I don't get Buddhism

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

Moderator: Dan~

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:10 pm

You can hold on to your football, Lucy.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:33 pm

gib wrote:
phyllo wrote:The word 'progress' was used and that never goes over well with Biggus. You know 'progress' is in your head, it's whatever you want to think it is. :lol:


To tell you the truth, I wasn't 100% sure about that term myself. I'm not sure what I experience with most others here that I don't with Biggy I'd call progress. I just meant most people are able to keep the discussion on track no matter where it goes. So if it starts with questioning the existence of God, it could end with a discussion on the corruption of the health care system. With Biggy, it could start with questioning the existence of God (because that falls within the domain of his interests) but as soon as the conversation moves outside this domain, he loses the ability to focus and returns to his own familiar waters.

The irony is that this seems to happen most notably when you actually give him the particular contexts he asks for.


Maybe.

But, please, both of you, cite what you construe to be the best example of this. The discussion between us on this thread revolves around Buddhism. I note that which is of particular interest to me -- morality here and now, immortality there and then. I wonder how this is understood by Buddhists in the absence of God.

You then move the discussion outside that domain but I can't/don't/won't go there. You note a particular context involving human interactions precipitating reactions that revolve around something other than God, but I yank it back to God.

What particular contexts?

As for the meaning of "progress", the distinction I make is between the either/or world and the is/ought world. I often cite as an example an issue that provoked any number of arguments between folks some years ago. The space program. Going to the Moon.

In regard to the task itself measuring progress was easy. We either make it to the Moon or we don't. Well, assuming the whole thing wasn't filmed on a back lot in Hollywood.

But what of the arguments that revolved around whether we ought to be doing it? Whether, instead, those billions of dollars should be used to solve problems right here on Earth. Like ending poverty or making sure literally thousands of children didn't starve to death each and every day.

Is there an argument here that would enable us to progress to a final solution?

Sure, we could set the task to be both. But should the space program be scrapped until the other thing is accomplished first? Is that the more enlightened choice?

Let's discuss that here and note where progress is made.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38523
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:41 pm

phyllo wrote:'Progress' would be pursuing points of mutual interest, dropping points which are not interesting, agreeing on points, conceding points to the other person, reaching new conclusions based on the ideas that come out in the discussion, movement on to new points ...


iambiguous wrote: Okay, let's sustain a discussion that revolves around whether Communism or Capitalism best reflects human nature. And attempt to pin progress down.

My facts. Your facts. Their facts. What can in fact be established historically? How did these facts come about instead of other facts? How far is the gap between the historical facts and the writings of Karl Marx and Adam Smith?

And how might a Buddhist react to this discussion insofar as it involves his or her understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana.


phyllo wrote:You can hold on to your football, Lucy.


Yo, Gib!

About you becoming the 4th "stooge"....

That's when I reduce you down to responding retorting like Curly above.

You've been warned! :lol:
Last edited by iambiguous on Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38523
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:42 pm

But, please, both of you, cite what you construe to be the best example of this. The discussion between us on this thread revolves around Buddhism. I note that which is of particular interest to me -- morality here and now, immortality there and then. I wonder how this is understood by Buddhists in the absence of God.
She wrote how morality and immortality work for Buddhists right here:
Wisdom and Compassion

This is where wisdom and compassion come in. Wisdom, in this case, is the perception that self-and-other are not two, and beings are not just autonomous units living inside their skin-pods. Our lives are interconnected with the lives of all beings. And it is this sense of interconnection,coupled with an appreciation of cause and effect, that is the true core of Buddhist morality.

Compassion, in this case, is not just an emotion but a state of mind. It is an active caring and a willingness to bear the pain of others. In practice, wisdom and compassion give rise to each other and support each other. As the self-other dichotomy blurs, then caring for others is as natural as caring for oneself. And when we consider our volitional actions, we become more sensitive to how our volitional actions affect others.

At this point, the practitioner has put aside selfish concerns about a good or bad rebirth. Indeed, belief in rebirth really isn’t necessary to live a moral life.

Which got dismissed as a "world of words".

FFS
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:50 pm

phyllo wrote:
But, please, both of you, cite what you construe to be the best example of this. The discussion between us on this thread revolves around Buddhism. I note that which is of particular interest to me -- morality here and now, immortality there and then. I wonder how this is understood by Buddhists in the absence of God.
She wrote how morality and immortality work for Buddhists right here:
Wisdom and Compassion

This is where wisdom and compassion come in. Wisdom, in this case, is the perception that self-and-other are not two, and beings are not just autonomous units living inside their skin-pods. Our lives are interconnected with the lives of all beings. And it is this sense of interconnection, coupled with an appreciation of cause and effect, that is the true core of Buddhist morality.

Compassion, in this case, is not just an emotion but a state of mind. It is an active caring and a willingness to bear the pain of others. In practice, wisdom and compassion give rise to each other and support each other. As the self-other dichotomy blurs, then caring for others is as natural as caring for oneself. And when we consider our volitional actions, we become more sensitive to how our volitional actions affect others.

At this point, the practitioner has put aside selfish concerns about a good or bad rebirth. Indeed, belief in rebirth really isn’t necessary to live a moral life.

Which got dismissed as a "world of words".

FFS


Actually, my reaction was a bit more substantive:


What examples of wisdom and compassion in what set of circumstances? Examples that eventually come around to how Buddhists link that to enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana.

Now, myself, I am far more interested in taking wisdom and compassion -- construed by me to be psychological triggers -- and examining them in regard to situations that most of us will be familiar with. Thinking about them in ways that either comfort and console us more or less.

In other words, for the Buddhists among us, what does it mean to embody wisdom and compassion when immersed in a context in which different sides are tugging those words -- morally and politically -- in very different directions? In regard to, say, abortion. How are wisdom and compassion understood by Buddhists here. And how is this frame of mind [and the behaviors that follow it] intertwined in an understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana.


Given my points here, how is her assessment not basically encompassed in a general description intellectual contraption "world of words"?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38523
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:02 pm

Actually, my reaction was a bit more substantive:
No it wasn't. You asked a bunch of questions which effectively dumps the burden of demonstration/proof on to the other person and lets you to sit there and pass judgment on their responses.

You do this often.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:11 pm

phyllo wrote:
Actually, my reaction was a bit more substantive:
No it wasn't. You asked a bunch of questions which effectively dumps the burden of demonstration/proof on to the other person and lets you to sit there and pass judgment on their responses.

You do this often.


Yo, Lucy! :banana-dance:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38523
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:37 pm

Yup.

You can't accept feedback.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Dan~ » Mon Jul 27, 2020 9:20 pm

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/12 ... n#section1

The profit of meditations is a real thing.
Most people don't do it because they don't do it.
There is no experience to encourage activity.
I know meditation has changed my life.
And I do not do it a lot either.
I want to do more.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
Image
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10377
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby MagsJ » Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:47 am

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

Oh! that’s good.. which perimeters were they, exactly? for referential purposes, you understand.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20887
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby MagsJ » Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:28 am

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Why our path over someone else’s? because one is not supposed to stray too far from their inherent Dharma is why, otherwise one would become open to coercion, corruption, abuse, etc.
Okay, let's reconfigure this into a discussion of a particular context involving behaviors that come into conflict over value judgments derived from a particular religious narrative that includes Dharma in its own rendition of a scripture.
..in relation to.. what?

You seem to have described an environment of conflicting goods occurring, and to reconcile the disparities between self and environment.. so-as to achieve a dharmic point in time and continuum, would mean to appease those conflicts through gaining much more mindful thoughts on the impact those conflicts are causing.. so some hindsight and forward-thinking would be helpful at this point, in achieving that state, and thus the required reconciliation.
And, in turn, how this relates to the fate of "I" beyond the grave.
“The possibility of death is something that is my own, and at any time before the power of today, I can reveal that the possibility of “I” is of death, particularly “I”.” -Heidegger.

What do you see your fate as? what would you wish it to be beyond the grave? isn’t that nothing but a legacy?

And to what extent have those who have chosen a path explored the extent to which choosing here is itself predicated largely on the manner in which, in regard to value judgments, I construe the "self" as an existential contraption rooted in dasein.
..a case of ontic versus ontological, in finding the mean that suits you?

Heidegger would say -“the notion of existential identity and that of world are completely wedded.“

MagsJ wrote:You tell me? as you’re the one questioning it, not I.. perhaps it’s a reason why one should be practicing their Dharma, then perhaps there’d be less questions and more self-actualised answers.
Well, sure, if you don't question your sense of identity much beyond what a particular religious narrative presumes, then the answers enable you to sustain both the comfort and the consolation that come with them. The arguments I give in regard to the historical, cultural and experiential parameters of "I" as an existential contraption rooted in dasein are just shrugged away.
So you see, living morally, as a ‘presumed religious narrative’ that brings ‘comfort and consolation’ no matter what the situation? Angst and despair know not of conceptualised boundaries of comfort and joy.. if that’s what you’re getting at, and wondering about.

To what extent have you delved into your religious, moral and political values given the manner in which I myself approach them here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

This is always my own aim here when it comes to examining "I" in the is/ought world. God or No God. In other words, the extent to which someone is convinced that in regard to their religious, moral and political values, they are in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".
I have always been well aware of my true self and nature, in relation to the artificial instilled-values of my politico/religious upbringing.. it wasn’t as harsh a process as to diminish or eradicate one’s inner ‘I’ as you think.. it wasn’t Christianity. And so.. the politico-religious aspect, ran parallel to the innate ‘I’, so making for an intertwined socio/moral experienentiality of an existence.. as I was growing up.

..good post, btw.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20887
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:51 am

gib wrote:I would agree with this--the existence of the past or future is more of a philosophical question than a scientific one (or worse, a question of language)--but I would expect the vast majority of scientists to believe in the existence of past and future given current theories of spacetime relativity (i.e. Minkowski spacetime has time as just another dimension akin to space and therefore is just as real as space). But strictly speaking, it isn't unscientific to not believe in the existence of past and future.
I think it's more controversial. At least if I google the subject I find physicists on both side of the issue, and also those advocating that the past and future exist have this position framed as a new position - though Einstein had it, I believe.
The same stuff as now?
The stuff that we have now can be measured. Science is all about measuring. Some things can sort of be measured in the past, like say a star by its light NOW. But other things we cannot measure since we cannot measure them. In science if you cannot demonstrate the effects/measurements in experiments you can't really say it exists. And if it exists, where is it? It can't be in the same place as things now. And yes, I do understand block universe type ways of viewing this, but it needs to be pointed out that we are now making an exception in science. X exists but we cannot test it, measure it, and cannot interact with it.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:And then, ironically. If the past exists, then there is no death.


Because we're always alive at some point in the past? But then we're also always dead at some point in the past (or we will be).
Iamb is afraid of death. If the past exists and this now that he is afraid of death is going to be a part of the past, he will always exist. There will be places in the block where he does not exist - though that's not dead, dead is the quality of something. But he will always exist (in the past).

IOW in the block universe model, it is only a matter of WHERE you exist in the block. The block and all that is in it exists always. Sure, he won't be everywhere in the block, he'll be in those parts where he is.

I doubt he can actually be openly vulnerable and look at any POSITIVE consequences of his beliefs, but that is one. He will always exist, if the past exists because he existed in the past.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3406
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:25 pm

MagsJ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Why our path over someone else’s? because one is not supposed to stray too far from their inherent Dharma is why, otherwise one would become open to coercion, corruption, abuse, etc.
Okay, let's reconfigure this into a discussion of a particular context involving behaviors that come into conflict over value judgments derived from a particular religious narrative that includes Dharma in its own rendition of a scripture.
..in relation to.. what?


You decide. Choose a context, a set of behaviors that is important to you. My aim here is to explore Buddhism [as another religious denomination] in terms of how Buddhists understand enlightenment, karma, reincarnation, and Nirvana in a manner such that I might be able to translate that given the manner in which I have come to understand human interactions in the is/ought world given the arguments I make in my signature threads. Morality here and now/immortality there and then. As that pertains "for all practical purposes" to the lives we live from day to day.

In other words, to reconfigure an assessment of this sort...

MagsJ wrote: You seem to have described an environment of conflicting goods occurring, and to reconcile the disparities between self and environment.. so-as to achieve a dharmic point in time and continuum, would mean to appease those conflicts through gaining much more mindful thoughts on the impact those conflicts are causing.. so some hindsight and forward-thinking would be helpful at this point, in achieving that state, and thus the required reconciliation.


...into a discussion involving actual behaviors that Buddhists choose, insofar as "general description intellectual contraptions" of this sort are made clearer in descriptions of "sets of circumstances" such that the words you choose above can be linked to the lives that we interact in socially, politically and economically. As that is then linked to the fate of "I" there and then on the other side of the grave.

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

And, in turn, how this relates to the fate of "I" beyond the grave.

MagsJ wrote:
“The possibility of death is something that is my own, and at any time before the power of today, I can reveal that the possibility of “I” is of death, particularly “I”.” -Heidegger.

What do you see your fate as? what would you wish it to be beyond the grave? isn’t that nothing but a legacy?


More to the point, what does Heidegger himself think about this "here and now"? Is he still sympathetic to the Nazis?

What "I" believe is that my own death will result in the disintegration of my body back to "star stuff". I also believe that I have no soul to carry on with in Heaven or Hell. Or in one or another reincarnated state. Why? Because I have no demonstrable arguments or evidence from those who believe the opposite.

But, as well, "I" have no more capacity to demonstrate this than do the Buddhists of Nirvana.

Unless, of course, there are Buddhists here among us actually able to explain how exactly reincarnation and Nirvana work in their No God religion. That in fact their beliefs are not just a psychological device to comfort and console them all the way to the grave.

Finally, to those who do embrace a religious denomination as a foundation they are able to anchor "I" to:

To what extent have you delved into your religious, moral and political values given the manner in which I myself approach them here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

This is always my own aim here when it comes to examining "I" in the is/ought world. God or No God. In other words, the extent to which someone is convinced that in regard to their religious, moral and political values, they are in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

MagsJ wrote: I have always been well aware of my true self and nature, in relation to the artificial instilled-values of my politico/religious upbringing.. it wasn’t as harsh a process as to diminish or eradicate one’s inner ‘I’ as you think.. it wasn’t Christianity. And so.. the politico-religious aspect, ran parallel to the innate ‘I’, so making for an intertwined socio/moral experienentiality of an existence.. as I was growing up.


Again, to the extent that you still believe in the "true self" in sync with the "right thing to do" [re things like conservatives/liberals, Trump, vaccines etc], we are on opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum...one that runs from moral objectivism to moral nihilism.

But what I would still be most interested in is your own rendition of this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side
and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.


In other words, you exploring your own value judgments as the existential intertwining of personal experiences and philosophy.

In regard to a "conflicting good" that is of most importance to you. And likely to be be familiar to most of us.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38523
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:54 pm

I define religion as this:

“The belief that the highest state of consciousness sees everything as perfect.”

Bullshit!

My consent is violated when any being in existence is having their consent violated (including me)

Religion is a fairy tale people tell themselves as apologetics for consent violation. To make meaning from meaningless lives. But this ‘meaning’ is hollow and shallow.

Nobody has yet in existence had a meaningful life.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11048
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:00 pm

I define religion as this:

“The belief that the highest state of consciousness sees everything as perfect.”

Bullshit!
So why would you define it that way?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:25 pm

phyllo wrote:
I define religion as this:

“The belief that the highest state of consciousness sees everything as perfect.”

Bullshit!
So why would you define it that way?


I don't pretend to understand what Ecmandu means by "consent violation". All I know is that no one asked me for my consent to be born. And until someone can provide me with a demonstrable argument able to explain more fully how and why I exist going back to a complete understanding of why and how anything exist at all, I can only assume that there will always be those like him who "think things up" in their head about all of this and are somehow able to convince themselves that what they think is true makes it true.

Ecmandu just thinks things that are [to me] a lot more wacky than what "I" and others think here.

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, he doesn't even make an attempt to demonstrate how his own ideas/ideals work "for all practical purposes" given our day to day interactions.

I ascribe it to a mental "condition" that he will either explore further himself or he won't. We all have them. It's just that some take us further away from whatever "reality" may or may not be than others.

And of course "defining" things into existence will always be first choice of some. For example, this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195793

Come on, does any of this intellectual/spiritual masturbation get us any closer to an actual extant God? Or, here, to reincarnation and Nirvana?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38523
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:01 pm

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:
I define religion as this:

“The belief that the highest state of consciousness sees everything as perfect.”

Bullshit!
So why would you define it that way?


I don't pretend to understand what Ecmandu means by "consent violation". All I know is that no one asked me for my consent to be born. And until someone can provide me with a demonstrable argument able to explain more fully how and why I exist going back to a complete understanding of why and how anything exist at all, I can only assume that there will always be those like him who "think things up" in their head about all of this and are somehow able to convince themselves that what they think is true makes it true.

Ecmandu just thinks things that are [to me] a lot more wacky than what "I" and others think here.

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, he doesn't even make an attempt to demonstrate how his own ideas/ideals work "for all practical purposes" given our day to day interactions.

I ascribe it to a mental "condition" that he will either explore further himself or he won't. We all have them. It's just that some take us further away from whatever "reality" may or may not be than others.

And of course "defining" things into existence will always be first choice of some. For example, this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195793

Come on, does any of this intellectual/spiritual masturbation get us any closer to an actual extant God? Or, here, to reincarnation and Nirvana?


How many times do I have to say this on this fucking board?!

Just like someone can argue that the leading cause of death is birth, and that all people having babies are necessarily committing homicide...

Consent is not a concept of a fetus. It emerges later in life. Birth itself is not consent violation, and even if it was, it’s the rudimentary idea of consent that develops.

Iambiguous, I know you are full of shit. I know that you know exactly what consent violation is. Say chopping your pinky finger off, especially if you’re the best piano player on earth.

I not only think, I know you’re full of shit.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11048
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:44 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
How many times do I have to say this on this fucking board?!

Just like someone can argue that the leading cause of death is birth, and that all people having babies are necessarily committing homicide...

Consent is not a concept of a fetus. It emerges later in life. Birth itself is not consent violation, and even if it was, it’s the rudimentary idea of consent that develops.

Iambiguous, I know you are full of shit. I know that you know exactly what consent violation is. Say chopping your pinky finger off, especially if you’re the best piano player on earth.

I not only think, I know you’re full of shit.


:scared-shocked: See :scared-shocked: What :scared-shocked: I :scared-shocked: mean? :scared-shocked:

How does he demonstrate any of this? Of course: in the act of posting it itself.

Note to Buddhists among us:

Weigh in on this please. Of the two of us, who has the least chance of reaching Nirvana?

Also, how do you figure that he figures "consent violation" works with reincarnation? Rounding it off to the nearest probability.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38523
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:03 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
How many times do I have to say this on this fucking board?!

Just like someone can argue that the leading cause of death is birth, and that all people having babies are necessarily committing homicide...

Consent is not a concept of a fetus. It emerges later in life. Birth itself is not consent violation, and even if it was, it’s the rudimentary idea of consent that develops.

Iambiguous, I know you are full of shit. I know that you know exactly what consent violation is. Say chopping your pinky finger off, especially if you’re the best piano player on earth.

I not only think, I know you’re full of shit.


:scared-shocked: See :scared-shocked: What :scared-shocked: I :scared-shocked: mean? :scared-shocked:

How does he demonstrate any of this? Of course: in the act of posting it itself.

Note to Buddhists among us:

Weigh in on this please. Of the two of us, who has the least chance of reaching Nirvana?

Also, how do you figure that he figures "consent violation" works with reincarnation? Rounding it off to the nearest probability.


My post was slightly inarticulate (I forgot to add 1 phrase). The leading cause of life is also birth - meaning the leading cause of consent is also birth.

Also. You know that I know that you know that we both know what consent violation is. Every human on earth knows what consent violation is. Actually, even a cat knows what consent violation is. Actually, even a microbe knows what consent violation is. Actually, every possible being in existence knows what consent violation is.

Also, I know you use linguistic tokens that refer, because your post was something other than “ucpuxphs”... you’re playing a hypocritical language ‘game’. (It’s not really a game, it’s just you trolling)
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11048
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:17 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Actually, even a cat knows what consent violation is. Actually, even a microbe knows what consent violation is. Actually, every possible being in existence knows what consent violation is.


Okay, connect the dots between this and the coronavirus. Then connect the dots between that and Buddhism.

Note actual experiences that you have had which served to demonstrate that what you believe here is true.

How about Youtube interviews with microbes, or reality TV segments with cats.

Also, what household experiments can be conducted with cats and microbes to confirm your point?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38523
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:38 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Actually, even a cat knows what consent violation is. Actually, even a microbe knows what consent violation is. Actually, every possible being in existence knows what consent violation is.


Okay, connect the dots between this and the coronavirus. Then connect the dots between that and Buddhism.

Note actual experiences that you have had which served to demonstrate that what you believe here is true.

How about Youtube interviews with microbes, or reality TV segments with cats.

Also, what household experiments can be conducted with cats and microbes to confirm your point?


Poke a cat with a needle and watch it’s reaction. Use tea tree oil on a microbe and watch it’s reaction. Very simple.

You know. I’m in another thread about how syllogisms don’t work. In this thread I explain that the sequence of natural numbers can’t be proven without inferential logic! Nobody can prove in a syllogism (and not even the “is” of each part of the syllogism can be proven (let alone the inference)) (the ought). But we all know it!

My example is the counting numbers !!!

1,2,3,4,5,6,7 ... etc...

We ALL know they go on forever in what is in mathematics called a “well ordered set” (that means that they’re sequential - and go on forever)

BUT!!! Because we can’t count them ALL!!! (Because they go on forever). Then we can make an argument from a lower level of cognition that the sequence of natural numbers is impossible!

Thing is, the logic of the brain is not constrained by syllogisms!

You, iambiguous, in every post, deny the logic of the brain constrained by syllogisms (while claiming that you are expressing the part of the brain not constrained by syllogisms!).

I can already think of a million ways you’ll
Reply to this. Do it !
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11048
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:55 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Poke a cat with a needle and watch it’s reaction. Use tea tree oil on a microbe and watch it’s reaction. Very simple.


We can then ask the cat and the microbe what they know about Buddhism.

Note to cats and microbes:

Philosophically, what's your take on consents being violated? For example, going back to your own understanding of existence itself.

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

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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38523
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Jul 29, 2020 12:32 am

iambiguous wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Poke a cat with a needle and watch it’s reaction. Use tea tree oil on a microbe and watch it’s reaction. Very simple.


We can then ask the cat and the microbe what they know about Buddhism.

Note to cats and microbes:

Philosophically, what's your take on consents being violated? For example, going back to your own understanding of existence itself.

:-k


It’s all visceral. Even the simplest of beings comprehend “no!”
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11048
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:56 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Poke a cat with a needle and watch it’s reaction. Use tea tree oil on a microbe and watch it’s reaction. Very simple.


We can then ask the cat and the microbe what they know about Buddhism.

Note to cats and microbes:

Philosophically, what's your take on consents being violated? For example, going back to your own understanding of existence itself.

:-k


It’s all visceral. Even the simplest of beings comprehend “no!”
The cat and the microbe are connected to the universe. They are Buddhas.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:08 pm

Ecmandu wrote:It’s all visceral. Even the simplest of beings comprehend “no!”


Okay, but what do cats and microbes know -- viscerally or otherwise -- about comprehending consent violations and Buddhism? What can they communicate to us about them on this thread that confirms it?

For example, in the way in which you are insisting that all the rest of us must understand them too. Ever and always as you do.

On the other hand, if all that any of us understand about consent violations and Buddhism is a manifestation of a wholly determined universe, then in a way that we still do not fully understand, you and I and cats and microbes are all merely manifestations of the only possible reality there could ever be.

You know, going back to how this can be understood given an explanation for the existence of existence itself.

Perhaps phyllo's God? Or is His consent no less violated in turn?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

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

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38523
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users