I don't get Buddhism

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.

Karpel,

Your experience with Buddhism is more head than body. And at that “non attachment” to both.

Mark Twain said it best, “everything in moderation including moderation” meaning also non attachment to non attachment - which is basically the “middle way” the Buddha taught. It’s almost a non teaching to that regard. I’m not a person who has read the entire Pali canon. However, I know ‘middle way‘ is a big term Buddha taught. What’s more middle than ‘renounce’ and also ‘renounce renounce’

Then there are VERY passionate sects of Buddhism … the entire shambala lineage for example… otherwise known as the sensual eternal earth Tradition.

Sure, what aspects of Buddhist practice most appeal to you and others?
What are the hard parts of the practices or beliefs?
How often do you engage in the practices?
What difference has it made in your life?

What has our individual paths got to do with discussing the topic of Buddhism? You learn from me and I learn from you, and the discussion then moves forward and evolves… bearing those things that we have both learned from each other, in mind.

Iam asked: or are there ways to demonstrate that what they believe is in fact true experientially, experimentally, empirically?

Yes… meditation has been shown to have mental benefits, such as improved focus, happiness, memory, self-control, academic performance and more, by changing brainwave frequencies so that they work at their optimal levels. This has been evidenced in EEG monitoring.

Policy-making not knoweth of any one particular political side… I’d prefer my politics not made up of any one particular side, but of the capable.

Yes I really do believe that how I feel about vaccines goes beyond a set of political prejudices, but not because it really does reflect the optimal or the only rational way in which to think about them, but solely because of medical reasons.

That is not applicable to all, as reasons behind peoples’ perspective and rationale on vaccines does and will vary… mine is very niche and has zero to do with any of the above 7 outlined points.

We are clearly in two different discussions here. And, sure, your understanding of it may well be more reasonable than mine. But for someone who is reading my posts on this thread to ask me what our individuals paths – our actual lived lives – have to do with a discussion of Buddhism is simply beyond my capacity even to grasp. As though the historical, cultural and circumstantial parameters of the life that we do live [b]as it relates to anything and everything we come into contact with or do not come into contact with relating to Buddhism[/b] is not pertinent in a discussion of Buddhism.

For example, what of all of the millions and millions of human beings who lived and died on planet Earth before Buddha himself even existed? What of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana for them when there wasn’t even a Buddhist religion around to turn to?

At least with Western religions we have God to fall back on. One might ask what of all the millions and millions of human beings that existed before the birth of Christ? But God Himself was always around. And questions like this can be dumped into that vast gap between an omniscient/omnipotent God and mere mortals like you and I.

But what of Buddhism here?

Note to others:

What am I missing in her reaction here? What point is she making that, in your opinion, succeeds in actually responding to the points that I raise? And [of course] let’s take this out into the world and focus in on a particular context.

I’ve acknowledged the many very real benefits of Buddhism insofar as it allows one to attain and then to sustain a more constructive mental and emotional outlook on life. And how that is translated into better physical health.

But over and over again, I note that my own interest in Buddhism – in religion itself – is the existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then. As that relates to the actual life that we live at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political economy.

And, from my frame of mind, the manner in which you go there is far removed from the manner in which I do. And that’s fine. But until you demonstrate to me that you have at least some understanding of my own approach, the exchange is basically not worth pursuing from my end.

And, yes, that may well reflect my own deficiencies here in discussing Buddhism. Still, all I can do here is note the arguments of those who wish to demonstrate this to me.