I don't get Buddhism

[iambiguous]

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

We'll need a context of course.

[iambiguous]

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

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.

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.

[phyllo]

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

[iambiguous]

"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!


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"?

[phyllo]

Just so.

[iambiguous]

Just so.

Let's try to imagine the reaction of Adolph, Benito, Joseph, Pol, Jung Il, Vladimir [both of them] and Donald to that.

And then the manner in which Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Scientologists, Rastafaris and all the rest of the religious denominations react to their reactions.

Indeed, one by one, we can go down the list -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- and get reactions from all the religious and spiritual traditions.

And that's just on this planet.

You know, assuming that our species is in possession of free will, and going all the back to that which explains the existence of existence itself.

[phyllo]

Babble which does not say anything.

What's the point?

[Ecmandu]

Babble which does not say anything.

What's the point?

That’s an ad hom by the way (which you criticize me for)

Let’s look at Norse mythology for a moment:

Only warriors go to heaven; pacifists go to hell.

That’s a religion on earth.

[iambiguous]

Babble which does not say anything.

What's the point?

In an essentially meaningless world that ends in oblivion?

Perhaps we don't need one.

[phyllo]

That’s an ad hom by the way (which you criticize me for)

Let’s look at Norse mythology for a moment:

Only warriors go to heaven; pacifists go to hell.

That’s a religion on earth.

His unstated idea was that Adolf, et al, should not "live every act fully". Only those who "I" agree with, ought to be doing that ... Adolf ought to make a half-assed effort.

But that's not my position. And I don't think that it's Buddha's position either.

Everyone ought to live every act fully ... including the serial killer.

[Ecmandu]

That’s an ad hom by the way (which you criticize me for)

Let’s look at Norse mythology for a moment:

Only warriors go to heaven; pacifists go to hell.

That’s a religion on earth.

His unstated idea was that Adolf, et al, should not "live every act fully". Only those who "I" agree with, ought to be doing that ... Adolf ought to make a half-assed effort.

But that's not my position. And I don't think that it's Buddha's position either.

Everyone ought to live every act fully ... including the serial killer.

This is a strange response to me. Nobody in existence has a choice but to live every act fully. Strange use of words!

[iambiguous]

His unstated idea was that Adolf, et al, should not "live every act fully". Only those who "I" agree with, ought to be doing that ... Adolf ought to make a half-assed effort.

But that's not my position. And I don't think that it's Buddha's position either.

Everyone ought to live every act fully ... including the serial killer.

No, what he attempted to state is this: that when your approach to life revolves around "live every act fully, as if it were your last" you have to acknowledge that this can also be made applicable to the acts of those that many construe historically to be moral monsters.

But acts that he himself has thought himself into believing are rooted existentially in dasein.

Of course if the serial killer -- https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/0 ... ate-killer -- does in fact pursue his acts as though they were his last, Buddhists and others are bound to react to them. And from moral and political and spiritual perspectives that some suggest are rooted in "I".

Joseph James DeAngelo will either be judged by a God, the God, your God or there is no God and his fate will be in the hands of whatever Buddhists believe is encompassed in reconfiguring enlightenment on this side of the grave into the posthumous self.

Or human existence is essentially meaningless and all of our [presumably autonomous] reactions are subsumed in an oblivion that reflects the brute facticity of an existence completely devoid of teleological fonts.

Just so.

Note to Gib:

I need some real intellectual simulation here. Your reaction to all of this please.

[phyllo]

That’s an ad hom by the way (which you criticize me for)

Let’s look at Norse mythology for a moment:

Only warriors go to heaven; pacifists go to hell.

That’s a religion on earth.

His unstated idea was that Adolf, et al, should not "live every act fully". Only those who "I" agree with, ought to be doing that ... Adolf ought to make a half-assed effort.

But that's not my position. And I don't think that it's Buddha's position either.

Everyone ought to live every act fully ... including the serial killer.

This is a strange response to me. Nobody in existence has a choice but to live every act fully. Strange use of words!

Yes, they have a choice and usually they are not fully committed to the act.

[Ecmandu]

Ahh... well commitment is a consent concept. (How much are you investing in this?)

Everyone still lives every act fully.

Banter is always great for clarification

[phyllo]

Next up : oblivion

So what?

[iambiguous]

Next up : oblivion

So what?

Sure, stop a hundred people at random walking down the street and ask them about it. A few will shrug and say, "so what?". But most will be troubled by it. Some scared shitless.

But one thing seems rather clear. Or factual let's call it. Down through the ages, those who are troubled by it [and the "essentially meaningless" part of existence on this side] have invented literally hundreds and hundreds of religious and spiritual paths in order to make it go away and to sustain at least some measure of comfort and consolation on their sojourn to the grave.

How about you?

Just so? So what?

[Karpel Tunnel]

And suddenly Iambiguous simply makes the factual claim that theists believe because it is comforting, period. All his 'can't somebody demonstrate to all rational people....' when in fact he already presents as a fact the conclusion that he knows the reason they believe. So, not only an objective claim about all of their psychologies, but an objective claim about the possibilities for knowledge about God: iow he is making a metaphysical claim about what is possible for someone to know.

It's good that Phyllo provokes him because when he's cranky, he's more honest. He knows already. He's not open to arguments, he's already drawn his factual conclusion. He's not hoping against hope that some theist or Buddhist will demonstrate their beliefs should be followed by all rational people, he already knows what all rational people should believe. Note the incredulity above that anything else could possibly be the case.

His 'inquiry' is not an inquiry.

Now if I didn't point the following out, he would like now respond to something like this by asking for an argument for God or Buddhism that all rational people should believe, not even noticing or caring that he has convinced himself with arguments that not all rational people are convinced by. He does not live by his own criteria.

Of he will, or would have, said 'we'll need a context.' One of his main ways of dismissing things without actually responding to them.

Notice that he says, often, 'we need...' universalizing and objectifying his desire. It's not 'I want...' it's 'we need.' And he is bothered by objectivists.

The context is this discussion. The man seeking objective morals doesn't seem to realize he is already acting in the world. And that these acts and this discussion are a context.

To put this in Buddhist terms.....

A university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master quietly served tea, the professor talked about Zen. The master poured the visitor's cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. "It's full! No more will go in!" the professor blurted. "This is you," the master replied, "How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup."

To which Iamb might respond that we cannot have an empty cup, we are conditioned by dasein. Which is, in fact, more or less Buddhist doctrine. Yes, we are conditioned by dasein to have all sorts of thoughts.

Which is why Buddhism suggests meditation first, and not a little, long before ideas like enlightenment can be remotely understood as they are meant within Buddhism.

But he can't possibly do that. So he wants experts in Buddhism to do precisely what Buddhism suggests is not only a poor process for learning - blabbing about things that cannot be understood without long training - but even one of the causes of suffering.

Please, Buddhist, go against your beliefs and help reinforce what you see as something that makes me suffer.

And please believe I am actually interested.

[iambiguous]

And suddenly Iambiguous simply makes the factual claim that theists believe because it is comforting, period. All his 'can't somebody demonstrate to all rational people....' when in fact he already presents as a fact the conclusion that he knows the reason they believe. So, not only an objective claim about all of their psychologies, but an objective claim about the possibilities for knowledge about God: iow he is making a metaphysical claim about what is possible for someone to know.

It's good that Phyllo provokes him because when he's cranky, he's more honest. He knows already. He's not open to arguments, he's already drawn his factual conclusion. He's not hoping against hope that some theist or Buddhist will demonstrate their beliefs should be followed by all rational people, he already knows what all rational people should believe. Note the incredulity above that anything else could possibly be the case.

His 'inquiry' is not an inquiry.

Now if I didn't point the following out, he would like now respond to something like this by asking for an argument for God or Buddhism that all rational people should believe, not even noticing or caring that he has convinced himself with arguments that not all rational people are convinced by. He does not live by his own criteria.

Of he will, or would have, said 'we'll need a context.' One of his main ways of dismissing things without actually responding to them.

Notice that he says, often, 'we need...' universalizing and objectifying his desire. It's not 'I want...' it's 'we need.' And he is bothered by objectivists.

The context is this discussion. The man seeking objective morals doesn't seem to realize he is already acting in the world. And that these acts and this discussion are a context.

To put this in Buddhist terms.....

A university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master quietly served tea, the professor talked about Zen. The master poured the visitor's cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. "It's full! No more will go in!" the professor blurted. "This is you," the master replied, "How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup."

To which Iamb might respond that we cannot have an empty cup, we are conditioned by dasein. Which is, in fact, more or less Buddhist doctrine. Yes, we are conditioned by dasein to have all sorts of thoughts.

Which is why Buddhism suggests meditation first, and not a little, long before ideas like enlightenment can be remotely understood as they are meant within Buddhism.

But he can't possibly do that. So he wants experts in Buddhism to do precisely what Buddhism suggests is not only a poor process for learning - blabbing about things that cannot be understood without long training - but even one of the causes of suffering.

Please, Buddhist, go against your beliefs and help reinforce what you see as something that makes me suffer.

And please belief I am actually interested.

Yo, Curly!

We'll need a context.

[Karpel Tunnel]

It's a bit like going to a Christian who is an expert in Christianity and saying.

Hey, I want to understand your religion more: steal from me and covet my wife.

It's like there is such a fundamental disconnect simply because if he had the slightest interest in the religion, he would understand that the process he is asking Buddhists to engage in is one that is considered to contribute to the suffering of people. And since in Buddhism one is supposed to be compassionate he is asking them to go against their own practices and goals.

At least a swimming teacher, when asked by him to convince him that all rational people should learn to swim, can tell him to go fuck himself and this does not contradict being an expert in swimming.

[phyllo]

Fairly common.

A person has some rigid ideas and when confronted with something new he tries to make it fit within those ideas. Square peg in a round hole.

The irony being that Biggus is going around trying to present something new to the rigid objectivists. He doesn't recognize his own responses.

[phyllo]

"We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world."

[Ecmandu]

You know, I have to say this about iambiguous:

In over 20 years of discussion forums, I’ve never put someone on ignore. I’m proud of that. I get my hands dirty every day with entities from all over the cosmos. Iambiguous decided he could no longer handle my messages. He was more offended by me than me by him. What do I say? Consent violation is bad! That means ethics is objective. He ignored me by calling me crazy for being grand central station for the spirit world... but probably enjoyed the last Star Wars where Rey is bearing and being possessed by all the Jedi in the last sequence. That shit really does occur iambiguous! I see beyond the veil of life and death now. Never wanted it!

The Buddha is correct ... we all make this with our thoughts. If we want to change it, we all need to get together again.

The Buddha was not enlightened like I am. If the Buddha had been enlightened like I am, he wouldn’t have made karma an excuse for our suffering.

[iambiguous]

It's a bit like going to a Christian who is an expert in Christianity and saying.

Hey, I want to understand your religion more: steal from me and covet my wife.

It's like there is such a fundamental disconnect simply because if he had the slightest interest in the religion, he would understand that the process he is asking Buddhists to engage in is one that is considered to contribute to the suffering of people. And since in Buddhism one is supposed to be compassionate he is asking them to go against their own practices and goals.

At least a swimming teacher, when asked by him to convince him that all rational people should learn to swim, can tell him to go fuck himself and this does not contradict being an expert in swimming.

Note to Gib:

Is it okay if we change the subject of this thread to, "No one gets iambiguous but me".

And require a context to prove it.

[iambiguous]

"We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world."

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

You know, et cet·er·a

[phyllo]

"If you propose to speak always ask yourself, is it true, is it necessary, is it kind."