Criticizing Buddhism

[Vigile]

Suffering is the common bond that we all share. Everybody everywhere suffers. The First Noble truth is not a dismal metaphysical statement saying that everything is suffering.

 

But couldn't it also be said that Everybody everywhere feels joy? In my life I have experienced many things and suffering is only one of them. Why would the first noble truth focus on just one area of life?

 

Truth is not an absolute because of the Fourth Noble Truth, which is a path to non-suffering.

 

I guess I can see where the first truth focuses on suffering as a launch pad to explain how to alleviate it. But then here's my second criticism again, it seems to me that the gyst of the 4 truths is that to alleviate suffering one must shed desire. It occurs to me that the ultimate outcome of this would be essentially the same effect that the drug lithium brings to users. Without desire it is likely true that pain is eliminated, but so is joy.

 

 

The correct wording of the First Noble Truth is actually "there is suffering," not life is suffering. The solution is not to give up desire, that is impossible and some desires are beneficial. The solution is to realise that holding onto our desires, believing that they are going to make us happy forever is only going to bring us more suffering when they are gone. Are you happy with your guilt? Is it necessary to live with guilt?

 

Ok, I see you've answered this, but your answer feels very much like the answer of a Christian appologist when they are explaining a difficult biblical passage. They tend to apply common sense and current era and cultural interpretation to passages that if read straight are actually bold and straightforward in their meaning.

 

 

Anyway, I don't have any real beefs with Buddhism. It doesn't appeal to me but I can't see how it will do much harm to its followers and its followers certainly don't appear to be a problem for the rest of us the way that the followers of many religions are. Some people like rituals (I don't) and some people like a structural framework with which to create a paradigm. I do my best to challenge all paradigms (especially my own). This is a response to the fact that I spent the first 25 years of my life trapped inside a paradigm that caused me to look at the world and life in a warped and twisted manner. I believe that Buddhism also causes one to view the world and life in a fairly narrow way, but I don't see that its paradigm is anywhere near as twisted as the ME religions.

[Kuroikaze]

I still say it is a pointless debate, over nothing more than semantics. Labeling certain groups as Buddhist and others and not really Buddhist

 

Don't take this the wrong way Jun, because I don't mean it to come off harshly, but, this is something I actually got out of some of my studies of Buddhism, it seems to me that Labels represent a form desire, as human beings we have an innate desire to understand and quantify every thing around us.

I think it is an evolutionary trait for us to want to have everything in nice neat categories.

 

But labels are imperfect, and do break down, even more so, when it comes to humans, none of whom are exactly the same as another.

 

Isn't it enough to know what a person believes, and that you agree or disagree with those beliefs? Why do we feel the need to also label that person as either "part of our group" or "not part of our group"

[Jun]

1. Does Buddhism reject the concept of "self"?

 

What is "self?" We have a subtly wilful blindness to see things as they truly are. Our views are slightly distorted. The world/Universe is in fact a seamless and dynamic unity: a single oneness that is constantly undergoing change. Our minds, however, chop it all up into separate, static bits and pieces. We then try to mentally and physically manipulate these pieces. One of our mind's most dear creations is the idea of the person - and, closest to home, of a very special person that each of us calls "I": a separate, enduring ego or self. At this moment, then, the seamless universe is cut in two. There is "I" - and then there is all the rest.

 

Central to the Buddha's teaching is the doctrine of anatman: "not-self." This does not deny that he notion of an "I" works in the everyday world. In fact, we need a solid, stable ego to function in society. However, "I" is not real in an ultimate sense. It is a "name" a fictional construct that bears no correspondence to what is really the case. Once our minds have constructed the notion of "I," it becomes our central reference point. We attach to it and identify with it totally. We attempt to advance what appears to be its interests, to defend it against real or apparent threats. And we look for ego-affirmation at every turn: confirmation that we exist and are valued.

 

2. Does Buddhism reject the idea that pursuing happiness is mans greatest moral purpose?

 

No. The Buddha stated that the very purpose of life is to seek happiness.

 

3. Does Buddhism reject individualism?

 

No.

 

In much of practicing Christianity for instance there seems to be a pervasive implication that we are not entitled to our own thoughts and feelings.

 

Everybody is entitled to their own thoughts and feelings.

 

Now, it strikes me that the Buddha Dharma is a form of humanity. And I know there may exist a fundamental tension between the sciences and the humanities. However, I want to quote my favorite biologist, Robert Rosen, at this point.

 

"Science is built on dualities. Indeed every mode of discrimination creates one. But the most fundamental duality, which all others presuppose, is of course the one a descriminator makes between self and everything else.

 

Identification with a self is the main cause of our suffering. It is an illusion because we do not have an inherent abiding self that is fixed and unchanging. We might feel that there is something fixed and permanent within ourselves. This is only because our habits have solidified into what seems to be a fixed personality 'I am like this'. Actually there is no fixed 'I' – it is changing all the time. Because it is changing all the time, it is impossible to pin it down and say 'this is my self'. This is what is meant by the term 'no-self'.

 

This is the inner world. Everything else is outside.

 

A master once asked his student monk, "Here is a large rock. Do you think it is inside or outside of your mind?"

The student replied, "Well, from the Buddhist point of view all things are an objectification of the mind. So, I would say this rock is inside my mind."

The Master replied, "Well, if you're carrying that rock inside your mind, your mind must be very heavy!"

 

Now, it seems to me that if we wish to progress to a point where we no longer view reality in a dualistic fashion, then we give up at least three things, and maybe many more. We give up the right to a private world. We give up the right to discriminate. We give up claim on explicit, model based, understanding.

 

Are you not a part of everything around you? Do you not rely upon the air around you? The oragnisms that live on your skin? The bacteria inside of you?

 

I do think that Buddha's teachings were very much tied up with ideas of reincarnation and Karma though. But it was part of the Indian worldview where the Buddha came from. It doesn't matter though - Buddhist ideas work equally as well if you believe there is only one life and death is the end. Besides, Buddhists don't really believe in a personal soul so it's hard to understand how reincarnation could fit in with that.

 

How many people think that Buddhists subscribe to the idea of reincarnation? This is a truly hard misconception to be done away with. Reincarnation presupposes that some kind of enduring soul or essence, something with unchanging personal imprints, communtes from body to body down through time. This was a common belief in India before the Buddha, but the Buddha didn't subscribe to it. These are the teachings of Hinduism. The Buddha denied the existance of any soul that might reincarnate.

 

Perhaps it's better to say that Reincarnation was just baggage carried over from Indian religion into Buddhism and that any talk of Karma in a Buddhist context just explains how harmful actions can cause ripples that affect everybody - which is why it is extra important to minimize their effects by practising the attainment of inner calm in the face of adversity. That is the Buddhist aim after all.

 

That's it! Well said!

 

No, he does not. Also, YOU made a claim for all Buddhists and YOU are the one here. It's not polite to bring in people that cannot defend themselves.

 

Really? I must have met with a different Dalai Lama then?

 

"Belief" or "practice" what's the difference? Nothing, it's still a belief.

 

So Atheism then is a belief.

[Jun]

No, I'm referring to any form of Buddhism.

 

How can one comment on something having never practiced or studied it?

 

This the "No true Buddhist" argument. It's no different than the "no true christian" argument.

 

If someone told you that they are an Atheist, yet they believe in God - would you still call them an Atheist?

 

Sounds like a belief to me. It's also one of the things they got wrong. It's just too much of a blanket statement.

 

Do you know the sky is blue or do you believe the sky is blue? So "they" got it wrong? So things are able to last forever? Please, tell me what lasts forever?

 

Yet claims to know all?

 

Please provide evidence for your claim that Buddhism claims to know all.

 

A nonsense tautology offered as something deep.

 

And the deeply deluded are sure of their own reality.

 

But they do believe in other types of beings/souls/whatevers.

 

As I've already explained, the "religious forms" have taken the earlier Indian myths and Hindu beliefs and ported them over to their form of "Buddhism." I do not believe in those things, nor do any of the other few million practitioners of Buddhism in Japan, Thailand, Korea, Vietnam, Sri Lanka..........

[Dave]

No, I'm referring to any form of Buddhism.

How can one comment on something having never practiced or studied it?

I can see that any further discussion on this topic with you will be a waste of time. No matter what I say you'll automatically discount it. That's not a very honest thing to do.... but then I'm used to that from people defending their religion.

[Dave]

You know Dave, I think you could sometimes work on smoothing those rough edges a bit. Do you know that you often come across to me as dogmatic yourself?

What "rough edges"?

[Dave]

I still say it is a pointless debate, over nothing more than semantics. Labeling certain groups as Buddhist and others and not really Buddhist

 

Don't take this the wrong way Jun, because I don't mean it to come off harshly, but, this is something I actually got out of some of my studies of Buddhism, it seems to me that Labels represent a form desire, as human beings we have an innate desire to understand and quantify every thing around us.

I think it is an evolutionary trait for us to want to have everything in nice neat categories.

 

But labels are imperfect, and do break down, even more so, when it comes to humans, none of whom are exactly the same as another.

 

Isn't it enough to know what a person believes, and that you agree or disagree with those beliefs? Why do we feel the need to also label that person as either "part of our group" or "not part of our group"

Finally! A Buddhist I can agree with.

[Jun]

But couldn't it also be said that Everybody everywhere feels joy? In my life I have experienced many things and suffering is only one of them. Why would the first noble truth focus on just one area of life?

 

Yes of course we all feel joy. The First Noble Truth focuses on suffering/desire because that is what brings us unhappiness - sorrow - pain.

 

It occurs to me that the ultimate outcome of this would be essentially the same effect that the drug lithium brings to users. Without desire it is likely true that pain is eliminated, but so is joy.

 

Er, the idea is not to eliminate desire. The intention is to not grasp onto desire. Not to rely upon it. Not to attach to our desires.

[Jun]

But couldn't it also be said that Everybody everywhere feels joy? In my life I have experienced many things and suffering is only one of them. Why would the first noble truth focus on just one area of life?

 

Yes of course we all feel joy. The First Noble Truth focuses on suffering/desire because that is what brings us unhappiness - sorrow - pain.

 

It occurs to me that the ultimate outcome of this would be essentially the same effect that the drug lithium brings to users. Without desire it is likely true that pain is eliminated, but so is joy.

 

Er, the idea is not to eliminate desire. The intention is to not grasp onto desire. Not to rely upon it. Not to attach to our desires.

[Legion]

Identification with a self is the main cause of our suffering. It is an illusion because we do not have an inherent abiding self that is fixed and unchanging. We might feel that there is something fixed and permanent within ourselves. This is only because our habits have solidified into what seems to be a fixed personality 'I am like this'. Actually there is no fixed 'I' – it is changing all the time. Because it is changing all the time, it is impossible to pin it down and say 'this is my self'. This is what is meant by the term 'no-self'.

Okay Jun, now we're talking. That makes a great deal more sense to me now that you've spelled it out. Thank you.

[Vigile]

The intention is to not grasp onto desire. Not to rely upon it. Not to attach to our desires.

 

I don't even know what any of this means. Thanks for bringing it up though, this is my third criticism (you did ask for them ). Buddhists seem to make meaningless statements that are somehow supposed to be deep. I'm sure the problem is the fact that I'm just obtuse, but I don't know what Buddhist are even talking about half the time.

 

Is the rock inside or outside your mind? Dunno, but the question makes my mind feel like a rock and I suspect that the correct answer to the question won't raise my level of consciousness whatever that may mean.

[Asimov]

1. Does Buddhism reject the concept of "self"?

 

What is "self?" We have a subtly wilful blindness to see things as they truly are. Our views are slightly distorted. The world/Universe is in fact a seamless and dynamic unity: a single oneness that is constantly undergoing change. Our minds, however, chop it all up into separate, static bits and pieces. We then try to mentally and physically manipulate these pieces. One of our mind's most dear creations is the idea of the person - and, closest to home, of a very special person that each of us calls "I": a separate, enduring ego or self. At this moment, then, the seamless universe is cut in two. There is "I" - and then there is all the rest.

 

Self is the cognitive entity that defines what it is through the actions and choices it makes. I don't know what you mean by "oneness".

 

I think you're creating a strawman of what the self is. I don't dichotomize myself from everything else, I recognize that I'm a separate individual who makes choices and interacts with his environment.

 

However, "I" is not real in an ultimate sense.

 

Why not?

[Grandpa Harley]

The intention is to not grasp onto desire. Not to rely upon it. Not to attach to our desires.

 

I don't even know what any of this means. Thanks for bringing it up though, this is my third criticism (you did ask for them ). Buddhists seem to make meaningless statements that are somehow supposed to be deep. I'm sure the problem is the fact that I'm just obtuse, but I don't know what Buddhist are even talking about half the time.

 

Is the rock inside or outside your mind? Dunno, but the question makes my mind feel like a rock and I suspect that the correct answer to the question won't raise my level of consciousness whatever that may mean.

 

To 'grasp' means to invest a load of personal identity and place condition of continuing happiness into a desire... You know, like Christians do in Christ...

[Grandpa Harley]

As a comment on the translations of the four noble truths...

 

We rely a lot on translations that were done by Christians (as such they used concomitant meanings that made the most sense to them... they were mostly German, Lutheran and 19th Century).

 

On the concept of self

IF there was a 'real' self, then a head injury wouldn't have the capability of changing someone's character and beliefs. It's a function of the 2 pounds of mush we live in. The idea of an independent 'real' self harkens back tot he concept in Judeao-Christian culture of the 'soul' being inviolate and unchanging.

[Casey]

Er, the idea is not to eliminate desire. The intention is to not grasp onto desire. Not to rely upon it. Not to attach to our desires.

 

There are things one needs, and things one merely wants. The trick is to know the difference between the two. Would it be then true to say that a person is only truly happy when their desires (or wants if you like), happen to coincide as nearly as possible with their needs?

Casey

[Grandpa Harley]

Vigile_del_fuoco1 has just posted a reply to a topic that you have subscribed to titled "Criticising Buddhism".

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE(Grandpa Harley @ May 17 2007, 05:43 AM) 280469[/snapback]invest a load of personal identity and place condition of continuing happiness into a desire... You know, like Christians do in Christ...

-----------------------------

 

 

 

Like an athlete who places his/her entire meaning on winning the championship or the gold medal? This seems like common sense. Why do we need the Buddha to tell us this?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

IF common sense were truly common then there'd be a parcel fewer fundies...

[Vigile]

There are things one needs, and things one merely wants. The trick is to know the difference between the two. Would it be then true to say that a person is only truly happy when their desires (or wants if you like), happen to coincide as nearly as possible with their needs?

Casey

 

Yes, that's the interpretation that I originally came back with after reading the 4NTs. And yeah, I agree. If one can't be happy with a little, then they probably won't be happy with a lot. Even so, I spent my youth feeling guilty for my wants, worrying that my wants may or may not match up with the wants that god had for me. I don't want a set of rules, nor do I wish to adopt a paradigm that makes me question my wants anymore.

 

Frankly, after 40 years on this planet, I've come to the conclussion that I get a lot of joy out of my desires. Very often it is in the desire that I find the most joy in fact, not in the ultimate attainment of the object of the desire.

 

I realize that Jun and many other Buddhist do their best to not be dogmatic about these teachings, but I don't see what the teachings really have to offer. Every grandmother tells their grandchildren that true happiness doesn't come with the attainment of the objects of one's desires. This is just common sense, not profound knowledge.

[Grandpa Harley]

See above.. I repeat, since when was common sense common?

[Vigile]

IF common sense were truly common then there'd be a parcel fewer fundies...

 

Ah, you are quick. I tried to delete that. As I noted with Casey though, common sense may not be common, but it is certainly not profound.

[Grandpa Harley]

IF common sense were truly common then there'd be a parcel fewer fundies...

 

Ah, you are quick. I tried to delete that. As I noted with Casey though, common sense may not be common, but it is certainly not profound.

Who said a philosophy has to be 'profound'... it simply had to speak to the commonality of existence...

[Grandpa Harley]

as an addendum... It's why I call thing like this the Joke... it's not any good if someone has to spell it out... bit like the 'Whistling Whore' joke...

[Vigile]

Who said a philosophy has to be 'profound'... it simply had to speak to the commonality of existence...

 

I knew you were going to come back with that. My answer is, if it's not profound, why not just go read a Reader's Digest? What's the point of making a big deal about Buddhism? If it offers the same wisdom that Reader's Digest does, does it merely get props because it sounds deeper?

 

I don't really mean to be so hard on Buddhism. I admittedly know very little about it. I'm just asking questions based on my impression from the issues raised on this and other threads here.

 

I do have a big question for Jun, or anyone else who cares to answer. My motive? I'm just trying to wrap my mind around this thing. Nothing more.

 

What is it about Buddhism that is the selling point? For example, why does one decide to "become" a Buddhist as opposed to just reading Buddhist philosophy among other studies? In other words, why does one adopt the label and what does it entail when one does? Does that mean you choose to view the world through the Buddhist paradigm at the expense of other frames of reference? Does it mean that you choose to do rituals? To chant? If so, how often and to what end?

[Ouroboros]

See above.. I repeat, since when was common sense common?

It's not as common as one might want. It's just like the average driver consider himself to drive better than the average driver, which means the average driver doesn't exist.

 

 

On another note, Question to Jun: is the Buddhist's desire to be free from desire?

[Grandpa Harley]

Who said a philosophy has to be 'profound'... it simply had to speak to the commonality of existence...

 

I knew you were going to come back with that. My answer is, if it's not profound, why not just go read a Reader's Digest? What's the point of making a big deal about Buddhism? If it offers the same wisdom that Reader's Digest does, does it merely get props because it sounds deeper?

 

I don't really mean to be so hard on Buddhism. I admittedly know very little about it. I'm just asking questions based on my impression from the issues raised on this and other threads here.

 

I do have a big question for Jun, or anyone else who cares to answer. My motive? I'm just trying to wrap my mind around this thing. Nothing more.

 

What is it about Buddhism that is the selling point? For example, why does one decide to "become" a Buddhist as opposed to just reading Buddhist philosophy among other studies? In other words, why does one adopt the label and what does it entail when one does? Does that mean you choose to view the world through the Buddhist paradigm at the expense of other frames of reference? Does it mean that you choose to do rituals? To chant? If so, how often and to what end?

If you want mystic, try Christianity... that has resurrecting God men.... bread and wine turning into blood, God descending to earth to judge the quick and the dead and a base message of 'try and be nice'... de profundis indeed...

[Vigile]

If you want mystic, try Christianity... that has resurrecting God men.... bread and wine turning into blood, God descending to earth to judge the quick and the dead and a base message of 'try and be nice'... de profundis indeed...

 

Nah, mysticism doesn't impress me as profound. For me a profound moment is something that makes me stand back and say aha! On the NatGeo channel this week this occured several times as I watched a show about the big bang.

 

But seriously, Ralph Waldo Emerson has given me way more aha! moments than anything I've ever come across from the Buddha. And Emerson is not alone. His neighbor Thoreau wasn't too shabby either. Then there is Houellebecq, Ortega y Gasset, Marquez, and Pirsig, just to name a few writers that have written works that I consider profound. And not one of them merely stated the obvious, such as what we are discussing in relation to desire.