I don't get Buddhism

Who argued that? not me, the perso quoted
He made up stuff. He added a Santa Claus deity to a system that does not have it. my criticism had bithing to do with his not participating in a religion I don’t participate in and am critical of. I never said anything about him ‘not being persuaded,’ not that you even realize how much you twist things to make yourself comfortable.
And then, how could you possibly have missed that I was not persuaded by Buddhism? I have mentioned this many times in the thread, including recently.

The opening quote there is from my post. Yet, here is more that I never said. I never said you should latch onto a spiritual path. I made suggestions about how to learn about it, if you were interested.

You have made lots of claims about why people attacks you or get irritated.

But the simple truth is, you don’t read well. You are disingenous. You can never admit you are wrong about anything. You accuse people, regularly, of things you do regularly, you hijack threads.

It’s your ugly behavior that leads to many people’s reactions to you. Sure, some people may be devastated by their inability to convince you to do something or believe something. That’s possible. But most people here have pointed out precisely what bothers them and there is a wealth of evidence to back up what they are claiming you do.

Yeah. Over and over you request that the exchanges be conducted only as you direct. There is only your way.

IOW, if someone has another approach, another way of communicating a point … forget that. “We need a context.”

News for you : I’m not the only one who is pissed off by that sort of stuff.

You’re going to deny that you make general statements about objectivists and religious people?

You’re going to deny that you just had a problem with me making general statements about Nazis, etc?

You’re going to deny being hypocritical in this instance?

Starting here:

Weren’t you suggesting that Horgan, while trying Buddhism, failed to be persuaded because he didn’t try hard enough. That’s what I took it to mean.

Horgan’s point seems to focus in on how Santa Claus was invented to keep children nice instead of naughty. In other words, kids believe that an omniscient entity exists able in fact to “know if they are naughty or nice”. Same with God in most Western denominations. He is the “cosmic judge”.

Okay, so what of Buddhism? What in the universe is up there/out there that brings about a particular reincarnation? That can be turned to in order to assess enlightenment and karma given the behaviors that we choose from the cradle to the grave?

Is it merely what Buddhists believe “in their head” or is there a way in which to demonstrate it to others such that only a fool wouldn’t choose Buddhism as the true – the only – path to Nirvana.

Whatever the quote from whatever the source, it’s telling that after someone takes the advice of another to try interacting with a particular religious community, does so and is not persuaded, it then still becomes his fault because he didn’t try hard enough. Meaning the only time someone tries hard enough is when he is at last persuaded. The objectivist mentality.

Indeed, how many times have I heard this myself from religious folks that I interacted it with. I call it the “Mary Lewis Syndrome”. A long and painful story.

Then of course “the harangue”. A blistering rebuke reinforcing all the more why the problem here is me.

Again, as with Phyllo, I ask you to choose a context in which the main components of Buddhism can be explored more substantively, more substantially. Then, as the exchange unfolds, you can point to specific instances of me doing all of these things.

And, as with Phyllo, if you prefer a context involving something other than Buddhism, start a new thread.

Okay, choose a context, engage me in a discussion, and note specifically how this is true.

News for you: no one is required to read anything that I post here.

Then this part. The part regarding how and why, in my view, others – the objectivists in particular – react to me as they do:

Would you want to believe this is a reasonable way to look at the “human condition”?

In other words [yawn] everything but the actual context.

The point is not that Horgan was not persuaded by Buddhism. The point is that if he had researched Buddhist texts, he would find that the Buddha never associated karma with a cosmic judge who dishes out rewards and punishments.

I’m talking about karma. KT is talking about karma.

But it’s not substantive???

You keep asking people to explain Buddhism to you. So when you post a quote about Buddhism and your reaction to it, I point out the errors in the quote. KT points out the errors.

We’re discussing karma in a thread about Buddhism.

Yet you react as if we (KT and I ) are not discussing Buddhism substantively.

We should ignore everything that you post about Buddhism? How are you going to learn anything about it?

Does anyone appreciate that the guy who says he doesn’t “get Buddhism” is mansplaining Buddhism to iambiguous by request? It’s agonizing to read Mr. Biguous continue to recycle the same responses that he has made to me and virtually everyone he has conversed with on the subject.

I think Biggie’s right brain atrophied somewhere along the way, if he ever had one. He preseverates on the same verbal abstractions “over and over” without comprehension of O’s POV.

My involvement with Buddhist meditation is consciously phenomenological. I would think it would dovetail nicely with Iam’s Dasein.
But, ironic to me, it is precisely my existential/phenomenological approach that he rejects because I recognize that I cannot represent Buddhism objectively.

As Kierkegaard said “Subjectivity is Truth.” My experience of Buddhism is no more or less than my experience of Buddhism. A religion that is devoid subjective experience is dead. And every experience of a religion is unique. That’s why Kierkegaard addressed the “single individual”. In spiritual matters it’s the qualia that counts!

Anyway, rock on my brothers!

Okay, given the behaviors that Buddhists choose…behaviors thought to encompass enlightenment, karma, reincarnation, and Nirvana in a no Santa Claus/no God religion…how does the universe function in order to connect the dots between here and now and there and then.

Note to committed Buddhists:

Give it your best shot. If there is no “cosmic judge” when it comes time for you to be reincarnated into a bacteria or a toad or a leopard or the next generation of human being, what does makes it happen?

And if Nirvana is understood as it is examined here – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism – how does the universe function to bring this about?

Other then by way of what Buddha insisted was true based on what he thought up in his head all those years ago. Isn’t Buddhism basically just another faith based religion? Nothing is able to be demonstrated about the fate of “I” after death, but it sure does make one feel good to believe that it’s not the obliteration of “I” for all the rest of eternity.

No. It’s no where near the manner in which I construe a substantive exchange here. Don’t just talk about karma. Note how you factor it into your life over the years when choosing behaviors that you deem to be “the right thing to do”. And then what happens when you bump into others who insist it’s the wrong thing to do. And then those who insist not only that it’s the wrong thing to do but that if you don’t stop doing it their God will punish you.

Why his scripture here instead of Buddha’s? Or why the Buddha’s instead of all the hundreds of others?

And what on earth are you able to demonstrate is in fact true much beyond what you do believe in your head “here and now”?

And that’s before we get to the components of my own moral philosophy. Noting how they are and are not applicable to you.

And here [from my frame of mind] the discussions must unfold relating to a set of circumstances that most here will be familiar with. And even though we may have attempted this before and failed to break through, there’s really no better recourse than to try, try again.

Or, sure, figure it’s hopeless and move on to others instead.

No, I ask Buddhists to explain how the manner in which they construe the meaning of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana is factored into the behaviors they choose over the course of their life “here and now” and how they connect this dot to what they imagine the fate of “I” will be “there and then”.

Given particular experiences in their lives – important experiences – that they feel were especially important in bringing about their thinking. Then I ask them to note to the best of their ability how they might go about demonstrating that what they believe “in their head” about Buddhism [on both sides of the grave] is in fact true. Just as I would of any other religious denomination.

Clearly, what I deem to be of “substance” here is not what you do.

And you make it seem like that which you construe to be errors is all that it takes to make them that.

The third Stooge! He’s back!!

And, of course, following Curly’s lead in making the “problem” here all about me.

By all means, welcome. Long time no cringe for me.

Please get together with Phyllo and decide which one of you is Larry and which one of you is Moe.

Anyway, correct me if I’m wrong, but this is where we last left off on this thread:

Well you’re asking me what Buddhists think. How the fuck would I know? Ask a Buddhist. Or read a fucking book about Buddhism where the author claims to know.

I know what Buddhism is to me. And I can’t be wrong about that.

I don’t claim to know what Buddhism is as a Kantian thing- in- itself which is what you seem to demand. I don’t see anyone here in dialogue with you that is claiming that they know that. That’s what you demand.

The only way I know of to make religion meaningful to you is to enter into it subjectively and thus have a religious experience that convinces you. If you are impervious to prayer or meditation or active imagination (Jung’s method) try Psilocybin or Mescaline or Ayahuasca. You’re just playing word games.

I said the quote was mine. So quoting me adds nothing. You are responding to a post where I said that’s not what I meant.
I said that, and yet here you are asking me. What is wrong with you?

I never used the word persuaded. I have said a number of times in this thread and also in a number of place

TO YOU (if not here elsewhere regarding Buddhism)

that I am not a Buddhist and I am critical of Buddhism.

You made up shit, just like the person you quoted made up shit. And you did it in a context where your conclusion

MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL,

given what I have REPEATEDLY said about my relationship to Buddhism.

Though even without that context, you just made up shit. Which you do with regularity.

And if we look at the quote itself, I mention the problem with him making up a facet of Buddhism - a deity or supernatural being that weighs people’s sins. I do not mention that he should have been persuaded, but say that his quote is odd because he is saying something I have never encounted in Buddhism. What the fuck is wrong with you?

I mean, seriously…you ask me if that is what I meant, when I wrote a post explaining it is not what I meant and that that is obvious. This is one reason people think you are a troll.

I mean, are you that dumb? Did you really find it hard to tell that I was saying that was not what I meant, so you had to ask?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

A rational human being with some integrity would say something like ‘oh, right, you have been critical of Buddhism, what was I thinking’ or ’ yeah, you’re right, you didn’t say anything about persuasion, sorry’.

What do you start off with…?

asking me if persuasion was not what I meant.

Your criterion for Buddhists and other objectivists is that their arguments should be able to convince all rational people.

Are you an example of a rational person?

And do you want to know what’s enticing. This is so obvious, that even after all this time with you never admitting anything, I think, gee this is so obvious he has to admit he did something wrong. But you won’t.

Back on ignore, hopefully curiosity will never draw me back. But your shit appears in the posts of others, and I realize just how idiotically you have written about me or someone else. I suppose like car accidents you will eventually cause nearly everyone to use seat belts and I won’t notice your idiocy.

And yes, as Phyllo points out, I have written a great deal on Buddhism, with substance, even where you just quote the part about you and complain that my post is about you, ignoring the information about Buddhism which you supposedly are interested in, lol.

Here you appear to be asking “why/how does karma work as it does?”. The short answer is we don’t know or that’s the way the universe is structured.

That’s different from the question “how does karma work?”, which Buddhists talk about.

Similar to :

Why/how does gravity work as is does? Same short answer as for karma.

How does gravity work? You get a pull in a particular direction. An object will move in a specific path under the effect of gravity. You describe this with various degrees of success depending on the complexity of the situation.

How is karma different? It’s hard to isolate and measure.

How many times has it already been stated that there is no permanent “I” in Buddhism?

The “I” is obliterated every second.

And the goal is to end rebirth. IOW the goal is to NOT live eternally.

Okay, so let’s make up a substantive exchange:

A woman checks on an elderly neighbor to make sure he is okay. She runs some errands and buys some groceries for him.

You want her to connect the dots as : “I do this because if I don’t, I may be reincarnated as a toad.”
Or “I do this because Buddha said … ‘If we fail to look after others when they need help, who will look after us?’”

Then another neighbor comes along and tells her to stop because the elderly guy is Muslim. “For truly it is written … let the Muslims rot in hell.”

Then she might stop because she is afraid of getting beat up or she is convinced by his argument. Or she might continue and she justifies it with another quote from Buddha or some passage of Buddhist scripture.

Is that it? Is that what you are looking for?

And here you would point out that Buddha and and the other guy’s source just made up that stuff. That there is no way to choose between the two, that is no way to pick the right approach. It hasn’t been demonstrated to be true for all. (Or so it seems to you.)

Am I on the right track here? Have I got the gist of it?

Here’s a question for you guys: isn’t the phenomenological basis for the doctrine of karma the experience that behavior has consequences? And this observation (and who would deny it?) leads to the question: how far do those consequences go? Is there any limit to them?

Okay, let’s forget fucking Buddhism. Besides, it’s just one more fucking religion to me.

Let’s focus instead on how you yourself have come to connect the dots existentially between “morality here and now” and “immortality there and then”. In this regard, refresh my memory, are you a moral objectivist? Do you embody a religious narrative?

Given a particular set of circumstances in which to sustain the exchange.

Let’s bring this down to earth.

Take Kant’s assessment of telling lies. Given that you know what Buddhism is to you, how do you imagine a Buddhist might react to lying?

Note to Buddhists:

What do you make of lying in human interactions? As it is embedded in your understanding of enlightenment and karma on this side of the grave.

Here is one take on it: tricycle.org/trikedaily/buddhist-precept-lying/

Let’s discuss it. In regard to the vast number of contexts in which lying can play a part.

Instead, for Larry or Moe, it’s straight back up into the fucking intellectual contraption clouds

Have you had any actual religious experiences? And, aside from how you experienced them “in your head” how would you go about demonstrating them such that others might find it helpful in choosing to behave morally on this side of the grave so as to attain immortality on the other side of it.

Note to others:

What am I missing here? Given this exchange above…

…was I wrong to assume that Curly was suggesting that Horgan failed to be persuaded regarding Buddhism because he didn’t try hard enough?

Though admittedly, as with Curly, I have to agree that this part of the exchange “MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL”.

And, yeah, okay, I could be the problem here this time. Help us out.

As for “what the fuck is wrong with you” – me – in regard to how the universe or what in the universe is implicated in the part where enlightenment and karma on this side of the grave makes contact with reincarnation and Nirvana on the other side of it, I’m still mystified as to how a Godless religion explains this.

As for this…

…I’ll leave to others to speculate as to what prompts Curly to go off the deep end and engage in frenetic, sputtering personal attacks of this sort.

I’m back on ignore now. And, incredibly enough, he’s not even a fucking objectivist!!!

Though, sure, like he insist of me, he may well be “dumb”.

Here iambiguous reveals that his intent has never been to understand Buddhism. He is here simply as an enemy of religion.

Okay, Larry, see you in the next round.

Stooges!!

Okay, okay:

Sixty-six times have these eyes beheld the changing scenes of Autumn.
I have said enough about moonlight,
Ask me no more.
Only listen to the voice of pines and cedars, when no wind stirs.

Ryo-Nen