I don't get Buddhism

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? [-o<

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…

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.

Yo, Curly!

We’ll need a context. :sunglasses:

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.

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.

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

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.

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. :laughing:

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

You know, et cet·er·a

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

Buddhist Retreat
Why I gave up on finding my religion.
By JOHN HORGAN at Slate Magazine

On the other hand, most scientists don’t speak of enlightened behavior reconfiguring into karma reconfiguring into life after death reconfiguring into “a transcendent state in which there is neither suffering, desire, nor sense of self, and the subject is released from the effects of karma and the cycle of death and rebirth. It represents the final goal of Buddhism.”

No, I suspect that, as with all other religious denominations, it is popular because it allows the believer to subsume “I” in that which is construed to be enlightenment such that oblivion itself is subsumed in that which is construed to be the “afterlife”.

Life has meaning and purpose and it doesn’t end when we die. For me, religion in a nutshell. This and the stuff Marx focused on. Though here of course, for some, it seems to be about something else instead. Like, say, meditating?

Okay, perhaps Buddhists here might contact the one nearest them and inquire into how many would like to join us at ILP in discussing their religion. I’m figuring there might actually be a few willing to focus in on that which most interest me about religion: morality here and now, immortality there and then. In particular given that Buddhism is a No God religion. I’m still completely baffled as what in the universe actually brings about reincarnation and Nirvana. Or the “out there” which ultimately determines the existential parameters of enlightenment.

So, of these 4 million Buddhists here in America and the other 531 million around the globe, there must be more than just a handful that are willing to discuss this “rapprochement” as it relates to the existential parameters of religion that most intrigue me: identity, value judgments, political economy.

Out in a particular context as that relates to behaviors deemed right or wrong…as that relates to the fate of “I” on the other side of the grave.

On the other hand [mine], speak of what? :-k

For example:

Mary says she is pregnant.

Is there a way to determine if this is true?
Is there a way to determine, given her behaviors, that, biologically, it was necessarily true that she would become pregnant?
Is there a way to determine if in fact this pregnancy is the embodiment of “kindness”?

Mary says she had an abortion.

Is there a way to determine if this is true?
Is there a way to determine if it was necessary for her to abort her baby/fetus?
Is there a way to determine if this abortion is the embodiment of “kindness”

And, given the nature of this thread, how would any particular one of us have to “get” Buddhism so as to grasp either the pregnancy or the abortion as the embodiment of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana?

Go to a Buddhist forum website and talk to them.

I’ve discussed this already.

Before I commit what little time I have left to doing something like that, I would like someone here to demonstrate to me why and how Buddhism addresses the issues that are of most concern to me in regard to religion: living morally on this side of the grave so as to attain an afterlife for “I”.

Now, if this is also important to others, how do they know that their own religious/spiritual path reflects the best of all possible worlds? Wouldn’t they too have to dive down deep into all of the hundreds and hundreds of other religious denominations in order to determine if perhaps their path was the better one?

With so much at stake on both sides of the grave?

You yourself for example?

So, by all means, keep us informed.

Yeah, that’s it. You won’t make the slightest effort, you won’t lift your little finger.

And all the time you keep expressing an interest and saying how important this stuff is.

You really, really want to discuss this with Buddhists but only as long as they do everything and you don’t have to do anything. They have to come here and convince you. You need only to judge them.

Wait, what about this part:

Why is your complaint here only applicable to me and not you? Do you consider moral behavior important on this side of the grave? Are you interested in knowing the fate of “I” on the other side of it?

Well, in regard to religion, literally millions and millions and millions and millions of us are. They may be on a particular religious/spiritual path but with so much at stake on both sides of the abyss, should they or should they not be contacting all the other religious denominations to test their own faith against them?

Yep, that’s why I’m here. So, to the Buddhists and all the other denominations I ask, “Where’s the beef?”. Before I explore your own path more in depth what are you able to provide to me – link me to – that closes the gap between what you think or believe about morality here and now and immortality there and then, and what you are able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to think and believe in turn.

This being a philosophy venue and me being someone intent on focusing the beam on the points I raise here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

No, this is you claiming to get me more than either one of us claiming to get or not to get Buddhism.

Again, though, sure, if “I” do say so myself, Mr. Objectivist.

If I want to understand Buddhism, then I have to go and find out about it.

I need to ask someone about it.

And if he/she tells me about Buddhism, he is doing something valuable for me. I’m not doing him a favor by asking about it.

Note to others:

His point in relationship to mine? You tell me.

](*,)

What a waste of time.