I don't get Buddhism

Interesting how your reply borrowed from other posts and not the one you quoted. You didn’t respond to the post you quoted …

That people are more terrified of living forever than dying.

Iambiguous, I’m just going to tell you straight up.

Let’s assume I’m crazy. That I even have schizophrenia. Sociologically, schizophrenics are the least violent sub-group in the entire human population. You know why ?? Because they’re too busy suffering too much to even have the luxury of being violent.

Look at your bias before you try to speak to the peanut gallery.

Ecmandu,

First of all, you need to understand one thing very clearly is that using insulting language does not prove your point. On the contrary, it tells that you do not have much to support your arguments thus using this tactics to divert the conversation from actual issue. Nevertheless, this does not work on me because I have enough of life experience and thus derived understanding to discern between real anger and fake posing. So. Please get passed to it.

Now, to your points-
Getting diabetes does not require anybody’s consent. It just happens like an accident whether one wants it or not so your argument does not hold any water. And, it is not only the only one example which shows that it is impossible to honour the consents of all at the same time as most of the time they tend to violate each other. I can give you million such examples.

Assume that there is a very beautiful lady and every man wants to have her. Yes, he wants a particular man and goes for it. In this way, her consent is honoured but what about the consent of all those other men who cannot have her? How your theory of consent is supposed to address this issue?

Lastly, you talk very highly about honouring everyone’s consent yet you use such filthy language to all. Why? Do you have other’s consent for this! At least, try to behave according to what you say, believe or propose.

With love,
Sanjay

Ecmandu, by the way, religions answered you deliema of conflicting consents long lime ago, if you have an eye for it.

--------God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference. -------

That is precisely the solution for conflicting consents. Think over it.

With love,
Sanjay

That doesn’t satisfy the people who think that conflicts ought to go away … that there ought to be one solution that everyone accepts as the only right one.

Yes, and given the topic of the thread, the idea that everyone should do Buddhism OR no one should
are the choices is just silly.
We have different needs, goals, skills, interests, temperments…
That one spiritual path or a self-improvement path or one philosohpical approach is the right one for everyone has a lot of assumptions in it that I haven’t seen justified.

My “one solution that everyone ought accept”

Is!

Positive non zero sum hyper dimensional mirror realities attached to individual desire matrices forever.

You know what that means? My “one way” is actually everyone’s way. “Individual desire matrices”

If it’s your gig to kill bacteria or have bacteria kill you. you can play that game without harming other beings.

I actually know a lot about ‘god people’. They want to be able to violate consent with no consequence or punishment… because that’s the god they worship, “the almighty, supreme consent violator” (who’s in heaven by the way!)

Every fucking being in all of existence is having their consent violated, presumably forever, and so to preserve their dignity, to enjoy their memories, they fabricate excuse after excuse to make meaning from consent violation “faith” “spirit contracts” “the path to enlightenment” “the highest possible level of consciousness be it god or enlightenment sees everything as perfect”, “moral nihilism”, “post modernism and post structuralism”, “bad is good”… ANYTHING to not be in the abyss!!! ANYTHING to find meaning!! It’s all shit. Here, I have a door for you… step into the abyss for a moment. I’m not going to hell you, I just want you to have a casual conversation with me in the abyss.

I edited my last message. I consider these edits important enough to point that out in another post.

“Spirituality must be distinguished from religion—because people of every faith, and of none, have had the same sorts of spiritual experiences.”
― Sam Harris, self-declared atheist, Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion

“In fact, we can directly experience that consciousness is never improved or harmed by what it knows. Making this discovery, again and again, is the basis of spiritual life.”
― Sam Harris, Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion

goodreads.com/work/quotes/2 … t-religion

I agree that all or many people, whether religious or not, at some point in their lives experience something extraordinary which they call spiritual. It is fine to me but so what and what next? Does the story ends here? And, if not, what next and how one is supposed to move further?

Do these so called atheist spiritualist like Sam harris have any answer? I do not think that they have any. Do they even understand why one feels spiritually awakened at times?

What these people are trying is something similar to when one tries to draw or understand the formulas of algebra without learning basic maths. This approach has never worked for anybody, nor it will work ever.

With love,
Sanjay

That is not this prayer is suggesting. It does not claim that there can be any single formula written in the sky for all people which they have to follow blindly in all cases.

Instead, this is saying that morality should be addressed at individual lavel and also case by case. Which means, one act may be moral for an individual in one case but the same act may be immortal to the same individual in other case.There cannot be any universal theory or solution. Morality depends on the contexts.

With love,
Sanjay

I don’t know, Sanjay. Buddhism is not a fundamentally theistic religion. Do you deny that it is spiritual?

No, I do not deny it. Spirituality entails Religiousity but not thesim. Having said that, it is still the issue of debate whether Buddhism is a theistic religion or not.

With love,
Sanjay

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmā_(Buddhism)

My link didn’t copy to ILP … just look up Brahma in Buddhism and pick the Wikipedia page that says “Brahma Buddhism”

The Buddha taught that the god realms are rebirth realms.

I am aware or all that. That is precisely why i said to Felix it is a mater of debate whether Buddhism is a theistic religion or not. Secondly, asked about the presence of soul, Buddha never said that soul does not exist. Rather, he became silent.
It is one of the 14 famous questions which Buddha chose not to answer either way.

With love,
Sanjay

A Buddha state is more about the here and now, in retrospect of one’s did and was, with a view to cultivating a better there and then… so not so much about one’s afterlife, as it is about how the rest of one’s life is spent living, in conjunction with past lessons learned… so being the best you can be.

You have a fate after death? how do you know that that is a certainty? Why are you less concerned with living than you are with dying?

Well yes… those that know better, disseminate that knowledge to those that don’t, through canonical texts and other such vehicles of dissemination.

We can live like gods, or live like dogs… it’s a choice we all can make, in which path or paths to take.

Once we know better, can we stop knowing better? answering that question will lead you to the answer you keep on asking, but do feel free to keep on with your circular inquiry, won’t you. ; )

They are not political prejudices… the first has nothing to do with politics, the second is a personal preference that has no bearing on any decisions I make here in the UK.

An agenda has a plan, a purpose has no plan to follow…

My context is drawn from that of the greater good, not from that of any one subjective point and purpose.

If that’s how you’ve interpreted my reply, then sure…

The morality/immortality issue, isn’t an issue at all… why do you think it so? or perhaps that’s just you?

Sure, Buddhism can be discussed in general description intellectual contraptions of this sort. But, in my view, one thing never changes.

This: that, as with all other religious practitioners, Buddhists sooner or later have to actually choose behaviors in the course of interacting with others…behaviors deemed to be either right or wrong, enlightened or unenlightened. A world where others – religious or humanists – will come into conflict with their own assessments and, in any given community, actual rules of behaviors will be prescribed and proscribed based on who has access to the political power necessary to enforce these rules.

And, one way or another, given God or No god religions, there has to be a connection made between the behaviors chosen on this side of the grave and the fate of “I” on the other side.

And yet many of the discussions/exchanges here go on and on as though this part of religion – the actual existential consequences embedded in day to day human interactions – need barely to register at all.

The whole point seems to be in keeping the discussions “philosophical” or “spiritual”.

If I do say so myself.

As I noted today in my post above, it is precisely this sort of “general description intellectual contraption” that I wish to steer the discussions away from. I’m far more interested in how you relate this sort of abstract assessment to the life that you actually live. To the moral and political values that you choose to embody. And in regard to confrontations with those who embody other religious and nonreligious values. As this is understood by you in regard to the fate of “I” after death.

My own moral and political values are no longer rooted in religion, but in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. My own approach to value judgments is encompassed in the OP on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

Others will either be willing to take Buddhism there, or, sure, eschew my arguments/posts here altogether. And if they choose to, fine. I would not insist that, necessarily, they are being less reasonable than I am. That they are on the wrong path. Only that our interest in religion is different. This as well seen by me as as embodied in dasein.

Thus, from my own frame of mind, we are clearly on two different paths here:

[b]

[/b]

Know what better? In what set of circumstances? As this knowledge is intertwined in enlightenment precipitating a karma that results in what level of existence on the other side? Is it ever and always only what a Buddhist believes is true here, or are there ways to demonstrate that what they believe is in fact true experientially, experimentally, empirically?

And then when I do focus in on a particular context:

First, I am still not clear as to what you mean by “taskless” here.

And are you actually telling us that arguments exchanged in regard to vaccines are not intertwined existentially in the political values that liberals and conservatives and others become predisposed to existentially given the experiences, relationships and access to particular information and knowledge that unfold over the course of their lived lives? You really believe that how you feel about vaccines goes beyond a set of political prejudices and really does reflect the optimal or the only rational way in which to think about them?

That all the points raised by the folks on the pro side here – vaccines.procon.org/ – are simply wrong.

Instead, my point is that men and women living individual lives do become predisposed to political prejudices that some come to insist is reflective instead of the one and the only objective truth. The objectivists among us. Those that in my view choose a frame of mind that allows them psychologically to think themselves into believing that in regard to vaccines they really are in touch with the “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do”.

The embodiment of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Updated as follows:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life in regard to vaccines

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective regarding vaccines expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about vaccines; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this view about vaccines with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth about vaccines with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument about vaccines that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original quest for truth about vaccines, for wisdom, has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with the quest for truth at all. But only in propagating their own objectivist rendition of it.

I don’t think it’s about morality at all.

I think it’s saying not to waste time and energy on things beyond our control. But also not to forget that something things we are able to change and we should not be afraid to try.

Well, if is not about morality then what else for? It certainly does not talk about moving heavy things like bed or almirahs from one place to another in a house. It is talking about the life and daily circumstances/questions and takling those for sure. And, this is precisely what morality is.

With love,
Sanjay