Buddhism as amusement.

[yrreg]

Hello yrreg it appears that you have not posted on our forums in several weeks, why not take a few moments to ask a question, help provide a solution or just engage in a conversation with another member in any one of our forums? ​

I was looking for that debate between Best Ben, a proponent of life extension, and skeptics here, on cryogenics, with Ben Best pro and skeptics against. I did not find it. There is also another debate between I think a British also skeptic about some alternative medicine and skeptics here(?); and the British skeptic, a retired doctor and scientist or science writer concluded that the only attitude the skeptics he was dealing with in re of that particular alternative medical practice is that the alternative skill is all charlatanry.

How have I been spending my time while being banned here temporarily it appears now? Modesty prohibits me from talking about myself; but I don't mind more marauding members here providing some details.


...why not take a few moments to ask a question... Okay, why not?

================================


Recently I came across a text in the net about Buddhist worthies discussing whether one can ever be sure while one breathes that one has reached enlightenment or nirvana. I had a good laugh over that reading; it's no different from the big big endlessly discussed subject in other religions of, if and how one can ever be sure of being saved in one's religion.


But when I started to think more deeply about it, I reached the insight that Buddhism, as with other religions, is one area of human activities which can be consigned to the domain of amusement. I mean Buddhism is amusement just like other religions.

You see, animals only eat and mate and die, but their species continue, unless and until by some fortuitous hazard of natural calamity or by man's cruelty or ignorance or shortsightedness they become extinct.

At this point, one question to the experts of evolution here: Do you know of any new species appearing in historical time for the last say one billion years or less or more, counting backward from current date? I have this curiosity: if life species get to become extinct one by one, and no new species appear on the scene by nature's mechanism of evolution, sooner than later in the scale of cosmic time life will disappear altogether.


Coming back to Buddhism as amusement... When animals are not occupied with eating and mating, they are sleeping; and when not sleeping? they are just bored or keeping themselves entertained in ways and by means we know how with some and we don't know how with others.

I know how my pet dog and pet cat at home keep themselves occupied, i.e., amused when they are not occupied with nutrition and sex -- no, no sex for them: the cat, a female, had been spayed or ligated, the dog not spayed but for being kept within the confines of our walled grounds don't get to have any intercourse, i.e., social contacts with neighborhood dogs and free moving dogs except by looking through the grilled gate of our property.

Now with human animals, when they are not occupied with eating and mating, they are kept busy with activities undertaken to ensure that they get to eat and to mate more and better, and to live more comfortably; given a chance some devote all their time outside of eating and mating to the attainment of fame, wealth, and power.

How do I come to the conclusion that Buddhism is amusement from all these preliminary considerations?


More considerations tomorrow.


Yrreg

 

[Kopji]

Hello yrreg it appears that you have not posted on our forums in several weeks, why not take a few moments to ask a question, help provide a solution or just engage in a conversation with another member in any one of our forums?

Humm, looks sort of like a automated 'bot message: "Hello [username], we think about you often..." So you were suspended, for what, three days? Sort of like Lazarus, if he were a real person.

It is nice to hear from you again, there's always a chance that some people go off and do something extreme instead of pulling weeds in the garden.

Of all the things that Buddhism might be, entertaining just does not seem like one of the top 10 things. Masturbation is almost a sacrament with Buddhists, but it seems like a far second to someone saying 'here, let me do that for you'.

So I'm interested to hear where you're going with this idea.

 

[Dancing David]

Hello yrreg it appears that you have not posted on our forums in several weeks, why not take a few moments to ask a question, help provide a solution or just engage in a conversation with another member in any one of our forums? ​

I was looking for that debate between Best Ben, a proponent of life extension, and skeptics here, on cryogenics, with Ben Best pro and skeptics against. I did not find it. There is also another debate between I think a British also skeptic about some alternative medicine and skeptics here(?); and the British skeptic, a retired doctor and scientist or science writer concluded that the only attitude the skeptics he was dealing with in re of that particular alternative medical practice is that the alternative skill is all charlatanry.

How have I been spending my time while being banned here temporarily it appears now? Modesty prohibits me from talking about myself; but I don't mind more marauding members here providing some details.


...why not take a few moments to ask a question... Okay, why not?

================================


Recently I came across a text in the net about Buddhist worthies discussing whether one can ever be sure while one breathes that one has reached enlightenment or nirvana. I had a good laugh over that reading; it's no different from the big big endlessly discussed subject in other religions of, if and how one can ever be sure of being saved in one's religion.


But when I started to think more deeply about it, I reached the insight that Buddhism, as with other religions, is one area of human activities which can be consigned to the domain of amusement. I mean Buddhism is amusement just like other religions.

You see, animals only eat and mate and die, but their species continue, unless and until by some fortuitous hazard of natural calamity or by man's cruelty or ignorance or shortsightedness they become extinct.

At this point, one question to the experts of evolution here: Do you know of any new species appearing in historical time for the last say one billion years or less or more, counting backward from current date? I have this curiosity: if life species get to become extinct one by one, and no new species appear on the scene by nature's mechanism of evolution, sooner than later in the scale of cosmic time life will disappear altogether.


Coming back to Buddhism as amusement... When animals are not occupied with eating and mating, they are sleeping; and when not sleeping? they are just bored or keeping themselves entertained in ways and by means we know how with some and we don't know how with others.

I know how my pet dog and pet cat at home keep themselves occupied, i.e., amused when they are not occupied with nutrition and sex -- no, no sex for them: the cat, a female, had been spayed or ligated, the dog not spayed but for being kept within the confines of our walled grounds don't get to have any intercourse, i.e., social contacts with neighborhood dogs and free moving dogs except by looking through the grilled gate of our property.

Now with human animals, when they are not occupied with eating and mating, they are kept busy with activities undertaken to ensure that they get to eat and to mate more and better, and to live more comfortably; given a chance some devote all their time outside of eating and mating to the attainment of fame, wealth, and power.

How do I come to the conclusion that Buddhism is amusement from all these preliminary considerations?


More considerations tomorrow.


Yrreg

"People are strange when your a stranger"

I must agree that if the gods exist they created human beings for amusement. If one asks if one has attained nibbanna then one has not.

 

[yrreg]

Everything else is amusement above and outside of survival...?

How do I come to the thought that as with other religions Buddhism is amusement?

First, what is amusement? By way of example what I am at this very moment doing is an amusement. There you know already what I mean by amusement from one example of an amusing activity. What about you reading this message and occupied with this website forum, is it amusing to you? if not what and why are you doing it that is not amusing to you?

What should I be doing at this time which is not amusement were I not writing this message? I should be getting the garbage ready for the collector truck coming any time now; but it is a tedious job and I am more inclined to amuse myself writing a message in a thread I started.

So, for me amusement is anything I do which is enjoyable and makes me feel swell mentally, emotionally, and physically. Writing a message is a mentally, emotionally, and physically happy activity; but getting the garbage ready to be picked up by the garbage collectors, that for me is not amusement, it is work; and I detest work to be honest about it, however necessary it be.

Excuse me while I get the garbage ready for the truck coming any time now.

There, finished, the plastic bag of garbage is outside the gate.


An amusement is an activity of man which is first, optional, in the sense that you don't have to do it to stay alive or to justify before other people why they should keep or contribute to keep you alive, for example your employer.

Second, it is an activity that you look forward to with alacrity. What is alacrity? Three examples of alacrity: when you are away from home and lonely and you want to get home, that is alacrity; when you are hungry and you want to eat, that is alacrity; when you have bought a new impact drill, a stronger one, and you are looking for a job in the house requiring you to bore some holes in a concrete wall, that is alacrity.

Third, in the negative, an amusement is not an activity where you have to always act or conduct yourself rationally according to the conventionally accepted and propounded canons of rationality; it can be irrational as to even be highly life-threatening, but since the lure of amusement is so enticing people would gamble their life away for the thrill of the risk.


Okay, now why is Buddhism and religion in general an amusement?

I got this flash of insight when I read the heated argument among Buddhist masters discussing, whether and how as one breathes one can be sure to have arrived at enlightenment or nirvana.

If these players have any talent for introspection and inspection on the bigger terrain of their inquisition, which they have but for the love of amusement they prefer and pretend to not be conscious of the need for introspection and inspection in every human activity on the wider dimensions, wherein the activity is inevitably lodged, they should admit that their argument is of no useful objective whatever but an optional exercise of their brain cells, which exercise keeps them occupied happily.

Look at the three criterions listed earlier of an amusement activity, and you will find that arguing about whether and how one gets to know for certain that one has arrived at enlightenment (and there is still the corollary question, whether once attained enlightenment or nirvana can still be lost) fits perfectly our description of amusement.

First, arguing about this question is an optional activity for Buddhist monks, because they are not doing it for a living or for others to keep them alive; Buddhist monks from detachment to the world of desires don't work for a living, they are supported by ordinary folks who do work for a living.

Second, they look forward with alacrity to such an activity like exchanging reasons to prove their position on one side or the opposite side of the question, thereby they can show to each other the brilliance of their mind and the eloquence of their language.

Third, such an activity is not necessarily rational but bordering on the eirrational, because it is intrinsically impervious to any solution one way or the other; nonetheless, it is titillating to the cerebral tissues of Buddhist thinkers or tinkers; and here is one bonus for them unlike guys who engage themselves in bungee jumping, it is an absolutely safe exercise.


What about Buddhism as with other religions an amusement to ordinary lay folks in Buddhism?

Also, it is essentially an amusement for them, except for the ones not capable of seeing the bigger picture by introspection and inspection on their religious beliefs and observances, the bigger scheme of life and the universe.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

A concession to weakness, a peccadillo allowed, not an ethically neutral act.

Of all the things that Buddhism might be, entertaining just does not seem like one of the top 10 things. Masturbation is almost a sacrament with Buddhists, but it seems like a far second to someone saying 'here, let me do that for you'.

One of my constant differences with Western Buddhists is that they have modified Buddhism so as to suit their contemporary Western liberal morality.

Masturbation almost a sacrament with Buddhists? Not with the Buddhist monks in Thailand, Burma, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, or mainland China, unless they have been enlightened by new masters from the West.

My opinion only, formed from casual readings about Buddhist spirituality as propounded by Buddhist mentors born and bred in the traditional Buddhism of the Far East.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

Skirting the question, that is always frustrating, exacerbating.

"People are strange when your a stranger"

I must agree that if the gods exist they created human beings for amusement. If one asks if one has attained nibbanna then one has not.

If one asks if one has attained nibbanna then one has not.​

That is what I have encountered time and again talking with Buddhists here and elsewhere in forum exchanges: instead of an answer to the question they come with some wise word from an ancient or contemporary master, which they for accepting blindly imagine others to take them also for authorities.

The penchant seems to have originated with their first and founding master, one Gautama, who is acclaimed by them to have attained enlightenment and thereby authorized by what? karma, to teach others to also arrive at enlightenment, his stock reaction to such questions which have been debated perennially by his time, is that the question is of no useful purpose..." (no, not to him, but to others very relevant) -- and his disciples thus talk in a similar vein.

If one asks if one has attained nibbanna then one has not.​

What is the name of the fallacy involved in such a statement? Must be some strain of argumentum ad ignorantiam, blaming the ignorance of inquirer for asking the question itself, or in effect his incapability of understanding neither the answer nor the question.

If you cannot imagine from your personal knowledge or reading or faculty for hypothesizing, then it is better and good for everyone sincerely searching for answers, to just say "I don't know," or as with the typical responses in traditional religions of the West and Middle East, "It's a mystery of faith."


No offense intended, everyone, please. We are all in this for the amusement, for fun as I always say to at least myself if others are not listening, I mean that it is for fun.

[Hehehe, softly.]


Yrreg

 

[Mephisto]

By way of example what I am at this very moment doing is an amusement.

What? Typing with one hand?

Now THAT'S amusing.

 

[Myriad]

At this point, one question to the experts of evolution here: Do you know of any new species appearing in historical time for the last say one billion years or less or more, counting backward from current date?

I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I can tell you that almost all the species on the planet, and as far as we know, absolutely all species of multicellular life, appeared within the last billion years. Perhaps you meant "million" (in which case the answer is still yes, but I'd have to do some research to come up with a list).

I have this curiosity: if life species get to become extinct one by one, and no new species appear on the scene by nature's mechanism of evolution, sooner than later in the scale of cosmic time life will disappear altogether.

That's true, given your premises (no new species appear by evolution, and all existing species become extinct one by one; this also assumes that humans or some other evolved species do not at some future time begin creating new species or re-creating extinct species by genetic and biochemical engineering). However, it's generally believed that there's no reason to expect those conditions to come about except by astronomical events such as the sun burning out, a nearby gamma ray burst sterilizing the earth's surface, or the gradually increasing temperature of the sun eventually driving all of the water out of earth's surface and atmosphere.

Human effects including (listed roughly in decreasing order of their current importance in causing extinctions) introduction of invasive species, habitat destruction, pollution, hunting, and global warming, are causing and will likely continue to cause a mass extinction event comparable to those dividing past geological epochs, but they are not threatening to eliminate all life. Even catastrophic human-caused events such as all-out nuclear/chemical/biological warfare would be unlikely to do that, though the creation of an out of control self-replicating nanobot (see: gray goo problem) might manage the feat.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Dancing David]

Hiya Yrreg!

Thew statement that if one asks if one has attained nibbanna then one has not is not a negative argument. Nibbanna might be taken as the end of attachment to the self, and therefore asking a question about a judhement of the self, might indicate that one has not attained freedom from the self.

Or the notion of the self at any rate. Attachment to the attainment of nibbanna is attachment, one would not be unrestricted if they are attached.

 

[yrreg]

Thanks for the compliment, can really use that.

There is a problem with signatures, your posts may be displaying a signature from another Member.
I am working at fixing the problem however in the meantime if you go to the UserCP dropdown menu and select "Edit Signature" and then click on save it will re-set your signature and your posts will again appear with your words of wisdom attached.

[Text above reproduced by Yrreg.]

[Did as per instruction; and no, I don't have any signature.]

...and your posts will again appear with your words of wisdom attached.​

That is a most welcome reaction from the gods. Thanks, and please be not annoyed as to not have a moment of mirth and comic relief.


Yrreg aka Pachomius et alii

 

[yrreg]

Thanks, Myriad, and I want to commend you for...

...writing in a manner easy for dummies like yours truly to grasp scientific scenarios.

Please take up at least the hobby of explaining difficult science ideas and theories for laymen, ordinary people, to comprehend, who do have an interest in science, and do possess a brain that enables them to know what is gravity and what is nirvana -- the essential distinction that is.

I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I can tell you that almost all the species on the planet, and as far as we know, absolutely all species of multicellular life, appeared within the last billion years. Perhaps you meant "million" (in which case the answer is still yes, but I'd have to do some research to come up with a list).



That's true, given your premises (no new species appear by evolution, and all existing species become extinct one by one; this also assumes that humans or some other evolved species do not at some future time begin creating new species or re-creating extinct species by genetic and biochemical engineering). However, it's generally believed that there's no reason to expect those conditions to come about except by astronomical events such as the sun burning out, a nearby gamma ray burst sterilizing the earth's surface, or the gradually increasing temperature of the sun eventually driving all of the water out of earth's surface and atmosphere.

Human effects including (listed roughly in decreasing order of their current importance in causing extinctions) introduction of invasive species, habitat destruction, pollution, hunting, and global warming, are causing and will likely continue to cause a mass extinction event comparable to those dividing past geological epochs, but they are not threatening to eliminate all life. Even catastrophic human-caused events such as all-out nuclear/chemical/biological warfare would be unlikely to do that, though the creation of an out of control self-replicating nanobot (see: gray goo problem) might manage the feat.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[yrreg]

Not interested in the amusement game?

If one asks if one has attained nibbanna then one has not. -- Dancing David​

What is the difference between that sentence above and this one below:

If one asks if one has attained puberty then he can check out for himself with older folks.​

From the standpoint of the one answering the question, sentence 1 (s1) indicates that the answerer is portraying himself as a smart guy without contributing any helpful information at all, while feeling so complacent that he knows something or has certitude about something, whereas he himself does not know anything definite.

From the standpoint of the answerer in sentence 2 (s2), the answerer is not trying to show himself as a smart guy, but he is sincerely giving the inquirer a way to find out for himself how he can be assured that he has attained puberty.

Why does the answerer of s1 want to display himself as a smart guy? Because he is not possessed of any knowledge and has no suggestion whatsoever of how to reach knowledge, but he still wants to enjoy the credit of knowing something oh so wise.

That is basically what answers in Buddhism and in religion generally often amount to, showing oneself to be a smart guy without contributing anything useful for the inquirer to satisfy his legitimate desire for self knowledge.


Yrreg

 

[Dancing David]

Hiya Yrreg!

Thew statement that if one asks if one has attained nibbanna then one has not is not a negative argument. Nibbanna might be taken as the end of attachment to the self, and therefore asking a question about a judhement of the self, might indicate that one has not attained freedom from the self.

Or the notion of the self at any rate. Attachment to the attainment of nibbanna is attachment, one would not be unrestricted if they are attached.

Thew =The judhement=judgement

 

[Dancing David]

Ah, this might make a little sense:

"The statement that if one asks if one has attained puberty then one has not attained a state of nibbanna is not a negative argument. Nibbanna might be taken as the end of attachment to the self, and therefore asking a question about a judgement of the self (have I attained puberty), might indicate that one has not attained freedom from the self(the state of nibbanna).

Or the notion of the self at any rate. Attachment to the attainment of puberty is attachment, one would not be unrestricted if they are attached. "

 

[Loss Leader]

This part of Yrreg's post was dedicated to insulting "the answerer," in this case Dancing David:

Dancing David is portraying himself as a smart guy without contributing any helpful information at all, while feeling so complacent that he knows something or has certitude about something, whereas he himself does not know anything definite. . . .

Why does Dancing David want to display himself as a smart guy? Because he is not possessed of any knowledge and has no suggestion whatsoever of how to reach knowledge, but he still wants to enjoy the credit of knowing something oh so wise.

Once again, Yrreg started off claiming to want to exchange information about Buddhism and, once again, Yrreg quickly turned to insulting those who disagree with him.

Dancing David's post was a fair way of explaining just how slippery the concept of Nirvanah is. Yrreg's response was a fair way of explaining just how slippery the concept of intelligent debate is.

 

[Dancing David]

With Yrreg it is hard to say. I am not sure that he meant it personaly to me, often he is responding to his internal conception of what people are. And he makes his answers generic. But he is most likely a troll, a sometimes entertaining one.

The best was the way he went off when Ryokan used the word 'ass' in a post. The thread on the nature of nirvana is very interesting. Yrreg seems to have a need for confusian order and a preference for theism as well.

 

[yrreg]

Hmmmm... shades of hate speech and/or extremely cruel content...?

I will not dignify comments which consist in accusing people of insulting other people.

I am here just for the fun or amusement. If you feel insulted and you must react by namecalling, then it is your freedom to act according to your passions.

If you care to, you can tell me where and how I am insulting anyone, and I will see what I can do to disabuse you of the thought that I am insulting you or anyone.


All for the fun in any message board, and of course above all for the self-advancement in knowledge. Education can be and should be fun, that is what the reflected person looking at me in the mirror assures me, as I look into the mirror.

And the reflected person in the mirror says also to remind us all that we should filter out the ideas and not search into the motivations of people -- unless except to determine more precisely the ideas being conveyed, instead of attributing to them insults and to retaliate with namecalling.



Yrreg

 

[Loss Leader]

Hmmmm... shades of hate speech and/or extremely cruel content...?

In my last post, I never accused you of hate speech or extremely cruel content. No "shades" of such things are at issue.

I will not dignify comments which consist in accusing people of insulting other people.

And yet you will dedicate the next 156 words of your post to responding to my comments.

If you care to, you can tell me where and how I am insulting anyone,

I made it blisteringly obvious in my last post. Very similarly, the last time you posted at JREF you also kept insisting that your offending behavior be shown to you even though it had been several times by multiple users. I personally explained it to you four times at least.

In this case, Dancing David offered a pithy definition that showed that the state of nirvannah is difficult to reach while worrying if one has achieved nirvannah. You responded by saying that the person who would post such a thing (Dancing David) "is portraying himself as a smart guy without contributing any helpful information at all, while feeling so complacent that he knows something or has certitude about something, whereas he himself does not know anything definite."

Dancing David, a forgiving soul, so much as agreed that you had been insulting but excused you for it, writing, "I am not sure that he meant it personaly to me, often he is responding to his internal conception of what people are."

All for the fun in any message board, and of course above all for the self-advancement in knowledge.

Actually, it appears from your behavior on this board, SFN and others that you tend to spend more time debating how you debate, whether you've insulted someone, why you are being accused of rule-breaking and how the admins have been unfair to you. The time you spend advancing your own knowledge of Buddhism is comparatively brief.

that is what the reflected person looking at me in the mirror assures me, as I look into the mirror. And the reflected person in the mirror says also to remind us

Actually, I promise to leave you alone forever and never post in a single thread in which you have posted if you will just abandon this ridiculous affectation of speaking about yourself in the third person.

instead of attributing to them insults and to retaliate with namecalling.

What name did I call you? I engaged in no namecalling.

 

[Mojo]

What name did I call you?

You called him "Yrreg". Several times.

 

[yrreg]

Back to Buddhism as amusement.

I have this opinion that when mankind is not occupied with staying alive and getting on in life to live longer and better, then all his activities are pursued for amusement.

Take the example of Buddhism and religion in general, how is it in the service of mankind to keep oneself alive and improve one's life to live longer and better?

And yet a sizable portion of mankind are into Buddhism and of course religion in general.

Politicians use Buddhism and religion in general to keep themselves politically alive and stay in power longer and better, that for them of course is not using Buddhism (what I say about Buddhism is applicable in genere to religion) for amusement but as a means and a way for their own survival and continued improvement in power.

Aside from politicians businessmen could be said to use Buddhism for their survival and advancement in business, i.e., making profit in monetary terms.

Aside from politicians and businessmen, what about the non-politician and non-businessman Buddhists, say the monks in their sangha and the ordinary lay Buddhist folks, do they find in Buddhism a means and a way for staying alive and improving their longevity and life enhancement?

If they have already achieved life survival and are already contented in their expected duration of lifespan and the conveniences and comforts of life's personal conditions and situational circumstances, what then is the pursuit or observance of Buddhism for them?

Except to keep them amused or entertained or occupied pleasantly so that time and activity space need not be boring?

And that is why I bring up the example of Buddhist doctrinaires discussing

...whether one can ever be sure while one breathes that one has reached enlightenment or nirvana. I had a good laugh over that reading; it's no different from the big big endlessly discussed subject in other religions of, if and how one can ever be sure of being saved in one's religion.

But when I started to think more deeply about it, I reached the insight that Buddhism, as with other religions, is one area of human activities which can be consigned to the domain of amusement. I mean Buddhism is amusement just like other religions.

.
.

Don't read the following unless you want to satisfy your curiosity about a phase of my present history in online boards.

[By the way, what is the meaning of OP? I thought it means original post; but I seem to have read somewhere that in message boards it stands for 'opinion post.' That is interesting because -- again into self-introspection (but remember the unexamined life is not worth living) I got banned for insisting that my OP was a statement of opinion but my counter-discussants were vehemently harsh on me in their insistence that I made a statement of fact; that was in another interim forum where eventually a sort of owner/founder/admin/mod all rolled into one called Dave_W issued an injunction on me not to mention the name of a member who sought to convince others that my OP was a statement of opinion; this Dave_W gave me two warnings for my mentioning the prohibited name two times, and I responded with another mention, telling him, "...and here is a third mention of McQ"; so he immediately banned me from the forum. Very interesting in terms of free inquiry, free thought, free dissent, and free speech, all conducted in a civil language.]*​

Yrreg

*What did I do from that point in time? I registered in another skeptics forum and introduced my banning in the previous forum for discussion in the new one; the reaction of members there who took an interest in my OP was generally against me except for one who sided with me, but he deleted his post afterwords; however I must commend the chief bossman there, one Dominic something, for allowing the OP to be introduced and to be kept open to date.