I don't get Buddhism

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.

“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?

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.

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.

We’ll need a context of course.

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”.

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.

I’m sorry, but my reaction to your posts are of two kinds:

1]

[b]"I have told you repeatedly that I am of the opinion – and that is all it is, my own personal opinion – that you are afflicted with a “condition” that prompts you to post things here at ILP that make absolutely no sense at all. Surreal, bizarre things. You pummel us with all of these assumptions about everything under the sun but you fail to convince me that you are actually able to demonstrate that they are true much beyond you believing that they are.

Something is proven only in the fact of you having posted it."[/b]

2]

Fine by me iambiguous. You see, I have a past as well , where I never had exposure to the spirit world. I know what it’s like to not be exposed to it. I have those memories.

So… I can look at a guy like you and see no fault.

Then we’re still friends?

Here’s the thing. You don’t have exposure to the spirit world. Everyone who doesn’t (as much as you may hate this) is actually an innocent.

Now, when you know spiritual things and you say or do something … that’s some intense shit! It’s a different way of living.

I don’t hate people for not being spiritually awakened.

I wouldn’t wish my life on you.

You do say very interesting things!

I have no ill will towards you. I actually enjoy your posts.

What is friendship if not enjoyment of another?

Friends it is then!

I’ve become exceptionally tolerant over the years.

I hate winking… it implies exclusive knowledge and is used to assert dominance.

I also hate peace signs… there’s no peace here! It’s another form (like winking) to assert taunting and provocation.

Knowing what sends people to hell has relaxed me substantially … I almost feel like smirking when someone does these things because I know everyone will eventually be spiritually awakened and I know they’re going to have to regret all those memories or be sent to hell to be forced to regret all those memories.

Sometimes I get furious at people because they don’t know their hells, I dig into them, they think I’m a jerk, what I did to you emotionally doesn’t remotely resemble hell. As I grow wiser,I realize nicer ways to try to explain things. It’s a process to be sure.

Don’t get attached to each other.

Not to worry. As a moral objectivist, he hates winking. As a moral ironist, it’s all but expected of me.

People get really cocky for their interludes of spiritual protection.

Cocky?

Just for the record, I’m the one here who has managed to think himself into believing that what he does think, feel, say and do is just another manifestation of “I” as an existential contraption rooted in dasein. “I” embedded in an essentially meaningless world edging closer and closer to the abyss that is oblivion.

I don’t even know for sure if I am not compelled by the immutable laws of nature to post this. Let alone the extent to which my understanding of all this is even remotely close to the knowledge it would take to understand my existence in the context of all there is. Going back to the explanation for existence itself.

On the other hand, Ecmandu strikes me as among the least “fractured and fragmented” posters here. Ever and always he is haranguing us with all that he claims to know is true about…everything?

I’m just ever curious about the extent to which he has come to embody a mental “condition” that propels what “I” construe to be these fierce flights of fancy in his brain. After all, there are so many of them. People come to believe all sorts of things. Some hear voices, some hallucinate, some think they are somebody else…some historical figure perhaps. There are so many different ways in which chemically, neurologically our brains propel us to think, feel, say and do things that, in many crucial respects, really are “beyond our control”. I’m certainly no exception.

What does “trudging away” consist of? I don’t really see any sincere effort on your part to really close the gap, more of an attempt to keep discussions like this within the parameters of your game. Hence, my question “What is that?” Hence, why none of the above answers it.

You certainly haven’t made any bones about it. I just think it’s all a bit disingenuous.

But that’s just the thing. My whole aim here is to try to align my interests squarely with yours. I’m trying to play your game. With anyone else on this board, I’ve never had any trouble staying on topic and making progress. Only with you have I repeatedly experienced minimal progress conforming to your own agenda before you bring the discussion back to vague generalities.

And are you saying you have a similar reaction to what I said about Buddhism and its take on the ‘I’?

Yes, this is generally how it ends with you. But this is precisely what I want to understand. Do you consider this a failed attempt at bridging the many gaps you aim to close (between one’s beliefs and moral behaviors, between what we do “here and now” and the fate of the ‘I’ “there and then”, between what we think we know and all there is to know, etc.)? Do you consider this closure on your inquiries (as in: ah, I finally understand what gib believes, though it’s still just another existential contraption)? Is it your way of saying “Not good enough; try again”–as if to insist that all responses from those with whom you engage must fit the mold you expect of such responses? Is it something you could persue further if you felt so inclined, or is there literally nothing you can do with this insofar as your agenda is concerned?

And what do you want people to do with this scenario? Are you trying to extract how they think they would handle such a situation? How they would resolve it once and for all? What they think is the “right” thing to do? What kind of a response would satisfy Biggy here?

As an aside, I must say that you make it out to seem like high stakes interactions like what you describe are not only inevitable and commonplace, but fatally irresolvable. But I think the scenario you describe is actually a rare occurence. Sure we live in a world where people disagree on all manner of important issues, and indeed the stakes do get high, enough to sometimes resort to violence and war, but I personally find this kind of experience extremely rare. Maybe if I were living in a different part of the world, and I felt my convictions were worth standing up for in the face of incredibly dangerous opposition, but to say that “all men and women who choose to interact with others are going to find themselves confronting conflicting goods…” seems a bit hyperbolic, at least for most people here.

This seems a bit more honest, but I think you left out the aspect wanting to challenge others.

So essentially, you’d move on.

Gib wrote: