I don't get Buddhism

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:44 pm

I respect your respect for the limbic system and for importance, and the fact that you've been to these places. I realize I cant tell you much on this terrain. Let's just say I've had more favourable encounters with Zen - yet indeed Ive had to run out of many a temple and dojo out of sheer disgust at the depravity. I sort of forgot about that, until you brought it back to memory.

I guess we're lucky to be what we are.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10973
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby gib » Sat Oct 19, 2019 8:21 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:It appear one is holding two views at the same time, but there is a time difference in nano-seconds, i.e. toggling between the two perspective in the speed of light [nano-seconds] and this happen spontaneously when one has developed the essential skill.


It's not the time difference of when a person thinks it, it's the fact that the two views contradict each other.

"2 + 2 = 4" and "2 + 2 = 5" contradict each other. It doesn't matter that in one moment I think "2 + 2 = 4" and in the next moment I think "2 + 2 = 5", they still contradict each other.

Of course it's possible for one to switch between these two views, but that only makes the thoughts compatible, not their truth.

I'm just saying I don't know how I could believe something that seems contradictory, or how it could be true period--but sure, maybe many skilled Buddhists can switch between different contradicting views 20 times in a minute at lightning speed.

Prismatic567 wrote:My point is the striving for survival is coded in the DNA, thus instinctively reacted with fears when a tiger is sighted or inferred by the sound of a broken twig in the bushes.
A person who is not able to modulate these instinctual reaction may panicked, shrieked, be paralyzed with fears that would increase one's chance of being eaten by the tiger.
The person who has the competence to modulate these instinctual fears will be able to keep calm, use his reasoning skill to get away from the danger effectively.


So would you say that modulation is more about controlling how emotions effect one's behavior and rational thinking rather than suppressing the emotion so that it isn't felt? So a person who encounters a tiger would still be afraid, but he can control how he reacts to the tiger using rational thought. <-- Is that the idea?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Suppression and disconnection, yes. And to me, I believe that it is a path to something, but not what I want.

...

To what the Buddhists call enlightenment, absolutely. You have to suppress emotions and disconnect from them to achieve their goal.


Ok, but then it's the reverse of what they say. They say that realizing that the world is illusion gets rid of the fear (and other emotions), but it seems like getting rid of the fear (or suppressing it) leads to the realization (or belief) that the world is illusion.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9035
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 19, 2019 8:49 pm

KP - though I agree with you that to kill identification and to "realize" that the world is an illusion through learning to not give a fuck (being a zealous nihilist) is a thing for scumbags and cowards, I disagree entirely that this is the purpose of Zen.
Ive done a lot of Zen meditation, meaning many hours at a time of standing meditation after elaborate kung fu practice (in private, in my room), and what the result was is an overflowing love for all things and all beings.
Which is really hard to maintain because people are, and that is especially noticeable in such a state, almost wholly defined by their fears and envies, and their scheming hostility eventually just breaks into the state and you have to go back in meditation, etc etc. Eventually its easier to just partake in the mess than to be clear of it, at least in cities. Whenever Im in a forest or elsewhere alone in nature, the state of bliss automatically returns.

But my point is - how does the maxim that all things are rooted in themselves (which I now know to be true through value ontology) compute with the killing of the limbic system and the training to be a nihilist?

I don't mean to be rhetorical here, so Ill answer: it doesn't.

So we are having to do with at least two different kinds of Zen.
The kind I have initiated myself into is inextricably related to martial and healing arts - engagement of life beyond what a western mindset generally allows for.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10973
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Oct 19, 2019 9:07 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:So we are having to do with at least two different kinds of Zen.
The kind I have initiated myself into is inextricably related to martial and healing arts - engagement of life beyond what a western mindset generally allows for.
Hey, I don't know what you have come up with, I do have a lot of experience of Buddhists and experience meditators and masters both in Asia and in the States. They are not achieving something I want and their communities reflect this in their judgments. I think the original texts have inherent problems when it relates to me and my goals. My first impression of Buddhism also came via Zen, Zen Bones, Zen Flesh was I think the book and then doing Zazen. Cool I thought, freedom, awareness. But in the end at the price of my soul, my guts, my passion, even trading love for compassion. Over the years I have seen what the undercurrent feeling is in dedicated Buddhists and its not for me.

What you are doing and have created for yourself, I can't judge. And I mean that literally. I'd have to hang out, get a feel for you and what you are doing, perhaps participate. Not that I am looking for a path. I have mine. Just saying this to say that my reactions to Buddhism may have nothing at all to do with what you are doing.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3412
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 19, 2019 9:58 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:So we are having to do with at least two different kinds of Zen.
The kind I have initiated myself into is inextricably related to martial and healing arts - engagement of life beyond what a western mindset generally allows for.
Hey, I don't know what you have come up with, I do have a lot of experience of Buddhists and experience meditators and masters both in Asia and in the States. They are not achieving something I want and their communities reflect this in their judgments. I think the original texts have inherent problems when it relates to me and my goals. My first impression of Buddhism also came via Zen, Zen Bones, Zen Flesh was I think the book and then doing Zazen. Cool I thought, freedom, awareness. But in the end at the price of my soul, my guts, my passion, even trading love for compassion.

I really like your perspective.

I undividedly concur that this heartless, loveless, passionless, utterly beak state of mind seems to be the result for most people. My thinking is they're just scum to begin with and cant muser any real discipline. I know I am extraordinarily capable when it comes to prolonged discipline, I have a lot of sustained fire. And I was never out for freedom or awareness, as I never lacked these things. I was in it for the cosmos. Still am.

