I don't get Buddhism

iambiguous · August 21, 2020, 12:47am

Karpel Tunnel:

iambiguous:

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.

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.

iambiguous · August 22, 2020, 5:41pm

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:

iambiguous · August 22, 2020, 6:07pm

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

gib · August 23, 2020, 6:00am

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?

iambiguous:

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.

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?

iambiguous:

gib:

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.

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.

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?

phyllo · August 23, 2020, 2:58pm

I read it and I responded to it:
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.
phyllo wrote:
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?

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?

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.

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?
phyllo wrote:
You don't believe me or KT?

Would you believe a Buddhist? 
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.

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.

felix_dakat · August 23, 2020, 4:11pm

The answers you seek may not be far from you. Check this out:

Abstract
In this article, I argue that “mindfulness of death” (maraṇasati) can be a tool to induce mortality salience and can have a positive psychological impact. The mindfulness of death is described in detail in the early Buddhist texts Aṅguttara Nikāya and Visuddhimagga. The texts stress that death should be consciously connected with temporality and mindfulness. Here, I look at the mindfulness of death in relation to the mortality salience of terror management theory. “Mortality salience” is a term proposed in terror management theory that means “the state of conscious activation of the thoughts of death”. In addition, after conscious activation of the thought of death, I examine the psychological changes, such as the increase of pro-social attitudes which emphasizes ethics and morality, and the emphasis on the intrinsic value of life due to the operation of a cultural worldview and self-esteem. In this paper, I conclude that mindfulness of death can be an effective tool to induce mortality salience. mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/6/353/htm

Karpel_Tunnel · August 23, 2020, 6:18pm

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.

gib · August 23, 2020, 9:05pm

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.

iambiguous · August 23, 2020, 9:35pm

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…

iambiguous:

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.

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?

gib:

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?

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.

iambiguous · August 23, 2020, 9:57pm

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.

iambiguous · August 24, 2020, 12:59am

phyllo:

I read it and I responded to it:
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.
phyllo wrote:
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?

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?
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.

Note to others:

I have no idea what the hell he is talking about here. Why? Just lucky I guess. On the other hand, perhaps you do. What issues are involved here and why is his rendition of them more applicable than mine? And, if you had to put these issues in a particular context to clarify them, what would that be?

Same here [I think]:

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?
phyllo wrote:
You don't believe me or KT?

Would you believe a Buddhist? 
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.

phyllo:

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?

Seriously, what on earth does this have to do with the points I raised above. The fate of “I” [for Buddhists] given the examples I raised.

And these two points:

Finally…

The standards that any of us provide for describing/assessing/judging enlightenment/morality on this side of the grave, and immortality/salvation on the other side are going to be problematic. If only because the narratives of any and all religious denominations fall into the gap between what they claim to know about all this and all that one would need to know going back to an understanding of existence itself.

Instead, we can only acknowledge what is at stake from both sides of the grave; and then note the evidence that Buddhists and all of the other “spiritual” paths do provide us if we are inclined to take that Kierkegaardian leap to one or another.

iambiguous · August 24, 2020, 1:28am

felix dakat:

Abstract
In this article, I argue that “mindfulness of death” (maraṇasati) can be a tool to induce mortality salience and can have a positive psychological impact. The mindfulness of death is described in detail in the early Buddhist texts Aṅguttara Nikāya and Visuddhimagga. The texts stress that death should be consciously connected with temporality and mindfulness. Here, I look at the mindfulness of death in relation to the mortality salience of terror management theory. “Mortality salience” is a term proposed in terror management theory that means “the state of conscious activation of the thoughts of death”. In addition, after conscious activation of the thought of death, I examine the psychological changes, such as the increase of pro-social attitudes which emphasizes ethics and morality, and the emphasis on the intrinsic value of life due to the operation of a cultural worldview and self-esteem. In this paper, I conclude that mindfulness of death can be an effective tool to induce mortality salience. mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/6/353/htm

Note to others:

See if you can spot a particularly ponderous intellectual contraption take on death here.

After you spot it, imagine that you find out that your own actual existential death is imminent. Would repeating the above over and over and over again comfort and console you?

How about if you believed deeply in a religious faith that promised immortality and the chance to attain and then sustain salvation for all the rest of eternity?

Karpel_Tunnel · August 24, 2020, 3:23am

There is something interesting there, I certainly grant that.

You’re doing a lot of work, so I hope the work itself, rather than his responses are worth it. Since you are doing the work, he will be subtly dismissive, but not rude. In many discussions, most people hope to find a partner who actually reads carefully (with some care) and to respond to what you wrote. I don’t think he is usually intending to be rude, but he manages to not really respond, over and over, because his agenda is so strong. Tangled in his web, yes, and also repeatedly in more subtle and less subtle ways not really listened to and responded to. Basical social mammal failures. Of course it is your responsibility. At the same time he is responsible for treating people poorly. What I have seen is a great deal of work on your part not only answering his questions, but also trying to explain things at a meta-communicative level. What is happening, where you are possibly missing each other. One could sum up the issues I see with Iamb as he wants you to do much more work than him, he is not honest about this, and will undermine that work consciously or unconsciously being an issue that can be black boxed.

Yes, he just wants to frustrate individuals. It is passive aggressive stuff. He’s in pain and he’s mad at anyone who seems not to be in as much. That’s my best guess.

felix_dakat · August 24, 2020, 3:33am

iambiguous:

felix dakat:

Abstract
In this article, I argue that “mindfulness of death” (maraṇasati) can be a tool to induce mortality salience and can have a positive psychological impact. The mindfulness of death is described in detail in the early Buddhist texts Aṅguttara Nikāya and Visuddhimagga. The texts stress that death should be consciously connected with temporality and mindfulness. Here, I look at the mindfulness of death in relation to the mortality salience of terror management theory. “Mortality salience” is a term proposed in terror management theory that means “the state of conscious activation of the thoughts of death”. In addition, after conscious activation of the thought of death, I examine the psychological changes, such as the increase of pro-social attitudes which emphasizes ethics and morality, and the emphasis on the intrinsic value of life due to the operation of a cultural worldview and self-esteem. In this paper, I conclude that mindfulness of death can be an effective tool to induce mortality salience. mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/6/353/htm

Note to others:

See if you can spot a particularly ponderous intellectual contraption take on death here.

After you spot it, imagine that you find out that your own actual existential death is imminent. Would repeating the above over and over and over again comfort and console you?

How about if you believed deeply in a religious faith that promised immortality and the chance to attain and then sustain salvation for all the rest of eternity?

As has been pointed out ad nauseum, you’re the one stuck in intellectual contraptions. You’re gonna give nihilism a bad name.

Samuel Johnson wrote: “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”

In his novel The Idiot, Dostoevsky created a character who is facing death at the scaffold, and ponders what he would do if he was given one more chance to live:
“I would turn every minute into an age, nothing would be wasted, every minute would be accounted for…”

Graham Green achieved a similar effect by playing Russian roulette.

The “self-actualization” guy, Abraham Maslow’s own experience of his last years (what he termed his “post mortem life”) was profoundly affected by a heart attack he had in 1967. His brush with death made him more present-focused and better able to experience fully. It also made the world more glaringly beautiful. As he wrote:

“One very important aspect of the post mortem life is that everything gets doubly precious, gets piercingly important. You get stabbed by things, by flowers and by babies and by beautiful things—just the very act of living, of walking and breathing and eating and having friends and chatting.”

Something Zen about being shocked into preciousness of living in the present moment.

Karpel_Tunnel · August 24, 2020, 9:33am

felix dakat:

Abstract
In this article, I argue that “mindfulness of death” (maraṇasati) can be a tool to induce mortality salience and can have a positive psychological impact. The mindfulness of death is described in detail in the early Buddhist texts Aṅguttara Nikāya and Visuddhimagga. The texts stress that death should be consciously connected with temporality and mindfulness. Here, I look at the mindfulness of death in relation to the mortality salience of terror management theory. “Mortality salience” is a term proposed in terror management theory that means “the state of conscious activation of the thoughts of death”. In addition, after conscious activation of the thought of death, I examine the psychological changes, such as the increase of pro-social attitudes which emphasizes ethics and morality, and the emphasis on the intrinsic value of life due to the operation of a cultural worldview and self-esteem. In this paper, I conclude that mindfulness of death can be an effective tool to induce mortality salience. mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/6/353/htm

That is true, but also he simply does not address what you posted while acting as if he has. Instead of pointing out what is the contraption and then justifying that label, he asks others to find it. Instead of considering what the article actually suggests, he asks people if repeating ‘the above’ would comfort and console one. IOW he misrepresents what the article suggests as a beneficial practice and then does not in any way justify dismissing what the article actually suggests. He presents, as if often the case, an argument of incredulity., iow a fallacy. Something he might make fun of if it was done by some young guy from over at knowthyself, but is perfectly fair game on his part.

So, misrepresentation, a fallacy, and not a single justification of anything he asserts. A teenager wanting to come home after family curfew does much better than this in arguments. They understand that you have to justify your assertions.

felix_dakat · August 24, 2020, 2:11pm

Karpel Tunnel:

felix dakat:

Abstract
In this article, I argue that “mindfulness of death” (maraṇasati) can be a tool to induce mortality salience and can have a positive psychological impact. The mindfulness of death is described in detail in the early Buddhist texts Aṅguttara Nikāya and Visuddhimagga. The texts stress that death should be consciously connected with temporality and mindfulness. Here, I look at the mindfulness of death in relation to the mortality salience of terror management theory. “Mortality salience” is a term proposed in terror management theory that means “the state of conscious activation of the thoughts of death”. In addition, after conscious activation of the thought of death, I examine the psychological changes, such as the increase of pro-social attitudes which emphasizes ethics and morality, and the emphasis on the intrinsic value of life due to the operation of a cultural worldview and self-esteem. In this paper, I conclude that mindfulness of death can be an effective tool to induce mortality salience. mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/6/353/htm

Iamb:
Note to others:

See if you can spot a particularly ponderous intellectual contraption take on death here.

After you spot it, imagine that you find out that your own actual existential death is imminent. Would repeating the above over and over and over again comfort and console you?

How about if you believed deeply in a religious faith that promised immortality and the chance to attain and then sustain salvation for all the rest of eternity?

As has been pointed out ad nauseum, you’re the one stuck in intellectual contraptions. You’re gonna give nihilism a bad name.

That is true, but also he simply does not address what you posted while acting as if he has. Instead of pointing out what is the contraption and then justifying that label, he asks others to find it. Instead of considering what the article actually suggests, he asks people if repeating ‘the above’ would comfort and console one. IOW he misrepresents what the article suggests as a beneficial practice and then does not in any way justify dismissing what the article actually suggests. He presents, as if often the case, an argument of incredulity., iow a fallacy. Something he might make fun of if it was done by some young guy from over at knowthyself, but is perfectly fair game on his part.

So, misrepresentation, a fallacy, and not a single justification of anything he asserts. A teenager wanting to come home after family curfew does much better than this in arguments. They understand that you have to justify your assertions.

Yes. Mindfulness of death doesn’t fit Iam’s model of what a religion is supposed to do. He doesn’t show that he has comprehended the proposition, nor does he refute it. He just dismisses it and clings to his prior conception.

He asks if mindfulness of death would comfort and console a person. On the contrary, the idea of mindfulness of death is intended to move a person to live more fully. In the experiences of the people that I cited, that’s exactly what happened, when they were confronted with the immediate possibility of their own death.

“Being-toward-death” Heidegger called it. Like the religious orientation that he criticizes, Iambiguous’ method appears to be a desperate means of avoiding authentic confrontation with "Being- towards- the-end"which were he to do so might propel him into life more abundantly.

I ask with Heidegger “Can Dasein…understand authentically its ownmost possibility which is non-relational and not to be outstripped which is certain and as such indefinite?”

iambiguous · August 24, 2020, 4:40pm

felix dakat:

Abstract
In this article, I argue that “mindfulness of death” (maraṇasati) can be a tool to induce mortality salience and can have a positive psychological impact. The mindfulness of death is described in detail in the early Buddhist texts Aṅguttara Nikāya and Visuddhimagga. The texts stress that death should be consciously connected with temporality and mindfulness. Here, I look at the mindfulness of death in relation to the mortality salience of terror management theory. “Mortality salience” is a term proposed in terror management theory that means “the state of conscious activation of the thoughts of death”. In addition, after conscious activation of the thought of death, I examine the psychological changes, such as the increase of pro-social attitudes which emphasizes ethics and morality, and the emphasis on the intrinsic value of life due to the operation of a cultural worldview and self-esteem. In this paper, I conclude that mindfulness of death can be an effective tool to induce mortality salience. mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/6/353/htm

Okay, note examples of how I grapple with the intellectual components of my own views here – identity, value judgments, political economy, moral nihilism, oblivion etc. – in the sort of assessments that you provide us with.

Instead, my own approach is to intertwine the personal experiences I have had with the philosophical texts I have encountered over the years: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382

Cite examples from your own posts in which you do the same

Exactly. When a man is uncertain of what encompasses enlightened behavior, he can become a Buddhist. When a woman stares down into the abyss that is nothingness, she can become a Buddhist. And reconfigure it all not only into somethingness, but the somethingness.

In other words, not only does Buddhism concentrate the mind around the optimal “spiritual path”, it can, in providing the path, comfort and console it too.

Dostoevsky. Isn’t he the dude who wrote Notes From Underground?

Oh, and pondering what one might do in facing death, and taking a leap of faith to Buddhism in order to feel comforted and consoled that it doesn’t all end in oblivion…what’s your take on that?

As for this…

felix dakat:

Graham Green achieved a similar effect by playing Russian roulette.

The “self-actualization” guy, Abraham Maslow’s own experience of his last years (what he termed his “post mortem life”) was profoundly affected by a heart attack he had in 1967. His brush with death made him more present-focused and better able to experience fully. It also made the world more glaringly beautiful. As he wrote:

“One very important aspect of the post mortem life is that everything gets doubly precious, gets piercingly important. You get stabbed by things, by flowers and by babies and by beautiful things—just the very act of living, of walking and breathing and eating and having friends and chatting.”

Something Zen about being shocked into preciousness of living in the present moment.

…what exactly does it have to do with examining that which concentrates my mind in regard to religion: connecting the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality there and then.

And look at all of the terrible “conditions” around the globe…from natural disasters and pandemics to mass starvation and wrenching poverty to authoritarian states and theocracies…that greatly limit the capacity of millions and millions and millions of folks in opting for anything much more than surviving from day to day.

Where does the Christian God and the Buddhist No God universe fit into that?

iambiguous · August 24, 2020, 4:53pm

Curly:

That is true, but also he simply does not address what you posted while acting as if he has. Instead of pointing out what is the contraption and then justifying that label, he asks others to find it. Instead of considering what the article actually suggests, he asks people if repeating ‘the above’ would comfort and console one. IOW he misrepresents what the article suggests as a beneficial practice and then does not in any way justify dismissing what the article actually suggests. He presents, as if often the case, an argument of incredulity., iow a fallacy. Something he might make fun of if it was done by some young guy from over at knowthyself, but is perfectly fair game on his part.

So, misrepresentation, a fallacy, and not a single justification of anything he asserts. A teenager wanting to come home after family curfew does much better than this in arguments. They understand that you have to justify your assertions.

Note to others:

How about in regard to all this we let the two Stooges confer and come up with a “set of circumstances” most here will be familiar with. Why? Well, in order to allow them to deconstruct the exchange that follows and note precise instances where, in regard to the accusations above, I am indeed guilty as charged.

Either relating to the parts of Buddhism that “I” don’t get on this thread, or creating a whole new thread and discussing something else. I’ll leave that up to them as well.

iambiguous · August 24, 2020, 5:35pm

On the contrary, I suggest that any particular individual’s “model of what religion is supposed to do” is rooted historically and culturally and experientially in dasein. My own certainly is. Thus, subjectively/subjunctively, I have come to conclude religions function down through the ages seems to revolve around creating a font that enables human behaviors to be judged on this side of the grave, and providing assurance that death is just a door opening up to the path encompassing immortality and salvation on the other side.

Then the stuff Marx focused in on. Religion as a manifestation of political economy.

Oh, and for all the different religious folks here, what “proposition” – as a general description intellectual contraption – is the most rational in regard to “the mindfulness of death”.

Perhaps you can at least pin down how technically serious philosophers are obligated to grasp it.

No, I ask those who subscribe to one or another religious narrative/path/dogma if their own spiritual bent comforts and consoles them. And then I note the manner in which I fit this into what I call the “psychology of objectivism”: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296

In other words, they believe what they do because it does comfort and console them. The belief itself can be practically anything.

As for “living more fully”, how are the choices embedded in this not profoundly rooted in dasein? And what of those behaviors that come into conflict over value judgments rooted objectively in one or another God/No God font? Then the part where all of this is connected to death. Is there an understanding a “mindfulness” here that is to be preferred?

Heidegger! No “general description intellectual contraptions” from him, right?

Next up: “authentic confrontation with ‘Being-towards-the-end’”

Cue the skyhooks: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27 … and_cranes

And, of course, as all know too well, there are both religious and philosophical renditions of those.

MagsJ · August 24, 2020, 6:20pm

iambiguous:

MagsJ:

iambiguous:

Choose a context, a set of behaviors that is important to you. My aim here is to explore Buddhism [as another religious denomination] in terms of how Buddhists understand enlightenment, karma, reincarnation, and Nirvana in a manner such that I might be able to translate that given the manner in which I have come to understand human interactions in the is/ought world given the arguments I make in my signature threads. Morality here and now/immortality there and then. As that pertains “for all practical purposes” to the lives we live from day to day.

Acquiring an omni-state of being through regular practice, helps the Practitioner in achieving an optimal state of Being, and in Becoming so, acquiring an acute state of awareness on a macro level, in their day-to-day actions and interactions.

From my own frame of mind I’m thinking: What does your response here have to do with that which I would like to focus on in discussing Buddhism: connecting the dots between the behaviors a committed Buddhist chooses in a particular context involving conflicting goods as that relates to his or her understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana. Given a context most here are likely to be familiar with.

It’s more about training the mind… as one does the body, and the methods we choose or adopt are applied to our every day actions and interactions. These could present as… thoughtfulness, and so on…

MagsJ:

The onus is on you to choose a particular circumstance that you wish to be explored, in the manner in which a Practitioner would undertake the specific endeavour, of which you wish to understand the ‘how’.

I’m simply asking you to focus in on a context involving conflicting goods that are of particular importance to you. How are the behaviors that you choose related to the manner in which you have come to acquire particular moral and political values, relating to how you connect the behaviors that you do choose to that which you imagine the fate of “I” to be beyond the grave. Then to explore how a Buddhist might react to that. Then to shift the discussion from that which we believe is true to that which anyone of us is able to demonstrate that others should believe in turn. Why? Because what we believe to be true in our head is able to be demonstrated as in fact true for all reasonable men and women.

The lives we have lived form our truths, so our individual truths aren’t necessarily applicable to all, but is rather a case of understanding the Other. One’s truth, can even be Another’s lie.

As for this…

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side
and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

In other words, you exploring your own value judgments as the existential intertwining of personal experiences and philosophy.

MagsJ:

Here’s a short version for now:

[b]0-16 years old: Roman Catholic / Conservative household and upbringing

17-present day: non-practising RC/Spiritual, but still attend RC church for family Sacraments and local Community events / Conservative values, so started supporting the Conservatives, became a part of my Local Association, and standing in Elections since 2010

During my college and uni days, so from age 16-21, I declared myself as Labour, as it stopped those around me from debating politics with me, and I couldn’t think of anything worse than that at that age… my Art-student peers did likewise, for the very same reason, as we were all inward-facing introverted types that weren’t about that debating-life, but we were not Left-leaning in the slightest.[/b]

…I’ll leave it to others to decide for themselves the difference between the long and the short version of “I” as an existential contraption intertwined in philosophy.

My main point being that suppose, for whatever reason as a child, circumstances resulted in your being raised by radical left wing parents who were atheists instead. Your experiences were very different and you found yourself embracing moral and political values quite the opposite of the ones you embody now.

Given this what might philosophers/ethicists be able to tell us about value judgments that attempt to take these diverse existential paths into account in order to derive the most rational set of moral and political values. The optimal intertwining of genes and memes so that in regard to an issue like vaccines, it really would be possible to embody true wisdom in the choices one makes.

This thread merely shifts that discussion to one in which God and religion become an important factor in connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then.

That’s how you imagine it… It seems that we imagine what we think we are imagining, from what we have conjured up in the mind, using the information we have to go on, i.e., my thoughts on vaxxes aren’t based on your meme-crunching machine, above.

Sounds situation dependent…