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:
Okay, let’s bring this down to earth.
-
Dealing with a set of circumstances that would no doubt engender mortal terror in many of us
-
Then imagining reactions to that from the perspective of those committed to one or another God/No God religion. And then those [like me] who are convinced that even the terror itself is just another manifestation of an essentially meaningless existence such that if the terror reconfigures into death itself, it results in the obliteration of “I” for all time to come
-
Assuming some measure of free will and factoring it all into an understanding of existence itself
I’m talking to you.
If you have to ask these questions, it means you don’t even know what your response to me meant. ← That’s what I’m asking after all. I asked: Are you saying the life I’ve lived is not the norm for most people you engage with here? And you’re telling me it depends on a context I haven’t given. In other words, you haven’t said anything (yet). Why is this not a surprise?
So what’s your point here? That you get lost without a context? Or that you take it as pointless to have a discussion about a world of pure words? I hope it’s he latter 'cause that makes more sense. You’re two points about following along in such discussions:
⦁ 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
…seem to be things that (I would think) you are quite capable of.
Then you need to give me a context. What kind of response would have something to do with the manner in which you construe “I” here? Just an example. Off the top of your head.
You do realize that my response still has some relevance to what lies on the other side of the grave, right? I’m talking about what is most likely to secure good karma for me on the other side of the grave. My response to your latest question is simply that I can’t guarantee, in this particular case, that my attempt to alleviate suffering won’t backfire and cause more suffering, so it’s a gamble. But it’s one I feel confident in taking. ← Is it the gamble that makes my response seem less important? Are you saying the stakes are so high, nothing but an absolute guarantee would suffice?
In any case, I’d still like to know what this point in the discussion means to you. You say that my point seems less important than yours. Did I not connect the dots to your satisfaction? Did I fail to demonstrate my point sufficiently so that all rational men and women would be obligated to agree? Was the context not specific enough? How do you measure the “importance” of a point? And would you say you got what you wanted out of this discussion? As if to say: I accept that this is gib’s answer to my questions, though it doesn’t meet the requirements that I ultimately need. Or was it more like: gib just doesn’t understand my question, the point I’m really getting at, and he’s not conforming to my expectations of how one ought to respond to my questions?
No disagreement here. But you do see how this answers your question, right? At least with respect to the clarity you asked for on how the scenario under consideration (a murderer on death row) relates to the concepts of Enlightenment, Karma, Reincarnation, and Nirvana. ← That’s merely a question on the meaning of words, and how that plays out in the practical context we chose to explore. The requirement for demonstrable proof comes next, and not only do I freely admit I have none, but I can’t even be bothered to try.
^ What is your response to that? Do we simply agree to disagree? And is disagreement for you belief against my position (as in: there is no such thing as Enlightenment, Karma, etc.) or simply agnosticism (as in: I don’t know whether gib is right or not).
Well, that’s where we went astray. Looks like the response you were looking for from the Buddhist I’m pretending to be is a reaction to the moral depravity of the murderer’s actions, something the Buddhist can argue with the murderer over. ← In that case, the problem would seem to be how you phrase your questions. The way you phrase your questions leaves open the possibility of what a person would do, given their beliefs and values, in the hypothetical scenarios you ask for. It lead to me explaining, first, what my Buddhist convictions would prescribe I do in this scenario (alleviate suffering) and, second, how the rest of my Buddhist ideology ties into that (Enlightenment, Karma, Reincarnation, Nirvana). And really, you should expect this. If you’re trying to connect the dots between one’s convictions and how that plays out here and now (with concrete scenarios) and what it means for the fate of the ‘I’ there and then, you’re gonna get actions, moral actions, not moral proselytizing, not dictating the actions of others.
Of course, that’s precisely what some might do–those who are more concerned with preaching morality than practicing it–and maybe those are who you’re attempting to target–but if so, I would suggest rethinking how you phrase your questions so that you get the kinds of responses you want. You seem to want, not so much a demonstration of the validity of my Buddhist convictions that would convince you, but a demonstration that would convince the murderer, something I as the Buddhist could say to the murderer that would turn him around, and you’re trying to build an imaginary scenario in which that is exactly what ends up happening. So you somehow need to steer the discussion away from what the person would do in the scenario and towards what they would say.
So can this be abstracted into a general formula that characterizes your interests in any thread? You seem to be saying you’re ok with talking about any controversial issue so long as it is tied into the subject of the thread?
The only thing I’ve gathered is that either 1) you get lost unless there is a concrete context or 2) you think it’s pointless unless there is a concrete context.
With 1), what you say makes sense. With 2), I think ‘need’ is strong word–try ‘prefer’.
Well, I’ll definitely try to respond as though I were a Buddhist since you seem intent on tying any issue with the subject matter of this thread.
In this case, the context you brought up (deathpenalty.procon.org/) is not so much a hypothetical scenario but just a specific moral controversy (maybe this is where we’re misunderstanding each other). As a Buddhist, I’d probably say, death is inconsequential. We have all been dying and being reborn over and over and over again for countless eons–death is inevitable, and not only does it make little difference to the grand wheel of life, but is a natural part of it–therefore, the death penalty is of no great moral import. But then again, it does bring suffering to the perpetrator’s family and loved ones, and maybe on those grounds it ought not be practice. But on the other hand, it probably brings satisfaction to the victim’s family and loved ones equal to the sorrow of the perpetrator’s family and loved ones. It could also be argued that by ending the perpetrator’s life, you lock in place bad karma–no chance to correct his wrongs and reverse the karma–although to let him live, he might just commit more crimes and hurt more people, thereby augmenting his already negative karma.
^ Lot’s to consider there.
What would your response be if I just left it like that?
What if I settled on a position–say agreeing with the death penalty on the grounds that death is natural and inevitable anyway–but regarded it as just an opinion (albeit still based on my Buddhist convictions) for which there will always be some measure of uncertainty?
What if I allowed myself to be persuaded to change my mind in react to your response?
You changed the subject again. Originally you couldn’t figure out how karma could work without a “cosmic judge”.
I responded to that explicitly.
Now you act as if that was never the issue.
You asked 5 questions. KT answered the ones about God a few posts ago. There is no God in Buddhism.
So why do you ask when you already have the answer? You don’t believe that KT understands Buddhism?
Do you think that a “real” Buddhist would say that there is a God in Buddhism??
And why would you believe that guy and not KT?
PS. Nobody is going to demonstrate fuck all to you, because you don’t have any standards for what constitutes a satisfactory demonstration.
The answers you seek may not be far from you. Check this out:
One of the problems here is the idea that there is a single Buddhist morality. I think there are core beliefs and I think we can support rather well the positions presented in core Buddhist texts. But we are dealing with a belief system using in all sorts of ways by millions people in all sorts of cultures. We cannot make a simple, this is what a Buddhist would say about murder or abortion, for example. In part this is the diversity of followers, in part because Buddhism is not some simple parallel to Judao-Christianity. The latter makes morality central and as morality. Morality as an end. Morality as an absolute set rules. Buddhism suggests that compassion is a practical attitude which helps reduce suffering. Not the suffering of others, per se. ‘Your’ own suffering. The suffering that is felt here and now. It’s more like an attitude an actor might use to remain loose on stage, rather than how to be a good person on stage. People, Iamb in particular, make a category error when they treat Buddhism as an alternative to Christianity with the same idea of what rules are for or even that they are rules. That can work with Islam which was heavily influenced by Judaism and C, but it gets into serious problems when projected onto religions that arose in cultures much further removed: shamanistic systems, much of Hinduism, Buddhism…
And since no one here is identifying as a Buddhist - except for Gibs very generous role playing - Iamb needs to go elsewhere to talk to a person who identifies as a Buddhist. Then he can find out if that person is anti-abortion say. Then he can demand proof. Then he can get off on the frustration, should it occur, when the Buddhist fails to convince all rational people his morals are correct. Of course some Buddhists will ignore this since such a discussion would be considered confused, right from the get go.
But here we have someone not interested in what he says he is interested in, asking for specific Buddhist moral positions on specific moral issues like abortion from non- Buddhists. So, we have disingenuousness asking answers from people who can at best role play. And oddly in a world where it is
HYSTERICALLY
easy to come in contact with Buddhists. Or members of any other group.
Naturally, but don’t think that I’m merely humoring Biggy. I’m studying his responses. I’m trying to play his game in order to illicit the usual responses he delivers in the hopes of getting a little deeper into his mind and understand his thought process.
So far, I don’t feel I’ve ever been severely mistreated by Biggy (if anything, I think I’ve been somewhat more disrespectful towards him than he has towards me). The danger I worry more about is getting too tangled in his web in order to escape easily (which would be no one’s fault but my own).
Right, which is why I appreciate your clarifications for my better understanding. It helps. But with respect to Biggy, I don’t think that matters much. I don’t think he’s checking to see if my understanding of Buddhism matches the orthodox tradition but just what I, as an individual, believe.
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.
No, I have to ask those questions because when someone asks me if the life they are living is not the norm, I need explore in more detail – given a particular context – what it might mean to live one’s life “normally”. What’s a “normal” life for those born in entirely different historical and cultural and experiential contexts? What’s a “normal” life in regard to “getting” Buddhism? How does one “normally” go about getting it?
Thus in regard to the point you raise above…
Once again, from my frame of mind [and that’s all it is], you are ever and always intent on keeping this discussion up in the clouds…up on the skyhooks pertaining to what I construe to be “general description intellectual contraptions”.
I ask of others:
Are you a Buddhist? Okay, you are. How then do you connect the dots between what you believe the meaning of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation, and Nirvana are in your head, and the behaviors you choose over the course of living your life in a world awash in contingency, chance and change…as that relates to what you imagine the fate of “I” to be when you die.
In the manner in which I do the same in regard to what I have come to understand regarding the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy given my own assessment of human interactions.
That discussion doesn’t interest you? Okay, fine, then move on to others. Though your priorities here are no less important to you than mine are to me.
Okay, the first thing that always comes into my head here is abortion. For all the reasons I have noted before.
Are there or are there not conflicted moral/spiritual/religious narratives here derived from political prejudices derived from the vast and varied lives that individuals live? Are there or are there not conflicting goods embedded deep down in this conflagration historically, culturally, circumstantially? Is there or is there not suffering endured from those on both sides of the moral and political spectrum?
Okay, what I then do is to subsume my own political prejudices in the points that I raise on this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382
But that thread focuses more on the intertwining of lived experiences and philosophical sources. This thread is more in the way of intertwining “I” as dasein and “I” insofar as Buddhism becomes an important part of someone’s life. How do Buddhists intertwine the components of their own beliefs in confronting the behaviors they choose in regard to abortion?
Here [given my own particular set of circumstances] all I can do is Google it and note assessments such as this: bbc.co.uk/religion/religion … conception.
[b]'Buddhists believe that life should not be destroyed, but they regard causing death as morally wrong only if the death is caused deliberately or by negligence.
Traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a life.
Buddhists regard life as starting at conception.'[/b]
Okay, given this, how would committed Buddhists choose behaviors in regard to a particular abortion involving them, and what might be the consequences of these choices given their fate on the other side of the grave. And how does the “universe” become intertwined in bringing all of this about?
Again, back to abortion. My point is that moral and political and spiritual and religious narratives here are rooted in dasein historically and culturally…in daseins confronting hundreds and hundreds of sacred and secular “paths” which focus in on the “right thing to do” here and now. And in doing or not doing the right things, the fate of “I” hangs in the balance on the other side. Out in particular worlds in which actual political power decides which behaviors are rewarded and which punished,.
So, given your own views on abortion, how would you go about demonstrating that your own assessment reflects the most rational point of view? And how would you go about demonstrating it? And, if confronted with political power bent on punishing you for your beliefs, what would you be willing to do to fight back?
I merely address the same thing to Buddhists among us.
No, the response I am looking for in what “I” construe to be a No Religion world is how those who embody the Buddhist Religion react to a particular murderer in a particular context such that it can be established that a moral depravity has in fact occurred. How can they understand the situation from the murderer’s point of view? How do they explain the manner in which, in conjunction with the universe, one can grasp the dots being connected here between enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana?
And, from my frame of mind, making a distinction between preaching and practicing is moot if, either through religion or science or philosophy or assessments of nature, it cannot be definitively established what either is or is not the right thing to do…and from the perspective of someone able to demonstrate that he or she is in fact in sync with their “real me”.
Yeah, it can be “abstracted into a general formula”, but that’s not my aim. My aim is to explore the main components of Buddhism given a particular context instead.
Thus:
My point is that in regard to an actual context – like this one: youtu.be/pg-GMqPHIPQ – both sides are able to make convincing arguments about suffering. My point further is that any particular individual’s reaction to the death penalty is likely to be rooted more in political prejudices rooted in dasein than in any philosophical or religious argument that “settles” it once and for all.
So, okay, someone is a Buddhist. How then do they intertwine the components of their religious faith/belief in regard to an issue like this?
Really? Try to even imagine the reaction of the folks in the film above to an argument like this? It turns the very real anguish they feel about losing someone from both sides into…that?!
Or, instead, into my own nihilistic assumptions about an essentially meaningless world where any death is just a part of the brute facticity built into nature itself. Even assuming that human beings are in possession of autonomy here.
Instead…
Exactly. Lots and lots and lots of different things can be argued from lots and lots and lots of different perspectives derived from lots and lots and lots of different lives. I merely root them in dasein more so than in any particular religious denomination.
And from which I topple over into my own “fractured and fragmented” self.
Yo, Curly!
Perhaps Gib is a troll too. You might want to consider deconstructing his own motivations and intentions as well.
Note to Gib:
This is all just an inside joke between Curly and I. We’ve been kidding each other like this going all the way back to the days of Moreno.