It appears iambiguous has a beef with every objective religion on the basis that it cannot prove or guarantee what it promises in terms of an afterlife. To him any religion that can’t do that is worthless.
Now to me that’s an epistemological problem in the first place. In the second place it’s a problem for institutional objective religions. Those are complex and diverse entities. There isn’t one Buddhism. There are many. That’s true of every major religion.
I’m pretty sure iambiguous doesn’t understand any of them. Yet it is it is easy for him to call them all contraptions. It’s like spitting at the sky.
Personally I make no knowledge claims about ultimate reality. To me spirituality is a capacity of the human psyche. I don’t rule out a connection between the soul and the Ultimate, but neither can I prove such.
The connection between spiritual experience and the ultimate is more aptly termed “faith” than knowledge. Phenomenologically my inner experience connects me to the Ultimate.
In terms of knowledge claims about it, I am agnostic. My spirituality is personal, non-institutional, nondogmatic.
I don’t call myself a Buddhist. But, today I felt I was one with the Buddha. Hence my statements earlier today.
And, in keeping with the faith in perennial wisdom, I showed how the teaching of Buddha harmonizes with the teachings of Jesus.
Iambiguous probably experienced some sort of trauma that cut him off from his own inner life making him hostile to that part of himself. I don’t know that for sure but that’s my hypothesis. It’s not unusual. For all it’s potential for callousness and brutality, the human psyche is a sensitive and fragile flower.
More to the point [mine] what of those who have learned all that they think they need to know about their own particular Way.
The part where, given my own interest in religion, these concerns kick in:
Now folks like zinnat and felix will explore this with me or they will continue to exchange their spiritual contraptions with each other and be content with that.
You will discern that none of this pertains to my own interest in religion. And that’s fine. He can always find folks at ILP who will be more than willing to discuss religion as he prefers to explore it here. The warm and fuzzy way.
I only become a stooge myself when others insist on making me the issue. They become a stooge so, sure, I’ll go down in the mud with them. For whatever reason, I am basically a “natural born polemicist”.
Still, over and again, I let it be known that if others want an exchange that is both respectful and civil, I’m more than willing to go there as well.
I simply want the focus to be on morality here and now and immortality there and then. How the two are intertwined in regard to God and religion. Given particular contexts.
There are hundreds and hundreds of threads I don’t participate in at all. And there are my quotes and my music threads. And my threads relating specifically to determinism and language and morality and identity.
If my posts don’t thrill you or expand your mind, don’t read them.
You clearly don’t grasp the points I am trying to convey here. And that’s fine. Move on to others. After all, no one at ILP is required to read or to respond to my posts. Nor me to theirs.
A person posts something that he/she thinks is important.
And it gets dismissed as a “general description”, “intellectual contraption”, “spiritual contraption”, etc.
Then he/she is told what he/she is really supposed to be doing … “bringing it down to earth”, discussing a context, demonstrating things for everyone and talking about morality, salvation and an afterlife.
You misunderstood, as Phyllo has now clarified… I am referring to the threads that you do participate in, not each and every thread on here.
On the contrary, I do enjoy your posts, but enough of your preconceived context of parameters already. Samsara much? A discussion is being had, you reset it with your terms, it starts again, you reset it with your terms again… the cycle never ends… how mean of you Iam.
You keep inviting people to have a respectful and civilized discussion with you … KT, Felix, Zinnat …
Then as soon as those people post something, you blow it off as a “general description” or “contraption”.
And you only want talk about your interests and it has to discussed in your particular way.
It’s not hard to explain why people don’t want to talk to you any more.
And the only reason that I’m talking to you now is because when Felix posted something about “the Way” that was on topic, you jumped in dismissively. I thought that I would try to get you to see what you are doing once again.
This seems to be the last post about Buddhism. I’m assuming that the Buddhist quote is related to thinking a lot about Buddhism - treating it as an academic issue - as being less effective than observing the way. Presumably the less common use of ‘observe’ - 3 : to celebrate or solemnize (something, such as a ceremony or festival) in a customary or accepted way. More to participate in the proper (according to practice) way.
If Jesus is talking about the same dichotomy is hard to know.
