I don't get Buddhism

](*,)

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.

Sooner or later we all face death. Will a sense of meaning help us?
Warren Ward from AEON website

But grappling with the importance of death-awareness merely becomes another manifestation of how as a proponent of Eastern philosophical and religious traditions, it is juxtaposed to how one construes the “spiritual” contours of life-awareness. How does that really get us any closer to connecting the dots between life and death insofar as how we actually choose to live that life and experience that death.

Still, the manner in which one comes to approach his or her own death appears to be no less the embodiment of dasein. Instead, we simply have any number of conflicting religious/spiritual denominations providing the faithful with endless assumptions about how one is expected to love others, develop equanimity of mind and stay the present.

When? where? how? why? In what actual set of circumstances? Let’s not go there, okay?

In other words, spiritually. As a way of thinking of human interactions in a world where the reality of conflicting goods is simply subsumed in general description intellectual contraptions like this.

As for detaching oneself from worldly pleasures that become considerably more attainable if you are able to think yourself into believing that, to the extent you focus instead on spiritual growth, you will be rewarded on the other side. And, of greatest importance of all, that there is existence beyond the grave. And, thus, that connecting the dots between morality/enlightenment here and now and immortality/salvation there and done becomes by far your greatest concern.

On the other hand, if one is actually able to believe this sort of thing…

…how exactly is that to be made applicable to the behaviors you choose? Behaviors predicated on the moral and political values [prejudices] one comes to embody existentially as the personification of dasein out in a particular world historically, culturally and circumstantially.

I know: let’s not go there either.

Or, for the objectivists among us, sure, go there, but wholly in sync with their own trajectories.

Another approach to the issue of Buddhism: compare it to what you do now if you are not a Buddhist.

Buddhism is (also) a set of ideas about the natures of things and a set of practices to make us feel better and more aware.

Everyone has a set of coping mechanisms in relation to suffering and also a set of learning approaches to improving how they feel and what they know - (some people may believe in approaches that the do not live out, but nevertheless think X helps either the former or the latter or both.

So, you feel bad about something. What do you do?

Now a Buddhist, in general, is 1) thinking that desire is the source of the problems (or at least, the one that can be controlled/eradicated/distanced from/disidentified with); 2) they are meditating which in the long term a way of restructuring how they relate to their own thoughts and emotions (disdentification), maintenance of calm regardless amongst other things. In the short term it is also an intervention against the suffering caused by certain thoughts, thoughts in general, certain emotions and emotions in general, certain desires and desires in general.

That’s a very fast summation of Buddhist thought and practices.

So, what are you already doing as YOUR set of coping mechanisms and approaches to long term change so that you suffer less, enjoy life more?

It may not be easy to find these approaches, since it may require some serious introspection.

You could also start with beliefs (most of which are likely to be a disorganized set of heuristics about how to feel better in life.
Buddhism is extremely organized.
Most people, in the West, who are not strictly religious, have disorganized and even contradictory heuristics.
What are you beliefs about what makes things better short and long term?
What evidence do you have for these working?
How well do you put your beliefs in practice? (how’s your committment/discipline?
Any overlaps with Buddhism?

I’ve explained earlier at least pieces of my approach which are the opposite of disidentification/detachment from desires, emotions. The relation to thoughts is much more complicated. Buddhism detaches emotions and desires from expression, also. AGain I go in the opposite direction. I have also given specific examples here and in other threads.

But what is your ‘religion’, because we all have one. It may be a godless one. It may have nothing that would be considered ‘supernatural’. But you have an approach to improving life that you believe is the right one (however messy it actually is when catalogued, and however little you actually practice it).

So, what’s yours and compare and contrast it to Buddhism.

Why? As I said, I’m not talking to those folks. I’m talking to you. You don’t really seem to be trying to connect the same dots they are. You don’t seem to be actually interested in how our behavior in this life connects us to our fate in the afterlife. You seem to be interested in playing a game with the objectivists here. Call it the “defeat my nihilism” game. For all the concern you may have to know how the dots are connected, and for all the moral import you attribute to the consequences of the actions taken by those who do connect the dots, you seem more interested in proving that the dots cannot be connected, or that there is no solution to the moral dilemas raised by those consequences. The fact that you seem loathed to admit this perhaps means you’re playing a game with yourself.

Fair enough… that might explain why we don’t seem to make much progress, you and I.

I’m not sure I get your point? Are you saying the life I’ve lived is not the norm for most people you engage with here?

This requirement of yours–to bring the discussion down to a specific set of circumstances–is sometimes a really tall order, especially when the discussion becomes a commentary on the discussion itself. Most people are able to follow along even when the discussion deals purely with intellectual contraptions. I’m not sure why you get so lost.

By avoiding bringing the two sides together in the same exercise. This is why I mentioned the caveat about not engaging both parties at the same time. I’m certainly not gonna approach the victim’s family and say, “Hey, guess what? I just made your son’s killer feel better about this whole thing.” Can I guarantee that news on my consolations won’t be received by the victim’s family? Of course not. I’m only human. But it’s not about guarantees like this. It’s about doing your best to foster the best possible outcome as you see it.

Yes, let’s tie this into some of the other Buddhist constructs you brought up for questioning.

Enlightenment - Enlightenment is what drives one to engage in this kind of behavior in these kinds of circumstances–the compassion to alleviate suffering as best you can. Once the ‘I’ is completely fragmented and dissolved, the light of love and compassion comes pouring through, and one feels deep sympathy for those who are suffering. A drive to alleviate that suffering follows. (and I suppose if one has yet to become enlightened, the drive to alleviate the suffering of others comes from a sense of duty rather than compassion; we are taught in Buddhism–after all–that one who walks the path has a moral obligation to alleviate the suffering of others).

Karma - I don’t know if this particular Buddhist believes in karma (isn’t that, after all, borrowed from Hindu religion?)–but how it relates to the specific scenario of trying to alleviate the suffering of all involved in the case of a murder is that the actions performed by each participant in the scenario count as a sort of contribution towards an “account balance” of their life’s work. Good actions contribute towards a positive balance. Bad actions contribute towards a negative balance. At the end of your life, your good actions are weighed against your bad actions, and the net balance determines the quality of your next life. For example, the murderer, having committed a haneous atrocity, would have a highly negative balance (at least, the act of murder would contribute an enormous negative amount), and therefore the quality of his next life would be quite poor (maybe he reincarnates as a worm). My own acts of trying to console all those involved in this case would contribute towards a positive balance, and with more deeds like this performed throughout my life, I would have a positive balance overall by the end of my life, meaning that I will get a high quality life when I reincarnate (perhaps as a god). Or I would believe that if I believed in karma. So karma can contribute or inform one’s actions in a scenario such as this by encouraging one to perform good actions (alleviate the suffering of others) so that one will be more likely to acquire a good life upon reincarnating.

Reincarnation - Obviously, reincarnation is the process by which one’s soul, or one’s essence (call it what you will), is transferred from one life to the next, from one body which dies to another body which is born; there isn’t much more to say about reincarnation than what was said about karma. Reincarnation is connected to the particular scenario under consideration through karma. The fact of karma encourages or motivates one to perform good acts by offering the potential for a better life upon reincarnation.

Nirvana - Nirvana is the state one experiences when enlightened. It is said to be blissful, peaceful, and the deepest form of love. It is connected to the scenario under consideration in the same way enlightenment is. Enlightenment leads to compassion for those involved in the scenario and a drive to alleviate their suffering because Enlightenment is the state of experiencing Nirvana, and Nirvana is pure love, which is why compassion and love flow from one who is Enlightened.

Don’t know if I got all that right–many real Buddhists and learned Buddhist scholars will no doubt correct many of my misconceptions, but consider this the answers coming from a special Buddhist who has his own awkward understanding of his own religion.

But you didn’t focus in on a set of circumstances–hence, vague generalities.

Why do you need a context to answer this question? I’m asking you for a context. That is the question. I specifically asked for you to give an example of an answer to any of your many questions you pose to objectivists that would satisfy your requirements or expectations. If you want a context, let’s pick the most frequent one you site: abortion–is it right or wrong? I’ll paraphrase what I think your question would be to an objectivist who believes that abortion is wrong: “Can you demonstrate in a manner that all men and women who wish to think of themselves as rational and moral human beings would be obligated to agree with that abortion is indeed wrong?” ← Now what response from this objectivist would satisfy you?

Once you answer that, I guess we’ll go on to the next specific circumstance–let’s say the war on drugs: should drugs be legalized or not? Then what? Should homosexuals be allowed to marry? And then what? And what after that? And after that? Why do we need to stick exclusively with specific circumstances? Why is it so difficult for you to formulate a response that covers the whole breadth of circumstances your inquiries pertain to? Why force your interlocutor to go through a whole series of specific circumstances until he has enough to extract a pattern and make that his best guess as to what you’re ultimately getting at?