But what Ive practiced is not something I came up with. Look up the guy I mentioned, Wong Kiew Kit, and judge for yourself whether or not the has killed his limbic system.

Over the years I have seen what the undercurrent feeling is in dedicated Buddhists and its not for me.

What you are doing and have created for yourself, I can't judge. And I mean that literally. I'd have to hang out, get a feel for you and what you are doing, perhaps participate. Not that I am looking for a path. I have mine. Just saying this to say that my reactions to Buddhism may have nothing at all to do with what you are doing.

All beings are rooted in themselves. So that goes without saying.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10973
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:00 pm

PS that might seem like Im grouping you with the discipline-less. The contrary is the case - I admire your resolve in rejecting the heartless scum, your dedication to your human passions.

What Im saying though is that through all these scumbags youve been misled as to what real enlightenment is like.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10973
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:03 pm

One thing you can take into account is that Id never dream of trying to attain any fresh exalted state of mind amidst other people. I read what I read, hear what I hear, and then withdraw into a perfectly private space and commence the work.

The idea you can attain enlightenment under the hands of some "master" is scumbaggery itself, fascism.
But that doesn't mean that now and then a good teacher doesn't cross out paths and impart some knowledge of good methods.

And any sound thought is a method.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10973
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby promethean75 » Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:06 pm

learning to not give a fuck (being a zealous nihilist) is a thing for scumbags and cowards


as a zealous nihilist i take issue with this statement. first of all, nobody 'doesn't give a fuck'. everybody gives a fuck about something, and there are different degrees and kinds of fuck-giving. the phrase 'nihilism' is a catch-all used to classify either some individual person who's fuck-giving is in disagreement with the fuck-giving of the other guy... or entire ages and epochs. prime example; the opening pages of WTP and this 'european nihilism'. what was this? it was an identification of a period in which certain kinds of values were in danger. that 'crisis of the death of god'. but was valuing in danger? impossible, because if a mawfucka merely breathes, he's valuing something. well maybe not a guy in a coma but you get my point.

anyway here's how/why the term nihilism is so carelessly misused by philosophers. they mistake the precept that all values are meaningless with evidence that the nihilist has no values. no. the nihilist didn't say that. he said his values are meaningless (but then the fact that they're meaningless, is meaningless, so there's no problem here). what this does is double the fear and confusion of the other guy. it means this nihilist not only values something different than you - making him suspicious and alien - but also, to top it off, that neither of your values mean anything.

but wait... *scratches head*... how can this guy have values and then say they're meaningless? jesus this is confusing. short answer; because its impossible not to value. difference is, the nihilist's values extend no further than himself, while the idealist's values are granted permission and sanction only after he has led himself to believe what he values has any significance beyond his valuing it. it does not, but he needs to believe it does in order to gain his own approval. to appear 'virtuous' before himself. so he looks around for something to take allegiance with. something, anything, to distract him from the fact that he and his values are ultimately meaningless. a religion, a nation, a state, a frickin ceramics class... whatever it takes. well that and the fact that humans are social creatures. they like to believe in nonsense together and in large groups.

imma tell you how an overdude is identified; he doesn't have the pejorative use of 'nihilism' in his vocabulary. it does not occur to him to even take notice[i] of those who oppose his values, and he'd certainly never say something as stupid as 'this fellow has no values'. he is not the least bit concerned with negotiating over virtues and wills what he wills because he enjoys it... not because he's checked beforehand to see if some other person or age made it possible and/or finds it permissible.

remember; every age appears nihilistic before the next because entering the next involves leaving the last. see how all the old romantic conservatives call the 'post-structural post-modern age' nihilistic. there is no more susbstance to this complaint other than the fact that what is familiar, what has worked, is being slowly discarded by history. your boy neech recognized this and was probably the first and last to use the term 'nihilism' without a drop of resentment. nihilism is a [i]shift
, not an end, not a state of valuelessness.

remember those dudes in the big lebowski? the nihilist dudes? do you think they dressed in leather and had a pet ferret by accident? no. they valued those things. 'we cares about nahsing' was a lie.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3584
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:13 pm

promethean75 wrote: first of all, nobody 'doesn't give a fuck'. everybody gives a fuck about something, and there are different degrees and kinds of fuck-giving. the phrase 'nihilism' is a catch-all used to classify either some individual person who's fuck-giving is in disagreement with the fuck-giving of the other guy... or entire ages and epochs. prime example; the opening pages of WTP and this 'european nihilism'. what was this? it was an identification of a period in which certain kinds of values were in danger. that 'crisis of the death of god'. but was valuing in danger? impossible, because if a mawfucka merely breathes, he's valuing something. well maybe not a guy in a coma but you get my point.

anyway here's how/why the term nihilism is so carelessly misused by philosophers. they mistake the precept that all values are meaningless with evidence that the nihilist has no values. no. the nihilist didn't say that. he said his values are meaningless (but then the fact that they're meaningless, is meaningless, so there's no problem here). what this does is double the fear and confusion of the other guy. it means this nihilist not only values something different than you - making him suspicious and alien - but also, to top it off, that neither of your values mean anything.

but wait... *scratches head*... how can this guy have values and then say they're meaningless? jesus this is confusing. short answer; because its impossible not to value.

I have taught you well. These insights are a lot more important than Buddhism, as they are current.

Here by the way is a nightly bout of improvising about things including Buddhism, in case KT is interested.
https://soundcloud.com/taurusvision/buddha-and-power
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10973
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:29 pm

So we have moved now fully into the Aeon of value ontology.

Forget all the rest.

Fixed Cross wrote:"Values did man only assign to things in order to maintain himself- he created only the significance of things, a human significance! Therefore, calleth he himself "man," that is, the valuator."
- Zarathustra, of the Thousand and One Goals


Fundamental to mans consistent being-as-himself, is his activity of valuing in terms of himself. By this he assimilates material and grows as himself. How is a consistent valuing possible? The simple answer would be: by being a consistent subject. But this only create a a circular argument, and leaves open the question of how there can be a valuing, a being. How does a subject maintain its perspectival consistency, its structural integrity, whereby it values in terms of itself? To explain this we must posit a self-valuing, which is to say, a holding-oneself-as-value, whereby this “oneself” is nothing else than this consistent holding-as-value, in engaging the outer world. This consistency of a self-holding standard-value, is what amounts to being, the accumulation of more and more material to feed and sustain a structurally consistent growing, “a becoming”.

We are faced with the problem of identifying in technical, specific terms what this self-valuing is.  We may not be able to describe or define it in the terms we are used to, in which we like to acquire knowledge, the terms which are developed to describe the manifest in exact measurements. The collection of these terms and their proper logic, that of mathematics, is what we refer to as exact science.

Observing the manifest world in scientific terms, we use principles such as quantity, causality, energy-tranferring and interacting, motion, temporality. All these are enabled and interconnected by the laws of mathematics, which is the logic of objective equalies. It relies on given and exactly determined values, which can be defined in terms of each other. It is here that the philosophy of value ontology posits a break with the method of science. The philosopher is not satisfied with positing values as if they are unquestionably given, it is his task to investigate why, or more precisely, how they are given. Mathematics can not provide an answer to this, as such would go directly against the axioms of this science, which include always the word “if”. If "A" is given, then A is given as A. It does not posit that A is given - it is as if A can be anything - which is not the case. Possibilities are limited. Deepening of logical power occurs now that we have abstract terms for the possibility of existing.

The aim is to embed language into being, to absolve it of its abstracting, detaching compulsion. The means is to embed being into grammar.

The great philosophersof the modern age have attemped such positive statements in various ways, beginning with Descartes, who posited the certainty “I think therefore I am”, or, read properly in context, “I question that anything is, therefore I am”.  Nietzsche and others observed that this “I” who questions is not actually given as an exactly understandable unit. What is this “I” that is, and that questions that anything is, and that posits that he is because he questions that anything is? Descartes accomplished bringing himself the experiential certainty that there is such a thing as himself. He does not bring the certainty that anything else is, in fact he calls this somewhat into question, challenges the other to reveal itself at least to itself; he does not reveal what they are or why they can be said to exist; If the only ground for knowledge of what is is to cognate in the way Descartes was doing, then only thinkers can be known to exist, and only by themselves. Clearly this is not a useful definition of being. It is also not an exact application of logic, as it assumes the “I” both in "I think" and "I exist". The terms “I”, “exist” and “think” are not a mathematical terms: “I exist” can not mathematically be inferred from “I think”.

To draw certainty from Descartes logic, we must look at the meaning of the word “Am” in “I Am”. We must correctly observe the meaning of the verb “to be”.We must logically be satisfied with the given that what we call “being” by definition is in being (exists) - this is the only meaningful and correct way to employ the verb at all. The analytical certainty is “I am, therefore I am”. By this phrase, “I” is defined, namely, as that which, apparently, is said by itself to exist. What have we come to know by this? Nothing.

It is here that philosophy must break from science, from the pretense to be able to define the terms “I” and “exist” and “cognate” in terms of each other by exact inference. We must simply be honest, and admit that all three of these terms are simply understood by us, to mean precisely... what we understand by them! No further explication is necessary, no more exact explication is possible. The terms were called into being to describe exactly what we mean when we use the terms. They hold no deeper meaning than what they were invented to convey.

So to further philosophical understanding, that to which the terms “I” and “think” and “exist” were invented to convey must be explicated in more exacting terms. We can observe that these terms all three of them refer to the very same thing. “I”, “think” and “am” are all words indicating the same. This also includes the things to which other terms refer, such as “eat” or “walk”. As true as “I think, therefore I am” is, is also “I eat, therefore I am”. By disconnecting Descartes logic from his situation in which it emerged, we see that the “I” is posited as a condition of “think”, as much as “think” is a condition of “I”. Therefore, when I posit that “I eat”, I posit an “I” which, by common interpretation of grammar, means that I posit that (an) “I” exist(s).

We see that “I” simply means “existing” and that this existing can be expressed in the endless variety of verbs that may pertain to a posited I. That is all the I is; it allows a verb to make sense, to indicate an activity.

The I is thus always an activity.

In short, we relate activity to values, we act to express and obtain values, and these values allows us to continue acting. The values thus reflect a central value, the acting agent, the "I", who is by all acts bestowing value on himself and so creating his world, which is largely defined by the way he encounters it. If he encounters it consistently, he becomes master over it. If he encounters it according to the ways in which the world engages him, he becomes slave to it. In a normal being, there is a balance. Happiness in mastery increasing, unhappiness is responsiveness increasing. Depression is overloaded responsiveness. The only cure for depression is physical, physiological expression of anger and undergoing the consequences with a measure of of indifferent curiosity toward ones own psychology, so that one can begin discerning ones natural values and reject imposed, unnatural ones.

To exist, one must be able to value consistently, which means that the standard must be consistent. I act so to obtain a value, an object, a thing-and-goal. But if I do not structurally attain my goals, my self-valuing will suffer. So establishing the appropriate values is implicit in existing. Since all that I do is predicated and justified by a specific type of valuing, and since “I” can only be explicated in terms of what I do, the I is nothing besides this establishing-value-to-myself. This is what we seek to maintain or repair - the activity of structurally setting attainable values, the attainment of which will result in a capacity to attain higher values. This is how power increases, by structural value-setting. In man, this needs to be conscious, because those that do this consciously win, defeat others. Man is conscious being so his self-valuing needs to be conscious in order for his integrality, his structural integrity, his 'soul', to survive. His intellect needs consistency.

Ontologically, in all cases the value-establishing to the I leads to a continuation of its capacity to set values for itself, this type of valuing must be understood as a constant, a type of valuing that is itself a consistency, a standard of value -- which means that its consistency must be understood as an activity.

Consistency is the fundamental activity.

We can verify this in terms of the periodic table and at the same time we so verify the logic of this categorization that nature apparently produces on her own accord, by asking what makes for a consistency of an elements. We may consider the most consistent to be those which are least influenced by other elements or energies. The are the 'noble' elements. What make as an element noble is that it does not change internally in reaction to outward stimuli. It holds no potential for internal change, is never inconsistent with itself. It is universe enclosed in itself, all of its values are perfectly attainable, for ever.  Gold is this absolutely active; it holds in its structure the maximum amount activities, its many electron rings are filled, its inner tensions are all in play. Maximization of activity within a given structure amounts to a maximal consistency.

Contemplate the correspondence between consistency, activity, the noble elements, and value.



2011/2012
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10973
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby promethean75 » Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:29 pm

If I hear the words 'value ontology' one more time I shall climb the highest building and throw myself from the precipice.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3584
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby promethean75 » Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:31 pm

Wait I don't think buildings have precipices, do they? Hold on lemme Google it.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3584
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby promethean75 » Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:32 pm

Nope only rocks and cliffs and shit. Please make the necessary edits to my initial statement. Thank you.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3584
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Oct 20, 2019 6:33 am

Fanman wrote:Prismatic,

Buddhism-proper itself discourages the concept of who is more spiritually enlightened. As such it is irrelevant for Science to deal with this point.


But we aren't Buddhists, the topic is open for discussion. I think that if Science was capable of measuring who is and isn't spirituality enlightened, or the degree to which people were, there would be many papers on the subject. It is an area that Science really doesn't have a say in, because it isn't something tangible. As such it is intersubjective – there isn't one right answer.

If you care to explore there are tons of scientific papers, research and findings on the achievement of Buddhist monks.
Here is one example;

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2944261/

    In a recent visit to the United States, the Dalai Lama gave a speech at the Society for Neuroscience's annual meeting in Washington, D.C. Over the past several years, he has helped recruit Tibetan Buddhist monks for, and directly encouraged research on the brain and meditation in the Waisman Laboratory for Brain Imaging and Behavior at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The findings from studies in this unusual sample as well as related research efforts, suggest that, over the course of meditating for tens of thousands of hours, the long-term practitioners had actually altered the structure and function of their brains. In this article we discuss neuroplasticity, which encompasses such alterations, and the findings from these studies. Further, we comment on the associated signal processing (SP) challenges, current status and how SP can contribute to advance these studies.

True, Science cannot give perfect answers, but whatever results are produced in this case they have scientific credibility rather than personal subjective claims by individual[s].

As stated we can assess the spiritual results from the texts, actions and experiences of Christians and Buddhists.
For example, re the spiritual potential of each religion, we can take the analogy of Mathematics, i.e. Christianity [based on Gospel] is like teaching basic arithmetic while Buddhism-proper cover up to calculus and higher mathematics.
In this case, Science can verify at least the associated competence of spirituality in comparing Christians and Buddhist monks. Note the links I provided re the test of competence of the 20 monks. In addition there are many other research to verify the competence of experienced Buddhist monks.


That's one way of looking at things, and on the surface or to someone that doesn't understand the depth of the Christian religion, your analogy holds water. If both practices can have a similar effect in terms of moderating behaviour patterns – then both are as effective as each other. Both practices seek to better the human condition and change the mindset, but they go about it in different ways. I think that they both work on the same level, they effect the way we manage emotions and behaviours. If I met someone who upheld the ideals that Jesus preached, I suppose I would call that person “enlightened”, because they have, as Christians put it “overcome the world”, by which I mean carnality and its trappings, the same can be said of a Buddhist I guess, only the path they took to get to that disposition is different.

I have done sufficient exploration on what is typically Christianity and Christians mystics.
As I had stated what the Christian mystics are doing are outside the scope of Christianity-proper but are bothering toward non-Christian spirituality.
Many of the Christian mystics could have suffered from some kind of mental illness, e.g. Temporal Epilepsy which give them a wider perspective of spirituality, but such are not stated in the Gospel. E.g. St. Paul, St. Theresa of Avila, and others display symptoms of temporal epilepsy.

We have discussed this point before.
'What is Christianity' and 'Who is a Christian' is confined specifically to the Gospel propounded by Jesus Christ as reported by the 4 Apostles.
In principle and technically what is Christianity cannot be outside the scope of what Jesus Christ as Son of God stated and depicted to the 4 apostles.
Surely we cannot refer to principles for Buddhism, Hinduism and others that are not represented in the Gospel as 'Christianity'?

Whatever is in the OT, Acts and Epistles to be regarded a Christianity must aligned with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, else they are outside the ideology of Christianity-proper.


This is very wrong. If that was the case, why do Christian preachers still expound heavily on the OT in their sermons? Jesus never claimed that the OT was invalid in an absolute sense, the sense that you seem to be claiming - he just changed the OT law. This is probably a discussion for a different topic, but there are I think many examples that show that the whole Bible is relevant to Christians - you can't win that argument. Also, we did not share the same view in those discussions.

As I had stated whatever that is referred to in the OT has to align with the Gospel of Christ. Thus all the evil and violent elements in the OT are not valid, i.e. abrogated for Christianity which is grounded on the Gospel of Christ.

Btw, the typical Christian preachers would NOT exhort their followers to kill non-Christians in the name of Jesus nor quote from the Gospel of Christ.
Some perverted Christian preachers may do so, but they are cannot be doing it based on Christianity per se.
Last edited by Prismatic567 on Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Oct 20, 2019 6:57 am

Fixed Cross wrote:PS that might seem like Im grouping you with the discipline-less. The contrary is the case - I admire your resolve in rejecting the heartless scum, your dedication to your human passions.

What Im saying though is that through all these scumbags youve been misled as to what real enlightenment is like.
I don't think so, obviously. But in any case I have my own path which is really quite different. So, it's very apples and bicycles to me, quite different categories of goals, practices, heuristics and even ontology.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3412
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:03 am

gib wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:It appear one is holding two views at the same time, but there is a time difference in nano-seconds, i.e. toggling between the two perspective in the speed of light [nano-seconds] and this happen spontaneously when one has developed the essential skill.


It's not the time difference of when a person thinks it, it's the fact that the two views contradict each other.

"2 + 2 = 4" and "2 + 2 = 5" contradict each other. It doesn't matter that in one moment I think "2 + 2 = 4" and in the next moment I think "2 + 2 = 5", they still contradict each other.

Of course it's possible for one to switch between these two views, but that only makes the thoughts compatible, not their truth.

I'm just saying I don't know how I could believe something that seems contradictory, or how it could be true period--but sure, maybe many skilled Buddhists can switch between different contradicting views 20 times in a minute at lightning speed.

2 + 2 = 5 can still be true if we change perspective to that of synergy, e.g. 1 + 1 = 3.
Synergy is the creation of a whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts - wiki.

1 + 1 = 2 is not true if we add 1 drop of liquid to another 1 drop of liquid where we only get 1 bigger drop of liquid, thus in this case, 1 + 1 = 1.
If we use the binary system, then 1 + 1 is not equal to 2.

Thus 1 + 1 = 2 or 1 + 1 = 3 or 1 + 1 = 1 are true but only if they are in different perspective and at different times. There is definitely a time factor that separate the shifting of perspectives.

Yes, skilled Buddhists will switch between perspectives which are seemingly contradictory at speed of light, but they do it spontaneously from having developed the skill to do so.

You can practice with the 'pretty lady - old woman illusion.'
In this image, normally one can only see either the pretty lady or old woman at any one time.
However if you practice seeing them alternative as quickly as possible and repeat many times [1000s, millions], it is possible for you to see them both at the 'same' time but actually your mind is toggling them from one nano-second to another image.

Image

Prismatic567 wrote:My point is the striving for survival is coded in the DNA, thus instinctively reacted with fears when a tiger is sighted or inferred by the sound of a broken twig in the bushes.
A person who is not able to modulate these instinctual reaction may panicked, shrieked, be paralyzed with fears that would increase one's chance of being eaten by the tiger.
The person who has the competence to modulate these instinctual fears will be able to keep calm, use his reasoning skill to get away from the danger effectively.


So would you say that modulation is more about controlling how emotions effect one's behavior and rational thinking rather than suppressing the emotion so that it isn't felt? So a person who encounters a tiger would still be afraid, but he can control how he reacts to the tiger using rational thought. <-- Is that the idea?

Not necessary rational thought only, but also the calmness will enable one to exercise what one has trained for spontaneously.
It is like a professional sportsperson say like Roger Federer, he may rationalize his actions but most of the time his reactions would be spontaneous without rationalization because he has repeated and trained his techniques thousands or millions of times.
However if a sportsperson start thinking of other things [the prize or losing the game] s/he would start to get anxious and nervous with fears and thus will not be able to perform his game efficiently.

Here is a point re skillful effort,
[this is from a Theravada Source, but skillful effort is central and common to all the main Buddhist Schools]

    https://tricycle.org/magazine/skillful-effort/
    Some dharma teachers may be reluctant to encourage students to make strong effort. The Buddha, however, wasn’t at all shy about urging his disciples to do so. In doing so, he often explained to his followers that he was exhorting them because he had compassion for them, because he wanted them to find an end to suffering.

    It takes strong effort to follow the Buddha’s path. It isn’t a path for the lazy or halfhearted. Like any meaningful undertaking, dharma practice requires great effort. Think about anybody who has achieved a high level of proficiency in a particular area. Chances are, they’ve made exceptional effort. Very little in life is accomplished without a degree of perspiration. When we watch somebody display great expertise, it all may seem rather effortless; but the truth is, it takes a lot of practice to reach that seemingly effortless state.

    As dharma students we’re asked to make strong effort.
    But we’re asked to make a certain kind of effort: skillful effort.

    During the course of our lives, most of us have probably had a rather unskillful relationship to the subject of effort. In making effort, in whatever context, we’ve probably cultivated bad habits. We’ve probably caused ourselves suffering. Most of us, of course, were never shown how to make skillful effort. On the contrary, the people who served as roles models for us—parents, teachers, bosses, and so on—probably showed us how to make unskillful effort. In all likelihood we’ve learned ways of making effort that aren’t useful in terms of finding true happiness in our lives.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:11 am

Fixed Cross wrote:The most cleanly form of Buddhism, I estimate, is Zen Buddhism. My most favourite zen-teachers are Wong Kiew Kit ..

I have read Wong Kiew Kit's The Complete Book of Zen which is good and various books on Dogen. However I am not into Zen.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:24 am

promethean75 wrote:anyway here's how/why the term nihilism is so carelessly misused by philosophers. they mistake the precept that all values are meaningless with evidence that the nihilist has no values. no. the nihilist didn't say that. he said his values are meaningless (but then the fact that they're meaningless, is meaningless, so there's no problem here). what this does is double the fear and confusion of the other guy. it means this nihilist not only values something different than you - making him suspicious and alien - but also, to top it off, that neither of your values mean anything.
Going to bring in Iamb again, because I don't think you are really quite looking at him and it is relevant to this.
1) a nihilist, as you describe him, would not be looking for that moral argument that will convince all rational people to behave. One could try to argue that Iamb is simply using this as a rhetorical tool to show that objectivists have no epistemological foundation for their conclusions. But he goes way beyond this by saying it is of critical importance to find out how one ought to live. That is not nihilist, that is someone from his own perspective trapped in nihilism looking for a way back to objectivism. 2) you say above that one cannot help but value. But Iamb's enterprise is not to simply accept this, but rather to judge others who manage to pursue their own values, even seeing these in terms of your defnitions of a nihilist, without his level of suffering, being fractured, not being able to settle on his values. Number two here is really two things. He feels trapped and suffering as a nihilist and sees anyone not doing this as not a pure nihilist. He also has an epistemological issue with anyone knowing their values. He is fractured and suffering and doesn't trust his introspection or even choice of values - not simply because they are meaningless, but because no one can know what they want or value. He sees statis and suffering as the only true, pure, nihilist reaction to Dasein. I am using the capitalized form, so I am not using it in his sense with the little d. If one really notices the truth of nihilism, one should be more or less paralyzed socially, politically, and in relation to taking action in the world on any level. Anyone not paralyzed and hopeless, has a cogntive pathology in his view. Which is very close to what you are calling the pejorative and false idea of nihilism. And hence his fascination with determinism, which gives him yet another tool to bemoan not knowing. Hence his focusing on how small we are in the enormous universe (we are nothing, but not just as information, as feeling). It is a massive argument and process to convince himself and others that futility needs necessarily to be focused on. If you are not focused on futility and hopelessness and seem to know what you want, then you are, necessarily an idealogue telling him what he should do, even if you don't. Your engagement is a betrayal, so it has to be equivalent to being Moonie. His nihilism is not the problem, his brokenness as right understanding and right state, however is. We should all erase ourselves. And while doing that, look for ways to no longer be a nihilist: for what could be more important than ending one's nihilism, he asks, though he doubts he will manage before the end.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3412
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Sun Oct 20, 2019 8:49 am

Prismatic,

If you care to explore there are tons of scientific papers, research and findings on the achievement of Buddhist monks.


I agree that scientific research on how the brains of Buddhist monks differ from normal people is valid. But if that means they are enlightened spiritually is open to interpretation. I think it depends on how the term “spirituality” is defined; and because there are different meanings and interpretations for that word, it is problematic to produce a measuring scale that everyone will agree with. Can we even apply common sense to such an endeavour? To my understanding the term “spirituality” is linked to a whole host of things which cannot be proven to exist. I understand that the term can be used in a secular sense, such as a person being in “high spirit”, but I don't think that is what you mean. What is your definition of “spirituality”?

True, Science cannot give perfect answers, but whatever results are produced in this case they have scientific credibility rather than personal subjective claims by individual[s].


I accept that Buddhism works in terms of what it strives to achieve. Science can verify that and thus there is empirical credibility. I think that science can describe how the difference in a Buddhist's brain affects how they process things like emotions, fears etc., I don't know if that means they are better equipped or just different; I suppose it depends on how we perceive things. Subjective claims about spirituality are open to question, which is why I questioned the measuring scale you gave as an example.

I have done sufficient exploration on what is typically Christianity and Christians mystics.
As I had stated what the Christian mystics are doing are outside the scope of Christianity-proper but are bothering toward non-Christian spirituality.
Many of the Christian mystics could have suffered from some kind of mental illness, e.g. Temporal Epilepsy which give them a wider perspective of spirituality, but such are not stated in the Gospel. E.g. St. Paul, St. Theresa of Avila, and others display symptoms of temporal epilepsy.


I'm just saying that the whole of the Bible is relevant to Christians. To say that it isn't is simply not correct.

As I had stated whatever that is referred to in the OT has to align with the Gospel of Christ. Thus all the evil and violent elements in the OT are not valid, i.e. abrogated for Christianity which is grounded on the Gospel of Christ.


In terms of the OT law, I won't disagree, but the OT law is not the entire constitution of the OT. Why would God send his son/advocate to invalidate everything he said and did? Apply logic brother. According to scripture, Jesus and God are the same person, why would he invalidate himself? Jesus changed the law (replacing it with another), but he didn't say, everything else is in the OT invalid too. From the beginning, God has always wanted people to fulfil his perception of being “good”, and Christianity ideally, propagates God's original intention for people.

Btw, the typical Christian preachers would exhort their followers to kill non-Christians in the name of Jesus nor quote from the Gospel of Christ.
Some perverted Christian preachers may do, but they are cannot be doing it based on Christianity per se.


The more popular Christian preachers advocate people getting involved with a Bible based church. They don't make a distinction between the OT and NT, except where the law is concerned.
Fanman
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:31 pm

Fanman wrote: But if that means they are enlightened spiritually is open to interpretation. I think it depends on how the term “spirituality” is defined; and because there are different meanings and interpretations for that word,
Yes, and also, while the state may be good in some ways does not mean it is not a loss in other ways. If you have trained yourself not to feel so much, sure, you may very well, be calmer and less stressed...but at what cost? and is it the only way to do this? There are so many assumptions in these kinds of spiritual issue issue. And the appeals to authority involved are often not acknowledged by adherents.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3412
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Sun Oct 20, 2019 4:51 pm

As I had stated whatever that is referred to in the OT has to align with the Gospel of Christ. Thus all the evil and violent elements in the OT are not valid, i.e. abrogated for Christianity which is grounded on the Gospel of Christ.



In terms of the OT law, I won't disagree, but the OT law is not the entire constitution of the OT. Why would God send his son/advocate to invalidate everything he said and did? Apply logic brother. According to scripture, Jesus and God are the same person, why would he invalidate himself? Jesus changed the law (replacing it with another), but he didn't say, everything else is in the OT invalid too. From the beginning, God has always wanted people to fulfil his perception of being “good”, and Christianity ideally, propagates God's original intention for people.
Prismatic just seems to be saying that when the NT and OT disagree, then the NT takes precedence. And he is specifically referring to the "evil and violent elements".

That appears to be the logical approach.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:08 pm

Going to bring in Iamb again, because I don't think you are really quite looking at him and it is relevant to this.
1) a nihilist, as you describe him, would not be looking for that moral argument that will convince all rational people to behave. One could try to argue that Iamb is simply using this as a rhetorical tool to show that objectivists have no epistemological foundation for their conclusions. But he goes way beyond this by saying it is of critical importance to find out how one ought to live. That is not nihilist, that is someone from his own perspective trapped in nihilism looking for a way back to objectivism. 2) you say above that one cannot help but value. But Iamb's enterprise is not to simply accept this, but rather to judge others who manage to pursue their own values, even seeing these in terms of your defnitions of a nihilist, without his level of suffering, being fractured, not being able to settle on his values. Number two here is really two things. He feels trapped and suffering as a nihilist and sees anyone not doing this as not a pure nihilist. He also has an epistemological issue with anyone knowing their values. He is fractured and suffering and doesn't trust his introspection or even choice of values - not simply because they are meaningless, but because no one can know what they want or value. He sees statis and suffering as the only true, pure, nihilist reaction to Dasein. I am using the capitalized form, so I am not using it in his sense with the little d. If one really notices the truth of nihilism, one should be more or less paralyzed socially, politically, and in relation to taking action in the world on any level. Anyone not paralyzed and hopeless, has a cogntive pathology in his view. Which is very close to what you are calling the pejorative and false idea of nihilism. And hence his fascination with determinism, which gives him yet another tool to bemoan not knowing. Hence his focusing on how small we are in the enormous universe (we are nothing, but not just as information, as feeling). It is a massive argument and process to convince himself and others that futility needs necessarily to be focused on. If you are not focused on futility and hopelessness and seem to know what you want, then you are, necessarily an idealogue telling him what he should do, even if you don't. Your engagement is a betrayal, so it has to be equivalent to being Moonie. His nihilism is not the problem, his brokenness as right understanding and right state, however is. We should all erase ourselves. And while doing that, look for ways to no longer be a nihilist: for what could be more important than ending one's nihilism, he asks, though he doubts he will manage before the end.
There is another possibility, which is that he is a nihilist who derives personal meaning from playing an elaborate game. In that case, he is not really in a hole, he is not suffering, paralyzed or hopeless. He is not judging anyone. Those are the instruments that he uses to draw people in, keep them engaged and to make them dance for his pleasure.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:25 pm

phyllo wrote:There is another possibility, which is that he is a nihilist who derives personal meaning from playing an elaborate game. In that case, he is not really in a hole, he is not suffering, paralyzed or hopeless. He is not judging anyone. Those are the instruments that he uses to draw people in, keep them engaged and to make them dance for his pleasure.
I have at times thought there was something sadistic. He was trying to pull you back in for another 8 years and I can't really see what he got out of it. There was a spider fly element. In relation to prometheus, his fan, I are presenting Iamb at face value. He is what he is doing, on the surface, at least. He's not really a nihilist. A nihilist is not searching for rational arguments for the right morality. A nihilist does not think the most important question is 'How ought I live?' He lacks the ought. He would be asking what he wants to do, what he values and would like more of, dislikes and disvalues and wants less of. Other facets of Iamb, if we take him as he presents himself, which are not nihilistic I mentioned above. The possibility you present here is that he is a nuanced troll. Could be. Whatever it is, I think it is a kind of anti-life meme or set of memes, either way.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3412
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:26 pm

Just for the record...

Going to bring in Iamb again, because I don't think you are really quite looking at him and it is relevant to this.
1) a nihilist, as you describe him, would not be looking for that moral argument that will convince all rational people to behave. One could try to argue that Iamb is simply using this as a rhetorical tool to show that objectivists have no epistemological foundation for their conclusions. But he goes way beyond this by saying it is of critical importance to find out how one ought to live. That is not nihilist, that is someone from his own perspective trapped in nihilism looking for a way back to objectivism. 2) you say above that one cannot help but value. But Iamb's enterprise is not to simply accept this, but rather to judge others who manage to pursue their own values, even seeing these in terms of your defnitions of a nihilist, without his level of suffering, being fractured, not being able to settle on his values. Number two here is really two things. He feels trapped and suffering as a nihilist and sees anyone not doing this as not a pure nihilist. He also has an epistemological issue with anyone knowing their values. He is fractured and suffering and doesn't trust his introspection or even choice of values - not simply because they are meaningless, but because no one can know what they want or value. He sees statis and suffering as the only true, pure, nihilist reaction to Dasein. I am using the capitalized form, so I am not using it in his sense with the little d. If one really notices the truth of nihilism, one should be more or less paralyzed socially, politically, and in relation to taking action in the world on any level. Anyone not paralyzed and hopeless, has a cogntive pathology in his view. Which is very close to what you are calling the pejorative and false idea of nihilism. And hence his fascination with determinism, which gives him yet another tool to bemoan not knowing. Hence his focusing on how small we are in the enormous universe (we are nothing, but not just as information, as feeling). It is a massive argument and process to convince himself and others that futility needs necessarily to be focused on. If you are not focused on futility and hopelessness and seem to know what you want, then you are, necessarily an idealogue telling him what he should do, even if you don't. Your engagement is a betrayal, so it has to be equivalent to being Moonie. His nihilism is not the problem, his brokenness as right understanding and right state, however is. We should all erase ourselves. And while doing that, look for ways to no longer be a nihilist: for what could be more important than ending one's nihilism, he asks, though he doubts he will manage before the end.


What is the first thing you note about this? Perhaps it is what I noted: That this is just another gigantic general description intellectual contraption in which words define and defend other words but are not intertwined in a discussion/description of any particular context. One which zeros in on the components of my own moral philosophy: identity, value judgments and political power. Intertwined in turn out in a particular world construed from a particular point of view.

This then precipitating beliefs that one is either able to demonstrate to others are obligatory for all rational [virtuous] men and women to share, or are instead the embodiment of the arguments that I make in my signature threads.

There is another possibility, which is that he is a nihilist who derives personal meaning from playing an elaborate game. In that case, he is not really in a hole, he is not suffering, paralyzed or hopeless. He is not judging anyone. Those are the instruments that he uses to draw people in, keep them engaged and to make them dance for his pleasure.


Same here. What on earth are we to make of this sort of broad speculation? The closest that I have come myself to grappling with "I" here myself was expressed on another thread:

In all honesty there is no "in all honesty" here. Not when it comes to "I". There is no way in hell that I could ever possibly grasp my motivations and intentions in posting here. And that is because there are simply far, far too many variables in my life [going all the way back to the cradle] that were/are either beyond my understanding or control.

I suspect there really is a part of me that is very much sincere in greeting and then grappling with arguments that might topple my own. After all, look at all the things I have to gain if I really were able to yank my fractured and fragmented "I" up out of the hole.

And then the part that is rooted in 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

Parts of me take this seriously, parts of me don't.

And then someone back in my Ponderer's Guild days once suggested that I am the philosophical equivalent of the AIDS patient who feels compelled to go out and infect others...so that they too can suffer as he does. That was me there he argued. "I" am "fractured and fragmented" down "in my hole". "I" am convinced that human existence is essentially meaningless and ends in oblivion. So, sure, why not "infect" others with the same sense of hopelessness and despair. Get a little empathy going.

I just don't know. And I just don't know because I suspect that I just can't know. In ways that are far beyond my grasping, it really is "beyond my control".

You know, assuming that I have any capacity to exercise free will here; and going back to whatever the explanation for existence itself is.


But even this is just another general description intellectual contraption. If someone were interested in exploring it further, we would need to take it down out of the clouds and embed it in a set of circumstances involving human interactions most are familiar with. Circumstances in which a discussion of things like Buddhism are related to the actual lives that we live. Lives that in regard to religious and moral and political narratives often do come into conflict.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38551
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:45 pm

And I think, just to swing it back to the topic, that the pattern is not so unlike Buddhism, except I doubt it would have much effect on the brain scans and cortisol levels of people who practiced his approach. He has his approach, heuristics, epistemology, ontology and practices: the practices involving the challenges to objectivists, the repetition of his working class background etc. dasein, his collection threads. The ontology more or less materialism/physicalism, though not the most recent versions. His epistemology a cautious version of sceintific empiricism, which fits nicely with the materialism. The heuristics attendant to these, but then adding in more regular doubt and skepticism about any knowledge. It is fair enough for him to look from his position and find nothing appealing about Buddhism, with its alternate ontology, heuristics and practices. Why should he believe it would help him? Of course one wonders why he believes his approach is helping him. But I end up in a similar rejection of Buddhísm, though on other grounds.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3412
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users