I don't get Buddhism

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

Acquiring an omni-state of being through regular practice, helps the Practitioner in achieving an optimal state of Being, and in Becoming so, acquiring an acute state of awareness on a macro level, in their day-to-day actions and interactions.

You seem to always want to break down these day-to-day actions and interactions into individual moments and constant changes in thought-processes, but those should be seamless… so context is irrelevant, but consistency is not.

Then don’t!

The onus is on you to choose a particular circumstance that you wish to be explored, in the manner in which a Practitioner would undertake the specific endeavour, of which you wish to understand the ‘how’.

I have no idea what happens to the energy that is released after we demise, but that does indicate that something is transpiring after the fact, so not just a psychological belief-system that comforts and consoles…

…and that matters how? It doesn’t to me, but to you… in your judgemental state of moral nihilism.

Is my moral objectivism showing again? oops :blush:

Sure, I’ll give that a go… though I have offered such insights over the years, but which are obviously now lost via the antiquity of time… and 1000s of posts. :slight_smile:

Here’s a short version for now:

[b]0-16 years old: Roman Catholic / Conservative household and upbringing

17-present day: non-practising RC/Spiritual, but still attend RC church for family Sacraments and local Community events / Conservative values, so started supporting the Conservatives, became a part of my Local Association, and standing in Elections since 2010

During my college and uni days, so from age 16-21, I declared myself as Labour, as it stopped those around me from debating politics with me, and I couldn’t think of anything worse than that at that age… my Art-student peers did likewise, for the very same reason, as we were all inward-facing introverted types that weren’t about that debating-life, but we were not Left-leaning in the slightest.[/b]

I didn’t mean that you didn’t get Buddhism, but that those who have no concept of what it actually is and meant to ultimately achieve don’t… but this misunderstanding has worked out well, in you sharing your much-appreciated knowledge on the dissemination of the teachings.

Why are messengers always martyrs? I guess that’s why I probably look to god first, before I look to the messenger to see what they’ve got to say.

I’ll go with the pre-Vedic notion of the karmic/dharmic concept… as passed down by my ancestors, which knows not of religion, but of an ideal.

Not all in the subcontinent follow a religion but local customs and conduct… as I’m sure you know.

[b]Wikipedia says:

The word Hindu is an exonym, and while Hinduism has been called the oldest religion in the world, many practitioners refer to their religion as Sanātana Dharma, “the eternal way” which refers to the idea that its origins lie beyond human history, as revealed in the Hindu texts.[/b]

I have no belief system on the matter…

We release energy when we die… I know that much, but nothing more besides, beyond that point.

Just because the Rishis were revered by many religions, doesn’t mean that they themselves were religious… the Jains, for instance, revered many Thirthankaras that weren’t Jain at all. And just to add to the confusion further… many of the newer religions borrowed historical figures from pasts, and even countries, other than their own.

The ancient concept of Religion actually meant Custom, and in the last few thousand years became Religion, as we know it today… so initially socio-political, not dogmatic… that came later, with the arrival of the newer tribes on the subcontinental-block. ; )

[b]Wikipedia says:

Dravidian folk religion. The early Dravidian religion refers to a broad range of belief systems which existed in South Asia before the arrival of Indo-Aryans. … The worship of tutelary deities and sacred flora and fauna in Hinduism is also recognized as a survival of the pre-Vedic Dravidian religion.[/b]

It doesn’t talk about right and wrong or moral and immoral. It talks about ‘changable’.

It would apply to things like death, disease, aging, people doing nasty things to you(intentionally or not).

In the context of this thread, conflict and consent violation are not going away. You gotta accept that.

No Sanjay,

It’s not complicated. Spirits exist, god doesn’t. What next? That’s all there is.

I don’t think Zinnat is a flaming asshole. And I don’t think you should post that he is.

I get very mad when people suck up to the great consent violator in the sky with seeming kindness in what most perceive an innocuous way. I was sent to hell by beings like this. For no reason.

And then in walks zinnat, seemingly the kindest ILPer…

Like I said, I don’t expect people to understand what I’ve been through.

Appearances are very deceiving. The wolf in sheep’s clothing. I get it. I shouldn’t say that theists are flaming assholes. I had to deal with billions of zinnats in hell. This glib shit is not fun to endure. I haven’t healed from hell yet.

Anyways, I’ll say a bit and then go to Buddhism again.

Spirits exist. Hell exists. God doesn’t exist. Empaths don’t have a heaven if even a single being in existence is having their consent violated, which means heaven doesn’t exist either, if the Buddha is not a psychopath, “nirvana” is not heaven.

From my own frame of mind I’m thinking: What does your response here have to do with that which I would like to focus on in discussing Buddhism: connecting the dots between the behaviors a committed Buddhist chooses in a particular context involving conflicting goods as that relates to his or her understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana. Given a context most here are likely to be familiar with.

I’m simply asking you to focus in on a context involving conflicting goods that are of particular importance to you. How are the behaviors that you choose related to the manner in which you have come to acquire particular moral and political values, relating to how you connect the behaviors that you do choose to that which you imagine the fate of “I” to be beyond the grave. Then to explore how a Buddhist might react to that. Then to shift the discussion from that which we believe is true to that which anyone of us is able to demonstrate that others should believe in turn. Why? Because what we believe to be true in our head is able to be demonstrated as in fact true for all reasonable men and women.

As for this…

…I’ll leave it to others to decide for themselves the difference between the long and the short version of “I” as an existential contraption intertwined in philosophy.

My main point being that suppose, for whatever reason as a child, circumstances resulted in your being raised by radical left wing parents who were atheists instead. Your experiences were very different and you found yourself embracing moral and political values quite the opposite of the ones you embody now.

Given this what might philosophers/ethicists be able to tell us about value judgments that attempt to take these diverse existential paths into account in order to derive the most rational set of moral and political values. The optimal intertwining of genes and memes so that in regard to an issue like vaccines, it really would be possible to embody true wisdom in the choices one makes.

This thread merely shifts that discussion to one in which God and religion become an important factor in connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then.

I’m not arguing that my point of view here makes more sense than yours does. I am only pointing out that we think about these relationships in very different ways. Maybe the gap can be closed, maybe not. In part because I have come to construe identity here as basically an existential manifestation of what I have come to understand as the embodiment of the “psychology of objectivism”.

It’s not what moral and political objectivists believe is the right or the wrong thing to do, but that they have convinced themselves that it must be either one or the other.

Iambig writes, :

It’s not what moral and political objectivists believe is the right or the wrong thing to do, but that they have convinced themselves that it must be either one or the other.
[/quote]
‘They’ have for sure, but their conviction may not be absolutely convincing, where even a scintilla of difference may not disqualify them from either / or ; and/or both views.

It is that micro difference which carries an overwhelming weight .

Their opinion could be compared to the difference between the visible part of an observable ice berg above , or the insurmountable part below.

In Buddhic estimation, that perspective could be multiples million fold.

I don’t get Meno.