You see, this is the problem–you ask for an example of what I construe to be behaviors in which moral and political value judgments come into conflict; I give you one: BLM; then you reply with a vague generality about what your interests in discussions like this are. I have no idea how to interpret that. Did I give a bad example? Are you ignoring my example? Are you saying BLM doesn’t pertain to your interests in this thread because we’re discussing Buddhism, not race (and that if I can tie Buddhism into race, that would rekindle your interest)? Were you not prepared for an actual example from me, so you don’t have a more direct response? Were you bluffing? Your response here is far too vague and general for me to know what to do with, to know where we take the discussion from here? This is what I’m calling a lack of progress.

It’s almost as if you’ve forgotten what prompted you to ask me for an example, and so you make your response vague and general enough so that it could apply to almost anything. Let me remind you what prompted you to ask me for an example. You were responding to this:

When I give you the BLM example, I expect you to tie it back to this.

But your approach is to challenge your interlocutor to demonstrate their personal convictions. I don’t see you discussing convictions in general with others on this board–as if to say: those Christians, eh? What a silly bunch. How on Earth do they demonstrate their convictions in a manner that all rational men and women are obligated to agree with?–it’s always with a Christian that you’re engaging (or a Muslim, or a Communist, or an Atheist, etc.), asking them for such a demonstration. Your ultimate goal may be to generalize their responses in such a way that it matches the pattern you expect of an ‘I’ construed as an existential construction rooted in dasein, but it starts with a focus on your interlocutor’s particular convictions.

How would answering this change what I said? Obviously, there will be some particular conflict construed in some particular way that would seem to invalidate what I said (that most members on this board with whom you engage don’t typically get pulled into the kinds of earth shattering conflicts you seem to think are inevitable if we don’t once and for all connect the dots here and now), but this is why I was speaking in general.

Then let’s continue with that.

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

Sure, this is just one man’s experience. But at least it is an example of someone taking up the challenge of a few here to actually make contact with Buddhists who are able to go deeper into the practice of Buddhism.

Which is basically why I tend to dump all religious denominations into the same moral and political basket: objectivism.

With or without God, the point is to focus the mind on a belief that one can attain an enlightened point of view in regard living one’s life here and now; all in order to reconfigure that life beyond the grave.

Moral ambiguity and uncertainty dispensed with, immortality assured. Really, why make religion any more complicated than that? Assuming of course human autonomy and acknowledging the ubiquitous gap between “I” here and now and the truth about existence itself.

Exactly. For all practical purposes, in regard to enlightenment now and Nirvana then, how is Buddhism substantially different from Western denominations? The part about sin, the part about salvation. Don’t all religions employ assumptions here that go beyond any substantive attempts to demonstrate that which the faithful are merely implored to swallow “spiritually”? Particularly in regard to the part pertaining to after we die.

Thus…

No doubt about it: the part that baffles me the most.

Maybe the analogy to Santa Claus goes a bit too far, but what is the most succinct argument that Buddhists have come up with in regard to this?

Links please.

No, you’re talking to someone intent on exploring the manner in which Buddhists connect the dots existentially between their own understanding of enlightenment and karma, the behaviors they choose derived from that understanding and how this is connected to what they believe regarding the fate of “I” beyond the grave. The things I don’t “get” about Buddhism.

Thus this part…

…is [to me] just you imagining that you grasp my intentions and my motivations here in a way that reveals some actual truth rather than just another subjective leap of faith rooted in dasein. Just as, admittedly, is my own reaction to you.

Same here. Over and again I acknowledge that my own understanding of what seems to propel “me” in exchanges of this sort is rooted in the Fowles quote, in polemics, and in the enormous gap between “I” as understood “here and now” and all of the countless variables I did not/do not/will not either fully understand or control going back to the cradle itself.

Also, what I focus on is taking the points you raise in intellectual contraptions like the one above and reconfiguring them into an assessment of a set of circumstances such that we can describe more substantively our views regarding Buddhism. Then you can point out with more specificity and accusations you make. Then it revolves around the extent to which I understand the points you are making.

Thus:

Fair perhaps but where are the contexts in which these gaps can be explored more substantively?

Again, given what context? Involving what behaviors? In regard to what aspect of Buddhism relating to particular understandings of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana. As that is then connected to what I construe to be just an other existential contraption rooted historically, culturally and experientially in dasein: “the norm”.

Think about it. There is in fact in any particular community that which seems able to be more or less accurately described as “normal behavior”. But then there’s the part where different religious, moral and political factions come into conflict regarding what ought to be the norm; and how embodying what ought to be the norm assures one that “I” continues on beyond the grave.

To me, yet another intellectual contraption that avoids naming a context.

Of course people are able to “follow along” in an exchange of intellectual contraptions relating to morality here and now and immortality there and then. For two reasons:

⦁ in a world of words, everything comes down to how the words are defined, imparting a specific meaning to a string of words placed in a particular order
⦁ thus the words never have to be defended in regard to a particular social, political or economic context

After all, out in the world relating to an existing human community, it’s not the relationship between definitions that becomes crucial but the relationship between the definitions and the countless subjective/subjunctive interpretations of the lives we live…lives derived from countless existential variables derived from countless existential experiences derived from lives lived in very, very, very different ways.

But, in turn, this can only be examined more in depth when the discussion does shift to a “situation” that most here will be familiar with. Factor enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana into that.

Contexts in which Buddhists are competing with hundreds and hundreds of alternative “spiritual paths”. Why one and not the others? With so much at stake on both sides of the grave.

And, of course, this has nothing to do with the manner in which I construe “I” here as the embodiment of political prejudices rooted in dasein confronting conflicting goods such that suffering itself is able to be subsumed by Buddhists in an enlightened point of view riding karma into the sunset and then out the other side.

I see your point but it seems less important than mine given the stakes here on either side of the grave. But then I have to acknowledge that given new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas, “I” may come to believe something other than what I do now. I merely point out that this is also true for you and everyone else.

Still, from my frame of mind, this assessment is still basically an intellectual contraption bursting at the seams with assumptions that are not at all demonstrated to in fact be true. The murderer above can see his own motivation and intention from a perspective that is utterly alien to others. He can rationalize or justify the killing given a point of view that others deem to be preposterous. He can be confronted by Buddhists expressing their own reaction to the killing and simply dismiss it. After all, what do they really know about his frame of mind or his understanding of the situation? That’s why a God, the God, my God always makes considerably more sense to me as a religious font. Take that away and you have reactions like John Horgans from the Slate piece above.

Any real Buddhists here care to comment?

Look, you either are or are not a Buddhist. You live your life from day to day in which matters of race – or ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation etc. – becomes a very real factor in your interactions with other. You believe what you do about race.

Now, what I wish to pursue here is this: that any particular Buddhists wishing to participate in this exchange take their belief about race and connect this dot to what they believe about enlightenment and karma in regard to race relations on this side of the grave; this then connected to the behaviors that they choose connected to how they connect that dot to what they believe the fate of “I” to be after they die.

In regard to race, are we talking about any particular individual’s subjective sense of what it means to be enlightenment or is there a way to understand race relationships that reflects more an Enlightened frame of that all Buddhists are obligated to embody if they wish to come back on the other side as something other than a slug?

Buddhists here will either go there in some depth in regard to their own lives or they’ll continue to spout general description intellectual contraptions about race relationships derived from things like the Four Noble Truths or the Eight Worldly Concerns.

I have no clear idea what your point here has to do with mine. My approach is to challenge those who have managed to think themselves into believing that – God or No God – one can acquire a sense of self that allows them to believe that one can acquire in turn moral or spiritual convictions thought to put one on the path to a life after death. And then on to one or another equivalent of Heaven or Nirvana.

Whereas I have not yet been convinced that there is any solid evidence to back that up. And that “I” in the is/ought world seems derived more from the manner in which I have come to understand these “human all too human” relationships in my signature threads.

For all of the reasons that I have noted above and on other threads. But: You fail to grasp those reasons. So, all we can do then is to note a new context and try, try again.

Okay. Again, let’s start here: deathpenalty.procon.org/

Now, Buddhist or not, how are the moral and political value judgments contained in this particular example of an age-old conflicting good not in many crucial respects the embodiment of dasein as I explore that here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

And, in regard to the main components of Buddhism, how is this very real [and contentious] component of the human condition understood by Buddhists from the perspective of both sides of the grave. Intertwined into the most rational and demonstrable assessment.

Gib, your post was so generous, and unfortunately it will, short term or long term, be spat on by the person it was addressed to.

This for example

was certainly a much more likely explanation than any of his own. He will perhaps say you are focuing on him, as if this is something that can simply be ruled out as wrong, but also not noticing how his posts focus on others.

You gave a lot. Others have given a lot. Here comes cut and paste and subtle and not so subtle not really responding and seeming cluelessness and absolutely no change in response. And any time a new angle is taken and one thinks a human response will finally appear, more cut and paste and seeming cluelessness and absolute inability to introspect or admit anything.

I do think he is getting clearer that he will be a poor discussion partner outside of precisely what you outline above. If you are not proving that some morality or some specific claim about the afterlife is the case such that all rational people must agree, he will not respond respectfully, even though it may look like he thinks he is.

In the context of Buddhism I think the cup already full story fits interactions with this person.

Okay, but on the other hand, unlike you, Gib isn’t a Stooge.

[size=50]yet[/size]

Enlightenment would be a steady state of consciousness. One that is without various illusions - including that of a self.

It would annoy many people but one could argue that Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism. Siddheartha was Indian, his teachers, practices and contacts were likely in many cases Hindu, and he reworked ideas from Hinduism. I’d say it’s closer than Christianity is to Judaism and here the Christians worship a Jew who thought of himself as Jewish.

The Buddha focused on intention (not unlike Jesus) rather than just action. The intentions behind actions and the associated emotions and thoughts, lead to consequences, not so much what you actually do. He also elimated the caste system from Karma. You didn’t have to work your way up the castes. The funny thing, in a context discussing with Iambiguous, is that the goal was to END rebirth. IOW it was to stop coming back. Of course many Buddhists probably don’t understand this and are looking at having better future lives, but really the idea is to not come back at all, as there is no self to come back at all, and if there is a coming back, it is because of false beliefs. Further there is no self that comes back, just the habits. One is not actually, within Buddhism, making one’s next life better, but reducing harmful patterns that will come back. It won’t be you living them out however.

So I am sure Iamb can get into an argument and ‘defeat’ some Buddhist about future lives and he can feel smug that they haven’t proven anything and their beliefs therefore must be soothing. But that’s because he knows very little, and as you’ve pointed out projects Christianity on something he doesn’t understand at all. In fact Buddhism does not believe in a persistant self, not even during one liftime. A Buddhist who actually knows Buddhism is not getting soothed but has actually faced something harder to face that what Iambiguous thinks he has faced. It’s not just death at the end of this life, it won’t even be him in a week. There is no self that persists through time, though patterns can persist, they are empty.

Buddhism is less soothing than Iamb’s own beliefs but he will not acknowledge this or notice it because he does not, in good faith, study, let alone practice Buddhism, and it is ironically comforting to him to think that he is actually braver than everyone else. IOW it would tilt his whole worldview if he realized that there are objectivists (in this case Buddhists) who have even less to soothe them than he does. He simply cannot acknowledge this. His edifice of thousands of posts trying to undermine anyone’s comfort would be ironically confused. To a Buddhist he is hallucinating a self that he will lose at death. It’s not that Buddhism says ‘don’t worry, you’ll be back’ it’s actually ‘don’t worry, you never had anything to lose, it won’t even be you waking up tomorrow.’ He’s the one with the soothing hallucination to them.

While many Buddhists and most outsiders think that THEY will reap the fruits of good behavior, there is no persistant self in Buddhism.

Nirvana is the state that does not lead to rebirth (a better word than reincarnation in Buddhism). It’s a state that does not lead to anything coming back.

Which as said is generous of you. Unfortunately such a Buddhist gives Iamb more room to feel superior than a more doctrinal Buddhist would. You’re a good guy. Truly. I hope he treats you well.

You are representing here how a significant subset of Western Buddists think of Buddhism, though most people never really work through their own systems of thought.

:text-goodpost:

First, of course, note how Curly makes this all about me. In yet another general description intellectual contraption. And not about my attempt to engage Buddhists in a discussion that explores my own assumptions regarding the existential relationship between morality/enlightenment/authenticity here and now and immortality/salvation there and then. The arguments I make in my signature threads. How, in regard to a particular context in which value judgments are measured to fit an understanding of “I” from both sides of the grave, are we able to describe in some detail our own individual reaction to the behaviors that unfold.

Instead, it’s back up into the clouds. Another sneering attempt to explain to everyone that he does get iambiguous. And, in getting him, holds him in contempt.

Note to others:

Are you a Buddhist?

If so, note a particular experience that you have had in which you found yourself examining your own understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana. To what extent were you soothed by your beliefs? To what extent did you suffer instead?

Me? Well, I managed to think myself into believing that human interactions are essentially meaningless. That, in the absence of God/religion, all things are permitted. Why? Because all things can be rationalized. Indeed, human history is replete with any number of ghastly human behaviors that already have been. Not to mention what nature itself throws at us.

In turn, I have managed to think myself into believing that any day now, I might tumble over into the abyss and “I” will be obliterated for all time to come.

And the only time that comforts and consoles me is when I imagine a set of circumstances in which my pain and suffering is so great, I will beg to die just to be rid of it. Think Aliens: “Kill me! Kill me!”

How about you?

I forget, which one are you, Larry or Moe? :laughing: