I don't get Buddhism

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.

I don’t get Buddhism.

Maybe there could be some correspondence there possibly, , figuratively & literally.

I don’t get Buddhism either. But I don’t get you even more. And no one gets me most of all. :wink:

“Our life is shaped by our mind; we become what we think. Joy follows a pure thought like a shadow that never leaves.”

Iambig said:

"don’t get Buddhism either. But I don’t get you even more. And no one gets me most of all. :wink:

Except You have repeatedly expressed that sentiment about Buddhism and Meno, yet Meno has never once expressed in any way, shape or form not to understand Iambiguous.

So the 3 way correspondence is more difficult by powers far exceeding X3.

Beautiful Zen image!

We’ll need a context of course.

We’ll need a context of course.

Morality here and now. Immortality there and then. There’s how a particular Buddhist understands this relationship given his or her day to day interactions with others in a world bursting with conflicting goods.

There’s how “I” understand it.

There’s how you understand it.

But it only makes sense [to me] to discuss this relationship given a set of circumstances that most here are likely to be familiar with.

You can choose it.

“Live every act fully, as if it were your last.”

Yo, Adolph!
Yo, Benito!
Yo, Joseph!
Yo, Pol!
Yo, Jung Il,
Yo, Vladimir!
Yo, Donald!

[b]Note to Buddhists:

Just out of curiosity – and to the best of your ability – what do you imagine is or will be the fate of these guy’s “soul”?[/b]