I don't get Buddhism

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.

You know, if “he” does say so himself. :wink:

Is there anyone here interested in discussing Buddhism?

In other words, on his terms. Given his own assumptions about what a “proper discussion” of Buddhism is. [-o<

Me? I make it clear that my own interest in religion revolves around the manner in which someone intertwines their religious faith in the behaviors that they choose from day to day insofar as this involves conflicting goods insofar as this involves one’s fate on the other side of the grave.

Given particular contexts most here will be familiar with.

Not interested in that? Think that a discussion of religion should focus instead on other things? Fine. But I would advise you to steer clear of my posts as I will tug the exchange back to that which I do deem to be the most important function of religion “for all practical purposes”: morality and immortality.

This and the focus of thinkers like Marx. The politics of religion.

I do try to put my pet peeve in the context of Buddhism :smiley:.

That said, I prefer, though also reject Hinduism - perhaps a little comparative religion could be interesting. Hinduism is a vast number of religions, really, and the version I participated in was a kind of Kashmir Shaivism. I preferred Hinduism because it is personified. Instead of nothingness,you have one of the deities (Shiva, though also Parvati in this case). That’s just simply homier. That one is merging with nothingness or focused on it is less appealing to me than merging with, connecting with a more personified someone, even if it is so terribly different from a friend. Shaivism, as a bhakti (devotional, heart-based religion), also allowed more passion than Buddhism (at least as I experienced Buddhism in both the East and the West.) Buddhism was more controlled, more judgmental of emotions, and, to me, had a poor aesthetic musically. I really loved the chanting, which included really long texts, early in the morning before sunrise, and also shorter repetitive ones at other times in the day. These were expressive, not monotone, like much Buddhist chanting, passionate and with increasing intensity. IOW LIFE!!! They were also extremely respectful of other traditions, including Buddhism and Christianity (in fact they celebrated Jesus’ birthday where I was and considered him a special being). Iamb’s idea that they all think their path is the only one is simply wrong, though I do get where he gets this idea. However one should be responsible to dealing with the best examples of what one disagrees with, not the easier targets. Unless the goal is just to reassure yourself.

Two guiding metaphors were service and surrender. A class based metaphor (not surprising in a society with caste systems built in forever) and a war based metaphor.

As time went I on I had a number of problems with the system but compared to Buddhism what I noticed, regardless of temple or ashram or center, East or West, was the HIndus were more fluid, less judgmental of sex and emotions (even seeing a kind of cosmic sex as central to creation), and freer. There is a coldness to Buddhism and a head focus that bothered (bothers) me.

For me I want practices that lead to me being more of myself. Now that can be torn apart philosophically, but if you have experienced movement away from being at war with yourself, then you can understand it as pointing at states that feel better, at least to some people. Or more right, this is me. Buddhism seemed even further away from this than Hinduism, despite the latters many problems.

Sure, cut yourself off from your desire and you will be disappointed less. You will be less, less to hurt. I have empathy for the pain and concern that led to Siddheatha’s assumptions and choices, especially since I know well how much pain there is ‘in there’. But if I am going to cut my nose off to avoid bad smells, it is not worth it for me.

There’s an awkwardness, a stiltedness to the Buddhist person’s presence and movements. I met the Dalai Lama briefly, after a talk. I am sure he can waltz around all sorts of meditative states, but man what a boring speaker. Give me a good blues song, or even a junkie talking about how hard it is to stay clean over even the better speeches of masters.

On the positive side: Buddhist meditation was calming and gave me a new angle on inner space, interiority, and awareness of myself. I think detachment is an options that is useful, though it is not what I want to make primary. I love the Zen tales, though that is not the tradition in Buddhism that I practiced. It felt like Zen began to move towards a kind of body freedom and an associational freedom not found in other traditions of Buddhism. Not really an emotional freedom, but at least one could be more spontaneous.