Posts by Matt

Kalosyni I’m trying to make this as “easy” as possible for the purposes of an Epicurean comparison. My main point is that there have to be some core tenets among all Buddhists that give some commonality. Interpretations of what those concepts mean can vary greatly. But if a Zen practitioner and a Theravada monk cannot agree that they both take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha because nirvana, samsara and karma are specific concepts expounded upon within their particular traditions by the historical Siddartha Gautama, then it will be impossible to even discuss this subject…because Buddhists would have such disagreements that it would be meaningless to classify them as Buddhists or that they have any cohesion of any kind.

This really be far more of a Buddhist problem than it is for anyone else because I’m not concerned with intricacies of interpretations of nirvana, samsara and karma…I’m just pointing out that these specific concepts are very much integral to Buddhism, as other concepts are to other religions.

There are multiple sects of Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc. that have differing opinions about certain articles of faith and certain formulas and certain disciplic successions…but there has to be very “core” concepts that cannot be removed from the faiths…otherwise we would never be able to say this faith is “Christianity” and this faith is “Islam” in generic terms….if the articles are so different from each other as they are for the position of Jesus in Islam and Christianity , then the differences qualify them to be completely different religions.

It is very obvious that Buddhism in general in a very similar way, except for secular Buddhists who might only be so in name only, all share these these very specific concepts in some way. There may be differing opinions among schools or sects, but if we can’t pin down some consistent teachings taught by a historical Gautama Buddha that are recognized among ALL Buddhists regardless of sect, then I’m not sure any comparison or discussion is possible. “Buddhism” would be a completely meaningless and nebulous term.

Which I personally don’t believe is true.

Joshua thank you for that epitome. That distillation is truly needed. As you said…these articles (karma, rebirth and nirvana) are integral to Buddhism, without them what would be left isn’t Buddhism. That’s pretty much it…I see this as the main point…. Without these very specific concepts, Buddhism isn’t Buddhism and we can’t even discuss this in any meaningful way, and frankly I’m not sure how a Buddhist could come to terms with this NOT being the case. If we can’t nail down some “consistency” within a tradition it would be impossible to both criticize it or practice it if the person was a devotee.

Yeah if someone feels like they have some sort of clinical mental health issue they need to go to the hospital.

Facebook and depression tend to go hand in hand

I in no way wish to derail this thread…but when I first read it I saw “thoughts about human cannibalism.” 😂

Yeah the Buddhist anatta doctrine throws me pretty hard and it makes it even less believable as purely an article of faith situation where you need to conceptualize this very unobservable principle without having “something” for continuity. No atman… there is no karmic scent to pass onto another being. If I have no memory of my past lives and will have no memory of my future lives, then how can I be worried or even be remotely sure this is correct or even remotely true? Just faith.

Karma and original or inherited sin might as well be synonymous with each other, because though previous iterations of myself may have done bad things, I may not have done them “now” in this life, therefore what would be the difference between inherited sin that I’m guilty for that would send me to hell without atonement and karmic sins of a previous life that effect my “eternal” place in the universe of suffering? Nothing, I see nothing different. Two sides of the same coin.

And further there is no universal arbiter to make a petition to get full warranty on this…just the word of someone who says “this will happen…trust me”, much like the word of a person who says the resurrection will happen.

When placed side by side with even monotheistic traditions, Buddhism is every bit as metaphysical and irrational. Even though we know many leave one tradition for the other believing it’s an escape.

I can imagine the horror of a western atheist fleeing to a Tibetan monastery to learn that the Buddhist’s have hells, heavens, ghosts and deities all wrapped up in a soteriological package that requires faith in the word of a man.

“One strike yer outta here!!!”

The main issue I see with certain philosophies like Buddhism is that though they may trend toward being atheistic or agnostic, like Buddhism and Jainism, they are still rife with unsubstantiated metaphysical premises.

I think many western people see that the Buddha is a non-theistic path and especially if they are running from western Judeo-Christian traditions, they see the Buddha as an eastern sage offering an alternative path. But the reality is though that a monotheistic “God” is not material to Buddhism, there are plenty of unsubstantiated metaphysical premises that the philosophy is built upon…as Eikadistes said in his post, that Buddhism was one of many philosophical schools that all had very different ideas about life. From theistic Hindu schools like Sankhya yoga and Vedanta to the non-theistic Carvaka. But Buddhism’s middle way is still built upon the entirely unsubstantiated doctrine that karma is in fact an observable and measurable mechanism in the universe and that samsara continual reincarnation is also an observable process….again these are merely articles of faith as opposed to observable truths and frankly as articles of faith, they are as valid as the Christian idea of the resurrection and original sin. Because if samsara and the fear of perpetual reincarnation tied to bad karma WASN’T the main focus of the faith and philosophy, then the Buddha has nothing really unique to offer as a solution to get off the wheel of suffering and reincarnation…his entire system is dependent on an unfounded premise….that because of previous actions from time immemorial, you will be reborn again and again and again…until you extinguish your karmic flame.

It’s like going from one thing with metaphysical articles of faith to another one…just without God being a primary issue.

I had far more ease conceptualizing the ideas in the Hindu Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita…and it’s Greek counterpart Neoplatonism.

The Hindu Brahman, Nirguna Brahman, Ishvara, Para-atman and the atman in contrast to the Greek emanation of “to hen” the One, the Nous and the world soul and the phenomenal world. All that mystical jargon made far more sense to me than the equally mystical Buddhist concepts.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/p/plotinus/enneads/cache/enneads.pdf

I’m also probably very biased in my view of Buddhism contrasted with my experience with Vedanta and Neoplatonism.

Plotinus for example was extremely vigorous in his exposition on metaphysical topics, that I felt the Buddha was exceedingly vague on (to sell me on the philosophy). Not to say “later” Buddhists who wrote in the various Theravada and Mahayana traditions didn’t attempt to expound upon these ideas…but just going off of the “Gospel” of the Buddha, the Dhammapada, it wasn’t as detailed.

I could never get behind Buddhism. The Dhammapada is nice, but the Buddha’s insistence on there being reincarnation and actual practical examples of karma, such as a man’s house burning down or collapsing because he was not a good person, pretty much invalidated the majority philosophy for me.

I also just didn’t understand the concept of “anatta”…the supposed denial of the atman or soul in contrast to the atman in Hinduism and the jiva of Jainism. It seemed to me that the basis of some sort of continuity for reincarnation and karma to work, there would need to be some sort of element that carries the karmic deeds from life to the next…yet if anatta is true it seemed unlikely…if there is no atman or soul to carry the “scent” of the karma of a previous life to a a new one, then what mechanism does? This was the main metaphysical issue I had…also the ambiguity of what the “blowing out” of nirvana actually entails, without it being a very ambiguous sort of non-differentiated passionless nothing.

The Bill Wallace of Scotland lived about 500ish years earlier.

Nooooo…this is not. I was being funny.

And to think…he compiled all this while fighting Edward the First of England, for the sovereignty of Scotland.

Freeeeedom!

Jeez! I like the “snatch the pebble from my hand approach” by writing something to prove he was worthy and not an idiot.

Just such an interesting bullet point from him. So at odds with Epicurean philosophy!

Came across this quote awhile ago, I thought it would be interesting to discuss. What’s interesting is that Wittgenstein apparently was extremely anti-platonic in his thinking and very centered in the objective material world. I wonder what he thought “might” be the end or the greatest “good” in life?

I’ve been looking for that ring…Saruman the White told me to use the palantir to find it. Expect the Nine to arrive soon.

From my personal perspective…and this is just me, the animal brain speaking, my entire “romance” life has been dictated by chemical impulses. When I was 23 I wasn’t thinking that any one of these “pursuits” would end up in a family, in fact I had no ambition or drive for that. Nor was there any pressure from my family etc. I was purely following instinctual urges…often without prudence, I don’t think nature cares too much about whether we are prudent, but rather holds up the carrot to get the job done. But I was a pawn in a much larger and older game than any philosophy, ideology or cultural idea of what’s normal…about a billlion year old game, that for all intents and purposes continues to play every moment of every day across the globe…from humans to single celled organisms.