I don't get Buddhism

[iambiguous]

As for a discussion of MagsJ's politics, I would very much like to commence a new thread with her. She can focus in on her own political values, and I can focus in on mine. And then in regard to one or another pressing political issue that has been in the news of late, we can compare and contrast our own political philosophies. Just say the word and I will start it. An entirely civil exchange in which we explore the components of our own thinking here.

..only as long as you don’t use the phrase “..interactions that revolve around conflicting goods in which we connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then”, or any variation or derivative there-of.. otherwise, sure. ; )

Sound familiar?

Oh, yeah. From the Feckin Bots thread:

..only as long as you don’t use the phrase “..interactions that revolve around conflicting goods in which we connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then”, or any variation or derivative there-of.. otherwise, sure.

So, this should sound familiar to you.

Nope, no can do. My entire moral and political philosophy revolves around attempts to explain to others what "I" mean by that...given our interaction with others on this side of the grave as that is relevant to what we believe our fate to be on the other side of it.

So, if you are still interested, I will start a new thread in the philosophy forum in which we discuss bad faith given the issues that most concern you and most concern me. Or, sure, start it yourself.

Just say the word and we can get this thing going.

On the other hand, back at the bots thread:

So, if you are still interested..

I am not.

[MagsJ]

This from the guy who, over and over and over again, attempts to hijack the thread and reconfigure it from what we don't get about Buddhism into what he does get about iambiguous.

Haha! ..but analysing people (in a healthy/inquisitive way) can be fun, is probably why in a rude, brash, and unhealthy hostile way.. not so much. coz it ain’t an inquisition, nor a competition, or an interrogation.

First, of course, my interest in religion focuses in part on how those who practice one or another denomination almost always include a moral narrative said to be linked to immortality and salvation. And that moral narrative can then come into conflict with the moral narratives of other religious denominations. As well as any number of secular No God ideologies. And what does that precipitate in a particular human community but politics. Embodied in, among others things, the law.

Postby MagsJ » Wed 23 Sep, 2020 13:03

Conduct.. thought over fought, so when man stopped being beast.

Politics.. fought over thought, when a disagreement turns into tribal warfare, and becomes an Us v Them situation.. as seen throughout history.

With Buddhism however it gets trickier [for me] because there is no God and thus no Judgment Day as most Western denominations adhere to.

To separate a discussion of religion from a discussion of morality from a discussion of politics is utterly alien to me. Why? Because my understanding of human identity itself here necessarily intertwines all three in dasein.

Yes.. but Buddhism stems from the pre-religious, pre-political world, of the beginnings of humanity, until a disagreement turned into tribal warfare and became an Us v Them situation, ergo.. politics, founded on disagreement.

As for a discussion of MagsJ's politics, I would very much like to commence a new thread with her. She can focus in on her own political values, and I can focus in on mine. And then in regard to one or another pressing political issue that has been in the news of late, we can compare and contrast our own political philosophies. Just say the word and I will start it. An entirely civil exchange in which we explore the components of our own thinking here.

..only as long as you don’t use the phrase “..interactions that revolve around conflicting goods in which we connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then”, or any variation or derivative there-of.. otherwise, sure. ; )

Sound familiar?

Oh, yeah. From the Feckin Bots thread:

..only as long as you don’t use the phrase “..interactions that revolve around conflicting goods in which we connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then”, or any variation or derivative there-of.. otherwise, sure.

So, this should sound familiar to you.

Nope, no can do. My entire moral and political philosophy revolves around attempts to explain to others what "I" mean by that...given our interaction with others on this side of the grave as that is relevant to what we believe our fate to be on the other side of it.

So, if you are still interested, I will start a new thread in the philosophy forum in which we discuss bad faith given the issues that most concern you and most concern me. Or, sure, start it yourself.

Just say the word and we can get this thing going.

On the other hand, back at the bots thread:

So, if you are still interested..

I am not.

Iam said: “As for a discussion of MagsJ's politics, I would very much like to commence a new thread with her. She can focus in on her own political values, and I can focus in on mine. And then in regard to one or another pressing political issue that has been in the news of late, we can compare and contrast our own political philosophies. Just say the word and I will start it. An entirely civil exchange in which we explore the components of our own thinking here.“

I say: Ok.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Yes.. but Buddhism stems from the pre-religious, pre-political world, of the beginnings of humanity, until a disagreement turned into tribal warfare and became an Us v Them situation, ergo.. politics, founded on disagreement.

What did you mean here? Buddhism stems from the pre-religious? Is this different from other religsions?

[iambiguous]

Reincarnation: What do modern research and traditional Buddhist teachings say?
BY SAM LITTLEFAIR
MAY 11, 2018
at Lion's Roar website
Lion's Roar describes itself as "BUDDHIST WISDOM for OUR TIME"

In general, there isn’t much of a unified Buddhist view on rebirth. Many Buddhists decline to engage any discussion on the subject. And, as of yet, reincarnation research has yielded some interesting evidence but hasn’t produced any proof or solid theory of reincarnation. I like to compare the two purely as food for thought. Personally, I find that it challenges my ideas about rationality and the mind.

So, in the spirit of good fun, here are a few ways that the research and the teachings agree and disagree.

Sure, but in the spirit of "good fun", the sky becomes the limit. Anything you can "think up" that makes sense to you need be as far as it goes. Bottom line: you believe it just enough that the belief in and of itself comforts and consoles you. And there are hundreds of "spiritual" paths to choose from here. As long as the bottom line remains not what you can demonstrate to be true but what, in believing it is true, anchors and reassures you psychologically, there will never be a shortage of alternatives.

The main phenomenon studied in reincarnation research is mental or physical attributes passing from one life to another.

Most commonly, these are memories. The interview subjects find a young child who is describing things they couldn’t have experienced, which took place before they were born. The researchers tend to take on cases in which they expect they might be able to uncover a “previous personality” (PP). Along with memories, the researchers also look at physical attributes — like birthmarks or birth defects — and behaviors that seem like they could be connected to the PP. There are many cases in which a child has a birthmark the size and shape of a gunshot wound (sometimes they even have a second, larger birthmark matching an exit wound) that correspond precisely to a fatal gunshot wound on the PP. In some cases, the autopsy report confirms that the location of the wound matches the location of the birthmark. Often, the children exhibit signs of PTSD, despite having no reported trauma in this life. More than half of children whose PP purportedly died of drowning are scared of water. More rarely, there are cases in which a subject knows a foreign language or has other skills purportedly learned in a past life.

Which prompts me to once again note that if any of this is encompassed in a particular internet link which provides us with an accumulation of evidence that skeptics would find very, very difficult to refute, it would be circling the globe. What could possibly be more astonishing to the human species than substantive and substantial evidence that past lives and/or future lives are in fact not only possible but clearly demonstrable?

So, for those here inclined to believe it, take us to the link that you are convinced best confirms it.

To find a Buddhist corollary, we need look no further than the story of the Buddha. He was said to have remembered all of his past lives the night before he attained enlightenment. He was also said to be marked with 32 physical (and fantastical) characteristics accrued during past lives. And, there is a story that when the Buddha went to school as a boy, he understood many foreign scripts that even his teacher didn’t know, learned in past lives.

Next up: Christians examine the story of Jesus.

What does it matter what Buddha claimed to remember when it is by far more important to note what he was actually able to account for in regard to past lives as in fact true?

I don't have a million dollars to give to someone able to convince me that he did do this, but I am more than willing to grovel here by way of begging the forgiveness of all Buddhists for ever doubting them.

[phyllo]

What happens after you die? That used to be just a religious question, but science is starting to weigh in. Sam Littlefair looks at the evidence that you’ve lived before.

https://www.lionsroar.com/do-you-only-live-once/

[iambiguous]

What happens after you die? That used to be just a religious question, but science is starting to weigh in. Sam Littlefair looks at the evidence that you’ve lived before.

https://www.lionsroar.com/do-you-only-live-once/

Okay, but then this part:

Which prompts me to once again note that if any of this is encompassed in a particular internet link which provides us with an accumulation of evidence that skeptics would find very, very difficult to refute, it would be circling the globe. What could possibly be more astonishing to the human species than substantive and substantial evidence that past lives and/or future lives are in fact not only possible but clearly demonstrable?

Whether the source be science or religion, it seems that any efforts here able to produce truly substantive and substantial evidence for past lives or future lives would be really, really, really big news.

