iambiguous
(iambiguous)
October 26, 2020, 3:14am
1915
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.
Note to Phyllo:
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.
In or not in Stooge mode.
phyllo
(phyllo)
October 26, 2020, 11:17am
1916
Different interests. Absolutely.
But how about …
Being respectful of other people’s interests. Allowing them to express their interests and how they pursue them. Letting them be themselves.
Without being dismissive or ridiculing or mocking or negating.
iambiguous
(iambiguous)
October 26, 2020, 5:10pm
1917
phyllo:
Different interests. Absolutely.
But how about …
Being respectful of other people’s interests. Allowing them to express their interests and how they pursue them. Letting them be themselves.
Without being dismissive or ridiculing or mocking or negating.
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.
MagsJ
(..a chic geek)
October 26, 2020, 5:22pm
1918
In every single thread, on every single discussion that is being had in those threads?
How much more can you get out of a conversation, using that exact same criteria to debate by… every single time?
It’s not going to be a thrilling or mind-expanding one. You ask a very big ask, imo.
iambiguous
(iambiguous)
October 26, 2020, 5:57pm
1919
MagsJ:
In every single thread, on every single discussion that is being had in those threads?
How much more can you get out of a conversation, using that exact same criteria to debate by… every single time?
It’s not going to be a thrilling or mind-expanding one. You ask a very big ask, imo.
Huh?!
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.
And, by all means, let’s keep it that way.
phyllo
(phyllo)
October 26, 2020, 6:26pm
1920
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.
Who wants to be treated like that?
Is that any way to have a discussion?
iambiguous
(iambiguous)
October 26, 2020, 6:48pm
1921
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.
Who wants to be treated like that?
Is that any way to have a discussion?
Over and again, I get this sort of thing from you. And over and again, I note my own objection to your objections. Nothing ever sinks in.
So why on earth would anyone who has this opinion of me keep reading my posts?
Do I have to explain it to you…again?
MagsJ
(..a chic geek)
October 26, 2020, 6:57pm
1922
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.
phyllo
(phyllo)
October 26, 2020, 7:08pm
1923
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.
iambiguous
(iambiguous)
October 26, 2020, 7:34pm
1924
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.
And around and around you go.
As for my dismissal of felix, I’ll note for you what I noted for Ierrellus on his thread:
As for my dismissal of Felix, you tell me: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … start=1900
Others here can judge for themselves my reaction.
phyllo
(phyllo)
October 26, 2020, 7:43pm
1925
As for my dismissal of felix, I’ll note for you what I noted for Ierrellus on his thread:
As for my dismissal of Felix, you tell me: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … start=1900
Ierrellus isn’t even on that page. And I’m not talking about that thread.
iambiguous
(iambiguous)
October 26, 2020, 8:00pm
1926
I was directing him to my own thread in order to note the manner in which I responded to his own accusations regarding my reactions to felix/Moe.
You’re not talking about that thread but I needed to note it in order respond to your own accusations.
phyllo
(phyllo)
October 26, 2020, 9:03pm
1927
It’s remarkable that so many people tell you exactly what is bothering them about having a discussion with you.
And yet, you never acknowledge their feelings or admit any wrongdoing on your part.
iambiguous
(iambiguous)
October 26, 2020, 9:07pm
1928
phyllo:
It’s remarkable that so many people tell you exactly what is bothering them about having a discussion with you.
And yet, you never acknowledge their feelings or to admit any wrongdoing on your part.
No, what’s remarkable is that they keep coming back to tell me this again and again. Instead of just ignoring my posts and moving on to others.
Note to Gib:
I didn’t hurt your feelings did I?
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.”
The Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5
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.
phyllo
(phyllo)
October 28, 2020, 12:37pm
1930
It could mean ‘observation’ in the conventional sense. Look at how “the Way” is at work all around you.
In that case, Jesus seems to mean something similar… look with a pure heart and you will see God.
It could. Buddhism certainly focuses on observing as opposed to doing more than other religions.
Maybe. But there is no God (generally) in Buddhism.
Ecmandu
(Ecmandu)
October 28, 2020, 3:44pm
1932
In Tibetan tradition, death is a police officer who only lets you go if you are worthy of infinite freedom and infinite power.
Death controls the six realms of birth and rebirth (effectively, death IS god)
Otherwise known as Mara, the devil, Mazda etc…
Buddhism is the path of release. Death tests, tests and tests you again. Death is fierce. You either win or lose.
You’re not given this kind of power without earning it meritously and with zero doubt that you won’t EVER abuse it.
felix_dakat
(felix dakat)
October 28, 2020, 7:46pm
1933
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.”
The Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5
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.
And we will never “know” in the rational intellectual sense. These two scriptures point to another way of knowing–that of the heart.
felix_dakat
(felix dakat)
October 28, 2020, 8:16pm
1934
One of the most fundamental beliefs of Buddhism is that all the multitudinous and multifarious phenomena in the universe start from, and have their being in, one reality which itself has “no fixed abode,” being above spatial and temporal limitations. However different and separate and irreducible things may appear to the senses, the most profound law of the human mind declares that they are all one in their hidden nature. In this world of relativity, or nanatva as Buddhists call it, subject and object, thought and nature, are separate and distinct, and as far as our sense-experience goes, there is an impassable chasm between the two which no amount of philosophizing can bridge. But the very constitution of the mind demands a unifying principle which is an indispensable hypothesis for our conception of phenomenality; and this hypothesis is called “the gate of sameness,” samata, in contradistinction to “the gate of difference,” nanatva; and Buddhism declares that no philosophy or religion is satisfactory which does not recognize these two gates. In some measure the “gate of sameness” may be considered to correspond to “God” and the “gate of difference” to the world of individual existence. Soyen Shaku, [1906], at sacred-texts.com , Sermons of a Buddhist Abbot
This is totally consistent with my view.