I don't get Buddhism

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:

No, seriously. If eating fermented foods was was against someone’s religious values in much the same way foods and drinks are in other denominations – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_ … ohibitions – that’s quite different from not eating or drinking something that is in fact harmful or dangerous to their health.

Where the part about morality enters into it is when, say, someone deliberately introduces fermented foods or drink into the diet of someone allergic to them. Why? Because they loathe this person and from their own frame of mind it is justified.

Think about it like this. Suppose someone who loathes Trump figured out a way to infect him with the coronavirus. He rationalized it such that he viewed it as an act of morality. How? By convincing himself that this man’s reckless policies have in fact caused the deaths of thousands upon thousands of others throughout the still unfolding covid-19 pandemic. He might even see it as karma. Trump infected with the very disease that he allowed to spread like wildfire from coast to coast.

Then, with most religions, the part where violating dietary taboos is judged by God. Or, with Buddhism, the equivalent of that re “the universe”.

Iambiguous,

That’s the thing with religion… it’s ignorant.

Plants are sentient and suffer, especially when picked and/or eaten. Vegans are insensitive bastards propping themselves as holier than thou.

I fucking hate taking antibiotics or a sip of coffee because they kill bacteria. I’m (all of us) are murderers, whether we like it or not!

Life is about listening to your biochemistry.

I’ve met many vegans who only do it because other foods don’t feel right to them. Those are natural vegans. And I’ve also met tons of vegans who do it for moral reasons and they look like pale ghosts with dark circles under their eyes with psychosis and magical thinking. The latter are the religious vegans, not the natural vegans. Everyone’s biochemistry is different, and I hate people who fuck up themselves and everyone around them because they are religious about food.

I am not contesting his argument here, but his interaction… I do not, with he…

The reason for abstinence of certain foods, could have stemmed from an intolerance or from a simple distaste for it, and then become embedded in the religion… over time.

I found this: “Lay Buddhists do eat onions and garlic, but anything from the Allium family (onions, garlic, leeks, spring onions, etc.) are avoided by monks and Lamas because they hinder meditation by causing intestinal gas” I cannot tolerate alliums anymore… nor solanums, or grains, or legumes, or pulses, or cruciferi, or dairy, or all additives/preservatives :laughing: but I do eat garlic most days, and the odd bit of gf grain or pulse… but only very rarely.

…and this: “Yes, Buddhists take alcohol. Buddhism especially the Mahayana sect does not abhor alcohol but intoxication. And, intoxication results from drinking more than required by your body. … There are instances of prominent Buddhists that reasonably drank alcohol, which is without the aim of getting intoxicated.” I think it good for the soul, to get merry at times, but not too overly so.

…or when others insist that you should consume that which you cannot, simply because it’s nutritionally good… I call that stupidity, and I find that an immoral suggestion, on the grounds of negligence.

…an example: ”…eggplants are a part of the nightshade family, a group of vegetables that include peppers, potatoes, tobacco, tomatoes, and tomatillos. Although these vegetables have been consumed over hundreds of years, they are associated with certain health problems due to their solanine content.” It is stupid to consume anything that one is intolerant to, but yet many still do, and happily suffer the gastrointestinal-consequences of their foolish gastronomic actions.

Taking the law into your own hands, is obviously unlawful, and what about those that chose to not self-isolate from the very beginning or not self-quarantine after travelling… where is their punishment, for spreading the virus further and wider?

It seems that Buddhist dietary requirements arose from need and necessity, rather than gimmick, and so became an indoctrinated dogma over time.

All such fads derive from a need, not an ideology, but become an ideology over time… an ideal standard for that group of people over there, but not necessary for that group of people over there. Different habitual strokes, for different cultural-religio folks.

Okay, but my own interest in all of this revolves around the extent to which someone chooses to observe a dietary regimen because it is a part of a religious regimen. And thus is seen not only to be a matter of health but of being in sync with any particular religious denomination insisting that one must eat or drink or not eat or not drink this or that because it is a requirement given the parameters of one’s faith. And, thus, that the behaviors one chooses in regard to diet will be judged either by God or by whatever the equivalent of God is re “the universe” for the Buddhists.

And then the part where, from their own frame of mind, this is not rooted in dasein but in one or another equivalent of the real me – soul – in tandem with the right thing to do given their commitment to a particular spiritual path.

And then, finally, the extent to which this commitment moves beyond a more or less blind leap of faith and encompasses instead actual demonstrable proof that what they believe is in fact true.

With Buddhism, there is no judge jury and executioner, only what’s right and works for you and/or your sect or monastery.

Non-adherence, to banned consumerables, would probably incur extra duties, more hours spent meditating, days or even weeks of kneeling, etc. I doubt that one of the penalties would be death, like in the olden days of the more ancient Indian religions.

Buddhism is a much more relaxed practice than you think… as are many of the Asian practices and religions, so it’s more a case of what the individual wants to put in, in relation to what they want to get out or gain from the practice… so they need to choose their monastery, sect, or Buddhist Centre, in accordance with that.

It’s not so much about what they believe is true, but what maximally works for them. Some may want a very strict Buddhist regime to follow, and others… a more relaxed Buddhist path to follow, so the individual chooses which, according to their needs.

What are they? Flower children?

You talking, to me…?

If so, care to elaborate? I can only garner that you are inferring to ‘them’ being of delicate disposition and nature?

People ain’t animals, you know… strict doesn’t mean regimental and aggressive, it just means instilling teachings and values into a person as efficiently and swiftly as possible… so what appears harsh, is simply the best route to take, to reach the required goal or outcome.

Asian practices tend not to be “relaxed”. They are hard-assed and dare I say, at times sadistic.

When they were brought to the West, they were watered down because the master practitioners thought that Westerners could not (or would not) handle it.

That’s what you seem to be describing … Western Buddhism or Western Asian practices.

Asians tend to be stricter in general, but some countries, lineages, and religions, more than others… like anything, there’s different degrees of severity of Buddhist sects.

I am, but I am also still insisting that the severity of the method that each sect and practice employs, varies… by degree, in the same way that the naughtiest kids are sent to the strictest boarding schools, and all the rest, to the more average of boarding schools.

The Case Against “Buddhism”
Randy Rosenthal talks to scholar Glenn Wallis about his thought-provoking new book A Critique of Western Buddhism: Ruins of the Buddhist Real.
at Lion’s Roar website
Lion’s Roar describes itself as “BUDDHIST WISDOM for OUR TIME”

Think about it. Why would those who call themselves Buddhists become disturbed or infuriated by a book that critiques Western Buddhism?

I can think of two reasons. One, the author gets any number of actual facts able to be determined and confirmed wrong. Two, the author’s argument that Buddhism in the West “must get ruined” because it is not in accord with their own beliefs regarding the main components of the religion. Which is always crucial for me because with so much at stake in getting enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana right – from both sides of the grave – isn’t it vital that those who choose to call themselves Buddhists are on the same page? Otherwise the one true spiritual path gets missed. And then any path that anyone is able to convince themselves is the one true path is okay. However far removed it might be from the original intent of Buddha himself. And how can that not be problem when choosing the behaviors you do with the “next world” in mind?

Thus:

An “unkempt state”. What can this reflect but an insistence that any number of “Western” paths are in fact not in sync with the Buddha’s intent. With his own understanding of the main components of a religion that, after all, he invented. And that’s important to note because unlike the many diverse Western denominations, they can always go to a God, the God, my God. So, for the Buddhist, the intent of the Buddha himself becomes all that much more important.

As for the supernatural powers of Gautama Buddha, what are we to make of them: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_ … %20himself.

In other words, as with Catholicism configuring into Protestant denominations to accommodate the historical reality of capitalism, Buddhism here in the West must follow suit.

But that just begs the question: in regard to the behaviors that, say, the Dalai Lama chooses in our postmodern world how much is he willing to “ignore aspects of the early Buddhist scriptures”.

So, if what’s right and what works for you as an individual need be as far as it goes, then anyone who believes anything at all about being a Buddhist need be as far as it goes when whatever that is the equivalent of God out there in the universe sets into motion the parts that revolve around reincarnation and Nirvana.

And all those other religious denominations that, instead, believe God judges your behaviors on this side of the grave…they have got it all wrong?

It must be relaxed when individual Buddhists are able to pick and choose only those practices and behaviors they think are in accord with what they have read or heard about the Buddha. Choices that, in turn, are in sync only with the “lifestyle” they are most comfortable with.

The Case Against “Buddhism”
Randy Rosenthal talks to scholar Glenn Wallis about his thought-provoking new book A Critique of Western Buddhism: Ruins of the Buddhist Real.
at Lion’s Roar website
Lion’s Roar describes itself as “BUDDHIST WISDOM for OUR TIME”

Buddhism. Returned to its “natural condition”. Ruined in the West by those who have reconfigured it into a spiritual path more in sync with our postmodern industrial world thoroughly shaped and molded by, among other things, our capitalist political economy. A “context” wholly unfamiliar to Gautama Buddha, who lived in “ancient India” 500 years before the birth of Christ.

Not annihilated however. Just refashioned into a shape more to the liking of someone convinced that they in fact grasp the “original intent” of Buddha. Their own “transformation” in other words.

And what can this be other than the strictest interpretation of what Gautama Buddha meant by what he said in regards to enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana. And that’s basically what I am interested in. What did he say about them and how can what he said [and meant] be made applicable to the behaviors that Buddhists choose. Whether in the East or the West. But less in regard to things like addiction and more in regard to moral and political values that come into conflict.

That’s my point in regard to all religious denominations. What is the bare minimum commitment when it comes to being sufficiently Buddhist or Hindu or Christion or Shinto? And this dialogue would include anthropology and political science and ethics and sociology and the physical laws of nature.

And then after someone is able to establish that in fact he or she is sufficiently Buddhist, we can discuss this given a set of circumstances revolving around my own interests in religion.

I was thinking about this watering down recently, first in relation to mindfullness and then in relation to the way pharmaceutical companies pull out a single chemical from a plant (and tweak it in the lab if they can so they can patent it) rather than using the whole plant and herbalists generally do. So you have mindfullness which is a single practice from Buddhist without any of the culture - including the four noble truths, including stories of the Buddha, rituals, chanting, incense, the practical morals, compassion and so on.

I am not saying this is wrong per se, but extremely reductionistic. It presumes one can pull one piece of a whole and use it. Most of the herbalists I have worked with consider plants to have a complex of chemical or traits and that these can offset the sideeffects of the specific chemical or trait that one most wants to use in plant, say for arthritis or whatever. Also that mixes of plants can be much better than single plants because there are synergistic effects, but also one then needs a lower dosage of each drug thus reducing any toxic side effects.

So we have this tendency to reduce in the West - take out the single ‘best’ piece and reproduce it and consider the rest chaff. In the pharma world we can see the incredible amount of side effects of the medicines themselves, often causing really rather large numbers of deaths and other serious problems. Of course many of these medicines are extremely effective. It’s not that reductionism is wrong per se, nor is holism necessarily right. Each have positive and negative aspects. But it seems like it would be positive if people in Western medicine say, or those importing pieces of other systems, at least

considered

that they might be making mistakes when plucking out single strands of fiber from a whole cloth.

Which, by the way, is not me saying that one must take wholes and I don’t ‘take the whole’ of Buddhism, though I think Buddhism did help me disentangle myself from some problematic ideas in Western philosophy (take philosophy in this in very broad terms to include cultural assumptions). Sometimes teachers and experts are totally spot on about one thing but off on others.

I am not selling a counterrule.

It’s just that someting like Buddhism is an ecology of pieces, an interlocking, intercausal whole. And there is a hubris in thinking that one understands what it means to pluck out just one piece. At least acknowledging this hubris seems rational and cautious to me.