[phyllo]

This is some version of the ad populum fallacy ... "If this was true then it would be a popular topic of discussion and news reports. It's not, therefore it must be false."

No discussion of the contents of the link.

[iambiguous]

This is some version of the ad populum fallacy ... "If this was true then it would be a popular topic of discussion and news reports. It's not, therefore it must be false."

No discussion of the contents of the link.

It's third on my list from Lion's Roar. The reincarnation thread above is first, then "the case against 'Buddhism'" by RANDY ROSENTHAL and then that one.

And, yes, it is certainly true that an "appeal to the people" is not the most propitious approach to such questions. But, come on, isn't it also true that if anyone was able to accumulate "substantive and substantial" evidence of past and future lives it would the number one topic of discussion around the globe?

How about this: You note for us the most convincing evidence in that piece above. What demonstrated to you that past lives are a very real thing and not just something that most of us would want to believe psychologically because it seems to suggest that death is not the end of "I" for all of eternity.

Although with Buddhism I'm still rather fuzzy regarding the extent to which it is "I" that will be reincarnated...or have a chance to reach Nirvana.

Let alone how this all unfolds in a No God religion.

[phyllo]

The people who are reporting these reincarnations are not trying to promote their beliefs and they are not getting rich or famous by doing it. Therefore, they have little motivation to lie or fake it.

The researchers have a reasonable methodology and they appear to be conscientious in investigating the reports. Of course, they could be fabricating the data.

Still, these sorts of events are reported by various people all over the world. So it's likely that something really is being observed.

As for why it's not making headlines, there are lots of fairly obvious reasons ...

It goes directly against the beliefs of Christians, Muslims, Jews and atheists.

It's downright creepy that your child's body is "possessed" by another "person". What parent wants that??

It's not the kind of immortality that most people imagine or would like to have.

[Ecmandu]

Reincarnation huh?

You all have all the memories of existence. You’ve lived every possible life. Buddhism is a soul ideology. Christianity is a soul ideology. You are so much greater than that. We’re all different. Drops of water in the eternal ocean... we come from it and go back to it, and every drop is different. When it comes back to the ocean, it slowly expands back to everything. And then molecules of your drop are part of new droplets.

That is how life works. The question you should be asking is:

“Who is the ocean?”

The answer: everyone.

[MagsJ]

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.

I think that’s called indecisiveness..

It also sounds like your thoughts are possessing you, rather than you possessing them and taking control of their ebb and flow.. thoughts could then be thought of as tide-like, but what is it that causes them to be so? internal and external factors perhaps.

Again, from my frame of mind, we are in two very different discussions.

Being decisive or indecisive about what particular behaviors in what particular context? Same with being "possessed" by thoughts. In rergard to what?

I guess making decisions is easier for some than it is for others.. some decisions taking longer to arrive at than others, dictating how a person would go about making them all. We can break our decisions-to-make down and then compartmentalise them, in order to enable us to prioritise them. The mind as a filing cabinet and To Do list.. just like many here like to label, some prefer to compartmentalise.

Is there always a context (which you seem to think needs to exist) before we ‘do’ anything.. so a reactive, rather than active, process. I’m sure we do both..

What are those "internal and external" factors -- existential variables -- that go into creating a particular "I" when confronted with conflicting goods such that one's religious values kick in in order to make distinctions between moral/enlightened behavior here and now as that then becomes translated into a frame of mind revolving around that which these "spiritual" paths are said to bring into fruition on the other side of the grave.

You and the Buddhists will either bring this down to Earth in terms of your own behaviors in particular sets of circumstances or you will continue to make me the problem for insisting that this is where it makes the most sense for these discussions to go.

Not every decision we make has to be a moral dilemma.. I guess you could say that religion does indeed guide some’s life and every day decisions, like what we eat and drink etc., but then that becomes known as a trusted way of life. I, for instance, cannot eat fermented foods.. even though they’re all the rage at the moment, so that would dictate where and what I eat, and so somewhat alienating me from those that can, in a short and then over a longer-term period of time.. leading to the diversification and divergence of those different types, who can and cannot eat fermented foods.

So, in a discussion in which we are exchanging views on a particularly contentious set of conflicting goods, you can note how I am indecisive and possessed by my thoughts. And I can note how "I" [both yours and mine] seem more embedded subjectively/existentially in dasein than in some definitive conclusions that religion or philosophy or science might provide us.

Choose the context yourself. Otherwise how are we not just wasting each other's time?

I said: “I, for instance, cannot eat fermented foods.. even though they’re all the rage at the moment, so that would dictate where and what I eat, and so somewhat alienating me from those that can, in a short and then over a longer-term period of time.. leading to the diversification and divergence of those different types, who can and cannot eat fermented foods.”

That’s my long-term existential-crisis.. having had to change my eating habits and social behaviour, in order to accommodate a dilemma I had become faced with over the years. Now that my ‘alien’ need has started to become more commonplace, the ‘need‘ is now one of humour than contention.. towards my kind. Food.. being just one of many defining factors, that forms our current Self.

You want to find me a new mantra and I want to explore how moral and political mantras themselves are derived existentially from the arguments I make in my signature treads. As opposed to one of hundreds and hundreds of spiritual paths out there, the adherents of which basically argue "repeat after me and you will choose the right things to do here and now in order to attain immortality and salvation there and then."

And you also claim to have read my signature threads.

Okay, let's start with the OP on this one: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

Note behaviors that you have chosen of late given your moral and political value judgments here and now and note how the argument I make here is not applicable to you.

Then I will note my own reaction to these behaviors given the points I make in the OP.

This, I will reply to separately.

[MagsJ]

Yes.. but Buddhism stems from the pre-religious, pre-political world, of the beginnings of humanity, until a disagreement turned into tribal warfare and became an Us v Them situation, ergo.. politics, founded on disagreement.

What did you mean here? Buddhism stems from the pre-religious? Is this different from other religsions?

Nope.. religions were/are formed from local requirements of that People, but have now been formed from off-shoots of older religions, and even off-shoots of off-shoots of older religions, so making them far-removed from what they used to be and were meant to do.

With an ever-changing level of consciousness, so too must societal-tools.. it seems.

When we’re bored, we find something to occupy our time with, so we grow things.. manufacture things.. invent things.. create things, to help accommodate our boredom.. caused by time, in having too much of it on our hands. And the rest is (current) history.

I meditated first, then read-up on Buddhism decades later, only to confirm that the different paths led to the same destination, but that Zazen offered a far quicker and more reliable path.. in my adult years, but all modern roads lead to mindfulness.. in the end.

[iambiguous]

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.

I think that’s called indecisiveness..

It also sounds like your thoughts are possessing you, rather than you possessing them and taking control of their ebb and flow.. thoughts could then be thought of as tide-like, but what is it that causes them to be so? internal and external factors perhaps.

Again, from my frame of mind, we are in two very different discussions.

Being decisive or indecisive about what particular behaviors in what particular context? Same with being "possessed" by thoughts. In rergard to what?

I guess making decisions is easier for some than it is for others.. some decisions taking longer to arrive at than others, dictating how a person would go about making them all. We can break our decisions-to-make down and then compartmentalise them, in order to enable us to prioritise them. The mind as a filing cabinet and To Do list.. just like many here like to label, some prefer to compartmentalise.

Well, the decisions that concern me in regard to God and religion are the ones that revolve around the behaviors that the religious choose on this side of the grave insofar as that sustains their thinking about the fate of "I" other side of the grave.

I suggest that this is embedded and embodied in a particular self out in a particular world historically, culturally and circumstantially. And that it is considerably easier to choose "the right thing to do" if you are convinced that it must be in accord with "God's will". Or with respect to Buddhism whatever might be the equivalent of that re the "universe".

But again: what particular decision in what particular context? Why are some choices easier than others?

To what extent are we able to demonstrate that the choice that we make reflects the choice that all reasonable and virtuous people are in fact obligated to make themselves?

For example, you may decide that you want to be rich. And there are clearly choices that you can make such that you either become rich or you don't. But what if others insist that in becoming rich you chose behaviors that resulted in the exploitation or the impoverishment of others. That your behavior was immoral based on their own assessment of social and economic justice.

The part I root in dasein. The part others root in political philosophies that champion either capitalism or socialism. The part that still others root in one or another religious dogma.

Is there always a context (which you seem to think needs to exist) before we ‘do’ anything.. so a reactive, rather than active, process. I’m sure we do both..

Let's focus then on another context relating to the manner in which we connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then. Explore it. After all, what else is there in a philosophy venue? There's what we think and what we do. Then the consequences of that for others. And, finally, our reactions to them. The parts I root in the manner in which we come to acquire a particular identity, out in a world of conflicting value judgments where, politically, rules of behavior are established and enforced. I'm interested in the components of your own thinking and doing here.

What are those "internal and external" factors -- existential variables -- that go into creating a particular "I" when confronted with conflicting goods such that one's religious values kick in in order to make distinctions between moral/enlightened behavior here and now as that then becomes translated into a frame of mind revolving around that which these "spiritual" paths are said to bring into fruition on the other side of the grave.

Not every decision we make has to be a moral dilemma.. I guess you could say that religion does indeed guide some’s life and every day decisions, like what we eat and drink etc., but then that becomes known as a trusted way of life. I, for instance, cannot eat fermented foods.. even though they’re all the rage at the moment, so that would dictate where and what I eat, and so somewhat alienating me from those that can, in a short and then over a longer-term period of time.. leading to the diversification and divergence of those different types, who can and cannot eat fermented foods.

Okay, but what does does this really have to do with the point that I am making? And, in fact, on a thread devoted to understanding a particulat religious denomination, it is precisely the way in which morality can pose dilemmas for both believers and nonbelievers that most interest me. What happens when, say, a woman with an unwanted pregnancy is torn between reasons to abort the unborn baby and reasons not to. How do her religious values factor into her decision?

That is the component of religion that I am drawn to to. Why? Because her answer may or may not allow for me to question my own truly grim assessment. What does morality here and now and immortality there and then mean to someone like me? Someone convinced that human existence is essentially meaningless and that, one by one, we all tumble over into the abyss that is nothingness.

Well, what if that's not true? All I can do is to explore this with others who are in fact convinced that it isn't. What's their story? Given the lives that they actually live from day to day.

As for you not being able to eat fermented foods, I'm not at all clear as to what you are saying here. You can't eat it because it is prohibited by your religion? It is deemed immoral to eat it? If, in eating it, you'll risk the fate that you want for yourself on the other side of the grave?

[Ecmandu]

Fermented foods are acidic by nature and hyper acidity can cause severe bloating, horrible runs, frequent vomiting, and because it’s basically broken down sugar, stuff like diabetes as well.
Is it immoral for MagsJ to not want these things?

Sometimes iambiguous, your morality shtick just comes across as you being a real ass.

A guess, and it could easily be wrong... MagsJ drinks (fermented as well) and is making a choice which acidity she wants (a choice). Is she immoral to drink if that’s the case? Not if it improves her mental health and quality of life.

[iambiguous]

Reincarnation: What do modern research and traditional Buddhist teachings say?
BY SAM LITTLEFAIR
MAY 11, 2018
at Lion's Roar website
Lion's Roar describes itself as "BUDDHIST WISDOM for OUR TIME"

Predictions and Dreams

The researchers also take into account seemingly supernatural predictions or dreams that correspond to seeming cases of reincarnation. The dreams, most often had by the mother, involved a figure coming to them and asking to be their child. In the case of the Buddha, his mother reportedly had a dream in which an elephant came to her and entered her womb. In the tulku system, Buddhist lamas give predictions about the circumstances of their reincarnation’s birth.

Okay, admittedly, I have never had a dream myself that led me to speculate that perhaps reincarnation is real. But for those who have, again, connect the dots between the dream and actual demonstrable evidence that it does in fact exist. Buddha's mother having a dream "in which an elephant came to her and entered her womb"? How does that factor into "supernatural predictions or dreams that correspond to seeming cases of reincarnation."

Explain "seeming" in more detail.

And supernatural in what sense? After all, once the "supernatural" is brought into the assessment anything goes, right?

Good Karma

Karma is a very tricky notion, subject to lively debate among Buddhists. Karma does not suggest that “what goes around comes around,” as per the pop culture interpretation. It would be a mistake to think karma means that our circumstances are the direct result of our past actions. Buddhist scholars acknowledge that our circumstances are the result of many factors, including — but not limited to — our “karma.”

All I want to know is simple enough:

Given the lives that Buddhists choose to live when confronted with contexts in which others challenge the behaviors they choose on moral grounds, how is their understanding of enlightenment and karma reconfigured in to the behaviors they choose as this impacts that which they believe their fate to be in regard to reincarnation and Nirvana.

What experiences or dreams or predictions or evidence have they accumulated that would allow them to make an argument in a philosophy forum such that other reasonable men and women would in turn "see the light". Their own and not all of the others.

Karma refers to the fact that our actions have effects. These effects are generally indecipherable, and may not develop immediately. It could take years or — if you believe in it — lifetimes for karmic consequences to flower.

Yes, but in regard to the components of my own philosophy -- dasein, conflicting goods, political economy -- that is no less true. Our actions are rooted in "I" as an existential construction, deconstruction, reconstruction from the cradle to the grave. "I" comes to acquire a set of values that can and often do come into conflict with the values of others. And, out in any particular human community, there will be laws that reward or punish particular behaviors based on who has the political power to enact and to enforce them.

How is this not also true for Buddhists?

[MagsJ]

A guess, and it could easily be wrong... MagsJ drinks (fermented as well) and is making a choice which acidity she wants (a choice). Is she immoral to drink if that’s the case? Not if it improves her mental health and quality of life.

Dickhead!

[iambiguous]

A guess, and it could easily be wrong... MagsJ drinks (fermented as well) and is making a choice which acidity she wants (a choice). Is she immoral to drink if that’s the case? Not if it improves her mental health and quality of life.

No, seriously. If eating fermented foods was was against someone's religious values in much the same way foods and drinks are in other denominations -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_ ... ohibitions -- that's quite different from not eating or drinking something that is in fact harmful or dangerous to their health.

Where the part about morality enters into it is when, say, someone deliberately introduces fermented foods or drink into the diet of someone allergic to them. Why? Because they loathe this person and from their own frame of mind it is justified.

Think about it like this. Suppose someone who loathes Trump figured out a way to infect him with the coronavirus. He rationalized it such that he viewed it as an act of morality. How? By convincing himself that this man's reckless policies have in fact caused the deaths of thousands upon thousands of others throughout the still unfolding covid-19 pandemic. He might even see it as karma. Trump infected with the very disease that he allowed to spread like wildfire from coast to coast.

Then, with most religions, the part where violating dietary taboos is judged by God. Or, with Buddhism, the equivalent of that re "the universe".

[Ecmandu]

Iambiguous,

That’s the thing with religion... it’s ignorant.

Plants are sentient and suffer, especially when picked and/or eaten. Vegans are insensitive bastards propping themselves as holier than thou.

I fucking hate taking antibiotics or a sip of coffee because they kill bacteria. I’m (all of us) are murderers, whether we like it or not!

Life is about listening to your biochemistry.

I’ve met many vegans who only do it because other foods don’t feel right to them. Those are natural vegans. And I’ve also met tons of vegans who do it for moral reasons and they look like pale ghosts with dark circles under their eyes with psychosis and magical thinking. The latter are the religious vegans, not the natural vegans. Everyone’s biochemistry is different, and I hate people who fuck up themselves and everyone around them because they are religious about food.

[MagsJ]

A guess, and it could easily be wrong... MagsJ drinks (fermented as well) and is making a choice which acidity she wants (a choice). Is she immoral to drink if that’s the case? Not if it improves her mental health and quality of life.

No, seriously. If eating fermented foods was was against someone's religious values in much the same way foods and drinks are in other denominations -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_ ... ohibitions -- that's quite different from not eating or drinking something that is in fact harmful or dangerous to their health.

I am not contesting his argument here, but his interaction.. I do not, with he..

The reason for abstinence of certain foods, could have stemmed from an intolerance or from a simple distaste for it, and then become embedded in the religion.. over time.

I found this: “Lay Buddhists do eat onions and garlic, but anything from the Allium family (onions, garlic, leeks, spring onions, etc.) are avoided by monks and Lamas because they hinder meditation by causing intestinal gas” I cannot tolerate alliums anymore.. nor solanums, or grains, or legumes, or pulses, or cruciferi, or dairy, or all additives/preservatives but I do eat garlic most days, and the odd bit of gf grain or pulse.. but only very rarely.

..and this: “Yes, Buddhists take alcohol. Buddhism especially the Mahayana sect does not abhor alcohol but intoxication. And, intoxication results from drinking more than required by your body. ... There are instances of prominent Buddhists that reasonably drank alcohol, which is without the aim of getting intoxicated.” I think it good for the soul, to get merry at times, but not too overly so.

Where the part about morality enters into it is when, say, someone deliberately introduces fermented foods or drink into the diet of someone allergic to them. Why? Because they loathe this person and from their own frame of mind it is justified.

..or when others insist that you should consume that which you cannot, simply because it’s nutritionally good.. I call that stupidity, and I find that an immoral suggestion, on the grounds of negligence.

..an example: ”..eggplants are a part of the nightshade family, a group of vegetables that include peppers, potatoes, tobacco, tomatoes, and tomatillos. Although these vegetables have been consumed over hundreds of years, they are associated with certain health problems due to their solanine content.” It is stupid to consume anything that one is intolerant to, but yet many still do, and happily suffer the gastrointestinal-consequences of their foolish gastronomic actions.

Think about it like this. Suppose someone who loathes Trump figured out a way to infect him with the coronavirus. He rationalized it such that he viewed it as an act of morality. How? By convincing himself that this man's reckless policies have in fact caused the deaths of thousands upon thousands of others throughout the still unfolding covid-19 pandemic. He might even see it as karma. Trump infected with the very disease that he allowed to spread like wildfire from coast to coast.

Then, with most religions, the part where violating dietary taboos is judged by God. Or, with Buddhism, the equivalent of that re "the universe".

Taking the law into your own hands, is obviously unlawful, and what about those that chose to not self-isolate from the very beginning or not self-quarantine after travelling.. where is their punishment, for spreading the virus further and wider?

It seems that Buddhist dietary requirements arose from need and necessity, rather than gimmick, and so became an indoctrinated dogma over time.

All such fads derive from a need, not an ideology, but become an ideology over time.. an ideal standard for that group of people over there, but not necessary for that group of people over there. Different habitual strokes, for different cultural-religio folks.

[iambiguous]

I am not contesting his argument here, but his interaction.. I do not, with he..

The reason for abstinence of certain foods, could have stemmed from an intolerance or from a simple distaste for it, and then become embedded in the religion.. over time.

I found this: “Lay Buddhists do eat onions and garlic, but anything from the Allium family (onions, garlic, leeks, spring onions, etc.) are avoided by monks and Lamas because they hinder meditation by causing intestinal gas” I cannot tolerate alliums anymore.. nor solanums, or grains, or legumes, or pulses, or cruciferi, or dairy, or all additives/preservatives but I do eat garlic most days, and the odd bit of gf grain or pulse.. but only very rarely.

..and this: “Yes, Buddhists take alcohol. Buddhism especially the Mahayana sect does not abhor alcohol but intoxication. And, intoxication results from drinking more than required by your body. ... There are instances of prominent Buddhists that reasonably drank alcohol, which is without the aim of getting intoxicated.” I think it good for the soul, to get merry at times, but not too overly so.

Where the part about morality enters into it is when, say, someone deliberately introduces fermented foods or drink into the diet of someone allergic to them. Why? Because they loathe this person and from their own frame of mind it is justified.

..or when others insist that you should consume that which you cannot, simply because it’s nutritionally good.. I call that stupidity, and I find that an immoral suggestion, on the grounds of negligence.

..an example: ”..eggplants are a part of the nightshade family, a group of vegetables that include peppers, potatoes, tobacco, tomatoes, and tomatillos. Although these vegetables have been consumed over hundreds of years, they are associated with certain health problems due to their solanine content.” It is stupid to consume anything that one is intolerant to, but yet many still do, and happily suffer the gastrointestinal-consequences of their foolish gastronomic actions.

Think about it like this. Suppose someone who loathes Trump figured out a way to infect him with the coronavirus. He rationalized it such that he viewed it as an act of morality. How? By convincing himself that this man's reckless policies have in fact caused the deaths of thousands upon thousands of others throughout the still unfolding covid-19 pandemic. He might even see it as karma. Trump infected with the very disease that he allowed to spread like wildfire from coast to coast.

Then, with most religions, the part where violating dietary taboos is judged by God. Or, with Buddhism, the equivalent of that re "the universe".

Taking the law into your own hands, is obviously unlawful, and what about those that chose to not self-isolate from the very beginning or not self-quarantine after travelling.. where is their punishment, for spreading the virus further and wider?

It seems that Buddhist dietary requirements arose from need and necessity, rather than gimmick, and so became an indoctrinated dogma over time.

All such fads derive from a need, not an ideology, but become an ideology over time.. an ideal standard for that group of people over there, but not necessary for that group of people over there. Different habitual strokes, for different cultural-religio folks.

Okay, but my own interest in all of this revolves around the extent to which someone chooses to observe a dietary regimen because it is a part of a religious regimen. And thus is seen not only to be a matter of health but of being in sync with any particular religious denomination insisting that one must eat or drink or not eat or not drink this or that because it is a requirement given the parameters of one's faith. And, thus, that the behaviors one chooses in regard to diet will be judged either by God or by whatever the equivalent of God is re "the universe" for the Buddhists.

And then the part where, from their own frame of mind, this is not rooted in dasein but in one or another equivalent of the real me -- soul -- in tandem with the right thing to do given their commitment to a particular spiritual path.

And then, finally, the extent to which this commitment moves beyond a more or less blind leap of faith and encompasses instead actual demonstrable proof that what they believe is in fact true.

[MagsJ]

Okay, but my own interest in all of this revolves around the extent to which someone chooses to observe a dietary regimen because it is a part of a religious regimen. And thus is seen not only to be a matter of health but of being in sync with any particular religious denomination insisting that one must eat or drink or not eat or not drink this or that because it is a requirement given the parameters of one's faith. And, thus, that the behaviors one chooses in regard to diet will be judged either by God or by whatever the equivalent of God is re "the universe" for the Buddhists.

With Buddhism, there is no judge jury and executioner, only what’s right and works for you and/or your sect or monastery.

Non-adherence, to banned consumerables, would probably incur extra duties, more hours spent meditating, days or even weeks of kneeling, etc. I doubt that one of the penalties would be death, like in the olden days of the more ancient Indian religions.

And then the part where, from their own frame of mind, this is not rooted in dasein but in one or another equivalent of the real me -- soul -- in tandem with the right thing to do given their commitment to a particular spiritual path.

Buddhism is a much more relaxed practice than you think.. as are many of the Asian practices and religions, so it’s more a case of what the individual wants to put in, in relation to what they want to get out or gain from the practice.. so they need to choose their monastery, sect, or Buddhist Centre, in accordance with that.

And then, finally, the extent to which this commitment moves beyond a more or less blind leap of faith and encompasses instead actual demonstrable proof that what they believe is in fact true.

It’s not so much about what they believe is true, but what maximally works for them. Some may want a very strict Buddhist regime to follow, and others.. a more relaxed Buddhist path to follow, so the individual chooses which, according to their needs.

[phyllo]

What are they? Flower children?

[MagsJ]

What are they? Flower children?

You talking, to me..?

If so, care to elaborate? I can only garner that you are inferring to ‘them’ being of delicate disposition and nature?

People ain’t animals, you know.. strict doesn’t mean regimental and aggressive, it just means instilling teachings and values into a person as efficiently and swiftly as possible.. so what appears harsh, is simply the best route to take, to reach the required goal or outcome.

[phyllo]

Asian practices tend not to be "relaxed". They are hard-assed and dare I say, at times sadistic.

When they were brought to the West, they were watered down because the master practitioners thought that Westerners could not (or would not) handle it.

That's what you seem to be describing ... Western Buddhism or Western Asian practices.

[MagsJ]

Asian practices tend not to be "relaxed". They are hard-assed and dare I say, at times sadistic.

Asians tend to be stricter in general, but some countries, lineages, and religions, more than others.. like anything, there’s different degrees of severity of Buddhist sects.

When they were brought to the West, they were watered down because the master practitioners thought that Westerners could not (or would not) handle it.

That's what you seem to be describing ... Western Buddhism or Western Asian practices.

I am, but I am also still insisting that the severity of the method that each sect and practice employs, varies.. by degree, in the same way that the naughtiest kids are sent to the strictest boarding schools, and all the rest, to the more average of boarding schools.