I don't get Buddhism

iambiguous · July 12, 2020, 5:36pm

Meno_:

biggie says:

“have no clear idea what you mean here. With regard to moral and political prejudices how is an agenda differentiated from a purpose. And how are either one not basically derived subjectively from the manner in which I construe dasein embedded in a particular historical, culturally and interpersonal context?”

As per a leap of/to faith , as a represented , necessary irony, per Meno’s paradox: which I will quote summarily:

" he was looking for, this is known as Meno’s paradox. Kierkegaard puts his paradox this way, “what a man knows he cannot seek, since he knows it; and what he does not know he cannot seek, since he does not even know for what to seek.”[10]

In other words , it is undifferentiable, That knowledge is an undivided part of him.

Meno cam not to seek is the inverted primal premise. That is the basis of looking at/for IT, the argument flows reversely , by necessity.

This necessity was pointed out thus:

“Rush argues that this is primarily a social-ontological term and not, as is often supposed, a metaphysical concept.”

This is why a philosophical fragment requires a platonic intuition to foreshadow a Divine fragmentation.

Thereafter this must adhere to a comedy of divine proportions.

That is the basis of the saying, a little bit of Plato is like a little bit of poison, and so Socrates fate foreshadowed a sacrifice, that an invitation of Christ could not then illiterate

And that, gave an appearent right for Faust to take on the bargain…unwittingly taking a required leap, to recapture the Ring.

Many are called , few chosen, and Meno knows not for what, …this is the Absolute requirement for the fragmented, self learned man.

He can never understand himself, and how he was able to learn, against all odds.

Post script:

Wittgenstein’s family of resemblances deluged Christ’s alleged Buddhic journey through the silk road, and so Rush’s argument, supports Shlegel’s and Fischte’s view on the romantic mode, thereby reinforcing Jung’s conflation of a necessary construction, or reaffirmation of values.

Without God, He has to be reinvented by reassemblage.

There has to occur a sliver of hope that an exit be found.

An exit, which serves as a reentry simultaniously.

This necessity prevents singular Crucifiction by Freud’s displacement of economic recovery of the ID, by a social reconstructive rather then an singular ontologically derived responsibility-to attain the entrance to enlightenment.

That should consist of the successful journey from sacrificial -factual modes of realization toward the purposeful, functional signal of an impending objective.

The two then are not really logically reducible, but are substantiated by Christ’s miracles.

Ecmondu I see You on board, if You happen to read the above, this is the proof You may be seeking.

Biggy, I promised a revision with more clarity, .& safely, do try to indulge , even after the fact, with darely as a witness for the defense. Dare You!
all, Karpel & Dan, included.

MagsJ , who made clear the various perimeters that a Meno type personality may actualize.

Unless, of course, he’s right.

Karpel_Tunnel · July 13, 2020, 4:10am

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1801007/
Reduced cortisol, reduced stress. Those are pretty clear positive. Interesting about reduced reaction times. Obviously not the best thing to do before a big table tennis tournament. But in general allowing more nuanced responses to what is happening around you, probably better chance of not responding with habitual responses.

sciencedirect.com/science/a … 1?via=ihub
Here reduction in anxiety and depression

So, for any person suffering there is strong evidence that the practices (of a practice focused tradition) have benefits that most modern people want. This means that they could START participating in the practices on solid ground even if they are not sure about the supposed long term effects of the practices or some of the possibly metaphysical aspects of the religion/approach.

I see no findings indicating that the practice of posting online reduces anxiety, cortisol levels, depression.

So if one is looking for rational arguments and one is making a choice based on purely rational/scientific grounds, the choice is really quite obvious.

And it is always a choice (not in the determinism vs free will debate types of metaphysical types of choice with a big C).

So what are the arguments in favor of the practices of posting online and demanding proofs. Why should any rational person do that, given the criteria asked for, let alone all rational people do that?

And, of course, there are now utterly secular versions of meditation practice (the whole mindfulness movement in workplaces and elsewhere) where one does not need to ever think for a second about Karma or REincarnation or Enlightenment. One can simply engage in a simplified version of the practices supported by scientific research.

Posting online vs. mindfulness practice.

Some people choose the former (ONLY since one can, of course, do both) as their primary practice, despite having criteria that should logically and rationally lead them to at least ADD the latter and trust it more.

One can only shake one’s head in confusion over what their own criteria indicate, by their own demands and admissions here, is their avoidance of a rational choice.wide

another option is to admit that people making choices can do this ratioanally for a wide range of reasons, and be rational despite not being able to convince everyone to make the same choices.

This can be very hard for some people to admit, even they also do this themselves.

Meno2 · July 13, 2020, 3:42pm

Sounds like an either or argument.
Participation mystique aside, what about a reduction to the question of an emergent and unviable intelligent resurfacing colonialism, that simply can’t squeeze through any possible loop in the shirt termed time allotted?

iambiguous · July 13, 2020, 3:57pm

The Role of Karma in Buddhist Morality
Barbara O’Brien

Encompassed here perhaps: youtu.be/E548-OkACkc

All of the things that we choose to do rather than not to do. They lead to one set of consequences rather than another. And some are clearly more mundane than others. But what of the truly significant events in which the tiniest of things can set into motion the most horrific of events. What of karma then? Or, rather, karma in a world that is not wholly determined to unfold only as it must.

But: my concern with karma here is the extent to which it can be attributed to the mystical – spiritual – aspects of our interactions. The part where it becomes intertwined in enlightenment intertwined with the fate “I” beyond the grave.

What of karma then?

Then we are back to how Buddhists differentiate the right [enlightened] choice from the wrong [benighted] choice. And if karma is not fate here what exactly is it? In regard to the trajectory of behaviors you choose over the course of your life. Not X this and Y that but considerably more detailed and descriptive accounts that others may be able to relate to their own lives.

iambiguous · July 13, 2020, 3:58pm

Yeah, KT, what about that?!

iambiguous · July 13, 2020, 5:08pm

Note to others:

Convince me that he actually means this. First of course by convincing me that you actually understand what he means. You know, as it relates to “morality here and now and immortality there and then”.

And not just to, say, “meditating”.

Karpel_Tunnel · July 13, 2020, 8:04pm

How so? I even suggest that one can post online AND try Buddhism. They are not mutually exclusive. However if one has the criterion that one will only engage in an activity it is can be proven to be the right activity for everyone, this should apply to what one already does. Which, in the case of everyone in this thread, includes posting online. This
hypocrisy also holds if one repeatedly accuses Buddhists, for example, of just spouting a lot of gibberish, or making stuff up to soothe themselves.
If one is already engaged in an activity that has no evidence that it improves life - at least no scientific evidence has been presented - how can one position oneself as rational or as in a position to have other people demonstrate things that one does not and in fact cannot demonstrate half as well as Buddhists can that their practices are useful?

Who is the colonist in this scenario and whom is the colonized?

Also, participation mystique, I think that’s a bit of a harsh judgment of Iamb…

How does one arrive at participation and activity`? How do you, Meno?

Karpel_Tunnel · July 14, 2020, 12:46am

A horse suddenly came galloping quickly down the road. It seemed as though the man had somewhere important to go.

Another man, who was standing alongside the road, shouted, "Where are you going?" and the man on the horse replied,

"I don't know! Ask the horse!"

gib · July 15, 2020, 1:57am

iambiguous:

First, of course, we don’t know how to talk about forks and chairs and neighbors definitively because we don’t know how to grapple with and understand them given the very nature of existence itself. And we don’t know if the exchanges we do have about them reflect beyond all doubt the capacity of human beings to exchange posts with some measure of free will in venues such as this.

Therefore, what “I” do then is all that I can do:

1] presume that my assessment of forks and chairs and neighbors bares at least some relevance to the nature of existence itself and…

2] presume that I do have some measure of free will in broaching, assessing and evaluating them in venues such as this

Given that what can we know about forks and chairs and neighbors…information and knowledge able to be communicated to others demonstrably? What empirical, material, phenomenological facts can we exchange confidently about them? And how would these facts be understood differently by different religious denominations? Are forks and chairs and neighbors construed by Western religions different from how they are construed by Eastern religions? As they become pertinent to our day to day interactions?

How are the use of forks and chairs and neighbors intertwined existentially when Buddhists connect the dots between enlightenment and karma here and now and reincarnation and Nirvana there and then?

And what changes when, say, forks and chairs are used as weapons to harm others? And how are enlightened men and women obligated to treat neighbors?

You see, Biggy, I’m playing the part of a Buddhist here because I want to play your game and see where you go. I figure a traditional mediocre Buddhist would be a relatively innocuous subject that probably fits your mold. And I’m watching how this plays out. Here you seemed to get derailed. We started talking about how I, as a Buddhist, conceptualize the ‘I’. I explained the illusory nature of the I based on the Buddhist principle of impermanence. You then replied with “Forget chairs and forks and Ben. The is/ought world revolves instead around choosing behaviors derived from value judgments derived [in my view] from dasein.”–presumably because the examples I gave were one’s involving physical impermanence. I then explained the abstract aspects of the ‘I’, which belong squarely in the is/ought realm, receive the same treatment, that they are no less impermanent than chairs, forks, and Ben. Thinking this would keep us on track and get us closer to the heart of the subject (which I figured you were aiming at), you then turned around and suddenly became very interested in talking about chairs, forks, and Ben. ← What is that?

I’ll also note that this is a move I’ve seen you make more than a few times–when the conversation just starts to get interesting, when we seem to be making progress, you fall back on your general overall agenda, describing in the broadest strokes what it is you’re here to do–almost as if the closer we get to an actual example of what it is you’re asking for overwhelms you and you have to give your head a shake and start over.

So on this line of discussion, I’d like to keep on topic. We were discussing how the Buddhist conceptualizes the ‘I’–the impermanence of it, the illusion of it–and usually this is where you ask for a concrete example of how this conception informs the Buddhist’s behavior in situations of conflicting goods and value judgements, and where moral decisions are at stake. Can we carry on from here?

Excellent predicament. It’s almost like a no win situation. There is definitely suffering to be had no matter how you cut it.

Well, I suppose the question is, how do I, as a Buddhist, carry my Buddhist convictions and values over to a situation like this so that I can feel relatively confident that I know the right thing to do? First, I don’t think I’d interfere in the affairs of the state. I think John’s fate is more or less cealed. Then I would make myself available to anyone involved–on the side of the victim or on the side of the perpetrator, or even John himself–to grieve. I would offer myself as a shoulder to cry on and an ear to listen. And if they asked for advice or insight or consultation, of course I would draw on little morcels of Buddhist wisdom inherited from teachers or scripture or maybe my own life experience if it affords itself. I think I would try to avoid group counciling–at least if the group would be a mix of the families on either side as that, no doubt, would create undue tension–but selecting wisely for time and place, I think offering myself as a person who cares would do more good than harm.

I think you might be presupposing that all a religious person ever wants to do–or indeed, anyone who believes in an objective truth–is to push their convictions onto others–either forcefully jamming it down their throats or jumping through logical hoops in an attempt to sound as rational as possible. What if the practice of the religious person was more to do good, to leave the world a better place, rather than to spread their doctrine or to convince as many people as possible that they’re right? I gave the example above about what I would do to alleviate a bit of suffering on the part of the families of the victim (Mary) and/or the perpetrator (John), and that doesn’t require that I demonstrate to them that the Buddhist path is the one and only true path to follow. It just requires that I be effective, to whatever degree, in alleviating a bit of their suffering. It might lead to an exploration of the Buddhist path and why I believe it is effective, but I leave that up to them to inquire, and I only guide them along the path insofar as they accept it on their own according. I don’t think forcing one along the path does anyone any good nor is it an effective approach at all.

But if it’s a question of why I think the Buddhist path is the one true path–what kind of rationality and demonstrability I have in my head that keeps me convinced–such that all I’d have to do in response to someone asking to be convinced is poor it out–well, I started offering little bits and pieces of it above (about impermanence) and I could give more–but I’ll say right off the bat that I don’t believe, nor do I need to believe, in being absolutely certain and 100% right. It’s enough for me that my reasons for believing in Buddhism are “good enough”, and the rest I chalk up to faith.

Ah, is that what you were doing here:

“But do they get the parts that I suggest instead? Ah, but why on earth would they? An essentially meaningless human existence that ends for all of eternity in oblivion?”

iambiguous:

From my perspective, philosophy is not about coming up with something that makes you feel better, but something that seems the most reasonable to you “here and now”. Religion just ups the ante by proposing that if you follow down a certain path [their own] you will feel all the better still. And then for all the rest of eternity.

That’s basically the assumption I make about any number of reactions to me from the moral and political and spiritual objectivists. They recognize what is at stake for them if, perhaps, the assumptions I make are more reasonable. And on both sides of the grave.

On the other hand, since there are so many more of them than there are of me, I would be a fool not to hear them out. At this point in my life, I have little more to lose and a whole heap to gain if they can convince me to go a little further still down their path.

And we’re back to generalities. I suppose in this case it’s warranted. We sort of ended this line of discussion on “the note you end on” so back to square one. And of course, I want to know: what’s your next move?

Karpel_Tunnel · July 15, 2020, 6:06am

Or for another Buddhist, making a choice based on experience and whatever evidence they have that Buddhism, participating in it, is a good choice, given that absolute knowledge is not something most people have access to or expect another to produce. Further when I was in the East, I noticed that many, many Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, were NOT viewing their path as the only good or best path and showed respect to other traditions in a variety of ways. The Buddhist you are pretending to be here, may not be one of those, but it is as if everyone who believes in any tradition MUST think it is the only path. My saying this is not to deny that many people, perhaps most religious practitioners believe their path is the best and/or only. Sure. But to just assume this is part of these traditions is a way for someone like Iamb to make it easier to dismiss and also to give his discussion partners even more of a burden to prove. Not just that it might be a rational choice to be a Buddist, but that it is the only one. That ends up being a strawman.

phyllo · July 15, 2020, 10:32am

iambiguous wrote:
No, suffering itself is still too general.
We need a more specific context. Suppose John is a prison inmate about to be executed for murdering Mary. If the state kills him some of his family and friends and loved ones will suffer. But if he is not executed many who loved Mary will suffer because they believe that he deserves to die.
Excellent predicament. It’s almost like a no win situation. There is definitely suffering to be had no matter how you cut it.

They suffer because they are attached to their desires … some desiring that John dies and others desiring that John lives.

If they eliminated these attachments, then they would not suffer.

iambiguous · July 16, 2020, 6:48pm

gib:

You see, Biggy, I’m playing the part of a Buddhist here because I want to play your game and see where you go. I figure a traditional mediocre Buddhist would be a relatively innocuous subject that probably fits your mold. And I’m watching how this plays out. Here you seemed to get derailed. We started talking about how I, as a Buddhist, conceptualize the ‘I’. I explained the illusory nature of the I based on the Buddhist principle of impermanence. You then replied with “Forget chairs and forks and Ben. The is/ought world revolves instead around choosing behaviors derived from value judgments derived [in my view] from dasein.”–presumably because the examples I gave were one’s involving physical impermanence. I then explained the abstract aspects of the ‘I’, which belong squarely in the is/ought realm, receive the same treatment, that they are no less impermanent than chairs, forks, and Ben. Thinking this would keep us on track and get us closer to the heart of the subject (which I figured you were aiming at), you then turned around and suddenly became very interested in talking about chairs, forks, and Ben. ← What is that?

The heart of the subject?

Well, I would conjecture that any number of folks around the globe do not consider the existential relationship between “morality here and now” and “immortality there and then” as a “game” at all. Though some approach it as either a “leap of faith” or a “wager”.

Over and over and over again, I make it abundantly clear that my own interest in God and religion revolves around this existential relationship. A game though? Sure, if some think so, feel so, say so.

As for distinguishing between chairs and forks and neighbors on this side of the grave and any role they might play in the fate of “I” on the other side of it, I’ll just have to keep trudging away at any gap that might exists between Buddhists and myself.

A “move”? No, given my own current set of circumstances and my current philosophy of life, I have made no bones about what interest me in regards to religion. If others find the existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then less interesting they should consider steering clear of my posts.

But I won’t think the less of them. After all, how could I given the manner in which I construe the “self” here as an “existential contraption”, a manifestation of dasein.

If your own focus here is not in the general vicinity of mine, I don’t see the point. Unless you can convince me that an understanding of Buddhism should go in another direction. For example, Karpel Tunnel seems ever intent on noting how, in using various techniques embedded in Eastern philosophies, one can learn to more constructively command the mind and body…and make one’s day to day existence less stressful and more quiescent.

Fine, for those that pursue this. But that’s not my aim here. I have distractions for that.

gib:

Excellent predicament. It’s almost like a no win situation. There is definitely suffering to be had no matter how you cut it.

Well, I suppose the question is, how do I, as a Buddhist, carry my Buddhist convictions and values over to a situation like this so that I can feel relatively confident that I know the right thing to do? First, I don’t think I’d interfere in the affairs of the state. I think John’s fate is more or less cealed. Then I would make myself available to anyone involved–on the side of the victim or on the side of the perpetrator, or even John himself–to grieve. I would offer myself as a shoulder to cry on and an ear to listen. And if they asked for advice or insight or consultation, of course I would draw on little morcels of Buddhist wisdom inherited from teachers or scripture or maybe my own life experience if it affords itself. I think I would try to avoid group counciling–at least if the group would be a mix of the families on either side as that, no doubt, would create undue tension–but selecting wisely for time and place, I think offering myself as a person who cares would do more good than harm.

To me this frame of mind is just one more political prejudice rooted in dasein rooted in the manner in which I pursue the existential trajectory of the “self” on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

In fact, the many different - profoundly problematic – manifestations of dasein was powerfully explored here: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=179469&p=2359312&hilit=dead+man+walking+directed+sean#p2359312

Basically, it comes down to, “you’re right from your side, and I’'m right from mine”.

And on both sides of the grave?

Then [of course] back to my “thing” in regards to religion:

gib:

I think you might be presupposing that all a religious person ever wants to do–or indeed, anyone who believes in an objective truth–is to push their convictions onto others–either forcefully jamming it down their throats or jumping through logical hoops in an attempt to sound as rational as possible. What if the practice of the religious person was more to do good, to leave the world a better place, rather than to spread their doctrine or to convince as many people as possible that they’re right? I gave the example above about what I would do to alleviate a bit of suffering on the part of the families of the victim (Mary) and/or the perpetrator (John), and that doesn’t require that I demonstrate to them that the Buddhist path is the one and only true path to follow. It just requires that I be effective, to whatever degree, in alleviating a bit of their suffering. It might lead to an exploration of the Buddhist path and why I believe it is effective, but I leave that up to them to inquire, and I only guide them along the path insofar as they accept it on their own according. I don’t think forcing one along the path does anyone any good nor is it an effective approach at all.

What can I say? What I am “presupposing” is that all men and women who choose to interact with others are going to find themselves confronting conflicting goods given a particular point of view out in a particular world where economic and political power go a long way in establishing behaviors that are either prescribed or proscribed. Now, in regard to morality here and now, “I” am myself “fractured and fragmented”. Why? Because, given the assumption that 1] we live in a No God/no religion world and 2] the manner in which I construe human identity as an existential contraption rooted in dasein, it makes sense to think that way. And, in a No God/no religion world as “I” now understand it, oblivion is right around the corner for me.

That – existentially – is what preoccupies me. Though, sure, if an others approaches God and religion for different reasons, my own frame of mind might seem considerably less interesting to them.

And that’s fine. I’m here to explore how others themselves confront what I construe to be “religion in a nutshell”: Morality —> Immortality.

Thus:

Yeah, that’s part of it. If they can’t yank me up out of the hole “I” am in, then maybe “I” can yank them down into it instead. At least I’ll have someone able to empathize with me…up to a point.

In trying to understand my “self” here, I often come back to this:

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

Only I recognize that here there countless existential variables that have gone into the making of “I” going all the way back to the womb. Then all the way back to an understanding of existence itself. The unimaginably, staggeringly vast chasm between what I think here and now as an infinitesimally tiny speck of existence and “all there is”.

Thus culminating in this frame of mind…

iambiguous:

From my perspective, philosophy is not about coming up with something that makes you feel better, but something that seems the most reasonable to you “here and now”. Religion just ups the ante by proposing that if you follow down a certain path [their own] you will feel all the better still. And then for all the rest of eternity.

That’s basically the assumption I make about any number of reactions to me from the moral and political and spiritual objectivists. They recognize what is at stake for them if, perhaps, the assumptions I make are more reasonable. And on both sides of the grave.

On the other hand, since there are so many more of them than there are of me, I would be a fool not to hear them out. At this point in my life, I have little more to lose and a whole heap to gain if they can convince me to go a little further still down their path.

All I can do here is to seek out religious/spiritual narratives in which others speak directly to me regarding how they manage themselves to connect the dots between morality and immortality. And how they would then go about demonstrating to me that what they think is true here is in fact true for all reasonable men and women.

iambiguous · July 19, 2020, 7:15pm

The Role of Karma in Buddhist Morality
Barbara O’Brien

This book is described as…

"…a lucid, accessible, and inspiring guide to the six perfections–Buddhist teachings about six dimensions of human character that require “perfecting”: generosity, morality, tolerance, energy, meditation, and wisdom. " Google Books

And every other religious denomination has their own rendition of this. Yet I’ll bet there is little or nothing in the way of a detailed description of particular behaviors in particular contexts such that examples are given of these character traits before and after one comes to subscribe to this rather than that religious agenda. Let alone the dots being connected between these “perfected” traits and the fate of “I” beyond the grave.

Let alone a vigorous demonstration as to why men and women are obligated to choose this path rather than the hundreds and hundreds of others that are more or less arguing the same thing. Instead, the point is basically to provide the path itself. That one follows it is the whole point.

Obviously: if you swallow a scripture hook, line and sinker, then the consequences will necessarily follow. Reality is described in such a way that cause and effect are accepted as ever in sync with the Holy Writ. The classic mentality of the authoritarian personality. It’s not what the authorities [God or No God] preach but that the authorities are, in fact, thought to exist.

Yes!

This is exactly what I aim to explore here.

You are a Buddhist. So, instead of just accepting the rules of behavior in any given community that you belong to, you reflect deeply on those behaviors you choose in order to determine which would embody as well an enlightened frame of mind. These enlightened behaviors will then engender consequences which over the course of living your life precipitates a karma that assures you better options in regard to reincarnation and Nirvana.

Or does it all unfold differently? In any event, that’s my goal in exploring morality here and now and immortality there and then as a Buddhist.

Now, from my frame of mind, the behaviors we choose here are attributed to the manner in which I have come to understand the “self” as an existential contraption rooted in dasein out in a particular world historically, culturally and interpersonally. Given a particular set of circumstances embedded in any particular individual’s actual life.

phyllo · July 20, 2020, 10:36am

“The circumstances of our life right now”

Buddhism/karma is about a person’s life right now. It’s not about collecting points to be used in an afterlife.

Not this : “These enlightened behaviors will then engender consequences which over the course of living your life precipitates a karma that assures you better options in regard to reincarnation and Nirvana.”

iambiguous · July 20, 2020, 5:06pm

phyllo:

In his book The Six Perfections: Buddhism and the Cultivation of Character, Dale Wright says that karma is “a way to understand the relationship between moral acts and the kinds of life that they help shape.” In other words, an appreciation of karma is an appreciation of consequences, of cause and effect. The circumstances of our life right now are the result of all the choices we’ve made, all the thoughts and words and actions we have generated.

“The circumstances of our life right now”

Buddhism/karma is about a person’s life right now. It’s not about collecting points to be used in an afterlife.

Not this : “These enlightened behaviors will then engender consequences which over the course of living your life precipitates a karma that assures you better options in regard to reincarnation and Nirvana.”

Okay, what particular person in what particular context out in what particular world understood in what particular way? The part I ascribe to dasein. The existential “I”.

You? Me? Others here?

Don’t we interact in a world where chosen behaviors often precipitate conflicts rooted in moral and political prejudices? Some anchored in God and religion, others anchored in secular facsimiles?

Isn’t “enlightened” one way in which these behaviors are described?

And isn’t it just common sense that, among the religious, the behaviors they choose here and now are connected to that which they have come to believe will be the fate of “I” on the other side? How is Buddhism the exception?

Otherwise, to note that “Buddhism/karma is about a person’s life right now” is just another classic general description intellectual contraption that tells us nothing at all about any actual flesh and blood human being. Out in a particular world understood in a particular way.

I ask the Buddhists among us to describe in depth the existential relationship between enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana in regard to their own “life right now”.

Or, sure, let them just believe what they already do about their “life right now”. It is, after all, the belief itself that comforts and consoles them.

Also…

This is from the BBC “Bitesize” website:

[b]'The five moral precepts are:

to refrain from taking life, ie killing any living creature
to refrain from taking what is not freely given, ie theft
to refrain from misuse of the senses or sexual misconduct, ie overindulgence in sex or committing sexual offences
to refrain from wrong speech, ie lying or gossiping
to refrain from intoxicants that cloud the mind, ie drugs or alcohol

‘Buddhists do not believe in a deity, so the five precepts are suggested ways of living rather than commandments given by a god. A Buddhist must want to behave in a morally good way in order to achieve enlightenment.’[/b]

So, for the Buddhists among us, how does this translate into your own behaviors? And what of situations where there are disagreements over which behaviors to refrain from? Conflicting goods as I call them. And do you or do you not connect the dots between the behaviors you choose on this side of the grave, enlightenment, and the fate of “I” on the other side of the grave?

And from the Cake website:

‘The way someone acted in a previous life will influence what they reincarnate as. Someone who cultivated positive karma through right actions in life may reincarnate as someone who will enjoy a positive and pleasant life. Negative karma has the opposite effect.’

After all, what other way could religion work? Without making a distinction between behaving this way instead of that, between behaviors you are rewarded for and behaviors you are not, how would someone know what to choose at all?

Karpel_Tunnel · July 21, 2020, 4:46am

Still this thread goes on…
not the blind leading the blind
but the blind leading the not interested in learning…

One could point out the parasitical ‘interpretation’ of Buddhism by outsiders and their projections based on their own biases (which show up in confusing reincarnation with rebirth, for example)

learnreligions.com/reincarn … ism-449994

But even there you are dealing with many Buddhisms. So we get a conversation between non-Buddhists with a little knowledge and a person with even less knowledge who cuts and pastes his way to…

no they are not even arguments

they are disingenuous ‘questions’ framed inside a bunch of assumptions
that he keeps asserting
without the tiniest bit of humilty that should go along with his supposed being influenced by the idea of dasein.

Third parties could learn more listening to beauty pagent contestants in the Personal Interview section.

What is the sound of one troll posting?

What the Buddhists see as the good news about the ‘i’, he sees as a problem. Fine. But after all this time he can’t even notice they share anything in common.

It might as well be a bot you are talking to.

phyllo · July 21, 2020, 12:22pm

These things slow progress. That’s why one is encouraged to refrain.

It’s not like one behavior is enlightened and the other behavior is not enlightened. Those are labels that don’t apply.

A “positive and pleasant life” is still a life of suffering. A Buddhist doesn’t want a “positive and pleasant life” as a reward. He/she want to end the cycle. When the cycle ends, positive, negative, pleasant and unpleasant disappear.

iambiguous · July 21, 2020, 4:13pm

Karpel Tunnel:

Still this thread goes on…
not the blind leading the blind
but the blind leading the not interested in learning…

One could point out the parasitical ‘interpretation’ of Buddhism by outsiders and their projections based on their own biases (which show up in confusing reincarnation with rebirth, for example)

learnreligions.com/reincarn … ism-449994

But even there you are dealing with many Buddhisms. So we get a conversation between non-Buddhists with a little knowledge and a person with even less knowledge who cuts and pastes his way to…

no they are not even arguments

they are disingenuous ‘questions’ framed inside a bunch of assumptions
that he keeps asserting
without the tiniest bit of humilty that should go along with his supposed being influenced by the idea of dasein.

Third parties could learn more listening to beauty pagent contestants in the Personal Interview section.

What is the sound of one troll posting?

What the Buddhists see as the good news about the ‘i’, he sees as a problem. Fine. But after all this time he can’t even notice they share anything in common.

It might as well be a bot you are talking to.

We’ll need a context of course.

Ecmandu · July 21, 2020, 4:25pm

Well… this not “I” thing is interesting on several levels. Iambiguous uses dreams as an example.

But that’s not actually the best example. Spiritual possessions are the best example.

Life has a strange quirk though. We all have souls.

You see, I know what “non I” people mean:

“I am that”. That’s true. We are all everything. But it’s not the full story, we are also “I am this”. You are also yourself!

Sure… existence gets weird. But you are also always yourself, your “thisness” with all the “thatness”.

iambiguous · July 21, 2020, 4:37pm

Again, another general description intellectual contraption. Slow what progress down in what context? And in particular contexts out in particular worlds historically, culturally and experientially, when flesh and blood human beings interact, behaviors deemed more or less enlightened engender actual consequences that reward and punish these flesh and blood human beings in real time here and now. And, again, religious denominations all have their “scriptures” that do connect the dots between moral/enlightened behaviors here and now and immortality there and then.

It’s just that with most “Western” religions this is all embodied in God, in Heaven and Hell, in Judgment Day. “I” continues on as a soul, making contact again with all one’s loved ones for all of eternity. What could possibly be more comforting and consoling?

For Buddhists though? I’m still unable to grasp how this all “works” with a No God religion. Somehow it just seems to become part of how the universe itself “works”? Or, rather, what Buddhists have thought themselves into believing “in their head” is how it all “works”.

Right. Two completely abstract intellect contraptions reconfigure into two completely abstract spiritual contraptions.

Isn’t that what these are?

How does the individual Buddhist reconfigure them as “worlds of words” into the life that they live, confronting the manner in which I construe human interactions here as the embodiment of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Given actual sets of circumstances that meld here and now with there and then.