I don't get Buddhism

Buddhism/Conduct… thought over fought, so when man stopped being beast.

Politics… fought over thought, when a disagreement turns into tribal warfare, and becomes an Us v Them situation… as seen throughout history.

This from the guy who, over and over and over again, attempts to hijack the thread and reconfigure it from what we don’t get about Buddhism into what he does get about iambiguous. And, therefore, perforce, what all rational men and women are obligated to get too.

You know, in my own personal opinion.

Besides, my post above makes a number of references to spiritual paths and religion, of which Buddhism is certainly one of them.

Unless, of course, his post is just tongue in cheek. :wink:

First, of course, my interest in religion focuses in part on how those who practice one or another denomination almost always include a moral narrative said to be linked to immortality and salvation. And that moral narrative can then come into conflict with the moral narratives of other religious denominations. As well as any number of secular No God ideologies. And what does that precipitate in a particular human community but politics. Embodied in, among others things, the law.

With Buddhism however it gets trickier [for me] because there is no God and thus no Judgment Day as most Western denominations adhere to.

To separate a discussion of religion from a discussion of morality from a discussion of politics is utterly alien to me. Why? Because my understanding of human identity itself here necessarily intertwines all three in dasein.

As for a discussion of MagsJ’s politics, I would very much like to commence a new thread with her. She can focus in on her own political values, and I can focus in on mine. And then in regard to one or another pressing political issue that has been in the news of late, we can compare and contrast our own political philosophies. Just say the word and I will start it. An entirely civil exchange in which we explore the components of our own thinking here.

…only as long as you don’t use the phrase “…interactions that revolve around conflicting goods in which we connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then”, or any variation or derivative there-of… otherwise, sure. ; )

Sound familiar? :laughing-rolling:

Oh, yeah. From the Feckin Bots thread:

So, this should sound familiar to you.

Just say the word and we can get this thing going.

On the other hand, back at the bots thread:

Haha! …but analysing people (in a healthy/inquisitive way) can be fun, is probably why :smiley: in a rude, brash, and unhealthy hostile way… not so much. :stuck_out_tongue: coz it ain’t an inquisition, nor a competition, or an interrogation.

Postby MagsJ » Wed 23 Sep, 2020 13:03

Conduct… thought over fought, so when man stopped being beast.

Politics… fought over thought, when a disagreement turns into tribal warfare, and becomes an Us v Them situation… as seen throughout history.

Yes… but Buddhism stems from the pre-religious, pre-political world, of the beginnings of humanity, until a disagreement turned into tribal warfare and became an Us v Them situation, ergo… politics, founded on disagreement.

:laughing:

Iam said: “As for a discussion of MagsJ’s politics, I would very much like to commence a new thread with her. She can focus in on her own political values, and I can focus in on mine. And then in regard to one or another pressing political issue that has been in the news of late, we can compare and contrast our own political philosophies. Just say the word and I will start it. An entirely civil exchange in which we explore the components of our own thinking here.“

I say: Ok.

What did you mean here? Buddhism stems from the pre-religious? Is this different from other religsions?

Reincarnation: What do modern research and traditional Buddhist teachings say?
BY SAM LITTLEFAIR
MAY 11, 2018
at Lion’s Roar website
Lion’s Roar describes itself as “BUDDHIST WISDOM for OUR TIME”

Sure, but in the spirit of “good fun”, the sky becomes the limit. Anything you can “think up” that makes sense to you need be as far as it goes. Bottom line: you believe it just enough that the belief in and of itself comforts and consoles you. And there are hundreds of “spiritual” paths to choose from here. As long as the bottom line remains not what you can demonstrate to be true but what, in believing it is true, anchors and reassures you psychologically, there will never be a shortage of alternatives.

Which prompts me to once again note that if any of this is encompassed in a particular internet link which provides us with an accumulation of evidence that skeptics would find very, very difficult to refute, it would be circling the globe. What could possibly be more astonishing to the human species than substantive and substantial evidence that past lives and/or future lives are in fact not only possible but clearly demonstrable?

So, for those here inclined to believe it, take us to the link that you are convinced best confirms it.

Next up: Christians examine the story of Jesus.

What does it matter what Buddha claimed to remember when it is by far more important to note what he was actually able to account for in regard to past lives as in fact true?

I don’t have a million dollars to give to someone able to convince me that he did do this, but I am more than willing to grovel here by way of begging the forgiveness of all Buddhists for ever doubting them.

lionsroar.com/do-you-only-live-once/

Okay, but then this part:

Whether the source be science or religion, it seems that any efforts here able to produce truly substantive and substantial evidence for past lives or future lives would be really, really, [b]really[/b] big news.

This is some version of the ad populum fallacy … “If this was true then it would be a popular topic of discussion and news reports. It’s not, therefore it must be false.”

No discussion of the contents of the link. :confusion-shrug:

It’s third on my list from Lion’s Roar. The reincarnation thread above is first, then “the case against ‘Buddhism’” by RANDY ROSENTHAL and then that one.

And, yes, it is certainly true that an “appeal to the people” is not the most propitious approach to such questions. But, come on, isn’t it also true that if anyone was able to accumulate “substantive and substantial” evidence of past and future lives it would the number one topic of discussion around the globe?

How about this: You note for us the most convincing evidence in that piece above. What demonstrated to you that past lives are a very real thing and not just something that most of us would want to believe psychologically because it seems to suggest that death is not the end of “I” for all of eternity.

Although with Buddhism I’m still rather fuzzy regarding the extent to which it is “I” that will be reincarnated…or have a chance to reach Nirvana.

Let alone how this all unfolds in a No God religion.

The people who are reporting these reincarnations are not trying to promote their beliefs and they are not getting rich or famous by doing it. Therefore, they have little motivation to lie or fake it.

The researchers have a reasonable methodology and they appear to be conscientious in investigating the reports. Of course, they could be fabricating the data.

Still, these sorts of events are reported by various people all over the world. So it’s likely that something really is being observed.

As for why it’s not making headlines, there are lots of fairly obvious reasons …

It goes directly against the beliefs of Christians, Muslims, Jews and atheists.

It’s downright creepy that your child’s body is “possessed” by another “person”. What parent wants that??

It’s not the kind of immortality that most people imagine or would like to have.

Reincarnation huh?

You all have all the memories of existence. You’ve lived every possible life. Buddhism is a soul ideology. Christianity is a soul ideology. You are so much greater than that. We’re all different. Drops of water in the eternal ocean… we come from it and go back to it, and every drop is different. When it comes back to the ocean, it slowly expands back to everything. And then molecules of your drop are part of new droplets.

That is how life works. The question you should be asking is:

“Who is the ocean?”

The answer: everyone.

I guess making decisions is easier for some than it is for others… some decisions taking longer to arrive at than others, dictating how a person would go about making them all. We can break our decisions-to-make down and then compartmentalise them, in order to enable us to prioritise them. The mind as a filing cabinet and To Do list… just like many here like to label, some prefer to compartmentalise.

Is there always a context (which you seem to think needs to exist) before we ‘do’ anything… so a reactive, rather than active, process. I’m sure we do both…

Not every decision we make has to be a moral dilemma… I guess you could say that religion does indeed guide some’s life and every day decisions, like what we eat and drink etc., but then that becomes known as a trusted way of life. I, for instance, cannot eat fermented foods… even though they’re all the rage at the moment, so that would dictate where and what I eat, and so somewhat alienating me from those that can, in a short and then over a longer-term period of time… leading to the diversification and divergence of those different types, who can and cannot eat fermented foods.

I said: “I, for instance, cannot eat fermented foods… even though they’re all the rage at the moment, so that would dictate where and what I eat, and so somewhat alienating me from those that can, in a short and then over a longer-term period of time… leading to the diversification and divergence of those different types, who can and cannot eat fermented foods.”

That’s my long-term existential-crisis… having had to change my eating habits and social behaviour, in order to accommodate a dilemma I had become faced with over the years. Now that my ‘alien’ need has started to become more commonplace, the ‘need‘ is now one of humour than contention… towards my kind. Food… being just one of many defining factors, that forms our current Self.

This, I will reply to separately.

Nope… religions were/are formed from local requirements of that People, but have now been formed from off-shoots of older religions, and even off-shoots of off-shoots of older religions, so making them far-removed from what they used to be and were meant to do.

With an ever-changing level of consciousness, so too must societal-tools… it seems.

When we’re bored, we find something to occupy our time with, so we grow things… manufacture things… invent things… create things, to help accommodate our boredom… caused by time, in having too much of it on our hands. And the rest is (current) history.

I meditated first, then read-up on Buddhism decades later, only to confirm that the different paths led to the same destination, but that Zazen offered a far quicker and more reliable path… in my adult years, but all modern roads lead to mindfulness… in the end.

Well, the decisions that concern me in regard to God and religion are the ones that revolve around the behaviors that the religious choose on this side of the grave insofar as that sustains their thinking about the fate of “I” other side of the grave.

I suggest that this is embedded and embodied in a particular self out in a particular world historically, culturally and circumstantially. And that it is considerably easier to choose “the right thing to do” if you are convinced that it must be in accord with “God’s will”. Or with respect to Buddhism whatever might be the equivalent of that re the “universe”.

But again: what particular decision in what particular context? Why are some choices easier than others?

To what extent are we able to demonstrate that the choice that we make reflects the choice that all reasonable and virtuous people are in fact obligated to make themselves?

For example, you may decide that you want to be rich. And there are clearly choices that you can make such that you either become rich or you don’t. But what if others insist that in becoming rich you chose behaviors that resulted in the exploitation or the impoverishment of others. That your behavior was immoral based on their own assessment of social and economic justice.

The part I root in dasein. The part others root in political philosophies that champion either capitalism or socialism. The part that still others root in one or another religious dogma.

Let’s focus then on another context relating to the manner in which we connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then. Explore it. After all, what else is there in a philosophy venue? There’s what we think and what we do. Then the consequences of that for others. And, finally, our reactions to them. The parts I root in the manner in which we come to acquire a particular identity, out in a world of conflicting value judgments where, politically, rules of behavior are established and enforced. I’m interested in the components of your own thinking and doing here.

Okay, but what does does this really have to do with the point that I am making? And, in fact, on a thread devoted to understanding a particulat religious denomination, it is precisely the way in which morality can pose dilemmas for both believers and nonbelievers that most interest me. What happens when, say, a woman with an unwanted pregnancy is torn between reasons to abort the unborn baby and reasons not to. How do her religious values factor into her decision?

That is the component of religion that I am drawn to to. Why? Because her answer may or may not allow for me to question my own truly grim assessment. What does morality here and now and immortality there and then mean to someone like me? Someone convinced that human existence is essentially meaningless and that, one by one, we all tumble over into the abyss that is nothingness.

Well, what if that’s not true? All I can do is to explore this with others who are in fact convinced that it isn’t. What’s their story? Given the lives that they actually live from day to day.

As for you not being able to eat fermented foods, I’m not at all clear as to what you are saying here. You can’t eat it because it is prohibited by your religion? It is deemed immoral to eat it? If, in eating it, you’ll risk the fate that you want for yourself on the other side of the grave?

Fermented foods are acidic by nature and hyper acidity can cause severe bloating, horrible runs, frequent vomiting, and because it’s basically broken down sugar, stuff like diabetes as well.
Is it immoral for MagsJ to not want these things?

Sometimes iambiguous, your morality shtick just comes across as you being a real ass.

A guess, and it could easily be wrong… MagsJ drinks (fermented as well) and is making a choice which acidity she wants (a choice). Is she immoral to drink if that’s the case? Not if it improves her mental health and quality of life.

Reincarnation: What do modern research and traditional Buddhist teachings say?
BY SAM LITTLEFAIR
MAY 11, 2018
at Lion’s Roar website
Lion’s Roar describes itself as “BUDDHIST WISDOM for OUR TIME”

Okay, admittedly, I have never had a dream myself that led me to speculate that perhaps reincarnation is real. But for those who have, again, connect the dots between the dream and actual demonstrable evidence that it does in fact exist. Buddha’s mother having a dream “in which an elephant came to her and entered her womb”? How does that factor into “supernatural predictions or dreams that correspond to seeming cases of reincarnation.”

Explain “seeming” in more detail.

And supernatural in what sense? After all, once the “supernatural” is brought into the assessment anything goes, right?

All I want to know is simple enough:

Given the lives that Buddhists choose to live when confronted with contexts in which others challenge the behaviors they choose on moral grounds, how is their understanding of enlightenment and karma reconfigured in to the behaviors they choose as this impacts that which they believe their fate to be in regard to reincarnation and Nirvana.

What experiences or dreams or predictions or evidence have they accumulated that would allow them to make an argument in a philosophy forum such that other reasonable men and women would in turn “see the light”. Their own and not all of the others.

Yes, but in regard to the components of my own philosophy – dasein, conflicting goods, political economy – that is no less true. Our actions are rooted in “I” as an existential construction, deconstruction, reconstruction from the cradle to the grave. “I” comes to acquire a set of values that can and often do come into conflict with the values of others. And, out in any particular human community, there will be laws that reward or punish particular behaviors based on who has the political power to enact and to enforce them.

How is this not also true for Buddhists?

:laughing: Dickhead!

:music-tool: