I don't get Buddhism

[iambiguous]

The Role of Karma in Buddhist Morality
Barbara O’Brien

Wisdom and Compassion

This is where wisdom and compassion come in. Wisdom, in this case, is the perception that self-and-other are not two, and beings are not just autonomous units living inside their skin-pods. Our lives are interconnected with the lives of all beings. And it is this sense of interconnection,coupled with an appreciation of cause and effect, that is the true core of Buddhist morality.

Compassion, in this case, is not just an emotion but a state of mind. It is an active caring and a willingness to bear the pain of others. In practice, wisdom and compassion give rise to each other and support each other. As the self-other dichotomy blurs, then caring for others is as natural as caring for oneself. And when we consider our volitional actions, we become more sensitive to how our volitional actions affect others.

At this point, the practitioner has put aside selfish concerns about a good or bad rebirth. Indeed, belief in rebirth really isn’t necessary to live a moral life.

So, what do both wisdom and compassion share in common here? Exactly: They are discussed and assessed solely in a world of words.

Is this the "core of Buddhist morality"?

What examples of wisdom and compassion in what set of circumstances? Examples that eventually come around to how Buddhists link that to enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana.

Now, myself, I am far more interested in taking wisdom and compassion -- construed by me to be psychological triggers -- and examining them in regard to situations that most of us will be familiar with. Thinking about them in ways that either comfort and console us more or less.

In other words, for the Buddhists among us, what does it mean to embody wisdom and compassion when immersed in a context in which different sides are tugging those words -- morally and politically -- in very different directions? In regard to, say, abortion. How are wisdom and compassion understood by Buddhists here. And how is this frame of mind [and the behaviors that follow it] intertwined in an understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana.

[phyllo]

The irony is that this seems to happen most notably when you actually give him the particular contexts he asks for.

Yeah, you'd think that discussing a context would lead somewhere ... but it doesn't.

So why does he keep asking for contexts?

[gib]

Wisdom and Compassion

This is where wisdom and compassion come in. Wisdom, in this case, is the perception that self-and-other are not two, and beings are not just autonomous units living inside their skin-pods. Our lives are interconnected with the lives of all beings. And it is this sense of interconnection,coupled with an appreciation of cause and effect, that is the true core of Buddhist morality.

Compassion, in this case, is not just an emotion but a state of mind. It is an active caring and a willingness to bear the pain of others. In practice, wisdom and compassion give rise to each other and support each other. As the self-other dichotomy blurs, then caring for others is as natural as caring for oneself. And when we consider our volitional actions, we become more sensitive to how our volitional actions affect others.

At this point, the practitioner has put aside selfish concerns about a good or bad rebirth. Indeed, belief in rebirth really isn’t necessary to live a moral life.

Just a comment on this quote--another one of the bones I have with Buddhism, or at least modern day interpretations of it--particularly this part here:

"Our lives are interconnected with the lives of all beings. And it is this sense of interconnection,coupled with an appreciation of cause and effect, that is the true core of Buddhist morality."

^ Is this what the Buddha meant when he said all is one? (Did he say this? I'm assuming all the core tenets of Buddhism came, in one way or another, from the teachings of the Buddha.)

I hear this interpretation often--that what "all is one" means is that we are all "interconnected", that everything we do affects other people. Or this: "all is one" means cause and effect pertains to everything in the universe, that there is no action that doesn't invoke some reaction in some (or all) other things in the universe (think Newton's universal gravitation, or quantum entanglement). Did the Buddha have advanced scientific knowledge? Was he 2000 years ahead of Newton? Did he somehow have insight into the reality of quantum entanglement?

If this were all there is to "all is one", why aren't we all enlightened today? These aren't hard concepts to grasp today. Scientists today understand cause and effect, universal gravitation, quantum entanglement, and so on, and it just seems common sense that we are all interconnected in the sense that everything we do will have some affect to one degree or another on others. Yet I don't think this makes us any more enlightened than we would be if we weren't aware of these things, at least not in the original Buddhist sense.

I think "all is one" means something a little deeper than this, something not nearly as obvious. I think we're grasping at straws when we interpret it in cause/effect terms, or as "interconnection" with each other--these are just the closest things we have in the modern day to the idea that "all is one"; the part that annoys me is when people take these shoddy approximations and talk about them as if they truly grasp the ultimate meaning of the Buddha's original insight. <-- Yeah, right. You have no idea what "all is one" means.

I have a theory of consciousness that offers another interpretation which has nothing to do with cause/effect or the interconnections we share with others. My theory is that consciousness is a facet of all physicality--everything experiences, not just brains--and therefore the universe has consciousness--it is its own being; it gets even more abstract than this: the consciousness of the universe is experienced as a single thing--"uniform and homogeneous" as I say--not a complex multitude of things--it is one; furthermore, this consciousness is the core of its being, just as all consciousnesses, those of individual beings, is the core of our being, and physical reality is a projection of the experiences that come out of consciousness; in other words, consciousness is the true reality and the things experienced--physical reality, the material world--is only a by-product of this true reality. And just to take it one step further--I have this concept I call "equivalence" which is to be contrasted with "identity"--so whereas we could say a rock is identical to the collection of atoms that make it up, we wouldn't say this about the average test score of a class in relation to each student's individual test score, or the color orange we see on a screen in relation to the red, green, and blue we would see if we zoomed in on the individual pixels (physical pixels, not digital); orange is a different color than red, green, or blue--even the group of red, green, and blue. Not one student may have gotten the average test score. So identity doesn't work here; but equivalence does. We can say the average test score is equivalent to the students' test scores taken collectively. Orange is equivalent to mostly red, some green, and a tiny bit of blue. The concept of equivalence, at least my rendition of it as it applies to my theory of consciousness, says that while it doesn't connote identity, it still shares the function of interchangeability with identity--a rock can be interchanged, at least in words, at least conceptually, with the atoms that make it up. And so can the average test score with the whole collection of individual student test scores (in fact, that's the whole point of deriving an average). This works to connect the singular experience of the universe as a whole to the multitudinous experiences--non-uniform and heterogeneous--that individual beings experience. I don't think the oneness that the universe experiences itself to be (and is) can be said to be just the collection of individual experiences we and everything else in the universe have--I think the whole is more than the sum of its parts--but it is equivalent--and it can be interchanged with it in the sense that there is no fact of the matter whether we are really this one thing the universe ultimately is or we are really these individual beings we experience ourselves to be. We are part of a collective of beings, and this collective is equivalent to, and therefore is interchangeable with, the universe as a singular thing.

^ That's kind of a ramble, but I present it to show there are other--not-so-obvious, not-so-common-sense--ways to interpret "all is one". I have no idea if this idea is what the Buddha had in mind--I derived it through a completely independent process of thinking than whatever the Buddha underwent (or maybe not; I have no idea what the Buddha underwent); the point is, we have no way of knowing what "all is one" really means, and I have serious doubts it's as simple as universal gravitation or our emotional connections to other people.

[phyllo]

On a forum one is stuck with words and intellectual interpretations of words. "All is one" can be a feeling.

[iambiguous]

Well, if you say so. But there are still millions upon millions of actual flesh and blood human beings around the globe who see the behaviors they choose "here and now" and the fate of their soul "there and then" as anything but a game. And not just in the theocracies.

Sure. But since I'm not talking to them, that's irrelevant.

Fine. But given my own interest in religion, the fact that the overwhelming preponderance of religious adherents around the globe clearly are intent on connecting these dots existentially...? This [to me] speaks volumes regarding the nature of religion itself. It's not a game to them and the manner in which you presume this is all a game to me encompasses only the gap between us.

I'm not suggesting I'm closer to the truth than you are, only that our motivation and intention seem to be trekking down different paths. And that, for any particular one of us, truth itself here is always subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas.

Okay, whatever that means. Though what are the odds it will mean the same thing for both of us? For me, philosophy is as much about what we seem unable to understand as what we can and do. Mostly regarding "I" in the is/ought world. And "I" going back to a complete understanding of existence itself. Though for some here these seem to be trivial pursuits.

Yes, you've made that abundantly clear. Given that description, you wouldn't call it a game. I do. I see philosophy, or at least debate, as competition--competition between two contenders over their conflicting views--each one making moves and counter-moves with the goal of "winning"--if not in the eyes of each other then in the eyes of other readers.

Again, fine. But the bottom line [mine] is that, to the extent we choose to interact with others, rules of behaviors are a necessity. Call them morality, call them something else. And millions of us do connect the dots between them and the fate of "I" the other side. So there is certainly a gap between the word games that philosophers might play on threads like this and the manner in which religions out in the world precipitate very real conflicts, precipitating very real consequences, that often have a profound impact on the lives of millions.

Introduce the intellectual construct of "games" to these folks.

What else could it mean given the gap between what any of us think we know about all of this and all that there is to be known? I mean, come on, please, what would a "sincere effort" consist of here?

For starters, stop being so resistant to the offers of help and suggested solutions to the gap problem that others here bring to the discussion. This is what I'm calling disingenuous. You say you're trying to close the gap, but I think the impossibility of this task is precisely your point in all your posts, and you're trying to demonstrate this by challenging others to make the attempt--dressing it up as a plea for help--and then putting every effort into tearing apart and rejecting those attempts with response like "well, that to me is just another intellectual contraption".

What can I say: let's focus the exchange here on a set of circumstances relating to morality/immortality in which you can point out specifically the suggestions of others. And the manner in which I refuse their help.

Also, over and again, I aim my arguments here at those religious objectivists who insist that others can only be helped in connecting the morality/immortality dots by embracing their own dogmatic/denominational agenda.

Given the fact that 1] we all have to confront conflicting goods on this side of the grave and 2] that the spiritual/religious among us connect the dots here to one or another ecclesiastical scripture anchored to one or another rendition of "I" on the other side, what would the least disingenuous approach to this be?

^ Similar response to this. A more "ingenuous" approach would be to be more honest about your true motives. I don't think you're simply trying to connect those dots the same as everyone else--as if once you've made the connection, you could save the world by offering it to all those seekers--but an attempt to prove that it cannot be done. I think your motive runs opposite to trying to connect the dots, but to dismantle any attempt by others to do so.

I've already acknowledged the embodied complexities here:

Yeah, that's part of it. If they can't yank me up out of the hole "I" am in, then maybe "I" can yank them down into it instead. At least I'll have someone able to empathize with me...up to a point.

In trying to understand my "self" here, I often come back to this:

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Only I recognize that here there countless existential variables that have gone into the making of "I" going all the way back to the womb. Then all the way back to an understanding of existence itself. The unimaginably, staggeringly vast chasm between what I think here and now as an infinitesimally tiny speck of existence and "all there is".

What is your own? Given a particular context.

What? My least disingenuous approach to 1) and 2) above? I live a relatively peaceful lifestyle and engage with people with whom any "conflicting goods" (whatever that means) are minimal and trivial. (This is why I described your earlier statement on this front as hyperbolic--though I know for many others it's not.) I don't feel a pressing urgency to deal with 1) all that much. I feel like I'm lucky enough to have a life and live in a place in the world where 1) more or less deals with itself. As for 2), I have my beliefs about the afterlife, but again, I don't feel this is a pressing urgency that demands a kind of rigorous and serious approach. I don't even feel I have to justify it with flawless logic and objective demonstration. It just sort of sits there in my mind as what I currently believe for the moment.

Tell me this isn't the embodiment of dasein. Given the life that you have lived and the circumstances in which you now find yourself, this is how you have become predisposed to think about the world around you. Here and now. And, like you say, "[t]his is why I described your earlier statement on this front as hyperbolic--though I know for many others it's not".

That's basically how it works all right. At least until you become a religious objectivist/zealot. Then it's also how it ought to work for everyone else too. I'm mainly curious as to how Buddhists connect these dots given a No God religion.

As for the meaning of "conflicted goods", well, I took that from the manner in which William Barrett described "rival goods" here:

"For the choice in...human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the ultimate outcome and even---or most of all---our own motives are unclear to us. The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves."

I merely deconstruct the "self" here more radically still: as a "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind.

If your own focus here is not in the general vicinity of mine, I don't see the point.

But that's just the thing. My whole aim here is to try to align my interests squarely with yours. I'm trying to play your game. With anyone else on this board, I've never had any trouble staying on topic and making progress. Only with you have I repeatedly experienced minimal progress conforming to your own agenda before you bring the discussion back to vague generalities.

Again, this is an intellectual contraption.

So if my interests don't align with yours, you don't see the point in pursuing the discussion further, but if they do, it's just another intellectual contraption? Is there space here for a win?

No, I would just prefer that when we discuss "aligning our interests" or "making progress", it be in regard to an actual set of circumstances involving morality/enlightenment on this side of the grave and immortality/reincarnation of the other side of it. How are these words fleshed out given a situation that most here would be familiar with.

This part:

Choose a particular context that will be recognizable by most of us here. A set of circumstances in which mere mortals connect the dots between morality/enlightenment here and now and one's fate there and then.

What in this discussion would constitute "progress"?

Well, let's resume where we left off with the Buddhist scenario. You gave the context--a murderer on death row--how do I as a Buddhist alleviate the suffering involved in this scenario when it seems the alleviation of each party's suffering is mutually exclusive with the other's? My response wasn't so much to address how I would alleviate everyone involved's suffering but to do what I can (as a Buddhist) to offer a bit of alleviation to whichever party is willing to lean on me for such alleviation--regardless of which party that is--the only caveat being I don't think it would be a good idea to engage both parties at the same time. I'm not a perfect person (whether as this phony Buddhist I'm pretending to be or IRL) and I can't resolve the grand scale problems you seem to be interested in--but I can do whatever's in my power to move a bit closer.

Okay, you "alleviate" suffering. But how is alleviating the suffering on one side not probably going to aggravate it on the other side? And if you are a Buddhist confronting a context of this sort, how is enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana understood given the very, very real intertwining of "I" here and now and "I" there and then. Once we move beyond Buddhism's capacity to offer up the sort of stuff that Karpel Tunnel and others here focus on.

Again, the stuff -- morality ---> immortality -- that most interest me about religion. The stuff that, if not the most important thing to others, would/should/could incline them to ignore my posts.

And I'm certainly not arguing that they ought to be interested in my own propensities here, only that these are the things that do interest me about religion most of all.

And what do you want people to do with this scenario? Are you trying to extract how they think they would handle such a situation? How they would resolve it once and for all? What they think is the "right" thing to do? What kind of a response would satisfy Biggy here?

The distinction I always come back to here is the manner in which "I" as a moral nihilist have come to understand human interactions when confronting conflicting goods as dasein out in a particular political economy, and the objectivists -- God or No God -- who insist that the manner in which they have come to understand it is in turn obligatory for all others who wish to think of themselves as rational and virtuous human beings. A further distinction here being those who insist that if one chooses to live one's life in accordance with rational and ethical and enlightened truths, they will be rewarded on the other side given one or another religious dogma.

Again, back to vague generalities.

But my point in regard to the Buddhists among us is to focus in on sets of circumstances in order to illustrate texts of this sort. I have made any number of attempts involving any number of moral and political conflicts to describe why "I" am fractured and fragmented in regard to both morality and immortality. In fact, I created a whole thread of my own in order to explore this very thing: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929

And then to everyone I always request that they choose a context involving behaviors that are of particular importance to them.

Instead, the "question" you want answered here...

I call this a lack of progress because it doesn't answer my question. You're pointing out a couple distinctions you focus on when you ask others for particular contexts, but I'm asking what a response from them would look like such that you get a clear picture of the distinctions you're looking for. You know what would help? If you gave a hypothetical example of what a discussion between you and an objectivist would look like. You pose your questions, and then write a response from a hypothetical objectivist that would satisfy your inquiries.

...pertains to no particular context at all.

What on earth are you talking about here? Note an example of what you construe to be behaviors in which moral and political value judgments come into conflict. Reconfigure your words into this discussion.

How 'bout the BLM movement? That's a prime example of moral/political value judgments coming into conflict if there ever was one. My point is that most people on this board (I could be terribly wrong here) typically aren't forced to engage in the thick of the conflicts surrounding the BLM movement on a regular basis (though this movement and others related to it seem to be picking up momentum pretty fast and I'm not sure how much longer most Americans, or even Canadians, can stay out of it).

Again, my own interest here in regard to Buddhism revolves around individual Buddhists who find their own lives becoming embedded in actual contexts that do involve race relations...how is their understanding of enlightenment and karma on this side of the grave factored into the behaviors they choose in regard to what they believe regarding the fate of "I" on the other side of it.

The role that religion plays in their day to day lives. My "thing" here.

This part:

Just follow the news. You want conflicting goods? How about the coronavirus, the economic crisis, the social unrest? Hundreds and hundreds of issues in which both religious and nonreligious objectivists are hell bent on yanking everyone else onto their own "side". And then the nihilists who own and operate the global economy. What of their "convictions"?

What of their convictions? I assume when you engage others on this board with your questions, the focus is on their convictions.

No, my focus revolves around the extent to which the moral, political and religious convictions of any particular individual are derived more from the manner in I construe the "self" here as an existential construction/deconstruction/reconstruction rooted in dasein from the cradle to the grave; or, instead essentially in a scientific or philosophical or theological assessment able to be demonstrated as obligatory for all rational/virtuous human beings.

My point was that when you bring up the point about having sooner or later to engage with particular people out in a particular world over particular conflicts [yada yada Biggy-talk yada], you make it out to seem like unless we figure out how to connect the dots once and for all, we're all doomed--doomed--to get pulled into these conflicts with such intensity that we'll have a major crisis on our hands--violence, war, oppression, death, you name it; again, I'm not saying this isn't commonplace throughout the world or throughout history, just not as commonplace amongst most of the members on this board with whom you engage (hence, my describing it as a hyperbole).

Again and again and again: we need a context here. What particular conflict in this particular world [our own] construed in what particular way?

You choose it. And, then, when you do in regard to an issue like capital punishment above, I react insofar as my own interest here revolves around how individual Buddhists address it in terms of the main components of their own religious denomination.

[Ecmandu]

I’ll be very straight forward with you guys:

Eradication of consent violation is the only possible purpose in life. Minus the prize mentioned before, it’s about reducing it as much as possible.

If our lives don’t continue (which they do), the most moral possible decision is to commit suicide.

So... decide which road you choose here ... that we continue or that we don’t.

I always prove it to these boards in a non-spiritual way, but I’m ignored!

If YOU ever die, then the YOU right now can’t exist, as the YOU right now is a subset of the TOTALITY of you!

Sorry, you don’t die. Ever. If you think life is stacked with shitheads, then you might want to think twice about pissing them off!

[phyllo]

There is only now. If you are alive now then you exist. If not then you don't exist.

[iambiguous]

I’ll be very straight forward with you guys:

Eradication of consent violation is the only possible purpose in life. Minus the prize mentioned before, it’s about reducing it as much as possible.

If our lives don’t continue (which they do), the most moral possible decision is to commit suicide.

So... decide which road you choose here ... that we continue or that we don’t.

I always prove it to these boards in a non-spiritual way, but I’m ignored!

If YOU ever die, then the YOU right now can’t exist, as the YOU right now is a subset of the TOTALITY of you!

Sorry, you don’t die. Ever. If you think life is stacked with shitheads, then you might want to think twice about pissing them off!

I'm sorry, but my reaction to this post is but one kind:

1]

"I have told you repeatedly that I am of the opinion -- and that is all it is, my own personal opinion -- that you are afflicted with a "condition" that prompts you to post things here at ILP that make absolutely no sense at all. Surreal, bizarre things. You pummel us with all of these assumptions about everything under the sun but you fail to convince me that you are actually able to demonstrate that they are true much beyond you believing that they are.

Something is proven only in the fact of you having posted it."

2]

[Ecmandu]

There is only now. If you are alive now then you exist. If not then you don't exist.

Now is a concept of past and future. Even if there is only now... without past and future or even more extended concept of past and future, now = 0. (Which truly means you can’t exist!)

[phyllo]

That's in your mind. The present exists no matter what you think about now, past and future.

[Ecmandu]

That's in your mind. The present exists no matter what you think about now, past and future.

A mind cannot be sentient without stimulus. Past and ideas of future are that stimulus. You’ve been reading eckart tolle too much. Zero point doesn’t allow for sentience to occur.

[phyllo]

Stimulus is in the present.

[Ecmandu]

Stimulus is in the present.

Not if no past ever occurred! Honestly phyllo, do you really think you’ll win this debate because of a few new age ideas you came across ?

[phyllo]

I don't need to win.

Win, lose, draw ... these are thoughts in your mind.

[Ecmandu]

I don't need to win.

Ok, whatever, you hypothetically posited an argument which you think is the correct one (otherwise you’d be a troll)...

I reiterate... if there was NEVER a past, how can there be a present?!?! Think about it and get back to me! (If you so desire)

[iambiguous]

I don't need to win.

Feel free to borrow a few from me.

Hurl them at both of us.

[phyllo]

I reiterate... if there was NEVER a past, how can there be a present?!?! Think about it and get back to me! (If you so desire)

There is a past and a present because you think there is.

You have divided it in this way.

The past is a memory which does not exist. Nor does the future exist.

[Ecmandu]

I reiterate... if there was NEVER a past, how can there be a present?!?! Think about it and get back to me! (If you so desire)

There is a past and a present because you think there is.

You have divided it in this way.

The past is a memory which does not exist. Nor does the future exist.

Really? The future doesn’t exist? Then how the fuck do you keep on living for another second?!?!

The past doesn’t exist? Then how the fuck do trees and shit exist who’ve been here thousands of years before us??!!

Are you anti-logic / anti-science ?

No wonder you believe in god!

[iambiguous]

The future doesn’t exist? Then how the fuck do you keep on living for another second?!?!

The past doesn’t exist? Then how the fuck do trees and shit exist who’ve been here thousands of years before us??!!

Whoa!

This is admittedly an insightful observation.

But: How is it relevant to this particular thread?

Buddhists, like all the rest of us, only embody a present because they once embodied a past. And to the extent they are still around as the clock keeps ticking, they continue to embody a future.

What I then focus on given this is the extent to which the past, the present and the future embodied in any particular "I" becomes intertwined in the behaviors that "I" choose here and now as that becomes intertwined further in what I would like the fate of "I" to be when the future unfolds beyond the grave.

Over and again: There is what "I" believe is true and there is what "I" can demonstrate to others is in fact true for them too.

After all, here there is so much at stake: enlightenment on this side of the grave reconfiguring into chosen behaviors reconfiguring into the future as karma reconfiguring into the future as...a soul?

Again, if you are a Buddhist, you tell me.

Religion without God? How?

[phyllo]

Really? The future doesn’t exist? Then how the fuck do you keep on living for another second?!?!

The past doesn’t exist? Then how the fuck do trees and shit exist who’ve been here thousands of years before us??!!

I live now. Trees exist now.

Are you anti-logic / anti-science ?

Hardly.

[phyllo]

Be here now.

[Ecmandu]

Be here now.

So you’re a zero point solipsist! Good to know!

It’s actually impossible to prove that we weren’t born in the instant of any point with all our memories there. (All of them lies) - but I will guarantee that you trust most of them, like not jumping off cliffs!!! Thinking it’s an illusion that can harm you!!

Phyllo, I need to be honest with you. I’ve always found you an absurd poster. Sure you say interesting things sometimes... but you have an absurd big picture... as I just demonstrated.

You believe in zero point solipsism but never act like it... hmmmmmm....

No thanks. I’ll just go with the idea I’m more than a nanosecond old and behave accordingly!

[Karpel Tunnel]

Really? The future doesn’t exist? Then how the fuck do you keep on living for another second?!?!

The past doesn’t exist? Then how the fuck do trees and shit exist who’ve been here thousands of years before us??!!

I live now. Trees exist now.

Are you anti-logic / anti-science ?

Hardly.

Yes, it is nt anti-science to think the future and the past do not exist. Some scientists (physicists) think they do exist (for example those who believe in a Block Universe) but this is one theory amongst others. Further if the past exists, what is it made of?

And then, ironically. If the past exists, then there is no death.

[gib]

Yes, it is nt anti-science to think the future and the past do not exist. Some scientists (physicists) think they do exist (for example those who believe in a Block Universe) but this is one theory amongst others.

I would agree with this--the existence of the past or future is more of a philosophical question than a scientific one (or worse, a question of language)--but I would expect the vast majority of scientists to believe in the existence of past and future given current theories of spacetime relativity (i.e. Minkowski spacetime has time as just another dimension akin to space and therefore is just as real as space). But strictly speaking, it isn't unscientific to not believe in the existence of past and future.

Further if the past exists, what is it made of?

The same stuff as now?

And then, ironically. If the past exists, then there is no death.

Because we're always alive at some point in the past? But then we're also always dead at some point in the past (or we will be).

Biggy, I will reply to your last post later.

[iambiguous]

'Progress' would be pursuing points of mutual interest, dropping points which are not interesting, agreeing on points, conceding points to the other person, reaching new conclusions based on the ideas that come out in the discussion, movement on to new points ...

Okay, let's sustain a discussion that revolves around whether Communism or Capitalism best reflects human nature. And attempt to pin progress down.

My facts. Your facts. Their facts. What can in fact be established historically? How did these facts come about instead of other facts? How far is the gap between the historical facts and the writings of Karl Marx and Adam Smith?

And how might a Buddhist react to this discussion insofar as it involves his or her understanding of enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana.

For instance, has Marx come back back as the coronavirus? Or is that more likely to be Smith?