Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist
@zenff I have never seen you live but, distortion or not, I have no doubt you look incredible when you are cherrypicking! No one will dare disqualify you!
Myself I like papaya!
Cheers Victor
I try to judge all religions by the same standard, whether it be the Mormon religion, the Catholic religion, Protestant religions, Hinduism, Islam, whatever. I grew up in and spent the first 20-some years of my life in the town where Joseph Smith founded Mormonism; over time, I've found some wisdom in some aspects of Mormonism. during periods of my life I've regularly attended Methodist and Catholic churches and found some wisdom in many aspects of those religions. My adopted son was a Muslim, so in addition to talking with him about Islam, I've read large sections of the Koran, and found some wisdom in Islam. I don't know about Hindusim or many of the other world religions, but I'm sure that many religions have some wisdom. But of the religions I know something about, I find some varying degree of wisdom that I can identify with. I guess that's what you call cherry picking -- finding wisdom where it is, rather than ignoring wisdom if it isn't within your preferred sphere of belief. I suppose you might be one of those people who disdains, for example, the "magic" aspect of Christianity, as if that disqualifies all the wisdom of Christianity. And if that's the world view you choose to have, that's your personal right. But I equally have the right to feel that swallowing any religion lock, stock, and barrel is unwise, and frankly uses little of one's intelligence and logic. In my view, it's a failure to discern the difference between and faith and true knowledge.
There are repeated references to karma and rebirth in the suttas. There is no need to believe these things, but also no need to disbelieve them. No need to impose your preconceptions on what the suttas and sutras say.
Now I think that's an excellent point. The ability to remain open-minded about what is taught in a religion.
I think you have a very cynical viewpoint about Buddhism, because if it turns out that there is no such thing as actual nirvanna -- after all, it's never been proven -- then in your view, the whole of Buddhism gets flushed down the toilet.
Looking at it as a philosophical system, which millions do, still leaves Buddhism as one of the great -- and valid -- moral systems of man.
Looking at it as a philosophical system, one can still use the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path as a means to greatly reduce suffering, which is as far as anyone you actually know has done.
I think I have posted a couple of posts about Nibbana. Could you please read them and tell me how Nibbana is not "proven"?
And tell me how it could turn out not to be actual?
The Moral system you are talkning about is valid just because there is a concept of Nibbana. How else to validate it as good? Please explain.
Thank you.
/Victor
And that is what cherry picking means? Thanks! I am really bad at English Idioms.
I think you have a very cynical viewpoint about Buddhism, because if it turns out that there is no such thing as actual nirvanna -- after all, it's never been proven -- then in your view, the whole of Buddhism gets flushed down the toilet.
Looking at it as a philosophical system, which millions do, still leaves Buddhism as one of the great -- and valid -- moral systems of man.
Looking at it as a philosophical system, one can still use the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path as a means to greatly reduce suffering, which is as far as anyone you actually know has done.
I think I have posted a couple of posts about Nibbana. Could you please read them and tell me how Nibbana is not "proven"?
And tell me how it could turn out not to be actual?
The Moral system you are talkning about is valid just because there is a concept of Nibbana. How else to validate it as good? Please explain.
Thank you.
/Victor
No, I'm not going to research your prior posts. I see wisdom in seeking nibanna, but I also don't know a single person who has reached total cessation of suffering. By my definition of reality, it lacks proof.
No, I'm not going to research your prior posts. I see wisdom in seeking nibanna, but I also don't know a single person who has reached total cessation of suffering. By my definition of reality, it lacks proof.
Well if you are not even going to read my posts before criticing me then there is no real point in this debate is there?
Heck it is not even a debate but a monolog on your part. Good luck with that.
No, I'm not going to research your prior posts. I see wisdom in seeking nibanna, but I also don't know a single person who has reached total cessation of suffering. By my definition of reality, it lacks proof.
Well if you are not even going to read my posts before criticing me then there is no real point in this debate is there?
Heck it is not even a debate but a monolog on your part. Good luck with that.
Cheers. Victor
I've read your posts in the past, but I'm not a Victorious-ist, so I'm not going to re-research them.
I've outlined why I disagree with you on certain posts and certain aspects. And you've responded.
W S.XXXVIII.1 The extinction of greed, the extinction of hate, the extinction of delusion: this, indeed, is called Nibbana.
I can not really understand what is so 'Religious' about this definition of Nibbana? Somebody care to explain?
/Victor
Let me explain.
Such a definition of nirvana is not saying anything when not defining the underlying things that are extinguished; greed, hate and delusion. I can for example say nirvana is the removal of greed for listening to Britney Spears, hate towards people who are driving through red light and delusion caused by six bottles of wodka. You see, it doesn't actually say anything if you don't state what kind of greed, hatred and delusion you mean. According to my definition 99,9% of the people would be enlightened.. But if it is the greed for being reborn and the delusion is not seeing this, the word nirvana suddenly has a totally different meaning.
Therefore we can't just take one quote out of the suttas and say; there is no rebirth in this quote, so it doesn't matter for nirvana. No, we always have to see things in context of all other teachings.
Just to give an example , let's take delusion because it is probably the clearest. Again, we need to know not just that there is delusion, but we need to know delusion of what. It's quite clear that this is delusion of fully understanding the four noble truths. The most detailed explanations of the 2nd truth, the origin of suffering, are the various suttas on Dependent Origination; which teaches how rebirth occurs through craving. Also various quotes on right view mention rebirth.. So delusion includes not seeing how rebirth occurs.
Now the example above was all based on suttas. This doesn't automatically say it's true, of course. Also, that's not what I'm claiming here. I think everybody has the right to say they are Buddhist without just accepting rebirth as truth. And this attitude I think would be very smart also. Doubt it, contemplate it. Blind belief is only foolish. But note that blind belief in the opposite (no rebirth) is at least just as foolish.
However, to say it once more, to mix up our views with what is taught is ok, but presenting them like that is what was the original teaching, is unwise. This is what Batchelor certainly did, and this is the main origen of the criticism.
First you berate me for not more or less expounding the whole Dhamma in one post which it would take to define those terms whose definitions you say my post lacks.
Then you berate me for picking only a part of the all the suttas containing anything about Nibbana and you do so by picking only one small part of the two posts about Nibbana I wrote.
A bit Ironic no?
And then you start off by seeming to want to answer my question which was
"I can not really understand what is so 'Religious' about this definition of Nibbana? Somebody care to explain?"
By starting your post saying
"Let me explain"
Then you go on to absolutely not explaining anything at all of my question.
At this point I am confused. And to make it even more confusing you start talking about rebirth saying that blind belief in it is foolish (to which I agree) and then saying that belief in the opposite is just as foolish which it is not because such a belief is outright braindead.
You can not believe a thing is not. That is totally unprovable and a meaningless belief.
And then as if I am not enough confused as it is you drag Batchelor into this. I have nothing against SB. I think he is probably a very nice person. But obiously has missed reading a large part of the suttas since his understandig of the dhamma lacks some pretty basic things needed to understand Nibbana properly for instance.
I never agree with B5C. But, here I will have to say that in my view he is treating Buddhism as a philosophy, not a religion. And that is an historical viewpoint that has merits. Others treat Buddhism as a religion. That is an historical viewpoint that has merits. Nothing screwy about it. It's a different, but valid viewpoint.
both views has merits, but both are not Buddhism.
The method and techniques to develop skills, and guidance to use these skills to look at specific things in order to develop insights and realizations, which lead to liberation from our suffering is Buddhism.
It's a science which cannot be objective, from which the philosophy is derived.
First you berate me for not more or less expounding the whole Dhamma in one post which it would take to define those terms whose definitions you say my post lacks.
Then you berate me for picking only a part of the all the suttas containing anything about Nibbana and you do so by picking only one small part of the two posts about Nibbana I wrote.
A bit Ironic no?
And then you start off by seeming to want to answer my question which was
"I can not really understand what is so 'Religious' about this definition of Nibbana? Somebody care to explain?"
By starting your post saying
"Let me explain"
Then you go on to absolutely not explaining anything at all of my question.
At this point I am confused. And to make it even more confusing you start talking about rebirth saying that blind belief in it is foolish (to which I agree) and then saying that belief in the opposite is just as foolish which it is not because such a belief is outright braindead.
You can not believe a thing is not. That is totally unprovable and a meaningless belief.
And then as if I am not enough confused as it is you drag Batchelor into this. I have nothing against SB. I think he is probably a very nice person. But obiously has missed reading a large part of the suttas since his understandig of the dhamma lacks some pretty basic things needed to understand Nibbana properly for instance.
I am confused.
Thank you for the metta though
/Victor
I just responded to your question. If you don't think the answer is applicable to your question, fine, I was not just talking to you. Don't take the word "you" in the post above to only refer to "Victor". I think it is also common English to refer to a group of people with the word. I also used the word "we" a lot to make this clear. Maybe read it again with this in mind.
Maybe I misinterpreted your question and you misinterpreted my answer, but there is no reason to take it personal by saying I berate you, I don't recall at any point being personal. I'm just saying how one can interpret such a definition of nirvana with rebirth in mind. If you just post "When I say Nibbana I mean this!" followed a quote without any context, I guess I can feel free to put my own view on it and explain it how I see it. This is just a board where we share opinions, so I shared mine, not even opposing yours (whatever it may be).
With belief in no rebirth I mean belief in the alternatives, for example that life ends after death, or heaven or whatever. Of course one can't belief in the non existence of rebirth, but probably there will be an alternative view.
I get Batchelor in this because it started off the topic and is the general discussion. Don't take that personal either.
Yeah I guess I was a little bit unspecific as to what my question was aimed at. So it is not a big surprise you did not answer it.
But good try though! I think @patbb just answered my question. Buddhism can not be classified as religion nor philosophy. Such classifications miss the point entirely.
This is what I pretty inadequately was trying to point out.
But good try though! I think @patbb just answered my question. Buddhism can not be classified as religion nor philosophy. Such classifications miss the point entirely.
This is what I pretty inadequately was trying to point out.
ah phewy.. Buddhism is a religion. People get squirmy over the word. I remember asking a Zen Master whether Buddhism was a religion or not. He said "The tax man says it's a religion.. it's a Religion"
I get several yearly tax credits from donations and dues to Buddhist religious organizations..
Take away religion and you get what is advertised down the street here "Zen colonic irrigation"... and " Mindfulness based financial planning"
But good try though! I think @patbb just answered my question. Buddhism can not be classified as religion nor philosophy. Such classifications miss the point entirely.
This is what I pretty inadequately was trying to point out.
ah phewy.. Buddhism is a religion. People get squirmy over the word. I remember asking a Zen Master whether Buddhism was a religion or not. He said "The tax man says it's a religion.. it's a Religion"
I get several yearly tax credits from donations and dues to Buddhist religious organizations..
Take away religion and you get what is advertised down the street here "Zen colonic irrigation"... and " Mindfulness based financial planning"
Yeah I guess I was a little bit unspecific as to what my question was aimed at. So it is not a big surprise you did not answer it.
But good try though! I think @patbb just answered my question. Buddhism can not be classified as religion nor philosophy. Such classifications miss the point entirely.
This is what I pretty inadequately was trying to point out.
With metta Victor
Now I understand.
Relating to your statement with this explanation, I agree Buddhism is not a religion. It also isn't in my experience and it isn't meant this way by the Buddha.
However, for a lot of people (especially in the East) it is. So we can't just say Buddhism in general can't be classified as a religion.
But this is just a matter of definition, not really relevant to the practice.
I never agree with B5C. But, here I will have to say that in my view he is treating Buddhism as a philosophy, not a religion. And that is an historical viewpoint that has merits. Others treat Buddhism as a religion. That is an historical viewpoint that has merits. Nothing screwy about it. It's a different, but valid viewpoint.
both views has merits, but both are not Buddhism.
The method and techniques to develop skills, and guidance to use these skills to look at specific things in order to develop insights and realizations, which lead to liberation from our suffering is Buddhism.
It's a science which cannot be objective, from which the philosophy is derived.
If it can't be objective, it's not a science.
One of the great debates is whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy. I rarely see that discussed on this forum, but on some other forums it is a hot topic of debate.
One of the great debates is whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy. I rarely see that discussed on this forum, but on some other forums it is a hot topic of debate.
I that kind of debate is needed. Look in Asia, Buddhism is an religion. In the West, Buddhism is slowly being treated as an philosophy. I view the Buddha as an philosopher than a holy man. I believe religion has corrupted some of the teachings of the Buddha.
As for why I don't believe in Nirvana or rebirth? I believe it lessens life. We have one short life to live. We should focus our only single life and be compassionate and lessen suffering. I believe that is an more important goal than the goal of rebirth or nirvana.
@b5c you and many people here know I am Muslim and I came to learn about the 4,5,8 of Buddhism.
I know nothing of atheism, only that they are very pro science. I love the way you posted and I really like the fact that you don't take things at face value, nor do you follow blind faith as many 'common ' fill in the blank-ist do. You would really enjoy Socrates and Aristotle, btw. I don't know why @victorious referred to you as THAT GUY... but I think the golden rule is at the core of all religion, and as long as you are a good person, not much beyond your experience matters. I only suggest to you and everyone here that there is a danger to "being certain " about an idea...
@b5c you and many people here know I am Muslim and I came to learn about the 4,5,8 of Buddhism.
I know nothing of atheism, only that they are very pro science. I love the way you posted and I really like the fact that you don't take things at face value, nor do you follow blind faith as many 'common ' fill in the blank-ist do. You would really enjoy Socrates and Aristotle, btw. I don't know why @victorious referred to you as THAT GUY... but I think the golden rule is at the core of all religion, and as long as you are a good person, not much beyond your experience matters. I only suggest to you and everyone here that there is a danger to "being certain " about an idea...
@b5c you and many people here know I am Muslim and I came to learn about the 4,5,8 of Buddhism.
I know nothing of atheism, only that they are very pro science. I love the way you posted and I really like the fact that you don't take things at face value, nor do you follow blind faith as many 'common ' fill in the blank-ist do. You would really enjoy Socrates and Aristotle, btw. I don't know why @victorious referred to you as THAT GUY... but I think the golden rule is at the core of all religion, and as long as you are a good person, not much beyond your experience matters. I only suggest to you and everyone here that there is a danger to "being certain " about an idea...
Be diligent in your search...
Atheism is the belief in no gods. I know some atheists who don't care about science. Yet, Atheists tend to more supportive of science because majority of us require PROOF of an god.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in any deities. Theism, the opposite, is the belief in deities. Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc, are all theists. Non-religious people tend to be atheists, though not always.
One of the great debates is whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy. I rarely see that discussed on this forum, but on some other forums it is a hot topic of debate.
I think rather the discussion for those who have faith in science is to understand what objectivity is.
Then they will come to understand that there is no such thing as objectivity.
Just like everything else it is a man made concept. This is what Buddhism explains so well.
That is another thing that makes Buddhism stand out and not fit the bill of a religion.
Cherry picking is taking the bits you like and rejecting the rest. In many ways it's a natural and sensible thing for us to do, but it's a very subjective process and should not be confused with objective assessment.
One of the great debates is whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy. I rarely see that discussed on this forum, but on some other forums it is a hot topic of debate.
Some Buddhist schools emphasize faith and devotion, some emphasize reason and discovery. You could say the former are more religious whle the latter are more philosophical ( "scientific" might be more accurate? ).
IMO, It is a historical and doctrinal fact that nobody can possibly know anything absolute about what the Buddha taught and, as I have learnt myself, getting caught up in such questions leads away from clarity and into the negative worlds of dogma and bias.
All we can know for sure is that somebody great discovered The Dharma many moons ago and that is what is important to making more happiness.
The method and techniques to develop skills, and guidance to use these skills to look at specific things in order to develop insights and realizations, which lead to liberation from our suffering is Buddhism.
It's a science which cannot be objective, from which the philosophy is derived.
If it can't be objective, it's not a science.
One of the great debates is whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy. I rarely see that discussed on this forum, but on some other forums it is a hot topic of debate.
fair enough.
Then it's a science.
You can think of it as chemistry.
Chemistry 1- In chemistry, you learn to use tools (like microscope, growing stuff in petri dish...)
2- Once you developed your skills to be able to use the microscope properly, you use it to look at specific things in the microscopic scale, do some experiment, and learn/realize some stuff.
3- With a bit of guidance from someone who knows chemistry, you experiment with different techniques, instead of having to rediscover the whole field of chemistry all by yourself.
3a-Your teacher might say something like "take a petri dish full of microbes, look at it carefully under the microscope, and put some alcohol on it. See what happen."
So you do this, and you realize that alcohol kill all of the microbes.
Buddhism 1- In Buddhism, you learn to use tools. you have a tool just like microscope that you use to look at things, which is the ability that everyone has to look inside. the difference with a microscope is that it is difficult to use our tool, we must first sharpen our skills with it quite a bit in order to be able to clearly see every single instances of consciousness that happen every seconds. If it required a great deal of skills to be able to use a microscope and see the microscopic world, then the comparison would be almost perfect.
2- Once you developed your skills to be able to use you ability to look inside properly, you use it to look at specific things in the inner world, do some experiment, and learn/realize some stuff.
3- With a bit of guidance from someone who knows meditation, you experiment with different techniques, instead of having to rediscover the whole field of meditation all by yourself.
3a-Your teacher might say something like "look inside at a feeling, look at it carefully and notice the pulsing quality of the feeling, and put some equanimity on it. See what happen."
So you do this, and you realize that equanimity toward a feeling dissipates it.
objectivity of a science Chemistry was recognized as a science for centuries i believe.
People did not have look at the same petri dish to consider chemistry as objective (enough).
-A New york chemist in the 1800's could make some experiment and publish some results in some book or publication. -A Russian chemist could read this publication and replicate the experiment in his Russian lab.
Both guys never looked at each others petri dish. They just look at their own petri dish and realized similar results would be attain. This was enough objectivity to consider chemistry as a science.
-A New york meditator can make some experiment and publish some results in some book or publication. -A Russian meditator can read this publication and replicate the experiment in his Russian home.
For some reason, this isn't enough objectivity to consider meditation as a science?
Today, chemistry can show videos and pictures easily of this stuff so it can be alot more objective, but not too long ago they couldn't do this. They would just talk about stuff in books and stuff that people knew. And this was good enough for everyone to accept chemistry as a science.
The only difference with these two is that developing the tools to do the meditation science is very difficult and require alot of work. So most of us cannot replicate the experiments and just debate weather such a thing is possible or not.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited March 2012
The tradition of Buddhism, to me, is like a house. I like this house, I enjoy living in it. There is an open door policy for anyone to come in and take a load off, turn on the TV put your feet up, have a sandwich, take a shower, or don't use any of the stuff, whatever.
If you like the way the house is decorated and arranged feel free to use whatever ideas you like to decorate or design your own house. Don't however feel free to rearrange the furniture, paint the walls whatever color you like, buy all new food for the kitchen, do that stuff in your own house.
One of the great debates is whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy. I rarely see that discussed on this forum, but on some other forums it is a hot topic of debate.
Both. Neither.
It comfortably fits into either category whichever way you want to look at it. Its more than that though. To me its a way of life, a pratical set of techniques that can be used to change one's mind and attitude to be more conducive to peace and happiness. If it stops at a religion or a philosophy its like using a gold bar as a door stop, sure it works but it comes no where near its true potential.
Indeed ... taking what you like and leaving the rest does not always apply.
There's a difference between "taking what you like" and taking what appears to be real.
I don't think anyone is suggesting one simply takes the good and happy aspects of a philosophy/religion and ignoring the challenging aspects.
Well, actually, now that I think about that, we've got quite a few people on here who do exactly that with, for example, the 5 Precepts. They want to drink, for example, so they justify their desire and attachment by saying to themselves that that particular concept in Buddhism is not valid.
But that's not what I'm talking about. The rebirth issue. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying I see no actual evidence of it. I remain open-minded about it.
Chemistry 1- In chemistry, you learn to use tools (like microscope, growing stuff in petri dish...)
2- Once you developed your skills to be able to use the microscope properly, you use it to look at specific things in the microscopic scale, do some experiment, and learn/realize some stuff.
3- With a bit of guidance from someone who knows chemistry, you experiment with different techniques, instead of having to rediscover the whole field of chemistry all by yourself.
3a-Your teacher might say something like "take a petri dish full of microbes, look at it carefully under the microscope, and put some alcohol on it. See what happen."
So you do this, and you realize that alcohol kill all of the microbes.
Buddhism 1- In Buddhism, you learn to use tools. you have a tool just like microscope that you use to look at things, which is the ability that everyone has to look inside. the difference with a microscope is that it is difficult to use our tool, we must first sharpen our skills with it quite a bit in order to be able to clearly see every single instances of consciousness that happen every seconds. If it required a great deal of skills to be able to use a microscope and see the microscopic world, then the comparison would be almost perfect.
2- Once you developed your skills to be able to use you ability to look inside properly, you use it to look at specific things in the inner world, do some experiment, and learn/realize some stuff.
3- With a bit of guidance from someone who knows meditation, you experiment with different techniques, instead of having to rediscover the whole field of meditation all by yourself.
3a-Your teacher might say something like "look inside at a feeling, look at it carefully and notice the pulsing quality of the feeling, and put some equanimity on it. See what happen."
So you do this, and you realize that equanimity toward a feeling dissipates it.
objectivity of a science Chemistry was recognized as a science for centuries i believe.
People did not have look at the same petri dish to consider chemistry as objective (enough).
-A New york chemist in the 1800's could make some experiment and publish some results in some book or publication. -A Russian chemist could read this publication and replicate the experiment in his Russian lab.
Both guys never looked at each others petri dish. They just look at their own petri dish and realized similar results would be attain. This was enough objectivity to consider chemistry as a science.
-A New york meditator can make some experiment and publish some results in some book or publication. -A Russian meditator can read this publication and replicate the experiment in his Russian home.
For some reason, this isn't enough objectivity to consider meditation as a science?
Today, chemistry can show videos and pictures easily of this stuff so it can be alot more objective, but not too long ago they couldn't do this. They would just talk about stuff in books and stuff that people knew. And this was good enough for everyone to accept chemistry as a science.
The only difference with these two is that developing the tools to do the meditation science is very difficult and require alot of work. So most of us cannot replicate the experiments and just debate weather such a thing is possible or not.
No, you don't quite get the objective aspect of real science.
First you have to understand that not everything involved in science is factual. Two geologists can study the characteristics of the rocks in one area of Canyonlands National Park and come up with 2 different conclusions about how Upheaval Dome formed. One says it was caused by a meteor impact, the other says it's the result of a salt dome. If they're honest scientists, they will report their conclusions as a possible explanations. They might fervently believe in their conclusion, but if they are honest in terms of science, they will not present it as fact.
Then, you have the factual aspect of science. Both scientists at the same site will agree with presence of salt. They will test that mineral, and no matter how many times they test its cleavage they will find the angles that are always present in halite (along with other characteristics). Or, if they're testing for calcite in a rock they suspect in limestone, they'll look for characteristics of CaCO3 by using 10% HCl. In those aspects, their findings will be factual.
On the other hand, you can have a group of mixed cultural people who are honest people. Like that first group of scientists working on theory, those people of different cultures will tell you their honest conclusions. One will explain the Buddhist viewpoint. Another will explain the Protestant viewpoint. A third the Catholic viewpoint. Another the Hindu explanation. Etc. Like the first group of scientists, they are giving possible explanations of what they have observed. They may be very fervent in their beliefs. One group may be correct.
But they cannot state fact like the geologist who says that if it's calcite (CaCO3) it will fizz with HCl every time.
Not everything in science is fact, but the honest scientist knows the difference between fact and theory, between proving something objectively and making reasonable conclusions.
Now, I'm going to let you make a final post, and I'm not going to respond. There is no more for me to say. You may have the final word.
The tradition of Buddhism, to me, is like a house. I like this house, I enjoy living in it. There is an open door policy for anyone to come in and take a load off, turn on the TV put your feet up, have a sandwich, take a shower, or don't use any of the stuff, whatever.
If you like the way the house is decorated and arranged feel free to use whatever ideas you like to decorate or design your own house. Don't however feel free to rearrange the furniture, paint the walls whatever color you like, buy all new food for the kitchen, do that stuff in your own house.
One of the great debates is whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy. I rarely see that discussed on this forum, but on some other forums it is a hot topic of debate.
Both. Neither.
It comfortably fits into either category whichever way you want to look at it. Its more than that though. To me its a way of life, a pratical set of techniques that can be used to change one's mind and attitude to be more conducive to peace and happiness. If it stops at a religion or a philosophy its like using a gold bar as a door stop, sure it works but it comes no where near its true potential.
Chemistry 1- In chemistry, you learn to use tools (like microscope, growing stuff in petri dish...)
2- Once you developed your skills to be able to use the microscope properly, you use it to look at specific things in the microscopic scale, do some experiment, and learn/realize some stuff.
3- With a bit of guidance from someone who knows chemistry, you experiment with different techniques, instead of having to rediscover the whole field of chemistry all by yourself.
3a-Your teacher might say something like "take a petri dish full of microbes, look at it carefully under the microscope, and put some alcohol on it. See what happen."
So you do this, and you realize that alcohol kill all of the microbes.
Buddhism 1- In Buddhism, you learn to use tools. you have a tool just like microscope that you use to look at things, which is the ability that everyone has to look inside. the difference with a microscope is that it is difficult to use our tool, we must first sharpen our skills with it quite a bit in order to be able to clearly see every single instances of consciousness that happen every seconds. If it required a great deal of skills to be able to use a microscope and see the microscopic world, then the comparison would be almost perfect.
2- Once you developed your skills to be able to use you ability to look inside properly, you use it to look at specific things in the inner world, do some experiment, and learn/realize some stuff.
3- With a bit of guidance from someone who knows meditation, you experiment with different techniques, instead of having to rediscover the whole field of meditation all by yourself.
3a-Your teacher might say something like "look inside at a feeling, look at it carefully and notice the pulsing quality of the feeling, and put some equanimity on it. See what happen."
So you do this, and you realize that equanimity toward a feeling dissipates it.
objectivity of a science Chemistry was recognized as a science for centuries i believe.
People did not have look at the same petri dish to consider chemistry as objective (enough).
-A New york chemist in the 1800's could make some experiment and publish some results in some book or publication. -A Russian chemist could read this publication and replicate the experiment in his Russian lab.
Both guys never looked at each others petri dish. They just look at their own petri dish and realized similar results would be attain. This was enough objectivity to consider chemistry as a science.
-A New york meditator can make some experiment and publish some results in some book or publication. -A Russian meditator can read this publication and replicate the experiment in his Russian home.
For some reason, this isn't enough objectivity to consider meditation as a science?
Today, chemistry can show videos and pictures easily of this stuff so it can be alot more objective, but not too long ago they couldn't do this. They would just talk about stuff in books and stuff that people knew. And this was good enough for everyone to accept chemistry as a science.
The only difference with these two is that developing the tools to do the meditation science is very difficult and require alot of work. So most of us cannot replicate the experiments and just debate weather such a thing is possible or not.
No, you don't quite get the objective aspect of real science.
First you have to understand that not everything involved in science is factual. Two geologists can study the characteristics of the rocks in one area of Canyonlands National Park and come up with 2 different conclusions about how Upheaval Dome formed. One says it was caused by a meteor impact, the other says it's the result of a salt dome. If they're honest scientists, they will report their conclusions as a possible explanations. They might fervently believe in their conclusion, but if they are honest in terms of science, they will not present it as fact.
Then, you have the factual aspect of science. Both scientists at the same site will agree with presence of salt. They will test that mineral, and no matter how many times they test its cleavage they will find the angles that are always present in halite (along with other characteristics). Or, if they're testing for calcite in a rock they suspect in limestone, they'll look for characteristics of CaCO3 by using 10% HCl. In those aspects, their findings will be factual.
But they cannot state fact like the geologist who says that if it's calcite (CaCO3) it will fizz with HCl every time.
Not everything in science is fact, but the honest scientist knows the difference between fact and theory, between proving something objectively and making reasonable conclusions.
fine
but can we agree that if two people could use the same tool in meditation to look at the same thing, we could then be considered a science no?
And this is the only thing differentiating it from what we consider a science.
Despite the nature of the work which prevent this to be done, thinking of meditation and the path in such a way seem far more accurate in the technical sense that thinking of it as a religion or philosophy and can be very useful.
but can we agree that if two people could use the same tool in meditation to look at the same thing, we could then be considered a science no?
And this is the only thing differentiating it from what we consider a science.
Despite the nature of the work which prevent this to be done, thinking of meditation and the path in such a way seem far more accurate in the technical sense that thinking of it as a religion or philosophy and can be very useful.
Since you ask me a specific question, I will just say -- no. In science it isn't that 2 people get the same response, it's that any 2 people will get the same response.
Just having 2 Buddhists agree in (let's say) rebirth, doesn't make it so.
BTW, I'm not at all upset, I just don't want to keep going back and forth, since in reality either of us will change the other's mind.
Now, I'm going to let you make a final post, and I'm not going to respond. There is no more for me to say. You may have the final word.
first of all i made you break the fourth precept.
Since you ask me a specific question, I will just say -- no. In science it isn't that 2 people get the same response, it's that any 2 people will get the same response.
Just having 2 Buddhists agree in (let's say) rebirth, doesn't make it so.
the premise of this was that if two people could use the same tool in meditation, then all (and any) of them would have the same observation.
I wasn't talking about conclusions made off of those observations. Which is the same as science as you pointed out in one of your example. Two people can observe the same thing but come up with two different hypothesis about why it happen this way. I think we both share the same position on this stuff, my believe is that until we are certain, we should stay clear of concluding anything but just come up with theories.
The difference with religions the way i see it is that religion doesn't do any (or little) serious research and doesn't use tools or developed techniques to use tools in any way.
And the difference with western philosophy is that the western philosophy research isn't structured in any way and fail to develop or use appropriate tools in order to make observations.
Comments
And tell me how it could turn out not to be actual?
The Moral system you are talkning about is valid just because there is a concept of Nibbana. How else to validate it as good? Please explain.
Thank you.
/Victor
And that is what cherry picking means? Thanks! I am really bad at English Idioms.
Heck it is not even a debate but a monolog on your part. Good luck with that.
Cheers.
Victor
I've outlined why I disagree with you on certain posts and certain aspects. And you've responded.
Such a definition of nirvana is not saying anything when not defining the underlying things that are extinguished; greed, hate and delusion. I can for example say nirvana is the removal of greed for listening to Britney Spears, hate towards people who are driving through red light and delusion caused by six bottles of wodka. You see, it doesn't actually say anything if you don't state what kind of greed, hatred and delusion you mean. According to my definition 99,9% of the people would be enlightened.. But if it is the greed for being reborn and the delusion is not seeing this, the word nirvana suddenly has a totally different meaning.
Therefore we can't just take one quote out of the suttas and say; there is no rebirth in this quote, so it doesn't matter for nirvana. No, we always have to see things in context of all other teachings.
Just to give an example , let's take delusion because it is probably the clearest. Again, we need to know not just that there is delusion, but we need to know delusion of what. It's quite clear that this is delusion of fully understanding the four noble truths. The most detailed explanations of the 2nd truth, the origin of suffering, are the various suttas on Dependent Origination; which teaches how rebirth occurs through craving. Also various quotes on right view mention rebirth.. So delusion includes not seeing how rebirth occurs.
Now the example above was all based on suttas. This doesn't automatically say it's true, of course. Also, that's not what I'm claiming here. I think everybody has the right to say they are Buddhist without just accepting rebirth as truth. And this attitude I think would be very smart also. Doubt it, contemplate it. Blind belief is only foolish. But note that blind belief in the opposite (no rebirth) is at least just as foolish.
However, to say it once more, to mix up our views with what is taught is ok, but presenting them like that is what was the original teaching, is unwise. This is what Batchelor certainly did, and this is the main origen of the criticism.
With metta,
Sabre
First you berate me for not more or less expounding the whole Dhamma in one post which it would take to define those terms whose definitions you say my post lacks.
Then you berate me for picking only a part of the all the suttas containing anything about Nibbana and you do so by picking only one small part of the two posts about Nibbana I wrote.
A bit Ironic no?
And then you start off by seeming to want to answer my question which was
"I can not really understand what is so 'Religious' about this definition of Nibbana? Somebody care to explain?"
By starting your post saying
"Let me explain"
Then you go on to absolutely not explaining anything at all of my question.
At this point I am confused. And to make it even more confusing you start talking about rebirth saying that blind belief in it is foolish (to which I agree) and then saying that belief in the opposite is just as foolish which it is not because such a belief is outright braindead.
You can not believe a thing is not. That is totally unprovable and a meaningless belief.
And then as if I am not enough confused as it is you drag Batchelor into this. I have nothing against SB. I think he is probably a very nice person. But obiously has missed reading a large part of the suttas since his understandig of the dhamma lacks some pretty basic things needed to understand Nibbana properly for instance.
I am confused.
Thank you for the metta though
/Victor
And no hard feelings! I am not much of Vinlynist either but I can sing.
/Victor
I agree, we just have different ways of looking at things.
The method and techniques to develop skills, and guidance to use these skills to look at specific things in order to develop insights and realizations, which lead to liberation from our suffering is Buddhism.
It's a science which cannot be objective, from which the philosophy is derived.
Maybe I misinterpreted your question and you misinterpreted my answer, but there is no reason to take it personal by saying I berate you, I don't recall at any point being personal. I'm just saying how one can interpret such a definition of nirvana with rebirth in mind. If you just post "When I say Nibbana I mean this!" followed a quote without any context, I guess I can feel free to put my own view on it and explain it how I see it. This is just a board where we share opinions, so I shared mine, not even opposing yours (whatever it may be).
With belief in no rebirth I mean belief in the alternatives, for example that life ends after death, or heaven or whatever. Of course one can't belief in the non existence of rebirth, but probably there will be an alternative view.
I get Batchelor in this because it started off the topic and is the general discussion. Don't take that personal either.
Metta again because you like it
Sabre
Yeah I guess I was a little bit unspecific as to what my question was aimed at. So it is not a big surprise you did not answer it.
But good try though! I think @patbb just answered my question. Buddhism can not be classified as religion nor philosophy. Such classifications miss the point entirely.
This is what I pretty inadequately was trying to point out.
With metta
Victor
I get several yearly tax credits from donations and dues to Buddhist religious organizations..
Take away religion and you get what is advertised down the street here "Zen colonic irrigation"... and " Mindfulness based financial planning"
You are missing the point entirely.
/Victor
My wife and I have someone to mind the house tonight, and are having our first date in six months. :thumbsup:
Have a nice one!
Gnite for me now.
Relating to your statement with this explanation, I agree Buddhism is not a religion. It also isn't in my experience and it isn't meant this way by the Buddha.
However, for a lot of people (especially in the East) it is. So we can't just say Buddhism in general can't be classified as a religion.
But this is just a matter of definition, not really relevant to the practice.
One of the great debates is whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy. I rarely see that discussed on this forum, but on some other forums it is a hot topic of debate.
I that kind of debate is needed. Look in Asia, Buddhism is an religion. In the West, Buddhism is slowly being treated as an philosophy. I view the Buddha as an philosopher than a holy man. I believe religion has corrupted some of the teachings of the Buddha.
As for why I don't believe in Nirvana or rebirth? I believe it lessens life. We have one short life to live. We should focus our only single life and be compassionate and lessen suffering. I believe that is an more important goal than the goal of rebirth or nirvana.
I know nothing of atheism, only that they are very pro science. I love the way you posted and I really like the fact that you don't take things at face value, nor do you follow blind faith as many 'common ' fill in the blank-ist do. You would really enjoy Socrates and Aristotle, btw. I don't know why @victorious referred to you as THAT GUY... but I think the golden rule is at the core of all religion, and as long as you are a good person, not much beyond your experience matters. I only suggest to you and everyone here that there is a danger to "being certain " about an idea...
Be diligent in your search...
I know nothing of atheism, only that they are very pro science. I love the way you posted and I really like the fact that you don't take things at face value, nor do you follow blind faith as many 'common ' fill in the blank-ist do. You would really enjoy Socrates and Aristotle, btw. I don't know why @victorious referred to you as THAT GUY... but I think the golden rule is at the core of all religion, and as long as you are a good person, not much beyond your experience matters. I only suggest to you and everyone here that there is a danger to "being certain " about an idea...
Be diligent in your search...
Atheism is the belief in no gods. I know some atheists who don't care about science. Yet, Atheists tend to more supportive of science because majority of us require PROOF of an god.
Then they will come to understand that there is no such thing as objectivity.
Just like everything else it is a man made concept. This is what Buddhism explains so well.
That is another thing that makes Buddhism stand out and not fit the bill of a religion.
/Victor
Cherry picking is taking the bits you like and rejecting the rest. In many ways it's a natural and sensible thing for us to do, but it's a very subjective process and should not be confused with objective assessment.
Spiny
All we can know for sure is that somebody great discovered The Dharma many moons ago and that is what is important to making more happiness.
Then it's a science.
You can think of it as chemistry.
Chemistry
1- In chemistry, you learn to use tools (like microscope, growing stuff in petri dish...)
2- Once you developed your skills to be able to use the microscope properly, you use it to look at specific things in the microscopic scale, do some experiment, and learn/realize some stuff.
3- With a bit of guidance from someone who knows chemistry, you experiment with different techniques, instead of having to rediscover the whole field of chemistry all by yourself.
3a-Your teacher might say something like "take a petri dish full of microbes, look at it carefully under the microscope, and put some alcohol on it. See what happen."
