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
Just about what someone – meaning me – would expect from a poster hell bent on keeping a discussion of religion as far removed from the lives that we live and the deaths that we will experience as possible.
[-o<
Okay, then I am back to noting that if Buddhists don’t know how enlightenment and karma and reincarnation and Nirvana are intertwined in how the universe works, then why should others become Buddhists? Sure, one can take a “leap of faith” to Buddhism as with the other religious denominations, but then we are back to all of those hundreds and hundreds of additional religious denominations that are basically in the same boat. To the best of my current knowledge, Buddhists demonstrate nothing in the way of connecting the dots between enlightenment and immortality beyond what was believed to be true in the head of the Buddha.
Ah, but what does that matter if in believing it yourself you are comforted and consoled?
I get that part, sure. In fact, I wish that somehow I could make that leap myself.
How gravity works is not often linked to “morality here and now” and “immortality there and then”. Unless Jim pushes John over a cliff and John dies. Then some may wonder if Jim’s behavior was immoral. And gravity having led to John hitting the rocks below, killing him, will John then go on to an existence on the other side.
And how do Buddhists talk about karma…how karma works in regard to the existential trajectory of their own lives and then the part after they are dead and gone.
In fact, that’s that part I keep coming back to over and over again: karma as it is intertwined in the actual experiences that Buddhists have over the years.
Come on, I make a distinction here between [b]I[/b] in the either/or world and “I” in is/ought world. [b]I[/b] in the life that we live on this side of the grave and whatever the fate of “I” on the other side of it.
Sure, biologically, our bodies/brains are never exactly the same from minute to minute, but what does that really mean in regard to the things that happen to us that all rational human beings can agree are happening to us.
And, okay, for those committed Buddhists among us, once mere mortals die is their “I” itself obliterated for all time to come?
After all, that’s what makes so many hundreds of millions of other religious folks choose the God denominations. As Christians, Muslims, Jews etc., “I” as a “soul” does in fact continue on for all of eternity. And that is by far one of the biggest attractions of Western religions.
And what of Nirvana? If no “I” in the manner in which we understand that here and now, what exactly does become in sync with “the ultimate spiritual goal in Buddhism”.
Well that’s not the distinction that Buddhists make.
So they are not led to believe that there is no “obliteration of “I” for all the rest of eternity.”
You’re just projecting your beliefs about religion on to Buddhists.
Here iambiguous reveals that his intent has never been to understand Buddhism. He is here simply as an enemy of religion.
Is iambiguous finally cracking! I knew he would.
Iambiguous is a religion. He hates himself here.
Yup, and his justification is incredulity. That’s what other religions are doing, so it must be the case. ‘Come on’.
It reminds me of the Sufi tale, which is a tradition with some similarities to Buddhism…
and notice how iamb just caanot notice buddhist ideas if a lack of self. even though this is oointed out to him. in posts he quotes from. and complains the posts are about him.
So he quotes the part about him that is a secondary part of a post about Buddhism, that deals precisely with the issue he is incredulous above.
He doesn’t want to participate in the practices AND he can’t even read information about the religion, unless it seems to him to serve his purposes. He is our Nasruddin.
Here is my last post in responding to feix in our exchange here:
And here is his own post in rebuttal:
Enough said?
Yeah that clarifies everything. =D> 
Sure, in a universe where human autonomy does exist, Buddhists are free to make their own distinction here. And if one accepts the assumptions that underlie it, end of story.
Simply scrap the part about demonstrating any of it.
But: with a God/the God, the fate of “I” before and after the grave, is something that anyone can grasp. It’s all encompassed in God’s Will. That may not be demonstrable either but at least its presumed existence ties everything together.
And, yes, if you and others wish to argue that Buddhists just don’t know how the universe “works” in regard to the behaviors we choose here and now and the fate of “I” there and then, so be it.
But if someone were figuring on knowing the right thing to do on this side of the grave and concerned with what becomes of them after they die, which spiritual path would seem more definitive to them?
Note to Buddhists:
Is this the case? Is the “I” that you know and love here and now obliterated for all of eternity when you die? No reunion with loved ones? No explanation from a God/the God as to why life as a mere mortal is what it is? No assurance/explanation from a God/the God regarding Divine Justice? No punishment for the wicked?
No, I’m speculating as a mere mortal who construes “I” here as an existential fabrication rooted in dasein, that religion is the mother of all psychological defense mechanisms. It allows someone, in my view, to ground their own sense of self in an ontological and teleological perspective on existence. It gives them a font from which to derive enlightened and/or moral behaviors on this side of the grave, and it assures them that in whatever manner is professed, existence goes on beyond the grave.
And, thus, in being able to think that human existence is not essentially meaningless and absurd…and that it does not end at death… this comforts and consoles them them in a way that is well beyond my reach.
So I can only conclude that in the end, all the squabbling here aside, the religious folks “win”. Hands down.
Okay, in that case, for the next 24 hours, you are Curly! [-o<
Now you are Curly for 48 hours!! [-o< 
[-o<
[size=50]you’re welcome, KT[/size]
Have you read “The Denial of Death” by Ernest Becker?
Compare that with your:
Since the thread is about Buddhism, Buddhist distinctions are what count.
If the thread was about your ideas on self, then your distinctions would be on topic.
I made a post going into two ways that karma “works”. (The one comparing it to gravity.)
You either ignored what I wrote or you didn’t understand it.
In a nutshell, Buddhists know one way that karma works … action leading to result. As for the internal universal mechanism which makes it happen … is anyone pretending to understand that part?
You don’t believe me or KT?
Would you believe a Buddhist?
Buddhism has some unique features which don’t fit into your ideas about religions.
But you just seem to ignore those and continue talk about it as if it’s your stereotypical religion.
No. But let’s assume that you have.
Given my own interest in Buddhism and in religion in general…the existential relationship between the behaviors we choose here and now and how that is tied into the fate of “I” there and then…how might someone who has read the book react to the arguments that I make on this and other threads?
Out in a particular context where the main components of Buddhism [or any other denomination] are explored in some detail.
Now, if that is not what you want the focus to be, then we are not interested in religion for the same reasons. Take your reasons to other posters here. Then perhaps they might be inclined to bring them over to this thread and I can have the discussion that I prefer with them.
Look, I’m not arguing that you or others ought to discuss and debate religion based solely on my own predilections here. I’m just noting that from my point of view the fundamental function of religion around the globe revolves connecting the dots that are of interest to me.
This and the stuff Marx focused in on: religion as the opiate of the masses. And how one or another ruling class takes advantage of that for political and economic gain.
Compare that with your:
It seems you’re very close to Becker in terms of religion being fundamentally a defense mechanism against mortal terror.
And note how here he is writing in general about religions, hence Buddhism, so he shifts the topic from Buddhism, to religions in general. Also note the strange convoluted way of talking. He notes his point of view.
which is like saying
I notice my opinions.
(one irony is that this is actually a rather Buddhist phrasing. He notices is opinions. They happen, and he notices them.)
But since he is not a Buddhist and can’t notice similarities to Buddhism, this needs to be taken not as Buddhism, but simply evasive language.
He is not asserting his opinion. He is noticing it. Anything to avoid any burden of proof. For example a burden in relation to sentences like
‘Buddhism is just another fucking religion.’
He never has to demonstrate his statements (let alone for all rational people) but other people should.
Others need to demonstrate their actions and positions. He does not. He can assert shit or notice his assertions and has no need to justify his assertions.
But let’s pretend Iamb is a Buddhist for a moment, because he does share some qualities with them. He has noticed that his opinions can shift over time, or we could say that they are contingent. This relates to Annica or impermanence. All things are changing, including ‘selves’. Life is painful, he is suffering: this relates to Dukkha.
He notices his opinions and thoughts. He doesn’t identify with them. Apart from this being a core practice in Vipassana meditation, for exmaple, it is also a disdentification.
Who is it that notices his thoughts? I notice my point of view. So the point of view is not held by the noticer. It is just another thing in the awareness of some consciousness. What is the self if it is not the thoughts and opinions (nor the passing feelings).
But this has all been said before. He is actually neoBuddhist. Or the slimy way he tries to avoid responsibility for any burden of demonstration himself mimics someone with neo-Buddhist beliefs.
He’s a lovely case example for a discussion of Buddhism.
And this after I made felix the new Curly for 48 hours!
I knew that I would regret it…
Oh, yeah, almost forgot: we’ll need a context.
No, this thread is about “getting” Buddhism. Gib doesn’t get it for his reasons and I don’t get it for my reasons.
And my reasons revolve around the extent to which Buddhists propound enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana given the existential relationship between choosing right and wrong behaviors here and now and the fate of “I” there and then.
I read it and I responded to it:
Like one must be a Buddhist to recognize that action leads to result. But what actions over the course of whose lifetime leading to what results such that the universe plays a role in determining the fate of “I” on the other side of the grave.
And if no Buddhists are able to explain this, to demonstrate it, who comes closest? The Buddha himself…what did he have to say?
Again, and again and again:
1] why believe the existential relationship between enlightened behavior and immortality is more reasonably derived from the perspective of Buddhism rather than from my own? Let’s note a context and examine them side by side
2] in regard to this existential relationship, it’s not what someone believes “in their head” that interest me as much as what they are able to demonstrate that I and all other rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn
Now, I am not myself able to demonstrate that human interactions in regard to value judgments are best understood from my point of view. I can only note examples relating to moral and political conflagrations which seem to support my own subjective contention that dasein, conflicting goods and political economy are crucial components in allowing us to better understand them. Given in turn my conjecture that we live in an essentially meaningless No God world that ends for each of us one by one in oblivion.
Okay, let’s agree on a particular set of circumstances and, in regard to the main components of Buddhism, examine these unique features. Then I will note the manner in which I react to this set of circumstances given the main components of my own point of view.
Thus you being able to note more specifically what you mean regarding this accusation: