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.
Dissing Buddhism
MindGate
United States Veteran
http://www.slate.com/id/2078486/
This man goes on to say that Buddhism is no better than Catholicism, claiming that all Buddhists believe in literal reincarnation and it is a purely faith based religion. He also goes on to claim that meditation worsens a persons anxiety and such and produces no helpful after effects. He claims that Buddhism will make people unhappy and other (IMO) ridiculous things.
Comments?
This man goes on to say that Buddhism is no better than Catholicism, claiming that all Buddhists believe in literal reincarnation and it is a purely faith based religion. He also goes on to claim that meditation worsens a persons anxiety and such and produces no helpful after effects. He claims that Buddhism will make people unhappy and other (IMO) ridiculous things.
Comments?
0
Comments
But if done properly Buddhism can be helpful and good, I suppose the same could be said about Catholicism. We mustn't blame him if he doesn't have the full picture.
Even the thought of obtaining enlightenment to me is a bit nonsensical. With humans anger can happen, pain can happen, grief can happen. People who are close to enlightened are probably weak in other areas, such as maybe they gave up their ability to make a family due to being celibate, or they are very poor financially and thus came the humility. There is a price for everything. Enlightenment being the highest possible mental state is probably as real as Jesus being a son of god was real.
Buddhism is still helpful without the religious faith and rules, because it does not have to be about "seeking for greater". But rather just doing what works and what helps for the now and near future, the aim of being practical. That is something most religions don't think about, what is practical and what is most likely. Buddhism seems to really be able to do that for at least some of its sectors.
It's kind of like that with anything that becomes more talked about.
The only thing he was incorrect on, as many here have pointed out, that there is proof that meditation does have a physical effect on the human body. While it is not for everyone, like all practices, more often than not, it is positive for a person to meditate.
More importantly, I'd argue that Horgan mischaracterizes rebirth as the belief in a transmigrating soul rather than how it's actually presented in the Suttas and understood by Theravada, which is a process whereby one moment of dependently arisen consciousness conditions the arising of the next, a process that doesn't necessarily cease at death. But whether one takes a literal or non-literal approach, rebirth is simply the continuation of a process — nothing 'remains,' nothing 'transmigrates,' etc. — there are merely phenomena that condition other phenomena in the interdependent process we call life.
The next point is that the practice of meditation has been demonstrated to help to reduce anxiety and lower blood pressure, among other things. It can also help to make one more empathetic. So I think dismissing meditation so quickly, especially without further elaboration, is a bit hasty. In addition, I believe that more research needs to be done in this area to make any conclusive statements as to what meditation can and can't do. Neuroscience is a relatively young field, after all.
Besides that, I also think he mischaracterizes anatta as nonexistence, which is another big mistake, in my opinion. The teachings on not-self aren't merely assertions that we have no self; they're a method for deconstructing our false perceptions about reality, as well as an important tool in removing the vast net of clinging that gives rise to suffering. By equating anatta with nonexistence, he's grasping the snake by the tail, as the Buddha would say.
In the simplest of terms, the Buddha taught that whatever is inconstant is stressful, and whatever is stressful is not-self—with the goal being to essentially take this [analytical] knowledge, along with a specific set of practices such as meditation, as a stepping stone to what I can only describe as a profound psychological event that radically changes the way the mind relates to experience.
That doesn't mean, however, that the teachings on not-self are understood to deny individuality (MN 22) or imply that the conventional person doesn't exist (SN 22.22). They merely break down the conceptual idea of a self — i.e., that which is satisfactory, permanent and completely subject to our control — in relation to the various aspects of our experience that we falsely cling to as 'me' or 'mine' (SN 22.59). Moreover, Horgan appears to contradict himself when he says that Buddhism "holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new bodies," but then later criticizes the Buddhist idea of anatta as nonexistence. Either Buddhism is inconsistent on this matter, or Horgan is. My money's on the latter.
As for the rest, I don't really have the time or the inclination to go into it in detail, but I do think Horgan tries to make some good points. Nevertheless, I think his points are mostly built upon rather spurious assumptions and more aimed at knocking down straw men than anything else. For example, the idea that Buddhism stems from "our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit" is simply an assumption, and Horgan offers nothing to back it up. The Buddha certainly never said that we're here for a reason.
All in all, I find Horgan's article more of an emotional ad hominem than a solid critique of Buddhism. That said, I think it's a good start, but it definitely needs a lot more work if it's to be taken as a serious critique of Buddhism.
I would still classify this as Atheism, though I haven't compared dictionary definitions.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster could be the creator of the universe, but I don't believe it is (i.e., I'm willing to take the risk of ignoring this possibility).
In the same way, atheists might acknowledge that God could exist, but the point is that they are willing to bet their soul that he doesn't.
Can Buddhism be "Spaghetti Monstered"?
These questions will never be answered. It's a waste of time. To have a stance/position on these matters is a fools game.
To the OP, Buddhism itself is empty. It can save and it can kill. Infinite potential. Up to you.
"The best form of defence is attack."
"A fool is known by a Multitude of words".
Ok, I'll shut up now.
There used to be a Wiccan who would come over to the Livejournal Buddhists community and tell us all what bad Buddhists we were, and how broken the versions of Buddhism we were practicing were. Very useful!
"All religions, including Buddhism, stem from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit, as a stage for our spiritual quests."
What nonsense.
I find that disarms people when they want to start an argument about Buddhism.
What I don't tell them is that I believe everyone will eventually discover the dharma for themselves, in some lifetime, and all this means is that they're a little bit behind the curve.
Maybe a little shot of penicillin will help? :sawed:
At least send him this link:
http://www.hatebook.com/
Found the problem here!
Does this mean he's not intelligentic?
Would Buddhists find themselves in a similar situation if confronted by some variation of The FSM? What would such a variation be?
What is commonly called perception, sanna, is essentially the faculty of re-cognitive, which is closely tied to memory. For example, in SN 22.79, the Buddha says, "And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it perceives, it is called perception."
In order to perceive something as 'yellow,' one must have some previous experience with the colour yellow and be able to recall that experience in some way so as to make a comparison. That faculty is perception, whereas any thoughts about the colour itself would fall under the faculty of mental formation.
Perhaps what's being said in the other thread is that whatever stories or conclusions one is making about past-life memories (sanna), those are mental formations (sankhara) and nothing concrete in and of themselves, meaning that they should be clung to. But without actually reading it, I can't say for sure.
Whatever the case, my opinion is that things such as past-life memories shouldn't necessarily be disregarded a priori; but at the same time, it should be kept in mind that our perceptions and the conclusions that stem from them can often be faulty.
Whether someone is a Buddhist, Christian. Atheist or Muslim they are still human.
Yeah, I'm a Buddhist and its very important to me but I keep it to myself most of the time because it being defined by one's beliefs, race or sexuality is often divisive.
It's clear tho that this chap is a poor scientist and a sensationalist. He's still human though.
I certainly cannot agree with the views referred to above. Possibly I may offer some clarity here.
1. In the Pali, the Buddha did not use the term "past life". He used the term "past dwelling" or "past abiding".
2. When the Buddha instructed his monks (rather than ordinary people), such as in the Khajjaniya Sutta, his instruction was the same as his instruction in all other supramundane suttas, namely, any experience is merely form, feeling, perception, mental formations and/or consciousness and all such experiences should be regarded as: "This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am."
3. I do not recally any suttas, where any of the Buddha's disciples declared experiencing their past dwellings (but I have not read every sutta) to ordinary people or non-monks. For example, in the Susima Sutta, the arahant monks refrain from declaring any such experience. Further, in the Susima Sutta, the arahant monks emphasise such experiences are not related to the goal.
4. As for the Buddha, he was & is the Buddha. He declared such experiences to ordinary people & used a language for the listener to interpret for themselves (such as the Bhaya-bherava Sutta). It follows ordinary people can interpret such teachings however they wish. It does not mean their interpretation is actually true (or false).
5. The Buddha said the experiences to be trusted are those that lead to liberation or the cessation of suffering. In the Khajjaniya Sutta, the Buddha is unambiguous in asserting any kind of ego building or accumulation in relation to such experiences does not side with liberation.
6. The Samkitta Sutta advises, as disciples of the Buddha, we have the right to discard or reject any teachings we read that lead to passion, not to dispassion; to bondage, not to liberation; to accumulation, not to relinquishment.
Kind regards
DD
Which is absolutely 100% untrue. Clearly, he's never talked to most of the Buddhists I know, nor to me.
Again, 100% untrue. And again, he's clearly never talked to a Buddhist about it.
So, as with most things that stem from the ego, this is pretty much useless...
ATTENTION: GOD EMPEROR MODE. PLEASE MAKE SURE TO READ THIS BEFORE POSTING.
Before this thread gets too off-topic, I'd like to ask that all discussions related to the current discussion on rebirth be continued there since the current format doesn't allow individual posts to be moved, and I'd hate to have to delete them. Thanks.ATTENTION: GOD EMPEROR MODE. PLEASE MAKE SURE TO READ THIS BEFORE POSTING.
Like Jason, I also refrain from entering the rebirth discussion threads due to the loudness and aggressiveness of some members in their rejection of rebirth. It seems that the more minority the views that are held, the louder they are proclaimed.
Rest assured that the suttas are repleat with examples of rebirth, the most important one being the night of the Buddha's awakening in which he recalled aeons of his lifetimes going back through many expansions and contractions of the world systems. His declaration of this experience is that there is no discernible beginning.
In fact, Buddhist monks not only recall their past lifetimes, but they also help others to do so. You can only do this with a suitably concentrated mind and that usually means a mind that has just been in jhana. You can experience it too if you wish to practice in this way. I'm not sure whether it's absolutely necessary for the path progression to recall past lifetimes though.
Metta,
Vangelis