You and your you-language.

You and your deflection.

*sigh*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message


Can you formulate what you want to say in the form

"When Baker says [insert what you're referring to], I [Tom Storm] feel ____ / think ____ ."

The thing is that you're not distinguishing between my words and your interpretation of my words. You're conflating the two.

The thing is that you're not distinguishing between my words and your interpretation of my words. You're conflating the two. — baker

That’s funny coming from someone who has a habit of interpreting things in the most sneering manner possible.

This is not relevant to the thread and an ongoing distraction. If you want to explore further via PM’s fine, otherwise..

In Theravada and Early Buddhism kamma is intention. Generally, only intentional actions have kammic consequences. This is why two people, externally acting the same way, could face very different kammic consequences if their intentions for doing the actions differ, respectively. — baker

That’s how the law works too. If, for example, you unintentionally kill someone you may be off the hook, depending on the particulars (perhaps including such things as the color of your skin). If you intentionally kill someone you’re going to be in hot water with the law, particularly if you’re poor and can’t afford good legal representation.

The practice of law follows a series of well established steps that take intention into account and is not imponderable.

What you describe looks like Jainism, like I already said. — baker

Yes, I remember you saying that.

Do you remember me asking you: You're claiming that karma & rebirth in Buddhism are not based on cause & effect?

I think this has sometimes more to do with an unwillingness to engage in time-consuming explanations to people who seem hostile rather than anything else. — baker

Sorry I upset you. Maybe try to focus on the “anything else” part and ignore the hostility, if you’re capable. A few deep breaths might help.

And the attitude you've been displaying here certainly doesn't suggest that you're interested in learning about the Buddhist concepts of kamma and rebirth. So why bother? — baker

My mission is not necessarily to learn, though I’m certainly open to the prospect. You responded to statements that I made, not questions.

Why bother? I don’t know.

You should also know that in Buddhism, at least for monks, there are restrictions as to whom they can or should speak about Dhamma and to whom they shouldn't. Lay Buddhist people may also adopt those restrictions. — baker

Not sure why you mention this.

If you find that the Buddhists you're talking to don't seem all that open or willing to discuss things with you, then consider the possibility that you have ticked one or more boxes on that list of restriction criteria. (In my opinion, you have.) You can hardly blame people for setting boundaries on whom they spend their time on. — baker

Are you suggesting that some Buddhists may be able to answer ‘imponderable’ questions about karma and rebirth but don’t because they’re stingy with their time? I don’t think so. I think they can’t answer because they don’t know. Just like no one can answer questions about God.

If they seem evasive to you, bear in mind that from their perspective, you're evasive too. — baker

That covers them and me to some degree, not that it is in any way relevant to our chat. I would ask why you’re evasive, if I cared.

Unanswerable question #2:
What is it that travels from one body to the next body in Buddhist rebirth? They say it’s a soul in Hinduism.