Sceptics and the Buddha, a thread for everyone else :)

[epepke]

This is valid criticism. But do remember that Gautama lived as an ascetic for many years, and knew well what hunger was (although his hunger was absolutely voluntary). Also, Buddhism does not cure physical suffering at all, including hunger.

Yes, Gautama Buddha wasn't a poor man, and, as a nobleman, had good connections in society. The scriptures say he became a great philanthropist and used his influence to help those worse off than himself. Gautama had no intentions of forming a religion, and did not see himself as a religious leader (nor did his contemporaries).

Charity is a thing that is very much valued in Buddhist societies, especially towards monks (it's what they live on).

I'm not happy about my answer one this one, but it's what I've got

I appreciate the effort. I'm not too happy about it either.

I don't want to lose this idea, and I want to be as clear as I can. History is replete with slummers (Marie Antoinette was one), and it's replete with Champagne Socialists and privileged do-gooders. And, while Gautama Buddha may possibly have been well meaning, the road to hell is paved with those flagstones.

Not saying that it's bad, mind you, but it's not prima facie a good sign, either.

Absolutely, but that's not the fault of Gautama Buddha, is it?

Well, are we talking about Gautama Buddha the person, or are we talking about Buddhism and Gautama Buddha the myth?

I think I would have enjoyed spending an evening with Gautama Buddha, and I will go so far as I think that he was sufficiently detached that he might have enjoyed some pork rinds.

I also think I might have gotten along reasonably well with Jesus, if he existed, though he seems to have had a bit of an anger problem.

But they're, you know, kinda dead and therefore not much fun any more.

If we're talking about the religions, then they are what they are, and what matters is not the real person so much as the myth. And if the myth has been used in a certain way, then that's part of it.

 

[Ryokan]

Well, are we talking about Gautama Buddha the person, or are we talking about Buddhism and Gautama Buddha the myth?

That's hard to say, I don't think anyone really knows exactly who the historical Siddharta Gautama was. And the first texts were written down around 500 years after his death, so there's no way to know how much truth there is in them, if any.

 

[epepke]

That's hard to say, I don't think anyone really knows exactly who the historical Siddharta Gautama was. And the first texts were written down around 500 years after his death, so there's no way to know how much truth there is in them, if any.

So, basically, we have to deal with the myth.

But mostly I responded here because I thought of something. I must admit that I am not impressed with broken hearts, etc. as being suffering. However, I thought of something. I'd really like to be a father, and I think I would make a very good father, but it looks like that can never possibly happen. Which means that I am an evolutionary dead-end. This has caused a certain amount of unpleasantness for me.

So what I do is, I just don't think about it. No Buddhism is necessary. I only think about it at times when something else brings it to mind. Now happens to be such a time.

 

[username]

So, basically, we have to deal with the myth.

Only if who the man actually was seems of interest or importance to you. The way I look at it is the teachings are to be evaluated by each person for themselves. As such, it isn't relevant to the truth of the teachings who the man was. These teachings could be attributed to a magical elf and it wouldn't affect their truth value.

So what I do is, I just don't think about it. No Buddhism is necessary. I only think about it at times when something else brings it to mind. Now happens to be such a time.

Ah, I see. This is what pretty much all of us do. We bury our unpleasant thoughts, those that result in our experiencing suffering, and busy ourselves with other, more pleasant tasks. It works too, for awhile, but then when we are quiet or reflective or simply off guard, there it is again.

Directing the mind away from unpleasant thoughts is one way to deal with the suffering. Buddhism teaches a different method.

The method buddhism teaches is the 8 fold path. If you are so inclined, look into that and see if it looks to you like a better way of dealing with the attachment. There is no pat set of words I can say that would miraculously enlighten you here. The 4 noble truths can be explained so they are comprehended intellectually, but they can not be experienced for you. If you are so inclined then you have to step out onto the path and see for yourself it if leads where buddhism says it does or not.

 

[epepke]

Only if who the man actually was seems of interest or importance to you.

I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm saying that the myth of Buddha is, rather than the man, of importance in Buddhism, because he's just dead, whoever he ways, or if he existed at all.

So the myth is the only thing we really have access to.

Directing the mind away from unpleasant thoughts is one way to deal with the suffering. Buddhism teaches a different method.

The method buddhism teaches is the 8 fold path. If you are so inclined, look into that and see if it looks to you like a better way of dealing with the attachment. There is no pat set of words I can say that would miraculously enlighten you here. The 4 noble truths can be explained so they are comprehended intellectually, but they can not be experienced for you. If you are so inclined then you have to step out onto the path and see for yourself it if leads where buddhism says it does or not.

I'm going to press you for an explanation anyway. You can deal with this as you like. You can try to explain to me how and why it's different, for starters. Or you can point me to Buddhists that actually evince something that would be desirable.

Again, I want to be very clear about this. This is just something that happens to bug me occasionally now. It's maybe in the third percentile of things I worry about. But the broken hearts thing doesn't but me at all, and I think it's vapid. I can't really state the title of the Frank Zappa song here, but it's something like "Broken Hearts are for A$$holes.."

And on the other hand, I could spend 40 more years of my life (should I live so long) being a Buddhist and then realize that it was a waste of time.

 

[Q-Source]

Just as the first noble truth is unfortunately sometimes expressed as "Life is suffering", the idea of having no desires is another pervasive myth that just confuses people.

Buddhists, even the most enlightened ones still have preferences, they like tacos and dislike broccoli (as a silly example).

The goal of buddhism is to eliminate all human desires, even those preferences for tacos or broccoli.
why would a true buddhist prefer one food rather than another?.

It isn't about having no desires, it is about losing our attachment to those desires. It is fine, if single, to desire a life partner. It is fine, if poor, to desire a decent paying job. It is our attachment to these desires that causes problems, not the desire itself.

You are correct in some way. You are describing how buddhism does work for western people like us, who still have to find a job. You are adapting this philosophy to our societies. However, the purpose of buddhism is to end all desires because -if you think about them- they are meaningless. Why would you desire to have a partner?. Are you implying that a buddhist would expect to receive love and happiness from another person?. The truth is that nobody can provide anything to you and this is well known by buddhists.

Our attachment to our desires is what causes us to either want this present moment to end (because we don't have what we desire) or to want it to last forever (because we just obtained a desire). Both of these attachments rob us of being happy, right now, in this moment, whatever it is.

Yes, you are right. But I would also say that not only the attachment causes problems, but also the desire in itself. They go together, you cannot separate them.

The ultimate goal of buddhism is to reach enlightenment and this means to end with all human desires, even the slightest. It means death as a human being. In the mean time, we are trapped in these bodies and true freedom can never happen while we are alive.

I like buddhim and practice as much as I can its philosophy, but much of the mental states that it promises are unrealistic. It fails to see that there is no way out of the suffering.

Belem

 

[Ryokan]

The goal of buddhism is to eliminate all human desires, even those preferences for tacos or broccoli.

Evidence?

 

[username]

And on the other hand, I could spend 40 more years of my life (should I live so long) being a Buddhist and then realize that it was a waste of time.

I don't believe this is possible. The 8 fold path is something to be experienced for oneself rather than intellectually discussed (not that discussion is bad).

First, we start with the 1st noble truth, in life there is suffering, we have a sense that something is out of kilter.

Next we learn the cause, our cravings and attachments.

Next we hear that this afflication has a cure.

Lastly we are presented with the cure.

How do we know if the cure works? Same way we know if the pill the doctor prescribes for us works or not. We try it and see what happens. I am not knowledgable enough to explain why taking aspirin usually rids me of a headache, but I know from experience that it does so when I have a headache I take aspirin.

If you were to tell me you don't have a headache, I wouldn't have any reason to tell you about aspirin. If you tell me you have a headache, then I would tell you about aspirin. How can you know if it works before trying it? You really can't. You would have to try it and see for yourself what happens.

Now, if you took an aspirin and it did nothing for your headache would you spend the next 40 years of your life taking aspirin? Of course not.

The 8 fold path is the buddhist prescription for what ails us. Try it and see. If it works for you then terrific. If it doesn't then move on. Why continue for 40 years with something that isn't providing you with any benefit?

