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 » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:21 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
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)
Assuming that he is not just playing a game, then he has thought himself into "a hole". Those thoughts have not only created the hole but also created an impenetrable barrier which prevents him from leaving the hole.

To escape, he has to stop thinking long enough to get past the barrier.

Does he really want to get out?
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 5:54 am

iambiguous wrote: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?

I have actually benefited from the earlier exchanges with you.

You have dug a hole so deep and entrenched in it that I have to seek more sophisticated digging machineries [philosophical knowledge, read a few more books, refresh old knowledge] to try to explain your predicament and in trying to pull you out.

Such an exploration has enhanced my knowledge-base but did not change my views toward yours in any way since I have to avoid falling in the same hole you have dug and stuck deep inside.
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 » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:09 am

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

Buddhist techniques have some potential.
And to be fair, this is true for most of us on key issues. It takes experience, one type of experience being techniques as you mention here, to change our minds. We learn via experience. Sure, an argument may change someone's mind here and there, though I've not seen it happen more than a couple of time in 15 years of online discussion, and I don't think it was over core paradigmatic issues.

Buddhists tend to understand this. Or better put, there are facets of many of the Buddhisms that suggest one not think so much, but rather engage in the practices, And then in, for example, Zen, you have the Koan process, which while starting verbally is intended to more or less overload the mind until it let's go.

Of course this can be cynically looked at: they don't want us to think. And since I do not like the goal of Buddhism, nor the practices, one might think,I'd agree. But the truth is that if you are going to change on a deep level about things that matter to you, you will likely need either some transforming events or a slow build up of experiences that whittle away at a belief you have or slowly build up a new one.

Despite this theist and atheists alike act like verbal arguments on a screen should change one's mind if X is true.

That's so confused about something so obvious really that I thnk one can place most members of both groups in the confused about learning box.

Iamb must be convinced in advance that the techniques he would try will work, for him, and lead to something he wants.(or this is,in any case, how he presents it - the whole argument that will convince any rational person thingie)

That's just not how life or we work.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3433
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby gib » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:10 am

Prismatic567 wrote: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.


What limits? You basically took the word "add" out of context and showed how we get different results. Of course we get different results! You took it out of context!

Prismatic567 wrote: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.


Nowhere in the above have you shown me how "the self is real" is compatible with "the self is unreal". You're dodging the question by falling back on neurological explanations or the practical utility of believing in untruths. If someone believed in a falsehood, and you put him in a brain scan and showed me what was going on in his head, that wouldn't make the falsehood any truer. And let's say he's a flat-earther--someone who believes the Earth is flat--well this might get him a juicy promotion among the Church of Flat-Earthers therefore securing him and his family a pretty lucrative high ranking position for the greater part of his life, making him very comfortable and well off--so it's to his advantage to believe the Earth is flat, definitely helps in the game of survival--but it's still no less true than any other falsehood.

Just because it's possible neurologically and just because it may be advantageous for survival or a high quality life doesn't say anything of relevance about its truth. I'm asking you to give me a perspective on how "the self is real" can be compatible with "the self is unreal"--not how it's possible in the brain, not how it makes life better to believe both--how are both true?

(I take it the "self is mental" perspective I offered earlier isn't what you have in mind since you didn't snatch that one up... so what is it?)
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 phyllo » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:32 am

Okay, with regard to Buddhism, Christianity, religion and morality how have your own opinions changed since we first began our exchanges here at ILP?
I consider religion and spirituality to be a personal journey. Therefore I don't think that there is some sort of orthodoxy imposed from outside. If you want to be part of a church, then you have to have to wear their colors. But that's not God or enlightenment.
Since I have that view, I don't really have an opinion on what a proper Buddhist is or what a true Christian does.

Your question is asking if yesterday I thought that a true Christian does A and today I think a true Christian does B. I don't see it as applicable because I don't see the characteristics as being very rigid.
Have I or anyone else here succeeded in changing your own point of view regarding matters of some importance to you?
When I came here, I had the idea that people who read a lot of philosophy could not be stuck in some small-minded biased position. I thought that they would be flexible and open to change if presented with the right information - discussion, books, lectures, etc.
I didn't expect the kind of entrenchment that I see here and at other philosophy sites.

I knew that non-verbal experience was critical in religion and spirituality, but I thought that philosophy was different ... that it was almost entirely verbal.

I don't believe that to be true any more. The "how ought one live" aspects of philosophy seem to be mostly learned by experience.

You get lots of credit for that revelation.
Or, perhaps, does the problem here revolve only around my own entrenched point of view?
You're the one saying that you are troubled by your philosophy. You're complaining about the hole.

If you were content with your point of view, then I would not be attempting to shake you out of it.

Say that you are content, and I won't pursue it any longer.
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 7:51 am

gib wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: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.


What limits? You basically took the word "add" out of context and showed how we get different results. Of course we get different results! You took it out of context!

I view it this way.
Mathematics models are abstracted from the empirical.
Then when applied to the empirical then it is true.

Example 1 + 1 = 2
I don't see Mathematics specifying any specific context to this model.

Thus when we apply that in practice, if we add one apple [1] with another [1] we have two apples [2]. For example we put the apples together in a basket or whatever container there are two apples.
In terms of unit, there is no difference between one unit of an apple with a unit of a drop of water.
But when we do the same as putting apples in a container, we do not see two drops of water in the container.

However if we view the two drops in terms of H20 molecules we can still add two drops of water in terms of their H20 molecules and get a mathematical results of the sum of H20 molecules.

My point is one must understand the limits and perspective involved.


Prismatic567 wrote: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.


Nowhere in the above have you shown me how "the self is real" is compatible with "the self is unreal". You're dodging the question by falling back on neurological explanations or the practical utility of believing in untruths. If someone believed in a falsehood, and you put him in a brain scan and showed me what was going on in his head, that wouldn't make the falsehood any truer. And let's say he's a flat-earther--someone who believes the Earth is flat--well this might get him a juicy promotion among the Church of Flat-Earthers therefore securing him and his family a pretty lucrative high ranking position for the greater part of his life, making him very comfortable and well off--so it's to his advantage to believe the Earth is flat, definitely helps in the game of survival--but it's still no less true than any other falsehood.

Noted there are certain propositions that are outright contradiction, e.g. a square-circle is impossible to be real empirically.
It is the same with a spherical-flat thing.
However we can apply the two-truth theory in terms of their possibility then we can say such contradiction are impossible in the empirical but possible in thought-only.

I am not sure how you cannot get my point.

What I am stating is the self is real in the empirical perspective, i.e. a person with a self exists as real.
On the other hand, the self cannot be real if were to view the self as a soul that can survive physical death. This cannot be a falsehood.


Just because it's possible neurologically and just because it may be advantageous for survival or a high quality life doesn't say anything of relevance about its truth. I'm asking you to give me a perspective on how "the self is real" can be compatible with "the self is unreal"--not how it's possible in the brain, not how it makes life better to believe both--how are both true?

(I take it the "self is mental" perspective I offered earlier isn't what you have in mind since you didn't snatch that one up... so what is it?)

I believer the self is an emergence out of the physical-mental combination.

My point is to justify the two-truth theory, i.e.
The self is mental-physical and real in the empirical perspective and
-the self is mental-physical and unreal in non-empirical perspective.
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 » Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:30 pm

phyllo wrote:Assuming that he is not just playing a game, then he has thought himself into "a hole". Those thoughts have not only created the hole but also created an impenetrable barrier which prevents him from leaving the hole.

To escape, he has to stop thinking long enough to get past the barrier.

Does he really want to get out?
Just mulling in general, rather than focused on Iamb, I think it is important to note that just because something is true, we do not know how this truth should be related to, prioritized, used. Or how one wants to. Or what are the healthy relationships with that truth. IOW Buddhism might well agree in terms of facts with many things a depressed person might say. I have no real self, things come and go, everything is empty

however

they have trained their adherents to focus on other things, to engage in being aware of what is happening, to exercise compassion. To not think so much about the future.

IOW just knowing something is true is a piece of what one does with it. Here, for the sake of my point, just assuming it is true.

One can spend years in a hole based on something true, but still have very unhealthy priorities, practices and thoughts.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:13 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 » Mon Oct 21, 2019 1:03 pm

I agree.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12120
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Fanman » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:14 pm

Phyllo,

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.


I agree that where the OT law is concerned, the NT has completely changed it with its pacifist maxims. But my point is, that apart from the OT law, the whole Bible is relevant to Christians not just the NT. I don't think that Pris only meant the “evil and violent elements”. I think that he was talking about the entire OT. He believes that "Christianity-proper" is confined to the 4 gospels, which just isn't the case, and why I questioned his logic.
Fanman
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:35 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
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.


Just for the record, I was once a Christian, a Unitarian, a Marxist, a Trotskyist, a democratic socialist, a social democrat and an existentialist.

And, over the years, any number of verbal arguments managed to change my mind.

And what on earth does my reaction to Buddhism encompassed in the arguments I make above have to do with "gnomes in the garden"?

It is as though [for some here] the fact that their arguments have not managed to change mine necessarily indicates that I will never be persuaded to change my mind ever again.

This when the very point of my argument is that "I" in regard to value judgments embedded in things like Buddhism revolve precisely around the assumption that given new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas anyone might be inclined to change their minds regarding human interactions in the is/ought world.

My whole interest with respect to Buddhism on this thread and to any other religious/spiritual/enlightened path on other threads is to focus the discussion on...

1] exploring "I" here as the embodiment of dasein in my signature threads
2] exploring the relationship between what someone believes in their head about their religious values and what they can actually demonstrate is in fact true for all rational human beings
3] exploring the manner which those who practice a religious faith connect the dots between the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave and what they imagine their fate to be on the other side of it

Not interested in going there? Then skip my posts. Thought of a new argument [or a new way to reconfigure an old argument]? Okay, let's hear it.
Last edited by iambiguous on Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 6:38 pm

Fanman wrote:Phyllo,

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.


I agree that where the OT law is concerned, the NT has completely changed it with its pacifist maxims. But my point is, that apart from the OT law, the whole Bible is relevant to Christians not just the NT. I don't think that Pris only meant the “evil and violent elements”. I think that he was talking about the entire OT. He believes that "Christianity-proper" is confined to the 4 gospels, which just isn't the case, and why I questioned his logic.
What role does the OT play in Christianity?

If the OT was thrown away, what would Christianity lose?

The creation story, certainly. But what else?
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 6:55 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:I have actually benefited from the earlier exchanges with you.


How have you benefited? Note specifically the manner in which my arguments then impacted the way in which you construe Buddhism. And how that in turn impacted on your interactions with others.

Prismatic567 wrote:You have dug a hole so deep and entrenched in it that I have to seek more sophisticated digging machineries [philosophical knowledge, read a few more books, refresh old knowledge] to try to explain your predicament and in trying to pull you out.


The hole that I dug is contained in the arguments I make in my signature threads. Philosophical arguments in my view. So: How in relationship to your own understanding of Buddhism are the components of my argument...

1] exploring "I" here as the embodiment of dasein in my signature threads
2] exploring the relationship between what someone believes in their head about their religious values and what they can actually demonstrate is in fact true for all rational human beings
3] exploring the manner which those who practice a religious faith connect the dots between the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave and what they imagine their fate to be on the other side of it

...not applicable to you? As these factors relate to a particular context in which your value judgments might come into conflict with someone else's.

Prismatic567 wrote:Such an exploration has enhanced my knowledge-base but did not change my views toward yours in any way since I have to avoid falling in the same hole you have dug and stuck deep inside.


Again, you will either bring this "general description" down to earth contextually or you won't.
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 Fanman » Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:33 pm

Phyllo,

What role does the OT play in Christianity?


It is difficult to explain in the format of a forum post - it would require an essay to fully explain. However, in a nutshell, the OT provides a history of God's interaction with mankind, which I think Christians would need to be aware of to understand who/what they're worshipping. It also contains the prophecy of Christ and I think in the book Isaiah, God explains that he will make a new covenant. It is the foundation that Christianity has been built upon. Many famous Christian songs relate to the OT.

Yes, the OT law is no longer valid, but the OT is relevant. Perhaps a Christian or theologian is in a better position to answer this question.

If the OT was thrown away, what would Christianity lose?


In short, its history.

The creation story, certainly. But what else?


According to Scripture, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness he referred to the God of the OT (his father) and I think quoted the OT. Many prayers which Christians engage in are from the OT. You don't have to take my word for it, but the OT is still relevant to Christianity. I can't think of the exact word, but ironically, it would lose its spirit.

Note: I hope you haven't suckered me in with open questions, before you attempt hammer me :-k .
Fanman
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:43 pm

phyllo wrote:
Okay, with regard to Buddhism, Christianity, religion and morality how have your own opinions changed since we first began our exchanges here at ILP?
I consider religion and spirituality to be a personal journey. Therefore I don't think that there is some sort of orthodoxy imposed from outside. If you want to be part of a church, then you have to have to wear their colors. But that's not God or enlightenment.
Since I have that view, I don't really have an opinion on what a proper Buddhist is or what a true Christian does.


Okay, and if you lived entirely apart from all the rest of us the relationship would be an exclusive one -- between yourself and whatever you have thought yourself into believing God is.

But in interacting with others, your beliefs about God become a whole different thing. For one thing, your beliefs are going to precipitate behaviors here and now that others with conflicting beliefs are going to challenge. For another, if you are convinced that with God there is one or another rendition of Judgment Day, it behooves you to "witness". After all, with immortality and salvation and divine justice at stake why would a true believer not be obligated to save other souls?

And, in acknowledging that your own views here reflect a "personal journey", how do you then differentiate your own "I" here from the manner in which myself construe it as an existential contraption?

I merely propose the same context for those who embrace Buddhism.

phyllo wrote: The "how ought one live" aspects of philosophy seem to be mostly learned by experience.


Yes, and once you acknowledge that one's personal experiences are profoundly/problematically embedded in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts, ever and always subject to reconfiguration in a world of contingency, chance and change, you recognize just how much "I" is beyond either fully understanding or controlling.

Or, rather, I did.

Then comes the part where in acknowledging this you probe the extent to which philosophy and science [using the tools at their disposal] are able to establish the most rational way in which to actually resolve conflicting religious and moral and political narratives.

Unless, sure, you insist instead that religious values are derived more from your own personal experiences. After all, there's not a whole lot that others can really say to counter that. You had the experiences, not them.

But there's still the part about living with others who reject your religious beliefs on this side of the grave and all that is at stake in regard to the other side of it.


Or, perhaps, does the problem here revolve only around my own entrenched point of view?


phyllo wrote:You're the one saying that you are troubled by your philosophy. You're complaining about the hole.

If you were content with your point of view, then I would not be attempting to shake you out of it.

Say that you are content, and I won't pursue it any longer.


How can one really be content in believing that we live in an essentially meaningless world here and now and that there and then is encompassed in the obliteration of "I" itself.

And my "complaint" is really more an argument as to why I think that way. And all I can do then is to seek out those who don't think that way at all.
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 » Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:25 pm

Fanman wrote:According to Scripture, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness he referred to the God of the OT (his father) and I think quoted the OT. Many prayers which Christians engage in are from the OT. You don't have to take my word for it, but the OT is still relevant to Christianity. I can't think of the exact word, but ironically, it would lose its spirit.

Jesus was a Jew who came to extend the ten commandments. You would lose original sin, which then makes Jesus sacrfice, as later interpreted, meaningless.Christians use the OT for all sorts of references, songs, teaching tales, sermons. For Jesus it was the Bible. If Christianity would lose nothing, it would lose the OT, but it doesn't so we have this very strange dynamics between really quite different texts and ideas of religion. You don't just have the NT in Christianity, though a small portion of Christianity might ignore it. The bulk create their beliefs, their sense of God, their sense of Heaven, their sense of good and evil and a whole lot more by reading the whole darn thing.

The Book of Job alone is used all the time.

And the OT has a lot more to do with Christianity than it does with Buddhism.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3433
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Mon Oct 21, 2019 10:15 pm

between yourself and whatever you have thought yourself into believing God is.
Do you notice how judgemental that sounds?

You could have written "between yourself and god" and I would have understood that I have specific ideas about God which are unique to me and not shared by others.
But in interacting with others, your beliefs about God become a whole different thing.
I don't think so.
For one thing, your beliefs are going to precipitate behaviors here and now that others with conflicting beliefs are going to challenge.
I'm not a hermit alone on top of a mountain, so conflicts with others are pretty much the baseline.

But since I think that religion and spirituality is a personal journey, I'm not forcing my beliefs on others. I can keep quiet if I think it appropriate.
For another, if you are convinced that with God there is one or another rendition of Judgment Day, it behooves you to "witness". After all, with immortality and salvation and divine justice at stake why would a true believer not be obligated to save other souls?
That seems to be something that you believe theists must do ... something left over from your childhood.

It's not something I feel obligated to do. I can't save people ... they have to save themselves. If they ask, then I will say something. I defend religious freedom and some aspects of Christianity here on ILP. Hopefully, I don't make an obnoxious self-righteous prick of myself in the process.
And, in acknowledging that your own views here reflect a "personal journey", how do you then differentiate your own "I" here from the manner in which myself construe it as an existential contraption?
I don't see much difference. But it bothers you and it doesn't bother me.
I merely propose the same context for those who embrace Buddhism.
Not sure what that means.
Yes, and once you acknowledge that one's personal experiences are profoundly/problematically embedded in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts, ever and always subject to reconfiguration in a world of contingency, chance and change, you recognize just how much "I" is beyond either fully understanding or controlling.

Or, rather, I did.

Then comes the part where in acknowledging this you probe the extent to which philosophy and science [using the tools at their disposal] are able to establish the most rational way in which to actually resolve conflicting religious and moral and political narratives.
See that's where we differ. I don't need "fully understanding or controlling". I only need some understanding and controlling ... which I can achieve.
I don't need "the most rational way". I only need a rational way ... which I can also achieve.
Unless, sure, you insist instead that religious values are derived more from your own personal experiences. After all, there's not a whole lot that others can really say to counter that. You had the experiences, not them.
I don't think that my personal experiences are that different from those of other people. We share a similar DNA and we all live on the same planet. The majority of values are derived from that similar biology and environment.
How can one really be content in believing that we live in an essentially meaningless world here and now and that there and then is encompassed in the obliteration of "I" itself.

And my "complaint" is really more an argument as to why I think that way. And all I can do then is to seek out those who don't think that way at all.
It's possible to create a personal meaning. It's possible to become unconcerned about the obliteration of "I".

If you want that, then you can get it. I think that Buddhism is a way. There are other ways.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12120
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Oct 21, 2019 10:31 pm

There's only one path:

Eradicate consent violation.

Some would say that the rest is commentary, but this path has no commentary.

If I were to ever humor a Holy Spirit, it would be this and this alone.

To offend the spirit of that, is truly fucking insane.

Fortunately for you, you'll be defended by such a spirit as being clinically insane.

To TRULY offend such a spirit is beyond my comprehension
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11069
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby phyllo » Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:15 pm

Your good work is done. =D>

But they have need of you here :

https://forum.philosophynow.org/

Quickly, before it is too late!
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12120
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:31 am

phyllo wrote:Your good work is done. =D>

But they have need of you here :

https://forum.philosophynow.org/

Quickly, before it is too late!


Is there a specific thread or poster you suggest?

I'm pretty keen on ILP ... maybe you can send them here
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11069
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Exuberant Teleportation » Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:04 am

The 8fold path harmonizes the benevolence of meditation on life's pearls of exquisite peaks to drive away the all consuming vengeance that the restrictive effects so miserably blind us towards on the nature of life.

If we could just awaken, shine, let our souls run free, and dance with the cosmic feather, then infinite possibilities open up, and the mind becomes the conqueror of negative nirvana in another bubble!
RaptorWizard

https://sabrinacasey.webstarts.com
https://sabrinacasey.webstarts.com/kobe.html
https://sabrinacasey.webstarts.com/ubermensch.html
https://sabrinacasey.webstarts.com/lawrence.html
https://sabrinacasey.webstarts.com/eldes.html

I'm Lugia Prototype XD001 in Pokemon XD Gale of Darkness (Ultimate Weapon, Final Annihilator), the Star Forge Lugia firing AeroBlasts. Wartortle wisdom with age turns Me from fool Meganium, to wise Lugia. Raptors beating Golden State = Red (Tyranitar/Me) transcended Gold (Zarathustra/Ho-Oh)!!

Kardashev Macroversal Civilizations Scale levels/dimensions 10-26 of the unfolding evolutionary story + Bunny Gray Fox atop, and Slowking System + Misdreavus enigma totems + Regigigas Power of One orbs of Lugia have been programmed into existence.

Think about Bunny and You will be Happy Every Day.
Let's Wish for Joy that We each see to shine sparkles of random~Rainbows for If to Will!!*
Imagination + Willpower (Light + Dark) are as Big as the Rainbow
User avatar
Exuberant Teleportation
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3562
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:34 pm
Location: Pokemon Macroversal Tournament in our future

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby gib » Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:16 am

Prismatic567 wrote:I view it this way.
Mathematics models are abstracted from the empirical.
Then when applied to the empirical then it is true.

Example 1 + 1 = 2
I don't see Mathematics specifying any specific context to this model.

Thus when we apply that in practice, if we add one apple [1] with another [1] we have two apples [2]. For example we put the apples together in a basket or whatever container there are two apples.
In terms of unit, there is no difference between one unit of an apple with a unit of a drop of water.
But when we do the same as putting apples in a container, we do not see two drops of water in the container.

However if we view the two drops in terms of H20 molecules we can still add two drops of water in terms of their H20 molecules and get a mathematical results of the sum of H20 molecules.

My point is one must understand the limits and perspective involved.


The limits of mathematics is that you have to stay confined within a static context--you can't redefine mathematical operators in terms of processes or change--whereas the limits of the context of processes/change is that you can't assume the rules of mathematics will hold for everything throughout the change.

Prismatic567 wrote:However we can apply the two-truth theory in terms of their possibility then we can say such contradiction are impossible in the empirical but possible in thought-only.


Sure, some people can believe in contradictory things. But I'm not one of them (not knowingly anyway). I won't be able to say I believe in or understand the two truth principle, at least not when it comes to straight up contradictions (different compatible perspectives is a different matter).

Prismatic567 wrote:What I am stating is the self is real in the empirical perspective, i.e. a person with a self exists as real.
On the other hand, the self cannot be real if were to view the self as a soul that can survive physical death. This cannot be a falsehood.


^ Is this the perspective you have in mind? I remember you saying something like this, but I didn't quite get what you were saying. Might be a language barrier thing. Anyway, yes this works for me.
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 Karpel Tunnel » Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:21 am

gib wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:What I am stating is the self is real in the empirical perspective, i.e. a person with a self exists as real.
On the other hand, the self cannot be real if were to view the self as a soul that can survive physical death. This cannot be a falsehood.


^ Is this the perspective you have in mind? I remember you saying something like this, but I didn't quite get what you were saying. Might be a language barrier thing. Anyway, yes this works for me.
HIs view here is not the Buddhist one. There is no self in Buddhism.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3433
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: I don't get Buddhism

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:59 am

Fanman wrote:Phyllo,

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.


I agree that where the OT law is concerned, the NT has completely changed it with its pacifist maxims. But my point is, that apart from the OT law, the whole Bible is relevant to Christians not just the NT. I don't think that Pris only meant the “evil and violent elements”. I think that he was talking about the entire OT. He believes that "Christianity-proper" is confined to the 4 gospels, which just isn't the case, and why I questioned his logic.

Nope, in my statement, I meant especially the 'evil and violent elements' which are abrogated by the pacifist maxim.
I have mentioned elsewhere Christians still accept relevant verses from the OT but they must align with the Gospel.
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 » Tue Oct 22, 2019 6:30 am

gib wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:I view it this way.
Mathematics models are abstracted from the empirical.
Then when applied to the empirical then it is true.

Example 1 + 1 = 2
I don't see Mathematics specifying any specific context to this model.

Thus when we apply that in practice, if we add one apple [1] with another [1] we have two apples [2]. For example we put the apples together in a basket or whatever container there are two apples.
In terms of unit, there is no difference between one unit of an apple with a unit of a drop of water.
But when we do the same as putting apples in a container, we do not see two drops of water in the container.

However if we view the two drops in terms of H20 molecules we can still add two drops of water in terms of their H20 molecules and get a mathematical results of the sum of H20 molecules.

My point is one must understand the limits and perspective involved.


The limits of mathematics is that you have to stay confined within a static context--you can't redefine mathematical operators in terms of processes or change--whereas the limits of the context of processes/change is that you can't assume the rules of mathematics will hold for everything throughout the change.

I agree Mathematical truths are confined within the framework of Mathematics and its axioms and assumptions.
It is the same with scientific truths which are only true when confined to the Scientific Framework and the scientific method.

Thus when I state 1 + 1 = 2 is true and false, I meant,
1 + 1 = 2 is only true within the Mathematical framework,
but it could be false when taken within another framework.

Within the synergy framework the equation 1 + 1 = 3 is used.
    Synergy is the creation of a whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts.
    -wiki
Note the phrase 'simple sum' which is arithmetic-like.
So there is nothing wrong in using 1 + 1 = 3 except we do not insist it is purely mathematical but rather confined to the concept of synergy only.

Thus 1 + 1 = 2 cannot be an absolute equation but only works for mathematics.

The above examples are to highlight the two-truth theory that there can be no absolute claim.


Prismatic567 wrote:However we can apply the two-truth theory in terms of their possibility then we can say such contradiction are impossible in the empirical but possible in thought-only.


Sure, some people can believe in contradictory things. But I'm not one of them (not knowingly anyway). I won't be able to say I believe in or understand the two truth principle, at least not when it comes to straight up contradictions (different compatible perspectives is a different matter).

As stated above, the point of the two truth theory, i.e. p and not-p exists as true in different time and perspective is to deny absoluteness leading to an independent soul or God which would induce net-sufferings to the individual[s].

Prismatic567 wrote:What I am stating is the self is real in the empirical perspective, i.e. a person with a self exists as real.
On the other hand, the self cannot be real if were to view the self as a soul that can survive physical death. This cannot be a falsehood.


^ Is this the perspective you have in mind? I remember you saying something like this, but I didn't quite get what you were saying. Might be a language barrier thing. Anyway, yes this works for me.

The examples I used may not be clear but my intention is to highlight the principles of the two-truths theory.

Point is when one is presented with a truth, by the principle of the two-truth theory, such a truth cannot be absolutely-absolute. A truth is always conditional upon its framework, i.e. mathematical truths are conditional to the mathematical framework, scientific truths to scientific framework, and the likes. To hold on to any absolute truth is likely to induce potential sufferings.

Note, the two-truths theory is further expanded to the four-truths theory [the tetralemma] and the seven-truth theory in Jainism. I won't go into the depths of these.
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 » Tue Oct 22, 2019 6:40 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
gib wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:What I am stating is the self is real in the empirical perspective, i.e. a person with a self exists as real.
On the other hand, the self cannot be real if were to view the self as a soul that can survive physical death. This cannot be a falsehood.


^ Is this the perspective you have in mind? I remember you saying something like this, but I didn't quite get what you were saying. Might be a language barrier thing. Anyway, yes this works for me.
HIs view here is not the Buddhist one. There is no self in Buddhism.

There is the principle of anatta [non-self] in Buddhism.

    In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in phenomena.
    wiki

However there is also the two-truths of Buddhism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

    The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths (Wylie: bden pa gnyis) differentiates between two levels of satya (Sanskrit), meaning truth or "really existing" in the discourse of the Buddha:
    1. the "conventional" or "provisional" (saṁvṛti) truth, and
    2. the "ultimate" (paramārtha) truth.

As such, there is a self within 1. the "conventional" or "provisional" (saṁvṛti) truth, but
non-self [anatta] within 2. the "ultimate" (paramārtha) truth.

Thus to hold to the non-self [no self?] as absolutely absolute is not Buddhism-proper.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users