No, he does not have any point here. The reason is that though it is true that any individual may think or believe whatever he/she finds suitable but all humans are hardwired with a same neuro-biological system which enables and governs spiritual journey so when this journey is triggered for any reasons there is only one particular way how is going to pan out irrespective of one’s thinking or belief.
And, there is only one thing that can trigger this journey which is mental concentration. It does not matter what causes this concentration, the result would be the same in each and every case. That is why it helps greatly if one has some kind of faith, It does not matter what one’s faith is or whether it is right or wrong as it all will get corrected with spiritual experiences and thus derived knowledge. Having said that, faith is not necessary. One can also have required level of concentration using purely mental exercises but that route is difficult and does not work in the most cases though theoretically it should.
Just for the record, by “all in the head”, I make a clear distinction between what someone believes or claims to know about Buddhism “in their head”, and what they are able to demonstrate that all rational [and for some all virtuous] men and women are obligated to believe in turn.
I merely shift the focus in discussions of religion to that which they believe “in their head” motivates them to choose particular behaviors on this side of the grave in a world bursting at the seams with conflicting goods — given that which they believe “in their head” about God or the Buddhist equivalent of God, given what is at stake in regard to immortality, salvation, reincarnation and Nirvana on the other side of the grave…
The part that folks like Zinnat steer completely away from. Why? Because, in my view, all he has in the way of “evidence” is what he believes “in his head”. And the last place he wants to go is where I take that.
Instead, he is far more comfortable sustaining his convictions in “general description intellectual contraptions” like this:
I am not that kind of person who takes decisions in haste. I give myself more than enough time to make up its mind but when I decide anything, I stay put. That is my default nature.
So, when I said that I done with you that means I am really done with you thus these kind of provocations will not help your cause in any way. You can keep trying if you want but I am not taking the bait.
Okay, but there are many others here and elsewhere who have very, very different assessments of God and religion and all things spiritual. Also, very, very different assessments of the “right thing to do” morally and politically. And they too will assure us of much the same thing that you do.
Right?
But what doesn’t go away for any of us is that, if we choose to interact with others, we must choose behaviors in a world where these different paths can come into conflict and particular rules of behavior must be put in place rewarding and punishing particular behaviors in order to sustain the least dysfunctional communities.
So, I ask those who are religious or spiritual to note how their own understanding of this plays out in the behaviors that they do choose. And then how they connect the dots “in their heads” between the behaviors they choose here and now and what they believe will be the fate of “I” on the other side.
Then, with so much at stake, I ask them how they go about demonstrating that what they do think and believe, others should/must as well. Why? Because our very souls are on the line. And for all of eternity.
Right?
That’s your take on what I am doing here. It’s not mine. Besides, in this tiny little corner of the internet that barely registers at all for the world at large what possible difference could it make what either one of us tries to do?
Be “done” with me then. Again. And “with love” no less.
Enlightenment means illumination.
It is the complete clearing of distortions, illusions, half truths, etc.
Brightness, clarity, vision, comprehension,
Accuracy.
Imagine someone doing the proper meditations for many hours a day.
Doing it religiously.
Someone with a higher sympathy would eventually emerge.
Exceptional cases can arise.
Then sometimes these same people try to help others reach similar heights.
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”
Ah, the “a priori” Real. And who can doubt that it’s “out there” in the world and “in here” in our minds. And, sure, somehow it may even be possible someday for philosophers to actually explain how and when and where and why the two interact in the course of living our lives from day to day. It may even be possible to discern if our own speculations about the a priori involve some measure of free will.
In the interim, however, what on earth are we to make of various religious denominations speaking of the a priori in regard to morality here and now and immortality there and then.
Instead, most speculations of this sort are exchanged up in the invariably obtuse and abstruse clouds of intellectual abstraction. And that’s the beauty of it for the “spiritually” inclined. It is knowledge that somehow we just know is true. Knowledge for which there is no actual evidence but can simply be deduced or defined into existence. Nirvana for example. Can one get much more a priori than that?
Call it whatever you want. Name it to your heart’s content. Define it over and over again and provide it with meaning in one or another of Zinnat’s or Felix’s “spiritual contraptions”.
Then bring all of this “really essential, important something that stands prior to our language” out into the world of conflicting goods. Out into a world in which each of us one by one dies. The part where many on their spiritual paths choose behaviors from day to day based on what they imagine [or want] the fate of “I” to be on “the other side”.
The Buddha said, “If you endeavor to embrace the Way through much learning, the Way will not be understood. If you observe the Way with simplicity of heart, great indeed is this Way.”
The sutra of 42 chapters, chapter 9
Jesus said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”
This is what actually passes for some to be as far as they need to go in examining their own spiritual values. And in a philosophy forum no less!!
Another rendition perhaps of admonishing Adam and Eve for taking the free will that God permitted them and choosing to eat from the tree of knowledge?
Really, how can children be indoctrinated to follow their elders down one of hundreds and hundreds of conflicting spiritual paths if the quest for “learning” is not deemed to be a bad thing!!
The Buddha said, "Evildoers who denounce the wise resemble a person who spits against the sky; the spittle will never reach the sky, but comes down on himself. "
Well, the conflicts start with all of the hundreds and hundreds of God and No God renditions of The Way in a world ever and always awash in conflicting goods. Then those God folks who insist that only their own Way counts. And then what happens when the God folks gain access to power and cross paths with those who are invested in another Way.
Indeed, the Supreme Court is about to acquire a new Justice who is a religious fanatic. A devout Catholic. That particular Way. And she and the other conservatives with their own rendition of God and the Way will vote on issues like abortion and homosexuality. The lives of millions will then come down to which side of the Way they are on.
Are they “one of us” [on the right path] or “one of them” [on the wrong path].
And I’m still trying to “get” how the No God Buddhist Way here actually unfolds beyond the “spiritual contraptions” of folks like zinnat and felix.
That’s certainly a lot different than figuring out if there is a Way and how one goes about understanding the Way if there is one. Which is what I thought was being discussed.
It seems there are two kinds of exclusivists, those who exclude others and those who exclude themselves. Iambiguous puts himself in the latter category. Indeed he tells us that he was once in the former category. Perhaps that’s why he can’t understand that it doesn’t have to be that way.
