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 phyllo » Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:50 pm

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.
What could be more "particular" than this context here and now ... Iambiguous interacting with specific posters on the ILP site?
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.
What could be more "familiar" than these posts, in these threads?
Circumstances in which a discussion of things like Buddhism are related to the actual lives that we live.

These are actual lives being lived right now ... posting on a web site.

This is "down on Earth". Abortion, Trump, immigration, gun laws are farther away in the clouds.

Of course, that other stuff seems more important, less trivial than posts on a web site.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12120
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:56 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.
Bringing it back to Buddhism.

This context of posting on ILP is "chop wood, carry water". This is being present in the moment.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12120
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:57 pm

phyllo wrote:These are actual lives being lived right now ... posting on a web site.

This is "down on Earth". Abortion, Trump, immigration, gun laws are farther away in the clouds.

Of course, that other stuff seems more important, less trivial than posts on a web site.
I've made this exact point a number of times. Not only is it concrete interpersonal actions we experience and participate in here, they can be interpreted morally. Even more concrete, we are not talking about two abstract people having an abortion. We have the people interacting right here, participating in the conversation. Even better, we have evidence of the interaction, in fact all the facets of it, since it is words on a screen.

One of the reasons I decided he considered himself transcendent was he did not seem to think this was real life. Somehow his interactions here were less concrete than ideas about what one - all rational people - should do in hypothetical generalized contexts out there. Which meant that there were no possible negative effects of his project here.

His communicative acts may or may not be moral, to those who have objective morals. His actions have effects. He is not outside looking in. He is in life. With the potential that his actions are doing harm.

It amazed me that he couldn't get that. Or perhaps, wouldn't.

If we can't solve the smaller problems of how we interact here, are we really going to solve Trump, Abortion, conflicting goods....?
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Sun Oct 20, 2019 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3433
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby gib » Sun Oct 20, 2019 8:04 pm

Prismatic567 wrote: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.


That's a common misconception of what arithmetic means. It's the conflating of the word "add" with different meanings. When mathematicians talk about adding, they're not talking about a process or a change, as in adding ingredients to a cake or joining two water droplets together, they're talking about separate things coexisting, as in: if you have two apples and you also have three other apples, then you have five apples all together. It's meant to be taken in a static context, and the term "equals" means "can be rephrased as" or "is equivalent to" or just "means". 2 + 3 = 5 just means: 2 things coexisting with 3 other things is another way of saying there are 5 things. In the case of processes or change, "equals" means "result in" or "becomes".

But that's beside the point. If you want to say 1 + 1 = 1 (because two rain drops come together to form one rain drop), you can, but you're switching to a different meaning of +. Which is fine--that's what I want you to do--because then you can say: 1 + 1 = 2 (in the mathematical sense) and at the same time 1 + 1 = 1 (in the rain drops joining sense). You've changed two incompatible statements into two compatible statements. But taken in the original mathematical sense, both statements are still a contradiction and can't logically both be taken as true.

So saying "the self is real and not real at the same time" is still a contradiction when taken with the same meaning, but if "real" means something different in each case (or maybe "self"), then you *might* be able to conjure up compatible statements. One example might be: the self is just mental, so there's nothing in the real world that you could point to called a "self", yet because it's mental, we really do have the experience (or the thought), and therefore the self as experience is real.

If you want to give me two ways of interpreting "the self is [not] real" that are compatible with each other, that would help. Keep in mind though, if you want to generalize the principle of two truths, you're going to have to do this for every set of contradictory statements one could come up with.
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 Fanman » Sun Oct 20, 2019 8:31 pm

KT,
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.


Buddhism seems to me, conversely, as an extreme way to live. Even though the aim and purportedly the result is moderation - to effectively manage/control how they react to the emotional highs and lows of life. To experience the world in a different way than regular people. So much so, that it physically alters the natural function of the brain (as well as the psyche) - like a form of psychotropic medication. As you say there may be benefits, but there is a trade-off that over time could be to the person's detriment in terms of how they experience/enjoy life.

A fundamental part of the human condition is that we are not in control of the things that we feel. That's natural and in many cases can be a wonderful experience. If there is no emotion, no desire and no self. How do Buddhists experience being free from suffering in a meaningful way, how do they relate to it, or process it? Is the Buddhist life just a quiet and peaceful “hum” for them, never mind what's actually going on whether bliss, chaos or something in between? If that is the case, it seems disconnected, and as I said to Pris, effectively a form of escapism. However, my knowledge of Buddhism only allows me to speculate.
Fanman
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Sun Oct 20, 2019 8:43 pm

There is only very small group of people who are going to go to the extreme of Buddhism. The same is true of Christianity ... most people are not going to become monks. Most people are going to dabble and potentially get some benefit out of it. They will stop when it feels painful or becomes too much work.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12120
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Oct 20, 2019 8:56 pm

phyllo wrote:
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.


What could be more "particular" than this context here and now ... Iambiguous interacting with specific posters on the ILP site?


Okay, but, in my view, the discussion shifts from the substantive points I raise about Buddhism and religion above to a discussion of me. Exploring and then exposing to others here what you think makes me tick. Or so it seems to me.

Instead, in the past, you usually take the opportunity to point out how in regard to things like Communism and abortion we have in fact already gone back and forth. But to no avail.

But then my point here is that, given the manner in which I construe value judgments [sacred or secular] as existential contraptions rooted in dasein -- "I" -- I don't expect there to be any resolutions. My main interest in fact is in coming upon an argument that might persuade me that a resoultion [philosophical or otherwise] may well be possible in a No God world.

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.


phyllo wrote: What could be more "familiar" than these posts, in these threads?


But this is a thread that focuses on Buddhism, not on the act of posting on the thread itself.


Circumstances in which a discussion of things like Buddhism are related to the actual lives that we live.


phyllo wrote: These are actual lives being lived right now ... posting on a web site.

This is "down on Earth". Abortion, Trump, immigration, gun laws are farther away in the clouds.

Of course, that other stuff seems more important, less trivial than posts on a web site.


I am not at all clear as to what you are pointing out here.

Look, there are folks here like gib who have had long discussions with me in the past and then decided they have gone as far as they can. They stopped responding to my posts, preferring to move on to others. Some have even noted it in precisely that manner. Fine, I can respect that.

But what about you? As with KT, you seem more intent on making me the issue.

Okay, but take it to a new thread. Either that or, as have some here, "give up" on me [and really mean it this time] and move on to others.
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: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38611
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Oct 20, 2019 9:53 pm

Fanman wrote:Buddhism seems to me, conversely, as an extreme way to live. Even though the aim and purportedly the result is moderation - to effectively manage/control how they react to the emotional highs and lows of life. To experience the world in a different way than regular people. So much so, that it physically alters the natural function of the brain (as well as the psyche) - like a form of psychotropic medication. As you say there may be benefits, but there is a trade-off that over time could be to the person's detriment in terms of how they experience/enjoy life.
I think it's value-laden. A buddhist essentially states that we are confused and he or she has the solution to that. I think the Buddhist is making a lifestyle choice. Make it if you want, but it is not a universal solution.

A fundamental part of the human condition is that we are not in control of the things that we feel. That's natural and in many cases can be a wonderful experience. If there is no emotion, no desire and no self. How do Buddhists experience being free from suffering in a meaningful way, how do they relate to it, or process it? Is the Buddhist life just a quiet and peaceful “hum” for them, never mind what's actually going on whether bliss, chaos or something in between? If that is the case, it seems disconnected, and as I said to Pris, effectively a form of escapism. However, my knowledge of Buddhism only allows me to speculate.
They solved the problem by elimination portions of the self. If that's what they want, fine, but it's not for me.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3433
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Oct 20, 2019 9:54 pm

The Monk and the Philosopher by Jean-François Revel & Matthieu Ricard
Lachlan Dale explores some of the philosophical implications of Tibetan Buddhism. From Philosophy Now magazine.

The doctrine of karma also holds implications for euthanasia. When asked what Buddhism recommends for someone in great pain at the end of their life, Ricard replies that the pain provides an opportunity for spiritual growth: “since suffering is the result of our past negative actions, it’s better to pay off our debts while we have available the help of spiritual practice… neither euthanasia nor suicide are acceptable.”



First, of course, there's the part where attempts are made by particular Buddhists to establish that this is in fact what the true Buddhist believes. And then the part where other religious and nonreligious individuals and/or denominations weigh in with conflicting assessments.

And then the part where the dots are connected existentially between believing what you do about euthanasia here and now...beliefs that precipitates behaviors that are weighed by whatever in the universe is behind the force/entity that decides what you will come back as when reincarnated.

Although we might be tempted to draw parallels here to Viktor Frankl’s view that suffering provides opportunity for the creation of personal meaning, Ricard’s perspective has a troubling corollary: if all suffering is self-caused, and to avoid pain is to merely postpone it, then an embrace of suffering is spiritually mandated.


Same thing here. Is this what "Buddhists-proper" are expected -- obligated? -- to believe? Or, as with other religious denominations, can Buddhism itself configure into a more ecumenical assessment. You pick and choose the components of the texts you read so as to rationalize behaviors that other Buddhists would not?

Here I always get back to the "here and now" and the "there and then": Being and nothingness.

Such romanticisation of suffering leads Revel to protest on ethical grounds. It creates worries for me, too. How should we regard compassionate acts that reduce someone’s suffering? Are they tampering with the law of karma or otherwise inhibiting the spiritual growth of the individual? Unfortunately, these questions are not addressed.


See, this is what I call the "for all practical purposes" aspects of any particular religion. There's what you can rationalize in your head regarding your own set of circumstances and there's the part where that comes into conflict with the moral/spiritual narratives/agendas of others.

In particular the part where all of this must be configured into actual rules of behaviors, actual laws which when enforced precipitate actual rewards and punishments. Actual consequences in other words.
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: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38611
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby promethean75 » Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:01 pm

bood
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3624
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby promethean75 » Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:01 pm

is
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3624
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby promethean75 » Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:01 pm

em
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3624
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:05 pm

But then my point here is that, given the manner in which I construe value judgments [sacred or secular] as existential contraptions rooted in dasein -- "I" -- I don't expect there to be any resolutions.
It's rooted in dasein -- "I" ...

Okay, but, in my view, the discussion shifts from the substantive points I raise about Buddhism and religion above to a discussion of me. Exploring and then exposing to others here what you think makes me tick.
... but we are not supposed to be discussing you.

Does the irony of that escape you?
I don't expect there to be any resolutions.
I think that you intentionally post so that there is no resolution. Which "proves" your hypothesis that there is no resolution.
My main interest in fact is in coming upon an argument that might persuade me that a resoultion [philosophical or otherwise] may well be possible in a No God world.
The strange part is that you want an agreement when even objectivists don't expect there to be an agreement by everyone. An objectivist recognizes that people can and will be wrong. Some will reject the gift of salvation. Some will continue to hold mistaken ideas and beliefs in spite of any and every argument.

I don't know why you insist that it ought to be otherwise.

But this is a thread that focuses on Buddhism, not on the act of posting on the thread itself.
You are constantly asking for contexts ... whether relevant to a thread or not. If you want to start a new thread dealing with your posting style as the context, then go ahead.
I am not at all clear as to what you are pointing out here.
I'm pointing out that you are not going to have an abortion and you have very little say in what happens with Trump, immigration and gun laws. Asking about those things is a way to escape into the clouds of generalities and abstractions.

But you have complete control over how you post on ILP. I someone criticizes your posting style then you have a case of conflicting goods. It's a case that can be examined in detail and potentially resolved.

It's an excellent context to discuss.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12120
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:28 pm

phyllo wrote:
Okay, but, in my view, the discussion shifts from the substantive points I raise about Buddhism and religion above to a discussion of me. Exploring and then exposing to others here what you think makes me tick.
... but we are not supposed to be discussing you.

Does the irony of that escape you?



WAit Phyllo. He's lying here. Here is the juncture when the thread went personal between you two and then I joined...


The part that, in my view, you and other religionists avoid like the plague.
That is personal. He is talking about what you do as a person, and lumping you in a group. He went ad hom. Then when you point out that you have not avoided discussion with him, he sends a few posts with a bunch of mocking emojis. But now he is blaming others for going personal and not discussing Buddhism. He could easily have made his point without going ad hom. Nor did he hesitate to post in the thread inviting you, goading you to engage with him on topics not related to Buddhism. He has always told people their motives for believing what they believe. He has always gone ad hom. That is central to his project. It's only problematic when aimed at him. He should be off limits. His actions here cannot be part of conflicting goods or up for discussion. It should be some issue one reads about in the newspapers. But what you do, that's on topic. Your internal life, that's on topic - and he knows what it is.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3433
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:33 pm

:lol:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12120
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:48 pm

phyllo wrote::lol:

If he'd simply been a skeptic, doubting people's arguments for this or that morality or ontology or method to solve life's problems, he would have been 1)a nihilist and 2) not annoying or hypocritical and 3) it would have eliminated all the positing of him higher than others.

But mind reading and telling people why they believe what they believe is core to his project. He makes them the issue. He is nihilist related to their beliefs, but a purported psychic when it comes to other minds. And he thinks adding in a disclaimer now and then means he is not going ad hom and not off topic and somehow not off in the clouds. Only discussing him is up in the clouds. Maybe he thinks he lives there.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3433
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:57 pm

phyllo wrote:
But then my point here is that, given the manner in which I construe value judgments [sacred or secular] as existential contraptions rooted in dasein -- "I" -- I don't expect there to be any resolutions.
It's rooted in dasein -- "I" ...

Okay, but, in my view, the discussion shifts from the substantive points I raise about Buddhism and religion above to a discussion of me. Exploring and then exposing to others here what you think makes me tick.
... but we are not supposed to be discussing you.

Does the irony of that escape you?
I don't expect there to be any resolutions.
I think that you intentionally post so that there is no resolution. Which "proves" your hypothesis that there is no resolution.
My main interest in fact is in coming upon an argument that might persuade me that a resoultion [philosophical or otherwise] may well be possible in a No God world.
The strange part is that you want an agreement when even objectivists don't expect there to be an agreement by everyone. An objectivist recognizes that people can and will be wrong. Some will reject the gift of salvation. Some will continue to hold mistaken ideas and beliefs in spite of any and every argument.

I don't know why you insist that it ought to be otherwise.

But this is a thread that focuses on Buddhism, not on the act of posting on the thread itself.
You are constantly asking for contexts ... whether relevant to a thread or not. If you want to start a new thread dealing with your posting style as the context, then go ahead.
I am not at all clear as to what you are pointing out here.
I'm pointing out that you are not going to have an abortion and you have very little say in what happens with Trump, immigration and gun laws. Asking about those things is a way to escape into the clouds of generalities and abstractions.

But you have complete control over how you post on ILP. I someone criticizes your posting style then you have a case of conflicting goods. It's a case that can be examined in detail and potentially resolved.

It's an excellent context to discuss.


This is a thread about Buddhism. I have offered my own perspective on it above. Please respond to those points or move this to another thread.
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: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38611
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:20 am

Fanman wrote: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”?

'Spirituality' is a very loose term.
In my case, 'spirituality' means all the mental efforts done holistically to optimize the well being of the individual and therefrom for humanity.
'Well-being' is net-positivity grounded on the principles of morality and ethics which is to be discussed within the Morality and Ethics section which I had done previously.

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.

What I have discussed is merely the very tip of an iceberg.
To do serious works we have to list down all the qualities of being a 'peak' person or so-called enlightened person [the ideal].
Then we made comparison on a scientific basis to what is the ideal.
A chart that show progression towards the ideal [impossible to achieve] will show continue improvement and thus what is practiced as Buddhism proper is effective.

Say a person who is not doing the Buddhist practices has high blood pressure and a average heart beat rate of 80 per minute. If after practicing the Buddhist practices, his blood pressure and heart rate reduces gradually, then it is proven scientifically and to reinforce this the measurements has to be done on as many practitioners as possible.
Note; the high blood pressure and heart beat rate are just simple examples, but there are tons of key indicators that can be measured scientifically.

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.

Technically, the whole Bible is not for Christianity [as defined correctly] and thus Christians.
See my point below.

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.

On the side, I will also question as you do, i.e. why is a so-claimed omnipotent God so capricious.

However from the Christianity and Christians' POV there is the way of how it works as represented in the OT and Gospel.
Their excuse as often is the people of eons ago as depicted in the OT were very barbaric [as evident via anthropology, evolution and history]. Thus as humans evolved and progress, Jesus was sent with a new message for the more progressive humans where the Gospels [not NT] abrogates the evil and violent elements.

The evil and violent elements are abrogated by the overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all - even enemies.' Otherwise to carry on with the evil and violent verses in the OT would be a contradiction to what is commanded in the Gospel, which a perfect God would not do.

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.

It is noted most Christians [including preachers and experts] do not fall back on the technical and effective principles of what is represented in the Gospels and sensed the implied personal contract to gain the promise of everlasting life.
I presented the objective approach as what Jesus/God had intended in the Gospel. Show me where I am wrong with reference to the words in the Gospel?

This is so obvious when Christianity is being accused as more violent and evil than what is depicted in Islam as represented in the Quran.
They have no defense to the above except giving all sorts of excuses.
The defense is already imputed in the Gospel wherein the terms of contract of being a Christian is limited by an injunction of an overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all - even enemies'.
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 phyllo » Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:41 am

This is a thread about Buddhism.
Yes, let's focus on Buddhism.
I have offered my own perspective on it above.
It's the same perspective that you have on every religion and philosophy.
Please respond to those points or move this to another thread.
People have responded to the exact same points hundreds of times.

You remain unconvinced.

I have no new arguments for you.

I suggest that you sit on a cushion.

It may do you some good. You won't know unless you do it.

(I appreciate the futility of making such a suggestion.)
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12120
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:58 am

phyllo wrote:I have no new arguments for you.


Okay, when you do, run them by me.
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: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38611
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:10 am

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:I have no new arguments for you.


Okay, when you do, run them by me.
Why would I?

I already know your responses.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12120
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:34 am

There is no verbal argument which can change Iambiguous' perspective.

Buddhist techniques have some potential.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12120
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:47 am

gib wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: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.


That's a common misconception of what arithmetic means. It's the conflating of the word "add" with different meanings. When mathematicians talk about adding, they're not talking about a process or a change, as in adding ingredients to a cake or joining two water droplets together, they're talking about separate things coexisting, as in: if you have two apples and you also have three other apples, then you have five apples all together. It's meant to be taken in a static context, and the term "equals" means "can be rephrased as" or "is equivalent to" or just "means". 2 + 3 = 5 just means: 2 things coexisting with 3 other things is another way of saying there are 5 things. In the case of processes or change, "equals" means "result in" or "becomes".

But that's beside the point. If you want to say 1 + 1 = 1 (because two rain drops come together to form one rain drop), you can, but you're switching to a different meaning of +. Which is fine--that's what I want you to do--because then you can say: 1 + 1 = 2 (in the mathematical sense) and at the same time 1 + 1 = 1 (in the rain drops joining sense). You've changed two incompatible statements into two compatible statements. But taken in the original mathematical sense, both statements are still a contradiction and can't logically both be taken as true.

I don't think I am conflating the term 'add' in arithmetic. I apply
add' accordingly but the different perspectives then it exposes the limits of basic arithmetic.
The counter example I highlighted meant there are limits to the workings of mathematics which we need to be aware of.

So saying "the self is real and not real at the same time" is still a contradiction when taken with the same meaning, but if "real" means something different in each case (or maybe "self"), then you *might* be able to conjure up compatible statements. One example might be: the self is just mental, so there's nothing in the real world that you could point to called a "self", yet because it's mental, we really do have the experience (or the thought), and therefore the self as experience is real.

If you want to give me two ways of interpreting "the self is [not] real" that are compatible with each other, that would help. Keep in mind though, if you want to generalize the principle of two truths, you're going to have to do this for every set of contradictory statements one could come up with.

Just as we recognize there are limits to basic arithmetic, we also need to understand there are limits to the interpretation of the self under different perspectives.

As I have mentioned before what is common and compatible to all the perspectives is the common human mind/brain working at different levels.
For example sake, take the very simplified three major levels of the triune brain [contentious], i.e. the lower, the mid [limbic] and the higher brain [neo-cortex].
Within the neo-cortex we have the faculty of the intellect and reason which again has different levels.
If a person is more lower and limbic dominant, s/he is more likely to be very dualistic, i.e. its black or white and nothing in between.
However if a person do access the higher levels of the brain s/he can discern the different shades of grey.

What is critical with the two-truth theory is the ability to modulate the impulses of the lower and limbic brain to apply either which extreme or the different shades of grey to optimize whatever the present constraints and circumstances.

For example if a person clings to the idea of a real self, so real that the self will survive physical death into the realm of paradise, this will entail a series of positive and negative impact on the individual[s] and humanity culminating in the killing of non-believers in the name of God as in Islam and SOME Muslims.
Buddhism-proper which promotes the Middle-Way between the self is real and unreal in different perspectives do not end up with condoning the warring and killing of non-believers.
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 » Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:57 am

phyllo wrote:There is no verbal argument which can change Iambiguous' perspective.

Buddhist techniques have some potential.

If a schizophrenic keep insisting the gnomes in the garden he 'actually' communicated with are very real, there is not much anyone can change his mind that the gnomes are merely small earthen statues.
Iambiguous is not schizo, but the principles are the same.

It is the same with someone who is stuck with one-way instead of the Middle-Way and insist on clinging to the idea of MAYA only, i.e. everything is an illusion, there is nothing real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)
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 iambiguous » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:05 am

phyllo wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:I have no new arguments for you.


Okay, when you do, run them by me.
Why would I?

I already know your responses.


Okay, with regard to Buddhism, Christianity, religion and morality how have your own opinions changed since we first began our exchanges here at ILP?

Have I or anyone else here succeeded in changing your own point of view regarding matters of some importance to you?

Or are you just your own rendition of me?

Or, perhaps, does the problem here revolve only around my own entrenched point of view?
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: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38611
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users