So you do this, and you realize that alcohol kill all of the microbes.
Buddhism
1- In Buddhism, you learn to use tools.
you have a tool just like microscope that you use to look at things, which is the ability that everyone has to look inside.
the difference with a microscope is that it is difficult to use our tool, we must first sharpen our skills with it quite a bit in order to be able to clearly see every single instances of consciousness that happen every seconds.
If it required a great deal of skills to be able to use a microscope and see the microscopic world, then the comparison would be almost perfect.
2- Once you developed your skills to be able to use you ability to look inside properly, you use it to look at specific things in the inner world, do some experiment, and learn/realize some stuff.
3- With a bit of guidance from someone who knows meditation, you experiment with different techniques, instead of having to rediscover the whole field of meditation all by yourself.
3a-Your teacher might say something like "look inside at a feeling, look at it carefully and notice the pulsing quality of the feeling, and put some equanimity on it. See what happen."
So you do this, and you realize that equanimity toward a feeling dissipates it.
objectivity of a science
Chemistry was recognized as a science for centuries i believe.
People did not have look at the same petri dish to consider chemistry as objective (enough).
-A New york chemist in the 1800's could make some experiment and publish some results in some book or publication.
-A Russian chemist could read this publication and replicate the experiment in his Russian lab.
Both guys never looked at each others petri dish. They just look at their own petri dish and realized similar results would be attain.
This was enough objectivity to consider chemistry as a science.
-A New york meditator can make some experiment and publish some results in some book or publication.
-A Russian meditator can read this publication and replicate the experiment in his Russian home.
For some reason, this isn't enough objectivity to consider meditation as a science?
Today, chemistry can show videos and pictures easily of this stuff so it can be alot more objective, but not too long ago they couldn't do this. They would just talk about stuff in books and stuff that people knew.
And this was good enough for everyone to accept chemistry as a science.
The only difference with these two is that developing the tools to do the meditation science is very difficult and require alot of work.
So most of us cannot replicate the experiments and just debate weather such a thing is possible or not.
If you like the way the house is decorated and arranged feel free to use whatever ideas you like to decorate or design your own house. Don't however feel free to rearrange the furniture, paint the walls whatever color you like, buy all new food for the kitchen, do that stuff in your own house. Both. Neither.
It comfortably fits into either category whichever way you want to look at it. Its more than that though. To me its a way of life, a pratical set of techniques that can be used to change one's mind and attitude to be more conducive to peace and happiness. If it stops at a religion or a philosophy its like using a gold bar as a door stop, sure it works but it comes no where near its true potential.
I don't think anyone is suggesting one simply takes the good and happy aspects of a philosophy/religion and ignoring the challenging aspects.
Well, actually, now that I think about that, we've got quite a few people on here who do exactly that with, for example, the 5 Precepts. They want to drink, for example, so they justify their desire and attachment by saying to themselves that that particular concept in Buddhism is not valid.
But that's not what I'm talking about. The rebirth issue. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying I see no actual evidence of it. I remain open-minded about it.
First you have to understand that not everything involved in science is factual. Two geologists can study the characteristics of the rocks in one area of Canyonlands National Park and come up with 2 different conclusions about how Upheaval Dome formed. One says it was caused by a meteor impact, the other says it's the result of a salt dome. If they're honest scientists, they will report their conclusions as a possible explanations. They might fervently believe in their conclusion, but if they are honest in terms of science, they will not present it as fact.
Then, you have the factual aspect of science. Both scientists at the same site will agree with presence of salt. They will test that mineral, and no matter how many times they test its cleavage they will find the angles that are always present in halite (along with other characteristics). Or, if they're testing for calcite in a rock they suspect in limestone, they'll look for characteristics of CaCO3 by using 10% HCl. In those aspects, their findings will be factual.
On the other hand, you can have a group of mixed cultural people who are honest people. Like that first group of scientists working on theory, those people of different cultures will tell you their honest conclusions. One will explain the Buddhist viewpoint. Another will explain the Protestant viewpoint. A third the Catholic viewpoint. Another the Hindu explanation. Etc. Like the first group of scientists, they are giving possible explanations of what they have observed. They may be very fervent in their beliefs. One group may be correct.
But they cannot state fact like the geologist who says that if it's calcite (CaCO3) it will fizz with HCl every time.
Not everything in science is fact, but the honest scientist knows the difference between fact and theory, between proving something objectively and making reasonable conclusions.
Now, I'm going to let you make a final post, and I'm not going to respond. There is no more for me to say. You may have the final word.
but can we agree that if two people could use the same tool in meditation to look at the same thing, we could then be considered a science no?
And this is the only thing differentiating it from what we consider a science.
Despite the nature of the work which prevent this to be done, thinking of meditation and the path in such a way seem far more accurate in the technical sense that thinking of it as a religion or philosophy and can be very useful.
Just having 2 Buddhists agree in (let's say) rebirth, doesn't make it so.
BTW, I'm not at all upset, I just don't want to keep going back and forth, since in reality either of us will change the other's mind.
I wasn't talking about conclusions made off of those observations.
Which is the same as science as you pointed out in one of your example.
Two people can observe the same thing but come up with two different hypothesis about why it happen this way.
I think we both share the same position on this stuff, my believe is that until we are certain, we should stay clear of concluding anything but just come up with theories.
The difference with religions the way i see it is that religion doesn't do any (or little) serious research and doesn't use tools or developed techniques to use tools in any way.
And the difference with western philosophy is that the western philosophy research isn't structured in any way and fail to develop or use appropriate tools in order to make observations.
:om: