And that's before we get to the components of my own moral philosophy. Noting how they are and are not applicable to you.

And here [from my frame of mind] the discussions must unfold relating to a set of circumstances that most here will be familiar with. And even though we may have attempted this before and failed to break through, there's really no better recourse than to try, try again.

Or, sure, figure it's hopeless and move on to others instead.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38520
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:32 am

phyllo wrote:
News for you: no one is required to read anything that I post here.
You keep asking people to explain Buddhism to you. So when you post a quote about Buddhism and your reaction to it, I point out the errors in the quote. KT points out the errors.


No, I ask Buddhists to explain how the manner in which they construe the meaning of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana is factored into the behaviors they choose over the course of their life "here and now" and how they connect this dot to what they imagine the fate of "I" will be "there and then".

Given particular experiences in their lives -- important experiences -- that they feel were especially important in bringing about their thinking. Then I ask them to note to the best of their ability how they might go about demonstrating that what they believe "in their head" about Buddhism [on both sides of the grave] is in fact true. Just as I would of any other religious denomination.

Clearly, what I deem to be of "substance" here is not what you do.

And you make it seem like that which you construe to be errors is all that it takes to make them that.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38520
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:50 am

felix dakat wrote:Does anyone appreciate that the guy who says he doesn't "get Buddhism" is mansplaining Buddhism to iambiguous by request? :lol: It's agonizing to read Mr. Biguous continue to recycle the same responses that he has made to me and virtually everyone he has conversed with on the subject.

I think Biggie's right brain atrophied somewhere along the way, if he ever had one. He preseverates on the same verbal abstractions "over and over" without comprehension of O's POV.

My involvement with Buddhist meditation is consciously phenomenological. I would think it would dovetail nicely with Iam's Dasein.
But, ironic to me, it is precisely my existential/phenomenological approach that he rejects because I recognize that I cannot represent Buddhism objectively. #-o

As Kierkegaard said "Subjectivity is Truth." My experience of Buddhism is no more or less than my experience of Buddhism. A religion that is devoid subjective experience is dead. And every experience of a religion is unique. That's why Kierkegaard addressed the "single individual". In spiritual matters it's the qualia that counts!

Anyway, rock on my brothers! :banana-stoner:


The third Stooge! He's back!!

And, of course, following Curly's lead in making the "problem" here all about me.

By all means, welcome. Long time no cringe for me.

Please get together with Phyllo and decide which one of you is Larry and which one of you is Moe. 8)

Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is where we last left off on this thread:

iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Iambiguous said "Besides, does life have to be meaningful to enjoy good food, good music, good art, good sex, good careers, good friendships, good accomplishments?"

Oh okay. So it seems that you acknowledge certain imminent values even if you are agnostic about transcendent ones. How are all those goods not meaningful?



Who says they are not meaningful?

Do you imagine my point here is to suggest the beliefs that Buddhists hold dear are not meaningful?

Do you imagine my points is to debunk religious values as, what, inherently meaningless?

No, I am interested in exploring how Buddhists intertwine what they construe the meaning of enlightenment and karma to be here and now as that impacts on what they construe the meaning of reincarnation and Nirvana to be there and then. Insofar as they choose particular behaviors.

And, of far greater importance, the extent to which what they believe is able to be reconfigured into an actual demonstration such that I might be inclined to believe the same thing.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38520
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Wed Aug 19, 2020 3:57 am

iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Does anyone appreciate that the guy who says he doesn't "get Buddhism" is mansplaining Buddhism to iambiguous by request? :lol: It's agonizing to read Mr. Biguous continue to recycle the same responses that he has made to me and virtually everyone he has conversed with on the subject.

I think Biggie's right brain atrophied somewhere along the way, if he ever had one. He preseverates on the same verbal abstractions "over and over" without comprehension of O's POV.

My involvement with Buddhist meditation is consciously phenomenological. I would think it would dovetail nicely with Iam's Dasein.
But, ironic to me, it is precisely my existential/phenomenological approach that he rejects because I recognize that I cannot represent Buddhism objectively. #-o

As Kierkegaard said "Subjectivity is Truth." My experience of Buddhism is no more or less than my experience of Buddhism. A religion that is devoid subjective experience is dead. And every experience of a religion is unique. That's why Kierkegaard addressed the "single individual". In spiritual matters it's the qualia that counts!

Anyway, rock on my brothers! :banana-stoner:


The third Stooge! He's back!!

And, of course, following Curly's lead in making the "problem" here all about me.

By all means, welcome. Long time no cringe for me.

Please get together with Phyllo and decide which one of you is Larry and which one of you is Moe. 8)

Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is where we last left off on this thread:

iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Iambiguous said "Besides, does life have to be meaningful to enjoy good food, good music, good art, good sex, good careers, good friendships, good accomplishments?"

Oh okay. So it seems that you acknowledge certain imminent values even if you are agnostic about transcendent ones. How are all those goods not meaningful?



Who says they are not meaningful?

Do you imagine my point here is to suggest the beliefs that Buddhists hold dear are not meaningful?

Do you imagine my points is to debunk religious values as, what, inherently meaningless?

No, I am interested in exploring how Buddhists intertwine what they construe the meaning of enlightenment and karma to be here and now as that impacts on what they construe the meaning of reincarnation and Nirvana to be there and then. Insofar as they choose particular behaviors.

And, of far greater importance, the extent to which what they believe is able to be reconfigured into an actual demonstration such that I might be inclined to believe the same thing.


Well you're asking me what Buddhists think. How the fuck would I know? Ask a Buddhist. Or read a fucking book about Buddhism where the author claims to know.

I know what Buddhism is to me. And I can't be wrong about that.

I don't claim to know what Buddhism is as a Kantian thing- in- itself which is what you seem to demand. I don't see anyone here in dialogue with you that is claiming that they know that. That's what you demand.

The only way I know of to make religion meaningful to you is to enter into it subjectively and thus have a religious experience that convinces you. If you are impervious to prayer or meditation or active imagination (Jung's method) try Psilocybin or Mescaline or Ayahuasca. You're just playing word games.
Last edited by felix dakat on Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8988
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:19 am

iambiguous wrote:Weren't you suggesting that Horgan, while trying Buddhism, failed to be persuaded because he didn't try hard enough. That's what I took it to mean.
I said the quote was mine. So quoting me adds nothing. You are responding to a post where I said that's not what I meant.
I said that, and yet here you are asking me. What is wrong with you?

I never used the word persuaded. I have said a number of times in this thread and also in a number of place

TO YOU (if not here elsewhere regarding Buddhism)

that I am not a Buddhist and I am critical of Buddhism.

You made up shit, just like the person you quoted made up shit. And you did it in a context where your conclusion

MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL,

given what I have REPEATEDLY said about my relationship to Buddhism.

Though even without that context, you just made up shit. Which you do with regularity.

He didn't try Buddhism very hard, it seems to me. Yeah, that's an odd quote. And yes, some Buddhists believe something like that as far as tallies of niceness and nautiness - but I don't think I have ever encountered a Santa type entity or other cosmic judge in a Buddhist's beliefs.

And if we look at the quote itself, I mention the problem with him making up a facet of Buddhism - a deity or supernatural being that weighs people's sins. I do not mention that he should have been persuaded, but say that his quote is odd because he is saying something I have never encounted in Buddhism. What the fuck is wrong with you?

I mean, seriously....you ask me if that is what I meant, when I wrote a post explaining it is not what I meant and that that is obvious. This is one reason people think you are a troll.

I mean, are you that dumb? Did you really find it hard to tell that I was saying that was not what I meant, so you had to ask?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

A rational human being with some integrity would say something like 'oh, right, you have been critical of Buddhism, what was I thinking' or ' yeah, you're right, you didn't say anything about persuasion, sorry'.

What do you start off with....?

asking me if persuasion was not what I meant.

Your criterion for Buddhists and other objectivists is that their arguments should be able to convince all rational people.

Are you an example of a rational person?

And do you want to know what's enticing. This is so obvious, that even after all this time with you never admitting anything, I think, gee this is so obvious he has to admit he did something wrong. But you won't.

Back on ignore, hopefully curiosity will never draw me back. But your shit appears in the posts of others, and I realize just how idiotically you have written about me or someone else. I suppose like car accidents you will eventually cause nearly everyone to use seat belts and I won't notice your idiocy.

And yes, as Phyllo points out, I have written a great deal on Buddhism, with substance, even where you just quote the part about you and complain that my post is about you, ignoring the information about Buddhism which you supposedly are interested in, lol.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3406
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:43 am

Okay, given the behaviors that Buddhists choose...behaviors thought to encompass enlightenment, karma, reincarnation, and Nirvana in a no Santa Claus/no God religion...how does the universe function in order to connect the dots between here and now and there and then.

Note to committed Buddhists:

Give it your best shot. If there is no "cosmic judge" when it comes time for you to be reincarnated into a bacteria or a toad or a leopard or the next generation of human being, what does makes it happen?

And if Nirvana is understood as it is examined here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism) -- how does the universe function to bring this about?

Here you appear to be asking "why/how does karma work as it does?". The short answer is we don't know or that's the way the universe is structured.

That's different from the question "how does karma work?", which Buddhists talk about.

Similar to :

Why/how does gravity work as is does? Same short answer as for karma.

How does gravity work? You get a pull in a particular direction. An object will move in a specific path under the effect of gravity. You describe this with various degrees of success depending on the complexity of the situation.

How is karma different? It's hard to isolate and measure.
Other then by way of what Buddha insisted was true based on what he thought up in his head all those years ago. Isn't Buddhism basically just another faith based religion? Nothing is able to be demonstrated about the fate of "I" after death, but it sure does make one feel good to believe that it's not the obliteration of "I" for all the rest of eternity.
How many times has it already been stated that there is no permanent "I" in Buddhism?

The "I" is obliterated every second.

And the goal is to end rebirth. IOW the goal is to NOT live eternally.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:16 pm

phyllo wrote:
I'm talking about karma. KT is talking about karma.

But it's not substantive??? #-o



No. It's no where near the manner in which I construe a substantive exchange here. Don't just talk about karma. Note how you factor it into your life over the years when choosing behaviors that you deem to be "the right thing to do". And then what happens when you bump into others who insist it's the wrong thing to do. And then those who insist not only that it's the wrong thing to do but that if you don't stop doing it their God will punish you.

Why his scripture here instead of Buddha's? Or why the Buddha's instead of all the hundreds of others?

And what on earth are you able to demonstrate is in fact true much beyond what you do believe in your head "here and now"?

And that's before we get to the components of my own moral philosophy. Noting how they are and are not applicable to you.

And here [from my frame of mind] the discussions must unfold relating to a set of circumstances that most here will be familiar with. And even though we may have attempted this before and failed to break through, there's really no better recourse than to try, try again.

Or, sure, figure it's hopeless and move on to others instead.
Okay, so let's make up a substantive exchange:

A woman checks on an elderly neighbor to make sure he is okay. She runs some errands and buys some groceries for him.

You want her to connect the dots as : "I do this because if I don't, I may be reincarnated as a toad."
Or "I do this because Buddha said ... 'If we fail to look after others when they need help, who will look after us?'"

Then another neighbor comes along and tells her to stop because the elderly guy is Muslim. "For truly it is written ... let the Muslims rot in hell."

Then she might stop because she is afraid of getting beat up or she is convinced by his argument. Or she might continue and she justifies it with another quote from Buddha or some passage of Buddhist scripture.

Is that it? Is that what you are looking for?

And here you would point out that Buddha and and the other guy's source just made up that stuff. That there is no way to choose between the two, that is no way to pick the right approach. It hasn't been demonstrated to be true for all. (Or so it seems to you.)

Am I on the right track here? Have I got the gist of it?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Wed Aug 19, 2020 3:33 pm

Here's a question for you guys: isn't the phenomenological basis for the doctrine of karma the experience that behavior has consequences? And this observation (and who would deny it?) leads to the question: how far do those consequences go? Is there any limit to them?
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8988
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 19, 2020 5:43 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Well you're asking me what Buddhists think. How the fuck would I know? Ask a Buddhist. Or read a fucking book about Buddhism where the author claims to know.


Okay, let's forget fucking Buddhism. Besides, it's just one more fucking religion to me.

Let's focus instead on how you yourself have come to connect the dots existentially between "morality here and now" and "immortality there and then". In this regard, refresh my memory, are you a moral objectivist? Do you embody a religious narrative?

Given a particular set of circumstances in which to sustain the exchange.

felix dakat wrote:I know what Buddhism is to me. And I can't be wrong about that.

I don't claim to know what Buddhism is as a Kantian thing- in- itself which is what you seem to demand. I don't see anyone here in dialogue with you that is claiming that they know that. That's what you demand.


Let's bring this down to earth.

Take Kant's assessment of telling lies. Given that you know what Buddhism is to you, how do you imagine a Buddhist might react to lying?

Note to Buddhists:

What do you make of lying in human interactions? As it is embedded in your understanding of enlightenment and karma on this side of the grave.

Here is one take on it: https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/buddhist-precept-lying/

Let's discuss it. In regard to the vast number of contexts in which lying can play a part.

Instead, for Larry or Moe, it's straight back up into the fucking intellectual contraption clouds

felix dakat wrote:The only way I know of to make religion meaningful to you is to enter into it subjectively and thus have a religious experience that convinces you. If you are impervious to prayer or meditation or active imagination (Jung's method) try Psilocybin or Mescaline or Ayahuasca. You're just playing word games.


Have you had any actual religious experiences? And, aside from how you experienced them "in your head" how would you go about demonstrating them such that others might find it helpful in choosing to behave morally on this side of the grave so as to attain immortality on the other side of it.
Last edited by iambiguous on Wed Aug 19, 2020 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38520
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 19, 2020 6:17 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Weren't you suggesting that Horgan, while trying Buddhism, failed to be persuaded because he didn't try hard enough. That's what I took it to mean.
I said the quote was mine. So quoting me adds nothing. You are responding to a post where I said that's not what I meant.
I said that, and yet here you are asking me. What is wrong with you?


Note to others:

What am I missing here? Given this exchange above...

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
phyllo wrote:I was referring to the quote by John Horgan which Iamb posted and commented on :
Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses reincarnation, which holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new bodies, and karma, the law of moral cause and effect. Together, these tenets imply the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama.
He had tried Buddhism and come to this conclusion about karma.

I found it strange that he introduces a cosmic judge. If we were discussing evolution, for example, he probable would have no problem attributing the 'survival of the fittest' to unspecified mechanistic forces. But change the subject to karma and Buddhism and the thinking changes entirely.

And it's as you describe it ... no deity behind karma.
He didn't try Buddhism very hard, it seems to me. Yeah, that's an odd quote. And yes, some Buddhists believe something like that as far as tallies of niceness and nautiness - but I don't think I have ever encountered a Santa type entity or other cosmic judge in a Buddhist's beliefs.


...was I wrong to assume that Curly was suggesting that Horgan failed to be persuaded regarding Buddhism because he didn't try hard enough?

Though admittedly, as with Curly, I have to agree that this part of the exchange "MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL".

And, yeah, okay, I could be the problem here this time. Help us out.

As for "what the fuck is wrong with you" -- me -- in regard to how the universe or what in the universe is implicated in the part where enlightenment and karma on this side of the grave makes contact with reincarnation and Nirvana on the other side of it, I'm still mystified as to how a Godless religion explains this.

As for this...

Karpel Tunnel wrote: What the fuck is wrong with you?

I mean, seriously....you ask me if that is what I meant, when I wrote a post explaining it is not what I meant and that that is obvious. This is one reason people think you are a troll.

I mean, are you that dumb? Did you really find it hard to tell that I was saying that was not what I meant, so you had to ask?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

A rational human being with some integrity would say something like 'oh, right, you have been critical of Buddhism, what was I thinking' or ' yeah, you're right, you didn't say anything about persuasion, sorry'.

What do you start off with....?

asking me if persuasion was not what I meant.

Your criterion for Buddhists and other objectivists is that their arguments should be able to convince all rational people.

Are you an example of a rational person?

And do you want to know what's enticing. This is so obvious, that even after all this time with you never admitting anything, I think, gee this is so obvious he has to admit he did something wrong. But you won't.

Back on ignore, hopefully curiosity will never draw me back. But your shit appears in the posts of others, and I realize just how idiotically you have written about me or someone else. I suppose like car accidents you will eventually cause nearly everyone to use seat belts and I won't notice your idiocy.


...I'll leave to others to speculate as to what prompts Curly to go off the deep end and engage in frenetic, sputtering personal attacks of this sort.

I'm back on ignore now. And, incredibly enough, he's not even a fucking objectivist!!!

Though, sure, like he insist of me, he may well be "dumb". :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38520
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Wed Aug 19, 2020 6:21 pm

iambiguous wrote:Okay, let's forget fucking Buddhism. Besides, it's just one more fucking religion to me.


Here iambiguous reveals that his intent has never been to understand Buddhism. He is here simply as an enemy of religion.
Last edited by felix dakat on Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8988
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 19, 2020 6:27 pm

felix dakat wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
Well you're asking me what Buddhists think. How the fuck would I know? Ask a Buddhist. Or read a fucking book about Buddhism where the author claims to know.


Okay, let's forget fucking Buddhism. Besides, it's just one more fucking religion to me.


:text-offtopic:


Okay, Larry, see you in the next round. :banana-dance:

Stooges!!

Okay, okay: :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38520
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby felix dakat » Wed Aug 19, 2020 6:45 pm

Sixty-six times have these eyes beheld the changing scenes of Autumn.
I have said enough about moonlight,
Ask me no more.
Only listen to the voice of pines and cedars, when no wind stirs.

Ryo-Nen
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8988
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 19, 2020 6:52 pm

felix dakat wrote:Sixty-six times have these eyes beheld the changing scenes of Autumn.
I have said enough about moonlight,
Ask me no more.
Only listen to the voice of pines and cedars, when no wind stirs.

Ryo-Nen


Just about what someone -- meaning me -- would expect from a poster hell bent on keeping a discussion of religion as far removed from the lives that we live and the deaths that we will experience as possible.

[-o<
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38520
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:25 pm

Okay, given the behaviors that Buddhists choose...behaviors thought to encompass enlightenment, karma, reincarnation, and Nirvana in a no Santa Claus/no God religion...how does the universe function in order to connect the dots between here and now and there and then.

Note to committed Buddhists:

Give it your best shot. If there is no "cosmic judge" when it comes time for you to be reincarnated into a bacteria or a toad or a leopard or the next generation of human being, what does makes it happen?

And if Nirvana is understood as it is examined here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism) -- how does the universe function to bring this about?



phyllo wrote: Here you appear to be asking "why/how does karma work as it does?". The short answer is we don't know or that's the way the universe is structured.


Okay, then I am back to noting that if Buddhists don't know how enlightenment and karma and reincarnation and Nirvana are intertwined in how the universe works, then why should others become Buddhists? Sure, one can take a "leap of faith" to Buddhism as with the other religious denominations, but then we are back to all of those hundreds and hundreds of additional religious denominations that are basically in the same boat. To the best of my current knowledge, Buddhists demonstrate nothing in the way of connecting the dots between enlightenment and immortality beyond what was believed to be true in the head of the Buddha.

Ah, but what does that matter if in believing it yourself you are comforted and consoled?

I get that part, sure. In fact, I wish that somehow I could make that leap myself.

phyllo wrote: That's different from the question "how does karma work?", which Buddhists talk about.

Similar to :

Why/how does gravity work as is does? Same short answer as for karma.

How does gravity work? You get a pull in a particular direction. An object will move in a specific path under the effect of gravity. You describe this with various degrees of success depending on the complexity of the situation.

How is karma different? It's hard to isolate and measure.


How gravity works is not often linked to "morality here and now" and "immortality there and then". Unless Jim pushes John over a cliff and John dies. Then some may wonder if Jim's behavior was immoral. And gravity having led to John hitting the rocks below, killing him, will John then go on to an existence on the other side.

And how do Buddhists talk about karma...how karma works in regard to the existential trajectory of their own lives and then the part after they are dead and gone.

In fact, that's that part I keep coming back to over and over again: karma as it is intertwined in the actual experiences that Buddhists have over the years.


Other then by way of what Buddha insisted was true based on what he thought up in his head all those years ago. Isn't Buddhism basically just another faith based religion? Nothing is able to be demonstrated about the fate of "I" after death, but it sure does make one feel good to believe that it's not the obliteration of "I" for all the rest of eternity.


phyllo wrote: How many times has it already been stated that there is no permanent "I" in Buddhism?

The "I" is obliterated every second.

And the goal is to end rebirth. IOW the goal is to NOT live eternally.


Come on, I make a distinction here between I in the either/or world and "I" in is/ought world. I in the life that we live on this side of the grave and whatever the fate of "I" on the other side of it.

Sure, biologically, our bodies/brains are never exactly the same from minute to minute, but what does that really mean in regard to the things that happen to us that all rational human beings can agree are happening to us.

And, okay, for those committed Buddhists among us, once mere mortals die is their "I" itself obliterated for all time to come?

After all, that's what makes so many hundreds of millions of other religious folks choose the God denominations. As Christians, Muslims, Jews etc., "I" as a "soul" does in fact continue on for all of eternity. And that is by far one of the biggest attractions of Western religions.

And what of Nirvana? If no "I" in the manner in which we understand that here and now, what exactly does become in sync with "the ultimate spiritual goal in Buddhism".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38520
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:20 pm

Come on, I make a distinction here between I in the either/or world and "I" in is/ought world. I in the life that we live on this side of the grave and whatever the fate of "I" on the other side of it.

Sure, biologically, our bodies/brains are never exactly the same from minute to minute, but what does that really mean in regard to the things that happen to us that all rational human beings can agree are happening to us.

And, okay, for those committed Buddhists among us, once mere mortals die is their "I" itself obliterated for all time to come?

After all, that's what makes so many hundreds of millions of other religious folks choose the God denominations. As Christians, Muslims, Jews etc., "I" as a "soul" does in fact continue on for all of eternity. And that is by far one of the biggest attractions of Western religions.

And what of Nirvana? If no "I" in the manner in which we understand that here and now, what exactly does become in sync with "the ultimate spiritual goal in Buddhism".
Well that's not the distinction that Buddhists make.

So they are not led to believe that there is no "obliteration of "I" for all the rest of eternity."

You're just projecting your beliefs about religion on to Buddhists.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users