So, is the first noble truth true in your experience or not? If it isn't, you don't need the cure.

If it is, why not 'pop an aspirin' and see how your head feels in the morning?

By pop an aspirin I mean find a teacher to provide you with some instruction, even something as simple as a well reviewed book on the subject, and then practice some buddhist meditation.

It doesn't take 40 years, just the time it takes to read a decent book or two and then sit in meditation for a couple times, 15-20 minutes each.

After this you don't have to wonder if the prescription works or not, you will know whether or not it does. No, you aren't likely to attain "enlightenment" in a day (maybe not even in your lifetime), but you will know where the path leads.

 

[epepke]

The ultimate goal of buddhism is to reach enlightenment and this means to end with all human desires, even the slightest. It means death as a human being. In the mean time, we are trapped in these bodies and true freedom can never happen while we are alive.

Well, you've put your finger on another reason that Buddhism rubs me the wrong way.

I can remember a scene from some movie, but I don't remember the movie. It went something like this:

A: Being high is like having no worries, no desires. Everything is fine. That's life, man.
B: Sounds more like death to me.

 

[username]

The goal of buddhism is to eliminate all human desires, even those preferences for tacos or broccoli.
why would a true buddhist prefer one food rather than another?.

Well, I am no expert, I am just learning about buddhism and trying it out for myself, but I have not encountered any teaching that desires are bad or that it is possible (or desireable (pun intended) to not have desires.

This simply isn't true to my experience either so I can't accept it. If I had no desires why would I ever eat again? With no desires or preferences I would just waste away and die. With no preferences I would just as soon drink cyanide as water. It just seems like an absurdity to believe desires and preferences are anything other than normal and acceptable, even healthy.

I wonder if perhaps you haven't been exposed to some rigid self denial type system that contained elements of buddhism? I am not really knowledgable here, but I have heard that such 'sects' do exist. If that is the case I would consider that particular expression of buddhism to be worthy of rejection. If some fundy islamic individual were to be exposed to buddhism and come away believing we should respect all life except for the infidel scum I would reject that too.

I think you should as well. Never accept that which contradicts your plain experience regardless of it's source.

 

[Q-Source]

Well, I am no expert, I am just learning about buddhism and trying it out for myself, but I have not encountered any teaching that desires are bad or that it is possible (or desireable (pun intended) to not have desires.

Desires, cravings and attachments are the root of suffering. I don´t know if those sensations are bad or not, I just know that they cause suffering when they are not satisfied.

If I had no desires why would I ever eat again? With no desires or preferences I would just waste away and die. With no preferences I would just as soon drink cyanide as water. It just seems like an absurdity to believe desires and preferences are anything other than normal and acceptable, even healthy.

Your interpretation of the four noble truths makes no sense. I don´t mean to offend you. Hunger and thirst are human needs, they are not bad, but they become a trouble when you crave food, when you have a special preference for certain food or when you work for it. Stop thinking of the western version of buddhism, I am referring to the teachings of the Buddha.


I don´t belong to any sect. I have been practicing meditation for a long time and I am still trying to understand the basics. The four noble truths explain the cause of suffering (desire and attachment) and provides the solution to the problem (freedom from desire). What I say is that there is really no solution to the problem for the same reason that you mentioned before. We can´t never free ourselves of dellusion, attachment and desire. Buddhist monks living in the mountains are the closest to what the Buddha said, but even them cannot free themselves from the needs that their bodies demand, and most important, they cannot free themselves from the constant struggle to reach enlightenment. Because struggling to reach a state also causes suffering.

I don´t want to sound like I am attacking Buddhism. In reality it provides the best way of life to decrease suffering and to understand better ourselves and reality. But the ultimate goal that it promises is just another illusion that they fail to see.

belem

 

[Ryokan]

Hunger and thist are human needs, they are not bad, but they become a trouble when you crave food, when you have a special preference for certain food or when you work for it. Stop thinking of the western version of buddhism, I am referring to the teachings of the Buddha.

I assume you can point out the specific teachings, then? Or at least a source with your interpretation.

I have studied Thai Buddhism, and have several Burmese friends who have been monks. Username's interpretations are the same as my interpretations, which are the same interpretations I've read in Thai Buddhism and the same interpretations my Burmese friends have.

 

[Q-Source]

I assume you can point out the specific teachings, then? Or at least a source with your interpretation.

I have studied Thai Buddhism, and have several Burmese friends who have been monks. Username's interpretations are the same as my interpretations, which are the same interpretations I've read in Thai Buddhism and the same interpretations my Burmese friends have.

The only source that I have are the four noble truths:
Dukkha: There is suffering in life for all beings.

Samudaya: There is a cause of suffering, which is attachment and desire (tanha).

Nirodha: There is a way out of suffering, which is to eliminate attachment and desire.

Magga: The path that leads out of suffering is called the Noble Eightfold Path.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

what part of my post do you disagree with?

 

[username]

Desires, cravings and attachments are the root of suffering. I don´t know if those sensations are bad or not, I just know that they cause suffering when they are not satisfied.

This isn't true in my experience. It is my desire and my preference that I have pizza for dinner tonite. The wife said she prefered tacos. This doesn't cause me any suffering. If I desire a promotion at work and I am attached to this, if I crave this, if I tell myself that I deserve it more than the other guy, that I will be happier, more fulfilled if I get this and then I don't get it I will experience suffering. More likely than not I will feel slighted, disrespected, have bad feelings toward the guy who got the promotion, think my boss is an idiot etc. If I simply desired the promotion in the same way I desired pizza I wouldn't be any more upset about not getting the promotion than I was in not getting pizza. It would still be my desire/preference for a promotion though.

Your interpretation of the four noble truths make no sense. I don´t mean to offend you. Hunger and thist are human needs, they are not bad, but they become a trouble when you crave food, when you have a special preference for certain food or when you work for it. Stop thinking of the western version of buddhism, I am referring to the teachings of the Buddha.

Well I am refering to the teachings of Steve Hagen, a Zen priest and author of "Buddhism Plain and Simple", the teachings of Stephen Bachelor a former monk in the Zen and Tibetan traditions and author of "Buddhism Without Beliefs" who is also behind the Tricycle Buddhist Review website (http://www.tricycle.com/) and the teachings of Lama Surya Das who is a lama in the Tibetan tradition and author of "Awakening the Buddha Within" and endorsed by Thich Nhat Hanh so I think that what I understand of the 4 noble truths is coming from a reputible source.

I am not sure where you arrived at your understanding from.

What I say is that there is really no solution to the problem for the same reason that you mentioned before. We can´t never free ourselves of dellusion, attachment and desire. Buddhist monks living in the mountains are the closest to what the Buddha said, but even them cannot free themselves from the needs that their bodies demand, and most important, they cannot free themselves from the constant struggle to reach enlightenment. Because struggling to reach a state also causes suffering.

I understand what you are saying, but what you are describing is the impossibility of having no desires or preferences. This is addressed in the works of the authors I mentioned above. Having no desires isn't a goal. Not clinging, craving is. Not being attached to our desires is.

I can only go with what I have learned and what doesn't contradict my experience or plain logic. You and I both agree that it isn't possible to have no desires whatsoever. Where we disagree is that is what buddha dharma teaches. I showed you where I am getting my understanding from, may I ask where you are getting yours from?

I don´t want to sound like I am attacking Buddhism. In reality it provides the best way of life to decrease suffering and to understand better ourselves and reality. But the ultimate goal that it promises is just another illusion that they fail to see.

Again, I would like to see the source of your understanding that buddha dharma teaches this.

 

[username]

The only source that I have are the four noble truths:
Dukkha: There is suffering in life for all beings.

Samudaya: There is a cause of suffering, which is attachment and desire (tanha).

Nirodha: There is a way out of suffering, which is to eliminate attachment and desire.

Magga: The path that leads out of suffering is called the Noble Eightfold Path.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

what part of my post do you disagree with?

I don't disagree with anything, I would encourage you to read what wiki says about tanha, which is the word being translated as "attachment and desire"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanha

This is why it can be a real bitch to understand the concepts without a teacher or at least a well written book from a respected teacher. Many of these terms, such as dukkha and tanha have no English equivalent and the attempts at 'the short statement and the big picture' lead to frustration and confusion.

 

[username]

Here is something you may find helpful:

1. The Term Tanhaa

Ta.nhaa is literally 'drought' or 'thirst' and, as the Pali-English Dictionary informs us, 'is found mainly in poetry, or in prose passages charged with emotion. It is rarely used in the philosophy or the psychology'. Figuratively, it means 'craving, hunger for, excitement, the fever of unsatisfied longing'. Given its poetic pedigree, ta.nha can be said to be a term that appeals more to the imagination than reason, and this may be why it is hardly mentioned in the lists and abstract permutations of the later technical, not to say arid, literature of the Abhidhamma. To those who heard the word from the mouth of the Buddha or one of his disciples, ta.nhaa no doubt evoked an acute pathos which the translation 'craving' miserably fails to do. To understand ta.nhaa as simply one affect among other affects would be a mistake. For example ta.nhaa, as we shall see, is a term that has cosmic significance, and is a notion that is best understood metaphorically, as a metaphor that evokes the general condition that all unenlightened beings find themselves in in the world: a state of being characterized by a 'thirst' that compels a pursuit for appeasement, the urge to seek out some form of gratification. In other words, ta.nhaa is a metaphor for the existential and affective ground underlying the whole of sa.msaaric existence,[4] the ground out of which spring the various strivings for satisfaction, fulfilment, and meaning. It can therefore be understood as an attempt to characterize, in a single metaphor, the general condition of unenlightened existence, as well as providing the primary reason why sa.msaara is deemed ultimately to be dukkha or 'unsatisfactory': as sa.msaara cannot fully quench our 'thirst', it must appear to one who fully understands this (i.e. an ariya) as dukkha.[5]

source: http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol2/tanha.html

 

[Q-Source]

I don't disagree with anything, I would encourage you to read what wiki says about tanha, which is the word being translated as "attachment and desire"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanha

From the exact same source:

"The meaning of Tanha (craving, desire, want, thirst), extends beyond the desire for material objects or sense pleasures. Its also includes the desire for life (or death, in the case of someone wishing to commit suicide), desire for fame (or infamy, its opposite), desire for sleep, desire for mental or emotional states (happiness, joy, rapture, love) if they are not present and would like them to be. If we experience, say depression or sorrow, we can desire its opposite. The meaning of Tanha is far-reaching and covers ALL desire, ALL wanting, ALL craving, irrespective of its intensity. "


What part of the definition don´t you understand?. This is what I am saying all along.

 

[Ryokan]

I've found this interpretation of the four noble truths to be of much use in my studies.

http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm

 

[Q-Source]

Well I am refering to the teachings of Steve Hagen, a Zen priest and author of "Buddhism Plain and Simple", the teachings of Stephen Bachelor a former monk in the Zen and Tibetan traditions and author of "Buddhism Without Beliefs" who is also behind the Tricycle Buddhist Review website (http://www.tricycle.com/) and the teachings of Lama Surya Das who is a lama in the Tibetan tradition and author of "Awakening the Buddha Within" and endorsed by Thich Nhat Hanh so I think that what I understand of the 4 noble truths is coming from a reputible source.

I don´t need a "reputable source" to interpret the four noble truths to me. They are incredibly simple, clear and plain.

I understand what you are saying, but what you are describing is the impossibility of having no desires or preferences. This is addressed in the works of the authors I mentioned above. Having no desires isn't a goal. Not clinging, craving is. Not being attached to our desires is.

You need to go back to basics. The four noble truths say otherwise.
Meditation practice is the best way to understand how you can eliminate desire, thoughts and feelings. I was very fortunate to have a Thai Buddhist as a teacher and something that I learnt is that the Buddhas teachings are very simple but very difficult to understand.

Belem

 

[Ryokan]

I don´t need a "reputable source" to interpret the four noble truths to me. They are incredibly simple, clear and plain.

You speak Pali, then?

Oh, and Q-Source, thank you for joining the thread, it's refreshing to hear criticism from someone who knows what he's talking about.