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.
The fact that he could set himself on fire and sit motionless and silent while his flesh burned tells me that Quang Duc had achieved a level well beyond most and had made his decision after much mediitation. I don't presume to have the spiritual maturity to judge his actions.
Personally, I think you're excusing the behavior because he was a Buddhist monk.
If you were a guidance counselor, would you recommend self-immolation to your clients? Are you planning it for yourself? Are you saying, "Self-immolation is a good thing and more people should do it"?
It's not my place to excuse anything. I'm neither condoning or condeming. My comments were in reference to this in the original post...... "what was the point of Quang Duc lighting himself on fire in South Vietnam? You don’t burn to death to make a statement about nothing. Perhaps he was attached to something after all. If that’s the case, what a stupid way to die."
Quang Duc was not the average Buddhist on the street who would come to a counselor for a recommendation on the merits self immolation. He was a monk who had dedicated his life to following Buddhist teachings as he understood them. I agree that concentration allowed him to sit motionless while burning. My assumption is that he gained that level of concentration through long hours of Buddhist practice. This also leads me to think, that through these long hours of practice, that there's a good possibility that he had attained a fairly advanced state of spirituality far beyond my own. I feel it that it's rather flip to condemn or judge this monks actions, which he must have believed (correctly or incorrectly) would help alleviate the suffering of his people.
As a person who has not devoted my life to Buddhism at anywhere near the level that Quang Duc did. I assume that he was far advanced of where I am at this time. I will refrain from judging his behavior.
if by practice you mean the fruition of the practice, Nibbana, then yes it does eliminate grief and anger.. which have the root cause of aversion and nibbana is the eradication of greed, hatred, and delusion ( attachment, aversion, ignorance).. if there is no you to feel grief over a loss or anger and you truely know through wisdom that all things are impermenant.. then grief and anger don't exist
Yes, that's my understanding. With the cessation of craving, aversion and ignorance there is the cessation of anger, grief etc. And if that wasn't the goal I wouldn't bother to practice.
The fact that he could set himself on fire and sit motionless and silent while his flesh burned tells me that Quang Duc had achieved a level well beyond most and had made his decision after much mediitation. I don't presume to have the spiritual maturity to judge his actions.
Good comment howarda. I'd having nothing to add.
It seems to me that a mistake Buddhists and other religious folk often make is to attempt to fight off intellectual criticism by appealing to a need for personal practice or revelation. This is a perfectly sound response from a Buddhist perspective, and is sufficient as a defence within Buddhism, but for an outsider it fails to be a defence. Far better to engage the enemy on their own ground by showing the logical absurdity of alternative views. Here Nagarjuna is a vital figure. He proves the absurdity of all views except his own with no appeal to practice.
For example, materialism gives rise to contraditions such as that which causes the 'problem of consciousness', the 'something-nothing' problem of origins and so forth. This makes materialism logically absurd. No need for any 'appeals to mysticism'. Materialism is demonstrably not a rational metaphysical position. Anybody who is a dogmatic materialist is either a dishonest or a poor thinker. This is why materialists rarely know much about metaphysics. For example, we do not find any serious metaphysics in books by Richard Dawkins or Ayn Rand. This is because metaphysics refutes their views utterly.
Nagarjuna shows that the only rational position is his own, by the use only of logic. So we do not need to fall back on an appeal to experience. Logic is sufficient to overcome all objections to Nagarjuna's view. The failure of western metaphysics is a proof of the Buddha's teachings. There is no possibility in logic of showing that it is not.
Becasue of all this I do not agree with those who say that metaphysics should be avoided. It is not necessary for liberation, but it is is vital if we want overcome silly criticisms like those in article quoted by the OP.
I have grown to greatly admire Buddhism over the past few months, spending much time watching Buddhist documentaries on culture aswell as actual belief, reading over 16 different books on Buddhism which is quite an investment as far as time and money, however as I dive more and more to it I keep getting stuck on things, I will notice things, but pass it and keep going hoping that it will later justify itself as my knowledge of the subject increases... I bumped into this article, while it may be a bit harsh in tone, it mentions some of the things that I myself have been pondering on, here's the link.
I have grown to greatly admire Buddhism over the past few months, spending much time watching Buddhist documentaries on culture aswell as actual belief, reading over 16 different books on Buddhism which is quite an investment as far as time and money, however as I dive more and more to it I keep getting stuck on things, I will notice things, but pass it and keep going hoping that it will later justify itself as my knowledge of the subject increases... I bumped into this article, while it may be a bit harsh in tone, it mentions some of the things that I myself have been pondering on, here's the link.
I had hoped the article might be more thoughtful: Calling Buddhism bullshit strikes me as quite useful ... but it goes beyond the intellectual and emotional. It's like a discussion of music between two people who have read a lot of books about playing the piano without ever having placed their fingers on the keys.
If our experience is that life is suffering, well, I guess no belief is required.
That is an extremely superficial critique of Buddhism. The author does not have any understanding of the real meaning of Buddhism. The arguments he makes are strawman arguments. So this article is critiquing not Buddhism, but the authors own mistaken ideas of it.
I think it's fair to call it a basic critique, rather than a superficial one. It's a basic truth, for example, that life is characterized by dissatisfaction AND satisfaction. So the First Noble Truth is a half-truth, and the subsequent truths follow this half-truth.
There's nothing wrong with relativity, Florian. It's just one way of looking at things, just as 'life is dissatisfaction' is one way of looking at things. But it's a limited view. A religion is necessarily limited in perspective and meaning.
That is an extremely superficial critique of Buddhism. The author does not have any understanding of the real meaning of Buddhism. The arguments he makes are strawman arguments. So this article is critiquing not Buddhism, but the authors own mistaken ideas of it.
I think it's fair to call it a basic critique, rather than a superficial one. It's a basic truth, for example, that life is characterized by dissatisfaction AND satisfaction. So the First Noble Truth is a half-truth, and the subsequent truths follow this half-truth.
The truth of Dukkha is perhaps a half truth until you factor in the rest of the formula..Once Anicca ( the fact that everything is in a state of flux ) and Anatta ( the fact that there is no permanent unchanging aspect to sentient existence ) it becomes clear that the idea of satisfaction is a hollow premise.
There's nothing wrong with relativity, Florian. It's just one way of looking at things, just as 'life is dissatisfaction' is one way of looking at things. But it's a limited view. A religion is necessarily limited in perspective and meaning.
I hope I didn't suggest that there's something right or wrong with relative dissatisfaction and satisfaction. Samsara is not right or wrong. Or not unless we're a Gnostic and see it as a creation of the Evil One.
Why do you think a religion has to be limited in perspective and meaning?
That is an extremely superficial critique of Buddhism. The author does not have any understanding of the real meaning of Buddhism. The arguments he makes are strawman arguments. So this article is critiquing not Buddhism, but the authors own mistaken ideas of it.
I think it's fair to call it a basic critique, rather than a superficial one. It's a basic truth, for example, that life is characterized by dissatisfaction AND satisfaction. So the First Noble Truth is a half-truth, and the subsequent truths follow this half-truth.
The truth of Dukkha is perhaps a half truth until you factor in the rest of the formula..Once Anicca ( the fact that everything is in a state of flux ) and Anatta ( the fact that there is no permanent unchanging aspect to sentient existence ) it becomes clear that the idea of satisfaction is a hollow premise.
Disatisfaction is also a hollow premise, or rather a half-truth.
There's nothing wrong with relativity, Florian. It's just one way of looking at things, just as 'life is dissatisfaction' is one way of looking at things. But it's a limited view. A religion is necessarily limited in perspective and meaning.
I hope I didn't suggest that there's something right or wrong with relative dissatisfaction and satisfaction. Samsara is not right or wrong. Or not unless we're a Gnostic and see it as a creation of the Evil One.
Why do you think a religion has to be limited in perspective and meaning?
Lol, well, for one thing, religions are created by people. Or perhaps you believe Buddha is God or something?
Also, meaning is ego based, and therefor necessarily limited to self concerns.
How many will venture to say that Nirvana is dissatisfaction?
A lot less dissatisfaction no doubt. Perfectly wonderful and the answer to life the universe and everything? Perhaps not . . . a complete and perfect solution may not be possible in a world of dukkha . . . Is that satisfactory? Realistic?
I hang out on skeptical sites where the atheists quite often engage in the "all religion is BS" or "religion is the problem" banter. If a poster says something wrong, like "The Buddhists believe all life is suffering." then I correct them. But, I'm never going to change their belief about religions and they have a point. The Buddhist religion as they have been taught it is from the terrible thumbnail descriptions, if that was actually what the religion said, is total BS.
Just about every human institution contains a lot of BS, and that includes Buddhism. Quite often, people's destructive and self-destructive behavior is justified through religion and Buddhism is no exception.
Let's take one non-Buddhist example. I know almost nothing about the Catholic religion except what I see in the movies and the occasional scandal. I know Catholics worship the Pope as God, since only God is infallable, and have to obey his orders or he'll excommunicate them so they go to Hell. Again, that must mean they believe the Pope is God, because only God has the power to decide who does and does not go to Hell. I know getting into Heaven only requires you confess your sins to a Priest and getting the Priest to say some sort of holy chant over you just before you die.
Is this accurate? Not hardly. Is this untrue? Not really. It's just focusing on the BS instead of the whole religion. Buddhism has its share of BS.
Sure, though people don't always agree on what is BS and what isn't. And is it really possible to separate out the "essence" of Buddhism from it's various cultural expressions? I'm not sure.
I love Mormons, they are always sooo happy... I don't know why they are happy, I wouldn't be if I was Mormon, but I suppose they are just sooo convinced that they are right that they have the ability to always be happy go lucky... South Park portrays it better than anyone... Oh I also love Mormons because The Killers is best band, of the 2000's that is....
There's nothing wrong with relativity, Florian. It's just one way of looking at things, just as 'life is dissatisfaction' is one way of looking at things. But it's a limited view. A religion is necessarily limited in perspective and meaning.
I hope I didn't suggest that there's something right or wrong with relative dissatisfaction and satisfaction. Samsara is not right or wrong. Or not unless we're a Gnostic and see it as a creation of the Evil One.
Why do you think a religion has to be limited in perspective and meaning?
Lol, well, for one thing, religions are created by people. Or perhaps you believe Buddha is God or something?
Also, meaning is ego based, and therefor necessarily limited to self concerns.
This is a misunderstanding, I would say. Buddha is not God, no, and neither is he just a person creating a religion. He is (for Buddhists) a person who is trying to explain the truth and the method for discovering or becoming it.
Clearly, once one gets past the ego then meaning cannot be limited to self-concerns. There are no self concerns here. Buddhism is not a dogmatic religion founded in consolation and conjecture, for which your comments might apply, but a method for transcending self-concerns and conjecture.
The entire point of the practice, I think one might say, would be to reach beyond religions created by people that are limited by partial perspectives and egoistic self-concerns, in order to know what is true.
I would agree that a religious doctrine communicated linguistically and conceptually is likely to fall foul of limited perspectives and meaning, since so much will be lost in the communication process, but this is a problem that is solved in Buddhism by empiricism, which allows us to transcend any reliance on communication, language and concepts. One thing Buddhist doctrine is not is a limited perspective.
That seems right to me. In a sense the perspective is limited, since all perspectives are limited. There's always two ways of seeing things. But to me this is not quite the same as saying that Buddhism is a limited perspective. Not sure how to read the second sentence.
Lol! Gotama was a king to be, martial art expert and command power and wealth, knowledgeable, and discovered his bs, left his kingdom and search for a solution so as to eliminate bs of all for true happiness.
That seems right to me. In a sense the perspective is limited, since all perspectives are limited. There's always two ways of seeing things. But to me this is not quite the same as saying that Buddhism is a limited perspective. Not sure how to read the second sentence.
Why isn't it the same? And, lol, what is soo terrible about being limited in perspective?
Lol! Gotama was a king to be, martial art expert and command power and wealth, knowledgeable, and discovered his bs, left his kingdom and search for a solution so as to eliminate bs of all for true happiness.
Gotama was a Prince, no joke. He would as kings of the time were, be trained in martial disciplines, no joke. He was a man, no joke. The joke is he provided the three jewels as a means not a system of reverential and obsessive bowing . . . and that is no joke . . . It is wrong to be disrespectful and it is wrong to have no humour. The middle way is to recognise our tendencies and proclivities and provide the counter measure . . . or do Nothing . . . as some jokers suggest . . . :wave:
The Shakya clan were a warrior people, Prince Goatama is likely to have had a comprehensive education, training in those fields appropriate to a warrior aristocrat, such as martial arts, agricultural management, and literature, and also a deep understanding of the religious and philosophical ideas of his culture. His father was training him to be king . . .
I like a Buddhist point of view where some say if the Buddha never existed; that he was a mere literary device to make the teachings more interesting; that the dharma wouldn't change a bit.
Comments
I wasn't aware of that (as alway I'm under a rock)
If you were a guidance counselor, would you recommend self-immolation to your clients? Are you planning it for yourself? Are you saying, "Self-immolation is a good thing and more people should do it"?
"what was the point of Quang Duc lighting himself on fire in South Vietnam? You don’t burn to death to make a statement about nothing. Perhaps he was attached to something after all. If that’s the case, what a stupid way to die."
Quang Duc was not the average Buddhist on the street who would come to a counselor for a recommendation on the merits self immolation. He was a monk who had dedicated his life to following Buddhist teachings as he understood them. I agree that concentration allowed him to sit motionless while burning. My assumption is that he gained that level of concentration through long hours of Buddhist practice. This also leads me to think, that through these long hours of practice, that there's a good possibility that he had attained a fairly advanced state of spirituality far beyond my own. I feel it that it's rather flip to condemn or judge this monks actions, which he must have believed (correctly or incorrectly) would help alleviate the suffering of his people.
Agreed
It seems to me that a mistake Buddhists and other religious folk often make is to attempt to fight off intellectual criticism by appealing to a need for personal practice or revelation. This is a perfectly sound response from a Buddhist perspective, and is sufficient as a defence within Buddhism, but for an outsider it fails to be a defence. Far better to engage the enemy on their own ground by showing the logical absurdity of alternative views. Here Nagarjuna is a vital figure. He proves the absurdity of all views except his own with no appeal to practice.
For example, materialism gives rise to contraditions such as that which causes the 'problem of consciousness', the 'something-nothing' problem of origins and so forth. This makes materialism logically absurd. No need for any 'appeals to mysticism'. Materialism is demonstrably not a rational metaphysical position. Anybody who is a dogmatic materialist is either a dishonest or a poor thinker. This is why materialists rarely know much about metaphysics. For example, we do not find any serious metaphysics in books by Richard Dawkins or Ayn Rand. This is because metaphysics refutes their views utterly.
Nagarjuna shows that the only rational position is his own, by the use only of logic. So we do not need to fall back on an appeal to experience. Logic is sufficient to overcome all objections to Nagarjuna's view. The failure of western metaphysics is a proof of the Buddha's teachings. There is no possibility in logic of showing that it is not.
Becasue of all this I do not agree with those who say that metaphysics should be avoided. It is not necessary for liberation, but it is is vital if we want overcome silly criticisms like those in article quoted by the OP.
I can only conclude that you have attained Nirvana - that is you have attained the right views and escaped the clutches of Suffering. Congratulations!
Here, I would like to add that the writer probably is an unsung Buddha!
I can only conclude that you have attained Nirvana - that is you have attained the right views and escaped the clutches of Suffering. Congratulations!
Here, I would like to add that the writer probably is an unsung Buddha!
Thanks.
Rather annoying actually.
unchanging aspect to sentient existence ) it becomes clear that the idea of satisfaction is a hollow premise.
Why do you think a religion has to be limited in perspective and meaning?
Also, meaning is ego based, and therefor necessarily limited to self concerns.
Is that satisfactory? Realistic?
Just about every human institution contains a lot of BS, and that includes Buddhism. Quite often, people's destructive and self-destructive behavior is justified through religion and Buddhism is no exception.
Let's take one non-Buddhist example. I know almost nothing about the Catholic religion except what I see in the movies and the occasional scandal. I know Catholics worship the Pope as God, since only God is infallable, and have to obey his orders or he'll excommunicate them so they go to Hell. Again, that must mean they believe the Pope is God, because only God has the power to decide who does and does not go to Hell. I know getting into Heaven only requires you confess your sins to a Priest and getting the Priest to say some sort of holy chant over you just before you die.
Is this accurate? Not hardly. Is this untrue? Not really. It's just focusing on the BS instead of the whole religion. Buddhism has its share of BS.
Clearly, once one gets past the ego then meaning cannot be limited to self-concerns. There are no self concerns here. Buddhism is not a dogmatic religion founded in consolation and conjecture, for which your comments might apply, but a method for transcending self-concerns and conjecture.
The entire point of the practice, I think one might say, would be to reach beyond religions created by people that are limited by partial perspectives and egoistic self-concerns, in order to know what is true.
I would agree that a religious doctrine communicated linguistically and conceptually is likely to fall foul of limited perspectives and meaning, since so much will be lost in the communication process, but this is a problem that is solved in Buddhism by empiricism, which allows us to transcend any reliance on communication, language and concepts. One thing Buddhist doctrine is not is a limited perspective.
Alas, the downside of all perspectives is meaninglessness.
The joke is he provided the three jewels as a means not a system of reverential and obsessive bowing . . . and that is no joke . . .
It is wrong to be disrespectful and it is wrong to have no humour. The middle way is to recognise our tendencies and proclivities and provide the counter measure . . . or do Nothing . . . as some jokers suggest . . . :wave:
I think that's a very confident stance.